Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Looking Closer

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Blue Jasmine (2013)

Blue Jasmine (2013)

Last updated on: August 10, 2013 at 9:51 am by Jeffrey Overstreet

Blue Jasmine (2013) 2013-08-10T09:51:49-06:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“You could do better.”

Have you ever heard a friend say that to you about the person you love? Were they referring to state of the person’s finances? If so, well… when it comes to friends, you could do better.

“You could do better” is the kind of thing Jeanette “Jasmine” Francis tends to say when she encounters people whose affection for each other is based on something other than money.

She even says it to her own sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins) when she meets Ginger’s meatball of a boyfriend Chili (Bobby Cannavale). Jasmine’s wealth — the reward of marrying Hal Francis, a Madoff-style investment banker (Alec Baldwin) — has gone to her head and brought a wrecking ball with it, smashing up her discernment, her capacity for compassion, and her conscience. Now, ruined by her husband’s dishonest business practices, she’s broke, she’s burdened with debt, she’s spending her way into greater debt, and she’s freely handing out condemnation for those who have learned to enjoy more satisfaction with less income.

In Manhattan flashbacks, we are treated to scenes of Hal and Jasmine together. They enjoyed spacious luxury, lavish parties, and a life of leisure that Jamine herself can hardly believe. So she tells stories — relentlessly — of how all of this good fortune came to be, until it sounds like a lie she’s trying to believe. We also observe that Hal has about as much of a conscience as that other famous big-screen Hal — the one from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like that soulless computer, he’s a smooth talker. But he’s primarily self-interested, engaging in extramarital affairs and dishonest business practices, as if his money will serve as an airbag whenever the inevitable collision comes.

But most of the movie follows Jasmine’s time in San Francisco, where she takes post-ruination refuge in Ginger’s apartment and acknowledges its middle-class decor as if it were some kind of bold choice to develop a “homey” aesthetic. That’s about as nice as she can be. Witnesses flashes of human tenderness and genuine affection, she cloaks her jealousy with bitter condescension, terrorizing Ginger’s community like a wicked queen threatening her subjects. She suffers breakdowns caused by drugs meant to fend off breakdowns. She cringes at any casual human attempts to engage her in flirtation or conversation. She shops for things she can’t afford. And she dodges any attempts to help her face the ugly truth of her complicity in her husband’s crimes.

She’s most interesting when she’s drawn into talking about her dreams and aspirations — she hopes to get an interior decorator degree online, but only after she “learns computers” — because that’s when we see flickers of realization that her years of living in squalor and denial have rendered her weak, uneducated, self-righteous, superficial, and incapable of taking care of herself. In that sense, Blue Jasmine works as a sort of fictional sequel to The Queen of Versailles.

By now, Woody Allen’s audience has learned to manage their expectations. His large casts of characters always provide a spectrum of sensibilities: simple and idealistic characters who are doomed to suffer; neurotic characters whose talkative jitters broadcast their fears, their delusions, their rationalizations for screwy behavior; and monsters preoccupied with money and ego. He throws them into close quarters until it’s clear that dreams are made to go false, ideals are made to be broken, marriages are made to collapse, and affairs are sure to hurt everyone within their blast radius. I can’t remember the last time a Woody Allen film made me really think beyond the simple platitudes of wages-of-sin morality plays.

But it’s unusual for Allen to focus so directly on the damaging effects of wealth. Normally, he’s preoccupied with the damage done when men and women choose to cast caution to the wind in their love lives and sexual shenanigans. But his constant curiosity about the wages of sin makes interviews like this one, in which he consistently confesses a belief that life is pretty much meaningless, fascinating.

I wish he’d consider the limitations of his own definitions for love. While Jasmine’s vocabulary of taking “a step up” by dating someone with more money is clearly delusional, Ginger herself seems to consider love as a matter of getting what you want. She defends her choice to “settle” for her goofy boyfriend Chili by saying that, well, at least he’s cute and fun. But she’s easily seduced by the flattery of a married man, and only questions her own unfaithfulness when she realizes that he’s a liar. If you’re looking for somebody who shows any sign of caring about serving someone else, about love as an act of giving instead of giving, well… keep looking.

Whatever the director has or hasn’t learned, he goes on proving that he knows how to give actors a good time. I suspect he’ll score yet another nomination or two for the juicy material he’s given his actors here. Well, some of them, at least.

Blanchett, whose I’m-acting-as-hard-as-I-can theatricality almost always prevents me from believing in her characters, turns in a made-to-order “Oscar-worthy” performance — a tour de force of twitches and meltdowns and tantrums. She’s a scene-chewing velociraptor, most impressive when she’s turned loose in scenes of domestic middle-class routines. We haven’t seen this side of Blanchett since she went up against Judi Dench in that clash of the titans called Notes On a Scandal. In her review at RogerEbert.com, Susan Wloszczyna says that Blanchett “just may get a chance at another trophy with this electric performance that makes an essentially despicable woman utterly fascinating as she sidesteps reality at every turn….” But the very fact that we’re all sitting there thinking “Isn’t she impressive?” becomes the chief obstacle to anything like suspension of disbelief.

By contrast, Sally Hawkins steals the movie with her endearingly casual turn as Ginger. She plays softer, more playful notes, and her chemistry with Cannavale — more enjoyable than he’s been since The Station Agent — is surprising.

Peter Sarsgaard is also winningly relaxed in his role as a would-be congressman who, for some mysterious reason, falls for Jasmine. Strangely enough, even an aspiring politician seems like a human being when seen standing next to Jasmine. And Andrew Dice Clay? Yep, as Ginger’s ex-husband Augie — a blue-collar repairman blessed with chumpy sincerity — even he has more gravity than Jasmine, due to the chumpy sincerity of the repairman he plays.

The only completely comical performance in the film comes from Michael Stuhlbarg. As a dentist who hires Jasmine as a front-desk assistant just so he can make a pass at her, Stuhlbarg finds the halfway point between his creepy alien in Men in Black 3 and his socially incapable schoolteacher in A Serious Man. He’s wonderfully unbearable. But his character is something of an accessory in a cast that is otherwise meaningfully entangled.

The film’s only casting mistake is to introduce the brilliant Louis C.K. as a forgettable love interest for Ginger who appears just often enough for people to chuckle in recognition and then to wonder why the director didn’t give him a chance to do anything worthwhile.

I guess that’s what’s ultimately so disappointing — again — about Allen’s post-’80s work. It feels like he has just enough energy to rack up some ideas, to pick up the pool cue, to break, and then watch the balls scatter, some of them occasionally dropping with a satisfying “plunk” into the pockets. After that, I’m left with the sense that the stage was set for a great game, but the players lost interest somewhere along the way.

Take, for example, the scene of Hal’s arrest. That’s a scenario in which The Great Woody Allen might have found great fodder for comedy. Here, it plays out matter-of-factly, squandering a chance for Alec Baldwin to justify his presence in the film. Really, couldn’t all kinds of non-celebrity actors have played this Donald Trump clone?

Don’t get me wrong — the film’s worth seeing for its winning performances and memorably zany clashes. I enjoyed the company of these characters.

But come on, Woody. More often than not, these scenes leave me with a sense of missed opportunity. Take your time on your next screenplay. Find a more interesting story. I’m not saying that you need to slow down because you’re getting older. I’m saying that if you did slow down, take several years on a screenplay, and throw your characters into some unfamiliar scenarios, well… you might come up with a movie that amounts to much more than a mildly enjoyable diversion. You may not watch your own movies after you finish them, but I remember Zelig, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Bullets Over Broadway. And I still believe… you could do better.

Previous Post

July 25, 2013

Does the Noah Screenplay Sink or Float? Chattaway and Godawa Disagree.

Next Post

August 16, 2013 The Spectacular Now (2013)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul James John Peter