Woody Allen

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
feckless boy
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: Woody Allen

#676 Post by feckless boy » Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:18 pm

tenia wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:58 am
The Narrator Returns wrote:I mean, the number of people actively protesting included almost the entirety of the publisher's staff, so...
Moreover, the crowd argument is known to be a fallacious one since the Antiquity.
Amen! Really don't like those pesky protesters on Tahrir Square, long live President Mubarak!

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Woody Allen

#677 Post by tenia » Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:38 pm

Not sure if this answer is supposed to be ironic or not.

I just wanted to remind that one certainly shouldn't generalise who is right solely through the sizes of the sides. "The number of people actively protesting this is infinitesimally small." So what ? Being in the minority doesn't mean they're the ones in the wrong. However, this works both ways.

User avatar
feckless boy
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: Woody Allen

#678 Post by feckless boy » Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:55 pm

tenia wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:38 pm
Not sure if this answer is supposed to be ironic or not.

I just wanted to remind that one certainly shouldn't generalise who is right solely through the sizes of the sides. "The number of people actively protesting this is infinitesimally small." So what ? Being in the minority doesn't mean they're the ones in the wrong. However, this works both ways.
It works both ways! Wow, this maxim known since THE Antiquity just gets more useful by the minute!

yoshimori
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA

Re: Woody Allen

#679 Post by yoshimori » Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:18 pm

feckless boy wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:55 pm
It works both ways! Wow, this maxim known since THE Antiquity just gets more useful by the minute!
You seem not to have understood tenia's pretty-much-universally-accepted-among-educated-people point but instead have focused on a possible typo or cut and paste error. Maybe I'm missing some ribbing? Something playfully intended that isn't quite working for me?

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Woody Allen

#680 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:59 pm

yoshimori wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:18 pm
feckless boy wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:55 pm
It works both ways! Wow, this maxim known since THE Antiquity just gets more useful by the minute!
You seem not to have understood tenia's pretty-much-universally-accepted-among-educated-people point but instead have focused on a possible typo or cut and paste error. Maybe I'm missing some ribbing? Something playfully intended that isn't quite working for me?
In French l'antiquité in this context would be 'since time immemorial' colloquially. I think feckless is trying to live up to his name making a lame dig at this . It's patently obviously what's meant, no need to go Trumpy on it. Tenia speaks better English and is more technically informed than the vast majority of people on here..

User avatar
feckless boy
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: Woody Allen

#681 Post by feckless boy » Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:17 pm

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:59 pm
yoshimori wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:18 pm
feckless boy wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:55 pm
It works both ways! Wow, this maxim known since THE Antiquity just gets more useful by the minute!
You seem not to have understood tenia's pretty-much-universally-accepted-among-educated-people point but instead have focused on a possible typo or cut and paste error. Maybe I'm missing some ribbing? Something playfully intended that isn't quite working for me?
In French l'antiquité in this context would be 'since time immemorial' colloquially. I think feckless is trying to live up to his name making a lame dig at this . It's patently obviously what's meant, no need to go Trumpy on it. Tenia speaks better English and is more technically informed than the vast majority of people on here..
No need to worry I've found the source for The-Crowd-Fallacy maxim, it from The-Autocrat-Playbook-101 - who would've known...

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Woody Allen

#682 Post by tenia » Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:47 am

Thanks feckless for your tremendously constructive input in this discussion around the definitely difficult-to-translate notions that being in the majority doesn't automatically make you right, not does being in the minority automatically make you wrong.
NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:59 pm
In French l'antiquité in this context would be 'since time immemorial' colloquially.
I actually was aiming specifically at the Ancient Rome era, since one of the most famous discussion about crowd is from Seneca the Younger (that famous autocrat) who wrote in AD 58 in On the Happy Life :
When the happy life is under debate, there will be no use for you to reply to me, as if it were a matter of votes: “This side seems to be in a majority.” For that is just the reason it is the worse side. Human affairs are not so happily ordered that the majority prefer the better things; a proof of the worst choice is the crowd.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Woody Allen

#683 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:07 am

Regardless if we are speaking of Roman Antiquity, THE Antiquity or just 'back then' I would urge a reading of Crowds and Power by Elias Canetti as a sobering account of crowd mentality.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#684 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:22 pm

The Guardian on the dangerous move to censor

I do understand, however, that with the same publishing company just publishing Ronan Farrow’s book it’s not exactly a good look. Still, this article largely expresses my feelings on the matter.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Woody Allen

#685 Post by swo17 » Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:30 pm

Image

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Woody Allen

#686 Post by Nasir007 » Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:40 am

I think it is appropriate to express qualified discomfort at this move. Because who knows, the potential for deliberate and malicious misconstruing on the internet is infinite.

I think the price to pay for upholding a set of civil liberties and freedoms should not be the sacrifice of other civil liberties and freedoms. In a well-organized and free society, everyone gets to speak. The disfavored get to speak just as much as the popular. There necessarily is another side to every issue. The other side is worth airing. There is an opportunity to disagree. But suppression of the other side is damaging to society. There have been times in history when the "right side" such as is consensually accepted today was the "other" side to the prevailing popular sentiment. Suppression would have left us unenlightened. There is always the possibility of the shoe being on the other foot. Suppression once made mainstream can haunt the cause of civil liberties for an inordinate amount of time. Suppression is not the answer. Championing the cause of civil liberties means committing to the principle and fighting for the rights of those with whom you vehemently disagree.

Everyone gets to speak. We have means of expressing disagreement. We have means to disagree with each other. Let us use them. Civil liberties should not be selectively available. They should be universally available.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: Woody Allen

#687 Post by Lemmy Caution » Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:50 am

I disagree.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Woody Allen

#688 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:02 am

Lemmy Caution wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:50 am
I disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Woody Allen

#689 Post by aox » Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:28 am

Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:40 am
I think it is appropriate to express qualified discomfort at this move. Because who knows, the potential for deliberate and malicious misconstruing on the internet is infinite.

I think the price to pay for upholding a set of civil liberties and freedoms should not be the sacrifice of other civil liberties and freedoms. In a well-organized and free society, everyone gets to speak. The disfavored get to speak just as much as the popular. There necessarily is another side to every issue. The other side is worth airing. There is an opportunity to disagree. But suppression of the other side is damaging to society. There have been times in history when the "right side" such as is consensually accepted today was the "other" side to the prevailing popular sentiment. Suppression would have left us unenlightened. There is always the possibility of the shoe being on the other foot. Suppression once made mainstream can haunt the cause of civil liberties for an inordinate amount of time. Suppression is not the answer. Championing the cause of civil liberties means committing to the principle and fighting for the rights of those with whom you vehemently disagree.

Everyone gets to speak. We have means of expressing disagreement. We have means to disagree with each other. Let us use them. Civil liberties should not be selectively available. They should be universally available.
Are you saying the government intervened with Hachette's operations and are forbidding the book to be published?

Glowingwabbit
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:27 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#690 Post by Glowingwabbit » Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:38 am

aox wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:28 am
Are you saying the government intervened with Hachette's operations and are forbidding the book to be published?
I was struggling to understand what they were saying to. Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#691 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:17 am

The situation is complicated with Hachette specifically because they had just published Ronan's book, and to then also sign the autobiography on the catalyst of the accused by Ronan with the deepest possible personal feelings, well it's just invalidating and bad business, especially if they weren't transparent with him about that decision as he claims. This also doesn't do Allen any favors because now that there's a huge public uproar about it with staff walking out, he's likely not going to find a publishing company (though I'm sure he shopped around elsewhere first). But not only is it problematic regarding the pandora's box of censorship, but it's just egocentric to take the position that Allen's book should not be published at all. I will not make any definitive claims over what I believe, but he has been acquitted twice, and fucking prisoners who have been tried and convicted get their books published. One can still take a stand against Allen, and nobody is forcing anyone to buy this book, but to put oneself on a pedestal and declare a hunch to represent objective morality is quite a move. Nobody has to finance or publish their works if they don't want to, based on personal morality and perspective, but when we decide to tell artists that they cannot produce art, we are creating a prison for them based on speculation taken as facts in a mob mentality. There's a line there to be drawn, and I don't think it's a fine one. I'm also not saying that anyone here has suggested that his book should not even be allowed to be published, just that this view if taken as 'objective morality' is more harmful than anything that could possibly be in Allen's book, in my opinion.

User avatar
ShellOilJunior
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Woody Allen

#692 Post by ShellOilJunior » Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:48 pm

There's no respect for due process. It certainly doesn't help matters that public figures like Gerwig, Chalamet, Rebecca Hall and others expressed regret at working with Allen. Gerwig once even said Allen's films had informed her work. She's asked a few years ago about the investigations and she denounces his name. Gerwig most likely knew about those investigations when she was enjoying his films. There's no backlash for these cowards.

Allen is no choir boy but the man co-operated with the authorities and was acquitted.

User avatar
Randall Maysin
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#693 Post by Randall Maysin » Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:36 pm

The whole thing is such a can of worms, and yes, the "mainstream", or at least the loudest, position on WA is so arbitrary and shaky, its like someone doing gymnastics at the edge of a cliff. The worms crawl in all directions, not just towards Woody. and ultimately nothing's changed, nobody knows anything that wasn't known a quarter of a century ago. it's disturbing that, while the mob chooses its idea of justice, they arbitrarily and ruthlessly (and shamelessly and hypocritically) ignore that, among other scenarios, one of the real possibilities for the actual truth of the whole thing remains that Mia, having adopted a whole bunch of underprivileged Asian kids, (_possibly_) seriously abused them for years, used them as puppets for her own image, and raised them in an atmosphere of incestuousness, complete lack of faith in authority figures, fear, usury, horribleness, and more, is now shrewdly taking advantage of this cultural moment to ruthlessly finish off her ex, for something, his confirmed serious grossness to one side, he quite possibly is not guilty of at all. but who knows?
Last edited by Randall Maysin on Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.


User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#695 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:01 pm

Excellent news, its listing on Amazon is for April 7 though despite being released today, and I can’t seem to find a way to buy direct from Arcade. Of course bookstores are closed as non-essential- does anyone know a way to get a physical copy more immediately?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#696 Post by domino harvey » Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:48 pm

I just ordered my copy from Amazon and I feel very strongly about the need to support this company for having the bravery to release this

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#697 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:06 pm

Same here, I was just hoping to buy it from them direct to give the max. domino, did you purchase the $30 option that lists 4/7 as the release date?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#698 Post by domino harvey » Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:48 pm

Yep, that’s the one I bought. I think Amazon sales ranking can have benefits too, if it makes you feel any better!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#699 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:56 pm

It sure does, though now the listing doesn’t have a release date so either it sold out that quickly or they’re reevaluating a timeline since it came out today.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Woody Allen

#700 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:11 pm

Barnes and Noble is offering it cheaper, FWIW, and with an expected ship date of March 30th

Post Reply