Posted on 06/19/2015 2:01:25 PM PDT by Borges
It’s not ‘historical fact’ it’s bunk. The urban NYC ethos was always there. Read 1920s writers like Dorothy Parker. Or Perelman.
That’s more a function of changes in mass media in the mid 20th century. T.V. etc...
“And I should have to argue about such obvious historical facts at a web site like FR”
That should be: “And I should NOT have to argue about such obvious historical facts at a web site like FR”
Everyone here should know it and understand it.
“That’s more a function of changes in mass media in the mid 20th century. T.V. etc...”
No one was more mass media than Robin Williams or Woody Allen.
Sorry but repeating something doesn’t make it true. It’s complete nonsense. Most big cities had that sort of culture. Even say Nelson Algren in Chicago or the pulp writers in L.A.
Woody Allen was considered comedy? Never found anything funny there. Robin William had some good comedy.
Watch Bananas or Love and Death.
I had never previously thought you obtuse.
You are too intelligent to be pretending you don’t understand.
Why?
I do understand and disagree.
Discuss Manhattan.
What about it? It’s a great film...a lover letter to the city and critical of the self absorbed characters.
RIP.
Don’t try to bring S.J. Perelman to freepers! You’re sure to fail, lol.
My husband played the Bert Lahr role in an off-Broadway production of “The Beauty Kind.” One of the most brilliantly funny plays ever written.
RIP, Jack Rollins. What a body of work!
Who did Allen turn into an atheist? As wonderful as many of his movies are, I don’t think a lot of Americans went to his movies. He’s more popular in Europe. Also, many of his films show a character who is struggling with his belief in God - that theme plays over and over in his movies and is overt in some of them. His movies don’t seem in any way atheistic to me but very Jewish in his constant arguments with God.
Also, despite his private life, his movies are generally pretty clean. Never any overt sex scenes (I haven’t seen them all, so I stand to be corrected) and pretty clean language.
Woody Allen was hilarious as a stand-up comic. Too bad he evolved into making boring movies and boinking his kids.
That latter statement is groundless.
It was about a 40 year old man having sex with a teenage girl and presenting it as normal.
He contributed greatly to the sexualization of our kids.
She was an adult in the film. And the character was shown to be a flawed neurotic and selfish. Marriages with those age differences used to be much more common. In any case, That’s like saying Lolita contributed to the corruption of kids. Art doesn’t corrupt anyone.
She was 17.
Lolita is not a good analogy.
And by NY law an adult. As I’ve said, people use to marry much younger. There was nothing overly sexual about that character. And as for that era remember those Brooke Shields ads?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.