Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pmcd9]

When this news was fresh I sided against Allen. The more I hear about this case, which is suddenly a big story again after more than 20 years, I believe that Woody Allen is not guilty of the accusations being leveled against him. I'm convinced he's the victim of a crazy vindictive ex.

[wombat]

You know that other thread about the things people are posting on Facebook that you hate? This is one of them. I refuse to get drawn into this discussion.

[ianmalcolm2]

What bugs me about the whole kerfuffle is that accusations about Woody Allen's personal problems seem to have spilled over into public regard for his films. Although his recent output has been, uhh... 'not funny,' I have no problem saying that Allen might be a really shitty creep who nonetheless has made some of our times' greatest movies. Jerkasses on facebook and vindictive 'thinkpiece' writers, though, seem to have trouble separating Allen from his art. Polanski was a creep, but I've never heard anyone alleging that Chinatown is retroactively ruined because of his assholery. I guess you could argue, though, that Allen's own personality plays a greater role in his works and appeal than Polanski's did. Or something.

As to what Woody himself may or may not have done, I dunno. I hope he didn't.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Yeah, I don't pretend to know what Allen may or may not have done. I'm not willing to dismiss the charges out of hand, nor am I willing to proclaim him guilty. That's what courts and trials an' shit are for. Give everyone due process and trust the system to sort it out. Ain't my job to read all that.

[jaydub]

I am unable to distinguish between my lack of interest in his films, and my lack of interest in any non-action, non-fantasy, or non-historical film.  I'm like Ray watching gay porn, just sitting here, not being entertained.

[ianmalcolm2]

^ man, that's a helluva lot of non-crummy films you're missing out on, gay porn not included.

[pmcd9]

You know that other thread about the things people are posting on Facebook that you hate? This is one of them. I refuse to get drawn into this discussion.

That's fair enough, but I'm not trying to defend my position, but hoping to get some clarity from people who are way smarter than me and exponentially smarter than my Facebook friends. Most of what I've seen there paints him as a terrible person, but I've read other accounts that have said he didn't do any of the shit his crazy wife accused him of. The court agreed and never charged him with a crime. And there's plenty of evidence that she is a liar and crazy.

I can understand that you are not interested in this, being that you don't like movies and this is celebrity gossip about a movie star. But I like Woody Allen's work, but you almost become a baby raper by proxy in some folks eyes if you admit you like him. It's even worse than being a Tom Cruise fan.

[wombat]

I haven't read this, but I trust my friend at the AP that it's "as fact-based as fact-based gets."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/look-back-allegations-against-woody-allen

[ianmalcolm2]

^ it's nice to read something that, at the very least, is written with the pretence of disinterestedness.

[theinevitable]

unfortunately there is not really any way to know. The awful thing is that children's memories are malleable enough that even if the step-daughter were lying, she could have come to believe her own lies by now (or the lies of her mother, or the content of a nightmare, or whatever).

There is also the equal possibility that this is true, and Allen is a monster walking among us. We -do- know that he married his former stepdaughter, right? So at the very least he is a monster in legal ways.

It's easy for me, because I have never liked his movies very much. Now maybe people will stop trying to make me appreciate them.

The thing about Allen is that even in his movies he is a creep. A guy who pretends to be sensitive and nice but is using his "sensitivity" to manipulate people into giving him what he wants. The portrait he paints of himself is absolutely that of an emotional abuser, although obviously movies are an exaggeration of reality.

Reading that article informs me that Midnight in Paris was his. This means I enjoyed one of his movies, which I didn't think I had ever done, despite several viewings of Annie Hall and Manhattan.

[jaydub]

^ man, that's a helluva lot of non-crummy films you're missing out on, gay porn not included.

This is undoubtedly true, and despite myself sometimes I enjoy something my wife makes me go see with her.  I guess like Titanic?  She picked that one, then a few weeks later I got to pick and we went to go see Saving Private Ryan.  Emotionally exhausted, I don't think we saw another movie that year.

[KeithHernandez]

I really like Bananas and Take the Money and Run, but I thought he was a creep going in because of the step-daughter thing, so this only slightly changes things.

[pmcd9]

So what you're saying is that I should go on enjoying his work and stop worrying about what some self righteous fucks think about him.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Here is what I was saying earlier, put much more eloquently.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/woody_allen_v_dylan_farrow_the_court_of_public_opinion_is_now_in_session.html

[jaydub]

Who names a girl Dylan?  I know its been done for the last 20 years or so, but what prompts someone to repurpose a name for another gender?  It doesn't happen with every boys' name; I haven't come across any female Scotts or Victors.  There is a rather long precedent of men with feminine names (Stacy Keach, Marion Morrison, Leslie Nielsen) but those seem to have mostly been "family names" with some explanatory back story.  Social ideas about masculine and feminine things seem to be fluid over enough time span (I hear pink used to be manly, and not in a "I'm so badass I can wear pink).