Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Woody Allen is not for everybody. But, for those of us who see a lot of ourselves in him and in his movie scenarios, there are none better....or funnier.
Not to hijack the thread. A long time ago I would have agreed. Now I see nothing of Woody Allen in me or most anyone. In vintage Woody Allen movies he always plays himself. So every movie is about Woody Allen. When I liked Woody Allen movies it was because l could see an "every person" quality in his roles. Now that I've learned what an uber-manipulative, pedofiliac monster he seems to be to me, there is no "every person" quality, because most people are not uber-manipulative or pedofiliac. So, there's no point in my watching. Even the humor seems horrible with clearer eyes.
Not to hijack the thread. A long time ago I would have agreed. Now I see nothing of Woody Allen in me or most anyone. In vintage Woody Allen movies he always plays himself. So every movie is about Woody Allen. When I liked Woody Allen movies it was because l could see an "every person" quality in his roles. Now that I've learned what an uber-manipulative, pedofiliac monster he seems to be to me, there is no "every person" quality, because most people are not uber-manipulative or pedofiliac. So, there's no point in my watching. Even the humor seems horrible with clearer eyes.
In my mind it went without saying that I was referring to his vintage movies and vintage roles from Annie Hall, the movie of topic, and earlier.
I'm not privy to the facts related to the controversies involving Allen years later and don't care to be. If you want to see him as a monster, that's your choice. I'll continue to enjoy a style of humor (think the first half of Sleeper) unmatched by any in the business.
In my mind it went without saying that I was referring to his vintage movies and vintage roles from Annie Hall, the movie of topic, and earlier.
I'm not privy to the facts related to the controversies involving Allen years later and don't care to be. If you want to see him as a monster, that's your choice. I'll continue to enjoy a style of humor (think the first half of Sleeper) unmatched by any in the business.
You're free to do what you want. But, two observations. First, the idea that Woody Allen had a "vintage" period where he wasn't acting like a manipulative pedofiliac is just not supported. So, there is no "vintage" period one can regard as unaffected by his nature and thus somehow "innocent." And this is obvious, if you know anything about pedofilia and the process of grooming someone to be abused (as evidence suggests happened with Sin-Yi, his wife). For if you know about those things you know that its not something that just springs up out of the blue. And in this case, it seems to not have sprung up out of the blue, either. The Woody Allen behavior we see in the "vintage" films--for example, the constant (geeky, but still) nagging at women to give him what he wants, the self-deprecation (i.e., shame) as he basically begs these people to give him the love he doubts he deserves--match the actions of a manipulative pedofile. Pedofiles do not overwhelm their target with greater physical strength--though their larger size can be experienced as intimidating. But, usually, they just wear down their target, by taking small steps, such that at any time they can backpedal and lead the target to doubt what is happening. You can close your eyes to those interpretations of what we see in the "vintage" films, but if you closed your actual eyes to those things while watching his films there'd be precious little screen time left to see.
Second, I just don't think "He did this work before we realized he was a monster, so its all good to keep looking at the old stuff" really flies, at least not as a statement of respect for those he abused and punishment to him for the abuse. It's like saying "Yeah, the Nazi dictator killed a lot of people, but I just like the paintings." Or, "OJ Simpson murdered two people, yeah, but, man, what a running back!" I guess I just don't see how one can enjoy something when one knows the pain the author of that something inflicted on someone else. And, I just don't see how one can know that there are stories out there about that pain, but refuse to check it out to see if its bad enough to stop watching. But, you are free to put your head in the sand and continue watching, it's still a free country (as of Nov 13, 2018).
In vintage Woody Allen movies he always plays himself. So every movie is about Woody Allen.
Yup. ANNIE HALL is certainly funny in places. But the entire movie is about a self-loathing narcissist whining about his penis. It loses its charm fast. And all of his movies are a slight variation on that. People who hail Allen as a great artist are seeing something I'm not seeing.
I just don't see how one can enjoy something when one knows the pain the author of that something inflicted on someone else. And, I just don't see how one can know that there are stories out there about that pain, but refuse to check it out to see if its bad enough to stop watching.
But where do we draw the line?
Hitchcock was a dirty old man. He was also a cinematic genius.
Polanski is a child rapist and a coward of the lowest order. He's also a great director.
Beethoven could apparently be a first class dastard at times. But he was also a once-in-a-generation genius.
Dylan Thomas was a drunk, a bad father, and a great writer.
Thomas Jefferson wrote some of the great secular documents on human liberty ever. He also owned slaves.
I know that there are a lot of great actors and movie stars who are genuinely talented beyond belief, but who are absolute horrors as human beings. Kevin Spacey comes to mind.
So where do we draw the line? Must artists pass some sort of moral purity test before we enjoy their art?
Hitchcock was a dirty old man. He was also a cinematic genius.
Polanski is a child rapist and a coward of the lowest order. He's also a great director.
Beethoven could apparently be a first class dastard at times. But he was also a once-in-a-generation genius.
Dylan Thomas was a drunk, a bad father, and a great writer.
Thomas Jefferson wrote some of the great secular documents on human liberty ever. He also owned slaves.
I know that there are a lot of great actors and movie stars who are genuinely talented beyond belief, but who are absolute horrors as human beings. Kevin Spacey comes to mind.
So where do we draw the line? Must artists pass some sort of moral purity test before we enjoy their art?
I think I draw the line at pedofilia, other child abuse, rape, and murder. Maybe that's just me. So, applying that (I thought pretty clear) standard:
Polanski is a child rapist and a coward of the lowest order. OSTRACIZED!
All the others--I didn't say you had to be a paragon of virtue. I don't know about Hitchcock, Beethoven, and Dylan Thomas, but nothing you wrote above for them suggests pedofilia or rape. So, until I know more, I can't say more. But, you might ask, how do I justify drawing the line at pedofilia, other child abuse, rape, and murder? Easily. Here's how:
1)Children are dependent upon all of us to make it clear that any who harm them will be ostracized from polite society, and that there is no hiding and no statute of limitations for harming them. Rape is a crime of violence, and its victims can easily never be the same. And, when you murder someone you take away all they have and all they ever were going to have, and you cannot restore what you have taken--not to the murdered person nor to their loved ones. These are extreme crimes, worthy of extensive response.
2)If we uphold that position, no "great artist" or "great leader" will dare harm children, dare commit rape, or dare to murder someone, IF that person has any care whatsoever of how others think of them, OR if that person has any care whatsoever of what others will think of their work.
3)I believe artists, politicians, and other (allegedly) great people care a lot about how others see them now (at least that they are seen in enough regard that people will pay for their products) as well as their legacy. So this position, while not effective in every case, will be effective in almost all of them. But, saying "The person is bad, a real bastard, but, hey, I like their art" basically completely destroys the deterrent value of the line, and thus puts others at risk.
4)Why do I not put slavery in the same category? Well, actually, I do, but as follows:
4a)Jefferson (and all the founders) were complicit in a system of horrible exploitation. So, we note that, and there is no excusing it. We also note that they wrote the words that have been used to extend the rights to vote to more and more people. So, I'm not gonna hang any paintings by Jefferson in my house and say, "Yes, he was an enslaver. But, wow, look at the fine details in this work of art!" So when it comes to discretionary tastes, I have a bad taste in my mouth at the idea of accepting their works as "art." So, in the case of Jefferson and political leaders we are not talking about discretionary tastes of consumption, we are talking about whether they left a political legacy that has been and can be used by others to extend freedom and justice or not. As humans, they had flaws, as do we all (though some have more serious flaws than others). But the balance of what they did in the political sphere has been useful to the project of justice and freedom. I know for a fact you cannot say that about Woody Allen and Roman Polanski (or OJ Simpson or the Nazi dictator). They have major flaws, and no redeeming value to the larger aims of justice I mentioned above, or, in fact, anything except their own desires.
So, in fact, a line is easy to draw. One must just have the integrity to draw it and enforce it. It is sad that these days, such a clear line is a matter of "debate" instead of simply self-evident.
I'll continue to enjoy a style of humor (think the first half of Sleeper) unmatched by any in the business.
Maybe it's a generational thing? I find SLEEPER painfully unfunny. In fact, if I had to make a list of Please Don't Make Me Watch That Movie Ever Again, it's quite likely SLEEPER would be in the Top 5. Maybe even Top 3.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
