Jeff Goldblum defends Woody Allen, says "there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty"
Aux Features Film
One of Jeff Goldblum’s first acting roles was in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall, and in a recent interview with British news outlet The i, Goldblum briefly noted that he would be willing to considering working with Allen again if the opportunity came up. “I think there is a presmuption of innocence until proven guilty,” he explained, later adding that he does think the “cultural shift” of the #MeToo movement (which he supports “wholeheartedly”) has been “very, very positive and long overdue.” That being said, he still admires Allen’s work enough that he wouldn’t outright refuse to work with him until he learns “something more.”
Allen, of course, has faced accusations for decades that he molested his daughter Dylan Farrow when she was a child, with the accusations resurfacing in recent years thanks to the aforementioned #MeToo movement. The general film community has backed away from Allen, with tons and tons of actors who worked with him saying that they would not do so again or even donating their salaries, with others—like Alec Baldwin, Diane Keaton, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, and now Goldblum—doing the opposite and going out of their way to stick up for Allen against the “unfair” backlash.
Goldblum has a Disney+ show hitting that service at launch on November 12, so we’ll see if he gets any calls from Disney and decides to walk these comments back any time soon.
270 Comments
Your dick is hard as fuck over this one isn’t it, Barsanti?
I mean, Woody Allen’s dick is hard for children, and plenty of people are still out here defending him, so who are we to judge I guess?
I would honestly be surprised if his dick was hard for anything anymore.
Nice ad hom. Seems like you “LIKE being angry.”
Erection jealousy is a weird thing to admit to, bro.
You’re an idiot.
The accusations against Woody Allen by Mia Farrow were never proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he married Farrow’s adopted daughter is uncontested and unquestionably bizarre. Those two points have become conflated. They are separate things.
It’s weird that people keep using phrases that are really only relevant in the criminal law context. “Innocent until proven guilty” “beyond a reasonable doubt”, etc., We’re not talking about throwing him in jail here, we’re talking about actors choosing not to work with him because they think there may be some merit to the allegations.
That’s true but it’s quite reasonable to invoke the concept in a discussion. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a pretty sturdy idea in any context. If someone wants to avoid working with a person who may (or may not) be guilty of awfulness, that’s OK too. In this case, there is ample evidence for at least one strain of awfulness that is uncontested.
At least Goldblum, Bardem, Johannson are honest.These accusations are 30 years old. Precisely ZERO people who have worked with him since then have been unaware of them. But as soon as there’s actual societal backlash they all decide they just couldn’t bear to work with such a monster anymore.No actor has any actual integrity, they’ll just chase whatever they believe will keep them valid. Never forget that.
“No actor has any actual integrity.”You seem to think of yourself as very wise.
It’s hyperbole for effect. I obviously don’t know every actor.But it’s foolish to think that all of these people who had no problem with Woody Allen for decades suddenly changed THEIR moral barometer when it became socially advantageous to do so.
Eh, I think the culture in general has grown less accepting of the, ahem, controversy around Woody Allen in the past five years. The actors are following the general population trend.
None of this makes Woody Allen not a pedophile
Yeah, he very will might be a pedophile.
No, but you are trying to ruin someone life.
He was never tried in criminal court, but a custody court found his conduct disturbing enough to rule that Dylan (then known as Mia) should be protected from him.https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
Thoughtcrime
Why would he lose a Disney show for saying someday possibly maybe he might work with an Oscar-winning director he worked with before? Ridiculous.
What?
Yes, yes, the oppressive totalitarian state here is…checks notes…women who have been sexually harassed and/or assaulted?
Shut the fuck up.
Oh snappy comeback there, sparky.
I’d give you more stars, just for starting with “Yes, yes” like Rusty Venture or Lex Luthor. It’s my favorite.
Whoa look a macattack’s comment history.
Ugh, do I have to? Can’t I just assume he’s terrible from these two comments instead?
I had a look, and he’s no better or worse than a million other Kinja greys, brimming over with ungovernable yet impotent rage. What I don’t understand is why he’s not grey on this particular thread.
what’s it like being a massive pussy who thinks any comment you don’t like should be “greyed?” What’s it like having a life so shitty that you think not being greyed makes you special? lol fuckin loser
Ooh look, you’ve been let out the greys for once in your life. You’re ungreyed now, but only at my whim. I also have the power to silence you by dismissing all your replies. I have to say, this deplatforming lark I keep hearing about is pretty sweet, I can really see the attraction.
thanks for proving my point. Still didn’t answer my question tough guy
Oh it wasn’t a rhetorical question? My bad. It is a bit of a “when did you stop beating your wife?” type deal though, no? Not exactly in good faith.But anyway, no I don’t feel special on the basis that my comments are actually published when I post them. All that takes is basic civility, which costs me no effort at all. If it is an achievement, it’s one that 98% of people share in. In the broadest sense of the term, you’re the one that’s special.Do you get many replies at all? I doubt it, because the only people that see your comments are those that you’re directly replying to (no one at all sees your OPs) and they just ignore or dismiss them. I’ve only kept you around because I’ve always wanted to ask one of you guys this: you do know you’re essentially shadowbanned, right? So why bother?
you’re still proving my point. Sorry bout your life bae.But I’m glad Kinja can offer you some semblance of happiness that your regular life apparently doesn’t. I’m glad it makes you feel powerful and strong to make up for the void in those areas in your life away from a computer.Not exactly in good faith.This is what people say when they know they’re being a hypocrite. Good or bad faith is moot. It was a legitimate question. But anyway, no I don’t feel special on the basis that my comments are actually published when I post them.I mean, the irony alone in this one sentence lol.Do you get many replies at all? I doubt it, because the only people that see your comments are those that you’re directly replying to (no one at all sees your OPs) and they just ignore or dismiss them.Still proving my point kiddo.I’ve only kept you aroundSTILL proving my pointbecause I’ve always wanted to ask one of you guys thisI’m not a guy.you do know you’re essentially shadowbanned, right? So why bother?I’m not shadowbanned at all. Plenty of others seeing my comments. You included. But I do feel that people who dismiss comments (like your buddy brontosaurian does all the time) are usually afraid of having honesty smack them in the face. I don’t really care if you do or don’t dismiss my comments. But dismissing them makes you a coward. And putting some level of importance on not being grey makes you a hypocrite. It gives you an opportunity to talk down to other people and act self-righteously superior to them – probably because that’s how people treat you away from the internet. Gotta compensate somehow.
You asked me what it feels like to be a “massive pussy”. You’re now saying that was a legitimate query that you actually wanted an answer to, rather than just insult with question mark at the end. Why even bother to make that claim, rather than admit that the question was rhetorical? Of course I wasn’t actually suggesting that it was a question asked in bad faith (which, by the way, is a perfectly legitimate and useful way of thinking about discourse even though you clearly find it inconvenient) – that was just the logical next step from the absurd notion that it was a question in the first place. I comment on a thread here once every few weeks as you can see from my history, so if my activity here is designed to fill some kind of void than I’m remarkably frugal in how I go about it. Talking of histories, look at your own. You constantly engage in vicious personal attacks against people who’s comments have made you feel angry. That’s extremely poor behaviour, objectively speaking. So again, no I’m not proud of the fact that I’m not in the greys. The only thing it signifies to me or to anyone else is that I don’t struggle to practice basic civility in the course of everyday social relations. All I was doing in my initial comment was pointing out that the other account clearly does and their comments are usually greyed out as a result. I suppose that touched a nerve with you as someone who also engages in poor behaviour online.
nah
He’s been around for years, this is like his 90th account.
That’s the same idiot that kept getting banned and opening dozens of new numbered accounts last year, isn’t it? He just got a new name.
When you share a thought with the world at large it becomes an opinion which we have every right to have our own opinion on. Jackass.
Yes, because he’s going to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. You’re crossing the same wires he is, between public opinion and the justice system.
‘faced accusations for decades that he molested his daughter Dylan Farrow when she was a child, with the accusations’Again with this AVC framing that tries to make Woody Allen look like a serial molester. There is only one accusation against Allen, by Mia Farrow. Others may support that accusation, but that’s the only one. And that accusation is at best highly suspect. So please add to the AVC style guide: ‘Woody Allen has for decades faced an accusation’
Who’s Woody Allen’s wife again?
His ex wifes adopted daughter. You can look this information up. She was 21 or 22 when they started a relationship, and they are still together to this day. This does not support any evidence that Allen molested his young daughter
I understand the implication of “grooming,” but as there’s no evidence nor accusation that Soon Yi (still married to Allen after 22 years and mother of two of his kids) was with Allen before she was an adult, and as there’s no evidence nor accusation that Allen attempted to be intimate with any of his other children, the implication feels imaginary.
Soon-Yi Previn (and no, she’s not his “stepdaughter”) who has said on multiple occasions that she is not a victim no matter how many people gaslight her.
“BeLiEvE wOmEn!!!” (Until they say something you don’t like, then tell them to shut the fuck up and sit down).
I mean, Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow equals accusations. I’m actually somewhat inclined to defend Goldblum on this, on the basis of a presumption of innocence, but this opinion is stupid. Still, a presumption of innocence is a really good thing in terms of legal prosecution. I’m okay with the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument in this case, though. Stop working with him. Even outside the Dylan Farrow thing, he married his fucking adopted daughter. That alone is fucking disgusting, and not just because I took care of my adopted sister as a teenager and cannot imagine regarding her as anything other than my sister,
Ronan Farrow is just trumpeting the same accusation. So still just 1 accusation
No, that’s still at least two dude.
So because its 1 its false?And you did miss the part that a babysitter spotted alan infront of dylan in a weird position. Or the fact he married his adopted daughter. yeah …..no dirt there ( sarcasm btw)
But he finds other rape accusations to talk about to keep the first one fresh. Sad career.
I’m with you on “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” but that’s thing: Not a lot of smoke here, as far as being a child molester. You find the Soon-Yi thing creepy? Fine, but there’s a difference, and that’s not the reason people are running for the hills.
That is why they should have run for the hills a lot sooner, though.
Except for the person who says Allen molested her when she was a child, yeah, not a lot of smoke on him being a child molester.
I think it’s weird that people say “where there’s smoke there’s fire” considering one popular expression for lying is “blowing smoke.”
Look, I’m not saying that he molested his other adopted daughter, though I see no reason to disbelieve Dylan, personally. I think there is a middle ground where we recognize that somebody can’t be prosecuted, but when the established facts are already that he married his adopted daughter, there’s really no reason to defend him or wring our hands over whether or not we should work with him. Stop working with him, let him eventually die, and the world will not miss him. Those who like his films can continue to do so, as able.I know you didn’t say this, but responding to the other person, it’s insane to me that somebody wouldn’t find his marriage to his daughter to be “creepy,” to say the least.
You know that smoke is made by fire, right?
Jesus, the fucking retards that populate the internet…
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Back in the late 1700s, however, doctors literally blew smoke up people’s rectums.I think it is because one expression comes from a simple and obvious origin whereas the other comes from something bizarre, so utterly bizarre.
She was not his adopted daughter. Not legally as he never adopted her nor married Mia Farrow (nor even lived with her). Soon Yi Previn has always claimed that Andre Previn is her father, Woody Allen is not, and he never did anything non-consensual towards her. So, as per usual with this website, believe all women except Soon Yi Previn I guess.
Wow…disgusting that you’d defend molestation
I’m just stating facts. If you claim that Soon Yi Previn was molested, raped, or groomed you are disagreeing with what Soon Yi Previn has consistently claimed for 30 years.
“She was not his adopted daughter. Not legally as he never adopted her”He was fucking Soon-Yi while he was in the process of adopting her siblings and avowing to the courts that he was such a super great dad in the family that the courts should make an exception for him to adopt her brother and sister.Mia Farrow found Allen’s vile spread-eagle nude polaroids of her teenaged daughter (whom had been in a father-daughter relationship with Allen for the entirety of her life since adoption) laying around the home those “legally adopted” children were scheduled to be at for the day about a week and a half after his adoption of them was finalized. It’s almost like he planned for those photos to be part of the on-going grooming process for his freshly adopted daughter as the other one started to age-out of his preferred age for abuse.Also keep in mind that Soon-Yi knew he was adopting her siblings (swearing in court about the committed nature of his relationship to Mia Farrow as her partner and to the family in general in his role as father) and that he was still in a committed relationship with her mom the entire time she was fucking him. She even took the entire blame for “seducing” Allen when the affair was initially exposed. That’s the behavior of someone egregiously groomed by a predator, not of someone making healthy decisions about her own life.
Then how come Mia Farrow continued showing up to work on Woody Allen’s film Husband and Wives AFTER she supposedly found out about his molestation of their daughter?listen, there’s a lot of questions here. Is Woody Allen a creep? Seems pretty likely. Did he molest his daughter? Very possibly, although it’s far from certain.But the fact of the matter is, she was NOT his adopted daughter. That’s not up for debate.
“But the fact of the matter is, she was NOT his adopted daughter. That’s not up for debate.”He was violating and fucking Soon-Yi while he was in the process of adopting her siblings and swearing in court that he was in a very committed long-term relationship with her mother which didn’t need to be legalized for the courts to consider them a family and that he was a wonderful father to Soon-Yi and her siblings. That’s not up for debate either.I mean, Woody Allen was hovering around Mia Farrow’s interviews in the 80s like an evil little Machiavelli, too, making sure she and the reporters said whatever it was he felt was supposed to be said about their “unconventional” relationship to keep people from questioning his fucking questionable behavior.He’s a vile, manipulative predator of the most vulnerable people: damaged children.
Listen, I’m not judge jury and executioner of Woody Allen’s life. He seems to have done some stuff that could be EXTREMELY CHARITABLY called creepy.But this case, more than the other #metoo cases that have reached a high profile, has a lot of conflicting stories and legitimate questions. Mia Farrow is hardly a reliable sources, unfortunately.
Hasn’t` Woody Allen been cleared?
The whole Woody-Soon Yi thing is just creepy AF. He’s 46 years older than her and she was only 21 to his 57 when he started having sex with her. He’s just a disgusting human being.
“She was not his adopted daughter. Not legally as he never adopted her”He was fucking Soon-Yi while he was in the process of adopting her siblings and avowing to the courts that he was such a super great dad in the family that the courts should make an exception for him to adopt her brother and sister.Mia Farrow found Allen’s vile spread-eagle nude polaroids of her teenaged daughter (whom had been in a father-daughter relationship with Allen for the entirety of her life since adoption) laying around the home those “legally adopted” children were scheduled to be at for the day about a week and a half after his adoption of them was finalized. It’s almost like he planned for those photos to be part of the on-going grooming process for his freshly adopted daughter as the other one started to age-out of his preferred age for abuse.Also keep in mind that Soon-Yi knew he was adopting her siblings (swearing in court about the committed nature of his relationship to Mia Farrow as her partner and to the family in general in his role as father) and that he was still in a committed relationship with her mom the entire time she was fucking him. She even took the entire blame for “seducing” Allen when the affair was initially exposed. That’s the behavior of someone egregiously groomed by a predator, not of someone making healthy decisions about her own life.
(I’m replying to you, Katmandu, because I hope you’ll ungrey my comment.)
He didn’t marry his adopted daughter. She was already adopted by Andre Previn, her father.
“he married his fucking adopted daughter”It’s crazy how much people downplay this.
Because it isn’t true. She wasn’t his adopted daughter.
It’s not true though.
It’s even crazier how many people are coming in to clarify that _technically_ he didn’t formally adopt her. Who the fuck cares? He was in a parental role and groomed his wife’s daughter to be a sex partner. That is disgusting even without a signed adoption form.I bet these same people are very particular about pointing out the technical difference between pedophilia and ebophilia, too. You know, creeps.
His wife was adopted by Mia & her then husband, Andre Previn. Sure, Woody betrayed Mia, but don’t conflate the betrayal with sexual deviancy. She was determined to destroy him & she’s been quite successful at it.
You don’t think grooming his wife’s daughter to be his sex partner is deviant?!?You should never be allowed near children.
To be pedantic, because we all love that, it wasn’t HIS adopted daughter. It was his wife’s!
Still wrong, Woody and Mia never married. He married the adopted daughter of his ex-girlfriend.The situation is still very weird.
But Mia was still his girlfriend when he started sleeping with Soon Yi
slight correction: she was never HIS adopted daughter. From both her and Mia’s accounts of the past… he was never really around when Mia adopted her – and to make things worse, again by both of their accounts, Mia treated Soonyi like shit nearly from day one. That whole family is highly suspect.
No, he did not marry his adopted daughter. She was only adopted by Mia, not by Woody.I am not saying it is not a weird situation, IT ABSOLUTELY IS, but Soon Yi has never been Woody’s daughter.
“There is only one accusation against Allen, by Mia Farrow.”…and Dylan, the person he molested.
“…and Dylan, the person he molested”
Who court psychologists said was coached…….
Who was six & coached by her angry mother. Ronan was 4. The elder brother Moses has described how Mia coached the entire family. Mia was quite cruel to many of the children with bizarre punishments.
Didn’t he marry his adopted daughter?
Woody Allen may be a serial molester. He also might not be. Whatever the case, I’m not interested in watching anything new he produces. But I digress.
Goldblum played with Allen’s jazz band once and had *one line* in Annie Hall. Why was he being asked about Woody Allen in an interview in 2019? Does the interviewee ask everyone if they would work with Woody Allen?
Stacey Nelkin and Babi Christina Engelhardt both said they were only 17 when Woody started having sex with them. They’ve both said they believe the character of Tracy in Manhatten is a composite of a number of young women Allen had sexual relations with. Allen was in his 40s when he had relationships with Nelkins and Engelhardt. He’s creepy AF.
Only one? Well obviously he’s a saint! Good job landing him, Soon-Yi!
Damn shame Woody’s going to jail though, huh? Oh wait, he ain’t…
Hey, this bait isn’t going to click itself!
Both Mia and Dylan accused him. And yeah….did he not kinda marrie his adobted daughter……..So….how to put it……..With some of the metoo stuff…yes i would say, little to no clear evidence. Or its just a rumor. Or one person with a sketchy background.In this case its the victim Dylan, a babysitter seeing a weird situation. Mia also did not trust him. The other childeren are for/against him. Depending on who you ask. But in the end he did marry his adopted DAUGHTER!!!!! While research did not find him guilty. Does not mean he did not do something weird.So….yeah….guy gets accused and is spotted in a weird position with a child. Who accuses him of doing weird stuff. And marries his own adopted daughter!!! yeah…kinda red flags.
I don’t understand how it’s not addressed the fact he married Mia’s daughter, who was basically his daughter too. What else people need to believe Dylan.
Even if her own non-brainwashed brother has exposed what a vindictive horror show Farrow was as a mother? What Dylan believes happened would be a tragedy, but there’s nowhere outside the diseased minds of Mia and Ronan Farrow that it happened.
How does that excuse Woody?
Even if her own non-brainwashed brother has exposed what a vindictive horror show Farrow was as a mother? What Dylan believes happened would be a tragedy, but there’s nowhere outside the diseased minds of Mia and Ronan Farrow that it happened.
He married a 22 year old adult that he has no blood ties too. Yeah that is proof
An adult he met when she was 10 and that was the adopted daughter of her partner for twelve years.
You’re so brave coming to the defense Woody Allen.
You’re leaving out a lot.
He fucked his wife’s underage daughter. I don’t have trouble believing that someone creepy and evil enough to do that would rape children.I don’t have proof, but this isn’t a court. I’m free to go on the blindingly obvious instead of what can be proven in legal proceedings. Defend Allen all you want, it just makes you look like a defensive perv who doesn’t want there to be consequences for abusing children.
She was never “basically his daughter,” as they never lived together and spent very little time together before she was an adult. I don’t believe Dylan is lying, as false memories are much, much more common than repressed ones, but it’s reasonable to doubt that a world-wide celebrity would, after spending years in the company of children, wait until his 50’s and choose his first and only time to act on his pedophilia in a house full of people. There were investigations and none found Dylan’s claims credible (nor especially Mia’s, who fired the therapist who advised her to stop coaching Dylan).
I find weird people that defend celebrities but okay.I think it’s pretty convenient he claims she wasn’t seen as his daughter, especially when the Polaroids appeared.
I find it weird that people wouldn’t defend others from evidence-free accusations of the worst kind simply because they’re celebrities. If there were more than one accuser, if there were any cases where pedophiles acted only once, later in their lives, with only one of the many children they’d spent time with, if the accuser’s sibling who was in the house at the time hadn’t contradicted her memories, and if there hadn’t been 2 separate investigations that cleared Allen, it might be weird to defend him. Conversely it seems weird that people will believe the worst things about people in the absence of any credible evidence, whatsoever.
Yeah I don’t know why people even feel the need to defend him, even if nothing happened, it’s gross as fuck marrying your adopted daughter. Like, that’s not reasonable behavior, no matter how you cut it.
Yes, especially when you know her since she was a child.And let’s pretend this love was pure and real, why hiding it, why didn’t he tell Mia.
Why have I not seen you in either of these places?https://discordapp.com/invite/VEeXam7Go to #roles to choose access to your preferred Kinja sites.Also be a host and/or lurker here: http://deadsplinter.com/
I’m a lurker on discord.I didn’t know about the other place!*bookmarks*It’s so sad everything that’s happening around here 🙁
Fair enough. Don’t mind me then. As long as you’re with us…carry on…
Thank you for telling me!I will try to be more participative when I am not this angry.
You keep referring to her as his “adopted daughter”, which was not the case. She wasn’t Soon-Yi Allen when they got together, she was Soon-Yi Previn, as in she was Andre Previn’s adopted daughter. Dating someone’s mother does not make you their adoptive father. It doesn’t necessarily even make you particularly close, especially since they never so much as shared a residence. Think the dude is scum if you’re so inclined, but as least do it with accurate information.
Thanks, this has completely changed my mind. I’m going to groom my friend’s twelve year old daughter now to eventually date me, and I invite you to join me in this new revolution of sexual freedom.
“Think the dude is scum if you’re so inclined”I think we’ve discovered what part of your problem may be. You lack reading comprehension skills.
But I don’t anymore! Can’t you see you’ve changed me? I’m now on the side of the sexual revolution, with you!
He married Andre Previn’s adopted daughter.
Judging by the comments, there are a few here who would love to adopt their next wife too.
Soon-Yi was not his adopted or step-daughter. Sure, it’s offensive that he had an affair with his partner’s adopted 21 year old daughter, but it is not pedophilia. Mia had an understandable anger, so she determined to make Woody pay. Read Moses Farrow’s account. Ronan was 4&1/2 at the time of the alleged molestation of his sister. Mia brainwashed him & his poor sister. There is much most people haven’t bothered to know. It’s so much easier to be sympathetic to the sad girl & her pretty, delicate mother. The older brother has explained how Mia demanded everyone fall in line & tell the planted molestation story. Mia was quite harsh with many of her children & often bizarrely cruel. She has also coyly implied that Sinatra could be Ronan’s father. Woody paid his child support, however. Mia told Woody “You took my daughter, I’m going to take yours.” Have you seen the Valentine card Mia sent with arrows on the children’s faces? https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/mia-farrow-threatening-1992-valentine-day-woody-allen-article-1.1605686?outputType=amp Do you know the songs Mia knew written by Dory Previn, whose husband Andre she stole when she was 23? “In the Attic With Father” written about Dory’s father & the story clearly lifted by Mia for her own purposes. Yes, Woody was horribly unfaithful (Soon-Yi was 20 or 21), Mia’s anger was understandable, but her insanity is not. Dylan was a pawn in Mia’s Medea-like revenge. Mia’s brother, btw, was convicted of child molestation. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/24/woody-allens-son-defends-accuses-mother-mia-farrow-abuse/amp/
He’s also explicitly explained in interviews how he enjoys a romantic relationship where he feels like he’s got a paternal role.
But yeah, assuming a guy who admits he gets off on being a father figure would try to get off with someone for whom he was a father figure is just a bridge too far for some people.
Yes, exactly.He has said he basically came to the rescue of her, which is something he did in his mind because that was Mia, but it’s very weird he thinks himself as her savior but wanted to keep secret the relationship but he doesn’t want people to think of them of previous dad and daughter but he speaks about her as if she was his child.
They need to get over the idea that just because someone is talented that makes them a good person.
If the rumors about Goldblum are true, then he might want to stay quiet about this sort of thing.
That he has a sexy chest? Yes, indeed, they are true but I’m not sure how that relates to this.
If the rumors about you having a condition that causes you to spontaneously combust if you emit any noise are true, the same would be true of you. Of course, the only basis for such a rumor is that I made it up for the sake of making this comment more amusing to me, but I have just as much evidence for that as you have of anything regarding him.
He has his own reckoning coming. Mark my words.
Yeah I’m sure you have a ton of insight into this. Make more dumb unfounded claims. It’s really interesting.
He gets pretty handsy with the shit-tons of LA girls that go to his jazz shows to take Insta/Tinder pictures with him. Like, hands on ass/sideboob/throat in many pics I’ve seen publicly circulated.
All consensual I’m reasonably sure, but it’s the kind of think that suggests he could get caught up in shit sooner or later.
Thats…insane. If it’s consensual who gives a shit? Why do the people here seem to enjoy the idea of destroying people who they think, based solely on their intuition, *might* have done something.
because they’re liberals, they hate everyone and themselves. thank good for trump right?
Not defending him but do you have any links/proof of this? Where is this info coming from?
I’ve literally seen pics of him doing so posted on Facebook, Instagram, and frequently on dating app pictures. It’s kind of a thing here. He plays jazz shows at a small venue pretty regularly.
No it doesn’t.
Gotham is code for Goldblum in this scene
Bane is going to kill Jeff Goldblum? Why?
Not if Batman can stop him. Batman being Laura Dern in this case.
i don’t get that reference
What have you heard?
For the curious, this woman has the goods, not me.
Oh wow a writer for Slate and Vulture. I’m sure that’s someone to be trusted. I’m sure anything she writes won’t be full of dishonest hyperbole.
huh? you’re still around? ‘k
What an intelligent, meaningful response.
Feel free to go back to jerking off thinking about how bad you and people like you are going to roast Jeff Goldblum when it comes out that he tried to have sex with people a few times. That’ll distract you from your otherwise meaningless life.
The last time Cliffe claimed to have dirt it was bull:https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/nicole-cliffe-is-a-poor-choice-ofAnyone can make vague accusations without any basis. Adding some specificity can make them more credible, although as that link shows it can also open them up to debunking.
Imagine giving vile transphobe Jesse Singal any credibility
He provided screenshots to back up his account, while Cliffe has provided nothing.What, specifically, has Jesse said or done that is transphobic?
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=jesse+singal+transphobic&s=g
I asked you what SPECIFICALLY is the reason, and you didn’t provide any specifics. If you actually had a specific objection, you could have provided one, and that you didn’t suggests either you don’t actually have one or would be embarrassed to try to present any such evidence for transphobia.
Lol purposefully dense
I’ll take that as another admission from the most self-parodic commenter at the AV Club.
I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t know how to click on links
You didn’t link to a specific page, you effectively said “google it”. It would be like if I claimed that you personally were responsible for the Kinjapocalypse and when asked to back that up said “I don’t have to do the research for you”. Having a specific claim is how Singal was able to debunk an accusation in the SPECIFIC link I posted. You haven’t provided anything, because you have nothing.
I gave you a link that listed an entire page of articles talking about his transphobia, feel free to click any one of those and enlighten yourself
You gave a link that just redirects to a google search, and by not endorsing a specific article you avoid any specific claims. I could link to https://lmgtfy.com/?q=epstein+didn’t+kill+himself&s=g and refrain from being tied to any rebuttable evidence for the claim. In this thread we’ve been discussing Jeff Goldblum and how Cliffe claimed he’s bad without presenting evidence. Linking to a google search about him would prove nothing. If you actually had any basis for your claim, the various search results presumably wouldn’t be interchangeable in your mind: some of them you might have read and wholly agreed with, some you might have read without agreeing so much, and some you wouldn’t have read at all. They could only be equivalent if you don’t actually care about their contents.
So you’re not actually capable of clicking on links. Got it.
Link to a specific page, as I did, not a search engine, and I could give you my opinion of it. Otherwise, I can lump you in with someone who claims the Holocaust or moon landing didn’t happen and just responds with “wake up” when I don’t nod my head. You’ve now commented repeatedly without giving a single example of anything Singal has done that you object to, whereas if you actually had a problem with something he’d done surely something should have come to mind. You’re one of the more shameless people around here, but I have to imagine you have some sense of shame preventing you from saying “I dislike that he criticized Cliffe” or some other thing that we’d laugh at rather than transphobia.
No really, what is the issue that is preventing you from clicking a link? A virus? Some sort of motor control issue? Or is it that when confronted with the fact that Singal’s transphobia is well-known and widely discussed, you come up with a pathetically transparent dodge to avoid acknowledging it because you’re desperate to avoid acknowledging how thoroughly your appeal to authority has failed?
What authority have I appealed to? And why not select a specific link from that wide discussion that you agree with, perhaps with some caveats that you can add yourself? I hereby promise that if you link to a specific page, not a search engine, discussing Singal that I will click on that.
“why not select a specific link from that wide discussion”Exactly! Go ahead, I know you can do it.
Okay, I selected https://twitter.com/jessesingaland I still don’t know what specifically he wrote that you find objectionable.
I guess you’re just stuck then
I’ll never know what he said or did that you object to, because you don’t have anything you can point to. Otherwise, you would have provided it by now.
I know, because you can’t click links
The bold in the last URL I posted is because I clicked on your search-engine link, then copied it from a page which bolded search terms. You just haven’t provided a specific link or even given your own reasons for calling Singal a “vile transphobe”. You’ve had plenty of time to do it, but you’ve chosen to continue embarrassing yourself in this manner rather than admitting you have no more basis for your claim than Cliffe had for any of hers.
You know what’s embarrassing? A grown man pretending he can’t click a link or understand a Google search because he’s trying desperately to dodge the substance of an argument
I did click the link, and provided an example to show that it doesn’t narrow down what specifically you object to. There’s no “substance” to your argument, because you refuse to provide any.
You went out of your way to pick a link that doesn’t discuss his transphobia in detail unlike all the other links that were included in that search. This is so childish and obvious lol
I picked a link which both proved my point that it should be YOU who says where your actual objection is (since I don’t know what’s in your head, that can’t possibly have any causal effect on a link picked by me rather than you), and didn’t require me to scroll down from the top of the search results. And even if you had linked to, say, a tweet which had roughly the information content of your original comment, that wouldn’t add any new information to this discussion in order to narrow down what he did or said that is transphobic. Just as if I linked to an “Epstein didn’t kill himself” meme that wouldn’t actually add anything to a discussion as to whether or not that was the case. Assuming you’re not some sort of automaton or chatbot, you presumably are able to introspect and give reasons for why you wrote something, even if those reasons are entirely bogus. Even small children are able to answer such “why” questions, so it’s really ridiculous that you have not. It’s a bit like that copyright troll lawyer refusing to provide any evidence for the claimed death of a relative that caused him to miss a court-date without warning, just getting more and more embarrassing as it goes on.
Lol you wrote all that instead of clicking a link
I did click on your link, as I already told you. And explained why that doesn’t narrow down your specific objection. I don’t think you’re actually this dense, but pretending not to understand that isn’t as effective in distracting from your complete failure to back up your accusation as you seem to think.
I’m also not dense enough not to understand that “pretending not to understand” is what you’ve been doing through the whole conversation, as you studiously avoid clicking any link discussing his transphobia
I clicked the actual link you provided, after you repeatedly refused to link to a specific page and instead told me to pick one of the search results, which as I told you could not possibly be determined by your actual objection.
Yes I completely believe you’re not intelligent enough to look at several articles and select one you felt was from a sufficient credible source
“Sufficiently credible”? I linked to Singal in the first place because I found his use of screenshots to debunk an accusation against him spread by Cliffe to be credible. So if you’re asking me to select a link I personally find credible, that would again be to Singal. But I’m asking you to select one because the question is what YOU find to be credible evidence that he’s a vile transphobe. Although, actually, linking to something Singal wrote that you find to be transphobic would be the best kind of evidence, although if it’s a long piece you would need to specify which parts of it you’re objecting to.
Lol more words, you know perfectly well how to click an article describing his transphobia so go do it
You still haven’t provided a specific link, even after I said I would click to whatever article you specified! I clicked the one link you did post, so there’s absolutely no reason not to provide one actually specifying what he said or did that YOU PERSONALLY consider transphobic.
And you still can’t figure out how to click on one more link when given a choice lol
TGGP, this will never stop until you let it go. The guy is incapable of admitting the slightest fault, and will pound away for literal weeks. His browser must be a series of Kinja site tabs with near-identical conversations. And he lives for the continued argument, not for any given point or context. It’s a disease, and should be treated as such, but shouldn’t be necessarily indulged.
Oh there’s ways to get him to stop, been done before but it requires treating him like you would have a nu-atheist back in the day.
I guess I wasn’t paying enough attention to new atheist arguments to know what what means.
So the new atheists all got a fucking hard-on about the fact there’s no proof of the existence of god. It’s an incredible anchor for the insecure and angry to cling to as it’s incontrovertibly true, an easy and solid grounding from which they can make ludicrous attacks on anyone or anything to make themselves seem superior. Recognitions/Doctor Who(m) here does the same thing but with straight while male privilege in place of there being no proof of god’s existence. Something he can cling to and use to attack others with absurd conjecture and strawmen then fall back on the fact that yes sexism and racism exist.
Alright, this has been going on for six days, apparently. You don’t find this a *bit* weird?Not asking recognitions, because it’s abundantly clear that a six-day-old bon mot pissing contest is something he legitimately sees some perverse value in.
Yeah, like I find Richard Leibowitz’ continually trying to get away with lying about a dead relative to be weird. Of course, I’m not a judge and don’t have the power to fine recognitions for every day spent wriggling.
It’s a waste of time, is what I’m saying, and is specifically designed by your “opponent” to be exactly that.He’s not trying to teach you anything, or learn anything from you. This is a dunking contest to him.
So has she posted any actual information or did she just tweet for attention and then never follow it up?
Since I’m the type to focus on the wrong things… What’s up with the asterisk? The asterisk key and the e key aren’t really close enough to be a simple typo. So was she intentionally censoring his name?
She doesn’t want people searching for his name to come across the tweet.
While I don’t doubt there are stories, Nicole Cliffe is someone who gained a big following and just sort of points her mob at people, then feigns innocence when they go on the attack. I’ve lost a lot of respect for her over the years. If she has the stories, then tell them. Put posting shit like this is her being able to say, “I’ve got stories!”. Do something about it. Otherwise you’re just as bad as the other people who are covering it up.
He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him. I’ll chase him round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round Twitter’s flames before I give him up.
I assume you mean he’s going to die in the next few years, since he’s 83.
“I think there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty,”
Clearly Mr. Goldblum is not up to speed with Twittwit society.
Well, you had a good run Mr. Goldblum
Ha ha ha yeah he said something about Woody Allen CANCEL HIS ASS good lord our society is fucking doomed.
Whatever I may believe about Woody Allen personally, I’m not going to get mad at someone for believing in Due Process. Innocent Until Proven Guilty is one of the greatest advancements humankind has ever made. It’s one of the true crown jewels of civilization as an endeavor.
Yeah, but I’m going to trust my gut over some dumb old civilization.
And for that reason, he should not be sent to prison without being found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers. But that’s not really the question, is it?
Also, a zealous defense of freedom of speech, but that’s dishearteningly rare these days outside of right-wing nutjobs.I still have a hard time believing somebody who could marry their stepdaughter is worthy of defense, especially when it is merely his reputation we’re talking about.
Excep he didn’t.
So would that apply to President Trump also? Asking for a friend…
Anime avatar? Yep, that checks out
Creepers will run together. Goldblum always gives off this creepy vibe. Figures.
In court sure, but we’re under no obligation to think so inside our heads.
There have been a FEW actors who have decided to not work with Allen. Not tons and tons.
And…allegations. That have been examined by legal authorities and judges numerous times.
Time to move on and find someone who is actually harming people. They’re put there.
It also might be time to grow up a little and learn not to be so hyperbolic.
> And…allegations. That have been examined by legal authorities and judges numerous times.Correct! Resulting in this judge’s verdict:“we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992…[but] Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and…measures must be taken to protect her.”
damn, The World According to Jeff Goldblum sucks
Why was a question about working with Woody Allen in the future even asked? Goldblum had a SMALL part in Annie Hall, but, to my knowledge, Goldblum hasn’t been in any other Allen films. So, why was this even brought up, beyond hoping Goldblum said something pull-quote worthy (which, unfortunately, happened)?
I’m pretty sure you just answered your own question.
Whether or not someone should be incarcerated without trial is not the same question as whether or not it’s icky to work with them.
Exactly. I’m not particularly familiar with the stuff around Allen (if I had the opportunity to work with him I imagine I’d look into it) but surely legal due process doesn’t define the entire horizon of this debate. There are social consequences to bad behaviour (which isn’t necessarily criminal) and the question is whether or not he should be facing those.
Yup. Presumption of innocence is a legal issue for juries to keep in mind, not a public opinion issue.
Also, presumption of innocence applies to criminal trials. In civil suits, it’s balance of probabilities. And neither apply to personal opinion.I wouldn’t work with Kirk Cameron or Chevy Chase or Teri Hatcher either, and as far as I know they’ve only been accused of being extremely unpleasant people. Whereas I would happily work (on current knowledge) with convicted felons Paul Reubens, Charles S. Dutton, Felicia Pearson or Hugh Grant.
And Goldblum gets to make his own decisions about who he’d work with. He has that choice! What a country, huh?
What a rebuttal! Nobody can be criticised for their choices because they got to make those choices! So persuasive!
I’m not the first one to bring this up, but I’ll say it every time this comes up: “Innocent until proven guilty” is the legal standard for criminal conviction. Civil cases are settled by a “preponderance of evidence,” so if there’s a 51% chance that you’re responsible for the destruction of someone else’s car, you owe them its value. And that’s still harsher than what we’re talking about here because it’s forced deprivation of property.
I’d say it’s ridiculous that people are insisting on applying the strictest legal standards to basic questions like “is this guy creepy enough to justify avoiding him” considering we all do that for much lesser offenses in the real world, but I know they’re not, really. They wouldn’t send their kids to a class where the teacher was only “likely” a child molester. They just want an excuse to keep watching the movies.
What business is it of yours if Jeff Goldblum decides that he doesn’t think Allen is creepy enough to justify avoid working for him? This is what none of these comments are addressing. Why are you in a position to decide that for Jeff Goldblum?
Sexual assault is not a civil offense, it is a criminal one. When people are dissatisfied with the result of a criminal investigation or trial, they will sometimes try the civil route because the standards, as stated above, are far less.
And if someone is found civilly liable, that is therefore NOT the same as a criminal conviction.
But people love to conflate the two.
Yeah, that’s what’s happening here, except instead of conflating it with civil liability, he’s conflating it with the “rules” for how people have to think. “If there’s not enough evidence to put him in jail, we have to pretend like nothing happened.” Not even the actual courts are that strict.
It’s a standard we generally only insist on when it lets us ignore uncomfortable facts or it’s to our personal benefit to do so. If we applied it across the board, we’d all be doing stupid shit like dating O.J. or reelecting Nixon.
Sexual assault is both.
There’s a great New Yorker interview (I am sophisticated, thanks) with someone who wrote about political correctness, identity politics et. al. on the left. When asked to comment on #MeToo, he had this to say about it: The #MeToo movement has been an important, and, in most cases, highly beneficial movement, and it’s done very important things for all of us and the culture. I have misgivings about certain things that have happened under the auspices of #MeToo. But, on the whole, it seems to me #MeToo has been extraordinarily beneficial.I keep coming back to that, since I think it’s such a perfect way to phrase a sentiment for which so many men (and now Goldblum, apparently) seem to face extreme backlash. Questioning the public verdict of a “specific case” under the umbrella of #MeToo is not disowning the movement, nor is it even expressing particularly mixed feelings about it. A movement like #MeToo, I think, is strengthened if there’s room for people to express, as the guy I quoted put it, “misgivings” about certain aspects. The facts of the Woody Allen case haven’t changed in 27 years, and up until recently, almost everyone you’d ask had no problem working with him. The reason they don’t now has nothing to do with the facts of the case, and it’s not insignificant that all of the other men to go down (Cosby, Weinstein, Moonves, Spacey) did so in large part because new information came to light. Ironically, Ronan Farrow knows this as well as anyone, but the strategy from his camp on this seems to be to publicly shame people until they decide that anything other than “I believe this woman” isn’t worth the heat. I get that a lot of people find Wood Allen creepy, but that’s not productive.
Here’s the thing: people LIKE being angry. Righteous anger is a bug of the human brain, but people treat it as a feature. So a perfectly reasonable response of “the #metoo movement is a totally valid, important, long overdue cultural reckoning. And, as with all social movements, there are plenty of people who will cynically exploit it or just wield it’s power without due respect” would be the smart move, but not nearly as fun as just railing against anyone who expresses even a little nuance here.
Something I keep coming back to: I don’t think it’s insignificant that the people who are defending Woody Allen publicly are not these due process absolutists who talk about how nothing has been proved against Harvey Weinstein, or writers who have reshaped their identity as professional #MeToo skeptics. You don’t read stories about Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, Leslee Dart (extremely famous publicist, still repping him) and now Goldblum constantly wringing their hands about men with 15 women accusing them being unfairly targeted. They’re treating this like it’s a different case from the rest of them. Because, in my opinion, it is.
Imagine being so out of touch that you think Scarlett Johannson is a solid barometer of morality. And a publicist would never support anyone unsavory! Are you kidding me with this?
Oh so you get a pass if you’ve only victimized one person. Gotcha.
Exactly. You know, most people would read what I wrote and think that that’s not what I’m saying at all, but you saw through it. I’m impressed.
What does “that’s not productive” mean, in this case? You seem reasonable, and I get it. But he married a girl who was at the very least his stepdaughter. That is more than creepy, if not legally actionable. I see no reason to avoid discouraging actors from working with him on that basis alone.
If someone decides not to work with, or patronize, Woody Allen on the basis of his marriage, then that’s their decision. But that’s not why people, who once either did or would have happily acted in his films, are now refusing to. They’re doing it because one accusation that was thoroughly investigated and didn’t move forward is now being treated as damning evidence, based on nothing additional.Also, I guess I’m taking the bait, but she was never “at the very least” his stepdaughter. She was, at the very least, his girlfriend’s adopted daughter, with whom he, by all accounts, had almost no contact before she was legal (so much for this “grooming” thing); then, after she was legal, they got together. I think it was Bob Weide, who directed that PBS documentary about him, who put it this way: Anyone who thinks that what he did with Soon-Yi was creepy is being totally reasonable, but if it’s that creepy, and that unconscionable, why bother to exaggerate it, as people always seem to do?
My distaste dates back to the late 90s, and I had no idea at the time that he had possibly molested Dylan. I only knew that he had married his adopted daughter, and I was a kid with a Blockbuster card who couldn’t see past it to really enjoy Annie Hall.I don’t really see a huge difference between step, adopted, and what is apparently Allen’s defense, that he didn’t regard one of his longterm partner’s children as his own, for whatever reason.
Neither did Previn, by her own account.
Previn has stated that Woody Allen “was never any kind of father figure [to her],” and added that she “never had any dealings with him” during her childhood.
They’re doing it because one accusation that was thoroughly investigated and didn’t move forward is now being treated as damning evidenceEvery single time there’s a Woody Allen article here there are several guys like you who jump in spouting this nonsense. Every. Single. Time.
And every time I post this because a little girl who was molested by her adoptive father deserves better than you guys repeating the lying bullshit put out by Allen and his lawyer, who, btw, was the same lawyer Weinstein used to harass his victims.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
A bunch of those “facts” aren’t really that meaningful, and have been covered with more context elsewhere. The supposed smoking gun that the lead Yale doctor didn’t examine Dylan? They didn’t have her talk to an older man on purpose, given the nature of the allegations, and many other members of the team talked to her, so this idea that Yale threw the whole investigation to help Woody Allen is ridiculous. As for the therapy, she was Dylan’s therapist, Mia felt Woody was overly attentive to her, and asked him to see her. He agreed, and the therapist later stated that she perceived no sexual element to his behavior.The writer, for what it’s worth, wrote 2 glowing profiles of Mia Farrow and her adopted children while never once mentioning that two of them accused her of abusing them. Facts without context don’t mean that much.
You know you could just believe Dylan rightLike it won’t actually physically hurt you
I could, but “take allegations at face value without considering the actual situation” is kind of what I’m talking about here. You’re proving my point, in a way.
Woody Allen: demonstrates in multiple nefarious ways over years and years that he’s a giant creep regarding girls/young womenDylan Farrow: insists for over 20 years that she was raped by AllenYou:
Seriously, what do you guys have against Occam’s Razor? Did it kill your family or something?
When two states look at something and determine that he likely didn’t do what he was accused of, when he supposedly did it once in his late 50s and then never again, when he’s never been accused of this by anyone else…I could go on, but I’m not sure “thing with the fewest assumptions” is still “he did what he was accused of.”
Now you’re just lying about everything lol. The judge’s opinion, the fact that Allen has preyed on multiple teenage girls, all of which have been mentioned multiple times in this post. You can keep up with your obtuse blather, but don’t try to pretend like you’re some disinterested party who’s “just asking questions.”
Really makes you wonder what this die-on-this-hill-for-Woody-Allen attitude is really all about, doesn’t it? Excluding Dylan’s credible allegations, the whole Soon Yi relationship rightfully produces the appropriate “ew” response in normal people who possess an idea of what appropriate boundaries are. And even if Soon Yi hadn’t been the daughter of Allen’s partner of 12 years who he shared 3 children with, the 46 year age difference along is enough of an ick factor for most people. They’re support and defense of Allen reminds me of another cult of supporters.
I mean if you’re sympathetic to Allen’s work after all this time you probably have pretty warped ideas about what’s appropriate between grown men and young girls already so
not to mention totally clueless about how their delusional defense of the man comes across to folks who are not Woody Allen.
Yeah this bend-over-backwards-defense-of-Woody is usually the response when the actual facts are presented. So then I proceed to link this too, the judge’s scathing ruling in the 1993 custody case Allen lost.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866 Not that I expect you to believe your lying eyes when you read it.
Yeah, the judge wasn’t a Woody Allen fan. But the decision to award custody had nothing to do with this; he didn’t like the Soon-Yi stuff, and Allen never actually lived with Mia Farrow and the kids, so there’s the decision. Also, here’s a quote from the decision that the objective Huffington Post reporter didn’t single out: “The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that [Allen] could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse.”
Not his stepdaughter. Read Moses Farrow, the eldest son, on how Mia treated her children. mosesfarrow.blogspot.com
One of the authors of the book She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story that Helped Ignite a Movement stated that the “believe women” rallying cry of Me Too has done a disservice to due process and public opinion/canceling/shaming and that it should be “LISTEN to women” instead.
I agree with that sentiment, and might even go further. Start from a place of believing women if you want, but examine thoroughly. This gets treated like it was swept under the rug like the woman in decades past who accused Cosby, but it was thoroughly investigated (by two states, one of whom allowed him to adopt children later on), and he was cleared. Does that mean there’s no way Woody Allen could have done it? Of course not, but when he gets lumped in with the Weinsteins, Cosbys and Spaceys of the world, it’s a little ridiculous.
“The facts of the Woody Allen case haven’t changed in 27 years”Nah. We, the public, know a lot more now than we did before. The internet made it much harder for vile shitstains like Allen control the narrative with their expensive well-connected lawyers and PR firms and predator pals and an industry willing to help sweep whatever under the rug. Up until Dylan wrote her letter in 2014, most people had swallowed Allen’s misogynistic crazy-woman narrative from the 90s. Lots of people still do. You can look right in these comments and still see people carrying that stale water for Allen. Now, we can read the court documents and the Statement of Decision from the CT DA and we can know facts like the actual timeline of events, etc etc. But none of that was readily available before Dylan bravely stepped forward again.
“other men to go down (Cosby, Weinstein, Moonves, Spacey) did so in large part because new information came to light”Weinstein and Allen had the exact same team covering their asses in the exact same way at the exact same time. For example, lawyer Elkan Abramowitz hired the same goons to follow and intimidate people for both Weinstein and Allen and he bribed people for both of them, too. Back in the 90s, people went along with that same misogynistic narrative they used on all these women and called Mia Farrow “crazy” when she mentioned being followed around, but now we know that those were run of the mill tactics they used to keep their clients out of jail.Of course Ronan Farrow knows all that. He grew up in the epicenter of that shitshow. These awful men created the tool of their own destruction. He became a lawyer and a journalist and Pulitzer winner, well-respected and well-connected, and he is slowly but surely, in the most methodical and unimpeachable fashion, coming for Woody Allen and everyone involved in that web that protected him. It’s a true pleasure to watch. Classic.
Allen ran a very successful smear campaign at the time that painted Farrow as a vindictive bitch and muddied a lot of the straight facts with a bunch of innuendo that was irrelevant or misleading.
Jeff Goldblum was so preoccupied with whether or not he could open his mouth, he didn’t stop to think if he should.
Now, i’m no lawyer* but —just as the First Amendment only constrains the government from screwing with the rights of the people, and puts no onus on any citizen from telling someone else to shut up — i’m pretty sure “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is a guideline for the judicial system, not for the outside world. I can presume whatever i want. So can anybody. We have to say “alleged pedophile” (for example) to avoid defamation and libel laws, and that is a sufficient reasonable compromising nod towards this direction, i feel.
*i only took 5 levels in Chaos Law in order to work towards Bard
The norms which motivated us to restrict the U.S government via that amendment can also motivate analogous things for other actors:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/Similarly, the notion that people should be allowed to defend themselves in a court of law could be intuitively applied to the “court of public opinion”. And the presumption of innocence is a reasonable thing in a situation where it is easy for people to make claims of guilt even if they don’t have any basis.
Like the democrats about Trump?
If you’re referring to the current move toward impeachment, that actually does seem to be following the normal procedure. And of course Trump should be able to argue against it to defend himself.
Hes right you know
of course he’d say that about the man who gave him the plum role of Lacey Party Guest with one line in Annie Hall!
How do you get “Jeff Goldblum defends Woody Allen” out of that quote? He’s taking a questionable position in response to a questionable question but he’s not asked about Woody Allen’s behavior in order to even potentially defend it. At best, he implicitly defends a hypothetical decision to maybe work with Allen again.
“Woody” was apparently pals with Epstein. What a remarkable coincidence that in no way corroborates certain allegations and decades of suspicion…
One accusation. Right. Like making films where a middle aged man dates an underage teenage high school student and all of his middle age friends rationalize it into normalcy. That shit isn’t normal.If nothing else, perhaps people will stop the hipster cultivation of Jeff Goldblum into an everything-he-touches is so wonderful and charming like they did with Bull Murray.
Midnight in Paris was an awesome movie.
The molestation claims were investigated by more than one state agency and Allen was exonerated. So what are we really discussing here? The legitimacy of the investigations? The judge’s decision? What?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866?guccounter=2 “we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992…[but] Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and…measures must be taken to protect her.”
One degenerate defending another degenerate? Yeah, I’m not surprised.
All I know is that Annie Hall is overrated.
I expect this to be a very productive conversation.
“There’s a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”Correct – but that’s a LEGAL issue and it doesn’t apply to public opinion.We’re free to see how someone behaves and decide he’s creepy and should be avoided. Soon-Yi was NINE when she entered Woody Allen’s life. Even if he didn’t groom or touch her until she was an adult, that’s still creepy AF and, since we aren’t on a jury, we can say so.
I don’t know if Woody Allen is guilty or not. We all know that no woman in the history of divorce has ever made up crazy accusations to gain advantage in custody–and never have any mental illnesses. It’s really fascinating and incredible that Ronan could turn rape accusations into a career though. Also, Let’s not forget the irony of Goldblum’s first movie “Deathwish” as talking about Woody Allen in a positive way indicates one.
I strongly suspect you have a more concrete opinion on Woody Allen’s guilt then you’re letting on
The allegation was investigated and found baseless. Restating the allegation over and over again, no matter what else has happened in society since then, doesn’t make it any more true.
It was not found baseless: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866
Ronan was 4&1/2 at the time of the alleged molestation of his sister. Mia brainwashed him & his poor sister. There is much most people haven’t bothered to know. It’s so much easier to be sympathetic to the sad girl & her pretty, delicate mother. The older brother, Moses, has explained how Mia demanded everyone fall in line & tell the planted molestation story. Mia was quite harsh with many of her children & often bizarrely cruel, sometimes locking a disabled child in a closet or even an outdoor shed! She has also coyly implied that Sinatra could be Ronan’s father. Woody paid his child support, however. Mia told Woody “You took my daughter, I’m going to take yours.” Have you seen the Valentine card Mia sent with arrows on the children’s faces? https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/mia-farrow-threatening-1992-valentine-day-woody-allen-article-1.1605686?outputType=amp Do you know the songs Mia knew written by Dory Previn, whose husband Andre she stole when she was 23? “In the Attic With Father” written about Dory’s father & the story clearly lifted by Mia for her own purposes. Yes, Woody was horribly unfaithful (Soon-Yi was 20 or 21), Mia’s anger was understandable, but her insanity is not. Dylan was a pawn in Mia’s Medea-like revenge. Mia’s brother, btw, was convicted of child molestation. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/24/woody-allens-son-defends-accuses-mother-mia-farrow-abuse/amp/
Can someone advise celebrities to stop offering their opinions on Woody Allen and Marvel. It never ends well.
I’m confused – who are you quoting here: ‘to stick up for Allen against the “unfair” backlash’??? No where in the interview do I see Goldblum use that word.
Hey Jeff: #StickToSports
I feel conflicted when stories like this came out. Woody Allen gave Jeff Goldbum his first acting role. They’ve known each other for years. He’s asked if he’d work with him again, he qualifies it with his support of MeToo, but says he would work with someone who’s not in prison, and then we attack…. Jeff Goldblum? Why?Look, Woody Allen is a creep for many, many reasons. he still married his stepdaughter, even if you don’t believe the rest. That’s… not a great thing. But sometimes I think too many people throw out an abusers name to see how some men will react so they can go on the attack if they don’t answer in just the exact right way. And that part is kind of dangerous. As for the innocent until proven guilty thing, I do agree people should not go to jail without a trial. But you do have the choice to not work with someone if you don’t want to for any reason, including accusations of something. I know it’s hip to hate on Family Guy, but even Seth said that he won’t hire people who have accusations.
The Double Standard in Hollywood is UNREAL.
Y’all gonna cancel Jeff now?
So here’s me wondering if Mr Goldblum is henceforth not a cool dude…
I wish more people would read the judge’s summary:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866It’s not that long and it’s quite revealing.
Are the number of rapists and soon-to-be rapists in the comments being linked here from elsewhere, or are they always present, but just stay quiet until someone impugns Woody Allen? Or Roman Polanski, or whoever?