I didn't find out until afterwards that Woody Allen made it all up - that Emmet Ray didn't even exist. Nor did my sister. She thought the lack of accuracy took some of the shine off the film; I thought it made it an even greater creation.
It would spoil the joke (well, it's not really a joke, nor a hoax; I don't know what word to use) for Woody Allen to let on that it's all made up, WITHIN the film, even during the opening or closing credits (although if you read the latter carefully you'll notice that "Emmet Ray" is not credited with performing any of the music, even though Django Reinhardt is). But the film is neither deceptive nor intended to deceive. If you know in advance that it's pure fiction then so much the better. Unlike "Fargo" (which was good enough not to need to lie to us but did anyway), it never tells us it ISN'T fiction; unlike "The Blair Witch Project", it has as strong an effect even if we're aware that it's fiction - and treat it as such.
It is, in fact, one of Woody Allen's few flawless gems. (Those of his pictures that aren't flawless gems are, of course, never less than likeable.) This would be a perfectly constructed documentary if it WERE a documentary. It's a perfectly constructed work of fiction given that it IS fiction. Such a balancing act is harder than it looks. But who cares? What matters is the unerringly apt art direction (nobody does 20th Century period pieces better than Allen), photography, acting and dialogue. The story is slight but still carries a charge; even if it didn't, there's more than enough of a profusion of interesting narrative AROUND the story (never getting in the way) to carry the movie.
It would spoil the joke (well, it's not really a joke, nor a hoax; I don't know what word to use) for Woody Allen to let on that it's all made up, WITHIN the film, even during the opening or closing credits (although if you read the latter carefully you'll notice that "Emmet Ray" is not credited with performing any of the music, even though Django Reinhardt is). But the film is neither deceptive nor intended to deceive. If you know in advance that it's pure fiction then so much the better. Unlike "Fargo" (which was good enough not to need to lie to us but did anyway), it never tells us it ISN'T fiction; unlike "The Blair Witch Project", it has as strong an effect even if we're aware that it's fiction - and treat it as such.
It is, in fact, one of Woody Allen's few flawless gems. (Those of his pictures that aren't flawless gems are, of course, never less than likeable.) This would be a perfectly constructed documentary if it WERE a documentary. It's a perfectly constructed work of fiction given that it IS fiction. Such a balancing act is harder than it looks. But who cares? What matters is the unerringly apt art direction (nobody does 20th Century period pieces better than Allen), photography, acting and dialogue. The story is slight but still carries a charge; even if it didn't, there's more than enough of a profusion of interesting narrative AROUND the story (never getting in the way) to carry the movie.