Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Refusing to work with Woody Allen

A lot of readers have asked my opinion so I’ll weigh in. After all, I have an opinion about everything. Sometimes they’re even informed.

This topic refers to all these actors now outraged and distancing themselves from filmmaker Woody Allen because of the sexual abuse charges that have been leveled against him. (DISCLAIMER: He was never actually convicted.) And set aside your feelings for Woody Allen.

To me the issue here is that these charges have been known for 25 YEARS. And just NOW these self-righteous actors are aghast that they could work for such a monster? 25 YEARS!

It’s not like they weren’t aware.

There was no SPOILER ALERT.

But they CHOSE to ignore those charges to work for Woody Allen. Actors have won Oscars from Woody Allen movies. It was always prestigious to work on Woody Allen movies. So yeah, he might’ve done some horrible things but that’s no longer in the news and the film means a nice trip to Paris and a chance to work with other well-known actors so what the hell?

But now it’s fashionable to denounce Woody Allen. Now there’s little to gain from being in a Woody Allen movie. Well, I’m sorry. Unless you were in LOVE AND DEATH or SLEEPER, you knew what you were getting into so I find your disgust and your regret insincere, self-serving, and hollow. You got what you wanted out of those movies and you were willing to set aside your standards to do so. Don’t come forward now.

Some are donating their salaries, which is a nice gesture.  How many are doing it to save face and control the damage?   Call me cynical but that's the kind of plan PR teams and spin control firms hatch.

Look, here’s the thing: Since 1992 when these charges were first made VERY public, practically EVERYBODY in Hollywood has worked with Woody Allen.

Taking a left turn...

Remember Michael Milken? In 1989 he was mastermind of a huge junk bond scandal involving racketeering, and securities fraud. People lost millions. He was convicted and sent to prison for ten years. Of course, he got out in two years for “good behavior.” After that he became very active in a drive to stop prostate cancer. At one point he worked out an arrangement with Major League Baseball to go around the country, appear on local teams’ telecasts during games, and talk about the campaign. It was all for a very good cause. And so he did, guesting for an inning on local teams’ broadcasts. When he came to Dodger Stadium and this was proposed to Vin Scully he said, “Michael Milken? On MY broadcast? Not a chance.”

ALL of these shocked actors could have said, “Woody Allen? Not a chance.”

And I’m sure some did. THOSE are the ones I’d like to hear from.


Anonymous said...

If any of you are interested in the other side of the story look at what Moses Farrow and Monica Thompson say and why prosecutors didnt bring charges against Woody Allen.

The truth is theres always (at least) two sides to every story, thats why we have prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges for this sort of thing. Finding out what really happened in criminal matters is best left to the professionals.


Honest Ed said...

The biggest irony is that it looks transparently obvious that a lot of these younger actors are being increasingly bullied into denouncing him. If some angry people on twitter disapprove of what they say, they get hounded. That's what happened with Gerwig.

Interesting, even when Chalamet donated his salary, some websites still went for him, complaining he didn't denounce Allen strongly enough.

Andrew said...

"It’s not like they weren’t aware."

Great post, Ken. I have to admit, I feel the same way about Weinstein. Too much of the backlash seems very contrived and self-serving. Now everyone is upset? What has changed except public opinion and media exposure?

I certainly have nothing against women who were taken advantage of, coerced, or assaulted by the man. I want their stories to be heard, and I want to see Weinstein punished. But there were also women who went along with it willingly. There were some who even sought him out because they knew there was a quid pro quo. And the system that was set up around him - were all of his enablers men? The facts were known for a very long time. Now you get to wear a black gown and proclaim "#MeToo"? It's a little late for that.

As you said about Allen at the end of your post, I would like most of all to hear from the women who rejected Weinstein's advances, and paid a price for it.

Ted said...

Nominations have been announced.

Poor James Franco loses out on a nomination.

Martin McDonagh should have been nominated. Now its fixed for Nolan.

Roger Deakins yet again gets a nomination.

You think Sorkin will win?

McAlvie said...

Oh, well that's human nature. There is no end to what people will turn a blind eye to when it might benefit them. Mostly, people are just incredibly good at lying to themselves. And the more righteous they are, the truer it becomes.

"O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!

My tables!—Meet it is I set it down

That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain."

Will said...

Thanks for the blog Ken.

These are all PR gimmicks Ken. Timothée Chalamet did it, so that he got a nomination.

If he gets one next year for 'A Rainy Day in New York', will he denounce his nomination?

Just hypocrites.....

Glenn said...

It feels like everyone being accused of bad behavior is someone who has "always been up to something" or at least "everyone has known". At this point, the only legit shocker would be if it came out Tom Hanks was a predator.

Astroboy said...

Setting aside the abuse accusations, what also curdled my admiration and enjoyment of Allen's work was his relationship with Soon Yi. I know what he says about him not being a 'father' to Mia's adopted children, but the fact is he did help raise Soon Yi from a small child and then one day looked at her and decided: "Yep, sex is now on the table," that still fills me with disgust, and some of Woody's quotes about their relationship just re-enforce that disgust. Whenever I've thought about this I've wished at times I was a famous actor who, when asked by Woody to work with him, I could tell him to "F off."

McAlvie said...

Andrew - I won't argue that there are women who wouldn't have been that bothered by it. Not a slur against women, just acknowledging human nature. But behind every female power player there are a thousand women who kept silent not out of fear but because nobody would listen anyway. And it's not all about sexual abuse, either.

It has been an eye opener for a lot of men, learning about the indignities and fear that are a fact of life for all women. Yes, ALL WOMEN. To go through a world in which half the population is bigger and stronger than you and still get up every day and face the world is, I think, a potent demonstration of female courage that too many of us take for granted.

Daniel said...

"DISCLAIMER: He was never actually convicted."

Not only was he not convicted, he was never charged. They were accusations that were not only never prosecuted, the New York Department of Social Services conducted a 13-month investigation and unambiguously said in 1993:

"No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated. This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded."


The state of New York couldn't have been any more clear.

Anonymous said...

The hypocrisy is what a lot of people have been shot down. somebody says “nice tits” they’re are the worst person ever, but someone who brings someone up as their daughter then marries them is perfectly fine. It’s usually the people who complain about the little things who ignore the big things.

I’m not saying it’s okay to say to someone “hey you have nice tits” its just not the same as hiding in the bushes with a mask on and knife waiting to pounce on someone to rape

therealshell@gmail.com said...

It is disturbing, and a bit sad how some of the actors denouncing Woody Allen seem to take a kind of perverse delight in doing so, sort of shouting "me, too!" so that they get noticed. Mia Farrow has always seemed slightly off to me, and I can believe that she also is basking in the second-hand publicity that she is getting now.

Mitchell Hundred said...

To be honest, I don't really care about the mistakes people made with regard to this issue in the past. They probably shouldn't have worked with Woody Allen after he married his (adopted) daughter, because that's skeevy as fuck. But they did, and that can't be changed. I'm just glad that he's catching heat for his behaviour now, because it means that the culture in Hollywood might really be changing.

Stuart Best said...

You articulated this very well. Just want to add my voice of support. Personally, I don't know what to believe. I think Woody could have behaved in the way Dylan Farrow suggests -- the courts and child psychologists who found him Not Guilty could have made a mistake. But they could be right when they say she was implanted with false memories by her mother, something science has proven can happen. It's an ugly situation. If an actor came down on one side of the fence or the other, that's fine. But hopping the fence now is disgusting, because it makes an ugly situation even uglier and more difficult to discuss rationally. These actors built up and sustained his modern-day career and then very publicly destroyed the man they supported, when they had a chance to take a less-public stand and just not be in his movies in the first place.

Karan G said...

There are those brave souls who are the first to speak out against a reprehensible act. Thank God for them, they shoulder all the risk. Then there are those, who wish they could be so brave, but are quick to speak up in support…thank God for them. And then there are those, who wait a few months and then speak up…well, better late than never, but we thank them. And then there are those, who stick their finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing this week, and then speak up. We all know which persons fit into which categories. We thank the brave ones.

Sarah said...

Well I always wondered why Woody never speaks on the issue, when it is raised.

So many actors are now speaking out, shouldn't he speak up? Shouldn't he defend himself?

It's all well for his friends to come to his support, but one needs to stand up for himself. Also, many of these "friends" are hypocrites themselves with no credibility; like Scarlett who was spitting on James Franco recently. She is getting severe backlash now.

Better he comes out now and speak on the issue and put an end to this boycott.

Charlie said...

I called it right, that James Franco wont get the Oscar nomination.

Now, my next prediction - would Casey present the Best Actress award, given the current atmosphere?

Let's see.....

Buttermilk Sky said...

I thought Andre Previn was Soon-yi's father. The idea that Woody "raised her" suggests that he and Mia Farrow shared a household. Didn't they live on opposite sides of Central Park?

This is the latest iteration of the life vs. work problem. Is CHINATOWN a lesser film because its director is a rapist? There have been great artists who were murderers, adulterers, racists, drunks, lousy parents and world-class monsters. Richard Wagner was a total shit who was also the greatest composer of the nineteenth century. Each of us has to decide how much weight to give to the personal lives of deeply flawed individuals in appreciating (or ignoring) their work. If you can't get past the flaws, I understand that. Time probably helps.


Brian said...

Now Joaquin Phoenix joins the 'didn't know', 'not aware' group.

A women's group in Spain wants his statue, installed in one of their cities, to be removed.

Shocking!!! not the demand to remove the statue, but they installed a statue for him in the first place.

VP81955 said...

Ken, the lady in my avatar smiled when she saw your reference to Michael Milken, noting he owned the Encino ranch house she had bought for Clark Gable when they married in 1939. (Gable had spent much of his wealth to divorce his second wife, and Lombard was better at business matters than he was.) Carole declined to discuss it any further, but from the mischievous look in her eyes, I wouldn't be surprised if she and Clark went George and Marion Kerby on him (a la "Topper") once he ran afoul of the law.

Anonymous said...

You can answer any thorny moral question by asking yourself, "what would Vin do?"

VillageDianne said...

I was strongly of the opinion that Allen was guilty. But after I read what Moses had to say, I was not so sure. I remember the prosecutor said that while Mia had issues, he felt he had probable case against Allen. But he did not proceed because of the fragility of the child-victim. Well, it does look like Mia has issues, but her having issues does not necessarily exonerate him. Nor can I feel with certainty that he is guilty.

We do know that Woody Allen started a relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia Farrow's adopted daughter. It looks like both Woody and Mia had issues, and people with issues tend to gravitate toward each other.

Lisa said...

Things are really bad in Hollywood, isn't it? Because usually you don't comment much on these issues much, just a few lines. But now, if I am not wrong you are talking of Woody for the second time in the last couple of months and also you had written other blogs related to these issues with respect to Weinstein, Spacey and others... recently.

Being in Hollywood for the past several decades, has there been anytime that you can recollect, when, so much boycott, agitations, general rancour had occurred?

Now direct attacks on actors, producers, directors is taking place. Some or the other are attacking someone else directly on social media on a daily basis. Then a lot of supporters/haters do the rest of the job and go around smashing careers. Will it stop? Or is this going to be a perpetual war?

Peter said...


Woody Allen HAS issued statements on this. He did it a few years ago and did so again last week, defending himself and saying the accusations are false but that he recognizes Dylan Farrow believes what she's saying.

Having read detailed accounts by both sides, my conclusion is that he is innocent. There's just too much about the circumstances surrounding the allegations that are suspicious.

For a start, Mia Farrow, who was incandescent over his leaving her for Soon-Yi - which we can all agree is kinda gross but not illegal - made a threatening call in which she said she would destroy his life. He said "What are you going to do, shoot me?" and she told him "You took my daughter from me, I'm going to take your daughter from you".

There were the witness accounts of Dylan first saying nothing happened, then being taken for ice cream by Mia, and upon returning, changing her story. The investigators also said there were inconsistencies in her account, with the location of the alleged assault changing.

If Mia Farrow really did plant false memories into a very young, vulnerable and impressionable child to the extent that as an adult she is tormented by memories of something that never happened, then that is a truly horrific thing for her mother to have done and would make her the only one guilty of child abuse.

And let's not forget that Mia Farrow has never had any problem supporting and defending Polanski, whose guilt is 100%.

I've lost respect for the actors who are jumping on the bandwagon of saying they regret working with Woody Allen. Credit is due to Alec Baldwin for having the guts to say he doesn't agree with any of it and stands by Allen.

One other point on hypocrisy. Watching past awards show speeches, I saw Jennifer Lawrence's SAG acceptance speech for Silver Linings Playbook in which she thanked "that rascal Harvey Weinstein". Hmmmm......

Peter said...

By the way, I'm so happy that Logan has been nominated for best adapted screenplay. It marks the first time ever that a superhero movie has received a writing nomination at the Oscars. It's a beautiful film and Hugh Jackman should have been nominated for best actor too.

Peter said...

Before it gets forgotten amidst the Oscar nominations news, I read earlier today about the death of actress Connie Sawyer, who lived to the incredible age of 105 and was the oldest working actor in Hollywood and oldest member of SAG at the time of her death!

Born Rosie Cohen, she appeared in a ton of movies, sitcoms and dramas including When Harry Met Sally, Dumb and Dumber, Good Times, Becker, Archie Bunker and even 2 Broke Girls. Her most recent credits were in 2014, at the age of 102, appearing in Ray Donovan!

She was a member of the Academy and, according to Wikipedia, would watch every nominated film before voting.

Rest in peace, awesome lady.


Sparks said...

Didn't Upton Sinclair say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."? Not totally applicable, but sort of.

Grant said...

Just asking, if this was Mel Gibson we are talking about, would he have got this much support from various artists?

MikeN said...

Lots of people knew about Harvey too and worked with him, starting with the actresses who are now complaining. Then there are the ones who aren't complaining. Helen Mirren got a tattoo of HW on her butt.

Mark said...

There's an important distinction we need to make here. While some of the allegations we've been hearing about Woody Allen and other celebrities may prove false, the fact that he had an affair with his teenaged stepdaughter is just that, a fact. (As Gary Shandling said, "[with all the trouble he'd had with dating], I never considered adoption.") As Ken has pointed out in the past, Allen then went on to reenact the same basic creepy story line in film after film. With apologies to Shaw, we've established what kind of person he is, we're just arguing about the extent.

Jon said...

I think my favorite part of this round of Allen-outrage is the petition that's floating around demanding that all of Woody's movies be destroyed. No over-reaction going on here. No siree. Guess we all knew it would come to this. The PC police kicking my door in, demanding my DVD of "Annie Hall."

Mike Bloodworth said...

Unless and until all of the affected parties are hooked up to lie-detectors and asked the pertinent questions we can never be sure. However, if Woody is guilty of anything then all of this righteous indignation is justified. The real reason an actor shouldn't work with Mr. Allen is because his movies of late haven't been very good. About a dozen years ago he made a movie called "Scoop" with Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman. The film was virtually unwatchable except for the scene with Scarlett in a bathing suit. I couldn't even name any other W.A. film from the last fifteen to twenty years. I know it could never be like the old days, but it seems as if Woody has gone from artist to journeyman.

VP81955 said...

Has NBC seen the light? It's given pilot orders for four multi-cams:


Twintone said...

I like the Onion's take:


Jahn Ghalt said...

Astroboy (and others) may wish to review what Soon Yi had to say about "(disgusting) sex on the table" in the following survey-article by Salon:


Woody Allen himself is quoted as well.

I found nothing disgusting in that article, but perhaps Astro will do the work and offer "some of Woody's quotes about their relationship" from credible sources?

Jahn Ghalt said...

Sarah wrote:

Well I always wondered why Woody never speaks on the issue, when it is raised.

I'll hazard a guess - at some point, one stops answering these kinds of questions:


Francis Dollarhyde said...

"To me the issue here is that these charges have been known for 25 YEARS. And just NOW these self-righteous actors are aghast that they could work for such a monster? 25 YEARS!

It’s not like they weren’t aware."

The Soon-Yi Previn situation is 25 years old, sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Dylan Farrow molestation allegations Woody Allen is being denounced for? The allegations that were first raised in 2014? (So basically, anyone who worked with Woody Allen in the past *4* years, but is only now denouncing him, is a hypocrite.)

Jahn Ghalt said...

George Martin once commented, about fans who thought the informally titled White Album was the Beatles' best, "Horses for Courses".

Thus forewarned, I'll offer two "recent" Woody Allen titles I can recall that were (at least) better than the others:

(without looking them up)
Break Point (or something like that)
Midnight in Paris

(and now looking more up)

That's Match Point(2005).

And damned if many others really pop up for me - but I always like his stuff enough to not regret the time and ticket fee.

Ken said...

To Ken from Ken
Because his statement reflects that he ken's this so well

been waiting to use so varient of this

marka said...


Ths is a question I'd like for you to answer. If you care to.

By the accounts I've seen Mozart was a bit of a pig. Errol Flynn was pretty messed up as well. Weinstein certainly as well. Jimmy Page was involved with a minor for quite a while it seems. The list is probably pretty long, no doubt.

In your opinion, how much of someone's personal life should affect our appreciation of their work? This seems be be the underlying issue of this movement.

Peter said...

Francis, the abuse allegations were in 1992. It was in 2014 that Dylan Farrow spoke about it publicly for the first time.

Francis Dollarhyde said...

Ah, right. It was 2014 when Dylan Farrow herself spoke about it publicly for the first time, I think. (Her open letter.) Which is when the story started gaining traction again.

Arthur Mee said...

Francis Dollarhyde said... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Dylan Farrow molestation allegations Woody Allen is being denounced for? The allegations that were first raised in 2014?

Since you asked....

The allegations with regard to Dylan Farrow were reported to the authorities in August of 1992, and reported in the press immediately. The consequent investigation was covered extensively by the media, with a decision being rendered in June 1993.

Ken is absolutely right in stating that this has been a public issue for more than a quarter of a century.

Cap'n Bob said...

There isn't one scintilla of evidence that Woody Allen did anything illegal, but since denouncing everyone and his brother as a sex predator is the flavor of the month it's no surprise this old vendetta by Mia is making the rounds.

Jeff Maxwell said...

This is all very tragic. Dylan's accusations are horribly sad if true, even sadder if they aren't. Our collective moral compass has been challenged to the hilt over the past year by many of our public figures and heroes. How to navigate all the layers with wisdom and fairness is not always black and white. There is overwhelming evidence to support that Harvey Weinstein is a sick criminal. But Woody Allen was exonerated by an extensive investigation. However, the idea of him being an even bigger monster than Weinstein has been planted in my head. Must I instantly turn my back on an artist who has given me great joy for years based on an accusation by a child? How can I not believer her? But how can I based on the findings of an extensive and credible investigation?

Accusing somebody of being a child molester is courageous and necessary if true. It not true, it is insanely criminal.

Everyone has the right to decide who they do and do not work for. In my humble opinion, however, once that decision becomes a public statement generated by PR agents, it often brings a personal, self-aggrandizing agenda with it.

Filippo said...

I've always been a follower of Woody Allen's work.
(And yes, I know there are several big fails to it, but one must admire the very steady career up until the very old age. Plus, he's definitely a natural born writer, a real art lover who gave his life to his gift).
That's why I read the nanny's book years ago. I wanted to be aware.

As I grew older, I learned to filter culture products, readings, music etc. based on the assumption that things springing from morally corrupted souls can harm. Especially, after starting believing in God and becoming a Christian, I knew I'd better avoid Woody Allen's stuff because of his atheism.
Plus, I always felt like I understood his soul (he's a master of being on display) and have always been convinced that it was likely that he had those sexual tendencies, wherein the allegations that he was made were grounded and surely not fantasies. Plus, he couldn't help but fall into some real facts of not absolute but of some gravity.
Think, for instance, the legacy he's leaving to the family he was supposed to look after.

Still, I couldn't help catching up with whatever he did. I've always considered it a sort of guilty pleasure.
1. It's my obsession with completing and finishing things. I couldn't miss his late stuff.
2. Amidst the overall culture production, I knew Woody Allen stuff would always give me something, and that there would always be something to it. (I'm one of those bored demanding selective people who don't like anything and can't just live on zapping or trends).

So Ken is right. One should have taken a strong position years ago and hold it.
I'm not one of those who did, therefore I'm guilty.

In my excuse, I will say what everyone says: "He was never convicted" or: "The facts were never proved".
But if you stop and think that this might have happened because he's famous and has money, there's nothing to laugh about.

James S said...

Sound comment from Ken.

There is just no hypocrisy like HOLLYWOOD HYPOCRISY. These people specialize in it and Hollywood's oh so feminized women are up to their arm pits in it.

Mike said...

There may be a story here:
Amazon & Netflix are dropping their quirky comedies in favour of the same old, same old.

Peter said...

Filippo said...

"I knew I'd better avoid Woody Allen's stuff because of his atheism."

Really? Are you serious? I'm an atheist but I don't refuse to watch films or shows that feature Christian actors or are written and directed by Christians. Isn't your faith strong enough to withstand watching a film made by an atheist? I didn't avoid Inside Out or Monsters Inc. just because they were directed by Pete Docter, a devout Christian. He's a super talented guy who makes entertaining movies. His religious beliefs are irrelevant to me.

Just chill out and enjoy people's work without worrying whether they believe in a god or not.

slgc said...

Here is something to consider. In the past several years, it seems that every time someone is accused of sexual misconduct it opens up the floodgates - one accuser becomes five accusers, etc. in a heartbeat. Because sexual predators are generally serial predators - they don't stop with one victim.

Yet, in Woody Allen's case, I have never heard anybody else accuse him of sexual wrongdoing. Not only wasn't he charged with molesting Dylan, but he and Soon-Yi (creepy or not, the two of them have been married for many years) adopted two children and passed New York's background checks on both occasions. We have not seen one other person come forward and claim to have been molested by him in all this time.

If I believed that Woody had molested Dylan then there's no way that I could continue to watch his movies. But I have always been troubled by the inconsistencies of Mia's accusations against him in the wake of their break-up, and my gut tells me that he did not molest his daughter.

Kosmo13 said...

Mia Farrow--you'd never catch her marrying a man who was 30 years older than her. Oh, wait...

Filippo said...

"Isn't your faith strong enough to withstand watching a film made by an atheist?"
Faith can weakens sometimes. It's called "aridity". Check out some real Christian literature from time to time. It's a common mistake, especially by atheists, to think faith has to be strong all the time.
Your role is to be prudent and not to let it be attacked by anything out of your own fault, if not for a good reason (let's say preach to atheist) in order to preserve it. It's a gift you are given so it's your responsibility to keep it alive and well.
Not everyone has always the reasoning ability to prove everything all the time. This is another mistake always atheists do. Tipically they have good reasoning power, to which they entrust everything concerning their lives. But that same reasoning power is what drives them astray. The devil, who attempts all the time at attacking your faith and make you lose it, works a lot with reasoning and logic, and makes you believe he's a master of it and is very intelligent. He works through diseases and plagues, too. The weak, who demand constant candy bars from God in order to believe, lose faith immediately.

I must say I don't care for your tone. I stand firm on my point and repeat: I believe I ought to avoid atheist's work because, even if it gives me pleasure to contemplate their wit, I know bad influences, in terms of view of the world and of life, spring from them.

Blue Mudd said...

To the gentlemen commenters:
Many of you are fathers of little girls. You should be aware that 85% of child sexual abuse is never, ever reported. At least one in every four girls is molested. Ninety percent of the predators are someone the child knows and trusts. These little girls grow up to be young women who won’t report sexual harassment.

You should take note of what McAlvie said: To walk in a world where half the population is bigger and stronger than you are, and still get up and face that world every day is a potent demonstration of female courage that too many of us take for granted.

Jeff Maxwell said...

I agree with "slgc" (tough name to pronounce) that sexual predators tend to seek out multiple victims. I also share the gut feeling that Woody Allen did not molest his daughter.

However, the sentencing of the creep doctor who molested countless numbers of young, female olympic gymnasts was televised this morning. For over an hour, I watched eloquent speeches by the prosecutor, the defense attorney and the judge. It was the most dramatic and oddly inspirational displays of a day in court I've ever witnessed. It made me proud of the court and television for being in the room.

The prosecutor's message was loud and clear: When children speak of molestation, we must listen. And believe.

My gut feeling that Mr. Allen did not molest his daughter still stands. I'm just not quite as confident as yesterday.

Tough stuff.

Anonymous said...

Re: evidence of serial predatory behavior. I'm surprised that unmentioned in the thread is Allen's invitation to his (minor) co-star Mariel Hemingway to travel with him to Europe after Manhattan wrapped. She interpreted it as a come-on. Her parents forbid it. I'm not aware of similar incidents, but there's at least that one.

Johnny Walker said...

Daniel, and anyone else who believes the conclusion of the investigation is the whole story, I think you’re lying to yourselves by only hearing a small part of the story. The one part, it seems, that suits your beliefs.

I’d recommend you read the Findings of Fact from the court case for a more rounded explanation of what happened. It’s easy to do so, they’re here:


I think if you’re going to comment publicly on these matters, you owe it to the people involved to at least be informed of the whole story.

Blue Mudd said...

Jeff Maxwell
I also saw that sentencing and then looked up some additional information. There were 150 who came forward (how many didn’t come forward?), and some of them reported it when they were children, but no one believed them!

Regarding Dylan Farrow, it wasn’t just her word against his. Her brother (Ronan Farrow) said he remembered him crawling into bed with Dylan at night and making her suck his thumb, and other things. And even if Dylan’s story wasn’t true, his affair with Sun Yi started when she was somewhere between 17 and 19 (her exact age is uncertain), and he was old enough to be her grandfather.

TimWarp said...

re: Anonymous and the Mariel Hemingway story - if you read her autobiography, she said her parents saw nothing wrong with her going to Europe with Woody (in fact she said they kept encouraging her to go), but she was the one who was creeped out and said no.

Jahn Ghalt said...

Blue Mudd wrote this, if not misleading, then unchecked statement:

(Woody Allen's) affair with Sun Yi started when she was somewhere between 17 and 19 (her exact age is uncertain), and he was old enough to be her grandfather.

"Sun" Yi was born circa 1970. Woody Allen - December 1935:



This may imply something about Mudd's own grandfather's age.

(sorry but I coudn't find a wiki entry for Blue Mudd - so innuendo will have to suffice)

Blue Mudd said...

Good Grief, John Gault,
Woody Allen would have been 18 in 1953 and could easily have had a child. That would mean his child could have been a parent in 1970.. Yes, a very young parent (but it happens all the time) and Grandpa Woody would have been a young grandparent, but that also happens all the time. The point was the astronomical age difference, as if marrying your own step-daughter wasn’t creepy enough.

Johnny Walker said...

Honestly, Woody Allen acolytes. A better defence than trying claim a simple fact that anyone with basic math skills can verify for themselves is pointing out that Mia Farrow was in a relationship with Frank Sinatra with the exact same age difference, and never complained about it.

Because really, the age difference isn’t the issue. The issue with Allen’s relationship is that he married his children’s sister. Even if he didn’t see her as a daughter, THEY saw her as a sibling.

What’s astonishing is how Allen fans are keen to overlook the evidence presented at the trial, including the comments from those that assessed him as part of the investigation (an unhealthy relationship with Dylan), the judge (saw him as a totally unfit father), as well as him own testimony (which was rambling and revealed he knew next to nothing about his kids — despite the fact he’d just tried to claim sole custody).

Hannes Minkema said...

You wrote: "...because of the sexual abuse charges that have been leveled against him".

There have been NO abuse charges leveled against him. Ever.

NONE of the many actresses whom Allen has worked with throughout his long career has EVER even alleged him of any wrongdoing. Let alone leveled any charge.

Also that singular allegation from 1992, made by an understandably furious ex-partner, NEVER led to any charge. The allegation was thoroughly investigated, by multiple, independent expert parties, all of which concluded that the alleged abuse did NOT take place. Thus the prosecutor stood empty-handed, and decided to NOT prosecute. Hence NO charge, NO trial, and most certainly NO verdict.

NO ONE ELSE has EVER leveled any charge against Woody Allen, nor before 1992, nor after.

And yes, these facts have also been known for 25 years. They could have been known to you too, and would have prevented you from publishing this falsehoods about 'charges (plural) leveled'.

You write about 'damage control'. The real damage that people cause, is when they treat a falsely alleged person as guilty just because of some baseless 'belief'. In doing so, they show utter disrespect to the fundamentals of our juridical system, like the presumption of innocence and the requirement of due process.

In writing this piece, you have contributed to that 'damage'. How are you going to control that? Or aren't you?