Woody Allen married his ex wife's adopted daughter. This was my only knowledge of him as a child in the 1990s. In 2017, he's now infamous for allegations that he molested another adopted daughter when she was 7. And the case don't look good: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts Honestly, there's still a shred of possibility that this is some misunderstanding that never should've gone public, but is it possible for his filmography to really shine light on this man's innocence or lack thereof?
Hannah & Her Sisters is an ambitious, warm and very successful Woody movie. Its a clever reworking of his dramatic film "Interiors", combing that film's Ingmar Bergman-esque angst with Allen's more popular comedic stylings. Of course he does it in a conceptually intellectual way: the film is told in 3 stories that flip-flop between mellow tragedy & mellow comedy. Allen had far outgrown his extreme comedy and wouldn't approach extreme tragedy again for a while. The combination was so influential that the film plays like an HBO series more than an Academy Award winner. From Tod Solondz' Happiness to Curb Your Enthusiam to Wes Anderson, many have expounded on Allen's vision of cinema.
And Allen's real genius is in creating a form of cinema so tied to dramatic theater, arthouse cinema, sitcom, vaudeville, standup, literature, poetry and even music. The stories are very grounded and would be boring in any one medium, but work in the context of this film. Allen is a director who understands film completely and has personalized the technology to suit his tastes & needs.
Exploring the narrative, Allen creates a dysfunctional family of males & females, Jews & gentiles, who all represent different parts of himself. He wants us to know that every character is him. He has Michael Caine & Max Von Sydow making Jewish references. They are Woody. And Mia Farrow's performances in Allen's films are always a female impression of Allen. I can't tell if thats stylized or if he really molded her into his image in their personal lives. The whole thing is a Freudian headtrip, with the audience as Woody's paying analyst. This sounds indulgent & morose, but the film is light & upbeat throughout. But there is a dark side of Woody Allen that is always beneath the surface. There is a joke about child molestation here, multiple references to his problems with Farrow and her adopted children & so much inappropriate sexual-romantic behavior that is just chalked up to "normal mid-life crisis". There's nothing damning in the text but it raises questions.
Is Allen the victim of circumstance? Or he a predator? Was Mia Farrow being overly protective of her adopted children or not protective enough? Is Dylan Farrow a victim or a very disturbed person? Maybe Farrow used her daughter's claim simply to win a divorce against the man who stole her other daughter. Judging from a film made YEARS before the scandal, you could argue the case for all of this contradictory stuff. But humans are contradictions, Allen being a textbook case. But being a mixed up, complex, dirty, weak-willed guy isn't an admission of guilt to a horrible, horrible act.
Whatever the truth is, Woody is still a pioneer and masterful artist/entertainer. He has helped our culture tremendously - as much as a film comedian can I suspect - and that much can't be argued. Because we don't know what happened, I still recommend this man's films. And if he turns out to be a real monster, he should have to suffer more than he has... but the films are still good.
Showing posts with label 1986. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1986. Show all posts
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Big Trouble In Little China 1986
Somehow I'm only watching this film at age 29 although John Carpenter helped raise me. Halloween was a big tastemaker in my formative years and The Thing was an obsession during puberty. They Live is a coming-of-age movie for me and I have a lukewarm romance with The Fog. Memoirs of an Invisible Man was a childhood favorite. But somehow Big Trouble never entered my radar. Never saw it on TV or for rental, so thank you, Netflix.
So it was less than I expected but perhaps I expected too much. Overall, I enjoyed it and respect it more than I did before watching it. Out of the gate, Carpenter is an old-school exploitation master with a great minimalist style, a wide range of directorial influences and a very mean, cold, moody sense of humor. I don't think any of his films are masterpieces, but they all took genre filmmaking to the next level. The things that don't work in BTILC are the same things that never work in Carpenter movies: sluggish energy, befuddled sense of narrative, cardboard characters and a kind of last-century moralism. I don't know if its because he was working on a big Hollywood exec type of crowd-pleaser or if he had a cocaine habit forming, but BT is his most schizophrenic and messy film. Its equal parts surprising, fashion-forward and childlike in its play as it is excessive, rushed, hollow, lacking in chemistry and borderline stupid. I think that schism works for most people, especially 80s kids who just focus on the dated style, looniness and special effects. Its comparable to 1986's Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 in its lurid visuals, empty script and cocaine-fueled slapstick - another film by a 1970s horror icon trying to go Spielberg. That film was a Cannon movie and Big Trouble feels like the movie Cannon forgot to make.
It wears its influences on its sleeve: Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back To The Future, Gremlins, John Wayne movies and James Bond. The film is in many ways a remake (or ripoff) of the 007 film "Live And Let Die". Our white swashbuckler gets caught up in an urban world of organized crime and old world magic, must rescue a damsel from a magician who wants to marry her and. It even steals LALD's double ending where a villain dies by inflation and then the credits roll as our hero drives off with a surviving magic villain laughing on the back of his vehicle. Its a perfect hodgepodge for Carpenter in theory but I suspect deadlines sabotaged the whole affair. The script is god awful. The jokes are flat and the narrative is horrid. Its all carried by Kurt Russell and some awesome production design and special fx.
Even the best Carpenter films are flimsy and devoted to style and mood more than anything. While Halloween and Thing have great themes and good casts, the themes are broad and work as backdrops to the visuals and the acting and characterization is always muted in favor of one liners and 2d archetypes. BTILC dials that up to zero and allows Carpenter to make the 50s comic book he always wanted to make, free from story and any poetic meaning. None of his films are bogged down by their predictable and elementary plots. But whenever I watch his movies, I just wonder what he could've done with a mature screenwriter or a more classy producer. Carpenter kept working in Hollywood for quite a long period and the movies are all serviceable and interesting, but still schlock and anti-intellectual. Big Trouble feels like the closest he ever got to a big budget blockbuster. Someone was obviously trying him out as the next Spielberg or Zemeckis and while he's arguably more idiosyncratic and equally as talented, he just wasn't on the same level in terms of professionalism and manipulating the system. Maybe he never wanted be. Its possible that he was happy being the king of B-movies.
In summary, Big Trouble is a mixed but mostly positive popcorn movie experience and an important moment for an important filmmaker. Even if you come out of it unimpressed or maybe offended, this is a movie that has influenced a lot of stuff. From the Mortal Kombat games to Eddie Murphy's The Golden Child to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise. Its amazing how all of Carpenter's earlier films have defined different generations of genre fans.
So it was less than I expected but perhaps I expected too much. Overall, I enjoyed it and respect it more than I did before watching it. Out of the gate, Carpenter is an old-school exploitation master with a great minimalist style, a wide range of directorial influences and a very mean, cold, moody sense of humor. I don't think any of his films are masterpieces, but they all took genre filmmaking to the next level. The things that don't work in BTILC are the same things that never work in Carpenter movies: sluggish energy, befuddled sense of narrative, cardboard characters and a kind of last-century moralism. I don't know if its because he was working on a big Hollywood exec type of crowd-pleaser or if he had a cocaine habit forming, but BT is his most schizophrenic and messy film. Its equal parts surprising, fashion-forward and childlike in its play as it is excessive, rushed, hollow, lacking in chemistry and borderline stupid. I think that schism works for most people, especially 80s kids who just focus on the dated style, looniness and special effects. Its comparable to 1986's Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 in its lurid visuals, empty script and cocaine-fueled slapstick - another film by a 1970s horror icon trying to go Spielberg. That film was a Cannon movie and Big Trouble feels like the movie Cannon forgot to make.
It wears its influences on its sleeve: Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back To The Future, Gremlins, John Wayne movies and James Bond. The film is in many ways a remake (or ripoff) of the 007 film "Live And Let Die". Our white swashbuckler gets caught up in an urban world of organized crime and old world magic, must rescue a damsel from a magician who wants to marry her and. It even steals LALD's double ending where a villain dies by inflation and then the credits roll as our hero drives off with a surviving magic villain laughing on the back of his vehicle. Its a perfect hodgepodge for Carpenter in theory but I suspect deadlines sabotaged the whole affair. The script is god awful. The jokes are flat and the narrative is horrid. Its all carried by Kurt Russell and some awesome production design and special fx.
Even the best Carpenter films are flimsy and devoted to style and mood more than anything. While Halloween and Thing have great themes and good casts, the themes are broad and work as backdrops to the visuals and the acting and characterization is always muted in favor of one liners and 2d archetypes. BTILC dials that up to zero and allows Carpenter to make the 50s comic book he always wanted to make, free from story and any poetic meaning. None of his films are bogged down by their predictable and elementary plots. But whenever I watch his movies, I just wonder what he could've done with a mature screenwriter or a more classy producer. Carpenter kept working in Hollywood for quite a long period and the movies are all serviceable and interesting, but still schlock and anti-intellectual. Big Trouble feels like the closest he ever got to a big budget blockbuster. Someone was obviously trying him out as the next Spielberg or Zemeckis and while he's arguably more idiosyncratic and equally as talented, he just wasn't on the same level in terms of professionalism and manipulating the system. Maybe he never wanted be. Its possible that he was happy being the king of B-movies.
In summary, Big Trouble is a mixed but mostly positive popcorn movie experience and an important moment for an important filmmaker. Even if you come out of it unimpressed or maybe offended, this is a movie that has influenced a lot of stuff. From the Mortal Kombat games to Eddie Murphy's The Golden Child to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise. Its amazing how all of Carpenter's earlier films have defined different generations of genre fans.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Something Wild 1986
I watched this because I heard so many favorable comparisons to Scorsese's After Hours. Its similar, almost too similar by the end, but its a great watch and I understand why it appeals more to some audiences, even if After Hours feels way more legit and artistic.
Like After Hours, Something Wild follows a New York yuppie who gets pulled into a wild weekend adventure by a crazy punk rock girl. Most prominently, the opening and closing scenes remind you of After Hours, as it comes full circle and ends how it begins with the characters having"walked on the wild side". But the whole production has similar features: hundreds of colorful bit players, a fun New Wave soundtrack and a focus on the disconnect between social classes and subcultures.Both are inspired by 80s NYC hipsterism, but while AH is a total NY experience about the surrealism and intensity of the city, SW is more about the emotional origins of these NY weirdos. Less the dark absurdist thriller that AH is, SW is a suspenseful screwball comedy loaded with optimism and small humanist laughs. SW is the Megaplex PG-13 version of AH.
Now SW walks a thin line between being cutesy/sentimental and tense/spunky without ever being too cloying or pretentious. I thought the story dragged at times, was too loaded with unbelievable fairytale moments and the climax tried too hard to be dramatic and poignant. Maybe its because the story is very predictable to modern eyes. I'm convinced Something Wild inspired the basic love triangle plotline of Edward Scissorhands and its funny how those two films and Back To The Future make a statement about the modern geeky 80s hero fighting for affection from the 1950s juvenile macho bully. There's really no difference between the villains in these movies, but Ray Liotta probably does the best job in Something Wild. Liotta is magnetic and scary here, full of manic energy and subtle menace. Its really his movie, even though Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith do charming jobs in the lead.
Jonathan Demme does a great job. He knows where to put the camera, how to direct professionals and amateurs and he fills the frame with lots of details and eye candy. The varying tones and balance of both would serve him in later films. The film feels more grand and expensive than it is, so its no surprise he would go on to a great career. You can feel the inspiration of Scorsese and the Corman class of directors as he takes a more mainstream and populist turn towards Spielberg and Zemeckis. I felt an appreciation for Godard as well, which explains why this film is so popular with the artsy crowd like Bret Easton Ellis and even has its own Criterion.
So this is a real 80s gem and a fantastic watch that demands to be rewatched. I don't think it makes any grand statements but it was ahead of its time and is a fun time capsule and an amazing showcase for some young talent who would become big in the 1990s.
Like After Hours, Something Wild follows a New York yuppie who gets pulled into a wild weekend adventure by a crazy punk rock girl. Most prominently, the opening and closing scenes remind you of After Hours, as it comes full circle and ends how it begins with the characters having"walked on the wild side". But the whole production has similar features: hundreds of colorful bit players, a fun New Wave soundtrack and a focus on the disconnect between social classes and subcultures.Both are inspired by 80s NYC hipsterism, but while AH is a total NY experience about the surrealism and intensity of the city, SW is more about the emotional origins of these NY weirdos. Less the dark absurdist thriller that AH is, SW is a suspenseful screwball comedy loaded with optimism and small humanist laughs. SW is the Megaplex PG-13 version of AH.
Now SW walks a thin line between being cutesy/sentimental and tense/spunky without ever being too cloying or pretentious. I thought the story dragged at times, was too loaded with unbelievable fairytale moments and the climax tried too hard to be dramatic and poignant. Maybe its because the story is very predictable to modern eyes. I'm convinced Something Wild inspired the basic love triangle plotline of Edward Scissorhands and its funny how those two films and Back To The Future make a statement about the modern geeky 80s hero fighting for affection from the 1950s juvenile macho bully. There's really no difference between the villains in these movies, but Ray Liotta probably does the best job in Something Wild. Liotta is magnetic and scary here, full of manic energy and subtle menace. Its really his movie, even though Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith do charming jobs in the lead.
Jonathan Demme does a great job. He knows where to put the camera, how to direct professionals and amateurs and he fills the frame with lots of details and eye candy. The varying tones and balance of both would serve him in later films. The film feels more grand and expensive than it is, so its no surprise he would go on to a great career. You can feel the inspiration of Scorsese and the Corman class of directors as he takes a more mainstream and populist turn towards Spielberg and Zemeckis. I felt an appreciation for Godard as well, which explains why this film is so popular with the artsy crowd like Bret Easton Ellis and even has its own Criterion.
So this is a real 80s gem and a fantastic watch that demands to be rewatched. I don't think it makes any grand statements but it was ahead of its time and is a fun time capsule and an amazing showcase for some young talent who would become big in the 1990s.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)