Film review

Metropolitan

1990 · Directed by Whit Stillman · 1h 39m · MPA PG-13

In a sentenceManhattan’s young socialites appear to have mistaken a party for a conference on their own decline

ComedyDramaRomance

During the Christmas ball season in Manhattan, Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) enters a circle of wealthy young socialites. An outsider to the group, he joins a round of parties where conversations turn to class, society and the prospect of failure. Among the people he meets are Nick Smith (Chris Eigeman), Charlie Black (Taylor Nichols) and Audrey Rouget (Carolyn Farina). As Tom gets to know the circle, romantic interests and questions of belonging complicate its routines. Whit Stillman’s comedy follows their gatherings, arguments and uncertain attachments.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Whit Stillman’s comedy makes privileged young people funny and affecting without pretending their troubles are everybody’s. The romance occasionally feels arranged, but the dialogue and ensemble give us good reason to stay at the party.

Whit Stillman gives the young socialites in Metropolitan plenty of time to explain themselves, and remarkably little encouragement to grow up on cue. That patience makes this a funny, unexpectedly tender comedy. They worry about class, failure and the future with an authority their experience cannot quite support. Stillman hears the insecurity in the talk, but he also enjoys how ridiculous it can be. The chief weakness is the central romance, which never becomes as interesting as the conversations around it.

Edward Clements plays Tom Townsend, an outsider entering a wealthy Manhattan circle during the Christmas ball season. His position lets Stillman introduce its habits without pretending that everybody lives this way, or that nobody outside it could understand these people. Clements’s reserve is useful here: Tom gives us a way into the group without becoming a guide who keeps signalling what we should think. The parties allow competing opinions to accumulate, with attraction and embarrassment complicating the supposedly serious business of discussing society.

Chris Eigeman’s Nick Smith and Taylor Nichols’s Charlie Black make the conversation worth following even when it circles back on itself. Eigeman’s brisk assurance and Nichols’s earnestness give the dialogue different speeds; the mannered acting begins to feel like a social habit. We laughed at the confidence with which this company discusses class and failure. What caught us was the gap between such grown-up subjects and the speakers’ evident lack of practice at living. Stillman lets their pretensions be funny without making them the only thing we notice.

John Thomas’s largely static camerawork keeps our attention on the speakers and on who has the conversational advantage. It suits the gatherings, though the visual restraint occasionally makes the film feel more confined than it needs to be. Mary Jane Fort’s costume design establishes the formality of this circle before anyone opens their mouth. The music by Mark Suozzo and Tom Judson is appropriately modest, leaving the verbal performances to carry the comedy. The pleasure comes from hearing these young people take such care over a sentence.

Christopher Tellefsen’s editing is most effective when it leaves space for a remark to register before the next speaker takes over. The romantic plotting is less comfortable: in the second half, Stillman begins to push relationships along that have not acquired enough feeling on their own. Carolyn Farina gives Audrey Rouget a sincerity that helps, though she cannot make the more contrived developments feel spontaneous. At 99 minutes, the film is hardly overlong; it simply loses some of its ease when it needs events to happen.

Within the comedy of manners, Stillman’s distinction is his reluctance to turn an awkward young person into a lesson about an entire class. The humour depends on our being allowed to recognise their weaknesses without being ordered to despise them. That sympathy will frustrate anyone hoping for a fierce attack on privilege, and the lack of conventional drama is a real limit on its appeal. Watch it when an evening of clever conversation sounds like enough. We would accept another invitation, though perhaps leave the romantic arrangements to somebody else.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

4 of 6
Positive
4
Mixed
0
Negative
0
The Independent
20 May 2006
80*

Whit Stillman's first film from 1990 offers a wryly sympathetic portrait of aristocratic college students attending nightly balls in Manhattan over Christmas. It features glittering dialogue and lovely New York scenery, likened to a Woody Allen film made by someone born rich.

Read the full review →
The Times
21 May 2006 · ★★★★ · Cosmo Landesman
80

Stillman proves a sharp social observer of gilded youth's follies, with superb dialogue among secondary characters outweighing the weaker central romance. The film stands out for its witty takes on class, failure and bourgeois society.

Read the full review →
Time Out
15 May 2006 · Jessica Winter
80*

Stillman’s semi-autobiographical debut offers dry, affable humour that ribs its wealthy characters without belittling them. The film excels in its sharp characterisation of Tom, the dispossessed outsider, and his circle of endearing misfits.

Read the full review →
Empire
26 May 2006 · Angie Errigo

This gentle first feature from Whit Stillman showcases his literary background and cinematic instincts through affectionate and witty observation of young New York socialites. The strong character drawing and unusual subject matter are handled with self-assurance, though the second half shifts into forced romantic elements.

Read the full review →
Film Comment
· Jonathan Romney

The critic views Metropolitan as a melancholic lament for not-quite-doomed youth, a self-styled lost generation that is not truly lost but may lack purpose. He singles out the film's brittle, elegant dialogue and aperçus for praise, noting how the characters' anachronistic social world has gained new resonance over time.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
10 August 1990 · Sheila Benson

The review finds the film a gentle ironic comedy of manners whose gift for quiet, scrupulous observation grows on the viewer. Stillman is noted for understanding caste, class and deportment as perfectly as Jane Austen.

Read the full review →

Cast

Stills

Awards

Academy Awards, 1991

Nominated
Best Writing, Original Screenplay

If you liked this, try…

The Last Days of Disco poster

The Last Days of Disco

1998 · Stillman’s talkative young adults grow older without becoming much better at romance.

A Summer's Tale poster

A Summer's Tale

1996 · More young people discussing attraction until the discussion becomes part of the problem.

The Rules of the Game poster

The Rules of the Game

1939 · Social rituals and romantic confusion become sharper, darker and considerably more dangerous.

A Room with a View poster

A Room with a View

1985 · For another comedy in which good manners make honest feeling unnecessarily difficult.

The Souvenir poster

The Souvenir

2019 · A quieter, more painful account of youth, privilege and uncertain romantic judgement.