great stuff Lacy. can't wait to see what you present to our world next
I've really enjoyed reading your column - it's how I discovered L Magazine in the first place. Thanks for the insight, and I hope to see more of your stuff again soon!
Thanks for this excellent piece, Henry. I think you are exactly right about this. If Dylan endured what she says she did, it was a horrible thing, she deserves all our sympathy, and Allan Stewart Konigsberg should never have gotten away with it. But we don't know for sure what happened. As you point out, there never was a trial (though it sounds like there should have been), so only a handful of people who were intimately involved with the situation know enough about what happened to act as judge and jury.
More to the point: if we made it a policy to look at/read/watch only works created by artists whose lives we deem virtuous, we'd have to ban many of the best works of art ever made, not to mention a whole lot of perfectly good or entertaining stuff. So who would that hurt? Mainly us, the audience deprived of that art.
If we imposed such a ban while the artist was still working, it would also hurt the artist, depriving him or her of an audience and an income. But is that really how we want to punish people who have broken our moral code? Aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws, where people are tried in a court of law and punished with things like fines or jail time or community service or probation? Where is it written that someone who breaks the law should lose the right to pursue his or her career?
Besides, who are we to judge our fellow flawed human beings? Okay, I'm no longer talking about this particular case now, since I think almost everyone would agree that sexual molesting a seven-year-old is heinous. But think about some of the things artists have had to hide about themselves in the past in order to be accepted by the mainstream, like being gay. Who's to say that some of the things we would vilify people for now won't look as arbitrary and unjust in a generation or two?
I think any movie or other work of art has to stand on its own, judged for what it is, not for the private life/lives of the person or people who made it.
I think where it gets more complicated than that is that we tend to think we "know" or "love" the people who make art we respond to. But, as you say, that's an illusion. Woody Allen is no more a real person than the little tramp persona created by Charlie Chaplin -- who, by the way, got Lita Grey pregnant when she was just 15 and married an 18-year-old Oona when he was 54.
What? I'm sorry, but... what? Some troubled woman makes an allegation against a man, so he's automatically judged to be guilty? Wasn't this already looked at by the LAW and tossed away?
Gotta love society these days. You don't need proof of anything anymore. As long as you're a man, you're instantly guilty as charged.
And two crucial articles that support the theory that anyone on this ridiculous bandwagon that Henry is on is merely engaged in libelous character assassination:
End of an era, loss of a legend. Clichés, yes, and in Pete's case they apply. He served as the conscience for a nation that's lost its way—and as such, was slighted and ignored much the way we humans often treat that unprepossessing inner voice.
As someone who hated that ending, I agree entirely lol.
That said, your friend has a valid point about the epilogue forcing the series into a narrative dead end. If JK really feels so strongly that she made a mistake, she could write an eighth book... but for that full-stop of an epilogue, which she would either have to dismiss as a dream or de-canonize altogether to do so. Many Harry/Hermione fans felt the epilogue was nothing but a slap in the face for half of the fanbase, when leaving things open-ended would have at least left some notion of inclusiveness. The shoe is now on the other foot, and those fans are clearly finding it a painful experience.
This clip from Annie Hall pretty much sums up what Henry Stewart knows about Woody Allen's personal life:
Henry, this article you wrote is completely sensationalist. This was dragged out of the closet by a notoriously nutty Mia Farrow and dredged for any kind of media value to be monetized once again. You have so many of your facts wrong in the article that I just can't believe your editor even printed it. This is just the lynch mob out to skewer Woody and you got on board with that? Are you high on crack today? Man, I gotta say my respect for you dipped due to this article. Not because I like Woody's films - but because you jumped on the lynch mob bandwagon and act like this is okay to simply continue the libel that insecure Mia and her desperate-for-the-spotlight son Ronan felt compelled to spew into the spotlight. Most intelligent people found their acting out to be ridiculous and venomous, at best. You didn't even know that Woody was never Soon-Yi's adopted father and that it was Andre Previn who was her father. You probably didn't know that Woody and Mia always had separate apartments, also, and that they were never married. Also, Woody has been with Soon Yi for over 20 years now and they are married. And the evidence was that Ronan and Dylan had been coached by Mia to say things that weren't true was also left out of your article. Seriously, Henry - this article is just simply irresponsible yellow journalism. Very much McCarthyist in spirit. Wow. Holy crap. (Michael R. - from your FB thread.)
This is one of the most sensible pieces I've read about this extremely troubling cycle of (not actually new but nonetheless disturbing) information. I understand why Dylan wants to speak out about this, and she should. But I do wonder what the intended effect is -- and I don't even direct that question at Dylan, because frankly it doesn't matter if what she wants or needs to do is talk about this, but rather the writers rushing to back her up. I hope this doesn't sound callous (an almost sure signpost that what I'm about to say will sound callous), but what are we supposed to do now, then? After the listening, I mean? The case was not pursued in 1992. The Farrows have not gained any new information about it since then. Allen is obviously not going to be prosecuted at this point. It feels like one of the main directives of some pieces I've read is: stop liking Woody Allen's movies! Hate him, beginning now! Ignore him, beginning now! Is that realistic? Is that possible?
And I find it weird that this was largely sparked by a Golden Globes tribute, of all things, as if that was somehow the most galling of all (if it were an honorary or lifetime achievement Oscar, maybe I'd see it more: there's so much more visibility with those things. Honestly, does anyone remember who won a Lifetime Achievement award from the Golden Globes two days later?!). Woody Allen, whoever he is, has made movies at a very consistent pace since these events, receiving fairly consistent waves of praise and dismissals, depending on the film. I absolutely understand if this makes the Farrows sick to their stomachs. But it certainly hasn't reached a fever pitch with an award from the Golden Globes. This has been going on for decades.
Again, and very very obviously, Dylan doesn't need my permission to speak up at a time of her choosing. Her speaking up can do some good for other abuse survivors. What Mia Farrow and Ronan Farrow want to have happen now, I'm not so sure.
We get it: you hate classic rockers and Gen-Xers, but would it kill you to be objective? What am I asking? Of course it would kill you.
While the current state of rock and roll is in a bit of disarray at the moment, only someone on the Cloud Nothings payroll could even remotely think this is the quartet to right the ship, especially if their knowledge of '70s power pop is as deficient as demonstrated above.
Fish can indeed suffer terror, pain and agony, as most people intuitively realize. For acknowledgement of fish sentience by the scientific community, see the Fish Sentience fact sheet on Fish Feel dot com. We don't need to use fish -or any other animals- for food, so there is no justification for harming them.
we need a website for people who want to know if the economy is fucked.
"A Talking Cat" - Terrible acting, Johnny Whittaker and voice over by a drunk Eric Roberts which was seemingly recorded in a self storage space.
They murder and slaughter wolves because they are sexual deviants who can only get satisfaction from this behavior. They cant satisfy their wives, girlfriends, sisters or daughters so they choose to be murderers. They are pathetic human beings at best. Human bags of garbage that should be exterminated the minute they are found. You need to wipe out the whole family of these deviants because from their teachings their family members are now just as sick and twisted as they are. I say everyone should suffer a horrible painfully long death! I only wish I could be there to bask in the glory of their dying.
Oh, yeah, I meant to add about McKinnon... she's great BUT my agreement that she's the next Kristen Wiig cuts two ways. Like Wiig, I can see a major tendency of the writers to overuse her because they know she'll get a laugh just by making a crazy face or something. Wiig and McKinnon are both incredibly skilled, which sometimes brings out the worst in the writers -- whereas Andy Samberg isn't as naturally versatile as a sketch comedian, but could almost do no wrong in sketches because he'd so rarely zero in on a one-note, very performance-oriented character to repeat and repeat. So far McKinnon has mostly avoided this trap, but I can see pitfalls of putting too much stock into her crazy-face schtick.
The old Russian woman character, though... amazing. Cried laughing the first time I saw it.
Kyle Mooney, Beck Bennett > Jay Pharoah, Taran Killam. I 100% agree with commentor Jesse above (below?) - Taran Killam is so aware he's trying to be funny that it's cringe-inducing. Calm down, dude. Mooney and Bennett are so much more natural. And Noel Wells is the female Killam. GREAT impressions - such promise with the Lena Dunham from the first episode of the season. But everything else she does is so over-the-top. It's like she IS that young musical theatre girl Vanessa Bayers plays so well.
I have faith in Brooks Whelan and John Milhiser. I think we haven't seen enough of them yet. But I also felt the same way about Paul Brittain a few seasons ago.
Spot on with Kate McKinnon - she is the best thing that could happen to SNL with the mass exodus from last season.
I'd also like to say that I too appreciate your admiration of SNL. Anyone that says it's "not funny anymore" probably doesn't even watch!
I CAN'T BELIEVE I WASN'T CONSULTED ABOUT THIS (well, actually, I can because I'm a movie guy and this is your article but what I really mean is OH JESUS I WISH I THOUGHT OF THIS).
Nikita, you obviously actually pay attention to SNL instead of complaining about it not being funny anymore and I love that I can tell that from this ranking, which I largely agree with but will nitpick anyway!
-The weirdest thing about Noel Wells is that she looks and sounds a lot like Abby Elliott, down to doing a similar Zooey Deschanel impression. I kind of liked Abby Elliott but I don't know why I'd want watered-down Abby Elliott.
-Kyle Mooney and Mike O'Brien are great! I love them both so far and would put them above Jay Pharoah, who is a brilliant impressionist and has done some better non-impression work this year than in years past, but hasn't really convinced me he's all that funny on his own. That "attention teachers and students" thing is all vocal tic! A lot of his characters are mostly vocal tic! It's pretty cheesy. He's good, but could be better.
-I'm glad you adore Aidy Bryant and Nasim Pedrad as much as I do, though Pedrad has been chronically underused (more in the past than in this season).
-Taran Killam has improved a lot -- someone else somewhere on the internet once referred to him as having too much of the "I'm doing comedy!" face, and he's calmed that down a bit... but he does mug sometimes. And his Brad Pitt impression sucks. Actually, most of his impressions are pretty bad, but that's fine; not everyone is an impressionist.
-Is it just me or has Kenan been on a TON this year? Especially for a guy who's gotta be a year or two from leaving. I'm not complaining; he's gotten so much better during his time on the show. Though he does have similar cadence in a lot of roles, he's also developed a killer deadpan. His first year or two on the show was pretty rough, but now that they don't do that stupid Scared Straight character anymore, I'm a big fan.
Me and my boyfriend are very close to being engaged. By "very close" i mean I accidentally saw the ring. That being said, I'm in this commercial woman's shoes a bit. I am willing to honestly say, i sound just like her at times. Yes, This commercial was an embarrassing stereotype but it is- ...Wait... Omg... am i an embarrassing stereotype? Am i that prattle-ly?
© 2014 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation