Stardust Memories

A self-indulgent yet enjoyable fantasy by Woody Allen, where he models his style after Fellini's "8 1/2". Allen plays a world famous film star/director not unlike his real self, who's now approached a mid-life crisis and has tired of making "funny movies". Though he's become embittered, he reluctantly agrees to be the guest of honor at a weekend celebration where the best of his films are going to be shown. While there he has to contend with sycophants, obnoxious autograph seekers, childhood flashbacks and different women on a surreal journey to self-realization. Woody received some hard knocks from fans and critics for making this type of highly personal movie, but I think it's very stylish and dream-like. Photographed in glorious black and white. *** out of ****

...and, in Sandy Bates, the lead of his satire on celebrity, loves, and his usual themes of turmoil over life and death, is a sense that Woody Allen is doing one of two things (or both perhaps)- taking from his own life and thinly disguising characters and situations, or using his own public image in film's culture to look through the looking glass slightly at some of his popular themes. This is not to say that the film is one of his very best. I could see what Allen was doing, for example, with the scenes and instances of tipping the hat to Fellini and his masterwork 8 1/2- the two films share that common thread of an artist in an overall funk of bittersweet memories and creative confusion. But while Fellini made his film out of a burning need to reveal all of his love for cinema out of his angst(s) after La Dolce Vita, Allen's track record shows that he's near incapable of waiting around too long to make a film (he's averaged nearly a film a year in 37 years up till 2003) so much of what comes forth in Stardust Memories isn't as much autobiographical as it is told through a character filtered with and not with himself. In short, a lot of the 8 1/2 dues were my least favorite parts in the movie (though I did like the quick Superman-type mementos).

But does that make Stardust Memories a failure, pretentious? Not to my point of view- once Allen starts the story rolling, and he gets his characters/actors into the gist of the film, it goes along like most other Allen films involving phobias, fears, loves (women), and sophisticated sense of varied parody. There are moments that Allen's stand-up act is injected into the mix, or a scene that could've been a chapter from one of his books, but mostly the audience gets the sense of his OWN love of cinema via Sandy Bates. Bates is another one of those Woody characters that seems all the more impressively formed and executed since it feels like the Woody we know, but Bates is just a little more on the edge of satire, viewing into his own self-doubts and trying to see if there can be any hope or meaning to it all- or if he can tell funny jokes.

The script contains some of the most memorable moments of Allen's career in one-liners (there are a few from the fans and autograph-hounds that stick out) and in having a natural flow, close to a type of poetry, in the conversations and dialog in the film. Even if one doesn't laugh, it definitely shows the work of a wonderful writer at the peak of his game. His direction is also intrinsically interesting, especially how he uses the unique, dark, and evoking cinematography by the great Gordon Willis, and the unusual editing stylizing by Susan Morse (though, once again, some of these editing tricks are to Fellini's credit). And the performances work well enough for the material, more often than not, with Charlotte Rampling as Dorrie, Bates' wonderfully stressed ex-girlfriend, Marie-Christine Barrault as Isobel, an old friend who left her husband for him, Jessica Harper as Daisy, whom he falls head over heels for while she and her professor-boyfriend are at the Stardust attending Bates' appearance(s), and Tony Roberts, who had a worthy supporting role in Annie Hall, pops up here as well.

I can recommend Stardust Memories for Woody Allen's main fan base, as it gives those who love his early films and his films that have more mature subject matter a bit of a (delightful) challenge. I don't know if I could recommend it however, as the very first film someone could see if the person wants to start of his films. There is an amusing quality to it that could give non-Woody fans a second thought about the filmmaker's work, but it's hard to say. It's not an altogether easy film to watch, or is it a masterwork like Manhattan. By the end of it, never-the-less, my time was not the least wasted, I knew I saw some ingenious scenes and jokes here and there, and there was a subtlety to it that has me liking it and responding more to it on repeat viewings. Is it homage? Sure, but it's a blend of homage (or as Roberts says "ripping it off") and a personal, nearly original style, and it ends up, on a repeat viewing, a major work. 9.5/10

The problem with Woody has always been that everyone takes his movies more seriously than he does. Here, using the tactics of Felini, he makes fools of his detractors including the greatest detractor of all, Woody himself. For many reasons, I rank this among his best. He removes the restraint of plot, and just goes balls out nuts with his usual philosophical angst, and endless worship of beautiful dames. Oddly enough, without the fetters of convention, to me it was actually less pretentious or indulgent I think people like to call it, and a lot easier to understand and empathize with. One thing that I've always found absurd, and ironically what this film dwells on, is the complaints by fans and critics that he should go back to making comedies. Woody cannot not make a funny movie. If he's in it, and he's talking, I'm laughing. Especially back in this era, when his jokes were so fresh. So make no mistake, this film is loaded with comedy. Finally, I liked his choice of women in this. Charlotte Rampling is what I suppose the word breathtaking was originally meant to describe. If you arent touched by the final scenes with her, you got issues.

It seems that Stardust Memories does not get the credit that it truly deserves. Everyone has such distaste for this film because they thought that this was an autobiography and it was Woody's attack on his fans/critics. Woody himself has said many times that this is not the case, but even if it were, I believe that the fans/critics deserve to be lowered down a peg. After all, Woody's interpretation of his fans (via Fellini's style of awkward and hilarious faces) is valid. Fans and critics alike should never have verbally abused him so much after the release of Interiors (1978). Why should directors be type-casted? Let him have his freedom! After all, Interiors wasn't such a bad movie. It was different, but not bad. Stardust Memories has also been accused of Woody's most self-indulgent film, but this is an outrage. All of Woody's films have something to do with his personal life, but if he had casted someone like John Cusack as Sandy Bates, then everyone would have stopped complaining about it's self-indulgence and start understanding how much of a creative genius Woody Allen is. Overall, Stardust Memories will be one of his films that lasts; but only time will tell.

In my opinion, Stardust Memories is Allen's greatest achievement. The film perceptively explores the relationships between art and reality, between the artist and his work, between the work and its consumers. Beyond its philosophic concerns though, this is also an incredibly funny film. There are more genuinely funny moments within this serious film than in many of Allen's earlier pure comedies. It skewers the movie industry, the movie-going public, Allen's own earlier work, Allen's present insecurities (surprise!), and a number of other targets. Intelligent, thought provoking, and at times hilarious, this film is an overlooked gem in the Allen canon.