Hey folks, Harry here with What's review of SMALL TIME CROOKS, the Dreamworks produced Woody Allen film... the first in what looks like a long term partnership with Dreamworks. Woody and the Huckfinn Moon Folks recently signed a film deal to produce a number of future Untitled Fall Projects, hehhehehe... This screening took place at NYU, and there were questions afterwards.. there's slight spoilers so tread carefully...
Harry-
I've been a long time visitor to AICN, but this is the first time I've had
anything interesting to write about. Today I caught an afternoon screening of
Woody Allen's next film, Small Time Crooks, set up through the NYU Film
School (of which I am not a student). It even included an answer and question
session with Mr. Allen after the film. There might be some spoilers in
this...who knows for sure?
First off, I've always been a huge Woody Allen fan. I love a lot of his
movies, 70's, 80's, 90's; doesn't matter...a huge fan. Crimes and
Misdemeanors, Annie Hall, Bullets Over Broadway, Manhattan Murder Mystery,
Purple Rose of Cairo...I think I own all of them. I didn't care much for
Sweet and Lowdown, Celebrity, or Deconstructing Harry, but, I mean, every
Woody Allen film has some great parts and performances in it.
Small Time Crooks has a huge and meandering story that starts with a poor,
trashy, married couple, living somewhere close to New York City (Allen and
Tracey Ulman). But he's got a plan to make them rich: They rent out an vacant
store next to a bank, put up a makeshift cookie bakery as a front, and dig a
tunnel from the basement of the bakery into the vault of the bank. The plan
fails, they wind up rich anyway (good cookies), and most of the movie
examines what happens when the lower class become upper class. She wants to
become cultured and dignified, he longs for the days when they could eat
Cheeseburgers and Turkey Meatballs. Etc, etc.
The marriage of Allen and Ulman's characters is obviously inspired by
'The Honeymooners'. In his interview after the film, Allen said that The
Honeymooners is one of the few TV shows that could make him genuinley laugh.
Broad, broad comedy. The energy in the movie is huge. I mean, it's quick,
it's colorful, it's nonstop. It was interesting to see Allen trying to do
this from a lower class' point of view - a nice change of pace from the usual
Upper East Side settings. A lot of the acting was really great: Tracey Ulman
was perfect, she reminded me why I like her so much, and Elaine May steals
every scene she's in. Allen even finally has a (breif, breif) love affair
with someone his own age.The film made me laugh, hard, in several places
throughout the whole thing. It's not too lopsided or uneven - lots of good
scenes and great jokes and one liners in beginning, middle, and end. The
people I saw it with said that it was the best Woody Allen movie they'd scene
in a long time.
But doesn't seem like every new movie is supposed to be the best Woody Allen
movie in a long time?
I was lukewarm about it. Believe me, I wanted to like it. I was thinking
about it for a while, and I think, in my own humble opinion, this is the
first time I can remember the acting in a Woody Allen movie being...bad. Oh,
wait, what the hell am I saying? Paul Simon, Kenneth Brannah, Uma Thurman.
Hm. Okay, well, this time (I hate writing this) it's Woody! What the hell is
he doing? It was like Jar Jar Binks, no, wait...you know what it was like?
Did you see Celebrity? It was like Kenneth Brannah. Just like that, but this
time it was Woody doing 'The Honeymooners'. So, so forced. He doesn't seem to
be listening to or working off of any other characters. Lots of scenes and
dialogue didn't seem like acting at all; more like obviously deliberate
setups for punchlines that just weren't working. But, I mean, whatever, you
get used to it. You adapt. A lot of the supporting roles aren't horrendous,
they don't derail the thing, but it's just awkward. Even with the extras in
the film, I was wondering what world it was supposed to take place in. Which
is a good segway into the real issue.
I was dying to ask Woody about the old problem of the artist who struggles
and toils to create his art, then becomes hugely successful, and finds out
that the people and situations his success puts him in doesn't feed his
humanity, or his grass roots sense of reality. In other words, is it possible
for Woody Allen, at this point in his life, to write a story that would have
any personal resonance for little old me, who lives back here on planet
earth? I think it is possible. The movie said things about success, about
money, and about love...but it was all stuff that might be interesting to a
thirteen year old. Generic, maybe, is a better word? And it's not like it was
an all-out homage to The Honeymooners, or a vacation from Woody's cerebral
side. This was not Manhattan Murder Mystery, I would have loved it if it
were. You could see him trying to make you think about things, but, I
mean...there seemed to be less truth, less attention paid to reality, or just
to the basic humanity that all art has to be hooked in to, you know? Hm.
After Small Time Crooks they showed outakes of Woody Allen movies through the
years. It took three seconds of Annie Hall footage to feel the heart in that
movie. You see Dianne Keaton say three words and flash a nervous smile and
you know that, yeah, this is what love is like. You know what he's talking
about, and you care about what's happening. You're involved. Maybe that's
what was up with Small Time Crooks. When everything was said and done, you
just didn't care. But let me stick up for my man Woody; I think he can still
do it. He's too talented to write off.
Anyway, this was my take on the film. It's beautiful, it's funny, it's
empty...I think any true Woody Allen fan is going to see it anyway, so what
the hell?
You need to call me something? Is that what happens here? Call me...What
|
