Will We Ever Get the Great Emma Stone Movie We Thought Woody Allen Would Give Us?
Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 6:30PM
Jose here. As Emma Stone enters the second phase of her reign as the Woodsman’s current muse, comparisons to Scarlett Johansson are important not for the obvious surface reasons (both stunningly beautiful young actresses at the peak of their raspy-voice greatness) but because after making two films with him in consecutive years, she still doesn’t have her signature Woody role. Similarly, Johansson’s streak with Allen, which spanned three non-consecutive films from 2005-2008, was characterized for the “renaissance” quality it brought to his work, more than for containing “essential” Scarlett Johansson performances.
More on Stone and ScarJo after the jump...
Before you say, “well there’s Match Point”, as fine as her work was in the film, her accolades were mostly part of a “welcome back to the big leagues” package for Allen, whose work had been lackluster for the better part of a decade. Also the Golden Globes would’ve nominated her for anything back then. Match Point was celebrated because it reminded audiences and critics that nobody does entertaining existentialism like Allen. The film’s screenplay, basically a reworking of the plot of Crimes and Misdemeanors, proved to be deliciously dark and nihilistic, and Johansson’s work as Nola was nothing other than pitch perfect casting, since no other filmmaker had deigned to cast her as the femme fatale they all suggested she could be.
Similarly, when it comes to Stone, she excels in Allen’s films because they allow her to be larger than life, she’s Carole Lombard and Barbara Stanwyck rolled into one, inspiring lust in one moment and then making your tummy ache from laughing too hard. Allen clearly adores her, no one has shot her as lovingly as Darius Khondji does in Magic in the Moonlight and Irrational Man, but neither film is actually a showcase for her, which made me wonder if Allen uses his muses as purely ancillary inspiration, rather than as the only objects of his adoration. Do you think that being near ScarJo and Stone, helped him write great parts for other actors? If you think about it, ScarJo was the only cast member of Vicky Cristina Barcelona not to get a single nomination for anything (the lack of awards attention is something she has in common with former Woody muse Mia Farrow), while Stone hasn’t been singled out for her work in either film. Moonlight gave Colin Firth and Hamish Linklater great notices, and Irrational has people crazy over how great an Allen actor Parker Posey is. Should Woody quit horsing around and write Emma and Scarlett their own Blue Jasmine’s?
Do you wish Woody's relationship with Scarjo and Stone was more like Fellini's with Masina, Bergman and Ullmann, and Almodóvar with Maura and Pé? Or are you content with what he’s done with ScarJo and Stone?
Reader Comments (21)
Interesting piece. I agree Emma Stone has serious star quality and just needs a breakthrough adult role. I think actresses work with Woody until their alarm bell goes off. For every Oscar nominated role there are more where the part just did not work for the actress (Goldie Hawn, Drew Barrymore, Naomi Watts). Woody is a perv.
Emma Stone has one star performance (Easy A), one good small performance given in a top film by a director who is very good with actors (Birdman) and a laundry list of bland, simply ok and terrible performances. At this point I'm fully expecting more of the latter. I'd prefer she fade into obscurity and let other young actresses get these roles/opportunities instead. Be gone Stone - you are not wanted!
Personally, I think Stone's the best thing about Irrational Man. She was so good at riding the tonal and emotional shifts that I wondered who her acting coach is/was.
Great question Jose!
Initially, when I heard the Magic in the Moonlight casting announcement I thought: Woody + Emma Stone? That will be at least very good and hilarious. But then it turns out the film's about the guy. And then the second collaboration was also about the guy... :D
Thank God, Woody did Cate Blanchett justice. That role will age in Annie Hall fashion.
I think waiting on Woody to deliver on this will only lead to disappointment. Emma is a good lead actress but also works really well at providing support to characters without stealing their shine so it makes sense that she did this in both of her WA films. I also think both of her movies with Woody Allen were bad with good moments but she delivers great performances in both of them. In Irrational Man, she gives layers and depth to a character that the script didn't provide and in Magic in the Moonlight she anchors the movie down with old school film star charisma and substance. It is a similar situation to Dakota Johnson in Fifty Shades of Grey (amazing performance trapped in a shoddy movie). Fans of Emma should definitely check them out if they can stomach Woody. In contrast, I felt like Scarlett Johansson was barely trying to act her in Allen movies, but she has grown so much as an actress in the past few years, it would be interesting to see what they would produce now if he could write her a really great role.
Also, Emma seems to be going through a similar period that Natalie Portman and Kirsten Dunst were going through when they were her age - having the misfortune of being in films considered high profile failures. Dunst had Marie Antoinette/Elizabethtown and Portman had the bad luck of being in the worst films of Wong Kar-Wai, Wes Anderson and Milos Forman as well as the Star Wars prequels. In a similar way to those actors - it's not all on her and I hope Stone can go on to better films/performances like they did (just not necessarily in Woody Allen productions).
This article should be about Woody Allen taking an interest in Parker Posey after all these years and being impressed enough with her work in his current movie to cast her again.
Abel: ScarJo and an Oscar nom is a very weird case, especially since her artistic rejuvenation came in The Avengers and, well, she can be phenomenal in action, comedy and artistic fare like Under the Skin, but has, so far, been proven as uniformly TERRIBLE as a prestige actress. It says a lot that The Spirit can probably claim her best performance work between Lost in Translation and The Avengers.
Totally agree that Scarlett is no Streep or Blanchett. I highly recommend Diary of a a Teenage Girl. Well written and acted, and will seem shockingly authentic for anyone who was 15 in 1976. Great film. Also amusing: Terry Gross's uncharacteristically emotional NPR interview with the woman who inspired the film.
Meh to Woody. Self-indulgent, neurotic, womanizer. The Soon-yi and daughter stories are disturbing and Emma should bail if no magic is going on.
Emma Stone doesn't excel in the Allen's movies she's starred. As a matter of fact she is bad in both of them?
Emma was so so bad in Magic in the Moonlight. I saw Birdman like two weeks later and I couldn't believe the difference.
For me, the jury's still out on Emma Stone, but I think Scarlett was excellent in Match Point - really, it's hard to imagine how anyone else could have bettered that performance - and fine in Vicky Cristina Barcelona (and even in Scoop). But I don't think that Woody thinks in terms of setting out to give a particular actress a great part - at least not since the Mia Farrow days. After all, Scarlett's role in Match Point was going to be played by Kate Winslet until Winslet dropped out. So, it's luck that we had Scarlett in that film. Then again, luck is the theme of Match Point, so I guess it's appropriate!
Because neither of the films are good (Irrational Man much better, but still middle-weight Allen) is I think the answer.
Plus, as far as ScarJo not getting any award attention for VCB... I dunno. She was the lead, but not a flashy one. I think Scarlet's films with Woody Allen and her performances in them is much better than Emma Stone's respective works.
Love Stone and look forward to seeing her in Irrational Man, but I felt Magic in the Moonlight was one of her weaker performances and a real missed opportunity. Not that it was Allen's most amazing writing, but even as written, the role itself had amazing comic potential that Stone mystifyingly never quite tapped into.
Scarlett nailed the role in Match Point and delivered exactly what was required in VCB. They are two of her best, but she can be hit or miss. To her credit the misses are always because of problems with the script or direction. I haven't seen her be bad in a good film.
I haven't seen Emma Stone ever be very good or in a good film.
Let me be clear: Scarlett Johansson is a much much better actress than Emma Stone. Call me again when Stone deliver something close to Girl With a Pearl Earring, Under the Skin, Lost In Translation or Don Jon.
I haven't seen Irrational Man yet, but I thought Stone was just terrible in Magic in the Moonlight. I couldn't believe that she and Colin Firth had less than zero chemistry... I've never seen either of these gorgeous actors in a film where they were less charismatic. A lazy, sloppy film that didn't do anybody's career any favors. (And let it be said: Woody should know better at this point in his career and personal travails than to be making films where the leading actress is literally half the age of the leading actor. Continuing with this trope is bad news!)
I thought Stone was the best thing in Birdman, which I finally saw and found insanely overrated. And just to be clear, I've loved Stone since I first noticed her in supporting parts like The House Bunny and Zombieland, and I think Easy A is one of the best high school comedies of recent years. Stone is generally excellent, but she can't save a stinker all by herself (e.g., Gangster Squad).
I've been a Woody fan since the sixties, but his recent output has fluctuated so wildly - better films like Midnight In Paris and Blue Jasmine sitting right next to utter dreck like From Rome With Love and Magic in the Moonlight - that I now expect his films, even the better ones, to have some parts that are sloppy and half-baked.
Though he's certainly made plenty of sub-par films in his amazing film-a-year-since-the-sixties run, Woody was in a better place a decade ago. Scoop may be a minor film, but it has its moments and it's not a major embarrassment like some of his more recent losers.
Honestly, I don't expect great things from this collaboration. I hope that Woody's got a couple of more good films in him, but I'm keeping my expectations lowered.
"Similarly, when it comes to Stone, she excels in Allen’s films because they allow her to be larger than life, she’s Carole Lombard and Barbara Stanwyck rolled into one, inspiring lust in one moment and then making your tummy ache from laughing too hard."
No.
@Jono - Aw, I liked Goldie Hawn in Everyone Says I Love You. I thought she worked great in that, even if it was a somewhat smaller part.
If you look at the gap in time between Annie Hall, some of the Mia Farrow vehicles in the 80's (which I haven't seen) and Blue Jasmine, we very well could never get another great leading female role in a Woody Allen film.
Scarlett delivered catatonic realness in Under the Skin, but I did not think of her walking around like a zombie as any kind of acting tour de force. Pretty girl, sometimes good and often flat and boring (like Natalie Portman and others of that generation).
@sandra - what she did in Under the Skin was so much more than walking around like a zombie. It looked easy and effortless, sure, but she made a lot of strong, specific choices that I would guess weren't in the script.
@Paul Outlaw. Her acting coach: Jean Fowler