Mia Farrow's son -- Ronan Seamus Farrow -- really creeps me out!

ain't arguing for shit. done.

xp to eazy those letters seem like nice things to send a fan but this

Rereading his letters, I am touched by his outpouring of recommendations, his repetition of the word enjoy.

backs up mordy on annie hall upthread: the woody relationship is a mentor relationship. i think an obsession with the pleasure of teaching yr lovers can shade into something dark having to do with "molding", not to mention that unless yr really some kind of genius it drives you towards younger women. in crimes & misdemeanors it's not just that he's hanging out w his little niece all the time: it's that he's basically indoctrinating her in woodyism (old movies, old new york) and she stares up like a happy student. (in husbands & wives tho juliette lewis' char is a lot more perceptive about the nature of this kind of relationship.) to me this stuff feels weirdly akin to the way that in the later movies 30ish puppets like christina ricci are forced to recite woody allen's aesthetic opinions.

I think Morbs' point may be that people itt shouldn't jump on Sam Adams because of a couple of tweets arguing that people who have doubts aren't necessarily horrendous rape apologists. Sam is saying there aren't just two binary positions here, even if he (as I do) personally believes Farrow.

Michael Wolff's argument, otoh, is full-on repellent and practically conspiracy theorist. Significant difference between the two.

When Morbs extends that same generosity of spirit and benefit of the doubt to people who vote for Democratic party candidates for office I'll give one (1) fuck about whatever he's trying to do here.

I vote for Democrats, you moron

Good for you.

do you guys know anyone who thinks the movie takes Alvy's side when Annie dumps him? I met one person who thinks so; I might de-friend him.

Phil I believe you mean "sorry, I was wrong"

i think the sam adams essay murgatroid posted is pretty blanket otm re: artist/art, "what to believe", evaluation of WA filmography

lol, yes, aero, I was wrong. My apologies for offending the delicate shrinking violet that is Dr. Morbius, who never reduces complex ideas to dumbshit binaries. Mea maxima culpa.

Times public editor "troubled" by Kristof

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/on-kristofs-column-about-dylan-farrow-and-woody-allen-only-questions/

hahahahahaha, "the Daily Beast piece convinced me that Dylan Farrow writing about her rape is an ad hominem attack on Woody Allen"

fuuuuuck off

the comments left on that piece are nauseating.

lol of course it's a fucking ad hominem attack, what else would accusing someone of child molestation be? What a fucking moron.

curious what Allen's statement is going to be. or if his lawyers are gonna do anything.

lol of course it's a fucking ad hominem attack, what else would accusing someone of child molestation be? What a fucking moron.

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, February 3, 2014 2:27 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't know if this is directed to me but I thought ad hominem meant an attack on someone's character, not describing their actions.

The letter penned in the name of Dylan Farrow was pitch-perfect, compelling, and heart-wrenching but I feel Kristoff and the Grey Lady diluted their credibility by providing this favor to friends.

lol of course it's a fucking ad hominem attack, what else would accusing someone of child molestation be? What a fucking moron.

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Monday, February 3, 2014 2:27 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't know if this is directed to me but I thought ad hominem meant an attack on someone's character, not describing their actions.

― Murgatroid, Monday, February 3, 2014 4:30 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I wasn't directing the insult to you. Yes, an "ad hominem" attack is an attack on someone's character, but what it means is attacking someone's character to avoid addressing the reasoning of their arguments. Accusing someone of child molestation is quite literally an attack on their character, so it's kind of silly to call that an "ad hominem" attack.

morbs I must've written and deleted 10 different comments about your behavior in this thread over the weekend. basically: child sex abuse is a delicate topic; some readers of this thread have been victims of it; the way society chooses to respond to allegations of abuse can affect their internal processing of what happened to themselves; therefore it would be kind and considerate to post on this thread with their emotional well-being in mind. You think it's important not to condemn someone on insufficent evidence; there are ways to express that thoughtfully without engaging in alienating, OTT rhetoric.

except in this case there is actually sufficient evidence.

So thanks to that shithead Weide half the internet is now repeating the claim that Moses Farrow thinks the whole incident was "concocted." Weide used a totally out-of-context and unsourced quote about "brainwashing" to imply this without saying it.

reddening, I have scrapped several posts to this thread precisely for those reasons. Cue incredulity.

why don't you fucking leave

Hurting, did you also just read the awful bet-hedging Salon piece that was just published that's just like "there's so much doubt!" and leaves it there without adding anything at all? I'd honestly rather read an Allen defence than read something so meaningless and dull.

don't be completely worthless and at least keep your promises xp

I'd honestly rather read an Allen defence

lol what kind of defense could there possibly be? beyond "I didn't do it, the child is a liar"

implying "the child is brainwashed" seems to the be approach of choice

eh, a distinction w/out a difference

I'm not saying the defence would be good, just saying that I personally would rather spend my time with an argument of some sort than an acknowledgement of ambiguity and an oh-well.

xp

I disagree ime it's exactly what is allowing apologists who normally wouldn't stoop to victim blaming to be inordinately skeptical of such unambiguous first hand testimony

unless public outcry is going to be marshalled to the end of bringing charges (which looks highly unlikely), I don't really see the point of engaging with arguments on either side.

xp

I'm just waiting for anyone to produce for me a single historical example of a child being brainwashed into thinking they were abused and continuing to believe that into adulthood. People keep raising the daycare abuse panic and "recovered memory" controversies, which are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

yeah there's no parallels there

I mean one of the most revealing damning things about McMartin/Friedmans sort of cases is how the purported victims all recanted in adulthood

shakey's otm there - I've always, always been a "believe the testimony of the victim" person and the McMartin case is a very very heavy thing to consider.

I said this upthread somewhere but the only parallel case I can think of is John Phillips - but even there Mackenzie claims the incidents didn't begin until she was 18, and at the time she dropped this bombshell Phillips had already been dead 8 years. so even that's stretching it. there's no real precedent for this kind of case afaik. at least, not one involving a celebrity of Allen's stature and the related public scrutiny.

could charges be brought at this point? I'm not even clear on that much.

idk the mcmartin case at all. but at least from the documentary on it, the nauseating thing about the friedman case was that he DID molest kids but the prosecutorial panic added a bunch of false accusations to his tab. right?

bady's point is that leaning on the few high-profile cases of false accusations is a really shitty mental convenience, taking anecdote over data. that sullivan blogpost lets someone air out the duke rape case one more time, smh. we'll never be able to talk about rape in this culture again w/o someone bringing up the duke lacrosse team.

he DID molest kids but the prosecutorial panic added a bunch of false accusations to his tab. right

this is not right

uh can you flesh it out then? my memory may faulty but god help me if i get through it again

the dad had child porn, and appears to have engaged in some possibly criminal behavior, but not with the kids in his class (possibly his son, and possibly one other case he confessed to in a letter iirc)

that thing is so tangled... dad pled guilty to try and spare his son (who had also been implicated)

the McMartin case also that was filled with all sorts of bizarre moral panic devil worship stuff, it doesn't seem like a good cautionary tale for pro-Woody concern trolls to rely on

Some of the accusations were described as "bizarre",[5] overlapping with accusations that mirrored the just-starting Satanic ritual abuse panic.[4] It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels.[4] When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis (the McMartins' lawyer), one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers.[20]

"could charges be brought at this point? I'm not even clear on that much."

No they can't. It's passed the statute of limitations.

was thinking some of those Catholic church cases were decades old...? but maybe those are different somehow.

The catholic church cases in the USA were civil cases, not criminal cases. Dylan could presumably sue Mr. Allen, if she could produce compelling evidence for a tort.

Addendum: The most compelling evidence in the catholic church cases was contained in catholic church internal documents obtained through subpoena. Not very likely there is a trove of documentary evidence for her to produce on her behalf, but it would be nice to see some justice done.

yeah if it's just her word against his... I guess public defamation is really her only recourse

"was thinking some of those Catholic church cases were decades old...? but maybe those are different somehow"

Most of those cases were not actually able to be tried due to the statute of limitations.