In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen explores the question of whether a moral structure exists within this world. Allen does so by developing the stories of two men’s lives simultaneously, that of Judah, a successful ophthalmologist and Clifford, a struggling documentarian. Allen places these two characters in similar situations, but each responds to their circumstances in ways that are vastly different, creating a clear distinction between the severity of a crime and of a misdemeanor. Allen uses symbolism, a series of interwoven stories, parallel plots, and irony to convey the concept of a world devoid of any moral structure, one where the responsibility of creating that very structure is left to the individual.
The eye is used as a symbol in many parts of the film. Despite being a skeptic, Judah’s father instilled certain religious beliefs in him that were never quite abandoned. As his father said, “the eyes of God are on us always”. This does not stop Judah from murdering his mistress, Dolores, simply to cover up an affair. Judah’s entire life is centered around a public image that shows him to be a respectable man. Any hint of his infidelity would be disastrous for the reputation that he is so dependent upon. Desperation forces him to kill the woman who once asks him whether he thinks the eyes are windows to the soul, even saying that she believes her soul will live on after death. It would only require one to look into her eyes to find it. Judah does exactly that, lingering around the scene of the crime to eliminate evidence rather than to seek
closure. What he sees is not a soul, but an emptiness that torments him. He can’t eliminate the guilt that is attached to his sins as easily as he eliminates Dolores. The eyes of his mistress are blind to his crime, but he still believes that the eyes of God can see all. This belief drives him mad, even making him contemplate whether a confession is necessary. He even comments to his brother, Jack, that he “lied but [he] knows they saw through it”. He sees the eyes of God in the detective who questions him. To Judah, God’s eyes are “unimaginably penetrating, intense eyes”, but somehow the eyes of justice do not penetrate enough to uncover his crime. The infidelity and the murder are both tucked under the rug. It is evidence of the fact that people will go to great lengths to do what is necessary when the instinct for self-preservation turns on. As Jack says to Judah, “You paid for it. I engineered it”. It is as simple and straightforward as that. The cost that Judah pays is relatively small, perhaps because “God is a luxury [he] can’t afford”.
Allen is able to create a sort of hierarchy out of the stories that he features in the film, intricately weaving clips from movies and documentaries into the lives of Judah and Clifford. This method of placing multiple films within another film are Allen’s attempts to show that life often imitates art. Each clip is used intentionally, strategically placed to mirror the plot at any given moment. Clifford even goes as far as comparing his rival, Lester, to a fascist dictator, Mussolini. The documentary that Clifford is creating about Professor Levy is another instance where one story exists within another. Professor Levy’s words are easily applicable to the situations of many of the characters. Levy explains that human beings are not capable of creating an image of a God that is loving and forgiving. Instead, as Judah does often, they imagine a punitive God. This simple fact reveals more about human nature than it does about anything else. Humans will create their own ideas about morality and ethics. People have developed religions
based entirely on their own views about life and how others should live it. This clearly demonstrates Allen’s idea that people will develop their own standards for living in the absence of a moral structure. Nothing exists to prove to humans that sinning warrants punishment after death. No supreme being makes it obvious that this is so. The idea of it is simply the product of the human mind, created in an effort to classify what is “good” and what is “bad”, to separate humans into categories that can be deemed inferior if it is decided that their “crime” damns them to hell for all eternity. Humans have decided all of this, supposedly in the name of God.
The most apparent device in the film is the use of a parallel structure that is styled around contrast and that advances the plot. Judah and Clifford are living lives connected only by the people they know. Theirs is not a personal connection. However, each is thrust into a similar situation. Both Judah and Clifford cheat on their wives. Judah’s is an affair lasting more than two years. Clifford only gets two kisses. Judah does not want to confess to his wife because he wants to keep his marriage alive. Clifford is at a stage where the desire to end the marriage with his wife is mutual. There are no false pretenses about them living until death parts them. Judah chooses the easy solution. He kills his mistress and continues to appear faithful to his wife. Clifford’s attempt at an affair is over before it begins. The fact remains that both men cheat on their wives. The decisions that each makes following their infidelity separate the crime from the misdemeanor. Judah commits the crime, one that goes unpunished. He loses nothing but a few hours of sleep because nobody connects him to the murder. On the other hand, Clifford’s desire to be with Hallie is only a misdemeanor. His only hesitation is visible in a quick comment to his niece when he comments that he has “this ethical dilemma because [he’s] married”. Clifford would never dream of committing a crime, but he is the one who loses everything. His marriage
falls apart. The woman that he loves gets into a relationship with the man that he loathes. As if Clifford were not unsuccessful enough at the start, the subject of his documentary commits suicide.
A smaller contrast is in the characters of Lester and Clifford. Clifford is, once again, the unsuccessful one in the pair, the one who struggles so desperately to make dreams become realities. In doing so, he is not willing to compromise or to create a product that will please someone else at the expense of his own desires. On the contrary, Lester is the type of guy who will do anything to get ahead, even if that means constantly putting on a show for other people. Hallie calls it “endearing”. Clifford finds it annoying. The success of Lester and the failure of Clifford is another parallel that shows how little Clifford is rewarded for his efforts to make his dreams of a better world materialize. In this case, the contrast does not address the difference between a crime and a misdemeanor because with Clifford, no real crime is committed, unless one can consider obnoxiousness a crime.
Irony is as much a part of the film as any other device. There is irony in the fact that the man who seems to have it all figured out, Professor Levy, is the one who commits suicide, leaving a note that only says that he’s “gone out the window”. Levy has an extensive philosophy on almost every aspect of life. He analyzes emotions and how they influence human nature. It is his belief that humans need love to persuade them to continue living. It does not seem as if any single event precipitates his suicide. Maybe an epiphany is the catalyst. If the man who studies life for a living has found reason to kill himself, it is obvious that he finally discovers something that disturbs him so profoundly that the only option is to plunge to his own death. There is even more irony in the situation of the rabbi who goes blind. Rabbi Ben is someone who lives morally
and respectably. He does not deserve his fate. The ironic element of his plight is that his position is one that requires him to be able to see into the depths of a person’s soul. His eyes are, symbolically at least, the very eyes of God that Judah is so afraid of. He goes blind and Judah goes unpunished. Apparently, the eyes of God do not see everything. The most visible instance of irony is in the outcome of the entire film. The crime and the misdemeanor are punished on two vastly different levels, the crime not at all and the misdemeanor so severely that the man who committed it has to rearrange every part of his existence to continue on. Irony is Allen’s subtle form of communication with the audience, the hints that reveal his disdain for those like Judah who are able to get away with their crimes.
Rabbi Ben tells Judah that there is “a fundamental difference in the way [they] view the world”. Judah sees it as “harsh and empty of values”, lacking the moral structure which Allen does not believe to exist. Ben claims that he “couldn’t go on living if [he] didn’t feel it with all [his] heart a moral structure with real meaning, and forgiveness, and a higher power. Otherwise, there’s no basis to live”. This is the heart of the film’s theme. The existence of a moral structure depends solely upon the individual. There may be no uniform moral structure that applies to every human being and that defines certain behaviors as right and wrong. It is left up to the individual to decide how to live in absence of such a structure. He can either create his own or live by acting upon whims that only provide temporary solutions. Judah thinks that humans can simply “rationalize to go on living”, that the guilt fades even though the sins are still carried around. Whether a person decides to use that sort of philosophy to justify their wrongs is entirely up to them. The only structure is the one that exists within one’s one mind, the one that dictates how we live our lives, because “we define ourselves by the choices we have made”. As Professor
Levy states, “We are the sum total of our choices”. In the end, Judah’s choice is to continue his life without confessing. It is Clifford’s opinion that the choice of someone like Judah should be to turn himself in because that would add the element of tragedy to the story. If that were a reality, the progression of time would do nothing but make the prison sentence go by, but perhaps it would also add a comedic element to the story. After all, according to Lester, “comedy is tragedy plus time”.
