Review of Deconstructing Harry (1997) by Ashby — 27 Apr 2006

I havn't seen too much of Woody Allen, I will admit. Especially considering how many films he has out there. In fact [i]Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex [/i]and [i]Annie Hall [/i]were the only two I had seen before this past week when I rented both the recent [i]Melinda and Melinda[/i] and '97's [i]Deconstructing Harry[/i].

Want the good news first or the bad news? Meh, let's get the good news out of the way. I have more fun writing about stuff that sucked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------.

[i]Deconstructing Harry[/i] was a masterpiece, and immediatly won a spot on my top ten list. Many Woody Allen fans like to scream and rave about Woody Allen himself, saying this film is the darkest and most cynical of his movies, possibly the most true to his self that he's ever made. And because Allen stays as best he can out of the limelight, his movies are the only means he has to voice his opinions and talk about his life. Blah blah blah. I don't care about Woody Allen, and I don't care about what this film says about his life, or how it compares to any of his other movies. All I care about is how it was one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Because I absolutly hate summarizing, I refuse to do so. And there isn't too much else I have to say. Stylistically it was perfect. The writing was superb and the acting was spot on. The editing was also very involved, which I enjoyed very much. As tension built and Allen's character, Harry Block, got more neurotic and/or involved in an uncomfortable conversation the editing became manic, cutting the dialogue up, skipping back and forth, very effective and it worked perfectly.

Even when the Harry Block came face to face with his characters (he's a fiction author, you see) near the end, and they illuminated on aspects of Block's real life that he never knew, it wasn't at all far fetch'd or out of place. I don't have much more to say. It was a very good movie. See it see it see it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------.

[i]Melinda and Melinda[/i] on the other hand. My oh my...

The idea behind this horrific piece of work is the question "Is life inherently a comedy or a tragedy?" In order to get the discussion around this question involved, Allen creates a rather flakey frame narrative where two playwrights (One comedic, One tragedian) debate over who's is more true to life. One other gentlemen with them gives them an anecdote (which we don't hear) and asks them if it's funny or tragic. They go off telling their stories.

The problems with this movie are numerous. The main problem is this: both stories are very very different from one another, and only a few plot elements surface in both at different times. The issue the movie is addressing now is not "Is life a comedy or a tragedy?" but becomes "What do certain writers add and change to situations to make them comedic or tragic?" and because we never hear the anecdote that both stories sprout from, we the audience have no base to see what the exact changes are.

Another issue I had was Allen cheated the actors of being able to play both stories. The comedy and tragedy each had their own cast of characters, except for the actress playing Melinda who was the same in both, which only seperated the two stories from one another more and more.

And Will Ferrel, in a disappointed turn, spent his whole half of the movie doing an awful Woody Allen impression while still caught up in his old SNL and Anchorman schtick. And because his physicality is so different from Allen's, Ferrel doesn't sound and act neurotic like the mousey Allen, but because he is so much taller and bigger he just seems like a pussy. Which doesn't exactly work.

But the biggest problem for me was that it's such a *great* idea, and to the film's credit it made me think. A lot. But not about the movie, but why it was so bad, and how it could have been so much better. The basis and idea behind the movie, again, is very intriguing. But no real parallels were drawn between the stories for the reasons stated above and so many more that the idea was not explored and illuminated on to the best of it's ability.

The movie just became a hybrid of a tragedy that wasn't too moving, and a comedy that wasn't all that funny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Just sayin'.