Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 232

Thread: The "Woody Allen is Probably Disgusting" Thread

  1. #76
    aging hipster trash The Seaward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worthless
    Posts
    3,698
    Mia is certainly no saint. Her recent "Maaaaybe Frank Sinatra is my son's father?" admission is weird. Frank Sinatra's widow is very much still alive. I wonder how she feels about Mia declaring that she definitely fucked her husband to the world. Mia seems only concerned with Mia, to me. I do feel bad for her kids.
    I don't understand the question, and I won't respond to it.

  2. #77
    she said destroy Lágnætti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Grim North
    Posts
    6,235
    Mia fucked other people's husbands too. Dora Previn's, for starters. She has also stood by rapist Roman Polanski. She's a piece of work too, obviously. I don't think her being a fuckwitted pain and Allen being a bit of a Chester are mutually exclusive things though.

  3. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,053
    I've always thought she seemed like a very interesting woman. Philanthropic, thoughtful, maybe a little self-absorbed sure, but then most celebrities are. I believe Farrow has always been very complimentary about what a great man Sinatra was, which should make his widow happy. Sinatra, like Woody Allen, had a pretty sorted personal life, to say the least. But Farrow was generous in her descriptions of him, which I think shows that she's not always out to trash an ex, etc.

  4. #79
    A Matter Of How You See It Kala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,361
    That whole family is fucked up to high hell. Andre Previn the famous composer/conductor who adopted Soon-Yi has been quoted as saying "She does not exist."

  5. #80
    Remember. Steve SFM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The American Riviera
    Posts
    7,381
    Quote Originally Posted by julius ebola View Post
    His rationalizations (well, she wasn't MY daughter) and his inability to recognize the impact that fucking his long-term girlfriend's teenage daughter would have on her family (but wait, it's all right, cos they weren't HIS kids) are truly those of a special piece of work. The interview he gave about the situation back in the day was chilling in his utter disregard for the family of Soon-Yi and also in his ability to deduce right from wrong IMHO. He denies, he rationalizes and he minimizes in the tradition of any good abuser, actually.
    Welcome back.

    I feel like in the past I've softpedaled how nasty his hooking up with Soon-Yi really was. I think I'd rationalized it that way; because I do believe that she was of age when they started messing around and that he wasn't really a father figure to her (although he may well have taken advantage of her relative inexperience). But, well, HE FUCKED HIS CHILDREN'S SISTER. And then married her, etc.

    Maybe it's just that, now that I'm truly sober, I have a lot less patience for rationalization of the type I used to do like woah. I mean, "the heart wants what it wants"? (I guess that's an Emily Dickinson line; for those who don't know the reference, Woody said that to justify his relationship with Soon-Yi.) That's about as narcissistic as it gets. Who gives a shrieking fuck what your goddamned heart wants? If it's going to be that hurtful, you don't do it. You step up, and you make the ethical choice.

    ETA: SHIT. I really didn't remember that stuff about Cosby. And that guy isn't even considered a weirdo like Woody. What other shit is out there? And, of course, one of the genuinely nice, ethical guys in showbiz dies with a needle sticking out of his arm.
    At my core, I think we're gonna be OK.

    Barack Hussein Obama

  6. #81
    she said destroy Lágnætti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Grim North
    Posts
    6,235
    Well, nearly every famous male TV presenter from my childhood has either been convicted of sexual offences or been outed post-mortem as a horrific predatory pedophile at this point. I've had a think about this and I came to the conclusion that certain professions are simply very attractive to those with a sexually predatory nature due to the opportunity and cover they provide. You like to fuck kids, get a career with access to kids and get into as big a position of trust as possible. Could be teaching or a kiddie TV presenter. You like young, nubile women, join the entertainment industry ... lots of young women desperate to succeed and also, everyone knows women 'throw' themselves at male stars!

    ETA: Amazing how the Cosby story was buried. I never heard a whisper of it despite being online at that point in time. Ugh.
    Last edited by Lágnætti; 02-04-2014 at 09:17 PM.

  7. #82
    she said destroy Lágnætti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Grim North
    Posts
    6,235
    Back to Allen for a moment: check out this Gawker thing full of er, interesting moments in history concerning Allen's relationship to young girls

  8. #83
    Make it Pink Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Arpeggiator Hell
    Posts
    2,480
    Quote Originally Posted by julius ebola View Post
    Back to Allen for a moment: check out this Gawker thing full of er, interesting moments in history concerning Allen's relationship to young girls
    I'd JUST come back to link that. Yeesh.

  9. #84
    she said destroy Lágnætti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Grim North
    Posts
    6,235
    The first bit, where he mentions the 'love nest of 12 year-old girls' does remind me of Saville. In Louis Theroux's film about he sits there basically making jokes about molesting schoolgirls too ... which is exactly what he was fixated on doing in real life. Brilliant bluff - joke about it so no-one thinks you actually do it - the old standard of hiding things in plain view.

    (Also see: Klaus Kinski 'joking' onset to a fellow actor about raping his teenage daughter Nastassia the evening before, which it transpires he almost certainly did do.)

  10. #85
    Join The Resistance Barbarella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Whorelando
    Posts
    7,086
    “I’m open-minded about sex. I’m not above reproach; if anything, I’m below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him. Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone. I admit to it all.”
    Oh come the fuck on! Who says shit like this? And on the record too!

    A sick fuck who has rationalized/normalized his behavior, that's who.

  11. #86
    she said destroy Lágnætti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Grim North
    Posts
    6,235
    Just reading this very long old Vanity Fair piece about the Farrow/Allen scandal. Some information about Soon-Yi that throws some light on things for me.

    For the first three years Mia cared for her, Soon-Yi referred to her as “Good Mama,” as opposed to her natural mother, “Naughty Mama.” Naughty Mama was reportedly a prostitute; for punishment, she would force Soon-Yi to kneel in a doorway, and she would slam the door against the little girl’s head. One day she left the child on a street in Seoul and said she would be back in five minutes. Then she disappeared forever. When the orphanage found Soon-Yi, she spoke no known language, just gibberish.

    Mia waited almost a year to get her, and finally had to request that Congress change the law that limited the number of alien children an American family could adopt. She then stayed at the orphanage in Seoul washing dishes for 10 days until Soon-Yi’s papers came through. In order to get to know the child, Mia brought her a doll and a pretty new dress. The doll frightened Soon-Yi. She had never seen one before and thought it was some kind of animal. Later, when Mia dressed her up and stood her before a mirror, Soon-Yi hated what she saw and tried to kick the mirror in. She despised men more, and hissed whenever one came near. Recently, a psychiatrist who has seen Soon-Yi informed Mia that mothering her was probably a no-win proposition: in terms of transference, her intense antipathy toward her biological mother was too great. Mia’s friends say Mia disagrees with this assessment.

    At some point Soon-Yi started calling “Good Mama” Mia. “She was not as close to Mia as the other children were,” says Priscilla Gilman. “She wasn’t very demonstrative. Mia was towards her, but she just never was towards Mia.”

    Nobody knows how old Soon-Yi really is. Without ever seeing her, Korean officials put her age down as seven on her passport. A bone scan Mia had done on her in the U.S. put her age at between five and seven. In the family, Soon-Yi is considered to have turned 20 this year, on October 8. Prior to Tam, she was the oldest child Mia had adopted; she was also the most learning-deprived, the quietest and least socialized of all the children. She has always worked extraordinarily hard, spending hours on homework it took others a half-hour to complete. Because of her learning disabilities, she took the S.A.T.’s untimed.
    She may have a degree from wherever, but this girl sounds classically 'vulnerable'. Violence, abandonment and by inference, possible sexual abuse (hissing at men would indicate a learned fear of them). A large part of her early life was utterly traumatic and violent and without love. I mean, draw your own conclusions but ... ugh. Red flags ahoy for me here.

    Then there's this:

    Soon-Yi issued her own statement to Newsweek, asserting her independence, savaging Mia, and declaring, “I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather—not by a long shot. I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia.” Soon-Yi declared in writing exactly what Woody had said, that Mia would have been just as upset if he had slept with “another actress or his secretary.”

    Mia’s family were astounded by the statement. “Soon-Yi doesn’t know half those words, what they mean,” one close to them said. Equally astonished was Audrey Seiger, who has a doctorate in learning and reading disabilities and had spent hundreds of hours tutoring Soon-Yi from the sixth grade all the way through high school. When Soon-Yi was in the third grade, her I.Q. tested as slightly below average. She went to Seiger with “very deprived early language development, which carried on throughout the years.” Seiger and Soon-Yi became close, and Soon-Yi worked very hard. “She’s a very typical L.D. kid, very socially inappropriate, very, very naïve,” says Seiger, who is deeply worried about Soon-Yi today. “She has trouble processing information, trouble understanding language on an inferential level. She’s very, very literal and flat in how she interprets what she sees and how she interprets things socially. She misinterprets situations.”
    Last edited by Lágnætti; 02-05-2014 at 12:26 AM.

  12. #87
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9,422
    I don't think this was posted here, so apologies if it was.

    Woody Allen sex abuse allegations: Why I want to believe Dylan Farrow in The Telegraph


    'Things are complex' and 'we can't know' are precisely the sort of mealy-mouthed justifications we use against adult accusations of sexual abuse. We use a grown woman's background to tear down her account of what happened all the time. We use a man's position in the defence, as if people who are powerful and admired aren't precisely the sort of people who can get away with these kinds of crimes. The shaming is toxic but ubiquitous. That we would use these same tools of erasure against children is barbaric.

    If we don't at least give child accusers the benefit of the doubt, then what message are we sending? Not only to adults like Dylan Farrow who have been significantly affected by their alleged experiences, but to a parent who might be frightened to expose another adult as an abuser?

    ...

    When we assume that because the accused is famous the accusation must be false, or some other complex accounting that always seems tragically to come round to not believing her, we are saying we think she is that lying exception. But Dylan Farrow has moved on, married, changed her name, what does she have to gain by exposing these painful accusations to us? Apart from closure not very much.

    Human relationships and memories are complex. The fact that they are should not be a reason for us to throw up her hands and say, 'we can't possibly know, so let's pretend the answer is it didn't happen'. We don't know means precisely that: we do not know. Therefore we can't continue to maintain the status quo of assuming she is wrong. That is not a state which incorporates doubt. We have on some level to fold this into what we know, or think we know, about Allen.

    In the end, whatever happens, his life probably will carry on exactly as before anyway. Look at the people who queue up to defend Polanski (yes, even Dylan Farrow's mother).

    I want to believe Dylan Farrow because I can't square my conscience with not believing her. If I am proved wrong, and on the side of the seven-year-old child, then that to me is preferable than the possibility of being on the side of the powerful adult and being proved wrong.

    If you believe the victims of Jimmy Savile, why don't you give proper consideration to Dylan Farrow? Is it because Allen is still alive, and we only develop consciences once the accused are past the reach of justice?

  13. #88
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9,422
    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    Stephen King makes an ambiguous comment about an article concerning Farrow/Allen. Twitter freaks out. I think most people thought he was talking about Dylan. Mary Karr points out that he's probably talking about the article itself.
    He wrote more about it today:

    Those of you who follow Twitter will know that recently I managed to put my foot in my mouth and halfway down my throat. A good many people came away from my tweet about the Woody Allen controversy with the idea that I had called Dylan Farrow or Mia Farrow (or both) a bitch. That wasn’t my intention, but the conclusion on the part of some readers is understandable. I used the wrong word to describe not Ms. Farrow—either Ms. Farrow—but a sad and painful mess. Some people seem to believe that writers never use the wrong word, but any editor can tell you that’s not true.

    Those of you who have read my work—Carrie, Dolores Claiborne, Rose Madder, and Lisey’s Story, to name four—will know that I have plenty of respect for women, and care about the problems and life-situations they face. My single-mom mother faced plenty, believe me. And I have no sympathy whatever for those who abuse children. I wrote about such abuse—and its ultimate cost to the victim—in Gerald’s Game.

    The maximum number of letters in a Tweet is 140. I think the following would fit: I apologize for screwing up.

    Just know my heart is where it’s always been: in the right place.

  14. #89
    a succulent Chinese meal lacuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,071
    I have to chuckle at his apology because I imagined his voice as Troy McClure. "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may know me from such novels as Carrie, Dolores Claiborne, Rose Madder, and for being a douche on twitter..." Boy, he made sure to get his titles in there.

  15. #90
    I put the PILLS in the PEOPLE! wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    145
    Here are a few more good pieces on the Woody saga:

    This one from Slate says basically what I was thinking as I was reading "the other side" piece.

    And this one that makes some great points like, "Tell yourself that this is not rape culture. Tell yourself that a knee-jerk reaction of you must be lying or remembering it wrong when faced with a victim's accusations of rape is not a sign that our society is so very, very fucked up. Tell yourself that it's rational and logical to want to know all sides of the story, though you never want to know the other side, the perpetrator's side, when your house is broken into or your wallet is stolen or your child is hit by a car. Tell yourself that we can never know for sure what happened and since a man's life can be destroyed by accusations of rape, it's best to err on the side of caution. Do not think about the girl whose life was destroyed when she was seven."

    And here's a fucking slap in the face! An excerpt from one of Woody's plays mocking child molestation. (!!!)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •