Ryan McNeil
It’s rare that a movie can be seen as both a love letter and a requiem, but that’s precisely what Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN is. Expressed so poetically by the one of the greatest opening sequences in film history, this movie wants to tell us about a story so precisely set in an unmistakable city. It just so happens, that it’s also set in a city that no longer exists.
Like many of Woody Allen’s early work, the story is about a neurotic protagonist (as usual, played by Allen himself), and his attempts at getting a grip on his relationships with women. This time out, our hero Isaac is divorced from Jill (Meryl Streep), dating young Tracey (Mariel Hemingway), and smitten with Mary (Diane Keaton). Challenges abound of course, namely in the fact that Jill is writing a tell-all about their marriage, Tracey is seventeen, and Mary is having an affair with his married best friend. Isaac doesn’t live his life so much as he ricochets through it…but then again, such is the price to pay for being a New Yorker.
Life in a big city – and in New York most of all – means expressing your private thoughts in very public settings. People fall in love in subways, they break up on street corners. Friends catch up in crowded delis, and they argue on park benches. Woody Allen understands this and indeed sets more than half of the films most intimate moments in rather exposed sections of the city that never sleeps. However, while life in a metropolis means living it on-the-go, every once in a while a moment of serenity presents itself – and in MANHATTAN, the moment is a sunrise silhouette in front of The Queensboro Bridge.
The relationship between New York and New Yorkers is of course at the heart of the film, but it is first and foremost a film about the relationships between New Yorkers themselves…and it’s here where the film is starting to show a bit of wear. For starters, at the core of the story is a story which is inappropriate at best, and downright icky for many. Isaac is 42 and Tracey is 17. Sure, many might have turned a blind eye to that in the 70’s, but nowadays it doesn’t play so well. It’s a pity really, since much of the themes could have remained intact had Tracey been even 21.
The only other detail of the film I could have done without is the staging of the conversation between Isaac and Jill in the planetarium. The dialogue is enticing, honest, and alluring…but it’s set against celestial murals, and shot to create rim-lit silhouettes. The effect is a scene that feels to self aware as to its importance, and as such I found it too obvious. It’s a pity too since the conversation during these moments is sharp, and had it been shot any other way I would have been all over it.
Interestingly, most of the time when the characters of the film are trying to understand and sort out their lives, the camera hangs back and lets them talk it out…sometimes not even including everybody within the shot. Had this style not taken a coffee break for the planetarium sequence, the film would have won me over even more than it did.
Flaws and all, I did indeed love MANHATTAN…and I curse myself for taking so long to have seen it. Gloriously shot in black and white, with many moments scored by some of George Gershwin’s finest work, it is a ballad dedicated to the heart and soul of Gotham…well to what Gotham once was, anyway.
Indeed, the city Woody Allen wrote about no longer exists. It has been gentrified, homogenized, sanitized, and Disneyfied. At one point in the film while watching a historic building get gutted, Isaac says that the city is really changing. Well if he thought that was change, I wonder what he’d even recognize the city to come sixteen years later.
New York was different animal in the days of the film. Tougher, dirtier, more dangerous, and more passionate. Nowadays, tourists rule the roost in Times Square and the crowd at Yankee Stadium doesn’t cheer quite so loud. It might be more appealing for the population on the whole, but the cost in character would easily leave people like Isaac and Mary waxing poetic on the loss of their city’s soul.
New York might still be around, but MANHATTAN is gone.
But Ryan, Is It List-Worthy?… Absolutely. The jokes are still funny, the photography is still inspiring, and it still makes you want to jump a Greyhound on the Hudson River Line. This is one of cinema’s gems, and easily the greatest New York movie ever made.
Excellent review, of course I wouldn't know because I've never been to NY [aaargh]. This is sort of classic Woody, though it's not my favourite of his by any means. But I'm a big fan of any thing Woody, and this film IS a definite goodie, it's strange how it's become less remembered.
You are absolutely right about Manhattan (the place, the movie as well). It has completely changed. Some things for worse (like the millions of tourists who don't have a clue where they are going and keep stopping in the middle of the road, arg!) but some things for better…like the safety. It is a relief not to have to be scared walking around (pretty much any time, anywhere). Manhattan itself has become a lot less interesting and a lot of the fun things are happening in Brooklyn and Queens. And obviously the prices are so high that no normal human being can live in Manhattan. But there is no real reason why you should anymore as well.
The movie is great but somehow all of Woody Allens early work is kind of mixed up in my memory…a lot of them are so similar.
I love Manhattan. No one can write a better love letter to New York better than Woody Allen. While sometimes a little too self-aware of its usage of B&W, it's a gorgeously shot film with a witty script and brilliant performances. Especially from Allen. He's so underrated as an actor, y'know?
Wonderful review. Reading this makes me want to visit NYC, artificial tourist attraction or not. I was born there, but I was mainly raised in a sunny CA suburbia, so naturally, I miss a bit of the urban flair.
I totally agree with you about the Planetarium shot. It just bothered me. I think had it been a complete silhouette, the idea of a classic, cheese-filled romance would have been amplified and the grandeur of love in NY Allen was trying to get across would have been brilliant. As it was, however, there were parts of the scene not lit and there was a giant bar of shadow across where their faces were. Sort of sloppy, I think.
I just went to New York City for the first time this past Friday, and you're right- it's not the same city he tries to glorify. It's commercial and overdone.
Great review! Thanks for reading mine as well.
I just watched this today, and still haven't formulated a real opinion on it. I usually like Allen, but wandered in and out of care for the characters and their story. Who knows what'll change by the time I do my writeup tomorrow.
Great writeup though.
By the way, when do I get my Moon review? or do I have to stand outside your house and picket? 😛
@ Andrew… Put it on the list of places to see. I fear that the generation of film that this film belongs to is becoming less remembered…younger enthusiasts seem to have a decreasing zeal for the classics.
@ Vanessa… In many ways things needed to change, but I believe NYC could have upped the cleanliness and safety without losing so much of the character. And I hear you with mixing up Woody's early work – the fact that he stars in most of 'em doesn't really help much, does it?
@ Marcy… Allen is as much a part of New York as The Number Six Train or CBGB's. It's no surprise that someone so intrinsic to the city would craft such a wonderful New York Story.
@ Mistress… Glad you agree, though I'll wager there are movie enthusiasts who would call us both crazy for not getting it. Guess it's one of those things that comes with watching the movie so long after it achieves its classic status.
Hope you enjoyed your trip!
@ Univarn… Looking forward to your piece, sounds to me like you need to stew on it a little bit.
I'll be renting MOON shortly, stay tuned.
Yeah, NYC is the #1 Tourist Spot in the nation. Tourists do not really bother me. I'm a tourist in other countries – I know what it feels like to be in their traveling shoes.
I kinna like that the city changes; it's part of its survival. Even when Woody was filming MANHATTAN during the 70s, he was trying to channel a NYC that no longer exists: the golden age of jazz and B&W.
Great review, by the way.