Afew weeks ago, bored one evening and with a shortage of Hitler porn to watch
on the history channels, I dug out Mel Brooks’s 1968 “classic”, The
Producers, and watched that instead – anything for a late-night Adolf-fix. I
seemed to remember it contained only one decent laugh. But I had quite
forgotten the full panoply of sheer awfulness – the painfully witless jokes
telegraphed five minutes in advance; the excruciating, ham-fisted acting;
the histrionic gurning and mugging of Brooks himself. And, dear Lord, Gene
Wilder. It’s by no means the worst film Brooks has made: check out
Spaceballs or History of the World for an evening of perfect mirthlessness.
The Producers is one of his best, in fact. Imagine that.
It’s hard to believe, from this vantage point, that in the late 1970s there
was a debate in film circles as to who was the better director, Mel Brooks
or Woody Allen, with many critics tilted strongly towards Brooks. By 1979,
Allen had long escaped the exuberant, anarchic comedy of Bananas and Sleeper
and Play It Again, Sam, and seemed determined to make films that (a) were in
black and white, and (b) weren’t remotely funny. Interiors, in all its
well-mannered, boring gloom, had just been released to decidedly mixed
reviews. Brooks, meanwhile, had scored a critical and commercial hit with
the genuinely witty Hitchcock spoof High Anxiety – the only Mel Brooks film
you could watch today without gouging out your own eyes in misery. The
debate was posited as a sort of lifestyle choice. If you opted for Allen,
you were middle-class, pretentious, humourless, self-important. A vote for
Brooks meant you were sunny side up.
It was a false dichotomy, of course, and a grave insult to Allen, who, in the
1980s, managed for a time to square the circle and direct films that
succeeded in being amusing without being that terrible thing, that artifice
he had begun actively to despise: comedy. “I had the courage to abandon...
just clowning around and the safety of broad comedy,” he remarked, after
making the fine Annie Hall in 1977. Would you had been a little more
cowardly, some of us thought at the time. But, still, what we got during the
1980s was a succession of delightful films, several of which must count
among the best Hollywood movies of the past 50 years: Zelig, Stardust
Memories, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and
Misdemeanours. Yet with each successive film, the stuff that made you laugh
diminished in quantity until, in the end, you weren’t laughing much at all.
Later still, the humour was sucked out altogether: we had gone, in less than
20 years, from the hilarious Love and Death to the impenetrably glum Shadows
and Fog. But then, Shadows and Fog, that was serious, wasn’t it? You don’t
laugh during serious films.
Last weekend, Allen wrote a sweetly self-deprecatory encomium upon the death
of his greatest hero, Ingmar Bergman. “Bergman... couldn’t help being
entertaining even when all his mind was dramatising the ideas of Nietzsche
or Kierkegaard,” he observed. The choice of words suggests that Bergman’s
knack of making intellectually complex films watchable was almost
accidental; as if the thing that drew the audience in was the Nietzsche and
the Kierkegaard stuff, and the entertaining just came along for the ride.
Allen so craved high seri-ousness that somewhere along the way, he forgot to
be accidentally entertaining at the same time. Somewhere around 1990, I’d
reckon. Having worried that he would too often succumb to the easy joke, he
stripped out the jokes altogether. It’s a familiar problem for the cleverest
of our humorous artists, this throwing out of the baby with the bath water
in the hope that they might be taken more seriously, might find true
posterity. Mike Leigh and Martin Amis have been similarly afflicted. Hubris,
I suppose.
The present decade hasn’t been too kind to Allen, either; his films, with one
exception, have made little headway at the box office and were scarcely
better received critically. I recently watched Match Point, his impeccably
well-mannered examination of luck as it impinges upon the life of a retired
tennis pro. A young former tennis pro, mind, who reads Dostoevsky and is an
opera buff: you come across many of them? Allen reportedly believes it to be
one of the two finest films he has ever made (along with Stardust Memories),
and it is certainly what we know to call “intelligent”, with its halting,
naturalistic dialogue and long single shots. But I would not wish to watch
it again in a hurry, nor wish it upon you – and there is less to be gained
from it in terms of genuine revelation than can be acquired, laughing all
the while, from Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were
Afraid to Ask. John Updike was once cattily dismissive of the English comic
novel: why just make your story funny when there’s so much else to do
besides, he asked. But the reverse is true also: a film or novel expunged of
all humour has no roots in the real world. Watch Match Point and your lips
will not so much as twitch.
Allen has done a book, too, his first collection of humorous prose in 25
years, entitled Mere Anarchy – and it is anything but. There are occasional
moments of that old comic inspiration, such as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and
co in court testifying against the Walt Disney Company. But mostly it is
terribly hard going, the learning worn as heavily as a coat of chain mail,
the prolix prose occasionally verging on the unreadable, the jokes arriving
with a limp, or in bandages. “Epistemology renders dieting moot. If nothing
exists except in my mind, not only can I order anything, the service will be
impeccable.” Well, strap those ribs up. One remembers wistfully the
carelessly tossed-off joys of those much earlier collections, Without
Feathers and Getting Even. The problem is maybe one of retribution: Allen
decided way back that the comic muse was perhaps a little beneath him and
was therefore to be spurned. Now he finds it can’t easily be wooed again.
This may seem unkind, but it is not intended to be. Regretful, maybe, but not
unkind. We have plenty of reasons to be grateful to Woody Allen. During that
piece on Bergman, he was emphatic and unusually concise in rejecting the
notion that, like his mentor, he himself was a genius. So emphatic, in fact,
that you wonder how often the question preys upon his mind. But if Allen’s
other cinematic hero, Fellini, can be called a genius, then Woody Allen
certainly can. It is an overused term, “genius”, but it does not diminish
its weight to append it to his name. The problem is that Allen himself has
scant regard for those very qualities that enable him to be thus defined.
Humour need not be disposable, crass or cheap. It need not be Mel Brooks.
Woody Allen showed us that, whether he likes it or not.
Allen’s next film, Cassandra’s Dream, will be shown out of competition at
Venice
More laughs than any British comedy to appear over the past decade
Interesting points, certainly Allen stands up to the test of time better than Brooks, but I think you work too hard too shoe horn the facts into your theory. You overlook some of the more recent light work - The curse of the jade scorpion is great; Melinda and Melinda is not exactly a comedy, but is an excellent Allen film, and there are others - the problem with Allen is that he makes so many films!
Matthew Cruickshank, Barcelona,
Why do you bother writing about Woody Allen (or Brooks) if you can't stand (watching) them? Hardly a basis for an article anyone, except yourself, would care about. I could certainly have done without this one.
Dominik Brueckner, Baden-Baden, Germany
The only Brooks movie I can stand to watch is "Young Frankentstein", in spite of the horrid Cloris Leachman, and even that was not as funny the last time I saw it as I remembered. But I can see all of Allen's movies from the '60s and '70s, and some from the '80s, again and still enjoy them just about as much as I did the first time. Allen at his worst beats Brooks at his "best" any day.
Scaramouche, Redlands, California
comparing allen's dramas with his comedies is pointless. while you make some interesting comments on the subject, i agree with the person who calls it 'an awfully mean-sprited attack'. artists grow and change as do all things in life. 'adapt or die' as the saying goes. allen is adapting to the changes in our world. if you have decided to stay put in a certain mindset, it's not allen's fault...it's your own.
victor ventura, tucson, arizona, u.s.a.
It really might be an "American thing," but for my money "Young Frankenstein" is not only Mel Brooks' finest, but the funniest film ever made. Ever. I know full well how broad a statement that is. I think any outright dismissal of Brooks' entire catalogue as eye-gougingly bad without at least a cursory nod to a film almost universally revered as one of the greatest film comedies of all time displays either a) stunningly bad research of the subject matter or b) intentional disregard for anything that would tend to contradict the author's "point" of using Brooks in the article (a weak comparison at best, considering Mel's, er, lack of dramatic film output. Good show, buddy.
Miguel, Washington,
What a backhanded complement of an article.
Bitter much?
Matt, Toronto, Canada
While I may not prefer his "earlier, funny films" as much as his middle period films (starting with ANNIE HALL and ending with... whatever came before BULLETS OVER BROADWAY) I still like them better than a lot of his recent films. MATCH POINT was entertaining, but you had to know going in that it was going to not be a laugh riot. ANYTHING ELSE and MELINDA AND MELINDA were not steaming piles of dung, but neither were they great movies. Still, I enjoy the heck out of MIGHTY APHRODITE and EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU. Sue me.
I think this argument gets as silly as a debate on who is a better band, The Who or The Rolling Stones. It's totally a question of taste, and some people don't have any.
Are some of Woody's movies quantifiably great? Sure. Do some of them suck the gas pipe? I think there are a couple that do, but a quick glance at the responses right here suggest SOMEONE liked all the films I didn't like.
When speaking of Mel Brooks missteps, how can you forget LIFE STINKS?
Darby Kern, Green Bay, WI
I have never liked when a reviewer comments on a directors body of work saying that most if not all was "bad". It is painfully obvious that the reviewer then has no connection to the scope of work, or understanding to the style of film that was created by the director. You insult Mel Brooks saying it is painful to sit through with an over obvious witty comment. You are having more fun with your insults than your actual study of the subject.
People do not realize, that film has evolved, or devolved over the years. So in order to watch somethign older, you have to get into the mindset of what that era was like and who the audience was that it was intended for. Occaisionaly something is viable today even more so than it was, say 40 years ago. However, even in this case, it will usually be for a completely different reason than it was originally.
David Johansson, San Francisco, CA
Uh, Mel Brooks wasn't in THE PRODUCERS with Gene Wilder. No wonder you thought Brooks was overacting; it was Zero Mostel.
Dr. Ed, Santa Fe, NM,
Woody Allen made films like Bullets Over Broadway, Manhattan Muder Mystery and Deconstructing Harry in the 90's. They were 3 of his best all time comedies. (certainly better than his earlier juvenile bananas and sex phase) And Match Point was NOT suppose to be funny. It was NOT a comedy. He's made more films that were the perfect blend of comedy and drama than not. This was clearly a choice he made with Match Point. You have no idea what you're are talking about....do you? Please don't write about Woody Allen ever again. Thank you.
Markdchapman, Calgary, Canada, Ab
I'm sorry to read that The Producers is not funny. I'll be sure not to laugh so hard the next time I watch it. Anyway, I understand your feelings about The Producers. They're the exact reasons I hate Citizen Kane: witless, telegraphed jokes, and Orson Wells mugging for the camera. This article is an awfully mean-spirited attack on people much more talented than most of us.
David Goldman, San Francisco, California
Imust add that 'Another Woman' and 'Purple Rose of Cairo' are two of the most exquisite, heart wrenching films ever!
prudence eely bond mcguire , Herne Hill,London, England
I have to agree with most of the comments already here, that Woody Allen is indeed funny- but an aquired taste. Also 'Sweet and Lowdown', not a comedy, is a wonderful film. It is worth pointing out, however, that perhaps his funniest film in the last 15 years or so was his voice over for 'Antz'- not his own script, but instantly recognisable delivery. Perhaps only a children's film, but a good example of the talents that he has chosen to keep toned down in favour of being more subtle.
Ian Carter, London, England
I love Woody Allen, too much, to wad into a critical
debacle, of, what is funny and what is not!
The never mentioned, black and white 'Broadway Danny Rose', I ,consider, his masterpiece!
Stop 'deconstructing' Woody and get a life!
prudence eely bond mcguire , Herne Hill,London, England
All this talk of Mel Brooks and not one word about the truly wonderful 'Young Frankenstein'?
And there is a common misconception that Woody Allen was funny from 1972 onwards.
He made films that occasionally, if you were lucky and in a particularly good mood anyway, had a joke in them. But they were not funny films.
The problem with Allen is he writes and directs all his own stuff. He uses the same production team every time. He is clearly surrounded by 'Yes men' who are incapable of telling him to go back and try harder. The result? A film every year. A joke every ten.
He's not great. He's not a genius. He's had his moments but with a scatter gun approach, it's hardly surpising.
Jon Allen (no relation), London,
What a lot of nonsense. Woody Allen has made some really enjoyable films in the last 15 years. They may not be as great as some of his earlier ones - but they're still far superior to most films that are offered up these days at the cinema. Small Times Crooks (2000), is one of my all time favourite Woody films and personally I like it as much as any of his 70s films. The misconception by those who have watched very few Woody Allen films is that he makes one type of film - and again, that's just not the case. When I was in Italy last year there were adverts for his new film SCOOP everywhere - on billboards, buses and newspapers. It was great to see such enthusiasm. The only way I could get a copy of SCOOP was to buy it from the US - it was never even released here - so whether it would or wouldn't have been a success is is irrelevant really. When I got my copy; I loved it. I wouldn't say that of all his films - but not just his recent ones. I'm just glad he still makes films, full stop.
Paul Chandler, London, UK
As I foolishly said to my ex wife: "You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand Woody Allen"....................oh well it was never destined to work out anyway.
I love Woody's comedy and either you do or don't.
Be careful....................my differnce of opinion ended in divorce...........or maybe we just stopped loving each other...
Nick, Liverpool,
Just read Rod Liddle's piece on Woody Allen. As Woody would probably say - "when it comes to writing about my contribution to filmed humour, there's no end to Liddle's talent and, frankly, no beginning either".
Even if he never quite reached the dizzy heights of his earlier work, he has continued to make thousands of people laugh throughout his entire career. If that is Liddle's point, I agree. If it isn't, show some respect to a giant of comedy whose humour has passed you by ... which tells us more about you than him.
Ray Stonehill, Leatherhead, UK
Mel Brooks was in The producers, though not for long, I accept (and apologies). I had written a long paragraph about the atrocious Zero Mostel (and elsewhere, Dom Delouise) but the subs cut it out. Blazing Saddles I would accept is pretty funny in parts - maybe brooks' second best film.
Sorry if it sounded sour, it really wasn't meant to. I think Allen, at his best, is wonderful. But he underrates his own talent; he is at best making people laugh and think, rather than just think. Just a personal opinion, of course.
rod liddle, sarf lunnun,
Rubbish. If Woody Allen stopped caring about comedy in 1990, then why were six of his films in the 1990's comic?
- Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
- Bullets Over Broadway (1994)
- Mighty Aphrodite (1995)
- Everyone Says I Love You (1996)
- Deconstructing Harry (1997)
- Celebrity (1998)
That run of six comic films was interrupted by one serious piece, Sweet and Lowdown (1999), then followed by five more comedies:
- Small Time Crooks (2000)
- The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)
- Hollywood Ending (2002)
- Anything Else (2003)
- Melinda and Melinda (2004)
The came Match Point (2005), described by Allen as a melodrama, followed by last year's Scoop (2006), a comedy.
That's twelve comic films in fourteen years.
That Woody Allen abandoned comedy in favour of slow, pretentious, serious films has now become a cultural trope, yet it is unfounded. You may think the films aren't as funny as his earlier ones, but even so, Allen is still primarily a comic filmmaker
Thomas Small, London, UK
This article is absurdly hyperbolic: veering from an excessively negative treatment of Mel Brooks to the admittedly self conscious application of "genius" to Woody Allen. One must love and understand the thing that is being satirized to appreciate Brookes in History of the World and Spaceballs. Rod Liddle clearly doesn't. As for Woody Allen? The Groucho Marks joke "I would never join any club that would have me for a member" that begins Annie Hall sums him up: he is always questing for something more, tires quickly of even a winning formula and, yes, increasingly over-thinks things. These qualities are what made his early humour so perfect, but gave it a shelf life. He may yet push cinema's boundaries again; at least he's thinking and trying. Most people in this country don't understand his perspective as a NY Jewish entertainer. Try telling the immortal Moose Joke here and see if anyone laughs. That's certainly not because it isn't funny! You have to 'get' the context.
N Wrightson, London,
If you can,t laugh watching the poor roles Allen wrote for William Nesbitt and Colin Salmon and even to lovely Emily Mortimer, then you have no sense of humour. And of course I must remember the hilarious script, a perfect piece of snobism and lack of creativity.
Alida Verdi, Santiago, Chile
Woody Allen is one of those gormless inept people who simply make me cringe with embarrassment. He isn't funny now. He never has been funny. With Woody, it has always been a case of 'the emperor's new clothes'. Far too many of the glitterati didn't have the guts or gumption to point out that the man is talentless.
Chris Palmer, Southampton, UK
Mr. Allen's Match Point may not make you laugh, but it is nevertheless a brilliant film.
If you want to laugh, however, all you have to do is watch his recent movie, Scoop -- which certainly had me guffawing.
I'm not sure what your motivation was for writing this piece, but I suspect that you haven't been paying much attention to his movies lately. Not all are gems, but they're definitely better than most of what passes out there for cinematic "storytelling."
Robert Browne, Ojai, California, USA
That's kind of a long and complicated explanation of why someone isn't funny.
Allen fans won't care, just as they didn't care about his personal life. Allen haters will wonder why they should read all that, just to know what they know instinctively.
Phil Colquitt, Brisbane, Australia
Mel Brooks - what about Young Frankenstein... better than any Woody Allen production
Tony Connell, Dublin,
Stephen from Oxford: his behavior may have been loathsome, but Alllen certainly wasn't taking photos of "his underage adopted daughter." Woody's future wife at the time was an adult, and was the adopted daughter of his girlfriend. He and Mia Farrow were not husband and wife.
My own feeling is the enormity of the man's contribution to cinema won't be fully realized until fifty years after his death. I agree with one of the commenters that Allen has produced some perfectly entertaining films over the last couple of decades, along with a few that are pretty mediocre. I've often thought that in the wasteland that passes for much of commercial cinema these days, even a sub-par Woody Allen effort is better than a "good" film from one of this colleagues -- unless of course one's idea of entertaining cinema is lots of explosions, blood, and plenty of computer-generated graphics.
Jasper, Boston, USA
'The Producers' is a very funny film with great performances from Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. Mr. Brooks was not in the film.
John Broster, Las Palmas,
When did Allen stop being funny? At the same time as the release of his first film.
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
i am french and i think that americans are too severe toward Allen. Even if he is not not the best film maker ever, he still has some talent which makes him realize films you can watch during the week end, between a football match and a serie.It is not so much funny that you are laughing during a week, but some scenes can make you smile when you remember those.
Fabien, Paris, France
There is simply put no room for the neurotic verbal humour of Woody in times of the far greater and more dynamic "hands on approachâ€, as practiced by Jihadists. The action based take on humour, as perfected by the “Moro Islamic Liberation Front†is surely going to concquer the world of wit!
“The MILF initially declared a jihad but became more receptive, especially following claims it is linked to the Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda.†*
This MILF obviously has managed to contribute to the world of humour in between picking her kids up at the day care centre and working out in her class of boxercise. Simply put, Woody lacks several of the dimensions needed to stay competitive in the new millennium: sex appeal, danger and the element of surprise.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front (Wikipedia.org)
Happy Monday!
Andronik Lindgren Zivic, Gothenburg, Sweden
To me Allen used his films as his personal therapist if you study his films its all about him all his strength's and weakness's/quite frankly I want films to entertain me not to come out of the theatre feeling as if I have just spent the whole time on a therapists couch.
Lynne Jordan , Larkhall , Scotland
Interesting piece. However, there are so few intelligent or funny filmmakers at the moment that compare to Woody Allen. He has always got something to say. His films are made for adults. Thanks for alerting me to his new book.
Krysia Rozanska, Kipilovo, Bulgaria
Sorry I thought that comedy was subjective? Personally I think that people like Cathryn Tate and Little Britain aren't in the least bit funny and find it torture to watch - whereas some of Woody Allen's films are brilliantly funny.
You can't disagree with an opinion, I think its a matter of taste.
Claire, Bristol,
Would have been better to leave Mel Brooks out of this piece. Spaceballs, in my opinion, is very funny, though perhaps this is a US thing. It's sweet, you can watch it with young teenagers and not feel squeamish like so many films, and it's entertaining for most age groups.
Darol, Santa Barbara, CA
To stop being funny you must first start. Sorry Woody, I you were never funny.
Al, Weybridge,
As far as Woody goes -"Sleeper" was a hilarious movie. The author of this article (Rod Liddle) is definately destined to go to an early grave. He who can say the movie "The Producers" is not funny, must have had his brain removed. I pity such a total blah individual. As for Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" , perhaps Londoners would not catch a lot of the one-liners (of which this movie was FULL of) but is was funny as hell to Americans. However, my wife was born in and lived in London until the age of 30, and she thought Blazing Saddles was hilarious. Why this paper would have such a dullard writing for them, is inexplicable to me as well. Perhaps one day they can find someone with a semblance of humor to put on their staff.
Dick Raddatz, Northridge, USA/California
Does Mel Brooks actually appear in The Producers? Match Point is certainly one of the worst films I have ever seen. A totally excruciating experience. Not sure I've seen a worse performance than Jonathan Rhys Meyers in this film - truly dreadful. I disagree with the 1990 cut-off point. For my money, Manhattan Murder Mystery, Bullets over Broadway and Everyone Says I Love You are all perfectly decent (if lightweight) movies. You really must be lacking in the laughter gene if you don't appreciate any of these films.
Ben, London,
Shock horror: funny people aren't always funny...
Factual inaccuracy aside, the article seems mostly right, if also rather sour and indeed pointless. To quote the man himself, "80% of success is just turing up" and the man has turned up to direct over 40 films (Play it again, Sam is not one of them) and I disagree that we should even be "regretful" of this or his desire to let his style evolve. The lows are going to be inevitable but the highs are not a given.
Listen to his "I shot a moose" routine if you doubt his abilty to make people laugh.
Oliver Dungey, London, United Kindom
Even the best comedy is difficult to watch more than once, jokes are built around punch lines [demanding great writing] and timing [demanding acting talent that is pretty much beyond direction]. Watching Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder playing off each other in the opening scenes of "The Producers" shows off both aspects beyond anything Allen ever did, because Allen's best efforts at comedy featured him as a comic actor, at which skill he never excelled.
On the other hand, "Stardust Memories" shows the sly, sarcastic Allen persona to best effect, and the theme is so frankly autobiographical that it could ONLY have been performed by Allen...it's his rationale for moving away from comedy.
But maybe you just have to be an American born before WWII with Jewish parents to "get" Woody or Mel.
Nat, East Lansing, USA / Michigan
When he was born!
Delbert, Basel, Switzerland
In my opinion, and that of Mr. Allen himself, it is not correct to consider him primarily a film maker. True, he first gained fame for his humour, but it was never his sole ability and it was not his only ambition.
The strongest testament to Mr. Allen's big calibre as an artist is that he has made films that are outstanding, but for different reasons. Some contain a joke a minute, but his unquestionable masterpiece, "Hannah and Her Sisters", is not primarily a humouristic film, but rather a poetic one. Also, he shows his talent for tragedy in "Shadow and Fog". Furhtermore, "Everone Says I Love You" is in its way a work of high quality, but in a genre not funny, not poetic and not tragic like the exemples given above. "The Front" is a fourth instance. It is an important artwork because of the courageous and to-the-point way it portrays the apalling attacks on freedom of expression of blacklisted writers.
Allen has reached his highest level outside the comic genre.
Knut Aursnes, Eidsvoll, Norway
Humour is an irrational energy the world tends to rationalise. It is probably masochist energy, and there is probably a place where Woody Allen is incredibly funny, and we are probably not a part of it. He could be, essentially, a loner. Not a problem, but every comedian we can name has a team of people working with them once their career is underway, not even providing the gags, just recreating that unrestrained place where rationalisation is, even temporarily, banished.
URBAN OSPREYS, London,
And what about that Rod Liddle? He used to be funny as well.
Andy, London Fields,
I hope next Allen's film, Cassandra's dream, is about the obscene scenario of the illegal invasion in Iraq & the subsequent war. That WOULD BE an invite to sheer collective acknowledgement of our Western hubris. The association is perfect: Cassandra foreseeing the future ruin of mankind during and in the aftermath of war in the epic narrated by Lycophron coupled to our present ethical ruin. Unless the general public would rather celebrate tragedy “alla Begnigni†in his Oscar tailored delivery in Life is beautiful, a bespoken produce to please those who rush to supper after the movies self-contented with their humane side & commitment. Maybe the guy has found out, along with maturity and not mere ageing, that there isn't much laughing stock around.
PS: Is anybody’s private life our business unless they aren’t politicians who get paid with our taxes and we are born voyeurs?
Viviana Lombardi, London, UK
I totally agree with J Bowland from Crewe. I also have never raised a single chortle to Allen and have always wondered whether he was wearing the empeor's new clothes. I love comedy but can't include Allen in that category and have always wondered whether fans were middle-class, pretentious & self-important. Surely not humourless though, if they people can find Allend funny, they can laugh at anything!
Steve, Surbiton, UK
Was never funny, movies or him, I always thought it was just me, that I just didn't 'get it'.
Tina, Brighton, Michigan
Woody Allen is the thinking person's Norman Wisdom. There is only one joke, about being shy and awkward. It is delivered with a great deal of skill and then repeated many times in different forms. Some people find it irresistible, others might laugh at first.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
To all those people who keep saying that Mel Brooks wasn't in the Producers - it is quite clear that you are referring to the modern version of the movie. The original version of the film was made in 1968 and was/is considered by many to be Mel Brooks best film (and possibly his first). It has dated a bit but not as much as indicated by this article.
But anyone who thinks Mel Brooks is a better film maker then Woody Allen probably thinks Titanic deserved its best film oscar. Woody Allen made some great films in the 1990s. Bullets Over Broadway and the Mighty Aphrodite were excellent. Woody has declined in recent years but Match Point was really rather good and much better then the vast majority of the rubbish that Hollwood churns out.
Alan Gower, St. Leonards-on-sea, UK
re the 1968 version of the 'The Producers" - Mel Brooks only appears in his film once, in a tiny cameo role lasting a few seconds. I presume that the "histrionic gurning and mugging" performance that you refer to, is actually that of the late comic actor Zero Mostel, who played the lead role in the film.
James Spence, Victoria, BC, Canada
He stopped being funny once he married his step daughter. That was so far beyong hilarious.
Deborah, London,
Woody Allen did not 'adopt' Soon Yee. Nor was she underage (maybe if you actually knew some facts you'd find find Woody funny).
It's a good thing Mr. Little that you're right about 'The Producers' not being funny (otherwise somebody might turn it into a Broadway play and make a billion dollars!) You're an asture man.
If Ron Liddle married Mathew Parris (it could happen) they'd still be boring, pointless, but employed (and ah, the product of their union - Liddle Paris, what a cute baby - and that tail!).
'I'm wearing a cardboard belt!'
sam, tel aviv, israel
The last funny thing Woody did was marry his stepdaughter. He hasn't been the same since he walked out on Mia.
shay, boston,
Contrary to your writer's opinion, the prolific Woody Allen has made three very funny movies over the last fifteen years, "Bullets over Broadway", "Deconstructing Harry" and "Small Time Crooks". No filmmaker creates a masterpiece with every film and Allen is no exception. To criticize an artist for broadening their horizons and embracing drama as well as outright comedy, seems pitiful. Add to that the fact that people either like Woody Allen movies or hate them. To me that is the sign of a very good artist.
John Klintworth, Toronto, Canada
Mel Brooks has made great and funny films. My teenage son watched the new version of the Producers and was bored by it. He was in tears laughing at the original which I persuaded him to watch. He also loved High Anxiety and Blazing Saddles.
Bit of a blooper to complain about Mel in the Producers - are you sure you watched it?
But Woody Allen has always been a case of 'The King's New Clothes' as far as his films are concerned.
His stand up was great, and he comes across well in print. But his films - turgid, self conscious, self referencing and frankly boring.
michele, wales,
The question is when was Woody Allan ever funny,his love life was a little bazar and I think he looked funny but thats it.
margot parker, Kettering, UK
Match Point was not meant to be funny (was it?)
wayne, st. george's, grenada
Mr Liddle's whole point is largely negated by the fat mistake in the opening paragraph: Mel Brooks does not appear in The Producers (1968), which he directed. Presumably Mr Liddle's reference to "histrionic gurning and mugging" is a reference to Zero Mostel's playing of Max Biaystock, where in fact the mugging is all part of the point in showing what an exaggerated character Bialystock is. Classic modern-day newspaper journalism: poor detail, poor research, poor subbing. That's a more pertinent issue in these times than whether Woody Allen is funny or not anymore.
Ovais, London, UK
My husband holds Rod Liddle in high journalistic regard but I have to disagree with both of them. "Blazing Saddles" has still got to be one of the funniest films ever. I could probably quote you all the one liners from that film and still collapse laughing. Woodly Allen was NEVER funny - maybe to an Amercian - but certainly not to the rest of us who recognise a cleverly crafted joke. Wake up Rod - were you on holiday when you wrote this?
Wendy Waters, Gillingham, Dorset
Approximately when his first movie was released.
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
Allen started taking himsef too seriously in the late 1970s and became rather pretentious. There was evidence in Annie Hall that we wanted to be regarded as an intellectual. Apparently he had important things to say about life. People want to be entertained, intellectuals and philosophers are ten-a-penny (just visit a French university). Allen had real gift for making me laugh. I can still remenber as a student watching Bananas in a late night flea-pit and laughing at the insanity of his humour. I agree that Match Point was OK, but I stopped watching his films in the early 1980s, it's a sad waste of a career.
I remember an earnest and pompous BBC presenter introducing "The Producers" and describing it as hilarious. I didn't get the joke and never founfd the film funny. Blazing Saddles had its moments.
mike scott, ny, usa
You have left out Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks, one of the funniest movies of all time (yes and it is also black and white). I'm trying to think of it now to keep my mind of Hurricane Dean coming our way to Cayman Islands in 5 hours...
Ida Rodger, George Town, Grand Cayman
Woody Allen is certainly funny in an interlectural way I enjoyed many of his films and didn't like others.The fact that he hasn't made funny movies lately may be due to the fact that he doesn't want to do so and Match Point wasn't supposed to be funny so I didn't miss the humour.
Renate Baramy, Ramat Hasharon, Israel
While I generally agree with M. Liddie's assessment, I think it would be more balanced if he showed greater appreciation of Allen's gift for satire--exemplified by Crimes and Misdemeanors--as he moved away from relying primarily on verbal and visual schlapschtick toward more sophisticated parodies of the angst-ridden class of hyper-intellectual types--like myself ...
Gareth W. Cammermeyer, Langley, USA / WA
Let's say that Woody has evolved.
His earlier works were greatly amusing. His later works, not so much.
He's an artist. We are only witnesses to his art. I was an avid witness for years but fell by the wayside when he went off on a tangent of his own making.
Maybe I'm not bright enough to appreciate where he has gone and is going but I can say I never had that problem with Bergman, Kubrick or Fellini. They kept interest levels high.
Bruce, Montreal, Canada
Woody Allen is "Funny" in the same way that Steve Martin is "Funny".
Dave, London, UK
In defense of Mel Brooks, he doesn't appear--as you claim he does--in The Producers. That was Zero Mostel mugging,
and magnificently. And you prefer not to mention Mr Brooks's comic masterpiece, Young Frankenstein. But you're right
about Woody Allen. He isn't funny anymore, nor worth watching.
R. Naparsteck, New York City, USA
I'm afraid that I have to join the ranks of those who say that he never was funny for me. I find him absolutely pathetic.
Richard, Alicante, Spain
Humo(u)r is subjective. This is a good thing, isn't it? (Or Jerry Lewis would have been put out of work long ago.)
C Jane Simpson, new York, NY
Not a very surprising article by Ron (I'm so clever) Riddle. There are many journalists in different areas who like to think of themselves as clever and and consider themselves much more intellectually savvy than us prols. They are far to snooty and in love with their ego to agree with what the masses think e.g Allen and Brooks are really rather brilliant at what they do,and love to cherry pick on the bad movies they made.
The same attitude can also be found in high brow music industry jounalists who despite the overwhelming proof of longegivity and sales of The Beatles ,Stones or Dylan albums vote the Smiths as the best album ever made.Pretendiousness at it's best,which Liddell excels in.
Also Ron ( I'm such a rebel) Liddle fails to give us the benefit of his choice of funny movies and funny actors/producers/writers so that we can could compare with Allen and Brooks.Surprising that!
chris dee, london,
Re: Rod Liddle on 'Match Point'
"A young former tennis pro, mind, who reads Dostoevsky and is an opera buff: you come across many of them?"
Well the Serbian tennis player Janko Tipsarevic has a tattoo
of the line 'Beauty will save the World' taken from 'The Idiot' on his arm.
Might be the only Dostoevsky reader on the tour, but there is one...
Adrian Lester, Southampton, UK
But what about the unintentionally funny? "Everyone Says I Love You" is a terrible movie, but it is so bad that it is funny. The "singing" is hilarious in its own awful way. And the shrunken, wizened Woody pursuing Julia Roberts is funny in a kind of sickening way ... especially when he "bulks up' via a gigantic bathrobe. C'mon, now that's funny!
James McAleer, Atlanta,
Match Point is surely one of the worst films ever made! The last good one he made was Deconstructing Harry
john, london, uk
For me it really doesnt get funnier then the subtle jokes of Zelig. Its not your typical jokes that would require a laugh track for the mass of dolts who cant find humor in a not so realistic portrayal of a documentary.
dan, lake forest,
when was he ever funny ?
d k hood, aukland, nz
I never found Woody Allen funny, could it be, that someone who was supposed to be an expert said he was so others dare not disagree.
The emperors new clothes type of thing.
J Bowland, Crewe, Cheshire
Dave Reynolds, if you can watch Bananas or Love and Death or read Without Feathers without laughing, I'd check for a pulse. And just because one article appears on Woody Allen's lamentable lack of recent funny movies, it doesn't mean he doesn't make anyone else laugh or that the rest of the world has discovered he isn't funny, it just mean he hasn't made any funny movies for too many years. Humour is a subjective and personal thing, I realize, but I rather suspect people will be laughing at Woody Allen's and Mel Brooks' (and Steve Martin's - what the heck happened to him? How can a man who made the sublimely silly The Jerk stop being funny?) funny movies from way back when for some years yet.
Rose , Hawalli, Kuwait
Woody Allen stopped making us laugh when it was revealed that he was taking nude pictures of his underage adopted daughter.
stephan, oxford, uk
To tell you the truth, Woody Allen has never made me laugh. It therefore doesn't surprise me that he isn't making anyone else laugh either. What I do find amazing is that it has taken the rest of the world so long to discover that the man simply isn't funny.
Dave Reynolds, Selby, UK
Totally agree with Eric: "Blazing Saddles", Mr. Liddle!
Re Woody: where were you in the 90's? You didnt find funny any of these? "Bullets over Broadway", "Mighty Aphrodite", "Deconstructing Harry", "Everyone says I love you"... some of his best if you ask me, a die-hard woodyallenite. They're packed with the typical Allen themes (and jokes) on death, sex and religion.
Claudia Dias, London, UK
Just three questions.
1) At which point in the The Producers do we see Mel Brooks' "histrionic gurning and mugging"? (My recollection is that he does not even appear in the film. IMDB lists his acting contribution to singing (not appearing) in 'Spingtime for Hitler'.
2) How can you cast Gene Wilder aside so easily in your opening before mentioning Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex as a genuinely funny Woody Allen movie?
3) What is the point of this piece?
Please stick to missing the point on other subjects you seem to know more about.
Gareth Herbert, Melbourne, Australia
How on earth can Rod Liddle claim to have "watched " Mel Brooks "gurning and mugging" in 'The Producers' when Brooks was nowhere to be seen ? ... He simply wrote and directed the movie but made no appearances in it anywhere!
K Philips, London, UK
Mel Brooks does not appear in the movie "The Producers."
And saying "High Anxiety" Is Brooks' best movie? Absurd.
What about "Blazing Saddles?" And "Young Frankenstein?" Brooks two best films. And "The Producers" is the third. Ask anyone. Except Rod Liddle, obviously.
Eric Mozart, Brrooklyn, New York
Totally agree with Eric: "Blazing Saddles", Mr. Liddle!
Re Woody: where were you in the 90's? You didnt find funny any of these? "Bullets over Broadway", "Mighty Aphrodite", "Deconstructing Harry", "Everyone says I love you"... some of his best if you ask me, a die-hard woodyallenite. They're packed with the typical Allen themes (and jokes) on death, sex and religion.
Claudia Dias, London, UK
He stopped making me watch him at all, let alone laugh, when he became the eerie creep who seduced his teenage stepdaughter. If he thinks his public can forgive him that, he's even more off the planet than he seems.
Dale, Wellington,
Mel Brooks isn't in "The Producers" (in my view, one of the funniest films ever) so how can Liddle criticise the "histrionic gurning and mugging of Brooks himself" ? If he's going to slag it off he could check the facts first.
Moira Valat, Montpellier, France