Adrian - you are correct. Woody Allen IS an acquired taste. I wrote about why I think he is - in an Amazon review of "Manhattan" that has remained in the spotlighted position for more than ten years:
http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Woody-Allen/dp/0792846109 But what's left out of that review is I agree with you that Woody Allen has grown more tedious with age, esp. the past 20 years because he keeps asking the same questions repeatedly in a comedy-drama context, sort of like Ingmar Bergman - but without the humor, which people like or they don't. His settings and characters are almost always urban because that's all he knows. When I saw "Match Point" - which he filmed in London - I saw a repeat of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" without the humor. But that film reintroduced him to a younger generation of actors who will still work for nothing just to say they were in a Woody Allen movie. It says a lot that most all of his films are box office hits on the European continent - but rarely in his home country. -d. Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:59:41 -0400 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT - Woody Allen To: [email protected] I don't want to get into a full blown debate but I felt I should drop my two penneth in. Woody Allen is very much an acquired taste. I have only fallen asleep once in a cinema and that was at a free showing of a Woody Allen film - Hannah and Her Sisters, I have seen many Woody Allen films and Manhattan is supreme but to be honest I could do without him. I feel Woody Allen is over rated. His humour is supposedly the NEW YORK humour, well I know several New Yorkers and not one of them is as wet as Woody Allen. His humour in my opinion is tedious. I know we are all different and we all have opinions like we all have assholes (now, what film was I paraphrasing there?), but I think the best films Woody Allen has made are the ones without him appearing Purple Rose of Cairo for example. I don't like Woody Allen or his films, I am sure that I will be berated but his humour is tedious. Billy Wilder was far superior but then thats nothing we don't know. Terry Jones is a better director ...in my opinion. This never happened to the other fella. -----Original Message----- From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> To: MoPo-L <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:49 Subject: [MOPO] OT - Woody Allen Right you are, John. Whenever I think of Charlotte Rampling, I think of her in "The Night Porter" and then her appearances in "Darling" and "The Swimming Pool." Always hot, even as a senior citizen with her cobra eyes. I think "The Night Porter" will be her legacy, though, because her character in that picture is so depraved; hell that whole movie is depraved but not enough for me to desire renting it every few years, reliving my salacious youth. -----Original Message----- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:56:23 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT - Evan Zweifel and David Kusumoto in Public To: [email protected] Woody Allen cast one of my favorite actors in his movie Stardust Memories. Charlotte Rampling. So the guy is OK in my book. JW -----Original Message----- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:59:21 -0400 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT - Evan Zweifel and David Kusumoto in Public To: [email protected] Let's lighten the mood a bit by slightly changing the subject. I blow hot and cold on Woody's films but there's one character so beautifully drawn in Crimes and Misdemeanors that it moved me to belly laughs because this character was someone right out of my life. It's no secret that Woody Allen is not a fan of public television. He's had an on-going feud with Channel 13 in NYC for years. Well, I worked for public television as Head of the Business Affairs and Legal Department for years and I worked alongside a Production Head who kept trying to pitch his "great" idea for a series to anyone who'd listen: he wanted to film the great thinkers and their lectures. Just one camera with one person each week delivering his "great thinker" lecture straight-on for an hour....that was the whole idea. I went to see Crimes and Misdemeanors in the theater and sure enough there's a character in that film who wants to make a public television film about the lectures of a great thinker. I never laughed so much in my life and I have no idea if Woody based this character on the Production Head I worked with but I always suspected he might of. FRANC -----Original Message----- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:52:02 +0000 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: [email protected] I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the "Reply" button and the difference between it an the "Reply All" button. I still pay to see his films in the theater and especially enjoyed "Vicky Christina Barcelona", "Whatever Works", "Match Point", "Curse of the Jade Scorpion", "Deconstructing Harry", "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Mighty Aphrodite". I am sorry that you have been let down. Perhaps if you wrote him a polite letter he would refund your tickets. -----Original Message----- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:29:49 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: [email protected] @Evan - What? I'm the biggest Woody Allen fan in the world! I'm CONSTANTLY defending him among work colleagues. However, I consider "Annie Hall," "Manhattan," "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" to be his quartet of "comedy-drama masterpieces" that he'll never top even if he lives to be 100, which is likely, given the genes for longevity he inherited from his parents. Going to a Woody Allen movie used to be a major event; we never missed paying to see a Woody picture from 1971's "Bananas" to 1997's "Deconstructing Harry." I got my wife, who hated to even see him on the screen, to fall in love with him. (Her favorite film is "Hannah and Her Sisters.") We still liked him in lesser pictures like "Mighty Aphrodite" and the "Curse of the Jade Scorpion." The "stake in the heart" was sitting through three pictures that made us feel ripped off at the box office: 1) "Hollywood Ending" (despite a great promo poster featuring 52 images of the endings of great film classics), 2) "Anything Else" and, 3) "Whatever Works." OTHER than "Midnight in Paris," when is the last time anyone you know has PAID to see one of his films in a THEATER? You're damn right I'm bragging. If there is a Woody Allen picture that I've missed, I'd like to know. I've seen all of them and I don't consider "Midnight in Paris," for which he won his 4th Oscar, worthy at all. But my opinion does not matter; the Academy chose. I had a stone face watching that picture. (I'll never forgive the Academy picking "Platoon" as the Best Picture in 1986 over "Hannah," despite "Hannah" having 9 nominations and picking up awards for best screenplay and best supporting actor and actress (Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest.) Honestly, the BEST Woody Allen picture I've seen during the past 20 years (other than "Small Time Crooks" and "Match Point," which I like a lot) - wasn't even directed by him. It's a 2011 picture called, "Woody Allen: A Documentary." This three-hour opus flies by in a flash, features Woody being interviewed about EVERYTHING, warts and all, and includes clips from all of his movies including "Midnight in Paris." It's a sophisticated, big budget documentary that aired on PBS late last year in two parts - and is now available on DVD. This is a film that's worth BUYING, it's that damn good. Hell, we even saw Woody in person during one of his rare visits to Los Angeles - when we scored tickets to watch him play a one-hour jazz concert at the Jazz Bakery in Culver City during his "Jade Scorpion" publicity tour. Please visit the two links below; even though the quality of his output, in my view, has been erratic since about 1990, I still think Woody Allen is a living legend. http://www.amazon.com/Woody-Allen-A-Documentary/dp/B0064NTZKI/ -----Original Message----- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:33:11 -0500 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: [email protected] It's funny, because I was just going to ask if it was "be kind to Woody Allen" day, because I personally think his last really fine movie was in 1980! But I imagine that we can agree that his streak of ten straight incredible movies from 1969 to 1980 was something no one could live up to: 1980 Stardust Memories 1979 Manhattan 1978 Interiors 1977 Annie Hall 1975 Love and Death 1973 Sleeper 1972 Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask 1971 Bananas 1969 Take the Money and Run On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Evan Zweifel <[email protected]> wrote: Is it pick on Woody Allen day? Mostly mediocre output since 1989? Really? He's been nominated for 11 Oscars since 1990. Granted 8 of them were writing -- suggesting that he's doing something right. Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, the NY Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected from the overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest financial disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of "Carter's" fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business standpoint for a film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND to market. How can you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons who are more avid movie goers than older people, who tend to stay home. This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today adopting a "point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a blank check based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E." Disney apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy like Stanton - that the result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" fiasco (which occurred after UA gave Cimino a blank check after his prior success with the "The Deer Hunter" in 1978-79). While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production chiefs still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This is a country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the American-centric drive of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated audiences in the U.K., for example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in "Bridge Over the River Kwai," the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan," the casting of Steve McQueen and James Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even today, a U.S. film that does poorly here but makes up its investment overseas is considered a blemish to its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's "Waterworld," last year's "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the latter which nearly destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for U.S. films is not in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end, for all the clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model is still geared towards making money by targeting young people, resulting in an overall poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature audiences (as in temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as independent films which can still make money because of low production budgets. It's why Woody Allen is still making films despite a mostly mediocre output since 1989. One thing for sure - despite the quality of "John Carter," Disney's and director Stanton's original plans to make two sequels of this film in the years ahead are dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
