MONDOmagazine

That odd fucker sure has made a lot of movies.

By Leo K. Moncel, Doug Nayler, and Ian Passy

(Editor’s note: It has come to our attention that there has been some confusion between the work of Woody Allen and that of Woody Harrelson in the construction of this article. While this is regrettable, deadlines are deadlines, so we have been forced to publish this article with all errors uncorrected).

Woody Allen place as a key figure and contributor to the American film industry is without question. His charming southern drawl, overcoming his apparent inability to jump, descending from a proud lineage of assassins, a fondness of hemp and hemp related products, and the occasional nude workout session with the Wilson family all reinforce the almost universally recognized importance of Allen’s work. He also made, like, fifty films as well. And a lot of them were pretty good too. We all know Annie Hall, and Manhattan, and Deconstructing Harry, and The Purple Rose of Cairo, and especially Cheers. However, consider for a moment, Woody Allen films that have been overlooked by most. When your body of work is as extensive as Allen’s and this is bound to happen, and every so often it is worth it to take a look and re-examine some hidden gems. With this intention in mind, MONDOFilm presents three lesser-known films written and directed by Allen worth a second look.

Sweet and Lowdown
Sony Pictures Classics 1999

A particularly well done, but often forgotten, Woody Allen film is Sweet and Lowdown, released in 1999. While the film received relatively high critical praise and even had two Oscar nods, unfortunately, all of about the population of Sarnia ever actually got around to seeing this film. It’s a shame because although, I willingly admit I am not the biggest Woody Allen fan, I find this film particularly enjoyable.

It’s the story of Emmet Ray (Sean Penn), a fictitious 1930s jazz guitarist and his struggles, both internal and external. Utilizing a retrospective fake documentary style the story follows Ray through a Fellini-esque arc as he moves throughout the American landscape trying to find his way. Ray eventually meets a mute named Hattie (Samantha Morgan) who soon becomes the Gelsomina to Ray’s Zampanò a la Fellini’s La Strada (1954). In this homage to one of his favourite filmmakers, Allen pits the brutish and crass Ray against the sweet and unassuming Hattie and it is the relationship between these two characters makes the film.

While I think Allen is a talented filmmaker, seeing and hearing him annoys the hell out of me, and in Sweet and Lowdown, he graciously forgoes the lead role in order to focus on more important matters. Penn excels as Emmet, the obnoxious, self-involved, self conscious, neurotic, abrasive, and emotionally retarded world’s second best guitarist with women troubles. Emmet’s character lies, drinks, gambles, steals, shoots rats, uses and abuses the people around him, and cries whenever he hears the music of Django Reinheardt — the one guitarist more talented than him. The music of Django consumes him, and Django’s very existence terrifies him. Essentially, Penn plays a prototypical Woody Allen character, but he does it well without ever becoming too grating. He is a frustrating, yet interesting character; extremely talented, but also extremely flawed. Much like Fellini’s Zampanò, he is a character you hate to hate.

— Ian Passy

Zelig
Warner Bros. Pictures 1983

The mockumentary format is overused today, and sometimes used as an excuse for sloppy filmmaking (sorry, For Your Consideration), so it’s a genuine delight to come back to Woody Allen’s sharp and hilarious Zelig. Brilliantly recreating all the tropes of an historical documentary (archival footage with commentary from scholars and aged family descendants) the film introduces us to the incredible story of Mr. Leonard Zelig.

Zelig (Woody Allen) was discovered at dinner party in 1929 by none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald observed Zelig hobnobbing with millionaires and found him moments later standing in the kitchen ranting about the tyranny of the idle rich. Zelig had completely transformed his speech, his mannerisms, and, most significantly, his facial features and body type. Later, Zelig learns that he has no control over his ability. Rather, he is like a chameleon, transforming into the likeness of any males in his vicinity. News of Mr. Zelig’s bizarre ability travels the United States and this human chameleon becomes a national sensation. Zelig even gets his own fad dance at the height of the hysteria. After stints touring as an oddity, he comes into the care of Doctor Eudora Fletcher, who sees Zelig’s ability as a condition and seeks to cure him. Fletcher and Zelig begin to fall for each other, but is their love strong enough to overcome the freakish circumstances?

The hilarity of Zelig is in its ability to handle incredible absurdity with a totally straight face. The tone of the archival documentary is held so consistently that the desire to “buy in” to what’s happening on screen becomes tremendous. The sense of time and place that is sketched on screen is so sharp, so specific, it makes the perfect backdrop for the madcap story. What the film ultimately does is present a perfect caricature of the late 1920’s — here in this land ruled by the zany fad, the greatest oddity of all is paradoxically the greatest conformist in America’s huge, wacky melting pot.

— Leo Moncel

Interiors
United Artists 1978

Ask anyone even vaguely familiar with Allen’s work for his most familiar works, and you will immediately be told Annie Hall and Manhattan. Released in 1977 and 1979, respectively, these two works cemented Allen’s legacy as a major American filmmaker, and planted his neurotic, witty comedy into the collective consciousness. Allen’s wry observations and skits dissecting relationship hangups proved wildly popular with both films, a popularity that has made them iconic today. However, in between Allen released Interiors, a very dark drama about a family no more comfortable with each other than they are with themselves. At the time audiences greeted the film with an overwhelming sense of disappointment, expecting more sex jokes and less crippling insecurity and suicide attempts. However, hindsight has proven much kinder to the film, finally proving influential to some of America’s strongest modern filmmakers.

Interiors follows the lives of Joey (Mary Beth Hurt), artistically driven but at a loss to explain how, and her sister Renata (Diane Keaton), a successful writer, as they watch their father (E.G. Marshall) divorce their frigid, meticulous, and obsessive mother (Geraldine Page) and deal with the turmoil inherent therein. The resulting film is a sharp, insightful, and squirmingly honest look at very smart people who can’t understand why they can’t hold their lives together more effectively.

In recent years the film has begun to develop some very high profile fans. One of the most notable of these in Noah Baumbach, whose films The Squid and the Whale and Margot at the Wedding have drawn from a similar cast of affluent New York intellectual elite undermined by pervasive insecurity. Anyone seeing Interiors for the first time with a familiarity with Baumbach’s work can easily see the influences both formal and thematic.

— Doug Nayler

Be Kind Rewind

Directed By Michel Gondry
Focus Features 2008

By Ian Passy

I am willing to admit I am not easily impressed. I am cynical, jaded, and generally disappointed by all things. In fact my top ten list of personal favourite films only has five entries, and only two of them I have watched more than once, and one of them is Transformers: The Animated Movie. Despite all this, however, somehow French director Michel Gondry has charmed me with his quirky oeuvre. Even from his days as a lowly music video director, his work stood out as something of value, something that had an ounce of personal expression. The same can be said of the few feature films he has directed including his latest, Be Kind Rewind, starring Mos Def, Jack Black, and Danny Glover. However, there is something lacking in this film, something not quite right.

The premise seems to function well enough. Mos Def’s and Jack Black’s characters recreate a variety of well known blockbuster films for the patrons of a video rental store after Jack Black destroys the current library while the owner, Danny Glover’s character, is out of town. Comedy and a bit of drama ensue as more people become interested in watching and also being a part of these remade (sweded) films. (I would like to go on record to say that sweded is a flat out stupid term and the person responsible for its infliction upon society should be shot.) Tempers soon flair as the remade films grow unmanageably elaborate. At the same time the future of the beloved movie store/leading rival of Lions Gate Studios is questionable thanks to anti-piracy lawsuits and lack of legitimate (any) income.

The story is rather bare. It mainly serves to legitimize Mos Def and Jack Black running around shooting shoddy but humourous home movie versions of films such as Ghostbusters, Rush Hour 2, and a bunch of others I cannot remember because there where only a few seconds of them. This is unfortunate because the remakes are the best parts of Be Kind Rewind. The impromptu props and interaction of the characters trying to portray other characters is quite engaging, whereas the characters in the “real” universe of Be Kind Rewind lack any real interest or depth. I find it hard to care about Jerry, played by Jack Black, who is an obnoxious idiot, and Mike, played by Mos Def, who mainly sits around waiting for life to suck as a direct result of knowing Jerry and then whine about it. The most appealing main character, Mr. Fletcher, played by Danny Glover, does his best to add some humanity to the story by doing a remake of himself as Henry Sherman from The Royal Tenenbaums.

Despite appearances, it pains me to dislike Be Kind Rewind. I had hopes when I first heard of this film. I thought the premise was great and the cast was tolerable. I even hoped Gondry would have been able to tame Jack Black into something watchable like Stephen Frears did in High Fidelity. In an age where ownership of intellectual material is so ethereal and constantly challenged, Be Kind Rewind could have been so much more but it stumbles and falls flat. I really hope this is not a sign of things to come for Gondry, merely a momentary hitch in his step. After watching a film like this, I believe it is time for the filmmaker to cut back on the Youtube videos of him solving things with his feet and get down to business.

There Will Be Blood
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Miramax, 2008

By Ian Passy

Well it’s finally upon us – the filmic doldrums. From January to March, Hollywood releases all of the garbage that no one wants to watch. Even if they did, they wouldn’t, because it ranges from miserable to bullshit. After careful consideration of these factors, I decided that the recent release of Paul Thomas Anderson’s newest film There Will Be Blood must be some sort of mistake, because this is quite a film. So there you have it: it’s January and yet there is a film worth watching.

Here we have a markedly different film from Paul Thomas Anderson’s (not to be confused with Paul W. S. Anderson – the man with the fecal touch) oeuvre. There Will Be Blood is not Punch-Drunk Love or Boogie Nights or Magnolia. It stands out from the rest of PTA’s work as a step in a new direction, and arguably a better one for the filmmaker. This film is more focused, darker, and less quirky that the director’s previous films. For There Will Be Blood, loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!, this change works very well. Those expecting more of what they saw in previous PTA films may be disappointed, but I urge them to stop being crybabies over it because they’re going to miss a gripping cinematic experience.

There Will Be Blood is about a turn-of-the-century American oil tycoon named Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis). Mr. Plainview is a Machiavellian fellow who cares about nothing but personal, mainly financial, success. His quest for oil and wealth brings him and his young son to a small Texas town where he finds the potential to amass a great deal of oil and money. However, despite his abilities, his goal is not so easily achieved due to the resistance of the townspeople, especially a maniacal young preacher by the name Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Throughout the film, Plainview finds himself at odds with everyone he comes into contact with as he attempts to secure his derricks and personal fortune.

Despite the concept of drilling for oil all over the state of Texas, the scope of the film is rather narrow. It focuses almost exclusively on Daniel Plainview, as the character appears in almost every single scene. There Will Be Blood has a relatively small cast and essentially only the two main characters. This makes for a slow paced, yet intense, character-driven narrative. As the film progresses one realizes the distinctions between good and evil are not so clear. PTA does an excellent job of allowing the characters to develop as the story progresses. Their actions and motives become clearer without it being contrived and obvious.

The world created by PTA in There Will Be Blood, in which Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday struggle against each other, adds greatly to the story. PTA’s depiction of the Texas landscape is marvellous. He finds beauty in a deserted wasteland. The pacing, scripting, and execution of almost every frame feels meticulous and well thought out. Not to give anything away, but the last scene of the film is the best, and possibly the best scene ever filmed, period. Of course, PTA is known for his attention to detail and subtleties, and There Will Be Blood is no exception. He took his time making this film and made sure everything was as close to perfect as he could make it. This film will require and entice more than one viewing.

Unfortunately, there is so much to say about There Will Be Blood and so little space to say it. However, I have to point out the excellent work by Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano. Day-Lewis and his character are such stunning forces in this film that it’s commendable that someone as young as Dano was able to hold his own on screen next to him.

Lars and the Real Girl
Directed by Craig Gillespie
MGM, 2007

By Ian Passy

This is all Zach Braff’s fault. More specifically: Garden State. It was pseudo-indie garbage where a misunderstood twenty-something man tried to make sense of stuff I do not care about; while it was not the worst film ever, it was nothing special. Then along came Lonesome Jim – which I like to call Garden State II: Garden Harder. And now we have the third film in the “pseudo-indie twenty-something man who tries to make sense of stuff I do not care about” series: Garden State III: Garden with a Vengeance. Or, as it’s better known, Lars and the Real Girl.

Lars and the Real Girl has a rather simple premise. Lars (Ryan Gosling) is a socially awkward maladroit who inhabits a garage in smalltown Minnesota or some similarly terrible place that I would never live in or even visit. Lars has a meager social life that involves sharing a cubicle at work with a David Spade/elf hybrid, going to church, wearing snow boots, and avoiding human contact. This alone does not make for much of a plot, so the filmmakers decided Lars should order a realistic-looking sex doll from the internet, and that is exactly what Lars does. This is where the film starts to fall apart. Without giving away too much of the plot, I will just say that nothing of interest happens for the rest of the film. Of course things happen and change, and other characters notice and react to Lars and his new girlfriend, but nothing worth noting happens. The film just meanders along until its eventual and predictable ending.

I know Lars and the Real Girl is not the type of film where a transport truck jack-knifes on a turnpike and the resulting explosion impregnates a passing asteroid whose child turns out to be a metamorphic robot Jesus, but there is something unsatisfactory with the lack of meaningful conflict. The main issue of the film is Lars’ internal struggle and how said struggle manifests itself in his life, but everything is too convenient and idealistic to be of any real interest. The film just ends up being sweet. Painfully sweet. So sweet that I switched to Sensodyne® toothpaste because my teeth hurt so much. I found all the characters in the film to be overly patient and understanding of the fact that Lars is dating a latex woman. The film is too contrived and neat, and grows predictable from the characters’ becoming locked in a non-threatening state of being.

In the end, I feel let down by the filmmakers’ refusal to take risks with the characters and plot of this film. It is as if they built up their nerve with the idea of a smalltown man dating a sex doll and not being ashamed, or hiding it from his family and neighbors – but then decided that it was too edgy or raw, turning it instead into a sweet little story about the importance of family and wearing a scarf when it’s cold outside. Lars and the Real Girl does not insult your intelligence outright, like a Michael Bay film does, but it also does nothing to make you care about its characters or story. If this is the Godfather III of pseudo-indie garbage where a misunderstood twenty-something man tries to make sense of stuff I do not care about, I am not looking forward to the eventual release of Garden State IV: Live Free or Garden Hard.

The Darjeeling Limited
Directed by Wes Anderson
Fox Searchlight 2007

By Ian Passy

Author’s Note: At this moment, I am sitting here wrestling with myself, trying to determine what exactly I thought of Wes Anderson’s new film The Darjeeling Limited. Part of the problem is that I saw it a couple of weeks ago and, due to many factors (mainly laziness and apathy) I am only now bothering to put my thoughts into words. Unfortunately, my memory has deteriorated slightly, so I feel I should mention upfront that if I confuse characters, events, themes or whatever other filmic elements that make up Darjeeling with another film such as Zabriskie Point, or perhaps even my own life, I apologize…

The Darjeeling Limited is the latest film by Wes Anderson, a director who produces pretty solid films (even The Life Aquatic); especially compared to most other movies out there. In a lot of ways The Darjeeling Limited plays out like a typical Wes Anderson film. It’s highly stylized, the characters are quirky, the narrative is meandering, and the director’s palette of pastels are all present here. Also present are the awkward, tense and mutually suspicious familial relationships upon which Anderson enjoys to muse. All this is not necessarily a bad thing; Anderson is a still young director that knows enough to play to his strengths. He knows that this way, he can satisfy his presumably-growing “niche” audience as well as the almighty producers that give him those sacks of money saying, “Go on, Wes, have at it! Be so kind as to bang out another one of your hip pseudo art house Hollywood Indie films that those college kids love so much. When it’s all said in done, we’ll both have enough for two new boats each — we can race them!”

This time around, Wes has set up shop in Middle of Nowhere, India, where three estranged brothers find themselves together again for the first time in a year. Francis (Owen Wilson)— the eldest and slightly controlling brother— has summoned Jack (Jason Schwartzman) and Peter (Adrien Brody) to a month long journey through India to reconnect after the death of their father. It is supposed to be a spiritual journey where the brothers find themselves and each other. But thanks to the time and distance these characters have spent apart, this forced familiarity proves a lot to handle. Things do not go as planned, and the brothers bicker with each other endlessly as a cloud of deceit and mistrust swells overhead. Eventually, things boil over and they find themselves stranded in the both literal and figurative middle of nowhere.

I do not know if my description of the film makes it sound interesting, but for the most part, it is. The characters play off each other very well, apparently echoing the real life writers of the film’s script: Anderson, Schwartzman, and Roman, a Coppola I have never heard of before seeing this film. The dialogue at times feels a little stiff, but is still well executed by the actors. Although Anderson does well to show the brothers as individual people with traits, flaws, dreams and insecurities, towards the end of the film I found it difficult to relate to them. I got the impression that they were sort of privileged kids from an affluent family who never seemed able to grow up. They cannot act their age and would rather just coast on their dead father’s wealth, allowing for whimsical and quirky lives. While I found myself laughing at their follies throughout their journey, I never was really to sympathize with the brothers because they just generally came across as spoiled, whiny brats.

I suppose then, the three brothers are film’s greatest asset and flaw. Being the main characters in a character driven narrative, this is somewhat unavoidable. I think Wes Anderson needs to collaborate writing scripts with Owen Wilson again, because Schwartzman and that Coppola guy, despite valiant efforts, falter slightly with this script. Unfortunately, I just got sick of listening to rich people be selfish and obnoxious and complain about nothing all that important, which is a shame, as the other filmic elements are quite strong, in many instances making up for the weaker points. The mis-en-scène of The Darjeeling Limited is quite good, as it is in other Anderson films. The colours, the shots, the settings, the soundtrack all add to a stylized but not too absurd look and feel. I enjoyed the acting despite the script and character issues. The performances are well done, making the characters more convincing. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrian Brody were all affluent, emotionally immature, selfish pricks.

In the end, the somewhat unsympathetic and inaccessible main characters are my only real issue with the film, and it is not a complete deal-breaker. The Darjeeling Limited is still worth seeing, even if you hate the main characters as much as I did. For me the most interesting part is to see what Wes Anderson conjures up next. Despite The Darjeeling Limited being good, I think his best film is still yet to come.

Eastern Promises
Directed by David Cronenberg
Serendipity Point/BBC Films, 2007

By Ian Passy

For those few people lucky enough to own a “Girls of Canadian Tire” limited edition 2007 calendar (me not being one of them — I’ve been banned from the store since the mid-90s when I helped my friend Dieter import some questionable Canadian Tire money), you should be aware it is the end of summer. This means many things: a change in seasons, the end of another Toronto International Film Festival, and most importantly, the wide release of David Cronenberg’s new film, Eastern Promises. Much like A History of Violence, this film is in Cronenberg’s new favourite genre, crime thriller. And it stars his new favourite leading man, Viggo Mortensen.

Not surprisingly, Eastern Promises feels much like A History of Violence. Once again, I found Cronenberg injecting his own personal ideals and philosophy into a rather saturated genre. The thrust of Eastern Promises is similar to that of A History of Violence: it studies the effect of a state of constant turmoil and violence on the represented characters. There were a number of times throughout the film that I caught myself directly comparing Eastern Promises to A History of Violence. However, since this is not a comparative essay I am going to shut up about A History of Violence now. I’ll leave further comparisons to other people, hopefully film professors or at least critics, because anyone who reads that deeply into films gets paid to do it, or is a dork.

Eastern Promises is set in London, England. The city’s dark and gloomy facade does well to accent the film’s dirty and vile story. The plot centres around a young, and slightly sheltered, midwife named Anna (Naomi Watts). Through her work, she comes across a pregnant Russian girl who dies on her shift, just after giving birth. In an attempt to find a relative and possibly a home for London’s littlest orphan, Anna seeks the help of an old Russian man whose business card is among the pages of the departed’s diary.

This man, Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl), is quite a character, the kind where just below that kind, tired, geezer exterior is something really, really frightening. And as if that weren’t enough, Semyon just happens to have a whole stable of sketchy mafia types just itching to turn Anna’s noble quest to find an orphan a home into a shitstorm of violence and terror. Semyon’s son is another piece of work. Kirill (played rather well by Vincent Cassel) is an unpredictable, violent, and spastic kind of guy. He also likes to hit the bottle, so he has that going for him too. However, the really interesting character that Anna comes into contact with is the family driver Nikolai, portrayed by the big V, Viggo Mortensen. More than Kirill or Semyon, there is something just not right about this guy. His motives, allegiances, morality (or lack thereof) are a mystery. The only thing we know about him are his tattoos, but they don’t say much unless you are majoring in modern Russian prison tattoo art. (Which would be a pretty cool major, if you think about it.)

As the story progresses, Anna and the spectator learn more about the dead girl’s past and how it relates to Seymon, Kirill, and the Russian mafia. However, Nikolai remains at a stoic distance from everyone, including the viewer. This is what makes him the most sinister of all. You never really know where he stands. His ever-calm demeanour belies everything about him.

There are a couple of plot twists. Both are fairly decent. Better than the twists in A History of Violence. I know I said I wouldn’t mention that film again, but this is important. In Eastern Promises Cronenberg uses twists and revelations more effectively. They are slightly less jarring and more meaningful to the plot and the film as a whole than in A History of Violence. It’s not perfect, but he is learning from his previous works.

Overall, Eastern Promises is a solid film. I enjoyed it more than A History of Violence. It’s tighter, more consistent, and it doesn’t collapse under its own weight in the final act. The ending, while conclusive, is not so conclusive that the spectator feels they’re being led by those child-tether things that haven’t been used since the mid-90s (right around the time I was banned from Canadian Tire). Cronenberg is an experienced filmmaker and it shows. His attention to detail helps really pull it all together. This is a well-casted, well-written, well-shot film. The scenery adds to the mood, the small things like the intricate tattoos on the Russian characters add to their fearful presence, and their accents are probably pretty good. As someone who does not speak any Russian at all, I was thoroughly convinced that the language spoken in the film (other than English) was mostly Russian.

Since this is David Cronenberg here, I should probably mention the violence in the film. It’s pretty good. There are some scenes that might make you squirm but really, you should expect it by now. It doesn’t seem out of place in terms of the plot or the characters involved. It’s about the brutality of a powerful Russian mafia family; some people are going to have to die. The most violent scene towards the end, already the most talked about, is quite good. If the film had nothing else, that one scene has the potential to be the car-chase scene from Bullitt. Fortunately for everyone involved, especially the audience, the entire film is leagues better than Bullitt. That one scene is just a bonus. An awesome bonus. Involving knives.