Spoilers I just realized on my nth viewing
There IS actually a happy ending for Cliff. Judah tells him the story at the end of the wedding, and then Cliff went out and turned it into Crimes and Misdemeanors! The film is his success story.
shareCould be except Cliff is a dedicated documentary filmmaker
Besides, his cluelessness is demonstrated by the fact that he dismissed Judah’s story as not film-worthy ... even though he himself is a (collateral) character in the exact film Judah is describing
Agreed.
Furthermore, Woody doesn't tend to do that kind of thing. He'll bust the fourth wall, of course, but when he does we know about it.
Not to mention the fact that the themes of the movie, about this meaningless morality, is maybe undercut a bit by having the whole thing just be Cliff's film narrative.
Excellent point about the movie's theme.
I remember when I first saw it in my 20's, I just thought it was a hilariously cynical comedy - the "bad guys" win and the "good guys" lose.
Nowadays, I don't think it's that simple. Cliff wasn't a hero, first and foremost, nor was Dolores a helpless victim. The "losers" throughout this movie bore responsibility for their own failures. And the "winners" aren't so much evil as simply willing to set aside morality in pursuit of their own agendas.
It's actually a lot darker than I thought it was thirty years ago, and the message much more resonant for me. In the end, it's about accepting agency for whatever you're willing to do (or refrain from doing) and what you're willing to live with in the end.
BTW good point about Woody breaking the fourth wall very obviously, but I don't think the original poster necessarily meant it in the manner of "Annie Hall" so much as "the camera pulls back to reveal ..." This movie does insert old movie clips into the narrative, sometimes (but not always) showing that the old films are actually being watched by characters in this movie. I just don't think Cliff is meant to have learned anything by the end of the film.
Yeah, and you know, it kinda plays just fine (great, in fact) as "nothing more than" a hilarious cynical comedy. It works on that level. That's a constant throughout Woody's work; the man mixes it up more than his detractors pretend ("He always does the same film!" say people who've never seen Zelig and Match Point), but he's always got layers running around. Love and Death works as an absurdist comedy, but it also works as a parody of Russian Lit and/or epic historical dramas. Or, heck, maybe it's just a philosophy essay with punchlines.
The naysayers are just seeing similar types of people showing up and always concerned with, well, love and death, but those are perennial themes, and his people are true-to-life. Okay, they don't cover the full diaspora, but they don't have to.
Along with that notion of complexity is the frequent muddied waters of morality. C&M is a beautiful showcase of this, about how morality and meaning are kinda tied together, and if you can't find Truth in the universe, maybe actions aren't good or bad - but arbitrary.
I think that's the "lesson" Cliff (and Judah) is frustrated with at the end. That's what he's resisting learning. See, I don't think it's just that he hasn't learned, it's that what he's learned troubles him deeply. What is there if there is no good? No goal to shoot for? No justice? Does morality even matter?
Yeah, I'd agree 100% that the film is *dark*.
You're probably right about OP, but I think my original point stands. If Woody wanted us to think about the story in terms of an unreliable narrator, or in terms of how it was maybe all just a movie, he'd have told us. There's another thing I admire about Woody: he might play to arthouse crowds, but he doesn't seem to share their pretensions. He's not closing out any of his films with a needlessly ambiguous spinning top.
I don't mean that there isn't ambiguity to his film or that he doesn't play with layers of reality (he does - a lot) but just that he always gives us the tools we need to understand his films. He's not trying to be cagey. It's not a lack of subtlety, and he clearly trusts his audiences to be smart about it, but he's just not trying to hide things and make it difficult, either.
When I saw "Wonder Wheel" it occurred to me how often certain of his movies have a murder in them. In "Wonder Wheel" the dodgy daughter just disappears at the end ... a not very satisfactory ending to me.
The late BS attacks on Woody by Mia Farrow and the misguided, and clueless adherents of #MeToo have sparked in me a real appreciation of all the wonderful movies he has made and the enjoyment I am my friends and family have gotten from them. The "Allen V. Farrow" travesty taken up and broadcast by HBO makes me so mad.
And Amazon refusing to distribute his movies irks me as well. I am really looking forward to when I can watch "Rifkin's Festival".
I haven't seen Wonder Wheel yet. Maybe a spoiler alert next time?
The attacks are frustrating because things are clearly not as cut-and-dry as the Farrow camp feigns. I understand why people might come to the conclusion that Woody's lying, but I can't get behind their insistence that people who think Woody's telling the truth are out to lunch. There's clearly a grey area. Plus, yeah, as somebody who believes Allen, it's really frustrating watching people claim he's evil and calling to cancel his films (because of course they are) are depriving the world of great art.
If Amazon don't want to distribute the films, they should at least release them for other companies to put out if they so choose; revert the rights back to Woody. Let him get his movies out there. Don't agree to make the movie and then clamp down on it so nobody can view it.
Anyone who expressed the certainty that Woody is guilty of this does not know the facts and does not care to learn them - meaning that to any sane citizens concerned with justice their opinions are useless. It is the same with people who think Donald Trump was a great President, they have an agenda that disregards reality.
The investigations both showed Woody to be innocent. Anything pointing to another conclusions is always connected to Mia personally - such as her relationship to the Judge.
There is an inbuilt bias to this case where people are afraid to defend someone accused of being a child molester, whether they are guilty or innocent. No other response is allowed except hang'em high. To me that means Mia and her family, especially Dylan and Ronan who makes money and a career of #MeToo are lying and completely prejudicial. Enough is enough. What they are doing is evil - that is, they are the monsters - because they know it.
Sorry about the spoiler, it's been out there and for free on Amazon for a long time now, and I assumed anyone interested would have seen it.
I'm with you insofar as I think a study of the facts reveals too many discrepancies, but I want to acknowledge that Dylan herself is very compelling. It's easy to wave off Mia and Ronan, but having somebody saying, "This happened to me, please believe me," that's something that's hard to ignore. Now, Moses' testimony contradicts this and speaks of the mental manipulations that those kids went through, so the idea that Dylan isn't lying but isn't telling the truth either (brainwashing) is where I ultimately land. But, I don't want to be as dismissive of others for believing Dylan as they often are of people who believe Moses.
I'm not so sure that Dylan and Ronan are lying for personal gain. I think it's plausible that they literally remember a fabrication.
No worries about the spoiler. It's an easy assumption to make, and it won't stop me from watching and enjoying the film, I just thought I'd make the suggestion. I don't always remember to guard spoilers in my posts.
I actually agree with you about Dylan, there is no doubt something was going on with her, and I feel uncomfortable and sorry for her for whatever it was. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have people not believe you, but I also cannot imagine putting an disproven/unproven allegation in front of the public is going to solve her issues.
I can relate an experience I had with a friend that I went to camp with when I was a young teenager. We reconnected on Facebook and were chatting when I mentioned the time she slapped me in the face. She was aghast, and did not remember it. I had the mental picture in my mind of when there was a group of us in the living room of the main camp house, and I had touched her side, not sexually or anything, and she wheeled around and slapped me. Since I thought I had done nothing wrong I was confused I reached out to her again, and again she slapped me. Not a wallop or anything, but just a leave me the hell alone slap.
I told her about that and how I remembered it so clearly, but it did not ring a bell with her. Then weeks later, maybe even months, I was looking though the online pictures posted of the past, and I saw this other girl who ... I can't really describe it, but when I saw this other girl I instantly knew that it was her, and not the friend I was chatting to online that had slapped me, and that she had been way overly sensitive, but I guess I got the message, but I felt so bad that I had confused my friend who was somehow in the same brain space as this other girl who had slapped me. OMG, I felt terrible for accusing her. I didn't even care and it was something that I thought was funny, which is why I brought up in a whimsical way for us to laugh about, but I had from her point of view I suppose actually accused her. The point is that for me the memory seemed so real and clear.
So, I am not saying that has anything to do with Dylan Farrow, but rather how our memories can deceive us and seem so real. I feel that after 30 years the fact that Dylan is still traumatized by whatever happened and willing to go globally public with an almost intent to kill Woody is despicable, and it has more to do with her family, Mia Farrow's style, if you can call it that, or parenting. Her reaction as you say is troubling, but this was not a violent rape that left her physically and mentally and emotionally destroyed ... this even if you accept her version of events ( and I do not ) to be crying and shaking and unable to look at trains, this is a person with a psychology so fragile, that even in the household of a very wealthy mother with constant therapy she has these reactions 30 years later ... to me it all adds up to absurd, and viciousness.
I would allow for the case where perhaps, but almost impossible, that this is viciousness that is certainly kept alive and amplified by Mia Farrow's approval, and aimed like a assassin's rifle at Woody Allen. Bear in mind that also no one would give this a second thought if she could not work herself up into this frenzy on camera, so she subconsciously knows that, and out comes whatever is needed.
But also, aside from that, there is enough weirdness and ambiguity, that HBO in making this awful documentary and not even attempting to give both sides of the story ... well, it just seems like a total injustice, and certainly not the implication of a fair trail as the title "Allen V. Farrow" would falsely advertise.
Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense.
I haven't had anything that dramatic as an illustration, but I have had it where my memory has played tricks on me in small, innocuous ways. Combine that with a lot of reading about the fallibility of human memory and how easily-manipulated it is and it becomes rather unsurprising that Dylan would swear to such a story that her mother has insisted on for her entire life. In fact, the shock would be if she didn't believe it.
Frankly, I believe Moses, and I think it's despicable that the hashtaggers don't see the hypocrisy in ignoring that victim. He, too, makes a claim of victimhood (in far less of a grandstanding way) but is ignored because he isn't as mainstream as the other Farrows and because that would involve bringing nuance or doubt into their worlds.
My personal suspicion is that Mia perceives Woody's relationship with Soon-Yi as one of paedophilic incest. And, to some extent, fair enough; I can only imagine the gutpunch it would have been to find those photos. But the problem (for Mia, anyway) is that Woody can't actually be brought to task for this. Soon-Yi is a consenting adult who isn't related to Allen. Mia thinks this is just a technical loophole. How will she get him arrested for what she believes are his moral sins?
Ah-ha. She'll make up a second charge to fulfill her perception of the first.
That's where she goes from relatable to psychotic, and we see further evidence of this within Moses' testimony of her behaviour towards her children. Even assuming Moses is wrong about Dylan, assuming that is a lie, the rest of it should be deeply troubling to anybody.
I think it is a good point about how they dismiss Moses' claim of abuse, and all the family stands together, but they do admit things that are generally know and admitted, such as Mia throwing a ceramic figure at SoonYi ...
From SoonYi's interview:
https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html
Farrow also resorted, as Soon-Yi describes it, to “arbitrarily showing her power”: slapping Soon-Yi across the face and spanking her with a hairbrush or calling her “stupid” and “moronic.” Sometimes, according to Soon-Yi, Farrow lost it completely, as when she threw a porcelain rabbit that her mother had given her at Soon-Yi (“She never really liked it,” Soon-Yi wryly observes. “That’s probably why she threw it at me”), smashing it to pieces and startling both of them. “I could see from the expression on her face that she felt she had gone too far. Because it could have really hurt me.”
They have to be way too careful and consistent, and they have not always been. Their story has been all over the place, not to mention the history of that family, and lots of other things you find out if you read about it.
But they vilify Moses' experience and then all fall in line behind Mia and Dylan. It is like the police would say when all the criminals tell exactly the same story - it's rehearsed. share