HOLLYWOOD ENDING (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is a flaccid attempt at movie industry satire. It might have made a whimsical three-page story, but the plot is too thin to carry a feature film. It is repetitious and the characters have little innate interest value. Woody Allen, while so often painting himself as insecure, is a man whose self-confidence is starting to exceed his artistic abilities. Trying to dredge humor from the limitations of the blind is a sorry task, unworthy of Allen's talents. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), 0 (-4 to +4)
Woody Allen can make some very funny comments in two or three sentences. He might suggest a stage actress was so bad that the underworld backers of a play put a hit on her. When he starts thinking that he can take these quips and adapt them into full- length films, he gets himself into trouble. That is what his comedies these days seem to be doing, taking simple ideas and making films from them. He also has claimed that he can always sit down and write really funny material. Allen is overestimating his abilities. The longer the public is exposed to any breed of humor the less funny it seems. The old double-whammy is getting him. First his mind is not as young and supple as it once was so his writing is not be quite as funny as it once was. Secondly the public is used to his style so there is less anarchy and less of the unexpected in his humor. While at in the 1970s his style was uproariously funny, these days he is aiming at merely the whimsical and for much of his audience he is missing even that target. A film like BANANAS is a sharp staccato of use-'em-and- leave-'em jokes; HOLLYWOOD ENDING is more just one single joke endlessly elaborated and amplified until it has over-stayed its welcome.
One can hear Woody's voice saying, "A BLIND MAN could direct this film." It is the kind of anecdote he might have told in one of his books like WITHOUT FEATHERS. Here he tells the story, filling it out with dialog and some character development but advancing the story only slowly. Some jokes are bad misfires. In one scene Allen has an extended argument with his ex-wife in a restaurant. He is trying to discuss the film he is making and he keeps returning to his complaints with his ex-wife until he is dragging in people at other tables. He plays boorish and rude in public as if his being a bad boy is by itself funny. Conceivably this could be a humorous situation if properly written, but it simply becomes embarrassing and irritating. Allen seems to have lost the ability to ask himself, "Is this really funny?".
Tea Leoni plays Ellie, the ex-wife of director Val Waxman (Allen). She knows Val needs work and arranges to have him chosen to direct a crime film. The executives at Galaxie Films, including Ellie's new fiance Hal (Treat Williams), are leery of the neurotic and unreliable Val, but the film is expected to be undemanding to direct and Val gets the job. Then just before shooting starts Val develops hysterical blindness. Knowing that Val is washed up if he quits the film, his agent convinces him to bluff his way through directing the film. This brings Val in close contact with Ellie. She has some affection for him and must choose between him and a new love, the slightly oily film executive Hal. It is never clear what she would see in either. Allen gives us little reason to invest interest in any of these characters, with the possible exception of Ellie.
Ironically the film is at its most interesting before it gets to its premise. Allen shows us some of the conflicts that a director has to resolve in setting up a production shoot and that filler is more interesting than the mainstream of the story. Once he loses his sight, we get a tedious repetition of scenes of him memorizing the layouts of rooms, bumping into objects, and staring off into space as he bluffs his way through his job. Woody's character is basically the same he has played since the beginning of his film career (except that at some time around ANNIE HALL it went from unsuccessful with women to highly successful). Where the film needed a strong satirical edge, instead you get a vague feeling of sympathy for directors' job. This film is not in the same class as THE PLAYER or THE BIG PICTURE.
Allen should have realized that from the start the story had three serious problems. First, there is no way to resolve the film. If Val makes an unsuccessful film, the story says blind people do not make good film directors. Big surprise for a visual medium. But if he is successful, this film is a weak shadow of THE PRODUCERS. Second, Allen cannot properly create and develop characters who are so self-absorbed they cannot tell that Val is blind. Third, his character is bumping into things, not from being humorously clumsy, but because he is blind. He is asking the audience to laugh at the handicapped.
Allen plays a film director who was good at one point and seems to have lost the recipe. I wonder if he realizes how close he is hitting to home. I rate HOLLYWOOD ENDING a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2002 Mark R. Leeper
========== X-RAMR-ID: 31797 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 312722 X-RT-TitleID: 1113891 X-RT-AuthorID: 1309 X-RT-RatingText: 4/10
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews