I’ll second Zelig, it’s one of my all favorites, as well nod in agreement for What’s up Tiger Lily? and Sleeper.
I used to like Woody’s films, but as I grew older, I started growing weary of his constant psychotic whining, over blown sexual innuendo, and, as he grew more wrinkled and shriveled, the herd of beautiful young things who were supposed to be attracted to him. His complex psycho/intellectual/rambling/neurotic monologues started becoming annoying and he always seemed able to find someone like Diane Keaton (when she was young and hot) to fall right into his mental mess.
After a while, I just stopped going to see his movies.
When he decided to dump Mia for his under aged adolpted daughter, I took note of his nefarious power. No doubt Woody had been porking the girl prior to suggesting marriage, which indicates he is a child molester, but that little fact was glossed over real fast. The cops never got involved, even though Mia indicated that he had been caught inappropriately handling their natural child.
If he had fallen for a 17 year old ‘stranger,’ I might not have reacted much, but I know how the girl, living in his family, could easily come to be manipulated into going from loving ‘dad,’ to really loving daddy Woody. Plus, Woody is, what, something like 50 years her senior?
I don’t like Woody anymore. I don’t like how he was never investigated for child molestation. I don’t like his lecherous attitude (he could have shot for a more mature 20 something girl, but she might be wise enough to run) and I’m tired of his crappy psycho-babble films.
TheMoonGazer writes:
> When he decided to dump Mia for his under aged adolpted
> daughter, I took note of his nefarious power. No doubt
> Woody had been porking the girl prior to suggesting
> marriage, which indicates he is a child molester, but
> that little fact was glossed over real fast. The cops
> never got involved, even though Mia indicated that he had
> been caught inappropriately handling their natural child.
>
> If he had fallen for a 17 year old ‘stranger,’ I might
> not have reacted much, but I know how the girl, living in
> his family, could easily come to be manipulated into
> going from loving ‘dad,’ to really loving daddy Woody.
> Plus, Woody is, what, something like 50 years her senior?
>
> I don’t like Woody anymore. I don’t like how he was never
> investigated for child molestation. I don’t like his
> lecherous attitude (he could have shot for a more mature
> 20 something girl, but she might be wise enough to run
> and I’m tired of his crappy psycho-babble films.
Let’s not exaggerate. Woody Allen was born on December 1, 1935. Soon-Yi was born somewhere between 1970 and 1972. (She was found wandering in the streets in Korea when she was brought to an orphanage as a child, so no one knows her exact age.) The relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi didn’t begin until she was at least 18 and maybe as old as 20. The differences in ages is somewhere between 35 and 37 years. Woody Allen was investigated by the police. They chose not to charge him with anything. He was also investigated by a court to decide who got custody of his and Mia’s biological son Satchel and their adopted children Moses and Dylan. The court decided that he hadn’t been a very good father to them and that Mia was to get custody to all three and he would only get visitation rights with Satchel. (Irrelevant sidenote: All of this personal turmoil didn’t seem to affect Satchel’s academic development. According to recent news stories, he’s a child prodigy who has been taking college courses since he was 12.) Far from Soon-Yi thinking of Woody as a father, she felt very distant from him. He was her mother’s boyfriend who never even moved in with Mia. She always thought of Andre Previn as her father, since she had been adopted by both Mia and Andre during their marriage.
Even in the Pit, it’s a good idea to look up your facts.
“Interiors.” I’ve never seen it, myself–only read about it, so I would have been interesting in hearing some comments.
Nen writes:
> Woody Allen suffers from megalomania and a Napoleon
> complex based on his own sexual adequacy.
What are you, his psychiatrist? His sex therapiat? How would you know about his mental state or his sexual abilities?
So let me get this straight.
If you’re bad in the sack, you suffer from crippling emotional problems to mask your inadequacies.
But if you’re good in the sack, you suffer from crippling emotional problems because of an inflated sense of self.
Cripes, no wonder psychiatrists make so much money; damned if you do, and damned if you don’t…
Nen said it so well!
Woody was a genuinely good standup comic and his earlier movies had some amusing snippets. But even by Annie Hall he was changing from wry Everyman to a blatant, self-reverential icon. He wasn’t a New Yorker, he was theNew Yorker, the goddamn ultimate in New Yorkerness. He wasn’t a neurotic little guy who didn’t understand women; he was the aging, ugly, self-involved, superficial asshole who nonetheless attracted total babes. (And I mean “babes” in regard to both looks and youth.)
With the exception of The Front his movies have been about Woody Allen The Icon. Frankly, the subject just isn’t all that interesting anymore. Okay, it was delightful to watch Tracey Ullman pull a whole goddamn movie right out from under him, just by force of her talent and freshness, but that’s to her credit, not his.
He’s talented but all that ego rampaging across the screen pretty much kills his movies for me.
Veb
TVeblen and LouieB, thank you.
John Corrado, I apologize for the typo. As you noticed, that should read inadequacy.
Wendell Wagner, are you familiar with a process called induction?
I saw my first woody allen movie in entirety a few weeks ago. It was sleepers. I thought it was funny in a goofy kind of way, but terribly hard to get through.
I feel kinda creepy watching his movies after what has happened in his personal life. I saw a biography or two on his before watching his movie and thought he was a horrible man. I had to explain this to my husband while we watched the movie.
Also I’m not sure why he such an acclaimed artist. Maybe if I had lived in the time most his movies were produced I would see him as innovative.
I have sat through two Woody Allen movies: Annie Hall and Mighty Aphrodite.
I really enjoyed Annie Hall. Particularly the scene where he is trying to desperately trying to recreate the the “lobster moment” with his new girlfriend, in an effort to recapture what he felt with Annie. Even while I was laughing my ass off, I found it oddly touching, because who hasn’t wanted (or even tried to) relive one instant of pure joy in their lives? His talent is (was?) in taking those common sentiments and evoking them in an unusual or even seemingly inappropriate way. And I still tell my husband that I “luuuuurrrve” him.
Mighty Aphrodite, on the other hand, made me so damned uncomfortable that I just about had to turn it off. While there was a veritable smorgasboard of irritating quirks in that movie, the thing that really got under my skin was all of the petty bickering and bitching. Not that petty bickering isn’t a hallmark of all his films, but the self-serving, overwrought, contrived, falsely humble-yet-egomaniacal overtones made me want to puke. At least the arguing in Annie Hall seemed to genuinely portray the decay of a relationship. In Mighty Aphrodite it just came off as a manipulative piece of theatrics, thrown in to garner some critical handjobs for being a fearless chronicler of the human condition blah blah blah.
That said, if anyone knows where I can get a clock (the pig one) like the one in the hooker’s apartment, please let me know 
WOW! You must be almost my age.
Um, did you mean “deduction?”
And I always judge people by what is reported by tabloids and the E channel :rolleyes:
No, I mean “induction.” When one utilizes specifics to make a generalized conclusion, one induces. When one utilizes generlizations to draw specific conclusions, one deduces. Refer to you lexicon.
I’m not standing up for the man here or anything, but I do have three points to make:
- Annie Hall is a good movie.
- Michael Caine is kinda sexy.
- A friend of mine is obsessed with Roman Polanski, and we watching this mind-numbingly long documentory about him about a year ago. The documentary was made in the mid to late 80s, and a lot of the women who starred in his movies are interviewed about all aspects of his life. When discussing his rape charges, Mia Farrow says something along the lines of “I can condone his relationship with that girl. I think teenage girls can be very sexual beings and had knowledge of what was going on in their relationship. Roman did not take advantage of her.”
Yes, I know it’s two different situations, but it’s still worth something.
Please do not deny yourself the opportunity to see Radio Days,(…as there is alotta Woody bashing going on, I
guess I should mention that Allen is only the narrator) gentle, sweet, evocative and elegiac, it is Allen’s ode to
the golden age of radio as seen through the eyes of his working-class Rockaway neighborhood and is an utter
delight. This star-studded period piece features an absolutely smashing,wonderful, enchanting and terrific soundtrack of the great swing and big band songs of the day. The casting is terrific, filled with wonderful turns by many familiar faces. The movie is presented as a series of interlocking vignettes, alternating between the everyday lives of he and his family contrasted with the lives of the personalities that they hear on the radio…it is 1940s New York as seen from a child’s perspective, and it has never looked so good.
Sorry Nen, my bad I guess. My desk copy of Oxford Modern English did not list that part of the definition the same way, so I missed it.
Nen, I agree with a lot of what you say here. What’s interesting is that, in order to make these observations, you must have seen a lot of Woody Allen movies. Which would seem to belie your disdain for him and his work.
(C’mon, 'fess up. You’re Mia Farrow, aren’t you?)
I’m just kidding. But I’m wondering something. A LOT of us agree that it’s ridiculous for him to portray himself as a sexual god, and to cast beautiful women as his lovers. Is it possible the joke is on us?
sandrala, welcome to the board.
Unfortunately, I have a few friends who are fans of Woody Allen, one of which is my wife, who have made me endure his works.
No, I’m Soon Yi.
It is possible, although I doubt it.
I could slip into this thread like into a warm bath on a cold night. For more than I care t orecall I have been wholly baffled by the status accorded to WA and his work. Talk about the Emperor’s new clothes!
Someone else already mentioned the CD of his early stand up work from the 60s - yeah, I agree it’s worth listening to. But the films… I’ve tried to see the merits, but without much luck. I can think of a couple (Annie Hall, Play It Again Sam) that I thought had some good moments, but that’s small sixpences in a big bin full of sawdust.
I once saw a WA interview and he said “My acting range is very limited”. No, Woody, it’s non-existent. Every time, he just does the same nerdy inadequate mushtalking loser. Then we have the SAME tired old non-jokes about sex, the SAME tired old non-jokes about Jews and Jewish experience… it just goes on and on.
And then there’s the ‘sex god with nympho partner’ angle. No, I don’t think the joke is on us. I believe it’s very simple. WA knows the only way he’s going to get close to young, sexy women is to cast them in his movies, and so that’s what he does.
He’s a fluke of the movie industry system. He makes cheap, uninvolved films, which pull in just enough undiscerning, middle-of-the-road, something-to-watch punters to just about make a little money. But it’s a pathetic brand with ever-diminishing returns. In my book, ever since his glorious stand-up days he represents a thimble of talent spread very thinly over hundreds of miles of celluloid. And that’s being generous. We just don’t need another WA movie.
Along that same line, unfortunately…
After this thread, I decided to go ahead and rent Small Time Crooks as I had been threatening to.
What a bunch of crap. DAMMIT. I again turned off the film partway through, as it appeared to be going NOWHERE, and hadn’t been anywhere that I could see. SHIT.
I’m kinda pissed, and very disappointed. I have loved Woody in the past, but now feel like he is just a charicature of himself. Tracey Ullman was fun, but I didn’t care enough to watch the rest of the film.
I don’t know what’s more pathetic- Woody continuing to churn out crap, or me continuing to fall for it.