Javier Bardem is still defending Woody Allen: ‘It hasn’t been legally proven’

Los Angeles Premiere Of Amazon Studios' 'Being The Ricardos'

Javier Bardem is one of only a handful of actors who worked with Woody Allen and never tried to publicly dissociate themselves from Allen. Diane Keaton is another one, and Scarlett Johansson too. Bardem worked with Allen on Vicky Cristina Barcelona, a film which earned (his wife) Penelope Cruz an Oscar. Penelope is also a Woody Allen defender, although she keeps it vague enough (for the most part) so as to not get hit with “Penelope Cruz is ride-or-die for Woody Allen!” In 2018, Javier went on record saying that he has his doubts about Dylan Farrow’s story and that he believes Woody to be “innocent.” Well, now that Javier is promoting Being the Ricardos, of course he was asked about all of this again. I swear to God, it feels like this film is cursed from top to bottom. Some highlights from Javi’s Guardian interview:

He & Penelope cleaned house during the pandemic: “We gave [our things] to this church, where the priest indoctrinates with his own example, helping immigrants and people who have come out of jail. He made good use of the things we provided.”

On Desi Arnaz: “In 1930s Cuba, Desi was taught to constantly prove his male power, and that [machismo culture] is something I can relate to, for sure.”

A Spaniard playing a Cuban, just like he did in Before Night Falls. “It was a different time, right? But this is what actors do, we create other people’s lives. That can include origins or sexual orientation, accents and behaviours. I think we sometimes go too far in blocking the freedom of creativity by framing what an actor can and cannot do.”

On the situation with Woody Allen: “Pointing fingers at someone is very dangerous if it hasn’t been legally proven. Beyond that, it’s just gossip.”

How Rebecca Hall said she regretted working with Woody: “No, I haven’t seen Rebecca in many, many years. To tell you the truth, I don’t follow any of that, what people said. I try to go where logic dictates, which is: let’s follow the rules that exist to establish whether someone is guilty or innocent. If the case re-opens and he is proven to be guilty, I will be the first to say: ‘What a horrible thing.’ But so far, I haven’t seen that.”

He & Penelope credit Woody for getting them together: “Of course we credit him. He reunited us – lots of credit!” Did they invite him to their wedding? “No, no!” he laughs at the thought. “But I don’t think he would have come. I don’t know how sociable he is.”

Winning the Oscar: “When I won the Oscar, I felt great, but it didn’t make any sense. It was more: ‘Wow, what is this? I need to earn this now so they don’t take it out of my hands!’”

[From The Guardian]

I’m sure the Amazon Studio people are just thrilled that Javier is happily defending Woody yet again. That being said, what did they expect? This isn’t coming out of nowhere, Javier has been saying this sh-t for years. Of course some journalist was going to ask him about it again. That being said, I’m getting really annoyed with all of the Ricardos promotion – no one involved with the film is really making a strong case for why this story, why these actors, why this film.

VICKY CRISTINA BARDELONA PREMIERE AND PHOTOCALL

VICKY CRISTINA BARDELONA PREMIERE AND PHOTOCALL

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

68 Responses to “Javier Bardem is still defending Woody Allen: ‘It hasn’t been legally proven’”

  1. Case says:

    Do you know what makes me furious about this? I think about Johnny Depp, who HAS legally been found guilty, and he still has legions of people who side with him. I think about Brett Kavanaugh sitting on our Supreme Court. I think about Prince Andrew who thinks he can worm his way out of any accusation. I don’t care how “progressive” we think we are as a society. Women people view as imperfect victims, or whose abusers are too powerful and entitled to say no to, will never be believed.

    • Emma says:

      100%!!!!

      Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Alan Dershowitz, and the MANY names in Epstein’s black book, not just Prince Andrew!

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        And we can never forgot Roman Polanski, who had over 100 powerful movie people (including Woody Allen) sign a petition in support of him (and who keep pushing excuses such as “his wife was murdered,” “she wasn’t a virgin,” and “her mother should be the one in prison because she wasn’t there to stop the rape.”

    • Ionio says:

      Unpopular opinion. I also think WA is innocent and that Mia Farrow brainwashed Dylan. His other son has a pretty extensive report confirming this. Woody is eccentric, but not a rapist. Mia has a documented history of child abuse.

      • Case says:

        He married his adopted daughter.

      • Bettyrose says:

        How do you justify an entire career writing misogynist plot lines? That doesn’t prove he’s a child molester but establishes a mindset that adult women are difficult and exist merely as foils to male desire to be with much younger women. Albeit his characters are always at least 18 but sometimes barely. And oh yeah he married his adopted step daughter, sibling to his own children, whom he groomed from childhood. Even if you don’t believe Dylan, you’re defending a man who indisputably is guilty of all the above.

      • LP says:

        Unpopular reply: It’s possible for someone to be a bad parent and still be correct on other things. Dylan is grown, has been through therapy, and her story never changed once. The original case against Woody didn’t proceed bc the call was made that this would affect Dylan’s mental health, explicitly not because of a lack of evidence. It’s also worth pointing out that Woody has been accused of being sexually interested in his daughter, and he went on to hook up with another daughter while she was underage, if proof is what’s important to you. Furthermore, Moses Farrow has been relying on Woody Allen for money for years, and didn’t come out with his defense if woody Allen until the cash flow started (something Ronan farrow, who supports himself financially, has pointed out).

      • Coco says:

        Hi Woody 👋

        Up to your same tricks again.

      • Robyn says:

        @Ionio and this is exactly how rape culture, cycles of abuse are perpetuated, and victims held responsible for their trauma. Great work.

      • minx says:

        Farrow has no “documented history” of child abuse. Period.

      • goofpuff says:

        Um. He married his adopted daughter. How much more proof do you need?

      • 2lazy4username says:

        for those saying he married his adopted daughter, he did not. she was mia’s adopted daughter with andre previn. woody never adopted her. not sayin’ his relationship with his girlfriend’s daughter wasn’t gross; just correcting misinformation.

      • Mia does not have a documented history of child abuse. Allegations of her being abusive eventually came out of the Allen camp–and there’s no record of Allen going to the police about Mia, so what’s -that- tell you?

        Also, the whole “he never formally adopted Soon-Yi” not only ignores a situation that is still essentially parental (as well as a power imbalance), it’s splitting hairs along the lines of “i’m technically an -ephebophile-, not a -pedophile-“. Nice try though.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Even IF I believe Woody re: Soon-Yi (and I don’t, but for the sake of argument), what is undeniable is that Woody does not consider non-biological children to be “his.” So how on earth was he allowed to adopt his daughters? Oh yeah, he’s rich and famous.

      • Snappyfish says:

        Let’s not forget he had his first wife, Louise Lassiter, dress up like a little girl (complete with pinafore) every day. He married his step daughter or a child he was in that position of authority over. I have never understood the whole WA thing. He is a pervert plain & simple &
        His move aren’t that interesting.

        As for JB, he is Spanish & while this is extremely gross incest is not a crime nor is it considered harmful to the child. It’s beyond disgusting but I am guessing this is at the root of his support of WA.

    • lucy2 says:

      They’re always moving the goal posts to protect powerful men (especially powerful white men).
      Boys will be boys.
      It’s just gossip.
      It’s just one woman saying this, her word against his. She just wants his money.
      All of those women are just after his money, and jumping on the bandwagon. Cancel culture!
      Why didn’t she press charges?
      Why is she pressing charges, this was ages ago?
      He’s being unfairly prosecuted.
      The jury was biased, the judge was biased.
      Hasn’t he suffered enough? His life has been ruined. What’s jail going to do?

    • gruey says:

      This is one Of my recurring PSAs. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the standard we hold the GOVERNMENT to because of what it can do to you: take your money, home, freedom, reputation and life. It is NOT a standard that needs to apply ANYWHERE else in society.

      Not when you are trying to figure out who to date, hire, allow around your children, give directing opportunities to. You can and SHOULD use other standards and listen to lots of people evidence that would be inadmissible in court. Guilty until proven innocent. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. Your gut feeling. Those are all great standards in many social and professional standards!!

      • ITA. Also, something I’ve noticed about people (though not Bardem, at least not here) using “innocent until proven guilty” to defend people like Allen, Polanski, Marilyn Manson, etc: this only extends to the accused men.

        The same people defending them with “innocent until proven guilty” often have no problem speculating about the motives or character of the accusers, despite any evidence that -they’ve- done anything wrong. It would appear that “innocent until proven guilty” is only for privileged/wealthy men. Female, relatively powerless victims? Not so much.

  2. BeanieBean says:

    Oh for crying out loud, ‘legally proven’. Woody Allen has telegraphed his propensities in every last blasted movie he’s ever made.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Men love to tell you who they really are. Why don’t we believe them? Oh right. That’s other men telling us who they really are.

      • Mac says:

        We know Bardem is a sh*tty man with an even sh*ttier publicist. Reporters should be told his response to all WA questions will be “no comment.”

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      FACT: In real life, Woody Allen has only had long-term, committed relationships with ADULT women, ALL but two in his OWN AGE GROUP (Harlene Rosen, Louise Lasser, Diane Keaton, Mia Farrow). Of his two younger partners, Stacey Nelkin (62) is a friend for life, Soon-Yi Previn (51) the love of his life and the mother of their two daughters.

      FACT: In his movies, Woody Allen presents ‘love interests’ with an average age of 33,5 which is rather high to Hollywood standards. Zero underaged. 80% within the age group 25-55 years. Average age gap is 13 which is nothing unusual if we think about Connery, Cruise, Grant, Ford, Bean, and the lot.

      So, in a way, you are right. Woody Allen shows his predilection in his movies. A predilection for adult, similarly aged women.

      With a single exception of *one* teen in his 50 movies: ‘Tracy’ in ‘Manhattan’ who is 17, which is above the age of consent in NY and half the US. That relationship is presented as age-INappropriate throughout the movie, but not illegal. In the end, the relationship fails, the girl is presented as more adult than her older lover, and she leaves him to find her own path in life. Plot written by… Woody Allen.

      FACT: Soon-Yi was 27 when she and Woody Allen got married. Together for 30 years already, in a stable, harmonious, productive relationship. Obviously one of the best choices in their lives.

  3. MC2 says:

    Who is it dangerous for to point fingers when a crime hasn’t been proven in our impossibly skewed & sexist court system??? Oh, the one man.
    You know what I think is dangerous? Not warning other women & children about a known sexual assailant so they can protect themselves.
    One is only worried & focused on the one man/perp, which says all there is to say.

    • WithTheAmerican says:

      Agree 100%. Why is protecting men while leaving women and children unprotected seen as the right thing to do.

      Disgusting “standards” we have as a society.

  4. WithTheAmerican says:

    Yeah Javier why don’t children who are being abused prove things better! What a great point.

    NOT.

    Also I’m pretty sure a judge ruled that they believed woody had done these things when this first came out when she was still a child. So Javier is the one gossiping.

    ( I’m probably the only one but I really liked the Ricardos movie for what it was intended to be about. Javier is a clown as a human being though.)

    • Christina says:

      You are correct. The psychologist working on the case wrote, in the recommendation to the judge, that Dylan responded like a child who had been sexually abused, but that she was extremely vulnerable and should not be forced to testify. She was very young at the time. I remember reading it when the Vanity Fair author who wrote about it released those parts of the psychological custody evaluation recommendations years after it was published because Ronan Farrow had spoken up about it, and then Dylan made a public statement. The Vanity Fair author published it so that people could see what her article was based off of and to show that the psychologists who were hired by the court, NOT THE YALE TEAM HIRED BY WOODY, made those recommendations. My recollection is that only the recommendations were published.

      I remember reading it because the same doctor worked on my case in CA. I had no idea that he had worked on the Dylan Farrow case until I read the released documents, but I was interested because of my own battle with a powerful man. The doctor specializes in childhood trauma and abuse. He is the person who diagnosed my ex as a narcissistic sociopath. She still ended up being physically assaulted by my ex, but that doctor’s work saved my daughter’s life.

      Javier Bardem can shove it up his ass.

    • Sam the Pink says:

      The district attorney who declined to prosecute Woody has said many times that the evidence supported Dylan, he believed Dylan fully and that he believed that Woody would have been convicted at trial. However, he recognized that Dylan was a traumatized child who likely was in no state to endure a very ugly, nasty, public trial and for that reason, he dropped the matter to spare her. People act like this is some kind of exoneration when it is very far from it.

      • Christina says:

        Exactly. The recommendations from the trained psychological professionals made that undeniable determination, and the prosecutor had the evidence to convict. Woody knows it. He also thinks that what he did was perfectly fine. He found some psychologists at Yale to write a report, and they had no access to Dylan; the court professionals interviewed Dylan. People who are sexually attracted to children justify their behavior as non-sexual or as “natural”.

        Woody Allen and Javier Bardem are sick, awful men. I will NEVER watch or support Bardem or Penelope Cruz, and I am Latina! How dare they speculate about the sexual abuse of a child!!! How dare Penelope be such a hypocrite.

        May all CBs spread the word when people around us mention the work of these cruel, narcissistic people. If you wouldn’t allow Woody to babysit your toddler, then why would you support his work? People don’t want to think about how his behavior would work in their own home and how trusting they would REALLY be.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @sam – Not only does it NOT exonerate Allen, but the severe trauma that the child experienced makes it even worse. Some victims are still able to testify, but that Dylan was SO damaged she couldn’t do that, is heartbreaking.

        @ Christina – yes, I don’t think it is possible to separate the work from the crime. These people are in a position in Hollywood to take advantage of children (see Roman Polanski) regardless of how talented they are. If these were camp counselors, would anyone argue “but other than the molestation, he’s really a great camp counselor so he shouldn’t lose his job”?

  5. Zapp Brannigan says:

    So has he left Woody to babysit his daughter? You know innocent until, and all that.

    • Christina says:

      Exactly, Zapp!!!

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      I would not hesitate to have Woody and Soon-Yi babysit my three daughters. Considering the fact that their two adopted daughters Bechet and Manzie, now adult, love their parents, speak highly of them, and defend them publicly against vicious smears in the media such as yours.

      While Mia Farrow has lost FIVE of her first SIX Asian adoptees, due to estrangement (three children), or years of depression, self-destruction, and death (two suicides, one case of poverty & decease). Several of her children allege her of child abuse, which is corroborated by multiple sworn testimony from her assistants. I would never have Mia babysit my children.

  6. milliemollie says:

    What a POS.
    Even if you don’t believe Dylan, the start of his relationship with hs wife is disgusting and really troubling. Which also makes Dylan even more believable
    Edit: wasn’t Cruz mad at Selma Hayek because she didn’t warn her about Weinstein? ! Looks like she wouldn’t have believed her anyway.

    .

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Woody and Soon-Yi Previn got to know each other when Soon-Yi was 20, and her mother asked Woody to start spending time with her – something he never did with *any* of the Previn children. Just read Mia’s autobiography ‘What Falls Away’ (1997). It’s all there.

      After more than a year, the couple fell in love, and have stayed together for 30 years already in a stable, harmonious, productive relationship.

      I can’t imagine for the life of me how that ‘makes more believable’ a 100% refuted allegation of sexual abuse of a 7 year old.

      All established facts, court testimony, expert opinions, and legal decisions point firmly at Woody’s innocence of Mia’s highly dubious allegation.

      The Farrows have shunned our courts, judges and juries for 30 years. I see no reason to ‘believe Dylan’. And even if I would, I would have to choose which of Dylan’s many different versions I wanted to believe. You can’t believe them all, as they are inconsistent, and include multiple denials of abuse.

      Really, there is a reason why FOUR out of FOUR child abuse expert instances did not find the Farrows’ abuse allegation credible. Because it wasn’t.

  7. Emma says:

    “Legally proven.” Oh yes… of course… because our legal system is so immaculate and reliable in rape cases.

    How can people honestly believe this?

    Recently for example, Christopher Belter pleaded guilty to raping and abusing four teenage girls (was in the news a couple months ago) and the judge refused to sentence him to jail time. I think he got eight years’ probation. Judges like this are in the news frequently. Even when a man pleads guilty or is literally caught in the act, he skates!

    The system is completely skewed toward protecting men, particularly white men. Javier Bardem is a beautiful man but he is caping for pure cruelty here and it’s repulsive.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Surely, our system of justice is not perfect. But neither is a ‘popular opinion’ about who is guilty.

      Should you, or any of your loved ones, ever be falsely alleged of child abuse (heaven forbid) I am sure that you would rather be investigated and judged by a court than by a herd of angry people with their torches and pitchforks out.

      The court produces four kinds of decisions:
      A. rightful convictions (a true perpetrator is found guilty)
      B. rightful exonerations (a truly innocent person is not found guilty)
      C. false positives (an innocent person is found guilty)
      D. false negatives (a true perpetrator is not found guilty).

      I believe that in spite of the existence of C. and D. there is no better way to arrive at great number of rightful convictions A. and B. than by our court system. I believe trial-by-populace will increase the number of C.’s

      I believe the quality of decision-making is much better in our courts, with its fact-finding, advocacy for both parties, equal hearing, cross-examination, due process, and innocence presumption.

      In this case, the likeliness of Woody Allen being a ‘false negative’ is extremely small. No less than FOUR thorough investigations, all done by legal bodies and in the child’s best interest, have yielded an unanimous conclusion: the allegation is *not* credible.

      The Farrows have *never* taken Allen to court. On the contrary, they have evaded our courts, judges and juries like the Plague. They have never subjected their claims to legal scrutiny since the CT prosecutor, Frank Maco, decided to *not* prosecute Allen *with Mia’s and Dylan’s consent*.

      So yes, I think there is ample reason to believe Allen is innocent. All established facts, court testimony, expert opinions, legal decisions point in that way.

      I would *love* the Farrows to take Allen to court – but that will never happen, as the Farrows are well aware that their dubious allegation would crumble in no time under legal scrutiny.

  8. kgeo says:

    I watched that documentary about Mia and Woody. I think there were a lot of problems in that house…with Mia too. However, being comfortable with taking nude pictures of your partners 21 year old daughter that you’ve known since she was a child does not happen in a vacuum. Nothing needs to have happened with Dylan for me to know that he’s an extremely gross person that shouldn’t be near children.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Until Mia found the nude pictures, she *very much* wanted Allen to adopt her children Moses and Dylan, and she wrote a glaring review of his fathering qualities with a view to that adoption:

      “[Mr Allen] Allen ‘is far more of a father than most natural fathers are or choose to be. He is a loving, caring, attentive parent to Dylan and she can only benefit from having him as an adoptive father, He has acted as Dylan’s father almost since her birth and adoption by me. He is present with us during nearly all of Dylan’s waking hours.”

      Mia’s assistants praised Woody’s fathering, Dylan’s nanny Kristi Groteke observed how committed he was to his children, nanny Monica Thompson called him ‘the better parent’ compared to Mia, Dylan’s therapist Dr Susan Coates testified that he was “enormously committed to being a good father”.

      Since 1999, Woody and Soon-Yi have raised two daughters of their own, and both Bechet and Manzie (now adult) have praised their parents and their father’s parernting.

      I believe your statement “he shouldn’t be near children’ is based on nothing but a fact-free fantasy.

  9. Scorpion says:

    I can happily say that I have never watched a Woody Allen movie. Long may that continue 😁

  10. Margo says:

    My simple, yet effective protest thing is to NOT watch Woody Allen films. I haven’t watched a Woody Allen film since ‘Hannah and her Sisters’. While Mr. Allen clearly is a talented filmmaker, he is also a pedophile and has committed heinous crimes against his children. It has been well documented. His colleagues in the film industry compartmentalize this to make it ok to work with him because he is a film-making genius. Personally, I can’t imagine being anywhere near this creep.

    • Christina says:

      Amen. Me too.

      I love Allen, and Bardem. They can fall of the planet as far as I care.

    • Tessa says:

      Thank goodness I don’t think he is a film-making genius either. His shouty, neurotic films do nothing for me. No love lost there at all.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      The facts tell us that Woody Allen is not a pedophile, and he has never hurt a child.

      Of course you are free to any other frivolous belief. There are people who still believe that Trump has won the last presidential election. But a ‘belief’ means nothing today.

  11. J says:

    Wow I’m saddened. Now I absolutely loathe Bardem and i previously admired him.

    I cannot understand how people support Woody Allen. He is absolutely disgusting.

    Cannot imagine the spackling people do to justify working with a man that would do any number of the things he’s done but primary – take his high school aged step kid out to a basketball game and then creep on her – and then marry her. Poor soon yi is so brainwashed. She never had a chance.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Soon-Yi was 21 and in university (not in highschool) when she and Woody Allen started their intimate relationship. They got married when Soon-Yi was 27 and had finished her academic studies.

      One year earlier, Mia had asked him to start spending time with a 20 year old Soon-Yi and take her to basketball games. *Not* his initiative. Something he’d never done before.

      Soon-YI was not his ‘step kid’. Woody and Mia were not married, never lived together, never acted like parents jointly raising a family, and Woody had nothing to do with the ‘Previn children’ whom Mia shared with her ex-husband André Previn.

  12. lucy2 says:

    What’s Bardem’s end game here? Does he think this makes him look fair and non-judgemental? Does he believe all problems are solved by the legal system? Does he think he’s going to convince anyone else that WA is innocent?
    Barf. All this does is make him look terrible. At the very least, he could simply say “I’ve already spoken about that and don’t wish to speak anymore on it.”

    • Sam the Pink says:

      I think Bardem fancies himself, you know, an “artiste.” Somebody who can appreciate great “art” and he probably thinks since Woody is such a great auteur, he shouldn’t be prevented from working just because of some mere allegations that he abused his daughter. That’s how a lot of those people think – how dare you plebs stand in the way of great art.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Bardem deserves praise, not criticism for his support of Woody Allen.

      Bardem has the IQ to study the facts, the independence to make up his own mind, the loyalty to support a colleague whom he believes is the victim of a false allegation, and he is unafraid of the ‘cancel mob’ with their vicious attacks on celebrities.

      Bardem is not alone. There is a growing category of actors and actresses who support Woody Allen, because they find reason to believe he is innocent – as was found as the clear, unanimous conclusion of multiple thorough legal investigations.

  13. CaliFire says:

    I’m not surprised Javier Bardem defends that man (I won’t say his name and give it power). I think Javier met Penelope thanks to the film in question? Javier isn’t saying anything I haven’t heard on Telemundo or Univision from other male celebrities when they’re defending someone accused of sexual violence. He’s doing what he thinks is normal from a Latinx cultural perspective where loyalty to a friend trumps that friend sexually violating someone. I hate it.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Woody Allen has never been formally “accused” of sexual violence or of any other crime or misdemeanor.

      There has been *one allegation* in Woody’s 86 years’ lifetime. A highly dubious allegation, made at the height of an acrimonious separation and a bitter custody battle. Exactly the situation in which most false child abuse allegations are made. Look up the ‘nuclear option’.

      Bardem has all the reason in the world to believe that the Farrows’ abuse allegation is not credible. It is why the Farrows for 30 years have been shunning our courts, judges, and juries like the Plague.

  14. FHMom says:

    Being the Riccardos is not a good film. I don’t understand the accolades. There is no story, and Nicole and Javier cosplaying Lucy and Desi does not work

  15. Queen Meghan's Hand says:

    I just love people who will stand for criminal justice reform advocates and also say, “oh that allegation hasn’t been legally proven” to defend crap men.
    ‘Legally proving’ sexual assault means nothing when the justice system is designed to exhaust, intimidate, and bankrupt sexual assault victims.

  16. Mary Tosti says:

    He married his daughter.. end of.

    • Selene says:

      Exactly, how much of a lack of moral fiber should Woody show? As soon as I read a celebrity likes him, it’s a point of no return for me. There’s no way to excuse anything he did; nor talent, nor connections, nor writing ability. Nothing!

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Well, he didnt.

      Soon-Yi Previn is not his daughter, not his adoptive daughter, not his stepdaughter, not his daughter-in-law-, not any other kind of ‘daughter’.

      It gives pause to think that after 30 years of this being public knowledge, people are still so enamored with this clear, vicious *falsehood* that they can’t let go of it.

  17. 2lazy4username says:

    It was also never legally proven OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife.

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      Sure. But the wife’s family had the guts to take Simpson to custody court, and won. Simpson has been convicted for the murder of his wife in custody court.

      While the Farrows have always evaded *every* court, both the criminal courts and the custody courts.

      Now that gives pause to think.

  18. J says:

    People clarifying it isn’t his adopted daughter- most of us know that but she was his stepdaughter as soon yi was his partner’s kid who he knew for years as an actual child while in relationship with her mother. He started up w her when she was at least in HS. Nothing ok about that

    • Barbie1 says:

      So many of his supporters don’t understand this somehow. He is a vile highly manipulative creature. The fact that that man has gotten away with it for so many years is heartbreaking. Celebs such as Javier are so cold, cruel and dismissive toward Dylan. I don’t know how they live with themselves.

  19. Kkat says:

    Whenever some guy staunchly defends a pedo, I assume its because they are one too

    • Hannes Minkema says:

      I think there is a big difference between ‘defending a pedo’ and ‘defending someone who is falsely alleged of being a pedo’.

      It should not take too long for you to figure out the difference.

  20. shanaynay says:

    For all those who are saying, “oh that allegation hasn’t been legally proven.”
    Would you still be saying the same thing if g-d for bid this happened to your child?

  21. Wow….12 comments defending Allen and Bardem! That’s one well-paid PR shill.

  22. J says:

    So is grooming a child/teen and then dating and later marrying the kid who is basically your stepdaughter – falsely a pedo? Seems pretty clear to me? And the allegations about his daughter are not false they are just unproven

    He’s super creepy on so many levels and yet all these defenders

    Men with influence and power can get away with anything.

Commenting Guidelines

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment

The reply feature does not work on phones in vertical mode. We are working on fixing it! Turn your phone horizontally and you will be able to reply to a comment.

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment