Woody Allen's First Stumble
Alice is the first mediocre Woody Allen movie of his later, faltering years, bringing an end to a solid run of good and great films that begins with Sleeper in 1973 and ends with Crimes and Misdemeanors in 1989 (though I'm sure I'd dislike 1987's second Allen movie, September, if I had the stomach for it now). It's also Mia Farrow's first outright awful performance in an Allen movie. I know some hate her work and most are indifferent to it. I've always been a fan, myself, but her performance in the title role here is embarrassing. There's a scene when she takes secret Chinese herbs that supposedly make her bold and seductive; instead, she comes off as utterly, pathetically goofy. I suspect she was imitating some schtick Woody asked her to give, a la his flirtation scene in Love and Death:
Consider yourself lucky I couldn't find a youtube clip of Farrow's Alice pulling those faces. It gives me shudders to think of it.
But Farrow's empty performance is not the only problem here. Alice, herself, is the only semi-believable character. The rest are static. They're stereotypes: the wise Chinese herbalist, the rich gossip, the aggressive TV executive, the ne'er-do-well musician. Judy Davis is squandered in this, though she gives the only passable secondary performance. Even William Hurt is wasted as the stuffed shirt husband, despite his best efforts. That's because this movie lacks warmth and humanity. It's all flights of fantasy, dream visions, and cheesy special effects--A Christmas Carol for the uber-wealthy. We get none of the heart, none of the wit we've come to expect from Allen (and, for that matter, from Dickens), and dumb contrivances are apparently supposed to show us it's better to give your kids an experience of real life and real love than to raise them in some sanitized cocoon of wealth. I don't know, and don't care, what Allen wanted to say here.
I only finished watching Alice because back when it came out I thought it was all right. I don't remember why I felt that way. Of course, our Woody Allen comes back strong after this, with a few more good films (especially Husbands and Wives, Bullets Over Broadway, and Deconstructing Harry--the last of which works similarly to Alice but gets better every time I see it). Still, with Alice, we see the beginning of the end.
I'm not saying Allen is finished, but this is where he begins to lose his grip on what works--and what works is definitely not "whatever works." I need to watch Husbands and Wives again soon, to cleanse my palate.
(As an aside, I'm happy to note that Woody's next project is another movie set in London.)
1 comments:
I listen to a podcast, "watching the directors," and after a retrospective of WA's work, I realized that Allan is an extremely inconsistent film maker.
He has a few inspirations that he channels, e.g. obviously Bergman. However, I'm not sure that he evolves. He's prolific for sure. I think that he releases a film every time Kiss releases an album. Maybe they are following his lead, I'm not sure.
We want to look at any artist in context of their body of work. Why not assume that their work is evolving. Allen is as prolific as ever and I have to admit that I haven't seen his most recent films. I hear Vicky, Christina, Barcelona is very good.
I guess my point is that while I agree that he's made some films that can appear that he's in decline, he's also so inconsistent about his films and I think Allen is perfectly fine prototyping his art and never perfecting it. I don't mind that about him.
My favorite is Manhattan and the scene from Love and Death is one of my favorites. In fact, we were talking about that scene a few months ago.
Post a Comment