Allen 2

Allen: Match Point (2005)/Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008)/You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger(2010)  30/08/11

Director: Woody Allen            Writers: Woody Allen

Before I get in to these three later Allen films I should quickly mention Whatever Works (2009) starring Larry David who is a pretty awesome writer in his own right. This film, for me, is what Manhattan (see last post) should have been, with a shared (and, let’s face it, fucking creepy) theme of men dating much younger girls, it’s just funnier and more interesting. Maybe it benefits from having distance from Allen, who as writer and director of both, and the subject material probably stemming from his own life, doesn’t need to star as well. Perhaps he just needed to grow up to handle the subject matter (although he was old enough in the first place...).

Anyway, Match Point is set in a refined gentrified England that I thought the Sex Pistols put a stop to, but apparently not, and there are lots of tennis players. In Vicky Christina Barcelona two young American girls are on holiday in Spain and meet Javier Bardem. Lucky them then! And in You Will Meet... we are back in England (this one looks much more familiar) and we are in familiar Allen territory of a good film simply following a couple (well two couples).

Cutting to the chase I found Match Point really hard to engage with. This might be because I hate tennis or because I find it hard to care about people with such privileges even slightly, but that’s just me. However I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Lead actor Rhys Mayers is supposed to be an ex tennis player forced to teach due to an injury. He is also supposed to be Irish despite his accent suggesting nothing of the sort. The beginning monologue he delivers got me pretty excited for the rest of the film, but I think it belongs in a film more willing to deal with the issues it raises, that of luck being better than talent, than this film. I was disappointed to have worked out the basic plot of the film less than twenty minutes in, however if the dramatic ending came at the halfway mark things could have been more interesting. The dialogue was bone dry and unconvincing (very strange for Allen) and I had the feeling that there was some kind of joke I was missing, that it was making fun of these people, but I don’t think so. The lead character is impossible to identify with since he is an utter git, and I once again felt excluded from the trade mark gallery hopping society of Allen’s. I pinned my hopes on an improvement when Johansson appeared but I was disappointed.

This brings me to Vicky Christina Barcelona. This time Johansson has a more interesting role, although her lips are complimented as in Match point, she is more than eye candy. The dialogue is faster, more natural and typical of Woody Allen. The plot is less transparent and while we still find ourselves among art lovers and intellectuals they actually enjoy their art and are artists themselves. This makes them seem much more human and their Barcelona is more believable and attractive than Match Point’s London. The cast for me was superb even for an Allen film, Johansson and Bardem’s names speak for themselves, and Rebecca Hall who was new to me is not overshadowed at all. Perhaps most remarkable was Penelope Cruz who is at times scary and at others sexy, she deserved her Oscar for this part.

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger has a cast that comes very close, and I was genuinely surprised that Anthony Hopkins can play somebody so different and more subtle than his famous flesh eater. From the first shot we see a different England than Match Point, and like that film (and VCB) we get a voiceover which sets up the film. There is a certain upbeat feeling to the film, just shy of quirky, that I liked. Like Amelie (2001) except less nauseating. This is in large due to the effects of music and narration, and it is a testament to Woody Allen’s experience and talent that he can regularly use such devices so well. A few things stand out, as I mentioned, Hopkins is great with his escort wife in their all white flat, Antonio Banderas is convincingly nice and genuine, and there is a great scene where Josh Brolin, Naomi Watts and Gemma Jones argue, and a single camera follows them as they pace about, creating a lovely sense of movement and frustration in the scene. This film is a little mixed up at times, but it is original and not easy to predict.

There are definitely instances of aesthetic and formulaic consistency throughout Allen’s later films, with all three of these having similar intro titles accompanied by music appropriate to the geographical and societal setting, as well as a voiceover either by a character or narrator which sets the film up. However they are all very different despite shared themes which stem back to his earliest work, and sometimes it just doesn’t come together. Match Point is an example of that, while the other two are definitely worth watching, with some great casting and acting.

Woody Allen 1

Allen: Annie Hall (1977)/Manhattan (1979)  16/08/11

Director: Woody Allen            Writers: Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman

Woody Allen is undoubtedly one of the most respected and often mentioned filmmakers in the history of the medium. Here I write about the two films that he is most famous for and arguably defined his early work. They have many of his trademarks in common; NYC for their setting, Allen taking on the male lead with Diane Keaton as his female counterpart, and a focus on relationships and the lead character’s neuroses.

            Their similarities do not end there. In both films Allen plays creative characters that are well aware of their own intelligence and consider themselves superior both to the uneducated masses and the academically focused circles with which he mixes. These characters complain constantly, as much about their own defects as anything else, and tend to make passive aggressive sarcastic comments. They routinely act selfishly yet seem to follow logic and reason rather than actual heartfelt feelings in their relationships.

            I noticed that characters speak in a way that seems unnatural to me, as if discussing academic issues rather than life. No doubt this was on purpose, and in Annie Hall it matched the theme of a relationship where both members are neurotic and undergoing psychoanalysis, however I felt that in Manhattan it just didn’t fit. In fact, despite the many similarities between the films I found that I was much more interested and pleased by Annie Hall and that what worked in the earlier film annoyed me in the later one.

            Allen himself says that he finds Manhattan to be his worst film and that he doesn’t know how he got away with it. While it is certainly a film worth watching I would not encourage people to see it as their first Woody Allen film, and I have noticed almost all of its elements in either Annie Hall or later films where they work more successfully.

            Perhaps the reason I preferred things such as the highly intellectual dialogue in the 1977 film is due to its greater accessibility due to Allen breaking the 4^th wall. He does this with amusing straight to camera pieces that sometimes are just for us and sometimes are noticed by other characters in the scene. They almost get the audience on to his side and that enables us to put up with his self pity and bemoaning of the world around him, which for many people would be a desirable life.

            Of course there is no need to take these two films too seriously. There are brilliant lines in both, too many to list here, and an exceptionally strange and hilarious cameo by Christopher Walken in Annie Hall. Both are worth watching, but Manhattan just isn’t quite as funny or engaging. 

Mr Smith Goes to Washington

Mr Smith Goes to Washington 08/08/11

Director: Frank Capra             Writer: Sidney Buchman(screenplay)

1939

            Frank Capra and James Stuart are behind one of my favourite films; It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) so I had high hopes for one of their earlier collaborations. I would say that they delivered. James Stewart is younger and perfectly optimistic unlike some of his later roles with Hitchcock, and he needs to be as he embodies the best American values. We see from the beginning of the film that the US Senate is open to corruption but for the film to have any real story we need to believe that this is a time where corrupt politicians could come as a surprise.

            This gives us many entertaining and funny scenes where Stewart’s half full glass enters a Washington ready to exploit him where senators can be chosen by the flip of a coin, it doesn’t matter as long as they tow the party line. There is also a third force in the film in the form of journalism. So then a triple threat: Constitutions, rights and laws vs. Corruption in the system vs. Manipulation by the media. A fight that was not new when this film was made and one that certainly isn’t over. Anybody that has watched Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) or the news in the last few months will be familiar with the plot of Mr Smith goes to Washington. However what may be unfamiliar to viewers is the belief shown by Stewart’s character. I am used to a widespread feeling of pessimism about the moral practices of politicians and their relationships with powers in the media. The feeling that they have won, that their influence is just too wide and strong, and that nothing will change short of a full scale revolution. However this film shows that if one person in the right place makes a stand (very literally here) and some self sacrifice that they will get the support they need one way or the other, or perhaps even change the mind of those they stand against.

            This is well written, handsomely shot film with stellar acting. It is unique because it faced these issues when they were smaller, no film with the same story now could get away with its simple faith. Watch it and you may feel yourself having a little more hope for the world.

Halloween II

Halloween II 06/08/1

Writer/Director: Rob Zombie

2009

Although impressed by Rob Zombie’s first effort in the reanimated Halloween franchise (and by pretty much everything he has done (in film, music, animation...whatever) I was most apprehensive as his follow-up began. After getting a general consensus from critics (what do those losers know?) that it was mediocre, if not poor, and reading that Mr. Zombie only took the gig to stop anybody else defacing(masking?) his adopted child, it seemed that I would finally be disappointed by him. However I kept the faith and eventually got round to visiting Haddonfield once again.

            I had seen the first first first Halloween (1978) one lonely night in the dead of winter in an empty flat in deserted university halls. It was way cool. And it was a pretty scary film considering its age. Halloween (2007) managed to update and out-do its namesake in my opinion, purely due to Zombie’s way of bringing his killers to life, and motivating their slaughters in ways that are understandable while still completely deplorable. Perfect, we get to emotionally invest in the story, and we get to see icky bloody evilness. That’s what horror films are for.

            I knew that the follow up to that film would have to be more bloody just by the rules of horror. But for me it had to give us the same Michael Myers and not make the mistake of turning him into a machine. That’s about all I knew because I hadn’t watched the original Halloween II (1981) so I went in with few preconceptions, which is the way to watch a remake. From what I know now Zombie used very little from the original except for in a gross and well crafted first ten minutes which had the same thrills for me as most horror film climaxed do. Thanks to Zombie distancing himself from the original he opened up a world of freedom for character development of Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Myers (Tyler Mane).

            He portrays the heroine as a sufferer of post traumatic stress realistically, interestingly and originally. A lovely change from many films. Yet again he takes Michael Myers and opens him up to the audience. I really didn’t expect him to give us much more of the character considering the time he spent on his journey before any serious slaughter happened in the first film, but in this one he puts us right inside of the killers mind. How many slasher films dare to do that? And it’s scary that there might be room for sympathy. Not for the killer of course, but for the child that he was.

            On a technical level I admired the eerie use of diegetic music which was probably more effective than a soundtrack would have been at key moments. Like all Zombie films the tone is not flashy and the violence not cartoonish, this is replaced by a quiet brutality that fits Myers well. At times I felt that the film was a little disjointed and slow, however the themes of family and psychological damage pull it through. Having viewed Scream 4 (2011) shortly before this film it was nice to see that horror film conventions can still be rewritten, and I hope that Rob Zombie continues to shake up Hollywood.