MovieChat Forums > Stardust Memories (1980) Discussion > how could this NOT be at the very least,...

how could this NOT be at the very least, semi-autobiographic al?

posted 19 years ago by suckerdwsp316
8 replies | jump to latest

woody allen says, none of his films are autobiographical. thats BS! cmon, i'm sure woody allen inserted some of the weird characters he's come in contact with during his career up to the point when he wrote the script. i'm sure he got a kick out of poking fun at every exec and obsessed fan he's ever met. he probably had an easy time making of everybody in hollywood. and he says it NOT autobiographical? please. it had to be... right?

[–] hurricanepictures426 19 years ago

if a work is more fictional than true, then it would not be an autobiography but fictional film featuring some truth. His films are so exaggerated also i can see why they aren't truthfully biographical.

People also assume he portrays himself in his films. its more of a persona like chaplin's the tramp, its an extension of how he feels about himself, a way to exploit his faults. He seems quite different in interviews then he acts in his films.

I don't really understand the notion of semi-autobiographic. You can stretch that to make any film seem that way. If someone wanted to, i'm sure they could make claims of Back to the Future being semi-autobiographic and prove it.

People assume these things about many of Woody's films, like Annie Hall, but its a stretch.

[–] stephan-128 16 years ago

whether its "autobiographical" or not, it certainly espouses philosophical existential concerns that are clearly woody allen's own.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

I think a lot of his films tend to be a lil too much on the personal side - a tendency I find rather annoying. This one and Deconstructing Harry are probably the worst offenders in these regards. And it´s silly to argue that they "really aren´t about him" as the same motifs & concerns keep reoccurring from film to film. Exaggerated as they may be.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Mark_Graisons_Moustache 14 years ago

Yeah, I love Woody and almost all of his films but it is laughable when he claims none of his films are autobiographical. Uh-huh, sure, Woody. In this movie, he plays an actor/writer/director who used to direct "funny" movies and now wants to get working on serious stuff that talks philosophically about life, and meanwhile he rubs his girlfriends shoulders and espouses some fantasy about her having sex with her father. Really?

"I've flown this route before."
"When was that?"
"IT WAS ON THE WINGS OF A DEMON!"

[–] voided-1 13 years ago

There are clearly autobiographical elements, (such as the flirtation with performing magic), but it's important to remember that fiction is a conglomeration of an author's interests and can only be based on thier experience of life. We shouldn't take it literally.

franzkabuki, you seem to have watched a vast amount of Allen's work. More than I, (and I consider myself a fan). Yet you constantly criticize his work. That is fine, but I think maybe you protest too much. Maybe these films mean more to you than you are consciously willing to accept. Just a thought.

"By being alive he is blocking his own way. From this, he derives the proof that he is alive."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CoSMiGoNoN 11 years ago

Woody can say anything he wants, but this film is DEFINITELY auto-biographical.

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

by suckerdwsp316 » Wed Dec 7 2005 17:31:32 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2003
Post Edited: Sun Jan 22 2006 18:31:39
woody allen says, none of his films are autobiographical. thats BS! cmon, i'm sure woody allen inserted some of the weird characters he's come in contact with during his career up to the point when he wrote the script. i'm sure he got a kick out of poking fun at every exec and obsessed fan he's ever met. he probably had an easy time making of everybody in hollywood. and he says it NOT autobiographical? please. it had to be... right?

I think you'll find his life is pretty plain and ordinary. This has some loose basis from an experience he had at a film festival, or so I seem to recall, but beyond that there's no equivocation to his personal life.

Like a lot of films this movie looks at the obsessiveness of fans and the inherit dangers of people who get passionate about an author, artist or think they know what the author is saying in his work. It's why you get so many fans making strange remarks throughout this film.