|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 20:16:50 GMT
Agreed that there is probably no point in discussing it further. I feel like i’ve fallen into some moral rabbit hole whenever this topic comes up.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Oct 15, 2017 20:24:59 GMT
I was always a bit surprised that BC worked with Weinstein again after calling him a disgusting man, or a revolting man or loathsome man or an equivalent in an interview (just remember it was said rather than when). Without clarification, I thought it was a foolish thing to have done at the time, when Weinstein was seen as such a powerful figure in the industry but also supposed it reflected something very unpleasant. I don't remember that quote. When he was at TIFF he spoke about having a harsh time from Weinstein because he didn't sat with AOC cast for SAG (?). TIG wasn't BC's fault because it wasn't he who sold it to Weinstein. I still think Weinstein made him do all the promotion for TIG. Why he accepted to play TCW? Maybe because he got nominated? I really don't remember when it was. I can see BC in my mind's eye standing in what looks like a doorway with a mic being held towards him, so, "whenever", it was on video. But I don't recall what he was talking about otherwise or where he was or what prompted him to say it. He obviously felt strongly about something that was likely fresh, because it was pretty obviously impulsive, and I seem to recall presumption about it at the time on IMDB being that it was something to do with Keira Knightly. And re Ellie talking about looking somewhat askance at the rush to jump on the condemnation bandwagon, I'm rather doing the same. I don't like the bandwagon of convenience approach to anything and it does seem to me as if some of it is indeed of the "competitive piety" variety and "self serving" and/or "butt covering". And it isn't as if HW is alone. He's obviously a ghastly man, but he's following in a very long and entrenched tradition of the abuse of the casting couch. There might not always have been "rape", but to be obliged into sexual favours with producers/directors/casting agents etc, as a necessary part of the process of getting a job, isn't so far removed. It's still abuse. And there'll be very few actors out there that that hasn't ever touched, male or female, and HW isn't the only culprit. But it's continued because it's been accepted as almost "normal". And it's that presumption of acceptability across the board that I'd like to see dismantled. But it's not going to be spoken about because there'll be embarrassment and shame involved. What this whole issue with HW is going to do, though (hopefully), is put those who aren't also in the spotlight on notice that the reaction against abuse could spread, and that the vulnerable young actors (desperate for the all important leg up in a career where the vast majority get nowhere) may be less accepting now and that they aren't quite as voiceless as they used to be. Whistleblowers never do well personally out of going public, though, whatever the field and service provided, and that won't change and that will always be a disincentive to calling out abuse. And it doesn't help that there are just so many chasing every job, with sexual favours being something that many will still be prepared to offer in the hope of getting an advantage. But it certainly won't hurt for those who might be tempted to take improper advantage of the process, to know that it might be more likely to rebound against them now. And for all the HW allegations are now coming thick and fast, and deservedly so obviously, I'm noticing that it's only older actresses who are now prepared to speak up, the ones who've got less to lose. And there's a lot more that could/should come out. Someone else mentioned the sweeping back under the carpet of the likes of Bryan Singer and underage boys being drugged and raped at big gay Hollywood parties......
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 20:27:37 GMT
Agreed that there is probably no point in discussing it further. I feel like i’ve fallen into some moral rabbit hole whenever this topic comes up. What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 20:51:23 GMT
It means that I find people’s defense of him confusing, disorienting, and something I can’t understand. In the the real world, surely most people, if they encountered a man who was sleeping with his children’s sister, would give him a wide berth and regard him and any of his friends who defended him with wary suspicion and contempt. Why do people treat this man differently. Is it because they like his movies? ...or think “artists” are different and don’t have to abide with the most basic human decency? I don’t get it.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Oct 15, 2017 20:56:54 GMT
I never followed the Woody Allen case. All I ever knew about it was that he married Mia Farrow's daughter and that he was supposed to have waited for her to get to be 17 before having sex with her. I didn't know anything about the likes of his leaving nude, splayed-leg photographs of Soon Yi around Mia’s apartment, and I didn't even know about allegations of abuse otherwise. But horrifying as anything else might be, "what" Woody Allen is, was always incontrovertibly clear from the simple fact that he was a man in his 50's when she was a 17 year old girl (even if he did "wait", intent was there) effectively in his care. The girl had to have been being groomed for the physical abuse to follow, and it was abuse even if it wasn't "rape" because it was abuse of power. If he had been a teacher grooming a child, there would be no question re the morality of it. Things aren't always so black and white, but it is that clear in this case. Whatever issues there were re legal "proof" of the other abuse is incidental, in that the abuse of power re Soon Yi should have been enough on its own for him to have been made into a pariah!
It's on the news tonight that the police are now officially actively investigating HW re multiple allegations of assault, where the victims aren't alll being named.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 15, 2017 21:26:52 GMT
I like Roman Polanski movies but I would never say there are doubts in his case. He admitted it, there are proofs and there are even more accusations by other women. Actually it would be easier to say on Internet that Woody Allen is a pedophile. Period. But there are inconsistencies. He without doubt liked young women and old teenagers, which IMO it’s disturbing itself, but ephebophilia is not the same than pedophilia. I don’t believe she is lying but there has been documented cases of kids influenced to accuse parents of abuse that didn’t happened. Some of those kids don’t lie they really believe it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuseShe was very young as was Ronan, who also claims to remember weird behavior by Allen. The oldest one is the kid who now defend him. Now, who knows? It’s possible Mia Farrow is telling the true and Allen abused a little girl at the same time he had a romance with Farrow’s adopted barely adult daughter. It’s an awful case and very perplexing.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 21:34:01 GMT
It means that I find people’s defense of him confusing, disorienting, and something I can’t understand. In the the real world, surely most people, if they encountered a man who was sleeping with his children’s sister, would give him a wide berth and regard him and any of his friends who defended him with wary suspicion and contempt. Why do people treat this man differently. Is it because they like his movies? ...or think “artists” are different and don’t have to abide with the most basic human decency? I don’t get it. No that’s not it at all. I’m not particularly a fan of Woody Allen’s movies and I most definitely do not think that artists should be subject to different rules to anyone else. I have absolutely no agenda here other than my take on what I’ve read about the situation. While I definitely don’t applaud his morality or sensitivity at sleeping with Soon Yi, I nonetheless recognise that the fact is he had no blood connection with her and, if he is telling the truth, then she was of legal age when he slept with her. None of that may be admirable or right but it is, nonetheless, a very different thing to sexually abusing a young child, which is the allegation in Dylan’s case. And there is a great deal of conflicting testimony and expert opinion in the Dylan case - to the extent that it is not possible to make a definitive judgement. I also accept that I know nothing about Woody Allen or Mia Farrow or any of their family other than through the filter of the media which is always a dangerous basis on which to form rigid opinions. So, I honestly just do not feel I have the necessary knowledge to be sure he is guilty of a crime he has vehemently denied. I neither like or admire the guy but for me it boils down to, if I were on a jury, could I convict him of abusing Dylan on the basis of the evidence in the public domain and the answer would have to be no. Neither, for the record, could I unequivocally say he is innocent. I just don’t know
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 21:42:26 GMT
I know there are false reports about child sexual abuse. There was a crazy hysteria about day care centers in the U.S. in the 1980s and 90s. I didn’t believe that garbage at the time. It was so clear that the things people were describing were not even possible. Lives were ruined.
It wasn’t just that Soon Yi was young and Mia Farrow’s daughter, as horrible as that is. He had a biological child with Farrow and adopted some of her other children. If his affair with Soon Yi wasn’t technically incest, it certainly was emotional incest and wreaked havoc on that family. He may not have sexually abused Dylan, but he deserves no benefit of the doubt at all. He deserves to be utterly shunned for what we know he did.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 15, 2017 21:47:17 GMT
Yes for the hurt he caused to the family for his inappropriate although not illegal relationship with Soon Yi. I totally agree with you there.
But that in itself does not prove he abused Dylan - which is the particular issue we were discussing.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 15, 2017 21:47:59 GMT
Having no blood connection means nothing except that birth defects are less likely. Adopted children are as much a part of the family as any other member. What he did may not be technically illegal, but it was incest by any reasonable definition - certainly to the children who had to try to make sense of the fact that their father was sleeping with their sister.
|
|