"New York Stories" are three films from three directors, and not the least of them: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Woody Allen. What a premise! And what a disappointment!
Maybe there should have been more than the setting to connect the stories; don't we expect a New York story from Allen anyway? They could have been set anywhere else without damaging the overall effect, but the question is why an anthology from the three greatest directors of their generation, sunk so lamentably into oblivion? And I guess the answer is obvious: Coppola's segment sucked. And it sucked big time. This is the first time I even use the word in a review, but I think it is for the right film. Scorsese and Allen's segments are no masterpieces, but "Life Without Zoe" is the worst film ever made by Coppola. In a nutshell, "New York Stories" failed because of Coppola.
Have a quick look on its Wikipedia's page and compare the lengths of the three summaries. It's quite telling that the one in the middle is so thin. While Scorsese and Allen at least intended to tell us stories, you know, with characters, conflicts, with seemingly plots for Cinematic Gods' sake, "Life Without Zoe" is a lifeless, dull and shockingly thin film, relating in a fairy-tale format the adventures of a rich little girl, with her friends, and one obscure Arab Prince who speaks Oxford' English and still struggle to understand some basic words. Nothing much happens, which is acceptable for a character study or an introspective film, but "Life Without Zoe" can get away with such alibis. The film illustrates more of Coppola's nepotism (Papa Carmine composed the score, little Sofia wrote it and sister Talia starred in it) than any hint of the immense talent he once had.
And "Life Lessons" is what "Life Without Zoe" should have been: it doesn't have a specific plot either, but it's lively, it doesn't have many characters but each one carries a strong emotional force allowing us to connect with it. It features Nick Nolte as an abstract painter, facing a mental block three weeks before the exhibition of his works, he must finish a giant canvas, certainly what has to become his masterpiece, but somewhere he lost the inspiration. The fuel instantly comes when he invites to his huge studio, Paulette, Rosanna Arquette as his former lover and student. He's obviously infatuated with her while she rejects him because she knows she doesn't get what she wants: a true opinion on her talent. The story is a fascinating tale of mental and emotional influences based on the mentor/disciple and lovers' relationships, and it is a visually dazzling film featuring the creative process in its most compelling form.
Made of sensual movements of brushes caressing the canvas and more energetic uses of burning colors, we follow Lionel's movements while Scorsese maintains an interesting suspense on the final result. He plunges us into the beauty of art and the way it drains its best inspirations from our inner demons. It looks flashy like "The Color of Money" but the film borrows more from "After Hours" (starring Rosanna Arquette too), through the depiction of the artistic New York, a world made of venal interest and sincere passion, where talentless people use sex to fulfills their ambitions, and true artists translate the lack of it into their work. For Lionel, it's a mix of revolt, anger, passion and some rock'n'roll and sixties music highlighting Marty's talent to choose the right music for the right scene. Art fills art, and in forty minutes, "Life Lessons" stands alone among the highlights of Marty's career.
Woody Allens' "Oedipus Wrecks" is not his riskiest or most revolutionary project, it's a comedy about a banker who can't stand the interferences of his typical Jewish mother, in his personal life and her constant disapproval of all his decisions, why would he marry a blonde woman with three kids from another marriage (Mia Farrow)? Why does he keep whining when she shows his baby pictures to random strangers? Given the film was made after the serious streak of "September" and "Another Woman", it's fun to see Allen getting back to his roots. And the gags work, climaxing with a formidable twist when the mother suddenly disappears after a magical trick (you'd recognize the Zitar theme from "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion"). The way her disappearance is involved is smart, her reappearance is even more surprising, especially that it introduces Julie Kavner at her most hilarious.
What lacked in "Oedipus Wrecks" though is a satisfying ending; the last three minutes destroy the whole build-up. Surely, a screenplay with such a creative premise could have come up with a better conclusion, but it's like Allen was in a rush to finish the film, and threw away the most artificial and unsatisfying conclusion of his career. "Oedipus Wrecks" still benefits from the fact that it comes right after the horrendous "Life Without Zoe", and I suspect people would love any story coming after the plot less "Zoe". I wish "Zoe" wouldn't have existed if only to leave more room to the other films. I wish he could see Marty and Woody's films and look at "Zoe" and think "What have I done?" How can a man so capable of greatness like "The Godfather" let himself slipping that way? Hell, even his "Jack" is "The Godfather" compared to "Life Without Zoe". I even wonder if he didn't remove the last names in the opening credits out of shame.
I've got to hand it to Scorsese to outshine two great directors and make a truly original piece of art, I wish Allen could make a worthy ending to a very promising comedy. And I simply blame Coppola for having ruined a great project. My advice: skip the second segment, start with the third, finish with the first, and it'll be fine.
Maybe there should have been more than the setting to connect the stories; don't we expect a New York story from Allen anyway? They could have been set anywhere else without damaging the overall effect, but the question is why an anthology from the three greatest directors of their generation, sunk so lamentably into oblivion? And I guess the answer is obvious: Coppola's segment sucked. And it sucked big time. This is the first time I even use the word in a review, but I think it is for the right film. Scorsese and Allen's segments are no masterpieces, but "Life Without Zoe" is the worst film ever made by Coppola. In a nutshell, "New York Stories" failed because of Coppola.
Have a quick look on its Wikipedia's page and compare the lengths of the three summaries. It's quite telling that the one in the middle is so thin. While Scorsese and Allen at least intended to tell us stories, you know, with characters, conflicts, with seemingly plots for Cinematic Gods' sake, "Life Without Zoe" is a lifeless, dull and shockingly thin film, relating in a fairy-tale format the adventures of a rich little girl, with her friends, and one obscure Arab Prince who speaks Oxford' English and still struggle to understand some basic words. Nothing much happens, which is acceptable for a character study or an introspective film, but "Life Without Zoe" can get away with such alibis. The film illustrates more of Coppola's nepotism (Papa Carmine composed the score, little Sofia wrote it and sister Talia starred in it) than any hint of the immense talent he once had.
And "Life Lessons" is what "Life Without Zoe" should have been: it doesn't have a specific plot either, but it's lively, it doesn't have many characters but each one carries a strong emotional force allowing us to connect with it. It features Nick Nolte as an abstract painter, facing a mental block three weeks before the exhibition of his works, he must finish a giant canvas, certainly what has to become his masterpiece, but somewhere he lost the inspiration. The fuel instantly comes when he invites to his huge studio, Paulette, Rosanna Arquette as his former lover and student. He's obviously infatuated with her while she rejects him because she knows she doesn't get what she wants: a true opinion on her talent. The story is a fascinating tale of mental and emotional influences based on the mentor/disciple and lovers' relationships, and it is a visually dazzling film featuring the creative process in its most compelling form.
Made of sensual movements of brushes caressing the canvas and more energetic uses of burning colors, we follow Lionel's movements while Scorsese maintains an interesting suspense on the final result. He plunges us into the beauty of art and the way it drains its best inspirations from our inner demons. It looks flashy like "The Color of Money" but the film borrows more from "After Hours" (starring Rosanna Arquette too), through the depiction of the artistic New York, a world made of venal interest and sincere passion, where talentless people use sex to fulfills their ambitions, and true artists translate the lack of it into their work. For Lionel, it's a mix of revolt, anger, passion and some rock'n'roll and sixties music highlighting Marty's talent to choose the right music for the right scene. Art fills art, and in forty minutes, "Life Lessons" stands alone among the highlights of Marty's career.
Woody Allens' "Oedipus Wrecks" is not his riskiest or most revolutionary project, it's a comedy about a banker who can't stand the interferences of his typical Jewish mother, in his personal life and her constant disapproval of all his decisions, why would he marry a blonde woman with three kids from another marriage (Mia Farrow)? Why does he keep whining when she shows his baby pictures to random strangers? Given the film was made after the serious streak of "September" and "Another Woman", it's fun to see Allen getting back to his roots. And the gags work, climaxing with a formidable twist when the mother suddenly disappears after a magical trick (you'd recognize the Zitar theme from "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion"). The way her disappearance is involved is smart, her reappearance is even more surprising, especially that it introduces Julie Kavner at her most hilarious.
What lacked in "Oedipus Wrecks" though is a satisfying ending; the last three minutes destroy the whole build-up. Surely, a screenplay with such a creative premise could have come up with a better conclusion, but it's like Allen was in a rush to finish the film, and threw away the most artificial and unsatisfying conclusion of his career. "Oedipus Wrecks" still benefits from the fact that it comes right after the horrendous "Life Without Zoe", and I suspect people would love any story coming after the plot less "Zoe". I wish "Zoe" wouldn't have existed if only to leave more room to the other films. I wish he could see Marty and Woody's films and look at "Zoe" and think "What have I done?" How can a man so capable of greatness like "The Godfather" let himself slipping that way? Hell, even his "Jack" is "The Godfather" compared to "Life Without Zoe". I even wonder if he didn't remove the last names in the opening credits out of shame.
I've got to hand it to Scorsese to outshine two great directors and make a truly original piece of art, I wish Allen could make a worthy ending to a very promising comedy. And I simply blame Coppola for having ruined a great project. My advice: skip the second segment, start with the third, finish with the first, and it'll be fine.