Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
I'd be careful to make that clear in this report.
Given that, we do indeed find ourselves in some odd position of saying that one side is not telling the truth. But isn't this the case for every single disputation of fact ever?
This story is supremely important. The verdict will change yours, mine, everyone's life!
Of course everyone is free to make decisions about whether to despise Allen and whether to watch his films or not. But, I don't think continuing to enjoy his work is in any way playing into "rape culture".
What a twisted little bit of sentence engineering.
No one is saying Dylan Farrow was not innocent. She was a child so, of course, she was innocent.
It's the adults we question. Mia and Woody.
It seems odd that Mia Farrow - who has brought a lot of children into her life (both by birth and adoption) - and then was in a long-time relationship with Woody Allen and yet in his entire life, just one child said he touched her? If he's a pedophile, it just doesn't seem plausible. He worked with child actors as well.
And, as the article points out, he did this when he went to Farrow's house (they lived apart the entire time they were together) to iron out separation differences and, in a house full of children and a couple of nannies, that's when he decides to molest Farrow's daughter? Again, not so plausible.
And Mia seems willing to hurt anyone. Her latest statement that her son, Ronan, is probably Frank Sinatra's son probably isn't good news to Sinatra's widow, Barbara, who is still alive (and was married to Frank at the time).
Is Allen guilty of bad behavior with Mia and Andre Previn's daughter who he took up with when she was about 20? Sure. But Mia herself married Frank when she was 21 and Frank was 50 AND broke up Andre Previn's marriage. Marrying her daughter doesn't make Allen a child molester.
Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi, (interesting that he married her and not Mia), have been married since 1997 and have their own children.
I think there is much more to this story (and go read the Vanity Fair story on Mia - that's some reading) before you feel certain about anything.
Someting to think about: The state's attorney investigating Allen on these charges way back when, Frank S. Maco, said that he found probable cause to prosecute Mr. Allen, but that Dylan would've been too traumatized by the process of trial.
Mr. Allen's camp/lawyers sought disciplinary charges against Mr. Maco for the comment (which, if he's innocent, would've been the logical thing to do). Those disciplinary charges were dropped. Which means that Mr. Maco would've had to present his case or evidence to the state board, his "probable cause", & they would've had to decide that there was something solid enough there to justify his remark.
I've seen people use children against each other in custody cases. It's very ugly & I'm not saying Ms. Farrow was an angel of a parent.
But I'm more inclined to believe Dylan Farrow than not. I can believe her, & be annoyed at the way her family seems to be using her trauma - all of this is timed to promote her brother's new TV show - at the same time.
And this little exercise in idiocy is a textbook example. I don't know if Allen raped this then child. But I say that while an idiot like Herz goes off on some strange twist of the presumption of innocence in which the accuser is presumed accurate and the accused guilty.
Having a bias is inevitable, as is writing from that bias. But what journalists do is write in sufficient, and sufficiently accurate, detail that even those who don't share their bias still get a sense of what happened in a given story.
He married his children's sister.
He's also known to have dated a 17 year-old high school student while in his 40s.
You admit that he's "a little creepy/sleazy" AFTER saying that's he's weird looking and talks funny. Do you honestly think his appearance and way of speaking are bigger factors than these in people's perception of him as a potential predator?
Agree. I would find it very difficult to remain friends with a convicted rapist who raped a minor. And, it's presumed that she, Farrow would believe her daughter not Allen. So, you pose a very good question.
"Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi, (interesting that he married her and not Mia), have been married since 1997 and have their own children."
The fact that he was able to adopt MORE children after being legally banned from seeing the children he already had -- AND after running off with his children's sister -- is one of the most fucked up aspects of this story. Nobody with that track record who wasn't also extremely wealthy and powerful would have been able to pull that off. Very sad.
I can say without reservation that the evidence presented to the public in this case is insufficient to believe that Mr. Allen committed a crime. At the same time I can also say without a personal doubt or a feeling of contradiction that Dylan believes she is telling the truth, thus granting both parties the presumption of innocence.
But then again this is just my opinion and I don't claim to be a journalist.
What could possibly go wrong?
Really Knarf, really?.... really?
But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assume she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured.
Check out the wikipedia article and read some of the journal articles found in the reference section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_impl…
I guess maybe Dylan felt she had to go public as part of her recovery, but what therapist would have recommended this? Does her action seem like an act of revenge rather than an act of healing? Not accusing, blaming, or judging her, but somebody did ask a question earlier about why she is doing this now, and I honestly don't know.
In this case, we can go a little further than assumption based on the video that Mia Farrow provided the police. I admit, I haven't seen this video, and I am only going off of the descriptions that I have heard of the video. I have heard there are some problematic features of the video, such as cutouts and editing, but for the moment I'm going to disregard all of that and take Mia Farrow at her word that she didn't, in any way, coach or prompt her daughter outside of the video.
The descriptions in the video of what Mia asked Dylan are what we now know to be textbook cases of what you DO NOT ask a child. At the time of the trial, none of the research on memory implantation had been published (to my knowledge, there was nothing on this before the mid-nineties) so there was no way that the judges, the prosecutors, the psychologists who interviewed Dylan, the divorce attorney, or Mia herself could have known the possible result of her questions.
Given this to be the case and that we have factual evidence of Dylan being interviewed in the way that we know can lead to memory implantation, I don't think it exists as part of rape culture to say that this is a case in which memory implantation MAY have occurred. It's also not unreasonable to say that it is possible Dylan is not lying and is also not factually correct about the events that occurred.
@ Capelletti: Don't be an asshole. Bady characterizes any uncertainty as to Dylan's claims as an accusation of the "crime of lying." There is no such crime. NO ONE--NOT A SINGLE PERSON--is accusing her of a crime. That's why Bady's comment is inflammatory bullshit. There is a crime of perjury (that would be lying under oath). It is possible, though difficult, to collect damages for libel or slander. But neither libel nor slander is a crime. In between, there's a whole lot of "We have no idea what the truth is." And refusing to immediate presuming that an accuser's words are the gospel truth does not constitute rape culture--even if there are many, many other aspects of our culture that do constitute rape culture--just as immediately presuming that a accuser's words are the gospel truth is not evidence of the absence of rape culture. Lighten the fuck up. This is Seattle, not Riyadh.
I don't think pursuing this as a test case is a great idea, but feel free to shoot yourself in the foot.
Slightly changed excerpt from the Daily Beast article:
"Why does Dylan 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?"
Basically, Dylan MAY have been coaxed into this story by her mother when she was 7 years old, then held onto it as fact ever since. You can extend the presumption of innocence to BOTH Dylan and Woody by assuming that Dylan really believes what she is saying is true, even though it may not in fact BE true. Simple.
But really, folks, what's your favorite Woody Allen movie?
On Netflix (streaming and DVD):
Seems a bit ironic though.
it was played out in real time for everyone in the 90s. it was lurid, and mia farrow didn't come out of it (or go into it) smelling like a rose. look at the behavior she modeled. go look at ronin farrow's face again. and don't make the assumption that soon-yi previn was a passive victim of allen's perversion.
that said, i have no doubt that dylan farrow believes her story intensely.
It might be the only thing Woody and Mia still agree on.
That's all a white woman had to do to a black man in the old days. Funny it's now the left that wants to bring back those horrid standards of proof.
I honestly don't understand why you people seem to think that this is a thing that doesn't happen. Did you really grow up in a place that child molestation and rape is not thing that happens?
Mary Kay Letourneau's marriage to Vili Fualaau and the two children that have resulted from their union doesn't mean that her having sex with him when he was a young boy and her student wasn't illegal and just plain wrong.
As to Woody Allen's guilt, if Mia and her daughter are honestly representing what happened to Dylan, she should avail herself of every legal option to seek justice and compensation.
First Degree Child Sexual Assault is a Class A Felony in both Connecticut and New York; neither state has a statute of limitations for this crime. So, if Woody Allen is guilty, Dylan can press charges at any time she so desires.
Unfortunately, in the State of New York, "rape" is defined as "vaginal penetration" only. Anal or oral rape is not legally rape under New York's statutes. Rape committed by a woman is also not classified under the statutes defining rape, unless she penetrates her victim.
Advocacy groups have been working for some time to get the "Rape is Rape" bill passed in New York that would correct and expand the existing laws to include anal and oral rape and that, hopefully, would include language that would make it possible to prosecute women who commit rape for the actual crime of rape.
If it is this hard to get New York to do the right thing, just imagine the seemingly impossible process of change for rape victims in other parts of the nation.
Just consider how "conservatives" support big government, expanded centralization of power and unconstitutional force against women already.
When Republicans say that they want to protect women by passing more and more laws that empower big government to intrude a woman's body, her rights and her choices, consider this fact - none of these assholes have introduced, sponsored or passed legislation to reduce violence against women or legislation to hold the body, the rights and the choices of the men involved in these pregnancies to the same level of big government force and intrusion.
If the government can compel or conscript a woman's body against her will to bear a child for the state, why can't the government compel and conscript the body of the man responsible for the pregnancy to work for the state to pay for the pregnancy and the child. Hell, if you can force a woman to have a baby for the state, you can force the responsible man to get a vasectomy...even against his will. Right?
Why should the force that so-called "conservatives" advocate for big government to use against women not be wielded in equal measure against the other party to the pregnancy?
People who confuse the law with right and wrong are either idiots or sociopaths.
The law is not about right and wrong; the law is about who will and will not have power.
The courts are not a system of justice; they are a system of judgments.
Eschew obfuscation, or be revealed as a fool.
Fighting rape culture properly requires accepting that things are not black and white. By demanding that we must accept ALL rape charges as truth - the message you, Ansel, and others are sending, if not stating outright - is exactly as bad as as dismissing all rape charges as false. BOTH APPROACHES ensure that innocent people will be hurt, because being shitty knows no gender. Women historically suffer more, but making men suffer in return won't make things right.
When it comes to any charge of rape, especially one that can no longer be supported by corroborating evidence, it is fair to take a hard look at the claimant and question whether there are any ulterior motives, because a man's reputation - and a livelihood dependent upon it - are at stake. It's why we presume his innocence. (BTW, I do think you seem confused about the distinction between "presume" and "assume.") It's also why we look to see if there's a history of rape allegations or other circumstantial evidence in support of it, such as, Has anyone accused Allen of this before? Molesters aren't known for successfully resisting recidivism, after all.
None of this means that Farrow, her mother, or brother are lying. But unless this enters the legal system, we'll likely never know.
If you're someone for whom everything is black and white, then I'm sorry, because accepting ambiguous situations as such is probably unacceptable, perhaps even incomprehensible to you. But things are not black and white. Unless someone invent both a way to travel back in time AND a way to observe the past without disturbing it, we won't know.
I'd be interested in knowing more about this pattern of behavior.
Sorry, I thought you might have been citing something like .. I don't know, maybe the kind of stuff Michael Jackson did. Always hanging out with children, never having a solid long term relationship with anyone, that kind of thing.
But he was a GREAT GUY!! Just GREAT with kids!!
And yeah, a man in his 40s dating underage girls is predatory. And I think marrying your children's sister, who you've known since she was a young child, seems predatory. I guess that's just me.
Speaking of which… google "Dale Akiki" … or just go to this link:
At least Woody Allen is rich enough not to have to wait in jail for more than years before he can even get a trial ...
"And yeah, a man in his 40s dating underage girls is predatory."
17 isn't underage in a lot of jurisdictions. (I should mention that I'm taking your word that that happened, by the way.)
"And I think marrying your children's sister, who you've known since she was a young child, seems predatory."
It isn't just you. Many people have hated Allen for simply that. But "seems" is the key word. It's subjective.
I'll note a few things here. You acknowledge that Soon-Yi is NOT Allen's daughter, but called it "incestuous" elsewhere. I think you're trying to paint it as such by repeatedly describing her as "your children's sister," which awkwardly distinguishes Soon-Yi's relationship within the family. "Step-sister" would be more honest, even though it might make it seem more alright.
Two, the fact that Allen has remained married to her as she has grown into middle age is testimony against Allen as a "predator" of "underage" girls. I can think of two legendary entertainers, Charles Chaplin and Groucho Marx, who both tended to divorce wives when they got to be around 30 and enter into relationships (sometime marry, sometime not) with ever younger women - some as young as 16 or 17. I think guys who seek out such relationships - some, anyway, if not all - often have fundamental problems with maturity, and seek out young partners because they're about as mature as they can handle. And those girls probably grow into women who realize that they have a big baby on their hands.
But Allen hasn't cast off Soon-Yi, now that she's past 40. (Marx and Chaplin never waited nearly as long.) And as far as we know, he hasn't been stepping out on the side with teens either.
Getting back to "seems," it would seem "predatory" to me too, but for the fact that Allen and Farrow always lived apart, and that Soon-Yi never considered Allen to be a father figure in her life - that was Andre Previn.
To me, it seems weird, but not much more. I'm in my 40s now, and if I weren't married I can't fathom entering a relationship with someone under 30. But different stroke for different folks. I wasn't present to see how Soon-Yi and Woody Allen's relations went, either before they began seeing one another or at that time, so it's not fair to come to any harsher judgment. We can be squicked out, but we can't judge it as "predatory" without stronger evidence that it was (e.g., the child bride syndrome in Asia or with the FLDS polygamists).
But he's such a GREAT DAD!! He's MARRIED!! < --- These tell us nothing.