Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alvy

Your favourite Woody Allen

What is your favorite Woody Allen film?  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your favorite Woody Allen film?

    • What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966)
      1
    • Take the Money and Run (1969)
      1
    • Bananas (1971)
      1
    • Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972)
      0
    • Sleeper (1973)
      1
    • Love and Death (1975)
      3
    • Annie Hall (1977)
      8
    • Interiors (1978)
      0
    • Manhattan (1979)
      6
    • Stardust Memories (1980)
      0
    • A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982)
      0
    • Zelig (1983)
      1
    • Broadway Danny Rose (1984)
      0
    • The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
      8
    • Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
      8
    • Radio Days (1987)
      0
    • September (1987)
      1
    • Another Woman (1988)
      0
    • Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
      11
    • Alice (1990)
      0
    • Shadows and Fog (1992)
      0
    • Husbands and Wives (1992)
      0
    • Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
      0
    • Bullets Over Broadway (1994)
      2
    • Mighty Aphrodite (1995)
      2
    • Everyone Says I Love You (1996)
      0
    • Deconstructing Harry (1997)
      0
    • Celebrity (1998)
      0
    • Sweet and Lowdown (1999)
      0
    • Small Time Crooks (2000)
      0
    • The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)
      0
    • Hollywood Ending (2002)
      0
    • Anything Else (2003)
      0


Recommended Posts

I don't disagree on that point. 

 

(It is pretty rare that someone admits right away, tho.  Polanski and David O. Russell are the only people I can think of that admitted pretty much right away) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if this would happen:

 

- - -

 

Dylan Farrow's Brother Moses Defends Woody Allen

"My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister," Moses, 36, tells PEOPLE in the magazine's new issue. "And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi." . . .

"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," says Moses, who is estranged from Farrow and many of his siblings and is close to Allen and Soon-Yi. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible." . . .

Moses accuses Farrow of bullying him as well. "Our mother has misled the public into believing it was a happy household of both biological and adopted children," he says. "From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child. She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do."
"I don't know where he gets this about getting beaten," counters Dylan. "We were sent to our rooms sometimes." . . .

Moses, a family therapist, says that his own life has been made better by spending time with Allen.
"I think my sister is missing a great deal in life in not reconnecting with her father, who had always adored her," he says. "It’s important that she assert her independence from our mother and not go through life with the false impression that she has been molested by my father. I am very happy I have come into my own power, separating from my mother, which has led to a positive reunion with my father." . . .

People, February 5

 

- - -

 

Whatever else we might say about this, I think Moses' opinion has to count for a helluva lot more than Ronan's, if only because Ronan was only 4 years old when his parents split whereas Moses was already a teenager, and thus more conscious of what was going on around him.

 

Thom Wade wrote:

: Although, Mia is in the same side of that as Soon Yi....a ridiculously older man with a very young woman.  She is still not comparable to Woody in that area.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yes, Mia Farrow married Frank Sinatra when she was about 20 and he was about 50 -- pretty much the same age gap as when Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn first hooked up. And when Mia Farrow was about 25, she got knkocked up by Andre Previn, who was about 40 (and married to another woman at the time). And now Mia says she reconnected with Sinatra when she was about 40 and he was about 70 (and married to another woman at the time). So yes, Mia Farrow is comparable to Soon-Yi, and Sinatra and Previn are comparable to Woody, in terms of age gaps and adultery and whatnot. The only non-comparable element is that Mia does not appear to have had relationships with two members of the same family at the same time.

 

: Polanski and David O. Russell are the only people I can think of that admitted pretty much right away

 

Eh? What did David O. Russell admit to? (If you're referring to his bad temper, well... the video evidence was right there on YouTube.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evan C   

Eh? What did David O. Russell admit to? (If you're referring to his bad temper, well... the video evidence was right there on YouTube.)

When filming Silver Linings Playbook, he groped his 19 year old niece at a gym, but she "invited" him to, or some absurd claim like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if this would happen:

 

- - -

 

Dylan Farrow's Brother Moses Defends Woody Allen

"My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister," Moses, 36, tells PEOPLE in the magazine's new issue. "And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi." . . .

"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," says Moses, who is estranged from Farrow and many of his siblings and is close to Allen and Soon-Yi. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible." . . .

Moses accuses Farrow of bullying him as well. "Our mother has misled the public into believing it was a happy household of both biological and adopted children," he says. "From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child. She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do."

"I don't know where he gets this about getting beaten," counters Dylan. "We were sent to our rooms sometimes." . . .

Moses, a family therapist, says that his own life has been made better by spending time with Allen.

"I think my sister is missing a great deal in life in not reconnecting with her father, who had always adored her," he says. "It’s important that she assert her independence from our mother and not go through life with the false impression that she has been molested by my father. I am very happy I have come into my own power, separating from my mother, which has led to a positive reunion with my father." . . .

People, February 5

 

- - -

 

Whatever else we might say about this, I think Moses' opinion has to count for a helluva lot more than Ronan's, if only because Ronan was only 4 years old when his parents split whereas Moses was already a teenager, and thus more conscious of what was going on around him. 

 

Though, does his account of the homelife with Farrow count more than Ronan or Dylan in regards to her supposed abusive ways?  And what proof has he that she was *definitely* not molested by Allen?  Does he really expect us to believe that they were always in a big communal group?  That there was no possible privacy?

 

It is certainly plausible she was demanding and Dylan got molested.  His version of their homelife is possible as well as her statement of being molested. 

 

Frankly, manipulation seems to be something both sides are quite skilled at in this discussion (in spite of the portrayal of Allen as some unlucky sad sack by those who jump to his defense).

 

Eh? What did David O. Russell admit to? (If you're referring to his bad temper, well... the video evidence was right there on YouTube.)

When filming Silver Linings Playbook, he groped his 19 year old niece at a gym, but she "invited" him to, or some absurd claim like that.

 

 

Yeah...that was his defense, she did not tell quite the same story. Honestly, even if it had been consensual, fondling his niece is just to skeevy.

Edited by Thom Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan C wrote:
: When filming Silver Linings Playbook, he groped his 19 year old niece at a gym, but she "invited" him to, or some absurd claim like that.

 

!!!

 

Thom Wade wrote:

: Though, does his account of the homelife with Farrow count more than Ronan or Dylan in regards to her supposed abusive ways?

 

His claims of abuse at Mia's hands do make me wonder, actually. Almost like he might be over-reaching in taking Woody's side against Mia. Then again, if he said it happened...

 

FWIW, members of my own family have told me about abuse that they supposedly witnessed against me (Moses-style stuff, definitely *not* Dylan-style stuff), and I have no memory of it whatsoever. Maybe my family imagined it. Maybe it happened and I've blocked it. Maybe Dylan's blocking stuff. Maybe she's imagining stuff. Maybe Moses is imagining stuff. Who knows.

 

: And what proof has he that she was *definitely* not molested by Allen?

 

Well, as you know, it's very difficult to prove something that never was. The best you can ever do is disprove claims that something *did* happened, by falsifying details made within the claims etc. That's why the burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion. And, sadly, that means the burden of proof now rests on Dylan, because she is the one making the assertion now (as far as what Woody did is concerned, that is; though of course, Moses has now made assertions as far as Mia is concerned, so a burden of proof now rests on *him*, too, and can Mia ever disprove *those* claims?).

 

: Frankly, manipulation seems to be something both sides are quite skilled at in this discussion (in spite of the portrayal of Allen as some unlucky sad sack by those who jump to his defense).

 

I will *never* pretend that a master filmmaker and media personality like Woody Allen is incapable of manipulating the discussion to at least some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vjmorton   

I'd be curious to know what people think of Sasha Stone's theory as expressed about 45-50 minutes into Oscar Podcast 58.

 

Since I can't figure out how to know I'm there without listening to all 45 minutes ... what is her theory (not that it matters much to me since Stone is a misandrist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast either yet. But FWIW, I exchanged a few words with Sasha on a mutual Facebook friend's wall a while ago (before the Dylan letter went online), and was a bit surprised to find that she didn't care whatsoever that Mia claimed to have been sleeping with a married man. Marital status, apparently, makes no difference to her. (Her exact words: "Fidelity in marriage isn't something I give two shits about, to tell you the truth, as I don't really believe in marriage (unless it's an open one).")

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victor: If you press the "play" arrow, you should get a scroll bar that shows the full length/time of the podcast. Give the site a few seconds to load the podcast as the opening seconds play. Then you should be able to click right up to the 45-minute mark. She mentions what interests me at 46:30. I'd rather not regurgitate it here. She has some back-and-forth with another panelist.

 

I've alternately enjoyed and been highly frustrated by Sasha's podcasts over the years, but sometimes her passion on women's issues aligns with mine (I'm no feminist, although I may have a streak). This is a case where I sit up and pay attention because hers is not a theory I've heard elsewhere. Yes, it's just a theory, and maybe it'll be easily swatted aside. I don't know. But as with her views on Blue Is the Warmest Color, I feel a certain kinship with her when she gets her back up about possible mistreatment of underage girls.

 

EDIT: The discussion runs to 52:30.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vjmorton   

Meh ... it is a public fact (merely from the abandonment of his quasi-wife for his quasi-daughter and from his photos of the latter) that Woody Allen is a pervert. That doesn't make him a pedophile.

 

But apart from that ... the Vanity Fair article that Stone goes gaga over as definitive was almost entirely sourced to Farrow and her "camp" (especially the Therapy claim, which truly would be both probative and damning if true). So Stone is grossly overstating it to say "these are facts" indisputable ... if there is any reason to be skeptical of 20-year-old memories of an obviously effed-up childhood, there is more reason to doubt contemporary claims from parties that have marinated in 20 years of (justified, I'd even stipulate) hatred. And which are transparently an effort at public Trial by Mob.

 

Did Woody have an inappropriately close relationship with Dylan (apart from the attic)? Quite possibly. As Stone herself said, kids can be innocently sexual without meaning it because they're so innocent. Faced with a girl acting that way, could Woody have (culpably) melted down and acted weird in response, unwilling to be authoritarian about boundaries and sexuality? If he's anything like his screen character (which Farrow said even then he was, and which is the only basis almost all of his have to go by anyway) ... sure, it's possible.

 

But to my mind, you can't bracket the attic. If the "Other Stuff" is true, it actually argues *against* the attic story being true. Not only because of the timeline / opportunity issues the Daily Beast article pointed out, it also makes it likelier that Dylan was coached / memories planted at the time. After all ... a wronged person in a "divorce" has the Soon-Yi photos. She's a sort of adult, but you do have this other issue brewing in the house (but not such an awful one that she'll keep Woody away or cut him off career-wise) ... then fabricating an actual illegal-abuse charge is both made technically easier and incentivized.

Edited by vjmorton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Victor. Good response. I haven't read the VF article but appreciate the reminder (which I'd already forgotten) that it was driven by Farrow and friends.

 

Can you go a bit further with this?

 

If the "Other Stuff" is true, it actually argues *against* the attic story being true.

 

I'm not sure I understand this. If inconsistencies re: the "other stuff" and the attic incident have been hashed out in the published responses, or in the piece that led to Dylan publishing her recollection -- or even in this thread -- I've already forgotten that point. Sigh.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vjmorton   

If the "Other Stuff" is true, it actually argues *against* the attic story being true.

 

I'm not sure I understand this. If inconsistencies re: the "other stuff" and the attic incident have been hashed out in the published responses, or in the piece that led to Dylan publishing her recollection -- or even in this thread -- I've already forgotten that point. Sigh.

 

What I'm saying is that if Woody and Dylan were inappropriately-close-but-not-criminally-so, especially in ways that were noticed by others at the time (as the Farrows / VF article now claim) then (1) Mia becomes more culpable for not dumping Woody immediately, to keep him away from her children; (2) it becomes less believable that the opportunity would have existed for The Attic to happen and/or for Allen to have risked it (unless he's a compulsive beyond reason; which admittedly isn't impossible but doesn't seem to fit his personality profile); (3) it creates both motive and plausibility for Mia to have coached The Attic memory in 1992.

Edited by vjmorton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't disagree with those three points, but I'm not so quick to discount "unless he's a compulsive beyond reason."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vjmorton   

I can't disagree with those three points, but I'm not so quick to discount "unless he's a compulsive beyond reason."

 

I am ... we know he's disciplined enough to turn out a movie a year; his "marriage" to his ex-daughter has lasted 20 years without apparent public scandal; and his screen character (which again Mia said in 1992 resembles his IRL personality) is an overthinking fussbudget, not only not a compulsive beyond reason, but the very opposite of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My connection cut out before the podcast was over, but Sasha Stone is wrong about one or two points. Was Soon-Yi a "very young" girl (or whatever phrase) Sasha used? She was certainly -- and still is -- a lot young*er* than Woody Allen, but she was around 20 when they hooked up, which makes her an adult, no? (She was certainly older than, say, most of Charlie Chaplin's wives were when he married them, let alone when he first hooked up with them.) And was that Daily Beast article really the stick that woke the "rattlesnake"? It was a *response* to the provocations that Mia Farrow and her clan had already made on Twitter (during the Golden Globes ceremony) and in Vanity Fair (in a November-issue story that appeared online in October).

 

vjmorton wrote:
: If the "Other Stuff" is true, it actually argues *against* the attic story being true.

 

Interesting...

 

: . . . then (1) Mia becomes more culpable for not dumping Woody immediately, to keep him away from her children . . .

 

Yes. I forget the exact timeline, but this was the point Woody's "camp" made in the original Vanity Fair article over 20 years ago: if Mia thought Woody was being such a bad dad, why did Mia let him go ahead with the adoption process?

 

: . . . (2) it becomes less believable that the opportunity would have existed for The Attic to happen and/or for Allen to have risked it . . .

 

Yes, this is one of the points that Weide makes in his Daily Beast article, especially when you take into account that the attic episode is said to have taken place *months* after Mia found out about Woody's relationship with Soon-Yi. To paraphrase something Woody said in Love and Death, they would have been watching him very, very closely.

 

: . . . his "marriage" to his ex-daughter . . .

 

You put your scare quotes around the wrong word. Woody and Soon-Yi *are* married (or is this one of those Catholic things where you don't consider it a valid marriage because he was married before), and Soon-Yi was never his daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vjmorton   

: . . . his "marriage" to his ex-daughter . . .

 

You put your scare quotes around the wrong word. Woody and Soon-Yi *are* married (or is this one of those Catholic things where you don't consider it a valid marriage because he was married before), and Soon-Yi was never his daughter.

 

I said "quasi-daughter" above but frankly I'm not terribly interested in maintaining linguistic correctness based on parsings of the exact nature of the previous relationship. It's as morally material as the positions of the dinner fork and the salad fork. She was unquestionably the adopted daughter of his quasi-wife (another distinction I don't put too much stock in), and unquestionably the sister of both his adopted and natural children. That's, as they say, close enough for government work. As one Republican politician (unfortunately dubious but it's a great line) said at the time, "he committed non-incest with his non-daughter because they were a non-family." And if she's some kind of daughter, that's easily close enough to mock the marriage. But FTR, Soon-Yi does happen to be Woody's third wife and at least the second (Louise Lasser) is still alive.

Edited by vjmorton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josie   
Maybe Dylan's blocking stuff. Maybe she's imagining stuff. Maybe Moses is imagining stuff. Who knows.

 

The problem for Woody is this is a no win.  An innocent guy is going to deny guilt.  So is a guilty guy.

 

 

Yes, in the end it comes down to a middle-aged man and a seven year old girl in an attic, and whether or not that scene (scenes?) ever took place.  Whether Woody Allen has it in him to molest a little kid.

And it is his denial against her assertion.

 

I was more than willing to give the initial piece defending Allen the benefit of the doubt, but the narrative shaping up here after Dylan's open letter isn't just uncomfortable, it's nasty.
The Allen-defense pieces all conform uncomfortably closely to a fairly typical narrative: "She's a manipulative whore and a liar, and besides look at this other thing over here." Throwing slut-shaming and guilt-by-association at Mia only serves to obscure the central question, which is "what happened?" 

 

When we have people suggesting that Dylan is just doing this to help promote her brother's career, I find it pretty hard to be sympathetic to the pro-Allen side.  Cheating is bad, molesting children is flat out worse.  On the moral ground, Farrow would still be ahead.

 

 

I would say it's wrong for the grudge-laced history between Mia Farrow and Woody Allen to diminish their daughter's credibility or be used as a diversionary tactic. But equally wrong for the defamation of Mia Farrow by people who support Woody Allen or by Woody Allen himself  to inculpate him. Ultimately it's not about whether they're nice people, or how their family shattered, or the loyalty of their friends.

The court clearly thought there was a pretty good likelihood he did what Dylan accused him of.  There is little to suggest this was fabricated. [. . .]

Also, false accusations are incredibly rare, and often, people do not report rape and molestation specifically because the public will often leap to the defense of the accused and attack the accuser/the accuser's family.

 

My response to that line of reasoning would be every case is different.

It's almost like our brain fooling us into thinking that if we roll the die a hundred times vs. one, we have greater odds each time of rolling a six.

The fact that so many victims of rape and abuse have been shamed into silence, been further traumatized when those who should have intervened turned a blind eye or when their stories were mishandled in court matters terribly and is beyond harrowing. But it in no way alters the likelihood that abuse happened in this one case and has no real bearing on Woody Allen's guilt or innocence.  It's actually very hard for me to remember that, because I was raised in the culture of victims rights that was seen as such a merciful corrective to the blame-and-shame-the-victim culture.  If there's a hierarchy of victimhood, Dylan Farrow's plight outbids Woody Allen's. It sickens me to respond to a story like hers with: I think you believe this happened, but I can't take your word for it that it did. But that's still my response.

 

(And when people say "No one knows what happened then except for Woody and Dylan," I'm inclined to reply that *even Dylan* might not know what happened then. She has strong beliefs, obviously, but memory is a strange thing -- especially, I would imagine, for a seven-year-old caught up in a highly traumatic family dynamic.)

 

 

I agree that this is a real possibility. I read that a team of psychologists from Yale were dubious, because of inconsistencies in her story and other reasons . I'm not sure if that's true or if it's any more indicative of the truth than the judge's suspicions, but it gave me pause.

In forensic psychology (and I'm no psychologist nor even a student of psychology)  I think it's well known that witness testimony can be weirdly unreliable. That people will identify or describe someone with the utmost, heartfelt conviction and then prove to be blazingly wrong. That the retrieval of buried memories of childhood abuse in adults can also be notoriously unreliable, and yet those adults *believe* in the recreations. And that children's own stories of abuse can turn out to be false or inaccurate. These are all possibilities. We have cases in the annals of our justice system where DNA evidence  overturns years-ago convictions based on eye witness identification.  And cases of deliberate falsehood where the context of the alleged crime reeked so of exploitation that people naturally trusted the accusers and leapt to their defence.  So there are scores of precedents and counter-precedents. But again, they don't really matter except as lessons in the presumption of innocence.  

 

a week or two ago, my bishop was found guilty of molesting a child almost 30 years ago, based entirely on the fact that the judge believed the child's (now grown-up's) testimony in court more than the bishop's. I didn't know this bishop very well -- I'd met him a couple times, but he worked out of Ottawa, three time zones away -- but it's been interesting to see how the clergy I know have dealt with his arrest and, now, conviction. Some insist they've known him for years and he couldn't have done this; others have wondered if they really knew the bishop as well as they thought they did all these years; and sometimes I see the same person wavering between both positions. And friends have raised the same "molesters never go after just one kid, where are the other victims?" objection that defenders of Woody have raised. I honestly don't know. I'm an agnostic on that case, too.

 

 

In your place, I would be a kind of agnostic too (or a believer in innocence until it was disproven).  And if he *is* blameless, and his reputation and life are scarred, what a terrible shame.

Oh, neither could I. And I don't think affairs of that sort (or any sort) are excusable at all. But at the same time, sleeping with someone who is somewhere between 18 and 21 years of age (no one knows *exactly* when Soon-Yi was born) isn't exactly pedophilia. It's not even statutory rape, at least not in any North American jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

 

 

 

Meh ... it is a public fact (merely from the abandonment of his quasi-wife for his quasi-daughter and from his photos of the latter) that Woody Allen is a pervert. That doesn't make him a pedophile.

 

 

 

It's not troubling to me because of the age difference in itself. I don't want to disbelieve that two adults who are 30 years apart can have a loving, committed relationship. And I don't think it was pedophilia. Or even that because of its origins, Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn's marriage must be doomed or corrupt or that they can't be good parents to their daughters.

 

But the origins are troubling, for lots of reasons.  Because of her (approximated) age at the time and how much growing up she surely still needed to do, and because of the vast imbalances and asymmetries between them. And of course most of all because of his relationship with her mother and her siblings. I think about the aftermath, too. If Soon-Yi Previn came from Vietnam at 5 or 7, and no one even knew her precise age, what kind of life had she had?  Whatever it was it was erased. And then 13 or so years later, she underwent another amputation, when she was abruptly and permanently estranged from her adoptive mother and siblings. That history seems so sad and damaging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie wrote:
: And it is his denial against her assertion.
 
It is *now*, yes.
 
: In forensic psychology . . . I think it's well known that witness testimony can be weirdly unreliable.
 
John Dominic Crossan devotes a whole chapter in The Birth of Christianity to the subject of memory, and concludes that, if eyewitness testimony is a prosecution's only evidence, then there is "always and intrinsically" a "reasonable doubt" against it. He then repeats the word "always" for effect.
 
In that chapter, he gets into some interesting stuff. In my blog post on the Woody-Mia tiff, I quoted a study he cites involving the Challenger explosion (i.e. do you remember how you first heard about the explosion? many people told surprisingly different stories two years after the fact than they did the day after it happened -- and their confidence in their memories had nothing to do with their accuracy), but afterwards one of my commenters challenged me on that, because the Challenger study applied to a different *kind* of memory-morph than has been alleged in Dylan's case. So I dug out my copy of the book and found that, yes, the bit about the Challenger comes in the section headlined 'Fact Becomes Non-Fact', but there were other studies and anecdotes that came up in 'Fiction Becomes Fact' and 'Non-Fact Becomes Fact' that actually do have some bearing on the Dylan Farrow case.

 

You can see one of the anecdotes, from the 'Fiction Becomes Fact' section, and one of the studies, from the 'Non-Fact Becomes Fact' section, attached to this post. (I was able to call them up on Google Books.)

post-46-0-34462000-1391746408_thumb.jpg

post-46-0-76589800-1391746680_thumb.jpg

post-46-0-17525200-1391746692_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His response is already available with a Sunday time stamp...it was...uh...not his wisest move.

Interesting about the Crossan stuff... But then, why trust Woody's memory on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weird thing about the Woody Allen statement is that it all feels so... familiar. I mean, okay, lately people have been going over all the arguments from 20+ years ago, and CBS re-posted their 1992 interview with him, and so on and so forth... but it does almost feel like Woody had nothing new to say, so he just cobbled together bits and pieces from the things that Robert Weide, Moses Farrow and others have said in his defense lately, combined with bits that he himself said over two decades ago.

 

But that, to me, just underscores how there is Absolutely Nothing New Here (except maybe for Moses' allegations of abuse committed by Mia, but even *that* has a precedent of sorts in the original custody case, where it was alleged that Mia had beaten Soon-Yi after Soon-Yi made a Hagar-like comment to her mother).

 

As for Woody's memory... well, what are you suggesting, that he actually did it but he's *blocked* the incident from his memory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josie   
I'd be curious to know what people think of Sasha Stone's theory as expressed about 45-50 minutes into Oscar Podcast 58.

 

 

 

I listened to part of the podcast but may have stopped before hearing a theory advanced.

I relate very strongly to her sense of what a terrible thing Woody Allen did to that family by having an affair with a girl (of legal age, but still so young and so much younger than he) while he was involved with her mother and was father to three of her siblings. I don't think that suggests he's apedophile or child molester. But on the scale of moral weakness, that one thing arrests me and makes me think: here's a man who lacked the restraint and compassion to *not* cross those lines and who I don't think has ever expressed remorse and has brushed aside the extreme wrongness of the situation with the defense of two people falling in love.  (To be clear, I don't think that makes him an evil, unforgivable person either.) 

 

When she moved to small girls being 'naturally provocative' and draping themselves over people &c., she just lost me. (I'ts a bit analogous to the conversation in the Martyrs thread about differences in interpretation.) 

 

John Dominic Crossan devotes a whole chapter in The Birth of Christianity to the subject of memory, and concludes that, if eyewitness testimony is a prosecution's only evidence, then there is "always and intrinsically" a "reasonable doubt" against it. He then repeats the word "always" for effect.

 

 

That's a fair emphasis. I read the excerpts (I'm curious how they figure in the Birth of Christianity; I think a lot about memory - collective memory and the bending of time and perspective, and how purely factual 'accurate' memory can disfigure or fail to grasp truth - in relation to the Gospels) and the TED talk is very much along the lines of what I meant. I've learnt a bit about this field of research from a friend who (like the professor in the clip?) has joint appointments in law school and psych. department. It's as important as the lives wrecked by false allegations and as the distinction between an unwitting, false memory and a malicious lie or careless  libel. It's aslo unnerving because we tend to think our memory is a camera (not that cameras never lie) and because of the legacy of crimes being closeted and those brave enough to speak out being hushed up or told they just imagined it. There's nothing fictional or hallucinatory about how many times that's happened.

 

Honestly, if you handn't responded to my last post I was going to delete it. The more I say the more at sea I feel about what happened and the more depressed by how defamation and hatred seem to be feeding on themselves and accusations that are conflicting and unsubstantiable cementing into fact. And that's a reason I've read very little and am avoidant of cases like this. I start feeling as if words are weapons. I have simplistic views that we're supposed to protect children and put their needs first; that's our job as adults and parents. And even though the welfare of kids should be at the center of this verbal firestorm, it's really not. If it were there would be more concern for the adopted daughters who live with Woody Allen now. (If Dylan's memories are true, how horrible for them. And if they're not and their father's being denounced as a creepy, perverted monster and their parents' history dredged up and feasted on, how horrible for them.)  

 

But I also believe the worst outcome would be for people to just turn away from stories like Dylan Farrow's and refuse to listen - or to not defend people who are being condemned if they believe they are or may be innocent!

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie wrote:
: When she moved to small girls being 'naturally provocative' and draping themselves over people &c., she just lost me.

 

Oh, that part makes total sense to me. My daughter turned eight a few days ago and we're *still* working on getting her to be modest and to respect people's personal spaces here at home. (And she's the one child of mine who *isn't* special-needs.)

 

: It's aslo unnerving because we tend to think our memory is a camera (not that cameras never lie) . . .

 

Quite so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

Ronan Farrow: My Father, Woody Allen, and the Danger of Questions Unasked (Guest Column)

Being in the media as my sister's story made headlines, and Woody Allen's PR engine revved into action, gave me a window into just how potent the pressure can be to take the easy way out. Every day, colleagues at news organizations forwarded me the emails blasted out by Allen's powerful publicist, who had years earlier orchestrated a robust publicity campaign to validate my father's sexual relationship with another one of my siblings. Those emails featured talking points ready-made to be converted into stories, complete with validators on offer — therapists, lawyers, friends, anyone willing to label a young woman confronting a powerful man as crazy, coached, vindictive. At first, they linked to blogs, then to high-profile outlets repeating the talking points — a self-perpetuating spin machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×