The Writer's Poke

Much of Allen's work on DVD is available in boxsets. This is a film that didn't make any of the boxsets, and so I left it unviewed for a long time. It's also the film that Allen and Mia Farrow were working on when they separated and Allen started dating his current wife. I was curious to finally track down a copy and watch it, not only because I wanted to see it, but because I was curious how Allen and Farrow would "act" while the drama of their personal life was also playing itself out in the background. To be honest, if anything "bled over" from their personal lives, I couldn't tell. They act just as much like they always do in previous movies. Not every Woody Allen movie needs to be funny, but I did feel like this one lacked the humor of some of his better films. The thematic material is the standard choice: Is it better to suffer through a bad marriage, or is the grass greener on the other side? And the related idea: People are "happier...

Woody Allen would later do Midnight in Paris (2011), another fantasy film where Gil (Owen Wilson), in a way never explained, transports back to the Hemingway period of Paris that he finds most ideal.  In The Purple Rose of Cairo, we have a couple of "transports" happening. First, Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) leaves his film to join "the real world." Later, Cecilia (Mia Farrow) will join Tom in the film world. This is a little bit different from Midnight in Paris, because these transports are actually happening, whereas in Midnight, I guess it's at least arguable that the fantasy is only happening inside Gil's mind.  I like the exploration of concept here. Tom is a film character. He follows a script and "does" only what his character is supposed to do. The way it's laid out, every time the film plays, the characters come to life, but they cannot ever change or adapt. They do the same thing in the same way every time. As I was watching, I thought a...

Storytelling technique always stands out to me for some reason, and in Woody Allen films, especially, since he tends to change approaches from film to film.  In this one, the narrator is Joe (Woody Allen -- Seth Green as the child in the film). This is okay, except he ends up telling us things that he, as a child, wouldn't have any first-hand (and sometimes, probably not even second-hand) knowledge of. I know if you just accept the conceit of the storytelling device, it's not a big deal, but little stuff like that is hard for me to ignore. The fix? Make the narrator omniscient.  Other than the characters, the real star of the film is the music. Now, this is 1940s music, so big band stuff, mainly. It plays throughout the movie. It's the soundtrack of Joe's childhood. I know if the movie was set in the 1970s or 1980s, or even the 1990s, I would appreciate the music a lot more. As is, I hear it, but it doesn't register the same way for me as it does to Joe or someone w...

I started re-watching this movie, and for some reason I had it in my mind that it was called "The Other Woman," which is what Marion (Gena Rowlands) was. But she has just turned 50, and maybe that's why this movie is called "Another Woman," because 50 has hit her as no other decade age -- 30, 40 -- has. Or maybe Hope (Mia Farrow) is another woman? Hope is the vague presence. She's mainly the woman Marion overhears through the wall when Hope is visiting her psychiatrist. Why does Marion listen in on Hope's sessions, specifically, and not anyone else's? Is Hope supposed to be a younger version of Marion? Does Marion take an interest in her because she's invested in her choices? I'm not really sure. I'm not sure how much different the movie would be if somehow Hope's entire character was cut from the final edit. I'm sure Hope is important and adds something to the film, but it's difficult to say exactly just what. One complaint I...

 Woody Allen's 21st film "There's nothing here." -- Roger Ebert An ensemble cast is pretty cool, as long as each member has time (and something) to contribute to the story. I'm not sure that's the case with this film, Often times, I simply found myself thinking, "Oh, there's Madonna," or "Oh, there's Kathy Bates," or "Hm, I wonder when Shawn Wallace will finally make an appearance?" (Gene Siskel apparently had the same reaction.) Woody Allen tries new stuff in every film, and so it's not surprising that some films will dud. This one is not necessarily a dud, but it definitely has received mixed reviews. Many suggest that the film lacks coherence and has a flop ending. I belong to that school of reviewers. Others are excited by the use of black and white, as well as Allen's paying homage, well, to whatever he's paying homage to.  Unfortunately, this is a film that never clicks for me. Kleinman (Allen) is involve...

Maybe Mia Farrow works better in small doses for me. I just have a hard time seeing her as a lead in any movie, and she's definitely in this movie almost from beginning to end. That's somewhat annoying.  She's not a horrible actor, nor does she have a big hairy mole on her chin. And the reason I don't rate this movie higher has more to do with the writing, probably, than her as the lead. If Woody Allen wants to turn Alice (Farrow) invisible or to have her love potion accidentally get into the party drink, so that all of the men there fall madly in love with her, I'm okay with that. But this isn't "magical realism" to me. It's just hokey.  Alice is that unfulfilled women who wants something more out of life but can't quite put her finger on what she can to get it. She's rich and has kids. Her husband isn't mean to her, but he never takes her too seriously, and he has his own life -- and affairs. He's supportive to a point, and then h...

My daughter loves this movie, and a few years ago on a Greenland cruise, we must have watched it a dozen times. In fact, this might very well be the movie that I've re-watched the most out of every other movie ever made. Weird thought.  Although I'm not going to try to convince you that it's a perfect 5-star movie, I will argue that it's really good for a comedy. Really good. The reason has a lot to do with the Anne Hathaway/Rebel Wilson pairing. They just play off of each other so well. They work together visually, too. Just something about them reminds me of Laurel and Hardy... well, maybe not, but still, I like this pairing. You would never expect Anne Hathaway to be funny, but she is perfect in this comedic role. Sometimes all she has to do is react to Wilson's over-the-top physical comedy. One facial expression from Hathaway says it all.  Josephine (Hathaway) and Penny (Wilson) are complete opposites. One is sophisticated, the other is raunchy. One is a master ...