This thing is really a train wreck.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Saturday, 8 February 2014 15:23 (twelve years ago)
Trying to decide at the end of the day whether or not I'm going to let this inhibit my enjoyment of or prevent my watching Woody Allen films. Part of me feels like it should, but another part is like "fuck this is some crazy bullshit and I've paid for Emperor/James Brown/Dissection records and those people were actually convicted of pretty gross crimes."
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Saturday, 8 February 2014 15:32 (twelve years ago)
having now seen fading gigolo trailer no
― conrad, Saturday, 8 February 2014 15:49 (twelve years ago)
Jesus, when the thread sticks to films it's just as maddening
If I said something stupid, wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.
― drash, Saturday, 8 February 2014 15:55 (twelve years ago)
the thing about the op-ed is it reads almost exactly, point for point, like a draft of the weide piece
― socki (s1ocki), Saturday, 8 February 2014 16:24 (twelve years ago)
http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf
― balls, Saturday, 8 February 2014 16:38 (twelve years ago)
Re the discussion upthread on Bergman influence/ imitation, yeah it's pretty serious and pervasive.
Some examples not yet mentioned: there's plenty of "Scenes from a Marriage" in "Husbands and Wives" (And SFAM starts off with the couple being interviewed by a reporter, which no doubt inspired one of the interesting formal aspects to H&W, the character interviews.) And whole scenes/ chunks of dialogue in his movies are lifted from Bergman; among the most striking in "Another Woman" (homage to, but in some spots exactly mirroring, "Wild Strawberries").
Any other filmmakers, considered "great" by many, who are so blatant/ flagrant (and so frequent) in their "homage" to a specific filmmaker or two (Bergman & Fellini)-- modelling entire movies after their predecessor's movies? It's different from homage to/ playing with a genre/ genres (e.g. French New Wave riffing on American genre films). OK, two come to mind: Fassbinder-Sirk and De Palma-Hitchcock.
Sorry for going off on this tangent in this thread (Morbius is probably right, should split off film discussion from the topic here.)
― drash, Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:56 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Rosenbaum touches on this in Notes Toward the Devaluation of Woody Allen:
Most often these borrowings, when they’re noticed, are rationalized in the press as “homages”; yet arguably they reveal the same sort of aesthetic immaturity that a beginning writer shows by imitating, say, Hemingway or Faulkner. Imitation can be a sincere form of flattery, and there’s no doubting the sincerity of Allen’s Bergman and Fellini worship. But beyond a certain point there’s a question of whether this kind of emulation is being used as a tool for fresh discoveries or as an expedient substitute for such discoveries — a shield labeled “Art” that’s intended to intimidate nonbelievers.
― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, 8 February 2014 16:55 (twelve years ago)
Thanks for the Rosenbaum quote; I think I agree. Re my other examples, they're not really analogous-- Fassbinder's Sirkianism seems a very different thing; even De Palma's shameless Hitchcock imitation is different, somehow (though it's closer).
Taking "imitation" in the old-fashioned Renaissance sense of the word (imitatio)-- conceiving of all art, all creative art, as a practice of imitation-- the thing about Woody Allen's Bergmanism is that the chunks of Bergman in WA often seem so... undigested, somehow. Appropriated but not transmuted into something really his own, original. And yes, in that way, seem indicative of aesthetic immaturity. (And it's not like it works as postmodern, either... or does it.)
― drash, Saturday, 8 February 2014 17:23 (twelve years ago)
I don't think he's ever really seen himself as anything more than a poor imitator of Bergman tbh
― the "Weird Al" Yankovic of country music (stevie), Saturday, 8 February 2014 17:36 (twelve years ago)
On topic of the thread, find I believe Dylan more than WA. But as an erstwhile WA fan, still in psychological denegation about the implications of that. Ugh, shudder.
― drash, Saturday, 8 February 2014 17:39 (twelve years ago)
"twu is it yr opinion that the da planted allen's dna in the attic?"
No. It is my opinion that a DA saying the DNA was found there 1. doesn't make it so and 2. we are talking about 1992, a time when DNA evidence was way more problematic than it is today (and it's not unproblematic today). Would have answered this earlier but I just spent most of my evening at the police station, my partner and I having become crime victims. Yay!
― Three Word Username, Saturday, 8 February 2014 22:39 (twelve years ago)
lol no what i was referring to allen vehemently denying having ever been in the attic or even aware the attic existed, the da finding hairs that matched his dna, and then allen going 'o that attic'
― balls, Saturday, 8 February 2014 22:52 (twelve years ago)
Yeah, that's the DA's version of events. We don't have a transcript.
― Three Word Username, Saturday, 8 February 2014 23:18 (twelve years ago)
IIRC in Woody's own recent letter, he himself admits he'd gone into the attic-- just very rarely and reluctantly (claustrophobic that he is)-- when/ because one of the children wanted to show him something.
Dylan's most recent response to WA's letter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552
I'm reminded of the Danish film, The Celebration (hope this isn't too inappropriate, comparing real people's real life painful shit to a movie).
Ronan's Golden Globes tweet and Dylan's letters (during this Hollywood awards season) and some of the public reaction to them ~ Son 'disrupting/ spoiling' Dad's big 60th birthday party.
― drash, Saturday, 8 February 2014 23:36 (twelve years ago)
the custody suit pdf is pretty damning, nothing else I've seen has gone into quite that detail.
― akm, Saturday, 8 February 2014 23:42 (twelve years ago)
http://excrementalvirtue.com/2014/02/08/brainwashing-woody/
― sXe & the banshees (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Sunday, 9 February 2014 00:04 (twelve years ago)
Q. Did you talk to your analyst about how this would affect a child?
A. It wasn’t so complex. It doesn’t have that quality to it that you think.
Q. What about how it would affect her siblings?
A. These people are a collection of kids, they are not blood sisters or anything.
wonder how the kids woody and soon-yi have adopted together would feel about this.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, 9 February 2014 00:27 (twelve years ago)
Ugh articles psychoanalyzing Woody and Soon Yi. Full circle to 92.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Sunday, 9 February 2014 01:01 (twelve years ago)
i just want to say that woody's op-ed in the NYT is the first thing I've read that nearly convinces me of his guilt
there are so many half-truths, incredible elisions, complete failure to recognize that anything he might have done (EVER) could have hurt anyone, a lack of feeling, obsessive vindictiveness toward mia farrow (which, even if he comes by it honestly, should not have been the main subject of any op-ed by a emotionally mature person)
maybe all this tells is something we already know: woody is a moral adolescent and a total narcissist
maybe he just "remembers things differently"
but while I'll never have the certainty that some other folks seem to have achieved, the letter convinced me he is fundamentally dishonest
― espring (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:16 (twelve years ago)
Maureen Orth responds: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:20 (twelve years ago)
did you see the joyce carol oates tweet
― flopson, Monday, 10 February 2014 01:41 (twelve years ago)
it's basically the worst thing in the world https://twitter.com/JoyceCarolOates/status/432162254406955008
― flopson, Monday, 10 February 2014 01:42 (twelve years ago)
Lol what a dope.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:47 (twelve years ago)
don't worry. i've responded to some of her tweets about nabokov.
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:48 (twelve years ago)
one and only time i've seen joyce carol oates in person was at a screening of midnight in paris.
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:49 (twelve years ago)
"woody is a moral adolescent and a total narcissist"
1) I think anyone who has seen a Woody Allen movie would probably not be surprised by this assessment.2) I'm pretty sure most (or at least many) celebrities are both as well and I'm not sure it's relevant to the question of whether or not he's also a pedophile (except insofar as I guess it could explain why someone would go to a house filled with children and nannies and god knows who else and think that they could molest a seven year old and get away with it).
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:53 (twelve years ago)
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship),
her first time at a movie since The Best Years of Our Lives
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 February 2014 01:54 (twelve years ago)
With JCO and Stephen King tweeting terrible shit because of all this, it's only a matter of time until Margaret Atwood fucks up as well.
― Murgatroid, Monday, 10 February 2014 02:00 (twelve years ago)
lol
Glenn Kenny @Glenn__Kenny Feb 8
@JoyceCarolOates Actually, they'll be coming after Nabokov and his work by spring I reckon
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:03 (twelve years ago)
JCO, Stephen King, Woody Allen, Tom Perkins, et al=basically rich/famous people how have no idea how complete unhinged they sound to most people when they open their mouths.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:03 (twelve years ago)
first they came for the child molestors
― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:06 (twelve years ago)
Who the fuck reads Joyce Carol Oates anyway? I've been forced to read her a bunch of times in classes but I've never heard of anyone reading her voluntarily.
― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:07 (twelve years ago)
In the time it took you to type The New Yorker accepted a short story and she scribbled several Petrachan sonnets.
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:08 (twelve years ago)
i've known some jco fans in my day xp
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:12 (twelve years ago)
i think my ex-gf claimed to have read all of her novels but that might be impossible
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:13 (twelve years ago)
jco in heavy damage-control/let-me-explain mode since tweeting that btw.
― joe perry has been dead for years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:28 (twelve years ago)
Andrea Pitzer @andreapitzer Feb 8
.@JoyceCarolOates I'm not weighing in on Allen, but why is Lolita relevant here? No one ever accused Nabokov of abusing a child in real life
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 February 2014 02:32 (twelve years ago)
Ugh, the Nabokov analogy is despicable, repellent, and just plain moronic. All the stupidity she's projecting on others (e.g. the philistine's conflation of life and art), shines so brightly in that tweet.
Yeah, I'm sure Ronan and Dylan and those who believe them are just prudishly moralistically going after Woody Allen's ART. That's why they're upset: Woody Allen's movies.Or is she saying that to create the character of Humbert and Humbert and to be Humbert Humbert is morally equivalent?
My god, can she really be saying that? Yeah, sure, go with that, Joyce.
― drash, Monday, 10 February 2014 02:41 (twelve years ago)
Two things I have learned from this controversy:
1) A lot of people have no fucking clue about child molestation and child molestors and have some really ridiculous ideas about them and2) A lot of people are completely incapable of following a statement to its logical conclusion and just blurt it out anyway
― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, 10 February 2014 03:03 (twelve years ago)
I kind of like how the tweet ends with "No contradiction?" like she might actually have an inkling that it's a stupid thing to say and is asking if it makes any sense
― scott c-word (some dude), Monday, 10 February 2014 03:19 (twelve years ago)
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:53 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
did you read my post? i already suggested that (a) we knew this already and (b) this would fall short of convincing anyone that he was a child molester. so basically you are presenting a critique that already framed that phrase in my post.
reading competency LOL
― espring (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2014 03:55 (twelve years ago)
― espring (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2014 03:56 (twelve years ago)
I love Joyce Carol Oates's writing (much of the time), but I wonder if she's not (1) senile or (2) a total fucking idiot.
― espring (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2014 03:57 (twelve years ago)
a lot of great artists are total fucking idiots and/or infantile narcissists.
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:03 (twelve years ago)
It's like one of the themes of this thread or something.
― Murgatroid, Monday, 10 February 2014 04:05 (twelve years ago)
yeah but oates's writing seldom strikes me as narcissistic and foolish as, say, a certain woody allen's does
i'm surprised is all
― espring (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:08 (twelve years ago)
i've heard rumors that she doesn't edit her tweets
― tɹi.ʃɪp (Treeship), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:09 (twelve years ago)
― espring (amateurist)
or (3) thinks artists get a pass for their behavior, no matter how despicable.
― nickn, Monday, 10 February 2014 04:24 (twelve years ago)
Not too much of a surprise from her writing, as far as empathizing with transgressive folks.
― That's So (Eazy), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:27 (twelve years ago)
also given that she's a writer can she not imagine people appreciating lolita as literature and not identifying or excusing humbert humbert?
she's displating a level of literary savvy i would usually attribute to book-burning fundies
― espring (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:34 (twelve years ago)