Carolyn FarinaMetropolitan [The Criterion Collection] [Blu-ray] [2018]

It is a simple story of an outsider among some New York socialiates during their debs season but what a great story. The dialogue is excellent, the acting crisp and warm hearted. In between this scintillating script and great comedy there is a beautiful love story. I loved it. It is a tragedy that Whitman is not making movies likes this any more, what happened to all these great actors. It is a great Christmas movie or any time movie, can be watched over and over again and will give pleasure with every repeat viewing.

A fascinating comedy of manners set among the declining preppy upper class of Manhattan.

I had waited ages to see this film. I had seen Barcelona and the Last Days of Disco and needed Metropolitan to complete the Whit Stillman set. It wasn't on video, it was never shown on TV and there was an interminable wait for it to be released on DVD.The tale is a familiar one (think Brideshead Revisited) where a less privileged outsider finds himself in the world a couple of rungs up the ladder and not entirely comfortable with it. Tom Townsend is a Charles Ryder (single parent home, cash-strapped, doesn't have the right clothes) of the 1980s who purely by the chance of a mix-up with a taxi ends up as part of the Sally Fowler Rat Pack, a group of preppy college students who are doing the rounds of the debutante balls over Christmas in New York.So was the wait worth it? Yes it was, although I do think that Metropolitan is a bit of a tough nut to crack; it took me a couple of watches to get into the rhythm of it and to latch on to its humour.Stillman was nominated for an Oscar for the screenplay (and lost out to Ghost! Ha!) and it's easy to see why. I think it has a lot more to recommend it than Woody Allen and the humour is more sophisticated than Allen's which is amusing in itself when you consider that Stillman's concerns are centred on a group of teenagers. Metropolitan is certainly a very chatty film, with characters who are prone to crippling self-examination and also not above introducing new terms to the language (UHB - urban haute bourgeoisie anyone?), however another of Stillman's strengths is creating characters who are very nuanaced rather than galumphing stereotypes.Stillman did the clever thing of producing a film that was dated when it already came out and it's keenness for the era, particularly evidenced through the girls' clothes, is done with a light hand and isn't at all laboured. Stillman's real triumph is creating a sense of nostalgia in the viewer for the pearls-and-sweaters innocence of this world which he cleverly compounds by having the characters talk about the demise of the world that they are actually inhabiting.There is an interesting commentary from Stillman where the secrets of making a film for no money at all are revealed. An interesting companion to Metropolitan is the screenplay, contained in a volume with Barcelona. You'll see that a couple of bits were edited out although the consequences remain in the finished product. See if you can work out what they are!

Bought on high recommendation

classic film but a bit slow but worth seeing for the 80s hair and fashions alone.

as described, arrived very quickly

What a fantastic film with beautuful picture quality excellent.

The DVDs are so expensive. Why? Hardly any plot, dialogue from another place and thoroughly enjoyable.

A surprisingly well written and unique independant film coming out of the early 1990s.Some of the acting comes off as stilted, especially from the lead actor, but there is enough charm and varoety from the supporting cast to make up for any of these shortcomings.

Entre Jane eyre, woody allen (en mieux) un film ou les mots comptent plus que les images.Quand la futilité approche la tragédie souriante d'un groupe de nantis déboussolés. Interprétation merveilleuse d'acteurs inconnus, mention spéciale pour carolyn Farina, apperçu dans le temps de l'innocence. La découverte d'un auteur qui confirmera dans les derniers jours du disco. Futilité, drôlerie et gravité.

Metropolitan, the first of Stillman's trilogy of the lost aristocracy, is a fine example of the classical comedy. This is a very dense film, and much more than merely a comedy of manners (yet one says the same for Austen), but rather an exploration of the new lost generation: the children of the baby-boomers. In addition, these children form what would have been the aristocracy, yet in post-WWII America (or perhaps even post-civil war America, depending on your understanding of national history) the Aristocracy's place has disapeered. Not that Stillman is critiquing the Aristocracy itself, as one reviewer insinuated--far from it--Stillman is no egalitarian, and no doubt appreciates the role of class. Yet much like Descartes' example of the man with an amputated limb, who still feels sensation in that limb, these urban elites of New York are clumsily trying to fit into a mold that is antithetical to spirit of their culture. This is especially developed later in Last Days of Disco, as these Ivy-league grads who learned hard capitalism and aggresive business theory, still try to settle into their aristocratic positions allthewhile employing the economic principles they learned at college.In this analysis of a young aristocracy without a tradition (which Stillman understands indeed in the Burkean sense), these youths spend the holidays going to dances and hanging out afterwords at each others apartments.I don't want to offer simply a Cliff's notes to Stillman, so I won't let out all the insights that Stillman offers, while demanding much from the viewer in order to understand them. There's the enjoyment. Just pay attention to religious symbolism; that's huge for Stillman. (Ex. there is a moment in the film when one of the character's is leaving on a train, and a hymn by Luther is playing in the background) If you want some more hints, Nationalreview.com had an interview with him a while back you can probably still get, and Intercollegiate Review had a whole journel dedicated to his works a year or so ago.Stillman is by far the greatest director around today--his cultural commentary has the weight of a Proust or Claudel--don't miss it.

One editorial review remarks "as the innocent, easily manipulated Audrey..". I seriously doubt it. You really must watch this picture several times before the parts fall into place. Take the opening scene when Tom 'accidentally' runs into Audrey's crowd. As the film later reveals Tom was given the ticket and has been sitting behind Audrey's table all night. He even went to the trouble to rent a tux for the occasion! He went to all this trouble in search of a woman by the name of Serena. The film also makes clear that he has never met anybody in the group. It's Audrey who's been looking him over. When Tom finally meets the woman, Serena, he learns that everybody writes to her and she never keeps any of them. She usually reads the very bad or the very good to her girl friends at the dorm but quickly assures him that his letters were always quite good. In fact her roommate liked them so much that she fell in love with him and kept them. Tom is horrified at this lack of privacy then stunned when he learns that Audrey was the roommate! Audrey wasn't an easily manipulated woman. One can only suspect that she manipulated Tom through the movie with the assistance of friends from time to time. Isn't it interesting that she's reading The Rector of Justin in the tanning scene? Or how she's dressed? Audrey deserves far more study in this film. Tom is far more related to Holly Martins of The Third Man. They are both struggling to learn what's happening around them. This film isn't for the one and done club. It needs more than one viewing to fully appreciate it. It was truly well done.

This was one of this first things that I ever ordered from Amazon. Where do I begin--it is a film that people either love or hate. I think that has less to do with the directing/production, which is undisputably first rate (especially considering the very low budget involved--this film was a true independent...), as it does with the plot and characters themselves. Basically, viewers either see this film as a funny, sensitive piece about intelligent young people coming to terms with who they are (camp 1) or as a gaggle of whiny preppies wallowing in emotional self indulgence (camp 2). The middle ground is small. Given the five star rating, I think it is clear that I fall into the first camp--perhaps, it helps that I came from a background that was itself somewhat preppy--the major characters actually correspond to real people that I went to college with. the sheltered life, the late night bull sessions, the excessive worry about one's future, the cynical personas (i.e. Nick Smith), the cocktail party radicalism (i.e. Tom Townsend), and the curious mix sophistication with naivete are really quite real. The acting is first rate (especially considering that the cast was all unknown at the time this film was made, although some of the actors, particularly Chris Eigeman, have done well since than), so the characters are shown vividly.