criterionforum.org

I don't really get why some Allen-heads (I am one) enthuse over Small Time Crooks. To me it's the saddest, grayest, most joyless, and as close to ordinary and run-of-the-mill, (nearly) voiceless in feel film I've ever seen from the Woodman--actually its the only WA film I've seen that I feel these things about, even among the few others I think are outright duds). The things in it that can be said to be unique to Woody's er "vision" mostly barely register with me. Seriously, how is this really any different from, I dunno, Heartbreakers with Sigourney Weaver or something, other than the lack of such crass gusto with which it is delivered? I liked Elaine May's cute and touching little performance ("More Pepsi?" haha! That and the party scene where she's supposed to be distracting from Woody's burglaring are the only funny things in the whole film for me. And that's pretty Slim Pickens) and Tracey Ullman(n?) is a real trouper and proves she could doubtlessly be a brilliant comic lead with better material. (She seems to revel in her--self-perceived--unattractiveness).

As a young attempting-to-be-well-read teenager, I, of course, read the BIG Tolstoy novels and Dostoevsky. Combine that with being a budding young cineaste with the requisite Eisenstein films (and Prokofiev scores) and LOVE AND DEATH is the Woody Allen film that I always find a reason to revisit. "Wheat! Fields of wheat!") Oops, left out Bergman...

The Curious Sofa wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:05 pm I guess they didn't like his "early, funny films". But yes, it's a worthless poll without Sleeper and Love & Death.

I would rate Take The Money And Run, Bananas or even Men Of Crisis: The Harvey Walinger Story over Sleeper or Love And Death. I enjoyed them when they showed up on tv as a kid, but as an adult their humor hasn't aged as well.

agnamaracs wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 8:30 pm

hearthesilence wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 8:05 pm but it's behind a paywall and it's published by the Free Press.

Uh, that's not very free.

Nor does it qualify as Press.

Lowry_Sam wrote: Wed Oct 15, 2025 4:57 am

The Curious Sofa wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:05 pm I guess they didn't like his "early, funny films". But yes, it's a worthless poll without Sleeper and Love & Death.

I would rate Take The Money And Run, Bananas or even Men Of Crisis: The Harvey Walinger Story over Sleeper or Love And Death. I enjoyed them when they showed up on tv as a kid, but as an adult their humor hasn't aged as well.

Men of Crisis is really something. Far and away the most political thing he ever made. It pairs well with Philip Roth’s equally scabrous look at the catastrophe that was Richard Nixon, his 1971 novel Our Gang

okcmaxk wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 8:44 pm Un-paywalled by someone

Awful publication notwithstanding, that's a lovely tribute.

90 years old as of today - had no idea until Joseph McBride posted about it.

For a long time I'd have bet the farm that I'd keep seeing every Allen film until the last one, but after watching Crisis in Six Scenes nine years ago, I suddenly wanted to stop. I still value many of the films from decades past, but I don't rewatch them often anymore.

One discouraging thing about What's with Baum (discussed on the previous page) is that the publisher has also put out books by Charlie Kirk, screeds about the "Marxist trans Mafia," antivaxxer stuff, and a novel called Trump's Superpower coming next year:
"When America’s Founding Fathers return from heaven to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday, President Trump welcomes them to the White House." Their encounters with modern Americans are "hilarious"—"Ben Franklin is arrested for misgendering someone."
And then Hamilton states "that he believes President Trump is leading a second American Revolution—this time against Marxists and globalists who threaten national sovereignty."
Woody Allen's work could not have less relevance to this stuff, but there is a certain element that wants to embrace and champion any men "cancelled" by their political/culture war enemies.

It's also a ghetto that some get forced into, for better or for worse. When the only company willing to publish a famous and once widely beloved filmmaker's book has such dubious political associations, I feel like that's at least partially on the mainstream publishers (and mainstream culture more broadly) for closing ranks in the first place. Whether that's a bad thing probably depends on whether you see this kind of commercial-sector ostracisation as a problem – some here no doubt see it as good and necessary, while others will just shrug and say it's the free market doing its thing – but we should hardly be surprised when the result is that these figures choose to walk through the few doors that are still open to them.

saw McBride's post right after I watched Eyes Wide Shut and once again remembered Kubrick's desire to have Allen play the lead role originally. I always appreciated that Kubrick massively respected Allen - I think both were kindred New Yorkers - Kubrick probably appreciated that there was a director out there who could always nail NYC, but he also really admired his working methods and ability to release a film every year. it's a true shame Allen never got to continue this pace, while I obviously don't love all of his films, they really are all worth watching for the most part in one way or another, even just to see the various actors be in his universe

domino harvey wrote: Mon Dec 01, 2025 11:48 pm Scarlett Johansson gives full support to Allen and calls her refusal to back down an act of personal integrity

Good for her. I’m so glad that some like Diane Keaton never threw him under the bus.

spectre wrote: Mon Dec 01, 2025 5:47 am It's also a ghetto that some get forced into, for better or for worse. When the only company willing to publish a famous and once widely beloved filmmaker's book has such dubious political associations, I feel like that's at least partially on the mainstream publishers (and mainstream culture more broadly) for closing ranks in the first place. Whether that's a bad thing probably depends on whether you see this kind of commercial-sector ostracisation as a problem – some here no doubt see it as good and necessary, while others will just shrug and say it's the free market doing its thing – but we should hardly be surprised when the result is that these figures choose to walk through the few doors that are still open to them.

His 2020 memoir was published by Arcade, so I'm surprised he couldn't have taken What's with Baum there. Both Arcade and Post Hill (the publisher of Baum) are distributed by Simon & Schuster, who just published Louis CK's new novel. There's no real consistency to all this.

In many cases it has nothing to do with a judgement of the facts or even public demand, but more about commercial entities sniffing the wind and deciding how “cancellable” someone is in a given moment based on perceived public opinion. That’s the mechanism of so-called cancellation that few people (from those who complain that celebrities accused of unethical acts are victims of witch hunts to those who assert that cancellation doesn’t exist, but if it did, it would be good) acknowledge: it’s never been organic. In this case, the main allegation against Allen has been publicly reported on for thirty years and Dylan Farrow’s testimony as an adult was broadcast and widely discussed over a decade ago. Nothing has changed about the facts of either his or Louis CK’s cases nor wider society’s apprehension of such crimes, yet their opportunities and the distribution of their work have wildly fluctuated in that time.

Of course there are plenty of other factors that publishers will consider; perhaps Louis CK’s book is just a better and more interesting piece of writing than Allen’s, or perhaps Arcade/S&S weren’t able to offer him a contract that he found suitable. But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it is as simple as the inscrutable maths of commercial ostracisation declaring at this moment that, of the two, Allen remains persona non grata while Louis CK continues a slow public rehabilitation. It’s all quite capricious, and there’s really nobody behind the wheel.

Are those recent Sandpiper Pictures Blu-rays of Allen's older films any good? I'm guessing not but maybe they are? I watched Purple Rose on Tubi just now and then managed to get a copy of Arrow's edition for a really good price on ebay but Radio Days, the other Farrow/Daniels/Aiello film I'm interested in, the Arrow version goes for $60+ on eBay. Arrow and rarewaves are sold out and deepdiscount only have the sandpiper pics versions. I don't need booklets etc but a good encode would be nice.

Edit: I have the Twilight Time edition on my watchlist.

They should be really close to the Arrow and Twilight Time discs (which weren't clones of each other but very close in PQ). In all honesty though, those old HD transfers look very dated at this point and really need an upgrade. If you really want them and don't want to hold out for new restorations (and I wouldn't hold my breath either), I'd just get the cheapest editions that you can find.

As mentioned, at least Annie Hall and I think Manhattan have had 4K restorations done, and I think the current DCP's are derived from them, but they haven't been used for any Blu-ray editions.

I haven't done a 1:1 comparison of any, but I think they're virtually the same as the Twilight Time editions. I have the Sandpiper edition of Zelig and it's totally fine.

Good to know, thank you both! I reckon new restorations might not get done in the current anti-Allen climate and who knows if physical media is still going to be a thing if and when those happen, so I'll grab the SP edition of Radio Days when there is a quiet month of new releases for me (like this May when MoC's The General 4K, New Wave's Blu-ray of A Colt Is My Passport and Cartoon Logic's Fleischer Vol 1 set are all I'm interested in).

That late film moment in Purple Rose of the in-movie waiter making his dream come true and breaking out into a dance number in front of the orchestra and the assembled cast is going to stay with me for a long time. Allen at his most sincere and generous.