Metropolitan - Verdammt, bourgeois, verliebt

What a very different way to look at people...or, what a different group of characters to focus a movie on would be putting it better. Stillman took the snobby 'debutants' of upper Manhattan and made a movie about what they talk about. I personally found 2 kinds of humor in this movie...I laughed with the characters, and laughed at them. Can a group be this funny and be serious? It was very intelligent the way this movie had me listening, listening, laughing...quick cut to another scene and start over again. I have to admit that the acting was something of a humor in itself, as was the frayed ending, but all in all a very enjoyable movie.

I wish I could say more about it, but for some reason watching this, 'Barcelona', and 'Last Days of Disco' has left me a little wordless...I wouldn't be surprised to find that every word in the Webster's Dictionary was used between the three. But kudos to Stillman for doing it right.

Centering on the lives of wealthy, well-educated young women "coming out" as debutantes and on the equally wealthy, well-educated young men who attend deb parties as the girls' escorts, Whit Stillman's feature directing debut sparkles with incredible dialogue that always wavers between savage wit and heartfelt poignancy. Few who have seen the picture will forget its hilarious dissections of New York social classes, its elegant sense of vocabulary, or its caustic self-awareness. The thing I enjoy the most about Metropolitan (and the two subsequent films Stillman has made), however, is the verisimilitude with which the characters are rendered. I grew up far from the money and privilege of Metropolitan's inhabitants, but I could so easily relate to their fears, desires, and insecurities -- because Stillman never forgets to keep these kids human.

"Metropolitan" is a film that hearkens back to an era of old money and tradition, reminiscent of the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century in America. It was a time when men in white bows and tales led girls in pristine, white dresses to their cotillions in ballrooms in gilded hotels like the Plaza in New York where some of this film's scenes take place. The film is a sociological examination of what happens in Park Avenue grand pied-à terres, with after hours parties frequented by the American royalty or upper class. The characters are somewhat hollow, but intellectual in their discussions of 19th century novels and literary critics. These are the children of the very rich, the haute bourgeoisie who attended such hallowed institutions as the Chapin School and Miss Porter's School (Farmington). The characters are fairly well played by unknown actors and actually, I found them to be one dimensional but quite convincing.

Carolyn Farina who plays the demure Audrey Rouget is very sweet and you care about her, at least I did. She is self-deprecating and cute and plays this part to the hilt. Her "Rat Pack" of pals like her, though often she fades into the woodwork, as she is very quiet and somewhat shy. Chris Eigeman, who plays the "tiresome" and overbearing Nick Smith is at times, quite entertaining with his hilarious hyper critical attitude and cynicism about those who surround him. Eigeman plays this role quite well and though you don't really like him, he is so obnoxious which makes him fun to watch. His talk of how "detachable collars" on tuxedos and his pretentious wearing of top hats look quite out of place in this early 1990's film. I like the Jane character and the Sally Fowler character played by Dylan Hundley. These two characters exemplify upper class attitudes by their tastes and speech and are in keeping with how preppy, privileged, upper class American girls behave, at least on the East Coast.

Not much happens plotwise in the film. You are almost left wondering whether something of any importance is going to unfold, this film doesn't really go anywhere. One wonders if the director had some message in mind, for those who always look for such things in a movie. I think rather than being a great drama film, it is more of a social commentary on a lost era in the modern world. Most people probably couldn't identify with this film, as its characters are far more privileged than the average person and far more worldly and educated as evidenced by their speech and interests. Other than the world of debutante balls and nightly after hours parties, this film doesn't show much happening.

Despite its somewhat dated context and what some may view as dull plot, "Metropolitan" is one of my all time fave films. I guess I like the pretense of it and its refreshingly other era feel with I feel gives it a certain charm and je ne sais quoi as the French say.

While every other social and ethnic group is deemed off-limits to filmmakers, one remains a target for cheap laughs: Preppies. From "Animal House" and "Caddyshack" ("the slobs versus the snobs") to John Hughes and Savage Steve Holland, to more serious fare like "Six Degrees Of Separation," filmmakers have availed themselves of this last group of people they can target with a broad brush of easy scorn.

Which is one reason why Whit Stillman's debut film, "Metropolitan," is so refreshing. By taking a more sympathetic, inside look at a group of affluent East Side Manhattanites home from college, Stillman makes a case for an underlying core of goodness beneath the Thurston-and-Lovey veneers.

Making the foray into their world for us is Tom Townsend (Edward Clements), literally and figuratively a red-headed stepchild in this world of privilege, having little money (his big secret, which he guards carefully with the help of mass transit, is that he lives on the West Side) and a defensiveness about his place in high society he manifests by adopting the stance of a disapproving socialist, though in reality he is more than a little too shallow to feel anything that deeply.

The truth of Townsend is immediately obvious to members of an upscale social set that call themselves the Sally Fowler Rat Pack, but they take him in anyway because he knows their world and seems like a good audience. Running the group is Nick Smith, who you can call a snob, as well as sexist, obnoxious, and of late, rather weird. Just don't call him tiresome, or you'll get an argument.

Nick is also a good guy beneath his preppie bluster, a fellow who champions Tom and breaks down Tom's highminded resistance to joining their circle with snarky logic ("You'd rather stay at home and worry about the less fortunate, but has it ever occurred to you you ARE the less fortunate?") He also has real values he honors, sometimes at no small risk to his nose. Chris Eigeman plays him with such panache you understand why Stillman kept using him in his movies; Eigeman's delivery is a thing of wonder, especially with lines that sound a mite too polished for instant expression. He can speak of his stepmother as "a woman of untrammeled malevolence" and make it sound like the most natural phrase in the world.

Another familiar face from Stillman's movies is Taylor Nichols, who plays Charlie Black, who when we first see him is stumbling through an explanation of why he believes in God and you do, too, even if you don't know it, and later on offers his own alternative definition of the preppie elite as the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie, i.e. the UHB. "Is our language so impoverished that we have to resort to acronyms of French phrases?" a woman asks.

Charlie's more of a preppie snob in his dislike for Tom, though as Tom trifles mildly with the affections of a woman in their circle, Audrey Rouget (Carolyn Farina), we understand Charlie's attitude. The movie is most fun as a platform for Eigeman and Nichols' pithy one-liners, and there are many great ones, but the complex relationship between Audrey and Tom is what gives the movie its plot and much of its interest.

It's bizarre how Clements and Farina vanished from the movie scene right after making their accomplished twin debuts. Farina, with her fetching dark eyes and wry, timid smile reminds one of Molly Ringwald at her pre-"Pretty In Pink" peak. Clements is good as a character that guards himself closely, with a scholarly front that falls apart fast.

Pressed on why he doesn't like Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park," Tom admits he hasn't read it, just that he doesn't like it from reading critical essays about it by Lionel Trilling: "I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism - that way you get both the novelists' ideas and the critics' thinking." "Metropolitan" is full of quotes like that, the product of young people who think they know more than they do but aren't quite bad beneath their smugness. It's not a film of great depth or revelation; Stillman isn't so interested in dissecting his creations as he is in giving them room to express their ideas, goofy and grand. His first film does exactly that, pulling off the twin feat of having cinematic fun and giving a preppie an even break.

Whit Stillman managed to make a talky movie about a bunch of pampered, privileged, opinionated college students running around in the most elite New York society, and not make me hate all of them.

That really is a testament to the tone Stillman is able to strike, because I should have found these people to be intolerable. Instead, I found them weirdly endearing, even the cockiest of them, because they seem so fragile and vulnerable underneath their rich swankiness. These are a bunch of kids who have been so isolated from the real world that all they know how to do is act like their parents, which means they're all 20 going on 50. Seriously, they wear suits and dresses all the time and go to cocktail parties where they dance the fox trot. And the movie's saving grace is that they all seem to know to one degree or another that they're not entirely ready for the big world out there, and they cling to their social group because they're scared of the alternative. This makes them very human. After all, aren't we all, no matter our specific circumstances, just trying to do the best we can with what we're given?

"Metropolitan" brought Stillman a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination in 1990.

Grade: B+