"Nude" Skater Hits Rockefeller Ice
Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Should MTV's Jersey Shore Be Cancelled?
Adam Lambert Says He's A Performer, Not A Babysitter
Boy with Asperger's Syndrome Rides Subway for 11 Days
Now that the American Apparel mess is behind him, Woody Allen can get back to talking about what he loves: movies and New York City. USA Today and Tribeca Film have interviews with the director, who says he's getting priced out of Manhattan! He told them, "I wish I could afford to be here all the time, but it's a very expensive city to work in. It's gotten worse for me. It's gotten better in that they give you tax breaks. But everything (else) has gone up. I work on a very limited budget." He noted that it would cost about an extra $3 million to film in New York in comparison to overseas.
His latest film, Whatever Works, brought him back to the city after being somewhat of a cinematic ex-pat. This one will mostly focus on the Upper East Side and Chinatown, but after that he's back across the pond (his next two films will be shot in London and Paris).
He told the paper, "I could do another 50 pictures about New York, but I can't afford to do it. New York itself is very inspiring. If I take a walk in the morning on Madison Avenue and I look at people going to work and kids going to school, I'm full of ideas about wanting to do stories about the city." However, he also says it's hard to come up with new locations after using the city as a backdrop for so long ("You start to run out of places after 25, 30 years of doing it")—but surely there's plenty of neighborhoods that could use the Woody Allen treatment! Where would you like to see him film?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"South Williamsburg" for a nice Trinitarios sendup.
"If I take a walk in the morning on Madison Avenue and I look at people going to work and kids going to school,I'm full of ideas"
Woody, I don't want to know your ideas about kids.
Crown Heights/Bed-Stuy would be pimp
How about if he filmed somewhere where there were actually people of color? That'd be wild, huh?
How about Eastern Queens or the Northern Bronx?
...or MeMe Roth's apartment?
So lame, can you get some new lines please.
He could do a pic about the last three Jewish families on Pelham Parkway.
Rikers!
Yes, film the bar mitzvah at the tombs.
That could only be done by Mel Brooks and he is dead.
no he's not
oh
How about he makes a movie about a lovable jewish new york filmaker who marries his adopted asian daughter?
They could set it in the Upper West side. It would be so quirky and new york.
jamaica queens
How about Koreatown since his wife/stepdaughter is Korean?
Meh, she was never his stepdaughter and about as Korean as Pizza Hut.
can he explain why it's more expensive in NYC? explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old please. that's all I'm asking.
Is it the Unions? the salaries? what's the biggest item on the budget? If NYS is giving a tax cut why is is still difficult to film here? please, I'd like to know.
obviously someone is making money.
Probably laws about unions/overtime, but what baffles me is that he films over in Paris and London, both of which seem like pretty expensive places to produce movies too. On top of that are the exchange rates with the GBP and EUR.
TY jibbly,
I'm being very serious and very respectful.
One would think overseas production especially in London or Paris would be costly, wouldn't one?
Scanning the credits of many 'set in NY' films reveals quite a few Canadian locations.
The Euro argument he's making sounds fishy.
The cost and bureaucracy of permits, lack of competition between equipment providers (thus expensive use of equipment), restrictions on where and when you can shoots, unions, a generally unwelcoming population to the film industry, the cost of inherent delays due to the logistics of shooting in the new york, limited and ever decreasing studio space, etc. are all reasons why new york has become an extremely expensive place to shoot films. London has a better established and more smoothly operating film community that is friendlier and more used to dealing with smaller budget films. I'm not sure about Paris.
But NYC bent over backwards to satisfy the industry. Who's the unwelcoming population? If I recall, many films were shot in the dead of night preventing residents from sleeping. So filming in London is not only more feasible but it's also CHEAPER? I didn't see cheaper in your post.
Europe generally subsidizes art in a way we never do. It means production of a lot of bad films nobody wants to see, but it also means the national film industry is ready to keep working and compete. Steven Spielberg filmed the Normandy beach invasion scenes in Saving Private Ryan on Irish beaches because he got a much better deal than doing it in France.
Woody should make a memorable romantic comedy, full of quirky, cheek-in-tongue humor about... Brownsville or East NY. Could be a East NY v. West NY love story.
Come on Woody, that part of the city could use some magic. Huh?
How about he makes a movie about a lovable jewish filmaker who marries his adopted asian daughter?
They could set it in the Upper West side. It would be so quirky and new york.
There was a period where Toronto was the new New York. That city gave them all kinds of tax breaks, the unions were easier to deal with, hotels were cheaper, the Canadian$ went further, the people were friendlier and there was less crime. They had sections that duplicated Bronx tenements and Brooklyn Heights' brownstones (Moonstruck). They used stock film shots for the landmarks. However, all good things come to an end, and they're now just another big city.