Woody Allen's 1978 film Interiors is a very good film and as always with Allen, the dialogue is the best part. I didn’t connect with the characters as much as you’re generally supposed to with this type of film. Occasionally, it failed to really focus on any of the 4 main characters, instead it drifted back and forth between them. Many films have succeeded with balancing the story lines of multiple main characters, but this is not the case with Interiors. Although it could be argued that Geraldine Page is the central figure in the film, she isn't seen very often and we don't ever find out enough about her.
Additionally, it is heavily influenced by Ingmar Bergman. I often had trouble finding Woody Allen’s own style within this film, he seemed more focused on emulating Bergman. His influence is obvious in everything from the story to the cinematography and you can certainly tell how highly Allen regards him. Of course when one great film maker emulates another, it will most likely turn out to be a well made film, just slightly unoriginal. However, it lacks many key elements of Woody’s own personal style that I really wish he hadn’t sacrificed for this film. My guess would be that after spending the last decade doing straight comedies, he wanted to prove to his critics that he could handle a 100% humorless film, and to that extent, he succeeded. He later references this quite a few times in another great film of his, stardust memories, when fans and critics alike insist on mentioning that they preferred the “funny” films. I think Interiors can definitely be considered a precursor to one of Allen’s best films, Hannah and Her Sisters. So far I’ve seen 25 woody Allen films, and Interiors is currently my #10.
4/5
This is a problem with many people when speaking about films.
ReplyDeleteIt's like when some reviewers will say a director couldn't decide what genre it was.
That's small thinking.
Does a director have to fit into a genre?
This is why it's so hard for artistic filmmakers, to take creative risks, at all.
Americans get stuck in expecting a filmmakers 'style'.
Why?
I love when I see directors taking risks.
Doing something different.
I remember when he started exploring more dramatic films.
And audiences, faux critics complaining as they were expecting comedy.
That's such a narrow , un cultured American mindset.
This is where most American audiences fail, as well as reviewers.
This should be reviewing 101.
Everyone should go into a film completely 'cold'.
As if you have no expectations, know nothing about the filmmaker, the actors,etc.
As if you know nothing about filmmaking,acting,etc.
It opens up ones mind.
Deciding ahead of time what you expect from a film, what you think a film has to be , that there has to be a clear protagonist, a plotline,etc.
That's what's wrong.
Because certain people, film studies classes, reviewers,etc. tell you this is what a movie should be, doesn't mean that's true.
Same with this review, saying you had trouble finding Allen's style in the film.
Does he have to stick to whatever the public decides is 'his style'?
What makes him a great filmmaker is that his style has constantly changed.
He takes risks.
Was this heavily influenced by Bergman?
Yes. Is something wrong with that?
There'a difference between someone just copying,and someone being influenced.
Allen clearly admits he's been heavily influenced by Bergman.
And 'Interiors' was the first that he started to explore that area.
Maybe he didn't want the audience to connect with the characters, as the characters were not connecting with each other.
Maybe that was intentional.
When one opens themselves up to not knowing anything, it frees them to see everything