Sonic Cinema

Grade : A+ Year : 1979 Director : Woody Allen Running Time : 1hr 36min Genre : Comedy, Romance

Because of his one-film-a-year clip, I’m still, very much, scratching the surface of Woody Allen’s long career of comedic neurosis. That’s especially true of his work before 1994’s “Bullets Over Broadway,” which was my first film of his. Since that film, I’ve watched most of his films during the past 20 years, but haven’t really delved into much earlier. (I did make an exception for “Annie Hall,” though. After all, it beat out “Star Wars” for Best Picture.) However, with a weekly column where I look at older movies, it’s time to get caught up, and his 1979 film, “Manhattan,” seemed like a good pick.

With most of my exposure to Allen’s films being from the last two decades, it makes sense that I’ve never been head over heels for him as a filmmaker. Yes, there have been films I’ve loved of his (“Midnight in Paris,” “Bullets,” “Match Point,” and last year’s “Blue Jasmine”), but there have also been movies of his I’ve disliked, even hated (“Celebrity,” “Hollywood Ending,” “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion,” and sorry, I’m one of those who didn’t like “Everyone Says I Love You”). “Manhattan” represents my third “classic Woody” film, after “Annie Hall” and 1985’s “The Purple Rose of Cairo.” Those two were definitely in the “loved it” camp; would “Manhattan” keep the streak going?

The answer is, unequivocally, yes. In fact, I would say it’s the best film of Woody’s I’ve seen yet. As with many of Allen’s films, it’s a look at love from many different angles. Yes, it focuses in on Isaac, Allen’s character, but as with all of Woody’s films, it’s a genuine ensemble effort, with performances by Meryl Streep, Diane Keaton, Mariel Hemingway, and Michael Murphy that help round out the film in wonderful little ways, breathing life and vitality into Allen’s words and color to the film, even though it’s shot in beautiful black-and-white by “The Godfather’s” Gordon Willis. This is one of the smartest, most emotional films of Allen’s career, and that emotion is a big part of it’s success.

Look at the character of Isaac. When the film starts, he’s in a relationship with 17-year-old Tracy (Hemingway, who deservedly earned an Oscar nod for the role); he’s 42, so there’s a big difference in life experience between the two. (There’s also a big opportunity to discuss Allen’s real romantic life, but I won’t be going there.) It’s obvious that he cares about Tracy, and likes how the relationship makes him feel, but there’s also an obvious disconnect between the two. And make no mistake: it’s all on Isaac’s end, even if he doesn’t like to admit it. He’s always talking to his friend Yale (Murphy) about how he knows Tracy needs to move on, even though it’s obvious that Tracy is genuinely in love with him. But he doesn’t see a future with her, so when an opportunity arrives for Tracy to study in London, he’s sees a way out. But he frames it as being “the best for her,” even though he is really looking out for himself, because he’s fallen in love with Mary (Keaton, a delight, as always). Tracy’s reaction to his breaking up with her says it all. Believe me– at times during “Manhattan,” Isaac isn’t really the hero of the film, and Allen, much to his credit, doesn’t try to paint it that way as a filmmaker. He plays it honestly, and gives the women the stronger roles emotionally. But at the same time, he doesn’t really judge Isaac– other characters do (like Yale, who starts the film having an affair with Mary, then breaks up with her, only to realize he still loves her after Mary and Isaac start seeing each other, and Isaac’s ex-wife (Streep), who’s writing a book about their relationship), but he just observes him, his reactions, and let’s the character come to his conclusions by the end. Are they the right conclusions? I think so, but others might say otherwise. Unfortunately, they might have been made too late.

With so much of the story being about love, however, why did he title it “Manhattan?” The reason for that, I think, is because it’s as much of a love letter about Manhattan, and the city it was at the time (and remains to this day), as it is about love in general. The opening sequence says it all, as we hear Isaac, a TV writer who is trying to write a novel, try and work out the opening to his book as Willis’s camera takes us on a tour of Central Park at dawn, with Gerswin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” playing on the soundtrack. Throughout the film’s 96 minutes, Allen takes us on a tour of the city, as Isaac goes to iconic locations on his emotional journey, many of which are accompanied by Mary. Allen finally moved away from Manhattan in some of his later films (London in “Match Point” and “Scoop;” Barcelona in “Vicki Cristina Barcelona,” Paris in “Midnight in Paris”), but his one, true love will always be New York. (Remember his appearance on the 2002 Oscars, post-9/11?) He’s started to make his way back in some of his more recent films, and I can’t wait to see what more he has to say about the city, even if he doesn’t say it as well as he did with “Manhattan.”