Allen v. Farrow

[lovinbob]

1 hour ago, candall said:

Mia said she recorded Dylan when Dylan wanted to talk about what had happened.  Maybe Dylan felt the most comfortable talking when she was relaxed and fresh out of the tub or drowsy and getting into her pj's for bedtime.  Who knows?

That kid got dressed up and combed out and plopped down in front of literally dozens of investigators and authorities and psychologists.  Should her mother really have told her to just wait a sec before she started sharing what was on her mind so she could get a shirt on?

 

I can't believe the extensive conclusions that are being drawn about a whole family because there's a little kid talking to her mother for a couple of minutes about something serious and she's not wearing a top!

I didn't make any conclusions. I just said it made me feel uncomfortable. 

[Angeltoes]

Quote

Mia said she recorded Dylan when Dylan wanted to talk about what had happened.  

I liked the way Mia respected Dylan when Dylan said she didn't want to talk about it anymore and Mia said okay and turned off the camera.

[peachmangosteen]

I just found out that Mariel Hemingway was apparently 16 when Manhattan was filmed. That is grotesque. The more I learn about Woody the more repelled I am by him. And I really worry for those 2 girls he adopted.

Is this next episode the last one?

[Maysie]

I’ve thought a bit about the “chaotic” nature of Farrow’s house and I guess that my home growing up would be classified as “chaotic” at times, too. My mom was a single, working mother who raised three kids, and depending on the time of year and the day of the week and the time of day, the house ranged from pretty quiet to, well, I guess chaotic. We were in and out, coming and going, with all manner of friends in and out too. We made noise, ran around and often made great messes, but those were wonderful, carefree times and I wouldn’t have it any different; chaos doesn’t have to be bad. The issue I saw with the chaos in the Farrow household is that it gave Woody ample opportunity to take Dylan to the attic and molest her-it’s easy to lose track of a kid with so many people milling around. If Mia is like many parents, I imagine she blames herself frequently for making it easier for Woody to do what he did.

I agree with whomever upthread noted that at age seven, there’s not much difference between a boy and a girl running around topless. I don’t have kids, so I haven’t had to concern myself with such issues, but at a young age, I don’t see the harm in running around your home topless. I wonder if the fact that Dylan was comfortable hanging out that way in her own space also contributed to her clarity about what was done to her-understanding that it was wrong, etc. I’m just speculating and have nothing to base that on, but it occurred to me that perhaps being comfortable in her skin and in her home made that intrusion all the more disturbing/traumatic.

[Angeltoes]

21 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Is this next episode the last one?

Yes

[ElectricBoogaloo]

SERIES FINALE!

S1.E4

Quote

The family attempts to heal after a bitter custody battle. Decades later, #MeToo emboldens Dylan to finally speak her truth.

Promo:

Original air date: 3/14/21

Edited March 15, 2021 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Lady Whistleup]

Well I will never watch Diane Keaton, Alec Baldwin, or the Golden Globes again.

[Frisson]

I felt bad for Mia when she mentioned how she never brought anyone she dated after Allen around the kids because she couldn’t trust herself to know if they were trouble. That would mess with your ability to judge men in the future. 
 

Although I still have to side-eye her for accepting a dude who said he wanted to have nothing to do with her kids and wouldn’t be involved if they procreated. Woody was a piece of crap from the beginning. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Frisson

[sistermagpie]

I really appreciated those factual things regarding Moses's recent statements claiming to disprove Dylan. It's always annoyed me how people seem to take his testimony 30 years later as some voice of reason vs. Dylan's own memories when all he's basically saying is, "I don't believe her." 

Also that email from Woody's publicist to give all his defenders the same talking points so that becomes the story everyone's heard--that again came up with Moses claiming the train story was new and there was no train, with Woody saying the same thing, even though the facts show differently.

Can't help but wonder why Moses went from saying he believed Dylan and loved Mia to being so vocally against her. There's a million reasons why it could be (including that he's telling the truth as he sees it, of course!), but I couldn't help but think of Ronan saying that Woody had always had an open offer about paying for school and giving him a lot of money in general IF he publicly denounced his mother and sister.

Also nice to see some of the other kids in the family who were younger so not really involved in the original scandal. When they said Soon-Yi had mostly been silent I couldn't help but think, "And that's just how Woody prefers it." I remember that Tweet from Ronan re: the Golden Globes because yeah, specially having women get up to talk about him as such a champion of women seemed almost calculated. 

[Dr.OO7]

1 minute ago, sistermagpie said:

When they said Soon-Yi had mostly been silent I couldn't help but think, "And that's just how Woody prefers it."

Even when she did finally speak, he's sitting next to her the whole time, practically pulling her strings.

That montage of celebrities heaping praise on him was sickening, but the one of him being denounced made up for it.

[Lady Whistleup]

Well I remember the Golden Globes tribute going down about as well as you'd expect it to go down at the time. Which was not well at all. 

Here's an article about it at the time.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Lady Whistleup

[ch1]

That montage of celebrities praising WA shows that if money is being made to hell with anything else.    Just goes to show how shallow Hollywood really is.

I think Moses Farrow sold his soul so he would be in the will.

Jerry Seinfeld is an asshole with his response to Stephen Colbert saying he can’t separate Allen from his work.  Why is that so shocking?  Arrogant tool.

Dylan Farrow’s daughter is adorable.

[Lady Whistleup]

Oh Scarlett Johansson is awful too.

[txhorns79]

45 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Also that email from Woody's publicist to give all his defenders the same talking points so that becomes the story everyone's heard--that again came up with Moses claiming the train story was new and there was no train, with Woody saying the same thing, even though the facts show differently.

Without commenting on Allen, it's pretty common when there is some kind of corporate and/or Hollywood scandal that a PR team will circulate talking points to those expected to speak on the scandal to keep them all saying the same thing and on topic.       

[Lady Whistleup]

Why does Hollywood give awards to Allen anyway? He never shows up for awards shows.

[sistermagpie]

Just now, txhorns79 said:

Without commenting on Allen, it's pretty common when there is some kind of corporate and/or Hollywood scandal that a PR team will circulate talking points to those expected to speak on the scandal to keep them all saying the same thing and on topic.       

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to give her any special credit for it. Decide on a narrative and stick to it--and of course, that narrative should be pretty simple. Seems like there was a couple of variations people could go with depending on which they were most comfortable with--like they could just say, "It's a family matter and I hope they work it out." And at the same time Woody's saying they're just doing it out of courage. No surprise that when Diane Keaton was being interviewed about it it was by...Matt Lauer.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, ch1 said:

Jerry Seinfeld is an asshole with his response to Stephen Colbert saying he can’t separate Allen from his work.  Why is that so shocking?  Arrogant tool.

I believe that discussion was in relation to Cosby.

22 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

No surprise that when Diane Keaton was being interviewed about it it was by...Matt Lauer.

They also included a Allen and Charlie Rose interview, I believe.  So that was a clever association by the filmmakers. 

This episode felt like it wanted to do a lot: An overview of what it's like to accuse powerful men, trying to navigate the art vs. the man conundrum, bring "closure" to Dylan about the case from years ago, dispute some claims made by Moses and Soon-Yi....so it was perhaps not as streamlined as it could have been.

One thing that really hit me when Dylan was talking about how she reacted during one of her romantic encounters with her now-husband and how flipping her on her stomach triggered her.  It made me question, again, the claims of coaching.  Why would Mia's story put Dylan on her stomach? 

Some of those stats on parental alienation.  Wow.  I haven't looked into them but if they're anywhere close to being true, that's incredible.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Irlandesa

[For Cereals]

1 hour ago, ch1 said:

Jerry Seinfeld is an asshole with his response to Stephen Colbert saying he can’t separate Allen from his work.  Why is that so shocking?  Arrogant tool.

Let’s not forget his dating 17 year old Shoshanna when he was 38.

[Cheezwiz]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Can't help but wonder why Moses went from saying he believed Dylan and loved Mia to being so vocally against her. There's a million reasons why it could be (including that he's telling the truth as he sees it, of course!), but I couldn't help but think of Ronan saying that Woody had always had an open offer about paying for school and giving him a lot of money in general IF he publicly denounced his mother and sister.

Yup THIS. Allen's supporters always take Moses's recollections as gospel, but the police drawing showing the train set is a pretty damning rebuttal. Moses didn't start siding with Allen until much later in life, claiming he was fearful of reprisals from Mia well into adulthood. There could be any number of reasons, but I think his motivations are certainly questionable.

Sadly, Woody probably doesn't and likely never has given a shit about Moses.

Dylan's mixed emotions about not taking the stand were pretty wrenching, hopefully she found some measure of peace in talking with the prosecutor who decided not to pursue the case. I'm glad he kept an open offer to to meet with Dylan and discuss the case.

 

[mbaywife123]

Allen Stewart Konigsberg (AKA: Woody Allen) has always been a loser and a creeper. No one in his formative years, especially high school girls wanted anything to do with this "nerd". His gross affectations as an adult such as wearing too big for is tiny stature clothing, sniffing, coughing, pushing up his nerd glasses were used by him to infatize and endear him to the public engineered by him of course.

His movies were BORING pages ripped from his pathetic teen angst diary.

Manhattah was written and based on the years long relationship he had with Babi Christina Englehardt which Mia was well aware of and had "threesomes" with the two of them as well to "keep the peace".

Mariel Hemingway (who played "Tracy" (Babi) character in the film) also speaks about how "Woody" wanted to take her to Paris but when she asked him privately what the sleeping arrangements would be (have her own room?) that she declined to go and he left her parents house the next morning never to be heard from again.

 

 

[Glade]

This episode really hit me hard.  As a survivor of abuse by family members, part of me cringed when seeing the video footage of Moses as a child while his estranged family talked about how hurt they were and disputed his account.  But this faded away when they exposed the fact that he joined in with Woody's blatant lie about there being no train set; about this being a 'new' thing.  I can't support his smearing of his sister and the sense that he is, decades too late, taking his father's side in the 'divorce' more then just coming into his own voice.  And of course they'd include a rebuttal of his claims in this documentary.

Woody's language talking about Dylan as an adult is so creepy (that Mia 'took advantage', of Dylan's 'vulnerable age' etc.) because he's projecting, and then he's just making disgusting claims about how his adopted daughter who he abused actually loved him and wanted him back in her life when that was so obviously not the case, and she was in her late 20's so CLEARLY she didn't like him.

Seeing all of the Hollywood defenders and enablers, of Allen, of Polanski, of Weinstein, Cosby...is gross.  And yeah, Woody and all of his sycophants love love LOVE to bring up not any details of their ultra-sophisticated 'research' but the fact that Mia Farrow initially defended Polanski too.  But so did Allen, and they leave that out, and the fact that Mia Farrow is the only one of the two who publicly apologized for having defended Polanski. Allen hasn't apologized for shit, but Mia did in that case, and in her interveiws about the period after winning custody, she admits that yes, clearly her judgement had been off and she didn't trust her perceptions so she kept her boyfriends away from the kids and the family home.  That shows she does have some valuable self-awareness.

Those statistics about abused children sent to live with their abusers was devastating.  Most children are not listened to, believed, or hear when they've been abused; it is not the case that the system has just gone too far in listening to every survivor and giving them justice, LOL.  I never got it myself, I had to wait 2-3 decades before I felt safe enough to report and by then the evidence and witnesses were gone.  I feel for Dylan, and how horrifying it must be to never be able to escape the shadow and public image of your abuser; mine are not celebrities and of course I was able to move far away and live completely outside of their orbit, not running the risk of turning on the tv and finding footage of them receiving vapid praise.

Allen is really not that important in the larger scheme of things; he's an extremely wealthy, priveleged person complaining about very small inconveniences.  And his work is small too.  The only film of his I have any memory of is the one where Jonathan Rhys Myers plays a man who marries a rich woman for her money, has an affair with his sister in law and then murders her and their unborn child once she becomes pregnant and demands that he throw away his privilege to be with her (and he gets away with it--the police let him off and even protect the knowledge of his affair from getting out.)  I'm not sad that Allen's latest films about stuff like that can only make 22 million dollars in other countries.  

I think this documentary needed to be made, and I'm really glad it was.  I hope people will be able to watch it and understand what adult survivors of child sexual abuse live with, and how they aren't just talking down to/about a powerless child anymore.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

4 hours ago, Glade said:

Those statistics about abused children sent to live with their abusers was devastating.  Most children are not listened to, believed, or hear when they've been abused; it is not the case that the system has just gone too far in listening to every survivor and giving them justice. 

A woman I knew was a therapist. At the time, she was employed by a hospital/medical group. She was sent a child and an adult as new patients. It was an abuse victim and the abuser. The therapist said she felt the child was not emotionally ready to have to sit in a room with their abuser for an hour every week. This was court ordered counseling so they disregarded her professional opinion and said they had to have joint counseling. She said she couldn't do it and quit. She knew they would just get passed on to a different therapist but she said she could not live with herself if she contributed to forcing this child to interact with their abuser every week. And somehow the court considered this justice.

[Lady Whistleup]

It was gross to see ScarJo defending Woody. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Mia: No punishment of Woody would be worth punishing Dylan.

Those are the words of a mother who loves her child and is trying to protect her kid from being further traumatized. I understand why she said it. They were talking about putting a 7 year old little girl on the stand to be cross examined. I have no doubt in my mind that going to court would have been very difficult for Dylan.

In contrast, Woody's spin the decision not to prosecute him: "I am merely disgusted that my children have been made to suffer unbearably by the unwholesome alliance between a vindictive mother and a cowardly, dishonest, irresponsible state's attorney and his police." JFC.

And what a great dad to dangle paying for his son's college education on the condition that he publicly take your side against his mother and his sister. I mean, who would want their child educated just for the sake of being educated? Of course it should benefit the parent in some way, amirite?

My heart really went out to Dylan when she said she felt she had been given an opportunity to be brave and she hadn't been strong enough. I wish I could give her a hug because as an adult, I know that Woody's attorney would have eaten her alive if she had taken the stand. But I can see why Dylan thinks that things might have turned out differently if they had gone to trial. I'm glad that she was able to meet with Maco and hear him say that she should never feel guilty or blame herself.

I was rolling my eyes so hard at all the snippets during the "how do we separate the art from the artist?" segment. Louis Theroux saying that you'll never find an artist with a spotless moral character is exactly the kind of attitude that is the problem because it creates a false equivalence with any kind of bad behavior. This attitude of "well, nobody's perfect and we just have to accept them the way they are instead of punishing them for making mistakes" makes it sound like people are trying to cancel a celebrity for jaywalking or stealing a 25 cent pack of gum when they were in elementary school, completely dismissing the fact that the people usually up for debate have done far worse things. I don't expect anyone, artist or otherwise, to be a saint with a soul as pure as driven snow. What I do expect is that they aren't an abusive piece of shit.

I loved when they refuted Moses' and Woody's claims that Dylan must be lying because she mentioned the train set in the attic. Not only did she mention it in seven separate interviews, but it's in the police diagram of the attic. I know that isn't going to convince any Woody fans, but I love every time one of his lies gets poked with, you know, records and proof.

[geekgirl921]

12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I really appreciated those factual things regarding Moses's recent statements claiming to disprove Dylan. It's always annoyed me how people seem to take his testimony 30 years later as some voice of reason vs. Dylan's own memories when all he's basically saying is, "I don't believe her." 

Also that email from Woody's publicist to give all his defenders the same talking points so that becomes the story everyone's heard--that again came up with Moses claiming the train story was new and there was no train, with Woody saying the same thing, even though the facts show differently.

Can't help but wonder why Moses went from saying he believed Dylan and loved Mia to being so vocally against her. There's a million reasons why it could be (including that he's telling the truth as he sees it, of course!), but I couldn't help but think of Ronan saying that Woody had always had an open offer about paying for school and giving him a lot of money in general IF he publicly denounced his mother and sister.

Also nice to see some of the other kids in the family who were younger so not really involved in the original scandal. When they said Soon-Yi had mostly been silent I couldn't help but think, "And that's just how Woody prefers it." I remember that Tweet from Ronan re: the Golden Globes because yeah, specially having women get up to talk about him as such a champion of women seemed almost calculated. 

Yes, I was reading the comments on an article about this documentary and I was amazed by the people who automatically believe Moses but don't believe Dylan. I am also bothered by all of the people who insist that Mia was a horrible mother. Yes, I think she shouldn't have adopted so many children and I think it's strange that she was so wiling to have a relationship with a man who said from the beginning that he wanted nothing to do with the children. But, most of the adult kids seem to be well and don't disparage her, Moses and Soon Yi seem to be the only ones.

[txhorns79]

24 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

Those are the words of a mother who loves her child and is trying to protect her kid from being further traumatized. I understand why she said it. They were talking about putting a 7 year old little girl on the stand to be cross examined. I have no doubt in my mind that going to court would have been very difficult for Dylan.

I think it would have been a difficult trial, but I also think the prosecutor did not have the evidence needed to make a case and was trying to cover himself by claiming his not bringing a case was all about concern for Dylan. 

[Bannon]

I wanted to see all 4 parts before commenting, so here I go:

If I was a juror in a criminal trial, I may not vote to convict Allen, simply because the standard is so high, so much time has passed, and I think eyewitness testimony alone is tough to get over that barrier of beyond a reasonable doubt. As a juror in a civil trial? The preponderance of the evidence easily favors Dylan Farrow, to the point where I'm somewhere between 95-99% sure she was sexually assaulted by Woody Allen.

The most compelling evidence is the video of Dylan in the days following the assault. If that child has been coached, it's the most effective coaching I've ever seen, and Dylan may be the best very young actor I've ever seen. Combine that with Allen lying about the train set being something invented by Dylan years after the assault, and it becomes a slam dunk; Allen, with extremely high probability, sexually assaulted Dylan Farrow.

That's before we get to the supporting evidence of the adults and near adults who were in the house that day, and the testimony regarding Allen's previous interaction with Dylan, which do nothing but lend credence to Dylan's account. In contrast, the strongest evidence that supports Allen is the report by the Yale clinic, and really, given the destruction of contemporeaneous notes taken in their interviews with Dylan, that report really becomes noncredible. I'd love to see the director of that clinic, and the social workers, subjected to questioning under oath. I'd venture they'd plead the 5th.

Anybody who still thinks it more likely that Allen is being more truthful than Dylan Farrow at this point is either an idiot, or a money-grubbing and/or careerist whore. I'll make an exception for Soon-Yi or Moses; familial dynamics can lead to all manner of wholly irrational beliefs.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Bannon

[Lady Whistleup]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

The best defense of her rhetoric is that she is an ignorant lackwit, without the sense to keep her trap shut about important matters, about which she's too ridiculously lazy to learn anything of, prior to stupidly yammering. The worst case scenario is that she is a sociopath, more concerned with advancing her social status with prestigous work, despite already being fabulously wealthy, than she is with confronting the sexual assault of a minor.

ScarJo actually does not need to defend Woody. She's one of the Hollywood A-list actresses who has enough brand recognition for the work she does that Woody probably won't make a difference in her career now. Which is why her defense of him is so puzzling. She could say "no comment" and it won't affect her career at all.

[Bannon]

Something that really hit me in last night's episode was Mia Farrow speaking of the fear she has to this day, due to the enemy of her family being someone who has no regard for truth, and that a person like that is capable of anything. I despise nostalgia, so I certainly don't want to posit that there was a Golden Age where people were honest, but I do think her fears speak to a real danger we all face. The overwhelming majority of us are so lax in demanding, from others, and most importantly, from ourselves, fidelity to the truth, as best we can determine it, that we threaten our very future. This thing we call civilization and liberty is far more fragile than we realize, I fear, and our tolerance of lies threatens us with disaster.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Bannon

[sistermagpie]

53 minutes ago, geekgirl921 said:

Yes, I was reading the comments on an article about this documentary and I was amazed by the people who automatically believe Moses but don't believe Dylan. I am also bothered by all of the people who insist that Mia was a horrible mother. Yes, I think she shouldn't have adopted so many children and I think it's strange that she was so wiling to have a relationship with a man who said from the beginning that he wanted nothing to do with the children. But, most of the adult kids seem to be well and don't disparage her, Moses and Soon Yi seem to be the only ones.

Yes, I understand that for some people he's going to be more credible simply because he's saying what they want to hear. There's a lot of responses to his blog of people basically saying thank you, that sounds much more believable to them.

But also it seems like he's now the "adult man" in the situation while Dylan is forever a little girl who can't be taken seriously. (Probably another reason Soon-Yi benefits by letting Woody mostly speak for her.)

Another thing in the doc is how you notice Woody and Moses claiming it takes great courage to support him, with Moses claiming he stayed on Dylan's side well into adulthood because he feared Mia, when there's no evidence of Mia really having power over anybody. Meanwhile, Woody is the one with the infamous publicist, money, Oscars and a huge lineup of famous people calling him a genius. 

35 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think it would have been a difficult trial, but I also think the prosecutor did not have the evidence needed to make a case and was trying to cover himself by claiming his not bringing a case was all about concern for Dylan. 

I would assume any trial for sexual assault like this would be hard to find evidence for because...what evidence is there for this kind of assault? So he probably couldn't be sure that he'd get a conviction. But what he said was that he had probably cause, and it seems like he definitely had that with Dylan. He had her saying it happened, therapists on record having notes on that, witnesses giving him opportunity etc. 

10 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

ScarJo actually does not need to defend Woody. She's one of the Hollywood A-list actresses who has enough brand recognition for the work she does that Woody probably won't make a difference in her career now. Which is why her defense of him is so puzzling. She could say "no comment" and it won't affect her career at all.

That's one of the things that stood out in the Guardian article linked above. That Woody doesn't show up to award shows anyway, acts like he doesn't care about them, so why did they feel the need to make a big show of giving him a lifetime achievement? And why did Diane Keaton need to gush all over him? And why the whole "The great thing about Woody is how fantastic he's always been to a actresses...except that one who starred in a ton of his movies that were mostly left out of the montage because awkward!"

Btw, one reason I've always been drawn to this story is because when I was really young I heard Woody Allen tell a joke about his ex-wife that I sort of got and made a show of finding funny because it showed how sophisticated I was because I got it...but really it was incredibly misogynist and disturbed me a bit even then. On one hand it just showed what kind of humor was acceptable in the 70s, but still, there's a reason I never forgot it.

[Clawdel]

Quote

I think it would have been a difficult trial, but I also think the prosecutor did not have the evidence needed to make a case and was trying to cover himself by claiming his not bringing a case was all about concern for Dylan. 

Exactly. So a prosecutor declines to prosecute a child molester because it would be hard on the victim? What if she wasn't the only victim? How about locking the child molester up so he can't prey on other children?

[Bannon]

19 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

ScarJo actually does not need to defend Woody. She's one of the Hollywood A-list actresses who has enough brand recognition for the work she does that Woody probably won't make a difference in her career now. Which is why her defense of him is so puzzling. She could say "no comment" and it won't affect her career at all.

If you're a sociopath who gets significant psychic pleasure from public acclaim (and to be clear, lots of non-sociopaths get significant psychic pleasure from public acclaim) you probably can never get enough; you are always looking to score another fix. Thus you suck up to a  writer/director who has reliably delivered Oscar nominations to actors. Even if the writer/director sexually assaulted a child.

[txhorns79]

6 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I would assume any trial for sexual assault like this would be hard to find evidence for because...what evidence is there for this kind of assault? So he probably couldn't be sure that he'd get a conviction. But what he said was that he had probable cause, and it seems like he definitely had that with Dylan. He had her saying it happened, therapists on record having notes on that, witnesses giving him opportunity etc. 

This is exactly what I mean by trying to cover himself.  He wanted to have his cake and eat it too, i.e. be able to declare that Allen is guilty without actually having to see if whatever evidence he has stands up in court.  If I recall correctly, he was cited by the Connecticut Grievance Committee (a state committee that reviews complaints made against attorneys) for his behavior here, and his interference in the custody trial. 

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, Clawdel said:

Exactly. So a prosecutor declines to prosecute a child molester because it would be hard on the victim? What if she wasn't the only victim? How about locking the child molester up so he can't prey on other children?

Maybe he feared he couldn't get a conviction and didn't want him to get to say he was proved innocent? That seemed like the one advantage to me, that he publicly stated that he had probably cause.

 

ETA:

Quote

This is exactly what I mean by trying to cover himself.  He wanted to have his cake and eat it too, i.e. be able to declare that Allen is guilty without actually having to see if whatever evidence he has stands up in court.  If I recall correctly, he was cited by the Connecticut Grievance Committee (a state committee that reviews complaints made against attorneys) for his behavior here, and his interference in the custody trial. 

 

Looks like Allen's lawyer made a complaint that was dismissed by that committee 12-1:

"Six of the members objected to language critical of Maco in the panel's recommendation and six voted to adopt the proposed decision as it was written. The dissenting member, who voted to reprimand Maco, also favored the critical language."

Didn't the doc also link this as a response to the other investigation giving its findings (after destroying notes) to Allen himself who held a press conference declaring himself proved innocent? Doesn't change Maco's motivation, but reminds us of the context.

Edited March 15, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, Clawdel said:

Exactly. So a prosecutor declines to prosecute a child molester because it would be hard on the victim? What if she wasn't the only victim? How about locking the child molester up so he can't prey on other children?

I'm sympathetic to your view, but if an experienced prosecutor looks at the key witness, and in his best judgement thinks it very unlikely that a conviction can be obtained, because the key witness is so psychologically vulnerable that she'll be destroyed by a skilled defense attorney, and the witness will suffer further long-lasting psychological damage, I'm sympathetic to the prosecutor as well.

[txhorns79]

11 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

 

Didn't the doc also link this as a response to the other investigation giving its findings (after destroying notes) to Allen himself who held a press conference declaring himself proved innocent? Doesn't change Maco's motivation, but reminds us of the context.

Yes, the panel said Maco's behavior was of "grave concern" as it potentially prejudiced the legal battle between Farrow and Allen. 

[Lady Whistleup]

The Golden Globes can be canceled. The Hollywood Foreign Press is a totally fake organization anyway.

We can also push for all of Woody Allen's movies to be removed from streaming platforms. Youtube, Amazon Prime, Netflx, Hulu. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Lady Whistleup

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

The Golden Globes can be canceled. The Hollywood Foreign Press is a totally fake organization anyway.

We can also push for all of Woody Allen's movies to be removed from streaming platforms. Youtube, Amazon Prime, Netflx, Hulu. 

I think Allen sexually assaulted Dylan Farrow. I really don't like his movies beyond the very early ones, and I mean very, very, early. Don't even think "Hannah and Her Sisters" holds up very well, and I really liked it when it 1st came out.

Having said that, I don't want his movies pulled from distribution, for the same reason I don't want to ban the Tel Aviv Philharmonic from performing Wagner, or Amazon to pull Mein Kampf. The art or literature, good, evil, or indifferent, stand on it's own, and I don't want distributors to censor.

[lovinbob]

I don't really know how to do this, but I think one of the most important things that we can do in response to this story and others like it is to believe women and take accusers seriously. The other thing, in terms of the art, is not to support/produce future works by these problematic people/alleged abusers.

How many talented female directors have been sidelined while Woody Allen gets to make as many movies as he wants? He is hailed as a genius (thanks, ScarJo) but you can't tell me there aren't women and BIPOC who have a lot to offer and don't have nearly the number of opportunities Woody has.

Re: Parental Alienation Syndrom -- wasn't that Alec Baldwin's big cause during his custody issues with Kim Basinger? I don't think that was referenced here. I had no idea it was such debunked theory. 

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, lovinbob said:

I don't really know how to do this, but I think one of the most important things that we can do in response to this story and others like it is to believe women and take accusers seriously. The other thing, in terms of the art, is not to support/produce future works by these problematic people/alleged abusers.

How many talented female directors have been sidelined while Woody Allen gets to make as many movies as he wants? He is hailed as a genius (thanks, ScarJo) but you can't tell me there aren't women and BIPOC who have a lot to offer and don't have nearly the number of opportunities Woody has.

Re: Parental Alienation Syndrom -- wasn't that Alec Baldwin's big cause during his custody issues with Kim Basinger? I don't think that was referenced here. I had no idea it was such debunked theory. 

Having fidelity for the truth means doing the hard work of disciplining your mind to have an empirical approach to developing opinions. The same intellectually lazy approach that leads to denying the likelihood of Dylan Farrow's account of being sexually assaulted has also resulted in many innocent men spending years in prison due to eyewitness testimony being non-rigorously examined. Knowing the world around us is damned hard work, and nearly all of us too frequently skirt the effort needed to evaluate it in an intellectually honest fashion, very often because doing so would cause us to have feelings of cognitive dissonance we reflexively avoid. This is when the habit of disciplining one's mind becomes critical.

[Cheezwiz]

7 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

Re: Parental Alienation Syndrom -- wasn't that Alec Baldwin's big cause during his custody issues with Kim Basinger? I don't think that was referenced here. I had no idea it was such debunked theory.

Yeah, I also had no idea that it had largely been dismissed in therapy circles.

The saddest takeaway I had from this episode was just how many children who have tried to report abuse have been separated from guardians trying to protect them, and forcibly delivered right back into the hands of their abusers by the court system. Awful and heartbreaking. So glad Allen was unsuccessful at his custody gambit.

[sistermagpie]

48 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

Yes, the panel said Maco's behavior was of "grave concern" as it potentially prejudiced the legal battle between Farrow and Allen. 

Luckily for Allen the judge in the custody case seemed to take his actual parenting into serious consideration when making his decision based on what he said. According to the doc his parental alienation defense has been used to dismiss other accusations of abuse since then.

5 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Having fidelity for the truth means doing the hard work of disciplining your mind to have an empirical approach to developing opinions. The same intellectually lazy approach that leads to denying the likelihood of Dylan Farrow's account of being sexually assaulted has also resulted in many innocent men spending years in prison due to eyewitness testimony being non-rigorously examined. Knowing the world around us is damned hard work, and nearly all of us too frequently skirt the effort needed to evaluate it in an intellectually honest fashion, very often because doing so would cause us to have feelings of cognitive dissonance we reflexively avoid. This is when the habit of disciplining one's mind becomes critical.

Yes, the rule of "believe women" isn't meant to say that no one should do anything but to by whatever a person says. It means don't dismiss allegations immediately because you'd rather dismiss it. We can't know literally what happened, but Dylan's story has held up to a lot of investigations while the other claims didn't hold up so well.

[Lady Whistleup]

12 minutes ago, Cheezwiz said:

Yeah, I also had no idea that it had largely been dismissed in therapy circles.

The saddest takeaway I had from this episode was just how many children who have tried to report abuse have been separated from guardians trying to protect them, and forcibly delivered right back into the hands of their abusers by the court system. Awful and heartbreaking. So glad Allen was unsuccessful at his custody gambit.

Yes. This by the way is not purely a mothers-losing-custody thing. I knew a lawyer whose client (the father) repeatedly warned the court that the mother was abusive and threatening to kill the child during visitation. The court gave visitation rights to the mother anyway. The mother killed herself and the child during a visitation weekend. 

[txhorns79]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Luckily for Allen the judge in the custody case seemed to take his actual parenting into serious consideration when making his decision based on what he said. According to the doc his parental alienation defense has been used to dismiss other accusations of abuse since then.

I understand.  Though my comment was about Maco's behavior. 

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

I understand.  Though my comment was about Maco's behavior. 

Oh, I understand. I don't think there's any doubt that Maco was intentionally firing back in a publicity fight there, not just doing what anyone would regularly do.

[Lady Whistleup]

11 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I understand.  Though my comment was about Maco's behavior. 

Maco's behavior doesn't really matter. What matters is Allen's behavior. Even the very best defense for him seemed to take for granted the fact that he was an atrocious father.

[Pepper Mostly]

19 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

I was rolling my eyes so hard at all the snippets during the "how do we separate the art from the artist?" segment. Louis Theroux saying that you'll never find an artist with a spotless moral character is exactly the kind of attitude that is the problem because it creates a false equivalence with any kind of bad behavior. This attitude of "well, nobody's perfect and we just have to accept them the way they are instead of punishing them for making mistakes" makes it sound like people are trying to cancel a celebrity for jaywalking or stealing a 25 cent pack of gum when they were in elementary school, completely dismissing the fact that the people usually up for debate have done far worse things. I don't expect anyone, artist or otherwise, to be a saint with a soul as pure as driven snow. What I do expect is that they aren't an abusive piece of shit.

Right there with you. Louis Theroux's snotty remark put me over the edge. Who's talking about "spotless moral character" you wanker? Michael Jackson groomed and molested little boys. Woody Allen molested his child. This is not someone caught shoplifting or who once sent a thoughtless tweet. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Pepper Mostly

[vibeology]

4 minutes ago, Pepper Mostly said:

This is not someone caught shoplifting or sent a thoughtless tweet. 

This. Winona Ryder suffered far more for shoplifting than Woody ever has for molesting his daughter and marrying his children's sibling.

[clubsauce]

I genuinely want to know—how were Woody and Soon-Yi ever allowed to adopt children? 

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, clubsauce said:

I genuinely want to know—how were Woody and Soon-Yi ever allowed to adopt children? 

If you have enough $ and/or juice, you'll be allowed to purchase young human beings.