woody allen

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.

nah

(John tells that his former membership in the National Rifle Association had been but a sublimation of his repressed homosexuality)

gee alfred someone might think you were being hyperbolic

I wanted to throw up on every old lady applauding after my screening, or find out what computer classes they had taken to finf good reviews.

dude its been more than a year, you gotta get a doctor to check out that rash the line about computer classes gave you

computer classes thing was almost as funny as the implication that anyone in SF would take even the slightest notice of a woman on the street talking to herself

Eh I'm just hyperoxygenating because the movie made me a little bit sick.

it was the first woody movie i'd seen since deconstructing harry and was definitely dreading worse than what i got.

you dodged a bullet

NYT pans the new one and alludes to allegations fwiw

Shakey, as someone who grew up memorizing Woody's standup records and going to the ;80s films on opening day, i am amazed that you've seen 5 of the recent films that i skipped.

and i hafta wonder why the hell u keep seeing them

same reason you lined up for the '80s films

gold vs shit

that's what you think

The trouble with pathological productivity is ratios.

oic shakey actually didnt see 2 of the films he listed

btw Alfred "computer classes" is your new "boat shoes," u can stop now

Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Radio Days, Hannah, bits of Crimes -- dat's dat. The '00s are worse, of course, but he always made shit.

btw Alfred "computer classes" is your new "boat shoes," u can stop now

― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius),

"U" was new when Prince used.

I thought Vicky Cristina Barcelona was almost great. Would have been a lot better if both stories were combined for the Vicky character imo.

In my defense my wife wanted to see the ones with larry david and the butterscotch stallion, I was ready to give up before that

Xp

actually September was his first shit film, and it's a diamond compared to stuff like VCB

no one who likes showbiz can dislike Broadway Danny Rose

I thought Vicky Cristina Barcelona was almost great. Would have been a lot better if both stories were combined for the Vicky character imo.

― Matt Armstrong,

and if the voice-over wasn't of the "She walked into the room and sat down and drank wine" variety.

possibly his biggest piece of misogynist tripe

and if the voice-over wasn't of the "She walked into the room and sat down and drank wine" variety.

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, July 26, 2014 2:38 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I could never figure out what he was thinking with that extremely obnoxious voiceover, but I thought it worked in a strange way. Very odd movie.

re: smug condescension in Whatever Works plot, maybe the irony doesn't translate well in a wiki summary but as I recall "John tells that his former membership in the National Rifle Association had been but a sublimation of his repressed homosexuality" was delivered with a lot of self-mockery - it's an outrageous caricature!

I don't get why anyone would dislike Blue Jasmine. It's a good story, well plotted and told, it's funny and sad, relevant too, all actors give great performances, it looks good. I can see why it wouldn't be your favorite movie, but I don't see why you'd bother hating it.

Misogynist tripe? Come ooooooon Woody's been writing great female leads for decades.

Agree that VCB would have been better without voice over, goes for almost every voice over in history imo

i haven't seen vcb since the theater but that voiceover was so spectacularly weird it's easily the most interesting thing in a woody allen movie since kenneth branagh made himself a living uncanny valley.

i have also only seen whatever works once but i'd literally never had such a bad reaction to a movie; iirc it's 90 minutes of a woody-infested larry david viciously insulting dumb girly hick evan rachel wood, who responds by calling him a genius over and over again until his arc concludes. (evidence for protag's genius even thinner here than usual: he knows the word "physics" but unless i have forgotten does not demonstrate knowledge of the premise of even one dostoevsky novel.) the upsetting part is how totally continuous its badness is with woody's prior goodness: he's spent decades reading cliff's notes to (increasingly) younger women in exchange for permission to feed on their adoring vivacity. (the scene in crimes and misdemeanors where he's pressing the coffee-table book about "old new york" on his little niece, holding it open in front of her, turning the pages for her, talking over her even tho the only thing the script is allowing her to say is "that's great uncle cliff", has the quality for me now of when tarantino cuts to someone's foot, only, you know, monstrous.) even the best woody actresses (keaton, davis, weist) are transcending, a little bit through writing but mostly through performance, misogynistic cliches as brittle psychobitches or tasteless bobbleheads. when he is (by is i mean was) at his best as a writer he does have the gallantry not to imagine a blissful future for his teacher-student relationships, and to recognize his own solipsism: no way tracy's coming back from london, and there will never be a more vicious or accurate parody of Late Woody than the play at the end of annie hall. but his characters these days are so desiccated that i don't think scarjo and evan rachel wood could unshrivel them even if they had judy davis' chops.

Misogynist tripe? Come ooooooon Woody's been writing great female leads for decades.

if your idea of a great female lede is a crazy talking to herself and slurping a vodka martini as if she learned it watching other movies. To be a Great Female Lede in a Woody Allen movie is to be insane.

Yup, there's stupid male fantasies in Woody's movies - but does that equal misogyny? Brittle psychobitches and tasteless bobbleheads are not the words I'd use to describe the two types of female leads in Woody movies, but I know what you mean. I didn't see it as an issue and don't they correspond well enough to the neurotic pseudo-intellectual (Woody) and the easy going jock friend (Tony Roberts)?

It's also sad that the intelligent characters don't get to engage in a lot of intellectually stimulating dialogue - but then again maybe the intellectual cliche was more of a 70s/80s thing in Woody's films? In BJ there's some pretty good dialogue imo, not because it's cool but because it's direct and deals with good questions without being to black/white on them:

Jasmine: Oh, for chrissake. What's wrong with your self-esteem? There's men who'd never think about ripping the phone out of the wall.
Ginger: Hey, leave him alone. You're always picking on him.
Jasmine: No, you choose losers, okay? Because that's what you think you deserve. That's why you're living like this and that's why you'll never have a better life.
Ginger: I'm- I'm living- I'm living like this because you married the biggest loser of all...and went your own sweet way... while he pissed away my one big chance to make a better life.
Chili: Come on, let's not ruin our celebration, okay?

Sure, it's a bit obvious but I think it works.

It's been too long since I saw WW for me to really comment on it, but I saw it several times and found it nice and funny, even a bit clever, and so did the different people I saw it with. I think the movie is pretty self-aware in its use of cliches, but could be wrong.

By that definition to be a great male lead in a Woody picture would also mean to be "insane", but I'm not sure that's a fair way of characterizing, say, Mia Farrow in Purple Rose.

Oh sorry, I guess you were only referring to Cate Blanchett in BJ. I thought her depiction of Jasmine was great - very loyal to a character that's not that likeable or sympathetic, she had me emotionally involved. Don't you think it's a good idea to write leads with mental disorders?

It's not a good idea for Woody Allen to write leads with mental disorders.

Okay, I guess you really didn't like it. I thought it seemed pretty honest, but maybe it's not a point that can be argued.

I wrote this at the time.

dlh's post reminded me of this awful claptrap:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/03/thus-ate-zarathustra

i was mortified by the laziness and the tone deafness of that when it appeared, so dumb and weak and not remotely nietzsche-ish, just a hack jeer at a philosopher from someone who hadn't read him. and since then i've always noticed when his films have similar glib magpie displays that bank on the ignorance or impressibility of the viewers, it's rotten slothful writing.