Profundity and Pretension clash in Allen's seminal work

Rating: 7/10 (8 May 2006)

My problem with Annie Hall has little to do with the movie itself, but more to do with the accessibility of it. I consider myself a fairly intelligent man, being able to hold my own in most discussions I come across. Though, I don't often come across New York intellectuals. Which is the problem, here.
Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) frequently tells Alvy (Woody Allen) that he's too smart for her, or that he thinks she's too dumb for him. That's how I felt watching the film - that I was too dumb for Woody Allen. Is that really the feeling you want to convey in your audience? It's not Allen's intelligence that's the problem, it's the snobbish flamboyance of it. In my opinion, wit (which this film has) goes further towards establishing intelligence than lengthy monologues on Fellini ever will.
There's a magnificent scene in the film where Annie and Alvy are standing in line at the movies. Behind them is an academic espousing on the merits of various writers and filmmakers (such as Fellini) to the annoyance of Alvy. This leads to an aside to the audience in which both characters(Alvy and the academic) debate their right to be annoyed or speak their opinion, respectively. To me, this scene is a bit of a microcosm of the movie, with Woody Allen taking the place of the academic and me taking the place of Alvy.
The difference being: I'm not arguing that Allen doesn't "get it" (as Alvy does in the scene in the movie). I'm arguing that this script comes off as pretentious - lording its great intellect over us more common folk. For this viewer, it prevents any real feeling developing for the characters. Watching the film, I can't help but be an observer - not a participant. I'm not drawn into the movie, made to feel as though I'm part of this man's life. I feel like I'm looking through the window at a crumbling marriage.
I don't identify with anyone on screen - because I've never met anyone who talks like the characters in this movie. I don't know anyone who talks with this much wit or intelligence.
Both of which can be found throughout this film.
This may come off as a bit insane, but I prefer When Harry Met Sally... to this. This brilliant and popular film borrowed heavily from the style of Annie Hall - with one key difference: the characters were likable. I knew them - because I've met people like them, and see them in myself (to one degree or another). When Harry Met Sally... is Annie Hall with a heart.
I had few laughs in this film. Intellectually, I knew the film was funny. But my reactions were limited to observations. "Isn't that funny." Or, "Allen's a brilliant writer." I never had legitimate laughs, though I did snicker a couple of times.
Ultimately, I think the reason Allen has not appealed to wider audiences is for this reason - his films have too much intelligence, and not enough heart. One of his biggest influences is Ingmar Bergman, which comes as no surprise. Because Bergman is a highly intelligent man, who made highly intelligent films that (for me) lacked emotion and heart (with the exclusion of a few of his films). Bergman is more cerebral, less erudite than Allen (or at least, his scripts are). Bergman's work was more about analyzing life/death through philosophical film-making. Allen's focus seems to be more on overwhelming the audience with his New York intellectualism.
When all is said and done, I think this is one of the landmark films of the 1970s - following a long line of important films. While I don't put it on the same level as The Godfather, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter or others, it should be seen by all cinephiles who haven't already seen it.