Top positive review
5.0 out of 5 starsDecades Later, Still Woody's True Masterpiece
Reviewed in the United States on November 15, 2001
In 1979, Woody had the burden of trying to capture the "originality" of "Annie Hall," the Oscar-winning Best Picture of 1977.
So when "Manhattan" was released, Woody's first "true" widescreen picture (so much so that Woody insisted this film NEVER be released on video or shown on television without the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen), I wasn't quite sure what to expect.
I discovered that "Manhattan" had a completely different tone than "Annie Hall." It was more serious, but still hilarious. I became so enraptured by its themes, its music and its atmosphere that I felt, until I saw "Goodfellas" in the fall of 1990 and "Schindler's List" in late 1993, that I had witnessed something that comes along only once or twice a generation...and that's true greatness on film. I paid to see "Manhattan" at least four times during its initial run in 1979. I had never done this before, even when I include those popcorn pictures I had seen several times put out by Spielberg and Lucas during the 1970s. I found "Manhattan" simply incredible, so "on the mark," so revelatory about the weaknesses of people, especially so-called "intelligent" people.
Rather than go over the plot, I believe "Manhattan's" themes include the following:
1. intellectualism is overrated.
2. romance is illogical and unscientific.
3. words don't always match our actions.
4. moral structure is a man-made invention.
5. fidelity is an optimistic ideal.
6. skeletons in the closet are better left unsaid.
7. uncorrupted optimism is mostly found in young people.
8. cynicism increases as you grow old.
9. advancing years = more unnecessary baggage.
10. The more you know, the more it can hurt you.
That all of the above is delivered with humor is something only Woody Allen could accomplish.
There was a time when Woody's life imitated his art so closely that I had to avoid this SPECIFIC film for awhile. But now the past is past and it doesn't matter. Woody's art remains and the messages in "Manhattan" haven't been diminished after so many years. It still holds up even though it was made during the late 1970s.
Yes, Woody Allen's films are an acquired taste. People won't admit it, but when you pin down WHY they don't like "Manhattan" or anything he does, you find the reasons are rooted in conventional moral judgments, religious intolerance or even genetic issues such as his "whiny" voice and the fact he is one of the most non-photogenic actor-director-writers of our time (e.g., no one likes watching Woody "kiss" any woman on screen.)
And when art becomes too closely reflective of an artist's life, it can make people uncomfortable. My response is if you are unable to separate an artist's personal life or lifestyle from his work, sometimes the world can be made the lesser for it. Woody Allen is among the list of artists who polarize because he's considered by some to be "unbalanced and immoral," e.g., like Hemingway, Picasso, Polanski, Van Gogh, Henry Miller, James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, Charlie Chaplin, Lewis Carroll, etc.
Yet in my view, "Manhattan" and "Annie Hall" remain the benchmarks of all urban-based, non-screwball comedies made in America. That Woody was able to "re-invent," or more to the point -- to "invent" a new genre of comedy -- is more evident today by looking at everything that has come since 1979 that is clearly derivative from these two landmark urban films.
Only smug elitists call people who don't "get" this film "fools." They're not fools. Again, Woody's films are an acquired taste. Fans who have followed him forever, candidly like the way he is on screen, even if it's the same nebbish, over-analytical character every time. We're comfortable with him in the same and opposite way that we didn't mind Cary Grant playing Cary Grant all of the time. Nobody delivers a punch line or joke better than Woody and when he's not in his own films, they don't seem as funny.
Despite the paradox Woody's personal life presents to many film fans, "Manhattan" is not a film that should be dismissed. It is, in my opinion, the finest of Woody's "quartet" of masterpieces (the others are "Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors"). There is so much humor and truth woven into this picture, complimented by a glorious Gershwin score and wonderful black and white cinematography, that I'm 100 percent sure -- that Woody will never be able to top this film -- even if he lives to 100.
The story of human attraction to forbidden, "untarnished" youth - and its relationship to conventional morality - has been written and debated for centuries. However taboo it remains - in the world of art - it is far from new.
The end "smirk" on Woody's face speaks volumes about what's going on in this story, and why, unlike most of Hollywood's "mainstream" comedies, Allen refuses to give the viewer a standard cornball ending.
Yet what he leaves behind as the credits roll, still leaves you satisfied. There isn't anything left hanging, in my mind, since you already know that Woody's character KNOWS how everything is going to end. That's the reason for the "smirk."
How many filmmakers can get away with this and stay original? In my view, this is Woody's greatest film and it remains undated after all these years.