Wilde Jahre in Paris

This film is, first of all, a love story--but a remarkably surprising one, and by no means ordinary. It starts with the usual expectations most of us have about Paris that Woody Allen recently utilized so effectively in Midnight In Paris, but instead of broad comedy, Director Alan Rudolph weaves a fascinating tale of intrigue in the art world, and peppers it with wit and ambiguity.

The smoky Parisian ambiance of Bohemian Cafes (mostly created in Canada) introduce the viewer to Keith Carradine's stereotypical starving artist--except that Carradine's role is written to surprise, and one is drawn into a labyrinth of conflicting emotions very quickly indeed. This film, like Thieves Like Us, demonstrates what a fine under-utilized actor Carradine continues to be.

The feeling of elation that comes from escaping from one's cares in another place washes through every bar and café and art opening, and the performances from such vibrant actors as kinky Geraldine Chaplin and quirky Wallace Shawn--and especially the intensely cold and controlled and fascinating John Lone enliven the two hours that linger long after the film is finished.

This is a fairly enjoyable tale set in the art world of 1920s Paris. The look of the film and the mood it creates are the most important things; far more important than the enjoyable, yet slow-moving plotline.

It is highly imaginative and its representation of icons such as Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein add an extra dimension to the film.

The only true weak points are some of the dialogues between the two leads; it is sometimes out of place and almost too 'modern'!

All the performances are good but John Lone and Keith Carradine are especially suited to their parts.

A couple years ago I saw Trouble in Mind, and was immediately absorbed in the atmospheric world the film portrayed. I have since been dying to see another movie by the same director. Well, I've just seen the Moderns, and was immediately disappointed. While the film shares the same claustrophobic tendencies of the previous work, in this one it doesn't seem as deliberate, but more a matter of budgetary restraints. I never got the feeling that I was watching Paris, or 1920's Paris, for that matter. All I got was the sensation of watching stilted actors playing dress-up. The dialogue and plot for this movie is b-movie crust, which can be good, but the dreariness of the action and the way in which the film was filmed left it almost completely vacant of any charm. Cute references to pop culture from the 20's only sounds contrived and makes the film more apparent of what it isn't. One should get the feeling one is watching the 20's unfold without the crutch of references. We are never given any reason to care for any of the actors. They are cartoonish, but not cartoonish enough for them to be relieving and enjoyable. This movie takes itself far too seriously to be enjoyed as camp, which makes scenes involving fake suicide and real suicide all the more dour. The sets are perhaps more wooden than the characters, Hart's art atrocious. Hemmingway appears as a jocular Ethan Hawke ruffian, a pale shadow compared to Hart's masculinity. Lampooning famous people can be fine, but not when the only purpose of it is to rip them off and make them a clown with no real relevance to the story. I did, however, like the portrayal of Gertude Stein as a cliquish art snob. That's a more fair assessment. To be missed or slept through.

Nick Hart (Keith Carradine) is an ex-patriot American painter who lives in Paris in the 1920's. He picks up some money selling caricatures but is very poor. An art gallery owner, Libby (Genevieve Bujold) is sympathetic but can't muster up many sales for Nick's work. Now, a wealthy divorcée. Nathalie (Geraldine Chapman) commissions Nick to make copies of some expensive paintings, as a sort of plot against her ex-husband. Reluctantly, Nick agrees. Complicating matters further is the fact that when Nick frequents his favorite bar, which is quite often, he runs into a beautiful, beautiful woman named Rachel (Linda Fiorentino) who happens to be married to a rich American businessman, Bertram (John Lone). Wouldn't you know, Bertie is a sadist and controls Rachel with an iron fist. He loves to do things like shave under Rachel's arms with a straight razer! So, two things are paramount to Nick. Will he begin to sell his art and will he be able to win Rachel away from her husband? This is quite a lovely film with a very great cast. Carradine does a fine job as the main character while Fiorentino is extremely lovely and touching. But, its Lone who practically steals the show, with his terrifying turn as the bad, bad guy. Most everyone will appreciate the gorgeous sets, costumes, art direction and photography. Then, too, the script is first rate while the direction is most competent. Look for the Moderns on your next video run.

*****SPOILER ALERT!!!*****

Alan Rudolph's "The Moderns" is a wonderful, funny and twisted film set in 1920's Paris, France. The front burner story is a triangle between Nick, his runaway wife and a cold as ice businessman that wants to obtain a higher social status. Nick(Keith Carradine)and Rachel(Linda Fiorentino)were married years ago and she bails out of the marriage. Years later, she shows up on the arms of Bertram Stone (John Lone). While he deals with her reappearance, he is also talked into making art forgeries by a rather shady behaving gallery owner, Valentin(Genevieve Bujold), as a favor for the wealthy Nathalie De Ville(Geraldine Chaplin). His friend, Oiseau (Wallace Shawn)constantly tells Nick that they should head to a new town called Hollywood to seek their fortune and Ernest Hemingway (Kevin J. O'Connor)wanders around in a state of alcoholic cynicism and making quirky observations.

The story, like the period in which the action takes place, is surreal. One scene has one of the dead characters rise from the grave like Houdini, strait-jack, chains and all. The relationship between Nick and Rachel is the heart of the story: Nick doesn't want to trust Rachel because of what she did, but all of his actions throughout the film are a result of Rachel. When he paints the forgeries, he thinks of Rachel's beauty and puts his feelings on canvas. He loves her, but is fighting with the possibility that if he opens his heart to her again, she will break it again. You can see this conflict when he slaps her in front of Stone, yet immediately becomes apologetic. Should he love her, or should he just back off? He clearly does when they share a sexual romp on the bathroom floor while her husband is downstairs.

The entire cast is great, but the best performance comes from O'Connor, who I think is one of the most underrated actors around.

This is a great movie to have if you feel like having a Paris night movie marathon, or just to have fun.