Bloom in the Moonlight
Wei Ling Soo, Stanley's on-stage persona, is a reference to Chung Ling Soo, the stage name of William Ellsworth Robinson (1861-1918), a popular magician in the U.S. and Europe for many years. Chung Ling Soo also tried to debunk spiritualists, and even wrote a book about it in 1898. A major difference is how carefully the men protect their Chinese personas. In this movie, people seem to be aware of Stanley's role as Wei Ling Soo. Robinson, very careful to protect his stage persona, lived as Chung, never breaking character while in public. He died on March 24, 1918 when a bullet catch trick went wrong. "My God, I've been shot!" were his last words and the first English words he had spoken on stage in nineteen years.,In the first scene, during Wei Ling Soo's performance, the Chinese words on the backdrop are simplified Chinese characters, which were introduced in 1935 and not officially used in mainland China until the mid-1950s.,Stanley: I can't forgive you, only God can forgive you.
[He begins to walk out the door]
Sophie: But you said there is no God.
Stanley: [stopping and turning for effect] Precisely my point.,Featured in Half in the Bag: 2014 Movie Catch-up: Part 1 (2014),You Do Something To Me
Composed by Cole Porter
Performed by Leo Reisman and His Orchestra
Courtesy of RCA Records by arrangement with Sony Music Licensing,Most viewers are taking this film as a conventional (and admittedly entirely predictable) romantic comedy which happens to be about a magician who debunks fake spirit mediums, and a beautiful young woman whom he believes is just that. But that's getting it *entirely backwards*. It is in fact a thought-provoking exploration of the extreme materialistic worldview -- the view that holds that modern science has eliminated the possibility of the existence of the soul, an afterlife, and God -- and an exploration of the psychological relationship between embracing that worldview, and being pessimistic and unhappy. As such, it is one of Allen's most personal and thought-provoking films in years.

And if that sounds "heavy," the miracle of the movie is its very lightness. Obviously, the themes enter in so effortlessly that many people are missing them entirely! You need to be interested in the tension between the materialist worldview and the conventional one that accommodates the spiritual and the mysterious, but if you are, you will be astonished at how delightful and entertaining an exploration of those deep themes can be.

The age discrepancy between Frith's and Stone's characters, which I am sure will bother many, is in fact completely necessary: he must be old enough to be set in his pessimistic ways, and she must be young and beautiful enough to challenge them at first sight.

Obviously there are happy atheists and there are miserable spiritual people, so the question that Allen is asking here is whether some unhappy atheists have embraced the soul- and God-denying position too vigorously, as a sort of defense mechanism to shield themselves from the fundamentally irrational possibility of falling in love. The way the movie knits together the materialist / spiritualist question, the possibility of love, and the metaphor of magic -- well, it's sheer magic itself.

This is far from Allen's funniest movie, and it's only a 7/10 as entertainment. But not only does it easily gain an extra point for its depth, it almost gains two. Admittedly, I am fascinated by the movie's themes, but I think that anyone who is interested in them may find themselves as charmed and, ultimately, as deeply moved as I was. 89/100.,