02-04-2014, 07:45 PM
Say what you will about Russel Brand but his perspective and experience with addiction shows how many people are left in the dark about addictions.
I highly suggest that everyone who cares to read this.
Sorry if this has been posted before.
02-04-2014, 11:29 PM
Yeah, watched it last night. Good film, but somewhat off-putting given the current context
Originally Posted by Hazekiah
Synedoche, New York is an all-time favourite.
02-05-2014, 01:31 AM
I'm still so saddened by his death. Usually, when a celebrity dies, I find it annoying how much people kiss their ass and say how great they were. But that isn't the case with PSH, he really was that great of an actor. His performance in The Master is insane, I was in awe when I saw it in theaters.
Originally Posted by xmd 5a
02-05-2014, 11:20 AM
Really a great film that not enough people saw
Originally Posted by xmd 5a
02-05-2014, 04:01 PM
I saw that film on my 28th B-day. Definitely a strange film but I certainly enjoyed it as his performance is my top 5 list of his best performances.
Originally Posted by Jinsai
02-07-2014, 09:36 AM
Police arrest session musician in connection with Philip Seymour Hoffman death
02-07-2014, 02:55 PM
Clint Eastwood saves a man from choking to death
83 years old and still a badass mofo... when he's not talking to empty chairs.
02-07-2014, 09:02 PM
Woody Allen responds to Dylan Farrow's op-ed; regurgitates accusations and victim-blaming of his most vocal supporters. http://www.donotlink.com/dqu
Go fuck yourself.
"I would never molest a child in an attic because I'm claustrophobic"
02-07-2014, 09:56 PM
Random Celebrity Headlines
Last edited by allegro; 02-07-2014 at 10:39 PM.
02-07-2014, 11:29 PM
I'm really not buying these allegations. The whole thing smells fishy to me.
02-07-2014, 11:51 PM
It's not our business to determine that or to take sides. It's far too late for that.
The victim is still Dylan, whether or not it happened. The parents are fucked up celebrity idiots.
Last edited by allegro; 02-08-2014 at 12:13 AM.
02-08-2014, 12:19 AM
There was absolutely no doubt in my mind, after I read Mia Farrow's memoir, that Woody Allen raped that child and got away with it. Nothing I've seen since has contradicted the picture she so vividly painted of an excruciatingly warped man. She may be fucked up too, but she (misguidedly) took the actions she felt would protect her kids from a monstrously inept father. It's insane that he never went to jail for what he did, and Mia bears some of the blame for that.
02-08-2014, 08:42 AM
Random Celebrity Headlines
Mia's pediatrician determined that the child was "intact" and could find no evidence of vaginal or anal penetration so let's take the word "rape" off the table, here. There is sexual molestation and there is rape. But, further discussion of this, 22 years after the fact, is rather useless, except to hurt Woody's present teenage daughters. Unless this is to protect them. Dunno.
Both Woody and Mia are twisted ego-driven individuals. The very same year Mia was taking "actions she felt would protect her kids from a monstrously inept father," she was telling a judge that Woody was a wonderful father and recommended that Woody be the adoptive father of two of her current adopted children (Moses and Dylan) and the future father of a child she and Woody were adopting from Vietnam.
I also feel sorry for Soon-Yi, whom Mia has painted as being just short of mentally retarded (Soon-Yi allegedly has learning disabilities) because it took her "hours" to do her homework "with tutors" instead of "1/2 hour" like Mia's gifted children. Soon-Yi's biological mother was a prostitute who used to beat Soon Yi, and used to have Soon-Yi, as a toddler, kneel down and then she'd slam the door into Soon-Yi's head. Now, Andre Previn (Soon-Yi's adoptive father) says Soon-Yi is "dead to us." Isn't that nice? Marry Mom's boyfriend, boom, you're dead. Just like that.
You mentioned Mia's book which reminds me of this interview which was similar to the stuff I saw in divorce law.
By the way, here's the 60 Minutes piece from 1992, for those of you not cognizant of current events back then.
Last edited by allegro; 02-08-2014 at 11:55 AM.
02-08-2014, 04:06 PM
I haven't read one thing about it, and I intend to keep it that way. PSH's passing was one thing, since he was a local guy and I actually ended up spending the following day working with several people who went to school with him.
Originally Posted by Frozen Beach
But whatever fucked up shit is going on in some other guy's life is none of my business.
02-08-2014, 05:54 PM
02-09-2014, 02:49 PM
10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation
Fuck his apologists I'm sorry. Notice what kinds of information apologist articles, responses leave out.......Not to mention that the victim's own words contradict the horrendous cherry picking of those articles. Woody and his disgusting following are successfully making this seem about a "family feud" as opposed to Dylan and what she is trying to accomplish. I hope they don't succeed.
02-09-2014, 03:30 PM
Random Celebrity Headlines
You do realize that some of the articles are 22 years old, right? And that this is the first time she is publicly speaking about this? The "family feud" stuff has brewed for 22 years, it's not some new invented thing. The people who think both Woody and Mia are fucking batshit nuts and that neither should be parents (myself included) aren't exactly in the "apologist" camp.
Go ahead and read the decision in that custody case (as I and my coworkers and bosses did more than 20 years ago): that Judge should be shot. He found the panel's findings "unreliable," then he had the full legal authority (and moral obligation) to appoint a Guardian ad Litem (attorney for the child) and the GAL could then hire court-appointed child psychologists and experts and THAT CHILD WOULD NEVER TESTIFY IN AN OPEN COURT EVER. The state's attorney had the same ability and the same moral obligation to further investigate, to do everything in his power to take a sexual abuser, that little girl's father, off the streets so he'd be in prison where he belongs. But, they didn't. Why? Paid off? Not likely. Not want to "put the victim through more pain?" If that were true, no criminal trial would ever proceed and the court would be guilty of obstruction of justice. Then why?
Well, for one, the VF author isn't a legal expert and VF was successfully sued by Roman Polanski a few years ago (with the help of none other than Mia Farrow) so they ain't exactly Harvard Law Review.
All of the witnesses, from both Woody's and Mia's sides, are to be considered "unreliable" in the legal world, but the judge deeming the Yale panel "unreliable" should not have ended the whole thing; it should have meant that RELIABLE EXPERTS could have (should have) been appointed by the court (which the court had full authority to do); but, instead, the Judge drops it all, gives Woody supervised visitation of Satchel (wtf?!?), and eventually takes custody from Woody and gives it to Mia, and Mia names ones of her kids after the judge.
Only in Hollywood.
The fact is, this is 22 years later and this girl's mother failed to protect her (and was seemingly more worried about losing her $220,000 per year Woody Allen movie annuity), the legal system didn't bother to protect her, the Yale team found no evidence, the pediatrician found no evidence, so the only other hope she might have of nailing this guy is if more victims come forward because what we've learned from the Catholic Priest sex abuse scandal is this: pedophiles don't do this just once.
Last edited by allegro; 02-10-2014 at 10:06 AM.
02-09-2014, 05:18 PM
I was writing for Vanity Fair when the Woody Allen piece ran. Tina Brown's fact-checkers were still in place and I can assure you that they checked EVERYTHING with a lice comb. Even fluff pieces. Additionally, Maureen Orth is an incredible journalist who pays attention to every detail during an interview. She may not have had a law degree but she sure as hell was/is one of the best in the business.
Originally Posted by allegro
02-09-2014, 05:31 PM
Random Celebrity Headlines
But, their facts should not be cited as legal text in a complicated family law case that includes criminal elements. Even their "fact-checking" is done without legal expertise. This is important to note, sorry but it is. Journalism is journalism, law is law.
For instance, this:
"Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees."
This is cited as one of ten "Facts about the Case" that's somehow important. It's not. He sued for custody. He lost. He appealed. He lost. This is not a big surprise, since the vast majority of custody cases are awarded to the mothers. Vast majority. Does VF know this? I'm guessing no. Or, at least, I hope not. For their sake. Also, the legal fee thing is another day in court, no big deal, 100% normal. I've seen 1 million dollar fees in family law here in Chicago for people who ain't Hollywood directors. The losing party pays the other party's legal fees, that's the way it goes.
Also, you can't "fact-check" witness accounts. The legal system has shown that you can have 10 witnesses and will often get 8 different witness accounts. Which is why we have a legal system and a jury, to sort it all out. A shit ton of the "facts" listed on that page would be considered "hearsay" in a court of law. I'm just saying this from the legal standpoint; I sure as shit wish that these web sites and magazines would stop stating this shit as "legal fact" that people should know when coming to some kind of "decision" about a case that happened 22 years ago.
Look, people already made their decision 22 years ago and people who are new to this are going to make their decision, now. And that's everybody's right (as is a trial with a jury).
But, it seemed to me that Dylan's goal, in her letter, is for Hollywood actors to choose sides, here. And I'm not sure she's going to be successful. I wish her peace, though.
Last edited by allegro; 02-09-2014 at 07:32 PM.
02-10-2014, 10:05 AM
This really did stand out as an odd thing to say. I mean wtf.
Originally Posted by orestes
Allen doesn't address Dylan directly, it's as if he's trying to erase her from the picture. Also, IF you hadn't molested your daughter but she was convinced you had, wouldn't you want to tell HER how heartbroken you are that she's been misled all these years? He comes across as very cold and uncaring.
Another thing: Dylan says the abuse happened many times over a long stretch of time. Allen ignores this and talks about it as if it were a one-time event. He’s talking over her, not to her.
I think on principle we have a duty to believe the victim over the abuser: it's simply far far more likely that the victim is not lying about being abused and and the abuser is. The victim has far fewer reasons to lie: the abuser has every reason to.
As for the false memories theory I don't know what to say: maybe Woody Allen is the one with false memories, and has convinced himself he never did anything wrong. I remember very clearly when the father of a girl in my school touched my ass, when I was 10 or 11 years old.
Last edited by aggroculture; 02-10-2014 at 10:07 AM.
02-10-2014, 10:26 AM
I agree that it does seem insensitive to people who didn't follow the case 22 years ago that he, now, isn't saying this to Dylan. But, remember, his contention has always been that (a) it didn't happen and (b) Mia planted the whole thing into a highly-vulnerable 7-year-old's head. So, he is still blaming Mia, not Dylan. Which isn't completely impossible, since i've seen it happen in divorces (and I saw it proven when the accuser's sister said she collaborated). Not that it's the truth in this case, mind you; but, it happens. In a hostile custody case, there are lots and lots of reasons for everybody to lie. Including Woody Allen. Who's made a career out of being neurotic. And Mia Farrow, who was with Woody Allen for 12 years, despite his being a self-centered mess, and had him adopt a few of her children. He has said, many times, that he's heartbroken about Dylan, etc., this is old old news, it's all rehashed. But, given that he was proven to show "inappropriate" behavior around Dylan (clingy and weird), he may not remember behavior that was "inappropriate" to him, albeit grossly inappropriate and damaging to Dylan? His "memory" never included what he considered "molestation" because he didn't consider anything he did "inappropriate?" Maybe because he's nuts?
Note Judge Wilk's final Decision (linked in the above-referenced "TEN FACTS" VF article) re visitation with Dylan:
"A). Mr. Allen's request for immediate visitation with Dylan is denied. It is unclear whether Mr. Allen will ever develop insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately. According to Dr. Brodzindsky, even if Dylan was not sexually abused, she feels victimized by her father's relationship with her sister. Dylan has recently begun treatment with a new therapist. Now that this trial is concluded, she is entitled to the time and space necessary to create a protective environment that will promote the therapeutic process. A significant goal of that therapy is to encourage her to fulfill her individual potential, including the resilience to deal with Mr. Allen in a manner which is not injurious to her.
The therapist witnesses agree that Mr. Allen may be able to serve a positive role in Dylan's therapy. Dr. Brodzyinsky emphasized that because Dylan is quite fragile and more negatively affected by stress than the average child, she should visit with Mr. Allen only within a therapeutic context. This function, he said, should be undertaken by someone other than Dylan's treating therapist. Unless it interferes with Dylan's individual treatment or is inconsistent with her welfare, this process is to be initiated within six months. A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan's therapy."
Edit: By the way, here's the leaked portion of the Yale-New Haven report.
Last edited by allegro; 02-10-2014 at 06:01 PM.
02-10-2014, 10:38 AM
Yes but the custody case is long over and done with. It was Mia and Ronan and then Dylan that brought this up again: what reason would they have to do this, especially Mia, if it had been a fabrication in order to win custody? To launch Ronan's media career as some cynics have suggested? Seriously? I think if it were untrue Mia would hardly be revisiting it. But then again here I am applying logic to this highly charged event.
02-10-2014, 10:49 AM
The whole thing began (again) when Woody Allen received that honorary award thingaminy for lifetime achievement or something. It's Dylan's way to say "look at who you're celebrating".
Dylan is a victim. Either she's the victim of sexual abuse by her adoptive father or she's the victim of "brainwashing" from her adoptive mother. She's most definitively the victim of two adults who let her down big time. She's most definitely the victim of the justice system who let her down too when it was supposed to protect her. She want acknowledgment for what has happened to her (real or not; the important thing is that she believes it is) and she wants justice. Since she can't have justice in a court of law, she's seeking it in a court of public opinion.
My heart goes out to her.
02-10-2014, 11:01 AM
can this be madeinto a separate thread?
02-12-2014, 09:29 PM
Nah. We are re-hashing the re-hash.
Originally Posted by GibbonBlack
If I had the strength, I'd go dig up the original child abuse case around my neck of the woods where the investigators pre-loaded this day care kids, sent a dude of to prison for years when he didn't do anything (apparently) So, yes, I'm a bit cynical on all this coming up again 20 years later. I can't like
post more than once because she put it best. Regardless, both her "parents" have failed her. I hope she can find some peace somewhere sometime.
In other craptastic celebrity news, did anyone hear about The Beibs getting into a row with Blake Griffin at a Starbucks? Someone told me this yesterday and I called bullshit when the story read: "Beibs gotten in Blake Griffin's face". I mean really, isn't there a two foot height difference? Believable - not. Look at me, I'm reporting rumors now.
02-15-2014, 07:11 AM
02-18-2014, 07:11 PM
02-19-2014, 02:36 AM
RIP, Bob. So sad. I feel really bad for Devo.
Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin's cameraman and "best mate" reveals Irwin's last words before dying from stingray sting: "I'm dying."
CLOSE THE INQUIRY, THE TRUTH HAS COME OUT!