The Careful Rhetoric Of Misogyny
January 29, 2018 10:28 PM   Subscribe

The Cut dissects exactly how Woody Allen publicly said terrible things to and about Diane Keaton as part of his presentation of her AFI Life Achievement Award in a way that made it very difficult for the media to call him on it.
posted by Rush-That-Speaks (110 comments total) 53 users marked this as a favorite
 
Lindsey Kupfer at Page Six (January 29, 2018): “Diane Keaton stands by Woody Allen”
“Woody Allen is my friend and I continue to believe him,” Diane Keaton, 72, wrote on Twitter Monday. “It might be of interest to take a look at the 60 Minute interview from 1992 and see what you think.”
(I wonder if Keaton’s recent statements motivated this piece - or, at least, Kramer’s decision to post them, since the analysis is quite considered.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:45 PM on January 29, 2018 [2 favorites]


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by SonInLawOfSam at 10:47 PM on January 29, 2018 [46 favorites]


I'm always delighted to have another reason to hate Woody Allen. Cheers!
posted by slagheap at 10:53 PM on January 29, 2018 [36 favorites]


Fuck Woody Allen and may Goddess forgive and heal Diane Keaton for continuing to make excuses for that absolute piece of shit.
posted by elsietheeel at 11:13 PM on January 29, 2018 [27 favorites]


Is there a word for low-level Stockholm Syndrome? Something to describe the loyalty people feel toward others they're close to who are mean to them, even if it doesn't rise to the level of abuse?
posted by mrmurbles at 11:49 PM on January 29, 2018 [7 favorites]


Manhattan syndrome ?
posted by Pendragon at 11:53 PM on January 29, 2018 [94 favorites]


Jaw drop. Holy fucking sheeet, what an utter knobhead.
posted by bookbook at 12:32 AM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


I dunno. Fuck Woody Allen forever, but for me it's pretty obviously a third rate comedy roast and "fellatrix" a failed laugh line in that tradition. He pronounced it weird because he's weird and it isn't any worse than several other ham-handed "jokes" he mumbled out earlier. He's not a misogynistic mastermind, just a sad old asshole who isn't even funny anymore.

"Why is Woody Allen ever invited to do anything" and/or "Why did Woody Allen choose to do a comedy roast at the AFI awards like Jeff Ross's wizened pedophile uncle" might be more fruitful investigative topics for me.
posted by Kwine at 12:49 AM on January 30, 2018 [24 favorites]


I don't know, do usually men who are roasted in lifetime award ceremonies get to be called cocksuckers to their face and are expected to grin and bear it?
posted by sukeban at 1:00 AM on January 30, 2018 [81 favorites]


Ooh, a bulimia joke. Stay classy Woody.
posted by chavenet at 1:29 AM on January 30, 2018


Cocksucker doesn't actually seem the same, despite being textbook identical. There simply is no tradition of accusing men of sleeping their way to the top, so a parallel is impossible.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:35 AM on January 30, 2018 [6 favorites]


Cocksucker doesn't actually seem the same, despite being textbook identical. There simply is no tradition of accusing men of sleeping their way to the top, so a parallel is impossible.

I don't think telling me that the insult is worse for men because of misogyny is helping your case, but he also called her a frumpy old whore ("She dresses, as you know, to hide her sexuality — and always has, and has done a great job, ’cause it’s never emerged over the years" "she’s never succumbed to any face work or anything. She’s very uncompromising. She prefers to look old" "She’s been involved with half a dozen of the most gifted, charismatic, attractive men in Hollywood ... and it’s very interesting ... ’cause every one of them has dumped her.”") Does that even the scales?
posted by sukeban at 1:41 AM on January 30, 2018 [12 favorites]


I didn't get to finish the article, since I took a quick break to refresh my memory on All About Eve, and it started a video, that I did not request that was rather loud and I could find no way to end it. It's 3:35 in the morning. Sitting through the Woody Allen video was bad enough. Assuming you know what I want to see in the wee small hours of the morning with no option to override is unacceptable to me.

(Although I also see Allen's comment as a failed joke, it was a terrible one on an incredible inappropriate topic. As such, he should be effectively censured. Terrible, terrible man, but I must thank him for that. My movie money is very limited, and there's now one more choice off the menu.)
posted by Samizdata at 1:44 AM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


Kwine, any comedian preparing for a roast is going to think carefully about how far they can push things, and who will be offended by what. Saying he thought this stuff through isn’t calling him a mastermind, it’s what anyone with decades of experience with this stuff does. But a) the direction he chose to push things in is misogyny, and b) for the most part his assessment of what he could get away with was right; aside from this article by someone who already didn’t like him, I don’t get the sense he’s getting a lot of flack over this.
posted by aubilenon at 1:46 AM on January 30, 2018 [5 favorites]


I do not have enough context, but is an award for lifetime achievement really synonymous with "roast" at this org? I would think not?

Maybe get someone who will be nice to her to be the keynote speaker?
posted by Meatbomb at 1:50 AM on January 30, 2018 [33 favorites]


Idk, I always hate roasts. Even Colbert’s at the White House correspondents’ dinner, where the roastees deserved lots of harsh words.
posted by aubilenon at 2:01 AM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


Woody Allen is toxic and 2017 was the year he should have been roasted on a spit.
posted by herda05 at 2:28 AM on January 30, 2018 [12 favorites]


I think the central point is this:

Everything Allen said had sounded like it was leading up to something flattering or positive that never came. The men she’d gone out with were “some of the most gifted, charismatic, attractive” in Hollywood, but he hadn’t said that about her. He’d called her a beautiful girl, before going on to describe her as “uncompromising” for choosing to “look old” now (something Hollywood never forgives women for). He’d mentioned her books and her filmmaking and her photography, but hadn’t said that he liked any of it or that she was good at what she did — until the very end, when he’d stuck in that word, undercutting whatever else he was saying. Fellatrix was no roast. In a roast you pause for the laugh, and he hadn’t paused for the laugh.

Allen's speech came across as a passive-aggressive screed from his toxic insecurity couched in a lame Poconos stand-up routine. He couldn't bring himself to praise her genuinely beyond the most superficial level. Everytime he created the expectation praise was coming, he'd toss in some lame zinger at her expense. At a lifetime achievement award ceremony. Allen is no slouch with words and knew exactly what he was doing.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 2:39 AM on January 30, 2018 [60 favorites]


Thank you for posting this, it's a fascinating read. Even if you try to find benign/comedic excuses for some of the quotes, it's really hard to get past the sheer volume and degree of truly mean-spirited and insulting things.

"She dresses, as you know, to hide her sexuality — and always has, and has done a great job, ’cause it’s never emerged over the years" - I couldn't help but wonder if these comments about her appearance and sexuality were meant to imply that she's closeted (as well as being old and frumpy). In which case that's even worse. Because, Christ, what an asshole indeed. (not because being gay or straight or bi or trans or anything else is bad or something to be ashamed of, but because it's nobody's business to talk about your sexuality, especially if it's something you prefer to keep private)
posted by biscotti at 2:40 AM on January 30, 2018 [5 favorites]


Yeah, when the FPP described it as 'negging' is when it snapped into place. There's lots of ways to roast people, but when you've carefull removed and undercut any reference to them deserving an award at their own ceremony, that's a sign.
posted by Merus at 2:57 AM on January 30, 2018 [33 favorites]


She must be a truly amazing woman for him to be that threatened by her, and yet when he dies and you imagine what she could say about this vile specimen of humanity, you know she'll be too classy to say a single thing. So we'll never know.
posted by Jubey at 3:21 AM on January 30, 2018 [6 favorites]


Well written, solid. My kids are learning about racism in their social lives. This might be another thing to look at.

The most important thing and which for a long time I overlooked, generally, is that you can choose how to present yourself, what you saw, how you behave. And this is what Allen decided to do. OK, now I don't have to think of him anymore.
posted by From Bklyn at 3:38 AM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


Another metaphor: Allen is the Good Cop to Weinstein’s Bad Cop. Both ultimately represent the same power structures, differing only in style.
posted by acb at 3:42 AM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


Woody Allen criticized Diane Keaton for looking old?? Wow. Even if I look right past the fact that he's older than her, I can hardly even believe he said that, considering his public scandal. I mean, of course he hates it when women allow themselves to age.
posted by heatvision at 4:16 AM on January 30, 2018 [17 favorites]


The men she’d gone out with were “some of the most gifted, charismatic, attractive” in Hollywood, but he hadn’t said that about her.

Ok this reading is just unfair. The whole setup to that part of the joke was made at the outset, the point that Allen had also dated Keaton, so later juxtaposing that these men dumped her was to show that it really the other way around. That's why the audience laughed. She dumped all of them, including Allen, and this was because she thought she was better (the "stepping stone" part of the joke); and it turns out that she is beautiful (the whole point about "uncompromising" as true beauty, not aging appearance), and better and thus deserved the award. That was the whole underlying arc of the speech, and the repeated examples are supposed to show his final point which is how great Keaton is at everything. The comedy is a tension between flattery and authentic compliment. To conclude "but he hadn’t said that about her" completely bypasses this analysis, which is problematic.

Maybe there is room that Allen's compliment was empty and distracting, the jokes about bulimia and fellatrix insensitive in a public space, and his use irony and ambiguity a form of subtle sexist dogwhistling (negging, harmful mixed signals). On the other hand, a rhetorical reading also means not misrepresenting the speech act, following the structure of the words, and so forth.

When Keaton gets to the podium, the microphone lets on Allen saying something like "Shall I put that [award] on eBay for you"? So is he negging her, or his he conveying to her a mutual irreverence for the AFI as a needless ritual? (I honestly have no idea, I've already spent enough time wondering about this particular instance of rich, white, powerful Hollywood men's.) So where's the author's reading of that? Part of using rhetoric means confronting ambiguity however inconvenient that may be.

The main thing I did like was the bulimia story. I have personal mental health issues, and I was okay with that part, in terms of the dark humor and the candor and openness, even if what Allen did was fundamentally a comedic act. In contrast I was not comfortable with his fellatrix comment, it partly came across as really demeaning. There needs to be more room for nuance, unfortunately, unless Keaton has further comments for the public, there's no good way to resolve the problematic aspects of the clip.
posted by polymodus at 4:27 AM on January 30, 2018 [8 favorites]


Misogyny runs on a thin veneer on plausible deniability deniability sometimes, and ugh.
posted by entropone at 4:33 AM on January 30, 2018 [13 favorites]


I do not have enough context, but is an award for lifetime achievement really synonymous with "roast" at this org? I would think not?

It....kinda is. Carrie Fisher famously (and hilariously) roasted George Lucas when she spoke at his AFI awards presentation. The difference there, though, is that she attacked her own self at the same time.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:36 AM on January 30, 2018 [11 favorites]



She must be a truly amazing woman for him to be that threatened by her


Let's not start gauging women's value by the opinions of sexual predators. The great thing about misogynists is all you have to be to make one despise you is be a woman, not any particular kind of one. you can even be a woman who defend child molesters, and they'll still hate you.

the article is embarrassingly bad and a transcript of the speech alone would have done better to demonstrate her point, which is certainly correct. I, too, know the names of various figures of classical rhetoric, and I also know that anybody who knows what the word fellatrix means isn't thrown by a mildly pretentious or incorrect pronunciation. The conceit that Allen's woman-hating contempt routine is so layered and subtle that it requires this kind of laborious exegesis does nobody any favors. what is good is allowing nobody to forget that this is who he is and what he is like.
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:50 AM on January 30, 2018 [21 favorites]


Most likely, there is nothing spontaneous about this performance. Woody Allen scripts every verbal tic, hesitation, stammer, and "um" in his movies, or at least he used to. His image as a schlep is carefully crafted to maximize the impact of his work.

Here's a selection from the script of "Annie Hall" to give you a flavor. Notice how the punchline has no hesitations written in to it, because that would ruin the joke:
				ALVY'S VOICE-OVER 
		After that it got pretty late.  And we 
		both hadda go, but it was great seeing 
		Annie again, right?  I realized what a 
		terrific person she was and-and how much 
		fun it was just knowing her and I-I 
		thought of that old joke, you know, this-
		this-this guy goes to a psychiatrist and 
		says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy.  He 
		thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the 
		doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn 
		him in?" And the guy says, "I would, but 
		I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's 
		pretty much how how I feet about 
		relationships.  You know, they're totally 
		irrational and crazy and absurd and ... 
		but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it 
		because, uh, most of us need the eggs.
posted by springo at 4:53 AM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


Woody Allen has always been a disgusting pig. After he married his adopted common law daughter, what could get worse than that? Nasty little weasel, talented or not.
posted by mermayd at 5:17 AM on January 30, 2018 [13 favorites]


I always forget, does he have kids with his kid?
posted by RandomInconsistencies at 5:25 AM on January 30, 2018


Yes, he does.
posted by pxe2000 at 5:44 AM on January 30, 2018


Two adopted daughters.
posted by JanetLand at 5:50 AM on January 30, 2018


The really handy thing about Allen is that he's a convenient litmus test - I see somebody praising him, and I know right away that person is either stupid or complicit, neither of which I personally have time for any more.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 6:03 AM on January 30, 2018 [42 favorites]


I've noticed that Moses Farrow has been speaking with the press about how Allen didn't abuse Dylan and that Mia has coached her to say that Allen didn't abuse her. WA's supporters have latched onto Moses and said that no one is covering his statements because racism.

No matter how hard it was to grow up in that environment, Allen's character outside of his relationship with Dylan is so inappropriate that I have to side with her. This speech is another aspect of why I find his behavior towards Dylan plausible, and why I support her.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:22 AM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


Ugh. The whole thing stinks and it is shameful that it has been largely ignored for so long. The excuse he gave regarding how he couldn't have abused Dylan in the loft as she had alleged because he was claustrophobic was classic abuse denial and deflect strategy used by abusers as a mask. So sad that this will not be tested in court.
posted by RandomInconsistencies at 6:42 AM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


It shouldn't be shocking to me that there's an entire room filled with people laughing and applauding this terrible man. I had to stop listening to that speech because it was just awful. So much of the praise he points at Diane Keaton is positioned in such a way to make him the source of her celebrity/power/fame. In his praise of her, it's really about him. So egotistical, but that's not surprising. He's made a career out of exploiting that part of himself on screen.
posted by Fizz at 6:43 AM on January 30, 2018 [6 favorites]


The really handy thing about Allen is that he's a convenient litmus test - I see somebody praising him, and I know right away that person is either stupid or complicit, neither of which I personally have time for any more.

Even as a kid, I always thought his work was sexist. It was always a litmus test to knowing if someone had that skewed thinking. He had a long career. He got his paper crowns and accolades. He got his way.

It shouldn't be shocking to me that there's an entire room filled with people laughing and applauding this terrible man. I had to stop listening to that speech because it was just awful. So much of the praise he points at Diane Keaton is positioned in such a way to make him the source of her celebrity/power/fame. In his praise of her, it's really about him.

It's a habit. It's part of their little scripts, and deviation is not an option to them. Allen always had a predatory way about him -- the hype never matched the product, and when that happens, you know it's based on subtle campaigns to create and rig an environment that puts you on the top of a pecking order.

Never have been impressed with people like that, and never will.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 6:48 AM on January 30, 2018 [7 favorites]


Well, apparently nobody is willing to work with Allen anymore, so there is some measure of justice in the universe.
posted by hippybear at 7:09 AM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


So excited I have lived to see the day where I can finally go to a bar, concert, or opening without having to hear some film school soft boy defend Woody Allen's "artistic merit" and instead watch them scramble to prove that their tastes don't support institutionalized oppression *Italian hand gesture* MWAH so good
posted by teamKRL at 7:12 AM on January 30, 2018 [7 favorites]


There is/was no "veneer" on the misogyny. from Allen here.. that's what comedy WAS and in many cases, still is. None of this is surprising at a Roast-type event. It's just especially gross coming from deviant Allen. As a kid I remember seeing Bob Hope USO specials in the early 80s and my reaction was always "WTF?"... this is the same, just a current version.

It's generational. My mom and her brothers are all around Allen's age. My mom was a "Goldwater Girl" and Reagan voter. Now she's a screaming political activist liberal, volunteers, marches, donates. Her brother was a free wheeling dude who ran off to Mexico in the 60s with an older woman, eventually became a successful small businessman, was a the cocaine-marijuana disco party boy through the late 70-s and 80s. Now he's a racist, Fox News 24/7 guy who rarely leaves his house. Her other brother was a druggie who drifted through life, but is now a liberal.

The baby-boomers are all over the place, politically. Allen is scum (though I appreciate his older movies much more than many here). Keaton lived an entire life of privilege and wealth, having smoke blown up her butt for decades. So she's never suffered from the misogyny, she was along for the ride. The sexual revolution didn't free the wealthy and white, it allowed them to just have a lot of fun. They don't look at women's issues the same way a middle class or PoC does. And they certainly don't see it the way Metafilter members see it. These people are actors, entertainers. In a different time, they'd be considered suspicious lowlifes. But, here we are with our celebrity culture.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 7:16 AM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


For the record, this was an AFI Lifetime Achievement Award ceremony, not a roast-type event.
posted by hippybear at 7:17 AM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


It shouldn't be shocking to me that there's an entire room filled with people laughing and applauding this terrible man.

Roman Polanski continued to receive standing ovations, letters of support signed by 100 show business luminaries, and praise from government officials long after his admitted child rape. I'd wager good money that some, if not many, of the very posters piously intoning criticisms of Allen here have similarly defended Polanski because for decades he's been a baffling cause célèbre on the left.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:19 AM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


Fair enough. But Allen was just doing Allen's schtick. Pretty sure the audience in the room and the media expected— and eagerly anticipated— this from him. So what I meant was because Allen was delivering the speech, people were expecting some roast-type comedy. Your point is correct, though.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 7:22 AM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


Woww w ww w.

I deeply, deeply wish that the reaction had been a room full of stony-faced people, though I know that's impossible.
posted by desuetude at 7:50 AM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


There is/was no "veneer" on the misogyny.

Or perhaps the deniability is not really plausible.

With that whole thing, I thought of the number of times I've heard things like "It's just a joke" or "Actually I meant you were acting like a cat" or "Actually it means female dog." People who want to talk shit, and then not stand by it - because they want to do something shitty, but not have it acknowledged that it's shitty: an extra level of abusive.
posted by entropone at 7:53 AM on January 30, 2018 [23 favorites]


I'd wager good money that some, if not many, of the very posters piously intoning criticisms of Allen here have similarly defended Polanski because for decades he's been a baffling cause célèbre on the left.

I think you've been here long enough to know this is bullshit. Anti-Polanski sentiment on MetaFilter long predates the relatively recent site-wide turn against Allen, which mainly occurred in the wake of Dylan Farrow's 2014 open letter.

(Also, it's weird that you would characterize people expressing their disgust about a child abuser as 'pious intoning'.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:32 AM on January 30, 2018 [33 favorites]


I always hated the way he treated women and girls in his movies, so it was no surprise to learn he was the same way IRL.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:33 AM on January 30, 2018 [5 favorites]


I grew up in pre-internet small town in Northeast Texas where I didn't have much access to classic films. I heard about them and read about them, though. When I moved to NYC I was so excited to have access to video stores and movie theaters that showed art films. I still remember the first time I finally saw a Woody Allen movie and thought to myself, "This man hates women." His untouchable status has been baffling for years.
posted by Mavri at 9:40 AM on January 30, 2018 [17 favorites]


They don't look at women's issues the same way a middle class or PoC does. And they certainly don't see it the way Metafilter members see it. These people are actors, entertainers. In a different time, they'd be considered suspicious lowlifes.

You said in this very comment that "Baby boomers are all over the place politically". I must point out that the same is true of actors and entertainers.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:43 AM on January 30, 2018 [6 favorites]


Manhattan syndrome ?

I'd go with Manhattan malady, myself.
posted by Automocar at 10:22 AM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


It’s a roast. Watch the Comedy Central roast of Drew Carey and see the sexual acts decribed there. I haven’t seen it in years but think just the Dom Irrera speech alone has Drew shagging zoo animals, describing how Drew performs various sex acts on him and and it gets dirtier from there.

I watched the Woody Allen speech on YouTube to see for myself.
Although the fellatrix line falls flat, the routine overall is a big hit, with Keaton and the audience. You can see Steve Martin’s appreciation of it, and he knows comedy. Woody was one of the originators of American standup in the 60s and getting him to come out of standup retirement and custom write a roast about you is a huge honor. He would only do it for someone he loves, like Diane Keaton.
posted by w0mbat at 10:51 AM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


I do not have enough context, but is an award for lifetime achievement really synonymous with "roast" at this org? I would think not?

My take is that you probably don't ask Woody Allen to give an homage without expecting it to take on certain aspects of a roast, humor being his general lifelong fallback when speaking in public.

Not saying the jokes are funny or whatever because I haven't watched the talk, and don't care to.

You can see Steve Martin’s appreciation of it, and

I mean, what if were Steve Martin giving the speech? Would it surprise you that he told jokes?
posted by philip-random at 11:09 AM on January 30, 2018


what if were Steve Martin giving the speech? Would it surprise you that he told jokes?
Steve Martin's reputation doesn't precede him in the same way Allen's does. Also, Martin's comedic style is more absurd than Allen's.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:24 AM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


It’s a roast. Watch the Comedy Central roast of Drew Carey and see the sexual acts decribed there.

Comedy Central's roasts are indeed roasts. The AFI Lifetime Achievement Award ceremonies are not the same thing.

There is some room for friendly kidding (see Carrie Fisher's speech for George Lucas above), but not like this.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:27 AM on January 30, 2018 [9 favorites]


I have an English major's wicked glee at the original article's references to a W.B. Yeats poem in the last paragraph. The writer didn't make explicit how viciously perfect the comparison is between the poem and Allen's "bittersweet tribute": Yeats' poetry for Maud Gonne, the poem "When You Are Old" in particular, is arguably English literature's most beautiful and passive-aggressive negging from a nice guy™ bitter that his dream woman dates assholes and refuses to love him (or marry him despite Yeats' repeated proposals to the point that he proposed to her daughter).
When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;

And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.
Blunt translation out of beautiful language and stealth insult: "I'm the only man who'll ever truly know or love the real you, and someday when you're a old lonely hag, then you'll be sorry you rejected me for shallow guys who only cared about your physical appearance. But by then it will be TOO LATE! Sucks to be you!"
posted by nicebookrack at 11:42 AM on January 30, 2018 [13 favorites]


It’s a roast. Watch the Comedy Central roast of Drew Carey and see the sexual acts decribed there.

Er, a Comedy Central roast of comedian Drew Carey from 1998 should not be the benchmark for the nature of speeches for an American Film Institute Life award to an actor, director and producer in 2017. Sheesh.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:58 AM on January 30, 2018 [30 favorites]


Look, EVEN IF he warned her it was going to be a roast (instead of a tribute), and EVEN IF she was okay with it and said that would be great and literally approved every word ahead of time, it is STILL GROSS.

This is not the two of them at a cozy private dinner. I don’t care if she’s on board with being publicly humiliated for funsies, because that humiliation is not remotely particular to her or her career. Every jab is IDENTICAL to the regular, rote, continually weaponized list of ways that Women Can Be Bad at Being Women. If anything, it’s impressive that he chooses diametrically opposed attacks! You keep your body covered up, and that’s bad! But also you used to have sex with men who weren’t me, and that is also bad!

Gendered attacks on one woman don’t hit her alone, even if she claims to be okay with it. Knowing that even this famous and talented and beautiful woman who helped BUILD HIS CAREER will never be exempt from these attacks from "one of her best friends" just makes me feel worse about my less exalted life trajectory, and more depressingly resigned to a life of the same. He said it about her, but it was aimed at me, too. Maybe she was able to take it as a joke. I hear it, and it's just my biography as a woman in our culture: there is no way to do this correctly, and you will always be punished for it.

Every day I am astonished that there are still people who will defend ANY of his actions. Yes, even this one, which wasn’t illegal, but was still cruel and self-centered and vile.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:19 PM on January 30, 2018 [61 favorites]


I do not have enough context, but is an award for lifetime achievement really synonymous with "roast" at this org? I would think not?

It....kinda is. Carrie Fisher famously (and hilariously) roasted George Lucas when she spoke at his AFI awards presentation. The difference there, though, is that she attacked her own self at the same time.


1) There's a difference between "kidding" and "roasting." AFI Lifetime Achievement celebrations are for kidding.

2) Carrie Fisher was kidding. More importantly, she punched up. Woody Allen was mean-spirited, and punches down.
posted by tzikeh at 12:32 PM on January 30, 2018 [12 favorites]


Drew shagging zoo animals, describing how Drew performs various sex acts on him and and it gets dirtier from there.

There's an obvious difference between absurd humor and misogynist "jokes" that have been standard comedy tropes for decades. Allen is doing the latter. If Steve Martin joked that Diane Keaton had sex with zoo animals, we wouldn't be discussing it.
posted by Mavri at 12:33 PM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


Diane Keaton will have nothing negative to say about Woody Allen. She full throatedly supports him.
I saw [Dylan] maybe three times. I didn’t know her. It’s not a bad accusation. I was never friends with Mia—I was friendly. Sort of like I’m friendly with you. I like you, I like the way you are. I like the way she is, too. She’s very charming. But I never knew her as a friend. A friend—that’s a commitment. It’s as close as you can get to family, and sometimes it’s even closer. Friendship requires a lot of time. I don’t have a lot of friends
......
When The Guardian pointedly asks about Farrow’s insinuation that she “publicly defended someone who molested her,” Keaton responds, “I have nothing to say about that. Except: I believe my friend.”
She has chosen the side of a pedophile and sexual predator. She doubles down on that every few years. She does not deserve our sympathy for keeping friends like these.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 1:29 PM on January 30, 2018 [8 favorites]


As a very big fan of Woody Allen's work, I've been very hesitant about commenting on this, but there is something I feel compelled to say. I'm not commenting on the Dylan Farrow issue and I fully acknowledge that he may be guilty of a horrible thing, but the notion that his films are teeming with misogyny is simply not true.
posted by davebush at 1:47 PM on January 30, 2018 [6 favorites]


I was a huge fan of his work until it was impossible to ignore the monster behind the controls. He is incredibly misogynistic and it comes out of every pore of his work. You might find this article interesting : I read decades of Woody Allen’s private notes. He’s obsessed with teenage girls. His 56-box archive is filled with misogynist and lecherous musings.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 1:52 PM on January 30, 2018 [13 favorites]


I was wondering whether any of you had seen this ? Allen comes across in a very odd way and I'm not sure what to make of it.
posted by ebear at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


She does not deserve our sympathy for keeping friends like these.

Sure - I don't feel that sympathetic myself.

But it's not just about Diane Keaton. It's about all women. Misogyny doesn't become okay because the target deserves it, should have expected it - not even if the target defends it. a fiendish thingy has it above: Gendered attacks on one woman don’t hit her alone.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:43 PM on January 30, 2018 [8 favorites]


Mia Farrow and Andre Previn adopted Soon-Yi in 1978 when she was about 7. Farrow and Allen began their relationship in 1980. Soon-Yi lived with Farrow, not Previn (don't even get me started on that man), so Allen knew Soon-Yi from the age of 9 or 10 and he was 45. It's unacceptable.
posted by elsietheeel at 2:51 PM on January 30, 2018 [7 favorites]


But it's not just about Diane Keaton. It's about all women

Oh I totally agree with all of that. I was responding to people thinking she felt harmed or wishing she'd flame him for this when he dies or whatever. There's no chance.

I am now and forever against misogynistic attacks as the go-to way to insult women even if those women applaud the men doing it or are otherwise being awful (see also : sarah palin, etc).
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 2:51 PM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


Reading the WP article about Allen's private notes above, I thought how weird it is that he gets credit for the amazing performances by the amazing women in the films he directs. I know that this is part of the whole cult of the auteur, but if it were just that, he would also get credit for the performances of the men in the films he directs. It was one of those moments where I could see the world the way it is as something distorted and strange, before the usual "well duh, of course he does" set in again. It's this mentality - this unquestioning acceptance of women as the inspiration, the embodiment, the vehicle for men's creativity - that is just so utterly poisonous.

Then, of course, I started to get overwhelmed by the nauseating repetition of his fantasies about two eighteen-year-old women and 40/50/80-something-year-old men. It's not funny, it's not witty, it's not inspired, it's disgusting.
posted by Athanassiel at 3:08 PM on January 30, 2018 [13 favorites]


FELLATRIX????!!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
posted by materialgirl at 3:25 PM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


Glad I never "got" Woody Allen. I never found a single thing of his even remotely funny on any level. He was just always a creepy stammering yutz.
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:47 PM on January 30, 2018 [5 favorites]


In this moment where we're recognizing abuse and how it affects people, perhaps we could avoid using words like "yutz" which are ethnically charged.

Woody appears to be a predatory asshole. That has nothing to do with his ethnic heritage.
posted by hippybear at 5:26 PM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


Regarding almost nobody here "getting" or enjoying Allen's work, he is consistently ranked as one of the greatest film directors of all time. Just saying.
posted by jabah at 5:37 PM on January 30, 2018 [3 favorites]


Oh, don't get me wrong. I have great respect for Allen as a filmmaker and have enjoyed his output for decades. I don't disregard his artistic output because he's an asshole.

But he's an asshole.
posted by hippybear at 5:43 PM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


I loved Woody Allen. One* of his films is in my top 3 or 5 favorite films of all time. I've seen it so many times that sometimes when I can't sleep I put it on behind my eyelids. I'm not sure if I'll ever watch it again, but if I do it'll be after he's dead.

Also, those lists include a lot of misogynistic abusers who were credited for the work they "got out of" women actresses, so, he's in mostly similar company.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 5:48 PM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


Regarding almost nobody here "getting" or enjoying Allen's work

Do you think that people who have a different opinion of Allen's work don't know that it's widely respected? What's the point of this comment? Seriously, this is both unnecessary and extremely condescending. It doesn't even address what people in this thread are saying about him or his work.

And anyway, you know what you should probably expect in a misogynist society? ... a tiresomely long list of "great works" and "great artists" that are misogynist. Because misogyny isn't seen as a disqualification for success - and often isn't even noticed.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:50 PM on January 30, 2018 [35 favorites]


Regarding almost nobody here "getting" or enjoying Allen's work, he is consistently ranked as one of the greatest film directors of all time. Just saying.

Well of course he is. Your first list: written by a man, is a list of 50 men. Your second list: does not have an author (will bet you it was compiled by a man) and is a list of 50 men. All the lists below it on the same page, whether they are picking 50 directors + 100 films, 25 directors or 40 directors, are comprised solely of men. Your third list: also does not have an author and is still a list of 50 men.

You think that maybe, just maybe, the people who make these lists are mired in the boys' club that is known as the film industry? You think that maybe, just maybe, the boys' club that is known as the film industry doesn't have a huge problem with misogyny?

And that's leaving aside the assumption that being a misogynist is a disqualification from "greatness". In a world that rewards and privileges men, why would misogyny be a barrier to achievement?
posted by Athanassiel at 6:08 PM on January 30, 2018 [23 favorites]


Should have refreshed before posting, Kutsuwamushi nailed my last point.
posted by Athanassiel at 6:09 PM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


I read decades of Woody Allen’s private notes. He’s obsessed with teenage girls. His 56-box archive is filled with misogynist and lecherous musings.

I found that WaPo article baffling. I mean, you had to read his unpublished material to discover this? Really? Have you seen any of his published material?
posted by Ndwright at 6:32 PM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


I don't think he had to. I think it's for people who say there's nothing misogynistic about the work - well lets see how the work starts as close to creator as possible, well, what do you know, it's all the same shit but even more crude. This is who he, and his art, is at its base. Also, for one of the "best ever filmmakers" it is interesting that this is the only person who has ever looked at the collection in full. How does Allen want to be remembered? Well, this is one way, lets look at it.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 6:36 PM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


I am told Allen is a great filmmaker; I expect it is so. I am also told that Birth of a Nation is a groundbreaking film. I am disinclined to examine either any more closely than I already have. I heard that What's Up Tiger Lily? would appeal to someone who liked MST3K, so I got it from the video store, and, in the words of Master Shake, I was done with it when I saw it.

My first introduction to Woody Allen was actually from a couple of humor pieces in a paperback anthology I picked up secondhand as a tween. I remember only that I got some laughs from them, but the women were disturbing. That particular book was called something like "The Best of American Humor"; it had been published in the early '80s or so. I remember two things about it: one is that the cover had Hirschfeld caricatures and the big Broadway font on it. The other is that, in the introduction, the editors said something along the lines of: in order to truly represent the spirit of American comedy, gay humor is not included.

Oh, and now it seems I've found it online: The Big Book of New American Humor. Garrison Keillor is another headliner. That was where we were at: Allen in his prime pedophilia years, Garrison Keillor in his prime years of lecherous sanctimony, and the gay comics of the age unfit to stand in the same room.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:37 PM on January 30, 2018 [11 favorites]


also, it's neither here nor there, but if I were going to make up the name of a fake Woody Allen film, I would reject A Rainy Day In New York as being too on the nose. Surely he's tired; he could just call it a day and go to bed and pretend it was his idea anyway
posted by Countess Elena at 7:03 PM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


Purple Rose Of Cairo remains a great film and I will fight any takers.
posted by hippybear at 7:05 PM on January 30, 2018 [4 favorites]


hippybear, that is the exact film I refer to, heh. I have the soundtrack on vinyl to play when he dies.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


Like, a lot of his material is great and a lot of it is creepy given the context and a lot of it is both, but Purple Rose is outside of all of that and it is really great.
posted by hippybear at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2018 [1 favorite]


the notion that his films are teeming with misogyny is simply not true

Fun fact: the fact that you have not noticed the misogyny inherent in his work does not mean it is not there.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:40 PM on January 30, 2018 [34 favorites]


Yyyyyeah, so I have this movie project on my blog now where I watch all the 1001 "Movies To See Before You Die" films, and it's gonna be a couple years off but i'm still bracing myself for the moment that I finally come to Annie Hall and Purple Rose of Cairo and such.

....But I'm also going to have to brace myself for movies with Kevin Spacey and Clark Gable and directed by Roman Polanski and Alfred Hitchcock.

I've decided to just remind myself that movies are the work of more than one person. Yeah, Woody Allen directed Annie Hall, but Diane Keaton was in it, and I'll watch for her. In my head, Purple Rose of Cairo is a Jeff Daniels film, not a Woody Allen one.

I mean, I may spot problems with the films themselves still. But it'll get me over the hurdle of watching again.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:47 PM on January 30, 2018


Purple Rose is only barely an Allen film, only reflecting his love of old movies but there is no stand-in character for him. It's one of the few Allen movies that isn't about him. It's actually about Farrow and her love of movies.
posted by hippybear at 7:55 PM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


Purple Rose Of Cairo remains a great film and I will fight any takers.

ditto Crimes + Misdemeanors
posted by philip-random at 9:12 PM on January 30, 2018


I was introduced to Woody Allen at a young age via audio of his early work as a standup. There are definite misogynist elements in there, but not to my mind disproportionate compared to any other work from that time (and in that I am accepting that late 50s/early 60s were basically gross towards women). The real standout funny parts were though ones that weren't like that - the moose story being the classic.

When I was older I did seek out his films but basically just found them a disappointment - like they had taken the least funny, most misogynist, most navel-gazing parts of his material and extended them to film length. As such, it feels to me like his misogyny caused him to basically waste his comic talent. (More moose, less misogyny!)
posted by Vortisaur at 11:55 PM on January 30, 2018 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure we're not discussing Mia Farrow because the FPP is about somebody else?
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:57 AM on January 31, 2018


Mod note: A couple deleted. "Why aren't we talking about accusations against Mia Farrow" is a pretty big derail here.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:14 AM on January 31, 2018 [1 favorite]


Ah yes, because discussing our favorite woody allen movies on an fpp about misogynist rhetoric is so terribly on topic.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 1:27 AM on January 31, 2018 [3 favorites]


> hippybear:
"Purple Rose Of Cairo remains a great film and I will fight any takers."

Gotta say, I loved it too.
posted by Samizdata at 3:56 AM on January 31, 2018


"Stammering yutz" is important because it's a (very much Yiddish-theater derived) character that Allen hides behind. Whereas in real life Allen is not a yutz, or a putz, or a nebbish, or a schlemiel. Rather, he's a fucking pedophiliac creep who had a lot of power and influence for too long. A momzer, if anything.

Also, I'm not sure why, because his movies are not the masterpieces people like to pretend they air. And I say that as an (erstwhile) air-quoting, theory reading fiiiiiiilllllm person who took classes from an AFI prof (though not at AFI).

I'm sad I don't feel like I can watch Bullets Over Broadway anymore. That's about it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:11 AM on January 31, 2018 [1 favorite]


I think it is important for people who liked Allen, but will no longer stomach his work, to say so while also saying why they won't engage with it anymore. It seems like a lot of the doubters to his nature, or those who claim they just don't care or he's not the work or whatever, think the only people who feel strongly about boycotting Allen hate him and hate his work - like they're gleefully pulling him down because they're sick of film nerds insisting his films are great. But that's not the case. I do have a favorite Woody Allen film. As a teenager I liked quite a bit more before I worked out my own internal self hating misogyny. He has made things that are important to people. And he's a child molester. And his marrying his not quite daughter is reprehensible. And his misogyny has always been at the forefront of his work.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 5:55 AM on January 31, 2018 [5 favorites]


I grew up watching Woody Allen films and thought it was some profound shit, but as I've become more sensitive to misogyny--and knowing guys like Woody Allen's characters--it's become increasingly unappealing to watch anything where Allen inserts himself into the film. As I've learned to take complaints of sexual harassment and violence more seriously, the remaining films--like Purple Rose--are unwatchable at this point because it sure seems like he molested his partner's daughter--and that's without getting into the relationship with Soon-Yi Previn.

There are well-done elements of many of his films...and all of them are undermined by what kind of person he seems to be in real life. There's way too much other good stuff out there by women and men who don't molest children to waste more time on Woody Allen.

His inappropriate, misogynistic roasting of Diane Keaton at this award sandwich show is a cherry on top of a shit-sundae.
posted by Excommunicated Cardinal at 6:50 AM on January 31, 2018 [3 favorites]


Mod note: A couple deleted; it's fine if you personally do not want to have this conversation, but let others discuss, and don't troll here.
posted by taz (staff) at 7:03 AM on January 31, 2018 [4 favorites]


Everyone I've ever met in my life (who has seen it) loves Purple Rose of Cairo. That isn't the point.

I have had a LOT of beloved and dearly loved movies and tv shows poisoned for me this year, because it turns out they were made on a foundation of gleeful sexual assault and harassment without any repercussions. Example: I want Emma (1996) back, because I loved it, and it was important to me, and it is a beautifully made piece of cinema. But telling me to forget the nauseating details that we now know about its creation is telling me to cling to a comforting lie that undermines the comfort I once found in the film, and I won't do that. A lot of us have had our dearly loved movies taken away from us. Pretending that this is only happening with the Allen canon is disingenuous.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:07 AM on January 31, 2018 [5 favorites]


For everyone who’s watched a Woody Allen film and wondered if they were somehow deficient because they didn’t understand his appeal, I offer this tweet from Jodi Kantor, who coincidentally is the reporter who broke the Harvey Weinstein story.

“Always ask yourself:
Who writes the stories?
Who benefits from the stories?
Who is missing from the stories?”


Gaslighting doesn’t just have to happen in a 1-to-1 context. When a (formerly respected) cultural arbiter's casting guidance amounts to dismissing a great actress because she's not "f*ckable," that's all the proof I need.
posted by Borborygmus at 9:14 AM on January 31, 2018 [7 favorites]


the fact that you have not noticed the misogyny inherent in his work does not mean it is not there

Another fact is that your view of any film is just as subjective as mine.
posted by davebush at 10:23 AM on January 31, 2018 [1 favorite]



Ah yes, because discussing our favorite woody allen movies on an fpp about misogynist rhetoric is so terribly on topic.


in a discussion where comment is made toward dismissing somebody as "an asshole", who it's always delightful "to have another reason to hate", an "absolute piece of shit" who should be "roasted on a spit" etc ... I think it's entirely relevant to point out that, as an artist, they may once have offered us something of value. As to whether that value can now be honored in any way -- well, that's worth discussing.

I personally noted Crimes + Misdemeanors a while back, a movie about a very likable man who (spoiler alert) ends up getting away with murder, and ultimately without much of a guilty conscience. Seems very relevant to me.
posted by philip-random at 10:50 AM on January 31, 2018


The view that Woody Allen's work is reflective of his own misogyny might be subjective but it's also well studied and remarked upon and not just the view of a couple people in a metafilter thread. Also I would say a man claiming no sexism exists in a place a lot of other people see it, he might want to just consider if there is something he's missed.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 11:04 AM on January 31, 2018 [12 favorites]


I have had a LOT of beloved and dearly loved movies and tv shows poisoned for me this year, because it turns out they were made on a foundation of gleeful sexual assault and harassment without any repercussions. Example: I want Emma (1996) back, because I loved it, and it was important to me, and it is a beautifully made piece of cinema. But telling me to forget the nauseating details that we now know about its creation is telling me to cling to a comforting lie that undermines the comfort I once found in the film, and I won't do that.

This is something I struggled with, not just with my movie blog but also something I saw go down in real time; I'm facebook-connected to the actor Colman Domingo, and was watching the whole shit-storm about the modern-day Birth Of A Nation film that was about Nat Turner, through his eyes. In short - that Birth Of A Nation was released, but then right around that time someone brought up a sexual assault charge the director had faced in college, and it tanked the film. Now - I didn't know the director from a hole in the ground. But I knew Colman, and I had been reading how excited he was about the film and how proud he was of his own work in it - and the thing is, people may have been dissing the film to punish the director, but they also ended up punishig Colman as well, and Colman hadn't done anything amiss.

And that also made me think of The Birds - Alfred Hitchcock apparently went Harvey Weinstein on Tippi Hederen while they were filming it, where he tried to assault her and she fought back, and he threatened to blacklist her if she didn't give in. But she was bad-ass enough that not only did she stick around to finish the film, but she didn't give in, and faced Hitchcock indeed blacklisting her. And how here comes me - if I decide to boycott the Birds because of Alfred Hitchcock, I'm also punishing Tippi Hederen: Tippi Hederen, who withstood a sexual attack in the course of doing the film, and is the least deserving of punishment.

That's kind of why I ended up with the "watch for the other people" reaction, if anyone thinks they can try it. I'm going to watch The Birds, but I'm just going to pretend it was directed by a guy named Sid or something. There are cases where I won't be able to pull that off completely - I suspect if I tried to watch Manhattan, no amount of telling myself "but just think of Mariel Hemmingway and that's it" is going to ameliorate things. The subject matter in that is just icky. But if there's a chance that any of the cast of Emma got assaulted in the course of the film, but stuck around and finished it anyway, then maybe watching the film with an eye towards honoring their contributions can get you over that "but Harvey Weinstein was involved" hurdle.

Your mileage may vary, of course.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:25 AM on January 31, 2018 [2 favorites]


maybe what we really need to see the end of is the auteur theory
posted by philip-random at 11:43 AM on January 31, 2018 [2 favorites]


Another fact is that your view of any film is just as subjective as mine.

There are varying grades of expertise about any subject.

'I like this' is just as valid as 'I do not like this.'

However, talking about how this impacts people generally? No, neither your opinion nor mine is equally valid to that of a woman.

We all assess art through the lens of our own experience. We men are less equipped - via socialization and life experience - to spot subtle attacks at women. They're not aimed at us. Ditto white people deciding whether or not something is harmful to POC and so on. This is true even if we mean well, are allies, any of that, because it's not about intention, only what each of us learns over the course of our lives.

This applies in less heated instances too. Think of it this way: who would have a better critique of Matlock, me or a lawyer?
posted by mordax at 11:46 AM on January 31, 2018 [7 favorites]


Birth of a Nation should have never been made by Nate Parker and Jean McGianni Celestin. It should have gone to creators who weren't rapists.

Beyond that as far as valuing the performances of people who were sexually assaulted to make something happen, the only solution isn't to keep giving rapists huge important projects and then deciding to keep watching because the lead gave up everything for it. We could maybe stop giving giant sacks of money to rapists, harassers, molesters, and general creeps to ruin the lives of people around them.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 1:18 PM on January 31, 2018 [4 favorites]


When I made my earlier comment, I was thinking of Griffith's Birth of a Nation, the silent movie. I had completely forgotten about Nate Parker's. That's how deeply it was buried. I don't doubt that that was due to racism, and that an equally culpable white filmmaker would have weathered the storm. But it is a damned shame about all the work and care in that project.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:29 PM on January 31, 2018


Well, for that I blame the rapists. They allowed so much work and care to happen under them for a truly important project knowing what they had done. They made Gabrielle Union - a rape survivor - utterly silent as a rape victim in the film and then expected her to cape for them when their past came to light. I'm sorry she poured so much into it, trusting that the filmmakers weren't rapists, but I'm not obliged to see it just because I adore her as an actress. I hope she doesn't have to keep working for rapists to find respect as an actress.
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 1:38 PM on January 31, 2018 [5 favorites]


Beyond that as far as valuing the performances of people who were sexually assaulted to make something happen, the only solution isn't to keep giving rapists huge important projects and then deciding to keep watching because the lead gave up everything for it. We could maybe stop giving giant sacks of money to rapists, harassers, molesters, and general creeps to ruin the lives of people around them.

Well, yeah. That is the thing to do going forward.

I was referring more to how to approach movies that have already been made, and which you may have already seen and loved but are now conflicted about because now you know things about the director or producer or something. Until I actually meet The Doctor I will not be able to go back 50 years and take directorship of The Birds away from Alfred Hitchcock, so this is how I am instead squaring that circle in my own head - by completely overlooking the contribution of the offending director and focusing on the rest of the elements.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:20 PM on January 31, 2018 [1 favorite]


We all have to draw our lines. I cannot tell you yours are in the wrong place. I can only discuss my approach. I'll watch some Hitchcock now that he's dead but I still can't watch The Birds because every time we get to the scene I remember everything I've heard about how he took a phobia she entrusted him with, twisted it, and terrified her for real (along with all the other shitty treatment he pushed her way) so he could have the reaction he wanted. I can't separate that scene from his treatment of her and thus for me the whole thing is ruined. I will never be able to separate Louis CK's art from him because his entire shtick was an extension of the shame/exhibition thing he forced on women. Even if I love performances from other people in his shows, I'm just going to have to catch them in something else. The problem with the auteur's work is that it sinks or swims on him (I almost said them, but lets be frank about what that category means).
posted by I'm Not Even Supposed To Be Here Today! at 6:18 PM on January 31, 2018 [2 favorites]


« Older "On the one hand, information wants to be...   |   Let Margaret of Anjou Out Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments