Woody Allen

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#751 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun May 17, 2020 6:29 pm

AWA wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 6:03 pm
therewillbeblus wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 10:54 am
Great exchange. I’ve been banging this drum (sometimes exhaustively) here on this forum for a while, but modern therapies (specifically subjective, client-centered ones) like Motivational Interviewing live by the mantra that change is hard for all people; in many instances the most challenging thing we can do. Sometimes we can will ourselves to change, but as mostly emotional beings, who operate in cognitive spaces (and that includes folks who test logic-heavy on Meyers Briggs, etc) we continue to make choices and take actions (including non-actions, often) that feed into fear, doubt, insecurity, anxieties.

Woody is an anxious person so that can contribute, but just generally many (most, all?) people have to suppress some realities in order to cope with their situations. I’ve stayed in way too many jobs and relationships that were just plain not healthy or safe due to the complex psychological processes that need to occur to move someone into sustained awareness of the need to change. Change disrupts one’s predictability, the rooted dynamics of roles, relationships, and other systems. Since people have finite will power, when in certain intense situations they wind up using up all of their energy just keeping their heads above water.

It’s a really fascinating phenomenon, and while I reject reading this truth as a cop-out into complacency, or an excuse into not taking responsibility, on the other hand it’s scientifically proven that people cannot independently pull themselves up by their emotional bootstraps to issue change left and right effortlessly like a superhero. Even making the step from the unaware pre-contemplation stage into the aware contemplation stage in Prochaska‘s stages of change model, let alone maintaining or progressing, is a feat. And of course, like all psychological theories that give attention to the emotional sides of us, it’s not a linear process (for example, how many times have I maintained independence from a toxic relationship only to revert back and suppress my awareness of this as a problem; or how many times have I quit smoking only to revert back to the behavior and forget the reasons why I stopped- if we had to cope on a constant basis with pulsing awareness of our unhealthy choices, we’d go insane- so in a sense the parts of our brain that defend against this constant self-flagellation are helping us too, while also stunting that capacity for change. It’s a grey system.)
Very interesting comments, thank you taking the time to share that. I would love to know more about that as it has been a burden I've have to wrestle with my whole life. When relationships are ending, I know they are - I can read all the signs, I know this is no longer healthy, this is getting worse, I need to get away from this person, etc - but I can't bring myself to make the break. As a result I linger too long in something that ended before and it has become toxic to both of us and I try to find ways to correct what can't be corrected before I finally leave (or am left, which hurts more).
My framework on comprehending this outside of therapeutic modalities (you could pick up the Motivational Interviewing book) is based on my specialization in addiction (which was the basis for a lot of these subjective therapies on change). This video is something I send to people struggling with change all the time (it’s long but the meat is really from like minute 16 or so to 43, or something along those lines). Even though it uses addiction and AA as the basis, it’s generalizable to the idea of finite will power and explains why we can’t individually pull ourselves up or sustain change without proper supports, using psychology and research. There are naturally other handicaps (the enigmatic disease element, mental health, etc.) but this video refrains from those specifications which help make this universally applicable.

No exaggeration: this video changed my life as far as how I view what our capabilities are and what we need to be successful. Most importantly I think it helps us understand the “why” you mention to halt us from shaming ourselves, yet doesn’t diffuse responsibility either, and provides tools and blueprints for empowerment. Anyways, check it out.

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Woody Allen

#752 Post by Nasir007 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:02 pm

So, I was going to post yesterday in this thread that - Wow! A defense of Woody from an unusual quarter.

Scatch that.

These days, basically anytime someone makes a quarter-provocative opinion or even slightly toes the line, don't discuss it seriously because you know the inevitable walk back and apology are coming.

And so we roll. No succor for Woody, everything is as it was before.

User avatar
The Pachyderminator
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:24 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#753 Post by The Pachyderminator » Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:10 am

I'm not quite sure why he felt he needed to walk that back. It's not like Spike Lee normally bends over backwards to avoid offending Hollywood's gatekeepers...

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Woody Allen

#754 Post by swo17 » Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:17 am

It's unfortunate this is being characterized as Lee changing his stance on Allen when it doesn't really have anything to do with him. His original comment was along the lines of "Cancel culture is really hard on people who get accused, like my buddy Woody Allen" and his apology was just acknowledging that focusing on how the accused suffer is insensitive to victims, and that he could have chosen his words better

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#755 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:01 am

I agree, though Lee could have clarified the context of his second remark, which does read like he's validating the claims on Allen in responding to the post rather than validating the attention going to sexual assault survivors instead. You're right though, each comment is so clearly divorced from that specific case that drawing a link is spinning one's own narrative. Unfortunately, unless Lee clarifies that remark, it's going to be the narrative.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Woody Allen

#756 Post by FrauBlucher » Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:38 pm

The problem with our current climate is people have to be on guard every waking moment on what they say and how they say it, and that's impossible.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#757 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:49 pm

Right, I just wish Spike Lee, who is calling Woody Allen his friend, would clarify his last comment because he is a very public social justice advocate beyond black rights who refuses to hold his tongue- and even just saying that his comments are divorced from Allen specifically would be helpful in not perpetuating additional smearing.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Woody Allen

#758 Post by swo17 » Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:51 pm

I can see the headlines now..."Spike Lee Apologizes for Apologizing to Rape Victims"

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#759 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jun 16, 2020 2:03 pm

swo17 wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:51 pm
I can see the headlines now..."Spike Lee Apologizes for Apologizing to Rape Victims"
I know.. it's a lose-lose situation.

User avatar
Dr Amicus
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:20 am
Location: Guernsey

Re: Woody Allen

#760 Post by Dr Amicus » Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:06 am

Does anybody know anything about the quality of this set, currently £25 on Amazon?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#761 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 am

I finally started Apropos of Nothing and I was laughing so hard after just a few pages that I had to take a break. It's been a while since I've read Allen's non-screenplay writing, but I forgot how effortlessly he fits humor into such serious subjects. Lines talking about death and his parents' poor health, real fears of his, are juxtaposed with piercing semantics that undo rigid meaning to open up everything for a gag. His prose is arguably even better than his scripts, though when you're this good, it's all heaven. I feel like I need to go back and reread his short stories and essays, since I haven't read The Insanity Defense, or any of the other books by him that I still have on my shelf, since childhood.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#762 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:20 am

I took a college class that assigned both Allen and Lorrie Moore texts for close study. It was a The Good Lord Giveth, The Good Lord Taketh Away situation

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Woody Allen

#763 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:27 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 am
I finally started Apropos of Nothing and I was laughing so hard after just a few pages that I had to take a break. It's been a while since I've read Allen's non-screenplay writing, but I forgot how effortlessly he fits humor into such serious subjects.
This is definitely for you then....
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stand-Up-Years ... sic&sr=1-2

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#764 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:35 pm

“The Moose” is classic. Also, this quip from a different bit is one of the great Allen one-liners
SpoilerShow
Upon being told his wife had been arrested: “Knowing her, it wasn’t a moving violation”

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#765 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:05 pm

Yep, we had those on cassette when I was growing up- listened to his standup in my parents' bedroom many a night. I've mentioned it before, but I was raised on Woody Allen by my mom (and Jackie Chan by my dad) and had seen most of each's films by the time I was done with middle school. One of the things I'm most grateful for is how they helped facilitate my exposure to art, since Allen undoubtedly shaped my sense of humor- as well as my stance on separating art and people (since my mom grappled with the Soon-Yi marriage throughout my childhood and struggled to separate her normative beliefs from her love of his comedy, with the latter consistently winning out amidst the inner conflict).

The "moose" punchline is one of his best

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#766 Post by knives » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:11 pm

Moose is definitely great. Fortunately a lot of these have been posted on YouTube and I've been slowly going through them. His sense of delivery including the physical component is genuinely impressive. It's obvious how he became a big star.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#767 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:29 pm

Having just finished the Hawks bio, it was cool to read that Feldman was busy helping to launch Allens' career into films just before he died. A strange but delightful commonality in ally with an eye and passion for talent.

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Woody Allen

#768 Post by Never Cursed » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:27 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:20 am
I took a college class that assigned both Allen and Lorrie Moore texts for close study. It was a The Good Lord Giveth, The Good Lord Taketh Away situation
Didn't know exactly what this meant re: Lorrie Moore, but a recent excerpt from a piece wherein Moore appears to collectively declare millennials the Antichrist has cleared up a lot.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#769 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:33 pm

Remember that embarrassing Lena Dunham second-person essay for the Big Chill? That’s the Lorrie Moore book we had to read

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#770 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:41 pm

Never Cursed wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:27 pm
domino harvey wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:20 am
I took a college class that assigned both Allen and Lorrie Moore texts for close study. It was a The Good Lord Giveth, The Good Lord Taketh Away situation
Didn't know exactly what this meant re: Lorrie Moore, but a recent excerpt from a piece wherein Moore appears to collectively declare millennials the Antichrist has cleared up a lot.
The funniest part is, "Due to smartphones millennials are essentially suburban, no matter where they have actually grown up," though the end where she supposes the source of suicidal ideation and self-harm, as not only fact but as a very specific cause-and-effect scenario, crosses the line. Indicating that Boomers never resorted to cutting as a blanket concrete behavior of mental health issues because they're better and stronger is pretty disgusting in its resentful shaming.

Constable
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:51 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#771 Post by Constable » Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:06 pm

AWA wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 6:34 pm
Glowingwabbit wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 6:19 pm
AWA wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:34 pm

For what its worth... his Star Wars doc is about Star Wars but it is about film history. I mean... there are how many clips of Alphaville in it. Man With A Movie Camera. John Ford films. A history of the name "Phantom Menace" as it applies to both serials and B-movies. The tropes Lucas used are all references to a vast array of cinema. That's what interested me. It doesn't weigh that deeply into fanboy surface shit, it's about filmmaking and an artist. That's why it was interesting to me, even though I don't particularly care about the art or the artist, I know enough about Lucas to know he's very well versed in cinema history, so to see how an artist used his knowledge of films from all over the world in all eras in many genres to make a homage to them is still a fascinating look. Plus it's a damning take down of horrible film criticism from online critics who are culturally illiterate. Again - it's about one thing but it's about something much much bigger - combine that with sharp editing and great writing, that's the ingredients of a good film, period.
Ok that actually does sound interesting.
Yes, very. I thought I'd just watch some of it to see what else he had done. I watched the whole thing in one sitting because I didn't want to turn it off. Again - Star Wars criticisms are usually like nails on a chalkboard navel gazing smug self satisfied jerks. This was really interesting about art and the artist's process. And also a damning take down of those vapid fanboy critics on YouTube that don't know anything about film history (amazing part is where he looks at their criticism videos of other films, including the one guy who tries to prove to people how he understands Citizen Kane is the best film ever made and, in the end, gives it an A+... it's both hilarious and also very insightful commentary on the modern idea of online film criticism from any two bit jackass on YouTube who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about).

He starts the film with clips from No Direction Home looking at how Bob Dylan going electric was trashed and booed by fans on his 1966 England tour. And works his way into Star Wars critics from there. Had me at Bob Dylan, man. Then the amazing clips and references to Lucas' interest in avant garde cinema history and how it informs him visually as a narrative filmmaker... some fantastic stuff there. This guy is a real filmmaker, not a video blogger or whatever the hell they call that shit.
What's wrong with giving Citizen Kane an A+? :-k

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#772 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:55 pm

Maybe I'm reading AWA's post incorrectly, but it seems that the commentary is funny because a person adopting an inflated critic persona to prove they understand Citizen Kane's genius, as if that's a singular take, is ridiculous, not the belief that it's a work of genius. Giving it the A+ isn't what's wrong, but coming off like that's a novel opinion and branding yourself as the one people should listen to because you have this unique opinion is silly. Basically, it's not about the merit of the art, but the person inserting themselves between the art and the opinion. At least that's how I interpreted that post.

Constable
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:51 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#773 Post by Constable » Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:25 pm

AWA wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 6:14 pm
Glowingwabbit wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:54 pm
AWA wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:34 pm



I watched his hour long defence of the Star Wars prequels after watching this. I really don't like Star Wars very much at all (outside of Empire and the New Hope). And really hated the prequels. But did defend them on the basis that Lucas made them and he's incredibly knowledgable about film history and no dummy, even if I don't particularly care about his films that much. I watched it anyways on the basis of how good this was. It is an hour long. I have no vested interest in caring one way or another about Star Wars films, but it was a *really* well made doc as well and I found it very interesting and insightful. Imagine that. Learning about something you don't necessarily care about.
That's fair. Although I also wouldn't be interested in watching a well made doc on Star Wars even if it was only an hour long. I don't care how well made it is I'm simply not interested in learning more about Star Wars. But back to the 2.5 hour doc. Yes I have to have some vested interest in the subject matter to sit through it. Otherwise I have thousands of other films on my watchlist to check out.
For what its worth... his Star Wars doc is about Star Wars but it is about film history. I mean... there are how many clips of Alphaville in it. Man With A Movie Camera. John Ford films. A history of the name "Phantom Menace" as it applies to both serials and B-movies. The tropes Lucas used are all references to a vast array of cinema. That's what interested me. It doesn't weigh that deeply into fanboy surface shit, it's about filmmaking and an artist. That's why it was interesting to me, even though I don't particularly care about the art or the artist, I know enough about Lucas to know he's very well versed in cinema history, so to see how an artist used his knowledge of films from all over the world in all eras in many genres to make a homage to them is still a fascinating look. Plus it's a damning take down of horrible film criticism from online critics who are culturally illiterate. Again - it's about one thing but it's about something much much bigger - combine that with sharp editing and great writing, that's the ingredients of a good film, period.
I watched the video and I have to say I did not like it at all. I'd be curious to hear what others thought about it if they watched.

Here's the link if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mArj6WvqzE

The main thesis of the video is that the Star Wards prequels are good because they're stuffed with references to significant films from film history, which is pretty silly.

I'm not gonna defend Stuckmann or RLM, I'm not familiar enough with them to have a position on them, but I think he's pretty unfair to them throughout the video.

He makes the silly claim that they are not qualified to critique Star Wars, because they don't catch that this or that shot is a reference to Metropolis or Sergio Leone or this or that silent film - is that really relevant in critiquing Star Wars? I mean, sure, catching those references is interesting and a critic should point them out, but those are curiosities, not parts of the film's substance.

And furthermore, would a "proper," film-literate critic who's seen all these films Star Wars references really catch all those references in a casual viewing of the film?

Or take the part where he ridicules them for not knowing that the title of The Phantom Menace is a reference to 50s television serials or whatever, as if that's just basic cultural knowledge. I mean, would even the average "culturally literate" critic know that? I think he knows very well that the answer is no, but he pretends like, omg, they're so dumb, how could they not know this??

Which leads me to my other problem with the video, which is that it seems pretty transparent to me that one of its main purposes is for the author to show off what a cinephile (TM) he is and impress the audience while taking totally unfair shots at these guys.

User avatar
Randall Maysin
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#774 Post by Randall Maysin » Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:12 pm

Im wracking my brains trying to find a memory of a millennial ever admitting they were wrong about anything, or showing any evidence of shame (except for petty and meaningless virtue-signaling, of course). Im drawing a blank.......But. Maybe thats because they Dont Need To....!!!

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#775 Post by knives » Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:14 pm

What about the millennials on this board?

Post Reply