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

Well, many people want special congratulations for being "impartial" and separating "life" and "art."

― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, February 3, 2014 1:30 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

As I think I said above, I would find it much easier to separate his life from his art if I didn't have to look at his fucking face

i don't think woody's onscreen persona is supposed to be a nice guy or "nice guy." he dates women who are arguably out of his league appearance wise but that's not as unrealistic as people like to pretend, and in each film he is shown as deeply flawed and selfish. "nice guys" have martyrdom complexes iirc: they resent women for not loving them purely on the basis of their being pushovers.

xp he's made a few of those movies too

https://twitter.com/SamuelAAdams/status/430411035313725440

if you stare at this tweet hard enough, you can see him stroking his beard

Sam Adams ‏@SamuelAAdams 14m

@AlyssaRosenberg @poniewozik I've seen ppl argue w/o overt bias that Dylan undoubtedly believes what she says but it may not have happened.

"i wasn't there, you were, but this may not have happened to you FYI"

I mean, in addition to the story itself, it's just sad to see it bring out the inner MRA asshole in so many dudes.

Samuel Adams didn't much like cousin John iirc

and yet he wrote yesterday that he believes Dylan http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-open-letter

treeship otm i think. as he got older and his miaplacements got younger it finally became consistently gross, but before that he mostly just cast his girlfriends. (another reason separating life from art here is prob not the best goal.) there are a couple movies that do have the self-pity of the nice guy (broadway danny rose: much-loved for some decent reasons but every time i watch it its protag annoys me more, even charlie brown is shown at times to be an asshole) but most of them are closer to this thing drash has identified where an alienated superego yells at him for a while and then it doesn't matter what anybody does.

imagine Sam Adams defending the integrity of ppl who have different thoughts than he does. unclean, unclean.

morbz what's your goal here

he's about as convincing as you are

Harmless or no? Who knows anymore. From 1993:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1993-05-02/features/9302090551_1_coral-gables-woody-allen-school-library

And tell me what kind of place Coral Gables is

I ate at an excellent tapas bar on Saturday night!

yeah, increasingly unsure as to what Morbs is attempting to "do" here.

It's pretty useful to have someone arguing for the rights of the accused, but Morbs is doing a horrible job of it.

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