list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Husbands and Wives on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Husbands_and_Wives/16411/default.aspx Title: Husbands and Wives
Year: 1992
Director: Woody Allen
Plot: One of Woody Allen's most seemingly biographical films, Husbands and Wives opens with upper-middle class Manhattan couple Sally (Judy Davis) and Jack (Sydney Pollack) announcing to their best friends, the Roths, that they are splitting up. Gabe Roth (Allen) and his wife Judy (Mia Farrow) are taken aback by their casual revelation. Jack begins dating his dim, but sexy, aerobics instructor and Sally starts up a tentative romance with Michael (Liam Neeson). Gabe and Judy begin analyzing their marriage, discovering that they might not be meant to stay together. English professor Gabe begins a serious flirtation with a student of his named Rain (Juliette Lewis) and Judy begins to have feelings for Michael. Eventually, Sally and Jack reconcile, but have not improved their relationship. Gabe and Judy end up going their separate ways. Husbands and Wives was seemingly influenced by Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From a Marriage. ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 2
Number of Lists: 15
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 06 May 2009 20:25:28 GMTHusbands and Wives1992Woody AllenOne of <a href="/players/P____79388/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Woody Allen</a>'s most seemingly biographical films, Husbands and Wives opens with upper-middle class Manhattan couple Sally (<a href="/players/P____17373/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judy Davis</a>) and Jack (<a href="/players/P___106775/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sydney Pollack</a>) announcing to their best friends, the Roths, that they are splitting up. Gabe Roth (Allen) and his wife Judy (<a href="/players/P____22809/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mia Farrow</a>) are taken aback by their casual revelation. Jack begins dating his dim, but sexy, aerobics instructor and Sally starts up a tentative romance with Michael (<a href="/players/P____52070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Liam Neeson</a>). Gabe and Judy begin analyzing their marriage, discovering that they might not be meant to stay together. English professor Gabe begins a serious flirtation with a student of his named Rain (<a href="/players/P____42230/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Juliette Lewis</a>) and Judy begins to have feelings for Michael. Eventually, Sally and Jack reconcile, but have not improved their relationship. Gabe and Judy end up going their separate ways. Husbands and Wives was seemingly influenced by <a href="/players/P____81548/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ingmar Bergman</a>'s <a href=/films/30211/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Scenes From a Marriage</a>. ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide2Slightly Tagged (1-5)1533http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t168056o22u.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Husbands_and_Wives/16411/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40699.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:44 PM
Body: Two more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:44 PMTwo more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/14/29104.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/14/2008 1:00:43 AM
Body: Husbands and Wives is one of Woody Allen's more interesting films, taking his usual themes and presenting with a new style. The concept should be very familer to the director's fans: the romatic intrigues of two married couples, with the seemingly stable marridge of Gabe and Judy (Woody Allen and Mia Farrow) and the just broken up pair of Jack and Sally (Sydney Pollack and Judy Davis). What alters the film from Allen's typical technique is that it is shot in documentary style, with shaky, handheld camera work, choppy cutting and interviews with the film's characters. This technique means that unlike most Allen's films, he does not editoralize as much as observe and report. We see what happens and the interviewer asks questions, but the character's accoutns are unreliable, we don't know what they are really thinking what the true analsis of the situation is. The fact that the characters themeseleves are often unsure what of what they want adds to the confusion. In a way, this techique is both the movie's strength and its weakness. It adds an extra level originality, but means that we never get involved with the characters as much we do in other movies. This does not mean that the film is totally cerebral and detached. I particurlarly got involved in the plight of Micheal (Liam Neeson), is put in awkward situation after awkward situation. Like the other characters, he doesn't know what he really wants, but is a little better at dealing with it and making choices. I would not say that this a top rate Woody Allen film on the level of Annie Hall or Interiors, but I would probably say that it's at the top of the second tier. It's one of his most unique and atypical, and certainly worth a look. Husbands and Wives (1992)
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 05:00:43 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/14/2008 1:00:43 AMHusbands and Wives is one of Woody Allen's more interesting films, taking his usual themes and presenting with a new style. The concept should be very familer to the director's fans: the romatic intrigues of two married couples, with the seemingly stable marridge of Gabe and Judy (Woody Allen and Mia Farrow) and the just broken up pair of Jack and Sally (Sydney Pollack and Judy Davis). What alters the film from Allen's typical technique is that it is shot in documentary style, with shaky, handheld camera work, choppy cutting and interviews with the film's characters. This technique means that unlike most Allen's films, he does not editoralize as much as observe and report. We see what happens and the interviewer asks questions, but the character's accoutns are unreliable, we don't know what they are really thinking what the true analsis of the situation is. The fact that the characters themeseleves are often unsure what of what they want adds to the confusion. In a way, this techique is both the movie's strength and its weakness. It adds an extra level originality, but means that we never get involved with the characters as much we do in other movies. This does not mean that the film is totally cerebral and detached. I particurlarly got involved in the plight of Micheal (Liam Neeson), is put in awkward situation after awkward situation. Like the other characters, he doesn't know what he really wants, but is a little better at dealing with it and making choices. I would not say that this a top rate Woody Allen film on the level of Annie Hall or Interiors, but I would probably say that it's at the top of the second tier. It's one of his most unique and atypical, and certainly worth a look. Husbands and Wives (1992) http://www.spout.com/blogs/p3x984/archive/2006/7/12/1885.aspx Post By: P3X984
Post To: P3X984 Blog
Post Date: 7/12/2006 2:08:25 PM
Body: To all of you who saw that embarrassing, border-line incomprehensible and hastily removed post from a while ago - I'm sorry for being weird about it and I hope this serves as an explanation of some kind. Officially "breaking up"(so-to-speak) a month after the fact is a weird, weird thing. But, good ultimately. i guess. No. It's good. It's completely terrifying and hard, but good and necessary. Closure is truly an amazing feeling, I've found. It was great to talk, and learn about scary new jobs and new long-distance boyfriends and other things I would have not missed out on knowing about if we weren't being so stupid. We talked everything out, and I could tell that it was a good conversation because I lost my appetite and wanted to cry. driving home and listening to a mix* I later found out was made for her by the new boyfriend before he headed home to LA, I kind of did a little. These were straight up hardcore over-the-top "I love you" jams that completely tore me up late 2004. Jams that I remember specifically putting on so many similarly themed tapes back then. By the end of Electrelane's "birds," a song that even under normal circumstances already totally slays me, I started to breakdown a little. It was like I was in this weird depressing time warp that instantly forced me to recall every other failed relationship and why it failed. It was such a terrible feeling. Oh and there was rain. Oh god, there was rain. "This sucks" we both agreed and like some sick cosmic joke, "I don't blame you" by cat power - cat fucking power - came on the stereo. I didn't absolutely lose it in the car, but walking up the steps to my apartment is a completely different story. Ever since I discovered it on PBS at like 430 in the morning on a saturday sometime in high school, every time something went wrong in a relationship - or not even wrong I guess, just not how I probably would have liked at the time - I would watch Casablanca. One year, at exactly the perfect time in my personal life, the late alpine 4 played a weeklong Bogart double feature of the Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. I watched Maltese Falcon only once, but I caught the showing of Casablanca every night that week. Time would stop when i watched Casablanca, i was enthralled. I think that I must have thought it was soothing somehow, but in actuality, watching Casablanca in any kind of romantically depressed state is about the worst idea of all time. Its torture, really. Like bashing your skull in with a large polo mallet, it only serves to make things worse. About a year ago, however, I realized the solution. Casablanca as romantic catharsis only works with a mandatory 4 hours of additional commentary: A screening of Casablanca followed by Woody Allen's Play It Again, Sam and Rob Reiner's When Harry Met Sally. Watching these films in this specific order makes a cinematic breakup mix tape (one that Beezy refers to as my "boner jams '03") that both reaffirms Casablanca's place and importance in the history of romantic film, but also completely cheers me up. Somewhere between "Here's looking at you kid" and "Don't fuck with Mr. Zero" I end up feeling pretty OK. The logic of this juxtaposition is clear in both chronology and influence. These films build upon each other. Play It Again, Sam picks up exactly where Casablanca leaves off - opening with nebbish film critic Allan Felix (Allen) watching the closing scene of Casablanca, mouth agape with situational lust. Play It Again, Sam references Casablanca so intensely that through much of the film Allan gets romantic advice from the ghost of Humphrey Bogart and eventually recreates the classic's closing scene as its own conclusion. "If that plane leaves the ground, and you're not on it with him, you'll regret it - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life." Allan tells Linda (Diane Keaton), the love of his life. "That's beautiful!" she cries. "It's from Casablanca." he says, "I waited my whole life to say it." And I completely understand how he feels. The problem with Casablanca as a romantic model, I think, is that it is a TOO perfect example of tragic love. An example that jerks like Allan Felix and I idealize too far out of proportion. I think I had seen a half dozen Woody Allen films before I saw Play It Again, Sam, but seeing this film was a completely epiphanous experience, and reaffirmed everything I loved about him at the time. Play It Again, Sam was the first film where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton shared the screen together (she had been previously cast in the play version of the story), but When Harry Met Sally is the direct descendant of their later work together, Annie Hall in particular. Screenwriter Nora Ephron clearly worships at the alter of Woody Allen, and has even appeared as an extra in a couple of his films.[1][2] Not only does When Harry Met Sally mimic Annie Hall thematically and formally (opening titles, score, split screens, the film is intercut with direct camera interviews, etc.) but I have always felt that Billy Crystal plays Harry like a more personable Woody Allen (Woody Allen-lite!). I can just imagine Nora and Rob directing Crystal to “Be more like Woody!!” (Apart from this sentence, right here, I will not attempt to make a connection between this opinion and the fact that not quite 10 years later Billy Crystal played the devil in Allen’s Deconstructing Harry. It’s a bit of a stretch, even for me.) For all of its similarity to Allen’s work, it shares a healthy obsession with Casablanca as well. The score consists mostly of a young Harry Connick Jr. covering jazz standards made popular by their inclusion in Casablanca, most notably As Time Goes By and It Had to Be You (a song awkwardly sung by Annie Hall in a bar on one of her earliest dates with Alvy). Another reference to the classic is made in When Harry Met Sally’s opening sequence (as Harry and Sally travel from Chicago to New York) and is then mirrored a decade later in the film’s chronology when Harry and Sally recall that conversation on the phone while actually watching Casablanca on late-nite cable. Though each is in their respective bedroom, the scene is mostly shot from behind in split screen, making it appear as if two are sharing a bed. Casablanca is a straight up weepy through and through. Play It Again, Sam recreates the same trajectory but lightens it up with some CLASSIC one-liners and the slapstick humor typical of Allen’s earlier work. Play It Again, Sam still ends sadly, but softens the blow along the way leaving When Harry Met Sally function as cleanup. It’s the part of the mix that makes everything OK. It takes the tragedy of the first two films, and spins it around with the kind of totally-Hollywood happy ending that I am an absolute sucker for. While the endings of Casablanca and Play It Again, Sam are more like real life (who am I kidding, it’s nothing that noble, Annie Hall is like real life), When Harry Met Sally provides the TRUE escapism necessary for this mix to work. It projects the (false?) hope that maybe someday something will work out alright, even if it takes 30 years to happen. And by six hours into the cycle, it’s this kind of hope that I need. Normally I watch these films back-to-back, but I started this cycle again a couple weeks ago and only got through Casablanca before I needed a break. I plan on finishing it after the potluck tonight. Maybe I should start the whole thing over again. Anyhow, I am so glad she and I finally got the chance to talk about everything that was upsetting us. And I’m pretty much over everything. I have obviously had a lot of time to think about this, and it was really just the acknowledgement that I needed. Now it won't be weird when see each other around town anymore and I think we will be back to being good friends in no time at all. I really look forward to that. *I'm trying super hard not to be catty about the new boyfriend thing, because that is totally not the classy way to go out. But I am reserving the right with regards to absolutely the most superficial thing: the mix tape. So superficial, in fact that it makes me a little guilty. The guilt and the cattiness cancel each out, right? Right? But Buena Vista Social Club?!? Are you kidding me? i mean we all love Wim Wenders, but come on, man. That’s what white people put on mixes to show how cultured they are. Well, now I feel like a jerk again and that makes everything seem alright, i guess. It’s the little things that reinforce the status quo. ps. mad shouts to nina for late night/early morning chats. even from berlin you still know exactly what to say.]]> Originally posted on:mixed feelings
]]>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:08:25 GMTP3X984P3X984 Blog7/12/2006 2:08:25 PMTo all of you who saw that embarrassing, border-line incomprehensible and hastily removed post from a while ago - I'm sorry for being weird about it and I hope this serves as an explanation of some kind. Officially "breaking up"(so-to-speak) a month after the fact is a weird, weird thing. But, good ultimately. i guess. No. It's good. It's completely terrifying and hard, but good and necessary. Closure is truly an amazing feeling, I've found. It was great to talk, and learn about scary new jobs and new long-distance boyfriends and other things I would have not missed out on knowing about if we weren't being so stupid. We talked everything out, and I could tell that it was a good conversation because I lost my appetite and wanted to cry. driving home and listening to a mix* I later found out was made for her by the new boyfriend before he headed home to LA, I kind of did a little. These were straight up hardcore over-the-top "I love you" jams that completely tore me up late 2004. Jams that I remember specifically putting on so many similarly themed tapes back then. By the end of Electrelane's "birds," a song that even under normal circumstances already totally slays me, I started to breakdown a little. It was like I was in this weird depressing time warp that instantly forced me to recall every other failed relationship and why it failed. It was such a terrible feeling. Oh and there was rain. Oh god, there was rain. "This sucks" we both agreed and like some sick cosmic joke, "I don't blame you" by cat power - cat fucking power - came on the stereo. I didn't absolutely lose it in the car, but walking up the steps to my apartment is a completely different story. Ever since I discovered it on PBS at like 430 in the morning on a saturday sometime in high school, every time something went wrong in a relationship - or not even wrong I guess, just not how I probably would have liked at the time - I would watch Casablanca. One year, at exactly the perfect time in my personal life, the late alpine 4 played a weeklong Bogart double feature of the Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. I watched Maltese Falcon only once, but I caught the showing of Casablanca every night that week. Time would stop when i watched Casablanca, i was enthralled. I think that I must have thought it was soothing somehow, but in actuality, watching Casablanca in any kind of romantically depressed state is about the worst idea of all time. Its torture, really. Like bashing your skull in with a large polo mallet, it only serves to make things worse. About a year ago, however, I realized the solution. Casablanca as romantic catharsis only works with a mandatory 4 hours of additional commentary: A screening of Casablanca followed by Woody Allen's Play It Again, Sam and Rob Reiner's When Harry Met Sally. Watching these films in this specific order makes a cinematic breakup mix tape (one that Beezy refers to as my "boner jams '03") that both reaffirms Casablanca's place and importance in the history of romantic film, but also completely cheers me up. Somewhere between "Here's looking at you kid" and "Don't fuck with Mr. Zero" I end up feeling pretty OK. The logic of this juxtaposition is clear in both chronology and influence. These films build upon each other. Play It Again, Sam picks up exactly where Casablanca leaves off - opening with nebbish film critic Allan Felix (Allen) watching the closing scene of Casablanca, mouth agape with situational lust. Play It Again, Sam references Casablanca so intensely that through much of the film Allan gets romantic advice from the ghost of Humphrey Bogart and eventually recreates the classic's closing scene as its own conclusion. "If that plane leaves the ground, and you're not on it with him, you'll regret it - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life." Allan tells Linda (Diane Keaton), the love of his life. "That's beautiful!" she cries. "It's from Casablanca." he says, "I waited my whole life to say it." And I completely understand how he feels. The problem with Casablanca as a romantic model, I think, is that it is a TOO perfect example of tragic love. An example that jerks like Allan Felix and I idealize too far out of proportion. I think I had seen a half dozen Woody Allen films before I saw Play It Again, Sam, but seeing this film was a completely epiphanous experience, and reaffirmed everything I loved about him at the time. Play It Again, Sam was the first film where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton shared the screen together (she had been previously cast in the play version of the story), but When Harry Met Sally is the direct descendant of their later work together, Annie Hall in particular. Screenwriter Nora Ephron clearly worships at the alter of Woody Allen, and has even appeared as an extra in a couple of his films.[1][2] Not only does When Harry Met Sally mimic Annie Hall thematically and formally (opening titles, score, split screens, the film is intercut with direct camera interviews, etc.) but I have always felt that Billy Crystal plays Harry like a more personable Woody Allen (Woody Allen-lite!). I can just imagine Nora and Rob directing Crystal to “Be more like Woody!!” (Apart from this sentence, right here, I will not attempt to make a connection between this opinion and the fact that not quite 10 years later Billy Crystal played the devil in Allen’s Deconstructing Harry. It’s a bit of a stretch, even for me.) For all of its similarity to Allen’s work, it shares a healthy obsession with Casablanca as well. The score consists mostly of a young Harry Connick Jr. covering jazz standards made popular by their inclusion in Casablanca, most notably As Time Goes By and It Had to Be You (a song awkwardly sung by Annie Hall in a bar on one of her earliest dates with Alvy). Another reference to the classic is made in When Harry Met Sally’s opening sequence (as Harry and Sally travel from Chicago to New York) and is then mirrored a decade later in the film’s chronology when Harry and Sally recall that conversation on the phone while actually watching Casablanca on late-nite cable. Though each is in their respective bedroom, the scene is mostly shot from behind in split screen, making it appear as if two are sharing a bed. Casablanca is a straight up weepy through and through. Play It Again, Sam recreates the same trajectory but lightens it up with some CLASSIC one-liners and the slapstick humor typical of Allen’s earlier work. Play It Again, Sam still ends sadly, but softens the blow along the way leaving When Harry Met Sally function as cleanup. It’s the part of the mix that makes everything OK. It takes the tragedy of the first two films, and spins it around with the kind of totally-Hollywood happy ending that I am an absolute sucker for. While the endings of Casablanca and Play It Again, Sam are more like real life (who am I kidding, it’s nothing that noble, Annie Hall is like real life), When Harry Met Sally provides the TRUE escapism necessary for this mix to work. It projects the (false?) hope that maybe someday something will work out alright, even if it takes 30 years to happen. And by six hours into the cycle, it’s this kind of hope that I need. Normally I watch these films back-to-back, but I started this cycle again a couple weeks ago and only got through Casablanca before I needed a break. I plan on finishing it after the potluck tonight. Maybe I should start the whole thing over again. Anyhow, I am so glad she and I finally got the chance to talk about everything that was upsetting us. And I’m pretty much over everything. I have obviously had a lot of time to think about this, and it was really just the acknowledgement that I needed. Now it won't be weird when see each other around town anymore and I think we will be back to being good friends in no time at all. I really look forward to that. *I'm trying super hard not to be catty about the new boyfriend thing, because that is totally not the classy way to go out. But I am reserving the right with regards to absolutely the most superficial thing: the mix tape. So superficial, in fact that it makes me a little guilty. The guilt and the cattiness cancel each out, right? Right? But Buena Vista Social Club?!? Are you kidding me? i mean we all love Wim Wenders, but come on, man. That’s what white people put on mixes to show how cultured they are. Well, now I feel like a jerk again and that makes everything seem alright, i guess. It’s the little things that reinforce the status quo. ps. mad shouts to nina for late night/early morning chats. even from berlin you still know exactly what to say.]]> Originally posted on:mixed feelings http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1475

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT124773361475Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7160

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1001

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT71601691001Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6790

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 977

]]>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:03 GMT6790154977Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriage/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT347167267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/divorce/MemberTagFilms.aspxdivorce
Number of films tagged: 1042

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 121

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:44 GMT104245121Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/man/MemberTagFilms.aspxman
Number of films tagged: 1310

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 40

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT13102640Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/extramaritalaffair/MemberTagFilms.aspxextramaritalaffair
Number of films tagged: 3121

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 31

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT31211831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/midlifecrisis/MemberTagFilms.aspxmidlifecrisis
Number of films tagged: 186

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 25

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:55:17 GMT1861625Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/poignant/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoignant
Number of films tagged: 22

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 24

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:26 GMT221024Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/matchmaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxmatchmaker
Number of films tagged: 160

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 8

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT16078Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pessimistic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpessimistic
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:01:21 GMT222Tag