Customer Reviews

Interiors

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Revisiting INTERIORS written and directed by Woody Allen in 1978 it becomes apparent that this is one of the most important American films made. In this time of video art and digital manipulation of images, both in real time and in fixed entities, INTERIORS exemplifies the finest in what film can achieve. Without manipulation of scenery, without (gratefully) a senses-asaulting musical score, without GIMMICKRY - here is a film of brilliant writing, stunningly and beautifully subtle sets and costumes, and acting of the first degree. The angst so present in our society's family relationships is gently observed and explored and the results are a paean of understated simplicity and pain. It is difficult to single out any of the outstanding cast as 'best' and that is yet another proof of ensemble acting and directing at a zenith. Yes, it is unimaginable to leave behind the characters created by Geraldine Page, H.G. Marshall, Diane Keaton, and Maureen Stapleton, but again this is an indicator of how well and cohesive the experience provided by this movie is.

I have never been a Woody Allen fan: I find his comedies overwrought, self-absorbed, and frustratingly tedious. Seeing INTERIORS on a DVD, in the quiet of home, has altered my respect for this man. A dazzingly brilliant, thoughtful, elegy of a film.

Woody Allen's wonderful sense of humor is not his greatest asset: it's his storycrafting genius, and nowhere is this more obvious than in this brilliant piece of serious drama, which is not merely an homage to Allen's filmmaker idol Ingmar Bergman, but an emotionally complex, riveting story in its own right. Interiors is an examination of a family coming apart at the seams, not as a result of some outside, malevolent force, but merely due to the intricacies of human nature.

Note that in his more serious work, Allen typically paints one character as the story's conscience and emotional center, and he usually plays this role himself; there are disappointing results when anyone else tries to do it. Not so for Marybeth Hurt in her multi-faceted portrayal of Joey, the family's frustrated emotional caretaker, unable to find her own identity. Maureen Stapleton also provides both contrast and comic relief in her role as Pearl, a character unfettered by complexity--and intellect!

One of the great, exhilirating pleasures in watching films is coming across a masterpiece like this one.

Woody Allen probably knew that Interiors would be panned by his most loyal fans, his most ardent critics (Pauline Kael), and even the always honorable motion picture industry. How he managed to ignore what might have been insurmountable difficulties for another is a feat of no small measure; how he managed to craft this dramatic gem is "an impossibility commensurate with two like snowflakes" (from Woody's Getting Even). Mary Beth Hurt shines as Joey, a passionate but ambivalent actress-photographer-copywriter, who cannot transcend her pressing responsibility as daughter to a delusional and depressed woman, Eve (Geraldine Page). She has two sisters (a theme to be further explored in Allen's later Hannah and her Sisters), one of whom is fairly irrelevant and indifferent to her life (the only underdeveloped character in the film), the TV actress Flynn. The other sister Renata (Diane Keaton) is a highly successful poet who has distanced herself from Joey while she deals with complex emotional issues stemming from an abusive, alcoholic husband (Richard Jordan) and her own artistic "paralysis." Woody weaves the stories together with dignity and grace, and Gordon Willis' superlative cinematography pays homage to Bergman's Sven Nyqvist (the beachwalking scene could be Persona in color) while infusing his own creative vision into each shot. Woody's comic flair is nonpareil, and his unique cinematic concept is timeless and powerful. With Interiors, Woody indelibly makes his mark as one of the finest dramatists of the 20th century as well.

It's pretty obvious that Woody Allen was so resistant in being confined as a comedy filmmaker that in the throes of his success with the wondrous "Annie Hall", he felt a need to make an über-serious drama in the Ingmar Bergman mode. This 1978 Chekhovian family drama is the result, and it is alternately affecting and exasperating. The key problem is that Allen presents such a hermetically sealed world of intellectuals and artistic souls that the interactions among the characters feel pointed and self-conscious. He has obviously since learned that his best films ("Manhattan", "Hannah and Her Sisters") are served most by his particular balance between comedy and drama.

The story concerns an upscale New York family reacting to the news that patriarch Arthur wants to leave his psychologically unstable wife Eve just released from a sanitarium. They have three daughters, all of whom are grappling with their own problems. Eldest sister Renata is a successful poet stuck in a volatile marriage to Frederick, a fellow writer whose lack of commercial success has merely heightened his jealousy and paranoia. Middle daughter Joey is Arthur's favorite, but she is unable to figure out what to do with her life, and her constant flailing frustrates everyone around her in spite of the patience of her boyfriend Michael. Youngest daughter Flyn is the beautiful, emotionally isolated one who moved to Hollywood to become a semi-successful actress.

They all respond to their mother Eve's neediness in different ways, and the inevitable turning point comes when Arthur finalizes the divorce and remarries, this time to a passionate, fun-loving widow named Pearl. Even though Gordon Willis' beige-dominated cinematography and the frigid, almost-too-perfect art direction by Mel Bourne and Daniel Robert lend the extreme austerity for which Allen seems to be striving, the acting is what makes this film dramatically effective. Mary Beth Hurt gives a brave performance as Joey, capturing all the inadequacy and wounded rejection her character feels. Maureen Stapleton is a breath of fresh air as Pearl, lending an amusing earthiness and colorful indifference when she arrives late in the story.

With her severe look, Geraldine Page effectively lends unrelenting, humorless intensity to her heavily mannered portrayal of Eve and turns her character into a hopelessly desperate victim as the story moves toward its conclusion. As Renata, Diane Keaton removes all traces of the lovable Annie Hall but unfortunately comes across as the most contrived, especially when her character cannot help but be patronizing to Frederick and Joey. Richard Jordan plays Frederick in broad strokes that make it difficult to empathize with his plight. Making lesser impressions are Sam Waterson as Michael, Kristin Griffith as Flyn and a surprisingly understated E.G. Marshall as Arthur. Just the original trailer is included as an extra on the 2000 DVD.

`Interiors', written and directed by Woody Allen, is by far his most serious work and his biggest departure from his earlier comedies, yet, as the film he did between the major award-winning `Annie Hall' and the comic, but much more serious `Manhattan', it was probably one of the more important milestones marking the changes in his writing. It certainly gave rise to the entire popular and critical hubbub about preferring his earlier, `funny' movies; an attitude Allen parodies himself in `Stardust Memories'.

In spite of the fact that I can detect not one hint of a joke in `Interiors', this does not mean Allen has abandoned his core subjects of sex, death, creative freeze-up, parents, and relationships between partners. Diane Keaton, for example, plays a character almost identical to her role in `Manhattan', a New York literary figure. In `Manhattan', she is a successful book editor. In `Interiors', she is a successful poet married to a less successful novelist and teacher, very similar to the character played by Michael Murphy in `Manhattan', to whom she plays mistress. One of the many little subplots which spills over into sexual misdirection is Keaton's husband, played by Richard Jordan, virtually raping Keaton's actress sister, played by Kristin Griffith.

The story is incredibly spare. Aside from two suicides and the rape, practically nothing happens other than dialogue. Unlike so many of Allen's other movies, even the location is anonymous. While a keen eye will spot some unobvious New York City scenes and the suburban locations are not hard to assume to be Long Island, `New York' manages to stay out of this movie as a character. The very spare set decoration is an essential part of this story, as part of the sense of the title, `Interiors', comes from the occupation of the central character played by Geraldine Page, whose role is the mother of three daughters (Keaton, Hurt, Griffith) and the wife of a lawyer played by E.G. Marshall. Marshall's character creates the basic situation driving the movie when he announces he has decided he needs to live alone, apart from his wife.

Of course, the movie would be incredibly shallow if the whole story was about living in bare white Manhattan co-ops and equally spare Long Island beach houses. The relations between the eight star roles are certainly enough to spin all sorts of symbolism meaning this, that, but I will try to keep speculation to a minimum.

While the parents separation and Page's suicides are the external forces driving the story, the `interiors' story seems to be the fact that with the possible exception of Maureen Stapleton, Marshall's post-separation girlfriend, not one of the characters interact with any of their family members with any empathy or feeling until the suicides precipitate an external need for action. Stapleton's difference from the other characters stands out in that she is the only lead character who is not part of this family of highly disconnected people.

I am hard pressed to think of any playwright or filmmaker with whom to compare this work. It is totally free of the kind of energy common to most American filmmakers, who, except for my other hero director, Stanley Kubrick, seem to be uncomfortable if more than ten seconds goes by without strong words or action showing up on the screen. It is also totally free of the kind of obvious imagery we see from Bergman or Fellini. We may not know to what they are alluding, but we are darn sure they have hidden a message somewhere in those wild strawberries or that giant fish. The closest I can come may be some of the plays of Eugene O'Neill and Tennessee Williams. I am less familiar with Ibsen, but I suspect there may be some influence from that quarter as well.

If for no other reason, this movie is a delight to see the workings of such a great ensemble cast perform together. This is by far the youngest appearance I recall seeing of Sam Waterston and we probably see far too little of Marshall, Stapleton, Page, and Keaton in really serious work.

Other reviewers have amply commented on the great skill and beauty of the cinematography. I will interject a small concern that some of the scenes were a bit too dark, not that anything but the dialogue was very important in most scenes.

This is a very hard movie to recommend. While Allen has done other movies with very serious themes such as `The Purple Rose of Cairo', `Crimes and Misdemeanors', `September' and `Husbands and Wives', this movie is about as far from his center of gravity based on humor as you can possibly imagine. Therefore, if you are simply amused by his movies, you may want to take a pass on `Interiors'. On the other hand, if you like the way Allen treats his core subjects, you should really see this movie at least once. For died in the wool Allen fans, you probably need to watch it about once every two years to see what new insights it gives on Allen's art.

Woody Allen's follow up to his Academy Award winning film "Annie Hall" was his first drama, and a real disappointment when first released. But, dispite the unwarm reception it received from the American public "Interiors" went on to earn several Academy Award nominataions including; "Best Director", "Best Screenplay", and "Best Actress" (Geraldine Page). I avoided watching this film due to awful word-of mouth. The funny thing is I own a copy of this film for 4 years and never was once tempted to watch it, that is untill a few days ago. "Interiors" I now feel is a true masterpiece, but, of course it has it's share of faults, which I will get to later.
The main reason I enjoy this story, which is mainly about a family crumbling, is because I can connect with the characters. I love movies about hard, grim subjects, especially ones that deal with families, as you can tell I'm just a load of laughs to be around lol. Allen managed to create some very interresting characters. I really loved watching Mary Beth Hurt, who plays I believe the middle child of three sisters, Joey. Joey, as Renata (Diane Keaton) puts it, has all the personal problems of an artist, but, none of the talent. Joey yearns to be able to express the feelings she has inside, but doesn't know how to express them. She is one of the most interesting characters I've seen in a while. You can't help but feel for her. I enjoyed the little bit we see of Flyn, the youngest sister played by Kristen Griffith, she is what I would call the "black sheep" of the family. She's a daytime soap opera actress, who gets mixed up with drugs and drinking. She also seems "lost" and it looks as if she will never find her direction. I just wish Allen would of find some way to make her a stronger character. I kept wanting to know more about her. Finally, of course when you have a talent like E.G. Marshall in a movie, you can expect him to bring something special with him. His just perfect as Arthur, the husband and father who is going through a mild depression.
Now the faults. The dialogue seems stiff. No one in this movie talks the way "real" people talk. I didn't like Diane Keaton in this movie very much. I think it's the worst character Allen has ever written for her, and I say this because, I didn't find her to be likeable. When we think back to movies like "Sleeper", "Manhattan"", and "Annie Hall" she was always likeable in them. I found her character to be rather bland. But, I must admit, she does have one great scene where she and her husband, Frederick (Richard Jordon) get into an agrument. That scene is just full of emotion. It reminds me of Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes From A Marriage". It reaches that same level of intensity. The character Mike, played by Sam Waterson is rather bland as well. There was nothing really there for him. But, don't worry Allen would later give him a much better role in "Crime and Misdemeanors" as a blind rabbi. Maureen Stapleton seems like she's having fun with her role, and she does a fine job, only problem, again, Allen didn't give her a big enough part. By the time she enters the movie, you have about 30-40 minutes till the film ends. Woody has been quoted saying, if he could remake this film he would have introduced her much earlier into the film. For those who don't like Allen's "European" films, stay far away. As I was watching this film I could almost picture the characters dialogue appearing as subtitles. Everyone is under the impression that this film is Allen's answer to Bergman's "Autumn Sonta", well you couldn't be more wrong. True, both films were released in the same year. If you want to see Allen's version of "Autumn Sonata" watch "September", but beware. As "September" is a much weaker film than this. Infact I consider it to be Allen's worst. There is one scene I feel I have to mention before ending my review. There's a scene where Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) finds out she's going to have a baby. She doesn't want a child right now, but Mike (Sam Waterson) thinks it might be a good idea for them to have a baby and get married. In the next scene, Joey wakes up before Mike and just starts to watch him sleep. She then leans over and starts to wake him up with her kisses, it's the most touching scene in this entire film. Which is really a "cold" film that shows no passion at all. This marked a wonderful try to do a straight drama by Allen, I really enjoyed this film. And I hope others will too!

This is one of my favorite Woody Allen movies, up there right along with Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway. It's not a comedy and why should it be? Mr. Allen got some flack when it was first released for straying from his familiar comedic terrain. Yet, Interiors proves for me that Woody Allen is one of the definitive psychological directors of the cinema. Each relationship is carefully dissected, be it spousal or sibling. The terrain is rarely pleasant yet fearlessly explored. The emotional lives of this upper class family are put on display in the most complete and satisfying way. You're aware after the first five minutes that something is terribly wrong wiith these people and slowly, beautifully your questions are answered. Intelligent people with a knack for self-analysis will love this movie; others will be groaning for sure. Watch this movie alone on a rainy day as you nurse some emotional wound of your own and I guarantee you'll have your needed emotional catharsis by the end!

When "Interiors" was first released it was generally deplored by moviegoers, largely because it did not live up to their expectations of what a Woody Allen film should be: a laugh-out-loud comedy like "Annie Hall," or "Sleeper." It was as if Allen should be allowed to make only one kind of film (One might as well complain about Mozart having had the nerve to write the "Requiem" after "The Magic Flute"; or, conversely, Verdi having the effrontery to write "Falstaff" after "Othello." One wonders whether Shakespeare had the same problem: "What dost thou mean that thou art writing of a Shrewish Wench from Padua? Beshrew thy Heart! . . . We want more Titus Andronicus!").

With time and distance, one can appreciate "Interiors" for what it is, an intense drama about a family in the process of disintegration. The film is beautifully acted by an ensemble cast that includes Geraldine Page as the mother, who is so quietly self-effacing that, like a vacuum, she seems to draw the energy out of any room she enters; E.G. Marshall, as a man who has been a good father, but who must now escape the house's stifling atmosphere; the three sisters, Kristin Griffith, who has already escaped to Hollywood and a middling career as an actress; Diane Keaton, who has removed herself to Connecticut--and writer's block; and Marybeth Hurt, the Elektra of the piece, whose love for her father, hatred of her mother, and competitiveness with her writer-sister have come to dominate her life. The static dynamic of this imbalance of power is upset when the father introduces an interloper, beautifully acted by Maureen Stapleton.

Some have remarked, not without cause, that Allen has given the husbands of Keaton and Hurt (Richard Jordan and Sam Waterston respectively) the short end of the acting stick; but, I believe, that is his point, which certainly reflects the title of the film, "Interiors." The very dysfunction at the core of the family has caused the daughters to exclude themselves not only from each other but also from their respective spouses, who remain outsiders. It is only at the end that the sisters come to recognize and accept their flaws, and consequently find some resolution, as the camera outside the house looking inward at their faces--framed by the window--implies.

Woody Allen's "Interiors" will not leave you laughing, but it will certainly leave you thinking, perhaps about how quickly time passes in respect to one's family.

Interiors is, I think, one of Allen's strongest films and I have watched it several times. It is less a comedy than the usual Allen, and more of a social/family drama and character study. We follow three grown up sisters (Diane Keaton, Kristin Griffith and Marybeth Hurt) and their parent's (Geraldine Page and E G Marshall) late divorce and the following crisis. The characters are mostly upper middle class (wannabe)intellectuals (writers, actors, interior designers), all of them in some sort of existential or creative crisis, and Allen portraits them very well. Allen himself is not acting in this film. If you like Annie Hall, Hannah and her sisters and Manhattan, you will probably like Interiors.
The transfer of the DVD is ok, but it would have been interesting to have some extra material (there's only the trailer). But the price is thereafter I think.

Who knows what this film is truly trying to communicate universally, but what it showed to me was it's feelings about multiple perspectives and how some people remember how things were because of something that was said, or happened, and another feels a certain way because of how things currently are.
This film also makes a sad statement about psychaitry, I feel, in it's relation to humanity. The family is irreparably damaged because they way they communicate to one another has become cold, detached, and impersonal in the worst ways. Everyone needs someone to talk to when they need to sort something out mentally and part of the reason these people are messed up is they have no one to talk to except the shrinks, or they simply hold it inside, and I'm not sure which one is better: to have your truth told to you and it possibly being false, or to deny the feelings that are dying to get out. People become damaged when they don't know how to constructively understand what is going on and most times all they need is someone to talk to in order to become illuminated about what's going on, or the conversation puts them in a state to understand things honestly. That anyone has to pay someone to listen to them sort out their problems and/or come up with a hypothesis is pathetic. This should be a free service that is compassionately given amongst friends and family and if everyone got that the topic of this movie wouldn't exist.
This movie is devastating for its quiet ambience and frail, brilliant, performances. My evening was darkly settled as the credits rolled by without the music I had become accustomed to in other Allen films. I was surprised by the overall downbeat nature of this film, but I got the idea of what it was right at the beginning. Having seen some of his half-serious films made me wonder what a completely serious film by him would be like and with this film, I have my answer. In some ways, I think Woody Allen understands drama better than most directors alive today and that's because he has such a deep understanding of comedy. The story is bleak, but it definitely sparked a deep conversation afterward. I love that he made this film, I just don't love it, but I highly respect it and regard it as one of his best and most important films within his body of work.