For those pining for the return Whit Stillman, the 1990s indie sensation whose trilogy of films, Metropolitan, Barcelona and Last Days of Disco carved out a lasting auteur niche in a decade full of American indie-breakouts, his first film in 13 years technically meets that basic criteria – he has made a film – but it is not exactly what the faithful might expect. The director has always leaned towards dense dialogue over visual flourishes making him sort of a socialite, yuppie-focused Kevin Smith (I probably just lost the ‘criterion collector crowd’ with that comparison and in all fairness, Stillman was there first.) Yet his characters always displayed some level of humanity between the witty dialogue and a signature high-minded, entitled brand of narcissism acting as mask to hide confusion with the world. In short, his films had something to say beyond their own entertaining peak at the ‘useless elite.’ A friend of mine maintains that the directors work is always unappreciated until it ages a little, but I think this may be an exception (time will, of course, tell…) Damsels In Distress finds Stillman making a bitter mockery of his previous work cloaked in effervescent frivolity. It is a if Stillman came out of retirement as an act self-immolation. The familiar syntax is present, the characters are in a similar social stratum, here a fictional university that caters to parents who buy their dunce-lings into an education bound not to stick, but the whole affair comes across as a vapid version of Clueless (i.e. life is a ‘shopping experience’ distillation of Emma). Either that, or the writer/director has no finger on the pulse of this generation and no interest in understanding them either.
Greta Gerwig, giving a great performance that one wishes was in better film, plays Violet, who leads a small posse of sophomore do-gooders, Heather and Rose, and new exchange student recruit Lily, according to her pseudo-intellectual whims. For starters they run the Suicide Prevention Center (“Come on! It’s not that bad!”) on campus, sponsored by Dunkin’ Donuts in which the free coffee and snacks are for the depressed only, a detail emphasized as much zeal as the meticulous dance routines they suffer their charges through. Even strangers, Violet insists, as the font of wisdom, that they only date boys way beneath them intellectually and socially, which (due to the bad body odour of the stoner crowd) leaves only the Frat houses, whose members make the future postulated by Mike Judge in Idiocracy look so bright we’ve gotta wear shades! Violet’s chief ambition is to start a worldwide dance craze, but along the way, she finds herself caught up in a number of ‘crazy boy adventures’ with her fellow air-headed damsels, who act as more window dressing than actual characters. Lily, the stand-in for the audience, starts making excuses to part ways; perhaps this is a knowing nod to the film itself. Gerwig is exemplary in her performance, she almost makes you care about her existential crisis in the middle of the film, until you realize it is all so much facile twaddle.
I’d be lying if I said that I did not laugh out loud on a number of occasions during the film, but it was more of the ‘shock’ variety of just how vacuous Stillman’s philosophical musings are on this generation of ladies and guys. Apparently he is content to dance his way to a blissfully ignorant apocalypse, maybe break (or re-establish) an outdated social norm or two. Is the man bitter, or is his grasp on the filmmaking of modern indie quirk so far off base as to make Zach Braff wince? And I say this because a film such as Metropolitan might have been a touchstone for the Wes Anderson’s of the world. Nevertheless, the shoehorning in (so to speak) of a no-so-innocent discussion on anal sex is as jarringly out of place as a poster of Jean Renoir’s The Grand Illusion or the strange iMovie glow-filter in which many of the campus exteriors are shot. Albeit it is a campus of toga parties and not a single cellular phone and laptop. The landscape here is alien, completely unlike Stillman’s previous pictures which were well grounded in reality. This would be all fine and nice, if it were playground for something other than dysfunctional Stepford Wives in training. Oh well, the Sony Pictures Classics logo looks good in Pink, and the promised footnotes that precede the closing chapter were mercifully absent. My expectations might have been dashed as an admirer of the directors 1990s work, but ultimately, the movie is more suited for casual dismissal than bona fide ire.
While I think there is definitely a cult out there that will form around Damsels in Distress. Any film this whimsically odd tends to find a niche, enthusiastic audience, eventually. It is probably safe to say that this audience is unlikely to be made up of folks who cherish Stillman’s previous work. As delayed, superfluous-in-hindsight sequels go, it’s his Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.















My initial reaction to your review is to say, sure, he’s been a witty and ironic social observer in the past, but since this is his first film in 13 years, isn’t it okay for him to just make a comedy? And I beg to differ that his previous films had environments “grounded in reality.” He’s always dealt with insular groups who have no idea how to operate in the “real world.”
Having only seen Metropolitan to compare Damsels to, I see about the same quality, which is to say I think Stillman makes sloppy & amateurish films that have some biting dialogue and comedic elements. But at least Damsels has bonafide actors, chief among them Greta Gerwig. I found it fun, could see it even have a cult following, which I guess all his films have.
IN the Q&A Stillman made no suggestion the movie was anything other than wnat he intended, a fun comedy. Questions tried to pry out some subtext or meta irony but he said he genuinely enjoyed writing the script and he was proud of the film and happy people responded well to it… In the Elgin it got a pretty positive reaction, and I laughed out loud a lot.
It’s funny that I’ve enjoyed the ‘extreme version’ of Lynne Ramsay (We Need To Talk About Kevin) but have been quite disappointed in the ‘extreme version’ of Whit Stillman. I think the film demands its audiences be far too condescending on its characters, and that left me unimpressed. I’ll give you that I did laugh a fair bit, but the tone just felt wrong, and there any insights to be gained from the other Stillman films seemed absent here, leaving it rather an empty pink shell of a movie.
for me this is truly a guilty pleasure because I do think as a film it is pretty lousy, but as just something fun to watch and laugh at, it worked.
For me Damsels in Distress is kind of like Clerks, no one is going to say Clerks is a well made movie, it is a bunch of arbitrary situations to get people to say funny stuff, and also both films use title-cards for sight gags. I enjoy it like I enjoy Clerks.
Almost from the opening, jump right into this silly world moments, I was stuck with the image of how this movie came about.
Some film school student saw the movies of Witt Stillman, and then saw the movies of Wes Andrson and thought, I don’t care what my professors and their D average say! I’m going to make a movie. And he did make a movie, and it was called “Damsels in Distress”
Sure some of the dialogue is snappy, and sure a there are moments to laugh at, but heck, big momma’s house has some laughs.
I was also shocked at the Q&A, when asked ‘Why this story Witt, after all this time?” he took a short breath and replied “Well it was the only one that could get financed”.
Kind of summed up the ammount of effort everyone put into the picture.
PS: I did not get into film school and would love to make an aderson-stillman film. I think it would be called
“The block of blokes”,
about an upper crust family that own an entire city block but refuse to move out as the neighbourhood slowly turns to shit. Oh, and they all have quirky girlfriends, daddy issues, and reject popular culture as the waste of time it is.
-WGC registration#77556289
-T