Sadly, not this.I think the charm of the misanthropy has finally worn off--at least on me. I saw Woody Allen's latest, Whatever Works, tonight at the Angelika. I fell asleep about a half hour in and stayed drifting off for another 20-30 minutes.
Sidenote, I see a lot of movies. I'm not ashamed to admit that I fall asleep here and there, and depending on what else I'm doing, often. For instance, somebody asked me what I thought of Cold Souls, a film I saw on the second to last day of Sundance. I don't really know what I thought of it because it was slow and I don't remember anything that happened past about the 40 minute mark. I don't fall asleep when I really love it though.
Anyway, I saw the unavoidable Woody Allen-Larry David collabo tonight and was very disappointed. It reminded me more of Anything Else and Melinda and Melinda much more than any of his early works. I had heard that this was a call back to old school Woody, but I don't think so. I guess one could argue that the whole talking to the camera post-modern thing is there from Annie Hall, in addition to the general structure of the story of a relationship bound neither by classical narrative structure nor even linear storytelling. The other similarities I can think of might go into his more satirical and slapstick work like Bananas and Love and Death, however, I really think that any similarities to those films are by accident i.e. when the acting is at its worst, really misinterpreting what the scenes should have been.
He repeats a tool he used in Anything Else by using a voiceover, or in this case talking to the audience directly, and philosophizing by saying "It's just like anything else." Here he tells us "It's whatever works." I won't bog down the article with a block quote of the context of either of those. He harkens back to Melinda in the sense of all characters having the same voice--one that exists in no real human being, including Woody Allen, thus dropping in the film in the category of the absurd.
There was a lot that bothered me about this film, but this is what I think about most. I'm often asked what kind of stuff I write. I have a tough time answering because I think I write a lot of different kinds of stuff. Inevitably, they ask if I write comedy. I went to college with a lot of kids who wrote for comedy troupes, standup, stuff like that. I have NO IDEA how to write comedy. I think I know how to write something that's funny, but I never start there. If it ends up being funny, or develops that way, and that serves the story most, great. If not though, I just won't have any laughs in it. I cannot write "funny" characters. I cannot write jokes.
I think that this is because I'm very interested in capturing things as they are. I think there's enough humor in the world that we don't need to take it any further. I often think the funniest people are those who are most serious (bankers, guys with spikey hair, girls who play softball). I focus on capturing the moments that I laugh at in real life. I literally take notes wherever I go, and then I go home and I make stories out of them. I don't describe them though, I create situations where they can be acted out on screen. Allen literally describes these situations though, like when Larry David turns and talks to the camera, telling us stories and what he thinks of people.
Let's leave the narration and commentary alone for the moment though and focus on the scenes without it. These are all caricatures. There is not one real person in this film. Allen has very clear contempt both for himself and those around him. There is not one character in this film who is safe--he hates them all and makes fun of them all. This film actually reminds me very much of Stardust Memories, Allen's autobiographical film which served as his soap box to just say everything he had yet to say in other films. Characters in Whatever Works describe Larry David's character and it's often very obvious they're talking about Allen. I'm not going to quote them all but they're obnoxious. He's a self-proclaimed "genius." All women want him despite his many flaws and sexual inadequacies (a theme that's been with Allen films from the beginning). Despite how self destructive he is, he just cannot help but be successful. It's all the same egomaniacal stuff.
Not to digress from my third digression in a row, but on this point, people often read my stuff and tell me that there are no likeable characters. I have never understood why there have to be likable characters as long as the storytelling is interesting. If we're illuminating interesting points on a bunch of disgusting people, as long as it holds my interest, I dig it. This is what I love about old Woody Allen films. He manages to tell a story revolving around some weak, selfish people, but make us care a lot. We don't need to root for them necessarily. However, if the narrative is pushed forward by an arc of the audience understanding the characters more and more, and it works...well, then it works.
There was a lot that bothered me about this film, but this is what I think about most. I'm often asked what kind of stuff I write. I have a tough time answering because I think I write a lot of different kinds of stuff. Inevitably, they ask if I write comedy. I went to college with a lot of kids who wrote for comedy troupes, standup, stuff like that. I have NO IDEA how to write comedy. I think I know how to write something that's funny, but I never start there. If it ends up being funny, or develops that way, and that serves the story most, great. If not though, I just won't have any laughs in it. I cannot write "funny" characters. I cannot write jokes.
I think that this is because I'm very interested in capturing things as they are. I think there's enough humor in the world that we don't need to take it any further. I often think the funniest people are those who are most serious (bankers, guys with spikey hair, girls who play softball). I focus on capturing the moments that I laugh at in real life. I literally take notes wherever I go, and then I go home and I make stories out of them. I don't describe them though, I create situations where they can be acted out on screen. Allen literally describes these situations though, like when Larry David turns and talks to the camera, telling us stories and what he thinks of people.
Let's leave the narration and commentary alone for the moment though and focus on the scenes without it. These are all caricatures. There is not one real person in this film. Allen has very clear contempt both for himself and those around him. There is not one character in this film who is safe--he hates them all and makes fun of them all. This film actually reminds me very much of Stardust Memories, Allen's autobiographical film which served as his soap box to just say everything he had yet to say in other films. Characters in Whatever Works describe Larry David's character and it's often very obvious they're talking about Allen. I'm not going to quote them all but they're obnoxious. He's a self-proclaimed "genius." All women want him despite his many flaws and sexual inadequacies (a theme that's been with Allen films from the beginning). Despite how self destructive he is, he just cannot help but be successful. It's all the same egomaniacal stuff.
Not to digress from my third digression in a row, but on this point, people often read my stuff and tell me that there are no likeable characters. I have never understood why there have to be likable characters as long as the storytelling is interesting. If we're illuminating interesting points on a bunch of disgusting people, as long as it holds my interest, I dig it. This is what I love about old Woody Allen films. He manages to tell a story revolving around some weak, selfish people, but make us care a lot. We don't need to root for them necessarily. However, if the narrative is pushed forward by an arc of the audience understanding the characters more and more, and it works...well, then it works.
In Whatever Works though, it was not interesting. He was just mean spirited. The characters changed and even arguably grew, however, we learned nothing about them apart from the initial knowledge that they were stupid and ignorant, no matter the situation. Why did he want or need to make fun of Evan Rachel Wood so much? Why does he need to show us women supplicating to his fantasies so often (anyone watch Vicky Cristina Barcelona?)? In Woody Allen's world there are women who are easy in that they have nothing else to them other than their potential for companionship with a man and there are women who are expressive who are usually just letting off their repression and sexual frustration in negative ways, until they find a way to fit their expressions into the fantasy of a man (exemplified by Patricia Clarkson going from bimbo dumbass annoying Southern Mom to artsy independent woman who meddles with David's business, to artsy Mom who lives in a menage-a-trois relationship and no longer bothers him but continues her blossoming artistic endeavors). Do what you want to Clarkson's character, honestly, I didn't feel bad that he made such fun of her. I have no clue why he needed to throw Evan Rachel Wood's spurned southern-belle-turned-major at-risk-transient-loner under the bus. There had to be 20 jokes in the film that had to do with how she was neither educated nor smart. Fuck man, leave it alone.
In addition to the ridiculous mother-daughter combo, David's character is this total asshole who treats people like shit over and over again, yet they just come begging for more. We've seen it before. It was interesting in the 70s because it was fresh if nothing else. It was tolerable in Vicky Cristina because it was kinda cute. Now though, it's downright misogyny. It adds NO VALUE to the film.
In addition to the ridiculous mother-daughter combo, David's character is this total asshole who treats people like shit over and over again, yet they just come begging for more. We've seen it before. It was interesting in the 70s because it was fresh if nothing else. It was tolerable in Vicky Cristina because it was kinda cute. Now though, it's downright misogyny. It adds NO VALUE to the film.
If you frame the film in terms of abuse, it can be seen as a series of desperate people settling for being taken advantage of and hurt over and over again either just for the companionship or because they've become unhealthily hooked on a person. Both of these things happen, but not in the ways that Allen presents them.
Again, while the film definitely shares many tropes with his late 70s and 80s work (other than those already mentioned, Manhattan, Broadway Danny Rose, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, etc.). The tropes do not work though. In the successful films, they add heart, emotional and intellectual resonance, depth, style, punch- with characters we have not seen before being shown in honest, pull no punches ways. This movie is weak though and barely attempts to pull off the same feats. I suspect this was an unfinished work when he wrote it in the 70s, and then he just did not update it much. Maybe some of it would have been irreverent back in the day, but now it just seems bitter.
The audience laughed a lot. I was constantly confused at why. Critics didn't love this movie either, so it's not like I'm just being a grump here. I think New Yorkers just suck up anything he does and love it. Well, now at least. There was that period where it was not hip to like current Woody Allen, with the whole making bad movies and sleeping with his young step-daughter.
Quickly, this is Harris Savides' most boring photography ever I think. He shoots the entire movie in wides, with the tableaux style that Allen loves. That's fine. But I didn't like what was happening with those performances that we were allowing to unfold, so I didn't like the shooting. It was lit like television also. Another problem was the locations and production design. Yeah, they sucked too. The interiors looked like apartments that had not been lived in, with contrived books and furniture being sprinkled in to fill the frame. The exteriors like the market looked like a Broadway play set. The combination of the wide angle lens locked down on sticks with only pans for most of the film, with the shitty locations and shitty production design make the movie look shitty.
Yeah, I didn't like this movie at all.
I also don't give any credit to the other actors for their absurdist perfs. I'm not into that. This movie was bad. I'll actually call this the worst Woody Allen movie ever.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment