28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Izzy Black]

I'm totally cool with the fact that Qrazy, or whoever, is creeped out by Isaac's and Tracy's relationship in the film because she's 17 and he's in his 40s. My only point was that I don't think the film demonstrates guilt about pedophilic desires. Or that the guilt theme that runs through his films is obviously connected to guilt or shame about his alleged pedophilia.

[baby doll]

Sure that's how Isaac feels in that moment when he says it but I don't think that's the focus of the film.

It is a Woody Allen movie, and while the film gently criticizes his relationship with Tracy, Isaac is still the character with whom we most closely identify. Furthermore, there's the whole scene with Isaac talking to himself about why life is worth living and then taking out the harmonica Tracy gave him while "He Loves and She Loves" plays on the soundtrack which motivates him to ask her for another chance (as opposed to going to see her immediately after Mary jilts him).

[baby doll]

I'm totally cool with the fact that Qrazy, or whoever, is creeped out by Isaac's and Tracy's relationship in the film because she's 17 and he's in his 40s. My only point was that I don't think the film demonstrates guilt about pedophilic desires. Or that the guilt theme that runs through his films is obviously connected to guilt or shame about his alleged pedophilia.

Word.

[Qrazy]

Except that Allen is not Isaac, and Isaac's specific interest in Tracy doesn't demonstrate that Allen has an unhealthy interest in young girls generally.

Whether or not he molested a 7 year old he certainly possesses that interest in girls close to the age of consent. His first wife was Harlene Rosen who was 16 at the time of their marriage. Granted he was 19 but it is the start of a pattern. Then he was most likely involved with Stacey Nelkin while she was 17 and which Manhattan is purported to be based upon. Finally there was Soon-yi.

TO LYN TORNABENE, MCCALLS, 1969

"I'm dating a girl who does homework."


Also in regards to the Manhattan quote I mentioned which strikes me as emblematic of the film.

vvv

TO PLAYBOY, 1967

"Meaningful relationships between men and women don't last. There's a chemical in our bodies that make it so we get on each other's nerves sooner or later."

[Qrazy]

It is a Woody Allen movie, and while the film gently criticizes his relationship with Tracy, Isaac is still the character with whom we most closely identify. Furthermore, there's the whole scene with Isaac talking to himself about why life is worth living and then taking out the harmonica Tracy gave him while "He Loves and She Loves" plays on the soundtrack which motivates him to ask her for another chance (as opposed to going to see her immediately after Mary jilts him).

I really feel it's a misreading of the film to believe that the message is the Keaton relationship was just a mistake and he's returned to the proper course of action by returning to Tracy. He idealizes his former relationship with Tracy after being heartbroken by Mary.

[baby doll]

Whether or not he molested a 7 year old he certainly possesses that interest in girls close to the age of consent. His first wife was Harlene Rosen who was 16 at the time of their marriage. Granted he was 19 but it is the start of a pattern. Then he was most likely involved with Stacey Nelkin while she was 17 and which Manhattan is purported to be based upon. Finally there was Soon-yi.

TO LYN TORNABENE, MCCALLS, 1969

"I'm dating a girl who does homework."


Also in regards to the Manhattan quote I mentioned which strikes me as emblematic of the film.

vvv

TO PLAYBOY, 1967

"Meaningful relationships between men and women don't last. There's a chemical in our bodies that make it so we get on each other's nerves sooner or later."

Even granting that Allen has a history of dating younger women (which is not the same as being a pedophile), which nobody ever denied, I don't see how the film demonstrates this interest. Allen may be a creepy guy but Manhattan isn't a creepy film per se.

[baby doll]

I really feel it's a misreading of the film to believe that the message is the Keaton relationship was just a mistake and he's returned to the proper course of action by returning to Tracy. He idealizes his former relationship with Tracy after being heartbroken by Mary.

The whole movie idealizes Tracy. The only negative quality it assigns to her character is that she's too young for Isaac.

[Qrazy]

Even granting that Allen has a history of dating younger women (which is not the same as being a pedophile), which nobody ever denied, I don't see how the film demonstrates this interest. Allen may be a creepy guy but Manhattan isn't a creepy film per se.

You just barely said... "Except that Allen is not Isaac, and Isaac's specific interest in Tracy doesn't demonstrate that Allen has an unhealthy interest in young girls generally."

Tracy is 17, the girls I just laid out in Allen's life were also roughly that age give or take.

[baby doll]

You just barely said... "Except that Allen is not Isaac, and Isaac's specific interest in Tracy doesn't demonstrate that Allen has an unhealthy interest in young girls generally."

Tracy is 17, the girls I just laid out in Allen's life were also roughly that age give or take.

My point is that making a film on a particular subject doesn't mean that the writer-director is involved in a particular activity, and there's nothing in the film that demonstrates Allen's interest in dating young girls (the framing of a particular shot or what have you). Whatever he's done off camera, you'd never know it from simply watching the movie.

[wigwam]

I disagree w/ Qrazy overall and think he isn't making any distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia/biological sexual maturity (or that 17 isn't "close to" the age of consent in NY, it is the age of consent) but as far as a proclivity surfacing in the work I think he's made some really decent points and also want to point out the scene in Stardust Memories when his girlfriend is accusing him of being flirtatious with her little sister (or cousin?) which is much more damning in that line of argument than the autobiographical Stacy Nelkin storyline in Manhattan or the obscured murder/guilt ones also mentioned.

But that Weide article really says it all (and one of the bios already went through the trial facts the same way):
- the incident would've occurred in a populated house in the midst of their suit after the Soon-Yi revelation
- the 7-year-old's taped allegation appeared forced/coached/doctored
- the 7-year-old's physical and psychiatric evaluations indicated no incident took place
- the prosecutors who left it at "inconclusive" were later discredited
- Allen's eldest adopted son later changed his mind and used the term "brainwashing" regarding Mia and the incident
- Weide repeatedly states his belief that Dylan/Malone and Satchel/Ronan aren't "lying" and they truly believe what they're accusing Allen of
- Mia's credibility is questionable in terms of the coached quality of the 7-year-old's accusation as well as the recent claim of Ronan's paternity, as well as her championing of Polanski and allowing her brother around her kids when he was later convicted of molestation
- Woody's long-term marriage and two adoptions of girls further dilutes Mia's (and Qrazy's and the like's) perspective of any proclivities or criminal-level compulsions that detractors want him demonized for

As far as it being problematic/wrong/evil to "blame the victim" or be insensitive to "victims of molestation", that's absolutely true, however, the fact that no molestation was proven (or even prosecuted) means there isn't a victim of molestation in this case, there's a woman stating a claim she's been led to believe her entire life and her recent personal anecdotal evidence (which is twitter punchline fodder to her brother and mother) isn't being accepted by those who weigh it against the decades of contradicting evidence

[Qrazy]

I disagree w/ Qrazy overall and think he isn't making any distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia/biological sexual maturity (or that 17 isn't "close to" the age of consent in NY, it is the age of consent) but as far as a proclivity surfacing in the work I think he's made some really decent points and also want to point out the scene in Stardust Memories when his girlfriend is accusing him of being flirtatious with her little sister (or cousin?) which is much more damning in that line of argument than the autobiographical Stacy Nelkin storyline in Manhattan or the obscured murder/guilt ones also mentioned.

But that Weide article really says it all (and one of the bios already went through the trial facts the same way):
- the incident would've occurred in a populated house in the midst of their suit after the Soon-Yi revelation
- the 7-year-old's taped allegation appeared forced/coached/doctored
- the 7-year-old's physical and psychiatric evaluations indicated no incident took place
- the prosecutors who left it at "inconclusive" were later discredited
- Allen's eldest adopted son later changed his mind and used the term "brainwashing" regarding Mia and the incident
- Weide repeatedly states his belief that Dylan/Malone and Satchel/Ronan aren't "lying" and they truly believe what they're accusing Allen of
- Mia's credibility is questionable in terms of the coached quality of the 7-year-old's accusation as well as the recent claim of Ronan's paternity, as well as her championing of Polanski and allowing her brother around her kids when he was later convicted of molestation
- Woody's long-term marriage and two adoptions of girls further dilutes Mia's (and Qrazy's and the like's) perspective of any proclivities or criminal-level compulsions that detractors want him demonized for

As far as it being problematic/wrong/evil to "blame the victim" or be insensitive to "victims of molestation", that's absolutely true, however, the fact that no molestation was proven (or even prosecuted) means there isn't a victim of molestation in this case, there's a woman stating a claim she's been led to believe her entire life and her recent personal anecdotal evidence (which is twitter punchline fodder to her brother and mother) isn't being accepted by those who weigh it against the decades of contradicting evidence

I said close to the age of consent because I thought the age of consent was 16.

I don't see why I should believe or why you do believe everything stated in that article as absolute truth. It is not a scientific journal article, it presents a slew of opinions (some of which may be accurate) and puts spin on them. Woody Allen like many other celebrities has a great deal of power to influence the decision of the court. Dylan addresses in her article feeling badgered by many different psychiatrists until they got the answer they wanted. State Attorney Maco also stated that he had probable cause to prosecute Allen and was only dropping the case to spare Dylan the trauma of appearing in court.

In terms of pedophilia vs dating women just over the age of consent, there may be a difference but the propensity makes the act less unlikely. Just as say murdering cats on a frequent basis might be a warning sign prior to someone becoming a murderer. One act does not mean the other necessarily occurred but there is often a relationship between the two.

[wigwam]

Woody Allen like many other celebrities has a great deal of power to influence the decision of the court. Dylan addresses in her article feeling badgered by many different psychiatrists until they got the answer they wanted. State Attorney Maco also stated that he had probable cause to prosecute Allen and was only dropping the case to spare Dylan the trauma of appearing in court.

This is all addressed in the article and either the Eric Lax bio or the one w/ the yellow cover. I'm just saying that there are verifiable facts in Weide's article re the investigation which I already knew of from the bio, and then find his opinionated updates (the eldest son, Ronan's paternity, Mia's allowing her footage for the Globes, Woody's love/family life ever since) to be more consistent with those facts than Dylan's adult statements and how they align with her (and Mia's) accounts at the time (according to the bio and the repeated facts of Weide's article)

In terms of pedophilia vs dating women just over the age of consent, there may be a difference but the propensity makes the act less unlikely.

Again, you are talking in terms of a binary, when it's a spectrum, and to assume any ephebophile is also a pedophile is akin to now-outdated anti-homosexual demonization tactics lumping pedophilia with any sexual appetite not part of a heteronormative majority

[wigwam]

State Attorney Maco also stated that he had probable cause to prosecute Allen and was only dropping the case to spare Dylan the trauma of appearing in court.

Also as far as Maco and "spar[ing] [...]trauma" - you state she claims she was badgered (already traumatized?) by the doctors (who state she was contradictory and "rehearsed") - so why at the last minute spare her? Does she seem spared in her article? Do the three Farrows not all seem to wish there was a conviction? And so back to Weide's article (which cites via hyperlink the facts he refers to):

Less widely disseminated was a news item that appeared inthe New York Times five months later (Feb. 24, 1994), which reported that a disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco (the “probable cause” guy) were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Allen’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.” The article states that the agency could have voted sanctions against Maco ranging from censure to disbarment. Though the decision was quite damning, Maco got what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Two years later, the reprimand was overturned, but Mia was unsuccessful in her bid to annul the adoptions. Legally, Woody remains the adoptive father of Dylan and Moses.

I don't think you read Weide's article, or didn't retain what it said.

[Qrazy]

This is all addressed in the article and either the Eric Lax bio or the one w/ the yellow cover. I'm just saying that there are verifiable facts in Weide's article re the investigation which I already knew of from the bio, and then find his opinionated updates (the eldest son, Ronan's paternity, Mia's allowing her footage for the Globes, Woody's love/family life ever since) to be more consistent with those facts than Dylan's adult statements and how they align with her (and Mia's) accounts at the time (according to the bio and the repeated facts of Weide's article)



Again, you are talking in terms of a binary, when it's a spectrum, and to assume any ephebophile is also a pedophile is akin to now-outdated anti-homosexual demonization tactics lumping pedophilia with any sexual appetite not part of a heteronormative majority

It's actually not similar to that at all nor is that what I am doing. As I just said, his ephebophilia doesn't mean he's necessarily a pedophile but his predilections in my view make the act less unlikely. The tact of your argument does reflect the approach of the daily beast article though. So what, I'm a simple minded homophobe now?

I would think that Mia or Dylan will probably construct a response to the Daily Beast article. Let's wait and see.

[Qrazy]

Also as far as Maco and "spar[ing] [...]trauma" - you state she claims she was badgered (already traumatized?) by the doctors (who state she was contradictory and "rehearsed") - so why at the last minute spare her? Does she seem spared in her article? Do the three Farrows not all seem to wish there was a conviction? And so back to Weide's article (which cites via hyperlink the facts he refers to):

Plenty of witness testimony seems rehearsed, that doesn't mean it isn't true. An attorney will make sure the wording is simply the same each time so that the opposing attorney can not then trap you in an unintentional inconsistency. It's incredibly hard to prove molestation especially if there was no penetration or ejaculation. I would agree that they probably thought they couldn't win the case, but that doesn't mean the act didn't transpire.

I don't think you read Weide's article, or didn't retain what it said.

Fuck you.

[wigwam]

It's incredibly hard to prove molestation especially if there was no penetration

But digital penetration was the accusation. And there was none proven. So by your own criteria (or whoever's you are parroting), what is the conclusion?

Fuck you.

I'll take this as meaning I win. Thanks, bud!

[Qrazy]

But digital penetration was the accusation. And there was none proven. So by your own criteria (or whoever's you are parroting), what is the conclusion?

I was referring to penetration via the penis in my last post. You can insert a digit without breaking the hymen.

I'll take this as meaning I win. Thanks, bud!

Indeed, it is very clear this is an argument and not a conversation to you. Enjoy your 'win'.

[Dukefrukem]

Fuck you.

This is such a you response.

[Qrazy]

This is such a you response.

To having one's intelligence insulted there's not much else to say.

[Dukefrukem]

To having one's intelligence insulted there's not much else to say.

Touche.

[Neclord]

So ledfloyd last night told me about this unreleased film by Tom Schiller, director of many SNL shorts, titled Nothing Lasts Forever. It's on Youtube, and is a very charming, nostalgic throwback.

[Sven]

Spinal, so coincidental that you saw Phantom of the Paradise tonite because I was out with a friend discussing that very film this evening!

[Dead & Messed Up]

A Field in England will be playing at the Silent Movie Theater / Cinefamily from the 7th to the 13th.

Eff to the fucking yes.

[Spinal]

Spinal, so coincidental that you saw Phantom of the Paradise tonite because I was out with a friend discussing that very film this evening!

Ha! It was pretty darn fun. Paul Williams makes a surprisingly effective villain. And the guy who plays Beef is something else.

[MadMan]

A Field in England will be playing at the Silent Movie Theater / Cinefamily from the 7th to the 13th.

Eff to the fucking yes.

Someday I'll escape the sticks and live in a place with a real theater. SIGH

Recently I saw and enjoyed Down Terrace. Also I'm watching Eddie Murphy 80s and 90s movies on Netflix. I really liked 48 Hours. The sequel was merely decent and had more humor in it. I have an idea for the third film to be titled The Final 48 Hours. It can't be any worse than Daddy Day Care.