Manhattan (1979) - A divorced New Yorker currently dating a high-schooler brings himself to look for love in the mistress of his best friend instead.
*************************************************************************************************
Reviewed by John Lincoln. Please check out his blog:
Follow him on twitter @JohnLinkMovies
*************************************************************************************************
Top 250 #246
Year of Release: 1979
Director: Woody Allen
Cast:
Woody Allen – Isaac
Diane Keaton – Mary
Michael Murphy – Yale
Mariel Hemingway – Tracy
Meryl Streep – Jill
Manhattan is said to be one of the great intellectual comedies of the 70′s and, perhaps, of all time. With the new high def transfer of this beautifully shot black-and-white New York film, I thought it was time to give it a look. SOME SPOILERS BELOW.
The exteriors in this are certainly a glimpse into someone who loves New York City for its beauty and splendor as well as its bruises and congestion. The opening moments provide brief glimpses of the city acting as part of a thematic narrative while Allen’s character provides voice over of his new novel’s various attempts at a first chapter. It gives the film a sense of place, and a sense of history.
I’ve heard this called ‘a love letter to New York’ which I am pretty sure is just what any critic says whenever a person from a city shoots a film which takes place in that city while also featuring that city extensively in pictures (and in the title, in this case). I would argue that while Allen does indeed love Manhattan, and he wants to showcase its beauty, the characters presented in the film do not paint the city in a particularly great light.
The action revolves around his Issac, who is in his 40s, and the pieces of two separate love triangles. One involves Issac’s relationship with a 17 year old named Tracy, played by Mariel Hemingway, and someone more his own age, Mary, played by Diane Keaton. The other love triangle concerns Mary, Issac’s best friend Yale (Michael Murphy) and Yale’s wife (Anne Byrne). The acting in this is extraordinary, and that does not even include Issac’s ex-wife played by Meryl Streep. Everyone’s work is top notch.
The problem is that most of the characters are not particularly likable. They cheat on each other, try to one up each other, look down their noses at each other, talk about how attractive they themselves are, and generally make a mess of each other’s lives. While this is certainly not out of the ordinary for real life, the passive disdain shown for each other doesn’t make the characters anyone you want to root for (nor did it make me say ‘Wow, I want to live there and hang out with those people!’). Tracy is really the only exception, though she is played with such naivete that her case seems hopeless (until she makes the right decision at the end). But the fact that Woody Allen plays a man in his 40s trying to convince an 18 year old girl that they are truly in love, and that she should stay with him in New York rather than going to London for college, does not paint Allen in a good light. Especially when you consider what happened in his personal life a decade and a half later with Allen marrying his ex-girlfriend’s adopted daughter. In fact, while much of Manhattan has to do with love trumping things like age, sexual prowess, money, or societal standards, the story told made me feel like the basic guidelines we follow should be followed, rather than making me feel like I need to question my assumptions.
All the things Issac says throughout this film about why he needs to end it with Tracy are all true! He convinces her that she needs to be on her own and experience life as a young woman by herself. Until the end, these scenes are the most endearing scenes Issac has. But then he screws it all up by saying he was wrong. No he wasn’t! I am not trying to suggest that these romances can never work, but I don’t leave this movie feeling like it will work out for Issac and Tracy. I feel, instead, like Issac would be a detriment to Tracy’s future.
The intellectual conversations are well written, and there are many very funny moments. Some of the best are silent moments, such as when Issac drags his hand into the water while on a romantic boat ride with Mary, only to come up with an arm covered in mud. The direction is very good. The shot selection is very good. The black-and-white looks great (except for a museum scene where you can hardly see what is happening). This is an odd film to score in that I respect the direction, think the acting is some of the best I have watched in a long, long time; but I think the message of the film is atrocious and pessimistic. The writing itself is tough to consider. On one hand, the dialogue is playful and witty and bountiful. On the other, the situations and decisions made are frustrating.
I’m very glad I finally watched this, if only for the performances of Keaton and Hemingway. But it’s not an experience I can say that I fully enjoyed, and I don’t hold this film in the esteem some others seem to.
The music, all Gershwin all the time, is perfectly suited for this film. Allen does a nice job of arraigning it. The music, like the city of New York, is a nearly tangible part of the experience.
Another great entry, thanks for introducing me to John Link Movies.
Thanks for reading!
Bringing people together, thats what I do
I’ve never rated as highly as critical opinion either–Annie Hall did much better. And yes, I couldn’t help thinking of Allen’s romantic history later when I rewatched it a few months back.
Thanks again for this John. Always nice to see a guest review that isnt a 9 or 10 rating! Never seen many Allen films myself, although I did like Midnight in Paris
Yeah, I could have gone a little lower perhaps. I don’t ENJOY this movie as a 7 out of 10, but I RESPECT it probably more than a 7 out of 10. If that makes any sense.
LOL – yeah kind of! Seems a fair score. Thats what I decided with Blade Runner
Great example. I got Blade Runnered out in film school. Every professor I had thought it was the epitome of spectacular filmmaking, only none of them could agree on which version we should all watch.
Yeah I reviewed it (with Eric) on here and he loved it a lot more than me. As do most people. Yet I still gave it a 7, it just wasnt the masterpiece (to me) everyone else seems to think it is.
Yeah. That would make for a really great Face-Off. One of those which could almost be community-wide.
Speaking of which… I need to get on Innkeepers ASAP…
Yeah I’ve thought of that, but I dont like losing and thats pretty much a losing battle. Also I dont dislike it as such……which is what the face offs are all about.
And yeah, whenever you can, no rush
Great review John. I’m a little light when it comes to Woody Allen but I do intend to catch up with his stuff so I’ll add this to the list.
Thanks! I need to see some of his new stuff. I hear Midnight in Paris (as Tyson referenced) is spectacular.
I’m guessing you are not a Baby-Boomer. (That is not at all an insult, by the way.) This movie was critically-acclaimed at the time of it’s release, but was also shunned by many Woody Allen fans (the vast majority of whom were Boomers) because they suspected he was casting aspersions on their generation (which, of course, he was.) But he did capture, for the most part, the general narcissism and self-absorption which had become ubiquitous among the upper-middle class Boomers of the time. The peace, love and understanding of the ’60′s had degenerated into empty sexual trysts, weekly appointments with personal psychiatrists, alcoholism, and empty self-aggrandizement. Their Gen-X progeny generally paid the price through broken middle class homes, emotional neglect, and a latent hatred of their parents. I was born at the tail-end of the Boomers, and witnessed it all. Allen’s “Manhattan” is, in part, a masterpiece because it juxtaposes the beauty of Manhattan with the emotional ugliness of many of its denizens, whose lives are as empty as the canyons formed by the high-rises in which they live.
Cheers,
Bill
Thanks for the feedback Bill!
Yeah, I certainly came to this as someone born a few years after it was made. So my take is not one which considers the context of the film’s release as much as someone who lived through it. I would agree that Allen’s point was to call out baby boomers. I might argue that he thinks the city may be as much a part of the problem as anything. For all the beauty he shoots, he also shoots some of the rough edges. Similarly, the people are beautiful (I would argue that Allen, for all of his self-deprecation, still thinks of himself that way) but the personalities are ugly.
It is interesting to think of Allen thumbing his nose at the boomers when you consider his personal life. If this was made as a cautionary tale about falling into that sort of life, he certainly did not heed his own warning!
I agree that this is a masterpiece of film, I’m just not sure I really LIKE it. Again, great feedback. Better written than my article in fact
Woody Allen has made some of my favorite movies … and some of my least favorite movies. He has made movies I admire, but can’t like, and movies I love that no one admires (Bananas being a prime example of that). This one falls right in the middle for me. Worth watching, once, but probably not going on the favorites list. Great review.
Thanks! One I like that noone else does I his musical. I think that’s just due to the star power though.
This was my first introduction to Woody Allen and I think this remains one of my favorite movies by him. I can understand your opinion though. Nice review.
Yeah, I understand why it is so highly respected. It i certainly we’ll made!
Nice article! I haven’t seen this (I actually haven’t seen most Woody Allen films though).
I need to see more of his stuff too. Thanks for reading!
Nice piece. I agree with you, John. There are so many good things but I just don’t hold it in the esteem other do. It’s probably the unlikeable characters. Love the cinematography and music, though.
For me it definitely starts and ends with the characters. I understand why he did it the way he did it, but it doesn’t make me like t any more.
Great review! I agree with you – it’s very stylish in terms of camerawork, dialogue and score, but I do remember feeling a little uneasy about the relationship between Allen’s character and the young girl. That said, I think it’s a beautiful film. Great review : )
It sure does look pretty, right? Thanks for reading!!
Woody Allen is one of the best at painting great images of New York City, so much so that it almost is another character in each movie he shoots there. Nice review.
He certainly has an eye for NYC. So does Scorcese, but in a very very different way
Great job, man! made for a nice read = )
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Nice one, enjoyed reading it as it’s my favourite Woody Allen film (although would have enjoyed reading if that wasn’t the case!!!). The opening is one of my favourite beginnings to any film, a brilliant marriage of music and image.
That opening really tells you that you are going to see a well considered movie. It sets the tone perfectly!