Jump to content
aberdeen-music
ca_gere

Woody Allen

Recommended Posts

Question: how should I feel about the whole woody allen sexual abuse thing?

There's probably not a single famous person ive admired so much throughout my life. I think his films are some of the greatest cultural artefacts ever created and he's someone for whom the word genius isnt enough.

I knew he wasnt an all round good egg when he started nobbing his adopted daughter but of all the things he couldve done it wasnt the worst and you kinda had to let it slide. Now its come out he's a diddler and its pretty much turned things completely upside down for me. Not sure if I can watch his stuff in the same way ever again now. Like michael jackson - does his diddler status undo any of his great work? Or can we seperate the man from his body of work. All that well observed neuroses was coming from a darker place than it ever seemed. There's something even more sinister than glitter or jackson... woody allens films reflected his personality a lot more directly than pop songs can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: how should I feel about the whole woody allen sexual abuse thing?

There's probably not a single famous person ive admired so much throughout my life. I think his films are some of the greatest cultural artefacts ever created and he's someone for whom the word genius isnt enough.

I knew he wasnt an all round good egg when he started nobbing his adopted daughter but of all the things he couldve done it wasnt the worst and you kinda had to let it slide. Now its come out he's a diddler and its pretty much turned things completely upside down for me. Not sure if I can watch his stuff in the same way ever again now. Like michael jackson - does his diddler status undo any of his great work? Or can we seperate the man from his body of work. All that well observed neuroses was coming from a darker place than it ever seemed. There's something even more sinister than glitter or jackson... woody allens films reflected his personality a lot more directly than pop songs can.

 

Has it actually turned out he has done it, or been accused of it? Two very different things remember. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: how should I feel about the whole woody allen sexual abuse thing?

There's probably not a single famous person ive admired so much throughout my life. I think his films are some of the greatest cultural artefacts ever created and he's someone for whom the word genius isnt enough.

I knew he wasnt an all round good egg when he started nobbing his adopted daughter but of all the things he couldve done it wasnt the worst and you kinda had to let it slide. Now its come out he's a diddler and its pretty much turned things completely upside down for me. Not sure if I can watch his stuff in the same way ever again now. Like michael jackson - does his diddler status undo any of his great work? Or can we seperate the man from his body of work. All that well observed neuroses was coming from a darker place than it ever seemed. There's something even more sinister than glitter or jackson... woody allens films reflected his personality a lot more directly than pop songs can.

 

Same boat here - I fucking love his work, especially his writing. Personally, I can't separate the artist from the art. If he's guilty, he's dead to me, and that fucking sucks. However, I look at the situation with a glimmer of hope - generally in these cases I side with the accuser/victim by default until all the facts are out and a full conclusion is reached. I try to never jump to HANG THE BASTARD conclusions until all is said and done, because as awful as it is, false accusations do happen. However, I'd never treat a victim of this kind of crime with disbelief and skepticism because of how difficult it is to come forward.

 

Anyway, there's cause to believe in the Allen case that it MIGHT be remnants of a vendetta between Mia and Woody.. but that might just be wishful thinking.

 

xx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further reading into the subject shows that Allen was apparently speaking to a therapist about his improper relationship with Dylan, where he seemed somewhat obessed with her, following her wherever she went etc... 

Was the statement by a nanny bullshit, where she found him kneeling, with his face on Dylan's lap?  There are so many stories going about at the moment, it's hard to believe which is true or false.

 

I agree with not treating them with disbelief - I'd rather believe a child and be proved wrong, than not believe them and shit on the strength it took to come forward and report it. I know that goes completely against the innocent until proven guilty, but false accusations aren't as common as people think.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it actually turned out he has done it, or been accused of it? Two very different things remember. 

 

It seems it's pretty much nailed on that he did it. As said above, he's playing the vendetta card which is a wafer thin defence and just because he's a respected film director I'm not jumping to the 'she's lying' conclusion at all yet. I've resigned myself to the fact that he is indeed a bad man. If it turns out he's not then great, it's as you were but this week i've been weirdly sad. It's given me this horrible sense of skepticism about everything - is anyone I admire not a diddler?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find these situations very difficult. Do you believe right away that the accused is a bad person, or do you think of the accuser as a liar until proven otherwise. I tend to side with the accused until proven otherwise, almost purely because a friend was accused of rape a few years ago, and everyone turned their back on him, press camped his garden ect, it then turned out she had lied to cover the fact she had cheated on her boyfriend and it all went far too far until it lead to the court case being thrown out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is anyone I admire not a diddler?!

 

I'm a still a non-diddling role model for the masses.

 

I agree that Allen is a weird case in that you can't really separate him from his prime films, due to him being right in front of you on the screen.  Manhattan is one of my favourite films, but I can't pretend that the central romance ever sat all that well with me.

 

I suppose considering all the oddball troubled creative geniuses, it stands to reason that a few of them are going to turn out to be real monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've read that too (and seen the documentary, which is absolutely fantastic btw). There's something really unsettling about the whole situation whatever the truth is. He was 'tainted' before with the soon yi thing and came back from it pretty well but child sex abuse allegations are something you don't come back from easily (if they're untrue). Just ask Matthew Kelly. If they're true then I hope he gets what he deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems it's pretty much nailed on that he did it. As said above, he's playing the vendetta card which is a wafer thin defence and just because he's a respected film director I'm not jumping to the 'she's lying' conclusion at all yet. I've resigned myself to the fact that he is indeed a bad man. If it turns out he's not then great, it's as you were but this week i've been weirdly sad. It's given me this horrible sense of skepticism about everything - is anyone I admire not a diddler?!

 

Can i ask why you think its nailed on that he did it? I've spent most of this afternoon reading anything i could on this, and nothing says to me its a nailed on cert, it could point towards him doing it, but it could also be that it is a lie. Im just interested in why you and others feel that its certain he has done this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i ask why you think its nailed on that he did it? I've spent most of this afternoon reading anything i could on this, and nothing says to me its a nailed on cert, it could point towards him doing it, but it could also be that it is a lie. Im just interested in why you and others feel that its certain he has done this.

 

To me the likelihood of Dylan Farrow writing an open letter with such detail and lying is far far less than it being the truth. She'd be leaving herself open to a lot of legal trouble were it all a fabrication. I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility that he's innocent and I strongly believe in innocent untill proven guilty - as you say the opposite can lead to equally terrible outcomes. That said, if I have an opinion at all it is that he is guilty and so far there's no evidence to persuade me otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the likelihood of Dylan Farrow writing an open letter with such detail and lying is far far less than it being the truth. She'd be leaving herself open to a lot of legal trouble were it all a fabrication. I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility that he's innocent and I strongly believe in innocent untill proven guilty - as you say the opposite can lead to equally terrible outcomes. That said, if I have an opinion at all it is that he is guilty and so far there's no evidence to persuade me otherwise.

She's not lying if she really believes it happened. And that doesn't necessarily mean it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the likelihood of Dylan Farrow writing an open letter with such detail and lying is far far less than it being the truth. She'd be leaving herself open to a lot of legal trouble were it all a fabrication. I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility that he's innocent and I strongly believe in innocent untill proven guilty - as you say the opposite can lead to equally terrible outcomes. That said, if I have an opinion at all it is that he is guilty and so far there's no evidence to persuade me otherwise.

 

That's quite worrying, when there's no evidence to persuade me that he IS guilty.  :(

 

The Weide article was good, albeit ironic that it was printed in "The Daily Beast".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment i'm taking an open letter written by the victim of abuse as the truth. It'd be callous of me not to. He hasn't countered the claims with anything concrete therefore to me it's more likely that he's guilty.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment i'm taking an open letter written by the victim of abuse as the truth. It'd be callous of me not to. He hasn't countered the claims with anything concrete therefore to me it's more likely that he's guilty.

Except that these allegations were made 22 years ago and investigated by both the police and a team of medical experts - the medical team said the abuse never happened and the police decided not to press charges.

This isn't news - it was all fairly well documented when it happened and it's been mentioned in lots of interviews. Why all the hand-wringing now?

Edited by colb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um... because she posted the letter 3 days ago.

Referring to an incident that's already been investigated by the police, 22 years ago. Why did it take you until 3 days ago to care about it if you're such a fan? Edited by colb
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last post was a bit more confrontational than I intended. My point was more that this is not a new allegation, the letter seems to have coincided with the current film awards and a recent renewal of interest in Allen's work and that seems a bit ofd to me.

I've no doubt he's a bit of a creepy person and it wouldn't surprise me if he had actually done something - but the story is old and i just don't get why an old allegation resurfacing would change your mind about someone's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case was closed all those years ago under a shroud of mystery but he was eventually cleared and life went on. I assumed he was innocent and it was all a misunderstanding - that's what the evidence pointed to. Now, Dylan Farrow has written this letter that suggests the case shouldn't have been closed and that he was guilty. So are we meant to say 'oh well, he was cleared before, this is no different, she's lying' or are we allowed to question what really went on?

 

It's not a case of not caring untill 3 days ago. It's a case of assuming he was innocent for all these years and suddenly finding out he's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the likelihood of Dylan Farrow writing an open letter with such detail and lying is far far less than it being the truth. She'd be leaving herself open to a lot of legal trouble were it all a fabrication.

 

Why? She, like everyone else, would know that most people side with the victim not the accused.

 

The whole thing screams of vendetta and ill feeling from a spiteful and manipulative woman (Mia Farrow) who seems intent on ruining her ex-boyfriend's life (along with that of her kids).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case was closed all those years ago under a shroud of mystery but he was eventually cleared and life went on. I assumed he was innocent and it was all a misunderstanding - that's what the evidence pointed to. Now, Dylan Farrow has written this letter that suggests the case shouldn't have been closed and that he was guilty. So are we meant to say 'oh well, he was cleared before, this is no different, she's lying' or are we allowed to question what really went on?

 

It's not a case of not caring untill 3 days ago. It's a case of assuming he was innocent for all these years and suddenly finding out he's not.

 

I'm pretty sure I could write a detailed letter about being abused by someone. That wouldn't make that person guilty though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done about 5 minutes research and know next to nothing about Woody Allen, but I've read prosecutors felt they had enough to feasibly charge him but chose not to, in order to spare the alleged victim ordeal of a trial. So, if she, in adulthood, felt that he should have been taken to task, I feel she should have that right (though, writing to the New York Times seems about the worst way to go about it; surely there are other ways of getting it looked into). Regards the co-incidence, it seems the plot of the award winning movie bears a strong resemblance to some of the real life dramas with Mia Farrow, which might have set her off one way or another. There also seems to have been disagreement between some of the specialist investigators, with one not ruling out that she could have been abused.

 

That said, I'm skeptical as far as my opinion/knowledge goes, again mainly because he was cleared before and that (most of) the investigators thought Mia Farrow was behind the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple of days and I have to say I've found it difficult to reach any satisfactory conclusion in my mind. I strongly believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty but also believe as much support as possible should be given to victims of crimes like and hate the idea of children being scared to come forward because they have no proof. When I read some opinions on the case there seems to be some grounds for believing the idea that it's a fabricated allegation fostered by a mad Mia Farrow but then I question whether I'm actually just wanting that to be true. I am a fan of his films and would have to admit to being biased in hoping he's innocent. I then read other opinions and swing the other way and think he almost is certainly guitly. At the moment I kind of feel stuck in the middle and like I'm being unfair to both parties.

 

 

One thing that I learned from the Daily Beast piece which really surprised me is that Soon-Yi was never his adopted daughter. It's amazing how something can be misreported so often that it just becomes widely accepted fact.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a case of not caring untill 3 days ago. It's a case of assuming he was innocent for all these years and suddenly finding out he's not.

 

But if her word is all you need for proof then surely you should have considered him guilty 20 years ago when she first made the allegation. (Or whenever you first found out about them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case was closed all those years ago under a shroud of mystery but he was eventually cleared and life went on. I assumed he was innocent and it was all a misunderstanding - that's what the evidence pointed to. Now, Dylan Farrow has written this letter that suggests the case shouldn't have been closed and that he was guilty. So are we meant to say 'oh well, he was cleared before, this is no different, she's lying' or are we allowed to question what really went on?

 

It's not a case of not caring untill 3 days ago. It's a case of assuming he was innocent for all these years and suddenly finding out he's not.

But you haven't found out that he's not innocent, the evidence hasn't changed. It's the same allegation that was made and that Allen was cleared of 22 years ago. If anything this letter undermines the previous allegation given it's timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...