by John Greco
When I saw Stardust Memories for the first time back in 1980 (Baronet Theater in Manhattan) I was completely lost as to what Woody Allen was doing. Filled with Fellini like imagery, bizarre inhabitants straight out of Diane Arbus and seemingly resentful, bitter attacks on his fans. I found the film, to say the least, hard to swallow. I wasn’t and am not one of those folks who keep wishing Woody would trek back to his ‘funny’ early films. I actually relished his celluloid journey, his growth from dubbing a cheesy Japanese spy flick with completely new dialogue turning it into “What’s Up, Tiger Lily?’ through his early visually clumsy, but oh so funny, films like Take The Money and Run and Bananas to his classic Annie Hall and on to the Bergman like Interiors and the homage to his home town in Manhattan. Woody always seemed to be expanding his artistic horizons. At the time of its original release, I chalked up Stardust Memories as a failure, hell everyone is entitled to a failure now and then, right?
Now, let me just say here, I watch many of Woody’s film all the time, over and over, true some more than others, I have lost count on how many times I have seen Manhattan, Bananas, Sleeper, Manhattan Murder Mystery, Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Broadway Danny Rose and so on. His films are like old friends with whom you gladly sit, have a drink, and reminisce about those days gone by. The one film I never went back to was “Stardust Memories.” Frankly, until I watched it for the first time in years, just a few months ago, I remembered little about it except for the feeling of confusion I had and a why bother attitude about taking a second look. One day I found a copy at a local library and for no particular reason decided to give it another shot. All I can say is hallelujah brother! I have been seen the light and have been converted!
To say that Stardust Memories met with dreadful reviews when first released would be an understatement. Most critics were offended, some were vicious (Pauline Kael), and others even became personal with comments having little or nothing to do with the film itself (John Simon). It was called self indulgent, pretentious, disjointed, nasty and to some extent all of these do apply. Vincent Canby of The New York Times was one of the few who praised it, saying “Stardust Memories” is his most provocative film thus far and perhaps his most revealing. Certainly it is the one that will inspire the most heated debate, though the film makes fun of those who take all these things too seriously.”
Most of the movie going public did not get it either, and as I said, that included myself at the time. Subsequently, bad word of mouth killed the film off within a month in most areas of the country. It did last a bit longer in New York but ticket sales were underwhelming to say the least. That all said, “Stardust Memories” may be Woody’s most personal film.
Woody is Sandy Bates, a writer/director/comedian who reluctantly agrees to attend a weekend film seminar modeled after what critic Judith Crist was doing in the early 1970’s in Tarrytown, New York. Here Sandy is plagued by movie fans who keep asking him when is he going to make a funny movie again. From Sandy’s point of view the fans are straight out Diane Arbus photographs filled with misfits, fanatics and weirdo’s. For Sandy, the weekend is a hellish nightmare; he sees the world as one big ball of suffering anxiety and wonders how can anyone want to be funny in this world.
However, if the viewer is patient enough to wade through the film’s arty 8 1/2 influences, one will notice, that underneath this film is not much different from most of Woody’s other works. Like many of Woody’s characters Sandy Bates has his share of phobias, fears, self doubts and a love life filled with failure with the opposite sex.
And yes the film is filled with funny lines….
“You can’t control life. It doesn’t wind up perfectly. Only art you can control, art and masturbation. Two areas in which I am an absolute expert.”
“It’s crazy. The town is jammed. I don’t know, is the Pope in town, or some other show business figure?”
I mentioned earlier the film is arguably Woody’s most personal though he denies it and always denies any of his films are autobiographical in any way. Yet, here is the real life Woody coming off one of his greatest triumphs, Manhattan, another film he denied was autobiographical, and a decade of filmmaking where we have seen him grow into one of America’s top film artists just like reel life character Sandy Bates. No matter what he says, it is hard to believe many of his films don’t have at least some autobiographical strokes. As a rule one should believe the art and not the artist.
Stardust Memories is gorgeously filmed in black and white by Gordon Willis. The film is also dreamlike, angry, funny, touching, arty and much too overlooked in the Woody Allen hierarchy.
How Stardust Memories made the Top 100:
Bill Riley No. 2
Peter M. No. 6
Pedro Silva No. 18
Jamie Uhler No. 28
John Greco No. 51
Stardust Memories is gorgeously filmed in black and white by Gordon Willis. The film is also dreamlike, angry, funny, touching, arty and much too overlooked in the Woody Allen hierarchy.
John, I must say I had the same experience with this film. I remember the first viewing left me indifferent, but years later I was captivated by this visually arresting satirical look at the price of fame. As you note the homage to Fellini (particularly 8 1/2) is in full throttle in this story of creative impasse, but the film also brings Bergman into the equation. From a visual standpoint, the film rivals MANHATTAN, and Gordon Willis is again on hand to negotiate the dazzling monochrome. The flashbacks with Charlotte Rambling in particular, are unforgettable. I’d say this has gained in reputation more passionately over the years than any other Woody film. John, you bring everything together here for a fascinating look at the film, it’s reception and your own recent epiphany.
Nice review on a Woody Allen film that I must rewatch, mainly because I thought that it was good, but it was met by so much praise (I’m talking about bloggers nowadays and not critics then) that I found myself a bit underwhelmed. I must say that I may need another viewing to see the light, as you did, and finally see it as one of Woody’s best, but for now, it’s an ok film in my personal Woody canon.
Woody takes on Fellini, and Fellini wins.
Ha Bob! How often do challengers take on Fellini and win?
Tee-hee.
Two years earlier with ‘Interiors’ Woody took on Bergman and lost, too.
My God, young Sharon Stone was drop-dead gorgeous.
If you ask me I think Woody has paid a visit to Fellini’s house, and has come out with some fine wine, a succulent meal and a shared photo with the Italian icon. Great work John of a film I voted near the top of my ballot. It ages quite well and looks beautiful.
John —
I read for the first time last night Pauline Kael’s vicious attack on ‘Stardust Memories’ and was especially taken aback by the anti-Semitic tone that runs throughout. She and Woody were pals during the seventies, but with friends like these…..
I much prefer your kinder, gentler essay on ‘Stardust Memories’, though it’s still not one of my favorite Allen films. I guess I’m one of those dullards who prefer his early, uneven, jerry-built comedies, though I do admire Gordon Willis’ resplendent b&w photography in ‘Stardust’.
Later –
John, I really enjoyed reading how your views on this film have changed over the years and how you came to see the similarities it shares with other Allen films. I recently saw it for the first time. I recall how it was savaged when it was first released, and although I can’t say that it’s among my favorite Woody Allen films, it’s hardly the failure it was made out to be by many reviewers. It’s probably too ambitious to hold together entirely and its tone rather sour compared to other Allen comedies. As a nod to Fellini, I would say that “Radio Days,’ which seems to me Allen’s version of “Amarcord,” bests this one.
John –
I LOVE this post! Your experience of STARDUST MEMORIES is very much the same as mine, as is your confessed habit of watching Woody’s films over and over, welcoming them like old, cherished friends. I was completely confused and disappointed by this film when it debuted (and wrote a scathing review of it for my college newspaper which drew anonymous hate mail from some more open-minded Woody fans.) But over the years, the more I watch it (and it’s on TCM with some regularity), the more I appreciate it. It’s a really rich and personal work, while at the same time a damn good homage to Fellini’s 8 1/2. I’m not sure whether it improves with age or I got smarter! (Or some combination of the two.) I know I considered this for my ballot, and I’m kind of shocked to realize I didn’t actually vote for it.
Sorry I’m not sure how my comment on the post ended up as a reply to R. D. !
But I do want to say to R. D. – I’ve never thought of RADIO DAYS as Woody’s AMARCORD before, but that’s a great analogy!
Yeah if 8 1/2 is a comedy…which this countdown considered it as such, then Stardust Memories is even more so.
Great write-up on Stardust Memories, John. It was great reading about your reversal of opinion regarding this Woody film.
Yes, this might just be Woody’s most personal film (and that’s relative obviously because, as you’ve aptly mentioned, Manhattan and especially Annie Hall, surely have strong autobiographical undertones, despite Woody’s vehement opposition to such observations). And, even for Woody aficionados, this wouldn’t have been an easy to appreciate – so polarized responses that it received, I felt, ought to have been expected.
However, that said, despite its biting cynicism and absurdist proceedings, I found it difficult to consider it as a comedy as such.
I remember the Baronet. As I recall the Coronet was next door I think. I like Stardust Memories. Still I have not yet experienced the complete about face that others have. Above all Willis’ gleaming cinematography is the most memorable element. John Greco makes a nice case for a re-visit.
Frank, I think the Baronet and Coronet were on different avenues, but don’t quote me. Today, Stardust Memories is seen by many people as one of Woody’s greatest films. I am not like you quite in that sphere of thought. But it’s been years since I watched it.
Guys, the two theatres were both located on Third Avenue next to the Cinema 1 & 2 near 60th Street. They were regular stops for me back in those wonderful times.
John, as with your other Woody Allen review, of Broadway Danny Rose, it is a long time since I’ve seen this one (I think I only saw it on release!) – however I do hope to see both of them again soon, and comment on your great reviews in more detail then.
One of my favorites. The bashing it got nowhere compares to the caustic reaction towards its evil twin, Deconstructing Harry. Though latter might have more to do with his personal issues at the time.
Woody has said in quite a lot of interviews that the portion of the film after the dead rabbit happens in his mind.
Humble opinion: love the new banner. Some will hate it, some won’t. My vote, if it is counted, is to keep it.
John one of the best essays so far on this countdown. Love the personal thoughts and touches here. I didn’t vote for it simply cause I limited my list to 3 by any one director. However I LOVE this film and always have from the first viewing. I find it hilarious and moving and is yes, one of his most personal films. Absolutely. I think it builds upon his previous films and in a self-aware touch, somewhat destroys and alienates perhaps a good deal of the attention that had been heaped upon him after his previous triumphs. For my money, the consecutive string of Annie Hall, Interiors, Manhattan, and Stardust Memories is an absolutely staggering set of masterpieces….to stand along with any 4 consecutive films by anyone perhaps. They are all unique and build upon all of Allen’s fears, phobias, influences etc. Just a brilliant string of films that are hard to match. You again frame up this film greatly and just a wonderful read.
Wouldn’t you know. This movie was released this day in 1980.
Jaimie, we have had some incredible coincidences this week. Pat’s WHAT’S OPERA DOC? post appeared on the 100th Anniversary of Chuck Jones’ birth.
Yes, well, while I am one that often pleads to people to get over themselves and look at STARDUST MEMORIES with better eyes, I am also one of the few “converted” that also don’t go crazy by ranking the film in the upper tier of his films.
Yes, the film is deeply personal, a cry to his viewers pleading with them to understand that there is more to the man that what is flashed so eloquently across the big screen. However, what also comes through loud and clear with STARDUST is Allen still in the throws of finding himself as a director, and editor (as most directors have a huge hand in the editing process of their films), praying that he doesn’t embarass himself in the process. Yes, there WAS an assured hand guiding films like ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN and, particularly his first ode to Bergman, the often neglected INTERIORS. But, STARDUST, for all the great that’s in there is still, I feel, unable to completely illustrate what is perplexing Allen and his celebrity at the time. The balancing of the love stories and the inner questions of his worth don’t ping-pong as well as they shouold and there are many false starts and tics to the flow of the narrative. Yes, it’s a gorgeous film to look at and the cinematography, music direction, costuming and make ups are all stellar for a personal piece like this. But, I still don’t think that the ultimate aim of the film, understanding Woody Allens questioning nature on the subjects of true art and joined success are fully, and effectively, presented.
The film has moments of great zaniness (which I find really interesting considering that STARDUST is about the damnation of his “fans” and their love for “funnier” movies). The performances are all top notch and Allen’s moments on the boardwalk with Jessica Harper are some of the most poignant and romantically longing of all his films. However, the subtext of Ramplings obsessive compulsive behavior and, eventual, nervous breakdown aren’t, I feel, explored enough to aid the film with the kind of bizarre tragic weight I think the master film-maker is shooting for. The parts definately out-weigh the whole but I fear that STARDUST just misses the boat.
A great film? Hmmmmm, probably.
One of Allen’s best? Absolutely not.
John, Looks like I’m one of few who has been a fan of “Stardust Memories” from day one – in any case, I’m happy that you’ve reconsidered the film – AND that it has made the top 100. Its obvious Fellini-ness struck me on first viewing – but did not offend, I don’t mind a nod or an homage when done well. I didn’t regard his homage to Bergman via “Interiors” as particularly well done and thought Sandy Bates’s frustration with his fans’ preference for his “earlier funnier” films was a reflection of Woody’s frustration over the reception “Interiors” received . As for Pauline Kael (sigh), as she seemed to grow more vicious, she lost me. This is a perceptive and well done (re-)take on what must be one of Woody’s most underrated. By the way, I haven’t forgotten that we talked about having a blog discussion on our favorite Woody films…
Rest assured, The Lady Eve, you’re not alone. Although I’ll admit there are some films whose merits required time for me to appreciate, this is definitely not one of them as I have cherished Stardust Memories since its initial release. Although it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it, I recall a scene early in the film, occurring in the office of Woody’s character, that featured a giant wall mural depicting a rather grotesque, violent image — an image given no filmic commentary other than its mere presence. I think it was this moment at which the daring nature of the film captured my ongoing attention and admiration.
I am sorry for the late replay but yesterday turned out to be a busy day as we prepare to head out to South Dakota for a few days. Anyway, thanks to everyone for the wonderful replies.
Sam – I sometime felt like I lived at the Baronet/Coronet along with the Cinema 1 and 2. Back in the 70’s and 80’s they were the top theaters in the city for new films.
thanks again!