Purple Rose Of Cairo Movie Response

Purple Rose Of Cairo Movie Response Overall I felt this was a very enjoyable movie, which came as a surprise to me. I am not a huge fan of Woody Allen, but I must say that I thought this was the best work that I have seen from him. The opening scene with Cecilia at work in the diner draws an immediate parallel to the Valentino pieces we read. She is discussing with her co-worker the intimate details of the life of one of a movie star, almost as if she were one of his family members. This is very closely related to how America felt when Valentino died.

People who had never met the actor wept and went to pay their respects to the dead actor because they felt a closeness with him. I really like the whole human aspect that Woody Allen used in portraying Ceclia’s life. He basically defined the theatre as a way for her to leave a life, which for the most part was bad, for a few hours. She had an abusive, disinterested husband and was having a tough time at work. All this coupled with the fact that it was the Depression era in American history make Cecilia’s life extremely difficult.

All of these problems, however, disappeared once Cecilia entered the movie theatre. I liked this because this is how many people feel. When you are bored, lonely, etc. you can pop in a movie and almost get away from the real world. I thought the whole idea of the Tom Baxter character walking off the screen was not only funny but brilliant.

We have seen movies where people go into the screen, as in last week’s Sherlock, Jr., but rarely do we see an actor leave the screen. I thought Jeff Daniels did an excellent job in portraying both Baxter and the real actor in the film, Gil Shepherd. In discussing this aspect of the film, I also thought that Allen’s use of explaining fact and fiction was great. Through the Tom Baxter character Cecilia began to understand that the movies, although a great escape, were not real and that life is difficult weather you are an actor or a poor working class woman like herself. In the end, it was almost like a test in school when Cecilia had to choose between the two and she realized that Gil was a real person while Tom Baxter was just a character in a movie.

One example of one of the lessons that taught this in the film was when Baxter and Cecilia were having a lavish meal with champagne, etc. When the bill came Baxter whipped out his money like he was a rich man, when in fact all he had was movie money – which had no use in the real world. They ended up having to run out on the bill. Soon after this detail was brought up again when Baxter gave a bum waiting in line at the Soup Kitchen a bill. The poor person looked at the money almost confused and then threw it on the ground.

Another great example was when Cecilia was in the church trying to explain to Baxter about God, because he had no idea about it and thought that the writers of the movie were God. The scene further emphasized the difference between the movies and reality when Baxter and Monk got into a fight. Baxter’s character was written with the ability to fight a fair fight, however he was not prepared for the roughhouse street tactics of Monk. Despite getting beaten up, Baxter was completely fine because his character was not written with the ability to get hurt. I think that the Purple Rose of Cairo did a lot to refute many of the beliefs of the Adorno and Horkheimer article.

The whole concept of mass customization really did not play into this film. I thought that the movie itself really gave off a sense of individuality in that there are not any other films like this around. I also felt that the ending of the film directly refuted the point made in the article about everyone has to behave in accordance with previously determined and indexed level. In my opinion if this belief were taken into effect in the making of the movie than Cecilia would have ended up flying away with Gil in the end, and not alone in a movie theatre. One of the points made in the Adorno and Horkheimer article had both a little truth and a little falseness in relation to the film.

The point they made about real life becoming indistinguishable from the movies and that the advancements in film have removed the room for imagination or reflection by the audience is not true at all in this film. I felt that the first comment about real life becoming indistinguishable had some truth but I felt that this fact opened up the room to even more imagination and reflection by the audience. I thought that the fact that the two aspects, real life and film, and how they were portrayed made the movie the excellent work that it was and opened up my mind to see an even bigger picture. I thought that the use of this was great and I do not think that it effects the response within the structure of the film. Film and Cinema.

Related Posts