Copeland starts off by saying that when filmmakers grew up as film-watchers they don’t create films about the “real world,” but a world “mediated” through other films.  He claims that George Lucas’s Star Wars “makes so many references to earlier films and styles that it could just as easily – and perhaps more accurately – been called ‘Genre Wars.’”  Many young directors from this era (the mid-seventies) such as Lucas and Scorsese create films out of nostalgia for Hollywood’s past.   He says that the first filmmakers to make films that dealt with reality as much as they did with old films were French new wave filmmakers such as Truffaut and Godard.  He says it is no mistake that these great filmmakers were well versed in the history of cinema and spent their early careers as film critics.  Copeland calls the films by Scorsese and Lucas the “Americanizing of the New Wave sensibility.”
    Allen according to Copeland is “not as cinematically knowledgeable” as his counterparts from the era.  However, he discusses all of the points from Allen’s films in which he references other great films of the past.  He discusses the references to Bergman, Eisenstein and Bogart in his various films from the seventies.  The references in films to other films trickle down into our daily lives, which creates a world where not all of our actions are necessarily original.  In some ways, many of us emulate our favorite characters in films; it’s not just great directors copying other directors, but people copying their favorite characters.  Past artwork has become the foundation for which new artists can build. These ideas being recycled through film and our daily lives creates a new mythology.
    Woody Allen draws from the ideas of past works to mold them into his films.  Love and Death is no exception.  It builds upon ideas of past filmmakers and intertwines them into parody.  Even though many of the ideas and scenes in the film seem ridiculous, it takes an intelligent viewer to read beyond the laughs and into the past artists that shaped them.

    Schein wants to make sure that the reader understands that his article is not speaking of “the humor typified by physiological reflexes such as smiling or the gleam in the eye.  This article deals only with the kind of humor that releases laughter.”(24)  The film humor genre may have begun with the Lumiere Brothers film about the gardener.  It has evolved away from its sadistic beginnings, but much of the humor that is still present involves maliciousness.  Schein claims that humor depends on the audaciousness of the humorist and how much a person can identify with the victim.  “Humor’s first rule is that the humorist may lose neither his tempo nor his temper.”(27)  One area of humor in film that Schein discusses is the parody.  He says that “to parody a film in a film presents enormous possibilities.”(31)  In contrast, he says that to parody a novel in a film is very difficult and can leave the viewer in “a blind alley.”(31)  
    Schein analyzes the qualities of humor and tactics used by such film humorists as Tati, Chaplin and the Marx brothers.  Of all of their styles he seems to enjoy Tati’s the most.  Schein comments that the film’s humor works with predominantly visual material that seems to be purely intellectual at the same time.  Every sequence in the movies also contains many formal associations.  Tati combines these factors with “a casual nonchalance that is master proof of a humorist.”(32)
    Harry Schein would have liked the humor in Love and Death for a variety of reasons.  The film does not simply make the viewer smile to himself, but it contains many moments of hilarity that force the viewer into convulsions of laughter.  Allen’s film never loses its tempo and provides many situations in which the viewer is able to relate to Boris as a victim.  Tati’s style of comedy is emulated by Love and Death.  The film at its base contains the visuals of Tolstoy’s Russia and uses this as a springboard for intellectual conversation and humor.  These factors combined with the references and associations that Allen makes to many other works yield what would be “master proof” to Schein that the film is a great work of humor.

    According to Kiremidjian a parody must have three basic characteristics of structure and behavior.  First, a parody must originate from the original in its form and content and focus on the duality between the two.  Second, it must raise the question as to how the original relates with the parody.  The viewer must be forced to think about how the aesthetics of one relate to the other and whether or not the viewer receives something from the new version.  The third point is that in the Aristotelian sense parody is not really art.  (It imitates another work, not real life.)  This is problematic for the author, who arrives at the idea that parody imitates art, which in turn reveals something about the original piece.  He exclaims that parody does indeed become an art form in its ability to examine the original piece and exploits it for the purpose of self-exploration and curiosity.
    Once Kiremidjian establishes that parody is indeed an art form that can be benefited from he examines what makes for a good parody.  He states that an artist “must grasp the essentials of the style of a given author or a school of authors, and then proceed to concoct an outlandish episode which is expressed in that style.”(235)  Parody must then act as a critique of some sort of the original work.  This can only be done effectively, if the artist has a strong grasp of the original work(s) and has a purpose for creating the parody.  
    Following the philosophical logic of Kiremidjian, Allen’s Love and Death indeed qualifies as art and as a parody.  The film manages to provide the viewer with the impression that Allen has a strong grasp for every facet of the works he is parodying.  The references to a multitude of works are clear.  His critique of these works emanate a sense of purpose with humor that is clearly outlandish in its content.

    This book attempts to chronicle film comedy from the silent era all the way through the end of the 1970s(when the book was published.)  The work covers the first crude attempts at humor by Edison and Lumiere through Allen’s Annie Hall.  Mast analyzes the different structures, techniques and values that have transformed cinematic comedy over time.  He discusses the evolution of these techniques and how they appear and reappear in various pieces throughout silent and more modern film.
    Mast claims that while some film comics like Mel Brooks simply move from one parody to the next, Allen has transformed his comedic style from the purely parodic to a more personal, psychological and emotional film style.  Allen’s films are more “French than American” in that they are “very conscious of themselves as conceptions for the film medium.”(313)  According to Mast, Allen’s films are a mix between the “anarchic clown tradition” of the American style and the “ironic tradition”(313) of the French.  Allen balances the line between “intellectual awareness, psychological astuteness” and the bizarre gag and parody.  Mast argues that each of the main characters in Allen’s films, are essentially all the same because they display those same features no matter what situation they are thrown into.  
    Recurring themes in Allen’s films include, neuroticism, sexual desire and self-discovery.  Each of these themes get examined from a serious tone, but in films such as Love and Death, these serious ideas become the butt of many jokes.  Mast continues to say that these topics continually develop in Allen’s later films as the director continues to explore himself.  The psychoanalysis that Allen undertakes and his new understanding of himself provides for more humorous and profound ideas in his later films.

    The main work that Allen seizes his material from is Tolstoy’s War and Peace.  The title alone, Love and Death, is a clear parody of this work, but the inspiration dives much deeper.  Tolstoy’s novel examines the actual role of leaders in large events such as war and how much impact they could possibly have on specific occurrences.  The role of speeches and words is touched upon by Tolstoy as well.  Tolstoy’s novel focuses on ideas regarding free will and for what reasons men would go to fight a war behind a leader such as Napoleon.    Bencivenga also examines the use of Aristotelian syllogistic logic in the novel.  He claims that “Tolstoy rejects the practical syllogism as an explanation of individual or collective action.”(6)  
    Allen’s Love and Death intelligently uses many of the ideas from Tolstoy’s novel.  The film is a clever parody that is able to incorporate obvious ideas such as the title and war with Napoleon.  It explores further though to include Napoleon’s role in the war and the decisions at hand for the general.  There is a scene at the beginning of the film in which Allen parodies the lack of free will Boris has in his decision to go to war along with the exhilaration of his brothers at the prospect of fighting.  
    At many points in the film, Boris uses syllogisms to examine and parody life’s supposed truths.  For example, “A. Socrates is a man. B. All men are mortal. C. All men are Socrates.  That means all men are homosexuals.”  This ridiculous logic mocking syllogisms comes right after a much more coherent moral predicament in which Boris weighs the idea of murder on his conscience.  Allen manages to mock and satire different aspects of the writings of Tolstoy, even to the point of slapstick humor, but he combines the intelligence with comedy.

    As Ivan Ilych (the title character of Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych) nears the end of his own life he wonders, “What is the right thing?”  After a life full of experience he realizes that he has not come close to understanding the meaning of life.  Before Ivan neared his untimely death, he lived an ordinary life that “flowed pleasantly.”  He never dealt with adversity and simply followed the path that was set out for him by his parents and society.  “Tolstoy shows that Ivan’s life, though simple and ordinary, was truly terrible because he had no sense of the tragic dimension of life.”(8)  The reader comes to understand that failure and inexplicable suffering happen whether a person has behaved rightly or not.  As Ivan lies in bed slowly dying of his illness he has two visitors.  His servant comes to visit him and teaches the reader that a common peasant is able to help Ivan even more than any doctor.  His son also comes to visit him and portrays how no one should have to suffer such a painful, unwarranted death.  This moment raises great questions about God’s will, destiny and justice.      

    As should be expected with a parody of Russian literature, Love and Death examines and satirizes many of these ideas.  Many scenes in the film analyze theories on death and dying, but after the death of Boris the viewer gains a glimpse into what life and death have taught the hero.  In The Death of Ivan Ilych the main character comes to the realization that he has learned nothing about morals or the true meaning of life.  In contrast, the parody these ideas show a character, Boris, with seeming omniscience flaunts such tidbits of knowledge like, “there are worse things in life than death…I mean if you’ve ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know exactly what I mean.”  This film also provides a satire on the bedside drama that takes place in Tolstoy’s novels.  As opposed to meaningful events taking place that enlighten the hero to life’s truths; Boris encounters ridiculous people from his past.  One such person is Boris’s father who produces a package size parcel of land with a monopoly sized house on it and exclaims that he has finally built.

Love and Death is a 1975 film written and directed by Woody Allen. The film is a satirical take on Russian epic novels. It takes place in Russia during the Napoleonic wars. Boris played by Allen himself, is a coward and pacifist scholar who is forced to enlist in the Russian army. The film chronicles Boriss ridiculous experiences in the army, his marriage to his childhood love, Sonja (Diane Keaton), his attempted assassination of Napoleon and his eventual execution. The film is mainly a parody of Russian epic novels by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, but it captures ideas and references to philosophy and film. The films humor is straightforward at times, but at others it relies on the viewer's knowledge of the original works being parodied. Allen's film attempts to derive the meaning of life (and death) through a combination of references to literature, film, philosophy and Allen's own quirky personality. This unique synthesis of ideas creates a hilarious film that relies heavily on parody. The film's outlandish ideology can be summed up by the following interaction between Boris and Sonja: "But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract and empirical concept, such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself." - Sonja "Yes, I've said that many times." - Boris

Chapter 6: Love and Death (1975)

    This work analyzes the various themes that seem to be emulated in many of Woody Allen’s films.  Love and Death is an interesting film for this analysis because of how obviously he meant to parody Tolstoy’s War and Peace.  This theme gets fleshed out immediately in the title and Allen expounds on this idea amongst many others as the film progresses.  Lee points out that while the film is comedic at its core, (even slapstick at some points) it tackles many deep philosophical questions.  Allen clearly understands the philosophical contributions of many philosophers such as Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.  In spite of this, Allen uses complex jargon to essentially say nothing.  The conversations are reminiscent of the great thinkers, but on their own the conversations boil down to “clever gibberish.”(31)  
    Lee claims that Allen is trying to illustrate in Love and Death and many of his other films that it is impossible to resolve the fundamental questions of human existence through abstract argument and theorizing.  These questions that Lee is referring to are common themes in Allen films including, the existence of God, death, ethics and relationships.  In this film Allen addresses each of these issues, but he never truly gives a coherent opinion on any one of them.  The only point at which Allen makes a moral decision is when he decides to not kill Napoleon – which would trigger the end of many wars and countless deaths.  The viewer never learns the reasoning behind his change of heart, but he is sentenced to death for his singular moral stand of the movie.
    After being put to death Boris offers a final monologue about what he has learned through the whole dying experience.  The viewer soon learns, that Boris has no more compelling insight into life or death than he did while he was alive.  He leaves the viewer dancing away with Death himself.

This book analyzes Woody Allen as a philosopher and tries to discern his overall message.  This particular chapter analyzes the influence of the great Swedish filmmaker, Ingmar Bergman, on Allen.  The author begins by questioning what the lively, joyful comedies of Allen have in common with the dark, moralistic films of his Swedish counterpart.  The films of Bergman tend to be extremely serious and deal with death and misery, yet Allen cites him as one of his biggest influences.  
    The author begins by exclaiming that they are both filmmakers, as opposed to directors who control all aspects of the film.  Their films largely focus on dialogue, many times infused with philosophical ideas that can unravel the source of a main characters current situation.  The films of both artists focus largely on women and family interactions.  At many points in each of their films, large family meals and gatherings are portrayed that at many times contain a grand showing of family members singing, dancing or playing music.  The films tend to take place in the everyday lives of the characters.  The “normal” days of these characters get caught up in the happenings of mass culture where the main character gets thrown into situations that look more like fantasies as opposed to realistic depictions of the events.
    Love and Death is a film that clearly derives inspiration from Bergman films including The Seventh Seal and Persona.  Boris has an early encounter with Death as an actual character early on in the film as a boy and at the end of the film we see Boris again dancing with Death; both of these are clear references to The Seventh Seal.  Allen also uses many other aspects of Bergman films mentioned above.  There is a large family meal, with eating, singing and dancing.  Boris then finds himself caught in many realistic events (fighting in the war) with fantastic outcomes (being the most inept, cowardly soldier, yet being the only survivor.)

    The book Woody Allen on Woody Allen chronicles the life and filmmaking career of the filmmaker.  He discusses aspects of his life ranging from his childhood, to his anxieties, but he most notably discusses his films and his inspirations.  In the seventh chapter of this book he discusses his film Love and Death with author Stig Bjorkman.  This chapter begins by examining the process for producing the film.  Woody discusses the reasons for shooting the film in various European settings.  He exclaims that the film obviously had to be shot in Europe due to the nature of the script and that many scenes were shot in Hungary because it was much cheaper than being on location in France.  Allen goes on to describe his surprisingly democratic cast selection process.  He claims that he had no preconceived people in mind for any role and that he worked on a veto system with his casting director.
    Allen continues to discuss the more intellectual aspects of the film including composer selection, his various inspirations and his general attitudes on country life versus urban life.  Stravinsky was Allen’s first choice for the film’s score, but he found the music to be too “heavy” which made the film “seem unfunny.”  They decided to switch to Prokofiev which “lightened the whole mood, it was brilliant and gay.”(71)  In regards to his humor style, Allen wants his characters to always be speaking in jokes like Groucho Marx and Bob Hope.  There are purposeful parodies to major films by Bergman and Eisenstein along with a general plot that he claims takes place in the world of Russian literature.  A parody in Allen’s mind, is a work “done out of affection”(72) for an artist.
    This chapter on Love and Death helps the viewer enter the mind of the director.  It enables them to understand the basic processes of producing a film along with the numerous and purposeful places in which Woody Allen finds his inspiration.

This book studies the cinematic techniques that Woody Allen employs in his films, and the third chapter, entitled “Getting Serious: The Antimimetic Emblems in Annie Hall,” analyzes the reflexivity in the scenes of Annie Hall.

Bailey argues that Annie Hall is full of antimimetic emblems – “scenes in which realistic cinema rendering is sacrificed to the expression of a different sort of truth” (37). The writer also argues that Allen uses these scenes as a transition from his comedic style to a more dramatic tone in his films. Ironically, Allen blurs the line between reality and imagination through these techniques to reveal the reality of the scenes. Essentially, instead of undercutting the world of the film, these style choices actually draw the audience into further believing the person onscreen, because Alvy/Allen expresses understandable and common sentiments openly, as when Alvy draws out Marshall McLuhan and acknowledges the unrealistic nature of the act along with the universal desire for such a thing to be possible. Bailey credits these emblems and their effects with giving Allen’s films more weight and lasting quality. These elements take Allen’s work beyond that of other filmmakers of comedies, like Mel Brooks, by getting the audience to feel for the comedic character rather than distance themselves so they can comfortably point and laugh. The essay goes on to visually analyze several scenes in Annie Hall where the subjectivity of the Allen’s character comments on or reveals some other truth about the situation, as in the scenes with Annie’s family and brother.

This source is useful for the discussion of Woody Allen and Annie Hall, because just as Woody Allen’s life does, the film plays with and revels in the mixing of reality and fantasy, of the actual events and the imagined. The delicate interplay between audience and fimmaker/actor relies on this personal, stream-of-consciousness technique in filmmaking - also used in autobiographical documentary.  This source allows one to bring Allen’s work to comment on an additional layer of his personal life or, more accurately, on the difficulty of distinguishing between fact and fiction in Allen’s life and Annie Hall.

This book contains several essays about Woody Allen and his work. The second chapter – entitled “Will the Real Little Man Please Stand Up?” – discusses the question of the real Woody Allen versus the onscreen Woody Allen. Pogel argues that more and more critics are treating Woody Allen separately from his creation. Allen even argues that point, and in interviews, he does not appear as the man from the movies. Thus, Pogel pursues that any understanding of Woody Allen based on his films would be incomplete and unconvincing.

Pogel runs through Allen’s private, rigid daily routine, juxtaposing it to the scatter-brained characters that he writes and portrays in his films. The author paints him in the most normal actions and emphasizes the simplicity rather than the exaggerated character associated with Woody Allen. Pogel comments on Woody Allen as a writer, a comedian, a filmmaker, and a businessman drifting away from the everyday man that she initially depicts.

Still, as the chapter continues, Pogel begins to draw similarities between Allen and his “little-man” characters. The discussion at the end of the first section of this chapter comments on Allen’s feelings about politics, being Jewish, and romance, using small references to their infusion into his films. However, Pogel continues to resist the temptation to equate Woody Allen with his onscreen persona. Quotes of Allen’s comments on those subjects are taken from interviews rather than films, although his films do bring up the same opinions to some degree.

The second part of the chapter draws a line between Allen and his characters citing the ambiguities that surround Woody Allen’s personal life, particularly his childhood. The author ponders why Allen would withhold private details, suggesting that Allen may want the audience to consider the broader implications of the film rather than focus on the film as a personal introspection. The chapter goes on to detail Allen’s childhood and written and stand-up comedy career, never mentioning the similarities to his film persona.

This source opposes the idea that the filmmaker Woody Allen is the Woody Allen character in his films, and despite its sound arguments, the essay can also be seen as the extent to which one must avoid the connections between Allen and his onscreen persona to uphold this perspective in this debate.

This collection of essays on Woody Allen contains one particularly relevant essay, entitled “Woody Allen: The Relationship between the Persona and its Author” (Marie-Phoenix Rivet). This essay considers the creation of the persona that Woody Allen wrote for many of his films and portrayed in many of his films. The writer quotes Allen, who describes the emergence of this persona as unintentional and molded by Woody Allen’s physical appearance. Allen’s comedy and his comic persona place him in the ranks with the comic stars of the silent film era, including Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, and Allen even admits to his persona’s modeling after these past, great, successful characters/filmmakers. The influences of their films are also evident in Allen’s own film gags. The connection between Woody Allen and Charlie Chaplin even reaches to their filmmaking styles, artistic temperaments, the level of control that they possessed over their films, their negative world view, and the split between two fictional characters – one onscreen, one off-screen.

The essay shifts from describing Allen’s film influences to his cultural influences on his persona. His Jewish origins and his contemporary American life identify his character, and although Allen says that his Jewish origins are simply part of his subconscious, the writer argues that Allen manipulates this element of the persona purposely, which is often portrayed negatively in his films.

The third issue that the writer brings up in this essay about the Woody Allen persona is the reflection of Allen’s personal life on his films. Although Allen denies this self-referential aspect of his films, the many resemblances and the creation and portrayal by Woody Allen are difficult for the writer to deny, and the writer emphasizes that a major part of the persona is precisely egotism. Elements of the narrative style, such as the direct address to the camera in Annie Hall, creates the illusion that the writer, director, and actor is the character that he plays. He hires friends; he invokes psychoanalysis, of which he has been under for thirty-five years; and he shares the persona’s ambivalence to fame.

The writer describes the major facets of the persona and then analyzes the audience’s relationship to the persona, describing it as a mixture of identification and rejection. Ultimately, the writer concludes that the persona is so influential and ingrained that audiences continue to seek Woody Allen in them and do so successfully, whether or not the real Woody Allen was actually or meant to be put into the work at all.

This book analyzes Woody Allen’s films based on philosophical theories and trends, and the second chapter is entitled “A Therapeutic Autobiography: Annie Hall (1977).” This chapter is a particularly useful analysis of the scenes in the film that have specific, directed commentaries about Woody Allen’s views on life, love, values, and responsibility.

The beginning of this chapter brings up the important point that Woody Allen rejects the idea that Annie Hall is autobiographical. Allen claims that all his films have a few true facts in them, but presumably that is the limit. Although Lee acknowledges this point, the chapter continues to remark on the continuity within Woody Allen’s film repertoire and refers to Allen’s private life within the commentary on the film and the philosophical ideas. The elements of philosophy are attributed to Woody Allen himself, presumably because he co-wrote the film, but throughout the chapter, the sense that these are part of Woody Allen’s philosophy is always present. Lee even comments on the name “Alvy” sounding much like the beginning of “Allen” with the ending of “Woody” and how Diane Keaton’s real last name is Hall. Lee refers to other Woody Allen films to support the philosophical ideas and explain some offhand comments in these movies. For example, Lee explains Rob’s calling Alvy “Max” by referring to the film Hannah and her Sisters and Woody Allen’s admiration of Ingmar Bergman, who worked frequently with actor Max von Sydow.

The explanation of the chapter's title is made clear in the onset of the chapter as Lee describes the film as a series of psychotherapy sessions, in which Alvy tries to explain all his actions and free him of confusion or guilt.  This idea is linked to the basis of some autobiographical documentaries, according to Jim Lane's book.  This theory is that filmmakers make personal films to attempt to impose order, understanding, and rationality on their lives.

This discussion of Annie Hall describes the film thoroughly, and the continuity that the writer draws between the life of Woody Allen, a philosophy on life that emerges in other Woody Allen films, and the events in Annie Hall supports the argument that the image of film Woody Allen is almost inextricable from the real Woody Allen.

This article presents a biased point of view of Woody Allen’s real life, depicting him as a contradiction, mystery, and possibly even a hypocrite. After succinctly delineating the persona that Woody Allen carries as an intellectual, shy, funny, and neurotic New Yorker, the article gives a detailed account of Woody Allen’s personal everyday life, removed from all of the personality that has stuck to the distinctive image of Woody Allen.

The title of the article, “The Conflicting Life and Art of Woody Allen,” establishes the point of the article: The writer attempts to list and question the many contradictions within Woody Allen’s life. Most of the contradictions come from what Woody Allen says versus what he actually does, such as a purported “disinterest for material wealth” versus the Rolls Royce that Woody Allen uses to go around New York City. The writer bases many impressions of Woody Allen on the film roles, and in some instances, the writer undoes this cinematic persona of Woody Allen with descriptions of his real life. In other instances, the image of Woody Allen says one thing, such as that he chases many women, while Allen makes comments that contradict this idea. However, in the case of women-chasing, Allen’s friend Tony Roberts laughs at Allen’s contradiction of the promiscuous Woody Allen persona. The line between reality and film becomes complicated as the line becomes an intersection between reality, film, AND self-image.

The article oscillates between Allen’s perception, the writer’s perception, and the perception of close friends. The article does not answer the questions about the contradictions in Allen’s life, but rather raises these questions through this new and thorough information and the confusion through the varying opinions and images of Woody Allen. The final statement of the article is made by Tony Roberts, personally describing the enigma of Woody Allen and his ambivalence toward fame and the way that Allen chooses to live. The article simply concludes with the idea that outsiders will never truly know Woody Allen, because he is ultimately the one in control of what people know. This statement harkens back to the ideas that Woody Allen has molded the image and that his life may not actually reflect the onscreen Woody Allen, and that is exactly how he meant it to be. Perhaps, Woody Allen should simply be viewed as a shrewd self-advertisement and manipulator.

This perspective on the issue of fact versus fiction in Woody Allen's life adds to the considerations of the autobiographical quality of Annie Hall, while allowing one to view Annie Hall, as a vehicle for an image through exaggeration and the direct contact with the audience.

This project is a collection of sources that discuss the idea of Woody Allen as one of Hollywood's most auteurist of filmmakers, because his films, particularly Annie Hall (1977), are autobiographical, based on his personal philosophy on life, and have a recognizable style. The recognizable Woody Allen style and persona is exemplified in the Academy Award-winning Annie Hall (1977), in which Woody Allen writes, directs, and stars. The sources cover information about autobiographical documentary, whose techniques are used in Allen's films; timely written articles about Woody Allen before and after he became a filmmaker; essays that discuss Allen's career and other similarities between his personal life and films; and writing that discusses both sides of the argument for and against the autobiographical quality of Annie Hall. With all of these sources and the quotes from Woody Allen himself, one must admit the amount of self-reflection Allen uses, but the extent to which film events are impressed upon Allen's private life may be exaggerated. The final sources gauge the reception and reaction to Woody Allen's work - how his persona and style have seeped into the consciousness of his audiences and created an image and brand name (which was created and has endured whether or not one can conclusively say that it is factual) out of the real Woody Allen.