The real casting mistake


I recently picked up a fun book for Allen fans called "Woody Allen and Philosophy". One chapter was devoted to "Curse of the Jade", which suprised me, as I didn't think that the film merited much comment, not being one of my favorite Allens.

But upon reading it, it makes a case to reconsider the film as a post-modern spin on Maltese Falcon-type morality and character, with Allen's Briggs standing in for Bogart. It made me appreciate that the script was really not so awful.

Upon earlier viewings, I also thought perhaps Hunt was miscast. That despite her abilities, this role did not suit her, and she had no chemistry with Allen. While I continue to think there might be some truth to this, I actually believe that Woody's biggest mistake in this film's casting lies elsewhere: his casting of himself in the lead.

Contrary to some people, I do think Woody can act as well as write, direct, do stand-up. His performances have not only been funny, but shown great pathos, along the lines of Chaplin. But I think he somehow lost his acting touch after "Deconstructing Harry". He took a break, not appearing in "Celebrity" and "Sweet". Then I just don't find him back to his abilities in "Smalltime", "Jade" or "Anything". And happily(sad to say)uncast in "Melinda" and "Match".

I think this film could have worked(better) with someone else in the lead. Woody is standing in for Bogart, ferchrissakes. He was doin that in "Play It Again Sam" as well, to great yucks. But there the difference between them is not only acceptable, it's needed for the laughs. This story demands more that we can believe him (even a little bit)as a babe-magnet for Charlize and Helen. When Bogie is verbally sparring with Lauren, etc in those oldies-but-goodies we feel heat under the put-downs. Here, it just seems very farcical(as in ridiculous, not funny) that Charlize and Helen would be interested in Woody's character. And when they call him "grimy", etc, it seems more believable as outright disdain, not that it masks their desires for him.

Who could have been great in this role? You tell me:)

reply

[deleted]

TY. Interesting suggestion!

I wonder if George(and Woody) would have gone for it?

reply

[deleted]

Your suggestion brings up the question of whether the actor who "fills in" for Woody in a (comedic)film needs to put in some or a lot of neurosis. Perhaps Billy Bob would be better at that than Clooney. Well, he seems more neurotic in real life atleast,lol. What do you think?

Did Woody direct John Cusack, Kenneth Branagh, and Will Ferrell to act like him? Would their performances have been better if they had not as much( as it seems apparent that all of them to different degrees did)?

reply

[deleted]

Now that I have this idea in my head that it was Woody himself(as actor) that was a/the weak link in "Curse", I am thinking the same for "Hollywood Ending". Like "Curse", when you think about the plot idea of HE itself, it seems kinda clever, like it should have come out better.

reply

[deleted]

I have responded on that respective board to your viscious attack upon my argument cocerning Ms. Thiessen's bust;)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Look, I think that Woody is truly an artistic genius. But even a genius makes questionable(artistic)choices sometimes, and is sometimes influenced by outside things. I don't know how he decided on Hunt. But I understand to an extent that, if you could get her, it would be difficult to say "No, I'd much rather my movie star Simka(no matter that maybe that would have worked out better).

Speaking of Wilder, and remembering his sketch in "Everything You Always...", wouldn't he be a great fill-in for Woody in a Woody film? I think so.

reply

[deleted]

lol I just know Woody movies.

I wish I could say I was a film buff. It would sound cool;)

reply

[deleted]

Well, TY for that sentiment, Rimn.

Likewise I am sure:)

reply

Woody has certainly been guilty of poor acting (though he is a favorite actor of mine) view the scene in Crimes and Misdemeanors where he is reacting to his sister's date (awful). But I think Jade Scorpion completely worked and as Woody has gotten older, his romantic character has become more wistful and sad and suprisingly deep. I love the Jade Scorpion, its my 2nd favorite movie of all time

reply

TY for noting that scene. I assume you feel that his character in that scene does not seem properly "engaged" to what his sister is revealing to him. Can I give a possible explanation for it?

Although I believe Cliff(that's Woody in "Crimes")is supposed to be seen as a character who tries to have integrity and some morality, he is not a saint(like Isaac in "Manhattan"). And I think that Cliff is supposed to be shown in that scene as somewhat not fully engaged with his sister's plight. I think this goes to Woody lamenting how family structure has deteriorated, how there is not now the traditional comfort shown to someone like Cliff's sister. Compare her situation with Aunt Bea in "Radio Days", who can never find a good guy, but still has the company, support of the family.

Note that Cliff continues to fail to give full empathy to his sister as she cries and confides how alone she is. All Cliff can do is relate it to his own life, to tell her that marriage is "not that hot", all because his own is presently "not that hot".

reply

I appreciate what you have to say. The problem for me wasnt about being engaged. Woody is rarely engaged with the other characters (witness the scene with Judy Davis and the gun in Deconstructing Harry) or even his scenes in Hollywood Ending with Debra Messing. It is all about him (In this way his acting sometimes compares to Rodney Dangerfield to me) we oft forget that because everything is so funny. The sister scene in Crimes and Misdemeanors alerts us to the fact that Woody Allen is acting and his disgust just seems false. IN Jade though he is very real.

reply

And I appreciate your opinion on this. I think you are right about that he is often not "engaged" with the other actors(although still effective). Rodney is interesting comparison I would not have thought of.

Hey, I think Woody is a good actor, but I certainly allow he may have been weaker in some scenes or some films.

Hey, you can't be the best screenwriter ever AND THE best actor, too, right? that just wouldn't be fair:)

reply

[deleted]

Yes, I think that they are not necesarilly "actors" in the same sense as a DeNiro, etc, but still good at what they do. I think they are effective because they give a sense with their "detachment" of commenting on the action outside and above the story, in the same spirit as when Woody speaks directly to the audience in a number of scenes in Annie Hall in acknowledgement of the unreality of film.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, Rodney is one of those guys who just plain knows how to deliver a joke. His delivery and sense-of-good-spirited-humor makes you feel glad to hear him say jokes that are not even funny.

I would compare him to Bob Hope, whom Woody adores. Paraphrasing Woody on Hope, He may never ever have been in a great film, and many of the ones he was in may be pretty bad, but he himself is always good fun to see.

reply

I've gotta disagree with this; Briggs isn't a straight stand-in for Bogart, he's a broken-down version. He's flippant, and good at what he does, and his morality is at odds with what he does sometimes, but the difference is that this is an older, "fish-out-of-water" version of Sam Spade and Phillip Marlowe; despite the story taking place in the 40s, since we're viewing it as a modern film, with modern eyes, he seems to be a character out of his time. HE hasn't changed, aside from the aging, but everybody around him has, so he seems at turns ridiculous and chauvanistic. A guy with George Clooney's natural charm and looks would totally ruin the foolishness that C.W. Briggs is portrayed with.

Helen Hunt's performance didn't work well for me at all, though; I felt like Woody wanted to do something with the old 30s-40s screwball comedy motif, but Hunt didn't have much to go on in the way of the kind of absurd charm and eccentricity that actresses like Carole Lombard or Katharine Hepburn brought to the table. Her physical presence, especially with Woody in the scene, was too... well, big, I guess; someone with a little more of a pixie-ish persona, playing against type in the beginning as a domineering efficiency expert, would have jibed better for me.

All in all, though, I was a fan of Curse, certainly moreso than Small Time Crooks.

reply

Hmmm, that seems like a good point about him needing to seem a little ridiculous. Perhaps Woody did fine, and I just frankly was sad to see "Virgil Starkwell" so starkly old-looking now.

Yes, that sounds right. You need a screwball comedy actress who also works as the romantic interest(and isn't 21)...Diane Keaton anyone?:)

Goldie Hawn? Meryl Streep? Holly Hunter?

Other possibilities?

reply

[deleted]

Sounds cool to me.

Let's contact her, and Woody, and start the reshoot.

reply

[deleted]

Helen Hunt's role was a tough one, I think. It was pretty complex. The "chemistry" factor is real tricky here because there's supposed to be animosity (anti-chemistry?) between them, which turns into infatuation under hypnosis, and then a real romance. That's not something you can just deliver on cue.
Her performance is probably about as good as you could expect from anyone.

reply

HH is always a casting mistake.

reply

I could have seen Jason Alexander in the role.

reply

People don´t understand that Woody's movies are comedies. Well at least the ones with himself in them. They are vehicles for his jokes. And Woody Allen is widely regarded among comedy writers as one of the best joke writers of all time. Read any book about comedy writing and his jokes will be quoted endlessly. He always writes the jokes for the character he invented for himself. And he plays the same character in all his movies with himself as the lead like all great comedians do.

Curse of the Jade Scorpion is a comedy. It's a spoof on detective movies. There is really no need to dissect it. Just enjoy it for the jokes.

reply