This movie is two separate stories made into one via just three devices: 1) a relatively minor, albeit symbolic character (a blind Rabbi), 2) a brief meeting of the two main protagonists, and 3) a philosopher's narration at the closing (or it would seem so, anyway).
The first section - the "crime", and the good part - tells the story of an eye doctor (very nicely played by Martin Landau) who has it all: a wonderful wife and family, a successful career, a beautiful home, and a neurotic mistress (Anjelica Huston), the last of which threatens to spill the beans and destroy everything in his life. Landau is a respectable, decent guy who finds himself unable to cope with the enormity of these circumstances, and he goes to an extreme by enlisting the help of his mob-connected brother (Jerry Orbach), who has the mistress killed. There follows some interesting scenes in which we see Landau going to an emotional edge over what he has done, and searching his past and present for some answers. It is a well-done, believable story that raises a lot of interesting philosophical questions.
The second section - a much lighter story than the first - stars Allen in his typical genre in which he plays a filmmaker doing a portrait of his brother-in-law TV producer (Alan Alda), and whom he greatly despises. This story is further complicated by a love triangle with a television documentary maker, played by Mia Farrow. There are a few amusing lines in this section, and it wraps up into a somewhat ironic ending.
But what is the connection here? The first time I saw this film, I kept asking myself: "What do the Landau and Allen stories have to do with each other?". I found myself asking the same exact question the second, third, and fourth times I saw it as well.
Then I saw an interview with Allen. He said that the Landau segment is a statement of his belief that there is no God or divinely-inspired morality - not much of a surprise there.
The second part of the film, says Allen, was trying to tell us that intentions do not matter, but rather it is success that counts in this world; that even though his character truly cared for the Farrow character, it was the vain, shallow, unworthy, but nevertheless rich and successful Alda character that eventually won her heart. OK, I guess that point comes through as well.
But once again, we are back to the same question: What do these two stories have to do with each other? Not much, from what I can see. What is the "crime" or even the "misdemeanor" committed in the Allen segment? If you can connect these two stories, you might also have some success in connecting "Sleeper" with "Gone With The Wind" - the stories really don't mesh. To put it bluntly, it almost appears as if Allen had two separate scripts, neither of which were meaty enough for a full-length film, so his solution was to combine them into one movie. Am I correct? Someone please explain to me why I am not.
The first section - the "crime", and the good part - tells the story of an eye doctor (very nicely played by Martin Landau) who has it all: a wonderful wife and family, a successful career, a beautiful home, and a neurotic mistress (Anjelica Huston), the last of which threatens to spill the beans and destroy everything in his life. Landau is a respectable, decent guy who finds himself unable to cope with the enormity of these circumstances, and he goes to an extreme by enlisting the help of his mob-connected brother (Jerry Orbach), who has the mistress killed. There follows some interesting scenes in which we see Landau going to an emotional edge over what he has done, and searching his past and present for some answers. It is a well-done, believable story that raises a lot of interesting philosophical questions.
The second section - a much lighter story than the first - stars Allen in his typical genre in which he plays a filmmaker doing a portrait of his brother-in-law TV producer (Alan Alda), and whom he greatly despises. This story is further complicated by a love triangle with a television documentary maker, played by Mia Farrow. There are a few amusing lines in this section, and it wraps up into a somewhat ironic ending.
But what is the connection here? The first time I saw this film, I kept asking myself: "What do the Landau and Allen stories have to do with each other?". I found myself asking the same exact question the second, third, and fourth times I saw it as well.
Then I saw an interview with Allen. He said that the Landau segment is a statement of his belief that there is no God or divinely-inspired morality - not much of a surprise there.
The second part of the film, says Allen, was trying to tell us that intentions do not matter, but rather it is success that counts in this world; that even though his character truly cared for the Farrow character, it was the vain, shallow, unworthy, but nevertheless rich and successful Alda character that eventually won her heart. OK, I guess that point comes through as well.
But once again, we are back to the same question: What do these two stories have to do with each other? Not much, from what I can see. What is the "crime" or even the "misdemeanor" committed in the Allen segment? If you can connect these two stories, you might also have some success in connecting "Sleeper" with "Gone With The Wind" - the stories really don't mesh. To put it bluntly, it almost appears as if Allen had two separate scripts, neither of which were meaty enough for a full-length film, so his solution was to combine them into one movie. Am I correct? Someone please explain to me why I am not.