As one can’t make a living running a semi-depressive, nostalgic, grieving blog, at least that I know of, I now direct you to some Professional Film Writing, not deliberately pitched to expend whatever good will I’ve accrued by being depressed and nostalgic but just…well, how’s the saying go, once more into the breach, with a piece for RogerEbert.com about a new wrinkle in the Saga Of Woody Allen’s Critical Reputation. What do YOU think should be done?
In other news, the other night, entirely of my own volition and with no clue as to why, I sat down and watched a Blu-ray of Live And Let Die about halfway through. I don’t want to sound glib but I wonder if I’ve gone mad with grief or something.
“In other news, the other night, entirely of my own volition and with no clue as to why, I sat down and watched a Blu-ray of Live And Let Die about halfway through. I don’t want to sound glib but I wonder if I’ve gone mad with grief or something.”
Halfway? Yes, mad with grief. I recently watched it on some free streaming service for the first time since the initial release, and I only made it about 10 or 15 minutes before going, “Oh. My. God.” and turning it off. Adored it as a wee tot, tho.
“As you note, if you want to boycott all the creepy artists, you won’t see much art.”
Read “Going Clear” if you want to know just how creepy Tom Cruise and his Scientology sidekick, David Miscavige, are.
“As to what we should DO about Woody, obviously we should boycott Chaplin movies.”
And all music by Jerry Lee Lewis, too.
“I don’t want to sound glib but I wonder if I’ve gone mad with grief or something.”
If you find yourself watching THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN of your own volition, you’ll know something is definitely wrong.
Similarly, I give up on LALD’s theme song at its midpoint – the moment McCartney’s verse “What does it matter to ya / When you got a job to do…” jauntily kicks in, I’m done.
As for the movie itself, I remember enough of my physics lessons for Roger Moore’s magneto-watch to bother me – fucking Newton’s Third Law, how does it work?! – almost as much as the casual racism does.
It’s never seemed that complicated to me–I’m generally fine separating the artist from his art, and judging a film solely on the merits (er, my comments on Waterfront aside)–and by the merits, by itself, Manhattan is rather creepy. I guess maybe she’s more mature than the adults, if you like (not sure her placid diffidence vs their self-involved foibles qualifies exactly, but ok)…but what she strikes me as more than anything, is unformed. Her halting tentativeness of speech reflects the uncertainty and incompleteness of who she is and will become, and seeing an older man needing to find such an unformed child to latch onto in place of the greater challenges of an adult relationship is…pathetic and creepy. Still a pretty good movie, but creepy in the end. If Woody Allen had only lusted after 70-yr olds his whole life, the effect of the movie wouldn’t be any different for me. What’s so complicated about it that I need info on his personal life to make that call?
“almost as much as the casual racism does”
Little known fact:
Despite the credits, Live And Let Die was actually directed by Enoch Powell.
Feel better, sport.
As Glenn points out in his piece, Allen was fairly mainstream in the ’70s, with the comic strip and TV appearances. He was a top 10 box office star for a couple of years, and, as I can attest, his movies even played small towns in the South. That ended in the ’80s.
I don’t think Allen has been mainstream since his “f– you” to his fans known as STARDUST MEMORIES. As Glenn writes, he has been a cult artist ever since.
“What is it about These Kids Today, by the way, that compels them, when writing about a work of art even a smidge older than they are, to chronicle Their Personal Journey With That Work, as if that were the only way to put it in context?”
I’ve noticed that about movie writing by Millennials for a while. Almost everything they write begins with a nostalgic memory from their childhoods or teen years. There seems to be some narcissism going on here. Notice how they constantly refer to GHOSTBUSTERS, STAR WARS and the Indiana Jones movies as “our childhood entertainment,” as if nobody was over 10 when they first saw those movies.
And when Blockbuster folded last year, the online essays treated the experience of going to a video store as exclusively a Millennial experience. You’d think nobody born before 1981 ever set foot in a video store.
End of rant. Now I’ll get back to watching GRAN TORINO.
“almost as much as the casual racism does”
Yeah, but they balanced the black stereotypes with another favorite stereotype: the fat, blustering, redneck Southern sheriff. That stereotype was almost as prevalent in ’70s movies (especially drive-in fare) as the out-of-tune, out-of-step marching band.
Good to see Clifton James is still alive at 94, if the IMDb is accurate.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0416378/?ref_=tt_cl_t4
“As Glenn writes, he has been a cult artist ever since”
See, that’s where I think Glenn is incorrect. While this is utterly true domestically, ATTENTION MUST BE PAID to the overseas box office. In the past decade ALONE, his films have grossed almost 3/4 OF A BILLION worldwide.
Dude hit a renaissance after his ‘hollywood ending’. He’s bigger than Wes Anderson can dream of being.
He’s the James Cameron of art films, working on a bargain budget.
I’m sure Allen would have trouble getting funding for his movies if not for his European box office.
He’s sort of like Michael Jackson, who remained a huge star overseas even as his albums were bombing in the U.S. and he was becoming a pariah because of certain, uh, questionable aspects of his personal life.
Come to think of it, it’s the overseas box office that keeps Tom Cruise on the A list. Most of his recent movies have not done well here but have been hits overseas. Movie stars still sell tickets in foreign markets.
I find LALD a very good 007 film hobbled by two sizable problems: Moore’s unbelievably wooden performance, and that godawful title song. Here you have a picture filled with some of the finest black actors of the day, and who do you get to do the song? Aretha? Lou Rawls? Tina Turner? At least Shirley Bassey? No! The whitest dude in rock ’n’ roll! The very same guy Bond (in GOLDFINGER) said shouldn’t be listened to without earmuffs. What a goddamn wasted opportunity!
“He’s sort of like Michael Jackson, who remained a huge star overseas even as his albums were bombing in the U.S. … Come to think of it, it’s the overseas box office that keeps Tom Cruise on the A list.”
While I do indeed take your broader point, I see two major differences in Woody’s case, and a more minor one:
1) Unlike Michael Jackson and Cruise, Woody wasn’t always ‘worldwide’. His ability to do James Cameron box office overseas is a VERY late development in the scope of his career. He was a cult taste both domestically AND overseas until the recent shift.
2) Admittedly a subjective judgment, but overseas kept Michael Jackson and Cruise afloat based on their reputations as their work ossified and became kinda awful. (Think also of Sly Stallone, who didn’t have scandal to contend with, but still followed the same pattern.) But Woody’s made some damn fine films over the past decade. He’s undergone an artistic renaissance as well as a business renaissance; some of those movies are among my favorites of his.
3) A smaller point, but the extremity of Woody’s domestic/overseas splits is far beyond that of someone like Cruise. (I can’t use boxofficemojo for Michael Jackson, but I strongly assume he’s in the same boat as Cruise). Woody’s had a bunch of profitable films that do next to ZERO business domestically, but still pull in major bank overseas. He’s got a number of movies where the domestic split is in the 5% – 15% range. That’s English language Polanski territory. His worst box office flop in the past decade, the great Cassandra’s Dream, did $900,000 domestic, but still pulled in $22m overseas.
But when we have to compare to Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise, it does help emphasize my central point that he’s stopped being a cult artist over the past decade as long as you don’t have US blinders on.
Jerry Seinfeld likes dating teen girls too.
This information, Petey, is very interesting and certainly pertinent…but, it’s also worth remembering that this PARTICULAR “cultural conversation” about Allen is endemic to sites such as Salon and The New Inquiry and is therefore kinda specifically ‘Murican.
Titch, I had a Lonstein reference in an early draft of the piece and someone wiser than myself advised me to not go there. I regret nothing!
“it’s also worth remembering that this PARTICULAR “cultural conversation” about Allen is endemic to sites such as Salon and The New Inquiry and is therefore kinda specifically ‘Murican.”
Oh, no doubt whatsoever.
I completely think that the 1992 repercussions, (and this particular “cultural conversation” is an aftershock from 1992), have been responsible for his “later audience-friendly ones” mostly not taking off in America the way they have elsewhere.
Of course, he’s also been intentionally targeting a more European audience during that time. But I think 1992 is obviously the reason for that decision in the first place, and 1992 is still the core reason why they mostly can’t get beyond cult box office here.
In short: I pretty much fully agree with your piece, but just wanted to point out his situation is radically different outside our little corner of the world, which I’ve found fascinating on several levels for a while now.
The “personal journey” aspect that seems most germane to the Salon author’s article is her admission that her 40something-ish father seduced her 15-year-old mother (in 70s New York, no less). But she buries that lede before quickly brushing it off, to focus on the much less objectionable/illegal actions of a filmmaker whom she has no relationship with – or rather, not even him but his work. It’s an odd essay.
Over the last decade, Cruise has focused almost exclusively on big-budget sci-fi/action/special effects spectacles, the kind of movie that is guaranteed to make huge bucks overseas (even if Americans yawn at it). He’s much more of a global star than an American star.
The only reason we’re getting a PACIFIC RIM sequel in 2017 is the Asian, and particularly Chinese, box office. It was a cult movie in North America but a smash hit in Asia.
“It was a cult movie in North America but a smash hit in Asia.”
$100m domestic is a bit outsize for a ‘cult movie’, no?
As stated, I really do take your broader point, but let’s not go overboard…
Petey, I’m afraid we’ve reached the point where a movie can gross $100M domestic and still be a cult movie – especially when it cost $190M to make (and almost as much to market) and the studio was expecting it to be a much bigger hit in the U.S. and Canada.
But, of course, the domestic box office doesn’t matter if people line up in China and Japan.
“Petey, I’m afraid we’ve reached the point where a movie can gross $100M domestic and still be a cult movie … But, of course, the domestic box office doesn’t matter if people line up in China and Japan.”
Well, Avatar did the same basic 75% overseas split as Pacific Rim. (Which is pretty standard for ANY Hollywood global blockbuster these days.) So Avatar’s $750m domestic gross makes it a ‘cult movie’ in America too?
You’re free to define your own terms in any way you choose, commonly accepted or not. But $100m at the domestic box office isn’t Frances Ha or Snowpiercer in my book…
(Snowpiercer is another interesting case. 95% overseas split. With a $5m domestic gross, that’s a GENUINE cult film at home, even if it made $85m globally. And yes, that still holds despite the notable additional VOD sales at home.)
I think Macca’s “Live and Let Die” theme song is friggin’ great (grammatical error aside). Oliver, that little jaunty part ends with a classic McCartney scream on “give the other fella hell.”
Anyway, I dig it.
Matt B. said: “I think Macca’s “Live and Let Die” theme song is friggin’ great (grammatical error aside).”
Agree. Especially in concert, with the pyrotechnics.
Petey said: “But $100m at the domestic box office isn’t Frances Ha or Snowpiercer in my book…”
A lot of this has to do with expectations. Remember Ben Affleck’s DAREDEVIL? It pulled in $100M domestic in 2003, and was considered such a flop that plans for a sequel were dropped. (And it didn’t cost nearly as much as PACIFIC RIM cost.) The problem: Fox wanted a SPIDER-MAN haul. When they didn’t get it, they dismissed the movie as a bomb.
“You’re free to define your own terms in any way you choose, commonly accepted or not.”
The studios define success as a movie that lives up to expectations. If they want a $200M gross and it “only” makes $100M, that movie is a bomb in their eyes. You have some uncommonly defined terms yourself, Petey. Glenn’s article was about American attitudes toward Woody Allen, but you wrote comments about something else entirely.
“So Avatar’s $750m domestic gross makes it a ‘cult movie’ in America too?”
I love dealing with Internet smart-asses.
To Joel: Yes, that WAS unusual, but I wasn’t gonna go there, because if I’m going to write about trends in cultural criticism nowadays, I have an interest in avoiding the ad hominem. But revelations like that, in that context, bring to mind two pertinent phrases: “I don’t come to you with my problems,” which Bob Dylan reportedly said to Peter Grant after the latter introduced himself as the manager of Led Zeppelin; and “Lady, I don’t have the time” as spoken by Lee Marvin in Siegel’s “The Killers.”
“Remember Ben Affleck’s DAREDEVIL? It pulled in $100M domestic in 2003, and was considered such a flop … The studios define success as a movie that lives up to expectations. If they want a $200M gross and it “only” makes $100M, that movie is a bomb in their eyes.”
See? Now we’re safely out of Humpty Dumpty-land. Happy days!
I have zero problems with calling a particular movie that does $100m domestic a “flop” or a “bomb” in such a context. My ONLY problem with your terminology was in calling them “cult movies”, which is simply unrelated to profitability.
I wish I had a copy of a student film I appeared in about seven years after the release of MANHATTAN. It was a parody of same, made by a female classmate who loved the film but realized the, uh, problematic aspect of the central romance (yes, kids, even people at the time kinda noticed). I played the Isaac character, and the Tracy character was played by the six-year-old daughter of the director’s friend. It was dead-on parody and pretty funny, with shots such as the little girl and I eating cereal in bed while watching cartoons. It was a big hit in class, but the auteur switched to an English degree and didn’t pursue the film biz.
Bond movies never recovered from the pinnacle of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (interesting to read Sarris’ and Canby’s reviews of the time). Rarely has a movie failed its genre in so successful a fashion.
“I wish I had a copy of a student film I appeared in about seven years after the release of MANHATTAN. It was a parody of same, made by a female classmate who loved the film but realized the, uh, problematic aspect of the central romance (yes, kids, even people at the time kinda noticed).”
Yeah. The problematic aspect is even sorta covered in the text, so it was indeed hard to miss, even at the time.
And yeah, it’s too bad the parody isn’t on YouTube. Sounds fun.
—-
While I love Manhattan, it’s certainly not close to being among Woody’s best films. It’s easily the weakest of the Annie Hall, Manhattan, Stardust Memories trilogy, for example.
And one other sorta strawman bone to pick with Glenn: while it’s easy enough to offload the sheer beauty of the film onto Gordon Willis, someone had to hire him, and give him both the direction and freedom to shoot something quite that beautiful. (Same goes for Stardust Memories.)
I mean, I know Gordon Willis has a long record of extremely exceptional work, with the two Godfather films especially standing out. But still, you can easily make the case that Manhattan is the most visually striking film he ever shot. (Though you could just as easily make the same case for the first Godfather.) But any way you slice it, quite a bit of the credit has to go to the helmer.
(It’s a sorta strawman point because Glenn doesn’t REALLY present the issue as being as entirely one-sided as I’m arguing against in my comment here. So, hopefully all the disclaiming lets me use this lazy rhetorically approach without offending our good host.)
On the topic of age and ageing… R.I.P. Manoel de Oliveira, who had already surpassed his threescore years and ten when ‘Manhattan’ was new!
Speaking of James Bond and Stanley Kubrick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFI-UvmxN1Q&feature=youtu.be
(not that the latter was brought up, but I feel he’s always at least implied in these comment threads):
Little known fact: Stanley Kubrick fraudulently staged all the Bond movies on a soundstage. James Bond was not a real person. He was actually a fictional creation of Neil Armstrong.
Glenn, just a brief Woody tangent, regarding your review of “5 to 7”: I can only think that it was compassionate restraint on your part, not wanting to pile on the film more than you (quite rightly) already did that kept you from mentioning that the movie’s poster is a hubristic nod to “Annie Hall“ ‘s poster, and the same with the movie’s title and Agnes Varda.
Salon has posted several other articles in the last week blasting Woody Allen. The latest one is headlined: “They really have no shame: From the Koch Brothers to Woody Allen, how bad actors justify themselves.” With a photo montage of Allen and George W. Bush.
But Allen is only mentioned once in the article, and in parentheses: “(Think Woody Allen.)”
Ever since Stephanie Zacharek stopped writing their movie reviews, Salon has had some of the most idiotic arts & entertainment coverage I’ve seen. Andrew O’Heir’s pieces are more about left-wing politics than movies.
Woody Allen is apparently the best click-bait Salon has had in years – at least since Lena Dunham. They used to run 20 articles a week about “Girls.”
Can’t go wrong with a bit of 1970s Bond if you ask me.
Meanwhile, if you’re interested in a Beatle doing the theme for a Bond movie, watch this …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8fOouKiLc