Bananas (1971)

Woody Allen's third film, Bananas, is an example of a director beginning to mature. While the movie is still a minor comedy, Allen shows a willingness to delve a bit deeper with his subject matter. The movie veers slightly, and harmlessly, into the realm of satire. Bananas is partly entrenched in the slapstick style of Allen's first two features, as a good deal of its running time is concerned with moving from joke to joke as quickly as possible. This is par for the course in terms of what Allen has established in his first two films. However, where Bananas differs is in Allen's choice to spoof the revolutionary, political activism of the 60s. Ultimately, the movie isn't very successful as a satire and works much better as a straight comedy. In short, Dr. Strangelove this ain't. Allen's growth as a director may be minimal, but baby steps are always the first steps, right?

One big problem with Bananas is the structure of the narrative. The film uses its first 10-15 minutes to establish the character of Fielding Mellish (Allen). Fielding is the standard neurotic Woody Allen character, who this time around happens to be a product tester. These sequences are essentially elongated comedy skits used to show Fielding as an insignificant, inept nobody. Many of the comedy skits, not only here but throughout the movie, are reminiscent of something Chaplin or Keaton would have done in their silent films (particularly Chaplin who had a tendency to combine slapstick with peppy, upbeat music). It is a funny way to establish the character, but afterwards we're thrown directly into the budding romance between Fielding and Nancy (Allen's real-life wife Louise Lasser). These scenes, along with the rest of the film, are completely unlike the film's first 10-15 minutes. It's as if those initial sequences establishing Fielding belong in a different movie entirely.

This method of establishing character is similar to how Allen established Virgil in Take the Money and Run. While that technique worked in the mockumentary format, it doesn't come off so well here. A mockumentary allows for a little more freedom because the entire plot consists of a bunch of interrelated comedy sketches. Characterizations can be a bit broader and still retain their believability (or as much believability as is needed in a mockumentary). Or, put less wordily, the mockumentary lends itself much better to overt silliness. In a traditional narrative, however, characters are the driving force of the story and they need to be fleshed out completely even in a silly comedy. To introduce a character one way (with the comedy skits) and then present him differently (in more traditional, dialogue driven scenes) creates a jarring effect. It’s as if Allen created Fielding as a cartoon character, and then asked the audience to believe him as a real person, in a real-ish setting. Bananas was essentially Allen's first attempt at a conventional narrative, so a few bumps in the road were to be expected. As he progresses as a writer and filmmaker, these kinds of mistakes will become seamless transitions.

The rest of the storyline is simply a fish out of water scenario, as Fielding is thrown into a political revolution in San Marcos. One-liners abound and the story moves forward towards it's inevitable conclusion. Many of the jokes are funny, some aren't so funny. Sylvester Stallone even makes a cameo as a hoodlum. There isn't much of note in the film, although the 82 minutes pass by rather quickly. Comedy is the most subjective type of film, so it's pointless to drone on about what is funny versus what isn't funny. Just know that if you watch it, you'll likely laugh at something. And really, that's the aim of the movie at the end of the day.

My biggest problem (if it can be considered a problem) with Bananas is the missed opportunities for substance. Granted, the movie doesn't desire to have much substance, and I should probably judge it with that in mind. That said, I can't help but wonder what Woody Allen could have done with this movie 10-15 years later. There are ample opportunities to comment on the politics, attitudes, and cultural mindset of the 1960s, and I think a more mature Allen could have brought a ton of insight to the film in that respect. Instead, we get another laugh-a-minute production from him. Again, I'm not so sure that's a fault of the film. After all, can you really fault a movie for not being something it doesn't strive to be? Fair or not, I still can't pretend I wasn't a little disappointed.

So, how do I feel about Bananas? Well, I hate the fruit - bananas are disgusting. I also can't stand the Gwen Stefani song, Hollaback Girl, where she spells the word out in the chorus. Only a brain-dead moron would like that song (too harsh?). As for the movie, I enjoyed it. Sure, it's another minor Woody Allen comedy that has nothing to offer other than laughs (a kind of movie I find myself currently growing weary of), but it works. You could certainly do much worse when it comes to comedy.

Next up is 1972's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask), although I'm not sure when that will be. Netflix has recently (within the past few weeks) discontinued carrying the film, so I'll have to buy the movie. As soon as I order the movie and receive it, I'll get to it, it just may take an extra week or two. That's all for now. Good tidings and such...