home | search | poll | current columns
Woody 101: How to start loving or hating Woody Allen
By Matthew Prins
So, can you give me a vague 50-word career summary of
Woody's career?
Woody Allen was funny but not important. Then Woody was
funny and kinda important. Then Woody was important but
not so funny. Then Woody was very funny and important.
Then Woody went to that important and not-so-funny thing
again, and then he returned full circle to funny and less
important.
Um, can you condense that to five?
Woody's funny, important? It depends.
Where should I start with Woody's films?
"The Purple Rose of Cairo." "Rose" is not only Woody's
best film -- with only "Hannah and Her Sisters" coming close
-- but it's also the most accessible of his important films.
With apologies to the terrific "A.I." and others, I've
never seen a film discuss questions about what it means to
be human with the same passion as "The Purple Rose of
Cairo." Plus, it's much funnier than "A.I.," and it is
more successful in attempting a bittersweet ending.
Yeah, but that was already rented by some Woody-loving
dude or dudette. What else could I see as a good
introduction?
"Annie Hall." No, American Film Institute voting hes and
shes, it is not among the 50 best films ever, nor is it
among the five funniest, but it serves well as a balance
between Woody's humor and need to seem important. Or
"Hannah and Her Sisters," which is the most significant of
Woody's films to me personally.
Why?
I see too much of me in Elliot -- not his
I-just-must-sleep- with-this-person- I'm-not-married-to
tendencies, but his taking-people-for-granted tendencies.
I believe that every movie more than five years old is
elephant dung, and...
That's a horrible belief to hold, you know.
I know, but I still want to see a Woody Allen movie, so
what would you suggest?
Do you like musicals? Do you think a film having a
coherent plot, intelligent dialogue and any character
development is pleasant, but superfluous? With at least
one yes, see "Everyone Says I Love You."
Otherwise, while Sean Penn's performance in "Sweet and
Lowdown" made for a fantastic character study, and both
"Celebrity" (the subject of my first
ever review) and "Small Time Crooks" were somewhat
underrated, "Deconstructing Harry" is easily the most
appealing of his later films: a savagely funny
auto-critique of Woody's career.
I am starting a movie club at my church.
Cool. Is your church near Richmond, Virginia? I'd like to
come.
No, as the church is hypothetical.
Oh, yes, of course. Sorry.
Anyway, I was wondering what I should show at my
church's movie club.
"Crimes and Misdemeanors": the Woody film that most
explicitly discusses morality, the existence of God, and
whether morality can exist without God.
What is the best of his early, funny films?
Depends what you mean by "his...films." My favorite is
"Play It Again, Sam," which was written by and starred
Woody, but wasn't directed by him. Of the ones he's
directed -- and I havenāt seen "Bananas" -- I'd probably go
with "Love and Death."
I am a "Law and Order" fan who just simply must see D.A.
Nora Lewin and A.D.A. Jack McCoy kiss. Which Woody movie
should I see?
"September."
Which Woody Allen movies should I avoid unless I am a
completest?
"September" (except for the above necessity), "Manhattan
Murder Mystery," "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy,"
"Manhattan," and "What's Up, Tiger Lily?"
Um, wait a second. Did you say "Manhattan"?
No.
No?
No. I wrote it.
Um, okay, that's quite humorous and all, but I was under
the impression that "Manhattan" is one of his more
acclaimed films.
It is, but that doesn't excuse its emotional similarities
with "Annie Hall," nor its sub-par (for Woody) dialogue,
nor it's misuse of Wally Shawn. Plus, I wasn't nearly as
in love with the black-and-white cinematography as most
critics were.
But you did see this film at a public library on a
13-inch screen while wearing headphones, which is not the
best circumstance to see "Manhattan" in, yes?
Well, yes.
mdp
Ryan Karl
Dan Buck
One oversight however.
"Oedipus Wrecks" is Woody's contribution to the collection of short films called "New York Stories" and it is freaking hilarious. And I don't use "freaking" lightly. The other films in the collection are sub par, but the rental fee is worth it to see Woody's charcater (and all of New York City) hounded by the Manhattan-sized ghost of his mother hovering above them all. Hysterical.
Thanks again for the cool article.
Jeff Diaz
Rich Kennedy
The important thing about Woody Allen is to remember that just because there are absolutes, doesn't mean that everything is absolute. Prins is better at analysing film than I am, yet from my posterior in the seat, he has a lot about Woody all wrong. Woody is DEFINETELY the kind of director over whom it is fun to disagree. Also, to give the early stuff short shrift, or only judge him by his analysis of weighty issues (I do not intend to mischaracterize Prins'views this way, this is cautionary) is to miss out on a lot of fun. If the last 100 years of film history is any indication at all of what will last, he will be remembered for the silly stuff.
Matthew Prins
Dan: I actually *own* NEW YORK STORIES, but I've never seen it. One of those things, you know.
Jeff: My opinion on MANHATTAN is *way* in the minority, and because of the situation in which I saw the film, I don't feel adequate to defend my view. I own MANHATTAN, too, but I've never seen it on my (comparatively huge) 25-incher; I suspect, though, that this is a movie that demands to be seen 20 feet tall to be cherished.
Rich: There is a huge difference in my opinions of WHAT'S UP, TIGER LILY? and MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY. There is nothing wrong with MYSTERY; it's a fine, funny film, and I have no misgivings about people seeing it. (My brother, in fact, prefers it to ANNIE HALL.) WHAT'S UP, TIGER LILY? is a wretched mess that is only made more wretched by knowing it was my buddy Woody who directed it. It's the equivalent of the (similarly overrated) SPY KIDS: great high-concept idea for a film, but wearisome execution. But like you say: it's fun to disagree about Woody.
Robert E
Irreverent and absurdist humor just wasn't easy to come by in the 60's and early 1970's. Comedians of the day were Alan King, Henny Youngman and Bob Hope. They told jokes about mothers-in-law and how great it was to be in Phnom Penh. By 1977, Steve Martin and his extreme absurdist take on life burst on the scene. In the middle of Martin's side-splitting jokes he would say, "we're all having some fun for people that are gonna die someday!" That year the acclaimed Annie Hall was made. After Manhattan in 1979, Woody turned "serious". Now with little skill, you can find as much crazy, silly, philosophical or any type of humor on the internet as you want. Yes it's of varying quality but Woody always needed an editor of his scripts, too.
During the time Woody Allen started directing films, we thought Mel Brooks was a superb director of funny spoof films. Now that Brooks' funny bone has been removed, he repeats himself (see Broadway). Mel never wanted to be important, just funny and when he lost funny, he lost his audience.
Woody Allen's films never had big audiences, even the acclaimed Annie Hall. He's currently suing his long time producer, even though she, (and I believe her) kept him working when no one else would. It's hard for me to recommend him to other people because he's like pistachio ice cream, some people love it, some think it's weird.
To me Woody Allen is a cultural artifact, worth a bit on the Antiques Roadshow of filmdom, but not the value his acolytes think. For me? What's Up Tiger Lily? is silly and more miss than hit, Take the Money and Run and Play It Again, Sam funny without much to think about, but starting with Love and Death, Woody was funny, but also pointed in his religious and philosophical humor. Annie Hall and Manhattan were the last, best and most complete films in his ouvre, IMHO. Yes, I've seen some "modern" Woody movies as well, but they're derivative and poorly structured, I think--and not very funny.
What Woody Allen film to show to your church film group, what film would cause the most discussion?
After Love and Death, it's gotta be Mighty Aphrodite. If you can ignore the salty language and sexual references and sexual situations in the film...oh, there's nothing left. But it is where he's at today, and it will generate discussion!
Rich Kennedy
Hey Bob, you forgot "Crimes and Misdemeanors", tailor made for a wiggy Bible study.
Use the form below to give feedback on this movie, or to respond to this article. Remember, we want to hear what your opinions are, not just why other opinions are wrong. Comments will be posted within 48 hours.
READER RESPONSES
I love Annie Hall and Sleeper. Two of my favorite movies of all time.
I have seen alot of Woody Allen's movies and I'm not crazy over them like these
two. Any recomindations? I would love to hear them.
Thrilled to see your very enjoyable analysis of Woody Allen films. And for the most part you have peaked my curiosty on several that I have yet to see.
I was right with you until the Manhattan section. Manhattan is a far superior movie than "Purple Rose" and "Annie Hall" in my very small opinion is one of the best movies in history. But aside from that...great work with Mr. Allen.
I guess there is no accounting for taste, but "What's Up Tiger Lily" is quite delightful if you ignore the rude interludes by, I believe, the Lovin' Spoonful. I must confess to having a thing for Diane Keaton since "Love and Death" so maybe I like "Manhattan Murder Mystery" because she attained her status as most beautiful woman in the world, older than I am in that film, but that movie is delightful as an older person's Nancy Drew mystery.
I'm not sure how appropriate feedback is to feedback, but...
Woody Allen has sometimes been funny, but he really wanted to be important. Of course to think he's funny you must appreciate the wry observations of a stammering, neurotic New York Jewish agnostic who majored in Philosophy. That character which he mainly uses in his "funny" films was so different at the time it was like air conditioning in a Florida summer, shocking and stunning. And to me, it was very funny. But, unlike Chaplin's Little Tramp, Woody's creation was more time-bound, funny at the time, but not enduring.
Way to go, Robert E! I am betting that this my croney in crime from bachelorhood with whom I shared what is still my greatest entertainment experience to date, Steve Martin in a small club just before he hit it big (and therefore, at the height of comedic execution and audience appreciation). Within a month, his shows became screaming equivalents of N'sync concerts. This guy taught me the basics of comedy back in the stone age, he knows!