Customer Reviews

September

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Richard T. Jameson, who has the dubious distinction of writing the "official" editorial statement about this Allen masterpiece, does not know what he is talking about. As often happens here on Amazon, many of the customer reviews are far more knowledgeable and discerning that the conventional mainstream critic's assessments.

This is a finely written, highly dramatic play transfered flawlessly to film by a master cinematographer and is immensely superior to "Interiors" which is heavily influenced by, if not actually ripped off from, Ingmar Bergman. Here, the influence is subsumed into Allen's style and milieu, and he gets tremendous performances from the cast, especially Mia Farrow who despite the later troubles with Allen gave him a heartbreaking rendition of the fragile, wounded character of "Lane" who is brought to a state of desperation in the climax of the story, which is a spellbinding example of pure dramatic storytelling.

`September', written and directed but not starring Woody Allen is, what he describes as a `chamber piece' done after the symphony of `Radio Days' with its huge cast and expansive settings. In most ways, the movie is a reprise of the style of his very first serious movie, `Interiors'. In many ways, `September' is far more successful than `Interiors'. I am an ardent Woody Allen fan, and `Interiors' even leaves me feeling a bit flat.

Like `Interiors' and unlike some of his major seriocomic movies such as `Crimes and Misdemeanors', `September' has not a single joke and just the barest of embarrassingly humorous situation. Unlike `Interiors', you can identify several of Allen's favorite subjects; the most prominent one being the difference between perception and reality or, as he most commonly frames it, between fact and fiction.

All action takes place in late August (`almost September') inside or on the porch of a rather large rural house in Vermont, set by a pond, and built by the principle character's father. The background information on the six marquee characters is spotty, with tidbits being parceled out slowly over the course of the short movie. The facts about the major players follows.

Lane, played by Mia Farrow, is a damaged young photographer who has been out of work due to an undisclosed medical problem, probably psychiatric. She is depicted as the purported owner of the house, which she is planning to sell to pay off her medical expenses and get a new start in New York City.

Peter, played by Sam Waterston (replacing Sam Shephard in a reshoot of the entire film), is a Madison Avenue advertising (copy writer or editor?) who is spending some time over a Summer vacation in Vermont to finish a first novel. As the movie opens, he is seen as Lane's boyfriend.

Stephanie, played by Dianne Wiest, is a close friend to Lane. Stephanie is married with a family living in Philadelphia, but is taking time away from her husband to resolve some emotional differences. She is considering a trip to Paris as the movie opens.

Howard, played by Denholm Elliott (replacing Charles Durning in the reshoot), is a local French teacher who is a good local friend to Lane and her family.

Diane, played by Elaine Stritch (replacing Maureen O'Sullivan in the reshoot), is Lane's mother by Diane's first husband, who she left for a second man who abused Diane. The story as the movie opens establishes that Lane shot and killed Diane's second husband when Lane was but 14 years old. In what seems like a throwaway `Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolff' moment, it is revealed that Diane actually shot her husband and the story cooked up for the police and the trial was that the shooting was done by the underage Lane.

Lloyd, played by Jack Warden, is Diane's current (third?) husband who happens to be a theoretical physicist. His speciality is not spelled out, but since he did do some work at Los Alamos, it can be assumed that he worked in quantum physics. This is a bit more than nominally interesting, as a theme running through the dialogue is the notion that, like events at the quantum level, everything is random.

The heart of the story is how Lane, fragile at best at the opening of the movie, is brought even lower by two quick blows to her fragile psyche. The first is her mother's deciding to live in the Vermont house permenantly, countering Lane's plans to sell the house to financially recover. The second of the two blows is when Lane discovers that boyfriend Peter is romantically entangled with married friend Stephanie.

The theme of fiction versus reality arises in the suggestion Diane makes to Peter that he writes Diane's memoirs. It is not entirely clear to what Diane owes her celebrity, but a couple touring the house with an interest in making an offer to purchase recognizes Diane's photograph as a person of celebrity with major contacts with Broadway and Las Vegas performers. The theme peaks with the allegation that it was Diane, not Lane who killed her second husband.

Another theme is life after death, brought out by Diane's playing with an old Ouija board trying to contact past husbands, versus current husband's very scientific view of the randomness of nature.

The one area where Allen outdoes practically all other films is that in place of a romantic triangle, Allen creates a romantic square with both Lane and Stephanie paired up with both Peter and Howard at different points in the movie.

This is probably one of Allen's most literate and circumscribed movies. Even with the few characters and the very small set, there are still a lot of loose ends. The whole story could probably be told in a `New Yorker' short story, of which Allen wrote many early in his career.

As the action is relatively easy to follow and the resolutions end on a fairly positive note, this is a much less depressing film than `Interiors'. It is also artistically superior, but not up to the level of his very best films.

A `must see' for any Allen fan. People who just like his comedies can take a pass.

"September" is Woody Allen's updated version of the Chekhov play "Uncle Vanya". It is not "like" "Uncle Vanya", or as great as "Uncle Vanya". It is "Uncle Vanya". The sex of some of the characters has been changed and the dialog has been updated (Art Tatum had yet to be born when Chekhov wrote "Uncle Vanya"), but the movie is as true to Chekov's play as, for example, the movie "O" is to Shakespeare's "Othello".

Those of you who have criticized "September" as boring, including Amazon's own reviewer, Richard T. Jameson, who called it, '...the single most excruciating viewing experience the Woodman ever invited audiences to share..." need to see or read Chekov's masterpieces, The "Cherry Orchard", "Three Sisters", "The Seagull" and-most especially-"Uncle Vanya", in order that you may make your observations from a more informed perspective. Chekov was once criticized as the "..master of the play in which nothing happens..." Unfortunately, Amazon lists no VHS or DVD versions of Uncle Vanya, so you will have to wait to see Vanya performed at a college near you or sit down under a good lamp and read.

The fact that Woody Allen has never dumbed down his writing to the level of most of the movie-going public has been a two edged sword and it has cut him both ways. One only has to read the reviews here on Amazon to understand why. Is anyone curious as to why the reviews of this movie are so polarized? This is either Woody's most boring movie ever, or the reviewer's favorite Woody movie-almost nothing in the middle. I hope he gets a good laugh over that if he bothers to read such things.

I have looked all over the internet to find a reference to Woody's source for the movie and have not found it mentioned. Roger Ebert praised the movie saying, "... In the neat pairings of couples and non-couples, Allen almost seems to be making a modern-dress Elizabethan comedy..." and that "... he is as acute an author of serious dialogue as anyone now making movies..." Read Uncle Vanya, Roger.

This is by far one of Woody Allen's best films. My favorite film of his is Manhattan. But September really comes close. September is a very understated but beautiful, integrated film that fits together like a great painting. It is a subtle work of art, that is so immensely satisfying due to its quiet excellence. Yet it is so frustrating that mainstream "professional" critics dismiss movies like this. It just goes to show that you shouldn't trust journalists too much, which is why I give more credence to the insights of Amazon volunteer reviewers. The fact that the critics pan this masterpiece is absolute proof that you should not trust so-called "professional" critics. But it really amazes me that they don't get it.

I admit that when I first saw September back in the late '80's the movie seemed...thin, lacking in substance, not a whole lot to it. I just saw it again for the first time in several years when Turner Classics had "Woody Allen month" a while ago.

Boy, was I ever surprised by the difference a decade or more can make! This is a superb film that accomplishes in its own way what a jazz improvisation or piece of chamber music can, i.e. an illustration of strength through delicacy. And jazz echoes all the way through the trickling stream of this beguiling chamber drama. The Tatum/Webster piano/sax duet of "My One and Only Love" is both exquisite in its own right as well as a masterstroke of subtle cruelty by director Allen: no one in this movie gets the one they love. And the languorous blackout sequence, where Dianne Wiest takes to the piano and plays one wistful ballad after another is pure heaven.

If you've ever had to deal with an aging, overbearing parent, then you can relate to September. The spectacle of Farrow's character still paying as an adult for the crimes (literal and otherwise) that her mother inflicted on her as a child is some of the truest, finely observed stuff Allen has put on film. Lane (Farrow) is trapped in a kind of arrested development. She speaks of wanting to sell the Vermont house and move to Manhattan to make it as a photographer. I had a hard time believing this. Lane is a creature of the Vermont woods, and while the city might perhaps energize her it is more likely that the teeming New York streets would repel her back into dreamworld or worse. When Lane disparages her ability to succeed as an artist, Wiest tough-loves her, "you'll just have to try harder, won't you!?"

I found Elaine Stritch's monologue at/with the Ouija board a tad coy. Yet her exit line about donating her diaphragm to the antique fair more than makes up for it!

Allen's September (1987) suffered from highly dismissive reviews which remains consistent with the public's view that Allen should produce comedies. Allen's willingness to risk, whether he fails or not, should be a clear invitation to consider this piece if just for the purpose of contrasting his present work with earlier films that defined him as a professional funny man.

The discerning viewer might enjoy this character study about six people if he or she wants a piece that demands a bit more reflection. As other reviewers wisely point out, Allen borrows from Chekov, particularly Uncle Vanya, in September and shows us how selfishness and thoughtlessness have their repercussions on innocent bystanders.

But the plot unfolds carefully as Lane (Mia Farrow) struggles to deal with unrequited love for a struggling writer (Sam Waterston)and an unwelcome guest in her mother (Elaine Stritch). I tend to favor the scenes which take place in candlelight. Lane's best friend, Stephanie, (Dianne Wiest) plays the piano as various characters reveal their fears and desires in carefully constructed monologues and dialogues. We learn a great deal about how professional concerns do not always eclipse the existential questions people face or the reality that people can go on living while harboring painful regrets.

Eventually, a particular truth surfaces which sends the characters reeling but Allen gives us a reprieve by offering an ending that is fair albeit unnerving.

Allen fans who enjoy his comdies should switch gears to view this film. Like his more sober films, September offers viewers the pleasure of character development as the fuel which moves the film forward.

Woody Allen's 1987 drama was made in the middle of his Mia period and in spite of it's wet anguish, it's interesting to see what Farrow brought to his films, what he did for her and why his post-Mia films suffer without her. The role of the suicidal mousy hostess of the Vermont house where the film is set is clearly wrong for Diane Keaton, and Farrow's real life situation feeds the character - her love of the country, her showbiz mom. Pauline Kael has described her as "luminously thin-skinned" and "weightlessly beautiful with a preternatural glowing sweetness". Her emotional openness and the way she uses her hands demonstrate a delicacy that makes her Lane very moving. When she cries she gives Allen her all. The film recalls Allen's earlier Interiors but is better written. Allen has scaled down the cast to six, though Jack Warden and Denholm Elliott only hover, and reduced the plot to a series of intimate conversations with one or two group scenes. Being Allen he can't help but throw in jokes. I like how Farrow calls her mother played by Elaine Stritch a "human dynamo" and Stritch in return tells Farrow she dresses like a "Polish refugee", and a blackout scene gets laughs when someone declares their "hand is in the gaucomole". He has the rooms of the house full of closed shutters to keep nature out and to conceal the fact that he has shot on a soundstage. He also continues his experiments with framing by having a character talk to someone out of shot, and gives the actors plenty of room to move. Stritch has a wonderful monologue to a mirror and Dianne Wiest acts one decision about the droopy Sam Waterston with her back. Allen had cast Sam Shepard in the Waterstone role but then fired him when he began improvising about the West. Wiest may overdo the hand to the forehead gesture but she works well with Farrow. Interiors was a radical change of pace after Annie Hall and Woody's comedy fans hated it, a situation he used for Stardust Memories. September is in the same Bergman-ish vein and, since I love Bergman and found Interiors very funny, I don't find this film such a chore.

I have only one quibble with this wonderful movie. Sam Waterston (Peter) did I thought a very poor job. It wasn't until his last moments in the movie that I realized he was on the level. I thought he was a phony, leading the two women on, out for a roll in the hay and didn't care what he had to say to get it. I was wrong. This spoiled the movie for me. But surmounting that, I loved every emotional moment in it. I thought it was beautiful. And I thought everyone but Waterston was wonderful. I really liked the love between Mia Farrow's parents, they fit, they were happy. And I think Dianne Wiest is some kind of a sorceress. How many people is she? I saw her in Allen's Bullets and was enchanted. And now this. A totally different type, different person. And brother can she act. I love this movie and I think the nasty Amazon staff review is dead wrong. Allen the wit truly has a gift for drama. The dialogue rang true and was literate (though not literary), I love Allen's taste in music, the characters were clearly defined and lifelike. One note. I've seen all Allen's movies except "Celebrity" which is next on my list. There is a common character in them. And that's the artist (in this case Mia Farrow and her photography) who feels like a failure and doesn't know what to do with his life. I thought it was a great flick.

This is a film that is not to be view lightly. It's on the serious side, and plays on your emotion and mind. This is a master piece and movies like these are rare nowadays. The film also offers a lighter side of the spectrum with a bit of humor and lovely standard Jazz tunes. It has an interesting twist at the end.

This is definitely a film for mature audiences who can appreciate the complex human nature and emotions and the fragile of human minds. The film is full of intellectual conversations over and over again and if you are not paying attention you can miss out on the lines. Mia Farrow is the best looking of the bunch no doubt and is the lead character. However, as the film progress, I must give the notch to Dianne Wiest for best performance in this movie. Hats off to you Dianne if you are reading this review. Her sets with Sam Waterston are so real that make you forget it's only a movie. Her performance in the set when Sam reach over to kiss her one last time to say good bye will pierce open your heart as she rejects and look away. I often wonder how is it possible to act like this when you know fully well there are cameras and a room full of crews watching.

One minor point though as I find some of Denholm Elliott's dialogues not recorded very clearly. Denholm is a wonderful actor and his lines are beautiful. This is also true for all the actors and actresses in this movie, all performed superb. This DVD is definitely a keeper for years to come.

If you were to define the term `passion project' you might want to use a film like `September'. Woody Allen was so `passionate' about this film that he shot it more than once, rewrote it during the shoot, recast the film multiple times, tore it apart after editing and was keen on doing it all over again. The finished piece we are left with is cohesive and genuine and `hopefully' what Allen was looking for.

I should say this first off; this is unlike your usual Allen fare so be forewarned. It is much more personal and intimate and draws comparisons to Bergman's work (who apparently is a big influential director for Allen). It feels so far removed from Allen's work that I would have never known it really was part of his filmography had I not looked it up.

Just thought you should know that.

The film takes place in one large home over a weekend while a middle-aged woman deals with her love interest in he neighbor as well as her distanced relationship with her attention hungry mother. I think the description for the film I read simply stated `Howard is in love with Lane but Lane is in love with Peter but Peter is in love with Stephanie' but it is so much more than that. The film reflects the quiet emotional balance between characters, allowing the house itself to almost take over in scenes as the characters converse in stilted whispers. Occasional outbursts of disgruntled chaos add layers of emotional relevancy to the otherwise docile proceedings. It's a very small, very quiet, very simple film, but it's within the simplicity that it excels.

The acting is all spot on, especially from the women. Mia Farrow (Allen's muse at the time) really captured her characters quiet desperation, allowing just enough of her uneasy nature to brim to her surface. Elaine Stritch is hilarious as Lane's intrusive mother Diane. The way she handles her characters self absorption is incredible. She's biting throughout. Dianne Wiest, a favorite of mine, continues to prove why she is seriously one of the best supporting actresses of all time. She flows effortlessly through this film, creating a character we want to know more of. The men here are fine bedfellows, but they cannot match the intrigue provided by their female counterparts.

My only complaint with the film is the script, which I felt was a little unfinished. I wasn't very interested in the subplot concerning Diane and her ex-boyfriend's murder or whatever. I know it was partially based on fact and it does offer us a segway into more meaty matters between mother and daughter, but I found that it felt rather forced, and that was a shame because the film otherwise feels very relaxed and genuine.

I still highly recommend this one though, for it is a different side of Woody and it serves as a nice character study; a true testament to relationships and self acceptance.