Monthly Archives: October 2017

Woody, Mia, Dylan and Soon-Yi

Oh yes, let’s have an opinion on that, shall we?

Woody Allen is one of the most successfull storytellers of Hollywood. Everyone wants to work with him, thinks his work is amazing, a piece of art and so on.
I’ve been watching some of his films. Annie Hall being one of them and the most recent to that (thank you, Netflix!).
Also, I have read some of the stories that emerged about him. I’ve read how Mia Farrow wrote an eight page epistel of how he did wrong in Variety magazine (or was it a different one?). Then I read how Dylan complained to big stars such as Meryl Streep etc, asking them how they could have turned a blind eye to what Woody did to her?

I have to be honest here: it’s tricky business.
When two people love each other, they will try everything in their power to be together as much as possible. They get married, move in together, have children, that sort of things really. If things go wrong, however, it can take nasty turns. Especially with children involved. Mothers are known to be lions when it comes to their children. They will do anything to protect their cubs from evil doërs. So they should be, they’re the children’s mother, and if they don’t do it, who will? Most probable, it’s the other half involved. Father, or other partner (of whatever sexe really, it’s about the love that’s shared here) will usually do the same, but sometimes with less effort.

Where two people fight, there’s two people at fault, is my opinion. After reading Mia Farrow’s report on what had happened during her time with Woody Allen, I was quite surprised. For I read that there was an unwritten rule in their household that Woody should never be alone with Dylan. Dylan, an adoptive daughter. Not just that, the adoption wasn’t finalized yet when these things occurred. So I do ask myself: why would a mother ask a judge to let a man she doesn’t even trust to be alone with this child, to be the father of this child by law? Why would you do that? If you don’t trust him, why not adopt her on your own and make bloody sure that Woody Allen gets filed for some sort of report?
Because she didn’t.
She did seem to fill Dylan’s head with allegations against her father, about him being evil. I have no idea if any of it is true.
I’m not saying they aren’t.
I’m saying I don’t know.

Woody Allen has, since then, gotten a famous relationship with Soon Yi. We all saw what happened there. With her, he also adopted two children.
I can’t believe a judge would allow someone to adopt children if there was a suspicion of them abusing children in the past?

The whole case does make it impossible for Woody Allen to comment on the Weinstein issue, I’ve noticed. Even though things weren’t necessarily proved or unproved in his (Allens’) case, he did flirt with disaster and that doesn’t give him a strong ‘innocent’ side, I’ve noticed. I agree with him that it’s hard to get away from even the suspicion of abusement, even if you haven’t done anything. The point he is making is valid, as I just said: I don’t know who to believe: Farrow or Allen. Dylan is quite a different story. She is a victim, in whatever way you point it. Either because she has been fed false info as a child (from whichever side, really) or because she has had to endure experience things she should never have experienced in the first place.
Let’s hope that some day one of her parents decides to tell the actual true and tell her ‘Sorry Dylan, I’ve been most unkind to you and your childhood and I will regret doing that for the rest of my life’, and for Dylan to reply by: ‘well, what the hell took you so long?!’

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 24, 2017 in Opinion


Tags: , , , , ,

Endling (Whimword entry)

‘You?! You have to be recreated, or else it will be the end of creatures just like you??’ professor Doublebore wasn’t sure he’d heard right. His ears were stuffed with years of knowledge, as he’d like to call it. Objectively (or factually) he had a beard that was so intensively present that one could never be sure it was covering just his chin or actually his entire upper department, which happened to also cover his brains and hearing equipment. Such as his ears.
‘Well…yeah!’ the man that was stood in front of him claimed.
Professor Doublebore didn’t know what to say to that. In front of him was a man that hadn’t been the best example of a human being be that useful, as one could put it politely.
To be precise, the man was quite despised. Professor Doublebore wasn’t sure if it could be pointed out so incredibly bluntly though. After all, the man had just been explaining to him how he was so very important -which professor Doublebore had been able to notice the man was anything but. The only thing to do now was to cushion the blow, he thought.
But how does one do that to a man who so clearly thinks he can’t be missed?
‘I have told several people I have my genes continued, but I have been told I can not ever be sure that the kids I’ve claimed to be responsible for this are actually mine’, the man in front of him proceeded.
‘How is that?’ the professor asked, even if it was just to win a bit of time. He had seen the pics of the children and knew fairly sure they were in fact of the man stood in front of him, but he had gotten intruiged now.
‘Well, I’m a devouted christian and so is my wife, and we’ve nearly only had sons, but I sort of….’
‘Was told they’re actually of Brain’s, the family accountant?’ Doublebore filled in the suspicion. He knew this type of thinking.
‘No!’ unsure face of man in front of him now.
‘Well, now that you mention it…’
‘It wasn’t, just to be clear’, Doublebore felt he needed to say that.
‘So, who is it then?’ the man asked, relieved.
‘Well, you see…’ Doublebore started.
‘Yes?’ anxious face.
‘I don’t think they actually meant you had to do anything. I think they simply meant they’d hope you to be the last man standing in your opinions. You will have to be very daft to keep your faith the way you have been doing’. Doublebore explained.
‘But how…’
‘You have been boring Jesus from above. He actually quite liked people. You, however, not so much’ Doublebore said.
‘Really? How’s that?’
‘Well, for starters, you’re Jacob Rees-Mogg. One of these days, your children will tell the world that you’re a huge bastard and a vile hypocrit. Really, someone needed to stop you anyway. It will be your own children. They will be better’.
Stunned face.


Tags: , , ,


Like the church a few years ago, Harvey Weinstein and lots of other big Hollywood bozo’s suddenly collapse under the force that’s the united complaints of loads of people who finally go and tell who exactly harassed them when they were young.

I hear many men complain ‘oi, it’s not ALL MEN?! I was actually raised pretty properly!’ and I can imagine it feels like being trapped in the ‘guilty’ box even though you’re pretty sure you’ve never done anything.
First of all: hello and welcome aboard the Shittrain Of Accusations that women endure when they even so much as try to report what happened to them.
First questions asked aren’t ‘what did he wear? What does he look like? Shall I punch him in the face for you?’ most likely it’s:
‘What were you wearing? Did you say something that might have given him the idea you wanted it?’ or ‘how did he get to be alone with you?’
It’s mostly trying to see if it could be blamed on you. You. The one who just reported the harassment.
As a society we’re clear: it’s NEVER your fault.
Then again, as a society, our first approach is still that is COULD BE your fault after all. Maybe it’s not how you intend it, but it is how you approach it, quite likely.

Ages ago, when I was quite heavily underage (or at least very heavily underdeveloped as I recall), an aquantaince found a way to spend time with me. I hadn’t realised I had never been alone with this man, nor what the look in his eyes had meant when I had been wearing a bathing suit around him some time before that. I do recall -afterwards- that I had never seen anyone look at me like that. Not knowing what it meant, I didn’t act upon it in any way.
One afternoon his wife went out. It then happened. I am not a person to actually verbally say ‘stop that, please’. Even without the please. I just freeze. I’m quite introvert. I have learned from a young age that telling ‘stop, I don’t like it’ doesn’t help. Being the daily target of bullies at school, I had in fact learned that usually had the opposite effect.
I did try to turn my legs away, but being in a rather small space, that wasn’t a real option. It was caressing, touching, without actual looking at me. I got up, in hopes of escaping, but my leg was caught in his arms and he pulled me closer to him. As I couldn’t use my leg to keep my balance, my automatic response was to wrap my arm around his head. So he got to touch my breast aswell in his next move. Given that my leg was now free, I got to walk away from that scene after that.

It took me quite some time to get over that. I had no idea what just happened, why it happened and especially not why it had happened to ME. I have never found myself attractive in any way whatsoever, people have always told me I look far too skinny to be that in case I might think different: so WHY me, really? And for the record: I had been wearing short skirts and dresses around this man for quite some time (it was summer and I was a daily visitor to the pool that was less than 10 feet away) but I was actually wearing trousers and an oversized T-shirt that particular day. Just so you know.

I decided to tell someone that same day, as I couldn’t stop crying for a full hour when I got back to where I was staying. I told the right one, thankfully, as the aquaintance who did it got an angry visit after that right away. I was told, before that visit ‘you have done NOTHING wrong, it wasn’t your fault and I’m glad that you have told me’. To be fair I have no idea what would have happened if the first one I told it to hadn’t responded like that.
I do recall telling some of my family members, and at least one of them responded with:
‘Are you sure it was that bad what happened? Uncle Blahblah has sometimes touched me weirdly too, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything’. I was a bit shocked by that. Not just Uncle Blahblah apparently not being able to keep their hands away -something I never have endured, thankfully- but also the idea that my interpretation of the experience could be questioned.

I’ve noticed something else too, with the #MeToo hashtag: women are being far braver than ever before. They still hardly mention any names though. Only when it’s one of them big bastards, like Harvey Weinstein, they do. He is already proven guilty after admitting he has done wrong things. So women do feel they no longer have to keep silent on his part. Good for them. But these other men, why still protect them?
I get it and I don’t get it, is all. And yes, I’m aware I’m doing exactly the same, but I think everyone’s story as to why they protect their harasser is different. I’m just curious to why others do it.
In my case, I find the fact that this man was already confronted with what he had done and afterwards apologised to me with the demands of the one who confronted him, he’s had his punishment. He thought he could get away with it, he couldn’t. I told, it was solved.

 Another thing to be noticed with the hashtag: mostly it’s women coming forward about men harassing them. Unfortunately, men are sufferers too. There’s a book out about a boy growing up in an unsafe environment too. It’s called The Cock On The Beach That Didn’t Crow (and wasn’t missed) and will be available soon on amazon:

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 20, 2017 in Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Anne Faber en het falende rechtssysteem

Met het verdwijnen en de zoektocht naar Anne Faber, werden er in minder dan twee weken tijd ineens een hele hoop mensen met hun neus op de feiten gedrukt: ons rechtssysteem deugt niet.

Dat wisten we, op zich, allang, maar met de dood van een (plotseling) zeer geliefd meisje -met alle respect voor de nabestaanden; zó lang kenden velen die naar haar zochten haar tenslotte niet, áls ze haar al kenden- werd het ineens héél duidelijk.

Want hoe kon het dan zo’n psychopatische gek zomaar los kon rondlopen, die feitelijk al maanden bezig was met het plotten van de ‘ideale’ moord. Als ik de vele spookverhalen op twitter, verscheidene blogs en nieuwssites mag geloven, tenminste.
Er werd dan ook meteen een petitie opgestart. Een zeer emotioneel opgestelde. Dat begrijp ik. Ik heb net zo hard op m’n twitter-feed zitten kijken elke dag. Het doet wat met je, of zo iemand nou bekend is of niet.
‘Is ze al gevonden?’ spookte het door m’n hoofd. Gek genoeg had ik al vrij snel (na het opduiken van haar jas en fiets) het idee dat er helaas geen levende Anne Faber meer zou worden gevonden.
Het viel me wel op hoe ontzettend rechttoe rechtaan het hele verhaal ging. De twee weken waren weliswaar zenuwslopend, maar na een DNA spoor op de jas van Anne Faber, ging het snel met het opsporen van de verdachte en het vinden van haar stoffelijk overschot.

En dat is het een beetje: als dat al meteen zo duidelijk was, wáárom was het dan zo dat deze meneer al aan het wennen was aan het leven buiten? Ja, hij had een relatie met ‘s werelds meest achterlijke begeleidster/therapeut (wat is dat voor neukhol geweest daar in Den Dolder?! Weet je als professional daar soms niet wat de werkwijze is van zo’n psychopaat? Dan ben je dus ook niet voldoende geschoold, lijkt me?) en zat kennelijk in een soort ‘vrijwillig’ therapeutisch traject.
Punt is dat men kennelijk wel door gehad moet hebben hoe gevaarlijk hij was. Ondanks de zogenaamd uitgezeten straf. Die dus niet heeft geholpen.
Ik las ergens dat er een lage recidive te verwachten is na TBS, in tegenstelling tot gevangenisstraf. Ook las ik dat TBS bij psychopaten zinloos is. Belangrijker nog: mensen mógen KIEZEN voor TBS. Dus of het nu geschikt is of niet, de keuze is ook nog eens aan degene die het leed al heeft doen geschiede. Dat is toch uiterst curieus?

Omdat therapeuten ooit hebben bedacht dat therapie alleen werkt als de patiënt er zin in heeft, hóeft het dus niet? Met het gevolg dat zo iemand na slechts maximaal 2/3e van zijn/haar straf te hebben uitgezeten -en de straffen zijn al te laag, zeker in relatie tot pyschisch danwel lichamelijk letsel-  vrijkomt en weer opnieuw kan beginnen? Het lijkt een beetje op het omgekeerde van het Florence Nightingale-complex: zoveel mogelijk slachtoffers maken in korte tijd, en maar zien hoe de samenleving dat oplost.

Ik sprak een advocaat, wiens terrein an sich dit gelukkig niet is, maar daarom nog wel kennis van zaken heeft.
‘Als advocaat ben je in dienst van je cliënt. Ook al vindt je wel dat iemand TBS nodig heeft, of wat voor therapie dan ook, als de cliënt niet wil, dan heb je daar naar te handelen’.
Iedereen heeft recht op een advocaat. Dat is gewoon zo. En als het de taak is van de advocaat om datgene te doen wat zijn cliënt ‘m opdraagt, dan moet de verplichting van de veiligheidsstelling dus via de wet geregeld worden.
Kennelijk.  Als jurisprudentie of wat ook. Het zou in de wet moeten staan dat een rechter verplicht is de samenleving te beschermen.
Een advocaat moet, namens zijn cliënt, hard kunnen maken en kunnen toetsen dat TBS (of wat dan ook) niet nodig is. Faalt hij/zij daarin, dan zit de cliënt er dus aan vast.
Is er gebleken dat iemand bijvoorbeeld ‘licht ontoerekeningsvatbaar’ is of wat dan ook? Prima, dan ook verplichte behandeling.
‘Dat helpt niet’ hoor ik u denken. Het zal u verbazen: iemand loslaten in de maatschappij, werkt nóg duidelijker al helemaal niet.

Weg met dat ‘vrijwillig’. Laat meisjes zoals Anne Faber en uw eigen dochters, nichtjes en trouwens ook neefjes en zonen, rustig buiten fietsen en lekker hard worden door een buitje, en niet door psychotische rotschoften, omdat de therapeut/begeleiding d’r broek liet zakken. Of zoveel meer in iemand zag. Daar komen slachtoffers van, weten we nu.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2017 in Opinion


Tags: , , , , , ,

The Lovely Bones

This incredibly long film stuns mostly by not being boring even one moment. And it even stuns more by not being boring without actual ‘quick’ parts. It even has quite some bits that are a bit more slow, and still: it works.

The story is quite dreadful and you need to be in the mood for drama. On her way from school to home, Susan Salmon (very well played by Saoirse Ronan) is tricked and as such killed by her neighbour, played by Stanley Tucci. The film is mostly about how both parties -the living and the dead- deal with the situation.

Susan Salmon is the voiceover and tells everything in an at times warning voice, but mostly nearly excited. Her voice does its work really quite well, and all the things that keep happening after her disappearance and the things that happened before, make this film a sort of perfect mix of loss and not loss altogether.

I’ve read on InternetMovieDataBase that Stanley Tucci was actually quite uncomfortable with the kind of personality he was supposed to be playing, so he did everything he could to make the role physically as far away from himself as possible (wearing a fat suit, dye every hair he got in a different tone, wear colored contact lenses, even dying his skin in a different shade), but still you immediately recognise him. At least I did.

There’s also the early years of Rose McIver to enjoy (who we now know as the iZombie leading part) and as a whole, the parents and grandmother of Susie.

All in all I’d say it’s a film well worth watching, expect quite some mixed emotions here and there, as it’s the killed one versus the killer who doesn’t want to be discovered. Logically.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 9, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

The Drowning

With Julia Stiles, Avan Jogia and Josh Charles amongst the actors.

A psychiatrist is confronted with his past influence in court, when he saves a drowning young man who turns out to have been his patient, years ago.

This film is actually quite boring and it feels, at times, a lot is left out, without being explained. That doesn’t make it better. In itself Josh Charles’ play is good, but it seems out of character for any loving husband to not tell his wife so much. Julia Stiles is a properly annoyed wife, not understanding what’s bothering her husband about certain contacts she has.
Avan Jogia is brilliant as annoying bastard. Too pretty, too young, too luring. In that sense it’s a bit too obvious that he is the dangerous factor in here. His actions seem weird and aren’t too well explained either, not until the end.

The people in court aren’t of much help either. The colleague of the psychiatrist asks him for favors, but in return doesn’t give any information either.

It’s not a bad film, and the tension is properly build up at times, but the only moment where you think ‘ah, finally something is explained’, it’s only one thing and you agree with the character there: ‘why didn’t you tell me before?’

If you’re a Julia Stiles fan like myself, you will probably enjoy yourself. Josh Charles is doing a far better job in The Good Wife.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 4, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Our Souls At Night

With Jane Fonda, Robert Redford and Iain Armitage.
A curiously dull film, to be fair. One night, Addie Moore (played by Jane Fonda) knocks on Louis Waters’ (Robert Redford) door. She has a proposal of sorts.
She would like to sleep together on a regular base.

‘Not for sex, I’ve long lost interest for that’, she explains, making the proposal a little less awkward and in a way funny, but still: Louis Waters doesn’t know what to say to that??

The storyline itself is very unsignificant. It’s basically what happens when two elderly people who are alone get together to spend the night -just to talk and not be alone. They are the talk of the town amongst their peers, but it’s not really that shocking. It still is two people who have the age and the maturity to choose for themselves. Louis Waters does get angry with his peers for a bit, but that’s about it.

For people looking for an exciting film: this isn’t it. It’s a very demure, peaceful story about two elderly people who spend time together, with minor incidents like a grandchild coming over, some friends who become curious and so on. The biggest event is one of their children protesting against the parent being happy.

Given that Jane Fonda currently also stars in the series Grace & Frankie, this film will disappoint. Jane Fonda actually tries to look attractive in that series and is a lot more progressive. Besides, the film Barefoot in the Park, that has both Jane Fonda and Robert Redford in it, has a lot more to offer when it comes to weird and sillyness entering the building.
Robert Redford actually has feelings in that film too. He is far more of an introvert here. He barely talks about himself. He asks her why she picked him. In the end you still don’t really know.

In short: if you love the actors, go for it, but don’t expect much of it. It’s really quite dull.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,