Should Woody Allen go back to therapy?

[James Logan]

I don't mean for his sake -- I mean for ours. :)

Hear me out on this one. I'm a Woody Allen fan (I'm French...guess what? I love Jerry Lewis, too! ;)), but I have to admit, like most fans, that lately, his movies haven't been as great as they used to. Better than average in many cases, but not great.

I used to think it was because of his imposed "one movie a year" rythm, and perhaps that does play a part in it. But yesterday I read an interview of the man in a French magazine, where he mentioned that he hasn't been in therapy for the past 8 years. And it got me thinking.

Woody's last great movie, at least in my opinion, is DECONSTRUCTING HARRY. And he made that just 8 years ago. Since then, he's done the good SWEET LOWDOWN and SMALL TIME CROOKS, and the just decent CELEBRITY, CURSE OF A JADE SCORPION, ANYTHING ELSE and HOLLYWOOD ENDING. And now MELINDA AND MELINDA is out, and apparently it's nice, but far from inspired.

Before stopping therapy, though, our friend Woody had made the aforementioned DECONSTRUCTING HARRY, which came after the also terrific BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY, HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, ANNIE HALL, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW..., and SLEEPERS, and the list just includes my personal favorites.

So here's what I'm wondering about:

Has Woody Allen gotten more average because being a nutjob in therapy actually helped his work?

Or because of his one movie a year rythm?

Or because he's now "happily married", when he was formerly involved in tumultuous relationships with Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow?

Or has Woody Allen always sucked? (that's for you, Americans! ;) )

Or is he just passed his prime?

All this bringing me to another question, more general this one: when you're creating, can you still be as good and interesting and provoking when you yourself are happy in your private life, or does something need to be wrong for a creator to create his best work?

Knock yourselves out. :)

[chinton]

Hes needs review his old movies so he can s ee what made them great.


Its like he made amazing films like Crimes and Misd. , Manhattan, and Purple Rose among others and than some one note-not funny writer took over

[Cronos]

Originally posted by James Logan
Or has Woody Allen always sucked?

id have to go with that, ive yet to see a film by Allen that has impressed me or that i have found very funny

[bob]

I think Woody's just getting old, to tell you the truth.

I think he recognizes that he's not going to top Manhattan or Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters, so he's shifted to making enjoyable, "small" pictures (what I find his movies from 1997 to now to be) that you watch once or twice but aren't brilliant or anything.

I don't think he's lost his touch at all, and I think it's a testament to how mindblowingly good his earlier work was that people are getting pissed off by him making movies that are just "good".

But yeah, the "meaning" part of his movies has definitely leveled off.

[scottish-movie-freak]

Originally posted by bob
I think he recognizes that he's not going to top Manhattan or Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters, so he's shifted to making enjoyable, "small" pictures (what I find his movies from 1997 to now to be) that you watch once or twice but aren't brilliant or anything.

That's exactly it. Take Anything Else for example, his films aren't quite as good as they used to be so he chooses to use the exact same plot that was in Annie Hall but to lesser effect. Don't get me wrong, I'll always remain an Allen fan but he should take a break and reinvent himself in a few years time.

Plus his list of actors that he's using nowadays aren't quite as good as, say, Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow. He's chosen to use young actors like Jason Biggs, Charlize Theron and Will Ferrell (granted, I haven't seen M&M yet but who really would have expected him to be in an Allen film?) who just aren't right for his chosen field of movies (you may disagree but this is just what I think). He should go back to the greats of yester year- hire Keaton again (we can rule Farrow out for obvious reasons), gather up a bunch of good actors and make magic.

So yes, he should go back into therapy. What we need is an even more nervous Allen!

[Cyclonus]

The guy just makes too many movies. He's spreading himself too thin.

[wyodebbie]

Except for rare exceptions, like "Sweet and Lowdown" he's not picking top-notch actors anymore, I loved Mia Farrow in his films, and after their living together fiasco his films just haven't been even good in some cases.

[The Postmaster General]

At this point, i feel confident saying Woody Allen should go back to filmschool.

I liked Cy's comment about his spreading himself to thin. And personally, I think he sometimes tries to step onto the Coen's turf - no real reason for me thinking that -- his movies are seeming more absurdist, I suppose.

[Population 1]

Allen is my favorite director of all time, and I love his older movies and the new ones. They aren't the same as the old ones, but still very funny and Woody is still a great director. Why should a director make the same kind of movies after 30 years? Why should he make ten more films like Annie Hall or Manhattan? I think it's great that you can still recognize his movies but they are not the same as the old ones were. I don't think anyone would like Tarantino to make Pulp Fictions for the next 30 years.

[Cyclonus]

More about what I just said, Woody makes at least one movie every year, sometimes two. He seems to have run out of ideas and is just cranking them out halfheartedly. He needs to focus on writing a good script rather than worry about maintaining a supposed "quota."

[Gambers]

I have an idea...

How about getting Larry David to co-write and co-star in one of his movies? Think of all that Neourosis!

[Xanadublue]

He's getting older, making pictures has been his therapy for this long, and maybe if it's worked this long he's determined just to keep making films, regardless of what his audience thinks. He's never cared what people think of his films, and I agree that he's probably just happy with making smaller pictures right now. He no longer has to impress the studio heads with award-winning projects, so now he's free to do what he wants. If that means movies that his audience think are inferior to his earlier works, it's not his concern.

[B1rd_Po0p]

He is definitely getting too old to be a love interest, that's for sure... Ugh... I never really liked him; his films don't really do anything for me. He's too neurotic.

[Xanadublue]

Originally posted by B1rd_Po0p
He is definitely getting too old to be a love interest, that's for sure...

True that! I never got used to him shown being in bed with a woman with his glasses off! :eek:

[chasingbanky]

Originally posted by Gambers
I have an idea...

How about getting Larry David to co-write and co-star in one of his movies? Think of all that Neourosis!

LD vs Woody.... That could be crazy... Then again I just want to see Larry do more movies in general.

[SLAW]

I happen to have actually liked ANYTHING ELSE, but other than that, no, nothing real good has come from Woody in a while. His films are usually pleasant, but nothing outstanding like an ANNIE HALL. I actually saw SLEEPER this last summer and thought it was outstanding. But in any case, therapy and promiscuous sex might put his films in more fous, but I don't know that for sure.

[jeo4]

I've never liked Woody Allen. ANNIE HALL was okay, and so was HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. SLEEPER was meh. I'm just not a fan.