In class yesterday, when we were discussing what a bad movie was, I said that movies which fail to meet the basics of cinematography such as camera shots that don’t make sense or films without coherent plots are bad movies. At the same time, however, I said that I like when film tries to push boundaries and re-invent the styles we become used to. When it fails in doing this though, a bad movie is the result. And what I said really did not make a lot of sense, I was thinking far too literally.
Bananas was an immediate response that destroyed my previous point about what makes for a bad film. If there is someone who can break all of the rules of film, lack coherence, choreograph awkward shots while making the viewer disgusted, engaged, and smile all at the same it would be young Woody Allen. But he does it in a way that works extremely well.
In fact, this was the first Woody Allen film I have ever seen. From what I have heard from my parents and grandparents, he is strange, controversial and funny. This one, unlike a timid Elvis at the top of the high dive, was hilarious. Bananas stands in sharp contrast to our previous film in terms of its protagonist and how it interacts with Latin America. The critique of the media as well as the overly transparent political process was ridiculous in a good way. I don’t like slapstick humor that much. However, the drawn out, physically uncomfortable shots such as when Neville and his girlfriend are in bed I found very funny. While watching Fun in Acapulco, I could not decide if I liked Mike Windgren. Interesting, I felt similar towards Fielding Mellish. He is easy to laugh at but hard to like.
What the film was trying to say about American involvement in Latin America, I am not entirely sure. There was a large cultural response to US intervention in the region, Cuba specifically during the 1960’s. It seems to me that Allen thought it would be fun if he joked about it. We are left with a clever critique that makes all of the American characters in the film look stupid no matter what side they are on. Because of the transparency of the critique, of the films we have watched, this film provides the strongest argument against the US state intervention as well as against the ignorance of American society towards these globalsituations.
Exactly, same here! This movie ruined my definition about “bad” movie. but, the fact is that although the plot was simple and linear, it had some satirical and political points. such as power drives everyone crazy, freedom worth fighting for, dictators should be driven from power and finally, showed that Woody Allen knows how to make people laugh.