Stanley Kauffmann
“…. And [Parker] has either encouraged or permitted Diane Keaton to return to her Woody-Allen-film performance.
“I'm not sure "return" is correct: I'm assuming that his film was made after Reds. In Beatty's film, which I've recently seen again, Keaton rises to a role that is, roughly speaking, in the classic tradition: it's played outward, it's expressed, not implied; it has an almost visible outline that she has to step into and sustain, and she does it excellently, growing as she goes. In Shoot the Moon, she is once again in a largely internalized role, with lots of silences, and instead of approaching this woman with equivalent, though different, seriousness, Keaton falls back on her old crazy-mixed-up-kid routine: the broken sentences, the broken gestures, the sudden and suddenly withdrawn little smiles, the whole teensy-weensy cabaret act. Possibly as part of her act, as part of the image she wants to create of the unaffected, nerve-center young woman, she wears shapeless blouses and baggy pants most of the time, announcing ostentatiously, "The hell with this movie star crap." It seems affected that Keaton never once in this film wears a pair of jeans that fits her.
“Is Keaton going to sentence herself to an image as restricted as, say, Woody Allen's? Reds showed that she can do much, much more, that she could have played this quite different role with less phony throwaway mimetics, more imagination. (Another nuisance. Her husband's name is George. Throughout she calls him "Chorch.") I hope that Keaton will get and take opportunities to expand. Otherwise, before long, when we see her name, we'll know what we're going to see just the way you can taste the food in certain restaurants when you see the menu.”
Stanley Kauffmann
New Republic, February 3, 1982
Compare Kauffmann and Kael on Keaton in Reds just a month earlier.
“I'm not sure "return" is correct: I'm assuming that his film was made after Reds. In Beatty's film, which I've recently seen again, Keaton rises to a role that is, roughly speaking, in the classic tradition: it's played outward, it's expressed, not implied; it has an almost visible outline that she has to step into and sustain, and she does it excellently, growing as she goes. In Shoot the Moon, she is once again in a largely internalized role, with lots of silences, and instead of approaching this woman with equivalent, though different, seriousness, Keaton falls back on her old crazy-mixed-up-kid routine: the broken sentences, the broken gestures, the sudden and suddenly withdrawn little smiles, the whole teensy-weensy cabaret act. Possibly as part of her act, as part of the image she wants to create of the unaffected, nerve-center young woman, she wears shapeless blouses and baggy pants most of the time, announcing ostentatiously, "The hell with this movie star crap." It seems affected that Keaton never once in this film wears a pair of jeans that fits her.
“Is Keaton going to sentence herself to an image as restricted as, say, Woody Allen's? Reds showed that she can do much, much more, that she could have played this quite different role with less phony throwaway mimetics, more imagination. (Another nuisance. Her husband's name is George. Throughout she calls him "Chorch.") I hope that Keaton will get and take opportunities to expand. Otherwise, before long, when we see her name, we'll know what we're going to see just the way you can taste the food in certain restaurants when you see the menu.”
Stanley Kauffmann
New Republic, February 3, 1982
Compare Kauffmann and Kael on Keaton in Reds just a month earlier.
posted by Intersections28 - David Gibson at
2:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home