MovieChat Forums > Woody Allen Discussion > Why did everybody suddenly turn against ...

Why did everybody suddenly turn against Woody Allen?

posted 21 days ago by TMC-4 (19498)
6 replies | jump to latest

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-everybody-suddenly-turn-against-Woody-Allen/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

1. Allen’s disastrous relationship with Mia Farrow - Women were never huge Allen fans and this pretty much closed that door. Many men were also uninterested in Allen and that lack of interest seems to have increased.

2. Allen’s marriage to his partner’s adopted daughter - No only did he f*ck his partner’s adopted daughter, he married her. That locked the door and bricked over the entrance with many other people.

3. Allen’s lack of reasonable affect throughout the entire matter - Allen needed to say SOMETHING following the above imbroglios. Unfortunately for him, he managed to say of the wrong things at the wrong times. It wasn’t helped by HOW he said it.

4. Allen was never much on casting minorities in his films, mostly set in a minority-filled NYC - Chiwetel Ejiofor (A British man) was the last major Black actor in one of his features. That was in 2004. Basically minorities have never been Allen fans and that’s only decreased over time.

5. Woody Allen’s films star women…whose agency seems to be taking care of their men, especially HIM - Allen remakes the same film over and over again with only slight changes in the dialogue and perhaps a different setting. And he was the protagonist or a major costar far too often. That hasn’t drawn in younger generations of females who either didn’t know about Allen’s personal life or who are impressed by his filmmaking and so Allen has moved further into the background.

6. Allen’s films were never big moneymakers - Wood Allen’s films earn profits, but not big ones. He eschewed the major blockbusters that could have made it easier to finance his preferred films and Allen wasn’t circumspect when it came to describing the modern films preferred by Hollywood and its audiences. Nobody is a fan in the entertainment business of people who don’t make money and who sh*ts on the projects that do.

[–] jk90us (5609) 14 days ago

4. Allen was never much on casting minorities in his films…

That’s such a minor issue (no pun intended).

Even with studios force feeding diversity in films and shows today, casting minorities has never ensured success unless it’s the rare minority actor like Denzel Washington or Will Smith who appealed to everyone and didn’t star in films about race.

But even they don’t bring in revenue these days.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10774) 14 days ago

Most that list is bullshit. Who says women didn't like Woody Allen? Like "Annie Hall" and "Hannah & Her Sisters" were macho male movies?

And "diversity" was never an issue before the last 20 years.

What killed Allen was his perfectly ethical affair with an adult woman Soon-Yi who was Farrow's step daughter. There was pedo hysteria going on at the time and Farrow exploited that to ruin his reputation.

[–] Where (1324) 14 days ago

It wasn’t sudden

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 14 days ago

Well, I basically think whoever wrote this list didn't pay attention to the actual ups and downs of Woody's life and career.

1. Woody was pretty universally popular in the '60s and '70s. He was a big name in comedy and crossed genders. Saying "women were never huge Allen fans," is not true. But then saying, "Many men were also uninterested..." is basically to say, "No human liked Woody Allen," which doesn't explain his massive success.

2. & 3. This scandal caused problems for Woody, but not career problems. Major, A-listers continued to work with him for decades. He won a bunch of awards during and after being at the epicentre of the scandal. How he responded wasn't a problem for a lot of people, either. This smacks of a writer saying, "I think X, and three or four people I know agree with me, so therefore, everybody feels this way." Or "I don't personally know people who don't agree, so EVERYBODY thinks this!" It's just not true.

4. This also didn't really change his box office numbers.

5. This one is really asinine. It seems like the writer doesn't understand Allen's films. Any of them. Seriously: how does somebody watch Annie Hall where the main character stagnates while Annie grows as a person and eventually leaves him, somehow come up with, "Welp, I guess she was just there for him." The point of the movie is that she wasn't and he couldn't deal with that and the relationship faltered. Mighty Aphrodite has a train-wreck female character needing help to get back on her feet. It's the OPPOSITE of "...whose agency seems to be taking care of their men..." Also, "the same movie!" critique is odd and seems like this person didn't watch more than one or two (at most) or had made up his or her mind going in. Who watches Sleeper (a sci-fi satirical farce), Annie Hall (a bittersweet rom-com shot in a fly-on-the-wall style with surreal elements), Zelig (a mockumentary with archival footage and a political message), and Match Point (an erotic thriller about the meaninglessness of life), and goes, "Yup. Those are basically the same movie!" ???

6. Allen's movies didn't turn huge profits (save for a few like Annie Hall and Midnight in Paris - and even then, "huge," is relative) - that's true, but they were award gold-mines. Allen brought prestige and always made a little money. That's one of the biggest reasons WHY he had such a long-running career. This author did any research on Woody?

The reason people turned on Allen is because the MeToo movement shone a light on abusers in the film industry AND around that time, Mia, Dylan, and Ronan Farrow started a campaign to lump Allen into that category without any of the nuance or understanding of what happened. Because online mobs don't like nuance or research, because "believe all women" was the de rigeur, and because Woody Allen has zero internet presence or social media savvy, this went completely unchallenged and unquestioned. It because unacceptable to defend Woody, in a social shaming sense, and so most people just either believed what they heard (knowing nothing else about Allen's history - like the writer of the article) or they went along to get along.

And there's more nuance than that (like his slump in the '90s/early 2000s when, "He's not as good anymore!" was the mantra of a lot of reviewers) but that's much more accurate to the reason why than any goofy goobledegook this "journalist" coughed up before breakfast.

[–] BlackChristmas (624) 14 days ago

That list is the biggest pile of bollocks.

His brand of movie on paper should appeal more to women than men, often being relationship focused romantic comedies. I feel fans of his movies are compromised of women and 'cinephile' men. Your average dude-bro action buff has never been into his movies.

As for his private life matters, that all came to light back in the 90s. His career was perfectly fine during and after that. It was only during #MeToo that people decided to target him and that is when he effectively got 'cancelled'. In any case he was 84 years old in 2019 and wasn't exactly going to experience decades more of success.

The film was completed in 2018, but its distributor, Amazon Studios, halted its release following the Me Too movement and the resurgence of the sexual abuse allegation against Allen.

The film's production coincided with the start of the Me Too movement, causing a resurgence in public interest in the 1992 sexual abuse allegation against Allen.

In October 2017, actor Griffin Newman announced via Twitter that he regretted acting in the film and would not work with Allen again in the future. Newman donated his salary to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).

In January 2018, Chalamet donated his salary to the RAINN, Time's Up, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center of New York City.

Gomez made a donation of over $1 million, exceeding her salary, to Time's Up.

Like Gomez, Hall donated her salary to Time's Up. She later explained, "I've been deliberate in saying that the choice wasn't making a judgment one way or another. I don't believe anyone in the public should be judge and jury on a case that is so complex."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rainy_Day_in_New_York

In February 2019, Amazon Studios dropped Allen from a five-picture deal to produce and finance films, following the revival of the sexual abuse allegations made against him in 1992.

[–] capuchin (2748) 14 days ago

Allen’s films were never big moneymakers - Wood Allen’s films earn profits, but not big ones.

Well, this is a silly point, because Allen's films were also -- for the most part -- comparatively inexpensive to make. Not big money-spinners in terms of raw numbers, but in percentage terms -- as a return on an investment, which is the important part in any balance sheet -- he usually did absolutely fine and occasionally very well indeed, which is why (until recently) he never had any significant issues in getting funding for his projects. And was mostly able throughout his career to turn out a film per year.