This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Add marriage to Soon Yi. -- Daniel C. Boyer
IMDb lists his name as Allan Stewart Konigsberg, not Stewart Allen. ... ? Any fans who can answer this? --KQ
My Woody Allen biography by Eric Lax says it's "Allan Stewart Konigsberg", so i think IMDb is right. Still, the usenet FAQ states it's "Allen Stewart Konigsberg" -- Michael Schulze
He's written some books too. I'm adding three of them. -- Creativist
He's written some plays, one of which is "God" but I don't see them listed. Here's a source:
http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsA/AllenWoody.htm
The field were Allen has been a real master is humorism writings. Of course he's most known for his movies, but that's just because of cinema having a bigger audience.
I think there should be a big section about his classic trilogy ( Side Effects, Without Feathers, Getting Even), where almost all his writings are gathered. Some facts to report:
--
BMF81 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article claims "The Purple Rose of Cairo" to be Allen's favorite but I have heard that he has never publicly named one. Of course I have also heard "Love and Death" is his favorite. Does anyone have any sources concerning this issue?
Surely actor should be listed in the opening line, yes? (He did act, if not star, in most of his movies) -- "Cyclopsface"
Should Allen really be listed under 'Jewish American Actors", "Jewish Directors" etc.?
I don't think he's Jewish. That's just the character he plays in his movies. In real life, he's an Athiest or an Agnostic or something . . . I think.
Can anyone confirm?
It's, IMHO, foolish not to describe Allen as a Jewish-American director, writer, etc. His Jewish background is a central part of most of his movies and writings and is intrinsically bound up in almost every character he plays on screen. His Judaism is one of Allen's most distinguishing and important characteristics. Also, in response to the note above, you can be an Atheist and still a Jew. (I am.) In the view of many Jews, Judaism is a race and a nation as much as it is a religion, and in America it has particular cultural connotations as well, most of which are exemplified by Allen and his films. Allen is undoubtedly Jewish regardless of whether he believes in God or not. -- Apascover 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, despite what some people say, Judaism is not a race or ethnicity. It is only a religious ideology. The whole "Jewish Race" thing is used by Neonazis to further thier beliefs and by Israeli nationalists to further thiers. -Alex, 12.203.169.186 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC).
Have you ever heard of the development of language? Get a dictionary. Or look it up on wikipedia for Christ's sake! The word Jew or Jewish, whether the word's original meaning was this or not, has developed to be an adjective describing any or more of the following; a culture, a religion, or a race. Quit being pretentious and buy yourself a usage guide to the English language. ( Mschonert 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
Remember to remain civil, Mschonert. Justforasecond 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets get our facts straight. Mia and Woody were never married. Therefore, the use of the term "step-daughter" is factually incorrect. In addition, Soon-Yi was born in 1970, which would make her 22 in 1992. The editorializing of "white man with asian fetish" is absolutely inappropriate. Giles22
This page needs some major work (NPOV, timelines, facts). And while Allen's offbeat looks are certainly a part of his comedy, is this the best photo we can get? Eleemosynary 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
If the charges were dropped, do they merit their own section? They may indeed belong in the article, but perhaps under the heading of the Farrow lawsuit. Also, does anyone have any further info why, if the charge was dismissed (presumably exonerating Allen), he was still barred from seeing his biological children? Was that part of the settlement agreement? Eleemosynary 04:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The details add cited, relevant information to the section. They are not speculative. Only Woody, Dylan, and Farrow know what the truth is (or at least, how they saw it) regarding the initial allegations, but that's always the case. Why should they be left out? - 155.91.28.231 19:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Allen has defended his actions, saying that he never lived with Farrow while they were partners before their sexual relationship. However, Allen has also said of his relationship with Soon-Yi, "It's got a more paternal feeling to it." [4] In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview, Allen described their relationship as having a "more paternal feeling".
Please refrain from calling other's edits "vandalism". It is uncivil and in violation of wiki policies. All of the edits regarding Dylan's abuse are documented. How is that vandalism?
"needs work" is a bit of a jab, don't you think? When I came to this about a week ago it was almost completely unorganized, other editors must have visited this page back then and done nothing to improve it. "Now that it has a TOC it really needs improvement"
Many of the recent edits were unexplained.
The relationship with Farrow was lengthy -- no one said "relationship with Farrow that was EVEN LONGER than with Soon-Yi". Did the description really need to be lowered to the same level as his relationship with Keaton? This change is (sic) pov. Perhaps it is unintentional but it tells the story as if Farrow was just a fling.
Chaning offscreen to personal life is odd -- the section is all about things that happened away from the theaters (with references to movies). It is no more personal or private than the section about his career or gradeschool education.
The initial relationship with Soon-Yi was an affair and he was her stepdaughter at the time (lookup affair and stepfather for definitions). They married later--which has its own section.
Allen's films in the 2000s have been a series of failures. Check out their revenue and reviews -- or just watch them. Melinda and Melinda was unbelievably bad.
Grouping the 1960s and 1970s is just weird. His golden period is from ~75 to ~85, so grouping the 70s and 80s might make sense.
Where did someone get the idea that Seamus has a "phobia" of Allen? It seems inappropriate and gossipy since it isn't even backed up by a source. The Mia Farrow page repeats the same story, while the Seamus Farrow page says nothing about it, and in this article Seamus is quoted as saying "I've looked at the facts and come to my own conclusions. I think the wisest thing is not to talk about it. I'm not angry or twisted in any way." I've replaced the "phobia" thing with a less contentious statement based on the above article--please don't put it back unless you can back it up with an equally reliable source. -- The Famous Movie Director 08:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please stop re-inserting this material, as Woody and Mia never married.
We can work towards a consensus, but it there is currently none -- if there were we wouldn't be having these reverts every day ;)
- Justforasecond 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Why are you so intent on inlcuding unverifiable details of the sexual abuse? He was never tried, charges were dropped. Mia hates Woody more than anything for the Soon Yi business, don't you think she would have pushed these charges further if there any bases for them? Go look in her book or any of her interviews, she never comes CLOSE to saying that Woody masturbated to Dylan or anything like that. It is gossip and does not belong on wikipedia. Giles22 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Giles, you could have asked about that Soon-Yi statement you deleted. It is printed somewhere-out-there but it could take me half an hour to go dig it up. What's the rule for stripping things out that are uncited? - Justforasecond 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC) ~I actually did a search for it, and could not find it. Don't you think that the way the sentence is written and where it is inserted in the article REEKS of POV pushing? Let's be honest about that. It is a deliberate attempt to slander Woody. Is it possible to put forth some of the darker details of Woody's life in an objective, non-character assasinating way? That's all I'm asking. Giles22 15:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I, personally am a fan of Woody Allen. However if they were allegations of sexual abuse, then these are actuall events, and should be reported on in the actual article. Stop being self-involved with your own opinions. JedOs 11:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
from rfc, it's all a matter of proportion & context. a lot of celebrities have had various rumors, allegations, investigations, etc. what is woody allen mostly known for? google can be a good guide as to a person's public impact. the details of the abuse allegations are more appropriate for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. Appleby 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
FACTS? These are disputed! They are also highly speculative. How can you report this as factual info? Including details that he was accused is sufficient. Giles22 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, as long as we keep the basics in a breif paragraph here (took place in aftermath of breakup, no charges were filed, mia said she saw him masturbating over dylan, proecutor didn't want to harm the child so didn't file charges) what do yall think? - Justforasecond 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says, "In 2002 Woody made a surprise appearance at the Academy Awards telecast – his first ever due to his intense dislike of Los Angeles." Can this be substantiated? He is, for example, in Los Angeles right now, where he's making a series of public appearances at Q&A screenings over the next few days promoting his latest film. 207.69.139.154 02:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted.
Farrow claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan. During three weeks of interviews Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her "all over".
During the investigation Allen hired a team of private detectives to "get some dirt" on the investigative team. One of their targets was Sgt. John Mucherino. The investigators wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or gambler, and if he had any marital problems. Some of the detectives were former police officers who were friends with Mucherino.[5]
Prosucutor Frank Maco said he had evidence to charge Allen, but would not do so for Dylan's sake. Of Dylan, Maco said "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery."
Allen subsequently filed a complaint against Maco, which was dismissed.[6].
In Dylan's custody trial, which Allen eventually lost, psychologist Susan Coates testified that Allen's relationship with Dylan was "inappropriately intense", but that she never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward Dylan.
Coates also reported that a 1990 evaluation of Dylan said Dylan would easily be "taken over by fantasy".
As to Farrow, Coates said she was convinced that she might harm herself or Allen. Farrow had made angry phone calls and given Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children. Coates said "I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him". Farrow says the Valentine was not a threat, it was "an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done."
Coates described Farrow's phone call to her reporting the allegations of abuse as puzzlingly calm.[7]
Allen is barred from unsupervised visits with his biological children.
Some of these events echo the plotline of Allen's Husbands and Wives, released at the time of the legal battle In that film, Woody and Mia play a couple whose decade-long relationship is falling apart, with Woody's character becoming attracted to one of his college-age students. Farrow discusses the events in What Falls Away: A Memoir, ISBN 0385471874.
While the Germans spell Konigsberg with an umlaut, Americans don't. In semi-official Allen biographies the umlaut is now used. The umlaut is silly and pretentious. Dinopup 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
is it not fair to say that Woody Allen was influenced by Freud's psychoanalysis? Is it possible that we make one reference to this influence?
JMJ
I just don't think it belongs in that particular sentence with "literature, philosophy, and New York City." Why do you think it should be included? Because some of the characters are in analysis? I don't really see any of Freud's ideas explored in the work. Giles22 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In Annie Hall, often considered his magnum opus, psychoanalytic terms are used throughout
JMJ
It just seems a little strange to me to put it there, but if you really feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it in. Giles22 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that since Woody Allen spent a few years in psychoanalysis and since he seems to make reference to psychoanalytic themes it is worth mentioning. But instead of psychoanalysis i have used psychology - do you feel this word sits better?
JMJ
Psychoanalysis is fine to include in the article, but combining it with "draws on" is problematic. Can you write what you've written above -- that he was in psychoanalysis and makes reference to it in the films -- and put that in the article? He probably does "draw on" it (spend a few years in therapy and I guess it will effect your outlook) but it would be better if d have to find some independent analysis saying so.
Justforasecond 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to make any large changes on this page, firstly because there is no obvious space to enter this infomation and secondly because you seem happy to take control of the page. I am glad that it has come to our attention that "psychoanalysis" needs to be mentioned somewhere.
Here is a quote from the BBC news website:
It is common knowledge that Woody Allen spent years in psychoanalysis, although, he says: "After eight years, I got up from the couch one day and offered my analyst a draw. We shook hands." unsigned comment
On 2005-12-20, 65.185.213.33 added Category:Atheists to this article. Shortly before that, s/he had added Category:Pantheists to several other biographical articles, in no case providing supporting evidence. It looks suspicious to me. Anyone agree? Charivari 08:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In many cases (check with Google) Allen has said he is an agnostic. So, why is he in the Atheists category? Many agnostics feel this is relevant. Also, since Allen is quite a philosopher, his words often need some interpretation. 213.243.160.111 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
i removed a fairly long quote from woody in the 2000s section. it's better to pick out the relevant parts of longer quotes and summarize them. Justforasecond 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
he is a musician too. here is his band webpage: http://www.woodyallenband.com/flash_index.html
I have heard reference to "Woody Allen's only appearance in a sitcom" referring to Just Shoot Me. I have little info since it's been a long while, but I am certain there was a Woody Allen sitcom in the '70's. Starred Woody as loosely himself, Louise Sorel as his wife, and Marty Brill as the next-door neighbor. None of this is on IMDB either! Can anyone flesh this out and also update IMDB?
cjl
I think we should add a filmography to this page, they are pretty helpful for browsing/navigating purposes. If there are no objections I'm going to add one in the next few days. Estrose 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This page needs a lot of work, but I removed a line from the subsection on his relationship with Farrow alluding to the plot of Manhattan, which seems to me pretty much irrelevant for one, and a clearly biased point of view, for another. It was, after all, the last sentence in the section, which seems to encourage readers to make a connection between fictional Tracy and Farrow's allegation of child abuse.
Themightybotox 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I strenously object to your additions to this article. This topic is already sufficiently described without going into heavily biased and highly speculative details of a sole article - claims that even MIA FARROW herself did not make. Giles22 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ought Woody Allen to be categorised as a "Freudian"? Does he really adhere to Freud's theories or is it always tongue-in-cheek when he uses Freud in his movies?
Image:Estatua Woody Allen en Oviedo.jpg
I am just curious as to why they have a statue of him at Oviedo. Do they have statues of other famous people? Or, is Woody Allen really big there? -- Abid Ahmed 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be the French love affair with Jerry Lewis -- inexplicable. Justforasecond 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's the only one famous that have a statue in Uviéu-- Mikel 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It was built in his honor in 2002 when Allen won the Prince of Asturias Arts Prize
Please work out your differences. And remember to source assertions of fact, particularly those that could be considered defamatory. · Ka t efan0 (scribble)/ poll 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are the citations necessary for un-protection. Justforasecond 19:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC
Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted.
Farrow claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan. During three weeks of interviews Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her "all over".
During the investigation Allen hired a team of private detectives to "get some dirt" on the investigative team. One of their targets was Sgt. John Mucherino. The investigators wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or gambler, and if he had any marital problems. Some of the detectives were former police officers who were friends with Mucherino. [9]
Prosucutor Frank Maco said he had evidence to charge Allen, but would not do so for Dylan's sake. Of Dylan, Maco said "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery."
Allen subsequently filed a complaint against Maco, which was dismissed. [10].
In Dylan's custody trial, which Allen eventually lost, psychologist Susan Coates testified that Allen's relationship with Dylan was "inappropriately intense", but that she never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward Dylan.
Coates also reported that a 1990 evaluation of Dylan said Dylan would easily be "taken over by fantasy".
As to Farrow, Coates said she was convinced that she might harm herself or Allen. Farrow had made angry phone calls and given Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children. Coates said "I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him". Farrow says the Valentine was not a threat, it was "an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done."
Coates described Farrow's phone call to her reporting the allegations of abuse as puzzlingly calm. [11]
Allen is barred from unsupervised visits with his biological children.
Some of these events echo the plotline of Allen's Husbands and Wives, released at the time of the legal battle In that film, Woody and Mia play a couple whose decade-long relationship is falling apart, with Woody's character becoming attracted to one of his college-age students. Farrow discusses the events in What Falls Away: A Memoir, ISBN 0385471874.
personal attack removed
Justforasecond is playing games, and his attempt to turn this article into a condemnation of Woody Allen is transparent and laughable. One look at his user page shows he has an axe to grind with Woody Allen, and he'd like to do it here. One would be hard-pressed to find a more unintentionally hilarious line than "the reputable Connecticut magazine." Giles22 is trying to make this an encyclopedic article, and Justforasecond is trying to make it a POV screed, citing allegations in a domestic custody trial as encyclopedic fact. It's not gonna happen. Eleemosynary 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and perhaps acting foolishly to jump into this debate. I was surprised to see that there was so much intense debate that the page needed to be protected. IMHO, the specific details of these sexual abuse allegations aren't relevant to this entry. If the particular allegations were widely reported and/or the subject of a legal proceeding, it would. If a user feels that the allegations deserve greater attention/investigation, Wikipedia is not the place for that.
Can we move on?
I think the section on Soon-Yi needs work:
No doubt Allen's scandalous relationship with Soon-Yi hurt his reputation, though it seems a stretch to so strongly connect this with his box office failures. A lot of those movies received poor reviews and even the good ones seemed unlikely to capture a wide audience (Deconstructing Harry, Sweet and Lowdown, Everyone Says I Love You).
The whole "paternal feeling" comment seems inappropriate. Is it necessary to really further attempt to characterize the relationship after already explaining its context?
This is random and if these films are to be included in this makeshift filmography, they ought to have some kind of explanation justifying it.
And, finally, that section on the 2002 academy awards needs a cite. Here's one from E! Online It notes his distaste for the awards show... - Krwarnke 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"IMHO, the specific details of these sexual abuse allegations aren't relevant to this entry. If the particular allegations were widely reported and/or the subject of a legal proceeding, it would. If a user feels that the allegations deserve greater attention/investigation, Wikipedia is not the place for that." Wow, what a great point! Especially for a newbie. I agree with him 100%. As for [Justforasecond] and his dislike for Woody Allen, I browsed to his userpage where I noted his mention of Soon-Yi as Allen's step-daughter. Of course, we all know that Soon-Yi isn't actually his step daughter because he and Farrow never married, and he never adopted Soon-Yi. Clearly his facts are not to be trusted. Also, IMHO, just because one or two magazines write articles are not enough justifiable evidence for something to be fact. People lie all the time. When it comes to something like this the only facts that can be trusted are official news sources, offical press releases from the person themself, or police evidence. Anything else should not be considered "factual references". If that were the case, we could find lots of evidence to prove all sorts of things about George W. Bush. Vanity Fair slams him in almost every issue, but that doesn't mean they're correct. :: ehmjay 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember to remain civil Ehmjay -- "Clearly his facts are not to be trusted" could be construed as a personal attack. Thanks! Justforasecond 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember to remain civil [User]-- lol, this is getting really old on this particular page. I think he's merely mentioning your "personal vendetta" against Woody Allen, probably evident by statements like this "later movies have mostly been losers (with a recent overrated but bearable exception)" on your user page. And, concerning the comment below, i have a slight suspicion that Allen ever heard of or read that magazine, so he never bothered suing them -- who knows. Anyways, we should and shall remain civil... -- Abid Ahmed 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe you would think that it's best to drop the whole thing and not expose your daughter to what would certainly be a long and painful legal process. But hey, who knows how your mind works? If I may add my two cents here: Justforasecond you are facing what seems to be a concensus that your accusations have no place in this article. Pascal.Tesson 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done some research and come up with the following proposed resolution to our Woody Allen Sex Abuse Allengations issue.
I propose a section entitled, "Custody Battle and Sex Abuse Allegations" or something of the sort. It would fit after the section on Soon-Yi Previn (which I still maintain requires clean-up).
Here's the text:
-- Krwarnke 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Krwarnke 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In 1993 two separate child welfare investigations concluded that Dylan had not been sexually abused. One report did, however, suggest that both parents had "disturbed relations" with the child.[Henneberger, Melinda. “Connecticut Prosecutor Won't File Charges Against Woody Allen,” The New York Times, September 25, 1993; Brozan, Nadine. “Chronicle,” The New York Times, May 13, 1994.]
I am fine with Krwarnke's first post. As a relative outsider new to the page, my assumption is that he's weighed both sides and the language seems remarkably fair. I don't support the other proposed changes which strike me as attempts to shorten the info.
Justforasecond 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the changes work well and present the information in a less biased, more balanced, and more encylopedic fashion. Giles22 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Per a requested at WP:RfPP, I've unprotected this article. Hopefully you've been able to resolve your dispute and will refrain from edit-warring, but if not, I have the article watchlisted and will reprotect at the first sign of an edit war. AmiDaniel ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The section on Allen's 2000 films is sprawling and I propose cutting it down. The long quote is nice, but it's not very readable and probably is best summarized and linked to. The references to Curse and Melinda and Melinda seem random and I've removed them here. My proposed edit:
Also, can we edit/archive this talk page... it's way too long- Krwarnke 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Italic text
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Add marriage to Soon Yi. -- Daniel C. Boyer
IMDb lists his name as Allan Stewart Konigsberg, not Stewart Allen. ... ? Any fans who can answer this? --KQ
My Woody Allen biography by Eric Lax says it's "Allan Stewart Konigsberg", so i think IMDb is right. Still, the usenet FAQ states it's "Allen Stewart Konigsberg" -- Michael Schulze
He's written some books too. I'm adding three of them. -- Creativist
He's written some plays, one of which is "God" but I don't see them listed. Here's a source:
http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsA/AllenWoody.htm
The field were Allen has been a real master is humorism writings. Of course he's most known for his movies, but that's just because of cinema having a bigger audience.
I think there should be a big section about his classic trilogy ( Side Effects, Without Feathers, Getting Even), where almost all his writings are gathered. Some facts to report:
--
BMF81 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article claims "The Purple Rose of Cairo" to be Allen's favorite but I have heard that he has never publicly named one. Of course I have also heard "Love and Death" is his favorite. Does anyone have any sources concerning this issue?
Surely actor should be listed in the opening line, yes? (He did act, if not star, in most of his movies) -- "Cyclopsface"
Should Allen really be listed under 'Jewish American Actors", "Jewish Directors" etc.?
I don't think he's Jewish. That's just the character he plays in his movies. In real life, he's an Athiest or an Agnostic or something . . . I think.
Can anyone confirm?
It's, IMHO, foolish not to describe Allen as a Jewish-American director, writer, etc. His Jewish background is a central part of most of his movies and writings and is intrinsically bound up in almost every character he plays on screen. His Judaism is one of Allen's most distinguishing and important characteristics. Also, in response to the note above, you can be an Atheist and still a Jew. (I am.) In the view of many Jews, Judaism is a race and a nation as much as it is a religion, and in America it has particular cultural connotations as well, most of which are exemplified by Allen and his films. Allen is undoubtedly Jewish regardless of whether he believes in God or not. -- Apascover 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, despite what some people say, Judaism is not a race or ethnicity. It is only a religious ideology. The whole "Jewish Race" thing is used by Neonazis to further thier beliefs and by Israeli nationalists to further thiers. -Alex, 12.203.169.186 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC).
Have you ever heard of the development of language? Get a dictionary. Or look it up on wikipedia for Christ's sake! The word Jew or Jewish, whether the word's original meaning was this or not, has developed to be an adjective describing any or more of the following; a culture, a religion, or a race. Quit being pretentious and buy yourself a usage guide to the English language. ( Mschonert 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
Remember to remain civil, Mschonert. Justforasecond 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets get our facts straight. Mia and Woody were never married. Therefore, the use of the term "step-daughter" is factually incorrect. In addition, Soon-Yi was born in 1970, which would make her 22 in 1992. The editorializing of "white man with asian fetish" is absolutely inappropriate. Giles22
This page needs some major work (NPOV, timelines, facts). And while Allen's offbeat looks are certainly a part of his comedy, is this the best photo we can get? Eleemosynary 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
If the charges were dropped, do they merit their own section? They may indeed belong in the article, but perhaps under the heading of the Farrow lawsuit. Also, does anyone have any further info why, if the charge was dismissed (presumably exonerating Allen), he was still barred from seeing his biological children? Was that part of the settlement agreement? Eleemosynary 04:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The details add cited, relevant information to the section. They are not speculative. Only Woody, Dylan, and Farrow know what the truth is (or at least, how they saw it) regarding the initial allegations, but that's always the case. Why should they be left out? - 155.91.28.231 19:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Allen has defended his actions, saying that he never lived with Farrow while they were partners before their sexual relationship. However, Allen has also said of his relationship with Soon-Yi, "It's got a more paternal feeling to it." [4] In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview, Allen described their relationship as having a "more paternal feeling".
Please refrain from calling other's edits "vandalism". It is uncivil and in violation of wiki policies. All of the edits regarding Dylan's abuse are documented. How is that vandalism?
"needs work" is a bit of a jab, don't you think? When I came to this about a week ago it was almost completely unorganized, other editors must have visited this page back then and done nothing to improve it. "Now that it has a TOC it really needs improvement"
Many of the recent edits were unexplained.
The relationship with Farrow was lengthy -- no one said "relationship with Farrow that was EVEN LONGER than with Soon-Yi". Did the description really need to be lowered to the same level as his relationship with Keaton? This change is (sic) pov. Perhaps it is unintentional but it tells the story as if Farrow was just a fling.
Chaning offscreen to personal life is odd -- the section is all about things that happened away from the theaters (with references to movies). It is no more personal or private than the section about his career or gradeschool education.
The initial relationship with Soon-Yi was an affair and he was her stepdaughter at the time (lookup affair and stepfather for definitions). They married later--which has its own section.
Allen's films in the 2000s have been a series of failures. Check out their revenue and reviews -- or just watch them. Melinda and Melinda was unbelievably bad.
Grouping the 1960s and 1970s is just weird. His golden period is from ~75 to ~85, so grouping the 70s and 80s might make sense.
Where did someone get the idea that Seamus has a "phobia" of Allen? It seems inappropriate and gossipy since it isn't even backed up by a source. The Mia Farrow page repeats the same story, while the Seamus Farrow page says nothing about it, and in this article Seamus is quoted as saying "I've looked at the facts and come to my own conclusions. I think the wisest thing is not to talk about it. I'm not angry or twisted in any way." I've replaced the "phobia" thing with a less contentious statement based on the above article--please don't put it back unless you can back it up with an equally reliable source. -- The Famous Movie Director 08:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please stop re-inserting this material, as Woody and Mia never married.
We can work towards a consensus, but it there is currently none -- if there were we wouldn't be having these reverts every day ;)
- Justforasecond 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Why are you so intent on inlcuding unverifiable details of the sexual abuse? He was never tried, charges were dropped. Mia hates Woody more than anything for the Soon Yi business, don't you think she would have pushed these charges further if there any bases for them? Go look in her book or any of her interviews, she never comes CLOSE to saying that Woody masturbated to Dylan or anything like that. It is gossip and does not belong on wikipedia. Giles22 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Giles, you could have asked about that Soon-Yi statement you deleted. It is printed somewhere-out-there but it could take me half an hour to go dig it up. What's the rule for stripping things out that are uncited? - Justforasecond 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC) ~I actually did a search for it, and could not find it. Don't you think that the way the sentence is written and where it is inserted in the article REEKS of POV pushing? Let's be honest about that. It is a deliberate attempt to slander Woody. Is it possible to put forth some of the darker details of Woody's life in an objective, non-character assasinating way? That's all I'm asking. Giles22 15:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I, personally am a fan of Woody Allen. However if they were allegations of sexual abuse, then these are actuall events, and should be reported on in the actual article. Stop being self-involved with your own opinions. JedOs 11:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
from rfc, it's all a matter of proportion & context. a lot of celebrities have had various rumors, allegations, investigations, etc. what is woody allen mostly known for? google can be a good guide as to a person's public impact. the details of the abuse allegations are more appropriate for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. Appleby 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
FACTS? These are disputed! They are also highly speculative. How can you report this as factual info? Including details that he was accused is sufficient. Giles22 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, as long as we keep the basics in a breif paragraph here (took place in aftermath of breakup, no charges were filed, mia said she saw him masturbating over dylan, proecutor didn't want to harm the child so didn't file charges) what do yall think? - Justforasecond 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says, "In 2002 Woody made a surprise appearance at the Academy Awards telecast – his first ever due to his intense dislike of Los Angeles." Can this be substantiated? He is, for example, in Los Angeles right now, where he's making a series of public appearances at Q&A screenings over the next few days promoting his latest film. 207.69.139.154 02:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted.
Farrow claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan. During three weeks of interviews Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her "all over".
During the investigation Allen hired a team of private detectives to "get some dirt" on the investigative team. One of their targets was Sgt. John Mucherino. The investigators wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or gambler, and if he had any marital problems. Some of the detectives were former police officers who were friends with Mucherino.[5]
Prosucutor Frank Maco said he had evidence to charge Allen, but would not do so for Dylan's sake. Of Dylan, Maco said "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery."
Allen subsequently filed a complaint against Maco, which was dismissed.[6].
In Dylan's custody trial, which Allen eventually lost, psychologist Susan Coates testified that Allen's relationship with Dylan was "inappropriately intense", but that she never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward Dylan.
Coates also reported that a 1990 evaluation of Dylan said Dylan would easily be "taken over by fantasy".
As to Farrow, Coates said she was convinced that she might harm herself or Allen. Farrow had made angry phone calls and given Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children. Coates said "I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him". Farrow says the Valentine was not a threat, it was "an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done."
Coates described Farrow's phone call to her reporting the allegations of abuse as puzzlingly calm.[7]
Allen is barred from unsupervised visits with his biological children.
Some of these events echo the plotline of Allen's Husbands and Wives, released at the time of the legal battle In that film, Woody and Mia play a couple whose decade-long relationship is falling apart, with Woody's character becoming attracted to one of his college-age students. Farrow discusses the events in What Falls Away: A Memoir, ISBN 0385471874.
While the Germans spell Konigsberg with an umlaut, Americans don't. In semi-official Allen biographies the umlaut is now used. The umlaut is silly and pretentious. Dinopup 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
is it not fair to say that Woody Allen was influenced by Freud's psychoanalysis? Is it possible that we make one reference to this influence?
JMJ
I just don't think it belongs in that particular sentence with "literature, philosophy, and New York City." Why do you think it should be included? Because some of the characters are in analysis? I don't really see any of Freud's ideas explored in the work. Giles22 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In Annie Hall, often considered his magnum opus, psychoanalytic terms are used throughout
JMJ
It just seems a little strange to me to put it there, but if you really feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it in. Giles22 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that since Woody Allen spent a few years in psychoanalysis and since he seems to make reference to psychoanalytic themes it is worth mentioning. But instead of psychoanalysis i have used psychology - do you feel this word sits better?
JMJ
Psychoanalysis is fine to include in the article, but combining it with "draws on" is problematic. Can you write what you've written above -- that he was in psychoanalysis and makes reference to it in the films -- and put that in the article? He probably does "draw on" it (spend a few years in therapy and I guess it will effect your outlook) but it would be better if d have to find some independent analysis saying so.
Justforasecond 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to make any large changes on this page, firstly because there is no obvious space to enter this infomation and secondly because you seem happy to take control of the page. I am glad that it has come to our attention that "psychoanalysis" needs to be mentioned somewhere.
Here is a quote from the BBC news website:
It is common knowledge that Woody Allen spent years in psychoanalysis, although, he says: "After eight years, I got up from the couch one day and offered my analyst a draw. We shook hands." unsigned comment
On 2005-12-20, 65.185.213.33 added Category:Atheists to this article. Shortly before that, s/he had added Category:Pantheists to several other biographical articles, in no case providing supporting evidence. It looks suspicious to me. Anyone agree? Charivari 08:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In many cases (check with Google) Allen has said he is an agnostic. So, why is he in the Atheists category? Many agnostics feel this is relevant. Also, since Allen is quite a philosopher, his words often need some interpretation. 213.243.160.111 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
i removed a fairly long quote from woody in the 2000s section. it's better to pick out the relevant parts of longer quotes and summarize them. Justforasecond 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
he is a musician too. here is his band webpage: http://www.woodyallenband.com/flash_index.html
I have heard reference to "Woody Allen's only appearance in a sitcom" referring to Just Shoot Me. I have little info since it's been a long while, but I am certain there was a Woody Allen sitcom in the '70's. Starred Woody as loosely himself, Louise Sorel as his wife, and Marty Brill as the next-door neighbor. None of this is on IMDB either! Can anyone flesh this out and also update IMDB?
cjl
I think we should add a filmography to this page, they are pretty helpful for browsing/navigating purposes. If there are no objections I'm going to add one in the next few days. Estrose 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This page needs a lot of work, but I removed a line from the subsection on his relationship with Farrow alluding to the plot of Manhattan, which seems to me pretty much irrelevant for one, and a clearly biased point of view, for another. It was, after all, the last sentence in the section, which seems to encourage readers to make a connection between fictional Tracy and Farrow's allegation of child abuse.
Themightybotox 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I strenously object to your additions to this article. This topic is already sufficiently described without going into heavily biased and highly speculative details of a sole article - claims that even MIA FARROW herself did not make. Giles22 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ought Woody Allen to be categorised as a "Freudian"? Does he really adhere to Freud's theories or is it always tongue-in-cheek when he uses Freud in his movies?
Image:Estatua Woody Allen en Oviedo.jpg
I am just curious as to why they have a statue of him at Oviedo. Do they have statues of other famous people? Or, is Woody Allen really big there? -- Abid Ahmed 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be the French love affair with Jerry Lewis -- inexplicable. Justforasecond 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's the only one famous that have a statue in Uviéu-- Mikel 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It was built in his honor in 2002 when Allen won the Prince of Asturias Arts Prize
Please work out your differences. And remember to source assertions of fact, particularly those that could be considered defamatory. · Ka t efan0 (scribble)/ poll 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are the citations necessary for un-protection. Justforasecond 19:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC
Also in 1992, during a protracted legal battle following the revelation of Allen's affair with Soon-Yi, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. The case never went to trial and Allen was never indicted.
Farrow claimed to have seen Allen masturbating over Dylan. During three weeks of interviews Dylan said that Allen had inserted his right index finger into her vagina and kissed her "all over".
During the investigation Allen hired a team of private detectives to "get some dirt" on the investigative team. One of their targets was Sgt. John Mucherino. The investigators wanted to know if Mucherino was a drinker or gambler, and if he had any marital problems. Some of the detectives were former police officers who were friends with Mucherino. [9]
Prosucutor Frank Maco said he had evidence to charge Allen, but would not do so for Dylan's sake. Of Dylan, Maco said "I saw complete withdrawal any time I tried to discuss the incident. This was complete withdrawal and regression. At the time she was so fragile and damaged I knew she would not be a good witness. I knew she needed healing. I was not going to interfere with her recovery."
Allen subsequently filed a complaint against Maco, which was dismissed. [10].
In Dylan's custody trial, which Allen eventually lost, psychologist Susan Coates testified that Allen's relationship with Dylan was "inappropriately intense", but that she never observed Allen acting in a sexual way toward Dylan.
Coates also reported that a 1990 evaluation of Dylan said Dylan would easily be "taken over by fantasy".
As to Farrow, Coates said she was convinced that she might harm herself or Allen. Farrow had made angry phone calls and given Allen a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children. Coates said "I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him". Farrow says the Valentine was not a threat, it was "an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done."
Coates described Farrow's phone call to her reporting the allegations of abuse as puzzlingly calm. [11]
Allen is barred from unsupervised visits with his biological children.
Some of these events echo the plotline of Allen's Husbands and Wives, released at the time of the legal battle In that film, Woody and Mia play a couple whose decade-long relationship is falling apart, with Woody's character becoming attracted to one of his college-age students. Farrow discusses the events in What Falls Away: A Memoir, ISBN 0385471874.
personal attack removed
Justforasecond is playing games, and his attempt to turn this article into a condemnation of Woody Allen is transparent and laughable. One look at his user page shows he has an axe to grind with Woody Allen, and he'd like to do it here. One would be hard-pressed to find a more unintentionally hilarious line than "the reputable Connecticut magazine." Giles22 is trying to make this an encyclopedic article, and Justforasecond is trying to make it a POV screed, citing allegations in a domestic custody trial as encyclopedic fact. It's not gonna happen. Eleemosynary 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and perhaps acting foolishly to jump into this debate. I was surprised to see that there was so much intense debate that the page needed to be protected. IMHO, the specific details of these sexual abuse allegations aren't relevant to this entry. If the particular allegations were widely reported and/or the subject of a legal proceeding, it would. If a user feels that the allegations deserve greater attention/investigation, Wikipedia is not the place for that.
Can we move on?
I think the section on Soon-Yi needs work:
No doubt Allen's scandalous relationship with Soon-Yi hurt his reputation, though it seems a stretch to so strongly connect this with his box office failures. A lot of those movies received poor reviews and even the good ones seemed unlikely to capture a wide audience (Deconstructing Harry, Sweet and Lowdown, Everyone Says I Love You).
The whole "paternal feeling" comment seems inappropriate. Is it necessary to really further attempt to characterize the relationship after already explaining its context?
This is random and if these films are to be included in this makeshift filmography, they ought to have some kind of explanation justifying it.
And, finally, that section on the 2002 academy awards needs a cite. Here's one from E! Online It notes his distaste for the awards show... - Krwarnke 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"IMHO, the specific details of these sexual abuse allegations aren't relevant to this entry. If the particular allegations were widely reported and/or the subject of a legal proceeding, it would. If a user feels that the allegations deserve greater attention/investigation, Wikipedia is not the place for that." Wow, what a great point! Especially for a newbie. I agree with him 100%. As for [Justforasecond] and his dislike for Woody Allen, I browsed to his userpage where I noted his mention of Soon-Yi as Allen's step-daughter. Of course, we all know that Soon-Yi isn't actually his step daughter because he and Farrow never married, and he never adopted Soon-Yi. Clearly his facts are not to be trusted. Also, IMHO, just because one or two magazines write articles are not enough justifiable evidence for something to be fact. People lie all the time. When it comes to something like this the only facts that can be trusted are official news sources, offical press releases from the person themself, or police evidence. Anything else should not be considered "factual references". If that were the case, we could find lots of evidence to prove all sorts of things about George W. Bush. Vanity Fair slams him in almost every issue, but that doesn't mean they're correct. :: ehmjay 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember to remain civil Ehmjay -- "Clearly his facts are not to be trusted" could be construed as a personal attack. Thanks! Justforasecond 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember to remain civil [User]-- lol, this is getting really old on this particular page. I think he's merely mentioning your "personal vendetta" against Woody Allen, probably evident by statements like this "later movies have mostly been losers (with a recent overrated but bearable exception)" on your user page. And, concerning the comment below, i have a slight suspicion that Allen ever heard of or read that magazine, so he never bothered suing them -- who knows. Anyways, we should and shall remain civil... -- Abid Ahmed 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe you would think that it's best to drop the whole thing and not expose your daughter to what would certainly be a long and painful legal process. But hey, who knows how your mind works? If I may add my two cents here: Justforasecond you are facing what seems to be a concensus that your accusations have no place in this article. Pascal.Tesson 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done some research and come up with the following proposed resolution to our Woody Allen Sex Abuse Allengations issue.
I propose a section entitled, "Custody Battle and Sex Abuse Allegations" or something of the sort. It would fit after the section on Soon-Yi Previn (which I still maintain requires clean-up).
Here's the text:
-- Krwarnke 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Krwarnke 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In 1993 two separate child welfare investigations concluded that Dylan had not been sexually abused. One report did, however, suggest that both parents had "disturbed relations" with the child.[Henneberger, Melinda. “Connecticut Prosecutor Won't File Charges Against Woody Allen,” The New York Times, September 25, 1993; Brozan, Nadine. “Chronicle,” The New York Times, May 13, 1994.]
I am fine with Krwarnke's first post. As a relative outsider new to the page, my assumption is that he's weighed both sides and the language seems remarkably fair. I don't support the other proposed changes which strike me as attempts to shorten the info.
Justforasecond 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the changes work well and present the information in a less biased, more balanced, and more encylopedic fashion. Giles22 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Per a requested at WP:RfPP, I've unprotected this article. Hopefully you've been able to resolve your dispute and will refrain from edit-warring, but if not, I have the article watchlisted and will reprotect at the first sign of an edit war. AmiDaniel ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The section on Allen's 2000 films is sprawling and I propose cutting it down. The long quote is nice, but it's not very readable and probably is best summarized and linked to. The references to Curse and Melinda and Melinda seem random and I've removed them here. My proposed edit:
Also, can we edit/archive this talk page... it's way too long- Krwarnke 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Italic text