Metropolitan



One of the great American independent films of the 1990s, writer-director Whit Stillman's surprise hit Metropolitan is a sparkling comedic chronicle of a middle-class young man's romantic misadventures among New York City's debutante society. Stillman's deft, literate dialogue and hilariously highbrow observations earned this debut film an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Alongside the wit and sophistication, though, lies a tender tale of adolescent anxiety.

Special Features

• New, restored high-definition digital transfer, supervised by director Whit Stillman and cinematographer John Thomas
• Audio commentary by Stillman, editor Christopher Tellefsen, and actors Chris Eigeman and Taylor Nichols
• Rare outtakes and alternate casting, with commentary by Stillman
• Optional English subtitles for the deaf and heard of hearing
• A new essay by author and film scholar Luc Sante

Criterionforum.org user rating averages




................



I do believe it was both.

While I'm not nearly as anti-Stillman as Matt, and seemingly a good half of the people who've seen his films, I am more miffed about the lack of similar "respect" shown to just as obvious, and to my mind much more deserving, contemporary American directors/movies such as David O. Russell's Spanking The Monkey and Todd Solondz first three efforts (only on VHS or non-anamorphic DVD).

And yes, of course, I'm well aware that at least some of those may well be owned by companies who don't license to Criterion.

Metropolitan trailer

Is the movie that bad? It looks like a Harvard-graduate-Kevin Smith movie minus anything that's funny. I fear this acquisition.

I know it's hardly L'eclisse, but I feel like this forum is giving Metropolitan a pretty rough treatment just because it isn't deemed "Criterion Worthy" more than for any specific faults. For interested parties, our good friend Fletch recently posted a nice article on the film. You can find that article here.

My god, this must not be it. It looks shockingly bad.

Well heck, I got a good chuckle out of some of the stuff in that trailer. But, really, trailers are oft quite deceiving. I'm interested enough to see this flick when the disc comes out.

As I said in another thread, I hope that is true of Woody Allen's new film as well, whose trailer is pretty terrible.

Maybe the acting in "Metropolitan" works better in context, but that truly looks terrible. I always want to give Criterion the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that there must be SOME reason for them to include it in the collection.

Anyway, I hoped that the trivia contest would be a monthly feature, but I guess not. Bummer.

A more apt comparison would be to Woody Allen. It's very similar to Woody's 80s work, except that it deals with a different social class. The acting is a bit stiff, but I think the film has a lot of charm. Obviously, I am alone in that last assessment.


This is Rosenbaum's greatest hobby horse. The man cannot get enough of films that mix documentary and fiction. See, for example, any of his reviews of Kiarostami or Hou Hsiao-Hsien. He overlooks any other flaws in a film if the filmmaker makes even a token effort to blend the real and the fictional. At this point, any time he brings this subject up it automatically invalidates his opinion for me.

I'd like to chime in as a supporter of Metropolitan. It is, without a doubt, my favorite Stillman film. Yeah, the acting is a little stiff but as you say it does have a lot of charm and works on a definite Woody Allenesque vibe that I find totally engaging. And, IMO, Chris Eigeman steals every scene -- I mean, he gets all of the best lines in the movie -- "Playing strip poker with an exhibitionist somehow takes the challenge out of it."

This is great news! I love METROPOLITAN and I'm saddened that Whit stopped making films, or at least it seems.

A few thoughts on recent posts:
Please do not compare 80's Woody Allen to Metropolitan. It makes you sound silly. Exactly what 80's Woody forms the comparison? Zelig, Stardust Memories, Danny Rose, Purple Rose?
I would not go as far as saying that it is the worst film ever made, I'm sure all of us could think of 25-50 right off the bat, but it is not--without a doubt Criterion worthy. And it is not about being a snob or a film-nazi. We have grown accustomed to expecting nothing but the best from CC. Most of their titles are worthy of our praise and live up to their statement/creed of offering nothing but the best. I love when they serve up a title I had never seen and immediately becomes a treasure, like Rififi, Browning Version, Flowers of St. Francis etc...Please rent or buy Metropolitan on some garage sale before you consider spending money on the CC version.
On why Criterion would include it--- I am sure there is some reason why they would include it. There always is--he is still active in the film world in NY, although he has not made any thing in several years. Perhaps he has an admirer in the Criterion staff that wants to enlarge the Stillman cult. Maybe they are out of ideas for American directors they can acquire/include in the collection.

Metropolitan has the same charm, literacy, and light feeling masking deeper meanings as the movies Woody made from Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy through Radio Days. If I think Metropolitan is ever so slightly less brilliant than Woody's films, it's probably only because Woody's body of work is greater than Stillman's.



Why must everyone make this tedious argument? The film has fans who consider it a high quality, artistic, cult item. You don't like, don't buy it. You don't have anything interesting to say about it (positive or negative), go post in another thread.

I am a big fan of Whit Stillman and I am very happy about Metropolitan.

Yes it is a very low budget, grainy film, but there is a great deal of intelligence behind it. I think that the apt comparison for Stillman is Eric Rohmer, not Woody Allen. Their themes, approach, deadpan/offhand humor and intelligence all have common threads. No, I am not saying that Stillman, with his three movies, is in the same league as Rohmer.

Certainly Stillman is the least prolific filmmaker that I know of. He is also a little ... off. I saw him presenting The Last Days of Disco at the Cinematheque in Paris and he is in person what you would imagine from his movies -- well dressed, intelligent, spoke French well ... and said that he was in Paris working on a novel (book) version of The Last Days of Disco.

When I got back to NY, I found out the book had been published at least a year earlier. Very, very strange...

I do wish he would make another movie.

For the life of me, I never knew Slim Whitman ever directed any movies.

Wait a minute...

Tribe

Yeah, as posted in another thread (http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2600), the last word was that Stillman was working on a Jane Austen adaptation but that has been awhile ago so what he's up to is anybody's guess.

I enjoy a good old-fashioned film discussion/argument Ishmael. By you saying "you don't like it, don't buy it" ends the fun of the discussion. It's too easy like that and we are diverting attention from the main point which is Metropolitan, or I'll take it a step further, Whit Stillman is not even close to what Criterion 'supposedly' represents. We are strictly talking about the Criterion Collection. If Image, or No-Shame or whoever holds the films' distribution rights wants to release his work as super Double Disc director's cuts--Great!
But again, it is not worthy of Criterion, no matter what you think of his films.

kappoka - i'm not sure how saying "no matter what you think" is any different from saying "you don't like it, don't buy it". both close off any discussion.

i will say that one of the few points that has been raised which i must agree with is the fact that stillman is not a prolific director. virtually all of the criterion films are in some way prolific so i do agree that maybe metropolitan is a departure from criterion's presentation.

No it doesn't, because I invited negative as well as positive comments about the movie. The only thing I said was pointless were comments like the one Matt is mocking me with. Those aren't discussion comments, they're just position statements. (Although Matt is certainly right about their fine tradition.) By the same token, I can't stand when people post "Metropolitan! Hell, yeah!" It's not what is being said, it's the pointlessness of saying it.

Even dough I agree with your argument 100% of "you don't like it, don't buy it ends the fun of the discussion", I don't believe a film is not worthy of a Criterion release because is a mediocre or an inferior film. I like the way Criterion choose the films they believe are important to them and to their collectors.

Take the now OOP Morrisseys titles for example. As much ass I like Blood for Dracula and Flesh for Frankenstein, these films are not even close "to what Criterion really represents". However, I do believe they have some interesting elements of the era they were made and belong to a great line of cult films.

In the case of Metropolitan, I don't think is a great film. Stillman got a best screenplay nomination at the Oscar and it was name one the best films of that year. Probably Criterion thinks is a film worthy of their “Prestigious Collectionâ€

I didn't say 'no matter what you think' as an end to the discussion. I said it because whether you like his films or hate his films or somewhere in the middle, it does not constitute inclusion in the prestigious CC. I do not consider Stillman less of a director because he made few films-- and enough with the comparison with Woody Allen! Stillman should be compared to early Spike Lee or Edward Burns or perhaps Singleton. Somewhere along those lines...then I could find the comparison more digestable. A box set of She's Gotta Have It/Brothers McMullen/Metropolitan would be welcomed by alot of people. Just don't make it part of the Criterion Collection.

Perhaps it would be better if we positioned this as a discussion about what makes the movie good for those who like it and what makes it bad for those who hate it. Arguing about whether or not a film is Criterion-worthy has pretty much been a dead-end discussion for years. The only people who can deem a film Criterion-worthy are those on the Criterion staff.

I don't condone animal cruelty, but I wish the sacred cow named "Criterion Should Only Release Films that I Personally Deem to Have Artistic Merit" would have been slaughtered a long time ago in a most heinous and brutal fashion.

Obviously someone at Criterion figured Metropolitan has some form of artistic merit. More importantly, they figured the film could use a Special Edition DVD, and they decided to exploit that opportunity so that they could sell such a DVD for profits. The ideal is that Criterion only release artistic masterpieces. The reality is that they release Special Editions DVDs of various types of films, and that they have found success in a niche market.

Also, could we stop going back to the mission statement all the time? It's primary function is as internal guideline to employees and its secondary function is marketing. You have to go a long way down its list of functions to find "sacred promise to Criterion fanboys". Even if you did want to say it's false advertising, I doubt you could ever prove your case that some film you despise is not "worthy" of Criterion because we are talking about art, and artistic merit is about the most abstract concept there is.

The problem with this argument is that it falls into the common misconception that the Criterion Collection is some sort of DVD film awards, and that it acts outside and above the commercial DVD industry. It's not like Fox and Sony and Kino and Water Bearer all get together over coffee and say, "Y'know, I'd love to put out this movie, but it's just too good for our catalog. I really think we should hand it over to Criterion. What do you guys think?" By the same token, the Criterion Collection doesn't pick their titles off of stone tablets. People in the company make decisions based on aesthetic evaluations, personal judgments, market feasibility, availability, etc. Debating Metropolitan's Criterion-worthiness is useless and directionless. It's not a question that can be answered objectively, and it doesn't make for particularly interesting discussion.

I think Andre just posted pretty much everything I hoped to while I was composing the above....

Actually, I liked your explanation much better, especially the self-effacing meeting by rival companies.

And Armageddon does? The Rock does? C'mon! What Andre Jurieu has said so eloquently and better than I ever could pretty much nails it. Only the folks who make the decisions at Criterion can decide what they represent or do not. I'm sure we could all find a title (or two) in the entire Criterion Collection that would we would deem not worthy of what they supposedly represent.