The art of defending Woody Allen | Little White Lies

Long Read

The art of defend­ing Woody Allen

31 Aug 2016

Words by Vadim Rizov

Illustration of a bespectacled man with curly hair and a serious expression.
Illustration of a bespectacled man with curly hair and a serious expression.
Woody Allen has made his fair share of bad movies. But who are the crit­i­cal gate­keep­ers who will stop at noth­ing to defend his honour?

Woody Allen’s first attempt to strike come­di­an’ from his mul­ti-hyphen­ate sta­tus began with 1978’s Inte­ri­ors, described the fol­low­ing year as a vio­lent act of self-muti­la­tion” by film writer James Mona­co in the first edi­tion of Amer­i­can Film Now: the Peo­ple, the Pow­er, the mon­ey, the Movies’. Allen quick­ly acknowl­edged the wide­spread sense his ear­li­er, fun­nier” movies were prefer­able by putting that sen­ti­ment in the mouth of vis­it­ing extrater­res­tri­als in 1980’s Star­dust Mem­o­ries, but the blow­back nev­er erad­i­cat­ed his con­tin­u­al­ly recur­ring desire to be a dramatist.

After his ini­tial run of come­dies (as close to uni­ver­sal­ly acclaimed as pos­si­ble) and set­ting aside revi­sion­ist con­trar­i­an­ism, it wouldn’t be hard to sep­a­rate his films from the wide­ly praised and those instant­ly, irrev­o­ca­bly dis­missed. Some direc­tors have their fol­lies age into mas­ter­pieces, but there’s no Heaven’s Gate in Allen’s fil­mog­ra­phy; con­sen­sus at the moment of release tends to stay locked for­ev­er after.

Look at some reac­tions to his two films from 1987 to con­sid­er at how peo­ple used to extol his more mar­gin­alised work. The light­ly charm­ing Radio Days, a nos­tal­gic recap of grow­ing up with the title medi­um, was released first. Andrew Sar­ris took this time to tack­le head-on (in an essay called Is Woody Strict­ly Kosher?’) the anx­i­ety of influ­ence plagu­ing Allen and irri­tat­ing his detrac­tors. The prob­lem wasn’t mere­ly that Allen open­ly copied entire Bergman sequences or spoke forth­right­ly about his admi­ra­tion of Chekhov, but that he nev­er seemed to improve on or add to them. Not­ing that, in cin­e­ma Allen is clear­ly not Chap­lin nor Keaton nor Bergman nor Felli­ni,” Sar­ris argued the 80s Woody was more relaxed than he used to be,” lead­ing to fleeter work, a lib­er­a­tion of his uncon­scious” and greater tonal control.

1987’s oth­er Allen film was the stren­u­ous­ly dra­mat­ic Sep­tem­ber, and the ques­tion of influ­ence ver­sus the mere­ly deriv­a­tive arose again: Chekhov­ian” was how Richard Schick­el described the humour­less­ness,” echoed pejo­ra­tive­ly by Vin­cent Can­by at The New York Times (“neo-Chekhov­ian”) and all the way down to Pre­mière mag­a­zine jour­nal­ist Mar­celle Clements, who pre­dict­ed this fix­a­tion on a sin­gle adjec­tive before the movie was released – You can bet your boots that the word Chekhov­ian’ will be uttered at least once by every­one at the table”.

Its hard to convince an unsympathetic viewer that Allens eternal reference points go beyond the wishfully invoked.

Allen’s stat­ed influ­ences are obvi­ous and con­strict­ing­ly lim­it­ed to a hand­ful of great books and films that haven’t obvi­ous­ly expand­ed since the time he start­ed mak­ing movies. It’s hard to con­vince an unsym­pa­thet­ic view­er that his eter­nal ref­er­ence points go beyond the wish­ful­ly invoked. One can insist Allen’s body of work only works” as a whole – i.e., that a clas­si­cal autuerist approach needs to be tak­en to appre­ci­ate and mine the res­o­nances of his work.

In an oth­er­wise non-notable 1983 review from Orange Coast, a lifestyle mag­a­zine for South­ern Cal­i­for­nia, in which one Ker­ry B Brougher com­pares Allen’s films to the paint­ings of Bar­nett New­man in order to argue that the indi­vid­ual movies are mean­ing­less when eval­u­at­ed piece by piece: one work alone ceas­es to be a self-con­tained unit, rely­ing instead on the rela­tion­ship and jux­ta­po­si­tion of oth­er works to bring it to light.” Defend­ing Allen in 2011 for Sight & Sound mag­a­zine, Brad Stevens took a near­ly iden­ti­cal tack: his films can­not be under­stood indi­vid­u­al­ly – and impres­sion rein­forced by their repeat­ed motifs (mag­ic tricks, inde­pen­dent young women, embod­i­ments of death, groups of nos­tal­gic men), actors, narratives.”

One viewer’s stale rep­e­ti­tion is another’s fas­ci­nat­ing series of vari­a­tions on a com­pli­cat­ed theme, whether the direc­tor is Allen or South Korea’s sim­i­lar­ly inclined Hong Sang-soo. There’s nonethe­less some­thing uncon­vinc­ing to this Allen agnostic’s ears about insis­tent claims that his worst films ampli­fy one oth­er rather than pro­vide dimin­ish­ing returns, an argu­ment more often blankly prof­fered rather than con­vinc­ing­ly argued for in detail.

Skep­tic though I am, I have a soft spot for 2003’s much-reviled Any­thing Else, which now seems like a mod­el test case for revi­sion­ist apolo­get­ics. Allen’s next-to-last movie shot in Man­hat­tan was his last made under the aus­pices of Dream­Works (hence his last stu­dio film’). When not onscreen in his 90s come­dies, Allen nor­mal­ly cast a lead actor who’d attempt to mim­ic his man­ner­isms to dis­tract­ing effect (Ken­neth Branagh in Celebri­ty, John Cusack in Bul­lets Over Broad­way). In Any­thing Else, he dou­bles down, shar­ing scenes with Jason Big­gs, whose ner­vous stam­mer­ings and inef­fec­tu­al com­plaints mul­ti­ply those of his creator.

The plot bare­ly exists: Big­gs plays Jer­ry Falk, an up-and-com­ing com­e­dy writer trapped in an obvi­ous­ly awful rela­tion­ship with Aman­da Chase (Christi­na Ric­ci), an incred­i­bly self­ish and demand­ing aspir­ing actress” who makes Jerry’s life a mis­ery after an ini­tial peri­od of sex­u­al bliss. When not with Aman­da, Jer­ry kills time with David Dobel (Allen), a pub­lic school teacher mas­querad­ing as a com­e­dy writer, who shares his hard-earned wis­dom. These sound­bites are indis­tin­guish­able from numer­ous Allen lines over the years, though there’s even less con­text for their pes­simism (“What you don’t know won’t hurt you, it’ll kill you”).

Dobel and Falk – his young dou­ble – have a lot in com­mon (“Fear of death? That’s fun­ny, I have that too”). The appo­site ref­er­ence point is (to cite crit­ic Bilge Ebiri) Dostoyevsky’s The Dou­ble, with Allen’s vio­lent­ly unbal­anced old­er men­tor egging on his younger, more pas­sive friend. There are point­ed allu­sions to Annie Hall (a scene in which it’s Big­gs rather than Allen who’s appalled at a sud­den social encounter with cocaine), cli­max­ing with Falk leav­ing the city for Los Ange­les at Dobel’s urg­ing. It’s as if the younger man is being urged to leave before he stag­nates into self-par­o­d­ic Upper East Side ossi­fi­ca­tion, and a geo­graph­i­cal pre­view of where Allen’s work would be going.

Any­thing Else isn’t a great lost mas­ter­piece, but it’s an enjoy­ably angry, non-ran­cid look into Allen’s psy­che and the acci­den­tal div­i­dends of his work­ing meth­ods. With­out mak­ing the claim of rou­tine mas­tery of spa­tial com­plex­i­ty, there’s a triple split screen scene in which Big­gs’ liv­ing room takes the left and right rec­tan­gles, with Dan­ny DeVito’s end of a tele­phone con­ver­sa­tion in the mid­dle. His dropped-in pres­ence cre­ates a visu­al obsta­cle allow­ing peo­ple to cross from left to right square unseen, spark­ing sud­den sur­pris­es when they emerge.

Such acci­den­tal moments of visu­al dis­cov­ery and reveal­ing hatred seem like the strongest grounds for defence. Recent­ly, The New Yorker’s Richard Brody was admirably forth­right in rec­om­mend­ing Cassandra’s Dream as a film with one sin­gu­lar pur­pose: to depict human life as cru­el, grim and doomed,” a POV most valu­able for being offered so forth­right­ly.” Like Philip Roth’s dis­claimers about his writer alter ego Nathan Zuck­er­man, Allen’s con­stant claims that his onscreen per­sona is a total­ly fic­tion­al con­struct are uncon­vinc­ing: whether dra­ma or com­e­dy, his weak­est films have most inter­est mea­sured against what we under­stand of him.

You might like