• Mon, Mar 17 - 10:14 am ET

Poor Scarlett Johansson Has Been Really Inconvenienced By The Woody Allen Allegations

Scarlett Johansson and Woody Allen attending premiere of Vicky Cristina Barcelona August 2008I’m gonna stop you right here for a second, and warn you that if you have warm feelings toward Scarlett Johansson and would like to keep them that way, you probably shouldn’t read her response to the accusations of sexual abuse being leveled at Woody Allen by his daughter, Dylan Farrow.

I’m sure Scarlett is a very compassionate, well-informed lady, but in no world do either of those traits come through in her recent interview with The Guardian. There’s no denying that the topic of abuse is a prickly one to discuss, and that there’s no universal agreement on how much celebrities should allow the actions of someone high-profile to influence whether they work with them or not. Particularly in the case of Woody and Dylan, where no legal action was ever pursued, and no convictions handed down.

Basically what I’m trying to say is this is a very difficult situation, and while I personally believe he’s guilty of child molestation, I have absolutely no advice for celebrities in regards to how to navigate the current situation. Except for Scarlett. If I’d spoken to her before this interview, I would’ve given her the advice, “Hey girl, have a little empathy.” But instead we got this:

“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on. That just feels irresponsible to me.”

Scarlett is referring to the fact that, in a powerful open letter, Dylan called out by name a list of celebrities who had worked with her father, and tried to give them a little perspective. And of course, Scarlett was one of those names.

“What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?”

What it wasn’t was an invitation to complain about your Google Alerts. What did that cost you, thirty-five seconds in front of your computer? I’M SORRY. It cost Dylan Farrow her childhood. It could cost Woody Allen his career. Let’s go a little more big picture, at least until you get a chance to read any of the coverage of the situation.

“I’m unaware that there’s been a backlash. I think he’ll continue to know what he knows about the situation, and I’m sure the other people involved have their own experience with it. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork.”

You were unaware that there was a backlash? Are you fucking kidding me? Those Google Alerts must keep you pretty busy, huh? For you to be so ill-informed of these allegations that you could refer to the alleged sexual abuse of a child as a ‘lifestyle’ that you may or may not support. You need to pull it together, girl.

“I don’t know anything about it. It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other.”

Okay but here’s the thing. You’re 100% entitled to make your own decisions and continue to work with this man; that’s your right. But it’s also an indicator that you already have made an assumption either way: you’re assuming he’s innocent. And since you’re doing that while (admittedly!!) knowing none of the facts, that actually makes you guilty of the same thing you’re accusing Dylan of — irresponsibility.

(Photo: Nikki Nelson / WENN.com)

Share This Post:
  • Elizabeth Aspen

    I’m no fan of hers, but I think what she’s saying is she’s just an actress and doesn’t want her name dragged into this drama. I don’t blame her at all for that, and I believe 100% that Woody had a woody for Dylan and he should have been in prison all these years. But I do think Dylan should have kept people who had nothing to do with what happened to her out of it.

    • CMJ

      BUT HER GOOGLE ALERTS!

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      I can understand her frustration at being called out, but if she really feels so uninvolved in this situation, she doesn’t have to comment on it at all.

      She says she’s not choosing a side, but while she calls Dylan irresponsible for referencing her in an open letter, she says nothing at all about the fact that she herself may have been directed in multiple movies by a child molester. She’s made her decision, and she needs to own that.

    • lapaditte

      And you say nothing about the “fact” that Woody Allen, especially in light of 0 evidence against, might very well be innocent. Of course you only allude to guilt and poor Dylan’s (manipulative and tacky) words. Your bias is transparent.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

      Do me a favor and take a look at that before you talk to me about facts and zero evidence.

      And I would hope my bias is transparent, as I write it out word for word in this article:

      “…I personally believe he’s guilty of child molestation…”

  • M.

    She’s saying I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to contribute to the gossip surrounding it. Also that it was irresponsible for her to be dragged into the discussion, someone who has no idea what happened. I agree with all of these things.

  • lapaditte

    “But it’s also an indicator that you already have made an assumption either way: you’re assuming he’s innocent. And since you’re doing that while (admittedly!!) knowing none of the facts, that actually makes you guilty of the same thing you’re accusing Dylan of — irresponsibility”

    In what twisted universe is that in any way representative of what she said?
    I realize you’re incredibly biased but are you also that daft?

    She’s saying she can’t knowingly comment either way, because she, like all the other actors who were TACKILY called out, don’t actually know anything and weren’t even established when the allegations first came out. And she, likely every thinking adult, subscribes to the U.S’s Criminal Justice System’s famous clause.

    Sorry, i’m not an impressionable, ignorant twit, and choose to rationally think and analyze with my head not fall prey to sensationalism and drama-water works. There’s a little thing called “Innocent until proven guilty” that’s saved many, many innocent lives since it was implemented (and yet still many innocents have been wrongly convicted). And that’s all there is here.

    Johansson is correct in her comments.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      If you believe in innocent until proven guilty, then why do you immediately assume that Dylan is guilty of lying?

    • lapaditte

      Your reading comprehension (and logic) needs serious honing.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      This isn’t a formal publication. This is a blog. I’m biased. So are you.

      I’m not sure how to make any of this more clear to you.

    • lapaditte

      You clearly are, to which you also admitted, hence it’s not worth anything (as it it just a person’s bias and judgement, not merely a reporting of the news; btw, I have nothing against blogs). I’m not biased, as I don’t and can’t assume guilt on either party, because, unlike you who claim to do so, I don’t actually know what happened. However I do know that one doesn’t and shouldn’t convict or burn at the stake a person without any evidence and just a “he/she said” from a screwed up family.

      Which btw, is what Johansson basically said. She doesn’t know anything, so she can’t comment on the case. And the calling out was tacky, attention-seeking and irresponsible. Of course you disprove of saying that reality because you knee-jerkly thrust yourself on the side of Farrow family’s street. Again, unlike me – I don’t fall on either’s, as rational thinking prevails.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Here are some words you’ve used to describe me and my opinions in the process of ‘rationally thinking’ your way through this:

      Twisted, daft, impressionable, ignorant, twit, pathetic, delusional, not worth anything.

      You’ve also insulted my comprehension and logic simply because I have a different opinion than you do, which is a huge indicator of bias.

      You believe he’s innocent, and I believe he’s guilty. Neither one of us know for sure, therefore each of us is biased.

    • lapaditte

      Yes exactly right, I’ve used those words to describe your fallacies, bias, etc (“twisted universe”, “pathetic bias”, “impressionable” etc), yes that’s my appraisal of your logic here and yes it’s very indicate of my bias against incompetent reading comprehension. I’m sorry I don’t like to pat on the back bad judgment, twisting of comments, and naive stone throwing.

      Yes you believe Allen is guilty (and this wasn’t initially even about Allen). No, I don’t believe he’s innocent, nor did I ever claim he was – again, because I can’t know (something you FAIL to grasp, hence my founded criticism of your reading comprehension here). So there goes your theory (/another false accusation).

      You like calling out someone (through an utter misrepresentation of their comments) but don’t like being called out. Interesting.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      I don’t mind being called out, just as long as it fosters a productive discussion, which this hasn’t.

    • Tot

      Why does no one understand what a blog is?

    • lapaditte

      No discussion was meant to arise out of my original point, which was that you are both clearly biased (which was settled), but more importantly utterly misrepresented and twisted Johansson’s words, which are true (i.e., no one know what went down, and it was irresponsible to call out a bunch of actors who have no knowledge and have nothing to do with it in the letter).

      I’m allowed to post my reaction to your post yeah? That was all.

      @Tot, I assume you’re referring to me – of course I do, I pointed that out… clearly, I was calling out the judgement in the blog post. Are concurring replies only accepted here?

      Anyhow, I will apologize for the harsh adjectives I’d used before.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      You’re allowed to post your reaction to my reaction, and I’m allowed to react to that.

  • leden

    Considering, that two weeks ago while she was supposedly all put out over being called out as one of many celebrity enablers of an accused child molester in Dylan’s letter, she was laughing and hugging Roman Polanski in Paris on stage at a very high profile award show, I don’t think Scarjo minds being associated with violators of children one bit.

    What she apparently minds is getting Google alerts about it.

    http://www.bohomoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Scarlett+Johansson+Arrivals+Cesar+Film+Awards+GXH7W0Cp1wCl-1.jpg

  • Pingback: Lena Dunham Thinks Woody Allen Is Guilty But Enjoys His Art

  • Samuel

    The point of the Google Alerts comment was not that it wasted her time in reading it, but that Farrow named as many celebrities as possible in order for people who subscribe to Google Alerts about them get the message. Johansson is saying that Farrow essentially used the celebrities’ fame to maximize publicity. Otherwise why would she mention someone like Louis CK, who has a small part in the Woody Allen movie but has a large twitter and Google Alerts following. Same point with Sally Hawkins, who has a larger part in the movie but was not mentioned in the letter because her following is smaller.

    • leden

      Because he is the father of 2 young girls and she is asking him to think of his children (like the other parents she named in her letter) and have some empathy for victims of abuse.

      Sally Hawkings doesn’t have kids (and also isn’t a contemporary of Dylan like ScarJo and Emma Stone).

    • Samuel

      I think it’s clear when you read Dylan’s letter that the celebrity names are there to serve as keywords to increase awareness and publicity. Nothing wrong with, but you can’t blame people for being annoyed about being dragged into and forced to comment on a situation they had nothing to do with.

    • leden

      It’s only “clear” if you’re desperately bending over backwards to try to find some way to malign a survivor who has bravely spoken up.

    • Samuel

      I’m not trying to malign a survivor. She’s not a “survivor” because none of the abuse actually happened.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      There’s no possible way for you to know that.

    • Samuel

      I agree, I shouldn’t have said that. I meant that I lean towards believing him, just my gut feeling. I guess we all draw conclusions about this case based on our own background and experiences with people.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Yeah, absolutely. Just wanted to make sure that no one was making statements of fact that they couldn’t stand behind, myself included. Opinion and gut feeling is really all we have.

  • Pingback: Scarlett Johansson Hates ScarJo Nickname, Calls It Insulting