Goodbye, Woody

The divorce has been coming for some time now. We’ve been separated for years, but it’s only recently that I’ve even considered taking the final step. Lord knows I’ve tried to make it work. I indulged the flights of fancy, the ‘creative excesses’ if you will. I supported his change of scenario, hoping that Europe would unlock some hidden store of talent that would make our future together tolerable. I even ignored the tabloid way he decided to undermine his personal life. But after a couple of fleeting glimpses of the old brilliance, the same old sad self-indulgence set in. Now, with his latest attempt at interpersonal angst, I’ve decided I can’t take any more. After nearly FOUR decades of dedicated fandom, I am divorcing Woody Allen once and for all.
Oh, we’ve had our troubles before. During the late ‘70s, his Fellini-inspired slap in the audience’s face - otherwise known as Stardust Memories - was a particularly hard time. All we wanted from our cinematic hero was a little of his old comic joie de vive. It didn’t have to be Sleeper or Love and Death, but would it have hurt to follow a more of that Annie Hall/Manhattan style of wit with worry? Apparently, since everything about the 81/2 rip was a visually arresting rant against trying to pigeonhole an otherwise indefinable artist…except, Allen had made his entire career on comedy. Asking for a few more jokes didn’t seem like such a major request.
Granted, it was probably unfair to dwell in the past like that. After all, it must be tough for any creative type to live down such a start. His first few efforts remain gems in a frequently faltering genre. Still, he must have been insulted by the non-stop comments about those “early, funny films”, enough to make a mockery of such a sentiment. And this was even after we tolerated his back-peddling Bergmania. Interiors has its moments, but it just can’t compare to the Swedish master being mimicked. Similarly, A Midsummer’s Night Sex Comedy proved that, when it comes to calm country mannerisms, a Jewish American filmmaker can only stumble like a stooge.
But he kept coming back. Zelig was an experimental wonder, growing better and more poignant with time, and the next four films - Broadway Danny Rose, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Radio Days - proved he had lost none of this nostalgic character craftsmanship. Even after going off the tracks again with September (completely recast and reshot during production, thus beginning the mythos), Another Woman, and his “Oedipus Wrecks” segment from New York Stories, he delivered Crimes and Misdemeanors. Only the most cynical cinephile could deny that film’s power and glory. It looked like things might just work out between us.
And then - disaster. One sloppy, subpar production after another. It’s a list too long to discuss here, but from 1990 to now (almost 18 years) Allen has made only three good films (Husbands and Wives, Bullets Over Broadway, Match Point), two tolerable efforts (Manhattan Murder Mystery, Deconstructing Harry) and a bunch of god-awful garbage (and before you bellyache, go ahead and defend Celebrity, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and Melinda and Melinda). Perhaps even more unsettling, Allen has yet to make another movie that matches the critical buzz and acclaim of some of his older works. Even the ersatz musical Everyone Says I Love You is now just a forgotten speck on an usually blemished resume.
There will be some who disagree with the assessment, and it is there right to. I can only go on my own experiences with Allen. I first fell in love with his work when I saw Sleeper as part of an ABC Sunday Night Movie broadcast premiere. I laughed hysterically at this sci-fi spoof, even if I didn’t understand all the jokes (I was in my very early teens at the time). When Annie Hall opened, I was one of the first in line, and again, I was swept away on how mystifyingly magical his movies were. Allen was definitely a thinking man’s humorist, and some of his references were so arcane that, after looking them up, they have stayed with me my entire life (like Oswald, the character from Ibsen’s Ghosts, and his infamous headache).
That was the joy of a Woody Allen movie. He never talked down to his audience. He assumed they were just as bright, intelligent, and educated as he. He wasn’t afraid to infuse his characters with outsized idiosyncrasies, as long as they were grounded in the urban everyday surroundings of their life. Many see Manhattan as his masterpiece, and rightly so. It walked the precarious border between arrogance and amiability with a style and a substance that continues to draw fans and fanatics alike. For a while there, it was hard to completely dismiss an Allen film. You could find massive flaws in what he was attempting, but the level of success was usually measured in some kind of entertainment.
But all that stopped somewhere in the ‘80s, and September is a good example of why. By this time (1987), Allen was seen as a legitimate American auteur. He already had eleven Oscar nominations (and three wins) and a kind of creative carte blanche that studios wanted to be a part of. Working almost exclusively for Orion (who had a distribution agreement with Warners), he had final cut, was capable of casting whomever he wanted, and could even go so far as to keep completed scripts away from his hired help. Actors longed to be in his films, his Academy pedigree (especially in the realm of Best Supporting Actress) almost a given. In essence, he had all the power a filmmaker could ever want - and it seems to have gone about systematically abusing same.
September was meant as a “chamber” piece, a filmed play as it were. Over the course of the production Allen recast the lead twice, and after editing the first version, did indeed rewrite, recast, and refilm it again. In today’s money-oriented clime, that would be unheard of. But Allen’s productions were always cheap, and up until this point, aesthetically successful. September changed all that. It showed the writer/director as insular, moody, and discontented. It didn’t help that the movie was a bore. Even after Crimes and Misdemeanors (his last true masterpiece), efforts like Shadows and Fog and Hollywood Ending smacked of the same artistic recklessness. Of course, had he only made Love and Death for the rest of his career, trading on his high concept hipster humor for every successive film, we’d be crucifying him too.
But Allen’s recent miscues - the dull Scoop, the awful Cassandra’s Dream - are perhaps the most troubling of all. At a recent screening of Vicky Christina Barcelona, I was struck with how little I cared about the filmmaker’s whiny, overly wistful characters. The story of how love conquers and confuses is something he explored (far more successfully) when I was in high school, and his choice of actors - Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, Scarlett Johansson - seemed more show biz then sensible. Like the passionate painters he depicts in the film, Allen has become an artist wholly in love with his own devices. He no longer feels a need to experiment or explore. Instead, he rounds up the current crop of A-list faces, places them in his overly talky tableaus, and shoots everything like the hand-held POV camera was a novel and new device.
The worst thing an ex can do is make you long for the early days of your relationship. It’s even worse when you dread the next expression from their already tired canon. For me, Allen stopped being exciting over a decade ago. Now, I merely tolerate his presence within the motion picture schema. Maybe he has another laugh out loud comedy in his kit (his last attempt, Small Time Crooks…), or perhaps he can mine individual turmoil and moral turpitude for one more knock out drama (Match Point). Unfortunately, I’m not willing to wait. I’ll gladly have cinematic egg on my face should this prolific 73 year old regain his aesthetic footing. Until then, I’ll resign myself to the past. It’s what any new divorcee would do.




Comments
Are you serious? Is this really your review of Vicky Cristina Barcelona? Yet another tedious, self-indulgent ramble from some bizarrely bitter ex-fan who obviously went into the screening determined to hate the film. Do us a favour: stay true to your word and don’t see any more of his films so you won’t have to subject us to such similar drivel in the future.
And for those of you wanting a sane opinion, check out David Denby’s review in The New Yorker. He loves it.
Comment by Fielding — August 4, 2008 @ 2:22 am
I sympathize you, Mr. Gibron, but I also disagree. I’m not sure that much I can say will have you change your mind, but I think we’ve charted similar trajectories, so I hope my comments will have some limited meaning to your appreciation of Mr. Allen’s films.
I became gradually obsessed with his oeuvre after capriciously renting “Deconstructing Harry” one evening from the local Blockbuster, having no idea what I was in for. I’m too young, you see, to be part of a generation for whom Mr. Allen was a celebrity. I’ve caught up with much of everything that he has ever made, and I have yet to see VCB, but I have never felt the disenchantment that you describe.
There’s clearly something about Allen’s films from the late eighties onward that reveal an artist running shallow on creativity. Films like “Hannah and her Sisters,” “Husbands and Wives”, “Deconstructing Harry”, “Manhattan Murder Mystery”, “Everyone says I love you,” and “Mighty Aphrodite” are about as dissimilar as the mature Mondrian’s grid-paintings. Throw a bunch of neurotics together, some agonising over manogamy, a few nice one-liners, a no man’s land between high and low brow, and sprinkle with the island of Manhattan: that’s the formula, and he stuck to it. Early works like “Manhattan” and “Zelig” are clearly <i>greater</i> films in the way that “Persona” is a recognisably greater film than “Anchorman”, though you would put me in somewhat of a Sophie’s choice if I had to choose one that I could never see again.
But I think that I actually prefer all those later films over the true classics; of course some are rather bad, such as “Curse of the jade scorpion” or “Scoop”. I like the idea of an artist gripped by his idee fixe, and milking it to death, exploring its minute capacities for variation - like Mondrian or Yves Klein. In fact, this element of pastiche and repetition seems to have become part of Allen’s modus operandi: “Celebrity” and “Deconstructing Harry” recapitulate the narratives and dramatis personae of “La Dolce Vita” and “8½”; “Anything Else” reworks “Anny Hall”; “Cassandra’s Dream” repeats “Match Point”. I like the casualness of Allen’s later films; they’re all imperfect and hastily made, but that means that the personality of their creator shines through, far more so than in his more polished works. And I think that Mr. Allen’s personality is quite clearly what draws anyone to truly love his films in the first place, rather than to merely acknowledge “Annie Hall”, “Manhattan”, and “Zelig” as great films.
So, I think I prefer the auteur in his period of decline; the constancy of his films during that time (you could time them like clockwork and easily guess the subject-matter and style) gives them a friendly quality to compensate for their other failings.
Comment by Vesuvium from Denmark — August 4, 2008 @ 7:08 am
So, are you burning your copies of his movies that you admire or do you want visitation rights? Most successful creative types only have maybe 10-15 year eras of prime material (IMHO) and that’s if they’re damned lucky. Woody got going with the picture shows well into his thirties and managed to string together a mighty impressive load of fine, manhole-covered celluloid. Most directors would donate both of their favoreet bagged marbles to make 3 of his flicks. It is possible that in his latter days he is stuck in a rut, repeating his old forms. He’s a septuagenarian now and we’ll always have the earlier, funnier films and even the bleaker, funnier ones to keep us warm. That being stated, Sweet and Lowdown was a decent recent. Should have won the coveted “How to Make Sean Penn Ingratiating” sculpture.
Comment by Lloyd Gottfriedsonson Too from Manilla, Envelope — August 4, 2008 @ 9:33 am
First off, the headline made me think he had passed away and my heart skipped. You should be ashamed of yourself for that.
I’ve never seen a Woody Allen film that I didn’t at least admire the craft of the filmmaking. Maybe his golden era was the seventies romantic comedies… but I am impressed at how even at his age he is exploring new territory.
Comment by Ryan Campbell — August 4, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Unlike with marriage, you can get by with a filmmaker by reliving old times. While you’ve been a little harsher on Woody Allen’s more recent stuff than my taste (I don’t try to apply the standards of golden age Woody Allen), I think you can accept that a filmmaker has tailed off while still loving his legacy. I couldn’t stand Kill Bill or Grindhouse, and I hate Tarantino as a human being. As a filmmaker however, I will never be able to dismiss him becuase of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Likewise, I was infuriated by Small Time Crooks and Hollywood Ending. But Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters means I’ll love Woody Allen forever. And we have the luxury of being able to watch classic Woody Allen whenever we want.
Comment by Ethan Stanislawski from New York — August 4, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Come on. This article is full of the sort of rote writing on Allen that makes my eyes cross. Really? You’re going to go back and criticize Interiors for being to Bergmanian….again? Seriously? Stardust Memories isn’t funny enough? When was this written, 1981? It’s time for a serious reassessment of a serious American artist, yes, for better or for worse. Not the same old catchphrases.
Incidentally, this is a serious piece on Woody I enjoyed a lot from Reverse Shot. Haven’t seen VCB yet, but I guess I’ll also have to go elsewhere for serious consideration of it.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/012023.html
Comment by martin dantich — August 9, 2008 @ 2:27 pm