Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
An Open letter from Dylan Farrow regarding Woody Allen (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter badmojo1006
- Start date
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I liked this comment...
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Once they hit 11-12, I wouldnt let my daughters hang out with Timscrotuchet.
Unless they were boyish and late bloomers, then I guess they would be safe for another year or two.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
I think Corey Haim (one of the 80s Coreys) has described in detail the fact that there are plenty of perverts in Hollywood preying on teenage actors/actresses.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Didn't Drew Barrymore pretty much say this same thing?I think Corey Haim (one of the 80s Coreys) has described in detail the fact that there are plenty of perverts in Hollywood preying on teenage actors/actresses.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Yeah. Real estate is really expensive out there though.I think Corey Haim (one of the 80s Coreys) has described in detail the fact that there are plenty of perverts in Hollywood preying on teenage actors/actresses.
fatness
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/woody_allen_s_biggest_defender_robert_weide_s_attack_on_mia_farrow_and_her.single.html
On Jan. 27 in the Daily Beast, Robert Weide, director of the two-part PBS special Woody Allen: A Documentary, wrote a 5,600-word defense of Allen against allegations that he molested his 7-year-old daughter Dylan Farrow in 1992. A few days later, Dylan, now 28, published her own account of the alleged molestation in the New York Times. Dylans open letter convulsed the Internet, forcing Allens defenders to confront the public statements of an adult woman who says, with no caveats, that she was sexually assaulted by her father.
In the aftermath of Dylans essay, Weides Allen apologia seemed, at best, embarrassingly timed. At least, thats what I assumed everyone who had read the Daily Beast piece would think. But very many people did not agree.
New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse, sharing Weides article on Feb. 2, said that it raises serious questions about Dylans allegations of sexual abuse. The following day, no less than the Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan, linked to Weides piece and wrote, I urge those who have not yet done so to read Mr. Weides illuminating article. It provides essential context. Also on Feb. 3, tech-journalism superstar Kara Swisher tweeted Weides article to her 930,000 followers, calling it the counter to Dylans letter. And on that same day, Michael Wolff praised Weides piece as detailed and powerful in an unhinged Guardian column that hypothesized that the rehashed scandal was being revived in the public memory to raise the public profile of Allens ex-partner Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan, both of whom made public statements in support of Dylan after Allen was honored at last months Golden Globes ceremony. (Weide worked on the celebratory montage of Allens films for the broadcast.)
Given all the accolades, is Weides Daily Beast piece actually detailed and powerful? It is certainly detailed. And yes, its powerful, in its own way. Weides long essay is full of sleazy innuendo, bad-faith posturing, and passive-aggressive self-promotion. Like the recent Grantland piece Dr. Vs Magical Putter, one wondersone hopes, actuallythat smart people have been sharing the article approvingly because it was long and seemed interesting, not because theyd actually read it.
The first thing you need to know is that this is what Robert Weides Twitter profile looks like: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/140204_CBOX_WeideAllenTwitterBio.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
How can we possibly trust a young womans firsthand account when weve got this fellow to patiently explain the situation to us?
Now lets turn to the article itself, which promises a closer examination of charges that Allen molested his daughter. Here are some highlights from its first 1,800 words:
Weide uses Dylans current name, though she prefers to keep it private. Later, when called out for this on Twitter, Weide justified the choice by digging up a 1 ½-year-old tweet from Mia Farrow that referred to Dylan by her current name.
Weide clarifies that Farrows daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whose affair with Allen when she was 19 pulverized the Allen-Farrow household, was in no way like a family member to Allen, despite the fact that she was his childrens sister and his longtime partners daughter.
Weide quotes Ronan Farrows famous condemnation of Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression" and then adds: However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mias recent revelations that Ronans biological father may possibly be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50. This passage doesnt trackits not clear if the particular dilemma is the Woody/Soon-Yi relationship or Ronans feelings toward it. But the upshot is that if Farrow did indeed sleep around, then thats a lucky break for Ronan, who can rest easy about the whole Soon-Yi situation.
Weide then spends two more paragraphs auditing Mia Farrows sexual history. Alleged victims of sexual assault are commonly subjected to such scrutiny, but when were dealing with a 7-year-old, it seems her mother will serve just fine by proxy.
All of that is just an appetizer. Its when Weide finally arrives at his ostensible subjectunpacking the child-molestation accusationsthat the piece becomes most noxious.
Here is Dylan Farrows account of the events of Aug. 4, 1992, in her mothers Connecticut home, called Frog Hollow, as it appeared in the Times:
When I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brothers electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.
And here is Weides:
During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, touched her inappropriately.
The shall we say is the worst rhetorical crime in a piece brimming with them, glibly framing an unconscionable act as a bit of innuendo. Its the skeleton key to the entire articles sneering cluelessness.
Whats most galling about Weides writing is its preening faux-gentility. He adopts the pose of a gentleman who is above the fray. He is not here to slam Mia, who is an exceptional actress. He is not blaming the victim, Weide insists. He is merely floating scenarios to consider.
The scenarios that he floats are thinly veiled smears, not-quite accusations that Weide shovels in at regular intervals. Im not saying that Mia and Dylan Farrow are liars, he insists throughout the piece, but if you come to that conclusion then I wouldnt disagree.
Here is a representative passage:
Much is made by Mias supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I wont wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than Ill claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughters recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.)
Given one data point that points to Allens guilt, Weide will offer up three more that imply his innocence. He doesnt follow through on these insinuations, and constantly pleads ignorance on their significance, and thats fine by him. His rhetorical aim is to cast doubt.
Weide spends the middle section of the essay cherry-picking the strikes in Allens favor: a Farrow household nannys doubts that Allen did anything wrong without any reference to the other childcare providers who had deep suspicions; the YaleNew Haven Hospital investigative teams conclusion that Dylan likely had not been molested; an early inconsistency in the 7-year-olds testimony; the Connecticut state attorneys offices decision not to press charges against Allen.
This accounting of evidence will not be unfamiliar to those who have followed the case. The one bit of new information is this bizarre bury-the-lede aside about Dylans older brother, Moses.
Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of finally seeing the reality of Frog Hollow and used the term brainwashing without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.
Its not clear that the recent conversation is with Weide or someone else, but if Weide did conduct an interview with Moses, thats huge. Allen and Farrows oldest child, Moses has been conspicuous in his absence from the renewed controversy; he was a central figure in Allen and Farrows epic 1990s custody battle, when the teenager refused to see his father. In a 1994 decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, discussing Allens continued relationship with Soon-Yi, cited the obvious ill effects it has had on all of the children and the especially profound effects it has had on Moses.
If Moses has indeed cut off contact with his mother, reconciled with his father and sister/stepmother, and is talking to Weide about it, then its extremely puzzling that Weide chooses to quote Moses using a grand total of five words worth of sentence fragments. Its one of many moments in the Daily Beast piece where the lack of editorial judgment is glaring.
The last third of the piece is in keeping with the first third: not a closer examination of the molestation accusations but a grab bag of tendentiousness and disingenuity masquerading as context. Weides got cutesy anecdotes about Allens teenage daughters, the ones he adopted with Soon-Yi Previn. He reminds us yet again that Ronan Farrow may not be Allens biological son, which for Weide is a twofer: a proof of his mothers licentiousness and, bizarrely, a pretext for excusing his fathers sexual relationship with Ronans sister.
In fact, the real subject of Weides piece isnt Dylan Farrow or even his main man Woody Allen. Its what Weide sees as Mia Farrows hypocrisy. Shes a hypocrite because shes friends with convicted rapist Roman Polanski. Shes a hypocrite because her brother is a convicted child molestera more mischievous part of me, Weide writes, wanted to tweet about Mias brothers abuse of children during the Golden Globes. Shes a hypocrite because she approved a clip from The Purple Rose of Cairo for Allens Golden Globes tribute, and then publicly complained about the tribute. This woman needs to get over herself, Weide writes of Mia Farrow.
And isn't that the wish of all of Woody Allens defenders, that these women would just get over themselves? (Stephen King, for one, tweeted that Dylans letter smacked of palpable #####ery.) Weides piece performs a neat substitution of Mia for Dylan, performing a greasy character assassination of the mother as if it could dismantle the daughters claims. That Dylan has now spoken for herselfin her own words, standing 100 percent behind the story she told over and over and over again to a team of investigators 21 years agoshould grind Weides piece to dust.
Thats not how Weide sees it. In an editors note appended to the bottom of his piece, he writes:
This continues to be a very sad story from every angle. I can only say I found nothing in Dylans letter that hasnt previously been alleged in the two previous Vanity Fair articles, which Ive already addressed. I also see nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast. If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece. As Ive already stated in my article, I hope she finds closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace shes been looking for.
Its not surprising that Woody Allens No. 1 fanboy continues to go to the mat for his hero. It is surprising that so many respected journalists continue to line up behind Robert Weide, insisting that his voice should be at least as loud as Dylan Farrows. Thats exactly what Weide wants: When their voices are equal, they cancel each other out, and theres nothing left to hear.
On Jan. 27 in the Daily Beast, Robert Weide, director of the two-part PBS special Woody Allen: A Documentary, wrote a 5,600-word defense of Allen against allegations that he molested his 7-year-old daughter Dylan Farrow in 1992. A few days later, Dylan, now 28, published her own account of the alleged molestation in the New York Times. Dylans open letter convulsed the Internet, forcing Allens defenders to confront the public statements of an adult woman who says, with no caveats, that she was sexually assaulted by her father.
In the aftermath of Dylans essay, Weides Allen apologia seemed, at best, embarrassingly timed. At least, thats what I assumed everyone who had read the Daily Beast piece would think. But very many people did not agree.
New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse, sharing Weides article on Feb. 2, said that it raises serious questions about Dylans allegations of sexual abuse. The following day, no less than the Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan, linked to Weides piece and wrote, I urge those who have not yet done so to read Mr. Weides illuminating article. It provides essential context. Also on Feb. 3, tech-journalism superstar Kara Swisher tweeted Weides article to her 930,000 followers, calling it the counter to Dylans letter. And on that same day, Michael Wolff praised Weides piece as detailed and powerful in an unhinged Guardian column that hypothesized that the rehashed scandal was being revived in the public memory to raise the public profile of Allens ex-partner Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan, both of whom made public statements in support of Dylan after Allen was honored at last months Golden Globes ceremony. (Weide worked on the celebratory montage of Allens films for the broadcast.)
Given all the accolades, is Weides Daily Beast piece actually detailed and powerful? It is certainly detailed. And yes, its powerful, in its own way. Weides long essay is full of sleazy innuendo, bad-faith posturing, and passive-aggressive self-promotion. Like the recent Grantland piece Dr. Vs Magical Putter, one wondersone hopes, actuallythat smart people have been sharing the article approvingly because it was long and seemed interesting, not because theyd actually read it.
The first thing you need to know is that this is what Robert Weides Twitter profile looks like: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/140204_CBOX_WeideAllenTwitterBio.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
How can we possibly trust a young womans firsthand account when weve got this fellow to patiently explain the situation to us?
Now lets turn to the article itself, which promises a closer examination of charges that Allen molested his daughter. Here are some highlights from its first 1,800 words:
Weide uses Dylans current name, though she prefers to keep it private. Later, when called out for this on Twitter, Weide justified the choice by digging up a 1 ½-year-old tweet from Mia Farrow that referred to Dylan by her current name.
Weide clarifies that Farrows daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whose affair with Allen when she was 19 pulverized the Allen-Farrow household, was in no way like a family member to Allen, despite the fact that she was his childrens sister and his longtime partners daughter.
Weide quotes Ronan Farrows famous condemnation of Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression" and then adds: However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mias recent revelations that Ronans biological father may possibly be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50. This passage doesnt trackits not clear if the particular dilemma is the Woody/Soon-Yi relationship or Ronans feelings toward it. But the upshot is that if Farrow did indeed sleep around, then thats a lucky break for Ronan, who can rest easy about the whole Soon-Yi situation.
Weide then spends two more paragraphs auditing Mia Farrows sexual history. Alleged victims of sexual assault are commonly subjected to such scrutiny, but when were dealing with a 7-year-old, it seems her mother will serve just fine by proxy.
All of that is just an appetizer. Its when Weide finally arrives at his ostensible subjectunpacking the child-molestation accusationsthat the piece becomes most noxious.
Here is Dylan Farrows account of the events of Aug. 4, 1992, in her mothers Connecticut home, called Frog Hollow, as it appeared in the Times:
When I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brothers electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.
And here is Weides:
During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, touched her inappropriately.
The shall we say is the worst rhetorical crime in a piece brimming with them, glibly framing an unconscionable act as a bit of innuendo. Its the skeleton key to the entire articles sneering cluelessness.
Whats most galling about Weides writing is its preening faux-gentility. He adopts the pose of a gentleman who is above the fray. He is not here to slam Mia, who is an exceptional actress. He is not blaming the victim, Weide insists. He is merely floating scenarios to consider.
The scenarios that he floats are thinly veiled smears, not-quite accusations that Weide shovels in at regular intervals. Im not saying that Mia and Dylan Farrow are liars, he insists throughout the piece, but if you come to that conclusion then I wouldnt disagree.
Here is a representative passage:
Much is made by Mias supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I wont wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than Ill claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughters recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.)
Given one data point that points to Allens guilt, Weide will offer up three more that imply his innocence. He doesnt follow through on these insinuations, and constantly pleads ignorance on their significance, and thats fine by him. His rhetorical aim is to cast doubt.
Weide spends the middle section of the essay cherry-picking the strikes in Allens favor: a Farrow household nannys doubts that Allen did anything wrong without any reference to the other childcare providers who had deep suspicions; the YaleNew Haven Hospital investigative teams conclusion that Dylan likely had not been molested; an early inconsistency in the 7-year-olds testimony; the Connecticut state attorneys offices decision not to press charges against Allen.
This accounting of evidence will not be unfamiliar to those who have followed the case. The one bit of new information is this bizarre bury-the-lede aside about Dylans older brother, Moses.
Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of finally seeing the reality of Frog Hollow and used the term brainwashing without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.
Its not clear that the recent conversation is with Weide or someone else, but if Weide did conduct an interview with Moses, thats huge. Allen and Farrows oldest child, Moses has been conspicuous in his absence from the renewed controversy; he was a central figure in Allen and Farrows epic 1990s custody battle, when the teenager refused to see his father. In a 1994 decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, discussing Allens continued relationship with Soon-Yi, cited the obvious ill effects it has had on all of the children and the especially profound effects it has had on Moses.
If Moses has indeed cut off contact with his mother, reconciled with his father and sister/stepmother, and is talking to Weide about it, then its extremely puzzling that Weide chooses to quote Moses using a grand total of five words worth of sentence fragments. Its one of many moments in the Daily Beast piece where the lack of editorial judgment is glaring.
The last third of the piece is in keeping with the first third: not a closer examination of the molestation accusations but a grab bag of tendentiousness and disingenuity masquerading as context. Weides got cutesy anecdotes about Allens teenage daughters, the ones he adopted with Soon-Yi Previn. He reminds us yet again that Ronan Farrow may not be Allens biological son, which for Weide is a twofer: a proof of his mothers licentiousness and, bizarrely, a pretext for excusing his fathers sexual relationship with Ronans sister.
In fact, the real subject of Weides piece isnt Dylan Farrow or even his main man Woody Allen. Its what Weide sees as Mia Farrows hypocrisy. Shes a hypocrite because shes friends with convicted rapist Roman Polanski. Shes a hypocrite because her brother is a convicted child molestera more mischievous part of me, Weide writes, wanted to tweet about Mias brothers abuse of children during the Golden Globes. Shes a hypocrite because she approved a clip from The Purple Rose of Cairo for Allens Golden Globes tribute, and then publicly complained about the tribute. This woman needs to get over herself, Weide writes of Mia Farrow.
And isn't that the wish of all of Woody Allens defenders, that these women would just get over themselves? (Stephen King, for one, tweeted that Dylans letter smacked of palpable #####ery.) Weides piece performs a neat substitution of Mia for Dylan, performing a greasy character assassination of the mother as if it could dismantle the daughters claims. That Dylan has now spoken for herselfin her own words, standing 100 percent behind the story she told over and over and over again to a team of investigators 21 years agoshould grind Weides piece to dust.
Thats not how Weide sees it. In an editors note appended to the bottom of his piece, he writes:
This continues to be a very sad story from every angle. I can only say I found nothing in Dylans letter that hasnt previously been alleged in the two previous Vanity Fair articles, which Ive already addressed. I also see nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast. If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece. As Ive already stated in my article, I hope she finds closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace shes been looking for.
Its not surprising that Woody Allens No. 1 fanboy continues to go to the mat for his hero. It is surprising that so many respected journalists continue to line up behind Robert Weide, insisting that his voice should be at least as loud as Dylan Farrows. Thats exactly what Weide wants: When their voices are equal, they cancel each other out, and theres nothing left to hear.
Last edited by a moderator:
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
seahawk 17
Footballguy
Director Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year-old girl, at the home of Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston. He has admitted to this. It is an absolute fact, no questions about it. Not to mention the fact that, instead of staying in this country and facing a trial for what he did, he jumped on the first plane out of here and has been on the run ever since.
Mia Farrow, who appeared in Polanski’s 1968 film “Rosemary’s Baby,” has said in as recently as 2005 that she still regards him as a close friend Which, perhaps, is why she flew to London to testify in his behalf in his libel suit against Vanity Fair, which had alleged that Polanski had hit on a Swedish woman right before Sharon Tate’s funeral.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/213078/isnt-it-just-a-little-weird-that-mia-farrow-is-still-friends-with-roman-polanski/
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Wow. Woody may have prayed on her to negin with because of her issues on this subject. Sounds like an enabler to me.
E Street Brat
Footballguy
JAMES!
Footballguy
Comes back swinging.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Woody Allen Speaks OutBy WOODY ALLEN
FEB. 7, 2014
Last Sunday, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Mr. Allen has written the following response to the column and Dylan’s account.
TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.
I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.
Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.
Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”
Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”
But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)
Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.
I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.
Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.
I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement. Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.
After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Woody Allen Speaks OutBy WOODY ALLEN
FEB. 7, 2014
Last Sunday, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Mr. Allen has written the following response to the column and Dylan’s account.
TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.
I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.
Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.
Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”
Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”
But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)
Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.
I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.
Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.
I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
NOW it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement. Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.
After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Woody married his adopted daughter right? That is 100% true, no one can dispute this right? Assuming that is true, I pretty much could care less about what he has to say. And I like a lot of his films but he's still a jackhole.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Not buying her story.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
Soon-Yi was adopted by Mia Farrow and Andre Previn in 1978. They split up a year later and Mia began dating Woody Allen in 1980.
Woody never married Mia, never lived with Mia, and never adopted Soon-Yi.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Well, this much I think is true regardless of where people stand on if the molestation really happened. Dylan believes it happened and Mia and Woody hate each other with a passion. Either Mia or Woody are one of the sickest people on the planet.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
That's one crazy broad.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend’s 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand.
/thread.
/thread.
chet
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I was totally dead set against Allen, based on the presumption that there is no reason why anyone would continue to lie so long after the fact.
But that letter is good, really good, it seems believable too. It's almost persuasive. And yet I'm inclined to believe the girl and her brother. The Soon-Yi thing is disgusting, it doesn't matter that it wasn't his daoughter, and oh guess what they now have two adopted Asian children. There seems to be almost no way to tell what's going on here.
And why is the NY Times (as opposed to say the Post) publishing all this back and forth?
Also, Mia Farrow - what a romantic career, eh? Frank Sinatra (pop, jazz, movie star), Andre Previn (classical music genius), Woody Allen (movie legend). What was her big attraction to these guys (I mean, why were they all attracted to her)? And Allen had a long involved de facto marriage to her but all of a sudden she's crazy?
Also: did Allen and Mia Farrow have any actual biological children? Does Allen have any with anyone else?
But that letter is good, really good, it seems believable too. It's almost persuasive. And yet I'm inclined to believe the girl and her brother. The Soon-Yi thing is disgusting, it doesn't matter that it wasn't his daoughter, and oh guess what they now have two adopted Asian children. There seems to be almost no way to tell what's going on here.
And why is the NY Times (as opposed to say the Post) publishing all this back and forth?
Also, Mia Farrow - what a romantic career, eh? Frank Sinatra (pop, jazz, movie star), Andre Previn (classical music genius), Woody Allen (movie legend). What was her big attraction to these guys (I mean, why were they all attracted to her)? And Allen had a long involved de facto marriage to her but all of a sudden she's crazy?
Also: did Allen and Mia Farrow have any actual biological children? Does Allen have any with anyone else?
Last edited by a moderator:
Kumerica
Footballguy
Initially, Ronan was considered to be their biological son, but as Mia hinted—and genetics surely mandate—Ronan is most likely the result of an affair between Mia & Sinatra.