The acrimonious split with Mia Farrow is acknowledged with more than just a passing nod, when I was expecting it to be ignored or just glossed over. Pity that Farrow herself wasn't willing to talk about her working experiences with him when several of his films which she starred in rank among his very best.
I shouldn't think that people who don't care for his films will be as absorbed as I was. I've always been a very enthusiastic fan, having seen nearly every single one of the 40+ films he's directed on the cinema screen when they were first released. His films really are that much of a big deal for me. (The sole one which, so far, has got away was the 2002 'Hollywood Ending' - and I've only ever seen the 2006 'Scoop' on TV.)
I'm willing to accept that his films vary in quality, but even at their worst (at least according to critics and other viewers) I've never found a single one of them at all boring - and, furthermore, there isn't one which I wouldn't watch again - several of them time after time. Apart from the very early 'slapstick'-type films, they are all very 'wordy'. Dialogue is paramount. One hardly looks to Allen for 'action', but it's the high-quality, highly-charged - and often funny - conversation which I've come to expect from him and he very nearly always delivers.
So, the score from this particularWoody Allen admirer? - at least 7.5/10 (even going on 7.75!)
Your post inspired me to sit in front of my television last night for two hours and watch this documentary. However, I'm wondering if this is the same one you watched as there are two parts: The first begins with Allen's life in Brooklyn and ends with "Stardust Memories." Total running time is 1 hr. 57 minutes. Part 2, which I'll probably watch tonight, begins with the cosmopolitan Allen in Europe. The running time is about 1 hr. 30 mins. I suspect that this is a longer version of the documentary you saw and was probably edited for theatre viewing. The frequent appearances of Allen's leads me to believe this. Those people in the US who do not have Netflix will have the opportunity to view this on PBS this Friday evening.
ReplyDeleteI am so in agreement with you that dialogue is paramount. But I also want to add that the manner in which the line is delivered is just as important. Just as it is of prime importance to have a special actor deliver the lines written by Williams or Albee, so too is it with Allen. Just as you do, I love dialogue smartly delivered. My first Allen film was "Manhattan" and when Tony Roberts delivered the line "Gossip is the new pornography" I was hooked. Looking forward to Allen's next "To Rome With Love."
I think it could very well be the same film, Paul. In fact during the showing yesterday I was wondering whether it had been made for US TV. This happens sometimes here - an American TV film gets a British (and possibly worldwide) theatrical release. (This happened way back with Steven Spielberg's excellent first film - 'Duel'. It was right-in-your-face impressive on the big screen.)
ReplyDeleteYes, delivering a line of dialogue is about as important as the actual words. I also like to see Allen's characters gesturing as they talk. It's much more commonplace in his films than in other films, including other American films, so I ask myself if there's something in his words that give rise to this 'talking with hands'. I like to see it because, like so many other Britons, I am so undemonstrative and buttoned-up when I talk, whereas his characters in particular seem to use their entire bodies to illustrate what they are saying - all without being overly histrionic. Fascinating. I wonder if you've noticed the same - or maybe you just see it as not particularly special.
My time for being hooked on Allen goes back to about 1975 when I first saw, in the cinema, 'Take the Money and Run' which I found so unbelieveably funny I thought my heart would give up! (I see that it was actually made in 1968.)
They talked a bit in this 'Documentary' (which it wasn't!) about his first (and only?) completely serious film, 'Interiors'. When I saw it on its release I was VERY impressed but, unfortunately, there's never been an opportunity to see it again, which I'm really keen to do. Have you ever managed to catch it?
Must admit it took me some time to appreciate 'Manhattan' properly. Unlike you, I felt let-down by it on first viewing, but not now. (The line I especially remember is Diane Keaton loving a a piece of artwork because of its 'negative capability'!)
Yes, I too am very much looking forward to seeing 'To Rome With Love'. Every Allen film is an 'event' for me, rather like the way Hitchcock, Lean and Kubrick used to be - though thankfully he's much more prolific than these others. It's such a shame that, particularly recently, I've got to chase around this region to find a cinema which is showing his most recent release. (Though not for 'Midnight in Paris' which got wide general release - quite rightly!)
Glad you also are a Woody fan, Paul. Once again, I'm reassured that I must have taste and that I am in good company.
Ray, I did manage to catch "Interiors" many years ago, back in the days of VHS tapes. My reason for watching it, was not because it was an Allen film, but because the brilliant Geraldine Page and the wonderful Maureen Stapleton were cast. Stapleton had a marvelous turn as Pearl. Seems this film is never on tv, but demands a return visit via DVD.
DeleteGlad you caught it, Paul - and that you appreciated it too. I've never known it to have been on TV here either. It's mystifying when films like this are so very superior to the interminable repeats we are force-fed with. (Currently 'Cheaper by the Dozen' and 'Charlie and the Choc Factory' - the recent Johnny Depp version - seem to be on about 2 or 3 times a week, and it seems to have been so for about the past year or more!)
DeleteAlas I didn't see this doc, my tv viewing is somewhatat the contained at the moment, however, it's been nice to come back and catch up a little with you via your blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for the loss of your friend, it is always hard when someone we know shuffles away from this thing we call life, but the memories you keep are proof of the man he was.
Glad the holiday was fine, liked the photos too.
PS i would comment more, but my eyes just cant work out those damn cyphers these days!
ReplyDeleteJase, so good to hear from you again, in both your above comments - though must confess to a sense of guilt myself in not having followed up your own recent postings of late. It should be corrected before too long. I DO mean to!
DeleteThe Woody Allen film I saw was at the Duke of York's. It was only released in this country a couple of weeks ago and probably won't be on TV (if it is at all) for maybe a year or more.
Thanks for your sympathies re my late friend. He won't be the last (unless it's I who goes next) - but he did have a unique and particularly valued place in my life, as you recognise in your comment.
I'm afraid it was hardly a holiday. 'Family obligation' is nearer the mark, with tensions, for various reasons, all round. (I've said in a previous blog that it's now over 21 years since my last 'true' holiday - and I've long since started wondering if I'll ever have one again.)
Your final remark immediately above (if I interpret correctly) leads me to wonder if we will meet up eventually, but in the heretofore unimagined venue of a nursing home - I can be your eyes and you can be my feet! What a depressing thought!
I have enjoyed his films; I should go see it.
ReplyDeleteHis writings are hilarious.
There are quite a number of laughs, Dr Spo - mainly in the excerpts from his earlier films - but the talky stuff is more for those admirers of his work. I certainly found it well worthwhile.
DeleteI am a fan of Woody Allen's films and didn't know about this documentary. Thanks! I'll see if I can find it here.
ReplyDeleteAs you're a fan, I'm positive you'll like it, Mitch.
Delete