Science Guardian

Truth, power and paradigm politics in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

Separating fact from fiction: News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, vaccines, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Georgios Papanikolaou txt, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd/vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell vd, Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler cv/txt/bk/bk/bk/vd/vd, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, John Brockman, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis bk/bk/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

None so sure as those who are under researched. - Anthony Le Vere Sage

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Atlantic’s PeoplevsCancer Conference Takes Lid Off Cancer Cure Struggle

November 13th, 2019

Today the new annual Atlantic Magazine public meeting on the outlook for a cure for cancer took place in the relatively inaccessible hotel Conrad on the south east corner of Manhattan, with frosty weather threatening by the late afternoon. But the interesting and revealing sessions are being/were streamed at http://peoplevcancer.theatlantic.com/, where they will be maintained from now on with any luck, as last year’s were.

Here is the program, at http://peoplevcancer.theatlantic.com/?sf112323624=1, with live video available by moving up and down the full stream.

Agenda

Note: All times are ET

9:00 a.m.

Welcome

Margaret Low, President, AtlanticLIVE

The Program

What’s on the Horizon?

Laurie Glimcher, President and CEO, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
WITH Alison Stewart, Host, All of It, WNYC; AtlanticLIVE Contributor

My Story: All of Us Against Cancer

Dara Richardson-Heron, Chief Engagement Officer, All of Us Research Program, National Institutes of Health

Bristol-Myers Squibb Presents: Giving Patients a Voice

Produced by our underwriter and not The Atlantic editorial team

Samit Hirawat, Chief Medical Officer, Global Drug Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Linda House, President, Cancer Support Community
WITH Justin Birckbichler, Educator and Founder, aBallsySenseofTumor.com

Finding Meaning in the Moment

Kate Bowler, Author, Everything Happens for a Reason and Other Lies I’ve Loved; Associate Professor, Duke Divinity School
Sunita Puri, Author, That Good Night: Life and Medicine in the Eleventh Hour; Medical Director, Palliative Medicine, Keck Hospital and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California
WITH Jeanne Meserve, Journalist

Can Immunotherapy Scale Up?

David Chang, President, Co-Founder, and CEO, Allogene
Alex Marson, Associate Professor, Microbiology and Immunology, UCSF; Scientific Director of Biomedicine, Innovative Genomics Institute
Sara Nayeem, Partner, New Enterprise Associates
WITH Ross Andersen, Deputy Editor, The Atlantic

American Association for Cancer Research Presents: Driving Progress Against Cancer

Produced by our underwriter and not The Atlantic editorial team

Raymond DuBois, Past President, American Association for Cancer Research; Dean, College of Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina
WITH Charles Graeber, Author, The Breakthrough

Your Data Could Save Your Life

Kathy Giusti, Founder, Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation; Co-Chair, Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator, Harvard Business School
Andrew Norden, Chief Medical Officer, COTA
Dara Richardson-Heron, National Institutes of Health
WITH James Hamblin, Staff Writer, The Atlantic

A Preventable Cancer

Marcia Cross, Actor, HPV Educator, “Anal Cancer Thriver”
Marshall Posner, Director, Head and Neck Medical Oncology; Associate Director, Cancer Clinical Investigation, The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai
WITH Alison Stewart, WNYC

When Music Makes a Difference

Allen Louis, Member, Broadway Inspirational Voices
Michael McElroy, Founder and Musical Director, Broadway Inspirational Voices

11:30 a.m.

Breakouts

Aflac Presents: The New York Premiere of ‘Moments of Joy’

Produced by our underwriter and not The Atlantic editorial team

Andrew Levy, President, Chispa House
WITH Jon Sullivan, Director of Corporate Communications, Aflac

American Association for Cancer Research Presents: Collaborations Against Cancer: Patients Partnering with Scientists

Produced by our underwriter and not The Atlantic editorial team

Aime Franco, Director, Pediatric Thyroid Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Thyroid Cancer Survivor
Emil Lou, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Transplantation, University of Minnesota
Brian Rivers, Director, Cancer Health Equity Institute, Morehouse School of Medicine
Col. (Ret) James E. William, Jr, Prostate Cancer Survivor
WITH Erin Schumaker, Health and Science Reporter, ABC

Amgen Oncology Presents: It’s Personal–Advancing Precision Medicine

Produced by our underwriter and not The Atlantic editorial team

Hossein Borghaei, Chief, Division of Thoracic Medical Oncology, Professor, Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center
I-Fen Chang, Executive Medical Director of Global Oncology, Amgen
Linda House, President, Cancer Support Community
Jordan Laser, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Bristol-Myers Squibb Presents: Survivorship Today

Produced by our underwriter and not The Atlantic editorial team

Rose Gerber, Director of Patient Advocacy and Education, Community Oncology Alliance
Xenia Rybak, Cancer Survivor, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship
WITH Adam Lenkowsky, General Manager, Head, U.S. Commercial, Bristol-Myers Squibb

12:15 p.m.

Networking Lunch

Underwritten by Amgen Oncology

1:00 p.m.

Welcome Back

Steve Alperin, Co-Founder and CEO, SurvivorNet

My Story: Cancer as Metaphor

Ibram X. Kendi, Author, How to Be an Antiracist; Director, The Antiracist Research and Policy Center, American University

How Medicaid Expansion Saved Lives

Blythe Adamson, Senior Quantitative Scientist, Flatiron Health
Yousuf Zafar, Associate Professor, Medicine and Public Policy, Duke Cancer Institute, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University School of Medicine
WITH Olga Khazan, Staff Writer, The Atlantic

The Truth About Food and Cancer

Nagi Kumar, Senior Member, Moffitt Cancer Center
Yael Vodovotz, Professor and Director, Center for Advanced Functional Foods, Research and Entrepreneurship, Ohio State University
WITH James Hamblin, The Atlantic

My Story: From Surviving to Thriving

Amy Armstrong, U.S. CEO, Initiative

Preventing the First Malignant Cell

Steve Kafka, Executive Chairman, Thrive Earlier Detection
Robert Nussbaum, Chief Medical Officer, Invitae
Diane Simeone, Director, Pancreatic Cancer Center, NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center
WITH Jeanne Meserve

Magic Mushrooms and Mental Health

Alyson Moadel-Robblee, Director, Psychosocial Oncology Program; Founding Director, Bronx Oncology Living Daily Program, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care
Stephen Ross, Director, NYU Addictive Disorders and Experimental Therapeutics Research Laboratory; Co-Director, NYU Psychedelic Research Group
WITH Olga Khazan, The Atlantic

The Community Embrace

Patrick Dempsey, Actor and Producer; Founder, Dempsey Center
Wendy Tardif, Executive Director, Dempsey Center
WITH Alison Stewart, WNYC

3:00 p.m.

Closing Thoughts

Margaret Low, The Atlantic

Coffee, Cookies, and Conversation

Though it was founded and partly funded by Bristol Myers Squibb, along with other corporate stalwarts of the profit making sector, the program contained some interesting examples of movement towards understanding and exploitation of plant phytochemicals in fending off cancer, as well as sad examples of the fact that identifying potential genetic mutations as the trigger of cancer is still a specious element in the luring of patients into radical prophylactic interventions.

People Power! Left Forum Flips History, Politics into Daylight as Parade of Exploitation

July 3rd, 2019

The irreplaceable Left Forum 2019 featured once again a panoply of panels, fluent speakers, original books, activist periodicals and pamphlets galore, all essentially with the same fundamental message, which is that if the scales of corporate media and government propaganda are removed from our eyes, we will see all our naive assumptions overturned like stones in the Garden of Eden to expose the wriggling worms of exploitation and slavery that have overcome us unawares, owing to the incessant bombardment of our minds from birth by both blatant and subtle propaganda on behalf of capitalism and parallel structures of exploitation by the strong of the weak in human society, even in this supposed great democracy we always understood to be leading the world forward by example into a paradise of welfare via warfare, and material riches for all.

For us the highlight of this massive choral harmony of leftist theory and analysis of our times and previous times was the brilliant exposition of the panel of American Exceptionalism vs American Innocence, and the book of the same title that accompanied it, together with another for sale by Dan Kovalik, one of the four panelists who turned out to be a speaker with a whole dictionary of provocative castigation of the sins of our current rulers which he had already used in his current paperback, The Plot to Overthrow Venezuela – How the US is Orchestrating a Coup for Oil, with a foreword by Oliver Stone (Hot Books, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, US 18.99).

Session 2: Saturday June 29th, 12:30pm – 2:30pm
Dismantling the U.S. Empire’s Fake News: Lessons from the Book “American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News–From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror.” Black Agenda Report Speakers:
Margaret Kimberley, Danny Haiphong, Dan Kovalik, Glen Ford
Room:LLC 124

Margaret Kimberley is Editor and Senior Columnist at Black Agenda Report. She is a regular guest on radio and internet talk shows and has appeared on Al Jazeera English, RT, WBAI, KPFK, Presstv Iran, The Real News Network, Govorit Moskva (Moscow Voice Radio) and GRITtv. She was a contributor to the 2014 book Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence. Ms. Kimberley serves on the Administrative Committee of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC), the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace and the Advisory Board of ExposeFacts.org. She is writing a book about racism and the American presidency. She is a graduate of Williams College and lives in New York City. @freedomrideblog https://freedomrider.blogspot.com/
margaret dot kimberley at black agenda report dot com
patreon.com/margaretkimberley
Danny Haiphong is a regular contributor to Black Agenda Report. He has been involved in anti-war and anti-imperialist organizing and journalism since 2010. He is currently a graduate student in social work and lives in New York City.
Daniel Kovalik is Senior Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO (USW). He has worked for the USW since graduating from Columbia Law School in 1993. While with the USW, he has served as lead counsel on cutting-edge labor law litigation, including the landmark NLRB cases of Lamons Gasket and Specialty Health Care. He has also worked on Alien Tort Claims Act cases against The Coca-Cola Company, Drummond and Occidental Petroleum – cases arising out of egregious human rights abuses in Colombia. The Christian Science Monitor, referring to his work defending Colombian unionists under threat of assassination, recently described Mr. Kovalik as “one of the most prominent defenders of Colombian workers in the United States.” Mr. Kovalik received the David W. Mills Mentoring Fellowship from Stanford University School of Law and was the recipient of the Project Censored Award for his article exposing the unprecedented killing of trade unionists in Colombia. He has written extensively on the issue of international human rights and U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post and Counterpunch and has lectured throughout the world on these subjects.
Daniel Kovalik currently teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He also served for over 25 years as Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO (USW). He began working for the USW after graduating from Columbia Law School in 1993. While with the USW, he served as lead counsel on cutting-edge labor law litigation, including the landmark NLRB cases of Lamons Gasket and Specialty Health Care. He has also worked on Alien Tort Claims Act cases against The Coca-Cola Company, Drummond and Occidental Petroleum – cases arising out of egregious human rights abuses in Colombia. The Christian Science Monitor, referring to his work defending Colombian unionists under threat of assassination, recently described Mr. Kovalik as “one of the most prominent defenders of Colombian workers in the United States.” Mr. Kovalik received the David W. Mills Mentoring Fellowship from Stanford University School of Law and was the recipient of the Project Censored Award for his article exposing the unprecedented killing of trade unionists in Colombia. He has written extensively on the issue of international human rights and U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post and Counterpunch and has lectured throughout the world on these subjects. The books he has written are: The Plot to Attack Iran: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Iran; The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin, and The Plot to Control the World: How the US Spent Billions to Change the Outcome of Elections Around the World
Glen Ford Glen Ford is Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report. He is a veteran journalist who co-founded America’s Black Forum in 1977. ABF was the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program. He is author of “The Big Lie: Analysis of U.S. Press Coverage of the Grenada invasion.

Left Forum 2019, Now in Brooklyn, Smells Blood

June 26th, 2019

Crack Commentators Such as Glen Ford Are Realistic About Potential Gains, But Moment is Now

A Parade of Possibilities If Only Trump Can be Defeated

Vast Program Ranges Far and Wide, Blunts Ability to Choose Among Rival Panels

The upcoming, political, uniquely enlightening global conference called The Left Forum gathering over this three day weekend in Brooklyn has the usual overcrowded agenda, where too many appealing panels occur simultaneously to allow you to pick out which ones to give first priority to, let alone plan full attendance without keeping several in hand to switch to if necessary.

So once again the necessity of simultaneously also working through the many interesting table offerings outside the panel rows makes the final conference outcome for each attendee more a matter of serendipity than careful planning.

In view is the same phenomenon that has distinguished the Forum in previous years at the insoluble maze of John Jay College over on the West 60s where in one participant’s description “lost souls could be seen wandering blindly from one panel door to the next searching for the one they had in mind to try next”.

But no doubt given that all topics are approached from the left – ie the standpoint of human values instead of unthinking support of the current predatory system – it will yield the same bounty of new thinking and fresh printed matter as ever, certainly on the newly prominent issues of social and economic justice that Trump has succeeded so splendidly in bringing to the fore over the last two years.

Never before has the Left Forum been so relevant as a forum for progressive ideas which have to be worked out for implementation in 2020 if all goes well, and the Democrats produce a candidate who can beat Trump.

The best way to work through the program and pick out panels, and films to attend is to go to the Left Forum Website where each mention can be clicked to reveal the names of participants and each name clicked for a full bio.

But here below is a text list for immediate use and comment:

Program 2019**************

Continuing a tradition begun in the 1960’s, Left Forum convenes the largest annual conference in the United States of a broad spectrum of Left and progressive intellectuals, activists, academics, organizations and the interested public. Conference participants come together to share ideas and offer critical perspectives on the world; to network and strengthen organizational ties; to better understand commonalities, differences, and alternatives to current predicaments; and to develop dialogues about social transformation and Left, progressive, radical, and social movement building. Featured speakers have included Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Arundhati Roy and Slavoj Zizek. Each year Left Forum has 1,000+ speakers, and involved 4,000 attendees and more than 350 panels.

Beginning with the celebrated Arab Spring and the explosive revolts in Greece and beyond uprisings against dictators, crony capitalism, corporate greed and neo-liberal state austerity regimes have spread across the globe. Tactical innovation in the new movements from Tahrir Square to Madison, Wisconsin are breaking down old barriers in the fight for a better future for the world’s people and the planet.

Although it has been a long time coming, the Occupy Wall Street movement’s message is clear: one percent of people living in the wealthiest nation in the world have grabbed most of the country’s wealth and used it to corrupt politics, while unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, strangling student debt and rising poverty grip the rest of the population. The world is changing, the people are rising, and new possibilities for the Left are emerging.

As it has done for many years, the conference gather civil libertarians, environmentalists, anarchists, socialists, communists, trade unionists, black and Latino freedom fighters, feminists, anti-war activists, students and people struggling against unemployment, foreclosure, inadequate housing and deteriorating schools from among those active in the U.S. and many other countries, as well. We will again share our activities and perspectives with special attention to all that has changed in recent years and what it means for the prospects of progressive change.

Once a year, the Left Forum creates a space to analyze the great political questions of our times. Activists, intellectuals, trade unionists, movement-builders and others come together to identify new strategies for broadening the anti-corporate capitalist movement. In the wake of a persistent crisis of the international economic and political system, a new left politics in the United States and around the world is taking shape. Will the mass movements in Egypt, Greece, Latin America, the United States and elsewhere further extend their participatory democratic, community-building, non-capitalist, and caring forms of struggle into the institutions of everyday life? Will the movements confront and disrupt the complicity of neo-liberal state elites with corporate capital? Are there alternatives to the increasingly brutal capitalist system on the horizon? Join us in exploring such questions and moving forward left agendas for social change.

#LEFTFORUM2019
June 28th Fri-30th Sunday
Location: Long Island University in Brooklyn One University Plaza in Brooklyn, NY.
By Subway: IRT: 4 or 5 train (Lexington Avenue Line) or 2 or 3 train (Seventh Avenue Line) to Nevins Street Station; BMT: B, Q, or R train to DeKalb Avenue Station; IND: A, C, or G train (Eighth Avenue Line) to Hoyt Schermerhorn Street Station.
For subway information, visit: http://www.mta.info/nyct.

Program
*****************************

    Session A: Friday June 28th, 5:00pm – 7:00 pm

Lenin: His Works’ Pertinence Here and Now
Election Integrity: Publicly Verified Elections and Informed Public Are Key to De-Corrupting Our Democracy!
Coordinating Twitterstorms to Win on Social Media
The Shared Stories of Religion and Socialism
Lessons from the Warzone: A New Model for Engaging Campuses, Creating Dialogue, and Fighting Extremism
Anti-Fascism, Anti-Communism, and the New Anti-Semitism
Drinking the ‘Trope’-icana: Weaponizing Anti-Semitism Against the Left
Confronting Race and Racism in Education
Historians and the Current Crisis: Old/New Ideas for Organizing against Wealth and Power
Going forward with the Media in the Left today: The Pacifica Case
The Rise and Demise (Hopefully) of Toxic Masculinity
The Housing Question
Combating US War and Regime Change Threats against Iran, Cuba and Venezuela.
Muslim Political Prisoners and the EGO Relief Act
NYC Libraries: A Public Realm And Democratic Commons Under Siege As A Panoply of Interests Align To Dismantle Them
Writing Dissent in Crime Fiction
The Politics of Pesticides: Some things too many Leftists don’t think about and should
Friday June 28th, Film Screenings 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Screening: “The Corporate Coup d’Etat”

OffCenter: The Emergence of a Counterculture Linked to POC and Queer Folk Existing in Small-Town Texarkana

SATURDAY *******************************

    Session 1: Saturday June 29th, 10:00am – 12:00pm

Black Liberation Strategies in the Empire of Exceptionalism
How America Became Capitalist: Race, Class, Gender, and Empire
Solving Climate Change: Tools for the Emotional Work
Between Earth and Empire: International Movements for Social and Ecological Regeneration with John P. Clark and Matt Meyer
Race, Class, Gender, and the University: Struggles Within and Beyond the Campus Walls
Xinjiang Reconsidered: Chinese Terror Capitalism, Internal Colonialism, and Neoplatonism
The History of the NYC Tenant Movement–An Interactive Workshop
Understanding Right Wing Internationalism
Views on Women´s Rights and Resistance from Literature, Education, Poetry, and Activism
Towards Building a Poor People’s Army: Organizing and Fighting for Our Lives!
Pan Africanism: A Solution to the Neo-Liberal Disaster
Disaster Capitalism, Colonialism and Climate Change: Puerto Rico in Crisis and Resistance
The Left Project in Psychiatry: Past, Present, and Future
Activists United: Free Bedouins From Israeli Occupation Death Grip
Continuing Solidarity with Cuba in the U.S.
Resisting the Anti-Defamation League’s Attacks Against Communities of Color—Nationally and Internationally
Jazz and Self Determination: A Social History #4
Is There a Socialist Case for Reparations?
Beyond Utopias, Beyond Partial Fixes: Envisioning the Structure of Socialism
100 Years Ago: Revolution in Germany
A Necessary Conversation about -Isms: Institutional Racism, Colorism, Internalized Racism and Social Mobilization in America
What Is Fascism and How Do We Fight It.
Birth Strike: The Hidden Fight Over Women’s Work with Jenny Brown and Laura Tanenbaum
The Rising Movement for a People’s Party
The Green New Deal

***************************************************

    Session 2: Saturday June 29th, 12:30pm – 2:30pm

Dismantling the U.S. Empire’s Fake News: Lessons from the Book “American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News–From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror.”
Panopticon and Piecework: A Lyft Driver’s View of Gaming in the Gig Economy
International Efforts to Save the Planet
Public Education’s Racist High School Admissions Practices and the Historic Parent/Community/Neighborhood-Led struggle for Control of Our Public Schools
W.A.R Stories: Walter Anthony Rodney
Rebuilding and Re-imagining Energy Sovereignty in Puerto Rico Post-Maria
Claiming Back the City: Strategies and Examples from Montreal
Russia-U.S.: From Establishment’s Conflict to People’s Dialogue (Reflection in a Red Eye)
Sex. Sexy, Patriarchy and Feminism
Radical Lawyers and Advocates Convening: Supporting Grassroots Organizing and Movement Building
Black Workers’ Key to Communist Revolution
The Political Economy of a Long Depression
Book Launch: Celebrating the Life of Rod Bush and His Revolutionary Contribution to the Struggles for Black Nationalism, Human Rights, Freedom, Justice, Equal Rights, Dignity and Emancipation.
Venezuela and Iran: The Left’s Role in Curbing U.S. Imperialism
Decolonization 2.0(19): The Rising Movement to Dismantle Francafrique
A Season of People’s Uprisings in Africa
Activist-Minded Writers’ Workshop
Pete Seeger at 100–Insights from Some Who Knew Him
Conversations on Strategies for Total Transformation
We All Need the NEED Act: Dennis Kucinich’s Bill for a Total Change of our Money System
War by Other Means: Understanding and Challenging U.S. Sanctions Policies
For Workers Mobilization to Defend Immigrants and Crush the Fascist Threat
A Socialist Defector: From Harvard to Karl-Marx-Allee with Victor Grossman
“Are We There Yet?” Dramatic Progress and Challenges in the Single Payer, Improved Medicare for All Movement Nationally and Locally

***************************************************

    Session 3: Saturday June 29th, 3:00pm – 5:00pm

Combatting the Corporate Media Machine
The End of the “End of History”: The Left Alternative to Conservative Liberalism. The Failure of Fukuyama’s Forecast
Budget for an Ecosocialist Green New Deal
The World Turned Upside Down? Launching the 2019 Socialist Register
The 411 On Mumia Abu-Jamal & Our Freedom Fighters
Crouching Ancien Regime, Hidden Emerging New Order, the U.S. and China
Solidarity with Cooperation Jackson
The Yellow Vests Movement –“We Want to Live Not Just Survive”
Marx and the Feminist Question
Seattle+20: From Free Trade to the Green New Deal
Looking Back, Building Forward: Putting Reparations in Perspective
Left Perspectives on the European Elections
Learning to Love in a Neo Liberal Age
Confronting Fascism in Brazil: The Left Stand Up and Fight Back!
The Situation in Venezuela Today and the Fight Against U.S. Intervention
Reparations to African People: A Socialist Demand
Poetry Open Salon: Expressions and Challenges from a Radical Imagination
Food Sovereignty in the Global North and Global South
Fighting to Learn, Learning to Fight: Supporting Transformative Social Struggles as a Student and Young Scholar
The History of the European Socialist Movement Through the Eyes of Their Activists
Beyond the Rank-and-File Strategy
Donald Trump and the New Grassroots Fascism
——————————————
Reading Capital Today: Booklaunch for “A Reader’s Guide to Marx’s Capital”
Book Reading Cover “A Reader’s Guide to Marx’s Capital”
International Socialism journal (UK)
Speakers: Joseph Choonara
Room:4th Floor Humanities Lounge
————————————————-
How a Basic Income Affects the Welfare Rights Movement, from the 1960’s to Today
Technology and Revolution: the U.S. Left’s Program for Action

Plenary: Saturday June 29th, 7:30pm – 9:30pm
Saturday Plenary – Stonewall and Beyond: Queer Liberation

*********************************************
***************SUNDAY***********************************

**************************************************

    Session 4: Sunday June 30th, 10:00am – 12:00pm

Double Jeopardy: Crises in Economic Life and in Relationships in the U.S. Today.
Cities and Climate Justice, Global and Local Strategies
Teachers Strikes Up Against the Labor Bureaucracy: For Class Struggle Leadership
My Mis-Education in 3 Graphics
Perspectives of the Venezuelan Left Opposition
Socialist Humanism: Its Legacy for the Present
End the War on Black and Indigenous Women and Girls
Urban Genome Project
Black Liberation and the Universal
The New York Left: What Happened the Last Year and What’s Next?
From Rojava to U.S.: Lessons in Feminism, Radical Democracy and Social Ecology
The Situation in Ukraine
Cuba Speaks for Itself: The Cuban Revolution and U.S.-Cuban Relations Today
Leftism in Africa Today: Sierra Leone’s African Socialist Movement
Experimental Fiction and the Representation of Political Crisis: Four Writers and Publishers Discuss Attempts to Speak the Unspeakable
Art and Politics After Platforms
Freedom Dreaming: A Call to Imagine
Beyond Sect or Movement: What Is a Political Center?
Social Movement Forces, Electoral Politics & the Revolutionary Process: Consciousness, Vision & Strategy
Parties of Autonomy: Exploring the Party-Form Today
Session 5: Sunday June 30th, 12:30pm – 2:30pm
Three Marxist Takes On Climate Change
The National Educators Revolt and its Lessons
Farmworker Justice and the Fight for Worker-Driven Social Responsibility in U.S. Agriculture
Student Debt Boycott: Organizing the Power of Economic Withdrawal
The Peace Congress
Russia Gate and the New Cold War: Critical Perspectives
Social Reproduction/Feminism for the 99%
We Refuse to Be Left Behind: Disability-Led Disaster Activism
Black Workers: Our Last Labor Revolution and Our Next
Should the Green Party Stand Down in 2020?
Is Capitalism Driving Us Crazy? The Mental Health Crisis
Continuous Cold War: U.S. vs USSR / U.S. vs Russian Federation
Resistance, Rebellion, and the Rising Tide of Fascism in India.
Women & LGBTQ Struggles in the Caribbean
Theater of the Oppressed as a Fight Back Tool: Some Practical Skils for Activists – Part I
Poetry of Refuge, Flight and Immigration
Growing the Solidarity Economy: Theory and Practice
The New Deal and American Socialism
Why Socialists Need to Fight for Proportional Representation and Ranked Choice Voting
Confronting the Resurgence of Authoritarianism, Right and “Left”
Acid Communist Literature
Trotskyist Youth in the Fight for Socialist Revolution vs. “Sanders Socialism”
Unanimous is Not Enough: Abolish the 13th Amendment – Free the Angola 2000

*************************************************
Session 6: Sunday June 30th, 3:00pm – 5:00pm
***************************************************
Anti-Capitalism in the 21st Century
Mueller and Me and Bianca Make Three
How Will the Left Vote in the Presidential Election?
Will Sex Workers See the Light of Day? Prospects for Decriminalization
Building Left Unity: Means and Missteps in the Age of the Intellectual Dark Web
Vulgar Complexity: How Can Complexity Science, Computation, and Evolution Inform Left Political Strategy?
The Fight for Reproductive Justice and a Radical Feminist Movement
Debt Relief. Economic Development and Human Rights: Reforming U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Trump Era
Overcoming Barriers to Solidarity: Reflecting on Contradictions in Our Movement
Occult Features of Anarchism – With Attention to the Conspiracy of Kings and the Conspiracy of the Peoples
How the Haitian and Venezuelan Revolutions Are Intimately Linked Today, as They Were in the Early 19th Century
Neocolonialism and New Democratic Movements in West Africa
Theater of the Oppressed as a Fight Back Tool: Some Practical Skils for Activists – Part II
Courage to Speak
The Lincoln Brigade and the Spanish Civil War: Feel-Good Story of 20th Century Idealism? Or the Good Fight of Anti-Fascist Resistance and Proletarian Internationalism?
Decline and Fall of the U.S. Empire
State and Local Strategies to Strengthen Workers’ Rights
How Do We Confront Trumpism Now, and Going Forward?: Marxist-Humanist Perspectives
Insurgent Supremacists: Understanding and Fighting The U.S. Far Right with Matthew N. Lyons
Reparations and Its Discontents

**********************************************
Plenary: Sunday June 30th, 6:00pm – 8:00pm
********************************************
Sunday Closing Plenary: What is Left to be Done?
OUR VISION
We envision a world in which the radical imagination becomes a tool for self-empowerment that challenges society to build a process for collaborative and emancipatory leadership.

THE PLACE FOR PEOPLE WITH RADICAL IDEAS
Left Forum Inc
P.O. Box 763
New York NY 10272

Top scientist debunks HPV vaccine at major conference as useless and dangerous

April 14th, 2019

Berkeley’s virologist Peter Duesberg, despite thirty years of political abuse, demonstrates yet another health strategy is a scientific boondoggle

HPV vaccine shown by official statistics to have no effect on cervical cancer rates, but risks cancer and death among young girls

Duesberg explains true source of the cancer, according to his firmly established and influential new theory

Peter Duesberg, the Berkeley scientist who demonstrated thirty years ago that two highly funded beliefs in cancer and in AIDS were mangy dogs barking up the wrong theoretical tree, presented a paper at the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) Conference in Indiapolis last weekend (April 5 Fri to April 7 Sun) which was equally damning to a third notion which is now a major money tree in the health industry.

The audience of medical professionals was shocked to learn from Duesberg’s analysis of the topic “Can Papilloma virus vaccine prevent and cure cervical and oral cancers?” that not only do the HPV vaccines have no discernible effect on cervical cancer rates, which makes perfect sense since the papilloma virus shows no proven signs of actually causing cancer; but along with this result the vaccine itself evidently risks cancer and possibly fatalities among the population of young girls it purportedly benefits.

Well qualified critic

Duesberg was not only applying his own deep expertise in virology, which had led to his debunking of the notion, new thirty years ago, that the tiny 9 kilobase retrovirus HIV was causing the havoc of AIDS. He was also using his equally deep research into the way cancer develops, carried out over the last quarter century, and he finished his slide talk by elucidating the real cause of cancers he has developed in a hypothesis that is notoriously rerouting the path of cancer research following his initiative.

Duesberg’s paper started with the history of the HPV as cause idea in 1989 when a German cancer researcher named zur Hausen from Heidelberg launched a claim in Cancer Research, the most “prestigious” journal in the field, that the common wart virus caused the majority of “vulvar, penile and perianal cancers”, where fragments of its DNA were often present. They were not always there, but by 2002 the notion was popular enough that zur Hausen launched another rocket in 2002 in Nature, suggesting that the prospects for efficient vaccines were “excellent”.

There were various problems with the whole idea, however, including the fact that HPV apparently needed mysterious “co-factors” to induce cancers and then only after “20 to 50” years, while the intact virus actually replicated in cells within days and caused warts within weeks, and, moreover, was completely missing in 20-30% of such cancers, when unspecified carcinogens and “co-factors” were meant to do the dirty work.

Theory as Swiss Cheese

Obviously the theory remained a hypothesis as full of holes as Swiss cheese, and its support was muted. But then political factors fried the cheese sandwich into an appetizing meal for both science bureaucrats regulators and industry. The NIH and Merck had developed a new cancer-vaccine and were testing it after 2006, according to a NIH Fact Sheet Cervical Cancer of 2010. Moreover, zur Hausen won the Nobel prize for zur Hausen in 2008, without any additional proof of his supposed triumph.

So the NIH Fact Sheet 2010 scared America about an imminent HPV-cancer epidemic, the FDA approved the vaccine, and now 7.5 million adolescent and approximately 2.5 million adult American females have been vaccinated since 2006 according to the CDC Fact sheet Aug 2018. The cost was $500 per vaccination (three shots over a year), or $5 billion in revenue for Merck, the vaccine maker.

Merck is the pharma which was also responsible for the introduction of the arthritis painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib) in 1999 which according to the FDA caused over 27,000 deaths by heart attack by 2003, and perhaps half a million since, according to some estimates, and forced a payment of $4.85 billion to settle the lawsuits that resulted, which discovered that the company’s own studies had raised warning flags as early as 1999, which Merck had ignored in launching the drug in the US.

How to kill children

Merck is also fighting a rearguard action since the beginning of the century on doubts surrounding the MMR, the triple vaccine administered early to newborns now linked by some to the onset of autism, even though as many as ten studies are invoked to show that there is no evidence to connect the two, contrary to the very strong belief of many parents that it was the vaccine that damaged their child.

Meanwhile, as far as the HPV vaccine is concerned, the newest form of which has been marketed since 2014 under the name Gardasil, which is more directly aimed at the cancer, the results achieved in reducing the onset of cervical cancer are, as Duesberg points out, somewhat remarkable. So far, they amount to zero. There has been no payoff whatsoever in any reduction of cervical cancer cases or deaths twelve years into the mass vaccinations initiated by the NIH, CDC and Merck in 2006, or even from 2004, according to figures published by the CDC and the American Cancer Society in 2019.

Worse than that, however, the record shows that Gardasil is positively dangerous. The federally funded Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) counts it as having produced 61,060 adverse events, including no fewer than 464 deaths, since 2006 to the beginning of this year.

Why is the vaccine ineffective?

Duesberg points out that there is, in fact, no reason to suppose it would have any value at all, because it is directed against a human papilloma virus that causes warts but doesn’t actually cause cancer. HPV meets none of the four basic requirements, known since the nineteenth century as the Koch Postulates, for being a valid candidate for causing cancer.

In 1882 Robert Koch discovered that TB was caused by a microbial germ, named bacillus tuberculosis, and founded what is still the most popular theory of disease, the germ theory, said Duesberg. This idea now leads everyone in medicine to search for a germ as the cause of every disease, including cancer. But is the presence of HPV in cervical cancer cause or correlation?

Correlation but not cause: HPV and cervical cancer

The most intelligent man in the field once again speaks out against crowd delusion.

According to the four Koch postulates, to prove a microbe is the cause of any disease, you must find it in every case of the disease, isolate it from the disease, culture it and show it causes the disease all by itself, and get it back again from the disease. HPV magnificently fails all four tests. So HPV is absolutely not the cause of but only something which correlates with cervical cancer, Duesberg told the hundreds listening to his slide talk.

The claim that HPV causes cancer is utterly contradicted by the ghost of Koch. No intact wart-virus microbe has ever been found in or isolated from any case of cervical cancer in 1989 or since, Duesberg found; “zur Hausen had to isolate it for his studies of “HPV-cancer” from conventional warts.” As to the final postulate, the intact virus has never been shown to cause the disease all by itself; in fact in 20-30 per cent of cases even fragments of the virus, let alone antibodies to it, are missing.

Global Warming Threat Over, If Only Fossil Fuel Industry Would Accept Defeat

March 15th, 2019

Rescue from dramatically cheaper wind and sun is already here, says Bill McKibben in key review essay

Fossil fuel plants now a money losing proposition that banks won’t finance.

Shortsighted fossil fuel executives and Trump are dragging us into a climate furnace needlessly

Amos Coal Power Plant, Raymond City, West Virginia, 2004; photograph by Mitch Epstein from his ‘American Power’ series

The truth about climate change, writes Bill McKibben in the New York Book Review, is finally this: it all depends on getting the failing fossil fuel industry to stop fighting its current major price DECLINE in the face of MUCH CHEAPER sun and wind. Already, to all intents and purposes, fossil fuels are economically conquered. They are, in fact, financially speaking, the walking dead.

For the price of sunshine and batteries and windmills and electric cars has fallen so far that coal, oil, gas and even fracking are basically investment also rans heading for a total wipe out, with banks everywhere already refusing to lend for new electrical plants because they know they will never get their money back.

The only thing left in the balance now is whether facing long term reality will overcome short term myopia. Will the shortsighted shareholders and the owners and managers that run coal, fracking and other fossil fuel companies and their fellow traveling leaders and politicians like Obama and famously Trump that they so easily sucker punch hold on long enough to ruin the planet?

Will these fossil fuel denialists go for broke like GE, which has lost seventy per cent of its share value trying to stay alive in a dead industry by continuing to make equipment for new power plants, and fail in the end, but succeed long enough to push human life onto the planetary grill?

Keep your fingers crossed that fossil fuel disinformation gets turned around by activists like AOC and the Green Deal in time or we are done for. – AL

===========================================================

New York Review of Books April 4, 2019 Issue Vol 66 Number 6

A Future Without Fossil Fuels? by Bill McKibben

Books Reviewed:
1. 2020 Vision: Why You Should See the Fossil Fuel Peak Coming a report by Kingsmill Bond 41 pp., September 2018, available at carbontracker.org
2. A New World: The Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation a report by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation 88 pp., January 2019, available at irena.org

“Kingsmill Bond” certainly sounds like a proper name for a City of London financial analyst. He looks the part, too: gray hair expertly trimmed, well-cut suit. He’s lived in Moscow and Hong Kong and worked for Deutsche Bank, the Russian financial firm Troika Dialog, and Citibank. He’s currently “new energy strategist” for a small British think tank called Carbon Tracker, and last fall he published a short paper called “2020 Vision: Why You Should See the Fossil Fuel Peak Coming.” It asks an interesting question: At what point does a new technology cause an existing industry to start losing significant value?

This may turn out to be the most important economic and political question of the first half of this century, and the answer might tell us much about our chances of getting through the climate crisis without completely destroying the planet.

More

Based on earlier technological transitions—horses to cars, sails to steam, land lines to cell phones—it seems possible that the fossil fuel industry may begin to weaken much sooner than you’d think. The British-Venezuelan scholar Carlota Perez has observed that over a period of twenty years, trains made redundant a four-thousand-mile network of canals and dredged rivers across the UK: “The canal builders…fought hard and even finished a couple of major canals in the 1830s, but defeat was inevitable,” as it later was for American railroads (and horses) when they were replaced by trucks and cars.

Major technological transitions often take a while. The Czech-Canadian academic Vaclav Smil has pointed out that although James Watt developed the coal-powered steam engine in 1776, coal supplied less than 5 percent of the planet’s energy until 1840, and it didn’t reach 50 percent until 1900. But the economic effect of those transitions can happen much earlier, Bond writes, as soon as it becomes clear to investors that a new technology is accounting for all the growth in a particular sector.

Over the last decade, there has been a staggering fall in the price of solar and wind power, and of the lithium-ion batteries used to store energy. This has led to rapid expansion of these technologies, even though they are still used much less than fossil fuels: in 2017, for instance, sun and wind produced just 6 percent of the world’s electric supply, but they made up 45 percent of the growth in supply, and the cost of sun and wind power continues to fall by about 20 percent with each doubling of capacity. Bond’s analysis suggests that in the next few years, they will represent all the growth. We will then reach peak use of fossil fuels, not because we’re running out of them but because renewables will have become so cheap that anyone needing a new energy supply will likely turn to solar or wind power.

Bond writes that in the 2020s—probably the early 2020s—the demand for fossil fuels will stop growing. The turning point in such transitions “is typically the moment when the impact is felt in financial markets”—when stock prices tumble and never recover. Who is going to invest in an industry that is clearly destined to shrink? Though we’ll still be using lots of oil, its price should fall if it has to compete with the price of sunshine. Hence the huge investments in pipelines and tankers and undersea exploration will be increasingly unrecoverable. Precisely how long it will take is impossible to predict, but the outcome seems clear.

This transition is already obvious in the coal markets. To understand, for example, why Peabody, the world’s largest private-sector coal-mining company, went from being on Fortune’s list of most admired companies in 2008 to bankrupt in 2016, consider its difficulties in expanding its market. India, until very recently, was expected to provide much of the growth for coal. As late as 2015, its coal use was expected to triple by 2030; the country was resisting global efforts like the Paris Accords to rein in its carbon emissions. But the price of renewable energy began to fall precipitously, and because India suffered from dire air pollution but has inexhaustible supplies of sunlight, its use of solar power started to increase dramatically.

“In 2017, the price in India of wind and solar power dropped 50 percent to $35–40 a megawatt hour,” said Tim Buckley, who analyzes Australasia/South Asia for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Fifty percent in one year. And a zero inflation indexation for the next twenty-five years. Just amazing.” This price drop occurred not because India subsidizes renewable energy (it doesn’t), but because engineers did such a good job of making solar panels more efficient. The cost of power from a newly built coal plant using Indian coal is, by comparison, about $60 a megawatt hour. If you have to import the coal, the price of power is $70/megawatt hour. And solar’s $40/megawatt hour price is guaranteed not to rise over the thirty-year life of the contract the suppliers sign—their bids are based on building and then running a facility for the life of the contract. No wonder that over the first nine months of 2018, India installed forty times more capacity for renewable than for coal-fired power.

Much the same is happening around the world. President Trump has spared no effort to help the coal industry, but more coal-fired power plants shut down during the first two years of his presidency than during President Obama’s entire first term. American coal consumption fell 4 percent in 2018. In 2017 Kentucky’s coal-mining museum installed solar panels on its roof in order to save $10,000 a year on electric costs.

And it’s not just coal that’s on the way out. Natural gas was supposed to be the planet’s next big fuel source, since it produces less carbon than coal (although its production releases great clouds of methane, another potent greenhouse gas). While fracking has produced high volumes of natural gas—especially in the US, where it was pioneered—wells tend to dry out quickly, and despite enormous investment, the International Energy Agency estimates that between 2010 and 2014 the shale industry operated with negative cash flows of more than $200 billion.

Even “cheap” natural gas is now starting to look expensive compared to the combination of sun, wind, and batteries. In an essay for Vox, the energy reporter David Roberts listed all the natural gas plants—many of them designed to provide quick bursts of “peaking power” on heavy demand days—whose planned construction has been canceled in recent months, as utilities and banks began to figure out that over the projected forty-year life of a new plant, there was a good chance it would become an uncompetitive “stranded asset” producing pointlessly expensive electricity. The chief executive of one US solar company said in January, “I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant. Who in their right mind today would build a new gas peaker? We are a factor of two cheaper.”

You get some sense of the future from the stunning fall of General Electric. “They were the world leader, the thought leader, the finance leader, the IT leader,” said Buckley. “And their share price is down 70 percent in the last two and a half years, in a market that’s up 50 percent. It’s a thermal power–reliant basket case.” That’s in large measure because manufacturing turbines for coal- and gas-fired power plants was a significant part of the company’s business; in 2015, it hugely expanded that capacity by buying its largest European competitor, Alstom. But then the bottom dropped out of the industry as proposed new generating plants couldn’t find financing. GE makes wind turbines, too, but that’s a lower-margin business with many more competitors. The fall in GE’s stock has meant “hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value reduction,” according to Buckley. Last June, after more than a century, General Electric was dropped from the Dow Industrial Index, replaced by a drugstore chain.

Oil was believed to be better protected than coal and gas from competition because cars have long needed liquid fuel to run. But electric cars are becoming affordable for more and more consumers. In 2017 only three million out of a worldwide total of 800 million cars were electric, but they accounted for 22 percent of the growth in global car sales. The world’s leading car companies have become convinced that electric vehicles will account for all the growth in demand by the early 2020s. That’s why, by January 2018, they had committed $90 billion to developing electric vehicles—and why, by 2017, Tesla was worth more than GM or Ford. And for every Tesla that rolls off the assembly line, Chinese manufacturers are producing five electric cars. Auto analysts are already warning consumers to think twice before buying a gas-powered car, since its resale value may fall dramatically over just the next three years.

The oil companies tell investors not to worry. In mid-February Exxon announced that it had found huge new deepwater oil deposits off the coast of Guyana, and that overall it planned to pump 25 percent more oil and gas in 2025 than it had in 2017, which, it claimed, would triple its profits. In September, OPEC released a report predicting higher oil demand due to increases in jet travel and the production of plastics, which are made from petrochemicals. Analysts like Bond are skeptical of such claims. Although oil has been the planet’s most important industry for over a century, over the last five years it’s been the slowest-growing sector of the stock market. Petrochemicals and jet fuel are indeed harder to replace with renewable energy, but they make up a relatively small part of the market for oil—even if demand for them grows, it can’t offset the losses in core uses like pumping gas for cars.

The recent history of European utilities may provide a more realistic preview of what will happen in the rest of the world. In the early years of this century the German government increased the pace of decarbonization, subsidizing solar and wind energy. As more and cheaper renewable supplies became available, the existing utilities were slow to react. They had built new gas plants to account for what they assumed would be rising demand, but solar and wind cut into that demand, and the price of electricity began to fall. So far, European utilities have written down about $150 billion in stranded assets: fossil fuel installations that are no longer needed. “In the Netherlands, by the time the last three coal plants were turned on, their owners had already written them down by 70 percent,” said Buckley. And they’re scheduled to close by 2030.

One obvious question is why the fossil fuel companies don’t simply transform themselves into renewable energy companies and use the huge cash flows they still have to gain control of future markets. “They’re putting under ten percent of capital expenditures into renewables,” says Bond, which translates into about one percent of their balance sheets. As Exxon’s CEO recently told The Economist, “we have much higher expectations for the returns on the capital we invest” than sun and wind can provide. From their point of view, there’s some money to be made from putting up solar panels, but once they’re on the roof the sunshine is free. For corporations that made vast profits by selling their customers fuel every day for a century, that’s not an attractive business model.

Another important question is whether this transition will crash the world economy. Investors have money at risk, and not just in fossil fuel shares: a shift of this size will affect car companies, machinery companies, and many others. But as the climate activist and billionaire investor Tom Steyer has pointed out, most technological transitions damage existing industries without wrecking the economy because they create value even as they destroy it. “Look at the communications industry over the last two decades, as the Internet came of age,” Steyer said. “Some of the most valuable businesses on the planet that had been around for more than a century got decimated. I mean, Newsweek sold for a dollar. But a lot of new businesses got created that were worth more.”

And banks have had at least some warning to prepare for this enormous shift. In 2015 Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, began issuing strident warnings about stranded fossil fuel assets, urging the banks he regulated to begin taking close account of their exposure. He gave a memorable speech on the trading floor of Lloyds of London, pointing out that if countries made serious efforts to meet climate targets, vast amounts of money spent on oil wells, pipelines, coal mines, and tankers would be written off. He had to issue the warnings, he said, because the normal time horizon for financiers was too short. “Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late,” he said, noting that “the exposure of UK investors, including insurance companies, to these shifts is potentially huge.” He urged them to start preparing for a lower-carbon world. Companies, he said, should “disclose not only what they are emitting today, but how they plan their transition to the net-zero world of the future.”

Carney’s warning—which reverberated out from the financial center of London—seems to have spurred a reevaluation of fossil fuel exposure by many big financial institutions. “The major banks are now addressing this risk, whereas three years ago they were asleep to it,” Buckley said. “Now in Australia all our banks have climate policy, where they didn’t three years ago. We didn’t even have data.” A report in late February from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis showed that since 2013 a hundred major banks had restricted coal lending or gotten out of the business altogether.1

A far more important question, of course, is whether the changes now underway will happen fast enough to alter our grim climatic future. Here, the answers are less positive. Scientists, conservative by nature, have routinely underestimated the pace of planetary disruption: the enormous melt now observed at the poles was not supposed to happen until late in the century, for instance, and the galloping pace of ocean acidification wasn’t even recognized as a threat two decades ago. That means that we have very little time to act—not enough, certainly, for business cycles to do the job alone. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released last autumn, laid out a strict timeline: we need to effectively halve our use of fossil fuels within a dozen years to prevent the worst damage, which is why activists and politicians have called for dramatic government interventions like the Green New Deal recently proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Democratic colleagues.2

Government action is required because, for one thing, there’s vast inertia in the energy system. Plants are built to last decades, and even if plants that use fossil fuels aren’t built today, banks will insist that existing ones operate long enough to pay back their investments. And in some parts of the world, fossil fuel expansion continues: China, for instance, is trying to close down its own coal-fired power plants because its cities are choked in smog, but Chinese companies are using their expertise to build coal-powered plants abroad. Buckley noted that the opportunities for bribes on colossal projects mean, among other things, that a number of developing countries may indeed continue down the fossil fuel path.

In countries like the US or Canada, the political power of the fossil fuel industry is still considerable. Barack Obama boasted to a Texas audience last year that during his administration the US had passed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the biggest producer of hydrocarbons; even the progressive Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau recently spent billions in tax dollars to finance a pipeline designed to increase exports from the country’s environmentally ruinous tar sands.

That’s why the most important aspect of the decline of fossil fuel companies might be a corresponding decline in their political influence. The coal, oil, and gas industries have been the architects of the disinformation campaigns that kept us from responding earlier to scientists’ warnings about climate change, and they are using every trick they know to keep us from making a quick transition. History indicates that “the oil majors—and those who invest in them—will…bribe and fund Trump-type candidates and use their money in any other way” to slow down change, Carlota Perez said.

But change is here. While engineers are doing their part by making renewable energy cheaper, activists are mounting efforts to weaken the companies directly, and there are some signs that the pressure is working. An effort that I helped launch beginning in 2012 to persuade universities and churches to divest their fossil fuel shares has spread rapidly and become the largest divestment campaign in history. Over the last five years, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds have joined in, raising the total value of endowments and portfolios involved to over $8 trillion, and prompting Shell to declare the campaign a material risk to its future business. (Early last year, the governments of New York City and London pledged to divest their pension funds, and the entire nation of Ireland joined in midsummer.) Campaigns have also targeted banks like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase to force them to stop supporting particular pipelines.

The bottom line is clear: to the degree that the fossil fuel industry is weakened by some combination of technological change and furious activism, the chances for serious change increase. If energy barons like the Koch Brothers and Exxon remain flush with cash, they can probably delay or undermine initiatives like the Green New Deal. But if their businesses are under strong pressure from a rapidly changing energy economy, polities around the world would be freer to take the steps that scientists insist are necessary with the speed required to prevent global catastrophe. Should these changes happen quickly, they could do more than save us from planetary peril.

“A New World,” the January report on the geopolitics of energy transformation from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), is one of the most hopeful documents I’ve read in a long time: it points out that for the 80 percent of the world’s population that lives in countries that are net importers of fossil fuels, the transition to renewable energy means the end of a crushing import burden. “The long-term consequences of a switch to renewables are very positive,” said Bond, who helped write the report. “Fossil fuels are produced by a small number of companies and countries and the benefits flow to a small number of people. With solar and wind you get a lot more local jobs, a lot more local investment. You get a whole new geopolitics.”

Take India, the poorest large nation on earth. It imports 80 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its gas, along with much of its coal. Currently that costs the country $240 billion a year; if, as its leaders hope, its economy grows 7 percent annually, that figure would double in a decade—which is economically unsustainable. “Renewables also offer developing economies an opportunity to leapfrog, not only fossil fuels, but, to some extent, the need for a centralized electricity grid,” the IRENA report concludes.

Countries in Africa and South Asia have a golden opportunity to avoid expensive fixed investments in fossil fuels and centralized grids by adopting mini-grids and decentralized solar and wind energy deployed off-grid—just as they jumped straight to mobile phones and obviated the need to lay expensive copper-wired telephone networks.

The changeover, of course, would be rocky. Beyond the effects on the global economy or on particular companies and their investors, countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia (and increasingly parts of the US) are essentially oil companies themselves. As these petro-states face a fall in the value of their only real asset, there is a risk of destabilization on a vast scale; in fact, it’s possible that we’re in the early stages of this process, with mischief and cruelty increasingly on display as countries with no other source of economic power struggle to maintain profits while they can. The worst damage will, as usual, be inflicted on the poorest oil producers: Kuwait might be able to manage the transition, but could Angola?

Yet overall the benefits would be immeasurable. Imagine a world in which the tortured politics of the Middle East weren’t magnified in importance by the value of the hydrocarbons beneath its sands. And imagine a world in which the greatest driver of climate change—the unrelenting political power of the fossil-fuel industry—had begun to shrink. The question, of course, is whether we can reach that new world in time.

1
“Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come,” February 27, 2019; available at IEEFA.org.? ?

2
See my “A Very Grim Forecast,” The New York Review, November 22, 2018. ?

End

A remarkable article that should be read by all concerned with one of the primary political issues of our time.

Vaxx Industry Entrains Governments to Quash Dissent

March 13th, 2019

In contrast with the above statement during the period six years ago when she first published her book, the intellectual activist MD Suzanne Humphries talks a lot less extreme, less provocative and at least at first reading apparently good sense about the current science of vaccination or lack of it on her site.

This is the link to her core stand on the issue.

However, at first it appeared that in line with its new policy to ban anti-VAXX posts stated by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook wouldn’t take the above two lines as a post on Mar 13 2019 last night. Clicking “share” repeatedly resulted in a notice saying “Oops. Something went wrong. We’re working on getting it fixed as soon as we can.” Soon enough it transpired that this was a widespread hacking attacks which interfered with basic functions at Facebook and Instagram at that hour, however.

So it appears that the new policy of censoring any comment or books arguing against 100% acceptance of vaccinations, which is in line with corporate statements from Amazon as well, is not yet in place.

This text with videos below is a copy of the page above, Suzanne Humphries’ current statement on vaccine ideology and science, in case her books and web site disappear from current hosting:

Vaccination
I was once a medical professional who would have said that ‘vaccination science was settled long ago, and is now laid to rest’. After all, that is what I was taught. But after my experience in the hospital system and thoroughly examining the medical literature, it became obvious that most medical professionals who parrot such statements have read almost nothing on vaccination and are just following orders. I know, because that was also formerly true of me.

Doctors want to do what is right, but who creates their curriculum or continuing education modules?

The medical curriculum is devoid of important information on vaccines.

What is the real truth? What is not told to doctors and the public?

The claim that ‘the science is settled’ is a factually, intellectually, and morally dishonest attempt to silence debate and discussion about the evidence and science in the medical literature, which speaks against the mainstream mantras.

Hopefully, the paragraphs, videos, medical articles, and links that follow below will open some eyes and ears to information that is not taught in medical schools nor allowed in mainstream media.

The history of vaccination is more complicated than most people realize. The anti-vaccine movement is hundreds of years old, and heated up in the 1800s, when parents in the UK became fed up with watching their healthy infants and children become ill or die shortly after the smallpox vaccinations or get sick from smallpox despite being highly vaccinated. The smallpox vaccines were made from pus scraped off of diseased cows’ belly sores, contaminated with disease matter from a variety of animals and in some cases, humans.

Parents and doctors who refused smallpox vaccines, risked losing their homes, their furniture and their livelihoods if judges ruled against them.

Smallpox vaccine history is not what you have been taught to think it is. This video

describes the issues well.

I do not consider it my place to tell anyone whether to vaccinate or not. I never tell people to NOT vaccinate.

It is my place as a doctor, to understand as much as I can about vaccines and to give people a more complete understanding from which to make INFORMED choices.

Informed choice is not the stance of the public health services. There is ample documentation that their priority was and is to quell “any possible doubts, whether well founded or not” regarding vaccines.

(Click for more Suzanne Humphreys till end]
The following document is the American 1984 DHHS federal register, which listed final rules pertaining to the polio vaccination campaigns in USA after three decades of controversy.

This American 1984 DHHS federal register screen shot shows the political rule that any possible doubts about the safety of a vaccine cannot be allowed to curb its use in accordance with public health objectives.

This American 1984 DHHS federal register screen shot above shows the political rule that any possible doubts about the safety of a vaccine cannot be allowed to curb its use in accordance with public health objectives.

That priority has placed many lives in jeopardy as major problems with vaccination were and are overlooked by vaccine policy makers.

There are many problems with the science that underpins information given to both parents and doctors. I’ve yet to meet a pediatrician who understands both sides of the debate enough to give fully informed consent. Many doctors don’t even understand the vaccine inserts, or know what is in vaccines.

Immunology literature admits that infant immunity has been misunderstood by immunologists in the past, and even today. Only recently have some important questions been answered about why infant immune systems don’t function like adult ones. Words like “deficient” or “immature” have been used to imply such ‘shortcomings’ of the infant immune system, and therefore infants must need numerous vaccines in order to survive.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The immune system of a baby has the full capacity of an adult’s immune system. But a baby has a superimposed additional ‘program’ which temporarily curbs certain aspects of the adult immune system from working fully while the baby develops a healthy microbiome and learns which environmental proteins, antigens, and pathogens should be tolerated, and which ones should not.

The core tenet of the superimposed program is to keep systemic inflammation to a minimum within a crucial transition period from in-utero to around two years of age, at the same time that human milk provides broad-spectrum disease protection.

One example: human milk contains a molecule called H.A.M.L.E.T. and many other immune components that assist the baby’s immunity during its anti-inflammatory phase, while successfully protecting from capsular bacterial infections.

Optimal sequential induction of immune tolerance requires the normal programming. Vaccines are in complete opposition to this programming. There are aspects of immunity that vaccines could never help with. For some infants, the interruption of the normal immune clamped process with aluminum and vaccines, has the potential to cause life-long serious consequences.

HERE is my infant immunity series video to view for more information.

There is a paucity of studies comparing never vaccinated children, with partially or fully vaccinated children. In 2017 two important articles were released regarding vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschooled children. The results should make any thoughtful scientist step back and ask exactly what vaccines are achieving. Please read both articles in full, Mawson 2017 pilot study, and Mawson 2017 preterm birth, vax, neuro disorders.

In terms of safety studies, a major issue is that most vaccine studies use another vaccine or the background substance of the vaccine, as the control placebo.

There is one study (Cowling 2012) where a true saline placebo was used, rather than another vaccine or the carrier fluid containing everything except the main antigen.That study showed no difference in seasonal influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a higher pandemic strain infection rate and a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated. It is no small wonder that more true placebos are not used in vaccine research.

In this article Steinhoff, Influenza vax preg we see a clear example of how false placebos are regularly used.

Vaccinations themselves and the ever growing schedule, is a medical experiment, and in my opinion, violates the core principles of the Nuremberg Code (informed and unambiguous consent).

Most vaccines have never undergone carcinogenicity testing for example, and likewise are rarely studied in pregnant women, which results in people taking vaccines, either by a proclaimed “emergency”; by a “public health” order from the WHO; or by threat of loss of rights over one’s children or of imprisonment; or by threat of being abandoned by the medical professionals supposedly providing care. This has also been extended to medical staff who lose their jobs if they refuse to take any mandated vaccine.

“Informed consent” is devoid of all meaning when people are tricked into taking vaccines by the use of misleading or frightening “information.”

“Informed consent” is devoid of all meaning when people are tricked into taking vaccines by the use of misleading or frightening “information.”

Vaccines that are on the market, can also be unknowingly contaminated.

Repeatedly over the decades, published medical articles, which threaten the vaccine industry are often attacked, and where possible discredited, or journals are forced to retract the articles. Therefore doctors never get to use them as part of informed consent. Drs Gatti and Montenari wrote an article on their research findings in 2017. The the article, New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Microand Nanocontamination was systematically attacked from time it was printed. In February of 2018, Italians lost their rights to choose not to vaccinate their school age children. Shortly thereafter, Gatti and Montenari’s laboratory in Italy was raided, and all data and computers and personal devices in their homes was confiscated. HERE is a short article in English detailing what occurred. How can informed consent happen in this sort of environment? This isn’t the first time this has happened. My series, “Honesty vs Policy” describes historical examples. Dr Anthony Morris had similar trouble. This VIDEO tell some of his story, which is reflective of what vaccine whistleblowers from any era have had to endure.

Parents must learn the ways to take care of their children when they get the common childhood illnesses, whether they vaccinate or not, since children can still get the diseases they were vaccinated against. In the case of unvaccinated children who experience childhood maladies, effective home-nursing allows children to recover naturally, and in most cases, the child will have long-term immunity. Infectious fevers must not be lowered as this does not help the child. HERE is a short video on the subject.

Some vaccine policies have robbed teenagers and adults of the opportunity to have solid, multi-layered, long-lasting natural immunity. For example, in mothers who were vaccinated against measles, placental transfer of antibodies is limited to a few months instead of over a year in most naturally immune mothers.

Reduced placental transfer of antibodies is but one of the many potential consequences we face as a result of mass vaccination for measles and the other childhood illnesses, such as rubella.

Vaccine contents, dangers, effectiveness of, or necessity of vaccines is not taught in medical schools. Most medical doctors are fearful of the natural childhood illnesses because they have no idea how to safely assist patients through them. The limited mainstream treatment options I was taught, often resulted in the diseases becoming worse than they would have otherwise been.

To my surprise, I later discovered other methods which work extremely well, but were never presented as part of my medical education.

In a short article Tapping the immune system’s secret the limitations of immunology are plainly spelled out. The public is repeatedly misinformed, underinformed, or frightened in order to maintain their participation in vaccination. All sorts of tactics are used. One of the most popular, is to say that everyone should get vaccinated in order to protect the unvaccinated. This is commonly known as “herd immunity.” Here is a video series I made on herd immunity.

Doctors repeat the advice, “We have to vaccinate them while they are young so the ‘take rate’ is high.” A case-in-point is an article for which I was interviewed where one of Maine’s supposed top experts is giving misleading advice. In the article titled, “Bangor Metro: “A Shot to The Heart”, ”he says: :

Concerns about how much a young child’s immune system can handle at one time have prompted some parents to stagger vaccinations. But Fanburg points out that there is no medical data to support the practice, adding that it’s actually more beneficial to vaccinate infants, rather than wait until they are older. “Children have a better ‘take’ of vaccines in their first two years of life,” he says. “There is a higher rate of immunogenicity, which is the child’s ability to produce antibodies to the vaccine antigen.

This ‘vaccine expert’ seems to lack understanding as to how an infant’s immune system develops and why. If he understood, he would pause for some time, before making such a dogmatic statement. It’s a well-established fact that three-year-olds require fewer vaccine doses to create the same level of antibodies as a baby.

A baby’s immune system produces only very small amounts of IL-1B and TNF-alpha. There was a time when experts thought that this was simply a defect in all newborn humans. In 2004, a study by Chelvarajan suggested that if vaccine manufacturers added various immune system kickers into vaccines, this would solve the problem and fix these children’s immune systems.

Subunit vaccines like HepB, Strep Pneumo, Hib and Meningococcal have potent “adjuvants” – such as aluminum. Without them, the baby’s immune system does not respond. An adjuvant creates a red-alert situation forcing the infant’s innate immune system to respond in the opposite manner to the way it should function in the first year of life. Pro-vaccine immunologists see nothing wrong with this.

By 2007, Chelvarajan was seeing things differently, as noted in the last paragraph of this article. In the past, what Chelvarajan considered a “defect”, is now rightly considered part of an important developmental program:

This anti-inflammatory phenotype may be beneficial to the neonate at a time when tissue growth and remodeling events are taking place at a rapid pace… thus the inability of the neonate to respond to infection with encapsulated bacteria may be the risk the organism takes for successful development.

An ARTICLE by Elahi in 2013, showed that infant immune cells have full functional capacity, but are clamped down to allow the infant to learn what is self, what is a healthy commensal micro-organism, and what should later be attacked.

This anti-inflammatory phenotype is crucial to the neonate at a time when tissue growth and remodeling events are taking place at a rapid pace… thus the possible inability of the neonate to respond to infection with encapsulated bacteria, (particularly formula fed infants) may be the risk the organism takes for successful development.

Breast milk acts as a stand-in innate immune system, which protects the baby from toxin-mediated and other diseases, by supplying anti-inflammatory substances in the milk along with other immune particles which prevent bacteria and viruses from adhering, or kills them outright.

This protects the baby, acting as in loco defense, while the infant immune system is being programmed to learn self from non-self. During this period of ‘clamping’ which is approximately 2 human years (extrapolated from animal studies), the breastfed infant is well compensated by the mother’s milk, which continues the educational process and kills unwanted organisms.

This same pattern of development is seen in laboratories studying non-human mammals, and is ubiquitous across mammals, showing that the anti-inflammatory phenotype is crucial to successful survival both short and long term.

What then, could be the effect of vaccines, which interfere with the quiescent state of the infant’s immune system master plan? Do the large amounts of aluminum create additional problems?

With breastmilk support, an infant immune system develops appropriately and systematically – at a regulated pace, according to the genetic program which started from the day the child was conceived.

What is the purpose of that master plan?

To enable the infant to safely transition into immunological independence with the minimum level of inflammation possible.

Can that master plan be derailed? Yes it can.

What can derail the neonatal immune system master program? Anything which triggers an inflammatory response in the mother while she is pregnant or in the baby after it is born, such as the use of a vaccine.
Ironically the medical research is very clear about one thing. It’s not the infection per se that causes the problem. It’s the activation of the immune system. How do they know it’s not just the infection? Because stress, toxins, and other non-infectious antigens can trigger the immune system cascade, in very similar ways to infection, with the same results.

If it is important for successful development of a baby to allow the RISK of infection by NOT allowing two key parts of the primary infection defense to fire, what’s the OTHER risk you might take, if you force an immune system to do something it’s not supposed to do? A vaccine by definition, causes increased inflammation at repeated time intervals. Vaccines are designed to create peripheral and systemic inflammation. Vaccine adjuvants and antigens can cause brain inflammation, create allergies, and through molecular mimicry, provoke autoimmunity.

So, you might now be thinking . . . if a baby’s default position is to NOT respond to toxin-mediated bacterial diseases, what chance does a baby have to survive in this world? That is what human milk was, and is for. Medical literature from the past and present shows the huge physical cost to babies of not giving them human milk, as well as the cost in both lives and money in developed countries.

If you would like to learn more about neonatal immunity, read this 3-part blog series, and take note of the medical articles used.

Provaccine doctors sometimes cite “peer reviewed literature” to supposedly prove their point, yet a closer look at their own literature often proves otherwise —as does a closer look at the sick population of the vaccinated children in their medical practices.

Furthermore a careful study of medical text books over decades, reveals a very interesting trend. In the 1920s and 30s, doctors were often quite relaxed over diseases which today are presented as more deadly than the plague. Many grandparents today are completely bemused at the way the medical profession describes infections which were straightforward holidays from school for most children.

This is not stating that there were never serious consequences. There sometimes were. However, today, most parents erroneously believe that every child will die from diseases which most grandparents found were nuisance value only.

The medical system now considers measles more dangerous than plague or ebola, and the most dangerous disease known to man. Yet there is little need to be afraid of measles, because well-nourished children who get adequate vitamin A have an unremarkable course to recovery. Boredom might be their biggest complaint. Here is a relevant VIDEO SERIES discussing the corruption and misinformation in medical literature and media.

I have discovered that whooping cough isn’t something to be scared of either. In the days when my only tool was an antibiotic, whooping cough occasionally caused me considerable concern, but not today. I’ve watched many parents all over the world treat whooping cough very simply by using high doses of vitamin C and occasionally homeopathy. They see slow steady improvement in the cough, and no serious complications. But you will not read about these cases in “peer reviewed literature” and your doctor doesn’t know about them, because the sick children those doctors treat are the only ones counted in the morbidity statistics. Healthy children who recover uneventfully because parents know what they are doing, are not seen by the medical system and therefore are not counted.

The serious consequences from most childhood diseases come from just a few things; infant formula, cow’s milk, common medical drugs (especially antibiotics), malnutrition, and vaccines, as well and a lack of knowledge about simple methods of home nursing.

All of these medical system barriers to recovery are completely avoidable. That is WHY when we take the time to look, we see so many never-vaccinated healthy children, nursed by intelligent parents who know what they are doing and why.

Here are a few common misconceptions about NOT vaccinating:

First misconception: You are putting other people at risk by not vaccinating. At risk for what? Chicken pox? Ask your grandmother if she knew anyone who died from chicken pox or measles. Different diseases have different degrees of severity in different age groups. The misconception that “if you don’t vaccinate, you place others at risk” is based on an assumption that vaccinated people do not get the disease they were vaccinated for. Did you know that a controlled study published in BMJ in school age children showed that of all the whooping cough that was diagnosed, over 86% of the children were fully vaccinated and up to date for the whooping cough vaccine? There are similar studies showing that mumps and measles breakouts often affect the vaccinated. People who are vaccinated can have their immune systems altered in a manner that leads to susceptibility to other infectious diseases, and can also leave them vulnerable to the disease they were vaccinated for due to a phenomenon called “original antigenic sin”. What is “original antigenic sin”? This is where an injected vaccine antigen programs the body to react in a manner that is incomplete, and different to the natural response to infection . When the vaccinated contact that disease again, they are unable to mount an effective response to the pathogen because vital first steps are missing. The whooping cough vaccine is an example of this.

A very noteworthy study was published in 2013, looking at baboons, which are susceptible and manifest whooping cough like humans do. In the study by Warfel, baboons that were either vaccinated or not vaccinated were later exposed to pertussis bacteria, something that cannot be done experimentally in humans (due to ethical considerations), but which yields very important data.

As expected, the baboons that had never been infected got the cough and remained colonized with bacteria for a maximum of 38 days. But unexpectedly, baboons that were previously vaccinated and immunized vaccine-style, became colonized upon later exposure for a longer time than the naïve baboons; 42 days. However unvaccinated baboons that recovered naturally and were later exposed to the bacteria did not become colonized at all – zero days.

Recuperated and vaccinated baboons were also exposed to pertussis bacteria and then placed in cages with naive baboons. Only the vaccinated baboons infected them. The naturally recovered baboons did not infect their naive cage mates.

The following video contains relevant information that every parent should know.

So, who is providing better herd immunity in the face of whooping cough bacterial exposure? Vaccinated individuals who presume they are immune, yet remain asymptomatically colonized for 42 days spreading bacteria? Unvaccinated kids who get infected and remain colonized for 38 days? Or the naturally convalesced who are not able to be colonized and therefore do not spread bacteria at all upon re-exposure? Better still: natural convalescence makes for solid immunity which lasts decades longer than vaccination.

Many vaccine enthusiasts like to invoke the term “herd immunity” to make the argument that the non-vaccinated pose a risk to the vaccinated. But the concept of herd immunity has no relevance to the vaccinated as it was coined in reference to natural immunity in populations and what level the least epidemics occurred. There is no evidence whatsoever that having an 85% or 95% childhood vaccination rate necessarily protects from outbreaks.

Second misconception: The non-vaccinated spread disease. Actually it is the opposite. Live vaccines are known to spread to close contacts. Here is one example.There has been a plethora of mumps outbreaks in mostly-vaccinated populations. The spin put on the data by the vaccine-religious is often downright amusing. One such amusement can be seen in this VIDEO of mine.

We also know that in pertussis (whooping cough), those who are vaccinated are more likely, due to original antigenic sin, to be carriers of the bacteria longer than the non-vaccinated, even when asymptomatic. In his ARTICLE published in Clinical Infectious Disease in 2004, Dr. James Cherry pointed out that adults, re-vaccinated against pertussis, don’t develop any antibacterial activity whatsoever. He went on to explain why. The current vaccines contain a few antigens, which create “original antigenic sin”, whereby the immune response to the vaccine is abnormal. That first-learned response then becomes the default position the immune system takes, on future booster shots. So in the case of the whooping cough vaccines there are key protein virulence factors which have not been included in the vaccines including ACT, TCF, TCT, as well as BrkA and DNT. This is also explained in the video above.

Because the first three are not included, the default immune response does not prevent colonization, and furthermore, Cherry stated that the “original antigenic sin” results in the vaccinated being unable to clear the bacteria from their lungs. The non-vaccinated have immunity to all the front line virulence factors and very quickly clear the bacteria on re-exposure.

Mothers who have been vaccinated, may develop surrogate markers which can be measured in a laboratory, but these do not guarantee efficient immune responses after exposure to the natural disease, because their first “learned response” was incorrect. Furthermore, they are still not sure “what” the surrogate marker actually is for pertussis.

There is similar information on measles, the other disease that has been portrayed by the media as a danger to the population due to non-vaccinated children. But this information is not accurate, nor is measles a dangerous disease in healthy people who have sufficient vitamin A. Damien et. al pointed out in this ARTICLE that the vaccinated are 5-8 times more susceptible to asymptomatic infection than the immune non-vaccinated. How then, are the non-vaccinated solely responsible for the recent outbreaks in measles?

Many vaccines are said to be “attenuated” or modified-live and supposedly do not infect, but over the decades we have seen how those attenuated viruses mutate once they are in a human and can spread more virulent disease than what is being vaccinated for. The oral polio vaccines in Nigeria today is a case in point. But this can happen with any attenuated viral vaccine.

The original Salk polio vaccines were supposed to be killed vaccines and yet they infected thousands of people, the household contacts and the community, killing and paralyzing over 200 people. The published figure is thought to be a gross underestimate of the true number of people affected.

It is not uncommon to see a child recently vaccinated for chicken pox develop shingles or chicken pox. We see this often enough. I’ve also seen shingles vaccine (which has 14 times the amount of virus as the chickenpox vaccine) provoke shingles in an elderly woman days after the vaccine was given. And strangely enough, the doctors taking care of her had to go and research to see if shingles vaccines can cause shingles, because doctors know almost nothing about vaccines.

Here are things to consider when you hear of an outbreak of an infectious disease: “How many of the affected were fully vaccinated and how many people died or were hospitalized? Were the cases verified with laboratory tests or are the reports based on community doctor reports? What drugs were given prior to death?”

Other questions to bear in mind is, “Were the people hospitalized because”: The disease was really serious:The family didn’t know how to deal with it:The family responded to a medical profession hard-wired to believe everyone with that disease can die? In other words, was the admission to the hospital really necessary?

Influenza vaccines are continuously advertised as helpful even when the efficacy is very low. The science speaks against such helpfulness, but the science seems to be unread by those who make vaccine recommendations. Here is a VIDEO CLIP of my opinion of the influenza vaccine hype of 2017-18.

Third misconception: Deaths from these terrible diseases that once plagued humanity will return to pre-vaccine levels, if we do not keep up the vaccines. We can see from the graph at the end of this page, that the mortality from these diseases was drastically declining prior to vaccination. But in addition, you might want to know the more rational explanation for deadly disease decline in modern times. It’s not vaccination. It has been shown to be hygiene. In this article, “What is the causal link between hygiene and infections?” the authors offer the epidemiological evidence that vaccines played a minor role.

Here is something else you may not have been informed of: All the reduction even for TB in USA, was achieved BEFORE any vaccines of any sort were offered, and most of the reductions for all diseases, were achieved before antibiotics became commercially available in about 1950 as well. So what did that? It wasn’t vaccines. Yet all the countries which used the BCG as front line “protection”, saw an identical decline to the one which we saw in USA using no TB vaccine.

Mortality for several common illnesses had already declined significantly long before the vaccines were created. The downward trend of the curves is completely unaffected by vaccine introduction.

If you compare graphs for death decline in diphtheria and scarlet fever, they are almost identical. Yet there never was a widely used vaccine for scarlet fever. Scarlet fever and its resulting complication, rheumatic fever —has clearly been shown in the medical literature, to be nutritionally driven. This is why if you do find someone who says they had scarlet fever, it is primarily in more impoverished, war-torn, hungry and poverty stricken countries. In developed countries where rheumatic fever is an issue, it’s primarily seen in the less educated groups, whose nutritional understanding is lacking, or their access to good food is limited.

Yet under-educated people in stable social environments, without much money, who understand and follow effective nutritional pathways, will be on the scale of low susceptibility because nutrition and well being, is what really counts.

Poor nutrition, is historically correlated with higher rheumatic fever and death. All of us carry Strep A regularly, but the well-fed amongst us don’t get scarlet fever, let alone its complication, rheumatic fever.

This point is well studied enough to lay aside any concern over whether or not correlation implies causation.

Historically, in the case of all infectious diseases, good nutrition has been and still is, a major preventive factor, that has led to enormous declines of morbidity and mortality from most infectious diseases. When I suggested to my chief of medicine in the hospital, that nutrition was an important factor in disease prevention, he outright scoffed at me.

It is no coincidence that in the UK, scurvy and measles mortality were closely correlated, as seen in one of our graphs from Dissolving Illusions.

-UK-Scurvy-Measles-1901-1967

Subscribe to DrSuzanne.net
Free periodic updates via e-mail.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Suzanne Humphries, MD

Gary Null and Richard Gale publish on the vast corporate corruption of modern medical science

January 16th, 2019

A hard hitting paper unpeeling the rotting onion of modern science and medicine and finding how little there is untouched by the corruption of money politics has been posted by Gary Null on his Progressive Radio Network show page. We back it up here in case it is subjected to the disappearance which is overtaking more and more of the voices of critics of mainstream beliefs courtesy of Facebook and Google.

SUMMARY: The paper is an excellent summary of how far the power of money is overcoming truth in science, written with the practiced, judicious vocabulary of seasoned critics of the status quo, and covering all the bases in describing where corruption of the values of professional science is rampant. These include:

1. Massive expenditure with no significant progress in defeating disease.
2. Abandonment of prevention in medical treatment for 100% focus on disease management as a profit center.
3. Corporate science has taken over from independent science in most minds of officials, media reporters and editors, investors, academics, and legislators.
4. Big Pharma has hijacked regulators and legislators with revolving door politics and fines for drugs that kill instead of cure are minimal, while profits soar over them.
5. The health risks and dangers of new electronic technology are ignored by profit makers.
6. The peer review system is failing and the bulk of studies are biased and cannot be reproduced.
7. Drugs are pushed on healthy people as preventing disease without proof.
8. Wikipedia is now the largest open source site for medical information but as in the mainstream media its editors typically lack medical or scientific qualifications and routinely attack non-conventional therapies as unproven pseudoscience and ignore positive scientific studies.
9. More patients die annually from iatrogenic (medical treatment) causes than from war – some 900,000 currently, as health agencies and medical schools, insurance providers and professional associations serve drug makers and profit enterprise.
10. Propagandized doctors and other health providers are taken over by what amounts to a religious cult of beliefs.
11. The collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1991 expanded corporations to the international stage as transnational behemoths which have dominated government institutions ever since.
12. Reagan gutted the EPA as industry pollution brake and freed pharma from any vaccine liability in 1986, launching the boom which will reach $60 billion in 2020.
13, Clinton freed biotech from proper oversight with GMOs proliferating since.
14. Manipulating and fudging scientific data is detected often by the FDA and buried, withheld from media, public and even Congressional committees, so that drugs are marketed and many medical publications print favorable articles based on fraudulent drug trials (research of Charles Seife of NYU reviewed 600 trials).
15. Following review by Marcia Angell of her twenty years at the New England Journal of Medicine. concluding that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published”, Richard Horton editor of the Lancet warned that “perhaps half” of the scientific literature “may simply be untrue.”
14. In 2012 a team at Amgen were able to reproduce only six of 53 published cancer studies. Another study in Nature found only 39 of 100 psychology studies could be replicated.
15. In 546 drug trials reviewed at Childrens Hospital Boston it was found that industry funded trials with positive results were 70 per cent more likely to be published than research from federal health agencies.In 2010 Harvard and other researchers found of multi studies of twelve antidepressant drugs tested on 12,500 patients, 36 of the 37 favorable trials were published by the NEJM, and only 3 of 36 unfavorable trials.
16. Conflict of interest admissions in authors of articles on drugs produced by companies with whom they have financial ties are now mandated, but avoided by a booming business in ghostwriters from pr firms who submit favorable articles.
17. Monsanto has employed ghostwriters for over a decade to defend its flagship weedkiller Roundup (glyphosphate) especially now after a court reversal in California which ruled that it caused a plaintiff’s cancer, and in 2016 Montsanto was found to have secretly reviewed and amended articles in the journal Critical Review in Toxicology on the chemical as a carcinogen.
18. Coca-Cola founded and initially funded the professedly independent Global Energy Balance Network which recruits prominent scientists and professors to promulgate the message that lack of exercise is more important than junk sugary beverages in causing obesity.

======================================================
How the Corruption of Science Leads to the Collapse of Modern Civilization

Richard Gale & Gary Null
Progressive Radio Network, January 15, 2019

This new year will likely mark another milestone in science and medicine. Again, Americans will spend more money on diagnostic tests, surgeries and other medical procedures, and patients will consume more drugs and receive more treatments than any other time in US history. We will continue to be inundated with television drug advertisements with the reassuring message, “you don’t have to fight this battle alone. We are with you.” There will be images of laboratories, medical research and happy patients to strengthen viewers’ faith that medical science is progressing and working on our behalf. We will be promised that new cures for life-threatening diseases are on the horizon.

The US will also spend a minimum of $3.5 trillion on healthcare, in addition to a $1.5 trillion loss in work and wages due to illness. Five trillion dollars total. Approximately 18 percent of the US GDP. And tens of millions of additional dollars will be spent to advertise Big Pharma’s message.

And herein lies the fundamental problem. There are more doctors, more hospitals, more pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures than ever before and yet we have not conquered nor made any significant progress in curing any major disease. Instead of making efforts to fund disease prevention and educate the public, prevention has been abandoned altogether. There are volumes of excellent peer-reviewed studies documenting research and clinical experience showing a healthy diet, physical exercise and stress management regimens can either completely prevent or be incorporated into medical treatment protocols successfully. However, there is no profit to be made in prevention. Modern medicine is solely devoted to disease management.

How did we reach this threshold where trillions of dollars have been tossed into the abyss? One reason is that few voices have been able to reach the public to address the widespread corruption in corporate science, especially medicine, agriculture, and environmental issues. Honest, independent science is ignored in favor of proprietary pharmaceutical drugs and genetically modified foods. Fraudulent research has been used to justify nuclear power as a clean green energy. Political officials working on behalf of fossil fuel interests convince us with junk science that hydro-fracking poses no health risks and is environmentally friendly. A single Big Pharma corporation with thousands of employees and billions of dollars in sales and profits is deeply connected to investors, public relations firms, federal health officials and the media. All of these externally-invested parties are in turn dependent upon the corporation’s revenue stream. Money that trickles down is spent bribing medical schools to push the conventional drug agenda’s regime, or funneled to front groups and foundations to buy off so-called experts to debunk critics. Revenues received by the mainstream media networks for drug advertisements are payoffs assuring that no reporting appears that might show the company and its medical products in a bad public light.

The benefit Big Pharma receives from hijacking the federal regulators and legislators is protection from the nation’s judiciary so that when a drug like Merck’s anti-arthritic Vioxx conservatively kills over 60,000 patients and injures an additional 130,000, there is no immediate FDA recall and deaths are permitted until the crisis reaches a tipping point and health officials are forced to step in. Never is a drug executive prosecuted. Vioxx sales earned Merck $18 billion and they only had to pay a $5 billion settlement. Everyone who knew Vioxx was a defective product had engaged in malice aforethought with no deleterious consequences. The company merely paid a fine and returned to business as usual, and the media simply whitewashed the seriousness of Merck’s crimes.

More

Science creates artificial intelligence, geoengineering, and 5G wireless technology. These are held up as great achievements. We never hear anything about their downsides from mainstream media, and private corporations will not disclose evidence of their risks and dangers. If a scientific invention appears in the peer-reviewed literature, it has already reached a gold standard. Any controversy has been settled. However, we are now finding that the entire peer-reviewed journal system is utterly corrupt. In fact, as we will recount, it is all a fraud, and it will worsen without any efforts made to reform it. Quite simply, there is neither concerted will nor ethical standard to improve the peer-reviewed system because it generates too much profit.

Drugs are being pushed upon healthy people not because they treat a disease, but because we are told they will prevent a disease. Such is the case for new HIV prevention drugs, such as Truvada and PrEp, and statins. There is no definitive science that these drugs are effective enough for anyone to take them. Imagine being healthy and told that starting chemotherapy will prevent cancer. That would be insane.

And now we discover that the world’s largest open source site for medical information is Wikipedia. Articles about medical products and therapeutic regimes are penned by completely unqualified editors with no medical background and many who prefer to remain anonymous. Yet Wikipedia editors state with authority that there are no proven health benefits from non-conventional and natural medical therapies. After reading any Wikipedia entry about chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, Chinese medicine, naturopathy or energy medicine, the reader will walk away believing it is all pseudoscience or fraud. However, collectively there are hundreds of thousands of studies to support these therapies’ efficacy and safety. Legitimate scientific inquiry has already shown their efficacy. Independent board-certified physicians have been using complementary and alternative medicine for a long time with excellent results, but you will not find any of these qualified physicians being invited to lead a committee at the FDA, CDC or any other national health agency or department. Nor do we find special reports about successful advances in natural health regimens appearing on Dateline, Sixty Minutes, CNN, nor in the New York Times and Washington Post.

So where exactly in the cesspool of modern medicine, food science, and the agro-chemical industry are we to find truth? No one in the scientific and federal health agencies can be trusted anymore. They are all compromised. No mainstream journalist is trustworthy, and no one can be certain whether a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed science journal is reliable. Even the clinical physicians on the front lines of healthcare work in the dark. It is only after large numbers of deaths and injuries, such as with Agent Orange, DDT, aspartame, mammography, etc, that a light goes on – and even then only for a short time before returning to the dark.

Our research shows that the majority of pharmaceutical corporations have settled lawsuits, some of which are described in this article. At the same time our analysis confirms that over 900,000 Americans die annually from iatrogenic causes. How is it that the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishment has killed more Americans than those who died in Vietnam without any serious consequences? Now wrap your mind around this: if we take a conservative figure of preventable deaths from medicine, 500,000 per year during the last four decades, that would account for approximately 20 million deaths. That is more than all those killed in wars throughout America’s history.

The reason American medicine has turned into the nation’s largest and deadliest battlefield is that for scientific corruption to succeed with impunity, everything must be interconnected. The Surgeon General, the heads of federal health agencies, drug makers, the insurance industry, medical schools and professional associations, and the media operate as a single army waging a war on health against Americans. Corporate interests control everything. Modern medicine has morphed into a religious cult which cannot contemplate the potential of its own vulnerabilities. And numerous patients have been played for fools. As we will see, medicine profits from keeping patients sick.

We understand that you may be confused about this message because it goes directly against everything the medical establishment tells us. The fact is that science is completely vulnerable to corruption, and this has always been the case. Private industry and government know this perfectly. The checks and balances separating private and public interests have collapsed. Today, a sincere person who blows the whistle on government and corporate malfeasance and crimes can find him or herself going to jail. The medical regime is now a single entity. All of its parts are consolidated and entwined into a monolithic behemoth dedicated to protecting its bottom line.

Is it not time we said “enough”?

When we consider Marx’s statement that “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce,” it requires little effort to look back upon history and witness a long legacy of scientific horrors and tragedies. Yet today, matters have worsened. Ever since the Rockefellers privatized American healthcare back in the 1930s, science in the hands of powerful private interest groups and corrupt government agencies has spiraled downward to its current state today: a sad and virulent burlesque spectacle.

If medical corruption had been conducted with the results of vastly improved health in the nation, we might close our eyes. However, as corruption throughout the medical establishment and federal health agencies increases, so has the health of the nation substantially decreased. The monster the Carnegie Foundation unleashed in its Flexner Report to set the standard for medical education back in 1910 has since opened its jaws wider to swallow the little integrity that might remain in American medicine. The nation’s health statistics and annual rise in preventable diseases proves the case.

The US is the world’s most medicated country and yet ranks at the bottom of the pack of developed nations for quality of health. It is also the only nation in the developed world with the average lifespan in decline. A Consumer Report survey estimates that 55 percent of Americans regularly take a prescription drug, and among those, the average person takes four drugs. In 2016, over 4.5 billion prescriptions were filled, earning the pharmaceutical industry over $200 billion.[1] An earlier estimate conducted and published by the Mayo Clinic found that 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug and over 50 percent are on two. Twenty percent of patients are on five or more.[2] Over 17 percent of citizens 45 years and older take antidepressants, including one in four women.[3] A multi-year population-based survey conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago found that 32 percent of adults diagnosed with depression were taking medications with depression listed as an adverse effect! These drugs include proton pump inhibitors, analgesics, beta blockers and synthetic hormone contraceptives.[4]

For anyone who cares to take a broad, objective and panoramic view of the illnesses plaguing the American landscape, the situation will be found shocking. Clearly it needn’t be this way. Most people enter the sciences for noble reasons and because of a passion for discovery. So then why do they so often emerge out of the end of the institutionalized treadmill as proponents of products that do more harm than good?
The Dismal State of Modern Science

There have been prophetic voices in the past who have warned about the dire direction in which modern scientific advancement is headed. In his 1924 essay “Icarus or the Future of Science,” the British mathematician and moral philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote, “I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups, rather than to make men happy. Icarus, having been taught to fly by his father Daedalus, was destroyed in his rashness. I fear that the same fate may overtake the populations whom modern men of science have taught to fly.” Later in his essay Russell continues, “whether, in the end, science will prove to have been a blessing or a curse to mankind, is to my mind still a doubtful question.”

For Russell, those who can sincerely call themselves scientists pursue their discipline out of a love for knowledge. Science is supposed to improve conditions necessary to foster our well-being and happiness, and to preserve the planet’s environment in an ethical manner. A scientist who truly pursues knowledge out of love, Russell argues, will desire the fruits of his work and craft to be expressions of kindness for the greater good. On the other hand, science is perverted when knowledge is pursued solely for power and domination over others. He warned about the trends of his day increasing whereby the holders of scientific knowledge become “evil” and science solely serves the ambitions of the powerful and those who control scientific inventions’ utility. “Scientific knowledge,” Russell wrote, “does not make men more sensible in their aims, and administrators in the future will be presumably no less stupid and no less prejudiced than they are at present.”[5]

Since the days when science broke free from religion during the European Renaissance, the blind faith in perpetual scientific progress as humanity’s best of fortunes has persisted to the present day. In fact, in the 21st century, scientific materialism has largely replaced religious beliefs and morals altogether. This is especially evident in the contemporary regressive movements of Skepticism, the New Atheism, Science- and Evidence-based Medicine, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, Randian Objectivism, and scientific positivism, which have all been chained to corporate capital and science’s bureaucracies. This myth of perpetual scientific progress, says Russell, “is one of the comfortable nineteenth-century delusions which our more disillusioned age must discard.” In the end, Russell foresaw that science may be the ultimate cause behind “the destruction of our civilization.” From our own perspective, given our governments’ and corporations’ utter disregard towards climate change, insensitive destruction of the natural world and other species, medical abuse of prescription drugs, and brushing off the lives of those in dire economic and social straits, we have to agree.
Modern Medicine: The Exemplar of Scientific Nepotism

Throughout its history, the practice of medicine has been associated with humanitarian and compassionate efforts to relieve the suffering of others. In modern times, we assume that medical science is serving us to find new miracles to save our lives. In ancient systems, medicine was perceived as a divine art and knowledge brought down to humans by the gods. A healer who lived by the ethical codes of his craft was held in high esteem by rulers and peasants alike. Although there have always been medical pretenders who took advantage of the ignorant, the medical arts themselves retained their integrity…. until our modern era. Before outlining the many ways that conventional corporate medicine has become the paragon of a science turned enemy against its essential moral code and the people it is supposed to serve, we might begin with a recent example depicting just how low the medical discipline has sunk into Hades. The state of modern American medicine was accurately summarized in April 2018 when Goldman Sachs released its financial projection report, “The Genome Revolution,” to biotechnology companies. The report doesn’t hesitate to state clearly that for future investment, corporate profits far outweigh the curing of disease.

Goldman Sachs is one of Wall Street’s largest investors in high-growth technologies, particularly pharmaceuticals, medical devices and healthcare services. The report presents the frightening question, “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Even for the most hardened proponents of natural medicine and opponents of Big Pharma, there are times when a drug developer hits the nail on the head. Such is the case with Gilead Sciences’ drugs Harvoni and Epclusa, which have achieved over a 90 percent cure rate for hepatitis C. This is an extraordinary cure rate. But for Goldman, this is a bad sign for investors and shareholders. The drugs’ success has steadily drained the pool of patients requiring treatment. At their peak in 2015, these drugs earned $12.5 billion. Three years later, they are expected to earn under $4 billion, and revenues will continue to decline. Goldman writes, “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”[6]

Goldman’s report confirms an observation that we have been voicing for many years. That is, modern medicine is no longer about treating disease; rather, it is all about disease management to keep patients on drugs for life. How did this trend of an amoral medical philosophy and a betrayal of Hippocratic principles come about, since billions of dollars are spent annually to discover cures for disease?

Before the arrival of the Reagan era, most scientific pursuits remained relatively free of commercial efforts to deceive and corrupt. Although federal health agencies have in the past funded witch hunts to squash non-conventional medical theories and practices, such as Chiropractic and more recent homeopathy, overall ethical standards were upheld to approve drugs’ efficacy and safety to the best of their capabilities. Certainly there were serious oversights and failures costing many lives, such as Quaalude-300, PTZ for convulsive therapy, thalidomide and the acellular pertussis vaccine. There were also cases of gross conspiracy and scandal that destroyed numerous lives, such as the 1932-1972 Tuskegee experiment to secretly withhold penicillin from untreated African American males with syphilis. However, it was only during the past three decades that private corporations were able to successfully and rapidly subdue the nation’s health agencies in order to control their executive functions and administrations.

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union on Christmas Day in 1991, governance was dictated in a bipolar world between two military giants. The governments of the US and the Soviets, and their respective allies, were the sole stakeholders moving the pawns on the world’s chessboard. On the global scene, private industry and civil society would have to wait to grab a seat at the table of governance until American global hegemony was established. Therefore, the collapse of the Soviet bloc opened the floodgates for commercial interests. Large corporations serving primarily domestic interests went international. New markets increased exponentially and private corporations and investment banks took advantage of the openings in these markets. Exploitation of these opportunities commenced unimpeded. Once-national corporations morphed overnight into transnational behemoths, with values competing with national economies, resulting in widespread commercial influence over practically all of our institutions in government, higher education, professional associations and the media. In addition, science became embedded in private economic interests and the governments of the developed nations, notably the US and Britain, were eager to throw in their support to assure unlimited corporate growth could continue. The emerging corporate aristocracy were not perceived so much as uncontrollable rogue entrepreneurs necessitating strict government oversight and regulation to stay in line; rather they became partners as their agendas melted into one and the same.

Ronald Reagan, the first Deregulator-in-Chief, opened a pathway for private interests to gain greater control over the sciences. According to Leslie Janka, a former White House deputy press secretary under Reagan, his entire presidency “was PR.” “This was a PR outfit,” stated Janka, “that became president and took over the country. And to the degree then which the Constitution forced them to do things like make a budget, run a foreign policy and all that, they sort of did. But their first, last and overarching activity was public relations.”[7] Reagan, who consulted astrologers for decision-making, was a scientific illiterate who favored private economic growth over altruism and consumer safety. This meant gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, stripping it of its ability to combat industries’ propensity to evade regulatory hurdles and pollute the environment.

It was also during the Reagan era that pharmaceutical firms infiltrated the halls of the federal government. Through concerted lobbying and persuasion, Reagan signed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to protect vaccine makers from financial liability due to vaccines’ adverse effects. Before this bill, only a few firms continued to manufacture vaccines; the financial risks and compensation burden from vaccine injuries were too high for most drug companies. Reagan is therefore credited for launching the current vaccine boom, estimated to be worth $60 billion by 2020, with no legal liability placed upon companies for pushing unsafe and minimally effective vaccines. This trend entered hyperdrive under President Clinton, who perceived himself as the first “biotech president” and invited more corporate executives with conflicts of interest into his administration than any previous president. If the proliferation of GMOs is regarded as a contagion and curse on human and environmental health, then Clinton is ultimately to be blamed.

There are three primary avenues by which science becomes corrupted and thereby damages the public’s health and the environment. These include: 1) corporate influence over scientific discoveries that are developed into products for public consumption; 2) corruption within the scientific community itself; and 3) the emergence of a positive philosophy towards science that displays to all of the dogmatic trimmings of fundamentalist religious faith and seeks full protection from government to become the reigning ideology of the state.

This latter trend has been termed “scientism,” an incoherent ideology that identifies rationality and reason with science itself. Scientism embraces the premise that science can explain everything. One of the more common criticisms against scientism is its “claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.”[8] This scientific hubris particularly plagues the biological disciplines such as mental health, immunology, drug-based conventional medical therapies, neurobiology, the genetic etiology of disease, nanomedicine and genetic modification of plants for industrial agriculture.

One unrecognized consequence of scientism is that it plays directly into corporate hands to advance its financial interests and commercial control over a population. By tossing aside philosophical and ethical considerations over natural scientific discoveries and findings, scientific truths stand alone as sterile and amoral tools that can be used as economic weapons of destruction. This is most evident in the pharmaceutical industry that pushes questionably effective and unsafe drugs to treat physical and mental disorders, or the agro-chemical corporations poisoning the public with carcinogenic pesticides and environment-damaging genetically modified crops.

According to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Corporations attempt to exert influence at every step of the scientific and policy-making process, often to shape decisions in their favor or avoid regulation and monitoring of their products and by-products at the public expense.”[9] In order to achieve their goals, private interests make every attempt to win over the White House, Congressional legislators, senior federal agency officials and even the judicial courts. One of science-generated industry’s greatest threats is independent evaluation of the scientific research supporting their products. Winning over or buying the allegiance of the heads of congressional committees and the executive tiers of federal agency regulators is therefore a high priority in order to ensure the gears of bureaucracy remain oiled, the licensing channels for product approval stay wide open, and regulatory due diligence and scientific scrutiny don’t intrude on profits.

There are several ways that private corporations succeed in influencing the government to do their bidding, ensuring the judicial terrain is safe for corporations to perpetrate scientific malfeasance and fraud. This includes manipulating and fudging scientific data, preserving and exerting control over scientists, and taking control of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Although these tactics are found in many industries, it is the medical and food sectors that are today the most corrupt, acting with blatant criminality.

Charles Seife and his students at New York University sought to determine to what extent the FDA covers up evidence of fraud and corruption in medical drug trials. They reviewed FDA documents for about 600 clinical trials. How often do federal health officials discover flagrant and intentional misconduct and subsequently decide to bury the evidence out of sight of the medical community? Seife discovered such actions were an official pattern within the agency. Given the high rate of content deleted or blacked out from the documents the FDA provided, the investigators could only determine which pharmaceutical company or drug was involved in 1 of 6 of the reviewed trials. For one trial alone, where FDA inspectors found significant fraud and misconduct, 78 different medical publications printed articles based upon that single study. In an article for Slate, Seife writes,

“Nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers.”[10]

In one case, a new anti-blood clotting drug, rivaroxaban, was tested in four large trials, which recruited thousands of patients in clinical sites in over a dozen countries. According to Seife, one of the trials “was a fiasco.” In half of the sixteen clinical sites, the FDA discovered “misconduct, fraud, fishy behavior or other practices so objectionable that the data had to be thrown out.” One Colorado site falsified data. In the Mexican site, there was “systematic discarding of medical records.” Despite these overwhelming problems, the drug trial was published favorably in the prestigious British journal The Lancet. The FDA found similar problems in the three other trials; in one the data was ruled “worthless.” The FDA advisory committee of “expert” reviewers were only informed that inspectors discovered “significant issues” at two sites in one of the trials. Rivaroxaban was nevertheless approved in 2011. Since then, lawsuits for wrongful death from rivaroxaban have piled up.[11]

In another case from 2010, Cetero, a private research company that contracts to Big Pharma, faked data for over 1,400 drug safety and effectiveness trials conducted for roughly 100 drugs, mostly generic knockoffs, that were being considered for the US market. Although the FDA uncovered this fraud, it has refused to make these 100 drugs known to the professional medical community and public.[12]

A possible reason some federal health agencies have been squeezed into an administrative straitjacket pulled ever tighter by private industry is the excessive downsizing and withdrawal of funds during the current and past two presidencies. A decade ago, Jessica Washburn reported on the dire situation at the NIH’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction for Discover Magazine. The Center is responsible for the evaluation of chemicals and their impact on reproductive health. With continual deregulation following the Koch Brothers agenda to permit private industries to flood the environment with toxic substances, this is an enormously important department tasked with assuring the health of pregnant women and protecting their fetuses. Yet the Center only employed three people, one of whom was part-time. The vast majority of the workload was outsourced to a private consulting firm, Sciences International. For almost ten years, this firm, which had been receiving funding from over forty chemical companies, was the primary evaluator of the environmental toxins mothers-to-be were being exposed to.[13] Publication Prejudice, Fraud and Deceptive Favoritism

During the past decade, scientific prejudice, bias, and outright deceit have been endemic to peer-reviewed scientific literature, especially in the medical and psychiatric fields. Medical journals have been thoroughly hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry, as have university departments and research institutions that are principally funded by private interests. It is no longer a secret that industry-funded studies inordinately convey positive results. Positive research is published; negative research is suppressed and buried. Consequently, the reality of robust and honest medical research is skewed and distorted. Physicians and medical clinics thus get only a peek into the actual safety, efficacy and contraindications of the drugs later peddled to them by pharmaceutical sales reps.

In 2009, Harvard’s Dr. Marcia Angell, a former editor for the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, wrote,

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”[14]

Later, the editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton stated, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” A large percentage of published studies and trials have either not been reproduced or failed to be reproduced. For example, in 2012, a scientist and his team at Amgen attempted to reproduce 53 published cancer studies and only succeeded in reproducing six. In another project published in Nature, only 39 of 100 psychology studies could be replicated.[15] Although Horton is optimistic that the proverbial cat is out of the bag and the medical community has been warned, he despairs that “the bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.”[16]

Doctors at Children’s Hospital Boston undertook the task of reviewing 546 drug trials listed in the government’s Clinical Trials database. They found that industry-funded trials showing positive results were 70 percent more likely to be published than research funded by federal health agencies.[17]

In 2010, a multi-institutional review of studies for twelve antidepressant drugs that cumulatively enrolled over 12,500 patients was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The group, representing researchers from Oregon Health and Science University, Harvard, the University of California Riverside and others, identified a deeply biased and deceptive trend in publication of these drugs’ respective trials that was highly selective. Thirty-six of the 37 favorable studies were published. On the other hand, only 3 of 36 unfavorable trials found their way into print.[18] The consequences are obvious. By giving the false impression that over 90 percent of studies confirm the value of antidepressant drugs while burying almost the same number of adverse trials, the entire risk-benefit ratio of these drugs is skewed.

There’s also the matter of private corporations reaching out to public relations firms and independent technical writers to ghostwrite articles on behalf of their research and commercial products, which first came to light about a decade ago. Despite growing awareness, the practice continues and in fact has become more common during the last several years. Ghostwriting has become a global cottage industry. Although ghostwriting is generally regarded as improper, it is not illegal. Parallel to the alarming revelations that scientific journals were publishing increasing amounts of junk science, there was the problem of scientific authors’ personal biases due to their financial ties to private interests (and hence the very research and products they were positively writing about). For many decades, this was not considered a serious problem, but increasingly authors would hide their financial conflicts of interest. Consequently, the most respected science journals require authors to reveal their associations and conflicts of interest with private companies and private for-profit institutions that may compromise the objectivity of their articles. To get around this requirement, companies reach out to ghostwriters who can paint themselves as independent and conflict-free to submit favorable articles.

The ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, stated, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Unfortunately this millennium-old tenet was forgotten long ago. Enter the agro-chemical giant Monsanto, which has its fingers in the majority of food products consumed in the US. Monsanto has become notorious for relying upon a wide network of ghostwriting resources to intentionally undermine governments’ regulatory agencies and deceive the public. The company has made a habit of contracting public relations firms and wooing compromised writers for over a decade. Following a California court ruling in favor of a plaintiff who developed cancer, the company’s flagship weed-killing chemical glyphosate, trade name Roundup, is under growing international scrutiny as a carcinogen. Monsanto again is relying upon its army of ghostwriter goons to conduct damage control.

Journalist Carey Gillam has been tracking Monsanto’s shenanigans for many years. In 2016, the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology published a “special series” of science articles reviewing glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential. The World Health Organization had already ruled the chemical might cause cancer, and European health officials were seriously deliberating on banning the herbicide from the continent. “Four independent panels” from the journal declared, “Neither any Monsanto company employee nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.” However, Gilliam’s investigation into manuscripts released during the litigation found this was a complete lie. One of Monsanto’s leading scientists not only reviewed the manuscripts, but also edited them. In one internal email within the company, the Chief of Regulatory Science had admitted he reviewed an entire document with suggestions for omissions and a few edits of his own. Other internal documents identify ghostwriters and strategies for recruiting outside scientists to compose articles giving the weed-killer credibility. Attempts to have the papers retracted from the journal have yet to be heeded.[19]

Besides ghostwriters, corporations hide behind shadowy non-profit organizations, front groups and shill think tanks that project the public image of being legitimate and expert scientific institutions. This strategy has been a means to covertly get corporate messages out under the illusion of being generated by independent scientists. For example, a flurry of studies have appeared in recent years proving that sugar-loaded sodas and beverages are substantially contributing to the nation’s obesity and Type 2 diabetes crises. This message is reaching the public. Soda consumption has dropped by 25 percent. To counter the scientific assault on its revenues, Coca-Cola — the world’s largest manufacturer of junk sugary beverages — teamed up with a corporate sponsored non-profit, the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), to promulgate the message that “weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise.” GEBN, which has recruited many prominent scientists and health professors, swears by its independence from Coke’s influence. However, Coke started the non-profit initiative with a $1.5 million startup donation. Since its founding, the partnership has unleashed a media blitz across medical journals, professional conferences, mainstream media and social networks to get Coke’s message out. New York University professor of nutrition and food science Marion Nestle has labeled the GEBN as “nothing but a front group for Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola’s agenda is very clear: Get these researchers to confuse the science and deflect attention from dietary intake.”[20]

While it is easy to blame private industry for producing the junk science appearing in peer-reviewed journals, we mustn’t lose sight of the corruption within the publications and among senior editors as well. The reason is simple: There is far too much financial incentive for professional journals to approve and publish corporate funded research. An article confirming the therapeutic value of a new drug, for example, can go a long way to bring enormous revenues to publishers. Pharmaceutical firms will order thousands of copies of the article to be disseminated throughout their sales force and sent to physicians, medical schools, clinics and hospitals. The Lancet receives 41 percent of its income from reprints purchased by drug makers. The American Medical Association’s journal gets a whopping 53 percent.

Finally, Big Pharma engages in a form of bribery to get journal editors to ensure their research gets into print. Jessica Liu at the University of Toronto’s Medical School conducted an analysis of payments US drug makers made to 713 editors employed by 52 high impact medical journals. Fifty percent of editors were identified as playing this corporate game and received payments for services that included preferential treatment towards article submissions and appointing peer reviewers. Liu and her colleagues estimated that the mean payment for general articles was $28,100; for research submissions, $37,900.[21] The worst example is the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with all of its 35 editors on the take. Cumulatively, the journal’s editors received almost $15 million in “bribes” from Big Pharma.[22] Corporate Control of Scientific Information

Private corporations have full and complete control over the proprietary research and trial data in their possession. This means they have the discretion to decide what data to release. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, the US government makes no demands for a company to release all its clinical trial data and results for any given drug or vaccine submitted to the FDA or CDC respectively for approval and licensure. This is also true for “selective publication” of studies in medical journals. In 2008, the French multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi completed 92 studies on drugs in their pipeline. Only 14 were submitted and approved for publication. What should we think about the remaining 78 trials that were withheld?[23] Clearly it would be foolish for financial reasons alone that Sanofi would want its negative trial results to appear in peer-reviewed literature. The professional medical community and institutions rely heavily on the scientific publications to keep abreast of the latest studies and news. Nevertheless, federal authorities would not require Sanofi nor any pharmaceutical firm to submit research data that might jeopardize its approval on issues of safety, serious adverse effects and clinical efficacy. Consequently, federal reviewers are only being provided with trials and data favorable to Big Pharma’s bottom line.

Dr. Steven Nissen is a highly respected cardiologist at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic who worries about the demise of independent research outside of pharmaceutical control. Among the targets he has investigated is Glaxo’s blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia. Unable to acquire original patient information from the drug maker, Nissen turned to the internet and “stumbled upon a cache of data belonging to Glaxo,” which had been submitted during a lawsuit filed by former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.[24] In addition to discovering that only 15 of 42 clinical trials for Avantia had been published, the company had been suppressing the data that the drug increased risks of heart attack by 43 percent. Nissen published his findings in the New England Journal of Medicine; two days later the FDA slapped a “black box” warning on the drug.

Nissen also uncovered a story about Glaxo’s antidepressant drug Paxil that was equally disturbing. The company’s research had shown that children on Praxil were twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts than kids taking a placebo. Nevertheless Glaxo had withheld this information from health officials and the medical community.

However, Nissen’s challenges did not end there. Among the deplorable tactics corporations adopt to protect their commercial interests, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, is “scientific coercion.” This includes harassing scientists and institutions that bring to light corporate misconduct or raise obstacles to their revenue flow. Companies will go a long way to silence their opponents in the scientific community, including litigation threats and putting pressure upon institutions and universities to impose demotions, loss of tenure, or blatant censorship. In retaliation, Glaxo let lose its attack dogs to defame and discredit Nissen. The hitmen included Dr. Valentin Fuster (Chairman of Glaxo’s educational foundation), Peter Pitts (senior vice president at the Manning Selvage and Lee public relations firm that represents Glaxo), and Douglas Arbesfeld (and FDA communications consultant). Scathing articles against Nissen appeared in the Washington Times, Nature and Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine. A caustic email was also sent out to the wider media deriding Nissen’s credibility.[25]

Others stories include direct covert bribing of countries’ health officials to get sympathetic support for a drug approval. This was the case when Eli Lilly bribed Swedish officials to get its antidepressant drug Prozac approved. Dr. John Virapen, a former Eli Lilly executive in sales, blew the whistle after personally bribing the Swedes.[26] In 2012 the US SEC slapped the company with a $29 million settlement for bribing government officials in Russia, Brazil, China and Poland through offshore accounts to push its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa and antidepressant drug Cymbalta.[27] The corporation later in 2013 repeated a similar crime, bribing Chinese physicians to start prescribing Prozac.[28]

These are only a few examples among many that have been reported upon extensively by sincere investigative journalists and alarmed scientists. We mustn’t take lightly the extreme measures private corporations will descend to in order to silence critics and remove barriers to maximizing their economic bottom line.
Manipulation of the Media

Turning to any major television network, we inevitably find advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs. Even the drugs that are being promoted tell us something about the networks’ viewing audience: middle years and older who are aging and at a higher disease risk are more receptive to the drugs being shilled to their eyes and ears. There is no law that prevents the mainstream media from taking fees to advertise products from the pharmaceutical industry. What we are less clear about are the contractual conditions between the private advertisers and the networks over journalists reporting health news or negative findings about the specific drugs being plugged in the ads. Only the US and New Zealand governments actually permit drug advertisements on television networks, so this is once again an example of the special relationship that exists between federal agencies and the drug companies. Big Pharma had to first succeed in seducing federal FCC officials to win access to America’s airwaves.

In 2016, the FDA had a major announcement and selected a small group of media firms, including National Public Radio, to release the news. But there were conditions, known as close-hold embargoes, that demanded journalists could only interview and ask questions to sources that were officially sanctioned by the federal agency. Seeking outside comments was forbidden. The FDA’s intention is clear: to control the flow of information and assure that press reports are stamped with the agency’s seal of approval. Upon hearing of the FDA’s repression of journalistic integrity in the science media, the journal Scientific American filed a Freedom of Information Act request. The publication uncovered the FDA’s attempt to mislead the media and public by creating “a coterie of journalists” who would do the FDA’s bidding. These journalists are given the privilege of receiving advance notice about science news before anyone else. Reliable independent journalism relies on pursuing outside sources to receive comments and verification for accuracy. Although the FDA claims it has ceased close-hold embargoes on reporters, the practice has continued unabated and is now embedded in the FDA’s media strategy. Many of the medical and health stories coming out of the FDA have followed this principle, and as a result, all of the media outlets parrot the same FDA directive. Journalist watchdogs, according to the article’s author, become the FDA’s “lapdogs.” Reporters are then reduced to “stenographers.”[29]

Shortly after the release of the controversial documentary Vaxxed, co-directed by the discredited British physician and GI specialist Dr. Andrew Wakefield, we undertook and published our investigation into the shadowy forces pulling mainstream media’s strings to demonize the film. The film was not intended be an anti-vaccine diatribe. Rather, it told the true story about a senior vaccine scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. William Thompson, whose guilty conscience motivated him to turn whistleblower. Dr. Thompson released thousands of pages of classified documents to an independent professor and House Representative Bill Posey that contained unquestionable evidence that the CDC had intentionally covered up data showing a direct correlation between the MMR vaccine and rising autism rates among African American boys – as much as a 240 percent increase. In fact, Rep. Posey spent years trying to get Thompson to testify under oath before a House subcommittee and was consistently blocked by CDC pressure on his colleagues. The CDC had committed an enormous crime against the African American community. If Thompson were permitted to give testimony to the American people, the entire vaccine industry would have been jeopardized. The industry’s profits and survival are far more important than the lives of small Black children. And the media was equally criminal in whitewashing this story.

The question we asked ourselves was: how can a film that had not been released for public viewing become the target of such vicious attacks by numerous news outlets within a 72-hour period? In addition, beneath all of the media’s criticisms, we identified a single suspicious written template that all the journalists had been relying upon for their reports. What might account for this anomaly? Clearly, there was no independent journalism being permitted within ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the UK’s Guardian, Time Magazine, the Washington Post and LA Times, New York Times, Forbes, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone and many others. Nor did any of the journalists ever view the film. The entire case was noxious.

Many federal agencies have sophisticated public relations departments. In the case of the CDC, its media activities have more in common with an intelligence operation. Seeking an explanation for why so many mainstream journalists could pen identical screeds to denigrate the film Vaxxed, as well as vaccine safety and vaccine-autism associations in general, we identified a joint program between the agency and the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ). Scores of health editors and reporters through the nation’s leading mainstream media corporations have passed through the CDC’s Atlanta campus through this alliance to be indoctrinated in national public health policies. Journalists who complete the program receive special privileges, including access and instructions to the CDC’s surveillance database and publications to assist in their investigative reporting. In addition, these journalists join the CDC’s exclusive club and receive advanced notices about stories to report and prepared scripts to work from. An example of a CDC script disseminated to these journalists instructs what and how to report collective fear during the influenza season in such a way that people will rush with their kids to their local pharmacies to get their flu shots.[30]

Fear-mongering is one of the more successful strategies to seduce the public into adhering to a specific message that benefits the fearmonger. Monsanto succeeded in this emotional scheme to persuade California’s electorate away from voting in favor of GMO labeling. By shifting the debate away from GMO’s health issues to an economic threat that would increase families’ food bills if labeling were to be approved, people voted on their financial rather than health fears. Political candidates from both parties engage in this practice consistently. Yet perhaps the largest dose of propaganda to generate fear ritually takes place during every annual flu season. The media barrage warning the public of their pending death from a flu infection is completely orchestrated out of the CDC, its advisers and consultants, and its broad network healthcare affiliates.

Ironically, on its website, the CDC vows “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data.” Yet as Dr. Peter Doshi at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine points out, when it concerns the flu vaccine, the CDC’s motto couldn’t be further from the truth. Among all public health policies, flu vaccination programs are not only the most aggressively forced upon the public, but also the most scientifically deceitful. Doshi notes that upon close examination of the CDC’s flu vaccine policies, “although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality and do not substantiate official claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.” In his evaluation published in the British Medical Journal, the flu vaccine is an example of government “disease mongering.”[31] During the 2016-2017 flu season, the government purchased as many as 168 million doses of the vaccine; that is a lot of doses of an ineffective drug to dispense.
Conclusion

In the early 1990s, there was a glimmer of hope that safe and effective drug development might get on the right track. The emergence of a movement within the medical establishment known as Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) has been touted as one of the great medical advances of the twentieth century. EBM has become a dominant paradigm in the modern medicine and all medical research institutions and medical schools adhere to it. It is most prevalent theory in use today to determine the accuracy of peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical trials and medical claims to improve healthcare decisions.[32]

One of EBM’s early and greatest achievements was the creation of the world renowned Cochrane Database Collaboration, a network of 37,000 professors, doctors and researchers from over 130 countries that performs meta-analyses on existing scientific literature for pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, medical devices and supplemental products to determine the veracity of their health claims. As we have detailed, the journals increasingly fail to maintain high standards for the research they publish and are riddled with authorship violations with author conflict-of-interests and ghostwriting that have threatened the integrity of reliable medical literature reaching those who daily diagnose and treat patients. Although many excellent Cochrane meta-analysis reports were released to show that drugs and medical procedures were in fact ineffective, unnecessary and even dangerous, the citadels of medical bureaucracy and national health ministries paid little heed. This was the case for reports on human papillomavirus (HPV) and influenza vaccines, many antidepressant and anti-anxiety drugs, and statins, which fell on deaf ears.

 the internationally recognized co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, Dr. Peter Gotzsche at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. Dr. Gotzsche is the author of Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare, a devastating and documented condemnation about our broken healthcare system, which earned the British Medical Association’s first prize book award in 2014.

The internationally recognized co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, Dr. Peter Gotzsche at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. Dr. Gotzsche is the author of Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare, a devastating and documented condemnation about our broken healthcare system, which earned the British Medical Association’s first prize book award in 2014.

However, today the Cochrane project, once an optimistic international and independent grassroots effort to bring sanity back to clinical medical practice and national health drug policies and regulatory processes, has fallen to the same level of corruption that now infects the entire Big Pharma-controlled medical establishment. A recent scandal indicating that the organization has been hijacked by private pharmaceutical interests is the removal of Cochrane’s internationally recognized co-founder, Dr. Peter Gotzsche of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. Dr. Gotzsche is the author of Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare, a devastating and meticulously-documented condemnation about our broken healthcare system which earned the British Medical Association’s first prize book award in 2014.

His ouster from Cochrane’s Governing Board this year, and the subsequent termination of his job at the Rigshospitalet medical facility, are indications that dissent based on sound medical science is no longer tolerated. Witnessing a trend that Cochrane was progressively becoming less independent, less transparent, and compromised by a growing faction of pro-Big Pharma and its allies in government health ministries, Dr. Gotzsche made efforts to restore the organization back to its founding principles. The “power struggle between two factions,” as he explains, was waged between himself and “Cochrane’s CEO Mark Wilson [who] opposes open scientific debates on the quality and reliability of Cochrane reviews and emphasizes ‘brand’ and ‘business’ rather than getting the science right.” After receiving email correspondence acquired through the Freedom of Information Act, it was Wilson who orchestrated Gotzsche’s firing in retaliation.[33]

Thus comes to an end the single ray of hope within that has persisted within the corporate and state-mandated medical regime.

When the Roman Catholic Church ruled over Europe, its mission was to grab and sustain absolute control over kings and queens and the masses. Dissent resulted in excommunication and even death under threats of eternal damnation in the infernos beneath the earth. This kept the population in line until brave souls, Russell’s lovers of knowledge, staked their lives to publicly expose the delusional world the Church lived within. Has that much really changed over the past thousand years now that science has replaced the Church?

Rachel Carson was labeled “hysterical” by the chemical industry for bringing attention to the documented health risks of DDT in her 1962 book Silent Spring. An editorial campaign was launched to persuade the public that the book was deceitful and filled with fallacies. Dr. Andrew Wakefield exposed an association between the gastrointestinal inflammation found in autistic children with the MMR vaccine. He never stated the vaccine actually caused autism; nevertheless he was pilloried, tried in a kangaroo court, and banished by the Glaxo-controlled British health ministry. And now there is Dr. Peter Gotzsche, and there are hundreds more whom the church of medical science has demonized and destroyed for speaking up about scientific errors and against power and corruption among medicine’s priesthood and its corporate lords.

The average person is hypnotized by the images science projects through newspapers, television news, serials and mainstream media health stories. Repeatedly science and medical news begins with “Experts say,” or “Scientists have confirmed,” or “All doctors agree…” Who are these experts, doctors and medical authorities? And why should any of us believe them? Wearing a white coat has become a sign of authority because these people are glorified and idolized to create the impression that they possess an esoteric scientific knowledge beyond the masses’ comprehension. And with mainstream media incessantly bombarding us with this fallacious image, we come to believe in their message. This is the medical Matrix in which most Americans find themselves, and the only pill worth taking is the red one offered by Morpheus to free us from the medical fascism that is ruling our lives.

At the conclusion of his essay, Bertrand Russell writes, “Science is no substitute for virtue; the heart is as necessary for a good life as the head.” If Russell were to witness the rotten state of medicine today, he would undoubtedly conclude that medical science had surgically removed its heart years ago. This has led to the “collective passions” of our medical aristocracy being “mainly evil” giving rise to “hatred and rivalry directed towards other groups [eg., scientific and medical dissenters].” He would also acknowledge that our situation now threatens “the destruction of our civilization” as he predicted.

Russell might also opt for his second option to this regime of scientific power and control; that is, he writes, “the collapse of our civilization would in the end be preferable to this alternative.”[34] NOTES

1 https://www.webmd.com/drug-medication/news/20170803/americans-taking-more-prescription-drugs-than-ever-survey
2 https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/nearly-7-in-10-americans-take-prescription-drugs-mayo-clinic-olmsted-medical-center-find/
3 https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2017.pp9b2
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2684607
4 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2684607
5 Russell, Bertrand. “Icarus or the Future of Science,”
6 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
7 Mark Hersgaard On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency
8 Hughes, Austin. “The Folly of Scientism,” The New Atlantis.
9 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf
10 https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/fda-inspections-fraud-fabrication-and-scientific-misconduct-are-hidden-from-the-public-and-doctors.html
11 Ibid.
12 https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-let-drugs-approved-on-fraudulent-research-stay-on-the-market
13 http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
14 https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
15 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scientific-look-at-bad-science/399371/
16 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext
17 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679560
18 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779#article_references
19 https://www.ehn.org/monsanto-science-ghostwriting–2597869694.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
20 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/
21 https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4619
22 https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704
23 https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704
24 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf
25 http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
26 https://leoniesblog.com/2011/08/03/prozac-eli-lilly-and-bribing-the-swedish-government/
27 https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/international/eli-lilly-to-settle-us-sec-bribery-case-1444006
28 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eli-lilly-bribery-china-glaxosmithkline-sanofi-500822
29 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/
30 Gale R, Null G, “Why is the CDC Petrified of the Film Vaxxed?” Progressive Radio Network, April 3, 2016
31 https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037
32 Gale R, Null G. “Wikipedia: Our New Technological McCarthyism, Part Two,” Progressive Radio Network, May 10, 2018
33 https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/12/institute-scientific-freedom/
34 Russell, Bertrand. “Icarus or the Future of Science,”

This paper found Jan 16 2018 at http://prn.fm/corruption-science-leads-collapse-modern-civilization/

Posted by Truthseeker | Categories: Science Guardian | No Comments »

Annual Left Megabash at John Jay Shows More Sense Than Passion – Huge Gathering Lacks Political Momentum

June 9th, 2018

The Vast Left Wing Gathering Misses Its Moment

Crippled by Barring Panels on Israel’s Lethal Gaza Injustice

Is Momentum Lost As Too Many Ideas and Solutions Gain Attention?

Brochure Clearer but Panels Still Lost in Numerical Labyrinth

Why is the oomph gone out of the great socialist powwow at John Jay College just at the moment the political tide is turning in its direction?

As Trump slowly digs himself into a pit of ignorance and bluster on the home front as he dismantles much of the political progress US society has achieved in the last half century, his unpredictable aggression in international diplomacy has removed much of the basis for US leadership abroad, even while it promises to force concessions out of North Korea.

His support for Israel’s lethal clamp down on Palestinian protest, his undoing of the US concessions to global warming, his abuse of the rights of immigrants culminating in the forcible separation of children from their parents, and his domestic tax cuts and many other moves to benefit corporate America and the well off at the expense of the bulk of the population, all have given rise to a vast groundswell of resistance and the movement of grass roots support in the direction of better leadership to restore true American values in terms of justice and equity for all.

Yet the Left which stands for just that set of values of fundamental kindness to others and support for the disadvantaged is apparently, judging from the atmosphere of this gathering and the many points of view and oratory expressed in it, not riding the kind of group wave of excitement and optimism which one would expect, and if anything is less cohesive and unified in momentum than it was a year ago, when the passion and attention aroused by Bernie Sanders in the Democratic nomination fight and the election that followed seemed likely to grow as Trump proceeded to prove it right.

Has the breakthrough in understandng of and attention to inequity and the promise of more socialism punctured the Left’s dam of stored up rejected wisdom and reduced the frustrated righteousness that strains on the leash to flip the world view of men and women in the system that currently rules minds everywhere?

Regardless of this loss of political momentum the great forum for socialist enlightenment in the face of capitalist domination of the minds of Americans remains as rich in ideas as before. The range and power of their critique of the current system of unrestrained greed personified by Trump at the expense of human values was evident not only in the list of panels and their speakers but also in the printed material available in leaflets handed out and the books and booklets available at tables on two floors.

Here is a selection of key examples we collected of general interest to newcomers to the field of capitalist reform and displacement, and to specialists in various topics:

Theoria – A Journal of Social and Political Theory Jun 2017 Vol 151 Peer Reviewed Quarterly. Special issue ‘Turner and his Times’, on Richard ‘Rick’ Turner, the banned as ‘the most dangerous man in South Africa’ in 1973 but intellectually distinguished South African political philosopher and theologian who was assassinated by gunshot in 1978. (Berghahnjournals.com/theoria)
Social Analysis – The International Journal of Cultural and Social Practice Vol 61 Issue 2 Summer 2017 Peer reviewed journal exploring the analytical potentials of anthropological research. Special issue on Multiple Nature-Cultures, Diverse Anthropologies.
Democratic Theory – An interdisciplinary Journal

Posted by Truthseeker | Categories: Science Guardian | No Comments »

New Revelations On Paper at Book Expo 2018

June 5th, 2018

Mythbusting and Deep Research From University Presses And Other Gems

Major fiction authors skipping print for audio

But non fiction here remains key source for`new thinking on major issues

Notable Titles: Day One and Two List

Prometheus Books
World War Trump – The Risks of America’s New Nationalism by Hall Gardner (B)

Hatchette
Know Your Value by Mika Brzezinski Sept 2018 Proof
Maid- Hard Work, Low Pay and a Mother’s Will To Survive by Stephen Land

Chicago Review Press
The Twilight Zone Encyclopaedia by Steven Jay Rubin
Courageous Women of the Vietnam War by KathrynJ. Atwood

Bridge (Scientology)
by L.Ron Hubbard
The Great Secret (Galaxy)
The Professor Was A Thief (Galaxy)
Dead Men Kill (Galaxy)
Scientology: A New Slant on Life (Bridge)
Dianetics:The Modern Science of Mental Health

Harvard
Steven Weinberg Third Thoughts

Univ North Carolina
Edna Lewis (Southern BF cooking)

University of Notre Dame
Soldiers of a Different Cloth – Notre Dame Chaplains in WWII
The Red Wheel March 1017 Node III Book 1 by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Tr by Marian Schwartz (pub 2017)
Between Two Millstones Book 1 Sketches of Exile 1974-1978 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (proof Oct 2018)
University of Notre Dame
Twilight of the American Century by Andrew Bacevich (Proof Nov 2018)

Columbia
2017 Best American Mag Writing
The Madhouse Effect – How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Plant, Destroying our Politics and Driving Us Crazy by Michael Mann and Tom Toles (pub 2016)
Columbia
Jeffrey Sachs Building the New American Economy – Smart, Fair and Sustainable – Foreword by Bernie Sanders(2017)

Univ of Illinois
James Baldwin and the 1980s by Joseph Vogel
Glory in their Spirit – How Four Black Women Took On The Army During WW2 by Sandra M. Bolzenius (pub 2018)

University of California
Laughter in Ancient Rome by Mary Beard
Transkids – Being Gendered in the 21st Century by Tey Meadow (proof August 2018)
Carleton Watkins – Making the West American by Tyler Green (proof October 2018)

Cornell
John Cleese, Professor at Large

Univ of Calgary
The Comedian by Clem Martine

Johns Hopkins
The Class of of 74 – Congress After Watergate and the Roots of Partisanship by John A. Lawrence Mar 2018 Proof
The Impatient Dr Lange – One Man’s Fight to End The Global HIV Epidemic by Seem Yasmin

Self Published
David Parker The More You Do The Better You Feel – How To Overcome Procrastination and Have a Happier Life

———————-
Day Three List
Yale
Sleep of Memory by Patrick Modiano Tr Mark Polizzotti
(He got Nobel for Literature) Proof Oct 2018
The Story of Greece and Rome by Tony Spawforth (proof Nov 2018)
The Mind is Flat – The Remarkable Shallowness of the Improvising Brain by Nick Chater (Proof Aug 2018) ckx2 Goodbye Freud and Jung! Distinguished by writing that illuminates every page with an editor’s clarity, this radical re-vision of how the brain works deflates our proud belief that beneath the surface of the mind lies a deep structure of unconscious beliefs, values and desires that governs our behavior and experience and forms our imagined self, and instead convincingly explains through all major examples of brain research that we improvise understanding based on past experience, and how this almost instantaneous activity accounts for human mental brilliance and powers not yet matched by machines. A very good survey of the actions of the brain which may overlook some understanding and perception that we retain as our model of the world but which argues well that the rest doesn’t draw on any deep permanent structure. However, this does not dismiss our memory as something we draw upon, indeed in chess for example it is precisely the many positions and games the grand master has observed in the past which equips him or her to win hundreds of simultaneous games in an exhibition match.

Princeton
On The Future Prospects for Humanity by Martin Rees (Proof October 2018)
Gods and Robots – The Ancient Quest for Artificial Life by Adrienne Mayor Nimbus (proof Nov 2018)
The Goodbye Girls by Lisa Harrington (from counter (2018)

Thornton Creek Press
Bouillabaisse by Stacey Sauter (pub 2018) Novel about teenage motherhood
——————–
Day Four Sat
Catching Stars by Cayla Keenan (May 2018 ed Oftomes Publishing UK) Young adult tale of witches and ghosts and magic in a city in a well drawn world of fantasy, spun with the freshness of a new young writer and a focus on imaginative hide and seek with a witch’s freedom in danger and a convict’s redemption sought in a well thought out unfolding with the immediate presence of early Harry Potter and may even outdo that in the credible alternate reality of this intended first of a trilogy.

Univ of Syracuse
When Running Made History by Roger Robinson Univ of Virginia (pub 2018)
Becoming Lincoln by William Freehling x2
Lessons from a Dark Time and other essays by Adam Hochschild (proof October 2018)

Tyndale House tyndalemomentum.com
Breaking Cover – My Secret Life in the CIA and What It Taught Me about Whats Worth Fighting For by Michele Rigby Assad (book 2018)
The Final Race – The Incredible World War II Story of the Olympian Who Inspired Chariots of Fire by Eric T. Eichinger with Eva Marie Everson (proof April 2018)

McGill-Queens Univ Press mqup.ca
Luminous Creatures The History and Science of Light Production in Living Organisms
by Michel Anctil (book 2018)
The Thorny Path Pornography in Early 20th Century Britain by Jamie Stoops (proof August 2018) Tiresomely sedate coverage of childish British attempts to repress the literature of sex often in the form of nude photos utterly harmless by modern standards but as exampled often quietly beautiful.
Getting a Life – The Social Worlds of Geek Culture by Benjamin Woo (proof Mar 2018) Worthy but dull witted survey of the sociology of a tedious subculture

Overlook Press overlookpress.com
8-Bit Apocalypse – The Untold Story of Atari’s Missile Command by Alex Rubens Fward by Jeff Gerstmann Founder of Giant Bomb (proof Oct 2018) Lively and fastmoving story of a high point in the development of video games with the arrival of the first game which put your finger on the button which can destroy civilization.
Seaforth
Bayly’s War – The Battle for the Western Approaches in the First World War by Steve R. Dunn (pub 2018)

Naval Institute Press
In The Warlords Shadow – Special Operations Forces, the Afghans, and their Fight Against the Taliban by Daniel R Green (pub 2017)
Otto Kretschmer – The Life of the Third Reich’s Highest Scoring U-Boat Commander by Lawrence Paterson Life lived amid danger by courageous and strongminded man as against the pansies of corporate command today (Greenhill pub 2018)
Why Vietnam Matters – An eyewitness account of lessons not learned by Rufus Phillips (Fwrd by Richard Holbrooke) (pub 2008)
Beyond the Beach – The Allied War Against France by Stephen Alan Bourque (pub 2018)
*****Anatomy of Failure – Why America Loses Every War It Starts by Harlan K. Ullman (pub 2017) x2
Female Tars – Women aboard ship in the Age of Sail (pub 1996)

Pen and Sword Maritime
In Action with Destroyers 1939-1945 – The Wartime Memoirs of Commander J A J Dennis DSC RN Ed by Anthony Cumming (pub 2017)

Moody
Lies Men Believe and the Truth that Sets Them Free by Robert Wolgemuth Fwrd by Patrick Morley

Norton
***Astrophysics for People in a Hurry by Neil deGrasse Tyson (pub 2017)
Kitchen Yarn – Notes on Life, Love and Food by Ann Hood
(Proof Dec 2018)

Univ of Georgia ugapress.org
Still Hungry in America – Photography by Al Clayton Text by Robert Coles Introduction by Edward M. Kennedy with new Fwrd by Thomas J. Ward Jr (pub 2018)
Revolting New York – How 400 Years of Riot, Rebellion, Uprising, and Revolution Shaped a City General Editors Neil Smith and Don Mitchell (pub 2018)
Landscape with Reptile – Rattlesnakes in an Urban World by Thomas P)almer Expanded ed. pub 2018

Univ of Virginia upress.virginia.edu
The Cowboy Capitalist – John Hays Hammond, The American West and the Jameson Raid in South Africa by Charles van Onselelen (pub 2017, 2018)
The Wild Within – Histories of a Landmark British Zoo by Andrew Flack (pub 2018)

Bantam
*****A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (1998, 1996, 2017)

Thames and Hudson
Josef Albers Life and Work by Charles Darwent (proof Oct 2018)
Living with Leonardo – Fifty Years of Sanity and Insanity in the Art World and Beyond by Martin Kemp (pub 2018)

Paper
Editorial Freelancers Association
London Review of Books 10 May 2018 and 24 May 2018 We Shall Fight We Shall Win

Posted by Truthseeker | Categories: Science Guardian | No Comments »

Reinvigorated Left Forum Back To Herald Anti Trump Sweep?

May 25th, 2018

Left’s Showcase of Ideas Returns as November Looms

Capitalism’s Flaws Compete with Political Decadence for Solutions

Election Reform, Social Media, Grassroots Mass Movement, Female Political Equality Among Familiar Keys to Pendulum Swing

Israel Palestine Issue Barred as Panel Topic

A Resurgent, Reorganized Left Forum starts Friday June 1st through Sunday June 3rd. and this is the newly clarified program making attendance at selected sessions easier, although web pages and bios for the gargantuan program are still to be completed, one sign of an overstuffed program that leaves attendees confused and too many speakers talking to themselves:
————————————————
Live Stream Channel for Plenaries each day
————————————————

June 1-3, NYC: The theme of Left Forum 2018 will be:

Towards a New Strategy for the Left

The Trump presidency has brought the most dangerous and oppressive aspects of America – rapacious capitalism and foundational racism and misogyny – out of the shadows and into a chillingly clear light. And we are seeing a rising tide of the reactionary right all over the western world.

Still, our own movements – for worker power, race, gender, and sexuality justice, ecological healing, anti-war and a broad anti-white-nationalist front – while under attack, are also on the rise. These are dangerous but invigorating times for a left resurgence. To make gains, to win battles, we must build a strong unified left which moves beyond the constructed dichotomies of class and identity, violence and nonviolence, reform and revolution.

Fragmentation remains an obstacle to our power today. But we do not need a rigid consensus in order to build together. Unity allows for differences and embraces other voices—it does not squelch them. We do not have to block dissent and critical self-analysis. What we do need is to build broad coalitions for freedom and justice and strengthen each other in our efforts to push the reactionary demagogues back into obsolescence. The time for action is now.

And the space for left unity and power building is Left Forum 2018!

Conference Pledge & Objectives:

The left has a uniquely robust power source gathering at the intersection of issues, identities, ideologies, and constituencies. There are so many examples of this model of convergence and creative action today. This is the model on which we come together to formulate new strategies for a new world. Left Forum 2018 will:

*create generous, open, vibrant, interdisciplinary, and compelling spaces that will serve to transform ideas into action.
*identify and expand the common ground among movements, constituencies, issues, and ideas in a forum where a broad range of minds, issues, communities, affinities, identities, and strategies converge
*enable the cross-pollination of academic research and field organizing
*organize panels and presentations as we have in the past. However, we will also achieve this through skill-shares, workshops, performances, network-building sessions, strategy round-tables, curated exhibits, screenings, and forecasting briefings.
*extend our market/exhibitions to include more vendors
be a place of friendship, exchange, and discovery, where we build our power to make radical change in a world on fire with both chaos and the opportunity for transformation.

All our enemies have is division and destruction. Left Forum can be a living example of the exact opposite: a new convergence and a space for possibility, for hope, and for power.

Sincerely,

Ashley Abbott and Marcus Graetsch
Left Forum Co-Directors
——————————————
Live Stream of all plenaries
https://www.leftforum.org/
Friday, June 1st 6:00PM (Eastern Daylight Time)
Saturday, June 2nd 6:00PM (Eastern Daylight Time)
Sunday, June 3rd 4:00PM (Eastern Daylight Time)

Friday June 1st, 2018

A Broken System: How We Got Here
Richard D. Wolff Moderator
Gayle McLaughlin Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of California
Jumaane Williams Council member 45th District NYC
Jane Sanders Sanders Institute
Doors Open 6:00 PM
Auditorium/Gymnasium, 4th Floor, New Building
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Avenue (between 58th and 59th Streets),
New York, NY 10019
——————————————–
Saturday June 2nd, 2018

One Fight, Many Fronts
Silvia Federici Scholar-Activist Author of “Caliban and the Witch” and “Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle”
Georger Ciccariello-Maher Professor, Author of “Decolonizing Dialectics”
Juan Gonzalez Democracy Now!
Gerald Horne Professor and Historian
Paul Jay The Real News Network
**Followed by a book-signing with all speakers**

Doors Open 6:00 PM
Auditorium/Gymnasium, 4th Floor, New Building
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Avenue (between 58th and 59th Streets),
New York, NY 10019

——————————————-
Sunday June 3rd, 2018

A Vision Moving Foward

Cathy Dang CAAAV, Executive Director
Kali Akuno Cooperation Jackson
Bhairavi Desai New York Taxi Workers Alliance
Ajamu Baraka 2016 Vice-Presidential Candidate, Green Party
Mark Winston-Griffith Brooklyn Movement Center

Doors Open 4:00 PM
Auditorium/Gymnasium, 4th Floor, New Building
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Avenue (between 58th and 59th Streets),
New York, NY 10019
———————————————
Links to sessions sorted by different topics
(Full Political and Economic Session shown in expansion below – Click More link below)

Politics
Economy
Gender and Sexuality
Environment
Theory and History
International
Race
Creativity
COMPLETE SCHEDULE OF ALL SESSIONS
———————————————-
Sanctuary at #Leftforum2018
This year, we are officially declaring Left Forum 2018 to be a sanctuary

This year, we are officially declaring Left Forum 2018 to be a sanctuary space for the duration of the conference. This is something that has always been in accordance with our values, principles, and mission. That said, now, more than ever, we feel it is necessary to state this outright. By doing this we are committing to:

Providing a safe space for all – a space free of discrimination; a space where people will not be mistreated because of their race, gender or gender expression, ethnicity, immigration status, sexual orientation, ability, or religious faith (or lackthereof).
Protect any information on immigration status of all members, staff, artists, and visitors in any way possible and to the best of our abilities.

Our organizers will be participating in a training to ensure all is in accordance with the principles of the sanctuary movement. Participation in art, culture, and education should take place free of fear – we are committed to ensuring this at Left Forum 2018.
——————————————

More (Very Long)- The Political Forum sessions and the Economic sessions
————————————————-
THE POLITICAL FORUM
Sessions with a Political Theme

Politics Forum!

—————————————–
Session A: Friday, June 1st: 4:00 – 5:50pm

Healthcare Advocacy in The Immigration Detention System: Medical Provider Network Training Modules Launch

Host: New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
Featured Speakers:
Chanelle Diaz
Matthew Anderson
Shruthi Rajashekara
Room: L.76 (Capacity:74), POLITICS FORUM

Election Integrity 2.0: Suing The Vote Thieves to Restore Election Transparency 4-5.30pm Fri

Featured Speakers:
Joel Simpson
Robert Fitrakis
W. Mondale Robinson
Yahné Ngo
John Brakey
Lulu Friesdat
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

A New Political Direction

Host: Left Forum
Featured Speakers:
Harvey Epstein
Marisa A Day
Pablo Benson-Silva
Susanna Blankley
Rob Robinson
Room: L2.85 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

——————————————
Session 1: Saturday, June 2nd: 10:00 – 11:50am

Independent Power: Towards a Party for Working People

Host: The Movement for a People’s Party
Featured Speakers:
Eljeer Hawkins
Gayle McLaughlin
Tim Canova
David Zuckerman
Nick Brana
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

Book Reading: Orwell’s Manifesto

Featured Speakers:
David Smith
Room: 1.113 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Proletariat Is Still the Revolutionary Class: Revolutionaries and the Class Struggle

Host: Revolutionary Workers Group
Featured Speakers:
Marcus Lissey
Mike Corr
Hanna Couto
Room: 1.63 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Points of Resistance: Agitation and Activism in the Age of Trump

Featured Speakers:
Kanishka Chowdhury
Mela Heestand
John Maerhofer
Demetrius Noble
Joe Ramsey
Room: 1.67 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Crisis Management, Resilience and Points of Vulnerability in Late Capitalism: Theoretical and Applied Aspects in Studying Class Warfare

Featured Speakers:
Irwin Sperber
Peter Dolack
Ryan Schoenau
Scott Aquanno
Room: 1.69 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Physician Coalition-Building as a Strategy for Advocacy

Host: New York Doctors coalition
Featured Speakers:
Andrew Goldstein
Marc Manseau
Sabrina Martin
Nina Agrawal
Steve Auerbach
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Health Care Under the Knife: Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health

Host: Monthly Review
Featured Speakers:
Howard Waitzkin
Steffie Woolhandler
Matthew Anderson
Amy Finnegan
Bradley Rydholm
Room: L2.81 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

————————————————-Session 2: Saturday, June 2nd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

Making Real News in the Age of Trump

Host: The Real News Network
Featured Speakers:
Paul Jay
Gerald Horne
Gar Alperovitz
Ben Norton
Sharmini Peries
Gregory Wilpert
Aaron Maté
Dharna Noor
Room: L.63 (Capacity:250), POLITICS FORUM

Human Right to Water and Sanitation: Water Is Not a Commodity

Featured Speakers:
Sylvia Orduno
Maureen Taylor
Catherine Flowers
Rob Robinson
Paul Schwartz
Room: L.76 (Capacity:74), POLITICS FORUM

Russiagate: Muzzling the Black Left and the March to War

Host: Black Agenda Report
Featured Speakers:
Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
Nellie Hester Bailey
Ajamu Baraka
Bruce Dixon
Glen Ford
Danny Haiphong
Margaret Kimberley
Paul L Street
Raymond Nat Turner
Room: L2.85 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

Trump, ‘The Resistance,’ and 2018 Midterms 12-1.50 Sat

Host: Solidarity
Featured Speakers:
Dan La Botz
Shelby Williams
Kate Griffiths
Charlie Post
Room: 1.125 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Austerity, Right Wing Electoral Victories, and the Way Forward for the Working Class

Host: Socialist Action
Featured Speakers:
Christine Marie
Kunal Chattopadhyay
Manos Skoufoglou
Michaela McKeown
Room: 1.63 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Challenging Authority — Can Student Protests Catalyze Social and Political Change?

Featured Speakers:
William Stroud
Robert Lubetsky
Hebh Jamal
Jason Warwin
Room: 1.65 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Challenges of Peace Activism

Host: World Beyond War
Featured Speakers:
Roxana Robinson
Alice Slater
Joe Lombardo
Bob Keeler
Marc E Stein
Room: 1.67 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Russiagate and WikiLeaks

Featured Speakers:
Randy Credico
Ray McGovern
Max Blumenthal
Anya Parampil
Dennis Bernstein
Mark Crispin-Miller
Room: 1.69 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

CANCELED Panel: Running Left in Pence’s Red State

Featured Speakers:
Yatish Joshi
Dan Canon
Miguel Molina
Jorden Giger
Araquel Bloss
Room: 1.73 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Fight to Stay—Eviction Defense as a Right

Featured Speakers:
Susanna Blankley
Randy Dillard
Marika Dias
Estefania Trujillo
Room: 1.76 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Charity, Welfare, and the Carceral City

Featured Speakers:
Jarrod Shanahan
Jayne Mooney
Wilson Sherwin
Craig Hughes
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Understanding and Challenging the American Deportation Regime

Featured Speakers:
Daniel L Stageman
David Brotherton
Shirley P Leyro
Sarah Tosh
Room: 1.87 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Honduras 2018: The Post-Fraud Perfection of U.S.-Approved Neoliberal Fascism

Featured Speakers:
Adrienne Pine
Alex Main
Rodolfo Pastor
Room: 1.108 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Mental Health in America: The Capitalist Crisis and Socialist Solutions

Host: Social Democrats USA
Featured Speakers:
Patty Friend
Timothy Tarkelly
Sheldon Ranz
Room: L2.81 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

———————————————-
Session 3: Saturday, June 2nd: 2:00 – 3:50pm

Loaded and Sighting: The Gun Debate and Social Movements

Featured Speakers:
Patrick Anderson
Roxanne T Dunbar-Ortiz
Johanna J Fernández
Room: L2.85 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

Not on My Watch! A Reading

Featured Speakers:
Ron Singer
Room: 1.113 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Defending Dissent in the Age of Trump 2.0-3.50 pm Sat

Host: Defending Rights & Dissent
Featured Speakers:
Chip Gibbons
Rahul Saksena
Room: 1.125 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

ACORN and the Firestorm

Host: Black Institute
Featured Speakers:
Bertha Lewis
John Atlas
Reuben Atlas
Sam Pollard
Room: 1.127 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

DSA and Democrats: For Independent Electoral Politics

Host: The North Star
Featured Speakers:
Brandy C Baker
Jabari Brisport
Mark A Lause
Room: 1.65 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Building Unity and Power through an Independent Left Party

Host: Green Party of New York State
Featured Speakers:
Gloria Mattera
Bruce Dixon
Howie Hawkins
Room: 1.66 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

The Deep State: What It Is and How It Put Trump Into the White House

Host: Tax Wall Street Party
Featured Speakers:
Webster G Tarpley
Daniela G Walls
Roland Yanez
Gregory Edwards
Room: 1.67 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

What the Wave of Teachers’ Strikes Can Teach Labor About Winning in the Face of Austerity and Anti-Union Laws

Host: In These Times
Featured Speakers:
Lois Weiner
Shaun Richman
Kevin Prosen
Room: 1.71 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Building Alignment for the Resistance

Host: Organizing Upgrade
Featured Speakers:
Moumita Ahmed
Kim Diehl
Michael Kinnucan
Ethan Young
Room: 1.75 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Marxism and Education Today: • Teacher Revolts Shake Labor • On The Front Lines Defending Immigrants

Host: Class Struggle Education Workers
Featured Speakers:
Marjorie Stamberg
Mark Lance
Lucio Ramirez
Angie Pickens
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

“The Media is the Movement: Grassroots Collaborations in the Age of Corporate Consolidation:”

Host: WBAI Rising
Featured Speakers:
Gerald Horne
Dan Coughlin
Bernard White
Mario Murillo
Betty J Dopson
Mimi Rosenberg
Room: 1.90 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Fighting for Single-Payer Healthcare Justice: A Key Component of a Winning Strategy for the Left

Host: Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) – NY Metro chapter
Featured Speakers:
Adam Gaffney
Walter Tsou
Roona Ray
Ursula Rozum
Room: L2.81 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

———————————————
Session 4: Saturday, June 2nd: 4:00 – 5:50pm

3:30PM – 5:30PM : Credico’s Comedy Caucus

Featured Speakers:
Randy Credico
Julianna Forlano
Scott Blakeman
Rhonda Hansome
Howard Feller
Bruce Egar
Room: Black Box Theater (Capacity:90), POLITICS FORUM

Lessons from the 2018 Teachers Revolt

Host: Jacobin magazine
Featured Speakers:
Ella Mahony
Eric Blanc
Emily Comer
Jane McAlevey
Room: L.76 (Capacity:74), POLITICS FORUM

The Left and American Politics: How to Build Independent Political Power. 4:00 – 5:50pm Sat

Host: Solidarity
Featured Speakers:
Gayle McLaughlin
Gloria Mattera
Howie Hawkins
Traven Leyshon
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

Book Reading and Discussion: Follow The Money: KPFA Flashpoints Radio Voices for Peace and Justice

Featured Speakers:
Riva Enteen
Ralph Poynter
Zach D Roberts
Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
Room: 1.113 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Power in Public Fora: Halleck v. New York and How the Struggle for PEG Access Control Will Shape Public Speech and Expression

Featured Speakers:
Papoleto Melendez
Matt Dewey
DeeDee Halleck
Kim M Clark
Room: 1.65 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Fight for Police Abolition in Action and Language

Host: Verso Books
Featured Speakers:
Yasmina Price
Alex Vitale
David Correia
Tyler Wall
Room: 1.66 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

First As Farce Then As Tragedy: It’s Time to Fire the Apprentice

Host: Critical Sociology
Featured Speakers:
Lauren Langman
Roger Salerno
David N Smith
Room: 1.67 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Criminalization of Radical Resistance: A Panel With Former J20 Defendants and Supporters

Featured Speakers:
Sasha Hill
Duncan Ranslem
Sam Adler-Bell
Erin Lemkey
Room: 1.69 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Teaching Wildcat Strikes

Host: Zero Books
Featured Speakers:
Terry Tapp
Kim Jones
Jim McConanhey
Ivonne Rivera
Room: 1.71 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Scapegoats of the Empire: Thought Crimes and Manufactured Plots

Host: Coalition for Civil Freedoms
Featured Speakers:
Murtaza Hussain
Kathy Manley
Ashley Young
Room: 1.73 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Social Democracy in the 21st Century

Host: Social Democrats USA
Featured Speakers:
Patty Friend
David Hacker
Joe Ryan
Steven Schwartzberg
Room: 1.75 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Human Rights Don’t “Trickle Down” they Rise Up! Using Human Rights Frameworks to Unite Cities and Communities

Host: National Human Rights Cities Alliance | US Human Rights Network
Featured Speakers:
Jackie Smith
Cathy Albisa
Carl Redwood
Joshua Cooper
Room: 1.76 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Has “the Left” Accommodated Trump (and Putin)? A Debate

Host: Marxist-Humanist Initiative
Featured Speakers:
Bill Weinberg
Chris Cutrone
Brendan Cooney
Daphne Lawless
Anne Jaclard
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Fearless Cities: A Municipalist Take on Winning the City!

Host: Fearless Cities NYC
Featured Speakers:
Kali Akuno
Vicente Rubio-Pueyo
Pablo Benson-Silva
Room: 1.91 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Nurses, Doctors, Union Broads: Frontline Workers Organizing in The Healthcare Crisis

Host: Left Voice
Featured Speakers:
Shreya Mahajan
Sarah Dowd
Roona Ray
Kate D Griffith
Tre Kwon
Room: L2.81 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

———————————————-
Session 5: Sunday, June 3rd: 10:00 – 11:50am

Actually Existing Capitalist Democracies Today: Socialist Register 2018 Rethinking Democracy Launch Panel

Host: Socialist Register
Featured Speakers:
Leo Panitch
Adam Hilton
Nicole Aschoff
Dennis Pilon
Pete Ramand
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

Round Table Discussion on Instant Runoff Voting and Approval Voting

Host: Center for Election Science
Featured Speakers:
Felix Sargent
Jackrabbit Pollack
Aaron Hamlin
Room: 1.114 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

The Sickening Society Redux:The “Neo-Liberal Personality” and What We’re Doing About It!

Featured Speakers:
Irene Javors
Michael Britton
Abby Scher
Gregory Tewksbury
Room: 1.63 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

One Nation, Under ALEC: Confronting Exploitation through Activist Research

Featured Speakers:
Wendy Santamaria
Sudeep Dhanoa
Heather Steffen
John Maerhofer
Room: 1.65 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Socialism and The Green Party 10:00 – 11:50am Sun

Host: Green Party of New York State
Featured Speakers:
Peter LaVenia
Jabari Brisport
Jonathan Flanders
Room: 1.69 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Addressing Ideology in the Classroom (Pt. 1)

Featured Speakers:
Erik Jacobson
Andy Beutel
Greg Gallet
Room: 1.71 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The New Jewish Left

Host: Jewish Currents
Featured Speakers:
Lina Morales
Jacob M Pitman
Room: 1.75 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Way Forward for Independent Left Electoral Politics

Host: Socialist Action
Featured Speakers:
Melissa Muldoon
Fred M Linck
Jabari Brisport
Milly Guzman-Young
Room: 1.76 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Science for the People
The Dual Nature of Science 10:00 – 11:50am Sun

Host: Science for the People
Featured Speakers:
Chris Dols
Conor Dempsey
Laura Penaranda
Taylor Lampe
Erik Wallenberg
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Corporate Media Lies and Implications for the Left

Featured Speakers:
David Slesinger
Kim Holleman
Richard Ochs
Wayne Coste
Room: 1.91 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Screening: “Antifa” & “The Battle for The Real”

Host: One People’s Project
Featured Speakers:
Daryle L Jenkins
Ash J.
Sage
Rebecca Centeno
Marisa Holmes
Room: 1.92 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Indefensible: Criminal Prosecution of Migrants for Crossing the Border 10:00 – 11:50am

Host: Justice Strategies
Featured Speakers:
Celilia Equihua
Judy Greene
Bob Libal
Room: L2.81 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

————————————————–
Session 6: Sunday, June 3rd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

The Case for a Great Transition: Preparing and Organizing Post-Capitalism

Host: Great Transition Collective
Featured Speakers:
Emanuel Guay
Alessandro Drago
Carl Plowright
Isobel Plowright
Anas Bouslikhane
Room: L.76 (Capacity:74), POLITICS FORUM

Imagining an Authentic 21st Century U.S. Left

Featured Speakers:
Paul L Street
Chris L Hedges
Glen Ford
Bruce Dixon
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

What it Could Look Like if We Happen to Win

Host: Democracy at work
Featured Speakers:
Richard D. Wolff
Kali Akuno
Omar Freilla
Tim Schermerhorn
Rebecca Lurie
Room: L2.85 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

What in the World Is the Military Spraying? Chemtrails, Your Health, and the 6th Mass Extinction Period 12:00 – 1:50pm

Host: Chemtrails Fightback
Featured Speakers:
Daniel Villa
Russ Tanner
Jessica Coco
Room: 1.125 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Marx @ 200

Host: Platypus Affiliated Society
Featured Speakers:
Spencer Leonard
Terrell Carver
Christoph Lichtenberg
Room: 1.129 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Public Employee Unions Under Trump 12:00 – 1:50pm Sun

Host: New Politics
Featured Speakers:
Jason Schulman
Lois Weiner
Julian Guerrero
Erik Forman
Chris Brooks
Room: 1.65 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Born Since 9/11

Host: NYC City Youth
Featured Speakers:
Runnie Exuma
Lauryn Formey
Carter Le
Anna Kinlock
Ethan Chan
Room: 1.67 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Left and the Need to Avoid the Trap of Russophobia

Featured Speakers:
Peter Kuznick
John Marciano
Jeremy A Kuzmarov
Room: 1.69 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Addressing Ideology in the Classroom (Pt. 2)

Featured Speakers:
Erik Jacobson
Andy Beutel
Greg Gallet
Jason Craig
Kevin Pyle
Room: 1.71 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

The Rise of the Extreme Right 12:00 – 1:50pm Sun

Host: Struggle Newspaper
Featured Speakers:
Eric Sorab
Abhinav Sinha
Ludovico Brigante
Maria Martins
Room: 1.73 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Empowering Immigrant Student Voices In and Out of the Classroom

Host: Columbia University Teachers College
Featured Speakers:
Kamil Ghoshal
Susanne Pratt
Rebecca Stanton
Manuel Kingsley
Joseph Tropeano
Alexander Krenisky
Nathan Floro
Team of high-school student presenters
Room: 1.75 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Coming Together: Finding Unity and Common Ground Among the Tribes and Classes in our Society 12:00 – 1:50pm

Featured Speakers:
Helena Dearnell
Jack Moscou
Stephen James
Room: 1.76 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Scaling Up: Maintaining Shared Values While Expanding Participation of Contingent Academic Workers

Featured Speakers:
Pamela J Stemberg
Meg Feeley
Dominic V Wetzel
Lynne Turner
Youngmin Seo
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Combatting U.S. War and Disinformation on Iran and Yemen
12:00 – 1:50pm Sun
Host: Chicago ALBA Solidarity
Featured Speakers:
Dan Kovalik
Sara Flounders
Stansfield Smith
Ben Norton
Room: 1.101 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

——————————————-
Session 7: Sunday, June 3rd: 2:00 – 3:50pm

Democracy: Liberal, Radical, Socialist

Host: Socialist Register
Featured Speakers:
Greg Albo
Alex Demirovic
Nancy Holmstrom
Leo Panitch
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), POLITICS FORUM

*The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump

Featured Speakers:
James Gilligan
Robert Jay Lifton
Bandy Lee
Room: 1.113 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Campaign Finance: Another Layer

Featured Speakers:
Bill Kreml
Gary Frazier
B. Sydney Smith
Room: 1.114 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Can Marx’s Humanist Philosophy of Emancipation Assist the Resistance and Other Battles Against Trumpism? If So, How? 2:00 – 3:50pm Sun

Host: Marxist-Humanist Initiative
Featured Speakers:
Anne Jaclard
Andrew Kliman
Ravi Bali
Michael Dola
Room: 1.129 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

How an Ordinary Person Runs for Public Office
2:00 – 3:50pm Sun
Featured Speakers:
Marni Halasa
Louis Flores
Sander Hicks
Michael Friedman
Room: 1.65 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Youth Anxiety, Youth Activism

Featured Speakers:
Tia Sanders
Hannah Ravenell
Jade Wong
Katrina Taeza
Theeodore Puccio
Room: 1.67 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Revolutionary Regroupment vs. “Sanders Socialism”
2:00 – 3:50pm Sun
Host: Internationalist Group and Class Struggle Education League
Featured Speakers:
Danny Keating
Abram Negrete
Mike Gath
Charlie Morán
Room: 1.69 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Organizing The Fight for Public Education

Host: Green Party of New York State
Featured Speakers:
Jia Lee
Lois Weiner
Howie Hawkins
Jamaal Bowman
Room: 1.71 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Human Rights Framework and UN Treaties for Education and Prisoners’ Rights

Host: Malcolm X Center for Self Determination
Featured Speakers:
Efia Nwangaza
Deborah M Batchelor
Bernyce Devaugh
Room: 1.73 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Occupy All Streets! Building an Effective Citywide/Regional Movement

Host: Show Up America
Featured Speakers:
Sumumba Sobukwe
Sally Gellert
Aquila Coulibaly
Jan Weinberg
Susan Naomi
Room: 1.76 (Capacity:45), POLITICS FORUM

Against the Imperial University

Host: Socialism and Democracy
Featured Speakers:
John Maerhofer
Basuli Deb
Joe Ramsey
Sarah Raymundo
Room: 1.77 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM

Domestic Violence: How Capitalism Fails Survivors

Host: Social Democrats, USA
Featured Speakers:
Patty Friend
Timothy Tarkelly
Sheldon Ranz
Room: 1.81 (Capacity:40), POLITICS FORUM
——————————————————-

THE ECONOMICS FORUM

Sessions with Economic Theme
Economy Forum!
——————————————
Session A: Friday, June 1st: 4:00 – 5:50pm

Discredited: Neoliberalism and the Age of Finance

Host: Zone Books
Featured Speakers:
Ivan Ascher
Alyssa Battistoni
Robert Wosnitzer
Amy Traub
Room: L2.81 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Cooperative Community Solar – Building a Movement for Sustainable Environmental and Economic Justice

Featured Speakers:
Maya Winfrey
Michael Lightsmith
Lynn Benander
Alphonse Knight
Rebecca Lurie
Room: L2.82 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

Session 1: Saturday, June 2nd: 10:00 – 11:50am

Housing Strategies and Post-Capitalism

Featured Speakers:
Anitra Nelson
Miguel Á Martínez
David Schwartzman
Room: 1.114 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

Heterodox Economics at John Jay College
10:00 – 11:50am Sat
Featured Speakers:
Ian Seda-Irizarry
Geert L Dhont
Sara Bernardo
Joseph Rebello
Room: 1.115 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM


In Defense of Capitalism
10:00 – 11:50am Sat
Host: Henry George School of Social Science (NYC)
Featured Speakers:
Stephen Taft
Steven Sklar
Michael Bucher
Room: 1.123 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Rank-and-File Academic Organizing: Turning the Tide Against Austerity 10:00 – 11:50am Sun

Host: CUNY Struggle
Featured Speakers:
Jarrod Shanahan
Andy Battle
Sofya Aptekar
Camila Vergara
Sonam Singh
Room: 1.71 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Community Land Trusts – Theory and Practical Reality

Host: Trust for Affordable Housing
Featured Speakers:
Walter South
Thomas Wenfing
Ayisha Oglive
Room: 1.76 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

————————————————-Session 2: Saturday, June 2nd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

Advancing Workers Control Against the Capitalist Offensive and Saving our Communities 12:00 – 1:50pm Sat

Host: Democracy at work
Featured Speakers:
Tim Schermerhorn
Alicia Love
Keith Joseph
Kali Akuno
Kim Westcott
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), ECONOMY FORUM

The NYC Transit Crisis and the Transport Workers Union

Host: League for the Revolutionary Party
Featured Speakers:
Walter Daum
John Ferretti
Seth Rosenberg
Room: 1.114 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

Imperiled Economies 2018: An URPE Reader

Host: Union for Radical Political Economics
Featured Speakers:
Julio Huato
Paddy Quick
Julie A Matthaei
Room: 1.115 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Fighting for Fair Food! Building Consciousness and Commitment to Advance Worker-Driven Social Responsibility in 21st Century Supply Chains

Featured Speakers:
Gerardo Reyes Chavez
Patricia Cipollitti
Yaissy Solis
Room: 1.117 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

The Fashion Industry and Labor Infractions: Changing the Narrative Around Fashion Models 12:00 – 1:50pm Sat

Host: Fashion Reverie Publications, LLC
Featured Speakers:
Georgie Badiel
Catherine Schuller
William S Gooch
Room: 1.119 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Georgist Roundtable – Countering the Primary Wrong

Host: Henry George School of Social Science (NYC)
Featured Speakers:
Anthony Persaud
Steven Sklar
Ron Rubin
Room: 1.123 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

The Revolutionary Necessity of Women’s Liberation
12:00 – 1:50pm Sat
Featured Speakers:
Andrea Narbot
Zachary G Najarian-Najafi
Ksenija Kordic
Jessica Coco
Steph Ka
Room: 1.127 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

*A Silent Transformation: A Film About the Transformative Power of the Co-operative Enterprise Model
12:00 – 1:50pm Sat
Host: Powerline Films
Featured Speakers:
Anton Smolski
Luke Mistruzzi
Simon Brothers
Room: 1.92 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

———————————————-
Session 3: Saturday, June 2nd: 2:00 – 3:50pm

Negative Economics — its Pedigree and History

Host: Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, UMKC
Featured Speakers:
Michael Hudson
Michael Perelman
Paul Sliker
Room: L.76 (Capacity:74), ECONOMY FORUM

The U.S. Family–Can it Be Saved–Should it Be Saved?: Marxist Feminist Questions

Host: Democracy at work
Featured Speakers:
Harriet Fraad
Richard D. Wolff
Juliana Forlano
Room: L2.84 (Capacity:120), ECONOMY FORUM

Global Inequality As Injustice: Economic Democracy to the Rescue 2:00 – 3:50pm Sat

Host: Critical Sociology
Featured Speakers:
Marek Hrubec
Martin Brabec
Lauren Langman
Room: 1.114 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

Surplus Value VS Surplus Enjoyment

Host: Zero Books
Featured Speakers:
Douglas Lain
Ashley Frawley
Vakhtang Gomelauri
Mia Vallet
Peter Dolack
Room: 1.115 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

The Workers’ Economy as Global Strategy: What Is It? Where Is It Going? How to Nurture It?

Host: The Workers’ Economy, North American, Central American & Caribbean Region
Featured Speakers:
Andres Ruggeri
Marcelo Vieta
Jesus Torres
Armando Robles
Micky Metts
Alexander Buzgalin
Stéphanie Guico
Sean Smith
Peter Ranis
Room: 1.117 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Trump and the American Labor Movement: Will We Survive?

Host: Solidarity
Featured Speakers:
Dan La Botz
Kate Griffiths
Eric Blanc
Charles Post
Ryan Bruckenthal
Tim Schermerhorn
Room: 1.119 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Occupy-GeoPoliticalEconomy: GREECE:EU:US:BRICS:MiddleEast:Africa: Cooperating Sovereign Nations — or Unnecessary Globalized Conflict?

Host: Georgist Economic Taskforce
Featured Speakers:
Yannis Tziligakis
LuAnn Horstmann
Caleb Maupin
Alanna Hartzok
Room: 1.121 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Poverty Puzzle – Transformative Power of an Insight

Host: Henry George School of Social Science (NYC)
Featured Speakers:
Steven Sklar
Steve Taft
Sue Peters
Room: 1.123 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

—————————————–
Session 4: Saturday, June 2nd: 4:00 – 5:50pm

The Essential Feature of Capitalism Is Hidden from Public
4:00 – 5:50pm Sat
Host: Fed Group of Upper West Side
Featured Speakers:
Jerry Kann
Ann Webre
Donal Butterfield
Phyllis Kreuttner
Room: 1.114 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

The Common Denominator: An Economic Program to Unite Women, Blacks, Latinos, Students, Labor and Antiwar Activists

Host: Tax Wall Street Party
Featured Speakers:
Webster G Tarpley
Roland Yanez
Daniela G Walls
Gregory Edwards
Room: 1.117 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Occupy Commons: RIC:Rental Income Capture: Workers–Consumers–Taxpayers Unite Against Viral RentSeeking
4:00 – 5:50pm Sat
Host: Georgist Economic Taskforce
Featured Speakers:
Yannis Tziligakis
Frank Fabio
Marty Rowland
Alanna Hartzok
Room: 1.121 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

A Public Money System

Host: Henry George School of Social Science (NYC)
Featured Speakers:
Allen Smith
Sue Peters
Michael Bucher
Roberto Chavira
Ibrahima Drame
Room: 1.123 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

The Marxist “Transformation Problem” in the 21st Century: Why Does It Matter?

Host: Science & Society
Featured Speakers:
Julio Huato
David Laibman
Fred Moseley
Room: 1.124 (Capacity:45), ECONOMY FORUM

Intolerance Economics: Ideology, Competing Visions and Institutional Retaliation

Host: Rise Up Filming, llc
Featured Speakers:
John Sarich
Jason Hecht
Dan King
John Summa
Michele Holder
Room: 1.127 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

——————————————–
Session 5: Sunday, June 3rd: 10:00 – 11:50am

Money Matters! Why Monetary Theory and Policy Is a Critical Terrain for the Left

Host: The Democracy Collaborative
Featured Speakers:
Gar Alperovitz
Stephanie Kelton
Michael Hudson
Raúl Carrillo
Pavlina Tcherneva
Room: L2.85 (Capacity:120), ECONOMY FORUM

———————————————
Session 6: Sunday, June 3rd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

Karl Marx + Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Why You’re Broke All the Time 12:00 – 1:50pm Sun

Host: Coalition for Social Justice
Featured Speakers:
David Hungerford
Richard Strong
Milton Williams
Room: 1.115 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Towards an Organized Tech Industry—Part One

Host: Tech Workers Coalition
Featured Speakers:
Jason Prado
Danny Spitzberg
Wendy Liu
Mohini Dutta
Alex Press
Room: 1.119 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Community Wealth / Social Goods – Stopping Centuries of Land Value Theft 12:00 – 1:50pm Sun

Host: Henry George School of Social Science (NYC)
Featured Speakers:
Marty Rowland
Joshua Vincent
Ibrahima Drame
Room: 1.123 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

—————————————–
Session 7: Sunday, June 3rd: 2:00 – 3:50pm

Unions and Communities Advance Workers’ Control Against the Neoliberal Offensive

Featured Speakers:
Kali Akuno
Kim Westcott
Keith Joseph
Nick Befell
Alicia Love
Room: L2.85 (Capacity:120), ECONOMY FORUM

Marx, Value Theory, and the Alternative to Capitalism
2:00 – 3:50pm Sun
Host: International Marxist-Humanist Organization
Featured Speakers:
Peter Hudis
Sam Salou
David Smith
Stephan Hammel
Room: 1.115 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Towards An Organized Tech Industry—Part Two

Host: Tech Workers Coalition
Featured Speakers:
Judy Tuan
Holly Wood
Wendy Liu
Will Luckman
Room: 1.119 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

Occupy-Ethics: Curing the Metastasizing Human-Subhuman Cancer
2:00 – 3:50pm Sun
Host: Georgist Economic Taskforce
Featured Speakers:
Frank Fabio
Yannis Tziligakis
LuAnn Horstmann
Alanna Hartzok
Caleb Maupin
Room: 1.123 (Capacity:40), ECONOMY FORUM

———————————————-
ENVIRONMENT FORUM

Tools for Listening When We Disagree

Host: Sustaining All Life
Room: 1.82
Featured Speakers:
Maritza Arrastia
Karim Lopez
Kathy Martino
1.82 (Capacity:40), Session 1: Saturday, June 2nd: 10:00 – 11:50am

The Environment: Communes and Animals

Host: New York University
Room: 1.82
Featured Speakers:
Troy Vettese
Kim Adams
John Linstrom
Arden Koehler
Vignesh Sridharan
1.82 (Capacity:40), Session 2: Saturday, June 2nd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

Dangerous Development: Infrastructure, Sabotage, Climate Change

Host: New York University
Room: 1.82
Featured Speakers:
Troy Vettese
R H Lossin
Zack Culyer
Rosalind Donald
1.82 (Capacity:40), Session 3: Saturday, June 2nd: 2:00 – 3:50pm

Meszaros on The Ground: Turning Ideas Into Material Force

Room: 1.82
Featured Speakers:
Chris Wood
Michael J Roberto
Bertell Ollman
1.82 (Capacity:40), Session 4: Saturday, June 2nd: 4:00 – 5:50pm

Nuclear Bailouts – Decommissioning – Just Transition

Host: Shut Down Indian Point Now
Room: 1.82
Featured Speakers:
Catherine Skopic
Michel Lee, Esq.
Carl L Lundgren
1.82 (Capacity:40), Session 5: Sunday, June 3rd: 10:00 – 11:50am

Radical Visions and Strategies for the Environmental Movement

Host: New Politics
Room: L2.82
Featured Speakers:
Nancy Romer
Kate Aronoff
Ashley Dawson
Richard Smith
Nancy Holmstrom
L2.82 (Capacity:45), Session 5: Sunday, June 3rd: 10:00 – 11:50am

Climate Change Consequences: Migration, Urbanism, Education

Host: Verso Books
Room: 1.82
Featured Speakers:
Ashley Dawson
McKenzie Wark
Thanu Yakupitiyage
1.82 (Capacity:40), Session 6: Sunday, June 3rd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

The Green New Deal and Ecological Socialism

Host: Green Party of New York State
Room: L2.82
Featured Speakers:
Mark Dunlea
Jabari Brisport
Howie Hawkins
L2.82 (Capacity:45), Session 6: Sunday, June 3rd: 12:00 – 1:50pm

——————————————-
END OF PROGRAM SELECTION

=============================================
2018 REGISTRATION

Welcome to the Left Forum conference registration process.

To start the registration please press “REGISTER NOW”.

PRE-CONFERENCE REGISTRATION CLOSES ON THE 30th of MAY, 2018. There are two pre-conference registration phases: Early Bird prices (with 20% – 60% discounts) are listed below. Early Bird registration ends on 17th of April 2018.

While online registration closes on the 30th of May, regular price registration will be available on-site on the days of the conference.

Please provide your name and email, plus a billing address. Get in touch when you cannot afford a ticket: register@leftforum.org and request a ticket waiver/stipend.

We at Left Forum hope you can attend all three days of the conference. Participants who purchase the full three day registration ticket will be able to attend plenary sessions on a first come first serve basis as well as all of the panel, auditorium, workshop, music performances and other event sessions throughout the weekend. Single day tickets can be purchased online during the second half of the online registration process (beginning 14th of April).

Please note that all conference participants, panelists and workshop facilitators included, should register and pay the applicable fees. If you have any questions regarding your registration please email us at register@leftforum.org or contact the Left Forum Office at (212) 817 – 2002/2003.

Early Bird Registration prices; save from 20% to 60% off of on-site registration prices (for more info. email register@leftforum.org).
Early Bird registration is valid now and until the 17th of April 2018, then Pre-Conference Registration prices becomes valid.

To start the registration please press “REGISTER NOW”.
When
June 1st, 2018 5:00 PM through June 3rd, 2018 7:00 PM
Event Fee(s)
Onsite Registration
Solidarity $ 100.00
Full Conference Registration $ 80.00
Seniors (65+) $ 40.00
College Student Rate (bring id card) $ 30.00
Institutionally Funded $ 150.00
High School student (or younger) $ 0.00
John Jay College Community Full Conference Registration $ 25.00
———————————————-
————————————————
Books from the 2017 show:
Real World Macro pub by Dollars and Sense
Current Current Economic Issues pub by Dollars and Sense
The Communist Manifesto (The International Group May 2017)
Rosa Remix – Rosa Luxemburg Softumg
Principles of a Pluralist Commonwealth by Gar Alperovitz (Democracy Collaborative)
Occupy Life Vol 1 – The World Occupy Party as a Vehicle for R-Evolution
“Quantum Economics” and the Creation of a Moral Economy by Tommy Fox
Grassroots, Geeks, Pros and Pols – The Election Integrity Movement’s Rise and Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People’s Vote 2000-2008 by Marta Steele +CD (CICJ Books)
Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century, Election 2016 Edition by Jonathan D. Simon
The Strip and Flip Disaster of America’s Stolen Elections by Robert G. Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman – Update of ‘Trump’ Edition of Strip and Flip Selection of 2010

Posted by Truthseeker | Categories: Science Guardian | No Comments »

Book Expo 2018: Literary Cornucupia Boosted By Spirit of Commerce and Giant Sales Machine

May 16th, 2018

University Row Still The Icing on Expo Cake

Rare Opportunity to Catch Up With Latest Key Works

Huge, multilayered, but containing past, present or forthcoming gems of scholarship and independent research in science and other topics which benefit from authors who take personal responsibility for the accuracy and quality of their work outside the confines of government and corporate walls where censors and pr spokesmen prowl. Huge, multilayered, but containing past, present or forthcoming gems of scholarship and independent research in science and other topics which benefit from authors who take personal responsibility for the accuracy and quality of their work outside the confines of government and corporate walls where censors and pr spokesmen prowl.

One big reason to attend BookExpo 2018

The best kept secret of the annual huge BookExpo at Javits for readers, reviewers and editors interested in the content of books and not simply their covers and their sales is that the lists of university publishers and their offerings for the season always have the best non fiction on every topic.

Thinking is the business of academics after all and there are no deeper and more informed books than they ones they write. While they are not always best sellers this is partly because they are seldom the sensation of the day, although university presses are covering more hot topics these days in competition with trade publishers. Also, they are not as well advertised in general interest papers and periodicals, which makes Book Expo a rare opportunity to see the current crop of the year’s best.

The top names tend to cluster in a row of booths led by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago and Columbia with rival presses close behind.
List of Exhibitors Booths
*Cambridge University Press Booth: RC402, RC404
*Columbia University Press 2759
Cornell Lab Booth: 2932B shared with Ingram Academic orig 2721
*Harvard Univ. Booth 2757 (/strong>
Indiana University Press 2721
Johns Hopkins University Press 2762
*London Review of Books2768
*MIT Press Booth: 2756
*McGill-Queens University Press
*Notre Dame University Press 2765
New York University Press Booth RC107, RC109
*Naval Institute Press
*Princeton University Press 2760
Springer Nature 2721
Syracuse University Press 2765
*University of California Press 2764
University of Georgia Press 2765
*University of Illinois Press 2766
University of Nebraska Press 3062
University of Toronto Press 2865
*University of Virginia Press2765

*Yale University Press 2758

A selected forty of the best titles last year can be viewed in our post

    Book Expo Heralds New and Notable Books on University Row

after Book Expo 2017, and there is no doubt that the standard is being kept up judging from the advance notices this year.

Meanwhile ReedPop the company in charge of the show is making it very clear that the event will be aimed at boosting sales of all books by expanding it into a rocket-boosted industry social media site:

(Reed) About BookExpo
BookExpo is North America’s largest gathering of book trade professionals attracting an audience from around the globe. The event is being re-designed to be the place where the business of bookselling gets done in North America. It’s the place where industry, authors and readers converge to define the direction of the publishing industry for years to come. BookExpo provides a focused professional environment to discover emerging authors and the next blockbuster titles, engage with the world’s most influential publishers and learn from industry leaders and peers. BookExpo is organized with the support of association partners including the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the American Booksellers Association (ABA) and the Association of Authors’ Representatives (AAR).

BookExpo 2018: Reed Primes a ‘Reimagined’ BookExpo
(PW) The show organizer has instituted a number of changes to increase the interaction between book buyers and authors
By Jim Milliot | May 11, 2018
For the second time in two years, Reed Exhibitions is making significant changes to BookExpo. To give more focus to the 2017 event, Reed shortened the number of days the exhibit floor at New York City’s Javits Center was open from three to two, while holding panels and other events on the Wednesday before the floor opened. In 2018 Reed has implemented a new schedule. Publishers who do not want to participate in BookCon, which runs June 2–3, immediately following BookExpo, have the option to open their booths from May 30 to June 1. Publishers who want to take part in both BookExpo and BookCon will be at the Javits for four days—two days at BookExpo and two days at BookCon. There is also a third option for publishers, exhibiting just at BookCon.

Ed Several, senior v-p of BookExpo, says Reed made the change after talking to publishers and others. “Some of our customers wanted three full days for BookExpo, so we made the change to accommodate them,” he notes. Approximately 150 exhibitors have signed on for the three-day BookExpo show.

Though the exhibition schedule is designed to give publishers more options, Reed has also instituted a number of changes aimed at increasing the interaction between publishers and booksellers as part of what Reed is calling a “reimagined BookExpo.” “While we will take care to support the entire distribution chain, we will have a special focus on booksellers,” Several says.

More Of the Show Details (Very Long)
One of the centerpieces of the new-look show is what BookExpo executives are calling “Editor’s Hours.” Under the program, BookExpo will facilitate “chats” between booksellers and editors in publishers’ booths. Reed has created four sessions: Wednesday, May 30, 11 a.m.–noon; Thursday, May 31, 11 a.m.–1 p.m. and 1–2 p.m.; and Friday, June 1, 1–2 p.m. As of May 1, about 40 publishers and 100 editors had signed on to participate.

“We want this to be very informal, while providing booksellers with more opportunities to gain more insights about books that are coming out,” Several says. Reed will post the schedule of editors’ times on its website, in its app, and in handouts on the show floor.

Reed has developed a similar program for booksellers to meet with publicists. Publicist in-booth meetings will run on Friday, 2–4 p.m.; the organizer views the program as a good way for booksellers to talk to publicists about setting up in-store events. Reed is coordinating the meetups online.

The 2018 show floor itself has also been tweaked and will feature four author stages (up from two last year), where booksellers can hear authors discuss their books. “More stages, more author appearances,” Several notes. BookExpo has also beefed up its sideline offerings, including adding café products. “We want BookExpo to be a one-stop shop for booksellers,” Several adds.

Another new initiative is the Vital Bookstore. An interactive exhibit, the bookstore will feature four life-size walk-through models: a café, a store with modern décor and sideline merchandising strategies, a traditional store with a classic library look and shelving designs, and a children’s store with special features to engage young readers. Visitors can explore the store three ways: they can take a self-guided tour, take a small-group (8–10 people) guided tour, or join one of numerous 45-minute dialogue sessions with bookstore owners and thought leaders on a variety of topics. The store will be open May 31–June 3 to booksellers, publishers, and librarians.

To entice more booksellers from outside the Northeast to attend the show, BookExpo has arranged discounted hotel and travel packages. So far registration is 4% ahead of 2017, Several says. In an initiative to provide attendees with the views of some of publishing’s leaders, Reed has worked with AAP to develop two CEO roundtables. The first, set for Wednesday at 10 a.m., will look at copyright policy and feature Maria A. Pallante, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers; Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild; and Keith Kupferschmid, CEO of the Copyright Alliance.

A second roundtable will feature Markus Dohle, CEO of Penguin Random House; Carolyn Reidy, president and CEO of Simon & Schuster; and John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan. Set for 9:45 a.m. on Thursday, the panel will examine industry trends, market highlights, and the power and responsibilities of publishers as global, corporate citizens.

The last major change for this year’s BookExpo is Reed’s agreement with the New York Rights Fair, through which the NYRF, beginning this year, will become the official rights fair of BookExpo. Reed will move the event’s rights center to the NYRF, which will be held at the Metropolitan Pavilion, located a short distance away from the Javits Center, on West 18th Street. All of BookExpo’s rights-oriented exhibitors have the option to move to premium space at the NYRF or remain at the Javits.

The NYRF is a collaboration between BolognaFiere, which runs the Bologna Children’s Book Fair; Publishers Weekly; and the Combined Book Exhibit. As part of the agreement, the NYRF badge holders will have full access to the BookExpo exhibition floor, while BookExpo badge holders with a “Rights” badge designation will have full access to the NYRF. Shuttle buses will travel between the two events.

Several says Reed is excited to be working with NYRF: “The NYRF’s focus on rights will be a real complement to BookExpo. They bring their expertise on rights, and we bring our focus on retailing.”

In addition to offering a venue for making deals, the NYRF will feature three days of programming, with panels that include a look at the success of four international bestsellers, exploring the booming audio rights market, and what Hollywood sees in emerging content platforms.

Reed did not limit its changes to BookExpo. BookCon also has some new elements. Since its inception, BookCon has attracted a large YA audience. In a bid to broaden its demographic reach, Reed has added more authors in major genres like mystery/thriller, sci-fi, romance, and nonfiction, while also developing more family activities. “The team has done a great job of building a program that reflects what is being published today,” Several says. A big draw for readers of all kinds should be Bill Clinton and James Patterson, who will both be on hand Sunday promoting their jointly written novel, The President Is Missing.

The goal of all the changes, Several explains, is in keeping with the theme that BookExpo “is the place where the business of bookselling gets done in North America.”

BookExpo Contact:
Brian Reinert/Nikki Liberatore
(212) 685-4300
Brian_Reinert@dkcnews.com / Nikki_Liberatore@dkcnews.com

(Publishers Weekly) A Reimagined BookExpo is Unveiled
By Jim Milliot | Feb 16, 2018
After an extensive listening tour in which BookExpo executives met with a range of industry members, the organizers of book publishing’s largest trade show have added new elements to the event aimed at adding more value for booksellers.

“While we will take care to support the entire distribution chain, we will have a special focus on booksellers,” Ed Several, senior v-p, Reed Exhibitions-Americas, BookExpo & BookCon, said. The reimagined show will include programs to increase booksellers’ facetime with editors and publicists, as well as initiatives to make attending the New York City show more affordable.

One of the centerpieces of the new-look show is what BookExpo executives are calling “editor’s hours.” Under the program, BookExpo will facilitate “chats” between booksellers and editors in publishers’ booths. BookExpo will work with publishers to develop a lineup of when different editors will appear in a publisher’s booth, and then will share a master schedule with booksellers. Brien McDonald, event director for BookExpo and BookCon, emphasized that the “editor’s hours” are in addition to the ABA’s Meet the Editors program. That event will run on the morning of May 30, and allow booksellers to meet with publishes in their New York offices.

BookExpo will also borrow another ABA program—publicist speed dating which usually takes place on the main stage in the convention hall. While ABA will continue its own program on Thursday May 31, BookExpo will conduct a “Publicists in-Booth Meet-up” program on Friday. “Booksellers have told us they want to spend more time with publicists,” McDonald said. To support the program, BookExpo will launch the BookExpo Connect app which will enable publishers to list their publicists’ availability for meetings.

To entice more booksellers from outside the northeast to attend the show, BookExpo is offering $200 per night hotel rooms, and arranging other discounts. BookExpo is also working on ways for new booksellers (as well as those who’ve not attended the show recently) to make the 2018 event.

Several booksellers in this category that Several met at Winter Institute, he said “signed up on the spot.” On the whole, BookExpo said bookseller signups are running about 3-4% ahead of last year.Several added that the goal is get booksellers from all 50 states to the show.

BookExpo is also working on a scholarship program with the regional trade shows to get more of their members to New York.

The 2018 show floor has also been tweaked, and will feature two more author stages where booksellers can see authors. BookExpo has also beefed up its sideline offerings, including adding café products. “We want BookExpo to be a one-stop shop for booksellers,” Several said.

The length of the show has also been changed. Publishers can choose a three-day ‘BookExpo Only’ option (May 30-June 1); a four-day ‘BookExpo-BookCon’ option (May 31-June 3); or a ‘BookCon Only’ option (June 2-3).

Wednesday – First full expo day featuring 150+ exhibitors: 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
ABA Programming & Lounge, Education, A Selection of 150+ B2B Exhibitors (full list below) including Remainders

Thursday – Expanded Show Floor: 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Including All Exhibitors, PW Librarian Lounge, Stages, Autographing Sessions and Education

Friday – Full Show Floor: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Including All Exhibitors, PW Librarian Lounge, Stages, Autographing Sessions and Education

“We’ve taken the feedback we heard from our listening tour and incorporated new elements that we think will take BookExpo and BookCon into the future,” Several said.

BookExpo America (BEA) is the #1 book and author event that offers the book industry access to new titles, authors, and education about the publishing industry. BEA is the best place to discover new titles and upcoming books and meet face-to-face with favorite and up-and-coming authors. It is a dynamic environment for networking, sourcing, and relationship building in the publishing industry in North America. BEA offers four event-packed days, 800+ authors, hundreds of new titles, 1,000+ exhibitors, and four Author Stages, along with the Digital Discovery Zone (D2Z) brought to you by IDPF.

JUNE 1, 2018
The 2018 edition of BookExpo will be the first end-to-end business solution for the global publishing industry. You will experience, in-person, how content creation, rights trading, retail strategy and consumer behavior will increase profit and give you the tools to succeed in today’s shifting marketplace.

BookExpo is carefully crafted with content and experiences for all those that play a part in the publishing industry. It’s where authors, booksellers, distributors, librarians, literary agents, publishers and more unite to build relationships, learn tactics to bolster business and get the pulse of what’s trending in today’s shifting marketplace.

BookExpo 2018 Show Hours:
Wednesday – A Day Dedicated To Learning, Celebrating, Comradery & Discovery: 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
ABA Programming & Lounge, Education, A Selection of 50+ B2B Exhibitors (full list below) including Remainders and International Rights Center

Thursday – Expanded Show Floor: 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Including All Exhibitors, PW Librarian Lounge, Stages, Autographing Sessions and Education

Friday – Full Show Floor: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Including All Exhibitors, PW Librarian Lounge, Stages, Autographing Sessions and Education

BookExpo Tickets are non-refundable, non-transferrable, non-upgradeable and non-resellable.

*Applications for these categories will close on May 19 at 11:59 PM EDT. Your application will be reviewed within 21 business days. If your application is approved, you will be prompted by email to complete your Registration. There will be no onsite application process for these categories.
Please note: Pre-show prices above do not include state and local taxes. Taxes will be added to your Registration purchase during checkout.
BookExpo will verify your category and we will reach out with any questions.

READER PASS AND AVID READER PASS
The BookExpo Reader Pass and Avid Reader Pass gives you a premium Autographing experience by bringing you face-to-face with your favorite author without waiting in line!

To support the Book Industry Foundation, you can purchase either the Reader Pass or the Avid Reader Pass.

AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR LEGAL TEAM…
Tickets and/or badges (“Badges”) for the event (“Event”) are non-refundable and non-transferable and cannot be reproduced, resold or upgraded. The unauthorized resale or attempted resale of the Badge is prohibited and will constitute a forfeiture of the Badge without compensation. Each Badge must be used by the same person (the “Attendee”) for each day of the Event. The Event’s operating hours, schedules, guests and speakers are subject to change or cancellation without notice. Each Badge is a revocable license to attend the Event. All panels, autographing, photo ops, special events, show features and performances are subject to availability and access is not guaranteed and/or may require an additional fee. ReedPOP is not responsible for lost or stolen Badges. The Attendee acknowledges there are hazards and risks of physical injury or illness to Attendees of the Event and that not all such hazards or risks can be fully eliminated. By accepting this Badge and attending the Event, the Attendee freely and voluntarily agrees to assume the full risk of bodily injury or property damage, regardless of severity, or death that Attendee may sustain as a result of attending the Event, whether or not caused by the negligence or gross negligence of ReedPOP.

ABOUT US
Content is being consumed in more dynamic ways than ever before and new methods must be used to engage readers and run a successful business.

The 2018 edition of BookExpo will transform from a “trade show” to the first end-to-end business solution for the global publishing industry. You will experience, in-person, how content creation, rights trading, retail strategy and consumer behavior will increase profit and give you the tools to succeed in today’s shifting marketplace.

Here’s what to expect at the 2018 Reimagined BookExpo

BUILT FOR YOU: Reimagined, Laid-Back, Comfortable Show
A New BookExpo for Discovery, Conducting Business, and Networking in a Friendly and Inviting Environment

MORE: Author Insights, Autographing & Galleys
See More Authors, With More Opportunities for Q&A, Increased Autographing, and More Galleys

EVEN: Lower Cost
Discounted Hotel Rooms and Airfare Rates from onPeak, BookExpo’s Official Hotel Provider. Check Out The Rates Here

PLUS: Industry-Focused Education
Built Just for You to Learn How to Enhance Your Community

NEW: Discovering “The Vital Bookstore,” curated by Franklin Fixtures
An Interactive Experience Led by Experts from Around the Country Featuring a Tour of 24 of The Best Bookstores. Discover More About This Bookstore Here.

CONVENIENT: 1-Stop Source For Toys, Remainders, Sidelines & Café Products & Education
Discover New, High-Margin Products All In One Place

Join us in New York City on May 30 – June 1, 2018.

Soho’s largest used bookstore @HousingWorksBookstore is the official charity partner of @BookExpoAmerica. Learn more about their work for New Yorkers living with & affected by HIV/AIDS and homelessness here: housingworks.org and visit their booth 2551 for information on donating!

Join us at the Reimagined #Bookexpo this year to experience,
in-person, how content creation, rights trading, retail strategy and consumer behavior will increase profit and give you the tools to succeed in today’s shifting marketplace. https://www.compusystems.com/servlet/ar…

Content is being consumed in more dynamic ways than ever before and new methods must be used to engage readers and run a successful business.

The 2018 edition of BookExpo will transform from a “trade show” to the first end-to-end business solution for the global publishing industry. You will experience, in-person, how content creation, rights trading, retail strategy and consumer behavior will increase profit and give you the tools to succeed in today’s shifting marketplace.

Here’s what to expect at the 2018 Reimagined BookExpo

BUILT FOR YOU: Reimagined, Laid-Back, Comfortable Show
A New BookExpo for Discovery, Conducting Business, and Networking in a Friendly and Inviting Environment

MORE: Author Insights, Autographing & Galleys
See More Authors, With More Opportunities for Q&A, Increased Autographing, and More Galleys

EVEN: Lower Cost
Discounted Hotel Rooms and Airfare Rates from onPeak, BookExpo’s Official Hotel Provider. Check Out The Rates Here

PLUS: Industry-Focused Education
Built Just for You to Learn How to Enhance Your Community

NEW: Discovering “The Vital Bookstore,” curated by Franklin Fixtures
An Interactive Experience Led by Experts from Around the Country Featuring a Tour of 24 of The Best Bookstores. Discover More About This Bookstore Here.

CONVENIENT: 1-Stop Source For Toys, Remainders, Sidelines & Café Products & Education
Discover New, High-Margin Products All In One Place

Learn more on our website: http://www.bookexpoamerica.com/About-Us/

Read substantial excerpts from 56 Best New Fall/Winter Books just in time for BookExpo! Click the link below to download Buzz Books 2018: Fall/Winter and Buzz Books 2018: Young Adult Fall/Winter, brought to you FREE by Publishers Lunch. Then go meet many of your favorite Buzz Books authors at BookExpo. http://buzz.publishersmarketplace.com/

Join us this year at #BookExpo18 as Bernie Sanders, one of the country’s most prominent political voices takes the stage for a special appearance. Tickets are limited so be sure to grab yours today! goo.gl/6RJDTF

List of Exhibitors Booths
Cambridge University Press Booth: RC402, RC404
*Columbia University Press 2759
Cornell Lab Booth: 2932B shared with Ingram Orig 2721
Harvard Univ. Booth 2757 (/strong>
Indiana University Press 2721
Johns Hopkins University Press 2762
London Review of Books2768
MIT Press Booth 2756
Notre Dame University Press 2765
New York University Press Booth RC107, RC109
Princeton University Press 2760
Springer Nature 2721
Syracuse University Press 2765
University of California Press 2764
University of Georgia Press 2765
University of Illinois Press 2766
University of Nebraska Press 3062
University of Toronto Press 2865
University of Virginia Press2765

*Yale University Press 2758

From 05/14/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly – headline: Window on Wednesday

(PW) BookExpo 2018: Around the Booths
A guide to select exhibitors at BookExpo
By Elizabeth Hartman | May 11, 2018

Bridge

Booth 1843

Bridge publishes the nonfiction works of L. Ron Hubbard on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.

Brooklyn Book Festival

Booth 2022

This is New York City’s largest annual free public literary event; it presents 250 local, national, and international authors at 12 venues, along with a vibrant literary marketplace.

Cambridge University Press

Booth: RC402, RC404
We enable people to achieve success by providing the best learning and research solutions
We support our customers through continually improved content, experiences and care
We use our profit for purpose, contributing to society by furthering the mission of our University

Cornell Univ.

Booth 3064

This press publishes general interest and scholarly books in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its imprints include Comstock, ILR Press, and Three Hills.

Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Booth 2444

FSG publishes poetry, literary fiction, and nonfiction.

Fordham Univ.

Booth 2762

This press’s imprint, Empire State Editions, features books that explore New York. The press also publishes in a wide range of academic areas, including anthropology, cultural studies, history, philosophy, literary studies, and more.

Galaxy

Booth 1839

Battlefield Earth is one of Galaxy Press’s best-known titles. The press also publishes Writers of the Future, an annual science fiction and fantasy anthology, as well as Stories from the Golden Age, a line of mystery adventure, science fiction and fantasy, and westerns.

Harvard Univ.

Booth 2757

With “scholarship plus” as its motto, the press publishes books from ants to Zeus that open the academy to the world.

Indiana University Press
Booth: 3029 shared with Ingram Content Group
At Indiana University Press, we want to publish books that will matter twenty or even a hundred years from now–books that make a difference today and…Johns Hopkins Univ.

Booth 2762

One of the world’s largest university presses, Hopkins publishes more than 200 new books and 58 scholarly periodicals each year.

London Review of Books

Booth 2768

Devoted to the tradition of the literary and intellectual essay, each issue of the London Review contains up to 15 long reviews and essays by academics, writers, and journalists.

McGill-Queens Univ.

Booth 2763

This press publishes rigorously edited books that defend, refute, and create fresh interpretations of the world.


MIT
Booth 2756
This press publishes books, journals, and electronic media across a variety of subjects including art, architecture, cognitive science, computer science, neuroscience, and linguistics, among others.

National Geographic

Booth 2303

Working with scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, National Geographic publishes books about science and exploration.

Naval Institute

Booth 2761

Established in 1898, this press publishes approximately 90 titles per year in the genres of military history, strategy, fiction, espionage and intelligence, current affairs, political science, and more.

Featured titles: Battleship Bismarck by William H. Garzke Jr., Robert O. Dulin Jr., and Bill Jurens, with James Cameron; Smoke ’Em If You Got ’Em by Joel R. Buis; Silver State Dreadnaught by Stephen M. Younger.

New York University Press
Booth RC107, RC109

Working across the humanities and social sciences, NYU Press has award-winning lists in sociology, law, cultural and American studies, religion
NYU School of Professional Studies 3008

Norton

Booths 1720, 1721, 1726, 1724, 1730

Norton is the oldest and largest publishing house owned wholly by its employees. It publishes in the areas of nonfiction, fiction, poetry, cookbooks, psychology, and more.

Overlook

Booth 1730

Overlook is an independent, general interest publisher founded in 1971. It publishes approximately 100 titles per year evenly divided between hardcovers and trade paperbacks.

Penguin Random House

Booth 2121

PRH comprises the adult and children’s fiction and nonfiction print and digital trade book publishing businesses of Penguin and Random House in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India.

Featured titles: An Absolutely Remarkable Thing by Hank Green (Dutton); The Infinite Game by Simon Sinek (Portfolio); There Will Be No More Miracles Here by Casey Gerald (Riverhead).

Princeton Univ.

Booth 2760

Featured titles: On the Future: Prospects for Humanity by Martin Rees; How to Walk on Water and Climb Up Walls: Animal Movement and the Robots of the Future by David L. Hu; Gods and Robots: The Ancient Quest for Artificial Life by Adrienne Mayor.

Smithsonian Books

Booth 2029

This press uses the strength of the Smithsonian institutions to publish in the areas of history, science and technology, space, aviation, military, art, illustrated books, and works based on museums, collections, and artifacts.

Featured titles: Johnny Cash by Alan Light; Sweet Home Café Cookbook by National Museum of African American History and Culture; The Smithsonian History of Space Exploration by Roger D. Launius.

St. Martin’s

Booth 2444

Part of Macmillan, St. Martin’s publishes under the imprints St. Martin’s Press, St. Martin’s Paperbacks, St. Martin’s Griffin, Minotaur, and Thomas Dunne Books.

Syracuse Univ.

Booth 2765

Both trade and academic books are published by this press in the areas of New York State history and culture, television and popular culture, sports history, women’s studies, Native American studies, and more.


Univ. of California

Booth 2764

This year marks the 125th anniversary of the press that since 1893 has been publishing peer-reviewed scholarship.

Univ. of Georgia

Booth 2765

The largest book publisher in Georgia, the press publishes 60–70 books per year covering literary works and books about the state and region.

Univ. of Illinois

Booth 2766

Featured titles: Glory in Their Spirit: How Four Black Women Took On the Army During WWII by Sandra M. Bolzenius; James Baldwin and the 1980s: Witnessing the Reagan Era by Joseph Vogel; Bill Monroe: The Life and Music of the Blue Grass Man by Tom Ewing.

Univ. of Nebraska

Booth 3062

UNP is a scholarly and general interest press that publishes 150 books per year under the imprints Nebraska, Bison Books, the Jewish Publication Society, and Potomac Books, as well as 30 journals.

Univ. of Notre Dame

Booth 2765

This press is the largest Catholic university press in the world and also publishes in a number of academic disciplines.

Univ. of Virginia

Booth 2765

The focus of this scholarly press is primarily on the humanities and social sciences, with concentrations in American history, African-American studies, Southern studies, architecture, literature, eco-criticism, and regional books.

Yale Univ.

Booth 2758

Featured titles: The Secret World: A History of Intelligence by Christopher Andrew; Inadvertent by Karl Ove Knausgaard; Anni Albers, edited by Ann Coxon, Briony Fer, and Maria Müller-Schareck.

A version of this article appeared in the 05/14/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Around the Booths

http://bookcritics.org/blog/archive/nbcc-at-book-expo-america
NBCC at Book Expo America: The Crisis in Book Reviewing: Disappearing Space, Disappearing Pay
by jane ciabattari | May-15-2018
Over the past 10 years, book-review sections in many American newspapers have gone on life support. At least one major newspaper that once spent close to $100,000 annually on book reviews now budgets zero for book reviews. One result is that the same review often runs in more papers than ever before. Do newer digital ventures make up for the print decline in either space or pay?

Panelists:

Christopher Carduff, Books Editor, The Wall Street Journal

Gerald Howard, Vice-President and Executive Editor, Doubleday

Julia M. Klein, Cultural Critic

Kate Tuttle, President, National Book Critics Circle and columnist, The Boston Globe

Moderator: Carlin Romano, Critic-at-Large, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vice President, NBCC, Author, America the Philosophical (Alfred A. Knopf)

NBCC members not already credentialed to attend Book Expo America will be able to do so on May 30th for this panel. We’re working out what the procedure will be, and will let everyone know as soon as BEA decides how it wants to arrange that.

JAVITS: THE MAIN EVENT

Where else in the world can you can you find 760,000 square feet of meeting space, bespoke services, and top-of-the-line amenities—all under one giant 7-acre green roof? Whether it’s a product launch or a movie premiere, attending an event at the Javits Center is itself an event. The Javits Center is the crown jewel of the pulsating, resurgent new West Side neighborhood—now transformed with the Hudson River Park, Hudson Yards and the recently expanded section of the High Line. And thanks to the new 7 Subway line extension across the street, all the excitement is closer than you ever imagined.

ReedPOP, the world’s leading producer of pop culture events

KEYNOTE SPEAKER – BARNES & NOBLE CHAIRMAN, LEN RIGGIO
05/03/2018

Riggio to Address the Importance of Brick and Mortar Stores and the Changing Book Retail Landscape

NORWALK, CT – May 3, 2018 – Today, the reimagined BookExpo announced the first-ever Grand Opening Keynote, featuring Len Riggio, Chairman of Barnes & Noble, Inc. The Day 1 Keynote will take place on Wednesday, May 30, at 9:15 AM on the Midtown Stage sponsored by Ingram and will complement BookExpo’s Day 2 Leadership Roundtable featuring CEOs from top publishing houses Macmillan, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

As the Chairman of the nation’s largest retail bookseller, Mr. Riggio will offer attendees his unique perspective on the bookselling industry and will focus his talk on the importance of brick and mortar stores, serving the modern reader, how bookstores best serve their communities, and the overall changing landscape of book retail today. He will be introduced at BookExpo by American Booksellers Association CEO, Oren Teicher.

“We are transforming BookExpo to be the place where the business of bookselling gets done in North America. With that vision in mind, Len Riggio offers a powerful perspective that will be very valuable for the entire industry,” said Ed Several, Senior Vice President, BookExpo. “Mr. Riggio will offer insights and key learnings that will shed light on the state of the industry and how we can all make it better.”

In recent months, the BookExpo team has met with indie Booksellers, Publishers, Distributors and Librarians to learn more about what they are looking for at the show. As a result, BookExpo has undergone a reimagination to become the place where the business of bookselling gets done in North America. Based on this, BookExpo has added more value through in-booth Editor chats, more opportunity for one-on-one meetings with Publicists, new stages to feature more Authors than ever before, and added media coverage surrounding the event.

For more information on BookExpo, please visit www.bookexpoamerica.com.

MEDIA
BookExpo & BookCon welcomes members of the Media from around the world and is happy to provide approved media members with a complimentary Media Badge. We must maintain a high standard of excellence when we award Media Badges, therefore we hope you understand the following:

Your Media Badge allows access as long as space is permitting.
Your Media Badge does not allow early access, special access or guaranteed seating.
Your Media Badge does not allow you to cut lines.
Your Media Badge will not allow access into any events requiring an additional ticket.
Complimentary Media Badges are extended as a courtesy BookExpo & BookCon. Each is issued individually and is non-transferable. You may not transfer or sell your Media Badge and any individuals conducting such activity will be disqualified from Media Badges at future ReedPOP events.

BookExpo & BookCon Media Registration is open for journalists regularly making editorial contributions (Editorial Media) only. Editorial Media includes Writers, Reporters, Reviewers, Producers, Photographers, Camerapersons , etc. who are attending specifically to write about BookExpo & BookCon to cover the event for newspapers, magazines, TV, blogs, podcasts, radio, etc.

Your approval for a Media Badge at previous editions of BookExpo, BookCon or other ReedPOP events does not guarantee you a Media Badge for BookExpo & BookCon 2018. You must complete the entire Media Badge application whether you have been approved previously or not.

Media Badges are limited in nature and will be issued only to professionally employed adults. Badges will not be issued to children, family or guests. BookExpo & BookCon reserves the right to approve or deny any application and limit the number of Media Badges provided to each organization.

Please Note: There is no audio or videotaping allowed during BookExpo or BookCon conference sessions unless prior approval is granted. If you are planning to bring a camera crew to shoot video on the BookExpo & BookCon Show Floor or other events, you must check in at the Media Office and be escorted by a BookExpo & BookCon Media Team Media Representative. If you are applying with a team, each person on your team needs to apply and be approved separately. Every individual applying for a Media Badge may only apply once. Please note: Media Badges are non-transferable and non-resellable.

Decisions are final and cannot be appealed.

DECISIONS ARE FINAL
BookExpo & BookCon reserves the right to approve or deny any application. This decision is final and cannot be appealed. Include any and all information in your application that will allow the BookExpo & BookCon Media Office to make an informed decision, as you will not be able to submit further information later on if your application is not approved.

MULTIPLE BADGES
If you intend to come to BookExpo & BookCon with a crew (photographer, cameramen, etc.), each member of this crew must complete an application. BookExpo reserves the right to approve or deny any application and limit the number of Media Badges provided to each organization.

APPLY FOR MEDIA BADGE

Posted by Truthseeker | Categories: Science Guardian | No Comments »

Renewed attack on Woody Allen a classic case of crowd irrationality

January 29th, 2018

No new facts behind unwarranted resurrection of long dismissed charge

Behavior reminiscent of McCarthy era in haste of young actors to abandon ship in face of female lynch mob

Alec Baldwin and Diane Keaton try to stem tide of unfair and uninformed prejudice, probably in vain

Times reviewers swept up by #TimesUp witchhunt, join in, though evidence still entirely against it

Mia and Woody and Dylan in happier days

The tidal wave of #MeToo #TimesUp condemnation of Woody Allen in the wake of Malone/Dylan Farrow’s renewed claims he lured her into the attic for twenty minutes at age 7 to perpetrate some invasive touching, in a house where he was surrounded by hostile women, including the watchful Mia Farrow, seems to be a very objectionable example of the way emotions now rule in public discourse at the expense of checked facts.

Woody now has to deal with Dylan’s adult Op-Ed, which denies the matter was settled years ago

The extent of the reaction against Allen is depressingly large and is still gathering force, now threatening his film making at the end of his notable career, according to this NYTimes article today:

    Can Woody Allen Work in Hollywood Again?

No more evidence is offered than before when the allegations were roundly rejected by the authorities in two investigations, so there is little excuse for the actors in his films who have turned against him in the current lynch mob atmosphere which ensures that any accusation of this kind instantly knocks even the most widely admired celebrity off his perch.

However, a very sound contradiction of this always evidently spurious accusation was written for the Daily Beast by the level headed maker of a 3 hr 12 min documentary (Woody Allen – A Documentary 2012) for American Masters on PBS on the topic of Woody Allen and his work, at the time the charge was earlier revived in 2014, four years ago, and all who still give any credibility to the long defeated story should read it.

    The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast


Twenty-one years after the first allegations that Woody Allen abused his adopted daughter, that incident is back in the news.
by Robert B. Weide
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast
01.27.2014 5:45 AM ET

As anyone with access to a computer knows, Woody Allen has been pilloried of late across the internet, over allegations that 21 years ago, he molested the daughter he and Mia Farrow adopted in 1985. Countless people have weighed in on this, many of them without the slightest idea of what the facts are in this matter. I consider myself allergic to gossip and tabloids, and go out of my way to avoid them. So when a celebrity is being devoured by the two-headed piranha of gossip and innuendo, I usually have minimal understanding of what they did, or were alleged to have done. Woody Allen is an exception.

I produced and directed the two-part PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, that premiered in the U.S. on the “American Masters” series. I also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage that aired as part of the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement.

When I went online the morning after the Globes broadcast, I found more than one email asking if I had seen the previous night’s tweets from Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan. A quick search led me not only to the accusatory tweets, but to the explosion of internet chatter that followed in their wake. The more benevolent comments suggested Woody should rot in jail. Others were demanding his head on a pike.

Last fall, Vanity Fair magazine ran an article about Mia and her family, which included an interview with the 28-year-old Malone (née Dylan), who, at the age of seven, was at the center of Mia’s allegations that made headlines during the brutal custody battle between her and Woody. In the recent interview, Malone stands behind her mother’s accusation. It was the one-two punch of the Vanity Fair piece and the Farrow tweets that stirred up the hornet’s nest that had remained somewhat dormant over the past 20 years.

More

My documentary covered Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn (Mia’s adopted daughter and Woody’s wife of 16 years) and the ensuing fall-out, but I chose not to go down the rabbit hole detailing the custody case, as my film was primarily about his work, and I had no interest in allowing it to turn into a courtroom drama. I did, however, thoroughly research the entire episode in order to reach my own conclusions about what did or didn’t take place.

My association with Woody is primarily a professional one, though we’ve remained friendly since the documentary and still occasionally correspond by email via his assistant (since Woody still types on a 60-year old manual typewriter). When I wrote him the day after the ceremony, he was vaguely aware that Mia and Ronan had badmouthed him (again), but he wasn’t certain what Twitter was. (He’s heard of blogging and always confuses the two.) Because he doesn’t go online, he was blissfully unaware of how much ink (sorry, bandwidth) the story was getting. If he had known, he still wouldn’t have cared. Mia’s accusations were old business, and the fact that Ronan was publicly chiming in meant nothing to Woody, who hadn’t even seen his (alleged) son for 20 years. I also knew Woody would never publicly respond to any of this. His indifference to the gossip has always struck me not as a decision so much as an involuntary and organic reaction. In fact, during a written exchange that day in which I mentioned the tweet attack, he was more focused on giving me advice about a stye I had on my eyelid that I joked was probably a brain tumor: “I agree, you probably do have a brain tumor. You should get your affairs in order quickly as those things can move rather rapidly. You’ll probably start to have some problems with your balance—don’t panic—it’s quite natural for a brain tumor.” He then counseled me not to use up my “remaining days” fretting over Mia.

As the day progressed, it seemed the misinformation on the internet was growing exponentially spurious by the minute. The more even-keeled bloggers and pundits were asking, “Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?” or “Is America ready to forgive Woody Allen?” The very phrasing of these questions presumed that Woody had done something terrible, and we had to decide how much we would let it bother us. My wife suggested that in absence of a response by Woody, he was being swiftboated. His silence created a vacuum that everybody with a keyboard was going to fill with whatever they believed or thought they believed or heard from someone else who heard from someone who linked to the Vanity Fair article.

I considered whether to enter the fray, since my credentials were in order, so to speak. I had researched these events, I knew Woody—was friendly with him, but we weren’t so close that anyone could rightfully accuse me of being in his pocket. Quite the opposite in fact, as Woody had already advised me not to get involved. But as I came across more and more articles and blogs filled with misinformation, my wife said something to me that struck a chord: “You have just as much right to weigh in on this as anyone else, regardless of what Woody thinks.”

So here I go—contributing to the very noise I’ve been complaining about.

******************

There are basically two issues at play here. One is Woody’s starting a romantic/sexual relationship with Mia’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, in 1991. The other is Mia’s accusation—used during their custody battle for their three shared children—that Woody molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. People tend to confuse these two issues, so let’s examine them separately.

First, the Soon-Yi situation:

Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

#2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

#4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

#5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

#7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

#9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

#10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend’s 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense. But why not get the facts straight? If the actual facts are so repugnant to you, then why embellish them?

It’s understandable that Mia would remain furious with Woody for the rest of her life. If I were in Mia’s position, I’m sure I’d feel the same way. (Though I’d likely handle it as a private matter and not be tweeting about him being a pedophile, just before tweeting, “omfg look at this baby panda.”) I also understand the simmering anger of Ronan Farrow (née Satchel), who has famously said of Allen, “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.” However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mia’s recent revelations that Ronan’s biological father may “possibly” be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50.

While we’re on the subject, a word about this Sinatra business: To even say that Ronan is “possibly” Sinatra’s son implies that Mia was fooling around with her ex-husband decades after their divorce. Backdating from Ronan’s birthdate, it means that Farrow and Sinatra “hooked up” in March of 1987 when Mia was 42 and Old Blue Eyes was 71. This sort of dispels the myth that Woody and Mia had this idyllic, loving, monogamous relationship until Woody threw it all away in 1992, since Mia was apparently diddling her ex, five years earlier. If Mia was “just kidding” about the Sinatra scenario, it was an awfully insensitive thing to say, considering the fact that Sinatra’s wife, Barbara, is still very much alive. Did Mia stop to think how her coy tease might be perceived by the widow Sinatra? One can only wonder if this also fits Ronan’s definition of a “moral transgression.” (One may also wonder whether Woody is owed a fortune in reimbursement for child support.)

I am not here to slam Mia. I think she’s an exceptional actress and I seriously admire her political activism. (I even follow her on Twitter.) But those who hate Woody “for what he did to Mia,” should be reminded that if Sinatra was indeed Ronan’s biological father, it’s not the first time Mia had a child by a married man. In 1969, at the age of 24, she became pregnant by musician/composer André Previn, 40, who was still married to singer/songwriter Dory Previn. The betrayal is said to have led to Dory Previn’s mental breakdown and institutionalization, during which she received electroconvulsive therapy. She would later write a song called, “Beware of Young Girls” about Mia. Maybe sleeping with your friend’s husband doesn’t earn as many demerits as sleeping with your girlfriend’s adopted daughter, but if you’re waving the “Never Forget” banner in Mia’s honor, let’s be consistent and take a moment to also remember the late Dory Previn. (Or better yet, let’s forget the whole damn thing, considering it’s none of our business.)

******************

Now, on to the more delicate issue of Mia’s accusations during the custody case that Woody sexually abused Dylan/Malone.

A brief but chilling synopsis of the accusation is as follows: On August 4, 1992, almost four months after the revelation about Woody and Soon-Yi’s relationship understandably ignited a firestorm within the Farrow household, Woody was visiting Frog Hollow, the Farrow country home in Bridgewater, Connecticut, where Mia and several of her kids were staying. During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, “touched her inappropriately.” Later in the day, it was alleged that the child was wearing her sundress, but that her underpants were missing. The following day, Mia’s daughter allegedly told her mother what had happened, and Mia put the child’s recounting of the story on videotape as evidence.

Did this event actually occur? If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in Vanity Fair. Her brother Ronan believes it happened, so good for him for sticking up for his sister in 140 characters or less. They’ve both grown up in a household where this scenario has been accepted as indisputable fact, so why shouldn’t they believe it?

I know I’m treading a delicate path here, and opening myself up to accusations of “blaming the victim.” However, I’m merely floating scenarios to consider, and you can think what you will. But if Mia’s account is true, it means that in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior, in a house belonging to his furious ex-girlfriend, and filled with people seething mad at him, Woody, who is a well-known claustrophobic, decided this would be the ideal time and place to take his daughter into an attic and molest her, quickly, before a house full of children and nannies noticed they were both missing.

Even people who give Woody the benefit of the doubt and defend him on the internet are often confused on a few points. Some mistakenly say that the court found him “not guilty” of the molestation charges. The fact is there was never such a ruling because he was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia’s (and Dylan’s) claim.

Let’s back up a bit: Mia’s allegations of molestation automatically triggered a criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in an investigative team from the Yale-New Haven Hospital, whose six-month long inquiry (which included medical examinations) concluded that Dylan had not been molested. I’ve since read a recurring canard that Woody “chose” the investigative team. Yet nobody has suggested how or why Mia’s team would ever outsource the investigation to a team “chosen” by Woody. Others have said that the investigators talked to psychiatrists “on Allen’s payroll” before letting him off the hook. The only way I can explain this is that the investigators, naturally, would have spoken with Woody’s shrinks before giving him a clean bill of health. So technically, yeah, Woody’s shrinks would have been paid a lot of money by Woody over the years. (Let’s even call it an annuity.) The same would be true of his dentist, his eye doctor, and his internist.

As for the evidentiary videotape of young Dylan’s claims, it’s been noted that there were several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera “edits” to the young girl’s commentary. This raises questions as to what was happening when the tape wasn’t running. Was Mia “coaching” her daughter off-camera, as suggested by the investigators? Mia says no—she merely turned the camera on whenever Dylan starting talking about what Daddy did. Maybe we should take Mia at her word on this. Since I wasn’t there, I think it’s good policy not to presume what took place.

The videotape and the medical exams weren’t the only problems Mia faced in bringing abuse charges against her former lover. There were problems with inconsistencies in her daughter’s off-camera narrative as well. A New York Times article dated March 26, 1993, quotes from Mia’s own testimony, during which she recalled taking the child to a doctor on the same day as the alleged incident. Farrow recalled, “I think (Dylan) said (Allen) touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” at which point Mia patted her shoulders. Farrow recalls she took Dylan to another doctor, four days later. On the stand, Allen’s attorney asked Mia about the second doctor’s findings: “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Farrow answered, “Yes.”

In the midst of the proceedings, on February 2, 1993, a revealing article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, headlined: “Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges,” in which former nanny Monica Thompson (whose salary was paid by Allen, since three of the brood were also his) swore in a deposition to Allen’s attorneys that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges, and the pressure led her to resign her position. Thompson had this to say about the videotape: ““I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do… and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

Thompson further revealed a conversation she had with Kristie Groteke, another nanny. “She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.”

On April 20, 1993, a sworn statement was entered into evidence by Dr. John M. Leventhal, who headed the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team looking into the abuse charges. An article from the New York Times dated May 4, 1993, includes some interesting excerpts of their findings. As to why the team felt the charges didn’t hold water, Leventhal states: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

Much is made by Mia’s supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I won’t wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than I’ll claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughter’s recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn’t take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.) In any event, destruction of the notes may have been part of the reason that, despite the very conclusive position taken by the investigators that Dylan was not abused, presiding Judge Elliot Wilk found their report “inconclusive.”

Judge Wilk would ultimately grant Mia custody of Satchel and Dylan. 15-year-old Moses chose not to see Woody, which was his right. It was a hard-won victory for Mia who returned home with eight of her nine children intact. She would go on to adopt six more, including Thaddeus Wilk Farrow, named in honor of the Honorable Judge Wilk.

Woody was granted supervised visitation of Satchel, but his request for immediate visitation with Dylan was denied until the young girl underwent a period of therapy, after which a further review of visitation would be considered. As a legal matter, the investigation of possible criminal abuse would continue.

Almost four months after Wilk’s decision, the Connecticut authorities abandoned the criminal investigation, resulting in an unusual statement from Litchfield, Connecticut County Prosecutor Frank Maco, who dismissed the abuse charges against Woody, but still maintained that he had “probable cause” to believe Dylan. In the minds of many, the decision would leave Woody in a kind of moral limbo. Legally, he was cleared of everything—except a dark cloud of suspicion. Woody was furious, and called a press conference in which he referred to the state’s attorney office as “cowardly, dishonest and irresponsible. Even today, as they squirm, lie, sweat, and tap-dance, pathetically trying to save face and justify their moral squalor… there was no evidence against me. There is none now. I promise you, smear as they may, they will always claim to have evidence; but notice that somehow they will manage to find reasons why they can’t quite show it to you.”

Woody’s ad-hoc press conference made for good television and was widely covered in the press. Less widely disseminated was a news item that appeared in the New York Times five months later (Feb. 24, 1994), which reported that a disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco (the “probable cause” guy) were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Allen’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.” The article states that the agency could have voted sanctions against Maco ranging from censure to disbarment. Though the decision was quite damning, Maco got what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Two years later, the reprimand was overturned, but Mia was unsuccessful in her bid to annul the adoptions. Legally, Woody remains the adoptive father of Dylan and Moses.

Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.

******************

Life would go on for both Woody and Mia, respectively. Aside from tending to her growing family, Farrow would come to be recognized as a leading human rights advocate, with special concern for the plight of children in conflict-torn regions. She has worked diligently to bring attention to the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, and has made many trips to the region, receiving several awards for her humanitarian efforts in the process. Woody Allen would continue his ritual of writing and producing a film per-year—an unprecedented pace he’s maintained since 1969. The accolades and awards continue to pour in, and no one is less impressed than Allen, who has traditionally stayed away from all awards shows.

In 1997, Woody and Soon-Yi would marry in Venice, Italy, and over the next few years adopt two daughters. Anyone who has adopted is familiar with the vetting process conducted by social workers and licensed government agencies charged with looking out for the child’s welfare. Suffice it to say, the case of Woody and Soon-Yi was no exception, especially considering the highly-publicized events of 1992-93. Both adoptions, in two different states, were thoroughly reviewed by state court judges who found no reason why Woody and his wife shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. The girls, now aged 15 and 13, are named Bechet (after jazz saxophonist/clarinetist Sidney Bechet) and Manzie (after jazz drummer Manzie Johnson).

It took me little more than two years to complete my film, Woody Allen: A Documentary. I conducted hours of filmed interviews with Woody, who put forward no ground rules about questions I could ask, or topics to avoid. Although I shot some film on location with Woody in London and Cannes, most of our filming took place in New York City. On more than one occasion, when I was planning to interview Woody, I found I had to schedule around mornings when he’d walk his kids to school, or attend parent-teacher conferences. The normalcy of his domestic life was somehow surprising to me. I’ve not spent a lot of time with his kids, but I’ve met them on a few occasions where I’ve received the cursory “hello,” as they went about their business doing girl stuff with their friends. The only parent-child tensions I’ve been privy to are that his girls think their father’s mean for not letting them have a dog, and that he’s an idiot for not knowing how to work a computer. Lest anyone accuse me of being in Woody’s pocket, I’ll confess that I side with his kids on both counts.

My more recent professional association with Woody took place last month, when I was asked to work on the Allen clip montage for the Golden Globes. The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.) I thought it unlikely that Mia would object, as I had obtained a signed release for my documentary, in which she granted permission for her appearance in many lengthy clips from several Allen films. At the time, I was extremely grateful for her cooperation, for without it, I would have had a 12-year gap in my film, and Mia would have been extremely conspicuous by her absence. I even took it as a possible sign that 20 years after the fact, perhaps the healing process had begun to take hold. As a further sign of good will, Mia agreed to the use of her “Purple Rose” clip in the Golden Globe montage. The producers of the show were grateful. Everyone agreed it would have been a shame not to acknowledge Mia’s contribution to so many of Allen’s best films.

At the ceremony in Beverly Hills, actress Emma Stone, having just worked with Woody on his latest film Magic in the Moonlight, introduced the montage, followed by Diane Keaton’s surrogate acceptance speech, which was typically sentimental, loopy, and very Keatonesque. Woody, who would have never stopped throwing up had he been there, was instead in New York at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre for the opening of Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, whose book was written by Woody’s friend Doug McGrath. Woody had already told me that if the show let out early enough, he was hoping to get home in time to catch the last quarter of the football playoffs.

Apparently, Mia and Ronan assigned more significance to the festivities than did Woody, seeing the televised occasion as a perfect opportunity to bring him down a few pegs. The first of Mia’s tweets, issued as the Woody segment commenced, was restrained and kind of cute: “Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS.” I smiled when I read it, and thought, “Why not? You already saw the montage when you approved the use of your clip.” Her second tweet, referencing the recent Vanity Fair article, was nastier: “A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen’s molestation of her at age 7. GoldenGlobe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors.”

This one puzzled me. I thought it was odd to say the Globe tribute showed contempt for abuse survivors when Mia willfully participated in the festivities by expressly agreeing to the use of her clip, when she had every opportunity to decline. She certainly wasn’t pressured, and we had an alternative version of the montage (sans Mia) all ready to go in case she passed. It seemed Mia either wanted it both ways, or simply assumed no one would ever learn that she was complicit in the tribute. By the time I saw her third tweet, asking, “Is he a pedophile?” and linking to the Vanity Fair article, my most charitable thought was that this woman needs to get over herself. A more mischievous part of me wanted to repost her tweet, but swap out her link for one leading to an article about the recent 10-year jail sentence received by her brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, for multiple counts of child molestation—a topic she’s been unusually quiet about, considering her penchant for calling out alleged (let alone, convicted) molesters to whom she’s exposed her children.

I was actually somewhat impressed with Ronan Farrow’s now-famous tweet from the summer of 2012: “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” The target was fair game, and I remember thinking Ronan had inherited his father’s wit—before his actual paternity came into question. (A good sense of humor and the ability to think on his feet will serve him well on his own show on MSNBC.) But his tweet the night of the Globes was a bit more vicious: “Missed the Woody Allen tribute—did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?” Brevity may be the soul of wit, if not nuanced accuracy. Had he stated that a woman publicly “alleged” molestation, it probably wouldn’t have triggered quite the reaction Ronan was looking for, just weeks before his show debuts. To remind readers that the woman is recalling memories from the age of seven, when a six-month investigation characterized her as being “emotionally disturbed,” and making statements that were likely “coached or influenced by her mother,” takes a little more than 140 characters.

I’ve already said this, but it bears repeating: I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did. The point is that accusations make headlines; retractions are buried on page twelve, and coerced accusations are as much a reality as coerced confessions. Since Woody literally pays no mind to this stuff, and he continues to work and have a happy home life, I would never suggest he’s a victim in this case. The real victim has always been Malone. For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question.

Malone, who is now a writer and artist, and happily married to an information-technology specialist, had been living a seemingly quiet life out of the spotlight. Obviously, if she feels that an interview with Vanity Fair is a necessary part of her healing process, that’s her right. I can only hope it brought her some closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace she’s been looking for. I can even clear up one tiny mystery for her, of which I have personal knowledge. In the Vanity Fair article, Malone says that while a senior in college, she received in the mail a stuffed, manila envelope from Woody, filled with old photos of the two of them. She didn’t recognize the handwriting, but “(the envelope) had a fake return name: Lehman.” When I was working on my documentary, I’d occasionally request material from Woody’s office, which would be mailed to me by his assistant whose name would appear on the return address. During Malone’s senior year in college, Woody had an assistant whose surname was Lehman. So there’s one mystery solved. If only all the others were so easy.

As to the overall reliability or objectivity of Vanity Fair, I can’t really take a position. I do know that the publication was sued for libel in 2005 by director Roman Polanski who, in 1977, pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl in Los Angeles that year. The magazine published an article stating that in 1969, Polanski was seen fondling and hitting on a young model at Elaine’s restaurant in New York City on his way to the funeral of his late wife Sharon Tate, who had been brutally slain by the Manson family. One of the witnesses who testified on Polanski’s behalf was Mia Farrow, who, I’m told, remains friendly with the director to this day. I commend her for standing by her friend and going on record as a character witness. That’s what friends do. In fact, her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy showed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter.

Polanski won his libel suit against Vanity Fair. It was proven that the director wasn’t even in New York on his way to his wife’s funeral, which took place in Los Angeles.

* * * * Editor’s note: Subsequent to publishing the above piece, an open letter from Dylan Farrow appeared in Nicholas Kristof’s column in the New York Times. When asked for comment, Weide sent this reply: “This continues to be a very sad story from every angle. I can only say I found nothing in Dylan’s letter that hasn’t previously been alleged in the two previous Vanity Fair articles, which I’ve already addressed. I also see nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast. If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece. As I’ve already stated in my article, I hope she finds closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace she’s been looking for.”

Robert B. Weide is an Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning filmmaker whose documentaries have covered the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen and Kurt Vonnegut. He was also the Executive Producer and director of the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm. He tweets mostly nice things @BobWeide.

He abused me when I was seven, and I recall this devastating few minutes in the attic as I played with my train as though it was yesterday, and my vengeful mother and my loyal brother back me up even though they weren’t there

Dylan’s recent CBS TV interview on the validity of her memory at seven is tearful and adamant:

    Woody Allen Denies Molestation Claim – Dylan Farrow Give First TV Interview to CBS

The clincher: Here is Woody Allen’s interview on 60 Minutes in 1992 which makes it very clear that Mia Farrow is the one who has behaved very irrationally in the aftermath of her discovery that Allen had become sexually involved with her and Previn’s adopted daughter Soon Yi.

    Woody Allen defends himself on 60 Minutes in ’92

Woody Allen is my friend and I continue to believe him. It might be of interest to take a look at the 60 Minute interview from 1992 and see what you think. https://t.co/QVQIUxImB1

— Diane Keaton (@Diane_Keaton) January 29, 2018

@ABFalecbaldwin
1 of the most effective things Dylan Farrow has in her arsenal is the “persistence of emotion.” Like Mayella in TKAM, her tears/exhortations r meant 2 shame u in2 belief in her story.
But I need more than that before I destroy some1, regardless of their fame.
I need a lot more.
– Alec Baldwin January 28 2018

    Alec Baldwin Compares Dylan Farrow to Character Who Lied About Rape

(Daily Beast) In a series of tweets Sunday, Alec Baldwin compared Dylan Farrow to Mayella Ewell, a character in the classic novel To Kill a Mockingbird who falsely accuses a black man of rape. Baldwin said one of the most “effective” tools in Farrow’s “arsenal is the ‘persistence of emotion.’” Not unlike Mayella, he said, Farrow’s “tears/exhortations” are meant to “shame” people into believing her allegations that Woody Allen molested her. He stated that he “needed a lot more” before condemning Allen. The tweets come after Farrow spoke about her alleged abuse on CBS News, and Baldwin called accusations against Allen “unfair and sad.”

And on it goes, as wide and encompassing as a flood rising:

    Scott Baio ‘Absolutely’ Denies Co-Star’s Sex-Abuse Allegations

Actor Scott Baio continued to adamantly deny sexual-abuse claims made by his former co-star Nicole Eggert, in a Good Morning America interview Wednesday. He admitted to having one sexual encounter with Eggert after she turned 18—although Eggert has alleged in previous interviews that she had sexual relations with Baio at the age of 17. New allegations from Eggert claim that she was lying in prior interviews “out of shame,” and actually started having sexual relations with Baio when she was just 14 years old. Baio pointed to Eggert’s inconsistencies as evidence of lying, and said the actress is someone “who makes things up” and that parents, families, and producers were on the set and make such an incident “impossible.” Baio and Eggert both starred in the 198os series Charles in Charge.

    Actor Scott Baio adamantly denies abusing underage co-star – AP Jan 31, 2018, 9:31 AM ET

Scott Baio adamantly denies a claim that he sexually abused an underage “Charles in Charge” co-star and says she seduced him when she was 18 and legally an adult.

On Tuesday, Nicole Eggert, speaking on “Megyn Kelly Today,” said Baio first molested her when she was 14, and they had sexual intercourse when she was 17. The age of consent in California is 18. Baio is more than 11 years older than Eggert.

Baio said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “false allegations” against him have “got to stop” for the sake of his wife and 10-year-old daughter.

He said his daughter “does not need to be hearing about this from friends at school.”

Baio said molestation would have been “absolutely impossible” on a set filled with teachers, relatives, crew members and producers.

During a consensual encounter when she was of legal age, Eggert told him that she wanted him to “be her first” sexual partner, Baio said.

Baio said they he remained friends after that encounter. He remembered Eggert as a “talented girl. We had a great time on the set. … Everybody got along.”

However, he added that Eggert “makes up” things, and he’s “not the first person” to become a target.

He was asked about Eggert’s remarks that she is exploring legal options and is considering filing a police report.

“Why would I have a concern over something I didn’t do?” he said. “Rather than take your case to social media … why not do it through the proper channels?”

Baio returned to the spotlight as an outspoken supporter of then presidential candidate Donald Trump, including speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Times reviewer confuses art with real life

Finally, it turns out today that the whole kerfuffle has lured the never very deep though usually deft resident Times movie critic A.O.Scott out of his crab hole to nip Allen’s Achilles tendon with a very sharp claw, Scott having for some reason decided that he has been wrong all along and that Allen is after all a child abuser, whose tendencies have been writ large to Scott’s newly critical eye in many of his movies, but never fully understood as evidence by Mr Scott.

Precisely where and how the aging critic revised his opinion of Woody Allen as an admirable creative artist who would have had better things to do than grope a seven year old in an attic for a few minutes once in his life while she played with a toy train is not clear from his text, which seems to report his change of mind without naming new evidence beyond his own imagination as the trigger for reversal of his opinion in public in the supposedly factually reliable Times, but no doubt more perceptive folk than this literal minded science writer will enlighten us. Till then, we will say that the fundamental mismatch in operation in Scott’s fluctuating imagination may be the intelligence of Woody Allen and his own.

MOVIES | ON SECOND THOUGHT My Woody Allen Problem By A. O. SCOTT JAN. 31, 2018

On the morning of the Oscar nominations, I was chatting with a stranger about movies, as one does. The conversation turned to Woody Allen. “My son has seen all his movies, and he thinks he’s innocent,” she said. “I’ve seen all his movies, and I think he’s guilty,” I said. There was not much else to say.

There is a lot more to say. The words we chose weren’t quite the right ones. Innocence and guilt are legal (and also metaphysical) standards, but when we talk about the behavior of artists and our feelings about them, we are inevitably dealing with much messier, murkier, subjective issues. It’s not just a matter of whether you believe Dylan Farrow’s accusation of sexual abuse — reiterated a few weeks ago in a television interview — or the denial from her father, Mr. Allen. It’s also a matter of who deserves the benefit of
the doubt.

The charge that Mr. Allen molested Dylan Farrow surfaced in 1992, in the wake of his breakup with Mia Farrow. That rupture was caused by Mia Farrow’s discovery that Mr. Allen was sexually involved with Soon-Yi Previn, who was her adopted daughter, though not Mr. Allen’s. His defenders (including his and Mia Farrow’s adopted son Moses) suggest that the allegation of abuse was the invention of a spurned woman lashing out against the man who had humiliated her.

The severity of that accusation, and Mr. Allen’s steadfast denial of it, had the curious effect of neutralizing what might otherwise have been a reputation-destroying scandal. “The heart wants what it wants,” he famously said, and what his 56-year-old heart desired was a 21-year-old woman he had known since she was a child. He married her, kept making movies, and the whole business faded into tabloid memory.

I remember the debating points vividly, which is to say I remember invoking them in arguments with friends at the time. Ms. Previn was not a minor. Mr. Allen and her mother had never lived together. He was not Soon-Yi’s father, or even her stepfather, even if he was the father of her half-siblings. And besides, Mr. Allen’s love life was personal, and therefore irrelevant. What mattered was the work.

For more than two decades, Mr. Allen’s credibility as an artist was undiminished. The reception of his movies fluctuated, but critics (myself included) often enough found reason to hail a return to form after a fallow period. He won awards, and actors clamored for the chance to appear in his films. Only now has that started to change.

The old defenses are being trotted out again. Like much else that used to sound like common sense, they have a tinny, clueless ring in present circumstances. The separation of art and artist is proclaimed — rather desperately, it seems to me — as if it were a philosophical principle, rather than a cultural habit buttressed by shopworn academic dogma. But the notion that art belongs to a zone of human experience somehow distinct from other human experiences is both conceptually incoherent and intellectually crippling. Art belongs to life, and anyone — critic, creator or fan — who has devoted his or her life to art knows as much.

Furthermore, Mr. Allen’s art in particular is saturated with his personality, his preoccupations, his biography and his tastes. One of the most powerful illusions encouraged by popular art is that its creators are people the rest of us know. This is not only because tales of their childhoods and news of their marriages and divorces feed our prurient appetites, or because we can peek into their lives on Instagram and Twitter. It’s also because they carry intimate baggage into their work and invite us to sort through the contents.

Whether you celebrate its authenticity or hate the TMI-ness of it all, this is unquestionably an age of self-display. And one of its founding fathers, without a doubt, is Woody Allen, the neurotic Narcissus of the Me Generation, the bridge between midcentury psychoanalysis and digital-era selfie culture.

Casting him aside will therefore not be so easy, which is part of what I was trying to say in that brief, stalemated discussion about his guilt or innocence. I could, I suppose, declare that I won’t watch any more of his movies. But I can hardly unwatch the ones I’ve seen, which is all of them, at least half more than once. And even if I could, by some feat of cinephilic sophistry, separate those movies from Mr. Allen’s life, I can’t possibly separate them from mine.

When I was young — much too young, but it’s too late now — my grandmother took me to see “Play It Again, Sam.” Most of the jokes went over my head, but a lot of them stuck in it anyway. “Did you hear another Oakland girl got raped?” Diane Keaton asks. “But I was nowhere near Oakland!” says Mr. Allen, who is playing a San Francisco film critic named Allan Felix. (“Play It Again, Sam,” released in 1972, is a bit of an outlier in the early Allen canon. It was based on Mr. Allen’s play but directed by Herbert Ross.)

Allan is sometimes visited by the specter of Humphrey Bogart, in trench coat and fedora. He has hard-boiled advice about “dames” and other matters. I had only the vaguest idea of who this apparition was supposed to be, but before long what Bogey was to Allan Felix, Woody Allen was for me. A mentor. A culture hero. A masculine ideal.

He sparked my interest in foreign films and old movies, in jazz and Russian literature, in Franz Kafka and Marshall McLuhan. Whenever there was a revival of “Sleeper,” “Bananas” or “Love and Death” in those pre-home-video days, I was there. My paperback copies of his first two collections, “Getting Even” and “Without Feathers,” were dog-eared from endless rereading. No present was ever as keenly coveted or quickly devoured as the hardcover of his third, “Side Effects,” which my parents gave me one Christmas. Mr. Allen’s prose made an even stronger impression on me than his films. His characteristic deflationary swerve from the lofty to the absurd, from high seriousness to utter banality, struck me as the very definition of funny.

The man himself was a plausible definition of sexy. The achievement of his early movies, culminating in “Annie Hall” (his seventh feature as a director) was to turn a scrawny, bookish, self-conscious nebbish into a player. His subsequent achievement was to turn himself into a serious filmmaker without surrendering that initial cachet. The Allen character in his various incarnations might be insecure, childishly silly, socially hapless (or all of the above), but he was never single for long. The aspects of his temperament held up for mockery — the hyper-intellectualism, the snobbery, the irreducible Jewishness — doubled as weapons of seduction. His self-deprecation was a tactic, a feint, a rope-a-dope, and he was plagued less by the frustration of his desires than by their fulfillment. As soon as the heart got what it wanted, it wanted something else. What impressionable, heterosexual, unathletic adolescent boy would not want a piece of that action?

O.K., fine. Not all adolescent males. But underneath the neurosis and the shrugging, stammering self-directed put-downs was a powerful sense of entitlement. The Woody Allen figure in a Woody Allen movie is almost always in transit from one woman to another, impelled by a dialectic of enchantment, disappointment and reawakened desire. The rejected women appear shrewish, needy, shallow or boring. Their replacements, at least temporarily, are earnest, sensuous, generous and, more often than not, younger and less worldly than their predecessors. For a very long time, this was taken not as a self-serving fantasy but as a token of honesty, or freedom from sentimental conceptions of domestic love.

There was a lot more going on, too. The imagination goes where it will. A recent Washington Post article dug deep into the archive of Mr. Allen’s unpublished writings and found ample signs of his preoccupation with very young women, something moviegoers have been aware of since “Manhattan.”

Part of the job of a critic — meaning anyone with a serious interest in movies, professional or otherwise — is judgment, and no judgment is ever without a moral dimension. Nor is it ever without a personal interest. What I find most ethically troubling about Mr. Allen’s work at present is the extent to which I and so many of my colleagues have ignored or minimized its uglier aspects. A sensibility that seemed sweet, skeptical and self-scrutinizing may have been cruel, cynical and self-justifying all along.

There is a powerful and understandable urge, as a consequence of the long-overdue recognition of the pervasiveness of sexual abuse, to expunge the perpetrators, to turn away from their work and scrub it from the canon. It’s never quite so simple. Mr. Allen’s films and writings are a part of the common artistic record, which is another way of saying that they inform the memories and experiences of a great many people. I don’t mean this as a defense, but an acknowledgment of betrayal and shame.

As I said, there is much more to say. Reassessment is part of the ordinary work of culture, and in an extraordinary time, the work is especially vital and especially challenging. I will not blame you if you want to stop watching Woody Allen’s movies. But I also think that some of us have to start all over again.

There are 18 Comments so far at the time of writing this paragraph, most missing the point, though a couple nail it: There is no new evidence for Woody Allen’s guilt and his full exoneration therefore stands, abetted by the simple fact that there have never been any other accusations in more than two decades since, not to mention that it made no sense in the first place – the idea of momentarily grasping twenty minutes in an attic as a unique opportunity amid watchful and hostile women was always absurd given the decades before and after he could have acted without danger – and it still is, especially since like any honest and perceptive man let alone a creative comic genius Woody Allen has made it no secret from himself or others that he notices the attractions of very young women, which is just a simple fact of life in scientific terms, and while no one but a gross libertine of greatly retarded social understanding would act upon them by seducing too young teens, in the case of actual children normal instinct would need to be powerfully flipped from aversion to perversion, which Allen has shown nil signs of experiencing; if anything he has shown with his films that his social perceptions are very clear, so clear that he can play with them in all manner of interesting and amusing ways that inform his films.

Some points made in this discussion include these, in a very mixed bag of fellow traveling agreement based on strong emotion rejecting Woody Allen as a perfidious scoundrel newly placed on the target shelf for anti child abusers to shoot at, and those who argue that the evidence is totally lacking as before, and that he is condemned with trial or jury, all confused with the debate as to whether the sins of the artist are independent of the art, or vice versa. :

bill Madison 2 hours ago
‘What I find most ethically troubling about Mr. Allen’s work at present is the extent to which I and so many of my colleagues have ignored or minimized its uglier aspects. ‘

That is not what is troubling about his work. It is what is troubling about yourself.

Reply 48Recommend
Nancy is a trusted commenter Great Neck 2 hours ago
A brilliant essay, much needed for teaching of the way in which we come or really should come to understand the work of any artist who is productive over an extended time. What Mr. Scott clearly shows is the insistence of themes in the work of Allen, and these insistent themes even in isolation become troubling. Even in isolation we increasingly wonder, who is this film maker? The troubling psychology is all there on the screen over time.

Brilliant.

Reply 9Recommend
K. Mannion Kirkland WA 2 hours ago
Beautifully written article. I too remain conflicted. I grew up adoring Woody Allen — and still haven’t grown tired of the Annie Hall dress style. Jeez, I’m old.

I remember reading an Allen biography on the subway and every time it solicited comments from fellow riders — long before this conversation. At work, Allen was a client, one of the few who was polite as when I’d take my turn manning the phones at lunch. Many other industry-types were pretty egotistical. So my small, personal experience partially forms my point of view.

I can’t say I will ever stop enjoying his work and still look forward to new films. Even at his worst, it remains better than most of what comes along. The art. Maybe it’s just the nostalgia. Best.

On which even more comments are already coming in:
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

More
Reply 15Recommend

TB New York 2 hours ago
It goes a lot further than just Woody Allen.

How did movie critics feel every time another actor, director, or producer is accused of rape, pedophilia, or sexual harassment, and the common response is “everybody knew”?

Everybody except movie critics, whose job, as noted, is inherently about judgement.

“What mattered was the work.”

Stunning.

There is indeed much more to say.

Reply 13Recommend
John Wheel Illinois 2 hours ago
One of the reasons why I found the allegations against Allen unbelievable is that he always put his sexual desires in open view for everybody to see in his movie. If somebody told me that Allen likes exceedingly young women, 18 year old girls, I would say: it seems undeniable. The idea that somebody who has such a transparent fetish also has, once in life, an attraction for a child seems odd instead. Pedophiles are criminal when they act upon their desires, but I don’t believe they choose what to desire. Allen desires young girls with adult features. We all know it. Where is this sudden desire for a child coming from?
Then there are the circumstances of the charge, in the middle of a divorce and after the horrible betrayal of discovering that your husband is attracted by your teen daughter… Allen is a monster because of that. Farrow discovered that he is a monster because of that. But a pedophile? You don’t change your desires.

Reply 45Recommend
Ortrud Radbod Antwerp, Belgium 1 hour ago
There was no divorce since they were never married. Hence no betrayal by a husband.

Reply Recommend
Romeo Salta New York City 2 hours ago
The art and the artist are not inseparable. They are distinct, and one should not in any way affect, or conflate with, the other.
Picasso was a womanizer par excellence. Should we stop admiring his works? Polanski is a child
molester and rapist. His movies, however, are works of art – The Pianist, my favorite, affected me deeply as very few movies have.
Should Richard Wagner’s operas be banned because he was a virulent anti-Semite (the Israeli Philharmonic plays his music). Should we burn the poems of Ezra Pound because he admired Mussolini? I am afraid the current PC climate is threatening long term damage to the arts (as well as other life endeavors) by painting everything and everyone with broad brush strokes and committing to the Gulag all those who do not pass its litmus test. Leave the brush strokes to guys like Picasso!

Reply 36Recommend
Lee Hill London 1 hour ago
This is what I was trying to say. I am quite prepared to accept Allen may be found guilty and go to jail, but I can’t – as AO Scott also makes clear – unsee or dismiss the importance of Manhattan, Love and Death and more recently, Husbands and Wives and Match Point, in reminding me why I love certain films and their complicated filmmakers.

Reply 2Recommend
Georgesimian NY 2 hours ago
We are all expected to lead such perfect lives these days. Everything is out there – the internet remembers all, sees all, and even makes stuff up. Al Franken has to answer, as a 60 year old, to the things he did as goofy 30 year old.

I’m willing to give Woody Allen the benefit of the doubt, but either way, the beginnings of his troubles coincide with the decline of his filmmaking. He never really recovered after Husband and Wives, a film which suffered at the time because of the scandal, but it one of his best films – groundbreaking in style, mature, funny, just a really great film. Most of his obsessions with young girls in films were after he became an old man, after he married Soon Yi, after his films lost their magic.

HW Bush is getting into trouble for harrassing his nurses. Should we just dismiss all the damage he did as president because he’s become a dirty old man?

Reply 5Recommend
Kurt Pickard Murfreesboro, TN 2 hours ago
Woody Allen’s body of work stands and speaks for itself. Outside of the left leaning progressive audiences he played to on the coasts, his neurotic, pseudo intellectual, New York Jewishness stick was lost on the fly over states. Regarding his dalliances with Dylan Farrow, Hollywood and his audiences knew about this for years and knowingly turned a blind eye and continued to support him through the box office. He’s a shriveled up old man now with plenty of money and probably could care less what Dylan has to say or the public thinks of him. Let’s face it; the public was duped by him and now they’re hating themselves because they didn’t want to believe what Mia and Dylan was telling them so many years ago was indeed true.

Reply 2Recommend
Strunk and White Philadelphia 1 hour ago
“Indeed true”? Unless you were an eyewitness of the highly disputed event, I’m unsure how that statement holds up.

Reply 3Recommend
Buttons Cornell Toronto 2 hours ago
Up front I will say that I don’t know anything, but I do notice some odd details.

In all the incidents of the #MeToo movement, once one victim speaks up, many, many, more follow. In newspaper reports of sexual predators, there is always a group of victim, never just one. The conclusion I draw is that being a predator is a way of life, a compulsion that one can never get a way from.

If Woody Allen is a predator of children, where are the rest of the victims? Where is the evidence of a life-long obsession? Is he attracted to post-puberty young women? Sure. But those are young adults. He is being accused of being a pedophile of a pre-puberty child.

The #MeToo folks are bypassing due process. Allen was investigated and was cleared.

Reply 114Recommend
alocksley NYC 2 hours ago
if you’re going to “reassess” your opinion of Allen’s work, based on accusations (not fact), then you also need to reassess Chaplin, Preminger, and who knows how many other directors who’ve been lucky enough to die before this business started.
Are you ready to not watch Chaplin anymore Mr. Scott?? The artist’s work should stand apart from opinions of him especially based on unsubstantiated rumors.

Reply 50Recommend
eliane speaks wisconsin 1 hour ago
But Chaplin, Preminger, and who knows how many other directors who could be credibly accused of predatory behavior are dead. My watching or not watching their films will not affect the paths their lives took.
By not watching Allen, whose early movies and appearances on Jack Paar I loved, I feel that those of us who have made this choice are engaged in a dialogue with Allen and any other predatory talented creative artists who feel that they are justified in various degrees of exploitation because of their talent, or in some cases, genius.
We cannot no for sure, but we do have evidence and testimony supporting our stance. The heart knows what is insufferable.

Reply 2Recommend
Jane NYC Suburbs 2 hours ago
It ended for me with Manhattan. Yes, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the score, to die for. The supporting cast, superb. But the basic premise? A grown man courting a high school girl in a school uniform? Depraved then, depraved now. Allen told us about himself very clearly in his art. Some just didn’t choose to listen.

Reply 73Recommend
W. Freen New York City 1 hour ago
I’ve seen Manhattan dozens of times and feel I can safely say there isn’t one scene where Mariel Hemingway was in a school uniform.

And this is what happens. Massage a ‘fact’ here and there (Soon-yi was his adopted daughter, for example) and you have a narrative to fit what you want to be true.

Not to mention that in the film, Tracy was the adult in the relationship. Also, it’s a movie, not real life.

Reply 3Recommend
Jay Mercer Island 2 hours ago
It didn’t unwind for me with Manhattan, but I really felt that there was an internal “emperor with no clothes” moment for me when I heard the effusive praise being heaped upon it. I was a young man then and creeped out by the idea of a middle aged man cavorting with a HS girl.

Allens greatest films (for me, Sleeper, Love & Death, and Annie Hall) I have viewed many times and will always be special. Even if one decides not to watch or rewatch any of his work his influence is already imbued into popular movies–if not culture–almost the same way the Beatles are in music. I think the penultimate sentence of this fine essay is asking the wrong question however: it should be will the critic blame one for wanting to continue watching his movies.

Reply 6Recommend
SEE ALL REPLIES
James Savannah 2 hours ago
Until yesterday, Allen’s revered films were as much a part of our great American culture as any. Today, it’s argued that they’re not. Why, because of his private life?

Bogus. This all feels as wrong as sexual harassment and assault have always felt.

Reply 46Recommend
David G Monroe NY 2 hours ago
As a great admirer of composer Richard Wagner’s music, I’m all too aware of the despicable human being he was. The Nazis used his music and writings to advance their agenda, and while Wagner died long before National Socialism, it’s likely he would’ve been an avid proponent.

But it remains conjecture. And I’m still free to enjoy his music.

I love Woody Allen’s movies. And his ‘crimes’ also remain conjecture. I’m not going to condemn him without solid proof, and I will continue to enjoy his artistic output.

Reply 68Recommend
Dave Connecticut 1 hour ago
He’s saying “Yes we have a sale this week on Wagner. ” Wagner, Max, Wagner. So I know what he’s trying to tell me, very significantly!

Reply Recommend
edward greer brookline, massachusetts 2 hours ago
My recollection is that when Mr. Allen was accused of sexual molestation during an acerbic divorce proceeding, there was a highly elaborate, court-approved inquiry at the Yale Medical School, that — after elaborate engagement with the child — made a determination that he was not guilty of it. While that isn’t ironclad ‘proof’, it surely is highly probative. Personally I haven’t come across any new empirical evidence to the contrary, nor any particularized reason to gainsay the Yale psychologists’ judgment. The end.

Reply 78Recommend
Kathryn New York 1 hour ago
Those findings were not accepted by the judge or the prosecutor who commissioned them and the doctor (whom did not examine Dylan) later reconsidered his findings. There is a lot of purposeful murkiness on this case due to Allen’s excellent PR.

Reply 4Recommend
Ortrud Radbod Antwerp, Belgium 1 hour ago
There was no acerbic divorce proceeding because they were never married in the first place.

Reply Recommend
jcb is a trusted commenter Portland, Oregon 2 hours ago
At least let the man defend himself.

https://twitter.com/Diane_Keaton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3…

Reply 10Recommend
w ny 1 hour ago
no need, jcb. nothing to defend. investigators found NO evidence of abuse.

they DID find evidence dylan was coached.

Reply 2Recommend
Daniel Forster Jamestown 2 hours ago
How difficult is it to acknowledge that this is NOW, and that digesting the new info, we don’t need to watch Allan’s movies anymore. There are plenty of other artistically important movies to watch and frankly, not watching Allen’s movies anymore will free up time to watch other important movies we always wanted to watch 😉

Reply 1Recommend
PaulaC. Montana 2 hours ago
Allen’s work has never appealed to me. His persona on screen has always been an annoying sterotype I simply don’t find attractive, so his work has always been lost on me.

As a woman, however, at this moment in time, the accusations against Allen appear to have been credibly investigated and dismissed. That should matter. It should matter a great deal. It is, for example, what I wish Al Franken had allowed to proceed instead of caving in to the mob.

Women and men must insist on credible investigations and that the results will matter. Answers about separating art from artists isn’t what I need. Truth from fiction has my full attention.

Reply 85Recommend
Kathryn New York 1 hour ago
The charges were not, in fact, dismissed, but the prosecuting attorney at the time felt Dylan was too fragile to withstand the trial and did not proceed. In the lawsuit, the judge found Allen’s behavior grossly inappropriate and said that Dylan should be protected from him. Allen was also been in therapy for behavior Farrow felt was inappropriate toward Dylan prior to the incident. There is a lot of misinformation around this case because Allen has stellar PR that has worked to muddy the history around it.

Reply 5Recommend
Maddy Wisconsin 2 hours ago
great read! I struggle with the fact that I think he is “guilty” and a bad person, but also makes great films. I don’t think I’ll see any more of his, but MIdnight in Paris is one of my favorite films, and it’s forever tainted with who Allen is. No one is all good or all bad. We can’t separate him from his work, but we can enjoy his films as long as we are aware of what he has done and who he truly is.

Reply Recommend
w ny 1 hour ago
and exactly WHO is he, maddy? are you sure?

read this:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast

Reply 5Recommend
lf earth 2 hours ago
Why do people heavily invest their identities in the projections of others? That’s the real question.

Reply 8Recommend
carolyn7 Texas 2 hours ago
It’s such a difficult subject to separate the art from the artist. I remain a Woody Allen fan and doubt that will ever change. I remember years ago talking about how much I loved Sinatra’s music; he was still recording at the time. A friend was appalled. She questioned how I could like his music knowing all of the “awful” things he had done over the years. I said I didn’t really pay attention to his life, I paid attention to his voice. I feel the same about Allen. It’s tricky. There’s no way to go back and remove those fond memories, even if I wanted to. I do not want to.

Reply 14Recommend
Liz is a trusted commenter Raleigh 2 hours ago
I am skeptical about the claims that Woody Allen is a child abuser — perhaps because as the child of parents who went through an ugly divorce, I experienced how two people can make accusations against each other without much basis in fact, to the point where they change history in their minds.

Did he behave selfishly in his personal life? That seems to be the case, but should that affect how we view his movies? Mr. Scott says that art belongs to life, and therefore the two must be judged together. There is a case for this approach if the work and the artist are not rejected out of hand, but unfortunately, the current line assumes that people are either good or bad, and we can only appreciate art by good people — or even worse, that only good people should be allowed to produce art. Who decides which people are good and which are bad?

Reply 31Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 1 hour ago
Society decides and your own personal value system. The judge’s ruling, which was based on all of the available facts is a good place to start if you’re interested.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

Reply 6Recommend

Sagredo Waltham, Massachusetts 1 hour ago
The other day I watched Tess, Polanski’s movie based on Hardy’s book. It so happens that the book, and the movie, describe the sexual exploitation of a young woman by a powerful narcissistic man. The movie is a good movie. There also is no question about Polanski’s guilt of statutory rape. If I boycotted all artists with unsavory personal history, I’d be left with an impoverished culture.

Long before the accusations of his sexual misbehavior, I have disliked many of Woody Allen’s movies, because it seemed to me that he often played a troubled character that was too close to himself, lacking artistic perspective.

Reply 1Recommend
SEE ALL REPLIES
NYT Pick
Rachel C. New Jersey 1 hour ago
I think Bullets over Broadway tipped me off to Woody Allen. The essential message was: “You have to be a little bit of a monster to make art.” What a perfect justification for his own behavior, made around the time of the Soon-Yi scandal. He even had the monstrous killer feed a script line, “What if she’s pregnant” as he dies — which was a line from another Woody Allen movie. Woody labelled himself a genius and a monster, as if one excused the other. And people somehow didn’t notice. Crimes and Misdemeanors was the same message — you can get away with murder, and people won’t notice or care.

How wonderful it is to me to see people finally starting to notice and care. How disorienting it must be for Allen.

Of course Woody Allen made some good films. But once I read Dylan Farrow’s account, I had to stop viewing them, out of support for her. What women in the industry know is that for every “great” film one of these men makes, there may be many contributions (perhaps including films) that their victims never got to make because they were traumatized. In the shadow of the creations of monsters is a chasm of loss to society from their victims. When we focus on the monster’s work, we can forget about that loss.

What could Dylan Farrow or Soon-Yi have accomplished without the abuse? Look at Ronan Farrow and all he has done as a point of comparison. If we stop watching Woody’s narcissistic self-justifications, that is the ultimate punishment. And he deserves it.

Reply 37Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 1 hour ago
My problem with opinion pieces like this is that they don’t examine the available facts, i.e. the judge’s ruling during the custody case, the appeals court ruling, etc.

As much as I loved Woody Allen for his movies, his persona, even his neurosis, pre-scandal, I am revolted by his behavior towards his children, and Mia and her children.

To say that since Allen was not Soon-Yi’s biological or even adopted father and therefore, he did nothing wrong, misses the central point. He took advantage of a young woman who was his lover’s daughter and left nude photos of her in plain sight in his apartment, for Mia to see. And then he had the nerve to imply that she was a crazy woman, out to get revenge, rather than take responsibility and apologize for the hurt he caused.

Then there is the whole drama regarding his behavior towards Dylan. The judge did believe that at the very least, Allen was obsessed and inappropriate with her to the point that he barred Allen from seeing any of his children without supervision.

This idea that we must tolerate our great artist’s excesses, even when they clash with society’s values to the point where the abuse little girls, is, in my opinion, monstrous but by all means, read the judge’s ruling and decide for yourself.

Reply 23Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 1 hour ago
Click here for the judge’s ruling: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

Reply 5Recommend
Nina justman Long Island 1 hour ago
I am on team Woody. I have never believed he was a child molester for one minute. He was in one adult monogamous relationship after another his entire career. The most important thing I want to say is times change! Mens preoccupation with younger woman ( and men for that matter!) is nothing new!!! Men chasing woman, men having “trophy wives”, men leaving their wives for their secretary! Jesus, this pattern of men chasing around pretty young girls is part of our collective past. Rightly or wrongly, we laughed when it was Harpo Marx. So, my point is two fold. One, social morays change, and we are at a fork in that road, we are changing. The films you are referencing are 3O years old. Second, you can not judge a persons innocence on their film characters. This whole discussion is just aggravating and silly to me at this point.

Reply 62Recommend
abo is a trusted commenter Paris 1 hour ago
Perhaps someone should start a rumor that Mr. A.O. Scott is a child molester and see how *he* feels if his life is now judged based on an unproven accusation.

Reply 37Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 1 hour ago
On the advice of a mental health professional, Mia Farrow took Dylan to a doctor to be examined and it was he, who reported Allen to the police. There was a trial and an appeal and in both cases, Allen was judged to be unfit and was banned from being alone with any of his or Mia’s children.

Reply 23Recommend
Ortrud Radbod Antwerp, Belgium 1 hour ago
There was no trial, hence no appeal.

Reply 1Recommend
John Smithson California 1 hour ago
adm, you misrepresent the facts. Mia Farrow took Dylan to a pediatrician to be examined on the advice of her lawyer, not a mental health professional. And the trial and appeal were a contentious child custody case, not a criminal case where guilt or innocence were at issue.

Reply 3Recommend
Gavin Chicago 1 hour ago
And the forensic evidence in two different state investigations determined Dylan was not sexually abused. So, I’m confused.

Reply 2Recommended
jrh athens, ga 1 hour ago
Read what you just wrote. “Mia Farrow took Dylan to a doctor to be examined…” She took the child to a doctor of her choice. She also took her (completely justifiable) anger at Mr. Allen into that exam room. If ever a woman had good cause to lash out against a man it was Mia Farrow but that doesn’t make him a pedophile.
Also pedophiles are serial. Where are the others? Doesn’t add up.

Reply 3Recommend
stu freeman is a trusted commenter brooklyn 47 minutes ago
@adm: None of which proves anything.

Reply Recommend
Scott New York 1 hour ago
Whether he did or he didn’t, we used to consider art about examining the human condition, including its most ugly aspects. The idea was that by sorting through some of the ugliest aspects of humanity in a safe way, through art, we could process them. Audiences were also expected to make up their own minds, and differing perspectives were okay. Now, numerous perspectives are not only not okay, but cannot exist at all. And the art must come prepackaged with with very clear and pre-approved messages and overt, pre-packaged judgments. I’m not fighting it, because it is simply what’s happening, as everything in our society grows more simplistic and we can no longer handle ambiguity.

Reply 27Recommend
rxfxworld New Zealand 1 hour ago
I heartily agree with your stance, Scott. The critic A.O Scott is suffering from what Proust described as the falling in and out of love, the latter consisting in part of denigrating or finding displeasure in the very traits of the beloved which were enchanting in the beginning. Perhaps he might have been a little less starry eyed to begin with. As to the ardent disapproval of the characters played by Woody Allen, there was a time when America laughed at Dan Quayle’s taking umbrage at Murphy Brown’s intimate decisions. Now we are doing exactly what Orwell described. Expunging–down the memory whole–that which offends our current “moral” line. A.O Scott “knows” Woody Allen is guilty. The right and the left agree on one thing: facts do not matter. At least when the force of the right comes for you, it’s for there own interests; when the left comes for you, it’s for your own good.

Reply Recommend
AV Ohio 1 hour ago
Thank you for a thoughtful and balanced analysis. I have found a number of Mr. Allen’s films, such as Manhattan, so distasteful as to be unviewable, precisely because of how often his directorial eye turns to an obsession with underage girls. Both because of this artistic focus and how it has played out in the circumstances of Mr. Allen’s marriage (legal or not), I have tended to believe the word of Dylan Farrow. But this has not made me stop watching and discussing his films, though I certainly understand and support people who are making this choice. But if I have to shun the work of every artist in history who behaved reprehensibly or harbored racist, sexist, pedophilic, or other views that I find repellant, my aesthetic and intellectual life would be impoverished. So I settle for bringing as clear-eyed a perspective to their art as I can, discussing themes and assumptions that are disturbing as well as those that are beautiful or uplifting, and striving for an honest critique. What I see in a work of art may change with changing social mores, but I still think it is valuable to analyze what disturbs rather than walk away from it. Yet this stance is easier to justify when the artist is long gone and no longer profits from the work I am critiquing. That, for me, is the dilemma posed by Mr. Allen’s films. If my attendance suggests I condone his cinematic themes and real life actions, I will save my analysis for a posthumous assessment.

Reply 10Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 1 hour ago
Ok, that’s one way to look at the dilemma of separating out the artist’s behavior from his work. But if your neighbor or a teacher or a minister or priest or politician had been accused and found to be unfit to be around his or other’s children without supervision, where would you stand? Why does the artist get a pass? And what about Roman Polanski who was found guilty of drugging and raping a 14-year-old girl? Does “Chinatown” make up for that?

Reply 4Recommend
J. Karasik Silver Spring, MD 1 hour ago
I think I stopped watching Woody Allen faithfully (and believe me, I had been faithful until then) with Manhattan. I loved so much about the movie, but the Mariel Hemingway subplot gave me the creeps. It just did.

Reply 16Recommend
DaveD Wisconsin 1 hour ago
Maybe better for Mr Scott to enter a line of work where he isn’t forced internally to judge the artist apart from the art. I recommend that great body of work where not the slightest hint of art can be found and only the players exist to be judged, in fact they invite it: politics.

Reply 9Recommended
Janeygirl Los Angeles 1 hour ago
I often cringed at his on-screen personae. So many movies where young women were made to desire him excessively and, the creations being entirely his, no one to tell him that that simply wasn’t realistic.

Reply 16Recommend
Joe Schmoe Kamchatka 1 hour ago
Thank you. In that regard, many of his films feel like a teenage daydream. It makes them hard to watch.

Reply 3Recommend
oy Pittsburgh 1 hour ago
What seems curious about the latest rehashing of this alleged incident is that the “evidence” that seems to have convinced many online avatars of Woody’s guilt is the emotional reaction of Dylan Farrow in a television interview. I am aware that emotional expression is not ironclad and there are many gradations and layers of feeling, but my own instinct upon viewing was that her emotions were not credible. Actually, the degree to which people seem to be declaring that reaction as “evidence” is frightening.

Reply 13Recommend
monomatica Santa Monica, CA 1 hour ago
I am a big fan of Allen’s films and have seen them all. He obviously has issues and so does Mia, if we are to believe Moses’s stories. I also believe Dylan’s account. I think all sides have a truth to them. I’m just sorry that his art and talent as a filmmaker (yes, not all of the films are good) will go down in flames. And I’m not sure distancing yourself as a young actor from his new films is the right solution. You can’t just erase being in one of his films, something all actors have wanted to do since the 70s.

Reply 1Recommend
Sorka Atlanta GA 1 hour ago
I have also grappled with this conundrum. I like some of Allen’s films, particularly “Crimes and Misdemeanors” and “Radio Days.” I have some doubts about whether Allen is guilty of this accusation, and I have read all the material. I don’t really care for Woody Allen the person (or what I have read about him), but I have doubts about Dylan Farrow’s accusation, and I have some doubts about Mia Farrow’s credibility (and her motivations throughout her long involvement with Allen) as well. Something has just never seemed right to me. While Allen seems like this detached narcissist who is fascinated with much younger women, that may not make him automatically guilty of this particular allegation.

Reply 5Recommend
NYT Pick
Dave Lafayette, CO 1 hour ago
What makes most great artists capable of producing their great art is their all-too-human frailties, imperfections, neuroses, etc. – and their willingness to expose all their innermost vulnerabilities to the audience. Show me a completely “well-adjusted” artist – and, more likely than not, I’ll show you a mediocre one.

Pick any artist (film, music, painting, comedy) whose works you admire and then do a bit of cursory research into their lives. I don’t have space in this 1,500-word forum to start listing all the obvious examples. But in just one of many artistic tropes, we all know that, “You’ve got to suffer if you want to play the blues”.

Of course I’m not suggesting that sexual predation (especially against minors) should be seen as remotely acceptable or any kind of excuse for the artist. But restless, scarred or tortured souls can be warped in one or more of every aspect of humanity (anger, despair, perfectionism, thrill-seeking, substance abuse, etc.). Sexuality is not immune from such psychic distortions.

But where the line is crossed is when desire becomes action. If Mr. Allen is ever convicted of a sex crime, he deserves the same legal punishment as any other citizen.

But in America, one is “presumed innocent until proven guilty”. And even if Mr. Allen is one day proven guilty, such guilt does not completely and irrevocably erase all the brilliance of his half-century of art – which will live on long after he (and all who presume to judge him) are long gone.

Reply 20Recommend
Jdp Phoenix Az 1 hour ago
It’s worth mentioning that in 1992, when Mia Farrow was allegedly so outraged by Allen’s behavior after discovering the affair with Soon-Yi, she agreed to act in his film “Husbands and Wives” (released in the fall); and that despite for years claiming that Allen was guilty of a horrendous crime, has continually given her permission to allow her work in his films to be shown at tributes to Allen (such as the Golden Globe Awards).

Reply 8Recommend
Previs Portland Oregon 1 hour ago
So, if it’s a bad artist can he be held accountable?

Reply Recommend

T SB Ohio 1 hour ago
If Wagner was alive today spouting virulent anti-Semitism, he’d have few fans and his music would not be performed in Israel.
Time is a little game we like toplay with.
Woody Allen is very much alive, and he’s an abuser and misogynist. By taking a stand against an artist who is living, we set the record straight and send the message that these kind of people are not welcome in decent society. There are plenty of accomplished artists who don’t abuse children waiting for their chance. My guess is many of them are women.
Maybe if we didn’t live in such a patriarchal society in which the abuse of young girls is often swept under the carpet, we wouldn’t have the need for critics’ hand wringing in the first place, but Mr. Scott never questioned Allen’s oeuvre because he took it on faith that this is the normal way women and children are treated.

Reply 2Recommend
mary Wisconsin 1 hour ago
A.O. Scott is brave to search his soul this way. Of course it is easier to walk away from Allen as his work gets worse–and everyone’s narrative work gets worse around 80. The otherwise brilliant MANHATTAN always had a terrible problem in that the “hero” who is verbally admired by everyone in the film is with an underage girl. That this goes unremarked by everyone except the girl herself shows Allen sort of knew what he’d written and sort of didn’t. But an interest in young girls puts him in company with a lot of Hollywood. I believe Dylan Farrow believes her story. But as a one-time event during a custody battle it makes no sense. I believe her brother Moses. But the courts have ruled. Determinations are not up to us–except as moviegoers. And there to each their own. But it is interesting that even Polanski was “forgiven” when he once more made a great film. Such an event is not likely for Allen–artistically.

Reply 3Recommend
Lee Hill London 1 hour ago
There are a lot of artists whose personal life I have difficulty with that I continue to admire – these include everyone from Patricia Highsmith and Lillian Hellman to Norman Mailer, Pablo Picasso, Celine and Dostoyevsky…and what’s with Marcel Proust! Lousy memory or what? The increasing self-righteousness and “Chinese Red Guard” mindset of some of the people who have joined the MeToo movement is disturbing and almost absurd. I appreciate honest attempts to make sense of the paradox between art and life as AO Scott has done in this essay and in The Guardian this week, Hadley Freeman on Roman Polanski, but I have little time for the vacuous, shallow and reactive social media vigilantism that has tainted a lot of the coverage of the Allen case. As for the films, I can tell you if the choice between watching Annie Hall or Chinatown or having to sit through some frathouse nonsense by the likes of Judd Apatow or some lifeless Sundance approved drama, I will happily watch the former “tainted” works rather than some forgettable product or studio sanctioned agit-prop. I don’t own many Pat Boone albums either.

Reply 10Recommend
Grace Brophy New York City 1 hour ago
Although I enjoyed some of Allen’s films, I found so many of them disturbing. “Manhattan,” with its beautiful vistas of the city at night, was particularly uncomfortable for me–the relationship between a middle-aged man and a seventeen year old high school student was sick, and I kept (and keep) wondering why others don’t find it equally disturbing. What is the difference between that relationship and the ones Judge Moore initiated in Alabama? None to my mind yet so many who continue to praise Allen found no issues with condemning Moore. “Hannah and Her Sisters” and the dynamic of Allen’s film family is sick. Not to believe Dylan Farrow in her accusations against her father is to ignore all these signs that Allen makes perfectly clear in his films that he is, indeed, a sexual predator.

Reply 9Recommend

John Brown Idaho 1 hour ago
I suppose the casting decisions are up to Mr. Allen,

but he sure does have a lot of young female Co-Stars

in his moview where his characters does what he can

to convince the female characters that he does love

them and their relationship is quite normal…

Reply 4Recommend
KHD Maryland 1 hour ago
A. O. Scott nailed it.
All progressives and left leaning people (myself included) need to stop making excuses for offensive behavior or even illegal behavior if it comes from powerful, creative liberals, in Hollywood or politics– even if they “support women’s rights, promote women’s stories, etc. etc”.
The Trump supporters are correct about the media elite, Hollywood, and leftist political handlers–they are hypocrites for attacking Trump and looking the other way FOR YEARS about disgusting behavior by liberals.
George Clooney self righteously defending the Hollywood community he’s so proud of at the Oscars several years ago. Come off it. There are VALID reasons conservative people despise Hollywood. Woody Allen is one of them.

I have no idea if Allen molested Dylan Farrow. Irregardless his penchant for VERY young women; his repulsive movie “Manhattan”; his self obsessiveness; his inability to feel empathy for other human beings–all are apparent. The fact that he is highly productive and writes amusing dialogue cannot erase these grave flaws.
Poor Soon Yi. A street orphan from Vietnam would have no idea what love is.

Reply 4Recommend
nmc New Jersey 1 hour ago
I have only seen one Woody Allen movie (that I can’t remember the name of). My Midwestern sensibilities did not jibe with his views of life so I never watched another one. To me, his point of view was parochial. He seemed not to care that there are other viewpoints. His image is suffering now. Maybe those other viewpoints are what are coming to the fore now.

Reply 1Recommend
fast marty nyc 1 hour ago
I have no hard and fast rules regarding the separation of the artist and “the work.” I have not seen a Clint Eastwood picture after his “stool” routine at the Republican convention in ’12. I do listen to Sinatra recordings, despite him being “Sinatra.” Susan Sarandon is dead to me. I won’t watch a John Wayne picture on TV. On the other hand, with Polanski, I would watch Knife in the Water, or Chinatown, anytime it’s on TV. As for Woody, I think he’s had a nice run, and can get along in his remaining years without my participation in his audience. Perhaps most importantly, his work is, now, largely irrelevant.

Reply 5Recommend
atb Chicago 2 minutes ago
It’s amazing to me how many people seem to think that their assessment and application of “irrelevant” or “bad” to Allen’s films makes that a reality for most people.

Reply Recommend
Robert New York 1 hour ago
Writing this article without reference to the independent investigations conducted by both the Connecticut Police and the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital is disingenuous. Each concluded that there was no abuse, and the Clinic concluded that it was plausible she was coached. Equally egregious is the lack of reference to Woody Allen’s willingness to take a lie detector test, and Dylan Farrow’s refusal to do so.

Reply 11Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 19 minutes ago
Where to start? Dylan was 7 years old – she did not “refuse to take a lie detector test.

From Slate Magazine:
The sexual-abuse allegations did not happen in the midst of a custody battle.
The Connecticut state’s attorney stated that he had probable cause to bring charges against Allen.
Dylan Farrow’s testimony was not marred by “inconsistencies.”
The head of the Yale team investigating the allegations never spoke to Dylan Farrow. – In fact, the Yale team ended up by destroying all their notes on their investigation, which is considered to be flawed at best.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/woody_allen_and_dy…

Reply 1Recommend
Carolyn Amsterdam 1 hour ago
Many of us have been waiting for a long time for a woke critique of Manhattan. I thought this piece was going to be it, but the piece ended just where it should have started.

Reply 4Recommend
NYT Pick
John Smithson California 1 hour ago
Whether Woody Allen molested his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow has been hashed out for 26 years now. We will never know for sure whether he did or did not. Woody Allen was reported to the police and a careful investigation found that there was not enough evidence to support a charge. No new facts are available now.

Who to believe? Dylan Farrow asks us to believe her. But she was 7 years old at the time, and those who investigated the case felt that she could not be believed. Not that she was purposefully lying, but that she was caught in a traumatic situation and her testimony was not reliable. Recent research supports the idea that children that young do not make credible witnesses.

Many seem to think that they can judge whether to believe Dylan Farrow and others like her just by hearing their story. But research and long experience in criminal courts shows that is just not true.

Of course each of us has the right to decide for ourselves what and who to believe, and A. O. Scott lays out wisely how hard that can be. But even though I am not a Woody Allen fan, I think he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.

When we condemn people based on allegations alone, we ape the worst excesses of McCarthyism. If allegation alone convicts, what defense can anyone mount?

Reply 50Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 39 minutes ago
Here’s the judge’s 1993 ruling. It was decided by Mia Farrow that Dylan would be further traumatized if she testified, so the ruling only focuses on events that Dylan and others testified to. Nannies, friends, relatives etc. stated that Allen’s behavior was inappropriate, obsessive, etc. The judge ruled that Allen was an unfit parent or guardian and was barred from seeing his children without supervision.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

Reply 3Recommend
Issassi Atlanta 1 hour ago
You would not have to “unwatch” Woody Allen’s films if you had stopped watching them, on principle, when he first married a young woman who was ostensibly his adopted daughter. Yes, I know she was not legally his daughter, but in the ways that count, that are not always measured by the law, what Allen did was wrong. I have boycotted his films ever since.

Reply 4Recommend
jrh athens, ga 1 hour ago
This is all great news! You don’t have to prove anything anymore! Just accuse. Doesn’t matter that the matter was deeply investigated decades ago and found to be baseless. You just say the magic words at the right time and ruin a life, a reputation, a career. I’d like to go on but I have some lives to ruin. None of the people who’s lives I’m going to ruin deserve it, I just don’t like them.

Reply 12Recommend
Paul New York 1 hour ago
Manhattan has always been a despicable film. Full of ethically atrocious people. Remember, Allen was supposed to be the moral center of the film—seriously—as he was “breaking (sexual) records” with a 17 year old child. But no doubt about it, the score and cinematography are great art. I’ll often DVR the movie just watch glorious first five minutes. Should I feel bad about that? Because I don’t. Maybe I should.

Reply 6Recommend
FC Brooklyn 1 hour ago
I am so very grateful to you for writing this. Thank you.

Reply 4Recommend
NYT Pick
Bebe CA 1 hour ago
He seduced and took nude photos of the half-sister of his own children, someone 35 years younger and still college age, the daughter of a woman with whom he had been sexually intimate. This is egregious, horrific conduct that is technically legal, but evidences a grotesque, predatory morality. The media, Hollywood establishment, and others, including the author, who pointed at Mia Farrow’s understandable fear and outrage for her (second) daughter as a way to support Mr. Allen’s story, are complicit. Dylan Farrow looks as believable as the gymnasts who were dissed and belittled by an establishment determined to psychologically undermine the victims. And to those who say he must not be a pedophile because (as far as we know) he has not repeated the act, at least one authority says non-treated child molesters who have had contact with the criminal justice system (as Mr. Allen has) have a one in four chance of being a repeat offender (so, a 75% chance of not being a repeat molester). (https://www.quora.com/Pedophilia-How-likely-are-sex-offenders-to-repeat-… He should have been prosecuted.

Reply 32Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 46 minutes ago
Some pedophiles only act out with family members.

Reply 1Recommend
Wendy NY 1 hour ago
First off you’d have to believe that Mr. Allen became a pedophile only one time seeing as no one else has come forward, and you’d have to believe that he abused a 7 year old girl in a house filled with people who hated him. Next you’d have to believe that the Psychiatrists involved in examining Dylan Farrow were all completely wrong. “The Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team that examined Dylan back in 1993 concluded that there were “…two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”
His relationship with Soon Yi is a different issue. As creepy as it is, by all accounts he waited until she was of age and has been married to her for 20 years.

Reply 6Recommend
Deborah Mc Winnipeg 1 hour ago
In Mariel Hemingway’s memoir, she reported that Woody Allen tried to seduce her on the set of Manhattan – it gave her the creeps and put her in an awkward situation as she was working for him. She was 16 years old. Woody Allen likes young girls.

Reply 9Recommend
mildred shacklefor tn 1 hour ago
that child was not related to him but he was the father figure in that home. he had a sexual relationship and neither one ever said how old she was when it started. i ve not had any use for allen since then.

Reply 10Recommend
David WA 1 hour ago
Do you really believe he’s guilty, or do you believe you’re supposed to believe he’s guilty, because you’re too weak-minded and ethically bankrupt to draw conclusions that don’t conform to the dogma of your tribe? I suspect it’s the latter.

Reply 7Recommend
Robert Glassman Ann Arbor, MI 1 hour ago
A 2014 Esquire essay here: http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a27233/dylan-farrow-woody-al…
is revelatory. I just picked up on the line from Hannah and Her Sisters in a chance channel surfing moment the other night and it hit like a ton of bricks. His adolescent fantasies about sex with younger women is all-pervasive in his work. He probably is guilty, but we’ll never know. We do know that his work is racist, if only by the extreme whiteness of the world he portrays and sexist in his ridicule of most of his women characters.

Reply 5Recommend
rb cal 1 hour ago
Pretty clear creepy stuff going on–compensation, like Cosby, for his public nebbish character.

The important thing is Allen’s movies are not that great. Ask other filmmakers what they think of his craft as a filmmaker. He has never become a great filmmaker in the sense of being a craftman and his ego seems largely to blame for it.

Reply 4Recommend
w ny 1 hour ago
as a counter-measure, i don’t intend to ever attend a film, performance, etc. by any of these so-called actors and actresses who are now expressing regret for having worked with mr. allen.

not only do i choose NOT to be part of this sad, manipulated witch hunt, i choose to boycott the accusers.

Reply 9Recommend
Keat New York, New York 1 hour ago
Let’s think about this.

Woody Allen has directed approximately 50 movies since 1969. He has worked with hundreds of leading ladies, many supporting actresses and thousands of other women in the film industry. He has spent years around his small children.

Since the #MeToo movement began, many famous men have been accused of sexual assault, going back to the 1970s.

Not one woman or girl or other daughter has come forward to accuse Woody of anything. Not one. Not one has so much as said that Woody gave her a funny look.

Now consider Dylan Farrow. When she was seven years old, her mother Mia Farrow, was involved in a custody dispute with her ex. Unspeakable allegations were leveled at Woody by Mia and, then by Dylan. The case against Woody was investigated by law enforcement and no charges were ever filed.

Dylan’s brother, Moses, unambiguously says that Dylan lied; that Mia put her up to it. He believes that Mia used Dylan to destroy Woody and thus win custody.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that in an era where women are confronting abusers, that a man who sexually abused his daughter, would have also abused one of the thousands of women with whom he has worked? Wouldn’t such a man have, at a minimum, given a young film actress an inappropriate “come hither” look?

And why would Woody abuse his daughter on the very weekend he went up to CT in the middle of a custody disupte?!

He is presumed innocent. Facts matter, despite what our current leaders believe.

Reply 23Recommend
Shane Marin County, CA 1 hour ago
It is possible to separate the work of an artist from the artist themselves, we do it all the time. Picasso was a serial womanizer and a terrible parent, does that mean Guernica is any less potent a work of art? While I probably wouldn’t want to hang out with Woody Allen, his shortcomings don’t mean I can’t enjoy the work he produces.

Reply 4Recommend
John J Healey NYC 1 hour ago
What has happened to A.O. Scott? First the rave review of the terrible, heavy-handed, embarrassing ‘The Shape of Water,’ and now this rather desperate attempt at political correctness. Get over it. Woody Allen is one of America’s great treasures. His personal life, whatever that may be, is personal. He is not a criminal. What a mess all this is causing for him. And, Ronan Farrow? VERY strange person to my mind. It’s so important not to confuse similarities with identities, to be clear on these things. I have no sympathy and have lost respect for these people who are now regretting having worked with him based on smething they know nothing about.

Reply 9Recommend
James Hubert White Plains, NY 1 hour ago
I think that all any of us know about Woody Allen is what we saw in his movies. No matter what else we saw happen in one of his films, he was ultimately harmless, even defenseless.
His movie relationship with Ms. Hemingway certainly crossed a border, but you can’t but feel she was the adult and he the child in their final scene together as she leaves town to join the world and he stays behind stuck in Manhattan and his own neurosis.
Broadway Danny Rose: what a loser! But here at the end, comes the mobster princess, Mia Farrow, to show him some love (which you know can only break his heart) in spite her hard core. She, like all of us, couldn’t help loving(?) this utterly pathetic, hapless victim of life.
The list goes on and on.
So what good does it do to psychoanalyze him in real life? We end up in the same place.

Reply 2Recommend
sonnel Isla Vista, CA 1 hour ago
Can any screen star *not be* self-possessed, ego-driven, and in some way, a royal pain? Don’t all screen stars have thoughts in their heads that violate just about every civilized social convention? How else can you act the part when you need to?

Only a tiny fraction, maybe 0.01%, of them are “good people,” but due to the nature of the business, they are world-class at *appearing to be good enough*, so as not to end the gig. The occasional lottery-like sacrifice of Fatty Arbuckle or Woody Allen just misdirects scrutiny of the 99.99% who are no different.

Reply 5Recommend
Jon Silberg Pacific Palisades, CA 1 hour ago
There are quite a few good reasons to doubt the allegations Scott’s chosen to believe — the opinions of the initial psychologists about the content of the videotape Farrow presented and about Dylan’s propensity to ‘cheat on [her] stories, Allen’s passing a lie detector test and Farrow’s refusal to take one, Farrow’s confirmed lies about Ronan’s biological father (she either lied under oath about Allen being the only possible father or she lied to Vanity Fair — look at the guy!). Moses’ latest revelations about Farrow’s parental behavior is also revealing, although many choose to reflexively discount or ignore what he says. There’s never been another allegation about Allen doing anything to someone that age before or since and he subsequently underwent the rigorous vetting required to adopt the children he has with his wife. None of that is conclusive proof of his innocence regarding the charges but, come on, his attraction to young women (the age of Tracy in Manhattan) may be problematic in itself, a cause worth boycotting his work for Mr. Scott, but that attraction is hardly evidence Allen would molest a 7-year-old. The point of this piece seems to be: What to do now that we’re certain he’s guilty. The more one digs into the actual facts, the less certain one can be that he is. It’s fair for Scott to do an essay on how he feels about that very difficult question but maybe he could offer some better reasons why he’s so sure the CT legal system got it wrong.

Reply 15Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 48 minutes ago
Here’s the judge’s 1993 ruling – which was held up on appeal. It addresses many of the issues you mention.

That said, it’s dismaying to see so many defend Allen based on an interview with him and Diane Keaton’s feelings about the matter. There was a trial, facts were presented and there was a ruling which was scathing in its condemnation of Allen’s behavior around Dylan and it absolved Mia Farrow from coaching Dylan in order to get revenge.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

Reply Recommend
Doug Tarnopol Cranston, RI 1 hour ago
Allen has made more than one film—Bullets, Sweet and Lowdown spring to mind—about great artists who are not good people.

I look forward to a cultural world sanitized of all bad culture-producers—and based, mind you, on accusation alone. Accusations are easy; refuting them takes volumes. And if there is enough discussion, well, that is the smoke that guarantees a fire, right? An old PR move.

What a cultural world that will be, though, one cleansed of anything and anyone so far free from accusation. I cannot wait.

And why limit it to culture? I say take it to the hoop—and from now on, any accusation, already adjudicated or not, must be believed. We dont even need to throw people into ponds—that is way too much in this brave new world of MeToo and all the other internet jihads across the proverbial spectrum.

Meanwhile, always remember that ducks are made of wood, and thus float.

Reply 9Recommend
Steve Griffith Oakland, CA 1 hour ago
Oscar Wilde’s remark, from his preface to “The Picture of Dorian Gray,” comes to mind: “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.” The same applies to films— whether by Mr. Allen or others.

Reply 15Recommend
Catamaran stl 1 hour ago
There is a difference between desiring the sexually abuse a seven year old and a desire to sleep with a late teenager. One violates the norms of our society and the other exists in a gray area.

The urges certainly can exist in the same person, but they aren’t the same thing.

Reply 5Recommend
w ny 1 hour ago
I could write a book here defending Woody Allen (who I don’t know aside from his films which I’ve treasured since I saw Take the Money and Run when I was an adolescent). But the speed with which an innocent (yes, I said innocent) man’s career is being destroyed is quite amazing.

Instead, I invite folks to reads this piece which pretty much lays out the facts in the matter and the impetus for the false allegations:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast

I feel badly for Dylan Farrow – because she’s been brainwashed by her mother for so many years she believes she was abused (and who wouldn’t?). Who wants to believe their mother could create such a devastating tale?

This is not the first time the rejected woman concocts a story of child abuse to get back at their former partner. And, sadly, it won’t be the last.

Reply 18Recommend
Mark Brooklyn 24 minutes ago
Having lived through a 4 year custody battle with an angry ex (angry that I was given sole custody..a rarity) I can attest that the phenomenon of parental alienation syndrome is real, vicious and causes lasting harm. In my case an alert judge and the law guardian to my son as well as the court appointed forensic psychiatrist uncovered this activity. My son was older, 10 years old and able to withstand this trauma perhaps easier than a 7 year old Ms. Farrow. While the optics of how the relationship began between Mr. Allen’s and his now wife can make anyone queasy…the Connecticut Family Court and Forensic Psychiatrist did determine the young Ms. Farrow was apparently being influenced by her mother to perceive her father in a negative way. If true..it’s heartbreaking that Ms. Farrow suffers this Trauma. I may be biased because of my own experience but I can’t help but feel that law enforcement would have nailed Mr. Allen to the cross at the slightest whiff of proof in this matter. Family Court Judges see an endless stream of humanity cross their paths and they are tuned into this kind of behavior. I’m going to trust their judgement, that there was evidence of parental alienation occuring. The way Mr. Allen handled his relationship with Soon Yi has caused lasting problems and this is on him. But they found happiness together..life and love can be complex as Mr. Allen has spent a lifetime exploring in his art. But still..this is all very sad for this family.

Reply 2Recommend
Marshal Phillips Wichita, KS 1 hour ago
What he did as a 56 year old man – dating his romantic partner’s young adult daughter behind her back – was egregious behavior, very tacky for sure. But accusations by Mia of his molesting his own 7 year old adopted daughter seems more like pay back. I watched a TV interview with him denying it and giving his self defense and all the things Mia did in retaliation convinced me of his innocence of sexual abuse. But his own behavior in dating his partner’s young daughter brought him pay back karma. He brought this problem on himself. Although he’s innocent of criminal sexual abuse, he’s responsible for being a jerk. He certainly should have known Mia would object and most certainly he should have given Mia a head’s up about dating her daughter.

Reply 14Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 54 minutes ago
The judge is in the 1993 custody trial had this to say about whether Mia coached Dylan or was lying in order to get revenge.

“There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen’s resort to the stereotypical “woman scorned” defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.” – Judge Wilk

Here’s the entire ruling: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

Reply 3Recommend
Tessa US 1 hour ago
The last, and only, Woody Allen film I enjoyed was Sleeper. Yeah, I know…
But Allen’s work does not attract me, for all it’s supposed sophistication and nuance, and championing portrayal of the modern woman. His work seemed intrinsically unsympathetic toward women and imbued with a strange vague cruelty… hard to put a finger on it. This was my gut response to Allen’s work, well before any whiff of controversy was reported. For all of clever scripting and technical brilliance (which I would not deny), something in the stories he wants to tell about women has always felt “off” to me, regardless of how prominent in or central to the film these female characters featured.

Allen is a dinosaur. What was unprecedented in the 1970s and imbued with a hip attraction and appeal should fall flat now, artistically and socially. There are many other more relevant storytellers out there today. Do they owe an artistic debt to their predecessors? Some, no doubt. But I have no problem leaving Allen’s work shelved in perpetuity. For me, the works that resonate are not those linked to the Allen-inspired “age of self-display” or the subsequent myopic “selfie culture” A.O. Scott believes Allen’s work both inspired and illuminates. But then I didn’t come of age in the fevered world of New York’s cultural vacuum where a trivial, complacent cosmopolitanism passes as novel and worth considering too deeply.

Reply 12Recommend

Tom O’Leary Los Angeles, CA 1 hour ago
“Mr. Allen’s films and writings are a part of the common artistic record, which is another way of saying that they inform the memories and experiences of a great many people.” That, Mr. Scott, is it for me in a nutshell. Woody Allen began his filmmaking career at the same time that I fell in love with movies. I cannot imagine life without the films of Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Francois Truffaut in the same way that I can’t imagine life without vivid memories of great performances by Diane Keaton, Julie Christie, Vanessa Redgrave and many others. I know it is time to divorce myself from my love of Woody Allen’s work. But it isn’t easy.

Reply 3Recommend
Robin’s Nest Portland, Oregon 1 hour ago
I am also very conflicted over Woody Allen, and also Chuck Close. If we look at other great artists like Degas and even Picasso, for that matter, who are not mentioned because they long dead, they were, at best, demeaning to women. For example, Degas said of American Impressionist Mary Cassatt, “She paints too well for a woman.” And one can easily see that Picasso treated his wives and lovers terribly at times. However, all four great artists had a huge impact on art, design, and film and they all have/had vision that gave birth to great movements and helped shape who we are today as a society. I love the film Crimes And Misdemeanors, the film is great, but Allen, the director, is deeply flawed. I do not wish to un-see any of these artist’s work. Our society is thankfully, in the throes of this long over due positive change of finally beginning to respect women and protect children. We need to move forward with what happens next and leave the past undeniably great accomplishments separate from the personality and deviant behavior of these deeply flawed people. How we move forward is the real work at hand. No attacker deserves forgiveness, but I have had to move forward from my own attackers for myself by realizing that forgiveness is giving up all hope of a better past and recognizing, with compassion, that we are all flawed to some degree. I can’t change that, but I can change what comes next. Character and honor will, hopefully, finally matter now.

Reply 4Recommend
Laura Kentucky 58 minutes ago
Thanks, Mr. Scott. I appreciate the brutal self-analysis. I appreciate the working of your mind as you consider this factor and that factor, the way you end up still somewhat uncertain, while still trying to follow your moral compass. Maybe some of the people who left comments missed the point of your essay, and that’s ok, but I get it. I understand it. Thanks.

Reply 4Recommend
TB New York 47 minutes ago
I think Mr. Scott basically took a lot of words to say that after he considered this factor and that factor and worked through some things in his mind in therapy that he lost his moral compass a long time ago, and now regrets it. Kind of. And that’s why he has to “start all over again”.

But in the meantime he saw some good movies, so he has that.

As I understand it.

Thanks.

Reply Recommend

stu freeman is a trusted commenter brooklyn 56 minutes ago
If the subject of this essay were Roman Polanski or Kevin Spacey or Pier Paolo Pasolini I would concur with its general thrust and many of its observations. Woody Allen, on the other hand, has been found guilty of absolutely nothing, except maybe poor judgment, insofar as his personal life is concerned (even given that “the heart wants what it wants”). It seems to me entirely suspicious and altogether self-serving that the allegations concerning his abuse of Dylan Farrow were offered up only after his relationship with her mother had ended and only after he had taken up with her sister. Charges were brought but nothing was proven. It also occurs to me that no other children or adult women have accused Mr. Allen of sexual misconduct- none. How many pedophiles, how many rapists attack their own adopted daughter and stop there? Allen has worked with many of Hollywood’s most attractive young actresses but while he may, in fact, have entertained the same sort of hopes and dreams that many of us have had, not a single one of them has come forward and accused him of anything untoward. I’ve seen all of his movies, some of them more than once, but I haven’t enjoyed a single one since Vicky Christina Barcelona (he’s completed about a dozen since then). As such, I wish that I could stop expressing concerns about his future as an artist but, with respect to his past achievements (or decade-long absence of them), I have neither the need nor the desire to reevaluate any of them.

Reply 28Recommend

stu freeman is a trusted commenter brooklyn 43 minutes ago
By the way, why is it that some of the same critics who are presently looking askance at the Woody Allen/Mariel Hemingway relationship in Allen’s masterpiece, “Manhattan.” have had little if anything to say about the similar liaison between an older man and a willing teen in the current hit, “Call Me by Your Name”? I wasn’t offended by that movie either but the hypocrisy of some of our local scribes is duly noted.

Reply 2Recommend
Frank Shifreen New York 53 minutes ago
Allen is being tried in the court of public opinion, just like the communist witch hunts of his youth. Desire is part of film and literature, and even though there are signs of Allen’s desire throughout his oeuvre, there are signs in the work of Genet, Nabokov, Mailer, and on and on. Some of Allen’s films are masterpieces (Crimes and Misdemeanors for instance) that might also reveal more about him than he would like us to know. Certainly, every Allen film is about Allen.
He has risen above his early persona and shtick. If he has committed a crime he should be prosecuted. That he has not been indicates a problem with the evidence I think. Life is messy and his life is messier than most. If actors do not want to work with him that is their business, but his reputation is shot and all accusations are out. His accusers have achieved their purpose. That is enough

Reply 17Recommend
marrtyy manhattan 42 minutes ago
Sometimes beauty comes from a beast. But sad to say in this case, we dont really know who the beast is.

Reply 4Recommend
LifeofRiley NYC 34 minutes ago
I see a big difference between dead artists mentioned in the comments (Wagner, Picasso etc) and artists who are currently working. I wouldn’t for the life of me put a cent into the pocket of Roman Polanski, for example, no matter how good his films. And I wouldn’t want to be seen as in any way supporting him or giving him a pass. Dead people? They don’t present the same problem to me.

Reply 3Recommend

Marge Keller Midwest 33 minutes ago
I never saw the attraction nor appeal of Woody Allen or his films. He’s never been my cup of tea. Never been a fan. He always looked a little creepy, weird and odd to me. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t brilliant or a genesis or talented. I still firmly believe that there should be a separation of the artist’s professional work and the artist’s personal behavior. Vilify the person if necessary, but allow the professional work to stand on its own merit rather than be tainted or removed from society. I’m not defending Woody Allen, but I am defending the work of an artist (even if I don’t care for the artist).

Reply 5Recommend
Jason Woodbridge, VA 27 minutes ago
If someone loves a piece of art and the artist behind the work commits an awful act, does that require the admirer of the art to cut it completely out of their life? I don’t think so. People still like to dance to Michael Jackson’s music, they like to appreciate Caravaggio’s paintings, they enjoy laughing at reruns of “The Cosby Show”, they get pumped up watching replays of Mike Tyson’s knock-outs, and even the biggest dog lover stops cold in front of their television to catch a replay of Michael Vick’s OT run-off touchdown against Minnesota in ’02. Pieces of art (and I include epic moments in sports as works of art) excite our souls like few things in this world. And while I hope that every human who commits heinous acts that ruin the lives of others serves justice in this world or the next, I simply cannot deprive myself of the amazing works and magical moments that some of them have produced.

Reply 5Recommend

Mr. SeaMonkey Indiana 26 minutes ago
I have a good friend who is an author. But I don’t like his books. (I have not told him.) Woody Allen presents the opposite. I may not like him as a person (if the accusations are true). But I sure enjoy his films. What does one do when there is a such a conflict between how we feel about a person and the meaning their art can have to others?

Reply 1Recommend
JDStebley Portola CA/Nyiregyhaza 23 minutes ago
Re: Mr. Allen and his wife, Soon-yi. Whenever I see pictures run of the couple, it is difficult for me to see anything but a very, close, loving couple. I believe Mr. Allen has found his true love and muse. I recognize the look on his face when they are together because I’ve seen the look on my own face. It may have taken him a long time and many self-inflicted tribulations, doubtless. In the meantime, he has contributed to the art of film in so many ways, I’ve often wondered, as Deems Taylor wondered about Wagner (odd though the connection may seem): when did he have time to be a man?

Reply 5Recommend
Winthrop Staples is a trusted commenter Newbury Park, CA 22 minutes ago
I’ve always been repulsed by Allen’s movies that have a projected sub text of celebrating and so establishing as adequate male behavior a neurotic, weak cowardice that was obviously attracted to “very young women”, because they were the only ones wimpy Allen could probably control or dominate. But at least in Western enlightened, science believing democracies where what is actual fact and criminal matters, its obvious that Allen is not guilty of the nightmare charges that Farrow abusively brainwashed into her own daughter (Farrow ought to be in prison for driving her own daughter insane). Its interesting to consider, however, while our chattering left wing and pretend to be progressive elites are now wailing about the abuse and oppression of women for a few months – why nothing is mentioned about the gross contradiction/horror of the this nation’s mass immigration intake of 1-2 million mostly from the racist, misogamist global south every year. You know from nations in Latin America who record 100’s of births to 10 year old girls every year, and from the Middle East and Africa and Asia where children are routinely sold as slave labor or to brothels to pay off family debts. How about some MeToo screaming about that! Or, since that’s not liable to happen … perhaps its because none whites are not considered morally capable and so morally accountable by the editors and journalists of the NY Times.

Reply 1Recommend
bmangano Iowa City 14 minutes ago
“It’s never quite so simple. Mr. Allen’s films and writings are a part of the common artistic record, which is another way of saying that they inform the memories and experiences of a great many people. I don’t mean this as a defense, but an acknowledgment of betrayal and shame.”

It’s more than your memories or experiences, it’s the style of those that he inspired; it’s the legacy of the “common artistic record” that becomes a problem. If one is not going to separate the artist from the art, is it enough to stop watching the movies? Or do we have to trace all those people who were influenced by his comedic style and excise that entire line of inspiration from acceptable viewing? Or to put it another way: is it okay to watch films made by other artists who have watched and been inspired by Allen, but no longer okay to watch and be inspired by his films directly? Is this indirection permissible? If so, that seems a strange state of affairs, and perhaps one that fits the messiness of our world, but if you’re really going to keep your future viewing habits free from Allen’s taint, you’re probably going to have to go much further than you acknowledge here.

Reply Recommend
jrd ny 12 minutes ago
The managerial classes, among them critics, have an impossible time accepting that art has no ethical basis. That admission, after all, robs them of authority — and the soap box.

If, however, we simply insist on making these distinctions, it would be fascinating to know how many of the self-described liberal actors who won’t with Woody Allen, outraged as they are by his presumed offenses, are also refusing Rupert Murdoch’s money. Or the money of any of the media conglomerates, for that matter.

Whether in fact Woody Allen is artist enough for anyone to care about either his private life or his movies is a whole other question….

Reply 1Recommend
Tom is a trusted commenter Philadelphia 11 minutes ago
Whether you believe he is a child molester or not, the movies are just creepy. Over and over again, it’s old men’s fantasies about being sexually desirable to teenage women. It’s as if these movies were designed to feed the appetites of abusers. So why are teenage girls attracted to balding sweaty guys in their 50s or 60s? Is it men’s money, their power, their intelligence, their wit, their tremendous skill in bed? How about none of it? Generally, young women are not the least bit interested in sleeping with old men, why can’t old men get that? Allen’s movies for the most part belong with that large collection of films from the 70s that are now too embarrassing to sit through.

Reply 2Recommend
Helen Maryland 10 minutes ago
Ronan Farrow cut through all of the complexities that Wilson tries to sort out here when he said: :

“He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.”

Powerful and direct, this statement stands in sharp relief from Allen’s glib “the heart wants what it wants.”

The ethical response for me as a consumer has been to stop supporting Allen financially: I don’t watch his new films, and I don’t purchase his old ones.

It is less a sacrifice than it would have been: it is hard to enjoy them as works of art, given that they are so focused on issues of morality and immorality. Their engagement with moral issues always struck me as the Allen equivalent of a McGuffin, anyway. It was the details (characters, NYC life, jokes, etc.) in his films that were interesting; as an artist his films don’t hold up well against Tolstoy or Plato in terms of his explorations of the human condition).

I don’t have to approve of an artist personally to engage with their art, but I am free to avoid doing my small part to add cultural power to artists I loathe for any reason. And Allen’s art is all bound up conceptually with the type of amorality or immorality that Ronan diagnosed so concisely. I don’t have to add my dollars to the cultural cachet that made Allen influential.

Reply 4Recommend.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

At this point your faithful author decided to weigh in, with this somewhat constipated comment that probably won’t get through, since its meaning seems somewhat obscure in retrospect – essentially, it adds up to saying there is no new evidence for Scott’s change of mind and that he has been caught up in the #MeToo tsunami like a piece of intellectual flotsam, which is not very dignified for a national treasure who normally holds political issues at arm’s length.

Hereticnyc nyc Pending Approval
Mr Scott opens his deft rumination with the decisive ruling that he “thinks Woody Allen is guilty”, but then fails to give any persuasive reason for reversing his previous faith that Allen was innocent. Yes Allen has included the attractions of young women for older men as a constant element in his cinematic plays, but art is not life, however much it draws upon it for inspiration. Allen now appears to him to be a raging narcissist who is a “founding father” of the current “age of self-display”, which may be reprehensible but hardly proves him a liar and a sexual criminal. Today he sees the “uglier aspects” of Allen’s work, in that what was once sweet now seems cruel and cynical, and he is ashamed of not realizing this before. Since all of this is entirely in his own mind, however, without a scrap of fresh fact, it all looks very much like the influence of the great wave of renewed attack on Allen for a supposed outrage twice ruled fiction by qualified investigators. If so the about face which causes the critic so much conflict and dismay is no more justified than putting wine in a differently labeled bottle and reporting that it doesn’t taste the same, an illusion familiar to science, In effect Mr Scott is admitting that he has joined the expanding Allen lynch mob and he really should take his ruling back and regain his customary objectivity in appreciating Allen’s movies for what they are – art by an artist, not autobiography.

An embarrassing misstep

All in all, the too precipitate publication of this evidence free mishmash of biography, opinion, and fantasy seems likely to be regretted by its author, who seems unable to separate the duties of writing informed though still inevitably subjective movie reviews and that of using the respected columns of his home paper to express a well thought out judgment on a factual matter, based on objective analysis of available evidence, in a matter of great interest to many people, and one which threatens unjust punishment of a man who there is no reason to think is not as innocent of a vile charge as he was reckoned to be by two thorough professional investigations more than two decades ago.

One can see why the editors were willing to publish it in the current competition for reader attention but it still seems unkind to Scott as well as ethically irresponsible, and not very good for the reputation of the newspaper.

But the bottom line is that Scott is the one that has made a fool of himself, in this embarrassing display of his inability as a very seasoned critic to tell the difference between art and real life.

PS Oops Comments have gone to 787. Here are the newer ones – aw heck, here are all of them. The Times doesn’t number them, although we are three decades into the personal computer age, so one wonders if they are trying ti hide them, or simply disdain them:

=====================================================
787 COMMENTS
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.
====================================================
Richard Grayson Brooklyn 5 hours ago
Has anyone considered the possibility that being a rapist or a child molester or a murderer or a swindler makes someone a better artist? It can make them a worse human being, certainly, but since I don’t have to know them personally, why would I care?

Imagine that irrefutable proof emerged that William Shakespeare had molested his daughter. What would that have to do with the quality of his plays? Would theaters stop all productions of “Hamlet”?

Art is messy. Artists have never been saints and have often been devils.

I prefer the evil to namby-pamby good. Perverted people can be great artists.

Ed L Belgrade, ME 5 hours ago
Why does NYT publish garbage like this? The author has no inside information and nothing to add but personal opinions. ALL straight males have a preoccupation with “young women.” In no movie does Woody Allen obsess sexually about a child. Using Allen’s movies where his character has a relationship with a “young woman” as proof of the ridiculous 1992 charges is just plain stupid. It’s beyond fallacious reasoning. The girl in question has become a professional victim. Why is her word more believable than the adopted son who states that Farrow badgered the girl into believing the story? I would think that Farrow’s documented history of weird behavior and instability is stronger proof of abuse than anything Allen has shown. Allen’s marriage to Previn is certainly no creepier than Farrow’s passing off someone else’s kid as Allen’s. It’s also no coincidence that Farrow and her professional victim daughter trot out this story during awards season, just to capitalize on Allen’s films. After the Kevin Spacey fiasco, it was just a matter of time before they trotted out their revenge/fantasy one more time.

7Recommend
Pvo Belgium 5 hours ago
From a European point of view it’s hard to grasp that a NY Times’ film critic tries a filmmaker in the public eye. Too bad Allen has become a cataclysmic failure to you, without considering all sides. In light of your article you should be forbidden to write opinions ever again about any artist’s work. Because, how could this be relevant, enriching or even professional: you boomerang an artist’s work in his face in the light of accusations that still need any – let alone full – proof. We get that there are two teams. It’s just painful to see a ‘famous’ critic granted permission from his board to rebuke Woody Allen’s work by means of his alleged ‘sick’ behaviour. You can even see it in his movies! And the fact this makes you objectively sick lately is emotional, nostalgic and painful to you. You can write what you want. Feel what you feel. But why do you feel the need to slaughter Allen’s work, to stop people from even remembering movies the way they want. In the NY Times? To make the accusations more credible? Should we really listen to you? Should we erase our Allen memories and re-think like you think? Feel like you feel? Poor Mr. A.O. Scott. I’m surprised there’s nothing about ‘why would actors work with Allen in this day and age’ or ‘why finance this pedophile’s projects ever again? You leave that up to your ever more manipulative colleagues of the exploitation press. Why did you choose in all freedom to be part of that rubbish? You have an ‘Allen problem’. Seriously?

6Recommend
Donna Ellis Austin, TX 5 hours ago
How about children who have to come to terms with being raised as the lineage bearers of their mother’s bitterness? Farrow was married to older men. Look also at published reports about her brother and his conduct. Are we reassessing her movies?

Disguised as an assessment of professional considerations, Scott’s piece reads as though he has a deeper, undiscussed personal interest in this particular matter, or even the topic in general. Maybe he should stop reviewing films and sort it out. But, please, not in public.

3Recommend
Robert Plone San Francisco 1 hour ago
There is some intelligent writing in this article, and it’s worth reading, but I have a serious reservation. The author’s premise is that an artist’s work and his behavior in his life outside his art cannot be separated. In his opinion to say otherwise, “as if it were a philosophical principle, rather than a cultural habit buttressed by shopworn academic dogma,” is obviously a mistake. He is not alone in this viewpoint. Some weeks ago, I posted an article by the chief music critic of the Times, Anthony Tommasini, who, wringing his hands, asked his readers if he should “put aside” his James Levine recordings because the maestro had been accused (so, by our usual legal standards, not necessarily guilty) of molesting adolescent boys. I responded then that even asking such a question, much less considering it, was ridiculous and I feel the same frustration with Mr. Scott’s premise. Long before this current wave of sexual abuse/accusation, into whose undertow Mr. Allen has been sucked, I have always separated the artist’s life/personality from his/her work. For me, any piece of art needs to be judged strictly on its own merits and nothing else. Now, I don’t pretend to claim or even know if this qualifies as “philosophy,” nor do I care; it is my deeply felt conviction.

3Recommend
Gershon HEpner los angeles 1 hour ago
THE WOODY PROBLEM

Seeeming socially most hapless,
following his own directions,
Woody managed, dazed and mapless,
to arouse, despite objections
to his enchanting dialectic
of disappointment and desire,
to appease the apoplectic
with wit that made him an outlier,
aware of what they had not been
aware of till he made them think
about them, seeing on the screen
the sort of things one tells a shrink,
but does not tell the world unless
one is as great an artist as
this man, whom maybe God won’t bless,
not liking Woody’s kind of jazz,
but erring humans should not curse
because he may have done the sort
of things done by men who are worse,
and media men love to report.
Instead we should continue to
admire most of Woody’s work,
as, flawed as we all are, we view
the artist less as gem than jerk.

gershonhepner@gmail.com

More

Patricia Sonoma CA 1 hour ago
My Woody Allen problem is that people were willing to excuse his seduction and marriage of Soon Yi, a young person for whom he was indeed a father figure as he had children with her mother. An overseas adoptee and a vulnerable young woman and a powerful famous talented man who took full advantage. Is it such a stretch to imagine this man transgressively touching his biological daughter?

2Recommend
Jerry S. Milwaukee, WI 1 hour ago
OK, here’s MY Woody Allen problem. Forget the Dylan Farrow allegations, if you can. What would you think about a 57 year old guy who had sex with and then later married his 20 year old daughter? Well, that’s arguably what Woody did with Soon-Yi Previn. The technicality he would use to say that’s not the way it was is that she wasn’t his daughter but the daughter of his non-married partner–so he and Mia never officially got married, and even though he lived with the kids as they were growing up he never actually adopted them, so…everything’s cool! OK, he didn’t technically break the law, but to me he’s every bit as big of a creep. How can people say well, he’s some kind of genius, so I’d like to ignore this kind of thing? I don’t care if he’s Shakespeare reincarnated, I can’t stand to see any of this stuff ever again.

2Recommend
Ed nyc 1 hour ago
closing line Deconstructing Harry” he was a man that couldn’t function in life only in his art” enough said!

Recommend
RE NY 1 hour ago
As a woman, I am embarrassed by all the women commenting here on the unlikeliness of an attractive young woman finding Woody Allen appealing. Look around at couples – lots of beautiful young women with not-so-handsome men who have other qualities that make them very attractive…wit, brains, success, ambition, etc. I would hate to think all these women make their relationship choices on the basis of judging the book by its cover.

3Recommend
NYT Pick
EAW Brooklyn, NY 2 hours ago
I come to this subject from a place of great ambivalence: I have a deep appreciation for the early films of Woody Allen. I am also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. In fact, the debate over whether Dylan Farrow is a liar or not has kicked up emotions I’d rather not endure right now. Our problem? We are the only witnesses to these crimes upon us. We have no one to corroborate them, no forensic evidence to bring to our defense. Our predators have been extremely careful in whom they choose to prey upon and how and when they choose to do so. That those who hear our stories cannot find them credible is our tragedy. But that does not make what happened to us any less real, or less criminal. I believe Dylan Farrow. Those of us in the unfortunate fraternity of people who were sexually abused as children can recognize each other. There is a coherence to our stories that we can see, if others cannot. And we have learned, very young, that how adults present themselves to the world and who they are behind closed doors may be wildly different people. Success and acclaim can be masks behind which the most clever of predators may hide. Yes, it is possible for someone to be successful, admired and accomplished, and still be a terrible person. Woody Allen has made great movies. He also may be a man who did unspeakable things. Does that negate the quality of his work? Not at all. Does it alter what you think about the man who made those films? Look deep into your hearts, and you tell me.

12Recommend
james ponsoldt athens, georgia 2 hours ago
mr. scott, thank you for your column.

i agree, you do have a “woody allen problem”, but so do many film lovers. you begin with a thought that you don’t pursue that allen “is guilty”. i assume you don’t mean “guilty” of the sexual abuse of dylan farrow, since the actual evidence–comparing her original factual claims with the available evidence–plainly does not prove guilt.

instead, i assume, you mean allen is “guilty” of writing about his association with younger women in an unhealthy and disrespectful way, along with his marriage to a woman 35 years younger than him and likely subjected to his emotional control.

i’ve struggled with that question for many years, but not as a film critic–rather as someone who thinks “annie hall” (and one or two other of allen’s films) are among the best films of the last half of the 20th century). i haven’t come to any definite conclusion, except to underscore my initial view that under my moral code, there is something “wrong” with that marriage.

i’ve been relieved of the need to finally resolve this moral dilemma by the fact that i don’t believe allen has made a “really good” film for quite awhile: maybe one or two in the last 25 years or so.

now, i treat the release of allen’s new films like i treat the release of others: some i’ll see, if i think there’s something else (aside from allen directing it) that appeals to me. lately, i’ve concluded that allen has simply lost his ability to focus and has become really sloppy.

Recommend
NYT Pick
Rosie NYC 2 hours ago
I have to laugh when I read stuff like this. I have spent my entire professional life midwifing the creation of movies, TV, music, etc., working elbow to elbow with all the artists you admire (including Woody Allen). I laugh because, if you knew what I know, there wouldn’t be a single picture on any screen, large or small. If you turned on the radio, you wouldn’t hear anything but talk (Oops! I forgot about the recent changes at WNYC). Uh, farm reports maybe? You good with that?

You have to separate the artist from the work. If you can’t, history will do it for you. The work matters; the artist does not. The same can be said for art critics and social critics who will never live by the same rules as the artists they revere.

11Recommend
Dan Coleman San Francisco 2 hours ago
The particular artist under consideration here carries strong emotional baggage for many people, as this essay demonstrates. But anybody asking me to give up any artist’s work should be prepared to state general principles rather than particular incidents–otherwise I simply won’t listen.
What offenses earn a boycott? Does it matter whether the art reflects the offenses in any way? Does the boycott extend to dead artists? If it does, will someone be publishing a 3,000-year list of banned artists? If it doesn’t, can I experience banned artists’ works immediately on their deaths, or is there a grace period, and if so, how long?
To return to the particular, is the music of Led Zeppelin banned because of Jimmy Page’s relationship with a very underage girl? If so, is David Bowie’s music also banned, because he had sex with the very same girl before Page did? Is pre-death fan of Bowie guilty of endorsing sex with children?
Alternately, we could demand that actual crimes be prosecuted, which would serve as a more effective deterrent to future crimes. And maybe, while we’re at it, expanded arts programs in the prisons–there’s already a lot of creative people in there, and there ought to be a lot more.

2Recommend
Nicolas Paris, France 2 hours ago
In reading through the comments, I am struck by a recurring one: that Allen’s portrayal of himself as an object of desire to (much) younger women is “unrealistic,” and thus shows him to be a narcissist, and his films to be repugnant.

Not all film topics are pleasant to all film goers (nor are all book topics pleasant to all readers). But that doesn’t make the topic “false” or unworthy of discussion. Allen has incontravertable proof that older men can appeal to younger women: his wife. Nor is his situation in any way unique. A friend of mine, neither handsome nor wealthy, is, conversely, witty and charismatic. And a serial monogomist with attractive, intelligent women half his age (he is invariably the one to break off the relationships).

If Allen has let this theme enter his work, and you don’t like it, skip the film! I was a child in the Vietnam era, and avoid films about that war because the idea of seeing one turns my stomach. That doesn’t make them bad or unworthy films, and it doesn’t make the topic one to be avoided.

4Recommend
NYT Pick
N. Smith New York City 2 hours ago
For all his comedic brilliance and cinematic originality, as a New Yorker, I could never get past the point that there were hardly ever any people of colour in Woody Allen’s films cast as anything other than a servant, or background wallpaper.
New York is one of the most diverse cities on the planet, so this omission was one not too easily overlooked.
That he managed to get away with whatever sexual escapades he managed to engage in with his private life, is more indicative of our society at large than anything else — marking this as a systemic problem as well as a personal one. Woody Allen is not the first, and more than likely won’t be the last to get caught up in his own snares.

8Recommend
Michael Hyman 2 hours ago
Richard Wagner was one of the most vile artists one can imagine, yet who doubts the magic of the Ring operas? Allen may or may not be a schlemiel or abuser, but does that mean we should ignore “Annie Hall”? Particularly when legal wrongdoing has never been prove? In our pluralistic culture we have our own thresholds of going “beyond the pale,” but we accept the democratic standard standard of innocent until proven guilty….oh, except for Clarence Thomas.

Recommend
Lise NYC 2 hours ago
Never saw Woody Allen (as an actor, in his movies, playing roles that resembled himself) as anything but cringingly unattractive. The romantic and/or sex scenes with beautiful young women always had a strong nausea factor, being as they were so implausible – self-evident wish fulfillment. Maybe men saw (see, will always see) these scenes a different, more benign and attractive way? Funny how biographical revelations — giving the viewer’s kaleidoscope a little tap — seem to have made the cringe aspect suddenly more obvious, to so many more people.

4Recommend
Loretta Marjorie Chardin San Francisco 2 hours ago
Why is it surprising that Woody Allen was attracted to much younger women Isn’t that the norm for our culture? We’re not alone in adolescent male fantasies: Take the gift of all those virgins to Muslim martyrs! Until men grow up to be real men, not eternal boys, they will continue to be intimidated by women their own age, and attracted to younger women who make them feel in control. When I asked my ex why he cheated on me, he replied, “to feel like a real man.”

1Recommend
mildred reinPh.D. chestnut hill, Mass. 2 hours ago
Why does everyone believe Mia Farrow and no one believe Woody Allen? When the breakup happened, it was obvious that she had put the little girl up to the accusations and coached her to accuse him. It was something done fairly regularly in divorce/custody cases at that time, and was dissmised by everyone as a necessary ploy. NOW- suddenly in the wake of Me-Too, it has become an issue. Why believe it now if you didn’t believe it then? Are you trying to be fashionable in what you are believing- and join herd opinion? The ardent feminists are thrilled but Woody Allen’s life is at stake!!!!

6Recommend
guest1 NYC 2 hours ago
Ronan = Frank Sinatra’s son, not Woody’s, as Mia led the world to believe.

3Recommend
guest1 NYC 3 hours ago
I won’t disqualify Dylan Farrow’s accusation agst. Woody Allen, but I’d also like to point out that Mia Farrow, since the birth of Ronan Farrow, led Woody and the world to believe that Ronan was Woody’s biological son. Apparently, Ronan was Frank s son. If she could scam us and Woody into believing that Ronan was Woody’s son, whose to say she didn’t do the same with Dylan’s accusation against Woody?

10Recommend
James Massachusetts 3 hours ago
And yet Nabakov, Lolita’s creator, is revered—and is smiling broadly somewhere right now at all this nonsense.

4Recommend
Elaine Lynch Bloomingdale, NJ 3 hours ago
There wasn’t a more fervent fan of Woody Allen films then me in 1992. Having a sexual relationship with your long term girlfriend’s daughter, who you knew since she was a child; your girlfriend who was also the mother of your child, was a total creep out for me and destroyed my enjoyment of his films. I hate him for that because I adored Take the Money and Run, and Love and Death, and Radio Days. How anyone would work with him boggles the mind and makes me question those actors and actresses who weren’t doing it to put food on the table.

4Recommend
Kirk WIlson Los Angeles 3 hours ago
“We will never know” is driving me insane. How many thousands of times has the victim been buried by this phrase? Not just in high profile cases such as this, but millions of cases in this country where the women is never, ever believed. The same thing is playing out in the White House. “Consenting adults” makes me want to vomit. Woody Allen is just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of men with power who get what they want. The recent GQ interview with Quincy Jones is a prime example. Praise his art, but pay no attention to his 30 girlfriends around the world because they are all “consenting adults” albeit thin, beautiful and within a certain age bracket fitting for a rich mogul. IMO #TIMESUP on all of these guys. By praising them we are all complicit in their behavior, lifestyle and actions.

2Recommend
Dennis D. New York City 3 hours ago
I have been a fan of Woody Allen’s films since “Take The Money And Run”, which I saw upon its initial release. I will remain until I return to my Drooling Stage. I have done the same with others whose past contain their own skeletons. I am not about to be filled with guilt for something someone may or may not have done. And I will add, I will not stop watching and enjoying other films which may include people of whom I abhor, am political opposites of, or even mildly disagree with. I still enjoy watching again classic films. I will not refrain from viewing “The Usual Suspects” or other superlative films because they star Kevin Spacey. I am old enough to remember the nefarious Fifties Black List, when writers, actors, directors who may or may not have had an affiliation with the Communist Party blocked their ability to making a livelihood.
I am diametrically opposite the politics of John Wayne. If I were to decide to judge, jury and executioner on all other matters I would be ashamed of my own actions. My criteria when it comes to films or other artistic endeavors for the most part remains what I, my own best critic by the way, think of a particular work of Art. When someone attempts to deny me that pleasure, I will reject them before rejecting the creator of Art.

DD
Manhattan

Good grief, this purging of people who behaved less than exemplary would leave this world in a bleaker state than it already is.

8Recommend
Jackson H California 1 hour ago
I am diametrically opposed the politics of anything liberal, especially what Woody Allen supposedly believes (based on his political opinions expressed in his art). Nonetheless, my litmus test when it comes to any kind of artistic creation is separate from the creators personal experience and alleged behavior.

I believe that what transpires in the public domain can be highly subjective and lacking in objective and verifiable evidence. Woody Allen as a person I care little about. As a creative force, that is another matter entirely.

Jackson, CA

Recommend
compassionate moderate New York, NY 3 hours ago
I understand why people would react negatively to the Soon Yi scandal, but it is not the job of art to teach morality. Art is not religion or parenting or the judicial system. It’s main function is to be interesting.

4Recommend
Phil Witt New York 3 hours ago
I don’t condone harassment of any kind, and agree that the separation of art and artist is anything but easy. That being said, there are times that morality is temporal- in which case, we should be happy that the works of Michelangelo and Leonardo, to name only two, were not relegated to the trash heap. There were rumors about JM Barrie and Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, to name only two more. Then there are admitted facts: Roman Polanski’s assault was anything but rumored. What do we do with The Pianist?
Controversial though it may be, I’m afraid that we must separate what lies in the artists heart from what he produces on the page, canvas or film. Our choice is whether to patronize or not. For the moment, we are still a free country.

2Recommend
nzierler new hartford ny 3 hours ago
Woody Allen is a genius. And if we step back and assess all historical geniuses, we can see not only that there’s a fine line between genius and insanity but also a fine line between genius and depravity.

3Recommend

Marge Keller Midwest 2 hours ago
That may be so nzierler, but I don’t see an ounce of insanity or depravity in anything Albert Einstein has ever done.

1Recommend
H. A. Sappho LA 3 hours ago
ART PEW

“The separation of art and artist is proclaimed — rather desperately, it seems to me — as if it were a philosophical principle, rather than a cultural habit buttressed by shopworn academic dogma. But the notion that art belongs to a zone of human experience somehow distinct from other human experiences is both conceptually incoherent and intellectually crippling.”

What does this mean? The logically corollary is that Caravaggio’s art is less relevant because he was a murderer, or that Van Gogh’s vision should be discounted because he was a loony, or that Picasso’s cubism is to be evaluated by the compositional standards of misogyny. What is “conceptually incoherent and intellectually crippling” is to write these words as if they were a decisive point in an argument when all they really are is a free-floating statement, and ending this statement-masquerading-as-a-thought with “and anyone—critic, creator or fan—who has devoted his or her life to art knows as much” is the kind of thing people say when they know they have not made their point successfully and want to cover it up with bravado.

This is not to say that Woody Allen is to be considered innocent—any more than he is to be condemned as guilty; it is to say that we don’t know. That there is no proof. That innocent-until-proven-guilty is what makes for justice—even if it lets some of the guilty go free. And that, most importantly, art very much ‘belongs to life,” not Puritanism, in all its messy “authenticity.”

Flag3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
H. A. Sappho LA 2 hours ago
“logical” corollary — to go with my copy editing incompetence.

FlagRecommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Marge Keller Midwest 3 hours ago
Just a simple rhetorical question here, but what on earth is/was Woody Allen’s attraction/draw to women in the first place? I just don’t get it or see it.

2Recommend
Crusader Rabbit Tucson, AZ 1 hour ago
His mind.

1Recommend
PAUL TANA MOPNTRÉAL 3 hours ago
Dear Mr Scott, i appreciate very much your work as a film critic. But in this text you seem to be tempted to go backwards; directly to the XIXTh. century in the company of Sainte-Beuve the french literary critic who tried to evaluate literary works through the behaviour of their author: he dismissed Baudelaire and Gérard de Nerval because of their dissolute life. Then came Marcel Proust who questioned St-Beuve’s method in his essay “Against Ste-Beuve” . He wrote:” A book is a product of another self then the one that we manifest( show) in our habits, in society, in our vices.” ( my poor traduction). I’m sure that you’ve read it and I think that this reflection is not so “shopworn”! Please come back!

Recommend
nub Toledo 3 hours ago
One difference in the Allen matter from the MeToo movement revelations is that no-one was silenced, and the allegations were treated seriously from the start.
Mia Farrow was a well know, wealthy movie star, with access to all the doctors and lawyers she wanted.
Unlike the MeToo scandals, this was widely publicized at the time, investigated by criminal authorities in 2 states, and also a topic in the custody hearings.

6Recommend
james cortese Spring, tx 3 hours ago
Mr. Scott is entitled to his self-flagellation on the subject of Woody Allen but I vehemently disagree that artists cannot or should not be separated from their art. If we believed this and acted on this, we would have to eliminate from consideration some of the greatest art in our cultural history. Perhaps in his next column, Mr. Scott can come up with a detailed plan for requiring critics to include the biographies of artists in their writing, thus saving us from appreciating the work of talented scoundrels. No doubt, Mr. Scott is acquainted with the work of the Nazi documentary filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, whose creative genius hugely influenced the cinema. Would he write her out of film history and ask us to ignore her work and her creative genius? Or is it possible to hold two contradictory ideas at once, along with the notion that human nature is irredeemably complicated and that even good things can come from bad people?

5Recommend
Kathleen Northern Ontario Canada 3 hours ago
My bottom line with Allen, and Polanski, and their ilk, is that I will never put another nickel into their pockets.

Regardless of how I feel about their artistry.

5Recommend
Richard Brown Ossining, NY 3 hours ago
Of all the men whose sexual misbehavior has been highlighted in the #MeToo moment, Allen is the one whose guilt I doubt. There is one accusation, and the evidence is questionable. Others are free to believe he is guilty, but neither I nor they know if he is or not. When I see people trying to shame actors who continue working with him, I see an alarming resemblance to McCarthyism. (And for the record, I am not a big fan. I have only seen one of his films in the past 30 years.)

6Recommend
Rosemary NYC 3 hours ago
Could someone pls publish an article from actual credible therapists and doctors regarding the odds of someone molesting 1 single child? Isn’t child molestation an incurable compulsion? This has been confusing for me and many re: the WAllen case. Why have no other people come forward? Do people commit such heinous acts only once? What I recall too is the NY Court system not believing the story after interviewing all parties extensively, and stating that Ms. Farrow was coached. While I believe his marriage to Ms. Previn was created in a mess that should have been avoided, she was an adult. What concerns me is the incident, and if such acts have ever only been done once by predators of children. About that I am totally confused and so I lean toward believing Ms. Farrow was coached and that she and her mother created a fabrication together which then became their truth. Folie a Famille is what the French call this. It is complicated and I would like experts to weigh in within these articles. Our conjecture and non-expert opinions takes up too much print. Given Ms. Farrow broke up a few marriages, appears to need children to define herself as an individual, and admitted recently to Vanity Fair to having an affair with her former husband Sinatra and that Ronan Farrow may well be his Son in reality does not speak well for her own ability to face personal truths.

8Recommend
Halley CT 1 hour ago
Good points all!

Recommend
Diana Miami 3 hours ago
If you google now Woody Allen, you would find stream of “news” questioning his “innocence”. Most of this “news” or “articles” (which are not really journalism, because all they do is to “inform” that person X could have this opinion, but dont inform any confirmed fact, they do not do research at all) , come from very questionable “newspapers” like dailymail, and many other that you probably never heard off. All media players want a piece of audience/readers right now. And in 2 weeks, after the atmosphere will be completely created, the respectable media players will start also to join.
And, I wonder, where is google in all this matter??? Why is google giving the same access to mass readers to this questionable entities that they give to newspapers that do research and confirm facts? Why if i google Woody Allen now, all i get is an stream of articles of people giving opinion on something nobody know what happens, since nonone opining was there. I think for the love, respect, and peace of mankind, that google, facebook, and the rest of the serious companies should start doing something against this bogus news players.

3Recommend
W. LB. Montana 3 hours ago
Setting aside the complications with Dylan Farrow (as several decades have proved public perception and who believes whom will never get anywhere), there are two bits to this, criminality, and morality. This rears its head with Aziz Anzari as well. Acts may not be criminal (Soon-Yi), (Aziz Anzari) but can still be a reflection of a gross cultural norm.

It may not be criminal for an old or middle aged man to leer and lust after “very young women” and portray women his own age as washed-up shrews, but it is disgusting. I am disgusted to see the amount of men in this comment section going at great lengths and flowery language to excuse Woody Allen (and themselves?) from these proclivities. One does not need to look much further than the front page of any main pornographic website, which is always full of older men and the “babysister” or “stepdaughter” or “barely legal co-ed” to see the extent of which this permeates our culture. That does not mean that it is morally excusable. It is still disgusting, and it is right for our premier cultural critics (of which AO Scott certainly is) to discuss, and draw attention to these cultural perversions.

5Recommend
Chuck in Jersey New Jersey 3 hours ago
Polanski/Allen syndrome was erroneously attributed to the “low moral fiber” of Hollywood. But it pervades our society. Bad people can create good work. Polanski and Allen are talented filmmakers. They also have documented issues with young girls. Weighing the two, if you live by any accepted code of morality, admiration can legitimately be overpowered by revulsion.
I’m with this guy:
Poet Calvin Trillin’s take on Roman Polanski
A youthful error? Yes, perhaps.
But he’s been punished for this lapse–
For decades exiled from LA
He knows, as he wakes up each day,
He’ll miss the movers and the shakers.
He’ll never get to see the Lakers.
For just one old and small mischance,
He has to live in Paris, France.
He’s suffered slurs and other stuff.
Has he not suffered quite enough?
How can these people get so riled?
He only raped a single child.

Why make him into some Darth Vader
For sodomizing one eighth grader?
This man is brilliant, that’s for sure–
Authentically, a film auteur.
He gets awards that are his due.
He knows important people, too–
Important people just like us.
And we know how to make a fuss.
Celebrities would just be fools
To play by little people’s rules.
So Roman’s banner we unfurl.
He only raped one little girl.

4Recommend
Blake San Francisco 3 hours ago
I didn’t believe Dylan Farrow in 1992, and I didn’t see anything wrong with Allen marrying Previn. It’s worth noting that they are still married.

But.

“Manhattan” is visually beautiful, but when I watched it again in the late ’90s it creeped me out, despite the cinematography.

Subsequently when I’ve tried to rewatch Allen’s films, the same theme jumps out: Woody Allen, the director/writer/star, is sexually irresistible. Sometimes he actually says this.

His career started with his persona being much more humble: think “Bananas,” which might be the only film of his I can still enjoy. By “Annie Hall,” he’s talking to the camera, and how much represents his real self? “Stardust Memories” is one of the most arrogant films I’ve ever seen; Allen, after years of being praised for his genius, became full of himself.

Recently a movie in which he starred but didn’t write, “The Front,” was on TV. I started to watch it but his arrogance turned me off so much that I changed the channel. Was it his character’s arrogance, or Allen’s? Trying to watch that was instructive.

I am done with new Woody Allen movies because the last few I saw weren’t very good, even when they had fawning reviews. I may be done with rewatching old ones because I can’t view his characters anymore without seeing him. I don’t have this problem with Bryan Cranston in “Breaking Bad,” for example, because Bryan Cranston always plays different people. Allen is always the same, and maybe that’s really him.

5Recommend

serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 3 hours ago
Many artists are not nice, in fact a high percentage led lives quite at odds with either the accepted morality of the time or at odds with what would be acceptable today. Does that really diminish their artistic achievements? We should not listen to Wagner operas because he was an anti-semite? No one should ever watch a Polanski movie? Or a Charlie Cahplin movie since he run off with the underage daugher of Eugene O’Neill? Or reject Picasso’s paintings because of his ill-treatment of mistresses? The art speaks for itself, whether one approves of the artist is not relevant. what is relevant whether the artistic intent is deplorable.

1Recommend
biomuse Philadelphia 3 hours ago
In the abstract, well enough. But here is the rub: Art long ago lost its innocence as a perceived antipole to commerce. Art makes money, and money supervenes on power and influence. We “follow the money” because money has causal force, clears paths and changes priorities for the worse as often as for the better.

I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be an attempt at academic detachment in the evaluation of an aesthetic object. But that concept must at least begin to find its limits where the real suffering of other human beings commences.

2Recommend
William Boulet Western Canada 3 hours ago
All of this being predicated on the fact that he is guilty as accused, of course. Which not one of us knows at this point. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. Not enough to condemn.

1Recommend
Alan Chaprack NYC 3 hours ago
So, I went and Googled “A.O. Scott The Pianist.” It seems that the Mr. Scott gave that particular movie an absolutely stellar review; this came a couple of decades – DECADES! – after Mr. Polanski’s conviction – CONVICTION! – for raping a young girl. No mention in the review about this. No head-slapping “should I have seen it?” No….he ranked it No. 5 on his 10 Best for 2002.

Further research found that Mr. Scott reviewed “Carnage” and “Venus in Fur,” with hardly a mention of Mr. Polanski’s past.

Here, we have another example of “how do ya like me now,” similar to Meryl Streep’s finding her way into every celebrity Time’s Up photo years after giving Polanski a standing ovation for his Oscar win for “The Pianist.”

Hollywood once again speaks out of both sides of its mouth, this time from a couple of time zones east.

5Recommend
rpl portland 3 hours ago
will film lovers 50 years from now feel this dissonance? i doubt it…i recently saw a museum exhibit on Picasso’s muses…viewed from a distance, artist’s personal stories, venality, peccadilloes, are interesting factors but not barriers per se to experiencing their art

Recommend
Branch Rickey, IN 2 hours ago
Ditto van Gogh, he was generally considered to be a trash person and a huge drag, if not a stalker and what we may call a psycho. The girl who got the ear in the mail – metoo

Recommend

Wally Wolf Texas 4 hours ago
So, they’re not going after Trump after being accused of sexually abusing 20 women, but now they’re going after Woody Allen over something that may or may not have happened 25 years ago and he was found innocent. Isn’t this a perfect example of over-kill?

9Recommend
jennifer.greenway London 4 hours ago
Thank you for writing a considered, nuanced piece.

3Recommend
KL Washington, DC 4 hours ago
Imagine how concerned us female fans are about how the formative lessons we learned from his films affected us and our desires? Is that why I let so many men mansplain their way through my early relationships?

2Recommend
reader North America 3 hours ago
Kindly don’t assume that all female fans share your feelings about Allen or anything else. This female fan believes in the autonomy of the art work, and also in the principle of innocent until proven guilty

3Recommend
Diana Miami 2 hours ago
And this other female believes that movies are entertaining and even in you find lessons, emotional engagement, etc… in them, actors, musicians, directors, writers, etc, are never responsible for my decisions and for any event in my life. My relationships are mine, and I have always proudly assumed full responsibility for my life, with its goods and bads. My life is the result of my brain, not others brains.

3Recommend
Al from PA PA 4 hours ago
[But the notion that art belongs to a zone of human experience somehow distinct from other human experiences is both conceptually incoherent and intellectually crippling. ]

So whose lead do we follow in this critique–Stalin’s or Sartre’s?

2Recommend

Jonathan Black Belt, AL 4 hours ago
I think this is one of the best concise overviews of Allen’s work that I have read. And Mr. Scott is right: we cannot unsee. And if we could, we probably shouldn’t. That would be repression by another name and likely harmful to the self. I have tended to like Allen’s work a lot, some more than others, but I have always had a sense there was something Not Quite Nice about the man. That doesn’t mean I suspected him of sexual malfeasance. I have no particular opinion about the present accusations, but I do suspect that the reality was, as it usually is, more complicated. In any case, and like it or not, we have been given a new lens through which to view his work. No, I can’t unsee. but will I see his future work, if there is any? Not sure. I am particularly hesitant about viewing his most recent one. It sounds particularly distasteful.

2Recommend
William Westchester 4 hours ago
We might almost imagine that in our era, the circuses have become so good we might not need the bread anymore. The powerful urge to relate to performers has thrown up any number of iconic figures later deemed flawed. The vicarious working out of human tensions is a given. The very crowds yelling ‘hosanna praise be the lord’ are later described as willing to have ‘his blood on our hands’. All this hero worship and villainizing might be deemed enlightened progress, but is it? Is the Judas-like inclination to smile until something we don’t approve of appears the way? Look at Hillary, who attracted so much approval, now being asked to go away. The times might not be changing as much as Dylan thought. Jesus asked us to purify ourselves before judging others, but that is still thought as unnecessary as ever.

Recommend

Damon Hickey Wooster, Ohio 4 hours ago
We know relatively little about William Shakespeare’s life, and maybe that’s a good thing. If we were to learn that the Bard molested young boys in his company or made unwanted advances toward his seamstress, would we have to “reassess” his work? Or, worse yet, would we feel we could no longer stage or watch his plays? Even when the work is self-referential, as Woody Allen’s surely is, can’t we enjoy it (or not) for itself, regardless of its author’s character?

3Recommend
mcdkie Toronto 3 hours ago
I personally cannot enjoy his work for itself anymore. When I first saw Manhattan I wasn’t much older than Mariel Hemingway, and I thought it was fine for an older man and a much younger woman to be shown falling in love. But Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi changed my perspective. The age gap was not the main issue, it was the fact that she was part of his family, and all the comments about “never lived with Mia” and “didn’t legally adopt” disgusted me. When I watched Manhattan again, years later, I found it nauseating, and I haven’t seen any of his movies since.

1Recommend
mormond golden valley 4 hours ago
The problem with Scott’s deeper critique of the cruel masculine sense of romantic entitlement which he identifies in the Allen corpus is that it would be, in principle, extended to almost all of the male protagonists in almost all of the films made in the United States and Europe since 1929 (with the exception of “Marty”)

7Recommend
Ethics 101 Portland OR 4 hours ago
Mia Farrow, so problematic, the hub of family drama and manipulation, has had much influence in forming public perception of Woody. Her history as well as Dory Previn’s prescient lyrics leave too many questions for me to presume that I will ever know enough to make any accurate judgement about any of this.

10Recommend
Concerned Mother New York Newyork 4 hours ago
Yes, on the comment of Sinatra and Farrow, as he was fifty and he was twenty-one. That was okay, then? What else shouldn’t we read? Or watch? This is a kind of Nanny-state, no? And on the endlessly fascinating subject of Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow: Farrow is an adult now. She has never brought charges against Woody Allen in court. When she does that, and stands behind her assertions in a way that is not simply rumor mongering and hearsay, well, then, we’ll all hear the evidence, and a decision can be made. Years ago, in Connecticut, Woody Allen passed every lie detector test: Mia Farrow refused the lie detector tests. I have no idea at all whether he did this or he is guilty. How could I? And how can anyone else, including A.O. Scott?

10Recommend
Stuart New York, NY 4 hours ago
The writer, whose film criticism I’ve admired for a very long time, really embarrasses himself here. And those who want to further the cause of justice for victims of any kind of abuse, sexual or otherwise, do not do that cause a favor by constantly returning to this case. The change that’s happening now, with powerful men being called out for using and abusing women and losing their status and their livelihoods may be a necessary phase, and there will be a few whose crimes seem less than others who are taken down–that may be necessary too. We don’t know how many women have been stopped from pursuing their dreams because of these men. But this long ago case doesn’t fit the mold and weakens the argument–there are too many questions that will never be answered. It’s become fetish and fixation to so many. And it’s a shame to see this respected critic be tempted into writing something so limp and useless and conflicted that adds nothing worth thinking about to the discourses of sexual abuse or art.

7Recommend
Hereticnyc nyc 4 hours ago
Mr Scott opens his deft rumination with the decisive ruling that he “thinks Woody Allen is guilty”, but then fails to give any persuasive reason for reversing his previous faith that that Allen was innocent. Yes Allen has included the attractions of young women for older men as a constant element in his cinematic plays, but art is not life, however much it draws upon it for inspiration. Allen now appears to him to be a raging narcissist who is a “founding father” of the current “age of self-display”, which may be reprehensible but hardly proves him a liar and a sexual criminal. Today he sees the “uglier aspects” of Allen’s work, in that what was once sweet now seems cruel and cynical, and he is ashamed of not realizing this before. Since all of this is entirely in his own mind, however, without a scrap of fresh fact, it all looks very much like the influence of the great wave of renewed attack on Allen for a supposed outrage twice ruled fiction by qualified investigators. If so the about face which causes the critic so much conflict and dismay is no more justified than putting wine in a differently labeled bottle and reporting that it doesn’t taste the same, an illusion familiar to science, In effect Mr Scott is admitting that he has joined the expanding Allen lynch mob and he really should take his ruling back and regain his customary objectivity in appreciating Allen’s movies for what they are – art by an artist, not autobiography.

3Recommend
Melpub Germany and NYC 4 hours ago
Dylan Farrow’s story, especially in her recent TV interview, is completely believable. She remembers, as one does, what happened when she was seven years old. Allen exploited her: she was his daughter and would do anything for him, and had no idea that he was just using her. That is one reality. The other is the reality of his films. Yes, he is a great artist. Yes, I go to see his films. But I would not let him into a room with my thirteen-year-old daughter, not if the National Guard were surrounding her. Respect Dylan Farrow’s story, respect Dylan Farrow. Keep Allen away from children.
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com

2Recommend
reader North America 3 hours ago
“as one does”? Really. I have frequently found that my supposed childhood memories were in fact shaped by the accounts of adults and by photographs, and were contradicted by other people’s memories, including those of other children. Allan has never been accused of molesting a child, except by Dylan, under the strong influence of her mother. 18 or 21 is not the same as 7, and a person of 18 21 is not a child (despite the way many American young people are coddled). Soon Yi chose to marry Allen and has remained married to him for decades. Her agency is being completely denied by many commentators. Men who are sexually interested in 7 year olds do not express this interest only once in a lifetime.

1Recommend
Andrea Manchester 1 hour ago
To anyone who was molested or assaulted at that age, Dylan‘s account is very familiar and very authentic. Believe me no one has to coach you. The only thing they might have to do is explain how you tell someone what happened. Most little kids of my generation and hers Were not instructed in stranger danger or protected by the vocabulary of awareness. For instance, I did not know the word penis: I called it his “bottom“ – I was very embarrassed because we knew you did not talk about that part of the body. And frankly, we don’t know how all pedophiles work— let alone how Woody Allen’s mind works. I have spoken with other victims of childhood sexual assault, and frankly, When an event such as this happens to you at a young age, it is printed Indelibly on your consciousness. It’s called trauma.

1Recommend
Melpub Germany and NYC 1 hour ago
I write as one who was molested, at seven and after, by her father. My mother never knew. No one knew. But I knew.

1Recommend
Jonathan Ben-Asher Maplewood NJ 4 hours ago
None of us truly knows whether the molestation allegations are true. I’ve gone back and forth in what I think. The 2014 Daily Beast piece cited by JCB in his comment (“The Woody Allen Allegations – Not so Fast”) raises many valid questions about the allegations, even with its snarky tone. But I do not know the ultimate truth. I was an Allen fan for many years. When the relationship with Soon Yi came out, I was quite disgusted, and I stopped seeing his films for many years, until Midnight in Paris.

Many of the comments here attack Allen for the attitudes and feelings the films depict. These writers react as if the films make an argument for how men should treat women. But the films, like all films, are stories. The characters are expressing feelings, urges, conflicts and contradictions; the films aren’t political tracts. Some commentators here condemn Allen because some of his characters seem to be products of his fantasies. Well, that’s how every writer creates fiction. Should we revile John Updike because his Rabbit Angstrom was vile to Janet? And Madam Bovary was sure mean to a lot of people.

1Recommend
Steve Paradis Flint Michigan 3 hours ago
I suppose I’m your mirror; I saw “Midnight in Paris” and all I could think of how much better “The Moderns” was, and why Alan Rudolph wasn’t making films any more. And every time “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” is mentioned, I think of Whit Stillman’s “Barcelona” and Stiillman’s Sisyphean struggles to get his pictures made. I’m not crazy about Woody Allen, and I think he’s gotten more artistic oxygen than his work merits.
But unlike so many I’ve never forgotten the Satanic Ritual abuse trials of the 80’s and 90’s; one haunting fact is that some of those children whose stories were proven beyond doubt to be implanted by zealous investigators will believe the stories they told in testimony.
So I’m a skeptic on both sides, but it may come down to who I believe to be Ronan Farrow’s father.
https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/hard-questions-for-ro…

Recommend
NYT Pick
FNL Philadelphia 4 hours ago
If Mr Allen was an accountant then his actions would merely be reprehensible but because he makes movies that amuse you , he deserves endless angst and consideration before he is held accountable?

8Recommend
Janet Montpelier, VT 4 hours ago
The third to last paragraph says it all. I applaud Mr. Scott’s honestly. Allen’s uglier, prurient aspects have been apparent to me every since “Manhattan”. Movie viewers have been willingly taken in by the world arty, bourgeois world that Allen created.

2Recommend
Crusader Rabbit Tucson, AZ 3 hours ago
Ask yourself if you’re equally disgusted by Brigitte Macron?

1Recommend
Oren Sherman Boston 4 hours ago
The question is when you can one separate the the art from the creator? I’m an artist, I love degas, a horrible anti Semite. Now artists characters are being brought into the discussion, is it good, bad? My own decision is that when I can no longer view the art without the experience being soured it’s unfortunately ruined. Many Jews have long had a problem listening to Wagner. I fully support the viewers choices but not the of deciding what the public is allowed to see, read, listen to. If you don’t want to watch a woody allen movie, absolutely don’t go, are repulsed by Wagner, TS Elliot, all fine. But what happens to our shared culture? Is Picasso next? Can the man or women’s art transcend the creator? I say it’s up to the viewer to decide.

4Recommend
Robert Plone San Francisco 1 hour ago
You go, Oren. Check out my similar response when it posts.

Recommend
Gerry Quinn Ireland 4 hours ago
A lot of people seem to feel they have to decide. Get over it. The reality is that we will probably never know one way or the other.

2Recommend
Carol Wheeler San Miguel de Allende, mexico 4 hours ago
Yes, his movies have all had to do with his love of younger women. Maybe it’s because it’s so hard for older women to get work in Hollywood? But then again, I must admit that I too am revising my view of him. This season begins to make that happen.

1Recommend
Greg Jones Cranston, Rhode Island 4 hours ago
I would like to ask those who find Mr. Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn so disturbing what they would suggest we do. Ms. Previn is 47 years old. She has been married to Mr. Allen for 21 years. Mr. Allan is 82. This age disparity may disgust some people. Some people are also disgusted by marriage to those who are overweight. If Ms Previn & Mr. Allen return to the US should we force them to divorce? Should Mr. Allan be arrested for this relationship & then a forcible divorce performed in prison? Should we pass a law that makes it illegal for persons of different ages to be married? Mr. Allen was 35 years older then Ms. Previn when they were married. So what should be the limit we allow on age difference? Should it be 30 years? 20 years? 5 maybe? Are we prepared to order all the literally million of mixed age marriages broken up? We are often told that victims are to traumatized to bring charges. Ms. Previn continues to live with Mr. Allen, does that mean that 47 year old women are not to be allowed to make their own choices?
Of course I have set to one side the charges made originally by Mia Farrow and recently repeated by Dylan Farrow. If these charges were accurate then Mr. Allan would have deserved to spend considerable time in jail. I have searched for any presentation of these charges that would demonstrate the initial two investigations were either incompetent or corrupt. If those who are not charged are to be treated as guilty we are in great danger.

7Recommend
reader North America 3 hours ago
I can’t recommend this comment enough. The puritanism and self-righteousness of commentators who want to condemn a 21-year long marriage (much longer than many American marriages) for an age difference, not to mention discount the woman’s agency, is astounding

2Recommend
NYT Pick
Mary Kelleher Seattle 4 hours ago
I was only a decade older than the young woman portrayed in Manhattan when I first saw it. I remember it made me feel uncomfortable. It didn’t feel right. I understand now that the character was only Woody Allen’s projection of his fantasies onto that character, but then I was confused. And wary. When the episode with Soon-Yi Previn came out, I was older and more self aware. I had grown daughters by then, and the idea that a woman’s long-term partner had seduced her teenaged daughter did not sound like romance to me. It stunk of abuse. And the memories of Manhattan and my feeling something was wrong came flooding back. I had adored Allen’s films up until that time (except, of course, Manhattan). But I decided that from that moment on, I would not watch another Allen film. I would not contribute one penny to the man. And I have not. And I fully believe Dylan and Ronan Farrow: this man is abusive. I’m deeply grateful that he is in the process of being called into account; I’m just sorry that it took decades.

16Recommend
NR New York 4 hours ago
Art comes from the self. But that doesn’t mean it is the truth. Inserting ourselves as judges regarding Woody Allen’s art, saying this is what he personally meant when his characters said or did that, is dangerous territory.

I stand with Cherry Jones–“There are those who are comfortable in their certainty. I am not. I don’t know the truth,” she told The Times. “When we condemn by instinct our democracy is on a slippery slope.”

As much as I feel for Dylan Farrow, my impression of her experience is that both her parents did her wrong. Mr. Allen, in connecting with and marrying her sibling, Mia Farrow, in manipulating her precious Dylan out of anger. As for Soon-Yi, a then 21 year-old sibling, even if she is not a blood relative of her sister, she also demonstrated poor and hurtful judgement. I don’t buy the “malnourished, undeveloped, orphan” story that was peddled more than 20 years ago to explain her lapse. But as Ms. Jones said, we don’t really know exactly what happened.

That said, Soon-Yi and Woody had the legal right to marry. And Woody has the right to continue making films. And some audiences will continue to see them. Count me in.

2Recommend
NYT Pick
Susan L. Paul Asheville, NC 4 hours ago
Say what you will about Woody Allen…he captured certain times in New York life…the essence of a sector of the population…whether it was secular and very Jewish working class families, upper middle class West End Ave families, lovers of and in New York City, early eccentrics, later criminals, wacky loonies, and so many others that speak to the heart and soul of NYC humanity and far beyond. For this I will always be grateful to him, and a major fan of his work.
His personal life is something else, and I wouldn’t want to be married to him, but…I would have loved to know the character he portrayed in so many of his films…except, Zelig. Maybe the answer lies right there.

5Recommend
Mary Ann Petersen Eugene, Oregon 4 hours ago
I have loved many of his films. I admire his writing. When he got together with Soon-Yi, I thought it was incredibly poor judgement and odd with a pretty good side of creepy. Not sure what to believe about the accusations.
What I am wondering is what can we all do with all of this? All of these men (it is men, right) doing all the icky stuff. We maybe need to get beyond shunning and figure out ways of correction.

2Recommend
malfeasance New York 4 hours ago
Devoid of logic, the Anti-Woody cavalcade rolls on. It ignores that a full investigation was done. It ignores that if Dylan Farrow’s accusations are true, and her equally famous mother was aware of these misdeeds and did nothing, she is liable in a court of law (and should be so in court of public opinion). If the author wants to lay blame at this point, he should give a nod to the MeToo hysteria that has swept away everything in its path.

2Recommend

Connie 1024 4 hours ago
I look forward to reading A.O. Scotts next confessional contemplation … about Fellini … and Hitchcock … and Wilder … and every other director before 2018.

Look, I’ve always despised Manhattan and found it creepy … and found it strange that I was in a very small minority who felt that way … but I don’t feel a need to completely rewrite the emotional history of cinema (or my emotional history) because of #MeToo.

To think about it, yes. To rewrite it, no.

6Recommend
Erica San Francisco 4 hours ago
Artists are complex and often terrible humans. What makes the art great is what’s rolling around in someone’s brain and how they manifest it on their instrument, whether that be a musical instrument, paper or film etc. What’s rolling around in there include drugs, desires, ambitions, creepy and otherwise. The art wouldn’t have been made without them. Enjoy the art, whether it’s Allen or Van Gogh. We’re all human after all and this outlet is what makes the human condition tolerable.

3Recommend

Policarpa Salavarrieta Bogotá, Colombia 4 hours ago
Mr. Scott I empathize with your dilemma. Societies all over the world are coming to terms with new norms and mores on sexual abuse. We in Colombia are equally shaken up as one woman after another comes forward with accusations against powerful men, including a powerful ex-president.

Woody Allen always seemed like an artistic genius and a psychologically-conflicted individual. He e repeatedly portrayed the latter in his films, but it takes a bit of reflection to understand the profound genius in the art.

It is not academic dogma to separate the art from the man (or woman). Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were apparently, by current definitions, pedophiles. Read Plato´s Symposium. Should we re-interpret his work, now applying this lens.

And then there is the old quandary of Heidegger and his Nazi sympathies. Or closer to my home, there is Gabriel García Márquez´s long embrace of Fidel Castro, or the militant communist activism of the great Chilean poet Pablo Neruda.

This is a slippery slope that can only elevate social norms over art. Art by definition needs to challenge such norms. For the record, I believe Woody Allen even as my heart goes out to his daughter Dylan. But I am not ready to turn off the film projector.

It would be like the old Soviet practice of airbrushing discredited figures out of the old leadership portraits. It´s a false perspective and a distorted history. In this we agree, Mr. Scott: the history of film cannot airbrush away Woody Allen.

4Recommend
Alessandro Italy 4 hours ago
In fact, I think we should allow publication of artistic work only coming from persons whose private life and thoughts pass some form of morality exam (to be devised) formally administered by a public committee, possibly meeting by twitter under the tag #PromoteVirtueSupressVice; and their works should also be subjected to similar scrutiny.

In their spare time said committee should evaluate artistic work of the past using the same criteria, evaluating whether said works were suitably gender and race unbiased, while checking any blemishes in the private life of their authors. In this process, rumors should count as evidence if their source can be attributed to a member of a disadvantaged social segment.

I propose that the works should be inscribed in a document (to be called “The Index”) and their authors in a directory (to be called “The List”) for perpetual shunning by all well meaning, correctly minded individuals.

I have no doubt this process will vastly improve the contemporary artistic outlook, besides creating vast quantities of much needed space in our currently cramped museums and libraries.

1Recommend

Sara Oakland 4 hours ago
Woody Allen started to degrade as a creative filmmaker as his internal world leaked out into his life.Recent films have seemed derivative, shallow- and often rehashing a vision of women as crazy & craven, as though he is arguing against Mia.Blue Jasmine dragged Cate Blanchett into insanity on a park bench, trivializing her husband’s (heart knows what it wants) passion for a baby sitter.

The public seemed to forgive the dumb miscasting of Owen Wilson in a movie that should’ve remained a dinner party musing.
While his early work seemed to weave fresher elements of his nebbish anxieties & fantasies (how did he get away with making Wally Shawn the nebbish?), self-deprecating candor and interesting homages (Interiors, Starlight Express)–most of us understood he liked to cast himself with women above his pay grade, so to speak. Yes- he proved that quirky intelligence could be winning. (If only more women got such an opportunity…)
Then Match Point was openly cruel & cynical, Vicky Cristina Barcelona was saved by fine casting, and he should get praise for getting Wiest a comic role in Bullets Over Broadway.
But recent films have lost authenticity, momentum, purpose. They have seemed almost insultingly trivial, self-indulgent.
The man increasingly looks like an aging fetus–as though his arrested development is the basis for seeking a 20 year old childwife; his psychology no longer gets sublimated into art but is lived. Who knows if he is criminal or perverse; he is lost.

5Recommend
shallots brooklyn 4 hours ago
I’m not making light of the moral dilemma. However, one might consider throwing away those Frank Sinatra albums too. Apparently, Farrow didn’t feel, all those years later, that Sinatra had wronged her by marrying her when she was 21 and he was 50 (because she saw him again years later and had relations with him – possibly even producing a son). I’m not saying any of them are right but I’m certainly NOT discarding my Sinatra recordings!

6Recommend

czb alexandria, va 4 hours ago
Suppose suppose we learn Cezanne treated women poorly. Would that make his art less accomplished? Not comparing Allen to Cezanne but c’mon. The art is good or it is not.

3Recommend
Boomer Boston 4 hours ago
I think it’s odd to view Allen as a role model, before or after any revelations about his private life; it requires a complete lack of contact with reality.

It’s just as odd not to see his films differently after those revelations. I’ve tried to watch Manhattan once post Soon-Yi, and it gives me the creeps.

Recommend
G C B Philad 4 hours ago
In the 1950s people argued for a time that biography had no place in criticism. Now many assume the biographical element of art is its essence, the real story at its heart. Complicating matters is the nervous titillation, producing befuddlement, that surrounds sex. It’s easy to lose perspective. In retrospect the great thing about Woody Allen was his celebration of the lives of the intellectually curious.

1Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
Unfortunately the author « problem with woody allen »
is in fact in a different sphere then he seem to inclined to believe.
The so called “problem » consist in the fact that any journalist who gives a different opinion today from his preceding position is decisively a hypocrite.
The insanely ironic part consist in the following detail … In the light of the arrival of Time ‘s Up, mr. Allen accusation makes even less sense as there no new proofs as anyone who could and might have been abused by Allen would have been out.
But there is no sign of such news or else and that alone is such a strong argument against the case that any self respecting journalist should have left the matter alone unless a new testimonial or accusation has arrived.
The only visible difference seem to be the unperishing desire of Dylan’s Farrow to be the spearhead of a movement who silently , but somehow stubbornly has refused to accosiate with her and her rather insistent claim to an everyday attention. Which she could have gained much easily and dignified if she brought Allen to court as in Connecticut the time limit for civil and criminal charges is still open.

2Recommend
hd Colorado 4 hours ago
Have you all forgotten the recovered memories scandal. I have no idea if Mr. Allen is guilty of the acts Dylan Farrow claims. Apparently we will never know but in the current atmosphere many are willing to assume he is guilty. Shame on you. We don’t know, but yet many are willing to jump on the bandwagon.

3Recommend

steve nyc 4 hours ago
It bears noting that Woody Allen’s behavior, other than that unproven abuse of Dylan Farrow, is not, has never been, nearly as predatory, prolific and perverse as that of Donald Trump.

One is a quirky filmmaker. The other is President of the United States.

8Recommend
Peter Cini Boston, MA 4 hours ago
Do we hate Mozart now since Don Giovanni was a bit of a cad? What about the hundreds of others who scripted plays and operas on the Don Juan theme? Will #MeToo ban Moliere for his Don Juan?

1Recommend
CB Chicago 4 hours ago
How can you look at the movies OR the media reports and make a decision on innocence or guilt? The reality is none of us were there; we simply cannot know the truth. Mr. Scott starts to get to something more significant when he examines his own role as movie critic oblivious to the social context and cultural ideology that films (all films, not just Allen’s) swim in. I doubt I am the only female filmgoer who, long before the allegations, found some of the sexual politics of Allen’s films problematic. But that hardly distinguishes his films from 90% of cinema, frankly. It’s certainly important for critics to situate art within the overall cultural and historical position of the artist, but that doesn’t warrant becoming self-appointed judge of the disputed details of his or her personal life.

4Recommend
Peter D Brooklyn 4 hours ago
Anyone who is genuinely curious about the underlying facts would do well to read this article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast. written by the director of a documentary about Allen, it struck me as well-balanced and credible.

2Recommend
Liberal Liberal Liberal is a trusted commenter Northeast 4 hours ago
For all of you, including A. O. Scott, who wish to try Woody Allen, feel free. But, those of you who find him guilty and assess punishment upon him ought to understand this: Without basic due process, you are no better than a lynch mob. If you have any scintilla of justice-sense left in you despite the hysteria of metoo, this should give you pause at least.

7Recommend

Mark Crozier Free world 4 hours ago
What is this about? Artists are fallible like anyone else, they are not perfect, most of them are seriously imperfect in every way! Their art is probably — usually — the best thing about them. You enjoyed Allen’s work and for good reason. He is a highly talented writer! Personally I think his best film work was in the 70s with the odd exception like Whatever Works but let’s not hold that against him. So he has a fondness for dating and marrying women younger than him. Like this is so unusual? How old is Melania Trump? How many parts do you see in movies for older women, versus younger ones? Hollywood venerates youth, as does the fashion industry, as does the beauty industry, and the advertising industry, etc. As to the allegations, this was thoroughly investigated and the case was not pursued. Probably we will never know the real truth. So watch Allen’s films or don’t watch them — the choice is yours! But this ongoing trial by media is simply abhorrent.

5Recommend
JB New York City 4 hours ago
Valiant effort to parse the unanswerable dilemma about how to respond to wonderful art made by flawed artists. One thing I’d like to posit, is what about Woody Allen himself? He made his art at a time when the culture was more forgiving and/or resigned to male entitlement. If he was young filmmaker in today’s culture, would he not see his own preoccupations in a different light and address them with his usual perceptivity, and might not the result be to expose their predatory nature? I’d like to think so.

Recommend
Nasty Woman 2 Des Moines 4 hours ago
A few points to throw into this mix:

1. I think it was John Lennon who said something like, many people like to have art in their living room. They wouldn’t want the artist there, however.

2. Many great artists are known to be despicable people. Roman Polanski. Diego Rivera. Pablo Picasso, even Roald Dahl, who physically abused his wife, Patricia Neal. And what about Alfred Hitchcock and his documented obsession with icy young blond actresses?

2. I had the same feelings toward Woody Allen as Laura NY; great discomfort at the difference in ages of Woody and Mariel Hemingway in “Manhattan.” It’s clear that he has or had an unhealthy attraction to much younger women. Pair that with the fact that Mia Farrow had three husbands who were much older than she was: Frank Sinatra, Andre Previn, and Woody.Yin and yang, maybe.

3. No one that I’ve read yet has mentioned the economic outcome of the Woody/Mia conflict. Seems to me that A.O. Scott could have at least referred to the monetary value of Woody’s canon. Everyone’s all caught up in the morality. Will there be a boycott of his films? Will movie houses refuse to show them? What about all the hangers-on that profit from pontificating about Woody’s cinematic genius? Is he still funny? Who stands to benefit or suffer? Can you feel abhorrence at an artist’s behavior but still profit from it?

2Recommend
Clara Third Rock from the Sun 4 hours ago
I believe John M. Leventhal. Mia Farrow planted those memories in Dylan’s head, and now cannot relieve her daughter from her pain without implicating herself. I bet Farrow is kicking herself every day.

No matter how much Allen may, in his work, profess a fondness for teenage girls, a 7-year-old is a different story altogether.

Yes, I like Allen’s work, and sometimes wonder if that’s why I prefer to see him as innocent. But it all falls too neatly in place; the humiliating way in which Allen replaced Farrow and the convenient timing of Farrow’s accusations. Also, Allen has not since been accused of child abuse.

2Recommend
GO New York 4 hours ago
Woody’s personal life should remain just that. Mia and Woody had a bizarre relationshIp that should have remained private. It was Mia that dragged it into the public. I recall reading that she had the authorities investigate the alleged abuse of his daughter Dylan. I also read that the myriad of experts and a judge concluded that Woody was innocent. Now Moses has stepped forward and also said that Dylan was coerced by her jilted mother.

The world should stop listening to Dylan and make her move on with her life. Living this twisted identity that likely was created as an excuse to crucify her father for dumping Mia cannot be healthy. Move on Dylan, move on Mia, move on Ronan! The world could be obsessed with finding out if Mia lied to Woody about fathering his son, not owning up to the possibility that he may be a Sinatra, bit nobody seems to care.

If the world wants to attack Woody for a crime he was cleared of in court, then Mia must be put under the microscope too. Ever read the book “Mr. S: My Life With Frank Sinatra” ? She is depicted in the book as morally deficient. Just makes you wonder. If she deserves the benefit of the doubt, Woody certainly does.

4Recommend
Zoey Detroit 4 hours ago
I don’t believe his daughter. While we may think his interest in 17 y/o young women might be deviant, it is not criminal; he doesn’t have a past hx of abuse/assault; and Mia Farrow was guilty of some “immoral” conduct having an affair with Sinatra while with Allen and supposedly bearing Sinatra’s child (Ronan) and claiming it was Allen’s. What is it that Dylan Farrow wants exactly? For everyone to roundly condemn her father or have a mob go after him? Sue him for civil damages or do what you must, but he has not been prosecuted even though doctors examined her as a child and concluded there was no evidence. Mia was, sure, rightly upset at being dumped for her adopted daughter, but she wanted movie roles and paycheck as well. Why is no one talking to her? Watch the 60 Minutes interview. I believed him then, I do now. All eyes should be on the government right now. That’s what matters.

5Recommend
lechrist Southern California 4 hours ago
The year that “Annie Hall” won best film, I entered a predict the Oscars contest which was quite complicated. I also was a TV-film critic at the time and had done my homework. I won unlimited tickets for myself and a guest to the particular theater who ran the contest and ended up seeing “The Deerhunter” about 20 times with different friends. Woody was a notable part of my life during that era and someone whom I revered.

As I matured, the idea of Allen as a romantic lead with younger and younger females soured in my mind. Then out came the story that Mia Farrow went to Allen’s apartment and discovered a naked picture of Soon-Yi on his fireplace mantle.

That bit of disgusting information was too much for me. And as more and more details came out over the years, I have chosen to put Allen on a faraway shelf back in the experiences of my life. He comes under the category of “what was I thinking?” and “I’m older and much wiser now.”

I still feel a great sadness for all of his victims and that includes Soon-Yi.

PS~Mr. Scott, I appreciate your frank sharing but also know that Allen was always miles beneath your personal appeal inside and out.

2Recommend
fast/furious the new world 4 hours ago
I defended Woody Allen for years.

I stopped after watching Dylan Farrow interviewed on tv. It was unbearable. And for the life of me, I can see no reason for her to lie.

I was helped by her brother Ronan speaking out for her recently. Ronan Farrow was instrumental in exposing Harvey Weinstein’s long career as a rapist. Farrow said he was ashamed that years ago he didn’t support his sister and found her agony over being assaulted inconvenient to him personally. He is sorry for that and supports her now.

Ronan Farrow has a lot of credibility with me. But it shouldn’t have taken that. I should have found empathy for Ms. Farrow long before now. Better late than never.

4Recommend
RJ New York 4 hours ago
Your third paragraph makes a strong argument that to be fair (is fair something we still aspire to) we can’t honestly come to a conclusion one way or another. (Although you conveniently leave out that Moses Farrow is a Family Therapist and may know something about family dynamics and you failed to mention the latest example of Mia’s extraordinary anger, her saying, true or not, that Rowan is actually Frank Sinatra’s son). To be ‘fair’ we can’t really know.

1Recommend
Monica Berkeley 4 hours ago
What impressionable adolescent girl wouldn’t see through the schtick and have no interest in the creepy middle-aged guy and the movies that seemed to have one subplot to tell, over and over and over? We would have treated it to an adolescent eye-roll, except we knew it was connected to a lifetime of dangers and pitfalls.

Entitlement for him meant encroachment for us.
Endorsement from movie critics meant incrimination to us.
Perhaps he played to a fantasy self you admired. For us, he perpetuated a real-life male gaze, power dynamics, and sexual politics we sought to evade.
His works didn’t inform memories so much as replicate some of the less likable parts of the world for a great many people.

Thank you for writing this piece. You are of my generation.
I do not excuse you for a past reception of his work that now evokes betrayal and shame for you. You participated in the betrayal of us.
I do ask you not to let up on the gas now.

2Recommend
NYT Pick
hk hastings-on-hudson, ny 4 hours ago
I stopped watching Woody Allen’s movies many years ago because of their sexism and sometimes outright misogyny. You simply weren’t paying attention to his portrayal of women. “Sexy”? Maybe to heterosexual, nerdy men. Yes, we can still cite jokes from Bananas and Annie Hall, but that was a long time ago. Those movies were comedically brilliant but I was young and if I had been older I would probably have seen the sexism in them too. Way back in 1979 the movie “Manhattan” had Allen dating a gorgeous high school student and comparing her favorably to women Allen’s age.

Also, you should have paid attention when Ronan Farrow first said “My father married my sister.”

20Recommend
lindanotes SC 4 hours ago
The charm of ‘Manhattan’ is the city of New York and the music of Gershwin. The film otherwise is forgettable except for the creepy 42/17 romance.

2Recommend
Jay Why NYC 4 hours ago
Even when Woody Allen reached the heights of artistic renown with Annie Hall, a near perfect film, those of us who were fans from the beginning remembered him emerging from the ethos of Playboy magazine. It’s hard to believe but Playboy was considered the absolute height of sophistication in the sixties. Its nude layouts while fueling the fantasies of young men were regarded as progressively
Woody Allen fit right into the Playboy sensibility. Literally, as on at one occasion, he posed for one pictorial with his thumb circling the naked breast of a buxom blonde.
In his early film scripts like What’s New Pussycat, What’s Up Tiger Lily and Casino Royale, you can clearly see the Playboy sensibility at play. Lust for the blonde buxom ideal shiksa is a prime motivator tacitly approved. In the last two titles, the nebbishy Allen archetypal character pursues the bombshell himself alas without success, a result that will change during his post Annie Hall auteur period.
It doesn’t seem like such a big stretch from the Playboy sensibility to the hebephilic. Both involve objectification. And Woody Allen makes it nearly explicable through his great artistry in Manhattan (as does Nabokov in Lolita).
Looking at Woody Allen’s work through the lens of today definitely makes his oeuvre disturbing. Perhaps refracting that through his early work might make it more so. One thing is certain. A unified sensibility is on display throughout.

4Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 4 hours ago
If women are going to condemn Woody Allen going after and later marrying Soon Yi at a young age of about 20, then also condemn the late Frank Sinatra and Mia Farrow. Sinatra- 50 years old and Farrow 21 when they married. Their affair started earlier than that , so i’d say she was about 20 and Sinatra 49. This cuts both ways. You can’t condemn Allen’s and Soon Yi’s actions without condemning Sinatra’s and Farrow’s. The Allen haters will hate and come up with some lame excuse as always to ignore this fact.

3Recommend
TD NYC 4 hours ago
Since the allegations against him were investigated and found to be baseless, and Mia Farrow was found to have coached and coerced the statement from the child, why is this even being discussed? As a divorce lawyer once told me, as soon as a woman gets divorced, all of a sudden the husband becomes a child molester. It is unfortunately a common and almost predictable scenario. Considering Ms. Farrow came out and said her son was probably Sinatra’s son and not Woody’s how credible is she? Speaking of which, she is horrified by the age difference between Woody and Previn? Now let’s talk about the age difference between Farrow and Sinatra when they married. Farrow has zero credibility.

5Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
And if NYT commenting section do in some way represent the opinion of the more cultivated and thoughtful public, then the position of the above mentioned public seem to go for rather overwhelming consensus that Allen is very probably innocent on the accusations.
And if in a alternative universe i was an investigating journalist i would have looked at closer at the
implications suggested by the following tweet of Bob Weide. I doubt a public figure would allow him self to post such a hardcore insinuation without a very serious backup. The reaction of the involved was silence.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bobweide/status/951523229813825536

Recommend
NYT Pick
Diane Hillmann Jacksonville, NY 4 hours ago
As an adoptive parent, it’s the rationalization about the relationship with Soon-Yi that soured me on Woody Allen. Although he had not formally adopted her when married to Mia Farrow, he undoubtedly had a parental role of some kind, as he would have had with Ms. Farrow’s other children. In most adopted and step families, the notion of incestuous relationships is broader than it might be in traditional nuclear families (if there are any of those anymore), primarily because of the complexity and complicated losses in those families. The line there, when breached, leads into just the sort of family crisis that Ms. Farrow’s has experienced. “The heart wants what it wants” (from Emily Dickinson, not Woody Allen) is hard to argue with, but is not justification for the kind of behavior that Allen evidenced–selfish and horribly destructive to the rest of the family, not just the betrayed wife. I’ve never seen a movie of his since, hadn’t the stomach for it.

25Recommend
NYT Pick
Jordu Los Angeles 4 hours ago
I can’t avow or disavow Woody’s innocence as to the horrible acts of which he has been accused. I’ve lived long enough to know that humans are capable of horrific acts (including the making of false accusations). So, in the absence of an admission by Woody, or incontrovertible evidence, I prefer to remain agnostic. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do outside the world of film making. Within the world of film making, I know that he created small masterpieces and I know that those works bring me great joy. If our standard now is that we should not consume the works of artists who are also cretins, wouldn’t fair play dictate that we not enjoy the work of any artist, until we have had a full inquisition of all of his or her life? Do we know for a fact that Shakespeare did not sexually abuse children? Do we know for a fact that Victor Hugo did not beat his wife or his mistresses? Do we know for a fact that Edgar Allan Poe did not engage in incest with other relatives of his? If our aim is to punish artists who are despicable people by boycotting their art, we’re not doing our boycott justice by leaving so many stones unturned. I think it’s better to accept the fact that artists can be and often are deeply flawed people, but those flaws do not detract from their talents as artists.

17Recommend
liberally minded new york city 4 hours ago
Why publish this article? The case was brought before a judge in 1992/93 and therapists interviewed the child Dylan and came to the conclusion that she may have been coached, Dylan kept changing her story. Every awards season, this story crops up. I attribute this to Mia and her son Ronan. I feel sorry for Dylan to have grown up with these nasty, angry people. Woody Allen writes great roles for women and they win awards.

2Recommend
Say What New York, NY 4 hours ago
We can all believe one or other but no one can say with certainty what happened between Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen. Though we can say with certainty about what happened between Soon-Yi and Woody Allen. On that matter, I pass moral judgement against Woody Allen since that is something I would not have done even if my heart wanted it. On that basis and along with his unrestrained narcissism and his apparently unquenchable fascination for young women in his stories, I no longer wish to watch his movies. There are so many beautiful movies made across the globe each year covering a smorgasbord of human experience. I would rather support them.

Recommend

Wally Wolf Texas 4 hours ago
I think this alleged situation became a weapon due to the dreadful breakup of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. It’s true that Woody handled the breakup very badly and it’s been determined by many that Mia used Dylan to get back at Woody. That said, all I know is that nothing like this ever happened before the Allen/Farrow breakup or after, which doesn’t match the behavior of a true pedophile or someone who abuses women. Just because there is a strong women’s movement now against sexual abuse does not make Woody any more guilty now of something he was accused of decades ago and found innocent. I have been and will be a big fan of Woody’s art, that is unless some other situation comes up to disprove his innocence.

1Recommend
NYT Pick
Terry Princeton, NJ 4 hours ago
Thank you for sharing how much of a mentor Woody Allen was for you even as you question whether you were attracted to something as an adolescent that may repulse you now in hind sight. I am struggling with the “artist and his art” thing… and I think you are right to say that it might be best not to indulge in such all or nothing approaches. Yes, a movie is a movie and life is life, but art cannot help but be informed by what an artist brings to it from his real and imagined experiences. We would be missing a lot to think otherwise. I also believe that whether or not Allen is guilty or innocent of the charges of sexual abuse against him by Dylan Farrow is too narrow a measure for deciding how to feel about him or his art. I think it is possible for both of them to be telling the truth albeit from very different perspectives.

2Recommend
BNYgal brooklyn 4 hours ago
Woody Allen was not allowed to have unsupervised visits after the trial. That is pretty telling, right there.

3Recommend
Barbara Virginia 4 hours ago
I thank Mr. Scott for his honesty and introspection. I found the movie Manhattan to be repulsive because it brought home to me that Allen’s Jewish intellectual nebbishness is not a reflection of emotional truth that becomes deeper over time, but an endless loop of ego fulfillment that becomes stagnant and dull. If you could imagine Peter Pan as a grown up living in Manhattan, his love life would probably be a lot like Allen’s. I wish I could overcome my skepticism about Dylan Farrow’s memory, but one thing is clear, someone has profoundly wronged Dylan Farrow. I am just not sure it was Woody Allen.

1Recommend
Smith PA 4 hours ago
I just read this article as well as the Timeline and I’d like to add a few pertinent milestones: In 1969 Dory Previn discovered her friend Mia Farrow was having an affair and was pregnant by her husband Andre. Andre leaves Dory for 23 year old Mia pregnant with his twins. Dory Previn has a breakdown and is hospitalized and receives electroshock therapy. She write “Beware of Young Girls” for her next album. It was horrible what Allen did to her with Soon-Yi (not his adopted daughter, though) but perhaps Mia then knew how Dory felt when she broke up her family. Jump ahead to the first day of shooting Manhattan Murder Mystery when Mia showed up for work on Allen’s film after accusing him of molesting Dylan. Why?? Then in 2005, Mia defends her friend Roman Polanski in court (not related to his conviction for sodomizing a 13 year old but still eager to help a friend). If Dylan really wants Timberlake, Winslet, and others not to have anything to do with alleged abuser Allen why is she still associating with her mother? Last thing: I was disgusted when Mia came out a couple of years ago and claimed Ronan could be Sinatra’s kid. How disrespectful to Mrs. Sinatra and the Sinatra Family. So she cheated on Allen with a married Sinatra and she’s upset Allen cheated on her?? This whole thing is bazaar. If Dylan was abused she deserves our compassion. I just don’t think she should shame innocent people who have worked with Allen.

4Recommend
Thomaspaine17 new york 4 hours ago
Charles Dickens, they say, was an anti-Semite, yet his books are still well read. Henry Ford cozied up to Nazis, yet I would still buy an automobile from his company. We must separate the man from the work. What man, after all is an Angel. yet some are given gifts from God for all the world to enjoy. Many times the vessel used is imperfect, but the gift is the same regardless. Art does not come from the pretty places, or the contented souls. the artist it seems must experience darkness, pain, sadness from these things comes the individual infallibility that unlocks the doors to the universal truth regarding the human condition. Enjoy the art, without reservation. It is a part of us that wants the artist to be perfect as the art, that is wrong.

1Recommend
surgery200 philadelphia, PA 4 hours ago
“One of the most powerful illusions encouraged by popular art is that its creators are people the rest of us know…. their childhoods and news of their marriages and divorces feed our prurient appetites…we can peek into their lives…..they carry intimate baggage into their work and invite us to sort through the contents.” The same applies to Chaplin whose fixations with teenage girls traced back to his childhood (http://www.chaplinalife.com/photo_essays/05.html) and provided us with masterpieces that have stood the test of time.

1Recommend
Crusader Rabbit Tucson, AZ 4 hours ago
If Woody were female and NYT commenters were attacking her for being ugly and unattractive, the feminists would be out with the long knives. So let’s be sure to credit those hypocrites where credit is due.

While I (we) will never absolutely know whether Woody or Dylan is telling the truth, if Dylan is accurate then Woody would be the only one-time pedophile in history. I never heard of a Catholic priest who was a one-time pedophile-they always seem to be repeat offenders. Based on that alone, I’d give Woody the benefit of the doubt. Sure he’s pretty weird but he’s an entitled artist; he has many fellow offenders (but they’re not attacked as much because they’re not Jewish).

Recommend
T.R.Devlin Geneva 4 hours ago
Somebody is lying and it is not clear who .Until it is I will continue to buy tickets to Woody Allen films.

Recommend
TomMorrow Texas 4 hours ago
I don’t understand whenever Farrow supporters reference the judge/prosecutor alleging they had enough evidence to prosecute Allen but decided not to because it would be too hard for Dylan. Really? If this was all true wouldn’t seeing her abuser walk around free be more damaging than the trial to her? If he was truly a child molester wouldn’t it be more damaging if he was free to molest more children? Why would a court allow that? So by Farrow supporter logic it’s totally fair for a court to just let a pedophile walk? The clear reality is they had no evidence and made some off the cuff remark out of spite that now people love to latch onto despite it’s non-sensical nature.

Recommend
Pmurt Dlanod Never Land 4 hours ago
The current trend in #MeToo appears to be “guilt by accusation” followed by arbitrary punishment. Proof, or anything faintly resembling it, is not necessary. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. #MeToo would rather punish 1000 innocent men than let one guilty man escape. Go for it.

Recommend
Rufus W. Nashville 4 hours ago
I just keep recalling something Ronan Farrow wrote: “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression… I cannot see him.” That is but one of my Woody Allen problems.

2Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
My “Woody Allen Problem” consist in being a spectator of the indignified “theatre” of a young woman who hasn’t pressed any legal charges since her majority 14 years ago.
Who is asking for a trial and condamnation while entirely skipping the legal system society has created.
I will stand with any victim who tries to stop her abuser of doing more harm, but this is not what i see.
Dylan Farrow is giving an utterly wrong message to the rest of the victims which is to skip entirelly the légal part and run for public condamnation only.
And my suspicions are further kindled by the absence of appeal for other victims to come out.
Why is that? They will certainly give a stronger credibility to her case.
And the fact that Ronan and Mia Farrow hasn’t been
présent with support since the third wave of renewed
allegations on their major public platform Tweeter
makes me wonder if after using them in 2014 to start Ronan’s media career they would have prefered
to close the issue seen that there is nothing to be gained anymore from it.
These are facts and not suppositions. Check them out before claiming them faulted.

2Recommend
Josh Smith Augusta, Georgia 4 hours ago
I think we should keep in mind the context and time period in which Allen made his romantic comedies. The 1970’s returned non-Wasp film heroes to roles as leading men and women. (I say “restore” because some of the early stars of film, such as Al Jolson and Hedy Lamarr were Jewish.) Although Robert Redford, Ryan O’Neil, and Warren Beatty were certainly prominent in this era, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Walter Matthau, Elliot Gould, George Segal, Gene Wilder, Gene Hackman, Richard Pryor, Barbara Streisand and Elaine May added much needed diversity. Woody Allen explores in film what Phillip Roth examined in his novel American Pastoral– the challenges jews face in adapting and conforming to the American masculine ideal. Though I agree that the premise of romantic comedies–male rescuing female, and vice versa– is ripe for re-examination and maybe discarding, a lot of the artistic merit and novelty of woody allen’s films was seeing a non-traditional, non-Wasp hero in that role of romantic hero. That Allen seemed “entitled” and acted poorly toward his girlfriends in his movies is a type of revisionism that focuses on the wrong-doing of men in general– when I think the point of his movies is that you don’t have to look like Humphrey Bogart to be as misanthropic as Bogart’s character was in the movie In A Lonely Place. I think the American masculine ideal is the problem, not the artists exploring how insane that ideal is– especially for jews and other minorities.

Recommend
Peter Giordano NYC 4 hours ago
This piece fails on several different levels. Most of all, it continues the policy of giving Mia Farrow a pass on all of the reasonable questions against her. Dylan is clearly a victim but, in reality, she is just as likely a victim of her mother’s obsessions and even members of her own family think so.

1Recommend
HopeJones san francisco, ca 4 hours ago
People continue to cough up false and distorted information in defense of Allen. Here’s part of Vanity Fair’s review of the data: 5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” 6. Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. [Some damning descriptions follow.] .7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

1Recommend
Barry b NYC 4 hours ago
Woody Allen’s movies are plotted and clunky. They are propped up by his ability to get celebrity actors to appear in his films. His last good movie was Annie Hall and Diane Keaton held that movie together. Since then it has been one plopper after another. I refuse to attend his movies for two reasons: One, they are awful, and two his behavior having an affair with the daughter of his all but live in girlfriend whether legal or not is disgraceful behavior which has been ignored because his is an “Artist” He makes a movie a year because this is what he loves, but most people ignore his movies. They are stupid, and meaningless, and now that he won’t get the stars to work with him, he will disappear as he well should.
b

2Recommend
Jill G. NYC 4 hours ago
Woody Allen is an extremely talented writer/director/actor/musician. He is also a completely repulsive, disgusting, immoral, self-obsessed, ugly little man who thinks it’s fine to be just the way he is. I remember coming out of his film Manhattan and feeling like I should go home and take a shower. His creepy middle-aged character has an affair with a 16-year-old high school girl? That’s child molestation. I suspect the criminal charges against him are true, and I’m glad he’s finally feeling the heat. But the sad thing is – it’s too late. He’s an old man now, and he got away with it.

3Recommend
Blackie Ocean Athens, GA 4 hours ago
Anyone commenting here who hasn’t read the the Allen vs. Farrow Custody Ruling, June 7, 1993 should do so. In fact, anyone should read it who says Allen was cleared or that Farrow coached Dylan, as these points are addressed in detail by the Judge, as are many other things.

Read here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-…

3Recommend
Eduardo Cintra Torres Caxias, Portugal 4 hours ago
Mr Scott writes as if he knows for certain that Mr. Allen is a criminal and proposes that his work should be blacklisted.
I’m sure Mr Jdanov and Senator McCarthy would agree with Scott.

2Recommend
Malina Paris 4 hours ago
Mia Farrow declared publicly that Roma Farrow might not be the son of Woody Allen but Frank Sinatra. Wether she lies or not it’s a terrible thing to say since her son hears it too. That’s a very troubling news to hear for a son. Did she let her son believe that it was a possibility that Frank Sinatra could be his father or did she tell him not to worry about it that she only said that to get back at Woody Allen? Either way this is called being manipulative. Roman Farrow is very intelligent but intelligent people get manipulated too.

1Recommend

ComradeBrezhnev Morgan Hill 4 hours ago
Making a mountain out of a molehill. The mining of the ancient past for sins against humanity is part of the Left eating itself, so I guess I shouldn’t complain. But this exercise itself is ugly and disgusting. But I am waiting to find out how the Left will punish Bill Clinton- close down his Presidential Library? Put an asterisk by his name? I do remember vividly his defenders- sex is his private life, no matter the age difference (Woody?) and the extreme power differential. Well, I guess it’s time to re-evaluate. Dig in Nasty Women and Men of the Left.

1Recommend
Julien Levy Paris 4 hours ago
As a foreigner reading the NYT, I have the feeling that he US is now split between 2 ugly sides: the Trump side, populist and vulgar and the left side, puritan and sunk into identity politics. Both are ugly. What has become of the USA? I used to love the US as a model for freedom, it’s present state despairs me. Bigotry triumphs.
I am shocked to read every day crudely ideological pieces in what used to be liberal newspapers that are more encline to judge than to understand complexity. Better to name and shame than to think. When a critic goes and visits the Louvre Abu Dhabi the whole paper is about political correctness. Idem for fashion shows in Paris. Weinstein is not about a sick vile guy but a symptom of patriarchy: I have not read any discussion about that bias (so when terrorists killed hundreds of people at the Bataclan in Paris, Islam must be blamed. Really?). And now any subject should be treated in terms of PC: are the desires of the male artist pure? Does he pass the test of good father/good husband/good citizen/good women’s fight friend ? And if not what do we do with them? Ban them from museums, concert halls and cinemas? Erase them from movies?
When identity politics (the world must be divided between victims and oppressors) meet PC (what is allowed to be said or not) meets puritanism (sex is dangerous and evil), the final result is ugly. No longer about individuals but about tribes, not about reason but about judgement, not about free thinking but conformity.

9Recommend
PK Gwynedd, PA 4 hours ago
Diane Keaton recommends watching Allen’s 60 Minutes interview in 1992. All about Dylan and Mia. Very interesting.

1Recommend
Nada Mirkovic Zagreb Croatia 4 hours ago
Being attracted to yound women has absolutely nothing to do with molesting a child. Why do we compare that, why is it even in the same article?

3Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
Few ignored facts on Dylan Farrow accusations
and a charming, but not well known uptake on Mia Farrow from a close friend. Oh, also the original paper of the court document as someone present a Huffpo article with very selective extracts as the entire ruling.

opinion on Dylan Farrow vs Woody Allen from woodyallen

http://thecommonills.blogspot.fr/2014/02/mia-and-her-brood-drag-whatever…

http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf

2Recommend
dizexpat Mexico City 4 hours ago
Even though these are fairly standard answers there are three strong reasons why I believe Woody Allen is completely innocent.
1. Despite the controversy over the accuracy of lie detector tests, people who know they are guilty almost never both agree to take one and pass it. Bill Cosby has never taken a lie detector test and never will.
2. Child molestation is habitual behavior. It’s not something that happens once only. Yet, no other such alleged incident has ever been reported.
3. Mia Farrow’s feelings towards Woody Allen. Nuff said.
4. Considering the very high standards used by adoption agencies towards perspective parents, the fact that he and his wife were permitted to adopt says a lot.
5. ” I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.” Lillian Hellman.

4Recommend

Ambient Kestrel Southern California 4 hours ago
“… this is unquestionably an age of self-display. And one of its founding fathers, without a doubt, is Woody Allen, the neurotic Narcissus of the Me Generation, the bridge between midcentury psychoanalysis and digital-era selfie culture.”

Brilliant analysis, thank you, Mr. Scott.

I used to find him funny but now view him as a badly aging and slightly creepy jerk – an anti-role model for male maturity.

3Recommend
DC Seattle, WA 4 hours ago
If we’re going to entangle the art with the artist in this case, what about other cases? Should you stop looking at Picasso paintings, and should museums stop displaying them? If your favorite author turns out to have an unsavory sexual past, should you throw his/her books out? If you discover the architect of the building you’re in was a sexual predator, should you run outside and refuse to go back? If the designer of your clothes was less than angelic sexually, should your burn the clothes and buy new ones?

Come to think of it, why limit this to art? How about the designer of your favorite app? Of your car? Of your kitchen appliances? Of your neighborhood? Of your lawn mower? Once you go down this road, how far do you go? Where’s the line? IS there a line?

If people who think this way want to be consistent, there might be an awful lot of stuff they need to stop doing.

1Recommend
Terry Bell London 4 hours ago
What happens to all teenage crushes that linger oh so long, Mr Scott. They end up in a fit of the blues. Other than that, you have now credentialed yourself with the zeitgeist. I will stick with old standards like due process. And the fact his marriage to Soo-Yi has lasted two decades. Who are you to judge?

2Recommend
diana new york 4 hours ago
Maybe Soo Yi has nowhere else to go.

2Recommend
bill walker newtonw, pa 4 hours ago
You stare that Mr Allen was not Soon-Yi’s father or stepfather, even if he was the father of her half siblings. However the categorization of half-siblings is inaccurate. Soon-YI was adopted by Ms. Farrow – she had no blood relationship to either Ronan Farrow (Allen and Farrow’s biological child) or Dyan and Moses Farrow whom Mia Farrow adopted and later were adopted by Mr. Allen as well.

Recommend
Zeldie Stuart Delray Beach, Fla 4 hours ago
A.O. Scott, wow lots of angry people but I’m here to stand alongside you and agree with everything you say in your article. I, a very attractive Jewish accomplished woman, with many girlfriends and guy friends living in NYC who partied and enjoyed excesses in those Woody Allen years, could never understand his appeal. Short, ugly, thin, balding, poorly dressed kvetch. Yuck yuck and yuck. We all agreed that we would never date such an unattractive guy. We saw his movies out of curiosity and were disgusted by his constant ugly negative portrayal of women whom he would dump for a young woman who could be his daughter, when he was always the most unattractive person in his films. My friends (both women and men) would say “yea in his dreams”. Because none amongst us would ever want a friend like Woody Allen.

5Recommend
April Vancouver 4 hours ago
I haven’t watched a Woody Allen film for a long time. Once you notice that he doesn’t like women much it just becomes more and more obvious. Of course, there’s always the one woman who is allowed to be attractive and ok but the others are cowardly, mean, or crazy and made to look unattractive as the movie goes on. I enjoyed his movies when I was a lot younger but when about 20 years ago decided to watch some of the old ones I was amazed at how thin and shallow they actually were.

4Recommend
NYT Pick
Laura NY 4 hours ago
As a young student and film lover I enjoyed Allen’s early comedies..except for the purile viewpoint. With all that was new in sexual attitudes at that time (late 60’s-early 70’s) I tried to be open-minded. My truing point was “Manhattan”….I was extremely uncomfortable with the film and from then on I felt Allen’s was clearly putting women in his films that he wanted to be involved with..his own dating machine. I have never seen a film of his since Manhattan. His willingness to cross all boundaries for his own self gratification…including his history and then marriage to his daughter is predatory and cannot be normalized. Soon-Yi trusted him as a father figure until he groomed her and shifted this relationship to his liking. He is a predator…I cannot see him any other way…….

28Recommend
Marty Jacksonville 4 hours ago
My “Woody Allen Problem” is that one person has accused him of something, he has denied it, and somehow the fashionable thing in Hollywood is to say he’s guilty and shun him. That doesn’t seem fair to me.

5Recommend
Dheep P’ Midgard 4 hours ago
What I find interesting (& rather sad) in issues like this is the folks (multitudes) who seem to know every name ,location, date etc related to the prefab story & are so wrapped up into that they name the participants as if they know them personally. They talk as if they were there. They quote “facts”, times,places. And with such vigor, anger & vehemence. It is getting downright laughable & sad what this has all become.
Sure, soap opera has been done throughout time but now, it is multiplied to astounding proportions. Really, it has been said before, but – man – get a life !

Recommend
garyhere sequim,wa 4 hours ago
I haven’t watched a Woody Allen movie since he married his daughter. I used to enjoy some of his movies but I will not reward a sexual predator no matter how good he is at something else.

1Recommend
Lola New York City 4 hours ago
People who despise Woody made up there minds years ago. His place in film history is secure no matter who says what at this point. It is ironic that Dylan Farrow has attacked actors, including Cate Blanchett, for appearing in his fllms.
How Ironic! Dylan’s mother, Mia Farrow, appeared in “Rpsemary’s Baby”, directed by Roman Polanski, a fugitive from this country who admitted he drugged and raped a 13-year-old.
Unlike actors who now regret appearing in a Woody Allen film, we haven’t heard a word from Dylan’s own mother.

1Recommend
Jay Strickler Kentucky 4 hours ago
It is incredibly depressing to live in a country where people defend Woody Allen, who is clearly a sexual predator. Charges were not filed because the prosecutor did not want to put Dylan Farrow through the horrors of a court case, which sounds like an excuse for leaving this rich and famous sexual predator alone instead of having the guts to do the right thing and prosecute him. For those of you who have doubt…have you watched his moves? Did you notice that he is married to another victim? Of course, this is also the country that elected a sexual predator president.

1Recommend
Rick NYC 4 hours ago
“[He’s] a loyal friend, important to me, a distinguished director, important to the motion picture industry, and a brave and brilliant man, important to all people.”

From the probation report of Roman Polanski, written after the director had been charged with statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. The statement was submitted by the director’s friend and colleague, Mia Farrow.

The same Mia Farrow who was cheating with Frank Sinatra and passing his children off as Woody Allen’s. Take one look at Ronan Farrow and the genes can’t hide the lie. Is this someone capable of a vicious lie and a brainwashing campaign during a famously acrimonious divorce proceeding? Seems way more plausible than someone deciding to suddenly molest their daughter in a house full of people one weekend in the middle of the same proceedings. Not to mention, the prosecutors were dying to make a name for themselves with this case, but all the evidence and professional testimony was against them. No charges, no case.

Read Robert Weide’s exhaustive chronicle of this case. And also read up on false memories. The mind of a seven-year-old is an extremely malleable thing, and once planted false memories feel just as real, and just as detailed as a vivid dream. https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/hard-questions-for-ro…

4Recommend
Ultra Portland, OR 4 hours ago
You’re characterizing Woody Allen as “the neurotic Narcissus”? Yet this article is all about you, you, you–your feelings of ambivalence, your experiences, your conversations.

1Recommend
Barb The Universe 4 hours ago
Mariel Hemingway, Then 16, Was Terrified of Her Kissing Scene with Woody Allen in Manhattan…. Google it.

2Recommend

M. Callahan is a trusted commenter Moline, il 4 hours ago
Art is separate. Absolutely. As a playwright I have had my works reinterpreted. Look at the myriad versions of Tosca. Any movie is the work of more than one person. Their are hundreds of artists in Allen films. Is their work to be shaded? Hannah and Her Sisters is a great film. Parsifal is an amazing opera. Kafka demanded his works be burned. You are a good and nuanced critic. Unfortunately this column s neither.

Recommend
Lisa Murphy Orcas Island 4 hours ago
It’s stretching it a bit, but I regard this in the light of animal cruelty. I eat meat, but I know that I’m responsible for killing an animal so that I can. Woody Allen is quite probably a pedophile. If I watch a movie, I must do it with the knowledge that he has the mind of a child molester. We can still eat meat and watch the art of criminals. We just can’t pretend we dont know what we are supporting.

Recommend
ohmemercylard Louisville KY 4 hours ago
I tend to believe most every accuser in these instances. But I do not and never have believed one word from Mia Farrow. She is but a bitter neurotic who has made up vicious lies. Payback, nothing more. (Her child is a victim of brainwashing.)

Bear in mind that Mia has a rather sketchy history herself. Remember Dory Previn’s song, “Beware of blond girls bearing flowers”? A reference to Mia dropping by Dory’s house to steal her husband, Andre Previn (whom I assume is Soon-Yi’s actual adopted father).

My comments here are not based on the gender of the involved parties. I have long believed that Mia is a despicable individual who will do anything to get what she wants…in this case, vengeance.

1Recommend

Anne Russell Wrightsville Beach NC 4 hours ago
When Woody first emerged, I found his films unique and interesting. But viewing them now, I am find them boring. As for his marrying his adopted stepdaughter after seducing her, yuk. And for his alleged groping of his very young adopted daughter, the truth shall never be known and time to move on. Bye, Woody.

Recommend
Patty W Sammamish Wa 4 hours ago
I quit watching Allen’s movies, he’s a deviant. He took nude pictures of Soon Yi when she was still a teenager and living under Mia Farrow’s roof. He basically was a sexual predator toward Soon Yi, she had never dated anyone her own age and was a vulnerable girl with no life experiences . How many fathers of girls would think Allen taking nude pictures of their teenage daughters would be okay ? Roy Moore liked high school girls too ! I believe Dylan, the judge in the case felt there was evidence but felt it would be too harmful to Dylan to proceed. Shame on people for trying to deny Dylan her truth because of Allen’s fame.

Recommend
gnowzstxela nj 4 hours ago
Here’s the test question Mr. Scott: Would you want your son to watch Woody Allen movies, knowing that one effect may be to make Woody a role model for another generation, as Woody was for you?

1Recommend
RE NY 4 hours ago
Oh my goodness, yes I would like both of my sons to watch Woody Allen movies! They are funny, human, emotional, real, complex and completely absorbing! I would hope they would watch them with their female partners and talk about them as about any other challenging work of art!

1Recommend
gnowzstxela nj 4 hours ago
Good answer: Watch, but with different eyes.

1Recommend
kms New Jersey 4 hours ago
For some reason I could never put my finger on, Woody Allen always struck me as creepy and disgusting. I never saw any of his films because I didn’t like looking at him. When all the news came out about his marriage to his step-daughter and then the accusations by his other children/step children, I wasn’t at all surprised. On the other hand, I had always liked Mia Farrow and I wondered how she could not have known or chose not to know what was going on in her family. I feel sorry for all the kids.

Recommend
george coastline 4 hours ago
As a Catholic I was taught that sex was always wrong unless you were trying to make a baby with your wife who you married in the Church. That’s why it was the most enjoyable thing you could possibly do. And why Woody Allen was so funny.

3Recommend
DD LA, CA 5 hours ago
I refuse to discuss this issue with anyone who feels s/he can give me an opinion free of the facts laid out in Woody Allen’s own timeline. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out…
How can a critic for the NYT discuss the merits of the case without considering that article (in his own paper!) and the fact that Woody passed a lie detector test, and Mia refused to take it.
Ask your local cop who’d they believe in the argument.
Then let critics play a game with other ill-informed members of the general public who want to opine without considering the facts. By the way, if Mia has a timeline of her own, and explanations of what happened, let’s give her an op-ed berth.

2Recommend
Karen Phoenix 4 hours ago
Okay, I’ll play. I worked in the field of incest family treatment. Mr. Allen crossed an intergenerational boundary by virtue of the fact that he was in a long-term relationship with Mia Farrow. It was immaterial that he was neither Soon-Yi’s father or step-father, he was the mother’s long-time paramour and what know Soon-Yi since she was a child. Like it or not, he was in what is usually presumed to be in a role where anyone, Mia Farrow, Mr. Previn, Soon-Yi, or Rudy Giuliani would expect Mr. Allen to behave in a protective, caregiving role toward all the children in the Farrow household. This is considered incest. (See, C. Couturier; Barrett and Barrett; or Larson and Maddox). A lie detector is not admissiable in court, and is not a reliable test for innocence or guilt. Mr. Allen’s own words “The heart wants what it wants” speak volumes about his self-absorption, sense of entitlement, preoccupation with his own wants over basic family boundaries, and utter lack of empathy for Ms. Farrow or her child. These are typical patterns of nearly every incest offender my group treated.

And for the record, law enforcement and the criminal justice system consulted us on incest dynamics and and making sense of the often incomprehenisible words and behaviors of incest survivors and nonoffending parents. Not the other way around. Unless they are specifically trained in this area, and most are not, cops are not reliable interpreters of these matters.

Recommend
DD LA, CA 3 hours ago
Wow, you seem to have introduced an element that maintains Woody is guilty of abuse of his daughter because he married Soon-yi , Mia’s adopted daughter. I suppose the length and integrity of that marriage is irrelevant to you but serves in some strange extralegal way to only confirm Allen is a molester of another individual. How a legal marriage, decades long, serves as proof of one afternoon’s molestation of his own child is beyond me. I’m interested to hear how you think Moses was “manipulated “ into taking Woody’s side.

Recommend
Ralph Alswang Washington,DC 5 hours ago
“Mia Farrow’s discovery that Mr. Allen was sexually involved with Soon-Yi Previn, who was her adopted daughter” #MeToo with his family! Do we need to say more?

1Recommend
jerry wayne toluca, mexico 5 hours ago
I guess we can character assassinate Humphrey Bogart too. After all, he was 44 when he had relations with 19 year old Lauren Bacall. And Frank Sinatra, what a moral monster. He was 50 years old when he married 21 year old Mia Farrow. Let’s not even get started on Charlie Chaplin.

Obviously, we shouldn’t confuse the behaviors mentioned above with pedophilia. The real question here boils down to who do you believe, the Farrow clan, Mia, Dylan, and Sinatra’s son, Ronan, or Woody and Moses Farrow, the adopted son of Mia and Woody. And add some common sense.

Woody is innocent of the child molestation charges.

2Recommend
NYT Pick
Carrollian NY 5 hours ago
I teach cinema and I have taught Woody Allen’s works. ‘Zelig’ is sheer cinematic genius- I will watch it over and over again, and teach it with any best defense one could give for humor, wit, film form, and profound philosophical insight.

The spectre of this asinine witch-hunt shall not be found in my pedagogy and class room.

And, one continues to respect the cinematographic skills of Leni Riefenstahl… even if she served a monster.

12Recommend
J Monteagudo NYC 4 hours ago
Keeping artists and their work separate went out with the death of New Criticism in the 1970s. Now that the artist and the art are fully conflated, it becomes impossible to read/see the work without incorporating the public knowledge of the artist’s own life into the viewing. Damning the art because the artist possesses certain tastes and interests the reader/viewer finds personally/politically disturbing or offensive, is the literary equivalent of tearing down sculptures. Are we going to value art for art’s sake, or are we going to resurrect Savonarola?

1Recommend
Carrollian NY 3 hours ago
@Monteagudo: it will be a sad day for cinema when one would have to write the history of film comedy and think twice about including Woody Allen’s name. Moreover, no one seems to be concerned about the legal history behind this accusation. If he had been found guilty and thrown in prison,… I would still teach ‘Zelig’.

1Recommend

Brad Chester, NJ 5 hours ago
This hand wringing by people and critics really gets tiring. If you have a so called Woody Allen problem, that’s your problem, not mine. I love his early movies (Bananas, Play it Again, Sleeper, etc.) although haven’t seen many of his later ones. Why would someone want to unwatch his movies? They’re classics. The problem is we have people judging what happened years ago by today’s standards.

Don’t watch anymore. We will continue to do so.

The whole thing just gets silly after awhile.

1Recommend
Robert A. Jones Music City, USA 5 hours ago
How are we to judge such an artist as Allen?

Did he make us think? Seriously? Or did he merely entertain?

Entertainment is nice, but not enough to give a pass to a pedophile.

Recommend
Doug Tarnopol Cranston, RI 5 hours ago
How anyone can watch Annie Hall and come away with finding that character shrewish or whatever—missing the point that Alvy entirely blew it because of his own insecurities; that it’s a Svengali-like story—is beyond me.

But this is mea culpa time, and Scott apparently feels the need to confess to the crowd. Good PR move.

You know who else was a shrew? The character Farrow played in Purple Rose of Cairo. And the French woman in Midnight in Paris. Total shrew. And Farrow in Hannah and her sisters—in fact, all three sisters were shrews. Obviously. And when in Husbands and Wives, the Pollack character chooses the younger woman, that works out real well, doesn’t it?

That was just off the top of my head. Yeah, the weasel words are there: “almost always”; “temporarily.”

Yes, whatever Allen’s other behavior, and I don’t do accusation equals guilt, I would agree with one line from this really awful essay—when it comes to Allen’s work, especially his depiction of women, “there was a lot more going on.”

1Recommend
Diogenes Belmont MA 5 hours ago
Who is more sinful, Woody Allen or Albert Einstein? Einstein brought us the atomic bomb and Hiroshima. Woody, pleasure, enjoyment, and laughs.

1Recommend
modrob usa 5 hours ago
Any unbiased/objective review of the ‘evidence’ and the police investigations point to a very vindictive Mia Farrow…

1Recommend

ahenryr BG 5 hours ago
Ms Farrow and Mr Allen are in a relationship involving natural and adopted children. Ms Farrow is not sure of the paternity of her son Ronan!
Why would anyone ever ascribe to Ms Farrow the description of a loyal and faithful woman companion and parent incapable of distortion of the truth?

3Recommend

A. Stanton Dallas, TX 5 hours ago
Before sending a man to the gallows for committing a hideous crime,
it is customary to gather some reliable evidence proving that he committed it.

Same thing here.

4Recommend
Sweetbetsy Norfolk 5 hours ago
I have seen only one Woody Allen movie since his affair with his wife’s adopted daughter was made public. That in itself was disgusting. I regret having seen the one movie, which I did in a moment of self doubt: I wish I hadn’t spent a dime to support that perv, no matter how much I enjoyed his early comedy and movies.

1Recommend
Doug NJ 5 hours ago
Woody Allen was carefully investigated in 1992-3 by the Yale New Haven hospital child abuse clinic. The professionals at Yale saw little Miss Farrow nine times over six months and then expressed their opinion that Woody Allen was innocent of child abuse and that someone had coached little Miss Farrow to lie about being abused by Mr. Allen.

The facts and evidence haven’t changed since 1993, and Woody Allen remains as he was then, an innocent man falsely accused of child abuse.

2Recommend
Malina Paris 5 hours ago
May I remind some people who are offended by the age difference between Woody Allen and his wife and use that as grounds to believe he’s a sexual predator that Mia Farrow was twenty one when she married Frank Sinatra who was fifty at the time.

4Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 5 hours ago
I understand that Mia Farrow still supports Roman Polanski. Now that’s not only weird, but hypocritical and makes Mia Farrow’s allegations evne more suspect.

1Recommend
Antonia Tejeda Barros Madrid 5 hours ago
Such a louse article! Woody Allen will always remain a genius. Meanwhile, you are only a louse critic without any art and without anything interesting to say. I love Woody’s films and I love his art. I believe that he’s completely innocent of these false accusations made by two resentful, obsessive and angry women, and joined by some opportunist, ungrateful, dishonest and hypocrite actors. Read the facts before writing. Nobody cares if you decide not to enjoy Woody’s art. In Europe his art is ticking and alive. We love Woody and defending him. Greetings from Madrid and cheer up. #IBelieveWoody / #IBelieveMoses / Antonia

3Recommend
Grant Los Angeles 5 hours ago
A.O. Scott, you’re just jumping on the bandwagon – like the rest of those actors who are afraid of having Dylan Farrow shame them on television or of getting a vomit emoji from Rose McGown.

Nothing you said in this column supports the accusation of child molestation leveled by a very angry Mia Farrow 25 years ago. Some of these movies are 50 years old – they come from a very different time and place. Aren’t you supposed to be a cultural critic? Judging them by today’s standards is foolish and reductive. And nowhere – except in your own head – do they hint at child sex abuse.

Did Woody Allen act like a total self-absorbed idiot when he got involved with his adopted girlfriend’s daughter? Yes!

But that doesn’t make him a child molester. I believe Moses Farrow – who has stated that Mia was the abusive one and made the whole thing up. And meanwhile, Mia’s brother (John Farrow) sits in a jail for being actually convicted of child sex crimes.

If more information comes out then I’ll be happy to change my mind about Allen, but so far I’m not buying it.

Very disappointed in this column.

3Recommend
Karl Melrose, MA 5 hours ago
This column has more than a whiff of virtue-signalling.

2Recommend
Michael Jones New York 5 hours ago
A.O. Scott seems to understand very little about male sexuality.. Whether men admit it or not, the vast majority of us are sexually attracted to young, sexually mature women, including 21-year-olds. Very few of us are sexually attracted to 7-year-olds. I would suggest that these are mutually exclusive forms of sexual attraction. Allen’s affair with Soon Yi Previn does not support Farrow’s allegations; it effectively refutes them.

Scott’s argument seems to be, “maybe he was innocent before, but in the wake of #METOO, and our ostensibly expanded understanding of male sexual entitlement, Farrow’s unsubstantiated accusations need to be taken more seriously. Woody Allen’s movies depict many male characters who feel “sexually entitled”; ergo, he’s a child molester.

I will continue to watch this great artist’s movies with interest, but I’m afraid that I can no longer read Scott’s columns, now that I recognize him to be irresponsible with the power invested in him by this publication. Unsubstantiated character assassination is an appalling act, and the Times should be ashamed.

4Recommend
perltarry ny 5 hours ago
And the lynching continues.
This is bordering on madness.

3Recommend
Donna NYC 5 hours ago
No brainer – don’t support this creep – talent isn’t a pass for his years of molestation and abuse…

1Recommend
RE NY 4 hours ago
By “no brainer” you seem to be saying you don’t need to apply any critical thought to this topic. It’s not my chosen method of making decisions – much prefer as much brain involvement as possible!

2Recommend
Ichigo Linden, NJ 5 hours ago
How I like an artwork has nothing to do with who made it.
If I like a painting, then I like a painting, whether John Doe or Adolph Hitler made it.

2Recommend
Gordon Humpherys Boston 5 hours ago
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

3Recommend
GZ NYC 5 hours ago
I don’t have a Woody Allen problem. He was never charged with molesting Dylan (a fact that is ignored by the SJW crowd, the crowd AO is pandering to with this garbage), and believe me, the district attorney overseeing the investigation would have nailed Allen to the wall had there been anything to indict him with.

I have no need to impress SJW’s with pretentious, nonsensical garbage such as this, unlike AO Scott,. I have a life.

2Recommend
Linda guy St. Petersburg, Fl 5 hours ago
The psychoanalyst, Carl Jung said something like this about dream (substitute art) interpretation, the interpretation will change with the interpreter and her experiences. A dream (art) is never about just one thing, but many changing things. Since the original accusation of child molestation came out, pedophilia was added to the list of possible subjects for Allen’s movies. It has to be part of how we think about his art.

Recommend
the fact jack indiana 5 hours ago
Share my thoughts? Heck, yeah, why not, everybody’s a critic. I admire Woody Allen’s ability — in writing funny jokes, in playing clarinet, and in the craft of making movies. I’ve never liked his movies, which I attribute to my own lack of depth, I suppose. As a narcissist, I dislike narcissism I think I detect in others. Although Mr. Allen has not been tried by due process and found “guilty” (good point, Mr. Scott), he is being tried in the court of public opinion. Sadly, that seems to include the likes of Madame Defarge. Chop, chop, chop.

1Recommend
Jack19 Baltimore, Maryland 5 hours ago
Too much equating the material of the movies with the little-known biography of the artist. The movies are not attached to the guilt or innocence of the artist. The art is either good or bad on its own merits. As far as the man goes he has either committed crimes or he hasn’t. He is either a good guy or a jerk. No one seems to know which. Whatever people know about Woody they know even less, far less, about his accusers. If all art was rejected based on the moral behavior of its creators there wouldn’t be much of value left. How many of the saints wrote great fiction? OJ Simpson was most likely a murderer but he was also undeniably great on a football field. Unfortunately that can’t be rescinded no matter what he did. There are repulsive aspects of Hemingway, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Martin Luther King. All that being said, I think this article is more damning of the writer even then of Allen himself. The writer was mesmerized by pretentiousness, bad filmmaking, and low behavior dressed up as cool. He really should work his way through all of that before declaring the chasm between art and artist to be bogus.

1Recommend
KS Chicago 5 hours ago
I enjoy Woody Allen films. I don’t like that he secretly dated Soon-Yi Previn and how Mia discovered the relationship. We really cannot know if Allen abused Dylan. It seems odd it would be a one time thing at a time when Mia was angry and vengeful and where he could easily be discovered but it could have happened. Two of Mia’s sons take opposite sides re Allen’s guilt. I don’t like the current public damning mood, things tend to go too far.

2Recommend
hb czech republic 5 hours ago
Two scenarios: A) Woody Allen sexually abused his adopted daughter when she was 7. He fell in love with and married his semi-stepdaughter. He has demonstrated an attraction for late teen-aged females. Therefore he should be shunned, his reputation and career deservedly destroyed. Fans like A. O. Scott should feel damned guilty. B) According to Allen and his adopted son Moses, Mia Farrow trained her daughter to tell everyone about and believe an experience happened which in fact is completely made up. Allen fell in love with and married a legally adult woman much younger than him and they lived happily ever after. Allen has an attraction to late teen-aged females which, technically, in itself, is not illegal. So, especially because the first bit is a Mia Farrow generated lie, people should leave him alone to live his life and continue making movies. A.O. Scott should concern himself with weightier matters (Syria, the Kurds,etc.). I’m in the B camp.

1Recommend
Dan Pennsylvania 5 hours ago
We don’t know if Allen did what he’s accused of but to me it wouldn’t be right to dismiss Dylan’s allegations as false and at the same time it’s not right to believe Allen is guilty since we just don’t know. I would never dismiss Dylan as a liar when I simply don’t know and because if it is true, what a hell of a thing to dismiss as a lie after what she’s been through. But it’s also true he may be innocent so I have nothing but sympathy for Dylan for what may be true and at the same time I don’t judge Allen because I don’t know if he did it. As for judging Allen’s character by his work, he’s made some of the most beautiful and sensitive movies I’ve seen. Nobody has mentioned the Purple Rose of Cairo…a deeply sensitive movie about an abused woman who escapes her life through the magic of movies. As for Manhattan, nobody has mentioned that his character’s feelings for Hemingway’s character are not motivated by sex…that he genuinely loves her…therrs the great romantic scene at the end when he runs to see when he realizes what she means to him as a person, not a sex object. It would be a mistake to overlook so much sensitivity in his movies, including Sweet and Lowdown…the ending when he smashes his guitar and says he made a mistake gives me cold chills. Anyway, I would never dismiss what Dylan has said as false but I also will not judge him because I just don’t know. I care about the truth, and can’t claim to know what is true when I just don’t know.

1Recommend
Greek Goddess Merritt Island, Florida 5 hours ago
Mr. Scott, my early experiences of Woody Allen’s works were nearly identical to yours. When I was nine, my father took me to see “Snoopy, Come Home,” and after it was over he said, “Let’s just stay for the beginning of the next picture.” That picture turned out to be “Play It Again, Sam,” and we stayed for its entirety (my father and I agreed not to tell my mother because she would have been upset that I had seen a movie rated “GP”). I understood none of the innuendo, but I understood very well that Woody Allen was a genius, and at once I launched a lifetime of devouring his every book, play and movie. However, my appreciation of his art was from the standpoint of a child. I couldn’t relate to his female characters, or even to his character–they all just seemed funny. Woody Allen’s writing had a profound effect on my own development as a writer; by poring over his work I learned about timing, phrasing, pacing, and the pricelessness of unexpected associations. But it was not until I matured into womanhood that I began to see his oeuvre in a different light. I can no longer bear to watch any of his movies or read any of his works. But I will carry with me forever the lessons in artistic craftsmanship I learned from this unspeakably flawed individual.

4Recommend
Tony Pastor Detroit, Michigan 6 hours ago
Mr. Allen is a wonderful film-maker, and I enjoy his films more every time I watch them. That’s the only standard I have for an artist. I don’t judge people, and more importantly, we don’t know what happened. Why are people willing to make the commitment to hate the man with no facts available? Artists, performers, athletes should only be judged by what they do between the lines, that’s the extent of their public lives. And by the same standard Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame.

15Recommend
Cynthia Florida 6 hours ago
I was a fan of Woody Allen years ago, then I moved on. I missed the age disparity when I saw Manhattan but I was young then myself. It wasn’t until I was older that I realized that men often seek younger women because the imbalance of power makes them feel stronger and the “owning” of a young, beautiful woman makes them feel younger and more attractive themselves. It is smoke and mirrors for men who have failed to mature themselves.

6Recommend
RE NY 5 hours ago
Even if it is “smoke and mirrors,” it is art. It is not a sermon, meant to teach us a lesson and promote certain values or behaviors; it is a moment in emotional time, a glimpse of a particular relationship or individual in the midst of a human experience, without judgment. The “age disparity” is part of the story; to you it may seem to be about “ownership,” to someone else it is a mutual attraction based in infinite, complex, and intersecting factors. Just as many young women fall in love with older men as the other way around.

2Recommend
ecco connecticut 7 hours ago
alas, mr scott’s struggle, a painful try at walking through a maze that would force most of us to crawl here and there, is not unique, though its forthrightness is laudable…he does not insulate himself from the the perils of the journey, as most do, for the sake of a convenient conclusion.

the notion that “The severity of that accusation, and Mr. Allen’s steadfast denial of it, had the curious effect of neutralizing what might otherwise have been a reputation-destroying scandal,” may also be applied to any serious debate which tends to “neutralize” extremes, knee-jerk opinions, ignorance, bias, etc. while offering the possibility of clear, cogent conclusion.

the fact is that a work of art does indeed stand apart from the artist, there it is, to be experienced for effect regardless of awareness of the character of the artist, but that does not mean that the viewer cannot make what connections he or she will between what’s known about the artist and the work…mr scott’s straw man (that “art belongs to a zone of human experience somehow distinct from other human experiences”) which he scatters with movie-hero aplumb is both specious and beneath his considerable gifts as a critic.

the same for “prurient” appetites, not the only ones art arouses…just as art carries an invitation to sort through “their” intimate baggage” it causes us to reflect on our own.

for a fellow film addict, hardest to bear is his having been taken in by “annie hall” but that’s another story…

Recommend
Pete West Hartford 8 hours ago
Excellent points. Esp. about the ‘sense of entitlement’ that permeates much of his work … and of prior times, and our own attitudes. To wit, the ‘pass’ that I gave (as did many others) – until recently – to not only Woody Allen, but also Bill Clinton, and perhaps to others (who don’t readily come to mind right now).

11Recommend
Anne New York City 9 hours ago
Being female, I have never seen Allen’s movies the way that you did. He was not a role model and I never liked his onscreen thinly disguised personas. However, I did find much of the dialogue and situations in his films funny, or meaningful. The characters often seemed like real people and they lived in a real place, the place I also happen to live in. It’s strange how it has become harder and harder to find such movies. The sexism in the films is no worse than the sexism in many other films of the 70s and 80s.

27Recommend
Artistica Massachusetts 9 hours ago
I used to love Woody Allen’s movies, but once the revelations of his real character and actions became public, I was repulsed. I have never seen another of his movies since 1992. I do not feel any sense of loss.

20Recommend
Robert Peters Aachen 4 hours ago
Which real character?

Recommend
Robert Stacy Tokyo 10 hours ago
Movies are movies, life is life. In his real life, Mr. Allen was investigated and no charges were filed. The shrill call for his head because of the persistent insistence of his guilt does not necessarily make it so. We have to give the legal authorities who investigated the matter the benefit of the doubt. His marrying someone so young and so connected by family ties is optically bad, but not a crime of any kind. One must allow that Ms. Previn made an informed, adult choice, and was of age when she did so. Some approve, some not, but that shouldn’t and doesn’t further the notion that he is guilty of doing anything to Dlyan Farrow.

As for his movies, especially his earlier funnier ones, they explore relatable relationships between men and women. Older men do date teenagers, women sleep with their sister’s husbands, people leave relationships and change their mind, mistresses threaten to ruin the lives of their lover, people want their cake and to eat it too. That makes for good stories, and allows us to hold up a mirror to our lives, giving us the ability to reflect and see ourselves.

61Recommend
uwteacher colorado 4 hours ago
I think the use of “shrill” is informative. It’s one way to dismiss critics without actually dealing with issues. Issues such as grooming an adolescent for a sexual partner.

It is true that in ral life people do the skeevy things you list. It is also true that they are not admirable and these actions give insight to a person’s character.

Recommend
RR New York city 10 hours ago
Here’s the part I don’t get: where are all the other victims. Aren’t most child predators serial predators?

When I couple that question with the timing of the allegation (coming in middle of bitter divorce), I find myself doubting his guilt.

But I’m always open to learning more….

36Recommend
Jay Strickler Kentucky 4 hours ago
What do you mean where are his other victims? He married one.

Recommend
Mark Tucson 4 hours ago
Good questions. And they haven’t been answered.

1Recommend
Phillip Vasels New York 10 hours ago
All you’ve done is make me love and appreciate W. Allen more than before reading your piece. Thanks! But more to the point, should we give artists a pass on how they live their lives over how they have enriched our lives? There’s no measuring stick for this. You were clever to point out that the heart only sees what it loves. (wink)

15Recommend
Bill Van Dyk Kitchener, Ontario 13 hours ago
I have read in detail about the allegations against Allen and I believe him. I also believe that Dylan Farrow probably really believes what her mother convinced her was true, in the heat of a bitter divorce battle with Allen. That’s the nature of memory. The allegations were investigated at the time, quite thoroughly, and no charges were laid. Dylan’s stories were inconsistent and contrived. I think we are in the midst of a widespread movement to judge people quickly and harshly before judging the facts and evidence. Throughout the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s– and later– Hollywood produced mountains of inane tripe, while Woody Allen produced a series of original, inventive, beautiful films, that, as with “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, were transcendent masterpieces. Ironically, in terms of human behaviors and motivations, his films were far more honest than even the best films of directors whose reputations remain un-besmirched. There is something fundamentally wrong with this impulse to re-examine his films, looking for something to affirm our prejudices, to justify feeling good about feeling bad. I reject it. “Annie Hall”, “Manhattan”, “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, “Bananas” are treasures. Oh, and by the way, I just read Ingmar Bergman’s autobiography. I’m not sure his behavior in relation to women was any better than Allen’s. Shall we boycott his films as well? Let’s make a list, shall we?

76Recommend
Jim NH 4 hours ago
not to mention Charlie Chaplin, and others…

Recommend
SBgirl California 4 hours ago
Woody and Mia were never married.

Recommend
rxfxworld New Zealand 4 hours ago
What frighteningly fascinates is that the US is in the midst of a sexual panic. It happened before in the 90’s. There were the pre-school cases and the “recovered memory” craze. Interestingly, it’s the misuse of sex that catches all the emotion and the calls for boycotting works of art. Violence, which is endemic, gets scarcely a nod. Mel Gibson was for a while persona non grata but specifically for his anti-semitism and thus violent language but his films which several critics have described as pornography of violence are not at issue now or ever. He made $400 Million from 2 hours of torturing Jesus. Beyond Gibson and his rewarded psychopathology, there is the upcoming Super Bowl. Contrast this: Michael Powell, Colin’s son, the FCC head said Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” ie a view of her breast in the half-time show spoiled a “sacred moment in American life.” Meantime we glorify these gladiators as they damage their brains and develop CTE for these “sacred” moments, America, sex, bad, violence, good. A civilized society would be banning violent sports not movies about adults in complex sexual relationships.

Recommend
Marco Ribeiro Columbia, MD 4 hours ago
“In the heat of a bitter divorce battle with Woody Allen”

Woody Allen and Mia Farrow never had a bitter divorce battle. Woody Allen and Mia Farrow never married. They had, of course, a very bitter and public break up to their relationship.

Regarding the merits of his movies, he might have been a very good director, AND also have had predatory impulses which led to his abuse of Dylan. His merits as an actor/director have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence regarding his conduct toward Dylan. I don’t think it is hypocritical to believe in Allen’s guilt, while continuing to praise his talents as a director/actor.

I have no idea what happened in the attic. I don’t think there is any way of ever discovering that (unless we get something like a confession from Dylan that she made it up, or from Allen that he is guilty as charged).

Recommend
Barbara Virginia 3 hours ago
They had a bitter legal dispute over the custody of their children, which is in all material respects identical to custody disputes arising out of divorce, without the often just as bitter dispute over marital property.

Recommend
LMBux Carlinville IL 14 hours ago
Woody Allen has been very successful in using the talents of other artists, including actors and far more talented writers, such as Tennessee Williams in “Blue Jasmine” and Vittorio de Sica, whose classic “Shoeshine” was the basis for “Cassandra’s Dream”. His stories, which made such a strong impression on Mr. Scott, are no more than awkward imitations of the classic stories of S. J. Perelman, of whom Mr. Allen is a mere epigone.

8Recommend
Bill Dan Boston 15 hours ago
When Manhattan came out it was featured on the cover of Time Magazine. The Washington Post review talked about how sweet and awkward the scenes were between Allen and Hemingway.

No one was willing to question what was right in front of them: that the protagonist was dating someone in High School.

21Recommend
David Henry Concord 14 hours ago
The protagonist in the film in the very first scene describes and QUESTIONS the situation, then explains his ambivalence.

Also, it’s very clear that he has real affection for the girl.

21Recommend
Ruth Paris 5 hours ago
Having real affection for a child is not a reason or excuse for having sex with her. That’s the Humphrey Humphrey defence.

1Recommend
Yann CT 5 hours ago
“I thought maybe I shouldn’t be committing statutory rape but I really liked her….”

1Recommend
Barb The Universe 5 hours ago
Mariel Hemingway, Then 16, Was Terrified of Her Kissing Scene with Woody Allen in Manhattan…. Google it. Look at it from her perspective — the child — not his.

1Recommend
shallots brooklyn 4 hours ago
Farrow is not that much different with her marriage to Sinatra. It’s all about where the line is drawn. And ask Mr. Macron as well. I’m a bit on the fence. Maybe the age of consent should follow brain development – which would raise it to 21 (the age of Soon-yi when she was married) or 22 perhaps. But is that realistic?

Recommend
Brent Hopkins Pennsylvania 4 hours ago
And of course, that makes it all right. . .

Recommend
Elizabeth OH 4 hours ago
Being ambivalent about it, and having real affection for the girl, does NOT make it ok for a middle aged man to sexually desire a girl in high school. Doesn’t seem like that ought to have to be spelled but I guess it does.

1Recommend

Francois is a trusted commenter Chicago 15 hours ago
I think, at the height of his career, a lot of us were seduced by the perceived sophistication of Allen’s movies, and overlooked a lot a flaws. I was a teenager when Manhattan came out. I remember being aware that no girl my age would be attracted to Allen, but going along with the premise because the dialogue was so charming, and Hemingway was such a unique and fresh counterpart to Allen. I remember being uncomfortable with Hannah and her Sisters– a plot premise that would have caused immense pain across a family in real life (ironic…)–parents/sisters/children– but being so drawn into what I felt was an artful depiction of creative life in NYC, and Mia Farrow’s stunning performance, that again I overlooked the cruelty in the story and went along with the perspective of Allen’s character. But now, even if no claims of sexual abuse had ever been made against Allen, I simply think I would find both movies implausible in the extreme were I watch them again. I was just gullible and seduced by a false sense of sophistication back then. Allen was at the height of his popularity, and could get away with anything. Am I remembering correctly that Louise Lasser, his ex wife, claimed he liked to physically abuse her?

22Recommend

David Henry Concord 5 hours ago
It’s a work of FICTION. Sorry you were uncomfortable, which is YOUR issue. Lasser claimed no such thing.

Recommend
Francois is a trusted commenter Chicago 7 hours ago
I’m well aware of the cliche of college women and their professors, but the character in Manhattan was in high school, and it wasn’t just my own reaction at the time. It was something a lot of people my age talked about– how implausible Tracy’s character was–sweet and agreeable in a way that served the plot but didn’t seem real. Teenage girls are complex too. And there is something about older men who are specifically attracted to underage girls that is, to use your word, often very creepy for the girls. I don’t think the issue with Lasser was just rumors. It seems to me it was covered in interviews at the time but people overlooked it because he was considered a genius and everyone loved his movies.

4Recommend
David Monticello 11 hours ago
“Am I remembering correctly that Louise Lasser, his ex wife, claimed he liked to physically abuse her?”

Does it matter if you’re correct? Let’s just heap some more rumors on the rumor mill. It’s so much fun! Now, about the movies — the first thing to remember is that they are, in fact, movies. Let’s all take a breath for a moment and remember, these things did not actually happen in real life. They are stories, being told as a way of exploring some of the complexities of what it is to be human. The possibility of a very young woman being attracted to someone much older. The fact that you couldn’t imagine it for yourself doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible. In fact, I know someone who had a relationship with a much older man when she was in college, and I’m sure that happened all the time. Doesn’t mean there was necessarily something wrong or “creepy” about it. But again, exploring the feelings of attraction two people can have for each other, especially if it is outside societal norms. In “Hannah,” same thing. Exploring this taboo attraction. It doesn’t necessarily mean he is advocating that these are things real people should do. I’m no fan of the cliches about the “artist,” but reading some of these comments, these are people who deal with, in their work and their lives, and their selves also, the kinds of complex feelings that many people are simply afraid of and would prefer to deny and push away – and judge others for –
rather than examine and explore.

31Recommend
peter damato lumberton nj 16 hours ago
I can’t erase Mister Allen’s films from my mind nor would I want too. They have been a part of my life for 40 years. I would still go see his movies and would like to be able to do so again. But this hysteria may prevent that from happening. It is my choice to purchase a ticket and that should not be removed. Do I never listen to or purchase another James Levine recording? Where do we draw the line. The decision should be mine and no one should take that choice away from me.

39Recommend
CTMD CT 5 hours ago
I have a friend in the music business who told me of the James Levine rumors many years ago( the mid 80s I think). My aha moment was when the Met Opera fired Kathleen Battle in the 90’s for basically being a jerk to work with( my friend confirmed that she was indeed difficult). BUT Kathleen Battle was not a pedophile. So the Met kept the outwardly nice James Levine on board to reap in the accolades and the money and eventually a Kennedy Center Honor. But Kathleen Battle was sent into relative obscurity, and we never got to hear her voice on a Met broadcast again. I have been stewing over this hypocrisy for 20 years, and was glad when Levine was finally taken down.
I am not sure what we should do about the long ago prior work of these abusers. Kevin Spacey made some really good movies. Movies produced by Harvey Weinstein are on TV all the time still, and I would not want them to be banned. The problem is that these mostly men got away scot free while other very talented people were abused out of the system or just plain ignored. How do you know that James Levine didn’t ruin the ambition of a young boy who would have been an equally great artist? We can’t t know that, but we now know that Weinstein ruined the chances of many woman actors.
Who knows what we missed out on?

Recommend
Bruce B. New York 16 hours ago
In these recent conversations and statements about Allen’s work, why isn’t there any mention of the decades long decline of his work, a decline that makes one question the man’s very mental capacity as he churns out rehashes of films or scenes from films of his past (as if he doesn’t even recall making the previous works) or resorts to ripping off Tennessee Williams. Midnight in Paris was a recent bright spot for many, but hardly all, fans but it pales in comparison to Sleeper or Stardust Memories. And his Amazon series Six Crises is so painfully bad that it is virtually unwatchable not only thanks to the wretched writing but his excruciatingly terrible performance. If he had retired from cinema after Manhattan Murder Mystery he would not have tarnished a fine reputation. But his compulsion to turn out a clunker every year, with the financiers who enable him means that his turkeys now far outnumber his gems. And to me this is the bigger artistic crime, as opposed to the flaws and defiance’s of his films’ heroes. (Incidentally, regardless of his stellar reputation among film critics regarding his work from his artistic prime, there were outspoken critics such as John Simon who loathed such cherished films such as Manhattan at the time of their release). It’s all a terrible shame because the main talent that has yet to desert him is his ability to attract and collaborate with masterful technical talent.

9Recommend
Marco Ribeiro Columbia, MD 5 hours ago
Did John Simon EVER give a ANY movie a favorable review?

Recommend
Barbara Virginia 5 hours ago
I have to agree with Clarence here. Although I loathed Blue Jasmine — essentially, making the wronged wife into the emotional if not actual villain of the story — the movie was well-made, with very strong performances by the actors.

Recommend
Clarence Massachusetts 6 hours ago
Match Point, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Blue Jasmine (though I wasn’t a fan), Whatever Works (though not his best was fun), he had a lull in the 90’s, but still produced Mighty Aphrodite and Deconstructing Harry, Tons of good movies. Not great. But good.

1Recommend
David Henry Concord 4 hours ago
if you dislike the recent films, then don’t go anymore. There are many who disagree with you.

Recommend
winthropo muchacho durham, nc 17 hours ago
Judging art by the foibles of the artist is a slippery slope to banality.

My favorite author is Faulkner. An alcoholic and a curmudgeon with a high school education from rural Mississippi who was chosen for some reason by the Divine to impart Truth to mankind.

The Bear is perhaps the greatest prose written to date in English by an American author, and its beauty, power, and truth is immutable, no matter the author’s failings in character as to his wife and children.

And for what it’s worth I don’t believe Mia or Dylan, and even if I did, it wouldn’t change my feelings about the greatness of Mr. Allen’s body of work.

52Recommend

Esposito Rome 17 hours ago
To buy a ticket to a Woody Allen movie or not to buy a ticket to a Woody Allen movie. That is the question. That is the only question. For, in twenty-six years, no charges have been filed against Mr. Allen. So, go or don’t go to his movies.

Will all sources of funds to finance his movies disappear based on a single accusation? If so, that is a disgrace. If so, #metoo has already started to eat its own tail.

38Recommend
Tallydon Tallahassee 17 hours ago
Have fond memories of his first films. They were funny, insightful, and witty. Thought of him then as a neurotic talented mess who made unique films that made you laugh and also think too. But knowing what I know of him now, I consider him more of a self centered celebrity creep who makes unfunny films about mostly rich men and young women who live their morally ambiguous lives without consequences. In a way, I wouldn’t be surprised if he admits one day that many of his films were really based on his own fantasy’s about older men fulfilling young women’s sexual desires.

17Recommend
rxfxworld New Zealand 4 hours ago
According to this line of reasoning we need to unearth the ashes of Vladimir Nabokov, throw them in a garbage heap and take all his books out of the library. It happens I briefly knew Nabokov during the time he was writing Lolita. I didn’t care for him as a person but his works, especially Lolita are masterpieces. And not at all incidentally, no one would have had the gall or stupidity to confuse Nabokov with Humbert Humbert.

Recommend
Michel Madrid 17 hours ago
The guilt or innocence of a man is deduced from the facts, not from the works of fiction that he is capable of creating. The circumstances that surround the day of the alleged abuses are quite strange: Mia Farrow had hired two nannies to take care of two of her children for two hours and never leave them alone with Allen; But Allen and one of them (Dylan) supposedly disappear for twenty minutes without anyone noticing. The babysitter who was taking care of Dylan when Allen supposedly sexually abused her was not only not fired, but became the only nanny Mia Farrow fully trusted in all of the time that the court process lasted and when she left the babysitting position Mia Farrow gave her material of her private life and the judicial procedure to write a book.
If your child is sexually abused because the nanny stops attending to her for twenty minutes and does not even realize that the baby has disappeared, would you make that nanny your trustworthy person, you would let her take care of your daughter again and give her material to make money with a book about your misery?
I wouldn´t
http://nadiemencionaalperro.blogspot.com.es/2018/01/august-4-1992-proleg…

29Recommend
Jeremy Edmonton 4 hours ago
Additionally, anyone who has covered the related issues of sex assault and pedophilia knows one is a power sickness, the other is a pervasive and untreatable attraction to pre-pubescent children. Certainly there are cases of sociopaths who fill both roles, assaulting against adults and children alike. But they are in no way the norm. So one callous and queasy act — sleeping with his 21-year-old stepdaughter — does not, as the author suggests, relate directly to the other accused act.

Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 17 hours ago
Why can’t you Allen haters admit you have a bias against him based on phony allegations, assertions, claims and propaganda. Most still think that Soon Yi is Allen’s step daughter- incorrect. That Allen had a close relationship with her as a child- incorrect. That Allen and Farrow were married- incorrect. That all of the kids in Farrow’s home were adopted by Allen- incorrect. That Allen married Soon Yi as a minor- incorrect. All incorrect assertions yet thought of as “FACT”. I read and laugh to this day and sometimes cry that people will believe all sorts of rumor, gossip, claims by anyone they admire without check the facts. Those Oprah loyalists in particular. I feel sorroy for Woody Allen, he has to deal with the crazies in this world and their ability to drag ordinary people into their crazy world.

62Recommend
AL San Antonio 5 hours ago
‘…Allen, the filmmaker lost four court battles and had to pay over $1 million for Mia’s legal fees. Also, the Litchfield, Connecticut state attorney chose not to press charges against Allen even though he said there was “probable cause” that Allen molested Dylan. His reasoning? To not make young Dylan appear in court, which would have caused her even more trauma.”

In June 1993, New York State Supreme Court Judge Elliott Wilk said:
“There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”

Recommend
Shelly New York 4 hours ago
I think you can know the facts and still think it wildly inappropriate that someone would date and marry the child of their long-term girlfriend/half-sister of his children. If you think that’s normal behavior, I feel sorry for you.

Recommend
ecarde San Francisco 17 hours ago
I appreciate all the incisive thoughts. My reaction was simple: when he pounced on Soon Yi, he went against the character he, as actor, was portraying on screen. I’ve had difficulty believing the character ever since. I do not seek out his films

15Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 5 hours ago
just how did he “pounce” on Soon Yi? You like he pounced on Mia Farrow and all his ex’s? Soon Yi though much younger, was of legal age to make her own decisions. How about criticizing Frank Sinatra when he “Pounced” on Mia Farrow at the age of 20? BTW, Ronan Farrow is Frank’s kid. Just look at his face.

Recommend
Jan Priddy Oregon 17 hours ago
Woody Allen lost me with “Manhattan” and sex with a minor, and then I went back to “Play It Again, Sam” (which had been my favorite of his films) and rediscovered the “shallow” date he abandoned to bikers in the bar, and the suggestion was that she was probably being gang-raped but he was okay. Har-har? And then everything added up for me. This was before Dylan.

15Recommend
Carolyn Harford Kwaluseni Swaziland 4 hours ago
There’s also Love and Death, and the Patriarch who thinks the greatest thing in life is blonde 12-year-old girls.

Recommend

André Welling Germany 4 hours ago
In the 70s jokes about rape were commonplace. I remember my mom joking about rape at the family dinner table, using a wordplay, to turn rape into something wanted. I didn’t like it back then as a youngster, but it was also the “no means yes” time when males where told that women cherished their “initiative” and the time when rape in a marriage was considered logically impossible because a women “not wanting” was violating her wife duties. In any case, revisting old films and finding rape jokes indicating that writers and directors were monsters, it’s an easy job. Do these bad movie jokes indicate that writers and directors were real life monsters? If adding up works this way, I guess we also should turn to people who describe or show murder and torture in their art and have a good look into their basements.

Recommend
Richard London 17 hours ago
Who deserves the benefit of the doubt? The innocent who haven’t been found guilty, that’s who? Like Mr Allen. Who has been investigated by the authorities and wasn’t dhamrged or convicted.

31Recommend
Jake Nowhere 17 hours ago
I’ll write what I’ve written before:

Woody Allen is and always has been an expert on sexual psychology. This is literally his main field of interest and he is, unarguably, at the top of the field. Accusing Woody of sexual assault is like accusing Agatha Christie of murder. You CANNOT use his work as evidence. It is just as likely that he was misunderstood because of the nature of his work as it is that the nature of his work was inspired by a malicious intent. This is a textbook chicken and the egg scenario, especially because we are talking about the sexual abuse of a CHILD. Want to know what the literal first thing a Psychologist is taught to look for in a patient? The literal first action a Psychologist takes? They look for the Oedipus Complex. That’s the first thing a Psychologist does and has been the first thing for 150 years.

11Recommend
Tessa US 4 hours ago
I am afraid you are very outdated in your understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary psychology. Todays psychological techniques are most heavily based in other schools of thought…cognitive behavioral, systems theory, social psychology etc. Freudian oedipal complex is NOT the first thing modern psychologist “look for” in treating patients.

Recommend
rxfxworld New Zealand 5 hours ago
Of course Woody Allen isn’t a virulent anti-semite and racist, which was true of Agatha Christie. Should we burn her books. Or stop teaching or reading the poems of T.S. Elliot or avoid seeing “Cats” for his profound misogyny and anti-semitism. And what about his mentor/friend Ezra Pound who made 200 radio speeches in Italy for the Fascists denouncing America and encouraging US troops not to fight for blacks and Jews. Do we take back the Bollingen Prize?.

Recommend
anne bangladesh 14 hours ago
Not quite. Agatha Christie, as far as I know, never committed a murder; never married a murderer or had one as a son, daughter, sibling or best friend; & never promoted her books as coyly related to her own life. And she also didn’t as far as I know write mystery novels that featured a main character that looked precisely like her, spoke like her, and shared numerous biographical details with her.

A distinguishing feature of Woody Allen’s films is his use of autobiographical details and is projection of himself (or at least a version of himself) as the protagonist in virtually every film. This is most obviously apparent in his choice to cast himself incessantly as the lead actor but also shows up in the situational details–the frequency, for example, with which the protagonist is Jewish, lives in New York City, is obsessed with books & movies, etc. Woody Allen’s films are also notable for the extreme degree to which they rehash the same basic themes, tropes, plot devices over and over. Over and over we’ve got the middle aged neurotic insecure & self-obsessed nebbishy looking male who is trying to take up with a much younger & better looking but also much less educated and less sophisticated female. This is not the subject of one or two films but rather the subject of more or less all of them.

The autobiographical element was a key part of Woody Allen’s shtick. Until recently, when that biographical connection became a liability.

21Recommend
Diary keeper NY 17 hours ago
From what I notice, the readers comments to A.O. Scott’s article about the possibility that Woody Allen is a child molester seem to me to slant heavily toward men disagreeing and women agreeing. Many of the Readers Picks, suggest male or female names and I observed this division. Given the empowerment of the new “Me too” movement, I suspect some men feel under attack and defensive regarding this movement as does the author, film critic who reflects on Allen’s history of suggestive sexual abuse. This is the beginning of a reckoning and an opportunity for men and women to dig deep. It will not be easy but it worth it.

10Recommend
Barbara Virginia 5 hours ago
Okay, I am a woman and I have significant doubts about Ms. Farrow’s allegations, for many of the same reasons expressed by others, including men. Woody Allen was investigated, the allegations were taken very seriously, and the evidence of abuse was held to be insufficient. We have to be able to live with that or we have moved to a position where allegations are the equivalent of guilt. I am not okay with that, even though I have a lot of sympathy for Dylan Farrow.

Recommend
Malina Paris 5 hours ago
I am a woman and I believe Woody Allen never molested his daughter since that was the conclusion of the experts investigating those claims at the time.

1Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 4 hours ago
many women posting here are supporting Woody Allen. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? NO? Educate yourself. An accusation, rumor, gossip, etc. has no place when judging someone but the mob mentality doesn’t care about that at all.

1Recommend
rxfxworld New Zealand 4 hours ago
My guess here is that a lot of those who are convinced Allen did it will be happy to see Three Billboards.

Recommend
shallots brooklyn 4 hours ago
Do the women disbelieve Moses because he’s a boy and there is an ongoing attack on masculinity occurring? Is Moses the willful young boy that deserves the abuse he received from his mother because boy-ness is thought to be toxic by adult women? The disapproval of Allen’s depictions of and engagement in relationships with teenage girls is a legitimate moral stance so one can’t take issue with A.O Scott too much if that’s the issue. But Dylan’s shaming of actors because they disbelieve her or are agnostic is shameful in itself – even if she’s truly a victim.

1Recommend
Diana Miami 4 hours ago
I am a woman, and I dont believe Dylan, and I am repulsed by the fact that people are judging Allen BASED ON OPINIONS and not on facts.
Not all men are predators and not all women are victims, and this MeToo movement that started right on his foot, it seems it is already becoming a Trump campaign. Funny that those that were disgusted by the Trump campaign are the ones now chasing men as if this was a witch hunting.

2Recommend
dmd nyc 17 hours ago
“what his 56-year-old heart desired was a 21-year-old woman he had known since she was a child” because he was the longtime romantic partner of–and in fact had children with–her mother. Let’s not be leaving stuff out.

31Recommend
Susan Fitzwater Ambler, PA 17 hours ago
I hear you, Mr. Scott. I hear you.

Me too. I started watching Mr. Allen’s movies back in the 70’s (I was in graduate school)–and I was entranced.

Till I got to “Manhattan.” Ms. Hemingway was exactly the age of my younger sister. Hooked up with a guy in his fifties. That–was disquieting.

And I thought back to “Play It Again”–which delighted me when it first came out. But consider the following (and excuse my imperfect memory):

BOGIE: I never met a dame that didn’t understand a slap in the face or a
slug from a Colt 45 (or whatever).

ALLAN: No no! What’s-her-name and I don’t have that kind of relationship.

BOGIE: RELATIONSHIP? You sound like a Park Avenue shrink!

BOGIE: You know, son–you’ve got it all wrong. SHE’S supposed to smell
nice for YOU.

Funny? A little. Maybe. A little disquieting? Yes. Maybe.

Can I wrap this up? Mr. Scott, I too had a book of Mr. Allen’s sketches. And I’ll be frank–it was funny beyond words.

SOCRATES: Well, what’ s the latest news in Athens?

DISCIPLE: I just ran into Isosceles and he has a great idea for a new
triangle.

And you know, Mr. Scott–I got rid of the book. In Dr. Johnson’s stately language, there was nothing there that would make me a happier, a wiser, a better man. It was funny.

And that was all.

And I’m older now. Guess I require more than just “funny.”

Good article, Mr. Scott. Thanks.

10Recommend
Peter Princeton 4 hours ago
It’s a sad day when funny isn’t enough. Funny is what keeps us sane.

1Recommend
a o sultan new york city 17 hours ago
Really? Manhattan said it all. The nebish fantasy writ large. Woody Allen has been unwatchable for me ever since.

16Recommend
anne bangladesh 17 hours ago
I never understood the lionization of Woody Allen or the fascination that many in NYC intellectual circles had with his films. His “art” always struck me as puerile, self aggrandizing, implicitly misogynistic and just plain boring.

Since news of his affairs and later marriage to Soon Yi who was not just vastly younger & not just his girl friend’s daughter but also the sister of his own children I’ve found him revoltingly creepy. And that’s even before we get to Dylan’s abuse allegations.

I also find myself wondering how many of the commenters here were hired by Woody’s famously clever and aggressive lawyers and publicists.

27Recommend
jo co 17 hours ago
Full disclosure – I am a Woody Allen fan. I have tried to deal with my love of his films and the accusations supported by his films for years. I want to continue to see his films and have tried to figure out how I can be true to my values and see them. So I have finally figured out my issue with this, maybe. He and Mia had an acrimonious divorce. As far as I am concerned, her career was the consequence of her starring in his movies. She is a good not great actress. I grew up with her movies. So many layers, so many gray areas. So I look forward to his new movie until there’s no gray.

6Recommend
Doug Tarnopol Cranston, RI 4 hours ago
Farrow is a great actress. Whatever else she’s done or said, just as Allen is a great writer and director, whatever else he’s done or said.

Recommend
Mercy Wright Atlanta 5 hours ago
Appearing in her boyfriends’ movies for low pay stymied Mia Farrow’s career.

Recommend
Dennis Martin Port St Lucie 17 hours ago
“It’s also a matter of who deserves the benefit of the doubt.”

If this is the basis for one’s judgement, then the basis is, of necessity, flawed as it will rest in the subjective opinion of one’s own judgement.

And as such, it cannot be considered.

2Recommend
Christina San Francisco 18 hours ago
Why do people keep saying that there were no findings of abuse and that Allen was “cleared”, he WAS NOT CLEARED. The judge’s statement was released by a reporter for Vanity Fair. The only reason Allen was not charged was to protect Dylan Farrow. The psychologists who worked the trial believed that she WAS abused and that Allen was inappropriately fixated on her, but that the child was too fragile to testify. It was considered in the child’s best interests to not charge him, because she would have to testify in a criminal processing. That was determined to be more damaging. My blood runs cold every time people say he was not charged. He would have been, but the court’s job was to protect her. His assault and her trauma are the reason he didn’t even get visitation and lost full custody.

The only reason he didn’t go to jail was because the child was the only witness. She was and is believable. There will never be proof other than he word and the trope of old men chasing 18 year-olds in his films. I was a huge fan, but I will not support his work anymore.

15Recommend
jcb is a trusted commenter Portland, Oregon 17 hours ago
Read up.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast

9Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
Wrong.
Here is the original court document in its full form in which both teams, Yale and NY child protections( the toughest in the world) services attest that there is not credibility in the claim and no persecution should follow.
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf

Recommend
colleen Fairfield 5 hours ago
I started to read this blog to see if I could learn more about Mr. Allen’s side in this debate.. then had to stop. This is very poorly written in terms of objectivity, but rather full of opinion which the author (as well as anyone else) has a complete right to express in written form. He does, however, colors his facts in a manner similar to any advocate and admits to a work related, cordial relationship w/ Mr. Allen and not the other people involved- which creates bias. So it’s a useful read in terms of an editorial but not in objectively evaluating facts as the author purports to do.

Recommend
Jake Nowhere 5 hours ago
The psychologists did not believe Dylan was abused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_assault_allegation#Yale…

“Completed in March 1993, the report went beyond its brief, concluding: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen”.[c]”

Recommend
Teed Rockwell Berkeley, CA 4 hours ago
No one should come to a conclusion about Woody Allen’s alleged guilt without reading the article linked to Jcb’s post below. Check it out.

Recommend
hk x 4 hours ago
You’re wrong. And as for the DA who made a politically expedient statement… He didn’t not prosecute to protect a woman who has repeatedly publicized her brain washing by mama, he didn’t because the evidence was flimsy and would never hold up. The details of the allegations ring as false now as they did then.

Recommend
Diana Miami 5 hours ago
Doenst matter who released the news, that doesn’t diminish the judge work.
How do you know why he was not charged? did you talk to the judge?
How do you know all the “facts” you are saying happened???? oh, wait, I know, you just read them online, so, they must be true. Lets just fired all detectives and investigators, we dont need them anymore, the truth people is all online and all that says the “victims” are always truth.

1Recommend
Iain Allan Nairobi, Kenya 18 hours ago
Is it not possible to differentiate between an artist and who he/she is personally? We listen to, and revere Tchaikovsky and Mozart, and are in awe of Picasso, but each of them, and countless more, were no angels. I will continue to enjoy Allen’s movies, and I don’t give a hoot who or what he is.

12Recommend
Carol Locke Lake Worth, FL 18 hours ago
As one of his loyal followers (when the term was more meaningful then as opposed to this social media climate) Woody Allen’s persona always drove me to put everything on hold when one of his new creations surfaced. I guess I am one of those acolytes who can compartmentalize – especially since nothing has been proven, the onus is on the accuser, the “jury is still out” and – frankly – every fiber of his being still makes me laugh out loud.

18Recommend
Horatio New York, NY 18 hours ago
I finally turned off to him with “Whatever Works.” Because the whole thing is in that movie: self-gratification is the only moral principle.

“The hearts wants what the heart wants” can justify any action, no matter how heinous.

The business with Soon-Yi wasn’t illegal, but it was the action of someone who does not care who he hurts as long as he gets what he wants.

And Dylan’s testimony is VERY compelling. I used to disbelieve it, because people who are attracted to 18-year-olds are not attracted to 7-year-olds. Now, I believe that he’s NOT attracted to 7-year-olds, he just grooms them to become paramours when they turn 18.

8Recommend
Katherine Washington, DC 18 hours ago
I don’t agree. Reinterpreting an artist’s work in the light of unproven allegations doesn’t just apply to Allen. And most artists, including novelist Elena Ferrante, who has written a lot about abuse and done everything to conceal her identity, want their work to stand on its own.

So let’s start by admitting that reinterpreting an artist’s work in light of events that may or may not have occurred changes that work for ever — a death sentence of sorts for the artist.

Let’s also admit that if alleged sexual abuse changes an artist’s work, we at least need to grapple with how we as a society want to treat abuse allegations.

If our concern is that allegations are seriously investigated, we need to admit that the allegations against Allen were investigated; no criminal charges were filed, nor findings of abuse made in custody proceedings; and there are as many reasons to disbelieve as to believe them. So it’s a matter of opinion. So is whether to watch Allen’s films.

I’m happy to reexamine Allen’s films. Just not forensically.

Besides some bad sixties humor, I see themes of mortality. I see themes of the artist and the man — as in Bullets Over Broadway it’s frequently the artist that gets shot down while the man goes limping home. I see awkward males – often weaker than surrounding women – who persist in finding objects of desire. I see the human condition. I see all of us.

18Recommend
Katherine Washington, DC 19 hours ago
Scott asks us to reinterpret Allen’s films in light of unproven allegations against him.

I don’t agree. Reinterpreting an artist’s work in the light of unproven allegations doesn’t just apply to Allen. And most artists, including novelist Elena Ferrante, who has written a lot about abuse and done everything to conceal her identity, want their work to stand on its own.

So let’s start by admitting that reinterpreting an artist’s work in light of events that may or may not have occurred changes that work for ever — a death sentence of sorts for the artist.

Let’s also admit that if alleged sexual abuse changes an artist’s work, we at least need to grapple with how we as a society want to treat abuse allegations.

If our concern is that allegations are seriously investigated, we need to admit that the allegations against Allen were investigated; no criminal charges were filed, nor findings of abuse made in custody proceedings; and there are as many reasons to disbelieve as to believe them. So it’s a matter of opinion. So is whether to watch Allen’s films.

I’m happy to reexamine Allen’s films. Just not forensically.

Besides some bad sixties humor, I see themes of mortality. I see themes of the artist and the man — as in Bullets Over Broadway it’s frequently the artist that gets shot down while the man goes limping home. I see awkward males – often weaker than surrounding women – who persist in finding objects of desire. I see the human condition. I see all of us.

6Recommend
Christina San Francisco 18 hours ago
Why do people keep saying that there were no findings of abuse? The judge’s statement was released by a reporter for Vanity Fair. The only reason Allen was not charged was to protect Dylan Farrow. The psychologists who worked the trial believed that she WAS abused and that Allen was inappropriately fixated on her, but that the child was too fragile to testify. It was considered in the child’s best interests to not charge him, because she would have to testify in a criminal processing. That was determined to be more damaging. My blood runs cold every time people say he was not charged. He would have been, but the court’s job was to protect her. His assault and her trauma are the reason he didn’t even get visitation and lost full custody.

3Recommend
AJ Wisconsin 18 hours ago
There are so many innaccuracies in your post. The prosecutor (not judge) that said there was probable cause to bring a trial (not that he was guilty) was accused and later acquitted for making this statement.

He’s definitely not a saint but this one seems more like a coached statement during an acrimonious divorce. Which is generally why we have court systems to adjudicate these situations.

9Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 17 hours ago
@Christina- i don’t agree. You read the investigators report wrong. Totally wrong. All of them said they believed no sexual contact occured. ALL of them but the judge and D.A. had egg on their faces because these investigators and others were hired by the Connecticut State Police, which found them qualified to interview Dylan, 9 times. So to save face they publicly question the investigation and the investigators. No supporting evidence to indict never mind to go to trial. Can’t you read?

10Recommend

Al Maki Victoria 19 hours ago
I’m a terrible judge of character, especially of people I don’t know. And I don’t know what if anything happened between Allen and this (then) child. What concerns me is Trial by Internet. It seems very much like Middle School gossip raised to some incredibly high level with the intent of ruining the lives and careers of the targets, quite similar to revenge porn in my view. It’s odd that in a nation that claims to be Christian the injunction to let he who is without sin cast the first stone is being so massively ignored these days.

22Recommend
Steve Friedman New York City 19 hours ago
Unless A.O. Scott means to say that Woody Allen’s romance and decades long marriage to his wife is evidence of sexual abuse, or that his preoccupation in his work with younger woman is evidence of sexual abuse, then he is being willfully misleading when he says “There is a powerful and understandable urge, as a consequence of the long-overdue recognition of the pervasiveness of sexual abuse, to expunge the perpetrators.” Condemn Allen for his scandalous romance with his ex-girlfriend’s adoptive daughter, fair enough (though doing so does sort of minimize their long marriage). Or condemn him for what you think is his artistic sensibility that now seems “cruel, cynical and self-justifying,” even though you thought it was once sweet and self-scrutinizing. Or condemn him if you believe the molesting allegations made against him (I, like many others who have read the relevant documents and testimony, don’t). But an artist’s chosen subject matter is not evidence of his behavior.

24Recommend
kevin sullivan Camarilla 19 hours ago
Early in his career my friends and I would guffaw with each new release: there was always a pubescent girl somewhere in the cast, it was so predictable.

8Recommend
Kally Kettering 5 hours ago
Which early movies are you talking about—Take the Money and Run, Bananas, Sleeper, Love and Death? Is the pubescent girl Diane Keaton by any chance? Louise Lasser? Janet Margolin?

Recommend
Paul G. San Francisco 19 hours ago
Let’s face it. For many of us of a certain age and background, Woody Allen’s droll, clever humor was spot on genius, starting with his comedy album, The Nightclub Years. Who can forget, “the moose scored!” And his movies were intelligent and absurdist, with so many classic scenes and lines. His early films, Take the Money and Run, Bananas, Sleeper and Annie Hall were cultural touchstones and Manhattan the natural evolution of his humor and world view. “We’re just human beings. You think you’re God.” “Hey, I gotta model myself after someone.” His obsession with younger (in Mariel Hemingway’s case, below the age of consent) women seemed somewhat benign at the time and as far as his continually casting younger, beautiful love interests, what leading man/director wouldn’t live out that fantasy? But the whole Soon-Yi thing was creepy and the blow-up with Mia Farrow, extremely ugly. Is he guilty of the allegations by Dylan Farrow? I don’t know and it’s likely we never will. Does it change how I see his movies? No. Does it change how I see him as a man? Sadly, yes, and that’s even if her charges aren’t true. It’s a stain that will never go away. So I will continue to reminisce with Fielding Mellish, Alvy Singer and Allen from Play It Again, Sam. “I have met a lot of dames, but you are really something special.” “Really?” “She bought it!” But do I buy Woody now? Like the author, I remain deeply conflicted.

8Recommend
Kathy P. My Age. My thoughts. My dilemma. Well said. Toronto 17 hours ago
My age. My thoughts. My same dilemma. Well said.

1Recommend
Loveringstudio CA 19 hours ago
Thank you for caring enough to share this honest quandary, Mr. Scott. Mr. Allen’s films have always made me feel uncomfortable, a gut reaction, and his personal relationships are just so out there that I can’t relate. We can’t start over, though, because now our impartial critique of the work/art is forever changed. I used to love Bill Clinton, but then the Monica affair changed how I react to him, and I can’t love him anymore, or even care when he does something good. I suspect that you too, Mr. Scott, will not be able to watch a Woody Allen film again with the same expectant pleasure.

7Recommend
Pol Pont California 19 hours ago
In 1932, Louis Ferdinand Céline, probably one of the two or three greatest writers of the twentieth century sent his masterpiece Journey to the End of the Night to his publisher with a letter in which he wrote: “I’m sending you literature for 2oo years”. The book was an instant best seller. And in 1939 he wrote his first antisemite pamphlet and the second one in 1940 and the third one in 1941 for which he had to flee France after the war and was jailed in Denmark pending his extradition to France. The pamphlets cannot be reconciled with the rest of his writings. Yet, I can’t resist the urge to “listen” -Céline wrote to be listened to not to be read- to the Journey at least once a year.

Woody Allen’s predicament, like Céline, is of his own making, not because he may have molested his daughter, sometimes fierce divorces bring out the most unimaginable behaviours in order to get even with the author of the outrage, but because he thought that he could indulge his every impulse, like getting sexually involved with Soon-Yi Previn, regardless of its utter indecency not from a moral or legal point of view but from a human one. The boomerang that is hitting him on the back of his head is what he did with Soon-Yi which triggered what he is alleged to have done to his daughter. The rejection of actors and A.O.Scott who are all succumbing to the #metoo movement, which has taken a hysterical turn, are wrong. I have no twinge of conscience whatsoever about watching Allen’s movies.

6Recommend
Talesofgenji NY 19 hours ago
There is an alternative theory

Soon-Yu Previn had strained relationship with her step mom Mia Farrow (it would not be the first daughter – mother conflict). A alternative theory is that Soon-Yi got back at her step mother by stealing the her husband.

In 2006 Ms Farrow stated about Soon-Yi

I really don’t think of her as my daughter any more. I can’t. She isn’t. She’s estranged – and strange.”

4Recommend
dmd nyc 17 hours ago
she was not her “step mother.” She was her mother.

7Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 5 hours ago
given the well founded dysfunction and violence by Farrow towards the kids, no wonder why she may have “Rebelled”. Moses Farrow got wise when he got old enough and made up with Woody.

Recommend
Teed Rockwell Berkeley, CA 4 hours ago
Adopted mother.

Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 19 hours ago
We all have heard the statement: ” A D.A. could indict a ham sandwich”. Yet, they couldn’t indict Woody Allen? Of course he’s innocent.

12Recommend
LuigiDaMan Ohio 19 hours ago
As a divorced father who was once accused by his ex of crimes similar in nature to the Farrow/Allen debacle, I am painfully aware (in hindsight) that people can absolutely lie with all their heart and mind when they are trying to disparage you and your character. There have been countless court officials, lawyers, and prosecutors who have climbed through Woody Allen’s life to assess the truth of Dylan Farrow’s accusations. I can tell you firsthand, the process is exhaustive and extensive. It turns your life upside down. It makes it hard, as a father and husband, to carry on when the allegations of rapist and worse are hurled at you. The stigma lasts forever. The courts and their officials have looked at the allegations and have decided that there is no evidence to pursue Mr. Allen further. Except for ongoing innuendo and reputation tarring, which will go on forever, the matter legally is dead. He has not been proven guilty, therefore he is innocent. Sorry to those of you who don’t understand. Sometimes people accuse you of heinous crimes because they are mentally ill or just really hate you a lot. It happens. I feel the burden of those accusations. But, I was innocent. And, according to the Connecticut courts, so is Mr. Allen.

35Recommend
Kat Maryland 17 hours ago
as I said what always seems to escape this bashing is an examination of Mia Farrow’s character…

8Recommend
hk x 5 hours ago
EXACTLY!

Recommend
barbara jackson adrian mi 19 hours ago
“Judge not lest you be judged . . .” Didn’t somebody say that once? Somebody famous, as I recall . . .

8Recommend

Phil Florida 19 hours ago
My Scott says he believes Allen is guilty, then go on a long riff that has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence to try and prove his point. I’m not a great Allen fan, but to me this has always seemed like a frame-up. Have you ever heard of someone who was accused of molesting a young child once? I haven’t. Mia Farrow and Allen were engaged in a contentious custody battle and Farrow was furious. In 1990’s NYC accusations of child abuse in divorce and custody cases were very common and some would say cynically that such accusations were used as part of a legal strategy. After the allegation a 6 month criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that there no molestation occurred. I support the #MeToo movement but that doesn’t mean that to accuse someone means they are guilty. That someone’s career should be ruined by what is at least an unproven, if not dubious, accusation is a travesty.

27Recommend
James Milwaukee 19 hours ago
Scott makes good points regarding some of the problematic themes in Woody’s work, but there is a big difference between attraction to younger women and pedophilia.

Also, I find it troubling that the film critic elites never critique the stunning lack of diversity in his mostly NYC based movies.

2Recommend
Emmanuel Los Angeles 19 hours ago
First of all, I love Woody Allen and I loved Manhattan. I was a teenager when I saw it. I too was a nerdy boy who envied the wit of Mr. Allen’s characters. Shortly after, at age eighteen, I fell love with a forty-year-old man. We had less of an age difference than Isaac and Tracy in Manhattan. Also, it was in Paris, where one legally reaches sexual maturity at 16. Still, I loved the way Mr. Allen portrayed Tracy as smart and mature as opposed to a mere sex object. Maybe I was naive.

People remember Manhattan as creepy. I’m not sure that’s fair, though the movie may appear that way. Stardust Memories, as beautiful as it was, is the truly creepy one. Go back and pay close attention.

I can’t believe Mr. Allen is guilty. But, at this point, I have to admit I cannot trust my own judgement. I have been moved by Alice, Annie Hall, Jasmine and Harry Block just too many times.

2Recommend
Thomas Lawrence 19 hours ago
The fact that Moses Farrow has always steadfastly defended Woody Allen is highly persuasive. After all he is someone on the inside who actually has knowledge of everyone involved (as opposed to all of us internet commentators).

24Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 4 hours ago
as a child he was brainwashed and physically abused by Mia Farrow. As an adult he saw the light and did much self- healing. I understand completely also as a child who was abused.

Recommend

Phil Florida 19 hours ago
Mr. Scott says he believes Allen is guilty, then go on a long riff that has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence to try and prove his point. I’m not a great Allen fan, but to me this has always seemed like a frame-up. Have you ever heard of someone who was accused of molesting a young child once? I haven’t. Mia Farrow and Allen were engaged in a contentious custody battle and Farrow was furious. In 1990’s NYC accusations of child abuse in divorce and custody cases were very common and some would say cynically that such accusations were used as part of a legal strategy. After the allegation a 6 month criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that there no molestation occurred. I support the #MeToo movement but that doesn’t mean that to accuse someone means they are guilty. That someone’s career should be ruined by what is at least an unproven, if not dubious, accusation is a travesty.

6Recommend
albaniantv oakland, ca 19 hours ago
Not sure when we Americans decided that works of fiction should be assumed autobiographical. Vladimir Nabokov made gentle fun of us for this (http://reprints.longform.org/playboy-interview-vladimir-nabokov), pretending to be insulted that we did not respect his artistic abilities to invent, to imagine Lolita.
I have not seen all of Woody Allen’s films, but a great many, and most of the ones I saw starred Mia Farrow or Diane Keaton and later, Scarlett Johansson. Only the film Manhattan seems to qualify as testament to Allen’ alleged practice or fascination with pubescent or pre-pubescent girls.
Many of his other films echo the usual (at least until now) Hollywood assumption that women of their 20s are and 30s are eager to couple with men in their 50s and 60s.
Several of Allen’s films are centered on men getting away with or trying very hard to get away with murder, but we (Americans) don’t seem to find this indicative of behavior or, even, aspiration.
There is no question that our American culture is still reticent and puritannical about recognizing, talking about and speaking out against sexual abuse. We are now in the midst of a huge reappraisal of how to recognize, report and litigate about sexual abuse.
But we have to be careful not to lose or even diminish the importance of facts before allegation and assumption of innocence until proven guilty. We are known throughout the world for these principles and cannot survive their trampling.

6Recommend
DS Montreal 19 hours ago
Yes, I do re-evaluate Woody Allen’s movies in the light not only of these abuse allegations but also his other actions — having a secret relationship with the daughter of his girlfriend right under the latter’s nose, marrying his girlfriend’s daughter, trying to claim custody of her children after marrying the daughter, flaunting that new relationship in front of his ex, etc. For example, I find the movie Manhattan unbearable to watch, same for movies where evil triumphs like Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point. As to his most recent movies, I just find them boring and not funny, so reevaluation is irrelevant.

3Recommend
Norm McDougall Canada 19 hours ago
I too have retreated to the shopworn “The Art is not The Artist” in defence of both the films and the man. But, like the author, I have to reassess.
“Manhattan” seemed quirky when released, but as societal norms have changed, it now seems decidedly creepy.
So does Woody, and I can’t watch his work anymore without feeling somehow complicit.
I’d say: “Sorry, Woody” – but I find I’m not.

1Recommend

Jim Muncy Crazy, Florida 19 hours ago
I know Woody Allen made me laugh. My friends and I enjoyed his off-the-wall comedy; it got me through some depressing spots: I would tell other people his jokes, like: “I’m not only afraid of the dark; I’m suspicious of the light,” etc.

I don’t know if he’s guilty.

Recommend
Charles Chotkowski Fairfield CT 19 hours ago
There is another reason to be skeptical of the accusations made against Woody Allen by Dylan Farrow: Allen was accused of sexually abusing Dylan at Mia Farrow’s house in Bridgewater, Conn. The Litchfield County state’s attorney, following his usual practice, referred the matter to a team of investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital, who concluded that no sexual abuse had taken place. The state’s attorney then decided not to file charges against Allen, but in an unprecedented action claimed that he had probable cause to do so, a statement that was severely criticized.

10Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 4 hours ago
yes, and he didn’t support it with facts. My theory is that he expected a different outcome with the report so as to seek an indictment and trial for Allen, instead he got left holding the bag and egg on his face. He held that newsconference and said what he said in order to save face. Prosecutors too are elected politicians.

Recommend
Charles Chotkowski Fairfield CT 3 hours ago
State’s attorneys in Connecticut are not elected by the voters; they are appointed by the Criminal Justice Commission.

Recommend
Mohammed Norway 19 hours ago
I doubt Mr Scott will read this, but I hope it reaches enough of those who hold his opinion: Be a man/woman of your convictions and check the moral failures, big or small, of those who make the movies you wanna watch, the music you wanna listen to, the paintings you’re gonna see and the books you’re gonna read. Or even better, wait till these artists and authors are dead just to make sure you’re not giving your time or money to them.

The rest of us are perfectly fine with separating the art from the artist when we need to.

4Recommend
Andrea B Venice, CA 19 hours ago
Anyone who has ever been in any kind of relationship with someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (yes, it’s a mental illness) can recognize that Woody Allen suffers from it. “Symptoms include an excessive need for admiration, disregard for others’ feelings, an inability to handle any criticism, and a sense of entitlement.” He simply doesn’t care how Dylan or anyone else feels. His sense of entitlement is palpable. Dylan, on the other hand, shows clear signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. “Symptoms may include nightmares or unwanted memories of the trauma, avoidance of situations that bring back memories of the trauma, heightened reactions, anxiety, or depressed mood.” Go figure, people.

4Recommend

DougTerry.us Maryland/Metro DC area 19 hours ago
A nebbishy, bumbling, unsure of himself in every way man longing for a younger woman can be funny, entertaining. A tired old man being nebbishy and locking arms around a much younger woman is neither funny nor bearable to watch. Get me outta here! How in the world did Allen get away with it for so long? The somewhat worthy movies of his late period do not have Allen acting in them at all, but some of them still do reflect that dynamic of an older man and a younger woman.

Allen was, at one time, the essence of messed up cool. He was a kind of everyman figure who could nonetheless quote Nietzsche and who knew that Beethoven was not merely a name mentioned in a Chuck Berry song. As such, he got away with murder in the screen. He was New York personified in the flippantly Freudian age and could do no, or very little, wrong, for decades.

Yes, re-examine his work. Some of it stinks and certainly validates belief about his baser instincts. And, agreed, he can’t be thrown away, banished entirely, at least not by those who watched him for years.

Some of the most revered creators in the world have been horrible people. It was no accident that Kurt Cobain killed himself for the clashing, slamming musical gift he gave the world sometimes sounded like suicide writ large. You are going to take down half the writers and poets now renowned if you delve too far and make judgement the goal. Perhaps the work of some is a cry for a better self, a struggling attempt at personal salvation.

1Recommend
Alan Gary Brooklyn, NY 19 hours ago
Often I wonder if getting wrapped up in the personal lives of others is simply a way for many of us to not deal with our own character defects and demons? We must all take a stand in regards to the issue of sexual harassment, rightfully a topic of conversation in our world, but none of us will ever truly know what happened in many circumstances, so why make such grand judgements and pronouncements?

5Recommend
John Denver 19 hours ago
If we’re going to start banishing the art of men who have committed grievous acts toward women, we will need — for starters — to destroy all of the works of Pablo Picasso.

4Recommend
James S Kennedy PNW 19 hours ago
Every living creature that ever existed whether animal, vegetable or whatever is driven by evolution to strive to perpetuate their species. Humans, because of advanced powers of reason, should be more able to control their passions, and some do. Education, talent, intellectual or leadership ability, station in life, seem to make no difference. Presidents, Generals, clergy, emperors, criminals can be found among those little self control. It doesn’t seem to detract from their abilities. I haven’t seen every Woody Allen movie, but I have enjoyed the two dozen or so I have seen. I guess my attitude is no harm, no crime if it takes place among consulting adults. But rape, or threats of harm, whether physical or economic are terrible crimes. I will withhold disparagement in the absence of evidence, but cannot avoid suspicion.

1Recommend
Pamela Grimstad Bronx, NY 19 hours ago
I’m a feminist too. And I find it incredibly creepy and boorish to use one’s art as evidence. If art is proof of a crime, Stephen King has been getting away with murder, literally. I also remember this whole torrid affair when it broke. The timing of Mia Farrow’s accusation was very curious in the unfolding of the story. Two states – Connecticut and NY – did not find any evidence of rape or molestation. Are we all ready to implicate every person in child services of two states? Do you have any idea how thorough these sorts of investigations are?
Especially in a highly publicized case. Was it a giant conspiracy that two separate investigating bodies sided with Woody Allen? And why would they side with him, Because he is a star? Mia Farrow is a star too — I know it’s hard to believe in this moment when all women have been deemed righteous victims and all men, ruthless rapists – but they both held equal power. Additionally, the compulsion to molest little children is one with many victims – child molesters are repeat offenders. I’ve not heard of any other accusation from any other children. I do feel genuinely sorry for Dylan Farrow though, she truly is a victim of the people closest to her — she was either mistreated by her father or by her mother. Poor thing.

12Recommend
lindanotes SC 4 hours ago
Pamela Grimstad: re “child molesters are repeated offenders”. Actually, getting found out publicly
may deter further abuse. Medical investigative teams cannot conclusively determine whether abuse occurred in the absence of physical evidence as in the case of touching. The New Haven team lost their notes. How is it that the man is believed but a six year old child is not?

Recommend
dutchiris Berkeley, CA 19 hours ago
Apparently a president gets a pass when he has a history of abusive, degrading comments toward women. From his own mouth we heard disgusting, obscene boasting about his groping and forcibly kissing women, and from their mouths we heard confirmation of that behavior.

Woody Allen makes movies and we can choose to watch them or not, but Donald Trump is in a position of power that threatens to destabilize the whole world.

People ignore that and focus on a film director?

4Recommend
Lotzapappa Wayward City, NB 19 hours ago
No, Mr. Scott, I’m not buying this. Much better, I think, to stick to the facts of the original allegation against Allen. He was investigated twice and twice was not charged. Furthermore his famous 60 Minutes interview was extremely convincing. I’m firmly in the-wronged-companion-was-out-to-get-him camp on this one. The evidence that does exist strongly suggests that this was what happened. If this is what did happen, why don’t you (and everyone else who’s jumped on the “Wood is a Monster” bandwagon) turn your guns on her. She deserves it.

13Recommend
Terry Nevada 19 hours ago
Who knows?

But it seems a slippery slope to say we can somehow judge what can only be described as a criminal accusation through the art of the accused (though I’m sure there is a novel or movie about that). God knows what Shakespeare might have been guilty of. Why not go on to judge us all by the art we consume? “Didn’t you once go see a Woody Allen movie?”

As to those actors now abandoning Mr. Allen, they were happy to work with him when that promised to advance their careers, despite most of this then being on the record. And they are equally happy to avoid him now when being associated with him might hurt further career advancement.

It’s as if Hollywood, so sure (and right) in its condemnation of a previous blacklist is now anxious to create one of its own. I say good for Alec Baldwin and Diane Keaton, even if they are wrong. Might they costar in his next production, something along the lines of High Noon, a parable about another inquisition?

I feel no need to settle this in my mind. Weinstein and many of the others essentially admitted their guilt, so have at them. Woody has not and has a credible defense and credible defenders. It’s between him and the various Farrows. I don’t see that the rest of us have anything to contribute, especially by deciding this through a reevaluation of his work. Go see his films, or not.

12Recommend
PArmstrong Tucson 19 hours ago
I would like to hear A. O. Scott’s thoughts on the fact that a Woody Allen movie is not just WA’s art. A lot of other artists (actors, musicians, photographers, etc) were involved and arguably should not have their work cast aside, and reputations and income reduced, due to the moral depravity of WA. How many Farrow and Keaton films must we give up? I have the same issue with the Met Opera now denying us all the operas that James Levine ever conducted. What of the other, innocent, artists?

2Recommend
Nancy is a trusted commenter Great Neck 19 hours ago
I think this essay and the discussion that resulted remarkably illuminating, for there are and will be conflicts on how we experience art, and I am grateful for all I have learned here.

1Recommend

Woof is a trusted commenter NY 19 hours ago
Gauguin took three native brides – aged 13, 14 and 14, for those keeping score – infecting them and countless other local girls with syphilis.

No more viewing Gauguin, Mr. Scott ?

6Recommend

JTBence Las Vegas, NV 20 hours ago
The last Woody Allen movie I paid to see or watched was “Everybody Says I Love You.” In what alternate reality does someone like Allen have Goldie Hawn as his ex-wife and Julia Roberts as his current one? It seemed to me to be just an excuse for him to kiss beautiful women. I was so disgusted with it, particularly after the Suni Allen affair, that I decided I no longer needed to see his films.

9Recommend
Christopher Ewan Williamsville, NY 19 hours ago
Absurd. Apparently you forgot that the movie was a fantasy. And, apparently you are unaware that movies are fiction, unless they’re documentaries. Fiction is a made-up story.

10Recommend
David Monticello 17 hours ago
Q: In what alternate reality does someone like Allen have Goldie Hawn as his ex-wife and Julia Roberts as his current one?

A: In the alternate reality called the movies. Movies are by their nature a fantasy world. I’m sure the actors you mentioned had no problem playing these roles. Your reaction to this is simply childish.

10Recommend
Kat Maryland 17 hours ago
and it’s a lovely movie – Alan Alda and the kid with the brain tumor who started being a republican! lol

3Recommend
hk x 5 hours ago
Maybe you also won’t want to see Mia Farrow anymore after watching Rosemar’s Baby?

Recommend
CL NYC 4 hours ago
Well in this reality he has a very beautiful, younger wife. He has many gorgeous exes too.

Recommend
Duane Coyle Wichita 20 hours ago
The “reassessment” process the author and many commentators speak of is baloney—or better described as a transitory dog feces in the front yard which will soon deteriorate and leave no lasting trace.

It is only in the time, place and age, imbued by the unique cultural perfume which permeates each such age that we lastingly judge a new song or movie. Our youthful brains form permanent data files which cannot be deleted, altered or corrupted—untranslatable from the software that wrote them.

My instantly formed personal reactions to the Woody Allen movies “Sleepers”, “Annie Hall”, “Manhattan”, “Hannah and Her Sisters” and “Crimes and Misdemeanors” are intact and fresh.

Two hundred years from now a new generation of movie directors and screenwriters will discover and be influenced by Woody Allen’s films (or Charlie Chaplin’s films) and neither they or their audiences will even be aware of, or if they are much less care, about the child molestation allegations under discussion. That isn’t to excuse such allegations if true, which is beyond my ability to determine, but rather to say that great art stands on its own merit independent of the creator; like Picasso’s paintings, or Gary Oldman’s performances on film.

I

14Recommend
frederic NYC 19 hours ago
thank you for that.
But even today, it should be obvious to anybody reasonable that Woody Allen movies are not an apology of sexual abuse. The author of this article and many comments are bordering on calling for the ‘boycott of degenerate art’. It really is a shame.

9Recommend
porgy nyc 17 hours ago
Such a strange argument the reader Duane Coyle makes, that his personal attachment to what he has determined to be great art – the WA movies mentioned- is excuse enough for history to forget about the child molestation charges against their director. WA’s movies are all about the male gaze and for the writer above, that seems much more worthy of celebrating than remembering the name and agony of the child he molested

1Recommend
frederic NYC 5 hours ago
The so-called ‘male gaze’ of Woody Allen seems to be the problem here, and allegation that he committed a crime seems to be a pretext.

1Recommend
oretez Ft. Worth Texas 20 hours ago
While I share any number of characteristics with an adolescent AO Scott, & even now would be grateful for Cary Grant-ish champion for all of us who matured at a slower rate than the bullies that despised us for no apparent reason; even ‘Play it Again, Sam’ made me more uncomfortable than celebratory. I wanted female companionship but would have been disinterested in the Girls Allen championed (generally speaking) . . . In college I always suspected Allen films were more homoerotic with box office acceptable casting than reflecting any hetero relationship of interest for me
After Annie Hall I disengaged so it was no particular issue, in 93, to just shrug and go, “Don’t have to worry about those movies anymore”. But engagement with art has to be personal and even now I would, as a rule, be comfortable proselytizing. I lack sufficient let alone necessary information to make any type of forensic assessment of Allen’s guilt or innocence. But Allen’s ‘art’ is different from Caravaggio’s, Leonardo’s, Picasso’s, Joyce’s, et al.

& is Is ‘art’ that fails to support his personal defense, his writings fail, his defense fails to support his defense. More significantly the necessary mass-consumption of his art to be ‘art’ makes the mass audience (we) complicit in it’s creation, complicit in his guilt or innocence, complicit in the continued funding of his revenge porn . . . still not proselytizing for anyone to stop watching .

Recommend
kevin sullivan Camarilla 19 hours ago
since I turned 50 I’ve returned to the books and films and art that I experienced as a young man, to find whole new interpretations.

1Recommend
Catgirl NYC 20 hours ago
AO Scott should stick to movie reviews and not cultural analysis. This is an inane article that tries Woody Allen in the court of public opinion–or should I say personal opinion. What filmmaker or artist of Allen’s generation doesn’t display narcissism in his or her work? The best art addresses the flaws and failures of humans, and his work certainly does that. Most men are drawn to beautiful, fresh-faced young women–and we can lay the blame for that on a lot of things like mass media (this newspaper included) but I hardly think Woody Allen is anywhere near the top of that list. What a silly and narrow-minded perspective this is.

17Recommend
BrooklynNtheHouse Brooklyn, NY 20 hours ago
Two words for you and your palpable ambivalence, Mr. Scott: Leni Reifenstahl. No doubt she was a great and visionary artist. No doubt she used her artistry in the service of a monstrous and detestable world-view. Like Reifenstahl, Woody Allen’s artistry and contributions are diminished by the fact that he cannot or will not identify his own pathology much less examine it in the context of his work. He sees the world through the prism of his own psychosis. But he thinks his view of the world and the women in it are the world as it is and women as they are. It’s a miniature theater peopled with paper dolls he can manipulate to fulfill his fantasies. Despite his self-effacing shtick, he exhibits no real humility – just self-justifying, self-absorbed navel gazing. Woody Allen is a malignant narcissist trying to pass off his shtick as self-awareness. I stopped buying it a long time ago.

11Recommend

Carmela Sanford Niagara Falls USA 20 hours ago
I believe Woody Allen. I think this shameful episode is the work of an angry Mia Farrow. I hope that Mr. Scott does not let his anti-Woody bias color his reviews of Allen’s movies. I’d like to ask Mr. Scott why Mia Farrow dwells in the shadows of this endless custody battle, letting Dylan Farrow and Ronan Farrow do the dirty work?

Much has been said, including by Dylan Farrow, about a toy train set in the attic of Mia’s Connecticut country house. Mia’s adopted son Moses Farrow, now a family therapist, is quoted in a 2016 blog run by documentary filmmaker Robert Weide that was no train for Woody to tempt Dylan.

Here is what Moses says: “I assure you, there was no electric train set in that attic. There was nothing practical about that space as a place for kids to play, even if we wanted to. It was an unfinished attic with exposed fiberglass insulation. It smelled of moth balls and there were mouse traps and poison pellets left all around. My mother used it for storage where she kept several trunks full of hand-me-down clothes, that sort of thing. The idea that the space could possibly accommodate a functioning electric train set, circling around the attic, makes no sense at all. One of my brothers did have an elaborate model train set, but it was set up in the boys’ room, a converted garage on the first floor. Maybe that was the train set my sister thinks she remembers.”

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/hard-questions-for-ro…

26Recommend
Dick Mulliken Jefferson, NY 20 hours ago
The entire topic is so sordid. And of course it spreads like a fungus. All Hollywood is a plague area. Avoid the cinema. It ios full of plague germs. Avoid women.

2Recommend
Alex SW-Germany 20 hours ago
“ “My son has seen all his movies, and he thinks he’s innocent,” she said. “I’ve seen all his movies, and I think he’s guilty,” I said. There was not much else to say.
There is a lot more to say. “…

No, there is indeed not more to say. You Mr. Scott, like your colleague Nicholas D. Kristof several years earlier, simply took sides. You’re part of the pack now that wants ’to take him down’, like Dylan Farrow had called it in an interview. Years ago I plowed myself through the unpleasant bulge of the Farrow/Allen-case publications. I think that Dylan Farrow actually believes what she is claiming. I also think that she is wrong and that Mr. Allen is not guilty. This skeleton lies in Mia Farrows closet. So I side with Geraldine Chaplin and Alec Baldwin.

26Recommend
Kat Maryland 17 hours ago
and Dori Previn – Beware of Young Girls – a song she wrote abut Mia Farrow…! This has gone on long enough – time for the expose on Mia’s sordid twisted life…

5Recommend
Dan All Over The U.S. 20 hours ago
I worked with hundreds of abused children in my career, and with dozens and dozens of workers in the field. To a person those workers erred on the side of believing the child, and not a one of them would have been swayed by who the accusations were against.

The investigators who worked the case found no cause to make a determination that Woody Allen had molested his daughter.

Case closed.

Except that the best evidence, collected by the most impartial individuals associated with the situation (i.e., the invetigators), is that it is Mia Farrow who has perpetrated emotional abuse upon her daughter.

Boycott her movies if you want to, but I am going to continue to enjoy Woody Allen’s.

36Recommend
Catherine Norway 20 hours ago
When my kids were young, I gave them a choice. “Would you rather go out to eat, or would you rather have tuna fish sandwiches at home and go to see the latest Woody Allen movie?” They both said right away, “The Woody Allen movie!” I think the movie was “Radio Days.”
I went to see my daughter in Chicago about 10 years ago and was going to the opera with my son-in-law. I had forgotten my opera clothes at home. My daughter said, “Mama, would you rather go look for a new dress to wear to the opera, or would you rather go see the new Woody Allen movie.” At once I said, “The new Woody Allen movie!” The movie was “Match Point.”
For the record, I don’t believe Woody Allen molested his daughter.

23Recommend
Kally Kettering 20 hours ago
I’ve found it personally surprising that most sexual misconduct reports roll off my back, even of those people I love—Louis C.K., for instance. I guess this is because I’ve come to realize and accept that they are celebrities and we don’t really know them. We only know their public personas. Just because someone is charming on a talk show, doesn’t mean he or she is a good person.

But for Woody Allen, I’ve never needed to adjust my view of him. I don’t know what actually happened with Dylan—and neither do any of you. I have always seen his movies as artistic wish fulfillment from a neurotic, self-proclaimed nebbish—that beautiful young women are attracted to him (or his stand-ins such as Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters). And well, both Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow were beautiful young women when they were with him, so how far off is that, really? I saw Manhattan as a young, single, career woman, not unlike the Diane Keaton character (albeit, a bit more stable) and I didn’t like it. I found it not just creepy, but insulting that he preferred the adoring teenager to the complex woman. Seeing it years later, I really loved it for all the reasons it is a great movie—especially for the many funny lines (the little homunculous—laughing because one could say the same about you Woody, my friend). The troubling, romanticized portrayal of a man more interested in an unchallenging young girl is still there—but then, is this not authentic? Are there not many men just like this?

4Recommend
Kally Kettering 4 hours ago
Oh, and I just wanted to also mention, that I was puzzled by this—Mr. Scott says of Woody Allen’s “rejected women” characters, that they “appear shrewish, needy, shallow or boring”. Seems odd coming from someone who claims to know Allen’s body of work so well. I question which characters he is talking about. This doesn’t describe the ex-wives in Annie Hall (they are certainly no more needy or neurotic than Alvy is), Mia Farrow’s character in Hannah and Her Sisters, or even the Meryl Streep character in Manhattan, who while certainly not particularly 3-dimensional, was very cool (and actually was the one who rejected him). I found this a lazy assessment of Allen’s motifs.

Recommend

LdV NY 20 hours ago
1) Woody Allen should have been prosecuted. And he would have been acquitted. Dylan Farrow’s accusations were as unprovable 25 years ago as they are today as they will be 25 years from now.

2) For a mother of a sexually abused 7 year old, Mia Farrow sure seems rather lackadaisical in her pursuit of justice against Woody Allen.

3) Has anyone bothered to ask how Soon Yi feels about her relationship with her husband? Or do the self-anointed high priestesses of feminism consider that she is and will be forever a victim of abuse?

27Recommend
Sara Seattle 20 hours ago
I “vote” with my time and money, and have never seen a Woody Allen movie and never will. Whether he assaulted Dylan or not (although I tend to believe her) is not the issue. It’s legally unproven and that most likely won’t ever change. But he photographed, dated, and married his partner’s daughter – his children’s sister. Whether he was legally or technically her father is not the point. He had known and been around her from the time she was a child. Not at all okay with me, and his art reflects this lack of morality. At worst he’s a pedophile, at best he’s a world class creep. No thanks.

16Recommend
barbara jackson adrian mi 17 hours ago
Remember the song, “Gigi?” Hum the words to yourself . . . Romantic, isn’t it?

1Recommend
barbara jackson adrian mi 5 hours ago
Oh, and by the way, somebody wrote, directed, and filmed “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre!” Just imagine hat morals THEY lack!

Recommend
John P. New York, NY 20 hours ago
I’m not sure why the writer feels betrayed. Maybe it’s juvenile and “sick” humor to joke about “the molestation sketch” (“Hannah and Her Susters”), but it’s comedy. Rattle through all of his scripts and you’ll find these sort of jokes amongst many other kinds. Jokes. A rereading surely is not evidence of guilt nor reason for the author’s shame. Woody deserves the due process that was afforded him – he was never charged. If Mia was so sure of his guilt why didn’t she sue in civil court with a much lower standard of “guilt.” I feel sorry for Dylan Farrow for she has lived believing her father harmed her. But I believe her brother Moses has it right, that it simply didn’t happen. Dylan and Woody are both victims here in my mind.

7Recommend
Greg New York 20 hours ago
All due respect, Mr. Scott, but your hand wringing over Woody Allen seems way too easy. Whether he did it or not, Allen is an easy target – he’s a creepy old man whose best work was decades ago. If you’re going to twist yourself in knots over the “art versus the artist” dilemma, why not question “Call Me By Your Name?”

What, exactly, Is the difference between Mariel Hemingway and Timothee Chalamet, except that one requires our attention rather than our hindsight?

5Recommend
Samuel Russell Newark, NJ 20 hours ago
Mr. Scott, your writing is incredible, full of elegance and insight. I feel the same way about Manohla Dargis. I always look forward to it.

3Recommend
Angela Los Angeles, California 20 hours ago
Long before the Soon-Yi scandal & Dylan Farrow revelation, I began being disturbed by Allen’s viewpoint about women in “Manhattan.” I told my friends at the time that I thought he was misogynistic about adult females. In that movie, the 2 adult women, his ex-wife (Meryl Streep) is a hostile lesbian and Diane Keaton is a neurotic mess who would rather continue a destructive relationship with a married man (not Allen) rather than have a relationship with him. The Mariel Hemingway character, a teen-ager, is held up as the shining paragon because she has unquestioning adoration of him. The last movie of his that I saw was “Hannah & Her Sisters,” in which Michael Caine’s betrayal of Mia Farrow by a love affair with her sister Barbara Hershey, is eerily similar to Allen’s real-life betrayal of Mia Farrow in real-life with Soon-Yi. And Soon-Yi was of course a teen-ager at the time, no doubt with unquestioning adoration of him. What A.O. Scott and others need to say is that Allen’s movies are a kind of “grooming” of the movie-going public, designed to make his perversity and that of others like him (Polanski, for instance) in real life excusable because of their supposed “artistic” achievements. Why should he or Polanski or Weinstein get a pass for what would land any other non-famous individual in the slammer? I have never seen another of Allen’s movies since “Hannah & Her Sisters,” & never will.

12Recommend
toomanycrayons today 20 hours ago
“…this is unquestionably an age of self-display. “

“We are all The Sun King/Louis XIV, now.”-Kellyanne Conway

Recommend
D Yates SF 20 hours ago
Here is the NYT article detailing the doctor’s report that was presented in court and exonerated Allen. Scroll through Vanity Fair for the toxic details that came of his relationship to Farrow:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-…

Then talk.

5Recommend
Don’t Agonize, Organize North Carolina 19 hours ago
You present the doctor’s report, but not the written report from the actual judge, who heard all facts from both sides.

That judge did not conclude Mr. Allen was innocent.

1Recommend
tonelli NY 20 hours ago
Self-absorption and self-aggrandizement worthy of a woody allen movie.

1Recommend
LS Seattle 20 hours ago
I was 18 the year “Manhattan” was released, and crazy about film. “Annie Hall” had made me laugh – especially at the Marshall McLuhan and Christopher Walken bits – but I didn’t find Annie Hall’s helplessness endearing and I was irritated that the beautiful Diane Keaton was supposed to be paired with Woody Allen. To see him with Margaux Hemingway was even grosser. As much as I wanted to love the movies because of the music, and the cinematography and the humor, the thought of him as a romantic lead was just stupid. Obviously, he had the power and so he cast himself as the hero. Even before knowing anything about the man’s personal life, I found his persona unrealistic and more than a little repellent.

8Recommend
David Monticello 17 hours ago
Has it ever occurred to you, and to other women of the same low opinion of Woody Allen, that some women may be attracted to him because of who he is, and not because of his physical appearance. These derogatory comments based on his body are just as bad as comments some men make towards women. You would think that most women would know better than to do the same thing that they find so hurtful when it is done to them.

4Recommend
LS Seattle 3 hours ago
Yes, it has occurred to me. I made no derogatory comment about his body or his physical appearance. I should have made clear that it’s the lopsided power balance (in his movies and in Hollywood movies in general) that bothers me. Can you name a woman in American show business who is a female equivalent of Woody Allen – funny, smart, not conventionally beautiful – who has built a long career on casting herself opposite handsome men who are anywhere from ten to twenty seven years younger than she is, in pairings that are meant to be sincere?

Recommend
Peycos Rochester, NY 20 hours ago
The thing that changed my mind on the Woody Allen scandal was hearing about Mia Farrow’s active and continuing support for Roman Polanski. She still considers him a friend and has spoken of him in glowing terms. As recently as 2005, she flew to London to testify on Polanski’s behalf in a libel suit. This was long after the Woody Allen allegations.
Think about it: if you had a daughter who had been sexually molested, would you stay friends with a man who not only is confirmed as a molester of a young girl but fled the country to escape justice? Particularly to the point that you’d go out of your way to defend him in court? The mind boggles.
Moses Farrow’s accusations against his mother become much more believable when you hear things like this, as it defies credibility that she’d be so outspoken against molestation on one hand and so blase about it (to say the least) on the other.

27Recommend
Kat Maryland 5 hours ago
and Mia’s Brother IS IN PRISON for sexual molestation of boys… She’s a hypocrite.

2Recommend
S Block UK 20 hours ago
Given how many artists have behaved as terribly in their personal lives as many non-artists, it is safe to say that being a distinctive artist does not elevate the entirety of your existence to a higher plane – just the art part, where the artistic process can buff and buff away at what the artist wishes to present to the world: a heavily refined, presentable version of their more interesting thoughts and feelings. Consequently, it feels impossible to separate an artist from their work, because a half-decent artist pours themselves into their work in one form or another. One might argue this makes the work more troubling; yet no less interesting, as we search for more clues to who they are and what they are trying to say to the world. We can look at Picasso’s works about women (and Allen’s) through the prism of our understanding of his real-life behaviour towards women. Artists lives inform their art, and our knowledge of their lives can’t help but inform our response to what they produce. To suggest that we either love Allen’s work by having to deny he could ever have abused a child is as reductive as suggesting we must hate his work because he’s a child abuser. He can be a great artist AND a child abuser. Hold that thought in your head as you re-watch the movies. Allen can be all the things we want him to be, and possibly all the things we don’t want him to be, at the same time.

3Recommend
Michael New York 20 hours ago
Let’s erase everything we find that does not conform to current party orthodoxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

2Recommend
Don L. San Francisco 20 hours ago
While I’ll never get to the bottom of whether Woody Allen actually molested Dylan Farrow, the timeline as to these allegations has always been suspicious. Allen meets Mia Farrow in 1979 and begin to have children together (and adopt others). All of this appears to continue more or less ordinarily until January 13, 1992 (some 13 years) when Mia Farrow finds nude pictures of Soon Yi-Previn. Almost immediately thereafter, Farrow sends a highly disturbing Valentine’s picture in February with skewers and knives through the hearts of her and her children to Allen. The Valentine is pretty hard evidence of an emotionally unstable person. On top of it, a clinical psychologist testified that on August 1st, she was concerned about Allen’s safety and that Farrow had made numerous threats. Then, out of nowhere, on August 4th come the sudden allegations about molestation. It’s a suspicious timeline indeed.

12Recommend

Sally L. NorthEast 20 hours ago
I watched and loved Woody Allen movies as a kid. When the story broke about Dylan Farrow, I almost got sick. I knew that she was telling the truth and that he was trying to cover it up. I cannot stomach watching his movies now. Mariel Hemingway played an underage girl in that movie and no one called him on sleeping with an underage girl which was basically statutory rape. He got away with a lot and still does. I think his movies get darker as he gets darker. Now, he is just trying to save face. I for one lost faith in him a long time ago. I am amazed at the actors who still insist on believing in him to advance their career or just to be in a Woody Allen movie. It baffles me. You can’t separate the artist from his sickness.

2Recommend
Larry D Brooklyn 17 hours ago
“I KNEW she was telling the truth…”. And how exactly did you KNOW?

4Recommend
BHD NYC 20 hours ago
The notion that Dylan Farrow was used as a pawn by Mia who was justifiably furious and humiliated by Woody seems the most likely scenario to me.

If that’s the case than Mia Farrow did something as depraved as child molestation itself. Ruining her young daughter’s life to seek revenge. One of Dylan’s parents is evil, but only two people truly no which one.

5Recommend
DWS Boston 20 hours ago
There is not enough evidence that Woody Allen is guilty of anything. Are we to blindly believe any and every accuser? Has no one ever had the horrible experience of someone hating them and lying about them? I have, and that is why I am so afraid of this current environment – which is sexual Mccartheism.

11Recommend
Rich Meyer Naples, Fl 20 hours ago
We are entering dangerous territory when anyone can go on TV and accuse another even though it was investigated by two state agencies. Mia Farrow is a vindictive person and we should not doubt that she has in fact manipulated Dylan. At what point do we say “show me the proof” ?

5Recommend
EH Pasadena, CA 20 hours ago
This wandering whatever it is, examination, perhaps, is really just pseudo-intellectual flimflam. What is at issue here? It seems to me the important question is whether or not there is any actual evidence that Mr. Allen abused his step-daughter. According to Mr. Allen, experts from Yale University were called in at the time and after a lengthy examination, their determination what that there was no abuse. Mr. Allen and his wife went on to adopt two children. One assumes that a thorough background check was made on both parents to determine their fitness for adoption. The accusations against Mr. Allen were certainly well known at that time and must have been strongly considered. There have been no other accusations against Mr. Allen. Are we to believe that Yale University experts got it wrong, the adoption agencies got it wrong and Mr. Allen is a pedophile with only one victim ever?? Has Mr. Scott done any actual investigation into this allegation, or is this just an expose of his angst and his desire to be seen as current within the MeToo movement? Mr. Scott seems to confuse Allen’s characters in films with the man himself. Reality is reality. Films are films. Or does Mr. Scott have something definitive to add to his narcissistic rumination?

7Recommend
Don’t Agonize, Organize North Carolina 19 hours ago
Did the doctors mention in their testimony how much of Mr. Allen’s money flowed into their clinic at Yale, so oddly and coincidentally?

2Recommend
Enough Europe 5 hours ago
the Yale investigation was ordered by the connecticut police.
here are the copy of the court papers.
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf

Recommend
Joseph Norway 20 hours ago
What really annoys me about Woody Allen’s scandal coverage is how people treat Soon-Yi Previn as a minor, someone manipulated by an old man, unable to think for herself. And they’ve been together for more than 25 years!

7Recommend
AnneSN Redding, CT 20 hours ago
Why, in every other instance, were there multiple, corroborating stories, while in this case Woody Allen was a sexual abuser once? Weinstein. O’Reilly. Ailes. Rose. Lauer. Nassar. And on and on. Multiple women coming forward to tell their stories, sometimes in the dozens, even hundreds. Abusers don’t stop with one person. They can’t. And here comes Woody Allen who abused one person – his daughter – and no one else? Where are the others?

7Recommend
MaryKayklassen Mountain Lake, Minnesota 20 hours ago
The truth is that the nature of the human animal is such, that one would pretty much have to stop watching any television, any movies, not be on the internet, not read any history books, as lurking behind all of it, are too many, dirty old men, often with egos the size of the current President. Only truly senile persons are safe, as they don’t remember the good content plus the bad and horrific behavior that has of lately been exposed. For every model, every actress, or actor, for every person who has worked for another person, they could tell stories of sex, hate, fraud, lying, drugs, that would make your hair stand on end. Even in one’s immediate family, if one is honest, there are plenty of stores of abuse in all forms. Only moving out west, 30 miles from everywhere by oneself, and not digitally wired, can one escape from all of it!

1Recommend
David Brisbane 20 hours ago
I just don’t get it. There is nothing at all creepy or untoward or unsavoury about Woody Allen and his movies. Middle aged man date and marry younger women all the time. There is nothing strange or perverse in their mutual attraction and even, yes, love. Nor is it illegal anywhere in the world. As a middle age man myself, I salute those young women who could see past the superficial veneer of youth and beauty and may find intellectual component of relationship stimulating too. The only “blimish” on Allen’s reputation is that outlandish accusation, which was thoroughly investigated and dismissed at the time. He was never charged with any crime. Given the circumstances if that case, and many similar cases where impressionable children were found to make up the wildest things under directing influence of interested adults, it is impossible fir me to believe that he is guilty of anything. The real crime here is what is being done to him. He dies not deserve that at all.

6Recommend
HKGuy Bronx, NY 20 hours ago
Since this was the ONLY incident which he’s been accused of, and since he was exonerated, and since by all accounts, he and Soon-Yi have a happy, mutually fulfilling relationship, please by all means keep watching his movies guilt free.

7Recommend
Addison Steele Westchester 20 hours ago
Mr. Scott–
we’ve all been given a new lens to look through.
bravo to you for testing it out.

Recommend

Passion for Peaches Left Coast 20 hours ago
If we were allowed to view, read, or otherwise appreciate only the creations of those who age adhered to our own moral principles, most of us would have little art, literature or even television entertainment in our lives.

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi were consenting adults when they began a relationship. What they did was taboo, but not illegal. Their relationship was and is a private matter.

I believe the Dylan Farrow was manipulated into believing she was molested, through the vindictive efforts of her mother. However she believes she was violated, so violated she was. The question that remains is who was the perpetrator — Allen of Mia Farrow? I hit for her. She was surely misused in one way or another.

As for Allen’s films, I have outgrown his self-obsessed, horny-nebbish shtick. I loved “Annie Hall” when I was a young woman. I even enjoyed “Manhattan,” although even back then I was creeped out by (and disbelieving of) his pairing with the too-young Mariel Hemingway. But somewhere in my forties I lost interest in anything to do with male angst. Allen has been making the same movie over and over again for years, and it’s all about him. I find him tiresome in the extreme.

7Recommend
Dave Baltimore 20 hours ago
These recent allegations of sexual abuse indict the nature of celebrity itself, which depends ultimately on lies, manipulation and deception. Celebrities and their enablers are constantly selling us on a false image of themselves, not truth, so whatever Woody Allen sold us about himself through his movies should’ve never been confused by his fans or critics with who he really was and is: a sexual predator.

1Recommend
Jastro NYC 20 hours ago
I read this entire article and you didn’t say much. You did miss the chance to compare Woody to JD Salinger and their love of young girls

2Recommend
Robert Merrill Camden, Maine 20 hours ago
He’s an odd duck, which is why we like him. His quirky humor and schtick harkens back to Vaudeville and beyond to Jewish humor for centuries. If I look at a Picasso, I don’t dwell on his misogyny, I focus on his painting. People need to get a grip on the boundaries that we have run roughshod over. Sexual harassment is bad, rape is worse, but innuendo and guilt by condemnation is also bad. “J’accuse” is the rallying cry of the moment. The guillotines come next.

3Recommend
EH San Francisco 20 hours ago
Whatever one thinks about older men being attracted to much younger women – or vice versa, e,g., the current President of France – this per se is not a crime.
Therefore, shouldn’t the only pertinent issue be whether Mr Allen was guilty of molestation?
The fact is a criminal (including a forensic psychiatric) investigation of the molestation allegation at the time found no such evidence, indeed suspected that the child had been coached by her mother. See:
www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/doctor-cites-inconsistencies-in-dyla…
www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast

Mr Scott, in all your speculation and innuendo, why didn’t you take the trouble to mention this simple fact?

In the Trump era, with the excesses of the times, and identity politics, there is contempt for facts. Those who judge Woody Allen therefore, where the facts speak against his guilt, are no better than, for example, those various Middle Eastern countries that have mass hearings and pronounce guilt (and sometimes death sentences) on the basis of no evidence or facts to the contrary.

5Recommend
Mickey D NYC 20 hours ago
What an inept confession to a fawning sense of ambivalence. If you don’t know if he did it, and this is what this is all about (and why it is inept), what should you do? Common sense would say put it away, because you don’t know enough. Instead the author doesn’t dare challenge the most extreme elements of the West’s version of Iran’s religious police (that’s why it’s fawning). He goes on and on (the ambivalence) and makes a totally ineffective gesture towards believing Woody (he clearly doesn’t dare say that) or this formerly young girl (he can suggest that without fear of challenging the wrong parties).

Sense of entitlement? Woody Allen? Perhaps in his trumpeted public fantasies if you’re willing to pervert them to an incredible extent. More like a grasping desperation. That’s the real man and the voice of all his works. There’s not a hint of entitlement. But if you feel under pressure and don’t know how your audience feels (something that doesn’t trouble Mr. Allen) you might say something ridiculous just to keep your professional position (inept, fawning, and ambivalent).

Recommend
Jeff Bowles San Francisco, California 20 hours ago
Mia Farrow made a career of being a waif attaching herself to prominent celebrities, and her famous 11-room rent-controlled apartment should tell you that she was certainly one to take advantage.

The OTHER sibling, Moses, has training as a therapist and has gone on the record saying that Mia was a manipulative and brutalizing mother who would force her children to “rehearse” apologies to her and went over the edge when Mr. Allen started a relationship with Mia’s then-adult adopted daughter.

We’ve seen this before, the jilted and crazy wife deciding to ruin the philandering husband in every way possible.

She needs to be institutionalized.

8Recommend

Bea Dillon Melbourne 20 hours ago
Child abuse victims don’t usually lie. There is no reward for accusing their perpetuator. There are no rewards for pursuing their justice. Ms Farrow deserves to see this guy punished. I believe her.

1Recommend
C. Richard NY 20 hours ago
What has happened since:
1. “It’s better that 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent is convicted.”
2. “Innocent until proven guilty.”
3. “The statute of limitations.”
4. “Judge not lest you be judged.”

This is one more instance of America’s insane obsession with matters sexual, at the expense of all other matters, for example, decent standard of survival for all.

2Recommend
Hal C San Diego 20 hours ago
All these commenters nobly refraining from condemning Allen without a conviction of molestation in a court of law. As though getting sexually involved with your wife’s 21-year-old adopted daughter when you are a powerful 56-year-old isn’t sufficiently unethical, and raises no red flags.

3Recommend
Live from Chicago Chicago 20 hours ago
I stopped watching Woody Allen movies when he started having sex with his daughter — a fact he freely admitted in divorce court. There’s no question of innocence v. guilt — it’s on the record.

5Recommend
Larry D Brooklyn 17 hours ago
No matter how many times it is pointed out that Soon-yi was NOT Woody Allen’s daughter, and NOT even his step-daughter, there will always remain those whose love of moral outrage interferes with their reading comprehension.

7Recommend
Dave Miller Roosevelt Island NY 20 hours ago
I think it’s a bit fatuous for a respected film critic who has been a big fan of Mr. Allen to suddenly reevaluate everything in light of the currently evolving climate. (Yes, evolving. The current MeToo/TimesUp movement is anything but static. To be sure, there will also be counter-movements and push-back.) Mr. Allen’s body of work, which is somewhat close to being complete, will be judged as it will be judged, both now and into the future. As long as someone is willing to finance his films, he will find actors and continue to film them. The inconclusive child sex scandal will remain just that unless more evidence emerges, and it will be a permanent part of Mr. Allen’s life record. One can be fairly certain that, innocent or guilty, true or false, he regrets that, and that will never be enough for his accusers. It will be there for folks to ponder long after he is gone, as will the films themselves. Some will enjoy the films, some will refuse to watch. Mr. Allen, I think, would always be the first to admit he’s had an imperfect life. Who hasn’t? What more can be said?

2Recommend
Here’s my comment Long Island, NY 20 hours ago
All those movies starring Mia Farrow — Broadway Danny Rose, Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters — and the articles, including the NY Times Magazine about their wonderful off-screen relationship. And then to learn he had an affair with Farrow’s adopted daugher, a young woman who was part of his family from the time she was 10; and that he left naked photos of her in sexual poses where Farrow could find them. How cruel is that? And without a moment of guilt or apology to his former partner and mother of his children? Why would anyone want to keep financially supporting someone who would do that? Are we really so starved for “art” that we think his subsequent films just had to be seen and underwritten? Not I.

5Recommend
dga rocky coast 20 hours ago
I remember verbal abuse I experienced at age 7; I can remember the precise words spoken to me. Why would I not remember sexual abuse? Why don’t we believe Dylan Farrow? Does she have a record of lying, cheating, stealing? Something that would indicate that she’s not trustworthy? Why is she ignored? Why won’t we listen? Why is a man with a decades-long penchant for 18 year old girls seen as trustworthy while an ordinary woman is not?

6Recommend
Kat Maryland 20 hours ago
i feel like this article was written purely because it’s a guaranteed click – that’s today’s world – clicks to links matter… Leave Woody Allen alone. He’s been married for 25 years or so… His son is also Mia’s son and she is a woman scorned… If you would give equal time to examining her past – that would be a level playing field…

and what now a man marries a younger woman and that’s a shocker! lol – my father-in-law met met my mother-in-law the same year i met his son and she is the same age as I am – and our relationship was never celebrated as the way one would expect traditionally but who cares? because he’s just a human – such is life – we are all only humans…

I loved Woody’s work and will continue to support it…

7Recommend
MT Pennsylvania 20 hours ago
What I find curious is the behavior of Mia and her children. Mia’s behavior appears to be textbook parent alienation campaign tactics by histrionic or borderline mother. He children appear to behave as agents of Mom in an attempt to appease her.

I feel sad for everyone involved – including Woody Allan and especially the children. Not so much Mia. She needs to stop using her kids as tools.

9Recommend
ken Keen Boston 20 hours ago
“While we’re trashing people. what about Mozart?”

Recommend
Stephen Hoffman Harlem 20 hours ago
Seems like some people today think attacking any white man of authority and status with unprovable charges is an indirect blow against Trump. How wrong they are. Conviction on the charge of child abuse carries heavy consequences. You can’t give Woody Allen’s accuser “the benefit of the doubt,” as you say, without risking ruinous consequences for his career. No one with the slightest knowledge of the poisonous circumstances in which those accusations were born can possibly think that is a good thing, if they are interested in truth and not political point-scoring. Which side are you on, Mr. Scott?

1Recommend
Enough Europe 20 hours ago
Link to the full court decision.

http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.fr/2014/03/woody-allen-v-mia-farrow-cour…

And a small addition that none talks about.
Dylan Farrow did change her accusations in 2014.
Here is the seriously troubling explanation, why the press is mum on it one can only wonder..

opinion on Dylan Farrow vs Woody Allen from woodyallen

4Recommend
Barbara Boston 20 hours ago
I have watched the Woody Allen fiasco for decades: Woody Allen is a child molester, and Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton are enablers. He married his adoptive daughter, period, full stop. Dylan’s account is credible. Hollywood let him keep making his movies with the same plotline- old guy obsesses over young woman, and woman are only of value because of their bodies – in other words, because they are objects for the pleasure of men. He was never held accountable. Our entire legal system treats rape, sexual assault, and incest far too lightly, and now Jeff Sessions would rather go after pot smokers. As an extra special note, adoptees are at 4 times more risk for sexual abuse, and make up nearly a quarter of the adolescent admissions to mental hospitals. Oh, for the justice of ancient Egypt, when convicted rapists were met with a sentence of death because women’s bodies, spirits and souls were actually valued.

2Recommend
Alex Minneapolis 4 hours ago
“He married his adoptive daughter, period, full stop.”

Actual facts: She wasn’t his adoptive daughter, she wasn’t his step-daughter, she wasn’t his daughter. None of those. Period. Full Stop.

1Recommend
Malina Paris 4 hours ago
She was not his adoptive daughter. Her adoptive father is Andre Previn.

1Recommend

David Henry Concord 20 hours ago
“the allegation of abuse was the invention of a spurned woman lashing out against the man who had humiliated her.”

Obviously.

Dylan Farrow was coached by Mia according to experts, and her “story” has not remained consistent over the years.

Mr. Allen’s art is fiction, a work of imagination. Most of his movies do not involve young girls at all, and when they do, they are dating young men.

5Recommend
JMG Canada 20 hours ago
As usual, A.O. Scott is astute and highly readable. Thanks for delving into this complicated territory.

1Recommend
firststar Seattle 20 hours ago
it reminds me of the way people refuse to believe victims of sexual harrassment and assault because they only know the ‘good’ or ‘positive’ side of a person. the offenders not only ‘groom’ their target, they ‘groom’ family and friends into thinking that they are a safe, upstanding citizen. that their sexual banter is all in good fun. those who cross lines of physical boundaries have often been pushing the line of what is appropriate, to see what they can get away with and to normalize offensive behavior. look at Nassar and how he was able to deceive so many people because he can’t be a famous sports medicine doctor and also a child molester? Allen has been showing us who he was all along and we chose to ignore it and ‘focus on the art’.

2Recommend
Stephen Flanagan Saint Louis, MO 20 hours ago
You left out (or intentionally omitted) that Moses has said that Ms. Farrow abused him as a child. Dylan Farrow believes what she is saying. Mr. Allen was investigated and insufficient evidence was found to say the event actually happened. Was Ms. Farrow ever investigated? Could it be that she has convinced Dylan that this abuse took place for her own gains? Dylan was abused by either Farrow or Allen. If people were really concerned with Dylan’s well-being, they’d look at both parents.

6Recommend
Mynheer Peeperkorn CA 20 hours ago
In the court of public opinion we are free to condemn or exonerate as we see fit. As in Hamlet, “Use every man after his desert, and who should ‘scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.” Or, consider the youthful excess of St. Augustine – shall we defenestrate our saints?

2Recommend
SMB Boston 20 hours ago
I remain curious after all these years about why Allen triggers such special treatment. The writer notes Allen’s very long, very public preoccupation with much younger women, not to mention his marriage to his wife’s daughter. A natural daughter consistently has accused him of sexual assault. The office responsible for evaluating this claim has stated there was sufficient evidence to charge Allen, but declined to do so, supposedly out of concern for the daughter. Even in otherwise positive reviews of otherwise entertaining films, critics have noted his predilection for wildly unrealistic plot premises that an aging, physically unattractive male would be catnip to far younger, usually beautiful women. His manic, neurotic humor just peels back the blankets.

If all this doesn’t constitute a “pattern” that would condemn any other personality to disgrace in 2018, nothing does. Yet Allen seems to be made of Teflon. My hypothesis is that he supplies another form of catnip to an audience of middle aged and older males: His films allow them to maintain their own fantasies that they could be desirable to women who in reality would be repulsed by his advances. They deny the pattern because it maintains their own self identity.

Speaking as a middle aged male, get over it, guys: Your wife or partner may, or may not, find you sexy, but women a generation or two younger would just call you – or Allen – creepy.

2Recommend
Bill U. New York 20 hours ago
Dylan was seven. Molesting young children is abnormal, compulsive behavior, not something you would expect someone to try once at fifty, never before and never again. That the claim was made in the middle of a breakup with custody and visitation implications renders it quadruply doubtful. Dylan’s horrific claim must not be slighted. But neither should a man’s reputation be easily disposable. Consider the context here and kindly temper your opinion.

9Recommend
Jim NH 20 hours ago
so, those people who will not view future Woody Allen films will not (nor ever have) watch a Charlie Chaplin film?…maybe someone should make a list…

3Recommend
The pygmy scribe State of Denial, USA 19 hours ago
Charlie did not marry the child who had sat at the other end of the dinner table since she was about 7. And the humor in Chaplin’s movies did not revolve around a 50-year-old man fixated on a girl still in high school. In fact, a lot of Allen’s humor is driven by misogyny.

2Recommend
Jon Silberg Pacific Palisades, CA 4 hours ago
Chaplin knew Lita Grey from the time she was 7. She played a nymph in a dream sequence with him at 14 and she married him at 15. He was 35. She was already pregnant by him. I don’t know if that changes your opinion of City Lights and Modern Times but it’s probably worth knowing.

Recommend
Ellen Brooklyn 20 hours ago
When I moved here in the late 70s, I worked with a man who had been friends with Louise Lasser (he was an actor too). He had nothing good to say about Allen, whom he described as nasty, abusive and totally narcissistic.

When I read Orth’s articles in Vanity Fair about Dylan’s ordeal, I knew Allen was even more of a monster than I had imagined. The reviews of his writing, going back decades, shows he was always a misogynist and predator.

2Recommend
JLL Bay Area 20 hours ago
Never a fan of Woody Allen movies; the premise is usually that the audience should sympathize with the Woody Allen character, a neurotic, dweeby, self-centered character who suffers because the world in general, and women in particular, don’t appreciate how wonderful he is. The movie doesn’t give us any evidence for wonderful accomplishments, character traits, or talents in this character and yet women are supposed to be attracted to him. It’s a character that only a mother would love and makes the movies nauseating.

Recommend
Paul King USA 20 hours ago
Guess what?

Life has gray areas.

Wow.

I’m a man who takes his fellow men to task for bad, coercive, harassing behavior. I’ve looked at myself, my behavior, down to how long I may look at a woman in public – cognizant of how it can be an uncomfortable experience.
I monitor and critique myself.
I also have humane heart and self control.

I’ve made it my business to look at the Dylan/Woody issue.

Looked at it and read a lot.
Watched them both interviewed.

Any fair minded acessment yields this-
It’s not settled but Woody gets more benefit of the doubt.

Here is the latest I’ve read from Dylan’s brother Moses. Pretty credible I think.

Be fair always.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/dylan-farrows-brother-moses-mia-farr…

9Recommend
Ann Dallas 20 hours ago
Mr. King, Moses is entirely contradicting what he said at the time. Did you read Judge Wilk’s opinion, which Woody Allen could not get overturned on appeal?

1Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 20 hours ago
Moses was 13 at the time – a child as opposed to his book written when he was in his 30’s. Big difference.

4Recommend
BLB Princeton, NJ 20 hours ago
While we can never know who is innocent and who is guilty, what we do have is a tragic woman still in emotional trauma since she was 7 with two parents who are each or both a suspect for her pain.

His films are no longer enjoyable to me.

3Recommend
ANewYorker New York 21 hours ago
I’m a feminist and I believe Dylan. And I’m disgusted by him.

But I’ll also always love Broadway Danny Rose and Hannah and Her sisters.

4Recommend
Kit US 20 hours ago
You’re a feminist and “therefore” you believe Dylan? If that is the extent of your reasoning, please stay off of any jury service.

7Recommend
AlexNYC New York 21 hours ago
I recall the creep factor in the film Manhattan when Woody’s character, a man in his forties, was dating a 17-year old girl. It was a blemish an an otherwise excellent film. Sadly, like a couple of his other films, it was an indicator of his true character in real life.

7Recommend
Christopher Ewan Williamsville, NY 20 hours ago
The age of consent in New York state is 17. In many states in the U.S., the age of consent is 16. That’s why “Manhattan” is not called “Topeka.” And remember, the movie is not a documentary, it’s fiction. You know, made up.

2Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 20 hours ago
just what is his “true character”?

1Recommend
sayitstr8 geneva 20 hours ago
so, you don’t like older teens? is that it mr purity plus? because, most men do. most don’t act on it, of course, but get real. older teen girls can be beautiful, sexy, appealing.

dating them? Well, I couldn’t ever since I hit 21 (embarrassing) but they are like campbell’s soup……mmmm……..mmmm…..good.

go ahead deny it.

Recommend
Mark Siegel Siegel0129@bellsouth.net 21 hours ago
I think if we evaluate the art based on what we view as the personal failings if the artist, I fear we go down a dangerous rabbit hole. Is Woody Allen a good person? Likely not. But neither was Picasso, Joyce, and Hemingway, to name just three. I think we need to focus less on the biography of the artist and more on what that person produced. It’s the art, not the artist’s personal life, that matters.

14Recommend
Ann WY 21 hours ago
I will always love Woody Allen’s film and continue to watch them. I don’t know the man, Woody Allen, just like I didn’t know Picasso.

19Recommend
Karen Cormac-Jones Oregon 21 hours ago
When Allen’s movies were playing on campus several years ago, I remember hearing the laughter from the audience, and it was almost all male. The only movie he’s made that I liked even a little was “Annie Hall,” and that was only due to Keaton’s wardrobe. The scene with the killing of the lobster was just ICK, not only because of the lobster, but because the Annie Hall character was so…useless without a MAN. Plus Allen’s own huge ICK factor of being really really homely and almost painful to watch on a big screen. An ugly misogynist – what’s not to love?

5Recommend
Patrick NYC 20 hours ago
For the recent crop of young women on campus such as yourself, the Lobster scene in Annie Hallshould have definitely had trigger warnings so that those needing to be protected from the ICK, YUCK, EEEWWW could retreat to a safe space.

Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 20 hours ago
or really? Did you actually see all of these men laughing? Take a head count? I thought not. You see and hear what you want to see and hear.

1Recommend
dave the wave owls head maine 20 hours ago
OK but the Woody character was close to useless too. And so he wasn’t Robert Redford, some nebbishy smart guys get the girl.

Recommend
jim boston 19 hours ago
There are many reasons not to like Woody Allen or his films. The fact that he is, as you so crassly put it, “really really homely” isn’t one of them. Had someone made a crude remark about some female performer and dismissed her because she is “really really homely” I suspect you would be outraged. Your objections to Allen as stated in your comment seem to be more about your personal prejudices than his actual faults as a man or artist.

Recommend
Kally Kettering 4 hours ago
They both acted the same in the lobster scene! Both freaking out and afraid of the lobsters. That’s why it was funny!

Recommend
Irene Cantu 21 hours ago
Picasso was a womanizer and an terrible father. Yet, he has not been
abandoned by art-lovers. Antisemitic images/characters are sprinkled
throughout the works of Dickens and Wharton. A person’s art is not to be equated with the person. I can and will continue to separate Woody Allen’s art from the man. Is he guilty of abusing Dylan Farrow? I hope not.

4Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 21 hours ago
Part of the reason for this may be due to the fact that they are no longer with us, so one is not contributing to their bank account or their success.

2Recommend
jim boston 20 hours ago
If Picasso were alive and producing art today I doubt that the public would take such a benign view of his failures as a human being. As to separating Allen’s life from his work it’s really hard to do when his work so closely mirrors his own life.

1Recommend

Mr. Fedorable Milwaukee 21 hours ago
The möbius strip with art on one side and artist on the other is a strong illusion. My head will always be in a knot over the idea of nasty people doing great work. Selfishly, I keep a firewall.

5Recommend
John Covaleskie Norman, OK 21 hours ago
I confess, I have not seen a Woody Allen film since his affair with his step-daughter was revealed. I do not consider my life to have been very impoverished as a result.

18Recommend
Patrick NYC 20 hours ago
Wasn’t his step daughter. Your loss, not the world’s.

1Recommend
jim boston 19 hours ago
I didn’t have to make that decision because I had given up on his films some time before that when I realized they were not only increasingly ugly, but about people that I didn’t care about one little bit.

Recommend
joan sarasota 4 hours ago
She wasn’t/isn’t his step daughter.

1Recommend
Mehitable Bigsky New York 21 hours ago
Phil Spector is a convicted murderer, yet I’ve never heard anyone claim we should reject his work because of it. In fact, I suspect many (if not most) of us didn’t even know he killed someone. Why not, I wonder? And why, even when we do know, don’t we feel the same visceral outrage toward him that we have toward Woody Allen? I have my suspicions, of course … but I’m also curious what YOU think.

7Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 20 hours ago
Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, Phil Spector, Picasso, and Woody Allen are part of a group of artists whose behavior is a huge turn-off for me and thus, I’m no longer a fan of their work the way I once was. Maybe that’s because their faults were all based on abuse, or misogyny, and/or cruelty.

Just as my brother-in-law who I used to adore before he was caught grooming little boys, is no longer beloved, I can live without the above artists, but maybe it’s because I no longer have stardust in my eyes and have seen how an artist and a really neat person can also be a monster.

3Recommend
jim boston 19 hours ago
Spector’s murder trial was very well covered in the press. Everyone knew about it. And there are several rather important differences between him and Allen and reasons why we didn’t reject his work. 1) His work doesn’t reflect his personal foibles in the same way that Allen’s does 2) The bulk of his work had all been done well before he was charged with murder 3) His work is not quite his own the way Allen’s is. Yes Allen’s work contains performances by actors, but the movie is always a Woody Allen movie. Whereas, “River Deep Mountain High” is as much a Tina Turner recording as it is a Phil Specter recording. 4) Spector’s sins didn’t involve children

Recommend
Ken NYC 21 hours ago
Molesting a seven-year-old girl and making films/stories about older men who are turned on by young women are two totally different things. One is a crime; one is a art.

Whether you think Woody Allen’s art is bad, creepy, disgusting, etc., doesn’t matter. He’s still just an artist. Not all art has to appeal to all people, and clearly his art has appealed to a heck of a lot of people so far.

Who he chose to marry was certainly weird. And yet, they are still married twenty years later. And Soon-Yi Previn is almost fifty.

Quite literally no one — except Mr. Allen and Dylan Farrow — will ever know what actually happened in that attic. And they people have opposing assertions of what happened. Believing one or the other has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. It is only a reflection on who you (the person doing the believing) are.

Sexually harassment in the workplace is one problem. Sexual abuse between adults is another problem. Sexual abuse of children is a third. We as a society must fight all three vehemently.

But if we conflate them with each other — and certainly if we conflate them with art-making — we lose our way.

15Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 20 hours ago
“But if we conflate them with each other — and certainly if we conflate them with art-making — we lose our way.” – Do we lose our way if we refuse to watch a film by Roman Polanski due to the fact that he drugged and raped a 14-year old girl?

If Donald Trump did the same, you’d be rightly outraged and demand that he be removed from office. But an artist gets a pass.

Recommend
Kit US 20 hours ago
If Donald Trump did the same, I’d be rightly outraged (but for some reason not surprised) but I wouldn’t demand any of his legislation should be reversed solely for that reason.

Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 20 hours ago
actually we do. Mia Farrow gave sworn testimony back then and the account that she gave says that nothing inappropriate or illegal happened. Read it for yourself. Too bad most crucifying Allen haven’t done so.

1Recommend
Ken NYC 19 hours ago
“Do we lose our way if we refuse to watch a film by Roman Polanski due to the fact that he drugged and raped a 14-year old girl?” No, because we know he committed a crime.

“If Donald Trump did the same, you’d be rightly outraged and demand that he be removed from office.” If Donald Trump did what? Make a movie about desiring a young woman?

Recommend
Doug McKenna Boulder Colorado 3 hours ago
Um, actually, there is another class of person who likely has insight about what happened: Mr. Allen’s therapist(s).

Of course, were he/she/they to weigh in, it would destroy their profession.

Recommend
Todd San Fran 21 hours ago
Of course, none of us will know the truth about what happened with Dylan. But I was done with Allen when he took nude photos of a girl he had helped raise since she was a child. It matters not whether he legally adopted her or not; she was his long-time girlfriend’s child, and functionally his own.

He’s gross. I don’t care if he was an incredible filmmaker (to my eyes, he is anything but, and I don’t see his movies standing the test of time), he’s a gross perv, and that’s reason enough for me to not give him my money.

10Recommend

Bill Devon, Pa. 21 hours ago
The appeal of Allen’s movies has always tilted toward New Yorkers or those who wish they were New Yorkers. Only New Yorkers, you see, know what a fun yet hectic crazy mess the world can be, whether that world exist in New York or, these days, in a European city given the same sheen. The rest of us are too dimwitted to get it. The reality is that Allen’s comedy has always worked better than his plodding, self concious attempts at seriousness, and even in the comedy you can see half the jokes a minute away. He is a good filmmaker, but never let that trick you into believing he makes good films.

2Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 20 hours ago
I’ve lived in Paris, Switzerland and other big sophisticated cities, so I guess that makes me… what? Allen has used that excuse before, that anyone that disapproves is just too ignorant for words.

3Recommend
Stevenz Auckland 21 hours ago
In an age where movies that trade in extreme violence perpetrated by men *and* women ( a dubious form of “equality”), profanity as the mother’s milk of dialogue, a cynicism that precludes any kind of sympathetic character, and sex that is more about politics and domination than about romance – these are supposed to be “entertainment.” Hollywood is a schlock factory regardless of its treatment of women or anyone else. I have “no Woody Allen problem.” His films *are* entertaining, often literate, and very well written. He doesn’t pander to the basest human instincts that seems to pack American theatres nowadays – bad is good. Evil is better. Splattered brain tissue is awesome. But if you want to tar and feather him for (inexcusable if true) indiscretions, maybe it is time to do the same to the entire Hollywood exploitation industry for perpetrating abuse by celluloid of the entire world.

9Recommend
Lance G Morton Eureka, CA 21 hours ago
I was a big fan of Allen’s early movies, not so much his later ones. I have been a social worker for 40 years. At one point I specialized in working with women and children who had been sexually abused. So, I was interested in Ms Farrow’s allegations. The more I read about them the less I believed them. As for his marriage to Ms. Farrow’s adopted daughter, tacky, weird, but not pedaphilia. Mr. Allen’s attraction to young women is a bit cringe worthy but without any allegations of sexual harassment to go along with it I see little relevance, besides, one would be hard pressed to find many men not attracted to young women. It’s how one behaves that is important, not what one thinks or feels. Least ways that’s how I am transiting through these important “me too” moments.

17Recommend
Bruce Watson Montague, MA 21 hours ago
So Woody Allen, all along, was “cruel, cynical, and self-justifying?” Examples, please? Woody Allen was one of my cinematic (and humor essay) heroes, too, but I’m not so quick to join the mob mounting against him. I don’t care for any of his movies since “Match Point” but judging his ’70s masterpieces by our current concerns is both silly and futile. OMG why didn’t we SEE?
When the current concerns are last year’s or last decade’s headlines, I trust “Annie Hall,” “Manhattan” and others will still be watched, laughed along with, and admired. But did he DO IT? How can we possibly know. Sure makes good headlines, no?

7Recommend
Joe Schmoe Kamchatka 21 hours ago
Another reason not to watch Woody Allen films is because they’re not entertaining. They’re just not. Tepid wit that might be amusing when you are young, but really, you grow out of it quickly. Woody Allen never did.

I was also always a little perplexed by his putting a Woody Allen-like protagonist in every film. Either him or a stand in (e.g. Owen Wilson). Hero, wit, rake, sex symbol. I can suspend disbelief, but not to that extent.

And then we find out that a person with seemingly so little self-awareness, such a huge opinion of himself, is also a creep. What a shocker.

3Recommend

Queensgrl NYC 21 hours ago
Stopped watching his film when the Italian buffoon was his character of choice. Never thought him funny, just neurotic and just not appealing as a lead actor at all. The last film of his I oved was Match Point probably because he wasn’t in it.

1Recommend
EAL Buffalo, NY 21 hours ago
If anything can be called art, and then by calling it art that dignifies it, then does that mean some of the worst new porn out there can be respected as art? Allen’s movies displayed things that were more his fantasies, such as showing an older man attracted to younger beautiful women. If he made the movies for himself and never released it would they be respected art? So they are released and others watch them and some enjoy them? What does that say about those who enjoy them? Its the age old question: does art reflect life? Or does life then reflect art? There is an argument that can be made that by watching films of old men hooking up with young beautiful women we are encouraging that standard, and behavior, and showing that young beautiful women are highly valued. Some of us agree with that mindset and are happy to see the art. Some of us are sick and tired of it and would like to see our art hold all women in higher esteem no matter their age or beauty. We deserve that.

Recommend
gopher1 minnesota 21 hours ago
I am not a huge fan (Midnight in Paris is my favorite, not sure where it fits in the Allen canon), I find Mr.Allen’s narcissism overwhelming other aspects of his films.
Sadly, once the charges by Dylan Farrow came out, I saw replayed what I witnessed hundreds of times as a prosecutor of crimes against children: Two conflicting versions of events and no physical evidence. I used to say in cases like this, “I believe the child but I don’t think the jury will think the defendant’s good for it.”
Mr. Allen’s movies starring him, always gave off a creep vibe. It was trying too hard to show his character, modeled on him, trying to show the audience that he’s a guy who can get the girl or some other girl (as Mr. Scott points out, usually younger and less well-travelled in the adult world). Add to it the legendary way he treats actors distance disguised as freedom and disdains other parts of the adult world. In sum, I could be wrong and, he may never pay a price, but I think he’s good for it.

Recommend
Alyce Pacificnorthwest 21 hours ago
The whole thing hinges on whether he did or did not abuse Dylan. The attorney general said he found enough evidence to prosecute but did not want to put Dylan through the trauma. What does that even mean? There’s no clear answer. So, it’s anybody’s guess what really happened.

1Recommend
Dw Philly 20 hours ago
“The attorney general said he found enough evidence to prosecute but did not want to put Dylan through the trauma” – I can’t see what you find unclear about that.

1Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 19 hours ago
it wasn’t the attorney general. it was a local prosecutor who also btw, hired the 3 investigators who rebuted any and all claims f sexual molestation. The D.A had egg on his face for he didn’t get the report he wanted,. He couldn’t prosecute- no supporting evidence. Case closed. Until now unfortunately.

3Recommend

Mark Bernstein Honolulu 21 hours ago
Good or great art is good or great art regardless of whether the artist is a good, great or rotten human being. Those who wont look at Picasso’s work because he was a cretinous misogynist or listen to Wagner because he was a racist or anti-semitic miss out on great art for the sake of what? Should great science be ignored because the scientist was a scumbag? Would anyone seriously consider not using a surgical technique or a particular medication for their health or the health of a family member because it was developed by sexual predator? I wouldn’t go out of my way to have dinner with Mr. Allen, but I certainly would go out of my way to see Manhattan again.

11Recommend
Thomaspaine17 new york 21 hours ago
Allen’s workshop is the human Heart, that fickle impossible thing. Where does love come from?, who knows, but it sure fascinated Allen. Always remember that in any Movie he acted, Allen is just playing a part, similar to the way Chaplain was not really the Little Tramp, I don’t think its correct to say Allen is playing himself on screen, more likely he is playing a more screwed up version of his more polished self, his version of Jackie Gleason’s Ralph Kramden..
In regards to how Allen sees women, his art suggests that the younger the women the sweeter and purer she will be, as a women grows older, and all these men get at them and use them and play with their emotions, it slowly eat away at their souls and hardens them, the women have to grow claws to survive, the women grow hard shells, become mean, grim, tight lipped, manipulative, the older women is the complete opposite of the sweet young girl played by Mariel Hemingway in Manhatten. But its life , the cruelty of life, which never lives up to our dreams that really is the ultimate culprit.
As for myself, I like to believe that Allen is more like his character in Broadway Danny Rose: Sweet, hopeful, loyal and someone who pins his hope on the beauty found in art and artists and his belief in the better aspects of the human condition. A light weight for sure, but a fighter all the same.

5Recommend
Alex Lang Amsterdam 21 hours ago
This article should have been a personal diary entry, since it’s clearly based on a personal feeling alone. And a lot of deep hate apparently.
Could someone please explain to me why exactly is Dylan Farrow’s story more important, more true and so much more in the mainstream media then Moses Farrow’s story? I feel they are both victims.
Who gets to decide, and precisely on what bases, which one of those two opposing but both certainly tragic experiences is the truth?
How come that after immediate thorough involvement of doctors, children’s therapists, social services, police, courts etc., Allen hadn’t been charged with anything?
This article leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, it is everything but objective and unbiased.
Throwing around, and not so subtly, bits like “but he was never single for long” or “…found ample signs of his preoccupation with very young women…” makes the character (a human person, that is. a real person) assassination role of this article blindingly clear.
What I would really like to know is – were you there? Did you see it happen? Is there any such thing as reasonable doubt or evidence or ethics in reporting or truth?
Allen well deserved his place in film anthologies. When you manage that, you kinda earn your way to be a dick if you want to. You get that right even if you actually are a talentless dick. That doesn’t mean you molested your child. Not even that one time. Just imagine – what if he is 100% innocent of this horrific thing? What then?

21Recommend
Enough Europe 21 hours ago
As long as Dylan Farrow refuses to use the law and bring Allen to court, but appeals to the public lowest instinct for lynching, i refuse to believe her motivation and as a result her story.
The case was open in two states, NY and Connecticut, while it is too late for NY , in Connecticut she can still press charges and spare us the indignity of burning to a stake an 81 years old man with two daughters and a wife who are living in hell right now. For someone who write on her Titter page « advocate for sexual abuse surviviours » the example of skipping any possible legal act and step is a dyslalie choice. Sue him Dylan Farrow, you owe that to anyone who has believed you. And if you choose not, then stop ruining the life of his family.

21Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 20 hours ago
Whoa there. Read the judge’s decision about Allen in 1993, when she was 7 years old. It was decided by adults that it would be too traumatic for her to testify in public. But the judge did rule that Allen must never be allowed to be anywhere near Dylan, even if he was supervised.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

2Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
Adm, here is the full copy of the court papers. Not the cherrypicking , not the selected parts. The exact paper.
Read it.
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf
Dylan is 32 today and when could have sued since 14 years. She doesn’t not. This alone should be a seriously troubling to anyone looking for justice.

Recommend
Matt LA 21 hours ago
You can make the case about what prefaced his now two decade marriage. There is no denial. The evidence is there. The molestation charge still feels off. Dylan Farrow has asked what is more likely, that she is lying or that Mr. Allen is. It is most likely she is not lying, so far as she knows. As she was a pawn in a plan that one may find sympathy with Mia Farrow over. Undiscussed is the case that charges of molestation are not infrequently leveled in divorce proceedings. It is a tactic. Anyone who looks simply at the claims Mia Farrow makes will ask about their plausability. Why oh why would Allen choose of all times to molest this child that he was, prior to this divorce, about to adopt, while making an hour long visit to get a number of his possessions. There is no other claim of molestation. Just this solitary incident. People claim Farrow said she wanted Allen kept from her daughter prior to this moment. Why then was she initiating his adopting her? If she had wanted him away from her?

It seems clear that people know Allen is guilty of one thing, but his long marriage and his wife’s contentment undercuts their ability to be superior over it. So they are happy to have this other thing and plausability be damned. As so many will say, “He just looks guilty”.

8Recommend
Alex Westchester 21 hours ago
There are lots of good arguments here for and against Woody Allen’s guilt. But as tinny and clueless as the “old defenses” may presently seem, I think they’re right. The central relationship in art is between the work and its audience, not the work and the author.

Am I not permitted to enjoy a Matisse without the condescension of experts unless I have read a few biographies of the great man? Are the authors of those biographies necessarily the best consumers of his work? Or are his immediate family and friends the only privileged audience, making ignorant rubes of the rest of us?

I don’t care that much for Mr. Allen’s work. But do I really have to read up on the details of a messy divorce proceeding before I take a view on whether “Hannah and Her Sisters” was meaningful to me in some way?

4Recommend
Benjamin Portland, OR 21 hours ago
At the most extreme Sir Thomas Mallory, the author of Le Morte D’Arthur, was a murderous, rapist, brigand. This has negligible effect on it’s literary status because, 600 years later, he is just an obscure name whereas the work is something that can still be experienced and that has a place in literary history. Similarly, even today I don’t think anyone is burning albums because they were produced by convicted murderer Phil Spector, as, even when heavily involved, he was a background figure on all his enduring work.

Woody Allen is the other end of the spectrum, given that his persona and personality are so intimately mixed up with most his movies, in which he is usually right up there on the screen. Nevertheless, while the personality may make it hard to enjoy on the whole, funny jokes are still funny and masterful cinematography is still masterful.

2Recommend
brian boston 21 hours ago
It is the punishment we’ve settled on, not who gets the benefit of the doubt, that distresses me. If only everyone were as balanced and reflective as Mr. Scott.

We’ve decided on ruin, expungement, a death dealing cold shoulder as punishment, pretty much across the board.

Who decided that.

“Why shouldn’t I want to ruin him,” Dylan Farrow asked when recently interviewed.

What’s the answer to Dylan’s question? She deserves one, a good one, not just a paroxysm of anger and revenge.

Who pronounces sentence, anyway.

I object.

2Recommend
SHarvey Louisville, KY 21 hours ago
It amazes me, and always has (and I’ve been watching Allen’s films since I was a teenager, eons ago) the blithe acceptance of the cultured, older man, taking on the nubile, uncultured teen – always obviously wish-fulfillment and aggressive in its misogyny. Allen was funny (strong emphasis on the was), and could allow chaos in a scene like no other. Scott is dead-on in needing to reassess Allen’s work, brilliant in many respects, for the clear anti-female message it’s always contained. And I have no opinion one way or the other on the veracity of his daughter’s or his claims. How can I?

4Recommend
A. Howard USA 21 hours ago
Meh, stop watching Woody Allen films if you want to. ‘Crimes And Misdemeanors’ is one of my favorite movies, because it feels true to life. Woody Allen is a great artist. Maybe not a great person, but nonetheless a great artist.
The list of great artists who have not lived saintly lives is probably exponentially longer than the list of great artists who have. Same for many of us non-famous people, in fact. There are certainly a lot of bad apples and it’s not a bad thing to see some of them get plucked, but it makes me at least a little uncomfortable to go back through our cultural history and sanitize out anything that doesn’t conform to some revised moral standards.

5Recommend
Sue Cleveland 21 hours ago
I believe Woody Allen’s daughter. I also believe that Roman Polansky raped and under age teenage girl. When is Hollywood going to stop defending and glorifying these creeps?

8Recommend
Sophia East Egg 20 hours ago
Never. Our species allows males to prey on women and children, In India or Hollywood. Since caveman times.

1Recommend
Agnate Canada 20 hours ago
Hollywood is not a real place anymore. it is a collection of businesses that raise money to make movies. It’s not unusual to read that it took 20 years for some movies to made from conception to financing etc.
Should someone be shunned based on rumours but no criminal prosecution? And does that mean that a felon who has served his time can’t ever try to be in the movie business?
Not sure I want to see movies provided only by the Puritans.

1Recommend
Ken NYC 19 hours ago
Rather: you believe Woody Allen’s daughter, and you know that Roman Polansky raped an under age teenage girl, because he admitted it (and pled to a lesser charge). There’s a difference between believing and knowing.

2Recommend
Nellie USA 21 hours ago
I stopped being able to watch Allen’s movies after Manhattan. The self justification and links to his personal life were too obvious. The actor the director the writer and perpetrator – all the same voice. That’s too bad, as A Midsummer’s Night Sex Comedy is one of the lightest, funniest movies ever. Powerful funny lovely women. I envy my parents who can watch his latest films and reminisce because I can’t separate him from his work and that revulsion intrudes.

4Recommend
Shaun Narine Fredericton 21 hours ago
I am not a Woody Allen fan. Offhand, I think that I have seen one of his lesser films in a cinema and snippets of his other movies on TV over the years. However, I have always been puzzled by why his character’s relationship with a 17 year old school girl in Manhattan was ever deemed “acceptable” by anyone. Wasn’t that statutory rape, even at the time?

That aside, I have no view on who I believe in this situation. The claim that Ms. Farrow was influenced by her mother is credible; so is the possibility that she is telling the truth. The only problem I have with the story is that if Allen were really inclined towards pedophilia, it seems unlikely that Dylan Farrow would have been his only victim. Having a demonstrable interest in very young women is not the same as lusting after children.

Finally, I will defend the idea that we need to separate the artist and the crime. There are lots of artists who were/are truly repulsive human beings. I suspect, for many of them, their repulsiveness is what makes their art memorable. That does not mean that we tolerate criminals or make excuses for their horrendous acts. Roman Polanski is utterly revolting. He is also a great director. That does not mean that all of Hollywood needed to be making excuses for his indefensible and inexcusable actions. He should have been ostracized decades ago. As long as he makes art, his art should be seen as separate from his personal life. But he should still be in jail.

4Recommend

HeatherD Austin, Texas 21 hours ago
This article starts out by saying the author thinks Woody Allen is guilty of raping a child and then blithely goes on to critique his body of work and postulate if both can co-exist. There is no proof whatsoever that Woody Allen did this. There is proof that memories can be planted, that memories are not reliable, and that Mia Farrow was the one, not the police, who believed this happened and “solicited” this story from Dylan Farrow. I was used as a pawn between warring adults when I was a child and had certain realties dictated to me to support who ever wanted me on their side. This is very, very common — adults hurt by other adults use children as weapons, shaping their perceptions and dictating their reality. I see nothing in Woody Allen’s work to show he is any different on a moral level than anyone else. He is an artist and artists make themselves vulnerable and show all their nasty parts, otherwise their work would be trite. It’s important on every level that those who are guilty of raping children do lose everything, including their freedom. It is perplexing that this narrative continues around Woody Allen when none of the facts support that this incident happened. It is even worse that children can believe something happened to them, because an adult thinks it did (or makes it up) and dictates to that child their reality so that it forms their perceptions as adults, especially in something as severe as these allegations.

17Recommend
Jacqueline Colorado 21 hours ago
One of my siblings was raped by a babysitter at a young age. I remember it as one of my earliest memories. This man had been our babysitter for a very long time and we all trusted him completely. Yet, within 5 minutes of him leaving my sibling told my parents and the babysitter eventually went to jail. My parents brought my sibling to the hospital right after calling the cops.

Woody and Mia were in an intense battle for children and money at the time. This was 6 months after the relationship between Woody and Soon came to light. and the assault evidently happened during the exact time that Mia and Woody were negotiating the amount of money Woody would be giving Mia.

Essentially, the evidence that is against Woody was that he was seen by the babysitting with his head close to Dylan’s stomach, and later on Dylan, 7 at the time, said that Woody had touched her in a “private area.” Mia did not bring Dylan in to a hospital for 2 further days, and then the doctor found no evidence of assault. Mia never called the cops, it was actually the doctor who notified the cops. Also, Mia didn’t mention the assault to the doctor when they talked the previous day, the day after the supposed assault. Instead, she videotaped Dylan talking about it and then didn’t call the cops or bring Dylan to the hospital. Why did she videotape Dylan but not bring her to the hospital?

Regardless of the truth, which we will never know, I don’t believe watching a comedy makes me complicit in rape.

9Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 20 hours ago
You’ve been misinformed. Mia was told by a mental health worker to take Dylan to a doctor and it was the doctor who informed the police of concerns about child abuse. The judge concluded that Mia did not act out of revenge and castigated Allen for claiming that she did. Here’s the ruling:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

4Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
Stop giving Huffpo as a reference, here is the Full ruling of Allen vs Farrow..
At list use the real document if you are make an argument. Enough of cherry picking on the subject.
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf

Recommend
rainwood Seattle 21 hours ago
I don’t separate the art from the artist, and I don’t want to. His films, for a long time, have been preoccupied with either his character’s or his doppelganger’s attraction to very young women. When someone shows you who they are, believe it. And those who believe Allen was found not to be guilty should go back and read an account of what actually happened. The prosecutor believed that there were reasonable grounds to believe molestation had taken place, but didn’t want to put Ms. Farrow through the emotional ordeal of a trial. That isn’t a ringing endorsement of Woody Allen’s innocence. And given the times and the way most such charges were handled or dismissed at the time, that is more likely an indication of guilt than innocence. I believe her, and I gave up watching Woody Allen films a long time ago.

2Recommend

Cletus Butzin Buzzard River Gorge, Brooklyn 21 hours ago
I took the relationship in “Manhattan” to be a comic absurdity, at the end of the story she proves herself the more emotionally mature person.

6Recommend
Greg New York 20 hours ago
You may have, but Woody Allen didn’t. It was based on his real-life relationship with 17 year old actress (and Annie Hall extra) Stacey Nelkin.

3Recommend
Henry Lefkowits Silver Spring,MD. 21 hours ago
A. O. Scott’s otherwise nuanced column omits the fact that Dylan’s complaint emerged when she was seven years old, and was immediately filtered through two adults, ate least one of whom had a very large axe to grind about Mr. Allen. Also, Ms. Farrow seemed to have had an obsessive need to be surrounded by children as evidenced by the fact that at one point she had a total of fourteen children in her care, almost all of whom were adopted. It is also noteworthy that none of the recent female accusers , all of whom are believable, was younger than fifteen at the time of the abuse.

2Recommend
Mark NY 21 hours ago
This nation has, among its principles, that no one should be denied life, liberty or property without due process. Woody Allen has been subject to a slow, ruinous public conviction upon the allegations of a seven-year-old child who has never, even as an adult, been cross examined in a Court of Law. We have in living memory McCarthyism, the McMartin Preschool case, and the numerous false convictions revealed by DNA evidence. The human capacity for mob rule, for lynching, for blind acceptance of an oft-repeated, confidently stated but factually false claim is boundless. That is why criminal defendants have so many protections. One of the Ten Commandments is an admonition against bearing false witness, because it is so common and so easily done. The Founding Fathers knew about the Star Chamber and barred it here.
Unlike the Larry Nassar case which has proceeded legally and criminally, and where there is overwhelming evidence from over a hundred complaining witnesses, here there is a single child witness, albeit now an adult. Child molestation is typically a serial problem; where are the other complaining witnesses? Claims of molestation very often arise in the context of marital breakups. It is a very effective legal tool in custody battles even when fabricated.
We do not know whether Woody Allen did what is claimed. But we do know he has not been granted the legal protections due even the very worst of veteran criminals.

10Recommend

eyton shalom california 21 hours ago
Sadly, no one but Dylan and Woody know whether he molested her. Its easy imagining both scenarios, a) that she was indeed brainwashed by her mom, who is not exactly a pillar of psychic stability herself it would seem, or b) that woody molested his daughter.

Allen does seem creepy to me, too. Always loved his movies most when he was NOT in them. And how many directors film themselves kissing an actress meant to be a teenager. That he has a thing for teenaged women/girls is pretty clear. On the other hand, seeing him with his second wife in that documentary made about his dixieland quintet touring europe, it also seemed like, wow, she is for sure no push over. On yet another hand, i recently got my WASP girlfriend from California who knew not from Jews to watch Annie Hall so as to have an example of the culture of origin difference. What I had not really noticed before quite AS clearly was just how misogynistic his character is in that film, and indeed in quite a few other. Not to mention condescending.

2Recommend
William Taylor Brooklyn 21 hours ago
One thing about the Woody Allen affair occurred to me during the recent spate of revelations: Perverts can’t help themselves from repeating their particular sexual proclivities. Pedophiles like Larry Nasser or sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein never stop; even when it became obvious that others were on to them and that they risked a great deal by continuing their transgressions. Woody Allen has only been accused once. While anything is possible, the fact that there are no other reports of nonconsensual sexual contact with a child or anyone else makes the story less and plausible as time goes on.

5Recommend
RER Mission Viejo Ca 21 hours ago
To the best of my knowledge, nobody without the last name Farrow has accused Woody Allen of anything and the allegations have been investigated and rejected. That is not definite proof of innocence but there is considerable room for doubt. This is different from many others we have heard about recently who have been accused of improper behaviour by large numbers of victims.

7Recommend
Jake New York 21 hours ago
What bothers me about these cases in general is that men (or women) are being excommunicated based only on an accusation. In this specific case, judgment is being informed by the separate and unrelated issue of Woody Allen marrying Soon Yi. He has denied inappropriate activity with Dylan, no charges were filed and another child corroborates his story which occurs in the setting of an ugly divorce. I will continue to look forward to his movies.

5Recommend

Alan R Brock Richmond VA 21 hours ago
This is the problem I have with the current sexual harassment awakening: It seems that anyone accused or otherwise is expected to resign from the human race, as if nothing else they may have contributed or continue to contribute is worthy of further consideration.

We all make mistakes and commit offenses. We should be held to account for them, but not deleted from society like something from Stalinist Russia.

5Recommend
George Winslow Pierce Alaska 21 hours ago
After “Manhattan,” I gave up on Woody Allen. A movie written to fulfill the sexual desire of a middle-aged man for a child.

And as for artistic merit, I’ve often thought of Woody in relation the caution of Novalis: “No one will ever achieve excellence as an artist who cannot depict anything other than his own experiences, his favorite objects.”

3Recommend
Roman Silver Spring, MD 21 hours ago
Much ado about nothing: trivial, tedious, ridiculous, solipsistic agonizing about whether one is permitted to continue enjoying the work of a talented film maker who was once accused of the media’s misdeed du jour. Very few artists would survive such hyper-scrutiny of their personal lives by someone intent on grubbing for dirt as defined by the bien pensants of the day.

1Recommend
Bob CT 21 hours ago
Allen’s fall from grace has largely come as a result of from things he has done…or has allegedly done…in his private life. The vast majority of the reported #metoo misdeeds are workplace related. It is interesting to note that Allen has a reputation for being extremely respectful and deferential to the actors and filmmaking back-of-house crew that he works with. He is a low key, low drama director who generally works quickly and does not over-spend or over-obsess. He doesn’t party and carouse with actors and crew and prior to rehearsal, often communicates with potential actors via courier delivered letter. No hotel rooms, bathrobes, back rubs, behind-the-scenes knifings etc. In many respects as a workplace environment auteur he is the anti-Weinstein.

4Recommend
Colleen NM 21 hours ago
An interest in younger women that to our modern eyes appears a bit creepy is not the same thing as sexually abusing children. It’s just not. What we see with predators — like Nassar, Sandusky, Cosby, etc. — is that they start young and do it over and over again and don’t stop until they get caught. And then victims come out of hiding, strengthened by each other. Woody Allen has one accuser. One. No one has chimed in. And as he pointed out, what kind of predator waits until he’s 57, abuses one kid once — in a house full of people — and then never does it again? Not the predators we know about. So, start over with his movies if you like, cast a disapproving eye on his characters’ attractions to younger women and girls. But don’t judge without context. It’s not fair.

8Recommend
Kristin Spring, TX 21 hours ago
I think it is safe to look back at Allen’s art now and find it retrospectively repulsive. At the time, he was rehashing a theme already prevalent in the culture: man uses woman, regards her as a shrew to justify leaving her for a younger version. Everyone who ever enjoyed his movies is guilty of overlooking the sheer grossness of this insidious cultural sexism because they already accepted this idea to some degree. Now, in 2018, we don’t accept that version of the world. We see how this kind of thinking rests on a dangerous spectrum that has far reaching negative affects for the female half of society.

The issue of Artist vs. art is such a complicated issue. Does being an artistic genius depend on rejecting social norms to the degree that your art revolutionizes a medium? And with that rejection of social norms, does that include hosts of bad behavior? Perhaps, that is the reason we’ve given artists a pass? Bad people can do great things. Great people can do bad things. But, in this case, the degree of badness is so morally corrupt, it is hard to justify not rejecting the whole of Allen’s art along with the man himself. And i think, we can probably say that there are boundaries that should never be crossed. Child molestation, is definitely one of them.

2Recommend
KB Brewster,NY 21 hours ago
I read the “Timeline” article subsequent to reading this one for a little more perspective. I believe we’ll never know what, if anything, happened between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow. But I did read in the timeline that her accusations were litigated back in the 90’s and there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him. Today, Dylan articulates an accusation of sexual abuse and we are supposed to take her word and condemn him? With a mother like Mia Farrow, described in testimony as seemingly quite unstable, and with another sibling testifying her children were essentially trained to hate Woody Allen. We are to accept that he should be ostracized based on this accusations. I just can’t do that.

I think the current women’s movement against abuse of all kinds is long overdue and frankly, I hope it continues until a significant trend of respectful behavior on the part of people in power positions, and men in general toward women can become a normalized pattern of social behavior in our society. But based on what I have read on the Woody Allen situation, it looks to me as if he is simply becoming a casualty of a well intentioned movement that is on a roll.

I’m all for the movement staying on a roll, but if Allen can get the actors to work with him, I’ll keep going to see his movies for sure.
I am still pretty surprised how Mr. Egomaniac in the White House avoids as much criticism as he does in this regard, but I understand about 53% of women voted for him. Go figure.

7Recommend

Nelle Engoron SF Bay Area 21 hours ago
I don’t know what happened but I’d like to respond to several commenters here who argue that Allen must be innocent because pedophiles never just molest one child.

I was once informed by an expert in sexual abuse that there are 2 kinds of child molesters. The pedophile is a serial abuser along the lines of Sandusky or Nassar who methodically seeks out and even grooms multiple victims. But there are also molesters who may only act out once or twice, upon a child that’s closely in their orbit — generally their own child or stepchild. They don’t go out looking for children to abuse.

This category of abuser is far more common than the serial pedophile that people here are referring to. A friend of mine found out her husband fell into this category with their daughter; other friends of mine were abused by their fathers but there’s no evidence those men ever abused other children. Many readers here probably know other examples.

4Recommend
atb Chicago 21 hours ago
This is just really so tiresome. Whether you believe he did it or not (I don’t), it doesn’t diminish the fact that he’s a genius filmmaker. He’s a master of dialogue and for people who prefer to think and enjoy films because they are wordy and intellectual and maybe even a bit elitist, it’s great entertainment. If we are now to divest ourselves of any art made by someone who may have been weird, rude, creepy, obnoxious, insane or even criminal, then we will have no art left. I’m really over film critics who refuse to watch films made by people they don’t like. Don’t be a film critic then. Become a judge or a prison warden instead.

4Recommend
Keitr USA 21 hours ago
Nice essay. Its hard to recall with much faith, but I believe at the time it came out I liked Manhattan even more than Annie Hall. I still like Annie Hall, but Manhattan is now fairly creepy given his leaving Ms. Farrow for her step-daughter, ward or whatever. That’s one show-stopping betrayal.

Lots of discussions still of the accusation of child sexual abuse. I feel bad for all of the children, especially the one who believes Mr. Allan molested her. Whether he did or did not, and there is no clear proof that he did, she clearly thinks he did. That’s not easy to live with when so many don’t believe you. My heart aches for her. This is a tragedy right up there with anything dreamt of. Finally, regarding the elder Ms. Farrow I think we should keep in mind that even if the abuse was the “invention” of Ms. Farrow, and again we have no way of knowing one way or the other, it doesn’t follow that it was purposeful or she is willfully deceitful. She was cruelly betrayed and I can see how she would wonder what other betrayals Mr. Allan was capable of. I feel for her too. I still like many of his movies, but I can’t say I feel all that sorry for Mr. Allen. A bit sorry to be fair I guess, but not that much.

2Recommend
Rebecca CDM, CA 21 hours ago
Stop watching Mr. Allen’s movies if they make you feel bad, but they are and will always be considered art. And he, an artist.

3Recommend
TJG NYC 21 hours ago
While disturbing at the time, Soon-Yi and Allen are still together after 26 years – something that cannot be said for most of the relationships in high end Hollywood.
While a very young adult at the time, Soon-Yi is now almost 50 years old, but they are still together.
Some of the commentators here assuming guilt based on Dylan’s allegations and the subject of his movies (Manhattan, Crimes and Misdemeanors), but how fair is to judge an artist’s actions through the prism of his art – exploring deepest fears, regrets, confusions and happiness is what we are attracted to in all forms of art.
P.S. Agatha Christie was not a murderer.

9Recommend
Stephen Kelly Neptune Beach 21 hours ago
The best way to look at things is most of us do not care about the artist, we care about the art.

1Recommend
Katiek Minneapolis 21 hours ago
I really, really hope that those who believe Mr. Allen realize that belief and fact aren’t the same thing. I understand that people are concerned about accusations of sexual misconduct. In fact, I have expressed that same concern.

A few thoughts… Why are many so quick to believe that Mia Farrow would be so bitter over losing Mr. Allen that she would coerce her daughter into making a serious criminal complaint? For those who are quick to take issue with the demonization of Mr. Allen, please consider that the same is being done to Ms. Farrow.

Sexual abuse accusations are often notoriously difficult to bring to trial. Consider Bill Cosby. The very nature of the abuse is generally private. Prosecutors are unlikely to accuse those with means and stature unless they meet the highest standard of proof.

I don’t know what did or did not happen. I do find Mr. Allen’s willingness to denigrate Ms. Farrow, Dylan Farrow, and their supporters extremely problematic. And I’d like to pose one other question for those that believe Mr. Allen – what if the accusations are true?

3Recommend
NYT Pick
Hannah Wilmington 21 hours ago
Something that’s so little talked about in controversial topics is the sudden corner strongly revering fans are placed into after their idol is shed in such a revealing light. Not fans who liked their work, but those whose lives were changed from the creations of these artists. The author brings in the perspective of how difficult it is to see someone so influential in their life to be completely incompatible with what they were shown and built up to believe in their own heads. He shows the despair he felt after seeing Allen be a villain behind a heroic facade. It’s almost the same kind of distraught feeling after Robin Williams’ followers discovered his unfortunate suicide. A sense of hopelessness and disorder. How could someone so joyful be depressed? How could my hero be a sexual predator?

The man that impacted his life to form him into the person he is today, in reality, was no role model. A broken-hearted feeling that unfolds a world of uncertainty and distrust.

44Recommend
Bill Southern California 20 hours ago
How do you know he’s a predator? Did you read all the evidence? Were you personally present during the alleged assault?

1Recommend
JDSept 6029 4 hours ago
Charles Barkley said it best “I’m no role model, I’m a basketball player.” Woody is a movie director. Tacky marrying the adopted daughter of his former wife but not illegal and doesn’t make not found to be true child molestation charges true. WE could talk about tacky with Rolling Stones bassists, Bill Wyman, relationship with 13yr old Mandy Smith with her mother’s permission, who he later married when she was 15. They divorced 2 years later and Wyman’s son later married the mother. Can we psychoanalyze that?

Recommend
fast/furious the new world 4 hours ago
It’s wrong and bizarre to conflate Allen’s alleged sexual predation with Robin William’s suicide. There’s an enormous difference between being ill – as William’s reportedly was – and being a sociopath. What crime did Robin Williams commit?

Recommend

Stickler New York, NY 21 hours ago
An interesting juxtaposition of pieces in the NYT today. In Tables for Three, Saoirse Ronan says this about the relationship between the younger and older men in “Call Me By Your Name”: “And you watch the characters learning from each other. You see that Timmy’s character is getting as much out of it as Armie’s.” And here, folks are saying that Soon-Yi, at 21, was without agency, was seduced by Allen. Granted, the age differences are greater in the two cases and the family relationships add unpleasant complexity, but these different takes on inter-generational relationships shows how difficult it is to know the motivations of the participants. In the film we get to see each character’s reactions and behaviors. With Woody and Soon-Yi, all we can see is the beginning of their relationship and the fact that it’s lasted 20 years or so. I wonder if those who think Allen took advantage of Soon-Yi have seen “Call Me By Your Name”, and what they think of it.

4Recommend
Paul Brown Denver 22 hours ago
Being attracted to young women is different than being attracted to children.

I wasn’t there, and I don’t know these people, but it seems that the people who believe Dylan, Rowan and Mia also disapprove of Woody’s relationship with Soon-Yi.

Dylan’s complaints are suspect, even if sincerely motivated, but the affair and marriage to Soon-Yi falls under the category of not-my-business.

7Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 21 hours ago
Why are Dylan’s complaints “suspect”? Would you say the same thing if the complaint was about a neighbor or a teacher? What if Donald Trump was the accused? While I also loved and even revered Allen back in the day, the facts changed my mind.

Here’s what the judge in 1993 had to say.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

2Recommend
Enough Europe 5 hours ago
Stop posting the “selected” by the Farrows cherrypicking pieces.
Opinion has to be made (if) from the copy of the full document.
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf

Recommend
MEF NY 22 hours ago
I believe that much great art has been made by hateful people, as others have said. Trying to judge a work of art by the moral character of the artist will fail. That said, I also believe the artist as a PERSON gets no free pass for the sake of their art. So I think we don’t need so much to do a re-evaluation of Woody’s work in light of what we believe he has or hasn’t done (though I do think it’s very true that we’ll change our perception of his work over time). I have no problem saying some of his work is truly great. The real issue, I think, is simply do we continue to enrich and reward the living man. It’s a dilemma we don’t face with past artists because only their work is left. I would never want to throw out of the canon a work of art because we found out its maker was despicable. Let the work stand on its own. But it’s not so easy dealing with a living person and never being able to know with 100 percent certainty what did or didn’t happen.

1Recommend
Alex NY 22 hours ago
MeToo is the greatest development in our society since the gay rights movement. Its weakness, however, has been a near universal willingness to rush to judgement without due process. This may wind up limiting its long-term effect. I hope not, but Mr. Scott’s review unfortunately shows the same irresponsible tendency. I have not verified the Washington Post article that claims to find “signs” in Allen’s unpublished writings of preoccupation with very young women, but is not a crime to be preoccupied with very young women, or men, or anything else. It is, and should be, a crime to harass, exploit, or coerce others, especially children. An apparently invariable characteristic of sexual abuse is that it is serial behavior: these people all seem to have a record of repeated offenses, which is why there are typically multiple accusers. Against Allen there is just one accusation, made by his seven-year-old stepdaughter in an intensely stressful environment, that was closely examined and dismissed by judges and psychologists, now reiterated years later by the accuser. The rush of Firth and others to publicly denounce Allen based on this evidence is ethically irresponsible, and it is politically detrimental to the MeToo movement. I am sorry to see A.O. Scott condone them.

23Recommend
Maxbien Brooklyn, CT 22 hours ago
I have great respect for Mr. Allen as a filmmaker and have yet to take a side, though I don’t intend to take a side. I will just say look to Ernest Hemingway. As he grew older, his hero’s romantic intersts became younger. Does this really tell us anything?

3Recommend
Diane Ferguson Canada 21 hours ago
I’m a strong advocate for the #MeToo movement, but I agree with you on this one. In the 1990’s there were many false memory cases. And ultimately, we’re not seeing a pattern here. Yes, he married someone young, but ffs, they’ve been married for many years now. Sometimes, that happens!

1Recommend

Chris Brooklyn 22 hours ago
Tony, I think there are a lot of reasons to reevaluate Woody Allen’s career that are above and beyond what may or may not be true about his conduct. Specifically, very few even of Allen’s best films merit the rapturous reception they received on their release. Your adolescent worship of his work is just about right. That was when I valued him most highly too.

9Recommend
Helen Maryland 22 hours ago
Ronan Farrow cut through all of the complexities that Wilson tries to sort out here when he said: :

“He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.”

Powerful and direct, this statement stands in sharp relief from Allen’s glib “the heart wants what it wants.”

The ethical response for me as a consumer has been to stop supporting Allen financially: I don’t watch his new films, and I don’t purchase his old ones.

It is less a sacrifice than it would have been: it is hard to enjoy them as works of art, given that they are so focused on issues of morality and immorality. Their engagement with moral issues always struck me as the Allen equivalent of a McGuffin, anyway. It was the details (characters, NYC life, jokes, etc.) in his films that were interesting; as an artist his films don’t hold up well against Tolstoy or Plato in terms of his explorations of the human condition).

I don’t have to approve of an artist personally to engage with their art, but I am free to avoid doing my small part to add cultural power to artists I loathe for any reason. And Allen’s art is all bound up conceptually with the type of amorality or immorality that Ronan diagnosed so concisely. I don’t have to add my dollars to the cultural cachet that made Allen influential.

31Recommend
JDSept 6029 20 hours ago
Problem is Mia says he might not be Ronan’s father. And Ronan’s supposed sister is by adoption by Mia not by blood and Woody NEVER was Ms Previn’s father by blood or adoption. Also Yale University who worked for New Haven police said after 7 months said no abuse occurred. They had no reason to lie and always had worked for the police. Added is the original psychologist Coats I believe who said no abuse either. A bitter divorce fed by Woody being involved with Mia’s adopted daughter makes hate very deep.

1Recommend
Enough Europe 20 hours ago
Ronan Farrow has not commented on Allen since a year. Neither has Mia Farrow. Dylan Farrow run on her own this time and the lack of support from Mia and Ronan the last year is remarkably strange.

Recommend
Tom is a trusted commenter Philadelphia 22 hours ago
Whether you believe he is a child molester or not, the movies are just creepy. Over and over again, it’s old men’s fantasies about being sexually desirable to teenage women. It’s as if these movies were designed to feed the appetites of abusers. So why are teenage girls attracted to balding sweaty guys in their 50s or 60s? Is it men’s money, their power, their intelligence, their wit, their tremendous skill in bed? How about none of it? Generally, young women are not the least bit interested in sleeping with old men, why can’t old men get that? Allen’s movies for the most part belong with that large collection of films from the 70s that are now too embarrassing to sit through.

37Recommend
JDSept 6029 21 hours ago
What women in Woody’s movies are supposedly teenagers? NONE Ms Keaton and Mia played younger but not teenagers. Younger women being interested with rich powerful older men doesn’t happen? Check out the two of the last four Presidents? Clinton and Trump got their younger women and more than once. When the weather gets warm, take a walker on the Upper West Side to see the older men out with the new younger 2nd wives and second families. Need I point out the numerous aging rock stars? Power and cash has its rewards in life. Woody directed 7 movies in the 70s and 39 since, to include 9 since 2010 alone. Knowledge is always needed before posting.

1Recommend
jrd ny 22 hours ago
The managerial classes, among them critics, have an impossible time accepting that art has no ethical basis. That admission, after all, robs them of authority — and the soap box.

If, however, we simply insist on making these distinctions, it would be fascinating to know how many of the self-described liberal actors who won’t with Woody Allen, outraged as they are by his presumed offenses, are also refusing Rupert Murdoch’s money. Or the money of any of the media conglomerates, for that matter.

Whether in fact Woody Allen is artist enough for anyone to care about either his private life or his movies is a whole other question….

4Recommend
bmangano Iowa City 22 hours ago
“It’s never quite so simple. Mr. Allen’s films and writings are a part of the common artistic record, which is another way of saying that they inform the memories and experiences of a great many people. I don’t mean this as a defense, but an acknowledgment of betrayal and shame.”

It’s more than your memories or experiences, it’s the style of those that he inspired; it’s the legacy of the “common artistic record” that becomes a problem. If one is not going to separate the artist from the art, is it enough to stop watching the movies? Or do we have to trace all those people who were influenced by his comedic style and excise that entire line of inspiration from acceptable viewing? Or to put it another way: is it okay to watch films made by other artists who have watched and been inspired by Allen, but no longer okay to watch and be inspired by his films directly? Is this indirection permissible? If so, that seems a strange state of affairs, and perhaps one that fits the messiness of our world, but if you’re really going to keep your future viewing habits free from Allen’s taint, you’re probably going to have to go much further than you acknowledge here.

4Recommend
Winthrop Staples is a trusted commenter Newbury Park, CA 23 hours ago
I’ve always been repulsed by Allen’s movies that have a projected sub text of celebrating and so establishing as adequate male behavior a neurotic, weak cowardice that was obviously attracted to “very young women”, because they were the only ones wimpy Allen could probably control or dominate. But at least in Western enlightened, science believing democracies where what is actual fact and criminal matters, its obvious that Allen is not guilty of the nightmare charges that Farrow abusively brainwashed into her own daughter (Farrow ought to be in prison for driving her own daughter insane). Its interesting to consider, however, while our chattering left wing and pretend to be progressive elites are now wailing about the abuse and oppression of women for a few months – why nothing is mentioned about the gross contradiction/horror of the this nation’s mass immigration intake of 1-2 million mostly from the racist, misogamist global south every year. You know from nations in Latin America who record 100’s of births to 10 year old girls every year, and from the Middle East and Africa and Asia where children are routinely sold as slave labor or to brothels to pay off family debts. How about some MeToo screaming about that! Or, since that’s not liable to happen … perhaps its because none whites are not considered morally capable and so morally accountable by the editors and journalists of the NY Times.

4Recommend
JDStebley Portola CA/Nyiregyhaza 23 hours ago
Re: Mr. Allen and his wife, Soon-yi. Whenever I see pictures run of the couple, it is difficult for me to see anything but a very, close, loving couple. I believe Mr. Allen has found his true love and muse. I recognize the look on his face when they are together because I’ve seen the look on my own face. It may have taken him a long time and many self-inflicted tribulations, doubtless. In the meantime, he has contributed to the art of film in so many ways, I’ve often wondered, as Deems Taylor wondered about Wagner (odd though the connection may seem): when did he have time to be a man?

21Recommend

Mr. SeaMonkey Indiana 23 hours ago
I have a good friend who is an author. But I don’t like his books. (I have not told him.) Woody Allen presents the opposite. I may not like him as a person (if the accusations are true). But I sure enjoy his films. What does one do when there is a such a conflict between how we feel about a person and the meaning their art can have to others?

8Recommend

Marge Keller Midwest 20 hours ago
Possibly respect and enjoy what you admire and disregard what you don’t. Stop feeling bad about any internal conflict or struggle. Life’s too short. Find happiness when and where you can.

1Recommend
Jason Woodbridge, VA 23 hours ago
If someone loves a piece of art and the artist behind the work commits an awful act, does that require the admirer of the art to cut it completely out of their life? I don’t think so. People still like to dance to Michael Jackson’s music, they like to appreciate Caravaggio’s paintings, they enjoy laughing at reruns of “The Cosby Show”, they get pumped up watching replays of Mike Tyson’s knock-outs, and even the biggest dog lover stops cold in front of their television to catch a replay of Michael Vick’s OT run-off touchdown against Minnesota in ’02. Pieces of art (and I include epic moments in sports as works of art) excite our souls like few things in this world. And while I hope that every human who commits heinous acts that ruin the lives of others serves justice in this world or the next, I simply cannot deprive myself of the amazing works and magical moments that some of them have produced.

10Recommend

Marge Keller Midwest 23 hours ago
I never saw the attraction nor appeal of Woody Allen or his films. He’s never been my cup of tea. Never been a fan. He always looked a little creepy, weird and odd to me. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t brilliant or a genesis or talented. I still firmly believe that there should be a separation of the artist’s professional work and the artist’s personal behavior. Vilify the person if necessary, but allow the professional work to stand on its own merit rather than be tainted or removed from society. I’m not defending Woody Allen, but I am defending the work of an artist (even if I don’t care for the artist).

14Recommend
LifeofRiley NYC 23 hours ago
I see a big difference between dead artists mentioned in the comments (Wagner, Picasso etc) and artists who are currently working. I wouldn’t for the life of me put a cent into the pocket of Roman Polanski, for example, no matter how good his films. And I wouldn’t want to be seen as in any way supporting him or giving him a pass. Dead people? They don’t present the same problem to me.

6Recommend
marrtyy manhattan 23 hours ago
Sometimes beauty comes from a beast. But sad to say in this case, we dont really know who the beast is.

13Recommend
Alex Lang Amsterdam 21 hours ago
Exactly. Why is it then that all articles about this start with assumption of Allen’s guilt of this horrific crime? Wouldn’t the gravity of these accusations demand very strong evidence before ruining a human being (as a person, father, artist)? Evidence that couldn’t be found back then, by social services, police, judges, doctors, therapists? Why is Moses Farrow’s tragic n detailed testimony of their mother’s abuse, brainwashing n parental alienation (to say the least) being blatantly ignored? There are so many unanswered questions here, so much “reasonable doubt”, and yet the blood thirsty angry mob’s been allowed and encouraged publicly, in all major media, to say whatever nasty thing they wish, just like in this article.

3Recommend
Frank Shifreen New York 23 hours ago
Allen is being tried in the court of public opinion, just like the communist witch hunts of his youth. Desire is part of film and literature, and even though there are signs of Allen’s desire throughout his oeuvre, there are signs in the work of Genet, Nabokov, Mailer, and on and on. Some of Allen’s films are masterpieces (Crimes and Misdemeanors for instance) that might also reveal more about him than he would like us to know. Certainly, every Allen film is about Allen.
He has risen above his early persona and shtick. If he has committed a crime he should be prosecuted. That he has not been indicates a problem with the evidence I think. Life is messy and his life is messier than most. If actors do not want to work with him that is their business, but his reputation is shot and all accusations are out. His accusers have achieved their purpose. That is enough

60Recommend
Alex Lang Amsterdam 20 hours ago
You, sir, took the words out of my mouth. Please, someone find some evidence and put this monster away or apologize to the innocent man for years of public abuse. It’s been enough.

2Recommend
joan sarasota 4 hours ago
His reputation is not shot with me and, it would seem, not with many others who have commented here.

1Recommend
Doug McKenna Boulder Colorado 4 hours ago
Isn’t there a difference between saying “every Allen film is about Allen” and saying “every Allen film is about what interests Allen”?

Recommend

stu freeman is a trusted commenter brooklyn 23 hours ago
If the subject of this essay were Roman Polanski or Kevin Spacey or Pier Paolo Pasolini I would concur with its general thrust and many of its observations. Woody Allen, on the other hand, has been found guilty of absolutely nothing, except maybe poor judgment, insofar as his personal life is concerned (even given that “the heart wants what it wants”). It seems to me entirely suspicious and altogether self-serving that the allegations concerning his abuse of Dylan Farrow were offered up only after his relationship with her mother had ended and only after he had taken up with her sister. Charges were brought but nothing was proven. It also occurs to me that no other children or adult women have accused Mr. Allen of sexual misconduct- none. How many pedophiles, how many rapists attack their own adopted daughter and stop there? Allen has worked with many of Hollywood’s most attractive young actresses but while he may, in fact, have entertained the same sort of hopes and dreams that many of us have had, not a single one of them has come forward and accused him of anything untoward. I’ve seen all of his movies, some of them more than once, but I haven’t enjoyed a single one since Vicky Christina Barcelona (he’s completed about a dozen since then). As such, I wish that I could stop expressing concerns about his future as an artist but, with respect to his past achievements (or decade-long absence of them), I have neither the need nor the desire to reevaluate any of them.

105Recommend
stu freeman is a trusted commenter brooklyn 23 hours ago
By the way, why is it that some of the same critics who are presently looking askance at the Woody Allen/Mariel Hemingway relationship in Allen’s masterpiece, “Manhattan.” have had little if anything to say about the similar liaison between an older man and a willing teen in the current hit, “Call Me by Your Name”? I wasn’t offended by that movie either but the hypocrisy of some of our local scribes is duly noted.

50Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 23 hours ago
1. Some pedophiles only target family members.
2. A judge ruled that the accusations against Mia acting out due to being a “woman scorned” were not only incorrect, he chastised Allen for using that ploy.
3. Allen was barred from any contact with Dylan, supervised or not and he was not allowed to see the rest of his children unsupervised.

Here’s the judge’s ruling. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/woody_allen_and_dy…

10Recommend
Enough Europe 20 hours ago
this is not the judge ruling, but
a cherry picking.
Here is the trial legal papers.
Too much have been said by people who have not read it.
http://www.thunderpeel2001.com/files/Allen-v-Farrow.pdf

1Recommend
Alex NY 22 hours ago
@stu freeman. I agree entirely with you assessment of the recent accusations, which, given the available evidence, are irresponsible, even shameful. I disagree emphatically with your assessment of Woody’s late films, in most of which I find an artistic and philosophical depth that has been generally underappreciated. Midnight in Paris, Blue Jasmine, and Wonder Wheel are masterpieces of great sophistication.

3Recommend
Ann Brooklyn 20 hours ago
Two reasons:

1) In “Call Me by Your Name” the older man is a grad student, so not so creepy.

2) WA has produced a body of work with themes now raising questions, and CMbYN was a standalone piece of work.

3Recommend
JDSept 6029 20 hours ago
1. What some do does not mean all do
2′ The Yale abuse center with a long history of working for the New Haven Police said the abuse didn’t happen but the little girl was coached by Ms Farrow
3 Woody was involved in a nasty divorce and any decision had to be harsh. He was allowed to see the other kids though wasn’t he? Dylan probably does believe she was molested and any contact with Woody only would have made her most likely delusions harder to deal with so that was the right decision also.

Recommend
Ann Dallas 20 hours ago
Dear Mr. Freeman, first, the age difference in Call Me by Your Name was much less and both characters were students. Second, comparing the scrumptious Armie Hammer to dorky Woody Allen ….. Are you serious?

2Recommend
gregoryf nyc 19 hours ago
The “older man” in CMBYN is supposed to be 24. Woody in Manhattan was supposed to be, at a minimum, 45.

1Recommend

stu freeman is a trusted commenter brooklyn 16 hours ago
That younger student in “Call Me” is 17. That makes him a minor.

Recommend
Anne Rome, Italy 9 hours ago
I definitely would not describe a relationship between a 17 year old and a 24 year old in the way you did! In the film Manhattan, Mariel’s character was 17 years old and Allen’s character was 42! Absolutely a big difference.

1Recommend

Mark Crozier Free world 5 hours ago
Because they’re too afraid to be seen criticising a film with a homosexual theme? The dilemma of the politically correct!

Recommend
Laura Kentucky 23 hours ago
Thanks, Mr. Scott. I appreciate the brutal self-analysis. I appreciate the working of your mind as you consider this factor and that factor, the way you end up still somewhat uncertain, while still trying to follow your moral compass. Maybe some of the people who left comments missed the point of your essay, and that’s ok, but I get it. I understand it. Thanks.

9Recommend
TB New York 23 hours ago
I think Mr. Scott basically took a lot of words to say that after he considered this factor and that factor and worked through some things in his mind in therapy that he lost his moral compass a long time ago, and now regrets it. Kind of. And that’s why he has to “start all over again”.

But in the meantime he saw some good movies, so he has that.

As I understand it.

Thanks.

2Recommend
Robin’s Nest Portland, Oregon 23 hours ago
I am also very conflicted over Woody Allen, and also Chuck Close. If we look at other great artists like Degas and even Picasso, for that matter, who are not mentioned because they long dead, they were, at best, demeaning to women. For example, Degas said of American Impressionist Mary Cassatt, “She paints too well for a woman.” And one can easily see that Picasso treated his wives and lovers terribly at times. However, all four great artists had a huge impact on art, design, and film and they all have/had vision that gave birth to great movements and helped shape who we are today as a society. I love the film Crimes And Misdemeanors, the film is great, but Allen, the director, is deeply flawed. I do not wish to un-see any of these artist’s work. Our society is thankfully, in the throes of this long over due positive change of finally beginning to respect women and protect children. We need to move forward with what happens next and leave the past undeniably great accomplishments separate from the personality and deviant behavior of these deeply flawed people. How we move forward is the real work at hand. No attacker deserves forgiveness, but I have had to move forward from my own attackers for myself by realizing that forgiveness is giving up all hope of a better past and recognizing, with compassion, that we are all flawed to some degree. I can’t change that, but I can change what comes next. Character and honor will, hopefully, finally matter now.

5Recommend

Tom O’Leary Los Angeles, CA 23 hours ago
“Mr. Allen’s films and writings are a part of the common artistic record, which is another way of saying that they inform the memories and experiences of a great many people.” That, Mr. Scott, is it for me in a nutshell. Woody Allen began his filmmaking career at the same time that I fell in love with movies. I cannot imagine life without the films of Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Francois Truffaut in the same way that I can’t imagine life without vivid memories of great performances by Diane Keaton, Julie Christie, Vanessa Redgrave and many others. I know it is time to divorce myself from my love of Woody Allen’s work. But it isn’t easy.

5Recommend
Tessa US 23 hours ago
The last, and only, Woody Allen film I enjoyed was Sleeper. Yeah, I know…
But Allen’s work does not attract me, for all it’s supposed sophistication and nuance, and championing portrayal of the modern woman. His work seemed intrinsically unsympathetic toward women and imbued with a strange vague cruelty… hard to put a finger on it. This was my gut response to Allen’s work, well before any whiff of controversy was reported. For all of clever scripting and technical brilliance (which I would not deny), something in the stories he wants to tell about women has always felt “off” to me, regardless of how prominent in or central to the film these female characters featured.

Allen is a dinosaur. What was unprecedented in the 1970s and imbued with a hip attraction and appeal should fall flat now, artistically and socially. There are many other more relevant storytellers out there today. Do they owe an artistic debt to their predecessors? Some, no doubt. But I have no problem leaving Allen’s work shelved in perpetuity. For me, the works that resonate are not those linked to the Allen-inspired “age of self-display” or the subsequent myopic “selfie culture” A.O. Scott believes Allen’s work both inspired and illuminates. But then I didn’t come of age in the fevered world of New York’s cultural vacuum where a trivial, complacent cosmopolitanism passes as novel and worth considering too deeply.

22Recommend
tw Happy Valley 21 hours ago
I commend you on the impeccable timing of your coming of age — i.e., when more advanced forms of hipness were in vogue. Good job!

Recommend
Marshal Phillips Wichita, KS 23 hours ago
What he did as a 56 year old man – dating his romantic partner’s young adult daughter behind her back – was egregious behavior, very tacky for sure. But accusations by Mia of his molesting his own 7 year old adopted daughter seems more like pay back. I watched a TV interview with him denying it and giving his self defense and all the things Mia did in retaliation convinced me of his innocence of sexual abuse. But his own behavior in dating his partner’s young daughter brought him pay back karma. He brought this problem on himself. Although he’s innocent of criminal sexual abuse, he’s responsible for being a jerk. He certainly should have known Mia would object and most certainly he should have given Mia a head’s up about dating her daughter.

32Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 23 hours ago
The judge is in the 1993 custody trial had this to say about whether Mia coached Dylan or was lying in order to get revenge.

“There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen’s resort to the stereotypical “woman scorned” defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.” – Judge Wilk

Here’s the entire ruling: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

14Recommend
Marshal Phillips Wichita, KS 21 hours ago
Actually the evidence was the “Valentine” Mia sent Woody with pins and daggers and a big knife depicting violence to her and their family caused by Woody which was shown to the TV audience which I saw with my own eyes. This was sent to Woody after she discovered his romance with her adopted daughter. If you or I got that “Valentine” from an X we would be scared that the X might do something violent in revenge. That was Real Evidence!

2Recommend
JDSept 6029 20 hours ago
“A sworn statement from Dr. John M. Leventhal, the doctor who headed the Yale-New Haven team, is released to the public theorizing that Dylan Farrow was emotionally unstable and coached by Ms. Farrow to accuse Mr. Allen. The Yale-New Haven team interviewed Dylan nine times and said she changed details throughout the interviews” From the NYT timeline article on the whole mess

1Recommend
w ny 23 hours ago
I could write a book here defending Woody Allen (who I don’t know aside from his films which I’ve treasured since I saw Take the Money and Run when I was an adolescent). But the speed with which an innocent (yes, I said innocent) man’s career is being destroyed is quite amazing.

Instead, I invite folks to reads this piece which pretty much lays out the facts in the matter and the impetus for the false allegations:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast

I feel badly for Dylan Farrow – because she’s been brainwashed by her mother for so many years she believes she was abused (and who wouldn’t?). Who wants to believe their mother could create such a devastating tale?

This is not the first time the rejected woman concocts a story of child abuse to get back at their former partner. And, sadly, it won’t be the last.

71Recommend
Mark Brooklyn 23 hours ago
Having lived through a 4 year custody battle with an angry ex (angry that I was given sole custody..a rarity) I can attest that the phenomenon of parental alienation syndrome is real, vicious and causes lasting harm. In my case an alert judge and the law guardian to my son as well as the court appointed forensic psychiatrist uncovered this activity. My son was older, 10 years old and able to withstand this trauma perhaps easier than a 7 year old Ms. Farrow. While the optics of how the relationship began between Mr. Allen’s and his now wife can make anyone queasy…the Connecticut Family Court and Forensic Psychiatrist did determine the young Ms. Farrow was apparently being influenced by her mother to perceive her father in a negative way. If true..it’s heartbreaking that Ms. Farrow suffers this Trauma. I may be biased because of my own experience but I can’t help but feel that law enforcement would have nailed Mr. Allen to the cross at the slightest whiff of proof in this matter. Family Court Judges see an endless stream of humanity cross their paths and they are tuned into this kind of behavior. I’m going to trust their judgement, that there was evidence of parental alienation occuring. The way Mr. Allen handled his relationship with Soon Yi has caused lasting problems and this is on him. But they found happiness together..life and love can be complex as Mr. Allen has spent a lifetime exploring in his art. But still..this is all very sad for this family.

26Recommend
Anastasia Stamford 21 hours ago
Great film maker, but obvious from long before Mia, contempt for women. Turned me off a long time ago.

Recommend

Michael Joseph Rome 20 hours ago
Well said! But I hope — and the popularity here of opinions like yours leads me to believe — that Woody Allen’s career is not being destroyed, and that the irrational hatred will eventually subside or the scapegoat mechanism as ever hard at work, will find a more suitable target.

Recommend
Susan M. Newtown, CT 5 hours ago
I don’t know whether he is guilty or not, but with all due respect it’s not the first time a guilty man has used the excuse of a woman scorned…

“Just before sentencing Dr. Nassar, the judge read parts of a letter he submitted to the court last week that contrasted with his stated contrition. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” he wrote in the letter, eliciting audible gasps from the spectators when the judge read the line.”

Recommend
Catamaran stl 23 hours ago
There is a difference between desiring the sexually abuse a seven year old and a desire to sleep with a late teenager. One violates the norms of our society and the other exists in a gray area.

The urges certainly can exist in the same person, but they aren’t the same thing.

9Recommend
Steve Griffith Oakland, CA 23 hours ago
Oscar Wilde’s remark, from his preface to “The Picture of Dorian Gray,” comes to mind: “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.” The same applies to films— whether by Mr. Allen or others.

35Recommend

Mark Crozier Free world 4 hours ago
Indeed, this whole issue was addressed by a landmark trial when prosecutors sought to ban Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer all the way back in 1961. Despite the book containing a great deal of salacious material the judge ruled it clearly had considerable artistic merit and therefore could not be ruled as pornographic. Prurience and moral judgement has no place in art. If it offends you, don’t read/watch/listen to it!

Recommend
Doug Tarnopol Cranston, RI 23 hours ago
Allen has made more than one film—Bullets, Sweet and Lowdown spring to mind—about great artists who are not good people.

I look forward to a cultural world sanitized of all bad culture-producers—and based, mind you, on accusation alone. Accusations are easy; refuting them takes volumes. And if there is enough discussion, well, that is the smoke that guarantees a fire, right? An old PR move.

What a cultural world that will be, though, one cleansed of anything and anyone so far free from accusation. I cannot wait.

And why limit it to culture? I say take it to the hoop—and from now on, any accusation, already adjudicated or not, must be believed. We dont even need to throw people into ponds—that is way too much in this brave new world of MeToo and all the other internet jihads across the proverbial spectrum.

Meanwhile, always remember that ducks are made of wood, and thus float.

19Recommend
Jon Silberg Pacific Palisades, CA 23 hours ago
There are quite a few good reasons to doubt the allegations Scott’s chosen to believe — the opinions of the initial psychologists about the content of the videotape Farrow presented and about Dylan’s propensity to ‘cheat on [her] stories, Allen’s passing a lie detector test and Farrow’s refusal to take one, Farrow’s confirmed lies about Ronan’s biological father (she either lied under oath about Allen being the only possible father or she lied to Vanity Fair — look at the guy!). Moses’ latest revelations about Farrow’s parental behavior is also revealing, although many choose to reflexively discount or ignore what he says. There’s never been another allegation about Allen doing anything to someone that age before or since and he subsequently underwent the rigorous vetting required to adopt the children he has with his wife. None of that is conclusive proof of his innocence regarding the charges but, come on, his attraction to young women (the age of Tracy in Manhattan) may be problematic in itself, a cause worth boycotting his work for Mr. Scott, but that attraction is hardly evidence Allen would molest a 7-year-old. The point of this piece seems to be: What to do now that we’re certain he’s guilty. The more one digs into the actual facts, the less certain one can be that he is. It’s fair for Scott to do an essay on how he feels about that very difficult question but maybe he could offer some better reasons why he’s so sure the CT legal system got it wrong.

58Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 23 hours ago
Here’s the judge’s 1993 ruling – which was held up on appeal. It addresses many of the issues you mention.

That said, it’s dismaying to see so many defend Allen based on an interview with him and Diane Keaton’s feelings about the matter. There was a trial, facts were presented and there was a ruling which was scathing in its condemnation of Allen’s behavior around Dylan and it absolved Mia Farrow from coaching Dylan in order to get revenge.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

9Recommend
Fabrisse Washington DC 22 hours ago
The State’s Attorney didn’t bring charges because he felt Dylan Farrow was too “emotionally fragile” for a trial. Not bringing charges has left many of these questions open, but the key point is that the State Attorney for Connecticut *chose* not to bring charges rather than there being no evidence for charges.

7Recommend
Jim NH 20 hours ago
if there was evidence it would have gone to trial…

Recommend
blueskies northwest corner 10 hours ago
Jim–Your comment that had there been “evidence,” the case “would have gone to trial” is incorrect. Critical factors included the young child’s age, & further trauma to the young child during the investigative and trial process. Qualified professionals–be they medical, legal, law-enforcement, or social-service personnel–are aware that the risk of further damage is significant. Such risk was specified in the documentation of this particular case.

Recommend
sonnel Isla Vista, CA 23 hours ago
Can any screen star *not be* self-possessed, ego-driven, and in some way, a royal pain? Don’t all screen stars have thoughts in their heads that violate just about every civilized social convention? How else can you act the part when you need to?

Only a tiny fraction, maybe 0.01%, of them are “good people,” but due to the nature of the business, they are world-class at *appearing to be good enough*, so as not to end the gig. The occasional lottery-like sacrifice of Fatty Arbuckle or Woody Allen just misdirects scrutiny of the 99.99% who are no different.

6Recommend
James Hubert White Plains, NY 23 hours ago
I think that all any of us know about Woody Allen is what we saw in his movies. No matter what else we saw happen in one of his films, he was ultimately harmless, even defenseless.
His movie relationship with Ms. Hemingway certainly crossed a border, but you can’t but feel she was the adult and he the child in their final scene together as she leaves town to join the world and he stays behind stuck in Manhattan and his own neurosis.
Broadway Danny Rose: what a loser! But here at the end, comes the mobster princess, Mia Farrow, to show him some love (which you know can only break his heart) in spite her hard core. She, like all of us, couldn’t help loving(?) this utterly pathetic, hapless victim of life.
The list goes on and on.
So what good does it do to psychoanalyze him in real life? We end up in the same place.

2Recommend
Samuel Russell Newark, NJ 21 hours ago
Especially because in real life he is nothing like his character. It turns out he was never good in school, never an intellectual, but more of a tough punk, and very good at sports. Hardly a nervous wreck, in real life he is slick, confident and obviously knows the ropes as far as getting movies made.

1Recommend
John J Healey NYC 23 hours ago
What has happened to A.O. Scott? First the rave review of the terrible, heavy-handed, embarrassing ‘The Shape of Water,’ and now this rather desperate attempt at political correctness. Get over it. Woody Allen is one of America’s great treasures. His personal life, whatever that may be, is personal. He is not a criminal. What a mess all this is causing for him. And, Ronan Farrow? VERY strange person to my mind. It’s so important not to confuse similarities with identities, to be clear on these things. I have no sympathy and have lost respect for these people who are now regretting having worked with him based on smething they know nothing about.

35Recommend
Shane Marin County, CA 23 hours ago
It is possible to separate the work of an artist from the artist themselves, we do it all the time. Picasso was a serial womanizer and a terrible parent, does that mean Guernica is any less potent a work of art? While I probably wouldn’t want to hang out with Woody Allen, his shortcomings don’t mean I can’t enjoy the work he produces.

8Recommend
Keat New York, New York 23 hours ago
Let’s think about this.

Woody Allen has directed approximately 50 movies since 1969. He has worked with hundreds of leading ladies, many supporting actresses and thousands of other women in the film industry. He has spent years around his small children.

Since the #MeToo movement began, many famous men have been accused of sexual assault, going back to the 1970s.

Not one woman or girl or other daughter has come forward to accuse Woody of anything. Not one. Not one has so much as said that Woody gave her a funny look.

Now consider Dylan Farrow. When she was seven years old, her mother Mia Farrow, was involved in a custody dispute with her ex. Unspeakable allegations were leveled at Woody by Mia and, then by Dylan. The case against Woody was investigated by law enforcement and no charges were ever filed.

Dylan’s brother, Moses, unambiguously says that Dylan lied; that Mia put her up to it. He believes that Mia used Dylan to destroy Woody and thus win custody.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that in an era where women are confronting abusers, that a man who sexually abused his daughter, would have also abused one of the thousands of women with whom he has worked? Wouldn’t such a man have, at a minimum, given a young film actress an inappropriate “come hither” look?

And why would Woody abuse his daughter on the very weekend he went up to CT in the middle of a custody disupte?!

He is presumed innocent. Facts matter, despite what our current leaders believe.

153Recommend

Michael Joseph Rome 21 hours ago
Thank you for your admirably sensible, informed and well-formulated response.

Recommend
Laura Boston 20 hours ago
Also, his therapist, Susan Coates, testified in 1993 that a few days before the alleged molestation, Mia described Woody as “Satanic and evil” and said he had to be stopped somehow. Dr. Coates actually told Woody to be concerned for his personal safety because he might be physically at risk. A few days later, Mia calmly related to Dr. Coates that Dylan had been molested. Dr. Coates thought it was strange that Mia seemed so much *less* agitated than she had been a few days earlier.

This testimony was printed in this very newspaper 25 years ago. Here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html

But that was before “trial by Twitter.”

3Recommend
HopeJones san francisco, ca 4 hours ago
Facts: Mariel Hemingway says he hit on her when she was a minor. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/memoir-mariel-hemingway-says-wood…

1Recommend
Jan Priddy Oregon 4 hours ago
“Not one woman or girl or other daughter has come forward to accuse Woody of anything.” Maybe follow the links provided in this article.

Recommend
w ny 23 hours ago
as a counter-measure, i don’t intend to ever attend a film, performance, etc. by any of these so-called actors and actresses who are now expressing regret for having worked with mr. allen.

not only do i choose NOT to be part of this sad, manipulated witch hunt, i choose to boycott the accusers.

29Recommend
rb cal 23 hours ago
Pretty clear creepy stuff going on–compensation, like Cosby, for his public nebbish character.

The important thing is Allen’s movies are not that great. Ask other filmmakers what they think of his craft as a filmmaker. He has never become a great filmmaker in the sense of being a craftman and his ego seems largely to blame for it.

7Recommend
atb Chicago 20 hours ago
“The important thing is that Allen’s movies are not that great.”- Really? Were you being serious? Even Scott doesn’t say that.

Recommend
Robert Glassman Ann Arbor, MI 23 hours ago
A 2014 Esquire essay here: http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a27233/dylan-farrow-woody-al…
is revelatory. I just picked up on the line from Hannah and Her Sisters in a chance channel surfing moment the other night and it hit like a ton of bricks. His adolescent fantasies about sex with younger women is all-pervasive in his work. He probably is guilty, but we’ll never know. We do know that his work is racist, if only by the extreme whiteness of the world he portrays and sexist in his ridicule of most of his women characters.

11Recommend
David WA 23 hours ago
Do you really believe he’s guilty, or do you believe you’re supposed to believe he’s guilty, because you’re too weak-minded and ethically bankrupt to draw conclusions that don’t conform to the dogma of your tribe? I suspect it’s the latter.

9Recommend
mildred shacklefor tn 23 hours ago
that child was not related to him but he was the father figure in that home. he had a sexual relationship and neither one ever said how old she was when it started. i ve not had any use for allen since then.

20Recommend
Ann Brooklyn 21 hours ago
In my youth, I was a big fan. I have elected not to see a Woody Allen film since the Previn affair became public knowledge.

Waaaay to disgusting behavior for me.

There are lots of good/great movies out there; even if WA’s later films where terrific (which they are not in my opinion), I just choose to look at other art.

3Recommend
Deborah Mc Winnipeg 23 hours ago
In Mariel Hemingway’s memoir, she reported that Woody Allen tried to seduce her on the set of Manhattan – it gave her the creeps and put her in an awkward situation as she was working for him. She was 16 years old. Woody Allen likes young girls.

30Recommend
atb Chicago 20 hours ago
And? He’s guilty of being a little creepy.

1Recommend
Malina Paris 5 hours ago
And Frank Sinatra liked young girls that’s why when he was fifty he married Mia Farrow who was twenty one.

1Recommend
Deborah Mc Winnipeg 4 hours ago
I also wonder if, while coaching her in the film role, Woody Allen was “grooming” Mariel, the way that sexual predators do to make their victims think and act the way they want.

Recommend
Michel Forest Montreal 4 hours ago
There’s a world of difference between being attracted to a young woman (Ms. Hemingway was 18, not 16) and being a pedophile. These are two very different things. If you had to put in jail every mature man who is attracted to 18-20 years old young women, you’d have to build hundreds of jail all across the country. Notice also that Ms Hemingway always maintained a cordial relationship with Mr Allen. She invited him over to her parents’ estate after the shooting of Manhattan and she starred in “Deconstructing Harry” in 1997.

Recommend
Wendy NY 23 hours ago
First off you’d have to believe that Mr. Allen became a pedophile only one time seeing as no one else has come forward, and you’d have to believe that he abused a 7 year old girl in a house filled with people who hated him. Next you’d have to believe that the Psychiatrists involved in examining Dylan Farrow were all completely wrong. “The Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team that examined Dylan back in 1993 concluded that there were “…two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”
His relationship with Soon Yi is a different issue. As creepy as it is, by all accounts he waited until she was of age and has been married to her for 20 years.

10Recommend
NYT Pick
Bebe CA 23 hours ago
He seduced and took nude photos of the half-sister of his own children, someone 35 years younger and still college age, the daughter of a woman with whom he had been sexually intimate. This is egregious, horrific conduct that is technically legal, but evidences a grotesque, predatory morality. The media, Hollywood establishment, and others, including the author, who pointed at Mia Farrow’s understandable fear and outrage for her (second) daughter as a way to support Mr. Allen’s story, are complicit. Dylan Farrow looks as believable as the gymnasts who were dissed and belittled by an establishment determined to psychologically undermine the victims. And to those who say he must not be a pedophile because (as far as we know) he has not repeated the act, at least one authority says non-treated child molesters who have had contact with the criminal justice system (as Mr. Allen has) have a one in four chance of being a repeat offender (so, a 75% chance of not being a repeat molester). (https://www.quora.com/Pedophilia-How-likely-are-sex-offenders-to-repeat-… He should have been prosecuted.

211Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 23 hours ago
Some pedophiles only act out with family members.

8Recommend
NA is a trusted commenter NYC 21 hours ago
My mother was married with a child when “still college age.”

Also, Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn have been married to each other for 21 years. That doesn’t suggest to me a relationship that had its origins in ” a grotesque, predatory morality.”

7Recommend
David Henry Concord 19 hours ago
Prosecutors found no evidence to proceed, despite your fervent desire.

4Recommend
Alex SW-Germany 5 hours ago
The half-sister that you mention has a name and a voice, it is Soon-Yi Previn. She is about 47 years old (exact date of birth unknown) and for over 20 years she is happily married to Woody Allen. The in your words „egregious, horrific conduct that is technically legal“ (the taking of nude fotos of Soon-Yi) is the true reason why the crowd wants Allens head on a pike.

1Recommend
Even Peters Here 4 hours ago
Indeed. But Dylan Farrow refuses to bring charges despite having the opportunity to do so since 14 years.
And she has yet to speak about the 2 young sexual abuse victims of her uncle
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Mia-Farrows-Brother-to-Be-Sente…
Speaking for the victims as written on her Twitter presentations?
No, speaking for her self. Otherwise she was going to speak of these 2 young boys who went on being abuse by Mia’s brother for 8 long years.
And these boys went to court and got him jailed so he will be stopped.
Dylan Farrow self admittedly wants to ruin Allen’s life and career, but the chosen way is terribly wrong and immoral.

1Recommend
Enough Europe 4 hours ago
But the gymnasts pressed charges.
Went to court. Testified. Stood agonist the abuser and showed how it should be done.
Dylan Farrow seem to be seriously avoiding any legal step. Why? Why not sue Allen?
She never contested his adoptions, girls like her.. But she contest awards and press actors to denounce him. This is Not a credible choice of behavior.

2Recommend
JDSept 6029 4 hours ago
How do you prosecute somebody when the charges were investigated by Yale’s abuse center that the New Haven Police uses to investigate them and they said no abuse happened? They said and I quote “She was coached by her mother.” Nah that wouldn’t happen in a bitter divorce case would it? yes Mr. Allen had contact with the criminal justice system which said? “Didn’t happen” How can one “have a one in four chance of being a repeat offender” when they were found not to be an offender in the first place? Duke lacrosse team also had contact with criminal justice system which said thing, “didn’t happen.” Do YOU think those Duke players have a “one in four chance” of abusing women since the original non happening incident?

1Recommend
Mary Newton Virginia 4 hours ago
Just an FYI, the study you cited was not a real research study and should not be quoted. No real data on recidivism exists.

2Recommend
Bebe CA 4 hours ago
Incorrect; they found probable cause to prosecute (that is, strong evidence), but chose not to in order to spare the child trauma:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/25/nyregion/connecticut-prosecutor-won-t-…

Recommend
FC Brooklyn 23 hours ago
I am so very grateful to you for writing this. Thank you.

8Recommend
Paul New York 23 hours ago
Manhattan has always been a despicable film. Full of ethically atrocious people. Remember, Allen was supposed to be the moral center of the film—seriously—as he was “breaking (sexual) records” with a 17 year old child. But no doubt about it, the score and cinematography are great art. I’ll often DVR the movie just watch glorious first five minutes. Should I feel bad about that? Because I don’t. Maybe I should.

7Recommend
atb Chicago 20 hours ago
It’s despicable for depicting despicable people?? Walt Disney was a despicable person but he depicted adorable animals in his movies. Does that make him adorable??

1Recommend
Don H New York 21 hours ago
Paul, you miss the entire theme of “Manhattan”. It’s intentionally full of “ethically atrocious” adults, while the moral center is the 17 year-old. Allen’s message is that maturity and self-awareness don’t automatically come with age.

2Recommend
jrh athens, ga 23 hours ago
This is all great news! You don’t have to prove anything anymore! Just accuse. Doesn’t matter that the matter was deeply investigated decades ago and found to be baseless. You just say the magic words at the right time and ruin a life, a reputation, a career. I’d like to go on but I have some lives to ruin. None of the people who’s lives I’m going to ruin deserve it, I just don’t like them.

36Recommend
Issassi Atlanta 23 hours ago
You would not have to “unwatch” Woody Allen’s films if you had stopped watching them, on principle, when he first married a young woman who was ostensibly his adopted daughter. Yes, I know she was not legally his daughter, but in the ways that count, that are not always measured by the law, what Allen did was wrong. I have boycotted his films ever since.

10Recommend
NYT Pick
John Smithson California 23 hours ago
Whether Woody Allen molested his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow has been hashed out for 26 years now. We will never know for sure whether he did or did not. Woody Allen was reported to the police and a careful investigation found that there was not enough evidence to support a charge. No new facts are available now.

Who to believe? Dylan Farrow asks us to believe her. But she was 7 years old at the time, and those who investigated the case felt that she could not be believed. Not that she was purposefully lying, but that she was caught in a traumatic situation and her testimony was not reliable. Recent research supports the idea that children that young do not make credible witnesses.

Many seem to think that they can judge whether to believe Dylan Farrow and others like her just by hearing their story. But research and long experience in criminal courts shows that is just not true.

Of course each of us has the right to decide for ourselves what and who to believe, and A. O. Scott lays out wisely how hard that can be. But even though I am not a Woody Allen fan, I think he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.

When we condemn people based on allegations alone, we ape the worst excesses of McCarthyism. If allegation alone convicts, what defense can anyone mount?

358Recommend
adm is a trusted commenter D.C. 23 hours ago
Here’s the judge’s 1993 ruling. It was decided by Mia Farrow that Dylan would be further traumatized if she testified, so the ruling only focuses on events that Dylan and others testified to. Nannies, friends, relatives etc. stated that Allen’s behavior was inappropriate, obsessive, etc. The judge ruled that Allen was an unfit parent or guardian and was barred from seeing his children without supervision.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_47…

14Recommend
Sally L. NorthEast 21 hours ago
I was molested at the age of 11 and to say that I don’t remember accurately is ridiculous and insulting. I remember the entire thing as if it was yesterday. Every detail. Please don’t patronize children, they remember better than most.

10Recommend
Ann Dallas 21 hours ago
Dear Mr. Smithson,
I believe the detailed written opinion of the NY Family Court penned by Judge Wilk. Woody Allen was unable to reverse this ruling on appeal. Judge Wilk cited the amble evidence supporting his finding that Woody Allen behaved grossly inappropriately toward his daughter and that this child required court protection from her father. He was never allowed near Dylan Farrow again based on the court’s finding.

Prior to the court protecting the child, Woody Allen was in therapy for his inappropriate relationship with Dylan. There was a standing order in the Farrow household that none of the nannies could leave Woody Allen alone with Dylan. A nanny saw him with his head inappropriately in Dylan’s lap when she didn’t have her underwear on. There are witnesses to him forcing her to suck his thumb and getting into bed with her when they were both in their underwear.

I haven’t watched a Woody Allen movie since reading that opinion. I also recommend the Maureen Orr Vanity Fair articles.

8Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 20 hours ago
@Ann- read Mia Farrow’s own sworn testimony, she basicaly says nothing illegal or inappropriate happened. Also, the 3 investigators hired by the Conn D.A. that also says that either A) Dylan made it up or B0 Mia coerced Dylan or more likely C) a combination of both. There are other witnesses(according to Moses Farrow) that contradicts the above mentioned witnesses.

1Recommend
lou andrews Portland Oregon 20 hours ago
Sorry Sally, I, as a physically abused child can attest memories do fade, and get slightly alterd over the years. Yes, parents can manipulate, coerce, threaten, or physically abuse a child into doing or saying what the parent(s) want. Even into adulthood.

1Recommend
J-Law NYC 19 hours ago
You are incorrect, and it’s baffling that people keep repeating this. The matter was investigated. Sufficient evidence, including corroborating testimony, was found to prosecute at the time. The prosecutor elected not to bring the matter to trial because he wanted to avoid traumatizing Dylan Farrow further. Without her on the stand, he could not successfully prosecute Allen.

6Recommend
Christina San Francisco 19 hours ago
Please read the judge’s statement. It wasn’t that the child’s testimony was unreliable. They did not prosecute Allen to protect her from further trauma, not because she was unreliable. The judge and the psychological custody evaluator believed she was abused and that Allen had an abnormal fixation on her. Then he hired some Yale psychologist who had never interviewed Dylan to provide an opinion in order to sway people like you; that report did not sway the judge nor the professionals who worked the case.

4Recommend
Emily Pickrell Mexico City 19 hours ago
Larry Nassar was cleared on several investigations. If you discredit the person who it happened to by saying they got it all wrong, you successfully have no witnesses.

Innocent until the girls are believed.

5Recommend
Christina San Francisco 18 hours ago
Why do people keep saying that there were no findings of abuse? The judge’s statement was released by a reporter for Vanity Fair. The only reason Allen was not charged was to protect Dylan Farrow. The psychologists who worked the trial believed that she WAS abused and that Allen was inappropriately fixated on her, but that the child was too fragile to testify. It was considered in the child’s best interests to not charge him, because she would have to testify in a criminal processing. That was determined to be more damaging. My blood runs cold every time people say he was not charged. He would have been, but the court’s job was to protect her. His assault and her trauma are the reason he didn’t even get visitation and lost full custody.

5Recommend
Ed Chicago 17 hours ago
I usually cring when I read the comments from NYT readers and am often astonished at the knee jerk reaction of people to condemn someone. Your comment is a breath of fresh air. As you say we may never know if Mr. Allen is guilty or not, but simply accuisng him is not sufficient evidence. Ask anyone on the Duke lacrosse team.

2Recommend
Anne Rome, Italy 4 hours ago
I was abused sexually by a neighbor, a military man when I was seven years old. Fortunately my parents bought him to a trial, a military trial. I clearly remember all that happened during the abuse and the trial. And fortunately everyone believed me.

Recommend
fast/furious the new world 4 hours ago
But the objection to your argument that Farrow’s claims can’t be proven forensically and we must always let a court