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 responds   (nytimes.com) divider line 117
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11180 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 12:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-07 09:55:31 PM  
14 votes:
accuser =/= victim

We have to stop jumping the gun and just saying "Guilty" because someone accused them of certain crimes. Imagine if she was accusing him of armed robbery instead of touching her. He broke into her room at night with a gun, held it to her head, and took all the money in her piggy bank. It would be equally hard to prove, and it's actually probably legal for a parent or guardian to confiscate children's physical possessions, but no one would be rushing to say "Oh yeah, he's guilty."

But you accuse the creepy old Jewish guy with farked up glasses of being a pedophile and it goes immediately from an accusation to the gospel truth. Hell, just looking at him, I believe it. I mean really, he's a farkin' creep in all his movies. It can't all be acting. But that's not how the law works. That's not how morality works. That's not how sustainable societies conduct themselves. There's many good reasons we adopted the burden of proof, trial by jury, and banned vigilante "justice".

There's also dozens of examples each year of stories like this that turn out to be lies perpetrated by the accuser or the media to cause controversy ahead of book deals or during slow news periods. You can't stop that. There will always be gormless parasites willing to engage in yellow journalism. What you can do, however, is not reward their efforts by drinking their Kool Aid down to the last poisonous drop. When you hear an accusation, remember the accuser is the accuser. Nothing more nothing less. Remember it's a legal system, not a justice system. Remember "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't refer to actual innocence or guilt, but is a legal framework to prevent lynchings. And most of all remember Giles Corey and all the young women executed in Salem before you buy into every accusation hook, line, and sinker.
2014-02-07 11:56:34 PM  
11 votes:
I've taken a look at both sides and have reached a conclusion.

Allow me to summarize: man is unfairly accused of horrific act by bitter expartner who has no real evidence. But media celebrates story because it involves a well known actress and genius filmmaker. That's it. Now move on to an actual debate.
2014-02-07 09:03:53 PM  
11 votes:
Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?
2014-02-08 12:18:06 AM  
9 votes:
He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.
2014-02-08 12:06:23 AM  
9 votes:
Don't really know who is telling the truth, but sure am glad my parents weren't either of these farked up people.
2014-02-07 11:54:33 PM  
7 votes:
Well I don't have a dog in this fight but Woody comes off as a lot more credible than Mia Farrow. I don't blame the girl for having a screwed up childhood one way or the other though.
2014-02-08 12:29:15 AM  
6 votes:
Two people saying what did and didn't happen. I don't know what to think. Luckily, there are professionals who looked into the case and said it was his biatch ex coaching the child to say terrible things. So I'll take their word for it because frankly, I've really got no other option.
2014-02-08 02:35:04 AM  
5 votes:
Moses Farrow says Mia abused him (and all the other kids) by hitting them, berating them, locking them in closets, and emotionally abusing them, and people don't seem to care.

Dylan Farrow says Woody stuck his finger in her once, in an attic, on a visitation day in the middle of a custody battle, with nannies and a dozen kids (included Moses) all bearing witness and not seeing anything of the sort, and a whole bunch of people believe her no matter what evidence is presented to disprove her account.

I think her older brother has the right of it: He was old enough to see what Mia was doing, and he was able to figure out that Mia was using her kids as weapons to harm Woody. He also happens to have grown up to become a professional in the field of psychology. That, plus his first-hand account of the day in question, makes it pretty clear that Dylan IS the victim of abuse... And the abuser was Mia Farrow.
2014-02-08 12:31:59 AM  
5 votes:
if she was molested, it could have been mia's brother john, who happens to be in jail for molesting a bunch of children. or roman polanski, who is a dear friend of mia's to this day (though i doubt he's really a pedophile). both woody and mia are farking nutzo, and i really feel for that woman whether she was genuinely molested or just brainwashed into thinking it happened. i like some of woody's films and some of mia's performances (and some of polanski's work too, fwiw), but they both seem to be pretty troubled people at best. still, i find it really hard to believe that a guy in the midst of an acrimonious breakup and a heated custody battle would be unable to resist molesting a child in that setting and under that scrutiny. sad, sad, sad all around
2014-02-08 01:40:57 AM  
4 votes:

log_jammin: #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.


So that's all cool then...he and dated his former girl friend of 10 years adopted daughter..and eventually married the girl friends daughter A girl friend that had sexual relations with and a child with...but said he never stayed the night at her house...Really, you believe that?

Does that make it any better to show the guy has some boundary issues? Farking your former girl friend 'daughter' at any age? Oh yeah...that's pretty normal.

I also find it difficult to accept that Woody and Mia never met at her house in their relationship which produced a biological child and that the other children where just orbiting around for 10 years without any contact with Woody. Does that sound rational to you?

The Dude has boundry issues. That's pretty obvious...the jump is how much those and how deep those issues extend.
2014-02-08 01:39:19 AM  
4 votes:
Classic case of "The accusation is the evidence."

Honestly, I don't know if he did or didn't, and neither did any of you.

And if any of you say he did without a doubt in your mind, then the only truth is you were there with him when he was molesting/raping/whatever, which makes you an accomplice, a victim, or negligent to attempt to stop a crime in progress.

Otherwise, it's another he-said-she-said incident. I wish it wasn't, but thanks to enough people doing these smear jobs against prolific Hollywood types that have no merit, now everyone gets a skeptical look at their accusation. Surprise, people lie to get money/fame/attention and they don't care how they do it.

Being skeptical of this case does not mean you support pedophilia, it makes you reasonable. So there's no need to feel guilty.
2014-02-08 12:23:56 AM  
4 votes:

log_jammin: bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.

yeah no shiat.

people who are falsely accused of child rape shouldn't deny it, cause if they do that means they are guilty.


Many times, in just the first two paragraphs, he insults the intelligence of anyone who would even entertain the possibility that he may be guilty. Of course I don't know that he's guilty, but his own rhetoric does him no favors.
2014-02-08 12:10:25 AM  
4 votes:
The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.
2014-02-08 10:24:51 AM  
3 votes:
If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.
2014-02-08 03:43:20 AM  
3 votes:

Jim_Callahan: I dunno.  Initially, I'm kind of inclined with the logic of "why would you believe the allegations of an ex during a breakup..."


But pretty much anyone that spends so much time insisting that a lie-detector test proves them right and their accusers wrong is definitively lying their ass off about something, since that shiat is the wooiest of pseudoscientific woo and pretty much everyone knows it.  So he's trying to cover for  something, though it may not be the abuse accusation.  Probably the underaged girlfriend thing.


Especially when he states that he "took a lie detector test", but conveniently omits that he refused testing by the State Police, and had the test run by his own hired people. That sort of "true lie", smacks to me of calculation - and casts doubt on everything he says. I don't know what he's lying about - but i know he intends to deceive - about something.
2014-02-08 03:04:42 AM  
3 votes:
Weird letter. The issue of Woody Allen being a pedophile or not is probably not going to be settled until after he's dead and his new kids are old enough to sell tell-all books. What I took away from his response is how much hate he has for Mia & Co.

Casting aspersions on Ronan's parentage, attacking Mia instead of defending himself, being pissy about the multiple allegations in Vanity Fair, whining about the public giving him shiat for Soon-Yi, dragging another family member (Moses) onto his side, carrying a grudge for a judge 20 years ago and claiming he never really was close with the kids to begin with. It's somehow a disproportionate response to even being unjustifiably labeled a child molester. Woody might not be a pedophile but we've got concrete proof that he's an asshole.

I'm content to let this story die and give him the Michael Jackson treatment. This is my stop.
2014-02-08 01:51:20 AM  
3 votes:

TV's Vinnie: So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


I believed the victims in the Sandusky situation because there was a ton of evidence.

I do not believe the victim in this case because there is none, and it's a stretch of logic to have the story make sense.

This is called using your mind.
2014-02-08 12:40:36 AM  
3 votes:
oh great, another terrible meowsaysthedog gimmick account

you're so clever
2014-02-08 12:39:18 AM  
3 votes:
He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.
2014-02-08 12:37:52 AM  
3 votes:
While I want to hope he didn't, it's widely accepted by investigators that coaching a child to make a realistic acccusation is almost impossible to be done without it coming out in interviews
2014-02-08 12:36:52 AM  
3 votes:

NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?


There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.
2014-02-08 12:24:06 AM  
3 votes:
Referenced in the article.

Dory Previn - Beware Of Young Girls(about Mia)

Dory Previn - With My Daddy In The Attic

Good songs, both from the same album.

Can we skip the pics of the wrong girl and the erroneous idea that he raised his wife and just skip to "Well, he's creepy anyway" and the Polanski rage?
2014-02-08 12:21:15 AM  
3 votes:
Meh, I doubted it was true anyway, but the Soon-Yi stuff makes it believable to a lot of people. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter is a little weird. Sure, she was (as far as is known) of age when the relationship began, but the age gap combined with the fact that he knew her when she was 8 is a bit odd.
2014-02-08 12:14:37 AM  
3 votes:

bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.


yeah no shiat.

people who are falsely accused of child rape shouldn't deny it, cause if they do that means they are guilty.
2014-02-08 12:11:34 AM  
3 votes:
TL;DR

He's guilty. He's a perv.
2014-02-08 10:37:27 AM  
2 votes:

TwistedFark: adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.

I haven't seen a single person in here blame Dylan, if anything people who don't want to believe the charges due to the evidence in the case feel that she was unjustly used by her mother as part of a divorce hearing. That certainly makes her a victim in this entire mess.


Someone called her a "coont" on the first page and then there are several accusations of doing all this for the money. I'd say that's "blaming Dylan".
2014-02-08 07:20:31 AM  
2 votes:
The PR team that wrote this farked up. Right after quoting the magical report, they failed to resume first person vioce:

"Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow."

That typo cost them all credibility. If Woody Allen personally wrote this, I'll eat my hat.

This is nothing less than a powerful, evil old man using thugs to caricature his victims as hysterical, unreliable, irrational females out to get him. Despicable.
2014-02-08 03:39:30 AM  
2 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Revmachine21: Admittedly

Anything you divine from that second pic is in your head.


log_jammin: Revmachine21: And again, in the boyfriend role with the larger family on what appears to be a fun family holiday:

what point do you think you're making?



I'm making the point that he skeeves me out because he started up with a girlfriend/ex-girlfriend's adopted kid after having been invited into the family unit in the role of "mom's boyfriend". There are a ton of photos of him holding her kids, in posed and unposed settings (I've found enough already, you can check Google images on your own without my help), in NYC and overseas. I don't care that he wasn't married to Mia. I don't care that he hadn't adopted Soon Yi. Even after excluding all the rumors, it's skeevey. Slimy. Gross.

Yes, it's in my head. And in a lot of other peoples' too and it colors his art and will cloud his legacy.


He clearly shiat the nest when he decided to bang Soon Yi. Don't want a messy life? Don't do messy things... simple.
2014-02-08 03:21:26 AM  
2 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Revmachine21: he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing

Appears? Where?


And again, in the boyfriend role with the larger family on what appears to be a fun family holiday:

img.spokeo.com
2014-02-08 03:18:19 AM  
2 votes:

Revmachine21: I count the following pic as having a hand in rearing.


apparently you don't have kids, but I'll let you in on a secret... posing for a picture is not the same as raising a child.
2014-02-08 03:14:40 AM  
2 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Revmachine21: he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing

Appears? Where?


I count the following pic as having a hand in rearing. Maybe a light, sometimes-hand in the rearing, but rearing none-the-less. Admittedly this pic is not of his current wife, rather Dylan, however I think that he's doing something like this with any of the kids in that family shows that he was taking on an adult paternalistic role within Mia's family. And that should extend to any child in the family unit, not just the one in his lap.

resources1.news.com.au

And here him at least being around Soon Yi when she was youngish and in clearly a family oriented setting. And clearly with the mom in a boyfriend role.

i2.cdn.turner.com
2014-02-08 01:54:57 AM  
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: log_jammin: TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.

that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.

so could someone who is telling the truth.

So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


That's not how crime works. It's not based on what a person could do or could have done, it's based on what they actually do. If, for whatever reason, more victims come forward, especially more recent victims, then they will have their stories investigated and have dates/times compared to what Woody Allen was doing during those dates and times.

If they match up or seem at least somewhat feasible, then maybe there will be a point and some actual teeth to the rumor he's a pedo. But until that happens? It's just a rumor based on a court of opinion.
2014-02-08 01:54:00 AM  
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?


well since it was investigated, and no charges were ever brought, and he's been allowed to adopt other children in the 20 years since the alligation was first made...wellI'd say the burden of proof is on the supposed victim.

TV's Vinnie: I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


It's almost like there was letters, voice messages, and eye witnesses in his case, and none of that exists here.
2014-02-08 01:09:23 AM  
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.

Yep.


Soon-Yi Previn, who he is married to to this day, was Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter.  Not Allen's.
2014-02-08 01:03:36 AM  
2 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.


I read the link. it's just a hit piece.

I'll give you one example.

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

you know what that should say instead?

3. Allen passed a polygraph test. Mia never took one.

That is a "fact". what the writer wrote was innuendo.
2014-02-08 01:01:41 AM  
2 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?

They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.

Vague?

"Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan. "

According to the judge's decision, Farrow told Allen, "You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan's lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch "staring vacantly in the direction of a television set." A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress.

All that, on top of, Dylan's explicit recounting in NYT is far beyond "vague".


Except those same babysitters have come out and denied that while saying he loved that child as a father, the judge was being pressured by the DA and the story of the dress is moronic since that is extremely vague and not in any police report and has zero chance to be proven.

I find it amazing anyone can conclude he did it on the basis of evidence out there, the least of which the very doctor she took her to said she hadn't been molested.

Done with this, some people are just determined to punish him for shiat he didn't do just because he looks odd.
2014-02-08 12:55:18 AM  
2 votes:

steamingpile: Writerly Redoubt: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

Not when truth hurts, and whom are you defending sans presence?

Evidence stands.

Yes and there is no evidence showing he did it, her accusing someone even examining doctors said no molestation happened won't back up her claims. Seems pretty much like Mia is throwing further doubt on cases involving children so she can fark off.


What evidence do you want? A DNA sample? What if he just groped her and jizzed in his pants? I just find it hard to believe that this woman would continue to falsely make accusations years later. He's a creep.
2014-02-08 12:55:17 AM  
2 votes:

DrBenway: For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?


I think it's Mr. I'm Not Replying To Him And I Don't Know Why Anyone Else Would Either.
2014-02-08 12:51:12 AM  
2 votes:

DamnYankees: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?

They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.


Vague?

"Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan. "

According to the judge's decision, Farrow told Allen, "You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan's lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch "staring vacantly in the direction of a television set." A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress.

All that, on top of, Dylan's explicit recounting in NYT is far beyond "vague".
2014-02-08 12:50:33 AM  
2 votes:

Writerly Redoubt: ctrlshiftspace: Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?

Nope.

I am


Dude, learn to troll before you troll. You're embarrassing yourself.
2014-02-08 12:48:41 AM  
2 votes:

gund: AutumnWind: He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.

Just because I want to have sex with a 19 year old doesn't mean I want to have sex with a 7 year old. Just FYI.

You like to have sex with people? That means you like to rape them too. What? You don't like my leap of conclusion? Then try and look at your own. He may be a child molester, but having a relationship with a 19 year old doesn't make one more or less likely to to molest a 7 year old. Just saying.


I don't care if his wife was 45 when they got together. She was Mia's daughter and his son's sister. There is an obvious weird spot in his mind when it comes to who he should be going after.
2014-02-08 12:44:37 AM  
2 votes:
Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.
2014-02-08 12:42:58 AM  
2 votes:

AutumnWind: He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.


Just because I want to have sex with a 19 year old doesn't mean I want to have sex with a 7 year old. Just FYI.

You like to have sex with people? That means you like to rape them too. What? You don't like my leap of conclusion? Then try and look at your own. He may be a child molester, but having a relationship with a 19 year old doesn't make one more or less likely to to molest a 7 year old. Just saying.
2014-02-08 12:41:41 AM  
2 votes:

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


Reading every piece of evidence makes it pretty clear he didn't do shiat to her and that Mia is farking nuts.

Woody is kooky and a little strange but he's not a child molester.
2014-02-08 12:41:29 AM  
2 votes:

Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?


I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.
2014-02-08 12:37:52 AM  
2 votes:

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.
2014-02-08 12:16:15 AM  
2 votes:
I'm amused Woody brought up that his son looks a lot like Frank Sinatra.

And I'm amused he brought up that song.
2014-02-08 12:12:21 AM  
2 votes:

DamnYankees: But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.


that's convincing to you?

that's nothing but a hit piece of half truths.
2014-02-08 12:11:34 AM  
2 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-08 12:00:57 AM  
2 votes:

nickdaisy: But media celebrates story because it involves a well known actress and genius filmmaker. That's it. Now move on to an actual debate.


This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.
2014-02-09 12:56:34 AM  
1 votes:

Joe Peanut: lawboy87: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg

Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".


you get proven completely wrong and end up looking like a fool, and your only response is "u mad".

amazing
2014-02-08 01:38:12 PM  
1 votes:

jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?


Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?
2014-02-08 01:28:29 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?


Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?
2014-02-08 12:01:17 PM  
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: abfab: Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

What even your source states is that the girl's testimony was his only piece of evidence.

Excerpt from your link:

Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.

None.  Zero other evidence which any other expert could testify about with any confidence.  Not even a psychologist that believed the girl's story was true.

When the accuser is the only thing you can put on the stand, you do not have a case, period.  No matter how much you believe her, or how much she believes herself, it's still a he/she said with zero tangible evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty after all, not innocent until accused, then get out the torches and pitchforks and learn how to tie a noose.

/managed the whole thread up to this bullshiat
//that kind of misinformation doesn't convince anyone, it just cries out to be shut down


What evidence do you expect from digital penetration? I'm afraid you're the one propagating misinformation here. This ain't CSI. "Child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. (emphasis mine) The first indicators of sexual abuse may not be physical, but rather behavioral changes or abnormalities." http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html

Maco never said Dylan was the only evidence he would bring. But as the accuser, she would have been the crucial piece.

/Ask a cop how much 'evidence' molestation/fondling leaves. GTFO
2014-02-08 11:42:05 AM  
1 votes:

Darth Macho: You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery.....


I guess you didn't notice that it was MIA who first did that, some 3-4 months back.

Allen's point is that if what Mia was strongly hinting at is true (that Ronan is in Fact Sinatra's physical offspring and not Allen) then Mia lied to the court, in asking for child support for a child which was not Allens; that Mia has been lying to the public about her son's paternity; that Mia has been lying to her own children (all 14 of them) about the parentage of their "brother";  and that Mia has been lying directly to Allen's face as well.

I understand Mia being upset about Allen leaving her for Soon Yi, I get it, it's pretty creepy. But it's also damned creepy thing to do to a guy to lie about the fact that he is your baby's father, hook him for all the cost of raising that kid (let's not forget, Mia took him to court to force Allen to pay child support in an amount well above what was offered) and then some 20 yrs later give out an interview where you kind of point and laugh at him suggesting he's not even the kid's "real" dad.

If Mia Farrow has zero qualms about lying of something of such significance to a court, to her family and to the public, why can't we use that fact in helping us form some sort of opinion about her credibility?

If you look at Ronan and think it's more likely that Woody produced a child that looks like that, rather than Frank produced a child who looks like that, you had better go see you optometrist pronto.

A few questions, I've been thinking about for a time now and they all relate to the very suspicious and odd timing of Mia, Ronan and Dylan dragging all of this out in the public eye some 20 yrs after the fact.

1.  Four months or so ago, Mia Farrow (who hasn't been in a movie in years and whose fame had lapsed significantly) all of a sudden gets a lot of press by invoking Sinatra's name in a "sex scandal" by claiming she had continued boinking the old boy until his death. (Even though Sinatra had remarried)  To take it a step further, she all but confirms that her son Ronan, who she had been telling the world for years was Allen's was in fact Sinatra's and she had known about it for quite some time.

2.  Mia finds out that Allen is going to be honored by the Golden Globes.  While simultaneously believing (or at least publicly claiming such) she says she's so upset with the Golden Globes for honoring a child molester in Allen that she will not participate and refuses to sign the consent agreements allowing for work to be used as the video montage that is at the centerpiece of the ceremony.  Sorry, check that, she grants them all rights to do and signs off on the consent agreements.

So she's a willing participant to said event, but gets Ronan to work as a proxy and then follows up the next day raising a stink about the Golden Globes.  I guess she's too egotistical to bypass something where her performances and work would be highlighted and get some pub, but which she could also take as an opportunity to bash her ex once again.

3.  On the heels of 1 & 2 above, then Dylan (and Mia) reach out to Mia's friend N Kristoff and get him to use the bully pulpit of his column in the NY Times for Dylan to write a scathing letter attacking Allen and once again bring up allegations of things which were dismissed as being untrue by law enforcement some 20 years earlier.

This whole thing reads to me like a very well crafted PR campaign, in that you use a very well known and beloved super-star celebrity in Sinatra to get your name and story in the media.  (A media that has pretty much stopped acknowledging your celebrity long ago, because you haven't done any work as an actress in years and years.)   You tease out that story in drips and drabs over the course of a few months, keeping the subject and your name in the public spotlight and then when you've got enough attention on you, you drop the bomb.  (The bomb that everyone thought had been defused some 20 yrs earlier.)

Is this all the product of Mia realizing that her career will never be resurrected, that Allen has been able to continue his unabated and is being honored for his career (an honor for which she will never likely receive) and it's actually a huge case of "jealousy" on Mia's part which drove her to start up the new war chant against Allen?
2014-02-08 11:15:29 AM  
1 votes:

jonnya: adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.

Well if the man was investigated and not charged, passed a lie sector test, showed no sign of such indecency before or after, and his ex-GF/accuser were bat shiat dodgy at best, and had his career tarnished for 20+ years because of it, sure I'd defend him. Wouldn't you?

Next....


And why dont we hear about that same process with any of the other stories of child abuse? Hell, there have been a few threads in the last two days on the subject and not one of those men got lie detector tests, had the burden of proof depend on whether the parents of the victims were "sketchy," or had thier career used as a means of pity and justification. So yeah, you folk are only interested in pulling out pitchforks when it isnt a famous person being accused.
2014-02-08 11:02:34 AM  
1 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.


I have no personal investment in his guilt or evidence but the article is full of hearsay and people agree with my position so therefore I'm right logic.

Parents in divorces have been known to groom witnesses. Farrow cautioning maids to never leave Allan alone with the kids could be interpreted as such. Secondly, there's a benevolent sexism in divorce courts that may be summed up as "moms are better parents because they're nurturing caring people who would never, ever do anything bad."

Why is it that the judge's statements against Allan count against him but that the police's statements that the child seems to have been coached by the mother to claim abuse don't count.

Polygraphs are nonsense and anyone who claims that one way or another they prove anything is an imbecile. Moreover, if what's good for the gander is good for the goose, both parents refused refused to take police administered polygraphs. However, only Allan's refusal seems to count against him. Sorry, that's just not fair.

It may sound like I'm coming down in favour of Allan, I'm not because frankly I don't care but saying he's guilty merely because someone who hated him accused him is not an evidence-based decision, and we need to go by evidence as much as possible.
2014-02-08 10:55:39 AM  
1 votes:

willfullyobscure: The PR team that wrote this farked up. Right after quoting the magical report, they failed to resume first person vioce:

"Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow."

That typo cost them all credibility. If Woody Allen personally wrote this, I'll eat my hat.

This is nothing less than a powerful, evil old man using thugs to caricature his victims as hysterical, unreliable, irrational females out to get him. Despicable.


Woody Allen has 72 writing credits on IMDB, about 3 dozen movies and more than 10 awards for best writing. I don't think he needs to farm out a 500 word op-ed to his PR team.
2014-02-08 10:31:38 AM  
1 votes:

adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.


It's Men's Rights Activists celebrating the Rape Culture of the White Patriarchal Society!

/ © Reddit Feminists
2014-02-08 09:42:35 AM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 599x179]


Now do OJ
2014-02-08 08:50:15 AM  
1 votes:

ChrisDe: Dylan's the big loser in this. If it happened or not, her parents are still Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.


The sad part is, the one person I think is being most honest is Dylan. Now, I don't know what actually happened, but I believe that she truly remembers being molested. Whether that memory has been 'implanted' by Mia or not, I don't know. But I do believe Dylan believes, and has had to carry that burden through her life.
2014-02-08 08:39:16 AM  
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: abfab: Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

What even your source states is that the girl's testimony was his only piece of evidence.

Excerpt from your link:

Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.

None.  Zero other evidence which any other expert could testify about with any confidence.  Not even a psychologist that believed the girl's story was true.

When the accuser is the only thing you can put on the stand, you do not have a case, period.  No matter how much you believe her, or how much she believes herself, it's still a he/she said with zero tangible evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty after all, not innocent until accused, then get out the torches and pitchforks and learn how to tie a noose.

/managed the whole thread up to this bullshiat
//that kind of misinformation doesn't convince anyone, it just cries out to be shut down


I think dylan was probably molested by Mia's brother. It is pretty clear from the evidence that Woody didn't do anything in the time frame given; however, Mia's brother was a kiddie diddler and Dylan is pretty screwed up. Maybe Mia cooked the whole thing up to explain the damage to Dylan after Dylan's uncle abused her.
2014-02-08 08:10:36 AM  
1 votes:
Dylan's the big loser in this. If it happened or not, her parents are still Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.
2014-02-08 08:08:19 AM  
1 votes:

Fallout Boy: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.


There's actually plenty of evidence that the accusations are false:

1) No medical proof of any molestation.
2) Independent finding by expert psychologists employed by the court that the story Dylan told was false/coached.
3) Testimony by Mia's nanny's that Woody was never alone with Dylan, or out of their sight long enough to do anything to her.

Look, I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say they have been sexually assaulted. The court certainly did. They did everything in their power to verify the claims and gather evidence for the prosecution. At the end of the day however, there was nothing to collaborate Dylan's story. The only logical conclusion is that no molestation actually occurred.

Occam's Razor people.
2014-02-08 06:10:06 AM  
1 votes:

Atypical Person Reading Fark: I've never thought that any of Mia's kids look particularly happy.  I understand she thought she was doing something nice by adopting so many kids, but 13 kids is a lot for a mostly single mom (with perplexingly broken relationships with all the men in her life).  She could have helped other people with less money, who don't have kids but want to adopt, to adopt a couple of kids each.

It's hard to be adopted and not from the same ethnic background as your mom and dad (at least it was for me, though I've gotten over it and love them to pieces, there are parts of it that are strange).  I can't imagine feeling secure in that motley crue Mia created (read any biography of her for more details).

Woody has always been a neurotic mess and was clearly blindsided by these accusations.  I always thought he looked uncomfortable around the kids in the manner of a man who didn't really like kids.  That's not to say he couldn't sexualize a child, but the kinds of patterns usually seen in men who do that kind of thing...well, Woody likes 17 year old girls, surely, but....7  year olds?  And the fact that Mia's brother is a convicted child molester is peculiar.   Wouldn't be the first time a sexualized child implicated an innocent person in an accusation based on vague memories.  Terribly sad for Dylan, and this whole new "I had sex with Frank Sinatra and passed the kid off as Woody's" is just another of Mia's revenge moves.  She cannot let it go.

Mia needs to stop stirring the pot.


I don't think any of the kids really look abnormally unhappy except for Dylan. Most kids are semi-freaked out by little known relatives snapping shots of them, so I imagine paparazzi are going to make them uncomfortable too unless they see them all the time like the Goslin kids. But, while I have no idea if he molested her or not, in private family non-paparazzi pictures you can see that Dylan is very unhappy whenever Woody is holding her. If he didn't molest her, I think he still must have made her uncomfortable.
2014-02-08 05:14:47 AM  
1 votes:
I've never thought that any of Mia's kids look particularly happy.  I understand she thought she was doing something nice by adopting so many kids, but 13 kids is a lot for a mostly single mom (with perplexingly broken relationships with all the men in her life).  She could have helped other people with less money, who don't have kids but want to adopt, to adopt a couple of kids each.

It's hard to be adopted and not from the same ethnic background as your mom and dad (at least it was for me, though I've gotten over it and love them to pieces, there are parts of it that are strange).  I can't imagine feeling secure in that motley crue Mia created (read any biography of her for more details).

Woody has always been a neurotic mess and was clearly blindsided by these accusations.  I always thought he looked uncomfortable around the kids in the manner of a man who didn't really like kids.  That's not to say he couldn't sexualize a child, but the kinds of patterns usually seen in men who do that kind of thing...well, Woody likes 17 year old girls, surely, but....7  year olds?  And the fact that Mia's brother is a convicted child molester is peculiar.   Wouldn't be the first time a sexualized child implicated an innocent person in an accusation based on vague memories.  Terribly sad for Dylan, and this whole new "I had sex with Frank Sinatra and passed the kid off as Woody's" is just another of Mia's revenge moves.  She cannot let it go.

Mia needs to stop stirring the pot.
2014-02-08 05:01:59 AM  
1 votes:

Gobobo: He's innocent! That's not my opinion but the opinion of the fine, upstanding fellows Polanski, Townsend, Glitter, Garrido and Fritzl.


Fun fact: Mia thinks Polanski is innocent and has testified in his defense.
2014-02-08 04:46:18 AM  
1 votes:
He's innocent! That's not my opinion but the opinion of the fine, upstanding fellows Polanski, Townsend, Glitter, Garrido and Fritzl.
2014-02-08 04:34:05 AM  
1 votes:
THIS is why you don't stick your dick in crazy. Not even once.
2014-02-08 04:08:34 AM  
1 votes:

Revmachine21: Even if "everybody already knows he's married to his ex-girlfriend's adopted kid" that doesn't mean that everybody agrees it was acceptable behavior or that it should be emulated by others.


who said it was acceptable behavior or that it should be emulated by others.

Revmachine21: Those pictures prove that he was personally involved in Mia's family.


no one said he was never involved with mia's family.

what was said was....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"

Know who said that? Mia.
2014-02-08 04:01:24 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Revmachine21: I'm making the point that he skeeves me out because he started up with a girlfriend/ex-girlfriend's adopted kid after having been invited into the family unit in the role of "mom's boyfriend".

no one cares if it "skeeves you out", and everyone already knows he's married to his ex girlfriend's adopted kid.

so again...what do you think those pictures prove?



I do not require anybody's validation of my assessment on Woody Allen's character. If nobody cares that Woody Allen skeeves me out, I am totally fine with that. Even if "everybody already knows he's married to his ex-girlfriend's adopted kid" that doesn't mean that everybody agrees it was acceptable behavior or that it should be emulated by others. By my measurement, he is deficient in character.

Those pictures prove that he was personally involved in Mia's family. He held her kids' hands, carried them around town, and he visited places with them. I don't just think this; he was there and the pictures show it.


Those poor siblings... first he banged their mom; then he banged their sister. What a mess.
2014-02-08 03:39:19 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: Darth Macho: Confabulat: If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat.

You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery and used his moment to leap into the mud pit and slur the opposition like his frankly irrationally angry contingent of online defenders? If anything, I'm disappointed he's shown such a venal and self-serving character.

Well Mia called him that, Woody was responding to it.


Yeah but he didn't have to repeat it. Jumping into the mud pit after your opponent isn't a mark of good character.
2014-02-08 03:37:39 AM  
1 votes:

cretinbob: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Except one side stood the rigors of a police investigation, a polygraph exam, annd the other side is Mia Farrow.


No. Why do people keep repeating this lie? The prosecutor Frank Maco maintains, (as a result of the police investigation you're referring to) to this day, he thought he had enough evidence to go to trial. He believed her, still does. He also still maintains that Dylan was too "fragile" (his words) to be put through anymore exams, probing questions, and psychological agony. You know, the kind of thing that happens when a child is not only abused, but disbelieved as well.

Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20782501,00.html

Oh, and Woody Allen did his best to destroy the guy professionally, and failed to show (and upheld despite two appeals by Allene) that there had been any prosecutorial misconduct. Look it up.
2014-02-08 03:33:23 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat.


You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery and used his moment to leap into the mud pit and slur the opposition like his frankly irrationally angry contingent of online defenders? If anything, I'm disappointed he's shown such a venal and self-serving character.
2014-02-08 03:29:11 AM  
1 votes:
Mia Farrow believers are one step lower than 9/11 Truthers
2014-02-08 03:22:53 AM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


Except one side stood the rigors of a police investigation, a polygraph exam, annd the other side is Mia Farrow.
2014-02-08 03:21:56 AM  
1 votes:

Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.


Underlyingly this.  No matter what happens, what comes out and how....it's still this weasel justifying his actions with "the heart wants what it wants."

Molester?  Maybe, maybe not.

Creepy?  Hells yes.

So, go make movies to serve as a counter-point to what is justification of perhaps one of the creepiest things he could have done.  Keep making them and maybe everyone will forget.

Or maybe admit you were just being creepy, and probably still are.
2014-02-08 03:20:47 AM  
1 votes:
I dunno.  Initially, I'm kind of inclined with the logic of "why would you believe the allegations of an ex during a breakup..."


But pretty much anyone that spends so much time insisting that a lie-detector test proves them right and their accusers wrong is definitively lying their ass off about something, since that shiat is the wooiest of pseudoscientific woo and pretty much everyone knows it.  So he's trying to cover for  something, though it may not be the abuse accusation.  Probably the underaged girlfriend thing.
2014-02-08 03:16:11 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: And in general (not just this list),  I call bullshiat on the suggestion that a family with complicated relationships or unorthodox living arrangements somehow isn't a "real" family, or that long-term partners who haven't legally wed must somehow be less of a couple. Woody wasn't some "boyfriend" these kids' mom brought home a couple of times; their lives were heavily intertwined for years.

no one said they weren't a "real" family, or they were less of a couple. and yes, he was some "boyfriend". lives were heavily intertwined or not. it's just what he was.



"Boyfriend" covers a lot of territory, and that ambiguity and the fact that Woody and Mia weren't legally married is being used to obscure the situation that, in the words of the 1991 NYT article, "Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does. He is there before they wake up in the morning, he sees them during the day and he helps put them to bed at night." (This is presumably talking about the younger kids, not Soon-Yi, of course.)

It is a meaningless pedantic quibble to point out that he and Mia were not married de jure, when the question of creepiness hangs on their de facto relationship.
2014-02-08 03:01:35 AM  
1 votes:
This is all going to make for a great Broadway musical.
2014-02-08 02:42:09 AM  
1 votes:
If I only look at Woody Allen without considering what might or might not have happened with Dylan, he skeeves me out. He initiated a relationship with the daughter of an ex-girlfriend, having seen the young girl grow up from a relatively young age. It's just damn weird that he had no feelings of a paternal nature that would preclude a sexual relationship. My way of thinking, having caring responsible adult feelings towards a child should make /HIM/ feel skeeved out if he's getting a boner around that kid when she's older, especially when he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing. He appears to be lacking something in his emotional development that I would want any boyfriend of mine to have before interacting with my hypothetical girl child.

Add in persistant allegations from Dylan, the alleged victim, and it's NOPE NOPE NOPE from me.

Makes me feel glad I saw the Sleeper before I heard all this crap about him, I could just watch and enjoy it. Now, I see his work, and his weird pervy behavior colors the films and sort of makes me feel gross watching.
2014-02-08 02:36:55 AM  
1 votes:

Writerly Redoubt: I write well


No seriously, you sound like Jared Loughner.
2014-02-08 02:30:23 AM  
1 votes:

Writerly Redoubt: I write well


I'll never know if Woody is guilty or not, but I'll always know this statement is patently false.
2014-02-08 02:27:35 AM  
1 votes:

Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that?

Internet Tough Guy detected.


More like Internet Surrealist Guy. The squeep is strong in this one.
Trombone.
2014-02-08 02:26:07 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.

Yep.

Soon-Yi Previn, who he is married to to this day, was Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter.  Not Allen's.

yep.


#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.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen- ...


Couple of thoughts about that list...

#2  It is technically inaccurate (the worst kind of inaccurate) to call a man's long-term partner's daughter who is also his son's half-sister his "stepdaughter." It is also, IMO, a far simpler way of conveying the gist of the relationship when discussing it so you don't have to keep spelling all that out.

#7  is plausible, but still just an assertion of someone else's long-past state of mind (also, a person can have more than one father or authority figure in her life).

#8  I don't see how her age "when she and Woody started having relations" can be determined, given that the sexual relationship began in secret.

#10 I sympathise with the argument from incredulity, but having his eye on her in that sense is virtually independent of appearing to have much to do with her.

And in general (not just this list),  I call bullshiat on the suggestion that a family with complicated relationships or unorthodox living arrangements somehow isn't a "real" family, or that long-term partners who haven't legally wed must somehow be less of a couple. Woody wasn't some "boyfriend" these kids' mom brought home a couple of times; their lives were heavily intertwined for years. This is true LEAST of Soon-Yi, and it's fair to point that out, but factlets like "Woody never once stayed over night at Mia's apartment in 12 years"seem designed to give a misleading impression of the relationship (which saw Mia and kids staying overnight at Woody's place, Woody staying at Mia's country house, travelling together, etc). Again, the term "married" is technically inaccurate but arguably conveys the gist of the relationship beneath all their quirky neurotic eccentric bullshiat.

Personally, I don't think any of the quibbles matter much. The guy crossed the icky-and-creepy line way back in the undisputed facts (and even if there were anything beyond icky, it would be impossible to prove).  If you're answering a charge that amounts to Creepy with Aggravated Ickiness and you start in with something to the effect of "well, technically..." then you've probably already lost.

As  Lilo & Stitch put it: "Ohana means family. Family means no one gets left behind - or farked."
2014-02-08 02:21:25 AM  
1 votes:

schubie: Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".


good post Mia.
2014-02-08 02:20:05 AM  
1 votes:

schubie: Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".


Ha and you can't find one of those photos online. Well your story sounds realistic.
2014-02-08 02:16:00 AM  
1 votes:
Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".
2014-02-08 02:05:23 AM  
1 votes:

doglover: We all want to believe Woody Allen is a sex criminal because he's simultaneous way creepier and wildly more successful than anyone here. Two strikes. But there's really not enough proof to condemn him of anything but being creepy. Everything else is hearsay, and in the age of yellow journalism we live in, that's equivalent to nothing.


That's a good point. I really doubt there's a ton of hardcore Woody Allen fans on Fark. I haven't seen one of his movies since probably like 1995 or something and I probably hated it. I know he's a talented filmmaker and I love his early work but I'd hardly describe myself as a Woody Allen fan. And he is creepy and weird and Mia Farrow has every damn right to be pissed right the hell off when he dumped her for her daughter, that's brutal.

But I think not a lot of us here have any emotional investment either way. I don't. But you know how like we all figured OJ was guilty? We'd do the same here if there was a lick of evidence to condemn the guy for being a pedophile. That's a pretty terrible charge to levy at a guy. His story makes more sense than hers does. And her own brother says Mia was a brainwashing mind-controlling psycho, and he's a therapist.

I gotta go with Woody on this one. Still not going to watch Blue Jasmine even though they say it's sooo good.
2014-02-08 01:59:39 AM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.


Because when you have suffered abuse, the ghosts of the trauma never leave you?
2014-02-08 01:55:08 AM  
1 votes:

Evi1Bo1weevi1: Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.

Well, apparently she was boinking Frank Sinatra the whole time, so can we agree that they are all just horrible people?


This so much all over.

Here's a sad fact about your idols: many of them are terrible assholes. I lobe jazz, but I doubt I would have liked to work with Mingus or Benny Goodman. I have a very beautiful piano album by Al Haig, who definitely beat his wives and very likely murdered one of them.

I feel sorry for Dylan, for growing up around these people that are such successes as artists but failures as decent human beings.

Really, people can be such shiat.
2014-02-08 01:49:34 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.

that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.

so could someone who is telling the truth.


So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!
2014-02-08 01:48:18 AM  
1 votes:

NobleHam: Meh, I doubted it was true anyway, but the Soon-Yi stuff makes it believable to a lot of people. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter is a little weird. Sure, she was (as far as is known) of age when the relationship began, but the age gap combined with the fact that he knew her when she was 8 is a bit odd.


Specifically, it establishes a precedent of him violating the stepparent/stepchild relationship.
2014-02-08 01:47:27 AM  
1 votes:
You know, his 70s movies were frickin' hysterical. Once he got serious all the fun went out of his flicks.

I never get tired of Gene Wilder and his sheep wife.
2014-02-08 01:31:07 AM  
1 votes:

chiett: The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter and he expects people to believe he didn't make a run on the other child available to him...................Please.

And Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile either.

Yeah ... Sure.


At what point in the last 50 years has marrying a 10-year-old been legal?  Please, tell me what state would allow that.
2014-02-08 01:26:32 AM  
1 votes:
The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter and he expects people to believe he didn't make a run on the other child available to him...................Please.

And Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile either.

Yeah ... Sure.
2014-02-08 01:16:39 AM  
1 votes:

Let's not bring up rapes from the early 90s!


www.allaccess.com

2014-02-08 01:08:41 AM  
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.


that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.


so could someone who is telling the truth.
2014-02-08 01:07:54 AM  
1 votes:
I've thought about it and this comes to mind:

If I hadn't met some seriously vindictive women in my time (luckily not mad at me) I could get behind the mother/daughter's story.  But unfortunately I've found that the slander and legal mayhem is more the rule than exception.  From what I've seen women are much more likely to use the child against the man, which is a crime in my opinion.  There's no reason a child should EVER be used to get back at an adult from a relationship.

I'm going with the guy on this one.  I normally give the victim the benefit of the doubt but this one doesn't add up.
2014-02-08 01:05:28 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.

I read the link. it's just a hit piece.

I'll give you one example.

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

you know what that should say instead?

3. Allen passed a polygraph test. Mia never took one.

That is a "fact". what the writer wrote was innuendo.


The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science. A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.
2014-02-08 01:03:40 AM  
1 votes:
Woody Allen is one of the finest fiction writers in the world, which initially plays in his favor as you read this. But then when you remember that, it backfires against him.
2014-02-08 01:03:32 AM  
1 votes:
Wow. Mia sounds like a real biatch.

/Still think it's kinda creepy he married an adopted daughter.
2014-02-08 12:56:41 AM  
1 votes:

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: steamingpile: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Reading every piece of evidence makes it pretty clear he didn't do shiat to her and that Mia is farking nuts.

Woody is kooky and a little strange but he's not a child molester.
Did you read this one: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts or Dylan's own account? These things aren't vague?


Except 5 of those facts are wrong, its a matter of record Mia had her examined, the doctor said she hasn't been molested, three different people said he wasn't left alone with her that day and he did take a polygraph test and passed. Other bullshiat is just made up and seems inflammatory to sell magazines or web hits.
2014-02-08 12:52:33 AM  
1 votes:

bentleypm: Many times, in just the first two paragraphs, he insults the intelligence of anyone who would even entertain the possibility that he may be guilty.


he does nothing of the sort.
2014-02-08 12:51:45 AM  
1 votes:

Fallout Boy: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.


Except for the examining doctor said she was never molested and the nanny's along with housekeepers that were in her house said he was never alone with the kid.

There is a lot more evidence pointing to his innocence and nothing except a story some therapists have said changed and from the beginning sounded made up.
2014-02-08 12:51:36 AM  
1 votes:

Evi1Bo1weevi1: Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.

Well, apparently she was boinking Frank Sinatra the whole time, so can we agree that they are all just horrible people?


I agree.  Never did like Mia.

Fallout Boy: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.


I think that shaming people that make stuff up that could potentially ruin people's entire lives is OK.  I'm sure this girl is being used by Mia.  She seems to be a vidnictive biatch.  Of course, that is my opinion.  And yeah, Woodie is a weird motorscooter for sure.
2014-02-08 12:48:43 AM  
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.


Nope.
2014-02-08 12:47:12 AM  
1 votes:

doglover: But you accuse the creepy old Jewish guy with farked up glasses of being a pedophile and it goes immediately from an accusation to the gospel truth.


Seriously?  You think this is about antiSemitism?
2014-02-08 12:44:17 AM  
1 votes:

steamingpile: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Reading every piece of evidence makes it pretty clear he didn't do shiat to her and that Mia is farking nuts.

Woody is kooky and a little strange but he's not a child molester.

Did you read this one: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts or Dylan's own account? These things aren't vague?
2014-02-08 12:41:37 AM  
1 votes:

AutumnWind: He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.


Soon-Yi was 21, not SEVEN. I think that's one hell of a stretch.
2014-02-08 12:40:46 AM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Referenced in the article.

Dory Previn - Beware Of Young Girls(about Mia)

Dory Previn - With My Daddy In The Attic

Good songs, both from the same album.

Can we skip the pics of the wrong girl and the erroneous idea that he raised his wife and just skip to "Well, he's creepy anyway" and the Polanski rage?


Some people just want to hate the guy. I don't particularly like too many of his movies (enjoyed Blue Jasmine, but that was more for Cate Blanchetts performance), so I'm not really a fan, but everything I've read and heard point's to Mia being a vengeful, damaged person who made the whole thing up.  Add to that her manipulation of her kids, and I think that crazy biatch needs some face some charges.
2014-02-08 12:27:10 AM  
1 votes:

Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.


Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?
2014-02-08 12:17:22 AM  
1 votes:
Keep farking that chicken Mia
www.craveonline.com
2014-02-08 12:13:21 AM  
1 votes:

bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.


Would not anything less than this be protesting not at all?
2014-02-08 12:10:10 AM  
1 votes:

vudukungfu: he dignified the coont's finger point with a response?

game on


He had to. Taking an "I'm not going to dignify that with a response" approach works in a one-on-one argument. If he said nothing tons of people would interpret that as guilt.
2014-02-08 12:06:44 AM  
1 votes:

Confabulat: This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.


Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.
2014-02-07 10:10:28 PM  
1 votes:
he dignified the coont's finger point with a response?

game on
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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