But the real problem with Wild Man Blues is that Allen is never allowed to display his wit and intellect. There are a few good Vaudevillean one-liners (a lady says to Allen, "You are so intelligent," and he replies, "Well, yes. It is a burden, though, sometimes. With this much intelligence comes great responsibility. You know. It’s lonely at the top."), but mostly endless scenes of Allen blowing on his clarinet, making nice with Soon-Yi in their chi-chi hotel digs, hobnobbing with sycophantic mayors of European cities who give him the keys to their respective cities, and a number of oddball scenes that serve no purpose in the narrative — such as a French fan who disbelieves Allen has any prowess as a musician, only to, after the show, become a true convert. I mean, did the filmmaker Kopple really believe the viewer would be surprised or enlightened that the man had changed his opinion? There are about two minutes devoted to the scandal, an equal amount of time on Allen discussing his films, but absolutely nada on Allen’s career in stand-up comedy, early television, much less his day to day life before and during celebrity. So, again, what was the point for this film, save to burnish Allen’s reputation as a human being?
Perhaps that is good enough to carry a film if it provides a modicum of the other qualities previously mentioned. But Wild Man Blues does not. Even for Allen fans who define the original intent of the term as fanatic, this film is something of coitus sans ejaculation. Nowhere do we get a glimpse of Allen unguarded; do we really believe that he and Soon-Yi in white robes, eating a gourmet Spanish breakfast, is a revelation of any sort? Of course, that question would be better addressed to director Kopple, who made a highly regarded, Oscar-winning 1976 documentary called Harlan County U.S.A., about a miner’s strike, as well as many others, but in this film seems to be on cruise control.
Article comments
1 - John
What a pathetic review. The focus was on his tour, not his professional career. It was not about rehabilitating anything - it simply showed him as he was during the tour. The band plays "crude" jazz they way it was played in New Orleans. The musicians are great and do play elsewhere. It's a shame that your review suggests the documentary was made for any purpose other than to give some background on the tour.
2 - Dan Schneider
'Documentaries are supposed to enlighten and give insight into their subject matter'
Assume your point is correct: 'to give some background on the tour.'
There was none, and where were the in depth interviews w other band members?
If this had been the Joe Schlabotnick Dixieland Revue, Kopple would not have been there.
So, your claim is invalid.