criddic3 wrote:
Not sure if this needs to be mentioned to the seemingly intelligent people on this board, but there is obviously a major difference between the Allen and Polanski cases. Polanski was convicted of the crime, admitted the crime and fled before his sentence was deemed complete. Allen has never been convicted of a crime, maintains his innocence, no direct evidence has ever been credibly offered and no similar allegations have ever been brought against him. I tend to believe that, while we may never know 100%, the timing of Mia's accusations (after learning of Allen's affair with her adopted daughter with Andre Previn, Soon-Yi) remains quite suspicious. I agree with the sentiment of Me Too, in that accusations shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand and that celebrities should not get a free pass, but I also think that a case that has little to no basis in fact at this point should not be allowed to ruin the career of a person.
This is also my official stand on Woody Allen. There are areas in the internet you can get yelled at/blocked/banned/cancelled for expressing this very sentiment.
As for Scarlett Johansson's past statements affecting her chances: Personally, I don't think most members of the Academy are even aware of what's happening in the Internet or the Twitter-verse. They either don't know or don't care what #FilmTwitter or #WokeTwitter thinks about her statements. Not enough to affect her chances at least.
Reza wrote:
I also think one of the reasons Allen's latest film remains unreleased in the US is because if anybody tried to distribute it or show it in their cinema (or streaming service) they would face a twitter backlash and people just don't want to have to deal with everything that comes with that. Polanski is in the same boat. An Officer and a Spy (2019) is still without distribution in a number of major territories and Sony have left his earlier Based on a True Story (2017) on the shelf to date.
Not sure if this needs to be mentioned to the seemingly intelligent people on this board, but there is obviously a major difference between the Allen and Polanski cases. Polanski was convicted of the crime, admitted the crime and fled before his sentence was deemed complete. Allen has never been convicted of a crime, maintains his innocence, no direct evidence has ever been credibly offered and no similar allegations have ever been brought against him. I tend to believe that, while we may never know 100%, the timing of Mia's accusations (after learning of Allen's affair with her adopted daughter with Andre Previn, Soon-Yi) remains quite suspicious. I agree with the sentiment of Me Too, in that accusations shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand and that celebrities should not get a free pass, but I also think that a case that has little to no basis in fact at this point should not be allowed to ruin the career of a person.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Other than the fact that you've never understood why people have a problem with sexual assault, it's not the "Twitter backlash" that studios are afraid of, it's the boycott associated with such backlash. Americans have gotten much better at wielding their financial power as a way to coerce better and more respectable behavior from media companies.
For example, the Hallmark Chanel quickly stepped back their ban of a commercial featuring a lesbian couple kissing after a sizable backlash against the company.
You may want to go back to the day when women kept their assaults quiet so as to not make men feel icky, but that door has been burst open and I for one don't want to see it closed ever again. You can take your faux outrage over men getting to act however they want without recrimination and keep it to yourself.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Reza wrote:
Why did it take the United States 27 years to boycott a film by Woody Allen? Was he being given the benefit of the doubt all these years?
It took 25 years and it was in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement that Allen got caught up in. Prior to #MeToo most people just looked the other way but after more people in the entertainment industry had allegations made against them the Dylan Farrow allegation could not longer be ignored.
I also think one of the reasons Allen's latest film remains unreleased in the US is because if anybody tried to distribute it or show it in their cinema (or streaming service) they would face a twitter backlash and people just don't want to have to deal with everything that comes with that. Polanski is in the same boat. An Officer and a Spy (2019) is still without distribution in a number of major territories and Sony have left his earlier Based on a True Story (2017) on the shelf to date.
I'd lay down my cash to see the films mentioned above (I actually have for Based on a True Story) but if I was a distributor I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole because I don't want all the grief that would go with it.
A Twitter backlash? Is one supposed to care or get scared of what most morons on that forum have to say? I can understand hooligans destroying a cinema showing a Woody Allen film. Now that would incite fear. But fear of a twitter backlash?
Reza wrote:
Why did it take the United States 27 years to boycott a film by Woody Allen? Was he being given the benefit of the doubt all these years?
It took 25 years and it was in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement that Allen got caught up in. Prior to #MeToo most people just looked the other way but after more people in the entertainment industry had allegations made against them the Dylan Farrow allegation could not longer be ignored.
I also think one of the reasons Allen's latest film remains unreleased in the US is because if anybody tried to distribute it or show it in their cinema (or streaming service) they would face a twitter backlash and people just don't want to have to deal with everything that comes with that. Polanski is in the same boat. An Officer and a Spy (2019) is still without distribution in a number of major territories and Sony have left his earlier Based on a True Story (2017) on the shelf to date.
I'd lay down my cash to see the films mentioned above (I actually have for Based on a True Story) but if I was a distributor I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole because I don't want all the grief that would go with it.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
I tend to echo Sabin. I think it can be both. The fact that Amazon cut off Allen's deal and his most recent film seems to be buried suggests at least a portion of people are worried about doing business with him. I don't deny that the AMPAS demographic probably feels that the Allen/Farrow controversy was completely litigated in the past. And probably that same demographic are not as disdainful of Johansson's comments on representation/opportunity. But she's certainly giving people reasons not to vote for her. I'd be genuinely surprised if she won.
Reza wrote
My question had nothing to do with what you specifically said. But since you mentioned the title it made me wonder why this sudden rabid reaction in the United States about Woody Allen's new film.
Was also wondering if certain Americans will now start wearing a blindfold while walking the streets in Italy lest they come across a sculpture by Michelangelo as it hurts their deep religious sentiments because the artist was a homosexual. Or people will start spitting in the face of a white Southerner because his ancestors chained, beat, raped and tortured black slaves. Or will they stop watching films by Chaplin because he had sex with a minor. The list of human indiscretions is quite large so where will this end? The Allen boycott is an absurd precedent and mystifying that it took 27 years to crop up.
My response... I’m bored. This is boring culture warrior shit I hear from people who think Fox News is real life.
Reza wrote
Why did it take the United States 27 years to boycott a film by Woody Allen? Was he being given the benefit of the doubt all these years?
That has nothing to do with my point. I’m just stating that it’s happened.
My question had nothing to do with what you specifically said. But since you mentioned the title it made me wonder why this sudden rabid reaction in the United States about Woody Allen's new film.
Was also wondering if certain Americans will now start wearing a blindfold while walking the streets in Italy lest they come across a sculpture by Michelangelo as it hurts their deep religious sentiments because the artist was a homosexual. Or people will start spitting in the face of a white Southerner because his ancestors chained, beat, raped and tortured black slaves. Or will they stop watching films by Chaplin because he had sex with a minor. The list of human indiscretions is quite large so where will this end? The Allen boycott is an absurd precedent and mystifying that it took 27 years to crop up.
Mister Tee wrote
It's not often I side with criddic over other board members, but I think he's correct here. The notion that everybody agrees Woody Allen is guilty and must be shunned from polite society is a bubble belief (not unlike the idea that Joe Biden can't possibly win the Dem nomination, because no one I know is voting for him). Clearly, Twitter has turned with a vengeance, which has persuaded many industry journalists to effectively blacklist him. But many people I know view it this way: that not a single piece of new evidence has emerged since 1992, and to revise one's judgment of a case based not on evidence but on the revelation of unrelated stories about other Hollywood figures is unfair and dangerous. (I recognize that the people I know are older than some here. But let me suggest that, while soon I will be old enough to put out to pasture, at this point I'm a lot closer to the Academy age demographic than Twitter users are.)
You could be right. I think the fate of 'Rainy Day in New York' suggests the tide has turned a little more than you do, but ultimately I think the bigger factor working against her are the performances themselves. I say this as a very big fan of hers and someone who thinks she should have been nominated a few times already.
Mister Tee wrote:Here let me make my obligatory declaration that I'm very supportive of the #metoo movement -- I think much necessary and good work is being done thanks to it.
It is a given that the movement makes sense to any sane person despite it also allowing some the power of a witch hunt.
I'm amused that you had to put in the bit above while talking about Woody Allen to (I'm assuming) deflect any rabid attack from some here. I still don't understand how people who have no direct connection to Allen and Farrow seem to "know" that the man is guilty despite the law coming up with inconclusive evidence.
It's not often I side with criddic over other board members, but I think he's correct here. The notion that everybody agrees Woody Allen is guilty and must be shunned from polite society is a bubble belief (not unlike the idea that Joe Biden can't possibly win the Dem nomination, because no one I know is voting for him). Clearly, Twitter has turned with a vengeance, which has persuaded many industry journalists to effectively blacklist him. But many people I know view it this way: that not a single piece of new evidence has emerged since 1992, and to revise one's judgment of a case based not on evidence but on the revelation of unrelated stories about other Hollywood figures is unfair and dangerous. (I recognize that the people I know are older than some here. But let me suggest that, while soon I will be old enough to put out to pasture, at this point I'm a lot closer to the Academy age demographic than Twitter users are.)
Here let me make my obligatory declaration that I'm very supportive of the #metoo movement -- I think much necessary and good work is being done thanks to it. I just don't think it has anything to do with whether the child-abuse accusation against Woody was genuine or concocted by Mia Farrow in the context of an ugly breakup/custody battle.
If you broke with Woody strictly based on his affair with Soonyi, fine. But Hollywood had its say on that, in 1994 and later, and made a clear decision that it didn't affect its relationship with him. I don't see how Scarlett holding the same position as voters have for years will affect her Oscar run.
criddic3 wrote:I wouldn't necessarily count on this. The Academy has nominated Woody Allen dozens of times over the years, and awarded him fairly recently. Many members probably share Johannson's view of him, both male and female. I'm not certain defending him really hurts her chances.
I agree. There is no way she will not be nominated this year.
Precious Doll wrote:
And Scarlett Johansson won't shut the fuck about how much she loves and believes Woody Allen - she isn't doing herself any favours. No comment almost always wins out in the end. Whilst in my personal 'best of the year' choices I don't care about anything outside of the 'work' in play but if I was an Academy member I wouldn't vote for her on principal even if I felt she gave the best performance which does look like hers probably will be of the nominated leading ladies.
I wouldn't necessarily count on this. The Academy has nominated Woody Allen dozens of times over the years, and awarded him fairly recently. Many members probably share Johannson's view of him, both male and female. I'm not certain defending him really hurts her chances.
However, the tide has turned against Woody Allen post #MeToo. Then again the Academy had no problems awarding Gary Oldman who dissed gays & Jews in a Playboy interview, then later claimed he was drunk. It is really random though - Casey Affleck was pressured to bow out presenting Best Actress the year Oldman won.
We'll just have to wait and see. Mind you Scarlett Jonhannson did a recent interview with Vanity Fair and her responses were way more measured that all previous statements she has made in the past in relation to Woody Allen & the casting issues - I assume someone has had a sit down and talk with her.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
