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
