When it comes to life, its natural progression and its effects on us mere mortals, humanity is divided into the glass half full and half empty camps. In other words, while some view growing old and being replaced by younger generations as tragic, others accept it as is, often with a smile or knowing laugh.
Such seemingly disparate views are the theme of and what is behind/related to Woody Allen's latest dramedy, "Melinda and Melinda." The behind the scenes aspect regards Allen's continued reaction to no longer being leading man material in the same sort of story -- at least thematically -- that he's told countless times before.
As was the case in "Anything Else" (starring Jason Biggs) and especially "Celebrity" (with Kenneth Branagh), the filmmaker has written a main character and instructed the performing playing him to imitate Allen. The puppet here is Will Farrell, a comedic actor known for throwing all caution to the wind in playing goofball characters in films such as "Anchorman" and "Elf."
He's far more subdued here and the Allen impersonation isn't as maddening as was Branagh's, but the pacing and inflection of his dialogue delivery are trademark Woody Allen. As is the dual character played by Radha Mitchell ("Finding Neverland," "Pitch Black") in what's essentially the umpteenth retreading of characters played by Mia Farrow, Diane Keaton and other leading ladies who've previously collaborated with the once acclaimed filmmaker.
The difference here, of course, is that Mitchell is playing two different versions of the same character, although that line eventually and one assumes purposefully blends by the end of the film. The set-up is fairly simple. Two men -- Larry Pine and Wallace "Princess Bride" Shawn -- take turns spinning their takes on the tale of a young woman whose life hasn't gone exactly as planned. With one taking the tragic route and the other the comedic one, we see constantly alternating versions of the title subject's life/lives.
While Mitchell is the one visual constant between the stories (not including Allen's trademark use of his beloved Manhattan as a "background character"), the tales unfold with different supporting characters and details. Yet, there are obvious similarities between both, including character traits and certain particulars regarding them and their interaction with others.
The problem, among several, is that the comedic story isn't that funny (unless you get your jollies seeing Ferrell doing Allen), and the tragic one isn't that rueful (unless you consider the sort of films the writer/director once made vs. what he now delivers). I'm guessing that's the point -- at least that there isn't much separating the two -- but when they don't deliver "the goods" they promise, that lessens the "they're really not that different" payoff at the end.
In addition, while there are connections between the two tales, Allen isn't as clever, imaginative or insightful as one would hope in paralleling them, especially considering the set-up and built-in potential. One need only compare this effort to other mirror-type stories -- such as that found in "Sliding Doors" -- to see what I mean.
Then there's the fact that the dialogue -- both as written and delivered -- is sometimes rather clunky. That probably helps explain -- to some degree -- why some of the acting is also rather stiff, which is surprising considering that we're not talking about amateurs in front of or behind the camera.
One could argue that those played by the likes of Chloë Sevigny, Jonny Lee Miller, Amanda Peet, Brooke Smith and Chiwetel Ejiofor are supposed to be representations of the new, sketchily drawn and narrated characters created on the fly by the two genre debating playwrights. I think that's reading too much into the issue and/or giving too much credit for something that occasionally feels so off it draws one's attention away from the stories being told.
Then again, some may say it's so far in that direction that the only explanation is that it's purposeful. Whatever the case, that doesn't make the film's overall mediocrity and repetitiveness of the filmmaker's previous and far superior films any more forgivable. Don't get me wrong -- it's certainly not as bad as much of the dreck that comes out of the moviemaking world and it's better than some of the director's more recent offerings.
Yet, the fact that it wastes a decent if not particularly novel premise and related potential, and feels like reheated leftovers from the filmmaker's previous cinematic feasts means it will probably only play well to Allen's diehard fans who are hoping he'll deliver something sumptuous again. Unfortunately, this isn't that dish. "Melinda and Melinda" rates as a 4.5 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
