He's 42, she's 17


Ok I love Woody's work, but in the light of his daughters claims and marrying his step-daughter - don't people just ignore the facts in my subject heading a bit too easily? I know it's dealt with in the film but...

He's 42

She's 17

Just no.

reply

A script from a movie - now thats what I call damming evidence.

reply

Based on a true story.

Woody Allen had a relationship with an actress named Stacey Nelkin, who was 17 and a junior in high school when she became sexually involved with Allen in the 1970s.

The Mariel Hemingway character in Manhattan is based on Nelkin.

And even if we ignore Allen's personal life, I find the ages of the two characters uncomfortable. A 42 year old man in love with a 17 year old high school student? How sweet.

reply

[deleted]

Good for him. Mariel Hemingway is breathtaking.

reply

[deleted]

I'm 40plus - I don't need to screw a 17 year old and have a relationship with her to work out she's too young.

reply

Who cares about the age of consent. He is 42 she is 17. It is creepy.

Stay Gold

Marty

reply

You are entitled to your opinion or shall i say self righteous mainstream morals.
I think the film shows that in the end it doesn't work out between them which is a quite realistic take. I dated 15 years younger when i was 35 and it didn't work for me nor her in the long run. It was an amazing time nevertheless and we are still good friends.
So any man who is claiming that he would never feel attracted to a 17 year old girl is a damn liar or impotent or gay.
You know a girl doesn't turn magically into a woman the day of her 18th birthday.
By the way: The law a few years ago declared gay people mentally insane.
Make of that what you will.

reply

Well said. I don't know why people are so obsessed with the age difference. People are all up in arms on the James Woods and Doug Hutchison boards too because of them dating young girls. If they can get young girls to go out with them, good for them. That's between them. As long as she's above the age of consent, it isn't anyone's business. You can bet, if it was an old woman with a young guy people would say its empowering.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

Yeah, he could beat up her father. That's the first time that phenomena has occurred to him.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

reply

Yep. You are correctomundo. When you see this movie, knowing now what we know, it's really creepy. Although I found it creepy, when I first saw it years ago. Interesting that he didn't find it creepy for his film, isn't it?

reply

I was in my early 20s when I first saw the film, but even then I thought: "Wouldn't they bore each other to death?" AT 57, I feel it even moreso. I can't see myself running after a woman who is 25, or even 35. Gimme a middle-aged babe anyday! At least someone I don't have to explain things like Watergate, Iran-contra, disco music, Jonestown, Astroturf, long-playing albums, drive-in movie theaters, qudrophonic sound, rock festivals, well, you get the point.

"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

reply

[deleted]

How can one ignore it when it`s the focal point of the film?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I said 'I know it's dealt with in the film but...'

but it still plays it off as a tricky problem for our nice romantic leads rather than making the main character really freaking creepy.

reply

Why should the main character be "really freaking creepy"? What would it add to the film?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

''Why should the main character be "really freaking creepy"? What would it add to the film? ''

I meant the movie tries to make it a tricky dilemma in a romantic comedy rather than a much more unpleasant scenario, one that the writer/director can't see as disturbing, especially when you put it in context of... lots of things that writer/director has said and done.

reply

[deleted]

I just tried watching this on netflix and I lasted all of five minutes. I found it repulsive and I needed a vomit bag, Allen's character is 42 and Hemmingway's is 17. Weren't any of the critics disturbed by this? Allen's character's infatuations with younger women has been a recurring theme in his work, for example in Mighty Aphrodite he's obsessed with Mira Sorvina and in Scoop he's has a thing for Scarlett Johansen.

reply

Does anyone not have a thing for Scarlett Johansen? And Mira Sorvino was 27 or 28 years old when Mighty Aphrodite was made. Are there people who seriously think that men start to go off young, attractive women when they age? That 50-something men should only be attracted to 50-something women? It seems Allen is being accused of something underhand because he casts people like Johansen in his movies, despite the fact she's never been cast as a love-interest to him. It's just naive and judgmental to scorn a man for finding beautiful women beautiful, no matter his age. A sixty year old has just as much right to find someone like Johansen attractive as an eighteen year old.






Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made

reply

A 42 year old can obviously find 17 year olds attractive. But to have a relationship with one, while she's still in school? Uh, you either realise its creepy or you are a creep. It would make a huge difference if she was 20, I think most would agree. You're an adult then, even if you are immature. Frankly the 17 year old in the film had the maturity of a 14/15 year old anyway. Which is why it's very disturbing Allen made this film and thought it was fine.

reply

Uh, you either realise its creepy or you are a creep.


It's a sweeping statement. It's unusual (unusual enough for me never to have come across the situation in real life) it's certainly not something that I would advocate, but would I describe it as incontestably and universally wrong? The answer is no and your parameters are arbitrary. I'm sure their are many seventeen-year-olds who are more mature than many twenty-year-olds, and more often than not there's no real physiological difference, but you're saying that one number says one thing which is wrong, and another says something else so that's okay. I just don't subscribe to that.

Frankly the 17 year old in the film had the maturity of a 14/15 year old anyway.


Interestingly, most people who I've had conversations with about this film describe Hemingway's character as the most mature person in the film. Again, it's arbitrary, you see things one way, it's subjective, but you think that's the only way of seeing things. Life's more complicated.





Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made

reply

You clearly aren't a Frenchman. We have a saying: c'est la vie

reply

With respect, the French have a very dodgy attitude to underage sex.

reply

Except that in France, she wouldn't have been underage as the age of consent there is 15.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

I like the controversial aspect behind Issac's character relationship with a 17yr old high school girl, because it does give the film some edge and makes it's more memorable. She was almost 18 and I don't know if 17 was a legal age of consent in NY; but I do find it a sexual wish fulfillment fantasy of Allen's.

Regardless of how mature Tracy she was for her age, what does a 17yr old and 42yr old actually have in common to discuss on a worldly mature level? It is more of a parent\daughter relationship. Allen wanted it to be seen as though he was her mentor; but I suppose by that same token, it is also quite humorous that a nice looking 17yr old high school student would fall for the geeky and effete Isaac character. Perhaps that was Allen's point behind the joke.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

reply

You must hate Shakespeare and the many large age gaps he penned.

reply

Movies depict real life all the time. So does this one. Life can be creepy. Deal with it.

reply

He's definitely a bit of a creepy letch, but that doesn't make him a bad person.
I don't judge people for being creeps. There are worse things to be than that.

reply