Is Woody Elitist?
Clare Quilty
I love some Woody Allen films but I often detect an elitist element
that irritates me. For example in Hannah and her sisters there is a
stereotypical image of the rock group as thugs contrasted with the
civilised jazz club (I know comedy uses stereotypes but they can still
be annoying). In Husbands and Wives (damm - I've forgotten the names)
when the older guy dumps the fitness expert because she doesn't talk
about literature knowingly. There are other examples that won't bother
putting here but have grated on my nerves a bit. It's a shame because
I do like the films (despite the elitism) but I feel he is at his best
when he leaves it out. Let me know if you agree/disagree.
Also I'm curious as to how women see the 'Woody with younger women'
debate. Does it really offend you because I can live with it.
--
Clare Quilty
ENGLAND
Sim...@juno.com
DootArejo
This elistist thing is interesting, because it's true that his films are
often about wealthy people and these characters do often look down on
"rockers" and aerobic instructors. BUT the rich intellectuals aren't
exactly perfect either; in fact, one of the main points Woody tries to
make is that despite their money and/or education they are just as messed
up as everyone else (if not more so--e.g., "Crimes and Misdemeanors")
Also, Woody pokes fun at the "sophisticated" crowd in Hannah and Her
Sisters (Dianne Wiest: "They were embalmed!") and elsewhere (e.g., the
famous scene on line at a movie in Annie Hall).
I'd also be interested to hear what women have to say about the "younger
women" co-star issue.
--Doot
Alan Pollock
Clare Quilty (Sim...@juno.com) wrote:
: I love some Woody Allen films but I often detect an elitist element
--
I believe it's an integral part of his humor, the elitist bits. Let's not
forget that he's a New Yorker, and as such is part of a totem pole mentality.
It's neither a good nor a bad thing when you see it in terms of one's
comparing one's peer group to others which are either completely different,
overlap, or demonstrate a striving, which I believe your health club example
illustrates.
One can believe in the common man, and *still* laugh at class-type humor I
think. How often have we seen people who pretend they know something, when in
fact they don't? At a 'cool' musical group, which when compared to an
'uncool' one seems tired and absurd?
One doesn't have to actually agree with the value represented, as one's
laughing at the myriad human (and frail) sub-groupings, and how they put each
other down.
As for his relationship with the young woman, it doesn't bother me in the
least. It seems that the religious right is incensed at this of course, but
they're shocked at a lot of very normal activity, sexual or not.
Remember Pee Wee Herman who was caught in a Miami movie theater masturbating?
I found nothing either shocking or 'wrong' with that (the lights were off,
after all, so it wasn't an exhibitionistic exercise), but again, the morality
squad made so much trouble that only now are his movies being shown again on
mainstream TV here.
It's these same people who refused to see the difference between the legal
term 'obscene' and the vague term 'indecent', which so pervaded the now
defunct CDA legislation, and which would have allowed practically anything to
be deemed censorable on the Net. Nex
__________________________________________________________________________
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms, perhaps
then in springtime our hearts would be at peace." Ariwara no Narihira
__________________________________________________________________________
SJ
Scott R. Vaughn wrote:
>
> In article <33bf615c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> Sim...@juno.com
> (Clare Quilty) writes:
> > I love some Woody Allen films but I often detect an elitist element
> > that irritates me. For example in Hannah and her sisters there is a
> > stereotypical image of the rock group as thugs contrasted with the
> > civilised jazz club (I know comedy uses stereotypes but they can still
> > be annoying). In Husbands and Wives (damm - I've forgotten the names)
> > when the older guy dumps the fitness expert because she doesn't talk
> > about literature knowingly. There are other examples that won't bother
> > putting here but have grated on my nerves a bit. It's a shame because
> > I do like the films (despite the elitism) but I feel he is at his best
> > when he leaves it out. Let me know if you agree/disagree.
> > Also I'm curious as to how women see the 'Woody with younger women'
> > debate. Does it really offend you because I can live with it.
> >
> destructive barbs at the intellectual elite. The scene in ANNIE HALL where
> he makes a comment about the magazine Dysentary (I heard that Commentary and
> Dissent had merged.) Or the famous scene where he drags Marshall McLuhan out
> to disgrace the academic film critic. I think that there are probably a lot
> of examples of this in his work.
> --
That's the contradiction. He debunks the intelligencia despite clearly
being a member of the set himself. Something about not wanting to be in
any club that would have him for a member springs to mind....
Steve
SJ
DootArejo wrote:
>
> I'd also be interested to hear what women have to say about the "younger
> women" co-star issue.
Is this really still an issue?
Julia Roberts is attracted to Woody *despite* his physical appearance,
not because of it.....
Steve
Peace Electric
JimNeibaur wrote:
> Hell, when everyone else was getting turned off by Stardust Memories, I was
> calling it the best thing [Woody Allen] had done up to that time.
As was he.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Cab thing is just part-time."
-Travis Bickle, 'Taxi Driver'
Peace Electric
DootArejo wrote:
> This elistist thing is interesting, because it's true that his films are
> often about wealthy people and these characters do often look down on
> "rockers" and aerobic instructors. BUT the rich intellectuals aren't
> exactly perfect either
Like when Woody first meets Diane in 'Manhattan': she's terribly annoying
in an intellectual, elitist sort of way. Remember how much he dislikes her
character in those opening scenes. In fact, it seems like Woody is mocking
all of the upper class pseudo-intellectual crowd in 'Manhattan': look at
the scene at the party with the filmmaker discussing his project, or the
scene where Woody, Dianne, Michael Murphy, and his wife go to the opera.
The shot stays on them for a few minutes, and all they do is fidget. They're
completely bored by the show. It looks like you'd set down four kindergarten
kids and forced them to watch the opera.
smegma
Clare Quilty wrote:
> I love some Woody Allen films but I often detect an elitist element
> that irritates me. For example in Hannah and her sisters there is a
> stereotypical image of the rock group as thugs contrasted with the
> civilised jazz club (I know comedy uses stereotypes but they can still
>
> be annoying). In Husbands and Wives (damm - I've forgotten the names)
> when the older guy dumps the fitness expert because she doesn't talk
> about literature knowingly. There are other examples that won't bother
>
> putting here but have grated on my nerves a bit. It's a shame because
> I do like the films (despite the elitism) but I feel he is at his best
>
> when he leaves it out. Let me know if you agree/disagree.
> Also I'm curious as to how women see the 'Woody with younger women'
> debate. Does it really offend you because I can live with it.
>
> --
> Clare Quilty
> ENGLAND
> Sim...@juno.com
Clare,
Hi there!
This is, perhaps, the second or third time I've responded to a posting,
and I'm still uncertain as to the "nuts and bolts" of this newsgroups
thing so bear with me. (This message will probably end up on Pluto,
rather than where it's intended, if the process is dependant on my
hitting the right button.) I've noticed that elitist element in
Woodrow's works; how can you miss it? Sometimes, the intellectual
snobism gets a little heavy for my taste. I ocassionally get the
impression that Woody is "flexing a litttle muscle" verbally. (Remember
the philosophy discussions in Love and Death?) But it always seems to
come back to the theme that, (I'm talking about the characters, here.)
in spite of the deep intellectual discourses, these people don't "know"
a hell of a lot. (The "Village Idiot" WAS the happiest character, if
memory serves.) This strikes me as very telling. It may be wishful
thinking on my part, but I'd like to believe that his underlying theme
is; the more serious you take yourself, the more ridiculous you are. As
though each member of "the elite" is wearing a "kick me hard" sign on
his/her back.Of course, I could be full of it. Anyway, thanks for your
thought provoking posting!
TT
Peace Electric
Marc Fleury wrote:
> > In fact, it seems like Woody is mocking all of the upper class
> > pseudo-intellectual crowd in 'Manhattan': look at the scene at
> > the party with the filmmaker discussing his project, or the scene
> > where Woody, Dianne, Michael Murphy, and his wife go to the opera.
> > The shot stays on them for a few minutes, and all they do is fidget.
> > They're completely bored by the show.
>
> It's true that they fidget, but it's because the two men are
> uncomfortable with the fact that they both love (or loved) the same
> woman, and she's sitting right between the two of them.
>
> Your other points were good, but this particular case isn't an
> instance of Woody's derision of the upper-class.
I know that the awkwardness of the situation is part of it, but still, whenever I see
this scene I have an image in my mind of a group of upper-class, pseudo-intellectuals
going to the opera just so that they can say they went to the opera the next day. It
seems to me that if they were truly interested (or even slightly mature) they would
settle down and watch the show.
Perhaps this wasn't what Woody intended, but I read it like that all the same.
Joel Martin McTague
F. D. Althoff wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Peace Electric wrote:
>
> > JimNeibaur wrote:
> >
> > > Hell, when everyone else was getting turned off by Stardust Memories, I was
> > > calling it the best thing [Woody Allen] had done up to that time.
> >
> > As was he.
> >
>
> confess, though, that I was pretty confused on the first viewing. (I was
> also fairly naive, cinematically speaking.) Fortunately it was on the
> rotation at HBO (I believe) and I got to see it many more times. To this
> day I have a deep fondness for Stardust Memories that for many is probably
> inexplicable. Now that it's come up, I think I should probably see it
> again. :)
>
> Regards,
> Dan
I saw Stardust Memories before 8 1/2 (the film this was based on by
Fellini). SM is very weak compared to 8 1/2 because it seems to want to
be 8 1/2 and have an independence at the same time. In all of Allen's
early movies, the references and allusions are usually used to further
the story, but in SM's case it seems to be the plot. Without 8 1/2 SM
would have no meaning on its own. That's why I considered it weak.
--
http://joel.cropcircles.com
http://www.cropcircles.com
"Omniscience is soooo boring!" Me, circa 1989.
"No one is my equal, but I regard him, equally with all other beings, as
my property." Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own.
Ed Ehrlich
"F. D. Althoff" <alt...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Peace Electric wrote:
>> JimNeibaur wrote:
>>
>> > Hell, when everyone else was getting turned off by Stardust Memories, I was
>> > calling it the best thing [Woody Allen] had done up to that time.
>>
>> As was he.
>>
>I'm glad to see that others enjoyed Stardust Memories as much as I did. I
>confess, though, that I was pretty confused on the first viewing. (I was
>also fairly naive, cinematically speaking.) Fortunately it was on the
>rotation at HBO (I believe) and I got to see it many more times. To this
>day I have a deep fondness for Stardust Memories that for many is probably
>inexplicable. Now that it's come up, I think I should probably see it
>again. :)
>Regards,
>Dan
I am definitely among those who was turned off by "Stardust Memories".
This was largely because Woody Allan seemed to be making fun of his
fans. Since I'm one of his fans, I didn't care for it. I don't know
whether this was his true intention or now, but that's my perception
of the film.
Ed Ehrlich <eehr...@shani.net>