Woody Allen

[bunuelian]

Isn't it somewhat absurd to pretend that this upper-class New York doesn't exist when it very clearly does? It seeems equally myopic for the hard core working class to ignore the reality of the rich as it does for the rich to ignore the working class.

Doesn't Woody Allen make these people out to be petty and barely capable of handling their emotional and intellectual pretentions, even while wallowing in their wealth? I don't know that his upper crust is necessarily "ideal." But by focusing on this upper crust, he's able to tell stories of, i.e., love that are unfettered by the daily material concerns of those who need to work hard for their money, and also avoid getting embroiled in political questions that aren't his focus. Any film made about two people falling in love in the ghetto is hard pressed to be just a film about falling in love, because it inevitably will be read as having a broader social commentary. But the well-to-do falling in love lack any built-in political meaning, other than what the viewer might bring to it such as hating everyone in his films for being petty bourgeois. And because much of the audience will probably have a little bit of contempt for these spoiled children-cum-adults, it's easier to laugh at them a little while sympathizing with their awkwardness.

Is Godard less of a filmmaker because he made a bunch of films involving intellectual Marxists, who are no more representative even of the class they pretend to champion than Allen's upper crust elite are representative of New York as a whole?

[HerrSchreck]

Isn't it somewhat absurd to pretend that this upper-class New York doesn't exist when it very clearly does?

Not sure that that was directed towards me-- but for myself I never said Allens NYC didn't exist. Matter of fact I described its' physical & psychological reality and it's geographical boundry very specifically. I know it quite well... can't "do" the arts beyond a certain level of success here in this town without becoming intimately familiar with it... I said:

the world being portrayed in the stereotypical Allen film is that of the insular zone from the upper east 90's to the mid east 60's, from 5th Ave/Central Park East over to Lexington Ave... maybe over to York avenue at the east river. But this is the vested quarter of old NY money & bluebloods that has "accepted" Allen as one of their own.. an insular world of old money,

[montgomery]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't say the upper class in Allen's films didn't exist. You said Allen was the NY equivalent of Ozu because he captures the "essence" of NY. I thought this was a troublesome comparison, and still do, because Ozu is interested in what was happening to his country, whereas Allen uses NY, one neighborhood of NY, as a backdrop. I don't think Allen's films capture the essence of New York any more than films about Beverly Hills capture the essence of Los Angeles (I'd say a film like The French Connection captures as much New York essence as an Allen film, if not more). Perhaps Allen captures the essence of the Upper East Side (now we're really getting away from Ozu), but even then, Allen's UES is still romanticized (as Allen clearly stated, as quoted above). Every building, every lobby, every office, every apartment, every restaurant, every street in his films are chosen specifically to represent his ideal. The UES is kind of like it appears in his films, but people in the UES aren't so insular that they only see and live in art deco buildings, nor are they so insular that they are completely ignorant of 9/11, for instance. Allen takes great pains (probably the greatest pains he takes in his recent films) to avoid showing anything about NY he doesn't like, even if it's right in the middle of the UES (this is why most Londoners complained about Match Point; he did the same thing there, not just showing upper-class London, but restricting London to only the buildings and locales that he, Allen, loves). I certainly did not say that Allen was idealizing or romanticizing the lives of the characters in his films. I just don't think his method of filming NY is comparable to Ozu's method of filming Japan. Allen's method is totally legitimate and I love it, I just don't agree with your comparison. (I also think that in his recent films, the discrepancy between the characters, who are young and out of work, and their lifestyles, living in literally 10 million dollar apartments, and totally removed from any pop culture, is extreme to the point of ridiculous. Allen didn't start his making his cerebral UES movies until he was in his 40s, so hearing the same dialogue, but watered down and 25 years out of date, coming from the mouths of 22 year olds, often seems too absurd to be believable, even if it's charming in its way. I wish Allen would start casting some middle-aged people again)

[bunuelian]

Sorry guys, I wasn't really reacting to what you were saying directly, more to the kinds of criticisms he sometimes gets in general. I should've been more clear. I think your points are all quite valid.

[Dear Catastrophe Totoro]

Not to bring up a conversation that died in November, but... Personally, I don't know anyone who believes Woody is anything more than an entertainer. I recently argued with a friend about Allen's worth as a director. I said his films were intelligent, and he replied, "His films are whip-smart."

I understand what he's saying without agreeing in the slightest. I'm sure he finds Bergman stunning and provocative, even if he has no idea what Bergman is saying. Allen's form is closer to a romantic comedy than anything. Classical cinema already receives a bit of a backlash with today's Film 101 crowd, but when you add one-liners and romance, then OBVIOUSLY this can't be a serious art film, can it?

The truth in Allen's films is subversive to their form. As has been mentioned in the Allen = Ozu debate, his films feature a romanticized environment, but the truths presented are rarely sugar-coated. The ending of Annie Hall could be taken as simply a bittersweet ending to their romance if the viewer thinks they are merely watching a romantic comedy. But the ending's comment on our limited ability to love and communicate destroys the entire notion that this is actually a romantic comedy at all. The ending to Crimes and Misdemeanors could be uplifting to some, except that the words of encouragement are being spoken by a character that killed himself. And if Stardust Memories comments on its own sentimental ending, it is taken back when we learn we were watching the screening of the film with the actors involved, and Allen's isolation in the empty theater during the last seconds bring him back to where he was at the beginning of the film (and gives us an interesting thought: is this Allen's only true appearance in all of his films?). That's from my limited insight into the minds of my peers. As for why any critics or more intelligent cinephiles (like most of the members on this forum) might not like Allen, I couldn't begin to comment.

[Antoine Doinel]

Allen's next London pic just got the leads cast. From WENN:

Miami Vice star Colin Farrell and Moulin Rouge heartthrob Ewan McGregor are set to star in director Woody Allen's new film set in London. The as-yet-untitled film is the third movie the New Yorker has shot in London, following the critically acclaimed Match Point and the upcoming Scoop. Plans for the new film were quickly put into place after Allen's Paris project, which was set to star Michelle Williams and David Krumholtz, fell through. According to Moviehole.net, the film will begin shooting this summer.

[tryavna]

Allen's next London pic just got the leads cast. From WENN:

Miami Vice star Colin Farrell and Moulin Rouge heartthrob Ewan McGregor are set to star in director Woody Allen's new film set in London. The as-yet-untitled film is the third movie the New Yorker has shot in London, following the critically acclaimed Match Point and the upcoming Scoop. Plans for the new film were quickly put into place after Allen's Paris project, which was set to star Michelle Williams and David Krumholtz, fell through. According to Moviehole.net, the film will begin shooting this summer.

Perhaps somebody is finally going to let McGregor use his natural voice/accent again. I always miss British/Scottish actors' regular voices after they "go Hollywood."

[Dylan]

I just turned on the TV for a second, and on the channel IPLEX "Manhattan" is showing in pan/scan. Did the contract for it to never be shown that way on television run out or something? I've only heard of one case of it being shown in pan/scan, which was in Asia I believe, and the channel was sued. And although I only watched it for about thirty seconds, it was some of the worst pan/scan ever.

[Antoine Doinel]

A bit more info on the next Woody Allen pic in an otherwise dull profile of his next "muse" - it looks like a return to drama:

[quote]Going straight to the top - After The Line of Beauty, the fast-rising Hayley Atwell has become Woody Allen's latest muse.
By Peter Whittle

It must be awful being Ewan McGregor. You have to work with these iconic directors such as Woody Allen. You get paid for it. And you have to do love scenes with Hayley Atwell.

That name rings few bells at the moment, although the almost ridiculously beautiful face will be familiar if you were one of the millions addicted to The Line of Beauty, this year's big BBC drama about life and gay times in Thatcher's Britain. Virtually straight out of drama school and then only 23, Atwell played Catherine Fedden, the psychologically disturbed daughter of a rich Tory politician, the only chink of darkness in an otherwise perfect vision of 1980s affluence and wealth. Other than an advertisement for Pringles and a tiny part in a drama about Charles and Camilla that ended up on the cutting-room floor, it was her first television job. Critics sat up and took notice. She more than equalled Dan Stevens, the other young unknown, who played the central character of Nick Guest and had the lion's share of publicity in the run-up to the series. The mature assurance of the performance of this west-London girl, coming seemingly from nowhere, was matched by her physical presence. It was what separates a star from merely an excellent actor — you could not take your eyes off her.

Woody Allen presumably agrees. Here we are a year later, and he has cast her as the female lead, alongside McGregor and Colin Farrell, in his as-yet-untitled summer project, which has been filming in London and Brighton. It is the story of two brothers drawn into a life of crime, and she plays McGregor's girlfriend.

It's wonderful and it's terrifying,â€

[Lino]

Ok, I didn't want to open a thread just for this so that's why I'm posing here. Has anyone actually seen the famous deleted scene from Woody's Everything you always wanted to know about Sex that features him as a spider? It was cut at his request because apparently it didn't work but I would love to get my hands on it! More info here. And here's the only picture I could find that proves its existence.

[Antoine Doinel]

It's really too bad that Allen doesn't include any supplemental material with his DVDs as his characters are often so involving. I was watching Hannah & Her Sisters the other night and in the original theatrical trailer on the DVD there is a snippet of a deleted sequence between Dianne Wiest and Sam Waterston in an art gallery that of course, isn't found in final cut of the film.

[Dylan]

I was thinking the other day how incredibly awesome it would be to go through all of the Woody Allen material in the MGM vaults, because most likely nobody is ever going to see outtakes, deleted scenes, and God knows what else. I'd also like to know what he originally wanted to do with "Hannah." All he says is that the original script was more bleak, but he doesn't specify.

I would love to see the original version of "September" with Christopher Walken in Sam Waterston's role. According to the Woody Allen interviews book, though, that version no longer exists...but I kind of doubt that MGM would let him destroy those negatives, even if he re-shot the entire film again...I'm sure it exists somewhere, we'll just never see it (Walken will probably never see it either).

[Antoine Doinel]

According to the Woody Allen interviews book

Do you have the name of that book handy? I would love to track down a copy....

[Dylan]

"Woody Allen on Woody Allen: In Conversation with Stig Bjorkman," an absolutely indespensible read for the Allen fan (which you definitely seem to be from your posts). I only have the 1993 edition, but it was updated in 2003, so be sure to get that one (I'll get it eventually).

[Antoine Doinel]

Wow, great thanks! And yes, I'm a pretty big fan and I have a birthday coming up and I know a few people who might need suggestions

[montgomery]

Regarding Hannah, he did say that the ending was more bleak, and I believe I read somewhere (or maybe just assumed) that the "I'm pregnant" line that ends the film was added. Interestingly enough, near the end of Bullets over Broadway, as Cheech is dying, he tells Cusack to change the ending of his play with a pregnancy. Maybe there's no connection, but I always thought it was vaguely interesting.

And yes, Bjorkman's interview book is one of the great books on film.

[godardslave]

Here's an interesting article that criticizes what is generally regarded as one of Allen's best films, Manhattan

[Cinesimilitude]

Just want to add my praise for the Bjorkman-Allen interviews. It's fascinating.

[devlinnn]

Speaking of....Happy Birthday, Mr. Allen. Long may you keep it up (and the movies also).

[montgomery]

Here's an interesting article that criticizes what is generally regarded as one of Allen's best films, Manhattan

I don't think this article is so much interesting as it is bizarre. Not that I totally disagree with it - I've always considered Manhattan one of Allen's most overrated films, although I like it. He starts by saying "American movies from the 1970s are hard to watch today..." Wait, huh? I don't know, does anyone else disagree with this rather bold, general statement? Well, some films from any era are hard to watch. But many believe that the 70s was the greatest era of American filmmaking, and his criticizing the "preposterous" fashion (who cares?) and "appalling" film soundtracks (uh...) is ludicrous. By the way, are 80s films easy to watch? And what about British films from the 1970s?

Anyway, what does this long intro have to do with Manhattan? Well, he tries to bring it all together, but I have no idea what he's talking about. It's true that there is a disconnect between the romantic Gershwin score, the lush cinematography, and the cold, neurotic characters, but I've always seen this as at least partly intentional. That said, when I watched the film again recently at MOMA, I did find the opening segment, with the Rhapsody in the Blue playing over fireworks, etc. etc. strangely unmoving.

But I really don't know what this guy was getting at. Is he criticizing American film, is he just an Allen hater? Why does he criticize Allen's "megalomania" and "unsympathetic" characters, his narrow, romanticized view of Manhattan, but praise Scorsese's gangster films, populated by, I would think, even less sympathetic characters, and just another glamorized view of an unglamorous Manhattan? Can he really say that Scorsese's music is never "overbearing," isn't "trying to impress anyone," that he only uses "music his characters would listen to?" (By the way, check out his list of Scorsese's best films). What a fucking horrible article.

[Alyosha]

I noticed some of the Celebrity-bashing in this thread as well as I read a lot of it from the American critics.

I can't understand what's so bad about it. I liked it quite a lot, not one of his best, but certainly not one of his "least good" ones either (I've seen all of his films). In Sweden, the critics liked it a lot and many magazines rated it as a 4 (of 5). Does anyone know how it was received in other European countries?

[montgomery]

I think Celebrity is one of his better movies from his post-genius period (i.e. post-Husbands and Wives). Nykvist's camerawork is great, of course, and though Allen is maybe too out of touch to completely satirize modern celebrity, and while some of the vignettes fall incredibly flat (Bebe Neuwerth blowing a banana--awful), others work quite well. This seems to be the 2nd film in a sort of dark comic trilogy--Allen's darkest period, perhaps--about unredeemably bad men. Branagh's performance was ripped apart by critics, but I think he's perfect. What's interesting about his performance is not just that he nails Allen's characteristics, but that he takes all the charm out of the Allen persona. If Allen was playing the role, we might feel sympathy for him, as even when Allen is playing a bad guy, he makes himself sympathetic through his comic mannerisms, and by being the underdog (although some people just find him annoying all the time). But when Branagh plays it, he just comes off as a horrible person. It works beautifully!

[Sekoya]

Does anyone know what music is played in "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" when Briggs (W. Allen) steals under hypnosis?

[Dylan]

It's an excellent take on Ketelbey's "In a Persian Market" by Wilbur de Paris. There's a very good downloadable MP3 of this piece online, although I can't find the site at the moment where it's located. It was also used in his "New York Stories" segment "Oedipus Wrecks."

[Sekoya]

Thanks a lot, Dylan!
If you're able to locate the download I'd appreciate it.