Zelig
Every year since 1982, Woody Allen has directed and released a feature film. Being so prolific affords him the opportunity to brush-off failures and move on to the next project while also giving him plenty of chances to hit a home-run. Out of this annual grind, Allen fans get gems like Hannah & Her Sisters, Match Point, and Midnight in Paris. They’re also privy to films like A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy which seem hastily done, slapped together as a result of a Woody’s compulsion to always be working. A film like Zelig, however, benefits greatly from the longer incubation time it was given. Unlike most of his films, Zelig took three years to complete. “It took a long time to put together,” says the director. “It was hard, all of us labored to make that documentary look like a documentary,” Allen explains in the 2002 movie, Woody Allen: A Life in Film. The creative process for Zelig is unlike any other film in his catalogue, comprised mostly of Allen-generated material made to mimic portions of found footage from old news reels. “I wrote the script first,” explains Allen. “Then I looked around at millions of feet of documentary and I changed my script with the new discoveries. And this went on for a couple of years. I had people who’d go and research for me. People from the editing department would find it and we’d look at it, for hours.” The result is a filmmaking marvel for Allen, a technical achievement in documentary pastiche that signals a creative renaissance for Woody that’ll carry him through the rest of the 1980s.
Zelig is a mock-documentary, told as a straight-faced account of a man in the 1920s named Leonard Zelig who had the remarkable ability to change his appearance and persona based on the people around him. Throughout the “old” footage, the film is intercut with modern-day interviews from Zelig experts and scholars discussing his life and greater sociological and philosophical meaning behind his shapeshifting malady. Early in life, Leonard is a medical oddity— examined, prodded, and ultimately exploited for profit by his sister and her husband. It isn’t until he falls in love with his doctor, Eudora Fletcher, that he’s able to uncover the cause of his transformations. Ultimately it’s his desire to fit in, to be accepted, that drives him to subconsciously adapt to his surroundings.
“What interested me was the kind of person that I felt was ubiquitous. The kind of person who assimilated into every group because he or she wanted to be liked,” says Woody. With his goofy chameleon, Allen taps into a larger condition of the human psyche— our desire to belong, to be accepted, to be loved. “Many people have their integrity,” the filmmaker explains in Woody Allen on Woody Allen. “but many many others lack this quality and they become who they’re with. If they’re with people who advocate a certain opinion, they agree.” It’s something we’re all likely guilty of at some point in our lives, adjusting how we present ourselves or an opinion depending on those around us. If somebody loves a film or book, for example, plenty of people might mitigate their response if they absolutely hated it. In order to avoid causing trouble or a possibly awkward social enchanter, many simply adapt. “When we extrapolate this what you wind up with is fascism,” says Woody regarding the final act of the film. Zelig goes missing and later resurfaces amidst the Nazis in pre-WWII Germany. “Because that’s who those people were— they gave up everything, they gave up all their own feelings to be led by this hypnotic leader. When you give up your own personality just to be liked, to avoid making waves, that’s what tyranny thrives on.” There’s a remarkable essay, “Approaching Woody Allen’s Zelig Through The Lens of Cultural Theory” which dismantles and interprets the film’s conceit of a transforming man by comparing it to various other works and literary theories. In comparing Zelig’s plight to that of Gregor Samsa, the protagonist of Franz Kafka’s “Metamorphosis”, similarities arise.
The blurriness between the lines of insect-hood and human-hood on which Kafka constructs his character in Metamorphosis, resembles Allen’s Zelig, whose position may be interpreted as if he is between reptile-hood (as the press puts it) and human-hood. Samsa’s metamorphosis may be interpreted within the limits of literary text in two ways; as a psychotic human being or as a former human being: An insect. On the other hand, Zelig is human, whose unfinished transformation is debated among both society and medical experts.
While the form of the mockumentary is not something invented by Allen, he manages to construct a complete world, unique to his brand of filmmaking, that is so convincing and unflinching in conveying the conceit it adds new depth to the genre. In the same breath he offers praise for the film, Woody, always his worst critic, sheds light on its greatest weakness. “I think that was one of my more successful movies. It was a movie that, I think, the content was over-shadowed by the technical work.” It’s a fair criticism and certainly one levied against it during its 1983 premiere. “Zelig was, in some quarters, regarded as a one-joke technical novelty,” writes Peter Bradshaw for The Guardian. Indeed the sentimental love-story between Leonard and Eudora doesn’t feel as potent against the strength of the cinematic techniques employed by cinematographer Gordon Willis. Ebert went so far as to call it an “antiseptic experimentation.” But, like many Woody Allen movies, time has been kind to Zelig, as its themes and filmmaking prowess are re-discovered and appreciated by a new generation of movie-watchers. “In 2011, it looks like a masterpiece: a brilliant, even passionate historical pastiche, a superbly pregnant meditation on American society and individuality, and an eerie fantasy that will live in your dreams,” writes Bradshaw. It’s incredible to go back to Zelig and see it reveling in its ability to transplant Woody Allen amidst famous footage of Adolf Hitler, Pope Pius, and others and completely sell the lie. Willis and Allen are accomplishing the same feat filmmakers like Robert Zemekis will achieve in Forrest Gump more than a decade later. “The director—long before the computer technologies which make such transformations far easier—has also created a marvel of cinematic magic, cooking up a sense of reality for his imaginary movie by inserting Allen’s image into various historical photographs and old film clips,” writes Douglas Messerli for the International Cinema Review. “Using, at times, the very cameras of older eras, at other times scratching and crinkling their film, Allen and his crew wondrously recreate a believable world.” Likewise, Zelig may not be as well-known a mockumentary as a movie like This Is Spinal Tap but it’s difficult to find a greater inspiration for that film’s structure.
While Zelig’s condition is an exaggerated personification of a common part of human existence, there’s another interpretation one simply can’t avoid when talking about Woody Allen. Throughout his career, critics have often cited Allen’s films as reflections of his personal life, his views, and experiences. Woody, of course, refutes the claims. But there’s an obvious line to be drawn between the filmmaker and Zelig’s ability. “By this time [in 1983], if you were following Woody, you never knew what was going to come next, what tone it would take, what shape it would take,” says critic Leonard Maltin in the 2011 film, Woody Allen: A Documentary. “And who would think that the same man who brought us Broadway Danny Rose would give us Zelig?” Mirroring his character’s ability to change his appearance, Woody has managed to change his style time and time again, becoming a cinematic chameleon of his own. “When movies learned how to talk, the best American filmmakers did not exactly lose their voices but they were forced to disguise them,” writes Vincent Canby of the New York Times. “The art and the eccentricities of D.W. Griffith and Erich von Stroheim could not be easily accommodated by the structure of the talking-picture studios.” Yet Woody is different. “He is unique. One would have to go back to the silents to find any other American filmmaker who has so successfully – and over such an extended period of time – attended to his own obsessions,” Canby continues.
Just as he went from making strictly funny movies to comedy-dramas with Annie Hall to chamber-dramas like Interiors and movies as left-field as Stardust Memories and Zelig, Allen continually adapts to his muse. Whether the film is a message to his audience that he won’t be pigeonholed into being any one kind of filmmaker is doubtful. His ability to transform and defy expectations, however, bears an uncanny resemblance to his titular character. Jesse Hassenger at the A.V. Club writes, “Allen’s delightfully uneasy relationship with his identity as an intellectual also comes through when Zelig begins to reveal his own personality, and provides a welcoming credo: “Though his taste is described by many as lowbrow,” the narrator reports, ‘it is his own.’” As much can be said of Allen as a filmmaker who, despite rave reviews or otherwise, continues to make the films he wants.