Allen has certainly not escaped condemnation or backlash–that not everyone does so doesn’t mean many haven’t. And there is ample evidence to put into question Allen’s guilt.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html (offered as an example and not as a definitive source). In contrast, the allegations about Cosby were generally known for many years without much damage to his career or reputation. It has only been with the large number of accusers that this changed.–and deservedly so.
You know, I’m sure anyone trying to point out factual inaccuracies in this piece will be told, “but, but, it’s an OPINION piece!” but I’m going to try anyway. Because IMO even an opinion piece can’t just make up facts.
So, first, I’d like to point out that the author apparently does not understand the difference between the meaning of, “sexist,” and, “person accused of sexual assault.” Without even debating the underlying merits of her argument, it is entirely clear that she has applied the first term as if it were interchangeable with the second, and that yet another sign of TPM’s willingness to prioritize click-baity headlines over journalistic accuracy.
Second, though, and more importantly, has the author actually done any research about Allen prior to writing this piece, or is she just going on stuff she heard some people say at a party one night? Because she states that, “Allen has lost every time this has gone to court,” while that is actually the opposite of the truth regarding the allegations against him.
Josh, I think you have probably been among the many people who have at one time pointed to someone like Senator Inhofe or some Tea Party protestor and used the phrase, “You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts.” You really should try to apply the same standards to your own staff.
That said–hey the new site redesign looks great! (seriously)
What a person thinks about the accusations against Woody Allen seems to be more related to their age rather than their gender. I am a woman in my fifties, and having living memory of the McMartin media hysteria, I am inclined to be skeptical of Dylan Farrows accusations(even though I think she believes it) and even more skeptical of those that choose to exploit the situation for their own reasons.
Marcotte isn’t part of his staff. She’s a writer who TPM posts from time to time (she used to be at Slate regularly, probably still is…). In my experience, she does play a little fast and loose with the facts, so I tend to avoid her articles or I read them for the comments.
A few thoughts that come to mind.
First, when the Woody Allen allegations came out almost two decades ago (1997), I recall there was a tremendous backlash against him as a person and artist, which took another decade at least before the incident was brought up. Cosby is only what, one or two months away from public knowledge of the allegations and hasn’t had to defend himself in court at this point.
Second, Woody Allen married the subject of his own scandal, has been so since, with no apparent repeat of his behavior. Cosby, on the other hand drugged and raped his many and varied targets, over half a dozen decades, having to settle out of court to make several go away.
Finally, we live with a judicial system where you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Allen has been to court several times, it seems, and is yet to be found guilty of the charges leveled against him by his ex-wife, and refer back to my second point. Cosby is still dissembling and trying to negate the charges against him in the public forum. I suppose we could adopt the classic Greek system of exile, but I’ll keep the innocent until proven guilty standard myself.
I appreciate the author is trying to be provocative to make her point, but dissembling over Mia Farrow being Woody Allen’s ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, whore, slut, whatever detracts from her argument by appearing vindictive. The same can be said by ignoring that Allen has been married to Soon-Yi for 17 years and focusing on championing the arguments of his ex-wife, which again have already been found insubstantial by a court of law.
Bill Cosby has been getting away with his sexual assaults for more than 40 years. He was able to have a career that made him hundreds of millions dollars while allegedly raping and drugging over 20 women and probably a number of other accusers we will never know about because they were too afraid, bought off or both.
I am not defending Woody Allen at all but good god Bill Cosby did not suffer any negative impact on his career until he was 77 years old. He is not in jail and the most he will ever suffer is a loss of respect. The women he allegedly assaulted suffered far more than he did.
I question the entire premise.
The allegations against Allen are entirely different and unrelated to those against Cosby. And clearly, in the court of public opinion neither man is getting a free pass. Who would want to go through his golden years known as a legendary pervert?
This is just lazy celebrity gossip dressed up as opinion journalism.
This writer is an idiot for equating Woody Allen and Bill Cosby. I’m DONE with TPM.
This is sloppy journalism: Ms. Marcotte implies that Woody Allen is a child molester. She offers no proof. There’s a single accusation made against him during a time when the Mia Farrow household was in an uproar because Allen fell in love with Farrow’s adopted daughter, whom he has since married and with whom he has two daughters. (BTW, Allen and Farrow never married or cohabited.) During that turbulent time, Ms. Farrow called Allen a child molester before the alleged event with Dylan took place. To many of us who have studied the case, it appears that false memory syndrome is a very real possibility. (Look it up, Ms. Marcotte.) We can never know with certainty, of course, but the decision to compare the Allen case to the Cosby case is disingenuous at best. In Cosby’s case, though he’s never been taken to court, there’s now a pattern of abuse that’s alleged over many decades with many women. I understand that tabloid writers like to stir the pot in order to get readers to react, but surely TPM can hold its writers to the same standard that I might impose in a Journalism 101 class?
If this was about Woody Allen obscure Omaha insurance salesman, no one would doubt Dylan and Allen would have spent the last two decades fending off advances from his cellmates. But instead this is about Woody Allen famous Hollywood filmmaker just as blindly beloved by his fans as Joe Paterno and the Nittany Lions were beloved by Penn State alumni — accept of course that Allen has gotten away with his sex crimes.
You don’t know facts, but you cling to your opinion. How creepy is that?
He committed no sex crimes; no evidence was found, dumbo.
See the first thing I thought when I finished reading the piece was “Why is she hitting Allen, which is a dubious case at best, when she has a perfect example in Roman Polanski?” Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He was convicted of it, sentenced to prison and he skipped town going to Switzerland where there is no extradition treaty. He has openly admitted and tried to apologize for knowingly drugging and raping a 13 year old girl! Jack Nicholson (!) has denounced Polanski and has referred to him by all sorts of horrible names (it was at Nicholson’s house that Polanski drugged and raped the child). If Nicholson thinks you are a sexual predator you have gone too far.
And yet Hollywood embraces him as some misunderstood genius. When he won the Oscar for the Pianist, because he can’t set foot on American soil without being arrested, Adrian Brody accepted the award for him and the audience (with the notable exception of Nicholson who sat quietly in the front row) gave him a standing ovation!
So if you want to compare clearly guilty rapists, with one not being punished by society at all, Polanski is your go to guy. I for one will never see one of his movies, and I also boycott stars who appear in his films (like Brody).
For the record, if Polanski had done his time in prison, he would be out by now, and I would have less of a problem watching his films. My disgust comes from his skipping town, and Hollywood’s unwavering support of a child rapist.
/End off-topic Roman Polanski is a child-raping monster rant.
He wasn’t married to Mia.
Are you nuts??? It’s obvious. Why even raise the question? One is a serial rapist. The other is not.
Good grief.
Ick and Ickier…There are no winners in stories like these and rarely justice though anyone familiar with aspects of the stories will tend to come to their own conclusions based on their own observations and experiences. The NASCAR driver and the hitman girlfriend is a new one, however…
Another obvious possibility is that it’s a lot harder to brush off 24 fingers pointing at you than one.
You know how they say the simplest explanation is probably the right one?
Whether Woody “revived” Mia’s career is debatable but I for one do not think he did. She had been well known ever since Rosemary’s Baby. He put her in starring roles in movies that made a ton of money for him and he underpaid her for each one, sometimes no more than $200,000. He was not married to her, however.
It was his New York lovable nebbish persona which has enabled him to make films His latest films, and I include Blue Jasmine and more recently Magic In the Moonlight have been stinkers. He shows us in his films that he believes young, nubile women are attracted to old, unattractive men and that’s his frame of mind. If his lovable nebbish persona hadn’t prevailed all these years, we’d see him for the dirty old but money-making man he is.
I read this garbage because I thought maybe Marcotte had picked up a few new things and had new information to offer in addition to the reams of rehashing that went on after the Great Golden Globes Hoo-Ha. Unfortunately, is it Marcotte whose lack of credibility is settled once and for all with the cogent comments of so many on this thread. Now I know I don’t ever have to read anything of hers again. Thanks, TPM.
Ronan looks a lot like Frank and not at all like Woody.