Such a cynical middle-aged man (a typical image of the male protagonist in Woody Allen's movies), at the request of an old friend, is determined to expose Sophie who claims to be psychic. Stanley, who does not believe in gods, came to the south of France. He originally believed that the girl with bright eyes and white teeth was a high-level "liar", but after witnessing her successful "psychic" time and time again, he began to gradually doubt his three views. The plot in the middle is omitted. Later, Stanley "gets what he wanted" to expose Sophie's deception, but he also realized painfully that after a period of time, he was deeply in love with Sophie and couldn't help himself. Even if he knew that this love could not be explained by any rational thinking. In the end, Stanley ran back to confess to Sophie, but in the end, the other party did not accept his unexpected proposal.
During this period, Sophie developed feelings for Stanley, I think it is very easy to understand, needless to say. But why did Stanley fall in love with Sophie? Does he really love Sophie?
When I had these questions and desperately tried to find a reasonable answer, maybe I had broken the beautiful scene of magic flowing under the moonlight, and unconsciously chose to stand on the united front with Woody Allen-we don’t Believe in the so-called magic. Look at Stanley, for a long time he was only surprised and curious about Sophie's "superpowers", maybe there was some excitement and gratitude-because she showed him a magical world that he had never believed in before. The world is weird, unbelievably magnificent. But, does Stanley fall in love with Sophie? If I remember correctly, Stanley really developed the "I love Sophie" consciousness after Sophie hinted that she liked him. After that, it became more and more like self-hypnosis, and I felt more and more that I was really in love. This is very much like in reality. Perhaps A and B are together not because they liked B so much at the beginning; but because after B expresses his love for A, A responds partly gratefully and partly vainly, and in this response Deepen your feelings for B day by day. Regardless of whether or not "love" is cultivated afterwards, the emotion that was considered "love" sprouted at first, I personally thought it was not love.
In this way, in my eyes, Stanley’s feelings for Sophie are nothing but a self-delusion. But on the other hand, Sophie actually made Stanley, who is on a completely different planet from her, produce this kind of delusion. Does this have its own characteristics? What about incredible magic? Love is so subjective. When a person believes that she/he is in love, can you judge from your eyes that she/he is just a momentary distraction?
The director may try to say for a while that sometimes illusion is necessary for life. However, the arrangement of the ending shows that the director is a non-believer of magic. Even Sophie, who had a dream of a romantic girl, finally chose a more realistic option and stayed with someone who had no sparks (the ukulele amateur). Stanley's confession was rejected. In my opinion, who is also a non-believer of magic, it is a good thing. Suppose Sophie promised him that the two are really together. What will happen next? Sophie comes from a small place called Kalamazoo in Michigan. He has no higher education, and even Nietzsche has never heard of it. He dreams of becoming a member of the upper class circle. She and Stanley are not the same. Even if we are together in a short time, how long can the passion last? People may initially be attracted to people who are completely different from them, but in the end they usually tend to choose people who are essentially similar to them.
Then again, to experience a passion-even if it is short, it may be of great benefit to the overly cynical Stanley. After watching this movie, I told my friends, I look like Stanley. Under the rational face, there is actually a strong sense of self-protection. Stanley was brought up by an aunt, and the love he should have received from his parents is missing. It can be felt that Stanley is actually sensitive and insecure. He hopes to use his established "scientific" and "rational" worldview to understand everything and explain everything, because this is the safest, safest, most orderly, and least uncertain.
This is the 44th film in Woody Allen's career as a director. It is full of pleasure to watch it with friends in the cinema; but unequivocally, it is a mediocre work. The themes of this movie-rationalism vs. faith / realism vs. mysticism / sense vs. sensibility / cynicism and romanticism-have been repeated in many of Woody Allen's works, such as the encounter with strangers in 2010. This magical moonlight is nothing new in terms of its theme or performance. If it were not for the director and the cast, who would be more interested in the story itself. What can still be seen, in addition to the beautiful scenery of southern France, is the acting skills of Uncle Faith and the figure of Sister Stone. The music is also good: Stravinsky, Beethoven, and "It's All a Swindle" whose title matches the content of the film.
I don’t know if making a movie to Woody Allen is like Magic to Stanley, which has become a professional technique rather than a sincere expression of faith?
View more about Magic in the Moonlight reviews
