Review of Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) by Aslum K — 13 Aug 2010

God, I miss old Woody Allen (which, ironically is young Woody Allen, before he became a dirty old man).

HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (Woody Allen, 1986) takes place over the span of two years in the lives of three sisters, Hannah (Mia Farrow), the seemingly-perfect oldest, Lee (Barbara Hershey), the pretty middle child, and Holly (Dianne West), the unfocused struggling actress youngest child. They come from a show business family, as the mother (Maureen O?Sullivan) was a successful actress back in the day, and Hannah herself is an accomplished actress in her own right. Indeed, Hannah has a husband and several children (which her sisters don?t), organizes all family events, gives money to her youngest sister when necessary, and helps her parents cope with their own strained relationship. She?s the inspiration for her sister Lee, who herself is a recovering alcoholic, and in spite of all of Hannah?s strength and level-headedness, her husband Elliot (Michael Caine) lusts after Lee. Hannah?s only misstep, if you can call it that, was a previous failed marriage to Mickey (Woody Allen), a hypochondriac, impotent comedy writer, who goes through life making himself miserable, especially when he loses his hearing out of one ear, and discovers that he might possibly have a brain tumor. And when Hannah?s husband decides to act on his infatuation with her sister, the drama comes into play. Since it?s Woody Allen in his prime, it takes place totally in New York, draws from Ingmar Bergman?s FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982), and resolves all of its existential dilemmas with the wisdom of the Marx Brothers, as only Allen can (could) do.

The thing that strikes me about HANNAH AND HER SISTERS is that the title characters don?t drive the plot, in spite of the title. The two main plot threads really revolve around Elliot and Lee?s relationship, and Mickey?s existential crisis. What I like best about the former plot is how complex and layered it really is, when you think about it. In spite of being pretty, Lee has relatively low self-esteem, which causes her to envy Hannah, get into alcohol, and be drawn into relationships with two men who treat her as objects ? her existing lover, Frederick (Max Von Sydow), and then her new lover, Elliot, both of whom are older men that sort of take control of her, in spite of her better judgment. Lee never seems to think she?s smart enough nor strong enough to resist their advances or break free of them, which we find is actually the result, to a great extent, of being Hannah?s younger sister. Elliot himself falters in the face of Hannah, unable to live up to her perfection and yearning to be needed and or dominant in a relationship. Holly, for her part, suffers the same problem, feeling like the screw up in comparison to Hannah and resenting her being so strong and perfect. In fact, it?s interesting how Lee totally relents to everybody, whether it?s Hannah or the men in her life, while Holly just lashes out, never able to become her own person. The way the film interweaves these relationships and ties them all together is really impressive, and shows the level of intelligence and ability Woody Allen ? always a brilliant writer and director (even in his BANANAS (1971) days ? particularly had during this period of his career. I really like the way this film is put together, and marvel at how seamlessly he does it.

As for the latter story, it?s another example of the main thing I like about these Woody Allen movies ? his ability to ask deep, meaningful questions in a film and resolve them with wisdom and humor. Though I don?t think his answers here are as profound as they are in ANNIE HALL (1977), he comes to /a/ conclusion, take it or leave it, which does resolve that plotline nicely. These are the kinds of things that intellectuals think about all the time, oftentimes to their own detriment, and you rarely get the chance to explore them in real life, unless you?re talking to other intellectuals (who will usually give you a pretentious BS answer), or taking a philosophy class. Finally, the whole film resolves nicely and leaves you smiling, again, showing the craftsmanship of the story. Man, I really miss these kinds of movies, and I miss Woody Allen making them. At his best, he really is phenomenal, and it sucks that we?ll probably never see him making these kinds of movies again.

(Oh, and like ANNIE HALL, this movie also has a line that absolutely floored me with laughter: ?How the hell do I know why there were Nazis? I don't know how the can opener works!?).