Woody never had a problem with staring in his own movies of course so why didn't Woody Allen play John Cusak's chracter?
Cusak pretty much did the same thing Woody would do if he was that character
Age
shareYeah, I was watching it for the second time and thinking about this too. Cusack is playing the Woody Allen character, and there are some scenes where he just becomes Woody. But there are other scenes where he's Cusack, and that made it better. I for one wish that Cusack hadn't channeled Woody for the scenes that he does, because although I love Woody, I'm sort of sick of him too at the same time.
I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank God he didn't.
Like Woody, but love John!
"This dress exacerbates the genetic betrayal that is my legacy"...
David Shayne is clearly Woody Allen's voice in the story, but the character needed to be unestablished, impressionable, starstruck, uncertain of his own talent...in a word, YOUNG.
If a middle aged character had ultimately come to the realization that he was "not an artist," the ending would have been very sad (pathetic in fact), because he (and we), would have to accept that he wasted many years of his life pursuing an unattainable dream. A young man coming to the same conclusion makes the ending bittersweet yet hopeful.
You hit the nail on the head. See my reply to the original question.
"I've always found that writing comes from a deep inner pain." Barton Fink
Of course, Shayne and Cheech are both woody. This movie, if it can be reduced to a simple "message," is about Woody's questioning of his own impulses (to do the right, "moral" thing vs. following his artistic code). Cusack of course is playing the typical Woody characteristics and tics and self-doubts. But yes, ultimately Cheech is the one who "wins" in terms of capturing woody's philosophy, as he so famously said at the time: An artist owes nothing to anyone or anything but his art. Shayne decides that he does not have the artist's killer instincts. Woody, of course, does.
share"Of course, Shayne and Cheech are both woody. This movie, if it can be reduced to a simple "message," is about Woody's questioning of his own impulses (to do the right, "moral" thing vs. following his artistic code). Cusack of course is playing the typical Woody characteristics and tics and self-doubts. But yes, ultimately Cheech is the one who "wins" in terms of capturing woody's philosophy, as he so famously said at the time: An artist owes nothing to anyone or anything but his art. Shayne decides that he does not have the artist's killer instincts. Woody, of course, does."
Really? I'd say based on his work and the interviews and things I've read from Allen (lots) that he very definitely sides with the Cusack character, although the dilemma is certainly there for any artist. I think the film sides with Cusack, and so does Woody. But that's my opinion.
Oh, I agree. I'm so happy that John Cusack did the role instead of Woody Allen. I like Woody, but John was PERFECT in that role.
"I don't like so much freedom down there. It makes me tingle in my giblets."
I think it's because John Cusak isn't really supposed to be Woody Allen. That is a ruse in the movie. Woody Allen is really the Cheech character... since the point I felt about the movie was that everyone was really bagging on Woody Allen at the time this movie was being made and everyone was criminalizing him... and I feel he was really the Cheech character. HOWEVER... Woody Allen could never play the mobster... and he didn't want people to think he was the Cusak character and miss the point of the film... so I think that's why he didn't play anyone and gave us a ruse of Cusak seeming to be Woody
shareIt seems facile to me to say that this or that Woody Allen lead is channeling Woody. I agree totally that Kenneth Branagh is channeling Woody in Celebrity. Jason Biggs leaves himself open to this charge in Anything Else with all his stammering, but then what do you make of Woody's character? I think in Anything Else the Woody character is played by Woody! This would not be the first time he has cast himself as the comic relief--witness Crimes and Misdemeanors and Hannah and Her Sisters. Furthermore, Woody's characters are always subversive, and in Anything Else, Woody's Dobel is literally subversive, to the point of insanity!
So, is John Cusack the "Woody Allen character"? No, I think absolutely not. Cusack makes the role his own, much more strongly than Biggs, in my estimation. Cusack's David Shayne is a neophyte, a raw, untested idealist. His ideals are naive and unalloyed. Allen's script gives Shayne numberous foils--notably Flender, Helen, Cheech, and Julian--who help him refine his perspectives over the course of the film. Contrast Shayne with the beaten-down-but-not-broken idealist Woody plays in Crimes and Misdemeanors. He finds his niche, he champions his ideals when he gets an opportunity, but he's a realist, too. He knows he will never be more than the loyal opposition.
Bullets Over Broadway is one of my top 5 Allen faves ever. I think he does some of his best work when he collaborates--here, with Douglas McGrath, who wrote Infamous and Emma.
-----
"I've always found that writing comes from a deep inner pain." Barton Fink
Yeah, I think this is right.
Woody Allen almost always writes male leads - even the ones he doesn't play - as being likable, neurotic intellectuals. So of course the actors who take those roles end up playing them as neurotic and nebbishy. I don't think there's any way to play those characters without coming across as somewhat Woody-Allen-ish.
But some actors decide to channel Woody Allen more than others. Kenneth Branagh in Celebrity might as well have been playing Allen himself - it certainly looked like his speech patterns, mannerisms, etc., were taken straight from Woody Allen. John Cusack, on the other hand, chose to stay away from a lot of those conventions, but still managed to stay true to the character. I give him a lot of credit.
Because it would have ruined the film. This is the only Woody Allen film I absolutely LOVE and part of the reason is, he isn't in it.
shareI'm also glad he didn't appear in the film. His films are great as long as he's not in them. . . .I can't stand his stuttering and other weirdness. I hope he's not like that in real life.
share[deleted]