This thesis will employ the auteurist paradigm to approach and interpret Allen's work, through a thorough examination of its recurring motifs. Representative of an alternative, idiosyncratic cinema with roots in the standup comedy tradition, Woody Allen is considered today one of the most accomplished writer-directors in film history. Consciously moving away from Hollywood structures, his films cross the boundaries of established cinematic genres and claim for themselves the status of a sub-genre, often referred to as the "neurotic comedy” or the "New York movie”, since the backdrop of their stories is usually Manhattan. A sophisticated blend of comedy and drama with philosophical underpinnings and traits peculiar to the European tradition, Allen's cinema demonstrates a high degree of thematic and stylistic consistency, which invests the cinematic text with the filmmaker's artistic signature.
Accordingly, the first chapter will provide a brief historical background of the auteur theory and will place Woody Allen within this tradition, attempting at the same time to address arguments against the auteurist approach and issues such as the existence of artistic ''loans" in Allen's work. The second chapter will carry out a detailed analysis of the filmmaker's visual style, while the third chapter will explore his thematic preoccupations, with the focus on love and death, and life in New York City.
CONTENTS
Abstract
Introduction™
Chapter One: Woody Allen and the Auteurist Paradigm
I. Historical background of theAuteurTheory
II. Woody Allen,The Auteur
Chapter Two: Stylistic motifs in Woody Allen’s cinematic narrative
Chapter Three: Themes and ideas in Woody Allen’s cinema -
I. General overview of recuring thematic motifs
II. Love and death
II. Life in New York City
Conclusion
Works Cited
Filmography
ABSTRACT
Representative of an alternative, idiosyncratic cinema with roots in the standup comedy tradition, Woody Allen is considered today one of the most accomplished writerdirectors in film history. Consciously moving away from Hollywood structures, his films cross the boundaries of established cinematic genres and claim for themselves the status of a sub-genre, often referred to as the “neurotic comedy" or the “New York movie,” since the backdrop of their stories is usually Manhattan. A sophisticated blend of comedy and drama with philosophical underpinnings and traits peculiar to the European tradition, Allen’s cinema demonstrates a high degree of thematic and stylistic consistency, which invests the cinematic text with the filmmaker’s artistic signature. For this reason, this thesis will employ the auteurist paradigm to approach and interpret Allen’s work, through a thorough examination of its recurring motifs.
Accordingly, the first chapter will provide a brief historical background of theauteurtheory and will place Woody Allen within this tradition, attempting at the same time to address arguments against the auteurist approach and issues such as the existence of artistic “loans” in Alien’s work. The second chapter will carry out a detailed analysis of the filmmaker’s visual style, while the third chapter will explore his thematic preoccupations, with the focus on love and death, and life in New York City.
INTRODUCTION
No, no. I didn 't study anything in school. They studied me.
Woody Allen,Stardust Memories
If you want to teach someone film directing, you could almost say, ‘'.Just keep going to (he movies, and it will pass into your body. ”Woody Allen
Bom Allan Stewart Konigsberg on December 1 1935, the firstborn child of a Jewish family living in the heart of Brooklyn, Woody Allen has his first cinematic experience at the age of three, when his mother takes him to a local movie theatre. 'The film isSnow White and the Seven Dwarfs,and young Allan, captivated by the fantasy world unfolding in front of his eyes, runs up to touch the images on the screen. It is a fascination that marks his childhood years and continues through his adolescence. In the years that follow, Allan watches films voraciously, be it comedy, drama, adventure, romance, or musical. In the United States, this is (he “golden age” of Hollywood and the fantasy world of the movies is an alternative reality, a temporary escape from the harshness of life. Aged fifteen and influenced by comedians such as Bob Hope, Groucho Marx, and Preston Sturges, Allan Konigsberg decides to explore his own comic vein and begins his career as a joke writer for New York newspapers under the name Woody Allen. Editors notice his talent and offer him a well-paid job in Manhattan. Shortly after he finishes school, Woody Allen enrolls in Motion Picture Production at New York University to study filmmaking but, although he enjoys the screenings, he rarely attends the discussions, so he fails to graduate. Yet this is the time when Allen discovers literature, poetry, philosophy, and European cinema. Entering a process of self-education, he reads Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hemingway, and Faulkner, and becomes acquainted with existentialist philosophers, the plays of O'Neill, Strindberg, and Ibsen, as well as the cinema of Ingmar Bergman. In his early twenties, he appears on stage as a stand-up comedian in performances based on his own texts, while at the same time he writes sketches for the television. Despite his success, due to the ephemeral nature of the stand-up routine and the television show, Allen abandons these fields and seizes the opportunity to work in the film industry, writing the script ofWhat's New Pussycat?(1965), a film that initiates his cinematic career.
Whal’s New Pussycat?is a commercial success but Allen is disillusioned by the experience of watching his script being modified to the detriment of his original ideas and decides to continue his career as both writer and director of his films.Take the Money and Run(1969) is his first personal work, a self-reflexive film, with a plethora of references to the gangster genre and shot as a documentary. From 1969 to 1976, Allen’s films are gag-oriented and episodic reflecting the director's background experience as a stand-up comedian and revealing his effort to channel his jokes through the cinematic medium. In these films, which draw on the slapstick comedy tradition, Allen experiments with various structures and gently touches upon issues that will be central in his subsequent films: love and death, the implications of celebrity, the loss of human integrity, psychoanalysis, the burden of Jewishness, and the tension between fantasy and reality. Produced in 1977,Annie Hallis a turning point in Woody Alien’s career, as it introduces themes and stylistic techniques that will become motifs in the films that follow. With this film, Allen not only demonstrates his growing maturity in the cinematic art, but also provides the framework of the new cinematic genre that would emerge out of his artistic preoccupations; a genre that this paper will be referring to as the “New York movie.” Hallmark of Alien’s “New York movie” is primarily the exploration of psychological issues against the background of the city. Within this context, the filmmaker exposes his concerns over the nature of love relationships, the impact of the idea of mortality' on the human psyche, the struggle of the individual to maintain his/her morality within a society which is indifferent to genuine values, and the role of the artist in the midst of social disorder. Alien’s films are satirical, a mixture of comedy and drama, of commercial and “art film." always invested with a confessional, autobiographical quality, They are films which attempt to capture the viewer s interest not by means of special effects and action sequences, but through the depiction of situations and states of mind the viewer can readily identify with. Accordingly, one may claim that a Woody Allen film functions like psychoanalysis in itself; despite its comic surface, in exposing the problems, insecurities, neuroses, and desires of its characters. It subjects the audience to a process of introspection, encouraging them to come into contact with themselves and their innermost feelings. Aiming at self-knowledge, this is often a painful process for characters and audience, yet with a strong cathartic effect.
Since 1969, Woody Allen has been remarkably prolific, with his films amounting to thirty nearly one film per year, and although he has never abandoned his practice to experiment with styles and structures which point to various cinematic and extra-cinematic influences, his style remains identifiable and inimitable. The aim of this paper is to explore the aesthetic and thematic components that constitute Allen's personal style and to shed light on intentions and implications of his “New York movies.” Approaching Allen s cinema from the auteurist perspective, whereby the director is the primary' agent for the generation of meaning in a film and the dominating force in the filmmaking process, the first chapter will provide a brief historical background of “theauteurtheory” and will validate arguments for and against Alien’s status as anauteur.making use of Mikhail Bakhtin's convictions concerning the “polyphony of art” to substantiate the discussion. Based on Alan Lovell’s version of theauteurtheory, which favors the use of auteurisl principles as a descriptive method and not as a means of evaluation of a director’s films, the second and third chapter will respectively examine the stylistic and thematic consistency in Woody Allen's cinema, with the emphasis placed on the issues that constitute the cornerstone of his work: love and death, and life in New York City.
CHAPTER ONE : WOODY ALLEN AND THE AL I EERIST PARADIGM
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE AUTEUR THEORY
Thepolitique des auteursconsists, in short, of choosing the personal factor in artistic creation as a standard of reference, and then assuming that it continues and even progresses from one film to the next.
(Andre Bazin, 1957)
When working in total freedom. I touched wordless secrets that only the cinema can discover.
(Ingmar Bergman,Images: My Life in Eilm)
Rooted in the theoretical discussions of the French critical society of the 1940s which sought to elevate the prestige of the cinematic medium, thepolitique des auteurswas first articulated by Francois Truffaut in his article titled “line Certaine 't endance du Cinema," published in( ahiers du Cinemain 1954. In his text, the French filmmaker provided a detailed outline of the auteurist principles, which centered around the conviction that the major creative force in the process of filmmaking is the director, since he is responsible for all the aesthetic decisions that invest the film with his personal style. Truffaut and his contemporaries in France, including Andre Bazin, Jean-Luc Godard, and Jacques Rivette, believed in the distinction betweenauteurthe director who has the ability to project his personality on the cinematic text, andmetteur en scenethe director who merely transforms the script into image and sound with no artistic interventions that w'ould render his work personal. According to the supporters of auteurism, the work of a genuineauteurpresents a set of stylistic and thematic motifs that recur and evolve in his oeinre, that is, a consistency, which accounts for the creation of an identifiable style but still bears the possibility of renewal. In addition to this, sharing Truffaut’s suggestion that the artistic value of a film should be defined by the extent to which the film expresses the director’s personal views and aesthetic preoccupations, theauteurcritics professed that the most successful films are those who bear the personal stamp of the director, while, in case a film failed to convey the director’s thematic and stylistic concerns, it would more likely be a critical failure as well; a conviction that would soon initiate a wide debate in cinematic criticism.
Having perceived the weaknesses of the auteurist paradigm, Andre Bazin reacted to its extremes and explicitly referred to the dangers inherent to its practice, providing a new perspective in the discussion of auteurism in ('aluers du ('inema.The critic objected against the “exclusive practice” of auteurism, which could lead to “the negation of the film to the benefit of praise of itsauteur"and stated: “I feel that this useful and fruitful approach...should be complemented by other approaches to the cinematic phenomenon, which will restore to a film its quality as a work of art” (qtd in Caughie 46). Three years after the publication of “IJne Certainc Tendance,” Bazin had structured a differentiated version of auteurism, which focused on the parameters that should be included in the application of this critical method. As he argued, “there can be no definite criticism of genius or talent which does not first take into consideration the social determinism, the historical combination of circumstances, and the technical background which to a large extent determines it” (qtd in Buscombe 78). Despite the fact that Bazin had reshaped auteurism into a more objective critical approach, his views provoked controversy among critics. Based upon Truffaut’s ideas and Bazin's objections, theauteurpolicy crossed the boundaries of France and was introduced in Britain byMoviemagazine and in the United States through the articles of Andrew Sams, who directly translated thepolitiqueinto the English language. Sarris had adopted the auteurist principles, as defined by Francois Truffaut, but dismissed Bazin’s suggestions over the dangers in the exclusive practice of auteurism. In his articles, Buscombe observes, [Sarris] pushes to extremes arguments which in('ahierswere often only implicit...[and] rejects Bazin's attempt to combine theauteurapproach with an acknowledgement of the forces conditioning the individual artist...Filins, he is saying, become valuable insofar as they reveal directorial personality. He therefore does precisely what Bazin said should not be done: he uses individuality as a test of cultural value. (78-80) Sarris also believed that Hollywood was source of high art and talented artists; thanks to him, the auteurist principle was developed into a full-fledged theory' still known today as “theauteurtheory’.” Nonetheless, Sarris’ critical positions were severely questioned in the 1960s and gave way to approaches characterized by a wider perspective.
In less than a decade after the emergence of auteurism in France, several voices foreboded its death and expressed their support over theories that moved away from the apotheosis of the director. Indicative of this current is Fereydoun Hoveyda’s article titled “Autocritique,” written in 1961, in which the critic claims: “'Thepolitique des auteurshas had its day: it was only a stage on the way to a new criticism” (qtd in Caughie 9). Main target of antiauteurist criticism was the shift of emphasis from the filmmaker to the film, which was seen as a product of collaboration and not as the personal work of a single person. Within this context, supporters of this approach rejected the auteurist principle both as a critical category and as descriptive formula that could be used to interpret a director’s oezzvre. Yet, by 1970, this kind of criticism had failed to impose itself and theauteurtheory re-established its power. Louis Giannetti writes that, ‘"the major battle had been won. Virtually all serious discussions of movies were at least partly couched in terms of the director’s personal vision” (454). A study of the films produced in the 1970s demonstrates that, irrespectively of whether they were indeed products of the director’s personal vision, they were promoted and advertised as such. A brief list would include: Ingmar Bergman’sCries and Whispers(1972), Steven Spielberg’sJaws(1975) andClose Encounters of the Third Kind(1977), Martin Scorsese’sThe Taxi Driver (1976),Woody Allen’sAnnie Hall(1977) andManhattan(1979), David Lynch’sEraserhead(1978), Francis Ford Coppola'sThe Godfather(1972),The Godfather, Part//(l 974) andApocalypse Now (1979), as well as Ridley Scott’sAlien(1979). Once more, criticism and Hollywood focused on the director; the critical and commercial success of the above mentionedauteurfilms confinn this statement. As David Bordwell puts it, “by 1970, there could be no doubt that the antiautcurist forces had lost: the boom in film criticism was built solidly upon the study of individual directors” (80). Films were rarely studied in isolation but rather within the context of the filmmaker’s work as a whole. By employing the auterist paradigm, critics sought to decode the director’s personal “language” that would render easier the interpretation of his films when approached in isolation, while Hollywood attempted to exploit the signature of theauteurfor commercial reasons. In the 1970s, “film-critical auteurism [had become) a crucial part of film publicity, marketing and film journalism,” Cook and Bemink note (311).
In the 1980s and 1990s, theauteurtheory' survived in the field of cinematic criticism, assuming a new shape, with the emphasis placed on its importance as advertising strategy' and publicity “bonus.” At the turn of the century', Hollywood still celebrates theauteurand expects of a young director to be one, whether or not he has the ability to project his personal vision on the cinematic material. Nonetheless, today, the notion of theauteurhas significantly changed. Rather than being the filmmaker who uses the cinematic medium to convey his moral judgements and artistic concerns, theauteuris often a promotional device of the film industry, a mere commodity. Indicative of this is the wide popularity of directors who present no stylistic and/or thematic consistency in their work and are in fact as Truffaut would consider them onlymetleurs en scene.Yet discussions of auteurism in the 1990s acknowledge the survival of the theory in question, attempt to define the new meaning of theauteur,and underline the implications of its practice today. Andrew Dudley admits that auteurism is “far from dead” but different from the original version and cites Timothy Corrigan’s viewpoint, which “recognizes the importance of the auteur not as an individual with a vision... but as a dispersed, multimasked, or empty name, bearing a possibly bogus collateral in the international market of images” (qtd in Collins 80). Similarly, Warren Buckland notes that, “theauteuris no longer just a critical category, but also an industry' category'...Contemporary Hollywood directors are marketed as auteurs with their own brand image. The director’s name is used to achieve pre-production deals...particularly in the distribution and marketing of films” (74-75). As opposed to theauteurof the 1960s, who would claim this title for his ability to gradually develop a personal style and invest his films with it. theauteurin the 1980s and 1990s is often forced to do so to begin with, in order to survive and establish himself within a system which requires originality that can be marketed as a product. Regarding this issue, Henry Jenkins writes in 1995:
By treating filmmakers as independent contractors, the new production system places particular emphasis on the development of an idiosyncratic style which helps to increase the market value of individual directors rather than treating them as interchangeable parts. Directors such as Steven Spielberg. David Lynch... develop distinctive ways of structuring narratives, moving their camera or cutting scenes which became known to film-goers and studio executives alike. The emergence of the auteur theory...provided these directors with a way of articulating and defending these stylistic tendencies as uniquely valuable. (115) In practice, a study of the history of theauteurtheory' reaches a main conclusion: since its emergence in France, auteurism has served the intentions of various groups associated to the cinematic medium, and has thus functioned as a flexible theoretical and critical formula, still in use in contemporary criticism.
Within the framework of this analysis, it should be noted that to be anauteurin the sense conceived by the French critics was easier for European directors, for they enjoyed a remarkable artistic freedom and were hardly constrained by studio pressures, contrary to the state of affairs in Hollywood. This implies that the issue of artistic freedom is crucial in the auterist approach, though not fully developed in the relevant theory. Furthermore, the characterizationauteurhas always been more likely to go to a writer-director, since he has a greater control over the cinematic material, while the contribution of the other members of the crew is significantly smaller. Despite the fact that in employing the autcurist paradigm, “there was always the open invitation to elevate the worst films of anauteurover the best films of another director” (Tudor 123), theauteurtheory “had a liberating effect on film criticism, establishing the director as the key figure at least in the art of cinema, if not always the industry” (Giannetti 454). Discussing the idea of the director as the sole author of the film, Andrew Tudor writes: “However controversial this may have been in the past... it has surely now passed forever into the realms of acceptability... While no one would deny the collective nature of film production, the crucial importance of the director’s conception is part of the orthodox canon” (122). In practice, one could claim that it is not thecontentof theauteurtheory' one should be critical of, but theintentionsbehind its piactice. Taking everything into consideration, it must be noted that to the French critics, auteurism was primarily a form of reaction against the undervaluing of the director, while to the majority of critics at large, it was also a means of making judgements of value. To Sarris, auteurism was the safest criterion for the determination of what constitutes high art in cinema, while to Hollywood, the notion of the auteuris essentially an additional promotional feature. I^ast but not least, to the critics of the 1970s. theauteurtheory was useful as a strategy in the attempt to describe and explore a director's work as a whole. It is the conviction of the author of this thesis that the employment of theauteurtheory in the study of an individual director a study which aims todescribeand notevaluateis the most appropriate one. Accordingly, this paper will adopt a version of auleurism which lies closer to Bazin’s premises, as defined by Alan Lovell in 1969:
By the ‘auteur’ principle 1 understand a descriptive method which seeks to establish, not whether a director is a great director, but what the basic structure of a director’s work is. The assumption behind (his principle is that any director creates his films on the basis of a central structure and that all his films can be seen as variations or developments of it. (qtd in Tudor ISO).
In the chapters which follow, the ‘auteur’ principle will indeed be employed as a descriptive and interpretative tool and not as a criterion of value. Yet it should also be noted that, as opposed to Tudor's assumption that the auleurist paradigm may apply to the work of any director, this paper will adopt auleurism as a notion essentially applicable to film directors who exercize maximum control over their cinematic material by being screenwriters as well as directors of their films. Within this theoretical context. Woody Allen is one of the best examples.
II. WOODY ALLEN, THE AUTEUR
In an attempt to approach Woody Alien’s cinema, one readily discovers that the use of theauteurtheory' is privileged for several reasons. To begin with, Allen is a writer-director, with a cinematic philosophy built upon European influences pointing toauteurs,such as Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini. Secondly, his control of virtually all aspects of the filmmaking process is usually absolute, and the artistic freedom he enjoys, remarkable, for he is released from studio constraints. Thirdly, his rwz/vre presents an essential stylistic and a striking thematic consistency, with motifs that recur and are enriched from film to film, in the manner Bazin had described inCahiers du Cinema.Although polemic criticism argues against Allen’s status as anauteur,focusing mainly on the excessive use of intertextuality in his cinema, the majority of critics appear to converge on the idea that the filmmaker is “firmly set in theauteurtradition” (Marowitz 8). Most of them ground their arguments on the existence of consistency in his cinema and of a sense of authenticity, with which he invests all his films. As Vincent Canby writes, the United States have “only one filmmaker who consistently speaks his own voice... Jas] one would have to go back to the silents to find any other American filmmaker who has so successfully...attended to his own obsessions” (1). Describing Allen’s cinematic style, David Thomson suggests that it is “deeply impressive” and his vision, one of “great originality and importance, [which] makes his contemporaries seem narrow and old- fashioned” (“Shoot the Actor" 9). Perfectly aware that he would not be able to use the cinematic medium to express his concerns, unless he was autonomous and unconstrained from external pressures, Allen claimed this artistic freedom f rom the very' beginning of his career and managed to gain it. Besides, by being the screenwriter, director of and actor in his films, he lias always had the power to supervise all stages of production and leave his imprint on the finished product. 'Today, Allen is probably the most privileged American filmmaker, “primarily due to strong critical support characterizing him as one of the only film “artists” working in America” (Wyatt 192). It is noteworthy that Alien’s 10-year contract with Orion (1982-1992) brought only one great success to the box-office{Hannah and Her Sisters,1987), and the film company on the verge of financial disaster. Normally, this would be a reason for compromise; yet, after the breaking of his contract with Orion, Allen worked for Tri-Star and for the last seven years, for Miramax, an independent company which has been granting himcarte blanchein all his projects, and in which he can still “make his films without anyone approving his script, his budget, his final cut” (Bart 91), as he used to do in the past.
Further evidence in support of the argument that Woody Allen is a genuineauteuris the criticism that places him among Europeanauteurs,but also stresses the fact that he is a victim of the extremes of auteunsm, since his films are evaluated not as autonomous works but on the basis of who created them. Kent Jones blames this on Allen’s “partisan admirers” and explains that, Every' film that comes out is first and foremost the latest model from the Woody Allen factory, secondly another installment in the ongoing saga of Allen’s artistic growth, and only thirdly a film. In this sense Allen suffers from the same malady' as Bergman and Godard, whose admirers have in some ways done them more damage than good by creating flawless, omniscient Idols in their image. (5)
In this statement, the critic clearly draws on Bazin’s remarks over the dangers inherent in the excessive practice of auteurism. Furthermore, by using the terms “Woody Allen factory” and “latest model” to refer to Allen’s films, he verifies current approaches to the notion of theauteur,whereby the director’s signature is what matters most within the system. Expressing a similar viewpoint, though more polemical, Alam Brassart is critical of the fact that theauteuris always redeemed by his audience and cites the example ofSweet and lowdown(2000), in which Woody Allen projects an allegedly misogynist attitude through the character of Emmet Ray, but this is overlooked by the French audience within the context of an “auteurist” work. Yet, even this kind of criticism does not seem to question Allen’s status as anauteur,but merely attempts to draw- attention to issues that theauteurtheory' does not account for.
Criticism that explicitly opposes the idea that Woody Allen is anauteuris grounded on the argument that the plethora of cinematic and extra-cinematic loans in his films- loans that are not effectively integrated but simply attached to his own material deprives the filmmaker of the possibility of producing an original and personal work. In his article, titled “Woody Allen: The Loan and the Imitation,” Dimitris Babas provides the most indicative example of this approach. According to him, Allen’s work is characterized by vagueness and by an absence of those elements that would build a personal cinematic style. For Babas, to consider Allen anauteurbased on idea of consistency is a paradox, for this consistency is hardly perceptible in his films and merely in terms of recurring thematic concerns, such as love and death, problematic interpersonal relationships, artistic creation, nostalgia, and the pursuit of emotional fulfillment. The critic focuses on Alien’s delight in borrowing elements from various sources, and suggests that in watching his films the audience is confronted by a reproduction of past cinematic images, which are rooted mainly in the European tradition and in the cinema of Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini. Babas questions Allen’s ability to integrate the loans in his films and argues that, far from being a process whereby the director experiments w-ith a variety of structures and styles until he finds his own “voice,” Allen’s is a dialogic process with the entire film history: from the documentary genre and German expressionism to European cinema and from the slapstick comedy to the Hollywood musical; thus, to call him anauteurcrosses the boundaries set by the relevant theory'. In view of this, one may claim thatInteriors, September,andAnother Womanare mere copies of Bergman’s dramas,Stardust MemoriesandAliceof Fellini’s8 ‘2and(iiulietla degli Spiriti. Shadows and Eogof Mumau’s exprcssionistic films, andEveryone Says I I.ove Youof the Hollywood musical. ’The questions arising at this point are important: What arc the intentions of the filmmaker in borrowing foreign material? How effectively is this material assimilated in the original work? How does the artist treat the loans in the process towards the creation of a personal film?
The theoretical background that can provide the most satisfactory answers to the questions mentioned above is Bakhtin’s theory' on the “polyphony of art.” Bakhtin introduces this theory' inProblems of Dostoevsky's Poetics(1929), in which he explores the nature of intertext uality in Dostoevsky’s novels, as well as the role of the author in this process of juxtaposition of discourses. InProblems, Dostoevsky is to be identified not with one or another voice within his novels... but rather with the agency that orchestrates a multiplicity of distinct and even antithetical voices. Dostoevsky’s art is “polyphonic” that is, it engenders a textual plurality' of unmerged voices and consciousnesses. It deploys juxtaposition, counterpoint, and simultaneity in its treatment of its favored subject the dialogue of consciousnesses within the sphere of ideas. The lack of an originary personality or homogeneous style is not a flaw in Dostoevsky’s work; it is, rather, “of the essence,” the means by which Dostoevsky juxtaposes discourses in a process of mutual illumination and relativization. This does not mean that the author is the passive compiler of others’ points of view; rather, he is profoundly active, alert to the dialogical tissue of human life, to the array of voices the author reproduces, answers, interrogates, amplifies. (Stam 9)
For Bakhtin, Dostoevsky is primarily a “dialogical writer,” for his literary' work is based on the idea of “dialogism” which, in Bakhtinian terms, is “concerned with all the series...that enter into a text, be that text verbal or non verbal, erudite or popular” (Stain 190). In this sense, Bakhtin’s theory can be employed to describe and interpret not only literary but also painterly, cinematic, musical and other works. Accordingly, it can account for the plurality of voices in Woody Allen’s cinema and function as the most solid counterargument against claims which hold that Allen is not anauteurbut merely a pastiche stylist.
Within the context of Bakthin's theoretical approach, Alien’s cinema can be viewed as a field wherein various discourses are creatively juxtaposed in an organic whole, under the guidance of the filmmaker in this case, the “orchestrator.” In view of this, the merging of Bergmanesque images with slapstick comedy motifs in a Woody Allen film is not random, but part of a dialogic process (omnipresent in Alien's cinematic world), which still aims at originality and demonstrates the filmmaker’s ability to reproduce “borrowed” elements—filtered through his moral judgement, imagination, and aesthetic principles. As Byron and Weis put it, “the remarkable thing” about Woody Allen, “is how personal he has remained despite his use of generic formats... Even as fhej adapts established genres to his purpose...he creates an inimitable style” (103). Similarly, in his adaptation of Bergman and Fellini inInteriors, September, Another Woman(Bergman) andStardust Memories(Fellini), Allen retains a notable sense of authenticity' and his films are essentially as personal asAnnie HullandManhattan.According to Canby, “seeing only the exteriors of these films...one tends to see not the original work beneath but only the superficial resemblances to the works of others” (15). Yet, as Ted Whitehead observes aboutInteriors,“if the clouds that gather over the Long Island house seem peculiarly Swedish, the theme of the tension between the vulgar and the fine is authentically American and authentically Allen” (39). Balancing between comedy and drama, mainstream and “art” film. Alien’s works are shaped through his idiosyncratic style; his cinema communicates his preoccupations and anxieties, poses questions and attempts to reach some answers, entertains, parodies, and in its confessional nature, it aspires to encourage the viewer to introspection and ultimately to self-awareness. 'The examination of Woody Alien’s stylistic and thematic motifs in the context of theauteurtheory' will illustrate the above-made point in subsequent chapters.
CHAPTER TWO : STYLISTIC MOTHS IN WOODY ALLEN’S CINEMATIC NARRATIVE
Making a film is a big struggle. But the fact that there is struggle helps me. I'd rather struggle with films than struggle with other things.
(Woody Allen)
Motivated by a strong desire to protect his written material and transform it into cinematic text with the least possible distortion or intervention, Allen usually undertakes to direct films based on his own screenplays, so that he can make the aesthetic decisions that will constitute the framework of his stories. With the frustrating experience of watching his script being severely modified inWhat's New Pussycat(1965) never far from his mind, Allen only rarely allows his scripts to fall into the hands of another director, practicing a personal supervision of all stages of production of his films for more than three decades. Though positively challenged by experimentation intended to explore the possibilities and limits (if any) of the cinematic medium, Allen has long retained several stylistic motifs in his films, and has remained faithful to his methods of working. This is not to imply that his art has not evolved consistency in style docs not entail stagnation but to support the main argument of this thesis. The current study will attempt to provide an account of Alien’s favored cinematic devices and methods, and examine the ways whereby these convey his fundamental preoccupations. Narrative structure, mise-en-scene, editing, sound, and acting in Allen's films will be the subject areas of analysis, while his methods of working during pre-production and production will also be discussed. Theory will be supported by textual evidence and the filmmaker's own comments on his stylistic decisions will be incorporated.
If one word were to describe Woody Allen as an artist, it would be “self- discipline.” The great majority of books and articles written on Allen stress the filmmaker’s remarkable devotion to his medium, a devotion resulting in lengthy script, direction, and acting processes. As Ingun Lcidland banteringly suggests, Allen is so selfdisciplined that if he does not work every three minutes, he gets a feeling of guilt. In a manner similar to that of his idol, Ingmar Bergman, Allen spends most of his time in the making of one film, while at the same time working on the script of another. To the suggestion that this is an exhausting job, Allen replies that “physical work is therapeutic, and creative work is helpful... [it is] one of the only things that keep you sane” (qtd in Thomas 75). A Woody Allen project begins with the filmmaker writing a script. When the time for shooting comes, Allen has usually no detailed plan of his next steps, let alone a story-board a practice favored by Alfred Hitchcock. Allen himself reasons that “it’s all a matter of instinct.” and thus, when he first arrives at the filming location, he is ready to shoot and reshool as many times as necessary, as well as rewrite scenes, in order to gel exactly what he has in mind, since to him, “film scripts arc guides rather molds” (Lax 250).
Critics tend to divide Alien’s work into two parts: the early films (1965- 1976), which bear the characteristics of slapstick comedy, and the mature period (1977 to date), which consists of more introspective works. Describing his early films, Graham McCann states that “they have a certain style in common. Their composition is purely functional, the gags are more important than the narrative, the camera is tied down, and the movie is made with cuts”(WoodyAllen68), traits that are abandoned in the mature period.Annie Hall(1977) admittedly, a point of reference in Allen’s oei/vre was a field of experimentation for the director, a film that employed a variety of techniques, many of which recur in his subsequent films and may be considered stylistic motifs in his work as a whole. InAnnie Hall.Allen employs double exposure, subtitles, flashbacks, voice-over, free association, direct address to the camera, animation, and split screen (appendix 2.1), and as a result, he “reshapes his images, violating various principles of film rhetoric” (McCann,Woody Allen200). Without conforming religiously to the conventions of the commercial film in the productions that followAnnie Hall,Allen is less experimental. Occasionally, he demonstrates his interest in modernism and formalism through the use of daring techniques which violate the narrative line, as inDeconstructing Hurry(1998), yet his artistic decisions are still determined by the degree to which a cinematic device serves his thematic concerns.
A stylistic motif of crucial importance in Allen’s narrative is the use of voice-over, a device that renders an authorial cinematic voice and allows the filmmaker to invest his text with a strong personal vision. According to Rey Carney, a voice-over narration assists in the articulation of feelings and attitudes, and it allows a scene to convey dramatic complexity without the need to show it by means of performance. Allen resorts to this device in order to manipulate time{Alice, Annie Hull, Deconstructing Harry'),to comment upon situations{Pullets Over Eroadway, Everyone Says I Love You, Zelig, Take the Money and Run),to set the mood{Manhattan, Radio Days),or to emphasize and attract the viewer’s attention to a particular clement of the story. Whenever a single voice-over is absent, this is replaced by a series of voice-overs, which mark the shifts in point of view, as occurs inHannah and Her Sisters.Allen favors the use of the first person in his films, a fact that lends them a confessional quality, but also makes them less likely to present situations and events in a strict chronological order.
The frequent absence of a well-structured narrative with a linear story development and a clear-cut beginning and end is another Woody Allen motif. Apart from the voice-over, which can easily manipulate the conventional narrative, Allen employs flashbacks and flash-forwards, narration in a stream-of-consciousncss fashion, free association, and dream sequences to achieve this result. His films are often episodic and fragmented, lacking even an essential sense of unity; yet even' artistic decision has a specific purpose. One of the most indicative examples isRadio Days,whose “jagged, elliptical style” reflects, according to Paul Attanasio, the theme of the film which is nostalgia, thus “as Allen rattles through his narration at a frantic pace, you get the sense of a man panicking to recover an ever elusive memory.” Critics who have commented onRadio Days,have pointed out that its cause-and-effect episodic structure also happens to be fairly appropriate as it parallels the manner in which one recollects images and sounds of the past. Bruce Bawer views the film not as a story with a clear beginning and end, but as “a rambling personal essay” consisting of anecdotes that “arc designed not to advance a plot but to communicate what the wordradiomeans to Woody Allen” (63), while McCann acknowledges that “Radio Days isfragmented, the characters often inadequately developed.” but this is due to the fact that “nothing returns for very long, save the sense of having gently brushed-up against one’s past”(Woody Allen185). An overview of Allen’s films shows that the director favors the use of flashbacks, a flexible device which can render a variety of effects. Flashback sequences arc found inAnnie Hall,as Allen deconstructs the Alvy-Annie relationship, inStardust Memoriesas Dome’s character unfolds, inDeconstructing Harry,as the persona attempts to redefine his identity, inAnother Womanto convey Marion’s journey, and for several other reasons inAlice, Husbands and Wives. Play It Again Sam, Hannah and Her Sisters, ('rimes and Misdemeanors,andInteriors.
The extensive use of flashbacks is an interesting stylistic motif in Allen’s cinema and reveals the director’s artistic confidence in employing devices which disrupt the conventional narrative line. In the “quasi-Proustian flashbacks’’ ofAnnie Hall,Eric Lax observes, “associations are made that trigger other scenes and sequences” (284), while the technique whereby a character physically enters his flashback and is able to comment on situations and events from the point of view of the present is first introduced in this and often employed in subsequent films. InAnnie Hull,Alvy visits his past and finds himself among his schoolmates and young Alvy (appendix 2.2), while later, he and Annie jump into Annie’s past and comment on her love life (appendix 2.3). Similar scenes unfold inDeconstructing HarryandCrimes and Misdemeanors,wherein the main character is present in a past event and can comment on it, without being seen or heard by the rest of the participants. As mentioned before, the use of such devices violates fundamental narrative conventions and demonstrates Allen's desire “to play around with [time], to jump through time, elongate it, condense it” (Fitzgerald 14). Stephen Prince describesAnnie Hallas “a kaleidoscope through which the viewer sees |the Alvy-Annie] affair” and a story broken into pieces, “all ananged out of chronological order,” in reaction to commercial films which are “told in a linear, chronological fashion” (195), while William Siska suggests that the fragmented narrative of the film parallels “Allen’s / Singer’s resolution of his failed love” (qtd in Gehring 363). Therefore, the structureof Annie Halland of most Allen films is rather dictated by and dependent upon the plot in the first place.
Indifferent to the construction of well-tied narratives based on a chronological presentation of events, Allen delights in making episodic films. Accordingly.Annie Hallis a random recollection of memories and so isRadio Days,a film which “like radio, jumps easily from one level of reality to another,” “a revue in which...everything is tied together by music” (Ebert, “Radio Days"). Stardust Memoriesis the account of a spiritual journey to self-knowrIcdge wherein importance lies in the experience gained and not in the actual events, whileManhattanis more “a scries of perceptions about its mixed- up characters, more a mood piece about modem dating rituals, than a full-fledged conventional story” (Hirsch 187). Nevertheless, despite the tendency to employ stream-of- consciousncss narration in his films, Allen admits that he pays particular attention to the introductory sequence and always makes sure that it is arresting enough to attract the viewer’s interest to the story. In an interview to Stig Bjorkman, he explains:
I think the way you begin a film is important. This comes probably from my cabaret training. It’s important for the beginning... to have a special quality' of some sort, a special theatrical quality, or something to arrest the audience instantly. So I think all my films begin in some unusual, or if not unusual, some special way. 'file first image on the screen is important to me. (43)
Accordingly,Slardust Memoriesopens with Sandy’s idea for his next film the peculiar image of two trains, one full of depressed passengers and one throbbing with life and laughter, both of which ultimately end up in a garbage dump.Husbands and Wivesis introduced by an aesthetically disturbing scene in which Jack and Sally announce their separation to their startled friends, Gabe and Judy.Mighty Aphroditeopens with the commentary of an ancient Greek chorus and a traditional Greek tune on the soundtrack,Everyone Says I Love You,with a nostalgic song and a romantic dance routine rooted in the Hollywood musical tradition,York StoriesandAnnie Hall.,with the persona’s direct address to the camera,Radio Days,with the funny incident of the burglary' at the Nccdleman house, andDeconstructing Harry,with Lucy forcing herself into Harry’s flat, threatening to shoot him for using her story as material for his novel. InManhattanand inThe Purple Rose of Cairo,beginning and ending arc in some respects similar, as the director closes them the way he opens them: in the first film with the image of the New' York skyline and Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” on the soundtrack, and in the latter with the refrain of Fred Astaire’s “Cheek to Cheek.”
Recurring in Allen’s cinema is also the existence of several separate plot lines within a film, which evolve in parallel fashion and at times intersect in a sophisticated manner. Allen constructs stories of ordinary people, w'ho may or may not relate to one another and usually allows equal amount of cinematic time for each of these stories to develop. In fact, a separate study would be required to provide a complete account of all the separate plot lines encourtered in Allen’s films. A brief list would include: A'veryone 57/y.v /Love You, Husbands and Wives, Love and Death, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Deconstructing Harry, Hannah and Her Sisters, Interiors,andRadio Days.Commenting onHannahand discussing this motif. Bart I-’raundlich notes that all characters “intertwine in little ways, but they don't resolve everything together” (61), while the only lime they meet is on Thanksgiving Day.Hannah and Her Sisterswas the film in which Allen experimented most with this technique, admitting that his source of inspiration in terms of narrative structure was Leo Tolstoy. “It’s interesting,” Allen states, “how this guy gets the various stories going, cutting from one story to another, i loved the idea of experimenting with that” (qtd in Fox 165). Following Tolstoy’s practice inHannah and Her SistersAllen constructs several different stories and cuts from one stoiy to another, using title cards and an appropriate music theme to introduce each one of them.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Anastasia Spyrou (Author), 2001, Woody Allen's serious comedy. Neurotic Manhattanites in quest for self-fulfillment, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1285032
