From: leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy)
Subject: Re: WOODY ALLEN MOVIES
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:33:31 GMT

hist1261@waikato.ac.nz writes:

>Without stooping to the name calling level, I wonder which three Allen films
>Mr/Ms Heinrich is referring to.

Crimes and Misdemeanours, Alice, Shadows and Fog. In retrospect, I was actually
referring to the last two. Sorry - that ridiculous comment about "Daddies and 
Daughters" really pissed me off.

> I have not yet had the pleasure of "Shadows
>& Fog" (let alone "Husbands & Wives"), but I thought "Alice" was just
>terrible, Woody's nadir.

I don't think Alice can be dismissed that easily. Woody Allen is, in my opinion,
now producing movies that are totally unlike that of any other directors (but,
of course, I've never seen any Bergman.) Fans who see every Allen movie (and
watch a lot of other movies), can appreciate his films have changed since the 
pure comedies like Sleeper, and that the change is a very good thing.

But, despite this, every new Allen movie is compared to some myserious standard
of "the old Woody Allen." If it isn't funny, it isn't good. Using these 
standards, Alice got the bad end of the stick - Crimes only receieved good 
reviews because of Alan Alda's character. What did he really do for the 
movie beyond humour? Write Alda out, and Crimes becomes another
"Serious" movie - like Alice or Shadows, and, I expect, Husbands and Wives; 
and the critics, with the sole exception of Canby, would slaughter it.

This is obviously my opinion: Alice was more emotionally satisfying to the 
viewer who is interested in the "regretful" Allen character - the Professor
in "Another Woman," anyone in Interiors or September. The idea that Alice
could explore her past and present life through invisibility, or
the ghost of her past lover (effectively making her a part of the usual 
"flashback") was amazing to me - a complete eye opener. Alice was an amazing
movie because it covered so much ground, in such a new way. IMO, it's a
genre all to itself, and doesn't resemble any other directors work. Shadows
and Fog was, to me, a continuation of the ideas of Alice, except the 
Wiemar cinematography removed it even further from reality.

I had hoped he'd continue developing this genre. I haven't seen Husbands and 
Wives, but I suspect it's more solidly "real."

> Having seen most of the Allen films that preceded it
>(all bar "What's Up, Tiger Liley", "Love & Death" and "Interiors"), I feel
>fairly qualified to judge the film (or at least put it in its autuerist
>context).

[I'm going to leave out "in my opinion" from now on]: You have to consider
every Woody Allen movie separately. I loved Crimes, but the 
reason your mainstream audiences loved it was that the issues involved were 
"bigger" (ethics, rather than a depressing discussion of how you may 
personally have gone wrong in your own life.)

> By Mr Allen's own standards it was a failure (although it did,
>ironically enough, get some positive reviews, notably one in "Time").

Not according to the biography; I'd be interested how you know this.
Apparently, he's not entirely satisfied with anything so far.

>I would certainly agree that "Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a near masterpiece
>(this, again, was reflected in good notices and even the odd Oscar nomination),
>"New York Stories" was a fairly amusing one-joke short and "Another Woman"
>was at the very least an honourable failure.

To me, the failures are "Interiors" (too stagey) and "September" (same 
problem, without the more interestingly domineering character of Interiors.)
But they're still "interesting." 

>To group "Alice" in with one
>or more of this group though is to do them a disservice - it lacked either
>the depth or the wit and was sunk by a far too cavalier attitude toward
>its fantastic devices (flying, invisibility, magic love potions).  

> "Alice" was just bland, safe, and unquestioning.

Come on. Far is away is bland. Alice was just different.

--- Grant M Heinrich  ( leroy@socs.uts.edu.au )
I love all your movies. Particulary your earlier funny ones.