I'm embarrassed to say I've never seen any of Whit Stillman's films - not because I've been avoiding them, but simply because I've never been in the right place at the right time. Stephen Pollard, for one, is a huge admirer of Metropolitan and recommends this City Journal essay by Julia Magnet.
Ross Douthat, who has his reservations about Whitman's cult movie - now out on DVD - takes issue with the critique that's just appeared in Slate:
The author ties himself into pretzels: he wants to rescue Stillman from his conservative admirers, except that he has to admit that Stillman is, well, a conservative, except that maybe Stillman isn't actually that right-wing because the characters in his movies are just "play-acting," or maybe "the most conservative thing about Metropolitan is that it is not about class at all," but about teen angst. (Say what?) The whole piece is written with the confused innocence of someone encountering conservative ideas for the first time.
I kind of loathed Metropolitan. It was all so self-conscious and preppy and mannered. As art, it takes you nowhere. I never understood the fuss about it at all. Personally, I don't think you are missing much - except the mind set of a very self selected Manhattan spoiled clique. I think I liked Barcelona a little better though I remember it less.
Posted by: alcibiades | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 05:28 AM
Metropolitan is one of the little-known masterpieces of modern cinema. I had originally picked up the box back in 1991 because it had an attractive girl in the process of removing her bra in a game of strip poker. Despite the fact that the scene never appeared in the finished product, I was too much in love the film to care. I've raved about this film to anyone who was willing to listen ever since. Bout time it's on DVD.
Posted by: Sean Smith | Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 03:06 AM