Avaliações de usuários

I was prepared to hate this movie, even though or because I was one of the extras in it. Most of us were dazed by the mere fact that we were picked for background because we apparently looked upscale, since most of us were sporadically employed actors living in creepy lofts with too many unregistered roommates, creepier basement illegal sublets, and (in my case) an all-female SRO populated equally by out-of-town career girls and old biddies on pension, many of whom were well along the process of losing their marbles. Since I was also being stalked by a genuine upper-class twit at the time of shooting, I had little sympathy for the characters of a project that I assumed (like many other extras) was a student film helmed by a trust baby.

When the film came out, it upended all these expectations. I *knew* these characters: the outsider who doesn't know if his longing to fit in means he's selling out, the snotty guy who's actually kind of sweet, the "nice" girl who's never properly appreciated, and the cool girl who takes her power for granted. Even the way the girls try to support shy Audrey over slinky interloper Serena is true to type. They may be stereotypes, but you've met them too, regardless of your socio-economic level. The pseudo-intellectual dialogue didn't make them less sympathetic, it made them more so--they are *desperate* to impress. Well who, at that age, isn't? Some people do it with clothes or athletic achievements: these kids do it with words. As for the pony-tailed possible sociopath, he reminded me painfully of my stalker--now I knew that these jerks who think they can get away with anything don't just target little peasants like me. They endanger their own class too.

Everything that people have criticized in this film, the stilted delivery, the awkwardness, is what makes it wonderful. It captures perfectly the struggle to be accepted. You could point out that Stillman does a certain amount of this in "Barcelona" and "Disco" also, but then do we ever really outgrow the need to be accepted? Only the settings change.

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+

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.

It's no surprise writer/director Whit Stillman went on to adapt a Jane Austen novella (into the wonderful Love and Friendship); his fascination, fondness, and scorn for the upper classes is on full display here in his debut feature.

Edward Clemens plays Tom Townsend, a man whose "resources are limited", compared to the millionaires he's hanging out with, but is none-the-less drafted into a group of twenty-somethings from New York society's upper crust. (The "Urban Haute Bourgeoise" or "UHBs" as one character insists they be called.) Over the course of one debutante Christmas season, they attend some balls and a lot of after-parties, sitting around drinking and discussing socialism and literary criticism while they pine for and partner with each other.

There's really not much more to it than that by way of plot, but there's enough fun in the dialogue and in the will-they-won't-they relationships to make this group a pleasure to be with.

The screenplay garnered an academy award nomination for a Best Original Screenplay, and you can see why; there is an urbane sense of fun to every scene that charms, and alternately causes one to marvel at, then roll your eyes at the erudition and cynicism of this educated, yuppie set. (Sample moment; when Tom who has been debating the merits of Jane Austen admits he has never read her work; "I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critic's thinking.")

(Or try this insight from the smooth taking cynical Nick; "Rick Von Slonekar is tall, rich, good-looking, stupid, dishonest, conceited, a bully, liar, drunk, a thief, an egomaniac and probably psychotic. In short; highly attractive to women.")

(See? It's fun!)

Beyond these pleasures, there is the sense of sneaking a peek at a world most of us have never seen up close; the conventions, the dress-codes, their outlook. Stillman knows this world well, and the characters concerns are taken seriously while always acknowledging their silliness.

There are some issues. The character of Nick, so fun early on, disappears in the final third for no discernible reason. Will Kempe in a key role as Von Slonekar is noticeably ill at ease compared to the rest of the cast. A final act dash to ensure a woman does not sleep with a man some of the others detest seems condescending and controlling to me.

But these faults are overcome by the charm exuded by the whimsicality of everything else. The WASPs of NYC are not really so discreetly charming, but as in an Austen novel, for a brief moment we invest in our protagonists and can believe the shortage of escorts is a problem we simply must address.

Whit Stillman's movies are dialogue driven, which is not everyone's cup of tea. This is the first of a trilogy, all of which take a slice of life of young people coming of age, but in the cusp of a dying culture, with a new order and new responsibilities baring down on them. Here it's the prep and prom culture of New York's Upper East Side, sometime in the 70's. The participants dutifully go through the rights of Christmas Balls and 'orgy' week, act sophisticated, and generally do things and say things which are expected of them. An outsider, Tom, with radical social and intellectual ideas, enters their midst and becomes a catalyst of change here as a romance develops with Audrey. Tom, idealistic, insensitive and naive is embraced by Audrey, emotionally more mature but more vulnerable, accepting his sometimes preposterous social and literary speculation as a sign of substance in comparison to the increasingly jaded and cynical world of her preppy friends. A friendship develops also between Tom and Nick, the most cynical and pessimistic, but also the most aware and responsible, of the group. The conversations are lively and filled with insights into character and maturity. Nothing much happens in this film, but the intricate interplay of characters, dialogue and ambiance make for a fascinating and penetrating look at these young people's lives. It unfolds like a ballet. This is a fine film which doesn't rely on angst or melodrama-- and maintains a humor, poignancy and charm which makes it a rare achievement for the genre. Stillman's other two films in the trilogy are also highly recommended.

This wasn't for me. Like actors poorly pretending that the cup of coffee in their hand actually has liquid in it My feeling that the film seemed like a school project is bolstered by fact it was "Writer, Driector, Producer" first film. It was also the main characters first role.

As said in my tagline it was a "Talkfest". Very little acting, lots of talking. Lots of Jane Austen references.

If you like Austen, you may really enjoy.

I think the only thing that kept me watching was the music. I think it was Suoso, Judson & Others music is what kept me hoping it would get better.

It was filmed during Christmas Season. NYC Decorations, Store windows, Macy's, as always Rockefeller Center and Tree gives the film a charming backdrop.

Not to be funny, The only scene I liked was the last one at the Hamptons House. Anything more about it would be a spoiler.

I see several 8's & 10's so there must be something I I don't see maybe some script changes & seasoned actors?

Brilliantly written. Stillman's first in his trilogy, this sets the standard for the offbeat banter and dialogue of the two films that followed, "Barcelona," and "The Last Days of Disco." Surprisingly great acting, I think, as well--from a cast of, at the time at least, relative no names. As talkfests go, this is a keeper.

Middle-class and liberal-leaning Edward Clements (as Tom Townsend) befriends the upper eastside Manhattan snob set when he shares a cab to join the group at a party. Becoming a "Sally Fowler Rat Pack" regular, he attracts available Carolyn Farina (as Audrey Rouget) while discussing God, public transportation, and literary criticism with preppy Christopher Eigeman (as Nick Smith) and other Christmas vacationing collegians.

Debuting director Whit Stillman's "Metropolitan" is a intellectually written drama about a a group of late 1970s (?) or early 1980s (?) young adults who seem to be stuck in some earlier, possibly imaginary era. They dress funny for parties, travel without limousines, and "just say no" to the hard stuff (or, cocaine would be readily available at their gatherings). This is a good, ironic, but very particular film; it thrives only in its own world.

****** Metropolitan (1/90) Whit Stillman ~ Edward Clements, Carolyn Farina, Chris Eigeman, Taylor Nichols

... and is my favorite New York Christmas movie. Shot on location, it has the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, great shots of Manhattan neighborhoods and buildings, and even a trip to the Hamptons. It has the Plaza and Waldorf hotels, and the last Automat, which closed shortly after the movie was shot. It has Christmas Eve in Saint Thomas Church on Fifth Avenue, But most of all it has a charming group of young people and one of the great scripts. Director/screenwriter Whit Stillman, who knew the milieu he was writing about, has a Rohmer-esque respect for the value of dialogue. His brilliant script was Oscar-nominated.

Tom Townsend, a middle-class Upper West Sider, accidentally falls in with a group of Upper East Side preppies, who call themselves UHB's (Urban Haute Bourgeoisie). At the various dances and after parties in lovely New York apartments during the holiday break, they talk about philosophy (particularly Fourier), romance, literature (particularly Jane Austen) and what they see as the decline of the debutante society in which many of them were raised. Relationships develop, there is pettiness, and there is real warmth and affection. I saw this movie when it was released, and later on TCM, when Robert Osborne interviewed Whit Stillman.

Metropolitan was the first movie for most of the young cast members. Particularly noteworthy are Chris Eigeman and Taylor Nichols, who went on to work with Whit Stillman on his other movies.

This film is not for everyone, but if you enjoy drawing room conversation, this is an interesting update on the Regency romance.

Whit Stillman has written a Jane Austen-style social commentary. The genius is that it is set among a very small segment of 1990 society that still lived the same lifestyle as Austen's 1810's heroes and heroines. The debutants and their escorts do nothing but spend a season going to debutante balls, and wittily conversing in drawing rooms afterwards. Austen's loving satirical look at her own narrow social world has been updated to the equally narrow circumstances of the film's society youth. The cast represents a small microcosm of 'types', all presented with equal parts affection and satire. They know their little universe is dissolving, but it is more to be objectively discussed than acted upon and is given no more weight than discussions of 18th c literature and philosophy.

The cast were all unknowns, many of whom did little other film work afterwards. Much of the focus is on Edward Clements' rather naïve Tom. In "reduced circumstances", he outwardly professes to reject the lifestyle of balls, but easily fits in with the group given the opportunity. Even his brand of socialism is based on an 18th c writer, rather than modern circumstances. His chief characteristic is that he consistently misreads everyone else, even his own father. Unfortunately, the clueless Tom is hard to really care about. Other characters are far more relatable. Unknown to Tom, his continued access to the small and exclusive group is because of the crush on him held by Carolyn Farina's Audrey. Audrey is openly a fan of Jane Austen and lives her life in the style of an Austen heroine. Although shy and quiet, you can still feel for her. The most memorable character is Chris Eigeman's Nick. Outwardly humorously cynical, he actually cares about others more deeply than his friends. Eigeman draws the eye whenever he is on screen.

If you enjoy intelligent dialogue, and can enjoy a film without any action or suspense, you will find this a worthwhile film to watch.

I can say this film has staying power as I've seen it about half a dozen times in the 12 years since it came out; the most recent occasion was a week ago, and it still holds up, like a great play. It's all in the dialogue and acting: Stillman's idea of an action scene is someone opening a champagne bottle a little over-enthusiastically.

The characters are beautifully drawn, none of them perfect, none of them without some redeeming features. They seem very believable to an outsider from England. The dialogue is a never-ending delight, full of great one-liners, yes, but also some equally cherishable, marvellously pompous sermonising and theorising from these slightly preposterous yet strangely loveable people (particularly Charlie Black). It's not exactly a comedy, but I laughed out loud a lot more than I have in some films that have been trying desperately hard to make me titter.

For me the great mystery is this: whatever happened to this fine young cast?? Edward Clements has done virtually nothing since this film, ditto Carolyn Farina (apart from a small part in Age of Innocence); likewise Eigeman and Nichols, although the former seems to have racked up a few more credits, and the latter was in Boiler Room, although I didn't realise it was him until the credits rolled.

If you need action and plot, this film probably isn't for you. But anyone else can dive in and and enjoy a genuinely independent film that shows what can be done on limited resources. This film is worth more in my heart than the combined works of Joel Schumacher, Don Simpson and their tiresome, overblown ilk.

Occassionally interesting portrayal of group of preppies going to their little inbred parties. They're a rather snotty, hypocritical bunch, which lessens one's wish to hang with them.

In prepping to write a review on Whit Stillman's indie talk-fest "Metropolitan" I glossed at the "Memorable quotes" page on IMDb and found some pretty amusing quotes. It's a bad sign when reading the dialogue is infinitely more interesting than hearing and seeing it on the screen.

"Metropolitan" concerns itself with a group of "downwardly mobile" Park Avenue college students who meet up in an apartment after attending debutante balls to discuss philosophy, literature and economics amongst each other. Its more interesting than it sounds but not by much. Within the group blossoms an admiration between outsider and admitted socialist Tom (Edward Clements) and shrinking violet Audrey (Carolyn Farina). Chris Eigeman, Taylor Nichols, Allison Parisi, Dylan Hundley and Isabel Gillies roundup the rest of the pack.

Earning an Oscar nod for its original screenplay, "Metropolitan" delivery is ultimately muzzled by lazy directing, amateurish acting and lackadaisical plotting. Nearly all the characters are milquetoast and bland and their multiple stories and conflicts pile on yet lack any real tension. The dialogue while clever is stilted, abrupt and overtly formal stunting the actors from giving their words any subtext. Here's a notion: film is a visual medium therefore instead of telling the audience what a character is thinking maybe you should show it.

The film might have made more of an impact if it took more satirical jabs on the entitled class of self-described "Urban Haute Bourgeoisie" but while the satire is present, it at points becomes too slight that a less savvy viewer might think the film promotes social stratification and bourgeois snobbery. Many American conservatives blogs have pegged "Metropolitan" as a conservative film much to the confusion of the director.

Its odd in a way that a film whose dialogue is so terse can make such a muddled point. But then again, in the words of one of the film's characters "I've always planned to be a failure anyway."

http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/

This film is a brilliant talkfest, with the decline of the New York WASP social setting a major point. It's set on a couple weeks during the Christmas season, with Tom Townsend being invited to a party, much by chance, by Nick and his friends. He doesn't "belong", but everyone likes him, some more than others. He does seem rather odd, with his socialist ideas, and his anti-party attitude. What develops is an odd relationship between Tom and Nick, as well as between Tom and a girl named Audrey.

Christopher Eigmann, as Nick, is a stand out in this cast. He is cynical, pessimistic, yet probably the smartest one in the group. He spouts of dialogue with conviction and care.

What makes this film work is the slight sadness we feel at the disintegration of this class, without having ever been part of it.

Some people will find it boring. It doesn't have the prerequisite number of explosions for the action fans, and not much does happen. But the way this film is executed, where dialogue is the key, makes this film one of the ten best of 1990.

Metropolitan is about 2 hours of talking and walking. An interesting idea, which was nominated for best screenplay at the academy awards, the movie in itself is far from anything considered great independent film. The group of actors are all new to the scene. Except for a small group of them, very few have actually made a career of acting. The story itself has its moments where you actually care what is going to happen next. The story begins with Tom and slowly moves away to the story of the group. Tom and Nick are the true force to the movie. However, much of the story fails to answer many questions concerning Tom and Nick. Once Nick is out of the picture, leaving the movie all together, the story is close to pointless. An overall nice try, the story has its moments but far from anything amazing. A nice little movie with an interesting plot, nothing more.

METROPOLITAN has really aged well - I first saw this when it was released, and watching again a few days ago, it really stands up as something unique. Episodic and without much real plot - the only real forward motion in the film is to be found in the ending, which feels a little contrived, and is my only real gripe with this film.

At my first viewing, I didn't really want to like these characters, who all seem from another world - rich, young and good looking, carrying on through elaborate, banal, pseudo-intellectual conversations with a deadly confidence about their place in the world. But over the course of the film it becomes apparent that their secure perch in the upper echelons of the American elite isn't 100% set in stone, as an outsider is able to penetrate this rarefied universe, and manages to hold his own quite well, arousing suspicions (and battling shame over his own proletarian roots, and his battle between his own free-thinking idealism and his aggressive social climbing ambitions), but also making genuine friends among the cute young blue-bloods. Of course he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and neither is anyone else in here, and they all know it even when behaving otherwise, which greatly humanizes these otherwise not-exactly-pleasant characters. On the strength of the dialog, METROPOLITAN has become something of a cult classic, and deservedly so.

In a strange way, METROPOLITAN is almost a companion piece to the surreal and disturbing documentary GREY GARDENS - both are centered upon characters from the well-bred, wealthy elite of American old-$ society. As METROPOLITAN insinuated that the security, intellect, status and wealth of its' characters isn't as rock-solid as the characters would like everyone to think, GREY GARDENS illustrates, in lurid detail just how psychologically destabilizing a precipitous fall from such a lofty, but artificial world would be - you could easily see an aged variant of one of METROPOLITAN's character's ending up like the Edies from GREY GARDENS.

The probable best from the very non-prolific Stilman, I strongly recommend.

I saw "Metropolitan" a couple of months ago, was fairly impressed with it on its own talky, cerebral terms, and took it back to the video store. Since then, it's grown on me to the point where I have to place its script up there with the best of Chekhov and "The Big Chill." Concerning the Manhattan prep and deb season of some unspecified year past, "Metropolitan" transports your mind into a social order that exists just beyond our consciousness: where young socialites discuss Fourier without conviction, Jane Austen without having read her work, and love without never having really been in it. It's sweet, smart and touching all at the same time. The characters are flawed and doomed -- though, as one character notes, not doomed to failure, but just doomed to a normal, boring lifestyle -- and we can't help but love them for it. Go to Blockbuster and rent it tonight; if you can't find it there, go to Amazon, order it, and allow 1-2 weeks for delivery. It's that good. This was Whit Stillman's first of three similarly themed films; the second, "Barcelona," is subpar, but "The Last Days of Disco" closes the trilogy with a delicious return to form.

This indie film was an art house hit in 1990. Even though I loved (and still love) art house films I avoided this. It looked boring and the plot uninvolving. I finally saw it now 17 years later. I can't say I'm sorry I missed it.

It takes place during a Christmas vacation in New York in the late 1980s. A bunch of rich kids from the east side get together to spend the holidays. Tom (Edward Clements) is a poor west side kid who inadvertently gets invited to their parties. Audrey (Carolyn Farina) becomes attracted to him and he develops a friendship with incredibly cynical Nick (Chris Eigeman). That's about it for plot. This is all talk and the little dramas that happen inside the group.

Movies that are all talk can work. I find "My Dinner with Andre" fascinating as well as "Rope" and "Manhattan". The problem with this is that most of the dialogue is obscure (to put it mildly) and most of the characters come off as annoying or pathetic. Tom and Nick are cold cynical jerks and considering Tom is the main character that is NOT good. Audrey is just pathetic throwing herself at Tom who treats her like dirt. The other men are drunks or obnoxious intellectuals. The women come off far better--they're strong, intelligent and aren't jerks like the other guys.

What does save this are quite a few sharp insights into human behavior and a few well-timed funny lines. Also the acting is good all around--Eigeman especially does a good job (and has gone on to a pretty successful career). So it has its moments but the obnoxious characters and bewildering dialogue are off putting. I give it a 6.

A group of young upper-class Manhattanites are blithely passing through the gala debutante season, when an unusual outsider joins them and stirs them up.

Leading commentators such as Emmanuel Levy and Madeleine Dobie have identified the film as a comedy of manners or a coming-of-age story. Suzanne Pucci, in her book Jane Austen and Company, compares the film to Austen's novels and those of Henry James, such as Wings of the Dove. For Pucci, the film deserves full membership in the class of 20th- and early 21st-century Austen remakes such as Ruby in Paradise and Bridget Jones's Diary. According to her, the film tracks "the Austen phenomenon beyond Austen, into what (is called) the 'post-heritage' film, a kind of historical costume drama that uses the past in a deliberate or explicit way to explore current issues in cultural politics." Now, I don't know about the Jane Austen connections and all that (though the film does have multiple references to her). I just know this is a brilliantly written story about a follower of Charles Fourier mixing in with high society, and the conversations that ensue. It is like the best work of Richard Linklater, only with a higher production value. Pure gold for anyone of the right age or mental disposition.

I mean it isn't totally rubbish, is quite challenging as the acting outside the rat pack is atrocious. Surely has some dimensional ideas about it but I couldn't find them interesting nor reliable. If something I felt all the characters flat except from Tom. Intended that way, I get it. Wasn't the idea to picture of this upper class obnoxious kids separated from reality appealing manners to treat matters of life in a trivial way? Summoning meaning into ideals, philosophy and sociology playing a part in everything they do. There's no urgency, there's isn't any immediate goal. All is left to wonder. That's what I found obnoxious, the distance between reality and fairy tale. Some pieces where pretentious and nonsensical, others monotheistic and repetitive. Still I did finish the movie, some of the characters talk to me personally and others didn't. I guess

If u are a traditional movie goer or a turist u won't be able to enjoy this type of story telling. What I mean is for the average Netflix minion this would be missing the typical box ticking architecture. Expand the limits off what you consider storytelling and u might enjoy this one.

This movie glistens like a piece of old Belleek. Whether in the subtle gold of an off the shoulder evening gown, or in the vast expanse of a deep, plush, ivory colored carpet, nearly every frame shimmers with champagne like iridescence.

And gold is an apt visual metaphor, particularly when juxtaposed against the black satin of a tuxedo lapel or the wintry Manhattan night scape, for a world seemingly vanishing right before our eyes--a world too sleek, too soigné, too genteel to survive the steam roller of galloping blue-jeaned egalitarianism.

That the denizens of this vanishing breed, as depicted in the film, are themselves, insecure late adolescents, make its departure all the more poignant.

"This is probably the last Deb season..." one of them observes resignedly, "...because of the stock market, the economy, Everything..." Yes, everything...the huge smothering subject that hovers all around the plot itself and from which its characters are only temporarily insulated.

In particular, the focus here is on a group of privileged Eastern Seaboard collegians enjoying the Christmas holidays in a series of Park Avenue, "after dance parties," in which they loll about and ruefully anticipate the disappearance of their youth, their success, and their kind.

That they are one at the same time cerebral, immature, literate, prankish, frightened, polished, well educated but vulnerable and inexperienced, puts them well outside the troglodyte teens that inhabit the deconstructionist zoo in most post 1970 films, (with the exception of a unfortunate and mis-placed "strip poker" sequence which violates the picture's otherwise overall mood.)

Indeed, they seem to exist outside their own time, belonging rather to that group Cecil Beaton dubbed "the smart young things" from the 1920's, in his "The Glass of Fashion." Certainly, one imagines them far more comfortable with Ivor Novello than Mick Jagger. And like many "smart sets" they seem rather a closed corporation.

Until that is, into their number unexpectedly arrives a young man of reduced circumstances, Tom Townsend, (Edward Clements) who by virtue of his sincerity and intelligence, is invited to "sup at their table--on a borrowed pass" so to speak. His romantic misadventures with the beguiling Audrey Rouget(Carolyn Farina)forms the cynosure of the charmingly fragile plot.

Audrey and Tom stand out from the pack, in their earnestess and integrity, though it is assuredly Nick, (Christopher Eigeman) their figurehead and chief quip master who is the groups' un-elected leader. As interpreted by Mr. Eigeman, Nick is the embodiment of the cocktail fueled, cigarette wielding bon vivant--trenchant, self absorbed, far from virtuous, and with a ready verbal arrow that never misses its target. He is George Sander's heir presumptive.

Nick's observations are worth the whole price of admission as they say, whether it be bemoaning the Protestant Reformation, the social climbing Surrealists, or the scarcity of detachable collars.

Since the film's short, bouffant,cocktail dresses and automobiles unmistakably place the film in very late modernity--the Reagan era in fact, and long after the Ray Anthony's Orchestra, top hatted milieu it depicts, we cannot fail to miss the film's core observation--the parallel evanescence of the groups' own social connections, as placed against the simultaneous collapse of civilized life as we once knew it.

As the Christmas season ends, so do the nightly gatherings, and each character is forced to come to terms with impermanence--their own and everything else's. In a melancholy bar scene, an older man warns the youngsters of disappointment ahead, "I'm not destitute but...it's all so mediocre."

That Producer/Director Whit Stillman manages to fuse the personal with the sociological in such and intriguing and entrancing way is a testament to the penetration of his vision.

And, lest we miss the point, he includes a cunning shot of a significant book left on bedside table--none other than Spengler's "Decline of the West."

The majority of critics ADORED this movie and the screenplay was nominated for an Academy Award, so I figured it was a fairly safe bet. You can't win 'em all. This film was Mumblecore before Mumblecore (a genre which critics initially poured far too much praise upon). Of course, these characters don't mumble as much as simply drone on and on about their fear of eventual failure that would apparently bring more emptiness to their Park Avenue lives. Bringing us into this world has the potential to keep an audience's interest for a short period of time, but the film never progresses behind exploring this youthful angst. It's not a plot issue. A filmmaker can afford to have 90 minutes where not much happens in terms of plot, provided he or she creates characters and situations that are so compelling, you want to continue watching (not much happens in Hal Ashby's "The Last Detail" either, but try looking away from Nicolson and company in that film). Alas, that is not the case here. Yet, like Mumblecore (which is thankfully dying a rapid death), this film revolves around post- (or mid-) college, white, upper middle class, awkward youngsters who can't seem to shake their general sense of malaise. The film itself appears to be shot on a shoestring budget, and considering that, the cinematography is quite impressive. However, the acting is often painful to watch (with the exception of Carolyn Farina), and though there are no pyrotechnics, there's barely a plausible moment in the film. None of the characters speak or behave in a way that is even remotely believable. It's one pseudo-intellectual diatribe after another with no hint of a natural segue. The actors all seem to be standing around, with no sense of true life or action, waiting to spew out or be the recipient of the next unmotivated monologue. Aside from a truth-or-dare type party game that involves burning cigarettes through a napkin, there's not one conversation that feels authentic. One scene finds an apparently sober middle-aged man at a local bar pouring his heart out to our pair of 19-year old protagonists for no apparent reason except possibly that the author wanted to squeeze in another monologue. This scene could have worked with a different character if it were more skillfully setup. Finally, the final scene at the beach house is "groan-worthy" in its attempt to manufacture misplaced drama, but winds up looking like a bad student film with the poor actors looking completely lost as how to try and make the scene look realistic. However, this was Stillman's first film, so I'd be interested in checking out his other 2 films to see where he went from here.