MovieChat Forums > Midnight in Paris (2011) Discussion > Missing Earings - Gratuitous and Illogic...

Missing Earings - Gratuitous and Illogical Plot Device

posted 12 years ago by murray_johnc
33 replies | jump to latest

In an otherwise well scripted movie, I found Gil Pender's behaviour absurd. Given that his fiance Inez is a narcisistic bitch on wheels, and Gil could not seriously expect her to ignore the disappearance of an expensive piece of jewelry, what other outcome could he possibly have expected?! Having slithered out of the mess he created, Gil now has ample time to purchase a suitable piece of jewelry at the gift shop. Duh? Why the hell didn't he do that in the first place? It's not as if he's short of money. In a surrealistic movie its ok for a character to behave bizarrely, but not stupidly. This was flagrantly bad script writing on Allen's part. Too bad the film didn't have an editor with the courage to get rid of this scene.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jenniferedwards 12 years ago

And, an editor's "courage" doesn't outweigh the director's wishes. An editor who alters a film's storyline against the director's instructions is an editor without a job.

[–] dmariat55 12 years ago

Jennifer makes an interesting point. But not all directors have final cut. I wonder what the percentage is.
She is right about Allen though. He has total control. He gets annoyed if his investors ask him what the movie is about.

[–] gary-701-680189 12 years ago

Even if a director doesn't have final cut, it has nothing to do with an editor. All that means is that the producers can make the final decision. The editor can plead their case, but they will never have final say.

[–] murray_johnc 10 years ago

It's funny, but out of all the comments I have posted to IMDB over the years this one about the purloined earrings has garnered three times more replies than the rest of my postings put together. Wisdom dictates that a writer must write what he knows, in which case Mr Allen must encounter a lot of flaky, spontaneously inept and narcissistic people in his milieu. If Allen is the sort of vindictive SOB who shoots the messenger he would indeed fire an editor for deleting one of his scenes. I would dread being Allen's psychiatrist because I would have told him that firing Annabelle Gurwitch from his opening play and telling her that she looked 'retarded' was both sickeningly cruel and a disastrous PR move. Don't even get me started on what I would have said to Allen about that sexual imbroglio with Soon Yee Previn. I would much rather be a fired psychiatrist than some irresponsible sycophant who throws professional ethics to the four winds.
So, I guess the earring scene was art imitating life, a stupid spontaneous move that had serious consequences that could have hurt an innocent 3rd party. The more I admire Allen the writer/director, the less I like Allen the man.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

It was designed to show how horible Inez and her mother were - they immediately suspected 'the help' of thieving, resorting to stereotypes because they are of limited intelligence.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

[–] dmariat55 12 years ago

Of course the deeper stereotype is by allen making inez and her mom, the bad republicans make such a cliche deduction.
such one d characters by allen.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

The 'bad republican' is only a cliche amongst Americans. To the rest of us they're just 'Americans abroad'.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

[–] dmariat55 12 years ago

It wasn't aimed at poppy it was aimed at intelligent people in and outside the us who know what allen was aiming at.

[–] ignorantwordtwister 11 years ago

While I see what you're saying, I think it's unfair to use that portion as support for why Inez is horrible. She IS horrible but if she knows they were there earlier in the day and now they are magically gone, who is she supposed to think took them?

[–] Sugarminx 12 years ago

Agreed. Gil purloining Inez's earrings was an obvious plot hole!

....ok kidding, I just like using 'plot hole' incorrectly, because I see so many posters on IMDB misuse the term ;)

But I actually do agree that it was a major piece of stupidity on Gil's part to take his fiancee's earrings to give to Adriana. It seemed out of character and I put it down to lazy writing on Allen's part.

But it's the only issue I have with an otherwise very enjoyable film.

Tap Tommy

[–] lishol7-1 12 years ago

I agree. Who in their right mind would take one person's pair of earrings to give to another? That was just odd. He spent all that time in the park shopping, he could have easily bought a pair, etc. I found it ridiculous.

[–] maximusveritas 12 years ago

That scene ruined the movie for me. His behavior was uncredible. Maybe you could say he had decided to leave her by that point, but even after taking the ring, his attempts to cover it up while just flagrantly holding the box out in the open in front of them were ridiculous. Plant the earrings somewhere in the room, don't just immediately find them.

[–] Piperson 12 years ago

I don't know what this kind of plot device is called but it is part of the basis for good farce.

The hero is in a hurry, he is in love. He does something foolish hoping to slip it past his family members. In normal times he might have pulled it off but ON THIS OCCASION someone is not playing along. Someone insists at getting at the truth. The hero just needs them to all close their eyes and look the other way and they are calling detectives and making accusations instead. He is stuck.

Charlie Chaplin and Seinfeld make use of this plot device all the time. It can be considered a contrivance but I don't think it should be held against Woody because it isn't credible. This is a fantasy farce.

[–] maximusveritas 12 years ago

I understand, but even within a farce, you should have people behaving within the bounds of logic/reason. For someone to behave like he did jars us because it is not what someone in that position would ever do.
Maybe he could try to hide the box initially, but they spot it. Or maybe he could come back after hiding the ring and suggest that maybe they look everywhere to make sure the ring isn't somewhere else (which they could of course ignore). So there are ways to continue the farce, but in a more believable manner

[–] Piperson 12 years ago

I agree. Maybe Woody thinks that he is already stretching credulity by allowing the hero to move back and forth between the present and the past and that we won't notice if scenes like the earring scene are a little unbelievable.

[–] UnderwaterSmoking 12 years ago

It was just a short bit of "Duh-oh!" comedy. Like a scene in an old sitcom or a Martin and Lewis movie. Trust me, Woody has written way worse scenes/jokes before.

[–] murray_johnc 12 years ago

Woody Allen, in my opinion, tried to use the same "ring" as a both a gag and a plot device - a mistake!
Having learned from the old book he purchased, that he, Gill Pender, is to seal his love for Adriana, his sweetheart from the 30's, by giving her beautiful earings he is in a hurry - too much of a hurry - to obtain some. He stupindly steals Inez's earrings istead of going down to the gift shop of the Hotel Bristol.
Predictably, Inez discovers the missing earings and immediately phones for the house setective, convinced the maid stole them. What follows is a piece of panicked commedy in which Gill contrives for Inez to "find" her earrings in the bathroom of their suite. The skit is mot particularly amusing, and merely emphasis Inez's narcisisum. Gill finally did what heshould have done in the first place and buys the earrings at a gift shop.

[–] ericsinla 12 years ago

You're kidding me I thought it worked was fine...a very charming bit in a wonderful movie. You guys are reaching too far..Woody always put goofball jokes into his films.

[–] iamdanzo 12 years ago

It is night when he takes the earrings he looks at his watch after he remembers earrings as he realises it was to late to go to a shop as he is obviously about to leave the apartment to meet her so its obviously near midnight, so he does the only other option take a pair of his fiance's. Then in the scene following that it is clearly another day when he's in the shop it's daylight i believe and he definitely had a completely different outfit on! So he obviously didn't go that night or did and didn't see her! Hope that clears it up.

I can see what some are saying but for me i thought it sat well with the film and was typical of an Allen film ....or an episode of Seinfeld. For me anyway watching it the first time the scene really made me detest Inez's parents and like Gil as a character even more, nothing makes an audience fall in love with a character as a bit of goofy hijinks.

[–] mattaca 11 years ago

THIS.

[–] whatabadname 10 years ago

Especially enjoyed that element of tension it added, such a great comedic scene- Gil waving the box in the air, trying to wiggle his way out of this mouse trap, while the viewers are clenching their teeth hoping that for heaven's sake Inez does not come into contact with the purloined gift or discover its contents. Also interesting how the only time she actually warmed up to him even slightly ("pour moi!"?) was at the prospect of receiving a newly purchased item (but became an ice princess shortly after at the memory of an "unsuitable" gift from the past).

[–] mr_bickle_the_pickle 12 years ago

I suppose he just simply forgot earlier to buy a pair of earrings and so at the last moment panicked and grabbed Inez's earrings thinking she just wouldn't notice.

We accept the love we think we deserve
http://mrsantonyelchin.tumblr.com/

[–] TheresaEarls 12 years ago

I saw his initial action as a sign of the brainwashing Inez has been doing to him. He can't trust his own thoughts or feelings because nothing he does is right, based on his experience with Inez. Thankfully there is an intervention, divine or whatever, and he then does the correct thing which is getting earrings that he believes Adriana will like. And, of course, she does.

I'm curious... I don't know what Moonstone is and I'm wondering if the earrings he ended up getting for Adrianna were Moonstone?

[–] xxutza_2003 11 years ago

I totally agree with this explanation, I was thinking the same way, glad to see I'm not the only one.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]