Crimes and Misdemeanors

Rating:
Summary: Woody Allen's finest serious film
Review: In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen recalls the work of the great European directors (especially Bergman's soul-searching preoccupation with matters of faith). Two stories unfold in parallel: that of a successful ophthalmologist (played by Martin Landau), whose predicament with an extra-marital affair causes him to do the unthinkable; and a the serio-comic flirtations of a small-time documentary film-maker (played by Allen himself) contemplating his own extramarital romp with a production assistant (Mia Farrow).

Landau's character, Judah Rosenthal, afraid of ruination, calls upon his brother (Law and Order's Jerry Orbach) to make his little indiscretion "disappear". She disappears, all right - into oblivion, the victim of a hit-man Orbach's character met through his years in the restaurant business.

Allen's character, by far much lighter and more innocent, is trying to finance a documentary on an upbeat Holocaust survivor and Philosophy professor by condescending to make a television biography of his shallow, egotistical brother-in-law, a famous sit-com producer (Alan Alda).

What these two stories have in common is a deepening ethical dilemma posed by the ambiguity of moral standards in the absence of religious faith. Although raised in a traditionally religious Jewish household, Judah is not, himself, a believer - at least, until the guilt of his mistress' murder presses down upon him almost unbearably. Then he begins to fantasize that he will be caught and punished, if only because the seeing eye of God is everywhere, and He will make certain of it. Similarly, Allen's character is driven to the point of crisis not only by his failure to snag his own mistress, but by the suicide of the professor whose life seemed the very model of spiritual triumph in the face of adversity.

What emerges from the convergence of these two stories is a great envy and baleful respect for those who can have faith. Faith is a gift, as one character points out, like musical talent. It is the ability to walk in darkness, oblivious to the probable truth that there is only chaos in the Universe, and be contented in that ignorance.

The DVD lacks a director's commentary or any other nice features, but it is handsomely produced, with the work of cinematographer Sven Nykvist (long-time collaborator of Igmar Bergman) beautifully showcased. Anjelica Houston and Sam Waterston lend excellent support as Judah's mistress and a rabbi patient who is gradually losing his sight.

For those viewers who enjoy philosophical depth in films, and who eschew easy, predigested answers, this film is most certainly a must-see.

Rating:
Summary: The eyes of God are on us always
Review: Two stories run parallel to each other, destined to meet in the denouement. Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a successful opthamologist, contemplates murdering his hysterical mistress (Angelica Huston). On the flipside, Clifford Stern (Woody Allen) falls for Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), the woman producing a documentary he’s directing on his loathsome brother-in-law, a successful television producer (Alan Alda). One narrative carries its inherent weight well. Landau’s torment after the deed is done is palpable and painful. The other narrative seems flighty by comparison. Titular bad guy Alda shields himself from the daggers shot from Woody’s rolling eyes. However, his only real sin is lechery.

That being said, the two most heartbreaking moments in the film -- moments that rival in visceral emotion anything I’ve seen at the movies in some time -- come from the “flighty” narrative. I wish I could tell you what they were, but that would spoil the surprise. Just know that they are probably the most dramatic moments Woody Allen has ever put on film, as either director or -- and here’s the surprising part -- dramatic actor. His work is low-key and subdued here, more so than I’ve ever seen it before.

The rest of the cast is spotty at best. Landau, who I rarely believe in his roles, comes close to completely pulling off his Judah, only he misses by a few steps. One scene, where Judah exhibits poor judgement, had me astonished in my seat with disbelief. Still, more commitment from Landau would have sold the scene better. Mia Farrow gets some snappy one-liners as well as some tragic moments, but it feels like she’s forcing the issue in both respects. Also, she has little to no chemistry with Woody (at least none that I saw on screen). The best work is done by Alan Alda. His role could have been an over-the-top parody (it nearly is), but Alda pulls the reigns back just enough. His Lester isn’t really the bad man Cliff sees; he’s just a materialistic blowhard. Nothing criminal about that. Kudos to Alda for showing restraint, while sketching a living and breathing character.

There are some truly funny moments that serve as comic relief to break up the tense drama. Woody gets most of these, natch. One memorable scene involves Cliff and Lester, in which Lester pauses from a conversation about Cliff filming his documentary. He recites into a mini-taperecorder ideas about a TV farce in which a “loser” films a documentary on a successful man, and learns something in the process. Cliff, standing right there the whole time, rolls his eyes in disbelief. On paper, it may not come across how hearty a laugh this moment gets.

The most fascinating aspect of the film was probably the discussions of morality and ethics. God enters the picture once or twice (in discussion only), and man’s deeds are raked over the coals. And even though it doesn’t provide the typical Hollywood movie answers, the answers the film does provide are realistic and true and, most importantly, tragic. While the situations portrayed may be fantastic, the reactions by the characters within them were real.

Probably the darkest of Woody’s movies, “Crimes and Misdemeanors” will most assuredly be amongst the ones remembered a hundred years in the future. It balances its comedy, drama, and tragedy sublimely, creating a document of life that’s sure to provoke and entertain.

Rating:
Summary: God Is Not An Idiot
Review: Examining theodicy, the enigma of reconciling a benevolent God with capricious fate and suffering, Woody Allen fails to get much beyond a dark comic-dramatization of a freshman philosophy bull session, attempting to prove heroic enlightenment by forming agnostic conclusions.

Martin Landau plays an ophthalmologist having an affair with a frantic, aging stewardess threatening to disrupt his affluent contentment by confronting his wife. Not deriving solace from a kindly Rabbi patient and friend who is facing blindness and recommends honesty, Landau solicits help from his criminal brother to solve the problem with a hired killer. His bouts of conscience include reminiscing moral debates at a family Seder during his adolescence. His father, favoring a morally sensible existence, argues with a nihilistic aunt who trivializes the bible, believes God's non-existence is proven by The Holocaust, and views morality as a social contrivance.

Allen plays an uncompromising documentarian falling in love with an assistant (Farrow), also pursued by his boorish brother-in-law (Alda) who produces sitcoms and relishes being perceived as a creative genius. Alda's deep thoughts include the idea that with enough passage of time, tragedy becomes laughable, believing the Lincoln assassination to be an example. Alda throws his in-law a bone by allowing him to film him at work when Allen would rather work on a portrayal of a humanistic philosopher pondering serious questions. Unlike Landau's cynical aunt, the philosopher believes an empty universe is given meaning when human beings define values for themselves.

Allen's likable character turns the documentary of Alda into a satire of the man's vanity, and we gain sympathy for his protectiveness towards a favorite niece. Shielding her proves futile as Allen learns of the philosopher's suicide while on an outing with her. At a wedding reception, Allen discovers he has lost his battle for Farrow's affections to the egotist and then engages in a chance colloquy with Landau, wistful over the fading of his conscience. Allen's sadness invites us to share a resignation over the capriciousness of fate, the success of obnoxious people, the joyless end of an unmourned mistress, the unrequited love of a sensitive man, a sweet woman taken in by a cad, the blindness of a benevolent Rabbi, the despair of a man of apparent wisdom, and the return to comfort by a philanderer and murderer all serving to portray God as incompetent because life is unpredictable and joy and suffering are not proportionate to decency or malice. The answers of religion must be contrivances.

However, it requires contrivances to view God as a fool. Extreme skepticism often ignores contrary evidence to its cosmic-accident interpretation of existence. If we are just "a pack of neurons" and our mental life nothing but electrical impulses, then we cannot explain the realm of abstract concepts, including those of science. Nor can we explain the human mind's openness to truth, the foundation of all thought. Atheists cannot explain why anything should go right, even observation and deduction, why good logic should not be as misleading as bad logic, if they are both chance movements in the brain of a bewildered ape. Atheists exalt reason, but they cannot account for reason. Neither can materialism account for consciousness, free will, value judgments, and the existence of a unitary self. In a material world such things cannot exist. Matter cannot be free or have a self. Neither could free will exist if joy and suffering existed in perfect proportion with virtue and malice reducing our functionality to stimulus-response reward-punishment contingencies like that of lab rats pursuing a piece of cheese. Love and courage could not exist.

Similarly, no matter how we claim to be nonjudgmental and deny innate moral truth, we can not ignore the countering evidence of our own anger, which reminds us that there are natural expectations we have, should have, and can not avoid having of each other. Anger is the existential expression of moral outrage even when we exercise moral outrage at the very concept of moral outrage, reflexively calling anyone presenting a moral vision a hypocrite. In our sober moments, we know the life of the desperate woman is as sacred as the successful doctor. Nonetheless, we often live with the temptation to defer to "important people," hoping the identification of an imaginary human genius will confer a sense of superiority on ourselves by our presumed courage in recognizing theirs. We are quick to excuse the transgressions of genius. Morality can not be enough for great minds if they represent insights that anyone can have. Allen is a brilliant satirist of human pretense, often portraying trendy sophisticates as fools, but just as often sides with their elitist conventions that view metaphysical and moral questions as hopelessly complex needing great minds to sort it out for the rest of us. The last advice from Allen's philosopher is to hope for some genius of the future to give us life's meaning, although in the interim loving our families provides meaningful hope.

But since a benevolent creator implies the universal nature of important truth, the fading of conscience does not really occur so easily, and an ethical sense is innate to human decency. The killing of a man of noble purpose is still a tragedy 140 years later. So is the killing of a lonely mistress. A God with the wisdom to be subtle also invites us to find meaning in loving our families, which is precisely what we don't do when we exercise a blind faith in our self-definition. Self-worship is closer to the definition of evil. It may be that we prefer to ignore evidence that God is not idiotic because it helps us to avoid realizing that we often are. Why impeach our failures of decency if God is in no position to judge us negatively if we don't? Fortunately, as our better, God is merciful in judging our mendacity, our failures, and our acts of desperation. There is a vast body of literature examining theodicy, unfortunately most written by humble people whom intellectuals never notice.

Rating:
Summary: Wow. Simply amazing.
Review: Words cannot decribe how amazing this movie is. Well, actually, they can - otherwise I wouldn't be writing this. I suggest watching this movie on a Saturday afternoon with a friend or group of people, and then going out for coffee to discuss it. It's one of those rare movies that raises so many questions that are just waiting to be talked about.

Woody Allen has always made us laugh, and it's unfortunate that his more dramatic features, such as "Interiors" aren't more popular. Fortunately, he combines his wit with his wisdom in "Crimes and Misdemeanors."

This movie is more like two short films combined to make one film. There are two plots, and the two protagonists meet in the end. In one, there's the typical light Woody fare with Woody playing an unsuccessful documentary filmmaker who is coerced into making a film about his obnoxious brother-in-law, a tv show producer. He falls in love with an executive producer, which would be fine except for two things: 1.)she doesn't feel the same way, and 2)he's married.

The other, more dramatic story deals with Judah Rosenthal, a successful opthmalogist , philanthropist, and family man who has a secret: he had an affair with another woman. He borke it off, but now the woman has threatened to tell his wife and others about his infedelity and other deeds. he speaks to a rabbi client (also Woody's brother-in-law), who says that he needs to tell his wife in order to free himself. He also talks to his brother. His solution? Have her killed.
The acting is absolutely riveting. Martin Landau is terrific as a tormented man who cannot choose between his morals and the life he leads. And Anjelica Huston is incredible as a woman pushed to the edge. The rest of the cast shines as well. Allen always has creative casting and it always seems to work.

I cannot tell you how this movie gets into your psyche. At one point, the rabbi tells Judah, "It's a human life. You don't think God sees?" Judah's reply, "God is a luxury I can't afford." Wow. Who do we sympathize with? The man who is guilt ridden, or the woman he strung along for two years? The man who's in love with a woman, or his wife? Allen never forces us to choose.

My favorite scene is a flashback scene with Judah's family. The family is at a seder (passover) dinner, and is talking about God. This scene in particular raises such fantastic theological questions: If we, as humans, get away with something bad that we did on earth, are we still punished in the afterlife? Does one have to choose between God and the truth? What would you choose?

Rating:
Summary: Powerfully intelligent film
Review: This is not a typical Woody Allen film in that it has an overall seriously philosophical quality. The performance of Martin Landau as a successful opthamolgist who is morally conflicted is one of the most moving and grounded Film performances I have ever seen. He is just magnificent in this movie. Allen deftly weaves Landau's story together with another thread featuring Allen as a documentary film maker who is unhappily married. His brother-in - law is an obnoxious televison producer played to great effect by Alan Alda. This film raises questions of morality , faithfulness and does so in a way that leaves the viewer to think through these issues as the characters go trough their respective moral crises. There are some laughs included but for the most part this is serious filmmaking at it's best.

Rating:
Summary: Undisputedly, Allen's most brilliant and mature movie.
Review: What can I say about this movie, except that I have seen it more times than I can count. Each time I watch it, something more is revealed and to me that is the sign of truly excellent writing. The characters are three-dimensional, each with their own idiosyncracies and contradictions. The separate plots compliment each other and stay distinct till the very end, yet they both deal with fundamental human issues and dilemmas. The cast is first-rate. Much of the movie is seen through Allen's character; as always, a cynical and unhappy man, yet you leave the film feeling a certain satisfaction and a greater insight into human behavior. The philosopher is a second narrator, in a sense, and his points of view are pertinent to both of the parallel plots. His suicide adds a twist to the story, where the viewer is suddenly left unsure on how to feel about his poignant words which we once trusted and valued. Overall, the movie is a gem and should be seen by every serious Woody Allen fan as well as those who can't stand him.

Rating:
Summary: Crime but no time
Review: I think what Allen meant to call this film was "Felonies and Misdemeanors" since a misdemeanor is a crime and the title a little redundant. That aside I think it's his best film, hands down. He managed to pull together his comic and tragic instincts into what is an entertaining and occasionally harrowing declaration of atheism. Not a philosophy everyone agrees with but he doesn't soft-pedal it. The staging of the murder that parallels Allen's romantic misadventures with a TV producer gives Martin Landau the role of a lifetime as a well-meaning physician who profits from an evil act. Great performances all around, especially Jerry Ohrbach as Landau's hoody brother

Rating:
Summary: Another Great Woody Allen Film
Review: This film ranks among Woody's best:
Annie Hall, Manhattan, Deconstructing Harry, Hannah and Her Sisters, Interiors, and Stardust Memories

Amazing performances by the entire cast. Great writing and direction. Give it a watch and you'll love it.

Rating:
Summary: The more I watch it the more I like it
Review: This is one of the only movies that I can actualy say is a favorite. It has comedy, deep ethical dilemmas, character development, everything. Some of the comedy must be subtler than I though at first, because as I get older (I first saw it when it first came out, like 10 years ago or something) I laugh more and more at some of the smallest things.
I would recommend this to anyone, even those who don't like Woody.

Rating:
Summary: Choices
Review: This is a movie about the wrong choices that people make in their lives. There are many things that make this a near-great movie. One of them is how the players weave in and out of each other's lives. Although the movie takes place in New York City, we see very few people outside of the cast. This gives a sense of intimacy that would be hard to achieve if the movie was handled differently. The characters are all confronted with opportunities to do the wrong thing and we see how they fare with their various choices. The main character is a well-respected eye doctor who is experiencing difficulties with his mistress of two years (a poor choice from the past). His effort to deal with this "problem" leads to the extreme example of poor choices. Other characters choose to have affairs which are shown in various levels of detail; some we witness, some we just hear about. Ironically, the second worst thing that happens to someone in the movie occurs when the Rabbi goes blind. He speaks out for making the right choices but receives no apparent reward in return. Is this possibly a suggestion that God, in his mercy, sometimes makes wrong choices? One individual, who we observe through the interesting perspective of documentary film clips, offers great wisdom and perspective and then makes the worst choice of anyone. There are other choices and other mistakes culminating with a finale that shows us that the only people who are happy are those who either shouldn't be happy or, as we can see, will soon be very unhappy with their latest choice.

The movie makes the case for some of the wrong choices that are made. At least enough of a case that we, the audience, must decide for ourselves. All this is assisted by excellent acting. It's not a movie for everyone. I started watching it with my 10 year old in the room. I'm not sure if he appreciated what he was able to see before it was his bed time. However, he did ask me the next day if the doctor's wife ever found out about his affair.

There is definitely humor in the movie, especially the glimpse of the documentary Woody Allen was making about his brother-in-law. That documentary was another example of a poor choice that was made. You would make a wise choice if you decided to watch this movie.