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

Publisher cancels Woody Allen memoir amid backlash


Recommended Posts

On 2/21/2021 at 7:42 PM, Vanessa17 said:

I'm not saying that Allen should not be allowed to publish his book. I quoted you because you theorized that Allen's book would be a bestseller, which is not possible. .. It could be that they feared backlash from publishing Allen's book, but it could also be an entirely monetary decision. They already had a relationship with an author with a steady output who recently released one of their biggest hits. Woody's book doesn't make that much of a difference in their bottom line, so why not ditch him for the guy that is making them more money and has more potential to release another book in the future.

Re-reading this exchange I see I may have misconstrued Vanessa's position. I took her to be saying Hachette essentially rejected Apropos because it would be a loser, not out of concerns for social backlash, and I responded while misunderstanding the premise.

Let me take it again.

Topbilled seems to be saying Hachette should have stayed with Woody and made money on both his and Ronan's future books, but they feared a #MeToo backlash. (He called it the #MeToo "crowd" which I took as an unwitting tribute to Rush - made me smile).

Vanessa replied, essentially, that maybe they feared a backlash but more likely they feared losing the stronger writer after Ronan gave them a "him-or-me" ultimatum.

I take the proper question then to be, did they simply prefer Ronan? Or did they fear social justice punishment? ("Backlash" I think isn't the best metaphor since signing Woody to begin with wasn't analogous to cracking a whip at anyone.)

So if I now have the question properly framed, I see they are both correct. Hachette feared Social Justice Inc., and they feared losing a potential money-making author. ("New Shimmer is a floor wax and a desert topping!")

I just felt Vanessa might be discounting too strongly that Hachette had signed a deal with Woody, so any decisions about keeping Ronan happy should already have been made. It wasn't like Woody knocked on their door that morning offering them a 500 page manuscript and they said no.

. . . . .

I remain very curious though about how Arcade, the eventual publisher, got the finished product to market so fast, just a matter of days really. It is a rather thick volume, so did some needed editing go undone? Did Hachette have a finished product ready to print that they just handed over to Woody? ("You see how it is. Here's your book, all nice and corrected. Don't sue us, ok?")

That question was put to Arcade's owner, Jeanette Seaver, in a brief Q&A here but the reporter fired a salvo of five concurrent questions about the process and allowed her to answer only vaguely. She did say, proudly, that she had Woody's signature in a matter of hours after the news broke.

Finally, I saw a statement by a Hachette guy who said Ronan works with one imprint, Little Brown, and Woody was working with another, Grand Central, and their labels don't really interact, and that's why Ronan was unaware until the public announcement.

 I don't know, but Hachette looks pretty goofy after all this. That they could not have seen what they were going to be dealing with, then dealing with it as spinelessly (ahem) as they did ... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 7:43 AM, UMO1982 said:

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.

Woody Allen was offered the chance to participate and refused to do so.

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?

I would like to see it, but I don't get HBO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 5:08 PM, CinemaInternational said:

I've also heard enough about Mia over the years to say this. She is a good actress, but an individual who makes the Joan Crawford of Mommie Dearest look like Donna Reed. She's a terrifying person. 

Who exactly have you heard this from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 10:37 AM, sewhite2000 said:

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. 

The docu  maker said Mia did not want to participate. She was talked into it and wound up wearing his shirt as she had not dressed for an interview

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 10:37 AM, sewhite2000 said:

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. 

You sound like Allen's press agent......

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 5:03 PM, CinemaInternational said:

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.

She is not behind this documentary and did not want to be a part of it at first. If you believed your child and felt justice had not been served, why wouldnt you bring it up? What the actual truth is will never be known, but it's obvious to me, Allen used his celebrity to beat the system.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

I remain very curious though about how Arcade, the eventual publisher, got the finished product to market so fast, just a matter of days really. It is a rather thick volume, so did some needed editing go undone? Did Hachette have a finished product ready to print that they just handed over to Woody? ("You see how it is. Here's your book, all nice and corrected. Don't sue us, ok?")

That question was put to Arcade's owner, Jeanette Seaver, in a brief Q&A here but the reporter fired a salvo of five concurrent questions about the process and allowed her to answer only vaguely. She did say, proudly, that she had Woody's signature in a matter of hours after the news broke. 

It could be either one. There are also a few things about the publication that would let them move faster than usual. Arcade is an imprint of Skyhorse Publishing, and they can bring a book out fast. I've used reference books from them that they had formatted and released in a month, and it doesn't seem like the pandemic has slowed them down much. It looks like the ebook was released a month ahead of any physical copies, which helps. If people do notice errors, they will have time to fix them. They also seem to have mostly skipped over getting semi-professional reviews from book bloggers which would have helped bring it to publication faster, also.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, UMO1982 said:

Why on earth would he?

He doesn't participate, then complains its all fabrication. He had a chance to refute it by participating.

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

You would know.

Coming from someone that would make this type of arrogant asinine statement: "What the actual truth is will never be known, but it's obvious to me, Allen used his celebrity to beat the system".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 12:32 PM, Hibi said:

Who exactly have you heard this from?

The one other child who ultimately reconciled with Woody wrote this in 2018.

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Plus him, you also have her former servants, all of whom, spoke about bizarre perversities, and you even had other Hollywood figures make comments against Mia, such as Katharine Hepburn.

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

The one other child who ultimately reconciled with Woody wrote this in 2018.

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Plus him, you also have her former servants, all of whom, spoke about bizarre perversities, and you even had other Hollywood figures make comments against Mia, such as Katharine Hepburn.

That is a heartbreaking read.  Thanks for posting it. 

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

The one other child who ultimately reconciled with Woody wrote this in 2018.

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Plus him, you also have her former servants, all of whom, spoke about bizarre perversities, and you even had other Hollywood figures make comments against Mia, such as Katharine Hepburn.

I've also read Moses is called out in the docu for false statements. And Katharine  Hepburn throwing shade on anyone is a bit rich. Who knows what is true?  Who here has watched the documentary? I havent, but all the Mia bashing here over the years and in the media  has a familiar ring. Artists (Allen,, Polanski, etc.) are a different class and can get away with a lot of things. Who can forget O.J.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 11:00 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Coming from someone that would make this type of arrogant asinine statement: "What the actual truth is will never be known, but it's obvious to me, Allen used his celebrity to beat the system".

Well, didn't he? You don't think someone off the street would've achieved the same result??? You've got some nerve talking about ARROGANCE. Forgive me, I forgot you're a GENIUS! A genius that can't even spell!

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

I've also read Moses is called out in the docu for false statements. And Katharine  Hepburn throwing shade on anyone is a bit rich. Who knows what is true?  Who here has watched the documentary? I havent, but all the Mia bashing here over the years and in the media  has a familiar ring. Artists (Allen,, Polanski, etc.) are a different class and can get away with a lot of things. Who can forget O.J.?

The thing is though that even though Mia is a good actress, her positions look odd even without backstories involved. I mean she has been one of the biggest supporters of Polanski (her Rosemary's Baby) for years, and that is a bit hard to reconcile with this case and what has been said. And Moses was pretty much backed up by Mia's former servants including one who spoke of a lurid sleeping arrangement that I don't wish to get into. And that is an accusation not made by Moses, Soon-Yi, Woody, et all. That's from a source that was once connected to but is outside of the clan.

As for false claims though, the new doc has been saying Soon-Yi was dumb and slow. Dumb and Slow people don't get PHDs from Columbia university.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hibi said:

Well, didn't he? You don't think someone off the street would've achieved the same result??? You've got some nerve talking about ARROGANCE. Forgive me, I forgot you're a GENIUS!

It doesn't take any nerve to see blatant arrogance when someone writes "actual truth will never be known" and then follows that with "but it's obvious to me".

Just own your POV;   you believe we do know the actual truth, AND,   that truth is obvious to you.

 

I clearly said multiple times:  I have no idea what happened or didn't happen.   NO clue.  NO opinion.  

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

Woody's a filmmaker, make his own documentary, telling his side of the story.

Uh,   no media outlet would show it and no company would distribute it to be shown in theaters.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Uh,   no media outlet would show it and no company would distribute it to be shown in theaters.     

Plus he'd probably have to fund it himself.

And he has told his side. A few times now. To the authorities and to the public. I can't imagine he wants to dwell on it any further, and certainly not to the degree that making a persuasive documentary would require.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hibi said:

He doesn't participate, then complains its all fabrication. He had a chance to refute it by participating.

He wrote a book. Calling this spew a documentary is like calling trump a president.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Uh,   no media outlet would show it and no company would distribute it to be shown in theaters.     

I don't know about that. This is a particular era in media where we have so many streaming services and not enough content. (Eventually there will be consolidation ), Someone would show it just for the publicity.

Remember a few years ago, there was a hitler miniseries and no one would sponsor it. The network showed it anyways.

The media has no shame. Notice how many old murders that have been dredged up these days just for ratings ?

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...