Woody Allen's daughter: my father molested me when I was a child.

What you do is presume the man is innocent until evidence is presented that convinces you otherwise.

 

Yes that is true in a legal context but I am offering an opinion and not a legal judgement. I'm explaining why I don't particularly trust Allen and why I find some of the defense put forward about him questionable.

None of us are in a court of law here trying Allen and speaking for myself if I was to be considered a juror for a trial of Woody Allen I would politely excuse myself since I have publicly stated an opinion.

 

So you wouldn't trust a man that has put his every emotion and weakness on the screen for 40 years, has been constantly in the public eye, on the streets of New York and has never had a another hint of scandal (other than just the odd but stable relationship with a younger ward/wife) but you would take the word of a wife from a contentious paternity suit, a known philanderer, and generally consider flakey at best?

 

Society has too short an attention span to wait for anything.

Or in today's words:

 

Nope, it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant.... also Woody Allen is notorious for his privacy.

Never had a scandal other than marrying his teenage step daughter and accusations of child molestation. If that is a "hint of scandal" then you may want to reconsider how you define "scandal".

Fair point, but we are talking about Woody Allen's DAUGHTER making the claim.

 

Trust him for what? I would trust him to write a screen play and direct a movie but I wouldn't trust leaving kids around him alone and unsupervised.

 

Well, to be fair, it's the word of the daughter, and I think certainly she deserves to be heard as do all who claim sexual abuse. But the law should apply fairly to all regardless- whether it's theft or murder or child molestation or anything. Basically, what it boils down to for most is:

1. If you like him and his work, you'll try whatever you can to defend him.

2. If you don't, you'll find things to support your belief that he did it.

3. If you've been a victim of sexual abuse, you'll probably find him guilty automatically (look at the Comments part of the NY Times- every single person who mentioned that they'd been abused agreed with her 100%).

4. If you've been a victim of false accusations, particularly in a custody battle, you're going to side with Allen (see #3).

I wish it were more clear-cut. I wish I could say that the daughter is only doing this for publicity, but I can't. I wish I could say that Allen is an obvious pedophile and we have proof to back this up, but I can't. The only thing I know is that I don't know. I don't know 100% if I can believe what she said happened the way it did, and I don't know 100% if I can believe him in what he says happens.

But I cannot, I cannot find him guilty based only on her letter. He is the one being accused- so my decision has to be whether or not I find him guilty. And I certainly cannot do that based on numerous factors.

And I certainly won't boycott his films due to this- just like I watched Chinatown last week. If you knew some of the things corporations do in terms of slave labor in other countries, etc., then you'd have to boycott Apple, Nike, etc.

I think the poor woman needs to continue to seek therapy- and if she can pursue a civil case or something, that is her right. But she's not going to bring down his legacy, and she's not going to prevent other actors from working with him. You have to understand, Hollywood is home to some of the biggest sleazebags anywhere. But it's not often who you think- most of the A-list actors and directors are fairly decent, from what I've been told (talked to a few people at the Santa Fe Independent Film Festival)- many of them have too much at stake and are just decent- albeit with big egos.

But the real sleazes in Hollywood are the B-grade directors, the executives who are under the Studio Heads, etc. It's the ones behind the scenes that try to molest young actors, particularly women, etc. As well as just screw things up in general. I'm reading a book about screenplay writing from the guys who wrote Night at the Museum, among others, and here's their take:

"Everything would have been successful for Herbie Fully Loaded. The President of the Studio loved our idea of setting Herbie in a totally real world, and giving the movie a strong female character, Lindsay Lohan loved it and only made 1 suggestion to improve it (a very good suggestion, it turned out), and everybody was on board. Except one executive under the president. And because this person was dumb as a stump and mean as a rattlesnake, he screwed up the entire movie (many times, the sleazes are the ADs, the #2 executives, etc.)...."

Just one writer's opinion, but Hollywood deals with these incompetent people- as well as sleazes all the time, so they're not going to stop working with someone who's actually very good at his job based on an accusation in which there's reasonable doubt based on all the circumstances. They see people do these things in real life, and they often refuse to work with them again. It's surprising how no one, over a span of 44 films, has ever come out and accused him of anything- even sexual harassment. A side point, but one to consider given that pedophiles almost always have more than 1 victim.

Just a mess all around.

 

Ummm, no. If he wins his case, he's "not guilty" and even then only not guilty in the eyes of the law. Whether he's actually innocent is an objective truth that no court case can affect.

His affair with Soon-Yi looks like a big neon child predator warning light to me. His relationships before Soon-Yi and the sexual mores that come through in his films also make you wonder. That he's been around for half a century doesn't make me trust him any better. But I'm not really taking Mia Farrow's word for it either, I'm mostly taking Dylan Farrow's word. I don't know for sure, but I'm not about to be going around finding reasons why he's not guilty.

 

So, in other words, you find him guilty because he fits the stereotype of a child molester. Yep, that happens. Playing basketball in the park by myself a few months ago, minding my own business- kid comes up and starts shooting his little basketball. So, all I did was throw him his ball that rebounded to me- the mom came over from the sandbox where she was with her other kid, grabbed his arm, "we gotta go" and proceeded to take off quickly. And I mean, she looked frightened. What could I do? Should I not go into a park that has the only decent basketball goal in my neighborhood b/c it also happens to be 1,000 feet from a kid's playground? I guess so. Shame.

 

Yes, you do know for sure b/c that woman's statement leaves no room for ambiguity. So, at least have the guts to say that you know he did it and not try to have it both ways (Well, I believe her but I just don't know).

 

No I've said specifically that I wouldn't vote to convict him.

Except under your scenario you aren't being prevented from playing basketball at that park. Nothing the mom does prevents you from playing basketball. That said the mom is completely free to form an opinion about you and decide she doesn't want to let her kids play with you. That is part of having a free society that short of violence we are free to association with who we want and also decided who we want our children to.

I wouldn't convict Woody Allen but at the same time I don't have to like him or trust him around kids. For the record I don't have kids but help to take care of two young female cousins and I certainly wouldn't leave them with Woody Allen.

Anyway you yourself wrote this.

So you have also made a negative judgement of him too.

 

It could be a false memory ingrained by repetition of the story by Ms. Farrow since the girl was very young.

 

I said I would not have a relationship with someone who was connected with me that way. Nor would I, if I divorced my wife, date someone in their 20s (I'm 46). Just too much of an age difference. Of course I'm making a judgment of him in that respect- just like I wouldn't follow the political ideology of a Commodore, which means I'm making a judgment about him, or that I disagree with many aspects of a Jehovah's Witness.

Since you're speaking about differences, the difference is a criminal act. And also, I'm not calling him sleazy for doing what he did, anymore than I would call Paul McCartney sleazy for dating someone in their 20s when he was in his 50s. Just saying I wouldn't do it. We make judgments all the time, but I think you have to be a bit more careful to judge when someone is accused of a criminal act, particularly a felony, due to the weight of consequences involved.

 

I don't know. If I absolutely had to bet, I guess I'd bet he did it. The truth is, none of us know. We're just guessing - and we're guessing about a big deal here. Whichever side you take, you make yourself part of the societal pressure that is likely to cause some more mental trauma with some of these people.

In any case he's a fantastic screenwriter, a horrendous father, and an odd person. We don't know anymore about him other than what he's allowed us to know. It's crazy to assume that, based on the weirdness in his films, that he is somehow morally corrupt. There's no winner here. If he's right, then Mia Farrow has destroyed her own child. If she's right, then Woody Allen has destroyed his own child. Who cares if one is more famous than the other - how does this set of accusations differ from other cases of accusation with unknown people, which happens everywhere all the time? Do we feel like, since the media is forcing this news into our heads, that we HAVE to make a judgement about it?

I want to say I hope it's not true, but I'm not sure there would be fewer victims in this story even if it weren't.

 

Do you think it made you hyper sensitive to this subject? I think we all have back stories and skeletons that steer our opinion and decisions in life.

 

There a lot more reason to believe that Woody Allen is a child molester than Michael Jackson ever was.

I still find the explanation the child was coached very hard to believe. This women has nothing to gain from the accusation.

 

3 families members saying it happened is evidence. Is it enough evidence to convict him in court? Maybe, but that's not relevant.

His movies are evidence (Whatever Works). His whole life is evidence.

 

Man that sounds a bit naive.

 

Everybody's background affects how they think about this. Everyone's, including yours. I clearly stated that above- I also mentioned earlier in this thread that a close family member was sexually abused by her brother- and he did it to all 3 of his sisters. I could've f***ing killed him with my bare hands.

But maybe it's also being jaded. We were told by Roger Clemens over and over again that he didn't do it. "If the glove don't fit you must acquit." The lesbian waitress and the whole story she concocted about getting stiffed and a nasty note about her lesbian lifestyle. There has to be more- and that poster above is incorrect- there are not 3 family members who confirm this- there is only 1 family member who can attest to this, and she clearly did in a public forum.

One thing I can say with 100% certainty is that almost every single conservative on this board will feel he is guilty. Even though their insistence on the rule of law is steadfast, their dislike of liberals and anything associated with this, including Hollywood, overrules this. And liberals will do the same with Mr. Allen- they will insist that someone like him could never do something like that, etc. So, it comes down to- who do you believe? And my answer is: I don't know.

 

Whatever Works' main character insists over and over again that the girl he allows to stay with him is absolutely crazy to think they should get married, clearly indicating their age and other differences as a reason. In the movie Manhattan, the character who is dating the 17 year-old tells her several times that she needs to date other people, that she is too young for him. Of course, he goes back and tries to get her back in the end, but by then it's too late. And nothing comes of the flirtation the character has in Husbands & Wives with his college student (and that's definitely nothing new).

If anything, what bothers me more about the characters in many of his movies is how casually they engage in extramarital affairs. Michael Murphy's character in Manhattan angers me much more than Woody Allen's b/c he admits to cheating on his wife several times, and then he (Murphy's character) cheats on his best friend with his girlfriend. Matchpoint, Deconstructing Harry, Crimes and Misdemeanors- all deal with infidelity- but to his credit, every case ends up making things worse, so morally, many of his movies are about how these immoral choices have negative consequences.