comment #1

ErrantElan says ...

Haven't seen "Funny People" yet, but comparing it to "Annie Hall" isn't much of a recommendation, at least imho.

"Love and Death" is by far Woody's funniest and most inspired comedy, and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is one of the very best films ever made, with what I would argue is the greatest "villain" in move history, Martin Landau's character.

Against those films, "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" come off as cloying, fantasy-land representations of a twee, false Manhattan that never even existed except in the minds of the nouveau-riche and yuppie-upstart drones. They were the "Sex and the City" of their time for pseudo-intellectuals from White Plains.

comment #2

SHR says ...

ErrantElan---you are Joey Nickels

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

I believe Hannah and her Sisters is the Woody Allen "brush with mortality" movie.

comment #4

Glenn Kenny says ...

"Against those films, 'Annie Hall' and 'Manhattan' come off as cloying, fantasy-land representations of a twee, false Manhattan that never even existed except in the minds of the nouveau-riche and yuppie-upstart drones."

Hmm. I wonder how old ErrantElan is. In my experience, most people who make know-somethingish statements of that ilk were in their infancy when "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" came out. (Nathan Lee tried a similar gambit when reviewing an Allen-esque mumblecore film recently.)

As someone who used to spy Allen and Marshall Brickman at John's Pizzeria on a semi-regular basis as a teen, I can attest to the milieu's existence. Of course Allen's films romanticized and sentimentalized it more than a little bit. But they didn't invent it, or out-and-out falsify it.

comment #5

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

Can someone explain to me when, how. and why Jews came to run almost all of Hollywood? I don't mean it in a negative fashion, so don't Mel Gibson my ass.... but how on earth did they come to control almost everything, plus the actors and directors and producers as well...?

comment #6

Bob_Roberts says ...

Courtesy of Wikipedia - Yuppie (short for "young urban professional" or "young upwardly-mobile professional")[1] refers to a 1980s and early 1990s term for financially secure, upper-middle class young people in their 20s and early 30s.

If we are to believe ErrantElan's statement, does that make Woody Allen ahead of his time?

comment #7

ErrantElan says ...

Bob, just because there wasn't a term for it yet doesn't mean the archetype didn't exist. Just hadn't been called "yuppie" yet. I'm retro-dating the term , if you will.

And Glenn Kenny, yes, I'm aware that there were certain elements of the milieu that weren't "out and out" false. I just think his films represent a cleaned-up fantasy version of urban New York just as much as Capra tended to glamorize small-town America. Same thing, different milieus.

comment #8

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I don't like Annie Hall. I think comedy has a limited shelf-life and so it's harder to get into comedies of previous generations than dramas. It's the same reason why A Midsummer Night's Dream is kind of a chore while Macbeth or Othello are still engrossing.

Bad example, but I watched Spaceballs last night and didn't really find it that funny. But I bet it was hilarious in its day.

comment #9

Glenn Kenny says ...

Nice back-pedaling, EE. You get bonus points for bringing in Capra, whose work most of us are incapable of means-testing, as it were. In any case, it's easier than admitting "I had no idea what I was talking about." By the way, I think Whit Stillman's "Metropolitan" is a complete construct because I've never met a Manhattanite who knows who Fourier was.

Okay, I'll let go now. But I will say that one of the many things that separates "Annie Hall" from "Funny People" is the putative intellectualism of both the characters and the creator of the earlier picture. Apatow and his characters wouldn't know Ingmar Bergman if the Swede returned from the grave and forced them to watch the five-hour cut of "Fanny and Alexander." Nor is Apatow interested in repeating Allen's formal experiments. Does this mean "Funny People" is dumbed down? Not necessarily. But it definitely makes it quite a bit less multi-dimensional than "Hall."

comment #10

Bob_Roberts says ...

I do think that there is a certain NYC glamorization that both movies hold. Manhattan is essentially a love letter to the city and in both films, Allen does maintain a lifestyle that many people cannot afford in NYC. Unlike SOTC, the lifestyle is not aimed extravagance. Shoes are traded in for books, expensive nights out are traded in for a tennis club membership and a shrink.

Allen is in his early 40's for both, surrounded by people his own age, primarily in the entertainment and arts, decidedly not Yuppies. Neither movie is about consumerism or excess, two tenants of the yuppie movement, nor do they imply that either is a motivating factor. I think that it was safe to say that none of his pursuits or live goals align with a Yuppie lifestyle. His characters goals were to get laid and maybe fall in love.

Homer J Simpson once said "It is funny because it is true". Both movies are full of true-ism's and that is why, for me, they are still funny and enjoyable.

comment #11

btwnproductions says ...

Then and now, SPACEBALLS always had about three laughs in it.

comment #12

ErrantElan says ...

I wouldn't expect anyone to "means-test" anything. None of these kinds of observations are testable. It's all about vibes.

Were there self-important tweedy professor types walking up 9th avenue in 1977 talking about Kierkegaard? Of course. I'm not denying that, nor did I back-pedal to say that. But when Woody Allens films focused on those types at the exclusion of all else, it's undeniable that his head was stuck up his own ass concerning a fantasy Manhattan that had everything else but the vague, shallowly intellectual stripped out of it. They were films for the type of people who liked to say they know who Bergman is, but hadn't actually seen any of his films.

His Manhattan films served as a romanticized, Gershwin-scored incomplete representation that served to create a false image of the totality of the city in the minds of those across the country and world, much as Sex and the City has done recently. At least Capra turned his theme on it's head somewhat in "It's a Wonderful Life".

comment #13

ErrantElan says ...

And Bob Roberts, I think Woody always copped out by making his character a somewhat-poor artist surrounded by all these people who OBVIOUSLY had a lot of money, whether they were your modern definition of yuppie or not. The milieu was large loft apartments, squash matches in private gyms, etc. Woody's characters seemed as false in their contrived relative poverty as the "Friends" characters having those huge apartments with their middle-class jobs.

It's always been a white, upper-middle-class fantasy, that's all I'm saying. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, in and of itself. But pretending that's not the case seems silly to me.

comment #14

frankbooth says ...

I second btwnproductions opinion. I was visiting relatives and saw it with a small-town audience who laughed loudest every time someone hit his head or got kicked in the balls. It was agony.

comment #15

lonniechung says ...

Really ErrantElan? "It's always been a white, upper-middle-class fantasy, that's all I'm saying." Do you hold Mean Streets in the same regard? Is it "an incomplete representation" of New York because it only deals with one neighborhood? I have no problem with not digging a movie, but you should pick a slightly less shallow approach.

comment #16

MilkMan says ...

Apatow's version of Los Angeles is more fantastical than Woody's version of New York City. But still, putting Apatow in the same conversation with Allen is ridiculous. Apatow and Co. can't even make movies as funny as the Farrelly Bros (Kingpin, by itself, is funnier than everything that Apatow has done, combined), let alone Woody Allen. Christopher Guest and Larry David and Todd Solondz and, to a lesser extent, Charlie Kaufman, are the only American filmmakers I can think of who deserve to sit at the table with Woody at his best. Apatow is Rob Reiner with a bottomless mug of cock jokes and homo panic. That's all he is and all he ever will be. Actually, Apatow's films aren't even as funny as Porky's. What I find fascinating is how Apatow has even been allowed to be considered a serious comedy talent. I don't get it. But then again, I don't get a lot of things. Like Godard's Made in U.S.A. Anyone want to explain that one to me? Over my head.

comment #17

mitchtaylor says ...

"Apatow is Rob Reiner with a bottomless mug of cock jokes and homo panic. That's all he is and all he ever will be. "

Good God man you've hit the nail on the head. Please write this 100 times in the sky so I no longer have to yell at people for liking his stupid bullshit.

comment #18

KC says ...

This movie was such a self-indulgent mess but kind of an endearing one. I would take issue with the idea that Apatow "knows" women, though. Obsesses over, obviously I'll give Sancton that one. The Movieline review was pretty spot-on in that respect, I think.

comment #19

Gordon27 says ...

""For the last few months I've been nursing this idea for a widescreen black-and-white film called Manhattan -- another difficult-relationships film -- but I'm now thinking it would be better to just relapse back into a silly comedy and...you know, have a good time and make people laugh. I mean, I'm an entertainer, right? And that's what people want me to be." "

It's funny, because Allen, by all reports, did try to shelve 'Manhattan' -- AFTER filming it. And his next movie was a movie about how he should be making comedies.

comment #20

Terry McCarty says ...

Here's my take:
Apatow's FUNNY PEOPLE, which I liked overall, is closer to Cameron Crowe-circa-JERRY MAGUIRE.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER, in terms of structure and use of stylized gimmickry, could conceivably be compared with ANNIE HALL. But SUMMER tends to trade a bit too much on self-congratulatory cleverness.

comment #21

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I was about to rip EE a new one for dissing Manhattan -- one of my all-time faves from Allen -- but I really have to give him credit, he's making some valid and substantive points here.

Still not going to stop me from loving Manhattan, but I think calling Woody's representation of NYC dwellers' lifestyles "unrealistic" or "fantastic" seems like a fair criticism, actually.

I guess my best counter-argument would be that Manhattan IS one of WA's most unapologetically romantic films (the music, the photography, the portrayal of relationships), so I don't think this aspect of his film bothers me as much as it does in some of his more "serious" films.

Come to think of it, watching Cassandra's Dream I was struck by how often Colin Farrell's seems to mention that he desperately needs money. I'm not sure if it's because his character was a mechanic or because he was a compulsive gambler (perhaps Woody made sure his character was both to insure his monetary problems?), but that's one of the few times I can remember the issue of money being handled realistically at the forefront of one of his plots. It was a nice change of pace; I really liked that character.

comment #22

Phatang! says ...

I've come to feel that "Crimes And Misdemeanors" is somewhat overrated. I mean, I love the movie, and the Woody/Mia/Alan Alda subplot is just about perfect. But the main storyline is a little on the nose. I mean, I saw it when I was 13, and I think I pretty much got it all then. It's nitpicking, I know.

"Broadway Danny Rose", on the other hand, is probably his most underrated. Danny Rose may be the best character he ever wrote for himself (along with Zelig). "Hannah" is also better than I used to think. He absolutely nails those characters, and weaves them together effortlessly.

You can make a case for "Love And Death" being the funniest, but "Bananas" is right there with it.

comment #23

Stringer Bell says ...

Apatow's got a long way to reach Woody-dom.

The only thing they have in common is their bald spots.

comment #24

btwnproductions says ...

"Allen knows his image of the city is a romanticized one, and so be it.

"I've never cared about representing it naturalistically. I always tried to show it the way I felt about it," says Allen. "I'm always attracted to the unreal New York. Guys like Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee depict New York very often very realistically. Very, very beautifully and very correctly. I don't. The New York I've shown over the years is the New York I got from Hollywood movies."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-06-17-woody-allen_N.htm

comment #25

moveable hype says ...

Another big difference between the two is, Woody is very isolated from others while Apatow collaborates and promotes others.

For better or worse, Apatow does help his friends and collaborators get work. Seth Rogan, Jason Segal and many others have had their careers at least partially developed by Apatow.

While, on the other hand, the world waits for a Woody Allen produced Marshall Brickman or Mickey Rose vehicle.

comment #26

bluefugue says ...

Yes, any criticism of Allen's movies as being "unrealistic" seems to me totally irrelevant. Allen's New York may only exist in the mind, but so did Dickens's London.

Love and Death is a good movie, but Annie Hall is a better one.

comment #27

Rich S. says ...

There's another point of comparison, and while it may be the most unimportant, ultimately, it might be the only one that matters. That's box office.

For better or worse, Apatow was expected to remain on the trajectory of the monster blockbuster comedy. When movies like Funny People don't do Hangover numbers ($225 million and counting!), the suits start wondering what went wrong.

Funny People might represent growth to Judd Apatow, but it's doubtful he's ever going to get a $75 million budget to do another movie like it. Unless he wants to go back to broad shtick, he's going to have to content himself with Woody Allen budget and box office numbers.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

comment #28

corey3rd says ...

By the time Annie Hall ends, you still have an hour of Funny People. somebody knew how to tell their tale without dawdling

the crime of Manhattan is Gordon Willis not even getting nominated for cinematography Oscar.

comment #29

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I know, right, corey?

Not winning is one thing (screwy things can always happen with emotional momentum & stiff competition from other films), but not even nominated? Huh?

comment #30

roquentin says ...

EE...the sound of a young man swinging too hard and missing completely.

To make this argument somewhat real (or to answer Glenn's original question): Were you around or in Manhattan at the time of Annie Hall? Was this a judgment you made then or one you've "retro-dated" based on your extensive research? Or are you just imposing your criticisms of Sex and the City and Friends (tough targets, both) on something you really would not have experienced?

And by the by, this standard of "vibes" - I'm curious as to how that came about and functions. Clearly your level of intuition, class conscious but utterly leeched of all class-pretensions, far exceeds the rest of us (or else the world would have seen through the fantastic fallacies of early Woody Allen - lucky we at least now have you around to vibe out old classics). How far back can you "retro-fit" your vibe? Or is all of this moot because your spare studio apartment, or dorm room, isn't yet TV equipped?

Burning questions for a man sipping his latte.

comment #31

MilkMan says ...

Apatow doesn't have the courage or the artistic make-up (nor does he have to) to start working with Woody's palette, making a 12 million dollar film once a year that grosses 24 millions dollars, rinse and repeat, for the next thirty years. No way. Again, not to belabor the point, but love him or hate him, Woody Allen is a singluar comic mind, who is arguable the most important comedic writer and filmmaker of the second half of the 20th Century. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but I think it just might be true. Apatow is a mildly talented television writer who has somehow bluffed and lucked his way into feature films. He doesn't do anything that anyone else isn't doing right now. You know who's funnier than Judd Apatow? Paul Thomas Anderson. Does anyone consider PTA a comic genius? Fuck no. But Boogie Nights and PDL and funnier than anything Apatow has come up with. There are a lot of filmmakers funnier than Apatow, yet he's positioned himself as someone who needs to spoken of as a great comic mind. That's what mystifies me.

comment #32

arturobandini2 says ...

"(500) DAYS OF SUMMER, in terms of structure and use of stylized gimmickry, could conceivably be compared with ANNIE HALL. But SUMMER tends to trade a bit too much on self-congratulatory cleverness."

I finally saw 500 Days last night. Started out loving it, by the end couldn't wait for it to be over. The wall-to-wall pop music score ruined it. Honestly, I felt like I was watching Forrest fucking Gump. What was the point of inserting a Carla Bruni song? This movie will be dated by Christmas.

Can you imagine stomaching Annie Hall today if "Tonight's the Night," "Undercover Angel," "I'm Your Boogie Man," "Dancing Queen," "Margaritaville," "Fly Like an Eagle," "Hotel California," "The Things We Do For Love" and "Carry On My Wayward Son" were all on the soundtrack? STOP THE POP SOUNDTRACK MADNESS.

comment #33

drbob says ...

corey3rd:

Annie Hall was originally conceived as a 3hr plus movie which also integrated a rather dramatic storyline concerning a murder mystery. The murder mystery angle was eventually reworked into Manhattan Murder Mystery. But, Allen wisely chose to focus Annie Hall on the comedy and relationship story. God, i love IMDB.

comment #34

byanyother says ...

Ugh, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth that they would ever compare Woody Allen with Judd Apatow. Puke my shit right up. Allen wrestled with demons his entire life - from feeling like an alienated Jew on the outside looking in (Stardust Memories) to a longing for a kind of life he knew would someday maybe have -- someone who wanted to work among the cinematic gods of our time but who never believed anyone could truly touch Bergman or Fellini (ref. Husbands and Wives). Even now, as his films have turned to shit, there is still that spark of curiosity about the world. They are just not even worthy of being uttered in the same sentence, sorry.

Ugh. As if.

comment #35

NightWriter says ...

Citizen: Thanks for the comment on money. Real world concerns always enliven the proceedings for me as well.

At the risk of defending Apatow, I think it's far too early in his career to evaluate the sum of his talents so definitively, that hysterical Rob Reiner comment nonwithstanding. That said, WA is a true genius and his all-consuming fear of death means that he'll be directing up until his last days -- excellent news for his fans. I doubt Judd will be so diligent.

But everyone should get used to Apatow. He's not delivering the "boffo b.o." this summer but he's going to stick around. Once his crew finally runs out of ideas -- if they haven't already -- he'll seek out new writers and produce their movies with his imprimatur. The Apatow rep isn't exactly Spielberg's but Universal was right to re-sign him. He's become a comedy brand, if not a genius. (Far from it, actually, but who cares in this lowered-bar world we now inhabit?)

comment #36

roquentin says ...

The Apatow backlash is in full swing. Why even indulge the comparison? Apatow is more talented than a "television writer" - whatever that means (is David Simon a television writer that is not a television writer?). Every one of his films is flawed, but they are also imbued with honesty and naturalism, and they are not worthy of the bile. Aren't you all reacting just a little too much to the hype rather than the filmmaker himself?

comment #37

byanyother says ...

The point is that Woody's stand-up comedy was already heads and shoulders above whole generations of writers who came along decades later. There is no one who can compare. Even an Apatow/Mel Brooks comparison would be insulting.

comment #38

lipranzer says ...

EE, one thing about Allen you should keep in mind - it's not just he has always romanticized New York, even as he recognizes the problems with it (as per not just his line from MANHATTAN - "He loved New York City. To him, it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture" - but also his line from ANNIE HALL - "Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes, and I live here"), it's that he's never cared about being in step with the times. ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN were movies that just happened to click with audiences at the time. Also, as others have pointed out, if they were true fantasies a la SEX AND THE CITY, not only would they be less innovative structurally (particularly ANNIE HALL), but the characters would ultimately get happy endings.

comment #39

roquentin says ...

I meant to write....imbued with an honesty and naturalism that was missing from mainstream comedy. He didn't just create the Apatow brand...he re-invigorated mainstream comedy by making characters talk like your (asshole) friends or siblings and not like conscious types. And he rescued the R rating for comedies, which had been banned pretty much since the 80s.

Funny People is, in my view, a good (hilarious at times) movie, with some solid lead performances (both Sandler and Rogen are undersung) that gets too caught up in a second-tier subplot, and strives too hard with some Jerry Maguire-ish flourishes that don't make sense. Still a solid movie. I understand someone not liking it for its flaws, but honestly, the bile feels to me a bit too overemphatic.

comment #40

Dignan says ...

arturobandini2:

Most of the music in (500) Days of Summer is already dated by virtue of being either warhorses from the 80's (eg: Hall & Oates, The Smiths, The Pixies) or are several years old already and aren't being used to push a new album. Besides who's honestly going to be saying a year from now "A Carla Bruni song? That's so summer of 2009?"

Plus I hate to break it to you but using pop music isn't exactly a new phenomenon. When was the last time you heard someone complaining about how dated Simon & Garfunkel were in The Graduate (to use a film that 500 Days explicitly acknowledges)?

comment #41

MilkMan says ...

Using pop music to emotionally underscore scenes was a relatively new phenomenon when Nichols did it in 1967. Scorsese perfected it in Whose that Knocking... and Mean Streets. Lynch, Tarantino, Wes and Paul Anderson, Nancy Savoca, Spike Lee and Todd Haynes (to name just a few) refined and freshened this practice up. Now it's just stale. We get it, guys. You have an eclectic music collection. Except you don't. You have good taste in pop and rock. Except not really. You want to capture the feeling of what it felt like to hear this or that song for the first time. Except no one cares. Except for you.

More filmmakers should spend more time worrying about the sound design of their films instead of what awesome tune their going to shoehorn into this or that scene. At this point, I'd rather sit through a montage that's been scored to the sound of traffic or a jet passing overhead than the latest indie-folk-pop tune of the moment. I'm not saying there's not a place for good music in movies, but it's gotten to the point where there is no point anymore.

comment #42

Gordie Lachance says ...

This was a very nice informative, intelligent thread, only spoiled by a little too much ignorant shit-talking by Milkman.

There is a throwaway line in 40 Year Old Virgin where Steve Carrell, commenting on his hardwood floor says "I was going to rip it up and see if there's carpet underneath" which is as wittily absurd as any of Allen's best lines.

Granted, verbal wit and irony pale next to the Farrelly level visual genius like Dick-In-Zipper or Cum-In-Hair, but not everyone was born THAT funny.

Far too early in Apatow's career to make any comparisons or declarative assessments. Though he and Woody have such similar bios, getting into the business young, selling jokes to stand ups, parlaying that into television writing, and silly, broad early films.

I will bet you this. They will both have 45+ year careers.

comment #43

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

45+ years in film??? I'll take the bet, actually. I'll even spot you 5 years because Freaks & Geeks is so beloved. I don't believe Apatow will put out a film in 2045.

Hate to be the guy that says it, but I'd put about even odds on the chance that he's dead by then.

comment #44

MilkMan says ...

You're right Gordie, this was a very informative, intelligent debate, two words that will never be used to describe Judd Apatow's work. I just thought I should bring the level of conversation down to the subject under discussion. Apatow's movies are nothing but ignorant shit-talk, both literally and figuratively. Doughy white bros joking about dick size and then coming to an unearned understanding of what it takes to grow up. Good stuff, Gordie. You're absolutely correct in predicting that he will have a long and fruitful career. Because shit floats to the top. Always.

comment #45

Mr. Buckles says ...

While the comparison is interesting for talk at the round table at my favorite local watering hole, let's just note that no number of Tom Collins could bring me at this point to compare Woody Allen and Apatow. Do that with Wes Anderson, you will have a more interesting discussion.

In the end, why take the sticks to Apatow? He produces enjoyable, breezy mainstream fare with a vulgar side, a good sense of music and a heart in the right place. There ain't nothing wrong with it and these over-reaching analogies amount to mental masturbation. It is what it is, Jake, it's Tinseltown.

comment #46

Jonah says ...

I don't get the Apatow hate. No, he's not as good as Woody Allen. That comparison should not have been made. But he's done a helluva lot better work than the Farrelly Brothers. The brothers did a few halfway amusing films, and then a ton of crap.

Freaks and Geeks alone puts him ahead of the brothers.

Apatow's films aren't high art, they aren't going to change the world. But they're good for a laugh. Sometimes I just want entertainment. Last time I checked it was okay to use films as entertainment.

comment #47

arturobandini2 says ...

A post-script on the pop music soundtrack debate: As MilkMan pointed out, when Mike Nichols put Simon & Garfunkel's folk-pop in The Graduate, it was completely novel. And he limited it to 3 songs. The first movies to use non-stop pop music were, IIRC, American Graffiti and Coming Home -- both period pieces that used pop tunes to evoke a nostalgic mood.

By the early '90s, the 'Music Supervisor' emerged as one of the hottest -- and most competitive -- titles in the movie biz. Their only purpose was/is to package the most lucrative CD tie-in possible. Usually assigned by the studio (instead of hired by the director), they could give a shit about mise-en-scene. Most of the time they also receive a credit as an "executive producer" on the soundtrack CD, where they stand to make millions off royalties ... so their only incentive is to cram in as many hits as possible, regardless of theme or content. (I'm recalling that Jewel was prominent in one of the Crow or Batman sequels - WTF??) Music supervisors have all the taste and vision of K-Tel hucksters, and they've ruined just about every American movie from the last 20 years. In the name of commerce, not art.

Not that movies can't benefit from pre-recorded music, but it's always the same tinny, boring Top 20 crap. What was the last movie with a jazz score, for god's sake? I'm thinking Afterflow, from 1997.

comment #48

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Correct-o. Jewel's Foolish Games appeared on the soundtrack for Batman & Robin. God, lest we forget what a disaster that was all-around...

comment #49

malibugigolo says ...

Funny People sucks.

comment #50

Terry McCarty says ...

moveablehype wrote:
While, on the other hand, the world waits for a Woody Allen produced Marshall Brickman or Mickey Rose vehicle.

Won't happen, but I remember Woody blessing later collaborator Doug McGrath by appearing in one of McGrath's directorial efforts.

As for Rose, he was involved with 1981's STUDENT BODIES, which at least started out okay before turning mostly into a semilame teencom (though there are a few good riffs on slasher film cliches plus the midfilm joke responsible for the R rating)

Marshall Brickman as director in the 80s was basically 2 for 3. SIMON--a rather cold piece of work--decisively answered the question re what happens when a Woody Allen film is made with a miscast Alan Arkin as the lead. LOVESICK was an improvement--with a very funny Ron Silver-skewering-Al Pacino turn. And THE MANHATTAN PROJECT probably holds up better than some of the teen fare of its period (though I haven't seen it since its original release in 86).

comment #51

Terry McCarty says ...

byanyother wrote:
The point is that Woody's stand-up comedy was already heads and shoulders above whole generations of writers who came along decades later. There is no one who can compare. Even an Apatow/Mel Brooks comparison would be insulting.

Maybe an Apatow/Barry Levinson comparison might be more apt, though I have a feeling Levinson wouldn't appreciate it.

comment #52

nola says ...

I think it's way too early for this comparison. It's absurd actually. Woody and Judd have nothing in common other than being Jewish. Their comedic voices are different, directing style is different and references/POV are different.

Judd works in mainstream Hollywood. How is can you compare him to a man who would consider a 14 million dollar budget a lot of money?

I agree with Milkman, I thought Boogie Nights was hilarious.

comment #53

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Agree with everyone that it's (obviously) too early for such a comparison. The problem isn't necessarily that you can't compare them at all (although I'd argue that you really shouldn't; like nola noted their voices are just so different), it's just that in order to do, you really have to find a proper point of comparison.

You just can't jump in and jump Apatow's entire filmography to that of the Woodman. How fair is that? Yes, it seems unlikely (even borderline laughable) at this point that he'll have anything approaching the cinematic longevity of Woody, but that's not the point. If you want to go strictly by directed film output, Funny People is his third feature in five years.

This is what Woody Allen had directed in that timespan:

What's Up, Tiger Lily?
Take the Money and Run
Bananas

Amusing films demonstrating a unique comedic voice? You bet. Iconic classics? Well, not quite.

If you absolutely have to compare them (and it seems like some people just can't sleep at night without making such analogies), I think you have to give it at least five more movies and/or ten more years.

Having said all that, I really haven't even liked any of Apatow's films so far. But I will be checking out FP.

comment #54

Movie Watcher says ...

Nola, you're right about BN. Especially when the firecrackers are going off.
Apatow has to make different, yet still funny movies, over 10-15 years, and they have to be good, before he can be in the same sentence as Allen. At the same time, he has to hire different actors, not the same people everytime. I will see Funny People, but to see Rogen/Hill etc again, in an Apatow movie, is a little too much. Read lots of reviews about FP, so I think it will be good . All I'm saying is mix it up, use new people.

comment #55

cheapetiffany says ...

I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers. And I hope that such prayers will also be the first of many. If you have not chosen me by secret ballot, neither have I gained office by any secret promises. I have not campaigned either for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. I have not subscribed to any partisan platform. I am indebted to no man, and only to one woman -- my dear wife -- as I begin this very difficult job.cheap tiffany co jewelry

comment #56

Natali Watson says ...

Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks))
Best regards, Natali, CEO of utorrent