Woody Allen has been responsible for a number of comedies, usually anchored by his own nebbish, neurotic persona. His constant on-screen presence is so overwhelming that it overshadows his actual filmmaking talents. When people think of Woody, they don`t think of him as a director, but as a neurotic, and, after his troubles with Mia Farrow, reprehensible. I have friends who, at the mere glimpse of Woody Allen, dissolve into disgust.

But the fact remains that Woody Allen, the filmmaker, is one of our more interesting directors. While Oscar nominations are not normally a garentee of greatness, Allen`s own track record is impressive. He is tied with Billy Wilder for the most nominated screenwriter, with more than 10 screenplays to be credited. He has been also nominated six times for Best Director. This is alll the more interesting when it is known that Woody himself has no liking for the Academy. In other words, instead of buttering up the Academy members, he does things his own way, yet still gets nominated. This must suggest that Woody Allen must have some degree of skill. And while there may be a lot of sameness in his films, on account of Allen`s persona, the fact is that there is a lot of variation in his work. When he began his directing career, Allen created farcical, slapstick comedies (Sleeper, Bananas, etc), then graduated onto more deeper comedies such as Annie Hall and Manhattan. Along the way he has managed to do a musical (Everyone Says I Love You), a few more serious works (Crimes and Misdemeanours, for example), and a number of films in which he does not exploit his own persona and remained behind the camera (Bullets Over Broadway, Sweet and Lowdown, etc.)

Interiors (1978) is without much doubt the black sheep of the Woody Allen repertoire. The follow-up to the Oscar-winning Best Picture Annie Hall, Interiors is like nothing you would expect from a comedian. The film, a strict, rigid, extremly quiet, and grim drama, was meant to prove to the world that Woody Allen was indeed a Serious Filmmaker. Instead, the film bombed, while apparently insulting fans who were subjected to not just a drama, but a completly inacessable piece of celluloid. While Interiors received five Oscar nominations, and was admired by a few viewers and critics, like Roger Ebert, the film was pretty much forgotten.

I`m actually one of those few admirers, as I can be as I`m not strongly attached to Woody Allen`s work. While some of his films are good, I`m not a rabid fan, which means I don`t expect to see the same old thing every time. This film certainly has a number of fascinating elements. Yet I do understand why peple would avoid this film. Interiors is a completly unfashionable film, even for the 1970`s. The film avoids any attempt at juicing up the action, with pumped-up emotions and musical scores, the script is talky and very self-reflecting, even pretentious, and there is very little emotion, especially humour, the one thing we`d expect from Allen. Even I found it difficult to "like" or "enjoy"; this is not light entertainment. Unlike possibly any other film, even Crimes and Misdemeanours, another fairly pessimistic work, Interiors is a film which appears to be completely outside Woody`s creative character.

Woody Allen has been responsible for a number of comedies, usually anchored by his own nebbish, neurotic persona. His constant on-screen presence is so overwhelming that it overshadows his actual filmmaking talents. When people think of Woody, they don`t think of him as a director, but as a neurotic, and, after his troubles with Mia Farrow, reprehensible. I have friends who, at the mere glimpse of Woody Allen, dissolve into disgust. But the fact remains that Woody Allen, the filmmaker, is one of our more interesting directors. While Oscar nominations are not normally a garentee of greatness, Allen`s own track record is impressive. He is tied with Billy Wilder for the most nominated screenwriter, with more than 10 screenplays to be credited. He has been also nominated six times for Best Director. This is alll the more interesting when it is known that Woody himself has no liking for the Academy. In other words, instead of buttering up the Academy members, he does things his own way, yet still gets nominated. This must suggest that Woody Allen must have some degree of skill. And while there may be a lot of sameness in his films, on account of Allen`s persona, the fact is that there is a lot of variation in his work. When he began his directing career, Allen created farcical, slapstick comedies (Sleeper, Bananas, etc), then graduated onto more deeper comedies such as Annie Hall and Manhattan. Along the way he has managed to do a musical (Everyone Says I Love You), a few more serious works (Crimes and Misdemeanours, for example), and a number of films in which he does not exploit his own persona and remained behind the camera (Bullets Over Broadway, Sweet and Lowdown, etc.) Interiors (1978) is without much doubt the black sheep of the Woody Allen repertoire. The follow-up to the Oscar-winning Best Picture Annie Hall, Interiors is like nothing you would expect from a comedian. The film, a strict, rigid, extremly quiet, and grim drama, was meant to prove to the world that Woody Allen was indeed a Serious Filmmaker. Instead, the film bombed, while apparently insulting fans who were subjected to not just a drama, but a completly inacessable piece of celluloid. While Interiors received five Oscar nominations, and was admired by a few viewers and critics, like Roger Ebert, the film was pretty much forgotten. I`m actually one of those few admirers, as I can be as I`m not strongly attached to Woody Allen`s work. While some of his films are good, I`m not a rabid fan, which means I don`t expect to see the same old thing every time. This film certainly has a number of fascinating elements. Yet I do understand why peple would avoid this film. Interiors is a completly unfashionable film, even for the 1970`s. The film avoids any attempt at juicing up the action, with pumped-up emotions and musical scores, the script is talky and very self-reflecting, even pretentious, and there is very little emotion, especially humour, the one thing we`d expect from Allen. Even I found it difficult to "like" or "enjoy"; this is not light entertainment. Unlike possibly any other film, even Crimes and Misdemeanours, another fairly pessimistic work, Interiors is a film which appears to be completely outside Woody`s creative character. The story involves an upper-class family, about to enter an emotional crisis. This begins when the father of the grown children decides to divorce his perfectionist wife. After this, the mother, as well as the daughters, suffer and inflict much emotional pain. The most noticeable is the characters of the mother (Geraldine Page) and one of the daughters (Diane Keaton). The mother is a dramatic, high-strung woman who demands perfection in almost every aspect of life. She is no longer able to cope when her perfect family life crumbles, and she receives a nervous breakdown. The daughter, a brilliant poet, suddenly loses her emotional and creative stability. Because the daughter is a much more intellectual and analytical being, she is able to express her state in words, not merely impulses. She feels impotent mentally, and also becomes bombarded with thoughts which remind her of misery, of mortality. These performances are the high points for me. Both of these characters are in fact very similar, although it may not be apparent at first. Page is more dramatic, while Keaton is more analytical, but in both cases, they are frightened by what is happening to them. The two of them implicitly ask the same question – why are their perfect lives falling apart? The mother is suddenly abandoned by the children and the husband, while the daughter is abandoned by her artistic confidence, as well as the affections of her selfish twit of a husband, who takes a fit because he believes that she merely flatters him and his unsuccessful writing.

The film is not flawless, it is not Woody Allen`s best work, but it is not unworthy. Yet the true test may be to try to ignore who is directing this piece. It may be hard to get out of your mind the credit stating Written and Directed by Woody Allen, but maybe by doing so, you can better appreciate the artistry. If this film were directed by anyone else (like... I don`t know... let`s say.... Ingmar Bergman??) then we would perceive this film much differently, right? Interiors is not a film for those with frivolous taste, and might even benefit from more than one viewing for those who aren`t so frivolous. And if one is at least a bit honest with oneself, one would have to admit that there are many complexities lurking within the creative mind of Woody Allen.

David Macdonald

David Macdonald's Movie Reviews