entertaining
would like to have seen life with his wife and kids. Having read Lax’s book and some others, the main interest in the film was seeing things I had only heard about, the drawer with all his ideas, the scenes of Michael Keaton in Purple Rose of Ciaro and the first version of September.
Woody Allen is horrid.
I’ve only seen part 1. Here are some thoughts so far:
1. I curious to know what made him such a naturally gifted writer of jokes. Allen mentions that joke writing comes as easy as having a conversation with someone else, or something to that effect, but I would have wanted the filmmaker to examine this a little more—maybe talk to his sister or other people who grew up with him: was he always this way? Did he have influences, experiences or “training” that helped him develop this skill? Or did he skill just appear out of the blue, as if he had this latent genius ability that only appeared when he was a teenager.
2. I know he wrote and directed sketch comedies, and he also watched a lot of great foreign movies, but I also get the sense that his talent for acting and writing drama just seems to come out of nowhere, too. The move to Annie Hall does seem like a pretty dramatic and remarkable leap. I wanted to know how he made this leap. I get the sense that Gordon Willis was very important for this move, but what about Marshall Brickman? And why no mention of how he met Brickman or Brickman’s contributions to the films?
3. I wanted to know why he hated Manhattan so much—to the point of offering to make a movie for free, if United Artists would not show the film! The film mentions that Allen had different expectations or goals for the film—what were they? Does anyone know?
The documentary is interesting, but I sort of wish it dug deeper.
@Jazz- I have always wanted to lay out my theory as to “Why Woody Hates Manhattan”. I am not sure if it is worthy of it’s own thread, because I think it is a tad hair-brained… but here it is:
My Theory as to Why Woody Hates Manhattan:
(contains light spoilers for Manhattan and La Dolce Vita)
First a Postulate: Woody has often used Fellini (and Bergman) as a kind of reference point. Radio Days is kind of an Amarcord and Stardust Memories is kind of an 8 1/2. That is not to say that these are rip offs, or even homages, but that Woody used Fellini as a starting point. Well, what if Manhattan was Woody’s attempt to make La Dolce Vita???… New York plays the part of the decadent, morally corrupt Rome, with a very New York focus on neurotic self-obsessed achievers. This is said pretty much explicitly by the opening monologue. Mariel Hemingway is a play on the small but symbolic La Dolce Vita character of the young girl (waving at the end…). The end is different though. Instead of the bleak Fellini ending where the Mastriani character seems forever lost, Woody’s character runs through the city to try to recapture his own innocence, an action triggered by remembrance of “Tracy’s Face”.
So, if the postulate above is correct, that *Manhattan*was supposed to be Woody’s La Dolce Vita then it follows that Woody hates the film because it failed its model (miserably). It is way way too romantic a film, heightened by Gershwin and Willis and a charming Diane Keaton. There are attempts to establish the “corrupt city” with things like the affairs, the ex-wife’s tell all book, Diane Keaton’s needy shrink, “out of touch” conversations at parties and intellectuals trashing of Western Art. But nonetheless, the middle of the film never quite conveys the moral decadence set up by the beginning, because it just seems too light, sentimental, and gorgeously shot. The scene where Woody’s character, standing next to a skeleton witness, confronts his cynical best friend- That scene always struck me as great, but not a convincing part of the movie I had been watching. The whole film is shot and scripted and acted with such “charm” that there is no real moral fable going on. The conception and realization are at war with each other. It does not feel like a trip through the nine circles of hell (Fellini’s inspiration for La Dolce Vita). Fellini’s film is absolutely beautiful aesthetically, but it never “loses its way” thematically. Also, this whopper: The innocent young blond female character that is in both movies is treated very differently. Fellini’s innocent character remains apart, young and and full of hope: almost an angelic figure. In Manhattan the Woody character DATES the ANGELIC character, and that kind of throws out the meaning, and adds a slightly creepy layer to the film.
So Woody, having been inspired by La Dolce Vita, watches a screening of Manhattan, freaks out, and offers to do a new film for free for the studio, as long as they don’t release it…
So there is my theory!
It is probably wrong!
Issac originally had no resolution with Yale. People Woody showed the film to felt he needed to confront his friend for stealing Diane Keaton. He was never happy with the resolution he wrote (even tho to my mind it is the best thing in the film)
amazing that the success of Small Time Crooks wasn’t even mentioned…
That was a success? I think that may have been the one to cause me to write off Allen for a while before he returned to form.
sorry I was mistaken. For some reason I thought it was a sleeper hit but it just broke even. I guess I just remember a bunch of non Allen fans enjoying it.
Crooks was his first film in a while to open wide (handled by Dreamworks who knew how to handle him).
It opened with 5 million and had a bit of legs, it did good business.
I’m still sorta baffled by the money that Midnight In Paris has pulled in. Perhaps it was just counter programming at the right time. Or that was an audience really hungry for a non R rated comedy…
I’ll get back to this thread later but I wanted to comment that I really liked this doc. More enjoyable than Schickel’s doc from a couple years ago, my only complaint is the lack of depth or detail with some of Woody’s failures. As we get into the late 80s, Weide skips a bunch of films (as Den said, going into the first version of September would have been interesting). But I’m reading Lax’s book (I’ve actually been reading it for the past year – slow reader, hehe) and that’s really where the meat is, so it’s all good.
Gordon Willis was a huge influence on Woody Allen. Woody has talked about him being one of the biggest contributors to his development as a filmmaker. Because Gordon is such an obsessive, controlling cameraman and Woody didn’t really know much about the technical aspects of filmmaking, he really taught Woody about camera, lighting, etc. They worked on nine or ten movies together and I think you can really see his films develop during this time period. When Allen started working with Carlo Di Palma (who would shoot approx 15 Woody Allen movies), he had become a much more sophisticated filmmaker.
It’s funny, Woody Allen has talked about the difference between Gordy and Carlo. Carlo’s approach to filmmaking is much more like Woody’s, which is more laid back, lazy, easy going. Gordon on the other hand was much more controlling of the image and liked to prepare before production.
It’s too bad that the documentary doesn’t go into the contribution of Willis a little more. Now, I’m wondering if we should give more credit to Willis, at least for the visual aspects of the films.
Santino said, It’s funny, Woody Allen has talked about the difference between Gordy and Carlo. Carlo’s approach to filmmaking is much more like Woody’s, which is more laid back, lazy, easy going. Gordon on the other hand was much more controlling of the image and liked to prepare before production.
That is interesting. I’m assuming the doc doesn’t really go into how these different dynamics factored into the filmmaking.
No, the doc leaves a lot out. But to be fair, the guy has 50+ years of a career to cover so even in 3.5 hours, stuff will be left out. Jazz, I would highly recommend if you’re interested in Woody Allen, read Eric Lax’s book of interviews with Woody. It’s highly engrossing, very easy to read (although long), and goes into the many aspects of his filmmaking.
@Santino
No, the doc leaves a lot out. But to be fair, the guy has 50+ years of a career to cover so even in 3.5 hours, stuff will be left out.
True. But that’s what often makes these type of documentaries (and bio-pics) so disappointing for me.
Is the book strictly interviews? If so, I’m there, as I love reading interviews.
@2+2
I haven’t seen La Dolce in a long time, so I’m not sure if the connection is as plausible as you say. Still, I can understand why Woody hated the film if your theory is correct (and it’s an interesting theory that I wouldn’t immediately dismiss).
@ Jazz – Yeah, the book is all interviews and spans his whole career. The book is broken up into different sections that make up the process of filmmaking. So one chapter is on writing, another chapter on casting, another on directing, another on editing, etc. Within each chapter, the interviews are chronological. It’s a very engrossing book and in the process they talk about a lot of his films. I was more interested in it because i wanted to hear about his filmmaking process from Woody himself. He’s very open and honest, which I found very refreshing. And it’s not a memoir or biography – the only time it goes into his personal life is when it relates to his filmmaking. For instance, during the Mia breakup, he had to recast her part in Manhattan Murder Mystery with Diane Keaton.
Here is the book on Amazon:
Conversations with Woody Allen
I wasn’t a die hard Woody Allen fan when I started this book but after reading this, I become much more of an admirer of his work.
Another really good book that’s a collection of interviews not just with the filmmaker but with the people around him is Robert Altman: An Oral Biography. I read this a couple years ago and loved it.
Btw, one of the thing WA claims is that he’s nothing like his film persona and that his films aren’t autobiographical at all. Perhaps, in real life he’s a more different from his onscreen persona than we realize, but I feel like he’s exaggerating the difference—so much so that I wonder how self-aware he is. Anybody else get this sense?
@Santino
I’ll look for the book. Thanks! (The Altman one looks interesting, too, although I want to watch a little more of his films before I read that.)
@Jazz. Thanks for reading my “Theory”! I believed it less and less as I wrote it, but I still think this point can be made- That if he meant Manhattan as a grand moral exploration/warning, then it probably failed his expectations, because it is just too enjoyable and romantic a film. I loved it when I was young, but now I do also think of it as kind of a thematic jumble.
I don’t think Woody is self-aware at all! just a feeling one gets. can’t prove it.
@ Jazz -
I think Woody is extremely self aware and that’s one of the things that’s made him so successful as a filmmaker (and certainly as an actor). He knows his limitations, he knows people’s expectations of him, and he plays off of this.
The thing that I’ve realized about Allen is that he really is a modest and genuinely humble person. I agree with those in the doc that say he doesn’t care what others say about him, whether it’s good or bad. In regards to saying his films are not like him, well that depends. They are certainly extensions of the issues and themes that interest him. But in the literal sense, in the plot specific sense, no I don’t think his films are a direct reflection of him. When the woman in Stardust Memories says “I love your work, particularly your earlier funny pictures” that may be a reference to Woody’s own work but that’s not a signifier that the character he is playing in Stardust Memories is Woody Allen. You know what I mean? I think people confuse things like this all the time when comparing a filmmaker to their work.
In real life, I believe Woody when he says he’d rather go home to watch the Knicks or go down to the village to play the clarinet after a day of shooting a movie. In real life, he’s a pretty low key ordinary guy. But the characters in his films are not necessarily like this.
@Two
That if he meant Manhattan as a grand moral exploration/warning, then it probably failed his expectations, because it is just too enjoyable and romantic a film.
Right. But what do you make of Hannah, which seemed to have a similar mixture of exploring moral themes, romance and humor? Do you think he just embraced the approach in Manhattan (i.e., if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em? :)
I don’t think Woody is self-aware at all! just a feeling one gets. can’t prove it.
Right. The thing is, he seems so adamant that he’s nothing like his film persona. Yet, there seems to be obvious parallels.
@Jazz great point about Hanna. Perhaps that is more successful thematically because it is less “grand” and doesn’t have quite the panorama of self-involved characters. There is a family warmth about it, with the exception of the Max von Sydow character. The “bigness” and even “coldness” of the way Manhattan is shot sets expectations that this film is not only a comedy but a study of modern life (Woody’s version of modern life at least!… not as universal as he might think) These are both fine films- I think about them often because they I like them less now and wonder why. I own a copy of Manhattan
On his lack of self awareness: It’s in his films as well. Despite the entertaining neurosis of so many of his characters, do you ever get the sense that Woody as writer understands the undercurrents of neurosis? In Mike Leigh’s Another Year the lonely neurotic lead character is explored not only from her own perspective, but from the impact she has on those around her- a perspective that is glossed over in many, but not all, of Woody’s movies. Woody’s characters are often portrayed like their neurosis is the confused TRUTHFUL outpouring of their inner turmoil, which seems way too simple considering the convoluted nature of human psychology. Nonetheless, he is very entertaining.
during the doc there is some clips featured from a late 80’s BBC interview with Allen that I wish we got to see more of.
peter smith
I thought it did a pretty good of covering his body of work although I wish it had more teeth with his failures. Although the coverage of Stardust memories was really detailed.