We are (somewhat oddly) kind of on the same page with this, so I will try to avoid just echoing back. I will note that I deleted in my last post a mini paragraph that suggested that, in Connecticut anyway (where the initial investigations occurred) Mia Farrow is likely the more influential celebrity than Woody Allen.
I think the more common, and serious (though still bogus) argument made is not the Manhattan analogy, but that, since he had sex with 21 (or 19) year old Soon-Yi he must also be the kind of man who would have sex with 7 year old Dylan. While it is possible the same man would do both, there is nothing about the first that makes the second more likely. It may be shitty or immature, but plenty of men in their 50s are sexually attracted to women in their early 20s; there is nothing pedophillic about that. What is shitty about the Soon-Yi thing is mostly that he was cheating on his long time partner, and doing so with the woman most likely to hurt her; as if he were cheating on his wife with her (much) younger sister. I think that does qualify him as an asshole, but again is uncorrelated with being a pedophile. On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 at 10:25 PM davesik...@gmail.com <davesik...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know you're not doing this, but your mentioning of it brings up > something that annoys me. In a lot of the writing on this case (I won't > elevate it by calling it reporting), Allen is called "a powerful figure in > Hollywood," or "an example of the rich getting away with crimes." > > While I have no doubt Allen is wealthy (not crazy rich, but he's not going > to have to worry), he's never been a part of the power culture. He doesn't > socialize, isn't seen in the company of other rich people, and doesn't seem > to have access to the networks that, say, Trump, Epstein, and Weinstein > had. Yes, he's a "rich white guy," but not everyone who meets that > description is plugged in and invulnerable. > > As well, yes, he's won Oscars and directed scores of films, but he's not > exactly a power player. For decades, to be in "a Woody Allen" picture was a > prestige move, but his pictures always had relatively-miniscule budgets, > rarely made a lot of money and, over the last decade or so, he's scrambled > for financing and casting actors concerned with being connected with him. > It's not like he could make or break a career by casting or not casting > someone. His was a niche business at best. For quite a while now, his > pictures have ranged from okay to terrible, as he essentially juggled the > same tropes over and over in different combinations. Sometimes they hit (I > generally liked "A Rainy Day in New York," for example, despite the usual > modern young people acting as though they were born in the 40s and one > uncomfortable scene with Elle Fanning in her underwear [which would have > been uncomfortable even without the smear campaign hanging over them], but > "Wonder Wheel" was all but unwatchable), so maybe it's time for him to > retire. > > Because of the charges--and especially because of HBO thing--I think his > career is essentially over, anyway. He still hasn't found a distributor for > his last movie, actors are disowning him, and Farrow has succeeded in > smearing his reputation. The former part of this probably doesn't bother > him. I'd imagine he'll be just as happy raising his kids, watching the > Knicks, and living his remaining years in relative obscurity. The latter, > I'm sure, concerns him, but that ship has sailed. Despite the YouTube > documentary proclaiming his innocence (I've yet to watch it), to the > general public, his reputation is toxic. This is apparent from all the > writers I've seen online whose argument boils down to "I always found him > creepy, so of course the charges must be true," which is circular logic at > its best. > > Another charge that keeps coming up again is "He played a man in love with > a teenager in 'Manhattan,' so he's obviously guilty," even though they > never charge him with being a bank robber, a revolutionary, a small-time > criminal, or hiring a hit man, all of whom were protagonists in his films > -- and ignoring the criticism his character gets in "Manhattan" itself > about his relationship. (The whole "he married his stepdaughter!" thing is > just more evidence why Trump still has a following. Too many people are > basically stupid and don't read beyond the neon headlines.) > > I'd never deny that what he did was shitty and handled badly, but if > everyone who's done something appalling in a relationship is open to being > called a pedophile, a lot of people are in trouble. > > I'm assuming that the HBO series won't mention Farrow's own issues > (Moses's charges of abuse, her children's suicides, her own marriages to > much older men, and Ronan's father), because that might actually muddy the > waters and lessen her (in my mind, nonexistent) credibility. The producers > and HBO have invested a lot in her story, and they're not going to dilute > it. > > --Dave Sikula > > On Sunday, February 21, 2021, 8:28:29 PM PST, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I probably should avoid it too, but I watched the first episode just now, > as I suspect it will come up at work. > > Dave’s summary of the bias and distortion is accurate, though they > represent Woody with audio from his book, in his voice, which seems like > they would need his permission to do? > > Dylan is allowed to tell her story of course, but I would have more > respect for this series if it was in fact titled something like “Dylan’s > Story” (though, frankly, it would probably more accurately be called “Mia’s > Story”) than something implying both sides are being told. > > The series could go a long way towards redeeming it self if it spends an > hour somewhere on what we now know about the suggestibility of human, and > especially childhood, memory, and the complications of child abuse > allegations in the context of custody and relationship conflict. However, > the failure to present this at the very beginning of the series so it could > contextualize (to use a favorite word of Ronan’s) the story to come is a > major failure. > > For me the most revealing moment in episode 1 was Mia’s friend saying that > Mia was “very forgiving” of Soon-Yi when Mia first found the pornographic > pictures of Soon-Yi in Woody’s apartment. Soon-Yi was 21 (or, by some > accounts, 19) at the time, having an affair with a man in his late 50s, and > to that extent not that different from her mother Mia’s relationship with > Frank Sinatra. Woody was never married to Soon-Yi, and never adopted her, > and she had an adoptive father, but even so clearly had some form of father > figure role for much of her childhood. This is the most obviously shitty > behavior on the part of Woody, and is the part that come closest to his > avatar in *Manhattan*. > > That remark from Mia’s friend though suggested to me that Mia is > functioning during this period more as a hurt and jealous romantic parter > to Allen (and rival to her daughter Soon-Yi) than as a concerned mother. > > None of that means that Allen did not molest his adopted daughter Dylan. > But the documentary assumes an ominous tone of his guilt being inevitable, > which it never justifies or earns. I am open to evidence that Allen is > guilty- God knows in my own work I have seen enough horrific instances of > men doing horrible things to their daughters. But I still have not seen > that evidence. We know that several competent agencies investigated at the > time and found no evidence, though of course it would not be the first time > rich and famous people got favorable treatment (though in this case there > were rich and famous people on both sides). I am going to need more than > horrified memories from Mia’s friend that Woody let 3 year old Dylan suck > on his thumb. > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 1:43 AM 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV < > tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I'll be avoiding this one the way the Farrows avoid the truth. From all > advance word, it's heavily slanted in their favor and damns Allen, who > refused to participate, as did Moses Farrow, who seems to have the clearest > perspective of all. > > What Allen did was, well, shitty, but (from what's on the record) not as > reprehensible as Mia and Ronan would have us believe. > > --Dave Sikula > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/c6aa42dc-3d40-4e66-a40c-fbb83d45f865n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/c6aa42dc-3d40-4e66-a40c-fbb83d45f865n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tvornottv/4ZMX-YOnBtg/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJXK%3DaUGzm6mtnjdjTkA5itAQZ0JeTcCzYxUDpHTEhpmA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJXK%3DaUGzm6mtnjdjTkA5itAQZ0JeTcCzYxUDpHTEhpmA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/1013726293.776908.1613975096577%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/1013726293.776908.1613975096577%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK6a7sSW2FTtvzYg13GZH43yNreB7hCg4%3D-k7QEQ-4XhA%40mail.gmail.com.
