Final Draft Midterm Paper

Carrie Stula
03/23/10
English 312 Midterm Thesis Paper

Throughout the duration of this course the class has discussed the comparison between what is considered art or an artist. By definition the word “artist” is described as: One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artist) There are some contemporary artists such as Leonardo DaVinci who are considered artists without debate, yet Jackson Pollack or Andy Warhol’s styles are more readily questioned as to whether they should be considered art. These two artists revolutionized modern art, but at the time many believed that their work was art, it was experimental and creative but could not be put in the same category as DaVinci or Renoir. This examination could be applied to Woody Allen and his films; do Allen’s repetitive neurotic/egotistical personality types constitute him as a great director. Also, the question of his personal life and the negative media attention has tarnished his image and it could be argued that it affected his work and his audience.
A director is a person who visualizes the screenplay, controlling a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of his or her vision.Picasso said “Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” Throughout this semester we have seen how Allen’s works reflect the works mimick the literary works of Dostoevsky, Freud, and Fitzgerald. Also we have seen the slap stick of Keaton and Marx shown in his early work this raises another question is Allen considered an artist or a thief? Does he rip off those that he admires or does he pay homage to them? What is Allen trying to convey to his audience, is he trying to convey anything at all? Is his work just a way of living out his fears and desires or is he truly trying to send an original message.
In an interview with Time Magazine Allen is asked who he has stolen from; Allen confidently answers with: Ingmar Bergman, Groucho Marx, Buster Keaton, and Fellinni he says that he is a shameless thief. This statement does not prove that Allen is not an artist or a thief it merely proves that Allen admits who has inspired him. When Allen worked on his first dramatic film Interiors it was widely criticized, and was almost a complete replica of Ingmar Bergman’s film Autumn Sonata. They share similar cimematic attributes (lighting, shot design, and editing) and the complex characters are apparent in both films. Allen’s film was not widely received his audience wanted him to stick with his comedy roots. Allen had yearned to make what he thought of as a “European” film preferably in the monastic style of Ingmar Bergman said Allen. (Cardullo page 428). Why does Allen mimick Bergman’s film, both have similar characters and share a central theme: maternal domination.(?????)
When Allen first became a director his successes were in comedy, he is considered to be the creator of the romantic comedy. Allen is credited with creating the loveable loser; meaning that a regular unattractive male lead was created. In an industry where any dominant character male lead has to have the looks of Carey Grant or Humphrey Bogart for any role, even if the character being played would seem unrealistic played by a Carey Grant type it was the norm in Hollywood. The character created by Allen was that of an intellectual, he explored existentialism, nihilism, Freud’s unconscious and his sexual desire (no matter how perverse). It could be said that Allen revolutionized cinema, not in a standard directorial way but by characters that were created, his casting. The film that he is most notably recognized for is Annie Hall. It seemed as those critics enjoyed his comedies and were widely more accepted by his audience. The physical comedy that is shown in his films resemble Chaplin and Keaton. This shown in his mockumentary Zelig,( the chameleon man) and in Play it Again, Sam. If you were to draw parallels not just in Allen’s homage to Chaplin but in life it would be surprising to find how similar their lives are.
Charlie Chaplin and Allen share a similar start in show business and it could be argued that Allen mimicked Chaplin; He (Allen), too, began in the movies with inexpensive comedies that were just funny. He, too, won a considerable following -- though nowhere near as large as Chaplin's -- and he, too, began to be adopted by intellectuals who appreciated his deft humor. Like Chaplin, he seems to have accepted their judgment that being "just funny" wasn't sufficient, and like Chaplin he made the crossover to "more subtle" comedy in 1977 with his own "Kid," "Annie Hall." (Gabler page ) If you were to take a Freudian approach to this information it could be argued that not only did Allen borrowed from Chaplin’s comedy, he borrowed his life. Chaplin was eventually forced back to England because of his personal practices as Allen had been forced out of Hollywood because of his. In the words of Freud; “The conscious mind may be compared to a fountain playing in the sun and falling back into the great subterranean pool of subconscious from which it rises.” (page 1) So it could be argued that Allen’s love for Chaplin work could have led to his personal life being so similar.
The art historian has to account for many things when exploring a piece of art. The historian relies on psychoanalysis, iconography, symbolism, formal analysis, and semiotics. These functions are used to create and understanding of the work, to think critically about the piece. Art critic Clement Greenberg, who was the most influential art critic of the 1950s and 1960s, proclaimed Abstract Expressionism and Pollock in particular as the epitome of aesthetic value. It supported Pollock's work on formalistic grounds as simply the best painting of its day and the culmination of an art tradition going back via Cubism and Cézanne to Monet, in which painting became ever 'purer' and more concentrated in what was 'essential' to it, the making of marks on a flat surface. (Molyneux page) When Jackson Pollack started he was criticized for not doing anything but spilling paint on an all white canvas, the line and texture of the painting didn’t matter it was that minimal work (to the critics) was applied. There was no formal training applied to the paintings. What Pollack did was revolutionize a style of painting, he didn’t conform. Neither did Allen.
While other critics and newspapers at the time said the opposite. Such as art critic and satirist Craig Brown who was quoted as saying; "astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and Velázquez." The Reynold’s News headline in 1959 shouted, “ This is not art-it’s a joke in bad taste.” Luckily for Pollack the good press outweighed the bad and his talent led to a new artistic method “action painting” and he is now a staple in art history. Allen also created a new method applying to cinema the modern romantic comedy, an untraditional means to the conventional end in cinema. As stated before Annie Hall is the master of this concept but it is an ongoing theme in Allen’s work such as; Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Play it Again, Sam. Unlike Pollack, an alcoholic whose work far surpassed his personal dilemmas, Allen is now a very secluded personality. It has to be brought up that the publicity brought on by his relationship with Soon Yi hurt him professionally. Does this one act decide for the potential audience that Woody Allen is an artist? They are the critics, the ones who decide if his films fail or are successful, and his most current films have not been too bankable or critically acclaimed. The two most successful would have to be Match Point and Vicky, Christina Barcelona. His talent has not faltered, he is still writing and directing every year, and expanding his horizon as a director, so could it be that his personal choices affect his acceptance. The major difference between Jackson Pollack and Woody Allen is that Pollack’s personal life (as torturous as it was) didn’t affect his audience that way that Allen’s personal choice affected his. Is it right to judge someone for their personal choices or should the work stand for itself?
The pros of Allen’s work are that he gave an additional romance to New York, it always shown brutally honest through Allen’s lens. He created a romantic comedy that isn’t filled with fluff but deals with harsh realities: divorce, abandonment, loneliness, and suicide. His lead characters are cynical but likable and you feel yourself rooting for him, even if you don’t want to admit it.
In conclusion, Allen’s films are art. Depending on who is exploring the work, not one artwork has been accepted overall. But no one would argue that DaVinci is an artist, but Allen’s credibility in his artistic field is a matter of debate. Even with three Academy Awards (directing) and fourteen nominations in writing, his personal life has overshadowed his iconic talent. Sadly in situations such as these, time and death often lead to forgiveness. The American culture is very contradictory, built on a belief of “morals” and pop culture. Allen’s choices have affected his art and his audience. For one to say you have to separate the two; personal life and professional life would seem a bit ridiculous. Allen’s personal life is a major contributor to the work he makes. Film is his form of therapy, and it is his passion. Being a director, you want the audience to decide if they enjoy and agree on the work created. Once the door is open, the audience cannot/will not decipher between which world they are allowed to make judgments on; personal and professional. It’s one and the same to them.