Husbands & Wives (1992, Woody Allen)
So a few summers back when I went on my mad rush through basically all of his massive filmography, this immediately struck me as major Allen. Now that I'm revisiting it a few years later I still think that's probably the case, the only difference is that now I don't necessarily think major Allen = major film. He cranks out movie after movie, and I won't deny that he has created some of the best dialogue and jokes and moments in cinematic history, but when it comes to his dramatic films I think I've had it with his basic building blocks. He's all too satisfied with structuring all the (very mild) dramatic interest around these neurotic passive aggressive adulterous meanderings, which wouldn't be too bad in and of itself if he were more capable in the characterization department, which in this case at least I think hints at a certain impairment in the insight-into-life department. In terms of getting his actors to evoke meaning he's basically limited to them either stating directly what's on their minds or not saying what's on their minds while their facial expressions/tones of voice make it exceedingly obvious what's on their minds. The result is that at a performative level there is absolutely no mystery, and that would be fine if these were utterly typical Hollywood movies built around plots which create great dramatic tension regardless of the acting, but if you're going to be like Allen and overuse breakups/divorces/cheating to the extent that it all starts to feel weightless, then you're going to need the real meat of your movie's quality to come from layers of meaning applied by the acting; but Allen is incapable of directing in this manner so instead what we get is, at best, an admirable recreation of what's on the page. Having said all of this, I still think Allen fans should check it out because it is one of his best films. Too many of Allen's films are shot in this (to me) very boring, detached medium-long shot style*, and I wish more of them were shot in this wild handheld way if only because it adds a little more tension to the proceedings when you don't see everyone's facial reaction immediately. The result is superficially something like well-mannered Cassavetes without the actorly depth, which basically makes me long for Andrew Bujalski (whose first two films are basically well-mannered Cassavetes with Renoirian depth, though that's a conversation for another decades list). For me the most notable aspect of this film is how it climaxes in a sequence which captures the feeling of a thunderstorm better than anything else I've ever seen in cinema, exactly the sort of atmospheric thing I probably appreciate well beyond the point that is reasonable. If you could take the setting of that short sequence and turn it into a short film it might stand a chance next to the other masterpieces in this decade. But unfortunately it's just a small part in an hour and 40 minute film. Anyway, this won't be making my top 50, but I imagine that it could actually place rather highly for other people who are more on board with what Allen does than myself (and I know for a fact that some people elsewhere put it in their top 10 of the decade).
*Not that I have a totalized problem with this style, I just find it doesn't suit his stories as much as he thinks it does.
|
