Do you think WOODY ALLEN is a good actor?

[Kieran_Frost]

I just watched Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) last night, and once again I found I just couldn't really "get into the film", because of Woody Allen's performance. There is something about his acting that I feel is false (despite the fact he's mostly just playing himself). As a writer I think he's brilliant, his dialogue, his stories are all wonderful. As a director he's very good. But as an actor...

So far, I have seen four of his performances. I didn't like him in Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) but luckily he wasn't in it that much. The same is true of Crimes and Misdemeanors. I couldn't even finish Annie Hall (1977) because I found him so immensely annoying and unlikable. Oddly, I do enjoy him a lot in Antz (1998). Go figure.

So why is this? Do other people have this same problem? I think I've narrowed it down to three possibilities (and in all likelihood it's a combination of the three)

Can I enjoy his work, knowing what he did in real life? I know we shouldn't judge actors based on that, but I can't see Woody Allen and NOT know that. Plus, Crimes and Misdemeanors has some VERY awkward dialogue now-a-days, between him and a 14 year old, talking about how her father "wanted me to teach you the ways of the world." Boy does THAT sound very inappropriate, based on later events! Maybe it's because his characters are so similar to him? And so in many ways, his characters ARE the man who married his "daughter".
Or maybe it's because all he ever does is play the same character (himself) over, and over, AND OVER again. And maybe I just don't like that character, therefore I don't like any of his performances (since they are the same character).
Or maybe it's because he's really unattractive to look at. I know, I know, that's a terribly shallow thing to say. I don't need actors to be flawlessly gorgeous individuals. But we have to watch this guy for close to 2 hours. I'm sorry, but he's NOT "easy on the eyes." This is a visual medium after all. As I said, Antz is my favourite of his work, I can't "discount" the fact it's animated, and therefore we don't see his face. BUT this could be, as an actor, his voice is strong, but his facial acting is weaker? Or his physicality?


Anyway. Does anyone like his work, love his work, hate his work (obviously this is mostly geared towards his performances, not his directing or writing).

[worstblogever]

No.

The guy's witty, can write, direct with the best of them... and even in my favorite film of his, Annie Hall, he's just playing a quirky neurotic in every movie. Which, some would say is his natural state of being.

Playing yourself really shouldn't merit recognition. Writing and presenting a great story to audiences? I'll give you ups for. Even if your personal life kinda weirds me out.

[Kieran_Frost]

Playing yourself really shouldn't merit recognition. Writing and presenting a great story to audiences? I'll give you ups for..
Agreed. I mean he gets some WONDERFUL performances out of other actors. Most of his ensemble do some truly wonderful work with his scripts, treading the fine line between comedy and drama (he's directed at-least 5 people into Oscar winning performances, maybe more). As a writer he's one of the best. Agreed. I would love to see a Woody Allen script directed by someone else (and obviously not have Allen in the lead role). I think that would truly be something incredible to behold.
:smile:

[meethraa]

He's very good at playing the character he developed in his standup, which for me definitely constitutes good acting, albeit with a limited range.
I don't he's just being himself in front of the camera (not that I would consider that ""bad acting" either) it's more like a very exaggerated version of an archetype he helped popularize.

[KET]

Does anyone like his work, love his work, hate his work (obviously this is mostly geared towards his performances, not his directing or writing).

I enjoy Woody's direction prowess more than his acting, which has always been all of one type. Even his animated role in ANTZ was basically the same neurotic persona he always inhabits. And I think Allen also realizes this, which probably explains why he's chosen to retire from acting in his films moving forward.

[shadowsetaq28]

Yes it is.
Ever saw: " Manhattan 1979 " Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuU6XU0_Gfs)

How about: " New York Stories 1989 " , " Small Time Crooks 2000 ", " Antz :Z: " " Sleeper 1979 "

Dunno about you guys but his there with the best of 70's-80's.

take the money and run (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHOgkDbVqc)

[kalorama]

Nope. He only ever plays one character, and that character is interpreted by most to pretty much be Woody Allen. Now, that may or may not be true (and even if it started out that way, he's likely long since outgrown it), but it's hard to give him too much credit as an actor when he's shown zero range. Also, since he writes his movies around that character, he has free rein to avoid anything that might actually challenge whatever acting skill he does have. Plus, he's not even the best actor to play that character. John Cusack played a much better, more entertaining version of him in Bullets Over Broadway than Allen had in years at that point.

[shadowsetaq28]

Nope. He only ever plays one character, and that character is interpreted by most to pretty much be Woody Allen. Now, that may or may not be true (and even if it started out that way, he's likely long since outgrown it), but it's hard to give him too much credit as an actor when he's shown zero range. Also, since he writes his movies around that character, he has free rein to avoid anything that might actually challenge whatever acting skill he does have. Plus, he's not even the best actor to play that character. John Cusack played a much better, more entertaining version of him in Bullets Over Broadway than Allen had in years at that point.

I still like him. :wink:

[Danvh3]

Not a good actor, but a good director. The Sweet & Lowdown is one of my favorite films.

[KET]

I still like him. :wink:

Same here; it's just that Allen's acting wasn't the key reason I've gone to see his films in the first place. In some aspects, his later character roles were becoming a bit of a non sequitur (such as in Scoop).

However, I'm definitely looking forward to Woody's latest, You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger. He always manages to corral a terrific cast.

[The Black Guardian]

I cannot stand any of his work: neither the writing, the directing, nor the acting... none of it. And this was before Soon-Yi, so...

[shadowsetaq28]

I cannot stand any of his work: neither the writing, the directing, nor the acting... none of it. And this was before Soon-Yi, so...

Why

Won 3 Oscars. Another 84 wins & 87 nominations

Manhattan is best movie 2 Oscars, 13 wins & 15 nomination even best foreign movie Japan Academy.
Hack he impressed the biggest Academies.
Reasons.:eek:

[rick]

He was excellent in The Front, a film that he neither wrote nor directed.

Granted he plays one type of character, but he plays it well.

[The Black Guardian]

Why
Boring characters. Boring situations. Nothing funny. Everything annoying.

Doesn't really matter to me who gets an award.

[shadowsetaq28]

Anyway Woody rules.

[mgs]

I voted the second given choice, but he's as accomplished a screen writer and director as an actor. But also combining the choices, yes, what he's done in his personal life has made it hard for me to enjoy his work now.

[GRANT!]

I don't know if he even thinks of himself as an actor. He pretty much tries to avoid acting in his movies in the past couple of years. I think he only acted in 3 of his last 10 movies.

He's a good comedian and he definitely created a distinctive persona (how much of that is really him I don't know).

[marshal99]

Woody Allen - perv. Good director like Roman Polanski but .....

[Kieran_Frost]

Won 3 Oscars. Another 84 wins & 87 nominations
Manhattan is best movie 2 Oscars, 13 wins & 15 nomination even best foreign movie Japan Academy.
Hack he impressed the biggest Academies.
But he's NEVER won any major award for acting (which is what we are talking about). I don't think anyone here is denying his contribution to cinema, or his talent for writing.


Nope. He only ever plays one character, and that character is interpreted by most to pretty much be Woody Allen. Now, that may or may not be true (and even if it started out that way, he's likely long since outgrown it), but it's hard to give him too much credit as an actor when he's shown zero range. Also, since he writes his movies around that character, he has free rein to avoid anything that might actually challenge whatever acting skill he does have.
I completely agree with this. It's his writing and directing (mostly). You would think he could work on pushing past his "comfort zone" and trying something new (in his acting). Try a character who isn't like him (or an exaggerated persona of him). I suppose the arguement could be made that he KNOWS he can't do anything else, and as a good director, won't "cast" an actor wrong for a role (even if that actor is himself).


I don't know if he even thinks of himself as an actor. He pretty much tries to avoid acting in his movies in the past couple of years. I think he only acted in 3 of his last 10 movies.
Most of his "most famous work" he's the lead actor (or one of them). Agreed, he's recently turned away from that; but he's still been the lead in 80% of his work.

[jesse_custer]

I don't really think of Woody Allen as an actor. Odd, I know, when one considers that he has starred in many of his own films. I believe his presence in Annie Hall and so on is important, depending on the film. Not so much the sole performance, though. In a way, you have to conceptualize Allen as many things and judge from there. The case is similar with other director/writer/actor combos like Alejandro Jodorowsky, Francois Truffaut, Quentin Tarantino, etc.

A question to consider: Is Alfred Hitchcock a good actor?

I say no, and I also say it doesn't matter because Hitchcock's random appearances make his movies more fun and humorous. Just as Allen's performances complement his writing and direction, Hitchcock's appearances complement his direction. Without these things, both directors would lose a significant amount of style.

[Kieran_Frost]

In a way, you have to conceptualize Allen as many things and judge from there. The case is similar with other director/writer/actor combos like Alejandro Jodorowsky, Francois Truffaut, Quentin Tarantino, etc.
No, you don't. Woody Allen acts in his films. He can be judged on that acting regardless of any other element. The "why" doesn't make his performance better or worse. It might "justify" it more (maybe), but it doesn't improve the choices his character makes, or the tactics he uses to achieve his goals. It doesn't make his character more honest. It doesn't make his character arc that he's built more profound.

You do NOT have to "conceptualize" Allen to comment on his acting.


A question to consider: Is Alfred Hitchcock a good actor?
I say no, and I also say it doesn't matter because Hitchcock's random appearances make his movies more fun and humorous.
You are right, Alfred Hitchcock is NOT a good actor. :wink: Personally, I find his "cameos" is his movies annoyingly distracting, and what do they add? A little ego stroking? Maybe one brief moment of "farce" (if that). I would much rather he kept himself behind the cameras. Same with M. Night Shamalyan. Or Stan Lee's awful "cameos" in the Marvel movies.

The only good thing that came out of Hitchcock's "cameos" is the amusing "cameo" in the stage play the 39 Steps (done with shadow puppets, very clever).


Just as Allen's performances complement his writing and direction, Hitchcock's appearances complement his direction. Without these things, both directors would lose a significant amount of style.

I would actually argue Allen's writing is much more suited for other actors, to deliver some of their best work; rather than himself. Think of all the wonderful performances in his films. The best ones I mean. Are any of them Allen's? I think all his films would have been improved had he got a really talented actor for the "lead neurotic role" rather than casting himself. Imagine how amazing that would have been?
:smile:

[jesse_custer]

I just think that one tends to like Woody Allen as a whole or not much at all in many films. For example, you can't properly enjoy Annie Hall if you don't accept his acting, writing, and directing because it's all neurotic and it's all him.

[Siddon]

He was fantastic as a comic actor in Zelig, Sleeper, and Love and Death. When he makes a film that goes "meta" I find his characters really work when he goes serious in drama/comedy/romance it's very meh. But you wouldn't say Charlie Chaplin is a shitty actor because all he did was the tramp.

[kidfresh512]

No.

The guy's witty, can write, direct with the best of them... and even in my favorite film of his, Annie Hall, he's just playing a quirky neurotic in every movie. Which, some would say is his natural state of being.

Playing yourself really shouldn't merit recognition. Writing and presenting a great story to audiences? I'll give you ups for. Even if your personal life kinda weirds me out.

I totally agree. To be considered a "good actor" imo you have to have some variation and be believable. If all your characters are completely interchangeable movie from movie are you really doing anything?

[jesse_custer]

You are right, Alfred Hitchcock is NOT a good actor. :wink: Personally, I find his "cameos" is his movies annoyingly distracting, and what do they add? A little ego stroking? Maybe one brief moment of "farce" (if that).

Yeah, he is not a good actor. And it doesn't matter, as I said, because the purpose of the appearances has little to do with acting.

Hitchcock had a pervasive sense of humor. This is apparent in his appearances, filmmaking, and interviews.

[jesse_custer]

I totally agree. To be considered a "good actor" imo you have to have some variation and be believable. If all your characters are completely interchangeable movie from movie are you really doing anything?

Humphrey Bogart wasn't that versatile, but he knew how to deliver dialogue better than anyone--even those who were and are more versatile actors.

Delivery counts in acting, not just versatility.

[Kieran_Frost]

Yeah, he is not a good actor. And it doesn't matter, as I said, because the purpose of the appearances has little to do with acting.
Hitchcock had a pervasive sense of humor. This is apparent in his appearances, filmmaking, and interviews.
But it DOES matter. A moment of bad acting in any film, MATTERS! And one that is forced upon every film MATTERS! I don't care why he did it, I care that I'm taken out of the film because "oh look, there's the director in his bad-acting cameo". Hitchcock was not going for a Brechtian style of film making, he wanted the audience immersed in the story. Which is why any moment that screams "hey look, it's just a movie" would probably not aid his films. There are times it matters less. In the Birds (1963) his cameo happens at the very start, when the film is very much on a light-hearted, comical trends (since he had experience in romantic comedies). So his "amusing" (sort of) cameo was not entirely inappropriate. But in Psycho (1960) a movie that is NOT about farcial "tongue in cheek" moments, it detracts. By forcing a cameo in 99% of his films, he's basically saying "I don't care whether it goes with the film or not, I like to do it." That is NOT a good example of how a director should behave.


Humphrey Bogart wasn't that versatile, but he knew how to deliver dialogue better than anyone--even those who were and are more versatile actors.
Delivery counts in acting, not just versatility.
Humphrey Bogart is still a lot more versatile than Allen; and did (on occasions) take a role that DID push him passed his "comfort zone". I don't feel his drunk, ill-mannered captain in the African Queen (1951) shares too many similar traits to his smooth, cool, deeply wounded Rick Blaine in Casablanca (1942). Do you?

[jesse_custer]

No one was saying that Bogart was as versatile as Allen, who has no versatility.

But in the grand scheme, Bogart isn't that versatile, and when he's not playing a smooth character, he is usually not as interesting.

[3rd lvl Mage]

He plays the "neurotic jew" in every movie he's in.

[jesse_custer]

That is NOT a good example of how a director should behave.

Which is why it's funny and appropriate, honestly. Hitchcock was all about challenging people.

[Kieran_Frost]

No one was saying that Bogart was as versatile as Allen, who has no versatility.
But in the grand scheme, Bogart isn't that versatile, and when he's not playing a smooth character, he is usually not as interesting.
If you didn't want Bogart's versatility compared to Allen's, why then did you use him as an example of "lack of versatility not mattering"? :wink: If you wanted to make a stronger case for "allowing" Allen to lack range, you should have suggested another actor who also has NO versatility. Humphrey Bogart's performance in the African Queen (1951) is argueably one of his most famous, along with the Maltese Falcon (1941) and Casablanca (1942). So he's not the first actor I would think of when mentioning "lack of versatility". ALSO, Bogart wasn't writing his own scripts. When the studios needed his "smooth, man's man" they cast him because that's what they wanted. He would have had far less control than Allen in changing or shaping the role to be something other than "what he always does". And even with that restriction in mind, one of his most memorable roles is vastly different from his "standard work." The same is not true of Allen, who had everything at his disposal to grow as an actor, to risk "failing" in trying something new. He didn't. That is not the work ethic of a good actor.

As a writer Allen DID take risks. He did write scripts others weren't, and write stories that were not always similar in tone and outcome to his early work. As a writer he took risks, as an actor... he did not. If that makes sense?
:smile:

[Hoss]

I kind of agree that you can't separate the acting from everything else he does on a film - the nearest I can describe films like The Mighty Aphrodite or Annie Hall are ensemble one man shows. The story and situations come so deeply from Woody and ultimately all the stories are about him (in a meta sense). What we see on screen are Woody's anxieties and interests and feelings and fantasies.

The guy spent 30 years in psychoanalysis and is widely quoted that he did it for that long partially because it feeds his work.

So, the way I would describe him is as a great comedic performer with lots of talent and his own brand of charisma. And he can play his own feelings and emotions as he's put them down in a script.

But how would he be as an actor working a range of roles with somebody else's scripts and direction? I have no idea. My guess is that he'd be extremely limited but we really don't know - he's only done it a handful of times and the characters he's played for other people were still "Woody."

I do find it interesting that his best received and critically acclaimed movies of the past decade, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Match Point, weren't set in New York and had no "Woody" character in them.

[Hoss]

But in the grand scheme, Bogart isn't that versatile, and when he's not playing a smooth character, he is usually not as interesting.

a charming man's man - that was his bread and butter.

Though there are some differences in the kinds of roles they excelled in, I'd say Bogart had Harrison Fordish range. Ford is at his best in roguish dramatic action roles (Indy and Han), very good at authoritative dramatic action roles (Jack Ryan, Air Force One), and just serviceable in everything else.

[jesse_custer]

If you didn't want Bogart's versatility compared to Allen's, why then did you use him as an example of "lack of versatility not mattering"?

I don't mind a comparison between Bogart and Allen in terms of versatility.

However, as I pointed out, I wasn't equating the two. Rather, I was trying to point out that a reknowned great actor doesn't have that much versatility, thus indicating that delivery--and, potentially, other factors--is another important aspect of acting.


a charming man's man - that was his bread and butter.

Though there are some differences in the kinds of roles they excelled in, I'd say Bogart had Harrison Fordish range. Ford is at his best in roguish dramatic action roles (Indy and Han), very good at authoritative dramatic action roles (Jack Ryan, Air Force One), and just serviceable in everything else.

A good comparison.

[KET]

But in the grand scheme, Bogart isn't that versatile, and when he's not playing a smooth character, he is usually not as interesting.

Totally disagree. Humphrey Bogart is a perfect example of 'an actor's actor' who could usually elevate the stereotyped contract roles he was often required to play. Claiming that he's simliar to Woody Allen's one-note characters is no comparison, and an insult to Bogart's immense talent. You simply haven't exposed yourself to enough of Bogie's versatility from the man's deep movie catalog.

Go buy or rent The Treasure of Sierra Madre and/or High Sierra for starters; he's not playing a 'smooth character' at all in either of those. And We're No Angels is about 180 degrees away from the stereotyped Bogie image as well.

[jesse_custer]

Again, I wasn't equating Bogart to Allen in any way (refer to my comment that one should not look at Allen as an actor--otherwise, you kind of miss the point). And I have watched plenty of Bogart's films, and I tend to think his performances in films like Casablanca, The Big Sleep, etc. are his best work.

[KET]

Then your comment literally makes no sense, as Allen started out as a stand-up comedian, and Bogie got his start in the threatre playing dramatic characters. And merely name-checking a couple of Bogie's best-known films doesn't prove any overall familiarity with his oeuvre.

[jesse_custer]

I don't see what doesn't make sense.

I said Allen should be taken as as a director/writer/actor, if anything.

I said Bogart is most effective in certain roles (not an original idea, I know) and, therefore, isn't that versatile. Now, perhaps you would like to dispute this claim by bringing up more examples?


Go buy or rent The Treasure of Sierra Madre and/or High Sierra for starters; he's not playing a 'smooth character' at all in either of those. And We're No Angels is about 180 degrees away from the stereotyped Bogie image as well.

Haven't seen We're No Angels.

[kalorama]

I don't know if he even thinks of himself as an actor. He pretty much tries to avoid acting in his movies in the past couple of years. I think he only acted in 3 of his last 10 movies.

I'm pretty sure that has less to do with him not thinking of himself as an actor and more to do with the fact that, given his age and the aftermath of the whole Sun-Yi thing, he finally realized that audiences were getting creeped out by watching him get it on onscreen with women less than half his age.

[kalorama]

I said Allen should be taken as as a director/writer/actor, if anything.

That's true. But it could also be taken as an prima facie argument that he's not a very good actor, because if he were then his acting would be able to stand on its own. But because it's so inexorably woven into his writing and directing, it also becomes dependent on them to a degree where it can't really work without them.

[Monty_Cristo]

He plays the "neurotic jew" in every movie he's in.

Larry David's better