To Rome With Love - review
Ryan Gilbey dissects the decline and tentative rise of Woody Allen.
By Ryan Gilbey Published 13 September 2012
To Rome With Love (12A)
dir: Woody Allen
To wish for world peace may seem naive but it’s an act of the staunchest realism next to the hope that Woody Allen will one day return to making films worthy of his name. The phrase “It were all fields around here when I were a lad” has fallen into disuse now that the same effect can be conveyed by saying: “I recall a time when Woody Allen was a filmmaker of wit and elegance.” Looking at the evidence – nothing exemplary since 1999’s Sweet and Lowdown, and no actual greatness since Manhattan Murder Mystery in 1993 – you’d have to conclude that the old Allen, or rather the middle-aged one, is gone and he’s not coming back. Why this is a cause for consternation is unclear. Is it not better to have laughed and stopped than never to have laughed at all?
The problem has been the sheer breadth of the disparity between then and now. Gone is the pioneering use of narrative – the mockumentaries such as Zelig and Husbands and Wives, or the collage techniques of Annie Hall and Radio Days. Gone, too, is the stand-up sensibility of Sleeper or Love and Death, and the arresting roles for women, most of which were so meaty that one could overlook the inbuilt prerequisite that the female characters usually had to find Allen irresistible.
Expectations have been adjusted steadily downwards since at least The Curse of the Jade Scorpion in 2001 (a movie that even Allen considers his worst). It was marketing considerations that nudged Allen’s name into the small-print on the Match Point poster in 2005 – he was a commercial liability by then and the idea of anyone paying knowingly to watch a Woody Allen thriller was unthinkable in an age when people were reluctant even to see one of his comedies. The concealment worked: the film was a hit. But so debased was the brand that it had to be all but expunged in order to sell the product.
Now the plaintive cry goes up each year from Cannes or Venice announcing Allen’s return to form – a claim as devalued as the Zimbabwean dollar. The best we can hope for is that each picture will be less bad than the last one. Right now, the last one was Midnight in Paris, which was as feeble as it was popular (it grossed $150m, more than any other Woody Allen film). Perhaps the lowest point among many in the film was the scene in which the time travelling hero (Owen Wilson) gave Luis Buñuel the idea for The Exterminating Angel, only for the surrealist genius to demand to know why the guests in the scenario are unable to leave their dinner party. You heard right: Owen Wilson outfoxed Buñuel.
So it’s a perfect time to receive with gratitude Allen’s comic roundelay To Rome with Love, easily his least-bad movie in a decade or so. (Don’t scoff: faint praise is still praise.) Its incurious affection for the tourist spots of Rome places it alongside Midnight in Paris, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Everyone Says I Love You in the Linguaphone School of Film-making. But while the movie (Allen’s 42nd) feels like what it is – a late-period bagatelle from an artist too remote to render human encounters without mannerism – its silliness is rejuvenating.
It cuts back and forth between four unconnected stories characterised by fantasy or farce. John (Alec Baldwin), an architect, is wandering through Rome when he happens upon Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), a student who reminds him of his younger self. In fact, he is his younger self: what else for John to do but intervene in the romantic mistakes of his youth? Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni) is an office drone who bemoans the cult of celebrity, only to find it attaching itself to him arbitrarily. Suddenly his choice of breakfast is being debated by the nation, and his morning shave is a TV ratings smash. Should you have wondered what sort of Twilight Zone episode Fellini might have written, here’s your answer.
Allen himself plays Jerry, a former opera director who arrives in Rome with his wife, Phyllis (Judy Davis), to meet their daughter and her new partner. But Jerry is distracted when he hears a tenor voice emanating from a shower stall, tempting him out of retirement. Meanwhile, Antonio (Alessandro Tiberi), a prim young man from the sticks, is about to introduce his bride to his family. But it is Anna (Penelope Cruz), a prostitute stumbling into the wrong hotel room, who is mistaken for his wife in a development that even Ray Cooney might consider a tad contrived.
Not one of the stories adds up to a hill of borlotti beans, but the echoes and resonances between them generate a cumulative spell. Each plot concludes with the renouncing of the superficial, and a return to humility: Americans and Italians alike are disabused of their illusions, and the only enduring magic is shown to be the chance and chaos of love.
Although the movie delights in the possibilities thrown up by being lost in a foreign city. Allen himself sticks as closely as ever to his personal map. Wherever he sets his films, the hotels are always luxurious, each shot is fit for a picture postcard, and prostitution is an upbeat career choice for the go-getting young woman about town.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


9 comments
Like Waynesmom, I am older and remember delighting in the Woody Allen films that came out when I was a teenager (the '70s) and discovering the earlier films with pleasure. The last one I thoroughly enjoyed was 'Broadway Danny Rose' . If anyone had told me that I would live to find a Woody Allen not simply weak but repulsive, I woudn't have believed them. But 'Celebrity' did it for me.
Btw, can we get this nonsense about Woody Allen being a paedophile etc sorted out?
He started going out with his ex-girlfriend's adopted 21 year old daughter in 1992. He was never married to her mother and so was never her father in either a biological or custodial sense. Also, she was 21 which, last time I checked, meant she was an adult legally and emotionally able to make her own decisions.
Yes, there's an age difference and yes, it is maybe a bit weird going out with your ex's adopted daughter, no-one's arguing that. But it's perfectly legal, not even remotely paedophilic, they have now been together for 20 years so he's hardly a pervy lothario and I think there's a horrendous amount of moralising about something which is nothing whatsoever to do with any of us.
It's not comparable with Polanski, certainly...
Any criticism of a movie, or any art for that matter, is of course a matter of personal taste. I wonder, though, how you conclude that Midnight in Paris was feeble when it was Woody Allen's most popular movie ever? In the end, movies are entertainment and an awful lot of people found Midnight in Paris entertaining.
Spot on Mister Gilbey. It is nostalgia for his greatness that keeps me coming back.
Looking foward to his collaboration with Polanski on the forthcoming Ian Brady bio-pic.
This review is shockingly bad - not only because the writer offers almost no justifications for his points (except in the single paragraph where he laments what Allen's films no longer do) but because he displays - if subjective taste is all we have to go by - a particularly bad example of it. I don't think there's anyone out there, layman or critic, who thinks To Rome With Love is one of Allen's better "late" films. The subplots were garrulous and hackneyed, the form was loose, the characters amusing but cartoon cut-out trite, and in terms of ideas - you'd be hard-pressed to find one. It is hard to maintain that Midnight in Paris is "feeble" compared to To Rome with Love, which has none of its poignancy or nostalgic depth; nor does it possess the frothy American-in-Paris quality of Vicky Christina Barcelona or the sinister Jamesian social-climbing of Match Point. The writer laments Allen's decline in writing roles for women, but he errs, then, in locating Allen's last piece of greatness in 1993. What about Diane Wiest's brilliant star turn as the aging actress in 1994's Bullets over Broadway, that hilarious but psychologically insightful jeu d'esprit on genius, greatness, and bourgeois life?
I thought a Tall Dark Stranger and Midnight in Paris were poignant and delightful. Light, yes but certainly not empty or disappointing.
I wonder if you need to be a touch older to identify with his work, and perhaps, just perhaps, a touch younger to pine for more of his earlier work.
Some like Elvis in his Vegas era, some prefer him wailing Hounddog. I think Woody Allen is more reflective and mischievous now and I prefer that.
I am quote "older" and cannot stand what Woody Allen's become. I used to need to be bribed or otherwise bullied into even setting foot in a theater where one of his films is playing, something I'll occasionally do in order to keep the family peace, also so I can have the opportunity to SEE a film before I dismiss. Therefore I actually SAW Match Point and marveled at its tight plotting and echoes of Allen's earlier worries about what constitutes Morality, reminding us of such movies as Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That said, I must say I LOATHED Christina Whatever Barcelona, and these unfunny supposedly "sexy" romps involving the Woody Allen Stand-in who has "sex" with all these many available women. The entire set-up makes me as uncomfortable as it once did to watch the LITERAL Woody Allen, as actor, kissing much younger actresses whose discomfiture was palpable.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, he's been filming a new "I LOVE YOUR CITY" movie around here lately, the warning's out on Twitter and Facebook: THE PERV'S IN TOWN, LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS,
I am quote "older" and cannot stand what Woody Allen's become. I used to need to be bribed or otherwise bullied into even setting foot in a theater where one of his films is playing, something I'll occasionally do in order to keep the family peace, also so I can have the opportunity to SEE a film before I dismiss. Therefore I actually SAW Match Point and marveled at its tight plotting and echoes of Allen's earlier worries about what constitutes Morality, reminding us of such movies as Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That said, I must say I LOATHED Christina Whatever Barcelona, and these unfunny supposedly "sexy" romps involving the Woody Allen Stand-in who has "sex" with all these many available women. The entire set-up makes me as uncomfortable as it once did to watch the LITERAL Woody Allen, as actor, kissing much younger actresses whose discomfiture was palpable.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, he's been filming a new "I LOVE YOUR CITY" movie around here lately, the warning's out on Twitter and Facebook: THE PERV'S IN TOWN, LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS,