Woody Allen is a Playwright, Not a Director

Reminder that film is a visual medium and this man has never made anything visually interesting or stimulating in his entire career. His "films" are vehicles for words and characters, nothing more, they would work just as well on a stage.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FKr5LKsn428
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Was there a point to this post?

How can one pedophile look that Jewish?

>they would work just as well on a stage.
Purple Rose of Cairo absolutely could not work on a stage. You have outed yourself.

annie hall wouldn't

to remind you fools.

Annie Hall is good. The rest are just variations of it but that shouldn't take anything away from it.

>1 movie out of 80

yes it would

>making one or more movies per year

The mark of a hack

I LIEK MOBIE WIF BREDDY COLER

but plays have directors too. there's more to directing than deciding what the camera does.

Zelig wouldn't have worked on a stage either. That's two ;) want me to keep going?

No it wouldn't. The various jumps in time throughout the story couldn't be done on stage without rewriting the film a shit ton. Vafious visual gags also wouldn't work, such as Woody dressed as a steteotypical jew at the dinner scene.

This can apply to a lot of acclaimed directors but not Allen. Elia Kazan is probably most guilty of this.

Guilty? What exactly makes you think On the Waterfront is "guilty" of anything other than being a good fucking movie?

>Elia Kazan
He looks just like Mel Brooks.

>This can apply to a lot of acclaimed directors but not Allen.
prove it.

Nothing that visually impressive or inspired about it. He doesn't really try to exploit the strengths of the medium much. It's all about the story, characters and performances, which are also present on stage. Kazan got started in theatre and it shows.

Does it lessen the quality of the performances, the characters, and the themes because there's not enough pretty pictures in it?

he's a stupid drumpftard, just let him be

No, I'm just saying it would work just as well on stage, just like Streetcar did. Don't worry, I'm not accusing your old timey manly communist hating movies of being shit because they don't look like they were directed by Refn.

Could the huge brawl at the end of the movie be done on the stage? Answer me that.

Probably

Wrong!

the visual aspect of films is usually the least important and most overrated one
this

It goes: Intention > Theme > Dialogue > Visuals > Pacing (editing) > Sound > Plot

O.W.: I hate Woody Allen physically, I dislike that kind of man.

H.J.: I’ve never understood why. Have you met him?

O.W.: Oh, yes. I can hardly bear to talk to him. He has the Chaplin disease. That particular combination of arrogance and timidity sets my teeth on edge.

H.J.: He’s not arrogant; he’s shy.

O.W.: He is arrogant. Like all people with timid personalities, his arrogance is unlimited. Anybody who speaks quietly and shrivels up in company is unbelievably arrogant. He acts shy, but he’s not. He’s scared. He hates himself, and he loves himself, a very tense situation. It’s people like me who have to carry on and pretend to be modest. To me, it’s the most embarrassing thing in the world—a man who presents himself at his worst to get laughs, in order to free himself from his hang-ups. Everything he does on the screen is therapeutic.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Came here for this. I work with a guy that exemplifies this to a tee. It's pathetic.

This, the man has quite literally never made a film in his entire career.

>the visual aspect of films is usually the least important and most overrated one

>this man has never made anything visually interesting or stimulating in his entire career

Sleeper
Manhattan
Purple Rose of Cairo
Zelig
Radio Days
Midnight in Paris
Cafe Society

>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File
>Peter File

Isn't that *mostly* the same for Quentin?

>caring about future oven occupants
for what purpose

no?

Retard comment of the year right here

Woody Allen has not made one interesting movie. Prove me wrong.

through quick thinking, Allen married his retarded step-daughter to keep from going to jail for his child molesting past with the under-age, half-Asian Cretin girl

>Goes to see a movie, an inherently visual medium and says it's the least important and most overrated aspect of the medium.
Functionally retarded I see.

Really?

Did you never see Manhattan? Shadows and Fog? Matchpoint?

I know what you mean, but there are a number of his movies which have great sets and clever shots.

It is.

Broadway Danny rose
Stardust Memories
Zelig
Deconstructing Harry
are all worth a watch if you don't like his more serious "Hannah and her sisters" type movies

Crimes and misdemeanours is his masterpiece though and stands on its own regardless.

the one where the glasses distorts his view/changes the films theme or mood or whatever
i forget

that wouldnt work on stage or simple speach

HE'S A CHIIIIIIIILD MOLESTER

Nothing else needs to be said

You obviously haven’t seen Manhattan

Okay? I mean theatre>film anyway.

I don't really understand this.

He has directed movies, though. Characters are part of movies; words are part of dialogue which are part of movies.

I... don't get your criticism.

Not true. During the late part of his filmography he tried hard to make visually well crafted movies. But he just doesn't have the talent for. It's probably because he's jewish. Very few visual achievement movies have been directed by jewish directors. They probably have difficulties seeing visual beauty. A counter example could be Kubrick but he was completely atheist.

I'm not sure I entirely agree but Allen is a fucking unfunny hack and a criminal pedophile who will be a nice decoration on a street light when the time comes.

>Sup Forums calls you a playwright
>the only play you've ever written is Death Knocks
>it's never been performed
What did he mean by this?

>marries his victim
>damn, poetry in motion my friend, poetry in motion, indeed

Uh huh

youtube.com/watch?v=FKr5LKsn428