Woody Allen’s Red Pill Masterpiece “Crimes And Misdemeanors” Is 25 Years Old

Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors was released twenty-five years ago this week. Not only is it arguably his most artistically accomplished work, but it also dramatizes a red pill view of life and male-female relationships.

The film was the twenty-third Allen had written after What’s New Pussycat (1965), so he was some way into his career at its conception. By the early 2000’s, before his habit of putting out a movie a year led to a string of less-than stellar productions like 2003’s Anything Else or 2004’s Miranda and Miranda, it was common to divide his output into “the early, funny ones” – Bananas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) and Sleeper – and the “serious” ones like September and Another Woman.

But the truth is more complex. Allen has always been a serious dramatist stuck in a comedian’s body, striving for the profundity of Ingmar Bergman but forever falling short, in his mind at least, despite the fantastic success of funny-serious pieces like Annie Hall and Manhattan. Interviewed in 2005, he stated that he would never make a film as good as Bergman’s The Seventh Seal: “I feel that level of greatness is not in me. It may just not be in the genes, or I just don’t have the depth of humanity to do that.”

Spoiler alert: spoilers below


Allen’s worldview has always been bleak. Speaking to the press at the release of this year’s Magic in the Moonlight he said:

I firmly believe . . . that life is meaningless. I’m not alone in thinking this – there have been many great minds far, far superior to mine, that have come to that conclusion. And unless somebody can come up with some proof or some example where it’s not, I think it is. I think it’s just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’m not saying that one should opt to kill oneself. But the truth of the matter is, when you think of it, every 100 years, there’s a big flush, and everybody in the world is gone. And there’s a new group of people. And this goes on interminably towards no particular end, no rhyme or reason. And the universe, as you know from the best of physicists, is coming apart, and eventually there will be nothing, absolutely nothing. All the great works of Shakespeare, and Beethoven, and Da Vinci, all that will be gone. Now, not for a long time, but shorter than you think because the sun is going to burn out much earlier than the universe vanishes . . . So all these plays and these symphonies, the height of human achievement, will be gone completely. There’ll be no time, no space, nothing at all, just zero.

Crimes and Misdemeanors is his most successful wedding of this worldview with his comic impulse. It contains some very funny moments, but it is essentially a drama that rips away the “pretty lies” that society proliferates about relationships between the sexes, morality and religion.

The plot concerns two main characters: Judah Rosenthal, a successful ophthalmologist played by Martin Landau; and Clifford Stern, a failed film-maker played by Woody Allen. Their stories are told in counterpoint.


As the movie opens we see Judah being honored for his services at a New York society dinner. He is with his wife and family, the picture of respectability. But all is not well beneath the façade. Judah has been having an affair with a flight attendant called Dolores Paley for the past two years. Doleres, played brilliantly by Anjelica Housten, is an unstable woman prone to hysteria, unable and unwilling to accept her position as mistress and becoming demanding.

Coming home after the ceremony, Judah is lucky to intercept a letter from her to his wife, telling her of the affair and asking if they can meet. Judah, who has been married for twenty-five years, has no intention of breaking up his family, but in spite of his promises to find a way to make everyone happy, it is clear that Dolores is serious in her intention to reveal their secret. Worse, she threatens to lift the lid on his “embezzlement”—what he insists were essentially honest “financial irregularities” associated with his practice earlier in his career. Terrified that the comfortable life he has built for himself will be destroyed, Judah calls his brother Jack, a small-time crook, for help.

Meanwhile, Clifford, a failing filmmaker in a sexless marriage with a nagging wife, is offered the opportunity by his brother-in-law Lester (Alan Alda), a successful TV producer, to make a documentary about his life. From the outset, Alda portrays Lester as a classic alpha—he is powerful, men defer to him and he attracts sexy female groupies. He is also brash and spends all his time on vapid commercial projects.

Clifford, in contrast, is a serious documentary maker who wants to make a film about Professor Louis Levy, a philosopher. But he has no choice but to take on the Lester documentary for the money. During filming he meets and develops oneitis for Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), an executive for the TV company. In a subplot, Judah is treating Lester’s brother Ben, a devout rabbi who is slowly going blind.


Underlining Allen’s ambitions, the film was shot by Sven Nykvist, a cinematographer who had worked extensively with Bergman. On screen it looks very clean and straightforward, almost like a TV movie. But the plot systematically and ruthlessly undermines the audience’s expectations. Jack tells Judah that the only way he can escape his situation is by having his mistress dispensed with.

At first Judah is shocked—in Allen’s words “his first reaction is the stereotypical reaction dictated by his social milieu.” But soon enough, after Dolores threatens to come over to his house, he decides to proceed with the plan.

Jack hires a hitman and Dolores is murdered. The scene where Judah, having been informed that the deed has been done, goes to her apartment and sees her corpse in a pool of blood to Schubert’s String Quartet No. 15 is genuinely shocking: real, visceral violence has penetrated Judah’s safe, middle-class existence. He is stricken with guilt and fear for months, and considers turning himself in. But a detective questions him and isn’t suspicious. In the end the crime gets pinned on someone else. Judah, who had been drinking heavily, starts to relax.

woody and mia

Meanwhile, Clifford, in love with Halley, takes her to see movies and shares Chinese takeout with her. But Lester is interested too—in her first scene we see him ask her out confidently, only to be rebuffed. Soon, though, they are working late together at her apartment. In this strand, Allen gives us a masterly presentation of beta game and the friendzone. Clifford believes that because Halley is interested in his documentary about Levy, and because she too is artistically-inclined, she will be attracted to him.

Even though he doesn’t believe for a moment that his special snowflake would succumb to the boorish, unsophisticated Lester, he is dimly aware that he is a threat, and so ridicules him with her. (“After all, he is an American Phenomenon.””Yeah, but so is acid rain.”). In a wonderfully painful moment at his apartment we see him try to kiss her, only for her to turn her head and come out with the usual excuses—“I’m not ready,” “It’s me – I’m serious about my career at the moment,” and so on.

Both narratives play with the audience by setting what “should” happen against what actually does happen. Brought up on Hollywood movies, viewers are conditioned to think that Judah should be punished for the terrible deed that he has committed and that Clifford, the hardworking artist with integrity should get the girl. But neither of these eventualities is to play out.

The movie’s key themes are articulated in a masterly scene where Judah, cracking up, visits his old family home in Brooklyn. Here he recalls a Passover dinner from his childhood where his father and his aunt argue over the possibility of a godless universe. His father is adamant that guilt will win out, and that no crime goes unpunished. His aunt, though, has this to say:

If he can do it (a crime) and get away with it, and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he’s home free. Remember, history is run by the winners. And if the Nazis had won, future generations would come to understand the story of World War II quite differently.

The aunt’s point is essentially atheist: there is no god and no moral structure to life at all.

Swallowing the Red Pill


The story culminates in a wonderful scene set at the wedding party for Ben’s daughter. Judah is there with his wife and is happy again. Clifford is also present with his wife, although they are soon to be divorced. He hasn’t seen Halley for months as she has been working in London. She arrives at the party with Lester unannounced: they are now a couple.

The close-up on Clifford’s face as he sees them together is highly affecting, one of the finest shots in the film, expressing the surprise and pain of the disillusioned beta perfectly. In that moment, Clifford effectively swallows the red pill: his special snowflake was nothing of the kind, just as susceptible to the flashy but superficial bad boy charms of Lester as any of the cheap actresses he also seduced.

Worse, Clifford had accumulated no relational equity with her in all their shared moments, with all the movies he had watched with her, through their common aesthetic appreciation. In the end, she turns out to be just another woman attracted to success (and money?) and alpha dominance.

Clifford sits drinking alone at the bar. Judah joins him. It is the first and only time the two principle characters will meet. Judah says that he has “the perfect murder story – a great plot,” and—without suggesting that it is true or concerns him—describes Dolores’s murder and its aftermath:

And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he’s plagued by deep-rooted guilt. Little sparks of his religious background which he’d rejected are suddenly stirred up. He hears his father’s voice. He imagines that God is watching his every move. Suddenly, it’s not an empty universe at all, but a just and moral one, and he’s violated it. Now, he’s panic-stricken. He’s on the verge of a mental collapse-an inch away from confessing the whole thing to the police. And then one morning, he awakens. The sun is shining, his family is around him and mysteriously, the crisis has lifted. He takes his family on a vacation to Europe and as the months pass, he finds he’s not punished. In fact, he prospers. The killing gets attributed to another person-a drifter who has a number of other murders to his credit, so I mean, what the hell? One more doesn’t even matter. Now he’s scott-free. His life is completely back to normal. Back to his protected world of wealth and privilege.

In this way his aunt’s point is illustrated and confirmed. There is no god; there is no moral order to the universe: just as the “nice” guy doesn’t get the girl, so bad people are not punished for their crimes.

In revealing pure, undistilled red pill truth, the movie’s climax feels bleak. The final shot is of Ben, the rabbi, dancing with his just-married daughter. In the background, we hear Professor Levy’s voice:

We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions. Moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on lesser points. But! We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to have been included, in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love, that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.

This voiceover (which reflects Freud’s assertion that “love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness,” and the basis for happiness) seems to strike a more optimistic note —until we remember that Professor Levy had committed suicide at the onset of the third act, both scuppering Clifford’s documentary plans and brutally undercutting the hopeful tone established here. In the end, even love and work may not be enough in the face on an indifferent cosmos.


The theme of blindness is a central metaphor in the film. Judah is an eye doctor who cannot see his own moral reprehensibility clearly. Ben is a rabbi who believes in a just universe, but who is going blind—underlining the fact that he literally does not see life clearly. Clear sight of unvarnished reality is in short supply, as is happiness.

Perhaps surprisingly, for such an atheist story, the most contented character is Judah’s father. When someone asks him at the flashback dinner party how he would feel if it turned out he was wrong about God, about pursuing his faith, he says “Then I’ll still have a better life than those who doubt.” Even though religious belief is self-inflicted blindness, those who have it are somewhat insulated from the harsh meaninglessness of the universe.

In its portrayal of female sexual agency and in its assertion that life has no moral framework, that each man is answerable only to his own personal code of morality, Crimes and Misdemeanors is defiantly red pill in nature, is Woody Allen’s finest moment, and is highly recommended to anyone interested in a dramatic representation of existential themes.

Want to find out how to avoid oneitis and attract beautiful women? Then click here

Read More: Why It’s Important To Develop An Insane Degree Of Self-Love 

143 thoughts on “Woody Allen’s Red Pill Masterpiece “Crimes And Misdemeanors” Is 25 Years Old”

    1. No, more like nihilistic crap to be avoided. This is red pill? No, it’s liberal claptrap taken to its extreme. Another example of why some blame YKW for the ongoing collapse of the advanced western nations. This article and movie do nothing but depress me. Don’t try to con me into accepting the worthless nihilistic philosophy. This is a perfect example of why we are where we are, not an antidote to the vicissitudes of life. Woody should have stuck with stuff like Take the Money and Run, Bananas, etc. He is tiresome.

      1. Exactly my sentiments. Woody is a deranged piece of shit who has been a very useful tool for Hollywood agendas. Although the film shows SOME human nature correctly (Alda’s character attracting women), the rest of it is typical godless, nihilism with a nod to how wonderful, smart, pragmatic, family-oriented the chosen tribe are. I watched all his movies as a kid, now I can’t stomach them.

        1. I feel in most of his films that Woody’s character is alienated from his Jewishness, as if it’s a clan he knows he’s *supposed* to belong to but doesn’t feel any real connection to. Kind of like how I relate to American women !

      2. Having grown up in the era of the anti-hero, and watching the degenerate Hollywood that Woody created against the Hollywood that Troy Francis mentioned (where justice is done and no foul deed goes unpunished) I have been enjoying old films, as well as new films with old values.
        I have returned to the old style of film and literature. If the bad guy doesn’t get justice in the end, it is nihilist, post-modernist, suicide cult propaganda. If the hero is a hypocrite and goes against his own moral code, he is fallen, and must pay. Children must obey their parents. Parents must be portrayed as wise, loving, and competent. God must not be mocked. A must be A.
        Example of nihilsm: The Mist (especially the ending).
        Example of having values, even when portraying a bunch degenerates: Gone With The Wind.

        1. So in other words, you prefere that literary work and film sell you bullshit stories of happily ever afters?

        2. It is, but ethics is a bigger factor to me. Art, film, and literature are not exempt from ethical standards.
          Art, film, and literature serve a purpose, and it is NOT to encourage a man to hate himself, his God, his country, his people, etc.
          “Once you lived in the dark, but now the Lord has filled you with light. Live as children who have light.”

      3. It’s apex liberalism, told from the inside.
        IOW, as good as it gets, until God and guns are returned to their rightful spots.

  1. ” I’m not saying that one should opt to kill oneself. But the truth of the matter is, when you think of it, every 100 years, there’s a big flush, and everybody in the world is gone. ”
    Every 100 years? I think Allen got that number wrong; maybe every 10000000 years?
    I will be seeing this movie and thanks for the suggestion. I agree that his best films were the early ones. Now he’s shitting out a lot of politically correct dreck noir. The movie Midnight In Paris has some redeeming qualities because the movie addresses the common theme of how people of all generations tend to over romanticize the past. That, plus the main character in that film is a writer and he opted to dump his fiancé and stay in Paris to continue to write – man deciding to follow his dream instead of wasting away being a Human D-cell battery to a female.
    I will say though that it’s bizarre that he decided his adopted daughter should be his girlfriend.

    1. He was saying every 100 years just about everyone that was alive 100 years before is dead. I thought it was obvious (as clearly did Allen)
      it’s not absolutely accurate, but for a saying it’s not bad.

      1. Woody has done a great job of exposing the shallowness of American culture. He courageously smashes the veneers of our society by exposing what really drives us as humans. You will quickly realize that he is the red pill man personified, if you happen to watch a documentary about him.

      2. I see what your saying. I thought he was talking in terms of cosmic time frame where various animals come and go on the earth, like the dinosaurs coming and going, then man springing up and evolving, will eventually pass too.

    2. Don’t really care where the author sticks his penis, but I really liked Midnight In Paris because while not only being historically intriguing, the main female character was like an awful American ex girlfriend I dated for a couple of years. Very shallow, concerned with appearances and shopping and ignoring any culture or proclivity to live in the moment and simply be in awe of life’s grandeur. Say what you want about W. Allen being a ” godless nihilist” but I’ll take the joie de vivre of the Luke Wilson protagonist over that of the lifeless “hot” fiancé who may very well read her bible any day of the week.

      1. “Say what you want about W. Allen being a ” godless nihilist” but…”
        Whoa …. hold your horses sport. I never said he was a godless nihilist, i just think it was weird for him to date his adopted daughter.
        But yeah I too agree that Midnight In Paris is a good film as it demonstrates a man going for his dream rather that catering to some hormonal driven animal.

        1. The bulk of the criticism here seems directed at him being either Jewish or a godless nihilist. You may not feel that way personally but this is not a private 1 : 1 conversation we are having here 🙂 Apologies for any possible misattribution.
          I have not yet seen Crimes and Misdemeanors but always really liked Manhattan as a quintessentially “NYC” film. Also Ariel Hemingway was pretty amazing and super sexy. There is probably some good relationship wisdom one can discern from rewatching. The funny thing is my ex also watched Midnight in Paris and didn’t think the horrible female fiancé character was flawed in any way lol

        2. The bulk of the criticism here seems directed at him being either Jewish or a godless nihilist. You may not feel that way personally but this is not a private 1 : 1 conversation we are having here 🙂 Apologies for any possible misattribution.
          I have not yet seen Crimes and Misdemeanors but always really liked Manhattan as a quintessentially “NYC” film. Also Ariel Hemingway was pretty amazing and super sexy. There is probably some good relationship wisdom one can discern from rewatching. The funny thing is my ex also watched Midnight in Paris and didn’t think the horrible female fiancé character was flawed in any way lol

  2. Woody covered the alpha male persona in his classic “Play It Again Sam”. Required viewing by all aspiring players :

  3. Why is the red pill movement turning into an atheist movement? If we are all about “men going their own way” then we must allow people to choose their own beliefs. It’s a terrible notion to think that if you are alpha then you mustn’t believe in God. Very destructive thinking.

    1. I don’t think that is the message the manosphere is trying to convey. What I get from Troy’s critique, is that the film shows how in reality there seems to be no natural order that ensures justice is meted out fairly. And we all know it’s true. Many good men end up alone and unappreciated. Many bad deeds go unpunished. Yet that may be just the realisation needed to see that it’s up to us to give meaning to our life and try to leave the world a little bit better than we found it. Just my 5 cents adjusted for inflation.

        1. I don’t think the two things are necessarily contradictory. I think you can believe in a god while simultaneously accepting that life is unfair and preparing accordingly.

        2. I also see a Christian trend in the manosphere. Atheists and Christians can get along, for a time, you know. As long as neck beards and fedoras are not involved. Many of the Christians I hang with are, like me, former atheists.

        3. I adhere to no particular religious doctrine. And I can’t decide what I think of the concept of religion either…
          In times of intellectual decadence, society becomes hedonistic and the general moral codes that hold society together begin to come apart at the seams.
          In times of high religious authority, critical thought and individual creativity are stamped out (often brutally) to preserve the dogma.
          I guess its another yin/yang situation where too much of anything is poisonous.

        4. What is religion? “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
          In times of religion, the truly distressed are looked after, while purity and sanity is preserved. If liberty is worn as a cloak for vice, then it is to be cast off.

        5. “I adhere to no particular religious doctrine.”
          How can you, you are from another planet 🙂

    2. Sure, people can choose their own belief systems. The article isn’t an argument for atheism. Remember: the happiest character in the film is Judah’s father, who is deeply religious.

    3. The notion that there is no justice on this earth is not atheist, in fact it can be taken in quite a Christian framework. Justice is meted out by God alone. The bad can live their entire lives without an ounce of regret or punishment in earthly terms, and the good can live as decent human beings and still be shit upon every single day. It’s not about what happens on earth, justice and fairness wise, but rather what happens when you stand before God.
      The Western twist on Karma is taken loosely from an idiotic Indian concept, we need to divorce ourselves from it’s foolishness. If you are Christian you should not look for “karma” on earth, you won’t find it, have faith that God will address it as He has promised in the afterlife.
      No contradictions with religion. Just my take.

        1. Anyone that says anything is “alpha as fuck” means that the item is automatically not “alpha as fuck”.

      1. European paganism is famous for being amoral, fatalistic and nihilistic. Having forgotten this I can fully understand why we’ve become such pussies.

      2. This is complete horseshit. It’s our actions that define who we are. There’s always karma and the stoics actually understood that. Every piece of negative thought comes from your previous actions. The pain of karma comes when you look in the mirror and realize you’re a fucking fraud. If you make actions and you’re willing to suffer and die for
        You’re completely missing the point of everything. Stop thinking about things as whether they’ll be right or wrong or prediction because we don’t know the future. Instead, take a payoff based, rule base approach. Once you’re able to do that, then you’ll understand the point of karma, God, and religion.
        Throw out all of the literal Christian/Jewish/Islamic shit (they’re all basically the same). That’s not the fucking point.

      3. “No contradictions with religion. Just my take.”
        Oh yes, there is. Woody Allen and the author of this article believe in the Almighty Nothing. Religion, esp. Christianity, most definitely does not.

    4. While I render no opinion on the existence of God, the problem is one in believing in the “Hollywood” version of God, who is the God of Betas.
      God himself, is pretty alpha. Don’t worship me? Fire and brimstone, baby. Look back at your home that I made you leave? How do you like being a pillar of salt? Won’t let my people go? Here, have some pillars of fire, floods, locusts and frogs.
      À bientôt,

        1. If your biggest problem in life is that I sign off on my posts–which isn’t going to change, btw–then I congratulate you on not having any problems.
          À bientôt,

    5. Because believing in fairy tales is beta. Better to accept the fact we are responsible for our own actions instead of the spaghetti monster in the sky who wants to punish us if we do bad.

    6. Most of the Manosphere (aka Red Pill Movement) relies on Evolutionary Psychology which claims that life has no other meaning thanabout Survival and Reproduction.
      That would explain why women prefer Alpha psychopath to stable good men.
      Indeed, most people don’t want to believe that and prefer religions which give them a reason to believe in the system

      1. What do you mean by “alpha psychopath”? And I think you are setting up a false dichotomy there.

        1. By psycopath, I mean people who dn’t contribute to society but who can trigger women’s sexual instinct.
          Where is the false dichotomy here?

        2. Most psychos significantly contribute to society. You know what the dichotomy is, it’s clear in your comment.

      2. Does religion fail to promote and stabilize the nuclear family? Or is there some other familial arrangement (involving an alpha psychopath) that has been proven to be more beneficial to societies advancement? I ask because if evo psych holds survival and reproduction to be man’s greatest good, how could it possibly be at odds with religion?

    7. Who told you the red pill “movement” is turning into an atheist movement? You are arguing against claims that haven’t been made.

    8. Atheism is the logical conclusion after you learn the basics of rational thought. That isn’t to say religious people are irrational, but they’re definitely making an exception when it comes to their religion. I think a lot of people also misunderstand atheism. Atheists look at the evidence, and come to the logical conclusion that a deity is highly unlikely. That doesn’t mean they KNOW a deity doesn’t exist, but using the rules of logic, and learning the fallacious arguments, one can not help but be a skeptic. Atheism is a line of thought that is completely devoid of emotion. I know of no atheists who wanted to be atheists. It also doesn’t necessarily believe we think an atheist society would be superior to a Christian society, although many believe this. Atheism requires a certain level of stubborn adherence to purely rational thinking.
      The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on judgement day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell replied, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” Haha, that pretty much sums it up.

      1. “Atheists look at the evidence, and come to the logical conclusion that a deity is highly unlikely.”
        What’s the evidence used to come to that conclusion? I ask because, correct me if I’m wrong, Bertrand Russell seems to think absence of evidence merits belief.

        1. The fact that there’s no evidence that supports a deity. If you have some please present it. A deity is only ever resorted to when there’s a hole in human knowledge, and always as a scientifically unfalsifiable claim. A believer doesn’t know the answer? God did it. All throughout history people have said, “God did it,” only to be proven wrong when the truth was finally understood.
          Believers only have anecdotes and nothing more about experiences they believe they’ve had, even though we know hallucinations and vivid dreaming are quite real. Concerning Bertrand Russell, no, that’s wrong. See Russell’s Teapot.

        2. Atheists cannot prove that there isn’t a God, either. The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the religiously inclined. And science is wrong more than my ex-wife, except they have the courage to admit it.

        3. You said, “athiests look at evidence” not “athiests notice a lack of evidence.” I just thought you were under the impression that there was evidence that proved your ism as factual rather than another belief system. My mistake. We can agree athiesm is a religion.

  4. Anybody “red pill man” who tells you to go their own way instead of your own way is full of shit.

    1. “Traditionalism is not simply following tradition, although the ways of our ancestors are an important part of it. Traditions can be corrupted, so you must know the truth behind the tradition. Traditionalism has value not because it is good to follow the ways of our ancestors (although it usually is), but because we Americans have become collectively foolish under the influence of modernity. We need to reconnect with the wisdom of the ages that our ancestors understood better than we. Traditionalism supplies this life-giving connection.”

  5. Great movie and an interesting take on it. A lot of Woody Allen is worth exploring for Red Pill truths. Or at least laughs.

  6. This 50-something creep was sleeping with Mia Farrow’s adopted teenage daughter while he was shooting this film. To this day, Allen still doesn’t get why this was scandalous. IMAO, Allen isn’t a whole lot better than Polanski. Such a glaring lack of a moral center doesn’t sound very Red Pill to me.

    1. He banged a mother daughter team, so you think nothing he says is of any merit? Guess you better stop reading articles on ROK then!

      1. I’m afraid you missed the point. It wasn’t the deed itself, but his failure to ruck up, suck up, and tell Mia Farrow that he had fallen in love with Soon-Yi. Her reaction was going to be awful no matter what, but he made it that much worse by hiding the affair—that is, until Mia found the nude snapshots of her daughter in his possession. He’s quite simply a worm. Why would you you defend him, or look upon his work as having any sort of merit after all that?

        1. Because he is a spectacular film maker. His art is great, hence has merit.
          Pretty much every artist of the past few centuries has been some sort of leftist. Doesn’t mean their work has no merit.
          If Mia Farrow wanted to protect her daughter from creepy dudes, she should have gotten herself pregnant and stayed with her kids’ father. The way nature intended.
          Instead of importing a stray, and then shacking up with an alpha who has spent pretty much his entire adult life glorifying perversions.

        2. She wasnt her daughter; she was adopted. (I believe she adopted other kids too, she was the original Angelina).
          Farrow, every few yrs, attempts to besmirch Allen’s rep, and this went down 25 yrs ago. Yeah, hes kindy creepy, but the fact Farrow wont let this go is even worse in my opinion.

        3. This *is* starting to reek of SJW… where did anyone defend the director’s bedroom antics?
          I look upon his work as it will stand after that slut and the director and everyone here today is dead and gone.. on its own merits. I frankly don’t care enough about who he banged or under what circumstances to look into the details of how it happened, how he handled it, who he told and when, etc. Not my business, couldn’t care less, and doesn’t affect his film work at all (if anything, probably helps). This is feminine bickering. If it offends you so much, then ignore him and anything to do with him. But I will say that most powerful, important people in society do some pretty awful things in their personal life (I am NOT making a judgement here that what Woody Allen did was awful).

        4. This *is* starting to reek of SJW… where did anyone defend the director’s bedroom antics?
          I look upon his work as it will stand after that slut and the director and everyone here today is dead and gone.. on its own merits. I frankly don’t care enough about who he banged or under what circumstances to look into the details of how it happened, how he handled it, who he told and when, etc. Not my business, couldn’t care less, and doesn’t affect his film work at all (if anything, probably helps). This is feminine bickering. If it offends you so much, then ignore him and anything to do with him. But I will say that most powerful, important people in society do some pretty awful things in their personal life (I am NOT making a judgement here that what Woody Allen did was awful).

        5. Excuse me, but the taboo of incest was never developed in that familial relationship. Mia Farrow and her brood were not living with Allen as a family unit. He maintained a completely separate residence. Now whether that is because of Allen or Farrow’s preference, we will never really know. I agree banging your adopted step-daughter has an “ick” factor to it, she was 22yo. and not, as most believe, a teenage girl at the time.
          Farrow’s shrieking of child molestation after the fact, which no doubt was about wanting to shame and control, was even more reprehensible than Allen’s behaviour.

    2. i don’t see what’s wrong with getting as much pussy as possible…. however….. the “life is meaningless” – is nihilist bullshit….. people who take this route are sad depressing losers who haven’t done enough inner searching and meditation… the universe is absolutely incredible, it’s far more than meaningless, it just doesn’t have a logical solution that our rational monkey brains can understand.

      1. In fairness to Allen, believing life to be meaningless, is strictly weaker than believing the universe is so.

    3. It was his way of avenging himself after the woman got herself pregnant by her (very) old lover while refusing to have his (Woody´s) child. Tit for tat.

    4. ” Such a glaring lack of a moral center doesn’t sound very Red Pill to me.”
      Actually it pretty much defines Red Pill.
      I think you need a refresher on what the definition of alpha is.
      Man that hot women want to fuck. That’s it. No questions asked.
      So that physically frail, shrill voiced, effeminate mannerismed, bifocaled man is an alpha that where his dick is concerned is more than capable of getting what he wants.

      1. I think Woody Allen’s next movie should be about some whining moralist whose wife and daughter get banged by the Alpha next door.

      2. “I think you need a refresher on what the definition of alpha is.
        Man that hot women want to fuck. That’s it. No questions asked.”
        Yea…. This is not what it means to be “alpha” and shows you’re clearly NOT alpha. You can’t define what an alpha male is, you just know it when you fucking see it. An alpha male is the guy who walks into a room and everyone looks up to him. He commands respect by his mere presence. People look up to him and he takes charge during times of crisis. He’s a leader! There’s a HUGE difference between that and having some skanks wanna fuck you. Hell, they’re two completely different things.
        Do you know how many muscled out meatheads wanna be fucked by women that’re total pussies? They’re not leaders and people certainly aren’t drawn to them. They’re not even civilized; they’re uncivilized brutes that think they’re the shit. That’s NOT being an alpha male.

        1. “Many want to believe that getting girls is ancillary to being a true alpha male; that the real measure of an alpha lies in his ability to dominate other men, or his command of his environment, or his thirst for swashbuckling adventure. While these are admirable alpha traits, they are nothing but a means to an end. Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail. That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male. And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.”

        2. So are you saying some very religious (say Christian) guy who chooses not to have sex by choice is not an alpha male even though he’s, far and away, a leader. Even though, in times of crisis, everyone always flocks to him.
          By the way, quoting some site on the internet doesn’t really say anything. There’s also a HUGE difference between having the ability to dominate other men and get pussy. Most of the guys that get pussy in today’s world can’t dominate anyone–that’s the reality. If you look most of these guys in the eye, they won’t even have the balls to look you in the eye unless they can rely on intimidation. That’s not domination; that’s being a pussy and fooling people who you don’t need to fool.
          Let me put it this way: do you think Justin Beiber is an alpha male? Cuz girls wanna fuck him.

      3. “I think you need a refresher on what the definition of alpha is.
        Man that hot women want to fuck. That’s it. No questions asked.”
        Yea…. This is not what it means to be “alpha” and shows you’re clearly NOT alpha. You can’t define what an alpha male is, you just know it when you fucking see it. An alpha male is the guy who walks into a room and everyone looks up to him. He commands respect by his mere presence. People look up to him and he takes charge during times of crisis. He’s a leader! There’s a HUGE difference between that and having some skanks wanna fuck you. Hell, they’re two completely different things.
        Do you know how many muscled out meatheads wanna be fucked by women that’re total pussies? They’re not leaders and people certainly aren’t drawn to them. They’re not even civilized; they’re uncivilized brutes that think they’re the shit. That’s NOT being an alpha male.

    5. Banging a mother/daughter combo, and the getting away with it sounds pretty red pill to me.
      I used to work with a guy who porked his assistant manager, hired her daughter, then porked her to.
      The woman complained to his boss, who let him get away with it, causing the two women to seek employment elsewhere. I did not like the guy all that much, but he sure was a hero for a while for that one.

  7. “hurr durr muh best physicists”
    Modern physics is full of shit, and modern physicists are pessimistic poisonous liars with shit taste who become popular with edgy shitheads who like to think themselves smart by talking about shit that does not exist, but is oh so conveniently invisible.

    1. Physicists are perhaps the most spiritual of the scientists. They are open to that kinda stuff, more than biologists and other scientists. They have peered into the abyss, and seen the pile of contradictions. They comprehend the dark secret of the universe. May they come to see the Light.

  8. Jennifer Lawrence said she wants to suck Woody, but only she can say that. If anybody else repeats that then its like a kind of sex crime.

  9. Great review Troy, thanks much. I’ve tended to avoid Allen’s work out of a distaste for some of his personal behaviors, but recognize that sometimes deeply flawed people can still produce the most compelling art.

  10. Such is the world where bad things happen to good people and the wicked go unpunished. I think religion helps people digest this fact because it assures us that these “bad people” will be judged by some higher power and burn in hell. The masses desperately want to believe this but are also scared of being judged by this higher power themselves since no one is good all the time. Most of us are self serving and care mainly for ourselves first and foremost. Even having kids, which many will say is a very selfless act, is actually selfish in many ways. I hear almost all breeders state that now they will have someone to care for them in their old age, won’t have to die alone, etc… Those are self serving reasons to have kids.

      1. I do not-just repeating what many with kids have told me. I believe our fear of aging and death is a big driver behind much of what we do. Check out the book “Denial of Death”-tough read but very interesting. I do realize that having kids DOES require much selflessness, which is mainly why I have none. I know myself well enough to recognize that I’m too selfish at this point of my life.

        1. I agree that a lot of people do have kids for selfish reasons. Some do it for welfare and food stamps. Some do it to have something to care for (like a pet). I truly believe nobody does it to have someone to care for them in their golden years.

        2. Because that’s, like, what massa gommiment and the banksters who took 10% of my salary every year against empty promises is for, isn’t it???

  11. A buddy of mine who dropped out of college majoring in film is absolutely obsessed with Woody Allen.
    This friend has no job, lives with his parents in their basement, is fat, drinks a lot, smokes like a chimney, and is diagnosed with all sorts of mental problems.
    …He has girls clamouring for his attention…
    Know why? He has Game… and he has nothing to lose… pair that with the fact that he is a crappy DJ who plays crappy shows in crappy venues and he has better Game than I do sometimes…
    A lot of his sense of humour and social style is taken from Woody Allen. My buddy is not exactly what you’d call an independent fully functioning male… but he knows how to make the girls laugh… and he knows how to personify “cool”.
    I’ll definitely be catching up on my Woody Allen after reading this article… I would also like to suggest watching some film by Martin Scorsese (his earlier more underground works are brutally RedPill) and Federico Fenini (La Dolce Vita is a good place to start… gives you a classy eye into half-a-century ago). Yes.. I like the old-school Italian aesthetic its true.

  12. A well-written and discerning article.
    Allen’s Matchpoint—which finely appropriates Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment–is also a profound work which shows that happiness is a taunting chimera and morality a subtle, self-interested sham.
    Of course, great artists and thinkers have always said this: it’s everywhere in Shakespeare, Moliere, Machiavelli, Dr Johnson, Freud, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hardy, Beckett, and in many others.
    The blue pill vision of the world is inevitable because most people lack the intelligence and strength of will to see red pill reality and, having seen it, not look away. Nor can education or social conditioning do much to change this. In all places and times, the majority live by illusions and delusions. This, too, is a great truism of philosophy and literature. Comedy, and especially satire, is the most amusing artistic proof here.
    If we look closely at human nature–with history in mind–we must find ludicrous the notion that human beings are equal (or want to be). Even altruism and compassion usually have some kind of connection to a person’s prevailing self-interest.
    It really isn’t surprising, when you consider just how (naturally and inevitably) full of shit most people are, that there are so many of us who, when things don’t go as we want, play the ignorant rhetorical game of deeming others “unfair,” “sexist,” “racist,” etc.; or again, blather about “doing me” and “refusing to settle”: instead of seeing reality accurately and taking personal responsibility. As a general rule, when there’s much at stake, what most people call truth is nothing but a post hoc rationalization of their a priori interests. This is especially so with the Second Sex–and hence it is that arguing with women is usually so futile.

  13. I see a recurring theme amongst each ROK article and it’s this angst for female sexual agency. Why does that bother you so much?

    1. There is a misunderstanding on your part. Female sexual agency doesn’t really bother us. The consequences of such agency in society at large, on the other hand, DOES concern us greatly.
      Why? Simple.
      Females want agency without responsibility. Let that fall on whatever scapegoat is at hand.
      One possible, and widely seen result of unrestrained female sex agency: multiple kids by multiple, dads. And it’s for everyone, willing or not, directly or otherwise, to pay the price for HER choices.
      Take away all the benefits from government (granted through exorbitant taxes me and you pay every day) afforded to single mothers, and you will see a change. They can work to support themselves without any help since women are INDEPENDENT nowadays. Let them raise their children completely unaided, and to live with full responsibility for every choice they made with their sexual agency. Yet, you will see here that they rather shirk the responsibility. Or government is on call to help. “She’s a woman, she needs help…” – Bullshit.
      Let’s not be sexist about this: if females choose to have sex like men, it must follow they get EXACTLY the same treatment men get. Which is: face the music for their actions and agency.
      Then, we may talk differently.

      1. Firstly, suggesting a misunderstanding on my part is an interesting way to gain favor. You do know that to communicate it is a two way street, right? Therefore the responsibility for the message to be heard in the intended way falls on both the recipient and the sender.
        But pushing that aside, I am curious about your inability to see prospectively. It would appear you like to live in the present and not consider the consequences.
        I understand where you are coming from, yet you think this would save money is laughable. Intervention programs are easier and less costly than correction/rehab programs.
        So is it really about the money?
        Okay so women have sex and you say they should get the same treatment as men? So if that’s the case then who determines whether or not the pregnancy continues?
        What do you mean by same treatment? I do agree that men should be able to opt out of paying early on in the pregnancy, so she can make a decision and understand she will be raising this baby on her own.
        But as far as that goes, what other same treatment?
        You do know if men get custody, which yes it does happen especially if the child has borderline or full FASD or any other neural complications from drugs/alcohol, they would get support too from the government.
        Plus we have an added bonus of not taking hormonal contraceptives which screw up their hormones, ability to have children, and possibly increase the chances of breast cancer.
        I’d rather wear a rubber than take hormonal pills everyday.
        And the new male contraceptive is an injection, which has literally no (reported) side effects. No hormone tampering, nothing.
        Just wear a rubber.

        1. I take it you’re new here. I will take that into account. You possibly have a few things to learn, as do I, and everyone else on this site. Question is, are you ready?
          If you cannot see with your own eyes the state of western society, nor question the root causes and effects of social ills, there is little I can explain. I am clear in what I say; not my responsibility what anyone derives or understands from it.

        2. I am new, yes.
          I can see it. But what can be done? We allowed women to go to school. And not just nursing and teaching, they are in medicine/law/pharmacy/dentistry/ and even some engineering programs.
          So we either adapt to this changing world, or check out.

        3. “So we either adapt to this changing world, or check out.”
          George Bernard Shaw: “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world while the unreasonable man forces the world to adapt to him. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.”
          ROK is comprised of men who, by the current, distorted standards of gender politics in the West, are unreasonable men.

        4. What if what the unreasonable man wants isn’t actually good for /everyone/ just /himself/. Would that be /progress/ as defined by Mr. George Bernard Shaw?
          Also, you mention ROK is comprised of these men who want to force the world to adapt to them, but do they even have a linear objective?

        5. There’s no need. ROK is not a socialist movement of hiveminds like feminism is. It exists solely to give men the tools they need to force their own, individual worlds to adapt to them rather than have feminist standards forced upon them.

        6. Put it this way, collective change would be nice, but there’s a distinct (and entirely understandable, and possibly correct) contingent here who take the view that there simply isn’t a way back for Western society given how damaged it’s gotten in this area.

        7. I think the bright side is some women are wanting to be housewives.
          But even if the ship sinks to the bottom of the ocean, they’ll never relinquish their voting/education rights.
          And that’s where the change needs to happen.
          Ah well.

        8. Replace ‘man’ for ‘woman’ in your first line, and you will be much closer to reality.
          Obviously not what Shaw intended it to mean when he said it.

    2. Agency is great. The problem is that many women want agency when it is convenient, and don’t want it when it is inconvenient. They want all the benefits of complete freedom of action but none of the responsibilities. Probably what they think men have. Meanwhile more and more men – especially married men – have all the responsibilities but decreasing freedom-of-action.

      1. So complete freedom of action would be choosing to have the baby, but none of the responsibilities would be receiving assistance from the government or father?
        Would absolving or relinquishing parental rights during the early stage of utero constitute a better arrangement? And if she does not share this information with him, he is completely absolved of all responsibility?
        Then I would agree with this point.
        Married men have all the responsibilities and decreasing freedom-of-action. What do you mean decreasing freedom of action?
        Do you mean violence?

        1. Do you mean violence?
          Yes, exactly. I used to beat my wife with impunity, but now I have to apply for permission from the new SBA (Spouse Beating Agency).
          I’m guessing you are not married? I’m glad you at least partially agree with the reproductive rights issue. Women have all the reproductive rights; men have none. The decision of when, if, how to have or not have a baby is completely the woman’s. The man is responsible for paying for that whatever decision she makes, even if he was tricked into it.
          In terms of marriage – the woman decides unilaterally if she will continue or stop working. She can jettison the marriage for any or no reason and she can take the children, half your wealth, and a substantial amount of your future earnings. Yes, you can also jettison the marriage for any or no reason, but she still gets the children, half your wealth, and a substantial amount of your future earnings. Custom and law are in her favor.
          In addition, being a hard working husband and father used to accord you a certain amount of respect. Now you are considered a fool and buffoon by most of society.

        2. Cool story bro.
          I do actually get some say in whether my gf gets pregnant, by wrapping it up and flushing the condom.
          Or making her swallow.
          Lots of things used to bring status. But not anymore. Soooo you want to live in the 1950’s?

        3. Cool story bro.
          I do actually get some say in whether my gf gets pregnant, by wrapping it up and flushing the condom.
          Or making her swallow.
          Lots of things used to bring status. But not anymore. Soooo you want to live in the 1950’s?

        4. You can’t go back in time. And good luck to you and your GF. Just be very careful if and when you decide to put a ring on her (or someone else’s) finger. As I said, law and custom are against you. Personally, I have a wife and a mistress.

  14. Allen definitely has a problem with American women. If you have seen Midnight In Paris and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, you will know what I’m talking about. In both of those films white American women are depicted as shallow, narcissistic and entirely self serving. The foreign women–from Spain and France–are depicted in a far more flattering light.
    There is a scene in Vicky Cristina Barcelona where Penelope Cruz tells Scarlett Jo that she suffers from chronic dissatisfaction in quite an aggressive tone. I couldn’t help but think that Allen was taking out his frustration on American cunts in that exchange.

  15. Jesus, this is a long fuckin’ article with very little return. I would recommend “Conspiracy Against the Human Race”. Seems right up the author’s alley….
    The funny and ironic thing is Allen is a Beta by choice and easily can paint the picture of the Alpha, Beta, women, the world, etc. Why didn’t he become more Alpha with such insight?

  16. What struck me most about the ending of the film as described was that it amounts to happiness (Levy’s speech about love and work) undercut with sadness (the fact the character’s already killed himself).
    If you go by authors like Robert McKee, this is the paramount achievement for a screenwriter: the ability to invest an ending with both an up *and* down beat at once — that which we call irony, that which as an audience we recognise on a screen with the quiet, almost unconscious sigh: “Ah: life is just like that.”
    Plenty of writers can end a film on an up beat and say something meaningful about human existence; less can end a film on a down beat and say something meaningful about human existence. But only the finest and most determined can deliver both at once.

  17. “.. the harsh meaninglessness of the universe.”
    I concur that the universe is harsh, but cannot agree that it is meaningless. Sure, it seems to be morally neutral, but I feel that the impression is the result of our limited perspective. Our consciousness is imprisoned by the neural pathways of our wetware and that limits our ability to sense aspects of the universe as surely as our eyes won’t see into the IR and UV and our ears can’t hear infrasound or ultrasound. Those with a taste for metaphysics often sense that something greater is going on and that we, in an extraordinary way, are a part of it. Sadly, language is a poor tool with which to describe it.
    UntamedMan made an excellent point when he said that being Red Pill doesn’t mean being atheist. To that I will add that being Red Pill doesn’t mean there is no need for a personal moral code just because the universe seems meaningless. It ain’t, even if bad things do happen to good people. The potholes are a part of the road and all roads have a destination.

    1. Interesting point.
      But surely one might argue that if the universe holds some form of ‘meaning’ that is indiscernible to humans, it remains to all intents and purposes meaningless for us as a species?

      1. One might, had I said “indiscernible” but I spoke about limits and also of sensing something greater. For example, humans evolved to be primarily sensitive to space-time. It is the medium within which we swim, so to speak.
        I submit that there may be more to the universe than space-time:- structures existing outside of it and, perhaps, forms of consciousness with heightened awareness of that otherness. We are not naturally attuned to these things but they are as much a part of the shaping of our lives as gravity. That makes them far from meaningless to us, even if we barely sense them. As we grow into that awareness, entirely new technologies may become possible.
        Written in just a few words it sounds like schizophrenia or maybe Twilight Zone. My book, “The Divine Sea” does a better job of conveying the idea of extra-human forms of awareness and how the structures I allude to enable the reconciliation of fate and freewill. There’s also a lot of sex, drinking and warship stuff plus, I’m afraid, a disgraceful episode of oneitis that’s central to the story.

      2. It depends whether you mean inherently and forever indiscernible to humans or indiscernible at this stage in our evolution, surely?

    2. It’s all perception isn’t it? I mean we’re not all part of a Borg collective are we? If you assign meaning to something that I do not, does it make either of us right or wrong?
      If I say the sky is blue and gives me a sense of purpose and meaning in life, and if you say it’s purple and does nothing for you… are we both correct? Who could really argue with either of us about our perceptions and what we assign meaning to?
      I don’t get why people argue over perceptions, I suppose it could be a sense of wanting to project our perceptions onto others to “feel” like we are part of something bigger (like a club lol), or maybe that fear of being alone with our ideas.
      Discussing on the other hand is different in my opinion, I for example am happy to discuss with like or unlike minded folks about what we perceive without getting our feathers ruffled or projecting. Those discussions generally serve to be thought provoking and usually end with “thanks for sharing, interesting” from all parties even if we do no see things the same.

      1. Agreed. Take this site as a case in point. It, and the Manosphere in general, is a voice for the perceptions of the male sex whose outlook on life and reactions to it are quite different to those of the female sex. Both sexes should have the right to be themselves without ruffling the feathers of the other, but a malignant doctrine has taken root – Cultural Marxism – which suppresses such freedom and tries to impose its own perception. Those who do not share its perceptions are pressured to comply and persecuted if they do not.
        Intellectual dictatorships always freeze scientific, philosophical and artistic progress which, in turn, always resume in the renaissances which follow the eventual fall of those dictatorships.

  18. Spiritual enlightenment like anything else worth having is gained through hard work and effort. Men who have achieved it such as Thoreau, Joseph Campbell, Buddha, etc. did not just decide that they were going to be spiritually enlightened and that was that. They had to work for it.
    Men like Judah in this movie would lose the opportunity to seek spiritual enlightenment. That door would be forever closed to him. He was probably never going to open it anyway, but after that crime one of the greatest joys that one can know in their life would no longer be available to him. That is the price. He didn’t lose anything he had. He lost an opportunity to get something he didn’t.

  19. There is a God alright. Not that I expect anyone to take my word for it. But there is. However, there is one thing I would like to be given the benefit of doubt on. And that is Crimes and Misdemeanors. I have watched it as an atheist, and as a believer. And it is great no matter what one’s perspective. Not as great as God perhaps, or entering the Tao, or transcendence, or revery, or experiencing miraculous, or manifested healing, but it is indeed Woody Allen’s finest movie.
    Just one thing. Alan Alda is no Alpha. And second, Woody Allen’s character did not take the red pill. In my opinion. He remains as blind as Judah. The blind Rabbi really does knows more.

  20. An excellent review of one of the most profound movies I’ve ever seen.
    The most rewarding moment from absorbing the movie was my realizing that Woody Allen as author and director was a pathetic person, a lost soul. His vision here reflects much of the modern Western liberal worldview but I came away feeling superior to it.
    Adopting this worldview is emotionally and spiritually a dead end and I know I’m not staring into that abyss as Allen is. Allen is unhappy and I’m not.
    While I won’t advocate any particular theology, what other conclusion could a rejection of a universe outside man reach except nihilism? That said, could I order the murder of a crazy woman threatening the happiness of my family? In the end, Judah was right, which is a flaw in Allen’s created moral dilemma.
    I am thankful to the artist for the movie even as I feel empathy for his soul-sickness. Also, my thanks for his choice of music – I LOVE Schubert’s Quartet #15!

Comments are closed.