Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#51 Post by knives » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:07 pm

Guess Love and Death is chopped liver.

User avatar
Red Screamer
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:34 pm
Location: Tativille, IA

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#52 Post by Red Screamer » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:52 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:49 pm
Also, back to Tiger Lily-- last night while looking for reviews of the Allen book Narrator rec'd, I actually stumbled upon Rosenbaum's article where he praises the film and the whole thing is the best evidence yet to support my claim that he's just Liberal Armond White. It's a hit piece on Allen in which he argues Allen has no defining film style or consistency of vision-- in 1990! He bolsters Jerry Lewis instead (who I also love, but who has nothing to do with Allen apart from Rosenbaum's fixation on their respective popularity in France), and he compares Allen repeatedly to Mel Brooks. Now, there is literally nothing Brooks and Allen have in common other than their Jewishness, and when one reads Rosenbaum going into attacks on the New York intelligentsia and so on, it's hard to not read it as vaguely anti-Semitic at best. Rosenbaum additionally seems to think that the fact that Allen finds his films in the editing room means he's not a real creative visionary, which is... an opinion.
I'm with you that Tiger Lily is terrible, but you're willfully misreading Rosenbaum's piece (link for those interested). He's comparing approaches to comedy, specifically of writer-director-performers like Allen, Brooks, and Lewis (and Tati, Chaplin, Keaton, May, and A. Brooks, who he also uses as comparisons, as well as people like Rivette, Godard, Warren Beatty, if you stop cherrypicking to prove a point). Rosenbaum compares Mel Brooks and Woody Allen because of their shared focus on verbal comedy (and I'm confused at your shock at any comparison between them, since they have much more than 'nothing in common,' both sharing the upper echelon of comedy auteurs at this point. There was also a Siskel & Ebert episode debating which of them was more funny). The comment on editing has to do with how much Allen's collaborators are shaping the films (Sven Nykvist's cinematography as well as Ralph Rosenblum's extensive re-editing of some of them), which I don't see as necessarily a bad thing, but Rosenbaum is using the point to argue against Allen's comedy-auteur-genius status.

In general, the article is hardly a hit piece--Rosenbaum praises Allen as a writer and some of his films, or parts of them--it's more a dissent against the unique reception of Allen's films as 'high art' over that of other comedy filmmakers. Which is why he contrasts the spite Lewis finds in America with the same people treating Allen with reverence. His side-eye towards the New York intelligentsia, and more specifically Allen's own conception of it, stems from this, as well as NYC's (and, at this point, the New York Times') status as the decider of American film culture, and potentially from his background as a southerner/midwesterner. Your accusation of anti-Semitism against Rosenbaum, who is Jewish himself, is misguided at best and only makes sense if you completely misread the article, as you did above.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#53 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:09 pm

I thought Tiger Lily was remarkably racist....

User avatar
AWA
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#54 Post by AWA » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:35 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:49 pm
Rosenbaum additionally seems to think that the fact that Allen finds his films in the editing room means he's not a real creative visionary, which is an incredible stupid opinion considering Fellini, Bergman and most any other filmmaker also makes similar choices in the editing room about cuts, reshoots, trimming and all other matters of filmmaking and makes a mockery of his preposterous attempt to diminish one of America's greatest filmmakers.
I fixed that last part there for you, domino.

User avatar
Red Screamer
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:34 pm
Location: Tativille, IA

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#55 Post by Red Screamer » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:50 pm

AWA wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:35 pm
I fixed that last part there for you, domino.
Sure except, again, Rosenbaum never actually said that. Agree with it or not, what he wrote was:
In an illuminating book about film editing called When the Shooting Stops. . .the Cutting Begins, Ralph Rosenblum describes in detail how he substantially reworked Allen’s unformed and scattershot rough cuts on half a dozen early features — even successfully demanding that Allen shoot new endings to TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, BANANAS, SLEEPER, and LOVE AND DEATH, and transforming a self-centered smorgasbord called ANHEDONIA (“the inability to experience pleasure”) into a graceful romantic comedy called ANNIE HALL. Although Rosenblum no longer edits Allen’s pictures, perhaps as a consequence of writing this book, Thierry de Navacelle’s more recent Woody Allen on Location, a diary of the shooting of RADIO DAYS which includes in parallel columns the original script and the first “cutting continuity,” amply shows that as recently as 1987 there was still a yawning abyss between Allen’s conceptions and what wound up on the screen. Part of this appears to be a judicious pruning of compulsive morbidity: TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN originally ended with the bloody annihilation of its hero, whereas RADIO DAYS originally began with awkward radio coverage of the drowning of a Houdini type in an underwater stunt. But an equally important part of the problem seems to be that Allen usually starts with a literary conception rather than a filmic one. As he pointed out to Godard in a videotaped interview conducted in 1986, he regards the intertitles in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS as a literary device (as words), whereas Godard uses them in his own films as a cinematic device (as shots).

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with this in itself; the American literary cinema has few sustained talents to call its own, and there’s no doubt Allen’s talents as a writer enhance that cinema in certain respects.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#56 Post by domino harvey » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:56 pm

I’m confused at how you think that disproves what I said

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#57 Post by Rayon Vert » Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:04 am

Bananas. When your mental image of the standard Woody Allen character is of the neurotic but on the whole self-assured intellectual (from Annie Hall to Husbands and Wives, say), when you revisit the early broad comedies it’s striking to see the differences in the earlier version, which is more of an overall “loser”: shy, ineffective, socially and even intellectually underperforming. Bananas is definitely a lot wittier than Take the Money and Run, even though the jokes only work half of the time at best (though some land very well). The absurdism is toned down a bit, which possibly helps. The film also scores a few moments of insightful political satire, but the entire San Marcos part of the film is less consistently funny and a bit draggier than the beginning and ending.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#58 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:17 am

I just got finished with all the “early funny ones” and man, any given ten minutes of Love and Death has more laughs than all of the films that came before it put together. A masterpiece of relentless joke delivery. Take the Money and Run has a couple great ideas awash in a lot of bad choices and was a lot less funny than I remembered. I also think Janet Margolin’s perf is so weird because she keeps trying not to laugh, but boy it’s distracting! I’m more or less with you overall on Bananas: I like the audacity of the third act, but I thought all the jokes with the revolutionaries were far more interesting than the other stuff, though the hit to miss rate is pretty bad and things are still way too drawn out. Louise Lasser got a lot of mileage out of the fringe and pigtails look, she was still sporting it in Mary Hartman half a decade later! Men in Crisis was of a piece with the previous couple films, a few mild chuckles but nothing of lasting impact— my copy was helpfully subtitled in Italian though. Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) is a marked step-up in filmic quality, but boy I found it now as I did when I first saw it: a collection of stale Playboy Party Jokes. A few errant chuckles in the mad scientist segment and that’s about it. Sleeper is Allen’s Chaplin movie, but it’s too broad and obvious at every turn, and just not funny— I don’t think I laughed once. It probably would have worked better as one of Allen’s short stories— ironically, since so much of the film is physical comedy-based!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#59 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:12 am

I grew up on Allen (due to my parents' obsession with his films, short stories, books, etc.) and remember watching these "early funny ones" over and over as a kid in elementary school. After rewatching them in addition to the rest of Allen's filmography (of which I only had a few blind spots) last year, I definitely agree that Love and Death is by far the superior film in every way and will certainly be making my list, while the others just weren't as funny as I once thought they were.

A few thoughts on two others:

Stardust Memories: Perhaps Allen's least straightforward work narrative-wise, this may top my list as a new favorite. I've seen the film several times but this time around it hit me in a place it never has before. I find it difficult to adequately explain why I love Allen's output so much compared to other filmmakers, but watching this last night I think I have some half-baked idea: he blends the piercing seriousness of the self in relation to the world with passive silliness of existing in the world , all in a light, whimsical manner that seems effortless and yet provokes thought and emotion so strong I don't even know what hit me. Stardust does such a seemingly effortless job at blending themes of existential crises, identity, fear, the difficulty of truly connecting with others in longevity, etc. in such an absurd, yet grounded, and emotional manner that I found myself laughing and smiling, triggered, and captivated with complex emotions all within a 60-second period multiple times throughout my watch. The scene where
SpoilerShow
Allen describes his "moment of happiness" on his deathbed, looking at Rampling's character reading while Louie Armstrong plays in the background had all these happening at once and may be one of the most powerful moments in cinema, especially as the camera lingers on Rampling for a bit longer than expected, as if we are reminded that we want to hold onto these moments forever despite their transient nature.
The Purple Rose of Cairo: This one has grown on me upon each viewing and is close to topping my list. I can't think of a film that better captures the love of film and, moreover, connection to cinema that I've felt all my life. It may not appear to go as far as some of his other films in corroding the runtime with all of the themes mentioned above, but this isn't a bad thing. The film breathes, and the juxtaposition of the fantasy and humor with the brutal realities of Farrow's life in the depression era setting is the perfect mesh to sober one up to the reasons they go to the movies, love the movies, and sometimes even need the movies, in the first place.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#60 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:27 am

I will be truly shocked if any film manages to usurp the Purple Rose of Cairo’s place at the top of my ballot— I’m all for having my rankings shook up by revisiting many of the films I haven’t seen lately, but that and Broadway Danny Rose seem preordained to lead my list, possibly in part because they’re the two I’ve seen most often!

User avatar
AWA
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#61 Post by AWA » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:33 am

Red Screamer wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:50 pm
AWA wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:35 pm
I fixed that last part there for you, domino.
Sure except, again, Rosenbaum never actually said that. Agree with it or not, what he wrote was:
In an illuminating book about film editing called When the Shooting Stops. . .the Cutting Begins, Ralph Rosenblum describes in detail how he substantially reworked Allen’s unformed and scattershot rough cuts on half a dozen early features — even successfully demanding that Allen shoot new endings to TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN, BANANAS, SLEEPER, and LOVE AND DEATH, and transforming a self-centered smorgasbord called ANHEDONIA (“the inability to experience pleasure”) into a graceful romantic comedy called ANNIE HALL. Although Rosenblum no longer edits Allen’s pictures, perhaps as a consequence of writing this book, Thierry de Navacelle’s more recent Woody Allen on Location, a diary of the shooting of RADIO DAYS which includes in parallel columns the original script and the first “cutting continuity,” amply shows that as recently as 1987 there was still a yawning abyss between Allen’s conceptions and what wound up on the screen. Part of this appears to be a judicious pruning of compulsive morbidity: TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN originally ended with the bloody annihilation of its hero, whereas RADIO DAYS originally began with awkward radio coverage of the drowning of a Houdini type in an underwater stunt. But an equally important part of the problem seems to be that Allen usually starts with a literary conception rather than a filmic one. As he pointed out to Godard in a videotaped interview conducted in 1986, he regards the intertitles in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS as a literary device (as words), whereas Godard uses them in his own films as a cinematic device (as shots).

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with this in itself; the American literary cinema has few sustained talents to call its own, and there’s no doubt Allen’s talents as a writer enhance that cinema in certain respects.

Yes I read the article - several minutes of my life completely wasted that I'll never get back.

I've read Ralph Rosenblum's book - and I've also read Woody's subsequent comments about working with Ralph and how they shaped his early films as he was learning to become a filmmaker, and why they parted ways - something clearly Rosenbaum has not bothered to do. How learning from someone about how editing (including the need to do re-shoots when something doesn't work out in the editing room) can shape a film is supposed to be a criticism, I'll never know. To say that Ralph no longer edits Woody's films "perhaps as a consequence of writing this book" ignores the fact the book came out after they mutually agreed to part ways and Woody's highly successful collaboration with Susan Morse for the next 20 years proves that was an excellent decision. That's just plain lazy guesswork based on ignorance for Rosenbaum's part, in the age of Google that's unacceptable for someone attempting to build a critique based on historical fact. Adding in the petty suggestion that Woody might have fired him because of the book is just ridiculously presumptuous.

And why does he even bother even to bring that up? To what point? To prove that Allen is a writer first and filmmaker second? Of course he is, reference the ***entire career*** that came before it. That's one element that makes his films *better* than something like Jerry Lewis - the writing. Yes, there are many sequences from various Woody films in the 70's and 80's that were edited or changed or removed or re-written, often during the early editing stages. The same is true of innumerable directors from anywhere in the world who write, co-write or don't write the material they're working with. It just doesn't work for whatever reason because a script is just an idea and framework. Writing something that makes it to the screen completely unaltered is a mighty dangerous practice - or a great one if your objective is to make a flawed or bad film.

Woody's films are regarded as more from a writer's perspective - a positive accolade and an important influential one at that. Rosenbaum's pathetic attempt to make that into a criticism, or diminish that influence and value by adding the snide "enhance that cinema" in "certain respects" is just cheap hollow and meaningless.

User avatar
AWA
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#62 Post by AWA » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:43 am

domino harvey wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:17 am
I just got finished with all the “early funny ones” and man, any given ten minutes of Love and Death has more laughs than all of the films that came before it put together. A masterpiece of relentless joke delivery. Take the Money and Run has a couple great ideas awash in a lot of bad choices and was a lot less funny than I remembered. I also think Janet Margolin’s perf is so weird because she keeps trying not to laugh, but boy it’s distracting! I’m more or less with you overall on Bananas: I like the audacity of the third act, but I thought all the jokes with the revolutionaries were far more interesting than the other stuff, though the hit to miss rate is pretty bad and things are still way too drawn out. Louise Lasser got a lot of mileage out of the fringe and pigtails look, she was still sporting it in Mary Hartman half a decade later! Men in Crisis was of a piece with the previous couple films, a few mild chuckles but nothing of lasting impact— my copy was helpfully subtitled in Italian though. Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) is a marked step-up in filmic quality, but boy I found it now as I did when I first saw it: a collection of stale Playboy Party Jokes. A few errant chuckles in the mad scientist segment and that’s about it. Sleeper is Allen’s Chaplin movie, but it’s too broad and obvious at every turn, and just not funny— I don’t think I laughed once. It probably would have worked better as one of Allen’s short stories— ironically, since so much of the film is physical comedy-based!

Bananas is regarded highly by fans of the "early, funny films" as it were, but I never quite got that. It has some funny moments, but it is far inferior to Sleeper, Love & Death and the technically disqualified here Play It Again, Sam. I can't help but think the political satire helped Bananas as much as any of the jokes did or do. It ranks way down on my list.

The most memorable sequence in Everything You Always Wanted... for me was the What Happens During Ejaculation? sequence, which has been parodied / copied too many times to count and is still referenced to this day. And, of course, it's still funny (I laughed like hell when I rewatched it, however I haven't seen it in 15 years and that might have something to do with it). The Italian sequence had its moments as well (the cinematography famously inspiring Woody to be more ambitious on subsequent films).

I part ways with you on Sleeper though - I thought that was a terrific comic film - and his first leap into something more serious and artfully presented (the set design and cinematography showing signs of bigger ideas than just presenting jokes).

Love & Death I don't like as much as Sleeper, but it still ranks highly for me, even amongst his post-Annie Hall output. The Bob Hope homage(s) are great (ironic, in that when Woody would return to "doing" Bob Hope inspired comic material 25 years later, critics and audiences had a negative reaction).

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#63 Post by mizo » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:45 am

domino harvey wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:17 am
I just got finished with all the “early funny ones” and man, any given ten minutes of Love and Death has more laughs than all of the films that came before it put together. A masterpiece of relentless joke delivery. Take the Money and Run has a couple great ideas awash in a lot of bad choices and was a lot less funny than I remembered. I also think Janet Margolin’s perf is so weird because she keeps trying not to laugh, but boy it’s distracting! I’m more or less with you overall on Bananas: I like the audacity of the third act, but I thought all the jokes with the revolutionaries were far more interesting than the other stuff, though the hit to miss rate is pretty bad and things are still way too drawn out. Louise Lasser got a lot of mileage out of the fringe and pigtails look, she was still sporting it in Mary Hartman half a decade later! Men in Crisis was of a piece with the previous couple films, a few mild chuckles but nothing of lasting impact— my copy was helpfully subtitled in Italian though. Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) is a marked step-up in filmic quality, but boy I found it now as I did when I first saw it: a collection of stale Playboy Party Jokes. A few errant chuckles in the mad scientist segment and that’s about it. Sleeper is Allen’s Chaplin movie, but it’s too broad and obvious at every turn, and just not funny— I don’t think I laughed once. It probably would have worked better as one of Allen’s short stories— ironically, since so much of the film is physical comedy-based!
My thoughts on the early comedies pretty closely mirror Domino's, though I think I like Love and Death a little less than he does and Take the Money and Run a little more. The former is definitely the best, but still probably wouldn't make my list, because its joke density, while commendable, leaves me kind of exhausted by the end. Still, it deserves a lot of praise for uniqueness of concept - I mean, how many comic filmmakers have any Russian literature tropes as points of reference, much less enough to string a feature out of Tolstoy jokes (with some Bergman thrown in for good measure)? Take the Money and Run, meanwhile...I don't know, I just remember it being pretty funny too. I have fond memories of catching it on TV as a kid, after having anticipated the film for a while, and laughing out loud from minute one. Having said that, I liked Sleeper a lot then too, and now I can barely remember a single joke from it. Bananas I remember being a pretty thin excuse for an almost free-association series of gags that weren't funny (although the word "pith" will be forever tied to it in my mind). And Everything... (which I first saw as a kid and probably only understood about 15% of) I may overrate a bit for its eclecticism - I certainly don't value the joke writing too highly - but it does have two other fantastic attributes that make it almost worth the whole thing. A pair of tremendous comic performances by, of all people, Anthony Quayle and John Carradine. Carradine is obviously having a blast as a mad sex researcher, and even when his lines are lame, he sells them on sheer wide-eyed enthusiasm. And Quayle, as the Shakespearean monarch, gets by far the biggest laugh from me in the whole film with his nonplussed reaction to Allen's bad stand-up set.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#64 Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:39 am

Annie Hall is one of my favorite films.
The jokes are great, the characters have dimensions, abundant creativity. And it really does a good job of chronicling a relationship failing, but also contextualizing that with what came before and follows.

I'm a big fan of Sleeper. I'll write more when I re-watch it (again), but it has a storyline that enfolds the zaniness and jokes and is very entertaining. This always felt like a step up from the other early Allen films in which the plot is mostly just a framework for jokes and random ideas.

Purple Rose of Cairo and Zelig are the two other Allen films I frequently re-watch and recommend. That's almost certainly my Top 4 and I'm not really sure what else will fill out the Top10.

I never got much out of Manhattan, even though I've re-watched it every 10 years to see what I might be missing. I consider that a very overrated Woody Allen film. I enjoy Take the Money and Bananas, but both of them are very uneven and even sloppy at times. But some great gags too. Love the two bank robbing scenes for example. Love and Death I have a more complicated relationship with, as I always want to like it, there are some good jokes scattered throughout, but I never really warm up to the film.
For early funny Woody Allen, I have it Sleeper, Love & Death, Take the Money, Bananas, with Everything about Sex last, despite the great car sex/ejaculation segment.

Not sure I have any favorites from the last 30 years, and what if anything from that period will make my list. There are a few from the last decade I haven't seen: Tall Dark Stranger, To Rome with Love, Irrational Man. So I should try to get to those. All the rest I have on disc and will try to plow through.

Watched Interiors last night for just the 2nd time, and had completely forgotten about it. One of the very few Woody Allen films without either Woody himself or an actor playing his character in it. His first foray into serious filmmaking. I'll write up more later.
Last edited by Lemmy Caution on Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#65 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:28 am

Annie Hall
Love and Death
Sleeper
Take the Money and Run

Never liked Bananas much, hated Tiger Lily and Manhattan, Seen a smattering of later films -- no great enthusiasm or great hate for any, I was a big fan until Manhattan -- and basically lost most interest in him thereafter.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#66 Post by knives » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:34 am

Irrational Man
I've been putting this off because it's reception made it sound like a bad return to Crime and Punishment, but Emma Stone's character makes this a great film. The acting here is probably some of the best in an Allen film period. Phoenix alone just looks so pathetic and gross that you can't help, but laugh at him. In many respects his closest relative is Brolin's character in Dark Tall Stranger who likewise is a useless man that thinks he has become great through the single act of a crime which in fact only serves to prove him pathetic. That's familiar though despite Phoenix giving this character his most ultimate version. Stone is the unique figure of this film. At first she appears to be another one of these dull in love with the bad man characters we've seen a million times. Fortunately Allen becomes genuinely interested her psychology this time around to reveal where she is pathetic (that's definitely the term of the day). Allen goes to Germany from Russia for her and plays her as a Sorrows of Young Werther romantic. As she says early on she's only interested for the sake of suicide. This starts off as a joke that he is so gross that only under these circumstances would somebody be interested in him, but becomes a different sort of one (the movie takes a dramatic form, but never takes itself seriously) as it becomes clear the his suicide is external. It's a romance of necrophilia.

Also as a completely irrelevant thing I was in Israel when this was released and the title they gave it there was Illogical Man which I think gets at the heart of the film's central joke more effectively then irrational does.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#67 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:36 pm

I need a bit of an Allen breather between rewatch laps, but I revisited Annie Hall before tapping out and my experience more or less matches my memories: it’s okay, but nothing special— which Allen would agree with! I had forgotten how obnoxiously negative Allen’s character is in this, which I full well realize is the point, but while it’s hardly unrealistic that a younger, insecure woman would be attracted to a dude like this, it gets a little old (pun?). I also don’t think it’s all that funny— sure, some of the iconic lines and moments are amusing, but this is just not even remotely what I think of when I think of Allen at his best, and it’s been an eternal mystery why so many viewers disagree

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#68 Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:40 pm

Love, love, love Annie Hall.
Probably have seen it more than any other film.
I've even read the screenplay 3 times.
In my Top 5 all-time.
Definitely my favorite comedy.

Tastes vary and there's so much written about Annie Hall out there, but maybe I'll try to write an appreciation anyway. It works for me perfectly. And it's certainly a touchstone for many/most later Woody Allen films, in terms of the depiction of relationships, themes of death, dealings with psychoanalysis, and of course the Woody Allen persona.

If you have trouble with the relationship in AH, I assume much of Allen's later output will make you cringe.
Last edited by Lemmy Caution on Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#69 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:42 pm

I rewatched Annie Hall the other night and was much more charmed by it than I've ever been - but man, that "16 year old twins" line sure lands with a thud these days

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#70 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:36 pm

Lemmy, I don’t have a problem with the relationship—as I said, it rings true. I still found Allen’s character exhausting, even though I recognize why he’s amped up like that. I suspect my younger, more negative self was more accommodating to this than I am now, which is why it strikes me more today than it had in the past

User avatar
diamonds
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#71 Post by diamonds » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:06 pm

I have not seen Annie Hall, but pretty much my only misgiving about Magic in the Moonlight is that I find Colin Firth's character similarly exhausting by the end of the film. Despite realizing he's had parts of his life figured wrongly, he's still such an ass in that last confrontation with Stone by the swing that I almost couldn't believe
SpoilerShow
she'd come running back to him at the very end.
That said, I like the film for essentially the same reasons you discussed earlier. It's heartwarming that even in his old age Allen is still wrestling with and interrogating his beliefs (or lack thereof), and the “resolution” of both the relationship and the dialectic that comes in that aforementioned spoiler scene is, well, some kind of magic.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#72 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 pm

That’s actually a good example, for me at least, of how an overly negative character/partner can work better in an Allen film. You’re not wrong, but since I accepted that Firth’s part was written in the spirit of Henry Higgins, it works.
SpoilerShow
And the duplicitous nature of Stone and Firth’s relationship means there’s some rope for the initial “attraction” to explain away the implausible start to a relationship that does develop organically by the end
Also, I’m sure you know this, but you should see Annie Hall. In a lifetime of minority opinions, this is one I’ve held longer than most, but my (and Allen’s!) more cool take is def an anomaly

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#73 Post by Rayon Vert » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:05 am

I have a feeling my planned rewatch of Annie Hall will be in some way close to yours, domino, although maybe not for the same reasons. In the meantime...

Image
Play It Again, Sam. I said I’d revisit this irrespective of whether it gets qualified or not. This is such a likeable film. It isn’t the zany excuse of a story for gags like Money and Bananas are – it has a narrative that’s much more engaging (written well before, at least ’69), and the material is just so much smarter and more consistently funny and witty than the films up to this point (and arguably the other broad comedies that follow). There a few more wacky moments but overall the tone is much more like Annie Hall, and it struck me how at several points this was in some way like a proto-Annie Hall… in Frisco. This isn’t because of Diane Keaton’s presence per se but more about the lovely way their friendship and relating is portrayed (and Allen’s character, and also perhaps Keaton’s, are more sympathetic here). Allen himself gives one of his great performances in his trademark persona, and Diane Keaton is also excellent here, right from the start of her work with him. Meanwhile it’s maybe not often observed but there are very humanist values just underneath that Allen humor, that place value on human vulnerability and imperfection.

The way it’s shot you can definitely tell by feel that it’s not Allen directing, but his role as the creator of the material and as the lead actor is so strong that it’s really hard not to see this as one of “his” films. If you like Annie Hall and haven’t seen this, definitely give it a shot, even if it’s a much less ambitious picture.

This is pretty much assured to be my favorite film of his in the 70s. There’s two of us on this thread so far that said this should be included – don’t be shy to join us and tell Domino you want it to count too!

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#74 Post by Rayon Vert » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:29 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:42 pm
but man, that "16 year old twins" line sure lands with a thud these days
SpoilerShow
That's nothing compared to a line Allen's character in Bananas says, that made me jump in my seat: "I'm doing a sociological study on perversion. I'm up to Advanced Child Molesting."

Sorry, that was just too tempting to share. This really isn't meant to be an attack on the man as I tend to believe his camp in the allegations. Feel free, mods, to delete this post if it offends.

User avatar
AWA
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

#75 Post by AWA » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:17 am

Rayon Vert wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:05 am
I have a feeling my planned rewatch of Annie Hall will be in some way close to yours, domino, although maybe not for the same reasons. In the meantime...

Image
Play It Again, Sam. I said I’d revisit this irrespective of whether it gets qualified or not. This is such a likeable film. It isn’t the zany excuse of a story for gags like Money and Bananas are – it has a narrative that’s much more engaging (written well before, at least ’69), and the material is just so much smarter and more consistently funny and witty than the films up to this point (and arguably the other broad comedies that follow). There a few more wacky moments but overall the tone is much more like Annie Hall, and it struck me how at several points this was in some way like a proto-Annie Hall… in Frisco. This isn’t because of Diane Keaton’s presence per se but more about the lovely way their friendship and relating is portrayed (and Allen’s character, and also perhaps Keaton’s, are more sympathetic here). Allen himself gives one of his great performances in his trademark persona, and Diane Keaton is also excellent here, right from the start of her work with him. Meanwhile it’s maybe not often observed but there are very humanist values just underneath that Allen humor, that place value on human vulnerability and imperfection.

The way it’s shot you can definitely tell by feel that it’s not Allen directing, but his role as the creator of the material and as the lead actor is so strong that it’s really hard not to see this as one of “his” films. If you like Annie Hall and haven’t seen this, definitely give it a shot, even if it’s a much less ambitious picture.

This is pretty much assured to be my favorite film of his in the 70s. There’s two of us on this thread so far that said this should be included – don’t be shy to join us and tell Domino you want it to count too!
I agree wholeheartedly about Play It Again, Sam (although Annie Hall and Manhattan would both outrank it for 70's films by a long shot). But it is essential viewing to better understand the career trajectory and how he got to Annie Hall.

While there are certainly instances of Woody trying to play up the "Woody character" there, the story, as you noted, is based on genuine emotion and the shooting style is done to enhance that trait of the characters. You can certainly tell Woody learned a lot from observing during this production and allowing his "character" to be utilized in a fresh new approach.

Another bridge to Annie Hall is definitely The Front, which is even more in line with Woody's Annie Hall and post-1977 career. Also where Michael Murphy came from to star in Manhattan. Recommended viewing - Zero Mostel is great in it as well (supposedly / allegedly, Woody wrote Whatever Works for Zero during this time. There is a fraction of truth to that story, but I'm not certain that it is totally true though).

Post Reply