...this man is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. No amount of tabloid bullshit will change that.
shareAgreed on both counts: the controversy is based on lies that were disproved by police investigators and psychologists, and he is a great filmmaker. Unfortunately, given his age and the effectiveness of the dishonest campaign against him, we have probably seen the last of his artistic output.
shareThe tabloid stuff made me skeptical of #MeToo in general and now that it has been exposed as a weaponized corporate strategy rather than an effort to quelch sexual harassment and push for more protections against it for ALL women not just wealthy celebrities I find myself having sympathy for Woody and more disdain for his stepson Ronan Sinatra
shareHe took a lie detector test and passed. Contrary to popular belief, it is not easy to fool a lie detector test.
shareThe official police investigation also concluded that there was no evidence, just accusations.
shareThen he was cleared to adopt children by further investigations and has raised two kids.
shareYes. Amazing how know-nothings on the Internet have perpetuated these rumors about him.
shareIt's HUAC mentality. It's witch-hunting. It's guilty-until-proven-innocent, and oh, by the way, we're not going to even do a cursory Google search or hear the other side of things.
The best article I read on the whole thing pointed out that all these "believe the victim" people completely 100% neglect Moses Farrow's assertions that he and his siblings were victimized by Mia Farrow. They just don't care, and that's very disturbing, because it reveals that this mob doesn't want reconciliation or even justice, they just want blood, and more importantly, a self-righteous kind of blood that they have determined is acceptable. It's narrative-based revenge, it's not even personal or sanctified revenge, it's some kind of twisted ourouboros.
Well stated.
shareI also think there is a lot of trolling / virtue signalling, if I'm using the concepts correctly.
Every time I see some Roman Polanski mention, the poster acts like they are so outraged by this black & white situation. I'm not comfortable with whatever occurred but I'm not sitting in a fat chair somewhere signalling my outrage just to inflame everyone how wrong it was.
Yes, it's an effed up world but I'm not going to keep screaming about Polanski just to let everyone know I WON'T STAND FOR IT !! So many horrible things have happened since but by god, POLANSKI WON'T GET AWAY WITH THIS, NOT WHILE I'M ALIVE !!
Who really cares about "your" feelings at this point. But it feels good to express them, I guess.
He took a lie detector test where he used his own examiner to administer the test, he refused to have one done by the state police department's examiner. And it is very easy to fool a lie detector test when the examiner is working for you, all you have to do is remind them of who they are being paid by.
In the end the judge in the child custody case stripped Allen of ANY and ALL custody. That doesn't happen when a father is clean, it happens when the judge feels there is a danger to the children from the father. You also have the fact that the prosecutor publicly stated that there was enough evidence to press child abuse charges but that he didn't pursue them because of the age of the children and a desire to avoid putting the kids through the trauma of a trial.
Empirical evidence of all of this, or it didn't happen.
shareAre you his lawyer or something? Since you know so much about the case.
shareThe following quote taken from this page: https://levine2001.medium.com/the-woody-allen-controversy-reader-debunking-maureen-orths-undeniable-facts-about-the-woody-b734fe557943
Allen was never asked to take a polygraph by the Connecticut state police, as Allen’s attorney at the time confirmed. Orth refuses to specifically name even one source to back up what she refers to as an “undeniable fact”.
However, Allen did voluntarily submit to a lie detector test that was administered by one of the most respected polygraph examiners in the nation — Paul Minor, who had been the chief polygraph examiner for both the Army and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Minor had also been responsible for administering the polygraph test for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings as well as many others who had specifically been accused of sexual crimes.
Allen volunteered to take the test the week of August 14th, 1992, almost immediately after the allegations against him went public.
The reality is a polygraph is meaningless and is only used to try and gain evidence through the questioning of the person. There is a reason they aren't allowed in court rooms as evidence.
shareBut earlier you said that he refused to have the state do it as though the state's examiner would have proved something. So, if it proves he's guilty, then what? It's legitimate? Or it's only illegitimate once it exonerates him?
Yeah, I know that lie detector tests can be beaten (although I doubt Allen would possess those skills) and, more to the point, don't really detect lies, just biometrics, but it's one more piece on a heap of evidence against Allen's guilt.
But that's not what you asserted. Your statement earlier implied the illegitimacy of the test because he wouldn't take a second test administered by the state, not stating that the test itself was junk.
Allen's lawyer wouldn't have allowed him to be examined by the state's examiner for several reasons: 1) he feared it would show that Allen was lying which would result in a ramp up in the investigation. 2) he knew it would corner Allen into answering questions that could be problematic because if the examiner asked questions that Allen didn't answer then it would result in the state saying the suspect refused to cooperate during the exam which would make him look guilty to the public. 3) he knew it wasn't going to stop any investigation because the police know the tests are useless. Countless times a suspect has been given a lie detector test and passed it only to have the police continue to focus on that person as a suspect.
If you have your own person doing the exam you can also have your lawyer set the ground rules for what precise questions will be asked. I've never said any lie detector test has any value in determining lies, they don't. And beating a lie detector isn't that hard, take the right anti-anxiety drug prior to the exam and you don't even need any real skill to beat it.
You're making some assumptions that I would think a failed test would make him guilty, it wouldn't. These test are complete shit for determining the truth. At best they belong on a Jerry Spring type show where they provide entertainment, but have no value in any criminal investigation. I don't base my belief that Allen is a pedo on what did or didn't happen in the investigation, I simply look at what is known about Allen and that is he was chasing after the daughter of his partner who was 35 years younger than he was... for me that's enough to place Allen in the same group as Polanski.
Then you're wasting a lot of time talking about why Allen's specific test was bogus instead of that all of these tests are bogus.
You're also wasting a lot of time speculating about the accusations about Dylan when you're now saying that your big problem is his relationship with Soon-Yi.
There is no speculation on Dylan on my part. To me Allen is a pedo based on what is known, whether he molested another kid or fifty other kids makes no difference. He is human shit, if you want to try and defend him that says quite a bit about you. Lots of guilty people avoid being convicted, it doesn't mean the world has to pretend they are innocent because a trial never prove innocence.
shareYeah, so you don't care about lie detector tests or evidence regarding Dylan at all, one way or the other, you consider him a pedophile based on Soon-Yi, so why don't you say that, instead of dancing around about lie detector tests? You're not even talking about Dylan's case at all, so why talk about it? Why not just cut to the chase and say, "In my opinion, he's a pedophile based on his relationship with Soon-Yi"?
What I've been arguing against has been the misinformation surrounding the accusations regarding Dylan.
Allen was also cleared by two teams of investigators into sexual abuse of minors and then cleared to adopt kids by another team.
The wiki page says that the judge said, "...Allen's behavior toward Dylan that it was "grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her" while pointing out that Allen's inappropriate behavior was not sexual in nature."
My read of his judgement was that Allen wasn't a child molester but just wasn't a good parent, which is a strange judgement to make, really, especially when Allen was later okayed to adopt kids.
Finally, if a prosecutor thinks that somebody is guilty of child molestation and lets that individual walk, he should toss and turn every night of his life for letting that evil walk the streets. That, to me, sounds like a prosecutor saying, "I'd like to press this case, but I don't think I can win it." None of which speaks to Allen's guilt OR innocence, just to a lawyer who only wants to play games he can win, regardless of truth, lies, right, or wrong.
There are lots of people that lose custody of their kids for reasons beyond sex abuse. I never have stated I thought Allen was molesting his kids, but clearly the judge who was privy to more of the fact than anyone is going to find on a wiki page felt he was not good enough to be a parent.
As for being able to adopt kids, well the sad fact is you can shop around and find a state where it is easier to adopt because the adoption process varies by state. Some have a very rigorous vetting process for adoptions and others pretty much rubber stamp adoptions with nothing more than a check for criminal convictions. So being able to adopt doesn't mean much one way or the other.
As for the prosecutor, yes some prosecutors only take on cases they feel they have a 100% chance of winning and if they are trying for some political roll in the future they will push aside cases that they might lose especially a high profile case. It isn't fair but it is what it is. To me a jury is the right way to decide guilt or innocence and any crime where you even believe it to be a 50/50 should be taken to trial for a jury to decide if the person is guilty.
The judge is one opinion.
Woody was cleared by multiple teams of experts in the field.
That doesn't make him de-facto innocent, but doesn't mean nothing.
Maybe it should have been taken to trial, but it seems a little late for that and this court of public opinion thing is hooey.
Old blue eyes had divorced Mia years before; IVF? Anyway, yes, even though Ronan looks more like Sinatra than Woody, I'm pretty sure the latter is the biological father. Maybe Woody and Mia should go on Maury to find out!
shareMia admitted in an interview that she was often in contact with Frank well into his final years and that they never stopped "seeing each other". It's when I read that did I change my view of her as she was playing the self-righteous wife who was betrayed yet she still fucked around while married to Woody AND it confirmed my suspicions after Ronan Sinatra became a media darling
shareFirst lets get the 600 pound gorilla out of the way: Mia and Dylan are liars, verified by extensive investigation and Moses. I applaud all actors who support him; I condemn all who cower to the Me Too witch hunt of Cancel Culture.
Now his films: I love his early stuff meaning '60s & '70s. I thought his "serious" films were terrible, i.e. Match Point, Interiors, etc. I can't really get into his stuff post-Manhattan. In any case it definitely doesn't rise to the level of Sleeper, Annie Hall, and Play it Again Sam. Change my mind!
I don't know that Dylan is a conscious liar; it may well be that she actually believes what she says, as her brother Moses once did before he grew older & thought about things for himself. In which case she is a victim, but not of Woody Allen, rather of Mia Farrow.
Personally, I love Midnight In Paris!
I saw part of it; I'll see it again and see. Anyway, if anyone remembers the 1980s there were a ton of fake child molestation cases from schools: the Kelly Michaels case comes to mind. The social service fascists invented fake charges and prompted 4 year olds to make up things about their teachers. Many innocent ones went to prison for years before the ruse was up. Another important case was The Friedmans, which they made a film about: a whole family destroyed by fake charges.
shareWell, we're old enough to remember the nightmarish insanity of those days, and the harm they did to so many innocent people. The McMartin School, for instance, and similar cases all across the country.
Midnight In Paris might not be one of Woody's finest films from an artistic viewpoint, perhaps, but it's a lot of fun, very sweet & charming, quite rewatchable, I think.
I'm not a fan of the serious stuff either, but I think Hannah and her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors are perfect blends of comedy and drama. Great films. If Hannah and Her Sisters is on tv, I stop and watch it. It's a joy to see movies actually made for adults and not 12 year olds.
shareI actually like some of the serious stuff, but agree that the blend of comedy & drama is where Woody really excels.
shareAgreed, his 80s movies seem to get overlooked but they contain some of my favorites: "Broadway Danny Rose", "Radio Days", "Hanna & Her Sisters", and "Crimes & Misdemeanors".
"Sweet and Lowdown" also get an honorable mention from me.
I think Match Point is one of his finest films of all-time.
shareClearly you have no taste in films. He made a few that were interesting and a lot that were steaming piles of shit. A great film will stand up over time... his don't.
shareClearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
From the 70s and 80s alone:
Bananas
Sleeper
Love and Death
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Stardust Memories
Zelig
A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy
Radio Days
Hannah and Her Sisters
and his absolute masterpiece,
Crimes and Misdemeanors
For intelligent people, every single one of those movies holds up (I'm not going to speak for his post-scandal films, though at least half of them hold up to repeated viewings).
You're just upset because you digested the propaganda and you're angry for being identified as a sucker.
it's true.
share