Allen v. Farrow

[peachmangosteen]

2 minutes ago, clubsauce said:

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

Money.

[SnarkAttack]

6 minutes ago, clubsauce said:

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

Celebrities aren't like the rest of us, they get to do all sorts of things we can't.

[peachmangosteen]

Mariel Hemingway’s reaction to the speech about Woody at the Globes was interesting. You could tell she was uncomfortable but then she noticed the camera was on her and it’s like she realized she had to pretend Woody was awesome like the rest of Hollywood was doing so she smiled.

[Bannon]

26 minutes ago, Pepper Mostly said:

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 sent a thoughtless tweet. 

I don't want distributors to censor, but I encourage people to be selective. Woody Allen or Roman Polanski are moviemakers whose works I won't watch any longer. I don't think Weinstein has any financial interest in Miramax any longer, so watching that catalog doesn't enrich him, asfaik. Don't demand people be perfect, but I will draw the line at murder, rape, and assault. If everyone's domestic violence history was known, there are people I'd have to give up, no doubt. 

Once somebody's dead, I don't see any moral issues with experiencing their art, no matter how awful they were.

[txhorns79]

12 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

You could tell she was uncomfortable but then she noticed the camera was on her and it’s like she realized she had to pretend Woody was awesome like the rest of Hollywood was doing so she smiled.

Is that something Hemingway actually said was the case? 

[bosawks]

Losing his perceived place among the stars not once but twice does not nearly make up for the damage he has done but at least it is something.

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, Bannon said:

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.

I doubt they'd plead the fifth.  There's no evidence they did anything criminal. They did some questionable things but unless there's evidence of bribery or blackmail, there are no rules against reaching the conclusion they reached.  I'm guessing the unit operates as one investigative unit and the official report is the official stance even if some members of the team might disagree with the particulars.  It sounds like that's kind of what happened in the NY investigation.  Someone above Paul Williams was charged with writing the report.  Williams disagreed with the report and instead of going along with the team's final conclusions, he made noise. 

53 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Maco's behavior doesn't really matter.

I think it mattered.  He was clearly not supposed to do what he did.  Yet, I appreciate the fact that he broke the rules in this instance.  Dylan had a powerful stranger stand up and say that he believed her. 

3 hours 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. 

He didn't have enough evidence to make a case or get a conviction?  He had enough evidence to make a case if he could be sure Dylan would testify.  But he knew he  wouldn't get a conviction. There were too many societal factors going against a conviction.  Perhaps even an indictment.

[ifionlyknew]

16 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Once somebody's dead, I don't see any moral issues with experiencing their art, no matter how awful they were.

I felt that way about Michael Jackson. Stopped listening to him after the second allegation. Started listening to him again after he died but then Leaving Neverland came out and all the new allegations and I had to stop again.

Listening to the celebs gush about Woody Allen was just so gross.  As mentioned above Winona Ryder was treated worse for shoplifting.  

People have been cancelled for a lot less than sexual molestation allegations. For the life of me I do not understand celebs that continued to support and work with him.   It's not like this was a man where you could say oh no there is simply no way he is capable of this. He had been having sex with girlfriend's daughter. Woody was not a saint.  

[Bannon]

Just now, Irlandesa said:

I doubt they'd plead the fifth.  There's no evidence they did anything criminal. They did some questionable things but unless there's evidence of bribery or blackmail, there are no rules against reaching the conclusion they reached.  I'm guessing the unit operates as one investigative unit and the official report is the official stance even if some members of the team might disagree with the particulars.  It sounds like that's kind of what happened in the NY investigation.  Someone above Paul Williams was charged with writing the report.  Williams disagreed with the report and instead of going along with the team's final conclusions, he made noise. 

I think it mattered.  He was clearly not supposed to do what he did.  Yet, I appreciate the fact that he broke the rules in this instance.  Dylan had a powerful stranger stand up and say that he believed her. 

He didn't have enough evidence to make a case or get a conviction?  He had enough evidence to make a case if he could be sure Dylan would testify.  But he knew he  wouldn't get a conviction. There were too many societal factors going against a conviction.  Perhaps even an indictment.

I don't believe the assertion that it was standard practice to destroy contemporeaneous notes. I think it likely the report they produced was the result of either carrot or stick from Woody Allen. Which is why I think they would today refuse to testify about their behavior of nearly 3 decades ago. Certainly the director of the clinic could be criminally exposed if the report was altered in response to pressure from Allen.

[txhorns79]

10 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

He didn't have enough evidence to make a case or get a conviction? 

I doubt he had enough for either.  His behavior certainly suggested he was not sure of his evidence.   

 

8 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Certainly the director of the clinic could be criminally exposed if the report was altered in response to pressure from Allen.

I don't know long the statute of limitations is, but it would be surprising if criminal charges related to altering that report were still possible. 

[Bannon]

12 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

I felt that way about Michael Jackson. Stopped listening to him after the second allegation. Started listening to him again after he died but then Leaving Neverland came out and all the new allegations and I had to stop again.

Listening to the celebs gush about Woody Allen was just so gross.  As mentioned above Winona Ryder was treated worse for shoplifting.  

People have been cancelled for a lot less than sexual molestation allegations. For the life of me I do not understand celebs that continued to support and work with him.   It's not like this was a man where you could say oh no there is simply no way he is capable of this. He had been having sex with girlfriend's daughter. Woody was not a saint.  

It really is beyond any doubt that Allen was having sex with Soon-Yi when she was in high school. There's enough uncertainty about her date of birth to make the legality of Allen doing so a grey area, but as a matter of morality and ethics, it was clear, even without considering that he sexually assaulted a young child, that Woody Allen a huge, steaming, pile of feces. I 

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

I doubt he had enough for either.  His behavior certainly suggested he was not sure of his evidence.   

 

I don't know long the statute of limitations is, but it would be surprising if criminal charges related to altering that report were still possible. 

Lying under oath about it would be, and admitting it might expose a gigantic civil liability, although I suppose CT might have a time limit for civil action as well. Lots of states, however, have removed any time constraints related to civil actions pertaining  to child sexual abuse, including participating in a cover up. As the Catholic Church has discovered.

[Dessert]

2 hours ago, Bannon said:

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.

I keep thinking about Hannah and Her Sisters. Isn’t that the one where he’s involved in or married to Mia Farrows’s character and has affairs with both of her sisters behind her back? It’s very indicative of his lack of respect for family boundaries. It disgusted me at the time.

I agree about not thinking movies should be pulled from distribution. I stopped seeing Woody Allen films before the Soon-yi scandal because I didn’t think they were very good. Afterwards, I vowed never to see another one because I don’t want to give him one penny of my money.

I do, however, watch Polanski movies. Chinatown is one of my favorite movies and I refuse to give it up. The Pianist is brilliant, too. I don’t think he should be let back in this country. Let France, or wherever he’s living, deal with him. I do think he should be prosecuted and punished for any crimes he has committed. I can also understand anyone not wanting to watch his movies.

[Irlandesa]

5 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I don't believe the assertion that it was standard practice to destroy contemporeaneous notes.

But was it illegal?  That's the only thing I was addressing.  I don't believe you can assert the fifth just because you don't want to answer a question.  The answer has to be self-incriminating.  So yeah, if there was bribery, it'd be a question they wouldn't want to answer but I don't know if that's the case.

Wanting to avoid a civil lawsuit probably wouldn't be enough.  They'd just assert their expertise. 

4 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I doubt he had enough for either.  His behavior certainly suggested he was not sure of his evidence.

I guess I'm confused about what you mean by "make a case?"  Because he can always make a case.  It might not be considered a "good" case but he could make a case.  He had the eyewitnesses who observed strange things.  He had Dylan's testimony---until he realized there was no guarantee she'd be able to give it in court.

I read his behavior as someone who realizes the obstacles he has in front of him.  Sexual assault cases are tough.  Few reported actually lead to an arrest and even fewer end up in a conviction. 

 

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, Irlandesa said:

But was it illegal?  That's the only thing I was addressing.  I don't believe you can assert the fifth just because you don't want to answer a question.  The answer has to be self-incriminating.  So yeah, if there was bribery, it'd be a question they wouldn't want to answer but I don't know if that's the case.

Wanting to avoid a civil lawsuit probably wouldn't be enough.  They'd just assert their expertise. 

I guess I'm confused about what you mean by "make a case?"  Because he can always make a case.  It might not be considered a "good" case but he could make a case.  He had the eyewitnesses who observed strange things.  He had Dylan's testimony---until he realized there was no guarantee she'd be able to give it in court.

I read his behavior as someone who realizes the obstacles he has in front of him.  Sexual assault cases are tough.  Few reported actually lead to an arrest and even fewer end up in a conviction. 

 

Destroying evidence of a crime, in order to prevent the perpetrator from being prosecuted, is a pretty standard definition of obstruction of justice, especially if the perpetrator of the crime induced you to destroy the evidence.

Accepting an outright bribe, of course, to produce a legal document that contradicts what you know to be true, is itself a crime.

[Irlandesa]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Destroying evidence of a crime, in order to prevent the perpetrator from being prosecuted, is a pretty standard definition of obstruction of justice, especially if the perpetrator of the crime induced you to destroy the evidence.

I don't think their notes would be considered evidence of a crime. 

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Accepting an outright bribe, of course, to produce a legal document that contradicts what you know to be true, is itself a crime.

Sure, if there was a bribe.  I don't believe there was.  And I don't think the  Yale document would be considered a legal document or evidence until it's under subpoena. The documents were destroyed before it ever reached that point.

[Bannon]

9 minutes ago, Dessert said:

I keep thinking about Hannah and Her Sisters. Isn’t that the one where he’s involved in or married to Mia Farrows’s character and has affairs with both of her sisters behind her back? It’s very indicative of his lack of respect for family boundaries. It disgusted me at the time.

I agree about not thinking movies should be pulled from distribution. I stopped seeing Woody Allen films before the Soon-yi scandal because I didn’t think they were very good. Afterwards, I vowed never to see another one because I don’t want to give him one penny of my money.

I do, however, watch Polanski movies. Chinatown is one of my favorite movies and I refuse to give it up. The Pianist is brilliant, too. I don’t think he should be let back in this country. Let France, or wherever he’s living, deal with him. I do think he should be prosecuted and punished for any crimes he has committed. I can also understand anyone not wanting to watch his movies.

It's been decades since I last watched it. I think the last time I saw it was about 1990, and I remember thinking it hadn't aged well, but not due to the behavior of the character played by Allen. Iirc, he's supposed to be seen as kind of a  creep. It was just that, after repeated viewings, the dialogue fell flat, and in character driven comedy, dialogue has to be razor sharp to hold up upon repeated viewings. Three slapsticky gags, involving cocaine sneezing,  Chistopher Walken being a creepy brother with suicidal ideation while driving a car at night, and Marshal Mcluhan in a movie ticket line, can't hold up a two hour comedy.

[txhorns79]

14 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

 

I read his behavior as someone who realizes the obstacles he has in front of him.  Sexual assault cases are tough.  Few reported actually lead to an arrest and even fewer end up in a conviction. 

He tried to have it both ways.  He essentially admitted he did not have the evidence to make his case in court while simultaneously claiming he had enough to get an indictment (i.e. he had probable cause).  Because he never sought an indictment, his claims about probable cause weren't tested, but still left the idea of guilt.       

[Bannon]

3 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I don't think their notes would be considered evidence of a crime. 

Sure, if there was a bribe.  I don't believe there was.  And I don't think the  Yale document would be considered a legal document or evidence until it's under subpoena. The documents were destroyed before it ever reached that point.

We're kind of beating this into the ground, so I'll stop after this, but if the notes contradict what was written in the final report, that may well be construed as destroying evidence of a crime; if the notes said the child appeared consistent and uncoached in the description of being touched sexually, that's evidence.

The final report from the Yale clinic, iirc, was entered into evidence in the child custody hearing. Knowingly submitting a document containing false statements in a custody hearing would, I believe, carry potential criminal liability.

[Dessert]

6 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Three slapsticky gags, involving cocaine sneezing,  Chistopher Walken being a creepy brother with suicidal ideation while driving a car at night, and Marshal Mcluhan in a movie ticket line, can't hold up a two hour comedy.

I can’t place the cocaine sneezing, but the two other scenes are from Annie Hall. The clips I see from Annie Hall make me cringe now. Annie is so childish.

[Bannon]

Just now, Dessert said:

I can’t place the cocaine sneezing, but the two other scenes are from Annie Hall. The clips I see from Annie Hall make me cringe now. Annie is so childish.

God, my memory is shot. Yes, I'm recalling that Annie Hall doesn't hold up. I never thought Hannah was all that great. Haven't watched his movies in 30 years!

Just now, Bannon said:

God, my memory is shot. Yes, I'm recalling that Annie Hall doesn't hold up. I never thought Hannah was all that great. Haven't watched his movies in 30 years!

And I agree; Annie as a character, by 1990, was cringe-inducing.

[Dr.OO7]

1 hour ago, clubsauce said:

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

Excellent question. From everything I've heard, the adoption process is incredibly rigorous. There's no way anyone with a whiff of child molestation allegations would even get past the first part of the application.

That said, I believe they adopted their girls from overseas, where the process is supposedly not as complicated (and maybe the very reason they went this route).

[Lady Whistleup]

16 minutes ago, Dr.OO7 said:

Excellent question. From everything I've heard, the adoption process is incredibly rigorous. There's no way anyone with a whiff of child molestation allegations would even get past the first part of the application.

That said, I believe they adopted their girls from overseas, where the process is supposedly not as complicated (and maybe the very reason they went this route).

Not only SoonYi. Mia was allowed to adopt way more children than IMO she should have been allowed. Many of the children were special needs. No way she could have cared for all those special needs children. 

But I also wonder if Woody Allen is that involved in his adopted childrens' lives. From the article I read with SoonYi they made it seem like SoonYi was the primary caretaker.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Lady Whistleup

[iMonrey]

Quote

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.

I kind of wondered what the point of this documentary was until this final episode, which you outlined above. I mean, there's an awful lot of rehashing already known facts. But the mothers who lost their children after accusing their spouses of abuse made me realize this was about more than just Dylan Farrow. What a horrifying story. 

I was a little confused by Ronan Farrow saying his father wanted him to discredit or disown his mother in exchange for college tuition. I mean, Mia Farrow was a big movie star, surely she had enough money to send her kid to college. And he never did say whether or not he took the money.

I'd love some armchair psychologist to delve into Woody Allen's brain. I mean, does he really believe he's innocent? Or is he able to compartmentalize to the point that he doesn't even remember what he did? Or is he just a chronic liar? 

[Lady Whistleup]

26 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I'd love some armchair psychologist to delve into Woody Allen's brain. I mean, does he really believe he's innocent? Or is he able to compartmentalize to the point that he doesn't even remember what he did? Or is he just a chronic liar? 

I feel like Woody is a selective sociopath. 

Some people are sociopaths all the time to everyone. Charles Manson is like that. Always a sociopath, wherever he goes.

I think Woody knew better than to pull that shit with A-list Hollywood actresses. That reputation does get around and it catches up with you eventually. Woody instead looked for vulnerable people. Maybe he sensed a weakness in Mia. All those kids that were not looked after. He could be a sociopath to Mia and her kids, but not the A-list Hollywood actors/actresses/directors.

It worked well. He always has used as his defense that there aren't industry-wide complaints about him the way there was for, say, Harvey Weinstein. 

[Dessert]

46 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I kind of wondered what the point of this documentary was until this final episode, which you outlined above. I mean, there's an awful lot of rehashing already known facts. But the mothers who lost their children after accusing their spouses of abuse made me realize this was about more than just Dylan Farrow. What a horrifying story. 

I was a little confused by Ronan Farrow saying his father wanted him to discredit or disown his mother in exchange for college tuition. I mean, Mia Farrow was a big movie star, surely she had enough money to send her kid to college. And he never did say whether or not he took the money.

I'd love some armchair psychologist to delve into Woody Allen's brain. I mean, does he really believe he's innocent? Or is he able to compartmentalize to the point that he doesn't even remember what he did? Or is he just a chronic liar? 

Mia Farrow acted twice after their break up - twice in the past 29 years. She has many dependents. Clearly, Ronan was able to get an education and become successful without Woody’s help, but I don’t doubt that he was offered bribes by that sicko.

Of course he’s a liar! We don’t need armchair psychologists. Many testified at the custody trial and, apparently, they were scathing. I read an article yesterday (I’ll try to find it) by a woman who had been a huge fan of Allen’s and attended the trial. She was shocked by the testimony - especially by the many, many therapists.  One of them was asked if they thought Allen was evil. According to this article, the therapist paused for a very long time and then said that they didn’t make those kind of judgements.

[Glade]

‘Allen v. Farrow’ Filmmakers on Moses Farrow and the Finale’s Train Set Reveal:

Quote

"One thing that goes unmentioned in Allen v. Farrow is how, in addition to Dylan’s allegation of child sexual abuse against Allen, and the docuseries’ contention that Allen may have begun his sexual relationship with Soon-Yi while she was in high school (a maid testified that after a high school-aged Soon-Yi would visit Allen’s Manhattan apartment, she found semen stains on the sheets and condoms in the trash can), another of Farrow’s adopted children, Daisy Previn, testified that Allen was creepy to her on different occasions.

“In her court testimony, Daisy recounted how Woody Allen asked her if she had a boyfriend, and if so, what she was doing with her boyfriend, and that she could tell him things that she couldn’t tell her mother,” says Herdy. “That could be viewed as a conversation that’s leading toward grooming.”

Disturbing.  And though Moses and Woody's defenders are still trying to spin the train set in a way that makes them right, it still stands that Dylan has been consistent since she was 7 years old, while Moses has changed his story. 

11 minutes ago, Dessert said:

 I read an article yesterday (I’ll try to find it) by a woman who had been a huge fan of Allen’s and attended the trial. She was shocked by the testimony - especially by the many, many therapists.  One of them was asked if they thought Allen was evil. According to this article, the therapist paused for a very long time and then said that they didn’t make those kind of judgements.

It sounds like you meant this: https://www.journaloftheplagueyear.ink/blog/the-germaphobe

[Guest]

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

He tried to have it both ways.  He essentially admitted he did not have the evidence to make his case in court while simultaneously claiming he had enough to get an indictment (i.e. he had probable cause).  Because he never sought an indictment, his claims about probable cause weren't tested, but still left the idea of guilt.       

I don’t think he admitted he didn’t have the evidence but was acknowledging that the deck is stacked against the prosecution in sexual assault cases. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And he never did say whether or not he took the money.

We do know the Ronan has never spoken out in favor of Woody so he probably didn’t take that deal. However, Woody may still have paid for part of Ronan’s college education through child support. Ronan graduated with his Bachelor’s at 15 and from Yale Law School at 22. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Guest

[Lady Whistleup]

I've always believed Ronan was Woody's son because both of them are such talented writers. Woody's awful and a creep but his movies are well-written. And Ronan is a very skilled writer too. Both of them also have that slick ambition. 

 

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Dessert said:

I can’t place the cocaine sneezing, but the two other scenes are from Annie Hall. The clips I see from Annie Hall make me cringe now. Annie is so childish.

 

4 hours ago, Bannon said:

God, my memory is shot. Yes, I'm recalling that Annie Hall doesn't hold up. I never thought Hannah was all that great. Haven't watched his movies in 30 years!

And I agree; Annie as a character, by 1990, was cringe-inducing.

Yes, the cocaine scene is Annie Hall too.

I remember seeing that movie as a teenager and then seeing it again as an adult and realizing I hadn't realized at the time that Annie is basically supported by boyfriends and, presumably, parents throughout the film. It was very weird--but in a way that's consistent with 70s movies. It's like the women are "liberated" in that they sleep with men, but totally incapable of supporting themselves with a job. Women in 40s movies are more independent!

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I kind of wondered what the point of this documentary was until this final episode, which you outlined above. I mean, there's an awful lot of rehashing already known facts. But the mothers who lost their children after accusing their spouses of abuse made me realize this was about more than just Dylan Farrow. What a horrifying story. 

I was a little confused by Ronan Farrow saying his father wanted him to discredit or disown his mother in exchange for college tuition. I mean, Mia Farrow was a big movie star, surely she had enough money to send her kid to college. And he never did say whether or not he took the money.

I'd love some armchair psychologist to delve into Woody Allen's brain. I mean, does he really believe he's innocent? Or is he able to compartmentalize to the point that he doesn't even remember what he did? Or is he just a chronic liar? 

I don't think the point was just that. The facts really weren't known by many people since Woody's PR machine was so good at putting out the story that Mia was at best, nuts, and at worse, evil and nuts. From what I remember reading about the creators, they'd done docs on abuse in an institutional situation and many had asked them to do one showing abuse like this in the home and they thought  this was a good story. And they claimed to have been genuinely surprised at the facts they found because they had no idea the case against Woody was as strong as it is. Their side really doesn't get told.

I think we can say for sure Ronan never took money in return for throwing his mother or sister under the bus since he's never done that. I doubt Mia Farrow had all that much money, having starred in Allen films exclusively for so long. In the show they said how she was working constantly in theater etc. just to pay the lawyer fees (which Woody eventually had to pay). She doesn't seem to live that extravagantly, but she's got a lot of kids and some with special needs.

I would assume Woody thinks he's innocent just in terms of being justified in whatever he does. When I read the Newsweek article w/him at the time I was shocked at how obviously annoyed he was that he'd be expected to answer to anyone or care about anyone's feelings besides his own. Interesting that in the doc they showed him claiming he didn't want anything in the press right before that article came out. Again, he has no trouble lying. Mia's right when she says she feared him because he'd say anything. If Moses is following a script by him, it's pretty wild. Much wilder, iirc, than the stuff Soon-Yi claimed back in the 90s.

[EtheltoTillie]

On 3/15/2021 at 5:31 PM, Bannon said:

 

 

. 

On 3/15/2021 at 5:11 PM, Dessert said:

I keep thinking about Hannah and Her Sisters. Isn’t that the one where he’s involved in or married to Mia Farrows’s character and has affairs with both of her sisters behind her back? It’s very indicative of his lack of respect for family boundaries. It disgusted me at the time.

I agree about not thinking movies should be pulled from distribution. I stopped seeing Woody Allen films before the Soon-yi scandal because I didn’t think they were very good. Afterwards, I vowed never to see another one because I don’t want to give him one penny of my money.

I do, however, watch Polanski movies. Chinatown is one of my favorite movies and I refuse to give it up. The Pianist is brilliant, too. I don’t think he should be let back in this country. Let France, or wherever he’s living, deal with him. I do think he should be prosecuted and punished for any crimes he has committed. I can also understand anyone not wanting to watch his movies.

In Hannah and her sisters Woody was married to Mia but they get divorced and she is married to Michael Caine, who then has an affair with the sister played by Barbara Hershey. Then Woody ends up with the sister played by Dianne Wiest

Edited March 18, 2021 by GussieK

[EtheltoTillie]

6 hours ago, Bannon said:

I don't want distributors to censor, but I encourage people to be selective. Woody Allen or Roman Polanski are moviemakers whose works I won't watch any longer. I don't think Weinstein has any financial interest in Miramax any longer, so watching that catalog doesn't enrich him, asfaik. Don't demand people be perfect, but I will draw the line at murder, rape, and assault. If everyone's domestic violence history was known, there are people I'd have to give up, no doubt. 

Once somebody's dead, I don't see any moral issues with experiencing their art, no matter how awful they were.

But Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby stars Mia!  And it’s a great film. What an irony. 

[Dr.OO7]

4 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I feel like Woody is a selective sociopath. 

Some people are sociopaths all the time to everyone. Charles Manson is like that. Always a sociopath, wherever he goes.

I think Woody knew better than to pull that shit with A-list Hollywood actresses. That reputation does get around and it catches up with you eventually. Woody instead looked for vulnerable people. Maybe he sensed a weakness in Mia.

Like I've said a million times, sick, but not stupid. Pedophiles, predators, bullies, etc. won't go after those who they know will fight back and/or be believed if/when they speak up. But they'll happily prey on those who are weak, those who aren't credible, those who are so desperate for TLC that they'll overlook the abuse.

[Lady Whistleup]

Here's an article that I think would be good to repost:

10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual Abuse Allegation

[Kareny]

To me, the thing that gets lost in all of this back and forth and comparing of facts and narratives, is that if you believe Dylan (which I do, and I think at this point anyone looking at the evidence objectively would have to), one thing is explicitly clear: Woody is lying, and has gone to great lengths to do so for years. He knows exactly what happened in the attic that day, same as she does, and yet he's ruined lives and relationships and careers just to keep lying and acting innocent.

He was there. He knows exactly what he did. He's not an idiot. There's no way around it. You can't separate that from the art at this point.

[Pepper Mostly]

10 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I've always believed Ronan was Woody's son because both of them are such talented writers. Woody's awful and a creep but his movies are well-written. And Ronan is a very skilled writer too. Both of them also have that slick ambition. 

 

I've always been impressed by Ronan. He's so intelligent and well spoken. I loved his MSNBC show back in the day. 

[ifionlyknew]

2 hours ago, Kareny said:

To me, the thing that gets lost in all of this back and forth and comparing of facts and narratives, is that if you believe Dylan (which I do, and I think at this point anyone looking at the evidence objectively would have to), one thing is explicitly clear: Woody is lying, and has gone to great lengths to do so for years. He knows exactly what happened in the attic that day, same as she does, and yet he's ruined lives and relationships and careers just to keep lying and acting innocent.

He was there. He knows exactly what he did. He's not an idiot. There's no way around it. You can't separate that from the art at this point.

Yes he is lying but.....

10 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I would assume Woody thinks he's innocent just in terms of being justified in whatever he does.

Woody never thinks he has done anything wrong.

 

13 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I feel like Woody is a selective sociopath

I agree. If not a sociopath then clearly a narcissist.  

I had only seen one of his movies years ago and after all this I refused to watch another one but I have seen clips over the years.  And to me they always looked so boring.  And I say that as fan of someone who likes movies that are more character oriented than plot oriented.   But one thing I noticed was his character always seemed paired with a character a lot younger than him.  Clearly Woody in real life and Woody on the screen has a type.  

And while I understand Soon Yi had a horrific life before Mia adopted her and she was young when Woody began his affair with her I don't like  her.  She had to understand sleeping with her mother's boyfriend was wrong.   I sincerely hope she has kept her two daughter's safe.

[lovinbob]

I don't disagree with the potential diagnoses being discussed—certainly, narcissism seems like the tip of the iceberg. But since I'm not a doctor, I'll just say that at a very basic level, Woody's treatment of Mia by having sex with her daughter is beyond cruel. They were together for 12 years. They had a child together, and he treated her adopted children as his own, apparently.

This was not an unavoidable situation of star-crossed lovers. He chose his "affair" with Soon-Yi, which is a kind word for it. Whether or not he and Soon-Yi have stayed together, that initial act is so cruel and selfish it boggles the mind. 

[MaggieG]

Watching the parade of clips from everyone in Hollywood praising Woody was hard to watch. I can't imagine how hard it must have been for Dylan to see people constantly praising him. It's crazy to think that when she wrote the essay in 2014 it was a lot of people were still not believing her and then in 2018 with Me Too, everything just shifted. Like Ronan said, the culture changed. I also like that it was a random unknown actor that was the first to say he wouldn't work with him anymore and would donate his salary. Then the bigger names followed after that.

Dylan's daughter is the cutest.

[Pepper Mostly]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

Yes he is lying but.....

Woody never thinks he has done anything wrong.

 

I agree. If not a sociopath then clearly a narcissist.  

I had only seen one of his movies years ago and after all this I refused to watch another one but I have seen clips over the years.  And to me they always looked so boring.  And I say that as fan of someone who likes movies that are more character oriented than plot oriented.   But one thing I noticed was his character always seemed paired with a character a lot younger than him.  Clearly Woody in real life and Woody on the screen has a type.  

And while I understand Soon Yi had a horrific life before Mia adopted her and she was young when Woody began his affair with her I don't like  her.  She had to understand sleeping with her mother's boyfriend was wrong.   I sincerely hope she has kept her two daughter's safe.

I have always thought that they adopted two daughters so Woody would have a couple of little girls close at hand that the could do with as he pleased. Just like he thought he could do with Dylan. He is utterly repellent. 

[ifionlyknew]

3 minutes ago, Pepper Mostly said:

I have always thought that they adopted two daughters so Woody would have a couple of little girls close at hand that the could do with as he pleased. Just like he thought he could do with Dylan. He is utterly repellent. 

With the allegations against him I'm sure you aren't the only one who thought that.   Maybe when he is dead someone else might come forward.

[ifionlyknew]

10 minutes ago, MaggieG said:

Watching the parade of clips from everyone in Hollywood praising Woody was hard to watch. I can't imagine how hard it must have been for Dylan to see people constantly praising him. It's crazy to think that when she wrote the essay in 2014 it was a lot of people were still not believing her and then in 2018 with Me Too, everything just shifted. Like Ronan said, the culture changed. I also like that it was a random unknown actor that was the first to say he wouldn't work with him anymore and would donate his salary. Then the bigger names followed after that.

I had never heard of him but I thought good for him. He was choosing to do what was right and not just right for him.   I had heard the excuse well Woody's films employ lots of people and more than just Woody's livelihood depends on him. Like he was the only employer in the film industry or something.  Actors that continued to work with him was one thing but the ones that gushed about him in public or dismissed the allegations I completely lost respect for.  Diane Keaton and Alec Baldwin I'm looking at  you.

[sadie]

Did anyone appreciate the irony that it was Matt Lauer who did that horrible interview w Dianne Keaton who then Ronan took down in flames in his book about the Weinstein scandal? There was some kind of poetic justice there. 

[DiabLOL]

10 minutes ago, sadie said:

Did anyone appreciate the irony that it was Matt Lauer who did that horrible interview w Dianne Keaton who then Ronan took down in flames in his book about the Weinstein scandal? There was some kind of poetic justice there. 

I thought inserting both the Charlie Rose as well as Matt Lauer interviews were very deliberate choices and I laughed a little both times.

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

And while I understand Soon Yi had a horrific life before Mia adopted her and she was young when Woody began his affair with her I don't like  her.  She had to understand sleeping with her mother's boyfriend was wrong.   I sincerely hope she has kept her two daughter's safe.

I know I have no authority to say what Soon-Yi's motivations were at all at any time, but I always felt like Woody took advantage of the complicated emotions she had regarding Mia and her whole situation. The person I know who works with adoptees/adopters like her and Mia a lot, at the time thought that what Soon-Yi seemed to be doing/saying was not really that unusual. 

Like one thing that seemed more noticeable at the time was the potential competition b/w her and her mother. That there was possibly something satisfying about this being her mother's boyfriend who now wanted her instead. And what I mean by the competition being more obvious then is that at first I swear Soon-Yi was taking acting classes and we know Woody talked about her potentially being a model and that he put her in a movie or two. 

So when it comes to adopting kids, that's another thing Soon-Yi is doing that Mia does. I don't know if she preferred adoption to having biological kids or if that was Woody's preference or something else, but I'm just always going to see that. Obviously lots of people just want to have kids, so they're not just copying their mother--plus, she was an adoptee herself so it would be a natural. But I don't think Woody takes any more responsibility for them than he did for Mia's kids.

Another thing I always find odd is that people claim people are lying when they say she was learning disabled because she got a master's from Columbia, as if people who have learning disabilities are incapable of earning degrees. The school is obviously meant to imply she's exceptionally brilliant, but come on, being Woody Allen's wife is going to give you an advantage there--not to mention it seems like that sort of thing would be something Woody would also like. I have no idea what if anything she did/does in the field of early childhood education. It's just odd that people seem to bring that out as if it's some proof that Woody couldn't have taken advantage of her while nobody ever uses Moses' or Ronan's education to prove Mia was a good mom.

[ifionlyknew]

3 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I know I have no authority to say what Soon-Yi's motivations were at all at any time, but I always felt like Woody took advantage of the complicated emotions she had regarding Mia and her whole situation. The person I know who works with adoptees/adopters like her and Mia a lot, at the time thought that what Soon-Yi seemed to be doing/saying was not really that unusual. 

Just my opinion but I don't think Soon Yi felt bad about what she had done to her mother.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

Just my opinion but I don't think Soon Yi felt bad about what she had done to her mother.

It sure doesn't seem like she did/does. That was partly what the person I talked to said at the time, that basically that's a thing that people need to know about adopting a child in her situation, that you really can't expect the person to be grateful to you or anything. She wasn't saying it to discourage people, but just saying that it was better to weed out people who wanted to feel like some savior who wanted someone to owe them their whole life etc.  People are more complicated than stray dogs, or whatever, especially when they've been through trauma. They might actually actively resent you.

[Dr.OO7]

6 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

And while I understand Soon Yi had a horrific life before Mia adopted her and she was young when Woody began his affair with her I don't like  her.  She had to understand sleeping with her mother's boyfriend was wrong.

Exactly. If she wants to be all high and mighty and insist that she knew what she was doing and that Woody didn't take advantage of her, then she needs to own up to the fact that she willingly went to bed with a man who was already in a relationship--and with her mother, no less.

I know relationships are complicated and that some have resulted from one or both parties cheating, but there should be the decency and humility to acknowledge that. Instead, from these two. . . nothing. Not a trace of guilt or remorse from either of them over how badly they hurt Mia.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

20 minutes ago, Dr.OO7 said:

Not a trace of guilt or remorse from either of them over how badly they hurt Mia.

Not only Mia, but all of the other children. Woody sleeping with Soon-Yi destroyed their family. I think that even if Dylan's abuse allegations hadn't come out, the Soon-Yi affair would have been enough to hurt all of them. It took away a father figure who was shown to be very present in their lives and it took away their sister.