James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
Leigh: So, what were your impressions of ‘Manhattan’?
Christina: I liked its premise, an interesting insight into the personal lives of the characters and their interactions with each other. Although, I think it was needlessly depressing.
L: I think ‘depressing’ is an overly strong term to use for the film. It certainly didn’t sugar coat human relationships by any means, but it’s hard to feel empathy for the characters because they substitute genuine, human emotions with showy intellectualism.
C: They’re intellectual but a bit unbelievable at the same time. As screwed up as people are, I don’t think anyone’s really as bad as Woody Allen made his characters out to be. I guess I couldn’t really get into the film because it was so overly dramatic about things that in reality are boring and mundane. Could you engage with any of the characters?
L: Well, no- but only out of fear of being like them. It’s so easy to talk things up, over-analyse and be ‘intellectual’ about life; intellectualism enables you to avoid taking responsibility for certain realities that you yourself are part of. All the characters are like that in ‘Manhattan’. I think it’s a good movie for students to watch- a bit of a reality check.
C: I still don’t think you can say students are like the characters in ‘Manhattan’. Nobody’s that intellectual…nobody has Woody Allen writing scripts for them to come out with in seminars. I wish!
L: It’s true that there aren’t many people like the characters of ‘Manhattan’-thank God!- but watching the film you see bits of yourself and people you know and are presented with the horror of the cringe worthy social chaos that would result if people got together in large groups and endorsed each other’s arrogance. It works just like a mockumentary in that sense. Everyone sees someone in The Office that reminds them of fragments of someone in the real world and it’s all the more entertaining for it.
C: I really wanted to laugh at bits of it, in fact I did laugh, a lot, but I still felt bad about it. I think you’re onto something with the whole mockumentary thing. It’s funny because it’s so ridiculous but even funnier because at the back of your mind there’s a little part of you saying that there are actually people like that…and maybe you’re a little like that yourself. L: In a way though, the movie seems to focus on people desperately trying not to be themselves and instead projecting an ideal persona. In the movie the ambition seems to be the perfect urban intellectual, and yet they fail because they are normal chaotic human beings. It reflects the whole oxymoron of Manhattan- a city that symbolises the epitome of human accomplishment but is in fact peopled by total morons. It’s an ideal image being exposed for what it really is.
C: If ‘Manhattan’ shows human beings for what they really are, what hope does it leave you with? Not a single one of them learns anything in the end; they’re just as confused and messed up as they were to begin with. I think this was an enjoyable film but not for any of the stereotypical reasons. I liked it but I can’t explain why and I think that’s the intelligent subtlety of this movie.
L: I think you liked it because it was a smart, frank and truthful portrayal of human beings without being too depressing or philosophical.
C: It really was a depressing subject, but the fact that it was presented in such a light hearted and comical way made it strangely enjoyable.
You must log in to submit a comment.
