SHADOWS AND FOG
A film review by Kenneth E. Mohnkern
Copyright 1992 Kenneth E. Mohnkern
SHADOWS AND FOG is Woody Allen's new movie. I think I need to say that since I had no idea what I was in for until I was in the back seat of the car on my way to the theater. Even then my friends were kind enough to say nothing more than "SHADOWS AND FOG is Woody Allen's new movie." There's something right about going into a theater with no expectations, knowing nothing about the plot, letting it all unfold for you as the filmmakers intended.
I've always mildly enjoyed Woody's movies, but don't list them as favorites. His dramas are pretty well out of my experience, and his comedies are goofy, but get chuckles from me -- not laughs. I always figured you had to be a New Yorker to appreciate his stuff.
[If you want to go into the theater without a clue, stop reading now. I won't include any real spoilers, though. I won't get into the plot.]
But, geez -- I really liked SHADOWS AND FOG. It was beautifully shot in black and white, really showing off his talent for the visual. The film takes place one dark, foggy night in an unnamed city at an unnamed time in history, presumably in the late-19th century. There's a murderer roaming the streets, as are a vigilante group, prostitutes, and circus performers. It's a great bunch of characters.
And what a cast! Kathy Bates, John Malkovich (as a clown worried about his "art"), Madonna (ha!), Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Lily Tomlin, Jodie Foster, John Cusack (another great role for him), Wallace Shawn, Fred Gwynn, Donald Pleasence, Julie Kavner (in a great role!)
We see briefly what a good physical actor Woody is. The scene where he steals a glass from a table is priceless. Anxious, seeing his only chance to do it, fumbling around, trying not to draw attention to himself -- classic! And another where he's got a huge wooden hammer overhead, ready to swing it ... hysterical. They're basically silent-era scenes. Sure, he's no Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin, but these days there aren't any Keatons or Chaplins. Only Steve Martin and Woody Allen, I guess.
I have a feeling there were analogies to society and life as we know it, but can't quite put the pieces together. Was there significance to the circus? The killer in the night? The politics going on in the vigilante group? Woody's ignorance of his part of the plan? It's the sort of movie that you're still thinking about the next morning. And there aren't many of those.
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews