Manhattan (1979)

10 Comments

1. 

   j30bell (j30bell@yahoo.co.uk) from London, England
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   Woody Allen once said that, whereas Scorsese had generated a host ofimitators, he had generated none. This may be true; films likeManhattan certainly come along far too infrequently.
   
   That this is such a gorgeous film may strike those following theformulaic, Hollywood approach to cinema as strange and heretical. Thestory is unexciting (restless male in love triangle), most of thecharacters are unsympathetic, at least on the surface (particularlyIsaac), Allen leaves lose ends lying around all over the place, andthere’s certainly no action (unless you count thecar-chase-without-a-chase-scene involving Diane Keaton, Woody Allen anda VW Beetle).
   
   So why should any self-respecting member of the MTV generation spendtime on this film? Well, here are a few reasons.
   
   The script is wit of the highest order. This is not gag-a-minute humourlike Friends, but an altogether more acute art form stemming fromcharacter, some wonderful dialogue and a fair amount of darkness (Ilove the bit about Isaac trying to run over his ex-wife’s lover). Allenis also prepared to turn his biting satire to personal issues, such asbeing Jewish. Just don’t expect someone to look shrug their shoulders,slap their forehead and with mid-rising intonation say d’uh! It’s notthat kind of comedy.
   
   Then there is the gorgeous cinematography. Woody loves Manhattan andyou can certainly tell. If there is one criticism of the film, it isthat it leaves a rather picture postcard impression of the city, but Isuppose if it’s love, then it’s love. Much of the film appears to havebeen shot at either sunrise or sunset to soften the light, and thereare spectacular views of the towers, bridges and waterways of America’sfinest metropolis.
   
   Then, I suppose, there is the fact that Manhattan is probably thearchetypal Woody Allen film. Other films may be better, like Annie Hallor Hannah and Her Sisters but, in Manhattan, all the elements ofAllen’s style are in perfect balance. There’s the jazz, the neurotic,unsympathetic lead, the choice between stable and highly-strung women,the self-mocking humour (hilariously done in the opening voice-over),the railing against intellectual snobbery, the deep unease with popularculture.
   
   And there are great performances. Allen is at his most difficult – andin some ways his least likable. As Isaac, he’s trying to do the rightthing, but is rarely selfless enough to follow through with it. DianeKeaton is great as Mary, the lynchpin between the two love triangles –vain, pretentious and yet you can see why Isaac falls for her. Well,all the actors are great, and very believable, but special mention mustgo to Meryl Streep, who manages to steal the show with her tiny cameoas Isaac’s ex-wife, writing a book about their break-up and living withtheir son and her lover. She is magnificent.
   
   Of course, the film will also do nothing to dispel the popular rumourthat New Yorkers are neurotic, self-obsessed and self-indulgent – atleast that narrow social circle Allen so often writes about. If youdon’t mind that, though (and I’m English, so what do I care) you’re infor a treat. As with the city itself, the memories of this film willstay with you forever.

   Reply
2. 

   tvspace from hiding under my seat
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   Manhattan is an exhilarating American romance set against the backdrop ofNew York of the late 70′s: my favorite New York, the New York of painters,poets, punks, and Pauline Kael. Three great, very American talents — WoodyAllen, Gordon Willis, and George Gershwin — intertwine their respectivegifts to create a comedy that manages to satisfy both the brain and theheart, and even, perhaps, the lower regions.
   
   Allen is so brainy and such a nebbish that he can get away with gesturesthat would be painfully sentimental in the hands of any other director: when he begins the movie with fireworks cut to Gershwin, it isn’t to softenyou up for a soap opera, but to remind you that however much his neurosesmay seem to drive the scenes, its the love of New York that drives themovie.
   
   The entire cast is note perfect: Meryl Streep as his caustic bisexualex-wife, Diane Keaton as a nervous journalist from Philadelphia, andespecially Mariel Hemingway, whose performance as Allen’s 17-year oldgirlfriend is charming, heartbreaking, and wise.
   
   Allen’s comedy here is at its absolute finest. The fact that it isinterwoven with a genuinely moving love story told with a subtlety andindirection that is unheard of in today’s mainstream cinema only makes thelaughs that much richer.
   
   Gordon Willis’ cinematography is good enough for the Museum of Modern Art. Scene after scene leaves a grin on your face as his moving (in both senses)black and white photography floats across the screen.
   
   And finally underlying everything is the music of George Gershwin, whoseexubertant melodies propel the movie forward at every turn.
   
   This is Woody Allen’s best movie, a great movie, and an American movie inthe best sense. As an homage to the city of New York it will surely remainunsurpassed.
   
   

   Reply
3. 

   Scorsese-2 from Little Italy
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   No-one can question Woody Allen’s status as one of America’s premier filmdirectors, and anyone well-versed with his works should not hesitate beforenominating ‘Manhattan’ as his finest film. This movie is a masterpiece;visually and intellectually, it shows Woody Allen at the absolute peak ofhis art. Shot in a stylistic black and white widescreen format, thecinematography of ‘Manhattan’ is breathtaking, and Allen’s dialogue andcommand of situation are even better than usual, if that is possible. Theheartfelt angst and bittersweet hopelessness of the characters areuncamouflaged even by the sleek cinematographic style of the movie. Thismovie is Woody Allen’s valentine to the city he has such a symbioticrelationship with, and nowhere have I seen New York filmed as artisticallyas here. Mariel Hemmingway and Diane Keaton give inspired performancesaround Woody’s perfectly played character resulting in what can only beconsidered a modern masterpiece.

   Reply
4. 

   (suze12@yahoo.com) from Vancouver
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   I won’t rework the thorough comments which preceded mine here, because allthe accolades I would give this film are stated quite eloquently. It ishisbest film; it does contain brilliant insights into human nature; it isvisually breathtaking. I just want to mention a few aspects from my pointofview.
   
   It has been on my list of the five best movies ever made ever since I sawitin 1979, chiefly for its realistic dialogue and probing commentary on thedesperate nature of human beings in search of love, but I had never seenNewYork with my own eyes, so I could only try to accept but not fullyunderstand Woody’s love for Manhattan, which is firmly stated in theintroductory narration.
   
   After my recent 4 day trip there, I have a new perspective – the cityitselfis so charmingly and compactly laid out, so full of history and cultureandeverything famous, that you can’t go to New York without falling in lovewith it. After only 3 days I felt I wanted to live there. It is the cityofnot only Woody Allen but Bob Dylan, Tennessee Williams, Edgar Allan Poe,George Washington, Paul Newman, Jacqueline Onassis, and hundreds of otherillustrious and creative people of the past and present. The tour guidescan’t possibly squeeze in the whole story of every district and everybuilding; the air just vibrates with this knowledge that you are in thegreatest city in the world.
   
   The beauty of Manhattan that Woody conveys so perfectly in every camerashotand through the music of Gershwin has new meaning for me because I wasthere. It’s not so much a physical beauty but a feeling that all is rightwith the city, that this is what a city is supposed to be. It puts othercities to shame.
   
   All I can say is he fully succeeded in conveying what New York City islike.Not to mention that I now understand the obsession with delis; they havethebest food in the world.
   
   I would also like to add my new perspective on the story itself – a very70′s plot of several people switching romantic partners back and forth atthe drop of a hat. Diane Keaton’s Mary remains the most perfect of thecharacterizations as the neurotic free spirit who despite her totalself-absorption inspires our sympathy and affection. The 17 year oldplayedby Mariel Hemingway is more irritating with the passage of 20 years, notbecause Woody’s real-life obsession with young girls came to light, butbecause Mariel is a truly vapid non-actress with no ability to convey anydepth or feeling. The constant commentary about her stunning beauty fallsflat because she merely has a strikingly angular face, no personality andreally possesses nothing except the bloom of youth and shiny hair. Maryrightly tells Isaac that his first wife becoming a lesbian "explains thelittle girl."
   
   The denouement seems more unsatisfactory now than in previous viewings,andI want to shake the characters awake. But it was the seventies, and thisishow people acted. It captures the times perfectly. I can’t discuss whoendsup with whom without spoiling the end for those who haven’t seen it, buttheproblem for me is that the characters seem to live for the moment and ifthey can’t have the one they want, they simply change partners withoutmuchstrain.
   
   This attitude does not play quite so charmingly at the end of the 90′swhenfidelity is valued more highly than it was in the 70′s.
   
   Nevertheless the beauty of the city stands alone no matter what thecharacters’ desperate machinations.
   
   And as a hilarious commentary on the human instinct to find someone toloveno matter what the consequences, there is nothing finer. Though I mightnotapprove of Isaac’s final choice, his almost religious experience whichbrings him to that conclusion is a stunning climax to the film. Whether hechanges his mind about who is the right one for him, he has learnedsomething crucial about what really is important to him in life.
   
   The true stars of the movie are Manhattan, never more beautiful, and DianeKeaton, never more brilliant.

   Reply
5. 

   rbverhoef (rbverhoef@hotmail.com) from The Hague, Netherlands
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   ‘Manhattan’ looks beautiful in black and white. It is definitely WoodyAllen’s best. Two years after ‘Annie Hall’ we have Woody Allen and DianeKeaton together again. Allen plays Isaac who is dating the 17-year old Tracy(Mariel Hemingway). He has a friend, the married Yale (Michael Murphy), whois having an affair with Mary (Diane Keaton). Isaac falls in love with Maryand stops seeing Tracy to start things with Mary. In a sub-plot we have theex-wife of Isaac publishing a book about their sex-life. Now she is livingwith a woman. The ex-wife Jill is played by Meryl Streep. Her appearancesare short and not very often but she is more than great in herscenes.
   
   ‘Manhattan’ is even better than the great ‘Annie Hall’. The black and whitecinematograpy, done with a good reason, gives a little extra to the movie.Like I said Streep is terrific and so are Allen, Keaton and especiallyHemingway (she was nominated for an Oscar). The monologues Allen had in’Annie Hall’ are still present, smart, interesting and funny. A great story,very intelligent, of course written (and directed) by Woody Allenhimself.

   Reply
6. 

   brocksilvey from United States
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   Woody Allen has been churning out mediocre films for so long now thatit's easy to forget how good some of his older films were. "Manhattan"is the product of Allen's "mature" 1970s phase, the phase that alsoproduced "Annie Hall" and "Interiors," and it's a wonderful film. It'snot the plot that makes it singular — it's typical upper-crust NewYork Allen, full of neurotic people in therapy cheating on one anotherand making mistake after mistake in their pursuit of what they thinkwill make them happy. No, what makes "Manhattan" so effective is itsstyle. Filmed in black and white (because, as Allen's character says inan opening voice over, New York is a city that has always and willalways exist in black and white), the film is a love letter to NYC, andit suggests that the neuroses that fill its denizens are as much a partof the city's character as its architecture, culture and diversity. Iwould instantly be annoyed by the people that populate Allen's films ifI met them in any other context. As it is, I can't imagine any Allenfilm (at least not one set in New York) without them.
   
   Grade: A

   Reply
7. 

   ackstasis from Australia
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   After the phenomenal success of 'Annie Hall,' the hilariousOscar-winning comedy detailing the romantic exploits of neurotic Jewishcomedian Alvey Singer, Woody Allen had become of America's mostrespected filmmakers. In 1979, he released what is generally acceptedas his second great masterpiece, 'Manhattan,' a poignant tribute to thecity that Allen loves so dearly. Written by Allen and his 'AnnieHall'-collaborator Marshall Brickman, 'Manhattan' stars Allen as IsaacDavis, a twice-divorced, 42-year-old comedy writer who is intimatelyinvolved with a 17-year-old high school student, Tracy (anOscar-nominated Mariel Hemingway). Meanwhile, Isaac begins to fall forMary (Diane Keaton), who is the secret mistress of his best friend(Michael Murphy). Adding to all of Isaac's troubles, his former secondwife, Jill (Meryl Streep), who had originally left him for anotherwoman, has plans to write a tell-all book on their failed marriage.
   
   If this all seems very confusing to you, then you're not alone. Just asin 'Annie Hall,' Allen plays the hopeless romantic who is strugglingdesperately to understand the maddening complexity of humanrelationships. Though Tracy is only seventeen years old, she isarguably the most honest and mature of the women in Isaac's life;nonetheless, he doesn't treat her seriously. In his mind, anything thatshe says is quite obviously influenced by the naivety and downrightignorance of the young. Their relationship was never meant to beanything more than a brief "fling," and so he feels no guilt for seeinganother woman behind his back, an act that makes him livid when itultimately happens to him.
   
   'Manhattan' was shot in beautiful crisp black-and-white by GordonWillis, who has also worked on, among countless other films, 'AnnieHall' and the three installments of 'The Godfather.' The cinematographyoffers New York City a romantic 1940s feel, reminiscent of how Allenclaims to remember the city as a child: "Maybe it's a reminiscence fromold photographs, films, books and all that. But that's how I rememberNew York. I always heard Gershwin music with it, too. In 'Manhattan' Ireally think that we — that's me and cinematographer Gordon Willis —succeeded in showing the city. When you see it there on that big screenit's really decadent."
   
   Mysteriously, this film remains the least-liked by the directorhimself, though, at the same time, it was also his most commerciallysuccessful. As you've no doubt already noticed from this review,'Manhattan' is often likened to 1977's 'Annie Hall,' perhaps due to therepeated casting of Allen and Keaton (a not uncommon occurrence) or itssimilar attempt to uncover the elusive secrets behind love andrelationships. In terms of film-making style, however, the films arequite dissimilar. Unlike the highly-energetic 'Annie Hall' – which cutback and forward in time, visited old memories, broke the fourth walland made conversations with passing extras – 'Manhattan' boasts a moreclassical approach – quiet, softly-spoken and accompanied by awistfully slow jazzy soundtrack, also relying heavily on the works ofGeorge Gershwin.

   Reply
8. 

   jazzest (jazzest_jazzest@hotmail.com) from Chiba City, Japan
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   There is no doubt that Woody Allen wholeheartedly loves New York City, buthis attempt to illustrate the city in a Fellini-like fashion results inmaking the city look touristy. Seemingly the film has influenced the youngergeneration of New York based filmmakers and even they have made homage tothis film (i.e., Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger than Paradise similarly consists ofwell-composed medium shots and has a resembling scene of four personssitting in a theatre. Also, Spike Lee’s She’s Gotta Have It featuresanalogous landscape montages and has an akin scene of the protagonistrunning to meet his lover). Ironically, these youngsters present the city inmore genuine manners and give Allen’s Manhattan an obsoletelook.
   
   Though the portrait of immature middle-aged people who can’t deal with theirrelationships might be real, who wants to see that? Especially, Isaac Davis(Woody Allen) soliciting his former 17-year-old lover Tracy (MarielHemingway) not to leave for London, after discovering his other relationshipdoesn’t work, is unbearable to watch. All central characters, maybe except17-year-old Tracy, have the same typical-Allen-like personas in their waysof thinking and behaving–Allen might have a dictatorship as a director andit causes the lack of the characters’ diversity. The screenplay containsmany cliches (i.e., Allen’s voiceover monologue on the opening montage todepict the city as a book’s Chapter One, several pseudo-intellectual linessuch as Isaac’s describing his friends as "pseudo-intellectual garbage"talking about "existential reality," Isaac’s line "Trouble is my middlename" after his prospective lover says she’s troublesome, and so on).Cinematography by Gordon Willis is inappropriately beautiful; the gapbetween the aesthetic visual and the half-grown content generates anuncompelling, halfway style.

   Reply
9. 

   Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
   26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

   In Manhattan, Isac Davis (Woody Allen) is a divorced writer of TV showsunhappy with his job. His ex-wife left him to live with another womanand is writing a book about her relationship with Isac. He presentlydates a seventeen years old high-school student, Tracy (MarielHemingway), who is in love with him, but he does not like her. When hemeets Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton), the mistress of his married bestfriend Yale (Michael Murphy), he has a crush on her. He finishes withTracy and has an affair with Mary, affecting the lives of many personsincluding his own.
   
   "Manhattan" is, in my opinion, the best movie of Woody Allen, of whom Iam a big fan. I have all Woody Allen movies in my collection, but"Manhattan" is my favorite one, a masterpiece about relationship in acold huge city. There are many fantastic lines along the story, withright doses of his typical bitter humor and romance. The black andwhite photography of Gordon Willis is one of the most beautiful I haveever seen in a film. There is a specific scene, used on the cover ofthe DVD and the poster of this movie, that is amazingly wonderful.Mariel Hemingway certainly has her best performance in the fantasticand very touching character of Tracy. The music score, with Gershwin,completes this magnificent movie. I do not have enough adjectives inEnglish to eulogize this masterpiece. My vote is ten.
   
   Title (Brazil): "Manhattan"

   Reply
10. 

    TonyG-7 from United States
    26 Mar 2012, 2:25 am

    On the basis of one viewing about 20 years ago, I always considered this myfavorite Woody Allen film. Upon further review, I am not so impressed. Thecinematography is wonderful (I’m a sucker for New York, too), the acting isok (Mariel Hemingway better than ok), and there are some good one liners,but, overall I found it boring and self-indulgent, especially in thedirecting. This film has no real reason for being…it’s ultimatelyinconsequential. That makes me sad and now I have to watch my otherfavorites to see if they hold up. I still have hopes for Hannah,Misdemeanors, Purple Rose, & Love & Death. This one isn’t in the pantheonanymore.

    Reply