By now, I’ve just assumed that most people are keeping their noses out of the ongoing accusations from Dylan Farrow regarding Woody Allen, because there’s obviously no way for any of us to know who is telling the truth unless someone builds us a time machine. Dylan shared her thoughts and, again, very serious accusations while calling out some actors who have worked with Woody to put them on the spot, and then Woody finally responded for what he called the final time by reiterating the findings of the investigation of her accusations, and also accusing Mia Farrow of poisoning Dylan against him out of spite.
As far as most of us were concerned (again, I’m assuming that I’m in the majority), the two parties had said what they had to say, and the only way this would be settled would be for Dylan, Mia and Woody to lock themselves in a room and finally have it out. And yet actor Wallace Shawn still felt that he, of all people, had to come to Woody’s defense with his own op-ed. Responded Woody, “Um, thanks?”
Wallace’s first movie acting role was as Jeremiah in the 1979 film Manhattan, which Woody wrote and directed. In his mind, this qualified him to come to Woody’s defense in the Los Angeles Times.
Gossiping publicly about the private lives of well-known people is one of the most popular forms of licensed sadism that our society indulges in.
You got that right, you glorious bastard. Anyway, you can read the whole thing at the LA Times if you want, but the point is that Wallace is fed up with people who simply assume that a man is guilty because someone came out and pointed a very well-written and emotional finger at him. He knows about the power of the Internet these days and how people can just accuse famous people of things and never wait for the truth to be revealed before ruining a life. However, I’ll get straight to the money paragraph and his anchor point for the sake of brevity.
I’ve never become a friend of Woody Allen or even had any terribly lengthy conversations with him…
But please, continue telling us why you’re expert enough to serve as a character witness in this bizarre and truly private matter.
… but I’ve been in his orbit enough so that I can’t possibly see him as the abstract, weird cardboard fantasy figure that one reads about. In fact, like so many of those who have worked with him repeatedly over the decades, I’ve found him to be not merely thoughtful, serious and honest, but extraordinary and even inspiring in his thoughtfulness, seriousness and honesty. Of the people I’ve known, he’s one of those I’ve respected most. And for that reason, I personally would have to say that it would take overwhelming evidence to convince me that he had sexually abused a child, just as it would take overwhelming evidence to convince me that Desmond Tutu, Franklin D. Roosevelt or Doris Lessing had sexually abused a child.
Oh please. As if FDR wouldn’t have had anyone who made such an accusation against him killed before anyone knew what happened. As Wallace once gloriously said…