We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, March 4. 2014
Some of our readers enjoy Allen's movies. I do. My first date with the future Mrs. BD was to see Sleeper. Does the man have any moral foundation? I doubt it. Talent? Undoubtably. What is wrong with the people in the film biz?
A shrink friend sent me this comment:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Some of our readers enjoy Allen's movies. I do."
Well, there is no accounting for some folks lack of taste!
Just kidding, I've never understood or appreciated Woody Allen's sense of humor and most likely never will. And, nor do I feel like I'm missing anything.
It didn't help when I explained to others while in college that I didn't enjoy Woody Allen's films that I was accused of being anti-Semitic.
Unrelated FYI: your Eclectic blogroll includes the Anchoress, who now blogs from Patheos: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/
"Allen cites an exhaustive investigation at Yale Child Study Center," but he leaves a lot out. Even as I read his statement I was alert to what was not being said. I finished it and thought "he is lying by omission." That is a lot of what I do for a living, though. (The rest of the speculation of how a child might come to believe an untruth or a partial truth is just that - speculation. Best not to diagnose Dylan until we have a proven symptom for her, either.)
Then this came out:
Those aren't the same thing as guilt. And "guilty of exactly what?" would also be a fair question. Lastly, things believed but not proven have different status than things proven. But whatever else is happening, he's lying. As the post is more about truth than Woody Allen, I think that's an important piece to keep in mind. People can have pieces of the truth, or neglected portions of the truth. Truth is of course relative in that way. But at ground level, no. We think that Dylan and Mia might be lying, and can devise explanations for why.
But we know Woody is lying, at least in part.
I followed the link and read the piece. Interesting, thanks.
Shrinks are an untrustworthy sort. So I put very little stock in their opinions. Except as a source of humor. Especially Piaget and his wacky ideas about child development. Woody Allen had a certain amount of talent appealing mostly to the earnest, young, smart set. A talent for humor. Which, if you are fortunate, you graduate from, in time. Graduate to grouchiness, which is just where we all need to be.
I happen to love Woody Allen's films. Always have, even as a kid. Intelligent and introspective humor. He had a dry patch during the late 80s and early 90s, but he's come back strong with some very good films, most notably Match Point and Midnight in Paris.
It was because of Woody that I was introduced to Ingmar Bergman, Sergei Eisenstein, and in Manhattan I fell in love with Rhapsody in Blue, which is still a tune which goes through my head whenever I see the Manhattan skyline.
His early films were a mix of slapstick and highbrow insights on culture and intelligentsia. The scene with him pulling Marshall McLuhan into a discussion in Annie Hall was brilliant, as were the two scenes with Christopher Walken.
But whether Woody is lying matters little to me. It's not my family, and whatever behavior he engaged won't alter how I feel about his films. I still love Chinatown, but I'm happy Roman Polanski won't step foot back in the US.
As for the psychology of the situation, as a child of a bitter divorce, I can think back at the damage that may have been, and in some cases is still being worked out among my siblings. My brother and I, old enough to understand but too young to fully process, muddled through with difficulty. It took years of spending time with my father, who I saw little of in my youth, to finally reach a point of release.
Both sides would launch broadsides, aimed poorly, and designed to seem as if they were looking out for the children's 'best interests'. Neither side cared much about the damage their claims or actions would impart. My mother was a caring and nurturing type, and wonderful in so many ways. Yet she always held a grudge and still does. While she doesn't hold it against the kids, she is always vocal in her dislike of the fact we actually enjoy seeing our father. She tries to sound as if she's happy for us, but there is always the backhanded compliment and the snarky remark.
My father has gotten past that. He realized, at some point which I can't determine, that you can't make everybody happy so he just doesn't worry about it anymore. When he was younger and he felt his income was being wasted or hoarded by my mother (it wasn't) through child support, he was actively lobbying the kids for information. Soon, when the information he hoped for never materialized, he stopped caring about it.
Divorces are sometimes (usually) ugly. Kids can and will get hurt. They can and will make up stories. I know I had a few of my own when I was younger - nothing as substantial as what Woody is accused of, but enough to know that as I got older it was easier to just let it all go and move on.
What I see in the drama here is simply people seeking to place blame for their problems in life. I've got a million problems, but my parents' bitter divorce and the use of us kids as pawns is hardly one of them. I'm more likely to deal with my issues head on than blame someone else and seek some form of retribution.
My ex-wife, god bless her, was absolutely convinced her father had molested her. She had many symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Many shrinks would diagnose her as a victim of abuse and claim her bpd was a result of the abuse.
I, having known her, and having heard her stories realize her accounts of abuse were, in fact, a manifestation of her disorder and not, in fact, the cause of it.
This is a difficult issue. It is not cut-and-dried. Kids can be coached(convinced) they have have been victimized without the reality of such vivtimization.
RE your Woody Allen post - I noticed a common lack of grasp of the English which is common among liberals and recent grads.
It is you're, NOT your. It seems no one can write an acceptable sentence anymore (with exceptions).