woody allen.

what happened?

his last good film was over eleven years ago (92's husbands and wives.)

his last great film was over fourteen years ago (89's crimes and misdemeanors.)

his last across-the-board acclaimed film was over seventeen years ago (86's hannah and her sisters.)

he has classics to his credit:
sleeper (1973)
annie hall (1977)
manhattan (1979)
zelig (1983)
purple rose of cairo (1985)

yet he has let his own self-obsession and his admiration for "the masters" (e.g. fellini, bergman . . .) corrupt (see: distract) him from his talent and craft.

in recent years, he has become less of an artist and more of a punchline.

what happened?

The problem with Woody Allen's more recent films is a failure to address broader issues and to deal with questions and incidents existing outside of his narrow circle of bourgeois intellectual friends.

Not to mention that many of his films seem almost interchangeable due to the fact that he never strays far from his comfort zone. Even in some of his better work this is true. If you spliced a few scenes from Husbands And Wives into Hannah And Her Sisters, I doubt anyone would notice.

I think his last "good" film was Celebrity (although I've yet to find anyone else who agrees). And as you pointed out, his last great film was Crimes and Misdemeanors. But it must be said that apart from these few freak occurences (and we could include Husbands And Wives among them), Allen has been in a state of decline since the very good Hannah And Her Sisters.

It's hard to say exactly why Allen has not been able to deal consistently with the deeper issues of human beings. . . but watching Barbara Kopple's documentary about him you get the feeling that he's pretty much afraid of them and that he tends to cover this up by pretending not to like them very much.

No people skills. He could never be a receptionist.

That's all.

>The problem with Woody Allen's more recent films is a
>failure to address broader issues and to deal with questions
>and incidents existing outside of his narrow circle of
>bourgeois intellectual friends.

true, but i mean that's not how it used to always be. as far as trying to be the "intellectual comedian" and squeezing in as many $30,000 college words, i certainly didn't see that in "what's new pussycat." and while that's not his best screenplay, there certainly is this frivolity and playfulness permeating through the screen.

even though the subject matter in "purple rose of cairo" is a bit more "profound," he certainly managed to capture a similar frivolity and playfulness. now this was after he made his bergman film (interiors), fellini film (stardust memories), and had been throwing around all sorts of "brandeis look-at-me" bourgeois intellectual nuggets. by this time he had already been contacted by the dark side. also, "small time crooks" is fluff material as well. so i doubt it can be pinpointed to being stuck between a rock and a encyclopedia of psychoanalysis.

it's bigger than that. did he lose his passion? his vision (see: deconstructing harry?)

>And as you pointed
>out, his last great film was Crimes and Misdemeanors.

well, of course, i'm never wrong.

it's an incredible film, that really doesn't have him play whiny-jewish neurotic too often. less shtick (hannah and her sisters still had a good chunk of this) and more substance that was impacting and real.

>it must be said that apart from these few freak occurences
>(and we could include Husbands And Wives among them), Allen
>has been in a state of decline since the very good Hannah
>And Her Sisters.

from msnbc: (it's not war coverage, so maybe we can trust it)

Many people’s list of Where Woody Went Wrong begins with anything after 1989’s masterpiece “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a brilliant blend of drama and comedy about love, death, jealousy and guilt. But did Allen set the bar so high with “Crimes” that anything in the future simply couldn’t measure up?

>It's hard to say exactly why Allen has not been able to deal
>consistently with the deeper issues of human beings. . . but
>watching Barbara Kopple's documentary about him you get the
>feeling that he's pretty much afraid of them and that he
>tends to cover this up by pretending not to like them very
>much.

can you break this down for the unknowing?

unable to deal? deeper issues of human beings? like love and death (not the movie)?

he's dealt with some "serious" stuff, but maybe after "crimes and misdemeanors," which was said to be to response to dissatisfaction with the "nice" ending to "hannah," he was afraid to really take it there again. and then he had "husbands and wives" at a time when he was getting drug through the tabloids. maybe he kinda got scared of exposing himself (and his work) in such a vulnerable manner anymore. so he makes a movie about a prostitute and a musical, puts the black face on (so to speak), and casts jason biggs.

>>The problem with Woody Allen's more recent films is a
>>failure to address broader issues and to deal with questions
>>and incidents existing outside of his narrow circle of
>>bourgeois intellectual friends.
>
>true, but i mean that's not how it used to always be. as
>far as trying to be the "intellectual comedian" and
>squeezing in as many $30,000 college words, i certainly
>didn't see that in "what's new pussycat." and while that's
>not his best screenplay, there certainly is this frivolity
>and playfulness permeating through the screen.

To begin with, there's nothing wrong with being an intellectual, an intellectual comedian, or using $30,000 words. That's not what I was saying.

>
>even though the subject matter in "purple rose of cairo" is
>a bit more "profound," he certainly managed to capture a
>similar frivolity and playfulness.

Purple Rose Of Cairo is one of his best.

>it's bigger than that. did he lose his passion? his vision
>(see: deconstructing harry?)

What I'm saying is that his vision wasn't that big to begin with. His work was never as good as the filmmakers he admired.

As an artist in film, he's very talented. He's done some truly remarkable things. But his "artistic vision" has always been a bit nearsighted.

>>And as you pointed
>>out, his last great film was Crimes and Misdemeanors.
>
>well, of course, i'm never wrong.

There was that one time. . . it had something to do with The Searchers. . . I can't remember exactly. ahem.

>But did Allen set the bar so high with
>“Crimes” that anything in the future simply couldn’t measure
>up?

No, that's crazy talk. A stronger director would continue to do strong work. Allen's own hero Ingmar Bergman made quite a few near-masterpieces one right after the other.

There's no setting of bars. You either got it or you don't. And sometimes you have it and it slips right out of your hands.

>
>>It's hard to say exactly why Allen has not been able to deal
>>consistently with the deeper issues of human beings. . . but
>>watching Barbara Kopple's documentary about him you get the
>>feeling that he's pretty much afraid of them and that he
>>tends to cover this up by pretending not to like them very
>>much.
>
>can you break this down for the unknowing?

No. lol.


okay, I guess. First, Barbara Kopple is a talented documentary filmmaker. She made a movie about Woody called Wild Man Blues that followed him around Europe while he played concerts with his so-called dixie-land jazz band.

You see him be totally out-of-place and uncomfortable with people. He just looks lost. That's all. (It's a pretty interesting movie).

>
>unable to deal? deeper issues of human beings?

Deeper issues. . . as in not making films only about relationship problems. There's other stuff too you know!

>like love
>and death (not the movie)?

like CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM!!!!

lol. Just kidding.

>maybe he kinda got scared of exposing
>himself (and his work) in such a vulnerable manner anymore.

Maybe so.

>so he makes a movie about a prostitute and a musical, puts
>the black face on (so to speak), and casts jason biggs.

You got something against prostitutes?

>To begin with, there's noting wrong with being an
>intellectual, an intellectual comedian, or using $30,000
>words. That's not what I was saying.

felt like ranting i guess.

>Purple Rose Of Cairo is one of his best.

yup (i'm right again.)

>What I'm saying is that his vision wasn't that big to begin
>with. His work was never as good as the filmmakers he
>admired.

people put him up there with bergman? not sane thinking . . .

>As an artist in film, he's very talented. He's done some
>truly remarkable things. But his "artistic vision" has
>always been a bit nearsighted.

i suppose. in more recent years it seems though that the "same" focus has been supported by less and less quality and substance.

>There was that one time. . . it had something to do with The
>Searchers. . . I can't remember exactly. ahem.

spoiling the email (soon), but its back on my list to revisit.

>No, that's crazy talk. A stronger director would continue
>to do strong work. Allen's own hero Ingmar Bergman made
>quite a few near-masterpieces one right after the other.

oh you're the one making comparisons. i don't think that's fair to woody.

has he ever really been a strong director? i think his strength was in writing.

>There's no setting of bars. You either got it or you don't.
> And sometimes you have it and it slips right out of your
>hands.

so he "had it" at one time? how much "of it?"
lol

>okay, I guess. First, Barbara Kopple is a talented
>documentary filmmaker. She made a movie about Woody called
>Wild Man Blues that followed him around Europe while he
>played concerts with his so-called dixie-land jazz band.

oh, right, i heard about this. well, for starters, he doesn't leave new york often, right? and he plays clarinet? and he is a jew in eruope? shit, i'd be nervous too.

>Deeper issues. . . as in not making films only about
>relationship problems. There's other stuff too you know!

maybe's he stuck in "high school poetry" mode. he does cast his significant others in roles.

but relationship is generally only the origin of any deeper issues.

>>so he makes a movie about a prostitute and a musical, puts
>>the black face on (so to speak), and casts jason biggs.
>
>You got something against prostitutes?

friday, i'm not judging. i recognize the employment oppurtunities in kentucky aren't what they used to be.

maybe i shoulda said "he makes a movie with mira sorvino" and let that get my point across.

>>What I'm saying is that his vision wasn't that big to begin
>>with. His work was never as good as the filmmakers he
>>admired.
>
>people put him up there with bergman? not sane thinking . .
>.

I'm just saying.


>i suppose. in more recent years it seems though that the
>"same" focus has been supported by less and less quality and
>substance.

Yes, that's right. He's getting worse. Not better.

>
>>There was that one time. . . it had something to do with The
>>Searchers. . . I can't remember exactly. ahem.
>
>spoiling the email (soon), but its back on my list to
>revisit.

Oh. Okay.

>oh you're the one making comparisons.

What's it to you, copper? I'm just trying to make a point about the different levels of artistic ability. Bergman is high, Woody is middle, Fincher is low.

>i don't think that's
>fair to woody.

Like I said, Woody Guthrie is my favorite folksinger.

>
>has he ever really been a strong director? i think his
>strength was in writing.

His strength was in writing. But he's a "good" director.


>so he "had it" at one time? how much "of it?"
>lol
>

*this much* (let the record show that at 3:51 am King Friday gave Ricky Butler the finger) lol.

>
> well, for starters, he
>doesn't leave new york often, right?

Do I look like a travel agent? No.

>and he plays clarinet?

Yes.

> and he is a jew in eruope?

Yes. As far as I know he did not convert on the way over.

>>You got something against prostitutes?
>
>friday, i'm not judging. i recognize the employment
>oppurtunities in kentucky aren't what they used to be.

Did you just call me a prostitute? Damn.

I think this might just be left over frustration from election night. Arnold Shwarzenegger is your new governer and you can't handle it.

But for the record, I'm not a prostitute. I'm a pimp. *pops collar*.

Woody may not be making the same caliber of films he once was, but he's still making entertaining, thought provoking pictures. And for you to say that he hasn't made a good movie in eleven years is to discount the excellence of films like "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Sweet and Lowdown", which is one of my 20 all-time favorite pictures by any director.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"People died so I can rhyme. You think I'm gonna grab the mic and waste my nation's time?" -- KRS ONE

"Hit me with music. Harder. Brutalize me." -- Bob Marley

"Ain't but one sideline I'd stand on. And that's the Giant sideline." -- Lawrence Taylor

REGENERATE YOUR HEADPIECE: http://www.regeneratedheadpiece.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

Blog: http://bluenatic.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bluenatic
Tumblr: http://bluenaticfringe.tumblr.com/
MSG column archive: http://bit.ly/bgV4T6
Facebook: http://www.face

>Woody may not be making the same caliber of films he once
>was, but he's still making entertaining, thought provoking
>pictures. And for you to say that he hasn't made a good
>movie in eleven years is to discount the excellence of films
>like "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Sweet and Lowdown", which
>is one of my 20 all-time favorite pictures by any director.

i almost mentioned those two as being "sortas." they're alright, but not really anything compared to what he's done.

I think it's unfair to hold any artist up to the standards set by his own past masterpieces. Sure, "Hollywood Ending" wasn't high art, but you know what, it was better than 90% of the garbage hollywood churned out last year. It had a few moments.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"People died so I can rhyme. You think I'm gonna grab the mic and waste my nation's time?" -- KRS ONE

"Hit me with music. Harder. Brutalize me." -- Bob Marley

"Ain't but one sideline I'd stand on. And that's the Giant sideline." -- Lawrence Taylor

REGENERATE YOUR HEADPIECE: http://www.regeneratedheadpiece.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

Blog: http://bluenatic.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bluenatic
Tumblr: http://bluenaticfringe.tumblr.com/
MSG column archive: http://bit.ly/bgV4T6
Facebook: http://www.face

>I think it's unfair to hold any artist up to the standards
>set by his own past masterpieces. Sure, "Hollywood Ending"
>wasn't high art, but you know what, it was better than 90%
>of the garbage hollywood churned out last year.

if kurt vonnegut cowrote jessica simpson's biography and was able to make me laugh twice and provide grammatically correct sentences, i'd still feel the right to say "that's not cat's cradle."

i don't know if we're gonna get anywhere in this argument, but can you honestly tell me you haven't seen a decline in the quality of his work? if not, well, i gotta let that stand. but if so, why?

Yes, I have seen a decline. However, I still think he's being unfairly criticized for his recent work. I'll be the first to admit that "Celebrity," "Small Time Crooks," "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion," and "Hollywood Ending," were less than stellar pictures, but at the same time each was entertaining in its own way, and I actually liked "Anything Else."

I think perhaps what's at issue here is his artistic intent. In films like these last few, he's not trying to make any grand artistic statements. He's just trying to tell a story, and make a nice, entertaining picture. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because he's not working on 137 thematic levels or plumbing the depths of human psychology anymore doesn't mean that the dude is finished. And there was plenty of subtext, actually, in "Anything Else."

_______________________________________________________________________________

"People died so I can rhyme. You think I'm gonna grab the mic and waste my nation's time?" -- KRS ONE

"Hit me with music. Harder. Brutalize me." -- Bob Marley

"Ain't but one sideline I'd stand on. And that's the Giant sideline." -- Lawrence Taylor

REGENERATE YOUR HEADPIECE: http://www.regeneratedheadpiece.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

Blog: http://bluenatic.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bluenatic
Tumblr: http://bluenaticfringe.tumblr.com/
MSG column archive: http://bit.ly/bgV4T6
Facebook: http://www.face

>I think perhaps what's at issue here is his artistic intent.

you think any artistic change is a proposed career move? or just the sign of age and ideas slipping by?

> In films like these last few, he's not trying to make any
>grand artistic statements. He's just trying to tell a
>story, and make a nice, entertaining picture.

i liked "purple rose of cairo." i liked "hannah and her sisters." all of these are not super-psychological films. they are "nice, entertaining" and great.

"small time crooks" was not great.

and when he has delved into the "grand artistic" pictures as of late he seems to have fallen down a bit.

the point of the post, which it seems you took issue with, is that the woody allen making films now or five or ten years ago is steadily worse than the woody allen of 70s and 80s. it's a common lesson post, "why can't artists stay at their artistic peak?" i'm not sure, but i'm trying to figure out the reasons in this case.

>And there was plenty of subtext, actually, in "Anything
>Else."

break this down. worth my money?

Even though some on this site have argued otherwise, I thought that "Anything Else" actually had a few things to say about the consequences of our decisions and what happens, as the saying goes, to "a dream deferred".

It's not Woody's best work by any stretch, but it's definitely got a few great laughs in it and I'd say it's the best picture of the five he's made since "Sweet and Lowdown." Jason Biggs is surprisingly not at all annoying as Falk, and there is also a nice scene with Christina Ricci in a pair of little cotton panties.

No, this is not "Annie Hall," but so what. It's an entertaining picture nonetheless. I liked it.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"People died so I can rhyme. You think I'm gonna grab the mic and waste my nation's time?" -- KRS ONE

"Hit me with music. Harder. Brutalize me." -- Bob Marley

"Ain't but one sideline I'd stand on. And that's the Giant sideline." -- Lawrence Taylor

REGENERATE YOUR HEADPIECE: http://www.regeneratedheadpiece.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

Blog: http://bluenatic.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bluenatic
Tumblr: http://bluenaticfringe.tumblr.com/
MSG column archive: http://bit.ly/bgV4T6
Facebook: http://www.face

Bullets Over Broadway
Everyone Says I Love You
Deconstructing Harry
Sweet and Lowdown

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>Bullets Over Broadway

okay

>Everyone Says I Love You

less than okay

>Deconstructing Harry

"great" moments, but overall okay

>Sweet and Lowdown

better than okay

afkap, you telling me there is no artistic decline?

you're forgetting that at this same time he's made "mighty aphrodite", "celebrity" (unless you side w/friday), "small time crooks", "curse of the jade scorpion", "hollywood ending", and "anything else" (which i haven't seen though.)

his more recent "good" (see: okay) work has been fit around a bunch of, well, crap. but let's say "not good" films.

okay?

...... was a superb motion picture.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"People died so I can rhyme. You think I'm gonna grab the mic and waste my nation's time?" -- KRS ONE

"Hit me with music. Harder. Brutalize me." -- Bob Marley

"Ain't but one sideline I'd stand on. And that's the Giant sideline." -- Lawrence Taylor

REGENERATE YOUR HEADPIECE: http://www.regeneratedheadpiece.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

Blog: http://bluenatic.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bluenatic
Tumblr: http://bluenaticfringe.tumblr.com/
MSG column archive: http://bit.ly/bgV4T6
Facebook: http://www.face

A great great picture.

(sigless)

In his top tier. A wonderfully touching work.

--------

hell-below.com

i'm just saying that it's become common for lazy critics to suggest that the man hasn't made a good film in a decade. which is wrong.

the quality has varied, but there has been good stuff.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

far from the most important film ever made but it's funny.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

i even liked Curse of the Jade Scorpion.

i just wanted to name the ones i thought were *really* good. otherwise, i've pretty much enjoyed ALL his films of the past decade, apart from Hollywood Ending and Anything Else

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

What happens to any director, or indeed, any artist as they move on from their peak period? Who else of his peers are producing work equal to their top stuff? How many filmmakers stay vital into their twilight years?

Self-obsession and obsession with the old masters, etc. are not evident in his work. If anything, he's LESS obsessed with Bergman, Fellini, etc. than he used to be. Interiors was 1978 not 1998.

The man is almost 70. Yes, his work is much more inconsistent than it once was. But much of it is worth seeing. And since he makes a film every year, that's a lot of good work. There's no reason to criticize.

--------

hell-below.com

>What happens to any director, or indeed, any artist as they
>move on from their peak period? Who else of his peers are
>producing work equal to their top stuff? How many filmmakers
>stay vital into their twilight years?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I am not saying NOBODY makes great films in their 70s. Rather, a gradual decline is to be expected by artists across the board. And just because there are exceptions, does not mean you can blame someone who is not one of those exceptions. Getting mediocre or inconsistent with age is not the result of a flaw, it's just the result of getting old.

And, for the record, I'll take Sweet and Lowdown over Battle Royale any day.

--------

hell-below.com

>And, for the record, I'll take Sweet and Lowdown over Battle
>Royale any day.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

But 6 out of 7.

--------

hell-below.com

>What happens to any director, or indeed, any artist as they
>move on from their peak period? Who else of his peers are
>producing work equal to their top stuff? How many filmmakers
>stay vital into their twilight years?

well, afkap supplied you with a better answer than i could have ever. unfortunately, my encyclopedia of old directors is at the shop.

i appreciate that answer as far as a man wanting to change his pitch up. but to the extent that it can be used as an excuse for pumping out mediocrity and less-than-mediocrity (last 6yrs at least) is a bit much for me.

can we call an artist's early worker excusable because it's immature or childish or "a product of his youth?" at that same time, "dude is old." period? i don't know if it's that simple.

>Self-obsession and obsession with the old masters, etc. are
>not evident in his work. If anything, he's LESS obsessed
>with Bergman, Fellini, etc. than he used to be. Interiors
>was 1978 not 1998.

in hindsight that wasn't really a good, flushed-out point. what i meant was that maybe his reach for grandeur, for their level of artistic success, drained him.

>There's no reason to criticize.

f'real? so just ignore 90% of his recent work? c'mon, you know this isn't true.

call a decline a decline. justify it however you may, but don't tell me nothing is wrong, or at least nothing is worth criticizing.

and on a less bitter, sarcastic point: marshall brickman? do you know what exactly it is he does? his name is on the screenplays of annie hall, manhattan, and sleeper: impressive.

"Marshall and I used to appear in cabaret together. He was with a musical act. He played the bass and the guitar. And we got friendly, we used to talk. And then we decided we would try and write something togeter for fun. Se we wrote, and we liked it. We wrote Sleeper and then Annie Hall and then Manhattan together.. And then we wrote Manhattan Murder Mystery together. I like him. He's been a friend and very nice. He has also directed several films."



>
>i appreciate that answer as far as a man wanting to change
>his pitch up. but to the extent that it can be used as an
>excuse for pumping out mediocrity and less-than-mediocrity
>(last 6yrs at least) is a bit much for me.

Why not start a post picking on Paul McCartney, James Brown, or Stevie Wonder? Or, in film, Coppola, Altman, Friedkin, Herzog, etc.


>>There's no reason to criticize.
>
>f'real? so just ignore 90% of his recent work? c'mon, you
>know this isn't true.

>call a decline a decline. justify it however you may, but
>don't tell me nothing is wrong, or at least nothing is worth
>criticizing.

It's a decline. And it's certainly valid to criticize the films themselves. I'm just arguing that there's no "key" to Woody's decline, or any other artists general decline late in life. It's just hard to sustain the intense energy and passion necessary for truly Great work. Few can do it. And I don't see why we need to pick on Woody.

At least he's not directing Grisham novels...

--------

hell-below.com

He treats filmmaking like a 9 to 5 job, instead of treating it like an artistic endeavor that should only be undertaken when the inspiration strikes.

That's fine for someone in their prime, when the muse could speak to you everyday. But the muse speaks to him on rare occasion these days, yet he continues to crank out pages, continues to mount up productions, regardless of whether the work deserves to go forward. Before his deal with DreamWorks, his projects used to always be listed on production listings as "Woody Allen Fall Project" because he did one every fall like clockwork. For a long time, he produced some of the best work in the business. Now, he just does his annual project because that what he does.

That's it, though. Years ago, he stopped doing this because he had something to say, or because he had something to contribute. He does this because this is his job. Moreso than other older artists, such as the musicians you named. A "decline of James Brown" post would be deserved, if JB put out albums every year. Every artist, if lucky, lives and works long enough to pass his artistic peak. But to pass that point and still crank out the same amount of work, the numbers start playing against him. His skills have diminished, yet he's producing the same amount of work. Of course, a greater percentage will suck.

It's often been suggested that if he just took a break, took a year off, his work would improve. If he just waited until inspiration hit him (or hit him harder). Or if he just did a couple more drafts on the script, anything besides just keeping to this schedule of having to do a film each and every year.

Woody Allen is my favorite director. Hannah and Her Sisters and Manhattan are my two all-time favorite movies, and I've absolutely loved a good 90% of his movies. Unlike some here, I believe he's made solid work since Crimes and Misdemeanors, or Husbands and Wives, or whatever you think the cutoff is. Sweet and Lowdown matched some of best work since the 80's. Small Time Crooks is charming and funny, if poorly structured. Deconstructing Harry has flashes of brilliance. I even laughed a few times in Curse of the Jade Scorpion.

Hollywood Ending was nearly unwatchable.

RED
Ora et labora

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

woody allen still makes some good films. they are not as good as what once was, but according to okayplayer, they are good enough. however, between "good" films and specifically his most recent work, has fallen some marginal material leading for chicken littles like myself to yell "the sky is falling!"

if he is in a decline, this supposedly is to be expected. most artists can not maintain a level of artistic success that they once held in the younger days. thus any artistic deterioration is to be expected. however, accentuating a decline is what okp REDeye said: "He treats filmmaking like a 9 to 5 job, instead of treating it like an artistic endeavor that should only be undertaken when the inspiration strikes."

since it is in fashion to quote tarantino, i'll be no different: (from village voice) "Tarantino calls Fukasaku's last film, Battle Royale—a disturbingly bloody teensploitation film set in a slightly futuristic Japan—a movie impossible to over-praise, and says he is stunned that it was made by a 70-year-old man. Old directors rarely have this much juice, he says. 'It's a sad cliché that most every director ends their career with a whimper,' says Tarantino, who was friends with Fukasaku over the last 10 years of his life. "You know, it's like, 'The sex drive goes, great! Now I can devote myself to my art.' They didn't realize the dick drive is connected to the art drive.'"

You think QT would realize his dick drive has a limited lifespan and would take a page from Woody and not take so damn long to get his movies made.

--------

hell-below.com

And a really fantastic movie.

But he definitely used to be more consistent. I don't have any desire to see his stuff now, becuase they're all ostensibly comedies, but don't even make me laugh once during the previews. Deconstructing Harry was the last thing I actually got out to the theater for. Sweet and Lowdown, I was lucky enough to catch on video.

A lot of great artists peak and fall off. At least Woody can still surprise you with a gem every now and then (Bullets Over Broadway, Sweet and Lowdown).

I'm tired of folks that ain't doing nuthin' bitchin and moanin about people thass been doin' it 24/7.

You and the title of your post are void of any clue as well as any shred of the tatters of anything that would ever resemble an actual culture in the wasteland of armchair experts!!!

Woody's done it and has a free pass to do whatever he wants.
Ask Soon-Yi.

Deconstructing Harry was ill.

s.blak
Joey Nickels, bitch

keep: looking,searching,seeking,finding