Tag: Academy Award

Read More
A shot of Orson Welles (Harry Lime) in a dark tunnel, from Carol Reed's 1949 black and white film, "The Third Man", as reviewed and analyzed by poet and film critic Ezekiel Yu for the automachination literary magazine.

These Shadowed Angles: Analyzing Carol Reed’s “The Third Man” (1949)

Man, just how great is Orson Welles?

Can you name another major American filmmaker—world filmmaker, for that matter—who was not only responsible for multiple, medium-defining masterpieces but also turned in stellar performances as both leading man and supporting actor?

Cassavetes comes to mind, though he was often overshadowed onscreen by his partner and muse Gena Rowlands. Woody Allen revolutionized the serio-comic film and was, at the same time, very capable as an actor in his own screenplays; but he had a limited schtick, and one which he (and others) would eventually run to the ground. The great Silent Clowns may be close comparisons, and Welles himself professed a deep admiration for Buster Keaton. De Sica was a fine actor, certainly; and the pioneering Swedish director Victor Sjöström performed splendidly in Bergman’s Wild Strawberries as its main character.

After these (name-drop some of your own, as I’ve inevitably short-shrifted at least a few notables), though, it’s slim pickings. Clint Eastwood? A spaghetti western icon, yes, but his own films as a director do not hold a candle to Sergio Leone’s, much less Welles’s. Tarantino? Nope. Mel Gibson? Please. Tim Blake Nelson is a good actor and filmmaker—but medium-defining? No dice. (I do not count those who turned in only cameos or bit parts, such as Scorsese, Hitchcock, Sayles, etc.) And I won’t be considering up-and-comers like Greta Gerwig, Jordan Peele, or Bradley Cooper just yet, if you can find it in your heart to forgive me. […]

Read More
A shot of the women in Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986), which includes the director, Dianne Wiest, Mia Farrow, and Barbara Hershey, receiving instructions from Woody Allen, and reviewed and analyzed by the world's leading Woody Allen critic, Alex Sheremet, for the automachination literary magazine.

GREATNESS 101: Analyzing Woody Allen’s “Hannah and Her Sisters” (1986)

Although the popularity of “Hannah and Her Sisters” made Woody Allen doubt the quality of his own film, it remains one of those rare accomplishments that is both truly great, and well-loved — two things that are in fact quite different, for the latter is based on attachments and on whims, which cannot be argued, while the former involves reason, evidence, and objectivity in its claims, which can therefore be evaluated. I do not like (much less ‘love’) the film, for reasons immaterial to it and therefore uninteresting to anyone who wants to know something of the art-work, itself. Yet I still wish for it to be seen; know that it needs to be seen, until its meditations and its wisdom are the viewer’s, and so that future film-makers can use it as a stepping-stone for great characters, complex interactions, subtle ironies, poetic inversions, and ‘twists’ that seem to be mere plot devices, yet say, in fact, much about the characters themselves, and what they have or have not learned. I’d go recommend it, but its enduring popularity already takes care of that. Instead, I’d like to discuss why the film works, for reasons beyond mere love or mass appeal, so that similar things could be observed and championed in Woody’s other films, including those still being wrongly overlooked.

In some ways, “Hannah and Her Sisters” revisits the same tropes of Interiors, with a seemingly talented artist, Hannah (Mia Farrow), a ‘sore loser’ and drug user, Holly (Dianne Wiest), and a half-lost woman, Lee (Barbara Hershey), who, perhaps out of envy or resentment, starts an affair with Hannah’s husband, Elliot (Michael Caine). In fact, the film begins with Elliot mesmerized by Lee during a Thanksgiving party, an interesting twist that immediately puts the viewer into the mind of a romantic, subverted by the fact that he’s essentially a creep. As the dinner progresses, Holly asks for money, Lee wonders about Elliot’s feelings, and the three sisters gab while their aging parents sing Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered on the piano — one of the film’s key songs, which turns into a trope whose import only comes later. As Hannah is complimented all around, one gets the feeling that she is both meek and self-congratulatory, for such moments are well-acted enough that one doesn’t know whether she’s puffing herself up at the expense of her sisters, or merely being matter-of-fact. Lee goes back to her apartment with her boyfriend, Frederick (Max von Sydow), an overbearing, misanthropic older artist, while Hannah’s former husband, Mickey (Woody Allen), a television producer, makes his first appearance as a stressed hypochondriac. He’s subjected to endless medical tests due to his constant worrying, at one point even fantasizing about his own impending death due to a non-existent tumor. This, then, is the film’s make-up, for the main characters’ issues are all played against Mickey’s, whose silliness highlights the silliness of their own self-inflicted problems, even as they evade or obfuscate, and downright magnify them as being ‘deeper’ than they really are. Yes, it is a borrowing from earlier films like Annie Hall, but goes beyond it as it approaches similar subjects — death, love, and other human relationships — more deeply, probing, as it does, far more than ‘mere’ romance. […]