Woody Allen vs Amazon & the consequences for us all

lackblogger

SasqWatch
Joined
November 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
Many people were looking forward to Woody Allen's return to a New York narrative in his latest film A Rainy Day In New York. Well, I say many but this is a relative statement considering Allen has never been the Hollywood Blockbuster type of guy. He's also 82.

However, even though the film is complete it's been shafted by its distributor, Amazon. Why? Because Amazon claim it is unpromotable after Allen dared to speak out against the #metoo movement and defend his wife of 22 years. Apparently this now means Amazon wont touch him with a bargepole and alongside refusing to market his latest film are also backing out of the associated four picture deal.

Allen, who puts up a lot of his own money for each picture he makes, felt he had no option but to sue Amazon for a whole variety of reasons. On July 31st a US judge decided that many of these reasons were invalid, though the case is still scheduled to got to court within the next year.

A Rainy Day In New York will at least get a European release without the involvement of Amazon, but this whole mess is almost beyond facepalming.

1. Before every movie you ever see it states "Nothing in this movie represents the opinions of the people distributing it" [paraphrase] so why in the hell can't Amazon distribute something just because someone somewhere doesn't like Allen? If that was a universal norm then no art would ever get released.

2. However much people 'at the top' feel obliged to back-up the #metoo movement and make mountains out of every mildly sexual molehill, Allen's case is one that has not only already run its full media course decades ago, but relates mostly to someone he's been married to for 22 years, someone who herself rejects the allegations against her husband and rejects the assertations made about him and any other of his own children he may or may not have touched inappropriately once.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-film-woody-allen-amazon-com-idUSKCN1UQ2FL

--------------------------------

But the real kicker of all of this, completely regardless of your interest in Allen's art, what is mainly the subject of this thread is the newly created legal obligations that the #metoo movement is placing upon the artistic community with the full support of the lemming-like top brass of business.

From now on, all people of stature involved in a movie will have to sign 'morality clauses' as part of their contract deals - effectively making them prisoners of anti-artistic morality, effectively forcing an almost ubiquitous religion-like morality upon all.

And how is this going to play out in the real world? Why, it's going to make the good old fashioned routine of evil blackmail and extortion exceptionally easy to manipulate. Every time an artist is about to release something… hey, give us a million or we claim you 'touched' someone once, and it doesn't even matter about proof any more, the papers will dutifully report it as if it's fact according to new laws that protect the 'victim' with impunity. By the time you can prove it's all horseshit you'll be so knee deep in debt and disgrace no-one'll care.

Seriously, Blofeld couldn't operate a more universally evil system of money generation via extortion and blackmail, let alone the societal control. The Ayatollah Khomeini looks liberal by comparison.

So yes, if you notice artistic works seeming… less quality(?)… over the coming years, you at least know why now, all the real talent is going to be too afraid to move and whatever's left is either going to be gullible/naïve marks-to-be or pogrom sanctioned parrots of a stale and dry specific religious ethos.

Or, to look on the bright side, this could be Europe's time to shine and take a bit of global movie market share, assuming it's not afraid to…
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
You said Amazon won't touch Woody Allen but I wounder how many other people here will even touch this thread for the same reasons! You say the wrong word or even an off the cuff remark and you will immediately be labelled sexists, misogynist, raciest, bigot etc.

The 'morality clauses' you mentioned maybe explicit in Hollywood but its pretty much everywhere these days in some form.

Anyway I think this 'morality clauses' and all the related stuff are all a reaction to the freedoms etc we have. Think of it like the very old moral forces reasserting themselves again using new tools such as "social justice", #metoo etc.

PS: See you soon in P&R section!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I really don't think this has anything to do with politics at this point, it's way beyond that. This is much more a movie version of the thread "gaming BS of the week", which is very much the same theme of paranoid money-crazed execs living in a fantasy land completely detached from their customer base pushing ever weirder concepts onto a market that never asked for them and repeatedly rejects them.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
Counterpoint: it doesn't matter, because Woody Allen's last good movie was in 1992.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,192
Location
San Francisco
Counterpoint: it doesn't matter, because Woody Allen's last good movie was in 1992.

More of a one-liner joke than a counterpoint, but I shall repost in good spirit as nothing could be further from the truth.

I heartily recommend the following:

Bullets Over Broadway (1994)
Mighty Aphrodite (1995)
Deconstructing Harry (1997)
Sweet and Lowdown (1999) - extra added bonus recommendation.
Small Time Crooks (2000)
Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008)
Whatever Works (2009)
Midnight in Paris (2011)
To Rome With Love (2012) - extra added bonus recommendation.

He doesn't always knock it out the park, but he has a very good strike rate and there are few artists with his standard of output and consistency.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
I enjoyed Match Point a lot and that was 2005. Scarlett was almost too good looking in that movie. It was distracting ;) Woody should be allowed to work. He is creepy but has never been charged with a crime.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,838
Location
Wolf Light Woods
I never understood why men had to marry so much younger women anyway - but that's apparingly part of our patriarch society.

But - the other side of the mirror is just this : Young women marrying older men to get wealth. Or whatever. There's far too many cases of young women leading a "second life" after their elderly hasband has died (or divorced from the with heavy costs).

Both things are something kind of missed by the women's emancipation movement. And men's, too.
However, this movement has never been able to get these two things out of our society.
I wonder why.

I do hope that this thing - older men marrying younger women - younger women marrying elder men - is not within our genetics.

But anyway, both are the main problem here. In my opinion, you just can't suceed with the #metoo campaign without adressing the will of young women to marry older men and vice versa. Becausew older men - and especially richer men - are more likely to view younger women merely as some sort of "prize".

In my opinion, there is even a darker side to it : Narcistic and psychopathic personalities are those which are most efficient in accumulating wealth - wealth wanted by women who want to be provided with wealth so they can have children without having to worry too much.
This way, I fear, both the genes of narcistic and of psychopathic personalities get distributed very well in societies in which women put emphasis in meteraial wealth.

Further reading : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_female_sexuality#Explanations
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Erm… people of different ages get together all the time alrik, even poor ones.

The primary 'nature' reason why this happens is because women mature faster than men - because they have to bring up baby - and this trait is seen commonly in the wider natural world beyond just humans, while men don't really 'become men' until their 'reckless youth' stage has expired, again, as commonly seen in nature as well.

The females can keep up with the frivolity of youth until the baby hits, then they look for sanity and stability, something which, for the most part, is associated with age. Some guys can be this at a younger age, but it's a crap shoot more than a specifically learned trait.

Also, the idea that people turn 21 years old and instantly have a desire to marry another 21 year old based on nothing but age is utterly absurd and more 'crackpot' than any other pseudo-philosophical eutopia. I've no doubt it gives you some kind of pleasure to invent problems where there aren't any, what that pleasure is I can't possibly begin to imagine, but have fun, just try not to have your fun at the expense of the entirity of the rest of humanity ;)
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
I do hope that this thing - older men marrying younger women - younger women marrying elder men - is not within our genetics.

I would think its genetics or very least biology. Women/men of certain age, size, shape etc are considered healthy and hence fertile so you find them attractive.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
First, this belongs in the P&R forums because its about the #metoo movement. That's a given.

Second, he was having relations with his adopted daughter.

Third, he married her in what appeared to be a rush to reduce the backlash of breaking two of the worst taboos in society.

Fourth, Mia Farrow is a woman scorned who's accusations aren't believable and its clear she put her kids up to bearing false witness. But they did have kids together so he should have married her. But they didn't.

Fifth, 22 years later he's still married to Sun Ye. The marriage no longer looks like a sham.

Sixth, his movies aren't for everybody and we've lost a great comedian but gained a an art director who is brilliant at capturing the autobiographical, narcissistic, Jewish New Yorker experience. Since most of the world isn't any of those, it's not for everybody. And he owes a ton of debt to Fellini and Italian filmmaking in general.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
First, this belongs in the P&R forums because its about the #metoo movement. That's a given.

In the same way that lootbox posts should be in P&R by that logic? Since it's something that is currently a matter of debating the law of gambling and it's promotion to children?

I'm sorry, but off topic is where you post film related material, this has nothing to do with Trump, the Pope or Brexit, it's about the artistic community and film, and as such would be suffocated in P&R where people just want to post their daily Trump posts.

The #metoo movement is not a part of this discussion as the #metoo movement did not demand Amazon not distribute the movie and cancel their deal, Amazon have used the #metoo movement as an excuse to renege upon their deal and self-censor art.

Further, crime is not either religion or politics or even controversial, otherwise every post about scamware warnings and scams in games would get moved to P&R, if the #metoo movement is just a version of modern scamware then it is no longer controversial or even political to warn people of it's presence in media products.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
lootboxes? What has that got to do with what you're talking about?

Woody Allen had relations with his underage adopted daughter. This kind of topic is icky and deserves to moved there with other controversies.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
I think we should rename P&R section to "Icky subjects"!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
lootboxes? What has that got to do with what you're talking about?

Woody Allen had relations with his underage adopted daughter. This kind of topic is icky and deserves to moved there with other controversies.

If that's what you want to talk about regarding this topic, sure, pop off to P&R and start a topic about your allegations about Mr. Allen, in the mean time the sensible people will attempt to stay here and on-topic.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
If that's what you want to talk about regarding this topic, sure, pop off to P&R and start a topic about your allegations about Mr. Allen, in the mean time the sensible people will attempt to stay here and on-topic.

But this is your topic. And they're not just allegations. And this is the actual root of the issue. And the #metoo movement is, by definition, politics.

Of course, you missed the fact that I actually defend the guy. 22 years of marriage seems pretty legitimate to me.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
they're not just allegations.

They are. When news broke of the affair she was 21/22 years old, hardly a child and no-one has ever claimed anything 'juicy' happened 'in her youth'. Feel free to look up the many accounts of the situation from Soon-Yi Previn's own words. Also, Allen never adopted her, she was adopted by Mia Farrow when she was married to Andre Previn, after splitting with Previn Mia was with Allen to which Allen didn't play much of a role and Soon Yi states that he was never a father figure and she states that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood. She states her first 'normal' encounter with him was when she was 16/17, and no, that wasn't a sexual encounter.

There is nothing 'controversial' or 'political' about it.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
They are. When news broke of the affair she was 21/22 years old, hardly a child and no-one has ever claimed anything 'juicy' happened 'in her youth'. Feel free to look up the many accounts of the situation from Soon-Yi Previn's own words. Also, Allen never adopted her, she was adopted by Mia Farrow when she was married to Andre Previn, after splitting with Previn Mia was with Allen to which Allen didn't play much of a role and Soon Yi states that he was never a father figure and she states that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood. She states her first 'normal' encounter with him was when she was 16/17, and no, that wasn't a sexual encounter.

Okay, fine they're allegations. The New York attorney didn't pursue the case. I'm not sure I believe him and he skipped the country.

But again. 22 years of marriage.

And again, icky topic and #metoo.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
You don't have to believe him, you can believe her, which is the whole point of #metoo... isn't it...
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
#metoo is a political movement

lackblogger chose to put #metoo in the title of the thread

political squabbles appearing in the trending topics on the site's front page make us look trashy

the topic should be moved
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,192
Location
San Francisco
I don't have to believe her. However, they've been married for a long time now.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Back
Top Bottom