by Allan Fish
(USA 1979 96m) DVD1/2
He adored New York City
p Jack Rollins, Charles H.Joffe d Woody Allen w Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman ph Gordon Willis ed Susan E.Morse md Tom Pierson m George Gershwin (including “Rhapsody in Blue”) art Mel Bourne
Woody Allen (Isaac Davis), Mariel Hemingway (Tracy), Diane Keaton (Mary Wilke), Meryl Streep (Jill), Michael Murphy (Yale), Anne Byrne (Emily), Karen Ludwig (Connie), Wallace Shawn (Jeremiah), Karen Allen, Mark Linn-Baker,
Looked back upon from the safe distance of over a quarter of a century, Woody Allen’s masterpiece can now be seen for what it is, disassociated with all the baggage, emotional and professional, that accompanied it at the time. Indeed, the same could be said of Allen’s entire oeuvre as he certainly hasn’t made any really major films in over a decade (Crimes and Misdemeanors and Husbands and Wives being the last). Many will scoff at my including only four in the entire list (the others being Sleeper, Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters), but the fact is that Allen’s output is just not quite as idolised as once it was; Bananas and Love and Death are hilarious but very patchy and the later Crimes and Misdemeanors, though undoubtedly original and blessed with superb performances, left rather a sour taste in the mouth, ditto Husbands and Wives. Manhattan’s inclusion is not simply down to it being his greatest film, or because it represents the typically Allenian depiction of stressful city life in the modern era. It’s included because, deep down, it’s a love letter not to romance, but to a city. As Allen goes on to say in that iconic opening dictation, “New York was his town and it always would be.” Whereas Allen’s other major films could be transposed to any other American metropolis, Manhattan just couldn’t for many reasons other than the eponymous one. It’s also unique in his filmography as it was shot in a widescreen letterbox process (though still in the mono sound he religiously uses to this very day).
Just as the opening sequence perfectly opened his billet doux to the Big Apple, the shots of Allen’s jogging along the sidewalk to Gershwin’s ‘Strike Up the Band’ in an attempt to reach Tracy before she leaves for Europe give it its perfect conclusion. At first glance we have a happy ending, which is what movies are all about, especially those that – to quote him – existed in black and white and pulsated with the music of George Gershwin. It’s a perfect illusionary finale, but deep down we know that all has not ended happily. Tracy will, we assume, meet someone else over in Europe and certainly Allen will not take up celibacy. Allen, like the directors of the golden period he so loves, knows that movies not only hold up a mirror to life but to our dreams. Only in the movies could fireworks go off over the Manhattan skyline in rhythm to Rhapsody in Blue (conducted by Zubin Mehta no less). Such images are fantastic in every sense of the word, gorgeously composed by D.P. Gordon Willis, whose luminous work may well be his greatest (which considering his work on Coppola’s Godfather saga is quite a statement).
Allen’s films may have their detractors, and certainly he has occasionally been wrapped up in a seriousness that is hard to take, but his observances are not only accurate but nearly always amusing. You may never truly believe what he says (“people should mate for life, like pigeons and Catholics” he says at one point, before leaving one girl for another), but you almost can’t help but love him for promoting his own fantasies on screen. Isaac really is the closest of his roles to himself, in some respects (the dating of a 17 year old) almost dangerously so, but hilariously when showing horror at Keaton mispronouncing Van Gogh and slagging off Bergman, Mahler, et al. He’s insecure, neurotic, a hypochondriac and a pessimist. He’s a man of great sexual technique who nonetheless admits that when it comes to women “I’m the winner of the August Strindberg award.” So quintessential is he that, in spite of the immortal Gershwin, the photography and the supporting actresses (Hemingway particularly, giving the film its closing line “you gotta learn to have a little faith in people”), this was his film and it always would be.
Contest: Win a Whatever Works poster signed by Larry David!
Go to the LarryDavidFan blog for a chance to win an exclusive poster for Woody Allen’s latest feature, Whatever Works, signed by star Larry David…
Interesting that you tip your hand as to what the two other Allens will be – usually you guard your cards a little more jealously! But your choices are, of course, excellent – these are probably the three most well-rounded Allen features.
I have some problems with Manhattan, but it’s also a favorite, and I wouldn’t change it for the world. Ultimately I prefer Annie Hall because Manhattan (and Hannah too) are a little too self-satisfied in their bourgie comforts. Even Allen’s delivery takes on a slightly mannered quality, in tune with the exquisitely composed, perfectionist cinematography and the spare, evocative use of sound and image (it’s one of the more Antonioniesque Allens at times). In other words, this is a highly controlled film, which is both good (it marks it for greatness) and, if not bad, troublesome, as it loses the zaniness which Annie Hall preserves alongside the auteur’s growing sophistication.
At any rate, I like the fact that it’s ending is ambiguous and poignant as opposed to the ending of Hannah, which is downright complacent and tidy. I like the taste of tragedy in my comedy, and Allen preserves it with a wonderful twist on the end of City Lights.
Clever closing line, by the way.
P.S. Does anyone else want to throttle Michael Murphy’s character in this movie? So f’ing smarmy.
Well, remember MM that by list I’m referring to my full book, not the countdown, and in the full book four are included – Sleeper, Annie Hall, Manhattan and Hannah and Her Sisters. Should have checked that prior to posting, this one was written several years ago.
My problem with Manhattan is that the film knows it is great. It is too self-assured, so I also prefer <Annie Hall. Also, I believe Allen said that his favorite movie is Love and Death, and that one always got short shrift in comparison to his later, smoother films. I would take the metaphysical humor of Love and Death over the melodrama of Hannah and Her Sisters any day.
Filmdr, this is in part was I was trying to get at – that’s a good phrase, “self-assured.” That it has good reason to be, though, redeems it somewhat in my eyes.
Manhattan is Allen’s best movie. The b&w photography, the score, and the sweeping pathos of the city a metaphor for Issac’s persona. For Allen is sadly pathetic: unwilling to accept the responsibility of maturity and always desperately looking for the next youthful mooring that will forestall the inevitable: aging and death.
Annie Hall is too cute by half and now looks dated. Allen’s comedies have always been bourgeois fantasies. Btw, just how does a film “know it is great” and how is it “too self-assured”?
Many ways, Tony: the occasionally smug look on Allen’s face, the mannered delivery (he sounds like he’s striving to pronounce each “neurotic” bon mot with great precision and perfectly-placed throat-clearings), the bombast of the music with the images, the introductory voiceover, the iconic quality of the photography, the Antonioniesque use of negative space (veering dangerously close to the McLuhanite in the Fellini line of Annie Hall), et cetera ad nauseam.
That many of these qualities also make the film genuinely great is something I acknowledge (I can’t speak for FilmDr) but it’s a double-edged sword, because their grandeur at times sits uneasily next to the unpretentious neurotic charm of the classic Allen character.
I disagree strongly with you on Annie Hall, which I think is his masterpiece, and I don’t see how the “dated” qualities detract from it: it’s of its time, but not bound to it – like looking through your parents’ album and laughing at the fashion and hairdos but still finding those evergreen themes which keep the world turning: love, loneliness, family, community, adventure, excitement, boredom, hopes, dreams, failures, et cetera ad nauseam.
There are films where Allen consolidates his growth as an artist (Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters) and others where he tries something different (notably <Stardust Memories and Zelig). Annie Hall just seems fresher to me, more improvisational in its structure than Manhattan (I also have problems with the swooning cinematography of the latter). It is as if Allen had already gotten a little sentimental not just about the city of New York, but also about his own brilliance. Comedy needs insecurity to work, and with Manhattan, Allen is a little too assured of his success for my taste.
I like Manhattan, but there’s a lot of Allen I’d rank above it. And it should come as no surprise that I don’t agree that Allen hasn’t made “any really major films” since Husbands & Wives. At the very least, I’d say that Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry, Anything Else and Vicky Cristina Barcelona are major works that should be ranked among his best.
I think I’d rank literally ANYTHING ELSE ahead of Anything Else…well, maybe not Cassandra’s Dream…
No mention has been made here of my own favorite Allen of them all, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, but of course when we proceed to the 80’s this film will receive its due focus.
I do not have the issues that Film Dr. and Movie Man have with MANHATTAN, but maybe ‘assuredness’ is not so serious a violation. Still I am with the Film Dr. on his love for ANNIE HALL, which I have always considered one of my favorites by this director, regardless of its rightful fame.
Tony d’Ambra’s first paragraph, extolling MANHATTAN’S virtues is exilarating. I am also not a fan of ANYTHING ELSE, but I greatly respect Ed’s position to the contrary.
Wonderful embellishment there by Movie Man on the Antonioniesque qualities of the film, and the final twist on CITY LIGHTS. Movie Man, when you decry the lack of zaniness at the expense of ‘control’ I can only say that Allen’s career has informed us repeatedly that you can’t have it both ways.
Sam, what do you mean by this?
Movie Man: What I meant by this is that Allan’s earlier irreverent and comparatively undisciplined films do not have the ‘artsitic control’ and maturity of the later work, a fact I know you are well aware of. Of course the price to pay with the said later work is that you don’t have that delirious and delectable zaniness and slapstick that characterized the first phase of his career. I was under th eimpression tou were posing some kind of a correlation there.
This is an interesting topic of conversation because I actually find Allen’s earlier work to be far more “controlled” — for the most part, they’re fairly rote comedies. The plots are “zany” and “irreverent,” perhaps, but they have clear conflict –> resolution arcs (“Sleeper,” “Love and Death,” etc) with key elements cleverly inverted for the sake of humor. Compare this to even “Annie Hall,” which embodies the messiness and duality of romance in fits and starts of vignettes. Or “Broadway Danny Rose,” which arguably DOES have it both ways: a bonkers non-plot is tied to a rather sophisticated portrait of an all-American loser and his tragic exploits.
Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t apply everywhere — “Crimes and Misdemeanors” has about the cleanest plot arc around. But I don’t think Allen is necessary at his best when he’s narratively “in control” — neither in his earlier, funny ones, or his later, serious ones. Quite piquant observations, however, Sam!
Jon, I think Sam is speaking aesthetically rather than narratively – the plastic, rather than the thematic qualities of the pictures so to speak. In response, I’d say, Sam, that you’re ALMOST right – but I find that Annie Hall finds the best compromise between control (mostly narrative, but also stylistically – the diversty of styles is delivered judiciously and with an eye towards rhythmic effectiveness) and zaniness – in the apparent (but perhaps only apparent) anarchy of the style. That’s probably why it remains my favorite Allen – Ed’s description of it as a transitional film in the best sense is right on the money.
Jon, I think Sam is speaking aesthetically rather than narratively – the plastic, rather than the thematic qualities of the pictures so to speak.
Gotcha, I just dislike the general notion of comedy — even screwball comedy, in some cases — as disorganized or uncontrolled. There is nothing so meticulously controlled as comedy, especially scripted comedy — the audience knows it is supposed to laugh, and the performer/writer provokes the desired reaction through (in most cases) obvious reversals of linguistic, dramatic, and narrative expectation. Drama is different: there’s no one, specific reaction that the audience is anticipating, so one can be more experimental without seeming tedious.
If you listen to Woody’s pre-film stand-up (highly recommended), the jokes are hilarious, but very ordered. He’s something of a typical Jewish raconteur on stage, with steadily rhythmic punchlines punctuating his anecdotes (“I’d like to talk about my marriage…or, as I refer to it, The Ox Bow Incident”). His early comedies are, I think, very similar to this: He’s too anal to truly be “zany” (Ed Howard mentions something similar in this thread).
Fair point, Jon. I do think the appearance remains zany however, so perhaps we can come up with a better term. “Apparently zany”? Doesn’t have much zing to it, but it gets the point across.
I also think what we’re trying to hit on here is that the film’s style is largely just a carrier for the jokes. From some of the earliest films, you see a very high degree of sophistication in the “cinematic” qualities of Allen’s films – as I recall, Sleeper at times manages to actually evoke a futuristic world (much as Monty Python & the Holy Grail nails the medeival aura in the midst of all the tomfoolery) and Love and Death, along with an at times lavish template risks formal parodies of Eisenstein and Bergman. Nonetheless, these stylistic hiccups are largely asides and the focus is on the content – only in Annie Hall do we see the beginnings of an interweaving between form and content on a more highly developed level. I think this is what Sam was getting at.
By the time of Manhattan, we had a highly conscious, highly impressive style which did squish some of the “apparent” free-form wildness of Allen’s early work.
I’m well aware that any kind words for Anything Else represent a distinct minority opinion. But oh well.
I do agree with the posts by FilmDr and MovieMan here about the relative merits of Annie Hall and Manhattan. The former is a transitional work for Allen, but while that term is usually reserved for films that are more interesting for their place in a directors’ career than for their actual quality, Annie Hall is a transition in the best sense. It’s transitional in that it combines the looseness and restlessness and non sequiturs of “the early funny ones” with the more mature, self-consciously arty material that Allen would soon begin exploring. Its stylistic pastiche is its greatest strength.
“Its stylistic pastiche is its greatest strength.”
Indeed Ed.
I think Film Dr.’s comment that MANHATTAN “knows” it’s great is true in the sense that it recognizes the greatness of Manhattan and the music of George Gershwin. There’s a difference between films that are sort of self-important for no reason other than the director’s or producer’s ego, and those that are aware of the relevance of what they are depicting, mythologizing, etc. MANHATTAN is a love letter to a city, not to itself, and I think Allen was quite successful in getting this across to his audience.
I”l have a longer response to this post later (by the way, Allans best review ever). For me, of Woody’s slapstick stuff I was always more a fan of BANANAS-the snake bite scene is hilarious and the “take out order” scene is evocative of the Marx Bros.) Of his films that span 1976 to 1980, or the period where I believe he finds his maturity, I would have to side with Allan and MANHATTAN). However, where I will part ways with my dear friend from the UK is his later work. For sheer audacity in theme, and as a sign that the filmmaker is studying the questions of his own life and inner soul, I’d have to say his masterpiece is CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS. Like SCHINDLER’S LIST for Steven, LAST TEMPTATION for Marty, I think that film is the one he always wanted to make and was his deepest expression of himself as a thinker and artist. Great review Allan, my favorite so far.
And by the way.. The screen cap couldn’t have been more perfect as an illustration of what this film really is: a love letter to the great gotham city.
Allan’s artistry was in full flower in this film, which I still believe to be his best. The review here pushes all the right buttons.
I will check the link to the Larry David Fansite.
“Hannah and Her Sisters” is to my mind the best 70s Allen, but this one is a close second — and I’m not sure that I agree with the assessments that this film “knows” its strengths. Actually, there are a handful of scenes that are downright clunky, where all the seams of Woody’s labor to try to create an effective drama are on display. This is particularly noticeable towards the end, where Allen and the Murphy character (who is indeed a jackass, but that’s the point — I adore Michael Murphy) are arguing ham-handedly in front of a skeleton about sexual morality. The editing is gratingly arrhythmic, and we feel as though Allen can tell — there’s a kind of post-production malaise frustration diffused throughout “Manhattan”. This, however, is an admirable fit for the stop-and-start state of mind of the main character, and most of the film is delightful — the scene in the planetarium is one of the finest that Gordon Willis ever shot, and Woody’s bon mots are consistently funny.
Also: aside from Christina Ricci’s horrid performance, I kinda liked “Anything Else”. I also think “Melinda and Melinda,” “Match Point” and “Scoop” all rank with Woody’s best work. I confess, however, that he’s always been one of my favorite directors.
we agree again. (though ‘hannah and her sister’s’ is mid 80’s).
i don’t think ‘hannah’ was his last great film either, as you say ‘melinda and melinda’, ‘match point’, and ’scoop’ are all good films. i like ‘anything else’ but i’d put it in the middle tier allen (along with ‘vicky christina barcelona’). lost in all these discussions are the absolute stone cold brilliance of ‘purple rose of cairo’ (probably his greatest mainstream effort) and ‘husbands and wives’. i actually think his 90’s and later work is underrated (though uneven), ‘hollywood ending’ is ok, ’small time crooks’, ‘manhattan murder mystery’ (very fun in my opinion), and ’shadows and fog’ (if just for the photography) and ’sweet and lowdown’. i’d also mention the fun piece he made for the ‘new york stories’ movie, called ‘Oedipus Wrecks’. though i will say i consider him (perhaps) the greatest american screenwriter/director so i realize i’m quite biased with all these judgements. i just find saying things like ‘i have a problem with some of his works’ to be very daft, and incredibly condescending. i am no admirer of Michelangelo (or anything of that ilk) but if he rose from the ground tomorrow i wouldn’t be smug enough to say i didn’t care for his work.
i rank ’stardust memories’ as my favorite allen (for pure personal reasons) and i think it’s the best photographed film of his career.
for fun purposes here are my favorite allens (in order):
1. Stardust Memories
2. Crimes and Misdemeanors
3. Hannah and her Sisters
4. Purple Rose of Cairo
5. Manhattan
6. Play it Again Sam
7. Annie Hall
8. Deconstructing Harry
9. Interiors
10. Celebrity
(though ‘hannah and her sister’s’ is mid 80’s).
Whoops! That’s what I get for commenting while on a work-related conference call.
Excellent list there, Jamie, and it’d be hard to me to improve upon it. I always thought “Interiors” was rather unfairly maligned. I might, however, be tempted to swap out “Annie Hall” for “Radio Days” and “Celebrity” for “Zelig”. I have quite a soft spot for both of those films, though I could say the same for most of Allen’s work. “Stardust Memories” is a masterpiece. I also enjoy “Shadows and Fog” — moodily lit, and Kenneth Mars! How can you go wrong?
I also was holding out hope that “Purple Rose” — Allen’s most heartbreaking morality tale and a prescient statement about our paradoxical reliance on and ambivalence towards multimedia — would make the WitD 80s list, so I figured I’d withhold mentioning it.
Strangely, I find even the most lugubrious of Allen’s films to be rather uplifting, perhaps because he champions (quite embarrassingly) my own personal nihilism in such a tender, exacting manner. I once declared “Hannah and Her Sisters” the ultimate Atheist love story — as such, I try to watch it with the frequency one might take vitamins to maintain bone density or their immune system.
Seriously, though, Jamie, are you and I estranged cousins, or what?
OK Jamie, I’ll play:
1 Crimes and Misdemeanors
2 Annie Hall
3 Manhattan
4 Everyone Says I Love You
5 Love and Death
6 Stardust Memories
7 Match Point
8 Purple Rose of Cairo
9 Bananas
10 Sleeper
I’ll play too:
1. Hannah and Her Sisters
2. Annie Hall
3. Broadway Danny Rose
4. Vicky Cristina Barcelona
5. Celebrity
6. Radio Days
7. Stardust Memories
8. Sleeper
9. Anything Else
10. Husbands & Wives
I am with Sam on “Crimes and Misdemeanors” as Allen’s best film. But I also like “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” which I know Sam wasn’t a fan of. It always seems like so many try and find fault with “Manhattan” when truly there is almost none to find.
I sympathize with this position, Peter, but consider that Allen churned out more masterpieces in his heyday than pretty much any of his contemporaries. In order to create a hierarchy of quality with Allen, you’ve got to nitpick (something I happen to be fairly adept at, along with many others here)!
Thanks Jon, I can definitely go along wiith your way of thinking.
I concur with a lot that is being said here. Allen was maturing with “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan.” I love both these films and find it a difficult decision on which I would rank higher, and both with be on my 70’s list. His progression from his first 70’s films “Bananas”, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex…” and on to “Sleeper”, “Love and Death” and onward reflect a progessive maturity, at least in filmmaking, if not in his screen character. His first films were funny but cinematically a mess. Of these films though, “Love and Death” deserves more attention.
Dennis got it right in describing Allen’s early work, like “Bananas” as “evocative of the Marx Brothers.”
For me, his two masterworks came in future decades (Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors).
Of his later work, he can still put out a good film, “Match Point”, “Vicky Christina Barcelona”, and “Celebrity”. While I won’t make claims on how great they are, I have a real soft spot for “Manhattan Murder Mystery” and “Bullets Over Broadway” and “Scoop.”
I should confess that I’ve always thought the “zaniness” of Allen’s earlier work was much overrated. Like Jon, I think one of things holding back the films like Bananas and Everything You Always Wanted To Know… is that they were too controlled, too structured, when what they were really striving for was loony comedy. As much as Allen idolizes the Marx brothers, he’s not them. He has a gift for both verbal and physical comedy, but he’s not zany or carefree — he’s too much of a thinker to be anything but deliberate about his art. That’s why his earliest few films are a little disappointing, IMO: they try so hard to be crazy and silly but Woody’s controlling hand always shows through. They feel a bit stiff. Woody’s first few films are like the nerdy guy who goes to a dance club and tries to loosen up with a few drinks but you can feel that it’s still not really his thing.
Sleeper and Love and Death were a step in the right direction, and then from Annie Hall on I think Woody just embraced his strengths as a comic and filmmaker, and to some extent eased off the attempts at loony surrealist humor.
Jon,
Radio Days is to Woody Allen’s career what Amarcord is to Federico Fellinis. (both are overrated to hell)
Zelig: Technically inventive, but like faberge egg, gorgeous to look at but a vacuum at the heart.
I actually agree that “Radio Days” is overrated (as is “Amarcord”), but overrated films can still be great. My dad grew up in Brooklyn and I spent much time there as a child, so I think part of my affection springs from that.
As for “Zelig” — I disagree. It might be Allen’s most subversively compassionate film. But I’ll defend this point later, and I can certainly understand your opinion.
Who overrates Radio Days exactly? It’s a fantastic film, and I almost never hear it come up in discussions of Woody. I’ve always hated the concept of “overrated”/”underrated” anyway: if you want to talk about a film, talk about the film, not the critical reaction. Otherwise you’ve got discourse about discourse, spiraling ever further away from the film itself.
It’s funny, though, on my long-ago review of Radio Days, David Ehrenstein made the same comment about that film being Woody’s Amarcord — though for him it was a positive thing! (As it is for me; Amarcord is a lovely film.) He also suggested that he likes Woody best when he’s “doing” Fellini rather than “doing” Bergman. Any thoughts on that? I’m not sure I agree myself anymore, now that I’ve seen some of Woody’s great cynical masterworks of the 90s. Personally, I think Woody’s at his best at the extremes: in his warmest moments, when he is most enthusiastically attuned to his characters (Hannah and Her Sisters) and in his most cynical, darker moments (Celebrity). Maybe those two poles can be thought of as Fellini/Bergman?
You know, Ed, it’s weird about “Radio Days” being deemed overrated — I think it was more or less doomed to be denoted as such, just as “Stardust Memories” was doomed to be the film in which Woody “lashed out” at his fans, etc. I remember when my dad showed me “Radio Days” for the first time (he introduced me to most of Allen’s oeuvre) and he prefaced the screening with: “A lot of people think this movie is Allen’s best. It’s not. But it’s good.” I have no clue to what he referred (critical response seems to have been generally decent but not enthusiastic). But from then on, it became “the overrated one”. It is, however, a fantastic film — a lovely letter to a dead era with dead-on performances and several witty observations.
Than again, my dad also thought “Manhattan” was a dreadful bore (he could not have been more mistaken), so I should know better…
That’s a great point, Ed (about the Bergman/Fellini). I think his two “departure” films in the late 70s were Interiors and Stardust Memories. Clearly Interiors is heavily influenced by Bergman, to put it lightly (though I understand that it also echoes some formidable modern playwrights, whom – with the exception of Chekhov – I unfortunately have not read nor seen performed), while Stardust Memories is a transparent ode to 8 1/2. And yet…that latter film is also a narrative transposition of Wild Strawberries, so maybe the Bergman influence was always stronger in Allen’s work? (Or maybe only at that point in his career – certainly Radio Days doesn’t have much Bergman in it – unless, MAYbe by a stretch, the early passages of Fanny and Alexander? Jeez, the Swede is inescapable…)
Good points, MovieMan. Those two filmmakers, probably the primary cinematic influences on Woody, are interweaved throughout his career, and though different films reflect more of one or the other, the two tendencies often coexist as well.
I think it’s also a question of Woody being able to integrate his influences more fluidly over time. Interiors has its moments, but the Bergman influence is so undigested; it’s a very self-conscious attempt to make “a Bergman movie,” just as the early comedies were so self-conscious about their attempts at zany humor. Later, Woody would be much subtle about such things: the gorgeous, haunting September is, I think, the film Woody was *trying* to make with Interiors.
Bergman is my favorite of all directors, but INTERIORS was a failure. It was a blatent attempt to follow the Swede’s style and narrative context, but in fact was oppressive emulation. But Movie Man, to answer your open question, Allen has always favored Bergman over all others, including Fellini, just bty the breadth of his output and passion. I concur with Ed Howard’s “undigested” point above. Allen has many heroes, and like a child moving from one toy to the next he embraces them in spurts. i.e. jazz, Marcel Ophuls, vaudeville, Tolstoy, etc. But we have sufficient proof by way of quantity that Bergman is his man, a point I take great satisfaction in.
ultimate Atheist love story (in reference to ‘Hannah’), Jon you may have really opened something up here…
as an atheist i’m always looking for tales that inspire and show sentiment, as sort of a “see there is plenty of heart in unbelief!” to all my believing brethren….
so far for films I have trouble topping you, but i’ve always felt ‘Hiroshima Mon Amour’ is a pretty excellent film in this regard. i generally find films that appeal to the atheist in me in terms of love to show what i feel love is; fleeting, finite, and not always just for people. in this regard ‘Umberto D’ (and his dog) is a great love story, as is most of Malick (‘A New World’ and ‘Days of Heaven’ in particular). i’ve found ‘La belle noiseuse’ to be an excellent film for the subject of love; an artist’s love for his subject, but more importantly a love of creating/painting.
i find modern literature captures this best and i wonder if you (or anyone else) has read ‘The Moviegoer’ by Walker Percy? there is a section where he takes his MG ( i believe he has a late T series, or an early A; if i had my way it would be an A) and strolls romantically with his secretary, the section expounds on how the MG’s beauty is a deflector of despair and in it he can approach love with the beautiful southern belle. nothing substantial comes of the romance but for the hour or two it’s perfect and all we can hope for. it’s sublime; as good and emotional as anything Camus or Sartre ever approached. maybe I should wait for our resident literature professor Sam on this?
Jamie, thanks for the respectful reference, especially since I teach Jr. High School and Elementary English and literature (and not College level), but I have never read THE MOVIEGOER by Percy. It does indeed sound sublime. Of course I know Camus’s and Sartre’s work well enough, so I can see the urgency of your assessment here.
I completely agree with what you above about the De Sica and the Rivette films, and in fact the Malicks too. I am more of an agnostic. I’m too frightened to take it to your level. LOL!!!
Since we like to open cans of worms on this website, what do you guys mean when you call yourselves “atheists.” That you do not believe in God as an Almighty Person? Neither do I, yet I would not call myself an atheist. I think the word “God” denotes a Ground of Being – a deeper state that it is possible for a human to attain. I think this is what most religions were based around, but eventually many believers lost the thread and started worshipping the symbolism and rituals which were originally means to an end.
I’ve noticed some self-described atheists are actually adherents of a spiritual state (Sam Harris comes to mind) while others are devoutly materialist – seeing no value whatsoever in supposedly “spiritual” states and trying to debunk them every chance they get.
I’m with Aldous Huxley, who held that it didn’t matter whether “spiritual” states arose from our Heavenly Father or an upset stomach – what mattered was the experience itself.
Damn it MovieMan, you’ve tempted me back to this thread…and just when I thought I could safely return to work…
I can’t speak for Jamie, obviously, but I refer to myself as an Atheist (with a capital “A”) due to my obstreperously anti-transcendental and skeptical perspective. I don’t think it’s worthwhile to go into the reasons or motives for my lack of belief or belief in the purely material, but I will point out that my rejection of spirituality began as an abstract denial of objective “truth” and categorical morality rather than a desire to debunk spiritual “states”. I have some sense of the numinous — film has taught me that much — but then again I’m more on the “upset stomach” side of Huxley’s dichotomy. I agree with him that the presumed sources of such experiences are not as important as the effect on the individual, but the problem is that experience is so rarely taken and appreciated at face value, and therein lies the argument.
I would also go far enough off the cliff to call myself a nihilist in the sense that, like Woody Allen, I don’t feel the universe has any particular structure or meaning in the philosophical or ontological sense aside from that which humans invest in it (though the universe certainly seems to have order where, say, biology in concerned, though this is in part due to the tidy hierarchies and systems we have imposed upon such disciplines). Given that, it’s not possible for human beings to “connect with” or “experience” anything greater than material existence, though consciousness can surely take many different forms.
Oddly enough, rather than leading to a dour existence that “dooms” one to live life irresponsibly, I think the only sane interpretation of the above conclusions — which are just the tip of my credo’s iceberg — is to truly be as humanly aware as you possibly can. Without spirituality to dole out some heavenly reward, or even a set moral system on which we can lean during complexly painful moments, the burden of intellectualism — and more importantly compassion — becomes quite cumbersome. As Jamie puts it above: “see there is plenty of heart in unbelief!” I think there’s actually MORE heart in unbelief (though I’m not accusing believers of hypocrisy — far from it, I respect diversity in spiritual perspectives) because it isn’t linked to any more formidable being or state (ie the notion that “God is Love”): it comes from only the individual. As does everything.
Now, I’m off to shop for a bbq…
Interesting statement. As always, I find that my “debates” with atheists usually hinge on the . I am not fundamentally in disagreement with many of the things you say, Jon, except that my position on transcendentalism is agnostic…I’m not comfortable saying unequivocally that the human mind cannot connect with anything outside of itself, because I simply don’t think I’ve penetrated deeply enough into that realm to know what the transcendentalists (lower-case) are talking about. I have enough of a sense to know there’s something out there – call it numinous, call it spiritual, call it what you will – and that, while everything is essentially material, this “other” goes beyond traditional concepts of the material.
As far as your “nihilist” viewpoint goes, I’m pretty close to that idea myself but see it more as a starting point than anything else (maybe you do too). Where do we go from there – what ethical or moral ground do we establish? In that sense, you could say I’m an existentialist, but I’d be uncomfortable assuming that mantle as I’ve read very little Sartre and Camus and hence haven’t really explored the options therein.
Plus I’m not sure I can go along with their notions of free will – viewed objectively, it seems hard to argue with the notion that human behavior and perhaps even thought processes are governed by determinist law, that what I will say and do next is as compulsive and pre-ordained as the fall of a raindrop. From a “God’s-eye-view” so to speak it would seem that no person has ever made a choice which could not be predicted if one knew everything about their DNA, personal history, and the behavior of every atom around them. All that sets us apart from any other mechanistic device is this odd little thing called consciousness, which may be more like the steam coming out of the choo-choo than the engine driving it (read that example once upon a time and it stuck with me; not sure where it came from).
But this is, of course, a total dead end – short-circuting any philosophy or need for such, so I try to assume that there is some kind of a free will which I don’t understand and go from there. At any rate, I do believe a moral and ethical philosophy and some sort of social order are necessary, and Jesus’ command to “do unto others…” seems just about the most rational, succinct, and basic moral philosophy I’ve ever heard. Pain is real, it is by most accounts undesireable, and to refrain from inflicting it on others’ seems to be the starting point (not the end point, mind you) of any ethic worth its salt. As for how one should deal with oneself, that’s a thornier path altogether.
Well, this was fun. Thanks, Allan – and Allen – for getting the ball rolling…
Oh, f’in hell, I’ve done it again. And in the second sentence no less. Let me attempt to finish my train of thought…
“As always, I find that my “debates” with atheists usually hinge on a difference in emphasis, more than a difference in overarching philosophy. They seem to feel it’s important that a stomach ache rather than divine inspiration is the cause of mystical experience, and to emphasize such…but what if a stomach ache IS divine inspiration – it seems like too many atheists persist in calling the cart the horse and refusing to recognize what they’ve put out in front (of course they’re probably led in this by a great many religious folk…)”
Thanks MovieMan, and just one last thought…
but what if a stomach ache IS divine inspiration
First of all, I know the basic rules and symptoms and chemistry that goes into a stomach ache. I don’t have that kind of comfortable “known” bubble with divine inspiration, nor anything beyond speculation. I hate to resort to inane arguments like “you can’t prove that it’s divine inspiration,” but suffice it to say that I think working within the realms of the ever-changing, material known is a more useful — that’s right, useful, and not anything else — way of understanding and “glossing” experience. This is my personal feeling…
…but it might not be yours, obviously. It sounds, however, like the difference between a stomach ache and divine inspiration could be a matter of semantics rather than phantasmagorical fantasy for you, and if this is the case (it might not be), I do applaud that viewpoint. In other words, I imagine Atheism and Spiritualism at times like the “glass half-empty” vs. “half-full” argument: they are two ways of organizing and processing the same data. I also agree that in the end, the data is more important than how we perceive it, but then it’s often difficult to separate the stimuli from the sensation it provokes, isn’t it?
And I also agree that moral nihilism is really just a starting point — I believe my original post suggested as much. And finally, I agree 100% with the rudimentary “compassionate” teachings of Jesus, but he did say an awful lot more than just “do unto others” et al. And, well, for me the guy just has WAY too much baggage. But again, that’s me.
Thanks for taking the time to tease out my opinions, MM, I appreciate it.
Yes, this was fun – I don’t know what magical ingredient Sam & Allan put in their site, but somehow these sort of conversations, which rarely unfold on other blogs (including mine), freely bloom here, like a mushrooms in a dank forest floor, or something.
You did indeed tease out the meaning of my perhaps too obscure formulation – I meant it as a matter of semantics, not to see that God on high ordered the stomach ache to happen. The thing I like about religion, though, is that’s it’s a kind of code. Of course, this has been harmful in that people have gotten attached to the wrong thing, but I love the mystery and “hidden” quality of it, the cracking upon familiar concepts of God and Heaven and Hell and Sin and so forth to discover these fresh ontologies inside – if that’s the right word.
But then, I find outright chaos to be dangerously mushy and anarchic (for more on that, visit my comment on the Kaspar Hauser piece, in which I quote Helen Keller) and am more fascinated with it as seen through the prism of “context” (history, civilization, etc.) than experienced directly – or perhaps experienced directly, but not for too long, and even then I’m more drawn by the aftereffects. Perhaps I’m just too attached to the “things of this world” while unduly fascinated with the beyond.
(To make this concrete, I don’t much enjoy getting high – except listening to music – but find the experience fascinating to look back upon, especially as its tendrils are still clinging to my mind. But well it’s happening there’s rarely a “good” or a “bad” and I find the experience near-impossible to “enjoy” the way I could enjoy a good drunk. Hmmm, may be opening up a new can of worms here. So be it!)
Also — Movieman’s already read it, but my interpretation of Atheism, which is actually informed by theology quite a bit (I was raised Baptist) is embedded in a piece I wrote about “A Charlie Brown Xmas”:
http://www.aspiringsellout.com/charliebrownxmas
of course Sam loves “Everyone Says I Love You”.
one that never gets mentioned though, wow.
LOL Jamie!!!!
I think it’s that classic Kahn/Livingston/Malneck song “I’m Through With Love” that gets me every time! But yes, a Woody Allen musical is that special breed, and this one has some priceless sequences like that one at the beginning in the hospital. it’s a pensive and nostalgic piece that weaves an indellible charm. Ebert thinks this is one of Allen’s best films as well. It’s one of the rare Allen films in that it really hits the bull’s eye on an emotional level.
I think all of you are being way too harsh on Mr. Allen’s earlier work. My opinion is that the films he makes from TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN to LOVE AND DEATH are simply an extension to the kinds stories he told on stage as one of the most blisteringly hysterical stand-ups LA, NYC and LV have ever seen. What is particularly striking is the details he would give to a story before the audience realizes it’s all bull-shit. By setting the stories in some kind of reality it gave him the ability as a comic (and later, as a film directly) to veer off into fantasy and the outraegeous. While these films may have been “controlled” by the director, I never got the feeling his hand was turning us in any particular direction. I’m sorry, I think these earlier films are as off-the-wall brilliant as anything the Marx Bros. did. His timing is flawless and, like Groucho, his punch lines flowed like rapid machine gun fire.
If we take this director to task and imagine a film that has the intelligence of MANHATTAN and ANNIE HALL, combines the looniness of films like BANANA’S and LOVE & DEATH, and then tops the whole thing off with a “message” in the style of his later works like RADIO DAYS and HANNAH Tnot to mention the tecnical visual bravado of films like ZELIG and INTERIORS), then I think I’d have to say the result is: BROADWAY DANNY ROSE. Like I stated in my earlier comment I think that aside from the films where he is pondering the bigger question of his life and existence, he was also still furthering his perfecting of the “detailed” comic story. I once heard Tom Mankiewicz say that the only way you could sell The Man Of Steel flying in SUPERMAN(1978) is by grounding the fantasy in as much reality as possible. I think this is also the case with many of Mr. Allens earlier comedies. RADIO DAYS is no exception to that rule. Films like CRIMES, HANNAH, STARDUST are different animals entirely.
And I’ll go one further.. I agree with Mr Lanthier that Woody Allen has put on screen more “masterpieces” than just about any contemporary film-maker in the past 40 years. His out-pour is amazing (a film a year since 1969)m. But to try to hone in on one or two as his absolute best is a futile task just as it is to whittle down Bergman or Hitchcock. With Allen, I have broken his career and films into six seperate categories. Each category has a particular “BEST” that I feel represents a style of film that is indicative to where he was at the time.. So here goes….
Hey Dennis — I like the taxonomy below a lot, although there are tons of ways we could subdivide Allen’s oeuvre. And like you, I agree that “Broadway Danny Rose” is a most delightful fusion of his early period antics with late-period sapience and formal shrewdness.
CATEGORY 1: FUMBLING TO FIND HIS WAY. BEST FILM: LOVE & DEATH
CATEGORY 2: STIRRINGS OF FILMMAKING MATURITY. BEST FILM: ANNIE HALL
CATEGORY 3: PERFECTION OF FORM. BEST FILM: HANNAH AND HER SISTERS
CATEGORY 4: WEARING HIS HEART ON HIS SLEEVE. BEST FILM: MANHATTAN
CATEGORY 5: HIS SOUL. BEST FILM: CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
CATEGORY 6: EMULATING HIS MENTORS. BEST FILM: MATCH POINT (and although Bergman may have been his hero, he never quite got to the same plane. Here with MATCH POINT he nails Hitchcock and Clauzot)
Mr. Lanthier, I agree and thank you for the response. I, like you, consider him one of my favorite film-makers. But, while I could write for hours on this man and his work, the lack of a PC makes it difficult (I’m literally blogging from my Blackberry). Should you like to further this conversation I would be more than happy to speak to you by phone. My email address is: Kubrickkrazy@yahoo.com (you can forward your number to me there.). Thanx, Dennis (god my fingers are killing me! LOLOL )
Thanks, Dennis! I will have to take you up on that when I have some more free time. And I do a lot of commenting from my iPod touch — I can’t imagine the blackberry is much more comfortable, ouch!
I’m 6 feet 3 inches tall with hands the size of vice-grips. My fingers are just to big to keep from hitting more than one key!
To go back to 10 fav Allen lists, I thought I’d belatedly play too:
First of all, can one include Play It Again Sam if Allen didn’t direct it?
1. Annie Hall
2. Sleeper
3. Love and Death
4. Manhattan
5. Stardust Memories
6. Crimes and Misdemeanors
7. Match Point
8. Zelig
9. Broadway Danny Rose
10. Hannah and Her Sisters
BTW, I highly recommend Percy’s The Moviegoer as the quintessential novel (perhaps?) for film critics, or at least existential ones.
1st, to Alan — excellent review! It makes me want to re-watch this sooner rather than later. This is not only my favorite Woody Allen film, but one of my favorite movies period…it truly is a “love letter” — NYC has never been dreamed of better. And as an “art film” — the b&w cinematography, the score, the dialogue, the characters….superb on every level.
2nd, as this has somewhat turned into a competing list of “Woody favorites” thread, here goes it:
1. Manhattan (his only perfect 10 for me)
2. Annie Hall
3. Hannah and Her Sisters
4. The Purple Rose of Cairo
5. Bullets over Broadway (always a sentimental fave as it was the first Woody film I “got” when I was a teenager and it first came out)
6. Match Point
7. Vicky Christina Barcelona (thinking of it fondly has grown on me this past year)
8. Manhattan Murder Mystery
9. Zelig
10. Sweet and Lowdown
Very close to the top ten (and often underrated): Broadway Danny Rose, Mighty Aphrodite and Melinda & Melinda
Well, I will throw in my top 10 right here….
1 – Hannah and Her Sisters
2- Crime and Misdemeanors
3 – Annie Hall
4- Manhattan
5 – Love and Death
6 – Play it Again, Sam
7 – Manhattan Murder Mystery
8 – Match Point
9 – Radio Days
10- Purple Rose of Cairo
If there were room there would be Bullets Over Broadway, Broadway Danny Rose, Vicky Christina Barcelona and Bananas
Ok. Well if I MUST then I MUST.. Here goes: 10. MATCH POINT 9. ANOTHER WOMAN 8. STARDUST MEMORIES 7. BROADWAY DANNY ROSE 6. SWEET AND LOW DOWN 5. INTERIORS 4. ANNIE HALL 3. LOVE & DEATH 2. MANHATTAN 1. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. (You all forgot Sweet and Low Down, Huh? Terrific performance by Sean Penn)
Also — holy sweet mother f*cker. 68 comments?!? Where did the day go…
I just got in from the evening’s theatre engagement and I must say this is simply fantastic. I don’t know what to say, except that the communal nature of the site is really something to behold.
Jon Lanthier
Movie Man
Ed Howard
Film Dr.
John Greco
Jamie
Leclisse
David Schleicher
Dennis
Frank Gallo
Peter
and of course, Tony and Allan
Thanks for making this one of the great threads at the site. Woody Allen has rarely received such brilliant analytical discourse. And I think we’ll have to tabulate the Woody Allen lists and tomorrow we’ll have a composite result!!!!
As per the discuss half way through the thread where I responded to Movie Man and Jon in regards to the Woodman’s ‘control’ and ‘zaniness’ (and while I great respect what Ed Howard said on this subject himself, I must say I don’t agree with him) I must say I also agree that ANNIE HALL respresents the best combination of artistic narrative decision-making. In other words, it retains some of the early-career slapstick and satire, but it’s also a controlled, mature film. Perhaps this is why so many still believe it to be Allen’s masterpiece.
Thanks very much for that compliment Jon!
Terrific thread! Wondering if we broke any records here? Gotta give credit to Allan for a great review (in my opinion his absolute best written one to date) that was worded so well it sparked off this passionate back and forth. The subject didn’t hurt either as the work of Woody Allen has been some of the most intesely studied by film analysts, critics and professors. His films have been an almost continuous flow of joy and inspiration for myself and, I’m sure, many of the people that frequent WITD.
Thanks very much Dennis both for the glowing compliment and for your integral role in the MANHATTAN discussion.
Allan’s review was excellent, but he has written a number of others that have been even better, by his own admission. I doubt that his review per se was the prime driving force behind the discussion (as it was in STRAW DOGS) but more that a number of people who visited yesterday having very strong sentiments on the film and its director. Of course Allan (our Allan, not the director) and his countdown remains the prime allure of WitD, no question.
As to breaking records, no we weren’t really even close. The roundup of the 1930’s poll nabbed 135 comments and five other threads went over 80. Still this was really something to remember.
A Special Treat for MANHATTAN fans!!!!!
Jon Lanthier has published an older essay of the film at the Powerstrip. It’s really really something!
http://blog.aspiringsellout.com/2009/07/woody-allens-manhattan-lengthy-essay-i.html
So I’m just throwing this out there as a passing aside after watching the film again the other night…but is anyone else of the opinion that Diane Keaton’s character in MANHATTAN was the inspiration for the original incarnation of Elaine Benes (not the grotesque caraciture of later seasons) in SEINFELD? Something about the hair and the mannerisms and the speech patterns…seems “inspired”.
Oh, and Sam, thanks for posting that link to Jon’s brilliant essay!
Just read that Manhattan was shot by Gordon Willis in Panavision to Technicolor stock and printed in monochrome!