February 8, 2014

"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."

One paragraph in the long "Woody Allen Speaks Out," published by the NYT last night. Read the whole thing. It's quite cohesive and devastating, these words of a man who lets loose after holding his tongue all these years while a woman who passionately hates him sent her words flying everywhere.

Woody Allen's argument builds in a series of paragraphs, and I'm not choosing the most persuasive one to highlight, just the one with a striking item of evidence that I'd never seen before, "With My Daddy in the Attic," right there on the album with the song Dory Previn wrote about Mia, "Beware of Young Girls."

The psychodrama of Woody and Mia is mind-bending. Both of them lavish pity on the children who got caught up in their vortex, each blaming the other for hurting the children, each claiming to be the one who has struggled all these years to save the children.

Woody must have known the structure of Mia's psychology very well. He used her tender fragility in so many of his movies. She was his muse during the height of his artistry. Then he did something — suddenly letting her see he'd transferred his sexual love for her to her daughter Soon-Yi — and there's no denying that part of the story and Woody's active role unleashing Mia's wrath. I could believe every word of Woody's story and still think: You knew her, you understood her so deeply, you connected to her through children, and you made her crazy and vengeful.

It's no great wonder that he kept quiet all these years and that he ends his speaking-out with a vow never to speak about it again. "Enough people have been hurt." Surely, that much is true.

And now back to the movies, the made-up stories, the actors and actresses pretending to wound each other deeply and to spiral into evil, vengeful rages. Have you seen "Blue Jasmine"? It's wonderful. Cate Blanchett in the lead role of the sensitive blonde who comes unhinged, the role that would always go to Mia, back in the days when she was Woody's muse and had a lock on every lead.

162 comments:

rhhardin said...

Never date an actress.

PB Reader said...

I don't care about any of this. It's a waste of time.

Hagar said...

Give it a rest.
These people should be ignored.

The Crack Emcee said...

"I could believe every word of Woody's story and still think: You knew her, you understood her so deeply, you connected to her through children, and you made her crazy and vengeful."

Wow = Blame the man because she's crazy.

That's feminism.

Shouting Thomas said...

A pox on both sides.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge why this really interests you, Althouse, which is that Allen was once a feminist icon of the way we men are spozed to be.

That's your next civil rights crusade. You've been testing the water for a while. Your next civil rights crusade liberating the men from our tragic "social role."

You're theory is that if we men would only be effeminate and faggy, we'd all be fixed. This is your third fix of humans in your lifetime. First, you fixed women. Then, you fixed gays. Now, it's on to fixing up men.

Allen was spozed to be the model, all so liberal, wimpy, apologetic and self-effacing.

The model failed, and you're busy trying to rationalize it for your upcoming civil rights campaign for the faggotization and pussification of men.

Your interest in art seems to be mostly for its use as propaganda for your permanent civil rights crusade, as you suppose that propaganda is stated by Dylan and Allen.

Heartiste would say that your defense of Allen is a classic rationalization of the predatory behavior of an alpha male, which is what Allen has become as a result of accumulating status and money. Women are eager to excuse the predatory behavior of alpha males, says Heartiste.

The Crack Emcee said...

Blame the blacks because,…oh, never mind.

Pogo is Dead said...

He sounds so beta, whining and clutching his metaphorical pearls, somnambulant in his saggy underwear on the women's campus where he makes them feel unsafe.

Sean Gleeson said...

Woody writes, "...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."

But shouldn't he have written "to the minimally skeptical mind"? I mean, the most skeptical mind would be eager to doubt the proposition, so it's the lowest threshold.

Titus said...

I believe him.

tits.

Lucien said...

Samantha Jane Geimer has an interesting piece on this subject over at Slate. Whether one shares her point of view or not, I think she shows a lot of class in giving a sane and balanced discussion of the more general issues involved in cases where a young unknown female claims to have been abused by an older acclaimed director.

Tank said...

Hard to know what happened, and we'll never know. I'm surprised at people who are so sure they "know." When it's so unclear what the truth is, I think it's unfair to assume the truth is that he did it. There are plenty of reasons to think he did not.

Assuming he did not, he's acted as "a man" in saying very, very little about this through the years.

We happened to see Blue Jasmine last night. I thought it was good, not great. Blanchett was great (and the actress who played her sister was quite good too). A sad and disturbing flick (which I like, I like books like that too).

Titus said...

The woman who lit the olympic torch tweeted a pic of Obama and Michelle with a banana above their head...she could totally be a teabagger in the U.S.

Inga said...

I've never liked him, never liked his movies, always thought he was effeminate and creepy. I never understood what any female saw in him. I think he's guilty as hell and has a golden tongue. And yes he did make Mia mad.

Shouting Thomas said...

Leftist women in Woodstock share your belief that pussification and faggotization will be the salvation of men.

On the other hand, they're also constantly complaining that their leftist men are compulsive liars, underhanded manipulators and schemers.

They're right. And they made their men that way. When you demand that men present a face of wimpiness, denial of self-interest and heart felt concern for minorities, what you get is...

Liars, manipulators and schemers.

Illuninati said...

I normally don't pay attention to celebrity lives, but since Althouse linked to Allen's piece I did read much of it.

It reminds me of the child molestation craze where innocent people were sucked into a vortex of paranoia. As a result, innocent people were jailed for up to 20 years. The psychological mechanism seems to be essentially the same as the Salem Witch trials although thankfully no one was murdered this time. Once people are accused of child molestation it is very hard for them to clear their names even if the false is false because the burden of proof tends to rest on the accused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center_preschool_trial
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

Since that craze psychologists have made considerable progress in unraveling the mechanisms of human memory and understand false memory syndrome much better.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

All of this is so very tawdry. Carrying on this spat in the New York Times? What is wrong with these people?!

rhhardin said...

Once a uterus is involved, hysteria reigns.

MadisonMan said...

Are we supposed to care about what goes on in someone else's marriage?

Because I don't.

Pogo is Dead said...

They'd fit right in at the trailer park.

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titus said...

Butt face Dinish should write a book about how christianist and Russians can bond to hate gays. Kind of like the book he wrote about muzzies and christianist bonding to hate gays.

fivewheels said...

In addition to the "skeptical mind" problem, he should be saying "Not that I doubt Dylan HAS come to believe she's been molested ..."

Sloppy writing and editing. Did the NYT tacitly decide to torpedo Allen's response with shoddy word work? Or do they just suck?

Tank said...

MadisonMan said...

Are we supposed to care about what goes on in someone else's marriage?

Because I don't.


If it involves child abuse, yes.

The funny thing is the idea that we can understand what goes on in other peoples marriages. For those who are married, think about your own marriages and all of the little things that only you and your spouse know about. Good or bad, important or not, there's a world of stuff that others are not privy to.

Years ago, when I was doing matrimonial law, clients would come in and tell me the most amazing stories (true and not) about what went on in their homes. It was eye opening.

I also had two instances where the wife alleged exactly what Mia alleges. In each of those two cases, even before completion of the investigation, the allegations fell apart and were dropped. It was clear they were strategic and related to custody questions. These kinds of allegations which first arise in the context of divorce, or breakup, are particularly suspect.

Saint Croix said...

Wow, that was a painful thing to read. I believe every word of it. And yet there is such a painful guilt there, too. He destroyed his relationship with Mia Farrow. It cost him his children. That happens in divorces across the country.

But in Allen's case the relationship-destruction was even more primal. He took her daughter. You can see how something like that would be traumatic. It's very similar to Lolita, the relationship with the older woman so you can seduce the daughter.

It made Mia crazy and she, in turn, has made her daughter crazy. Awful stuff. I believe every word of it.

What Mia has done is monstrous, and yet it's easy to sympathize with her, after that painful and unforgivable betrayal. We understand her hate. But it's such a vile thing and look what it's done to her own child.

The Crack Emcee said...

Inga,

"And yes he did make Mia mad."

And, apparently, so did Frank, and we can only gather, so did Andre Previn - who Mia famously stole from her friend, Dory.

Three successful men, representing three different eras, three different temperaments, three different outlooks - none good enough for someone who parades as a deer and speaks of "her truth"?

And if Woody "did make Mia mad" does that mean cheating on him and having Sinatra's kid - making Woody think Ronan's his to pay the child support - adds to the credibility of "her truth"?

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Mark Twain

How about letting everyone think Woody was dating his adopted daughter, when he was actually dating Andre Previn's adopted daughter, who (pure speculation on my part) may be as alienated from kooky Mia as Woody by what her "mother" has done to her "family"?

"Her truth"?

As usual, if you wait long enough, the one we all share will show up,...

Dale Light said...

Why should all this be fought out in the New York Times? Because that is a big platform on which to perform. Mia seems to have seen "Jasmine Blue" as a personal attack on her and unleashed her daughter's letter, complete with the names of stars nominated for Oscars on the basis of their performance in the film, in an attempt to sway Academy members to deny votes to Woody, the film, and anyone associated with it. The Times was a perfect forum for that purpose. Nick Kristof was a personal friend who would ensure that her story would get a big play. Woody, of course, responded in kind and in the same forum.

J Lee said...

Someday, someone's going to make a Woody Allen-like movie about Woody Allen, Mia and their completely dysfunctional relationship (it's been noted elsewhere in connection with Woody's first indications of his attraction to young girls in "Manhattan" that his eventual relationship with Farrow resembles far more the other big movie of 1979 co-star Meryl Streep was in, "Kramer vs. Kramer").

Also, I'd still argue that Diane Keaton, and not Mia, was Allen's muse during the height of his artistry. But Woody took care of my sentiments 34 years ago when he made "Stardust Memories". To me, Mia seemed to be his muse for Allen's voyage into the darker corners of his mind, where creativity was in many cases untethered from any moral anchor.

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

What Mia has done is monstrous, and yet it's easy to sympathize with her, after that painful and unforgivable betrayal.

But she betrayed him first. Take a photo of what is supposed to be Allen's and Farrow's biological son and compare it to a picture of Allen and Sinatra. Then throw in destroying the Previn's marriage. Farrow has no right to cast stones.

Levi Starks said...

It seems to me that Woody deserves to suffer whether he did it or not.
1) If Mia's character is as poor as Woody claims, then it shows him to have used lousy judgment in becoming involved with her in the first place. However he could claim that she was fine before he got ahold of her.
2) He chose to become sexually involved with her daughter, certainly knowing by this time what kind of person she was. Did he think there would be no repercussions?
3) His inability to control his personal desires, even when knowing they run counter to cultural norms leaves him wide open to almost any kind of allegations of this type.

Fortunately for Woody, He has and it seems will continue to be a darling of the Left. And it's the Left that holds the keys to the kingdom, and can grant him an indulgence if the penance it acceptable. Which in this case would seem to be Blue Jasmine.

michaele said...

I went through a funny angst ridden stage in my twenties and the Dory Previn album 'On My Way to Where" really touched a chord. I remember finding strange comfort in the songs "Twenty-Mile Zone' and 'Mr. Whisper'
Fortunately, I outgrew my secret crazy times.

betamax3000 said...

Excerpt From Stephen King's "With Daddy in the Attic":

...Mia Carefully Placed the Needle Down on the Scratchy, Well-Worn Record: Yes, That Song, She Knew She Should Not Play It, Not Again, That to Play it Again and Again Was Wrong, But the Needle Went to the Track as if It Knew That This Song Was its Sole Reason for Existence, That the Phonograph Knew It Served a Greater, Ghastly Purpose...

...As the Song Played the Words Slid Greasy and Dark into Mia's Guts, Becoming Oily Febrile Tendrils That Wrapped Around Her Ribcage, Slithered Up her Spine and Took Root in Her Thoughts: She Did Not Want to Think Such Awful Gluey Things, But the Tendrils Spoke Louder.

(Mia, You Know What Happens in the Attic: You KNOW.)

No, Mia Thought to Herself, She Would Never have Let This Happen, But the Tendrils Squeezed Ever Tighter Around Her Very Brain.

(Mia, You KNOW What Happens in the Attic: Do Not Fight It, Give in To IT, Give IN.)

When the Song Ended the Needle Crackled for a Brief Moment, and in That Moment She Could Hear the Phonograph Hiss, and in the Hiss the Phonograph Wheezed:

(Mia, Give in To IT, Give IN, Mia. Do Not Be So Weak and Tender and Fragile, You Frail Pathetic Thing.)

The Needle Lifted Into the Air By Itself and returned to the Song, Oh Yes the Song Again, and Beneath the Song the Phonograph Hissed at Her in Mockery: The Depths of its Evil Bitchery Was Palpable...

Rusty said...

What a bunch of fucked up people.

garage mahal said...

I've never liked him, never liked his movies, always thought he was effeminate and creepy. I never understood what any female saw in him. I think he's guilty as hell and has a golden tongue. And yes he did make Mia mad.

Ayup.

James said...

Once a uterus is involved, hysteria reigns.

And what if the woman involved has had a hysterectomy?

cubanbob said...

One of the circles of Hell must be being stuck with Woody and Mia in an apartment forever with no way out.

@crack: great link.

Saint Croix said...

Woody Allen is vulnerable to this stuff because his art is about this stuff. Manhattan features a romance with an underage lover. Hannah and Her Sisters has as a major plot device the switching from one sister to another sister (twice!).

These movies are funny and romantic versions of deep sexual nightmares. They are beautiful works of art. But obviously the artist who made them is disturbed and provoked by his own sexuality. And Mia Farrow is complicit! She has her own sexual demons and she was a happy participant in Allen's art and life.

Here's what I wrote about my favorite Woody Allen movie:

It’s a movie about three sisters. And Michael Caine goes from one sister to the other sister and back to the first sister. And Woody Allen goes from one sister to another sister. The men in this movie really love those sisters. That’s what family is in this movie, the sisters. And the men in this movie are on the outside, isolated from intimacy and love. Woody Allen is a doubter, an infidel, the master of infidelity, trying to get in, trying to believe. He jumps from faith to faith like he jumps from sister to sister. He’s a bad man but he wants a family, he wants to believe. And then at the end of the film there’s a miracle. What a beautiful, beautiful film.

That's the awesome thing about art, why so many tortured souls gravitate towards it. You want to take all your pain and desire and make something beautiful out of it.

You don't want to confuse your fantasies with real life.

I do not think it was a coincidence that Woody Allen fell in love with Mia's daughter. I call bullshit on coincidence. I think he loves to flirt with taboo and it excites him sexually. And he was burned horribly and predictably, and it caused a huge amount of pain to his other children and to everyone around him.

SGT Ted said...

Are you trying to troll us, Althouse?

Mia was crazy on her own, long before she met Woody Allen. Her vengefulness is her own.

Mia is responsible for her own conduct and emotional reactions. Not Woody Allen.

Jon Burack said...

I sent this in to the Times, but have not been able to see if they posted it. But to save time, here it is.

It is an utter disgrace that Woody was forced to publish this. The lynch mob reaction to Dylan's unverifiable accusations has been little short of astounding. Readers of the Times are no doubt aware of the feminist left's vicious part in this mob. What they may be less aware of is, that on many right-wing blogs, the vicious attacks focus on the cultural left and its supposed fostering of the values they supposed Woody to have exhibited. But more. In many places, Woody's behavior was identified as "especially slimy" because of his particular persona. I began to suspect that behind that word "slimy" the word Jew was implicated. And sure enough, on some of the sites, the explicit blaming of his supposed transgressions on his Jewishness did arise.

I believe those who have piled on, left or right, have disgraced themselves and have indulged in evil behavior every bit as much as the false figure of Woody they think they hate, but in fact have no basis whatsoever for even imagining. A pox on all of them. I intend to start renting all the Woody Allen films I have so far missed out on, as my contribution to making it all up to him.

SGT Ted said...

Wow = Blame the man because she's crazy.

That's feminism.
.

Truth. Crazy women blaming men for their issues is the essence of radical feminism.

m stone said...

Spouse craziness aside, "false memory syndrome" is quite real, even if introduced by another party. The idea begins to take a life of its own.

There are three notable resources available that I've read in research, two of them quite illuminating. Not science to many people, but some worth considering even in light of the wholesale priest abuses revelation.

Kansas City said...

This is interesting to me, mostly in terms of trying to determine who is telling the truth.

I credit Allen, not because I'm a fan or even know much about him (have seen very few of his movies), but because his argument is so logical and Mia is a combination of weird and angry, with a big motive for a false accusation. If one applied a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, no way Allen would be convicted. Even with a preponderance of evidence standaard, I don't see how he could be convicted.

Saint Croix has it about right above.

By the way, I agree the "most skeptical" sentence was poorly written, but now I realize it was intended to say "should seem highly unlikely even to a mind most skeptical of me." Does the newspaper actually edit a column submitted by someone like Allen?

Woody's column is a little lawyer like. Yes, he passed a lie detector test, but it was one arranged by his attorneys after he refused to take one proposed by police. Yes, Mia refused to take the lie detector test he requested, but the police never requrested her to take one.

The "experts" questioned Dylan extensively and determined she was not tellig tht truth. While that is just an opinion, presumably they were nuetral/objective, I assume that there are some pretty reliable ways to form an opinion regarding whether a seven year old is telling the truth.

I thought Woody's argument about the unlikeliness of the alleged scenario is pretty convincing, although it is just argument. Also, Mia's behavior is so suscepible to the conclusion she is engineering the thing - taping the child's account with a tape that starts and stops and, according to Woody, taking her out for ice cream after she told the doctor no molestation and bringing her back to say yes.

Ann Althouse said...

"Allen was once a feminist icon of the way we men are spozed to be"

Where was this, somewhere in your head?

Citations please.

Woody Allen wasn't considered feminist. Feminists didn't want a nervous, neurotic little man who was obsessed with Freud and death and got sexually fixated on females who were far younger than him.

Look at how he treats the feminist archetype in "Manhattan" (the Diane Keaton character). I never ran into any feminists who were into Woody Allen as being a feminist ideal, though plenty liked him in spite of what was anti-feminism or something close to it.

And I have known and interacted with many real-life feminists.

So, I call bullshit.

Kansas City said...

Here is Dylan's response. I did not find much new or significant, other than the following charge:

"He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991."

Still hard to believe the scenario that in the circumstances of the highly diputed marital breakup, he would choose to drive to Mia's Connecticut home and sexually abuse the little girl.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552

bbkingfish said...

" I could believe every word of Woody's story and still think: You knew her, you understood her so deeply, you connected to her through children, and you made her crazy and vengeful."

Saturday morning Woody Allen chum.

Kansas City said...

What's it like to "interact with many real-life feminists?"

I say that only half facetiously. I can't imagine it is much fun. They want to talk about "women's reproductive health" and the fictitious 77% wage gap? Do they mostly have a victim mentology?

Henry said...

If nothing else, Inga and Garage have established the importance of voir dire.

"I never liked his movies. He's guilty."

Ayup.

Kansas City said...

I guess that should be the mentality of real-life feminists. But I do doubt they sit around talking about Woody Allen movies. Who does?

Ann Althouse said...

"Heartiste would say that your defense of Allen is a classic rationalization of the predatory behavior of an alpha male, which is what Allen has become as a result of accumulating status and money. Women are eager to excuse the predatory behavior of alpha males, says Heartiste."

If Heartiste is the source of your information on this topic, you are deeply down the rabbit hole.

Also, am I defending Allen or -- as Crack says -- blaming him when he's the real victim?

You macho men need to coordinate your story better.

And is Allen an "alpha male"?! He plays a nervous weakling who can barely get his act together. He's had that as his public persona for 50 years!

You need to stop and think about whether you are delusional. Going to refresh your sense of manhood at Heartiste is… well, it's just not very manly, paradoxically.

Let's at least try to make sense.

I thought there was male pride in logic and proportion. Yours is, as they say, sloppy dead.

Ann Althouse said...

"All of this is so very tawdry. Carrying on this spat in the New York Times? What is wrong with these people?!"

Which people? The NYT people? Why did they provide a forum for this dismal family psychodrama? There are many couples with salacious squabbles who don't get multiple columns in the Times. They're very tawdry too.

The answer is traffic. Traffic is money. The NYT is dying. Dying for traffic.

"All the news that's fit to print"!

EDH said...

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.


Reads like Woody's lawyer wanted to leave his own editorial mark on the statement.

Strelnikov said...

Oh, sure. He MADE her crazy and vengeful. What a powerless waif she is.


What century is this? Is there a fainting couch nearby to which I may repair?

Ann Althouse said...

"Also, I'd still argue that Diane Keaton, and not Mia, was Allen's muse during the height of his artistry."

We can debate about where the height was, and I love Play It Again Sam and Annie Hall, that early height. But I think there were so many interesting, distinctive movies in the period with Mia. Here's a list of those movies:
Husbands and Wives (written by)
1991 Shadows and Fog (written by)
1990 Alice (written by)
1989 Crimes and Misdemeanors (written by)
1989 New York Stories (written by - segment "Oedipus Wrecks")
1988 Another Woman (written by)
1987 September (written by)
1987 Radio Days (written by)
1986 Meeting Woody Allen (Documentary short)
1986 Hannah and Her Sisters (written by)
1985 The Purple Rose of Cairo (written by)
1984 Broadway Danny Rose (written by)
1983 Zelig (written by)
1982 A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (written by)

The next movie in time, Manhattan Murder Mystery, was supposed to star Mia, and the part was given to Diane Keaton, so Keaton got her place back.

And it was Keaton accepting that Golden Globes award for Woody that apparently set off Mia so badly, leading to that Nicholas Kristof facilitation of her rage. There's also the immense adulation of Cate Blanchette, starring in a role that not only would have gone to Mia if Mia were still the muse, but that seems to be feeding off Mia's real story for material.

There's so much dramatic material here in the life of Mia Farrow. It's very fictional, but she's a real person, so we feel complicated emotions rubbernecking at the wreck.

So much easier to see movies like "Blue Jasmine."

Another possibility is to turn away from movies -- and the distorted personalities the world of movies makes -- entirely.

Mia comes from a family of actors. She's been in weird entanglements with men and children for a long, long time. Where's the foundation? Where is the truth? For some people, the answer is: none.

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

"I never liked his movies. He's guilty."

The sheer volume of evidence you have to ignore to believe Dylan is not telling the truth is staggering.

Kansas City said...

I have no problem with the Times publishing the competing accounts, although I don't understand why the columnist Kristoff (Mia's long time friend) published Dylan's letter in his column.

Any chance Mia feels she and Dylan should have let it be? She is again publicized as weird and, to some extent, Allen gains some "supporters" (like me). But Mia intendned to deteract from Allen's recent honor (which he apparently did not care all that much about), so I suppose she achieved that, although she also brought much more attention to the award than it otherwise would have achieved.

Ann Althouse said...

"Mia was crazy on her own, long before she met Woody Allen. Her vengefulness is her own."

Why did he want her?

I knows there's that male variation on the way women want the bad boys: Men are turned on by crazy ladies.

But why did he do the whole family-with-children thing with him? She already had children when he jumped in, and then they had 2 children together. He's surely responsible for the children. To his credit, his statement is very much centered on the harm done to the children, and, as I said in my post, he knows he's responsible for the things that happened to them. He did something extraordinarily careless in the midst of a known, dangerous situation that threatened children. It's been hurting people for 2 decades. He has no way to undo the harm.

I don't see how the fact -- let's assume it's true -- that Mia was already crazy absolves him of guilt.

I'm not talking about criminal guilt or saying a jury should or would convict him. This is a discussion of moral responsibility.

Ann Althouse said...

"I say that only half facetiously. I can't imagine it is much fun. They want to talk about "women's reproductive health" and the fictitious 77% wage gap? Do they mostly have a victim mentology?"

You're right: You can only imagine. You've made up a stereotype and you keep thinking about this stereotype. That's not an admirable way to think about people you don't know.

Here's a clue: The politicians and politicos whom you see quoted in the press are not the only people in the world. People you know are much more well-rounded and real. Try to think about the people you don't know has having a well-roundedness and reality that is very much like that which you perceive in those whom you do know and spend time with.

AReasonableMan said...

This is a reasonable summary of the case against Allen.

Ann Althouse said...

I wrote: "But why did he do the whole family-with-children thing with him?"

I meant: "But why did he do the whole family-with-children thing with her?"

Not sure where that came from!

Ann Althouse said...

"Reads like Woody's lawyer wanted to leave his own editorial mark on the statement."

LOL. Very astute!

Reading the column, I had a strong sense that this was a marshaling of the evidence, a closing statement at trial.

If all he wants is a not guilty verdict, he's got one. A guilty verdict would be overturned on appeal, because everyone rational must see the reasonable doubt of his guilt.

But in this public opinion trial, the question is what do we see ourselves asked to do? And can a lawyer's voice properly address the questions we devise for ourselves if we choose to read this material? In fact, the detection of the lawyer's voice impairs the credibility. Woody/Woody's lawyer wonders if Dylan wrote her own letter. It takes one to know one, they say.

t-man said...

I believe Moses. Mia had no qualms about breaking up two marriages, cheating on Woody with Frank Sinatra (and then telling the world about that while Sinatra's wife is still alive). She has no qualms about hurting others.

Moses has said that she was controlling and living with her was cult like. (Hi Crack!)

Finally, Mia's brother was recently convicted of child molestation.

The crazy seems to be on the Farrow side.

Michael K said...

Isn't it interesting how the lefties are eager to believe the molestation happened in spite of the problems with the story ?

It has become not uncommon for wives in an angry divorce to accuse the husband of molesting the children. When I got divorced from an angry alcoholic woman (who has since gotten sober), I wondered if this would happen. Fortunately it didn't but I know other examples.

Woody Allen is weird but the Andre/ Dory Previn story with Mia is even worse. The weakest part of his defense is that he would ever get involved with a woman like that. He has to have some serious issues with adult women, let alone children.

This has got me wondering about he politics of the people in the "recovered memory" cases all those years ago. Does this appeal to the lefty mind ?

beowulf said...

t, just the one with a striking item of evidence that I'd never seen before, "With My Daddy in the Attic," right there on the album with the song Dory Previn wrote about Mia, "Beware of Young Girls."
-----
I guess Ann doesn't read her own comment pages, I mentioned that in Moses Farrow thread (to be fair , its at the tail end of it).

Mark O said...

Read Maureen Orth's Vanity Fair article. There's impeachment in it.

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

Shouting Thomas said...

I'll have to argue with you another day, Althouse.

In the studio all day today and tomorrow with the Old Dawgz. First full band CD.

Wouldn't think you'd care for Heartiste. As I said, women like you are the butt of the joke at his site.

I wasn't endorsing Heartise.

Trashhauler said...

"I think he's guilty as hell and has a golden tongue."

All men are guilty. Or potentially guilty. If they haven't already done something heinous, they are all capable of it. And those smooth-talking, literate ones are the worst because they can confuse people.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ann Althouse,

"But why did he do the whole family-with-children thing with her?"

He wanted a family. And my wife's crazy didn't show up until after the marriage. Women are practiced at hiding things.

Even from themselves,...

ndspinelli said...

Inga doesn't like a Jew. Knock me over w/ a feather. If someone doesn't like ANY of Woody Allen's flicks they are talking out of their ass. It means they've not seen them all or they have no sense of humor.

t-man said...

Althouse,

If you are weighing moral fault, you cannot isolate the question to Allen.

Why did Mia want him? Why did Mia agree to the type of relationship she had with Allen, where he supposedly never spent the night at her house and had nothing to do with her other children (until he developed a relationship with a young-adult Soon-Yi)? Why did she agree to have additional children with him? Was he aware that she was cheating on him with her ex-husband?

Since people are raising legal issues, look to equity, not law. Neither one could seek relief from a court because of unclean hands.

There's plenty of moral fault to go around, so if the Farrows are trying to tar Allen, the Farrows are fair game as well.

Saint Croix said...

Feminists didn't want a nervous, neurotic little man who was obsessed with Freud and death and got sexually fixated on females who were far younger than him.

What women say they want and what they actually want are very often not the same thing. See Bill Clinton, for instance. Or, for that matter, Doonesbury. There was once a funny skit about a feminist who kept having sex dreams about Clint Eastwood. "Make my night."

"But I don't even know your name!"

That was funny.

And this is a funny book. It's called I Dream of Woody. It's been decades since I've read it, but if I recall the people doing most of this dreaming are women. And, as the title suggests, a lot of these dreams are sex dreams.

So Woody Allen has had a lot of appeal to a lot of women, including feminist women. Certainly he's had relationships with very notable feminists.

Kansas City said...

Hey Ann, you, not me, suggested there was something different about "real-life feminists" and interacting with them --- You said "And I have known and interacted with many real-life feminists."

I just asked "What's it like to "interact with many real-life feminists?"

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. But spare me the condescending lecture about MY stereotypes after YOU suggested there was something different about "real-life feminists."

But I do like your theory that "Men are turned on by crazy ladies." I don't know if it is true (you cite no authorities), but I think it also requires a significant degree for physical attractiveness.

Inga said...

I, as a leftie, stating as I did, that I never liked anything about him, reflects the fact that it is total bullshit that it is lefties or feminists who liked him. He isn't guilty in my opinion because I never liked him, his movies or found him effeminate and creepy, it is because I think he has displayed, with his romance of Mia farrow's adopted daughter and his fascination with underage women, to be someone who has no filter to inappropriate sexual fantasies. Everyone is expressing an opinion here, I have no idea if he is guilty, I'd love to see it go to court in front of a jury and see what happens.

David said...

Inga said...
I've never liked him, never liked his movies, always thought he was effeminate and creepy.


Inga comes out of the homophobe closet!

Inga said...

David, I don't think so. There are effeminate men who are not at all creepy and don't have inappropriate sexual liaisons with underage girls. Has nothing at all to do with homophobia.

beowulf said...

(back at desktop)
-----------------------------
beowulf said...
"I read that letter and saw no details at all about what Woody supposedly did to her in the attic while she watched the toy train..."
------
Attic, attic... what does that remind me of? Oh yes, in 1970 Dory Previn sang a song about father-daughter incest occurring in the attic. I bet there was at least one person in Farrow household familiar with it.

"Beware of Young Girls" is a scathing attack on Mia Farrow and her motives for befriending the Previns (Farrow belatedly apologized to Dory in her memoir What Falls Away). The track "With My Daddy in the Attic" is a chilling piece dealing with Stockholm Syndrome and fantasies of incest..."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dory_Previn
2/6/14, 12:21 AM

MadisonMan said...

It means they've not seen them all or they have no sense of humor.

I've seen but one WA movie, Sleeper, mostly because of where it's filmed, for obvious reasons.

Neurotic NewYorkism is just not funny to me, and Allen's "speaking" voice is nails on the chalkboard.

Yet my sense of humor is quite intact.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

garage mahal said...

"I never liked his movies. He's guilty."

The sheer volume of evidence you have to ignore to believe Dylan is not telling the truth is staggering.


Assertions by an apparently coached seven-year-old and an obviously deranged disaffected lover. What else is there, staggeringly?

MadisonMan said...

Levi wrote:

1) If Mia's character is as poor as Woody claims, then it shows him to have used lousy judgment in becoming involved with her in the first place. However he could claim that she was fine before he got ahold of her.
2) He chose to become sexually involved with her daughter, certainly knowing by this time what kind of person she was. Did he think there would be no repercussions?

I think these two observations are spot-on. Allen was blind to Farrow's dysfunction, and could not predict her reaction to his relationship with Soon-Yi?

How obtuse can an man be?

David said...

Allen makes chic flics of a considerably higher order than the usual dross. Only in that sense was he anything approaching a feminist icon.

Mia was bonkers well before she met Allen. John Farrow, Maureen O'Sullivan and the nuns at the convent school got that well started.

Sexy smart beautiful crazy women are very hard to resist sexually, which gave Mia certain powers.

t-man said...

Inga,

What "underage girl" was Woody Allen have an inappropriate sexual liaison with? As I understand it, Soon-Yi was 19, which is the same age Mia Farrow was when she married Frank Sinatra.

I've seen it posted that Soon-Yi was 17, but that is disputed. And even if that is true, you have to admit that there is a world of difference between sexual attraction to a 17-year old and a 7-year old.

Jon Burack said...

Inga says Woody seems "to be someone who has no filter to inappropriate sexual fantasies."

Now what if the only people permitted to comment anywhere on line about this case were those who do have "filters" (?) for "inappropriate sexual fantasies"? I wonder if the silence would be golden.

David said...

One again, we do not know what happened.

There's lots of evidence, most of it not very reliable.

We only show our own preconceptions in reaching a conclusion about what happened.

You can reach conclusions about their character on this evidence, but not their conduct.

jr565 said...

The judge who oversaw the custody case wasn't persuaded by Allen's assertions at the time. And his assertions now are no different than his assertions at the time.
The judge said there was no credible evidence presented that suggested Mia Farrow did in fact poison her kids mind. What evidence, other than the RE-ASSERTION on Woody's part are his defenders presenting as proof?

David said...

Inga, what is the difference between an appropriate and an inappropriate sexual fantasy? We all want to know.

Inga said...

I wonder if pedophiles aren't attracted to single parent families, especially families with neurotic mothers. What would be better than having a veritable banquet of children in front of them with a mother who is too nuts or distracted to notice what is going on under her own nose?

When reading news stories about women who had relationships with pedophiles, it always revealed a mother who was crazy, or a drunk, or on drugs, some characteristic to make her be oblivious or even engage in the abuse herself to some degree.

Inga said...

Well David, if I have to spell it out for you, a grown man, perhaps you need to have it explained to you by a shrink.

jr565 said...

MadisonMan wrote:
Are we supposed to care about what goes on in someone else's marriage?

Because I don't.

Um, if there is child molestation involved, then yeah.
Not saying that there was, but there was certainly the allegation.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
And, apparently, so did Frank, and we can only gather, so did Andre Previn - who Mia famously stole from her friend, Dory.

Three successful men, representing three different eras, three different temperaments, three different outlooks - none good enough for someone who parades as a deer and speaks of "her truth"?

yet only in the case of Allen was there accusations of child molesteation. As far as I know, Previn and Sinatra actually got along relatively well with Farrow as exes.

Ann Althouse said...

"I wonder if pedophiles aren't attracted to single parent families.. When reading news stories about women who had relationships with pedophiles…"

How is it possible to cast Allen as a pedophile, when this is the sole accusation in his whole long life? That's totally out of alignment with all the other things we read about pedophiles, and with this famous accusation and the availability of deep pockets, there's strong reason why any other offenses would have come to light if they existed.

Also, as Woody's statement shows, he has adopted 2 children with Soon-Yi and the adoption procedure was especially intense because of the prior accusation.

Saint Croix said...

This is a book that is funny. Funny strange but also funny ha ha. It's mostly about women who have sex dreams about Woody Allen. Some of them, IIRC, are not sex dreams at all. But of course the title is I Dream of Woody

jr565 said...

Sgt Ted wrote:
Mia is responsible for her own conduct and emotional reactions. Not Woody Allen.

But then so is Woody Allen.
Whatever Farrow may have done with Previn, how is that an excuse for what Allen did with Soon-Yi and, potentially, his daughter?

garage mahal said...

Assertions by an apparently coached seven-year-old and an obviously deranged disaffected lover. What else is there, staggeringly?

There is zero evidence Dylan was coached. Next?

jr565 said...

t-man wrote:
I've seen it posted that Soon-Yi was 17, but that is disputed. And even if that is true, you have to admit that there is a world of difference between sexual attraction to a 17-year old and a 7-year old.

Regardless of the age, there's also who he was and who she was. As his son says Woody Allen is no his father and his brother in law. That is simply creepy.

jr565 said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
There is zero evidence Dylan was coached. Next?"
Far be it from me to be in agreement with Garage, (or Inga for that matter), but he's right.
This was already gone over way back when Allen was trying to get custody and was completely denied all visitation. And the judge overseeing his case said there was no evidence that suggested this was true.
It has always simply been Allen's assertion of events.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Blue Jasmine is about two women who are adopted sisters. You say Cate Blanchett is Mia. I say she is Dylan.

Why now, why not 2 years ago when Woody Allen won an Oscar for Midnight in Paris? This time it was personal.

Did you notice what Woody Allen smelled? Another post for palpable bitchery?

lemondog said...

"Mia was crazy on her own, long before she met Woody Allen. Her vengefulness is her own."

Why did he want her?

I knows there's that male variation on the way women want the bad boys: Men are turned on by crazy ladies.

But why did he do the whole family-with-children thing with him?


Self loathing? An attempt at self-redemption?

Apparently he had major mama issues. Maybe one reason why he was in therapy for 37 years

Wiki:
His childhood was not particularly happy: his parents did not get along, and he had a rocky relationship with his stern, temperamental mother.

NYT 2000
Young Nettie, who was anything but meek, would be, as an adult, famously excitable. In the 1989 film New York Stories, she would be memorialized by her son in his vignette "Oedipus Wrecks" as a harpy mother who disappears, only to hang in the sky above New York City like a Bullwinkle balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, from which vantage point she leans down and continues to berate her bad boy. Woody would come to describe his mother as a shallow, narrow-minded woman whose interests tended to be commonplace.

Quotes from Manhattan

When it comes to relationships with women, I'm the winner of the August Strindberg Award.

Years ago I wrote this short story about my Mother called "The Castrating Zionist"

I can't express anger. That's one of the problems I have. I grow a tumor instead.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
How is it possible to cast Allen as a pedophile, when this is the sole accusation in his whole long life? That's totally out of alignment with all the other things we read about pedophiles, and with this famous accusation and the availability of deep pockets, there's strong reason why any other offenses would have come to light if they existed.

Also, as Woody's statement shows, he has adopted 2 children with Soon-Yi and the adoption procedure was especially intense because of the prior accusation.

Where is the prior evidence that Mia Farrow implanted memories of false rape in any of her other relationships which also ended in divorce?

jr565 said...

There's a first time for everything. And because marriages are closed to the outside world, we may not know the full extent of Allen's history of molestation.
Prior to the charge that Roman Polanski drugged and anally raped an underage girl where was the proof that he would do such a thing?
Was that the anomaly or merely the first time he got caught?

t-man said...

jr -

You are moving the goalposts. I'm not claiming Allen is a saint. I'm arguing against Allen's relationship with a late-teenager (most likely over 18), as evidence of sexual attraction to a 7 year old.

Male sexual attraction to a young, sexually mature woman is normal, and says nothing about paedophilia.

It may be creepy but not creepy in a way that supports the current claims against Allen.

Issob Morocco said...

His first five sentences of your tag tell me he is guilty as charged. He is hiding behind experts at Yale, a claustrophobia etc. Those are defense mechanisms meant to soothe the reader that the guy we thought we liked (at least mostly until Soon Yi incident) could never had done that.

But like you say he knew Mia's structure of pyschology very well, so too, do we the viewers and readers of him know him well. This comes off as a firewall hastily built because he, at the end of his life and hence career, is being drawn out of the shadows and fog and put forth not as the entertainer, but as the person. He created a public persona that has now been stripped away for good whether you believe Dylan or not.

Woody does not like it and his words only reinforce that feeling in this piece.

I am sure there is more to the whole Mia/Woody piece but this does not go away and rightly so.

jr565 said...

t-man wrote:
You are moving the goalposts. I'm not claiming Allen is a saint. I'm arguing against Allen's relationship with a late-teenager (most likely over 18), as evidence of sexual attraction to a 7 year old.

I never said that if he was guilty of one then he was guilty of the other. However,the pro Allen side are also moving goal posts, by saying that Farrow has no right to talk since of course she broke up Previn's marriage. The discussion then, in this particular case is not about the molestation but the infidelity.
Even here, as bad as Farrow's action may have been its not like she cheated on Previn with his step son and then married him.
In infidelity is 5, then infidelity with your wife's step daughter is a 6.

t-man said...

And there is plenty of evidence that Dylan was coached. That's what the investigators at the time believed.

garage mahal said...

"When he’s not reveling in the glories of much, much younger women, he’s fetishizing the whole lot of us, worshipping us to the point of unknowability. He basically invented the now well-known archetype of the manic pixie dream girl."

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

As far as I know, Previn and Sinatra actually got along relatively well with Farrow as exes.


Yeah, having sex with her and everything.

garage mahal said...

And there is plenty of evidence that Dylan was coached. That's what the investigators at the time believed

"Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.” Link

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

Where is the prior evidence that Mia Farrow implanted memories of false rape in any of her other relationships which also ended in divorce?

I forgot how silly your questions become.

Jon Burack said...

jr565 said regarding use of the label "pedophile" for Allen:

"Where is the prior evidence that Mia Farrow implanted memories of false rape in any of her other relationships which also ended in divorce?"

But is there an equivalent term for a serial implanter of memories? Whatever it is, no one has said she was one. I for one have no idea if she did it even once. But it was not the Woody Allen defense team here that brought all this up and invited it all. Live by zero evidence, die by zero evidence.

As for Garage's related statement that "There is zero evidence Dylan was coached. Next?"

Likewise, there is zero evidence for ANYTHING about this case, which is why I am amazed at the relentless piling on against Woody Allen by so many here who know nothing.

t-man said...

Garage,

The medical and police investigators came to the opposite conclusion when doing the actual investigation. If one judge comes to the opposite conclusion, that does not mean there is no evidence.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

garage mahal said...

Assertions by an apparently coached seven-year-old and an obviously deranged disaffected lover. What else is there, staggeringly?

There is zero evidence Dylan was coached. Next?


First of all, I asked you for this "staggering" amount of evidence that you seem to know about it. You obviously can't support that statement, so you attack mine. Well, here's some support for my statement. Did you read it? I guess not.

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.”

Q.E.D.

William said...

Demon lovers. There's some dark lightening that happens when you exchange glances with that special someone who can take you to hell on the express track. Rosemary and the Devil sought each other out......There's a Gaslight quality to Allen's relationship with Farrow. I think it's possible that he's innocent of the molestation charge but equally possible that he fondled Dylan in such a way as to excite Farrow's suspicions.

Kansas City said...

I have not read the judge's opinion, but when a judge adopts a typical lawyer argument that "there is no credible evidence" it suggests bias or at least a judge who has realy (and too exuberately) lined up with one side after hearing the evidence and arguments. Of course, in this case with experts opining Dylan was making it up and higly disputed facts and physical evidence supporting Allen, there was at least some credible evidence that she was making it up.

William said...

Of the fifteen children involved in the Farrow household thirteen of them still side with her. That's not probative of Allen's guilt or innocence, but it does show who the children side with in this dispute. Farrow, for all her neuroses and angers, has shown herself to be a competent, caring mother. Give her credit for that.

William said...

Yves Montand, Daniel Ortega, and John McBride had no past history of pedophilia, but they almost certainly had sexual relations with their step daughters. I think propinquity and opportunity rather than orientation are the triggers for certain men.

garage mahal said...

Tyrone
You said Dylan was apparently coached. If you have something that points to Dylan being coached, please link to it.

jr565 said...

Kansas City wrote:
Of course, in this case with experts opining Dylan was making it up and higly disputed facts and physical evidence supporting Allen, there was at least some credible evidence that she was making it up.

The "experts" saying she was making it up were problematic. And neither the prosecutor nor the judge accepted their findings.
Because the doctor who signed off on the findings never actually interviewed Dylan. Noone would submit to interviews and only submitted an affidavit. And conveniently, all their notes were somehow detroyed and couldn't be presented.
It sounds then like it was simply the Allen side presenting their side of events. I'm not aware of any actual suggstion that there is actual evidence that Farrow implanted a memory.

jr565 said...

Of course, in this case with experts opining Dylan was making it up and higly disputed facts and physical evidence supporting Allen, there was at least some credible evidence that she was making it up.


Dylan Farrow responded today to Allen' oped with the following:

"With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".


That is what Dylan is saying, true. But she's making the point that this is what the Court said about the evidence that Allen is using now to say he was exhonorated.

FullMoon said...

Is there any smidgen of proof that Mia Farrow did not have perverted sex with the Judge in order to try and sway him?

Also, the Judge admired Che Gueverra, and died mysteriously of a "brain tumor", AFTER Mia named an adopted child after him.

garage mahal said...

Woody Allen, J.D. Salinger, and Roman Polansky get a pass from enables for their "greatness". None of it was secret, and it was manifested in their work. Woody Allen cast 16 yr old Mariel Hemingway as his own lover. Hemingway later said Woody Allen was the first man she ever kissed and she was way too young for that role. Sick sick sick.

Ivy said...

Inga said...
I've never liked him, never liked his movies, always thought he was effeminate and creepy. I never understood what any female saw in him. I think he's guilty as hell and has a golden tongue. And yes he did make Mia mad.


A first! I agree with Inga

THIS was what helped

Kansas City said...

Among the undipsuted and thereby necessarily credbile evidence supporting the position that Mia planted the story in Dylan is that the video tape of her recounting the story has multiple stops and starts. Now, that does not prove the story was planted, but is it absolutely credible evidence to support that position. It is wise not to provide too much deference to one judge's opinion and, in this case, the judge seems like an unusual guy who really wound up siding strongly with one side in the case (beyond the fact that he pretty much has to decide in favor of on side or the other).

broomhandle said...

Women are not good at hiding crazy. I can smell it a mile away. Some men are too dense, or too self-deluded by love, to recognize it. Older men seem particularly susceptible to this mistake, even with women their own age.

broomhandle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

Shorter Althouse: "Shut up, Dylan."

Tyrone Slothrop said...

garage mahal said...

Tyrone
You said Dylan was apparently coached. If you have something that points to Dylan being coached, please link to it.


Do you read the comments at all? Do you read the source material at all? I really should have known after all these years, it's useless to engage you.

Howard said...

This is the first I heard that Soon-Yi is to Woody as Mia is to Andre Previn.

Hell hath no fury like a scorning woman scorned.

garage mahal said...

Do you read the comments at all? Do you read the source material at all? I really should have known after all these years, it's useless to engage you.

I kindly asked you to link to it. Pasted text isn't source material.

Michael K said...

" Farrow, for all her neuroses and angers, has shown herself to be a competent, caring mother. Give her credit for that."

Ethel Kennedy would fit the same criteria, with her multiple houses and nannies and millions. I have read an account of her behavior when deprived of some of that assistance. Her kids haven't turned out all that well, either.

Ethel raised her 11 children with the help of a small army of nannies, nursemaids, cooks and social secretaries. Over the years, many of them quit after run-ins with her difficult temper. Ethel was a capricious disciplinarian, and her children were imbued with Bobby's credo of pushing life to the limit. "It was a kind of adolescent acting out that took an extra degree because they were Kennedys and thought they had to prove themselves,"

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
g2loq said...

The detailed judge's findings:
http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf

ndspinelli said...

Allen seems like the kind of guy who likes to have dinner and conversation and then take a walk continuing the conversation. I guess some women just want a bratwurst and then head for the sack! To each their own.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Here is Dylan's response. I did not find much new or significant, other than the following charge:

"He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991."


This is, I think, weaker than it's been made out to be. Allen was in therapy for decades. That was the in, supposedly sophisticated thing. In therapy people talk about all sorts of things. Framing having discussed a certain topic as being "in treatment" for a certain topic is, I think, misleading.

William said...

I think Michael K makes my point with his comparison to Ethel Kennedy. Ethel's children, some of them anyway, have lead extremely problematic lives. One died of an overdose.. Those of Mia's children who have reached adulthood have done so without a major scandal. They all seem to be functioning well, and the credit for this must go to Mia and not Woody.......There are lots of blended families in America. Woody's courtship of Soon Yi must have disturbed the dynamics of a lot of stepparents with their wards. That's why he deserves exemplary condemnation and not Oscar recognition.

Kansas City said...

I now read most of the judge's order. It is pretty mediocre in terms of the quality of the writing and reasoning, basically a pretty routine family court decision. It is very sympathetic to Mia and very harsh toward Allen. It also may well have been the best decision. I doubt that granting custody to a weird guy like Allen would have been a smart decision and, in view of the circumstances of the allegation of molestation and the sorry situation of the parents, denying visitation seems reasonable as well.

However, even this pro-Mia judge recognized that "it is unlikely he could be successfully prosecuted for child abuse" and he merely said that "I am less certain, than the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively there was no sexual abuse."

Anyone who says this order supports that Allen sexually abused the child is either ignorant or deceptive.

And, on the issue of Allen's prior therapy related to his relationship with Dylan, the order cites the testimony by the doctor that the situation was not sexual.

The legal proceeding was one initiated by Allen to obtain custody seven days after accused of child abuse. It seems like a publicity or legal tactic that, likely, never had much chance for success.

Jupiter said...

Oh, for Christ's sake! I never thought I would find myself in agreement with Garage Mahal and Inga! You people are enough to make me question my conservatism. GO read the god-damned judge's 30-page document, linked multiple times above. NOT just the 10 points, the whole thing. READ about the baby-sitter describing Allen kneeling on the floor with his face in a seven-year-old girl's lap. UNDERSTAND that Mia Farrow did not contact the police, Dylan's pediatrician did. WRAP your mind around the fact that the it was not Farrow, it was the baby-sitter and the tutor who thought Allen's behavior was out of line. CONSIDER the fact that the judge awarded attorney's fees to Farrow, on the grounds that Allen's custody petition was frivolous and without basis. That is, Allen tried to gain custody of Farrow's children, as a tactic in his attempt to avoid a conviction for sex abuse.

You all found Allen's screed convincing, did you? Did you especially like the part where he explains why he was not allowed to be alone with Dylan? Oh, he neglected to mention that. Did you chuckle over his perfectly innocent explanation for burying his face in a seven-year-old's lap? Lucky Soon-Yi didn't walk in on that scene, he'd have had some mansplaining to do.

Jon Burack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Burack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Burack said...

Jupiter,

I for one did not find Allen's comment completely convincing, I found it plausible and perfectly understandable for a man in his position now. What I do not find convincing at all is your all-caps tone of fury and certainty.

I do not think, if I may adopt your style, ANY!!!! of your all-caps gotcha-toned revelations answer a thing about this case. I think there is plenty of cause to doubt that the judge you refer to was impartial in this incident. I do not find ANYTHING at all convincing or certain about the big deal face in the lap incident you describe. I have grandchildren, every single one of whose adult caregivers have hugged or touched them in ways that could be spun every bit as easily to suggest something ugly, without any justification whatsoever. So these second- third- and fourth-hand snippets of gossip, whether gussied up by a judge or not, do not sway me in the least. I do not know what took place back then, you do not know. No one on this thread or any of the others I have been reading knows. The accounts you reference are VERY imperfect primary sources, and not even that in some cases, and they would have to be corroborated a million times better than you have in ten different ways each to amount to anything even approaching certainty, especially certainty with the tone of fury you adopt.

I consider the decision by Dylan to go after Allen on all this after 20 years to be arrogant in the extreme, in that she is asking millions of people like you in no position to know a thing to adopt exactly the tone of furious and certain indignation you are indulging yourself in. This spirit of certainty is as bad a mode of being as anything Woody Allen might have done. It is fascistic, and totalitarian in its implications even if it is likely to remain harmless as long as confined to little electrons dancing through the Internet. In any event, Dylan can get no peace at all from launching this 20-years too late crusade, though she certainly has attained her father's and mother's celebrity status, however briefly and vicariously. But peace, even with all the false friends she is winning, of which you appear to be one, is not going to come to her this way. She has mobilized a lynch mob, that's all. NOTHING more will ever come of it. NOTHING good will ever come of it.

Jon Burack said...

Jupiter,

One more thing, by the way. What the heck does your "conservatism" have to do with this at all? Allen is being attack both from the right and the left. It is one of the preposterous aspects of our age that political ideology has to be brought into everything now.

Jupiter said...

"This spirit of certainty is as bad a mode of being as anything Woody Allen might have done."

Which, in a nutshell, is your position. "Woody" is merely accused of sexual abuse of a child, which is no big deal, but I exhibit a spirit of certainty (IN CAPS! DAMN ME!) which is fascistic and totalitarian, while Dylan Farrow is arrogant. Palpably arrogant, would you say?

I will agree, that Allen's piece is pretty much what one expects from a person in his position. Hiding behind his victim's tender sensibilities, while attacking her mother to avoid confronting her directly.

There seems to be a widespread view that what cannot be known must not be remarked upon. This being, at times, a legal blog, I will point out that the presumption of innocence is a policy of criminal procedure. It is intended to protect the individual from the great power of the State. In civil matters, where the parties are taken to be equal, there is no such presumption. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Woody Allen took advantage of his girlfriend's adopted daughter to gratify a perverted craving.

Jupiter said...

Jon asks,

'What the heck does your "conservatism" have to do with this at all?'

Inga and Garage are decidedly "progressive", while many of those disagreeing with them are more conservative. I will allow, that Inga's reasons are -- Inga's reasons. But Garage looks to have his facts screwed on straight, much to my alarm.

Cedarford said...

I was sort of interested in the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow war 20 years ago. I remembered it was so tawdry the Republicans used it as an example of "typical Hollywood family values".
Woody Allen, to me, was creepy and nebbish and had stopped making good mainstream comedy movies in favor of artsy shit loved only by the Cultural Elites. So my initial sympathies were with the wife.

Then I saw the Valentine's day card. If a woman ever wanted to prove herself crazy and psychotic in one gesture or act...that card probably belongs in the list of things one can do to erase all doubt.

Still on the Internet of course.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/mia-farrow-threatening-1992-valentine-day-woody-allen-article-1.1605686

After seeing that crazy female gem, my attitude shifted to "a plague on both your houses". No innocence here, just measures of level of culpability on either side that normal people should lack the time, inclination, even curiosity to get to the bottom of. Because there is no bottom.

Cops see this with domestic disputes in the lowest class of dysfunction in society. They are called for the 9th time to some apartment where neighbors called about the couple - once again drunk&drugged and beating each other to a pulp. There is no right or wrong, both are societal scum. Both too incoherent and with so much malignant history neither can honestly say who started the most recent brawl - even if either was trying to be truthful. The cops break it up, arrest one or both lowlifes, hoping a cooling off period might keep bloody fight #10 delayed for another few months. Dealing as well with their FU'd kids taking sides and feminist social workers unable to see the belligerant drunk bitch (who attacked cops herself in fight #6 ) as anything but a Victim.

Allen &Farrow - just not worth the gossip. There is better celeb soap opera out there.


Jon Burack said...

Jupiter,

Yes, that is my position in a nutshell. You want to see why I feel that way, go the Library of Congress Prints and Photos Division and look at some of the lynching photos.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/

Perhaps this one: "Large crowd looking at the burned body of Jesse Washington, 18 year-old African American, lynched in Waco, Texas, May 15, 1916"
Reproduction Number: LC-USZC4-4647

Yes, the spirit of certainty is more dangerous than even what is alleged about Woody Allen (with no real proof of it at all, in any case)

Presumption of innocence is not a principle to be confined to courts and should be modified only with great caution and care.

Lydia said...

For those who hate Woody Allen films, I recommend you see his 1984 Broadway Danny Rose. It's about a "loser" talent agent, who's a mensch of the first order, and the less-than-stellar acts he represents. It's full of hope,and funny. Nothing NYC chic about it.

Here's the ending, which features Mia. Knowing where he and Mia are today, it's heartbreaking to watch.

Lydia said...

Woody betrays Mia by having sex with Soon-Yi. Mia then accuses Woody of sexually assaulting her seven-year-old daughter and sends the hounds of hell after Woody.

Fourteen years pass and, in an interview, a soft and loving Mia says she forgives Woody "in an instant" for his Soon-Yi transgression; no mention is made of the sexual assault on a seven-year-old.

Odd that unhesitating forgiveness if the assault still remained real to her.

Jupiter said...

"Presumption of innocence is not a principle to be confined to courts and should be modified only with great caution and care."

If Woody Allen were accused of stealing Dylan Farrow's inheritance, you would not presume his innocence, or hers, you would expect a court to sort it out. And you would not expect the court to presume anyone's innocence, you would expect it to examine the evidence and rule according to the preponderance thereof. The difference is that you do not believe what Woody Allen is accused of is any big deal, and you think Dylan Farrow should just get over it. Which is OK, that's your opinion.

But what Dylan Farrow asked is not money, or a hanging. She asked people to stop saying what a great guy Woody Allen is. So, what's your response? Is Woody a great guy? Or have you stopped saying that?

Michael K said...

"Cops see this with domestic disputes in the lowest class of dysfunction in society. They are called for the 9th time to some apartment where neighbors called about the couple - once again drunk&drugged and beating each other to a pulp. "

When I was a surgery resident, we got a guy who had been beating up his wife when the cops arrived. He managed to shoot and kill two of them before they took him down. He came in with multiple gunshot wounds and went to the bottom of the schedule. He actually lived a month. Later somebody sued the County Hospital saying we had acted as judge and jury by delaying his surgery.

They didn't get anywhere.

Saint Croix said...

Hey Cedarford, you probably know this already, but you've done some remarkable self-improvement. I am happy to see that.

Jon Burack said...

Jupiter,

One of the pains in the neck about this internet blogging interchangeis that people who are themselves certain seem to think they know everything about anyone else who does not agree with them. It makes talking hard.

So,I really wish you would not tell me what I do or do not "presume" or what I do or do not think is a big deal as to what anyone is accused of, etc., unless I have actually made it clear I think those things. You know, telling people what they think is one of the things I know drives women crazy about what men do, so I guess I should be appreciative of you showing me what they mean.

The sum total of what you presume I presume here is too great for me to untangle, so I "I'm just going to let it pass."

William said...

OK, this is the wrong word, but as a piece of performance art this surpasses anything the principals achieved in their professional careers. Allen always wanted to be mentioned in the same breath as Bergman. Hell, this scandal is way beyond anything Bergman could create. We're into Sophocles territory here. People argue both sides of this case with true passion because the case touches some deep chamber in their heart.......Rosemary's Baby: remember how Rosemary's husband was willing to make a pact with the Devil in order to gain a starring role. That's true of all these Allen (and Polanski) supporters, including, at times, Farrow. The way that this case dovetails with their separate careers is noteworthy. In Crimes & Misdemeanors, we see how the eye surgeon is able to get away with murder, but the very success of his crime leaves him unmoored. He's a respectable man and finds it disturbing to live in a world without any moral center. There's no equilibrium to be had in such a world.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

garage mahal said...

Do you read the comments at all? Do you read the source material at all? I really should have known after all these years, it's useless to engage you.

I kindly asked you to link to it. Pasted text isn't source material.


garage, the quote that I cut and pasted was from the link provided by Althouse in the original post. So I am correct in guessing that you comment, probably frequently, on material you have not read and are only familiar with in your fevered imagination. If you are so lacking in initiative that you need me to lead you by the nose, well, I feel sorry for you. On top of this, you still have not provided a shred of the "staggering" amount of evidence you purport have. Where is your link, garage? You're such a hypocrite.

William said...

The paradox of the survivor of a sexual crime committed against her in childhood. If she's flaky and neurotic, then her word is not to be trusted. If, like the Polanski victim, she has not been permanently scarred, then it's no harm, no foul and let's everyone get on with their lives.

Darrell said...

Oh my God!
One of the most sensible people here is garage mahal! Read the actual court record below in its entirety, then go to Friday's thread and read the expanded criticism of the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and all the protocols they broke--including destroying their notes and interview records. The custody judge touches on some points as well. He also considers whether Mia "implanted" the story and discounts that in a point-by-point fashion--including citing independent witnesses to the events on the date in question.

http://whatcanidoaboutit.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/woody-allen-court-report.pdf

Jon Burack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Burack said...

In case Ann is sick of this issue, I thought I'd come back in here to post this, which really should have been the first word on it (to Dylan and Kristof in private, even) and probably should be the last word on it.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116547/tne-new-york-times-owes-its-readers-apology

I normally do not agree with John Judis. Almost never, actually. But on this I agree 100%.

Steve Uhr said...

"if all he wants is a not guilty verdict, he's got one. A guilty verdict would be overturned on appeal, because everyone rational must see the reasonable doubt of his guilt."

I respectfully disagree. If the jury believed Dylan beyond a reasonable doubt -- after evaluating her credibility on the stand and the credibility of Woody Allen and the other witnesses, the verdict should be upheld on appeal. Under your reasoning, one can never have a guilty verdict sustained where the only evidence is the testimony of the victim and the defendant denies it. (And here there is additional evidence.)

Chris Althouse Cohen said...

"Under your reasoning, one can never have a guilty verdict sustained where the only evidence is the testimony of the victim and the defendant denies it."

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

rcocean said...

"Under your reasoning, one can never have a guilty verdict sustained where the only evidence is the testimony of the victim and the defendant denies it."

Uhh...duh. How can one NOT have a reasonable doubt when the charge is based on *no* other evidence then some one's say so?

Jupiter said...

Burack,

I can see why you agree with Judis 100%. He says;

"I have read some of the older news stories and Allen’s response today in The New York Times, but I haven’t studied the matter closely." And neither have you. And you seem to think that your determined ignorance should be a model for the rest of us.

Jupiter said...

Darrell,

Isn't it distressing? One of the fixed poles of my existence was the certainty that Garage Mahal could always be counted upon to recite the knee-jerk Left Fascist talking point of the day, without any hint of actual knowledge. Now comes this, where he is one of the few who have taken the trouble to inform themselves before declaring the matter closed, and then actually wound up with the correct conclusion. I am devastated!

jr565 said...

Shorter Althouse: "Shut up, Dylan."


I might even make the same argument, only I'd do it about a different Dylan. Bob should sing less.

Jon Burack said...

"you seem to think that your determined ignorance should be a model for the rest of us."

Exactly. Since all the rest of us, including you, ARE ignorant about this case, I say be determined about it. Dylan had no intention of your becoming any less ignorant about it. She did not ask you to read the whole court record and then make up your own mind, since even those who have read it, and far more, still do not agree anyway. So in fact it was SHE, as well as you, who preferred for us all to be determinedly ignorant yet side with her anyway. And the vast millions who have sided with her have done exactly that, remained determinedly ignorant, since they had no way not to be anyhow. So, yes, I am and remain determinedly ignorant and proud.