Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Publisher cancels Woody Allen memoir amid backlash


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hibi said:

What is he, pushing 90? I think his film career is over. I don't know why he feels the need to continue.

Couldn't you ask the same question about Clint Eastwood?

If they want to keep making films till they're 100, more power to them!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

#TEAM NO ONE

Seriously, with the exception of (some of) the non-Soon Yi children involved, I think there's a very real chance everyone on all sides is TERRIBLE. 

Wait - - I'm not sure I understand you, Lorna.  Shirley the children of Allen and Soon Yi would be the most innocent, the most un-involved, of all, since they weren't even born at the time the alleged incident with Dylan Farrow is said to have occurred  (or, if they were born, they were tiny children and not yet a part of Allen and Soon Yi's household;  they were adopted some time later, I believe.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

They would certainly publish his book in France. And he could always self-publish.

I for one, would like to hear what he has to say and he certainly has a right to his own freedom of speech.

I think he's an extraordinary cinematic artist, and I've enjoyed his work over the years, but I would never put him in the same category with a genius like Roman Polanski.

As far as individual works of art being banned because the artist is a criminal or controversial is nothing new in history.

Everyone and anyone listens to Wagner now, but it wasn't always the case here, and it wasn't certainly always the case in Israel.

And Celine is even being lauded in France and read in the textbooks.

The art endures, even if the artist was a world-class jerk.

So, Princess, you don't want to take me on regarding the post I made in reply to your comments above?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Couldn't you ask the same question about Clint Eastwood?

If they want to keep making films till they're 100, more power to them!

Well look at Eastwood's last film. Time to retire....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Well look at Eastwood's last film. Time to retire....

You're not being a bit ageist here?

THE MULE (2018) made $174 million. RICHARD JEWELL (2019) broke even and will probably end up showing a profit later, if it is repackaged with some of his other more successful films.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TopBilled said:

It will obviously be a bestseller, since the publicity that is surrounding it is already great due to him losing the previous deal. Plus people want to read his version of events regarding the ongoing Farrow family drama. Not to mention, the considerable focus he will put on his films and the creation of his films.

You never know, though- Woody may glaze over his personal life & only write about his movie making experiences. He's that kind of jerk to leave out what he thinks most people want to know about and instead wax poetic about his own greatness.

Allen vs Polanski: I'll go out on a limb here and simply state my personal opinion. ("That's all anyone knows, their own terms" Citizen Kane)

While I love Woody Allen's films, he's a pretty straight forward director. His movies vary in tone & subject matter but mostly deal with various people (family) and their relationships. Sometimes you get intrigue or fantasy but Allen tells a story in a pretty simple way. 

Polanski is more of an "artistic" filmmaker. He pushes the medium and tries telling you a story in a more subliminal, visual way. There is nothing "every man" about his charactors. 

Polanski treats his films as artistic canvases, Allen's films read like a book. Both have merit, both are great filmmakers, both genius in their own respects. Funny, both used Mia Farrow in their films.

As much as I enjoy the work of both, I don't think any of these charactors involved are "typical" people. Mia Farrow was brought up in a Hollywood household full of egos, it's no wonder she's attracted to "famous" partners. Allen & Polanski were auteurs, driven, successful & famous at a young age, it's not surprising their attractions are also skewed from "the norm". Recipe for disaster.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Wait - - I'm not sure I understand you, Lorna.  Shirley the children of Allen and Soon Yi would be the most innocent, the most un-involved, of all, since they weren't even born at the time the alleged incident with Dylan Farrow is said to have occurred  (or, if they were born, they were tiny children and not yet a part of Allen and Soon Yi's household;  they were adopted some time later, I believe.)

Hmmm.

Thread's still up.

what I was trying to convey was: I sort of get the feeling that if you pulled a wall out and took a good look at WOODY, MIA, SOON-YI, and SOME but not ALL of MIA'S brood over the years, you would walk away feeling as if they were ALL just hopelessly, deeply unpleasant people.

i think there's just no hope for the near-total lot of them, NOT THAT IT'S ANY OF THE KIDS FAULTS...

And certainly nothing against WOODY and SOON-YI'S kids...the less said about them, the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite scenes in any Woody Allen film is the circular table  restaurant scene in Hannah and Her Sisters (which also features a terrific and brilliant Max von Sydow performance.)

While I guess not particularly inventive, for Woody I think the 360 degree movement  was quite novel. as the camera first attaches to one sister and then whirls around  to the others.

I would look forward to reading a book by him which focuses on film making.  I don't really need the other stuff.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

You never know, though- Woody may glaze over his personal life & only write about his movie making experiences. He's that kind of jerk to leave out what he thinks most people want to know about and instead wax poetic about his own greatness.

Allen vs Polanski: I'll go out on a limb here and simply state my personal opinion. ("That's all anyone knows, their own terms" Citizen Kane)

While I love Woody Allen's films, he's a pretty straight forward director. His movies vary in tone & subject matter but mostly deal with various people (family) and their relationships. Sometimes you get intrigue or fantasy but Allen tells a story in a pretty simple way. 

Polanski is more of an "artistic" filmmaker. He pushes the medium and tries telling you a story in a more subliminal, visual way. There is nothing "every man" about his charactors. 

Polanski treats his films as artistic canvases, Allen's films read like a book. Both have merit, both are great filmmakers, both genius in their own respects. Funny, both used Mia Farrow in their films.

As much as I enjoy the work of both, I don't think any of these charactors involved are "typical" people. Mia Farrow was brought up in a Hollywood household full of egos, it's no wonder she's attracted to "famous" partners. Allen & Polanski were auteurs, driven, successful & famous at a young age, it's not surprising their attractions are also skewed from "the norm". Recipe for disaster.

I agree with most of what you said above. Re: your first paragraph, however, I think if the book was just about Allen's movies, the Farrow family would not have felt threatened. They obviously don't want him to talk about their personal problems, which is ironic since Ronan has been doing just that for a long time now.

My guess is that someone inside the publishing firm shared pages from Allen's manuscript with Ronan, who then shared this information with Mia. And it's the stuff about Dylan they're objecting to, since Allen probably defends himself. Or else he dismisses it entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 10:38 PM, Gershwin fan said:

The victim did say she forgave Polanski though. He should be allowed back to the US.

What for? To set another wonderful example of how the rich and famous are above the law and can get away with anything? Let Polanski stay where he is. He made his bed and should lie in it, no matter how much time has passed. It's not like he has done any real jail time, like any other ordinary citizen would have if they had done what he did.

I am glad she was able to forgive him and moved on with her life.....but I still think he should do time for what he did to her, I don't care how long ago it was.

As far as the accusations against Woody goes, I personally don't like the guy but whether the accusations against him are true or not, I haven't a clue.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hamradio said:

That little? ;)

LOL...okay, let's up the ante.

Throw Bette Midler and Meryl Streep in as the wives, and then it would make $150 million.

Of course Bette would be Woody's wife; and Meryl would be Clint's wife!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

What for? To set another wonderful example of how the rich and famous are above the law and can get away with anything? Let Polanski stay where he is. He made his bed and should lie in it, no matter how much time has passed. It's not like he has done any real jail time, like any other ordinary citizen would have if they had done what he did.

I am glad she was able to forgive him and moved on his life.....but I still think he should do time for what he did to her, I don't care how long ago it was.

As far as the accusations against Woody goes, I personally don't like the guy but whether the accusations against him are true or not, I haven't a clue.

 

 

I think if the victim doesn't even care then it is silly to get worked up over it. You're caring about it more than the actual person it happened to,

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of having an age of consent, as I understand it, is to draw an age line below which a person isn't legally considered mentally or emotionally prepared to grant consent for sexual activity, and thus, whether they "care" or not doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. I think victimization is also sometimes an odd thing, and just because a victim may seem blithe about the incident doesn't mean a violation didn't occur. Different people process what happens to them in different ways, especially the young. There was a certain actress (I don't suppose I have to drag anyone's name through the mud - the man in question was no longer living and couldn't defend himself) who was the daughter of a '60s pop star who claimed some years ago on a talk show that she and her father had shared a sexual relationship, but she seemed okay with it because she was an adult at the time and described it as consensual. I recall a therapist saying there was still a gross violation of the trust a daughter places in her father, and so consent didn't really apply in this case.  Also, there were odd sexual mores for a long time. For example, if there was a female teacher/male student relationship (which seems to be happening at an alarming rate in my state these days), the boy might have been deemed by society at one time to be deserving of high fives all around rather than being the victim of a predatory adult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:

Hibi, you talkin about Woody or Clint? ( you were discussing Clint before)

Well, both actually. I was referring to Allen initially. Clint has WB backing his projects but Allen has no one at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2020 at 12:32 PM, Hibi said:

Well look at Eastwood's last film. Time to retire....

Actually Hibi, and unless you might be referring to Eastwood's last appearance in front of the camera in his film The Mule, his last directed film at this point in time, Richard Jewell, pretty much has received very favorable reviews across the board.

(...and yes, even though the political Right has used it as an indictment against one of their whipping boys, the so-called "lamestream media")

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Not the reviews I've read. Or audiences. MEGATON BOMB.

WB had a lot of films that faltered at the box office last year: Richard Jewell, Blinded by the Light, The Good Liar, Just Mercy, Motherless Brooklyn, The Goldfinch, there were some others too. Most actually sounded interesting....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

WB had a lot of films that faltered at the box office last year: Richard Jewell, Blinded by the Light, The Good Liar, Just Mercy, Motherless Brooklyn, The Goldfinch, there were some others too. Most actually sounded interesting....

Motherless Brooklyn was really good.  We rented it on RedBox.  I was disappointed to read that Edward Norton's pet project didn't do well at the box office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...