Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Woody Allen's adoptive daughter gives new disturbing details on the sexual abuse he allegedly inflicted on her   (kristof.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 204
    More: Sick, Woody Allen, Woody Allen filmography, sex crimes, Nicholas Kristof, visitation rights, beer pongs, presumption of innocence, Diane Keaton  
•       •       •

6410 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 02 Feb 2014 at 2:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



204 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-02 04:16:44 PM  
I've always wondered what it'd be like picturing Woody Allen having an orgasm.

"Oh muy gwod, I'm about to cum baby! Qucik, grab a napkin!"
 
2014-02-02 04:26:02 PM  

borg: Brainwashed girl with false memories yeah that's credible.


Letqs call in Elizabeth Loftus on this one.
 
2014-02-02 04:31:14 PM  

OgreMagi: My family was talking about the Hollywood scumbags Woody and Roman and how the Hollywood elite are too willing to pretend the most disgusting behavior didn't happen because it's some great artiste.  Fark that.


Let's not forget elvis, jerry lee, mike jackson..... well, let's just say talent seems to make people forgive a lot of horrible crimes.
 
2014-02-02 04:36:38 PM  

cretinbob: On St. Valentine's Day, the embattled ex-lovers exchanged gifts. In the kitchen of Mia Farrow's Central Park West apartment Woody Allen gave her an embroidered heart and a red satin box of chocolates. She looked at him, friends of Mr. Allen say, with a gentle, almost kindly glance and handed him a slim box, neatly wrapped.
"I got you this," she said.
A month and a day after Ms. Farrow discovered Mr. Allen had been sleeping with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, it seemed as if nothing were wrong, his friends say. Mr. Allen's driver waited downstairs to take him back to his Fifth Avenue duplex and Mr. Allen opened the box on the drive through the park.

Inside lay an ornate Victorian Valentine meticulously adorned with a photograph of Ms. Farrow and her children in the center. The picture included the three children she and Mr. Allen share, as well as Soon-Yi. Ms. Farrow had stuck steel turkey skewers through the hearts of the children and she had carefully slid a steak knife into her own heart, according to Mr. Allen's friends.


Mia Farrow is a farking looney toon. I remember seeing a picture published of it, but since it was before the net it's gone.


//Love and Death is his best


That dueling scene is just farking brilliant. As good as the "little bastard shot me in the ass" speech by Wilder...
 
2014-02-02 04:37:51 PM  
Wait, isn't Dylan the one that claimed Soon Yi was "legally retarded"?
 
2014-02-02 04:38:56 PM  
Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.
 
2014-02-02 04:43:55 PM  
You know what smart people do? Save their most horrific, over the top charges for last, after no one believes the rest of their somewhat more plausible stories.
 
2014-02-02 04:44:38 PM  

Komplex: Carth: Komplex: Or he molested the girl to get revenge for all the bad press he had for sleeping with his longtime girlfriend's barely legal daughter.

Timeline is off. The alleged molestation happened before any of that bad press.

Right now I can't find any press accounts of when the scandal was made public, but according to this Mia found out about the affair in January 1992, the main claim of abuse happened in August 1992.


That is what i meant the timeline doesn't add up.

So Mia finds pornographic pictures of Soon-Yi  taken by Allen in January. Allen refuses to sign the agreement giving up custody and giving Mia  $200,000 for each movie he makes and shortly after the video tape comes out. Here is an article from when the story first broke in November 1992.

I have a hard time believe the guy who has the entire world looking at him during a messy breakup caused by him taking his old girlfriends step daughter decides to molest a 7 year old in the 5-10 minutes they are alone together. If he was that sick I'd expect a bunch of allegations to have come out during the past decade. He would have to either be sick, stupid or both to have improper contact with any kids during the Soon-Yi dating years.
 
2014-02-02 04:47:53 PM  

Fano: borg: Brainwashed girl with false memories yeah that's credible.

Letqs call in Elizabeth Loftus on this one.


I had a friend who had recovered memories of sexual abuse at the hands of her step-father. Until she didn't.

/had I been the step-father I would have sued the shiat out of the therapist but of course a public trial against a person who helped spread the rumor of you being a incestuous pederast isn't that attractive
 
2014-02-02 04:50:52 PM  

mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.


Except she was never his adopted daughter...  Some people like to forgo facts to drum up a witchunt and pull out the torches and pitchforks.

Just like the pic that people continue to post with the little asian girl in his lap, was not her.
 
2014-02-02 04:55:54 PM  

log_jammin: frestcrallen: log_jammin: notsureifserious.jpg

No.  Is there a tongue in cheek font?

/Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face

I watced a couple of videos yesterday where people thought the snow storm in Georgia was from "chemical snow" created by the government to....something. I'm not sure what.

so yeah...you never can tell these days.


You sheeple need to wake up to what the guberment is doing to you.
 
2014-02-02 05:11:08 PM  

theflatline: mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.

Except she was never his adopted daughter...  Some people like to forgo facts to drum up a witchunt and pull out the torches and pitchforks.

Just like the pic that people continue to post with the little asian girl in his lap, was not her.



Oh yeah, you're totally right. He never actually adopter her, he just helped raise her from the age of 8 as he was in a relationship with her adopted mother. That's totally not creepy and suspect at all. No siree bob. Not one bit....

And you complain about other people who like to "forgo facts". Sheesh. He's not going to let you suck his dick, dude... I mean, unless you're a 10 year old girl, in which case it sounds like you might have a pretty good shot.
 
2014-02-02 05:13:43 PM  

mongbiohazard: theflatline: mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.

Except she was never his adopted daughter...  Some people like to forgo facts to drum up a witchunt and pull out the torches and pitchforks.

Just like the pic that people continue to post with the little asian girl in his lap, was not her.


Oh yeah, you're totally right. He never actually adopter her, he just helped raise her from the age of 8 as he was in a relationship with her adopted mother. That's totally not creepy and suspect at all. No siree bob. Not one bit....

And you complain about other people who like to "forgo facts". Sheesh. He's not going to let you suck his dick, dude... I mean, unless you're a 10 year old girl, in which case it sounds like you might have a pretty good shot.


I did not say I did not think it was creepy.  I just think it is just as creepy as to forgo facts and say she was his adopted daughter, or claim that he helped raise her, which Mia Farrow said he did not and was hardly in her life.
 
2014-02-02 05:17:43 PM  

Fano: Wait, isn't Dylan the one that claimed Soon Yi was "legally retarded"?


Yup, but we can ignore that as a lie because it wasn't about Woody.
 
2014-02-02 05:24:49 PM  

ChrisDe: Sexual assault aside, Woody Allen is still a really creepy guy.


And his movies suck.
 
2014-02-02 05:35:25 PM  

kling_klang_bed: I've always wondered what it'd be like picturing Woody Allen having an orgasm.

"Oh muy gwod, I'm about to cum baby! Qucik, grab a napkin!"


Dang. That's one farked up obsession you've got.


mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.


Is that more or less than the percentage of people who rely on fictions to pillory people they don't like, whether they're famous or not? Is it that hard to stick with facts or at least points that haven't been repeatedly shown to be false? Be outraged, it's a fair response to stories like this. Just try to go with what's known rather than what's manufactured. And I apologize profusely if that's what passes for "fawning" in your book, but that's your problem, not mine.
 
2014-02-02 05:40:57 PM  

DrBenway: kling_klang_bed: I've always wondered what it'd be like picturing Woody Allen having an orgasm.

"Oh muy gwod, I'm about to cum baby! Qucik, grab a napkin!"

Dang. That's one farked up obsession you've got.


mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.

Is that more or less than the percentage of people who rely on fictions to pillory people they don't like, whether they're famous or not? Is it that hard to stick with facts or at least points that haven't been repeatedly shown to be false? Be outraged, it's a fair response to stories like this. Just try to go with what's known rather than what's manufactured. And I apologize profusely if that's what passes for "fawning" in your book, but that's your problem, not mine.


Uh huh. Just keep fighting the good fight, sir knight.
 
2014-02-02 05:46:43 PM  

Kyosuke: Fano: Wait, isn't Dylan the one that claimed Soon Yi was "legally retarded"?

Yup, but we can ignore that as a lie because it wasn't about Woody.


Legally retarded is a compliment.  Illegally retarded is an insult.  Or, as I prefer to call them, undocumented retard.
 
2014-02-02 05:49:34 PM  

DrBenway: kling_klang_bed: I've always wondered what it'd be like picturing Woody Allen having an orgasm.

"Oh muy gwod, I'm about to cum baby! Qucik, grab a napkin!"

Dang. That's one farked up obsession you've got.


mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.

Is that more or less than the percentage of people who rely on fictions to pillory people they don't like, whether they're famous or not? Is it that hard to stick with facts or at least points that haven't been repeatedly shown to be false? Be outraged, it's a fair response to stories like this. Just try to go with what's known rather than what's manufactured. And I apologize profusely if that's what passes for "fawning" in your book, but that's your problem, not mine.


Nah, not anywhere near to an obsession, just a hilarious thought. Right up there with imagining the noises coming out of a room where Fran Drescher, Gilbert Godfrey,, Harvey Feinstien and Louie Anderson are having a gang bang.

As per that last part you posted, I love his films, as I separate the artist from their work. I like the works of many people I think should be fired into the sun (Varg Vikernes/Burzum, Wagner, Mel Gibson, Roman Polanski, and yes, Woody Allen). Love his films, but at the same time if all this is true (which I'm guessing it may be, considering his cradle robbing ways with Sun Yi), I hope he gets some broomstick justice in general population like any other kiddy diddler.
 
2014-02-02 06:01:35 PM  

mongbiohazard: DrBenway: kling_klang_bed: I've always wondered what it'd be like picturing Woody Allen having an orgasm.

"Oh muy gwod, I'm about to cum baby! Qucik, grab a napkin!"

Dang. That's one farked up obsession you've got.


mongbiohazard: Well we already knew Woody Allen was creepy, and anyone with half a brain knew it was pretty farked up that he'd end up hooked up with his adopted daughter.... But DAMN. I almost got physically ill reading that and thinking about how he's still fawned over.

Then I read this thread and got sick to my stomach all over again. Whenever someone is famous there are always some certain percentage of people who will cast all common sense and reason in to the wind to defend them. It's pretty predictable, but it's still farked up.

Is that more or less than the percentage of people who rely on fictions to pillory people they don't like, whether they're famous or not? Is it that hard to stick with facts or at least points that haven't been repeatedly shown to be false? Be outraged, it's a fair response to stories like this. Just try to go with what's known rather than what's manufactured. And I apologize profusely if that's what passes for "fawning" in your book, but that's your problem, not mine.

Uh huh. Just keep fighting the good fight, sir knight.


Right back at  you, defender of justice.
 
2014-02-02 06:01:55 PM  
I think that family , is kinda f 'd up in general. Mia seemed to be very into hoarding children. Woody is creepy.

And Ronan Farrow looks alot like Sinatra in his younger days.
 
2014-02-02 06:02:40 PM  
www.newyorker.com
"Morning Everyone!
Let's see what's in Le Monde this fine morning.
Interesting,, Weather's good,,
let's just turn to the Entertainment Sec,, ,, ohmy ,, "


Mia Farrow is a world famous star. Her accusations were taken very seriously.
Woody Allen was accused, investigated, and never prosecuted, for anything ever, sorry she's a nutter, like her mum
 
2014-02-02 06:03:37 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Just because Mia Farrow was/is insane doesn't mean Dylan is lying/sharing planted memories.


THIS. I could give a frack about Mia Farrow, and yeah, she's always seemed kind of nuts.  But that doesn't mean Dylan is making anything up. What reason does she have (other than perhaps knowing the public has been discussing her past as of late, and thinking...hey, maybe I should stand up to myself and tell these farkers what really happened.)


She can't take him to court, as the statute of limitations has long since passed. Her mom's Mia Farrow, so I'm pretty sure she's not in need of cash.  I really don't see the point in coming forward sharing graphic, painful stories, knowing you will face judgement from strangers all over the internet if the allegations aren't true. There's nothing for her to gain.
 
2014-02-02 06:29:27 PM  
SOME PERSPECTIVE

Mia Farrow was 21 years old when she hooked up with Andre Previn (Soon-Yi's actual adoptive father), who was 50 at the time.

Soon-Yi Previn was 19 years old when she hooked up with Woody Allen, who was 55 at the time.

Mia Farrow was in her early 40s when she hooked up with a 71-year-old Frank Sinatra and had a kid who she then told Woody was HIS kid, while proceeding to LIE about her affair with Sinatra.

Woody never raised Soon-Yi. Yes, he saw her when she was with the rest of her adopted siblings, but she was not a child while he was around. ANDRE PREVIN raised her. Woody came along much later.

The picture of Woody with a kid on his lap is of the daughter he and Soon-Yi adopted. IT IS NOT SOON-YI and anyone who is asshole enough to keep saying it is deserves a cockpunch. The first time Woody took Soon-Yi to a basketball game was when she was an ADULT and it was at Mia's request because she wanted Woody to get to know her, as he had AVOIDED her while dating Mia.

Woody and Mia were NEVER MARRIED. He was never a father to Soon-Yi.

The accusations of sexual assault didn't happen until AFTER Mia was dumped by Woody. Dylan never made any accusations before Mia began her public smear campaign against Woody for leaving her for her adopted daughter. Yes, it was tacky of Woody to do this, but it wasn't "pedophilia" (SHE WAS 19) and it wasn't incest (SHE WAS NEVER HIS DAUGHTER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM).

Mia, however, has a history of LYING about the parentage of her kids and making other men think they're the father. She has a history of cheating with much-older men. She has a history of being a complete nutbag, too. She also STRONGLY SUPPORTED Roman Polanski when he was accused (and he WAS guilty).

How can ANYONE take the word of Mia, or the daughter that she likely convinced? How can anyone condemn Woody for being 50 and dating a 19-year-old when Mia was 21 and dating a 50-year old? How can anyone take her word as gospel when she FARKED FRANK SINATRA, GOT PREGNANT, AND THEN TOLD WOODY THE KID WAS HIS?

If you want to side with crazy, you go right ahead and do it. It just makes you look like a gullible idiot who bought into the "I hate my ex now please support my son's new show" campaign of Mia Farrow.
 
2014-02-02 06:33:01 PM  
And BTW, the Dylan case was investigated. Allen was given a polygraph and passed. There was ZERO evidence to back up the story, and it was only thrown around in the midst of a wicked "divorce" (non-married, but still, very high-profile split-up).

The police found nothing except an accusation from the confused daughter of an angry ex that was only uttered AFTER the relationship fell apart. Strange, isn't it, that she only found all this dirt on Woody when they were in the middle of a break-up feud?

If he's guilty, he deserves punishment, but an accusation is not proof of guilt. An accusation from a jilted ex's daughter doesn't hold much water.
 
2014-02-02 06:41:51 PM  

CaitMonster: JohnAnnArbor: Just because Mia Farrow was/is insane doesn't mean Dylan is lying/sharing planted memories.

THIS. I could give a frack about Mia Farrow, and yeah, she's always seemed kind of nuts.  But that doesn't mean Dylan is making anything up. What reason does she have (other than perhaps knowing the public has been discussing her past as of late, and thinking...hey, maybe I should stand up to myself and tell these farkers what really happened.)


She can't take him to court, as the statute of limitations has long since passed. Her mom's Mia Farrow, so I'm pretty sure she's not in need of cash.  I really don't see the point in coming forward sharing graphic, painful stories, knowing you will face judgement from strangers all over the internet if the allegations aren't true. There's nothing for her to gain.


What has she to gain? REVENGE for her mom. Her mother is known to be rather ruthless when it comes to relationships, and it's no secret that when she and Woody split up and he went off her Mia's adopted daughter, there was some serious pride-wounding going on. In short, Mia HATED Woody for that. She began a campaign against him that began with accusing him of molesting Dylan-- WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED AND CAME UP EMPTY--  And has continued to this day.

So you're damn right Mia might have put the idea in Dylan's head... Or Dylan hates Woody enough on behalf of her mother to keep up a lie they began over 20 years ago. The point is that they have PLENTY of motivation to lie, just as Dylan may genuinely believe something happened when it didn't because an unbalanced, vindictive Mia messed with her head when she was just a child.

Either way, an accusation is not evidence. They had their chance to prove the accusations were true, and they couldn't do it, despite a genuine, sincere effort on their part. The police found nothing. Polygraph exonerated Woody. Counselors didn't find any reason to believe Dylan's accusations, and there was suspicion EVEN THEN that Dylan was being led by Mia-- Being used as a weapon to harm her ex.

Again, if Woody did it, he deserves punishment, but I suspect the only abuse in Dylan's life has been mental abuse from Mia.
 
2014-02-02 06:46:19 PM  

GungFu: BeatrixK: Elmo Jones: I'll just leave this, if anyone is interested.

THIS!

I'll just leave this, if anyone is interested. Woody's adopted kids. Y'know, for future reference when the TMZ shiat hits the fan for Woody again.

[www3.pictures.zimbio.com image 396x594]



Yes. Because a father can't hug his daughters without being a child molester.
 
2014-02-02 06:48:53 PM  
Both Mia and Woody Allen are farking nuts, that doesn't mean Dylan's claims shouldn't be taken any less seriously than anyone else.

Hell Sandusky was able to keep his molestation a secret for decades, despite parental allegations, until a witness came forward.

Considering how horribly people treat victims (see this thread, Steubenville, maryville, New Zealand) it isn't too much of a strech for the cops to decline to prosecute a well-off person.
 
2014-02-02 06:58:44 PM  

ZeroCorpse: SOME PERSPECTIVE

Mia Farrow was 21 years old when she hooked up with Andre Previn (Soon-Yi's actual adoptive father), who was 50 at the time.

Soon-Yi Previn was 19 years old when she hooked up with Woody Allen, who was 55 at the time.

Mia Farrow was in her early 40s when she hooked up with a 71-year-old Frank Sinatra and had a kid who she then told Woody was HIS kid, while proceeding to LIE about her affair with Sinatra.


Mia Farrow was married to Frank Sinatra from 1966 to 1968 so she was 21 when she married Sinatra and he was 51.
 
2014-02-02 07:01:17 PM  

shortymac: Both Mia and Woody Allen are farking nuts, that doesn't mean Dylan's claims shouldn't be taken any less seriously than anyone else.

Hell Sandusky was able to keep his molestation a secret for decades, despite parental allegations, until a witness came forward.

Considering how horribly people treat victims (see this thread, Steubenville, maryville, New Zealand) it isn't too much of a strech for the cops to decline to prosecute a well-off person.


You're right. You're absolutely right.

However, they were taken seriously over 20 years ago when it allegedly happened.  They were dismissed because the police, counselors, and polygraph could find no truth to them, and because they didn't come until AFTER Woody and Mia had their falling-out, and Woody was not giving up custody or agreeing to pay large sums of money.

He was already investigated for this and found
innocent. Now they seek to name him guilty anyway without any chance for rebuttal or exoneration because it's been so long.
 
2014-02-02 07:02:00 PM  

Komplex: Well other than undermining your claim that the abuse happened before Mia and the public found out about Woody & Soon-Yi.


Back that truck up sparky.  You are either a huge troll or have woefully terrible reading comprehension.  Like two suicide notes stuffed into a glitter bra level of mournfully low levels of intellect.

/Or I worded something poorly.

omeganuepsilon: The allegations came out after, AFTER,  AFTER, the breakup started


Nope, wasn't my wording.
 
2014-02-02 08:32:39 PM  
Dear Prudence/Penthouse forum

I was in the attic one morning playing with my trains, when my world famous father came in...
 
2014-02-02 08:58:53 PM  
ZeroCorpse:  They were dismissed because the police, counselors, and polygraph could find no truth to them, and because they didn't come until AFTER Woody and Mia had their falling-out, and Woody was not giving up custody or agreeing to pay large sums of money.

No, not really.  Not at all.
 
2014-02-02 09:16:18 PM  
Cool child molestation defense, Fark!
 
2014-02-02 09:31:39 PM  
Three things:

1.  Can we stop with the "Rape/Rape" nonsense?  In a discussion involving the specific statutory provision (under California Criminal Laws) involved in the Polanski case, Whoopi noted that Polanski had only plead guilty to one of the SIX crimes for which he was indicted.   One of the original SIX for which he was charged was for the crime of rape, however, that is not the crime to which he had entered his guilty plea.  She was simply trying to clarify the SPECIFIC violation involved (which turned out to be "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor") to which Polanski had agreed to accept as part of his plea bargain.

Guess What?   She was 100% correct, Polanski did not plead guilty to the criminal charge of rape. Whoopi taking the time and making an effort to make certain that the correct legal language was used in an accurate basis, should be something that should be commended, not ridiculed. (and I am no fan of hers.)


2.  Shared a law office with a divorce attorney in the mid 80's when I was just starting out.  I can't tell you the number of cases where he said that a female client was trying to get him to allege "child sexual abuse" as part of their divorce proceedings because they knew it would instantly get the husband on the defensive.   Most of the time the women would admit outright they had no evidence or even a reason to actually believe their husbands were molesting the kids, but they either wanted their pound of flesh (for unrelated reasons) or they thought it would be an easy way to force a settlement in their favor in a big way.

If you think kids at that age can't be convinced (and implanted) with stories that have no truth to the point they completely believe that such things happened themselves, then I suggest you read up on what happened in Kern County, CA around that era and how many completely innocent people ended up in jail due to that very thing.

3.  The fact that the adopted son, who was age 15 when all of this went down, is now on the side of Woody and mentions that "brain washing" was going on, says a lot to me in helping me form my opinion.  I saw way too much of that crap in the early days of my law practice when kids were used by a scorned spouse to make allegations against men on a daily basis.
 
2014-02-02 09:42:19 PM  
Woody Allen casts himself as the old man who has relationships with pretty young starlets.  Every.  Time.  Don't tell me that's not wish fulfillment.
 
2014-02-02 10:28:39 PM  

DrBenway: log_jammin: YoungLochinvar: Saw this on twitter earlier:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-all eg ations-not-so-fast.html

thank you for that.

Seconded. Long, but quite interesting. Funny how much of the content of that is familiar to me just from seeing the pro and con bits in all these recent threads on the subject. The series of points about Soon Yi which he refutes one by one could have all come straight from those threads. As could many of his responses to them.

In any event, I'm glad I stuck it out to its end, as the bit about Mia and her express approval of a clip of herself used in the Golden Globes tribute montage was a hoot, given that she was slamming Allen on Twitter while the tribute was being shown at the awards show. You can't explain that.


i.imgur.com

 
2014-02-02 10:32:53 PM  

Githerax: Woody Allen casts himself as the old man who has relationships with pretty young starlets.  Every.  Time.  Don't tell me that's not wish fulfillment.


Of course it is, but the women in these stories are ALWAYS of age. They're not children. And nobody has ever said Woody didn't go for younger women, but then, so did Frank Sinatra when he went for Mia. So did Andre Previn when he went for Mia. And so did Woody when HE went for Mia.

Woody dated younger women. He never showed any signs of being interested in pre-pubscent children, though. There's a difference between ephebophilia pedophilia, and people who run around screaming "Woody's a pedo!" aren't even paying attention to the evidence before them. Why would he hook up with a 19-year-old Soon-Yi Previn, or an 18-year-old Stacey Nelkin, if he were into kids?
 
2014-02-02 10:49:33 PM  
Correction to my previous posts: Woody and Soon-Yi have been married for 16 years, not 20.
 
2014-02-02 10:51:12 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Githerax: Woody Allen casts himself as the old man who has relationships with pretty young starlets.  Every.  Time.  Don't tell me that's not wish fulfillment.

Of course it is, but the women in these stories are ALWAYS of age. They're not children. And nobody has ever said Woody didn't go for younger women, but then, so did Frank Sinatra when he went for Mia. So did Andre Previn when he went for Mia. And so did Woody when HE went for Mia.

Woody dated younger women. He never showed any signs of being interested in pre-pubscent children, though. There's a difference between ephebophilia pedophilia, and people who run around screaming "Woody's a pedo!" aren't even paying attention to the evidence before them. Why would he hook up with a 19-year-old Soon-Yi Previn, or an 18-year-old Stacey Nelkin, if he were into kids?


Woody was was born in 1935 and she was born in 1945, so while ten years younger, I would hardly call that robbing the cradle.

Previn was born in 29 and Sinatra in 1915.

Woody was the youngest of her beaus. I think she is the one with the problem.
 
2014-02-02 10:55:46 PM  
Second correction: Mia was 21 and Frank Sinatra was 50 when they married. She was in her 40s and Frank was in his 70s when they had an affair behind Woody's back.
 
2014-02-02 11:13:32 PM  
Reposting this link, because it really says it all:   http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-alle g ations-not-so-fast.html


Excerpts:

"First, the Soon-Yi situation:

Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody's daughter.  False.

#2:  Soon-Yi was Woody's step-daughter.  False.

#3:  Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia's adopted daughter.  False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

#4:  Woody and Mia were married.  False.

#5:  Woody and Mia lived together.  False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia's apartment in 12 years.

#6:  Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage.  False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

#7:  Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure.  False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother's boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations.  False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or '72.)

#9:  Soon-Yi was borderline retarded.  Ha! She's smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

#10:  Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride.  Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia's own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody "had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi" so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly "had his eye on her" from the time she was a child.

Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend's 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense. But why not get the facts straight? If the actual facts are so repugnant to you, then why embellish them?"


- - - -

"A brief but chilling synopsis of the accusation is as follows: On August 4, 1992, almost four months after the revelation about Woody and Soon-Yi's relationship understandably ignited a firestorm within the Farrow household, Woody was visiting Frog Hollow, the Farrow country home in Bridgewater, Connecticut, where Mia and several of her kids were staying. During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, "touched her inappropriately." Later in the day, it was alleged that the child was wearing her sundress, but that her underpants were missing. The following day, Mia's daughter allegedly told her mother what had happened, and Mia put the child's recounting of the story on videotape as evidence.

Did this event actually occur? If we're inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in  Vanity Fair. Her brother Ronan believes it happened, so good for him for sticking up for his sister in 140 characters or less. They've both grown up in a household where this scenario has been accepted as indisputable fact, so why shouldn't they believe it?

I know I'm treading a delicate path here, and opening myself up to accusations of "blaming the victim." However, I'm merely floating scenarios to consider, and you can think what you will. But if Mia's account is true, it means that in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior, in a house belonging to his furious ex-girlfriend, and filled with people seething mad at him, Woody, who is a well-known claustrophobic, decided this would be the ideal time and place to take his daughter into an attic and molest her, quickly, before a house full of children and nannies noticed they were both missing."


- - -

"As for the evidentiary videotape of young Dylan's claims, it's been noted that there were several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera "edits" to the young girl's commentary. This raises questions as to what was happening when the tape wasn't running. Was Mia "coaching" her daughter off-camera, as suggested by the investigators? Mia says no-she merely turned the camera on whenever Dylan starting talking about what Daddy did. Maybe we should take Mia at her word on this. Since I wasn't there, I think it's good policy not to presume what took place.

The videotape and the medical exams weren't the only problems Mia faced in bringing abuse charges against her former lover. There were problems with inconsistencies in her daughter's off-camera narrative as well. A New York Times article dated March 26, 1993, quotes from Mia's own testimony, during which she recalled taking the child to a doctor on the same day as the alleged incident. Farrow recalled, "I think (Dylan) said (Allen) touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this," at which point Mia patted her shoulders. Farrow recalls she took Dylan to another doctor, four days later. On the stand, Allen's attorney asked Mia about the second doctor's findings: "There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?" Farrow answered, "Yes."
In the midst of the proceedings, on February 2, 1993, a revealing article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, headlined: "Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges," in which former nanny Monica Thompson (whose salary was paid by Allen, since three of the brood were also his) swore in a deposition to Allen's attorneys that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges, and the pressure led her to resign her position. Thompson had this to say about the videotape: ""I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, 'Dylan, what did daddy do... and what did he do next?' Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue."

Thompson further revealed a conversation she had with Kristie Groteke, another nanny. "She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear."

On April 20, 1993, a sworn statement was entered into evidence by Dr. John M. Leventhal, who headed the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team looking into the abuse charges. An article from the New York Times dated May 4, 1993, includes some interesting excerpts of their findings. As to why the team felt the charges didn't hold water, Leventhal states: "We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination."

Leventhal further swears Dylan's statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. "Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn't been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn't." He also said the child's accounts had "a rehearsed quality." At one point, she told him, "I like to cheat on my stories." The sworn statement further concludes: "Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household... It's quite possible -as a matter of fact, we think it's medically probable-that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother." Leventhal further notes it was "very striking" that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with "one, her father's relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother," who had lost a career in Mr. Allen's films."



Basically... Read the article before you "guilty until proven innocent" guys say anything else that makes you sound stupid.
 
2014-02-02 11:48:01 PM  

Githerax: Woody Allen casts himself as the old man who has relationships with pretty young starlets.  Every.  Time.  Don't tell me that's not wish fulfillment.


Interesting theory.

2014 Magic in the Moonlight (does not appear)
2013 Blue Jasmine (does not appear)
2012 To Rome with Love (married to 57-year-old Judy Davis)
2011 Midnight in Paris (does not appear)
2010 You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (does not appear)
2009 Whatever Works (Larry David is a Woody surrogate, the whole point of the story is that the relationship is wrong)
2008 Vicky Cristina Barcelona (does not appear)
2007 Cassandra's Dream (does not appear)
2006 Scoop (does not romance a younger woman)
2005 Match Point (does not appear)
2004 Melinda and Melinda (does not appear)
2003 Anything Else (does not romance a younger woman)
2002 Hollywood Ending (has/had relationships with younger women, 36, 34, 28 - but the 28-year-old just throws herself at him for career gain)
2001 The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (has a relationship with a younger woman, 38)
2000 Small Time Crooks (married to a 41-year-old Tracy Ullman)
1999 Sweet and Lowdown (interview segments only)
1998 Celebrity (does not appear)
1997 Deconstructing Harry (several current/former romances, the youngest being 34)
1996 Everyone Says I Love You (romances Julia Roberts, 29 - is that young enough to be a "starlet"?)
1995 Mighty Aphrodite (has a relationship with a much younger woman)
1994 Don't Drink the Water (does not romance a younger woman, as near as I can remember)
1994 Bullets Over Broadway (does not appear)
1993 Manhattan Murder Mystery (married to Diane Keaton, 47, does not romance a younger woman, as near as I can remember)
1992 Husbands and Wives (married to Mia Farrow, 46)
1991 Shadows and Fog (married to a 41-year-old, fails to get it on with a hooker, Jodie Foster, 29)
1990 Alice (does not appear)
1989 Crimes and Misdemeanors (has a mistress, Anjelica Huston at 38)
1989 New York Stories (engaged to Mia Farrow, 44)
1988 Another Woman (does not appear)
1987 September (does not appear)
1987 Radio Days (does not appear)
1986 Hannah and Her Sisters (ex-wife and romance, both in their 40s)
1985 The Purple Rose of Cairo (does not appear)
1984 Broadway Danny Rose (semi-romance, Farrow, 39 - Woody's 49 at this point, BTW)
1983 Zelig (Farrow 38, Woody 48)
1982 A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (been a while since I've seen it, but Woody's 47 at this point and the youngest female cast member is 27)
1980 Stardust Memories (several women, the youngest is 34, Woody is 45)
1979 Manhattan (Ohhhh, here's the "Every. Time." you're looking for)
1978 Interiors (does not appear)
1977 Annie Hall (Keaton 31, Woody 42)
1975 Love and Death (Keaton 29, Allen 40)

Not even going to bother with the rest of these as your're clearly, laughably wrong.

1973 Sleeper
1972 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask
1971 Men of Crisis: The Harvey Wallinger Story (TV Short)
1971 Bananas
1969 Take the Money and Run
1966 What's Up, Tiger Lily?
 
2014-02-03 12:11:22 AM  
ZeroCorpse: This one quote, I've said basically the same thing more than once:

Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend's 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense. But why not get the facts straight? If the actual facts are so repugnant to you, then why embellish them?"

...and all it seems to do is trigger outraged responses and "white knight for a pedophile!" outbursts. You might think it would be a pretty straightforward concept, but no. My guess is that most of them are starting themselves off with the embellished versions and don't want to be seen backtracking from their strong stand because they'll seem weak on crime, so facts be damned. Or something. fark all if I know.
 
2014-02-03 09:26:23 AM  
So yeah...a guy who we all know banged and then married (he married her right) one adopted daughter is accused by the other of being raped by him.

You are a moron if you don't think that there is a chance she is telling the truth. He obviously has boundary issues and is likely a pedo.
 
2014-02-03 10:32:08 AM  

nocturnal001: So yeah...a guy who we all know banged and then married (he married her right) one adopted daughter is accused by the other of being raped by him.

You are a moron if you don't think that there is a chance she is telling the truth. He obviously has boundary issues and is likely a pedo.


He didn't marry his adopted daughter. He married the adult adopted daughter of his ex girl friend whom he didn't meet until she was a teenager.
 
2014-02-03 10:56:49 AM  

nocturnal001: So yeah...a guy who we all know banged and then married (he married her right) one adopted daughter is accused by the other of being raped by him.

You are a moron if you don't think that there is a chance she is telling the truth. He obviously has boundary issues and is likely a pedo.


And...and he ain't even old timey!
 
2014-02-03 11:05:06 AM  

Phoenix_M: nocturnal001: So yeah...a guy who we all know banged and then married (he married her right) one adopted daughter is accused by the other of being raped by him.

You are a moron if you don't think that there is a chance she is telling the truth. He obviously has boundary issues and is likely a pedo.

He didn't marry his adopted daughter. He married the adult adopted daughter of his ex girl friend whom he didn't meet until she was a teenager.



It wasn't "his girlfriend" it was a woman whom he had a child with. Close enough to a wife in my book, making the adopted girl his adopted daughter by default. His son considered Soon his sister.  In either case if you knew somebody personally that did that you would think it was creepy. For some reason celebrities get a pass on this kind of stuff. This is not healthy behavior.

Oh yeah, I remember meeting the love of my life. She was 14 and I was 40. I just knew one day that I would bang her.

Definitely a real class act and not a weirdo at all.
 
2014-02-03 12:18:50 PM  

nocturnal001: Phoenix_M: nocturnal001: So yeah...a guy who we all know banged and then married (he married her right) one adopted daughter is accused by the other of being raped by him.

You are a moron if you don't think that there is a chance she is telling the truth. He obviously has boundary issues and is likely a pedo.

He didn't marry his adopted daughter. He married the adult adopted daughter of his ex girl friend whom he didn't meet until she was a teenager.


It wasn't "his girlfriend" it was a woman whom he had a child with. Close enough to a wife in my book, making the adopted girl his adopted daughter by default. His son considered Soon his sister.  In either case if you knew somebody personally that did that you would think it was creepy. For some reason celebrities get a pass on this kind of stuff. This is not healthy behavior.

Oh yeah, I remember meeting the love of my life. She was 14 and I was 40. I just knew one day that I would bang her.

Definitely a real class act and not a weirdo at all.


I think there are very few here who will dispute the "weirdo" angle. And we all know that all weirdos are pedophiles, right? Nice parsing job on the "adopted daughter" riff, too.

If I'm not mistaken, skeezy old guys who dig teenagers and skeezy old guys who dig 7-year-olds don't overlap much. Maybe the Woodman is an exception. Or maybe not. You're lucky, though. Because you know.
 
2014-02-03 01:04:02 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: DrBenway: log_jammin: YoungLochinvar: Saw this on twitter earlier:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-all eg ations-not-so-fast.html

thank you for that.

Seconded. Long, but quite interesting. Funny how much of the content of that is familiar to me just from seeing the pro and con bits in all these recent threads on the subject. The series of points about Soon Yi which he refutes one by one could have all come straight from those threads. As could many of his responses to them.

In any event, I'm glad I stuck it out to its end, as the bit about Mia and her express approval of a clip of herself used in the Golden Globes tribute montage was a hoot, given that she was slamming Allen on Twitter while the tribute was being shown at the awards show. You can't explain that.

[i.imgur.com image 640x640]


I can.
She wanted as much attention on her as possible when her daughter was making the allegations. This meant that if she was in the montage that people would pay more attention to her and what she had to say whilst live tweeting it all with her son and daughter.
Basically if she'd said no to being in the montage she would have looked like a bitter old woman who was ignored and is now angry.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report