Sombras y niebla

I just saw `Shadows and Fog' for the first time this weekend, and while I can't say that it immediately became my favorite Woody Allen film, I did find it a very thoughtful and interesting film (not really a comedy), and an exceptionally beautiful film to look at.

I know this is frowned upon at the IMDb, but a lengthy and very negative review on this page of `Shadows and Fog,' along with a critique of Woody Allen in general, has gotten my dander up, and I felt like putting in my two cents. Why on earth should I, or any film lover, care about how successful a film is financially? Why should I care if a majority of movie patrons like a director's films or not? From my perspective, some of the stupidest trash makes the most money and sells the most tickets. Sure, I liked Jurassic Park -- saw it several times at the cinema, bought the video -- but not because of how much money it made, or how many other people were going to see it. It was because it was fun, and I liked it. Does that mean I should damn more esoteric directors (like Woody Allen) to oblivion? There are directors whose work I don't always understand, but God bless them, if they have the opportunity and the drive to get their cinematic vision realized, more power to them. I don't necessarily have to like their work, or go to see it. But on the whole, I'd rather be talked-up-to then talked-down-to, and being a little confused by a film has never permanently damaged anyone, so far as I know.

So calm down out there, you art-house-haters! It's just entertainment. Read your 20th century history. Limiting entertainment to its lowest common denominator has been tried and tried. No good has ever come of it, to my knowledge.

And incidentally, if you have a predilection for Woody Allen films, and like the look of old black and white expressionist cinema, give `Shadows and Fog' a look. It would maybe kill you?

I made the big mistake of avoiding this for years based on all the garbage I'd heard slammed against it, and as a result it was one of the last Woody Allen movies I got around to seeing. Well, it was worth waiting for, as it turned out to be a real treat. This is one of Allen's strangest works, probably his signature stab at a horror spoof. The black and white moody photography is compelling, modeled after the dark German expressionistic films of Murnau and Fritz Lang, as well as a hearkening back to those delightful old horror and Sherlock Holmes films from Universal Studios.

The action is set in an un-named village in an unknown time and place, but it's patterned after the early 20th Century, with a hint of Germany or even London. True to form, Allen plays a dweeb who is awoken at midnight by an angry mob demanding that he assist them in tracking down a Jack-the-Ripper-like serial murderer who's prowling the streets. He half-heartedly gets dressed and ventures out into the moonlit fog, unsure of just what's expected from him while he manages a few good one-liner's in his apprehension ("they say the killer has the strength of 10 men; I have the strength of one small boy -- with polio").

There are guest stars galore, some of whom have very small parts but are fun to watch anyway. A traveling circus in town consists of a female sword swallower (Mia Farrow) and her clown husband (John Malkovich) who is having an affair with the Strongman's pretty wife (Madonna). When Farrow catches the two of them in a caravan together, she storms out alone into the dark and is taken in by a street walker (Lily Tomlin) who lets her unwind inside her brothel with the rest of the whores (two of which are played by Kathy Bates and Jodie Foster). Some of the finest moments in the film come within the whorehouse, complimented by philosophical discussion and interesting camera-work. It's there that a wealthy young patron (John Cusack) fancies Mia and coaxes her into bed for one night. Her ultimate guilt over the encounter leads her back into the dense fog, until she meets up (predictably) with Woody. Also in small roles are Donald Pleasence in good form as a mad coroner who wants to analyze the essence of the killer's "evil" (possibly playing on his involvement in the HALLOWEEN films) and a wasted turn by Fred Gwynne (don't blink or you'll miss him) as one of the villagers.

SHADOWS AND FOG is flawed to be sure (there are a lot of loose ends remaining untied for one thing) but it's visually appealing and rich in atmosphere and the language of the night. I enjoyed it. *** out of ****

On first viewing I wasn't crazy about Shadows and Fog, while the film looked fantastic and was well-directed the characters left me cold, the film didn't seem to know what tone it wanted and the story seemed meandering and dull. On re-watch however Shadows and Fog fared much better(as was with almost all the Allen films that didn't impress at first apart from Anything Else), it is nowhere near among Woody Allen's best and is around the lower middle of his filmography but I found it a good film and not among Allen's worst that it's often said to be. Visually, Shadows and Fog looks fantastic with brilliant black and white cinematography and Expressionistic images that are as striking as they are haunting. Allen's films are always well-made, but Shadows and Fog visually like Zelig is quite unique from a visual standpoint. The music is very eerie and fits the atmosphere perfectly, in fact if anything it adds to it. While it was confusing of what tone the film was trying to go with on first viewing, on re-watch it was much clearer and that criticism seems unfair now. The dialogue is both subtle and hilarious(love the brothel scenes) with sharp homages and insight in characteristic Woody Allen vein, but even more impressive was the murder-mystery element while a really chilling atmosphere is created, helped by the visuals and music. Allen's directing is as always adept and his performance, the most memorable, is a lot of fun. John Cusack does nervous and angsty very nicely and Jodie Foster and Kathy Bates are remarkably good in against-type roles. Shadows and Fog has imperfections, Mia Farrow for me overdoes it and comes across as shrill, John Malkovich deserved much more to do and is a little wasted and Madonna is rather out of place. The story does have its drawn out and aimless patches with an ending that felt convoluted and hurried, and the characters are not very interesting, a lot of them barely in the film. To conclude however, a good film but considering how well the best assets come off it could have been more than good. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Another mid-career Allen film unfairly dismissed both by critics and (I must admit) myself at the time of it's release. Sometimes with great filmmakers, we get spoiled and anything flawed or less than pure genius gets maligned for being weaker than that filmmaker's very best work instead of being appreciated for being miles ahead of most of the films that get made.

I was shocked at how much better I liked this on a recent re-viewing almost 20 years after seeing it in the theater. Yes, the super-star cameos still seem a bit distracting and self-serving, but nowhere near as much as in 1992. Yes, some plot elements work better than others, the ending is kind of clunky, etc. But this is still a great-looking, visually dense film, that manages to tread (most of the time) a very difficult tightrope of being funny and playful, while still exploring disturbing themes of paranoia, guilt, crowd mentality, religion, etc. Certainly not a great film, but a brave one more worthy of being enjoyed for it's strengths than attacked for its admitted shortcomings.

Woody Allen's tribute to German expressionism is better than most critics would have you believe. Sure there is very little plot to speak of, it's more a series of vignettes and gags than a cohesive narrative. Sure, it ends rather abruptly, never solving the mystery, but none of this stopped my thorough enjoyment of this film.

As the title suggests the entire movie is designed in shadows and fog. Shot with beautiful black and white photography, Allen and cinematographer Carlo Di Palma create the look and feel of an unnamed East European city as seen in such films as M and Nosferatu. The lighting is set up so that in nearly every shot underlying shadows engulf the scene. In the exteriors a vicious fog rolls across the night sky obscuring most details. Through the fog bumbles Kleinman (Allen is his typical neurotic schmuck role) trying to find his role in a vigilante mob's plan to stop a serial killer roaming the streets. From dark night until dawn, Kleinman wanders from place to place meeting a wide variety of curious characters (played by an even more curious group of celebrities), the most endearing of which is a desperate sword swallower (Mia Farrow)who is has wandered into a brothel after fleeing her cheating boyfriend/clown (John Malcovich).

It is a little unsettling to watch Allen do his normal schtick while the characters around him are murdered, subjected to racial prejudice, beaten by the police and discuss such subjects as love, sex, and meaning. There is a subtext involving the plight of the Jews between the World Wars, foreshadowing the Nazis. Yet the gags remain as solid as any Woody Allen film. Amongst the seriousness of his subtext and the films he is paying homage to, Allen finds away to bring full bellied laughter. Though his quirky neurosis isn't as resolutely hilarious as it is in such films as Annie Hall, it is still enough to fill the film with mirth.

The film ends rather abruptly with Kleinman having never learned his role in the plan, nor the killer having been caught. Yet as the credits role we realize the mystery was not so much the reason behind the story as method in creating it.