Skip to main content

click to enlarge

Follow me on Twitter @MattBors and order a copy of my latest book, Life Begins At Incorporation.

Originally posted to Comics on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yup, that's the problem with standing by your (15+ / 0-)

    beliefs - it limits your 'freedoms'.

    Can't support homophobia, corruption, torture-killing of stray dogs?  No Olympics for you (or me.)

    But it's our choice.  And hopefully, when enough people are willing to stand up for those principles, change will come.

    •  What's really hard..... standing up for the planet (15+ / 0-)

      Every day that I use my car....  is like watching a Woody Allen movie.

      If cats could blog, they wouldn't

      by crystal eyes on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:01:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's not so much (9+ / 0-)

      that he makes movies, but that people are glorifying him as a movie maker while ignoring the rest of the man.

      You can be a brilliant artist, or athlete, or politician, or blogger, and yet be a shitty human being in other aspects of your life. All many folks want to see, including Dylan Farrow, is a balanced picture of the man, rather than setting him up on a pedestal as some sort of god.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:19:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually never really thought he was all (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher, Babsnc, Sylv

        that much of a genius as an artist.  Just odd enough to appeal to a market niche that no one else at the time was filling.

        •  matter of taste and (0+ / 0-)

          I suppose, many film makers could be waved away as just filling a niche in the market. Many people found him brilliant when he was in his heyday decades ago. Stars felt honored to be asked to work on his films. He does have talent and in fact most people felt he was good at what he does.

          That doesn't discount how you feel about how good his films are. I'm just getting at your explanation of why he's been successful.

          I stopped watching his films when he was revealed to have a relationship with his step daughter, and that will continue.

          •  Not his Step-Daughter (12+ / 0-)

            Stop spreading ignorance. Soon-Yi was NEVER his step-daughter. He never LIVED with Mia Farrow, or her children. Soon-yi was an adult when their relationship started. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The man was never even prosecuted because the investigators could find no proof beyond a 7-year old who in their view was coached regarding her story. Perhaps reading this will clear up some of the ineuendo and facts surrounding the allegations.

            "I'm a lifelong agitator, a radical. A rebel is just against things for rebellion's sake. By radical, I mean someone who goes to the roots." - Will Geer

            by Vitarai on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:14:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smartalek, ExpatGirl

              I'm obligated to consider him innocent until proven guilty at the exact moment I have the power to deprive him of his life, liberty, or property.

              Since I lack that power, I don't have any particular compulsion to meet the standards of criminal prosecution.

              •  you do (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Unless you are not a citizen of this country then you have that power. Since we try people by jury in this country, and you, as a citizen, would be capable of sitting on that jury. Thus you have condemned someone prior to any proof being provided. Great for you! I try not to condemn people based on media witch-hunts, and accusations that haven't been proven.

                "I'm a lifelong agitator, a radical. A rebel is just against things for rebellion's sake. By radical, I mean someone who goes to the roots." - Will Geer

                by Vitarai on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:06:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Further, Mikey has the power to be intellectually (0+ / 0-)

                  honest, but chooses not to exercise it.

                  Be careful; not declaring Woody Allen to be a pedophile can result in being declared one, especially in ideological echo chambers like DK.

                  •  Do you feel contrained in what you can say since (0+ / 0-)

                    others might disagree and you are just unwilling to defend it?  I disagree with much of what's said here, but only enter the fray when I have the opportunity to engage in a full debate.

                    The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices which they would not have made if they had seen what the realization of their choices involved. A.J. Ayer, Sir. "The Concept of Freedom "

                    by Memory Corrupted on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:20:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  yes (0+ / 0-)

              WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

              by ruthhmiller on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 02:45:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  She was not and never was his "step-daughter". (8+ / 0-)

            Woody and Mia were never married. They never even lived with each other over the course of their relationship, nor did he ever spend the night at her house. Nor was Woody a "father figure". Soon-Yi's father was Andre Previn, the musician. When Soon-Yi was around 18 or 19, it was Mia's suggestion that Woody spend more time with her daughter. They fell in love; Soon Yi was of age at the time. I realize there is a certain "ick" factor about all of that, but in all it was perfectly legal.

            Woody Allen, at the time of the allegations, volunteered for and  took (and passed) a polygraph. Mia was asked to take a polygraph, and declined. That, to me, says he is innocent.

            I used to love Woody Allen films, but haven't seen one in several years, because I rarely go to movies anymore. But I will make it my business now to see every single one he has ever made that I missed.

            BTW, I was abused sexually in my early teens by my step-father, though nothing more serious than touching and fondling. I believe that Dylan, who was only seven at the time, believes this happened, and I believe that Woody is telling the truth, and the villain in this particular picture is Mia Farrow. Her motivations? Jealousy and revenge.

            •  When a guy has sex with a teen-ager... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lirtydies, JuliathePoet

              ...while still dating the girl's mother (which is how I read it actually went down), I have to ask: why does anyone want so much to give him the benefit of the doubt? Not that we know what happened in the attic, but why this emphasis on "legality" rather than asking serious questions about what that kind of behavior might imply for other relationships with young girls? This (plus a lot of missing evidence and twisted arguments) is what I have against the Daily Beast article.

              BTW, according to a ex-CIA interrogator whose course in "reading people" I once took, measuring heartbeat and such provides a SMALL increase in a trained investigator's ability to tell if someone is lying. The method doesn't "detect lies". So I don't see a lot of value to a person who thought he did nothing wrong (in sleeping with his girlfriends daughter) passing the test and a woman who was "furious" (quite reasonably even without allegations of sexual abuse of Dylan) would decline to do so.

              Oh, and it's a funny cartoon, but I think we always have to judge the art separately from the artist. I think this issue came up (again) now because a "lifetime achievement award" is really about the artist rather than the art.

              •  Would it have been ok if it was Mia's sister? Both (0+ / 0-)

                are equivalently disrespectful to the girlfriend.  My disapproval is based on the probable misuse of the "father figure" obligations he had in her single parent household.  The abuse allegations are certainly not proven beyond even the point of "preponderance of evidence" at this point, so why consider them?

                The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices which they would not have made if they had seen what the realization of their choices involved. A.J. Ayer, Sir. "The Concept of Freedom "

                by Memory Corrupted on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:24:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cheating is always disrespectful. But like you... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...I think the BIG issue re Soon Yi that she was Mia's DAUGHTER. What mother wouldn't furiously attack someone she thought harmed her daughter, quite aside from the multiple betrayals involved?

                  As for Dylan's abuse claim: we aren't a criminal court, so we don't need to say Woody is innocent unless the charges are proven. Indeed, doing so tells Dylan (and all others who report abuse) that they are presumed guilty (of false charges and sometimes much more) unless they can prove their innocence.

                  And in any case, the judge at the time ruled that "There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted on a desire for revenge." So why should Woody's counter-charge of coaching be given credence? (Not to mention other harsh conclusions the judge came to about Woody's conduct, toward Mia, the children and Dylan.)

                  •  I never said nor meant to imply that Dylan was (0+ / 0-)

                    lying.  I never said nor meant to imply that Allen is innocent or guilty of the accusations.  What I am saying is that too much at this point is guesswork and without a full trial and sworn testimony etc... etc... for people outside the inner circle to espouse on a determination of anyones veracity and guilt is unwise.  Someone is wrong, we don't know who, and arguing about it hurts everyone involved and is effectively gossip.

                    The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices which they would not have made if they had seen what the realization of their choices involved. A.J. Ayer, Sir. "The Concept of Freedom "

                    by Memory Corrupted on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 06:52:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  polygraphs are unreliable (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I agree with the rest of what you wrote but

              That, to me, says he is innocent.
              is a very serious mistake.
            •  Dylan Farrow's brother (0+ / 0-)

              has spoken out in defense of Woody. The whole issue has been blown out of proportion and should be left to the people who are involved.

              The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.--Oscar Wilde

              by Gene in L A on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 09:31:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  people here really ought to read this (16+ / 0-)

        article by Robert Weide.

        Whatever else you think, he presents a strong case that Dylan was manipulated, and the villain may well be Mia Farrow.

        Sun-Yi was NOT Woody's adopted daughter, and she was not a child when they began dating.

        I'm not trying to be an apologist; I think it's a sin to trash a man when the case was thrown out due to lack of sufficient evidence; and if you read the article, you may agree that the event described makes no sense.

          •  that is just a rant against the Weide (6+ / 0-)

            article and presents absolutely no new information.

            What I would like to see is some real, hard evidence.

            Other than that, I will neither convict Allen without a trial, nor believe Dylan (or not believe her, for that matter).

            Evidence would change my mind, but I haven't seen any yet.

          •  Winter Herself Admits Weide Had One Big Point (7+ / 0-)

            She noted Weide's reference to Moses Farrow, Dylan Farrow's brother, debunking his mother and sister's claims, admitting it would be "huge." She tried to poo-poo it by saying Weide didn't give enough detail.

            Well, Moses Farrow has just given an interview to People Magazine where he denounces Mia Farrow. Here's a quote:

            ... Moses Farrow is speaking out to defend Allen—and accuse their mother, Mia Farrow, of poisoning the children against their father. "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."

            I wonder if this is detailed enough for Jessica Winter.
        •  Nasty piece of malicious sleaze (4+ / 0-)

 an entirely non-objective Woody Allen sycophant.

          Don't read it without also reading out this companion piece:

          The case wasn't thrown out for lack of sufficient evidence. Woody's sycophant in the Daily Beast didn't mention all the findings of the CT District Attorney or the judge who ruled against Allen in the custody proceeding, permanently disallowing him even supervised visits with the little girl.

          •  I read it. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wildweasels, PistonMoaned, jqb

            Not sure why you think Winter's piece is more objective. Wiede laid out some pretty compelling facts which Winter never addressed.
            The fact of the matter is that the people whose job it is to look into these things looked into it, and didn't find anything. What are we supposed to do now? Why is Dylan Farrow mad at Cate Blanchett and not, say, the doctors who couldn't find evidence?
            Losing custody for being a lousy father is not even in the same ballpark as being a pedophile. Pedophilia is a specific aberration, not just another character flaw.
            Most telling is that Woody Allen has never been accused of this before or since. Look at every other pedophile; once the first allegation comes out, the rest come pouring in. Pedophiles are not generally one-off criminals. In the absence of any evidence, what are we supposed to think?
            And one doesn't have to doubt Dylan's sincerity to doubt her accuracy. Look up Dr. Elizabeth Loftus.

        •  Ummm (6+ / 0-)

          You are right Soon Yi was never Woody's daughter.

          I always knew that fact.  But I still found it very creepy and very inappropriate to date one's ex-girlfriend's daughter.  I mean, there are other women in the world.

          Also, leaving the nudie pics of Soon Yi where they could be "found" was a very asshole thing to do.

          Those two things give me a giant Ick factor with Allen.  Normal, well adjusted people don't do things like that.

          •  So the question then becomes... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   he a criminal or just a mildly creepy guy?

            I honestly don't know.  There hasn't been a trial and I wasn't on the jury.  When I am, I'll make it my business to know, but for now I'm going to get on with my life.

            Sounds cruel, maybe, but in a shouting match taking place in the media, who can know the truth?

            Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

            by rbird on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:21:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm going to have to respectfully disagree... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          As other's here have stated I really don't care whether or not Soon Yi was actually his adopted daughter or a child or not, she was his de facto daughter and the whole business is hella creepy no matter how you paint it. The fact that you don't see that is also really kinda off imho....

          Again, as other's have also stated, regardless of the whole Soon Yi affair I also long thought the dude was overrated. Basically every character in a Woody Allen movie is a Woody Allen mirror image neurotic myopic mess. He does have some pretty damn good movies here and there, not completely writing off his entire catalogue and I see what his fans see but far from agree about his genius status.

          And it needs to be stated, if anyone of us who aren't critically acclaimed directors did what he did at the very least these very same criticisms would be rightly leveled at us and most likely aimed directly at a jailhouse. You reap what you sow.....

          "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

          by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:39:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, wow, just....good lord.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smileycreek, ExpatGirl

            I just read the Jessica Winter piece other's have already posted.....


            I'm completely at a loss....

            After reading that I completely retract what I said before about some of his movies still being damn good. Good or no they are beyond tarnished.

            Fuck Woody Allen. Shame on him, shame on Robert Weide and all of Woody's apologists. Damn him and all of his "genius" movies straight to hell.

            Ugh. And apparently this prick Weide is working on a documentary about one of my favorite literary heroes Kurt Vonnegut?

            Fuck off....he better never make that documentary, after reading his passive aggressive shitty defense of Allen and assault of Dylan Farrow everything either of these so called artist's makes from this point onward should be protested by a haranguing mob.

            "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

            by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:16:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just read Dylan's NYT letter yesterday (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              after seeing the topic floating around twitter and I was so beyond disgusted I'll never see another Woody Allen movie. Normally I don't give a flying fuck what movie stars or directors do with their private lives but this situation is so beyond the pale I can't imagine ever contributing another dime to Allen...or Weide.

              You clearly don't need an official welcome as you've already settled in here, but welcome to the monkey house, as it were.

              Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

              We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for,
              not just what we’re against.
              ---> President Obama, 2014 SOTU speech

              by smileycreek on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:59:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Beyond the pale... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                is the only way to describe it. Part of my disgust is because of my own personal experiences with abuse but I it's also  augmented by the fact that I use to have a lot of respect for him many, many moons ago.

                Other people may be able to separate the man from the artist, in this case I find it impossible. Especially after reading Dylan's open letter, which I had no idea about until today.

                Anywhat, thanks for the welcome smileycreek, which btw sounds like a great place to be....

                Monkeyhouse, yeah, that's another good descriptor. For years I stayed away from commenting on more serious online forums. Things can get  more than a little touchy with people, I already kind of got into it with someone on my very first "Diary" entry when I never even meant for the post to be seen. I was trying to figure out the image posting procedure and had no idea people would even know/see/respond to my"diary" which was nothing more than a photo with a sarcastic comment/caption. I came home late last night to find a flurry of responses the first being a pretty condescending little passive aggressive lecture from someone who imho obviously read way too deeply into a sarcastic one sentence quip that I honestly didn't know anyone would even know to look for much less comment on.

                "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

                by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 02:53:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not everyone is particularly welcoming to (0+ / 0-)

                  new users, which is one of the big reasons we (the Partners and Mentors Team) go out of our way to wave hello.

                  The person who responded negatively to you has a good heart and is well known and loved in many circles here. Perhaps he was having a bad day.

                  FYI, if you ever don't want a diary to be seen you can delete it immediately (though deleting a diary once there are comments is frowned on). Also what you see in Preview is true to how it will look when published.

                  Anyway, just let one of us know if you need any help figuring the site out!

                  We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for,
                  not just what we’re against.
                  ---> President Obama, 2014 SOTU speech

                  by smileycreek on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:15:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I read it and almost vomited (0+ / 0-)

          at the smarmy nasty tone.

          Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility

          by terrypinder on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:20:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The most telling thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wildweasels, PistonMoaned

          is that the supposed assault did not occur in a vacuum, but when Farrow was already doing everything she could to destroy her ex-boyfriend.  Perfect time to sexually assault a seven-year-old!  

          I'm going with what Moses Farrow said.

          A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

          by Dinclusin on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:02:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ummmm..... (0+ / 0-)

        I think Dylan want's a little more than for people to see a balanced picture of Allen.

        Speaking from my own personal experience, when you are sexually abused at such a young age, one of the worst things that happens besides the abuse is that when it starts, you're really too young and unaware of what exactly is happening to realize what exactly is happening.

        Also, depending on the pedophiles approach and relationship to you, if they are really fucking twisted and successful at "imprinting" you, at various points in the relationship you may actually want the encounters to happen again. Call it Capture Bonding, call it Stockholm Syndrome, regardless it's a horrible reality of sexual abuse that the very young even when they immediately and instinctively realize that something is very, very off, that they are hostage to their abuser. Fear and shame and confusion keeps you from talking, the continuation of the abuse brainwashes you into accepting and even eventually gaining pleasure from the relationship, especially since it is a twisted "special, secret" relationship.

        You're not going to want to hear this but quite often, not always, but even during really violent rapes..... sometimes the victim orgasms.

        Welcome to my world. There is more than a few reason I can't even entertain the idea of watching Law and Order SVU. If rape or incest is even alluded to in movies or books I can have rather severe anxiety attacks. Sometimes even rather normal sexual allusions or images can make me very emotionally disturbed specifically because they are "normal". And what happened to me technically wasn't even rape per se, it's difficult to explain without going into detail.

        Basically when I was very young there were these teenagers and other older children who were doing various things together. Eventually I was manipulated into doing things to another very close and even younger family member. As I grew older I continued to do these things off and on over time, covering my own tracks. One time I was even almost caught by an elder and I'm pretty sure they knew what they saw and what was going on and you know what they did? Absolutely nothing.

        Denial is a salve that will keep you spellbound.

        Furthermore, when you finally get the courage to speak crimes are one of those things that no one wants to deal with, especially those closest to the victim and most especially when the perpetrator and victim are related. It's just this...horrendous...fucking...abomination that destroys everything. Especially when over time you have become the predator.

        Trust me. Dylan want's a hell of a lot more than for people to see a balanced picture of Woody Allen.

        And he was allowed to raise other children after all that yes?

        "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

        by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:07:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you realize that none of this applies? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wildweasels, PistonMoaned, jqb

          You are describing actual child molestation, as it actually occurs.

          What Woody Allen is accused of is a single incident. No grooming, no precedent, no followup. There was no cloud of secrecy or silence, and both mother and child's allegations were taken seriously. A police investigation ensued. Judges weighed in on the evidence.

          Do you see the difference between the two? You of all people should be able to see that the charges against Woody Allen do not look like the real thing.

          I understand this is a triggering incident for you, but I would like you to move beyond that and help the rest of the world see that Dylan's accusations are the Hollywood version of actual child abuse.

          •  nope. (0+ / 0-)

            "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

            by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:34:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a little too tired to reply to this right now. (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hidden by:

              But I'll come back at you.
              Triggering incident? You already sound like so many of the quacks I've spoken to over the years, this is going to be fun.

              "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

              by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:35:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Angle of approach (0+ / 0-)

            I'm rather new to DailyKos and the last thing I want to do in the short time I've spent "kossacking"? here is to build a reputation for being bombastic or unreasonable, cause that never happens here. In that spirit I've decided to back off and approach what is admittedly a very personally touchy subject for me from a point of aloof indifference. Well, I'm going to try at least, you're going to have to cut me some slack.

            Or not. Either way I hope you're diligent, I really, really do.

            I will concede to you that to a certain extent, yes, you are right, none of this applies. My personal experiences have zero bearing on any other person's actual guilt or innocence. I brought it all up for, well for a few reasons. For the sake of giving some background as to why I feel the way I do and side with whom I've decided to side with in this case. I also.....outside of work and speaking to my mother who is one of the few people I'm close with, I don't really...socialize. So, yeah.

            Having said that I have a few questions for you because there are a few things in your reply that I find curious. I was upset at first but now I'm genuinely piqued.

            Only a single incident?
            Police ensued?
            Judges weighed?
            How many judges?
            Why so many judges?
            Is that what they did, cops and judges, ensued and weighed?
            I had no idea.
            Did the copper's wave their batons in the air with vaudeville music playing in the background as they ensued?
            Did the judges stroke their beards as they weighed the so called dubious evidence?
            Because both of those things would be par for the course.
            Why exactly should I of all people? Because what I actually described was actual molestation that actually occurred? Are you so sure?
            What is it about my account that is so not Hollywood?
            Because I didn't mention a train?

            There was a castle, and a bridge suspended over infinity.....

            Why exactly is it so important for you that I "move on" and help you help the world see that poor Woody has just got to be the unluckiest critically acclaimed neurotic mess that ever walked this cruel, cruel world?

            I like certain words that you chose btw grooming, precedent, cloud of secrecy. Those are all very professional terms. Good. Quite often meaningless but a start.

            Have you taken any courses in psychology?
            Really? I would have thought the opposite.

            I haven't. Taken in courses in psychobabble that is. They loved me at 10 North though, they couldn't wait to get me on camera. Most of the questions left a lot to be desired but they were young, still stretching their wings. I actually got applause and that was so cray cray let me tell you.......

            You see part of the problem with so called professionals is that just because someone can read the sheet music and pass various tests doesn't mean they can solo.

            But wait there's more, just because some can solo doesn't mean they can teach other's to.

            The trick is removing yourself, letting go. You do not play the instrument, you allow the instrument to play you. It takes time.

            So glad you understand triggers friend.

            I tried, I really did. But it's pretty obvious to me that you've already made up your mind and I mine. It's late, I have hypertension and I've been sober for a few weeks which for me is like a lifetime.

            No cigarettes! Those things are beyond evil.....

            "...with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead, HAHH!"

            by Meurglys on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:51:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Love that Vonnegut (0+ / 0-)

        I've always said that if you teach your children only one thing, let it be kindness. You cannot teach kindness without exemplifying it. So much follows!

        It's difficult for me to be in alt over talent when it is accompanied by clouds of this magnitude. I guess appreciating something great while deploring faults is only fair, but I have a real problem with hurting kids. It just tends to be at the forefront of all else, and, like rape, I dislike more dismissing or discrediting a possible helpless child victim than
        I do a man with all available weapons.

        Life ain't like a box of chocolates. You pretty much do know what you're gonna get.

        by Nodin on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 11:22:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Corporate "freedumbs" were always false anyway. (0+ / 0-)

      If this outrage-of-the-day gets at least some people fed up enough to embrace DIY culture, it will have actually done some good.

      With the planet dying, we don't have time for Big Media's lazy, mass-produced, high-fructose, hydrogenated thoughts.

    •  Comics are even harder... (0+ / 0-)

      Pretty much every creator before the seventies got ripped off.

    •  Woody Allen is a really fine film maker (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      whatever happened with Soon-yi twenty years ago.  He married her and has remained married and has two daughters he adopted with her.
      What's distressing to me is that Mia Farrow decided to  revive 20 year old accusations of child molestation that had been disproved 20 years ago just at the time Allen received a major lifetime achievement award from the Golden Globe group.  The kind of bitter vindictiveness that reflects (and Times columnist whose name I can't thing of going along with it) is what makes it rally difficult to prove child molestation in a middle class context.

      WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

      by ruthhmiller on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 02:44:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even as a Child (21+ / 0-)

    I found Pepe Le Pew kind of creepy.   ;-)

    "The Trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." attributed to Lily Tomlin

    by uniqity on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:03:02 AM PST

  •  The baby and the bath water. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, quill

    It just won't stop happening.

    "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:10:38 AM PST

    •  It's sooooo not a 'baby n' bathwater' issue... (7+ / 0-)

      ... the false equivalency is astonishing on this matter.  I certainly hope Jen's intent was to mock the comparison's of other tarnished idols with an accused child rapist. Unfortunately it didn't come across as such.  I was surprised in another dairy about William Burroughs how people felt the imperfection of humanity et al could mute the horrific implications of Dylan Farrow's story:

       I don't think we do anyone a service... when we constantly put up the faults of other icons to water down the fault of a particular icon.  Today's issue of KOS seems to be full of examples of other celebrities being imperfect as a counterpoint to Woody Allen allegedly raping a 7 year old.  Here's why I don't like it one bit:

      -No one expected good behavior from Burroughs.  He was never a reverential figure, he was a drug addled wreck from beginning to end.  That was his charm.  Next you'll tell me Hunter Thompson was rude to a waitress... not the same as raping a 7 year old.

      -John Lennon was a terrible husband at the age of 22, I guess this is the closest someone could come a "Jesus beat his wife" story.  Problem is most 22 year olds are terrible husbands, soon he evolved into a wonderful husband/father/man.  By 42 he had yet to rape a 7 year old best we know.

      -Frank Sinatra et al.  How do we equate drunken pussy hounds getting it on with Marilyn Monroe with raping a 7 year old.

      Let's all stop with the false equivalences.  Not even sure the diarist (artist) intended them but some commenters clearly are using it as such.

      •  Sorry Matt.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayRaye, Sylv

        ... did this cartoon, I thought it was Jen.  Same opinion but I'm less surprised that a man thought it was funny.

      •  I think you misunderstood my comment. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vitarai, smartalek

        Baby/bathwater. I don't subscribe to the notion that when an artist does something abominable, all of his works must be negated along with the person he is.
        I don't think that, since OJ Simpson fell from grace, we all need to stop watching his highlight reels and that his feats on the gridiron are no longer a marvel.

        It's kneejerk, and I don't do kneejerk.

        Humans are complicated beings- to varying degrees, dichotomies of the higher mind and the base animal. No, I'm not excusing pervs and perps. I'm saying that, while some deeds are so heinous the person doing them should be shunned, and maybe for the rest of his/her days, that doesn't render every aspect of the person's life heinous.

        I will still enjoy Woody Allen's works. I just wouldn't leave him alone with children.

        It's a rigid Conservative trait to damn others eternally. We on the Left aren't supposed to paint with broad brush strokes.

        "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by Gentle Giant on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:40:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We would have very little art or music if we (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gentle Giant

          insisted on Incorruptibly Pure Pureness from all creators. Most of them wouldn't qualify - some were absolutely horrible human beings (cough Richard Wagner cough).

          You have to learn to distinguish between the the art and the artist. Somebody, it may have been Toscanini, put it best (not about Wagner, but it should have been): "As a composer I take off my hat to him - but as a person I put on ten hats."

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 03:35:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You vote with your dollars. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gentle Giant

            It's as true here as anywhere else. He will get no support from me. Roman Polanski either.

            And again: it's a long way from generally being an asshole to being a child-raping monster.

            "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -- Gandhi

            by akasha on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:24:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Being an artist (21+ / 0-)

    even a great one, is not a free pass from one's obligations as a human being.

    Enjoy the art, or choose not to, but do not EVER excuse  or romanticize abuse as "part of being an artiste".

    For real Texas Kaos, you want, not .com. Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us

    by boadicea on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:22:05 AM PST

  •  you can separate the art from the artist (5+ / 0-)
    •  Slave-Owner v. Declaration of Independence writer (5+ / 0-)

      = Jefferson v. Jefferson.

      I agree it's possible (if not necessary) to separate the art from the artist.  My take, as in my subject line, is to separate the right from the wrong as best I can.  

      Honor and encourage the honorable; dishonor and discourage the dishonorable. Even within a single person (ourselves included).

      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

      by bartcopfan on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:00:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  as I said above, it is like boycotting a brand (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bartcopfan, Sylv

        People who choose this don't want to bring money or acclaim to someone (like a brand) who they feel acts unethically.

        Just like we divested from S. Africa or decided not to buy rugs made in India because they used child slave labor. I don't shop at Walmart because of how they treat workers (one reason of many). These are all ethical concerns.

        You can argue that "you can separate the product from who sells it", too.

        •  Sorry, but I can't see any analogy there (0+ / 0-)

          Buying goods from South Africa during apartheid, and buying cocoa, chocolate, clothing, sporting goods &c made with exploited, especially child and/or effectively enslaved labor, is to participate directly in the exploitation, and thus contribute to it.
          As such, I consider such purchases indefensible.
          But unless Woody Allen is including scenes of abuse in his movies, watching a Woody movie (omigod was that pun unintended, but I am not going to excise it, so deal) does not constitute material support of abuse...
          And that, of course, is even assuming that any abuse occurred, which I'm afraid is not an entirely settled question.

          •  Here's a modification (0+ / 0-)

            You appear to argue that one can separate the maker of art from the art itself (ie, Allen's films are separate from Allen the person).  Why wouldn't this similarly apply to other goods- one can separate the fact that a beautiful rug was made through child labor from the beautiful rug itself.  Why can I not enjoy the beautiful rug separate from the child labor that created it?  

    •  That said, I don't think I'll see any WA movies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      at the Megaplex, w/ Tub-o-Corn and two large pops for a grand total approaching $40.

      Instead, my wife and I'll wait for the $1.50 Redbox....

      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

      by bartcopfan on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:03:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not in Woody Allen's case. (7+ / 0-)

      If you don't believe me, go watch Vicky Christina Barcelona. I call it Creepy Old Voyeur in Barcelona. Many of his other films have questionable attitudes towards women, but this one doesn't bother to hide a thing. It's soft porn for men who prey on much younger women.

      It's not separable in this case, it is integral to his "art", at least his present work. It saddens me, too, because unlike many here who are claiming they never thought much of him, I adored his early films.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:51:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blech. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sidnora, Brown Thrasher, Sylv
        It's soft porn for men who prey on much younger women.
        Worse yet, that movie can't even be excused as having an artistic dimension.  It was a lousy movie overall, all the way down to basic facts (everyone in Barcelona speaking Spanish instead of Catalan, and a student getting a master's degree in "Catalan identity" without knowing a word of either language.  Even though she spends her time in the library doing research.)

        Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

        by Caj on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:29:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Manhattan (1979) is the most explicit evidence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for your point and indicates that this has been a subject of interest for Allen for decades.  In that film, Woody is carrying on a sexual relationship with the high schooler, Mariel Hemingway.  

    •  if you choose to. People boycott stores, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      akasha, orestes1963

      and brands of products, if the way they conduct themselves ethically is a problem. It is just like that.

      For example years ago Domino's Pizza supported anti-abortion lobby. So many boycotted them. People boycotted Nestle for selling sub-par/possibly dangerous baby formula to African mothers after it was banned in the US.

      SO people who don't agree with his ethics boycott his brand like they would any other thing. They don't want to bring him money or acclaim or attention, just like boycotting a store or, say, a clothing brand that manufactured goods in a sweat shop.

    •  In Allen's case, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      not Manhattan, though.

      I don't think there's really any separation between that film and real life.  And it's why, no matter how acclaimed it is, I still don't like it.  It's creepy as fuck.

  •  Michael Jordan's Space Jam? (14+ / 0-)

    This is obviously not someone who knows the slightest bit about Michael Jordan.

  •  Oh, please (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    portlandzoo, frankzappatista, Vitarai

    Thanks, Matt.

    What I think you are saying is we need to separate the artist from his/her art.

    I quite agree.

    Brilliant art doesn't STOP being brilliant b/c the artist had issues or was just generally an asshole.

    Lolita, fer cryin' out loud.

    English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment and education - sometimes it's sheer luck, like getting across the street. E. B. White

    by Youffraita on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:23:53 AM PST

    •  Sure, the art doesn't start (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      misslegalbeagle, portlandzoo

      being brilliant. Tom Brady is still a great QB even though he knocked up his girlfriend then dumped her for a hot model. Jefferson was still a great statesman even though he kept slaves (and slept with one or several). But to turn a blind eye to the more sordid details of a person's life is like, well, the 2014 Winter Olympics which is going to have all this pomp and pageantry while ignoring the actual human rights violations going on in Russia (not to mention all the problems behind the scenes). Or being shown a beautiful house by a realtor who glosses over the crumbling foundation and dry rot issues. (Okay, maybe I need to cut back on the HGTV...)

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:29:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not Lolita. (7+ / 0-)

      Nabokov wrote about a hebephilic monster, and his literary achievement was making the reader empathize with him.  We have no evidence of Nabokov acting on the premise of Lolita, any more than on the premise of Ada(incest). He was clearly interested in exploring the margins of human experience - in his writing(he also wrote a short story called "Scenes from the Life of a Double Monster", but he wasn't a conjoined twin).

      While he may have had some attitudes that were not very feminist, he married an adult woman and stayed married to her.
      There's a difference between literary or cinematic creation and real life. But maybe not so much for Woody.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:26:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't do that (6+ / 0-)

      Fer cryin' out loud, Lolita is a subversive and difficult work.  It's theme is vulgarity not pedophilia.  Its very unreliable and self-serving narrator is a grotesque, ruined aristocrat who is a vampire.  He sits on death row recounting the entire book's events.   The legacy of Lolita may be tawdry and misappropriated but it does not reflect what is actually going on in this work.

  •  Maybe your character is attracted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher

    to artists with particular off-screen attributes, because there are plenty of artists who are not like the ones mentioned.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:28:09 AM PST

  •  Is every famous dude a terrible human being? (13+ / 0-)

    Probably a pretty high percentage, unfortunately.

    I lived through the first round of Woody vs. Mia. It turned me off to him completely. But then, I'd found him cringe inducing ever since Manhattan. I appreciated the photography and the music that OTHER great artists bring to his films, but his self image as a sex magnet to very young women was always grossly disturbing.

    I think the only post-SoonYi film I sat through  was Match Point, and thought it had a clever plot - but ultimately, a sick amoral one. Man gets away with capital crime and suffers no penalty. Story of Woody Allen's life.

    •  sadly, that was not his "self" image (16+ / 0-)

      back in the day, it was considered faintly amusing that so many women said Woody Allen was a sex symbol.  it was supposed to be funny because he was not movie star handsome, and he was short and scrawny, but it was explained away by the fact that women like men who make them laugh, and he did have googobs of money too.

      i've been boycotting Woody movies since the Soon-Yi story first broke.  I turned off the Golden Globes when they started their tribute to him.  Apparently something new has happened because I heard people talking about it in vague terms on Stephanie Miller and now this cartoon, but I'm glad that so far I've been able to avoid details.

      As far as "is every famous dude an awful person", without getting theological, the short answer is that very very very few men can deal with big money and big fame without being tempted by the additional exploitative power they bring.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:56:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Evidently he's getting (0+ / 0-)

        a Lifetime Achievement Oscar this year, and his daughter Dylan Farrow wrote an op-ed to the NYT detailing how he allegedly sexually assaulted her. (I use "allegedly" in its strict journalistic sense, not as personal judgement.) He was never convicted, but there are suspicions there was a cover-up by psychologists and others, portraying the situation as a made-up story planted in little Dylan's mind by her mother Mia during divorce/custody proceedings. (It's also why much is being made of Ronan Farrow's parentage, and whether Allen is his birth father or if he's the offspring of an affair between Mia Farrow and Frank Sinatra.)

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:34:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The question of Ronan's paternal origins (4+ / 0-)

          came up because of Mia Farrow's friend's article in Vanity Fair last fall in which Farrow said that she kept seeing Sinatra throughout her relationship with Allen and was not sure if Ronan was Allen's or Sinatra's son.  

          Further, Allen already won the Lifetime Achievement award at the Golden Globes which is what started the public controversy.  The night that Allen was given the award in absentia Mia and Ronan Farrow started a Tweeting campaign against Allen.

          The man who produced the retrospective piece about Allen for the Globes claims that Farrow agreed to appear in the retrospective piece for the Globes' award segment.

          My take is that the whole thing is a lot more sordid than anyone on the outside will ever understand.

          After 22 years since the abuse accusations that Farrow made against Allen, he has not been convicted of the crime.

          Anyway, I see a lot of potential for some enthusiastic book and video burning parties in this thread.

          You know those placid, impressionistic Monet paintings of lily pads in lovely ponds?  Burn 'em.  Monet was a voracious collector and lover of explicit pornography.

          Pablo Picasso really was an asshole to women.

          Fra Filippo Lippi was such a sex addict that he had his fellow monks lock him in his room, but even still escaped to troll the brothels which in his time would have offered up young girls to their clients.

          The lives of artists are often sordid and ugly.  If it pains people to deal with that unfortunate and fairly common intersection of realities, then my suggestion is to stay well away from art and literature.  Take up another hobby like gardening or something.

        •  "suspicions of a cover up" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He was not charged with any crime and it was more than just the Yale psychologists' word that casts doubt on the story.  Dylan Farrow was examined by a doctor on the day this incident was said to take place.

          But what evidence exists there is a cover up?  Why would the psychologists appointed by the State of Connecticut to look into a possible crime  decide to cover up this crime if they believe it happened?  Just big movie buffs?

          This has never made sense to me.

          •  Nope (4+ / 0-)

            Dylan wasn't examined that day. It was a week after. There would have been no physical evidence of the alleged incident in any case. And it was the doctor that told Mia she now HAD to bring the case to the police. Furthermore the state attorney's investigators, familiar with child molestation cases, found her description very convincing and similar to what they'd seen before.

            "Why would the psychologists appointed by the State of Connecticut to look into a possible crime  decide to cover up this crime if they believe it happened?  Just big movie buffs?"

            Why did they not follow the directions of the state prosecutor? Why didn't the lead investigator never interview the child? Why did they hire  shrinks from Allen's personal stable of shrinks? Why did they give Allen the results of the report BEFORE they reported to the State Attorney? Why did they call Dylan "fanciful" for saying there was a trunk of dead heads in the attic when in fact there WAS a trunk full of wigs in the attic - as one example?

            I find that most people who believe Allen don't know the actual facts and are easily fed a cherrypicked version.

            •  Mia testified Dylan saw two different doctors (3+ / 0-)

              4 days apart.


              Ms. Farrow, 48, said Dylan told her the molestation began with her father's putting his head in the child's lap and his hand under her bottom. Mr. Allen has testified that he knelt, speaking to Dylan, but did not put his head in her lap.

              Ms. Farrow said she had begun to videotape the girl because "I wanted this documented, because it had happened before." She said that Dylan then told her of the incident in the attic, which Mr. Allen said never took place.

              Mr. Allen and his lawyers have suggested that the video, which has many stops and starts, reflects Ms. Farrow's efforts to cajole false answers from the girl. Ms. Farrow said she simply turned the machine on each time Dylan began to talk about the incident.

              She took Dylan to a doctor the same day the videotape was made,* Ms. Farrow recalled. "I think she said he touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this," she said, patting her shoulder.

              While returning home in the car, Ms. Farrow said, Dylan told her that she did not want to talk about the incident with a stranger.

              Four days later, Ms. Farrow took Dylan to another doctor.

              *This might have been the day after the incident.

              They did not hire doctor's from his "personal stable of shrinks."  The State Police of Connecticut asked a team at Yale-New Haven to make a determination.  Where's the evidence Allen got to pick them.  Why would Farrow agree to that?  Why would they have to follow the lead of the state prosecutor?  They were asked to to investigate the claim of abuse.  The concluded it didn't happen.  Their job is not to create evidence where there is none.

        •  And why after 20 years is Mia bringing this up? (0+ / 0-)

          No one gets to cross Mia Farrow. and if we are going back a ways, Mia herself did a creepy theft of Dory Previn's husband when she was but a young thing.  I  confess my husband and I are Woody Allen fans.  We see every one of his movies.  It's been years since I saw Manhattan, but that's the only one of his movies about a relationship with a young girl and anyway that was about a man who could not rely on himself or be relied on by anybody.  The only available person dumb enough was this gorgeous 16 year old.  Y'all ought to take a look at the Mia Farrow movies, too.  He often identified with women.
          I was shocked at the Soon-yi affair too but he married her and they have two daughters and they seem to have a competently run marriage like the rest of us.
          And if you've never seen Annie Hall you've never seen a truly great deep and funny movie.

          WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

          by ruthhmiller on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 03:03:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Crimes and Misdemeanors had a similar plot point

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:02:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Every human being is a terrible human being... (0+ / 0-)

      at sometime. Some more than others.

      When I cannot sing my heart. I can only speak my mind.

      by Unbozo on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 03:48:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Murray Was an Abuser? (9+ / 0-)

    I know Bill Murray's wife accused him of abuse - of her, of drugs and alcohol - during their divorce. But is that an established fact? A lot of people allege a lot of things during divorce, especially when there's a lot of money involved.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:38:42 AM PST

    •  Rule of dailykos (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The accuser is always right when the accused is the father/husband/boyfriend...or a republican

      There's an amendment to this rule that if the accuser admits to making it up, we must all pretend the accusation never happened and anyone who brings it up is a troll

      Oddly enough there's another rule that's the opposite if the accuser is from a privileged majority, then it's always made up

      Basically forget about things like evidence and due process, just go with your gut, that's supposedly liberal

      •  Evidence and due process (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, terrybuck, dclawyer06

        only count in court of law -- people are free to form their own personal opinions.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:36:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rule of the rest of the world: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, pearlsarefuzzy

        Believe the rich, powerful, white male - he deserves the presumption of innocence. The adult woman who states NOW at the age of 28 that the charges are true = obviously either crazy or a liar. The woman who raised her and her siblings to (mostly) sound adulthoods = "scorned" woman who was so jealous of her old, ugly lover's disgusting behavior with her teenage daughter that she decided to sabotage an innocent child in order to get payback ( a child who stands by her to this day).

        •  An adult woman accused a group of (0+ / 0-)

          Duke Lacrosse players of raping her...

          •  Oh, I fucking KNEW "Duke Lacrosse" would appear! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The minute a powerful white male is accused of a sex crime, the MRA squad boys jump in squealing the two magic words "Duke" and "Lacrosse" - which is Dude Code for "All Bitchez Lie About Rape" and "Accused Men are the REAL Victims of So-Called 'Rape'."

            The Duke case was dropped for insufficient prosecutable evidence - oh, and the fact that it was the word of 6 rich, connected white males against a poor black female stripper had NOTHING to do with her being convinced to drop the charges, I'm very, very sure.

            Dropped charges != Lying. Especially not about rape in a culture that works to protect sexual abusers and villainize the victims.

            Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

            by gardnerhill on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:58:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dude code? (5+ / 0-)

              I am a chick, actually.

              Wanna talk Tawana Brawley?  Want to talk about the police officer who I actually knew who committed suicide under the pressures of the media frenzy and investigation into her false accusations?

              Wanna talk about Sacco and Vanzetti?

              Wanna talk about the kids that were convicted in the Central Park Jogger case?

              Wanna talk about all the people that the Innocence Project have taken on as clients?

              Wanna talk about Gary Condit and Chandra Levy whose body was found not far from my house and whose killer was free for years after he killed her because of the "wisdom" of the court of public opinion had determined Condit's guilt?

              Nothing I am talking about is "dude code".

              I just don't happen to be a big believer in or a fan of "the court of public opinion".  I think it is really unreliable and dangerous.

            •  And your ignorance is made manifest. (3+ / 0-)
              "The Duke case was dropped for insufficient prosecutable evidence - oh, and the fact that it was the word of 6 rich, connected white males against a poor black female stripper had NOTHING to do with her being convinced to drop the charges, I'm very, very sure."
              The Duke case was dropped because it was a hoax. The was NO evidence, not mere "insufficient" evidence. Few of the accused players were rich kids, most of whom were at Duke on athletic scholarships. And even if they were white, they had they entire weight of the Duke administration , a very large group of faculty (Google the "Group of 88"), the Durham Police department and the Durham Co. District Attorney's office assuming from the start that Mangum was credible and the players were guilty.

              How do you explain the $30 million settlement that the six accused players are sharing? One of whom, the only player the accuser, Crystal Mangum, was "100% sure" was there has a ironclad alibi supported by multiple affidavits and cell phone records that prove he was not even in Durham  before, during, or after the party? Or the complete and utter lack of any sort of incriminating DNA evidence, not even epithelial cells?  But she DID have the DNA of 9 to 10 in her or on her underwear that did not match any of the 46 team members who were tested. Or how the other stripper completely contradicted everything Crystal Mangum said. (Fun Fact: Crystal is now serving a life sentence for murdering her boyfriend) Or how the prosecuting attorney was permanently disbarred for his conduct during the trial?

              There never was any evidence other than Crystal Mangum's statements, which changed repeatedly. No physical evidence, a negative rape kit, no DNA, the other stripper's contradicting statement, a specific cop's misconduct, and the prosecutor's misconduct. The case fell apart, and the DA refused to let it go because he was trying to make a reputation to get elected (he was an appointed interim DA who had promised not to run  for a full term). The state Attorney General stepped in and ended the case because it was such a mess and a travesty.

              So yeah, some people do lie about rape.

        •  Do you remember the 90s? (4+ / 0-)

          The epidemic of false molestation charges?

          I have no way of knowing for sure but from the evidence I've seen its at least slightly more likely than not that the story was not true

          Even one of her kids said Mia brainwashed the other children and the house was run like a cult

      •  Rule of oversimplification (4+ / 0-)

        Cause distortion or error by extreme simplification of a subject.

        Oddly enough,  making broad generalizations from specific observations is known as inductive reasoning.

        Basically forget that dailykos is actually a huge, multi-faceted population, just go with your attitude of preconceived, unfavorable judgement.

      •  Right, because when a woman makes (0+ / 0-)

        an accusation of rape against a famous/popular person with damning evidence that it happened, people who know/like the famous person's work just line up to support her, right? cough Steubenville cough.

        (BTW, your MRA card is showing.)

        Seriously, there is no crime that brings out a "the victim is a liar and let's denigrate the hell out of them" attitude like sexual assault.  When was the last time you heard of, say, a person being mugged in the park and everyone uninvolved in the case who hears about it automatically says, "I bet he's lying for attention!" and "People have lied about muggings before!"?  That happens almost every time in rape cases - by default, the victim is a lying slut who wanted it. Despite the fact that false reports of rape are no more common than false reports of other crimes.

        In a large part, this stems from denial as to 1) how ridiculously common rape is, 2) how ridiculously common rapists are, and 3) what sort of people commit rape.  Statistically, the answer to these questions is, 1) About 1 in 3 women will be raped at least once in their life, 2) about 1 in 10 young men admit in anonymous surveys to having raped, with a third of those being serial rapists, and 3) ordinary people from all walks of life. People you know. Friends, family members, community figures, etc.

        If people can get over the denial of these facts, this automatic "she's a lying slut" response will go away.

        Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

        by Rei on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 02:40:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If the worst thing each of us had ever done (8+ / 0-)

    were publicly ever known, most of us would be despised.

    Well, most of you, anyway. I'm totally virtuous. :)

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:39:36 AM PST

    •  I'm hoping most of us aren't guilty (18+ / 0-)

      of sexual predation of children. There are degrees of 'worst'.

      •  I'm hoping Woody Allen isn't either. (5+ / 0-)

        However, I was more thinking of the other people mentioned in the cartoon - Murray, Lennon, etc. etc.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:58:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The police looked into it in 1993 (10+ / 0-)

        There simply wasn't any evidence.  Child abuse is a major crime.  If Allen could have been tried, they would have tried him.  

        The idea that Allen, a notorious paranoid and neurotic, would risk molesting a child in his ex-girlfriend's house a mere few months after the Soon-Yi scandal had hit the tabloids is ludicrous.  

        It's far more likely that the loony Mia Farrow saw what she wanted to see and convinced a confused seven year old daughter that terrible things had happened.

        But for some reason if I say that this is also a possibility, I hate children or women or something.

        •  That's actually ... (12+ / 0-)

          ... not true. The matter just never left family court because Mia and others feared that the child would be harmed if the case went to criminal court. You might want to go read the judges' conclusions regarding Mr. Allen and his "parenting."

        •  Quite frankly, the Soon-Yi 'scandal' (17+ / 0-)

          was enough for me. My children are older child adoptions and I find it beyond repulsive that Allen sought out a relationship with a person he had known from age 9 (?) and had a pseudo parental relationship with. The fact that they have been married for so long changes absolutely nothing about my opinion of him. He is a creep.

        •  WinSmith. You are so wrong (8+ / 0-)

          Why give the benefit of the doubt to Woody Allen? Read the judgement in the Connecticut court.

          He was guilty enough to lose custody of the child and to be denied visitation rights. No physical evidence because he used digital penetration.That should tell you something. Prosecutor thought the trial would hurt the child because Allen was throwing up everything he had, lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, publicists to protect his name.

          What about the victims's good name. She does not have one, she lives under an assumed name.

          See the Vanity Fair articles as well as the judgement of the Court.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:26:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes I give Allen the benefit of the doubt (3+ / 0-)

            Nothing in his history shows a desire for prepubescent children.  There is a world of difference between a 19 year old woman and a 7 year old girl.  

            Mia Farrow had every motive in the world to want to destroy Allen's life after the Soon-Yi scandal.  If these allegations just happened when nothing was going on and Mia and Woody were a happy couple, then it might seem plausible.

            But you're telling me Allen did these things to Dylan mere months after his entire career was rocked by the Soon-Yi scandal?  A guy that neurotic?  Is just going to start molesting his adopted daughter while in the home of his ex-girlfriend who already hates him?

            Come on.

            •  WA started seducing Soon-yi when she was in (0+ / 0-)

              high school. When her mother asked her when did this begin? She told her mother "in high school." Is she lying too?

              He was having an affair with one of her daughters and at the same time he was grooming her daughter 7 year old Dylan with what the shrinks called "inappropriate behaviour." He had been grooming her for years. It's all on the record in the court documents. Are all the witnesses lying too? There is a long line of witnesses.

              As for when he did what, you can probably find a timeline somewhere. Fact: He sexually assaulted Dylan during a visitation after his seduction of Soon-yi. If you think that is bad timing, Dylan claims that his affair with Soon-yi was cover for his molesting her. Is Dylan lying about this?

              You should give the victims the benefit of the doubt instead of being so sure that they are lying.

              This is not merely my opinion. My sources are court documents, 2 Vanity Fair articles, one Atlantic article and Mia Farrow's book.

              Looks like the New York Times is going to give Woody space for an OpEd to defend himself. I have a feeling that OpEd might reveal more than he intends.

              To thine ownself be true

              by Agathena on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 12:46:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Correction: "give HIS victims the benefit, etc." (0+ / 0-)

                Since WA is playing the victim here.

                To thine ownself be true

                by Agathena on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 12:48:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  huge difference (0+ / 0-)

                There is an enormous difference between a seventeen year old and a seven year old.  Allen clearly has a thing for late teenage women, but I'd say he's hardly alone in that group.  You have to make a huge leap from there to willing to molest a young child he'd just adopted.

                And no, he was never Soon Yi's father.  Her father is Andre Previn.

                As to the idea that Soon-Yi was cover for molesting her, that's pathological.  He's been with her for 20 years.  They are clearly a couple.  To think he'd go to such lengths is ludicrous.

                Also Moses Farrow, Mia's estranged 37 year old son, brother to Dylan, who was there on the day of the alleged incident, says that Mia planted the fantasy in Dylan's head to get back at Woody.  I hope you factor that in.  Seems impossible that one of Mia's children wouldn't defend his sister if the allegations were true.

                •  One of her children - Moses is the only one (0+ / 0-)

                  out of 14 children to come forward to support W. A.

                  Woody Allen seduced a high school girl, even if he was not her biological or adoptive father. He was the father of her brothers and sisters, 4 of them.

                  You are presenting conjecture, I'm giving the facts. The record of the sexual assault is verified by the prosecutor in the criminal charge and the judge in the custody case.

                  They are a couple so that's okay with you. Never mind that he tore her away from her family and her entire support system when she was a teen-ager making her completely dependant on him. Have you ever seen photos of her laughing, out with friends, looking happy?

                  Have it your way.

                  To thine ownself be true

                  by Agathena on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 03:54:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Soon Yi stuff wasn't in the tabloids yet (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          breatheeasy 3000

          Mia was actually helping to keep the whole Soon Yi thing quiet and hoping to keep the girl in her family. Allen had threatened that if she exposed him, he'd be forced to marry her, to keep up appearances, and that he'd use that "legitimacy" to maintain his career. Which is exactly what he did.

          The creepiest thing is that he adopted two more girls - one of whom is a blond curly haired girl from Texas (just like Dylan) who looks like Dylan quite a bit. By some "accident" the records of his custody case were lost, so couldn't count against him in the adoption inquiry.

          •  You smear this guy you've never met (3+ / 0-)

            You know nothing about Allen, yet you accuse his nearly twenty year relationship with Soon-Yi to be a fraud.  It's like some enormous conspiracy theory.  Was Allen behind Bengazi, too?

            You also fail to account for just how much of a fruitloop Mia Farrow is.  Not only did she probably cheat on Allen with Sinatra to father Ronan Farrow (just compare photos of the two), but she lied to Allen and told him Ronan was his biological child.

            This is okay by you?  

            That was in 1987.

            Or you could note that Mia Farrow was happy to testify in public in the trial of Roman Polanski, a guy who actually did sexually abuse a thirteen year old girl.  

            But that's cool, I guess.

          •  both his adopted girls are Asian. (0+ / 0-)

            WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

            by ruthhmiller on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 03:10:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I knew you were! n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
  •  Great art and great deeds by dirtbags (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper, AJ in Camden, JrCrone

    Unfortunately, part & parcel of life.  The list is long:  Add to those listed already in this comment thread Mel Gibson, Richard Wagner, who knows how many more, but it doesn't diminish the quality of their accomplishments, it just exposes them as, well, human.

    Well, it sure is a mess, ain’t it, Sheriff….
    Yep, and if it ain’t it’ll do ‘til the mess gets here.

    Liberal = We're all in this together
    Conservative = Every man for himself
    Who you gonna call?

  •  I Can't Watch Eastwood (8+ / 0-)

    Clint Eastwood's movies (some of them) are just as good as they ever were, since they don't change just because Eastwood showed a terrible face in the 2012 Republican campaign. But I can't watch them.

    Because now I see an empty chair and a confused (and deeply) old man making an ass of himself to foist a bigger ass onto the American people.

    I have changed because of what Eastwood showed me. I can't enjoy his movies. He changed me positively years ago with his movies; he changed me negatively last year.

    And he's not the only one. And it's not just politics.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:42:15 AM PST

    •  Are you sure? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, Debby, smartalek
      Because now I see an empty chair and a confused (and deeply) old man making an ass of himself to foist a bigger ass onto the American people.
      One of my favorite comments from the '12 campaign was the imagined phone call from Eastwood to the White House after the RNC "chair" incident, wherein he told PBO, "'Mission Accomplished', boss!"

      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

      by bartcopfan on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  See, I can't follow you there (5+ / 0-)

      Eastwood has had his ups and downs, but at his best as both an actor and a director he is a great artist whose work struggles with human frailty.

      I certainly won't rule out an artist because I don't like his/her politics as such, not if there is no history of violence or abuse or rape beyond the realm of discourse about political subjects. I find Clint Eastwood's politics addled and offensive, but a world without Unforgiven or Pale Rider would be a lesser world for me.

      I don't watch Phillip Seymour Hoffman movies and find myself thinking "but he's an addict" at every moment either.

      I think we need to separate the struggle to distinguish the actor from the role, the singer from the song, etc.,  from the more narrow case where the actor/singer/director/writer has done something so abominable (or you believe he has) that you wouldn't want to deal with him in any normal social context, let alone follow his thought process in a work of art.

      Roman Polanski made some amazing films.  But it's arguable he did something that makes him persona non grata in polite society, his works included. You wouldn't want him to work on your dishwasher either.  I can see finding his films repulsive. Same for Woody Allen, for many people at least, except in my view his films are not that amazing that it would be a great loss never to see one again.  (Like I said, my preferred "edge case" is Chuck Berry, a true genius and a total bastard child abuser at the same time.) Those are different for me from watching an actor or a singer whose politics I don't share, but who is a fundamentally decent person in terms of broad and legal standards of conduct.

      Everyone can be an asshole sometimes about some things.  I don't know any saints.

      •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)
        I don't watch Phillip Seymour Hoffman movies and find myself thinking "but he's an addict" at every moment either.
        I can do disagree w/ Eastman's politics and still enjoy the "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" theme, for lousy example.

        I suppose part of my "conflict" is that my first "grown-up" (I always want to say "adult", first) film was "Sleeper" which I still think is very funny (I mean, doctors of the future encouraging cigarette smoking to promote their patients' health?  C'mon!)--even though it was made by a (probable) child molester.

        And that's why I don't think I have a true conflict.  I acknowledge that I believe Woody Allen to be a serial child molester, who should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty by a jury of his peers, treated accordingly.  I acknowledge and appreciate that, for me, some of his work is hilarious and/or moving. (FWIW, I never got "Annie Hall"....)  

        I don't see them as mutually exclusive; it would be waaaaay (Faux Nooz?) simpler if they were.  Like my Jefferson the slave-owner v. Jefferson the writer of the Declaration of Independence comparison above, I try to acknowledge and to dishonor what I find dishonorable and to honor what I find honorable.

        Now, about Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame....

        "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

        by bartcopfan on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:48:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        portlandzoo, FiredUpInCA, Matt Z

        I don't watch Phillip Seymour Hoffman movies and find myself thinking "but he's an addict" at every moment either.

        Bad analogy.  Addiction is not a crime that harms anyone else but the user, strictly speaking.

        •  I believe (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Hoffman's three young children would disagree with you there.

          •  No, the ultimate harm (0+ / 0-)

            he did to himself.  If he shot up his kids, that'd be a different story.

            •  Ultimate harm wasn't the point (0+ / 0-)

              Simple harm was the point.  Being an addict who dies of an OD is one thing.  Being a dad who is an addict who dies of an OD most definitely harms those besides the addict.

              You moved the goalposts.  Addiction is rarely a victimless "crime."  Or problem, anyway.

              •  As a civil libertarian, (0+ / 0-)

                I support the right of individuals to make decisions that affect only themselves, their own bodies.  It's why I support abortion; it's why I support legalized/decriminalized prostitution; it's why I support the legalization/decriminalization of drugs, both hard & soft.  The individual is the one making the decisions that define his or her life & those decisions do not harm others.

                Some might say that prostitution is not a victimless crime because often the customer is married, so the spouse is harmed in the transaction.  That is unfortunate, but it's really not relevant to the discussion of immediate harm.  Prostitution is a victimless crime:  both the customer & the sex worker understand & negotiate what the parameters are.  No one who is party to the negotiation is harmed.  The same is true when it comes to drug use:  the consumer is the one who would be perpetrating harm against him- or herself; no one else is directly harmed in the transaction.

                If you have another viewpoint, great.  If you believe in incremental restriction of others' individual rights, that's on you.  I'm not there & never will be.

                •  Don't put words in my mouth (0+ / 0-)

                  I believe drugs should all be decriminalized and marijuana should be fully legalized.  

                  However, whether you are an alcoholic consuming legal poison or a heroin addict buying from the street, the harm you do to yourself has social costs that are other peoples' business.

                  If you have children and shoot up you might as well be saying "fuck you" to your kids.

        •  And the point of the analogy (0+ / 0-)

          (which is therefore not bad) is that I can separate an artist from the things he does in real life that I disagree with.  Addiction is not the same thing as right wing politics, or rape, but the point is the same (except I am saying I draw the line at an artist who is an actual violent criminal, which by the way we have no way of knowing if Woody Allen is, but I will not be involved in that argument).

    •  If you want to find something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      to be disgusted at Eastwood for, that's actually the least of it.

      Look up what he did to Sondra Locke's career after they broke up.  He basically ruined her in Hollywood.

      Having said that, I still enjoy many of his films, even if I don't like him as a person.

  •  Matt Bors is a Liberal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can't' stand his comic strips since I found out he's a damn liberal.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:43:18 AM PST

  •  Picasso, Liza Minelli, Joan Crawford (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure we could think of a few more well know female alcoholic abusers.  Wasn't there also a rumor that Crawford ha been a porn actress in early stag films?

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:45:19 AM PST

    •  is alcohol abuse, sex work and self destruction (11+ / 0-)

      that same thing as taking advantage of women, children and other vulnerable people in ways that harm them?

      I don't think it is the same thing at all

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:59:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When There's Violence Involved (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude, Brown Thrasher, denise b
        women, children and other vulnerable people
        Are men never vulnerable?  Geeze, I was just looking at an article about some elderly woman that beat her husband to death.

        Probably most people who act antisocially had bad childhoods. Women should not get a literal "get out of jail free" card on the basis of their gender, or the gender of their victims.  

        There was a wonderful article about Reagan's original "welfare queen" who was not a welfare cheat - she was a career criminal with dozen of identities.  She killed many people and apparently stole infants and sold them.  The police let this go on for decades because their general attitude was "Meh."  Her gender had nothing to do with her crime, but it probably had a lot to do with her ability to operate with impunity for most of her life.

        Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

        by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:16:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Joan Crawford tortured her adopted (0+ / 0-)

        children.  You think that's "different" somehow?  How?

        •  ? not sure what you mean ? (0+ / 0-)

          different from what?

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 02:44:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You said, "that's not the same thing" and (0+ / 0-)

            I am wondering how Joan Crawford being a child abuser is so different from Woody Allen allegedly being a child abuser is in your mind.

            •  bernardpliers had only referred to (0+ / 0-)

              Joan Crawford's alcohol abuse and porn career, not her abuse of children, in his original comment

              and i said that alcohol abuse and sex work and self destruction are not the same as hurting other people

              then you raised Crawford's child abuse

              i agree that both Joan Crawford and Woody Allen took advantage of vulnerable children and harmed them.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
              DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
              Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 03:25:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Fattie Arbuckle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bartcopfan, portlandzoo

    One of the great comedians of silent films until he raped a girl and beat her to death.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:46:36 AM PST

  •  Wiliam Burroughs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    portlandzoo, FiredUpInCA

    had his own drug fueled "gun fail" when he deliberately shot his wife in the face and killed her.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:47:41 AM PST

    •  I thought he tried to shoot a glass off her head (0+ / 0-)

      and missed. He was very drunk so legally culpable in the accident, but I never thought that he killed her on purpose.

      Today is his hundredth birthday, by the way.

      I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.

      by Ender on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:19:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually (17+ / 0-)

    there are plenty of great artists in all genres who were good human beings for the most part.  

    I'm one of those who never found Woody Allen all that great.  I just don't get the accolades for what seems like a solipsistic and narcissistic body of work to me.

    Although, man, I find it hard to write off Chuck Berry.

    I'm also willing to find some forgiveness for an artist who did some fucked up shit (although not including rape of any kind) and came to self-consciousness about it and changed him (or more rarely her) self.  John Lennon spoke openly about his abusive history and to most accounts was a thoroughly decent partner to Yoko in later years.  He was the product of a culture of patriarchal violence (working-class Liverpool of the era), and he worked in another one (rock and roll of the era).  None of this excuses him, but it does cause one to appreciate the growth in his art as reflective of his struggles to grow as a man and be a better person.

    I've never ever detected that struggle in Woody Allen's films, which despite their self-deprecation are steeped in self-regard.

  •  Mark Wahlberg (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, Ender, greenearth


    Wahlberg had been in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department in his youth. By age 13, Wahlberg had developed an addiction to cocaine and other substances.[9][10] At fifteen, civil action was filed against Wahlberg for his involvement in two separate incidents of harassing African-American children (the first some siblings and the second a group of black school children on a field trip), by throwing rocks and shouting racial epithets.[11] At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious while yelling a racial epithet. That same day, he also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving the victim permanently blind in one eye.[12][13]

    For these crimes, Wahlberg was charged with attempted murder, pleaded guilty to assault, and was sentenced to two years in state prison at Boston's Deer Island House of Correction. He served 45 days of his sentence.[12][14] In another incident, the 21-year-old Wahlberg fractured the jaw of a neighbor in an unprovoked attack.[15]

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 07:51:32 AM PST

  •  So everyone here's concluded that Woody's guilty? (9+ / 0-)

    I'm just not sure. I honestly don't know if he is or not.
    I think there are may valid points and questions like, why did Mia willingly participate in his documentary last year?
    Woody passed all the lie detector tests about this case yet Mia did not.
    Hell, I'm not even a fan of his but i'm just trying to look at this whole thing objectively.

    •  If you think he's innocent (13+ / 0-)

      You have to presume either that the girl is guilty of lying or that Mia is guilty of brainwashing her in such an absolute way that the girl is clinging to it whole hog at age 28.

      Why is Woody Allen the only one entitled to a presumption of innocence? Since only one side can be truly innocent, I guess everyone goes with what their gut tells them. My gut says the guy who took porn pictures of his girlfriend's high school daughter is the least likely to be telling the truth.

      •  It's like the McMartin trial never happened. (4+ / 0-)

        "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

        by JesseCW on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:14:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, that seems to be a popular apologia (7+ / 0-)

          Just throw out a word - no need to explain how it relates to the actual facts of this incident, nor any need to explain how or why the girl - now an adult woman of 28 - is still sticking to her story whole hog. She's just a female without power or fame. She can't pay off an army of sycophants like Allen can. Let's just presume she's been brainwashed by the mother she still claims to love - like a helpless zombie. She can't speak for herself and be heard on her own merits ... because you love Woody Allen's films, and the words "McMartin Trial" exist.

          She did this because most sexual abuse victims never do it, can't do it, and she's hoping she can help them to reclaim their lives and their dignity.

        •  different cases (0+ / 0-)

          I actually saw the McMartin jurors being interviewed after the trial. They said they were convinced that the children had been abused(and there was medical evidence) but they weren't sure who did it so decided to acquit. Jurors often acquit if they have doubts. It doesn't necessarily mean no crime was committed. And that case was nothing like this one. Every case is different.

      •  This (5+ / 0-)
        My gut says the guy who took porn pictures of his girlfriend's high school daughter is the least likely to be telling the truth.
        I don't know why some many ignore this.  This alone is super creepy.

        What sane man dates and marries his ex-girlfriends daughter?!

      •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
        Since only one side can be truly innocent, I guess everyone goes with what their gut tells them.
        It's possible to refrain from drawing a conclusion at all.
      •  Hrubec, ask Dory Previn about Mia Farrow (0+ / 0-)

        If you look at Mia's past actions, the idea that "Mia is guilty of brainwashing her in such an absolute way" is in no way far fetched. It's entirely likely. Mia Farrow: not a good human being. She put Previn in a mental institution. Pretending to be her friend while stealing her husband. She's a known liar and "creep," IMO.

        Also, Dylan's sibling has come out and said: Mia is behind this and, in fact, she brainwashed Dylan.

        I HATE Woody Allen. But I also despise Mia Farrow. They are both creeps IMO.

        •  The common apologies (0+ / 0-)

          Mia didn't put Andre Previn's wife in a mental institution. If anyone did, it was Andre Previn. And what Mia did years before this incident, with a different man, prior to ever becoming a mother, has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of this story.

          "Dylan's sibling" is not, to my mind, automatically more persuasive than Dylan herself. Please explain what gives his commentary anything near equal status to the girl (woman) herself. Hes' cut himself off from his family, including his own children, and is in financial distress. Remember that Woody Allen is a man with very deep pockets and a demonstrated willingness to turn family members against one another. The custody judge made that determination about Woody years ago. Whatever else this creep is, we can all be sure he's not an honorable or a good human being.

          •  Perhaps you aren't familiar with Dory Previn's (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ender, PistonMoaned

            work. This is the song she wrote about Farrow.

            Beware of Young Girls by Dory Previn

            Of young girls
            Who come to the door
            Wistful and pale
            Of twenty and four
            Delivering daisies
            With delicate hands

            Of young girls
            Too often they crave
            To cry
            At a wedding
            And dance
            On a grave

            She was my friend
            My friend
            My friend
            She was invited to my house
            Oh yes
            She was
            And though she knew
            My love was true
            No ordinary thing
            She admired
            My wedding ring
            She admired
            My wedding ring

            She was my friend
            My friend
            My friend
            She sent us little silver gifts
            Oh yes
            She did
            Oh what a rare
            And happy pair
            Inevitably said
            As she glanced
            At my unmade bed
            She admired
            My unmade bed
            My bed

            Of young girls
            Who come to the door
            Wistful and pale
            Of twenty and four
            Delivering daisies
            With delicate hands
            Of young girls
            Too often they crave
            To cry
            At a wedding
            And dance
            On a grave

            She was my friend
            My friend
            My friend
            I thought her motives were sincere
            Oh yes
            I did
            Ah but this lass
            It came to pass
            A dark and different plan
            She admired
            My own sweet man
            She admired
            My own sweet man

            We were friends
            Oh yes
            We were
            And she just took him from my life
            Oh yes
            She did
            So young and vain
            She brought me pain
            I'm wise enough to say
            She will leave him
            One thoughtless day
            She'll just leave him
            And go away
            Oh yes

            Of young girls
            Who come to the door
            Wistful and pale
            Of twenty and four
            Delivering daisies
            With delicate hands

            Of young girls
            To often they crave
            To cry
            At a wedding
            And dance
            On a grave

            Beware of young girls
            Beware of young girls

          •  Hrubec, what part of "I Hate Woody Allen" is an (0+ / 0-)


            Saying I'm offering any "apology" is a gross distortion of what I wrote.

            •  Please explain then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kat herder

              How did Mia Farrow "put Dory Previn in a mental institution" at age 24 ... and not the far older husband who had MARRIED HER?

              I'd also like to know what makes Moses Previn more convincing than Dylan, especially since he provides exactly no details of what he's talking about.

    •  that's mighty white of you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carol in San Antonio, kat herder

      some of us have a harder time being dispassionate about child abuse

      if Woody is lucky he'll have 12 like you on his eventual jury

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:06:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Dylan Farrow (4+ / 0-)

        isn't asking to have the case reopened -- it would probably too hard to prove guilt after so many years have passed. All she wants is for people to see the full picture of Woody Allen, rather than just the Hollywood image, that while he was a great artist he also hurt people deeply.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:50:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just being suspected a pedophile makes you guilty (6+ / 0-)

      In the eyes of the public.

      Woody Allen was never convicted of anything, just accused.

      Investigators at the time apparently were convinced Dylan had been coached because Mia Farrow and Woody Allen were going through a vicious split at the time.

      The ages of Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn when they started a relationship (she was 19, not underage) were about the same as between Mia Farrow and Frank Sinatra when they got married. That may creep some people out, but it's not illegal. Woody Allen was never her legal stepfather, Mia Farrow had adopted Soon-Yi.

      Contrast this with Roman Polanski, who PLED GUILTY to having sex with a 13 year old girl in a hot tub at his home, and then fled the country. I've read the trial transcripts; it was a brutal rape, where he drugged this young girl and then forced her, while she begged him to stop, to have oral, anal, and vaginal sex with him.

    •  Well what about Moses Farrow (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Island, portlandzoo, Mindtrain

      Who has stated that his Mom is the monster who said Dylan is lying as a plot between her and Mia to take revenge on Woody for Soon-Yi?

  •  Being moved by an artist's work... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JrCrone, smartalek

    ...doesn't necessarily translate into support or even acceptance of their behavior.

    Whether or not the unacceptable behavior somehow contributes to the greatness of the art is another topic altogether:

    Did Woody Allen use his typewriter as a confession booth when he wrote Manhattan?

    Did Jackson Pollock swing his fists at a canvas as an expression of the self-loathing he felt after swinging his fists at Lee Krasner?

    Would Pepe Le Pew have been worthy of his own television series had he not rejected common scents?

    These are the questions we must ask ourselves as consumers of film, art, and skunk-centered sit-coms.

    We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.

    by EighteenCharacters on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:01:23 AM PST

  •  Matthew Broderick Killed Two Woman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley, FiredUpInCA

    One year after Ferris Bueller he was driving a rental car in Northern Ireland and took out another car head-on.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:03:08 AM PST

    •  When I was in Australia (0+ / 0-)

      A car full Americans did the same thing and several people were killed.  Driving on their wrong side and our right side of the road. It was late at night -- low blood alcohol.  But they were not paying attention and "forgot."  

  •  And dont forget Old Blue Eyes! Toss those old 45s! (5+ / 0-)

    He was a bigger jerk than most characters on THE SOPRANOS.
    Picasso was pretty much a complete Asshole too.
    Its our mistake when we think great art has to be made by great and good men (or women). Unfortunately, perhaps, it doesnt work that way.
    Art doesnt equal virtue. Great art doesnt equal great virtue.
    Sometimes artists even create works that move you to feelings they themselves cant experience. (Hello, Wagner!)

    •  Wagner? (0+ / 0-)

      As far as I've heard he wasn't a pedophile. The worst thing he did was be antisemitic, but blaming a Christian for being antisemitic in the 1800s is like blaming a Muslim for refusing to eat pork chops. It pretty much came with the package.

      •  An egomaniac, lifelong sponger and back stabber (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        swampyankee, msirt, Brown Thrasher

        with a history of turning on 'friends' once they stopped loaning him money, and sleeping with their wives even while mooching off their husbands.
        As far as his anti-Semitism goes, Id characterize his strain as quite a bit more virulent than average. Note his eagerness to weaponize it when Meyerbeer, for example, stopped loaning him money.
        None of which affects my enjoyment of his operas, which is more than considerable.

        •  One of the great struggles (3+ / 0-)

          of Anton Bruckner's life was his admiration for Wagner the artist (the second movement of his Symphony No. 7, especially the coda, was written as a eulogy of sorts, as Bruckner learned of Wagner's death while he was composing) while struggling to deal with Wagner the man. (I dated a French horn player for a bit in college who was a huge Bruckner fan.)

          I think the ultimate decision is whether you want to monetize the artist's actions. There are people who have stopped buying Pittsburgh Steelers gear because of Ben Roethlisberger's behavior with women. I haven't bought any R. Kelly music since I found out about his questionable relationships with young girls (actually the only R. Kelly song I have is because I have the Space Jam soundtrack). I would never walk into Kepler's or log onto Amazon to buy an Orson Scott Card novel because of his rampant homophobia...but if I wanted, I could pick up a copy at my local used bookstore or check it out from the library and not put money in his pocket. You can enjoy a recording of the Ring cycle with no problem; Wagner's dead so there's no money to go in his pocket. But the point is that we need to see the whole person, rather than just the good parts about them, and choose accordingly who gets our consumer dollars. No different than not buying Koch Brothers products because of their shitty business practices.

          There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

          by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:05:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

            and there is a huge difference between choosing not to patronize an artist (or anyone for that matter) because one does not like the "person" (let's be honest, we do it all of the time:  do you patronize the shop where the owner is rude and obnoxious?) and supporting censorship of the art.

        •  Wagner also made up vicious lies about his rivals (0+ / 0-)

          HE is the source of the "Brahms the Cat-Killer" slander.

          Brahms may not have liked cats (there is no evidence for this one way or the other), but there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever for Wagner's malicious accusations of extreme feline abuse.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:10:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wagner went beyond what "was the culture". (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DrTerwilliker, Brown Thrasher

        He published a tract, "Der Judenthum in der Musik", a diatribe against the music of Mendelsohn and others, on the grounds that Jews were cultural "thiefs", incapable of anything truly original.

        Required reading by the Nazis.

        Evolution IS Intelligent Design!

        by msirt on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:15:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But! (3+ / 0-)

      Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole!

      Not in New York...

      "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

      by Stude Dude on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:26:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Art doesn't equal virtue. Great art doesn't equal great virtue.
      I think this is what we have to grapple with. Maybe it's when we try to celebrate the people outside their spheres. I don't know. Still trying to figure it out.

      You're gonna need a bigger boat.

      by Debby on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:27:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a problem I've been dealing with (10+ / 0-)

    in a class I'm teaching about Italian architecture during Fascism. Unlike other totalitarian dictators, Mussolini actually welcomed modernism and difference in style. Professional architects had to belong to the Fascist party in order to practice, though many of the best were convinced and enthusiastic Fascists.  

    Architects like Luigi Moretti (who happens to have been the architect of the Watergate apartments in DC, btw) and Giuseppe Terragni produced some really beautiful buildings, mostly for the regime.  Indeed, because of their association with fascism, many of these buildings--some of the finest statements of modernism in the country--have been left to disintegrate. The question of their restoration is an ideological one and not an easy cultural or political problem to resolve.

  •  Part of the problem (19+ / 0-)

    Part of the problem is that with Woody Allen, his movies are so personal that you can't separate the person from the art.  His movies are CELEBRATIONS of creepy old guys bedding young women.  You can't watch one without being confronted by what a shitty human being Woody is, since his movies are largely justifications of what a shitty human being he is.

    •  Bingo! (6+ / 0-)

      The last Woody Allen movie I saw was Manhattan Murder Mystery and I was so creeped out by it (7 I HAD been a real fan) I swore never to see another one.  Bedding Soon Yi when she was 17 -- was abhorrent on so many levels (has it never occurred to anyone what the impact has bee on her?  I have seen her in NY with Woody--he "walks" her with a vice grip on her elbow).

      So yeah, in his mind, he has gotten away with murder.  

    •  His latest movie is said to be a veiled attack (4+ / 0-)

      on Mia Farrow. I haven't seen it. Won't be seeing it.

      All his movies are personal. He has stated that he makes movies for art therapy. To separate his art from his life is not possible. Maybe with some artists long after they are dead, like Picasso...

      Woody is still alive and directing his private life as if it were a movie, maintaining directorial control. He talks about his perfect marriage to Soon-Yi Previn, except his wife in hundred of photographs looks like a very sad person. She's not taking his direction.

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:44:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hadn't seen that comment (0+ / 0-)

        about his movies being art therapy; however, I'd long concluded that his movies were basically the sublimation of his neurosis.  That is plenty real, plenty evident, and it doesn't invalidate his work.  Lots of other artists do it.

        Child abuse is a different story; it seems a different pattern of behavior for him, but I can't say it's impossible.  Clearly he doesn't seem bound by others' sense of morality.

        For the record, I loved his early movies, gradually grew less fond.  He's not funny anymore, and that's too bad.  He still has some interesting ideas, but what I look for in his movies is a protagonist with a point of view other than what is obviously his.  It's hard to find.

        It's the microeconomy, stupid!

        by chinshihtang on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 12:54:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I liked his early movies too (0+ / 0-)

          But Crimes & Misdemeanors was sinister as it discusses getting away with criminal acts. It was the last one I saw.

          His victim, Dylan Farrow says he got away with his sexual assaulting her but I don't think he really did. He got away with it under the legal system but the facts are out there for anyone to see. And he knows it. The pornographic photographs that he took of Soon Yi still exist despite his efforts to have them destroyed. The court records of the custody fight and the child abuse still exist. Apart from his apologists, there are many people who believe Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow.

          His latest movie is said to be a vicious portrait of Mia Farrow.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 04:04:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Went thru this when I first learned of Wagner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    msirt, portlandzoo

    Everything I'm reading is that we need to stop watching Woody Allen movies but the art is also separate from the man. The issues of mortality and morality are real issues separate from the artist. I was a Wagner lover since childhood and actually went through a period where I quit listening to anything he composed.

    If someone wants to quit watching Woody Allen movies that's fine--but to insist that everyone else must do it means there is a lot of great creativity that has suddenly somehow become irrelevant to the human condition.

    To paraphrase my absolute favorite Allen quote "the worst thing you can say about God is that he's an underachiever." That to me is a relevant observation regardless of the behavior of whoever figured it out.

    •  I haven't heard of anyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      calling for a mass boycott of Allen's works -- more that you need to see the man for who he is and judge accordingly. When you know about his personal life, would you look at his movies in a different light? At the same time, to put him up on a pedestal such as is being done now is glossing over the fact that he hurt a lot of people -- he has his warts, as do we all (I've got more skeletons in my closet than a Halloween party), but all of that is being ignored.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:11:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or one of my favorites: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "There's no question that there is an Afterlife.  The only issue is:

      How far is it from midtown and how late does it stay open?"

      I find it difficult to understand why so many here dislike the content of his films.

      The wit factor is genius level, and films like Midnight in Paris show us human behavior vs culture at the level of Greek and Shakespearian theater , IMO.

      Evolution IS Intelligent Design!

      by msirt on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:24:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, not funny (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        isabelle hayes, Bionic, Mikey, kat herder

        That particlular line sounds like a smarmy retread of Borscht Belt ka-ching jokes.

        I got turned off to him when I saw Manhattan - when I realized he wasn't kidding about portraying himself as the dream guy and sex god to a 17 year old kid. Being about that age myself, I couldn't believe he was serious. When I realized he was, he pretty much lost any humor potential for me.

        •  Or (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kat herder

          His first wife was raped.  Someone asked him about it.

          Allen said, "Knowing my ex-wife, it probably wasn't a moving violation."
          He loved that joke - it was in his act for years and made it on to his "best of" compilations.

          Not a nice guy.

      •  I was a young fan of Allen's early movies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kat herder

        but I have seen Annie Hall, Hannah, and Manhattan in recent years and was shocked to find how narcissistic they are.  I couldn't believe that I had found them so significant.  I stopped watching his films at Shadows and Fog- I had suffered through my last tedious Allen film.  I saw the Colin Farrell one on TV and confirmed that I had not missed anything over the years.  

    •  I went through a similar thing with Faulkner (0+ / 0-)

      in my youth.  I confess I have not gone back to reading his works, but primarily because there are enough other books to read.  

      I also used to get into arguments with my former partner about Reifenstahl.  

      However, I have never advocated making works unavailable or, worse yet, destroying them.

  •  Oh, grow up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kat herder

    Seriously, it's offensive to defend Woody Allen on that  reductio ad absurdum line. His movies aren't good enough to make me shrug off Dylan Farrow's allegations. The man has a well documented sexual preference for underage girls.

  •  Please read this before you form an opinion... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Jester

    This piece by Robert B. Weide presents a very compelling analysis of the other side of the story:

    Not so fast...

    If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

    by von Dutch on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:22:38 AM PST

  •  I have the same problem with Ted Nugent lately. (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, I also note that I have the illusion that I really know anything about most famous people, when in truth I only vaguely know one of them, and him not well enough to have any idea what his life is like these days.

  •  Oddly enough Moses Farrow, her bro... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mindtrain, inclusiveheart

    Is on Woody's side.  The whole thing is a clusterfuck.  Both sides are possibly lying.  Of course all allegations of child sexual abuse should be taken seriously, but I'm not going to vilify people who are sure Allen's innocent either, because despite his attraction to much younger girls, there's a big jump from liking a 19 or 17 year old and diddling a 7 year old.

  •  The Onion's take on Woody Allen, etc.: (6+ / 0-)

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

    by lotlizard on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:44:41 AM PST

  •  innocent until proven guilty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madmojo, Johnny Q

    put thy pitchforks down, eh?

  •  Seperate the art from the artist.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....Jerry Garcia spent his last 20 years in narcotic stupor.....yet his guitar playing was still majestic

    This space for rent -- Cheap!

    by jds1978 on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:10:15 AM PST

    •  His narcotic stupor only harmed (7+ / 0-)

      himself at most, it could be argued -- maybe even helped his music, who knows? I can still watch Philip Seymour Hoffmann in Almost Famous and mourn the loss of a great talent. Ditto with listening to Janis Joplin.

      Ultimately it comes down to money, especially when dealing with living artists, athletes and whose pocket do you want your money going? I'm not sure I want my money going into Woody Allen's pocket in light of his personal life, just like I don't want my money going into the Koch Brothers pockets because of their crappy politics and business practices, or I won't buy Papa John's pizza no matter how cheap it is because I don't agree with the company's stance on the ACA.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:23:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Major problem with the cartoon (0+ / 0-)

    Bill Murray was in Space Jam.

    Might want to rethink the punch line or replace Bill Murray's name with Bill Cosby, who was accused of rape in 2006, although the accusations never went anywhere. He did settle a civil lawsuit, though. Other women also claim he raped them.

    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

    by CatM on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:15:24 AM PST

  •  Trial by media sensation (4+ / 0-)

    I don't care much for his movies except Take the Money and Run, but trial by the National Enquirer isn't exactly constitutional n stuff.

  •  leaping to conclusions (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mindtrain, Johnny Q, Ender, wildweasels

    Reading through the comments here it seems that there's a balance of those who despise Woody Allen for his work AND for his alleged history with younger women. Then there are those who don't like his work so they desperately want to believe that he's surely guilty of a heinous crime. And then there are those who can't form an opinion due to what is actually known - or not - about all of it (I'm in the latter category).

    The court of rabid public opinion - and indictment - is alive and well on kos. But that's just my opinion… (it won't hold up in court but then again, I refuse to crucify a person and their career based on hearsay and gossip no matter how fervently I hope that they are guilty).

    "Please proceed, Governor"

    by portlandzoo on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:18:06 AM PST

  •  If you crave the Hollywood gossip as much as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meinoregon, chinshihtang

    the art itself you'll find an excuse to hate everything. Gossip is boring. Tune it out, you'll feel better.

    There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

    by frankzappatista on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:34:05 PM PST

  •  I still catch a lot of heat for not liking movies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher, smartalek

    with guns and violence in them.  

    As if there weren't enough things to do and see and experience on this planet.  No, it's IMPORTANT, I'm told, to expose myself to entertainment that I find unpleasant.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:39:23 PM PST

  •  Here's the thing (4+ / 0-)

    Woody Allen is very hard to separate from his works, and these accusations are hard to separate from him.  

    You can't hear John Lennon's problems in his guitar, or even in his lyrics.  Wagner's orchestrations don't ring of anti-Semitism.  You can't see O.J. murdering Nicole in Naked Gun 33 1/3.

    But Woody's more than just an aesthete.  He's a point of view.  He's a man whose work is nearly polemical on the nature of men, women, marriage, sex, and relationships.  If the allegations are true, they hover over all those things.  How can you evaluate the man's insights on sexuality when you know he raped his daughter?  If it spoke to you before, it's unsettling to think that the same voice could justify that, even to himself.

    I had a related reaction when David Foster Wallace killed himself.  This was the guy who I thought had more to say about life and living than anyone I'd read before.  What the fuck do I do if he decided it wasn't worth living?

    •  Fine argument, til your last paragraph... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Philosophies of life do not conduce to suicide.
      Intractable emotional and/or other problems and/or brain chemistry do.
      What do you do about DFW's suicide?  You be very, very grateful if you don't share with him whatever led to it, and appreciate your life all the more.
      And if you do feel so impelled, or compelled, you think deeply on the pain and damage he, and others, and you would inevitably leave behind, and ask yourself if it is truly necessary to put anyone else through that.
      Will that do for a start?

      •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

        That's about where I ended up, especially after reading DT Max's book on him.  Suicide and depression are not the result of careful thought - and DFW, I think, particularly recognized that himself.  His writing on addiction, and recovery, and realizations that your logical thoughts are not the sum total of your experience.  

        But that was a conclusion, it wasn't a reaction,  you know?  

  •  Purity of Essence? Fuck off! (0+ / 0-)

    I think the public evidence looks damn bad for Woody A.  His comments sound damn odd, at best.  Mia and Dylan seem to have nothing to gain by perpetuating such a lie for so long, against the public's and celebrity general indifference.  All point to their being truthful and Woody not.

    So, his reputation goes, as  human being.  Investigations can be conducted, if possible.  I can refuse to shake his hand, or take a job from him.  Some friends can decided to abandon him, especially if he insists he is innocent, but they know otherwise.

    I'll stand by the victim every time, and condemn the harmful action and want to see it righted as best can be done.  AND see the perpetrator understand and correct his/her future behavior.

    I might not even see another new movie by him. It depends.

    Get my torch and pitchfork?  Start heating up the tar - or measuring a rope and making sure I got kerosene?  Fuck that.  I'd rather be the hypocrite I am now than a true believer in anything, especially purity.

    •  I think Weide made it clear (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denise b, PistonMoaned

      that Dylan actually believes in her story; which would make her pain real, even if it didn't happen. So the question what she has to gain in this is not getting you any close to the truth.

      Oh, and on another note, you cant claim standing by the victim every time if you don't actually know who the victim is.  Al that says is that you have a tendency to rush to judgment.

      •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "You can't stand by the victim every time if you don't know who the victim is".

        If Allen were an average high school teacher falsely accused of sexual abuse, his life would be all but ruined even if he was acquitted. He'd have a hard time getting his job back, and he'd be owe six figure legal bills.

  •  you forgot Elvis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ender, smartalek, wildweasels

    ... according to The Moral Police he was a pervert because he started dating his later wife back when she was 14.

    Then there is Jerry Lee Lewis.  Married his 13 or 14 years old cousin when he was 22. His third marriage, IIRC, he married at 16 or so for the first time.

    There are probably more.

  •  People can believe what they want (7+ / 0-)

    Bottom line is this: Allen was investigated, he was cleared and never charged.  No new evidence has surfaced in 20 years, and no one has the goods to get Allen back in court. This is mostly people who were not old enough to remember finding out about the story for the first time. If the Farrows have something hard, then let them present it.

    What has changed is that he and Soon-Yi have stayed together for 17 years of marriage, and were approved to adopt children. Woody hasn't ditched his now middle-aged spouse for a younger woman, and no one has accused him of inappropriate conduct with his or anyone else's children.

    If you want to take the Farrows at their word fine. I'm not a witness and neither are you. By the same token I could take Soon Yi and Moses at their word that Mia was lying. I choose to not really care, as it is all just speculation.

  •  Well, while we're pitching stuff out... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meinoregon, smartalek

    ...I guess we have to delete our Wikileaks  bookmarks, because some people think Assange is a rapist.


    Non futuis apud Boston

    by kenlac on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 03:02:33 PM PST

    •  Apparently... (0+ / 0-)

      ... literally half a dozen courts of law hearing his appeal, including the later-reaffirmed full-court hearing at the Svea Court of Appeals, is just "some people".

      There's a difference between appreciating Wikileaks versus lionizing its founder while he runs from rape charges or playing down the charges and making excuses for him. Just like there's a difference between saying "Rosemary's Baby is a great film" and saying "Roman Polanski is a great man". Just like there's a difference between watching Rosemary's Baby without bringing up Polanski's getting away with rape versus offering Polanski an interview without hardball questions on his getting away with rape.

      A great piece of work remains a great piece of work, regardless of whether its creator turns out to be a scumbag. But said work should in no way, shape, or form stop a person who turns out to be a scumbag from being treated as such or let them just go on their life as if what they did never happened because "their work is just too important".

      Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

      by Rei on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 10:15:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so much art to throw out... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...on second thought, i think i'll keep it. ALL of it.

    and, as a fair and balanced (sic) side note, you mean to say there has been no " made by monsters..." of the female persuasion?

    •  Depends on your definition of "monster" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Joan Crawford fits some people's definitions, because of her alleged abusive treatment of her children. (Other people just think she was a raging egomaniac.)

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:45:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In 200 years (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Woody Allen will be a footnote, and Dylan will be forgotten.

  •  What can I say? (0+ / 0-)

    Men are scum.

    Thank Koresh I don't have a problem with that.

    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

    by DaddyO on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:11:48 PM PST

  •  This assumes he is guilty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The assumption most people have made is that Woody Allen is guilty.  He may be, but he may not be.  I have seen false accusations before.  Never underestimate what an angry person might do, and I believe Mia Farrow is angry.  

    •  Why is Mia Farrow Angry? (0+ / 0-)

      If Woody Allen has done what Mia Farrow says he has done, don't you think she has a right to be angry?

      So angry people sometimes tell the truth and that truth is exactly what they are angry about.

      Does anyone deny that Woody Allen married Sun Yi?  Does any one feel icky about someone who would woo your girl friend's daughter while you are living in the same household?

      Does anybody find it hard to believe that someone who would woo one daughter might be doing something icky to another daughter?

      •  Because she's the most ontrolling passive aggresi (0+ / 0-)

        ve woman I have ever seen (on screen).  Please note the wonderful Dory Previn song in the comments.  But also
        see the Woody Allen films where he cast her.  they are quite wonderful.  He really gets the parts of her sadness that generate her kind of craziness.  
        She was also mad that she could no longer work for him.
        Note that she approved the use of cuts of her work in his movies for  the Golden Globes award show.

        WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

        by ruthhmiller on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 03:31:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But at this point it's Dylan who is coming forward (0+ / 0-)

      to reiterate statements that she made decades ago. Mia may well have been angry then, and now; it's Dylan who now, as an adult, is speaking out.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

      by peregrine kate on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 10:00:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't Forget Ender's Game (0+ / 0-)

    Sounded like a fairly good sci-fi movie, but when I heard about Orson Scott Card's politics (homophobic), I (and my husband) voted with our feet. Might rent it from the public library.

  •  It's not all about sex (0+ / 0-)

    While we may never know the extent of Woody Allen's inappropriate behavior with his adopted daughter Dylan, we do know that he subjected Mia Farrow and her children to a cruel, uncalled for, expensive and traumatic four year long custody lawsuit, even appealing it all the way to the Supreme court after he lost the first time. That alone was enough for me to stop watching his movies. As a mother and a grandmother, I can only imagine the fear, anxiety and loss of safety and security this man inflicted on his children and their mother. He lost the custody case not because of sexual abuse allegations, but because he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. Mia Farrow was the children's lifelong, fulltime caretaker and their psychological parent. Allen was such a NON parent; he didn't even know the most basic things a normal parent would know: their doctors, dentists, medicines, allergies, the names of their teachers, friends and pets. The judge found that Mia was a competent parent and that the only lapse in her parenting was allowing Allen into her children's lives. He further found that Allen exhibited a level of narcissism and selfishness that was incompatible with parenthood, that the bonds between adopted siblings were as deserving of respect and protection as those of biological siblings, and that his sexual relationship with Soon Yi was not in the best interest of his children.

    Mr. Allen also engaged in a legal vendetta against the public prosecutor, hired people to "dig up dirt" on the man and forced him to spend 5 years defending himself before being cleared of all allegations. Woody Allen has shown himself to be a cruel, uncaring and vindictive individual. Like any abuser, he still refuses to take any responsibility for his actions or admit to any errors in judgement. While other celebrities often use their wealth and high profiles to promote charitable causes, he has used his to harass people with frivolous lawsuits and allegations.

    It's unfortunate that in the American obsession with sexuality, there are other forms of immorality, and other facts in the case that are ignored and overlooked. It's not all about sex. Its about being a decent human being.

  •  a frivolous lawsuit (0+ / 0-)

    The judge also found that Woody Allen's custody lawsuit was a frivolous lawsuit and ordered him to pay all of Mia Farrow's legal costs.

Click here for the mobile view of the site