I figured out why Woody Allen sucks so much lately...

[Dixon Carter Lee]

His persona, his character, his "Woodyness" has explored masturbation, death, sexual loyalty, intellectual disenfranchisement, Signmud Freud, the artist's moral universe, the blindness of God, and jokes about Himmler, and has come to sublime moments of reconciliation, insight, understanding and growth. But, lately, especially in "Hollywood Ending" which I finally saw, his character seems hell bent on going through it all again, the same relationship troubles, the same moral angsts, the same sight gags, even. It's wearing, and a little sad, particuarly now that he's at an age when people are less forgiving of your inability to get past things. Enough with the jokes about Beverly Hills herbalists.

If he insists on continuing to give us the "Woody character" as a lead I would prefer he'd follow the path he began in "Deconstructing Harry". There we saw "the persona" in true late-year crisis. There are so many interesting things he could explore as a man of his age in 2002, weathered, wizened, mature, regretful, etc. Does anyone really want to see Woody Allen make a Carl Jung joke anymore?

Less "Small Time Crooks", more "Crimes and Misdemeanors". Less "Curse of the Jade Scorpion", more "Manhattan Murder Mystery". I feel like he's gone back into his past to find a muse that long ago retired to Coral Gables and now spends her days at the track betting on Greyhounds.

Ah well. I think I'll go rent "Manhattan".

 

[lavender]

 

[Guest]

 

[Laurel]

I liked "Sleeper", but I don't get into his later stuff.

 

[Jimi]

Has he really...

ever left the "Woody Character"?

Perhaps I am just totally un-hip - but the only one of his films that I've seen that was even remotely amusing to me was "Zelig".

 

[Eumenides]

Basically, Woody, while having great insight as a writer and a director, can only interp, and cannot act like anyone truly outside himself. He barely strays ever. So, it was cute for a while, and his movies were great, but enough already. Write for someone who CAN act outside the established character with the established problems. I think another problem is that he never has grown up. I still like his older flicks, but I was done after Mighty Aphrodite.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The mensch as Danny Rose was a great creation, and he was poignant in "Manhattan". But he's done plenty of great work without relying on the mensch: "Hannah", "Bullets over Broadway" ... I even liked "Another Woman".

 

[Eumenides]

But wouldn't you agree that the genius in his characters was in the writing, not the acting?

 

[lavender]

 

[lilrosie lips]

I just hope he doesn't do a remake of Interiors....

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

What's "acting"? Danny Rose was an inspired creation and performance. The last three minutes of "Manhattan" rivals the ending of "City Lights", and it's due to his acting. His presence in "Play it Again, Sam" is concrete -- I know plenty of actors who can't commit to a role that well. His acting is fine. He's been good, he's been great, and he's been terrible.

 

[Eumenides]

There's interpretation and there's acting. There is much value in the ability to interpret, but it doesn't make a great actor. Woody wrote what he could be good at. That's what made his inspiring performances inspiring. But once you've made a few dozen movies like that...

It's just my take on why he has become tiresome.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Acting IS interpreting. They create the illusion of life, but the rest of their "creation" is actually an interpretation of the writer's work (on stage), and the writer and director's vision (in film). The only actors who "create" (in the sense of inventing theme and direction as well as back story) are comics.

 

[Eumenides]

I disagree. To act, one must interpret, but one doesn't have to act to interpret a script or character. But, to get away from the define this and that argument, because such definitions are probably too subjective, I guess what I was getting at, is that there are people who can act, create a character out of words and givens in a script, and there are those who can make the written word sound conversational and natural. There is a vast difference.

 

[sunstruck]

Ok, this is the last time I'm trying to post this.

BUT

Hasn't he made like 30 films in 30 years? The man needs to take a break and come back fresh.

I said it better the first time. Fuck it.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I disagree. To act, one must interpret, but one doesn't have to act to interpret a script or character. But, to get away from the define this and that argument, because such definitions are probably too subjective, I guess what I was getting at, is that there are people who can act, create a character out of words and givens in a script, and there are those who can make the written word sound conversational and natural. There is a vast difference.

I teach acting, and directing, and writing, and, trust me, Woody Allen can act -- it's not just "him writing what he does well".

Acting, without being subjective at all, is defined by concentration, whether you're using sense memory, Meisner, method, recall, presentational, improvisation or a rubber chicken.

I understand what you're getting at, but no writing, no matter how brilliant, will survive poor acting, not in a story with an arc. His success is due to both his writing, and his acting.

 

[concrete]

he' short
he' going bald
he' TOO Jewish
he' getting old
he' perhaps having second thoughts about marrying his daughter.
he' last funny movie was China Lily



he is also probably having trouble playing the clarinet,now that his dentures are in the way

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

"Tiger Lilly". Aside from that error that was a wonderfully well thought out critique.

 

[concrete]

"Tiger Lilly". Aside from that error that was a wonderfully well thought out critique.

I stand corrected...had to think back to grab that one..
Thanks for the correction...all else stands..if not more...

 

[Spinaroonie]

He should team up with Seinfeld.

 

[kotori]

. . . The last three minutes of "Manhattan" rivals the ending of "City Lights", and it's due to his acting. . .

I love the scene where he's laying on the couch, with the dictaphone, making a list of the things he loves about Manhattan, and then there's a pause, and he adds "Tracy's face." Makes me cry every time.

 

[hogjack]

....
Less "Small Time Crooks",

"Small Time Crooks" certainly dug into his bag of tricks but it was still a well-crafted film.

Agree with much of others' assessments. I think he needs to get outa the country for awhile. Take a different geographical approach...

 

[Eumenides]

I teach acting, and directing, and writing, and, trust me, Woody Allen can act -- it's not just "him writing what he does well".

*Bow*

Oh, ok. Now I see your point.

Some of the rest of us teach acting too. Even have directed in our limited time. Acting is subjective. I'm allowed to have my opinion without bowing down to your resume. Mine may not be as impressive yet, but I have the education, and I have a great deal of experience for a young'un. Throw impressive credentials at someone else.

Your points are valid. I just don't happen to agree with them.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You overreacted. And you're still wrong.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I loathe Woody Allen. I don't find New Yorker neurosis funny, just sort of pathetic.