Leaderboard

Ronan clearly believes Dylan's story is true, but he was also four years old at the time so I don't think he has first-hand knowledge. Given what Moses and Soon-Yi say about Mia playing favorites with her kids, I don't think it's far-fetched to think that he was closer to his mother than they were and therefore more likely to take her side. And no, I am not defending Woody Allen's actions in starting an affair with Soon-Yi. Clearly morally wrong. I am just bothered by incorrect facts getting bandied about, and in this case I see a lot of them whenever the subject is raised in virtually any forum, including during Amy's disclaimer in the podcast episode. EDIT: In the interests of full accuracy, here's a slate of links on both sides of the question. I would encourage everyone to read everything. Dylan Farrow's direct accusation: https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/ Ronan Farrow's opinion on the matter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/my-father-woody-allen-danger-892572 A Maureen Orth column that got a lot of play: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts Robert Weide (a Woody Allen biographer, and also the guy who directed Curb Your Enthusiasm) rebuts all of the above here: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/ Moses Farrow's statements: http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html Soon-Yi Previn interviewed: https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html

Speaking of being accurate and knowing everything out there -- let's not just mention Moses Farrow while ignoring the work of Ronan Farrow, who is on Dylan's side. Moses may defend Woody, but if I recall, the rest of the family disagrees and cut Moses out. And whether or not Mia/Woody were married, or Soon Yi was his adopted daughter or someone else's, it's not right. I don't believe he married his own daughter, but whatever he did, it's wrong. I agree it's maybe more borderline on the acceptability scale than is often portrayed or discussed; but still... why defend it? I mean, how many movies has Woody Allen made about him being hot for a girl far too young? Here is this story. Anyway, yea I don't know if this is the forum for this. Or maybe it is. Not trying to argue, just want to say that the anti-Woody facts aren't that insane to grasp on to.

This rewatch showed me how inventive the movie is, in a way I didn't expect. Someone on the Facebook group made a comment that Annie Hall basically does all of the same kind of cinematic inventiveness that you find in something like Pulp Fiction: a non-linear narrative, self-awareness, pop cultural references, even a spot of animation, etc. Only the tone and subject matter are very different. That's true. I think it's far too influential a movie to leave off the list, regardless of what one may feel about Woody Allen the person. Personally, I also find it profound in different ways as I get older (as Amy does). Now that I'm married with kids I don't find it as much an of-the-moment chronicle of single dating life, rather a wistful reminder of what that used to be like. Only, the movie has that depth in it too! It ends with Alvy reminiscing about his relationship with Annie, remembering the good times, remarking on how they don't last but they stay with you. Woody Allen the writer seems a lot more self-aware than Woody Allen the person.

It's unfortunate that the first words out of Amy's mouth concerning "What we know" about Woody Allen are wrong. She says, "Very established, nobody disagrees on, that he cheated on his wife, Mia Farrow, with their adopted daughter and then married her..." Here is the truth. 1 - Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were in a 12 year relationship, but the were never married and never even co-habitated. Soon-Yi says he never kept any clothes there, or even a toothbrush. 2 - Soon-Yi's last name is Previn because she was adopted by Mia Farrow and Andre Previn. She is in no way Woody Allen's adopted daughter. So, no, not "very established" and many people, most importantly the people involved, would disagree. I love you guys and I love the show, but it makes me crazy how many people believe this stuff because people like Amy keep saying them.

This movie helped me identify and begin to deal with my anxiety, specifically the scene where Alvy suddenly recovers from his "illness" the second he no longer has to present that award. The movie became serious at that point ("Oh my god....that's ME. I need to do something about this.").

I can't tell if I'm coming or going. Guess I'd better see the urologist!

As others have said the soundtrack outlasts the movie (except for the piano duet -- that works wonderfully for me on the screen and not so much on the soundtrack). It also seems a little strange that Zac would be a rope master during his duet with Zendaya. It would have worked for me more if he had taken a "leap of faith" and let her hold him to show his love for her instead of him matching her in some spots. My other big part is Charity's role over all. Her character was great as a kid and on the rooftop where he gives his daughter the projector. She was good during the hammering song and when she shows that she bought the 3 tickets. After that she kind of disappears. It would have been good to see a slow burn on her part where he succeeds more and more and they show her increasing loneliness before she leaves him. Then she takes him back at first chance? I admit the entire movie charmed the socks off me the first time, to the point I saw it several more times in the theater. However watching it since points up the holes more. (Granted most movies do that and I try not to binge-watch TV shows for the same reason.) This was a great pick and I appreciate the chance to revisit it.

I agree completely having a singing actress would have been much better. For me the greater "sin" is having such a bad song as her "debut". This is a woman who sold out La Scala singing a song that just repeats over and over? This shows her great range and talent? For me, hardly. Not to mention the "affair" took away completely from the story for me. As others mentioned, it's a case of making a hero the villain. There was no affair. Jenny famously donated most or all of her earnings to charities. She married the man who was her accompanist on the tour.

If you can't piss in the toilet, then get the hell out of my experimental piss trial!

That’s what I mean though. The movie is almost entirely a work of fiction, so why tie it to Barnum at all? Does the Barnum name really carry that much cache in the 21st Century? And it’s not like the writers didn’t do their research. If the movie had been exactly the same except it starred Jackman as “Cecil the Circus Guy” would people have still gone to see it? Would it have even be green lit at all? Honestly, I wonder if the reason to put the Barnum name on it had anything to do with the impending implosion of the circus - which I believe ended the same year as this was released. I wouldn’t doubt it.

Just imagine a journalism movie like All The Presidents Men or The Post but it's about News Of The World.

Coming soon to a theatre near you! It's RUPERT! The wise-cracking, fun-loving Australian urchin who rose to become the world's most beloved man and newspaper oligarch! For the Rupert Murdoch lover in YOUR life! Coming on Trumpsday, 23rd of Trumpruary, 2122!

I think having a fictional character who is clearly inspired by Barnum would probably be better for me. Or at least not make him seem like he's the reason his side show performers are a big happy family. Imagine if, 100 years from now, there was a movie made about a scummy racist in 2019 but the movie made them seem like a father figure to the people he exploited. I'll admit I'm not an expert on Barnum. It's possible some of his side show performers lived slightly better lives under him than they would have as poor nobodies. So, idk. I did really like this movie when I saw it in theaters. I'm kind of harping on about this one thing but at least make the performers a family in spite of him instead of because of him. Honestly, that's my only real flaw with this.

Apologies for missing the first day of the discussion: I'll try to get in to the forum as much as I can but I hope we can find plenty to discuss here. This movie gets me every time, even though I know there are enough terrible things that mean I shouldn't buy in. 'A Million Dreams' makes me cry every god damned time, and I can't make it through with a dry eye. I don't know, if it's the performance or the content, but the idea of hope and dreams hits me just in the right way at the moment. I love the fantasy version of Barnum and Charity's early relationship, and love the quick transition from urchin into fifty-something Jackman pretending to be thirty years younger. Honestly, I think for me the things I love best are the things that speak to me as a father, so songs like 'From Now On' really strike the right chord with me. Others, not so much. My daughter hates Jenny Lind with a burning passion and refuses to watch her scenes, and that's no great loss. My favourite part of the existence of 'The Greatest Showman' comes from the latest season of The Good Place, which states that Michael and Janet's meddling with the afterlife meant that the world is all messed up: Brexit happened, the Jacksonville Jaguars are good now, and this movie musical about PT Barnum made $400million...

That said I loved some of the dance numbers a lot. Visually the rope dance is great. I was particularly a big fan of the Zac Efron and Hugh Jackman number in the bar. Just some sold prop choreography and work there. I also loved some of the little things like the hammering of posters to the rhythm of the song and little touches like that. There is a lot of things in this movie to charm you.