Author Topic: Woody Allen  (Read 67540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Axolotl

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +314
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #435 on: February 04, 2014, 01:32:59 PM »
0
Woody Allen is accused of molesting his daughter. It's probably the most horrible crime someone can be accused of and Woody is despicable if this is true. That's probably what everyone else here believes. But there's no harm in withholding judgment until the case is adjudicated by an impartial authority.
I don't get what you're arguing about, jenk.

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
  • Respect: +1394
    • Neon Burrito
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #436 on: February 04, 2014, 02:18:26 PM »
+1
well, that's the third post in a row that's directed right at me. but i've been vocal in this thread and driven this toward myself. the thing i'm saying is: it's true i'm not an authority, it's true the people it happened to know more than we do, it's true judgment should be suspended, it's true the accusation immediately spiraled woody allen into malicious gossip, and it's true that outside all this the entire conversation is about possible child molestation and like you said, axolotl, that's probably the most horrible crime someone can be accused of. because i think it's horrible, because i really do, i try not to forget that's the conversation's center. other aspects and their repeated mentioning -- the legal system, veracity, social defamation, prior investigations -- aren't more important to me than the possibility that child molestation occurred. i haven't attempted to inflate criticisms against woody allen, i've attempted to steer the conversation back towards the point. because we're not the legal system, because we understand the legal system, because the worst possible and personal responses against woody allen aren't being broadcasted here at xixax, reminders about the future course of the event, the fair and logical way to reach a resolution, strike me not as neutralizing but neutering. i think everyone here also believes in the legal system, i haven't heard anyone say otherwise. all i've heard is reminders of it amid a conversation about possible molestation. the legal system will hopefully continue to work as best as it can, and that will be wonderful, and molestation will continue to work as it does, and that's horrible. that's all i'm saying

i like you asked me to clarify. i hope i've made myself clear. also, did you notice my commas and have you started seiobo? sure gets those commas going
Every perspective is an act of creation.

Axolotl

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +314
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #437 on: February 04, 2014, 02:49:07 PM »
0
What would a conversation centered on him being a child molester constitute of?
Like gt posted, films like Manhattan do take a disturbing  aspect when viewed through this lens, but that's been true since the 25 years ago and it doesn't detract from the qualities of that film.
People can and probably will boycott his future films to prevent him from gaining financially on their account and that's fine.
If he is found guilty, that will be the in the first paragraph of any summary of his life ever made, he'll be the daughter diddling director for as long as he is remembered, the forgetting obviously being exponentially accelerated in his case, even the allegation puts a huge irredeemable dent to his image.
And that's outsite the terrible reality of a 7 year old girl being molested by her own father. Trying to be sensible about it doesn't mean I'm ignoring the gravity of the issue.

Havent started Sieobo yet, sorry. I hardly have an hour between work and sleep this week. Will try to chat about it on friday.


polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Respect: +1816
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #438 on: February 04, 2014, 02:58:46 PM »
+1
I can't bring myself to care about this situation yet. We have an accusation and we have a refutation. Both currently bear equal validity, which in a vacuum is none.

If Allen is guilty and can be proven guilty, he should go to jail and we can all learn to live without new Woody Allen movies. Either way, nothing that happens will make Annie Hall stop being a great movie.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
  • Respect: +1394
    • Neon Burrito
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #439 on: February 04, 2014, 03:04:33 PM »
+1
What would a conversation centered on him being a child molester constitute of?

that's a valid and important question: what would a molestation conversation consist of, and not even him as a convicted child molester, but the mere possibility of it. it seems xixax understands both the horribleness of molestation and the fairness of the legal system, so i think the most interesting potential conversation here is an evaluation of the stakes at risk. like i said earlier, it's tricky

it's been approached in great ways already. i'll quote them:

what freaks me out about this whole mess, although I can't say is unexpected, is the amount of self righteousness and hard judgement people have on the internet on a matter whose truth they can't possibly KNOW. any expression of doubt regarding dylan's statement is immediately discarded as claiming woody allen is innocent and dylan is a liar, and as something that sets a bad precedent regarding sexual abuse victims on speaking out. does stating the reasonable fact that there is plenty of reasons woody allen has not been charged or convicted with this crime, plus all the other weird shit that went on with these people, equals getting him off the hook? those are pretty serious accusations and I don't like that you can just accuse someone of something like that without proof trusting that a large group of people will get behind you on a purely emotional basis. this is an old case that, if I've read correctly, was not taken to the courts because mia farrow didn't want to expose her child. but also if I remember correctly, woody allen was furious about this because he felt his name would always be stained with an incomplete accusation. he was the most interested party in going to trial. this one is just one of many instances in this whole thing where there is very reasonable concerns and doubts about who is telling the truth, and the really disturbing stuff is being said on the comments sections of each one of these articles: a lot of hate, a lot of self righteousness, and plenty of anti intellectual, anti science, anti facts, anti artistic expression, anti women, anti men shit being said. ugly all over the place.

Quote
Neil: Am I allowed to watch Leni Riefenstahl's movies?
Mel:   It won't turn you into bloodsucking nazi if you're asking about that.
Mel:   Beside it is very easy to spot and go around ideological imprint, if you know beforehand it is there.
Neil:   To what extent does one consider the personal life of an artist in relation to their own art?
Neil:   let me rephrase;
Neil:   how relevant is the context of an artists life in relation to their own art?
Neil:   Is the decided on a case to case basis?
Neil:   is this** decided upon a case to case basis?
Mel:   You should wait for smarter folks to answer that. Personally I care very little about the life of the artist.
Mel:   "Everything you think about writing, when not writing is wrong." - I like this sentence.
Mel:   If body of work is honest, emotions and personal experience of the author should came a cross, without introducing the author to the audience.
Mel:   Beside deconstructivism made a whole point of ignoring everything beside work itself.
Mel:   There isn't a simple answer to that question I guess, you can build whole philosophy around it.
Neil:   these are the sorts of philosophically charged discussions i'm interested in. I guess I'll head over to reddit.
Neil:   It's interesting because a guy like Kubrick left all these clues that live outside of the work, however the works themselves also have a lot to say. Where as some artists want the work to "stand alone."
Jeremy Blackman:   Mel, I'm not sure that's true about deconstruction. Quoting Derrida: "One of the definitions of what is called deconstruction would be the effort to take this limitless context into account, to pay the sharpest and broadest attention possible to context, and thus to an incessant movement of recontextualization."
Jeremy Blackman:   His original quote "there is nothing outside the text" is literally translated as "there is nothing except text." Which apparently means that text encompasses its context. (He clarified that later.)
Mel:   As far I understand according to Derrida comments from author shouldn't be privileged and should be treated as separate from the work. Those comments itself are open to interpretation.
Jeremy Blackman:   Well sure, we can all agree with that. Artists don't always understand what they create. And context is a lot greater than an author's comments.
Mel:   Leveling the ground between meaning provided by artist and everyone else - this is what I mean in "ignoring".
Mel:   Mhm, guess that question originated somewhere in "Woody Allen" thread.
Neil:   it was a genuine question from me.
Neil:   But necessarily regarding Nazi Propaganda Films.
Neil:   but not necessarily**
Neil:   nietzsche after all befriended one of his idols, Wagner and Wagner's anti-semitism ended up being one of the things that ended their friendship and Nietzsche's enjoyment of Wagner's music.
polkablues: Artistic intent is always worth considering, but should never be treated as more or less worthy than other forms of interpretation.
polkablues: In the case of Riefenstahl, of course you can and should watch them. They're of immense historical significance, they can be appreciated solely on technical cinematic terms if you so choose, and in any case, watching propaganda, especially 80-year-old propaganda, doesn't make you complicit in it.

If Allen is guilty and can be proven guilty, he should go to jail and we can all learn to live without new Woody Allen movies. Either way, nothing that happens will make Annie Hall stop being a great movie.
Every perspective is an act of creation.

Reelist

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
  • Respect: +973
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #440 on: February 04, 2014, 06:07:28 PM »
+1
If Allen is guilty and can be proven guilty, he should go to jail and we can all learn to live without new Woody Allen movies

Well, he wouldn't go to jail for Dylan, but I truly am worried about these girls:


You can go to places in the world with pudding. That. Is. Funny.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #441 on: February 05, 2014, 04:37:09 AM »
+1
Well, he wouldn't go to jail for Dylan, but I truly am worried about these girls:

I was about to stay away from this thread, but shit like that just boils my blood. Do you know what you're doing here? Thanks to things like that, some of the worst laws are passed around the globe. "What if" is dream come true for some types of people. "What if Iraq was really in possession of chemical weapons and we didn't intervene?" - this is the same mechanism. "What about those girls, if Woody really is a child molester?" - jenkins pointed out that in this case is better to judge him as guilty, because consequences of being wrong are less severe. Introducing the very possibility of the crime into discussion is scare tactic - anyone using those is either desperate or misguided. You can't possibly win against such arguments.

what freaks me out about this whole mess, although I can't say is unexpected, is the amount of self righteousness and hard judgement people have on the internet on a matter whose truth they can't possibly KNOW.

This is pretty much, where modern media are. Audience is encouraged to take strong stance. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with position presented in a paper, TV or on some website as long as you aren't neutral. You are more likely to turn on TV next day, if you're emotionally engaged in the story (picked your side). Some points:

  • His name is and will be stained.
  • We don't know and won't know the bottom of the story.
  • Media will milk this case till audience get bored of it. After some time it will popup again, when there isn't anything interesting to chew on.
  • World of show business has short memory (it has been proven few times already).

Where do I stand in relation to this case? I have very little interest in Woody as a person, I'm very selfish, when it comes to films. This is pretty much a matter of a question "Will this change how I perceive his work?" for me. I don't think so - this is my honest answer, even if this means I'm evil person.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
  • Respect: +1394
    • Neon Burrito
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #442 on: February 05, 2014, 05:45:37 AM »
0
jenkins pointed out that in this case is better to judge him as guilty, because consequences of being wrong are less severe. Introducing the very possibility of the crime into discussion is scare tactic - anyone using those is either desperate or misguided. You can't possibly win against such arguments.

very possibility. "scare tactic" desperate. misguided. win an argument. sounds like the cold war. sounds like a scribble in a newspaper. i like your style. you're right there's much to see here. that fascinates me

i obvs gotta bounce this thread and for no personal reasons to anybody. just, obvs
Every perspective is an act of creation.

Punch

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: +90
"oh you haven’t truly watched a film if you didn’t watch it on the big screen" mumbles the bourgeois dipshit

ElPandaRoyal

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Respect: +103
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #444 on: February 05, 2014, 09:27:20 AM »
0
I have nothing to say about that piece. She complains about Weide complaining about Mia Farrow, but at least Weide did some research and presented us with a vision about it. This article doesn't do absolutely anything except invalidating Weide's.

To be perfectly clear about this, as right now I don't intend to post any more messages in this thread concerning this case, as I believe only the law can conclude something valid about it:

- There's nothing in Woody's past that suggests that he's a pedophile. One thing is be attracted to late teenage women, other is to force a child to have sex with you.

- If it can be proved that Woody molested a 7-year old girl, he deserves to go to jail for it.

- If nothing is proved, then he's innocent.

- That won't change my perception of his movies at all. The great ones will be great, the lesser will still be mediocre.
Si

Reelist

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
  • Respect: +973
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #445 on: February 05, 2014, 10:03:37 AM »
+1
Woody is going to be fine. Nothing will be investigated and he won't be tried for anything. He has a much more powerful legal team than the Farrow's and will live out the rest of his life happily, making films. Dylan's letter is a small victory in sparking outrage and tarnishing his image temporarily, until the claims are inevitably refuted and swept under the rug, again. For cinephiles, comedy buffs, philosophy majors, and psychiatric cases everywhere there will always be something to marvel at in his films and no single accusation could negate that, but when you piece together the circumstances of his life and look beneath his public image some very questionable things arise in blatant patterns that are impossible to ignore. I think it's even more interesting to watch his films with this in mind, a possible darkness looming that he seems to constantly exorcise through his work to avoid. Lately, I haven't wanted to watch one of his movies until I read Dylan's letter. I want a further look into the man, but unfortunately in this case it seems that those looking from the outside assume they have the clearest picture of all. Woody's biggest fear must be to have someone else tell his story, and that is what's happening now.
You can go to places in the world with pudding. That. Is. Funny.

N

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Don't forget this fact, you can't get it back.
  • Respect: +109
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #446 on: February 08, 2014, 04:22:48 AM »
+1
Not sure if this has already been posted from another source but.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/woody-allen-responds-i-did-not-molest-dylan-1201092405/

Posted on the 7th.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10893
  • Respect: +1307
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #447 on: February 08, 2014, 11:47:25 AM »
0
Not sure if this has already been posted from another source but.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/woody-allen-responds-i-did-not-molest-dylan-1201092405/

Posted on the 7th.

That's fairly convincing, actually. I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems like the evidence is on his side. Am I wrong? And my natural bias would be to believe Dylan's story.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10893
  • Respect: +1307
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #448 on: February 08, 2014, 11:54:38 AM »
+1
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Woody Allen
« Reply #449 on: February 08, 2014, 04:40:34 PM »
0
Read both sides and I'm tossing my hands up now. No idea who really to believe and don't think I need to have any opinion on the matter. It's an interesting case to follow, but it has no destination for resolution.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy