Take the Money and Run

Take the Money and Run ranked rather high on the AFI's list of the 100 Funniest movies, which surprised me. Although it's got some hilarious bits of comedy (the bank robbery, of course, is the funniest bit), the humor seems a bit dated, on par with What's New Pussycat or Casino Royale as opposed to Bananas and Sleeper (his two early comedy classics, in my opinion). Janet Margolin (RIP) was a talented actress, but I didn't find her particularly funny in this movie. She was better in a brief role as one of Woody's high-strung ex-wives in Annie Hall. Louise Lasser and Diane Keaton were worthier (and funnier) replacements. A good bet for rainy day laughs, but not one of the funniest movies of all time.

For those of you who think that all Woody Allen's movies are vapid stories of neurotic rich New Yorkers, you need to see his early movies. "Take the Money and Run" is a good example. Allen plays Virgil Starkwell, an inept criminal. No matter what sort of crime he tries to pull off, something always goes wrong. Probably the funniest scene is when he tries to escape from jail like John Dillinger did. Other scenes include the time when the authorities use him in an experiment, with a silly result.

Anyway, Woody Allen's old movies were really funny. The thing was that he created a bunch of outlandish premises and infused his New York Jewish humor. This is what comedy is all about!

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN is Mel Brooks-like in structure and gags, but definitely Woody Allen at his comical best. Its not his greatest picture by any means, but perhaps the best of his early slapstick flicks (SLEEPER, BANANAS). "Virgil Starkwell" has a hard time stealing right from the start. When a criminal gets a gumball machine "stuck to his hand", you know he's in the wrong gig. Woody Allen is right at home with this innocent, documentary-style drip on the unintentional hilarity of 60's crime documentaries. Woody, or "Virgil", seems to be playing Woody as usual, something we all know runs through his entire body of work. This movie is very much like his innovative ZELIG of 1983, a black and white docu-spoof about a fictional chameleon.

Jackson Beck's narration is PERFECT in making the outrageous material seem "serious". It no doubt inspired the short spoofs "Saturday Night Live" would go on to produce for years, investigative reporting seemingly important, yet ridiculous in content. "Virgil's" parents are in disguise (Groucho Marx nose and glasses) whenever they are "interviewed". The chain gang escape is one of the funniest sequences I have ever seen. Woody also moves into romantic territory with the beautiful Janet Margolin, who had a nice, fat purse for "Virgil" to steal, but also has a quick reaction to his inept robbery attempt and, of course, they fall in love. She is there for "Virgil" to live for during his always brief prison stays and to pick out his clothes for a robbery. There are some familiar elements here, most obviously the beautiful young girl falling for a middle-aged homely Woody.

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN is all about raw comedic filmmaking and mockery. It is not a situational film at all, just a bunch of perfectly cohesive episodes of this perfectly moronic bank robber, who spells gun G-U-B. Wouldn't that throw us all off if we were the bank tellers taking a note during a stick up ?

The clumsy Virgil Starkwell (Woody Allen) is bullied when he is a child. Then he decides to play cello, but without musical talent, the loser joins a street gang and ends in prison. When he escapes, he meets the laundry worker Louise (Janet Margolin) and lies to her, telling that he plays cello in the symphonic orchestra.

He is arrested in a hold up and Louise finds him in prison. He breaks out and flees with Louise to another state. He tries to be honest but he is incapable to fit in any job. When he finally finds a job position suitable for his intellect, he is blackmailed by a colleague and returns to his criminal life. But his heists are disastrous and he always ends in prison.

"Take the Money and Run" is the second film by Woody Allen in a documentary style the same way he does with "Zelig" in 1983, and tells the saga of a clumsy smalltime thief. The last time I had seen this film was on 22 August 1999 and this time I found it still enjoyable, but less than the last time.

Virgil Starkwell is an incompetent loser obsessed with bank heists. The narrative and interviews in the documentary style of the 60's and 70's have hilarious moments and is closed by the funny interview of his neighbor that asks to the interviewer how an imbecile like Virgil could plan the heist of banks. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Um Assaltante Bem Trapalhão" ("A Very Clumsy Thief")

Virgil Starkwell was a product of his environment. Born into a poor family living in a rough community, Virgil soon finds companionship with a rough crowd and gets sucked into a life of petty crime from a very young age. An interest in the cello is not enough to set him straight and his acts continue into adulthood. Love, a powerful motivator, proves to be his undoing as he tries to rob a bank to fund his relationship.

We all talk about Allen's "earlier, funnier" films (even he does) but this probably doesn't extend the whole way to the very start of his film career because this, his second film, isn't up to the standard of Love & Death, Annie Hall and the like. The film is a mockumentary looking at the life and career of failing small-time criminal Virgil Starkwell and as such there is a basic narrative to provide some structure. Supposedly tightened up significantly in the editing room, the film is still pretty baggy at times and doesn't really have the material to carry it to even 85 minutes. However what the film does do well is produce plenty of imaginative moments that made me laugh out of nothing. I think of the scene where Virgil hires a car to run his blackmailer down, the spelling errors on the notes and others that are imaginative twists on what you expect and funnier for it. The one liners (and dialogue generally) is not as strong as Allen fans would hope for because the humour tends towards the sight gag.

This isn't a criticism because the sight gags are mostly good but the problem is one of consistency. I wasn't laughing anywhere enough for this to be a memorable comedy and there were quite a few lulls. These came particularly where the film had a section of narrative or dialogue rather than fast visual snippets under the narrator – it is the latter that are the strongest parts of the film but they can't come quick enough and there isn't enough to support it in-between. Allen makes a good lead of course and I found him to be very good at delivering the visual comedy. Margolin is a bit too stiff; not good enough at the comedy or the dramatic stuff. The rest of the support cast does what they are required to do but the film does belong to Allen and his script. Credit should go to editor Rosenblum for making it as tight as possible and keeping the visual gags flowing as best as he can while limiting the weaker dialogue bits.

Overall then an amusing film that will appeal mostly to Woody Allen films. There are plenty of imaginative comedy moments but it is not as consistent as it needed to be to consider it on the same level as Allen's finest films (that would follow this in the 1970's in my opinion).