Author: has written 5300 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

32 Responses

  1. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable May 17, 2010 at 5:30 pm |

    He also assaulted the other actress after his self-imposed exile from the US – so no, he never ever paid for that one. And if Allen were to make the argument that she never charged him with a crime — yeah, would you after the first rape victim got shit on repeatedly and her rapist walked away with the support of nearly the entire western world?

  2. Doug
    Doug May 17, 2010 at 5:32 pm |

    Funny movies up until about 1998 or so? Check.


  3. Rachel @ Musings of An Inappropriate Woman

    I don’t know, Jill, not being able to leave my luxury Swiss chateau sounds like pretty tough punishment to me. Or a holiday.

  4. usckitty
    usckitty May 17, 2010 at 7:46 pm |

    So the rape apologist mantra: empathy for rapists strikes again. Why not empathy for the RAPE VICTIM?

    What next? Tearful testimonials in court about how the trial is ruining a “poor rapist’s” life?

  5. ElleBeMe
    ElleBeMe May 17, 2010 at 7:52 pm |

    I never really liked his stuff. He always casts himself as the sexual piece de resistance, which I just cannot stomach. He “ain’t all that” and neither are his films.

  6. prowlerzee
    prowlerzee May 17, 2010 at 8:56 pm |

    THANK you, Jill….and your views should be the social norm! There is no excuse for liking/enabling Woody Allen.

  7. Really?
    Really? May 17, 2010 at 9:08 pm |

    I didn’t realize we hadn’t moved on from the whole not-liking-Woody-cause-he-legally-dated-and-married-his-not-really-stepdaughter thing. This is still an issue, really? Really?

    His defense of Polanski is one thing, but let’s not lump in a completely legitimate relationship cause some find it “kinda creepy.” Or are we now supposed to consider ANYone who dates/marries someone much younger “socially marginallized.”

    Can we please move out of 7th grade, please?

  8. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig May 17, 2010 at 9:21 pm |

    Well, I always knew he was an a-hole. As for Polanski- I’m not really surprised by this. He probably has many more victims than just two. I hope an avalanche hits his chalet.

  9. annaham
    annaham May 17, 2010 at 10:45 pm |

    And can people like Woody Allen please be socially marginalized, please?

    We can hope…

  10. Natalia
    Natalia May 18, 2010 at 1:45 am |

    I think a lot of these people are blinded by the fact that they know Polanski personally, and can’t imagine that the same guy who did these things is also their friend and colleague. Which is – you know, fine, I can initially accept that. I think a lot of people were also severely misinformed about this case (hello Whoopi) and it allowed them to not really see it for what it was – “it was back in those wild 70’s, it wasn’t rape,” blah blah. And even the comments about how “everybody likes to fuck young girls” can be attributed to the “old” Roman, as opposed to the new and improved Roman who is also your friend.

    But this case has been back in the public eye for some time now, and I think it’s time for these people to get their heads out of the sand. Let’s face it – he NEVER paid for what he did, he doesn’t want to pay for what he did, and he couldn’t give a fuck.

    And if he has any real friends, they’d tell him to face the music.

  11. Auguste
    Auguste May 18, 2010 at 2:37 am |

    I never really liked his stuff. He always casts himself as the sexual piece de resistance, which I just cannot stomach. He “ain’t all that” and neither are his films.

    Holy lord, are you missing the point.

  12. ellid
    ellid May 18, 2010 at 6:24 am |

    I haven’t been able to watch a Woody Allen movie since he married Soon-Yi. He’s a creepy little guy, and the only difference between him and Roman Polanski is that Polanski has had to deal with genuine tragedy rather than the horrors of being a nebbish.

  13. delagar
    delagar May 18, 2010 at 8:25 am |

    I’m with you. Even if he and Roman were in fact the greatest directors on the face of the Earth, who cares? Nothing makes it all right for them to treat other human beings like objects. And clearly nothing makes it okay for them to treat children like objects.

    This is some male privilege on a fucking plate all right. My dick should get what my dick desires. Women? What women?

  14. Aaron Boyden
    Aaron Boyden May 18, 2010 at 10:06 am |

    OK, I definitely do not defend Polanski, nor do I wish to comment on Allen’s own relationships, but I’m not sure why you’re so offended by the New Yorker piece. It’s not brilliant, but it is mocking a biography of Beatty, and is obviously parodying a certain style (presumably because the Biskind biography reminded Allen of that style). The things you mention are part of the style he is attempting to parody; he seems to be mocking rather than endorsing the attitudes you complain about.

  15. Partial Human
    Partial Human May 18, 2010 at 12:53 pm |

    Oh do stop with the mansplanations. We don’t need you, Aaron Boyden, to delegitimise our feeling about real-life sexual predators. Society and the media do enough of that, without the likes of you concern-trolling on behalf of Woody Allen.

  16. Susie
    Susie May 18, 2010 at 1:25 pm |

    Aaron has a point. The New Yorker piece is actually the first decently funny thing Allen has written for that publication (or anywhere else) for some years, even if it’s still a retread of some of his earlier stuff. I didn’t find it offensive. You could say it’s more evidence that Allen will never have sex with Scarlett Johannsson and it’s killing him, but that’s about it.

    You forgot to add in the OP that Polanski couldn’t accept his Best Director Oscar in person. Hasn’t the man suffered enough?

  17. Aaron Boyden
    Aaron Boyden May 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm |

    Human, I said I wasn’t sure because I wasn’t, and I was interested in getting clarification; I tried to explain why I was unsure in order to increase the chance that the explanation would be relevant to what I was unsure about. I could have speculated on Jill’s motives. For example, it occurs that given things like Allen’s stance on Polanski, he’s yielded any benefit of the doubt and it’s appropriate to read anything he says or writes the worst way possible; that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me (nor does a more general principle of being automatically suspicious of almost anyone given the usual messages you mention from society and the media). But there could be plenty of other reasons, including the possibility that I missed something important about Allen’s piece, which is why I bothered to comment. I did not initially speculate on Jill’s motives because I think it can be somewhat patronizing to attribute motives to people, though this must of course be balanced against the need to be clear about what I’m looking for. Perhaps I struck the wrong balance.

    I also apologize for using my full real name. My usual policy is to try to follow local custom, but sometimes I forget to check, and since I’ve already posted in this thread, I don’t wish to change the name I’m using in the middle of a discussion. I realize that in a feminist discussion area, using my full real name could be a problematic assertion of privilege, giving my words extra weight by showing that I’m not ashamed to associate them with who I am in real life, in a way that those less privileged might not be able to do because of the potential harassment they could be subjected to as a result. Thus, if I’d been paying more attention, I’d have posted as “Protagoras;” I have no excuse for my inattentiveness.

  18. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan May 18, 2010 at 4:13 pm |

    I never really liked his stuff.

    I’m pretty sure I liked whatever the first one or two things of his I saw. And then I was like “okay… so he just does the same thing? Over and over?”

  19. jemand
    jemand May 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm |

    Hitler was an artist.

    And I just godwin law-ed this. And wondered why I’d never thought of it before.

  20. Really?
    Really? May 18, 2010 at 8:34 pm |

    @Jill @ *:49am: “It’s not because he married someone much younger. It’s because he married his stepdaughter. That is creepy. But not really the point of this post.”

    Soon-Yi Previn was not Allen’s stepdaughter. That was a media fiction created to titillate the reader about the wild doings of the social liberal elite.
    She was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn. Allen later had a long-standing relationship with Farrow, but did not have a hand in Soon-Yi’s upbringing as befits the stepfather role.
    I know it’s all cool and chic to act all creeped out by the assumed “father-daughter” connection, but there never was one. Both Soon-Yi and Allen have addressed this directly. And, honestly, I thought this whole thing had gone away years ago.

    Again, if you want to criticize him for his stance on Polanski, another matter entirely…

  21. syndella
    syndella May 18, 2010 at 10:25 pm |

    Really?, it’s still creepy.

    I know it’s all cool and chic to be accepting of everything, but it’s still creepy.

  22. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan May 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm |

    I’m pretty sure Hitler only loved children platonically, too. …Sooo point to…Hitler? >.<

  23. Natalia
    Natalia May 19, 2010 at 12:11 am |

    You forgot to add in the OP that Polanski couldn’t accept his Best Director Oscar in person. Hasn’t the man suffered enough?

    I know, right? Typical of feminazi Jill to gloss over such injustice.


  24. prowlerzee
    prowlerzee May 19, 2010 at 12:14 am |

    Sorry, Really?, but Woody Allen’s own kids no longer speak to him because he made their step-sister into their step-mother.

    It’s vile on so many levels, what’s really amazing is that human decency has to be explained to those who fell for the meme “it wasn’t ‘really’ Allen’s step-daughter.” He was married and preyed on his wife’s young stepdaughter, who was the sister of his own kids. Do you not get that? Really?

  25. Susie
    Susie May 19, 2010 at 12:23 am |

    “Soon-Yi Previn was not Allen’s stepdaughter. That was a media fiction created to titillate the reader about the wild doings of the social liberal elite.”

    As the lover of their mother and a regular presence in the lives of the Farrow children, Allen assumed the role of father, however symbolically, and he did a play an important role in their lives. By sleeping with their sister Allen caused a profound disruption in the family, a disruption to which by all accounts he appears to be totally oblivious.

    (There is also the matter of his relations with his young adopted daughter Dylan. You don’t have to take Farrow’s word for everything, but if even a quarter of what she said was true, there was something very, very strange going on, enough for the courts to decide that Allen’s visitation rights should be circumscribed.)

  26. prowlerzee
    prowlerzee May 19, 2010 at 12:23 am |

    Sorry, preyed on his partner’s daughter! It really annoys me that her adopted stance is even mentioned, and here I went and mistyped it as “stepdaughter.” Anyway, she was the sister of his own kids. People who bring up the fact that she was “only” adopted by Mia Farrow skip this all the time.

  27. lefthandofeminism
    lefthandofeminism May 19, 2010 at 6:54 am |

    The piece the New Yorker was puerile…He hasn’t been funny for a long time, but lately he’s downright stupid.

  28. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie May 19, 2010 at 3:10 pm |

    I’ve never liked Woody Allen’s movies. I find them unutterably boring and narcissistic, not to mention sexist. That’s why it wasn’t actually a sacrifice to not watch any more of his movies after the Soon Yee crap.

  29. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie May 19, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

    Oops – sorry – Soon Yi.

  30. archer
    archer May 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm |

    Look, you don’t bang your Significant Other’s kid, parent, or sibling, okay? Also the kid, parent, or sibling shouldn’t bang you. You know why they shouldn’t bang you? Because you’re a creep.I don’t see what’s so goddamn hard about this.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.