"Woody Allen: A Documentary" airs on PBS stations in two parts, at 9 p. m. Sunday and Monday, Nov. 20 and 21. Check local listings for airtimes. Also available via PBS On Demand.
by Odie Henderson
I took this gig as a challenge. It's not that I hate Woody Allen; I just don't adore him as much as you would like. Plus, I live in the Bizarro World when it comes to his films, enjoying the ones most people hate and vice-versa. For example, I hated "Match Point," disliked "Annie Hall," and could never commit to "Manhattan" despite its astonishing, heartbreaking cinematography. Conversely, I loved "Deconstructing Harry," found "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" amusing, and I may be the only sane person who liked "Hollywood Ending." These confessions may disturb die-hard fans, but before you vow never to read anything of mine again, you should watch American Masters' "Woody Allen: A Documentary." There you'll discover that Woody Allen dislikes most of his movies, even going so far as to offer to make a different movie for free if United Artists used "Manhattan" for kindling. Compared to that, my "meh" reaction to the gorgeous-looking film is a ringing endorsement. We now know who should be getting your hate mail, don't we?
Not that Allen would care. Robert B. Weide's exceptional documentary makes clear that critical opinion is the farthest thing from its subject's mind. The prolific writer-director has been too busy cranking out a film a year for the past four decades to worry about what anyone thinks of them. You'd have to go back to the studio system's heyday for that kind of output, work that produced eleven solo and three collaborative Oscar nominations for writing. That's two more than my beloved Billy Wilder, who coincidentally never got a solo writing nomination. Add to those fourteen writing nods his six directing nominations, sole acting nod and the resulting three wins, and you have one of the most honored filmmakers in Hollywood history. He can expect a 22nd nomination for "Midnight In Paris," which I cop to liking but not with the slobbering praise afforded it by most critics. (It's like a cross between Cliffs Notes, "The Purple Rose of Cairo" and a Tea Party rally, with all that "it's so much better in the past" nonsense.) The fact that awards mortify Allen makes these numerous acknowledgements the kind of ironic, funny joke one would find in, well, a Woody Allen movie.
"Woody Allen: A Documentary" benefits from both its masterful construction and the willingness of Allen to offer commentary on everything from his oeuvre to his explosive divorce. Allen drives the narrative with wit, honesty and pathos, which Weide supplements with perfectly chosen clips, pictures and talking heads. The deft editing provides a seamless flow of ideas and concepts beholden to the central theme: An artist's personal demons and compulsions can influence his body of work. Allen's views on religion and mortality have a kinship with Martin Scorsese's, even if the views and ultimate outcomes are completely different. Scorsese fears where he'll go when he dies. Allen fears death, period, so much so that the documentary keeps returning to the topic in ways that are morbidly funny but never tiring.
Weide interviews actors and writers who have worked with Allen, director contemporaries like Scorsese and family members like Letty Aronson, Allen's sister and producer of his films since "Curse of the Jade Scorpion." Scorsese sums up my assessment of Allen's movies: This was a New York he found completely foreign. Weide offers up clips from Scorsese's "Mean Streets" and Allen's "Radio Days," both evocations of youthful memories in NYC, for comparison. Aronson dishes on the kind of big brother Allen Konigsburg was, and how it influenced the director he became. Actors discuss the director's minimalist directing style, but the urban legend that Allen doesn't direct actors is debunked with clips of him doing just that. Most of his film work is covered, and three and a half hours fly by with the quickness of the one-liners in Allen's old stand-up routines.
Jokes are where both Allen's career and "Woody Allen: A Documentary" start. Following Allen's career chronologically, we learn that he started out writing and submitting jokes to people like Walter Winchell, who put them in their columns. This led to writing for Sid Caesar "Your Show of Shows," TV specials, where he collaborated with Mel Brooks and Larry Gelbart, and a stand-up comedy career that Allen describes as pure anguish. Here was an introverted, shy kid in the lion's den of a comedy club in Greenwich Village. "Some nights he was just horrible," we are told, "but some nights he was beyond brilliant."
Photo above: Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Mel Tolkin and Sid Caesar.
To hear Allen tell it, every night he was tortured, throwing up before shows and being horrified just before hitting the stage. Weide provides us with clips of Allen performing for live audiences and improvising on "The Dick Cavett Show." This section includes a must-see black and white clip of Allen singing and dancing in front of a huge "WOODY" sign. I can only imagine how much weight he lost puking before that number.
Allen would revive his dreadful singing career 30 years later, in "Everyone Says I Love You," from which Weide shows his sublime dance number with the only person who can sing in that movie, Goldie Hawn. Until then, Weide navigates us through Allen's goofy 1960's output (though "Casino Royale" is conspicuously absent), his early 70's screwball comedies and celebrated late 70's comic romances with Diane Keaton, his ballsy but extremely boring Bergman homages, his most celebrated 80's film, "Crimes and Misdemeanors," and his string of films with Satan's onscreen Baby-Mama, Mia Farrow.
The section on Allen's personal and professional relationship with Farrow is one of the most interesting parts of "Woody Allen: A Documentary." Allen, Weide, and a few others tackle the subject head-on while images of New York Post and Daily News headlines fly by onscreen. ("BANANAS!" yells one Daily News front page.) Considering the information Weide's interviews manage to get from his subjects, I half-expected Farrow to suddenly show up onscreen. I would not have expected her to return to the set of "Husbands and Wives," Allen's most acrimonious and--thanks to the masturbation-influenced camera work--most seizure-inducing film. But return she does, and Weide underscores the real-life action with a quote from Farrow's cinematic counterpart in "Wives." Throughout this section, Allen points out that Farrow was a wonderful actress he tried to use in ways she hadn't been before. Unfortunately, her fine performances in many of his films get overshadowed, both by scandal and fans blinded with nostalgia for the old days of "Annie Hall." Allen would later give those fans what they wanted, reteaming with Keaton for the mostly disliked "Manhattan Murder Mystery." I liked that one. See! Like I said: Bizarro World.
Besides Allen, the most interesting comments come from his actors. Diane Keaton is on hand to discuss how she tried to get Woody's romantic attention, and to reveal the truth about Annie Hall's famous Grammy Hall. "She really existed--she was Keaton's grandmother," says Allen. "She was a racist," says Keaton matter-of-factly. (I wish she'd said "Oh well, la-di-da" after that.) Oscar winner Dianne Wiest blatantly disregards her character Helen Sinclair's advice to speak highly of the man who wrote both her winning roles (in "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Bullets Over Broadway"), the latter of which she was initially so bad in she expected Allen to fire her. We hear from the two best Woody Allen stand-ins (Owen Wilson and John Cusack), and from one of the worst, Larry David. Mira Sorvino and Penelope Cruz, both Oscar winners for Allen films, also appear to profess their love for their director. There's also a ScarJo sighting for all you horny fanboys out there, which meant I had to sit through scenes of Allen's two worst movies so you can enjoy her rack. You're welcome.
I've saved my favorite actor interview for last. Mariel Hemimgway, who spoke Allen's most unabashedly romantic line at the end of "Manhattan," speaks eloquently of her time with Allen, and to remind me exactly why I could never commit to a movie that features the greatest shot ever put on film of the city I love. ("We brought our own bench," Allen says of that scene.) Her character is just too smartly written and acted for me to believe she could be involved with Allen's Isaac. Maybe there is such a thing as being too good in a movie after all.
Weide gives equal time to Allen's behind the camera collaborators. Gordon Willis, the great cinematographer, talks about how unusual it was to have been asked to shoot a comedy, and how they processed the film for "Zelig." Marshall Brickman, who wrote "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" with Allen, and Douglas McGrath, who collaborated on "Bullets Over Broadway," speak of Allen's writing process. McGrath does an entertaining imitation of Allen's voice while describing the madness of writing "Bullets over Broadway" while knee-deep in the traumatic days of Allen's divorce. Brickman doesn't get how the "Manhattan" that made it to theaters in 1979 was so vastly different from whatever Allen originally saw in his head to make him dislike the picture so much. After all, Allen directed it. Perhaps the story Allen tells about a letter Chekhov wrote to a budding writer holds the key to his disdain.
And on and on. "Woody Allen: A Documentary" takes us right up to his current feature, and his most successful in decades, "Midnight in Paris." Told in two parts, the first section ends with 1980's "Stardust Memories," a movie Allen meant to be Felliniesque but critics saw as a Lauryn Hill-style hate letter to his fans. Weide smartly shows us Pauline Kael's searing last line from her review and the most memorable shot from the film. In it, Sharon Stone shows us the one set of lips on the female form that aren't automatically rated R, blowing a kiss to the director from a train. At the time, "Stardust Memories" seemed as if it might be the end of Allen's career, and it makes for a good cliffhanger ending.
The second part ends with a line from Woody Allen that is pure genius, both in its Billy Wilder style placement (it's the last line) and its delivery. It's almost worth seeing the documentary just for that, but the rest of "Woody Allen: A Documentary" is worth the time of fans and haters alike. If nothing else, the longevity of Allen's career, and the places his muse has taken him, demand respect and attention. Earlier, I said I considered watching this film a challenge, but by its end I realized a lot more of Allen's movies fell for me on the "like" side than the "dislike" side of the chasm between love and hate. It's just that when I hated his movies, I really hated them, and that sometimes overshadowed the truth.
With its jazz soundtrack, simple looking credits and occasional one-liners from its lead, "Woody Allen: A Documentary" feels crafted by Allen himself. It's as if the documentary stood next to Zelig, but turned into him instead. This is a great piece of nonfiction filmmaking. Not that you asked, but my favorite film of his remains the first one I ever saw: "Sleeper."
Watch Woody Allen: A Documentary on PBS. See more from AMERICAN MASTERS.
(Page layout by Jim Emerson)
_ _ _ _ _
A globetrotting computer programmer by trade and movie lover by hobby, Odie Henderson has contributed to Slant Magazine's The House Next Door since 2006. Additionally, his work has appeared at Movies Without Pity (2008) and numerous other sites. He currently runs the blog Tales of Odienary Madness and is the troublemaker behind the Black History Mumf series at Big Media Vandalism.
I loved this article. I can't wait to see this documentary tomorrow. You aren't the only one that loved "Deconstructing Harry" and "Manhattan Murder Mystery". Also, "Hollywood Ending" was not as bad in my opinion. I actually enjoyed it as well. I also think that "Manhattan" was one of the most beautifully shot films, but besides that I can't think of anything about that film that sticks out in my mind. My least favorite film by Allen is probably "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger". I turned that film off after watching only 30 minutes of it.
I'm with you on "Sleeper." It's the first of his films (as director) that I saw also, and though it doesn't have the intellectual weight of many of his later films, It remains his funniest.
Brandon, I think Hemingway is excellent in Manhattan, so she and the cin-tog are the two things I always remember. Being from just across the Hudson, I've always loved the passages where Willis turns his camera on the sites. But I just don't buy the rest of the movie. I've been writing a piece on Manhattan and Midnight in Paris, explaining their similarities and my issues with the former film. When I finish it, I'll probably load it up on my blog. I was indifferent toward "Tall Dark Stranger," but I didn't hate it outright like I did "Scoop" or "Match Point."
Sam, I also love "Love and Death." I like "Bananas" too. Intellectual weight is overrated!
I've been getting a lot of shit over "Annie Hall," (like I care) but "The Purple Rose of Cairo" is to me what "Annie Hall" is to most Allen fans.
Great article. I didn't know this was going to air this Sunday/Monday; PBS has been putting out a lot of great stuff on Sundays the last few weeks! I always liked the story about how he said he would make another movie for free if they kept Manhattan locked up in the vault. It would have been kind of sad had that actually happened, but funny he offered that to them.
Adam
" a Tea Party rally, with all that "it's so much better in the past" nonsense."
Isn't that point entirely contradicted by Owen Wilson's speech at the end of the film?
Of course, everyone has an opinion but I can't just sit here quietly when someone says he or she doesn't see anything beyond Manhattan's obvious black and white perfection. I've lived in California all my life and Manhattan made me wish I were a New Yorker. Yes, all the landmarks are there and it's a valentine to NYC. But to say one cannot recall anything beyond that is beyond me. Gershwin, pop cultural references that presciently pointed out the masses' current fascination with vapidity and yet pointing fun at pretentiousness (i.e., the academy of the overrated), satirizing Nazis, the wrong kind of orgasm, and on and on. In a city where the slightest insecurity or the drive for success can eat you up, Woody's character, through self-examination, discovers what makes life worth living. I like lists, and Groucho Marx, Willie Mays, Louis Armstrong, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, the apples and pears of Cezanne, and the memory of someone who left joy in my life were all right on the money.
And how could you forget one of the great tear drops in all of cinema?
You're overestimating your contrarianism. Manhattan Murder Mystery and Deconstructing Harry are both generally well-liked among Woody fans.
Greg, the operative words in your comment are AT THE END OF THE FILM.
Interesting review. The documentary, incidentally, is nothing short of marvelous, and should be seen by anyone who ever enjoyed a Woody Allen movie. Small quibble: Woody Allen NEVER wrote for "Your Show of Shows." This is one of those mythical statements that keeps getting repeated, but is STILL not true. Woody Allen worked on two or three Sid Caesar specials in the late '50s - several years after "Your Show of Shows" ended its run in 1954. For Woody to have been a writer on YSOS, he would have to have been, at the most, eighteen. This superb documentary does not repeat the common misconception that he wrote for Show of Shows, although it doesn't really clarify that he wrote for a few Caesar specials at a still relatively early age.
Andrew, I never said I was a contrarian, and I shouldn't be classified as such. Being a contrarian would imply that I gave the opposite opinion on a film simply to clash with popular opinion. This is untrue. I recall Deconstructing Harry getting several bad reviews and complaints of misogyny upon release, and also remember several complaints about how MMM failed to capture the Keaton-Allen magic of their earlier work. So I stand by what I wrote.
Steve, thank you for the correction.
Jeff, I'll let Brandon speak for himself. As for me:
I worked in Manhattan for 20 years, and lived directly across the river from it for 37. (I was born in Jersey City.) You have some misconceptions about New York City, and I'm going to blame Woody for that. Dream all you want, but the grass is always greener on the other side.
As for Manhattan (the place), it looks better in black and white, and the images Allen and Willis capture are the best thing about the film. It always evokes in me a sense of romanticism for the city, a reminder of why I love New York City so much (even if it doesn't live up to this fantasy). I'll give you Gershwin as a globally memorable aspect, for certain. But everything else is YOUR memory, and your memory isn't mine. Having decades of firsthand knowledge of the landscape, I would most likely take something different from the film than you would.
It is obvious that this film is special to you, and I find no fault in that at all. I endorse this kind of passion, even if I don't feel it myself.
"Greg, the operative words in your comment are AT THE END OF THE FILM."
What difference does it make? It's pretty clearly meant to be the main point Allen is making about nostalgia, and the fact at the Wilson character comes to that realization is a large part of the reason he turns out happy at the end-- not to mention the fact that the era Wilson is initially so enamored with is artsy, free-love 1920s Paris, which would make any comparison to a Tea Party rally a bit, I don't know, inappropriate?
I don't disagree with your general assessment of the movie, but your description of it makes it sound like you walked out midway through.
Greg, the line that precedes the one with which you have trouble is:
"He can expect a 22nd nomination for "Midnight In Paris," which I cop to liking but not with the slobbering praise afforded it by most critics."
How do you get that I walked out of it midway? I said I liked it.
Yes, WIlson's last speech puts the nostalgia aspect into perspective, but until that point, his character was enamored of a past that Allen scripts a hell of a lot better than he does the present. The movie feels stacked for much of its running time, with the folks in Wilson's "present" a bunch of one-note assholes. Compared to those people, I'd want to stay in the past too. The list I cited in the piece above went through my head while watching "Midnight In Paris." It's what the film made me think of during its runtime, and my comment wasn't meant to be political or even critical.
I love "Play it again Sam". He didn't direct it,but it's one of my favorites! I also enjoy "Radio Days". And I must admit, I like his earlier funny work ; )
Crimes and Misdemenors was his best movie, but I'm also quite fond of Zelig, Hannah and Her Sisters, Midsummer's Night Sex Comedy, Radio Days, Manhattan and Sleeper. Both Purple Rose and Midnight in Paris, while amusing, are surprisingly similar. I look forward to seeing the documentary.
odienator, I hear what you're saying and of course I lived through a movie and you lived your life there. However, when I was a young man I managed to have two 3-day weekends on my own in Manhattan over my lifetime and the grass WAS greener, at least for me during those visits. In a way, I experienced the opposite of Tom Baxter: I took that horse-drawn carriage with a young woman; I walked the streets of Brooklyn watching schoolchildren make drug scores amongst the escaping steam up thru grates; took a nap on a Central Park bench; walked down Malcom X Boulevard one afternoon; left Birdland around 2 AM hoping to share a subway with some patrons only to find everyone else took a cab; ate shrimp scampi two tables away from the beautiful Max Roach & his Quartet at the Blue Note; sat on the steps of the MOA watching the world walk by; and took in Dorothy Lang at the Gugenheim.
As I stood on a Park Slope apartment rooftop, I smiled and thanked Woody, Scorcese, and Coppola - everything I saw in their movies was just like I imagined them.
It seems futile to examine Woody on a film by film basis, given that he's made a film every year for four decades. When audiences were put off by 'Stardust' following 'Manhattan,' they understandably lacked the foresight he would be around for many, many more years and it was just one of hundreds of ideas bouncing around his head. As much as I love "the early, funny ones," it was when Fellini and Bergman started informing his films that I began to feel a deep connection to his work and what he had to say about life, love and death, mainly. His plots were imaginative and unorthodox, the relationships ugly and honest, and death's roar bittersweet and deafening. As I later learned during my own years in New York, the city is rarely a romance set to Gershwin, but it is a place beaming with energy and intellectuals, and Woody's films made it okay to be smart and to love the arts, but always reminded us to leave the pretension at home, as he poked fun at society-types and academics. It's been a wonderful journey following his films all these years. Many I've loved, a few I've disliked, but Allen has always had something worthwhile to say.
I thoroughly enjoyed part one of the documentary this evening. It reminded me what an impact his work had on me as a young man and that you're never too old to be creative.
Interiors needs more laughs.
Jeff, sounds like you need to write about those adventures. I've certainly had numerous wonderful experiences here. I love when people come to visit because I get to see everything through their eyes, and I enjoy that romanticism.
I sure hope you didn't thank Coppola for that horrible New York Stories episode he did.
Randolph, What's your favorite Woody Allen movie?
Don't miss tonight's episode, especially the part where every single interviewee uses the same verb to describe something Allen does.
Chuck, were there ANY laughs in Interiors?
Anyone who hates "Match Point" - one of the most pervusasively and poweful statements on human condition and the absurdity of it all and doesn't appreicate "Manhattan" doesn't have taste.
Also, if you honestly believe that Allen "hates" most of his movies doesn't understand Woody Allen. He is a perfectionist and his own take on films is entirely dependend on how much it matches up with his original vision as opposed to actual worth.
Anyone who ever tried to write or create should understand that.
Also, the man is entirely too humble. Take his self-criticism with the grain of salt and from the right angle. Despite having over 20! Oscar nominations he never attended the cereomony once. That's how extreme he is.
And Allen is second to only perhaps Spielberg in his body of work in cinema. He is a master filmmaker with range that constantly eclipses most of his fans and critics alike.
Purple Rose of Cairo, Match Point, Manhattan, Hanna, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Radio Days, etc... are all masterpieces.
The man is a treasure.
Great article, I just feel its necessary to point out that the the point of Midnight In Paris was that its fallacious and damaging to keep thinking of everything being better in the past. What seems to be your key problem with the film should in fact be something you like about it...
The highlight of "Part One" for me was the clip of the indelible moment in "Stardust Memories," in which the festival-goer mentions how much she loves Sandy Bates' "early funny ones." She was my aunt Vicki (Victoria Zussin), whom Woody used in a couple of his films.
I don't criticize you for disliking Woody Allen's movies. I appreciate your honesty and your article is very well written. I do, however, have to take umbrage with your remark about "Midnight In Paris". I don't understand your statement about it being like a Tea Party rally, especially since Allen takes a nice blunt jab at the Tea Party movement that he obviously disstaines. I also don't understand your "everything was better in the past critique", since the whole point of the movie was the opposite of that statement.
I'm a huge Woody fan, but Annie Hall leaves me...I don't want to say "cold", because it IS a good movie, I just don't quite get why it generally seems to be considered his best. Hell, I prefer Manhattan Murder Mystery to Annie Hall. It's just so much damn fun.
If you ask me (which you don't), I'd say Crimes and Misdemeanours is his best. Not necessarily my favourite, but his best. Such an incredible balancing act and a remarkable feat of writing and directing.
Oldie -- While it is refreshing to see a critic state plainly their likes and dislikes I do find it a bit broad to use the word 'hate' so casually. And let me join the chorus in saying your dismissal of Midnight in Paris is just flatly off-the-mark. The films main point is that we all feel nostalgia, but like anything taken too far it can become a trap. I don't think I'm just 'slobbering' in holding this film in high regard.
Excellent article. Thank you!
I enjoyed the doc, which I found reinforced Woody's own approach to moviemaking, as do this blog and the comments. Woody has made it clear that his own pleasure and artistic enjoyment are what keep him in the business. It's individual taste that matters. His favorite and least favorite moments are purely his own. Nearly all of the comments here are statements of personal taste and preference.
Woody's movies allow us to pick our favorite movies, scenes, actors and individual lines. While we often share likes and dislikes with others, we all are somewhat different. There are so many choices. I'm very much a fan of Manhattan and especially Hemingway's sweet performance. It doesn't bother me at all that Woody doesn't like the movie nearly as much as I do. It was that movie that made me a loving fan of Gershwin music.
I enjoyed Woody's comments about how well he enjoys writing strong women characters. He does that very well. He was very open about his relationships with Lasser, Keaton and Farrow, but said little about Soon-Yi. The doc didn't mention that it's the latter relationship that has been the most lasting- almost 20 years. How many other movie legacies are so important?
I don't think I dismiss the movie at all. I said I liked it, just not as much as a lot of the critics (some of whom do indeed slobber all over it--and what's wrong with slobber?). I purposely wrote that sentence as a trap to see how many people would fall into it and zero in on the least important part of it. In that regard, it's a raging success.
But, for the record, I did like "Midnight In Paris" (I gave it a B) and while it does indeed correct its nostalgia-fueled whimsy, it also spends much of the movie in it. The things I thought about while watching the film are mentioned in the sentence people can't just get enough of out here.
As for hate, perhaps I shouldn't have said Woody hates his movies. That's strong and you have a point. I was, however correct when I said I hated some of his movies.
That's a good point about Soon-Yi. Why do you think they didn't focus so much on her? Do you think that the documentarian was afraid there was still some publicity-based ill will out there for the relationship?
There's a term for folks like you, Odie. It's 'contrarian'. Contrarians are among the most annoying, egomaniacal, self-absorbed people in the world. And they are rarely as intelligent and they think they are, mostly because they fail to see the obvious lack of insight in their "thinking". To basically always concentrate on refuting the more popular or common take on ideas/works/opinions, etc. you fail to see the glaring reality of there being valid points/reasoning on the other side. It's stupid, childish and damned annoying.
Odie: And there's a term for folks like you, but my mother raised me better, so I'll keep my mouth shut. You ARE right about one thing: My ego IS huge and you only feed its mania by mentioning it.
As I read about a third of this unfortunate convoluted column, I grew weary. Then, at the half-way point, I just gave up. The problem is this: not only is the writing all over the place in terms of analytical thought, but it's also ridiculously snarky. More often than not, the use of snark indicates a lack of ideas and creativity, as evidenced here. It also highlights a lack of curiosity on the part of the writer. This column proves that having all the space in the world in which to pontificate is often a bad thing. Columns such as this one cry out for an editor.
Odie: You know, whenever I stop reading a post, I don't waste MORE time on the site telling the author. That's so self-important! Here's a tip: I don't care if you read three words or the entire thing. I already got your hit for coming here AND I got you to waste more time bitching about it! So thanks!
That was my mistake. I remembered the YSOS credit from a Baseline biography we used in Cinemania... and it turns out it was wrong! You're right that he worked on some TV specials, and that's a picture of him and colleagues "pitching ideas" to Sid Caesar for one of them, above.
Editor Emerson regrets the Error!