“derriére-chapeautery” I am stealing this.
Sure will, as long as he’s still around. He is 84, you know. If he is still around, I’m sure they’ll still be married, as theirs has proved one of the stronger show-biz marriages.
According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”
And yet, Mia Farrow did not prevent Woody from being around her and invited him to a party at her house with dozens of people around and Woody took her up into an attic and took her underpants off. Because that is how child molesters usually act, not in secrecy and shame, but when people are aroung to catch them.
Are you going to read this?
The article is complete bullshit. It is beyond bullshit, we have to invent another word. Man, I appreciate your point of view, you believe Dylan was molested, Ok. I am not a male defender of child abuse by a hero and neither is anyone else on this board, how dare you make that accusation. When the allegations first came out I was very disturbed about them. I liked his movies; did I have to stop watching them? Yes, if the allegations were true. And I read many articles about it, and I was not selectively reading them to find the ones that absolved my “hero.” Usually when an accusation is made, you presume innocence, but in the case of child molestation, I presume guilt because very few women accuse men of molestion, or rape, when it is not true.
But it happens. Mia Farrow is a goddamn monster being hailed as a hero.
For somebody upset that others aren’t looking at this clear eyed, you’d think you would care about facts. Allen’s wife was never his stepdaughter, and he married her when she was 27.
The issue is simply whether he molested a child, not whether he’s a creep. You seem to think proof of the latter makes the former true. Others think that’s a leap too far.
(And, for what it’s worth, I don’t have any special love for Allen. I’ve only seen, I think, one of his movies. But I have read this entire thread and I think the issue of child molestation is very uncertain).
Ironically, these were cited earlier in this thread. They are the statements of people on one side of the argument, but they are largely unsubstantiated and certainly not proven.
By the way, your links don’t say that Allen ever “failed” a polygraph. Also, Farrow taking a child to a doctor to report abuse is exactly how most people get abuse reported, so if she did want the police to get involved that would be the way to do it. Also, they idea that he tried to bribe the kids with help for college is dumb - you don’t think they could afford it otherwise? And if you read all of the information, you’ll note that the DA declined to prosecute after their own forensic interviews came back doubting the victim’s veracity - you don’t think that may have played a role?
It’s entirely possible to come to a decision that this is an unproven assertion while reading all of the links and acting in good faith.
I have to add this. The very first paragraph of your post says "the fucker married his stepdaughter when she was 18 and he was, what, 50? "
And so fucking what? They are still together. And yes technically Soon Yi was his stepdaughter. An adopted girl from a woman he was not married to and with whom he had no interaction when she was being raised. The worst thing you can realistically accuse Woody of is being insensitive to Mia when he started dating Soon Yi. But they have been together since that day, it is obviously true love. Got a problem with that?
Soon-yi was not his stepdaughter in any sense of the word. But I appreciate your viewpoint.
I’m confused. I thought I was clear in saying she was not a stepdaughter in “any sense of the word.”
Anyone who asserts that someone can legally marry their daughter, adopted daughter, or step-daughter is an out and out moron and does not deserve to have an audience of people with actual functioning brains. The Allens are in a legal marriage.
I think you meant that “no, technically Soon Ye was not his step-daughter”. Technically and legally she was not his step-daughter. Other than that, I’ve no problem with their marriage for two reasons: 1-It’s really not my business (mainly because no law was broken), and 2-as you said, they’ve been in a long loving marriage. Good for them.
Can anyone here untwist this idiot’s argument? First he is creeping out because of the age differnce, now he says it is ok.
Anyone who asserts that someone can legally marry their daughter, adopted daughter, or step-daughter is an out and out moron
Woody Allen didn’t adopt her you, in your words and I’ll add an adjective, you fucking moron.
Are you fuckinng illiterate? I quite clearly pointed out that the person asserting the nonsense was the person you quoted.
p.s. Read your post where you said:
Maybe you were in a hurry posting and in a hurry reading.
I’ve read some of the pro and con essays, and I’ve just now finished reading the entire judgment of the famous 1993 trial in which Allen tried to gain custody of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses (scroll down for the full document). It’s a well-written ruling that probably provides a more balanced perspective than any of the personal rants written by the different participants and their supporters.
The trial was notable not just because Allen lost, but because he lost devastatingly. The judge seemed to think of Allen as a self-absorbed neurotic who was terrible at parenting. Not only was he denied his custody request, he was also denied visitation rights to Dylan and Satchel for the immediate future. His entire custody suit was termed “frivolous” and he was required to pay Mia’s full legal costs. The judge’s ruling was described as “scathing”.
As for the allegations of abuse of Dylan, two separate investigations failed to find any conclusive evidence, and as the judge stated in his ruling, “we will probably never know what happened”.
So what do we conclude from this objective summation in a nutshell? Is Woody Allen in fact a “scumbag”?
My position on this is that I don’t know and I don’t give a shit. What I do know is that in the intervening 25 years since these events, Allen has made roughly that same number of movies, in addition to the incredibly funny early ones, and many A-list actors have been desperate for the privilege of being in them, some of them working to scale just for the opportunity to work with Allen. Not all his movies have been gems, by any means, but many of them really were, and some others less than stellar but still quite enjoyable.
And now? Many actors are distancing himself from him, I believe Amazon canceled financing for his latest film, and Hatchett is now refusing to publish his new book. The only thing that’s changed over that time is the rise of the #MeToo movement, which has done many good things (may Harvey Weinstein rot in hell) but I wonder if it may be becoming such a strong social force that it’s overwhelming balanced judgment. Allen is mostly a scriptwriter and director and has written very few books, and I was looking forward to this one because even at his age I think he’s still talented and funny. What useful, objective purpose is served by cancelling the movie and the book?
Remember Jordan Belfort (the “wolf of Wall Street”)? A true scumbag, thief, and drug addict who was sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined $110 million for securities fraud. He published not one but two books about his exploits, and was then a consultant on a major movie starring Leonardo diCaprio and directed by Martin Scorsese. Why was that OK?
Yes, but you quoted Mike Mabes when you did it. That confused him.
Got it, needscoffee. So, Mike, actually I was agreeing with you. I’ll try to be much more clear in the future.
Oh, by the way, full disclosure here. I was falsely accused of a crime years ago. It was not a fun experience. I tend to get a bit insistent during discussions involving false allegations of crime.
Who said it was?
Believe it or not, Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong fame.
Apparently, Belfort and Chong were inmates together (Chong for selling marijuana paraphernalia) and Chong encouraged Belfort to write a book about his life.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jordan-belforts-prison-bunkmate-was-tommy-chong-2014-2%3Famp
Virtually everybody.
When the convicted felon Jordan Belfort published a book about his life of crime, drugs, and debauchery, was there any backlash? None that I know of. It became a best-seller and brought him millions.
When he published a second one that was really just a poor follow-on to exploit the popularity of the first, was there any backlash? None that I know of.
When his story was made into a major motion picture, The Wolf of Wall Street, was there any backlash? None that I know of.
When the movie was nominated for five Academy Awards, was there any backlash? None that I know of.
Incidentally, almost the same pattern – book followed by a major movie – could be described about the major fraudster Frank Abagnale (Catch Me if You Can, both movies coincidentally starring Leonardo diCaprio and other major actors and directed by two of the biggest directors in the film industry).
Yet when Hachette Book Group published a new book by Woody Allen – who has never been charged with anything – the staff staged a walkout in protest and the publisher was forced to cancel the book’s release. At the same time, AIUI Amazon cancelled financing for his new film. Speculation is that his career as a director is over. The inconsistency and hypocrisy here is palpable.
Odd, isn’t it, that a lot of Hollywood types celebrate Roman Polanski, an actual convicted sex offender, but condemn Allen, a false accused person?
This is a fallacious argument. Which persons specifically meet both parts of your claim? And which of them have offered unconvincing reasons for doing so? This amounts to a “How come I’ve never heard a Muslim condemn terroris?” type statement.
And even if there were something true about this claim, what exactly are you implying by it?
nm
Let me rephrase that - who, here, arguing with you, has said that one is OK and the other isn’t?
I personally think they are *both *not OK.