Woody Allen comes out fighting

[El Unicornio, mang]

He's also in Motherless Brooklyn for all of about 3 minutes, presumably to help get bums on seats. Although that's actually a decent film.

[Retinend]

Twitter really doesn't like this article.

But it doesn't help that the author is also on the TERF side of things.



edit- I know it always annoys me to hear "hey go to twitter", and I don't want to become the thing I hate so voilà:




https://imgur.com/a/eYcrJkh

[SOMK]

Sorry too much wrong in this thread...

No, they both had separate apartments in New York. Pair of weirdos, if you ask me.

Mia Farrow: Adopts 10 orphans from orphanages around the world, often disabled.

Woody Allen: Marries his partner's adopted daughter (after compromising photographs of said daughter were found in Allen's possession), witnessed abusing another corroborated by child in question.

Conclusion: These people are equally weird.

Having done an unnecessary amount of research on this matter (from the starting point of thinking Allen was innocent and it took A LOT of reading to get there), False memory syndrome isn't a real syndrome, it's never been listed in the DSM (the diagnosis manual for psychiatric disorder in the US), it was literally concocted by two parents who's daughter accused the father of abusing her (said daughter was also an expert on sex abuse and memory) as a child and these memories being repressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation (for bonus points check out the talk page wherein Pamela Freyd co-founder of the foundation is told off for attempts to edit the wikipedia page of the syndrome she and her husband invented)


The false memory foundation was set up in partnership with Ralph Underwager a professional defense witness in cases of abuse in the 80's (give him a google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujjFqXijPd4 he also claimed to have advised the Allen legal team at the time of the Dylan abuse case, ditto Michael Jackson), who became very rich in the 80's testifying that children's memories/testimonies were unreliable, he would later be quoted as saying in a pro-paedophilia magazine that "paedophilia is God's will". The guardian article notes that the doctor that claimed Farrow's replies were "robotic and rehearsed" never actually interviewed her (it follow this with a "but" she was interviewed by two students over the course of a few months?!!)

Nevertheless the corner stone of Allen's defense hinges on this 'false memory syndrome', something which isn't an actual syndrome and according to its own definition comes about when a therapist over the course of a number of sessions via hypnotic suggestion successfully implants a memory of a childhood abuse into an adult (something which has never been done in laboratory conditions, the best they did was manage to convince a small number of people in a study that they may have visited a fair as a child using a doctored photograph (and even with the doctored photograph most people in the study denied it ever happened), when the same thing was attempted with a traumatic memory (in this instance not a trip to a fair but a memory of a doctor inserting a finger in an uncomfortable place) all attempts failed), not an untrained amateur implanting a memory of something which happened the other day into a child who to this day as an adult insists it happened.

So in other words even under the bullshit, made up, non-medical category that is 'false memory syndrome' what happened to Dylan Farrow doesn't come remotely close to being 'false memory syndrome'. Also the publication of the clinical investigation that apparently vindicated Allen was hijacked by Allen's legal team and turned into a pro-Allen press conference at the time.

Worth pointing out Moses Farrow is the only Farrow child to have broken with Farrow herself (if she was such a bad un wouldn't more of her 14 children be out there denouncing her?) and sided with Allen (he's also the only one of the children who actively tried to pursue a career in filmmaking), he's effectively estranged from the family, if you read accounts from 'their' side you get a very different picture. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/10/mia-farrow-children-family-scandal

Lastly if you read what Allen said at the time and then read op eds he wrote 25 years later  when this was kicked up again circa 2013/2014 when an adult Dylan Farrow came out (and it's worth noting this isn't the name she uses today, so the often thrown about thing that "this is just someone looking for attention" about people who come forward with tales of abuse doesn't even remotely fit) and said "yes I was abused" (FYI the New York Times only published Farrow's statement second hand on a blog on their website, Allen's first hand response got the front page and was publicly supported by NYT editors), if you compare them you will note how similar they read, a hallmark of someone who is lying is that the story doesn't change, it's note for note the same, this is not how people who genuinely recall events remember things, because as you age your perspective changes thus your recollections get framed differently, so even if you have the same memory your wording will change, whereas if you've been given a script to learn off, it'll be pretty much the same thing 25 years later.

Curious the Guardian article mentions the study, but doesn't mention false memory syndrome (nor does it question the impartiality of Allen's therapists).

With the various faffy qualifiers that "we'll never really know" as much as it's possibly to ever know something like this, Allen is guilty as fuck. And there is far more money in defending rich powerful abusers than their victims. This is one of those hiding in plain sight things that once Allen dies, ala Saville, Jackson it'll be like "oh yeah, the guy who married his daughter and cast himself in films where he has romances with 17 years olds was a bit of a wrong un wasn't he?"

Okay byyyeeeeeeeeee!

✌️

[mr. logic]

You have done all that research yet you still conclude he 'married his daughter'?

[dontrunyoullfall]

You can't get past that logic - you know someone is lying because their story doesn't change.

[Armin Meiwes]

I don't disagree with your first point - I don't know a huge amount about Mia Farrow but Im certainly not slagging her off as a weirdo, adopting that many kids is a hell of an undertaking.

The rest of what you've said is just as circumstantial as anything else tho - you said the story has morphed in the way it wouldn't if it was a lie.. sure but no one at all has said she's lying, it's obviously a genuine memory to her, and yes I shouldn't have talked about "false memory syndrome" as, like you said, it looks like it hasn't been recognised as an official thing, however if you go through the wiki page for false memory syndrome it says that most scientists agree that false memories are certainly real and a thing.

I'm not for a second saying he definitely didn't do it, and some of his behaviour would point to him being a pretty creepy bloke when it comes to relationships (specifically that he seems to have a thing for very young women), but there is nothing you've said that actually adds to the proof against him that hasn't been discussed.

[mr. logic]

You can't get past that logic - you know someone is lying because their story doesn't change.

Yes the famous adage, always lie, that way you'll have less to remember

Besides which, I don't see why or how the story would change. In the 60 Minutes interview, he even says, 'This is not a case of me tickling her and much being misinterpreted. This never happened.' His story is he did nothing. Couldn't tell you if he's being honest or not, obviously, but I'm not really sure why you expect him to change that version of events at any point if he's lying in the first place.

[Armin Meiwes]

Oh right yeah I think I misunderstood, thought you meant Dylan wasn't lying because her story was changing but your saying Allen WAS lying because his story DIDN'T change? That's just bullshit isn't it. If it didn't actually happen at all then why would your "memory" of it change. What a daft point.

In regard to false memories, I'm no expert but there's loads of stuff about it that suggests it's a thing. From the wiki page on FMS.

Human memory is created and highly suggestible, and can create a wide variety of innocuous, embarrassing, and frightening memories through different techniques—including guided imagery, hypnosis, and suggestion by others. Though not all individuals exposed to these techniques develop memories, experiments suggest a significant number of people do, and will actively defend the existence of the events, even if told they were false and deliberately implanted.

[Brundle-Fly]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201802/parental-alienation-syndrome-what-is-it-and-who-does-it

[chveik]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201802/parental-alienation-syndrome-what-is-it-and-who-does-it

you can do better than that

[dontrunyoullfall]

Was Allen witnessed doing anything?

That twitter stream included just seems to suggest people don't like to exam complex situations in a balanced way.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

I wish people would stop taking my flippant statements at face value.

[mr. logic]

Was Allen witnessed doing anything?

That twitter stream included just seems to suggest people don't like to exam complex situations in a balanced way.

Woody Allen is, as irrelevant as this point is to the molestation argument, pretty much a genius. He made incredible films over a period of time that rivals any filmmaker ever. Like it or not, people are always going to find the murkier stuff intriguing as well. Getting huffy about a newspaper doing an interview with him is somewhat disingenuous in my view, and of course the tone of the twitter responses is pretty much standard, pointless, outrage.

[mr. logic]

And as far as Ronan goes, he admits himself that he once airily dismissed Dylan for bringing up the allegations privately to him, and only realised he was wrong to have done so when he began investigating Weinstein for a high profile New Yorker piece. I would prefer to hear more from her than from him on the issue, to be honest- though I understand that it's her choice.

Should add: He dismissed them in the sense she needed to 'get over it' not because he ever thought they were untrue.

[Brundle-Fly]

you can do better than that

And what would chveik do?

[Keebleman]

Here's my personal experience of what I suppose could be called 'false memory' syndrome.  It's not nearly the same situation as the Farrow-Allen case, but it does throw some light on how bloody bizarre memory can be.

Growing up, I had always wanted to see Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap.  I loved the fact (still do) that it had been running since long before I was born and assumed, given its unique success, that it must be the summit of whodunnit ingenuity.  (And note, there will be no spoilers here.)

One day in the mid-90s I was reading the latest Q magazine.  The subject of that month's 'Who The Hell Does X Think S/he Is?" was Steven Berkoff, and the piece started with the author, Tom Hibbert, confessing that he hated the theatre although, he said, "The Mousetrap's alright (Colonel Mustard did it!)." 

(He didn't say Colonel Mustard of course, that's me being not a cunt.)

I dropped the magazine like it was on fire.  I was in shock.  I didn't know what to do.  How do I get this decision reversed, how do I correct this, who do I appeal to?  I was filled with a fury towards Hibbert (not for the first time; he was a skillful writer but had a horrible sneering quality to his work).  That exclamation mark!!!  The fucker's taunting me!!  Oh well.  I picked the magazine up, sat back down, finished reading the interview.  I'm a strong human being, I thought, I can get through this.  Fucking Hibbert though...

A few years later and I was living in London.  A couple of friends came to visit for the weekend.  "Let's go and see The Mousetrap!" they said.  I thought, huh, what's the point, but yeah, ok, if you want to, may as well.  So I booked the tickets, we get to the theatre, take our seats, the performance starts and I settle back and wait for Colonel Mustard to make his entrance.

But as the play rattles along towards the interval, the Colonel still hasn't appeared.  In fact, there were no military characters at all, nor anyone named after a condiment.  Well, I thought, he must appear in the second act.  But no, Colonel Mustard never appears, and at the end of the play the killer is revealed to be Professor Plum (remember: I am being not a cunt)!

I felt quite an exultation at this.  I'm not sure if any of you have ever had cause to rescind a death sentence, but it's a nice feeling.  Hibbert is allowed to live!

A few months later I was back at my Mum's house where all my Q magazines were, and I found the one with the Berkoff interview.  And I read it, for the first time since that traumatic day years before, and here's what it said:  "I hate the theatre...The Mousetrap's alright (Professor Plum did it!)."

He had given it away!!!!  He had been a total cunt!!!!  Death sentence immediately reimposed!!

But here's the amazing thing.  Obviously when I first read the interview I had read that Professor Plum was the killer, but I had substituted an alternative culprit in my mind, and then made myself forget I had done so!  And I was an adult, and didn't have any authority figure pressuring me to accept this reality.  Yet I would have sworn on oath that he had identified Colonel Mustard as the killer.

I have yet to serve on a jury, but if I ever do I will be very sceptical of any evidence that relies wholly on a witness's memory.

Oh, and Hibbert died in 2011.  Nothing to do with me!  (As far as I can remember...)

[chveik]

And what would chveik do?

sorry, I just don't like very much these pop psychology sites

[Brundle-Fly]

sorry, I just don't like very much these pop psychology sites

You're entirely dismissive of the notion of parental alienation, then?

[neveragain]

Great anecdote Keeble, memory is a fickle mistress.

[idunnosomename]

antz is the best thing woody allen ever did

[Brundle-Fly]

antz is the best thing woody allen ever did

edit. wtp?

[Astronaut Omens]

I feel like it's one of his worst written efforts carried by some inspired casting and performances.


Comedy seems to age itself out of the mainstream consciousness in a way other formats don't as much. I would imagine by the mid-century the only people who care to investigate Woody Allen will be people who are likely to enjoy his work. As it stands right now his name and rep are high enough that he gets quite a lot of people checking him out outta a begrudging sense that they should to prove their credentials as a film buff.

It's funny that one of the best bits of dialogue in Husbands and Wives, the film he made at the time of all this, 1992 ,is itself a joke about aesthetes enjoying old bits of art despite the repellent associations.


Rain (Juliette Lewis) : I just think that maybe I... I could've been threatened by certain things in the book.
Gabe (Woody Allen):Like what, you know...?
Rain : Um, some of the attitudes towards women and your ideas on life.
Gabe : You told me you love the book.
Rain : I do. I do love it, yeah.
Gabe : What were your criticisms?
Rain : Um, nothing.
Gabe : No, tell me. Tell me what your criticisms were.
Rain : I was a little disappointed, I guess, with, ah, with some of your attitudes.
Gabe : Like what? What attitudes?
[Rain sighs]
Gabe : With what?
Rain : The way your people just casually have affairs like that, that's...
Gabe : Well, the book doesn't condone affairs. You know, I'm exaggerating for comic purposes.
Rain : Yeah, I mean but are our choices really between chronic dissatisfaction and suburban drudgery?
Gabe : No, but, you know, that's how I... I'm deliberately distorting it, you know, 'cause I'm trying to show how hard it is to be married and...
Rain : Well, you have to be careful not to trivialize with things like that.
Gabe : Well, Jesus, I... I hope I haven't.
Rain : Well, the way your... your lead character views women, it's so retrograde. It's so shallow, you know?
Gabe : What are you talking... You told me you... you know, that... you told me it was a great book.
Rain : Yeah, it's wonderful. And I never said great. I said it's brilliant, and it's alive, and... You know, that's not what I'm... We're not arguing about whether it's brilliant or not. I'm, you know... Triumph of the Will was a great movie, but you despise the ideas behind it.
Gabe : What... what are you saying, now? You despise my ideas?
Rain : No, I don't despise them. All right, that... that example was wrong.
[pause]
.

[Ambient Sheep]

Growing up, I had always wanted to see Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap.  I loved the fact (still do) that it had been running since long before I was born and assumed, given its unique success, that it must be the summit of whodunnit ingenuity.  (And note, there will be no spoilers here.)

One day in the mid-90s I was reading the latest Q magazine.  The subject of that month's 'Who The Hell Does X Think S/he Is?" was Steven Berkoff, and the piece started with the author, Tom Hibbert, confessing that he hated the theatre although, he said, "The Mousetrap's alright (Colonel Mustard did it!)."

I remember that too, vividly, and was similarly outraged.

Unfortunately, I've still never seen The Mousetrap, and thanks to that cunt Hibbert, I'm fairly sure I can still remember who he said did it.

But am I right?  Ahhhhhh...

[thugler]

Love a lot of his films, but really the accusations do make a lot of sense to me, he's clearly someone with a thing for younger women, and even made films about it.  And his films are so shit now that he's irrelevant now even on top of all this dubious shit.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

What's wrong with older blokes having a thing for younger women?

[poodlefaker]

There was a thread about this a few months ago; someone went through all his films and listed the age differences in the realtionships...

[dontrunyoullfall]

His films make it an open and shut case that he would abuse his infant daughter?

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

His films make it an open and shut case that he would abuse his infant daughter?

That's exactly what people in this thread are saying, yes.

[phantom_power]

There was a thread about this a few months ago; someone went through all his films and listed the age differences in the realtionships...

That is pretty much a problem with the whole of Hollywood though, older men with much younger women in films

[Joe Oakes]

His films make it an open and shut case that he would abuse his infant daughter?

I haven't seen most of his films, but I can confidently say 100% yes based purely on scanning the titles in his filmography:

1965 - What's New, Pussycat? - Hmm, not a good start.
1966 - What's Up, Tiger Lily? - I'd rather not know.
1972 - Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask To Ask) - Well, everything except paedophilia.
1973 - Sleeper - Co-written by Bill Cosby
1985 - The Purple Rose of Cairo - But how did know her rose was purple, Woody? She was 9.
1986 - Hannah and Her Sisters - No wonder Hannah Gadsby was so traumatised.
1990 - Alice - Is a name that lots of pre-pubescent girls possess, coincidence? I think not.
1996 - Everyone Says They Love You - It's particularly easy to trick a child into saying it, the fools.
1998 - Antz - Ants are small. Like children.
1999 - Sweet and Lowdown - Again, like children.
2004 - Melinda and Melinda - Twice as sick as Alice.
2005 - Match Point - Not the title in this case, but I've actually seen this one and it's a romantic comedy about a tennis umpire and a ballgirl.
2006 - Scoop - Sequel to Match Point where the umpire tries to destroy all evidence.
2007 - Cassandra's Dream - Spoiler: the dream turned out just to be a false memory.
2008 - Vicky Cristina Barcelona - What's with all the female names in your titles, Woody? Is Barcelona one of those cool and classy baby names like Brooklyn or Paris? Or Just the scene of the crime?
2010 - You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger - Yes, children do tend to meet a lot of tall people.
2011 - Midnight in Paris - Adds weight to the Barcelona baby name theory.
2019 - Magic in the Moonlight - Not sure why the media didn't pick up on this, but the title is a perfect anagram of 'I like to fuck kids'.

Pretty damning when you also factor in; his face, his glasses and the evidence.