avi@pegasus.UUCP (01/28/84)
I went to see the latest Woody Allen film tonight. I was slightly disappointed after reading a rave review in TIME magazine. I will not give away major details, but the movie was not as funny as some of his earlier ones. Allen seems to have matured quite a bit. There is less slapstick and more real philosophy. I was turned off by the way he did it in Black & White again. Is it that much cheaper than filming in color? Just because it describes the exploits of a "Theatrical Agent" several decades ago, I don't feel the necessity of having to imagine all the colors that didn't go by. Allen does seem to be coming to terms with his Jewish identity. He wears a "Chai" prominently on his necklace, and sprinkles his speech with Yiddishisms like "Emes!". Unlike some of his earlier movies, he did not have the (negative) visual imagery of Jewish stereotypes (like dressing up as a bumbling Chasidic Rabbi). Mia Farrow put on a brilliant performance in a role that is not like her usual ones. I was a bit put off by some of the Mafia stereotypes of some of the Italian characters. On the whole, I liked the movie (once the B/W irritation subsided), but the ending felt too sudden. There were oodles of interesting cameo appearances and the photography of scenic areas in Manhattan and the NJ swamplands (what a contrast!) was great. It is a technically excellent film. As I am writing this, I am starting to warm up to the film more. I would say that Zelig was definitely a funnier film, but this one is more of a work of art. Anybody else have an opinion? Is Allen heading in a good direction? Will the next movie just be in one color with a sound track? -- -=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241 suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, utcsstat, hogpc, ...]!pegasus!avi
ultra@cmcl2.UUCP (02/02/84)
#R:pegasus:-88300:cmcl2:2200002:000:867 cmcl2!ultra Jan 31 23:52:00 1984 Not as funny as Zelig? I hope it's got something else going for it, 'cause Zelig was *bore*-ing. I'm completely worn out with Woody Allen trying to "mature" and "get serious". It's probably some sad affliction of hanging around New York too long that he should even contemplate such a thing. He should just try to find other things to be funny about. When the reviews (Newsweek too) start sounding like they were written by someone on the staff of the New York Review of Books who had just fallen in love for the first time, then bonged on nitrous oxide, then you know he's gone off the deep end and might as well go into real estate. "Interiors" was bad enough: you think he would have learned his lesson. "Sleeper" was probably his best movie, followed by "Annie Hall" and then maybe Manhattan or "EYAWTKA Sex". -- Lars Ericson (..cmcl2!csd1!ericson)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/03/84)
I'm completely worn out with Woody Allen trying to "mature" and
"get serious". He should just try to find other things to be funny about.
"Interiors" was bad enough: you think he would have learned his lesson.
"Sleeper" was probably his best movie, followed by "Annie Hall" and
then maybe Manhattan or "EYAWTKA Sex".
This may be a minority opinion, but I have been impressed with Allen's
newer moviews (especially Stardust Memories) and his newfound maturity.
While I enjoyed his older movies, I think people have forgotten that not
only do people change (and Woody has changed a lot since the 60's) but
society has, too. EYAWTKAS couldn't be made today, or if it could, you
would never take your children to see it.
I haven't seen Broadway Danny Rose yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
Unlike those who want people to redo past successes, I enjoy being suprised
at the movies, and when a director gets a new vision, I look forward to
seeing it. Remember, if Lucas hadn't 'matured' he'd still be doing movies
about growing up in Stockton. One 'American Grafitti' is great, but I'd
much rather see a 'Star Wars' than second one.
chuq
--
From the house at Pooh Corner: Chuq 'Nuke Wobegon' Von Rospach
{fortune,menlo70}!nsc!chuqui Have you hugged your Pooh today?
Go, Lemmings, Go!
<I'll give up my quote of the week when YOU give up those pretty pictures!>
I'm not worried. I gave myself up for dead before we started.rossen@uiucdcs.UUCP (rossen ) (02/09/84)
#R:pegasus:-88300:uiucdcs:10700057:000:1554 uiucdcs!rossen Feb 8 15:37:00 1984 Boy! A topic I haven't thought about in years, rekindled into a nice blaze! I speak of "Interiors." I must pity as awfully gullible anybody who took "Interiors" seriously. I thought Woody Allen since "Annie Hall" (which I really enjoyed) fell into a self-centered rut, what with "Manhattan" and "Stardust Memories" and all, but "Interiors" was a REAL abomination. Clearly, Allen was trying to work in early Ingmar Bergman techniques. Now, however, that even Bergman himself doesn't make movies like that anymore, the techniques and the horribly contrived lines seemed cliched and over-stylized, thus making the movie look more like a mockery than a tribute. It reminded me of the short subject Bergman parody, "La Duva," which was a scream, but I gathered that "Interiors" wasn't INTENDED to be funny. Nevertheless I, as well as the entire audience (no joke) in the theatre where I saw the film, ended up laughing hysterically at most of the lines. As an example of what I mean -- the entire film is in tones of grey, white, tan, except Maureen Stapleton's character, the only one who has some life, who of course wears bright red. Is this blatant or what? In the final scene, the daughters move one by one into adjacent profile, stare out the window and utter dispassionate and meaningless lines: "The sea is so peaceful." ---"Yes." puh-LEEEZE!! Those who saw some merit in the film [I clearly didn't] are welcomed to write. -------------------- "...delicious delicious." Ken in Champaign ...[pur-ee ihnp4]!uiucdcs!rossen
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/28/84)
I finally got the opportunity to see 'Broadway Danny Rose' over the
weekend. This is Woody Allen's latest film, and stars him and Mia Farrow in
a story about a second rate talent agent who's only redeeming quality is
that he really cares about his acts.
This is a good film, although there are some problems. First of all, it is
short (about 1hour, 20minutes) and because it is also paced quickly I got
the feeling that they left a lot out. By adding about 20 minutes to the
film and a little depth they could have made it a much better story.
The acting by Farrow (in blonde hair, sunglasses, and gum) as astounding.
Woody does his normal good job of playing the person we know and love - the
poor nebbish who tries very hard and never quite succeeds. The other
characters (especially the people who play his talents) are quite good but
minor parts.
As always seems the case with an Allen film, this movie is not for
everyone. Obviously, if you generally don't like Woody Allen (both of you)
this isn't a film to see. If you feel that 'Bananas' is the highlight of
his career and prefer slapstick to intelligent and poignant humor, this is
not a good film to see. For those that have followed Allen through his
maturing from comedian/filmmaker to a filmmaker making comedies, and who
enjoy his later works, it's well worth seeing, although it isn't nearly as
good as some of his other works like Annie Hall or Stardust Memories.
chuq
--
From the Citadel of the Autarch: Chuqui the Plaid
{fortune,menlo70}!nsc!chuqui P.S. Nuke Wobegon!
Don't dream it, be it!