Around the time I saw "Interiors" in 1978, I learned that John Williams the guitarist and John Williams the composer were two different people. I walked out of "Interiors" convinced there must be two different writer-directors named Woody Allen. The truth floored me.
The beauty of these films, which are about PEOPLE, and so well written and acted and allowed to play out in long takes in interesting spaces is why I'm so frustrated by the fake horsesh*t of Marvel Comics Universe and all the cartoonish BS today. Younger film fans are missing out on real cinema. Hopefully your channel's superb analyses will wake some people up who've been sleeping and passively guzzling down mindless franchise garbage.
About 90% of pop culture has always been crap (this is not a new phenomenon) and lot of Marvel’s recent ventures have lost money. We still have auteurs being able to direct their personal projects, i.e., Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, et. al.
As someone who is a introvert I completely agree with the statement that his films are "about PEOPLE, and so well written and acted and allowed to play out in long takes in interesting spaces" They are grate films if you are Lonely, Suffer from social anxiety, Introverted or a people watcher. However Hollywood has always put out mind numbing trash.
I agree about Match Point. I have missed most of Allens later films but caught this one night on tv by accident. I've rewatched it a few times since, terrific film. Great video.
This was interesting and eye-opening. It reminds me of the Annie Hall scene at the snooty party when he goes off to watch basketball: Robin: What is so fascinating about a group of pituitary cases trying to stuff a ball through a hoop? Alvy: What is fascinating is that it's physical. You know, it's one thing about intellectuals. They prove that you can be absolutely brilliant and have no idea what's going on. I think Allen's personal interests in literature, sports, and even music give him a unique insight, and that even as his films got more cerebral they also (as you make clear) also got more physical in their own way.
A typical great line from the Alvy character, but Annie Hall, the movie that is, is tricky: I think he's really talking about himself - without, aptly to the line, knowing it. The whole movie is about this character's terrible lack of self-awareness, all covered up by his cleverness.
This movie will always be funny to me. Whoever did the casting was really good at picking the best of the best. They all understood the assignment: play your part with extreme seriousness and don't respond to the gags and one-liners. I wish modern comedies understood the comedic effect of a deadpan performance.
This guy is better than film school. Video tutorials will teach you how to use your camera and sound equipment. But knowing what to put in front of the camera and why is the real challenge. I've never found a better resource for that then this channel.
The scene of him walking into the horse is one of the funniest things I have ever watched. Linklater imitated Allen's style brilliantly in Before Sunrise. Match Point in excellent in my opinion. Maybe my favorite movie of his and one of my favorite movies of all time.
The thing is, there's a purity to the non-style of the early shambolic comedies, and their filmic competence is almost beside the point. The key thing is to have seen these with audiences back in the day in a theater to really appreciate them. I saw them in arthouse theaters where the comedy and the attitude of those early flicks carried the day. Another thing is these movies broached raunchy topics that were new to the American screen, especially coming from a major comedian. By the way, the three movies you chose as his best are indeed at the apex of his art. Bullets Over Broadway is one of my favorite films.
Woody Allen was a great director. What is really surprising, though, is that he absolutely hates "Manhattan", and didn't want it released after it was finished. And this is a movie my wife and I both really like. Especially the opening shots of New York, where his love for the city is so apparent. And the scene at the Brooklyn Bridge, when he joins Diane Keaton on a dog walk? Gorgeous; stunning; incredible. Later, when he did "Interiors", this was obviously his homage film to his favorite director, Ingmar Bergman. And I totally agree that "Broadway Danny Rose" is an overlooked masterpiece. Thank you so much for reminding me, once again, of a director who has somehow gotten lost in the pantheon of great film makers. A humble suggestion. Perhaps taking a look at the directing career of Jerry Lewis. Too often sloppy sentimentality, but his sight gags, in particular, could be compared to Tati, IMO.
Woody doesn't get enough respect as a film-maker, and particularly as a scriptwriter. There's a reason why he is the most Oscar nominated film-maker in history.
A toast for Sir Woody Allen a True Cinema Genius! and thanks for the video it's much awaited and wow!! what a true praise and tribute to an extraordinary master of craft...
I would very highly rank "Stardust Memories," "Scoop," "Curse of the Jade Scorpion," and the sublime "Magic In the Moonlight." And an honorable mention to "Manhattan Murder Mystery." These pictures represent some of the best screenplays in modern American cinema.
The movie that put Allen in my mind as great director was Crimes and Misdemeanors: it seems trivial, almost foolish at the start, specially Allen's subplot, with two unrelated parallel stories but when Allen and Martin Landau meet at the end the whole movie fits together beautifully. One man oblivious of what would do a good tragic story, thinking that it needs punishment, atonement or redemption, and one that reached the conclusion that will never be redemption for him. It is not a happy ending, it is not a sad ending, it is not even an ending. But is perfect. A reflection on storytelling. I know it is not a popular opinion, by the way. But I think most people just focused on the surface and thought as Allen's character did.
I know Bergman was a big influence on Woody, and Bergman came from that time in late 60s early 70s where Swedish cinema was slow - static camera, off-screen action, and generally low-key. I recall "Interiors' in a double-feature with "Cries and Whispers': Not good. Not just the comparing, but oh, boy, that was more depression than I needed in one sitting. Ah, well.
I would love to see your comments on Stanley Kubrick. I noticed, in The Shining, he seems to film a lot of dialogue scenes in the standard way, but he often emphasizes the background of the shot (Like Jack's face against the red and white). The Shining also relies less on dialogue than many other movies. I heard he spent a lot of time developing techniques for facial close ups. I would love to see what you think of his directing in general, and his shot compositions especially. I really like your videos because they are much more technical than a lot of youtubers, which is the most interesting part for me.
I love Kubrick, but there are so many videos about him already I never considered making one. Maybe an idea will come someday, but there's nothing in the works. I joke that he's the only filmmaker who's one of the greatest of all time and one of the most overrated of all time (just because of the overwhelming amount of material on him). The Shining indeed uses close-ups better than most films, as it does steadicam movement. There's an eerie, uncanny quality to them I should look into. Thank you for the comment!
@@Moviewise I can definitely see why you would avoid making videos about such well known directors, but if the inspiration ever hits, I would love to watch it! I still think you would have a lot add. You turned me on to Last Year at Marienbad and Muriel, which are both some of my favorite movies now. I will be watching The Shining in theaters for the first time tonight. I feel like, after watching some of your videos, it is a lot easier for me to put into words what I like or don't like about a movie now. Love your videos!
@@Moviewise Thank God. Kubrick is so over analyzed and over-covered. Glad you grasp this. I'm sure you would do a great job, but there's enough out there already.
Sharing birthday with Hitler is how I remember my birthday. About Woody's "downfall": it could be because his "actors entourage" got too old, and in some cases nuts, and he never managed to rebuild his favorite list of actors. Emma Stone, Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Larry David is just not right for a Woody Allen film. For me it was 'The Curse of the Jade Scorpion' that signaled that Woody had peaked. He would often forget his lines but in order to not lose momentum he would start rambling until he said something that he deemed good enough. You could say that Woody Allen always had a certain rambling quality to his dialog but there's a fine line between what's the correct amount and what's way too much. Café Society, Magic in Moonlight, Blue Jasmine, and Midnight in Paris are ok movies but nothing I particularly care to watch again. Woody's best/underrated movie is Radio Days. His worst movie is Interiors! Woody Allen is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Say this to one of your "tough guy" friends who only like mafia movies and see them go nuts. Like your subjective meaning is categorically wrong according to science. Few movie makers has made this many movies that you can watch over and over. Stanley Kubrick is great but I don't feel like watching 'A Space Odyssey' 5 times a year.
I think you are correct that The Curse of the Jade Scorpion was the point of marked decline. Even some of the lesser movies before that still had energy and inspiration. I wanted Curse to be as good a movie as its concept and production design but it really goes nowhere with the idea.
I saw Bullets Over Broadway when it came out. I was 14. I'll never forgot it and I think about it often. The ending to Annie Hall haunts me too, it's perfect.
I wonder if the "walk away" out of frame leaving just the environment is a sort of Ozu-like effect? Maybe not, but you pointing out that shot style got me thinking. Thanks for stoking our mental juices.
Very interesting! My fav Woody films have always been Love&Death and Manhattan... But I really never considered his directing talents, so thanx for that!
His genius is comedic. That's how he introduced himself. There are videos of his beginning stand-up on late night tv. Many hits, got the laugh, all with original material. Movies let him create sight gags, also very good or better than his stand-up, contrasting with verbal limited stand-up. (Boxing with a kangaroo had been done.) But drama works only as a send up for his comedy, no matter how good the drama is. We have drama. We need his comedy. Laughing, especially by smart comedy, is good for us, it's healthy.
The movie "Interiors" did something (to me) that no other film had. It (unconsciously) reset the way my mind registered colors. Remember how vivid Maureen Stapleton's big red scarf was on the beach? Well, when I walked back home from the movie theater, *colors looked different.*
Thanks for this. I can't speak as eloquently on their behalf, but I do have a soft spot for Manhattan and particularly the very underrated Stardust Memories.
Being a Hollywood director is a collaborative endeavour. Especially... because in the US, each part of the production team, has a great deal of influence on what is filmed. If you bring the 'best 'talent' to your project... the results will always be professional. And even possibly... attain the status of becoming cinematic art. Ridley Scott is the master of bringing real 'talent behind the screen' into his films. He a so-so director... but the production values of his films are superlative. Most of the other 'creative decisions' he makes... are silly and dumb-headed. All of his films are spoilt by his gun-for-hire attitude to filmmaking. There's the same sort of a problem with Woody Allen... If Woody Allen were a restaurant... he'd be a drive-in takeaway. His films are pencil notes on scrapes of paper... barely gone over twice, before committing them to script form. He's an itchy-pants director. He's constantly moving on. You feel this, when taking all of his projects as a whole. They feel 'slight' - like a series of short sketches drawn out ad infinitum. As an amusing, but light short story teller... as a quick bite to eat, he's fine. But as someone that could be mistaken for a great storyteller, a great film director... no, not really. He makes so many films, therefore he knows how to make movies... as anyone that does something repetitively for such a long period of time... would eventually gather enough experience to be proficient. With the collaborative aspect of US movie making... he has always made professional looking films. But something vitally important is always missing. Maybe that's because Allen is a clown and clowns forever hide their true selves, from everybody... including themselves.
Rather than subscribing to your channel, I'm giving each episode I watch a 'thumbs up,' thereby slowing down the appearance of succeeding installments in my feed. Such stellar content should be savored.
Thank you for pointing out his technical skills as a director. I haven’t brought myself to watch one of his movies in years because it occurred to me while watching one that ALL of his characters sound like they are doing an impersonation of him. The best conclusion I could come to is that someone who can care so much about a story that they would write it down, figure out how to get it produced, direct and perhaps act out one of the characters has either a huge ego or a message they are passionate about. Because Mr. Allen’s characters all end up sounding so much like him it makes me think that his projects have such sustained passion because it is all about him stroking his own ego of genius. Watching his movies feels like I am watching his dreams. He is every character even if projected into someone else’s visage. And I’m just not interested in buying into a content creator’s megalomania. I prefer to see stories about a variety of people and their various evolutions. I don’t think I would have considered his directoral skills independently of his writing and acting if you hadn’t pointed them out. Thank you. I will give a nod to his ability to direct. Yet I still don’t think I will have the patience to indulge him by watching his films. And a question for you Mr. Moviewise - because I have only seen a couple of Mr. Allen’s movies - could you name/recommend one of his films where there is a character with an authentic contrasting voice to his protagonists?
It's no longer socially acceptable to be a Woody Allen fan, and we all know why. Setting aside the person from the artist, my goodness, he had one of the best runs as a director between '77 and '97. Each film has a distinct characteristic in style and language from the previous one. I truly believe he didn't make a single bad film during that period, and they were all beautifully shot by some of the greatest cinematographers: Gordon Willis, Carlo Di Palma, Sven Nykvist. He's been incredibly important to my life as a cinephile; I've been watching his films since I can remember.
Too many people aren't interested in films that make them think. Quick action, and one liners are more for them. When someone says 'let's go see the new Woody film' the conversation often turns to how his old stuff was better. That conversation still happens, even now.
It looks like I'm unrefined. I enjoyed his first movies and I remember more from them than his masterpieces. I don't even remember when I stopped giving his movies a shot to bore me. Maybe I was too young when he was maturing as a director. I actually discovered him with after Annie Hall. Then I went back, laughed out loud with his earlier movies and when I came back to the "great" ones, they were so dull and depressing by comparison. I definitely didn't watch anything from the era in which huge Hollywood stars ran to his movies to seem deep and serious actors. I get the mastery of these movies, from watching this video. Doesn't make me want to watch them 😢
Try Match Point. You would never know Allen directed it. As an Allen fan, I saw it in the theater and couldn't believe it. I'll bet you'll like it if you like dramas.
Really enjoyed the video! Saw his early films but a bit hit & miss at watching the middle period ones. Only watched Hannah & her sisters about 5 years ago. Not see any of the more recent work. I obviously have some catching up to do.
All that you say about camera work and editing are brilliant observations and I agree. But to me, Woody is a great writer of original fiction. My picks are: Broadway Danny Rose New York Stories Small time Crooks and Crimes and Misdemeanors I agree with you about Manhattan...I suspect that he is miserable living London
Great video, but Sweet and Lowdown and Blue Jasmine deserved a mention among the great ones. Wonder Wheel is not at the same level, but the photography and Kate Winslet’s acting make it worthwhile.
This was a great video, thank you for it. One thing, though, it would have been great to have seen you thoughts about "Husbands and Wives." That's super innovative, I think, visually, and arguably unique in his repertoire in that regard; do any of his other films look like it? With that energy? (Like when Judy Davis tries to race off in the cab but drops all her things on the pavement and mad scrambles to collect them.). In fact, I feel like "Succession" draws a lot from the visual style of that film. Anyway, not to be that guy, but I would have loved your thoughts about film. :)
I've seen a lot of his movies. most of the time it would on somewhere and i could get sucked in by the dialogue or story some how. I would often ask myself , why i am watching a woody allen movie? now i know. thanks bro.
I haven’t seen anybody else mention this, so I’ll say it. I really appreciate a channel that focuses on the art and not the artist, especially not the artist, personal life. whatever an artist might be guilty of or accused of is a matter for law-enforcement, and not art critics. If Woody Allen was found to be a mass murderer, it wouldn’t change the value of his artwork one bit. I thought it was hilarious in your one video where you said think like Roman Polanski, and had the song thank heaven for little girls🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 then you moved right along, without some kind of moral grandstanding. I was surprised because I have become so accustomed to the perfunctory moralizing.
@@noctap0d he earned his clout, fool. His personal conduct has nothing to do with his professional career. If the man who created penicillin was a murderer, would you stop taking it? Would you refuse to acknowledge the great achievement that it was?
@@Gumbyloomy the point isn't how necessary the thing is. The point is that the value and achievement isn't diminished by the conduct of the creator. If you don't like penicillin replace it with any other thing of value that required unique skill to achieve. The principle is the same.
I have had a love of those great films you selected over the decades, but those of us with a moral compass stuck up our asses are still left with the elephant in the room that is his distasteful but not illegal relationship with his ex wife's adopted daughter. She might also be his kryptonite though, as his directorial greatness has fell off a cliff since they have been together.
If his earliest films are among the funniest, then they are well directed. I appreciate your videos, but what you are espousing is orthodoxy. It's more insightful to say this is how he shot his early films and this his later and this is what those two approaches lead to. I'm bet a lot of people watch videos like this and come away thinking they understand film, when all they really understand are your preferences. I think this is why David Bordwell's approach is the best way to actually stimulate critical thinking. Avoid imposing hierarchies, instead analyze the effects.
WHATEVER! 😜 Thanks for the course in "visual story-telling"! 😂 Actually, it's NOT simply that he learned and grew as a filmmaker but that when you're starting out and your budget is LIMITED, you can't afford the best in the business such as Gordon Willis or Vittorio Storaro Orson Welles didn't start out in film but in theater and radio. When RKO gave him carte blanche to make "Citizen Kane," he got THE BEST in the business: cinematographer Greg Tolland, and TOGETHER they came up with a masterpiece So, come on! Movies are accidental collaborative efforts and it's a MIRACLE they turn out as well as they do or EVEN at all. IF it were THAT EASY, EVERY MOVIE would be a masterpiece. The fact that "masterpieces" are few and far between goes to show that ALL the unbelievable factors that can make a movie great coming together at the same time, is as likely as lightning 🌩 striking the very same place twice 😂
Don't know mate. I enjoy your analyses and often watch them several times. I feel like I am learning more about how films should be made (BLOCKING!) and why I enjoy the films I do love. Mostly, I agree with your analysis of Woody Allen's films and feel like I understand them better now. However, when it comes to 'Match Point' we must part ways. Technically I suppose it is well done, and it is certainly well acted, but it is morally vacuous and so I cannot see it as a great film. In fact, I was extremely disappointed at the ending, especially the trite ball thing. Probably just me, people I otherwise respect think it is a great film, but as a Neonoir it stinks. I have, perhaps, too much of a film noir point of view but, as with 'Charley Varrick' an otherwise potentially great Neonoir, it failed at the critical moment because it had no moral centre (compare the ending of Kubrick's 'The Killing' to 'Charley Varrick') That may sound moralistic (it is), but that is what these types of films depend upon - a moral failure - and all of Allen's career depended on making fun off of (or exposing) the moral failures of his society.
I can't condone what Woody Allen has done as a person, but i respect the hell out of him as a filmmaker. His brand of humor isn't too vulgar, its quirky and relatable. Even tho he didn't direct it (but he wrote and starred in it), my favorite movie of his is Play It Again Sam. Great video!!!
Allen was never a pedophile. The accusation, from his vindictive, cheating girlfriend, has always been absurd. Rape doesn't happen in a crowded home by taking a child upstairs for a quickie. That's a philandering scenario, not a rape scenario. Mia Farrow is evil.
He has never been charged with a crime and Mia's son Moses says he did nothing. He has been tried in the media and that's never a good idea. I too love Play It Again, Sam.
@Neilips thanks for clearing that up. Woody's always seemed like an eccentric buy overall OK guy but u guess there's always been some speculation behind his past relationships.
@@N_Loco_Parenthesis Spot on, and thank you. What Farrow did to the rep of a great artist--and to her daughter, whose mind she destroyed--is unforgivable. And BTW, Allen was cleared of all Farrow's vicious and spurious accusations in two courts, in two different states. Have you read his autobiography, "Apropos of Nothing?" A treat.
Really thorough analysis. Congratulations on your work but to me He is a competent but not a great director saved by good editors: Morse and Rosenblum. You wouldn't put him in the same sentence as Truffaut, Renoir, Griffiths, Brunel and Hitchcock. Once the editors were gone the flaws in his style became apparent
I watch a lot of Woody Allen movies (five last week), I'm a huge fan of his work. Especially, the early funny ones. However, I personally find his "flat oners" make me feel as if I'm watching a theatre production. I don't find them cinematic at all. They feel lazy to me. Particularly when up against a similar scene directed by someone like The Cohen Brothers or Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
How did Gordon Willis light those flat oners? I know he tended to like natural lights and practicals, but would that be the case for that beautiful shot of the apartment in Manhattan?
How can you not love him? How about because he’s a predator and a child molester? I don’t think we are lacking in movies to watch so badly that we have to highlight his work.
"Highlight" ? Do you just mean "don't talk about him outside your own home?" Newsflash. 90 percent of hollywood people are horrible people In fact that applies to all the human beings on planet earth. You're not doing anything good by telling people who they can and can't talk about, so grow up.
Why music? I'm a composer who works with vids in background. Music is instant clickout. I like your vids better without music. You don't need it also it's a bit manipulative even if it's Woody's fave Dixieland. A very low Stardust (very low volume) is superb. Louie Armstrong's version is transcendental. Stardust Memories, music done right. I am not a fan of Dixieland jazz and I do respect swinging technique.
@@HolographicSweaterYou mean Take the Money and Run, Annie Hall, Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Everyone Says I Love You, Deconstructing Harry, Sweet & Lowdown, and Midnight in Paris are all the same movie? Jeez, I must be incurably schizophrenic EDIT: I know what you mean tho, his films are typically concerned with the relationships of upper crust manhattanites. But even this is played with in so many different ways that it becomes arbitrary to be hung up about
Well it seems to me you just like the pretentious, dark, art movie style of Gordon Willis (which so suited the Godfather but dragged down Woody's films) and the overly precious blocking that goes with it that I personally find tedious. It is Woody's 70s comedies that are his greatest films and are worthy of close analysis by those who want to do comedy. So many filmmakers who attempt to do physical comedy cut too much , get too close and undercut the joke. Woody never does. I'd probably vote for Sleeper as his best directed film. His early style perfectly suits the quick procession of gags. Anyone who thinks the dull banality of Crimes & Misdemeanors is a great film is just an overly intellectual bore who mistakes darkness for profundity. Sleeper has much more to say about life-and has a good time doing it.
Crimes & Misdemeanours is incredible. You're mistaken if you think it is boring or overly dark, half of the film is a comedy filled with gags and wit, and the two narratives (light & dark) feed off of and into one another. Give it another watch sometime
Yup, hit did hit a Zenith. But his film have become unwatchable. Not (only) because of his repugnant morals, but also his overly wordy dialogue. It's become difficult to watch as his actors try to squeeze it all in and in a believable fashion. AND the dialogue sound like the same character in different actors voices.
You are sadly misinformed as to his morals, and I have to wonder if you've even seen "Match Point," "Magic In the Moonlight," "Scoop," or "Curse of the Jade Scorpion;" these are some of the most original screenplays in modern cinema.
She was not his step daughter. She was Andre Previn's step daughter with Mia Farrow. Farrow and Allen were boyfriend and girlfriend, in no way married, and they lived across the street from each other, yet neither ever spent the night at the other one's place. Everything you know about the situation is a lie. Two courts in two states exonerated him. He started dating Soon-Yi when she was 19. They've been married over 25 years. Read Woody's funny autobio, Apropos of Nothing, and learn the truth.@@memonk11
Um...I was a motion picture projectionist for 25 years. You're starting to remind me of that Firesign Theater album from the 60s: "Everything You Know Is Wrong." @@memonk11
no way, God redeemed him for being such a great director. He would be going to heaven if it wasn't for that crude 'centerfold' joke. God hates Playboy. (He prefers Hustler.)
Claims without evidence are merely opinion. Perhaps for the 'monster' label you might look at, say, George W Bush or Tony Blair who remain lionised by the intellectual class.
Mr Allen is not sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. There is no evidence at all for the bitter, vindictive attack on him by is former wife, as two police investigations made clear.
![CWC 4th Listening Session with Speaker Prof. Dr. Ilia Delio OSF [ENGLISH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w49_TcqaCeU/mqdefault.jpg)
Around the time I saw "Interiors" in 1978, I learned that John Williams the guitarist and John Williams the composer were two different people. I walked out of "Interiors" convinced there must be two different writer-directors named Woody Allen. The truth floored me.
I'm still convinced that Anne Hathaway is somehow married to William Shakespeare.
@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx you're saying that's not true?
There's also a John Williams actor. He did lots of movies, a few Hitchcocks.
I cannot stress enough that you have the best video essay channel about filmmaking on youtube.
Agreed
I love Woody Allen, thank you for this video. He and Alfred Hitchcock are my favorites.
The beauty of these films, which are about PEOPLE, and so well written and acted and allowed to play out in long takes in interesting spaces is why I'm so frustrated by the fake horsesh*t of Marvel Comics Universe and all the cartoonish BS today. Younger film fans are missing out on real cinema. Hopefully your channel's superb analyses will wake some people up who've been sleeping and passively guzzling down mindless franchise garbage.
About 90% of pop culture has always been crap (this is not a new phenomenon) and lot of Marvel’s recent ventures have lost money. We still have auteurs being able to direct their personal projects, i.e., Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, et. al.
As someone who is a introvert I completely agree with the statement that his films are "about PEOPLE, and so well written and acted and allowed to play out in long takes in interesting spaces" They are grate films if you are Lonely, Suffer from social anxiety, Introverted or a people watcher. However Hollywood has always put out mind numbing trash.
"We enjoy your films! Particulary the early, funny ones!"
A line from one of his most underrated movies, "Stardust memories"!
It's so funny. And poignant.
I agree about Match Point. I have missed most of Allens later films but caught this one night on tv by accident. I've rewatched it a few times since, terrific film. Great video.
This was interesting and eye-opening. It reminds me of the Annie Hall scene at the snooty party when he goes off to watch basketball:
Robin: What is so fascinating about a group of pituitary cases trying to stuff a ball through a hoop?
Alvy: What is fascinating is that it's physical. You know, it's one thing about intellectuals. They prove that you can be absolutely brilliant and have no idea what's going on.
I think Allen's personal interests in literature, sports, and even music give him a unique insight, and that even as his films got more cerebral they also (as you make clear) also got more physical in their own way.
"Two moire chairs, we got a dining room set."
A typical great line from the Alvy character, but Annie Hall, the movie that is, is tricky: I think he's really talking about himself - without, aptly to the line, knowing it. The whole movie is about this character's terrible lack of self-awareness, all covered up by his cleverness.
Love and Death is my favourite of his funny ones too. I've just found your channel and every video i have binge watched so far has been superb
I can't believe it! SOMEBODY ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGED LOVE AND DEATH as a COMEDY MASTERPIECE! FINALLY!
This movie will always be funny to me. Whoever did the casting was really good at picking the best of the best. They all understood the assignment: play your part with extreme seriousness and don't respond to the gags and one-liners. I wish modern comedies understood the comedic effect of a deadpan performance.
A fine selection but I’d include The Purple Rose of Cairo as an underrated masterpiece.
I love this movie. It has a feminist message and theme, oddly enough.
"He can make as many duds as he wants." Immediately after showing a clip where he's holding a box of Milk Duds.
Nice.
This guy is better than film school. Video tutorials will teach you how to use your camera and sound equipment. But knowing what to put in front of the camera and why is the real challenge. I've never found a better resource for that then this channel.
The scene of him walking into the horse is one of the funniest things I have ever watched.
Linklater imitated Allen's style brilliantly in Before Sunrise.
Match Point in excellent in my opinion. Maybe my favorite movie of his and one of my favorite movies of all time.
The thing is, there's a purity to the non-style of the early shambolic comedies, and their filmic competence is almost beside the point. The key thing is to have seen these with audiences back in the day in a theater to really appreciate them. I saw them in arthouse theaters where the comedy and the attitude of those early flicks carried the day. Another thing is these movies broached raunchy topics that were new to the American screen, especially coming from a major comedian. By the way, the three movies you chose as his best are indeed at the apex of his art. Bullets Over Broadway is one of my favorite films.
Woody Allen was a great director. What is really surprising, though, is that he absolutely hates "Manhattan", and didn't want it released after it was finished. And this is a movie my wife and I both really like. Especially the opening shots of New York, where his love for the city is so apparent. And the scene at the Brooklyn Bridge, when he joins Diane Keaton on a dog walk? Gorgeous; stunning; incredible. Later, when he did "Interiors", this was obviously his homage film to his favorite director, Ingmar Bergman. And I totally agree that "Broadway Danny Rose" is an overlooked masterpiece. Thank you so much for reminding me, once again, of a director who has somehow gotten lost in the pantheon of great film makers. A humble suggestion. Perhaps taking a look at the directing career of Jerry Lewis. Too often sloppy sentimentality, but his sight gags, in particular, could be compared to Tati, IMO.
Manhattan looks great but is also a piece of shit. Horrible characters and script. Broadway Danny Rose is the masterpiece. It is impecible.
Note: "Interiors" was made the year before "Manhattan," not afterwards.
❤ Broadway Danny Rose 🌹
Woody doesn't get enough respect as a film-maker, and particularly as a scriptwriter. There's a reason why he is the most Oscar nominated film-maker in history.
Hold on, Woody Allen is celebrated primarily for his script writing, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
@@MA-go7ee What I said is easily understood.
he literally has 3 best OG script oscars sis
A toast for Sir Woody Allen a True Cinema Genius! and thanks for the video it's much awaited and wow!! what a true praise and tribute to an extraordinary master of craft...
I would very highly rank "Stardust Memories," "Scoop," "Curse of the Jade Scorpion," and the sublime "Magic In the Moonlight." And an honorable mention to "Manhattan Murder Mystery." These pictures represent some of the best screenplays in modern American cinema.
The movie that put Allen in my mind as great director was Crimes and Misdemeanors: it seems trivial, almost foolish at the start, specially Allen's subplot, with two unrelated parallel stories but when Allen and Martin Landau meet at the end the whole movie fits together beautifully. One man oblivious of what would do a good tragic story, thinking that it needs punishment, atonement or redemption, and one that reached the conclusion that will never be redemption for him. It is not a happy ending, it is not a sad ending, it is not even an ending. But is perfect. A reflection on storytelling. I know it is not a popular opinion, by the way. But I think most people just focused on the surface and thought as Allen's character did.
@@agranero6 C & M was a tour de force. Allen has been responsible for some of American cinema's finest screenplays of the last 50+ years.
I know Bergman was a big influence on Woody, and Bergman came from that time in late 60s early 70s where Swedish cinema was slow - static camera, off-screen action, and generally low-key. I recall "Interiors' in a double-feature with "Cries and Whispers': Not good. Not just the comparing, but oh, boy, that was more depression than I needed in one sitting. Ah, well.
I would love to see your comments on Stanley Kubrick. I noticed, in The Shining, he seems to film a lot of dialogue scenes in the standard way, but he often emphasizes the background of the shot (Like Jack's face against the red and white). The Shining also relies less on dialogue than many other movies. I heard he spent a lot of time developing techniques for facial close ups. I would love to see what you think of his directing in general, and his shot compositions especially. I really like your videos because they are much more technical than a lot of youtubers, which is the most interesting part for me.
I love Kubrick, but there are so many videos about him already I never considered making one. Maybe an idea will come someday, but there's nothing in the works. I joke that he's the only filmmaker who's one of the greatest of all time and one of the most overrated of all time (just because of the overwhelming amount of material on him).
The Shining indeed uses close-ups better than most films, as it does steadicam movement. There's an eerie, uncanny quality to them I should look into. Thank you for the comment!
@@Moviewise I can definitely see why you would avoid making videos about such well known directors, but if the inspiration ever hits, I would love to watch it! I still think you would have a lot add. You turned me on to Last Year at Marienbad and Muriel, which are both some of my favorite movies now.
I will be watching The Shining in theaters for the first time tonight. I feel like, after watching some of your videos, it is a lot easier for me to put into words what I like or don't like about a movie now.
Love your videos!
@@Moviewise Thank God. Kubrick is so over analyzed and over-covered. Glad you grasp this. I'm sure you would do a great job, but there's enough out there already.
Kubrick and Allen, my two favorite directors ever.
Hello, sir. The matter of the great man's researching techniques for close-ups. . .perchance you know where we are able to read it up?
Sharing birthday with Hitler is how I remember my birthday.
About Woody's "downfall": it could be because his "actors entourage" got too old, and in some cases nuts, and he never managed to rebuild his favorite list of actors. Emma Stone, Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Larry David is just not right for a Woody Allen film.
For me it was 'The Curse of the Jade Scorpion' that signaled that Woody had peaked. He would often forget his lines but in order to not lose momentum he would start rambling until he said something that he deemed good enough. You could say that Woody Allen always had a certain rambling quality to his dialog but there's a fine line between what's the correct amount and what's way too much.
Café Society, Magic in Moonlight, Blue Jasmine, and Midnight in Paris are ok movies but nothing I particularly care to watch again.
Woody's best/underrated movie is Radio Days.
His worst movie is Interiors!
Woody Allen is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Say this to one of your "tough guy" friends who only like mafia movies and see them go nuts. Like your subjective meaning is categorically wrong according to science.
Few movie makers has made this many movies that you can watch over and over. Stanley Kubrick is great but I don't feel like watching 'A Space Odyssey' 5 times a year.
I think you are correct that The Curse of the Jade Scorpion was the point of marked decline. Even some of the lesser movies before that still had energy and inspiration. I wanted Curse to be as good a movie as its concept and production design but it really goes nowhere with the idea.
I saw Bullets Over Broadway when it came out. I was 14. I'll never forgot it and I think about it often. The ending to Annie Hall haunts me too, it's perfect.
I wonder if the "walk away" out of frame leaving just the environment is a sort of Ozu-like effect? Maybe not, but you pointing out that shot style got me thinking. Thanks for stoking our mental juices.
Very interesting! My fav Woody films have always been Love&Death and Manhattan... But I really never considered his directing talents, so thanx for that!
I remember watching Manhattan on the big screen at TIFF Lightbox. Some of those frames made my mouth drop.
Not mentioned here, but Blue Jasmine is an excellent film.
Thanks for using all kinds of music other than the obiquitous neo-jazz/chill mix which seems to be preferred choice of so many youtubers.
Love your analysis, everytime I feel I am learning something new, great content with great quality. 👍
I think his best movie was "Deconstructing harry."
But he has passed his peak, His last few movies were not very good.
I'm a huge fan of that film, too. It's much more savage than anything else he ever did. Nobody ever talks about it, which is a shame.
Brilliant study! Very inspiring!
His genius is comedic. That's how he introduced himself. There are videos of his beginning stand-up on late night tv. Many hits, got the laugh, all with original material. Movies let him create sight gags, also very good or better than his stand-up, contrasting with verbal limited stand-up. (Boxing with a kangaroo had been done.) But drama works only as a send up for his comedy, no matter how good the drama is. We have drama. We need his comedy. Laughing, especially by smart comedy, is good for us, it's healthy.
The movie "Interiors" did something (to me) that no other film had.
It (unconsciously) reset the way my mind registered colors.
Remember how vivid Maureen Stapleton's big red scarf was on the beach?
Well, when I walked back home from the movie theater, *colors looked different.*
I wouldn't even try to pick Allen"s "best" film, but for outright laughs, "Bullets Over Broadway" can't be beat!
Thanks for this. I can't speak as eloquently on their behalf, but I do have a soft spot for Manhattan and particularly the very underrated Stardust Memories.
These A.I. commentary's are doing my head in .
Very well done. Informative and funny. Thank you!
Brilliant work, thanks for reminding me of Allen's excellent mid-career works - I definitely agree with your choice of his best three films.
Being a Hollywood director is a collaborative endeavour. Especially... because in the US, each part of the production team,
has a great deal of influence on what is filmed. If you bring the 'best 'talent' to your project... the results will always be professional.
And even possibly... attain the status of becoming cinematic art.
Ridley Scott is the master of bringing real 'talent behind the screen' into his films.
He a so-so director... but the production values of his films are superlative.
Most of the other 'creative decisions' he makes... are silly and dumb-headed.
All of his films are spoilt by his gun-for-hire attitude to filmmaking.
There's the same sort of a problem with Woody Allen...
If Woody Allen were a restaurant... he'd be a drive-in takeaway. His films are pencil notes on scrapes of paper... barely gone over twice,
before committing them to script form. He's an itchy-pants director. He's constantly moving on. You feel this, when taking all of his projects as a whole.
They feel 'slight' - like a series of short sketches drawn out ad infinitum. As an amusing, but light short story teller... as a quick bite to eat, he's fine.
But as someone that could be mistaken for a great storyteller, a great film director... no, not really.
He makes so many films, therefore he knows how to make movies... as anyone that does something repetitively for such a long period of time... would eventually gather enough experience to be proficient. With the collaborative aspect of US movie making... he has always made professional looking films.
But something vitally important is always missing. Maybe that's because Allen is a clown and clowns forever hide their true selves,
from everybody... including themselves.
Rather than subscribing to your channel, I'm giving each episode I watch a 'thumbs up,' thereby slowing down the appearance of succeeding installments in my feed. Such stellar content should be savored.
Love the analysis! Thank you!!!
The scene with the bar of soap gun in Take the Money is still a talking point between my brother and I!
It was a gub!
That's the scene. The one scene I remember from that film and still think about to this day.
My fav filmmaker
Thank you for pointing out his technical skills as a director. I haven’t brought myself to watch one of his movies in years because it occurred to me while watching one that ALL of his characters sound like they are doing an impersonation of him. The best conclusion I could come to is that someone who can care so much about a story that they would write it down, figure out how to get it produced, direct and perhaps act out one of the characters has either a huge ego or a message they are passionate about. Because Mr. Allen’s characters all end up sounding so much like him it makes me think that his projects have such sustained passion because it is all about him stroking his own ego of genius. Watching his movies feels like I am watching his dreams. He is every character even if projected into someone else’s visage. And I’m just not interested in buying into a content creator’s megalomania. I prefer to see stories about a variety of people and their various evolutions.
I don’t think I would have considered his directoral skills independently of his writing and acting if you hadn’t pointed them out. Thank you. I will give a nod to his ability to direct. Yet I still don’t think I will have the patience to indulge him by watching his films.
And a question for you Mr. Moviewise - because I have only seen a couple of Mr. Allen’s movies - could you name/recommend one of his films where there is a character with an authentic contrasting voice to his protagonists?
Amazing analysis.
It's no longer socially acceptable to be a Woody Allen fan, and we all know why. Setting aside the person from the artist, my goodness, he had one of the best runs as a director between '77 and '97. Each film has a distinct characteristic in style and language from the previous one. I truly believe he didn't make a single bad film during that period, and they were all beautifully shot by some of the greatest cinematographers: Gordon Willis, Carlo Di Palma, Sven Nykvist. He's been incredibly important to my life as a cinephile; I've been watching his films since I can remember.
Deconstructing Harry, Judy Davis
Let' not forget the genius of What's up Tiger Lily
Woody Allen is one of the most beloved directors around. How is he "better than you think".
Too many people aren't interested in films that make them think. Quick action, and one liners are more for them. When someone says 'let's go see the new Woody film' the conversation often turns to how his old stuff was better. That conversation still happens, even now.
Woody Allen a master who can't be ignored.
My favourite Filmmaker 🔥
It looks like I'm unrefined. I enjoyed his first movies and I remember more from them than his masterpieces. I don't even remember when I stopped giving his movies a shot to bore me. Maybe I was too young when he was maturing as a director. I actually discovered him with after Annie Hall. Then I went back, laughed out loud with his earlier movies and when I came back to the "great" ones, they were so dull and depressing by comparison. I definitely didn't watch anything from the era in which huge Hollywood stars ran to his movies to seem deep and serious actors.
I get the mastery of these movies, from watching this video. Doesn't make me want to watch them 😢
Try Match Point. You would never know Allen directed it. As an Allen fan, I saw it in the theater and couldn't believe it. I'll bet you'll like it if you like dramas.
Really enjoyed the video! Saw his early films but a bit hit & miss at watching the middle period ones. Only watched Hannah & her sisters about 5 years ago. Not see any of the more recent work. I obviously have some catching up to do.
Broadway Danny Rose is one of my favourite movies
The gag at 18:30 is one of my favourites ever. But you need to see the lead in to understand it.
Thank you!
Some of his films have a great lighting.
All that you say about camera work and editing are brilliant observations and I agree.
But to me, Woody is a great writer of original fiction.
My picks are: Broadway Danny Rose
New York Stories
Small time Crooks
and Crimes and Misdemeanors
I agree with you about Manhattan...I suspect that he is miserable living London
Great video, but Sweet and Lowdown and Blue Jasmine deserved a mention among the great ones. Wonder Wheel is not at the same level, but the photography and Kate Winslet’s acting make it worthwhile.
This was a great video, thank you for it. One thing, though, it would have been great to have seen you thoughts about "Husbands and Wives." That's super innovative, I think, visually, and arguably unique in his repertoire in that regard; do any of his other films look like it? With that energy? (Like when Judy Davis tries to race off in the cab but drops all her things on the pavement and mad scrambles to collect them.).
In fact, I feel like "Succession" draws a lot from the visual style of that film.
Anyway, not to be that guy, but I would have loved your thoughts about film. :)
Thanks for this really interesting video, what do you think qbout Manhattan Murder Mystery?
Not better than I think, I think he's a total genius!
Of those not featured here, there's Another Woman, Celebrity, and Blue Jasmin. And Deconstructing Harry.
I've seen a lot of his movies. most of the time it would on somewhere and i could get sucked in by the dialogue or story some how. I would often ask myself , why i am watching a woody allen movie? now i know. thanks bro.
FOUR TIME OSCAR WINNER Woody Allen: Better Than You Think 😝
Right lol like …
What/where is the art deco lobby towards the end of this video?
I haven’t seen anybody else mention this, so I’ll say it. I really appreciate a channel that focuses on the art and not the artist, especially not the artist, personal life. whatever an artist might be guilty of or accused of is a matter for law-enforcement, and not art critics. If Woody Allen was found to be a mass murderer, it wouldn’t change the value of his artwork one bit. I thought it was hilarious in your one video where you said think like Roman Polanski, and had the song thank heaven for little girls🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 then you moved right along, without some kind of moral grandstanding. I was surprised because I have become so accustomed to the perfunctory moralizing.
Sure, not giving clout to perverts is "perfunctory moralizing" 🙄
@@noctap0d he earned his clout, fool. His personal conduct has nothing to do with his professional career. If the man who created penicillin was a murderer, would you stop taking it? Would you refuse to acknowledge the great achievement that it was?
@@JokerMxyzptlkyou can choose not to watch a movie, you kind of need medicine like penicillin to live. Really mid comparison
@@Gumbyloomy the point isn't how necessary the thing is. The point is that the value and achievement isn't diminished by the conduct of the creator. If you don't like penicillin replace it with any other thing of value that required unique skill to achieve. The principle is the same.
Yeah, what's a little fuck-your-stepdaughter? ART!!!11!!!
I have had a love of those great films you selected over the decades, but those of us with a moral compass stuck up our asses are still left with the elephant in the room that is his distasteful but not illegal relationship with his ex wife's adopted daughter. She might also be his kryptonite though, as his directorial greatness has fell off a cliff since they have been together.
If his earliest films are among the funniest, then they are well directed. I appreciate your videos, but what you are espousing is orthodoxy. It's more insightful to say this is how he shot his early films and this his later and this is what those two approaches lead to. I'm bet a lot of people watch videos like this and come away thinking they understand film, when all they really understand are your preferences. I think this is why David Bordwell's approach is the best way to actually stimulate critical thinking. Avoid imposing hierarchies, instead analyze the effects.
7 decades.
These videos are the best
WHATEVER! 😜
Thanks for the course in "visual story-telling"! 😂
Actually, it's NOT simply that he learned and grew as a filmmaker but that when you're starting out and your budget is LIMITED, you can't afford the best in the business such as Gordon Willis or Vittorio Storaro
Orson Welles didn't start out in film but in theater and radio. When RKO gave him carte blanche to make "Citizen Kane," he got THE BEST in the business: cinematographer Greg Tolland, and TOGETHER they came up with a masterpiece
So, come on! Movies are accidental collaborative efforts and it's a MIRACLE they turn out as well as they do or EVEN at all.
IF it were THAT EASY, EVERY MOVIE would be a masterpiece. The fact that "masterpieces" are few and far between goes to show that ALL the unbelievable factors that can make a movie great coming together at the same time, is as likely as lightning 🌩 striking the very same place twice 😂
This is a wonderful analysis, Wiseman. It breaks my heart that it hasn't got more views. Maybe a change of title to bait more people?
Nice.
Excellent
Don't know mate. I enjoy your analyses and often watch them several times. I feel like I am learning more about how films should be made (BLOCKING!) and why I enjoy the films I do love. Mostly, I agree with your analysis of Woody Allen's films and feel like I understand them better now. However, when it comes to 'Match Point' we must part ways. Technically I suppose it is well done, and it is certainly well acted, but it is morally vacuous and so I cannot see it as a great film. In fact, I was extremely disappointed at the ending, especially the trite ball thing. Probably just me, people I otherwise respect think it is a great film, but as a Neonoir it stinks. I have, perhaps, too much of a film noir point of view but, as with 'Charley Varrick' an otherwise potentially great Neonoir, it failed at the critical moment because it had no moral centre (compare the ending of Kubrick's 'The Killing' to 'Charley Varrick') That may sound moralistic (it is), but that is what these types of films depend upon - a moral failure - and all of Allen's career depended on making fun off of (or exposing) the moral failures of his society.
Great way to end the video too. He is one of the great ones.
I can't condone what Woody Allen has done as a person, but i respect the hell out of him as a filmmaker. His brand of humor isn't too vulgar, its quirky and relatable.
Even tho he didn't direct it (but he wrote and starred in it), my favorite movie of his is Play It Again Sam.
Great video!!!
Allen was never a pedophile. The accusation, from his vindictive, cheating girlfriend, has always been absurd.
Rape doesn't happen in a crowded home by taking a child upstairs for a quickie. That's a philandering scenario, not a rape scenario. Mia Farrow is evil.
He has never been charged with a crime and Mia's son Moses says he did nothing. He has been tried in the media and that's never a good idea. I too love Play It Again, Sam.
@Neilips the rape allegation probably isn't true but isn't the younger women he married his ex's daughter or something? That's a bit odd.
@Neilips thanks for clearing that up. Woody's always seemed like an eccentric buy overall OK guy but u guess there's always been some speculation behind his past relationships.
@@N_Loco_Parenthesis Spot on, and thank you. What Farrow did to the rep of a great artist--and to her daughter, whose mind she destroyed--is unforgivable. And BTW, Allen was cleared of all Farrow's vicious and spurious accusations in two courts, in two different states.
Have you read his autobiography, "Apropos of Nothing?" A treat.
Big woody
The woody Allen defenders love this one
Midnight in Paris is not just some "good film". It's the greatest film Allen has ever made, a timeless masterpiece.
Really thorough analysis. Congratulations on your work but to me He is a competent but not a great director saved by good editors: Morse and Rosenblum. You wouldn't put him in the same sentence as Truffaut, Renoir, Griffiths, Brunel and Hitchcock.
Once the editors were gone the flaws in his style became apparent
@@DanLyndon Yes. Better writer than director
I watch a lot of Woody Allen movies (five last week), I'm a huge fan of his work. Especially, the early funny ones. However, I personally find his "flat oners" make me feel as if I'm watching a theatre production. I don't find them cinematic at all. They feel lazy to me. Particularly when up against a similar scene directed by someone like The Cohen Brothers or Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
How did Gordon Willis light those flat oners? I know he tended to like natural lights and practicals, but would that be the case for that beautiful shot of the apartment in Manhattan?
I miss watching Woody Allen films but there in the bin with the Roman Polanski ones.
How can you not love him? How about because he’s a predator and a child molester?
I don’t think we are lacking in movies to watch so badly that we have to highlight his work.
"Highlight" ? Do you just mean "don't talk about him outside your own home?"
Newsflash. 90 percent of hollywood people are horrible people
In fact that applies to all the human beings on planet earth.
You're not doing anything good by telling people who they can and can't talk about, so grow up.
No proof.
You are repeating a malicious lie. If you do any research, you will be ashamed of yourself for the comment you have made here.
He's acquitted in the only responsible venues of record. But you, fruitypebbles803, continue to slander him. Quit it.
@@arttoegemann He was not aquited, there was no trial.
Woody Allen: Creepier than you think!
Julian Terry: More ignorant than he knows.
Why music? I'm a composer who works with vids in background. Music is instant clickout. I like your vids better without music. You don't need it also it's a bit manipulative even if it's Woody's fave Dixieland. A very low Stardust (very low volume) is superb. Louie Armstrong's version is transcendental. Stardust Memories, music done right. I am not a fan of Dixieland jazz and I do respect swinging technique.
Great director, scummy human.
agree to disagree
I actually think Mel Brooks beats his ass
my favourite p3d0pfil3 afther michael jackson
He made the same movie 100 times with successively declining success
After watching your video I concede my ignorance on this subject yet I stand by my original statement
@@HolographicSweaterYou mean Take the Money and Run, Annie Hall, Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Everyone Says I Love You, Deconstructing Harry, Sweet & Lowdown, and Midnight in Paris are all the same movie? Jeez, I must be incurably schizophrenic
EDIT: I know what you mean tho, his films are typically concerned with the relationships of upper crust manhattanites. But even this is played with in so many different ways that it becomes arbitrary to be hung up about
Well it seems to me you just like the pretentious, dark, art movie style of Gordon Willis (which so suited the Godfather but dragged down Woody's films) and the overly precious blocking that goes with it that I personally find tedious. It is Woody's 70s comedies that are his greatest films and are worthy of close analysis by those who want to do comedy.
So many filmmakers who attempt to do physical comedy cut too much , get too close and undercut the joke. Woody never does. I'd probably vote for Sleeper as his best directed film. His early style perfectly suits the quick procession of gags.
Anyone who thinks the dull banality of Crimes & Misdemeanors is a great film is just an overly intellectual bore who mistakes darkness for profundity. Sleeper has much more to say about life-and has a good time doing it.
They're completely different kinds of films, conducive to different styles. All the early and middle period Allens are great.
Crimes & Misdemeanours is incredible. You're mistaken if you think it is boring or overly dark, half of the film is a comedy filled with gags and wit, and the two narratives (light & dark) feed off of and into one another. Give it another watch sometime
Yup, hit did hit a Zenith. But his film have become unwatchable. Not (only) because of his repugnant morals, but also his overly wordy dialogue. It's become difficult to watch as his actors try to squeeze it all in and in a believable fashion. AND the dialogue sound like the same character in different actors voices.
You are sadly misinformed as to his morals, and I have to wonder if you've even seen "Match Point," "Magic In the Moonlight," "Scoop," or "Curse of the Jade Scorpion;" these are some of the most original screenplays in modern cinema.
@@TheRealDrJoey He had an affair with his step daughter while married. I can't imagine your definition of morals.
@@TheRealDrJoey Watch them again.
She was not his step daughter. She was Andre Previn's step daughter with Mia Farrow. Farrow and Allen were boyfriend and girlfriend, in no way married, and they lived across the street from each other, yet neither ever spent the night at the other one's place. Everything you know about the situation is a lie. Two courts in two states exonerated him. He started dating Soon-Yi when she was 19. They've been married over 25 years.
Read Woody's funny autobio, Apropos of Nothing, and learn the truth.@@memonk11
Um...I was a motion picture projectionist for 25 years. You're starting to remind me of that Firesign Theater album from the 60s: "Everything You Know Is Wrong."
@@memonk11
Actually I find it went down... Too cerebral - it lost something
Yeah great director, horrible person.
Mia Farrow is certifiably insane. I wouldn’t trust anything that comes from her side.
Claimed without a shred of evidence.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx married his step daughter
@@biffstrong1079No he didn’t.
no way, God redeemed him for being such a great director. He would be going to heaven if it wasn't for that crude 'centerfold' joke. God hates Playboy. (He prefers Hustler.)
He ain't a "great" director in my book, he's an accomplished predator with a nearly as accomplished career in film-making. Basically he's a monster.
You're woefully misinformed. Please don't spread a vicious libel. Learn the facts. Thanks.
The same was said of Charles Darwin and that didn't last, like your opinion.
@@CMI2017 I'm not familiar with those accusations, I didn't know Charles Darwin was a predator.
Claims without evidence are merely opinion. Perhaps for the 'monster' label you might look at, say, George W Bush or Tony Blair who remain lionised by the intellectual class.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx ^The "monster" is Mia Farrow. What a horrible, HORRIBLE person she is.
Nope. His movies are philosophically pretentious and psuedo-intellectual, and often creepy.
this guy is not genius Einstein was genius the word u were thinking of was pedophile its easy to confuse these words dont feel bad
It reveals a small brains when a simple conflation is the argument
try harder autist@@CMI2017
The word you were thinking of is 'slandered'.
says the person with a pic of a child..someday soon starts the great pedophile hunt @@GaudiaCertaminisGaming
Mr Allen is not sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. There is no evidence at all for the bitter, vindictive attack on him by is former wife, as two police investigations made clear.
Before even watching this video, let me say Woody Allen has been my favorite director for years. Can’t wait to watch this!
This video is a gem. Thank you Moviewise for making such a profound class on filmmaking and beautiful homage to Woody Allen at the same time.