tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post5700433202779537382..comments2023-11-03T06:02:02.128-07:00Comments on By Ken Levine: Rejecting Woody AllenBy Ken Levinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17305293821975250420noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-77559080711109926012013-08-15T01:49:48.122-07:002013-08-15T01:49:48.122-07:00Johnny Walker Said:
Not sure what I've done t...Johnny Walker Said:<br /><br />Not sure what I've done to deserve that attack, Anonymous. I loved Ken's post and enjoy Allen's films. I just happen to have read a great deal about Woody Allen, and I've never met anyone who's done the same and not come to the same conclusions. Allen talks openly about being happy to work with Farrow again in Woody Allen on Woody Allen, for instance, and he's said in many other interviews that he doesn't understand what the big deal is.<br /><br />"The heart wants what the heart wants" is his common refrain.<br /><br />But I think Judd Apatow had a good response:<br />"Yes. The heart wants what the heart wants, but that doesn't mean you have to give it what it wants."<br /><br />Sorry for getting pissy with you, Johnny. My bad.<br /><br />As far as Woody, you and I both don't know all that was happening over there, but I'll bet it's a lot more complicated than what Farrow's stooges (or Woody's) could "leak" to the press. I've heard secondhand from someone I trust that the Farrow household was quite... eccentric. I've heard it said, and I could be wrong, that even though Farrow thinks of herself as a great mom for an army of kids, some with handicaps, she preferred to get up daily at the crack of 2 pm, and no earlier, leaving the child raising to the nanny. I've heard more than that, but I won't share it.<br />She has also made allegations of child molestation of, unless my memory betrays me, at least one of Woody's biological children. If that was a false allegation, wouldn't the person who made it be considered... evil?<br />With that in mind, it seems odd that the "molested" children, now adults, have never filed charges, or made any hint of a claim that those allegations were true.<br />If you were to say you believed both parties might be a bit of an asshole, I would say "fair enough," but it's not fair or accurate to put the whole load on Woody.<br />Again, sorry I jumped on you like that. It was wrong. I guess I'm a bit of an asshole too at times!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-7394558248252216772013-08-13T17:06:48.945-07:002013-08-13T17:06:48.945-07:00Not to get us off-track from getting off-track, bu...Not to get us off-track from getting off-track, but am I the only one who read this piece less as an 'attack' on Woody Allen, and more as a very funny takedown of THE NEW YORKER's tendency to kiss the asses of well-connected, self-serious celebrities? Whether or not Woody Allen is still funny is beside the point, isn't it?<br /><br />(He is, though).Brian Doanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17903729233401672600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-42665751942227381122013-08-13T16:38:40.357-07:002013-08-13T16:38:40.357-07:00Yes, Woody makes plenty of films and doesn't b...Yes, Woody makes plenty of films and doesn't bat 1.000. So what? It's obviously something he enjoys doing, and most of his movies at least have a little bit going for them. ("Midnight In Paris" was a delightful film.) There's something to be said for such a prolific output; it's sort of reminiscent of the old days of the studio system, when Joan Blondell or Glenda Farrell was invariably working. Can anyone demonstrably prove that the quality of Allen's movies would measurably improve if he cut back? As long as his health is up to it, more power to him.VP81955https://www.blogger.com/profile/11792390726196611188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-56137539100880317972013-08-13T14:48:42.911-07:002013-08-13T14:48:42.911-07:00And let me add (and I promise I'll stop) I don...And let me add (and I promise I'll stop) I don't know if Ken is jealous or not. I don't Ken from Adam, other than what I read here. I don't know what compels Ken to write about Woody Allen the way he does. <br /><br />All I was saying, regardless of the reason, to an outsider like me (and a loyal reader) it is beginning to sound like something less than savory.<br /><br />Call it feedback from a fan. billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-66944843161496865972013-08-13T14:27:25.500-07:002013-08-13T14:27:25.500-07:00Yes that is my quote and it has no bearing on what...Yes that is my quote and it has no bearing on what you quoted me as saying. <br /><br />Do I really need to explain the difference to you? <br /><br />I never said ""if you don't like Allen's writing, you must be jealous of him." My girlfriend doesn't like Allen's writing and she is certainly not jealous of him. I'm sure lots of writers don't like Allen's writing, and I don't think they are jealous as a result of that.<br /><br />What I said and meant was that it would be hard, in my opinion, not to look at Ken's continued bashing of Woody Allen and not think professional jealousy. <br /><br />Those writers who don't like Woody's writing are not compelled to write about Woody's writing so consistently and so negatively, skipping over the biggest success of his career "Midnight in Paris" and choosing to write about a bad article he wrote while ignoring the latest movie that is doing bigger business than Midnight in Paris. <br /><br />My point is that it would be hard for a reasonable person not to think that the person who did that, regardless of who that person was, was not a bit jealous of the clear current success of the person who he feels (my opinion) somewhat betrayed by. <br /><br />so....not the same thing at all.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-73587213945027131732013-08-13T14:08:16.371-07:002013-08-13T14:08:16.371-07:00Bill, here's your quote:
"Got to say, yo...Bill, here's your quote:<br /><br />"Got to say, your continued bashing of Woody Allen always strikes me a a low point in an otherwise great blog. It is really hard to see someone rip into the closest America has to a national treasure and not think: professional jealousy."<br /><br />If your meaning wasn't that Levine, a professional writer, was jealous of Allen, another professional writer, then what did you mean? <br /><br />My point about Levine's reviews of Allen's movies are no less valid because Levine didn't agree with the majority of critics. My point was that Levine can hold the opinion that a Woody Allen movie sucks without accusing him of professional jealousy. Levine can even hold the opinion that the majority of the movies that Allen made over the past decade sucked, without his opinion being based on the theory that he was jealous of Allen's....what? Ability? Notoriety? Prolificity? Tom Swoffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-85499247511192122002013-08-13T13:50:24.008-07:002013-08-13T13:50:24.008-07:00Tom,
I guess your point would have some validity...Tom, <br /><br />I guess your point would have some validity if Ken had reviewed the two recent films that have been universally praised: Midnight in Paris and Blue Sapphire. He didn't. And I think most people would disagree about Match Point and Vicky Christina Barcelona. <br /><br />Ken's entitled to his opinion as are you. <br /><br />and I never said "if you don't like Allen's writing, you must be jealous of him" . If you are going to misquote me out of context, please don't put quotes around it. billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-20554684957915984442013-08-13T13:44:49.846-07:002013-08-13T13:44:49.846-07:00But Ken, I really do love your blog otherwise. Wel...But Ken, I really do love your blog otherwise. Well...except the sports ones. billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-66686494292165516612013-08-13T13:41:34.236-07:002013-08-13T13:41:34.236-07:00And I would suggest to you Bill that it isn't ...And I would suggest to you Bill that it isn't Levine that is in a rut as far as writing goes; it may be Woody Allen. Ken Levine isn't the only writer who criticizes Allen's movies over the past decade.<br /><br />Once again, Levine doesn't think that Allen's latest efforts are stellar. You do. When Levine writes that he doesn't think they are stellar, well, that's what writers and critics are supposed to do. You don't agree with him? Great. That's your right, just like it's Levine's right. You lose me when you claim that Levine has a personal bias against Allen because he writes bad reviews of Allen's movies "too often". You aren't willing to concede the point that maybe Levine writes many bad reviews of Allen's movies because Levine believes Allen makes too many bad movies as of late.<br /><br />You evidently think that Allen hasn't made any bad movies, only some that aren't as excellent as others. One could accuse you of the same myopic viewpoint as that which you're accusing Levine, only in reverse.<br /><br />You have a right to your opinion, just as Levine does. It's your "if you don't like Allen's writing, you must be jealous of him" viewpoint that rankles me.Tom Swoffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-41236554033072820212013-08-13T13:08:03.816-07:002013-08-13T13:08:03.816-07:00"Anonymous Tom Swofford said...
So Woody..."Anonymous Tom Swofford said...<br /><br /> So Woody Allen is the closest thing we have to a national treasure, huh? That must leave people like Jonas Salk, or Neil Armstrong, or Chesley Sullenberger (or about 10,000 other people) feeling like they couldn't make the cut"<br /><br />Sorry, my reference was to the Japanese Living National Treasures which are all drawn from the arts. should have been clearer. <br /><br />As for Ken's Woody bias, the thing that finally ticked me off was this was the third article on Woody in a row that basically had the same argument: he writes too much. <br /><br />From "http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2012/07/review-to-rome-with-love.html" <br /><br />we read his review of To Rome with Love "How many movies does a writer/director have to make before he no longer has to follow any rules of logic or good storytelling? "<br /><br />from Vicky Christina Barcelona/Woody Allen Badwriting : http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2009/01/vicky-christina-barcelonawoody-allen.html<br /><br />we have "<br />It’s just that he hasn’t been his best for a really long time. Year after year he cranks out movies faster than Apple rolls out new iPod models. And like iPods usually it’s the exact same product with a different size or color. Even his best received film of late, MATCH POINT. was just recycled CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS. " <br /><br />from Match Point "I know I’m spitting on the cross but I didn’t love MATCH POINT. I liked it…parts of it…and this was the first Woody Allen movie in five years that wasn’t lame, pathetic, and embarrassing so that’s a good thing – but it sure wasn’t CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. And it was easy to compare because…."This film is just Woody Allen resorting to old tricks (albeit some of his best old tricks). All that’s missing is Tony Roberts. "<br /><br />http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2006/01/match-point.html<br /><br />I got it. Ken doesn't think Woody is any good any more and should stop writing the same thing. I'm suggesting that Ken might be in his own little rut when it comes to writing about Woody.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-48727211427258558042013-08-13T11:08:16.496-07:002013-08-13T11:08:16.496-07:00I think complaining about Allen's steady outpu...I think complaining about Allen's steady output somehow misses the point.<br /><br />Allen makes a picture every year because A.) he wants to, and B.) the worldwide marketplace wants him to.<br /><br />So he does. If Ken, or any other creative types here on the board, were in the same position, you might do it too. Including me.<br /><br />Having just finished and enjoyed Burt Bacharach's new candid memoir, and watched many of his clips on YouTube, he's the first to admit he's written a lot of stuff that isn't very good. And he's a Master. It's just the nature of the beast.<br /><br />Over the last ten years, WA has done four pictures anyone might be proud to have their name on: MATCH POINT, VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS and now BLUE JASMINE. <br /><br />Sure, we had to get through the dreadful HOLLYWOOD ENDING, and I thought Woody himself came off badly in ANYTHING ELSE and SCOOP. <br /><br />WHATEVER WORKS was a "trunk" script, that should have stayed in the trunk.<br /><br />That leaves MELINDA & MELINDA, CASSANDRA'S DREAM, YOU WILL MEET A TALL, DARK STRANGER and TO ROME WITH LOVE. None great, but all worth watching to some degree. <br /><br />And this is a fallow decade?<br /><br />Sign me up.Dixon Steelenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-15051800424428520172013-08-13T10:11:51.290-07:002013-08-13T10:11:51.290-07:00Not sure what I've done to deserve that attack...Not sure what I've done to deserve that attack, Anonymous. I loved Ken's post and enjoy Allen's films. I just happen to have read a great deal about Woody Allen, and I've never met anyone who's done the same and not come to the same conclusions. Allen talks openly about being happy to work with Farrow again in Woody Allen on Woody Allen, for instance, and he's said in many other interviews that he doesn't understand what the big deal is.<br /><br />"The heart wants what the heart wants" is his common refrain.<br /><br />But I think Judd Apatow had a good response:<br />"Yes. The heart wants what the heart wants, but that doesn't mean you have to give it what it wants."<br /><br />As for me: Don't worry, I know I'm far from perfect. I try to do my best, though.Johnny Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13302545167970532080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-80178531671330001352013-08-13T10:07:17.152-07:002013-08-13T10:07:17.152-07:00In all fairness, I haven't read Allen's pi...In all fairness, I haven't read Allen's piece, but even geniuses can produce crap that shouldn't see the light of day. Case in point: The Day The Clown Cried. BTW, there's some footage (apparently from a Dutch TV documentary) relating to it that just surfaced; check it out if you haven't seen it.<br />Alan Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-3136767773055478972013-08-13T10:04:11.434-07:002013-08-13T10:04:11.434-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnny Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13302545167970532080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-90249724341175533302013-08-13T07:16:59.522-07:002013-08-13T07:16:59.522-07:00So Woody Allen is the closest thing we have to a n...So Woody Allen is the closest thing we have to a national treasure, huh? That must leave people like Jonas Salk, or Neil Armstrong, or Chesley Sullenberger (or about 10,000 other people) feeling like they couldn't make the cut. <br /><br />We get it, Bill. You like Woody Allen. That doesn't mean for a second that Allen is above criticism. Don't have a seizure; it's ok to think that something Allen has created isn't perfect. It doesn't negate his entire body of work because one thing doesn't match up to his previous quality. <br /><br />Sometimes people produce dreck, and it doesn't mean that someone else is jealous when they point out that it's dreck. And disagreeing with your opinions about someone's work isn't a personal attack on them, and it's not an attempt to invalidate YOUR opinion of them, so why do you seem to take it so personally? I've been reading Ken's blog for years, and I haven't noticed any Allen bias. He smacks Judd Apatow around a whole lot more than he ever did Woody Allen.<br /><br />Tom Swoffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-33330760031932112202013-08-13T04:03:40.111-07:002013-08-13T04:03:40.111-07:00Your rejection letter was far funnier than Woody&#...Your rejection letter was far funnier than Woody's piece, which read like it was written by someone with a tin ear (and no sense of humor) trying to imitate Woody Allen's style. Disappointing to say the least.Ellenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06794791220323089387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-6743660243312822312013-08-13T01:06:52.187-07:002013-08-13T01:06:52.187-07:00Next week: Jerry Lewis.Next week: Jerry Lewis.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06248182899977033579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-67038183653960532192013-08-12T23:16:34.270-07:002013-08-12T23:16:34.270-07:00bill ... you really know how to take a line out of...bill ... you really know how to take a line out of context and run with it!Marty Fufkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-50799244586905364322013-08-12T20:27:00.198-07:002013-08-12T20:27:00.198-07:00J. Walker: Thanks for the correction. I an usually...J. Walker: Thanks for the correction. I an usually a careful writer (and editor, my profession) but in this case didn't care enough about the details to look it up. <br /><br />Farrow married Frank Sinatra when she was 21 and he was 51. Perhaps she shouldn't have been totally surprised that Allen in his 50s also would develop an interest in a 21-year-old.<br />gottacooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-5642595738720354712013-08-12T18:27:21.871-07:002013-08-12T18:27:21.871-07:00Ken, Just got back from a road trip and caught a F...Ken, Just got back from a road trip and caught a Frasier from the last season written only by David. When did you guys decide it was okay to write individually instead of as a team? And what have you written without David?williebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-38946442772391802242013-08-12T17:58:27.673-07:002013-08-12T17:58:27.673-07:00Well, I've been inspired by this blog post to ...Well, I've been inspired by this blog post to attempt to deconstruct one of Woody's lesser triumphs, To Rome with Love, in order to make the case that even with a uneven effort, there is still a lot going on. <br /><br />First: a big portion of the movie IS IN ITALIAN. exclamation point implied. <br /><br />It is a vignette movie that uses a very simple device to pull all the stories together: the Rome traffic cop who sees all of humanity each day, both literally and figuratively and who provides the function of connecting multiple stylistically different elements and providing the exposition into each story. <br /><br />The stories themselves are each from unique influences. We have the Restoration comedy/ traveling salesman / light comedy of the newly wed bumpkins coming to the big city and having a comic sex romp. <br /><br />You have an experimental section that plays with structure with the Alex Baldwin character perhaps imaging himself and trying to advice his younger self on life and love. No explanation is given for his comings and goings from a scene but it still works in telling a tale of sexual manipulation. narcissism, betrayal, weakness. <br /><br />The section with Roberto Benigni as a person who suddenly finds himself famous for no other reason than he is famous. Benigni's comic timing is brilliant as always. It is a wonderful dadaist homage as well as comic brilliance that couldn't sustain an entire movie but works wonderfully in the context of a series of stories. <br /><br />And finally, taking that one comic idea that we all relate to: only being able to sing in the shower to its wonderfully absurd conclusion. <br /><br />four examples of story telling, wrapped in the convenience of the traffic cop who bookends the movie, it is a gem of film making, story telling, experimentation, and in ITALIAN and all in his late 70's. <br /><br />And to top it all off....it looked beautiful. billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-43408101421351439292013-08-12T15:53:38.791-07:002013-08-12T15:53:38.791-07:00I'm a devoted Woody Allen fan, but, in fairnes...I'm a devoted Woody Allen fan, but, in fairness to all (because clearly I'm the arbiter of such things):<br /><br />The reason Ken gets accused of bashing Woody Allen is not that he criticizes Woody, but that the posts seem to have a snarky quality to them that greatly outweighs their humorousness. For Ken to be more obnoxious than funny, naturally people may take that as simple bashing. I just take it as below-par writing for Ken (which is circumstantially ironic given the nature of the post, if circumstantial irony really does exist and isn't just something made up by people ashamed to admit they don't know what dramatic irony is).<br /><br />Woody Allen's work has always been uneven, but it has certainly become moreso over time (despite the fact that "moreso" isn't actually a word). He would clearly benefit from making fewer movies and writing more than three drafts of each instead of making every movie that comes into his head. I think the problem, both in terms of the quality and quantity is that he's come to look at filmmaking as his hobby now instead of his career.<br /><br />Woody clearly did hurt several people by marrying who he did. It's a shame, too, because it's the first time in history that a love affair caused collateral damage. Humanity had a perfect record until then. Incidentally, they're still married after 16 years. <br /><br />To Anonymous: 1) Seriously, with all the times Ken has asked people to leave SOME name, you couldn't even make up some ridiculous fake name? 2) So, Johnny Walker isn't allowed to voice his opinion or report information he's read without being personally attacked? <br /><br />Now, I'm bored with my own comment at this point (I'm no Woody Allen, clearly) so I'll just put this comment out of its misery and post it if I can read the fucking "prove you're not a robot" thing.<br /><br />See, wasn't that fair?Dorkenheimer, King of the Squid Peoplenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-31775554170277474782013-08-12T15:32:04.765-07:002013-08-12T15:32:04.765-07:00"His lack of effort is puzzling."
I sho..."His lack of effort is puzzling."<br /><br />I should suffer from such a lack of effort. Lack of effort! Because Woody doesn't think he has made as good a film as Fellini doesn't mean that others don't think so. <br /><br />Maybe this is an LA thing. I like to think in New York we celebrate the artists we've been blessed to have watched in our life time. I don't think anyone asked for their money back when Elaine Stritch performed her last concert. <br /><br />But Woody isn't Elaine Stritch. Some might argue that with Midnight in Paris and now with Blue Jasmine are some of his best mature works and certainly better than almost - scratch almost -every other movie in the theaters today. <br /><br />And lets face it: To Rome With Love might not have been one of his greatest but it had some wonderful comic moments and it was an amazingly well crafted film: the film of someone who knows exactly what he is doing. <br /><br />His movies are making money, the bring great enjoyment to many people who look forward each year to the next Woody Allen film, they are all intelligent and entertaining. <br /><br />So, he gets a piece in the new yorker. Haven't read it. Maybe its crap. But why would I choose that to write about? How about : he paid his dues. He doesn't have to prove anything. People like him they go see his movies and he knocks them out of the park MORE in recent years than at any other time in his career. <br /><br />Give the guy a freaking break. billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-87892397555827191132013-08-12T15:29:05.007-07:002013-08-12T15:29:05.007-07:00I feel the same way about Stephen King: enormous q...I feel the same way about Stephen King: enormous quantity, variable quality. And, sadly, the same pronouncements about not having the time to do things as well as he might like. (Why not? What's the pressure to publish just to have something this year?) I admire the urge to create and the clearly enormous talent that gives these folks carte blanche, but I don't admire the "no time" excuse or the seeming unwillingness to evaluate or revise.<br /><br />"Anonymous" also has a tremendous output but I don't think the work holds up.Dodgerdognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-55612936125030132262013-08-12T14:48:25.216-07:002013-08-12T14:48:25.216-07:00I say this as a great admirer of Woody Allen -- Ke...I say this as a great admirer of Woody Allen -- Ken, this is one of your best posts.<br /><br />Back in the day, when Woody was great, he was an original. Nowadays, when he's great, he's imitating his own great works. (I haven't seen Blue Jasmine yet, but your observations don't ring false given what I've seen in his other movies.)<br /><br />I refuse to read his occasional New Yorker pieces, because one I saw a few years ago left me so disillusioned, I don't want to experience that disappointment again.<br /><br />The problem you note, Ken, about how The New Yorker can't reject him because of his iconic status -- that's become his problem overall. His scripts (like his New Yorker pieces) need editing or outright rejection, but no one will tell him. In his heyday, he collaborated with other screen-writers and seasoned film editors who would challenge him, and his work was better for it. Today, he's surrounded by Yes Men.<br /><br />The frustrating thing about him, as someone who admires his art, is that he constantly puts himself down, saying he could never make a film as great as one by Bergman, Fellini, etc. So why doesn't he try? Instead of doing one film a year, how about taking two years to work on something great, and collaborate with others who help him achieve that? His lack of effort is puzzling.Marty Fufkinnoreply@blogger.com