How to Join
the Fashion Spot / the Sidewalk Café / Rumor has it...
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
04-02-2014
  31
V.I.P.
 
jennifer~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Gender: homme
Posts: 8,307
Innocent until proven guilty also doesn't mean people can't make a judgement call. All it means is that Woody Allen has/had the right to a fair trial in a court of law (rather than, you know, an unfair trial or just being thrown in jail...) The courts do such a terrible job with sexual abuse cases that I'd hate to leave it up to them... Victims rarely want to speak out, for various reasons -- including the issue of a trial that scrutinizes aspects of their character that should never be called into question. (Since Dylan was a child, Mia Farrow might take most of the blame, but still.)

__________________
no fun

Last edited by jennifer~; 04-02-2014 at 03:04 AM.
  Reply With Quote
 
04-02-2014
  32
V.I.P.
 
jennifer~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Gender: homme
Posts: 8,307
Whoops, according to Alec Baldwin, having opinions on the internet weights a trial unfairly. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's too late for this case to be tried.

__________________
no fun
  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  33
V.I.P.
 
eternitygoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 8,039
Quote:
One thing that upsets me about this whole thing is that there are so many people who are trying to get rid of Dylan's voice as a victim, they are trying to get rid of her agency to speak out about it. So many people who experience sexual abuse are never able to speak out so for one to do so, it is a huge, huge thing. Personally, I think Dylan is telling the truth, why go through the trouble of telling a lie and then having to stick with it for years and years??? It's not worth it. But also, other evidence in Woody's life seems to indicate that he's a bit obscene. I feel so much for Dylan and her family, to have to experience such a thing, it is just horrific. And then on top of this, to have the media shame and blame you in such a way, what an awful thing.

__________________
Agreed. People seem REALLY keen to stick to the "we don't know what went on in that attic!", "innocent until proven guilty" mindset for Allen. Anything to throw doubt onto Dylan Farrow. Idk how much more explicit you have to get than repeating the same story since you were 7, and writing such a frank, open, detailed letter to get people to believe you. Does she have to provide photographic evidence of him assaulting her?

If Woody Allen was NOT a famous director, everyone would be calling for his head right now.

__________________
Curiosity killed the cat...

But satisfaction brought it back
  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  34
fashion insider
 
Les_Sucettes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,323
He did marry his daughter, I think that's enough said. What he did amounts to child grooming if not worse. It does not take such a leap of imagination to believe Dylan, i do.

  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  35
V.I.P.
 
eternitygoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 8,039
^If we need any more view into Woody Allen's mind...

Quote:
Acclaimed director Woody Allen loves the paternal feelings he has towards his young wife Soon-Yi Previn, and insists the massive age gap between them defuses any conflict in their marriage. The 69-year-old sparked an international scandal when he split up with his long-term partner Mia Farrow in 1992 after falling for her adopted daughter. Allen later married Previn, 35, and the couple have two children. Yet, the Manhattan filmmaker is unabashed when he admits that his relationship with Previn is paternal and he enjoys the power his successful life gives him in their relationship. He says, "(Our marriage) has a more paternal feeling to it... I love to do things to make her happy. She loves to do things to make me happy." Despite the controversy it caused, Allen has come to view Farrow's discovery of his nude photographs of Previn as "one of the great pieces of luck in my life". He adds, "All the women I went out with were basically my age. Now, here, it just works like magic. The very inequality of me being older and much more accomplished, much more experienced, takes away any real meaningful conflict."
Wenn magazine, 2005

__________________
Curiosity killed the cat...

But satisfaction brought it back
  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  36
fashion insider
 
Les_Sucettes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternitygoddess View Post
^If we need any more view into Woody Allen's mind...

Wenn magazine, 2005
Oh God...
The bias in this story is absolutely disgusting, my jaw almost dropped when the Daily Beast article dismisses Soon-Yi as simply the "girlfriends step daughter" conveniently omitting the fact that Woody and Mia did have children together and Soon-Yi grew up as the sister of his offspring, not to mention the tiny detail that he met her when she was 9 or 10.

  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  37
windowshopping
 
scorzalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Gender: femme
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les_Sucettes View Post
Oh God...
The bias in this story is absolutely disgusting, my jaw almost dropped when the Daily Beast article dismisses Soon-Yi as simply the "girlfriends step daughter" conveniently omitting the fact that Woody and Mia did have children together and Soon-Yi grew up as the sister of his offspring, not to mention the tiny detail that he met her when she was 9 or 10.
He's probably groomed her for so long. He's disgusting to a tee. Has she ever really "spoken out," not a bunch of he said, she said from his camp, but actually spoke? And every time I hear Woody Allen and his children mentioned I think of those pictures of him some years ago with his two daughters (funny how he only has daughters) and they looked absolutely disgusted themselves. I hope he hasn't done anything to them too.

  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  38
V.I.P.
 
Not Plain Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: femme
Posts: 10,720
Apparently there is a way that he could still be prosecuted:

http://www.thewrap.com/woody-allen-a...way-prosecuted

Although a trial never guarantees anything, as we saw with O.J. Simpson or Michael Jackson or even Polanski, and maybe it's not something that Dylan Farrow would want to put herself through. But you never know because her voice is strong in her open letter and it's possible it could bring some kind of closure for her.

__________________
Fashion: Don’t you recognize me? Death: You should know that I don’t see very well and I can’t wear glasses. Fashion: I’m Fashion, your sister. Death: My sister? Fashion: Yes. You and I together keep undoing and changing things down here on earth although you go about it in one way and I another. Giacomo Leopardi, “Dialogue Between Fashion and Death.”abridged

Last edited by Not Plain Jane; 04-02-2014 at 10:04 AM.
  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  39
V.I.P.
 
MyNameIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,132
I try not to comment on these cases because we as the public rarely know what actually happened. It's awful for someone to have been abused. Even worse for the victim to feel like nobody takes his/her words seriously. It's equally awful to have these accusations brought up against you and the public immediately jumping on the blame game. I believe Cate Blanchett's statement may have been criticized, but I'm going to borrow it. I hope these people find peace and resolution.

Also, for people commenting here, I strongly recommend a Danish movie that came out in the US last year, The Hunt. Incredibly well movie that's especially relevant here.

__________________
SNEJANA ONOPKA
  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  40
V.I.P.
 
eternitygoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 8,039
^I feel like "the public doesn't know exactly what happened" and "presumption of innocence" are just politically correct ways of siding with Allen in this case.

If Woody Allen was not an acclaimed, wealthy white director, would people be exhibiting such restraint towards Dylan Farrow's claims?

__________________
Curiosity killed the cat...

But satisfaction brought it back
  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  41
trendsetter
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sandusky
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,228
EWWW on Woody's comments about marriage. Granted, I would hope one purpose of marriage is to make the other happy, but the way he added all that stuff about having power and feeling validated as the wiser one is just grossness.

As for separating art from the artist, I think it depends on the film. A part of me will probably always like 'Midnight in Paris' but when I watched 'Manhattan' (which was made well before Woody's family/personal problems came to light), I couldn't separate it from his personal life (in the film, he dates a high schooler, and Woody does want us to sympathize with his reasoning for dating a high schooler).

Also,people talk about boycotting Woody's films, but he's never been mainstream. I suppose for an indie/art house person, he's mainstream, but even so, he's not...blockbuster mainstream. So, it's a different audience that has to taken into account. (One would think all audiences are the same, but I do think the audiences boycotting Mel Gibson are difference from the type who go see Woody Allen. So, it will be interesting to see how his future films pan out.) (Re: I think arthouse audiences seem to be more...open-minded.. towards controversial people--regardless of WHY they are controversial--hence why Woody's acclaim would be harder to shake.)

I really hate the double standard response to Dylan. I will confess I did RT the Daily Beast article after seeing it linked on Simon Pegg's account, but now that it's been examined more closely, I see that author was slut-shaming Mia and other things. Also, interesting that not many people in Hollywood seem to be backing Dylan. Or believing her.

  Reply With Quote
04-02-2014
  42
tfs star
 
chickadee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southern United States
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternitygoddess View Post
^I feel like "the public doesn't know exactly what happened" and "presumption of innocence" are just politically correct ways of siding with Allen in this case.

If Woody Allen was not an acclaimed, wealthy white director, would people be exhibiting such restraint towards Dylan Farrow's claims?
THIS. This absolutely and so, so much. Admittedly, none of us knows any more than the other, but all the arguments in Woody's defense ring shallow at best and blatantly offensive at worst. I'm not speaking about anyone here, but in the comments I've read on various news sites, no one can seem to defend Woody without shaming Mia, Dylan, or women entirely. That's very telling to me.

Also, I have to say respectfully, that just because he was not convicted in a court of law does not mean he's innocent. Our court system is far from infallible: ask any ex-convict who has been exonerated by DNA evidence in the past decade. More to the point, the situation is way more complicated than, he just wasn't convicted. First of all, the only reason they didn't go to trial was because Mia and the state attorney feared for the mental and emotional health of little Dylan. Maco, the state attorney, has gone on record several times (even recently in a 2013 Vanity Fair article where Dylan first spoke about the sexual assault publicly) as saying they had quite a lot to prosecute Woody, but they placed Dylan's health above it. And even though they didn't go to trial, the judge in the case was wary enough of Woody's behavior that he granted Mia sole custody and refused Woody visitation rights with both Dylan AND Moses, Mia and Woody's other adopted child. There are also reports that Woody was in therapy for "inappropriate behavior" with Dylan, at least eight months before Mia discovered the naked pics of Soon-Yi, which blows up his "vengeful lover" defense.


Last edited by chickadee; 04-02-2014 at 07:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote
05-02-2014
  43
V.I.P.
 
MyNameIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternitygoddess View Post
^I feel like "the public doesn't know exactly what happened" and "presumption of innocence" are just politically correct ways of siding with Allen in this case.

If Woody Allen was not an acclaimed, wealthy white director, would people be exhibiting such restraint towards Dylan Farrow's claims?
No. That's the only logical thing to do at this point. Were you in the room where "something" happened? Did you conduct an extensive investigation into this case? Do you know anything we don't? All we have is her word against his word. I'd rather be impartial than condemn an innocent man.

Child sexual abuse allegations are some of the trickiest and most difficult to deal with. Not surprising. Children don't have the mental capacity to characterize, recall or explain everything correctly. They're also more prone to outside influence than adults. That's not to say these crimes shouldn't be prosecuted or punished. Just that they're difficult to deal with and we need to be mindful of that.

The fact that people are "exhibiting such restraint" toward Woody Allen (in your opinion) because he's famous isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't exhibit this restraint (I honestly don't agree with it, there are a ton of people - here included - who are ready to behead him) with regular folks. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's not a politically correct way to side with anyone. That's the foundation of our society. Being falsely accused of a sexual crime is horrific. No less horrific than the actual crime itself. 99/100 times the public will condemn the accused regardless if he's actually guilty. I say he, because men are predominantly the victims of this. People always play up the emotional factor by saying "Imagine your child was abused." Well, imagine you were wrongly accused. Your father, brother, son, husband, friend.

This IS the modern day witch hunt.

__________________
SNEJANA ONOPKA
  Reply With Quote
05-02-2014
  44
fashion insider
 
Les_Sucettes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIs View Post

The fact that people are "exhibiting such restraint" toward Woody Allen (in your opinion) because he's famous isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't exhibit this restraint (I honestly don't agree with it, there are a ton of people - here included - who are ready to behead him) with regular folks. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's not a politically correct way to side with anyone. That's the foundation of our society. Being falsely accused of a sexual crime is horrific.
Well falsely accusing someone of a crime is actually a crime in itself. So i cannot see the relevance.
Someone that gets a non guilty verdict in a sexual abuse case in court is not falsely accused of any crime, it means that there is not enough proof that the things the victim claims actually happened, it does not make the victim a liar. It just makes the accused innocent of those charges.
For any sexual abuse case to go to court people have always to presume the victim is telling the truth, the victim has to be believed to start with, does not make the accused guilty and no one is thinking of throwing anyone into jail without their day in court. I find it shocking how dismissive people, and the media, can be of sexual abuse claims, and this case is a good example.


Last edited by Les_Sucettes; 05-02-2014 at 08:14 AM.
  Reply With Quote
05-02-2014
  45
V.I.P.
 
eternitygoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 8,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIs View Post
No. That's the only logical thing to do at this point. Were you in the room where "something" happened? Did you conduct an extensive investigation into this case? Do you know anything we don't? All we have is her word against his word. I'd rather be impartial than condemn an innocent man.

Child sexual abuse allegations are some of the trickiest and most difficult to deal with. Not surprising. Children don't have the mental capacity to characterize, recall or explain everything correctly. They're also more prone to outside influence than adults. That's not to say these crimes shouldn't be prosecuted or punished. Just that they're difficult to deal with and we need to be mindful of that.

The fact that people are "exhibiting such restraint" toward Woody Allen (in your opinion) because he's famous isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't exhibit this restraint (I honestly don't agree with it, there are a ton of people - here included - who are ready to behead him) with regular folks. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's not a politically correct way to side with anyone. That's the foundation of our society. Being falsely accused of a sexual crime is horrific. No less horrific than the actual crime itself. 99/100 times the public will condemn the accused regardless if he's actually guilty. I say he, because men are predominantly the victims of this. People always play up the emotional factor by saying "Imagine your child was abused." Well, imagine you were wrongly accused. Your father, brother, son, husband, friend.

This IS the modern day witch hunt.
But you're not being impartial. You're already starting off with the assumption that Woody Allen is "an innocent man", and then providing evidence that throws doubt on Dylan Farrow's accounts.

This article provides a good breakdown of how the presumption of innocence plays out in this situation:

Quote:
Woody Allen’s Good Name
By AARON BADY
This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her.

If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody AllenHi, The Daily Beast!, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.

The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assuming she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence. If you want to vigorously claim ignorance–to assert that we can never know what happened, in that attic–then you must ground that lack of knowledge in the presumption that what she has said doesn’t count, and we cannot believe her story.

To be blunt: I think Woody Allen probably did it, though, of course, I could be wrong. But it’s okay if I’m wrong. For two reasons. First, because my opinion is not attached to a juridical apparatus—because I have not been empowered by jails and electric chairs and states of exception to destroy people’s lives—it isn’t necessary for me to err heavily on the side of “we need to be really ****ing sure that the accused did it.” It’s a good thing, generally, that juries are empowered to say “We think the accused is probably guilty, but we’re not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, so we will not convict.” That bar is set high for a reason; if you’re going to lock a person in a cage for a long time, you need to be really sure. But we are also empowered to say the same thing. We are also empowered to say “We think Woody Allen probably molested a seven year old.” And because we are not in a court of law, we don’t even need to say the second part. The fact that we will not convict him doesn’t even need to be implied. He is not, after all, on trial.

The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong. It’s much more likely that I’m right. Because I am not on Woody Allen’s jury, I can be swayed by the fact that sexual violence is incredibly, horrifically common, much more common than it is for women to make up stories about sexual violence in pursuit of their own petty, vindictive need to destroy a great man’s reputation. We are in the midst of an ongoing, quiet epidemic of sexual violence, now as always. We are not in the midst of an epidemic of false rape charges, and that fact is important here. All things being equal, it’s more likely that the man who has spent a lifetime and a cinematic career walking the line of pedophilia (to put it mildly) is a likely candidate. All things being equal, the explanation that doesn’t require you to imagine a conspiracy of angry women telling lies for no reason is probably the right one. It’s a good thing that juries can’t think this way, that they can’t take account of Occam’s Razor, because—in theory—the juridical system needs to get it right every single time (or at least hold tenaciously to that ambition). But you and I can recognize the bigger picture, because we aren’t holding a person’s life in our hands. Especially in situations like this one, the overwhelmingly more likely thing is that he did it. The overwhelmingly less likely thing is that a pair of bitter females—driven by jealousy or by the sheer malignity of the gender—have been lying about him for decades.

What is the burden of proof for assuming that a person is lying? If you are a famous film director, it turns out to be quite high. You don’t have to say a word in your defense, in fact, and people who have directed documentaries about you will write lengthy essays in the Daily Beast tearing down the testimony of your accusers. You can just go about your life making movie after movie, and it’s fine. But if you are a woman who has accused a great film director of molesting you when you were seven, the starting point is the presumption that, without real evidence, you are not telling the truth. In the court of public opinion, a woman accusing a great film director of raping her has no credibility which his fans are bound to respect. He has something to lose, his good name. She does not, because she does not have a good name. She is living in hiding, under an assumed name. And when she is silent, the Daily Beast does not rise to her defense.

In a rape culture, there is no burden on us to presume that she is not a liar, no necessary imperative to treat her like a person whose account of herself can be taken seriously. It is important that we presume he is innocent. It is not important that we presume she is not making it all up out of female malice. In a rape culture, you can say things like “We can’t really know what really happened, so let’s all act as if Woody Allen is innocent (and she is lying).” In a rape culture, you can use your ignorance to cast doubt on her knowledge; you can admit that you have no basis for casting doubt on Dylan’s statement, and then you can ignore her account of herself. A famous man is not speaking, so her testimony is not admissible evidence. His name is Woody Allen, and in a rape culture, that good name must be shielded and protected. What is her name?
source: thenewinquiry

__________________
Curiosity killed the cat...

But satisfaction brought it back

Last edited by eternitygoddess; 05-02-2014 at 09:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
abuse, accuses, allen, daughter, dylan, farrow, mia, sexual, woody
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2014 All rights reserved.