Deconstructing Harry (1997)

Woody Allen’s film from 1997 was actually my first. I saw it shortly after it came out on video in high school, and while I thought it was funny, it never fully resonated with me until I was embroiled in literary theory at college (and at that, it came to annoy me: is this really deconstruction, or just biographical?). The film is a polyglot of inspiration: Bergman, with Wild Strawberries and Through a Glass Darkly, Fellini with 8 1/2, and so on.

So are the vignettes really deconstruction? Or does the title really just refer to the outrageous statement by the girl at the end? Is deconstruction really such a simple thing that the unhappy are actually happy? My Lit Crit professor always thought deconstruction was a little too cute. I wrote a persuasive deconstruction of L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz in which I argued the breakdown of the main Home, Other (really “not Home”) binary due to the language used in the actual text. It’s easy to see, given the drab uncomfortable descriptions of Kansas vs. the joyous descriptions of Oz. So I guess I’m saying deconstruction can seem pretty slight when it’s removed from the rigors of its “point of reference.” Deconstructing Harry is a funny approach to a writer’s work, functioning as filmed short stories entrapped by biography. The film encourages us to think about the connections between writing and the life we see outside, and occasionally it cheats a little bit, such as the scene where we see Lucy’s (Judy Davis) reaction to Harry’s new love affair. The scene works as a new story written about the actual people as filtered through an old character met by the actual writer, but otherwise it’s a little ‘Dickensian’, isn’t it? (Literally.) It doesn’t much matter in the end because Lucy’s reaction is both hilarious and a little sad at the same time.

But I guess who cares if the movie isn’t so much deconstruction as it is hilarious and fun to watch. The center of the film, Woody’s Harry Block, seems to invite a deconstruction of Woody himself, rather than his stories. The private vs. public question is most uncomfortably funny in the scene where Kirstie Alley, as an ex-wife, shouts at Harry while a patient (she’s a psychiatrist) sits uncomfortably in the chair enduring her meltdown. What do we show and let people know about our private lives in view of what they already know? Here Woody seems to dance around the most significant cost of what a deconstruction of his persona would really be, but a portmanteau representation of self-hood is not deconstruction (rather, it is deconstruction), and it’s best in scenes where Harry attempts to find meaning through his writing which has, of course, already been filtered through his actions as a writer. These complexities are at the heart of why the pat statement at the end by the student is so annoying. Can tradition really be an illusion of permanence if everything is just peaches? (Look out for Paul Giamatti in a non-speaking role toward the end; I assumed this was from before he was in anything, but it’s 7 years into his career and the same year he tears it up in Private Parts, so uh, maybe there were some deleted scenes?)

The French title of Deconstructing Harry wisely employs difference in its translation: Harry dans tous ses états. Harry In All His States. If it’s just Harry in all of his states, then it’s really just Harry isn’t it? One thing worth deconstructing, mind you, is the representation of the Jewish Star Wars Bah Mitzvah mash-up. Is it really just a snipe at affluence excess and indulgence, or is there something else there? (Probably not.) I suspect it’s on the same level as Harry suggesting his father is a cannibal, and that from his view, it had to be done and so it was required. Who can judge what is required?

Tagged as: Deconstruction, Woody Allen