– An elegant bit of segmented marketing, if a bit humbling for Woody. But whatever works, eh

It certainly doesn’t work for me since I have never found Larry David to be even remotely funny.

You’re both so wrong ‘Curb’ is the funniest programme on the TeeVee. And If you know anything about the Hollywood film and TeeVee biz, it’s perfectly observed.. Woody is sooo over though!

Because of the negativity felt towards Allen in America, largely for reasons distinctly un-filmic, it has been the standard operating procedure for his recent films to be promoted on the appeal of their stars or genres. It’s a despicable situation for the later work of America’s greatest living auteur, and a comic talent who, at his best, is equal to Keaton and Chaplin.

It’s entirely incorrect to characterise any of Allen’s output – in years recent or distant – as ‘turkeys’. None of his films is execrable and all are interesting works, some of them embarrassingly over-looked. What they are not, and what casual fans of films want them to be, is Annie Hall Redux or Manhattan 2.

Secondly, the connotation of disastrous financial loss that the term ‘turkey’ carries couldn’t possibly apply to films like Allen’s: his budgets aren’t big enough for any loss they incur to be catastrophic. If they were, and if he actually had made a stream of turkeys in recent years, he wouldn’t still be making films. And he wouldn’t be attracting whatever talent he chooses – from Kenneth Branagh to Julia Roberts to Penelope Cruz to Larry David – to his projects for the promise of pocket change.

It’s also worth nothing that Allen is perhaps America’s most acclaimed screenwriter. He holds, and continues to extend, the record for most Oscar nominations as a screenwriter, and actors in his works regularly win Oscars themselves. No scriptwriter has written more Oscar-winning roles for women than Allen (his latest being Penelope Cruz’s in ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona’), which alone marks him as a treasure in an industry frequently bereft of female roles of the quality routinely given to men.

It is true that Allen’s work is tired where once it was fresh, and a portion of this is due to waning talents. But a large part of it is due to his enormous influence. Allen perfected so many standards, and brought about so many innovations, that his imitators are now held in higher regard than he by those unaware of his impact. Even those masterly works he obviously inspired – ‘Curb’ most obviously – owe a debt to him that is too infrequently acknowledged.

Posterity will shame those who advertise Allen’s works, however much weaker they are now that they were in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties, as films by A.N. Other director.

First let me say that “Love & Death” is one of the funniest films ever made, especially in terms of gag per minute ratio. Clearly Woody moved on from films just being a vehicle to string gags together as he got more into the comedy drama sphere with “Annie Hall” and all films onwards. And fair enough.

But I don’t quite buy this ‘auteur’ label. I think it comes because he’s neither Hollywood, nor indeed is he particularly an American film-maker; he has far more in common with European filmmakers and credits the likes of Bergman as an inspiration. So I think that in itself partly explains his greater popularity in countries like France than in his homeland, as much as the checkered personal history. (Of course the French take him to their hearts, anyone who eschews American globalisation of culture is conferred divine status for a chauvinistic culture desperately trying to hang on to its provincial identity). And for me thereby lies my reservations about his reputation.

Allen’s New York class exists nowhere else in the world (other than maybe a version of it in Paris). Overwrought intellectuals and the ineffably bourgeois, obsessed with psychoanalytic views of the world. Spike Lee was right in his criticism of Allen. His works are the equivalent of ‘No blacks, no Irish’. They represent such a tiny coterie, one that personally I grew weary of viewing in film after film after film. It’s like Tarantino now has to make a film without a single gun in it.

And I’m really surprised that people think he can write women characters. I don’t know about his most recent films, but the films prior to that certainly seemed to indulge his um fantasy life. Relationships with leading actresses Keaton & Farrow, the sight of him pawing Mira Sorvino or Meriel Hemingway god knows how many years his junior. Women are nearly always figures of fantasy for him, placed on pedestals.

I gotta say, his style of filmmaking to me is very similar to Mike Leigh’s – cast improvisation, letting the camera just run etc. And of the two social classes under scrutiny, I’d far rather an “Abigail’s Party” than a “Husbands And Wives” or “Manhattan”.

If the definition of ‘auteur’ is that tight, as to consist of a filmmaker who has top-to toe control of the whole production process from penning the script to final edit, then yes clearly he would come under that categorisation. But I always imagined, and maybe this is where I have gone awry, that auteurship also implied something more about the filmmaking art and artistic values and creative vision than merely the robust independence of the production process. While his films are definitively Woody Allenish, is that aesthetic significantly different or iconoclastic from what has gone before? Does he plough a new cinematic landscape? I think because of the themes he restricts himself to and the narrow bandwidth of people who he populates his scripts with, don’t think there is anything radical or transgressive at all about his filmmaking. But again, if these notions have nothing to do with the concept of ‘auteur’ then I am abusing the term.

There is currently a debate in the literary world that echoes this. People who self-publish are fumbling for a label to call themselves. Independent is one being bandied around. Punk is another. But these terms seem to me to refer to the distribution process (and depending on the ‘physical’ forms of the book, then possibly also the production process too), rather than anything to do with the artistic content.

Scott, your praise of Woody is well-taken. But most – and even his erstwhile fans – would consider the majority of his films of recent years to be rotten. That this has affected him commercially is undeniable – and I note his name came off the film posters well after the scandals broke and subsided. I also have to say I share Marc’s ambivalence about his attitude to women though perhaps it’s not that egregious for his generation.

However, your stirring reminder of the greatness of those early films – all of which have pride of place in the DVD collection in our house – has in part inspired the erstwhile fan I live with to give him another chance and pay a few quid to see Whatever Works this weekend. Passionate and informed critical advocacy is one thing that works, evidently!

It’s interesting that all the examples of psychologically introspective comedy you offer appear on the small screen. The combination does make for small canvasses rather than large.

Anti-rom-com ending – in “Play It Again Sam”, since he was homaging “Casablanca” he stuck faithfully to its anti-rom-com ending, so I don’t see the Annie Hall ending as either iconoclastic or daring. For me personally, and I am willing to take my licks for such an outrageous opinion, but if Allen is responsible for a legacy of RomCom movies then I like him even less. But I think it’s harsh to tar him with that brush, for as you say, he at least tries to offer psychological insights behind the emotions of the heart.

great discussion/debate going on here and even better since it’s about Woody Allen – one of the most prolific, if not altogether consistently superb – film directors out there. Although I fell out of love with his movies some time ago (there’s still no beating the outrageously funny and touching Broadway Danny Rose in my book) there’s no denying the man’s contribution to cinema as a whole.

The only thing I’d like to add here is a link to an alternative poster for the movie mentioned above:
http://tinyurl.com/3xlmaws

Note the addition of Allen’s name beneath the title which rightly indicates that his name is still most definitely a draw.

Incidentally, I won’t be coughing up the readies for a ticket to ‘Whatever Works’ preferring instead a cosy night in with the missus guffawing through the entirety of Bananas.

I agree with this–It is true that Allen’s work is tired where once it was fresh, and a portion of this is due to waning talents. But a large part of it is due to his enormous influence. Allen perfected so many standards, and brought about so many innovations, that his imitators are now held in higher regard than he by those unaware of his impact. Even those masterly works he obviously inspired – ‘Curb’ most obviously – owe a debt to him that is too infrequently acknowledged.

New balls… yes. i like it too.