-
-
Only Supporting Actress and Screenplay. (BAFTA went wild for it giving it Best Picture and a whole bunch of nominations.)
I mean the cinematography and art direction are just beautiful. (It was on TCM the other day.)
Were they mad at Woody for not showing up for the Annie Hall Oscars?
(and yes the whole dating the high school girl is really odd to watch nowadays) probably then too?
ReplyIt’s been awhile since I’ve read much about this particular award season but I do recall that it seemed more likely that MANHATTAN would get nominated for Best Picture than ALL THAT JAZZ and NORMA RAE.
I’d be curious to hear more from others, especially those who may remember the race from that time.
ReplyCopy URL“The art of making art is putting it together...”
I think basically that the Academy thought they had rewarded Woody Allen enough by 1979. Three years in a row of too many major nominations but have been too much for them. If Allen had never made Interiors I think Manhattan would have gotten a swag of nominations but despite all the acclaim and box office success of Manhattan I think the Academy wanted a break from him.
ReplyCopy URLSeparate the art from the artist. I know it’s cliche, but respect context, especially of 1979. I would’ve given Manhattan more nominations.
It’s hard to separate the art from the artist when rape/pedophilia is involved in his personal life, especially in a case like Manhattan, where we’re basically asked to condone an adult middle-aged man going after a teenage girl. Just ew, no!
ReplyCopy URLIt’s hard to separate the art from the artist when rape/pedophilia is involved in his personal life, especially in a case like Manhattan, where we’re basically asked to condone an adult middle-aged man going after a teenage girl. Just ew, no!
Yeah, the fact that he wrote that into his film is really creepy. It’s like he was trying to use his movie to make people accept those kind of relationships so that he could avoid backlash. While I can respect Allen’s filmography, theres not a doubt in my mind that he’s a prick.
Anyone who hates Allen may want to look up what Orson Welles had to say about him. It’s not kind.
ReplyCopy URLWoody Allen is a creep. So why are you continuing to try to validate him now?
He’ll always be a substantial artist who affected culture. And the claim he molested his daughter is unfounded according to investigators. So the furrier against him is just social media social justice warrior hysteria.
ReplyCopy URLThen why has Dylan Farrow repeated her so story so many times? If people say the same thing every time, then they’re probably most likely telling the truth.
That’s not how the truth works lol. Anyway, I’m not defending him as I’m not informed on his case but I don’t see how discussing a factual moment of awards season is related to his personal life or any sort of validation.
ReplyCopy URLHow on Earth are you NOT aware of the case against Woody Allen when it’s been dominating headlines for years?!
I don’t know it in detail so I don’t give my opinion on his innocence or call him a creep. The point of my post was that there was no relation between your post and the thread.
ReplyCopy URLI think basically that the Academy thought they had rewarded Woody Allen enough by 1979. Three years in a row of too many major nominations but have been too much for them. If Allen had never made Interiors I think Manhattan would have gotten a swag of nominations but despite all the acclaim and box office success of Manhattan I think the Academy wanted a break from him.
That sounds right. All though then a few years later he pops up out of nowhere with a Best Director nomination for Broadway Danny Rose. Odd.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
