Woody Allen

[Paul in Qatar]

Well, it does not seem to be open to doubt. Woody Allen likes to have sex with little girls and sees nothing wrong with that.

It was fairly obvious from his statements in support of child rapist Roman Polanski that Allen thought it was OK to have sex with children. Polanski is after all a "nice guy."
-=Linky=-

But now we have his daughter's open letter describing, in graphic detail, his rapes.
-=Linky=-

While I realize he is Ruling Class and so unaccountable to the law, can we at least call him what he is? He will get away with this of course, but can't we all just turn our collective backs on this beast?

[eleanorigby]

How does Jaledin keep escaping the Box?

Woody Allen is a talented asshole. Film at 11.

ETA: the entitlement is strong in this one…

[Guinastasia]

"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. They would be happy if they could execute him in a firing squad," Allen said.

Well, duh, Woody. That's what we generally do with rapists -- we send them to prison. (No, I don't think he should be put in front of a firing squad, but he still should have gone to prison -- the guy drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. No shit he's had a hard life. But it's not a license to commit rape.) Dumbass.

He added, "They should take the money they spent on the Polanski case and go after drug dealers and rapists. Polanski . . . did something and he has been penalized for it. Enough is enough."

Uh, we are going after a rapist: Polanski. There isn't enough in the world to describe this sentence.

(Personally, I'd be willing to cut the following deal with him -- come back, serve your sentence, and we'll give you five minutes alone with Charles Manson. Sound good? I think he'd take it.)

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

...can't we all just turn our collective backs on this beast?

Been doing that since his baby-schtuping behavior first came out around 20 years ago. I really don't care how talented he is or how funny his movies are.

[Paul in Qatar]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Uh, we are going after a rapist: Polanski. There isn't enough in the world to describe this sentence.

When Polanski was detained in Switzerland a few years ago, Allen said he was "Stupefied." For some reason I looked it up. It is getting a person drunk so you can have sex with them. It is exactly what Polanski did.

[JackieLikesVariety]

But now we have his daughter's open letter describing, in graphic detail, his rapes.
-=Linky=-

so I read the link and OH MY FUCKING GOD how did I not know this? seriously? I started a thread about his movies on SD not too long ago and no mention of it whatsofuckingever.

I did remember he married his adopted daughter and I felt, well that is Not OK. but I only had a vague idea she was still - what, 18? 17? certainly post puberty for god's sake - when the "relationship" started.

may the thing he is MOST famous for - from now until the end of time - not be making movies.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by roubaud

I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on Woody Allen and his personal relationships with alleged criminals.

Could you please share more?

I, for one, would very much appreciate your thoughts.

I doubt that very much. I only call him an asshole because the allegations against Mr Allen have not been proven in court. I haven't seen a Woody Allen movie since I don't know when. He's like Mel Gibson to me now: I see him and do not think of his talents, but of his character-- or more accurately, lack thereof.

YMMV.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

...can we at least call him what he is?
...can't we all just turn our collective backs on this beast?

OK.

[Pere]

I found the remark addressed to Diane Keaton--who just sang Allen's praises, particularly of his treatment of women, as she accepted an award on his behalf at the Golden Globes--especially heartbreaking. "You knew me when I was a little girl..."

[Guinastasia]

Oh hai everyone -- MC is back!

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

so I read the link and OH MY FUCKING GOD how did I not know this? seriously? I started a thread about his movies on SD not too long ago and no mention of it whatsofuckingever.

I did remember he married his adopted daughter and I felt, well that is Not OK. but I only had a vague idea she was still - what, 18? 17? certainly post puberty for god's sake - when the "relationship" started.

may the thing he is MOST famous for - from now until the end of time - not be making movies.

While I hate Allen as much as anyone, Soon Yi's adopted father is Andre Previn. (Nor was Allen her stepfather -- he and Mia never married). Not that it makes much of a difference, he was still a parental figure, just clearing things up.

[hajario]

He wasn't even a parental figure. She lived at Mia's house. Woody never even spent the night there. They never met when Soon Yi was growing up.

[SmartAleq]

When Allen and Mia Farrow got together circa 1980 Soon-Yi was seven. When he got together with Soon-Yi in 1992, Dylan was seven. Do I think for one damned moment that Soon-Yi went virgin to her marriage bed? No, I do not. I suspect she's got a streak of Stockholm Syndrome a mile wide and he was molesting her from an early age.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

When Allen and Mia Farrow got together circa 1980 Soon-Yi was seven. When he got together with Soon-Yi in 1992, Dylan was seven. Do I think for one damned moment that Soon-Yi went virgin to her marriage bed? No, I do not. I suspect she's got a streak of Stockholm Syndrome a mile wide and he was molesting her from an early age.

Originally Posted by hajario

He wasn't even a parental figure. She lived at Mia's house. Woody never even spent the night there. They never met when Soon Yi was growing up.

.....

[SmartAleq]

And you know this how? Lived there yourself, didja?

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

And you know this how? Lived there yourself, didja?

Perhaps he believes Mia Farrow's memoirs, where she states that.

This article reaches no conclusions (and I think properly so) but is informative.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

And you know this how? Lived there yourself, didja?

Those are facts that are not disputed by everyone involved. Quit being so fucking dense.

[SmartAleq]

Regardless, he managed to find the time unsupervised to molest one kid, so it's inconceivable he could have done the same to another? Please.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by hajario

They never met when Soon Yi was growing up.

Originally Posted by hajario

Those are facts that are not disputed by everyone involved.

For 11+ years, a man never met the resident child of the woman he was dating?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Regardless, he managed to find the time unsupervised to molest one kid, so it's inconceivable he could have done the same to another? Please.

Did you read the article that rye posted? It not clear that he molested anyone. He could have molested Dylan. He could have molested another kid. He was never in the same house as Soon Yi when she was a child, let alone molest her and definitely not your dumbass Stockholm Syndrome theory. He simply didn't have the opportunity.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by roubaud

That's a really interesting point of view.

And so eloquent, and with a touch of irony!

Very gifted mind at work behind that pen.

No.

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever read, anywhere, including stuck to the crack of my ass.

You are a dumb, intolerable lady, and you have no business calling me out. Any more than Custer's Mom called him out of her filthy cesspool of a zombie movie.

You're done. Just take your shitty words, your crappy admirations, your failed abominations that in other worlds could have been a family and get the fuck out off of up my ass, you stupid stoolpigeon-looking hag of a cunt.

Well, I'm glad we cleared THAT up.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Pere

For 11+ years, a man never met the resident child of the woman he was dating?

Yes. She always went to Woody's house. Woody never went to Mia's house. Woody and Mia's kids but not Previn and Mia's kids spent time at Woody's house. This is according to Woody, Soon Yi and Mia. Read the linked article which is very even handed.

[SmartAleq]

He was around the kids ALL THE TIME, he just went home afterward. Do you seriously think it takes an overnight visit to molest a child? FFS, it's been known to happen in a room with other people in it the whole time. Why, precisely, are you siding with the kiddie fucker? Don't you find it a little bit odd that the immediate response of entire shitloads of people is to call the little kid a liar and make ridiculous excuses for the molester? Me, having a fair amount of experience with this kind of situation, will always side with the kid. Always. Your mileage, obviously, varies.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by hajario

Yes. She always went to Woody's house. Woody never went to Mia's house. Woody and Mia's kids but not Previn and Mia's kids spent time at Woody's house.

Well, if true, that just makes it weirder.


Robert B. Weide is not exactly a disinterested observer here.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

He was around the kids ALL THE TIME, he just went home afterward. Do you seriously think it takes an overnight visit to molest a child? FFS, it's been known to happen in a room with other people in it the whole time. Why, precisely, are you siding with the kiddie fucker? Don't you find it a little bit odd that the immediate response of entire shitloads of people is to call the little kid a liar and make ridiculous excuses for the molester? Me, having a fair amount of experience with this kind of situation, will always side with the kid. Always. Your mileage, obviously, varies.

I'm not defending him. You're just fucking irrational. All I said was that he didn't molest Soon Yi when she was a child. You're claiming that he did so constantly to the point that she has Stockholm Syndrome even though even Mia never claimed that he had no contact with her when she was a kid.

He was around HIS kids all the time. He was never around the Previn kids. Soon Yi is a Previn kid.

I hadn't even stated my opinion on whether or not he molested his own kids. I actually have no idea if he did or not. I don't think that the evidence is conclusive either way. Did you read the linked article? It's very factual and doesn't come to a conclusion either way.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Pere

Well, if true, that just makes it weirder.

Robert B. Weide is not exactly a disinterested observer here.

The whole think is definitely weird. The facts are weird enough without making shit up though.

[Guinastasia]

Okay, I was wrong there. Dude's still a huge sleazebag.

(Apparently, Soon-Yi has no contact with any of her family nowadays -- including her father.)

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Doesn't mean it's not creepy. Dude's a huge sleazebag.

Of course it's creepy. Who said it wasn't creepy?

[Pere]

Originally Posted by hajario

The whole think is definitely weird. The facts are weird enough without making shit up though.

Heh. Fair enough.

[Guinastasia]

Sorry, Allen's just always creeped me out. I never knew why everyone thought he was so funny -- he always struck me as smug little whiner.

[Clockwork Jackal]

"The kid" is now 20 some-odd years old. And she damn sure knows what happened to her. She's old enough to be free of her mothers influence, (which I'm not sure she ever was, but anyways.)

She's gonna get a ton if shit for speaking out against Woody Allen. I think she's very brave.

[SmartAleq]

I didn't "claim" anything--I said that I suspect that Allen had much more to do with Soon-Yi prior to the official start of his relationship with her. The timing of which is dubious at best--they officially became a couple when she was nineteen, after Mia found explicit nude photos of Soon-Yi in Allen's possession. When were those photos taken? Nobody's really sure about that, but by definition the relationship had already progressed to nudity by then. So when, exactly, did that start? How old was she when they started "officially" screwing? Soon-Yi had an uncredited part in "Hannah And Her Sisters," which released in 1986, when she was thirteen. Allen had all kinds of access to her, and sexual relationships don't just come flying in from nowhere, they grow. So, do I think that one day he just woke up and said "Ha, look at this completely legal over eighteen woman that I've never once had a sexual thought about in the eleven years I've known her, I think I will see if I can bang her!" Yeah, that makes ever so much more sense.

Child molesters seldom operate in a vacuum, they evolve over time just like other criminals do. They try shit on to see if they can get away with it and if they do get away with it they get bolder. I've seen a family where daddy molested five daughters in a row going on for YEARS before he got caught--and even then, mom was kinda sorta confused about how it could possibly have happened and wouldn't she have known and maybe it was the girl's fault and and and...

There's no end of the benefit of the doubt that's given to molesters and no end of the victim blaming the kids go through. I just side with the ones who are on the short side of the power gradient.

[Steophan]

SmartAleq, you really need to look at the facts here, not the tabloid sensationalism. Woody didn't know Soon-Yi when she was underage, and the evidence at the time that he molested Dylan has all been discredited - she was physically examined, no evidence. Examined by psychiatrists, no evidence. The tapes that Farrow made of Dylan's accusations were shown to be full of edits and distortions. Meanwhile, Farrow was sleeping with her ex-husband Frank Sinatra, whilst criticising Allen's infidelity, and another of her adopted sons now has no contact with her, and refers to her family and their views on Allen as being like a brainwashing cult.

Is Woody Allen a creepy old man? Yep. But there's no real evidence - including the recent statement from Dylan after more than twenty years of brainwashing - that he's an abuser.

[SmartAleq]

Yes he did--you have film evidence right there, she was in one of his pictures when she was twelve or thirteen. You're saying the director of a film doesn't know/has never seen someone he put in a movie? I'm afraid you're lacking on the facts here.

You might also want to look up "sexual abuse dissociation" some day. It's a real thing that happens to real kids who really get molested by adults. It has real symptoms that unfold over time. Here's a spot to start. It is extremely common for children who've been sexually assaulted to be unclear on what's happened, to have variable stories, and for them to deny the whole thing sometimes. It's because kids aren't stupid and they're afraid of hurting their families so they try to take on the whole burden themselves. It seldom turns out well for them.

[Steophan]

OK, keep ignoring the facts and ranting.

Yes, sexual abuse is terrible. So is falsely accusing someone of it. Both ruin lives, and both should not be done. Given that the very strong balance of the evidence is that Woody Allen didn't abuse either Soon-Yi or Dylan, you should stop claiming that he did.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Steophan

OK, keep ignoring the facts and ranting.
...the very strong balance of the evidence is that Woody Allen didn't abuse either Soon-Yi or Dylan...

Originally Posted by Steophan

Woody didn't know Soon-Yi when she was underage

But this is not a fact, after all, it would seem.

[SmartAleq]

The difference is that sexual abuse of children actually happens WAY more often than a false accusation, that the sexual abuse happens to a person who simply does not have the intellectual or emotional maturity to process it and the damage of the sexually abused child results in things like eating disorders, cutting, suicide, an inability to ever have a normal sexual relationship, PTSD, depression and mental illness, whereas the damage to the falsely accused seems to be more along the lines of not getting an award.

Also, "ranting?" If you think this is a rant I respectfully submit you aren't paying attention because if I want to rant I can damned well put on a rant worth the name. This is just fact--sexual abuse of children is widespread, it's underreported and underprosecuted and the fallout happens disproportionately to the victims. If you don't like that, tough. That's life in the real world.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Pere

But this is not a fact, after all, it would seem.

If you want to take "know" as "be aware of her existence, know who she was" then fine. Soon-Yi, Mia Farrow and Woody Allen all say that they didn't know each other before about 1991, and I'd be surprised if they were all lying.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

The difference is that sexual abuse of children actually happens WAY more often than a false accusation, that the sexual abuse happens to a person who simply does not have the intellectual or emotional maturity to process it and the damage of the sexually abused child results in things like eating disorders, cutting, suicide, an inability to ever have a normal sexual relationship, PTSD, depression and mental illness, whereas the damage to the falsely accused seems to be more along the lines of not getting an award.

If you think that the worst that can happen to someone falsely accused of sexual abuse is not getting an award, you're a fucking idiot. Depression, suicide, assault and murder, having their own children taken away, being shunned by family and friends, divorced, pretty much having your life ruined.

Yes, child abuse is devastating and disturbingly common. Yes, proven abusers need to be punished heavily. But false accusations are more common than you seem to think, and are also devastating.

Why do you think you have the right to accuse him when the experts that examined Dylan found no evidence of abuse, and when we know that Mia Farrow is out to ruin Allen, and we have evidence that she brainwashes her kids and lies about them, including the parentage of at least one of them.

Believe what you like, but I see no reason to believe anything she says.

[SmartAleq]

Let me guess--you also think there's parity between false accusations of rape and actual rape, right? And that being accused of rape is "just as bad" as being raped.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Let me guess--you also think there's parity between false accusations of rape and actual rape, right? And that being accused of rape is "just as bad" as being raped.

I don't thing it matters "how bad" it is, what matters is that both are bad, both are wrong, and both ruin lives. Why are you defending those who make false accusations as though what they do doesn't matter?

There is parity in the sense that both are wrong, both morally and legally, and that both fuck people up. That one does so to a greater extent than the other doesn't mean that we excuse the lesser one.

[mlerose]

This is what I have to say about this.

[SmartAleq]

Thanks, mle, excellent link.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by mlerose

This is what I have to say about this.

Yeah, I stopped reading at the point where it said I can't presume them both innocent. Yes, I can, and have consistently done so. And I've not seen anyone accusing Dylan of anything.

Maybe one of them has to be lying, although I'm not convinced of that - my gut feeling is that it's Mia Farrow who is the guilty party here - but until I can see proof which one it is I have no difficulty attaching no blame to either of them.

"You haven't proved that" does not equal "you are lying", or for that matter "you are wrong".

[JackieLikesVariety]

Originally Posted by mlerose

This is what I have to say about this.

excellent

[Paul in Qatar]

Here is the 1992 Vanity Fair article.
-=Linky=-

It is quite damming. Allen has never taken legal action to clear his name. A Connecticut said he had enough to go to trial but did not to spare the girl more emotional damage.

It is possible that there has been a campaign against Allen for more than twenty years. I sort of doubt it, that simply seems unlikely.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

excellent

That was quite good. I enjoyed actually reading the entire thing.

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Yeah, I stopped reading at the point where it said I can't presume them both innocent. Yes, I can, and have consistently done so. And I've not seen anyone accusing Dylan of anything.

Maybe one of them has to be lying, although I'm not convinced of that - my gut feeling is that it's Mia Farrow who is the guilty party here - but until I can see proof which one it is I have no difficulty attaching no blame to either of them.

"You haven't proved that" does not equal "you are lying", or for that matter "you are wrong".

I have been trying to stay away, but I really, really have to step in and support this point. I've been scourged and nailed up for oversharing before, but this is important.
I had my life shattered by a false accusation of pedophilia. I lost my career and had to leave the state. I may never see my daughter again.

If a father who put up with 8 years of bullshit and abuse losing a child this way is not considered as traumatic as a rape there is severe misandry at play.

The detectives told me they knew something was wrong. My daughter would parrot the accusation, but could provide no details regarding time or place. They still tried to inveigle me back to the state so I could be arrested and charged, the pretext being they wanted to prosecute her.

I was never charged, let alone prosecuted.

I hope that if I had been the presumption of innocence would apply to me as well. Suspending the most basic legal right isn't justice, it's mob violence adjudicated.

There is no statistic for victims of false accusations, only unprosecuted molesters.

I expect the shitstorm to ensue may lead to my leaving the board.

Anyone know where Plink and the crew hang out these days?

[Chacoguy]

I'm really sorry to hear that.

[eleanorigby]

Not one person here is saying that false accusations are ok, so let's not hang up that cross just yet. False accusations are horribly wrong, no matter the source.

However,[/B] IN GENERAL, women, especially young women, are so reluctant to speak out about sexual abuse or molestation that happened when they were children, that anyone coming forward should be given the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise. Funny thing about proof, though-it seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder. Even funnier thing about all this: every time a woman is found to have made a false accusation (Gary Dotson's accuser, anyone?), the assumption is made that therefore all accusations are suspect. IOW, the few false accusers make it that much harder for the truth tellers to be believed. And why would that be, if we all claim to not know what really happened? Afterall, it's just as plausible that Dylan is telling the truth as it is that Woody is being falsely accused. So why the skepticism toward her story and the presumption that she must be lying or manipulated by her mother? For Mia Farrow to be conspiring to do Woody down after all this time argues a pathological state of mind that seems highly improbably. Not many 20-somethings can be manipulated to publicly humiliate themselves by their own mothers.
Dylan Farrow had everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward. I don't know if she has been sexually abused by Woody Allen. I do know she's been pilloried in the press and online, for having the audacity to speak out. That's telling and lends credence to the POV expressed in that excellent link upthread.

Why is it more plausible that she is lying rather than that he is?

[Steophan]

I've not seen anyone claiming that she's lying, but given the in depth investigation at the time it supposedly happened, which found no evidence of abuse, there's not reason to assume that what she says is true.

Not all untruths are lies.