|
I read Woody Allen's memoir so you don't have to by Mark Harris goes to show Woody Allen is a piece of poo poo not worth defending, in my book.quote:Okay, you’ve been patient, and I’ve been avoidant. I have dreaded writing about the collapse of Allen’s decade-plus relationship to Mia Farrow (although he takes pains to present himself as merely the guy who lived across Central Park from her and her distracting brood) after she found the nude Polaroids of Soon-Yi that he had left on his mantel like, he says, a “klutz” (not the word I would choose), because, as many of you do, I found his behavior staggeringly repellent and wrong, a feeling that none of his explanations has altered, and what more is there to say about it? If you’re Woody Allen, apparently a lot, although for him, it adds up to “What’s the big deal?” In a 2001 interview for Time magazine, he remarked, “I didn’t find any moral dilemmas whatsoever … it wasn’t so complex … the heart wants what it wants.” In other words, lah-dee-dah, lah-dee-dah, la, la. Here, he says it again, at hundreds of times the length and in epic detail, much of which is devoted to an extended evisceration of Farrow as a mother and a human being. He thought he was involved with “a beautiful movie star who could not have been nicer, sweeter, more attentive to my needs … should I have seen any red flags?” “Red flags” is a phrase he returns to more than once; the only lapse of judgment he ever ponders is his failure to see how terribly she would treat him. The Farrow of this book is a monstrous avatar of fury, manipulation, and vengeance that inexplicably inflicts itself upon him. He amends that take only once, to concede that her “shock, her dismay, her rage, everything” when she saw those photos was, wait for it, “the correct reaction.” Perhaps that’s worth lingering on? quote:At great length, and quoting accounts and reports that corroborate his own, Allen reasserts his belief that the accusation was essentially implanted in Dylan Farrow by her livid mother and declares his innocence, saying at one point that there are people who believe he would molest a child but there are also people who believe Obama isn’t American so, shrug, whaddayagonnado? But he is at least as interested in declaring Mia Farrow’s guilt, which brings me to the second passage that stopped me in my tracks: “She didn’t like raising the kids and didn’t really look after them,” he writes. “It is no wonder that two adopted children would be suicides. A third would contemplate it, and one lovely daughter who struggled with being HIV-positive into her thirties was left by Mia to die alone of AIDS in a hospital on Christmas morning.” From his own words in his own book, he does not like people, especially women, and seems content being an aloof rear end in a top hat, only excited by insulting his exes. There's not enough there for me to humor arguments of "nuance". Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Feb 9, 2021 |
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Shrecknet posted:I specifically noted "rear end in a top hat bosses" like James Cameron in my tiers, its on the lowest tier because literally everyone in every artistic field that involves other people is an rear end in a top hat boss James Cameron also had the "nice guy" beat out of him over the production for Piranha 2. He talks about it in an interview. It was his big break as a filmmaker, but the EP hired him with the intention of firing him and taking over production and saving money. He was kicked from the job, told he was a talentless hack who would never make it in the industry, and wasn't even allowed to look at the footage he shot. He was dejected and fell into depression for failing. In a last ditch hope to save his self-esteem, he found a way to sneak into the screening room with footage he shot to see if he really was a failure. When he saw the footage and it was better than he anticipated, he regained some confidence, and realized that he was being gaslit and was made to be a stooge. After that he learned 1) he was actually a filmmaker and could make his ideas into something good, and 2) the film industry is full of lying snakes that will cut your throat. So he hardened his heart and earned his No Bullshit / rear end in a top hat reputation. I'll never say someone is justified in being an rear end in a top hat, but I also understand how assholes can be systematically made (by broken systems and/or other assholes). Cameron's done some lovely stuff, like almost drowning his actors with The Abyss, but I've also heard plenty of interviews with actors--both big and small--that love the guy and say that he's one of the greatest filmmakers they've worked with, and that he's a pretty cool guy when he's not filming. They all mention he's intimidating as hell, though. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:There was also this piece that dug into Allen's archives to reveal that, whether he actually molested his daughter or not, dude has a deeply unhealthy obsession with teenage girls. Oh the dude that made Manhattan, the film about a 42 year old man dating a teenager in high school, starring actual teenage actress Mariel Hemingway, inspired by his real-life experiences of being a man in his 40's dating 16 year old Babi Christina Engelhardt? That's crazy. To move on from Woody Allen, but to keep within the same discussion in a way, I would highly highly highly recommend everyone listen to Jamie Loftus's mini-series The Lolita Pod. It's 10 episodes, and explores Nabakov's novel Lolita and the character of Dolores Haze and how she is interpreted and misinterpreted throughout literature, film, music, and theater. quote:Who is Lolita? The Nabokov literary classic has sparked infinite discussion in the 65 years since its release, but the cultural memory the book has left behind lives more in romance and fashion aesthetics than a cautionary tale about a deceptive predator and his young prey. Jamie Loftus wants to know how we got here, and this series traces Lolita -- the person, Dolores Haze -- from her literary origin to current status as a doomed icon. There first two or three episodes are about the novel and the original character of Lolita, but the rest of the series explores all the different film adaptations (there's a whole episode dedicated to just the Kubrick film), theatrical adaptations, and how the character has been grossly misused and perverted by Hollywood and pop culture, as well as how so much of our culture trivializes sexual assault or makes heroes out of abusers like Humbert Humbert. As you can imagine, Woody Allen, and people like him, come up in discussion. You don't need to have read the book to listen and enjoy--the first episode covers it in depth--and now that the series has concluded, you can go through it all pretty quickly. There's a lot of ideas and opinions from experts in various fields, from literary professors to psychologists to actual actresses, and people interested in the topic of this thread would find it interesting. It's one of the most thoughtful and well-researched podcasts I've ever heard, and it still manages to have a sense of humor to keep from getting too heavy. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Charisma Carpenter, just three hours ago, has released an open letter on her Twitter account revealing more about the workplace abuse she endured from Joss Whedon while working for him on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: https://twitter.com/AllCharisma/status/1359537752853807105?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i feel like there's not much to be said about this topic other than "everybody draws the line somewhere different for which bad people's art they are able to enjoy, and it's not worth being a dick to other people about drawing that line somewhere different than you do" Yeah, this is where I fall on the whole thing. I don't want to watch Woody Allen films, and I do not like Woody Allen. I do not like Roman Polanski, I believe his victims and know he is a rapist, but I will watch Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, Repulsion, The Tenant, and a few of his other earlier movies. No one needs to tell me how terrible Polanski is, but I do think that there is some merit to exploring his work. I tend to just not recommend problematic people anymore. I know I can watch early Polanski, despite all of the issues, but I'm not going to recommend his films. Animal abuse is the weird line I have. It's hosed up that Herzog's Nosferatu involved spray painting and setting fire to rodents, and it makes me uneasy watching it, but I can watch it, I guess. But I can't watch Cannibal Holocaust. There's never a need to actually kill an animal for a film, but there's a lot of films from the 60's and 70's that I really like or respect that include it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 16:51
|
|