| I just saw it last night. I think it is one of his best films. Allen
has always dealt with serious ideas underneath the humor, but in the
past he has never really acknowledged the Jewishness of much of his
philosophizing. Indeed, to the extent that he had an "official" Jew
(e.g. a rabbi) in a movie, that character was usually a grotesque
caricature. This time he has done a film on theodicy in an explicitly
Jewish context, and included committed Jews who are taken seriously.
Interestingly, Allen plays a rather unsympathetic character; usually he
is a sweet schlimazel who has everyone rooting for him even when we
know that he's going to fail. (For those not familiar with the Yiddish
term, Leo Rosten defined it nicely: the schlemiel is the one who
spills the soup, and the schlimazel is the one it gets spilled on.)
Aaron
|
| Well, I liked the film and enjoyed it... BUT I felt that ultimately
its conclusion is quite immoral, namely that the "villain" not only
"gets away with it" externally (in the sense that he doesn't get
caught) but also internally, in that his guilt feelings abate
and he is left quite happy. Since the murderer explicitly raised
this issue I thought that the movie would have him
chastised and racked by guilt by the end.
Who knows? Maybe the film's ending is more true to life (alas...)
Anyway, I especially liked the line at the end that went something
like, "If there is no God then the criminal has to break down and
confess since he has to assume God's role"-- but since there is he
can go on his way happily and leave the final settling of scores to
some agency outside himself (God). That was an interesting idea at least!
-ZAITCH
|