Steve Martin Vs. Woody Allen

Steve Martin takes the short sprint (the era that last from late 70's iconic stand-up through, say, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels), but Woody Allen takes the marathon.

Allen, easily. Partly because I believe Allen's influence is much wider ranging than Martin's. Partly because Martin can be just as brilliant now as he ever was and just chooses to put out the crap he does. Allen just keeps doing his thing. It isn't as good as it once was, but it's still his thing. 

Definitely Woody Allen because it seems like he still takes risks. If Steve Martin had a stronger pattern of "one for them, one for me" then I would have voted for him.

Steve Martin has a "story by" credit for Tratior starring Don Cheadle. That's so weird.

Allen by a mile.

Steve Martin's funny (he still has it in him), but it seems like he very rarely has anything to say. Woody may repeat himself every now and again with diminishing returns, but it's very rare that his films aren't about anything at all.

Movies? Allen. Crappy music side projects? I lean Martin.

It's very easy to assume Woody Allen is more talented than Steve Martin.  Woody Allen is, stylistically speaking, very obvious and in your face and hard to forget.  Steve Martin is much more subtle and has had a great number of truly beautiful films that have flown under the radar.  Woody Allen has no where near the range of Steve Martin.  All of Woody Allen's movies are very "Woody Allen" in that they are all, stylistically and thematically, the same.  They are filled with the same socially relevant criticism, the same awkward, egotistical sense of humor.  Steve Martin, while not all his films have been gems, has at least varied from the ridiculousness of "The Jerk" to the serious, and very quiet/understated, film "Shopgirl."  He has played around with converting tragedies to comedies ("Roxanne" is based on "Cyrano De Bergerac").  He tells a story like "Bowfinger" (a very harsh criticism on the workings of Hollywood) with a mix of satire and slapstick comedy and then goes on to write the novel "Shopgirl" and make the movie, approaching it with a skillful, very subtle and somewhat heartbreaking sense of humor and tragedy, intermixing them seamlessly and thematically confronting the difficulties of accepting and loving another human being for everything they are.  Add to this his approach to stand-up as widely varying as his films, incorporating brilliant literary humor with ridiculous slapstick.  And of course, then there is his music.  The fact that he can hold his own on the banjo with Ricky Skaggs says enough.  Woody Allen is so much more limited and while he has made several very good movies, he has also made many mediocre movies that were, essentially, a shadow of those good movies, often incorporating almost all the same elements.  When Steve Martin goes wrong, he goes very wrong, but he has explored so many more themes, styles, stories, etc, than Woody Allen, that even at his worst, he has managed to accomplish far more than Woody Allen ever can.

Yeah, Crimes and Misdemeanors is EXACTLY like Bananas.

If Woody Allen never directed a single film, he'd still be a comedy legend by virtue of his writing and stand-up careers.

If you want to talk strictly the quality of their movies, Allen is obvious.

You want to talk strictly stand-up, that's more debatable, but I'd still probably go with Allen.

You want to talk music, it's a push, they both sort of noodle around doing mediocre to decent work in their respective genres.

The only thing I think I'd give to Steve Martin is that I think he's probably a stronger comic actor than Allen. They're both tremendous in that regard, but I think Steve Martin is more versatile. 

But all things considered, they are not contemporaries. You can't compare an actor who occasionally writes and a writer/director who occasionally acts.

In a fight? Martin.

It is interesting that Martin began his film career doing more interesting, quality projects, then seemingly "sold out" to make cash grabs, while Allen began his career doing shit like  Casino Royal strictly for the cash then evolved to the point where he can make the films he wants to make.

I don't think either is a particularly deep thinker, not in the way Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa or Stanly Kubrick were deep thinkers. I agree that Allen tends to repeat himself more, but maybe that's because Martin has less to say.

Strictly on an entertainment level, in the films when Martin hits he's light years ahead of Allen. Standup it's an even toss for me: two very different approaches to comedy, and they both work really well for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I don't think either is a particularly deep thinker, not in the way Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa or Stanly Kubrick were deep thinkers.

Crimes & Misdemeanors, Love & Death, & Stardust Memories, dude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Crimes & Misdemeanors, Love & Death, & Stardust Memories, dude.

 

 

 

Seventh Seal, Ran, 2001. Plus all the other movies those people made. And yeah, I like all the films you mention, but come on.
 

Believe it.

Allen is as much an intellectual as Kubrick, Kurosawa, & Bergman ever were. Allen's greatest films are cinematic explorations of the human condition that delve just as deep thematically as Seventh Seal, Ran, & 2001 . Those three films are all meditations of humanity adrift in a God-less universe & in, say, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Allen is not only exploring the exact same theme but he's doing so through a decidedly non-theatrical & barely cinematic device of familiar human interaction. In Stardust Memories & Manhattan, Allen explores existentialist themes of death & man's place in the cosmos, not through the rise of technology or warring Japanese kingdoms, but through the prism of our relationships with women, which are just as palpable as any hypothetical conversation with Deatth ever could be.

See you are pushing me into a corner where it seems I'm saying Allen is crap, and that's not the case at all. I like/love his movies, and I agree to some extent with your argument, but Kubrick et al delve so much deeper into the questions. Allen suffers by comparison (IMO) because he is derivative. Maybe it's because, to me, exploration of these questions in the context of 20th century Mass Media and celebrity is just inherently more shallow than more Fabulist (Seventh Seal ) or historical (Ran,2001) approaches.

Strangely, Interiors is my favorite Woody film, because although he was clearly emulating Bergman , it was his first "serious" film, and has a rawness and energy missing from his later, more mannered dramatic films.

What's funny is that Stanley Kubrick had them both in mind for Eyes Wide Shut. Albeit not at the same time.
 

The Eyes Wide Shut he envisioned for Steve Martin seemed like it was intended to be a different kind of movie(but still based on the same source material that ended up being the Eyes Wide Shut we know today).

While Allen was the first choice to play the Sydney Pollack character. Dunno if I can see that working(and ultimately neither did Kubrick), but I would have loved to given it a shot.

That said, the Steve Martin from Spanish Prisoner would have knocked it out of the park.

Also: The Jerk was one of Kubrick's favorite movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

See you are pushing me into a corner where it seems I'm saying Allen is crap, and that's not the case at all. I like/love his movies, and I agree to some extent with your argument, but Kubrick et al delve so much deeper into the questions. Allen suffers by comparison (IMO) because he is derivative. Maybe it's because, to me, exploration of these questions in the context of 20th century Mass Media and celebrity is just inherently more shallow than more Fabulist (Seventh Seal ) or historical (Ran,2001) approaches.

Strangely, Interiors is my favorite Woody film, because although he was clearly emulating Bergman , it was his first "serious" film, and has a rawness and energy missing from his later, more mannered dramatic films.

 

"20th century Mass Media and celebrity " is kind of a myopic summation of Allen's contextual framework, ain't it?

I think the biggest difference between Allen & your 3 is that they are DIRECTORS first & writers third. Woody is a WRITER first, a film fan second, & a director third. IMO, Allen is the rare animal where lifting established cinematic language from his peers is neither derivative nor weak P.T. Anderson-esque homage. I guess my point is that where Kubrick, Bergman, & Kurosawa rely heavily on the visual aspect of cinema & history (also future history) to explore the human condition, Allen uses spoken language in the same way while dressing it in a Warhol-ian recapture of the thing Allen loves most, which is movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

I guess my point is that where Kubrick, Bergman, & Kurosawa rely heavily on the visual aspect of cinema & history (also future history) to explore the human condition, Allen uses spoken language in the same way while dressing it Warhol-ian recapture & contextual reuseage of the thing Allen loves most, which is movies.

 

That "Warhol-ian" usage made me immediately embed these two clips.

Haha, I was generally thinking of Fellini/Stardust Memories & Bergman/Love & Death but nice try.

Thanks! Those two clips might be considered "lesser" works* by their respective filmmakers, but the clips do hammer your point home, I think. That scene from Manhatten Murder Mystery was a a gateway of sorts for me in trying to find out what works inspire certain filmmakers.

*Welles is pretty awesome if The Lady From Shanghai is considered HIS lesser output.

So I'm the only person who finds it utterly random and completely arbitrary to compare these two particular gentlemen?

Huh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

So I'm the only person who finds it utterly random and completely arbitrary to compare these two particular gentlemen?

 

Huh.

Nope. Their styles of comedy, their creative output, their writing, their acting are all very different form one another. It's like comparing The Wire and CSI because they are both crime shows. Or I guess Law and Order and The Wire would be a better comparison because they are both high-quality crime shows that operate on very different levels.

But as far as stand-up goes . . . Martin all of the way. Especially because of the influence he holds over modern comedy.

I even prefer Allen's standup. It's so endlessly quotable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

So I'm the only person who finds it utterly random and completely arbitrary to compare these two particular gentlemen?

 

Huh.

Unless you specifically compared 2 comedians that re-purposed older genre films for a new comedy:

WHAT"S UP TIGER LILLY?

DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Unless you specifically compared 2 comedians that re-purposed older genre films for a new comedy:

WHAT"S UP TIGER LILLY?

DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID

 

I thought it had something to do wth a Dianne Wiest connection...

I think it would have been more pertinent to do a Woody Allen Vs. Albert Brooks thing, as people are wont to compare the two. Of course, that way lies folly as well, seeing as how only one of them is still relevant enough for people to at least discuss whether he's lost it or not with relative verve. The last time Albert Brooks was relevant, was the first time I ever got a hard-on. I have my issues with Allen, but if he's not exactly in a class all his own, he's at the very least a descendant of Chaplin (discriminating taste, versus absolute in terms of style).