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

Publisher cancels Woody Allen memoir amid backlash


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CinemaInternational said:

I'll be checking that out in April. Sounds really good to me.

It was really good. It was kind of noirish, it was funny, I would watch it again.

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

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

Yes, its box office returns were poor, but once again almost ever source I've found on the internet says its critical response was very positive, with its IMDb rating presently being 7.5, and at  Rotten Tomatoes a 76% / audience rating of 96%.

(...point being: there are a HELL of lot younger directors who'd kill to have their latest movie receive these figures...oh, and that B/O returns are seldom a true indicator of a movie's quality)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hibi said:

True. But Eastwood doesn't normally churn out bombs.....

True, but you have to remember that Clint's latest film is more a message movie, and one released during a time in which superhero flicks are now the preeminent genre of choice for the moviegoing audience.

And, I'll now throw out another possible reason for its relative failure at the B/O. This being that because the political Right appropriated the film for their own purposes, perhaps many of the more mature moviegoing public who don't go to see superhero movies but who also aren't of that political persuasion, might have been resistant to the idea of seeing it due to their hearing of this very thing...the said appropriation.

(...just a thought, but somehow I think this might have played into this whole thing as well)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hibi said:

True. But Eastwood doesn't normally churn out bombs.....

RICHARD JEWELL broke even, and as I said earlier, it will probably turn a profit at some point because it can be repackaged with other WB Eastwood films. 

It's hardly a bomb. A bomb is something like Warren Beatty's RULES DON'T APPLY (2016) which cost $25 million and made $3.9 million. It had mixed reviews and is currently sitting at a 5.7 rating on the IMDb.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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....

The Good Liar is quite good. My husband and I both liked it. It starts off rather slowly, but we were always interested. Helen Mirren and Ian McKellen are just as good as you would be expect them to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2020 at 11:45 AM, TopBilled said:

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

I lol at the closing shots of 2002's HOLLYWOOD ENDING when Allen ends up with Tea Leoni. Only in his dreams. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Orson Welles on Woody Allen

http://www.openculture.com/2019/09/orson-welles-trashes-famous-directors.html

And though Godard may admire Woody Allen (himself an admirer of Bergman), Welles certainly didn't: "I hate Woody Allen physically, I dislike that kind of man," he tells filmmaker Henry Jaglom. "That particular combination of arrogance and timidity sets my teeth on edge." When Jaglom objects that Allen isn't arrogant but shy, Welles drives on: "Like all people with timid personalities, his arrogance is unlimited." Allen "hates himself, and he loves himself, a very tense situation. It's people like me who have to carry on and pretend to be modest," while, in Allen's case, "everything he does on screen is therapeutic."

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/11/2020 at 1:19 PM, speedracer5 said:

It was really good. It was kind of noirish, it was funny, I would watch it again.

I asked this on here before, what this time is WOODY accused of please?

Because as much as I always liked her MIA can be vindictive

Not vindictive here, but she also insisted RONAN FARROW was SINAITRA'S son all over the media

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spence said:

I asked this on here before, what this time is WOODY accused of please?

Because as much as I always liked her MIA can be vindictive

Not vindictive here, but she also insisted RONAN FARROW was SINAITRA'S son all over the media

Nothing new.    The Farrow family complained to the publisher and they canceled the deal.    Woody has a new publisher so the book should be out soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, spence said:

I asked this on here before, what this time is WOODY accused of please?

Because as much as I always liked her MIA can be vindictive

Not vindictive here, but she also insisted RONAN FARROW was SINAITRA'S son all over the media

Ronan does look like Sinatra.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I received the book as a gift last night.  There is a lot to unpack from it. First of all it should be noted that much of the book strikes a regular Woody Allen tone, self-depreciating, wisecracking, acutely aware of his own faults and shortcomings in addition to others, obsessed by beauty (I swear it felt like he developed an unrequited crush on most of his leading ladies). But then there is the 1/5 of the book that deals with Mia Farrow. And that section is entirely bone-chilling.   I'll leave it at that. But it did reveal one thing that makes all so much sense in retrospect. The Allen/Farrow relationship had begun as a combination artistic and personal relationship in the early 80s, but Allen write that romantically it was pretty much over by  late 1987, and while they kept working on films and kept the appearance up of still being a couple (largely for the sake of three children), it was no longer anything more than that. It makes sense because if you look at the last four films they made together filmed after late 1987, in three of them she dumps him (New York Stories, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Shadows and Fog) and in the fourth (which he does not appear on screen), she leaves her husband (Alice). Very telling the more you thing about it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I received the book as a gift last night.  There is a lot to unpack from it. First of all it should be noted that much of the book strikes a regular Woody Allen tone, self-depreciating, wisecracking, acutely aware of his own faults and shortcomings in addition to others, obsessed by beauty (I swear it felt like he developed an unrequited crush on most of his leading ladies). But then there is the 1/5 of the book that deals with Mia Farrow. And that section is entirely bone-chilling.   I'll leave it at that. But it did reveal one thing that makes all so much sense in retrospect. The Allen/Farrow relationship had begun as a combination artistic and personal relationship in the early 80s, but Allen write that romantically it was pretty much over by  late 1987, and while they kept working on films and kept the appearance up of still being a couple (largely for the sake of three children), it was no longer anything more than that. It makes sense because if you look at the last four films they made together filmed after late 1987, in three of them she dumps him (New York Stories, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Shadows and Fog) and in the fourth (which he does not appear on screen), she leaves her husband (Alice). Very telling the more you thing about it.

In Husbands and Wives Mia plays essentially the same character that she played in Hannah and Her Sisters, but now the angle of vision has changed, and instead of being adorably offbeat she is seen as cold, passive-aggressive, and manipulative. Thanks for the report on Woody's book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/12/2020 at 1:18 AM, kingrat said:

The Good Liar is quite good. My husband and I both liked it. It starts off rather slowly, but we were always interested. Helen Mirren and Ian McKellen are just as good as you would be expect them to be.

Just borrowed it from the newly reopened video store, and I agree, film got a bum rap. Its a very fine twisty thriller with two wonderful pros.

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

Just borrowed it from the newly reopened video store, and I agree, film got a bum rap. Its a very fine twisty thriller with two wonderful pros.

CI, I have noticed that films that are geared to an older audience almost always get more negative reviews than the film deserves. This has been generally true for the last few years. Anyone who likes Helen Mirren and Ian McKellen will probably enjoy The Good Liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

Sorry to bring up a sore subject, but I saw a glimpse of some documentary coming out about Woody Allen. It looks like it's going to air on HBO and centers around the sordid court case since it's titled "Allen Vs Farrow". Disgusting. Can't people squabble or grieve in private?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Sorry to bring up a sore subject, but I saw a glimpse of some documentary coming out about Woody Allen. It looks like it's going to air on HBO and centers around the sordid court case since it's titled "Allen Vs Farrow". Disgusting. Can't people squabble or grieve in private?

The case has become like a  s*c*a*b that tabloids and others refuse to leave alone, and that is all because of Mia Farrow, who refuses to let it disappear into the night. Although the court battle ended in 1993, she brought the allegations up again in 2005, 2014, 2016, 2017, and now 2021. It again presents that Woody is guilty, but I guess that just happens to ignore the entire fact that two medical boards (one of the state of New York and one from Yale university) did a complete gynecological exam on the girl and there were no signs of any sexual abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Sorry to bring up a sore subject, but I saw a glimpse of some documentary coming out about Woody Allen. It looks like it's going to air on HBO and centers around the sordid court case since it's titled "Allen Vs Farrow". Disgusting. Can't people squabble or grieve in private?

We have created a world with so many news sources: News services, channels, tabloids, bloggers, etc... yet, there isn't nearly enough news  to report. So they have to continue to dredge up old stories time and time again hoping to get some attention and page views.

And with so many streaming services coming online, they all search for that "big name controversy" to stand out from the rest. 

And now they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "documentary" looks like it's made by two witch hunters who saw a headline for their project. From what I read in the NY Times, they went into to project with the assumption that Woody Allen was guilty (although he's never been legally charged with anything ... not even a parking ticket). It's obviously then not an impartial documentary. It features the "usual suspects" any does not include the several adopted children who cam out for Allen and against Mommie Mia. It's basically tabloid journalism on film.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 6:26 AM, TikiSoo said:

Can't people squabble or grieve in private?

Most of the Farrows don't want to squabble in private. They want to destroy Allen in the court of public opinion, since it appears they will never be able to do so in a court of law, and they want to make themselves out to be righteous, noble victims. From what I've read about this thing on other websites, it is entirely one-sided, theirs. 

I am only slightly interested in it because some of the old footage of Woody and Mia back in the day. But I haven't had an HBO subscription in 20 years probably and won't get one just for this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 7:26 AM, TikiSoo said:

Sorry to bring up a sore subject, but I saw a glimpse of some documentary coming out about Woody Allen. It looks like it's going to air on HBO and centers around the sordid court case since it's titled "Allen Vs Farrow". Disgusting. Can't people squabble or grieve in private?

Is this sponsored \ supported by Farrow?  E.g.  she agreed to be interviewed for it,  etc....      (I highly doubt Allen would do that).      

PS:  I'm assuming that last sentence means that people should be allowed-to squabble or grieve in private (i.e. that media should leave them alone).

Generally I agree but in this case,  as sewhite points out,  Farrow wants this to be as public as possible.

 

  • Thanks 1
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...