1975 - Love and Death

I watched this movie last year, and it is very good - it's funny. Allen is Boris Grushenko, a soldier in czarist Russia (?) who is involved in a plot to kill Napoleon. By itself, the premise is fun. But, you have to know that you have again the marvelous Diane Keaton as Sonja and that's the thing: She makes everything better, because she can play the same kind of jokes that Allen cracks and they have the most amazing chemistry together. 

And one of the funny aspects is the "pseudo-psychological" dialogues they conduct brilliantly. Take a look at this example:

Sonja: To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering one must not love. But then one suffers from not loving. Therefore, to love is to suffer; not to love is to suffer; to suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love. To be happy, then, is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy. Therefore, to be unhappy, one must love or love to suffer or suffer from too much happiness. I hope you're getting this down.

If you compare this with other movies about those difficult themes such as death like The Seventh Seal, for example, then you'll discover that Allen has a more light view of it, bright. He is dealing with something very serious and tense - and the movie is fun, I know, but it is meaningful. I understood that you simply can't take everything so seriously, even you - or death itself.

1973 - Sleeper

I feel kind of lazy posting this because I have been watching too many movies and, for example, regarding Woody Allen, I watched 12 in a row and I felt completely not in right mood to sit here and to write everything I felt while watching them - although my view of Allen and all of his movies have changed a lot.

And I think it started right back when I watched this one, Sleeper, which is really fun and intelligent, I mean, it really is. You see, the thing is that Allen plays one of those idiots he is always playing (indulgent, dull, mean, lazy, etc.), and now he is at the verge of a revolution in a kind of sci-fi comedy-drama with the help of marvelous almost goddess Diane Keaton - whom I have only really discovered here, when she played Marlon Brando in A Streetcar named desire - really.

The fun part is that, similarly like other movies, Woody Allen can distort reality and the way people react towards framed responses, but, moreover, he can put almost anything in his movie and it works. I'm not getting into a lot of details here, I'm not that good to talk about comedy movies - that's for sure - but this is a true gem.

And if you want to laugh, here's the scene where Allen is trying to remember his past by playing Blanche from Tennessee Williams' play Streetcar.

1972 - Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask

Movie cover

The truth is that I've watched this Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask a long time ago (I don't remember, I think it was right in the beginning of the year) and I didn't feel like writing - even though it was a good movie.

Everything... is the kind of movie that Woody Allen is getting used to do back in the 1970s; he uses a lot of vignettes (which means simply that he uses lots of scenes that are not related but are fun, just like sketches). This movie is a huge Vignette with lots of small vignettes all along the way, but, the fact is that this time it works. And it works because the story must be told like this: you have seven segments with stories about sex issues.

I can't say why, exactly, but it was the first time I laughed while watching one of his movies, and I felt good. It's so idiotic and dumb that you must laugh, and the fact is that you laugh because it's just lame, just like a child telling you an illogical joke.

Tv show - one of the vignettes

But it is the human fixation towards sex that makes this movie so fun to be watched: it starts with the tittle of the movie. It makes you curious like "Oh, it's going to be nasty documentary", and then you have stories about those super hot topics like aphrodisiac elements (do they work?), sex with animals (how could it be?), transsexualism, fetishism, perversions, but at the same time, when you watch it you see that everything - even the fact that we seek for this kind of information (I say we as a whole) - you see that everything is a lame thing. I mean, whatever, go have fun, don't mind studying sex as a science.

I see that what Woody does is a meta-linguistic criticism towards this necessity we have to know, categorize, study and explain everything. If we could only live, that would be nice. And for you, that seek for nasty things to see just out of curiosity, that's it: voilá! You are going to watch something very funny.

1971 - Bananas

Well, I have to be sincere.

I'm sincerely disappointed with myself, because I was supposed to review and criticize Woody Allen's movies and post here but after having watched the last one I felt like I was kind of tired of watching his movies. It is not that they're bad, I'm not saying this, but in fact I'm not into comedy too much and it was difficult to put myself to watch this Bananas movie. In fact, I laughed a little too less than what I have expected and I had to make and effort to reach the end of it.

Young Sly.

In the meanwhile, after the last review, I've watched so many movies, well, 2013 was a good year for movies, at least for me. But for now I won't spend my time to talk about it, I'll keep straight with Bananas.

Mellish in disguise.

Bananas is about a guy played by Woody Allen that is called Fielding Mellish. He is the simple loser, idiotic character Allen is used to play up to now - in the movies I've seen. I have to say I have problems with this kind of character, since it's to imbecile for me to feel any kind of sympathy, I just don't care about what is going to happen with him - in fact I wish for the worse. This kind of think makes me want to stop watching the movie, but I'm strong when it's about movies... I just keep waiting to see what's going to happen. And...

Mellish is attracted (can't say he's in love) to a girl which is involved in activism and a country in Latin America called San Marcos (a kind of Cuba). So, when she dumps him - because he deserves it - he decides to go to San Marcos to prove himself to her, to prove he is not just a moron.

Well, the movie is basically a lot of comical sketches about someone being trained in a rebel's army. It's fun sometimes, but for me it lacks in purpose. I know it has a subtext on war and Cuba's problems towards USA and media involvement in people's and political affairs, but for me it didn't work. Best part for me was seeing young Sylvester Stallone in a cameo.

1969 - Take the Money and Run

Hi there!

I've been out for a while, things got very stressing last year. The three last months were full of things to do. When I was about to watch the movie, something would happen and spoil everything. I got sick, started working in one more place as a volunteer, had to take care of business regarding a third job, well, I had to stop doing things for fun, specially writing. It's unfair after all, but we have to make choices, and even if we're not happy with the scenario we're living, we have to take a deep breath and be patient. Let's talk about movies now.

I haven't been watching many movies since my last post, but in fact some of those I have were indeed, very good. Recently I've started watching drama movies again, and I'm not feeling that sad anymore. I watched Cloud Atlas (2012) on Wednesday afternoon with a couple of friends. I'm finishing watching Cronenberg's movies and start watching Darren Aronofsky's. I liked Cloud Atlas very much. I've watched Lars and the Real Girl (2007), The Snake Pit (1948), Requiem for a Dream (2000), House of Sand and Fog (2003), Them (2006) - which is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, in January. December last year I've watched Phantasm II (1988), A Dangerous Method (2011), The Host (2006), Magnolia (1999), The Loved Ones (2009) - very bad movie, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003), La frusta e il corpo (1963), Martyrs (2008) - should not have been made, The Man Who Laughs (1928), Films to Keep You Awake: The Baby's Room (TV 2006), Dementia 13 (1963), Sleepless (2001), Phantasm (1979), The Devil-Doll (1936), A Bay of Blood (1971), Eastern Promises (2007), Island of Terror (1970), well and... I think it was this because I can't find the other names anymore.

I just realize that I could have watched this movie before, the problem is that I wrote two articles in October and November. 

Take the Money and Run is a very funny movie. If you watch it, I'm sure you'll laugh, unless, of course, you don't find it funny. And I have not much to talk about it because it's a funny movie, the jokes are very silly and the script is very nonsense. Woody Allen plays Virgil Starkwell, a kind of idiot (like one of the interviewed characters says) that calls the attention of we don't know who, but has his life turned into a... a documentary, I'd say, and that's what you watch. At the beginning, you have the narrator, who "organizes" Virgil's life story in episodes, using photos and footage. You see this plain guy, very silly, who tries to "be someone", "part of something" or "a man", by robbing, or taking care of his life.

The nice part is that, as far as I see, this movie does not depict the criminal as a bad person, or someone who is very strategic and intelligent. Many of the criminals could be like that. The picture is not a romantic one, he is not a hero, you can't even sympathize with him, but he's there. He was born somewhere, he has parents that lament or think he's worthy of note. 

The funny moments also are created with misplaced information: you never have what you're expecting. Take a look at this dialogue:

"With parole as inducement, Virgil submits to the vaccine. It is a success, with one small side effect. For several hours, he is turned into a rabbi." 

You never expect you're going to "turn into a rabbi" as the result of  a side effect of a vaccine. And all the jokes and scenes are like that, you're expecting something and bang, Woody gives you another one completely out of place, nonsensical. I miss this kind of thing, it's not like Pink Panther, it's more soft and intelligent. At the same time, it's very simple and naive.

This confusion caused by misplaced information is the key element to bring laughter to the spectator. I could say it's because of the way we read or understand things. These days I've read Critical Practice by Catherine Belsey, and among many of the things that she said, she discussed the way we use language to express ourselves, how we place ourselves in this symbolic order which is the language, that's being used before we start using it, and how we have to get used to use it. Because we live in a ideology, where things have their sense constructed by culture and used by society, it's interesting to notice how we have fun when confronted with misplaced information, or nonsense talk. The movie is shown as a documentary, so the "discourse" is very serious and practical, we watch compelled to think it's about serious matter. Whenever the narrator or someone says, seriously, something that's not to be said, that you're not expecting, you can't understand immediately, and then, like being confronted by the Uncanny there in Freud, you're confronted with something that shouldn't be there, you laugh. The confusion, because the information is logically incongruent, causes you to stop for just a frame of seconds and think: this is so dumb, this shouldn't be there. This perception makes the discourse fun, because it can be taken seriously, it cannot be understood.

Well, that's all for today, this is not my area of study - humour or deconstructivism - but I've found this discussion very interesting. See you.

1966 - What's Up, Tiger Lily?

Hi there!

I've been watching lots of good and bad movies since last time I wrote here, but I've been studying a lot also. I've watched The Plague of Zombies (1966), The Other (1972), Diabolique (1955), House of Usher (1960), Curse of Demon (1957), Scream of Fear (1961), Peeping Tom (1960), Village of the Dammed (1960) Burn witch Burn (1962), City of the Living Dead (1980), House by the River (1950) and the Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). I think the only deception was Peeping Tom, because lots of friends told me the movie was very good and I didn't like it much.

But I'm not here to talk about all of these horror movies that I love watching, I'm here to talk about What's Up, Tiger Lily? which is the second/first movie made by Woody Allen. Why am I saying this? Because the first one, from 1965, had his script but not his direction, and now well, this movie is not directed by him in the very sense of it, but it's his movie. Art is crazy, isn't it?

Let me tell you, but I think you already know about it: This is a Japanese spy movie, Woody Allen bought it and invented new speeches; he also paid actors to dub the whole movie and what we see is a kind of mash-up, the difference is that he says it's the first movie made like this. Oh no, Woody says Gone with the Wind was made using this technology too.

The plot of the movie is pretty simple, secret spies are trying to catch the best egg salad recipe, because this will help people to conquer the world. But the thing is: the original movie is kind of senseless; it's almost impossible to understand the original plot because the new one makes sense regarding the movie scenes. The characters are weird, ugly, people are exaggerated and funny. 

I think the most interesting thing about this movie is... No, there are many interesting things about this movie. The first one I'll say regards the Reception Theory by Iser (1974). Iser said that what brings us meaning does not reside in the text itself, but in the merging between what the author implied via the text and that the reader understands about it, as having her/his historic and social reality as background. So, let's think about the first movie, the original one made in Japanese, called Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Kagi no kagi or Key of Keys (1965); despite of knowing it's a Japanese movie about espionage, we don't know much about it, what we do know is that it was filmed in Japan with Japanese actors and that Woody Allen bought it, so what we see is what Woody Allen got of the movie, his own interpretation of the scenes, his own reading about it. Moreover, the result of this rereading is a new one, made by the audience. 

Now, we know all the background of the movie because at the beginning of it, Woody Allen himself tells us about it, and what is funny, is that we follow the plot very carefully, as if it were a normal movie. Even if it's not a normal movie with a plot and characters organized very methodically, we watch it as if it was, because that's the way we see a movie/a story: we have to follow something and to create meaning out of it. Reading/watching a story is to actively interpret and solution the disjunctions of the narrative, as the plot goes on. 

That's why in the middle of the movie I was so puzzled trying to understand and to make sense out of the original one, saying things like "I don't know what could make more sense in this movie than this Allen's version". I was not supposed to catch everything about the original movie, but surely I should be able to understand a little bit about it, because of the images and everything, nevertheless, it was not possible to detach the meaning that Woody Allen gave to it, the movie was finally Allen's work. Out of the work of Woody Allen in the movie, I can't find any meaning.

And because of that, even a senseless plot like "trying to catch the best egg salad recipe" makes sense after all, because I'm making sense out of it, I'm providing the explanations for this while feeling the gaps Woody provided me to. Amazingly, it's a delicious work and imaginative people will get crazy. Think about it: a work  of creation gave life to a Japanese flick, so a creative director created a new version with new lines, and now the audience - you - can finish the work of art with your participation: that's amazing, that's freedom, that's really all about Reception Theory.

All I have to say is: a very good movie. Very funny, non-sense, out of what is expected.

References: ISER, Wolfgang, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974)

1965 - What's New Pussycat

Hello,

This is just a blog I'm trying to write, as all the things I've written these past years, it's just an attempt. What happens is that a friend of mine loves Woody Allen's movies and my sister has been watching to some of them, I've just watched - because she asked so - to Vicky Cristina Barcelona. It made me think, it was a nice and beautiful movie. Since last year I've been watching more movies than I normally do, but most of them are horror flicks. I'm in love with incredibly good movie directors such as Cronenberg, Argento and Lynch; right now, I'm trying to watch all of their movies. I don't want to watch Lynch's Dune since sci-fi is not my kind of movie, so, if we don't count this one, I've watched all the movies that Lynch has directed, from those old exercises to things I had to search on the internet for weeks. Just love him.

I was watching Argento's things too, I've left some (4), and one or two I don't want to watch. I got pretty lazy of watching movies that last more than the traditional 1 hour and 30 minutes. Some Argento's movies last more than two hours. After having watched La sindrome di Stendhal (1996), which is of course a good movie, I've got fed up. I have to go on watching his movies but I need to take some rest before doing it.

I'm watching Cronenberg also, wonderful movie director. I've just watched Crash (1996) and it's wonderful. 

But while I watch Cronenberg and Argento, I'm watching the movies from my list, that everlasting list of movies that I've created last year. It's always getting bigger but I can't complain: watching movies is a nice way to relax from daily life, and horror movies are so far from reality that they're just perfect to this function. But, as I was saying, there's Woody Allen. After having lots of people telling me I should watch him, I've decided to download a huge torrent with all of his movies and said myself that I would start from the beginning when everything got here. And it finally happened some days ago and I think now it's time to start watching them. Well, the first one is this What's New Pussycat from 1965.

In fact, it's not directed by Woody Allen, he made the screenplay, which is wonderful. The movie is sweetly funny. It's a story of a playboy who refuses to settle down with the girl he loves. There's a psychoanalyst which makes the movie worth. I'm reading right now at IMDB that Woody Allen got so frustrated with the director's version of his screenplay that he decided to direct himself his next movies. That's nice.

The movie depicts, in my view, how people behave towards relationship in a time when the roles of males and females are being put into discussion. It exposes very independent and liberal women in 1965, and how men feel insecure when they have to deal with these new women. The first contraceptive pills were approved in the USA in 1960, so it's totally clear how women as shown in the movie are so strong and sexually active. At the same time, they seem quite not ready for men's harassment.

When the character Carole, which is the girlfriend of the main character, acts the same way as him (spending the night with someone else) he cannot admit it. At the same time, he wants to have the most of girls that he can for the most of the time. This movie depicts men and women that are not prepared to deal with each other after sexual liberation. They don't know how to maintain a relationship since they can have more partners than before; they don't know how to deal with relationship: if they should have sex before it, if they should live together or if they may marry as the religious tradition demands.

Woody Allen appears in the movie as well, he is Victor. He loves Carole but Carole loves Michael. Victor is more a nerd, he is not like Michael, a playboy, that dances well, has money, a good car and everything.

The last 20 minutes of movie are totally crazy!

Well, if science can give people a better life, it can, at the same time, make their problems grow bigger. I liked the movie pretty much, I hope people watch it. See you later.