Ombres et brouillard

Shadows and Fog

starring: Woody Allen, Michale Kirby, Mia Farrow, and John Malkovich

In a small european like town, lives a very nervous clerk, who out of nowhere is awaken by a group of Vigilantes who are after a serial killer in the town who strikes in the fog at night. Klienman on the way meets a dark adventure with twists, turns, suspenseful encounters with the killer himself, a few lusty whores, a female sword swallower wanting a family, a Gifted investagator using primitive techniques, and a drunk but effective magician.

Coments: I feel that this film is very UNDERrated. It is a very good film in my opinoin. Here Woody Allen creates a totally new type of meaning to the words: Adventure and Nostalgia. With a whole ensemble of celebrites, and a dark mood and setting, this is one of Allens greatest films. ****

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?

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.

"Shadows and Fog" is Woody Allen's tribute to German Expressionism, and it's very interesting, often funny, and at times downright strange. He gives no indication of the setting or time, and as is often true with Allen, there's a serious undertone. His nebishy character, Kleinman, is woken up in the middle of the night in his home for reasons having to do with a serial killer at large. Poor Kleinman doesn't know exactly what he has to do with anything, but as he puts it, everything seems to know what he's supposed to be doing but him. Across town, Mia Farrow is the circus performer Irmy, who finds out her boyfriend (John Malkovich) is cheating on her, so she leaves him. She winds up in a brothel with some real characters played by Lily Tomlin, Kathy Bates, and Jodie Foster. A client (John Cusack) declares himself in love with Mia and offers her money to sleep with him. When it gets up to $700, she accepts. Later she meets Kleinman and sends him to the church to donate all but $50. The priest is impressed, and the police cross Kleinman's name off the list of suspects. Then they meet a beggar, and she sends Kleinman back for half the money. Kleinman's name goes back on the list of suspects.

Yes, it's an odd but fascinating film. The atmosphere is bizarre, very German - dark, bleak, and foggy, with a scary serial killer out of "M." Big stars float in and out of the film, like Madonna, some with tiny roles. The funniest scene is when Kleinman tries to hide out at his ex-girlfriend's (Julie Kavner) who calls him every name in the book and then tries to turn him in.

Kleinman is an innocent man caught in confusing circumstances and times, not sure which side he should be on - there are two factions trying to catch this killer, and both attempt to recruit him - and all the poor guy wants is a promotion at his job. Though his reactions are often amusing, imagine being awoken by the police in the middle of the night and having no idea what it's about. It's happened, though, as it happens in the film. As Kleinman wanders the streets, unsure of where he's going, we can relate.

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.