Goodspeed cancels Woody's show — Page 2

bk said: "I know that the man was found INNOCENT by two separate investigative entities - read the article I posted."

No investigations find someone innocent. Even juries don't find people innocent. They determine whether there is enough evidence to bring charges. Even then, it is not up to them whether the charges have merit, just that there is enough to run with...

It's not good enough to dismiss anybody who finds the accusations credible as pontificating "without any knowledge whatsoever" - if bk would care to click this link, perhaps he might address some of the concerns?

It contends that, in fact, Woody is the brainwasher, and goes into great detail of specific incidents and quotes to back up that assertion. Recommended.

Brainwashing Woody

I get where bk is coming from too, but when he asks us to "research", that just leads me down a rabbit hole of conflicting opinions. I can read one article and lean toward believing Dylan, and another that will make me doubt her - that's why I am (uncomfortably) reserving judgement. It's such a heinous crime, I would want to be absolutely sure before branding him a monster.

By the way, seeing as bk's Robert Weide link is two years old and focuses so heavily on Mia's defence of Roman Polanksi - Has Mia ever reached out to her over these past forty years to explain her lack of solidarity with the victim? - perhaps it is worth noting that Mia has indeed since apologized to Samantha Geimer, if only in a tweet.

Until someone is found guilty in court, he or she is innocent. Innocent people should not suffer blacklisting.

Hunt down wrong-doers by every legal means possible, but we are in dangerous waters if we start to find people guilty on the grounds of seeming creepy.

'The Crucible' seems to be the essential play for our times.

And I have lost respect for Colin Firth- etc.- any any actor/actress who states publicly they will not work for Woody again- and regret they did in the first place- regardless- Woody is now poison in Hollywood and is another victim of a very much needed movement to expose sexual harassment and abuse- but these unfortunate victims who get included- well, I guess that is the way these things go- but Woody is now persona non grata- unfortunately for such a creative genius.

Jay Lerner-Z said: "It's not good enough to dismiss anybody who finds the accusations credible as pontificating "without any knowledge whatsoever" - if bk would care to click thislink, perhaps he might address some of the concerns?

It contends that, in fact, Woody is the brainwasher, and goes into great detail of specific incidents and quotes to back up that assertion. Recommended.

Brainwashing Woody



"

Fascinating discussion at the
link. Thank you.

BK, if you read that link,
you'll find that while the
judge found insufficient
evidence to establish Allen's
guilt; he most certainly
did not find Allen "innocent"
of all misconduct.

Confidential to BK: you might
want to look up the meaning
of "de facto". My own step-
children were not legally re-
lated to me until I was fi-
nally able to marry their
father ten years ago. That
made me no less a step-
father, as they will be happy
to tell you.

Yes, I realize Mrs. Allen
denies that she thought of
Allen as a father figure. But,
really, what else can she
say in defense of her hus-
band? The fact remains,
she was 9 when she first
met him. I would consider
any 9-year-old I met as an
adult strictly off limits, ro-
mantically. It's called being
a grown-up. But carrying
on a sexual affair with a
20-year-old while still
involved with her mother
is just despicable! Whether
Allen's work should be
boycotted is a different
issue and not one I care
to explore here.

GavestonPS said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "It's not good enough to dismiss anybody who finds the accusations credible as pontificating "without any knowledge whatsoever" - if bk would care to click thislink, perhaps he might address some of the concerns?

It contends that, in fact, Woody is the brainwasher, and goes into great detail of specific incidents and quotes to back up that assertion. Recommended.

Brainwashing Woody



"

Fascinating discussion at the
link. Thank you.

BK, if youread that link,
you'll find that while the
judge found insufficient
evidence toestablish Allen's
guilt; he most certainly
did not find Allen "innocent"
of all misconduct.

Confidential to BK: you might
want to look up the meaning
of "de facto". My own step-
children were not legally re-
lated to me until I was fi-
nally able to marry their
father ten years ago. That
made me no less a step-
father, as they will be happy
to tell you.

Yes, I realize Mrs. Allen
denies that she thought of
Allen as a father figure. But,
really, what else can she
say in defense of her hus-
band? The fact remains,
she was 9 when she first
met him. I would consider
any 9-year-old I met as an
adult strictly off limits, ro-
mantically. It's called being
a grown-up. But carrying
on a sexual affair with a
20-year-old while still
involved with her mother
is just despicable! Whether
Allen's work should be
boycotted is a different
issue and not one I care
to explore here."

Read up on the judge - read the article I posted rather than the one that supports what you already believe. He was NOT involved with her mother when they began their affair. His involvement with her mother romantically was done. And has been stated by Soon-Yi many times, he was NEVER around her, NEVER was a father figure. Sorry, you think what you want and I'll think what I want. More importantly why do your posts look like this? Like they're poetry or something?

GavestonPS said: "bk, we can certainly agree
to disagree. As Kadpointed
out above, part of the
problem with Allen is the
way his work at least used
to intersect with the charges
against him. That being said,
I stillwatch Allen's films from
time to timewhen theyshow
up on TV. It wasn'tI who
proposed a boycottnor did
I applaud the cancellation
of BULLETSOVER
BROADWAY.

***

My posts look the way they
do because BWW's soft-
ware displays ads over the
righthand side of my post
and reply box. So I can't
see and proofread my posts
unless I insert a hard return
everywhere I "guess" a line
willbreak when the post
is added to the thread.

If you have a solution, I
will be grateful to hear it."



I hit quote message and I don't get anything but this message box to type in. I'm on a desktop iMac.

Really can't believe there are people here who think Woody is innocent. Literally everyone else in the world knows he is guilty.

I think Moses Farrow's statements and the finding of two investigations say it all. I have long believed that Mia Farrow--who at 25 broke up the Dory Previn-Andre Previn marriage--was so incensed by the breakup with longtime lover Allen that she poured lies into their innocent young daughter, denying her a father. That is what's despicable here. Allen's judgments may not always have been the best, but he is no Weinstein monster.

The only reason to change the program should have been quality of the show. While I mildly liked Bullets Over Broadway, The Drowsy Chaperone is a much better show.

Updated On: 1/29/18 at 06:29 PM

BWAY Baby2 said: "Yes- we all have the right to support- or not support- any artist or performer we choose to support- it all becomes problematic if someone is unfairly targeted and their career ruined over allegations that are not substantiated- or that are false. Can we all agree with that? For instance, it was not okay for certain screenwriters to be banned from Hollywood during the McCarty era because they were communist- when they really were not. That is where it gets dicey. It is good and righteous to del with harassment and abuse- assault- when it is an issue and clearly occurred- it is not okay to punish and ruin someone who is unfairly accused and did not actually commit the act. Agreed? I hope so. This is the crux of the Woody Allen case- and unfortunately- in this he said/ she said- it is very unclear who is the liar."

Woody Allen ruined? He's made a
movie every year since the scandal
broke. We should all be punished
so unfairly!

As for McCarthyism, nobody should
have been blacklisted even IF they
were Communists. This is a demo-
cracy and anyone has a right to
subscribe to Communist ideals if
he or she chooses. Blacklisting
should require evidence of actual
treason, not just attendance at a
meeting.

^^^ I didn't know all that, BWAY.
Thanks for the info.

Let's see where we--and Allen--
are in a year or two.