|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 6, 2019 2:09:54 GMT
I read a THR article saying Amazon is trying to obtain depositions from the actors that vowed not to work with him again. We will see how that works! If that is important then Allen's lawyers could use statements by actors who claimed they would like to work with him, I guess. There are actually a few: Blanchett, Caine, Alec Baldwin, Diane Keaton, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, etc. If it's true that an important American actress will star his next movie to shoot in Spain this Summer as his producer recently claimed then probably the excuse of him being incapable of attract big talent would fall flat.
I also read a tweet claiming that Allen was scared because Selena Gomez would testify against him! By a Hollywood lawyer! That sounded big but the source was actually the guy who does the blind items garbage!
Another Hollywood lawyer on Twitter said she thinks Allen would easily win.
EDITED: TBH I don't think a huge American actress in her prime would risk to act in a Woody Allen film right now. I don't think it would really damage her career (I seriously think general audiences doesn't care about things like this) but the social media pressure would be huge. Some people think the producer was talking about Scarlett Johansson but I seriously doubt it. Its know that she is close to Allen but I don't think her people would let her to do a movie with him right now. Also she probably would be doing her Marvel film.
Maybe someone older who doesn't need to worry about what people say on Twitter as Diane Keaton. Isabelle Huppert recently said she would like to work with Allen but she is French. In general non-American stars probably are also in a better position IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 6, 2019 7:08:08 GMT
He is only protected from being arrested, not from other consequences. I don’t think employers need something called a “morality clause” to fire you, but I’m sure there’s some kind of understanding that you won’t do or say anything to hurt their business. And if they have no basis to fire you, they can still do it if they pay you to leave. I’m only going by the jobs that I’ve had over the years.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 6, 2019 12:54:07 GMT
He is only protected from being arrested, not from other consequences. I don’t think employers need something called a “morality clause” to fire you, but I’m sure there’s some kind of understanding that you won’t do or say anything to hurt their business. And if they have no basis to fire you, they can still do it if they pay you to leave. I’m only going by the jobs that I’ve had over the years. They seem to be claiming that they have a legal reason to breach a contract because the person said something uncomfortable. If that doesn't go against free speech then I don't know what does. Yes, they can fire anyone they want but a) he wasn't exactly fired, he has a legal contract with them and they just decided to ignore it; b) even if he were just an employee and they were firing him, he still have rights. As you say, they should have had negotiated his exit with him and, yes, pay him. TBH I don't know the details but for example, Disney use morality clauses so I'm guessing it was easier to cut links with Rosana Berr when she wrote racist stuff on Twitter than with James Gunn that actually didn't say anything wrong meanwhile working with them. He was judged for very old tweets and Disney negotiated with him and reportedly paid him a big sum of money.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 6, 2019 14:46:22 GMT
I’m sure they aren’t revealing all the details of their case against WA. So we’re just guessing here!
There was rumour going around at work years ago that I believe to be true. A co-worker left his job and got a new job elsewhere, and was replaced by someone new (all very normal). But there was talk about what really happened: he had gone to our employer to request same-sex benefits coverage for his partner. When our employer refused, my co-worker threatened to bring the story to the local paper. They came to an agreement: our employer paid him off, and he agreed to leave and never go public with what happened. I suspect that these kinds of arrangements are more common than we know. It’s just that it’s all kept a secret from us!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 13, 2019 14:36:16 GMT
It seems Amazon is indeed using those quotes by Allen about Me Too as their only defense against him! And more perplexing, some quotes in which he defends himself of the old accusations. What they wanted? He saying he is guilty?
At certain point, Amazon lawyer (just one!) claimed that Allen has secured financing for his next 3 movies so the damage by finishing the contract with them isn't that big! So he still has the capacity of attracting financiers? Aren't they more important than stars?
Also Allen's lawyers want a deposition by Jeff Bezon himself!
Anyway they will begin negotiations between the two parties next and if they don't work then a trial next year. Probably Amazon will give him some money beforehand, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 14, 2019 2:51:18 GMT
Geoffrey Rush won his defamation case but it surely seems to be a very polemic verdict: www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/telling-moments-for-metoo-in-rush-verdict-20190411-p51d4cThere are proof of at least two of the five accusations against him but the judge thought they were exaggerated. That's the problem with harassment is very difficult to confirm in a trial. EDITED: Poor woman! Apparently she doesn't formally accused him nor talked with the tabloid. The "journalists" decided to publish a rumor based in what she informally said to a third party. Of course, there were errors in the reporting and now her reputation is damaged.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 15, 2021 4:15:04 GMT
I'm intrigued by the new documentary about the Allen-Farrow scandal on HBO. I'm kind of obsessed with that case! I don't know why? Seriously I'm normally not very interested on the sordid lives of celebrities but I remember the original scandal and it seems to me that nowadays the press and some of the people involved are actively oversimplifying and tying to politicize if not also manipulating a very complex case. Is he guilty? Of course, I don't know for sure! But it seems to me that the Farrows just lie too much! Easy verifiable lies that people anyway believe because that's the "right" side to be. I think that's what make it interesting because Allen is not a sympathetic morally clean character but very probably he didnt do it! but who knows? Maybe the documentary will show some stunning new evidence that once and for all will prove that actually Allen did it.
The main problem is that it seems it will be a one-sided thing. They are announcing the Farrows sympathetic with Mia, her close friends (singer songwriter Carly Simon!!!) and the prosecutor whose career was almost finished by Allen's lawsuits (so yes, there is a personal vendetta there!). The filmmakers are very respected by film critics but they old acclaimed work was also denounced by factual journalists because they apparently are more activists than anything else and kind of doesn't care for facts. Just the "victims" stories: there was a Slate article about how one case presented in their documentary ignored a lot of facts presented in the actual criminal trial (for starters, the "victim" in the documentary was not even considered a "victim" in the trial, she was just a witness) but also a leaked e-mail in which they straightforward claim they aren't journalist and aren't interested for any objectivity. Just to interview accusers without questioning nor doubting their versions. One accusation by the Slate piece is that they didn't contacted the accused until very late in the process. Just to claim they did it but without the intention of included him. Well, they are claiming they invited Allen to participate but he declined and, guess what, Robert Weide said they indeed did it... in December! The series was in post-production by then. So yeah, they totally will "destroy" Allen! Fairly or Unfairly! Such a shame because I think something like the Lorena Bobbitt documentary is more credible and convincing because it included both parties and you can clearly judge who was the "real" victim in that relationship (the perpetrator! She did something awful but clearly she was abused and desperate and not in a good state of mind because the trauma. The victim is just a pathetic moron!).
Still, I would like to see what they say and if there's something really new. The bad news is that it doesn't seem to be scheduled on my local HBO and these is the kind of polemic thing I would preferred to watch before reading other's people opinions.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 20, 2021 2:54:55 GMT
I don't want to comment about the series without watching it but obviously the reviews are devastating to Allen and I just saw this and I thought it's just horrible! In the 90s, someone leaked that video to this woman. It was widely assumed it was Mia Farrow herself and it actually backlashed because what kind of mother would want to expose her child like that? Sure show it to the police but why to show it to the masses on TV? And apparently the girl was at least partially nude in a few "scenes" (although I remember someone posted some pages from the nanny's book and she claimed genitals had to be edited, too), you know, talking about how her father touched her! And it was leaked to the TV news to everyone to see it apparently now admittedly by the mother! At the end, this Rossana woman decided not to show the video, you know, "to protect the little girl"! But no, it was just "evil" Allen stopping her in her "noble" intent of unnecessary exhibiting a child! These things must be resolved in court not on prime TV! It's almost Salomonic! They are claiming the video is decisive and that Allen's people said the opposite: that it confirmed she coached the girl. Well, her own hired expert and the prosecution experts agreed with "Allen's people". Apparently they have now some new experts saying another thing, good make your case (on TV!), but the correct thing to do it's to clarify that it wasn't just Allen's people who watched the video and thought she was interrogating the girl in a manipulative way. Someone remember that that was exactly the issue with the Satanic moral panic thing in the 80s? And that a a few of those kids were convinced they were really abused in adulthood just because they were interrogated in the wrong way by inexperienced people?... Who I'm kidding? No one remembers that! I kind of doubt they would include the complete video anyway!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 20, 2021 15:30:34 GMT
It sounds interesting. I’ve always found the Woody Allen case impossible to call because there seem to be so many underlying issues and agendas that it is impossible to know who is telling the truth. We probably never will.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Feb 20, 2021 16:29:01 GMT
I feel the same way, Ellie. I have no idea where the truth sits in that situation, or even if there is one truth that can be extracted. What a mess! And a big part of me feels it’s none of my business what went down, although then I wonder if I’m turning a blind eye b/c I like his movies. 🤷🏻♀️
|
|