TV special - Woody Allen Looks at 1967


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/03/06/tv-special-woody-allen-looks.html


#2

It’s funny seeing it all the way from 2017. I’ll have to tear myself away from my orgasmatron long enough to watch it.


#3

Great year, really excellent. Some of the best people were born that year, wonderful people, the absolute best. Boy, 1967, that’s one we won’t forget, what a truly spectacular year. Purple Haze was recorded that year, Thurgood Marshall become a Supreme Court justice, Sweden switched to driving on the right hand side of the road, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established (and might now die as it turns 50), and Cool Hand Look was released.

Yeah… I turned 50 this year… 1967 was a great year…


#4

Is that the left hand or the right one?
.


#5

In a very bizarre, creepy, and unintentional way–just like his debate with James Baldwin.


#6

This was excruciatingly embarrassingly bad. The casual sexism, the polite racism, the slight touch of homophobia. The horrible overlong sketches. The bad editing. What a nightmare. This was when america was great?


#7

Is this before or after he started diddling children?


#8

I will never know why people seem to hold Woody Allen in any kind of positive esteem.


#9

I guess because he made some truly genius movies: “Sleeper”, “Annie Hall”, “Stardust Memories” , “Love and Death”, the list is long. Every time I see “Crimes and Misdemeanors” I am struck with how powerful it is, particularly the Martin Landau half of the film.

Did Woody Allen molest his own daughter? It’s certainly possible. I know I automatically believed it when it was first reported, but the only evidence is accusations made during a heated custody battle. No criminal charges were filed, and he’s been in the public eye his whole adult life with this being the one case of supposed pedophilia. Until it’s proven I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, no matter how sick the crime.


#10

Nicely put. The case is not like Cosby, where victims came out of the woodwork in a steady stream.


#11

Charges which the victim has repeated plenty of times since then. [quote=“some_guy, post:9, topic:96462”]
No criminal charges were filed,
[/quote]

OTOH, criminal charges weren’t filed against Jimmy Saville either. [quote=“some_guy, post:9, topic:96462”]
Until it’s proven I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, no matter how sick the crime.
[/quote]

Yep. But that doesn’t stop me from believing the victim, either. It’s a difficult one, where proving it one way or the other is pretty impossible. And if there was only a single victim and no physical evidence or witnesses… :frowning2:

I doubt it’ll ever go to trial and even if it did he works in an industry where even being a convicted child rapist is given a free Polanski Pass, so there’s no shortage of apologists for this sort of behaviour. Not that I think you’re an apologist, not accusing you of anything other than having only a slightly different view to mine.

In my case, I’d rather not bother giving him any of my precious eyeball time. YMMV and that’s cool. :slight_smile:


#12

I remember reading a lot of different accounts of this several years ago, it seemed like anyone who had something to say about it picked a side, and if you read all the accounts it was impossible to know who to believe, neither Mia nor Woody come out looking blameless (there are also a lot of weird tangents, like how Mia Farrow still defends Roman Polanski.)

A friend of mine once said he had to take Mia Farrow’s side in the matter because he didn’t want to find out he had been supporting a child molester. But if Woody didn’t do it then you’re supporting a woman who imprinted this horrible false memory on her daughter for selfish reasons (is that trauma better?) I want to support the victim, but either side could have victimized her, so how does one choose?


#13

I’m not a judge or a juror on that, so I don’t think that I need to choose, if you see what I mean.
Like, I just feel sad for the victim in this. And whichever way it’s sliced, she was the victim.


#14

You should be out walking your chicken.


#15

Allen was pretty vocal that all of his TV work prior to 1969 was terrible; the only stuff here that would legitimately be his work (versus the sub-par variety show material shown here) is his opening monologue, which is classic Allen stand-up from this period, albeit sanitized for TV.

Also, Buckley…Christ, what an asshole. His response to ‘Do you think Miniskirts are in bad taste?’ was a skeevy pickup line that may or may not have also been an insult. 50 years in the future and I want to punch him.


#16

Well, his son sides with his sister on the matter and from what he’s written his stance behind it seems quite reasonable. It still doesn’t necessarily make it a fact if Woody Allen molested her or not, but it certainly gives it more weight in my eyes if his own son believes it to be true as well.


#17

Yes, I remember reading this, he makes a compelling argument, but then one of his other siblings makes a compelling counter-argument:

So who to believe? I pored over all this stuff years ago, and it seemed like every article or account I read would make me change my mind again.


#18

No. It wasn’t.


#19

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.