To describe only one scene, the voiced-over flashback of the Dorrie character (Rampling) reading the newspaper while listening to Louis Armstrong on a calm Sunday morning is possibly the best that this minimalistic style of shot will ever get. Allen used a single, close minute-long shot of the partner looking back at him to illustrate the sweet spot of a relationship, in which a pair is seeing in each other mainly things that they like. That's the point for which the serious are always angling, and the point the romantically frivolous can never reach. Which one Allen is - that's left up to the viewer. Possibly he considers himself less than romantically serious, but fantastically lucky to have gotten to this moment.
130 Reviews
Stardust Memories (1980) ***
JoeKarlosi23 January 2005
A self-indulgent yet enjoyable fantasy by Woody Allen, where he models his style after Fellini's "8 1/2". Allen plays a world famous film star/director not unlike his real self, who's now approached a mid-life crisis and has tired of making "funny movies". Though he's become embittered, he reluctantly agrees to be the guest of honor at a weekend celebration where the best of his films are going to be shown. While there he has to contend with sycophants, obnoxious autograph seekers, childhood flashbacks and different women on a surreal journey to self-realization. Woody received some hard knocks from fans and critics for making this type of highly personal movie, but I think it's very stylish and dream-like. Photographed in glorious black and white. *** out of ****
Often a satirical put-down of celebrity, but one packed with ciphers
moonspinner5517 June 2006
Without a leading lady to write for, Woody Allen concocts a showcase just for himself; the results are intentionally grotesque, certainly watchable but also a little bit uncomfortable. Allen has said in interviews that his role as a filmmaker attending a festival of his own movies is really nothing at all like him, and his treatment of the googly-eyed fans are not how he views his admirers in real life. After seeing the picture, that's a difficult assessment to swallow. It's a very pointed and satirical put-down of celebrity, and if you're the least bit touchy you may find "Stardust"--at the very worst--condescending. I didn't buy chilly Charlotte Rampling as a love-interest for Allen, but I did find the tacky, classless masses a neurotic hoot, and the film is amazingly photographed. It's too brash and ugly to be a truly comic experience--but as a transition picture from a commercial artist, not bad. **1/2 from ****
Ignore the Critics on this one. Its great.
glgioia11 February 2004
The problem with Woody has always been that everyone takes his movies more seriously than he does. Here, using the tactics of Felini, he makes fools of his detractors including the greatest detractor of all, Woody himself. For many reasons, I rank this among his best. He removes the restraint of plot, and just goes balls out nuts with his usual philosophical angst, and endless worship of beautiful dames. Oddly enough, without the fetters of convention, to me it was actually less pretentious or indulgent I think people like to call it, and a lot easier to understand and empathize with. One thing that I've always found absurd, and ironically what this film dwells on, is the complaints by fans and critics that he should go back to making comedies. Woody cannot not make a funny movie. If he's in it, and he's talking, I'm laughing. Especially back in this era, when his jokes were so fresh. So make no mistake, this film is loaded with comedy. Finally, I liked his choice of women in this. Charlotte Rampling is what I suppose the word breathtaking was originally meant to describe. If you arent touched by the final scenes with her, you got issues.
Only Woody Allen could have made such a film in 1980.
Film_critic_Lalit_Rao7 June 2011
Let us start by getting to the heart of the matter.Stardust refers to an extremely naive romantic quality.By this yardstick,stardust memories are those romantic remembrances of the past which are an integral part of human consciousness.Old memories must be assessed on a timely basis in order to make sense of the life one is leading.This is precisely something which Woody Allen chose to depict in his film "Stardust Memories".In many ways,this film gives viewers an idea about Woody Allen's status in American cinema.We get to see through this film that he is neither a product of Hollywood studios nor a leading light of American independent cinema movement.He is quite simply an American director who has embedded a lot of European sensibilities in his films.Stardust Memories reveals that film directors like to lead different kinds of lives outside of their film making activities.It is a common fact that everybody would like to be associated with a film director in order to promote some social cause.This aspect has been nicely depicted by Woody Allen in this film.One word about Woody Allen's women characters.The women characters of "Stardust Memories" are not weak but they have also not been shown as strong willed women.In this manner their is a mysterious ambivalence concerning this film's women protagonists.Black and White format is a nice method chosen by Woody Allen as all our dreams,all our memories are invariably made up of black and white images.
Woody meets Federico in the Stardust Hotel
Galina_movie_fan6 October 2005
I was very surprised to find out that Stardust Memories is dismissed by both critics (at least some of them) and viewers as absolutely unwatchable Allen's film, his most chaotic attempt to claim that he can not stand his fans. I found it insightful and witty satire that cleverly (as always; if anything, Woody is a very clever man) fuses the comic and the serious.
Sandy Bates (Allen, of course) - a comic director who does not want to make funny films anymore "because there is so much suffering in the world" (the scene reminds so much of Sturgis's "Sullivan's Travels"). Sandy is depressed because his new "serious" film is not well received by both critics and public and he is spending a weekend at Stardust Hotel during showing of his films. While there, he reflects upon his life, art, and relationships with three different women. Sounds familiar? Like 8 1/2, anyone? You are absolutely right. Woody meets Federico in the Stardust Hotel. The film is delight in gorgeous black and white. It is funny, touching, angry - all in the same time. The film was made twenty four years ago and I am very happy that Sandy - Woody had realized that to help the world IS to do what you do the best - funny movies. "The people survived because they laughed".
One more thing - Charlotte Rampling is breathtaking.
9.5/10
Sandy Bates (Allen, of course) - a comic director who does not want to make funny films anymore "because there is so much suffering in the world" (the scene reminds so much of Sturgis's "Sullivan's Travels"). Sandy is depressed because his new "serious" film is not well received by both critics and public and he is spending a weekend at Stardust Hotel during showing of his films. While there, he reflects upon his life, art, and relationships with three different women. Sounds familiar? Like 8 1/2, anyone? You are absolutely right. Woody meets Federico in the Stardust Hotel. The film is delight in gorgeous black and white. It is funny, touching, angry - all in the same time. The film was made twenty four years ago and I am very happy that Sandy - Woody had realized that to help the world IS to do what you do the best - funny movies. "The people survived because they laughed".
One more thing - Charlotte Rampling is breathtaking.
9.5/10
Not so Good
canadude10 July 2004
I'll keep this short, because I really like Woody Allen's films and I don't want to unleash some sort of insane diatribe-for-the-sake-of-a-diatribe on a failed attempt.
"Stardust Memories" is a muddled and self-indulgent film, and no doubt a very personal one. It's wacky, surreal and it's got some decent jokes - some people consider it their favorite.
Me, it gave me a headache, with the onslaught of Felliniesque faces and characters with their caricatured expressions, garish make-up and overlapping dialogue which generally consisted of "Could I have your autograph Mr. Bates?" (who was played by Woody Allen.)
It's not funny enough for a comedy and not disciplined enough for a drama.
The film is Allen's tribute to Fellini's "8 1/2" - it tells the story of a director, Bates, who wants to stop making comedies because life has lost meaning for him. While the process and the insights might have been interesting for Allen, they are really meaningless to a non-director, an audience member. (The film is almost too personal - is that possible?) It's more of an example of the director's malaise, rather than a study of it.
One final note: I realize that Allen is the only director who spoofs art films. From Bergman to Fellini to directors of the German Expressionist period, even his existential films are self-conscious as films because of their emphasis on style (and appropriate theme, given a certain style). Except read "spoof" as "commentary" or "response."
"Stardust Memories" is a muddled and self-indulgent film, and no doubt a very personal one. It's wacky, surreal and it's got some decent jokes - some people consider it their favorite.
Me, it gave me a headache, with the onslaught of Felliniesque faces and characters with their caricatured expressions, garish make-up and overlapping dialogue which generally consisted of "Could I have your autograph Mr. Bates?" (who was played by Woody Allen.)
It's not funny enough for a comedy and not disciplined enough for a drama.
The film is Allen's tribute to Fellini's "8 1/2" - it tells the story of a director, Bates, who wants to stop making comedies because life has lost meaning for him. While the process and the insights might have been interesting for Allen, they are really meaningless to a non-director, an audience member. (The film is almost too personal - is that possible?) It's more of an example of the director's malaise, rather than a study of it.
One final note: I realize that Allen is the only director who spoofs art films. From Bergman to Fellini to directors of the German Expressionist period, even his existential films are self-conscious as films because of their emphasis on style (and appropriate theme, given a certain style). Except read "spoof" as "commentary" or "response."
A little self induldgent, but brilliantly so
silvertron14 September 2003
While this film doesn't get the praise and respect of, say, "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan," I think it is a brilliant look into the mind of a film director. How much of Woody Allen is Sandy Bates? Some, I'm sure, but I think it's more interesting to compare Sandy to Woody Allen's "persona"--that is, who the public thinks he is.
The structure of the film is also quite interesting to me. Allen had done a very non-linear story structure, mixed with occasional flights of fantasy, in "Annie Hall," but "Stardust Memories" does that and piles on a movie within a movie within a movie, and manages to both comment on all that, at the same time as he's telling the story of the brilliant, but self-absorbed Sandy Bates.
A great movie, that you probably should see more than once to appreciate.
The structure of the film is also quite interesting to me. Allen had done a very non-linear story structure, mixed with occasional flights of fantasy, in "Annie Hall," but "Stardust Memories" does that and piles on a movie within a movie within a movie, and manages to both comment on all that, at the same time as he's telling the story of the brilliant, but self-absorbed Sandy Bates.
A great movie, that you probably should see more than once to appreciate.
Retrospective and Recollections
claudio_carvalho26 October 2020
The filmmaker Sandy Bates (Woody Allen) has lost his humor but is still worshiped by his fans. His producer forces him to travel to present a retrospective of his films and debate with his fans. Meanwhile, he recalls the moments he spent with his girlfriend, the actress Dorrie (Charlotte Rampling). He summons his present girlfriend Isobel (Marie-Christine Barrault), who is married with children. And he meets and falls with Daisy (Jessica Harper), who came to see his retrospective.
"Stardust Memories" is a dramatic romantic comedy by Woody Allen and debut of Sharon Stone in the cinema industry. The plot has the sarcastic Woody Allen´s humor and is worthwhile watching if you are fan of him. Charlotte Rampling is impressively beautiful in the role of a former girlfriend of Sandy Bates. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Memórias" ("Memories")
"Stardust Memories" is a dramatic romantic comedy by Woody Allen and debut of Sharon Stone in the cinema industry. The plot has the sarcastic Woody Allen´s humor and is worthwhile watching if you are fan of him. Charlotte Rampling is impressively beautiful in the role of a former girlfriend of Sandy Bates. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Memórias" ("Memories")
Interesting, and profound, but surprisingly misunderstood.
Dinsdale12316 April 2004
It seems that Stardust Memories does not get the credit that it truly deserves. Everyone has such distaste for this film because they thought that this was an autobiography and it was Woody's attack on his fans/critics. Woody himself has said many times that this is not the case, but even if it were, I believe that the fans/critics deserve to be lowered down a peg. After all, Woody's interpretation of his fans (via Fellini's style of awkward and hilarious faces) is valid. Fans and critics alike should never have verbally abused him so much after the release of Interiors (1978). Why should directors be type-casted? Let him have his freedom! After all, Interiors wasn't such a bad movie. It was different, but not bad. Stardust Memories has also been accused of Woody's most self-indulgent film, but this is an outrage. All of Woody's films have something to do with his personal life, but if he had casted someone like John Cusack as Sandy Bates, then everyone would have stopped complaining about it's self-indulgence and start understanding how much of a creative genius Woody Allen is. Overall, Stardust Memories will be one of his films that lasts; but only time will tell.
Woody Allen can't decide, and neither can I
gridoon202424 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Woody Allen can't decide (at this point in his career) if he wants to make funny or serious films; I can't decide if (and how much) I like "Stardust Memories". The term " mixed bag" was invented for films like this; on one hand, it has several layers of self reflection (it's a movie about a director who wants to leave the "funny stuff" behind but can't quite bring himself to, and the movie itself has a lot less "funny stuff" than Allen's early films, but certainly a lot more than "Interiors", plus there are movies-within-the movie-within-the-movie), some great lines ("If I identified with a Greek mythological character, it wouldn't be Narcissus" - "Who would it be?" - "Zeus!"), a couple of inexplicably magical moments (the hot air balloons), and three extremely beautiful women (my favorite is Marie Christine Barrault). On the other hand, it has practically no plot (I'd say approximately 70% of the movie is Woody being pestered by fans and signing autographs), it feels aimless, and it's a little hard to stomach that the three aforementioned extremely beautiful women (four, if you count the "room service" by an eager young female fan) all have the hots for Woody. I guess this whole movie is a matter of perspective: if you like it, you'll call it free-form. If you don't, you'll find it formless. One thing is beyond doubt, however: Woody's taste in music is impeccable. **1/2 out of 4.
An Allen Classic
Slothrop-715 April 1999
In my opinion, Stardust Memories is Allen's greatest achievement. The film perceptively explores the relationships between art and reality, between the artist and his work, between the work and its consumers. Beyond its philosophic concerns though, this is also an incredibly funny film. There are more genuinely funny moments within this serious film than in many of Allen's earlier pure comedies. It skewers the movie industry, the movie-going public, Allen's own earlier work, Allen's present insecurities (surprise!), and a number of other targets. Intelligent, thought provoking, and at times hilarious, this film is an overlooked gem in the Allen canon.
I Love Woody Allen
gavin69425 February 2013
While attending a retrospect of his work, a filmmaker (Woody Allen) recalls his life and his loves: the inspirations for his films.
The humor of Woody Allen, inspired by Fellini, and starring Woody along with the amazing Jessica Harper. And who can forget the under-rated actress Charlotte Rampling? She takes center stage in this picture.
How do we categorize this film? I would say it is one of his more serious films, but that may not be fair -- it still has a lot of great, intelligent jokes and some of the segues are just plain weird. Not to mention aspects that seem to be daydreams... there are UFOs, magic tricks, a monster...
The humor of Woody Allen, inspired by Fellini, and starring Woody along with the amazing Jessica Harper. And who can forget the under-rated actress Charlotte Rampling? She takes center stage in this picture.
How do we categorize this film? I would say it is one of his more serious films, but that may not be fair -- it still has a lot of great, intelligent jokes and some of the segues are just plain weird. Not to mention aspects that seem to be daydreams... there are UFOs, magic tricks, a monster...
Woody Allen's Mid-Life Crisis: THE MOVIE
KnightsofNi1126 December 2010
It's no secret that Woody Allen tends to make his films somewhat autobiographical of his own life and personal experiences, but Stardust Memories takes it to the next level. It is basically a complete reflection of Allen's state of mind in 1980. The movie is about a film director named Sandy Bates, who is starting to have anxiety about what he is doing for a living and starts to question its purpose. He goes into a retrospective recluse about his previous work and begins to recall all the things that influence his love of film. I wasn't alive in 1980 and I didn't know Woody Allen in 1980, but if you can't call this autobiographical to the extreme, I don't know what you can.
Stardust Memories is an odd film because it really has no storyline. It is told in an anecdotal narrative style as Bates recalls different moments in his life as new moments arise and influence him. He considers all the different oddities that inspired him to make the popular films he's made. There are a lot of different women in Bates' life and they all have various amounts of influence on him as a filmmaker, and the whole film is told through these stories about women he's encountered or loved in the past. After a while you start to think, what is the point of all this? The film doesn't seem to be going anywhere after a while, and it all boils down to just a lot of retrospect and internal conflict more than anything else. It feels as though Woody Allen made this film for himself rather than anybody else. And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but to the viewer it's not very appealing.
One of the biggest issues with this film is that Woody Allen's character, Sandy Bates, isn't likable. He's a complete narcissist and is completely full of himself. He doesn't necessarily convey it outwardly dramatically, but he has a constant aura of egotistical jerk that is impossible to really connect with. He feels detached from the world and it makes it difficult to relate to his conflict, but that really just goes back to the fact that this is a film for Woody, not a film for the audience. And that's a paradox that just doesn't work with me, and it only made me feel like this film was a waste of time.
Artistically this film doesn't have a whole lot going for it either. It has your typical Woody Allen nuances, but not to the level that some of his other great films have. It doesn't stick to one specific style and its thoughts seem a little scattered. It is shot in black and white which was interesting, but eventually got to the point where it served no purpose. Visually there was nothing in this film that gave me that fascination or 'wow' reaction that Allen's films typically incite in me. There are undoubtedly some well designed moments of the film with shots that made me nod my head in appreciation, but it doesn't have that consistent visual style that other Woody Allen films have.
Allen was 45 years old when he made this film. I think you could definitely call it his mid-life crisis movie. All of the thoughts that were whizzing around in Allen's mind at that point in his neurotic life are conveyed and put into a script through Stardust Memories. For Allen I'm sure this film was a huge success that probably helped him sort through his life and allow his mind to clamber out of that jumbled crisis it was going through. But for me as the viewer I didn't get much of anything out of this film. Allen's intentions were clear, but the movie felt like a waste of time.
Stardust Memories is an odd film because it really has no storyline. It is told in an anecdotal narrative style as Bates recalls different moments in his life as new moments arise and influence him. He considers all the different oddities that inspired him to make the popular films he's made. There are a lot of different women in Bates' life and they all have various amounts of influence on him as a filmmaker, and the whole film is told through these stories about women he's encountered or loved in the past. After a while you start to think, what is the point of all this? The film doesn't seem to be going anywhere after a while, and it all boils down to just a lot of retrospect and internal conflict more than anything else. It feels as though Woody Allen made this film for himself rather than anybody else. And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but to the viewer it's not very appealing.
One of the biggest issues with this film is that Woody Allen's character, Sandy Bates, isn't likable. He's a complete narcissist and is completely full of himself. He doesn't necessarily convey it outwardly dramatically, but he has a constant aura of egotistical jerk that is impossible to really connect with. He feels detached from the world and it makes it difficult to relate to his conflict, but that really just goes back to the fact that this is a film for Woody, not a film for the audience. And that's a paradox that just doesn't work with me, and it only made me feel like this film was a waste of time.
Artistically this film doesn't have a whole lot going for it either. It has your typical Woody Allen nuances, but not to the level that some of his other great films have. It doesn't stick to one specific style and its thoughts seem a little scattered. It is shot in black and white which was interesting, but eventually got to the point where it served no purpose. Visually there was nothing in this film that gave me that fascination or 'wow' reaction that Allen's films typically incite in me. There are undoubtedly some well designed moments of the film with shots that made me nod my head in appreciation, but it doesn't have that consistent visual style that other Woody Allen films have.
Allen was 45 years old when he made this film. I think you could definitely call it his mid-life crisis movie. All of the thoughts that were whizzing around in Allen's mind at that point in his neurotic life are conveyed and put into a script through Stardust Memories. For Allen I'm sure this film was a huge success that probably helped him sort through his life and allow his mind to clamber out of that jumbled crisis it was going through. But for me as the viewer I didn't get much of anything out of this film. Allen's intentions were clear, but the movie felt like a waste of time.
Beautiful
afc-ajax14 August 2003
Reading some of the comments listed here, I'm dismayed by some of the narrowness of the criticisms ("It's shot in black & white for no reason!" "The flashbacks are indistinguishable from the present day!")... as if these were somehow to be construed as mistakes. Jeez.
I love this film. It rambles a little here and there, and sometimes it's so personal I feel voyeuristic watching it. The montage of Charlotte Rampling towards the end is stunning in how it summarizes Allen's feelings about memory, nostalgia, and the ever-present reality that never seems to allow the past to make sense.
One cannot deny that Allen has a very keen understanding of who he is, as a person, comedian, and lover. This is not to say that he is infallible or somehow more evolved than anyone else, but rather - through the retrospective of his "earlier funny films" - it's clear that he understands his strengths, and - outside the theatre - the weaknesses of his emotional life.
A perfect film for a quiet Sunday.
I love this film. It rambles a little here and there, and sometimes it's so personal I feel voyeuristic watching it. The montage of Charlotte Rampling towards the end is stunning in how it summarizes Allen's feelings about memory, nostalgia, and the ever-present reality that never seems to allow the past to make sense.
One cannot deny that Allen has a very keen understanding of who he is, as a person, comedian, and lover. This is not to say that he is infallible or somehow more evolved than anyone else, but rather - through the retrospective of his "earlier funny films" - it's clear that he understands his strengths, and - outside the theatre - the weaknesses of his emotional life.
A perfect film for a quiet Sunday.
The most introspective and autobiographical Woody Allen movie
grantss11 August 2015
Many of Woody Allen's movies have been introspective and autobiographical, yet this is the most introspective and autobiographical of all of them. Incredibly layered and complex, probably too much so. Still contains the usual Allen wit and clever dialogue, but toned down to be more serious. Truly captures the spirit of a director at a crossroads, and a quandary over where his true direction lies.
However, as mentioned, it is overly complex. Scenes seem discontinuous and random at times. Also, if you aren't a Woody Allen fan (luckily I am one), many of the in-jokes and self-references will be lost on you.
Solid performances all round, especially as the roles would have been difficult to play, considering the complexity of the script. As always, Woody Allen gets to play himself, though this time the character is actually himself.
Probably the least accessible Woody Allen movie, but definitely worth the watch if you are a fan.
However, as mentioned, it is overly complex. Scenes seem discontinuous and random at times. Also, if you aren't a Woody Allen fan (luckily I am one), many of the in-jokes and self-references will be lost on you.
Solid performances all round, especially as the roles would have been difficult to play, considering the complexity of the script. As always, Woody Allen gets to play himself, though this time the character is actually himself.
Probably the least accessible Woody Allen movie, but definitely worth the watch if you are a fan.
Imperfect, but it's still one of Woody's smartest scripts, with other incentives...
Quinoa198426 November 2003
...and, in Sandy Bates, the lead of his satire on celebrity, loves, and his usual themes of turmoil over life and death, is a sense that Woody Allen is doing one of two things (or both perhaps)- taking from his own life and thinly disguising characters and situations, or using his own public image in film's culture to look through the looking glass slightly at some of his popular themes. This is not to say that the film is one of his very best. I could see what Allen was doing, for example, with the scenes and instances of tipping the hat to Fellini and his masterwork 8 1/2- the two films share that common thread of an artist in an overall funk of bittersweet memories and creative confusion. But while Fellini made his film out of a burning need to reveal all of his love for cinema out of his angst(s) after La Dolce Vita, Allen's track record shows that he's near incapable of waiting around too long to make a film (he's averaged nearly a film a year in 37 years up till 2003) so much of what comes forth in Stardust Memories isn't as much autobiographical as it is told through a character filtered with and not with himself. In short, a lot of the 8 1/2 dues were my least favorite parts in the movie (though I did like the quick Superman-type mementos).
But does that make Stardust Memories a failure, pretentious? Not to my point of view- once Allen starts the story rolling, and he gets his characters/actors into the gist of the film, it goes along like most other Allen films involving phobias, fears, loves (women), and sophisticated sense of varied parody. There are moments that Allen's stand-up act is injected into the mix, or a scene that could've been a chapter from one of his books, but mostly the audience gets the sense of his OWN love of cinema via Sandy Bates. Bates is another one of those Woody characters that seems all the more impressively formed and executed since it feels like the Woody we know, but Bates is just a little more on the edge of satire, viewing into his own self-doubts and trying to see if there can be any hope or meaning to it all- or if he can tell funny jokes.
The script contains some of the most memorable moments of Allen's career in one-liners (there are a few from the fans and autograph-hounds that stick out) and in having a natural flow, close to a type of poetry, in the conversations and dialog in the film. Even if one doesn't laugh, it definitely shows the work of a wonderful writer at the peak of his game. His direction is also intrinsically interesting, especially how he uses the unique, dark, and evoking cinematography by the great Gordon Willis, and the unusual editing stylizing by Susan Morse (though, once again, some of these editing tricks are to Fellini's credit). And the performances work well enough for the material, more often than not, with Charlotte Rampling as Dorrie, Bates' wonderfully stressed ex-girlfriend, Marie-Christine Barrault as Isobel, an old friend who left her husband for him, Jessica Harper as Daisy, whom he falls head over heels for while she and her professor-boyfriend are at the Stardust attending Bates' appearance(s), and Tony Roberts, who had a worthy supporting role in Annie Hall, pops up here as well.
I can recommend Stardust Memories for Woody Allen's main fan base, as it gives those who love his early films and his films that have more mature subject matter a bit of a (delightful) challenge. I don't know if I could recommend it however, as the very first film someone could see if the person wants to start of his films. There is an amusing quality to it that could give non-Woody fans a second thought about the filmmaker's work, but it's hard to say. It's not an altogether easy film to watch, or is it a masterwork like Manhattan. By the end of it, never-the-less, my time was not the least wasted, I knew I saw some ingenious scenes and jokes here and there, and there was a subtlety to it that has me liking it and responding more to it on repeat viewings. Is it homage? Sure, but it's a blend of homage (or as Roberts says "ripping it off") and a personal, nearly original style, and it ends up, on a repeat viewing, a major work. 9.5/10
But does that make Stardust Memories a failure, pretentious? Not to my point of view- once Allen starts the story rolling, and he gets his characters/actors into the gist of the film, it goes along like most other Allen films involving phobias, fears, loves (women), and sophisticated sense of varied parody. There are moments that Allen's stand-up act is injected into the mix, or a scene that could've been a chapter from one of his books, but mostly the audience gets the sense of his OWN love of cinema via Sandy Bates. Bates is another one of those Woody characters that seems all the more impressively formed and executed since it feels like the Woody we know, but Bates is just a little more on the edge of satire, viewing into his own self-doubts and trying to see if there can be any hope or meaning to it all- or if he can tell funny jokes.
The script contains some of the most memorable moments of Allen's career in one-liners (there are a few from the fans and autograph-hounds that stick out) and in having a natural flow, close to a type of poetry, in the conversations and dialog in the film. Even if one doesn't laugh, it definitely shows the work of a wonderful writer at the peak of his game. His direction is also intrinsically interesting, especially how he uses the unique, dark, and evoking cinematography by the great Gordon Willis, and the unusual editing stylizing by Susan Morse (though, once again, some of these editing tricks are to Fellini's credit). And the performances work well enough for the material, more often than not, with Charlotte Rampling as Dorrie, Bates' wonderfully stressed ex-girlfriend, Marie-Christine Barrault as Isobel, an old friend who left her husband for him, Jessica Harper as Daisy, whom he falls head over heels for while she and her professor-boyfriend are at the Stardust attending Bates' appearance(s), and Tony Roberts, who had a worthy supporting role in Annie Hall, pops up here as well.
I can recommend Stardust Memories for Woody Allen's main fan base, as it gives those who love his early films and his films that have more mature subject matter a bit of a (delightful) challenge. I don't know if I could recommend it however, as the very first film someone could see if the person wants to start of his films. There is an amusing quality to it that could give non-Woody fans a second thought about the filmmaker's work, but it's hard to say. It's not an altogether easy film to watch, or is it a masterwork like Manhattan. By the end of it, never-the-less, my time was not the least wasted, I knew I saw some ingenious scenes and jokes here and there, and there was a subtlety to it that has me liking it and responding more to it on repeat viewings. Is it homage? Sure, but it's a blend of homage (or as Roberts says "ripping it off") and a personal, nearly original style, and it ends up, on a repeat viewing, a major work. 9.5/10
Woody's most self indulgent film
Idocamstuf16 September 2003
All Woody's films are self indulgent, but this one takes the cake. Filmed in black and white, it tells the story of a director, very much like himself who goes to a film festival of his own films and watches everyone pan them. The plot is a huge mess, several actors are wasted, but its certainly not unwatchable. You can certainly see but Woody was going for, but unfortunately he fails to deliver. Interesting at best. 5.6/10.
Terribly underrated Allen film - one of his very best
runamokprods19 June 2010
I know -- I'm supposed to like 'Manhattan' more. I know -- this straddles the line between homage and rip-off when it comes to Fellini...
But it's so physically beautiful, and so full of unforgettable moments of humor and heartbreak, that I can watch it over and over and just see more and more in it. It's an odd, wonderful mix of sad, angry, surreal and very funny. It's a chilling, sad, hysterical look at the emptiness of being famous, at what it means to not trust your own worth, what it means to be scared of happiness.
The jump cut sequence with Charlotte Rampling is one of the best, most incisive pieces of film-making I've ever seen. Period.
For me, it's a tragically underrated film. I'm thrilled to see it getting support here. I guess it can be validly criticized, but my emotional reaction to the nit-picking is 'who cares?' This is brave, unique, special film-making in a world with far too little.
Horrifyingly, along with many other great Allen films (including Annie Hall!) , it's currently out-of-print in the US on DVD. I can only hope this means an upgraded re-release of these films is on the way, but there's always a danger they're caught up in some kind of rights battle. So if you want to own these classics, you might want to grab some good used copies while you can.
But it's so physically beautiful, and so full of unforgettable moments of humor and heartbreak, that I can watch it over and over and just see more and more in it. It's an odd, wonderful mix of sad, angry, surreal and very funny. It's a chilling, sad, hysterical look at the emptiness of being famous, at what it means to not trust your own worth, what it means to be scared of happiness.
The jump cut sequence with Charlotte Rampling is one of the best, most incisive pieces of film-making I've ever seen. Period.
For me, it's a tragically underrated film. I'm thrilled to see it getting support here. I guess it can be validly criticized, but my emotional reaction to the nit-picking is 'who cares?' This is brave, unique, special film-making in a world with far too little.
Horrifyingly, along with many other great Allen films (including Annie Hall!) , it's currently out-of-print in the US on DVD. I can only hope this means an upgraded re-release of these films is on the way, but there's always a danger they're caught up in some kind of rights battle. So if you want to own these classics, you might want to grab some good used copies while you can.
Kind of interesting but no great shakes
preppy-329 April 2006
Black and white film of Woody Allen playing a filmmaker who is known for his comedies--and is sick of making them. Still that seems to be all that the public wants. He goes off for a weekend to a retrospective of his films and the film follows him that weekend.
I saw this WAY back in 1980 in a theatre. I was bored silly. Right after that I went to see "Motel Hell" and had more fun with that! I think I was just too young to appreciate it--20+ years later it looks pretty good. This was just before Allen started making those endlessly depressing and negative films ("September" anyone?) that almost destroyed his career. This isn't all that bad--but no great shakes either.
It starts off with a VERY funny train sequence (which includes the film debut of Sharon Stone) and then takes off veering wildly between comedy and drama--never finding a comfortable melding of the two. It also depicts his fans as being clinging, mentally ill and looking like rejects from a Fellini film. Some people thought this was a swipe in the face to his fans but I didn't get that feeling. It has childhood memories which add nothing to the story and has an ending that was WAY too strange. This is basically a mediation on fame and success which tells us nothing new.
Still it is well-directed and written. Allen is good; Charlotte Rampling is excellent; Jessica Harper nicely underplays her role and Marie-Christine Barrault is good too. Also it's fun to see Laraine Newman and Louise Lasser appear (unbilled) in small funny roles. Not a washout but not successful either. I was never bored (the second time around). I give it a 7.
I saw this WAY back in 1980 in a theatre. I was bored silly. Right after that I went to see "Motel Hell" and had more fun with that! I think I was just too young to appreciate it--20+ years later it looks pretty good. This was just before Allen started making those endlessly depressing and negative films ("September" anyone?) that almost destroyed his career. This isn't all that bad--but no great shakes either.
It starts off with a VERY funny train sequence (which includes the film debut of Sharon Stone) and then takes off veering wildly between comedy and drama--never finding a comfortable melding of the two. It also depicts his fans as being clinging, mentally ill and looking like rejects from a Fellini film. Some people thought this was a swipe in the face to his fans but I didn't get that feeling. It has childhood memories which add nothing to the story and has an ending that was WAY too strange. This is basically a mediation on fame and success which tells us nothing new.
Still it is well-directed and written. Allen is good; Charlotte Rampling is excellent; Jessica Harper nicely underplays her role and Marie-Christine Barrault is good too. Also it's fun to see Laraine Newman and Louise Lasser appear (unbilled) in small funny roles. Not a washout but not successful either. I was never bored (the second time around). I give it a 7.
excellent!
ianfire5028 May 2000
Contrary to popular and critical opinion, this is Woody Allen's Best film. Yes, better than Manhattan or Annie Hall and all the others (about 30 i think). It is his best film because it is his most truthful, and it's angry. Critics dont like it because it attacks critics. But it is inventive, brillantly imaginative and purely cinematic, the narrative is almost non-existent and the film is really feelings put onto celluloid, in this sense it is a very PURE film, and probably autobiographical. Although no doubt Allen would deny this! I love the off-beat characters , and its also a very atmospheric film. I have seen about 25 Woody Allen films and think this is the most honest of them all.
Allen defends his film-making in "Stardust Memories"
Movie_Muse_Reviews3 January 2009
Woody Allen's film-making has always had a strong sense of personalized agenda about it, seeing as for most of his career he wrote, directed and starred in his own films, but none are as strikingly about discovering self-meaning as "Stardust Memories." It's not a pretentious work, but it's not nearly as accessible as his more popular films for this reason. All in all, it ends up being good for the same reasons: the characters and relationship drama and Allen's unique perspective on life and love, but its profundity seems mainly reserved for Allen or other middle-aged artists.
Allen plays Sandy Bates, a director famous for his early comedies who goes to a festival of his old work at a time in his career where his producers are saying he's getting too out there. A combination of bombardment from fans, the arrival of an old, French love affair, and meeting a woman that eerily reminds him of one of his ex-lovers, causes Sandy to reflect on his work and life and radically reconsider his future.
Allen gives a strong effort to align the audience with Sandy's perspective, whether keeping Sandy out of frame in scenes that he's in at times or more commonly bringing the camera into first person perspective. He succeeds the most at creating empathy for what it must be like to deal with the attention of fans or people seeking your help for one reason or another. He also uses those techniques well at capturing what it is about the women he's with in any given scene that truly rivets him. Charlotte Rampling, who plays his ex-lover Dorrie who he can't seem to get over, has the perfect look for the part. She has a distinct beauty in scenes where she makes him happy and when she's depressed, she can appear cold and detached.
The film has some issues with structure and continuity. It's not hard to follow, but it's hard to catch all the time shifts because the transitions are always so quick. Toward the end, as Allen and this film search for a deeper meaning, the film only seems to get more surreal and downright existential. You get the sense that Allen knows exactly what he's attempting to make you consider, but it's not cathartic in any way.
It's interesting, because at one point in the film Sandy is taking questions from attendees of the film festival and one woman asks for his reaction to claims about him being narcissistic. Though his answer comical, Allen, presumably with a cinematic chance to defend his actual self, never denies the allegations. The question then remains for viewers of his films, especially "Stardust Memories," whether Allen's stories can be identified with, can be accessible to a large audience. His success suggests yes and his lower points in his career suggest no, but Allen knows this is how he makes films, this is how he searches for meaning and he will continue to do so.
Allen plays Sandy Bates, a director famous for his early comedies who goes to a festival of his old work at a time in his career where his producers are saying he's getting too out there. A combination of bombardment from fans, the arrival of an old, French love affair, and meeting a woman that eerily reminds him of one of his ex-lovers, causes Sandy to reflect on his work and life and radically reconsider his future.
Allen gives a strong effort to align the audience with Sandy's perspective, whether keeping Sandy out of frame in scenes that he's in at times or more commonly bringing the camera into first person perspective. He succeeds the most at creating empathy for what it must be like to deal with the attention of fans or people seeking your help for one reason or another. He also uses those techniques well at capturing what it is about the women he's with in any given scene that truly rivets him. Charlotte Rampling, who plays his ex-lover Dorrie who he can't seem to get over, has the perfect look for the part. She has a distinct beauty in scenes where she makes him happy and when she's depressed, she can appear cold and detached.
The film has some issues with structure and continuity. It's not hard to follow, but it's hard to catch all the time shifts because the transitions are always so quick. Toward the end, as Allen and this film search for a deeper meaning, the film only seems to get more surreal and downright existential. You get the sense that Allen knows exactly what he's attempting to make you consider, but it's not cathartic in any way.
It's interesting, because at one point in the film Sandy is taking questions from attendees of the film festival and one woman asks for his reaction to claims about him being narcissistic. Though his answer comical, Allen, presumably with a cinematic chance to defend his actual self, never denies the allegations. The question then remains for viewers of his films, especially "Stardust Memories," whether Allen's stories can be identified with, can be accessible to a large audience. His success suggests yes and his lower points in his career suggest no, but Allen knows this is how he makes films, this is how he searches for meaning and he will continue to do so.
My favourite Woody Allen Film
charlesjpfox21 July 2017
I remember when this first came out; after the brilliant mid 70's period of Allen - Annie Hall and Manhattan. At the time it was panned by a number of critics; but even back then I thought it was one of the true classics of Allen. I continue to watch it every couple of years - usually on one of those mid week afternoons when you've skived off work and just want to escape into the mind of someone else. Why are we all here; what is the point of anything and why cant we just make some funny films like we used to
"We enjoy your films
particularly the early, funny ones."
The_Movie_Cat1 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Frequently misquoted as "funnier" ones, it's an amazing prescient line (used twice) from Allen as early as 1980. Following on from the drama Interiors and the black and white comedy drama Manhattan, it's a criticism that Allen would be facing far more regularly in the future, but he addresses it himself before anyone else got the chance.
There's a line of reasoning that if you've seen around half a dozen Woody Allen films you've seen them all, and in some senses that perhaps holds true, particularly for Stardust Memories, one of his most indulgent films of all. Although he denies any autobiographical elements, the film of a comedian who makes films that have pretensions and begin to alienate his audience is clearly closer to home than Zelig or Shadows and Fog. It helps that it's one of his best, beautifully shot and once again paying homage/pastiche to Fellini. That said, it loses a lot of lustre on repeat viewings, particularly in 2012 where postmodern deconstruction is de rigueur, and I did drop my rating two stars watching it again for this review.
Some suggest that Allen's decline was quite swift, and that even during the 80s it was only the odd film that would be worth seeking out. Yet throughout the decade he was still doing some of the best of his work, still yet to be troubled by his personal life overshadowing his art. Perhaps it can be best summed up by Zelig (8). Okay, Zelig's an experimental piece about a human chameleon so it's hardly typical Allen, but the film is interesting and cute, and produces wry smiles... yet is rarely laugh out loud funny. They're largely a series of pictures you'd admire and be entertained by, rather than appreciate as purely comedic spectacles.
People who wanted the genuinely funny guy of the 70s would struggle to find him from this point on, though his work with drama saw new rewards. This was Woody increasing his worth as an artist, with the black and white cinematography used to such great effect in Manhattan repeated here, in Broadway Danny Rose (7) and throughout most of Zelig. Credit for how good many of these films look must go to Gordon Willis, who was Director of Photography on this, Manhattan and Annie Hall. His role as Cinematographer on five other Allen movies of the period didn't harm them, either. It's also notable for being Allen's first film to use old recordings as a soundtrack, something which has become something of a Woody cliché in recent years, but was fresh and vibrant then.
Stardust Memories was Allen's first film of the new decade, but the quality continued throughout as he wrote and directed ten features. Much of it is Allen at the top of his game, with the likes of Hannah and Her Sisters (8), Radio Days (8), the underrated Another Woman (8) and the meaningful albeit overtly "written" Crimes and Misdemeanors (7). Weak films are sparse here, with only the tired A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (4) and The Purple Rose of Cairo (4) letting down the quality control. That said, Cairo is still an interesting experiment, following on from Zelig's lead with a character stepping out of a film. However, it perhaps lacks true narrative drive, with the line "they sit around and talk? No action? Nothing happens?" possible self-referencing. It may also be a personal oversight as it's a film that is quite regarded, including by Allen himself. Cairo is also one of three 80s movies in which Woody does not appear, the others being the worthwhile yet heavily drawn September (6) and Another Woman.
Back to Stardust Memories, and film critic Roger Ebert was right when he regarded it as "the first Woody Allen film in which impotence has become the situation rather than the problem." Certainly, as Ebert empathises, the supporting characters have no real depth, particularly the women. The detailed characters of Annie Hall and Manhattan are gone, and in their place are ciphers there to badger or distract Allen. However, what fills their place is ruminations on life, death, existence and morality. Being a film of the period then there are some customary bad taste routines, such as another rape joke and a quip about Hiroshima, but generally this is one of the more thoughtful of Allen's films, no matter how superficially lightweight.
Perhaps with Allen's obvious homage to Fellini then you can't help but feel he doesn't come over favourably by the comparison, but this is, after all, something he concedes himself. Another Woman was a homage to Bergman, but had its own distinct identity. You feel that Stardust Memories couldn't exist at all without 8 1/2, and tying his inspiration so rigidly to another's work isn't Allen at his most inventive.
Overall, it's a filmmaker making a film about filmmaking. And although Woody was bright, witty and ironic enough to steer that from total indulgence, it's still a work that doesn't really ask as many questions as it purports. As a work of art then it's stunning to look at, even though most of the shot compositions are pastiche. But as a film to watch it lacks true emotional depth... though does, at least, presage one of Allen's most successful decades in cinema.
There's a line of reasoning that if you've seen around half a dozen Woody Allen films you've seen them all, and in some senses that perhaps holds true, particularly for Stardust Memories, one of his most indulgent films of all. Although he denies any autobiographical elements, the film of a comedian who makes films that have pretensions and begin to alienate his audience is clearly closer to home than Zelig or Shadows and Fog. It helps that it's one of his best, beautifully shot and once again paying homage/pastiche to Fellini. That said, it loses a lot of lustre on repeat viewings, particularly in 2012 where postmodern deconstruction is de rigueur, and I did drop my rating two stars watching it again for this review.
Some suggest that Allen's decline was quite swift, and that even during the 80s it was only the odd film that would be worth seeking out. Yet throughout the decade he was still doing some of the best of his work, still yet to be troubled by his personal life overshadowing his art. Perhaps it can be best summed up by Zelig (8). Okay, Zelig's an experimental piece about a human chameleon so it's hardly typical Allen, but the film is interesting and cute, and produces wry smiles... yet is rarely laugh out loud funny. They're largely a series of pictures you'd admire and be entertained by, rather than appreciate as purely comedic spectacles.
People who wanted the genuinely funny guy of the 70s would struggle to find him from this point on, though his work with drama saw new rewards. This was Woody increasing his worth as an artist, with the black and white cinematography used to such great effect in Manhattan repeated here, in Broadway Danny Rose (7) and throughout most of Zelig. Credit for how good many of these films look must go to Gordon Willis, who was Director of Photography on this, Manhattan and Annie Hall. His role as Cinematographer on five other Allen movies of the period didn't harm them, either. It's also notable for being Allen's first film to use old recordings as a soundtrack, something which has become something of a Woody cliché in recent years, but was fresh and vibrant then.
Stardust Memories was Allen's first film of the new decade, but the quality continued throughout as he wrote and directed ten features. Much of it is Allen at the top of his game, with the likes of Hannah and Her Sisters (8), Radio Days (8), the underrated Another Woman (8) and the meaningful albeit overtly "written" Crimes and Misdemeanors (7). Weak films are sparse here, with only the tired A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (4) and The Purple Rose of Cairo (4) letting down the quality control. That said, Cairo is still an interesting experiment, following on from Zelig's lead with a character stepping out of a film. However, it perhaps lacks true narrative drive, with the line "they sit around and talk? No action? Nothing happens?" possible self-referencing. It may also be a personal oversight as it's a film that is quite regarded, including by Allen himself. Cairo is also one of three 80s movies in which Woody does not appear, the others being the worthwhile yet heavily drawn September (6) and Another Woman.
Back to Stardust Memories, and film critic Roger Ebert was right when he regarded it as "the first Woody Allen film in which impotence has become the situation rather than the problem." Certainly, as Ebert empathises, the supporting characters have no real depth, particularly the women. The detailed characters of Annie Hall and Manhattan are gone, and in their place are ciphers there to badger or distract Allen. However, what fills their place is ruminations on life, death, existence and morality. Being a film of the period then there are some customary bad taste routines, such as another rape joke and a quip about Hiroshima, but generally this is one of the more thoughtful of Allen's films, no matter how superficially lightweight.
Perhaps with Allen's obvious homage to Fellini then you can't help but feel he doesn't come over favourably by the comparison, but this is, after all, something he concedes himself. Another Woman was a homage to Bergman, but had its own distinct identity. You feel that Stardust Memories couldn't exist at all without 8 1/2, and tying his inspiration so rigidly to another's work isn't Allen at his most inventive.
Overall, it's a filmmaker making a film about filmmaking. And although Woody was bright, witty and ironic enough to steer that from total indulgence, it's still a work that doesn't really ask as many questions as it purports. As a work of art then it's stunning to look at, even though most of the shot compositions are pastiche. But as a film to watch it lacks true emotional depth... though does, at least, presage one of Allen's most successful decades in cinema.
Woody's 8 1/2
rosscinema7 May 2003
With the exception of "Annie Hall" this is easily Woody Allens most personal film and I think its also an homage to the Fellini film 8 1/2 as we watch Allen as Sandy Bates. He's a very successful filmmaker and is hounded by autograph seekers wherever he goes. While at a film festival honoring his work, Bates reflects on his life and relationships and also what direction to take his career into. The studio hates his new film and want it changed. Sound familiar? It should. Charlotte Rampling plays Dorrie who is Bates girlfriend and Marie-Christine Barrault is a woman that Bates has always been in love with and she has just left her husband and taken the kids with her. You can't argue the fact that this is self indulgent as a lot of the critics of this film have complained about. But its suppose to be. I was a little annoyed at some of the turns that the film took and I never really understood the whole UFO watcher segment. Allen does a good job of showing the problems of being a celebrity like the never ending autograph hounds that pop in every situation when he's trying to say something important to someone. It also shows his frustration at the studios who complain that he's not funny enough and want to take control of his own film. But these points are made early and then the rest of the film gets at times repetitive. Yes, we know you don't want to make funny movies anymore because your depressed at the world. One of the fun things about this film is "Spotting the star". Daniel Stern, Amy Wright, Anne DeSalvo, Brent Spiner, Cynthia Gibb and Sharon Stone makes her film debut as the party woman on the train. Not nearly as bad as some have been saying and it does reflect on Woody's conscience. Over the years this film is probably more interesting than when it first came out. Still a must for Allen fans and I think others will have to take their chances on this reflective film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
