MovieChat Forums > Allen v. Farrow (2021) Discussion > PART 4 (Series Finale) and a PART 5 EPIS...

PART 4 (Series Finale) and a PART 5 EPISODE is offered to WOODY

posted 4 years ago by joi2049 (5572)
77 replies | jump to latest

Any thoughts???

What sticks out is how Moses LIED about what happened the day DYLAN was SEXUALLY MOLESTED by WOODY by claiming that there was NO TRAIN SET when the detectives also drew the location of the Train into their drawings.

PLUS Moses claims he was with WOODY the entire time that day, which CONTRADICTS what WOODY said in COURT about how he hadn't even seen MOSES that day because he was off somewhere by himself in a BAD MOOD.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/e2-80-98allen-v-farrow-e2-80-99-filmmakers-on-moses-farrow-and-the-finale-e2-80-99s-train-set-reveal/ar-BB1eAq5j?ocid=uxbndlbing

Another apparent inconsistency from Allen concerns a train set in the attic. Dylan has said she remembers staring at a toy train set going around a track while Allen assaulted her at their Connecticut country home on Aug. 4, 1992, while Allen and his defenders have continually tried to poke holes in Dylan’s story by arguing that there was no train set in the attic (Allen’s adopted son, Moses, has backed this claim, writing “there was no electric train set in that attic… the idea that the space could possibly have accommodated a functioning electric train set, circling around the attic, is ridiculous.”)

As Allen v. Farrow reveals in its finale, Connecticut State Police visited the home immediately after catching wind of the allegation and composed a detailed diagram of the attic space. This diagram is included in the case files, and shown in the docuseries, and it contains a sketch of a circular train track going around the attic space.

“They’ve said there was no train set in the attic, and have repeated it ad nauseum,” says Amy Herdy, an investigative journalist and the chief researcher for Allen v. Farrow. “There’s been lots of allegations about the attic and the crawl space. This wasn’t such a tight space that no one could fit in there, because in the Connecticut State Police records it’s reflected that the detective followed Dylan into the crawl space, where Dylan showed them exactly where she says the abuse had happened. And they recorded a diagram of the scene, and what elements were present in the scene, and one of the things they noticed was a toy train track that was assembled there.”

it’s just amazing the lengths that someone will go to disprove what a survivor maintains as her story, and who has been consistent with her story since she was seven years old.”

There are other discrepancies, too. Allen and Moses have offered contradictory accounts as to his whereabouts that day. During the child custody trial, Allen testified that Moses had marched off because the 14-year-old was angry with him that day, and was nowhere near him; Moses, on the other hand, has alleged that he was in the very TV room where Allen, according to the neighbor’s nanny Allison Stickland, was spotted burying his head in Dylan’s naked lap.

And we also have TESTIMONY of the other kids who DENY ever seeing what MOSES said happened to him, which is also backed up by the HAND WRITTEN CARD that he sent to MIA thanking her for being such a WONDERFUL MOTHER to him.

So why send Mia that card when she'd been abusive to him??? It's because MOSES SOLD OUT to WOODY's offer to pay for his college education (the same way as WOODY also made the same offer to RONAN if he'd also ATTACK his mother and say derogatory things about her in return for WOODY'S MONEY).

So once again it all boils down to this:

I also believe DYLAN and what she said happened to her and think she's been very brave to come forward to tell her story.

[–] [email protected] (155) 4 years ago

The train set was always there, no questions asked. Why was it there, in the attic, when it could have been in any of the children's rooms is a mystery to me. Moses definitely took Woody's side, but that is no surprise. If the investigations would have shown that there was evidence enough to convict Allen, then maybe he would have stayed supporting Dylan.

But here's the issue about this whole documentary: It is biased toward Farrow and designed to destroy Woody Allen's legacy, the same way people have done with the careers of Bill Cosby, Roman Polansky, Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor, and many others. The MeToo movement didn't do anything to cancel Allen's career, so this documentary is trying to do that. Expect a statement from Woody and Soon-Yi anytime soon, but no more.

Allen's career is in the toilet now, not because of the way Hollywood has turned against him, but because of himself. His movies aren't getting any better, his comedy is repetitive, and he's just re-hashing or re-issuing his themes over and over. Since Blue Jazmine, Woody Allen has not released anything interesting or new.

And regarding Dylan and the whole story. I have my doubts. Sorry.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

The MAIN PURPOSE of the DOCUMENTARY is to GIVE DYLAN CLOSURE, due to the way that WOODY has essentially called her a LIAR for all of these years and we haven't heard very much of her side of the story before.

But also agree with what you say about how Allen's films are REPETITIVE and simply re-hash again other stuff that we've seen before. Not sure but I think "Match Point" might be the last time that I've seen one of his movies.

As for the train set, the article also explains in GREAT DETAIL how it was a MINI MATCH BOX set, but there were also other train sets throughout the house as well (including one downstairs that you could sit on and ride).

This revelation has caused Allen’s most vocal defenders, like Robert B. Weide and The Guardian’s Hadley Freeman, to move the goalposts—now suggesting that the attic train set was “a chunky plastic train the children would sit on and ride” (a claim also echoed by Moses). But that isn’t true either, explains Herdy.

“The kids had many different train sets, and what is documented in the Connecticut State Police report—and what Dylan has said that she remembers—is different from the train set that Weide and others allege was the only train set that the kids were playing with at the time, so that she couldn’t be correct about the type of train set in the attic,” says Herdy. “I mean, it’s just amazing the lengths that someone will go to disprove what a survivor maintains as her story, and who has been consistent with her story since she was seven years old.”

She continues, “It was a three-car miniature set, and the cars were so small that they could fit in your hand. Dylan was very clear with her memory of a three-car set, and it was corroborated by police. We’re aware of the giant kids’ ride-on train set, and what was told to us—and corroborated—was that the kids would play with that downstairs, because it was a huge set that the kids would ride around the living room. This is all reflected in the records. We’re not dealing with allegations—we’re dealing with facts.”

So the MYSTERY is solved by READING what the article says in the link that was provided here for you. And it also explains how MOSES was on the side of his MOTHER until age 29 at which time WOODY comes back into his life again. And it also explains how the former wife of MOSES also says he NEVER had anything NEGATIVE to say about MIA to her during their marriage (which also proves that MOSES has LIED about that matter as a way to try and get some MONEY from WOODY).

QUOTE:

a teenage Moses supported Mia and lambasted Allen, and he remained a close member of the Farrow family for years after—until Allen reentered his life a little less than a decade ago.

“Dylan was a bridesmaid at Moses and his wife’s wedding, there were Thanksgiving photos, Mother’s Day cards he handwrote to Mia, there’s public testimony of Moses saying she’s a great mother,” explains Ziering. “There was a lot of corroborating evidence throughout the decades from what we saw in photos, cards, and interviews with the siblings, and there were no mentions of any problems. He was very supportive of Dylan and Mia, and still very much part of that side of the family when Woody broke off, and then, very late in the game, there was a dramatic shift.”

“I did look into the Moses situation,” adds Herdy. “As you can see in the film, we have the Mother’s Day card that Moses wrote to Mia when Moses was 29. There’s a photo of Mia and them all together at the birth of Moses’ son. I talked to Moses’ ex-wife, who said he’d never indicated anything about having been abused and appeared to love his mother very much.

another of Farrow’s adopted children, Daisy Previn, testified that Allen was creepy to her on different occasions.

“In her court testimony, Daisy recounted how Woody Allen asked her if she had a boyfriend, and if so, what she was doing with her boyfriend, and that she could tell him things that she couldn’t tell her mother,” says Herdy. “That could be viewed as a conversation that’s leading toward grooming.”

END QUOTE

So when the LIES come from MOSES and the TRUTH comes from DYLAN, I also still chose to BELIEVE HER instead of MOSES or WOODY. And since Mia's daughter DAISY was also being GROOMED by Allen, that further adds to the CREDIBILITY of DYLAN.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/e2-80-98allen-v-farrow-e2-80-99-filmmakers-on-moses-farrow-and-the-finale-e2-80-99s-train-set-reveal/ar-BB1eAq5j?ocid=uxbndlbing

Allen v. Farrow filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering—as well as their researcher Amy Herdy—say that they investigated Moses’ claims of abuse at the hands of Mia and could not find evidence to support them.

“There was no record of any of this [abuse by Mia], and there would have been ample opportunity for any of the children to tell this to pediatricians, to babysitters,” says Ziering. “We tried to find corroboration for that, and we could not. And we worked very hard on that and were very curious. We couldn’t find any eyewitnesses, any police reports, any complaints to child welfare agencies, any history of this ever being mentioned, and that was a very public family with lots of people coming in and out—friends, babysitters, nannies, tutors, teachers. On the contrary, when we interrogated these people and asked what they thought of their experiences, it was the polar opposite.”

Allison Stickland, a nanny of family friend Casey Pascal’s, recently came forward to say that Mia Farrow’s was “a lovely household.”

“I thought it was a lovely household. Lovely children, they all got along well together. There never seemed to be any sibling rivalry. The older children I would say had fun with the younger ones. It was just very happy,” said Stickland. “I wouldn’t say it was troubled at all… I thought [Mia] was lovely. She was a very soft-spoken, gentle lady. Very attentive. You could tell it was so obvious that she adored all her children.”

Moses, Ziering attests, had “a very different narrative for decades.” At the child custody trial, to Connecticut State Police, and in news interviews around that time, a teenage Moses supported Mia and lambasted Allen, and he remained a close member of the Farrow family for years after—until Allen reentered his life

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

>I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career. He has another movie coming out soon and I cannot wait to see it.

MOVING on WITHOUT WOODY:

the schtick gets old and the romcom setup is tiring

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/what-will-it-take-to-stop-woody-allen-e2-80-99s-career-e2-80-98allen-v-farrow-e2-80-99-isn-e2-80-99t-enough/ar-BB1eGdhU?ocid=uxbndlbing

his 49th feature, “Rifkin’s Festival” — a self-referential comedy starring Wallace Shawn as neurotic film professor who accompanies his publicist wife (Gina Gershon) to the San Sebastián Film Festival

the schtick gets old and the romcom setup is tiring from the start. In a bizarro universe in which Allen’s scandals never happened, it would still rank as an underwhelming shrug from a filmmaker who never bothers to reflect on his failures.

the market for his movies in the U.S. barely exists.

Husbands and Wives.” That flopped at the box office, leaving the studio disinterested.

“A Rainy Day in New York” cost $25 million — {BUT ONLY MADE 22 MILLION thus also making it a FLOP}

Even if he does make another movie, his impact will continue to wane. The nebbishy Jewish caricature that cemented his brand years ago doesn’t exactly register with the zeitgeist. “A Rainy Day in New York” likely found some measure of success due to the profitable allure of its young star, Timothee Chalamet.

However, the obnoxious, self-obsessed characters and their ravenous sexual appetites found in many of Allen’s earlier movies don’t parse in 2021.

The scandals mean respected actors are increasingly unlikely to associate themselves with his work, much less nurse a romantic obsession with it.

Then there are the movies themselves, which zig-zag through half-baked ideas that read as reductive variations of formulas he exhausted long ago.

For those of us who grew up adoring much of Allen’s early versatility, the diminished returns often register as a repudiation of nostalgia. There are passionate Allen fans across the industry who still defend him, albeit in whisp

He’s explored combustible relationships through intellectual soul-searching, and laced bleak, Bergman-esque melodrama with intrigue, but his movies no longer make a case for their own survival.

Allen and his financiers share a general indifference to negative publicity, but the world at large seems all too eager to move on without him.

It would be convenient to conclude that “Allen v. Farrow” will serve as the sour coda to Allen’s career, but there’s a lot of competition for that slot between industry attrition, shifting cultural interests, and the filmmaker’s own apparent disinterest to his fate. It has become a cliché to cite Allen’s “Annie Hall” line that he would “never join a club that would allow a person like me to be a member.” Allen was quoting Groucho Marx, but it’s not the only time the director has received more credit than he’s due.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

It's funny how they spend 4 episodes based on Dylan's crying and shaking and her emotional acting ... about how abuse survivors should be listened to or believed, and then they completely dismissed Moses' entire life, not to mention hiding all the things that prove Mia was a horrid parent and a liar.

They put Ronan into this .. despite the fact that he was 3 years old at the time, because now he has political ambitions and cannot have the doubt following him that he did not support his sister when he is the poster boy for #MeToo reporting. This is a corrupt political machine at work, and this movie is an out and out crime.

As far as Woody's movies, they have always been uneven, and I think some of them are still good. I enjoyed Rainy Day In New York a lot. Wonder Wheel seemed unfinished, but that gave it a kind of angsty spookiness. And Blue Jasmine was amazing.

AVP is pure salacious vicious twisted gossip. I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career. He has another movie coming out soon and I cannot wait to see it.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/allen-v-farrow-directors-issue-a-standing-interview-offer-to-woody-hbo-would-do-a-fifth-episode-were-here

'Allen v. Farrow' Directors Issue Standing Offer to Interview Woody: "HBO Would Do a Fifth Episode. We're Here."

In Allen v. Farrow, Mia applauds her daughter's bravery while admitting that she remains scared of her former partner and collaborator. "A person who has no allegiance to truth will do anything. A person who will do anything is somebody to be scared of," she says. "So I worry that when this documentary comes out, [Allen] will be on the attack again. He’ll do whatever he has to do to try to save himself from the truth, from the mess he made."

Dylan, who is shown in intimate moments with her daughter, husband and mother at the end of Allen v. Farrow, describes the long-term impact of Allen's actions as a "lifelong sentence" for her. But she also speaks from a place of strength when talking about what has motivated her to renew her incest allegations. "I’m tired of not being believed. I'm tired of being told that my experiences don’t matter. I'm tired of feeling like he matters more than me. I'm tired of this whole argument of separating the art from the artist so that you can feel better

CORRECTION:

Dylan wasn't in all 4 episodes crying. She only shakes in the last episode for a few moments, because they also cut away after she got upset and said that she needed a moment before she could continue. And no one DISMISSED MOSES, because they simply presented us with EVIDENCE that what he sad DID NOT MATCH what WOODY said-- due to the way WOODY said MOSES went off by himself and was in a BAD MOOD the day that he MOLESTED DYLAN at age 7-- whereas MOSES claimed he was WITH WOODY the entire time. So one of them has to have LIED because both accounts CAN'T be right.

PLUS MOSES also LIED about there not being a TRAIN SET in the ATTIC area, which is also PROVEN by the DRAWINGS that the COPS MADE who found it there. And COURT DOCUMENTS also VARIFY that MIA was NOT a horrible parent, which is also PROVEN by the way MOSES sent MIA the HAND WRITTEN MOTHER's DAY CARD THANKING her for being such a WONDERFUL MOTHER to him (before he later tells LIES about her in exchange for the MONEY that he got from WOODY). PLUS he also TURNS DOWN the chance to say something in the DOCUMENTARY.

As a LAWYER RONAN would also KNOW MORE and UNDERSTAND the FACTS of the case better as an ADULT, and he also TESTIFIED how WOODY also tried to BRIBE HIM (like WOODY did MOSES) with the offer of MONEY for his COLLEGE EDUCATION if he'd also say DEROGATORY UNTRUE things about his mother which he REFUSED to do. And that also PROVES that RONAN (unlike MOSES) has a better MORAL COMPASS than Moses does.

After reading the SUMMARIES of the BLUE movie and "MATCH POINT" (as a way to jog one's memory again of what happened in it), what strikes me is how much these 2 films were LIKE "CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS." And The PLOT SUMMARY of that other RAINY DAY movie and WONDER WHEEL are also VERY SIMILAR as well (still more SOAP OPERATIC ROMANTIC triangles again). And "SEPTEMBER" (the film based upon the life of LANA TURNER) is also like the others (with the OLDER MAN being in love with MIA's character, and with her being in love with the other younger middle aged guy, who's more interested romantically in her best friend). It's just "PEYTON PLACE" all over again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Place_(TV_series)

The show's downfall began in September 1966. Ratings dropped after Mia Farrow's departure.

Like the other poster said Allen's films are definitely REPETITIVE and RE-HASH again things that we've already seen happening many other times before.

🙄

And The FACT that MIA'S other daughter DAISY also TESTIFIED in COURT about WOODY'S ATTEMPT to GROOM her (like he did DYLAN and SOON-YI) also offers us ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE regarding Allen's moral character or his lack of having one.

So let's see if WOODY takes them up on the offer to do a "PART 5" or not of this DOCUMENTARY (which is also NOT a MOVIE). My bet is he WILL NOT, due to the many LIES that he's told that have already been exposed.

Plus he's also an EXTREMELY OLD MAN now (at age 85) who can also hardly manage to SPEAK in that other AUDIO Documentary that he tried to do of his life. And the way that we keep hearing him "GASPING" for breath as he narrates it would also explain the reason why he won't do a PART 5 of "Allen v Farrow." Because he most likely also doesn't even have the STAMINA required to do it.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

You seem to really enjoy throwing up a lot of different wrong, irrelevant or just plain mean things all at once. Your hatred for Woody Allen really comes through loud and clear. It's a sad and ugly life you seem to lead.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

you seem to really enjoy throwing up a lot of different wrong, irrelevant or just plain mean things

AVP is pure salacious vicious twisted gossip.

And you also seem to enjoy throwing up ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM attacks in an effort to try and change the subject.

ANOTHER CORRECTION:

The FALSE ACCUSATIONS that you've made about the DOCUMENTARY being PURE SALACIOUS GOSSIP (when it is OBVIOUSLY BASED UPON FACTS and RESEARCH into COURT DOCUMENTS and VALID TESTIMONY by others) is what is WRONG, IRRELEVANT and MEAN.

YOU AGAIN:

I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career.

ME AGAIN:

he's also an EXTREMELY OLD MAN now (at age 85) who can also hardly manage to SPEAK in that other AUDIO Documentary that he tried to do of his life. And the way that we keep hearing him "GASPING" for breath as he narrates it would also explain the reason why he won't do a PART 5 of "Allen v Farrow." Because he most likely also doesn't even have the STAMINA required to do it.

Since one can easily hear WOODY WEAZING as he speaks in that AUDIO ACCOUNT that he's made of his life, it's also a FACT that CANNOT be denied that he's become an OLD MAN now. Thus also making it ABSURD for others to be CONCERNED about his CAREER and what happens to it at age 85.

The FACT is MOST of us are also RETIRED by that age and don't go around trying to SUE the company who HIRED US to do a JOB for them (The RAINY DAY FILM that FLOPS) that ends up being mostly a REPEAT and a RE-HASH of other previous movies that we've made.

So GOOD LUCK to Mr. ALLEN with his being able to find someone else to back him again for another FILM after the way that he's SUED the last company who worked with him.

Or course MIA will probably also get all of the blame again if NO ONE else wants to HIRE or WORK with him again, even though his AGE and his previous behavior will also be the MAIN REASON why his career is OVER.

🙄

Because it's also a FACT that at age 85 MOST of us no longer have the same kind of CREATIVITY and STAMINA that we had back when we were MUCH YOUNGER. It's like expecting an OLYMPIC ATHLETE to still be able to SWIM or RUN or JUMP as fast or as high as they could way back in their teens or 20's. The FACT is any way YOU try to TWIST IT, It's just COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC to expect such a thing (for someone to still be as good at what they do at age 85).

As PROOF of this FACT REVIEWS of that RAINY DAY film will also be posted in the next message.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

A Rainy Day in New York · Reviews

IMDb icon6.5/10

IMDb
25492 ratings

Rotten Tomatoes icon 43%

Rotten Tomatoes
103 reviewers

Metacritic icon 38
Metacritic
18 critics

Critic reviews Metacritic

It is a retread of territory Allen has extensively covered before, but while the same can be said about almost all of his late-career work, seldom have the gears ground quite so loudly, and never before has the writing felt this chronically out-of-phase with the era it depicts. Full review

Varietyby Jessica Kiang

This is like an over-chewed piece of gum: flavourless. Full review

The Guardian by Peter Bradshaw

Merely a watchable rehashing of his preferential themes and plot points, set in a present-day Manhattan so nostalgic and unreal it might as well be a period piece. Full review

In other words, most CRITICS who compare it to being like "a FLAVORLESS piece of OVERLY--CHEWED--UP CHEWING GUM" also think that the FILM SUCKS BIGTIME.

Because at AGE 85 WOODY is also no longer IN TOUCH with life anymore (the way that he was before back when he was YOUNGER), which is also confirmed by what's said in this other QUOTE:

almost all of his late-career work, seldom have the gears ground quite so loudly, and never before has the writing felt this chronically out-of-phase with the era it depicts.

This is what happens to someone who MARRIES his STEP CHILD (that he's helped to raise ever since she was age 10), and then spends the next 30 YEARS taking her around the GLOBE to VISIT what WOODY calls the GREAT CAPITALS of the WORLD. One's CREATIVITY declines and one's CAREER ends up on THE ROCKS or on the TRASH HEAP of HISTORY due to the way that one has NOTHING NEW or INNOVATIVE left to say anymore.

And MIA and me also have NOTHING whatsoever to do with THAT FACT, because it was also WOODY's choice to WITHDRAW from the WORLD and devote his life to the pursuit of a STAGNANT life with SOON-YI.

Since Woody MADE his own BED (so to speak) he (along with the rest of his DEVOTEES) should LIE in it, take CREDIT for it, and STOP trying to BLAME everyone else for the BIG MESS that he's made of it.

At least that's the way I see it.

And another family friend also sees it this way:

QUOTE: Allen has severe vision loss in one eye.

“We’ve double-dated with them and it’s very sweet to see how caring Soon-Yi is with him, how they’ve gonehand-holding from to her taking his arm on the street.

(END QUOTE)

This portrait that they paint of SOON-YI needing to "lead a HALF BLIND 85 yr. old around by holding onto his arm" (where they also talk about how Soon-Yi will "snap at him if he fumbles for his keys one too many times"), definitely paints a picture of a DECREPIT WOODY.

🎬

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

It's like I said ... in a softer tone and fewer words, you are full of horse feathers. The ratings of Woody's movies doesn't prove pedophilia. Neither does an attraction to younger "women". Note - I said younger "women" and not girls or children.

Using your logic, all those irrelevant insults you've belched out with maximum hatred instead of proving anything about Woody Allen must prove you are a pedophile victim driven crazy with man hatred and with an axe to grind that is powered by a self-hatred that pushes you to not give a moment's concern about facts or reason. How do you like that ridiculousness when it is turned around and aimed at you?

Even if Woody was "decrepit" as you call him, ( and they said the same thing about Joe Biden who is obviously high-functioning to be President of the US, probably not even as a hard as the movie director job or writer ) I have to remind you that "senile" or "decrepit" are not synonyms for pedophilia, or proof of pedophilia.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

https://www.london.edu/think/creativity-revisited

Creativity revisited

It’s at least arguable that Woody Allen’s most recent movies show a decline in creativity ... as they mine the same narrow comic vein with diminishing returns. Is it coincidence that his best regarded later work is within a different genre, in a more sombre, reflective mode, as in Crimes and Misdemeanours, Match Point, or Hannah and Her Sisters?

This link also agrees that WOODY'S recent FILMS reveal a DECLINE in CREATIVITY because of the way they say they "MINE the same NARROW COMIC VEIN with DIMINISHING RETURNS."

You previously expressed a CONCERN about the LOSS of his CAREER as a FILM maker.

What's been pointed out to you is that HIS CAREER has been OVER with for quite some time.

And the DOCUMENTARY also has NOTHING to do with it.

Can you follow that LOGIC???

Apparently not, because you're still too busy FLINGING FORTH FALLCIES with your NON STOP ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEN attacks.

FACE IT. WOODY ALLEN is WASHED UP career wise because he's WAY OVER the HILL now (so to speak), and all he can do is produce FORMULAIC, BORING, FILMS where he REPEATS the same THEMES and PLOTS again that we've already seen before.

And that also has NOTHING to do with anyone else or what they've said or done.

It's because of WOODY HIMSELF and the way that TIME has taken it's toll on him the same way as it does all the rest of us (if we make it that far in life).

So STOP being so SILLY and trying to PRETEND as if his NON EXISTENT CAREER is at STAKE when those REVIEWS also make it CRYSTAL CLEAR why his CAREER is already OVER WITH -- (in part due to the way that he's become so OUT of TOUCH with the ERA in which he's located now that he can no longer accurately REFLECT what's it's like anymore).

And that's also the reason why one critic said that his films may as well be "PERIOD PIECES":

Merely a watchable rehashing of his preferential themes and plot points, set in a present-day Manhattan so nostalgic and unreal it might as well be a period piece.
🙄🙄

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Woody's movies numbers are only down in the US because of distribution problems cause by the PR problem of all these lies.

His audience in Europe for "A Rainy Day In New York" was very good, especially in Spain where he did his last movie "Rifkin's Festival" which I would happily see but I cannot find anywhere in the US that is showing it yet. I finally got to see "A Rainy Day In New York" and I loved it, and it was a story empowering to woman, and men both. It was very nice.

Oh, and by the way Timothy Challumet told Woody that he only condemned him in public to increase his chance of getting the Oscar. What a sleaze. Sleaze and shamelessness seems to be the major characteristic of your side of this argument.

So, you see what you do, you take some fact, and twist it in some negative way and then pretend you have make a point about Woody that somehow you pretend has something do with Dylan Farrow's investigated and found lacking charge. It's just sleaze.

For these many years I have been sympathetic to whatever happened to Dylan Farrow, but now 30 years later it is apparent that she has problems and an obsession far worse that the one incident that she describe accounts for - even if it was true, which I do not believe is true. This is about keeping her only contact with reality her relationship with her mother intact and pleasing Mia. And of course giving the obsessives like you out there in the public something to get off on.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Deleting double post

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Distribution is NOT the MAIN PROBLEM -- which all of the articles that have been posted here have PROVEN. And the reviews of RAINY DAY are also BAD-- NOT GOOD.

You also CLAIMED the DOCUMENTARY would RUIN his CAREER, but all of these ARTICLES CONFIRM the FACT that his CAREER essentially ended after the break up with MIA.

Because the LAZINESS article also explains how he's too LAZY to get to know or work with the other actors that he hires, which he also didn't have to do back when he worked with MIA and DIANE and LOUISE (who he already knew).

Another REVIEW:

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/566749476/woodyland-in-bad-decline-wonder-wheel

Woodyland In Bad Decline: 'Wonder Wheel'

the case with Wonder Wheel and his previous film Café Society, they aren't focused on the period so much as a wispy idea of what that time represented to Woody Allen.

his movies take place in Woodyland, a funhouse version of reality not unlike Coney Island itself. And like the real Coney Island, the paint in Woodyland is chipping and the luster is vanishing.

Wonder Wheel isn't merely a bad movie but a laughable one. Allen's scripts were never realistic, but here every character is a self-parody with a straight face, saying ridiculous things like "I know where the bodies are buried," "I went to the school of hard knocks"

a piece of anti-wonder. His next movie will be out next year, and then we can do this all over again.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> You also CLAIMED the DOCUMENTARY would RUIN his CAREER

Never said that.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

This is the 3RD TIME now that one has QUOTED what you said:

YOU:

AVP is pure salacious vicious twisted gossip. I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career.

You CLEARLY SUGGEST the recent HBO DOCUMENTARY is going to have an EFFECT on his already NON EXISTENT CAREER STATUS.

So an EFFORT has been made to illustrate the reasons why WHAT YOU SAID is NOT SO (due to the way that HIS CAREER NOSE DIVED way back when he broke up with MIA to pursue a relationship with SOON-YI).

Read this article which compares his career with KUBRICK's and you'll see how WOODY was never really the PERFECTIONIST that STANLEY was about making films:

https://www.videomaker.com/article/f16/15700-studying-the-masters-kubrick-vs-allen

And it's probably also the reason why KUBRICK's films will be watched and REMEMBERED long after most of WOODY's are forgotten. Because, in general, KURBRICK also put forth lots MORE EFFORT in making his films than ALLEN did and it shows.

1960 Spartacus 93% (61 reviews) 87 (17 reviews)
1962 Lolita 91% (43 reviews) 79 (14 reviews)
1964 Dr. Strangelove 98% (91 reviews) 97 (32 reviews)
1968 2001: A Space Odyssey 92% (113 reviews) 84 (25 reviews)
1971 A Clockwork Orange 86% (71 reviews) 77 (21 reviews)
1975 Barry Lyndon 91% (74 reviews) 89 (21 reviews)
1980 The Shining 84% (95 reviews) 66 (26 reviews)
1987 Full Metal Jacket 92% (83 reviews) 76 (19 reviews)
1999 Eyes Wide Shut 75% (158 reviews) 68 (34 reviews)

How many films did WOODY make between 1960 to 1999??? Lots more than just 9 of them -- which also indicates it's about QUALITY NOT QUANTITY. And that's the point is how the QUALITY of WOODY'S WORK is NOT there anymore-- which is also the reason for the DECLINE in his CAREER that also took place back in the 90's.

Thus the reason why the HBO DOCUMENTARY isn't going to have an EFFECT on WOODY's already DECLINED CAREER STATUS.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> You also CLAIMED the DOCUMENTARY would RUIN his CAREER

( I repeat ) I never said that.

> AVP is pure salacious vicious twisted gossip. I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career.

You seem to think that hoping a vicious character assassinating documentary will not HURT Woody Allen's career is the same thing as saying this documentary will certainly RUIN his career.

"Match Point", an Academy Award winner for best screenplay ( by Woody Allen ) was very popular movie - released in 2006. It also won many other prestigious awards.

In 2008 Vicky Cristina Barcelona won more Academy Awards.

But don't let the facts influence you.

This is also not about the content of movies, this is about vicious unjustified character attacks and lies against Woody Allen.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

YOU AGAIN:

I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career.

And It was already explained to you how, imo, MATCH POINT is a RE-HASH of CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS:

After reading the SUMMARIES of the BLUE movie and "MATCH POINT" (as a way to jog one's memory again of what happened in it), what strikes me is how much these 2 films were LIKE "CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS." And The PLOT SUMMARY of that other RAINY DAY movie and WONDER WHEEL are also VERY SIMILAR as well (still more SOAP OPERATIC ROMANTIC triangles again). And "SEPTEMBER" (the film based upon the life of LANA TURNER) is also like the others (with the OLDER MAN being in love with MIA's character, and with her being in love with the other younger middle aged guy, who's more interested romantically in her best friend). It's just "PEYTON PLACE" all over again.

Same THEMES and PLOT POINTS.

Same kind of REPETITION.

As the article says:

CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS is the CUT OFF POINT where the DECLINE of his CAREER begins.

So the DOCUMENTARY also can't have an EFFECT on a CAREER that's already been in DECLINE since 1989.

WOODY is too OUT of TOUCH with this ERA to REFLECT it TRENT. He's way too busy LOOKING BACKWARDS to notice the PRESENT. That's why the one CRITIC said his films may as well be "PERIOD PIECES."

QUOTE:

never before has the writing felt this chronically out-of-phase with the era it depicts

rehashing of his preferential themes and plot points, set in a present-day Manhattan so nostalgic and unreal it might as well be a period piece.

At the 1:49 TIME MARK:

"The WORLD CHANGES --WE DO NOT -- THEREIN LIES the IRONY"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcsJ94lekgk

Interview With The Vampire - Contact With This Age

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> And It was already explained to you how, imo, MATCH POINT is a RE-HASH of CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS:

It was already explained to me? LOL ... just like I've explained your delusions to you ... doesn't seem to have done much good.

For one thing, both are great movies, award winners.

For another ... so what?

8 Star Wars movies are a rehash of Star Wars? WTF is wrong with you?

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Surely you're not suggesting that one should compare STAR WARS MOVIES (FOR kids) with WOODY's much more CEREBRAL films which are for ADULTS???

Whatever the case may be, In the LINK that compares WOODY with KUBRICK it also explains how they both start off their careers by growing up in NYC, but later on KUBRICK would chose to base his FILMS upon a NOVEL, whereas WOODY would tend to use material from his own personal life.

What's interesting to NOTE 📌 is how "CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS" is also based up a NOVEL by DOSTOEVSKY (one of my favorite writers) called "CRIME and PUNISHMENT." And another one of his films ("SEPTEMBER and ANOTHER WOMAN" are my favorite ALLEN FILMS), called "ANOTHER WOMAN" was also based upon what happens in another FILM called "WILD STRAWBERRIES."

So maybe if WOODY STUCK to making movies based on NOVELS (like Kubrick did) or based upon other SCREEN PLAYS, then he'd also have made better films instead of BORING the VIEWER by his REPEATING the same THEMES and PLOT POINTS over and over again???

I'm currently also working my way through reading an interesting (yet very LONG and very LENTHGY) article about what someone considers to be his 10 BEST films.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Why do you have to yell and scream, while you are pretending to be moderating?

I don't feel like discussing movie criticism with you because I don't appreciate your bias, outlook on life, thinking process, or lack of honesty ---

--- AND, none of this has anything to do with a less-than 20 minute, 30 years ago, one-time already investigated charge of child-molestation against Woody Allen that is artificially hyped in more exaggerated terms every year, in order to lump him in with real criminals, to keep alive to hurt a very productive, great artist, a great American, who is completely, in all probability, innocent, of this ugly slander, aimed at the low-informational American who are the least capable of understanding it.

Death by hired celebrity sound-byte. I am not down with that at all in any way.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

maybe if WOODY STUCK to making movies based on NOVELS (like Kubrick did) or based upon other SCREEN PLAYS, then he'd also have made better films instead of BORING the VIEWER by his REPEATING the same THEMES and PLOT POINTS over and over again?

No one is discussing or trying to discuss CRITICISM of his films with you.

Since You suggested that the DOCUMENTARY would have an EFFECT upon WOODY'S CAREER, you're the one who made his CAREER (not CRITICISM) the TOPIC here.

So one has illustrated to you the reasons WHY his CAREER NOSE DIVED after he made "CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS." Because ever since that time he's USED and has REPEATED the SAME THEMES and PLOT POINTS all over again ... and again ... and again ... which is why that one CRITIC said watching his films was like CHEWING on a PIECE of already CHEWED UP FLAVORLESS CHEWING GUM.

In other words, WOODY has become a "ONE TRICK PONY" who keeps doing the SAME ACT over and over again until the VIEWER is BORED with seeing the SAME ACT over and over again and again.

So the suggestion has been made that WOODY go back to finding another NOVEL AGAIN as a way to make another film which could possibly help to get him OUT of the kind of a RUT that he's been STUCK in since 1989 (back when he adapted the NOVEL by DOSTOEVSKY into the SCREEN PLAY that WON him an award).

📖📚📙📗📘

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

You seem to carry the illusion you can speak for Woody Allen viewers or the public.

You also imply that your opinion of his movies has some connection to unfounded and disproved allegations of child molestation that your lunatic fringe is obsessing over.

If it is not his relationship with Soon-Yi that is used to attack him ... 20 year marriage with 2 successful adopted children in or graduated from college it is that his movies are about stuff that can be twisted around in a salacious way by evil people to attack him.

If there was a hint of truth in any of this would Woody and Soon-yi been able to adopt children? The answer is no. The conclusion is that the state's investigation was valid and to publicly lie about it to keep it alive is criminal slander.

There's a lot of us who like Woody Allen's work and more to the point we do not want him to be character assassinated and #MeToo'ed by this bullshit. Because it could be anyone next. So far the cases have been clear over time .... multiple serious allegations from multiple credible people without ulterior motives ... that is the standard for taking any #MeToo allegations seriously.

That's not Woody Allen, and so it shows the only crime being committed here is the continued smear in the media supported by media influenced by probably well-meaning people who have been expertly lied to.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

By all means let him SPEAK for himself as he describes how "MEDIOCRE" and STALE his FILMS have become:

In an interview during the filming of Match Point, he described himself as “functioning within the parameters of my mediocrity,” and went on to note that if he were ever to make another great film, it would be “by accident.”

For years the evidence has accumulated:

Allen is an astonishingly lazy director.

he offers his performers little or no guidance and tries to complete every scene in as few takes as possible.

Here, again, Allen is bluntly honest.

“I’m lazy and an imperfectionist,” he explained in a 2015 NPR interview.

one might wonder what explains such a precipitous decline in quality since the 1990s.

Presumably age, however healthy and fit he remains, has something to do with it.

it is hardly unusual for a director’s later work to grow somewhat stale, particularly when the director’s preoccupations—death, philosophy, older men sleeping sleeping with younger women—remain as constant as Allen’s have.

📌 NOTE the way WOODY calls himself an "IMPERFECTIONIST," whereas KUBRICK was a PERFECTIONIST. And when one compares the works of both of them, then that LACK of PERFECTION on ALLEN'S PART also SHOWS.

And it's also the reason why one PREDICTS that the films of KUBRICK will better stand the TEST of TIME and be able to OUTLAST those of ALLEN.

📌📌📌📌📌

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> You previously expressed a CONCERN about the LOSS of his CAREER as a FILM maker.

You are replying to your own nonsense ... I never made any such statement. There are people all over the world that love and still love Woody's movies.

The only reason you write these long confusing boldface posts in all-caps is to make discussion hard do you do not have to answer to the lies you are putting out there. You are using every right-wing vicious tactic to propagandize and poison against Woody Allen, not engaging in any kind of fair or objective discussion about the facts or the truth - because you don't give a damn about either the facts or the truth - except for how you can twist them and make them impossible to find by your confusing dishonest posts.

I suggest you show all of this to your therapist and see what they think about it. It might lead to breakthrough in whatever your problem is.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

What joi2049 does isn't really right-wing. Pundits of all stripes use this kind of thing, as do monomaniacs, but I don't think it's right-wing. Furthermore, while Allen is politically left, the call to cancel him is coming from the Progressive movement, which is far left.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Any fool who took the time to click onto my profile would instantly recognize the reason why I don't fit into the RIGHT WING kind of a category.

But apparently Trent is also like WOODY (who says in that article that he's not CURIOUS about anything).

🙄

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

I wrote that the "tactics" are right-wing. I couldn't care less about politics.

Also, Woody is a Democrat at least from his revelation that he donated $5000+ to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which she refused to take. I would not say a mainstream Democrat is Left-wing.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Aren't those tactics universal to dummies on all sides of the line?

I meant that Woody was left-wing in the sense that he holds left/liberal political positions and, as you say, has supported democrats. I think he's probably left of a lot of people, in the older sense of that term. He is certainly not a part of the new Left that wants his head on a pike.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> Aren't those tactics universal to dummies on all sides of the line?

No.

I've never heard any popular reputable media outlets, PBS/NPR, Democracy Now!, etc lie and propagandize like Fox News - never.

> I think he's probably left of a lot of people

I never like to speculate on celebrities because their PR agents always tell them to do charitable work and spout "liberal" lines so they will be popular with the people.

To me a good example of a Left-winger is Michael Moore who is probably a bit more to the Left than I am. ;-)

And on the other side the Left that you say "wants his head on a pike" I don't even think of as the Left. They are the nutso equivalent of the Right-wing Proud Boys or the like.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I'm not thinking of NPR, but I've seen focacta stuff come out of The Young Turks "news" channel. Yeah, FOX are blinking morons.

He's supported campaigns for left-wingers, and with cash - more than just rhetoric. I don't think he's a terribly political person, but I think he does go left.

Moore's pretty left.

Oh, yeah, the Wokes are nuts, but they're the left type of nutso.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

LOL, give me an example of TYT?

I mostly like the Young Turks, particularly Cenk Uyger's rants and passion for Progressive politics, but they can go overboard to the point of being counterproductive. I am not aware of him or Ana Kasparian lying, especially anywhere close to where Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Tucker Carlsen do. The Right lies as a matter of course, media manipulation is baked into their DNA.

There are some goof-balls on the Left on YouTube, but remember they are just small one person operations. TYT's is actually funded by, or was, by a rich guy from the Right. There is a difference between opinions one might agree or disagree with and lying or making up facts.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

TYT has so much spin it's practically a perpetual motion machine.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

I can see where you would say that, but I think it is enthusiasm. I know when there is stuff I disagree with on their channel, as I think they made a post a while ago against Woody Allen, it really bugs me their intensity. Also on the Middle East.

But, what I do like and accept is that they make their cases transparently, without lies. Spin is not quite the same thing.

The main problem I have will these media or opinion channels is that they divide and lead people off in different directions rather than share facts and viewpoints and converge to an acceptable truth or compromise.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I don't think they put up false information, per se, and I think they retract when necessary (yes? I don't really watch them anymore, so you'll have to tell me).

That said, I don't think it's terribly transparent, and I think they have a bulldozer approach to the narrative that they are looking for. It might not be lying outright, but only because they don't have to.

I'd cite the Cenk interview with Sam Harris as an example of how I feel about TYT. Cenk comes across like somebody who just wants to make sure everybody knows how wrong Sam Harris is. He feints reasonableness by saying "Agree to disagree" a lot, but he's so focused on opposing Harris that he takes an opposite stance on mathematical statistics and probability at one point.

That slavish devotion to narrative makes me distrust them, knowing I'm being fed certain stories, having others ignored, and getting spin the whole time. It doesn't have to use false facts to present a lie. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/

Now, all that said, I think FOX are worse. Glen Beck is worse. But I don't go to The Young Turks for news for the same reason I don't go to Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro for news.

To your last point, I am 100% in agreement. News is entertainment these days; I'm not sure if it was ever otherwise (maybe?). Twenty-four hour news cycles and news networks compete with TV dramas and sitcoms for eyeballs and they need sensationalism. The forgotten factor is truth. This shouldn't be about sides or narrative or spin. It should be about truth. What is the truth?

I recognize that a limited amount of time means editorial discretion must be exercised to pick certain stories and that might give the impression of bias, or might be biased, but 0% bias should be the goal, even if it isn't truly achievable.

This reminds me of Jon Stewart on Crossfire when he made brilliant points about truth vs. corruption. That's the goal. I remember him talking to Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow and criticising both for their and their channels' focus on spin. O'Reilly lied and said there was no such spin, then accused Stewart of having spin (on his satirical comedy show); Maddow was shocked that Stewart thought her channel had any bias at all. So, again, I agree that FOX is worse and that these phenomena are often worse in the right-wing media, but they are present and alive in the left-wing media. The only difference I see is the slightly greater depth of lies presented on the right, and the left pretending (often with a whiff of smug) that it doesn't have bias at all.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

I stopped watching around the time of the election. Before that they lent a little balance to what I was seeing in the general media. I still actually like them for the most part, and I think a lot of the speakers there have good ideas and good stuff to say. There are some I outright dislike though.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I've seen a few bits since the Harris interview, and I was never a daily viewer to begin with, but I know what you mean.

Look, I'll concede that they can be entertaining, but I can't think of them really as news, and in some ways, I think when it's harder to pin down why (ie, they aren't outright fabricating things), I think it's maybe more dangerous. FOX you can point to a thousand reasons why they're wrong and let their falseness be understood, but TYT is a bit more difficult.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Another thing I like about TYT is that they are inspiring. Their vision is democracy and justice ... i.e. remember Justice Democrats?

TYT will bring to light things that other networks do not. They serve at least somewhat of a positive purpose ... the stuff on the right does not.

If TYT is wrong you can argue or reason with them on most issues. There is no reasoning with the Right.

There are some things on the Left that they will not argue or discuss rationally - like Israel ... they hate Israel no matter what in all circumstances. This really bugs the shit out of me.

Another one is that they will go on and on about false arguments WRT inequality. They talk about how much money Jeff Bezos has for example, never getting close to pointing out that his net worth is in stock that is not a bank account. Today a CEO cashed in 200 million in stock and the stock tanked. You cannot talk about stock like it is cash in your wallet - and I've never seen any Leftist media outlet make that point ... but also same with the Right ... they are not educating anyone at all.

Another one is #MeToo and this kind of discussion here ... where the irrationality of some people is hyperbolic and as much of a threat as the rhetoric of the right.

Immigration is another issue i find the Left unwilling to discuss .. and that bleeds into the whole racism discussion if you do something the Left doesn't like and they can make some kind of case implying one is racist they will do it.

But now the Right does that ... saying that racism against whites is the biggest deal. Again the Right is almost always much worse and more swamp like.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I don't remember Justice Democrats, but I don't find TYT inspiring. Because they are so partisan, so spin-doctory, and just so dishonest in regards to their editorializing everything to fit their narrative - that's not inspiring to me. Maybe at first, or maybe their stated aims to counteract the BS of the newsmedia, but they are as BS-y or moreso, so no, I'm not inspired.

If you find inspiration there: fair. But I don't. Some people are sick of democracy itself because the actuality of it isn't living up to the ideal. I find rule-by-the-people quite inspiring myself and continue to dream of a closer version of that ideal.

As soon as a media outlet is "left" or "right", it's got spin and it becomes more-or-less unreliable. Some are pretty "left" and I still trust them (New York Times, the Guardian), albeit with a grain or two of salt. Others go twisting around like Linda Blair's neck, and then I won't watch unless to gain perspective on the outliers and how those fringes think (Ben Shapiro).

#metoo has good points, but was co-opted by agenda-riders in the Woke brigade who are just as bad as the alt-right thugs.

I think the fringes are of equal crazy. Antifa and the Proud Boys, the Wokes and the Alt-Right - basically all horrid. The closer to the centre people I find the left guys more benign than the right ones. So, I'd rather watch MSNBC than FOX - the former is better than the latter.

However, at the centre, or really close to the centre, outlets like CBC, Guardian, National Post, or Wall Street Journal - those guys I find pretty much even-keel again and a slight right spin isn't worse than a slightly-left one.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

I like that TYT would more than counterbalance the lies from the Right, which I did find inspiring.

Democracy is not working for various reasons - the permeation of the public with fake new and lies - almost all from the Right is where I lay blame. It is exactly what they want - if you'll notice they fight that war on multiple fronts, like in the states passing laws to exclude people from voting.

Spin or bias itself is not the problem, it is the money and coordination of causing chaos from the Right. Thomas Frank wrote the penultimate book on this called "The Wrecking Crew: How Republicans Rule".

Antifa goes back the WWII against the fascists in Italy and Germany, and they stand up and fight against fascism. Most of the things Antifa is blamed for doing, they did not do, and it was provocateurs from the Right, like the video of the Umbrella Man smashing windows, but dressed as Antifa.

Wall St. Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I think Murdock's media empire should be shut down. It is a scam to provide free campaigning for Republicans without obeying the laws. Another way Republicans cheat that Democrats do not and Progressive could not if they tried.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Okay, yes, I can see where they might feel like fresh air as a counterweight to the right-wing media. Still, I'd rather consume centre, neutral-as-possible news than counterbalance extremes.

I think democracy is working better than the alternatives. Yes, I would agree that the ease with which lies are spread and with which the truth is poisoned are big problems of this age, although I don't attribute this as being as right-wing a problem as you do.

Spin is intrinsically a problem, though, with things being passed off as news. The problem with spin anywhere is that it conditions readers and viewers to accept opinions and rants as news, but it's not really good journalism. So, while a coordinated stance would be more effective, I think the damage is done in any case.

When I refer to Antifa, I'm referring to the modern group of maniacs, not anybody who is anti-fascist. Those are not the same term.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> I think democracy is working better than the alternatives.

The thing is this is a false dichotomy or polychotomy ... these are just words that people argue about, but then when you go into to look at any specific system, they are all the same, all heir to the same corruptions, and even more the same now than they ever have been because people of all types and all moral values are blended together globally today.

Democracy is a metric of certain inconsistent things, no society is democratic, no society is completely undemocratic. Democracy historically is usually won by public action, and the anti-democratic forces unite much more easily because they are usually rich and powerful and have control over lots of different networks so they can present their self-serving views and definitions to people to manipulate them, or just more often now just stunt their intellectual growth or their development as effective citizens.

You are just wrong to think this is not a Right-wing problem, or you are just morally opposed to accusing one side as being the instigator of all problems in theory - that I could more easily agree with - but the point is in reality, here today, it is the Right-wing, the elites, the powerful that cause the problems - if not only because they are incompetent at governing because they are only concerned with their own aggrandizement - and that is a spectrum that leads all the way from institution genocide, which is what we have today against poor people WRT Covid-19, or just in general in the way that the system naturally favors the powerful.

Anita is the group of anti-fascists. If you allow anyone who claims to be Antifa to represent Antifa it is not right. In fact I steer clear of the term because Trump co-opted it to mean nothing but his personal scapegoats.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Democracy is superior to, say, Monarchy because it values - at least in principle - the voice of all people instead of giving all power to one person and their genetic lineage. Look, I know the system has problems, and I know it might be tough to surmount them, but I think giving people an ideal to shoot for and having that ideal be a good one counts for something.

I think we've made a lot of human rights advances since the adoption of more democratic ideas, so I think that's something, too.

We should seek to better ourselves and our government, our systems and ideas, but that doesn't mean we're starting from zero. We've improved. Democracy certainly pans out (historically) better than fascism, communism, or other totalitarian regimes.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that all societies are partly democratic?

Colleges and other academic institutions suffer from left-wing echo chambers that perpetrate really awful ideas and have resulted in just as much spin and mayhem as the right wing stuff. This is not exclusive to the right. I've agreed that it is worse on the right, generally speaking, but I would count myself among the blind if I were not to see it rampant on both ends of the political spectrum.

If the people who identify as Antifa and participate in their actions don't represent them, who does? Do you have a link to a source who does speak for Antifa as an organization so I can check it out?

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> I know the system has problems, and I know it might be tough to surmount them

We have had basically the same elitist system since the Pharaohs, and we have been driven by wars and destroyed every environment.

Democracy does not come from valuing the people. Democracy came from the people cutting off the heads of those who ruled them incompetently. You thinking on his is very brainwashed. Take a look on You-Tube at Fabian Scheidler's interviews or talks.

We don't have democracy, and democracy is no good without empowering citizens and those citizens taking responsibility to make sure the elitist don't rise again. The US fought WWII to end fascism, only to become a new instantiation of that system.

With lies taking up all our major media platforms and schools failing, not teaching civic, and minimum wages that should be $25 only around $7 there is no bloody chance this system gives people a goal to shoot for. That's ridiculous.

> all societies are partly democratic?

As long as the citizens have any voice or power at all, there is always the chance, but look at China, Russia, and the US, they all call themselves some version of government for the people, People's Republic? Russian Federation? United States? Haha. The germ of the seed of democracy only exists when the ruling class has some empathy for the average people - and we can see in the Republican party that is not the case.

The accusations that colleges are Left-wing is merely the Right's excuse for using their monetary power to install lackeys and incompetents. Again, you keep proving you just do not understand what is going on in the world politically.

Your rhetoric's purpose is basically to equate fascism with democracy and call it the same. It's not the same.

I don't speak for Antifa, and they are decentralized.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

The ideal of democracy is giving individual citizens equal voice in their government. That's why I said, "[Democracy] values - at least in principle - the voice of all people instead of giving all power to one person..." and that's the ideal I was speaking of when it gives people something to shoot for.

I agree that we are not there, and depending on which democracy you look at, you'll see greater or lesser success at arriving at that ideal.

Democracy comes from... well, it depends on which country you're talking about. Some revolutions are much more peaceful than others. Even in the worst examples, just because something began badly doesn't mean it can't improve.

I see what I see. I have read, studied, and followed the turmoil on colleges and in academe for awhile now. You'll just have to take my word for it that I'm up to date on this and I'm not just parroting talking points; I think for myself, to the extent that any of us can, and I've put in the work here, and my conclusion is that there is a lot of extreme left positions that are causing major problems there. Disagree if you want, but I don't have my head in the sand and I can draw conclusions of my own.

My rhetoric is not to equate fascism with democracy at all.

If Antifa are decentralized, then how is it that the violent members of that group don't speak for the group? You say that they aren't such-and-such a thing, but if they have no form, how can you say that the extremes of the ideology aren't part of it?

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Fascism is the opposite of democracy.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

And I support democracy.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

I'll shock you again ... democracy is socialism.

Michael Moore interviews aristocrat Tony Benn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37wkX2gklzo

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

That doesn't shock me, but I don't think it's correct. I don't consider them mutually exclusive, but they aren't synonyms.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

If you want to compare Anitfa to white nationalist and racist groups then you are just poorly informed or strongly biased - there is no comparison. There are 150 violence incidents from White Nationalist and Right-wing groups for every 1 Antifa accusation.

Schools are not Left-wing.

To evaluate the ongoing threat from different types of terrorists, however, it is useful to consider the proportion of fatalities attributed to each type of perpetrator annually. In 14 of the 21 years between 1994 and 2019 in which fatal terrorist attacks occurred, the majority of deaths resulted from right-wing attacks. In eight of these years, right-wing attackers caused all of the fatalities, and in three more—including 2018 and 2019—they were responsible for more than 90 percent of annual fatalities.11 Therefore, while religious terrorists caused the largest number of total fatalities, right-wing attackers were most likely to cause more deaths in a given year.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I must really disagree about schools not being left-wing. The majority of professors, teachers, and administrators are left-leaning or far-left in ideology.

My comparison was on the extreme nature of the ideology and their level of nuttiness. The original quote was, "I think the fringes are of equal crazy. Antifa and the Proud Boys, the Wokes and the Alt-Right - basically all horrid."

I wasn't getting into stats and numbers as to who was a bigger threat, just as to whether or not the left and the right had nutters of equal nuttiness. I think they're both nuts. More moderate voices, in my opinion, tend to have wiser and more sensible suggestions. I'm not talking about wishy-washy people who just compromise all day, but people who have a bit more complexity than Antifa or the Proud Boys.

But we're still talking about ghosts, right? I must re-iterate that if I can't find out what Antifa stands for - what it really is - then it's just some nebulous thing that has no real value, right?

So, I must ask again: if Antifa are decentralized, then how is it that the violent members of that group don't speak for the group? How can I know that they don't include the nutjobs if there is no "Antifa code" or definition that gives understanding to what and who they are?

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> I'd cite the Cenk interview with Sam Harris as an example of how I feel about TYT.

I saw that too, and Cenk was off his rocker there. I think the basic problem was a personal one, and not systemic to TYT, in that Cenk was strongly influenced by Islam growing up, and his whole response in that debate was colored by him losing it and getting defensive about Islam - trying to defend it and at the same time realizing and knowing that most of it is not a good thing to defend.

That was not his best moment. But I am also a subscriber to Sam Harris, and I think Sam is far, far worse than TYT because he is a dishonest, mealy mouthed panderer to make a living from not offending either political side - but that ends up putting him mostly in the Right-Wing camp because he lies more to the audience from the Left. I find Sam best for some pretty good interviews, but thing about him I do not like is that he waffles and will not take a real stand on anything - he does not let us know what he stands for for hear of offending where he gets money from.

It is the thing I like about TYT - they are transparent.

The difference between Right and Left ... is that O'Reilly was a total liar and would say anything to dominate and win a conversation - including insults and yelling people down. Stewart and Maddow deal in facts and logic. They may editorialize in ways I or others do not like - for example Maddow's ineffective Russia Investigation work. I know Trump was connected to the Russians in some way - but to make that stick it had to be clear and concise. She get stuck working it to death, but ultimately unsuccessfully - but that doesn't make her bad any more than a prosecutor failing to make a case against a criminal in court. It happens.

I think there is a also far more conspiracy and money on the Right. Right wing think tanks send out talking points each other and distribute them like military attack orders. There is not analogy to that on the Left - though the Left is thinking about how to combat this from the Right. It is a money thing mostly - Citizen's United, and it has been decades that this will not be overturned because of the RIGHT WING SUPREME COURT. Now, that is the power of money.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Here's a point of division between us because I see that interview as pretty indicative, generally, of TYT and how they report on things. It's so narrative-driven that they'll sacrifice or ignore facts to get there.

Harris I think is good as a philosopher, as a scientific mind, and as somebody who has thoughtful ideas. I don't really listen to him for his politics. I don't think he's hedging bets and pandering, I just think he doesn't check boxes. So, he loathes Donald Trump (to a point where I do think he loses some rationality cred), but has some non-leftist views on immigration, for example. And I think that makes him an uneasy person for people right or left.

So, we're really divided there because I see Sam's position as being so honest to his opinions on things that he doesn't fit neatly into a box.

There is some wish-wash, but I don't think a lot.

O'Reilly was a bully and a goon.

Stewart is a comic first, so while I think he's got political savvy, I don't mind any spin coming off of him any more than I do off of SNL. It's not a news programme.

I know what you mean about the right wing staying in lock (goose?) step on talking points. They have mastered a sinister kind of solidarity. One of the big problems - frustrations - I have with the left is that they can't prioritize to save their lives. So, on the right, we see this accepted, "Okay, if we want this country going to the right," (which, fair enough, that's their view), "we have to focus on supporting each other, even if we have to hold noses." Over on the left, they booted Al Franken because they couldn't make a distinction between the value of a great political voice and cancelling everybody involved in whatever the latest hashtag imbroglio is.

The left is a pathological ouroboros, constantly gnawing itself. "Support women!" "That's not intersectional! Support black women!" "No, focus on trans rights!" "You're all wrong! What about the immigrants!?" And they just bicker.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

That "interview" was a 3 hour debate. It was between Cenk, not TYT.

The Left is also filled with people who are connected or influenced by money. The NYT gets blamed for being Leftist, which is absurd. They never go any further Left than mainstream Democratic points, and often those will be de-emphasized.

Franken was a political assassination because he was too far Left, and when you look at it he was mainstream, i.e. somewhat to the Right of where average Americans are on most issues. Kirsten Gillibrand was to blame for leading the attacks on Franken and she had the nerve to run for President after that, and though all the these who were railroaded to the pile-on recanted and apologized Gillibrand sticks to her guns. She disgusts me.

The problem with the Left is lack of leadership, and logic. They do not know how to prioritize, although Bernie Sanders was the first one to actually stay on point about health care, education, minimum wage ... until last election where he went off on voting rights for prisoners and stuff like that.

I believe the Left is run by Right-wing cash, and the proof is that the money people told Democrats flat out last election cycle that if Bernie Sanders was their nominee they would not be contributing.

Another problem that adds to their chipping away of their credibility is the support for Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib is actually very good and had accomplished a lot as a community organizer, but she got bad jacketed by the Palestinian issue, and association with Omar. It's not that those two are so bad, it is their image and how that image is manipulated by the Right that is a liability.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I know Cenk speaks for himself, but he and Anna Kasparian are the main faces of that organization, so he kinda speaks for TYT, too. But more to my point, that debate was, to me, indicative of TYT as a whole. Not that the organization necessarily espoused every, single viewpoint Cenk expressed there, but the tenacity with which he pursued a narrative - that's more what I see TYT as doing.

NYT are very reliable. They might use editorial authority to focus more on left-friendly stories, but that's about it. I perceive that paper as - for the most part - being pretty good journalism.

I'm not super-familiar with Omar and Tlaib, but I believe I have heard of what you're talking about. Basically some out-of-context quotes made it sound like Omar was pro-terrorism cells or something, right? Pro-extremist Islam? Something like that?

Cash is its own dimension. If Left and Right are the x-axis, maybe money and/or power is the y-axis and provides a whole new dimension of corruption potential.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Real democracy is regulation and protection of wealth and power. Fascism in the wealth and power in the hands of a very few, or one in a dictatorship.

The economy has a build in tendency towards fascism.

Here is what Adam Smith had to say about it:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even more merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"

“unchecked self-interest [greed], especially when aided by the government will spoil the benefits of capitalism"

"The law cannot prevent people from meeting (for self-interest), but it should not facilitate those meetings.”

-Adam Smith

The point is that economics IS the system, and the government exists because of the intrinsic demand to have order in the economy, and democracy exists to protect the weak and regulate the powerful.

That implies two poles of capitalism, where the base of wealth and power is more distributed, democracy or republic on the Left side, and elitism or fascism on the Right side.

The real issue is that today everything is so bound together that there is no threat against the system. Recall that another truism is that, paraphrased - "dictatorship is where people fear the government, democracy is where the government fears the people".

Our government need not fear the people because the elites are so rich and powerful that there is no way the people, even if united could threaten it.

It is no coincidence that our two party system has become decoupled from class. Back in the 80's Democrats switched from representing people and unions to representing the managerial class, while Republicans were outright elitists and began the funneling of capital to the top, with Reagan/Thatcher and all but killed the unions.

That is the basics the people must understand to begin to model what is wrong and be motivated to fix it. But that cannot happen when class issues are ignored. It is also no coincidence that Marx - all about class warfare and the abuses of capitalism is so pilloried in todays public talks, but in the ranks of the elites is THE major economist they subscribe to ... in the reverse sense ironically.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

I don't really disagree save only for a few quibbles and semantic points.

I am not supportive of pure libertarianism or anarchy, since those systems would implode (or explode) quickly due to rampant corruption. I wouldn't side with totalitarianism, fascism, or communism for the same reason: too corrupt too fast.

The question is how much regulation to put into place and how to make it fair?

Too much and the system bucks itself into a corrupt regime. Too little and the abuse of the system goes into some wild west where the plutocrats rule, at best, or else it turns into "rule by violence".

It's difficult to beat a path that balances everything. I tend to favour more freedom over less. I want the minimum laws and restrictions, for several reasons, but germane to this conversation, because I think the principles are worth upholding - the idea that a person ought to be allowed to fail or succeed on their own terms. I know that with Old Money this isn't the case; that's why I don't support zero regulation.

By the "minimum", I only mean that I want the number of laws and regulations to be equal to giving everybody a fair shake.

Of course...what does that mean?

I don't support full-blown communism or Marxism because those things seem to, historically-speaking, boil down into really bad things.

The ideals of democracy are good, I believe, and I do agree that elements of socialism should be tinkered with and used to try and achieve those ideals.

The two-party system is a problem the US faces, if for no other reason, than that it polarizes the populace into hateful argumentation, but also (as you point out) because a lack of choice means that no government really needs to listen to the voice of the people.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

This article confirms how Kubrick was a DEDICATED WORK HORSE who "worked across ALL GENRES" whereas WOODY was pretty much a "ONE TRICK PONY":

https://www.videomaker.com/article/f16/15700-studying-the-masters-kubrick-vs-allen

(QUOTE):Allen, who has directed 43 feature films and written nearly twice as many titles in a 48-year career, doesn’t believe in rehearsals, works bankers’ hours, and shoots very little coverage. Meanwhile, Kubrick, the intense artist and perfectionist of a gazillion takes, worked across all genres without ever repeating himself. The difference in their approaches to movie creation makes for an absorbing study of contrasts, reminding us that while universal filmmaking conventions do exist, there really are no limits to how directors can bring their vision to the screen. (END QUOTE)

This is the 2ND TIME now that one has QUOTED what you said:

YOU:

AVP is pure salacious vicious twisted gossip. I honestly hope it has no effect on Woody's career.

You CLEARLY SUGGEST the recent HBO DOCUMENTARY is going to EFFECT his already NON EXISTENT CAREER STATUS.

So an EFFORT has been made to illustrate the reasons why WHAT YOU SAID is NOT SO (due to the way that HIS CAREER NOSE DIVED way back when he broke up with MIA to pursue a relationship with SOON-YI).

That's a FACT whether or not you care to ADMIT it or not.

Many people’s list of Where Woody Went Wrong begins with anything after 1989’s masterpiece “Crimes and Misdemeanors,”

Allen’s latest offerings ...have been as flat as an analyst’s couch,

the year he got hitched to his ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter- ... kicked off a string of mediocre movies and audience apathy.

And I also DON'T WRITE the ARTICLES that have been posted here that back up and prove that's the case.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Is it coincidence that his best regarded later work is within a different genre

In other words, by doing the same thing over and over again (like a ONE TRICK PONY) WOODY has pretty much TYPE CAST himself the same way as a ACTOR does who would do the same kind of a ROLE again and again.

And if you compare KUBRICK with ALLEN, then you can also see how KUBRICK never kept CHURNING OUT the same kinds of films year after year the way that Woody did. Because each time he made a film, Kubrick didn't stick with the same GENRE. PLUS he also made far fewer films that WOODY did (who also seems to think it's all about QUANTITY instead of QUALITY).

And Biden is also still in his 70's now, but by the time he's 85, he could be just as DECREPIT as the HALF-BLIND ONE-EYED WOODY is now. Because after age 85 it's pretty much all DOWN HILL for us if we ever make it that far.

Seriously, if Soon-Yi has to hold his arm to guide him to where he needs to go because of his BAD EYE SIGHT, and she also fusses at him whenever he fidgets
around with his keys, then how the hell is he suppose to direct another film???

And no one said anything about his being "SENILE" either (although about HALF of those who are over age 85 probably also have variations of that kind of an ISSUE).

What one found is EVIDENCE of his being FRAIL PHYSICALLY (not mentally). And companies also require one to be HEALTHY to work on a film due to the INSURANCE that they need to purchase for it in case something goes wrong (like if someone dies while making it).

As far as his CAREER is concerned WOODY's AGE is his worst ENEMY. And trying to place the BLAME for it's DECLINE onto others or onto the DOCUMENTARY is RIDICULOUS.

🙄🙄🙄

So how do you feel about his doing a PART 5???

Others complain that the DOCUMENTARY is too ONE SIDED, so wouldn't this also be an opportunity for him to present HIS SIDE of the story???

🤨🤨🤨

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Here's parts of another article written back in 2003 (almost 20 YEARS ago) that backs up what one has said about the DECLINE in WOODY's CAREER:

https://www.today.com/popculture/say-it-isn-t-so-decline-woody-allen-wbna3075585

Sept. 16, 2003

Say it isn’t so — the decline of Woody Allen

Allen's a prime example of a once-hot moviemaker who’s now not much more than lukewarm. The nebbishy, bespectacled Manhattanite who makes films mostly about…nebbishy, bespectacled Manhattanites has in recent years — dare we say it? — gone soft as a New York cheesecake.

And many former fans believe that Allen began his slide toward irrelevance a whole decade earlier than that.

📌[(NOTE the way that would also be the time when he breaks up with Mia to be with SOON-YI)]

The characters in Allen’s latest movies offer little of the humanity and heart necessary to gain our sympathy as they take their trademark Woody Allen spiritual journey. Who wants to pay 10 bucks to watch bitter, angry, unrepentant people kvetch and moan for two hours?

Take 1997’s “Deconstructing Harry,” which details an unlikable writer’s descent into hell — literally. The main character (played by Allen) is such an unapologetic jerk that we simply don’t care if he finds redemption or not. It’s nearly impossible to make an appealing, human movie if the characters are just plain mean.

The next year, “Celebrity,” in which an equally unlovable Kenneth Branagh did the worst Woody Allen impersonation ever captured on celluloid, proved that the director wasn’t simply in a one-picture slump. Cue the ominous music.

The tone lightened a bit with Allen’s next three flicks, but the damage to his reputation may have already been done. “Small Time Crooks,” “Curse of the Jade Scorpion,” “Hollywood Ending” — not terrible, but they’re barely worth writing about.

themes running through the film are pure Allen: dysfunctional relationships, self-doubt, self-obsession. Will Allen’s neurotic introspection play with today’s lookit-that-spaceship-splode! audiences? Do today’s teens even know who Woody Allen is? Or do they think of him — if they think of him at all — as a creepy old guy who makes movies for their parents?

Many people’s list of Where Woody Went Wrong begins with anything after 1989’s masterpiece “Crimes and Misdemeanors,”

Allen’s latest offerings ...have been as flat as an analyst’s couch,

the year he got hitched to his ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter- ... kicked off a string of mediocre movies and audience apathy.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

chronically out-of-phase with the era it depicts

Do today’s teens even know who Woody Allen is? Or do they think of him — if they think of him at all — as a creepy old guy who makes movies for their parents?

And here's still another article that backs up what the other critics said about how OUT of TOUCH Woody is with the ERA that he now inhabits:

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/woody-allen-career-over-timothee-chalamet-times-up-1201917667/

Allen’s movies have been weirdly solipsistic enterprises, usually colored by a nostalgia for old worlds, and the fantasies they sustain.

From “Manhattan” to “Wonder Wheel,” the Allen oeuvre has thumbed its nose at an evolving society and looked backward with a wistful gaze.

So it comes as no surprise that he was able to skirt along in an ivory tower of his own making for so long — Allen created his own universe divorced from real concerns, which made it easier to ignore how they might apply to him.

Taking SOON-YI around the GLOBE to look at what he considers to be the "GREAT CAPITALS" is still another form of the same situation where he's LOOKING BACKWARDS all the time and has LOST CONTACT with the PRESENT.

And that's also a part of the reason why his films "FALL FLAT" and no longer REFLECT anything that others find interesting anymore. Because there's also not much in them that one can RELATE to due to the way that WOODY's "created his own universe" and is so WALLED OFF now from the rest of the WORLD.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

This article also discusses WOODY'S AGE and his LAZINESS as being an ISSUE in the DECLINE of his FILM CAREER:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/woody-allen-wonder-wheel/537876/

The Remarkable Laziness of Woody Allen

Putting next to no effort into his films is the secret to sustaining his reputation.

In an interview during the filming of Match Point, he described himself as “functioning within the parameters of my mediocrity,” and went on to note that if he were ever to make another great film, it would be “by accident.” False modesty? Some, no doubt. But we would do best to take his words at face value.

For years the evidence has accumulated: Allen is an astonishingly lazy director.

he offers his performers little or no guidance and tries to complete every scene in as few takes as possible. Here, again, Allen is bluntly honest. “I’m lazy and an imperfectionist,” he explained in a 2015 NPR interview.

Allen’s moviemaking technique as something more akin to an assembly line. From beginning to end, the enterprise is designed to maximize efficiency, all but inevitably at the cost of quality.
a filmmaking pace that smacks more of neurotic obsession than of intensive dedication?

Given that Allen’s movie-a-year schedule extends well back into his prime, one might wonder what explains such a precipitous decline in quality since the 1990s. Presumably age, however healthy and fit he remains, has something to do with it. His shoots are typically shorter now than they were in his earlier years. (The shoot for 1973’s Sleeper lasted a full 101 days.) Ambition simply isn’t on the agenda. When asked whether his films would benefit from more time and effort, he has consistently maintained that they are as good as they can be and no amount of additional work would improve them. Moreover, it is hardly unusual for a director’s later work to grow somewhat stale, particularly when the director’s preoccupations—death, philosophy, older men sleeping sleeping with younger women—remain as constant as Allen’s have.

Allen himself is ready with the most astute diagnosis. “I’m not a curious person,” he noted in that 2015 NPR interview. “I’m not curious to travel … I’m not curious to see other places, I’m not curious to try new things.” During the fertile years in which he forged his reputation, he pursued themes very close to home, with films that were set almost exclusively in his native New York City and frequently dealt with the fields of comedy or show business. More recently, he has worked in locales—London, Paris, Rome, Barcelona—he evidently knows only from the perspective of an unenthusiastic tourist. Match Point was knocked for its unfamiliarity with London; To Rome With Love looks as though it was shot with a copy of Fodor’s in hand.

Early in his career, Allen was often his own star, and his distinctive patter—the phobias and neuroses and literary references—worked effortlessly in a way that it does not when it emanates from the mouths of his various surrogates since then. And the filmmaker who these days has so little contact with his actors used to have his female stars close at hand: Between them, his longtime love interests Louise Lasser, Diane Keaton, and Mia Farrow starred in 22 out of 23 consecutive films during his heyday.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

I'd have to point out and disagree with you about believing all of this rambling character assassination stuff about Allen's movies has any connection to proving that Woody is a pedophile, a molester of pre-pubescent children, despite never having been accused of any improprieties before Dylan Farrow's confused and contradictory claims before or since?

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

DYLAN's claims weren't confused or contradictory.

And In case you MISSED IT or OVER LOOKED IT ...

PART 4 of the DOCUMENTARY also CLEARLY explains how "PROBABLE CAUSE" was found to PRESS CHARGES against WOODY for both 1ST and 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT ...

but the PROSECUTOR decided NOT to go forward with the CASE because he felt it would be TOO TRAMATIC for DYLAN if he did so.

The IRONY of course is that DECISION to NOT place her on the WITNESS STAND to TESTIFY has still resulted in DYLAN being TRAMATIZED by people who choose not to believe her when she explains how WOODY SEXUALLY MOLESTEDED her at age 7.

And she also says that she wishes she had been placed on the stand to TESTIFY about what happened to her back then.

The state where it happened also has a STATUTE of LIMITATIONS.

But IF WOODY also MOLESTED DYLAN in the state of NY, there are NO LIMITATIONS there in that state. Which also means WOODY could still be arrested and face charges.

And this time DYLAN is also NOT a child anymore, so that also wouldn't be an ISSUE anymore for her to TESTIFY against him.

And her SISTER DAISY also TESTIFIED in COURT about how WOODY had also been GROOMING her to become another one of his SEXUAL CONQUESTS (the same way as he did DYLAN and SOON-YI which is also a TOTAL of at least 3 children that he PREYED upon).

So how do you feel about the offer that WOODY's been made to do PART 5 of this HBO DOCUMENTARY???

Do you think he should do it???

Or is he too much of a COWARD to come forward and present HIS SIDE of the story???

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> PART 4 of the DOCUMENTARY also CLEARLY explains how
> "PROBABLE CAUSE" was found to PRESS CHARGES against
> WOODY for both 1ST and 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT

That is to be blunt, fancy dressed-up bullshit.

Any prosecutor that had probable cause is required by their job to file charges of that seriousness and that Maco did not is malfeasance and not doing his job. This was a public character assassination because Mia got on his good side and Maco hated Woody Allen,

Further, prosecutor Frank Maco instead of prosecuting, instead held a press-conference and basically declared Woody Allen guilty of child-molestation in the same breath where he said he was NOT going to prosecute.

From: https://woodyallenmoblynching.com/probable-cause/

Woody Allen sued Maco: a panel judged Maco’s actions to be “was inappropriate, unsolicited and potentially prejudicial” and also “violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. The case ran until 1996. Maco was suspended for much of that time, losing his living, and costing the states hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense.

So, JOI, you are so great at pulling out truths from implied motives ( otherwise known as your ass ), why do you think Maco, given this chance to screw-over Woody Allen in this bullshit documentary, is doing it? Why do I even ask, because I know you will evade this question and print miles more irrelevant boldface bullshit?

If the figurative shoe was on the other foot you would have no problem in accusing Maco of a conflict of interest, but because Maco is taking revenge on Woody Allen over being found capable for his corruption, you swallow every bit of poison and spit it like a viper at Woody Allen. You are some twisted piece of work.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

Thanks for the info and for the link. Since this is the first time that one has heard anything about this matter, one has no comment at this time and will need to search around to see what else there is before coming to a conclusion.

Just like others also LEAPED to the WRONG CONCLUSION about what MOSES said -- without also knowing how what he said CONTRADICTS what WOODY SAID-- when he said wasn't with MOSES the day WOODY MOLESTED DYLAN -- even though MOSES CLAIMS that he was with WOODY.

And then MOSES also claims there was NO TRAIN SET, which contradicts the DRAWINGS that the COPS made of it there in the ATTIC AREA.

So until one can find the TIME to further investigate the matter, one also can't make a judgement at this time.

But IF what you say is so, then shouldn't WOODY also should do a PART 5 of the DOCUMENTARY as a way to tell HIS SIDE of the story???

You've also been ASKED that question 3 TIMES now.

Why do you IGNORE it and REFUSE to ANSWER IT???

Before one REPLIES to your QUESTIONS shouldn't you also be willing to REPLY back to theirs.

You don't do that though do you???

Because you're still too busy FLINGING FALLACIES (due to the way that you LOSE the DEBATE each time that EVIDENCE is presented to you that proves that you've been wrong about what you've said).

🙄

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

If you knew what a fallacy was you'd probably hang yourself in shame.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

No one, not the police, not the Farrows have been able to explain where that diagram of the attic was. Where was the train plugged in to. Why have the Farrows never produced a photograph of that attic in the intervening decades.

Also, the diagram of the attic is not like a real blueprint, you cannot tell what is what, but if you look at the dimensions on the attic diagram shown, the width is listed as 4'6", and the train diameter is listed as 4". So how would Dylan have been able to fit in that attic unless she was lying over the supposed train?

To me, in all this time to try to refute Moses with that diagram and their verbal claims - when they had been asked for blueprints and photographs smacks of manufactured evidence.

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3800) 4 years ago

You are talking to a mentally challenged person. Just saying.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

LOL, you have a major point there.

A mentally challenged person who really has it in for the Woodman! ;-)

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

📌📌📌📌📌

***************
Did a SEARCH and FOUND THIS info which indicates that WOODY didn't SUE MACO the way that you say he did, but he simply filed a COMPLAINT against him with a GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, which it also says was "UNAMIMOUSLY DISMISSED" after a 4 YEAR INVESTIGATION:

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/could-woody-allen-be-prosecuted-for-alleged-sexual-assault-of-dylan-farrow-after-all-these-years-we-answer-this-and-other-legal-questions-raised-by-hbos-allen-v-farrow/

Allen v. Farrow featured Frank S. Maco, Litchfield County, Connecticut’s state’s attorney, who investigated the sexual assault allegations. Maco explained in the series that he strongly believed there had been probable cause to bring charges against Allen, but that he chose not to do so in an effort to protect Dylan from further traumatization. Maco retired in 2003 after 31 years as a prosecutor. Woody Allen made an official complaint against Maco to the Statewide Grievance Committee after Maco spoke with media about the case. The complaint was unanimously dismissed after a four-year investigation.

In other words, apparently I'm not the one who SWALLOWED the POISON that someone else was SPITTING OUT in that other "LYNCH MOB LINK" that you posted here.

Because this other LINK I found also indicates that the COMMITTEE RULED in favor of MACO (not in favor of WOODY who filed the UNFOUNDED complaint against him).

And that also means that it would be WOODY who costs the STATE HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars with the kind of FALSE UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS that he FLUNG FORTH at MACO.

🙄

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Thanks for making some effort to actually fact find but really what difference does it make if he was sued or reported? Maybe you want to take a look at this excerpt from Woody Allen's book, if you think it will not burn your eyes out?

The police case was headed by Frank Maco, who hired Yale. Dr. Coates, Dylan’s shrink, thought the Connecticut Police were anti-Semitic, a card I never liked to play. While she was in Connecticut being interviewed, one of the police told her, “Miss Farrow did what she should have done when the girl was abused. She rebaptized all the children.” Poor Maco must have been crushed when Yale concluded no molestation took place. To go to court with such a high-profile case would’ve made his career, but not if he lost it, and when reality set in, he sadly had to grasp that any fantasies he might have had of using the Farrow case to advance his dreams of glory were out the window. He kept the case open for months, all during the custody hearing, which served no purpose except as a big help to Mia’s side. But why? What was in it for him to hurt me? When the aforementioned Sandy Boluch and Judy Hollister worked in Mia’s house at the time, they individually described how Maco would show up unannounced now and then, reeking of cheap cologne (their words), and that Mia would dress up and make up and go out to lunch with him. This was apparently Maco’s idea of conducting an impartial, unprejudiced investigation.

No question it was curious when Maco finally dropped the case and said he could have pursued it but didn’t want to upset Dylan. A number of lawyers told me that was not very ethical, and there was an article in the New York Times that agreed, calling Maco’s behavior a violation of my civil liberties. That trying to keep alive the question of my innocence or guilt (though it had been concluded there had been no molestation) was a gift to Mia is undeniable. But let’s be honest—you really think he finally closed the case because he didn’t want to hurt Dylan? This excuse by a clown who subjected the poor seven-year-old to police interviews, who never said anything about Mia taping her naked, and never squawked when Supermom dragged Dylan to a doctor who knocked the poor kid unconscious with an anesthetic so she could have her probed vaginally in search of any morsel of evidence, but of course nothing was found. I feel reasonable people might disagree that it was concern for Dylan that caused District Attorney Maco to let his case fade away.

Allen, Woody. Apropos of Nothing (pp. 197-198). Arcade. Kindle Edition.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

What's clear is that LINK was NOT RELIABLE and LIES about what really happened. And the difference between a complaint and a LAW SUIT is also HUGE. When WOODY SUED MIA for CUSTODY, for instance, and LIED about her being an UNFIT MOTHER, the JUDGE not only AWARDED her CUSTODY of the kids, but made WOODY PAY MIA ONE MILLION BUCKS for her ATTORNEY FEES. So IF WOODY had SUED this other man, then he could also have been AWARDED the same kind of MONEY to pay his ATTORNEY FEES.

As for the QUOTE from ALLEN, he's LIED again when he says that the YALE REPORT said no molestation took place. Because the SOCIAL WORKER in NY spoke to the other person who worked on the YALE REPORT who told him that she not only FOUND what DYLAN said to be CREDIBLE, but she also said there was STILL MORE to the story.

But what happened is WOODY got someone to "**SANITIZE**" that REPORT by not only getting them to "**DESTROY all the NOTES**" that were taken when DYLAN was INTERVIEWED (which experts in the DOCUMENTARY also explain NEVER HAPPENS), but WOODY also got a copy of that REPORT BEFORE MACO did (even though MACO is the one who ORDERED it and should have gotten it first).

Then WOODY also holds a PRESS CONFERENCE before MACO got a copy of it, and claimed the report said he was INNOCENT of the charges when that's NOT what it said at all (due to the way the woman who worked on it told the other SOCIAL WORKER a completely different story about DYLAN being CREDIBLE).

In other words, WOODY pulled a PRANK like AG BARR did when he also held a PRESS CONFERENCE FALSELY claiming the SCAM MAN who ran the FAKE UNIVERSITY and the FAKE CHARITY was INNOCENT when the MUELLER REPORT also never said any such thing.

And the DOCUMENTARY also PROVES that's what happened to us, which is also why one hopes WOODY will agree to do a PART 5 of it and tell HIS SIDE of it.

And the reason why he didn't pursue the CRIMINAL CASE is because DYLAN FROZE UP when MACO tried to interview her to see if she'd be STRONG ENOUGH to TESTIFY in court. So that's why he didn't pursue the matter (which also has NOTHING to do with what WOODY claims about the guy wanting to further his career).

And a woman putting on make up to go out in public to have lunch is also NOT UNUSUAL either (especially if she's a well known actress who would want to look her best in case journalist would photograph her or she ran into fans that would ask for her autograph). What WOODY is doing is SUGGESTING that MIA was dressing up for MACO which is a load of BS and just REVEALS what an UNRELIABLE and UNTRUSTWORTHY NARRATOR that ALLEN is.

Again, upsetting DYLAN wasn't the MAIN ISSUE. The MAIN PROBLEM was DYLAN FROZE UP which means she was too OVER STRESSED and would probably do the same thing again in COURT. But WOODY TWIST that around and makes it sound like MACO didn't pursue the matter because he was INNOCENT when that's NOT so (which is also proven by the PROBABLE CAUSE charges issued against him).

And what lawyers told him (who also are NOT NAMED so that one can verify that's the case), and what an article said also have NOTHING to do with anything because it was also NEVER CONCLUDED that there's been NO MOLESTATION. READ the COURT DOCUMENTS. They've been posted here. The JUDGE CLEARLY STATES that NO CONCLUSION could be reached due to the way the YALE REPORT had been **"SANATIZED"** and "the **NOTES were DESTROYED**."

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603e603e9185a41a2ca872a9/Heres-The-1993-Woody-Allen-Custody-Ruling-In-Its-Damning-Detailed-Entirety

the ruling by Justice Elliott Wilk paints a particularly damning portrayal of Allen the father, describing him as “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive,” and undercuts the claims that Farrow was “brainwashed” by her mother into inventing the tale of her sexual molestation.

Wilk’s ruling also calls into question the credibility of the much-cited Yale New Haven Hospital study,

Wilk writes:

1. “There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan” or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical "woman scorned" defense is an injudicious attempt to DIVERT ATTENTION from his failure to act as a responsible parent.

2. The Yale New Haven study report is “**SANITIZED**" and, therefore, less credible” owing to a variety of factors.

And Woody calling MACO a CLOWN is also a case of PROJECTION on his part, because he's also the one who CLOWNS around with the FACTS and LIES about them.

As for the case having "FADED AWAY," (as WOODY puts it) according to what another article says (you can find it over on the GASLIGHT topic):

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/604fced40b03987d721aea0e/All-aboard-for-The-GASLIGHT-EXPRESS

DYLAN also has 13 more years (until age 48) to PRESS CHARGES against WOODY. So STAY TUNED and let's see what happens.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

> And the difference between a complaint and a LAW SUIT is also HUGE.

I said that the effects of a complain or a lawsuit in this case was what was significant, not that a complaint and lawsuit are the same thing.

Again you have to twist words around even to be able to lie about this subject.

> What's clear is that LINK was NOT RELIABLE and LIES about what really happened.

I submit that if you cannot be honest enough not to twist around what people say here directly to you - in multiple cases, that you are not any kind of authority to declare what is reliable or truthful given your ability to be manipulated by your emotions.

Obviously the only reliable links in your closed mind are those that support your hatred of Woody, the more outrageous and untrue the more affinity you seem to have to them.

Again, your long posts on things that are not the subject, in boldface, and all-caps screams that you don't feel the truth or logic is enough to support your case - you are driven to insist readers agree with you by loud formatting.

Thank god you don't know about the BLINK HMTL directive.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

CORRECTION:

This is what you said:

what difference does it make if he was sued or reported?

Since that's a QUESTION that you put forth, you also NEVER SAID this:

I said that the effects of a complain or a lawsuit in this case was what was significant, not that a complaint and lawsuit are the same thing.

Therefore the TWISTING around here also comes from you (not me).

And ARTICLES have also been QUOTED here due to the way that one is also aware that one is NOT an AUTHORITY.

And the EMOTION DISPLAYED here also comes from YOU as well -- due to the way that you keep FLINGING FALLACIES my way -- that come under the ARGUMENTUM AD HOMENIM category -- which is also what people RESORT to doing whenever they have NO OTHER LEGIT COUNTER ARGUMENT to offer one's DEBATE OPPONENT.

Thus the reason why the LACK of LOGIC is on YOUR PART (not mine), due to the IRRATIONAL way that you insist upon attacking MY CHARACTER and POSTING STYLE -- as if that has anything to do with WOODY MOLESTING DYLAN at age 7.

The EVIDENCE presented to us in the DOCUMENTARY is OVER WHELMING in the way that it BACKS UP and SUPPORTS what DYLAN says happened to her.

If WOODY has something else to say regarding DYLAN's account, then by all means let him MAKE a PART 5 of the DOCUMENTARY to refute her claim.

So DO YOU THINK he should DO THAT or NOT??? This is also the 4TH TIME now that you've been ASKED that QUESTION.

Why do you AVOID giving an ANSWER to it???

🙄🙄🙄🙄

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9318) 4 years ago

Sorry, I really cannot read past the first line of your posts if you are going to be so dishonest and just downright evil - and your every post is so full of dishonesty - I will give you this, you are an expert at evil intentions conveyed by words.

> what difference does it make if he was sued or reported?

It is implied "for all practical purposes", i.e. what difference is the outcome if it still ends with Maco having such a hatred for Woody Allen and an axe to grind against him for multiple reasons mentioned that he would bear false witness against him and try to destroy him personally outside of his job. The very definition of corruption and conflict of interest.

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

This TOPIC is NOT ABOUT ME.

It's about the DOCUMENTARY, which YOU also said you HOPE won't have an EFFECT WOODY's CAREER.

Then it was explained how HIS CAREER has essentially been OVER with ever since "CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS, due to the way that his FILMS are so REPETITIVE, due to the way that they deal with the SAME THEMES and PLOT POINTS.

And the article that one is reading also offers us still more PROOF of the kind of REPETITION that one encounters in his films:

— mostly via Mickey Sachs (Woody Allen), in a choice slightly reminiscent of the structure in "Crimes And Misdemeanors" — that comments upon and expands the deeper stuff, within.

In some ways, "Hannah and Her Sisters" revisits the same tropes of "Interiors"

it is a borrowing from earlier films like "Annie Hall,"

The film’s use of music is also reminiscent of "Manhattan"

Like I said before, WOODY's CAREER is definitely STUCK in a REPETITIOUS RUT, and the DOCUMENTARY also has NOTHING whatsoever to do with his being STUCK there in it.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[–] joi2049 (5572) 4 years ago

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603e603e9185a41a2ca872a9/Heres-The-1993-Woody-Allen-Custody-Ruling-In-Its-Damning-Detailed-Entirety

the ruling by Justice Elliott Wilk paints a particularly damning portrayal of Allen the father, describing him as “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive,” and undercuts the claims that Farrow was “brainwashed” by her mother into inventing the tale of her sexual molestation.

Wilk’s ruling also calls into question the credibility of the much-cited Yale New Haven Hospital study,
Wilk writes:

1. “There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan” or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical "woman scorned" defense is an injudicious attempt to DIVERT ATTENTION from his failure to act as a responsible parent.

2014-02-07-nocrediblewomanscorned.png

2. The Yale New Haven study report is “sanitized and, therefore, less credible” owing to a variety of factors.