Woody Allen

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:
Systems of power will have people foolishly believing that the odd punishment here and there for rape and sexual violence contains a deterrent effect, at the same time as the violence that power structures are responsible for around the world continues unabated.

True. But hope springs eternal:

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26044852]Vatican 'must immediately remove' child abusers - UN [/url]

Quote:

The UN has demanded that the Vatican "immediately remove" all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers.

The UN watchdog for children's rights denounced the Holy See for adopting policies allowing priests to sexually abuse thousands of children.

In a report, it criticised Vatican attitudes towards homosexuality, contraception and abortion.

The Vatican responded by saying it would examine the report - but also accused its authors of interference.

[my emphasis]

I realize this is the "Woody Allen" thread.

6079_Smith_W

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Leaving all else aside, it's clear that such a person is a grade-A creep and seriously unbalanced. Knowing this, why should we believe anything he says about further accusations?

Now that's the kind of rationale that makes me say hold on a minute. Respect for the accuser is one thing - a very important and necessary thing; but leaping to the assumption that the case is closed and it doesn't matter is another. As I said, I went into this just assuming that he must have done it. My reconsideration has nothing to do with anything he has said.

I object to the notion that not assuming guilt is somehow the same as disrespecting the accuser, or siding with the accused. Or worse, that one shouldn't question because it enables those who do attack the accuser.

I understand why Dylan Farrow wrote about her outrage at his being honoured. I support her doing that, as it is clearly causing her suffering that he is honoured while her complaint is unresolved, and it is obviously part of what made her speak up now.

Other people taking that in a literal way though, and implying that no one should have anything to do with him, and if they do they are complicit? Sorry. I can't support that at all. It might make me sound callous, but to insist that someone be made a pariah over an unproven charge is a dangerous precedent.

Again: Niholas Kristof in the New York Times:

Quote:

Look, none of us can be certain what happened. The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn’t the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable?

Yet the Golden Globes sided with Allen, in effect accusing Dylan either of lying or of not mattering. That’s the message that celebrities in film, music and sports too often send to abuse victims.

This was a 20-year-old issue, and Dylan Farrow had not made any public statement when that award was decided on.

Fact is, you only have to look at what is happening to see that Allen is getting quite a bit of scrutiny because of this.

NDPP

Woody Allen on Polanski Sex Scandal (2010)

http://ca.eonline.com/news/181271/cannes-notebook-woody-allen-on-polansk...

"For his part, Allen portrayed the hubbub around Polanski as akin to a witch hunt.

'He's an artist, he's a nice person, he did something wrong and he paid for it. [The critics] are not happy unless he pays the rest of his life...Polanski...did something and he has been penalized for it. Enough is enough."

MegB

Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, plea-bargained it down to a guilty plea of having sex with an underage girl. He fled the country to avoid imprisonment. He did something wrong and payed for it? He did something illegal, sick and no, he didn't pay for his crimes. He lives abroad, avoiding countries that could extradite him to the US, making movies, including his incredibly awful film version of Macbeth. Have these two got each others' backs or what?

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

Woody Allen on Polanski Sex Scandal (2010)

http://ca.eonline.com/news/181271/cannes-notebook-woody-allen-on-polansk...

"For his part, Allen portrayed the hubbub around Polanski as akin to a witch hunt.

'He's an artist, he's a nice person, he did something wrong and he paid for it. [The critics] are not happy unless he pays the rest of his life...Polanski...did something and he has been penalized for it. Enough is enough."

"A brave and brilliant man, important to all people."

https://www.google.ca/#q=%22Brave+and+brilliant+man%22+roman+polanski

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/roman-polanskis-victim-on-ac...

http://www.hollywood.com/news/brief/2442419/mia-farrow-to-appear-at-roma...

bekayne

josh wrote:

Ed Smythe: Child molestation is a touchy subject, and the affiliates...

Mickey: Read the papers, half the country's doing it!

Ed Smythe: Yes, but you name names.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091167/quotes

Does that make Albert Brooks a pedophile?

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75atruth.phtml

Bacchus

So Mia Farrow defends a rapist and thats ok? But its not ok for anyone to defend her ex?

 

Poor dylan, psychos all around her

 

josh
voice of the damned

Rebecca West wrote about Polanski:

He lives abroad, avoiding countries that could extradite him to the US, making movies, including his incredibly awful film version of Macbeth.

Just for the record, Polanski's Macbeth was made in 1971, six years before the rape conviction that promted him to flee the US.

And, while these things are obviously subjective, I like his version of Macbeth. I know some people think the nudity at the beginning is exploitative, but I've never got the impression that it's intended to be pornographic or even erotic at all. I think it sometimes gets read that way because a) the director turned out to be a sex criminal, and b) it's a Playboy production, so people assume base motivations. But I think the witches were just nude to give it a more natural feel.

(And I don't know if that was one of your objections to Polanksi's Macbeth, but it's one that I've often heard.)  

On the other hand, some of the hallucinations, like the dagger floating in the air, are pretty cheesy.

 

 

Jacob Two-Two

I'm convinced Allen is guilty, and it's not for knee-jerk reasons. It's because all the evidence points in that direction. Yes, these sorts of cases are always murky but that doesn't excuse you from having to make a moral choice. Will you stand with the accuser when all indications point to her accusations being true, or stand with the abuser in declaring the truth as  unknowable?

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/six-reasons-dylan-farrow-highly-credible....

Bacchus

Im just not comfortable judging everyone for their opinions either way. Thats how we get kangaroo courts and lynchings

jas

josh wrote:
Moses Farrow comes to Allen's defense:
">http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/05/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-mos...

"Of course Woody did not molest my sister."

Took him a few days to speak out publicly on this.

Quote:
[O]n the day the abuse is alleged to have occurred there were several people present in the house the whole time and "no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces".

The day? It was only one day? Moses, the family therapist, seems to be ignoring a whole bunch of other information.

MegB

voice of the damned wrote:

Rebecca West wrote about Polanski:

He lives abroad, avoiding countries that could extradite him to the US, making movies, including his incredibly awful film version of Macbeth.

Just for the record, Polanski's Macbeth was made in 1971, six years before the rape conviction that promted him to flee the US.

And, while these things are obviously subjective, I like his version of Macbeth. I know some people think the nudity at the beginning is exploitative, but I've never got the impression that it's intended to be pornographic or even erotic at all. I think it sometimes gets read that way because a) the director turned out to be a sex criminal, and b) it's a Playboy production, so people assume base motivations. But I think the witches were just nude to give it a more natural feel.

(And I don't know if that was one of your objections to Polanksi's Macbeth, but it's one that I've often heard.)  

On the other hand, some of the hallucinations, like the dagger floating in the air, are pretty cheesy.

 

 

I object to Polanski's Macbeth because it's a very crappy version of a brilliant play, one that I've studied and seen several times. I may know shit about film history (I studied Drama and English, not film), but I do know shit when I see it. Others, of course, will disagree. Regardless, the topic is not film or cinematic art, it's predatory men who skate on some fairly horrific crimes because in a rape society, girls and women are abused, victimized and denied credibility because of their gender's perceived value in relation to that of men. It takes more than a glance at a Wikipedia entry to understand that.

Slumberjack

The notion that any form of 'justice' will do seems peculiar to both the left and the right.

6079_Smith_W

In Polanski's case there were all kinds of apologies, including justifying his fleeing the country because he was a holocaust survivor and terrified of jail.

And to hear his version of events, the terms of his plea bargain were either thrown out after they had his confession, or not clear. So again - a victim.

But to hear comments like he has been "punished enough"? I won't reprint it here, but it is worth reading Polanski's comment that his case would not have gotten as much attention if he had murdered someone, and that it all came down to the public's obsession with "young girls".

Clearly he had no understanding or remorse for the fact that he was the one who committed the crime.

One big difference in his case it that although there may have been some blaming of the real victim,  there was no accusation that she was lying. It all centred around defending and excusing the criminal.

6079_Smith_W

The New Yorker:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ve...

For some reason the copied page link doesn't work; the google one does.

And US News

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/05/why-dylan-farrows-woody-a...

I didn't know until I read this article that Blue Jasmine was about an "unhinged" woman.

 

 

voice of the damned

I didn't know until I read this article that Blue Jasmine was about an "unhinged" woman.

It's a pastiche of A Streetcar Named Desire. With a difference being that Kate Blanchett's character doesn't represent a vanishing socioeconoic order, the way that Blanche DuBois does. Her family's collapse in fortune is entirely the result of their own personal failings.

 

6079_Smith_W

More importantly, it could be taken as an attack on his ex-partner, and by extension, the validity of the accusations against him. Not saying he made the film as propaganda, but that aspect of it (as well as its success) does offer a clue as to why his accusers may have felt the need to speak up now.

Rather than the claim that they just want to prevent the movie's shot at an Oscar, that is.

 

 

voice of the damned

More importantly, it could be taken as an attack on his ex-partner, and by extension, the validity of the accusations against him. Not saying he made the film as propaganda, but that aspect of it (as well as its success) does offer a clue as to why his accusers may have felt the need to speak up now.

Well, if Mia Farrow is disguised as Jasmine, then that would make Woody Allen into her ex-husband Hal, ie. a sleazy businessman who robs his hardworking clients, cheats on his wife, and ultimately kills himself in prison. Not sure why Allen would want to portray himself that way if he's jonesing for sympathy.

Overall, I don't see a lot of symmetry between Blue Jasmine and the Allen/Farrow situation. There IS the issue of parent/child estrangement, but in Blue Jasmine, the kid is estranged from both parents equally(as opposed to siding with one parent against the other). And Allen does portray Jasmine as being a victim of sexual assault, which he would not likely do if he was using her as a stand-in for Farrow.

 

6079_Smith_W

I don't think we need to take that close a reading of it, nor do I think it changes the basic picture of someone as unbalanced and reacting irrationally to a betrayal.

If it were me in her position I'd pay attention, because none of that stuff is completely separated from real life.

It's speculation sure, so I'm not all that interested in arguing the point.

But I think it's worth putting on the table given the prevailing argument that they are just being mean-spirited and only speaking up now in order to foil his chance at an Oscar.

voice of the damned

But I think it's worth putting on the table given the prevailing argument that they are just being mean-spirited and trying to foil his chance at an Oscar.

I agree with you on that. People wouldn't go to the length of fabricating sex-abuse allegations just to prevent a movie they dislike from winning an Oscar.  

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I found this article very thoughtful on the subject:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/03/the_uneasy_ambiguity_of_the_woody_allen_case/

 

I also think that some of the testimony surrounding the custody battle between Mia Farrow and Woody Allen - not from either of them, but caregivers corroborating the bizarre behaviour Allen had with Dylan - adds weight to Dylan's claims.  Ultimately, we can't know the absolute truth of the allegations now, but there's little question that this was not a normal father-daughter relationship by any stretch.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture
Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/woody-allen-responds-to-dylan-farrow-s-abus... Allen responds to Dylan Farrow's abuse claims[/url]

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

In light of the total claim of victim hood - much of which was already expressed by Allen's great admirerer, Weide - let's have a look at why Weide's claims don't hold much water. I think they're pretty applicable to what Allen is saying. And if that's the best defense he has, I'm even more skeptical than I was.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/woody_allen_s_bigg...

6079_Smith_W

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/samantha_geimer_t...

Obviously not the course everyone needs to take, but...

jas

A few more thoughts:

- The best way to cast doubt on such high-profile allegations is to vigorously and publicly deny them, and to cast doubt on the motivations and rationality of the accuser. Allen is in a good position to do this with his popularity and with the lack of charges laid the last time this came to light.

- As many have already pointed out, his behaviour with another adopted daughter, another young girl in his household, being raised by him and his then wife, unfortunately casts deep and justifiable doubt on his claims of innocence. Even his recent comments, in which he mentions "falling in love" with the 19-year-old in his household. Good god. What if the 19-year-old had been his biological daughter? That would have really put a crimp in his romantic life, no?

- His claims of Mia Farrow's vendetta against him also need to be examined. 1) If he sexually abused his daughters, then of course she hates his guts. It's not a "vendetta". 2) He married their adopted daughter, for chrissakes. That's f***ing creepy. Of course she thinks he's a creep. It's not a "vendetta". It's justifiable disgust. Duh.

Sharon

I have always liked the expression, "You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts."

In fact, Soon-Yi was not Woody's daughter, adopted or otherwise. She was/is the adopted daughter of Andre Previn and Mia Farrow.

I'm not pointing this out to try and change anyone's mind -- and it won't -- but accuracy is important.

jas

Is it accurate to say that she was a full-time member of the Farrow-Allen household, and was being raised in that household? Or was she mainly a visitor, with Allen playing no parental role whatsoever? The few accounts I've seen suggest she was a full-time member of that household, and Allen played a parental role. In what way would he not have?

Sineed

From an article linked in a previous post, published 2005:

http://www.hollywood.com/news/brief/2442419/mia-farrow-to-appear-at-roma...

Quote:
Mia Farrow to appear at Roman Polanski's sex trial

A source tells Britain's Sunday Times newspaper, "Mia regards Roman as a close friend and she says she will do all she can to help him."

This is not to question the veracity of Dylan Farrow's allegations. I believe Dylan Farrow. But her mother's hypocrisy is troubling and ultimately hurts Dylan Farrow's credibility. 

Woody and Mia both appear to be troubled individuals. Whether or not Dylan Farrow has been a pawn in their dispute is known only to them.

Whether it's the people involved or the broader community of abuse survivors, nobody wins here, and we will never know what really happened.

jas

Quote:
Woody and Mia both appear to be troubled individuals.

I think that's a fair statement.

But if I was Allen, I would want the opportunity to clear my name in court. What Dylan Farrow says about why the earlier charges were withdrawn does not suggest innocence on Allen's part.

Jacob Two-Two

Nothing about the story suggests his innocence. In fact, I would say that the majority of sexual abuse cases are a good deal more ambiguous than this one is. Practically everything points to him being guilty.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-...

josh

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/woody-allen-responds-to-dylan-farrow-s-abus... Allen responds to Dylan Farrow's abuse claims[/url]

 

I find it significant that Allen was permitted to adopt two girls with Soon Yi despite the allegation.

Unionist

What I find troubling is the amount of attention progressive folks of all kinds give to this situation.

Children are being abused by the Catholic Church, by parents, by teachers, by rapists in and out of the family, by exploiters of Aboriginal people, by your next-door neighbour, by our entire society. But this rates a conversation because we're dealing with Hollywood celebrities? And it's dignified to take sides and try to assess credibility and honesty of the various participants?

Why would anyone care about one particular 20-years-ago assault (whether it happened or not), were it not for the show-biz gossip thrill? There are deep lessons in this for humanity? Should I hate Mia or admire her? Should I feel disgust at watching Woody's movies? Is Dylan courageous, or brainwashed?

Tune in next week for more.

 

 

 

MegB

Unionist wrote:

What I find troubling is the amount of attention progressive folks of all kinds give to this situation.

Children are being abused by the Catholic Church, by parents, by teachers, by rapists in and out of the family, by exploiters of Aboriginal people, by your next-door neighbour, by our entire society. But this rates a conversation because we're dealing with Hollywood celebrities? And it's dignified to take sides and try to assess credibility and honesty of the various participants?

Why would anyone care about one particular 20-years-ago assault (whether it happened or not), were it not for the show-biz gossip thrill? There are deep lessons in this for humanity? Should I hate Mia or admire her? Should I feel disgust at watching Woody's movies? Is Dylan courageous, or brainwashed?

Tune in next week for more.

 

 

 

Excellent point. Thank you. In light of that, I'll once again attempt to stear the conversation back to what I feel are the essential issues. We live in a rape culture. To tie a bigger bow on the whole package I will call it a culture of exploitation, gender exploitation, sexual exploitation, etc. The acts themselves represent a crime of violence by one empowered against one not. In the cultural sense, it is about gender, class, privilege, race, and many other things. You can, of course, as babblers direct the conversation in whatever ways you wish within the boundaries of babble policy, but I would urge participants to remember, as Unionist has reminded us, that this is a much larger issue than one of family dysfunction and celebrity gossip.

jas

Unionist wrote:
What I find troubling is the amount of attention progressive folks of all kinds give to this situation. Children are being abused by the Catholic Church, by parents, by teachers, by rapists in and out of the family, by exploiters of Aboriginal people, by your next-door neighbour, by our entire society. But this rates a conversation because we're dealing with Hollywood celebrities?

We should ignore the topic of child sexual abuse if it involves Hollywood celebrities?

Unionist wrote:
Why would anyone care about one particular 20-years-ago assault (whether it happened or not), were it not for the show-biz gossip thrill?

Again, we should care less about it because it involves Hollywood celebrities? It should matter less to us because the high profiles of those involved are bringing into a glaring public spotlight typical dynamics in child sexual abuse cases?

These are strange comments coming from you, Unionist.

Unionist

jas wrote:

Again, we should care less about it because it involves Hollywood celebrities? It should matter less to us because the high profiles of those involved are bringing into a glaring public spotlight typical dynamics in child sexual abuse cases?

I think I was saying that we shouldn't care more about a celebrity case. Full disclosure: I don't.

As for "typical dynamics" - really? I think there are zero lessons to be learned from what I've heard and read so far. Except for the one I've highlighted: that people get all excited about celebrity scandals.

We can't even get to why a parent or any adult would do something horrible like this to a child, or what the underlying problem is in precise terms (yes, I'm familiar with the words privilege and rape culture - but I mean more than labelling the problem), let alone what we should do to solve the underlying problems - because the facts are still ambiguous, and we're too busy cheerleading for one "side" or the other. And sensible, rational, empathetic people get sucked into this trial by long-distance interpretation and demonizing the other "side".

Not me.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I half agree with you, Unionist, but the half that doesn't is the part that sees dynamics of this situation in every MRA sob story about what a bitch his ex is and the justifications and protestations of sex abusers who aren't famous.  So in some ways, if you can get past the celebrity gossip aspect, there is something in the whole sordid situation that can get people thinking and talking about the dynamics of sexual abuse of children. 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

the facts are still ambiguous, and we're too busy cheerleading for one "side" or the other. And sensible, rational, empathetic people get sucked into this trial by long-distance interpretation and demonizing the other "side".

Not me.

I agree with you that is a problem - a big one. Fact is though, not everyone is doing that.

Another fact is that as much as some would like non-celebrity cases to have an equal footing it is often these high-profile incidents that bring these issues to the fore, and there is no way that one can change that by just wishing it were not so.

We're never going to escape that, as a matter of fact.

I also don't think there is any inherent problem with it, so long as discussion focuses on the important root issues, and doesn't get overshadowed by the way some turn it into a team sport.

As much as we want to call out that last, I think there are plenty of commentators who are treating this issue with the sensitivity and analysis it deserves. There have been plenty of examples of both posted in this thread and elsewhere.

Were it not for those tweets during the Golden Globes would people around the world now be talking about taking accusations like this seriously? It's not that easy to separate what is important from other kinds of reaction.

 

arielc

josh wrote:
Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/woody-allen-responds-to-dylan-farrow-s-abus... Allen responds to Dylan Farrow's abuse claims[/url]

 

I find it significant that Allen was permitted to adopt two girls with Soon Yi despite the allegation.
Yes I find that quite disturbing - creepy - but he was never convicted of anything.

I always found him creepy, BEFORE the allegations surfaced. I might have enjoyed his movies if he hadn't been in them.

Woody blames Mia:

"Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother's shabby agenda?" Allen said. "That is to hurt me with a smear."

BUT ... if Dylan was not sexually assaulted by Allen, why on earth would she - now marriedwith children - disturb her own life and family at this stage ... just to benefit Mia? It makes no sense.

Those who continue to deny he's a pedophile, including BabaWawa, need to use their damn brains.

What does make sense is that her children are near the age she was when abused, causing new rage at her abuser, her abuser is in the news, and she wants him punished.

That's a viable explanation.

'Mia wants to smear me' is not a viable explanation.

jas

Woody Allen Is Not a Monster. He Is a Person. Like My Father.

Quote:
There are a number of popular tropes around child sexual abuse in our culture. Two are preeminent: One calls us liars when we come forward, another calls us crazy. There is a notion that we should be skeptical when an adult comes forward and names their abuser, that we should carefully question their motivations lest we be duped by someone who is manufacturing, or at least strategically re-crafting, a story of abuse to shirk responsibility for their own transgressions. There is also the popular notion that "false memories" of child abuse are common. 

Pages