the Whit Stillman Poll

I watched Metropolitan for the first time since (maybe?) when it first came out (I've been revisiting some '80s / early '90s movies). It was cute and enjoyable – the dialogue is funny, without being too overbearing or precious (not an easy feat, considering the specifics). There are a few real laughs, and the screenplay was clearly polished.

It does have a few issues, though – the movie begins with a brief scene that suggests the rest of the story is a flashback, but the "framing narrative" doesn't come back up at the end(?). Also, the most interesting character disappears 2/3 of the way through. The movie ends somewhat abruptly, and feels like it needed at least one more scene to wrap up both these loose ends. Maybe it was an artistic choice (on both counts), but it leaves the impression that maybe they just ran out of money...

Also, the direction and "tech specs" are mighty ruff; just a few notches above a student film (that's a true indie, I guess). I assume Stillman's directing got better – I think I saw his next two films, but don't remember much about them. He does get good (if somewhat stilted) performances out of this cast, who seem to have been mostly amateurs.

You need to watch his last two films.

What is it with Stillman's dialogue where specific scenes finally become hilarious the 10th or 11th time you hear them? The one from Barcelona is my current fave:

Ted Boynton: There's a lot of anti-NATO feeling here.

Fred: Anti what?

Ted Boynton: Anti-NATO.

Fred: ANTI-NATO?

Ted Boynton: Yeah... Well, actually here it's OTAN.

Fred: They're AGAINST OTAN?

A friend of mine mildly admired Metropolitan until I told him that it is intended to be a period piece. He preferred it as the story of an anachronistic group of sheltered, cultured young people in the late 80s.
Though I suspect Stillman is sloppy about chronology, the mention of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie would have to make it at least 1972.

isn't there a boombox in one of the final scenes in metropolitan?

Stillman wanted to set the film in the past, possibly in the pre-Woodstock 1960s, but the budget did not allow for a strict period film to be made. Instead, he added period details to give the film an "aura of the past", like vintage Checker Cabs, and generally excluded anything too specific to the present day.

that period ambiguity elevates the film to a classic, and also adds a surreal element that, for example, Damsels In Distress intentionally heightens

(which is also mandatory viewing)

Were there car-rental chains in the '60s?

There may be one or two vintage cabs (which I think were still on the road anyway?), but also regular, late-model taxis... nothing in the movie struck me as ambiguous in terms of time period. Also, the characters' central concerns – decline of their social status, changing social norms – seemed specific to the late '80s, and sync up well with the end of the Reagan era (recession is mentioned). But maybe people like that, to the extent they "really exist," would have had the same anxiety in the '60s. Maybe they still do today!

They're obviously a weird, cloistered sect but (IMO) it's almost more "fun" to imagine them existing like that in the '80s than it would be if Stillman had the $$$ to achieve a period setting.

There have been car rental chains for about as long as there have been cars. Hertz goes back to the 20s, at least.

idk I took the timeline seriously. If the film came out in 1990, then the film is set in the early to mid '80s. The anachronism of deb balls coincides with the Reagan era's sudden interest in silly costumed customs.

i put it (anachronisms aside) in the late 60s or so, to jibe with audrey rouget's appearance in the last days of disco. obviously the taylor nichols character in tldod and barcelona is a time traveler or djinn of some sort. this is now WSCU (whit stillman cinematic universe) canon.