Melinda et Melinda

Have you ever had one of those days when life seemed terrible and everything in your world made you miserable?

But then have you had one such day and, in a moment - maybe after a word from a loved one or friend, or a sudden flash of inspiration, or even a physiological stimulus such as a cup of coffee - realised things weren't so miserable after all - maybe even had tears of sorrow turn to tears of laughter? And if those tears keep flowing, aren't they the same tears?

A couple of playwrights, New York intellectuals, are idly discussing the 'life is tragedy or comedy according to your perspective' theme in a Manhattan café. So starts Woody Allen story in Melinda and Melinda. Working from a basic storyline, a girl arriving unannounced at a dinner party, two alternative stories unfold, one comic and one tragic. Both overlap without being identical, in themes, the actress playing the visitor, and sometimes even dialogue.

I started off concentrating hard to make sure I didn't confuse the two interwoven tales, and also concentrating hard to see if a deep philosophical point was going to be made. After half an hour or so I stopped giving too much effort to either and just sat back and enjoyed.

As entertainment, Melinda and Melinda contains so many wonderful ingredients - wit, pathos, hilarity, great acting, suspense, moral intrigue. Visually it's also very pleasing - from the lovingly crafted and vibrant New York interiors of which Allen is so fond, to the eye candy in the form of hunks like Chiwetel Ejiofor (the captivating suitor to one of the Melindas) or the remarkable Chloë Sevigny.

Sevigny, in a supporting role, gives a beautifully nuanced performance. As an actress, she has not relied on her sylph like looks but adamantly stuck to parts in (largely) Independent films that both develop her as an actress and show her commitment and integrity in her profession.

But the main role, that of Melinda(s), is reserved for Radha Mitchell, who has to play both a seriously (and slightly scary) tragic persona, hair and worn features showing her traumatic life, and then moments later the comic Melinda whose madcap gaiety puts a sparkle into proceedings. Both roles are pushed - especially in a scene where each Melinda tries to throw herself from a window. The difference between comedy and tragedy is mostly visible in Melinda.

Woody Allen is a professional filmmaker that consistently churns out movies on a very reasonable budget, some better, some worse, but very rarely is there one that doesn't provide a passable hour and a half of entertainment for the price of admission. There are some people who mostly dislike his work, or are only won over by masterpieces such as Hannah and Her Sisters, or ones that come close, like Deconstructing Harry or Mighty Aphrodite. Melinda and Melinda is probably not in either league, but it is still a very worthwhile accomplishment. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it's a moving film in places and plays with ideas like suspension of belief. And yes, it made me think - but so much so that serious reflection got in the way of pure enjoyment.

There are plenty of flaws - the basic idea never rises above armchair philosophy, there is no great resolution to bring a sense of meaning after the film has finished. The difference between tragedy and comedy for instance, while it might be separated by a hair's breadth in the cosmic scale of things (or within writers' building blocks), is very real for people undergoing real tragedy. Laughter can be justified more easily when it lightens suffering, rather than laughing at it or ignoring it. Cinema has its limits. Interestingly, Allen's cinema has plenty of self-imposed limits that suggest it doesn't take itself too seriously - no expensive special effects, A-List stars only in moderation, no lingering close-ups for actors to practise Oscar-begging expressions; it borrows far more from European than British or American cinema. He seems to get on with the job instead of making it all-important in itself. Even his own philosophising seems not to draw direct attention in his films. "I have an extremely pessimistic outlook and so to me the glass is always empty. Not half empty, but completely empty. My feelings are summed up by the character who says, in effect, that life is basically tragic but there are little islands of comedy in it."

If you have very fixed views about Woody Allen films you will already know whether you want to go and see Melinda and Melinda. For others, you may find that the deft delivery of comedy is worth more than a cursory glance. Allen's prolific output, occasional innovation, and his apparent consistent ability to follow his own agenda rather than that of the big studios mark him as someone to watch both now and by film historians.

Ironically, for someone with such an outlook, he contributes many 'little islands of comedy' to what might be seen as a long-suffering and out of touch industry. I definitely enjoyed this bout of island hopping.

Woody Allen as a stand-up comedian saw the humor in some of life's injustices. Here he suggests infidelity is one of those injustices. At first glance, this "open" attitude seems at odds with the fact that virtually all Woody Allen films have been love stories (even Bananas!); maybe they're really falling-in-love stories. To dramatize this story, he wisely included Rhadha Mitchell, Chloe Sevigny, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, whose performances were as hypnotic as their names (the others, in lesser roles, were also good). What happens is routine; it's just a set-up to evaluate various ways of reacting to infidelity. Some of the dialog is among the best I've heard. How we react to setbacks can be an important part of our lives (not as important as showing up, of course). Woody Allen's philosophy of life isn't rocket science: when possible, have a good time. And bring a friend.

Are Life, Existence, and Everything inherently comic or tragic? Woody Allen has never been shy about staring down big questions, and with "Melinda and Melinda" he takes a crack at nothing less than the human condition itself. Presented with the same set up, two dining Manhattan playwrights take us through their version of events according to their world views. An unexpected guest crashes a dinner party; is it the makings of disaster or farce? More importantly, is there really a difference? The Melinda (Radha Mitchell) of both competing vignettes is a train wreck of a woman, and makes both her entrances at her worst. Both parties contain struggling actors and couples with respective career and marital difficulties. In each, Melinda's arrival is the catalyst for all manner of bottled up tensions to come to a head. As the stories mirror one another, then veer away only to meet up again, Allen underscores the comic nature of tragedy and vice versa. As expected in an Allen film, there's strong work all around, particularly from Will Ferrell as a stand-in for Allen himself.

There's very little to offend about "Melinda and Melinda." As usual, Allen is working with ideas, and has made a film with a baseline quality about it that's gratifying. Yet most of "Melinda and Melinda" is trodden ground for Allen, and has seen better days in his earlier work. It's hard to fault the guy for being so prolific; indeed the real comedy/tragedy is how unappreciated he seems to be in recent years, considering his output. But, as Allen himself might say, comedy, tragedy; it's like anything else.

It's curious how after having been apart for a good many years, Mia Farrow and Woody Allen seem to surface in this movie, playing the central roles. In casting Rhada Mitchell and Will Farrell, the director gives the Mia character to the young Australian actress who has an uncanny resemblance to the young Ms. Farrow, and his alter ego is played by Mr. Ferrell. The best thing Mr. Allen did in this film was to cast someone else to play the role he always gives to himself.

The idea of "Melinda and Melinda" is not bad. However, the situations, even if they are theatrical, at heart, feel fake. The resolutions of the issues in both aspects of the drama, or the comedy, being discussed by some local intellectuals at Pastis, the restaurant, don't produce a logical conclusion. In fact, both stories playing at the same time, have a way of disorienting the viewer.

The casting doesn't help either. Rhada Mitchell, is out of her league playing Melinda. Will Ferrell as Woody Allen, please! The talented Chloe Sevigny and Chiwetel Ejiofor do what they can, but we just don't believe for a moment about their situation, nor do we care what happens to these bunch of pretentious Manhanittes that are one dimensional at best.

This presentation is original and clever; very nicely twisted from the Rashamon perceptions of several disparate pasts. As usual, Woody is very perceptive and a master of dialog, especially in fracturing relationships.

I noted that the "comedy" writer was heavily focused on the tragic elements of his plot line, while the "tragedy" writer saw little humor in his plot line. Actually, the 2 writers did not seem to differ very much at all in their views. It does not appear that Woody finds life very humorous. Rather, he finds humorous elements in mundane and sad events.

More obviously, most of the characters sound just like Woody. The comedy writer might as well have been Woody and Will Ferrell is a Woody stand-in. Several of the others, including the women, had numerous "Woody" moments. It seems like the actors and even the screen are interfering with Woody's attempts to present his art. Unlike other directors who expect the actors to climb into the characters, Woody seems to ask the actors to stand still while he paints them as the characters. Would he prefer to simple do a monologue?