Mia Farrow's son -- Ronan Seamus Farrow -- really creeps me out!

I think in particular it's the fact that the FILMS (not just the Woody Allen characters) are oblivious to the creepyness of the relationships, e.g. Manhattan

Woody's like the Bret Saberhagen of creeping - odd numbered decades, watch out for your young women

when i first saw manhattan (not too long ago) i was amazed at how the relationship his character had w/the 17 yr old was kind of framed as "yeah she's younger than me, nbd, 17 years old w/e." not "surprised" i guess.

Like you watch Manhattan and the film itself tries to portray the Muriel Hemingway relationship as sweet, and of course Muriel Hemingway's character is so mature and in control for her age, don't you see?

I assume ppl who are reading the 2013 vanity fair article are also reading the older vanity fair article from the early 90s, if not pls do so

if the recent revelations about british media personalities from the 60s and 70s are anything to go by the truth of these situations is usually worse than you think, rather than better

but ... his character is pretty clearly aware of the creepyness of the relationship in Manhattan, he refers to their age difference as an issue all the time

their age difference isnt an issue as much as the absolute age of the high school girl hes dating, he treats it like shes 22 or something

I assume ppl who are reading the 2013 vanity fair article are also reading the older vanity fair article from the early 90s, if not pls do so

― yes, i have seen the documentary (Jon Lewis), Monday, January 13, 2014 12:26 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I just googled this, could not make it through more than a couple paragraphs

I've never said WA isn't creepy. That's not illegal.

A shame to see a troll convict a fellow Obama loyalist on hearsay.

Alvy Singer: Lyndon Johnson is a politician, you know the ethics those guys have. It's like a notch underneath child molester.

she should be dating guys with names like Biff and Scooter iirc

xp

A shame to see a troll convict a fellow Obama loyalist on hearsay.

lol you don't know what hearsay means

lol morbs is one of those guys who think people are infringing on his 1st amendment rights when they tell him to stfu

morbs just now

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18mlr43adfwhcjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

im sorry i dont apply legal standards to my personal opinions like morbs does, then again i have no subpoena powers

that '92 vanity fair story: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

Like you watch Manhattan and the film itself tries to portray the Muriel Hemingway relationship as sweet, and of course Muriel Hemingway's character is so mature and in control for her age, don't you see?

presents her as a fount of wisdom, complete with kicker, as if to say, "Yeah she's 17 but hey nbd she's smart!"

Really gross if your initial reaction when someone claims to have been raped/abused/molested/etc. is skepticism.

with the "little bastard" bit in that '92 vf piece, i wonder how much woody knew about mia and frank "never breaking up"

Really gross if your initial reaction when someone claims to have been raped/abused/molested/etc. is skepticism.

― Murgatroid, Monday, January 13, 2014 12:35 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

alfred exactly

i believe that if every time Woody had an inappropriate interaction with a minor, the authorities had been notified and he was testified against, that he'd have gone to jail a long time ago and would not be able to make successful films with famous movie stars today and probably not be getting any lifetime achievement awards. but that didn't happen, and while i'm skeeved out by what he likely got away with, i dunno, it doesn't outrage me that much, to be honest. lots of terrible people will never pay for their worst actions. i don't think appreciating someone's art should have a morals clause, although obviously everyone has a line they draw somewhere. the debates about Woody or R. Kelly or whoever seem to come down to people telling others where they should draw their own lines, and it seems to have as much to do with how they felt about the art to begin with as what their moral compass says.

when i first saw manhattan (not too long ago) i was amazed at how the relationship his character had w/the 17 yr old was kind of framed as "yeah she's younger than me, nbd, 17 years old w/e." not "surprised" i guess.

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Monday, January 13, 2014 12:25 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

every time i watch Manhattan i get more creeped out by it, the way her character dotes on him and hangs on his every word, all the signifiers of innocence & childhood around her, her sexual voraciousness, its sort of amazing that allen apparently wasnt self-conscious at all about putting this fantasy onscreen

Really gross if your initial reaction when someone claims to have been raped/abused/molested/etc. is skepticism.

― Murgatroid, Monday, January 13, 2014 12:35 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah like you dont have to take it as gods truth but just throwing it in the garbage like unsubstantiated bears a striking resemblance to the cultural systems of power that protect abusers everywhere

Tracy: Let's fool around. Let's do it some strange way that you've always wanted to, but nobody would do with you.

very shall we say "interesting"

i don't think appreciating someone's art should have a morals clause, although obviously everyone has a line they draw somewhere. the debates about Woody or R. Kelly or whoever seem to come down to people telling others where they should draw their own lines, and it seems to have as much to do with how they felt about the art to begin with as what their moral compass says.

― some dude, Monday, January 13, 2014 12:38 PM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i basically agree with this tho i think in a lot of cases its not so much a the moral line drawing observed in the blogosphere but a more visceral revulsion toward the person that makes appreciating their art impossible

fwiw i cant think of an artist where i was just like no more but i can totally understand why someone would

some dude, did you read these vf articles or see the golden globes? you can think woody's a terrific director, a veritable role model in his prolific independent work, and still think its gross to have diane keaton express her gratitude for his friendship and support of women on an awards show on a major network through an a capella rendition of a girl scouts song. the problem with the whole "you have to separate the art from the artist" thing is that its only said to defend ignoring ugly shit - no one's telling diane to separate the art from the artist.

every time i watch Manhattan i get more creeped out by it, the way her character dotes on him and hangs on his every word, all the signifiers of innocence & childhood around her, her sexual voraciousness, its sort of amazing that allen apparently wasnt self-conscious at all about putting this fantasy onscreen

― Hungry4Ass,

this is also a movie in which a male party dude says he's going to direct a film from his own script about a guy who screws so great that when he brings a woman to orgasm, she's so fulfilled that she dies, right?

xposts galore

lagoon, remind me of status of those claims (again, I don't mean that as snark, I mean it exactly how it's written). it's been a while since i read the article. my understanding was that the child involved made different statements at different times. and IIRC in that article her statements were all mediated by mia and other of her children. that doesn't make me "skeptical" so much as, "i don't have enough information to have a very stable idea what is going on here." surely testifying about your abuse is an imponderably difficult thing, and the last thing any of us should take lightly. however the rights of the accused, and the fact of false accusations, are also a reality.

separately:

i just feel like the connection between the films and whatever patterns we imagine ourselves seeing in his private life is kind of tenuous and complex.

i mean the relationships in his films are may/december type things and he's hardly the only own to portray them (see also a ton of french auteur cinema, also a ton of melodramas from before the 30s). you could argue that these are sublimated, social-acceptable avatars for his real desires for very young girls but then you'd be entering into a real feedback loop where all the art and the little bits of "reality" we glean from these articles/other coverage just become kind of overdetermined.

I'm kind of at a point where I'm glad I saw certain Woody Allen films and at the same time would be perfectly happy never to watch one again. I can separate his work from his life to an extent, but there's even a certain life approach within the films that I don't really want to inhabit anymore, even aside from the "creepy" stuff. Manhattan is a film I really never want to watch again though.

"false accusations" invoked, MRA seal opened

some dude, did you read these vf articles or see the golden globes? you can think woody's a terrific director, a veritable role model in his prolific independent work, and still think its gross to have diane keaton express her gratitude for his friendship and support of women on an awards show on a major network through an a capella rendition of a girl scouts song. the problem with the whole "you have to separate the art from the artist" thing is that its only said to defend ignoring ugly shit - no one's telling diane to separate the art from the artist.

― da croupier, Monday, January 13, 2014 12:43 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i read and understood the articles better than you read and understood my post, i think!

a film from his own script about a guy who screws so great that when he brings a woman to orgasm, she's so fulfilled that she dies, right?

r u srs?

I've disliked Woody Allen movies since I started trying to watch them in like 1998 so I didn't know that was the premise, but EW. EW. I NEED A BIGGER FONT OF EW.

amateurist sry i dont have a allen molestation database i was just going from memory, but all the info is out there waiting for you

this is also a movie in which a male party dude says he's going to direct a film from his own script about a guy who screws so great that when he brings a woman to orgasm, she's so fulfilled that she dies, right?

― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, January 13, 2014 12:44 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah tho i always assumed (mb wrongly) that the movie was making fun of that guy

???

i'm just saying that we don't and can't live in a world where any sort of testimony is prima facie evidence of a crime. i'm not saying that's what's going on here, cos i have no idea what's going on here. but we also live in a world where shit like this happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

the rights of the accused, and the fact of false accusations

the "rights of the accused" play out in court, not in an internet discussion. And "false accusation" child molestation stories, aside from the occasional weird "repressed memory"/hypnotherapy hoaxes, idk, you just don't hear about them very often. "Inconsistencies" wouldn't really be, well, inconsistent with a young child's experience of molestation, you know?

Oh I know – I'm just reminding everyone that Norman Mailer was alive and well and on talk shows and this kind of attitude was quite common.

some dude you said you're not outraged by what he got away with, which is why i just wanted to clarify that you knew what he likely got away with. and when you went on about appreciating his art sans moral clause, i was curious if you actually knew the tone of the golden globes' celebration of his life and work.

"i dont have enough info to convict" is a great instinct to have - it means you should probably do jury duty. But no one's asking anyone here to convict Woody Allen - just let their awareness of his actions and the allegations against him inform how they engage with him, not just as an artist but as a public figure. the golden globes ceremony didn't show a shred of evidence that they did that.

man it would be something if the culture all of a sudden had a get right with god moment on woody the way it did with kells.

― goole, Monday, January 13, 2014 12:36 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when i wrote this i had a second clause that i didn't post: speaking for myself, abandoning woody allen, as a fan, would be a much harder thing for me, personally, and i'm not even that big a woody allen fan. i'm not really sure how i come down on this. it's true that 'manhattan' looks really twisted now (it always looked pretty twisted tbf -- on my first viewing i remember wondering why none of the guy's friends are like 'uh dude you are going to jail for this shit')

and for the whole culture to turn on him would seem to be impossible, as ppl have said. whole lot more cultural capital invested in one of the great filmmakers than in one of the great r&b singers

eah tho i always assumed (mb wrongly) that the movie was making fun of that guy

― Hungry4Ass, Monday, January 13, 2014 12:48 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wait yeah I'm pretty sure that guy is supposed to be an asshole. I don't think Woody Allen is misogynistic in that particular way.

And "false accusation" child molestation stories, aside from the occasional weird "repressed memory"/hypnotherapy hoaxes, idk, you just don't hear about them very often.

true. but again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

"Inconsistencies" wouldn't really be, well, inconsistent with a young child's experience of molestation, you know?

of course. i guess the question is how certain each of us wants to be to convince ourselves that something happened vs. "i just don't know." i'm in the latter camp.

FWIW i like some of allen's movies, dislike others, have no very strong attachment to him and his films either way.

to be clear, my 2nd paragraph of last post isn't aimed at you, sd, so much as the general sentiment expressed elsewhere in thread.

whole lot more cultural capital invested in one of the great filmmakers than in one of the great r&b singers

That...may depend on who you ask?

some dude you said you're not outraged by what he got away with, which is why i just wanted to clarify that you knew what he likely got away with. and when you went on about appreciating his art sans moral clause, i was curious if you actually knew the tone of the golden globes' celebration of his life and work.

yeah i watched the Globes, it was pretty awkward. but i was saying i don't have any problem with other people drawing a line in the sand and saying Woody crossed it for them and they'll dance on his grave and protest every award he gets -- just let anyone who thinks that should let me determine whether that's now where i draw my line.

just LIKE anyone who thinks etc.

so I didn't know that was the premise, but EW

you are misreading the post btw that is not what Manhattan is about. that is something that someone (not a major character) says at a party during the film, while comically failing to defend himself from accusations of misogyny.

i mean tbf i was making the pretty pointless argument that it's pointless to argue about this and nobody should be trying to convince anyone else to be on their side, so i can't blame you for assuming i wrote a paragraph that long to stake out an actual position. xp