Melinda and Melinda (Woody Allen, 2004)

[jorencain]

I just saw this one; another solid film from Woody Allen. I am biased and am always pulling for him, I have to admit, but this one is very good. In recent years, I haven't loved "Small Time Crooks" or "Curse Of The Jade Scorpion," but I thought his last 2 were great.

For me, "Melinda" wasn't as good as "Anything Else", although I know a lot of people hated that one. The idea is a good one, and it's done well, but it doesn't have the dramatic impact that a full 2 hour drama would have, nor is it as funny as most of his comedies are. I am dying to see another full-on drama from Woody, but this will do for now. Anyway, the acting is great (except for a horrendous 5 minute scene involving a student that one of the characters is sleeping with), the cinematography and locations look great, as always, and it was nice to see Chiwetel Ejiofor again (I don't know if he's been in anything since "Dirty Pretty Things").

So, I would recommend this one; don't expect to be falling out of your seat laughing, although it does get funnier as it progresses.

And now I wait for the barrage of "well, it's no Annie Hall"....

[yumitree]

i quite enjoyed the comedy section, but i found the tragedy to be awful. over-acted and with just bad writing. plus, the wraparound segments were so very heavy handed.
part of me almost thinks that the tragedy section is awful on purpose, that allen is almost parodying the whole genre, or possibly attemting to portray the author as untalented. of course, neither is the case.

[Dylan]

(removed because of a drastic shift in opinion - I really love this film, but my initial impression was rather cold)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I found the entire thing basically unbelievable and forced, but it sincerely didn't help that almost everything about it seemed lifted and recycled from earlier Allen films (particularly distracting was to see half-hearted versions of: the marriage problem scenes from his beautiful comic/tragic masterpiece "Crimes and Misdemeanors," the horse racing scene from the much funnier "Mighty Aphrodite," and laziest of all, the student/teacher flirting from the wonderful "Husbands and Wives," which was so terrific in that film, and reduced to a pointless, contrived scene here).

I disagree. On the contrary, I felt that this film (esp. the comedic storyline) felt much more natural and Allen's dialogue flowed with an ease and rhythm that has been absent from his movies for some time. With films like Annie Hall and Manhattan, Allen was able to blend comedy and drama effortlessly. And I've felt that since most of the '90s onward, the heart has been missing from his movies and with this one he seems to have found it again.

With that said, there are some very good, endearing scenes, some good acting (I especially liked the adorable Chloe Sevigny and the vastly appealing Chiwetel Ejiofor), good choice of music (loved how the main titles segued from Stravinsky to I believe Ellington), and competant photography (though I wish Woody would've hired Vilmos Zsigmond for a greater visual palette).

I agree with most of your sentiments above except for Sevigny's performance which left me cold. The dramatic story isn't as interesting as the comedic one. None of the characters are that engaging or relatable -- not that that is essential but it just makes that story pale in comparison to the comedic one.

I did enjoy Will Ferrell as this film's Woody Allen surrogate. He nails the neurotic, uptight intellectual who proves to be a better cook then an actor (despite his claims to a successful turn as Henry Higgins in a college version Pygmalion because he added a limp to the character). Ferrell successfully tones down his usual manic schtick for a more human character (for a lack of a better description) that made me wonder if this is his first attempt to make the jump into more substantial fare like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey did before him. It certainly helps that he's working from a Woody Allen screenplay. I felt that he seemed quite comfortable in this role.

While Melinda and Melinda is not quite a full-on, return to form for Allen it does certainly point to a glimmer of hope that maybe he rediscovered his creative spark again but this first film of his in a long time that I didn't feel was on autopilot.

[Dylan]

Fletch,

Don't forget to read my last paragraph (that I added there a month ago). I'm not exactly sure what I think of "Melinda and Melinda" at the moment (other than that it's pretty good and one of the better films of the year), though I do like it more now than I did when I first saw it. When I see it again in the next two weeks, I'll post how it held up. I don't think it's one of his better films by a long shot, as it's certainly not as good as Anything Else, but I'd say that it's a lot better than his Dreamworks comedies (Crooks, Scorpion, Ending).

I don't exactly remember how good Sevigny was, but I thought she was cute and I loved watching her and Chiwetel Ejiofor at the dinner table (though I remember Rhadha having some good monologues and scenes as well, but those have disappeared from memory, again, to be corrected soon).

I enjoyed Will Ferrell, though his Herculean presence is sort of awkward for a character a younger Woody would've played, but I don't remember that detracting.

At the moment, I think it's a good film, but some of it still seems like inferior versions of scenes from other Allen films. We'll see what a second viewing brings, it may completely win me over.

Dylan

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Don't forget to read my last paragraph (that I added there a month ago). I'm not exactly sure what I think of "Melinda and Melinda" at the moment (other than that it's pretty good and one of the better films of the year), though I do like it more now than I did when I first saw it. When I see it again in the next two weeks, I'll post how it held up.

Sounds good. I look forward to reading your comments

I don't think it's one of his better films by a long shot, as it's certainly not as good as Anything Else, but I'd say that it's a lot better than his Dreamworks comedies (Crooks, Scorpion, Ending).

This is true. Although, I wasn't too crazy about Anything Else. I went in really wanting to like that one but I felt that the chemistry between Jason Biggs and Christina Ricci was non-existent and just didn't believe them as a couple. But it has been awhile since I've seen it so maybe a re-appraisal is in order.

At the moment, I think it's a good film, but some of it still seems like inferior versions of scenes from other Allen films. We'll see what a second viewing brings, it may completely win me over.

Fair enough.

[Dylan]

Reading my atrocious accusation that it's derivitive of other Allen films is embarassing. I just watched it again, I loved it, and I can't begin to remember what it was about it that I didn't care for the first time around. I'm guessing it was a bad day (or week) and my eyes were clouded, but this one of the most original, funny, sad, and intelligent modern films I've seen in a long time, and certainly one of Allen's best. Everything I love about Allen's filmmaking is illustrated here in what can almost be called a flawlessly coherant presentation of his abilities and command: the fact that he can nearly move me to tears with his keen eye on the delicateness of relationships and life, absolutely floor me with beautiful/sad dialogue, amuse the hell out of me with brilliant one-liners, startle me with a visual flare (the great Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography was beautiful, I didn't remember the film looking so nice), and perhaps above all, make me laugh out loud consistantly and completely, which almost nobody can do to me but Allen. It's his best film since "Celebrity."

Fletch, I'm glad to say that it surpassed the possibilities of winning me over, I think it's excellent, and this time I really saw no flaws whatsoever (the scene with the teacher and the student is rather stale, but I still thought it was funny). And the acting was overwheling, Mitchell gives one of the best performances I've seen in an Allen film, and Ferrell is incredibly comfortable in his role (the scene where they're at the beach house is stunningly hilarious). It's near perfect, and I had a wonderful time watching it.

Dylan

PS, and the music is flawless: Stravinsky, Bartok, and Ellington.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Fletch, I'm glad to say that it surpassed the possibilities of winning me over, I think it's excellent, and this time I really saw no flaws whatsoever (the scene with the teacher and the student is rather stale, but I still thought it was funny). And the acting was overwheling, Mitchell gives one of the best performances I've seen in an Allen film, and Ferrell is incredibly comfortable in his role (the scene where they're at the beach house is stunningly hilarious). It's near perfect, and I had a wonderful time watching it.

Yes, that's how I felt watching this movie as well. I had very low expectations going into it, hoping that it would be a return to form for Allen and was very taken by the characters, the stories and the dialogue. And yes, Mitchell was good. I've been a fan of hers since seeing her in Pitch Black (she was also excellent in High Art) and I think that my favourite Ferrell bits are near the beginning when he's hosting the dinner part and constantly fretting about the food and when he goes to the track with Mitchell and Steve Carell.

[Ishmael]

I must admit that this film was one of the better things I've seen by Woody in the last ten years or so. I'm one of those who feels that the man made many masterpieces in the 70s and 80s but his heart doesn't seem to be in filmmaking anymore. However, I was intrigued with both stories here. There were moments in the dramatic story that had me riveted, and the comic story kept me amused. I usually hate Will Ferrell's blandness, but I thought he did a reasonable job of delivering Woody's jokes. The jokes themselves felt like sort of B-versions of the kind of material Woody used to write, but they were by no means terrible. I found the characters interesting as well, except for Ellis Moonshine or whatever that name was. His character could just as easily have been called Perfect Man. The acting was great, though, especially by the actress who played the Melindas.

The big problem I had with this film was its concept. The same event can be used to spin a tale of tragedy or comedy? This is the kind of thing that gets debated in high school creative writing courses. What a shallow, sophomoric point to construct a film around. Even so, Woody still blows it. For the film to illustrate this point, he would have had to tell the exact same story. Changes in the tone of the material would bring out humor or pathos. However, by constructing two completely different stories, he proves nothing at all. You mean to tell me that two vaguely similar events at the beginning can be spun into two completely different stories? Oh my God, the boundaries of cinema have been expanded! However, the idiocies get even worse. Every time the plot gets too stupid, Wally Shawn comes back in to remind us that they're improvising these stories as they go along. What bullshit. Is that supposed to be Woody's excuse for constructing a sloppy script? Also, the framing sequences are so ineptly directed I wonder if Woody was even involved with them. Look at the coverage: the cutaways to people listening look almost like stock shots. Plus, the dialogue is so schematic it's painful to listen to. The enthusiasm with which Shawn mouths these tiresome banalities truly makes me wonder how intelligent he is.

I think the film would have been much more interesting if Woody had dumped the frame story and just presented his two Melinda stories side by side with no comment. Seeing the differences in these stories but not being provided with any explanation for them would have created a nicely debatable ambiguity. Sort of a Double Life of Veronique thing. As it is, there's a lot of fine material in the film but it's difficult for me to truly embrace it because of the triviality of its concept.

[Blissful Sinner]

That "triviality of a concept" is something that Woody Allen has been struggling with throughout his entire career. There has always been a contraction within Woody Allen wanting to make serious films, but being gifted with a great talent for comedy.

I just watched Melinda and Melinda last night for the first time and I was very impressed. To me, the film sums up Allen's entire struggle as a filmmaker and he manages to pull off both the serious tragedy and the comedy very well. This is something that seems easy but is very difficult to accutually do.

I think he finally accepts and embrasses the contradiction within himself in this film and doesn't have to choose to be either "serious" or "funny". Like most of his films, there are always aspects of both.

And if no one has mentioned it before, Radha Mitchell was great in both roles.

[Ishmael]

I think he finally accepts and embrasses the contradiction within himself in this film and doesn't have to choose to be either "serious" or "funny". Like most of his films, there are always aspects of both.

As you point out, he's been doing this for years. And he does make the blending of these two concepts look effortless. That's one of the best things about his art. But why do you say he's finally embracing this contradiction? He's basically just taking a point he's repeatedly proved many times and over and placing it front and center for discussion. What's the point?

[jorencain]

I think the point is to give the film a different form than "Crimes and Misdemeanors" or any of his other drama/comedies. Many of his films seem to have some kind of "hook", and that framing device is the one for "Melinda and Melinda." The content is mostly familiar territory, which I still enjoy, but the form is different this time around. I don't think that he's really trying to bring up a weighty or heady discussion necessarily. I just view it as a setup similar to the opening of "Broadway Danny Rose." Both add a new element to the story, but are not vital to the content of the story.

[Antoine Doinel]

I caught up with this film tonight and I was pleasantly surprised. While the film doesn't entirely work, most notably because the structure makes the plot at times way too obvious, the script contains many great moments and the cast is surprisingly up to the task. I wondered how Will Ferrell would hold up, but he performs wonderfully, and really hits the right notes with Allen's familiar, vaudevillian dialogue. Chiwetel Ejiofor really shines in his role, and I thought really brought the dramatic portion of the film to life. Radha Mitchell is up to the challenge of both halves of the film, even though the mechanics of the plotting creak at times. Josh Brolin is absolutely great in his little appearance in the film --- and I think that's what I enjoyed the most about the film. Lots of great little moments and scenes, that while they didn't add up into a completely satisfying film, made it more than worth the journey.

[domino harvey]

I like the film a lot and Radha Mitchell in particular is very good-- it's too bad she's never really been given another film that could use her abilities since, she does a much better job than many of the "name" stars in this one. This is probably Allen's best "Apartment Porn" film.

[Antoine Doinel]

This is probably Allen's best "Apartment Porn" film.

LOL. I know exactly what you mean. Ferrell/Peet's apartment (though, how an unemployed voiceover actor and an aspiring film director can even afford it is beyond me) and Ejiofor's apartment (the skylight with the piano and the staircase leading from the front door to the living room killed me) in particular are boner inducing.

[Tom Hagen]

Weren't you two just ripping on My Blueberry Nights? Among that film's listed crimes were

hilariously bad dialogue . . . made worse by the fact that every set up in each of the three stories are built on tiresome, worn out cliches (the sensitive guy mending a broken heart; the drunk getting over a woman; the woman who can't trust anyone)

I even remember reading that

surviving a screening of just the . . . freak-outs could be an intimidating challenge on a Fear Factor-type show.

Make no mistake: I love Woody Allen, and I am largely ambivalent in my praise for My Blueberry Nights. However, if there was a picture in the last few years built exclusively on a filmmaker's worn out cliches, prominently featuring hysterical freakouts, it was this one.

Melinda and Melinda was not Anything Else or Hollywood Ending bad, but it still made me feel embarrassed for Woody.

[domino harvey]

Nothing in Melinda and Melinda was anywhere near the same level as Weisz's shrill freak-a-thon. In fact, I don't remember anything in the entirety of civilization even close to Weisz's level. Her performance is reference-level.

[Antoine Doinel]

Nor does anything come close to Weisz's hammy "Southern" accent.

[Tom Hagen]

=D> Great stuff, guys!