Woody Allen

Woody Allen on Polanski Sex Scandal (2010)

http://ca.eonline.com/news/181271/cannes-notebook-woody-allen-on-polansk...

"For his part, Allen portrayed the hubbub around Polanski as akin to a witch hunt.

'He's an artist, he's a nice person, he did something wrong and he paid for it. [The critics] are not happy unless he pays the rest of his life...Polanski...did something and he has been penalized for it. Enough is enough."

NDPP wrote:

Woody Allen on Polanski Sex Scandal (2010)

http://ca.eonline.com/news/181271/cannes-notebook-woody-allen-on-polansk...

"For his part, Allen portrayed the hubbub around Polanski as akin to a witch hunt.

'He's an artist, he's a nice person, he did something wrong and he paid for it. [The critics] are not happy unless he pays the rest of his life...Polanski...did something and he has been penalized for it. Enough is enough."

"A brave and brilliant man, important to all people."

https://www.google.ca/#q=%22Brave+and+brilliant+man%22+roman+polanski

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/roman-polanskis-victim-on-ac...

http://www.hollywood.com/news/brief/2442419/mia-farrow-to-appear-at-roma...

So Mia Farrow defends a rapist and thats ok? But its not ok for anyone to defend her ex?

Poor dylan, psychos all around her

Rebecca West wrote about Polanski:

He lives abroad, avoiding countries that could extradite him to the US, making movies, including his incredibly awful film version of Macbeth.

Just for the record, Polanski's Macbeth was made in 1971, six years before the rape conviction that promted him to flee the US.

And, while these things are obviously subjective, I like his version of Macbeth. I know some people think the nudity at the beginning is exploitative, but I've never got the impression that it's intended to be pornographic or even erotic at all. I think it sometimes gets read that way because a) the director turned out to be a sex criminal, and b) it's a Playboy production, so people assume base motivations. But I think the witches were just nude to give it a more natural feel.

(And I don't know if that was one of your objections to Polanksi's Macbeth, but it's one that I've often heard.)  

On the other hand, some of the hallucinations, like the dagger floating in the air, are pretty cheesy.

Im just not comfortable judging everyone for their opinions either way. Thats how we get kangaroo courts and lynchings

voice of the damned wrote:

Rebecca West wrote about Polanski:

He lives abroad, avoiding countries that could extradite him to the US, making movies, including his incredibly awful film version of Macbeth.

Just for the record, Polanski's Macbeth was made in 1971, six years before the rape conviction that promted him to flee the US.

And, while these things are obviously subjective, I like his version of Macbeth. I know some people think the nudity at the beginning is exploitative, but I've never got the impression that it's intended to be pornographic or even erotic at all. I think it sometimes gets read that way because a) the director turned out to be a sex criminal, and b) it's a Playboy production, so people assume base motivations. But I think the witches were just nude to give it a more natural feel.

(And I don't know if that was one of your objections to Polanksi's Macbeth, but it's one that I've often heard.)  

On the other hand, some of the hallucinations, like the dagger floating in the air, are pretty cheesy.

 

 

I object to Polanski's Macbeth because it's a very crappy version of a brilliant play, one that I've studied and seen several times. I may know shit about film history (I studied Drama and English, not film), but I do know shit when I see it. Others, of course, will disagree. Regardless, the topic is not film or cinematic art, it's predatory men who skate on some fairly horrific crimes because in a rape society, girls and women are abused, victimized and denied credibility because of their gender's perceived value in relation to that of men. It takes more than a glance at a Wikipedia entry to understand that.

In Polanski's case there were all kinds of apologies, including justifying his fleeing the country because he was a holocaust survivor and terrified of jail.

And to hear his version of events, the terms of his plea bargain were either thrown out after they had his confession, or not clear. So again - a victim.

But to hear comments like he has been "punished enough"? I won't reprint it here, but it is worth reading Polanski's comment that his case would not have gotten as much attention if he had murdered someone, and that it all came down to the public's obsession with "young girls".

Clearly he had no understanding or remorse for the fact that he was the one who committed the crime.

One big difference in his case it that although there may have been some blaming of the real victim,  there was no accusation that she was lying. It all centred around defending and excusing the criminal.

I didn't know until I read this article that Blue Jasmine was about an "unhinged" woman.

It's a pastiche of A Streetcar Named Desire. With a difference being that Kate Blanchett's character doesn't represent a vanishing socioeconoic order, the way that Blanche DuBois does. Her family's collapse in fortune is entirely the result of their own personal failings.

More importantly, it could be taken as an attack on his ex-partner, and by extension, the validity of the accusations against him. Not saying he made the film as propaganda, but that aspect of it (as well as its success) does offer a clue as to why his accusers may have felt the need to speak up now.

Well, if Mia Farrow is disguised as Jasmine, then that would make Woody Allen into her ex-husband Hal, ie. a sleazy businessman who robs his hardworking clients, cheats on his wife, and ultimately kills himself in prison. Not sure why Allen would want to portray himself that way if he's jonesing for sympathy.

Overall, I don't see a lot of symmetry between Blue Jasmine and the Allen/Farrow situation. There IS the issue of parent/child estrangement, but in Blue Jasmine, the kid is estranged from both parents equally(as opposed to siding with one parent against the other). And Allen does portray Jasmine as being a victim of sexual assault, which he would not likely do if he was using her as a stand-in for Farrow.

But I think it's worth putting on the table given the prevailing argument that they are just being mean-spirited and trying to foil his chance at an Oscar.

I agree with you on that. People wouldn't go to the length of fabricating sex-abuse allegations just to prevent a movie they dislike from winning an Oscar.  

Another good point, published by Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/how_we_failed_dylan_farrow_what_weve_learned_since_1992/

In light of the total claim of victim hood - much of which was already expressed by Allen's great admirerer, Weide - let's have a look at why Weide's claims don't hold much water. I think they're pretty applicable to what Allen is saying. And if that's the best defense he has, I'm even more skeptical than I was.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/woody_allen_s_bigg...

A few more thoughts:

- The best way to cast doubt on such high-profile allegations is to vigorously and publicly deny them, and to cast doubt on the motivations and rationality of the accuser. Allen is in a good position to do this with his popularity and with the lack of charges laid the last time this came to light.

- As many have already pointed out, his behaviour with another adopted daughter, another young girl in his household, being raised by him and his then wife, unfortunately casts deep and justifiable doubt on his claims of innocence. Even his recent comments, in which he mentions "falling in love" with the 19-year-old in his household. Good god. What if the 19-year-old had been his biological daughter? That would have really put a crimp in his romantic life, no?

- His claims of Mia Farrow's vendetta against him also need to be examined. 1) If he sexually abused his daughters, then of course she hates his guts. It's not a "vendetta". 2) He married their adopted daughter, for chrissakes. That's f***ing creepy. Of course she thinks he's a creep. It's not a "vendetta". It's justifiable disgust. Duh.

Is it accurate to say that she was a full-time member of the Farrow-Allen household, and was being raised in that household? Or was she mainly a visitor, with Allen playing no parental role whatsoever? The few accounts I've seen suggest she was a full-time member of that household, and Allen played a parental role. In what way would he not have?

Quote:

Woody and Mia both appear to be troubled individuals.

I think that's a fair statement.

But if I was Allen, I would want the opportunity to clear my name in court. What Dylan Farrow says about why the earlier charges were withdrawn does not suggest innocence on Allen's part.

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/woody-allen-responds-to-dylan-farrow-s-abus... Allen responds to Dylan Farrow's abuse claims[/url]

 

I find it significant that Allen was permitted to adopt two girls with Soon Yi despite the allegation.

Unionist wrote:

What I find troubling is the amount of attention progressive folks of all kinds give to this situation.

Children are being abused by the Catholic Church, by parents, by teachers, by rapists in and out of the family, by exploiters of Aboriginal people, by your next-door neighbour, by our entire society. But this rates a conversation because we're dealing with Hollywood celebrities? And it's dignified to take sides and try to assess credibility and honesty of the various participants?

Why would anyone care about one particular 20-years-ago assault (whether it happened or not), were it not for the show-biz gossip thrill? There are deep lessons in this for humanity? Should I hate Mia or admire her? Should I feel disgust at watching Woody's movies? Is Dylan courageous, or brainwashed?

Tune in next week for more.

 

 

 

Excellent point. Thank you. In light of that, I'll once again attempt to stear the conversation back to what I feel are the essential issues. We live in a rape culture. To tie a bigger bow on the whole package I will call it a culture of exploitation, gender exploitation, sexual exploitation, etc. The acts themselves represent a crime of violence by one empowered against one not. In the cultural sense, it is about gender, class, privilege, race, and many other things. You can, of course, as babblers direct the conversation in whatever ways you wish within the boundaries of babble policy, but I would urge participants to remember, as Unionist has reminded us, that this is a much larger issue than one of family dysfunction and celebrity gossip.

jas wrote:

Again, we should care less about it because it involves Hollywood celebrities? It should matter less to us because the high profiles of those involved are bringing into a glaring public spotlight typical dynamics in child sexual abuse cases?

I think I was saying that we shouldn't care more about a celebrity case. Full disclosure: I don't.

As for "typical dynamics" - really? I think there are zero lessons to be learned from what I've heard and read so far. Except for the one I've highlighted: that people get all excited about celebrity scandals.

We can't even get to why a parent or any adult would do something horrible like this to a child, or what the underlying problem is in precise terms (yes, I'm familiar with the words privilege and rape culture - but I mean more than labelling the problem), let alone what we should do to solve the underlying problems - because the facts are still ambiguous, and we're too busy cheerleading for one "side" or the other. And sensible, rational, empathetic people get sucked into this trial by long-distance interpretation and demonizing the other "side".

Not me.

Unionist wrote:

the facts are still ambiguous, and we're too busy cheerleading for one "side" or the other. And sensible, rational, empathetic people get sucked into this trial by long-distance interpretation and demonizing the other "side".

Not me.

I agree with you that is a problem - a big one. Fact is though, not everyone is doing that.

Another fact is that as much as some would like non-celebrity cases to have an equal footing it is often these high-profile incidents that bring these issues to the fore, and there is no way that one can change that by just wishing it were not so.

We're never going to escape that, as a matter of fact.

I also don't think there is any inherent problem with it, so long as discussion focuses on the important root issues, and doesn't get overshadowed by the way some turn it into a team sport.

As much as we want to call out that last, I think there are plenty of commentators who are treating this issue with the sensitivity and analysis it deserves. There have been plenty of examples of both posted in this thread and elsewhere.

Were it not for those tweets during the Golden Globes would people around the world now be talking about taking accusations like this seriously? It's not that easy to separate what is important from other kinds of reaction.

Woody Allen Is Not a Monster. He Is a Person. Like My Father.

Quote:

There are a number of popular tropes around child sexual abuse in our culture. Two are preeminent: One calls us liars when we come forward, another calls us crazy. There is a notion that we should be skeptical when an adult comes forward and names their abuser, that we should carefully question their motivations lest we be duped by someone who is manufacturing, or at least strategically re-crafting, a story of abuse to shirk responsibility for their own transgressions. There is also the popular notion that "false memories" of child abuse are common.