Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
kind of dicks, aren't they?
it just seems to be one of those things that is brushed under the carpet and forgotten about
Really surprised that Polanski is still fairly prolific. I was surprised to find that he'd been arrested in the 70s, given how many films he's released since then.
Emma Stone seems to be in every movie he makes and i've never seen anyone asking her about it.
Just yesterday I said 'You know, I've never seen a Woody Allen film' and I was mildly disappointed
Today I'm exceptionally proud of myself
His films are probably turd anyway
certainly seems like it but it will never be confirmed confirmed cos he is a powerful Hollywood man
nuts that his films are always about an old bloke going out with a young woman even today
Palo Alto or whatever it is called + instagram incident = nonce.
he eventually gave up having himself as the older guy character.
Blue Jasmine is about the only film of his in the last twenty years I have much time for. His 70s and 80s work was ridiculously good, so I don't mind his decline so much though.
Speaking out against Allen is probably career suicide. Judge that sort of thing as you wish, of course.
just tell him you've got other projects on the go and politely decline
I mean...dunno, feels like it's not really a statement either. Also I'd imagine it's still going to raise eyebrows.
Anyway, it's pretty fucked up that no one ever prosecuted although I'd guess he'd have won in any case.
"After declining an invitation to appear in Woody Allen's film Match Point (2005), Winslet stated that she wanted to be able to spend more time with her children."
it would seem that this was a genuine last-minute decision for that reason, as in he seems to have had her lined up for a while, so maybe not an expression of distaste with him.
" Winslet's other 2011 film project, Roman Polanski's Carnage, premiered at the 68th Venice Film Festival."
(I like Kate Winslet & I like Woody Allen's film & I like Roman Polanski's films)
Probably still wouldn't think so if he was convicted.
I think there has to be some kind of seperation of a person's acts and their 'work'.
Not a fan of LostProphets but would still listen to them if I did....
the song that is - 30 or so seconds of it - it was poor
as far as I'm aware it's not even that obvious that he is guilty, haven't some of his children publicly backed him?
Pretty sure some of his other kids have said that it's BS though?
has actually spoken out against Dylan
and Mia Farrow and his son with Mia Farrow (though he might actually be Frank Sinatra's son or something) are the ones on her side. I can't remember if he has other kids taking his side.
i agree with this bloke
He's been accused of sexual abuse of Dylan in private. There are no other witnesses so it's her word against his.
But by saying "it's not even that obvious that he is guilty" you are implicitly saying that you don't trust a seven year old to be telling the truth when she claims she was sexually abused.
he's implicitly saying it's more likely that he's lying than that she is
I've just pointed out that you can't have an opinion on his guilt or innocence without also making declaration about Dylan Farrow's guilt or innocence.
Would I accept her word over his? Yes I would. It's not a court of law so I have that option. Beyond that I can't really say. The doctors at the time decided it was all made up
but I'm not sure if anyone reassessed their data or whether they had a particular reason to be biased. She is still very much claiming it happened years later, although the doctor's claims of "it's all made up" mean that this can still be held up as a valid excuse.
The bottom line is that I am also suspicious of these professionals making a claim that essentially invalidates a person completely. The thing is, you can pollute your own evidence. Have a listen to this part of a This American Life entry from last year:
I'm not particularly well versed on this case and don't pretend to be, so I'm not stating an opinion on whether or not he is guilty.
What I object to is being told that because I've stated that it's not even that obvious that he is guilty, that I'm saying I don't trust children to be a credible witness in these sort of cases.
You've made that assumption and run with it.
Surely you can see this is a situation in which only one party can be wrong. She accuses him and he denies it.
Fair enough, you are implicitly saying you don't trust *this particular seven year old*, but then I'm not sure why that specific is important?
The bottom line is you can either claim you don't want to make a judgement call or you have to make one. By bringing up the question of his guilt you automatically reference her guilt as the converse.
But I would argue that from what I know of this particular case it really isn't THAT obvious that he is guilty.
I was largely basing that assumption that that a member of his family is probably going to have a reasonable idea of whether or not their father is likely to have abused a sibling.
I can appreciate that it's completely possible tjhat (assuming he is guilty) he focused solely on one person and was pretty good at hiding the signs of the abuse.
Given that apparently he has also been exonerated (again not conclusive and not saying it is) at least cursorily, then it's not unreasonable to say there is at least some leeway to say his guilt is not readily apparent.
Or are you talking about the link to the doctors I placed above.
You still aren't really addressing the point: that by saying it sounds like he isn't likely to be guilty, you are saying that it sounds like Dylan Farrow is likely to be guilty (of lying about the abuse). This is the thing we discussed exhaustively on here when her open letter came out, the idea that by presuming innocence you are damning another person.
(I don't really know that a sibling's testimony is any more believable a marker. I don't think Rolf Harris's family (for example) showed any signs of knowing what he'd done to the daughter of a close family friend.)
I have stated that I am not offering an opinion on whether or not he is guilty, I don't know anywhere near enough to make that step.
It is evident that one of them is lying or effectively lying.
What I have been saying is that there seems to be enough in this case to suggest that there is some doubt to his guilt.
pick a side then stick to it. that's how justice works
neither is fullerov. the burden of proof is irrelevant. nobody has asked fullerov to make a decision about what should happen to woody allen. what he does/ says has nothing to do with "how justice works".
he never said he isn't likely to be guilty, just that's it's not obvious that he is.
even if we all agree that there is no necessity to think about this with the idea of reasonable doubt hanging over our heads & that it's more likely that someone has been sexually assaulted than falsely accused someone of sexual assault saying that you don't feel like you know enough about it doesn't implicitly mean yr accusing a specific party of lying.
will people on here ever stop having this argument? You're using concepts like "guilt" and "reasonable doubt" as if you're the judge or someone responsible for administering justice and punishment.
Believing someone who says they have been abused isn't going to result in a miscarriage of justice.
that if you were an actor in hollywood who restricted yourself to only working with people who hadn't sexually assaulted people/children, you wouldn't be able to accept very many roles. Reckon it's probably necessary to either sell your soul or become completely desensitised to sexual violence if you want to work in hollywood.
I don't see people complaining about the likes of Mark Wahlberg or Sean Penn getting work considering their pasts.
What did Penn do?
was arrested for that one i think cause he beat her really badly with a baseball bat and allegedly r**ed her. has had plenty of outbursts of violence since and is just a really mentally unstable man, i think
he came up on a white card, and everyone was, like, "huh?".
this explains it.
as far as Wahlberg goes, though, he was a kid. idk. depends how socially liberal your worldview is. he seems very remorseful and genuinely reformed, which is all that matters to me.
I mean when I mention Wahlberg I'm not saying he should be shunned or anything (he's clearly a reformed character, even with his tendency to talk crap sometimes), just that there's a lot of people in Hollywood who are guilty of unpleasant stuff.
Fuck that article/ writer!
like all of dis' faves are problematic
Honestly no idea why models still work with him. There was enough of a stink to ruin him but some how he came out the otherside. ERGH
not defending his actions, but theres a few other powerful photographers have too been abusive and continued to get work with major publishing houses and fashion campaigns with lvmh etc because they can be have a history of working with them in the past or are close friends with the editors/ones in charge. i know he's particularly close friends with carine roitfield (ex-ed. of french vogue). he's been doing this since the '90s so there are plenty of people reluctant to cut ties with him.
he shot for lots of international fashion magazines before he had a 'thing' (studio shoots, controversy) and plenty of his spreads weren't at all racey. the 'alternative' fashion and art magazines proper put him on a pedestal as well, olivier zahm is a proper perv.
re: before having a 'thing'- there's not many of these editorials, but they are out there. his career has definitely been leading up to this whole porno-chic thing, and it made him infamous within fashion circles and made certain editors love him cause it was their passport to scandal and controversy. no idea why he keeps getting hired though.
As an (ex)photographer it angers me that he gives us all a bad name.
Dunno if this makes any sense, but i'm not sure the sort of public obsession with famous people having to have an off-screen persona really helps. The general public seem to almost like celebrities to be rogues, generally speaking, as if being a cunt is excusable if you're an artist. People view, say, Oliver Reed as an actor who was a bit of a cunt, whereas him being a cunt's more relevant than his work. If there wasn't the weird obsession with people being villains, and the public seeing such cracks in their image as them being 'normal', maybe stuff wouldn't get swept under the carpet as much.
I don't for one minute thing Allen's being protected by the industry he's in, it's more a societal problem of people thinking their enjoyment (via entertainment) is more important than the suffering of people they don't know, and secondly, that being a twat, especially if you're male and manly, is in some way a good, or at least excusable thing.
Gonna go and play the Roberto Baggio free-kicks game for a bit.
and that no charges were brought and that there was some evidence of the kid having been "coached" by mia farrow, which brings the dialogue back to it being about a nasty spat between him and mia farrow, and not really about the kid.
but generally i think a lot of people would continue to work with a colleague giving them the benefit of the doubt just out of camaraderie or inability to accept the accusations until proven.