Mia uses SAG rules to stick it to Woody

Chicago SunTimes ^ | 4/18/02 | Unsigned

[IncPen]

Just how was Mia Farrow able to block the use of her images from Woody Allen's movies in a documentary salute to the famous director?

Weeks before Turner Classic Movies was set to premiere ''Woody Allen: A Life in Film,'' the actress told the channel to cut her clips from the show (which airs at 7 p.m. May 4). Farrow told writer-director-producer Richard Schickel he could use no shots of her from any of her 13 films with Allen, her ex-lover.

Though Farrow has no control over Allen's movies, she does have the right to nix the use of her clips. ''It's odd, isn't it?'' Schickel says. ''But it's part of the standard Screen Actors Guild contract.''

''This is my 30th film,'' says Schickel, who's also a movie critic for Time magazine. ''It's happened to me two or three times before but never quite so visibly. I did speak to Mia about it. She felt ambivalent about the whole thing. On the one hand, she does like her performances in these films, but she doesn't want to do anything that aids Woody's career.''

Schickel, who had already spent four or five months editing the film, says it was easy to find substitutes for the Farrow footage. ''He reverts to his major themes in film after film after film. So you have a lot of options.''

Gannett News Service

[Greybird]

Fine with me. So Mia Farrow, the ungrateful, will get not just short shrift, but NO shrift, in a documentary record of Allen's stellar work. And Diane Keaton, by contrast, will get more weight of attention -- and will deserve it, being a far better actress -- for such films as "Sleeper," "Annie Hall," "Manhattan Murder Mystery," and Allen's magnum opus, "Manhattan."

(Keywords and personal peccadilloes notwithstanding, Allen is a powerful and influential filmmaker, and deserves this tribute.)

[afraidfortherepublic]

On one hand I applaud when a woman wronged can stick it to the perp. On the other hand, this seems to fall into the category of "cutting off your nose despite your face." I'm sure that people seeing Mia's clips would be thinking what a beautiful woman and outstanding actress she was. They would not be thinking that her performances were a plus to a dirty old man's career!

[jalisco555]

While it is often true that a mother-in-law will disapprove of her son-in-law I believe that Mia is letting this go too far. Woody is family, after all.

[marty60]

Paaalleeeeze he is a dirty old man. I never could understand her attraction to this ugly little man. His clueless nitwit persona has always been pathetic to me. Actually, he is just a poooor actor that found a schtick that worked in some quarters. Sort of like the lefties that get all teary eyed over some serial killers scratchings and want them to get the Pulitzer Prize.

HO HUM

[stanz]

Sour grapes from Mia.

[IncPen]

(Keywords and personal peccadilloes notwithstanding, Allen is a powerful and influential filmmaker, and deserves this tribute.)

I see your point here, but using this technique of moral relativism Bill Clinton dissembled his way through eight years of our lives.

By the standard you suggest, any despot or despicable person would be redeemed by their 'art' or other similar values.

In that scenario, would a child pornographer be damned on the one hand for taking 'lewd' pictures, but lauded on the other hand 'for having an artistic eye'?

In my view the two cannot be separated.

[jalisco555]

Well, I was being a bit sarcastic. I can't watch Woody Allen films anymore. However, it is true that Mia is Woody's mother-in-law.

[Greybird]

By the standard you suggest, any despot or despicable person would be redeemed by their 'art' or other similar values.

Did I say that Allen's art "redeemed" him? No, and that's not properly at issue here. I said that his work deserved such a retrospective, and it does. Seeing how such artists behave can color your enjoyment, or your wanting to view their work -- but having it color your judgment of it as art is mixing two different issues.

Despots, including Clinton, create nothing. They're sheer parasites -- or, worse, prevent others from obtaining the capital or opportunities for creation. Don't throw Woody Allen into the same category.