My film lecturer said Woody Allen had inspired him with this 1985 film to believe in the magic and complex tapestry of the art of fantasy film-making by interweaving it with false realities, and I must say, I agree. This film blurs those two elements to charming delight by playing not only on imaginative fictional dream material but also acting as a commentary satire on how how audiences (not just in America) react to film and the relationships and escapades they share as a result of its influence and their chimera or more derogatorily, the ignis fatuus effect on their very subsistence. Never done in film till that point, the plot is as original as it was and still is today, a sheer whimsical reverie to say the least, and is thus very entertaining, much the way you'd assume Allen Konigsborg wanted his films to function- as an imaginative escape from the hum drum banality of this world. That fiction drives the film and the very plot of having a leading actor (a dashing Jeff Daniels pre-Dumb & Dumber- we can understand how Michael Keaton got the boot from Woody, seriously) walk off the screen literally and romanticize an ordinary down-trodden, abused waitress in depression era New Jersey (played elegantly by Mia Farrow pre documentary expose- we can't understand how Soon Yi got the loot from Woody, seriously) is simply spell-binding as a plot line. Moreover, one starts to realize that the technical splendor that emanated out of editing this film to ensure the figments came out all jazz and tangible also stand as an attestation to its quality even upon current viewing. The pacing is rhythmic, almost keeping time with the lilting and jazzy soundtrack of 'Charleston-esque' swing, which for me, really kept the filming dancing 'Cheek to Cheek', with a highlight peaking at the scene where Farrow enters the phantom world of 'the movie within a movie' in a montage of apparition proportions.<br /><br />The biggest flaw with this film probably is that many try to characterize it or compare it against "Woody Allen's" scale chart: constantly ranking it amongst other Allen films;weighing it against 'Annie Hall' or 'Crimes and Misdemeanours'. The reality is that it was a film that served its own purpose, like each film by Allen would and does. In this case, I personally feel it was to function as a subliminal parody cum satire of film audiences and a unique look into the relationships between them and films- the latter taking on a symbolic 'life' of its own with characters that felt and 'lived' according to their fictional world, and explores the incubus of what would happen if existing coevally with Farrow's world (representing us, the real audiences)becomes possible. It feeds and thrives on a fantasy moment that many audiences actually have dreamed of at some stage of their lives watching films, providing them with that escape from reality. In the film, Farrow's character does just that, and it is a story about how as a movie about a movie (as Time Magazine called it in 1985), it told us how empty fantasies were, how fleeting they were and how perhaps, cocooned we are to escape our realities only through film as our source of hope. Moreover, in my view, several scenes in the film actually point to the satire existing deliberately and purportedly for the purpose of suggesting that industry of film and its captive audiences were being parodied. Perhaps Allen was taking a jibe at cynical, double standard wielding critics or audiences who needed to wizen up? We will never know I suppose. Nonetheless, there are some clear references, with the main pastiche being that all the RKO producers, agents and executives actually went along with the preposterous story of their actor jumping off screen and thus they had to get him back! There are tons of other references including Daniels' Baxter character comparing the Producers and Writers of his film to the divine; an heiress complaining about her role; a member of the audience marching out claiming 'the film's not the way it was last week and I want it that way' (delusion); etc.<br /><br />Essentially, Allen is taking a burlesque view of the whole thing in my opinion. If a viewer of the film can't see the aforementioned points, its then that the film might end up being looked upon as a one off fluffy piece. Having said that, it is still generally more sweet content than deep and complicated satire- in fact it's just like the popcorn that Daniels' character Tom Baxter first tastes- brittle, the stuff is sweet, and like Baxter says, 'gets annoying when you keep chewing on it'. Similarly, Allen's Purple Rose is good for a one off viewing but one would be hard pressed to chew again unless you really were fond of the the original fantasy, or in this case, the satire of audiences and film.<br /><br />By Stephen Thanabalan