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

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

I have a strange hunch that, of the people who are furiously debating the testimony and evidence in this case over the internet, roughly 95% would almost rather do anything than serve on a real jury. Like I say, it's only a hunch.

To bring it back to the "nice guy syndrome" thing, I think a lot of "nice guys" who also fancy themselves intellectual are deeply invested in Allen's on-screen persona as a validation of their own personae. I think that explains some of the ostrichishness of the defenses.

fuck that i'd love to be on jury duty. i've never been called. dunno why not.

i think woody allen is such a hero to many people who are fans of cinema (like at kubrick/scorsese/hitchcock levels), they're willing to go places they wouldn't go for (idk) victor salva.

I am pretty much resigned to the fact that I will never be on a jury

If you said that during jury selection, a lawyer from one side or the other would use a preemptory challenge on you in a heartbeat, goole.

I don't think Woody Allen's onscreen depiction is best described as a "nice guy."

I think the typical ''nice guy'', the likes we see on Ok Cupid and mocking tumblr, don't have that level of self mockery and self loathing that Allen had about himself (up to a certain point in his career), or perhaps I have completely misread the trope or Allen himself.

Well, many people want special congratulations for being "impartial" and separating "life" and "art."

jury duty, like power, should only go to those who don't want it~

A friend of mine just compared Woody Allen to Louis-Ferdinand Céline, 'they may be horrible people but I'll continue enjoying their work'.

well thankfully for the local court system should they ever avail themselves, i'm not a dumbass, aimless

It's not uh quite the same thing, but the last time I saw so many people on FB citing Leni Riefenstahl was after the release of Zero Dark Thirty

I don't think Woody Allen's onscreen depiction is best described as a "nice guy."

― Mordy , Monday, 3 February 2014 18:29 (5 minutes ago) Permalink

ok, maybe "intellectual nebbish" is more appropriate

Zero Dark Thirty is a much better (tho obv still flawed) analogue to Riefenstahl than this. Unless you believe that Woody's movies are a covert attempt to propagandize an ideological position he has about molesting young children.

When someone feels the need to tell me they are not a dumbass I always believe them.

Well, many people want special congratulations for being "impartial" and separating "life" and "art."

― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, February 3, 2014 1:30 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

As I think I said above, I would find it much easier to separate his life from his art if I didn't have to look at his fucking face

i don't think woody's onscreen persona is supposed to be a nice guy or "nice guy." he dates women who are arguably out of his league appearance wise but that's not as unrealistic as people like to pretend, and in each film he is shown as deeply flawed and selfish. "nice guys" have martyrdom complexes iirc: they resent women for not loving them purely on the basis of their being pushovers.

xp he's made a few of those movies too

https://twitter.com/SamuelAAdams/status/430411035313725440

if you stare at this tweet hard enough, you can see him stroking his beard

Sam Adams ‏@SamuelAAdams 14m

@AlyssaRosenberg @poniewozik I've seen ppl argue w/o overt bias that Dylan undoubtedly believes what she says but it may not have happened.

"i wasn't there, you were, but this may not have happened to you FYI"

I mean, in addition to the story itself, it's just sad to see it bring out the inner MRA asshole in so many dudes.

Samuel Adams didn't much like cousin John iirc

and yet he wrote yesterday that he believes Dylan http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-open-letter

treeship otm i think. as he got older and his miaplacements got younger it finally became consistently gross, but before that he mostly just cast his girlfriends. (another reason separating life from art here is prob not the best goal.) there are a couple movies that do have the self-pity of the nice guy (broadway danny rose: much-loved for some decent reasons but every time i watch it its protag annoys me more, even charlie brown is shown at times to be an asshole) but most of them are closer to this thing drash has identified where an alienated superego yells at him for a while and then it doesn't matter what anybody does.

imagine Sam Adams defending the integrity of ppl who have different thoughts than he does. unclean, unclean.

morbz what's your goal here

he's about as convincing as you are