I think there are certainly philosophical questions built into the stories, but they strike me more as musings or puzzles in the Wittgenstein-sense, rather than statements about the world or its meaningful/lessness.

I’d also like to say something about the idea that the character’s are “cliches.” It seems to me there is a trend in contemporary American film towards realism over story. Think Rachel Getting Married… In this type of film the audience is supposed to identify with, or relate to the characters personally in order to experience the story. I could say a lot a about this approach, but suffice it to say, I think it’s a bit of a fleetingly successful approach, especially when the thematic underpinning and story development are as flimsy as in Rachel Getting Married. On the other hand, in these Allen movies, his characters are there to stand in for specific parts of the human experience/psyche/condition rather than a whole person. Rather than being cliched, it draws on collectively held notions, then mixes and matches them for dramatic effect and to show the ideas from different angles and in different lights. I think this is a pretty tried and true way of telling a story too.

for Allen to be perpetually ‘baffled’ by the same mysteries, while every time coming to the same conclusions (that the whole has no meaning, but the tiny parts hold us rapt, etc.), i would argue is a form of knowledge about human nature. yet all he gives are variations on these same melodies of questions and answers, and because of that nothing new is ever discovered. trotting out cliched players and setting them into motion in carefully considered situations where it’s predetermined the angle at which each one will refract off the other, well no wonder it seems like autopilot. there’s a knowingness to his presentation of love and naivete.

i would for once would like to see Allen make a film where he truly doesn’t know or understand the subject. maybe that means staking a definite claim or position about what real love is (he has been married to the same woman for 15+ years) and seeing what happens when its thrown into a torrential environment. does it stand up? is it reaffirmed? at least with that there’s the possibility of creating a real tension between what his truth is and what someone else’s might be.

but when nothing is true, nothing is at stake. and that’s what a lot of his later films have felt like.

I agree with you about Allen’s misuse of Scarlett Johansson whose performance in “Vicky” I found to be very lifeless and just one-note. It was as if she exemplified her strengths in “Lost in Translation” but didn’t do anything with it but look sexy and that is it.

Johansson, I felt after LIT and “Girl with a Pearl Earring” became unsure of what to do with herself afterwards. While there were moments that showed that she could act in films like “A Love Song for Bobby Long” and “The Other Boleyn Girl” though both films were decent at best. “Match Point” became the film that I think changed Scarlett from a serious actress with potential to a sex symbol where she started off great but then became this over-the-top character that I found to be very annoying.

She’s very inconsistent as of late. She ranges from being decent in something mediocre like “Scoop” or just bad in a good film like “The Prestige”. Then she gets nothing to do in some bad films like “The Black Dahlia” or be horrible in the very bad “The Spirit” while being very miscast in “The Nanny Diaries”. It’s obvious she is going to be one of the few things that will make “Iron Man” suck. The only thing that can save her is a director that knows what to do with her and maybe challenge her as an actress. Unfortunately, maybe no one wants to.