Auteur List: Woody Allen - Discussion and Defenses

[Calvin]

I've always connected Play It Again, Sam to The Purple Rose of Cairo in my head - as well as being two examples of his use of magic realism, The Purple Rose of Cairo closes with that beautiful, melancholic image of Mia Farrow by herself in the theatre whereas Play It Again, Sam opens similarly. I much prefer Cairo though, there's a string of lines / "jokes" about rape in Play It Again, Sam that I found intensely uncomfortable and affected my enjoyment of the rest of the film.

[dustybooks]

Still love the "early, funny" Allen, including Tiger Lily... but some of it may be nostalgia to which I'm blind; my sister and my dad introduced me to his work, and while I never gelled with their other great shared love (James Bond), I connected with Allen's sensibility right away. I will never forget the first couple of times I saw Bananas and Annie Hall; both had such an inexhaustible energy and I barely stopped grinning and laughing for their duration (this later happened with Midnight in Paris the first time; also Albert Brooks' Modern Romance). Even now I still well up at the conclusion of the latter. No doubt that as I get older I'm more conscious of what a prick Allen's character is in AH -- it really stood out for me the last time I saw it, but didn't much interfere with my love for it. Certainly the capacity of a film like Bananas to jolt and surprise with its sheer manic audacity is diminished with time but I'm still grateful for those movie experiences.

I've seen all of Allen's features except A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, Manhattan Murder Mystery, Everyone Says I Love You and the whole stretch from 1998-2003, plus the last two. I hated Irrational Man (the only one I've seen that I seriously disliked) and haven't caught up with the subsequent efforts but I will try to catch what I can for this project.

I recently rewatched You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger and I still, strangely, really enjoy its acid cynicism. The only big problem is its typically long-shot love affair between Josh Brolin and Freida Pinto. Something about the way Allen blocks scenes just really speaks to me, I could watch that camera whip around those ridiculously nice apartments all day.

[Lemmy Caution]

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.

Well, such items are seeded throughout 1970's Woody Allen films, climaxing in Manhattan. I just re-watched Stardust Memories and there's a scene where Charlotte Rampling's character angrily accuses Woody's Allen's character of flirting with her 13 year old cousin throughout a family dinner.

[AWA]

Well, such items are seeded throughout 1970's Woody Allen films, climaxing in Manhattan. I just re-watched Stardust Memories and there's a scene where Charlotte Rampling's character angrily accuses Woody's Allen's character of flirting with her 13 year old cousin throughout a family dinner.

While subsequent real life events and an allegation colour that bit differently, it is supposed to be reflective of the character Dory's total paranoia / self destructive neurosis that is in part based on a bit of the character's history related earlier in the film - she tells Woody's Sandy Bates character that she used to flirt with her father and was attracted to him - the sure sign of something very wrong with her. His initial reaction was to joke about it - that scene and that argument are meant to reflect it is no joke at all and that some of the signs he missed or took lightly were indicating a much bigger psychological trauma with Dory than he could have ever possibly realized.

Just to add context, as individual lines and bits like that can / have and will get plucked from various bits of his without context, especially these days.

[AWA]

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

I personally, don't hold Annie Hall as the masterpiece to end all of Woody's masterpieces, but I fall somewhere between you and Lemmy on that film. However, I will say this - in my own personal re-watching of all of Woody's films in chronological order (begun in advance of ever even knowing about this thread starting up), I got a lot more about what made Annie Hall so remarkable upon it's release. Context is everything and having rewatched the early funny ones (including Play It Again, Sam), to see the quantum leap to Annie Hall juxtapose with all that came immediately before it is / was just startling. Like going from a fast propellor driven aircraft to a jet. The jumbled narrative is a brilliant piece of editing, something we perhaps take for granted sometimes since we're so familiar with the story now. The recent BluRay release by Twilight Time features a restored print, which also helps Gordon Willis' photography out quite a bit (the SD DVD version circulating for years was based on a degraded, dark print that diminished the light colour palette Willis used).

Back in my University days I did write a lengthy essay on why Annie Hall meant so much to so many people more than any other Woody film (including those that one could argue strongly for as being superior films by Woody later in his career). What it boils down to in the end is right place at the right time for the right audience. The boomers were aging and maturing and Annie Hall was a film about how to age gracefully and refine what one had learned in their youth. All the elements play to that theme - obviously the central point of Alvy becoming an intellectual mentor to Annie, who outgrows him and can see the bigger picture of life (including beginning to see Alvy for who he really is as well). But also the European cinema inspired photography / editing / directing, the many references throughout the film to cinema / literature / art / music / philosophy. Paul Simon is cast in it - apparently, despite Woody's dislike of all things rock music, during their romantic relationship Dianne Keaton had convinced him that Paul Simon was worthwhile as he had matured as a songwriter to write more jazz standard inspired works on the 1975 record Still Crazy After All These Years (Keaton also pushed hard on trying to convince Woody of her all time favourite songwriter, Bob Dylan, but failed - which is also how / why the reference and lyric quote of Dylan's ends up in the film). While Simon plays a somewhat sleazy music industry type not worthy of serious consideration (in Alvy / Woody's eyes anyways), casting Simon in the film (and apparently, according to Simon, basing that imitation on being able to hear jazz standards influencing his writing in his recent songwriting) is throwing the boomer generation a bone by featuring one of their icons.

The jokes in Annie Hall are memorable and often quoted, but to me any Woody comedy has great jokes, even when the film isn't very good it still has some terrific one liners, jokes and comic dialogue (case in point The Curse Of The Jade Scorpion - a film with many flaws, but verbal jokes aren't one of them - love the repartee between Briggs and Charlize Theron's character in their three scenes together, especially the first). Nostalgia for that time and that time in so many people's lives carries them. Nothing wrong with that, of course - I'm thankful that Annie Hall is that special film that it is in many people's hearts - it is the reason why it and Manhattan were available to rent from my local video store when I was a teenager. My friend convinced me to watch them based on numerous things he had read about Woody Allen films, and we did - neither one of us looked back (although when seeking out a third Woody Allen film, we found Bananas - which we were absolutely aghast at how "awful" it was in comparison and shut it off rather than continue watching it (I re-watched several years later after learning more about it's place in Woody's filmography, which made more sense but as I've noted before, I'm still not much of a fan of that film at all).

But seeing Annie Hall, Interiors and Manhattan in succession after the "early funny films" really does show an artist going out on the tightest of tightropes and succeeding. Following Annie Hall with Interiors is possibly just as or more daring than the abrupt left turn that he took his audience on that is Annie Hall. Very, very few artists of any kind - music, film, art, literature, etc - can make creative leaps like that and get away with it. Many have tried and many have failed. Woody did it twice in two years' time. As a result of this, I ended up moving up a little further into the Top 10 of my list. It definitely got a boost watching it "in context" for me. Plus I hadn't seen it in 5 or 7 years, that certainly helped too!

[Lemmy Caution]

Dorrie says that she recognizes such flirtation because she used to engage with her father similarly, acknowledging that's part of what makes her so angry. But I didn't take that to mean that she was wrong, and the flirtation didn't occur. Sandy Bates (Allen) mostly goes for non-denials, that place her in a bad light ("I was flirting with a 13 year old? Do you realize how crazy that sounds"). I came away thinking that he probably behaved somewhat badly and this touched a nerve with her.

What was revealed to me was not how unstable Dorrie was, but how poorly Sandy Bates deals with her issues. At first mention he jokes it off, and the second time he basically calls her a loon. He doesn't show any empathy, or take a middle ground and say it was a misunderstanding or that he'll try to make sure nothing can be perceived that way in the future. Instead he places all the blame on Dorrie. Since the alleged flirting with the 13 year old occurred entirely off-screen, I thought it was intentionally ambiguous whether and how much it occurred. I didn't see any reason to take his side and thought the way he handled her accusation put him in a bad light whether or not it occurred. And all we get are his recollections which ordinarily would place him a good light.

I think the way women are portrayed in Allen's films is often problematic. They all tend to be neurotic and/or vindictive, with little self-confidence. Maybe that's one of the strong points of Annie Hall that Annie gains confidence as the film/time goes on and gets out of a rather unhealthy relationship with Woody Allen's neurotic character. More commonly Woody Allen presents female characters like Dorrie, who seem confident and poised, which attracts him, but then when he gets to know them they are a mess with plenty of issues especially low self-esteem.

I somewhat wonder if the Woody Allen character does that to them, with his sarcasm and put-downs and focus on his own neuroses, though I'll admit that's not the way things are presented. But it should be noted that the WA character enables such and isn't supportive and can be fairly negative and self-centered.
There's one Woody Allen film where we are introduced to Diane Keaton's character and she is a professional woman and seems composed and mature, and then when she engages with the Woody Allen character, she's the usual mass of insecurity common to female love interests in most WA films. I found that rather disappointing, as I hoped he was presenting a strong successful professional woman for a change.

[Rayon Vert]

Match Point. You might think shooting in England accounted for the change, but it feels truer to think that it was switching to a dramatic mode, finally, after so many years of consecutive comedies (most of them very light) up to this point, that helped generate a return to form for Allen. OK, so he does quite blatantly rip-off the older Crimes and Misdemeanors (there’s a clue as to what we’re going into right off the bat when we see the main character reading Crime and Punishment), although the philosophical accent here is more on the question of luck (with the background, of course, again being that completely haphazard and indifferent universe)

SpoilerShow

than on the possibility of getting away with murder scot-free. (Plot-wise, if there’s a potentially small fault here, is that one questions why Chris shouldn’t have murdered his wife instead, and get to keep both his lover and his cushy life.)

But then Allen gets points for making it more of a romantic/psychological drama for most of the picture, until the unexpected suspense kicks in late in the film.

This film always impresses me whenever I see it. There were, and have been, good or good-ish movies before and since 1992 but I think Allen returned to a level of quality of filmmaking here that he hadn’t quite achieved since Husbands and Wives and hasn't since either (I haven’t seen the last two, but given the reviews I feel confident the assertion stands). The script is exceptionally good, almost faultless, and the addition of the strong actors and extremely crisp cinematography makes it a truly stylish film that doesn’t have anything stale about it. Chris isn’t a completely likeable character from the start, given that he’s so ruthless in achieving his desires, but Allen manages to make you empathize with him in his impossible predicament. This will be high on my list.

[dustybooks]

Match Point was one of my favorite theatrical experiences -- it was the first Allen film I caught on a big screen, so I was totally wrapped up starting with the usual opening credits sequence -- and the only time I think I've heard a collective gasp in an audience. (It was truly my Barmy moment!)

[Rayon Vert]

(...) Magic in the Moonlight (...) It's heartwarming that even in his old age Allen is still wrestling with and interrogating of his beliefs (or lack thereof) (...)

I would argue strongly with this statement. This is one point with Allen as a film director that I find for me constitutes a major weakness: I never sense any interrogation of, or evolution in, his beliefs and thinking. He has a set of beliefs that are there from the start and that feel fixed and unvarying from the beginning of his career (or starting in the mid-70s or so when he starts to make philosophical affirmations) right to the present. As a result, I am never truly excited to see a new film of his in terms of ideas and themes, quite the contrary. I only take delight, when there is some to be had, in the craft and how the films work as comedies, dramas, thrillers, etc.

[Lemmy Caution]

Back in my University days I did write a lengthy essay on why Annie Hall meant so much to so many people more than any other Woody film (including those that one could argue strongly for as being superior films by Woody later in his career). What it boils down to in the end is right place at the right time for the right audience. The boomers were aging and maturing and Annie Hall was a film about how to age gracefully and refine what one had learned in their youth. All the elements play to that theme - obviously the central point of Alvy becoming an intellectual mentor to Annie, who outgrows him and can see the bigger picture of life (including beginning to see Alvy for who he really is as well). But also the European cinema inspired photography / editing / directing, the many references throughout the film to cinema / literature / art / music / philosophy. Paul Simon is cast in it... throwing the boomer generation a bone by featuring one of their icons ...
Nostalgia for that time and that time in so many people's lives carries them. Nothing wrong with that, of course - I'm thankful that Annie Hall is that special film that it is in many people's hearts - it is the reason why it and Manhattan were available to rent from my local video store when I was a teenager.

Rather a condescending dismissal disguised as an appreciation. Sounds more like you're talking about The Big Chill. We're all aging, but the Boomers were roughly 13-31 when Annie Hall came out. I also don't see anything in the film about aging gracefully or learning from youth. In fact, it's a film about the failure of a relationship. Both Woody Allen and Dianne Keaton have a difficult time figuring out how to live their lives, and they muddle through.

For me, AH came out when I was 12 and I didn't see it until high school, probably 4 or 5 years after it was released. And I thought it was a great film because it was funny and inventive and seemed like a genuine slice of life with all the complications life and relationships have. And I still feel that way every time.

Imo, it's just a great film. Just to make a case quickly. 1) The jokes are impressive, with the humor sustained throughout. I not only don't think any Woody Allen film is nearly as funny, but many other WA films have similar jokes to those in AH. 2) it's the first time the full Woody Allen persona is manifest -- neurotic, witty, philosophical, death obsessed, obsessed with neurotic females, informed by psychoanalysis, etc. 3) the editing and episodic storytelling are done at a high level and work 4) the characters are developed, as is the relationship, which is very believable 5) the pace, energy and especially the creativity are impressive and unique 6) it has a sense of place and lived in space better than most films (and Woody Allen mines that by comparing NYC to California) 7) it really is the touchstone for so many/most Woody Allen films -- the persona, the humor, themes of death and philosophy, etc.

I think it's worthwhile and often not easy to understand why a work of art is praised so highly by many when you don't think it merits such admiration. But your Boomer nostalgia theory seems misguided to me.

[AWA]

Rather a condescending dismissal disguised as an appreciation. Sounds more like you're talking about The Big Chill. We're all aging, but the Boomers were roughly 13-31 when Annie Hall came out. I also don't see anything in the film about aging gracefully or learning from youth. In fact, it's a film about the failure of a relationship. Both Woody Allen and Dianne Keaton have a difficult time figuring out how to live their lives, and they muddle through.

I don't see how pointing out that the majority of the Boomer generation was of age enough to be interested in seeing and attending the cinema at the time of Annie Hall's release? I also don't think it's a radical opinion to suggest that they made up much of the film's audience at all. The USA college age - as depicted in the film itself as *being* Alvy's audience - would be 100% baby boomers. Undergrad or masters, pretty much all of them. And so to would be a lot of the real life college students that filled the cinemas to see that film.

Annie Hall the character learns to live a more refined, self aware life and when we leave her she is a very different person than when they first met - for the better. Yes, it is a about a failed relationship, and one character trying to figure out where it went wrong - and part of the conclusion is seeing how Annie's growth out paced his own in the end and seeing fault with himself. The film is *titled* Annie Hall to put further emphasis on her story and character arch for that reason - her growth and maturity are admirable.

I also don't feel that suggesting Annie Hall's high regard for many people - even people who generally don't like Woody films - is based in nostalgia for them as being a bad thing at all. It was a great movie that aligned with the right audience at the right time. Nostalgia in itself isn't a bad thing, or it certainly doesn't have to be. In this specific case, it's good that so many people felt that way about the film - it kept it widely available for someone like myself to have access to it some 20+ years later after it was released. It was stocked at my local video rental store certainly in part because of that appeal (one of two Woody films available to me at that age). Many people of my generation (and younger) have come to know the film the same way. It is a great film - with a lot of nostalgia attached to it. I personally think and would argue Woody has made several better films than Annie Hall though. But no film of his has captured or aligned with the zeitgeist of the day quite like that one did, which elevates it far over many other of his films, including arguably many better ones.

For me, AH came out when I was 12 and I didn't see it until high school, probably 4 or 5 years after it was released. And I thought it was a great film because it was funny and inventive and seemed like a genuine slice of life with all the complications life and relationships have. And I still feel that way every time.

Imo, it's just a great film. Just to make a case quickly. 1) The jokes are impressive, with the humor sustained throughout. I not only don't think any Woody Allen film is nearly as funny, but many other WA films have similar jokes to those in AH. 2) it's the first time the full Woody Allen persona is manifest -- neurotic, witty, philosophical, death obsessed, obsessed with neurotic females, informed by psychoanalysis, etc. 3) the editing and episodic storytelling are done at a high level and work 4) the characters are developed, as is the relationship, which is very believable 5) the pace, energy and especially the creativity are impressive and unique 6) it has a sense of place and lived in space better than most films (and Woody Allen mines that by comparing NYC to California) 7) it really is the touchstone for so many/most Woody Allen films -- the persona, the humor, themes of death and philosophy, etc.

I totally and completely agree, and I felt I stated a similar case for many of those points in my posting. I have never said or suggested it's a bad film by any stretch, because it is far from it - it is a master work in many regards, especially as a piece of editing which shaped the film so creatively and effectively. When I was in University and younger friends wanted to know where to start with Woody Allen films, Annie Hall is and always will be my first recommendation, every time. On my own personal list of his accomplishments as a filmmaker, it would rank low in the top 10. That isn't meant to diminish it at all, but rather that is high praise for his oeuvre in that he has so many other great films that can be argued as a better piece of filmmaking than it.

I think it's worthwhile and often not easy to understand why a work of art is praised so highly by many when you don't think it merits such admiration. But your Boomer nostalgia theory seems misguided to me.

I think it does merit such admiration - I think it gets *more* of it than other films because of boomer nostalgia from its massive popularity by being the right film at the right time for the right audience with the right subject matter. It does deserve great admiration - it is an outstanding film. But it is the one (possible two, if you count Manhattan) film of Woody's that goes far beyond what the rest of his work has done. I'm also a big Bob Dylan fan - Blowin' In The Wind is *that song*. Dylan wrote many far better songs, but that song was the right song for the right time. Nothing wrong with that - it's a great and important song. But like Annie Hall, it holds a special place and time for a much broader audience than perhaps the rest of the works that followed have because of that zeitgeist moment. That's not meant as a criticism, just an observation as to why and how some fans (who have asked that question here already) give Annie Hall the love it does over other films of his.

[Rayon Vert]

Broadway Danny Rose. It’s kind of easy to skip over this one, situated as it is in that long run of near-constant triumphs, several of them more ambitious and thematically meatier. But while some of those bigger classics I’ve felt differently over through the years, this film always strikes me as such a truly well-realized gem. Allen clearly uses his past as a joke-writer and comic in the 1950s and 60s to create an homage to that lost show business world. A sort of Raging Bull-as-comedy, it satirizes the Jewish and Italian New York-New Jersey communities with a strong feel for its subjects. It’s really one of his wittiest films, and the Danny Rose character, which stretches his usual persona, is a lovely, really well-written character, so able to relate to people. I love that opening scene with the comics reminiscing – there’s a documentary feel to it and it’s so well-played it doesn’t feel like acting at all. The locations are gritty and ordinary, but Gordon Willis’ black-and-white photography is often strikingly beautiful. Near the end, somewhere in those chase scenes, the film starts losing just a little of what kept it riding so high up to that point, but it’s still really a delightful film, and it's sure to make my list.

[Gregory]

I've seen all of Allen's features except for Hollywood Ending and Wonder Wheel, but I've only seen many of the post-UA/Orion ones once, so revisiting those would be my main project here.

Seeing Match Point again after about a decade, I still liked it reasonably well, but upon its release I believe many tended to overpraise it due to (understandable) sentiments of "finally, a return to form" following the preceding Dreamworks films.
In addition to finding some of Nola's/Johansson's motivations unclear or unconvincing, I thought that the allusions to Dostoyevsky were handled very clumsily. Early on we're given a shot of Chris reading not just Crime and Punishment as Rayon Vert mentioned but the Cambridge Guide to the novel to boot. Then, as if that weren't enough to broadcast "Hey, I'm doing a Dostoyevsky thing again with this film!" Chris's prospective father-in-law announces: "I find him likable...I had an interesting conversation with him the other day about Dostoyevsky."

So Chris becomes fascinated by Raskolnikov and then ends up

SpoilerShow

being drawn into essentially the same trajectory,

which the film has thus explicitly prepared viewer for? That doesn't track for me, in more than one way. Still, for those who know the outcome of Crime and Punishment and expect Match Point to resolve itself similarly, this

SpoilerShow

possibly works as effective "misdirection" to make the third-act twist work better.

Another interestingly deployed allusion in the film is the very first line: "The man who said 'I'd rather be lucky than good' saw deeply into life." One may assume that this was a famous philosopher writing about being fortunate, but it turns out it was Lefty Gomez, who played for the Yankees during the Depression. And he was talking about being "good" in the sense of skilled at baseball, not morally good. Moral goodness seems like what applies to Match Point, not prowess, and this sets up the story by posing a false dilemma—being "lucky" vs. being morally good (surely both can be extremely important at the same time).

SpoilerShow

Does anyone who isn't a sociopath wonder whether having a moral compass matters? Did Chris completely miss the point of the novel he was so interested in in the earlier part of the film?

The idea maintained throughout the film that chance occurrences can have important outcomes in life seems like a pretty obvious or trivial one. Making matters worse, the key example that the film opens with is faulty: if a tennis player hits the ball so it hits the top of the net and could then go to either side, that's the result of the player hitting the ball a little too low and at an angle that determines which side it ends up on, not sheer luck or chance. The film posits this as something that is totally outside of human control, and the Intro to Philosophy "free will vs. determinism" problem doesn't get off the ground.

To address Rayon Vert's question,

SpoilerShow

Plot-wise, if there’s a potentially small fault here, is that one questions why Chris shouldn’t have murdered his wife instead, and get to keep both his lover and his cushy life.

SpoilerShow

Nola lived in a building that Chris knew was frequently broken into, so he saw his chance to carry out what would look like a drug crime that no one would connect him to. His wife, in addition to living in a very different kind of neighborhood, was much more publicly linked to Chris obviously, and the inheritance provides a very clear motive. Not to mention that he used a gun owned by his wife's family, so to kill his wife instead, he would've have had to come up with a completely different weapon.

[AWA]

Match Point. You might think shooting in England accounted for the change, but it feels truer to think that it was switching to a dramatic mode, finally, after so many years of consecutive comedies (most of them very light) up to this point, that helped generate a return to form for Allen. OK, so he does quite blatantly rip-off the older Crimes and Misdemeanors (there’s a clue as to what we’re going into right off the bat when we see the main character reading Crime and Punishment), although the philosophical accent here is more on the question of luck (with the background, of course, again being that completely haphazard and indifferent universe)

SpoilerShow

than on the possibility of getting away with murder scot-free. (Plot-wise, if there’s a potentially small fault here, is that one questions why Chris shouldn’t have murdered his wife instead, and get to keep both his lover and his cushy life.)

But then Allen gets points for making it more of a romantic/psychological drama for most of the picture, until the unexpected suspense kicks in late in the film.

This film always impresses me whenever I see it. There were, and have been, good or good-ish movies before and since 1992 but I think Allen returned to a level of quality of filmmaking here that he hadn’t quite achieved since Husbands and Wives and hasn't since either (I haven’t seen the last two, but given the reviews I feel confident the assertion stands). The script is exceptionally good, almost faultless, and the addition of the strong actors and extremely crisp cinematography makes it a truly stylish film that doesn’t have anything stale about it. Chris isn’t a completely likeable character from the start, given that he’s so ruthless in achieving his desires, but Allen manages to make you empathize with him in his impossible predicament. This will be high on my list.

I'm about to watch Scoop in my chronological re-viewing of Woody's filmography and having just seen Match Point coming off of everything that came before it, I'm inclined to mostly agree once again with Rayon here. I personally would regard Deconstructing Harry as his last high level quality film previous to Match Point, myself (though obviously others disagree here, but DH for me is top 5 Woody).

It's a strange trick to see the Chris character made so unlikeable but when the moment of truth arrives

SpoilerShow

you can't help but feel some conflicted feelings as his reaction to his own horrible choice is very real. A great bit of acting and directing, when he shots them he is played as incredibly emotionally disturbed, conflicted and immediately remorseful. It wouldn't have been nearly as effective if he didn't fumble with the rifle, have the look of sheer terror in his eyes knowing what he'd done and become, etc. Rhys Meyers isn't the best actor, sometimes his delivery comes across as very stiff, but his delivery in those scenes is incredible.

It is a thematic re-hash of Crimes & Misdemeanors but, really, so what? It still stands on its own as a film, and he isn't the first artist to take another pass at a theme previously addressed in their work in any number of mediums, and he won't be the last. Granted, when he tries to revisit such themes without adding a new twist to it (like he did in Match Point at the end) and also fails to make a good film, then that might be more cause for criticism (specifically thinking of Cassandra's Dream, which I thought was a terrible mess of a film, but is coming up for re-viewing so perhaps I'm wrong).

When the film came out I was in University - fellow students who had never seen a Woody film saw that and immediately started checking out his other films as a result. It successfully revisited those themes on it's own, it was a startling change of pace after what came before it and there were enough differences in how things played out to make it interesting. None of those people who were fascinated, inspired and spurned on to learn more about Woody and his influences cared at all that it was a revisiting of Crimes & Misdemeanors - they were interested in Match Point because Match Point was a good film.

Woody considers it his best film or very near it. It could be in that it is such a radical departure from his usual style. While there are many "Woody" bits about it - philosophical theme of morality, use of music, several long duration shots without cutting, etc there are also many things about it that are very un-Woody - starting with **many** over the shoulder shots during conversations, in close up no less. Quite uncommon. As a result, I would wager that up to that point in his career, Match Point has more edit / cuts than any of his films that came before it.

C&M is often cited as being rooted in Dostoevsky's Crime & Punishment. It is - and while Match Point also is, oddly enough it has more in common with another literary work that was something of a re-write / revisiting of Dostoevsky's C&P themes and ideas - Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy. For that matter, a few of the plot points in Dreiser's novel would show up in Match Point's follow up, something of a comic retake on Match Point, Scoop. Another example of the many layers of influence / sources that a great artist can employ and use to create something new.

I should also note that previous to that I watched Melinda & Melinda, which I saw in theatres upon release and recall thinking it was underwhelming and a missed opportunity. In retrospect - and viewing it for the first time in 15 years - I found it a lot better than what I remembered. It is an interesting concept and he does his best with it - it essentially makes two short films out of his feature but he uses the parallel narrative structure to advance both sequences to keep things moving, using each storyline to riff off the each other and pick up where the other left off, even as the central story in both begins to diverge. Certainly unlike anything he had tried to write before. A complicated bit of structural devices.
I would have to agree with Roger Ebert's thoughts on the film at the time when the film faced criticism when released, that if a young upcoming filmmaker made that film, it would be vaunted at festivals and get a lot of buzz for it's ambitious narrative structure and theme. It's not entirely successful but it certainly had great moments. Will Ferrell, of all people, is one of the few people who pulled off a "Woody imitation" in one of his films successfully and lands some of his comic lines perfectly ("I don't understand - why'd we stop twice to get the car washed?" ). Chiwetel Ejiofor is very good in the dramatic story and Radha Mitchell does a good job considering she has a helluva job to do playing both of those roles convincingly. She is better in the comic portion, personally. And I can't help but wonder what it would have been like with the originally cast Winona Ryder in the Melinda role (whom the role was written for, but couldn't get insurance on her due to her shoplifting conviction at the time).

Vilmos Zsigmond's first film lensing a Woody film and he does an adequate job, although at times he appears lost as to why a shot is being done in one long take. It still mostly looks and feels like a "proper" Woody film, something that would get increasingly rare over the next 10 years as Woody used a variety of different cinematographers.
Melinda & Melinda as a result has risen on my personal list - still in the bottom half but I'd rank it above something like Mighty Aphrodite in the mid-range material.

[Rayon Vert]

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex. To echo what a few have already said here, I also think this isn’t the greatest film joke-wise but that it makes up for it in originality and creativity in conception. Even when the sketches are less successful, the notable actors are great to watch, like Wilder. The cross-dressing and What’s My Perversion? TV show sketches are the two that fall flat, but they're fairly short and I really like the opening segment and the last two. The fact that Allen pastiches different film (or television) styles across a few also makes the sketches distinctive. The last one is a true winner, and it’s always a fun film for me overall, and definitely more enjoyable than Money and Bananas.

(And for the longest term I thought Allen had confused sodomy with bestiality in the second sketch - especially so given that Daisy is female - until I learned the term can also have a broader definition!)

[BrianB]

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* But Were Afraid to Ask
The court jester short wasn't great but I loved everything else. What Are Sex Perverts , a fake game show where panelists, including Regis Philbin, try to guess a contestant's perversion, was my favorite, and man, I don't know if you could get away with some of those jokes today. Regis asking the guy if he was a child molestor was a highlight to me and one of those jokes that might not play so well for some people these days (same with the scene in Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate? where the doctor tells the female character she is going to be a part of a new experiment where she is gangbanged by cub scouts). What Happens During Ejaculation was a creative and hilarious look at the inner-workings of the male mind before, during and after sex. Woody was great as an anxious sperm. Highly recommended. I wasn't expecting a lot going in but this might end up being in my top ten. Definitely prefer it to Bananas and Sleeper, the two movies it is sandwiched in between.

[knives]

Take the Money and Run
Time to jump to the beginning. I had seen some of these scenes before, but not the whole thing. Like much of the pre Love and Death stuff it is very funny, but not more than that. Some of the gags like the rabbi side affect or the cello phallus would probably be better pulled off later, but some like the poor hand writing gag land perfectly and couldn't be funnier. The comparison to Zelig is probably useful to highlight how even in terms of comedy Allen has improved over the years. That one's jokes are more pointed and thought provoking, but also more memorable for a chuckle. I think in the moment more of the jokes here land. I find myself chuckling over jokes from Zelig years later, but even in the moment most of the jokes here are gone before they're over.

[Rayon Vert]

Blue Jasmine. For some reason, I expected to like it less this time, but that clearly wasn’t the case. Blue Jasmine never “wows”, but from beginning to end it’s a consistently very solid, enjoyable, assured work that, while clearly not being on the same level as that earlier film, is the director’s best since Match Point. He not only ventures out of the Allen Lite comedy mode he often is in in his very late work, but also comes up with strikingly original material, where there’s nary a cliché, or anything that feels old or repeated. Blanchett’s performance has been duly noted, but all of the actors’ performances here go a great way to making this a rewarding piece. Even his choice of tunes sparkles more than usual. There’s also a moving appreciation for people’s vulnerabilities. This might end up making my list, and if not will be near the mark.

[Dr Amicus]

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex: Blimey, is this really the most watched film so far in this project? Anyway, I thought it was very patchy 30 years ago and this still holds. Easily the worst are the first sequence, which is tiresome, and the transvestitism sketch which is a nothing. Wilder makes the second sketch work single handedly – his performance during the lengthy take when Daisy the Sheep is first on his desk is glorious – and the Italian sequence is a moderately amusing Antonioni pastiche but little else. Better are the What’s My Perversion sketch, which feels quite Pythonesque, and the penultimate mad scientist spoof – which just seems to stop part way through (you feel it should end with another giant breast making an appearance) but manages some good laughs along the way. Easily the best is the last which remains one of the funniest sequences of Allen’s earlier films – properly timed, not overstaying its welcome, genuinely clever and laugh out loud funny. As a whole, the film is at the lower end of my personal list – but the final 10 or so minutes make it worthwhile.

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy: Another one not watched for over 30 years. As it turned out, all I remembered about it was its general tone and the flying machine - so it was almost like watching it for the first time. I'd remembered it as being pleasant but minor, and that opinion still holds - it looks stunning (at least on the Arrow Blu), the cast is good value (although Farrow got a typically inexplicable Razzie nomination for Worst Actress) and there are several laugh-out-loud one liners, but as a whole it is nothing more than decent.

[AWA]

I came full circle tonight with a viewing of Scoop, which I revisited last summer for the first time in over 10 years on a lark and, enjoying it much more than I had remembered it originally prompted me to undertake the personal project of re-watching Woody's filmography in chronological order again, which prompted me to revisit this forum after a near 10 year absence and, coincidentally, coincided with this Auteur List project.

Despite it still being relatively fresh in my mind, it was still an enjoyable film, I still laughed again like I did when I watched it last summer and while certainly not among his best films and as light as a feather content wise, it is a relatively well crafted, charming film filled with some good little laughs from lines from the unlikely comic duo of Woody and Scarlett Johansson.

Written in two weeks' time after the initial plan to film Midnight In Paris fell through due to casting and insurance issues (which is why it was a comedy, since he could knock that off faster than a drama), it does suffer from what would become a more regular problem for Woody's films going forward from this point (2006) onward - it feels like we're watching a first draft of a script with some problems that weren't worked through, flushed out and detailed like he had been known for in the 70's / 80's / most of the 90's. Some bits are a little more problematic than others, the biggest being the ending in which

SpoilerShow

Peter Lyman tries to drown Scarlett's character - by merely throwing her off a boat because he thinks... she can't swim or swim well enough to swim to shore in a relatively small lake? Of course she can - he met her while she went swimming, he saved her because she had a cramp not because she couldn't swim. You'd think you'd remember how and why and where and when you met the woman you fell madly in love with and turned your whole world around as you seriously pursued her despite being completely out of your social orbit / nationality / class / age / etc etc etc. A rather ridiculous bit of writing that could've been easily fixed with some revisions

... or :

SpoilerShow

Strombel's opening scene tip about Lyman being the tarot card killer is totally wrong - he hadn't killed anyone yet. While he wrote a decent enough idea to make the plot twist later, the opening could have been revised to make it fit with what eventually happened. Similar small plot holes are here and there throughout, but you don't give it much thought because the movie moves along pleasantly enough.

While it may not appear to be related much to Match Point or Crimes & Misdemeanors (or their source material of An American Tragedy and Crime & Punishment respectively) it does lightly skim off some of the plot and narrative structure from Match Point / American Tragedy in some small ways - the plot twist slight of hand at the end to convince the audience of one thing looking inevitable but then switch it and then switch it again, done smoothly here even in a much lighter film And more specifically Woody uses the boat scenario / scene from Dreiser that he didn't use in Match Point (obviously without the heavier philosophical / moral / ethical questions looming over it). It is, it's own smaller way, an exercise in writing suspense and Hitchcock influenced plot twists as a narrative device, something he would continue to work with in his next film, Cassandra's Dream, and occasionally afterwards (eg Irrational Man for another one). His first attempt at that was in Manhattan Murder Mystery some 12 years prior to Match Point / Scoop / CD / etc but, as often with Woody, he will revisit ideas and themes even many years later to try to do something new with it or refine it (or, in the case of Cassandra's Dream, beat a dead horse? Maybe I'm too rough on that film?). For all the criticism that Woody "makes the same movie over and over again" he sure has a lot of different types of movies, styles, themes, motifs and stylistic devices to choose from.

Woody's comic acting here is breezy and spot on, a nice refreshing return to the "Danny Rose" type of character he played (to the point of reusing the schtick of schmoozing a crowd with the fast talking "God bless you darling, how old are you?" and "I say this with all due respect and I mean this sincerely, you're a wonderful audience" and the hilarious outdated "you're a credit to your race") that he had less successfully previously touched upon in Small Time Crooks and is an improvement upon all of his acting appearances in his DreamWorks films. Had all of his lighter comic efforts for DreamWorks been to this level of craft, people would have a much higher opinion of those films. Some great comic lines throughout, as usual for any Woody comedy no matter what is going on with the rest of the film, can be found throughout (and usually best delivered by Woody himself):
- "I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism."
- "You're a cynical crapehanger who always see the glass half-empty!" "No, you're wrong! I see the glass half full, but of poison!"
- "You may be deceased but you should not be discouraged. Because, you know, don't think of being dead as a handicap - when as I child I stuttered, but with stick-to-it-tiveness and perseverance, you know, you can never tell what can happen."
- "Can you stop telling everyone that I sprang from your loins?"

One reason why this and Match Point both fared better quality wise is easily the improved editing of Alisa Lepselter - the last thing anyone notices in a finely crafted, straight narrative film like Match Point is the editing - which means she did a great job. You certainly noticed the editing in several of the DreamWorks films, most notably the way overlong Hollywood Ending. Scoop could probably still have used a little trimming here and there on certain scenes, but overall it is well paced to play the comic scenes and to carry the murder suspect plot along and keep both in the air at once.

The soundtrack of mostly Strauss, Tchaikovsky, etc is a nice change of pace as well (related again to the previous film using Caruso opera recordings)- the first comedy since A Midsummer's Night's Sex Comedy not to feature jazz / pop standards as the basis for the soundtrack (at least, for the comedic portion of some of his films that split between comedy and drama). This was supposedly done out of budget restrictions though - as was Match Point - as it was far cheaper to source recordings with expired copyright in publishing. Cassandra's Dream would have a similar adjustment from the originally planned Miles Davis soundtrack to the Philip Glass score. 2 out of 3 ain't bad?

It's very light and way down the list of Woody's films, won't make my list but it is still fun and, despite what jaded critics have to say, if more light Hollywood comedies were this funny and fun, I'd being seeing a lot more of those movies. Enjoyable, lightweight and fun - Woody likened the film to being like "a nice light desert, a treat after a heavier meal". A fitting description for this film.

[Rayon Vert]

Sleeper. I’m closer to Lemmy’s appreciation of this film. It’s a big step up from the previous films and I also definitely find it funnier than the preceding ones, even though not every gag works. The physical comedy is part of what keeps me chuckling at pretty regular intervals throughout. (How can you not laugh at the moment when Miles is being chased and is trying to fly off with that propeller pack, muttering “Fly, goddamn it, fly! Goddamn cheap Japanese flying packs!”) Allen is quite the good little comedian. Watching him, I kind of miss that counterculture-era, extroverted, long-haired Woody. Like Sex’s last two sketches, the conceit and attractive visual design gives it an extra dash of creativity and fun, along with the chemistry between Allen and Keaton.



Husbands and Wives. It’s not my favorite as it used to be until fairly recently, but I would unhesitatingly call this, in terms of the writing and the depiction of the characters and the relationships, Allen’s smartest film. His truly acerbic yet lucid analysis of marriage forms the basis for one of his most perceptive films about human behavior in general, and it’s full of wonderfully perceived and captured truths about human experience in relationships. It’s a continually entertaining film, without a single weak moment or scene (and some truly strong ones, like the scene of mutual humiliation where Jack drags his less educated girlfriend Sam out of the party, or the brilliantly written one where the young Rain in the taxicab finally acquiesces to Gabe’s insistent request to inform him of her criticisms of his novel). But it isn’t an easy one, because the characters, Allen’s included at times, not only engage in untruthfulness towards other people but more disturbingly all (with the exception of Rain) exhibit self-deception at various moments. Allen isn’t scared to include his own regular screen persona in that examination. The performances are all terrific (including Farrow as per her usual), and Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis in particular are revelations. However the bleakness depicted, and Allen’s continuing penchant for portraying older men lusting after really young women, now brings it down a few notches for me.

The Twilight Time release is quite the nice upgrade.

[Gregory]

Woody considers [Match Point] his best film or very near it. It could be in that it is such a radical departure from his usual style. While there are many "Woody" bits about it - philosophical theme of morality, use of music, several long duration shots without cutting, etc there are also many things about it that are very un-Woody - starting with **many** over the shoulder shots during conversations, in close up no less. Quite uncommon. As a result, I would wager that up to that point in his career, Match Point has more edit / cuts than any of his films that came before it.

For anyone who may be interested, here are the average shot lengths of twenty of Allen's films, from Barry Salt's database at Cinemetrics:
Alice 38.90
Annie Hall 14.56
Another Woman 26.50
Anything Else 26.40
Bullets over Broadway 51.90
Crimes and Misdemeanors 25.00
Everyone Says I Love You 33.10
Hannah and Her Sisters 24.16
Husbands and Wives 28.00
Manhattan Murder Mystery 34.50
Match Point 15.13
Melinda and Melinda 14.79
Mighty Aphrodite 34.50
Scoop 14.72
September 32.00
Sleeper 6.00
Small Time Crooks 21.90
Sweet and Lowdown 16.10
Take the Money and Run 7.50
Vicky Cristina Barcelona 11.58

[AWA]

Woody considers [Match Point] his best film or very near it. It could be in that it is such a radical departure from his usual style. While there are many "Woody" bits about it - philosophical theme of morality, use of music, several long duration shots without cutting, etc there are also many things about it that are very un-Woody - starting with **many** over the shoulder shots during conversations, in close up no less. Quite uncommon. As a result, I would wager that up to that point in his career, Match Point has more edit / cuts than any of his films that came before it.

For anyone who may be interested, here are the average shot lengths of twenty of Allen's films, from Barry Salt's database at Cinemetrics:
Alice 38.90
Annie Hall 14.56
Another Woman 26.50
Anything Else 26.40
Bullets over Broadway 51.90
Crimes and Misdemeanors 25.00
Everyone Says I Love You 33.10
Hannah and Her Sisters 24.16
Husbands and Wives 28.00
Manhattan Murder Mystery 34.50
Match Point 15.13
Melinda and Melinda 14.79
Mighty Aphrodite 34.50
Scoop 14.72
September 32.00
Sleeper 6.00
Small Time Crooks 21.90
Sweet and Lowdown 16.10
Take the Money and Run 7.50
Vicky Cristina Barcelona 11.58

Hmmm... interesting. Makes the Top 10 then, 6/10 of which are Lepselter editing films.

While there are long master shots in Match Point, many of the conversation scenes cut to over the shoulder close ups (sometimes extreme close ups, something unusual for Woody films).

Still - compare those shot lengths, even Vicky Cristina Barcelona, to the average film made today. Just about twice as long or more.

[Rayon Vert]

Crimes and Misdemeanors. I guess you have to hand it to Allen for even making this type of film, with philosophical questions as its main focus, in the world of 1989. Paralleling a main, strictly dramatic storyline, with a secondary, largely comic one, around the same theme, was also bold and original. But as much as I remember being blown away when I first saw the film in the theater, and it seems to remain one of his most esteemed films, I enjoy it less and less each time out. I still get something out of the dramatic parts, and especially the terrific Landau in that role, but Allen’s riffing on a “morally unjust universe” definitely could use more subtlety, it feels overly-decided and stated, and it’s at times heavy-handed (including the symbolism of the rabbi going blind). Match Point really escapes this sort of thing.

The other problem I have is that it seems we’re somehow supposed to view the romantic predicament of Cliff in the other plotline in the same light –

SpoilerShow

that it’s somehow a sign of a godless universe just because he doesn’t get the girl that he wants and she chooses the “phoney”! It feels as if the film expects us to automatically sympathize with and/or admire Cliff just because he’s the Woody Allen character, whereas really it’s not obvious from what's in the film itself, even if Lester is a blowhard, that he’s such a more deserving person.

A bit of blindness on the director’s part there I’d say.

[knives]

Why would a film that, as you say, is built on a philosophical dialogue need subtlety?