Mladen Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Two years ago, when Dyllan Farrow accused Woody Allen of molestation, we spoke of the idea of separating art from the artist and whether the viewers are able to do so. The name of Roman Polanski have been thrown, for obvious reasons. But, for all their moral failings, one can argue that their work has been made independently of what they have done in their private lives. So, there always was that idea of separation, as bad as it sounded to some people. And then this happened - http://variety.com/2016/film/news/last-tango-in-paris-rape-scene-consensual-bernardo-bertolucci-1201933117/ Can we now "separate" the art? Is it even possible? And has this, rather poignant and important piece of information forever tainted what some thought to be one of the truly exquisite cinematic products? Can we ever watch "Last Tango in Paris" with the same eyes? As much as I am interested in open, honest debate about this and more just in case, please be aware of how sensitive this topic is, so try to address it with needed grace and sensitivity. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 I'm not sure if I could be able to see it in good conscience knowing that the actress was raped on film. I take it back, I couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 This seems fundamentally different from the Woody Allen or Roman Polanski situations, because in this case the 'art' itself is the problem. The movie is whatever the rape equivalent of a snuff film is, and no longer has merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, Fez said: This seems fundamentally different from the Woody Allen or Roman Polanski situations, because in this case the 'art' itself is the problem. The movie is whatever the rape equivalent of a snuff film is, and no longer has merit. It wasn't rape. All the sex was only stimulated. Schneider was told before the shooting started that day of the changes Brando and Bertolucci came up with it and while angry about them, still agreed to went with the shooting. From the Daily Mail interview linked in the Variety article: Quote "That scene wasn't in the original script. The truth is it was Marlon who came up with the idea," she says. "They only told me about it before we had to film the scene and I was so angry. I should have called my agent or had my lawyer come to the set because you can't force someone to do something that isn't in the script, but at the time, I didn't know that. Marlon said to me: 'Maria, don't worry, it's just a movie,' but during the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn't real, I was crying real tears. Yes, it was terrible, manipulative and exploitative by Bertolucci and Brando to put her on the spot like this, especially given that she was only 19 and apparently didn't know much about the industry and they were huge names in it, but it doesn't make it a rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I agree with Fez in that this is fundamentally different from the arguments against Polanski or Allen. In those cases we have artists accused of doing horrible things, quite separate from their art; in this case the horrible thing is part of the art. And while David Selig is correct in saying that Schneider was not physically raped, the terror, humiliation, and pain we see from her on screen are real. Forcing her to experience that terror, humiliation, and pain, without her true consent, was a stated part of Bertolucci's artistic process. It cannot be separated from the art, because it is the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted December 5, 2016 Author Share Posted December 5, 2016 7 hours ago, Fez said: This seems fundamentally different from the Woody Allen or Roman Polanski situations, because in this case the 'art' itself is the problem. The movie is whatever the rape equivalent of a snuff film is, and no longer has merit. Of course... While the entire argument of separating the art from the artist can indeed be invoked in those cases, here the art itself is tainted. This wasn't the first time I hear about this, but it was more of a rumor. This is truly, truly, abhorrent. And it just puts in context to what degree some directors are ready to go to extract the raw emotions from the actors. One has to wonder how many of these cases happened that are still not revealed. Is Bertolucci the only one? I am afraid he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 On 12/5/2016 at 10:23 AM, David Selig said: It wasn't rape. All the sex was only stimulated. Schneider was told before the shooting started that day of the changes Brando and Bertolucci came up with it and while angry about them, still agreed to went with the shooting. I think you could still argue it was rape. You can be told about something in advance and technically agree to it, but its not really consensual because you didn't feel you had a real choice. And I haven't seen the movie so I don't know what exactly Brando did with the butter, but being raped by an object is possible. On 12/5/2016 at 5:10 PM, Risto said: And it just puts in context to what degree some directors are ready to go to extract the raw emotions from the actors. One has to wonder how many of these cases happened that are still not revealed. Is Bertolucci the only one? I am afraid he isn't. I think it happens all the time, just not necessarily always to this degree. There's tons of stories like the one about John McTiernan shooting the scene in Die Hard where Alan Rickman falls off the building before he was ready so that the surprise would be genuine (he wasn't in real danger, but falling 25 feet without warning is going to be a scary experience). If directors are happy to tell stories like that, even though the actors involved were extremely upset by it all, it makes me readily believe that there are also much worse stories that directors don't usually go into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Yeah, there are a lot of terrible stories about perfectionist directors going overboard "for art", and some of the most famous were among the most abusive. Hitchcock for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuenjato Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 This was a thing for El Topo, in the late 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 Here we are back again... It's 2018 and we have to open this can of worms again... So, long story short, what do you think, is Woody Allen's career finally over? And, if Weinstein created the "Oscar game", will his legacy ever die, since, they are all taking notes from his book of tricks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Risto said: Here we are back again... It's 2018 and we have to open this can of worms again... So, long story short, what do you think, is Woody Allen's career finally over? And, if Weinstein created the "Oscar game", will his legacy ever die, since, they are all taking notes from his book of tricks? I don't think Allen's career is over, nor it should. His case is not comparable to Spacey or Weinstein. Those are clearly sexual predators with dozens of accusations going back decades. Allen's case was investigated, dismissed without ever going to trial, and there's more than enough evidence for at least giving him the benefit of the doubt. The Oscar game existed before Weinstein, he was just better at it than most, and will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Cases that don't hold up in court do not automatically indicate that there was nothing there. It's dangerous to claim so. Sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to bring to trial, and from there to convict. People like Woody Allen don't get a pass just because his case didn't make it to court. The shitbag is married to his own step daughter, a relationship that began when she was still a child. Woody Allen has another child who has accused him of molestation. When he's already had relations with an underage step child, there's literally no good reason to refuse to believe claims from the other children in the household. As for separating the art from the artist. Depends. I refuse to see any of Polanski's work. Same with Woody Allen. It's rather easy for me to ignore the works of people like Spacey and Franco because I didn't care for them anyway. The problem is that some of these horrific people are so prolific that it's almost impossible to separate them from the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Cases that don't hold up in court do not automatically indicate that there was nothing there. It's dangerous to claim so. Sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to bring to trial, and from there to convict. People like Woody Allen don't get a pass just because his case didn't make it to court. The shitbag is married to his own step daughter, a relationship that began when she was still a child. Woody Allen has another child who has accused him of molestation. When he's already had relations with an underage step child, there's literally no good reason to refuse to believe claims from the other children in the household. I didn't say the case not holding in court means he didn't do it, But just because he's accused doesn't mean he's guilty And there's good reason to doubt the claims against him: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/05/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-moses https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/movies/mia-farrow-woody-allen-abuse.html Mind you, again, I don't know if he's guilty or not. But the celebrities now trying to distance themselves from him don't know it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 With the Woody Allen thing I would tend to side with @Dr. Pepper on this one. I have only casually read about the issues surrounding him, but the fact that he married his step daughter should raise the reddest of flags that something is clearly wrong in how he sees young girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 28 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said: I didn't say the case not holding in court means he didn't do it, But just because he's accused doesn't mean he's guilty And there's good reason to doubt the claims against him: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/05/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-moses https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/movies/mia-farrow-woody-allen-abuse.html Mind you, again, I don't know if he's guilty or not. But the celebrities now trying to distance themselves from him don't know it either. Yes, over the years we've heard plenty of excuses for why a dude who had a relationship with his underage stepdaughter and then married her (a girl who had experienced some extreme childhood trauma, btw) is innocent. There is a long history of attempting to discredit victims and bleat that the accused is innocent. Again, this is a shitbag who started a relationship with his underaged step daughter. Then married her. The celebrities distancing themselves from him now are decades too late. You can accuse the victim of lying all you want, but he freely admits to molesting his underage step daughter. That should be enough even with all the discrediting of her other victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Yes, over the years we've heard plenty of excuses for why a dude who had a relationship with his underage stepdaughter and then married her (a girl who had experienced some extreme childhood trauma, btw) is innocent. There is a long history of attempting to discredit victims and bleat that the accused is innocent. Again, this is a shitbag who started a relationship with his underaged step daughter. Then married her. The celebrities distancing themselves from him now are decades too late. You can accuse the victim of lying all you want, but he freely admits to molesting his underage step daughter. That should be enough even with all the discrediting of her other victim. Soon-yi wasn't underage when she started her relationship with Allen, and the fact you have to resort to ad hominem attacks and trying to say I'm blaming the victim clearly shows you're not mature enough to have a discussion of the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said: Soon-yi wasn't underage when she started her relationship with Allen, and the fact you have to resort to ad hominem attacks and trying to say I'm blaming the victim clearly shows you're not mature enough to have a discussion of the subject. Her presumed date of birth is 1970. The relationship started in the late 80s. I assume you can do basic math. And yeah, you're victim blaming if you're posting those articles. And now you're insulting people who stand up for victims. The problem with people like you is that you are what is known as a 'perfect victim seeker'. That's what most of the attacks on Dylan have been. People who defend someone like Woody Allen have some serious issues. You're not mature if you're standing up for someone like that. You're just a terrible person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 16 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said: Soon-yi wasn't underage when she started her relationship with Allen, and the fact you have to resort to ad hominem attacks and trying to say I'm blaming the victim clearly shows you're not mature enough to have a discussion of the subject. Yeah, this is IMO a horrible response to this issue / subject. If the "relationship" started when she turned 18 (or close to it), then did he magically just then develop the feelings for her? Did he suddenly stop seeing her as a daughter and instead a sexual being? Last part, an 18 ish year old doesn't START a relationship with their 40+ year old step dad, it would be the other way around. I know it's probably just semantics in how you typed it, but you worded it like it was a kids idea and not the grown man. This subject matter will always be tough to discuss for a lot of people without emotions getting involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 The way Woody Allen has spoken about Soon-yi is also deeply disturbing. For example: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/04/the_most_disturbing_thing_woody_allen_has_ever_said_about_his_wife_soon.html Quote Allen hasn’t done much to counter the appearance that his conceptions of fatherhood and sexuality are pathologically intertwined. In an interview with NPR last July, he explained his union with Previn thusly: I was paternal. She responded to someone paternal. I liked her youth and energy. She deferred to me, and I was happy to give her an enormous amount of decision-making just as a gift and let her take charge of so many things. She flourished. ... Oh, well, one of the great experiences of my life has been my wife. She had a very, very difficult upbringing in Korea: She was an orphan on the streets, living out of trash cans and starving as a 6-year-old. And she was picked up and put in an orphanage. And so I've been able to really make her life better. I provided her with enormous opportunities, and she has sparked to them. She's educated herself and has tons of friends and children and got a college degree and went to graduate school, and she has traveled all over with me now. She’s very sophisticated and has been to all the great capitals of Europe. She has just become a different person. So the contributions I’ve made to her life have given me more pleasure than all my films. It's truly stomach-turning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 At the risk of getting piled on, I’m kinda with Winterfell is Burning on the Allen subject. Soon-yi was in her 20’s when she and Allen say they began their relationship. Whatever else we think about the icky-ness that relationship, as far as I can tell there’s no evidence that it started when she was underage. As for the allegations about Allen molesting Dylan Farrow, there are reasons why reasonable people might harbor doubts. That doesn’t make them bad people or victim blamers. When we say that victims of sexual violence should be believed, that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that we should suspend our critical thinking; it means that belief should be the default, as it is for victims of other crimes. Did Woody Allen molest Dylan Farrow? I don’t know. But I don’t think the case is so cut and dry as most of us want to believe it is. For the record, I am not a fan of Allen’s art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.