The Badger Herald

ARTSETC.

‘Scoop’ on Woody’s comedic career

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Alex Garens:

'Patapon' marches to praise (March 3, 2008)
Oscar worth weight in gold (February 25, 2008)
'Doctor' aids healthy expression (February 18, 2008)
'Scoop' on Woody's comedic career (February 11, 2008)
Long live the Virgin Queen, in history and DVD (February 4, 2008)

by Alex Garens

Monday, February 11, 2008

For one reason or another, Woody Allen is an actor and director you either love or you hate. I found myself loving him, which I suppose was preliminary since my first exposure to Allen was “Annie Hall” and “Scoop.” This allowed me to ignore the disaster that was “Match Point” — not the return to grace claimed by some of Allen’s detractors. Still, how did he come to be so hated in the first place?

I mean, in this age of extreme celebrity debauchery and scandal, Allen falls pretty low on the taboo-meter. He hasn’t slurred drunken anti-Semitic statements, freaked out on “Oprah,” or partaken in insider trading. So, what’s the deal? Perhaps the meter has just become skewed. We hardly bat an eyelash at the rehab-ridden celebrity skanks anymore — it’s practically news.

As far as I can tell, the biggest dirt on Allen is marrying his ex-wife’s adopted daughter, which is more of a slap in the face to her than anything. Well, that, and some disputed, yet unproven allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Oh, and that his new wife was 34 years his junior. But is a Lolita complex that much worse than the mark of the grave-robbing gold-diggahs?

OK, so he’s no saint. But I doubt St. Lawrence could write as well as Woody. Celebrities, like politicians, have little privacy from the scrutinizing eye of tabloids, and very few have a perfect tabula rasa. And what about judging an artist by their talent onscreen rather than their misdoings offscreen? Let’s do just that, then, and curtail this rant.

One need only look at IMDB to see that Woody’s made more films than he can probably remember now that he’s 72 years old. In fact, most of them I didn’t recognize or never realized he had directed. I decided to dig far back to the beginnings of his career, since it’s pretty unanimous that he’s lost his flare (even though “Scoop” was brilliant).

His first breakthrough was, in fact, not as a director, but as a writer for the 1965 comedy “What’s New, Pussycat?” which, in short, is about several sex-addicted crazy people who are often drunk. It manages to achieve humor that’s completely absurd along with the subtle zingers that Woody’s become known for. With unforgettable characters like a ridiculous Eastern European psychoanalyst (Peter Sellers, “Dr. Strangelove”), a true Narcissus (Peter O’Toole, “Lawrence of Arabia”), a woman, Liz, who ODs in nearly every scene, and Woody as the neurotic, insecure little man he always finds himself playing. It’s truly an amazing screenplay, though the Scooby-Doo chase scene antics might be a bit wasted on today’s viewer. Still, even these add to the overall ridiculousness of the film — along with a random go-kart chase scene. Personal biases aside, “What’s New Pussycat?” is one of the sharpest, most riotous movies I’ve ever seen.

This success launched Allen’s career. However, he next opted for the director’s chair for his 1966 release, “What’s Up, Tiger Lily?” Let me first ask, have you ever seen “MXC”? “Mystery Science Theatre 3000”? Well “What’s Up, Tiger Lily?” is perhaps their inspiration, as it was the first feature-length film which re-dubbed a prior film with completely absurd dialogue, written, of course, by none other than Allen himself.

The original film was a Japanese spy thriller, which I can only surmise was about finding some sort of secret code. Allen, however, rearranged scenes and added completely ridiculous lines, transforming it into a nonsensical treasure hunt for the world’s best egg-salad recipe. Despite working with a limited palette for dialogue, as it had to vaguely follow the action of the film, Allen again delivered an absolutely riotous script to accompany what I’m sure was a horrible spy film.

Beyond voicing many of the characters in “What’s Up, Tiger Lily?”, Allen even makes a cameo where he’s sitting with a studio exec of some sorts and is asked to explain the movie, considering its difficult-to-follow nature. He curtly responds, “No,” and it cuts back to the film. Since the comedic remake places no real importance on plot other than continuing the witty, absurd banter, there’s no need to understand it. The dialogue is so quick and witty that it’s hard to catch it all, especially when it already has you in stitches. Again, a must-see film. My only complaint is the incongruous music scenes of an American ’60s band, which apparently Woody didn’t want in the film either — fast-forward that.

I’m not of the simplistic mind to presume that all Mr. Allen’s works are riotous masterpieces. Clearly that’s not the case . Yet, I’m sure some of them deserved more praise than they got. If you’re an Allen-hater or have prejudged him without ever seeing his work, I implore you, for your own comedic benefit, to see some of his films. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend much out of personal experience, but the two aforementioned and “Annie Hall” are your best bets. And if the Academy’s diminishing credibility still means something to you, “Deconstructing Harry,” “Mighty Aphrodite,” “Bullets Over Broadway,” and “Alice,” among many others, were nominated for best original screenplay. Enjoy.

Want to berate me for liking Woody Allen but hating “Match Point”? Dig “Scoop” as much as I did? Email me at garens@wisc.edu .

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.