Unfortunately, not until after watching and then looking the doc up here on IMDb, did I realize that the 90 minutes I saw was only Part 2. Good job, PBS, by not specifying this was Part 2... and who knows when Part 1 aired.
So, my review of Part 2 may not be completely fair. Nonetheless, this doc is not that great. It just isn't. I really expected to delve into who Woody Allen is, and while we do get some of that, it seems like there's too much footage/time taken up by filler. Here's an example: The doc is now covering Woody's break-up with Mia Farrow, which is occurring 3 days before they finish filming on his latest movie. (Ms. Farrow discovers the pics of her adopted daughter at Woody's apartment, a firestorm erupts, we all learn Woody has been having an affair with his daughter, etc.) And someone in the doc is asking how can Woody stay focused to finish the film; we then see not one person saying that Woody can "compartmentalize," but -- I kid you not -- we have 5-6 different people all saying (in extreme short clips) "he can compartmentalize..." What?? What kind of B.S. filmmaking is this? Seriously? This is hack filmmaking. We get it. One person explaining this "personality trait" is enough, we don't have to have one piece of information pounded into us repeatedly by 6 other people.
Way too much filler in this Program. If Part 1 is like this, they should have just cut the program in half. Furthermore, the editing is atrocious. When we're on a talking head, instead of a very quick dissolve to cut out something the interviewee said, they do jump cuts -- on the talking heads!! So you're watching someone speak, they simply cut footage out and bam, there we are on the "b side," which doesn't match because the person's head isn't in the same place. Because of the straight cuts, it's VERY jarring, and calls attention to itself. This is amateur hour, folks. For a feature film, or TV show, this can utilized, if it's being used for a particular effect. But for a doc about a person? You don't want to call attention to the editing. You don't want to jar people out of the doc. Un-frickin-believable.
This could have been a really good documentary, with depth and insightfulness. Instead, it's a bunch of people saying how great Woody Allen is. I didn't realize I was going to be viewing an "Entertainment Tonight" puff piece about the director.
So, my review of Part 2 may not be completely fair. Nonetheless, this doc is not that great. It just isn't. I really expected to delve into who Woody Allen is, and while we do get some of that, it seems like there's too much footage/time taken up by filler. Here's an example: The doc is now covering Woody's break-up with Mia Farrow, which is occurring 3 days before they finish filming on his latest movie. (Ms. Farrow discovers the pics of her adopted daughter at Woody's apartment, a firestorm erupts, we all learn Woody has been having an affair with his daughter, etc.) And someone in the doc is asking how can Woody stay focused to finish the film; we then see not one person saying that Woody can "compartmentalize," but -- I kid you not -- we have 5-6 different people all saying (in extreme short clips) "he can compartmentalize..." What?? What kind of B.S. filmmaking is this? Seriously? This is hack filmmaking. We get it. One person explaining this "personality trait" is enough, we don't have to have one piece of information pounded into us repeatedly by 6 other people.
Way too much filler in this Program. If Part 1 is like this, they should have just cut the program in half. Furthermore, the editing is atrocious. When we're on a talking head, instead of a very quick dissolve to cut out something the interviewee said, they do jump cuts -- on the talking heads!! So you're watching someone speak, they simply cut footage out and bam, there we are on the "b side," which doesn't match because the person's head isn't in the same place. Because of the straight cuts, it's VERY jarring, and calls attention to itself. This is amateur hour, folks. For a feature film, or TV show, this can utilized, if it's being used for a particular effect. But for a doc about a person? You don't want to call attention to the editing. You don't want to jar people out of the doc. Un-frickin-believable.
This could have been a really good documentary, with depth and insightfulness. Instead, it's a bunch of people saying how great Woody Allen is. I didn't realize I was going to be viewing an "Entertainment Tonight" puff piece about the director.