Skip to main content

In defense of Dakota Fanning and Scarlett Johansson...

Actresses Dakota Fanning and Scarlett Johansson came under fire from the social media mob yesterday, and while I often times empathize and even agree with the PC (politically correct) police, I think they've gone too far in both these instances.

First off, with regard to Dakota Fanning, she's being criticized for allegedly playing an Ethiopian Muslim woman in the upcoming film, Sweetness in the Belly. After reports of this emerged, the critical tweets became more ubiquitous than Donald Trump's stupid tweets (and that's saying something): "A white woman playing an Ethiopian Muslim? #Woke!," "Why not get a person of color or an actual Muslim to play the part?," "This is so wrong!" were just some of the responses.

Psst, the film is based off a book, where Fanning's character, Lilly, is an orphaned British child that grows up to be a Muslim nurse (yes, she's white throughout). So let's cool it with the overreactions here... If you want to go after someone here, go after the author, but even then, that'd be pretty stupid.

Scarlett Johansson, meanwhile, is receiving heat for defending famed and controversial director Woody Allen. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, she said, "I see Woody whenever I can, and I have had a lot of conversations with him about it. I have been very direct with him, and he's very direct with me. He maintains his innocence, and I believe me."

She added that she'd be willing to work with him any time.

The backlash with regard to her comments is due to Allen having been accused of sexually abusing his daughter, Dylan Farrow. This claim has been investigated on two separate occasions, and in both instances, no evidence was found to suggest the director was guilty of these allegations.

I can understand the critiques of Johansson's comments more so than I can with regard to Fanning's role, but I can also understand where the actress is coming from. Allen has never been convicted of that which he's been accused. As a matter of fact, if we go by the before-mentioned investigations, he's been proven not guilty/innocent twice. Actors and cinema-lovers alike have every right to not work with him or see his films due to them holding some doubt of his innocence. At the same time, however, why is it wrong for an actress to agree to work with a man or defend a man who was never convicted of a crime he was alleged of committing? Even after being proven not guilty of a crime (twice), is it morally wrong to view them as innocent-until-proven-guilty? Must we always view them with the what-if-they're-guilty-lens? What if they're not guilty? What about those who are guilty of horrific crimes but never get caught? Why spend so much time and energy coming after those who have been acquitted of abuse, when we could use that energy to convict those who can be proven guilty of it? Woody Allen is undoubtedly an unusual man, and it's his detractors' right to boycott him, but it's also Scarlett Johansson's right to defend him, and she shouldn't be shamed for it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...