I watched this movie in my philosophy class and my professor said this is one of Woody Allen's best movies...but why though, the acting was exceptional, but all the characters were unlikeable with the exception if the Juda's brother Jack. So, am missing something? Because the movie was a typical Woody Allen film in my opinion, was there some deep philosophical point that I missed?
shareWell...I didn't find all the characters unlikeable. I thought they were pretty realistic. Most people are not all bad or all good - there is moral ambiguity in almost everyone. You have to live with the consequences of your actions. If I had my coffee this morning I could have explained it better. There is the whole God aspect of it too. So I do think it makes several "philosophical" points.
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
The answer to your questions would be quite lengthy-this is an amazing film with a lot of depth and if you're truly interested in learning more about the film, I suggest you read some reviews online. You may still disagree but it sounds like you had trouble understanding the sub context of the film. Imdb has many quotes from the film-the following are particularly important in understanding the film (in my opinion obviously).
Professor Levy: We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions. Moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on lesser points. But! We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to have been included, in the design of creation.
Judiah: I remember my father telling me, "The eyes of God are on us always."
Judiah: And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he's plagued by deep-rooted guilt. Little sparks of his religious background which he'd rejected are suddenly stirred up. He hears his father's voice. He imagines that God is watching his every move. Suddenly, it's not an empty universe at all, but a just and moral one, and he's violated it. Now, he's panic-stricken. He's on the verge of a mental collapse-an inch away from confessing the whole thing to the police. And then one morning, he awakens. The sun is shining, his family is around him and mysteriously, the crisis has lifted. He takes his family on a vacation to Europe and as the months pass, he finds he's not punished. In fact, he prospers. The killing gets attributed to another person-a drifter who has a number of other murders to his credit, so I mean, what the hell? One more doesn't even matter. Now he's scott-free. His life is completely back to normal. Back to his protected world of wealth and privilege.
I love this film-I went to see it when it opened, hoping it would be a comedy and was gobsmacked by the time I left the theater-so much to think about-I've re-watched it over the years and found deeper meaning with each viewing.
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean
Excellent post. Also, OP - the rabbi was certainly a likable character, as were the professor, Miriam, Cliff's sister and niece. Hallie was not dislikable, though perhaps ambitious. Cliff and Dolores were really just desperate.
"I am always happy to engage in POLITE discourse."
Well, there is some comedy in it. What about the part where Allen shows that documentary of the Alan Alda character to him and Alda hates it?
shareWell, nothing says characters have to be likeable. It's even possible to have unlikeable characters that still manage to exhibit morally-acceptable behaviour.
Jack was perhaps the most morally reprehensible of all. He was quite cool about doing Judah's bidding without too many compunctions at all. He saw it simply as paying Judah back for past favours.
Most characters and situations in Woody Allen's movies exhibit high moral ambivalence. You wouldn't watch them for clear ethical guidelines.
Unlikeable characters (and actions) is the entire point of the movie.
"If you want a happy ending, you should go see a Hollywood movie" - that line sums it all up right there.
What I got out of it was:
in short, "Nice guys finish last".
Lester (Alda), the seemingly shallow and bit sleazy TV personality, winds up with the prized girl, Halley Reed (Farrow). Judah Rosenthal (Landau) goes unpunished and prospers. Meanwhile, Dolores Paley (Huston) having wanted to disclose the affair winds up dead. Cliff Stern (Allen) winds up divorced and without the girl (Halley). Morals are for the timid and weak who often become spectators while the victors get the spoils.
"Sorry. If I've not responded to you either it wasn't necessary or I've set you to Ignore."
I tried to surround one of your sentences with spoilers, but apparently that's disallowed. So: "for the timid and weak" only if one regards men like Judah and Lester as heroes as well as winners. A hero isn't always--in fact almost never is--a winner, except in feel-good movies. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" isn't a feel-good film.
shareMost of what I said is blacked out using the spoiler option (see link to screenshot), do I have to also note I've blacked out a spoiler?
http://i.imgur.com/6focXnO.jpg
"Sorry. If I've not responded to you either it wasn't necessary or I've set you to Ignore."
The point was that there are some people who get away with doing bad things, like murder, because they can live with the evil deed on their conscience by not letting it bother them. Think of Simpson, who seemed like Judah, a nice guy with a lot of friends, but secretly had a dark side that caused him to kill two people in cold blood. Simpson has always denied he killed those two people and has never shown any remorse.
shareO.J. couldn't show remorse it would show that his denial was a lie. In addition to being an athlete, O.J. was an actor.
share