Review: Manhattan

Woody Allen plays a 40ish wannabe novelist dating a 17 year-old girl (Mariel Hemingway) when he finds himself clicking with the mistress (Diane Keaton) of his married best pal (Michael Murphy). Meanwhile, Woody is fretting over the upcoming release of a tell-all book written by his ex-wife (Meryl Streep) who left Woody for another woman. This is the very same ‘other woman’ whom Woody allegedly tried to run over with his car, I might add.

 

It seems like I’m a glutton for punishment, as I wouldn’t have been caught dead watching a bunch of Woody Allen films years ago, even though I’ve liked a couple of them such as “Annie Hall” and “Deconstructing Harry”. But over the last 12 months I seem to be going through them, especially his more recent ones (“Everyone Says I Love You”, “To Rome With Love”, “Cassandra’s Dream”, etc.) But this time I was heading back to 1979 with one of his earlier and more serious films (though there’s a very funny line about orgasms). And y’know what? Co-scripted by Marshall Brickman (“Sleeper”, “Annie Hall”, “Manhattan Murder Mystery”), it’s one of his better films in my view. Yes it’s overrated, rather simple, and yes some of the material looks awfully dubious in hindsight (even if, like me, you don’t believe the unseemly allegations against Allen over the years). But it’s a solid and enjoyable film.

 

Woody’s chemistry with Diane Keaton here is undeniable, and their relationship is really quite nice (There’s gotta be a helluva reason why they haven’t worked together in ages, right?), even somewhat recalling “Annie Hall”. Unlike the later “Manhattan Murder Mystery”, they aren’t insufferably and incessantly nannering away here, though Keaton’s flaky pseudo-intellectual character is one you’d hate to run into in real-life, I would think.

 

Shot in B&W by Gordon Willis (“The Godfather”, “Annie Hall”, “Zelig”, “The Purple Rose of Cairo”), it’s lovely to look at, and features some of the nicest NY scenery ever captured in a Woody Allen film. He also captures some nice light and shadow throughout.

 

I must say I wasn’t all that fussed with the performance from Mariel Hemingway. She’s mousy and dull, and just doesn’t seem ready to be in a movie at that point in time. And it has nothing to do with her character, who is supposed to be young and innocent, but not a shrinking violet. It’s a one-note performance, though not a huge flaw, and the Academy disagreed, giving her an Oscar nomination. So there you go.

 

Even to someone sceptical of the tabloid gossip hurled at Woody like me, the relationship between her character and Woody’s (possibly based on his relationship with Stacey Nelkin who was 17) plays quite uncomfortably some 30 odd years later, and not just for that reason. It’d be dubious even without the real-life rumours, and playing a 17 year-old, Hemingway looks much younger and sounds even younger than that. Paedophile or not, Woody’s a weird guy who definitely likes ‘em young. I’m not sure the film comes up with the right ending. **** SPOILER WARNING **** The wrong girl is chosen if you ask me. However, in a refreshing lack of ego from Woody, he doesn’t win the girl in the end, anyway. So I’ll give him that, no matter what. **** END SPOILER ****

 

To be honest, there’s not all that much to the film in a sense, but this is an entertaining and pretty accessible Woody Allen film. Well, except for that one dubious element…

 

Rating: B-