Manhattan

Woody's prime. He followed up the incomparable Annie Hall with Manhattan, and it's even better in some ways. It retains his older man/younger woman theme, actually it might be the beginning of that. I suppose he was technically older than Keaton in 'Sleeper,' but that WAS different, eh? During these few years in the late 70's, Allen became a working legend. Manhattan was truly his masterpiece of this phase: romantic, beautiful, dramatic and funny. And true to life. I know a lot of people who feel that Woody is simply perverted, a wicked product of modernism. I think his films more deal with the struggle of his characters, whether or not to embrace their sick and questionable tendencies, than they obliquely expose their faults. He is cynical in one perspective, but entirely the opposite in so many others. In no film does his romantic side fruit so successfully, and along with it his HUMAN side, and along with that, his humor. This film's humor is a little dry and prudish, but it is appropriate for the thematic setting created by these particular characters. Woody has said, apparently, that he is not an intellectual, and that his references are usually works he barely knows. It comes off as austere bologna to many people, but its basis is much more proletariat than is often noticed. I can understand not liking Woody Allen, he is most definitely not for everyone. He can be dry and overly cynical, but many people fail to see his point behind his conceited CHARCATERS. Manhattan is a prime example of romance and substance under a mask of smug high society imagery. This film is about man who sees New York as a cradle of romantic ideal, and the New York he sees fits that glove, complete with turn of the century street lamps and sparkling skylines and magic patterns of ageless humanist architecture. Allen chooses not to show the dregs in this film, his character does not see that stuff. 'Manhattan' has a definite point of view, and it is acknowledged to not be realistic. Therefore his characters don't act realistically or even rationally since their perspective is so beautifully thwarted by their enlarged romanticism. Woody is a master, in my mind, but not necessarily of comedy, drama, or even romance. He is a master of HUMAN characters, and the wealth of humanity that he portrays often gets disassembled the wrong way. It can be taken as dry, urbane, modern skepticism. I think of this aspect of his films more as realism, as gall. His films are all more about the heart than they are the brain, and sometimes the libido gets major screen time. Manhattan is perhaps his best combination of all three, perfectly balanced. This isn't exactly hindered by the incredible B/W photography and lyrical acting. This is his closest to complete work, balancing reality with fantasy with the most success of any of his films. This isn't always the goal, of course, but Manhattan is both eye-candy and marrow-deep subject matter. Maybe his best.