'Magic in the Moonlight': Woody Allen explores reason versus mysticism

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Magic,' Woody Allen's newest movie, stars Colin Firth as a stage magician determined to unmasking a clairvoyant for the fraud he believes she is, but some actions by the characters aren't believable and the central relationship is half-baked.

|
SONY PICTURES CLASSICS
Stanley (Colin Firth) courts Sophie (Emma Stone) in ‘Magic in the Moonlight.'

Woody Allen’s “Magic in the Moonlight” is a “serious” movie attempting to be lighthearted. It deals with the same issues that Allen’s idol, Ingmar Bergman, often grappled with – namely, the battle zone of reason versus mysticism – but offhandedly. Allen himself has long diddled with these issues in his movies and writings. He keeps returning to the scene of the crime, poking around for fresh clues.

Set in the 1920s, mostly on the gorgeous Cote d’Azur in the south of France, “Magic in the Moonlight” is about a famous magician, Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth), whose face is known to his public only as the Chinese conjurer Wei Ling Soo. A brittle and belligerent egomaniac, Stanley, all rational all the time, takes a special pleasure in debunking the claims of spiritualists. When he is approached by a magician friend of his (Simon McBurney) about an American clairvoyant, Sophie Baker (Emma Stone), who seems like the real deal, Stanley takes up the challenge of unmasking her.

Sophie and her domineering mother (Marcia Gay Harden) are ensconced in the Riviera villa of Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver), an American widow who wants to communicate with her dead husband and is more than willing to fund a “foundation” to trumpet Sophie’s gifts. Grace’s ukulele-toting son, Brice (Hamish Linklater), a harmless twit, is also gaga for Sophie and wants her to marry him. (“She’s a visionary and a vision,” he coos.) For Sophie, who grew up poor, all this Gatsbyish glamour is eye-popping, but she has a core of shrewdness. She doesn’t need any fancy powers to size people up. But is she a fake?

Allen plays out the scenario as a variant on Shaw’s “Pygmalion,” with Stanley as the imperious Henry Higgins flummoxed by Sophie’s low-born but radiant Eliza Doolittle. We can see where this is going, even if Stanley can’t. Taken in by her charms, he declares that he has been all wrong about the nonexistence of God and the spirit world. He is seized by a newfound feeling: happiness.

Firth is effective as the insufferable Stanley, who is ripe for his comeuppance from the very first time we see him haranguing his help backstage after a performance in Berlin. Stanley would seem to be Allen’s own worst (albeit comic) version of himself: a man whose fear of the unexplainable, of death, has sapped his life of any true joy. Sophie lowers his guard and raises his consciousness. He goes gaga, too.

For all its sun-kissed charms, “Magic in the Moonlight” has a rather schematic view of magic. Allen posits Stanley and his cohorts as brainiacs unbudgingly opposed to the existence of a spirit world (until Sophie shows up, that is). The notion that science might be a way into magic, that it might enhance rather than degrade the search for glories in the great beyond, is never taken up. For Allen, rationality is bloodless. 

If Stanley was shown to be someone who secretly coveted the idea of God and an afterlife, his capitulation to Sophie would have had more emotional heft. As it is, his conversion is too quick and not terribly believable. Also half-baked is the budding (sort of) romance between Stanley and Sophie. We never see in Sophie the capacity for wonder, or the respect for reason, that might have complicated her presence. Either way, real or fraud, she’s the film’s heroine.

As usual, Allen fills up his cast with name actors and then gives most of them glorified walk-ons: Weaver and Harden especially have precious little to do. The magic of a fully developed ensemble cast seems to have eluded Allen once again. 

As a conjurer, which is what all artists are, Allen realizes that movies are simply another form of alchemy. But magic tricks have to be seamless to be believable. “Magic in the Moonlight,” for all its airy felicities, offers a few too many unintended peeks behind the curtain. Grade: B (Rated PG-13 for a brief suggestive comment, and smoking throughout.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Magic in the Moonlight': Woody Allen explores reason versus mysticism
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2014/0725/Magic-in-the-Moonlight-Woody-Allen-explores-reason-versus-mysticism
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe