Interiors (1978) User Reviews (132)

Anyone else get this from the movie like me?

[BitterJim · 7/10 · 18 November 2014]

I'm a big fan of Woody Allen, and I just watched this movie for the first time. I can totally understand why many people hate it, or do not like it. It is depressing, and there's no real "finish" or arc for the characters.

That being said, the one thing that stood out for me that nobody has mentioned, is that even Woody Allen didn't like the characters. I think that was his point. As some have pointed out, the characters are pretentious, self absorbed upper middle class yuppies with no real problems. I think what Woody Allen was doing, as was the case in Manhattan, was giving us a glimpse into that sort of liberal elitist upper crest society, where these characters in particular are pseudo-intellectuals and wannabe artists, who create their own problems that really don't mean anything.

This would explain the introduction of Pearl, the fathers new fiancé. Pearl is great. Amidst all the self absorbed, elitist syrup the characters espouse relentlessly, Pearl emerges as almost a down to earth, working class gal.

The family goes out to a play with their father and Pearl, and later while eating dinner, they are discussing this play. The daughters and their yuppy husbands are over analyzing the play to literally a puke inducing pretentiousness...and Pearl just chimes in "One character was a squealer, the other wasn't. I liked the character who wasn't a squealer. Thats all there is to it!" They try to argue with her with more pretentious drivel, and Pearl simply states again "The message I got was "dont Squeal." Later, Pearl is dancing to dixieland music with everybody, and knocks over a vase on accident, and the one daughter calls her an animal. Towards the end of the movie, Pearl ends up saving the daughters life with CPR after she nearly drowns. She seems almost ungrateful. Its as if this fmaily is so elitist, they look down on Pearl as some sort of "inferior".

Pearl is a down to earth, normal, lovable older woman with some spunk, which is why the father fell in love with her. Throughout the movie, we see how dominating and obnoxious their mother is. She is pretty much the reason the family is dysfunctional, with her delusional, relentless whining, and quiet yet aggressive behavior. On top of that, she was a successful interior designer, and her 3 daughters are all "artsy" intellectuals...and you can see why a character like the father is just overwhelmed with them all, and falls in love with a very grounded, relatively simple woman, Pearl.

I think it was Woodys purpose to make you feel burdened or overwhelmed by the characters, the mother...hell, almost feel completely alienated, only to suddenly find yourself relating to Pearl when she arrives.

Another scene that kind of highlights the pretentiousness of the characters, one of the girls husbands is speaking into a tape recorder about marxism and communism, hinting that he is a supporter of such ideology. Which, again, is woody making a small point. Because here you have this wealthy, yuppy guy, embracing the concept of marxism.

For anyone who grew up or lived around New York in the 60's and 70's, that was always one of those ironies...wealthy yuppy types preaching about marxism and communism. Its sort of a hypocrisy Woody Allen often points out in many of his movies.

To summarize, this was a serious movie that essentially criticizes the upper class liberal crowd, as Woody has done in many of his movies. In Manhattan, Woody narrates in the film at the end about how its full of people with no real problems, so they create them. That is essentially the characters in this film. They want for nothing...so they began creating these "existential dilemmas".

Sick psyches

[moonspinner55 · 8/10 · 18 March 2006]

The three adult daughters of a quiet attorney and an imperious matriarch are alternately offended and benumbed by their parents' divorce and their father's "hasty" decision to remarry (leaving mama to fend for herself, probably something she needs but does not enjoy--there's no one to boss around). Bergmanesque drama from writer-director Woody Allen, who does not appear or even feel present (Pauline Kael of the New Yorker claims his neuroses have been transposed to the mother-character, but I never felt like I was watching something created by Woody Allen). All the actors are quite fine playing characters who are high-strung, uptight, woebegone (yet oddly, never intentionally comical), yet the flatness of the dialogue and the listlessness of Mary Beth Hurt's frequent narration may strain some viewers' patience. Some of the wordy sequences tend to ramble, and what words! Allen has a fixation with non-textbook terms for multiple abnormal psychoses; and no matter how educated Hurt's character is supposed to be, I had trouble swallowing some of the high-brow talk in her third-act put-down of Geraldine Page. The movie--seriously well-scrubbed, sterile and somber--has many conflicts and personality quirks which feel real and intricate, and Page's high society dementia is riveting (alternately, Maureen Stapleton's gaudy low-class is also superb). The three sisters remain enigmas that confound and confuse (each other and the viewer) but Diane Keaton's gritty reserve as the eldest daughter is the one I gravitated towards. Not a masterpiece (as some critics claimed), but certainly not a dud. It's Woody's art-house gambol, a dark one, and it leaves behind a fascinating imprint. *** from ****

A Turn For The Serious

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 12 November 2014]

Three sisters find their lives spinning out of control in the wake of their parents' sudden, unexpected divorce.

What do we have here? A Woody Allen film with no comedy, and no Woody. We have Joel Schumacher as the costume designer (before his years as director) and something that amounts to a Bergmanesque family drama, though without the full Scandinavian despair.

Vincent Canby wrote, "My problem with Interiors is that although I admire the performances and isolated moments, as well as the techniques and the sheer, headlong courage of this great, comic, film-making philosopher, I haven't any real idea what the film is up to."

The criticism aside, Canby calls Allen out for being heavy on the philosophy references, with the dense writing of Allen that he is known for and makes his films his own. Is this Bergman? No. Is it Allen trying to be Bergman? Maybe. But it has Allen all over it, in the dialogue, and that has some value in and of itself.

A Dysfunctional Family Wrapped in Frigid Austerity Makes for Allen's So-Serious Drama

[EUyeshima · 7/10 · 30 October 2006]

It's pretty obvious that Woody Allen was so resistant in being confined as a comedy filmmaker that in the throes of his success with the wondrous "Annie Hall", he felt a need to make an über-serious drama in the Ingmar Bergman mode. This 1978 Chekhovian family drama is the result, and it is alternately affecting and exasperating. The key problem is that Allen presents such a hermetically sealed world of intellectuals and artistic souls that the interactions among the characters feel pointed and self-conscious. He has obviously since learned that his best films ("Manhattan", "Hannah and Her Sisters") are served most by his particular balance between comedy and drama.

The story concerns an upscale New York family reacting to the news that patriarch Arthur wants to leave his psychologically unstable wife Eve just released from a sanitarium. They have three daughters, all of whom are grappling with their own problems. Eldest sister Renata is a successful poet stuck in a volatile marriage to Frederick, a fellow writer whose lack of commercial success has merely heightened his jealousy and paranoia. Middle daughter Joey is Arthur's favorite, but she is unable to figure out what to do with her life, and her constant flailing frustrates everyone around her in spite of the patience of her boyfriend Michael. Youngest daughter Flyn is the beautiful, emotionally isolated one who moved to Hollywood to become a semi-successful actress.

They all respond to their mother Eve's neediness in different ways, and the inevitable turning point comes when Arthur finalizes the divorce and remarries, this time to a passionate, fun-loving widow named Pearl. Even though Gordon Willis' beige-dominated cinematography and the frigid, almost-too-perfect art direction by Mel Bourne and Daniel Robert lend the extreme austerity for which Allen seems to be striving, the acting is what makes this film dramatically effective. Mary Beth Hurt gives a brave performance as Joey, capturing all the inadequacy and wounded rejection her character feels. Maureen Stapleton is a breath of fresh air as Pearl, lending an amusing earthiness and colorful indifference when she arrives late in the story.

With her severe look, Geraldine Page effectively lends unrelenting, humorless intensity to her heavily mannered portrayal of Eve and turns her character into a hopelessly desperate victim as the story moves toward its conclusion. As Renata, Diane Keaton removes all traces of the lovable Annie Hall but unfortunately comes across as the most contrived, especially when her character cannot help but be patronizing to Frederick and Joey. Richard Jordan plays Frederick in broad strokes that make it difficult to empathize with his plight. Making lesser impressions are Sam Waterson as Michael, Kristin Griffith as Flyn and a surprisingly understated E.G. Marshall as Arthur. Just the original trailer is included as an extra on the 2000 DVD.

A large ensemble cast, written, filmed, and directed with quiet force....

[secondtake · 10/10 · 24 January 2011]

Interiors (1978)

This is one of those dark, serious, realistic personal dramas that critics shook their heads at in 1978. It wasn't because it wasn't good--it's frankly a brilliant combination of the big three: acting, writing, photography. It was because it was directed (and written) by Woody Allen. And Woody Allen is funny, right? Critics at the time, however, to their credit, gave the film a fair reading, and for three brilliant excerpt of period reviews, I recommend the Wikipedia entry on the movie.

So watch this film thinking it's by someone else, if you have to. take it in on its own subtle terms as three sisters watch their own deficiencies bloom when their parents abruptly separate. There is some familiar territory here, actors Allen has turned to many times (including Diane Keaton, of course, who he was once, in 1970, involved with). The world is one that might actually be parallel to his own, not Jewish New York but rather a highly educated literary set with money and ambitions, but deeply steeped in the arts.

In short, "Interiors" was and is appreciated but always with a feeling that it isn't quite complete, that it isn't what it could have been. It's easy to see that it is unremittingly dour, almost to perversion. And you might say that it plays the Bergman card too hard without overt appropriation (which makes it merely derivative, that worst of echoes). It is fair, I suppose, to say that Allen really has succeeded, but not in the remarkable ways he had succeeded so clearly in his earlier films, including his previous nugget, "Annie Hall," which is in my view his first true drama, but which has the benefit of also being funny.

Or you can just sit back and take it in for what it does do so well, letting the interior lives of these people seem as shattered and pathetic as they really seem. The photography by Gordon Willis is admirable for being beautiful and inventive without being distracting. Allen and Willis make clear this intention with opening shots, a series of fixed camera views of rooms, and then views out windows, all framed with classic proportions, but sequenced to pull you in. But look how often the camera follows two people as they walk and talk, either up close in front of them, or along the beach through an irregular snow fence. Its pace and "tastefulness" of the photography almost seems designed by one of the main characters, the troubled interior decorator mother played with uncanny effectiveness by Geraldine Page.

Expect nothing in particular here except a tour-de-force that works on its own depressing terms.

SUPERLATIVES FAIL THIS EXTRAORDINARY FILM FROM WOODY ALLEN

[dahmer-5 · 19 April 2000]

I believe 'Interiors' is Woody Allens finest hour: it is his masterpiece. The best film of 1978 and one of the finest American films ever.

The acting by the entire cast is superb. If any one film derserved an academy award for ensemble acting, it's this one. Geraldine Page is chilling in her cool intensity; Mary Beth Hurt is astounding and Maureen Stapleton is a revelation. Diane Keaton; E.G. Marshall; Sam Waterston; Richard Jordan and Kristin Griffith are equally great.

When I get down on myself and question my intellect, thinking of my appreciation of 'Interiors', reminds me of my own potential and love of the cinema. 11 out of 10.

Darren Cunningham

Woody does Bergman

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 30 March 2015]

Corporate attorney Arthur (E. G. Marshall) wants to separate from his wife Eve (Geraldine Page). They have three children as the news hit the family members differently. Eve was an interior decorator who supported her husband's early career. However her state deteriorates and the separation puts her over the edge. Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) is with her boyfriend Mike (Sam Waterston) and struggles for a direction. Successful poet Renata (Diane Keaton) is struggling at her work and her marriage to Frederick. Flyn (Kristin Griffith) is the absentee daughter with a B-movie career. The three sisters clash and their father returns from Greece with new girlfriend Pearl (Maureen Stapleton).

Woody Allen is doing Ingmar Bergman in an artistic family drama. It is quiet with little or no music. It's considered his first major drama. There are nice performances as each character shows his/her damaged interiors. It's an interesting exercise that Woody Allen is doing but it would be better if he finds his own voice rather than copying somebody else's. The muted tones keep the movie from truly exploding. It is still compelling to watch.

Why do Woody Allen films have to be funny?

[canadude · 10/10 · 23 June 2004]

It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable. "Interiors" gets slammed as a forced, awkward, heavy-handed and cheapened imitation of Bergman (most noticeably "Cries and Whispers") and usually discussed in context of "Annie Hall" that preceded it and "Manhattan" that followed.

Well, "Annie Hall" was funny as hell and I love "Manhattan" - it's directed with an authority that I don't think was matched in another Woody Allen film ("Crimes and Misdemeanors" had touches of such visual elegance). With the exception, of course, of "Interiors" which preceded it.

"Interiors" is Woody Allen putting aside his neuroses and directing with unshakable confidence. Granted, Bergman has already cleared the path for him to some degree, but "Interiors" stands on its own. Visually and aurally it's a quiet film, permeated with silences, dark off-white colors, beige and grays mostly, despair and sadness. It's the existential hell and it's a lot quieter than the descriptive terms make it seem.

Narratively, "Interiors" has the fluidity and grace of any other of Allen's more successful films. Like the multi-character "Hannah and Her Sisters" or the parallelism of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" the stories, relationships and situations rise and build naturally.

"Interiors" is, essentially, the story of an upper-class family shattered, if not exposed and tested, by the divorce of the parents and the ensuing collapse of the mother. The title, of course, refers not only to the profession of the mother who is arguably the central character and definitely the emotional and psychological catalyst for the events of "Interiors," but also works on a metaphorical level. Interiors that Allen implies are those that shatter when the mother, phenomenally played by Geraldine Page, is forced to face the separation from her husband. The neat world constructed by her starts to crumble revealing not only the painful truth to her, but also to her daughters who are greatly affected by this as well. The truth, of course, is that nothing was perfect in the first place - the interiors were simply created to shelter from the reality of family crisis, bottled-up emotion, undue expectations, selfishness, synthetic love and conflict.

The conflicts that arise, or rather expose themselves, bring to light themes that are quite frankly very Allenesque. Allen explores the burdens of existence, namely the inevitability of death (and the question of the immortality of art), loneliness, the failure of relationships (and thus violation of trust), and the search for meaning in life. "Interiors," however, differs from his other films in that it takes a distinctly psychological approach to these problems. It does so by not exposing its themes through "situations" (like Woody Allen finding out that he might be dying in "Hannah and her Sisters" and attempting suicide), but rather through realistic psychological observation of familial relations - particularly mother-daughter ones.

Like many Bergman films, "Interiors" is psychological to the core, even though I don't recall a single shrink in the film. It's also dramatic and quieter than all other Allen films. Finally, it would be a shame not to mention that, while obviously very Bergmanesque, the film is seeped in the atmosphere of many Chekhov plays, bordering on the psychological darkness of Ibsen. "Interiors" is the American film version of early-20th century European theatrical drama - the problems of the well-off, upper-class families not being able to survive social, emotional and psychological instability that they themselves contributed to creating. We are talking of people with intellectual and monetary resources - resources that we treat as essential to happiness. "Interiors" like many of the darker of Allen's comedies, is a quietly terrifying question-mark - it is directed at our lives and our values. And the answers are nothing, but perturbing. Little to laugh about really.

Channeling Bergman

[gbill-74877 · 6/10 · 27 July 2020]

Woody Allen seems to channel one of his idols, Ingmar Bergman, in this film about the struggles in the relationships within a family, and the feelings of not having lived up to one's potential in life. Things invariably change and they don't work out ideally or as expected, leading to angst and quiet forms of desperation. We see that in each of the three daughters despite their successes (one is a published poet, another is an actor who gets parts in TV movies, and the third is very bright but still finding herself), one's partner (a published author), and we see it most of all in their mother, who has been left by her husband after a long marriage.

The film explores the long relationships within a family, with various rivalries and grievances forming over the years and never really going away, and it did a reasonably good at it. The film doesn't demonize the father for finding someone else and seeking a divorce, but at the same, what that means for the mother is heartbreaking. Ironically, the one caring for her the most, and who amplifies her pain for the viewer, is the one who feels never got the same kind of attention when younger, and the situation is reversed with the father. It's those kinds of things that make the film strong, that and an excellent ending scene, the flashbacks included (it could have used more of these).

Still though, this was a film that it was hard to get jazzed over. I don't think the plot came together all that well or was fully realized, an example of which is the attempted rape by the brother-in-law in the garage, which then goes nowhere. The film's focus is the window into these dysfunctional relationships and the cruelty of change, not a fully buttoned up and cookie cutter story, something I liked about it, but still it felt meandering in its subplots. I also think it was less successful in its showing the various artists wrestle with their feelings of inadequacy, where it seemed often forced in its dialogue, with affluent characters whining in one way or another. I never got fully invested in them, and that's the reason for the average review score.

One of Woody Allen's most underrated films

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 9 March 2014]

Interiors is one of the most divisive films of one of the most love-it-hate-it directors. For me Interiors is not one of Allen's best films(Annie Hall, Crimes and Misdemeanours, Manhatten, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives) with some dialogue monologues that ramble on a bit too much, but when it comes to his most underrated films Interiors is very high on the list. It is very easy to see why people wouldn't like it with how bleak it is and how it's different from much of what Allen has done, but those are hardly reasons to dismiss Interiors because apart from the occasional rambling it is a great film. It is very stylishly shot with good use of locations, probably Allen's second most visually striking 70s film after Manhattan. Like Annie Hall, there's no music score and that's not a bad thing at all, Interiors is a very intimate and intricate film and having no music added to that quality. Much of the dialogue is full of insight and pathos, to me it did have dramatic weight and it is one of Allen's most honest films along with Husbands and Wives. The screenplay is not "funny" as such and is not as quotable as Annie Hall, but it wasn't ever meant to be. The story is paced deliberately but how Interiors was written and performed ensures that it isn't dull, it was very moving(personally it didn't topple into melodrama) and layered storytelling- didn't notice any convolutions- deftly handled. Allen directs assuredly in one of his more restrained directing jobs. The characters are neurotic and not the most likable, but are written and performed with such compelling realism that in the end there is some sympathy felt for them. The cast was a talented one in the first place, and none of them disappoint. Especially good are Geraldine Page, in one of her best performances, in very frightening and heart-breakingly tormented form and Mary Beth Hurt, the centrepiece of the story and is very affecting. Maureen Stapleton is a breath of fresh air as the most lively character- an anti thesis to the rest of the characters but not an out of place one- and E.G. Marshall brings a great deal of quiet dignity. Diane Keaton when it comes to Woody Allen films is better in Annie Hall and Manhattan but plays a purposefully shrill character with gusto. Richard Jordan and Sam Waterson are fine. Kristin Griffith is good too but her part seemed underwritten. All in all, won't be for everybody but a great film from personal perspective and one of Woody Allen's most underrated. 9/10 Bethany Cox

All these women cry and whisper on Long Island

[Galina_movie_fan · 6/10 · 18 May 2007]

"Interiors" (1978) is the first Woody Allen's attempt to create a straight drama film after the series of hilarious comedies ("Bananas", "Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask", "Sleeper") and one of his most famous dramedies, "Annie Hall". "Interiors" is Allen's dissection of an upper middle class family in crisis. The story is not original. Arthur (E.G. Marshall), the husband of a Long Island interior designer Eve (Geraldine Page), demanding and imperious, and father of their three grown daughters (Diane Keaton, Marybeth Hurt and Kristin Griffith), informs his wife that he wanted a trial separation. She hopes that it is temporary but soon learns that there is another woman involved, (Maureen Stapleton), twice a widow, "a vulgarian" who does not belong to the upper class but is full of life, humor, and warmth and whom Arthur wants to marry.

More than anything, this movie reminds the famous shot in Bergman's "Persona" - two faces combined in one. You are not sure which features are Liv's and which - Bibi's. With "Interiors", it is difficult to say where Bergman ends and Allen begins. I would also compare Allen's first exercise in creating a serious drama to Bergman's attempt in comedy, "All these women". Both masters tried to do something different from what they were expected by the critics and their audience and both did not achieve a success. I respect Allen's homage to Bergman's work but I think he is much more interesting when he combines drama and comedy in his films. I admire his ability to create the movies that are subtle and cruel, darker than dark and self-ironic, profound and touchingly poignant, deadly serious and incredibly funny at the same time. Not this time.

Another anthropological glimpse of our times.

[J.P.-3 · 10/10 · 4 August 1999]

This is one of Woody Allen's strong and quite films that, like most, is multi-layered. On the surface layer it presents an inside look at a dysfunctional family that is coming to terms with themselves, the divorce of their parents, and finally the death of their mother. Under this quite, but strikingly sorrowful first layer is a second layer of insight of considerably more importance. The underlayer is about the interaction of the principal characters and how they attempt to manipulate each other in generally destructive patterns that are even now becoming more and more prevalent in our socioeconomic culture. Not surprisingly, after a second or third look, this film should be included as part of the curriculum for medical residents working towards the specialty of Psychiatry. It is definitely a film about the destructive and continuing decaying family structure with which we are becoming more and more aware. It is not a film about morality, so important an issue in the 1990's, but about the simple misunderstanding of parenting in families that leave so many in our society emotionally crippled. The result is seen in the three daughters, representing the generations of bored and depressed young and middle aged, middle class people that spend great amounts of time and money trying to prove to themselves that they are happy and cope with the idea of real happiness that has eluded them. Of the films that will survive as anthropological glimpses of the 20th and possibly 21st Centuries in the United States, this film will be on the short list.

Yes, it's very peaceful

[philkessell · 7/10 · 11 June 2005]

I think this was a brave move by Allen. The film has no music, is written around unsympathetic, self obsessed characters who don't talk like real people do (even intellectuals don't navel gaze like this) and the plot (such as it is) is stilted and almost non existent in places.

Yet I liked it. First off, it's nearer what Allen has described as the 'real' him. All the comedy stuff is just there to mask difficult, unresolvable issues that thinking people struggle over and then can't resolve. Watching this film will not give you any answers folks, but if you like films that will challenge you and are by definition a 'thinking' person, you will empathise with people who are unhappy with their lot, don't know what to do, feel they have missed out etc etc.

There's plenty of this here. People say it's gloomy, miserable, self indulgent. True, but surely that's what life's about most of the time isn't it? You want escapism, watch Vin Diesel in something. If you want a challenge, you could do worse than look here.

I have to single out Geraldine Page for the acting honours, up against stiff competition. Subtleties are what differentiates great acting from the merely good - the 'very strong cologne' sequence, and the bit where she's lying in bed watching a God show on TV, help get across the island like, repressed nature of this character. She simply cannot express feelings, yet the despair and loneliness are there for all to see. They must manifest themselves somehow, and do, with tragic consequences.

So folks, this is not a comedy. There are no laughs, though Maureen Stapleton is funny and adds a much needed fillip to proceedings mid way through. There's lots to carp about, but the pluses outweigh the minuses and I urge you to take a look.

Unbearable.

[dmacewen · 3/10 · 25 March 2010]

"It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable." And for good reason: they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of Bergman. And let's not kid ourselves: critics were mostly supportive of Allen's Bergman pretensions, Allen's whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. What I don't get is this: why was Allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating Bergman, but the contemporaneous Brian DePalma was excoriated for "ripping off" Hitchcock in his suspense/horror films? In Robin Wood's view, it's a strange form of cultural snobbery. I would have to agree with that.

Allen's most disturbing character analysis to date

[back2wsoc · 28 October 2002]

In his dramatic directorial debut, Woody Allen comes away quite nicely with this story of three sisters (Diane Keaton, Mary Beth Hurt and Kristen Griffith) whose lives take very different turns, due largely in part to the separation of their parents (E.G. Marshall and Geraldine Page) and their mother's subsequent dependency on them, esp. after a harrowing suicide attempt. One would think that the breakup of the marriage would be the focal point of the movie and the problems of their daughters would form the subplots, but it is actually vice versa: Renata (Keaton) is a passionately intellectual woman who feels that she has never had the complete love and attention of her mother, Eve (Page) and father, Arthur (Marshall). Joey (Hurt) suffers from a problematic case of middle child syndrome. Coupled with the overwhelming task of being a pillar of support for her mother, she often throws moody signals of indifference towards her boyfriend, Mike (played by Sam Waterston). Flyn (Griffith) is a budding young actress whose cocaine habit she successfully hides from her family during her visit home. Her performance, along with Marshall's role as Arthur, were really the onty two underdeveloped leads. Had as much attention been paid to the cultivation of their characters as everyone else's, the movie would have been better rounded. An auteur like Allen should've known better, but he compensates for these small "flaws" with an interesting contrast by Maureen Stapleton as Pearl, Arthur's second wife. Immediately, the viewer can tell the difference between her and the rest of the characters. While Renata, Joey, Mike, etc.. wear plain colors such as puce, grey, and brown, Pearl wears a deep crimson dress (perhaps a throwback to Bette Davis' shocking moment in Jezebel?) to symbolize her vivacity and vigor. Her stint gives the movie a most appropriate shot of 'color', and the finale completes the film's theme of angst and disillusionment, bringing the viewer 'back to earth', so to speak. Overall, a brilliant, Bergmanesque effort from Allen that works, thanks to a first-rate cast and thought-provoking performances. "Interiors" Oscar nominations included Best Director, Best Actress (Page), and Best Supporting Actress (Stapleton).

The darker side of humanity explored by Woody Allen...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 24 October 2006]

Woody Allen's films often deal with heavy issues but in a comedic light. INTERIORS is a devastating portrait of a family in crisis. GERALDINE PAGE is the mother and she's magnificent as the troubled, perfectionist mother--but whether you connect with the story will depend on acceptance of this sort of grim material from Woody Allen, of all people.

The film is well titled "Interiors" because much of the script gives internal monologues to various characters, most particularly DIANE KEATON as a writer with conflicted feelings about her mother and her illness and a disintegrating marriage to RICHARD JORDAN. Another daughter, MARY BETH HURT, is having trouble in her marriage to a man interested in politics (SAM WATERSTON). The father who wants to keep his distance from his wife and three daughters is E.G. MARHSALL, who plays his role with quiet dignity.

The decision by writer Allen to keep the story devoid of any humor (or any one-liners at all) appears to me to be a serious flaw. His story is much too depressing and there's a downbeat quirkiness to all of the characters. Not being a particular fan of any of the actors (except for Miss Page), I may be too biased to give this a fair enough review--but I remain unimpressed by DIANE KEATON as either an actress or a screen personality. I found her the weakest link in the story.

Summing up: You have to be in a certain mood to respond to this kind of dreariness. The doom and gloom factor was too much for me. The Ingmar Bergman crowd will undoubtedly love it as much as the Academy did.

great film

[kyle_furr · 9/10 · 9 February 2004]

John Waters said that if this film was made under a Swedish pseudonym, they would of called it a masterpiece. Woody Allen was only able to get a film like this made after he won all those Oscars for Annie Hall. Everyone is great in here and it's nice that there's no soundtrack. This is one of Woody Allen's best films.

Morbid movie

[DJAkin · 6/10 · 24 February 2006]

This movie was morbid to say the least. Not a bit of humor in it yet it was a good movie. Very not like most WOODY ALLEN movies which are funny. This movie had a lot of goods and yes, most of those goods were delivered. Why? Well because of the amazing Maureen Stapleton who does a great performance as PEARL. And what about that FATHER? He was so callous to his wife. He made that speech where he said that he had done his job as a husband and father and that he was finished and ready to live alone? What a jerk! Then again, maybe he was just ready. That amazing DIANE KEATON proved to the Earth that she is amazing and Woody Allen's primary actress for ALL of his movies. I would suggest this movie to anybody who wants to see a nice, sad yet interesting movie about sadness.

A true masterpiece

[member3285 · 10/10 · 11 February 2004]

I do not praise films simply because other people or critics love it; I also don't praise films simply because other people or critics hate it. I really do think for myself, so you can take it as an assured commendation when I say that this is one of the best melodramas ever put on film. I'm not a pseudo-intellectual; I don't think Woody Allen is perfect, and I'm not out to impress anyone with my taste. I simply loved the movie - the script, the visuals, the acting... all touched me deeply and moved me nearly to tears, which happens to me only about once for every hundred movies I see. People have complained that the movie is morbid, self-indulgent, that the characters are shallow; but I think that all three of these elements actually contribute to the film. Morbidity is a part of life, and this film is not an attempt to cover up the sad truths of existence with cheap laughs or explosions; self-indulgence does not preclude quality, and many of the best films ever made have been self-indulgent. And the characters exhibit both shallowness and depth, just like real people... I think that mostly people who criticize this film either don't have the attention span to relate to a slower movie, or they lack a certain empathy with those who suffer, or they simply expect every Allen film to be a comedy. If you can get past those hangups, though, you might just find that you love this movie too.

Woody's Art Film

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 15 July 2014]

Filled with angst and written seriously, I had to put aside my anticipation that at some point a Woody Allen moment would move in. This is an homage to Bergman. The characters are serious in their presences. They are consumed by guilt as they watch their parents move on with their lives. When we see Geraldine Page, suffering, we know why things are as they are. The girls have tried to make their lives go and have run into the depth of despair. At times it seems so maudlin and I can muster no sympathy for their pathetic beings. Throw in the flamboyant Jean Stapleton who adds color to this dirge and by contrast everyone is lost. E. G. Marshall is to be complimented for getting out of this black hole. Still, there is some growth. This sort of set the stage for future "serious" movies, but it is drained of charm, as Allen would use these themes later in better movies. I personally believe had this not been made by Wood Allen, it would have been treated with much less respect by the critics as pretty ordinary and overly artsy.

As Dark as it Gets

[Chimale1025 · 8/10 · 5 May 2004]

This is one of those films that when you recommend, you should also warn.It is a very mature work about a very sick and warped family. It is also a very beautifully realized piece of filmmaking. The only real complaint I have about it is that it wasn't recorded in stereo or surround. Since Woody Allen is deaf in one ear, I guess he doesn't care. Thank God, he isn't color blind. Geraldine Page is absolutely devastating as the suffocating wife as she creates the woman of limited imagination and total self importance who strangles the joy of living out of her immediate family. She is a pathetic villain whose sick arrogance is the bane of every one she touches with her sterile iciness. This is a cautionary tale about what mental illness can do if left unchecked and untreated. It is also Woody Allen doing Bergman like Stanley Donen doing Hitchcock in Charade, not a lesser film than Bergman, just an American take on the same kind of situation. Bergman is not as good as Bergman. Every Good filmmaker gets elevated to such outrageous levels of hype in this disturbingly stupid era of 100 best lists that a lot of very good movies get ignored and filmmakers of previous eras are treated like trash, so that a self promoting cretin like Tarantino whose films are all style and absolutely zero substance can be lionized by a bunch of film school educated idiotic critics. This is not a must see, but it is an important film for the film scholar. As much as Enchanted April is life affirming, this one is life threatening. Talked to death has never been done better.

European style

[tomi_cai · 7/10 · 6 March 2022]

This is a good movie of Woody Allen. It is dramatic and you feel your life reflected. That style, dark and silent, i have seen it in Bergman I think.

The script is true to Allen. It's funny at little times, and has a philosophy that can already be seen in previous films. Is worthy of him.

You are not gonna see those jokes or that fast rythm, and nice armony characteristic of Allen's movies, but if you are a follower of him, you are gonna like it.

It is not an amazing movie, but I'm sure you'll have a good time.

to me more than just a Bergman homage, it's deeply felt, and superbly acted, tragic theater

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 8 August 2005]

It has been an easy observation &/or criticism of Interiors, Woody Allen's first break from acting and comedy as a filmmaker, is an homage of the bleak, spellbinding films of despair of Ingmar Bergman's films. It's not without a point that critics note this; homages of Bergman have shown in many of his films (Love & Death, Husbands & Wives, Deconstructing Harry, etc). But one must not neglect that if Woody connects to Bergman, Bergman connects with the masters of naturalistic drama like Ibsen and Strindberg, and that as a writer Woody has been influenced by dozens and dozens of authors of literature and theater. With Interiors his script and direction is is observant, and is able to get under the skin of a viewer by giving the characters (under the upper-class veneer) attributes that aren't too oblique or cold. It is definitely not one of the Woody films I would recommend to someone first getting into his films- the comedies are best for that- but it is a great start to the sort of section of films that Woody does (there are two I consider- his entertaining, sophisticated comedies, which he often is the star of, being one, and the other being his dramas).

One thing is hard to dispute, the cast that is assembled is all pro, who physically look the parts and emotionally sink into them as real people, not caricatures. Flyn, Joey, and Renata are daughters of a wealthy (would-be) lawyer (EG Marshall) and her perfectionist, needy, and mentally troubled homemaker Eve (Geraldine Page, perhaps her best). After their separation, Eve tries to make it on her own, still controlling, still clinging to the children who will stay around her (which is Joey), but has a breakdown and attempted suicide. Soon after this, Marshall's character finds love elsewhere (played by Maureen Stapleton, also a very good performance, a fascinating outsider in the midst of the family's reaching for real love and happiness). This brings even more turmoil on the sisters, who each deal with their own emotional/psychological problems with themselves and their significant others.

It's hard to point out who's performances are the 'best' in the film, as each contribute something different and intense. Keaton is particularly interesting as a writer with a drunken writer husband, who can't seem to come to grips with herself amid the looming presence of her mother. Hurt's character is similar in this vein, but dealing with something a little more existential, I think. Most of the characters- curiously not Eva (who, for this reason, is a little more affecting and arresting in her quiet, disturbed qualities)- talk out what they are thinking or feeling, and because of this the audience gets clear ideas of who these people are and their struggles, but also leaves room for interpretation, for analysis. Even Stapleton's character is hard to judge or classify outright- she is the quasi-intruder, but she doesn't mean to be, she's just fallen for the Marshall's character. And, like the best of Bergman and other naturalistic theater greats, Woody gives long, striking, extremely well-written passages/monologues of dialog.

Lest I forget to mention the incalculable contribution of Gordon Willis. Responsible for the cinematography of all of Woody's late 70's/early 80's films, he helps to bring out the intricate, detailed, and sometimes obvious angles and prolonged shots of the rooms of the houses and apartments, giving minimal or next-to-no light in the darker-themed scenes, and really giving a boost to the subject matter. Some may see this and almost take it for parody, and it could have been if the actors played it just a step wrong or if the writing wasn't as honest. But by the last shot of the film, the three sisters in profile and in complete mourning/contemplation, one senses Willis bringing out the full-on artist of Woody. It's a beautiful shot, a little self-aware, but engaging after a film that has done that just right.

A good Woody Allen movie. What a concept.

[Jimmy-128 · 7/10 · 10 March 2000]

Okay, I'm not a Woody Allen fan. This is the exception. The story of a late-middle-age couple's breakup and the effect it has on their three daughters is compelling, and the performances are outstanding. Diane Keaton does some of her best work here, and Mary Beth Hurt is magnificent.

I collect the action figures

[dgl1199 · 1/10 · 8 June 2006]

When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.