Crime

Did Woody Allen Molest His Daughter, Dylan Farrow? And If So, Should You Disavow His Films?

|

The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof has posted a letter from Dylan Farrow, the daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, in which Dylan says her father repeatedly sexually abused her:

What's your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we'd go to Paris and I'd be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains….

Dylan Farrow (also known as Malone Farrow) has circulated the letter because Allen is the recipient of a Golden Globe Lifetime Achievement Award and is nominated for an Oscar.

In an introductory note, Kristof writes that Allen "was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence" but also that "because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven't fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them."

Farrow's letter concludes:

Imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what's your favorite Woody Allen movie?

Read the whole thing.

The issue has many similarities with the controversy surrounding Roman Polanski, who in 1978 pled guilty to a charge of unlawful sex with a minor and then fled the United States before the sentencing phase. In 2009, when Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and put under house arrest, many critical admirers and Hollywood associates of the director came to his defense, saying that he should not be imprisoned despite his admission of guilt.

Allen, of course, has never been prosecuted, let alone convicted, of any sex crime. As Farrow writes in her open letter:

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the "child victim." 

In a recent story at The Daily Beast, Robert B. Weide, who directed a documentary about Allen, throws significant shadows on the claims made by the Farrows (Dylan, brother Ronan, and mother Mia) over the years while hardly exonerating Allen. "Did this event actually occur?," asks Weide, "If we're inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone (Dylan) say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it." By his own admission, Weide doesn't say he can definitively say what did or didn't happen, but he makes a strong case that the accusations, while doubtless believed by Dylan Farrow, are not true.

With the understanding that clarity doesn't abound in the case, I'm curious as to how readers feel about evaluating creative work in light of not simply scandalous but criminal biography. In the case of Polanski, I've generally stopped seeing his films, a decision made easy by the fact that most of his movies are simply terrible. With some few notable exceptions, his output is tilted decidedly more toward execrable junk like Pirates, Frantic, Fearless Vampire Killers, and The Ninth Gate than it is toward Chinatown. Similarly for Allen, who ceased to produce consistently interesting movies decades ago (IMO at least).

But is there a general principle that should be applied? If artists are not simply awful human beings but criminals, should we turn away from their work? Arthur Koestler was a rapist, according to one of his biographers. Does that mean his great anti-totalitarian novel, Darkness at Noon, should go unread? Edmund Wilson was a wife-beater, Picasso well beyond a sociopath, and on and on. When it comes to figures such as Martin Heidegger (an actual Nazi) and Paul de Man (a Nazi collaborator) and others in the past, the question is simpler: We can add new disclosures or information to a study of their influence and an estimation of whether their reputations are deserved. When faced with living, breathing creators such as Allen and Polanski, that sort of dodge isn't really available. Add to that the notion that even the most devoted critic of either would have to really be nuts to claim that The Curse of the Jade Scorpion or another version of Oliver Twist would justify a parking ticket much less sexual abuse of children.

What do you think readers? When—if ever—does the biography of a creator mean that you cannot or should not in good conscience patronize an artist?

NEXT: Obama, You're No Stranger to the Bong: An Open Letter to the President

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Relevant: I suggest that anyone interested in this saga read the November 1992 Vanity Fair article that covers this topic. It is a long read, but fascinating. Woody Allen is one weird guy.

    1. Of course he’s a weirdo, and if he really did molest his daughter he’s a sick fuck that should be ostracized for it.

      But I think it’s pure emotional blackmail for anyone to suggest you can’t enjoy a Woody Allen or Roman Polanski film because of an unrelated crime they committed. Watching ‘Annie Hall’ doesn’t make you an accomplice to the crime nor does it mean you are condoning it.

      1. Read the article. It’s one of the best reads of the last year for me.

        I was to young to know what was going on in ’92, but it is some pretty crazy stuff.

        Mia Farrow is definitely guilty of poor judgment at a minimum. She required Woody Allen to sleep in the guest house because she didn’t trust him unsupervised around the 7 year old, but she was still adopting kids with him.

        1. I certainly have no trouble believing that he did it, but the truth is no one but Allen knows for sure what he did and didn’t do.

          The entire story of that relationship between Allen and Farrow just shows that bad things happen when two mentally unbalanced people get together like that.

          1. “the truth is no one but Allen knows for sure what he did and didn’t do.”

            What about the alleged victim?

            1. If something happened she would remember but not necessarily in an accurate manner.

              That’s one of the reasons why it’s hard to prove these things, young victims don’t make for good witnesses.

              Again, her story is plausible and Allen is a monster if its true, but I still don’t know enough to make such a firm judgment that all his work tainted.

              1. I agree a youthful witness’s youth has to be taken into account, and that at this point any third party is left with a he said/she said situation which shouldn’t be dispositive, but it’s certainly possible for even a seven year old to accurately remember such a traumatic event, or for a grown adult not to.

                1. This is certainly true. I still remember very vividly events I experienced even when I was 5 or 6, and in some cases even a bit younger.

                  At the same time I may have difficulty recalling exactly what I said in some conversation I had less than a year ago.

                2. Gee, I bet they taught you “dispositive” in law school. I wouldn’t mention this, but not many of us lawyers go around tacking Esq. on our names, at least the older and more experienced of us. Did they teach you about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome in law school as well?

                  1. The handle is a bit of a joke as I am a 2L. Do you recall http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lighten+up from your studies?

          2. but the truth is no one but Allen knows for sure what he did and didn’t do.

            Doesn’t Dylan Farrow know equally as well?

            If she can make up a horrible thing in her head and forget it isn’t Woody equally as capable of doing a horrible thing and forgetting it?

            1. If she can make up a horrible thing in her head and forget it

              believe it not forget it

              no idea what is wrong with me today.

              1. As the moral panic about Satanic ritual rapes of children in daycare centers was winding down there were a lot of articles in the popular press about memory. Childhood memories seem particularly malleable. (I remember (or do I?) a story about a psychologist who manipulated his brothers childhood memories to prove a point. If it had been my brother he would have required dental work.) I have some vivid childhood memories that have proven to be completely false. Dylan lived around two high strung (being charitable) parents who went through a messy divorce. It’s quite plausible that she has false memories of her childhood that she sincerely believes.

                1. Agreed.

                  It’s also worth considering how societal opinion affects memories – both turning memories of innocent events into memories of crimes, and turning non-traumatic memories of crimes into traumatic memories.

                  For example, after enough assurance that an older male could never have loved or cared about her, a young girl may reinterpret a bath as molestation, or reinterpret molestation that she did not consider a problem at the time as a spiritual assault on her person with grave consequences. These may be “real” enough to her, yet bear little or no resemblance to what actually happened due to the nocebo effect.

  2. What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house

    ‘Midnight in Paris.’ But ‘Bullets Over Broadway’ and ‘Sleeper’ come close.

    Oh I’m sorry, do you expect that to stop being a non-sequitur of a statement because you allege a horrible crime was committed against you?

    I realize that speaking out like this is probably therapeutic in some sense to her, but as Nick pointed out, lots of artists are assholes that have committed crimes or engaged in deplorable behavior.

    It doesn’t at all change the value of their work.

    1. But it does change the value of the artist. You could find a serial killer who is a good painter, and while you might appreciate the paintings, you wouldn’t necessarily therefore celebrate the artist, shower him with awards and show loving tributes of him at industry events that completely whitewash his history.

      1. Absolutely. Allen is already a weirdo IMO and I wouldn’t want to associate with him on a personal level.

        And if he molested a child he’s a piece of shit that should be shunned by the rest of Hollywood, which would mean no would want to make films with him or distribute them.

        1. If he votes or thinks the the ‘right way’ he’s in the clear.

    2. It doesn’t at all change the value of their work.

      No, but sometimes the artist gets in the way of the art.

      In Michael Jackson’s last years, I ignored him because he was so fucking pathetic and sad.

      1. No, but sometimes the artist gets in the way of the art.

        I can see that being the case moving forward, but as it is Allen’s personal life doesn’t change, for me, whether movies he has made in the past are good or not.

        You are right, however, that there is an undercurrent of nihilism to his work where people get hurt and the guilty go unpunished in a cold, uncaring universe.

        But that describes to a T the entire body of work of the Coen Bros, so there’s obviously some entertainment value to stories of that nature.

      2. Hannah and Her Sisters, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Crimes and Misdemeanors, didn’t he write for the Dick Van Dyke show too? Those things are in the plus column in my estimation. Annie Hall, maybe I would have to see it again, but I only recall being bored.

        1. “Didn’t he write for the Dick Van Dyke show too”

          The Dick Van Dyke Show was created by Carl Reiner, who had once been a writer for Sid Caesar’s Show of Shows. On the Dick Van Dyke Show, Carl Reiner’s character (Dick Van Dyke’s boss) is based on Sid Caesar. Two of the other writers Carl Reiner worked with on Show of Shows with were Neil Simon and Mel Brooks. On the Dick Van Dyke show, Morey Amsterdam’s character was based on Mel Brooks.

          My understanding was that Woody Allen started working for Sid Caesar after the all-star team of Reiner, Simon, and Brooks had departed. Say whatever you want about Sid Caesar, but he had the best writing team ever. I can’t imagine a better team of comedy writers. He had everyone but Dorothy Parker.

          Incidentally, Lancelot Link was created by two former writers from Get Smart. They’d had a series of scripts rejected by the production company, and one of the writers said something like, “These scripts are so good, a monkey could do them and get laughs”. The production manager replied, “Well, we’re not shooting them, so go get some monkeys”.

          So they did! They went and got monkeys to play the parts of Max (Lancelot Link), Agent 99 (Mata Hairy), the Chief (Darwin), etc. They’re all characters from Get Smart! They got monkeys playing secret agents–I’m sorry, that’s the pinnacle of television right there. It’s been all downhill ever since.

          1. I didn’t know this story, still not sure I believe it, but at the time I did recognize those names in the credits from Get Smart!, and did think at least once while watching it that the monkeys were recognizably ripped off from that show. Link didn’t play it much like Don Adams, though; must’ve been the directing. Seriously, though, it was so hard to get mentally past the gag of talking monkeys on TV (On The Hathaways they didn’t talk, but they still had a better voice than Peggy Cass.) to be much cognizant of the writing that I’d have to watch them again with that in mind, imagining human actors, to appreciate it.

            The real successor to Get Smart! was Sledge Hammer!.

            As to the question the lady posed, I was going to say Bananas, but after reading this blog entry I have to switch to Sleeper. Hey, she asked, didn’t she?

            1. I loved Sledge Hammer!

              Two points for you for refreshing those brain cells.

  3. I’m inclined to believe Farrow.

    1. I’m inclined to believe she is nuts.

  4. I think it’s a personal judgement, but for me, if the individual is living, I choose to boycott the work. Not doing so feels like a tacit approval of the action. Queasiness aside, there’s a more practical reason why I don’t want to be a patron of the individual’s art: I don’t want to put money in the person’s wallet. If they’re dead, you’re not giving them monetary support. Obviously this is not true for a living individual and I can choose to give my hard earned money to others who have not commitred reprehensible crimes.

    1. But where do you draw the line? Drunkards, adulterers, drug addicts, rapists, pederasts, wife beaters, or Methodists? Or just assholes? Do you patronize only the art of admirable people?

      1. Exactly. I had a good friend who took the opposite view from mine. He could barely watch a TV show or movie and feel good about it. I didn’t dispute the validity of his evaluation, but it made him a pain in the ass to the day he died.

      2. If you only patronized that art of admirable people then most of Hollywood would be out of work.

        Even the least offensive of them tend to shill for murderous dictators (Penn) or call for socialism and ever increasing state control (MATT DAMON!)

        And then you’ve got the ones that are just arseholes on their best days (Alec Baldwin).

        1. Sean Penn and Matt Damon hardly qualify as “the least offensive.”

        2. I hang out here too much because when you said “Penn,” my first thought was “Gillette,” and I was trying to figure out which murderous dictator he’s ever shilled for.

    2. You, of course, can watch and not watch whatever you want. But this statement:

      I choose to boycott the work. Not doing so feels like a tacit approval of the action.

      is utterly irrational. If leftists can idolize Che despite him being a mass murderer and have it be socially acceptable, I don’t think I’ll allow the feminists to guilt me into not being allowed to enjoy a decent movie.

      1. Perhaps he meant boycott only in the economic sense.

        I do not think it is irrational to not patronize the work of someone with whom you have strong moral disagreement, but were the work on television in front of you it would be a bit irrational to not enjoy the film because of the author’s misdeeds.

      2. I don’t think it’s irrational. It just seems to be a preference for a way of experiencing art that is very different from mine. Lots of people take that art and the artist as a package deal. At the highest level they get autographs, buy memorabilia, go to public lectures or other appearances. They buy art not just for the object, but to “support the artist.” Their connection to the artist is part of their enjoyment they want their artists to be admirable. They care about how they behave and even how they vote.

        As I said, that’s not for me. But my (non-rhetorical) question about drawing the line is interesting to me. How does it work? Is there a different line for a better artist? Is acquaintance rape OK for the director of Chinatown? Would you take Ken Layne and the Corvids off your iTunes playlist if Matt Welch spit on the sidewalk?

        1. You have a good point about the difficulty of line drawing. For me, I kind of have an opposite of Episiarch’s view (infra about how marginal my support would be) which I let guide me: in this day and age it is just too easy for me to enjoy an artist’s work without paying directly for it. The movie comes on television or someone who already owns the film shows it or the book is at the library. If I have moral issues with a work or author I just choose not to pay for it but do not refuse to enjoy it otherwise, since I would only be harming myself otherwise.

      3. You, of course, can watch and not watch whatever you want. But this statement:

        I choose to boycott the work. Not doing so feels like a tacit approval of the action.

        is utterly irrational.

        I have no way of determining whether Allen or his daughter is telling the truth. I therefore wouldn’t boycott an Allen movie for his alleged actions.

        However, as the probability goes up (a conviction), as in the case of Polanski, I think it’s my duty to not in any way give credibility to such a shitbag human being. Watching his movie may not condone his actions, per se, but it’s beyond that. I feel the need to tell scumbags I disapprove of their very existence. I think not acknowledging their work is the right thing to do.

        Everyone else may, of course, feel/do as they wish without judgement.

      4. “If leftists can idolize Che despite him …”

        Who says they idolize him despite anything?

        Except for the clueless, which may constitute a majority of Che fans, they idolize him because he destroyed capitalists and other enemies of the working class.

  5. I find that I have very little need to admire an artist in order to appreciate their art. I feel sorry for people for whom this is necessary, and I think it sometimes perverts their appreciation of art by turning it into hero worship. I suppose there are things that would trigger my gag reflex, but I haven’t found them yet. I’ve enjoyed the art of execrable human beings.

    1. Exactly. One can watch his films and still make the conscious decision not to fete the filmmaker. Saying Annie Hall is a great movie doesn’t mean you have to give Allen awards and loving tributes at industry events.

    2. Not only this, I literally cannot understand people who let these two worlds collide. If you start choosing your entertainment by who made it, how are you different than people who destroy their own enjoyment of food because they think eating meat is evil? People who will not watch the art of someone who they think is wrong or immoral are the entertainment equivalent of a vegan. And I have a feeling a lot of people that will comment on this thread have pretty negative views of vegans, but might turn around and advocate the exact same sort of moral self-policing in terms of Woody Allen and his films.

      1. “People who will not watch the art of someone who they think is wrong or immoral are the entertainment equivalent of a vegan.”

        That is a ridiculous analogy. Vegans choose to be so for a variety of reasons, but most do so because they think that paying for animal food products fosters demand for what they consider to be something immoral. There is usually not anything like that connection and that between enjoying (or even supporting) the work of an artist and that artists deeds in their personal life.

      2. Hmmm, In theory I agree with you. We should be able to separate art and artist, and for the most part I do that. I don’t necessarily choose to have a reaction of revulsion when I see an Allen movie, I just do, probably because he acts in many of them.

        I can say I choose not to view an Allen movie but more accurately, I just don’t want to. Not because I don’t enjoy his films; I do, but because of his history.

        1. My assertion for you would be that you’re allowing your personal distaste for the artist affect your ability to enjoy their product. You say you enjoy them, but then you say you don’t want to watch them because of who made them. So obviously, you don’t enjoy them any more, or you would watch them.

          I understand that people do this, I just find it irrational, as your choice of watching has absolutely zero effect on the artist, them being punished or condemned, nothing. Even if you only choose not to put money in their pocket but will watch if it comes on HBO, this is sort of like “voting your conscience”, which I also find absurd. Because such “votes” or movie admittance withholding have a statistically insignificant effect on anything. You’re changing nothing and effecting nothing. So why screw up your enjoyment of something?

          1. Let’s test this theory of yours with something like Leni Riefenstahl’s work.

            Let’s say that the work is quite enjoyable and good as a work of art, but that its purpose and effect are plainly to further a cause which you abhor and which will harm and oppress millions.

            In that circumstance, would you still pay for a ticket to see the film?

            1. This isn’t a good parallel since her most important works of art are themselves Nazi propaganda. You’d need to have Allen make a film about the joys of molesting children for the parallel to work. I’ve never seen Riefenstahl’s film on the ’36 Olympics (which I gather has some merit), so that might be a parallel. But it’s Triumph of Will that she’s known for. Propaganda for Hitler is Propaganda for Hitler, however well made.

              1. Riefenstahl is rightly regarded for her contributions to the documentary format.

                I see no reason not to regard her films about the Olympics or the Nuremberg Rallies as masterpieces just because they were made for a totalitarian regime.

                Again, it’s a double standard: no one in academia or film criticism seems to have as much trouble praising Sergei Eisenstein for creating Soviet propaganda as they do Riefenstahl.

                1. Interestingly, there was an essay in the last Claremont Review of Books making a parallel point about Richard Wagner. A little different since Wagner was appropriate by the Nazis rather than writing for them. But he was also virulently anti-Semitic, etc. The author argued that Wagner’s music should be appreciated for what it is and that doing so didn’t mean endorsing everything the man believed.

                  It would be similar to adopting the leftist line of trashing much of American cinema.

                  1. Yeah, you can blame Wagner for his antisemitism, but the extent to which his music and writing contributed to the holocaust is debatable. You can make the same kinds of arguments about Martin Luther…

                    A better example is Leni Riefenstahl. Assuming Allen is guilty, rather than Wagner, she’s closer to who we should be comparing him to. She was a fantastic director and cinematographer, but once you make films to be used by the Nazis to promote their ideology and propagandize millions, how do we watch her films the same way again knowing what happened during the holocaust?

                    If there weren’t any Woody Allen films about how the power of guilt is transitory and his films didn’t feature relationships with younger women, maybe it would be different.

                  2. If I had a time machine, an enchanting magical evening would begin with a show in pre-War Berlin of a Riefenstahl movie. Bump up a few decades to witness Brecht testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee while dressed in overalls and smoking a pipe, and end the night by catching a donkey show in Tijuana in the mid 1980s before they got too commercial because of that goddamned Tom Hank’s movie. Yes, I would buy a ticket, even if it were made of the laminated skin of your Ukranian and Jewish grandmother.

                  3. I think Wagner is an interesting case. Of course, he wasn’t part of Nazism, but they used his music as their soundtrack. For many people who lived through that era (especially European Jews who were directly involved) there is a visceral feeling of disgust because of the association. It’s like the Ludovico technique causing Alex to be nauseated by Beethoven in Clockwork Orange. Dylan Farrow is trying to use the Ludovico technique on us with Woody Allen movies.

          2. You’re changing nothing and effecting nothing.

            Possibly, or maybe not. While never huge money makers, Allen’s films have grossed less over the years. This could be because they’re just not that great, or it could be because some people are choosing to ignore him.

            1. Even so, your action will never personally effect Allen’s bottom line. Even if he’s making a bit less on his movies than before (which is also based on whether he gets a portion of the box office or not, because if not, you’re not doing shit), he’s already rich as hell. So your withholding of the tiny portion of the $10 movie ticket is, essentially, completely meaningless to him, to his ability to make more movies, nothing.

              So why punish yourself by not allowing yourself to watch his movies, when it doesn’t punish him in the slightest? It doesn’t make sense.

              1. I wonder if it bothers Woody Allen to know some people just WON’T go to his films because he’s a scumbag. And I’m pretty sure he does know that.

                1. First, I seriously doubt it bothers Allen. Maybe it does, but the fact that he publicly got involved and then married Soon-Yi (another of his adopted daughters) as soon as she came of age tells me he doesn’t care much. Secondly, since you can’t know if he does care, you can’t ever know if your boycotting of his work bothers him, and therefore once again it is meaningless. You’re once again punishing yourself for the most insignificant chance to hurt him, and you can’t even confirm if you did.

                  1. Punishing myself by not watching a Woody Allen movie? big deal. It’s easy enough and requires little sacrifice. It may or may not be meaningful in the larger scheme, but if offers the opportunity even if tiny to turn away from a perv.

                    1. I guess if you consider the sacrifice to be pretty much as insignificant as the effect it might have, it’s a little more sensible, though from a strictly logical perspective, I would have to assume that actually, you feel the sacrifice is worth less than the insignificant chance to hurt him. Which probably also means you were never much of a fan in the first place, and makes your boycott make more sense.

                    2. Well, I’ve already seen the good movies. I saw most of them in the ’90’s prior to the accusations, so what have I lost? The opportunity to not re-watch his good ones and avoid his later kinda crappy ones?

                      This brings us to the primarily question, really: If he or Polanski produced astonishingly good films would we make the same choice?

                    3. Well, I’ve already stated that my choice is to completely separate the artist from the work, so obviously I’ll watch anything I want at any time regardless. It’s really about whether you would.

                    4. The ‘we’ was general. I assumed you would. For myself, I don’t know.

                  2. Dang, I had to read this far down in the comments to see a reference to Soon-Yi when my first reaction to the headline was “it’s telling that they had to specify which daughter he’s accused of molesting they’re talking about”. I have no problem believing that there are other little girls who have stories to tell about Poppa Woody.

                    With that being said, my favorite Woody Allen movie would have to be Sleeper as that’s the only Woody Allen movie I know. Maybe I’ve never been sophisticated enough to ‘get’ Woody Allen, but I really don’t see why he’s such a big deal film-maker. I’ll take a Terry Gilliam movie any day.

                    Frankly, I don’t care enough about Woody Allen to waste time thinking about whether or not you’re complicit in child molestation if you watch one of his movies.

                    Oh, wait. I just spent two seconds thinking about it and think if you wanna watch a Woody Allen movie, watch a Woody Allen movie and if you don’t, don’t. Choosing to watch a Woody Allen movie is like choosing to vote for Gary Johnson – it’s going to have absolutely no effect on the larger world but you’re not making the choice for his sake, you’re making the choice for yours. Do what feels right.

              2. But Epi, what if many people conclude the same thing? Then he’d be shunned and his bottom line would be affected.

                Seriously, it’s a tough one. I have a daughter. If the fucker did molest, it’s not that nuts to decide to not watch his films – however enjoyable.

                I don’t know if it’s irrational in as much as taking a personal moral stand.

                That being said, Bullets over Broadway I like a lot.

                1. I think Epi is correct in purely logical sense: it is irrational to avoid a movie because the creator did something morally reprehensible that has nothing to do with the art itself.

                  But I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with you or Lady B, as parents, being so disturbed by the idea of child molestation that you’d rather get entertainment elsewhere.

                  I feel it’s only a problem if you are actually inconveniencing or harming yourself out of a misguided determination to make a moral stand. What movies you watch aren’t that important as opposed to living in a cave to stop global warming or some absurdity.

                2. I can respect considering it a moral stand, I just fail to understand what one would feel the stand is accomplishing. Once again, it seems almost like religious fanaticism (in its way, I know that sounds a little extreme) to deprive yourself of something you like in order to do…what? Possibly, nebulously, inconsequentially inconvenience an artist you disapprove of? In a way that you can never know if it even did a thing?

                  It just seems incredibly irrational to me. Yes, if a ton of people conclude the same thing, you could ruin a career. However–and let’s ignore my anarchism for a second–if the law cannot prove that he did this thing, should you try and damage his career? Isn’t he innocent until proven guilty?

                  Because everyone who wants to boycott him (ostensibly to hurt him) has already judged him in the court of public opinion regardless of what the law could prove. Would you be proud of that?

                  1. Of course not. If the law hasn’t proven anything, a witch hunt settles nothing.

                    I see all sides to this.

                    If I were a hardcore Allen fan, it would be ‘depriving’ myself. But to a casual fan, maybe that calculation changes a little.

                    I’ve watched pretty much all his movies but remain indifferent in general because in my own anarchic mind, I don’t worship anyone. Fuck ’em.

                  2. I take your side here, Epi, but I’m curious. I can’t hear California Dreaming now without thinking that a father and a daughter were, well, really into each other, what about you? It’s hard for me to just sit back and enjoy a nice melody and harmony interplay without that being in the frontground of my thoughts.

              3. So why punish yourself by not allowing yourself to watch his movies

                Actually, if you wanted to punish me, a Woody Allen film marathon might qualify.

            2. Most of his films in the last 15 years have been mediocre according to the Rotten Tomatoes ratings.

              Although ‘Midnight in Paris’ and ‘Blue Jasmine’ seem to suggest he’s found some sort of groove. Those were simply very well-made, well-written movies.

              1. I haven’t gotten around to his more recent work, and I haven’t been avoiding it because of his name being related to scandals. Frankly, even if it were true this is mild stuff compared to what I have heard from insider accounts of the directors of the golden age. Not just young girls taken advantage of, but passed around for the amusement of party goers. Then there is the Black Dhalia matter, and she wasn’t the only Hollywood waif to end up dead.

            3. I stopped watching Woody Allen films when “Manhattan” came out. He had already stopped being funny, but that was when he became boring.

              (A fantasy I’ve had for a while now is for Woody Allen to appear in a Mel Brooks movie — without his knowledge. *That* would at least be funny.)

          3. Even if you only choose not to put money in their pocket but will watch if it comes on HBO, this is sort of like “voting your conscience”, which I also find absurd.

            This is why pirating everything you watch is the moral choice.

            1. Sounds good to me.

      3. “The entertainment equivalent of a vegan”.

        You sure know how to push my buttons. Mind=changed

        1. I’ve always told all the guys that you were a cheap date, you whore.

      4. Sounds like a formulation of ideas I’ve long held:
        Really good artists seem to have to be twisted.
        For one thing to live, something else must die.
        Trying to avoid truth is the greatest cause of suffering.

      5. Being a vegetarian has in no way “destroyed” my love of food, and I have a stomach to prove it.

        Excuse me, it’s time for my breakfast pizza.

  6. Mariel Hemingway was on The Colbert Report recently and it reminded me of her performance as Woody Allen’s 17 year old lover in Manhattan. I always assumed she was 18+ playing 17 but Wikipedia instructed me that she was actually 16 at the time. It made me think that perhaps few people should have been surprised at the claims made later about Allen.

  7. Except for a couple early works (a list you can probably predict), Woody Allen’s products make it easy for me to carry out an unintentional embargo of his works. But Woody Allen films aren’t solely his work, as others (actors, cinematographers, whatnot) are part of the productions so I wouldn’t necessarily shun them for his criminal behavior.

    As for that alleged behavior, I have no opinion of guilt. I know that Allen has a reputation for liking younger ladies but I also know, in custody disputes especially, kids can be talked into remembering anything.

  8. I have a hard time enjoying Woody Allen films now because of this history. Even older films like Annie Hall are viewed with the accusation perching on my brain stem making it impossible to watch.

    Two films he made post-accusation, Match Point,and Crimes and Misdemeanors have similar plots. Both involve a criminal getting away with a crime – murder to be specific. I won’t go all subconscious Freud mumbo-jumbo, but I do find those plots and also the rather silly juvenile plots of others somewhat odd under the circumstances.

    Answering Nick’s question, I really would prefer knowing the actual truth so I could judge fairly, but absent hard, specific evidence I still judge with some reluctance and choose to not pay for their films. HBO occasionally shows an Allen film, and I have watched. I won’t buy a ticket for either Allen or Polanski. My view of both men and their art is processed through the accusations.

  9. It’s as asinine to stop liking creative output that you have enjoyed just because the creator of that output is a criminal (or suspected criminal) as it is to stop liking output that you have enjoyed because you find out that the creator holds political beliefs that you find objectionable or abhorrent.

    The work is the work, the artist is the artist. Van Gogh was a crazy self-mutilating nutcase; that doesn’t change the excellence of his paintings. I personally hate Woody Allen movies (except for What’s Up, Tiger Lily)–they’re narcissistic self-indulgent carbon-copies of one another–but it has nothing to do with the long time allegations that he molested his kids, or the fact that he actually got with another of them after she was of age. And I like Polanski films (I love his MacBeth), and his admitted actions with an underage girl are not going to change that either.

    Just because you might not allow a person even in your house, doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy their work, especially if there is no echo in their work of the thing that you dislike about them (Woody Allen’s movies aren’t filled with pedophilia references, for instance).

    1. I disagree with Springsteen’s politics but it hasn’t stopped me from seeing him live four times. The guy is just too good. I ‘wish’ he was more classical liberal in his stances but hey…it’s a town full of losers, I’m pulling out of here to win.

        1. Yeah but Bobbie Jean is one depressing song. Reminds me of Emilia.

          1. Hey Emilia F., if by some pure luck you’re reading this, you know I’m always thinking of you after all these years!

            Look at what I’ve been reduced to.

            Debating about a whack job director with my Reason crew.

        2. But not worse than you.

            1. Ha, you fell right into his trap and now you ARE a part of it.

        3. Come on, Springsteen provides a valuable community service making music for the tone deaf.

      1. Springsteen sucks (he’s the most overrated singer since Bob Dylan), and I figured that before I really paid attention to his political views.

        1. Shouldn’t you be on a ledge somewhere?

        2. Elvis Costello figures up there close to the top; whining as an art-form.

          1. I think that ledge is gonna get crowded in a hurry!

          2. Do not leave out Bono, dullest of the dull.

          3. I’m more of a metal guy than an Elvis Costello guy, but I’d never say he’s a bad singer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQccA9guwoE

  10. I had to learn to separate entertainment from those producing it long ago. If I didn’t, there would be few songs and fewer movies I could enjoy.

  11. I say dig up his rotting corpse then off with his head!

    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

    1. Anon-Bot wins the thread!!

  12. We await woody Allen’s great antitotalitarian film, starring Dylan Farrow as MMe Chang Kai Shek, and Woody as the Gang of Four.

    Parental guidance is recommended.

    1. Russell|2.1.14 @ 8:20PM|#
      “We await woody Allen’s great antitotalitarian film, starring Dylan Farrow as MMe Chang Kai Shek, and Woody as the Gang of Four.”

      Uh, yes, I would pay to see that. And I can imagine Allen playing the Gang of Four.

      1. Something off Entertainment!, or a lesser known track?

  13. As long as he’s not a republican.

  14. So you’re all gonna go out and by lostprophet merch now, right?

  15. Interesting question.
    I’d guess if Leni Riefenstahl made films that weren’t strictly Nazi propaganda, her work would be boycotted almost universally. Eisenstein seems to get more of a pass since idjits like Tony still think Stalin was an OK guy who had bad advisors.
    Nobody in H-wood is upset that Polanski admitted raping that kid, so his films aren’t gonna get nasty words from there. Allen has never admitted misconduct and there’s only ‘she said’ evidence; H-wood would have a hard time griping about that.
    I might hate the crime or the politics, but I don’t know what would make me not read, watch or listen to something that was worthwhile.

    1. I had the impression that Polanski’s affair was consensual. That may not matter to some readers, but does to me.

      1. jdgalt|2.1.14 @ 9:33PM|#
        “I had the impression that Polanski’s affair was consensual.”

        Not according to what I’ve read and she was 13 anyhow. How consensual can that be?

      2. That word does not mean what you think it means. He drugged and anally raped a 13 year old.

        1. It was the 1970s.
          Why do you hate moral relativism?

        2. It was the 1970s and everyone in Hollywood was doing drugs, so I’m not sure he “drugged” her in the sense that most people think. Still, it seems that what Polanski did might have been semi-consensual.

          In any case, the girl in question has moved on with her life and would prefer that everyone drop the issue – so I think maybe we should respect her wishes.

    2. In 1992 on the occasion of Riefenstahl’s 90th birthday, a three-hour documentary on her life was made. I originally saw it in a theater as The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, although as I understand it it’s available under a different title now. Riefenstahl had a very interesting career, as a silent screen actress, a director of acclaimed works during the Wiemar period, and then as a photographer.

      But she made films for the losing side, so she’s evil. People won’t overlook her politics the way they will for a film like Dovzhenko’s Earth, which glorified forced collectivism in Ukraine.

      1. …”People won’t overlook her politics the way they will for a film like Dovzhenko’s Earth, which glorified forced collectivism in Ukraine.”

        That was my point about Eisenstein; he did lefty films, sot they’re to be accepted on the artistic merits! Unlike Riefenstahl’s which are to be rejected on their politics.

      2. People Leftists won’t overlook her “right-wing” politics the way they will for a film like leftistDovzhenko’s Earth, which glorified forced collectivism by lefty darling Stalin in Ukraine.

  16. If I read a book by author X, and it affects me in some way, and it later turns out that author X is a villain, should I question how I felt? I don’t think so. If that’s the case, why should I do the same if I already know author X is a villain? It’s one thing to boycott the author’s work so that he doesn’t get money or publicity or recognition, but let’s say that it’s a library book and no-one will ever know I read it (in other words, the effect of reading it will only be on me). I don’t think that’s wrong.

    Even if your patronizing does lead to some benefit for the person, evil people can still do good, and perhaps you’re rewarding the good. I don’t know, it’s probably a case-by-case thing.

  17. I think this question should have been asked about Orson Scott Card.

    He only said icky things about gays, not rape children, and the left pounced on him.

    1. Very good point. Hollyweird is pretty hypocritical in general in their support.

      For me, knowing something like this about the artist, affects how I feel about their work. Understanding art does sometimes require trying to filter it through what the artist’s supposed viewpoint was.

      Someone above kind of touted what the old school view was; the art had no value until the artist was kaput.

    2. Not a bad example. I wouldn’t agree with anything OSC has said about homosexuals. That doesn’t change the fact that Ender’s Game is one of the best works of SciFi.

      1. That doesn’t change the fact that Ender’s Game is one of the best works of SciFi.

        Ian Banks “The Use of Weapons” is one of the best in my opinion as well.

        Ian Banks is also a deep deep red Marxist and his books unapologetically support Eugenics through genocide, racial supremacy, mass manipulation of sociality through government enforced reeducation and the purging of political opponents.

    3. Hollywood has a lot invested in the idea that directors and actors don’t just make movies, they are “stars” to be admired and loved – wonderful people. You should dream about touching the hems of their garments. And the worst thing is that they believe a lot of this bullshit themselves. So they will cast out people who don’t toe the line.

    4. Elia Kazan should have raped a girl like Polanski instead of naming Communists, and then all of Hollywood would have loved him.

      1. PWNED.

      2. This.

        I know it’s getting away from Nick’s original question but this is what pisses me off. Polanski screws a 13yo and entertainment people defend him & laud him. Kazan names names and he is shit city.

  18. What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

    “Sleeper” followed in close second by “everything you wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask.”

  19. Oddly enough, I can think of at least two of Woody Allen’s movies off the top of my head (Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point) where the protagonist commits a horrible crime and not only gets away with it but also receives success and accolades.

    Either Woody Allen or Dylan Farrow is a contemptible human being, and I’m inclined to believe that it’s Woody Allen.

    1. I do not think you are supposed to sympathize with the protagonists in those two films. They were simply to ‘riff’ on the common Allen theme about the universe being an amoral place.

      1. They were simply to ‘riff’ on the common Allen theme about the universe being an amoral place.

        All the more reason rape little girls.

        1. I think that depends on what you think follows from the premise of an amoral universe. Some may conclude that ‘without God, anything is possible,’ but others might conclude that morality is a human construct, but a very valuable one which we should work all the more to uphold.

          In Crimes and Misdemeanors the character played by Woody Allen himself certainly seems to argue against the first view.

          In Match Point while we once again get an amoral universe the theme is about how luck can make a crucial difference in such a universe. I do not think we are supposed to have any sympathy for the protagonist, who is depicted as a sad, social climber and poser.

          1. I think that depends on what you think follows from the premise of an amoral universe. Some may conclude that ‘without God, anything is possible,’ but others might conclude that morality is a human construct, but a very valuable one which we should work all the more to uphold.

            No it depends what Woody Allen thought. His art indicates he thought a godless universe gives license.

          2. Match Point was basically a rewrite of Crimes and Misdemeanors. I still say he mailed Match Point in.

            Wasn’t it in Husbands and Wives in which Allen rejects a potential sexual relationship with Juliette Lewis’ character? The impression I got from the end of that film was that we were supposed to think Allen had made a big mistake by rejecting the younger girl.

            At the time I read that ending as a rebuttal to the popular reaction to his relationship with Soon Yi, but that’s another film that you have to rethink in light of these accusations against Allen. How do you enjoy watching a movie by Allen now that argues that he should have pursued a physical relationship with someone much younger than he is?

  20. “In the case of Polanski, I’ve generally stopped seeing his films, a decision made easy by the fact that most of his movies are simply terrible.”

    Death and the Maiden is an excellent film that had important things to say in the wake of the Cold War.

  21. Assuming the accusations against Allen are true, I don’t see the accusations against Polanski as being like the accusations against Allen. There’s something about doing that to your own daughter that’s especially egregious, and while having sex with an under age child is always awful, the girl Polanski had sex with was 13 years old. The daughter Allen is accused of molesting was 7 years old. Sex with a 7 year old girl seems much, much worse.

    There’s also the fact that Polanski accepted a plea bargain–and only fled the U.S. when the judge, apparently, reneged on the plea deal. That means Polanski, more or less, acknowledged what he did, and puts him in a more favorable light when compared to Allen–if we assume the allegations against Allen are true…

    If Allen really did it, and he refuses to acknowledge what he did, then that bothers the hell out of me–and it makes it hard to watch my favorite Woody Allen film, which is Crimes and Misdemeanors. At the end of the film, the central character explain to Allen himself that his guilt will completely disappear over time, and Allen observes that if that’s the way the world really is, then the world is really awful. The main character then suggests that if that’s the way the world really is, then that’s the world we have to live in.

    I can’t accept that message coming from an unrepentant child molester–if that’s what Woody Allen is.

    1. …”Polanski had sex with was 13 years old. The daughter Allen is accused of molesting was 7 years old. Sex with a 7 year old girl seems much, much worse.”…

      Not seeing a difference here. Looked and can’t find a way to make one better than the other.

      1. They should both put anybody in jail.

        Do you see the difference between a 13 year old and 4 year old?

        When I was in high school, there was a 14 year old freshman, who never got carded because people assumed she was in her twenties. I mean, when other hot chicks were getting carded and rejected, she wasn’t getting carded at all.

        There is no way in hell anyone COULD mistake a seven year old for an adult–and be sexually aroused by her–without there being something being much more seriously wrong than just not respecting that an underage girl is off limits.

        Hell, rock and roll people used to write songs about jail bait.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTdlIWKCVxY

        I could find ten more of those in a heartbeat.

        The age to get married used to be 14 in places like West Virginia…

        But 7 year old girls?! That’s in a different league of awful. It’s practically inhuman.

        1. Polanki did not just have sex with a 13 year old.

          He brutally ass raped her while she repeatedly told him no.

          1. Just because I say raping a 7 year old is worse than raping a 13 year old–doesn’t mean raping a 13 year old isn’t absolutely awful

            They should both go to jail for it. No doubt about it. I mean, if I said murdering a rape victim is worse than just raping her, would that be controversial? It shouldn’t be.

            Meanwhile, watching a Polanski film that has little or nothing to do with having sex with young girls is a very different experience than watching a Woody Allen film about how our feelings of guilt for the horrible things we do is just a social construction that goes away over time.

            1. Just because I say raping a 7 year old is worse than raping a 13 year old–doesn’t mean raping a 13 year old isn’t absolutely awful

              Yeah sorry about that. I read Sevo’s quote of what you said and his response and went with it.

              I blame Sevo for leading me badly into a criticism you did not deserve.

              1. Happens to me all the time.

                No sweat!

                1. I meant, I misread stuff all the time.

              2. Corning|2.1.14 @ 9:39PM|#
                …”I blame Sevo for leading me badly into a criticism you did not deserve.”

                Hey, I get blamed for…
                (victim rant to follow)

            2. I get what you’re saying and I agree. YAY!

              It would be like if Polanski made Hard Candy, but with a decidedly different ending.

  22. I have a question about Wagner. Was he an actual fascists or is he only hated and reviled cuz Hitler liked his work?

    1. Definitely an anti-Semite, but that was pretty much par for the course in Europe at the time.

      I’m sure Wagner would have been very confused by Nazi ideology in any case.

      1. Check “Wagner controversies”in Wikipedia.

    2. I love Wagner’s music. The answer to your question is probably “both”. I just googled him and came up with something that said he hated the French and the Jews. That might be enough to make him reviled now, but not back then.

      Hell, I’m part Jewish with relatives who died in concentration camps and I still like Wagner. Is there something wrong with me?

      1. Yes. That’s because Wagner is the Michael Bay of music.

        1. You are worse then Hitler.

          Also Black Sails is pretty good…though it may be the many boobs talking.

      2. FWIW, I took a class on the Third Reich in college and my professor, a pretty cool guy that is an expert on modern Germany, said that Wagner’s appropriation by the Nazis was purely due to Hitler’s personally fixation with his work, and not because there’s anything inherently fascist about Wagner’s music.

        Hitler felt that the ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth the Nazis pushed about World War I was visually rendered in Wagner’s opera about the hero Siegfried.

      3. Of course there is. Wagner’s work is crap. Consult a competent neurologist and figure out what went wrong with your hearing.

        -jcr

      4. “The answer to your question is probably “both”.

        How can we call people Nazis if fascism didn’t even exist until decades after their death?

        Martin Luther was also an antisemite.

        “Luther argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but “the devil’s people”, and referred to them with violent, vile language.[202][203] Luther advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews’ property and money, and smashing up their homes, so that these “envenomed worms” would be forced into labour or expelled “for all time”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..tisemitism

        It would be inaccurate, however, to call Luther a “Nazi” since fascism didn’t exist until more than three centuries after Martin Luther’s death.

        I’m not saying the following about anyone in this thread, exactly, but somehow a lot of people have come to reduce all of Nazi fascism to anti-semitism, and as bad as the holocaust was (by far the worst thing the Nazis did), that wasn’t the full extent of what the Nazis were about.

        Just because Wagner and Luther were both antisemites and spoke German, that doesn’t necessarily make them Nazis. It might necessarily make them horrible people, but I’m not sure it makes them Nazis, exactly. Surely, some of the officers in the Wehrmacht who despised Hitler were also antisemites. Why couldn’t Wagner have been like them?

      5. you know who also likes Wagner?

        Stephen Hawking.

    3. Didn’t see this before I posted at 9:39pm. The article is still behind a subscriber wall, but they usually let everything out eventually.

  23. I just pray to God we don’t find out anything similar about Mel Brooks.

    1. I think he is an actual Jew who believes God is watchmaking what he does.

      So my guess is there isn’t anything to find.

      1. No idea why I wrote watchmaking rather then watching.

        A Freudian slip of my evo-psyc beliefs maybe.

    2. Oh my god him producing The Elephant Man all makes sense now…what a pervert.

      1. Was his son Max’s book about zombies really him creating an outlet for his childhood abuse?

        1. I’m just going to say yes. I mean, it has to be, right?

    3. But the koala consented!

    4. Or John Carpenter.

  24. I am sympathetic with, say, East European immigrants boycotting artists who were unrepentant ex-communists during the Cold War. But even then I wouldn’t call them unrepentant just because they wouldn’t fink on their old buddies, most of them got off the Red train after WWII.

    Now, there are lots of great artists who were good citizens. There are also lots of great artists who were…not so good as people. Can’t boycott them all. Gotta single out the worst of the worst.

    Just my 2 cents.

    1. I believe there was German anti-war writer who (it turned out) worked for Stasi?
      I’d have a hard time reading his stuff without smirking.

      1. Was his name Norman Mailer or Gore Vidal?

        1. Nope, I was mixing the metaphor as it were.
          Gunter Grass was finally busted for being part of the Waffen SS. But he’d been a good lefty hypocrite, so the lefties gave him a pass.

  25. I can compartmentalize and respect the talents of an artist while being disgusted by their behavior, but only to a point. If the theme reminds me too much of their seedy backstory…I’m probably not going to be able to enjoy it.

    Woody Allen’s recent film “Blue Jasmine” was a good example of one I could compartmentalize. The theme didn’t make me think “this guy sympathizes with child molesters” (although I don’t think any of his have, but I haven’t seen all of them) it made me think “humans make mistakes and it’s still possible to redeem ourselves if we choose to, but some of us just turn into crazy homeless ladies on park benches”

  26. Personally, at least now in 2014, I’d molest Dylan Farrow too.

    1. Stay classy, Hit ‘n Run. Stay classy.

  27. Nick proves once again he has shitty taste in pop culture.
    The Ninth Gate is a great movie.

    1. The Ninth Gate is a weird movie; but it revealed truth. It showed that Johnny Depp sold his soul and that Roman Polanski is going to hell.

    2. I feel oddly guilty, as if I’d have to give an explanation, for liking it so much.

    3. Nick probably just hates Johnny Depp.

      (Little known fact, the Jacket owned Johnny before it chose Nick.)

  28. Has it occurred to any of you that Mia Farrow is a neurotic, paranoid, twisted and perverted individual who imagines that all of her own sick fantasies are being practiced by everyone around her?

    Sort of like the Baptist deacons who think that just because they have unwholesome thoughts about the choirboys everyone else does too.

    1. Kreel Sarloo|2.1.14 @ 8:59PM|#
      “Has it occurred to any of you that Mia Farrow is a neurotic, paranoid, twisted and perverted individual who imagines that all of her own sick fantasies are being practiced by everyone around her?”

      Yes, it certainly has. It has also occurred to me that she might not be fantasizing in this case. Has that occurred to you?

    2. Dylan is not Mia.

  29. I’m disappoint Nick. You list Fearless Vampire Killers as junk but not The Pianist? Was the former not hipster enough for you?

    1. What was wrong with The Pianist? I liked it better than Schindler’s List.

      1. Nah, I thought Nick was going to be all hipster, ironic and contrarian by claiming that the Pianist was junk while Fearless Vampire Killers was true art.

      1. I wonder if Roman Polanski can listen to Garbage Dump?

        1. I know I didn’t last that long…

          Though it did have a sort of Sebadoh/Dinosour Jr vibe to it.

      2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkp8ZdQ9SqI

        How dare you…

        YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

  30. I really don’t see the merit of the question. The enjoyment of any form of art is considered to be subjective. So it logically follows that repulsion is also subjective. So there is no hard set of guidelines that should be examined when you feel one way or the other. Personally, I’m repulsed by most Woody Allen movies because he’s in them. I see his face, hear his voice and I turn off the tv. The allegations against him make it that much worse. It has nothing to do with punishing him or depriving myself or even attempting to right a perceived wrong. I’m repulsed on a visceral level which art is meant to touch. If you feel repulsed, fine, if you still love his movies, fine, but I don’t see why anyone should feel required one way or another to connect or disconnect their feelings about the artist from the work. Art is subjective, not logical. I see nothing wrong with liking one artist’s work despite their history and in the next breath, disliking another because of their history anymore than deciding blue is your favorite color one day and red the next.

    1. Art is subjective, not logical

      Zombie Ayn Rand has just risen from her grave and is shambling toward your house at this moment with the intention of chocking a bitch.

        1. I, like any upstanding member of the black helicopter crowd, am ready for the zombie apocalypse. Bring it, Ayn! 😉

        2. Although, “chocking a bitch” opens up wonderful visual possibilities.

    2. What she said…..

  31. I haven’t seen a Woody Allen movie in nearly 20 years. My favorites were “Hannah and Her Sisters” and “Bullets Over Broadway”. For some reason, I lost interest in his work.

    A lot of people who have contributed greatly to society suffered through demons in their personal life. But what if someone causes others to suffer as well?

    What about the people who have contributed to the destruction of our country, for example the Hollywood leftists who cheered Obama and then sat by and said nothing while his administration used the power of government to spy on American’s through the NSA and suppress the opposition with the IRS?

    My answer is simple: I got wise after the 2012 election and I do my best to not do business with these people. I haven’t seen a movie since the 2012 election. We’ve always bought American cars, but we won’t buy another government bailout, UAW built car. On and on.

    Insofar as Woody Allen is concerned, if the allegations are true then he is truly a despicable person. However, he was pretty much already in that category with me for saying: “It would be good… if [Obama] could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly”.

    1. You turned a Woody Allen comment into an anti-Obama screed.

      Nice wingnut.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.1.14 @ 9:39PM|#
        “You turned a Woody Allen comment into an anti-Obama screed.
        Nice wingnut.”

        You turn a fart into a pro-Obo screed, dipshit.

  32. Repulsion is my favorite Polanski movie but this trailer really sucks.

    1. I liked Bitter Moon.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69cGkcHEfuU

      also a terrible trailer.

      1. Holy fuck i wondered what happened to Hugh Grant and found out he was in Cloud Atlas!??!

        I didn’t even notice it was him at all.

  33. First off, I’m inclined to doubt that it happened, simply because it’s so easy to make up that sort of story, especially years later when no evidence can be produced and when anyone she might have told after the alleged event probably can no longer be found. This goes for all “recovered memory” cases.

    As for the more general question asked here: Misbehavior (whether or not illegal) by an artist can sometimes be a reason to shun his works. But I can’t draw a bright-line rule: it would depend on such factors as the severity of the crime, whether he was punished, and especially, whether he stands to benefit because I pay for his works (so I would presumably go ahead after the criminal is dead or his works have gone into the public domain).

    I just wish it were similarly possible to stop supporting “public servants” who behave badly. Because they, too, will probably never go on trial.

    1. Read the article I linked to in the first comment. There is no “recovered memory”

      1. Fox Mulder would like a word with you.

        1. I miss The X-Files. Is it even in syndication?

          1. Sadly, no. I dropped $100 a couple of years back to buy the boxed set. I think both Syfy & TNT have syndication rights but neither is running it right now.

          2. You can watch it on Netflix.

  34. Bill Shatner was a notorious pussy hound, he berated a poor director over the pronunciation of sabotage, and one of his wives died under suspicious circumstances. But does that stop me from enjoying Kingdom of the Spiders? Well, does it?

    1. Only if it affects your enjoyment of Impulse. And for me, that answer is…maybe.

    2. Well, given that there are so many other things to stop you from enjoying Kingdom of the Spiders…

      A movie crying out for Joel, Tom, and Crow.

      1. You know they did it, right? (Well, not Joel.) Rifftrax dot com, baby.

        1. I’ll have to go look that one up.

          Thank you!

          1. It amazes me that people don’t know about Rifftrax.

            It’s basically the latter day MST3K without the puppets.

            The writing isn’t as good, but it’s still pretty much the same. And no Pearl!

            1. The writing is just as good, you fool. The down side is having to synch up tracks, unless you want to download a vid that someone already synched.

  35. Having been a huge fan of both Polanski and Allen, I would actually feel better if both men were in jail. I will still enjoy the great movies they made in the past and yet if they are in jail, conceivably they can’t make any more tedious and/or pretentious movies like “Blue Jasmine” and “The Pianist”.

    Any man who would marry his adoptive daughter is a jerk. It’s likely he did molest the little one. I read that Mia Farrow didn’t press charges because she didn’t want to subject the child to grueling interrogation. I can understand that.

    Neither men have had to atone for their moral bankruptcy, and that stinks. I suppose it is rather gross that a bunch of celebs prattle on about how wonderful these guys are. I doubt they would extend that generosity of spirit, to say, a Republican!

    1. ‘Decontructing Harry’ was anti-pretentious and very much enjoyable and maybe his last comedy worth seeing.

  36. Speaking strictly for myself, it’s an emotional decision not to be an enabler by putting money in the pockets of these people.

  37. To each his own I suppose. I can only separate art from the artist up to a point. Especially when you see the artist in his art. I can’t stand looking at Woody Allen because the allegations at least seem plausible, especially given his marriage to his adopted daughter.

    Chuck Berry was convicted of a violation of the Mann Act and also surreptitiously filming women on the toilet or some such thing. That doesn’t change my opinion of the value of Johnny B. Goode in the least. But then I do not have to look at Chuck while listening to a recording of the tune.

  38. I dont really have a problem seperating assholes from their work. sometimes i do But it’s usually something really petty or just part of a weird subjective instinctive value system I pull out of my ass. Or more usually I hate their art already and revel in pointing out their weaknesses. Like Jackson Browne beating women. Probably all sorts of artists I admire were throwing their girl friends down stairs and I don’t really care enough that it effects the music . But I just think of him as some hypocrite liberal pussy that hits chicks anytime I hear him.

  39. This is what comes to mind whenever people argue against patronizing a film or album of an accused molester/rapist/murderer/whathaveyou. Granted, there’s a financial connection between the creater and consumer of the media in question, but I don’t care to mediate my own tastes in order to extract some ephemeral, mostly symbolic bit of social revenge against someone I don’t care about for something in which I’ve no stake.

    If you’re into casting votes for politicians you’ll probably buy the notion that voting with your pocketbook is analogous to supporting murder/rape/molestation/whathaveyou, but in reality, it’s indistinguishable from refusing to wear the sweater of a convicted killer. You’re not going to “catch” bad habits, not even malignant, evil habits, from exposure.

  40. So, completely off topic and to lighten the mood…

    For all you freudians out there.

    Last night I watched After Earth for the first time and then dreamt of an Ursa chasing me, Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch through the forest. As the Ursa got close, The Jacket tripped Welch giving Nick and I enough time to get away.

    What does that mean?

    1. It means you’re really looking forward to getting out of the cabin come spring.

    2. It means you spend too much time at Hit & Run.

    3. It means you internalize bad movies, and you need to expurgate your conscience/cleanse your palate with something better. Might I suggest literally any other movie in existence?

      1. Seriously though, that movie is a travesty. First and foremost for Jayden (or w/e) Smith, and secondly for Will Smith playing a completely, unrepentantly straight-faced military bore. I mean, fuck the eco-crowd overtures, every scene in which Will played the stoic commander was complete garbage.

        1. Definitely a horrible role for him.

    4. “Was it a dream where you’re standing on top of a pyramid dressed in sun god robes while naked women throw little pickles at you?”

        1. Jesus, Bells, that’s the last time I play straight-man for you.

          1. And here I was hoping that someone else would get the reference and finish it. Apparently, Fransisco, we are the only ones with real cinematic tastes.

    5. You’re secretly yearning for the warm embrace of the Jacket?

    6. What does that mean?

      It means don’t read my reply to your reply to my Game of thrones comment from yesterday.

      It is pretty much a spoiler that will ruin your day.

        1. It’s okay FdA, you’ll get to meet Ellaria Sand this season

          1. Not touched by fire…no good.

            Nope. They kill off Ygritte and I’m done.

            Fuckers!

          2. Chee-rist I had forgotten all about the Martells. I guess it’s worth catching up on the series, then.

            1. Who is the young one who seduces her White Cloak protector?

              Fuck I think I skipped over most those characters…I think at that point in the series I was new character saturated.

    7. What does that mean?

      It means you want a threesome with Nick and Matt.

      Too obvious?

      1. Ida thrown myself on that Ursa, to spare Matt and Nick, of course.

      2. I’m guessing it was an Ursa that looked like this

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/meliah/174030716/

        1. The lollipop is the worst bit. It’s so… so small.

        2. Dammit, Bob, you can’t unsee something like that.

  41. You all act so ANGRY about this, yet you can’t seem to identity who is responsible for it. The Jews are responsible for this, the Jews along with the international banksters and the masonic order.

    1. A+ trolling. Would read again.

      1. Really? American’s come-ons are usually pretty beguiling, at least as far as hiding the fact that he’s an unmatched xenophobe. This was just by-the-numbers copypasta antisemitism.

        1. I appreciate brevity and getting to the point in my trolling. Murkin tries to be too clever by half.

          1. But he leaves us asking whether or not it’s American posting, which presumably is the point. Otherwise it’s just flame-bait.

            At least, I assume he does. Maybe we attract a bunch of loner one-off racists.

            1. I’m still wondering if American is the latest iteration of Slappy!

              1. I don’t think so. Slappy would veer off from shilling for that A3P shit and jump into a thread topic where he agreed with other commenters. American just trolls and sticks to his script. Slappy was “real” while American is a sockpuppet.

                Slappy never got deleted as best as I can recall.

            2. It could also be our favorite psychotic bitch, trying to fuck with us.

              1. Perhaps. I’ll never understand why should puts so much effort into her sockpuppets.

    2. This is Murikan’s fault!

    3. That’s not even trolling. That’s just smart.

    4. the Jews along with the international banksters

      The Jews are the international bankster!!!

      We are now seeing through the looking glass people.

      Beware of the Cosmotarians!!

      1. He clearly meant those international banksters who are not Jews but are Illuminati Lizard People hybrids.

    5. Chang|2.1.14 @ 9:48PM|#
      “You all act so ANGRY about this, yet you can’t seem to identity who is responsible for it. The Jews are responsible for this, the Jews along with the international banksters and the masonic order.”

      FUNNY!

  42. First off let me say I’m not defending Woody Allen or Roman Polanski assuming the claims against them are true. In both cases in sounds like the victims, if they are telling the truth were coerced into doing things against their will. This is nothing which I will ever defend.

    Although I’m confused why there needs to be a separate set of rules for children and adolescents in the legal aspect. Either it is rape, or it isn’t. One or both parties being below ‘x’ age shouldn’t factor into this question as much as people seem to think it should in my opinion.

    But considering my experiences as a child, I’m always a bit confused as to why the thought of children having sexual relations in and of itself to be considered so taboo by society. I think the issue is far more complex than western society seems to account for.

    To me, all of the trauma and all of the issues I had as a result with my sexual encounters as a child as young as the age of 6, was because of guilt I felt which was imposed onto me by society, my parents (not that I blame them for simply doing what they thought was right), and myself (but only because I had been taught that such things were shameful).

    I still have weird hangups and I have very little interest in sexual relationships which I attribute to my maladjustment as a child in this respect, and deciding from a very early age that it just wasn’t worth the emotional trouble to have sexual relations even if I wanted them.

    (continued in next post)

    1. I’ve told the story before I believe. When I was about 6 years old a teenage girl about the age of 15 or 16 used to fool around with me, fondle me etc.. But I never wanted to cease being her friend and I never felt coerced into doing anything. One time she try quite hard to convince me to do something I didn’t want to, but I never felt as though the decision was out of my hands and I successfully turned her down.

      All of the emotional distress and permanent damage was created after I decided to tell my parents about what had happened between me, her, and another friend of mine about the same age as I was at the time. Seeing my parents that upset even if they weren’t upset at *me* still bothered the hell out of me. There is a lot to this story so I’ll try to make it as short as possible.

      After all of this I used to try and fool around with other girls my age or slightly older, but when I’d get caught I’d get into a lot of trouble and get guilt tripped about it. Since my parents and other parents wouldn’t let me around girls with any privacy I ended up switching to “experimenting” with other boys, which opened up a whole new horrible can of guilt and emotional trauma due to me worried that I was “gay” or whatever.

      (continued in next post)

    2. As near as I can tell, all the research that has been done on this issue agrees with you. Rind et al, for instance, found little or no psychological harm in instances of adult-child sex where the child consented.

      Unfortunately, no one pays attention to the research – only to the shouted claims of moralists of all stripes, from the religious zealots who hate sex to the ugly or middle-aged feminists who wish to outlaw their competitors. Rind et al, a peer reviewed study that was later repeated by another team of researchers, was condemned by the U.S. Congress.

      People across the political spectrum are way too emotionally involved for serious inquiry into this matter, but calling non-rape “rape” goes a long way towards turning off people’s brains. Meanwhile, it presents a golden opportunity for those who wish to enslave future generations because it provides an excuse for enslaving children today and preventing them from ever understanding what freedom means.

  43. Anyway, had someone tried to stick it up my pooper and refused to take no for an answer and raped me, or had someone who I actually felt like had authority over me told me that they’d punish me somehow if I didn’t do their bidding, I would have an entirely different opinion about this subject I’m sure.

    But considering that this was not what happened to me at all, I cannot help but feel like society is completely unable to look at this issue with any sort of rationality. It’s always emotional reactionist bullshit.

    Let me say this, I am very glad charges were never pressed against that girl, as if they had been that would have just been one extra thing for me to feel guilty about.

    At some points in my childhood I was so tormented by the guilt that I tortured animals a few times and had exhibited some other very screwed up behavior. (This is one of the reasons why I am against animal cruelty laws and those that compare kids/adolescents who may have been cruel to animals as somehow dangerous.)

    The thing is, I can’t help but feel like this all could have been avoided if society in general didn’t take such a ridiculous and unrealistic view on this subject. Or if I simply hadn’t been indoctrinated into Christian/Victorianesque type sexual values at such a young age.

    (continued in next post)

    1. So yeah, some of those who get off on throwing ad hom attacks my way because I don’t believe in AoC laws and because I think that rape should be a charge independent of such arbitarily set ages go on and have at it, but I promise you, by not considering my position you are only perpetuating the same error I think society at large makes and in return damages the hell of out children for no reason.

      Either it is rape, or it isn’t… and yes… children even as young as I was, can and do have sexual desires. I especially see no reason to punish them for experimenting with other children their own age as no harm can come from it. No risk of pregnancy and the risk of STDs are next to zero.

      In the case of a parent or a teacher or something where they are holding their authority over you and controlling you/coercing you into it, I would agree should certainly be illegal… What happened to me on the other hand, I certainly do not believe should be illegal.

      All I’m doing is saying that the NAP should be respected, including when it comes to children.

      But I’m sure I’m going to be accused of being a child molester and blah blah blah, because instead of reacting emotionally to this issue I try to actually think at it from a rational point of view and apply the NAP as reasonably as possible.

      1. To clarify my position further, I do believe in a minimum age for the state to enforce binding contracts.

        Marriage or a mortgage or w/e.

        But considering the state doesn’t need to enforce anything when one consents to sex I don’t see it as being the same at all.

        Someone also accused me of being inconsistent by saying I believe in a minimum age for the military, but it’s the same thing. You enter a binding contract when you enlist.

        In the case of sex, I don’t believe the state is in the business of enforcing verbal contracts regarding sex. So if someone said they were okay with it, and then right before the deed happened or while it was happening decided they didn’t want to do it anymore, I’d still think it was rape if the other party continued.

        Binding contracts are an entirely different matter and I don’t see any inconsistency in saying that the state shouldn’t enforce contracts unless all parties are above ‘x’ age. So I believe in an AoC in this respect, just not for sex as there is no reason the state should be involved unless someone is making accusations of rape.

        In the case of you paying a prostitute and then her not putting out, I don’t believe the state should force the prostitute to put out, but rather just return your money.

        1. I just don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about my position, and why there is so much vitriol directed at me for simply taking what I see as a principled position based on the NAP and my own experiences.

          The ad hom attacks are especially out of line.

          I used to think the people in the comments section here were beyond that, but I learned that even here people are just as shitty as any other place on the internet.

          1. Observing that you seem creepily obsessed with this issue is not an ad hom. Look at all the e-ink you’ve spilt in this comment section in a matter of minutes (and hopefully that’s all you’ve spilt).

            1. I’m obsessed because I still have issues with sexual relations as an adult because of the way society reacts to this issue.

              I have a weird complex that basically scares me away from sexual contact and I’m in my 30s now.

              If you would have bothered reading the comments I left almost an hour ago this should have been amply implied, jackass.

              1. Seriously, it seems more likely that your “weird complex” is a result of you being manipulated into sexual contact at a young age by an older person. Blaming the problem on society seems unwarranted when there’s that psychological klaxon siren in the background.

                1. Seriously, it seems more likely that your “weird complex” is a result of you being manipulated into sexual contact at a young age by an older person. Blaming the problem on society seems unwarranted when there’s that psychological klaxon siren in the background.

                  But the only trauma I suffered was the guilt. How is it her fault that other adults made me feel guilty for having sexual encounters?

                  1. And not just guilt, I was punished in many other ways for it.

                    Not for what happened with her, but when I tried to experiment with girls my own age.

                2. I grew up in a religious household and community. I tend to agree with Plopper – the guilt trips can really do a number on you which is difficult to recover from.

                  On the other hand, people have been having sex at a young age for hundreds of thousands of years, and it seems odd that we only discovered the horribly damaging effects of consensual sex below a locally-determined age within the past 50 years.

        2. But considering the state doesn’t need to enforce anything when one consents to sex I don’t see it as being the same at all.

          Never heard of child support or alimony, it seems. Legally speaking, sex is a common law contract.

          However, the reason the law frowns upon contracts with minors, consensual mutilation of minors, sex with minors, etc, is because these activities are potentially life-altering and most young children are not capable of making decisions for the long term. With contracts it’s easy to prevent long term damage, just don’t enforce the contract — and that’s why there’s no criminal penalty for attempting to make a contract with a minor. Mutilation and sexual violation are not as easily undone.

          Now maybe there’s some 11 year olds who are ready to make the decision to have sex — and maybe there are some 21 year olds who aren’t — but the law has to be clear and specific. So an age limit is reasonable.

          1. And an 18 year old joining the military is life altering, they are also still quite young.

            What’s your fucking point?

            How often do you even see a child willingly submitting to mutilation in our kind of society anyway?

            And you freely admit that some 11 year olds may be ready to make decisions about sex, but some 21 year olds not.

            You’ve just totally ripped the ground out from under your own feet as far as defending your position from a libertarian PoV.

            Your argument is that because you know better than someone else you should be able to control their lives, even WHEN they are ready to make that decision.

            I don’t even need to say anything else.

            1. How often do you even see a child willingly submitting to mutilation in our kind of society anyway?

              That’s what tattoos and body piercings are. And we have age limits on those. (circumcision unfortunately doesn’t)

              You’ve just totally ripped the ground out from under your own feet as far as defending your position from a libertarian PoV.

              Libertarianism needs to compromise with reality when it comes to children. You yourself said you would effectively deny children the freedom of contract, so you recognize that full throttle libertarianism doesn’t make sense when children are involved.

              One thing that libertarianism does practically require is that laws must be written so that it’s clear to a person whether they are breaking the law or following it. A rule saying that you cannot have sex with a person who is “not ready to have sex” is too vague. Age limits are the easiest clear proxy to identify. yes, some precocious 13 year olds may be unable to engage in activity that they want and are ready for, but oh well. It’s worth it to prevent 13 year olds who aren’t ready (which is most of them) from being taken advantage of by an adult or older teenager.

              1. I assumed you meant like cutting off a clitoris or testicles or something.

                Oh noes, they got a tattoo or a piercing and they weren’t 18 yet! FUCK! the world is going to end!

                No one hates “body modification” more than I do, but goddamn, these aren’t things that exactly harm anyone when done by a professional.

                As far as “Freedom of contract”… They can form all of the contracts they want, but they just won’t be enforced by the government. I’m not denying their “freedom of contract”, I’m just saying the state won’t enforce contracts they make until they are no longer minors.

                This in no way is breaking the NAP, so again how is this view necessarily unlibertarian?

                On the other hand punishing the sexual partners of a minor even when the acts were consensual is indeed violating the NAP.

                1. If the govt publicly states that it won’t enforce contracts involving black people, what effect will that have on black people’s ability to make contracts?

                  If the govt says that anyone who listens to you or reads what you write will be jailed, they haven’t, in a literal sense, violated your freedom to speak; but what effect does that have on your ability to communicate your points?

                  1. If the govt publicly states that it won’t enforce contracts involving black people, what effect will that have on black people’s ability to make contracts?

                    This isn’t about race, this is about the concept of a minor and an adult.

                    Just because you’re a minor doesn’t mean you can’t go into the store and buy groceries. But it does prevent you from signing a mortgage that would bind you to paying a certain amount every month.

                    A sexual encounter doesn’t necessarily have any effect on your future. It can, but it doesn’t necessarily. On the other hand a binding contract such as a mortgage does.

                    Although honestly, if the minor is paying taxes then maybe their contracts should indeed be enforced. If not I’m not so sure what your justification is for this being a violation of their free will.

                    If the govt says that anyone who listens to you or reads what you write will be jailed, they haven’t, in a literal sense, violated your freedom to speak; but what effect does that have on your ability to communicate your points?

                    Terrible analogy, the person being punished has certainly had their freedom violated. I also see it as being coercive on the other side too, because they know if they were to engage sexually with someone their partner may end up in jail. If this isn’t as coercive as a parent or teacher telling them they will hurt your friends if you don’t do what they tell you to do, then I’m not sure what is.

                    1. This isn’t about race, this is about the concept of a minor and an adult.

                      No shit, I’m showing you how ridiculous your attempt at logic is in another context.

                      Just because you’re a minor doesn’t mean you can’t go into the store and buy groceries.

                      Because that’s technically not a contract, it’s a sale/transaction. If a 10 year old buys a bottle of soda at Walmart and then drinks it, he can’t come back the next day and demand his money back because he’s a minor. The sale was legal and valid and, barring fraud, the state will not attempt to undo it.

                      If sales to minors WEREN’T considered legal and valid, then grocery stores would not sell anything to minors.

                  2. Let me put it this way… If someone denies you a service. Like say a wedding photographer, how has your freedom been violated? How was force initiated against you?

                    1. In this hypothetical, is govt intervening to prevent the service provider from benefitting from providing the service? Are they saying that the photographers can’t demand payment of the agreed price for the photography?

                      If not, this has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

                      If so, then it’s pretty damn obvious how they’re violating my freedom to contracting for services.

                    2. I’m not sure what your point is.

                      Nothing’s preventing you from making an agreement with someone else.

                      The state not enforcing the contract isn’t a violation of the NAP.

                      You could argue it isn’t equal treatment under law, and it isn’t. But, it isn’t a violation of the NAP.

          2. If you look at the history of the age of consent, it is clear that the driving force is older women who wish to form a cartel to prevent younger women from competing with them. It is protectionism – for old women and ugly women.

      2. Plopper|2.1.14 @ 9:49PM|#
        …”Although I’m confused why there needs to be a separate set of rules for children and adolescents in the legal aspect.”…

        Because we know full well that choices made at a certain age can be easily distorted.
        ‘Hey, kid, want some candy?’

        1. WHY YES I DO MISTER.

        2. Sevo,

          Non-sequitur. Just because a kid accepted candy from someone doesn’t mean they consented to anything else.

          And if they didn’t understand what was meant, I think they’d understand quite quickly and change their mind, and if the “candy giver” continued then it would indeed be rape.

          Try again.

          1. Plopper|2.1.14 @ 10:14PM|#
            “Sevo,
            Non-sequitur. Just because a kid accepted candy from someone doesn’t mean they consented to anything else.”

            Plopper,
            Stupid claim. You bet! A kid would say ‘no thanks’ if getting the candy meant X.
            Try again. Or, don’t.

            1. Plopper,
              Stupid claim. You bet! A kid would say ‘no thanks’ if getting the candy meant X.
              Try again. Or, don’t.

              I’m not sure what you are even trying to say, unless it’s basically a strawman. You’re obviously either trolling me, an idiot, or just being a disingenuous cunt.

              If neither of the above three are true, then please try to explain what you were saying again.

              1. If you actually believe most children would say “OK” to free candy from a stranger if they knew it meant sucking a penis or having things painfully shoved up their asses then I don’t know what I could possibly say to get through to someone with your level of stupidity.

                1. As otherwise, in such a situation fraud would be involved and it would definitely be rape, no need for any age of consent.

                  1. So when Jimbob’s Subaru invites me to the dealership to enter a raffle for a free iPad, and when I arrive they start trying to sell me a Subaru, that’s fraud?

                    1. No, but if they tried to sell you on a free iPad, and then forced you into sex it would be rape.

                    2. Which is not analogous to most child molestations, which the pred accomplishes by leading the kid through a series of steps that the kid doesn’t realize are leading to something they don’t want to do. Just like a car dealer does, the difference being that a car dealer does it to an adult.

                    3. Which is not analogous to most child molestations, which the pred accomplishes by leading the kid through a series of steps that the kid doesn’t realize are leading to something they don’t want to do. Just like a car dealer does, the difference being that a car dealer does it to an adult.

                      Tulpa, are you capable of making an argument that isn’t a) straw or b) a non-sequitur?

                      Does the car dealer try to stick it up your pooper even though you don’t want it?

                      Does the car dealer threaten to hurt you if you don’t buy the car?

                    4. Again, that’s not how molestation usually happens. The stranger in the van grabbing the kid and anally penetrating him/her and threatening to kill the family if he/she tells anyone is thankfully a very rare occurrence.

                      These things usually happen when a trusted authority figure or family member leads the victim though a series of frogboiling-like steps, none of which the victim understands at the time. The pred usually counts on the kid’s embarrasment and guilt to keep the kid quiet, though he/she may use emotional manipulation as well (“You don’t want me to get in trouble, do you?” or “The other kids will think you’re weird if you tell anyone”).

                      Which, btw, is EXACTLY the pattern of behavior of car dealers.

                    5. These things usually happen when a trusted authority figure or family member leads the victim though a series of frogboiling-like steps, none of which the victim understands at the time. The pred usually counts on the kid’s embarrasment and guilt to keep the kid quiet *snip*

                      And they’d be having sex with the kid against his/her own will. It’s rape without the need for AoC entering the equation.

                      This also goes back to not telling kids stupid things like “respect your elders” without any stipulations.

                      “You don’t have to do anything which you feel is wrong or makes you feel uncomfortable and tell us immediately if someone does.” — Making sure they understand this pretty much disarms people from doing what you describe above.

                      Anyway, comparing this to a car dealer is rather absurd. What is it with you and terrible analogies? How is a car dealer a “trusted authority figure”?

                      The issue I think mainly comes from parents telling their kids stupid ass shit like that they should “always respect their elders”.

                      I would have never fallen for scenario you describe above. I would have refused and ratted the fucker out.

                      Why do people grasp so hard to create situations which they think wouldn’t be rape if it wasn’t for the AoC, when clearly it would still be rape anyway!

                      All AoC laws do is criminalize what may be perfectly voluntary and healthy relationships

              2. Plopper|2.1.14 @ 10:28PM|#
                “I’m not sure what you are even trying to say,”

                Yes, that’s true and there are limits to the time I’ll spend trying explanations for ignorant assholes.
                You’ve exceeded my limits; fuck off.

                1. Yes, that’s true and there are limits to the time I’ll spend trying explanations for ignorant assholes.
                  You’ve exceeded my limits; fuck off.

                  So then you don’t have any further argument, and you are just running away because you can’t beat me in a debate?

                  Anyway, you were the one who engaged me, not the other way around, so isn’t it backwards for you to be telling me, to “fuck off”?

                  1. Plopper|2.1.14 @ 11:10PM|#
                    “So then you don’t have any further argument, and you are just running away because you can’t beat me in a debate?”

                    No, sleazebag, you can’t read English. Let’s try again:
                    “Yes, that’s true and there are limits to the time I’ll spend trying explanations for ignorant assholes.
                    You’ve exceeded my limits; fuck off.”
                    Can you read that? Are you capable of reading English?
                    Oh, hell, don’t bother. Fuck off. Go away.

                    1. No, sleazebag, you can’t read English. Let’s try again:
                      “Yes, that’s true and there are limits to the time I’ll spend trying explanations for ignorant assholes.
                      You’ve exceeded my limits; fuck off.”
                      Can you read that? Are you capable of reading English?
                      Oh, hell, don’t bother. Fuck off. Go away.

                      You’re obviously lying or you wouldn’t have bothered to respond again.

                      If you were capable of offering a real rebuttal, you would have done that instead of just insulting me without sneaking an argument in there somewhere.

                    2. [sigh]
                      Here’s Sevo, shitting all over the thread again.

          2. Another thing to consider is that if you don’t tell your kids stupid shit like “respect your elders” with no stipulations, a lot of this ceases to be an issue.

            I was never given the impression by my parents I had to obey anyone if what they were asking me to do made me feel uncomfortable.

            If you explained this in a reasonable manner even to a 6 year old then I think the amount of sexual abuse people get away with would be largely eliminated.

            1. I was never given the impression by my parents I had to obey anyone if what they were asking me to do made me feel uncomfortable.

              Since you’ve said several times to anyone who was listening that you were molested as a child, it would appear your parents’ approach failed.

              1. Again, I wanted to do it, and was in no way traumatized or injured by the sexual stuff itself.

                If you bothered to read anything I said you would understand my argument is that I was traumatized only because of the guilt I felt society thought I should feel as a result.

                But of course, I wouldn’t expect anything but disingenuous bullshit from you Tulpa.

              2. Anyway, since I’m sure unless I spell it out for you exactly, and even still then you’ll somehow poop out a non-sequitur or a strawman…

                Let me spell it out for you. When adults who asked me to do things I didn’t feel comfortable doing, I didn’t do them. So it did indeed work.

                Me consenting to being fondled by a teenage girl and enjoying it sort of stretches the definition of “being molested”.

                1. Oops!
                  Who was it? Someone pointed out that Plopper was/is, shall we say, rather ‘strange’.
                  Sorry I even responded, the suggestion was DO NOT ENGAGE.

                  1. Irish warned you. Suthenboy warned you. But you just had to kick that can down the road, didn’t you? And now look what happened!

                    1. So HM,

                      Since you don’t have any rebuttal to my arguments, I guess I can assume you agree with me then?

                    2. I haven’t seen you make any argument whatsoever. All I’ve ever seen from you has been special pleading and you denying have you possess any moral agency for your actions.

                      You can expect no further response from me as I am neither your father confessor or your psychologist.

                    3. I haven’t seen you make any argument whatsoever. All I’ve ever seen from you has been special pleading and you denying have you possess any moral agency for your actions.

                      How am I engaging in special pleading? When have I ignored the other side? Just because the other side gives me an easily refutable argument doesn’t make it “special pleading”.

                      Also when have I ever denied moral agency for my own actions? Just because I acknowledge the fact that as a child one tends to develop their own moral agencies from what is taught to them by their parents and others in society, doesn’t mean I’m denying that I possess my own moral compass. As an adult I have very different views on morality than I did as a child, but it doesn’t mean that I still have what is almost a “programmed” response to sex because I was always punished for engaging in it when I was a child.

                      You can expect no further response from me as I am neither your father confessor or your psychologist.

                      So then a hit and run argument? If I’m so nuts then you should be able to easily destroy my argument, but instead you drop bullshit and strawmen.

                    4. HM,

                      If anyone is ignoring the other side’s argument it is you.

                      *** you denying have you possess any moral agency for your actions. ***

                      Either you didn’t bother to read my comments/arguments, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.

                      And the whole “I’m not saying anything more because it’s not worth my time”, is the same bullshit I see from progtard wives on facebook all the time when they can’t win an argument.

                    5. In addition I am fully willing to go tit for tat with you on any specific examples you can cite where you think I was engaging in “special pleading”.

                      Reading back over things I can understand how one might misunderstand some of my points, but if you’re unwilling to give the specific examples it’s going to be hard for me to provide a better explanation.

                      Don’t forget, I am very obsessive. I will hunt you down in other threads and bug you over and over unless you can point out specific examples and actually attempt to engage me in honest debate.

                    6. It sounds like whoever was in charge of you after the incident totally fucked things up, and punished you, the victim.

                      That doesn’t mean that what the girl did to you was OK, though. Nobody here is saying that molested children should be punished as you were. You seem to be attributing the faults of the people who punished you to everyone who thinks sex with young children is always wrong.

                    7. Tulpa,

                      Are you totally illiterate? My English isn’t perfect when I’m commenting on a website…

                      BUT…

                      I specifically said I was not punished for what happened with the teenage girl. I was however punished when I tried to experiment with other girls about my own age.

                    8. And you wonder why people consider it useless to talk to you.

                      I’m trying to sympathize with you and understand the predicament you find yourself in, and you insult me.

                      Somebody sure fucked you up as a kid. Too bad.

                    9. Somebody sure fucked you up as a kid. Too bad.

                      Yep, because too many people think like you.

                      Anyway, I apologize for the insults, but considering my previous treatment here, including your treatment of me, can you not understand why I’m slinging them? At least I’m genuinely trying to provide an honest argument, even if they are often laced with insults.

                    10. Aaaand here’s the denial of moral agency.

                    11. Aaaand here’s the denial of moral agency.

                      And you wonder why I insult you Tulpa. When did I deny I am capable myself of deciding what is right or wrong?

                      Also your previous comment made it seem like you were insulting my parents.

                    12. Tulpa and HM, have you ever heard of a “conditioned response”?

                      Just because one has a conditioned response isn’t mutually exclusive with having the ability to make moral judgements yourself. Even if your morality doesn’t match with the conditioned response…

                      And then I’m the one accused of spurious arguments. Jesus Christ!

                    13. Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency

                    14. Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.

                      And when have I denied my ability to be held accountable for actions I make?

                    15. And when have I denied my ability to be held accountable for actions I make?

                      hmm,….. maybe when you blamed your insulting of me on other people. Among other times.

                    16. I’m not saying I’m not responsible for being a dick or that I didn’t make the decision out of my own free will to be a dick.

                      My point was that considering how you’ve treated me in the past, and I mean you specifically it’s not surprising I might respond in a bitter fashion towards you.

                      Not saying it isn’t my bad, but just saying when someone has been mean to another in the past, it’s common that such sentiments might be reflected back.

                    17. As for the conditioned response I was talking about the conditioning I dealt with in childhood.

                      So maybe there was also a miscommunication there.

                    18. Yep, I bit. Sorry now.

                    19. Sorry you can’t even form a coherent argument?

                    20. Plopper|2.1.14 @ 11:37PM|#
                      “Sorry you can’t even form a coherent argument?”

                      Thanks, HM, SB and Irish.

                2. I enjoyed stuffing myself with chocolate after trickortreating on Halloween too…. the puking my guts out at midnight not so much.

                  You don’t seem to be enjoying your “weird complex” either.

                  1. Anyway, since I don’t see any new responses… Ending this for now with my above comment to Tulpa:

                    “Let me put it this way… If someone denies you a service. Like say a wedding photographer, how has your freedom been violated? How was force initiated against you?”

                    I don’t want to waste my entire Saturday night on this. But I will come back and check tomorrow night if I’m not busy and respond. So don’t you dare accuse me of running away… I’ll be back 😉

                    1. I don’t want to waste my entire Saturday night on this.

                      Dude, Chuck E Cheeses is already closed. You’re not getting any tonight.

                    2. And then you blame me for insulting you?

        3. You owe me royalties.

      3. Plopper engages with Tulpa and Sevo over a sexual issue…

  44. Did Woody Allen Molest His Daughter, Dylan Farrow? And If So, Should You Disavow His Films?

    The only proper answer to this is “I’ve never seen one.”

    PS Unfortunately, I did see “What’s Up Tiger Lily?” at some point. I don’t remember anything about it but the fact that it was about a chicken soup recipe. HILARIOUS STUFF RIGHT?

  45. Regarding Darkness at Noon, I’m reminded of an article that appeared in reason back in 2000:

    But if Comintern fantasies of a Soviet Hollywood were never realized, party functionaries nevertheless played a significant role: They were sometimes able to prevent the production of movies they opposed. The party had not only helped organize the Screen Writers Guild, it had organized the Story Analysts Guild as well. Story analysts judge scripts and film treatments early in the decision making process. A dismissive report often means that a studio will pass on a proposed production. The party was thus well positioned to quash scripts and treatments with anti-Soviet content, along with stories that portrayed business and religion in a favorable light. In The Worker, Dalton Trumbo openly bragged that the following works had not reached the screen: Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar; Victor Kravchenko’s I Chose Freedom; and Bernard Clare by James T. Farrell, also author of Studs Lonigan and vilified by party enforcer Mike Gold as “a vicious, voluble Trotskyite.”

    1. McCarthy was as sleazy as Ted Kennedy, but the ‘black list’ is another issue.
      If I owned a business and I were offered a list of people who preferred that it be taken from me, I would certainly not employ those people.
      As lefty as the LA ‘celebrity’ society is now, no one is stupid enough to propose a government take-over of the bizz.

  46. The Jeopardy! champion that’s pissed off fans with his unorthodox strategy of play

    Arthur’s in-game strategy involved him jumping all over the board searching for the all-important Daily Doubles, where the contestant can decide how much to wager from a minimum of $5 up to the maximum amount they have accumulated in their bank.
    Typically, contestants choose a single category and progressively move from the lowest amount up to the highest, giving viewers an easy-to-understand escalation of difficulty.
    However, because Arthur is finding the hidden Daily Doubles, which are normally located within the three highest-paying rungs in the categories, it means rather than building up in difficulty, he ends up starting with the most difficult questions.
    After a couple of the most difficult high-stakes questions have been answered, he moves over to another category.

    It can be a frustrating watch because it doesn’t allow the viewer to get into each subject matter and viewers aren’t given enough to time to get in a rhythm or fully comprehend the new subject area but Arthur defends accusations that he is being ‘unsportmanlike.’

    It is annoying, though. The viewer can’t remember the categories when he jumps around like that so it’s hard to play along.

    1. The Daily Doubles should be randomly chosen thus incenting contestants to choose the lower dollar questions first.

      (Yes, I have been aggravated by the strategy mentioned above too) – enough to think of a solution to it.

      1. Disagree; I like the daily-doubles engendering drama late in the stage.

      2. If you’re too dumb to follow along with category changes, stick to the Wheel, or Family Feud.

        1. You miss my issue. Daily-double hunting cheapens the final part of Double Jeopardy when there are just $400/$800 answers on the board.

          The game is anti-climactic then.

          1. Wait, wait – are you saying *incentives matter*?

        2. THIS. The categories usually get switched in the middle of the low-high progression anyway when control of the board changes.

        3. Category changes are fine.

          If my suggestion of ‘random’ were implemented contestants might go $400 to $400 to $400 and so on to pick off an early easy DD despite each a category change per question.

    2. What do categories matter? Either you know the particular trivia question, or you don’t.

      1. The categories provide context for the clues being offered. For example, a category called “E-Z Solutions” might be based on answers with the letters ‘E’ and ‘Z’ in the them.

        1. I am a pretty unintuitional motherfucker, so the categories usually just throw me.

            1. Excellent, by the way. That’s bookmarkworthy.

      2. Categories matter a lot because you can “ring in” immediately and hear Trabek read the question while finding an answer(question).

        I.E., if you know Physics cold then ring early to prevent others from it.

        1. This doesn’t apply to viewers, though. And besides, the sequence is always “X category for Y,” so where’s the difficulty?

        2. No you can’t. They changed that after the first season. You have to wait until after Alex finishes reading the clue before buzzing in.

          I’ve read a lot of losing contestants bitch that they only lost because they couldn’t get the hang of the buzzer.

        1. Thank you! I was hoping someone would post that when I started reading this thread.

    3. I don’t get the problem with that at all. The reason players stick with one category and move from low to high dollar amounts is because they chose a category they feel confident about and obviously want to stick with it, and if they do run into DD in the high amounts, going from low to high means they’ll have more money available to wager from answering the easy questions first.

      And of course when control of the board switches, the usurping player usually changes the category anyway, so I don’t get what the fuss is about. If anything I think Arthur’s strategy is only useful when you’re already ahead, to keep the trailing players from getting a DD.

      It reminds me of my mom yelling at me for eating one thing at a time at dinner — people just make up rules of etiquette based on their personal preferences and expect everyone to follow them.

      1. Yeah, but… the point of sides is to mix up the flavors of the entree. It’s, like, a law, or something.

      2. You guys know you’re engaging the christ-fag-bush-horrible-obama-wonnerful dipshit, right?
        This isn’t about an ‘artist’; it’s about a continuing sleazeball.

        1. Go back to the GOP plantation, dipshit.

          1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.1.14 @ 10:36PM|#
            “Go back to the GOP plantation, dipshit.”
            Go fuck your daddy, shitpile.

          2. Palin’s Buttplug|2.1.14 @ 10:36PM|#
            “Go back to the GOP plantation, dipshit.”

            Oh, and you sleazy piece of lying shit, show me ONCE where I defended the GOP other than to call you on your slimy Dem cheerleading.
            Get fucked with a farm implement; one that’s been stuck in the manure pile.

        2. I think I’m engaging Grand Muff in that comment….

        3. Yeah, but we’re training him – if he can leave the christfagbushitler stuff alone then we will treat him like a human being.

          Well, maybe not a ‘real’ human being, more along the lines of a soulless ginger.

    4. Arthur’s in-game strategy involved him jumping all over the board searching for the all-important Daily Doubles

      He’s hardly the first to employ this strategy.

      Do any of you remember when Sony used to have a Jeopardy game available online? I pissed so many people off on there.

  47. Couple things…

    Judgment in a court of law is not judgment about the truth. Taking such a judgment as the be-all end-all is remarkably unlibertarian. The rules of evidence and criminal procedure are not objectively valuable, but valuable merely in restricting the state’s exercise of violence.

    In short, there’s nothing wrong in the slightest with people believing things that have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To think otherwise is to commit a major category error.

    If people’s aversion to his movies are based on moral disgust, well, it’s senseless to argue that it’s pointless. Further, it utterly misses the point to wonder what they’re trying to accomplish. They aren’t trying to accomplish anything, dude. They have a visceral, arational reaction, like everyone does to something. That’s what disgust IS.

    Also, I’m reminded of the Marxist theory of art. That’s bad. Art should stand on its own. If Hitler had actually painted anything worthwhile, we could praise it while condemning him. Same here.

    Last, uh, I have never seen a Woody Allen movie. What’s the absolute best?

    1. ‘Annie Hall’ is his best and most paranoid without being offensive to dates.

      His early zany movies don’t age well at all.

    2. Further, it utterly misses the point to wonder what they’re trying to accomplish. They aren’t trying to accomplish anything, dude.

      +1

      and

      Also, I’m reminded of the Marxist theory of art. That’s bad. Art should stand on its own.

      +1

      and another +1 for seeing how those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

    3. “Couple things…

      Judgment in a court of law is not judgment about the truth. Taking such a judgment as the be-all end-all is remarkably unlibertarian.”

      STOP! Neither incident (Polanski’s nor Allen’s) was the result of the JUDGEMENT(s) OF THE COURT(s)!

      Polanski PLEADED GUILTY VOLUNTARILY! Allen was NEVER INDICTED, and was NOT EVEN so much as CHARGED, specifically because of the investigators’ findings (which is an executive, not a judicial process)! You don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry.

      But since you asked, Mighty Aphrodite (at least of those made in my lifetime).

  48. WTF Gillespie? Pirates was an excellent movie. Wadda ya got against Walter Matthau?

  49. Imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

    I am pretty sure if Dylan’s biological father put a knife in Woody Allen’s chest I could not sit on the jury for his murder trial.

    1. That said I still think Sleeper is a movie I enjoyed.

      1. Bananas is hilarious

  50. I read the Daily Beast article and am convinced that Woody Allen did not molest anyone. Mia’s actions can be explained by the quote, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

    1. Dylan is not Mia.

  51. Personally, I don’t believe he did it:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..-fast.html

    I have a friend who has been the target of a false accusation prompted by an angry ex-wife, so I tend to take these things with a grain of salt.

    -jcr

  52. Somebody lit the Plopper signal…

    1. With any luck, Plopper will die in the flame.

  53. I remember staring at that toy train[…]

    I feel sick…

    When – if ever – does the biography of a creator mean that you cannot or should not in good conscience patronize an artist?

    The fact that he raped a six-year-old innocent girl would do it for me, if the allegation is true. I can’t bear the thought of it.

  54. If you are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or a believer in God, you have a basis for outrage at pedophiles: Ten Commandments, Moral Law.

    However, what do atheists base objections to predatory pedophilia?

    If there is no God, if this world is all there is, Darwinian forces rule our existence. Strong prey on the weak.

    Therefore, Woody’s alleged pedophilia would be consistent with the Natural Laws of Evolution.

    1. “I concede!” said the straw man

      1. I was gonna give it a shot, but you’ve done so well, it’s not worth it.

    2. Re: ZB42,

      However, what do atheists base objections to predatory pedophilia?

      The N.A.P.

      (Non-Aggression Principle)

      If there is no God, if this world is all there is, Darwinian forces rule our existence.

      Our “existence” and our ability to make decisions are completely different things.

    3. Objection: “Darwinian forces” begs the question. “Atheists,” to the extent that Atheists claim anything in tandem, would beg to differ that they subscribe exclusively to animalistic impulses.

    4. I can’t trust anyone whose morals are based on nothing but superstition.

      -jcr

      1. “Trust”
        “Morals”
        “Superstition”

        These terms are all what Kant would call numinal, i.e. you cannot empirically justify or prove any of them.

        so, I ask: Who is, to use your phraseology, being “superstitious?”

        Theists and atheists are equally “superstitious.” It’s just theists admit it.

        1. ZB42|2.1.14 @ 11:58PM|#
          “Theists and atheists are equally “superstitious.” It’s just theists admit it.”

          Bleevers LOVE to paint others as dumb as they are.
          Idjut.

        2. Kant was a fool, and so are you.

          -jcr

          1. Kant was not actually a fool, though. Just because this guy invoked Kant doesn’t mean he got it right. See, e.g., “numinal”.

    5. What is it with all the weak sauce trolls on Saturdays?

    6. However, what do atheists base objections to predatory pedophilia?

      derp

      Morality is not initiating force.

    7. It’s a shame that as an atheist I can’t enjoy the works of Gerald Manley Hopkins given he was a Jesuit of all things. But, like you state here, there is no objective reality to gauge value, and if we don’t follow a monotheistic creed, we’re doomed to not understand it because it only makes sense in the system to which it was created. Outside of that we’re lost. I guess I’ll just have to enjoy the works of unbelievers for now on. Hey, maybe not. What if I became a Catholic just during those hours I want to read his work, then I get a pass right?

    8. Therefore, Woody’s alleged pedophilia would be consistent with the Natural Laws of Evolution.

      If you’re talking about adult men being attracted to adolescent girls (which is technically not pedophilia but hebophilia or ephebophilia), then yes, that is a product of evolution (and plenty of the biblical patriarchs you revere banged young girls in their old age btw). So is theft and murder of people outside your family grouping. Doesn’t mean it’s consistent with civilization, though.

      1. Are saying that stories endorse the bad behavior described? By your superficial reasoning, “Schindler’s List” endorses the German National Socialist Party’s actions.

        A serious reader would discern that the Old Testament is a repudiation of deviant sexual relations.

        1. Who cares?
          Fuck off, idjit; you think rational people haven’t read that crap before?

        2. That’s why Yahu-Wahu punished David for adultery-murder by killing an innocent baby.

          And why he ordered the Israelites to kill all non-Israelites in Palestine, and got seriously pissed when they spared the women and children.

          Yep, great moral lessons there.

    9. No major religion condemns pedophilia.

      Ancient Judaism allowed marriages at a young age. Jesus Christ was born to a girl of about 12. Mohammad married a 6 year old girl.

      What these religions condemn is sex outside of marriage – and for good reason, because in that day and age the children that might result would not have a provider and protector. Marriage – or at least long term commitment – may also be a marker for other traits that are evolutionarily advantageous.

      Evolutionary theory does not condemn pedophilia either. The very fact that it exists as something other than a very rare oddity means that it must either have an evolutionary advantage, or at least be neutral as regards natural selection. If it were half as harmful as is often posited, it would have died out long, long ago.

      To sum it up, the arguments we see for recent witch hunts tend to fall somewhat short. At worst, pedophilia may cause mild harm. It is pretty clear that social hysterics over the matter cause far more harm.

    10. I believe Mohammad, the Holy Prophet, “consummated his marriage” with Aisha when she was 9.

      Tell me again about how Celestial Psychopath provides the basis for outrage at pedophilia.

  55. If artists are not simply awful human beings but criminals, should we turn away from their work?

    You can do whatever the fuck you want. Let me decide for myself how I deal with the work by talented pederasts and violators of small girls.

    1. Seriously, what?
      SF’d

        1. Someone wanted at all that ridiculous Rebecca Black money?

          1. At least Rebecca Black didn’t do covers.

            1. Not sure that’s a point in Black’s favor.

            2. At least Rebecca Black didn’t do covers.

              Oh but she did…

                1. Seriously, Rebecca Black has totally redeemed herself with the covers she’s done lately. Plus, Saturday.

        2. I’ll do Naughty by Nature at the occasional wedding/karaoke event if I’m properly lubricated. I’m sure it’s nothing compared to Epi’s Lady Gaga routine at the Xmas party, though.

  56. So, I skimmed his filmography on Wikipedia, and it doesn’t appear that I’ve actually seen any of his work. I think I’ve heard audio of him on satellite radio, though.

    1. This is funny to me, cause I’ve also literally never seen a Woody Allen movie. Just watching him in the odd interview, listening to that voice…turned me off.

      The fact that two of my least-favorite actresses ever – the wretched and awful Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton – are in his films also factors in.

      Who knows. Maybe I should check out Sleeper or Annie Hall sometime for kicks. After I smoke pot. A lot of pot.

      1. Mia Farrow is good in Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby.

    2. Woody did stand up comedy in the 1960s

      1. Interesting. So did Bill Cosby…:) We used to sneak a listen to his albums during elementary school….”I hypnotized Russell, and told him, ‘Russell, go upstairs and smack dad in the face’…..SMACK! ‘WHAT THE HELL’S WRONG WITH YOU, BOY?!'” And we’d laugh and laugh…

        1. Fat Albert and The Cosby Show were largely based on his stand-up routines,…so yeah.

  57. If artists are not simply awful human beings but criminals, should we turn away from their work?

    It’s precisely the opposite. We should turn away from the work of awful human beings because they are awful human beings, not because they ran afoul of the law. An awful human being with no criminal convictions and an awful human being with, say, a bogus tax conviction are equally awful, and the conviction adds nothing to it. Even if the crime was a serious crime, proven in court, all the conviction does is solidify the fact that the convicted is an awful human being, but he was an awful human being for doing the awful things, not for getting convicted for it.

  58. Vivaldi was allegedly a randy priest himself, and now his music is played at weddings and pregnant rednecks tape ipods to their bellies playing Four Seasons to make their crackerlings “smurt”. I guess it helps if a few centuries pass.

    1. I can imagine worse to play to a fetus than Walk Like a Man.

    2. It also helps if the criminal doesn’t appear in his or her work. Woody Allen played an onscreen part in most of his movies, while Roman Polanski didn’t, so the latter are much more palatable.

      I loved Naked Gun movies when they came out, but now I just cringe when OJ appears.

    3. Tulpa (LAOL-VA)|2.1.14 @ 11:26PM|#
      “Vivaldi was allegedly a randy priest himself,…”

      I understand that Michelangelo had certain sexual ‘tastes’. Having seen “David”, I can accept that.
      NTTAWWT.

      1. Mike Angie was a vindictive little bitch.

        After the Sistine Chapel was half way done, one of the Vatican officials objected to all the nudity Michelangelo had put in the early paintings. In response, the painter placed a figure looking suspiciously like that official among the damned in The Last Judgement — totally naked and with a snake biting his weiner.

        1. Love to see a cite, even a book.

          1. Here’s your cite:

            Yourself, Go Fuck. “I Don’t Give A Shit What You Want.”

    4. “pregnant rednecks tape ipods to their bellies playing Four Seasons to make their crackerlings “smurt””

      I tell you what – if rednecks are so dumb, the next time your car breaks down, call a hipster to fix it.

  59. Thirty years ago I would have believed this out of hand. I’ve been a counselor for the last 20 years and a lot of stuff people sincerely believe is not real. When they get healthy, they drop it.

    Tough to know what happened now.

    The other thing is, a no-name family member becomes instantly momentarily as famous as her famous family by making such an accusation. She gets her name in the paper. There is a payoff. We know from the Tawana Brawley’s of the world women do lie about this.

    However, if true…then for me I would not watch his movies anymore.

    The suspension of disbelief is a part of the movie experience. I have to buy into the story and if the actors for some reason can’t cause this in me then the movie won’t work. A pedophile director making a May-December romance movie, for example, would likely cause me to not be able to fully engage.

    I can know someone is a drug addict and not feel much either way, other than some compassion. Pedophilia is something that crosses a boundary for me. I’ve had some family members hurt by this. It is personal for me.

    1. Pulseguy|2.1.14 @ 11:26PM|#
      “Thirty years ago I would have believed this out of hand. I’ve been a counselor for the last 20 years and a lot of stuff people sincerely believe is not real. When they get healthy, they drop it.”

      Care to expand on that? I’m not sure who are the “people” to whom you refer.

      1. People…sorry, clients.

        I’ve had clients tell me too many complete and utter lies, which I know, because eventually they tell me the truth. I’m not certain how truthful the average person is, nor am I certain that the average person is even mildly accurate about a lot of things. I think we would be surprised if we could play back conversations we had 5 minutes ago. I think we might be surprised to find they were very different than what we thought they had been.

        My Mom drank a 1/2 bottle of whiskey a day, probably 5 or 6 days a week. My Brother doesn’t remember it. My Sister does, but she can’t remember my Dad drinking more than a beer or two, and he drank 15 to 25 beers a day. But, she can’t remember it. My Brother remembers my Dad’s drinking as I do. Two of us, or all of us are wrong, but our memories are perfectly clear to each of us. My Dad was violent with my Mom. For a long time I hated him. My Sister never saw it. Doesn’t know what I’m talking about. My Mom was a near Saint. But, as she lay dying she told me how nasty she was to my Dad, and how she would attack him mercilessly until he would eventually beat her up. My Dad confirmed that. Somehow I missed her being nasty to him.
        These were all real and clear events that happened, or didn’t happen. But, each of us remembers it completely differently.

        1. Agree. I have two sisters, and their memories of our childhood are quite different from mine. In one case when we were kids I was playing with a tape recorder when we had a conversation, and a few minutes later my sister changed her story – insisted she hadn’t said what she said. In that case, I was able to play back the tape and she was rather embarrassed to be proven wrong. I’m sure I do the same thing some times.

  60. Actually, I haven’t watched a WA movie in years for two reason. They are awful and he is a flaming liberal who looks down his nose at people like me who just want to be left alone to live our lives without interference from psychos like him and his Hollywood pals.
    In fact, I have not been inside a movie theater since 1997, as most are made by and acted by flaming liberals who I will not support.

    1. I don’t watch movies in theaters much any more just because of the cost. The most-recent “Hobbit” was worth a trip, as was “True Grit” a couple years ago.

      Other than those two, having a hard time remembering the last movies I saw in a theater…although I distinctly remember seeing “Big Jake”, “The Cowboys”, “True Grit” (John Wayne version), “The Hot Rock”, “Jeremiah Johnson”, “Little Big Man”, “Looking for Mister Goodbar” and “Diamonds are Forever” at the local theater as a kid. Grand fun…

    2. You are grumpy!

  61. Come on, everyone – Supercross is on Fox Sports! It’s Anaheim III, and almost time for the finals! Come on – moorsickle racin’ LIVE!

    AMA Daytona in mid March, MotoGP at Qatar a week or two after – FINALLY back to some roadracing.

    *goes back to staring out window and winter wasteland that is mid-Michigan*

    1. You can live vicariously through me if you like. I woke up, went to Denny’s and had the breakfast skillet, took off my sweatshirt for the remainder of the day, and went about my business in a t-shirt and shorts until 5pm.

      1. I had to turn the air conditioner on for a couple days last week – the inside of the house got up to 80F.

        Haven’t had to turn the heat on all winter so far.

  62. 250 Main is starting – Fox Sports. Gitcha some!

  63. Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence was written by a guy who raped his slaves, and the Father of the Constitution also had hundreds of slaves. I guess we shouldn’t read those either.

    1. “Rape” with the consent of the slave, that is.

      Or don’t you respect the expressed wishes of slaves, simply because of their status as slaves?

  64. See super-bowl results before the super-bowl.

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83848382/

    Of course this is not accurate.

    The game will not come down to the special teams it will come down to who the refs want to win and who they want to lose.

  65. On Topic: This was in the era of “implanted memory,” 7 years old is a ripe age in which to do that kind of manipulation, and implanted memories seem as real as “real” memories. Add in a couple of nutcase parents (Mia Farrow was the equivalent of a crazy cat lady, but rich enough to do that with kids). If it happened, it’s a pity, but there’s a LOT of reasons to doubt it.

    Off Tpoic: I can’t remember which of you sick fuckers recommended “History of Future Folk,” but whoever it was, thank you, thank you, thank you. The Libertarian Wife and I were just utterly charmed. Hondo!

  66. The Woody Allen case gets stranger and stranger. I couldn’t figure out until now why on earth the Farrow family was talking about this after years of silence. Then a friend pointed out that during the time period the talk was happening Mia’s brother, famous for his attacks on Woody during the breakup with Mia, was arrested and sentenced for child molesting that had gone on for years. Yet in all these U.S. stories there isn’t one mention of her brother. Only the British press is giving the brother major coverage. Adults often confuse people in situations, let alone traumatic situations that happen to a child. He was clearly around the family during the period the molestation happened. A now known sexual predator who abused children as young as 6 years old. Mia’s daughter was 7 when she was molested. Are we seeing the Farrow family finally speaking out because they just couldn’t hold it back anymore and nothing triggered it? Or are we watching a family in serious denial? There are enough red flags on this that I just don’t see it cut and dry anymore. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-boys.html

    1. It might have been a deliberate cover-up. She might have been protecting her brother.

  67. You have got to admit she is pretty hot. I know I would hit it.

    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

  68. “When – if ever – does the biography of a creator mean that you cannot or should not in good conscience patronize an artist?”

    Like so much else in life: it depends. It depends on what crime the person supposedly committed, whether he or she has actually been convicted, whether the victim(s) is(are) still alive, how remorseful the person is about having committed the crime (if at all), the circumstances surrounding the crime (was the person forced into committing the crime; was he or she clinically insane at the time, etc.), the extent to which the victim(s) is(are) forgiving of the person, etc.

    As a first step I would need some pretty strong evidence without a conviction to make me stop enjoying a particular artist’s work. This situation doesn’t rise to that level. It is the classic he-said/she-said situation.

  69. I wasn’t here yesterday to comment but here are my thoughts:

    1. I don’t particularly care for movies, so I find it hard to absolve anyone involved in film because of any perceived “greatness.”

    2. There are plenty of “great” filmmakers out there, so I can choose among any.number of them to provide me with film, just as I can.choose.among any number of hamburgers.

    3. I can choose to subsidize, or not, any tradesman’s lifestyle with my custom. If I dislike a trqdesman’s politics, personality, whatever, I can choose not to patronize him.

    4. There is no difference to me between tradesmen, artisans, artists, musicians,chefs, etc: all provide goods or.services to.me.

    5. I cannot imagine that any filmmaker, chef, painter, or auto mechanic could be so great at his trade that I would feel obligated to patronize him regardless of my personal dislike for him or in spite of my own moral judgment.

  70. Given that Woody Allen actually married Mia Farrow’s stepdaughter after starting* to bang her at age 19 (he was 56), I’m inclined to believe his daughter here. He also has a (rumored!) history of banging teenagers generally. It all fits a pattern, and Woody’s famous statement that “the heart wants what the heart wants” shows a level of narcissism and amorality that only supports that pattern. His moral code seems to be that “If Woody wants it bad enough, there’s no reason Woody shouldn’t take it.”

    If true, this is far worse than what Roman Polanski did. Dylan was a no-kidding child at the time, and she is his actual daughter.

    I haven’t watched more than a few minutes of a Woody movie in decades. Because they just suck, mostly. He is the lab example of someone whose success rides on appealing to a very narrow class of tastemakers who have extremely blinkered views. This won’t effect how I evaluate his work, much, but it has achieved the minor miracle of actually lowering my opinion of him. A miracle because it was already so low.

    *At least, he has only admitted to conveniently holding off until she was legal.

    1. In summary, you’re wholly willing to believe unfounded rumors in order to reinforce your own subjective opinions about Woody Allen, a man you don’t know and whom you have never met.

  71. I was never a big fan of Woody Allen, though a few of his films gave me chuckles or food for thought. (Does anyone remember the Woody Allen appearance in a DC comic book in the 1960s? I don’t, because I wouldn’t be caught dead reading it. But I do remember the cover uglifying the comic rack at the Isla Vista drug store. Augghh!)

    Whatever truth we can get about the molestation controversy can be used to inform historical assessment of Allen’s career and influences, not to mention in forming one’s own opinion. But as for his films, the art is the art. If you like that stuff and/or feel it has something worthwhile to say, then watch and learn. Using Allen’s supposed crimes (much less his eccentricities — for cripes sake, his career was built around his neuroses!) as an excuse to not experience the art hurts you, not him. On the other hand, knowing as much as you can of the behind-the-scenes story can help you avoid taking at face value messages and attitudes in the the movies that might not be quite right, or which could perhaps lead you astray or toward harm in the future. Truth is where you find it, and sometimes it comes from evil people who commit evil acts. The artistic patron needs some good intellectual and emotional armor to deal with the darkness and nonsense, which is easily hidden behind humor and other masks. I don’t know enough to judge Allen. But all the controversy does make me properly careful about embracing his work. Regardless, I’m not afraid of it.

  72. Woody Allen may be a perv, but what really matters here is the fact that he isn’t funny. So fuck him and the seven-year-old he rode in on.

  73. “What do you think readers? When – if ever – does the biography of a creator mean that you cannot or should not in good conscience patronize an artist?”
    I think that if all of this is true, he should be doing his work from jail. How about that? if all movie goers like an artist so much that they do not care if he is a pedophile, nazi, rapist or whatever, he can not complain once the same artist get access and do the same for one of theuir relatives. How about that?

  74. I have not read through the 400+ comments, but I’m curious as to whether I’m the only person who thought your question might be at least as relevant to the late Pete Seeger as it is to Woody Allen. Seeger, after all, was a loyal supporter of Joseph Stalin at least from 1936 until 1949, that being the point at which, by his account, he began to drift away from the CPUSA. He supported him through the Moscow show trials, at which it was claimed that essentially all of the leaders of the Russian communist movement who were still alive in 1936 had been secret counter revolutionaries, through the shift of the party line from anti-fascist to anti-anti-fascist back to anti-fascist as a result of the Soviet Union first allying with Nazi Germany to divide Poland and then being invaded by Nazi Germany. Also through parts of the Great Purge, although one might plausibly claim that Seeger was ignorant of that and the earlier Ukrainian famine.

    Stalin died in 1953. Seeger finally apologized rather mildly for his support of Stalin in his 1993 autobiography and wrote a song criticizing Stalin in 2007.

    Given all of that, should one reject Seeger’s songs? Would people feel any differently if it had been Adolf Hitler rather the Joseph Stalin who Seeger supported?

  75. that at this point any third party is left with a he said/she said situation which shouldn’t be dispositive, but it’s certainly possible for even a seven year old to accurately remember such a traumatic event, or for a grown adult not to.

  76. Nick, molesters feed on people doubting the victim. And they go a long way to foment that doubt. Here’s an email exchange between me and the man who molested me when I was a kid. http://flackops.blogspot.com/2…..ished.html

    Trust me, Dylan’s account rings true.

  77. “There is nothing inconsistent in giving a man a prize for poetry one day and hanging him for treason the next” I think that was about Pound and the Nazi, but it applies here anyway. You have no duty to hurt yourself by refusing to buy good products from bad people. Where the product is stolen, we can have such a duty, but we are talking about something else entirely here. It is quite impractical to need to find every sin before buying.

  78. How can a person stop watching films that he never watched anyway ?

  79. He’s a pedophile and he’s a great artist. If he put a toe over the threshold of a room with my daughter in it I’m sure I’d have the strength to knock him into the middle of next week–then I’d send some Tony Soprano type to finish the job.

    But give up reading and watching Woody Allen? Why is anyone surprised that great creators are often terrible human beings? I think it is typical of Americans to inject moral disapproval into situations not warranting it.

    I am glad Dylan spoke out and I believe and support her. When I try to imagine Allen without his genius I think he’d be worse–and better off with a millstone around his neck, sinking into the sea. Thanks to Dylan, everyone knows to keep children away from him. With the possible exception of Soon-Yi Previn.
    http://www.thecriticalmom.com

  80. He’s a twisted creep, marrying the child of Mia.

    Certainly the accusation is consistent with what we already know about him.

    I was never that big a fan of him anyway. Since he basically plays himself in his movies, I don’t see how it doesn’t rub off.

    Similar to Michael Jackson, and all his crotch grabbing and Neverland crap. Not quite so precious anymore.

    I do remember watching OJ beat the single season rushing record in the snow. To this day, best yards per game in a single season.

    But Granny on the Hertz commercial saying “Go, OJ, go” now seems to mean something just a little different. The blonde broad whipping her hair about and handing him the keys on the Hertz commercial gives a creepy feel too.

    Fundamentally, these guys are performers. Their physical presence is what they produced. Can’t really divorce them from their performances that easily.

    1. And Allen’s cries about Mia’s vindictiveness as ridiculous. Or course she’s vindictive.

      The best you can say about Allen is that the one woman in the world he decided he had to fuck was Mia’s adopted daughter. How’s that for a charming gift for your exwife. That is one twisted and vindictive fuck.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.