Whatever Works (Woody Allen, 2009)

[Antoine Doinel]

NYMag chats with Woody Allen and Larry David and discusses the history of "Jewish humor". And in case there was any uncertainty, don't expect any outtakes or commentaries on the eventual DVD.

[Dylan]

Soundtrack details:

1. Hello I Must Be Going - Groucho Marx and Cast
2. Salty Bubble - Tom Sharpsteen and His Orlandos
3. Butterfly By - Heinz Kiessling
4. Honeymoon Swoon - Werner Tautz
5. If I Could Be With You (One Hour Tonight) - Jackie Gleason
6. Symphony No. 9 in D Minor, Op. 125 - Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
7. Wedding March - Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
8. Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
9. Desafinado - Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd
10. Spring Will Be A Little Late This Year - Red Garland
11. Menina Flor - Charlie Byrd
12. Auld Lang Syne - Dick Hyman & His Orchestra
13. Happy Birthday To You - Larry David

[Floyd]

That's pretty funny if Larry sings Happy Birthday to You because there is an episode of Curb where he makes it very known he hates singing it and hates the song in general.

Look forward to seeing the film despite my reservations after watching the trailer.

[rs98762001]

This is minor, seen-it-before Allen, but at least it has the novelty of Larry David and thus is preferable to everything since Sweet and Lowdown (with the exception of VCB). It coasts along on David's familiar but still amusing schtick and Evan Rachel Wood's surprising charm (rather how the Cruz-Bardem parts of Vicky were driven by the actors' charisma more than anything especially insightful in the script). Wood's annoying at the beginning but gets better over the course of the film, and is ultimately a far better fit as Allen's female muse than the mostly useless Scarlet Johansson. It's moderately enjoyable and thankfully short, but if this was indeed written in his 70s heyday, it's no wonder he originally put it aside.

[Fielding]

Wood's annoying at the beginning but gets better over the course of the film, and is ultimately a far better fit as Allen's female muse than the mostly useless Scarlet Johansson. It's moderately enjoyable and thankfully short, but if this was indeed written in his 70s heyday, it's no wonder he originally put it aside.

How in the world can Evan Rachel Wood be Woody Allen's muse? She didn't inspire him to write the script, did she? Please, think before typing.

[AWA]

Soundtrack details:

1. Hello I Must Be Going - Groucho Marx and Cast
2. Salty Bubble - Tom Sharpsteen and His Orlandos
3. Butterfly By - Heinz Kiessling
4. Honeymoon Swoon - Werner Tautz
5. If I Could Be With You (One Hour Tonight) - Jackie Gleason
6. Symphony No. 9 in D Minor, Op. 125 - Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
7. Wedding March - Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
8. Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
9. Desafinado - Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd
10. Spring Will Be A Little Late This Year - Red Garland
11. Menina Flor - Charlie Byrd
12. Auld Lang Syne - Dick Hyman & His Orchestra
13. Happy Birthday To You - Larry David

Excellent, excellent news. First Woody film w/jazz soundtrack since Melinda & Melinda in 2004.

[Foam]

Trailer doesn't look too promising. Thanks to the uninspired-looking bible thumping southern accent deal this will be lucky to run for more than a week here, if at all.

[tavernier]

Hoberman hates it.

So does Armond.

[montgomery]

Many spoilers and mostly-baseless theorizing ahead:

Spoiler

Alright, so please bear with me here.

I found this film odd in many ways, and while I find the predictability of the critics' complaint of the "creepy older man" aspect tiring, I admit that I left the film wondering what Evan Rachel Wood's character, Melodie, was even doing in this film. She sort of sets the plot in motion, but in a roundabout way. Allen's main interest seems to be the transformation of her parents, and too much time is spent in the middle of the film dealing with Melodie's affair with the blandest character imaginable while Boris disappears completely.

I was thinking that the film might have been stronger if Melodie was cut out of the script and it was Patricia Clarkson's Marietta who came to NY after her husband cheated on her. She falls in love with Boris, Boris teaches her photography, and either Marietta strays as she becomes more sexually adventurous, or Boris himself gets caught in the menage a trois (making the film a little more interesting and daring). That way, when Ed Begley's John comes to town, instead of simply showing up at the last minute so that Woody can make another didactic point when homophobic John comes out of the closet, he can play the part of Boris's rival for a bit.

As I was thinking about this, I remembered this quote from the book Conversations With Woody:

"Then I wrote another idea quickly, a dark comedy about a guy who jumped out of a window and tried to commit suicide and walked with a limp.  But when I gave it to Juliet Taylor and my sister to read they both felt that while it was very funny it would be perceived as very personal, autobiographical in a way that they would rather I didn't do.  They thought the film would never get a fair shake, no matter how good it came out, all the focus would be on this sense of autobiography that in fact did not exist but still would distract from the audience's enjoyment of the movie."

The idea he's talking about occurred to him after Match Point.
While promoting the film, Allen is saying that the script is 30 years old and was written originally for Zero Mostel and that he didn't change the script at all except to update some political references. Critics are eating this information up, mostly as a way of lambasting the film ("He left it in the drawer for a reason," "it could have used a few rewrites," etc.) But Allen has often dusted off old scripts and usually doesn't advertise this information, though it can be gleaned from past interviews. (Forum member AWA wrote to me that there was another recent interview where Allen "slipped, where he mentioned he wrote this after Match Point but wasn't able to do it for a variety of reasons, one was that it was in NYC and it had become too expensive to consider filming there"). Now, there's probably some grain of truth to the Mostel thing, but it's clear that the post-Match Point script he mentions above ("a dark comedy about a guy who jumped out of a window and tried to commit suicide and walked with a limp") is Whatever Works. The Zero Mostel thing is probably a red herring.

After this occurred to me, I began to suspect that my initial feeling was correct--that Clarkson was originally the one who comes to NY and the plot proceeds more or less as I thought it should have. But at some point, Melodie shows up. Boris leaves Marietta for Melodie, maybe because of Marietta's sexual proclivities, and...well, then the rest of the plot goes along according to plan. But instead of the awkward last scene which focuses on the two parents, who are more or less minor characters, and then two even more expendable characters, one of whom was introduced 2 minutes earlier, the last scene of the film is Marietta with her 2 boyfriends, John with his gay lover, and Boris with their daughter, while Boris looks into the camera and shrugs "Whatever works!"

This would give the final scene the ironic touch that it's missing but that's so characteristic of many of Allen films (I'm thinking the ending of Husbands & Wives). It would also account for some strange things about the film, like why Evan Rachel Wood's character is even in the film, why Boris disappears for 20 minutes, why the mother tries to hook her up with some random good-looking guy, why suddenly there's a new girl introduced in the last 2 scenes, and why the story seems to revolve around the girl's parents more than Boris and Melodie by the end. It would also explain what was deemed "too autobiographical" by Juliet Taylor and Allen's sister, why the film would never get a "fair shake," and would account for Allen's insistence that this film is 30 years old when that's clearly only half-true at best. It would also make the film stronger, in my opinion.

Now, I realize this is just idle speculation and I have only the tiniest shred of evidence in my favor, but it's just something that occurred to me and I thought I'd share it here.

[domino harvey]

Saw this today and I agree, it's certainly a minor Woody Allen pic, but still pretty good and miles above the horrendous and bizarrely celebrated Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Wood is the best thing about the picture and it was nice to see her without her requisite 5/8" foundation on. The film does a great job of showing how young impressionable teen girls model themselves and their tastes on their first real male relationship and so for the first half, Allen was really hitting some key areas and the film had something interesting to say. But in a complete 180 from the above, I thought the film dragged to a halt midway through Clarkson's transformation and the subsequent liberalization of the squares and never really picked up until the final moments.

[Murdoch]

Saw this today and I agree, it's certainly a minor Woody Allen pic, but still pretty good and miles above the horrendous and bizarrely celebrated Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

Since VCB is the only Allen film I've ever thought worth its accolades I'm wondering what you found so horrendous about it.

[montgomery]

I agree with Domino about VCB. And I also agree that WW dragged to a halt during the Clarkson section. The alternate version that I put forth above might have fixed many of the strange shifts in tone while keeping the basic plot and Allen's sometimes didactic points intact. Then again, maybe not.

[knives]

Saw this today and I agree, it's certainly a minor Woody Allen pic, but still pretty good and miles above the horrendous and bizarrely celebrated Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Wood is the best thing about the picture and it was nice to see her without her requisite 5/8" foundation on. The film does a great job of showing how young impressionable teen girls model themselves and their tastes on their first real male relationship and so for the first half, Allen was really hitting some key areas and the film had something interesting to say. But in a complete 180 from the above, I thought the film dragged to a halt midway through Clarkson's transformation and the subsequent liberalization of the squares and never really picked up until the final moments.

Agreed. Was really surprised with Wood who I thought would be horrible. I'd like to see what he would have done had he just focused on their relationship and not bothered with the stupid parent stuff. I hope this is a signal that Allen will start making above average films again, even if this one is average.

[Dylan]

Granted, there are few better tonics for me in the modern world than a new Woody Allen, but I adored this. I think it has a great little story, but the most important thing is that it's hilarious from beginning to end. I was damn near in tears from this and for the life of me I couldn't stop smiling. The one-liners are incredibly sharp, and the timing is perfect, giving everybody plenty of time to breathe between jokes. But it's also smart. Granted, I am a Woody fan who believes he's as good now as he ever was, and nobody else in the theater laughed quite as consistently as I did (I literally laughed out loud at least every minute, making the 92 minute running time exhausting... this isn't like how I am when I watch Love & Death, where I laugh out loud every ten seconds and am about ready to pass out halfway through, but it's very close). And despite the negative tenor of the dialogue, it's a really sweet film, with a surprisingly warm finale. I left the theater feeling good. Nice soundtrack, too.

[Highway 61]

There's not much that I can say that Montgomery and Domino didn't already. But I will add that one of the biggest disappointments of the second half is just how lazy it is. Would it have killed Allen to introduce new characters with the slightest degree of effort or creativity? Do men really just straight up announce to a woman who they've just met that she is "really pretty" and end up on a date? But what annoyed me the most was that Allen really should have stopped and remembered that his previous film already featured a character who discovers that she's a preternaturally gifted photographer; it was even less believable here than in VCB. (Interestingly however, this plot point did give us the first glimpses of full frontal nudity in a PG-13 film in what has to be decades. I wonder if this required some special petitioning with the MPAA?)

I'm not sure what other posters think about this, but I think Allen would be more likely to end what's left of his career on a high note by working entirely outside of the Uniter States, and at least once directing either a script that isn't his own, or adapting a literary source.

[domino harvey]

the Diving Bell and the Butterfly had full-frontal too

[nsps]

But what annoyed me the most was that Allen really should have stopped and remembered that his previous film already featured a character who discovers that she's a preternaturally gifted photographer.

Bingo. I mean, Allen has reused devices and developments before before, but he made VCB a year ago! It's as if he wrote that device a few years back, then used it in VCB instead, and then just kept it as is in this new script. I guess photography is the only art-form that she could rediscover in such a casual scene, but come on now!

I didn't find the Clarkson material very convincing on the whole, but enjoyed David's one-liners once Begley showed up. And both of the young male love interests were pretty dull. So I liked parts of it, but this definitely isn't major Woody.

[Fielding]

and at least once directing either a script that isn't his own, or adapting a literary source.

Never. You obviously don't know very much about Woody Allen, or you wouldn't have even contemplated making such a stupid suggestion.

[rs98762001]

Is Fielding the Woodster himself, or just a passive-aggressive minion?

[Fiery Angel]

Of course, adapting the book "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" and directing Puccini's "Gianni Schicchi" don't count.

[Highway 61]

and at least once directing either a script that isn't his own, or adapting a literary source.

Never. You obviously don't know very much about Woody Allen, or you wouldn't have even contemplated making such a stupid suggestion.

Eric Lax asks Allen if he'd ever direct a script he didn't write in the Conversations book, and Allen isn't dismissive. He's actually a little curious about the idea. Of course, I don't think it will happen, but if it did I'm certain it would be very fruitful.

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this today and pretty much feel the same way as Dylan (though substitute the laughing out loud every minute with chuckling every minute interspersed with some genuine big belly laughs). It's really Woody telling another variation of the same story he's been doing his entire career, with strong results. Larry David is great in the Woody role, and the rest of the cast really delivers in what are some pretty one note characters. I find it amusing the amount of nitpicking people are making about how realistic or not some aspects of the plot are when the entire premise is ludicrous. Woody's comedies have always largely been New York fantasies and trying to approach them as films ground in some kind of reality is looking at all wrong. This is like a good friend, telling a really good story you've heard before and still enjoying it.

So yeah, Whatever Works for me, totally did.