Celeb (and Celeb SO's) Sexual Harassment Thread

[Irish]

My point is we're not required to listen to either of them; only that Allen has the same right as Farrow to tell his story to anyone willing to listen.

Only in a complete cultural and social vacuum.

Because there's a very large difference between how those "rights" are expressed --- like the difference between a one-off New York Times op/ed and a book deal likely to run a hundred thousand copies.

Obviously, even at his best, Allen was never as great an artist as Wagner or Dostoevsky, or even Polanski; my point is simply that praise for his films does not preclude a concern for the lives and safety of women.

Wagner and Dos are dead and their contemporary influence is minimal. Their work and their lives don't set norms or establish standards. They have no influence on current day politics, and they're largely ignored by major media.

These are not similar situations, for obvious reasons.

You're trying to make an argument in favor of separating art from artist but I don't think you can. Film awards and book deals come with prestige and credibility attached, not to mention a fuck ton of publicity. When institutions lend somebody their platform, they send a message. Whether they intend it or not.

The message the Académie and Hachette sent these past coupla weeks was really sorta ugly.

[Grouchy]

The thing is, there's no real legal reason to censor Allen's book. He has never been found guilty, has been defended by many of his past and current cast members and it's not like he's writing about the case or profiting from it - it's his autobiography. He has a right to write it and we have a right to read it. It's censorship at best and enforced thinking through media bullying at worst.

I can understand why someone wouldn't want to watch Polanski's latest - he's obviously guilty. I can't share the feeling as, as a film buff, I really want to see it. But it's not the same thing at all.

[transmogrifier]

I'm of the belief that Allen is not guilty, simply because this is what the legal system found and (though the legal system is not perfect) it is the only thing I have to go on. I find those people who insist on trying to cancel him (and calling him a pedo as if it is an incontrovertible fact, FFS) despite the fact that he was never even charged with a crime somewhat misguided and frankly annoying. Go spend your efforts on those fuckheads who deserve to be cancelled for documented crimes but aren't for some fucked reason (*cough* Chris fucking Brown *cough*)

That said, no private company has any obligation to work with Allen if they don't want to. I don't think it is a case of censorship.

[baby doll]

Only in a complete cultural and social vacuum.

Because there's a very large difference between how those "rights" are expressed --- like the difference between a one-off New York Times op/ed and a book deal likely to run a hundred thousand copies.

Wagner and Dos are dead and their contemporary influence is minimal. Their work and their lives don't set norms or establish standards. They have no influence on current day politics, and they're largely ignored by major media.

These are not similar situations, for obvious reasons.

You're trying to make an argument in favor of separating art from artist but I don't think you can. Film awards and book deals come with prestige and credibility attached, not to mention a fuck ton of publicity. When institutions lend somebody their platform, they send a message. Whether they intend it or not.

The message the Académie and Hachette sent these past coupla weeks was really sorta ugly.

Obviously Allen has a bigger megaphone with which to tell his story than Farrow: He's been a public figure for more than half a century, so it's reasonable for a publisher to expect that his memoirs would be of at least as much interest to the public as, say, Julie Andrews' (or Mia Farrow's for that matter). By the same token, however, Farrow has a much bigger megaphone with which to tell her story than other victims of sexual assault because she's the daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Farrow, incidentally, has a book coming out and it's likely to attract far more media attention than most books by first-time authors for the same reason, irrespective of its merits (and for all I know, it may be wonderful). The message that Hachette was sending by picking up Allen's memoirs was that they thought it would make money for them, and by dropping it, they're sending the message that they think it won't make money for them. That's just how the publishing industry works in a capitalist system.

[Irish]

Obviously Allen has a bigger megaphone with which to tell his story than Farrow: He's been a public figure for more than half a century, so it's reasonable for a publisher to expect that his memoirs would be of at least as much interest to the public as, say, Julie Andrews' (or Mia Farrow's for that matter). By the same token, however, Farrow has a much bigger megaphone with which to tell her story than other victims of sexual assault because she's the daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Farrow, incidentally, has a book coming out and it's likely to attract far more media attention than most books by first-time authors for the same reason, irrespective of its merits (and for all I know, it may be wonderful).

Not sure how other victims & strangers to the case effect the power imbalance between Farrow and Allen, which is what I was talking about.

ETA: Also, she's publishing a book of YA fantasy ...? That was announced 2 years ago? So not sure how that relates, either.

The message that Hachette was sending by picking up Allen's memoirs was that they thought it would make money for them, and by dropping it, they're sending the message that they think it won't make money for them. That's just how the publishing industry works in a capitalist system.

The book would make money regardless of the controversy; controversial material always sells well. (That was, really, the impetus behind the original "Son of Sam" laws in the U.S.)

There's always broader implications in institutional action. Otherwise, Haenel wouldn't have charged out of the Académie ceremony, the Kennedy Center wouldn't have rescinded Cosby's Mark Twain Award, and Harper Collins wouldn't have pulled OJ Simpson's memoir.

These were not actions motivated by economics. The world is more complicated than that.

[baby doll]

Not sure how other victims & strangers to the case effect the power imbalance between Farrow and Allen, which is what I was talking about.

ETA: Also, she's publishing a book of YA fantasy ...? That was announced 2 years ago? So not sure how that relates, either.

The book would make money regardless of the controversy; controversial material always sells well. (That was, really, the impetus behind the original "Son of Sam" laws in the U.S.)

There's always broader implications in institutional action. Otherwise, Haenel wouldn't have charged out of the Académie ceremony, the Kennedy Center wouldn't have rescinded Cosby's Mark Twain Award, and Harper Collins wouldn't have pulled OJ Simpson's memoir.

These were not actions motivated by economics. The world is more complicated than that.

I agree there's a power imbalance between Allen and Farrow in terms of their access to the mass media, but the point I was trying to make is that this imbalance is not directly related to the allegations against Allen. Allen has a bigger microphone than Farrow (who nevertheless has an extremely large one on account of her connections), not because the deck is inherently stacked against accusers, but because Allen was already famous as a comedian and filmmaker prior to the allegations against him. Of course, one could point out that all cases of sexual assault involve an imbalance of power (certainly, I can't recall any examples of someone assaulting someone more powerful than themselves), and consequently all accusers face barriers in having their accusations heard, but that imbalance will continue to exist whether or not Allen's memoirs are published. Moreover, I don't think we want to live in a society where public figures accused of sexual assault aren't given an opportunity to defend themselves, especially in cases such as this where the person accused has never been formally charged with any crime.

[Dukefrukem]

This came across my RSS feed today. We talked about him a while ago but I find it interesting he's still playing the "didn't realize" card. Copied and pasted so you don't have to click on the link.

An Apology
Published at: March 11, 2020, 12:25 a.m. CST by headgeek

Hey Folks, Harry here. A few days ago in a review I made a misguided attempt to talk about allegations against me from my perspective. That was... a mistake. I can do better.

I am still coming to terms with the realization that I hurt people, and I have been hesitant to talk about it because of my fear of offending anyone even further. So for over two years, I haven’t said much of anything about it. After stepping away from AICN, being forced out of Fantastic Fest, getting kicked out of the Austin Film Critics Association, and being banned from all Alamo Drafthouse locations, I just wanted to check out for awhile to work on myself and my marriage and to try to reconcile the accusations.

While it definitely hurts to know that there are people who think you’re a garbage person, it is uniquely painful to realize you tragically misread the room and hurt someone- whether intentionally or not. While I’ve always seen myself as a wise cracking know-it-all with a twisted sense of humor, I have come to understand that my innuendo (even with the women I had chatted up for years) wasn’t as amusing as I thought it was. What I thought was a genuine LOL, was apparently only polite laughter as they slowly backed out of the virtual room. What I considered an obvious joke wasn’t so obvious in the vacuum of text conversations. I know my intentions were not malicious, but I now understand that my poor judgement put some women in icky situations.

So here we are. I apologize to the women I hurt. I apologize to the readers I disappointed. I apologize that it took over two years to get here. I apologize to the writers who kept the site going while I tried to figure this all out. I apologize for all the mistakes I probably made in this apology. I fucked up. I fucked up and I feel terrible about it and I am truly sorry for all the pain I’ve caused. While I know for some this is too little too late, please know that I am sincerely trying to make a move in the right direction.

My first best purpose in life is to share and pass on the film knowledge & enthusiasm that my parents infused into my DNA. I'm writing on AICN again for those that have been writing me wanting my particular GLASS IS FULL optimism and love for cinema. I won't be at any critiic screenings or advance screenings. My days of hosting events here are behind me, and that is a profound sadness.

We should always treat everyone with the utmost respect and consideration. Words have consequences and so do actions. I will dedicate myself to loving my family, friends and films for the rest of my life. I would hope as much for all of you.

Keep it cool,

[Peng]

[megladon8]

Admittedly I'm being a pessimistic asshole here, but is he ever actually going to see the inside of a jail cell?

It just seems rich white men (almost) always find a way of dodging doing time.

[Dukefrukem]

You mean like Jeffrey Epstein? Bernie Madoff? Martin Shkreli? Jeffrey Skilling? Paul Manafort?

[megladon8]

You mean like Jeffrey Epstein? Bernie Madoff? Martin Shkreli? Jeffrey Skilling? Paul Manafort?

5 examples in a sea of shit.

[[ETM]]

I don't see any angle for not doing time, except some kind of health plea. I personally hope he rots as an example to all the entitled douches.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

[megladon8]

I don't see any angle for not doing time, except some kind of health plea. I personally hope he rots as an example to all the entitled douches.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Exactly.

Even though there are pics of him all over the net where hes out publicly without that ridiculously fake Walker.

[Ezee E]

Exactly.

Even though there are pics of him all over the net where hes out publicly without that ridiculously fake Walker.

That's as he's going to court.

[megladon8]

That's as he's going to court.

Yes I know this.

What I'm saying is that a cursory google search shows he is perfectly able bodied, and it's all a sham attempt to win sympathy points in court.

[Dukefrukem]

5 examples in a sea of shit.

Give me 1 rich white rapists that never saw justice.

[Ezee E]

Yes I know this.

What I'm saying is that a cursory google search shows he is perfectly able bodied, and it's all a sham attempt to win sympathy points in court.

Thankfully it failed.

[megladon8]

Give me 1 rich white rapists that never saw justice.

Brock Turner

Robert H. Richards IV (who admitted in court that he raped his 3 year old daughter, but the judge gave him probation because he felt he "wouldn't do well in prison")

[Dukefrukem]

Brock Turner

Robert H. Richards IV (who admitted in court that he raped his 3 year old daughter, but the judge gave him probation because he felt he "wouldn't do well in prison")

Touche. Du Pont is a good one.

[Irish]

There's a fairly recent history of the rich and famous dodging rape and murder charges: Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake....

The Cosby and Weinstein convictions seem almost like flukes.

[[ETM]]

Brock Turner is a registered sex offender for life, the judge that gave him the light sentence was recalled in 2018, and the California law and the very definition of rape was changed as a result of the case.

[Ezee E]

There's a fairly recent history of the rich and famous dodging rape and murder charges: Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake....

The Cosby and Weinstein convictions seem almost like flukes.

All of those examples happened pre-2001.

[Irish]

All of those examples happened pre-2001.

Jackson's criminal trial was in 2005 and Polanski was arrested on an international warrant in 2009. So a little more recent than you'd think.

But otherwise, fair point. I'm still shocked that Weinstein got 23 years.

[Ezee E]

Jackson's criminal trial was in 2005 and Polanski was arrested on an international warrant in 2009. So a little more recent than you'd think.

But otherwise, fair point. I'm still shocked that Weinstein got 23 years.

I wonder what kids born in 2005, hitting high school now, will think of Michael Jackson.

[megladon8]

Brock Turner is a registered sex offender for life, the judge that gave him the light sentence was recalled in 2018, and the California law and the very definition of rape was changed as a result of the case.

That's still a slap on the wrist for his crime, as far as I'm concerned.