What are your thoughts on Woody Allen's film Crimes and Misdemeanors? What's a crime? What's a misdemeanor? Are there parallels to Crime and Punishment? If so, why does Allen conspicuously remove the "Punishment" from the title? What are the moral and ethical implications of the film? What existential themes does this film posit? (Note: These questions are meant to get you started. Feel free to comment on any aspects of the film.)
22 comments:
From the title and the cast i thought that this movie was going to be a like funny version of crime and punishment. From what i have seen though it has nothing to do with crime and punishmnet and is actually quite far from funny. The only paralells i have seen are woodie allans charicter being all supiriour and not likeing anyone else, the old guy having the affair being all imoral, and the guy whoes on law and order is like sonya being all moral compasy.
also this so how comidy is actually quite boring, maybe even gross. It is so boring i cannot even remember the charicters names wich is evident up above. And all the old people makin it in this movie is kinda creepy cuz its not in a like sweet i love you way its in a like you still make love like a college student way and you know what that just gross!
hopefully i like the movie more tomorrow, but i'm somehow doubting it :(
I'm sort of getting the feeling that the movie is a cover up of Crime and Punishment. If you say "punishment" and you say "misdemeanor," misdemeanor doesn't sound as bad. It sounds like an accident, like misconception, misunderstand, missed out. I really like the movie so far, though I haven't seen much of it. If it were "Crimes and Punishments," (since more than one person is the crime-doer, it's plural, I think), this would mean that the characters are aware of the crimes they are committing. Titling it "Crimes and Misdemeanors" makes it seem as if the characters aren't at as much fault for the crimes they commit, because the crimes are overlooked mistakes. It seems like the movie tries to cover up the harsh reality of a moral crime, (cheating, for example), by calling it a misdemeanor. Well, I am really enjoying the movie. I think it's got it's humorous moments, and I think it'll be worthwhile watching.
So far, I actually have enjoyed watching the "film". There's a really interesting set of characters that all have their quirks, which every actor suceeds in portraying. The plot, too, pulled me in because it's not just one story; it's a combination of all of the character's issues. To the question "Why does Allen conspicuously remove the "Punishment" from the title?" I have to say that you can't answer that yet, atleast in my perspective. We're at the part in the movie where all of the main action is about to unfold. The crimes, and the misdemeanors,have been brought out infront of us, but we haven't seen how the characters will deal with them, and wether or not there is any kind of punishment. Maybe he didn't include it in his title because it foreshadows that every character will get away with his/her crimes. Anyways, there's definately a parallel to Crime and Punishment. The main plot which involves the murder of a female mirrors the main plot in the novel. In addition, the main plot is accompanied by other crimes comitted by the other characters, which is also present in "Crime and Punishment," (for example, Sonya's prositution contrasted with Allen's upcoming infedility to his wife). As for all of the other questions posed, I think it'd be better to answer them after the film is finished.
I'm not going to lie, I thought this movie wasn't going to be anything special. I thought I was going to lose interest pretty quick, but as it turns out this it's quite interesting.
The whole concept of how the two main characters intertwine is quite interesting. So far they are connected through Woody Allen's brother-in-law, it'll be interesting to see how things come together later on in the film.
Also the whole defecating thing was quite awkward. I don't know if you would consider that a misdemeanor, well at least Woody Allen's sister wouldn't and neither would he, but I guess it isn't a "crime"? And that is something that occurs a lot in this film. Most of the immoral things the characters do could be considered crimes, they aren't really serious crimes, but they definitely are misdemeanors. Where as in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov definitely committed a crime when he committed murder.
When I first began watching this I thought of Woody Allen and the Eye Doctor were sort of like Raskolnikov's two sides--Woody Allen like his loving, humorous side and the Eye Doctor his darker side which made him feel superior and thus able to commit crime. Sorry, Mr. Cianflone, I dunno if you wanted us to examine it that deeply.
Anywho, now I think of Woody Allen as closer to Razumihin and a totally different character rather than a part of Raskolnikov, while absolutely drawing parallels between the Eye Doctor and Raskolnikov. Both commit murder, and for the reason that they wanted to rid themselves of a woman that was sucking the life out of them. Both believed at first that it would be for a good cause (Raskolnikov helping the poor and Eye Doctor to spare his wife the heartbreak of knowing he had a mistress). I also think of Woody Allen as a sort of Razumihin, because he is rational and down-to-earth and in love with a woman who is being pursued by a rich, handsome, and absolute jerk-of-a-man (like Luzhin...HMMMMM????)
I think Cianflone was totally right in saying it's half-comedy and half-tragedy, and I'm not sure if I like it yet. I kind of have to watch the rest of it. And ya, everyone's old and in love and it's gross...not that old people can't fall in love but ummm...Crime and Punishment is about a handsome college student murdering an old gross woman, not the other way round.
The way this movie is able to create laughter and tragedy is great work. The tie in between Ben and the eye doctor is very creative seeing as Ben is related to the wife of woody allen's character which adds humor to the plot line. I believe the tragic plot within the movie is similar to the plot within the the novel Crime and Punishment. After knowing that the eye doctor had his former girlfriend killed he is overcome with this emotion. This emotion is almost similar to Rask's. Although the eye doctor did not kill her personally, he still feels as if he did and this guilt just lays upon him. Rask eventually goes mad from it and from what we have seen so far in class is seems as if the same is going to happen with the eye doctor. The motives are also something to compare and contrast. The eye doctor's reason for killing was that he believed that his affair was ruining his life, while Rask's reason for killing was that he was under the impression that the pawn broker was being a burden in every body elses lives. Two big burdens were taken out of the picture by these two gentlemen. The depiction of corruption is also great. The brother that is a constant lets just say "flirt" is a great touch to show the scum within the movie. Svidrigailov is also seen as the scum within the novel.
I missed the first day of the movie so I am still kind of in the dark about exactly who's who and what there motives are. I don't really like this movie. Maybe it is just because I missed the beginning but I don't really understand the point of the movie. Crime and Punishment is one of the best novels ever written and this movie is just another story about adultery and murder to cover it up. Almost every lifetime movie is about the same subject. There are some similarities to Crime and Punishment, like the guy going to the hotel room to visit where the murder happened and Raskolnikov going back to the flat of Alyona Ivanovna. Also, I will say that I like the eye motif with all the people with glasses, the rabbi losing his sight, and the eye doctor. Yet, overall, I find the movie to be very unoriginal. It feels like the movie wants to "shed light on human nature" but that's never what life really is. That's the lifestyle that is entertaining, not real. Crime and Punishment was about the lifestyle that so many people had to suffer through, not the lifestyle they chose for themselves. The people in the movie chose their lifestyle, so we can't feel sorry for them. I don't feel that the movie is pivotal in any way; it feels like other movies I have seen before and is much less inspiring.
In the film I think that it is weird that Woody Allen's character tells his niece evreything
about his relationship with the girl. I think that this action is one of the misdemeanors in
the film. Its interesting how whatever is going on in the film takes place in the movies
that he sees with his niece. It is nice that he has a close bond with his niece but he should
know certian boundries. Woody Allen's characater is socialy akward. When he makes the
movie of his brother-in-law it reminded me of the movie Drive Me Crazy. When they
portrayed the student body Chase related it to the Nazi's and wild animals. This movie is
more humorous than Crime and Punishment but it will be interesting to see how it all
ends.
I think that the title of this film is perfect because it is the opposite of crime and punishment. the whole idea of not committing a crime is whether it is a moral issue or a fear issue. are you afraid that you wont be able to live with it, or that you will get caught? In crime and punishment raskolnikov feels like he is able to do this. The eye doctor does not. He thinks that it is an awful thing to do, but he sees no way out of it. and in the end he is not really punished for it. He'll never forget it...but he refuses to confess and put the blame on himself like rask ends up doing and cliff tells him to.
The addition of misdemeanors is becasue although the eye doctor was a murderer, other ppl in the movie did immoral things. cliff, who most people like, kisses another woman other than his wife. It's not a crime really, but emotionally it is. and lester is a jerk who has superiority and thinks he's amazing and rude to everyone, but it's not a crime. There is just as much complication in this movie as crime and punishment.
Another interesting thing i found in this movie is that ben is the one that sees the most. He is closest to God and is the one everyone goes to for help. The eye doctor tells hijm what's going on. It is ironic that he is the closest to blind (his eyes are bad, but understands the world and need for moral structure the most. Meanwhile the man who works on eyes all of the time and has good ones (for his age) does not see anything wrong with murder.
I also think that the picture from the end wedding of this blog shows the importance of the interaction between the two characters. They are parallel. Woody Allen's character really does nothing wrong the entire time. he kisses someone else, true...but he doesn't commit a crime. And yet he seems to be eternally punished for his actions, so much so that it's quite humorous. His wife won't let him do what he loves, his friend marries someone else and the professor kills himself.
Meanwhile, the eye doctor is having an affair and kills her. plus he is taking money. he puts himself on this pedestal and yet is never really punished -- we never see him as tormented as woody's character at the end. it would seem that there is no moral order from God. it is up to people to judge for themselves. if men like teh eye doctor and lester can live with their sins that's fine. and if woody cannot sin (he says hes plotting the perfct murder but he will never act like the eye doctor) then it is his miral decision. it has nothing to do with god.
it is also hard to listen to the words of the professor knowing he has killed himself. His words at the end seem empty as the opposite is showing itself on the screen. Even ben who seems happy will soon have to live being blind. He too seems plagued by punishemnt. **this is a new post, since it has nothing to do with the first. i just couldnt wait to post it after another person's. ***
Well firsty i think that the murder was definitely a crime even though juda didnt directly commit it. also i think that the several affairs throughout the movie are also crimes especially because the men are thinking about their wives and how wrong their actions are as the flirt/kiss other women, so they knowingLY commit the crime. I think Woody Allen deliberately ommits the words punishment becasue there is no real punishment. even though juda does feel guilty at times he is not plagued by guilt as Rasknikov is.Instead he continues to commit misdemeanors like lying to his wife. I think the point of this film is to show the reality side of life and balance out the fairy tale endings that usually occur in Hollywood films. While this is a great aim and he accomplishes it well, I think we should remember thatt though a vast majority do, not everyone commits crimes and not everyone's lives will end this trajectly, especially if we use the film as a lesson/warning of how crime can destroy your life.
Today at the end of class, a few people said that they didn't like the ending of the film; that it was too abrupt. I personally think that the ending was perfect for the film. The point of the movie was to make you think about life and morals and reality. The two seperate stories ended the only way it could have ended in the real world. Allen states that how these stories ended is not how they would end in a hollywood film but how they will end in reality. The movie gets the audience to think and test their own personal morals by allowing them to analyze the characters' (mainly Judah) decisions. What would I do if I were in his situation? Would I do the same thing? Could I stand to have a murder on my conscience? Allen engages the audience and forces them to do the same type of soul searching Judah had to do in his situation.
Once again I will say that I did not enjoy the ending of the film. I know that may anger some of my other classmates who really seemed to enjoy it, however I am still upset with how Cliff's life turns out. The movie as a whole was very interesting and thought provoking, even though I thought I was going to hate it at first. The way the two different plot lines were running through the film, and how they seemed to connect at points through the character Ben was great. Still the ending made me feel sad, usually I love abrupt endings especially to movies, however in this case I just cant help hating the way the characters got away with murder, and the good character ends up with nothing. But all in all I really enjoyed the film
There are obviously many parallels throughout the film. One of the them is the two story lines--one a comedy (with Cliff/Lester) and the other the tragedy (with Juda). I think that the title, Crimes and Misdemeanors, comes from that. The crime(s) refers to Juda's story, the one serious and tragic one. The misdemeanors (a word that doesn't have such a strong connotation as crimes) is referring to Cliff and Lester's story with their occasional affairs.
I think that crime and misdemeanor are pluralized because they involve more than one character (or multiple characters commit the crime/misdemeanor). In the comedic subplot, both Cliff and Lester "commit" misdemeanors, such as when Cliff cheats on his wife and when Lester has his various affairs. On tragic side, the murder is not only committed by Juda but also his brother and the man responsible for physically committing it.
I liked the fantasy sequence where the family members were around the table at Seder. It was set in memory of Judah and it symbolized his feelings of guilt for having agreed to the murder of Doris.
I mostly liked the fat guy across the table who isn't quite sure what he believes.
No one else believes this, but this was the finest film in Allen's long career. There are a few good jokes in Allen's own section, but this is by and large a deadly serious movie.
There are definitely parallels between Crime and Punishment and Crimes and Misdemeanors other than the obvious similarities in their titles. Raskolnikov and Judah are incredibly similar in that they both are murderers and both felt immense guilt after the deed was committed. There was also the character of Ben who bore similarities to both Sonia and Razumihin. There are obvious differences as well, such as how Raskolnikov eventually decided to confess and accept his fate but Judah never confessed and was capable of living with his guilt through the consumption of judicious amounts of alcohol. This explains the omission of "Punishment" from the title, and instead of the punishment we have the misdemeanors committed by Cliff and his overly bleeding, romantic heart. Ultimately this film has a highly realistic ending, in the sense that the good guys do not always win, and often enough money and success become (and are seen as) more important than ethics or morality. Humans may not be insects to be crushed under the feet of their "superiors", but when these "superiors" (Judah, Lester) are given every advantedge and every benefit, what chance do the average Joes, the Cliffs of the world, have? If Raskolnikov was to meet the characters in this film, it is highly likely that Judah would be considered one of this "great men", one of the ubermensch, of the world, when in fact he is simply a man that cannot accept the consequences of his actions.
At first, I assumed the title "Crimes and Misdemeanors" was intended to show the disparity between a "crime" and "misdemeanor." That is, crimes and misdemeanors are fundamentally different. I thought that Woody Allen was using the film to show there are vast moral, ethical, and legal differences between committing a "little misdemeanor", such as falling in love with a woman other than your wife and a big "crime" such as having a mistress murdered. The parallel running of Judah and Cliff's stories shows that the two paths each take are very, very different. However, the murderer and unfaithful eventually meet up together. All transgressions of "moral boundaries" in Allen's film have the same destiny appears. Both Cliff and Judah are doomed to fateful suffering, as it is evidenced when they commiserate in the last scene. Also, comically in the last scene Cliff is suggesting he's concocting a murder plot to Judah. This priceless juxtaposition tells me that maybe Judah and Cliff are different forms of the same person. Judah is perhaps the manifestation of the most extreme case, committing an actual murder. Judah is what Cliff can evolve into when his extramarital affair gets out of hand. There is no vast distinction between a crime and misdemeanor because lying dormant within every type of sinner there is the chance to become extreme as Judah.
As many have pointed out the end of the film was sort of a let down. You expect it to end as most Hollywood films do, happily ever after, where the good guy ends with the girl and the bad guy ends with nothing. We discussed this in class but i find it necessary to address it a bit more thoroughly.
I thought the film was great. i found it to be funny, enjoyable, and i thought it had a great story line. The end also made sense to me. This is Woody Allan's idea on life and society. The world is not a fair place, and everyone sees this every day. So why should he end it in a cliche manner? He shouldn't because that's what is expected. If i remember correctly, Cliff even said that "that's how every Hollywood movie ends". The irony in this line beings out Allan's idea on life and society. I found the movie to be very good.
I think the beginning of the movie started off alright, but about halfway through I began to loose interest, I still was watching it but a had a harder time staying focused and completely under standing what was going on. I think that some parts of the plot got drawn on for two long. I think if parts were a bit faster paced then it would have been more interesting. The thing that really killed it for me was the end, I hated how there wasn’t an actual “ending” the movie kind of just ended with a wedding. Nothing was really resolved, no punishment was handed out for the crime (misdemeanor) that was committed. I think something should have happened, like in Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov believed he could live with the guilt of killing someone, but later he realized he couldn’t. We’ll never know if the eye doctor goes back and feels guilt, he says that he sometimes feels a bit but is able to get over it, but we won’t know if that was actually true of if his real feeling of guilt was hidden like Raskolnikov’s. I think that this is why Punishment was taken out of the title, because no one really receives their just punishment for their crimes, rather the crimes are passed off as mere misdemeanors.
I will admit I have only seen two parts of this movie. I barely know the character's names but I know I really loved what you said today at the end of class Mr. Cianflone. The thing about genuinely good people, the good guy, the romantic- is that they will most likely always be futile in their efforts and that they, strangely, like Sisyphus will perpetually be rolling this boulder up a hill. I just Woody Alan's "Play It Again Sam," which was actually distinctly similar to Crimes and Misdemeanors. The same sort of thing happens where the wife seems to want out, to want more, she feels stifled and Woody Alan is the go-to- guy, but not in the end. In both Sam & Misdemeanors the Woody Alan character comforts, cheers and encourages this flighty, confused woman. When he thinks he might have a chance, when he really allows himself to fall for her, she "realizes" what she's always wanted- not him! It directly correlates with what you were saying and what Mike and Kristen said about life not being fair. There's no way to map out anything in life, especially concerning the mind. Woody Alan successfully portrays the ambiguity and inconsistencies of Crimes and Misdemeanors. He tries to show the audience that you can't judge someone's sins. Its up to the person to own up to them and asess them themselves, because it's how YOU feel about what you've done that makes that impact. It's that moral obligation to humanity and to society and to eachother that should make us own up to our own crimes and misdemeanours. Woody Alan shows us that whether it seems little or seems huge, it depends on the person, how it is dealt with and that life, being unfair as it is, is completely unpredictable in that regard.
But we already knew that.
I know that was like 1-2 minutes over the time but I've been catching up like crazy and and and I got carried away on my Nietsche blog...so I didn't give myself ample time to complete this one. EEEK even if you cut off like my last sentence to makeup for my entrance into over time...eeksdnfsdfeeek.
Post a Comment