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

there's a comment by longtime poster Morgan worth reading in full.

what the fuck morbs. the bady piece goes stepwise thru some very plain moral logic. the first line from 'nathaniel r.' is "I'm about to pull a Hannah Horvath". which one is pseudointellectual masturbation.

thanks for the textbook sample of someone mistaking separating the alleged crime from the artist for separating the art from the artist, morbz

I have to separate the art from the artist in the case of both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, neither of whom have (to me) ever come off well in regards to the subject of Dylan Farrow,

it's very striking how often this "both parents are equally to blame" thing is popping up in defenses of allen. the idea seems to be that while we "can't know" what really happened to dylan, we somehow can know that mia farrow is "crazy," "manipulative," "selfish," and a bunch of other things that woody allen and his defenders would really like everyone to believe.

I read Nathaniel's site often, especially 'round this time of year, have linked to it in the film threads. But there's always been hero worship in his posts; he believes in movies so much he acts personally disappointed when favorite actresses and directors let him down. Never mind the rest of his post: the first three grafs are reckless sycophancy. Woody Allen movies Opened Cinematic Doors for me too or whatever but I've been slavish enough to call him my Bruce Wayne.

I'm curious what people think should happen now, as a result of Farrow's letter. Like, what's the desired outcome.

*uh NEVER been slavish

thx Alfred, now imagining Woody making a Batman movie

I'm curious what people think should happen now, as a result of Farrow's letter. Like, what's the desired outcome.

everyone remembers her accusation and engages with his work and public persona in a way that doesn't ignore it? that fans of his work prove they can actually separate the art from the artist, and not lionize him?

A couple of Nathaniel's comments:

Morgan -- i thank you for your longtime support of the site and for your feelings here. I'm sorry this article disappointed you but in no way shape or form am i blaming Dylan except for the part where she tried to shame people who had nothing to do with her trauma -- like celebrities who don't know her and moviegoers who don't know her who enjoy her father's movies (obviously myself among them). I am not responsible for her pain. Neither is Diane Keaton. Neither is Alec Baldwin. And so on. Is she not in therapy? What good could possibly come of blaming anyone outside of her own family for her miserable childhood?

I have known two people who were raped and it is awful terrible thing that fucks with people's self worth and mental health but even with this tangential experience I can't claim to be an expert on the topic at all. But surely the reason abuse victims are encouraged to make public statements is so that they can find peace and closure. But can peace and closure come from spreading pain? I highly doubt it. Again I don't know the current professional opinion on this but if therapy encourages the spreading of blame to people who aren't involved in your pain I can't truck with modern therapy.

I mean good christ Cate Blanchett was only 21-23 years old and living in Australia when all this was happening. She hadn't even made a movie yet!

― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:00 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sm goddamn motherfucking h at this

Many people on the internet this week have been, even possibly without realizing it, asking for a world in which we accept that all allegations are true (no need for laws, investigations, courts, professionals to determine veracity) and for which the result should be banishment from society and/or imprisonment. But this scorched earth desire would result in an ugly world that I think none of us would be comfortable living in and it would most certainly be bereft of a healthy artistic culture. Let me explain. Do we really want to go back to the McCarthy era mentality of the blacklist?

jesus this dunce

this guy is more shocked and horrified by the notion that cate blanchett caught some e-shrapnel then by the possibility that one of his heroes did something like this.

engages with his work ... in a way that doesn't ignore it?

I don't really know what this means.

Woody Allen seems almost uniquely important to some people's egos to the extent that they really do not want to allow this image of him into their minds

desired outcome would be something like we get one step closer to living in a society where rape and abuse victims can come forward and not have to worry about being attacked as sluts or brainwashed or hysterical and not have to see the perpetrators not only get away with it but in this case end up routinely celebrated for work that often makes jokes about it. expecting yr woody allens and r kellys to feel shame is a bridge too far but expecting society to have some standards or for ppl to not feel the need to defend rapists or ignore children being raped cuz they love penn state football/midnight in paris/billie jean/chinatown/rosary beeds doesn't seem too much to ask.

we somehow can know that mia farrow is "crazy," "manipulative," "selfish,"

Read up. Like Woody, she's fucking crazy.

and if you think this - a society where rape and abuse victims can come forward and not have to worry about being attacked as sluts or brainwashed or hysterical - is anywhere close to where we are right now, well, morbs has some posts for you to read

Farrow is crazy. But Farrow is crazy --> Farrow successfully implanted false child sex abuse memories in Dylan is a little like US Govt is imperialistic --> 9/11 was an inside job.

o man hurting morbs has another salon.com post for you to read on that score also

Read up. Like Woody, she's fucking crazy.

so essentially, you're cool with making this judgment despite (i assume) not knowing either person, but when it comes to the testimony of a rape victim your attitude is "nothing's been proven"?

yeah I know we aren't close to that (didn't really need this latest brouhaha to confirm that for me). The odds of publishing the letter achieving that aim seem pretty slim.

xp

you're cool with making this judgment despite (i assume) not knowing either person, but when it comes to the testimony of a rape victim your attitude is "nothing's been proven"?

these are fundamentally different things tho. rape is a crime. being crazy is not.

it's amazing how the same people who say "you're not a jury!" expect everyone to follow the rules of one.

You're not a duck either, but if you insist on wearing feathers and laying eggs, have some fucking dignity about it.

This is probably the wrong thread to argue such a thing but I think lumping Girls and Frances Ha together is very shallow.

the people wearing feathers and laying eggs are the ones saying "innocent until proven guilty" and "who can know what happened?" as if reaching a verdict is what they're being asked to do

otm

Woody Allen seems almost uniquely important to some people's egos to the extent that they really do not want to allow this image of him into their minds

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:15 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, having come up in the world of early to mid 90s alternative comic books, I can imagine a lot of my peers having their heads severely fucking done in by this stuff. Crumb and Woody 9and charlie brown who thankfully does not exist irl) were like the patron saints of that ethos.

"Innocent until proved guilty" is an invaluable legal concept, like "freedom of speech", but both of these get waved around by people on the internet who have no idea what they are talking about.

As of this minute, Allen is legally innocent of the crime Dylan has accused him of and he will remain legally innocent right up to whatever moment he has been judged guilty in a court of criminal law (which the statute of limitations ensures won't happen). But legal "innocence" is a fictional state occupied by a person whose actual state of innocence is undetermined.

This discussion otoh is all about the "court of public opinion", which, as courts go is pretty scattershot. It's all Dylan's got atm. More proof is a luxury we can't expect. But, then, no one's required to participate in this and no one's going to go to jail based on what we say or think.

x-post: It's kind of disingenuous to say that, given that most of the articles linked positively by the RIGHTEOUS on this thread have made the claim that NOT accepting the claims of criminal activity at face value is an act of misogynistic aggression.

everyone here is free to watch small time crooks a dozen times tomorrow and laugh their fucking ass off to their hearts content. or if they're conflicted, they can watch Bananas and wring their hands in frustration, crying over what might be. no one could care less. but if you start talking to people about what a great hero and feminist woody allen is, and start to launch into a girl scouts theme in tribute, prepare to be reminded that his daughter accused him of molestation. at which point you can either respect that, have the stones to say "i don't believe her," or engage in the mealymouthed faux-juristic bullshit people are using to excuse wanting to watch him play clarinet guilt-free.

was that directed at me croup? People are entitled to their opinions and hey it's the internet, people can be expected to be as entitled about their opinions as possible. For my part, I'm inclined to believe Farrow's account, while being fully aware that it has not met the legal burden of proof in a court of law. I don't really feel inclined to re-evaluate Allen's work in the context of Farrow's account or search for clues in his filmography relating the two because it just feels pointless, and overly biographical readings of people's work (be it music, film, literature whatever) have always seemed tiresome and reductive to me. That's not how I engaged with film before this letter was published, and it's not how I expect to engage with film in the future. Whether or not I pay to see his films moving forward also seems like a moot point - I had already stopped paying to see his movies because they have sucked for a decade, and what's more, he doesn't need my money, he's already as rich as he's ever going to get, it's not like he's starving for the support of one more middle aged American Jewish guy. He made some great films. He seems like a horrible person who's possibly guilty of some dark shit. These are not mutually exclusive and I leave it at that.

xxxp

^^^^^

shakey yr display name is doing amazing things in that context lol

as for the Golden Globes stuff - awards shows have always been nauseous horse shit (an opinion Allen apparently holds as well, ironically), and in that sense the Keaton thing was not really all that unusual, similar to Chris Brown doing Man in the Mirror on BET or any number of other instances where they've valorized horrible assholes. For my part I don't watch awards shows and I'm not even aware of them, beyond what thread titles pop up on new answers. get rid of awards = problem solved.

xp

re my comments about people pretending they're on a jury being directed at you, the'yre not JUST directed at you, but you did just tell us that it's ok to dismiss someone you don't know as crazy but not as a potential rapist because rape is a crime.

you're also the one asking what possible outcome people could want from farrow's letter, so forgive us for telling you

x-post As far as I know, Ms. Keaton is not a participant on this thread.

reading the comments on Nathaniel's posts from people aghast that Farrow doesn't have the good breeding and stiff upper lip to keep things private and in the family...and N insists on wondering why on earth Farrow attacks poor Alex Baldwin and Cate Blanchett

you did just tell us that it's ok to dismiss someone you don't know as crazy but not as a potential rapist because rape is a crime

one's a bit more serious than the other is all. so it would make sense that a different level of judgment is involved.

"crazy" (apologies to mental health advocates itt btw) is a bit easier to toss around than "rapist", it does not contain the same degree of moral opprobrium, nor does it imply that someone should be arrested and put in jail.

it's like the difference between calling someone a jerk and calling them a murderer

you're also the one asking what possible outcome people could want from farrow's letter, so forgive us for telling you

this was a genuine question and I appreciated your answer fwiw

i know everyone has already torn apart that terrible blogpost morbs posted but this paragraph requires special attention i think

I was publicly attacked on twitter recently by someone I was once online-friendly-with for merely suggesting that people ought to know facts before they passed judgment. I was concerned that people were forgetting that "innocent until proven guilty" is the backbone of our whole judicial system and as much as I may feel for Dylan Farrow, I have to admit that the health of our entire nation's legal system is more important to me than her personal journey.

(because if we take a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted even halfway seriously, THE HEALTH OF OUR ENTIRE NATION'S LEGAL SYSTEM IS AT STAKE)

He's probably gonna post that New Republic piece soon about how it's not very journalistic and ethical to not consider both sides

i hope the trauma from that public attack on twitter will eventually dissipate, i'm sorry his personal journey through life had to include such an event.

like, should you wait until woody's suffered more than having to write a "mia's crazy, i'm innocent" press release before saying OMG IS THIS A KANGAROO COURT

i've seen such heinous stuff on facebook about this (mostly friends-of-friends). one gem was "it's not blaming the victim if she's not a victim."

when the wolves descend on the Magic In The Moonlight premiere and the bag is put over Woody's head, then maybe it's time to wonder what became of jurisprudence

my eye skipped right over "personal journey". what a jackass.