I don't get it. The subjects are quirky but still shallow, his movies are subtle but still meaningless, his characters are romantic but still one dimensional. I'm sure that the people who appreciate him just don't think that modern cinema is anything else than action movies and other sellouts. Meanwhile, so many directors have done subtle and quirky so much better than him. Wanna watch subtle and quirky, I'm sure we can name a hundred who do it better without being neurotic and narcissistic.
I watched Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris and Before Midnight. I know there's more, but I can't be bothered until someone explains to me how Woody does what he does better than, example, Jim Jarmusch, Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Lars von Trier. Someone please explain.
https://youtu.be/F4LGCTtVNOw
>>69183356
>subtle and quirky
If this is the only thing you take away from watching a Woody Allen film, then I say the problem here is you.
>Before Midnight.
Also, he didn't direct that.
>I watched all his modern films that people only get excited about because they're half as good as his old ones, which is still a lot more than most of the shit he put out in the 90s
>>69183518
I understand what he did with the action in-between-lines was fresh, but I fail to understand how and why it continues to carry his movies.
Also, What's unusual about Woodys characters is that they're too insecure or confused to word their frustration, but it is by no means unique that they're in conflict with norms and with society.
>>69183518
I liek that pinup gril! :D
>>69183356
>Wanna watch subtle and quirky, I'm sure we can name a hundred who do it better
Not arguing, but can I get some examples? Im in the mood for something like that recently.
>>69184278
I can envision hating Allen for what he started -- Characterisation of Pam and Jim on the Office seems to be the worst of it -- but dramatic comedy was done very well by him. These are characters with tragic elements, but for all their neuroticism will never be truly tragic.
I wish Allen had a film where it went from being a Comedy to being a genuine Tragedy. Melinda & Melinda doesn't exactly count.
>>69183356
Watch Sleeper, it's really good, it's basically just constant slapstick and funny one-liners
It's very different to all his morose, navel-contemplating, "I love New York", "I'm so neurotic" stuff
I think his other early films are more of that light hearted variety but Sleeper is the only one I've seen
Love and Death was great
>>69184956
Eh, his early work is definitely funny and worth watching but nowhere near as good as his late 70s/early 80s stuff. Course he talks about this himself in Stardust Memories, and takes off on 8 1/2 as well.
>>69184066
Shame. I thought it was the best one. Also, I'm sure something is wrong with me. I figure you could tell me what, though. Thanks.
>>69184743
Roman Polanskis "Carnage" has a lot of human interaction and poorly managed feelings - to start out with something Woody-esque. "Amélie" has the quirky, the aesthetic, the romanticism and the and the hero who takes revenge and who seeks to outlive physical desires. "Dead Man" has the subtlety as well as the ego-trip. Lars von Triers "Breaking the Waves" also has the sexual desires as well as the poorly managed feelings. I'd say they're all as subtle as Woody. But then, I really don't think Woody is very subtle at all.
Amélie is the far most quirky. Most Jeunet is quirky and subtle.
I really don't know a lot of movies, so those are my best shots.
>>69183356
>>69184956
Also, just to point out, his new movies are very different from the old ones. I mean you could group them like this:
>Early comedies, slapstick, one liners:
Bananas (1971) - I haven't seen this
Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask (1972)
Sleeper (1973)
Love and Death (1975) - this isn't as funny though in my opinion
>The more serious, comedy/drama movies with a neurotic lead character
Annie Hall (1977)
Manhattan (1979)
Crimes and Misdemeanours (1989)
Yes there are other movies in between but I haven't seen them so I don't know what they're like
>His modern movies, basically light-hearted rom-coms, though with some intellectualism and neuroticism thrown in
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Etc. Again there are more but I haven't seen them so I can't comment on them
>>69184956
That's great. Just by the fact that you acknowledge I refuse to appreciate the "morose, navel-contemplating, "I love New York", "I'm so neurotic" stuff". I'll watch it. Thanks.
>>69185063
Well OP said he didn't like the neurotic stuff which is why I recommended Sleeper
>>69185194
Cool. I mean there might well be neurotic stuff in there because Woody Allen is of course a neurotic person and that's what he does but my memory of that movie is that it was much more lighthearted, much more slapstick, and funnier really. And yeah, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex is pretty good too, but it's more like a collection of sketches. Still funny though, if I remember correctly (I saw these movies maybe three / four years ago)
>"What did I ever do to deserve this? .... oh right"
You know, I like his films except for that nervous fellow that's always in them
REKT
>>69184956
Bananas is great. That fucking deli scene is brilliant.
>>69185471
He talks to Woody now and doesn't associate with his mother. Said she was batshit insane and fucked up her own daughter saying Allen molested her.
>>69183356
His movies aren't shallow. They deal with subjects that are very autobiographical and important in a genuine and emotional way--morality, death, the value of art, suicide, love, and meaning in modern society aren't "quirky" subjects, they're topics older than Shakespeare. I don't think you know what quirky means.
They're not subtle either. Oftentimes a character will blatantly explicate the theme of the film to the viewer. Catching a punchline might take a bit more effort than you're used to, but they're not particularly subtle either.
If you want to understand what you're trying to discuss you need to watch his films that are considered his best, not the recent movies he's pumped out in the past ten years. His reputation which you're failing miserably to deconstruct wasn't built on those films, and it's either ignorant or disingenuous to pretend that it was.
tl;dr you have a big mouth but a small brain
He didn't direct Play It Again Sam, but he wrote it in the play, and it's my favorite of his early work. It's set in New York and doesn't do as much slapstick but is still very focused on comedy. It's like a prototype of his later work without as much navel gazing.
>>69184956
The outtakes where Diane Keaton is doing the Jewish impression and Woody cannot stop laughing is even funnier than the stuff that made it into the film.
>>69185872
/thread
this is some good bait
>watches his shitty new movies
>complains
ugh
>>69185471
Is that the same day he thanks Woody for the child support he paid to his mother despite him being Sinatra's son?
>>69185155
Don't forget "Take the Money and Run".
