Café Society

“Where's character? Where's loyalty?” The protagonist's father asks the right questions. In Woody Allen’s new film, you won’t find multi-dimensional characters that behave toward each other with any degree of loyalty. You will also search in vain for humour (a few amusing lines merely recycle what we have already heard in Allen’s films, but in funnier versions), compositional motivation for a number of scenes (such as the opening scene with a prostitute), type-appropriate casting (only Steve Carrel with his parted hair is more or less suitable for the 1930s setting), meaningful involvement of an omniscient narrator (is it really necessary to describe absolutely everything, even the beauty of the sunrise that we are just looking at?), any sign that the plot is leading to something (in fact, the story could just go on and on in cycles until the characters get old and die), or any reason that the story is set in the era of classic Hollywood. Well, any reason other than the fact that Woody simply loves this period and until someone builds a time machine, the only way to return to it is through movies. Rather than the need to tell an engaging story and share an original idea, it seems that love for the depicted period and setting was the main (or perhaps even the only) motivation for making Café Society. Thanks to Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography, the film looks beautiful. The abundance of light and a golden hue give the shots a supernatural charm and it is clear that we are in a world where dreams are born. Populate this world with characters who constantly blabber on about famous actors, actresses and directors (and they blabber only not to be quiet – the point and main purpose of the dialogue is simply for us to hear a familiar name), add a jazz soundtrack and you have a film. Actually, no, you don’t, because it is still necessary to at least somehow connect the individual scenes with the most lackluster romance under the sun, even if you really don’t care about the people involved in that romance because they rather prevent you from enjoying the period costumes, architecture and set decorations (based on which the lead roles were written – two self-satisfied characters defined only by the fact that they want to go to the movies and are unable to make independent grown-up decisions). Café Society is such a soul-crushing case of total directorial and screenwriting laxity that if it weren’t for the higher production values and a few well-known actors, I would think that this is the first attempt by a not very good writer who doesn’t understand that telling a story with pictures is not the same as telling a story with words. Looking at it from a more generous angle, it is significantly more likely that Allen’s first series (Crisis in Six Scenes) will be far more entertaining than his (so far) last film. The consolation to be found in that, however, is as comparably worthless as Café Society itself. 40% (22/09/2016)

Woody Allen is still making the same thing, but in an increasingly heady and mature way, and in an increasingly refined formal package. Another accurate and perfectly shot relationship drama from the 1930-40s in the irresistible glitter of the bygone glory of the old party cabarets, frills and refinement of the elite of the time. It's a film that is all the more powerful the more times you find yourself in the various relationship and emotional breakdowns of the main characters. Someday Woody will be remembered a lot, as he was able to extract a bunch of stuff from life and put it on film with refinement and insight, yet crystal clear truth like few filmmakers, and in an original and typically quirky way that has become his own and he applies it as his signature trendy trademark. (15/02/2017)

Say what you will, but this is the Woody Allen I love so much (though his pure-blooded comedies are even better for me). The most amazing thing to me about Café Society is that it's the first film in which Jesse Eisenberg plays a likable person, and he really is likable. His Bobby is not poor, whiny or desperate, and instead he has courage, he's quite a bold young man and that's fine. Kristen Stewart stuck out a bit at first because of the beautiful period atmosphere, but after a few minutes she fell into it, Steve Carell is a great actor, period, and Blake Lively charms just about everyone. It's also great that Allen's script knows moderation - there are so many things that could have been developed and talked about further, it's just that there's no need, everything important is said and anything extra would just slow Café Society down. This is also true of the ending, which comes at a beautiful moment. As for the criticisms, I have to disagree loudly, especially with those that despise Ben's story and say it is unnecessary. On the contrary, I see an ingenious parallel in it - giving up Judaism and accepting Christianity "for the sake of advantage" is the same as leaving one person you love for another you prefer. (28/09/2016)

Woody Allen seems a bit worn out in this film. Sure, it's very well shot, the dialogues occasionally make sense and are even interesting, if not entertaining, but overall, I kind of felt like it was about nothing in particular. I couldn't really connect with the characters, and for example, the second Veronica seemed unnecessary and self-serving, although, of course, she has a certain purpose. (23/10/2016)

It's a love triangle, that's all there is to it and the whole thing kind of fizzles out. Woody only makes films out of inertia these days, but Café Society in particular is so caressing, cute, and in its own way, endearingly old-fashioned, especially since it has the flawless atmosphere of 1930s Hollywood, an era that has always appealed to me, an old-timer. In addition to that, I realised that Stewart can be attractive when the role allows her to. And in fact the ending was exactly as melancholic as it should. (18/12/2016)