Last night I had the opportunity of seeing Woody Allen’s new film Blue Jasmine. Since I have great interest in the work of Woody Allen and two of the characters he has cast in the film (Andrew Dice Clay and Louis CK), I took an immediate interest in the film and was eager to see it. I have blogged and written on all of them and I was curious to see how or whether any comic elements could be found in the film that was, as many reviewers pointed out, not comical at all.
Regarding these reviews, nearly all of them note how Allen, in the making of this film, was very influenced by Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire. And they all noted the obvious relation to the Bernie Madoff fallout. Regarding the reviews, I will briefly defer to the words of the critic David Denby who, in my view, does a fine job laying the plot and themes of the film out. What interests me most, in his review, is how he reads the comical element. Denby notes that Jasmine, played by Kate Blanchett,
is a snob and a liar, and, at times, delusional (she talks to herself), but, like Blanche DuBois, she’s mesmerizing. You can’t get enough of her, and Cate Blanchett, who played Blanche on Broadway only a few years ago, gives the most complicated and demanding performance of her movie career. The actress, like her character, is out on a limb much of the time, but there’s humor in Blanchett’s work, and a touch of self-mockery as well as an eloquent sadness. When she drops her voice to its smoky lower register, we know that she’s teasing the tragic mode. That edge of self-parody keeps us close to her, and we need that closeness, because we’re in for a rough ride.
Without this comic element of self-parody, we would despise her. But, as Denby points out, the harsh element is constant throughout. This, Denby avers, has much to do with Allen’s outlook on life, as reflected in this film:
Allen, who’s now seventy-seven, has become flintier as he has got older. His men and women tell one another off; the social clashes among people from different ways of life can be harsh and unforgiving.
In other words, with age Allen wants to knit a closer relationship between comedy and suffering. In effect, Allen’s film shows us how, in his view, class-difference, in our era, taints comedy:
Allen, in his own way, is commenting on our increasingly unequal society: the formerly rich woman and the working-class characters don’t begin to get one another’s jokes and references; they don’t understand one another’s needs—they don’t even see them.
Nonetheless, Denby wants to point out how the comic element survives, albeit in a way that is admixed with the tragic. Allen now uses the comic element to produce a “miraculous” identification between the audience and Jasmine.
The miracle is that we feel for Jasmine—or, at least, our responses to her are divided between laughter and sympathy. When she takes a job as a receptionist in a dentist’s office, and the patients can’t decide when to schedule their next appointment, her irritation at their fumbling is both funny and recognizable.
What I like about Denby’s reading of the film is how he phrases our odd identification with Jasmine. Our laughter at her way of handling her new work and life take off the edge. And we, for a few moments, see her as something other than a snob. We can understand how ridiculous her situation is and we identify with her through laughter and tears, which keep each other in check.
Unlike Denby, I would say that, though I identified with Jasmine in this “miraculous” fashion, this identification was momentary and was often overshadowed by the other element which taints all of our identifications in the film; namely, the effect and dynamic of dishonesty and cynicism.
I was very troubled by this overwhelming presence as I stand behind the comic task of the schlemiel which is to maintain the tension between skepticism and hope. The schlemiel, though foolish, stands on the side of trust and honesty. We see this in many classical schlemiels: from Rabbi Nachman of Breslav and Sholem Aleichem’s simpletons to I.B. Singer’s Gimpels and Woody Allen’s Alvy Singer types. Although these characters are weathered by reality and lies, the element of trust remains. It doesn’t triumph so much as remain in the balance. When this tension collapses, we are in trouble. It implies that what is best in humanity has been effaced.
At the end of her book The Schlemiel as Modern Hero, Ruth Wisse points out that in an era in which there is too much optimism or too much skepticism, the schlemiel cannot exist.
Allen’s film illustrates this principle-of-sorts. To be sure, his film speaks to the cynicism that has grown post-Madoff. And this overshadows much of the trust and hope we see in the film. However, the fact of the matter is that although Andrew Dice Clay’s character is ruined by the games of the rich, his ex-wife (Jasmine’s sister, Ginger – played by Sally Hawkins) manages to start a new life.
She plays something of an innocent and hopeful schlemiel character. Although Blanchett is obviously the focus of the entire film, it is Ginger who, at the very end of the film, retains some element of hope and trust. She wants nothing to do with the cynicism that goes along with big-money and corruption.
Nonetheless, the best illustration of what is at stake in this film (and with the schlemiel) can be found in Blanchett’s relationship with Ginger’s children. Although they openly disclose what they have heard from their parents about Jasmine and her husband’s lies and corruption, they don’t understand it. In a key scene where Jasmine tells it all, they look back at her in astonishment not knowing what she is actually saying. Her language is not theirs.
In truth, all of the adult characters are tainted by cynicism. The children are, too. But they don’t know it. And, at the very least, I think it is important to note this. The comic element survives best in them. They retain the element of a schlemiel in a society which has become inundated with post-Madoff cynicism.
Though the film ends with Blanchett walking the streets alone, homeless, and delirious, this still leaves us with a horrible feeling we cannot forget that while most of us have been ruined by cynicism there are some who aren’t. Children, in this film, are the schlemiels. We need to ask ourselves what this implies.
The more we lie to each other, the more our humanity is lost. Cynicism is the greatest threat to the schlemiel and to our humanity. I applaud Woody Allen for bringing this out in Blue Jasmine.
He illustrates what Irving Howe, citing Saul Bellow, saw about Sholem Aleichem’s comedy; namely, that what makes Jewish humor relevant is the fact that it oscillates between laughter and tears. And, as I have pointed out, this oscillation is based on the violation of trust. Without trust, we can only cry.
Paraphrasing Denby, I would say that the miracle is not simply our feeling for Blanchett; it is the fact that the children don’t totally understand how dishonest people can be. It’s the last remnant we have. And, as I would argue, their lack of understanding, like that of any schlemiel, may give us time….time to change our ways and learn to trust one another once again. Perhaps this is a foolish hope, but, in truth, it is the hope of a schlemiel.
It is our last remnant of humanity in a post-Madoff age.