woody allen

it's Broadway's feelgood hit of the spring!

http://bulletsoverbroadway.com/

Woody has weighed in on Gaza, I know you were all waiting.... also Colin Firth-Emma Stone film is imminent.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/18/woody-allen-on-magic-in-the-moonlight-the-crisis-in-gaza-new-york-city-and-those-allegations.html

NY Times profile felt like a journalist distancing himself from his assignment. "Woody has always lived in a world of illusion," etc., etc.

a new ranking, entirely respectable; #2 often my favorite. Happily nothing from the 21st century nor Bullets over Broadway.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2014/21/the-10-best-woody-allen-movies

years since 1969 where woody allen failed to release a new directorial effort:

1970, 1974, 1976, 1981

poll

life expectancy increased in each of those years

in '70 Woody was wrapping up the Broadway run of Play It Again Sam, in '76 he had the lead role in The Front, '81 he had a play produced at Lincoln Center

nice sidestep by woody in the daily beast interview when asked about lena dunham

feel it is more likely woody allen is the sleepy grampa he is describing there than that he is pulling jedi mind tricks on journalists

he definitely knows who lena dunham is

i mean, she writes and directs a show called Girls, amirite?

and she called him a monster and a lousy filmmaker etc last winter

an interview centering on filmmaking technique, esp cinematography/editing

http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/simply-do-it-talking-with-woody-allen-about-directorial-style

Cannot believe how much uncritical press (ie not mentioning Dylan Farrow) this guy is getting right now.

are you serious

Yes?

NYT article had like one blithe paragraph in the middle, Chi Trib article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-woody-allen-magic-moonlight-20140723,0,4313909.column) has a couple of dismissive paragraphs

I'm not defending the press, to be clear, just that I dunno why anyone would be surprised that some unpleasant allegations are conveniently swept under the rug when it comes time to promote the latest work of one of the most famous and widely regarded white male American film directors, now in his dotage.

"now"

America happy to be entertained by murderers, child abusers, wifebeaters, racists etc. why would they stop now

lol Alfred, I did actually sweat the wording of that a little

xp

Before the last round of scandal, it's hard to imagine Allen not on the cover of Arts & Leisure when a profile comes out.

Keep in mind that Woody Allen is the same age as the people who still pay for print subscriptions.

nothing actionable or proven, so let's go on with the show fuckit

I'm sure that calculus is also foremost in the mind of the press - should they keep harping on these allegations knowing full well nothing will ever come of them, or should they keep feeding the well-oiled promotional machine that pays their bills. not a tough choice really.

it's weird how people announce their surprise that people are surprised

like why doesn't your cynicism extend further

I assume everyone is more cynical than I am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Akm40RJQ

back to the lost cause of Simon Abrams' ebert.com interview:

When I see cool films, no matter how beautiful they are, there's something off-putting about them. I have all my characters—or 99% of the characters—dress in autumnal clothes, beiges, and browns, and yellows, and greens. And I have [production designer and long-time collaborator] Santo Loquasto make the sets look as warm as possible. And I like the lighting to be very warm, and I color-correct things so that they're very red.

Sometimes, the cameraman will be shocked. Sven Nykvist said "My God, their faces will all look like tomatoes!"

And I said "Well, let's try it." He got to like it.

WA also says Brando was terrible at being funny... dunno, The Freshman

I particularly liked the section about editing Annie Hall. Ralph Rosenblum's book is one of my favourites.

^^^ me too

That was a cool interview, nice to hear Woody's thoughts on style, and a great Willis quote:

Gordon always used to paint with light. He'd do the fundamental lighting, and then he'd say "Ok, I've got the lighting basically done. Now I'm going to paint for a while."

re Farrow accusations do you think it's something journalists should address?

Also it seems to me (maybe something I picked up on the Blue Jasmine thread) that there's some antagonism towards recent Woody films on this board? I found Blue Jasmine and Midnight in Paris very very good, Whatever Works, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Match Point very good and the rest of his post 2000 production really enjoyable.

imo its not per se that reviews need to hand-wring about the morality of liking a new emma stone movie, so much as their prose should be informed by the fact that their subject may not be an awesome guy just cuz he's consistently brought the middlebrow chuckles

i hated whatever works to death

that nyt piece about what a charming trickster woody is a pretty stunning example of how NOT to write about a successful filmmaker accused of molestation by their daughter

re hating Whatever Works to death, I've often had people tell me about Woody-films they absolutely could not stand (Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris, Melinda and Melinda) and it's kind of weird to me because the good ones I don't see how anyone can dislike and the minor works are so innocuous and fun so why hate but then again hey that's just taste for you

I'm probably not good at seeing the whole Farrow case clearly because I like Woody Allen's movies a loooot but what would be a good moral stance on the thing then? Not having an opinion on it seems the most sensible thing to me - I'm glad that's what I did with Conor though I know that's not a fair analogy.

his minor works have become unwatchable, they don't even function as movies it's just a bunch of random shit on the screen. they're almost offensive in their tossed-off-ness. Of his post 2000 output I would rate them as follows:

Curse of the Jade Scorpion - v funny. didn't buy him as the romantic lead but whatever.
Hollywood Ending - the best part about this film was when it was over
Anything Else - Excruciating. Horrible, horrible cast.
Melinda and Melinda - Pointless. Drama wasn't dramatic and the comedy wasn't funny.
Match Point - P good, a nice change of pace.
Scoop - Awful.
Cassandra's Dream - Couldn't bring myself to watch a retread of Match Point.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona - omg wanted to murder every cliched character in this laugh-free apocalypse of trite bullshit
Whatever Works - Whatever definitely didn't work.
Midnight in Paris - another painful retread of earlier ideas, didn't really find any of the caricatures funny but did perk up when the multiple levels of fantasy started to accrete. of course then the movie ended.
To Rome With Love - Couldn't bring myself to watch a retread of Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
Blue Jasmine - Probably his most interesting since Match Point, although there were still all sorts of false notes and head-smacking stupid choices. But it hummed along smoothly, some quality acting, looked great.

thing is that when people say they don't have an opinion is they're usually saying "i'm going to pretend i didn't hear that and continue valorizing someone for their creative efforts irrespective of serious accusations about their character".

like, just accept woody is a potentially a reprehensible human being. if it bums you out to the point that you don't wanna watch Sleeper again, fine. if you still can, fine. it's only when you sing girl scout songs to woody at the golden globes or otherwise public heroify him that people really give a fuck.

i think morally your only obligation is to not search for reasons to dismiss or ignore a potential victim of abuse just because you really wanna watch sleeper again and can't otherwise.

I agree w all that

@croupier that makes a lot of sense, thx!

Also your ratings are hillarious Οὖτις, I'll keep them in mind next time I'm discussing Woody's work.

I think this IMDB plot summary is a good argument for Hollywood Ending's virtues: A director is forced to work with his ex-wife, who left him for the boss of the studio bankrolling his new film. But the night before the first day of shooting, he develops a case of psychosomatic blindness. Hehe.

I was thinking I had seen Hollywood Ending but had it confused with Celebrity.

Celebrity is a mess but there's some funny scenes in it

i forget really why i hated whatever works - i think i found the characters unlikable and facile to a ridic degree. i remember being really disappointed though as i'd loved vicky cristina barcelona, and it was the first woody i watched in nyc.

characters totally unbelievable one-dimensional stereotypes, no plot/central conflict, no jokes, majority of the movie feels like it takes place in a basement, where do I start

whatever works is basically a vampire movie

i seem to remember thinking it hated its female characters in a way woody movies usually don't, but again, i can't remember it very clearly.

i think the last woody i unreservedly adored was everybody says i love you

Finally, Boris hosts a New Year's Eve party, at which everyone is seen in their new relationships: Marietta with Leo and Morgenstern, John with Howard, Melodie with Randy, and finally Boris with Helena. Melodie and her parents had, each one separately, completely shed their former southern conservative mindsets and wholeheartedly adopted the liberal New York way of life and values. (John tells that his former membership in the National Rifle Association had been but a sublimation of his repressed homosexuality). They are now all the best of friends, and at midnight heralding a new year they kiss and Boris tells the audience that you just have to find all the enjoyment that you can, that you have to find "whatever works."

the smug condescension of this whole fucking scenario

Blue Jasmine is pretty much the worst film of 2013.