#dylan farrow

[girlzoot]

They want things to go back to normal. It’s a feeling I’m all too familiar with. Eventually, they will learn, like I did, that there’s a point you never come back from—"normal" becomes the illusion it always was, only much less comforting. —Dylan Farrow/Veil

[kingsnorthlobotomy]

This is from my YouTube Channel. If you like movies, you may like it.

[odairfilm]

thomas (about newt) as this quote from if we were villains:

'were you in love with him?' 'yes,' i say, simply. 'yes, i was.' it's not the whole truth. the whole truth is, i'm in love with him still.'

[saintshigaraki]

insane hill to die on

[ur-mag]

Woody Allen Is ‘Willing’ to Reconnect With Dylan and Ronan Farrow | In Trend Today

Woody Allen Is ‘Willing’ to Reconnect With Dylan and Ronan Farrow Read Full Text or Full Article on MAG NEWS

[lesbin]

why do u keep thirsting over cate blanchett when she still supports both roman polanski and woody allen

cate blanchett made an incredibly unfunny joke about naming her child roman on a talk show once. i did not and do not support it. made me grimace for days. it was stupid then and stupid now and i'm almost certain she regrets it – if not from moral guilt (as you seem to think she's without them), certainly from a PR standpoint.

cate blanchett worked with woody allen once and – while she hasn't spoken at length about it – has addressed his abuse of dylan farrow and supported the legal proceedings.

she is not incredibly vocal about these things. (much like her support for palestine was/is very understated, but that doesn't mean she doesn't personally support the cause.) however, she has not explicitly given her support to these two abusers.

much like every industry, there are many predators within hollywood; some known, others unknown. many actors work alongside them – some know of their shitty behaviours and crimes, others don't. some have the luxury of choosing whether or not to work with them. some don't have much of a choice. some speak out against them, others don't – we can hope they do, but not every celebrity wishes to be a spokesperson for everything.

cate blanchett is an actress. i do not personally know her. i do not personally know every single thought or regret or political view she has had or currently has. i do believe she has done a lot of good in recent times – particularly for women and non-binary film makers. but, again, i don't know her! is she good? bad? i don't know, babe. like most people, i suspect she's somewhere in the middle.

i wish she had not made that unfunny joke. and as much as blue jasmine is a stellar film (yes, you can shoot me down for saying that if you'd like), i wish she had never worked with allen either. i obviously do not support either of those men.

if you'd like to judge me based on my attraction to an actress... go ahead i guess? does this make me a bad person? i don't know. i guess you're the judge of that. i honestly don't really know what you want from me here.

[thursdaygrl]

i just added a lot of newbies and i'm itching to use them so i can see who i wanna keep. so, like for a one liner from one or a few, i'll come to you for who! list under the cut, this time with all info i have on them listed for ease of access but it's a little long, sorry.

crash cross, 32, straight, he/him, james marsters fc / drummer with a very slight substance abuse problem, he promises. will destroy himself for a good time. good at heart but bad in action. 

cricket farrow, 26, bisexual, she/her, mallory bechtel fc / former child star and ‘kid detective’ who worked with her famous father solving fake cases until the show was cancelled when she was twelve. crashed out in her teens and got it back together in time for college, kind of. had enough money to go but nothing left afterwards. aspiring journalist trying to get her foot in the door with what little nepotism she can still access now that her dad is a washed up famous detective turned unemployed asshole. her mother, still a producer for other exploitative shows, never calls and she prefers it that way. 

davie choi, 28, lesbian, she/her, jeon jong-seo fc / formerly a brainwashed contract killer. now being hunted down by the company that made her impossible to kill.

gisela meyer, 23-50, bisexual, she/her, madchen amick fc / witch who runs a little store in new orleans. adoptive mother to a group of younger witches that make up her coven. played at a number of ages depending on what best suits the plot, more tba.

heidi laslow, eternally 30, bisexual, she/her, rebecca breeds fc / tiny but feisty vampire. turned in the seventies when she was protesting and travelling around with her boyfriend at the time. her morals have waned a little over time, but she’s as good as she can be. 

january visoka, 23/42, lesbian, she/her, eliza dushku fc / law student in her younger verse. lawyer in her older. can be played as either, more tba. 

jeremy oliphant, 35, straight, he/they, kyle gallner fc / librarian in a small town. lover of true crime and cryptids. always investigating something and always doing it alone. always trying to quit smoking. 

josephine van wyck (nee painter), 22/50, bisexual, she/her, jennifer connelly fc / small town girl turned model figuring herself out in her younger verse. bored housewife looking to dominate those she cheats on her husband with in her older verse. emotionally closed off, quiet unless she has something important to say. 

kellan mills, 27, straight, he/him, dylan sprouse fc / mechanic. occasional getaway car driver, but he always says those days are over. general dumbass. 

maude catlett, 35, bisexual, she/her, maya erskine fc / romance novelist who writes the kind of explicit scenes she’d probably never actually take part in. a bit of a recluse, really. 

molly thaxton, 37, lesbian, she/they, lily gladstone / construction worker. in night school to eventually start her own business. grew up surrounded by men, but ended up quiet rather than rowdy. 

oscar sato, 48, straight, he/him, hideaki ito fc / businessman, owner of a number of las vegas nightclubs. perpetual bachelor and occasional sugar daddy. 

raphael baker, 34, straight, he/him, sinqua walls fc / app developer. made enough money to take care of himself and his whole family, so now he doesn’t know what to do with himself. more awkward than he looks. 

rochelle yue, 29/52, bisexual, she/her, lucy liu fc / heiress, can be played in her younger or older verse. more tba. 

sylvia ‘six’ minami, 27, lesbian, she/her, devon aoki fc / criminal, former and still occasional street racer. works for a boss she resents. '

vienna laurendeau, 25, bisexual, she/her, zaria simone fc / former ballerina, current postgrad student. possesses an almost sociopathic work ethic. intense, manipulative, beautiful. likes to come across as old money in her aesthetic, but her parents just got lucky when she was a kid. she’s determined to never let go of that luck. 

yessica vidal, 21, bisexual, she/her, maia reficco fc / college student. reckless party girl. sweet at heart but her impulse control is always at a zero. 

[girlzoot]

I may only be a simple shepherd girl from the northern edge of nowhere, but I can still deduce that armies are generally only meant to accomplish one thing. War. —Dylan Farrow/Veil

[neechees]

I don't get ppl who genuinely believe Woody Allen didn't sexually abuse a Dylan Farrow & definitely isn't a creep when he married his own stepdaughter who he met when she was a child. The latter would be creepy enough alone but how do you see that and then still not come to the conclusion that this dude isnt a morally bankrupt creep?

[jimsharpe]

Recent Screenings/Re-Screenings

The last couple of weeks have led me down a particular path with a handful of movies that delve into the darker aspects of human behavior and activity. Not that I was actively seeking it, but perhaps it's a sign of the times. Here are six films I either watched for the first time or revisited after a second—or maybe third—viewing:

Manhunter (1986) Directed by Michael Mann This movie stars William Petersen in the lead, one of the most puzzling casting choices for any role, let alone as a leading man. For reasons that elude me, Petersen appeared in a couple of highly regarded films in the 1980s—this one and To Live and Die in L.A.—before gaining fame with a long stint on CSI. Personally, I find him completely unconvincing: his performances feel overacted, transparent, and lacking in depth.

Mann's career took off early with his first feature, Thief. That film certainly had plenty of swagger and style, but it also benefited from an actor (James Caan) with the chops to anchor a story so heavily reliant on visuals and atmosphere. Manhunter exemplifies Michael Mann's typical approach: stylized visuals, a moody atmosphere, and a tightly curated soundtrack. While some might describe this as "cinematic," I find his approach forced and overly self-conscious. Even strong supporting performances by Brian Cox and Tom Noonan can't redeem it for me. At times, it's unintentionally laughable. I'd skip it—but feel free to judge for yourself.

Happiness (1998) Directed by Todd Solondz I hadn't seen this since it first hit theaters in 1998, but I vividly remembered its radical, warped, and deeply unsettling nature. Even more remarkable is that Solondz managed to secure funding for such a project. This is easily one of the most misanthropic, malignant, and perverse depictions of humanity ever put on film.

The ensemble cast takes on challenging roles with excellent performances, particularly the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and Dylan Baker. Their characters are sick, twisted, and almost unforgivable, yet their portrayals are rich and disturbingly real.

This film delves into the lives of deeply flawed individuals—pedophiles, sexual deviants, pretentious poseurs, and even a murderer—all portrayed in a stark, matter-of-fact manner. It's not an easy watch; you might feel compelled to take a long, hot shower afterward. Yet, its brilliance lies in its execution and its excellent performances, making the discomfort worthwhile. Happiness is arguably Solondz's masterpiece, though it's certainly not for the faint of heart.

Dark Horse (2011) Directed by Todd Solondz Following a string of solid films in the 2000s, Solondz delivered Dark Horse, his last feature before an extended hiatus. While it doesn't have the same impact as Happiness or Welcome to the Dollhouse, it still offers a compelling exploration of human failings and poor life choices.

The film follows Abe (Jordan Gelber), a grown man-child overshadowed by his father (Christopher Walken), infantilized by his mother (Mia Farrow), and secretly admired by a coworker (Donna Murphy). Abe's unlikely relationship with a semi-catatonic Selma Blair leads to a spiral of failures, culminating in catastrophic consequences.

The film relentlessly subjects its protagonist to ridicule and humiliation, making it a challenging watch. It's yet another exploration of human weakness and failure by Solondz. While it lacks the punch of Happiness, it's still worth a shot.

Candy Mountain (1987) Directed by Robert Frank and Rudy Wurlitzer I'm a sucker for road movies, and Candy Mountain offers a gritty, unconventional take on the genre. On a rewatch, I found myself appreciating its story and atmosphere more than when I first saw it in the late 1980s.

Kevin J. O'Connor plays Julius, a young musician who’s somewhat lost and naive, but also ambitious and willing to stick out his neck to get ahead. The problem I have is that the actor’s performance often comes across as forced and unnatural, even awkward at times.

With a stronger actor in the lead, the film could have felt more authentic and effectively conveyed the character's struggles—both internal and external. Fortunately, the supporting cast shines: cameos from Tom Waits, Dr. John, Joe Strummer, and Rockets Redglare bring vibrancy and depth to the film.

Visually and thematically, the film tries to capture the tension between an older, accomplished master and a younger, aimless musician. While flawed, it's an interesting, worthwhile watch.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) Directed by Sydney Pollack Sydney Pollack's career includes several outstanding films, such as Tootsie, Three Days of the Condor, and Absence of Malice. They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is among his bleakest works, set during a Depression-era dance marathon. The surrounding locale feels like a relic of a lost world—empty, desolate, cold, and dark—imbuing the interior hall with an almost claustrophobic atmosphere.

Jane Fonda gives an unforgettable performance as Gloria, a disillusioned and deeply cynical woman fighting to win $1,500 in a grueling last-couple-standing contest. Michael Sarrazin, Susanna York, and Gig Young also deliver outstanding performances.

This is a profoundly sad film, unflinchingly exposing the despair and desolation of its characters. The ending is devastating. It's tough to watch, but it's an essential piece of cinema.

Oh, Canada (2024) Directed by Paul Schrader

Paul Schrader has been on a creative streak over the past eight years, producing small, introspective films that dive deep into the psyches of flawed protagonists. Oh, Canada continues this tradition.

The story centers on Leo Fife (Richard Gere), a dying, reclusive filmmaker whose career is the subject of a documentary crew's latest project. However, Fife hijacks the narrative, turning it into a confessional about his youth, marked by cowardice and broken relationships. Does this absolve his poor life choices in the end? It’s an open question…

One standout scene features Fife recounting how he dodged the draft during the 1960s by pretending to be gay, only to be called a "coward" by the officer in charge. This moment reflects a deeper cowardice—one that defines Fife's life choices. Oh, Canada is the kind of small, character-driven film that appeals to adult audiences seeking more than mere entertainment. It's understated yet deeply resonant. While not his best, it aligns closely with Schrader's best work.

[midnightscowboys]

hayden mae • 28 • he/they 🏳️‍⚧️ • bisexual • mexican

autistic. former sex worker. law student. journalist. dude who is a girlie sometimes. swiftie. pro-ship. hater of hot weather. shit talker. catholic. football fan in a way that's completely unrelated to being a taylor swift fan. chiefs kingdom.

→ sideblogs: @eddieblrs @njhcreators @haydenxchristensen @wolvesqveen

╰┈➤ currently reading: sunrise on the reaping by suzanne collins & catch and kill by ronan farrow (3/24 reading goal)

╰┈➤ currently watching: 9-1-1, yellowjackets, suits LA, SWAT, daredevil: born again, severance

╰┈➤ interests: filmmaking. photography. journalism. american football. horror. sci-fi.

╰┈➤ music: taylor swift. niall horan. JADE. hozier. olivia rodrigo. djo. ethel cain. florence + the machine. noah kahan. thomas rhett. miranda lambert. caylee hammack. orville peck. willow avalon. shaboozey. anderson east. johnny cash. bruce springsteen. bob dylan. robbie williams. def leppard. motley crue. judas priest. bon jovi.

╰┈➤ books: IT. the shining. pet sematary. the stand. the noumena series. the martian. artemis. a song of ice and fire. interview with the vampire. dune. red white & royal blue. the hunger games. the strain. sharp objects.

╰┈➤ people: joe alwyn. joseph quinn. joe keery. ayo edebiri. jeremy allen white. paul mescal. patrick mahomes. josh allen. isiah pacheco. lou ferrigno jr.

«feels like every time i turn a corner you're standin' right there over my shoulder, you're everywhere. i swear it's hard to think, it's hard to breathe when you're in the air, i try to run, but you're everywhere i go. when i think i'm all alone and my heart's under control, why is lovin' you not fair? you're everywhere» everywhere, niall horan

© dividers by @enchanthings

[bisluthq]

There are people who don’t believe Ronan Farrow when he said Woody Allen molested his sister, Dylan. Others think Mia is not exactly all there and accused Woody out of revenge and spite. Sure the relationship with his adopted Korean step daughter was inappropriate, but it didn’t make Woody a pedophile, because she was of age. I tend to think he did, but people who were close to Woody, and worked with him didn’t believe it. Social workers took Woody’s side because they didn’t find any evidence, and thought Mia was unstable.

Mia *was* unstable but that takes us to a segment I often go to which is “imperfect women should still be listened to”. Ronan has given a lot of additional context/info as an adult. It’s understandable why things got hushed up then and why nothing happened about it but yea idk. Def doesn’t mean the abuse didn’t happen. He also did marry his stepdaughter lol which is… wild. And he constantly cast much younger women as his own love interests like into legit old age so overall he’s a creepy dude and I think I believe his fucking son lol and not people who weren’t there or who were suckered into “Mia’s crazy so we can just cast out everything she says” narratives at the time (or now).

[valerielemercier]

Crimes et dénis

Je suis un producteur et un distributeur de films au service du cinéma. Je n’ai guère l'habitude de participer à des débats publics. Mais avant d'aller plus loin, et dans le souci d'éviter tout malentendu, je tiens à préciser que je considère la pédophilie comme l'un des crimes les plus monstrueux qui soient. Plus largement, je condamne sans appel toute violence infligée à autrui, et singulièrement à un être en position de faiblesse. Et bien entendu, je rends hommage à tous les mouvements actuels de libération de la parole pour le respect des femmes.

Au-delà de mon métier et de ma passion, je reste un citoyen marqué par une culture européenne qui porte un regard sur son époque. Et bien que nous vivons dans une démocratie dont les institutions sont garantes de nos libertés publiques, j'ai le sentiment qu'un simple Tweet peut à l'heure actuelle faire basculer l'opinion et envoyer une femme ou un homme sur l'échafaud. Au lieu de peser les arguments, à charge ou à décharge, et de garder un certain recul pour se forger sa propre opinion, on se rallie à celui qui hurle le plus fort sur la Toile.

C'est dans ce contexte que je souhaite, m'exprimer sur Woody Allen parce que son cinéma a accompagné mon adolescence et a illuminé ma vie. Autant dire que je suis profondément touché par ce qui arrive aujourd'hui et qu'il me tient à cœur de tenter de rétablir les faits.

Je suis sidéré par le déferlement de haine que provoque l'affaire Woody Allen, particulièrement aux États Unis & sur les réseaux sociaux, par le manque de rigueur de certains médias, par la meute qui condamne sans chercher à savoir, par le mélange approximatif des témoignages. On a le sentiment d'évoluer dans un monde sans nuance, sans débat apaisé concernant un homme qui, je le rappelle, a été innocenté en 1993.

La haine atteint à présent des sommets d’ignominie. Et pourtant, il suffit de lire et d'examiner avec attention, et sans parti-pris, les faits et rien que les faits. C'est la démarche  que j'ai choisi d'adopter pour comprendre. Simplement pour savoir et approcher la vérité : aurais-je travaillé aux côtés d'un pédophile pendant tant d'années ?

J'ai lu énormément, consulté des documents d’époque, et pris connaissance de témoignages. 

Woody Allen a fait l'objet de deux enquêtes sérieuses, voire féroces, a été entendu par quatre pédopsychiatres, des policiers et des juges et été soumis à l'épreuve du détecteur de mensonges. Le résultat a été inversement proportionnel aux moyens spectaculaires déployés : pas la moindre preuve de culpabilité n'a été rapportée ! 

Essayons plus précisément de s’en tenir qu’aux faits : 

Woody Allen est accusé d'avoir agressé sexuellement Dylan Farrow, fille adoptive du réalisateur et de Mia Farrow alors âgée de 7 ans, le 4 août 1992, soit près de quatre mois après la révélation de la relation entre le cinéaste et Soon-Yi Previn, fille adoptive de Mia Farrow.

Suite aux accusations de Mia Farrow, une enquête judiciaire est menée par la Connecticut State Police qui s'appuie sur l'expertise du Yale-New Haven Hospital. Après plusieurs interrogatoires, dont neuf avec Dylan menés entre septembre et novembre 1992, les experts concluent que la petite fille n'a pas été agressée sexuellement par Woody Allen. Ils repèrent ainsi de nombreuses incohérences dans son témoignage et un manque flagrant de spontanéité, suggérant qu'elle a été manipulée, et préparée, par sa mère.

En février 1993, un article du Los Angeles Times révèle que la nounou de Dylan, Monica Thompson, a été contrainte par Mia Farrow de faire une déposition à charge contre Woody Allen, puis qu'elle a choisi de démissionner lorsque la pression est devenue insupportable.

En mars 1993, Mia Farrow reconnaît elle-même qu'au cours de deux examens médicaux, Dylan n'a pas présenté de blessure sexuelle.

En avril 1993, le docteur John Leventhal, qui a piloté l'enquête conduite par le Yale-New Haven Hospital, déclare sous serment que Dylan a été conditionnée par sa mère pour diaboliser Woody Allen et le considérer comme un violeur. Il est également frappé par le fait que la petite fille lie systématiquement les attouchements présumés dont elle a été l'objet à la relation de son père avec Soon-Yi et par sa manière de plaindre sa mère qui, dit-elle, a gâché sa carrière à cause de Woody Allen.

En septembre 1993, le procureur du Connecticut abandonne les poursuites contre Woody Allen, tout en maintenant qu'il a de "solides raisons" de penser que Dylan dit vrai. 

Ce que n’a jamais nié Woody Allen qui a toujours affirmé que Dylan croyait fortement ce qu’elle affirmait. S'il est innocenté sur un plan juridique, la décision du juge laisse planer sur le cinéaste un malentendu, Allen convoque une conférence de presse au cours de laquelle il qualifie le procureur de "irresponsable".

En octobre 1993, les services sociaux de New York rendent leur conclusion au terme d'une enquête profonde de 14 mois : aucune preuve crédible n'a été rapportée concernant les allégations de Dylan.

En 2014, Dylan Farrow s'exprime publiquement sur cette affaire dans les colonnes du New York Times.

En février 2014, Moses Farrow, fils adoptif de Mia Farrow et Woody Allen, prend la défense du cinéaste dans le magazine People : "Ma mère a gravé en moi une haine à l'égard de mon père pour avoir détruit la famille et agressé ma sœur. Et je l'ai détesté pour lui faire plaisir durant de nombreuses années. Je sais aujourd'hui qu'il ne s'agissait que d'une vengeance pour lui faire payer sa relation amoureuse avec Soon-Yi. Bien sûr que Woody n'a pas violé ma sœur. Elle l'aimait énormément et elle était toujours très heureuse lorsqu'il nous rendait visite. Elle ne s'est jamais enfuie en le voyant jusqu'à ce que ma mère réussisse à instaurer un climat de peur et de haine à son égard".

Profitant du climat de suspicion généralisé qui règne actuellement à Hollywood, Dylan publie une tribune dans le Los Angeles Times en décembre 2017 pour dénoncer, selon elle, l'impunité de Woody Allen.

Le 18 janvier dernier, elle réitère ses accusations dans sa première interview télévisée sur le sujet, diffusée sur la chaîne CBS sans qu’aucun élément nouveau ne justifie une réouverture du dossier. 

Le 19 janvier, Moses Farrow réitère sur Twitter son démenti sans qu’aucun organe de presse ne relaie cette information. 

Il est important, par ailleurs, de démêler le vrai du faux et de préciser certaines vérités :

« Soon-Yi était la fille adoptive de Woody Allen et de Mia Farrow". Faux : elle a été adoptée par Mia Farrow et André Previn, à qui elle était alors mariée, en 1978, soit deux ans avant que Woody Allen et Mia Farrow n’entament une relation amoureuse.

"Woody Allen et Mia Farrow vivaient sous le même toit". Faux : Mia Farrow habitait avec ses enfants dans son propre appartement et Allen, dans le sien. Le cinéaste n'a d'ailleurs jamais passé une seule nuit chez Mia Farrow.

"Soon-Yi considérait Woody Allen comme une figure paternelle". Faux : elle le voyait comme le compagnon de sa mère, d'autant plus qu'il ne l'a pas élevée. André Previn était son père adoptif.

"Soon-Yi était mineure quand elle a entamé une relation avec Woody Allen". Faux : elle avait 19 ou 21 ans (il y a en effet un doute sur sa date de naissance qui est 1970 ou 1972)

Toutes les conclusions des experts sont  claires et accessibles. Celui qui prend la peine de les étudier doute du bien-fondé de cet acharnement méticuleusement planifié – ou plutôt, ne doute plus : cette affaire n'en est pas une puisqu'elle repose, si l'on en croit la justice, sur des allégations mensongères uniquement destinées à salir un homme. 

Cette affaire me fait penser aux sorcières de Salem qu'Arthur Miller avait si judicieusement utilisées dans sa pièce comme allégorie du maccarthysme. Si les pratiques sordides de plusieurs hommes d'influence à Hollywood méritent largement d'être dénoncées et jugées, soixante-dix ans après la liste noire, la campagne de calomnies et de dénonciations recommence : l'histoire bégaie, le vitriol se répand à nouveau et des destins sont brisés pour rien, comme si les enseignements de l'hystérie anticommuniste n'avaient pas été tirés. Il est ainsi fascinant, et atterrant, d'entendre des actrices et des acteurs transformer Woody Allen en M le Maudit. Soit ils sont manipulés et n'ont pas conscience de la portée de leurs propos, soit ils sont absolument cyniques et cherchent à exploiter la frénésie médiatique actuelle pour se donner bonne figure, ce qui serait plus terrible encore. Nul ne peut présager de leur carrière future, mais ils resteront celles et ceux qui auront jeté Woody Allen aux chiens, alors qu'ils chantaient ses louanges et étaient prêts à se battre pour travailler avec lui il y a quelques années à peine. Dans cet océan de condamnations unilatérales, je tiens à saluer le courage d'Alec Baldwin qui se distingue de leurs confrères en soutenant le réalisateur.

De son côté, Woody Allen, dans sa défense, n'a jamais cherché à salir ses accusateurs, pas même ceux du clan Farrow qui ont eu les mots les plus durs à son égard. Sans doute parce qu'il a toujours clamé qu'il ne s'était rien passé, mais aussi parce qu'il n'est pas du tout adepte des réseaux sociaux. Heureux homme qui ignore les torrents de boue se déversant sur lui. À l'examen des faits, en revanche, il me semble que ces attaques relèvent bien davantage d'un règlement de comptes familial. Certes, on peut comprendre que Mia Farrow, et ceux de ses enfants qui lui sont d'une grande loyauté, vouent une haine tenace à l'homme qui a épousé Soon-Yi, fille adoptive de l'actrice et d'André Previn. Cependant, se répandre publiquement sur le cinéaste à un moment où la parole des femmes abusées sexuellement se libère enfin dans un mouvement magnifiquement salutaire, c'est non seulement faire preuve d'un opportunisme sans vergogne, mais c'est surtout, à mon sens, bafouer la dignité des – véritables – victimes.

Je travaille avec Woody Allen depuis dix ans. L'artiste est immense. Qui d'autre a produit une telle œuvre, empreinte de génie, d'acuité et d'humour, sur ses contemporains ? Profondément marqué par Ingmar Bergman, il s'est affirmé, de film en film, comme l'un des peintres les plus subtils du couple et des relations amoureuses. Hanté par la mort et l'absurdité de l'existence humaine, il a souvent manifesté son goût pour la féerie, la magie et l'imaginaire qu'il préfère – et de loin – à une réalité le plus souvent décevante. 

Il a toujours été à mes yeux un homme incroyablement intelligent, discret et courtois. Et il est devenu au fil du temps un compagnon tellement bienveillant. Mais son talent et son effervescence créative n'en  font pas un saint.

L’admiration que j’ai pour l’homme et le cinéaste est réelle mais n’a rien à voir avec l’objet de ma démarche.

Je suis intimement convaincu de l’innocence de Woody Allen. C’est mon droit. Même si je suis certain que ma prise de position ne manquera pas de susciter des réactions catégoriques, violentes qui m’accuseront de sacrifier la cause des femmes sur l'autel d’intérêts économiques. Classique. 

Certains se réjouissent même  que Woody Allen soit aujourd'hui vilipendé, considérant qu'il est resté trop longtemps impuni en raison de sa notoriété, ils se trompent totalement. C'est précisément parce qu'il est célèbre qu'une affaire vieille de vingt-cinq ans et jugée   ressurgit et que les médias s'y intéressent. Il est presque certain que s'il s'agissait d'un anonyme, toutes agitations auraient été vaines.

Je demande donc simplement et humblement à tous les citoyens et aux médias en particulier, d'étudier les faits avant de juger, de faire preuve de retenue et de discernement dans leur condamnation d'un être humain qui n'a jamais fait l'objet d'aucune poursuite. 

Woody Allen ne doit pas être rangé dans la même catégorie que les prédateurs sexuels récemment dénoncés par le tout-Hollywood et ne doit pas finir sa vie comme un paria dont l’œuvre déjà suspectée sera brûlée. 

Réveillons nous avant qu’il ne soit trop tard. Trouvons la vérité. À une époque où l'outrance et la diatribe se substituent à l'analyse, où la rapidité d'exécution passe pour une vertu, où le tribunal populaire des réseaux  sociaux se charge de rendre une justice expéditive, je suis bien conscient que ma requête est quasi illusoire.

[msclaritea]

Cate Blanchett named son after convicted child sex offender Roman Polanski | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/cate-blanchett-named-son-after-convicted-child-sex-offender-roman-polanski/news-story/7643a75ab10a08d35b781b1f07043c59#:~:text=Blanchett%20said%20Roman%20was%20named,famous%20American%20novelist)%20Dashiell%20Hammett.

https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/98319492.html

Blanchett said Roman was named after the disgraced director, who fled the United States in 1978 before he was due to be sentenced for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

“You run out of ideas by the time you get to number three,” she joked.

“Dashiell came from (famous American novelist) Dashiell Hammett.

“Roman, I don’t know... Polanski. But it’s also the French word for book.”

Polanski has been living in exile in France since 1978, despite multiple attempts by the United States to extradite him.

Blanchett previously came under fire in 2014 after starring in Woody Allen’s film Blue Jasmine.

Allen’s daughter Dylan Farrow wrote an open letter to Blanchett, criticising her for working with the director despite her claims of child sexual abuse.

Tough love ... Cate won an Oscar for Blue Jasmine despite being criticised for working with Woody Allen. Picture: Kevin Winter/Getty Images

Tough love ... Cate won an Oscar for Blue Jasmine despite being criticised for working with Woody Allen. Picture: Kevin Winter/Getty Images

“What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?” she wrote.

In response, Blanchett said it had “obviously been a long and painful situation for the family and I hope they find some resolution and peace”.

Roman Polanski

Ignatius, Captain Underpants

"According to the American Library Association, the Captain Underpants books were reported as some of the most banned and challenged books in the United States between 2000 and 2009 as well as between 2010 and 2019. The books were named one of the top ten most banned and challenged books in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2013 and 2018.

The Captain Underpants series was explicitly banned in some schools for "insensitivity, offensive language, encouraging disruptive behavior, LGBTQIA+ issues, violence, being unsuited to the age group, sexually explicit content, anti-family content, as well as encouraging children to disobey authority."

Dashiell Hammett....

Hammett devoted much of his life to left-wing activism. He was a strong antifascist throughout the 1930s, and in 1937 joined the Communist Party. On May 1, 1935, Hammett joined the League of American Writers (1935–1943), whose members included Lillian Hellman, Alexander Trachtenberg of International Publishers, Frank Folsom, Louis Untermeyer, I. F. Stone, Myra Page, Millen Brand, Clifford Odets, and Arthur Miller. (Members were largely either Communist Party members or fellow travelers. He suspended his anti-fascist activities when, as a member (and in 1941 president) of the League of American Writers, he served on its Keep America Out of War Committee in January 1940 during the period of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Especially in Red Harvest, literary scholars have seen a Marxist critique of the social system. One Hammett biographer, Richard Layman, calls such interpretations "imaginative", but he nonetheless objects to them, since, among other reasons, no "masses of politically dispossessed people" are in this novel. Herbert Ruhm found that contemporary left-wing media already viewed Hammett's writing with skepticism, "perhaps because his work suggests no solution: no mass-action... no individual salvation... no Emersonian reconciliation and transcendence".

In a letter of November 25, 1937, to his daughter Mary, Hammett referred to himself and others as "we reds". He confirmed, "in a democracy all men are supposed to have an equal say in their government", but added that "their equality need not go beyond that." He also found, "under socialism there is not necessarily... any leveling of incomes."

Hellman wrote that Hammett was "most certainly" a Marxist, though a "very critical Marxist" who was "often contemptuous of the Soviet Union" and "bitingly sharp about the American Communist Party", to which he was nevertheless loyal. 

At the beginning of 1942, he wrote the screenplay of Watch on the Rhine, based on Hellman's successful play, which received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay). But that year the Oscar went to Casablanca. In early 1942, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hammett again enlisted in the United States Army. Because he was 48 years old, had tuberculosis, and was a Communist, Hammett later stated he had "a hell of a time" being inducted into the Army. However, biographer Diane Johnson suggests that confusion over Hammett's forename was the reason he was able to re-enlist. He served as an enlisted man in the Aleutian Islands and initially worked on cryptanalysis on the island of Umnak. For fear of his radical tendencies, he was transferred to the Headquarters Company where he edited an Army newspaper entitled The Adakian. In 1943, while still a member of the military, he co-authored The Battle of the Aleutians with Cpl. Robert Colodny, under the direction of an infantry intelligence officer, Major Henry W. Hall. While in the Aleutians, he developed emphysema.

After the war, Hammett returned to political activism, "but he played that role with less fervour than before". He was elected president of the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) on June 5, 1946, at a meeting held at the Hotel Diplomat in New York City, and "devoted the largest portion of his working time to CRC activities".

In 1946, a bail fund was created by the CRC "to be used at the discretion of three trustees to gain the release of defendants arrested for political reasons." The trustees were Hammett, who was chairman, Robert W. Dunn, and Frederick Vanderbilt Field.

The CRC was designated a Communist front group by the US Attorney General. Hammett endorsed Henry A. Wallace in the 1948 United States presidential election..."

'Blanchett and Stewart joined fellow Cannes jury members, Ava DuVernay, Khadja Nin, and Léa Seydoux, in the South of France for the start of this year's festival earlier this week. Not only did we see both Blanchett and Stewart donning spring-inspired pantsuits we now need in our lives, but we were, more importantly, blessed with photos of Stewart staring tenderly at Blanchett. What a time to be alive."

[ear-worthy]

Navigating Narcissism Podcast: Helping Those Who Battle The Self-Involved

Psychological disorders seem to be trendy, just like fashion, memes, and food. Two decades ago, bipolar disorder was a thing. Any disruptive or toxic person seemed to be diagnosed as bipolar. Today's go-to psychological diagnosis is narcissism. I was at a dinner party where gossiping about non-participants was expected. For every lurid tale of bad behavior, someone concluded with: "They're a narcissist."

Don't get me wrong. The world is full of narcissists, but not every Karen is a narcissist and not every narcissist is a Karen. I think many people have a sketchy idea of what defines a narcissist. So let's try to do that. 

"Narcissism is extreme self-involvement to the degree that it makes a person ignore the needs of those around them. While everyone may show occasional narcissistic behavior, true narcissists frequently disregard others or their feelings. They also do not understand the effect that their behavior has on other people."

That's why the podcast Navigating Narcissism with Dr. Ramani can help people to deal with true narcissists.

The elevator pitch for the show is: "We all have to deal with narcissists. Now, it’s time to heal from them. In this groundbreaking series, clinical psychologist and world’s leading expert on narcissism Dr. Ramani Durvasula talks to survivors and experts to help millions left reeling from narcissistic abuse."

The Navigating Narcissism podcast can break down classic narcissistic patterns like manipulation, control, gaslighting, and love bombing and help unpack feelings of betrayal, shame, confusion, pain.

The host of the show is Ramani Suryakantham Durvasula, who is an American clinical psychologist, retired professor of psychology, media expert, and author. In 1989, Durvasula obtained a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Connecticut. She has also received a Master of Arts in Psychology and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Clinical Psychology from the UCLA in 1997.

So the good doctor is eminently qualified. 

 She has also appeared on media outlets discussing narcissistic personality disorder and narcissistic abuse, including Red Table Talk, Bravo, the Lifetime Movie Network, National Geographic, and the History Channel, as well as programs such as the TODAY show and Good Morning America.

I mention these TV appearances so you can understand that Dr. Ramani is good in front of the mic and camera. She's comfortable on her podcast discussing one of her areas of expertise, and she's a solid interviewer. Unlike other podcast psychologists, Dr. Ramani does not make extravagant claims about treatments and cures.

Dr. Ramani also reminds listeners that "this podcast should not be used as a substitute for medical or mental health advice." One of the most intriguing yet disturbing episodes was about Hollywood producer Scott Rudin, who The New York Post called "Hollywood’s Biggest A-hole." The male guest was not identified by name and had his voice modulated. 

In her opening, Dr. Ramani explains that Rudin is one of those rare producers who have won a EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony). But the doctor chides, "You can spell EGOT without ego." The episode is a freak show of horrible behavior by Rudin, who adopts a familiar delusion that geniuses can get away with anything. Listen to the episode, and realize that Hollywood -- with its Weinstein's, Rudin's, Mel Gibson's, Bill Cosby's, -- can be hell on earth.

 Dr. Ramani has an episode on narcissism in the fashion industry. In another powerful episode, we hear from Dylan Farrow, daughter of actor Mia Farrow, about surviving sexual abuse, and one of the engrossing episodes was in June 2023 when Dr. Ramani talked to singer Jewel about how she survived an abusive father, a mother who abandoned and betrayed her and found healing in the most profound ways.

The June 2023 episode with dancer Cheryl Burke relates an all too familiar tale of a family friend who raped her as a child. 

In her September 28, 2023, episode, Dr. Ramani eschews guests for an Ask Dr. Ramani episode. Dr. Ramani answered listeners' deep questions about the most difficult - but most effective - way to heal from narcissistic abuse: going no contact. While that seems self-evident as a successful strategy, Dr. Ramani has taught us loyal listeners that narcissists have powerful weapons at their disposal -- gaslighting, playing the victim, love bombing, and blameshifting. 

Check out Navigating Narcissism with Dr. Ramani. Whether your particular narcissist is in your workplace, in your family, or in your own home, the podcast episodes can help people identify and then separate from narcissists.

As Dr. Ramani once said, “Relationships with narcissists are held in place by the hope of a ‘someday better,’ with little evidence to support it will ever arrive.”

[fierceawakening]

Okay, so prefacing this with moral panics are bullshit and write whatever you want:

I do think there's some nuance here. When we find out that an author IS someone of poor character, very often we go back and find hints of that attitude in how they treat their characters.

We might have noticed, for example, that Rita Skeeter in Harry Potter was described as "mannish," and some of us may not have liked it, but we probably didn't extrapolate that we'd soon learn she's a TERF. However, knowing that she IS a TERF makes those passages read a bit differently for many of us. We might even say we should've known.

Or Woody Allen. His characters being attracted to young women might have looked funny or silly before Dylan Farrow came forward. Oh these guys are awkward, they're immature, Allen's just exploring what it's like to be that kind of g--huh, wait a minute.

But if it's possible to realize after the fact that an author has been telling us about their character flaws the whole time, then... it seems like we shouldn't rule out completely that some of us might sniff them out.

Not that we can look at a story about a molester and go "ah the person who wrote this is a molester." We can't assume one to one like that.

But there are some things we can notice before we know. "Huh, JKR seems to like calling villainous women masculine in some way. Kind of makes me nervous about whether she'd think my trans women friends are ugly or something."

And THAT's okay. "I get a funny feeling when I read this." "I'm not sure I'd like this person, all his characters are constantly snapping at people and finding fault. I think I'm going to introduce myself and then find a table on the other side of the room, thanks."

The problem isn't that creatives aren't ever creepy. We're people, and we have the same variations in character and personality as any other people. And yes, sometimes that's going to show up in our work.

The problem is assuming the thing you see in the work that bothers you corresponds one to one with the fear it stirs up in you. Maybe that person writes a lot of children getting hurt not because they like kids, but because they were abused. That kind of thing.

What people really need to do is learn how to see "I stopped reading that because it bothered me" as an initial intriguing bit of information about which more research can be done if they want.

I really think everyone needs to truly internalize this:

Fictional characters are objects.

They are not people. You cannot "objectify" them, because they have no personhood to be deprived of. They have no humanity to be erased. You cannot "disrespect" them, because they are not real.