1273Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHave enough talent/fame and you can get away with anything. If this guy was a bus driver, he'd be in jail.
Have enough talent/fame and you can get away with anything. If this guy was a bus driver, he'd be in jail.
My Posts Have Won Awards. Can Any Of You Claim The Same? -ur_next_ex
"I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay". ~George Carlin
Wow NonoRehab, you're way more informed than I am. I should've researched first. I now know Soon-Yi was adopted by Mia and Andre Previn. But I thought Woody was in her life more than just a boyfriend of her Mom's. Those kids had a crazy childhood. That's all I have to say. Poor Ronan is right when he says it's a moral transgression for his father to marry his sister. It's all fucked up.
I have to say that I totally disagree with that parsing out of who considers someone a sibling or not. My kids at that age were devoted to each other and to their older cousins who have approximately the age difference that was between Soon Yi and Dylan/Ronan. Added to that, a kid like Ronan, who went to college at 12, was almost certainly way more self aware, as well as aware of the family situation, as kids who were twice his age of 5 years. So, no, I think it is extremely unlikely that Ronan and Dylan did not think of Soon Yi as an older sister. This was Ronan's comment about whether he considered Soon Yi a sister:Originally Posted by NoNoRehab
"I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent," he added, "I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children."
Even with the big age difference, Ronan is in fact Soon-Yi's brother. She is his sister. She married her brothers father! Roman's father married his sons sister. Selfish prick that he is. Creepy old man.
ah, thanks. i knew that WA and louise were friendly, but i did not know she was wife #2.
I think I might have to org chart this whole thing. With Woody filling two spots, of course.
so because he joked about his ex wife's rape, it means he's a rapist? logic. look it up in the dictionary
I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld
Young children make notoriously unstable witnesses. Doubt, power, and prestige of the accused combined with risking further harm and shame to a victim are why people like Woody go free. There are observers who intimately know families that dealt with horrors described by Dylan and there are victims themselves who recognize the thought patterns of a powerless child and the damaged confidence therein.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH please get the facts. He may in fact be an abusive pedophile. He did NOT raise Soon-yi.
You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl
Nothing says you're into children like having sex with an adult.
All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.
If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator
I demand a chart from Mo or it didn't happen.
If all the women in this place were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be surprised - Dorothy Parker
I ran across this today, it was linked through a Salon piece. It's interesting, and was a contemporary account of some of the Allen/Farrow weirdness:
Mia's last valentine to Woody was a neatly wrapped gift right from the heart
November 19, 1992|By Newsday
NEW YORK -- On St. Valentine's Day, the embattled ex-lovers exchanged gifts. In the kitchen of Mia Farrow's Central Park West apartment Woody Allen gave her an embroidered heart and a red satin box of chocolates. She looked at him, friends of Mr. Allen say, with a gentle, almost kindly glance and handed him a slim box, neatly wrapped.
"I got you this," she said.
A month and a day after Ms. Farrow discovered Mr. Allen had been sleeping with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, it seemed as if nothing were wrong, his friends say. Mr. Allen's driver waited downstairs to take him back to his Fifth Avenue duplex and Mr. Allen opened the box on the drive through the park.
Inside lay an ornate Victorian Valentine meticulously adorned with a photograph of Ms. Farrow and her children in the center. The picture included the three children she and Mr. Allen share, as well as Soon-Yi. Ms. Farrow had stuck steel turkey skewers through the hearts of the children and she had carefully slid a steak knife into her own heart, according to Mr. Allen's friends.
"Once my heart was one and it was yours to keep," she had carefully written next to the photograph, they said. "My child you used and pierced my heart a hundred times and deep."
The story of that day and the following account is based on interviews with friends of Mr. Allen, material related to the case obtained by New York Newsday and previously published reports. Both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow refused to comment.
The Mia-Woody fight is a battle over the custody of three children. As in many custody fights, it is an emotional and at times nasty conflict with accusations and countercharges involving the most personal details of their lives. The story told by Ms. Farrow's friends and family was already chronicled in Vanity Fair and is now being disputed by Mr. Allen's lawyers and advisers. Except for a press conference several months ago, Mr. Allen has remained silent about the details of his life with Ms. Farrow. For this story, his friends spoke on his behalf.
Ms. Farrow has told friends that she feels betrayed by a man she loved and trusted. Her mother and sister and old friends have portrayed Mr. Allen as an impulsive man obsessed with his 7-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. They said he would follow her from room to room, whispering in her ear, and that he lured another daughter, Soon-Yi, from Ms. Farrow's control. Ms. Farrow, through her lawyer Eleanor Alter, said she did not want to discuss the case because she did not want to drag the kids through the mud.
"I'm taking the high road, the low road is so congested," Ms. Farrow said, through Ms. Alter.
Mr. Allen's supporters have repeatedly denied the charges from the other side.
After the Valentine incident, he would later tell friends, Ms. Farrow threatened to kill him. She'd call in the middle of the night, screaming that he was "the devil," and should die and "burn in hell."
Mr. Allen now tells friends he is not sure he ever loved Ms. Farrow,explaining they never moved in together, never shared the lives most couples enjoy. On Aug. 6, Ms. Farrow charged Mr. Allen with molesting Dylan. She later petitioned Surrogate Court in Manhattan to have Mr. Allen's adoption of Dylan annulled.
The abuse charges came after Mr. Allen spent two days with the children and Ms. Farrow at her Bridgewater, Conn., estate. Ms. Farrow went to police with allegations that Mr. Allen had joined Dylan in a small crawl space off a closet in Ms. Farrow's bedroom, a mini-attic, and "touched her private part." Although sources said a doctor who examined Dylan found no physical evidence of abuse, the case is pending.
"There were many good things in it. I don't regret them," Ms. Farrow said about her relationship with Mr. Allen in an interview in Britain's Hello magazine. "But, again, if you asked me if I would have gone out with this man had I known what was going to happen at the end -- then, of course, I'd say 'No.' I'd never have brought him into my family because a family is a sacred place."
Tuesday, Mr. Allen met with a team of psychologists who are examining Dylan as part of the criminal case in Connecticut. He has told friends he hopes the case is resolved soon so he can resume visits with her. The friends said he has not talked to or seen Dylan since the day he left Ms. Farrow's Bridgewater home last summer.
Meanwhile, Mr. Allen is filming a movie and trying to live as normally as possible.
"Woody is not speaking to anyone about anything," said Allen spokeswoman Leslee Dart. "He just misses his children. He suffers more pain every day without them."
Mia Farrow Valentine | Mia's last valentine to Woody was a neatly wrapped gift right from the heart - Baltimore Sun
All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.
If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator
The only thing I can add to this thread is how the first line of her letter hit me "What's your favorite Woody Allen movie, before you answer..."etc.
Much or most of the time I separate the art or work from the person. They are two separate entities to me. We've argued on GR about this, it's a very personal thing and no one can persuade anyone to change their minds. Like politics I guess. Maybe open up someone's mind, sure. That's a good discussion. What's my favorite Woody Allen movie? Well, most of them, minus a few clinkers. Maybe it's the New Yorker in me because it's still exciting to queue up for one of his films. Not as exciting as it used to be, but I always hope it will entertain me.
Some people don't want to have a pedophile or a rapist make money, I get that. Dylan's life suffered from what happened to her. She may be in a better place but I doubt she'll ever be okay. I know too many abused adults
who carry on but spend their entire life working it out and making peace with themselves. If she's triggered, I say speak up, write it out, twitter if it makes you feel better. They are all public figures and it's never going to go away.
This was, without a doubt, one of the biggest pain-in-the butt charts I ever put together for this place:
VF Contributing Editor: Dylan Farrow Letter is Just Publicity for Mia and Ronan
Vanity Fair contributing editor Michael Wolff posted a column in The Guardian on Monday questioning the validity of Dylan Farrow’s open letter in the New York Times detailing allegations of sexual abuse by Woody Allen, saying the family is merely staging a PR coup.
“The larger context for this rehashed scandal is not a pattern of abuse or the ongoing dysfunctions of a celebrated family but rather the demands of a publicity rollout,” Wolff sniped. “Twenty-one years after the event – all parties long quiet – a story is revived. It is an old scandal for a new generation.”
Wolff expressed his belief that Dylan’s letter is a culmination of a several-months long campaign by Mia Farrow to celebritize herself and her son Ronan, who is a rising media star with a new show on MSNBC. He claims Allen was exonerated of the charges in 1992.
“The impetus seems to be to establish Mia Farrow as a celebrity activist worthy of the world stage, and, as well, to launch a public career for her son Ronan,” Wolff wrote.
Wolff goes on to accuse “Girls” star Lena Dunham of being an accessory to this alleged publicity campaign, doubting her sincerity when she sent a tweet of support to Dylan. The Newser editor-in-chief sees this as a type of Twitter quid-pro-quo.
“If you tweet for me; I’ll tweet for you,” he writes. “Everybody is at work here. Everybody is someone else’s instrument. Everybody is promoting something.”
bye
Read more at ONTD: Oh No They Didn't! - VF Contributing Editor: Dylan Farrow Letter is Just Publicity for Mia and Ronan
Hollywood is more worried about Cate Blanchett not getting her Oscar than Dylan Farrow being abused
n light of the abuse allegations leveled against Woody Allen by his daughter Dylan Farrow in the New York Times, the Hollywood press immediately began showing sympathy for the those who have the most to lose in this awful situation: Cate Blanchett and Blue Jasmine's Oscar chances.
The Hollywood Reporter's Scott Feinberg addressed the importance of the abuse allegations in his article "Dylan Farrow's Op-Ed Targets Woody Allen But Could Hurt Cate Blanchett More":
"Is Cate Blanchett's best actress Oscar for her performance in Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine as assured as most people believe? Probably — but being called out on the New York Times' website for associating with an alleged child molester certainly won't help her cause."
No, those allegations generally don't help many causes. But, if you're Feinberg, the most important cause at hand is Cate Blanchett. And asking questions like, why would a young woman ever want to admit alleged abuse unless she wanted to ruin a movie starring Cate Blanchett?
"The question of the minds of many is why Farrow, who has heretofore maintained a low public profile, would choose to publicly discuss her history with Allen now? The timing and focus of her piece certainly suggest, to me, that she would like to derail any chance that Allen or those associated with him on his latest film, Blue Jasmine, have of receiving additional awards recognition at the Oscars on March 2."
These questions, of course, completely gloss over the fact the allegations were first made public in 1993 and again last year in a Vanity Fair profile and are in no way new or now. Or that if ruining Oscars was her thing, Farrow could have a field day with 2011's Midnight in Paris. But those facts don't matter because what about Blanchett? We can't forget about Blanchett.
"Only Farrow herself can say what her objective was in writing this piece when and how she did. But, whether intended or not, the byproduct of her actions may well be that some Academy members will think twice before supporting Allen or those who have chosen to associate with him on Blue Jasmine when they fill out their Oscar ballots. And while that won't matter much for Allen and Hawkins' prospects — they were both considered to be long shots well before this brouhaha — it could, conceivably, make the road to victory for Blanchett, who is a heavy favorite — having already won best actress Critics' Choice, Golden Globe and SAG, New York Film Critics Circle, Los Angeles Film Critics Association and National Society of Film Critics awards — a little bumpier."
Only in Hollywood—the land where everyone hates priests but loves Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski—are conversations about alleged sexual abuse characterized as bumpy "brouhahas." The Wrap's Steve Pond at least had the decency to admit that asking questions about Blanchett's chances is an "uncomfortable" act.
On Saturday night, Blanchett herself responded to questions about Farrow's statement, and managed to do so without mentioning awards season, presumably because she has a functional brain. "I mean, it's obviously been a long and painful situation for the family, and I hope they find some sort of resolution and peace," she said.
Alec Baldwin, who was also called out in Farrow's statement for his association with Allen, took to Twitter on Sunday with his own compelling stance on the controversy: "What the f&@% is wrong w u that u think we all need to b commenting on this family's personal struggle?" he tweeted. "So you know who's guilty? Who's lying? You, personally, know that?" he continued, adding: "You are mistaken if you think there is a place for me, or any outsider, in this family's issue." He later deleted his responses.
No one knows where the truth lies in this situation, but the knee-jerk responses to defend Allen, call out "liars," and worry about how allegations—allegations for which he cannot be charged—will impact a stupid award is ridiculous. Those in Hollywood who are framing the situation as a premeditated awards-season attack on Allen shows just how far the industry will go to avoid uncomfortable conversations and defend their gods.
defamer
Read more at ONTD: Oh No They Didn't! - Hollywood is more worried about Cate Blanchett not getting her Oscar than Dylan Farrow being abused
Only in Hollywood—the land where everyone hates priests but loves Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski—are conversations about alleged sexual abuse characterized as bumpy "brouhahas."
Truth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks