Woody Allen 'genius' or 'shit'?

[Maltin]

we're in a a creative lull.

i think we're only in a creative lull in so far as it comes to films that get wide releases over 9 or 10 months of the year where the financiers are so risk averse that it stifles creativity.

I think there are still creative filmmakers and good films, it's just that their films get little publicity or distribution other than for those few larger budgeted films that get released in the run up to awards season.

 

[8den]

Pricilla was an Australian film.

Which only gained prominence after being picked up by Miramax.

What difference does it make that they are "gay as human rights issue" films to their financial viability ? You are retrospectively imposing new rules when your point looks flawed.

No I'm saying that as human rights movie, they're Oscar bait.

You are never going to make a successful argument by picking apart individual films by film-makers you personally don't happen to like Soderbergh,

I like Soderbergh. and truthfully I like his studio movies. I'm structurally a fan of Erin Brockovich and I love out of Sight. Do you know he managed to coax Anne Coates out of over a a decade long retirement to cut for him? Anne Coates who was David Lean's editor? (this isn't something I pulled out of wiki btw I can provide my all time favourite Anne Coates quote which is the quintessential editors quote?

like many Hollywood auteurs has long had a "one for the studio, one for me" deal,

Actually if you read the article you quoted in your first post you'll see he loathes and denies the concept of a "one for the head/one for heart" concept.

so he makes a female Bourne and and Ocean 11 sequel to in turn get more personal projects

He made 3 Ocean's 11 films, thats about 5 years worth of work (minimum), you don't do that if you aren't committed to the concept. He even said so himself

like The Girlfriend Experience and Che off the ground. But now even the more commercial films he was going to make are difficult to get off the ground, because they don't fit the very narrow expectations of what s a potentially successful film. And it affects a large sector of films that used to get made and isn't just down to "I didn't like Magic Mike", which by the way was a pretty good film.

Never saw it. The point is if he's going to run around making Haywire/Ocean's 11/12/13/Magic Mike, he can't really be critical of the hollywood system, particularly if he's saying he enjoyed making all these mega blockbusters.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

But a showrunner isnt a auteur. There's no way you can proscribe auteur theory (which btw is a concept that I think is bullshit) to tv. Essentially auteur theory gave the director total credit for art direction/editing/shot composition/lighting/writing. It's hard to give the idea of a auteur to a exe producer who isn't on set for the shooting of entire episodes.

I think we need to redefine auteur for the grown-up TV generation. I think it's legitimate to call someone like Weiner an auteur when he's creating an entire world, writing many of the episodes, and directing several. Perhaps that's a shift away from the purely visual realm to the entirely creative (although you could argue that the writing and worldbuilding is more important than who the DP is) but it's the closest we've got in terms of television, where it's pretty much impossible for a 'true auteur' to arise.

But if you think about it, I'm sure most people who are artistically literate, know who the show runners of the walking dead/the wire/breaking bad are, but couldn't tell you the name of the director of their favourite episode. Isn't that weird?

Maybe that's the difference between (modern) TV and film. TV is a writer's medium, not a director's.

theres a reason studios in the 30s only made populist films, they made money hand over fist) we're in a a creative lull.

Creative lull - really? Maybe in the cinema, but certainly not if you consider the whole range of content. TV is in a golden age.

 

[8den]

i think we're only in a creative lull in so far as it comes to films that get wide releases over 9 or 10 months of the year where the financiers are so risk averse that it stifles creativity.

I think there are still creative filmmakers and good films, it's just that their films get little publicity or distribution other than for those few larger budgeted films that get released in the run up to awards season.

But I think the difference is we're getting into period where Netflix etc could really improve the situation. If you look about to the 70s/80s critics like Kael had tremendous terrifying influence over the careers of directors. They crucified Lean for Ryan's daughter in a way that would be incomprehensible now. Arthur Penn was lauded for Bonnie and Cylde a movie I think is rather over rated.

if you go on Netflix and watch something good some of it's recommendations based on what you watched are just fucking dire. What about a system where a series of critics you like or dislike gave reviews on the films you watched or were about to watch. What if you picked the critics to give recommendations on what you had just watched, like "Mark Kemode liked the film you just watched here's a list of similar films he liked too". Or just a critics list, imagine if you opened netflix and there were the review of a dozen journalists over what came out this week. And you could pick and choose who to follow.

 

[Reno]

Which only gained prominence after being picked up by Miramax.

Pricilla was a huge hit in Australia and made most of its money there. It then got a relatively minor release to art house cinemas in the US. Over time it became a bit of a cult hit and then was semi-remade/ripped off in the US as To Wong-Fu...


Sorry, I'm bored with talking about Soderbergh and whether you personally like him and his films or not. I used him as an example because he was quite eloquent about why it's so difficult to get personal films off the ground these days. You are also conflating lots of totally seperate issues, from authorship, to TV to Oscar bait, to financial viability, kind of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the issue and it simply would need to much entangling, for which i don't have the patience.

 

[8den]

I think we need to redefine auteur for the grown-up TV generation. I think it's legitimate to call someone like Weiner an auteur when he's creating an entire world, writing many of the episodes, and directing several. Perhaps that's a shift away from the purely visual realm to the entirely creative (although you could argue that the writing and worldbuilding is more important than who the DP is) but it's the closest we've got in terms of television, where it's pretty much impossible for a 'true auteur' to arise.

I don't believe in the concept of auteur theory period. I think it's much less plausible when people know
Maybe that's the difference between (modern) TV and film. TV is a writer's medium, not a director's.

Creative lull - really? Maybe in the cinema, but certainly not if you consider the whole range of content. TV is in a golden age.

Well precisely. The whole idea that tv and cinema are different fields are immensely bullshit, like the difference between cinema and advertising.

 

[8den]

Pricilla was a huge hit in Australia and made most of its money there. It then got a relatively minor release to art house cinemas in the US. Over time it became a bit of a cult hit and then was semi-remade/ripped off in the US as To Wong-Fu...

It was, but it made a huge amount of money internationally, and please lets not bring up Wesley Snipes in drag, I've not eaten dinner.

Sorry, I'm bored with talking about Soderbergh and whether you personally like him and his films or not.

Well you did bring him up. And my feeling about him is that it annoys me how good his good films are and just how bad and commercial his bad films are.

I used him as an example because he was quite eloquent about why it's so difficult to get personal films off the ground these days.

But the thing is he got a personal film about a gay couple staring two massive stars off the ground, on his own terms. It's really annoying that a man who's last five years of work contains such a difference body of styles and budgets bemoaning the idea that he can't get his films made.

You are also conflating lots of totally seperate issues, from authorship, to TV to Oscar bait, to financial viability, kind of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the issue and it simply would need to much entangling, for which i don't have the patience.

Reno I'm really not trying to get into a urban bun fight, I like your opinion, I agree with it often and I think you are right on so many issues. I just don't think we can devolve the issue of America makes stupid big budget movies, America hates the idea of low budget smart movies.

 

[Reno]

I don't believe in the concept of auteur theory period.

You don't believe that a David Lynch film is very particular to his vision. Auteurship does not mean that someone actually does everything themselves. It's a given that a film is nearly always a collaboration of many artists. But do you really not understand a the reasons behind why another Staw Wars or Superman film gets greenlit, which a multitude of people have been considered for and why Lynch makes a film like Blue Velvet ? And that only he could make that film. And the same goes for Woody Allen and any of his films. Were Zach Snyder or Bryan Singer ever considered the make Blue Jasmine ?

 

[thedockerslad]

I can't vote for any of your options as his films have no effect on me at all. I know people who rave about them but they just leave me cold.

 

[Reno]

your opinion, I agree with it often and I think you are right on so many issues.

It's merely a robust debate.

 

[Reno]

I can't vote for any of your options as his films have no effect on me at all. I know people who rave about them but they just leave me cold.

No, neither can I but for the opposite reasons. Genius till the mid-80s, Average from then on and Shit! over the last decade.

 

[8den]

Were Zach Snyder or Bryan Singer ever considered the make Blue Jasmine ?

Reno if you like I like pm you my imdb profile you can see I know of what I speak.

You don't believe that a David Lynch film is very particular to his vision.

Of course I do but the idea of Auteurism is that Lynch is the man who came up with the vision and was the infulence for everyone under him.

Auteurship does not mean that someone actually does everything themselves. It's a given that a film is nearly always a collaboration of many artists.

But Auteurship might suggest collaboration but everyone is infulenced and controlled by the director.

But do you really not understand a the reasons behind why another Staw Wars or Superman film gets greenlit,

Reno no offence but I've personally worked with the script writer of the new Man of Steel movie, and a good mate has a serious part of JJ Abrams VFX team.

which a multitude of people have been considered for and why Lynch makes a film like Blue Velvet ? And that only he could make that film. And the same goes for Woody Allen and any of his films.

Because they're commercially viable. Lynch hasn't made a film that resonates commerically or artistically in over decade.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Genius. Love all his fillums, espec the underrated 'Hannah and her sisters.' He writes amazing parts for women

 

[weltweit]

I have seen at least a couple of Woody Allen films but I am afraid all I can remember of them is the Orgasmatron .... don't know why

 

[Reno]

Reno if you like I like pm you my imdb profile you can see I know of what I speak.

Most people who work in the film industry know nothing about film theory. I'm not saying that you are among them, but we both work in this industry and I too know what I'm on about. Some of my knowledge about the business side comes from work. However my knowledge about film theory is down to my personal interest in film and mostly aquired by reading books in my own time. I would not have gained it by working on films and in TV. And I do know an auteur when I see one.

Of course I do but the idea of Auteurism is that Lynch is the man who came up with the vision and was the infulence for everyone under him.
But Auteurship might suggest collaboration but everyone is infulenced and controlled by the director.

It's not really clear what you are saying there. I'm saying Lynch came up with the ideas for most of his films and he closely controlled every aspect of the production to his very personal vision, which I believe makes him an auteur. Are you confirming or denying that here ?

Because they're commercially viable. Lynch hasn't made a film that resonates commerically or artistically in over decade.

I know that Lynch's films are not considered financially that viable. The point I was making is that there is a difference between films that are and aren't auteur driven. Several directors and writers could and will be drafted in to direct a Superman film by the suits, because it's all about the money and the franchise. Nobody but an auteur could make a David Lynch or a Woody Allen film.

I'm not going to swap Imdb information with you, I believe you. What if we end up sitting at work next to each other tomorrow ?

 

[ska invita]

The comparisons are a bit superficial. Yes they have similar New York Jewish accents, mannerisms and small foibles but David probably owes more to W C Fields and Laurel and Hardy than Allen. His miserable rude old misanthrope in Whatever Works was very much a Larry David persona. Worst stand in was Kenneth Brannagh in Celebrity who just did a bad Woody Allen impression for the entire film. Jon Cusack is a fine actor but felt like a straight man in a comedy. I liked Owen Wilson very much in the Allen role and would like to see him do another picture with him.

I think the Larry David thing goes beyond superficial - the proof was that his turn as Woody in Whatever Works, worked! I thought it did anyway. Or at least Woodys writing tallied with LArry's persona. Probably my favourite post 2000 woody allen film. Havent see the Owen Wilson one yet, sounds promising. But no one can really be Woody Allen but Woody Allen.

My one thought about the later WA films (the ones without him in it), is that he starts getting class and working reality very wrong in them...you get the sense the he is completely disconnected from the real (financial) world and has lost his grip on the conditions of normal mundane working life. A relatively late film like Deconstructing Harry (which WA was in and came out in 97) had IIRC quite a middle-upper class bunch of characters in it, but it all tied up and made sense, but some of the ones after that...I dont know it just doesn't sit right. The realism isnt there. I cant give more detail, it just an impression that its left me with. I havent seen these late films enough to remember examples.

 

[8den]

Most people who work in the film industry know nothing about film theory.

I don't believe that. From personal experience. And the argument is a little arrogant, people working in their chose forum don't understand the concept academics use to discuss their industry?

I'm not saying that you are among them, but we both work in this industry and I too know what I'm on about. Some of my knowledge about the business side comes from work. However my knowledge about film theory is down to my personal interest in film and mostly aquired by reading books in my own time. I would not have gained it by working on films and in TV. And I do know an auteur when I see one.

Well I work and read alot about my job. I know no one who subscribes to auteur theory. It was a theory created by french film theorists who had no industry experience and needed to gain some exposure.

It's not really clear what you are saying there. I'm saying Lynch came up with the ideas for most of his films and he closely controlled every aspect of the production to his very personal vision, which I believe makes him an auteur. Are you confirming or denying that here ?

His ideas are his.

However if we are to take the idea of auteur theory to test, David Lynch wouldn't need the same cinematographer, composer, editor etc over several movies, to make a David Lynch movie. If we were to to argue the concept of auteur theory David Lynch would work with completely different crews each time and make a uniquely David Lynch movie.

I know that Lynch's films are not considered financially that viable. The point I was making is that there is a difference between films that are and aren't auteur driven. Several directors and writers could and will be drafted in to direct a Superman film by the suits, because it's all about the money and the franchise. Nobody but an auteur could make a David Lynch or a Woody Allen film.

And I agree, but what we've seen over the last 10 years is that audiences aren't willing to spend money on a David Lynch movie, a Spike Lee movie, or a Woody Allen movie. Now some people will argue thats because studios aren't supporting their films, I think it's (partially) that audiences are indifferent to their movies, they're bored and want something new. For me, If I am presented with a argument of whether to risk a new spike lee movie (or whomever) or a boxed set of something interesting, for me it's a no brainer. For the same price of a boxed set I can go to cinema and watch a disappointing film. That to me became the no brainer. Thats why I rarely go to cinema.

I'm not going to swap Imdb information with you, I believe you. What if we end up sitting at work next to each other tomorrow ?

I'd be glad to be honest I've not worked properly since a terrible leg accident in Feb

 

[youngian]

My one thought about the later WA films (the ones without him in it), is that he starts getting class and working reality very wrong in them...you get the sense the he is completely disconnected from the real (financial) world and has lost his grip on the conditions of normal mundane working life. A relatively late film like Deconstructing Harry (which WA was in and came out in 97) had IIRC quite a middle-upper class bunch of characters in it, but it all tied up and made sense, but some of the ones after that...I dont know it just doesn't sit right. The realism isnt there. I cant give more detail, it just an impression that its left me with. I havent seen these late films enough to remember examples.

Funny you should say that; reading some reviews for his new film, it notes that it is unusual for being centred in a more down at heel world with one of his usual New York artsy fartsy types having to move back in with her working class sister after getting rinsed by a Madoff type character.

His English posh types in Matchpoint didn't quite chime. They were a moneyed family with a firm in the City and were into patronising art, going to the Curzon and reading Doestevsky. Midsomer Murders and Jilly Cooper would have been more accurate.

 

[discokermit]

I think the Larry David thing goes beyond superficial - the proof was that his turn as Woody in Whatever Works, worked! I thought it did anyway.

really? i thought larry david's acting was appalling.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

My one thought about the later WA films (the ones without him in it), is that he starts getting class and working reality very wrong in them...you get the sense the he is completely disconnected from the real (financial) world and has lost his grip on the conditions of normal mundane working life. A relatively late film like Deconstructing Harry (which WA was in and came out in 97) had IIRC quite a middle-upper class bunch of characters in it, but it all tied up and made sense, but some of the ones after that...I dont know it just doesn't sit right. The realism isnt there.

Sounds like you want a little less Woody Allen and a little more Mike Leigh.

 

[discokermit]

His English posh types in Matchpoint didn't quite chime. They were a moneyed family with a firm in the City and were into patronising art, going to the Curzon and reading Doestevsky. Midsomer Murders and Jilly Cooper would have been more accurate.

may have been but the story was better the way it was. told more.

 

[youngian]

Sounds like you want a little less Woody Allen and a little more Mike Leigh.

Well Allen has cast Sally Hawkins for a big role in Blue Jasmine.

 

[Reno]

I don't believe that. From personal experience. And the argument is a little arrogant, people working in their chose forum don't understand the concept academics use to discuss their industry?



Well I work and read alot about my job. I know no one who subscribes to auteur theory. It was a theory created by french film theorists who had no industry experience and needed to gain some exposure.




His ideas are his.

However if we are to take the idea of auteur theory to test, David Lynch wouldn't need the same cinematographer, composer, editor etc over several movies, to make a David Lynch movie. If we were to to argue the concept of auteur theory David Lynch would work with completely different crews each time and make a uniquely David Lynch movie.



And I agree, but what we've seen over the last 10 years is that audiences aren't willing to spend money on a David Lynch movie, a Spike Lee movie, or a Woody Allen movie. Now some people will argue thats because studios aren't supporting their films, I think it's (partially) that audiences are indifferent to their movies, they're bored and want something new. For me, If I am presented with a argument of whether to risk a new spike lee movie (or whomever) or a boxed set of something interesting, for me it's a no brainer. For the same price of a boxed set I can go to cinema and watch a disappointing film. That to me became the no brainer. Thats why I rarely go to cinema.



I'd be glad to be honest I've not worked properly since a terrible leg accident in Feb

Why would Lynch need to make a film with an entirely new crew just to prove that he is an auteur ? You end up working much more efficiently with people you gel with and who are used to working with you, which is especially important when you work with small budgets and schedules. And he has worked with different cinematographers, composers, editors, actors throughout his career and while there are variations, his films essentially stay David Lynch films, with the same recognisable vision.

I honestly don't understand what you take on the auteur theory is from the hypothetical concepts you throw around. An auteur is a film-maker with a persistent vision and themes that recur throughout his/her career and s/he is a film-maker who has a large degree of artistic control over their work. To say you don't believe that type of film-maker exists is a little like stating you don't believe in the Easter bunny. It's now shorthand for a certain type of film-maker and not something whose existence we still debate like it was the 60s or 70s. Do the people you work with also question the existence of film noir and the concept of mise en scene and all this other stuff the French came up with ?

Lynch's and Allen's films have nearly always made their money back and often a bit more. Their audiences are art house and always have been, but they are far from indifferent. Allen's last film was his most successful ever. But their films don't make the big profits studios expect and they aren't interested in small fry anymore. They fact that they can't get films of the ground has nothing to do with the audiences waning interest, as Allen's Midnight in Paris showed.

To say that audiences are bored and want something new is also rather absurd in context, considering that the main complaint what Hollywood serves up is that its the same shit over and over. Superheroes, remakes, sequels, fighting robots, more superheroes...

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Finished Part 2 of the Allen documentary. Something that I found surprising (and is kind of connected to this auteur conversation) is how many of his films were co-written with other writers. You tend to think of him as someone who is in complete control of his creative output.

 

[ska invita]

Sounds like you want a little less Woody Allen and a little more Mike Leigh.

no i think all his films up to 2000 or so had that sense of reality, and somehow the later ones just seem to exist on a stage rather than the real world <or something like that.

 

[ibilly99]

Reno, post: 12436661, member: 23288 - He indeed never was a father in any sense to Soon-Yi and he never acted like one. Her adoptive father, Farrow's ex-husband Andre Previn took that role in her life. Farrow and Allen weren't married and never shared a home. And now he and Soon-Yi have been together for 22 years, married with kids, so it's not like it was a fleeting sexcapade. Which is not to say that what he did wasn't extremely insensitive and hurtful to Farrow, but by now it really should be water under the bridge. And I doubt that there have been any new shocking revelations.

http://www.tribute.ca/news/index.ph...nfirms-he-abused-her/2013/10/03/#.UlQy2BCzgfs

Mia Farrow's adopted daughter Dylan, 27, has opened up to Vanity Fair, confirming she was molested by her adopted father Woody Allen, as her mother claimed over 20 years earlier. “I’m scared of him, his image,” Dylan said of her adopted father. “I have never been asked to testify. If I could talk to the seven-year-old Dylan, I would tell her to be brave, to testify.” She recalls an incident that had a big impact on her life. “There’s a lot I don’t remember, but what happened in the attic I remember. I remember what I was wearing and what I wasn’t wearing.” Despite many witnesses who confirm Allen's behavior towards the young girl was strange, the director's lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, maintains his client still denies allegations of sexual abuse.

 

[Hollis]

Genius. Love all his fillums, espec the underrated 'Hannah and her sisters.' He writes amazing parts for women

Hannah and her Sisters is probably my favourite. Deconstructing Harry, Crimes and Misdemeanours, Husbands and Wives, and Vicky Christina Barcelona are all good "late" offerings..

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This may be a naive question but if his films make money why isn't hollywood interested? Why don't they just have low- to mid-budget departments alongside the megabucks ones? They'd make even more money and maybe win the odd gong. What's not to like?

 

[mwgdrwg]

Genius. Love all his fillums, espec the underrated 'Hannah and her sisters.' He writes amazing parts for women

You mean the underrated one with seven Oscar nominations?

 

[Cheesypoof]

You mean the underrated one with seven Oscar nominations?

been out of the loop with Woody Allen fillums for yonks....but theres a new one showing in my local cinema called 'Blue Jasmine' - will check it out and report back!