Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

Everything wrong with

Woody Allen as a director

is on display here. 

However the

strength of it's cast is 

just enough to make it tolerable.

I am a pretty huge fan of Woody Allen as a filmmaker. This makes the fourth film of his that I have seen, and up to this point I have been nothing but impressed. In particular I would consider Manhattan to be one of my favourite films of all time. As a result, it was sad that this film disappointed me so severely. Particularly as this seems to be one of the more well known film of Allen's career. Not only is this undoubtedly the weakest of his films that I have seen, it also showcases all of his most glaring weaknesses as a storyteller.

Although I probably sound harsh at this point, I should make it clear that I do not hate this film. In fact I wouldn't even be able to fully commit to calling bad. This is due almost entirely to the strength of the performances. The cast is incredible, probably the reason why this film has endured as much as it has within the film community, featuring Woody himself, Carrie Fischer, Mia Farrow and Michael Caine amongst other well known talents. Every single performance in this film is strong and in many cases the actors are able to significantly raise the quality of the material that they are given (more about that said material later). I will give particular praise to Michael Caine, for he gives a sensitive and subtle performance and truly lights up the screen with his presence whenever he is shown. It is a shame that Allen film decided to use an ensemble style narrative with this film, as it means Caine's character is reduced to that of a supporting player. If he and Mia Farrow (who is also very strong here) were at the centre of this film's narrative rather than loitering in it's suburbs , it would probably have been for the better.

The film's biggest problem is it's screenplay. I general like Allen's writing style, as he has a very unique and articulate voice and knows how to pace a film narrative well. He is also highly self-conscience, with many of his funniest or most powerful scenes coming from his own critical eye over himself. All of these positive aspects are notably absent from this film, which is self indulgent and, above all else, boring. This film feels at least two or three times it's length, I could literally not believe how short the film was when I checked the back of the DVD. In the end, this tiring and monotonous pace cements the film as mediocre to me. Every strong element that this film offers is lost in the monotony of it's narrative, and that is a real shame.  Aside from this perceived length problem, Allen is at his most narcissistic here. His self-deprecating humour is gone here, and without it he becomes quite unlikeable as a performer. Rather than lovable he is annoying, and he is way to prominent in the films overall narrative. I personally feel Allen should have stayed behind the camera for this one.

The film's overwritten script also manages to lessen the effects of the performances at times. There are scenes where we see characters quietly contemplating their situations, the emotional impact of the moment being sold by the expressions on the actors face. For some reason however, Allen decided to overlay these scenes with dull and dense narration, explaining  away the emotions that the actors are already conveying visually. This undercuts the effect of these moments and lessened my relation to the people on screen, because the film was not allowing me to interpret anything. This lack of audience involvement, furthers the boredom that the film instils.

I cannot call this film an absolute failure. It was still mildly entertaining and the film has some pretty great moments. Although I have no intention of watching this film again, and I would not recommend it for a moment, it is ultimately harmless and average.

By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review