criterionforum.org

AWA wrote:June is pretty early... I'm going to guess that this might be too "difficult" for awards, or at least I'm hoping for that. But, as any distributor who picks up Woody's films always states, Woody's films always do their best business when they're drawing an Oscar consideration. Even you've admitted that Sony Pictures Classics hasn't had a very good track record of late in supporting these films - Synecdoche, NY never even came close to my city, and it was packed full of stars that should've at least compensated for the fact it was a "difficult" film.

I still have high hopes for this, and am confident Curb fans will come out in droves to see this... for example, friends I have who are completely uninterested in Woody Allen films are very excited at the prospect of Larry David being in one simply because they love Curb so much. But Harvey is lying - at least a little bit - when he says that a good film can be released at any time. He's not that stupid, nor is anyone else, to know that an Oscar nomination, or even Oscar buzz, will provide a film with some kind of financial box office boost.

I'm just curious... What's your concern, exactly?

That the June release date indicates its a bad film? That its not Oscar worthy? That it will flop at the box office?

A June release date is a perfectly fine release date, IMO. They are not dumping it, as some suggest. They never said they bought the film to win Oscars. If its good enough it will hold up for awards consideration. Films like The Visitor (Release date: April 2008, Best Actor nomination), or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Release date: March 2004, Best Actress, Screenplay nominations), or a famous little film called Annie Hall released in April '77 (We all know how that ended...) show how relative all this release date/Oscar consideration thing is. Sure, the majority of Oscar nominated films come out in the fall/winter but some don't.

If your concern is box office then I wouldn't worry either. Unless they release it under 200 screens this has some good potential to do Scoop business (Released July 2006, $10M at the box office). As you said Curb fans should help, plus Evan's and The Tudor's...

AWA wrote:So what is the verdict on the release date then? Are they dumping this in late spring / early summer because it isn't awards material or are they trying to expand on the model VCB provided with it's early August release and make a slow build towards the Oscar season in the fall? Or are they betting on a Broken Flowers type success model where an "indie" film with a big name director will do better with less competition in the late spring / early summer?

Since you don't care that much about Oscars or money the verdict is you should be happy because you'll be watching a Woody Allen film in about four months O:) Besides the people at SPC are not morons. They saw the film, clearly loved it and will do what's best for it.

Personally my only concern is how good will this be. With that cast, crew and location I know I won't be dissapointed... Larry David, a truly talented comedian plus Patricia Clarkson and Evan Rachel Wood. The streets of New York, Harris Savides as DP...

Sure it would be nice if the film gets recognized and makes good business, but you said it yourself, you don't care and we know Woody doesn't either.

So let's wait and not panic...

AWA wrote:June is pretty early... I'm going to guess that this might be too "difficult" for awards, or at least I'm hoping for that. But, as any distributor who picks up Woody's films always states, Woody's films always do their best business when they're drawing an Oscar consideration. Even you've admitted that Sony Pictures Classics hasn't had a very good track record of late in supporting these films - Synecdoche, NY never even came close to my city, and it was packed full of stars that should've at least compensated for the fact it was a "difficult" film.

I still have high hopes for this, and am confident Curb fans will come out in droves to see this... for example, friends I have who are completely uninterested in Woody Allen films are very excited at the prospect of Larry David being in one simply because they love Curb so much. But Harvey is lying - at least a little bit - when he says that a good film can be released at any time. He's not that stupid, nor is anyone else, to know that an Oscar nomination, or even Oscar buzz, will provide a film with some kind of financial box office boost.

I'm just curious... What's your concern, exactly?

That the June release date indicates its a bad film? That its not Oscar worthy? That it will flop at the box office?

A June release date is a perfectly fine release date, IMO. They are not dumping it, as some suggest. They never said they bought the film to win Oscars. If its good enough it will hold up for awards consideration. Films like The Visitor (Release date: April 2008, Best Actor nomination), or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Release date: March 2004, Best Actress, Screenplay nominations), or a famous little film called Annie Hall released in April '77 (We all know how that ended...) show how relative all this release date/Oscar consideration thing is. Sure, the majority of Oscar nominated films come out in the fall/winter but some don't.

If your concern is box office then I wouldn't worry either. Unless they release it under 200 screens this has some good potential to do Scoop business (Released July 2006, $10M at the box office). As you said Curb fans should help, plus Evan's and The Tudor's...

AWA wrote:So what is the verdict on the release date then? Are they dumping this in late spring / early summer because it isn't awards material or are they trying to expand on the model VCB provided with it's early August release and make a slow build towards the Oscar season in the fall? Or are they betting on a Broken Flowers type success model where an "indie" film with a big name director will do better with less competition in the late spring / early summer?

Since you don't care that much about Oscars or money the verdict is you should be happy because you'll be watching a Woody Allen film in about four months O:) Besides the people at SPC are not morons. They saw the film, clearly loved it and will do what's best for it.

Personally my only concern is how good will this be. With that cast, crew and location I know I won't be dissapointed... Larry David, a truly talented comedian plus Patricia Clarkson and Evan Rachel Wood. The streets of New York, Harris Savides as DP...

Sure it would be nice if the film gets recognized and makes good business, but you said it yourself, you don't care and we know Woody doesn't either.

So let's wait and not panic...

MHerzog wrote:I'm just curious... What's your concern, exactly?

That the June release date indicates its a bad film?

My main concern is wondering if the release date is an early indication of how good the film is for reasons already stated. I am just hoping that this is not going to be given the treatment some recent Woody films received, like Cassandra's Dream and Melinda & Melinda, thanks in large part to what the distribution company thought of the film rather than the audiences themselves, who were never really given much of an opportunity. I know there are several around here who would definitely say Cassandra's Dream was a far better film than what the Weinsteins thought it was and how it was dealt with.

Antoine Doinel wrote:In regards to Synecdoche, New York it's not "packed with stars". It has one moderately known "star" (Hoffman) and a lot of arthouse favorites, but certainly no one that average person on the street would know.

Samantha Morton, Catherine Keener, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Hope Davis, Michelle Williams, even Dianne Wiest for the older crowd would all be names recognizable to an average casual film goer. My sister, for instance, who is just an "average person" with no agenda when it comes to renting a film from the local store aside from mere entertainment by way of some new film, would know most of those names and I know she'd be ok with watching it just because Hoffman and Morton are in it, as those are two acting talents she likes, combined with several other names she knows. Of course, she would hate the hell out of the film upon seeing it

The film will be premiering at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 22nd.

Over 40 stills and production photos from the film are now up at the Sony Pictures Classics website, which can't be directly linked to because they're jerks. But here is one:



Note: picture #20 is clearly in the exact same kitchen as used in Deconstructing Harry.

I don't want to fill up this thread with these rather large photos, but I'm sure this one is suggesting this is going to be wonderfully controversial:

Thanks for the link! Went through all of the photos... I think this is going to be a wonderful Woody film. I look forward to the first reviews.

Another year, another Woody Allen film. This guy's gotta be the most prolific and fastest-working filmmaker in cinema history...though I suppose it helps that all his films tend to be fairly simple with no FX or anything like that. But, man, he's made a film for every year since '77! Granted, he's become quite hit-and-miss (and mostly miss) over the past 15 years or so, so we'll see which category under which this one falls.

MoonlitKnight wrote:Another year, another Woody Allen film. This guy's gotta be the most prolific and fastest-working filmmaker in cinema history...though I suppose it helps that all his films tend to be fairly simple with no FX or anything like that. But, man, he's made a film for every year since '77! Granted, he's become quite hit-and-miss (and mostly miss) over the past 15 years or so, so we'll see which category under which this one falls.

If by 'cinema history', you mean since 1977, then he would be up there. Few major filmmakers, especially US based, have managed such a rate in recent years.

But go back a few decades and several films A YEAR would not be uncommon (to put it mildly). Not least of course as under the old style studio system the director probably wouldn't be as heavily involved in pre or post-production as most are now.

Takashi Miike must be hard to beat among contemporary international directors.

Dr Amicus wrote:

MoonlitKnight wrote:Another year, another Woody Allen film. This guy's gotta be the most prolific and fastest-working filmmaker in cinema history...though I suppose it helps that all his films tend to be fairly simple with no FX or anything like that. But, man, he's made a film for every year since '77! Granted, he's become quite hit-and-miss (and mostly miss) over the past 15 years or so, so we'll see which category under which this one falls.

If by 'cinema history', you mean since 1977, then he would be up there. Few major filmmakers, especially US based, have managed such a rate in recent years.

But go back a few decades and several films A YEAR would not be uncommon (to put it mildly). Not least of course as under the old style studio system the director probably wouldn't be as heavily involved in pre or post-production as most are now.

Indeed, and the old production studio system is sort of the work-a-day approach to cinema Woody models himself after... that and Ingmar Bergman, who also brought a very dedicated working approach to his films (and other projects, such as television and theatre).

Also - I'm also assuming this person is aware of the 8 feature films Woody wrote in the 10 years previous to 1977... 9 if you want to include his contributions to The Front (1976). Which also doesn't account for his stand-up, New Yorker satire pieces, theatre productions, the occasional acting appearance in other films and his jazz band.

Cinema wise though, yes... he definitely would be up there among those writer / directors in the late 20th Century in terms of work ethic.

Dr Amicus wrote:If by 'cinema history', you mean since 1977, then he would be up there. Few major filmmakers, especially US based, have managed such a rate in recent years.

But go back a few decades and several films A YEAR would not be uncommon (to put it mildly). Not least of course as under the old style studio system the director probably wouldn't be as heavily involved in pre or post-production as most are now.

True...though back then few directors also worked on the movie's script or wore any other hats for the production [at least not here in the States (except possibly producer as well)]. Still, I'll amend my statement to say 'MODERN cinema history.'

Satyajit Ray made a movie every year from 1956 to 1981.

exte wrote:Satyajit Ray made a movie every year from 1956 to 1981.

Admirable, but that's 1 per year for 25 years compared to Woody's rate of 1 per year for 40 years, nearly twice the length.

Surely Jess Franco deserves the title among contemporary filmmakers (or at least did).

I know he's not the sort of director discussed on this site, but he at least deserves that credit. I suppose it helped that he often shot several films at once with the same actors and sets and without informing said actors!

Cinetwist wrote:Surely Jess Franco deserves the title among contemporary filmmakers (or at least did).

I know he's not the sort of director discussed on this site, but he at least deserves that credit. I suppose it helped that he often shot several films at once with the same actors and sets and without informing said actors!

And the total increases when you consider the different versions shot of many of the films - varying amounts of soft core / hard core sex, different levels of gore for the violence etc. - for the various markets.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of Franco, it has to be said his films are his own...

I think it's worth pointing out here that one director that has out-worked Woody in the post-studio system modern era is Fassbinder, who did 35 features in just 15 years... and that's not counting the shorts, television material, etc.

Getting this thread back on topic, the first review of the film is in from the Film Experience Blog after it's first public (industry) screening at ShoWest in Vegas.

The review:

Film Experience Blog wrote:In many ways, Whatever Works is an amalgam of all of the neuroses and preoccupations that have defined Woody Allen's previous films. Larry David plays Boris, a misanthrope who fled his "rational" marriage to live downtown in isolation, teaching chess to children through methods that involve repeated name-calling and knight-throwing. Boris's life is thrown into turmoil by the arrival of Melodie (Evan Rachel Wood), a runaway from Mississippi. Melodie is eventually followed by her mother (Patricia Clarkson) and father (Ed Begley, Jr.).

Patricia Clarkson storms into the movie after approximately 40 minutes, and plays a role in many ways comparable to Penélope Cruz's tempestuous Oscar-winning Maria Elena. While I was initially skeptical of Allen's treatment of Wood as a young Lolita, Clarkson actually plays the much more sexualized character. After showing up on Boris's doorstep in a hot pink ensemble (scrunchy included!) fit for the Southern pageant circuit, she is quickly awakened to the culture of New York. Naturally, this involves sex and art. In an interesting inversion of the much discussed relationship between ScarJo, Javier Bardem, and Penélope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Clarkson moves in with two men without giving it a second thought. Her character transitions from praising Jesus to opening an exhibit of nude collages. Clarkson is dynamic and sexy and once again demonstrates her unbeatable range. I don't think it is any stretch to consider her worthy of this year's Oscar race.

The rest of the cast is also effective, pulling the humor out of frequently dark material. David's character first seems like the typical Allen prototype, but there is a bitterness to him that reminded me more of Max von Sydow in Hannah and Her Sisters. Evan Rachel Wood is very likable, but the vitality of her performance is trounced by the arrival of the inimitable Clarkson. Begley Jr. gives a hilarious turn, and Henry Cavill is both endearing and smarmy as a late love interest for Melodie.

The biggest stylistic change Allen makes in this film is having Boris directly address the audience. The film opens with a lengthy treatise on the character's views on death and the cretins that populate the world. We end with a similar address, but this time it is tinged with a kind of optimism unique to Woody Allen. The character's refrain of "whatever works" takes on a slightly sweet quality. I suspect audiences and critics will debate the sincerity of its happy ending. Regardless, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and believe it provides the same level of insight into the director's fears and desires that many pegged on Deconstructing Harry.

So this is an early confirmation that this is Woody with something substantial to say again, especially updating his version of NYC to make it full of the out-of-towners that now pose as residents, which seems to be on his mind here. This sounds like the film Woody fans have been waiting for more than 10 years now.

This really does sound exactly like a mid-90s Allen film, and I consider that a huge compliment. Color me excited after being underenthused by the overrated VCB

AWA wrote:So this is an early confirmation that this is Woody with something substantial to say again, especially updating his version of NYC to make it full of the out-of-towners that now pose as residents, which seems to be on his mind here. This sounds like the film Woody fans have been waiting for more than 10 years now.

Doesn't that get said about almost every Woody film that comes out?

kaujot wrote:

AWA wrote:So this is an early confirmation that this is Woody with something substantial to say again, especially updating his version of NYC to make it full of the out-of-towners that now pose as residents, which seems to be on his mind here. This sounds like the film Woody fans have been waiting for more than 10 years now.

Doesn't that get said about almost every Woody film that comes out?

By critics who don't know what they're talking about, yes. They usually call it a "return to form" and then reference Crimes & Misdemeanors, generalizing the 90's as if they never produced anything of significance to his career, which is absolutely preposterous.

Many Woody fans though see his last real "Woody" film as Celebrity, and the last great "Woody" film being Deconstructing Harry - a film about his personal view on life, his age, his peers, death, etc. "montgomery" has a great post on this in the "Woody Allen" thread.
The reason to get excited about this film is that it appears, for the first time in 11 years, Woody is writing a truly personal film again that doesn't hide behind the guise of his recent genre-filmmaking light comic scenarios or Hitchcock influenced crime drama. The reasons to excitedly anticipate this film as a Woody Allen fan are very real.

Ugh, guys, unless you're best buds with the man, can you drop the first-name basis? And I really don't appreciate the suggestion that anyone who enjoys his recent films is in some fashion not a true enthusiast of his work

More reviews and early reports from the ShoWest screening that add to the details already provided:

FirstShowing.net / CinemaBlend.com / Associated Press

And the Associated Press talks to Patricia Clarkson after the screening, where, regarding the recent struggles of independent filmmaking in the film industry, she suggests less opportunities and less indie films in general is a good thing:

Patricia Clarkson wrote:"Making an independent film should always be hard. That's the whole point," Clarkson said. "The problem is there's been too much product, and the industry can't support it. There are not enough theaters, there are not enough distributors, there's not enough money. The playing field is leveling.

"When I did `High Art' back in 1997, I knew like two other people who were doing an independent film. Now everybody does. It was a rare event to get an independent film made, and I'm not saying we want to go completely back to those days, but we have to find the happy medium."

domino harvey wrote:Ugh, guys, unless you're best buds with the man, can you drop the first-name basis? And I really don't appreciate the suggestion that anyone who enjoys his recent films is in some fashion not a true enthusiast of his work

I've enjoyed plenty of his recent works - but I'd be interested in hearing your defence of how any of them are in anyway as personal as Harry or Celebrity, which is what I suggested and not what you are implying.

And I think you'll have to police the rest of the internet to get people to stop referring to him as simply "Woody". Are you similarly irritated when people refer to the Beatles as "John, Paul, George and Ringo"?

Woody is the kind of artist who doesn't demand formality. Those who have seen all or almost all his films feel a personal connection to him, and that connection compels them to refer to him as Woody. Remember The Dude's Bob Dylan tape, simply labeled "Bob," in "The Big Lebowski?"

And if Celebrity is a real Woody film but Sweet and Lowdown isn't, then I guess I prefer his fake ones.

You aren't going to convince domino with a Lebowski argument.

For me, the cutoff film for 'Classic Woody' is "Bullets Over Broadway." After that it's hit-and-miss -- mostly miss. Of the films he's made since then, only "Deconstructing Harry," "Match Point," and "Vicki Cristina Barcelona" really stand out for me.

New York Observer article with new interviews with Woody and Larry David about the film.

Probably the most revealing item of interest is that supposedly this is a script Woody wrote for Zero Mostel circa 1976 but ended up doing Annie Hall instead (I would have to assume Woody originally conceived this then while working with Zero on the '76 film "The Front"). Which is interesting too since it has been assumed that this was the script Woody mentioned in the "Conversations..." book as having been rejected by his sister and Juliet Taylor for being possibly perceived as "too autobiographical". Makes one wonder if this script is a fusion of both or if that was the Mostel idea all along.

Either way, a good article with thoughts from Larry David on working with Woody that are quite interesting.