“Woody Wednesday” ECCLESIASTES AND WOODY ALLEN’S FILMS: SOLOMON “WOULD GOT ALONG WELL WITH WOODY!” (Part 12 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Part K, Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has put eternity in their hearts”)

In MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Gil Pender concludes there is no GOLDEN AGE, but people dream of a GOLDEN AGE because they find the PRESENT AGE unsatisfying. Actually Solomon said a long time ago,  “[God]has placed eternity on the hearts of men.” Scientist Blaise Pascal put it this way,  “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ.” No wonder life is unsatisfying to Gil since he is an agnostic that is not seeking a relationship with God. King Solomon wrote 3,000 years ago in the Book of Ecclesiastes that attempting to find satisfaction in life UNDER THE SUN is equal to CHASING THE WIND.

This series deals with the Book of Ecclesiastes and Woody Allen films.  The first post  dealt with MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT and it dealt with the fact that in the Book of Ecclesiastes Solomon does contend like Hobbes  and Stanley that life is “nasty, brutish and short” and as a result has no meaning UNDER THE SUN.

The movie MIDNIGHT IN PARIS offers many of the same themes we see in Ecclesiastes. The second post looked at the question: WAS THERE EVER A GOLDEN AGE AND DID THE MOST TALENTED UNIVERSAL MEN OF THAT TIME FIND TRUE SATISFACTION DURING IT?

In the third post in this series we discover in Ecclesiastes that man UNDER THE SUN finds himself caught in the never ending cycle of birth and death. The SURREALISTS make a leap into the area of nonreason in order to get out of this cycle and that is why the scene in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS with Salvador Dali, Man Ray, and Luis Bunuel works so well!!!! These surrealists look to the area of their dreams to find a meaning for their lives and their break with reality is  only because they know that they can’t find a rational meaning in life without God in the picture.

The fourth post looks at the solution of WINE, WOMEN AND SONG and the fifth and sixth posts look at the solution T.S.Eliot found in the Christian Faith and how he left his fragmented message of pessimism behind. In the seventh post the SURREALISTS say that time and chance is all we have but how can that explain love or art and the hunger for God? The eighth  post looks at the subject of DEATH both in Ecclesiastes and MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. In the ninth post we look at the nihilistic worldview of Woody Allen and why he keeps putting suicides into his films.

In the tenth post I show how Woody Allen pokes fun at the brilliant thinkers of this world and how King Solomon did the same thing 3000 years ago. In the eleventh post I point out how many of Woody Allen’s liberal political views come a lack of understanding of the sinful nature of man and where it originated. In the twelfth post I look at the mannishness of man and vacuum in his heart that can only be satisfied by a relationship with God.

Owen Wilson plays Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter on vacation in Paris who wishes he could escape back to the 1920s. David Edelstein says his performance is one of the finest by a lead in a Woody Allen film — and rivals many of Allen's performances, too.
Roger Arpajou /Sony Picture Classics Owen Wilson plays Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter on vacation in Paris who wishes he could escape back to the 1920s. David Edelstein says his performance is one of the finest by a lead in a Woody Allen film — and rivals many of Allen’s performances, too.

In MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Gil Pender concludes there is no GOLDEN AGE, but people dream of a GOLDEN AGE because they find the PRESENT AGE unsatisfying. Actually Solomon said a long time ago,  “[God]has placed eternity on the hearts of men.” Scientist Blaise Pascal put it this way,  “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ.”

Midnight in Paris – The Golden Age – greek and italian subs

Midnight in Paris by Woody Allen Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (by Vincent Menjou Cortes)
Edgar Degas
Paul Gauguin

GIL PENDER: Wow, it didn’t take Gauguin long to start steaming in.

ADRIANA:Let’s never go back to the ’20s!-

GIL PENDER: What are you talking about?-

ADRIANA:We should stay here.It’s the start of La Belle Époque ! It’s the greatest, most beautifulera Paris has ever known.

GIL PENDER: Yeah, but about the 20s, and the Charleston,and the Fitzgeralds, and the Hemingways? I mean, I love those guys.

ADRIANA:But it’s the present. It’s dull.

GIL PENDER: Dull?It’s not my present.I’m from 2010.

ADRIANA:What do you mean?

GIL PENDER: I dropped in on you the same way we’re dropping in on the 1890s.

ADRIANA:You did?

GIL PENDER: I was trying to escape my present the same way you’re trying to escape yours,to a golden age.

Surely you don’t think the 20’s are a golden age!

GIL PENDER: Well, yeah. To me they are.

ADRIANA:But I’m from the ’20s, and I’m telling you the golden age is La Belle Époque.

GIL PENDER: And look at these guys. I mean, to them,their golden age was the Renaissance.You know, they’re trade La Belle Époque  to be painting alongside Titian and Michelangelo. And those guys probably imaginedlife was a lot better when Kublai Khan was around.You see, I’m having an insightright now. It’s a minor one, but it explains the anxiety in my dream that I had.-

ADRIANA:What dream?-

GIL PENDER:  I had a dream the other night, whereit was like a nightmare,where I ran out of Zithromax. And then I went to the dentist,and he didn’t have any Novocaine.You see what I’m saying?These people don’t have any antibiotics.

ADRIANA:What are you talking about?

GIL PENDER: Adriana, if you stay here,and this becomes your present,then, pretty soon, you’ll start imagining another time was really your,you know, was really the golden time.That’s what the present is.That it’s a little unsatisfying, because life’s a little unsatisfying.

ADRIANA:That’s the problem with writers.You are so full of words.But I am more emotional,and I’m going stay,and live in Paris’ most glorious time.You made a choice to leave Paris once, and you regretted it.

GIL PENDER: Yeah, I did regret it.It was a bad decision,but at least it was a choice.I mean, it was a realchoice. This way, I think, is,I don’t know, crazy.It doesn’t really work.If I ever want to writesomething worthwhile, I have to,you know, get rid of my illusions, and then I’d be happier in the past,as where I want a home.

So…Goodbye, Gil?

GIL PENDER: Goodbye.

Eternity In Paris

midnight in paris top post-thumb-600x400-53668

I have this new theory. It’s not based in anything really, but tell me if you agree. This post is going to be rather extensive in its scope, as I attempt to critique a Woody Allen film, present a theory on memories, and include a Biblical basis for all of it.

The theory is this: Every time you think back to a memory from your own past, you are not thinking directly back to the event itself; you are thinking of the last time you thought of it. You are recalling the feelings, emotions, and colors present the last time you thought of the previous memory. For example, the summer of 2007 was the greatest time of my life. Every day was painted with scenes from the best romantic comedies, mixed with endless East coast adventures, and wrapped in the blanket of my three best friends and I doing everything together.

Now, for the sake of explanation, let’s say I have thought of this summer five times since it happened. By that, I mean I really thought about it and everything that happened over those three months. So, whenever my mind glances in the rearview mirror to that time period, I have to access it through the tunnels of the previous five times I thought of it. In other words, my mind must take a detour through all the times I have recalled it before, rather than taking a highway directly to the events themselves. When this occurs, I also see the summer of ’07 through the fog of all the emotions I had the other five times I thought of it. In this situation, the typical emotion held toward that summer is nostalgia and a longing to go back. In reality,I am sure that there were parts of the summer that were not so great, but because of the detours through my other memories, I can’t see them now. I am convinced that there were things happening in my life that were not enjoyable, or decisions that did not turn out my way, or some other longings I was entertaining at the time. In this way, the memories only get blurrier and blurrier as an icon from my life of a time when things were perfect.

Woody Allen explored this phenomena in his film Midnight in Paris, and dubbed the occurrence ‘Golden Age Thinking.’ Now some readers of my blog may see this review as an excuse to talk once more about the dazzling Marion Cotillard.  You would not be wrong. However, Allen presents a few compelling ideas in this piece. Owen Wilson plays Gil; a romantic screenwriter who daydreams about seeing Paris in the 1920’s when it is raining. Somehow, he gets his wish when on a walk one night in Paris and a cab full of old-timey people pulls up and invites him in. He enters and is taken back to the time of Hemingway, Dali, Picasso, and Cole Porter. He is in love with the time. Every night, he returns to the enchanted time of the 20’s, and every morning returns to his drag of a fiancee. Soon after the time travels begin, he meets the mysteriously beautiful Adriana (Cotillard), the supposed muse of Picasso and Hemingway, and is smitten. After a couple nights spent  wandering in and out of parties and the streets of Paris in the 1920’s, Adriana reveals that she would much rather live in the time of la Belle Epoque; about a century earlier. They travel back in time even further, this time by magical horse drawn carriage, to the 1890’s. Adriana is overjoyed and wants to stay there rather than in her own time; the 1920’s.

One of the main ideas Allen is conveying here is that everyone has a time they view as the ‘Golden Age;’ the time when nothing was wrong and everything was perfect and alive and beautiful.  Even people living in our own personal golden ages. I’m sure that the Ethan living in the summer of 2007 was longing for some time other than the one he was in then, just as the Ethan writing this now does.

Someone else took note of this empty yearning that every human has, several millennia prior to Woody. The wisest man alive, in fact. I know I have used this scripture before, but that’s because I find it so central to the human experience that to overlook it is pure foolishness. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that “He has placed eternity on the hearts of men.” How many of you long for THAT? How many of you have ever said to yourself, “Boy, I wish I could just go back to forever, when everything was good and okay?” We can’t even fathom eternity, therefore, we cannot even comprehend longing for it. C.S. Lewis is famously quoted in his short piece “The Weight of Glory” for writing,  “It would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak.” The kind of desire that each one of us has is placed in us for a reason–not to bring us to satisfaction in the promising, yet empty, objects of the world, but in Him [Jesus] alone! There’s a reason that every human being has an unquenchable thirst for another time period, place, or group of friends. We have eternity planted in our hearts. We wants things we can’t even comprehend.This is why the past looks perfect to us only from one side, hindsight, and the present is always left unsatisfied…


Blaise Pascal, a famous French mathematician and philosopher, put it like this: “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ.” That ties in nicely with with Ecclesiastes 3:11  “He has placed eternity on the hearts of men.”  Furthermore we read in Romans Chapter 1 and 2 about that the God-given conscience that everyone has. In his book  DEATH IN THE CITY Francis Schaeffer discusses these passages in Romans in chapter 7:

Chapter 7


In three different places Paul speaks solely to men without the Bible. The first is in Lystra (Acts 14:15-17) where the message is fragmentary because it was interrupted. The second is on Mars Hill (Acts 17:16-32), where he has a longer speech but one that was also broken off. Third is Romans 1:18-2:16, where he can develop his argument at ease. We can see here what he was really saying in all these places, for the other two conform to this early section in Romans….

(Lystra area, Turkey. Paul visited on his First and Second Missionary Journeys)

But the Bible is clear: there is a moral law of the universe. And that basic law is the character of God Himself. There is no law behind God that binds God. Rather God Himself is the law because He is not a contentless God but a God with a character. His character is the law of the universe. When He reveals this character to us in verbalized, propositional form, we have the commands of God for men. Thus there are absolutes and categories; the law which God has revealed and which is based upon His character is final. This is the biblical position.

Therefore, when men break these commands, they are guilty, guilty in the same way as a man is guilty when he breaks the law of the state. When a man sins, he sins against the character of God, and he has moral guilt in the presence of the Great Judge. I know very well that people no longer talk very much in these terms. But it is to our loss. You may wonder if one can say such things to the far-out twentieth-century people with whom I come into contact. I would tell you with all my heart that I could not talk with them if I did not say these things. For in contrast to left-wing or right-wing totalitarianism with its changing arbitrary absolutes and in contrast to modern man’s relativistic chaos, the Bible’s teaching alone gives moral answers to men.

(page 268)

We are told in this eighteenth verse that the man without the Bible holds the truth in unrighteousness. Or if you choose, you can say, he ‘hinders’ or ‘suppresses’ the truth. I will deal later with the difference between ?hold’ and ‘hinder’. For the moment I will use the word ‘suppress’, which is used in most modern translations.

What truth then does the man without the Bible suppress? Formerly we talked about apostasy in a generation which knew the gospel and turned away from it. The Jews of Jeremiah’s day suppressed the truth of the Bible which they had. But what truth does man suppress if he does not have the Bible? We read in verses 19 and 20, ‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made.’

Paul divides the truth which they suppress into two parts. It is interesting that it is the same two things that Carl Gustav Jung  says cut across man’s will: first of all, the external world; and secondly, those things that well up from inside himself. Jung, though he has no real solution, exactly identifies the two basic things that confront man – man himself, and the external universe. And Paul said long ago, these are the two truths which man, even the man without the Bible, suppresses. As we have seen, Paul preached in other places to the Gentiles without Jews present, in Lystra and on Mars Hill. There too he used exactly the same approach to the man without the Bible.

(Mars Hill in Athens, Greece pictured below)

(Carl Gustav Jung  below)

We should look in more detail at the truth about man which those without the Bible suppress. The list is fairly long, for man is distinguished from both animals and machines on the basis of his moral motions, his need for love, his fear of non-being and his longings for beauty and for meaning. Only the biblical system has a way of explaining these factors which make man unique.

In Romans 2:15 Paul put special emphasis upon the moral nature of man: ‘Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing.’

(page 269)

God through Paul is saying here exactly what I feel we should say to modern man. Despite what a man may say in theory, he cannot escape being a moral creature. The man who says morals do not exist is not amoral in the sense that he has no moral motions. Men may have different mores, but one never finds men without a moral nature.
Take a girl from the streets of London, for example. She may seem absolutely amoral. But if you get her alone and talk to her, you find that she does have her own moral standards. They may be different; they may be very poor. But she is not just a machine. Modern man, as I have said, sees himself in the deterministic situation where morals indeed have no meaning, but he cannot live this way.

(Francis Schaeffer pictured below)

We have a startling illustration of this in the Marquis de Sade, who was not only a pornographer, but a real philosopher. Those who are materialists have something to wrestle with in the Marquis de Sade’s formulation, something that no determinist has ever been able to answer. The Marquis de Sade says that since everything is chemically determined, then whatever is, is right. Think about that for six months. The simple fact is that, if you are a determinist, there is no way around that conclusion. De Sade is right. And sadism is then the perfectly logical result.
Obviously nature made man stronger than the woman: therefore, a man has the right to do anything he wants to a woman. That was de Sade’s particular form of sadism. Nobody who holds any concept of determinism, either chemical or psychological, can explain why the Marquis de Sade is wrong. Determinism leads in the direction of cruelty and inhumanity, whether it takes the specific form of de Sade’s sadism or not.

But even the Marquis de Sade, who indeed would have claimed that all men were merely determined, could not live this way. If you read carefully from his words and his history, you find that at the end of his life he was in an asylum for the insane, at Charenton. What he was doing hardly seems possible. He was spending his time grumbling about the way he was being treated by the jailors, and he was reading the letters of his wife with meticulous care, having worked out some sort of system whereby he thought he could figure out from the number of letters in the lines the day he was going to get out. Figure it out for yourself.
The simple fact is that men, even a Marquis de Sade, may say there is no such thing as morality, and that all is a fixed system, but in their own actions, in their own writing, they demonstrate what they deny.

(Geoffrey Rush plays the Marquis de Sade and Kate Winslet as Madeleine in the film ‘Quills’. Source: AP)

(page 270)

I have always enjoyed the thought of Khrushchev sitting at the United Nations, pounding on the table with his shoe and shouting, ‘It’s wrong. It’s wrong.’ Isn’t that an interesting thing for a materialist to say? He did not mean that something was merely counter to the best interests of the Soviet Union. He was saying something was wrong.

Moral motions distinguish man from non-man, but so does the need for love. Man feels the necessity of a love that means more than a sexual relationship. Many of the same people who say that love is only sexual go through marriage after marriage, hoping to find something more than physical satisfaction. Even when they say love is only sexual, they are looking for something to make ?love’ mean what the heart of man longs to have it mean. They simply cannot live consistently with their own view.


For a few men the need for beauty is the point at which the ‘mannishness’ of man most clearly shows through, even though on the basis of their own concept of man as a chance configuration of atoms in an impersonal universe, the very meaning of the word ‘beauty’ is open to question.

All men, however, have a deep longing for significance, a longing for meaning. I was struck just recently by the opening to Will and Ariel Durant’sThe Lessons of History. In the first paragraph they meditate on the cosmic dimensions of the universe, on the fact that the planets will remain not only when individual men are gone but even after the whole race of man is gone. They were impressed with man’s transience much as Proust was when he said that the dust of death is on everything human. But as to man’s significance all the Durants can point to is a kind of dignity that man has because he can observe the planets and they cannot observe him. It is quite clear: no man – no matter what his philosophy is, no matter what his era or his age – is able to escape the longing to be more than merely a stream of consciousness or a chance configuration of atoms now observing itself by chance.

Valentin Louis Georges Eugène Marcel Proust (/prst/;[1] French: [maʁsɛl pʁust]; 10 July 1871 – 18 November 1922) was a French novelist, critic, and essayist.

In an extreme form the longing for significance expresses itself most clearly in the fear of non-being. It has been obvious for centuries that men fear death, but depth psychologists tell us that such a fear, while not found in animals, is for man a basic psychosis: no man, regardless of his theoretical system, is content to look at himself as a finally meaningless machine which can and will be discarded totally and for ever. Even those who seek death and cry for the fulfillment of the death-wish still have a fear of non-being somewhere inside them. I am struck that when you talk to men contemplating suicide, somewhere inside they see themselves as a continuing spectator.

(page 271)

If you go back in art as far as you can go, you find that wherever man is, his essential mannishness is there too. Recently archaeologists unearthed a man that they claim lived something like 30 thousand years ago. They found him buried in a grave of flower petals. Now that’s intriguing. You do not find animals burying their dead in flower petals. Or, examine the cave paintings – the largest early work of art which gives us extended content. (I would accept the date of about 20,000 BC for these.) The paintings reveal that those cave dwellers had the same human longings we have. Right there in the midst of the painting are indications that a man is crying out, ‘I know within myself that I am more than the dust that surrounds me.’ As a matter of fact, there is a theory that explains the cave paintings in southern France and northern Spain as a symbol system speaking out the longings of man. Although it is open to discussion, I think it is probably right, and even if that theory proves not to be correct, still they do show man considering himself as uniquely distinguished from that which is non-man.

We may also mention the testimony of the scholar Levi-Strauss. Though his theories are highly controversial, Levi-Strauss is one of the most important anthropologists in the world today. This French scientist has put forward a notion that has shaken the world of anthropology. No matter where you go, he says, into the past, into the present, to primitive peoples or cultured societies, you find that all men think in the same fashion. Man’s thinking has not basically changed along the way. Thus, although primitive tribes may not make high-level, analysed antitheses, there is in tribal thinking a clear antithesis between ‘tribe’ and ‘non-tribe’, ‘hot’ and ‘cold’, and so forth. The mannishness of man is evident as far back as anybody has been able penetrate.

Claude Lévi-Strauss,  (born Nov. 28, 1908, Brussels, Belg.—died Oct. 30, 2009, Paris, France),


Michael Polanyi’s arguments concerning the DNA template show much the same thing. Without going into details let me say simply that Polanyi specifically rejects the chemical determinism of Francis Crick. The chemical and physical properties of the DNA template do not give an explanation of what man is merely on the basis of those chemical and physical properties.

Michael Polanyi below

James Watson and Francis Crick (right), co-originators of the double-helix model, with Maclyn McCarty (left).

So Levi-Strauss says to look at the thinking of man; wherever you go into the past, into the present, man is man. Polanyi says the DNA template alone does not explain those peculiar things which man is. Mortimer Adler also testifies to the problem of man’s uniqueness in “The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes”. He does not have an answer, but he says there is something different in man and we had better identify it or we will start to treat people as non-human and even more tragedy will result. No matter what his theoretical system is, man knows within himself that he cannot be equated with non-man.

Mortimer Jerome Adler (December 28, 1902 – June 28, 2001)

(page 272)

What Paul says in Romans is as up-to-date as the present ticking of the clock – men, even men without the Bible, suppress the truth of what they themselves are. Primitive man, cultured man, ancient man, modern man, Eastern man, Western man: all have a testimony that says that man is more than their own theories explain.

(Jean-Paul Sartre pictured below)

Paul then turns to the second area in which men suppress the truth. In Romans 1:20 he says, ‘For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made.’ So the second testimony man suppresses is the truth of the external world. Jean-Paul Sartre has said that the basic philosophical question of all questions is this: Why is it that something is there rather than nothing? He is correct. The great mystery to the materialist is that there is anything there at all.


However, it is not only that something chaotic is there but that something orderly is there. Einstein understood this very well at the end of his life. According to his friend Oppenheimer and what we know from his own writing, Einstein at the end of his life became a modern mystic. He did not have the answer, he did not return to the Judeo-Christian position or the Bible, but he understood that there had to be a bigger answer because he saw in the universe an order that is indisputable. Einstein worded it beautifully when he said the world is like a well-constructed crossword puzzle; you can suggest any number of words, but only one will fit all the facts. And so Sartre says, ‘There’s something there,’ and Einstein adds, ‘Yes. Look at the marvel of its form.’ Let us put it another way: there is a distinction between science and science-fiction. In science-fiction you may imagine any kind of universe, but in science you must deal with the universe that is there.

For several years Murray Eden at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been using high-speed computers to calculate the possibility of whether on the basis of chance there could be so much complexity in the universe within any acceptable amount of time. His conclusion is that the possibility is zero.
We find the same thing in Charles Darwin himself in his autobiography and his letters. It is amazing that this old man toward the very end of his life keeps saying, ‘I cannot believe with my mind that all this was produced by chance.’ Not his emotions, but his mind. And he has to excuse the testimony of his intelligence by saying that his mind has just come by evolution from a monkey mind, and who can trust that? But, of course, there is a trick in this. If he could not trust his mind on such a crucial point, how could he trust it to formulate the evolutionary hypothesis itself? ( end of page 272)

(page 275)

…Romans 1:28: ‘And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over [or God gave them up] to a mind void of judgment.’ The Authorized Version ‘a reprobate mind’ misses the point. It is a mind void of judgment, a phrase referring back to verses 21 and 22, ‘they became vain in their reasoning’, religiously but also intellectually foolish. These people do not understand what the universe is, and they do not understand who they themselves are. That sounds very modern indeed.

(Painting of Paul Gauguin below)


Paul Gauguin, the French painter, brilliant as he was, provides an excellent example. Following Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea that man is (or ought to be) autonomous, completely free, he said that what troubled him was that 2 and 2 always equaled 4. He wanted to be so free that on a Tuesday morning at eight o’clock he could say 2+2=4.5.
What Paul is stressing here is that when you turn away from God and follow other presuppositions, the more consistent you are to your presuppositions, the further you get away from reality itself. So you see Gauguin trying to paint an autonomous freedom, a primitive simplicity, and, as it were, stamping his feet and saying, ‘If my system is right, somehow or other 2+2 should not always equal 4.’

(PAINTING SCHAEFFER IS REFERRING TO ABOVE IS Paul Gauguin, Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?, 1897-98, oil on canvas, 139.1 x 374.6 cm [Museum of Fine Arts, Boston] )

Let us summarize briefly the course of the argument in this chapter. We began by noticing that Paul speaks in a special way to the man without the Bible, for he has not suppressed the special revelation, that is, the revelation in the Bible, but the general revelation given by the mannishness of man and by the external world. It is then plain that the man without the Bible holds the truth in unrighteousness, he holds some of the truth about himself and the universe, but he does not follow it to its reasonable conclusions. Thereafter, a breakdown in morality occurs. God says to man in this position: You are under my judgment. And so the questions arise, how is man without the Bible going to be judged? Is this just?


Related posts:

I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I have done over 30 posts on the historical characters mentioned in the film. Take a look below:

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years, July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

Related posts:

A list of the most viewed posts on the historical characters mentioned in the movie “Midnight in Paris”

Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 38,Alcoholism and great writers and artists)

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 36, Alice B. Toklas, Woody Allen on the meaning of life)

Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 35, Recap of historical figures, Notre Dame Cathedral and Cult of Reason)

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 34, Simone de Beauvoir)

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 33,Cezanne)

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 31, Jean Cocteau)

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 30, Albert Camus)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 29, Pablo Picasso)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 8, Henri Toulouse Lautrec)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 7 Paul Gauguin)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 6 Gertrude Stein)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 5 Juan Belmonte)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 4 Ernest Hemingway)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 3 Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 2 Cole Porter)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 1 William Faulkner)

MUSIC MONDAY Cole Porter “Let’s Do it, Let’s Fall in Love” in the movie MIDNIGHT IN PARIS


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: