Woody Allen

[hearthesilence]

Interesting. I posted this earlier, but Allen actually made an appearance at Lincoln Center to promote Match Point and they uploaded a recording here.

Considering how many of his performers have turned in acclaimed performances (with a ridiculous number of Oscars and Oscar nominations), one could reasonably think there was something extraordinary about his ability to direct them, but instead he debunks that idea with his amusing explanation. It's hard to say if he's just making it sound like nothing just to be funny, but it does suggest that he's not really domineering on-set. With that in mind, in Match Point there were so many bits of dialogue that sounded off, and I'm curious as to whether any of the actors ever thought to say anything (but I guess didn't)? For example, IIRC, I don't think locals usually say "the" in front of Tate Modern.

[Roscoe]

I recall reading that he let Penelope Cruz improvise or tweak much of her dialogue in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, partly because he said he simply didn't know Spanish well and deferred to her fluency with the language and its nuances. Maybe he'll allow his French actors to do the same. It seems like he's much more protective of his writing when it's being spoken in his native tongue.

Gene Wilder said much the same thing about working with Allen, that Allen told him point blank to change any lines he didn't like.

That might have more to do with respecting a fellow comedian early on in his career, plus I don't believe that film's skit has much dialogue and is generally less about the written word than the concept. I wouldn't extrapolate that to his later English-friendly works that rely on Allen's specific style of writing in the script

There's that, sure, but Martin Landau speaks of Allen initially disagreeing with Landau's take on his role in CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, describing Allen coming up to him mid-shoot and saying that Landau's more sensitive and sympathetic work had made him see the light as the shoot progressed. Now that's a matter of interpreting the role rather than the specific dialogue that Landau had to make sound as if it was being spoken by a living human being, of course. A more hands-on director might have taken issue with Landau's take from the start and taken steps to counter it, but Allen seems to have been flexible enough to let Landau go where he wanted with it.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah I didn't mean to negate that this was true, just that the Wilder example extrapolated into his overall practice didn't seem like an ideal one

[DarkImbecile]

Allen’s latest is apparently titled Coup de Chance:

“Coup de Chance is a contemporary story of romance, passion and violence set in contemporary Paris. Shot all over the city and a little bit in the countryside, it evolves around a romance between two young people who are old friends and devolves into marital infidelity and ultimately crime. It stars very gifted French actors and actresses, is all in the French language and looks very beautiful as photographed by the great cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro. The rest I’ll leave to surprise.”

[HitchcockLang]

Early Woody Allen films were fun to watch visually -- and I suspect they might have worked well if made in a language other than English (though I would miss his and DK's voices to be sure).

One of the entire vignettes in Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* is in Italian.

[relaxok]

With Coup de Chance getting a pretty nice response, I'm looking forward to a time when it's actually seeable somewhere - I assume it will come to streaming before there's a film release.

[therewillbeblus]

For the first two-thirds, I thought Coup de Chance was a solid if exceptionally unremarkable Woody Allen movie. While he retreads over familiar ideas, behavior, themes, genre and narrative skeletons, etc. across his oeuvre, I don't know if any of his crime-romances have felt this safely protected from creative singularity. Rifkin's Festival, while certainly cringe-worthy in many respects, was at least somewhat risky in an admirable sense (and not just the homages, but the running joke of Shawn and Gershon's coupling is more inspired than just about anything in Allen's Russian Classics in France exercise, even if he seemed to go out of his way not to capitalize on opportunities to nudge the audience into repeatedly gawking at the absurdism!)

This film is well-shot, acted, directed, and as usual, breezes by with Allen's stapled digestible tone, aided by the camera's sunny vibes of possibility and his own deft touch with words and humble focus on banal activity made interesting by simple, powerful emotion felt between two people. Yet.. every other of 'These Ones' pronounces its individuality in at least some way, and I'm sorry but the language departure doesn't supply that spin. Allen can do this on autopilot, and although I never wanted this to be 'longer', shifts in perspective -or motivations surging and then become discarded- all come on a bit quick, and even the jealousy meditations feels truncated rather than either serious or funny - and I get the sense that a close-up on Poupaud's face during a pivotal scene, as he's thinking and not listening to a voice of reason, is meant to signify one or the other. There is one wonderful bit of inspiration that throttles the narrative into the exact place it needs to be

SpoilerShow

which starts with the nonchalant, practically-finale-unveiling reveal just before the end: that Melvil Poupaud's number one crime guy (who he has ostensibly known for a long time, and used to bump off various people across decades as he built up his empire) doesn't know how to fire a gun.. And then Allen goes even further in showing the absurdity of both this reveal and the winky artifice Allen is enjoying laughing at (you can practically hear him giggling to himself as he wrote this bit, and everything else is so routine I genuinely wonder if he made the rest of the film around a shower thought like, 'oh shoot I never did this silly thing with my thugs last time') by a) having Poupaud revert to a friendly family check-in, discussing a now-suddenly-complex murder plan hand in hand with social niceties, and b) causing us to do a double-take on how he could possibly know this guy for his role as an enforcer -let alone, apparently consider him like family- without knowledge of basic skill level in that very-important-for-his-own-obsessive-success area of expertise... plus, why can't the guy learn to shoot a gun? Can someone else? This is a hasty plan - developed on emotion rather than tact - but Poupaud could never admit as much.

For a guy who represents the atheistic 'I make my own luck' mentality -the one Allen has slowly stopped identifying with and become increasingly repulsed by in his last ten years or so, from his movies at least- and against Allen's own now agnostic take on corporeal spirituality (aka unconditional, unprovoked or planned love), there's a nice dish of irony thrown in there: For someone so meticulous and obsessive and fussy, he really gets lazy and urgency is usurped by overconfidence in direct contrast to his own motto of 'putting in work, don't expect certain results', etc. And then, of course, bad luck is what kills him!

Perhaps this is what separates this film from the rest: That it continues his own evolution as he approaches the last act of his own life. We get the whole 'life is chance, so take advantage of miracles on earth' stuff, but then there's a coda message: "Don't dwell" which I read to not only mean "be more grateful," since it's already been covered. Allen is more interested in Poupaud's character for a reason. He's arguably the only actual "character" and yet he's not particularly interesting. He may actually be the least interesting 'kind of person' in the ensemble. What an interesting creative choice - to overly simplify the interesting people

SpoilerShow

and completely drop the most interesting one from the narrative early on!

but that seems to be the point. Maybe we don't need to be "characters" in life. Just look what's in front of you before it's gone, don't overthink, just be and soak up life, sing kumbaya etc. I get the sense that Allen wishes he worried less and was grateful more during his life, but not in a self-critical or regretful manner necessarily (at least that't not how it translates into his art). That would be a waste of time, dwelling. Allen certainly has experience dwelling though - and perhaps he makes movies these days in part to inspire himself not to. That's certainly part of why I practice therapy and write and create and connect with others - to re-remind myself of the clarity that exists when I get outside of the caves of 'self'. Poupaud is all "self'd up" - consumed, unable to get out of his own way, rigid in his thinking in a fashion that's unproductive towards anything Allen values anymore.

A filtered sense of security is a false one - Allen's known that for a while regarding certain ideologies and institutions - but maybe he's combining the type of person he's always loathed most (the kind who he'd fantasize about ripping apart in a movie theatre line, for example) with the qualities he sees in himself that he's never liked, and then sending that character into an arc of delusion that essentially renders the meaty love piece of the film vapid - because Poupaud is actually the central character and can't access it. I dunno, but almost everything I liked about this centered around that theme of luck and chance, and how taking advantage of opportunities in a true and inviting and collaborative sense looks more like 'letting go' than issuing more and more control to a situation. That's just fucking lonely, and ultimately absurd. I kinda wish the movie ended with the last two scenes reversed -

SpoilerShow

although it would be less optimistic (it's certainly the most 'sublime' exit he could take, if this winds up being a career cap), being reminded of the 'right' way to approach life and then being presented with the wrong way and its consequences, and the absurdism of it all: A life wasted, built on self-constructed false ideas, unwilling to truly open or give parts of oneself, or be teachable... and the mother's deadpan face, barely registering what happened.

But I guess that doesn't matter as much as the positives. I'm also less convinced that my theory is correct, since Allen is subtler about what he's doing there, though I think it's pretty obvious that the basics are there to demonstrate the clash between two polarities Allen can relate to - not that it's a novel statement since he's been doing this for his whole career, especially in the twilight years! I like to think that the absences I've discussed is Allen's way of 'letting go' further ("Giving it up to God" or whatever that means for you), leaving the characters he aligns with at this developmental stage to their own narratives outside of his films. He doesn't need to prod into their psyches or personalities too much because all that matters are the simplicities that he writes in their dialogue, clear as day. He 'gets' them now, maybe it's less interesting, or counterintuitive to the ethos, to make them more 'complex'. I like the idea of Allen surrendering his characters to a world outside, like a father sending kids off into a world on their own, confident they'll do well if they stick to the basics.

I had a good time watching this - not a great one - but a sleepily delightful one. I can't think of another filmmaker who creates movies that feel so effortless and inviting and comforting while I'm there. That counts for a lot.

[nicolas]

For the first two-thirds, I thought Coup de Chance was a solid if exceptionally unremarkable Woody Allen movie. While he retreads over familiar ideas, behavior, themes, genre and narrative skeletons, etc. across his oeuvre, I don't know if any of his crime-romances have felt this safely protected from creative singularity. Rifkin's Festival, while certainly cringe-worthy in many respects, was at least somewhat risky in an admirable sense (and not just the homages, but the running joke of Shawn and Gershon's coupling is more inspired than just about anything in Allen's Russian Classics in France exercise, even if he seemed to go out of his way not to capitalize on opportunities to nudge the audience into repeatedly gawking at the absurdism!)

This film is well-shot, acted, directed, and as usual, breezes by with Allen's stapled digestible tone, aided by the camera's sunny vibes of possibility and his own deft touch with words and humble focus on banal activity made interesting by simple, powerful emotion felt between two people. Yet.. every other of 'These Ones' pronounces its individuality in at least some way, and I'm sorry but the language departure doesn't supply that spin. Allen can do this on autopilot, and although I never wanted this to be 'longer', shifts in perspective -or motivations surging and then become discarded- all come on a bit quick, and even the jealousy meditations feels truncated rather than either serious or funny - and I get the sense that a close-up on Poupaud's face during a pivotal scene, as he's thinking and not listening to a voice of reason, is meant to signify one or the other. There is one wonderful bit of inspiration that throttles the narrative into the exact place it needs to be

SpoilerShow

which starts with the nonchalant, practically-finale-unveiling reveal just before the end: that Melvil Poupaud's number one crime guy (who he has ostensibly known for a long time, and used to bump off various people across decades as he built up his empire) doesn't know how to fire a gun.. And then Allen goes even further in showing the absurdity of both this reveal and the winky artifice Allen is enjoying laughing at (you can practically hear him giggling to himself as he wrote this bit, and everything else is so routine I genuinely wonder if he made the rest of the film around a shower thought like, 'oh shoot I never did this silly thing with my thugs last time') by a) having Poupaud revert to a friendly family check-in, discussing a now-suddenly-complex murder plan hand in hand with social niceties, and b) causing us to do a double-take on how he could possibly know this guy for his role as an enforcer -let alone, apparently consider him like family- without knowledge of basic skill level in that very-important-for-his-own-obsessive-success area of expertise... plus, why can't the guy learn to shoot a gun? Can someone else? This is a hasty plan - developed on emotion rather than tact - but Poupaud could never admit as much.

For a guy who represents the atheistic 'I make my own luck' mentality -the one Allen has slowly stopped identifying with and become increasingly repulsed by in his last ten years or so, from his movies at least- and against Allen's own now agnostic take on corporeal spirituality (aka unconditional, unprovoked or planned love), there's a nice dish of irony thrown in there: For someone so meticulous and obsessive and fussy, he really gets lazy and urgency is usurped by overconfidence in direct contrast to his own motto of 'putting in work, don't expect certain results', etc. And then, of course, bad luck is what kills him!

Perhaps this is what separates this film from the rest: That it continues his own evolution as he approaches the last act of his own life. We get the whole 'life is chance, so take advantage of miracles on earth' stuff, but then there's a coda message: "Don't dwell" which I read to not only mean "be more grateful," since it's already been covered. Allen is more interested in Poupaud's character for a reason. He's arguably the only actual "character" and yet he's not particularly interesting. He may actually be the least interesting 'kind of person' in the ensemble. What an interesting creative choice - to overly simplify the interesting people

SpoilerShow

and completely drop the most interesting one from the narrative early on!

but that seems to be the point. Maybe we don't need to be "characters" in life. Just look what's in front of you before it's gone, don't overthink, just be and soak up life, sing kumbaya etc. I get the sense that Allen wishes he worried less and was grateful more during his life, but not in a self-critical or regretful manner necessarily (at least that't not how it translates into his art). That would be a waste of time, dwelling. Allen certainly has experience dwelling though - and perhaps he makes movies these days in part to inspire himself not to. That's certainly part of why I practice therapy and write and create and connect with others - to re-remind myself of the clarity that exists when I get outside of the caves of 'self'. Poupaud is all "self'd up" - consumed, unable to get out of his own way, rigid in his thinking in a fashion that's unproductive towards anything Allen values anymore.

A filtered sense of security is a false one - Allen's known that for a while regarding certain ideologies and institutions - but maybe he's combining the type of person he's always loathed most (the kind who he'd fantasize about ripping apart in a movie theatre line, for example) with the qualities he sees in himself that he's never liked, and then sending that character into an arc of delusion that essentially renders the meaty love piece of the film vapid - because Poupaud is actually the central character and can't access it. I dunno, but almost everything I liked about this centered around that theme of luck and chance, and how taking advantage of opportunities in a true and inviting and collaborative sense looks more like 'letting go' than issuing more and more control to a situation. That's just fucking lonely, and ultimately absurd. I kinda wish the movie ended with the last two scenes reversed -

SpoilerShow

although it would be less optimistic (it's certainly the most 'sublime' exit he could take, if this winds up being a career cap), being reminded of the 'right' way to approach life and then being presented with the wrong way and its consequences, and the absurdism of it all: A life wasted, built on self-constructed false ideas, unwilling to truly open or give parts of oneself, or be teachable... and the mother's deadpan face, barely registering what happened.

But I guess that doesn't matter as much as the positives. I'm also less convinced that my theory is correct, since Allen is subtler about what he's doing there, though I think it's pretty obvious that the basics are there to demonstrate the clash between two polarities Allen can relate to - not that it's a novel statement since he's been doing this for his whole career, especially in the twilight years! I like to think that the absences I've discussed is Allen's way of 'letting go' further ("Giving it up to God" or whatever that means for you), leaving the characters he aligns with at this developmental stage to their own narratives outside of his films. He doesn't need to prod into their psyches or personalities too much because all that matters are the simplicities that he writes in their dialogue, clear as day. He 'gets' them now, maybe it's less interesting, or counterintuitive to the ethos, to make them more 'complex'. I like the idea of Allen surrendering his characters to a world outside, like a father sending kids off into a world on their own, confident they'll do well if they stick to the basics.

I had a good time watching this - not a great one - but a sleepily delightful one. I can't think of another filmmaker who creates movies that feel so effortless and inviting and comforting while I'm there. That counts for a lot.

Thanks for the detailed review, looking forward to reading it after seeing the film! As a big Allen fan I can’t wait for the film and have a hard time deciding whether to get the French BD now or wait for the Italian UHD. How did you get to see it so early and which language did you watch it in? The French BD apparently has an English dub available, which is interesting. I wonder whether Allen requested it for his English and international audiences.

[furbicide]

twbb, it's interesting that you felt Poupaud's character was the point of identification – for me, the only character remotely of interest was Camille, his mother-in-law, who I felt could have emerged from a decent Rohmer film. When she begins to investigate, I started to feel engaged by the film for the first time ... until the film's climax erased much of the good will I was developing towards it.

SpoilerShow

I don't mind Poupaud being accidentally shot, and that is fairly satisfyingly handled, but the development of the scheme, among other things, came across as pretty stupid and implausible to me. Why would a seasoned hitman agree to take the rap for a fatal shooting, thus being the subject of an inevitable police investigation, instead of employing a middleman? Sure, this is a comedy and the scene where they discuss the plan is being played for laughs, but it just felt like a lazy shortcut in the screenplay.

In contrast, the central romance/affair between Fanny and Jean in the first half of the film just felt terribly shallow and hard to care about. They talk a lot, but say absolutely nothing.

SpoilerShow

For instance, how many times do we have to hear about Jean's high school crush on Fanny? We understand that she finds this flattering and sees it as an opportunity to experience something she missed out on, but it's practically all he talks about!

If I had as much confidence in Allen's artistic abilities, I might also conclude that he's doing something interesting and paradoxical with the characters and the seemingly superficial dialogue, but I really think that's giving his writing too much credit. To my eye, the entire film felt less effortless, more low-effort, and if this is Allen's last film then it's a disappointing note to end on. At this stage of his career, I think he's been far better suited to screwball (e.g. A Rainy Day in New York) than black comedy or crime thriller. But then, Match Point – the more straight-faced counterpart to Coup de Chance – never did anything for me either, and I know a lot of people love that, so maybe there's something I'm missing!

[therewillbeblus]

nicolas - English subs showed up on back channels. I doubt Allen would request that - I don't think he cares much and he's always been a champion of non-English cinema and Americans exposing themselves to art in other cultures. I'd formulate that it was probably the distributors who wanted it to reach a wider audience, especially if they believe Allen's audience is widely English-as-first-language, which would be fair, and likely a good business move. But who knows!

furbicide - You're reading of the film is fair, and the one I had until the final moments. I actually still share a few of your dismays, which I hope I communicated effectively (i.e. the central romance's vapidity - even if it's the point to simplify and just go with feeling, I wasn't invested in it - I'd really like to hear from someone who was, though, because I can't imagine anyone being invested by such a short, empty thing, and I want to read that defense!)

I should probably give a brief explanation of how I consumed this film, because it may have impacted my impressions. I watched the first half mid-week, didn't make time to finish it until last night and then I watched right up until the scene I found so wonderful, that you didn't like at all. After musing over where this was obviously going, how predictable it was, how shallow - if feathery and cute - the central romance was, how familiar and mute certain characters were that should or would be 'more' in another Allen movie... I still thought it was 'fine', but then I tapped back in at the exact right moment to laugh and meditate on the great in-joke. The implausibility that irritated you absolutely delighted me, because it was the punchline of

SpoilerShow

Poupaud's Self-Made Powerful Winner's ironic existence

What you saw as a lazy shortcut, I saw as a lampoon of these kinds of movies and a marginal comment on the folly of humanity in egocentric, controlling mode, oblivious to the possibility that they could have blind spots. That lack of consideration is the blind spot to all-caps, neon-lit LIFE that Allen has adjusted to. I think that's been reflective since at least Magic in the Moonlight onwards in the way he's doing it (conflating love and spirituality together).

I'm freely admitting to giving Allen a bit more credit than his film may deserve on its own here (what's that line about the reader doing more work than the artist, again, to "get" the point?), but hey, that's what I do! It's what I find most interesting to do with auteurs whose filmographies I've seen in total, or in Allen's case, grew up on, and have revisited every one of his films at least once - save the last two - and most of them many, many times. It's easy to say that a movie is too weak here or too overdone there, and I've rarely if ever felt the stimulation I get from writing while listing off what didn't work. That can sometimes lead to me drafting recontextualized appreciations or aggressively go after a movie for unconsciously supporting the opposite of the theme it's trying to express, but this is almost always true: Where I wind up at the end of a writeup is rarely what I'm even considering at the beginning!

I like how you connected the mother to a Rohmer character, though that comment immediately made me think of how her brief investigations were framed with an almost 'Rivette' aesthetic, though of course we know everything so the vibe of ominous but exciting mystery wasn't there. I, too, wish she had more to do, but she's also who I'm talking about when I complain about motivations and temperaments changing.

SpoilerShow

She makes some drastic proclamations in favor of ignorance before doing the opposite, then makes extreme charges and essentially 'forgets' about them to go on vacation - and hunting! - with the guy you think may have murdered someone the other day.. what!

So yeah, I totally found a way in with Poupaud, but taking time to reflect on the film between three viewings of parts helped me pay more attention to where Allen was directing his attention. It's funny because he's usually more transparent about -maybe not the points of identification- but the characters he's most invested in. Here it's weird: he's allowing the characters he shares virtues with to dissipate from his narrative, while the remaining rocks in the ripped sack weighing Allen into the waters of atheism are what I think he's targeting broadly with the project. But the oft-elided protagonists' spirits are, I think, supposed to remain and exist as a promise of what life can be if we don't become Poupaud. And that's not reflected effectively.

[furbicide]

Oh yeah, re: your second spoilered passage – I totally forgot about it when writing the above, but that drove me nuts too!

I appreciate your approach here, even if I’m less inclined to your interpretation of the “punchline” (which I read in a slightly more obvious sense, e.g. that you can try to plan and control as much as you like but chance will have its way with you). As you suggest, I do tend to think that more is to be gained generally from approaching films and filmmakers’ intentions openly and generously rather than assuming laziness or ineptitude – at worst, we find things that aren’t there and develop an interesting possible reading; at best, we notice something that others may have missed and appreciate the film on a deeper level than we otherwise would.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, at the end of the day I'm less trying to convince others of my interpretation than spitball (I believe we are often collaborating, even if we disagree completely on something in discourse) to concoct an interpretation that I like that I can convince myself of, or at least of being worthy of consideration. Obviously you need some space between yourself and the work so as not to get 'blended' with an interpretation, myopic and impossible to be challenged, like... Poupaud? But I've learned to appreciate some films, even while actively disliking most elements of them, as interesting failures or such due to this approach, and then there are times where I'll turn around and diminish the value of a film I once liked because such an approach might reveal shamefully ignorant behavior and problematic didacticism twisted away from its intent - though still in those cases, I'm so excited to just be critically thinking about a piece of art in a novel way.

I was just reading that New Yorker article on Scott Frank after finishing this today, and couldn't help but think about the Billy Wilder advice of 'if there are problems with your third act, you need to fix the first' or something like that, as well as the discipline of creating character to inform narrative and plot. Allen does a lot of weird things with this movie. The first act is exactly like every other Woody Allen movie, and so are the others actually... But, I think the third act is what elevates the movie from invisible to defined, and it wasn't based on creating character at the start. It's through the reveal of the character at the end and what the film has to say about the first act in contrast that makes that beginning's aimless, vapid but sublime energy have both purpose within the script and meaning beyond it into life. I dunno, maybe I will rewatch this one after all. I get the feeling that if I choose to look at it this way, and particularly study any screenwriting-switcheroo thematic payoffs, I may wind up finding a whole lot more value here than I did before we began our back-and-forth. Hey, there you go!

All that said, I wouldn't fault a soul for disliking this for the exact reasons we've mentioned, and I'll be pretty surprised if anyone winds up going to bat for it harder. I'd love to see that though -as I can't conceive an angle that could even gesture at True Greatness. Sometimes we feel like trying harder than the art does to make meaning out of it, and sometimes we don't, and either is fine.

[relaxok]

I always wonder things such as.. how the above reviews of Coup de Chance would differ if the film was by, say, a new female director who no one had heard of. Is there too much baggage in having such a career that it weighs too heavily on how everyone responds to your work? (in both good and bad ways)

[therewillbeblus]

No, I think most people will watch this and shrug with mild delight or mild annoyance. I just personally enjoy mining the riches in that way for artists I've followed throughout my entire life. It seems fitting, to grow alongside someone even from afar as strangers, and then review their work based on that concurrent evolution. But really, I just started writing some rough thoughts and it turned into something I had no idea it would be at the start. That's just the fun of writing for me, but I don't expect anyone else to generate some complex thinkpiece on what this 'says' about Allen. There have been far too many recent gems that scream much more obviously to analyze against Allen's own previously-stated spiritual predilections, and nobody really has taken the time, outside of some folks here

Something that's always been so attractive about Allen is how open and self-critical he is, in a constructive way. It's attractive to be able to laugh at yourself, to humble oneself to acknowledge that I might mean my convictions, but who the fuck am I to tell you anything about the great mystery, or how to live life, when I'm so self-conscious and confused myself? And while a filmmaker like Godard may have reached the zenith of transparency around his own relationship between personal and artistic evolution, so we absolutely can and should look at his work in reference to each other to extract further meaning from it, Allen is very private about what his films mean in interviews, etc. But I think he reveals a lot of what he's going through, and where he's arrived at 'for now' throughout his work. He's always been able to laugh at himself, but over the last ten or so years, it's been different, carrying an extra coating of profundity. Nothing may beat the self-evisceration of Irrational Man, or the wonderful revelation that conflating spirituality and love can work on infinite levels in Magic in the Moonlight, but I think it's apparent in most works since that he's just getting deeper. At least until the last two, but maybe he doesn't need Joaquin Phoenix to hammer down that point so aggressively anymore. He may just want to chill in France and weave baskets and poke fun a little here and there

[furbicide]

I always wonder things such as.. how the above reviews of Coup de Chance would differ if the film was by, say, a new female director who no one had heard of. Is there too much baggage in having such a career that it weighs too heavily on how everyone responds to your work? (in both good and bad ways)

My feeling is that it's more the other way around, i.e. Allen tends to get treated with kid gloves in some circles because of his reputation and people's affection for his earlier work. I don't think this film would be at all better reviewed if it had been made by, say, Mia Hansen-Løve (trying to think of someone who does vaguely similar work) or someone making their debut. To be honest, it's hard for me to imagine it even getting widely distributed or shown at any major festivals to begin with if it were the latter.

Of course Allen nowadays has plenty of haters, too, who make a sport of denouncing him and his work regardless of the quality of his films – but I'm guessing most of those wouldn't have bothered to see this film in the first place.

[domino harvey]

Coup de chance coming to US Blu-ray from MPI in May