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

was curious to see if the person who wrote that 'hot mess' thing quoted above had changed her mind about mia farrow being the real villain of the story and yes she has -- she's decided nick kristof is the real villain of the story.

the forum for this particular conversation appearing under the header "Mia Farrow's son -- Ronan Seamus Farrow -- really creeps me out!" is one of those moments when the ilx tradition of reviving related threads over starting new ones seems unfortunate

Yeah that keeps crossing my mind each time this pops to the top :/

it's definitely one of the thread titles i wouldn't mind retiring at this point. along with 'israel to world: suck it.'

So now - how much of the widespread refusal to believe Allen might be an abuser, has to do with the character he openly portrays so often: an unhealthy, pervy, fucked up man? Do people see someone being like that, and take it as proof of a level of self awareness and therefore self-control?

Interesting question, I don't know. On the one hand, I think most of the refusal simply has to do with the fact that many people (and especially a certain segment of the population, generously represented in media, e.g. critics) have long enjoyed and appreciated and perhaps even identified with his art. I include myself in that. I love many of his movies-- still do (do I, don't I?)-- yet consider the charges here credible. I definitely feel cognitive dissonance & denial going on in me-- and I'm someone who thinks the charges are likely *true* (but allow for the possibility they might be false). Maybe "denegation" rather than "denial" is the more accurate Freudian term here.

Part of my "identification" with (and affection for) WA's movies involves his unapologetic, let's call them "existential" themes. The Bergmanesque and (especially) Dostoevskian themes: his characters' existential and (more revelant here) ethical crises in a godless cosmos. And I think this goes to the deeper point you're making. The Dostoevskian vein-- grappling with (and in one's art, imaginatively exploring and identifying with) some of the darkest impulses of human nature-- would seem to be a sign of moral/ ethical seriousness, even though in WA's case (unlike Dostoevsky) the "answer" (or worldview) is ultimately nihilistic/ cynical.

This thematic (explicitly verbalized in Manhattan, in the dialogue at the end b/w WA & his friend, and other movies) is probably most visible in "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "Match Point": both plots involve the "murder of the mistress," and the murderer protagonist's (dubious?) "happy ending." But arguably this theme crops up in almost all his movies: e.g. the husband in Hannah and Her Sisters, who has an affair with his wife's sister; the writer in "You will meet a tall dark stranger" who steals his comatose friend's manuscript, etc. The former has a "happy" ending; the latter (it seems) will not. But whether they do or not, in any case, it all comes down to "luck."

So there's this familiar Dostoevskian question of guilt (and whether guilt itself a delusion/ meaningless), ethical transgression/ crisis (and its meaning/ consequences in a godless cosmos) in many of his movies. A contemporary version of the paradigmatic question of ancient Greek tragedy.

But the thing I recognize in WA's films is how *solipsistic* the existential/ ethical crisis always appears to be. The protagonist is tormented (mostly) by what his act (and its implications) means to *him*: if I get away with my crime, it means I live in a meaningless universe, and that sucks for me... but... it's not so much about the damage done to/ suffering of the Other. *That's* not what's unbearable (whereas in Dostoevsky, seems to me, it is). But maybe that's WA's honesty?

I don't know, I'm babbling. But short answer to your question, I do think you're on to something, insofar as WA's movies appear to engage in (and be obsessed with) a certain existential/ ethical problematic which would seem to betoken an ethical/ moral compass-- or at least a serious ethical/ moral *sensibility*. Would a sociopath engage so obsessively in such a problematic? The protagonists in C & M and Match Point suffered their pangs of guilt AND YET in the end appear (to us) sociopathic. Their "happy endings" bother them, at odd moments, but they'll still take that happy ending and be grateful (after all, that's all the happiness any mortals can expect: to be lucky). A confessional self-insight?

I don't understand how that creepy, awkward, unattractive man is meant to be any kind of love interest.

Yah, add "patronizing" and "neurotic" and result = his being in them has always made his movies unwatchable to me.

'crimes' was always my favorite WA, but i dunno if i could watch it now -- WA's fixation on the theme of a powerful guy committing a crime and getting away with it and sort of wondering why the universe isn't punishing him (which i'd forgotten that he actually repeats in 'match point') makes me feel queasy now.

and his best bro is his niece

and his best bro is his niece

Yep. And-- to be "dubious" again-- the actress does resemble a teenage Soon-Yi. Long straight hair. And that's what (I gather) WA & SY were doing in those days (with Farrow's encouragement): going out together to see movies (or basketball games), etc.

i watched crimes last night, because i had not seen it in a v long time and i wanted to see if it was only that eerie in my memory. it was an experience. but it's judah rosenthal our friend that we most appreciate.

mostly what shifted for me is, you realize how unlike woody allen the woody allen character is: all you can see of him beyond the patter is in landau.

I wish I could link to the David Thomson reappraisal, inspired by Deconstructing Harry, published in a spring '98 Film Comment. He comes down hard on the Landau half of the narrative and the grotesque (I can't quote him precisely) lingering closeup of Allen as he realizes Farrow's hooked up with Alda.

you realize how unlike woody allen the woody allen character is: all you can see of him beyond the patter is in landau.

I felt something similar in my rewatch (some time ago) of Manhattan. In the final confrontation between the WA character and his adulterous friend (who "took" the Keaton character back from him); I felt like the WA character's rant (the "ethical" voice, but a surprisingly superficial take on ethics/ guilt) was "external" to WA-- like an alienated superego-- whereas WA himself was more likely identified with the Michaal Murphy character. In a guilty/ displaced way.

He comes down hard on the Landau half of the narrative and the grotesque (I can't quote him precisely) lingering closeup of Allen as he realizes Farrow's hooked up with Alda.

I'm interested in this (I've always really liked the ending to C&M, though in light of current events my feelings are, naturally, mixed). Care to roughly paraphrase his point?

PS One thing that's always struck me about C&M (don't know if it's been noted by others, haven't read much criticism on it): the philosopher on whom the WA character is doing a documentary (somewhat reminiscent of Primo Levi, holocaust survivor who presumably committed suicide without leaving a note)-- presumably the ideal, the exemplary ethical/ moral voice (contrasted with Alan Alda) in the film, whose words in voice-over we hear at the end the film... his remarks as presented in the film seem to me (though unobjectionable) mostly banal, obvious... and at the end, deeply anticlimactic. Only me, or is that intentional?

It's like there's an ethical voice-- an other's (or distant superego's) voice-- in WA's films (sometimes voiced by WA as an actor, sometimes by others), a voice that prima facie appears to be approved/ idealized as the highest ethical authority in the film, but when you look at it more closely that voice seems like a straw man. Really weak.

his remarks as presented in the film seem to me (though unobjectionable) mostly banal, obvious... and at the end, deeply anticlimactic. Only me, or is that intentional?

as usual when he stars in his own movies I don't know if the joke is on the Woody Allen character for believing this bore.

never been able to parse mia's tone to my satisfaction when she says "wow, he's really interesting."

mostly what shifted for me is, you realize how unlike woody allen the woody allen character is: all you can see of him beyond the patter is in landau.

― i want to say one word to you, just one word:buzzfeed (difficult listening hour), Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:02 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The first time I saw C&M I thought the Allen half of it was about a loveable neurotic losing out to a jerk. But the more attention I paid, I realized Allen's character is not really all that loveable - he's resentful and venal and selfish, and I think there's a suggestion that what separates him from the other two main male characters may be more that he is a loser and unattractive than any personal virtues. I feel like there's a blogosphere term now for this sort of "nice guy" who isn't actually nice at all, but I can't think of it. That only made me like the film more, but it also makes it even more dark and cynical, and the psychology of it in light of what may have been going on in his life at the time is certainly interesting, if sickening at the same time.

That term is "nice guy" ftr.

to C&M's credit Alan Alda gets space to show his intelligence, his affection for his family; it's clear he loves his sister, and we learn at the end he paid for his niece's wedding no questions asked.

(I did get in a fight with a college professor who insisted the movie's triumph was to endorse Cliff's pov about his bro in law: that the latter embodies the values of a sick society or whatever)

yeah 'nice guy syndrome', here's a thing on it (though apparently the tumblr shut down!) - http://gawker.com/5969878/nice-guys-of-ok-cupid-are-not-really

fedoras of okcupid was a spinoff tumblr but apparently it got shut down also

that's because those things aren't fedoras

alda's lines about "the real world" parallel jerry orbach's, so allen's toxic waste documentaries and professions of disinterest in fame in some ways parallel the hypocrisy of landau calling his mobby brother up to the house to talk about his problem and acting like killing (or even threatening) is out of the question.

ooh, nice observation.

to C&M's credit Alan Alda gets space to show his intelligence, his affection for his family; it's clear he loves his sister, and we learn at the end he paid for his niece's wedding no questions asked.

Yes, I do think that's significant. That's one of the interesting things in WA's movies: the "ethical" schema is much more complicated than it appears prima facie. And there's an interesting thesis to be made that WA often identifies more with the "bad guy" in his films, as opposed to the represented/ articulated/ implied moral conscience (a voice that's still "part" of him, but ultimately detached/ alienated).

nice posts, have always wondered if there was something wrong with me for not thinking C&M was amazing, it was just kinda 'there' to me, guess i should watch it again sometime

so allen's toxic waste documentaries and professions of disinterest in fame in some ways parallel the hypocrisy of landau calling his mobby brother up to the house to talk about his problem and acting like killing (or even threatening) is out of the question.

Good point. This was very striking in C&M: in a way, Landau's brother seems the most reliable POV in this film (more than the clueless naive Pollyanna blind ophthalmologist Landau confided in). The Jerry Orbach character is certainly the only one who witnesses and recognizes the depths of Landau's hypocrisy (who attacks his brother/ the hired assassin for their heartlessness, with ridiculous sanctimony, even after he himself ordered his mistress's assassination). This is one of the (understated) things I most admired in C&M.

But that this may reflect WA's self-insight or self-lucidity or self-knowledge is no excuse AT ALL. On the contrary.

you mean sam waterston the blind rabbi? i dunno if he's a clueless naif. he believes in god which i guess the movie doesn't but he's the guy who tells martin landau not to kill his mistress. you probably shouldn't kill your mistress.

unlike landau's father at seder he doesn't even say that god will punish, i think; may be wrong. he just says "without the law it's all darkness".

goddamnit it's such a great film though, the only one I would regret never seeing again

you mean sam waterston the blind rabbi? i dunno if he's a clueless naif.

You're right, I don't mean him per se-- but he's certainly naive re his knowledge (given what Landau reveals to him, versus Landau's brother). Landau *can't* confide in him after a certain point-- limits that are to Waterston's credit, but they are limits nevertheless.

I do think he's highly regarded by the movie (by the logical/ philosophical POV of the film, just as the suicidal philosopher is)... and yet in the end, it's suggested, he's a clueless sucker (not only with respect to Landau, but the movie also suggests, maybe, philosophically, cosmically). Maybe not. He's blind but "happy" at the end there (his daughter's wedding)-- maybe a more authentic happiness than Landau's? or is it equivalent?.

But between him and Landau's brother... where does the film's final (ultimate, unsentimental) POV lie?

Certainly Alda is victorious over Allen's character-- though their respective ethical merits (compared to Landau vs. Waterston) are much more dubious. The film obviously has some kind of point to make about "endings"-- happy endings, or not-- Hollywood endings, and real life endings. It's a credit to the movie that whatever the moral is, isn't a simple one.

But now all of that-- artistically interesting though it might be (in movies which I'm very fond of)-- seems like part of WA's own ethical rationalizations/ evasions.

One of the better filmed moments in Allen's filmography takes place in C&M when the camera follows Landau and Orbach into the guest cottage for their scotch, quietly taking in the pool, the acreage, the unused instruments of wealth and privilege.

As for Landau, to me he's ACTING like a naif, which is why Orbach loses his patience with him.

plz move aesthetic discussions to the non-torch-bearing villagers Allen thread

Go fuck youself

You're such an arrogant little shit

if i could, i'd never leave the house

xp

Like seriously I'm not a serious movie watcher & really don't know shit about cinema but I like lurking on movie threads and I never see you post anything actually will written or interesting or insightful about film you just basically act like a dick about other ppl's taste and bemoan how young and uncultured everyone is

But holy fucking shit @ anyone in this thread being a rape/paedo apologist about this. Disgusted.

I'm not crazy about everything Morbs and Shakey are saying but it's pretty obvious that this is not what they're saying.

"The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong. It’s much more likely that I’m right. Because I am not on Woody Allen’s jury, I can be swayed by the fact that sexual violence is incredibly, horrifically common, much more common than it is for women to make up stories about sexual violence in pursuit of their own petty, vindictive need to destroy a great man’s reputation. We are in the midst of an ongoing, quiet epidemic of sexual violence, now as always. We are not in the midst of an epidemic of false rape charges, and that fact is important here. All things being equal, it’s more likely that the man who has spent a lifetime and a cinematic career walking the line of pedophilia (to put it mildly); all things being equal, the explanation that doesn’t require you to imagine a conspiracy of angry women telling lies for no reason is probably the right one. "

^^love this so much

Yeah, ditto. That whole piece was extremely otm.

hey, human garbage Michael Wolff has a piece in the Guardian that i'm not linking to about how this is all "media spin"

Ew

It's not as bad as Wolff"s piece but I thought Moore's article wasn't great either.

Sully talks: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/03/debating-woody-allen-on-super-bowl-sunday-ctd/

I see that sully is against child abuse, too. As am I.

Really starting to get IA seeing this Weide "defense" cited over and over again. It basically just leaves out all of the bad facts for Allen.

I'm so angry because even considering Dylan stated her independence (she is married women, she probably has a career, she changed her name), some media still treat her like a seven year old who could only think under the influence of what would be a pyscho-angry-brainwashing mother.

yeah it's a pretty thorough brainwashing job on mia's part, she should work for covert ops in the cia or something

I think it's perfectly defensible to be a little cynical about the way this story has been broken and to regard Allen as a monster who needs to be punished for his depravity. It is a sad situation all around, and it has been put in gear by the bent inquiry first time around