Did anyone else think that Robert Webber's role as George's friend and collaborator Hugh was somewhat groundbreaking for a mainstream film in 1979? It's unusual to see a gay character so comfortable with themselves in a film from that era – and so integrated into the lives of the rest of the cast.
shareI was 19 when "10" debuted at the theatres, and yes, it was very different for a movie (made in the U.S., anyway) to have a gay character that wasn't a raging queen, there for comedy relief only.
shareHe wasn't a raging queen, he didn't commit suicide, and he wasn't after Dudley Moore. In fact, he was the voice of wisdom here, more than just the "token gay friend" (which really didn't arrive until much later in films).
shareI agree--it WAS ground-breaking and he was the one who explained to Julie Andrews what Moore was going through. It was presented in a matter of fact way so the audience wouldn't be shocked. But remember--he did end up alone and lonely at the end. Still that is realistic. Also his "boyfriend" was HOT:)
shareYes, his boyfriend was hot and air-headed, as I recall, and don't we all end up alone and lonely in this world? ;-)
I love Blake Edwards' realistic, provocative and humorous approach to relationships and sexuality, and I wish someone of his ilk were making films today. At least Woody Allen is still cranking out thinking comedies for grown-ups. The Judd Apatow-type flicks don't quite do it for me.
Woody Allen USED to make grown-up comedies but hasn't had a real good comedy in years (unfortunately). I saw just one of the Judd Apatow flicks and I agree--it didn't work for me at all.
shareOh no, another defector from Camp Woody! I'm in it for life, for better or worst – but to me, the former still outnumbers the better. He's changed as a director and he no longer uses the stable of actors and themes from the '70s and '80s, but I continue to enjoy following his career as he grows older. There aren't that many directors I get enthusiastic about these days, but Woody's still one of them.
shareLOL Sorry! I agree his early movies are great--I consider "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" to be masterpieces. But then he started doing those depressing Ingmar Bergman want-to-bes ("September" anyone?) and his career fell to pieces. He did occasionally come up with a great one (like "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Husbands and Wives") but his movies became dreary and depressing experiences. "Purple Rose of Cairo" had me miserable for weeks after! So I DO sometimes still see his films up the theatre but after the last one (that horrible thing with Larry David) I think I'm at the end of my rope. Sorry to disagree with u but Allen is past his prime.
shareThat's OK – then there's more Woody for me, because I loves me the Woody!
I was really down on the Woodman with movies like "Celebrity" and "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" around the turn of the last decade/millennium, and I swore him off for years. But when "Match Point" came out, I open my eyes, ears and mind to the great storyteller Woody has become, and I found it easy (well, easier) to let go of Diane, Mia, Judy and all those great familiar leading ladies who made his '70s and '80s work so memorable in my book. And I love "September," as well as the other Bergmanesque films (especially "Another Woman.")
I've just seen "that horrible thing with Larry David," and once I got past my annoyance of Larry playing Woody (just like so many actors in previous films), I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not a perfect 10, but a solid 8. Oh well, whatever. Works!
I'm glad you liked David playing Woody Allen but no one can play him like him! I remember Kenneth Branaugh attempting it in "Celebrity" and boy did it NOT work!
shareLoved the character. One of the reasons I would've loved a sequel is because I loved George, Sam and Hugh. Not sure what a sequel would've been about, but you know they did something right when you want to follow the lives of the characters after the movie is over.
share