FREE ESSAY ON PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO MOVIE RESPONSE

PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO MOVIE RESPONSE

Overall I felt this was a very enjoyable movie, which came as a surprise to me. I am not a
huge fan of Woody Allen, but I must say that I thought this was the best work that I have
seen from him.
The opening scene with Cecilia at work in the diner draws an immediate parallel to the
Valentino pieces we read. She is discussing with her co-worker the intimate details of
the life of one of a movie star, almost as if she were one of his family members. This is
very closely related to how America felt when Valentino died. People who had never met
the actor wept and went to pay their respects to the dead actor because they felt a
closeness with him. 
I really like the whole human aspect that Woody Allen used in portraying Ceclia's life.
He basically defined the theatre as a way for her to leave a life, which for the most
part was bad, for a few hours. She had an abusive, disinterested husband and was having a
tough time at work. All this coupled with the fact that it was the Depression era in
American history make Cecilia's life extremely difficult. All of these problems, however,
disappeared once Cecilia entered the movie theatre. I liked this because this is how many
people feel. When you are bored, lonely, etc. you can pop in a movie and almost get away
from the real world.
I thought the whole idea of the Tom Baxter character walking off the screen was not only
funny but brilliant. We have seen movies where people go into the screen, as in last
week's Sherlock, Jr., but rarely do we see an actor leave the screen. I thought Jeff
Daniels did an excellent job in portraying both Baxter and the real actor in the film,
Gil Shepherd. In discussing this aspect of the film, I also thought that Allen's use of
explaining fact and fiction was great. Through the Tom Baxter character Cecilia began to
understand that the movies, although a great escape, were not real and that life is
difficult weather you are an actor or a poor working class woman like herself. In the
end, it was almost like a test in school when Cecilia had to choose between the two and
she realized that Gil was a real person while Tom Baxter was just a character in a
movie.
One example of one of the lessons that taught this in the film was when Baxter and
Cecilia were having a lavish meal with champagne, etc. When the bill came Baxter whipped
out his money like he was a rich man, when in fact all he had was movie money - which had
no use in the real world. They ended up having to run out on the bill. Soon after this
detail was brought up again when Baxter gave a bum waiting in line at the Soup Kitchen a
bill. The poor person looked at the money almost confused and then threw it on the
ground. Another great example was when Cecilia was in the church trying to explain to
Baxter about God, because he had no idea about it and thought that the writers of the
movie were God. The scene further emphasized the difference between the movies and
reality when Baxter and Monk got into a fight. Baxter's character was written with the
ability to fight a fair fight, however he was not prepared for the roughhouse street
tactics of Monk. Despite getting beaten up, Baxter was completely fine because his
character was not written with the ability to get hurt.
I think that the Purple Rose of Cairo did a lot to refute many of the beliefs of the
Adorno and Horkheimer article. The whole concept of mass customization really did not
play into this film. I thought that the movie itself really gave off a sense of
individuality in that there are not any other films like this around. I also felt that
the ending of the film directly refuted the point made in the article about everyone has
to behave in accordance with previously determined and indexed level. In my opinion if
this belief were taken into effect in the making of the movie than Cecilia would have
ended up flying away with Gil in the end, and not alone in a movie theatre.
One of the points made in the Adorno and Horkheimer article had both a little truth and a
little falseness in relation to the film. The point they made about real life becoming
indistinguishable from the movies and that the advancements in film have removed the room
for imagination or reflection by the audience is not true at all in this film. I felt
that the first comment about real life becoming indistinguishable had some truth but I
felt that this fact opened up the room to even more imagination and reflection by the
audience. I thought that the fact that the two aspects, real life and film, and how they
were portrayed made the movie the excellent work that it was and opened up my mind to see
an even bigger picture. I thought that the use of this was great and I do not think that
it effects the response within the structure of the film.