I'd bet that, whatever the results of this lawsuit, Allen's career as a filmmaker is effectively over.Once Allen's career is back on track
We're both moderators and you've posted here longer than I have, so this is by no means meant as a lecture, but no one stepped out of line in here and this is all perfectly relevant stuff to discuss in the context of the release of this film. I realize this is your biggest third rail but it doesn't mean people should have to zip their lip if they have a negative opinion on Allen or his work, as long as it's relevant/maturely stated
That seems to be this board's, "where are Hillary's emails, and when will she be locked up for her 68 murders of political opponents?", question.
I'll take 21st century Allen films over 1990s ones any day.Finch wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:59 pmThe only hatchet job on Allen's legacy is the man's own late career output.
No question that he has his fanboys and haters, but I don’t think most critics fall into either category, and I figure most will have no problem offering a clear assessment of this film if/when it sees the light of day (with a few obligatory passing references to its backstory).mfunk9786 wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:23 pm Wondering aloud if it'll be possible for anyone to weigh in on this film without a reviewer's tilt in one direction or another once it finally emerges. It seems as though those who are firmly in Allen's camp will be inclined to inflate its quality, while those who have written Allen off will (probably without watching it) dismiss it as terrible. It seems like a very easy thing to inflate a minor/failed Allen film to a major one since there's always hallmarks of quality filmmaking, so why not, I suppose - but I can't think of a movie in recent memory with more baggage hanging on its eventual critical reception
Of the names in that list, at least three of them *would* work with Woody again - Rebecca Hall and Michael Caine (with a bloody E for cryin' out loud) both clarified their comments to say they wouldn't be opposed to working with Woody again (to far, far less publicity than the original quotes were publicized with, of course, as per the norm). Cate Blanchett the same. Why Amazon would think that's a wise idea to include their names when their subsequent quotes can be loaded up to blow back into their faces shows whatever they're paying their lawyers, they've not very good at the most basic of internet research. How they expect them to win this the most flimsiest of cases is a comedy unto itself.Cremildo wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:27 pm Amazon aims to discover who in Hollywood won't work with Woody Allen anymore - and a joint report by the parties in a $68 million lawsuit also sets up Amazon's coming investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by Allen.
It doesn't look like we're gonna be able to watch this film anytime soon.
As for working with Allen again, "I don't see how I could with a clear conscience if things remain as they are," Hall says. "But I don't know, I really don't know. You can't put this case into a black-and-white schema. There are complicated aspects on both sides. It is possible to believe that one party is not lying, and also not be convinced of the other party's innocence and/or guilt."
Wonderful news. Hope it comes to Australia too (our local independent cinema / distribution company in Melbourne has always been a strong supporter of Allen's work, and I doubt that will change now).
These are cowardly times. Anyone with any platform who mildly defends Allen is immediately the recipient of an online mobbing. Now people are enraged at Anjelica Huston. It’s absurd.DavyGallagher wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 10:05 pm It's such a horrid situation. Unlike, say, the Weinstein thing we're not talking systematic allegations here, and even Farrow's son says they are lies. There's a reason Woody's career kept going after the allegations came out first time but nowadays ANY accusation comes with shunning, regardless of the strenth of the allegation or the defence.
