Neblina e Sombras

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 like Woody Allen's "Shadows and Fog" and I think it is seriously underrated. Shot in a beautiful B/W this surreal Comedy / Mystery / Drama / Thriller takes place in a small town somewhere in the Eastern Europe between two World Wars where a mysterious maniac stranglers the people all over the town. Since the local police proved to be helpless, the citizens form vigilance committees and a small timid insignificant bookkeeper Kleinman (his name is translated as "Little Man") is recruited to search for a murderer in the dark night full of shadows and fog. Allen parodies German Expressionists (Fritz Lang), Franz Kafka, and Ingmar Bergman ("Magician") in this funny, scary, warm, dark, surreal, and dramatic film that he saw as a metaphor for humanity, as we all muddle through the murk and attempt to find meaning. The cast is all brilliant and includes Mia Farrow, John Malkovich, Madonna, David Ogden Stiers, Michael Kirby, John Cusack, John C. Reilly. Lily Tomlin, Jodie Foster, and Kathy Bates appeared in the cameos playing prostitutes in the local brothel. I was especially impressed by John Malkovich - never expected him be as tender as in the final scene.

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.

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