| Zelig | | Cast : | Woody Allen, Mia Farrow | | Director : | Woody Allen | | Studio : | Mgm/Ua Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Black & White | | Released Date : | July 15, 1983 | | DVD Released Date : | September 07, 2004 | | Language : | Unknown (Dubbed), English (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), Spanish (Dubbed), English (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | April 27, 2005 | | Summary | Allen Parodies Documentaries. His most unusual film. | Content
 | `Zelig', written and directed by Woody Allen, is a truly, truly odd and unusual film, even for Woody. On the surface, it is very similar to some of the early Woodman films like `Bananas' and `Sleeper', yet it was made after the very important `Annie Hall' and `Manhattan', which marked a change in Allen's movies toward a much stronger concern with characters and story.
One is almost inclined to describe this as a science fiction movie, the classic characterization of which is to set up a hypothesis of `lets imagine such and such is true' and lets see what comes of it. While the classic hypotheses of classic sci-fi are time travel, faster than light travel, colonization of other planets, alien intelligences, and unusual human and artificial intelligences and powers, `Zellig' simply hypothesizes a person who can change to fit the appearance and speech of those in whose company he happens to be. This ability is not limited to normal abilities of impersonators such as Rich Little. This includes changing skin color, gaining or loosing weight, and changing facial features.
All this could easily devolve into a convenient situation for making jokes, and there are jokes aplenty based on this odd premise, yet you still develop sympathy for Leonard Zellig, played by Allen, and his young psychiatrist, played by Mia Farrow. In fact, the acting by Farrow may be some of her very best in bringing this really bizarre material to life.
While my experience with watching movies is pretty broad, it is not exactly encyclopedic, so I am really hard pressed to think of any movie with which this film has any affinity whatsoever. The interspersed interviews with real, notable intellectuals such as Susan Sontag, Saul Bellow and Irving Howe are similar to interviews done in `Reds', the Warren Beatty work on the American journalist who covered the Russian revolution. It may be total coincidence, but this movie also stars former Allen costar Diane Keaton, so I'm thinking some cross-pollination may be going on here. This failure to find an exemplar that Allen is parodying is also strongly against form. Almost half of his movies that are not set in Manhattan are parodies of some other genre. I simply cannot imagine what genre Allen is playing against with this film.
While Allen is not adverse to very large casts (See `Annie Hall', for example), he is typically not big on tricky special effects and photography, yet this movie is a major essay in very subtle, yet very good special effects which place Allen and Farrow into documentary films of New York parades, 1920's jazz performances, and films of Adolf Hitler in Germany. And, this is all done with only a few additions to his most familiar collaborators such as cinematographer Gordon Willis and editor Susan Morse. He does bring in an important composer to do new songs to simulate some early thirties popular music written to celebrate the popular `chameleon' Zelig'.
While one may ultimately not warm to the improbability of the situation, this movie is probably a landmark in Allen's body of work, staking out a direction and genre that few other filmmakers would take on. Remarkably, in the same work, Allen remains true to the reality of human frailties with his stock company of collaborators while creating an essay in filmmaking that rivals some of the more unusual films of the last century.
Like most Allen movies, I give it high marks for rewatchability, even if you must stretch just a bit to appreciate the unusual premise. The consolidation is that there are probably more jokes per segment than any of his films since `Annie Hall'.
|
| Rating | | | Date | March 12, 2005 | | Summary | The importance of just being yourself | Content
| Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), the human chameleon, just wanted to be liked. This he does by changing his personality, even his race, into the same as whomever he's with. Set in the 1920s-early 30s, using vintage newsreels and a technical device that allows Allen to become part of the old reels, the story of Zelig unfolds. A psychiatrist (Mia Farrow) tries to cure him of his problem, which she does; they fall in love, but then all kinds of charges, from polygamy to fraud are brought against Zelig. He escapes (disappears) to Germany but returns to America when Farrow tracks him down. Lots of people were disappointed with this and other Allen comedies of this period because they weren't the all-out angst-filled pictures of the 70s. But Zelig is quite an achievement in its own right. There are some funny, typically Allenish lines and bits, and it's a neat little film on an important idea: being yourself. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 30, 2005 | | Summary | "Your pancakes... Your pancakes are terrible..." | Content
| This film is perhaps the ultimate in parody-documentary. Some people might find the pace a bit slow, and the humor a bit dry, precisely because it is presented exactly as it would be if it were an actual serious documentary about a real historical personage. It requires a bit more thought and attention on the part of the vewer than does a "conventional" comedy for that reason. At one point the narrator, in his best, serious, Public Television Documentary National Geographic Special voice, describes Zelig's parents and their violent domestic squabbles: "...Even though they lived over a bowling alley, it was the bowling alley that complained about the noise." This sort of thing could go right past you if you weren't really listening.
The reason this film works is that all of the supporting details are meticulous and perfect. All of the 1920's songs about Zelig (such as "The Chameleon Dance" and "You May Be Six People, But I Love You") are written and performed so perfectly in period style that I, watching it the first few times, could hardly believe that they were not actual, real (but obscure) 1920's songs that they found somewhere which happened to fit the movie theme, rather than being modern parodies of vintage recordings. (Speaking as a musician, I can vouch for the fact that that bright, Irish popular tenor sound which was all the rage back then is a rarity these days!)
And all of the film clips are just as carefully executed. I seem to remember, back when this film was just out, an article describing how Allen's production staff took just-shot black and white footage into the parking lot and threw it on the ground and walked all over it, and carefully crinkled the film, so that it would look worn and decades-old. Another tour-de-force was inserting Allen himself, playing the title character, into REAL period footage. The most famous example is a film of Hitler ranting away to a crowd on his Nazi platform, and seated behind him among all of the party officials is... Zelig. This was an amazing technical achievement at the time, long before digital cinematography had become commonplace, and it was brilliantly done.
And then of course, there are all of the present-day intellectual luminary talking heads being interviewed for their two cents, again, just like a true documentary. One that comes to mind of course is the (now late) Susan Sontag. I am sure that all of those "experts" had lots of fun filming this.
The subject of the documentary, Zelig, has an unusual mental/physical affliction due to insecurity. He literally, and physically, becomes just like whoever he is with, in order to blend in and be accepted. This offers the opportunity for plenty of sight gags as Zelig turns into different cultures, occupations, and races -- sometimes more than one at once! He is alternately exploited as a circus freak for profit, and attempted to be cured by his caring psychiatrist. He is alternately proclaimed a hero, a villain, a traitor, and a hero again by a fickle public. Zelig's exchanges with his psychiatrist are some of the funniest dialogue in the film. When she finally manages to get Zelig under hypnosis so that she can find out what the true, non-chameleon person inside really thinks, he launches into a (dreamy, trance-voiced) tirade about her awful cooking. I still joke with my wife to this day about her "terrible pancakes." [grin]
Those who are Woody Allen fans in general will of course probably enjoy this; people who like subtle wit and parody generally will probably enjoy this; people who habitually overdose on PBS and The History Channel but still have enough sense of humor left to laugh at themselves will probably enjoy this. If you prefer jokes with punchlines, or "Gilligan, drop those coconuts!" then Zelig is probably one to avoid.
And might I add in parting: If you have not yet read Moby Dick, don't wait until it is too late! |
| Rating | | | Date | January 08, 2005 | | Summary | If one seeks to be well-liked, one may sacrifice their soul. | Content
| How far would you go towards being well liked? Would you sacrifice your own identity? This is a deeply philosophical film, one in which it questions certain fundamental assumptions we make on a daily basis. When we're with others, we can choose to be quite similar to the person we're speaking with, or we can choose the path of self-reliance, and be our own man. In this bitter and ironic film, Woody Allen asks us the question -- what is our choice? Individualism or collectivism? To be a yes man is to give away one's identity -- with no apparent benefits. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 18, 2004 | | Summary | I've always loved this little gem of a film | Content
| Some critics said it was too long, and the joke ran thin. To me that describes Forrest Gump. Some critics thought it was a no-concept movie. To me that describes Forrest Gump. To me this is Woody as a virtuoso filmmaker, though not the sort that Tarentino is pegged. The film makes a very true point about fame, about nostalgia, and most of all about conformity in a world that's always proud to show off its nonconformity (note the opening montage about how this was "the jazz age") but which is at bottom hopelessly conformist. Forrest Gump, with its aw-shucks philosophy and cliche-embedded script, didn't dare tackle such issues. But this movie does. But if you don't GET them, as many critics didn't judging from the reviews, this film will to you seem too long. My biggest complaint is that maybe it's actually too short. I would have liked to see some of its themes explored more--admittedly tricky in the narrow confines Allen imposed on himself with his documentary structure.
Here Allen runs the range of tricks to film, but they're not computer tricks (exactly). To age his film he actually scuffs it. To achieve the sound of tinny 1920s sound he records his pop songs (wonderful parodies of the real music of the time) on authentic 1920s equipment. Most of all, in sort of a post-modernist irony that is currently so hip but was fresh in 1983, he features interviews with trendy intellectuals who both reinforce and parody their academic personas by appearing on camera. Admittedly some of the jokes try too hard to be clever and fall flat, but there are also some very clever bits, such as a sequence showing the rabid commercialization of Zelig ("Lenoard Zelig-approved chameleons for sale").
Unlike Spinal Tap, which was sometimes a little too broad in its humor (much as I love that movie) and unlike Bob Roberts, which gave us "offscreen" conversations we could plainly hear (from people who wouldn't be body-miked in real life) just to extend the narrative, this movie to me strikes the perfect of rabid satire and just-bare plausibility. I also find interesting some parallels to Woody's real life. For despite appearing indifferent to critical acclaim, despite snubbing the Academy to toot his clarinet during Oscar night, Woody is at bottom a filmmaker who very much wants to be accepted, loved, even revered. Despite being self-depricating and self-critical, he clearly has an ego the size of the Chrysler building. And at the time this film was made, it seemed he had just settled in, after swinging among several girlfriends, to the love of his life, Mia Farrow. Though that wouldn't last, I have to wonder how much the last scene in this film reflects his feelings towards Farrow at the time.
Unfortunately, Woody's DVDs tend to be skimpy on extras--director's commentary would be nice, or maybe a "how they did it" documentary. But Woody these days is about as socialable as a hermit crab. He's also not making films this good anymore. Pity, because no one else does comedy quite the way he does--or did. |
|
|
|
|
