criterionforum.org

Whether Allen was being flippant or not--I'm not sure he was--I do think the laziness really shows. Not only in the screenplays, which are much more flimsily structured and awkward than they used to be, but in the filming as well. No matter how bad an actor is doing, he doesn't seem to mind, resulting in some truly awful performances. The cinematography is not near what it used to be. When working with Willis, DiPalma and Nykvist, he made some of the greatest looking american films ever. Do you think he could pull of Stardust Memories today? Match Point looked okay (but subpar among his greatest work), but everything else after Celebrity looked boring to god-awful (Hollywood Ending is one of the most poorly shot movies I've ever seen--Kevin Smith awful). Maybe Allen has always worked quickly, but then it's safe to say that he used to be more inspired, and was surrounded by a better, more talented crew with whom he could communicate shorthand and get great results.

I have to disagree about how Match Point looks. If anything, working in London, seemed to have inspired Allen and I think it looks gorgeous. There is a particular, about 5-second transition shot of the 30 St. Mary Axe from an angle (from below, between two buildings) I've never seen before that managed to make that phallic eyesore acutally look fantastic. The interiors are also quite nice and there is some beautiful framing in the sequences in Johannsen's apartment and Cox's mansion. Also, the brief outing to the movie theatre was particularly lovely.

The quality of Allen's cinematography comes and goes (and I personally wouldn't mark it as one of his great trademarks). To me, Annie Hall is a great movie with decent cinematography but Manhattan is a great film with similarly gorgeous cinematography. You can't tell me Sleeper or Bananas are particularly gorgeously shot. Allen frames his films with the seriousness the script deserves. Even Crimes & Misdemeanors, one of my absolute favorite Allen films, isn't marked by any visionary genius.

If anything, the overall quality of Allen's scripts have gone down, but even if one if five or one in ten turns about to be Match Point or even a Manhattan Murder Mystery, I'll be there.

Woody Allen talks and talks about Scoop with Emmanuel Levy:

[quote]Woody Allen's Scoop
Scoop is the new comedy from writer-director Woody Allen, and is his second consecutive film to be set and shot in London (following Match Point). Scoop stars Allen, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johansson, and Ian McShane.

Plot

The late U.K. journalist Joe Strombel (McShane) is being mourned by his colleagues, even as, stuck in limbo, Joe remains committed to pursuing a hot tip on the identity of “the Tarot Card Killerâ€

Someone, open a window.

Just got back from this. It's cute, and pleasant, but really not in the same league as his last three. The jokes are funny, the performances are all nice, the cinematography has a terrific warm look (like many of his films), sets are cool, music is reasonably well-chosen... but it never feels particularly ambitious, especially keeping in mind that he just made one of his five greatest films ever.

Still, it's better than 99.99% of all other contemporary comedies. That, and I don't believe a minute went by where I wasn't smiling.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Essentially, any script he writes, he can film.

He often does. Therein lies the problem.

Has anybody else noticed that the party scene in which Woody and Scarlett sneak away to the locked room in the basement is taken from Hitchcock's Notorious? However, the problem with stealing from great movies is that people then compare your movie with the great movie, and that makes Scoop seem even worse.

I saw "Scoop" this weekend also. While no "Match Point", it certainly isn't as awful as the Dreamworks comedies. I found it to be a nice light comedy in the vein of "Manhattan Murder Mystery" meets "Mighty Aphordite".

Scarlett took a little bit to convince me that she was going to be funny, but once she teamed up with Woody I thought she was just fine. I thought she and Woody had some good back and forths, and nice quipping chemistry. She's no Diane Keaton, but who is?

I even thought Woody was really funny, as did everyone in my theater. They were always cracking up at the "credit to your race" line. My girlfriend told me afterwards that she thought Woody was a cute old man on screen!

And who else but Woody would set some scenes on Death's boat headed to purgatory? With a guy jumping off and trying to swim away too?

I'm a big Woody Allen fan but approached this film with less enthusiasm than "Match Point", and was very wary after the realtively poor reviews (NYT is a pretty good one I suggest reading though). But I was pleasantly suprised, as was the company I was with. And I look forward to watching this again on DVD, on a rainy weekend day.

I'd really like to see Woody team up with Diane Keaton again. Even for a trifle like this. Anyone else feel the same way?

Zumpano,

I agree with everything you said, and I also like the way Allen begins and ends the film (I won't spoil the ending, which is charming, but the film begins with the friends of Ian McShane's character reminiscing about him after his funeral, and then cutting to McShane on the river styx).

And I was also with a good crowd, and was surprised to see quite a few teenage girls around me who were all laughing on cue at Allen (refreshing indeed...but it was the same when I saw Anything Else...I think he reaches the younger generation more than a lot of people give him credit for).

I'd certainly like to see he and Diane Keaton work together again, but for something more along the lines of "Interiors" or "Another Woman" (which is more realistic anyway since Scoop is Allen's final comedy).

Dylan wrote: (which is more realistic anyway since Scoop is Allen's final comedy).

Where'd you read this?

I read that also, but not sure where (probably on here somewhere).

Armond White weighs in with his usual sledgehammer, comparing Scoop unfavorably to A Canterbury Tale (!!):

[quote]Why doesn't Woody Allen just quit? He craps out movies (six already this millennium) as if Vincent Canby were still at the Times dictating New York's cultural taste. It's hard to deny that Allen's artistic stature owes less to skill or vision than to his cemented media caché—all the ineptitude that's fit to praise. This hometown boy phenomenon is made clear by Allen's recent fish-out-of-water relocation to England for Match Point, a vile drama, and his not-so-different, lamentable new comedy, Scoop. Outside Manhattan, Woody's movies have no justification.

Allen's change of venue lacks the artistry you expect from a traveling filmmaker—whether Antonioni in Death Valley, Louis Malle in Atlantic City, Jacques Demy in Los Angeles, Whit Stillman in Barcelona or, to cite Allen's hero, Bob Hope in Morocco, Zanzibar, Singapore, Bali or Rio. The new scenery only superficially disguises Allen's stagnating creativity. Scoop reprocesses Mighty Aphrodite and Manhattan Murder Mystery but omits a genuine sense of place.

This is a major failure in light of Powell-Pressburger's atmospheric masterpiece A Canturbury Tale (1944), just now luminously restored by Criterion DVD. In this existential mystery, an American G.I., Bob Johnson (John Sweet), finds himself lost in historic, provincial Kent—a model of American sensibility interacting with British land and culture. Powell-Pressburger's purpose, conveying an astonished sense of place, exposes Allen's inability to respond artistically to his new locale.

Changing place does not change personality. Scoop actually takes place in Allen's mean little head. As in Match Point, England superficially substitutes for Manhattan's Upper East Side; London's chic Mayfair shops seem more important than how local characters represent their milieu and customs. In A Canturbury Tale Powell-Pressburger delights in nature and custom, providing shocks of discovery and sunlit revelations of climate and tradition. (John Sweet is told “Canturbury Cathedral is right behind the movie theater. You can't miss it.â€

I thought this is very enjoyable, even touching and slightly poignant at the end, when Woody

Spoiler

imagines his own death, in a rather clumsy and facetious manner, only too fitting to his persona as a comedian. Considering that Scoop may be the last comedy in which he plays a part, I find myself longing for more.

It is also very self-referential, as I have heard from so many people that they cannot stand the way Woody talks, and in this movie he takes it to the extremes, with repeated jokes that bank on insertions of absurd and seemingly unrelated ideas.

Saw it last night, very light and very funny. Johansson was nice and full of enthusiasm though her performance (mostly in the first half) and the film itself has an air of self-consciousness that I want to say was intentional but can't be sure. Overall it exceeded my expectations.

nredding2 wrote:Has anybody else noticed that the party scene in which Woody and Scarlett sneak away to the locked room in the basement is taken from Hitchcock's Notorious? However, the problem with stealing from great movies is that people then compare your movie with the great movie, and that makes Scoop seem even worse.

Oh c'mon, no one is going to compare Notorious to one of allen's zippy comedies (well maybe no one, that Armond White moron might give it a go). Allen is known for homages to his favorite directors and that's all it was.

I also thought there was a bit of a homage to Sunrise when Hugh was walking toward Scarlett in the boat. And you could possibly say the beginning is an homage to the unreleased morgue sequence in Sunset Blvd. The Notorious homage is so obvious, I can't believe anyone actually thought he was trying to get away with anything.

I loved it. I'm not saying that it is a masterpiece of cinema, but watching this movie really felt like going to the movies again. I'm not really sure what I mean by that, except that I took a date, we laughed, were kept guessing how it would end, were held in light suspense, and left feeling happy. Why is that so rare these days?

This is getting a R1 DVD release in a few weeks (Nov. 21), for those interested.

Saw this on DVD last night, and while it doesn't line up the great Allen works, it is nonetheless a light and enjoyable comedy. It aims to capture the feel of the capers of the '30s and '40s in a comtemporary setting and succeeds. The leads are all great - Johanssen does a great job playing a role that's actually close to her real age; Allen looks remarkably comfortable in front of the camera (and it was a joy to see him zinging one liners left and right) while Jackman admirably delivers in a role we quite haven't seen him in before.

A fun way to pass a rainy and cold Friday evening.

I agree that this may not be one of Woody's finest films because it is less serious than Match Point but it is nevertheless an amazing demonstration of Woody's knowledge and awareness of classical Hollywood filmmaking (technically) and in terms of genre. He is referencing John Garfield's film Between Two Worlds which is about people who awake aboard a luxury liner only to realize that they are dead. In the case of this film, it is the river Styx and a small dinghy that they are on. I also think he is pointing towards Hitchcock's Lifeboat.
One of the other more interesting allusions in the film to me was its connection to Ripper murders of the late 1880s in London. I really think this is an interesting film and should not be discounted.

I saw this back when it opened in the summer and absolutely loved it. I don't think I've laughed harder at a Woody Allen movie, and I've seen and loved virtually everything he's made. Obviously, it's a lighter, breezier piece of work with flaws here and there, but the critical dumping this movie took was entirely undeserved. I'd say this was just as strong a comeback as Match Point. Here, Allen proves he can still do comedy, that he still has a place in front of the camera (Allen owns the film, which stunned me. Before I saw this, I belonged to the Allen's too old to act in his movies now camp), and that he can still direct actors to great performances. Scoop is really the first time Scarlett's given a performance that isn't a clone of her Ghost World turn, and Jackman proves that he's so much better than dreck like Van Helsing.

I also really loved the film. I saw it in the theaters and bought the DVD immediately. Woody is definitely in control with this one, and he owns every scene that he's in. Scarlett Johanssen is fine, but I really felt that Woody Allen was in top form, comedically-speaking. Maybe not his best, but one of his funniest.

SPOILERS BELOW:
Since Woody has said that this will be his last comedy, I wonder about the end of the film....as if he is actually killing off the "Woody Allen character". That would be interesting if it really is the end of his comedic roles. Anyway, it may be pure speculation.

Interesting. Despite being funded by British money and set in the UK, this film is still undistributed in theaters over there. Did it go straight to TV?

Well, it only opened two weeks ago here in Portugal. And I had to wait longer for Match Point. My guess it that it will eventually open in the UK later in the year.

But you're right, it is odd that it's taking so long to get there.

nredding2 wrote:Has anybody else noticed that the party scene in which Woody and Scarlett sneak away to the locked room in the basement is taken from Hitchcock's Notorious? However, the problem with stealing from great movies is that people then compare your movie with the great movie, and that makes Scoop seem even worse.

Yeah, the cellar scene reminded me strongly of Notorious. It didn't make me wish I were watching Notorious though, oh no. I was having too much fun with the banter between Johannsen (almost wrote her off as a no talent) and Allen. Notorious is too draining, and I wasn't in that kind of mood.

Matt wrote:Interesting. Despite being funded by British money and set in the UK, this film is still undistributed in theaters over there. Did it go straight to TV?

Just a quick answer to this question. Scoop had its BBC television premiere last night, so it did eventually go directly to TV here, although with the usual time gap as if it had been given a cinema release.

I'm not sure if I have much more to add to what has already been said about the film. I liked it (but then I have some pretty major gaps to fill in my knowledge of the Woody Allen filmography so I cannot really put it in context), thought the performances were good and the River Styx scenes were great (though why do American films set in Britain find the way we drive on the other side of the road over here such a great source of comic material? ) It was also refreshing to see a fluffy, time passing piece of entertainment which ironically did not feature characters I wished to see die within the first five minutes, which I find to be a major achievement in itself these days!

But up there with The Purple Rose of Cairo or Manhattan Murder Mystery? No.