Review: Bullets Over Broadway

Set in the 1920s, John Cusack stars as a neurotic playwright whose new work gets a rather unorthodox backer, NY mobster Joe Viterelli…so long as Cusack (who refuses to let anyone but himself direct) agrees to fulfil the artistic ambitions of Viterelli’s talentless, dingbat girlfriend Jennifer Tilly and give her a big role. As for the lead role? Cusack hires melodramatic, egotistical (faded) ‘star’ Dianne Wiest, whom he somehow becomes infatuated with. Meanwhile, Viterelli has insisted one of his goons (Chazz Palminteri) accompany Tilly to work every day, and wouldn’t you know it, the big lug has surprisingly valid creative ideas of his own! Jim Broadbent plays an English actor whose diet is dictated by his nerves, Tracey Ullman plays an annoying actress with a similarly annoying dog, Mary-Louise Parker is Cusack’s girlfriend, Jack Warden is Cusack’s producer who introduces him to Viterelli, and Rob Reiner is Cusack’s failed playwright colleague.

 

Although there are some good performances, funny lines, and it’s a pretty good-looking film, this popular 1994 Woody Allen (“Annie Hall”, “Manhattan”, “Hannah and Her Sisters”, “Deconstructing Harry”) film is a near-miss for me. There were some things about it I just didn’t buy, mostly concerning Dianne Wiest and her character. How Wiest managed to win an Oscar for this, not to mention beating her more deserving Academy Award-nominated co-star Jennifer Tilly just boggles my mind. Wiest, normally a solid character actress, gives her worst-ever performance in a completely clichéd, caricatured part that is as overacted as it is overwritten. Wiest even has the whole long cigarette and head wrap deal. We get it, she’s a parody of Norma Desmond from “Sunset Blvd.” or some such. But that’s all she is, a shrill and surface-level parody of a caricature, and unlike Ms. Tilly (who could play dumb molls in her sleep), Wiest is unconvincing and miscast in the part, so it doesn’t come off at all even as the cheesy parody it’s probably meant to be. Usually adept at meek or kind-hearted parts (such as the mousy, frustrated single mother in “Parenthood”, where she was truly terrific), she’s lost at sea as an overly dramatic, tempestuous old-school star, far too mannered and forced. She’s actually quite amateurish, going for all the easy clichés in a role that really ought to have gone to Faye Dunaway, Anne Bancroft, or ideally Shirley MacLaine (and even then part itself is still too corny and overdone). Worse still is the fact that John Cusack’s character is meant to become infatuated with her both artistically and romantically. With Dianne Wiest. Yeah…not buying that in the slightest, it’s yet another case of Woody’s weird ideas in regards to women. This is the guy who in the otherwise terrific “Deconstructing Harry” expected one to believe that someone would leave Amy Irving for Judy Freakin’ Davis, and tried to convince us that Lillith Freakin’ Crane would make for good casting as an experienced prostitute in the same film. You’re a very weird little man, Mr. Allen, very weird indeed. Keep these thoughts to yourself, freak. Sadly, the casting of Wiest actually drags down the otherwise well-cast Cusack as the film’s Woody substitute.

 

Getting away from Wiest, I also don’t understand why Woody would take one of cinema’s greatest ever character actors in Jack Warden and completely waste his versatile talents in a mere background, functionary character of little import. Ditto, Mary-Louise Parker in a less than nothing role, and once again, if you’re with Mary-Louise Parker, why on Earth would Dianne Wiest tickle your tallywacker?

 

Luckily, the film does have some commendable elements. Aside from some clichéd costuming, the film looks terrific, not only in period detail, but also some lovely shots of autumn leaves captured by cinematographer Carlo Di Palma (“Blowup”, “Hannah and Her Sisters”, “Manhattan Murder Mystery”). Co-scripted by Douglas McGrath (director of “Infamous” and writer of the remake of “Born Yesterday”) I also found some of the dialogue very, very funny. Including one exchange between John Cusack and Chazz Palminteri over a certain dead woman, that dare not reveal. Woody also gives the inimitable Harvey Fierstein a cute line about a musical version of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” called “Quasimodo Jones”. I assume Harry Belafonte would play Phoebus in that production.

 

There are also some good performances, with the aforementioned Tilly stealing the show easily. She’s an acquired taste as an actress, but this is just as good a showcase for her as the later “Bound”. It’s especially funny when her character tries to act smart and sophisticated, with her African-American maid in the background with a look that says it all, really. I normally find Tracey Ullman irritating beyond belief, but in this film, that’s pretty much the point, so it’s an amusing performance in that respect. Chazz Palminteri as the mob goon who unexpectedly takes an interest in playwriting is also very cute (he was nominated for an Oscar), with the late Joe Viterelli well-cast as Tilly’s mobster husband, and nice work by Rob Reiner in a few scenes too, getting some funny lines. I also must commend Cusack for playing Woody Allen without becoming insufferably mannered and full of tics, gulps, and quirks. He reminded me a bit of a less shouty Gene Wilder (circa 1968) at times.

 

Ultimately this film has some good with the bad. It nearly gets over the line due to a very funny Jennifer Tilly, but it’s neither Woody’s best nor anywhere near his worst. To be honest, the only new things here are the period setting and the disarmingly intelligent mob bodyguard character. Otherwise it’s your standard look at making a play/film, something Woody would revisit in the slightly better “Hollywood Ending”, minus the mob and set in the cinematic world instead of Broadway.

 

Baffling decision to give a terrible Dianne Wiest an Oscar. What were the Academy voters thinking?

 

Rating: C+