Allen v. Farrow

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

So I'm very confused by the "defense" of when this affair started.  He claims it wasn't until after her first semester at college.  The doorman/maid testified there was evidence it began while she was still in high school. 

Why is there a four year discrepancy in the argument about when it began?  Did she got to school later?

She started school late and graduated when she was officially 20. No one knows what her real age is. She spent her first several years on the street and in an orphanage before she was adopted. 

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

And I get so frustrated by articles defending Allen/criticizing the documentary for being one-sided.  No one ever claimed it was going to present both sides nor do I think any of us really expect it to.  But I don't think a lot of what's presented really disprove the claims made in the doc. 

I agree. I’ve really come to see those “one-sided” claims are really about only wanting Woody’s side to always be told. He can do press conferences and write a book telling his side but this documentary shouldn’t happen because he didn’t participate. That’s just a double standard masquerading as logic and fairness. 

1 hour ago, Everina said:

Just caught up and watched all three episodes.  And, I locked horns with a person on another site who kept saying they thought Woody was innocent, and how Mia's story "has a lot of holes in it", and how Mia was probably mean to her kids, so no molestation could have occurred on Woody's end, and by the way, they really like Woody Allen's movies, so they've read a lot about how he's really innocent, and blah, blah, BLAH.  I can't deal with people, anymore.  How does Mia's story have a lot of "holes" in it?  And what about Dylan's story?  Dylan is 35, now.  Does that not count for anything?

I don't understand.  Someone please club me over the head and put me out of my misery.

Yes!!  I keep seeing this arguments of what Mia did and see no evidence of any of it. This episode showed that Woody grabbed this story from day one and created a narrative people see as fact. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Guest

[DangerousMinds]

1 hour ago, Everina said:

Just caught up and watched all three episodes.  And, I locked horns with a person on another site who kept saying they thought Woody was innocent, and how Mia's story "has a lot of holes in it", and how Mia was probably mean to her kids, so no molestation could have occurred on Woody's end, and by the way, they really like Woody Allen's movies, so they've read a lot about how he's really innocent, and blah, blah, BLAH.  I can't deal with people, anymore.  How does Mia's story have a lot of "holes" in it?  And what about Dylan's story?  Dylan is 35, now.  Does that not count for anything?

I don't understand.  Someone please club me over the head and put me out of my misery.

Yes, I can’t imagine why Dylan would be telling this story at 35 if it wasn’t true. It wouldn’t make any sense.

[ifionlyknew]

29 minutes ago, Dani said:

She started school late and graduated when she was officially 20. No one knows what her real age is. She spent her first several years on the street and in an orphanage before she was adopted. 

I agree. I’ve really come to see those “one-sided” claims are really about only wanting Woody’s side to always be told. He can do press conferences and write a book telling his side but this documentary shouldn’t happen because he didn’t participate. That’s just a double standard masquerading as logic and fairness. 

Yes!!  I keep seeing this arguments of what Mia did and see no evidence of any of it. This episode showed that Woody grabbed this story from day one and created a narrative people see as fact. 

Guess he directed so many movies he thought he could direct real life too.

He is such an unlikable person. Even if you take away what happened with Dylan and Soon Yi he still seems like such a dick. For the life of me I fail to see what any woman has ever seen in him.

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

And I get so frustrated by articles defending Allen/criticizing the documentary for being one-sided.  No one ever claimed it was going to present both sides nor do I think any of us really expect it to.  But I don't think a lot of what's presented really disprove the claims made in the doc. 

Yes, and he was given a chance to participate--and has excerpts from his own book read out. But I don't think he ever wants to be involved if he's not sure he'll be in control. And it's hard not to assume that he forbid the kids on his side - Soon-Yi and Moses - from participating either. I mean, there's a lot of people from a lot of different places who willingly talked to the producers here, all independently of each other, with stories that line up. You'd' think Moses, especially, would want to speak out again, since he now claims to have such a perfect recollection of where Woody was that day, and how Dylan was wrong about what she said was in the attic, and how he told his longterm nanny the next day that he thought the story about Woody with his head in Dylan's lap was false and that he watched Mia make those tapes with Dylan and they felt fake. 

3 hours ago, Everina said:

Just caught up and watched all three episodes.  And, I locked horns with a person on another site who kept saying they thought Woody was innocent, and how Mia's story "has a lot of holes in it", and how Mia was probably mean to her kids, so no molestation could have occurred on Woody's end, and by the way, they really like Woody Allen's movies, so they've read a lot about how he's really innocent, and blah, blah, BLAH.  I can't deal with people, anymore.  How does Mia's story have a lot of "holes" in it?  And what about Dylan's story?  Dylan is 35, now.  Does that not count for anything?

 

Yes, I saw a comment from someone claiming that sure Woody didn't seem "normal"--but then, he's an artist so artists aren't normal. Meanwhile the fact that Mia made a movie with her kids where a monster chases them and they fall down dead proves that she's weirdly "creative"--iow, she made up the story, and that Dylan is an actress and therefore was lying on camera. 

I couldn't help but notice that Mia being an artist (not that she got that title) made her untrustworthy where for Woody it was a defense!

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Pickles Aplenty]

2 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

Yes, I can’t imagine why Dylan would be telling this story at 35 if it wasn’t true. It wouldn’t make any sense.

Some people think she's still brainwashed, I guess.  I am not an expert when it comes to brainwashing, so I can't say whether it's possible for a person to believe a lie that was told to them since the age of seven, but I just don't think Mia Farrow is THAT cunning and calculating.  For this sort of thing to have lasted as long as it has, wouldn't Mia have to be a criminal mastermind?  And hasn't Dylan been interviewed by professionals and hasn't she been going to therapy for years?  IDEK.

47 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, I saw a comment from someone claiming that sure Woody didn't seem "normal"--but then, he's an artist so artists aren't normal. Meanwhile the fact that Mia made a movie with her kids where a monster chases them and they fall down dead proves that she's weirdly "creative"--iow, she made up the story, and that Dylan is an actress and therefore was lying on camera. 

I couldn't help but notice that Mia being an artist (not that she got that title) made her untrustworthy where for Woody it was a defense!

What?  I used to play stupid little make believe games with my grandma all the time, and we even videotaped some of it.  Does that make us lying liars who can't be trusted?

I wasn't kidding when I said I do not understand people.  Jaysus.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Everina

[txhorns79]

8 minutes ago, Everina said:

Some people think she's still brainwashed, I guess.  I am not an expert when it comes to brainwashing, so I can't say whether it's possible for a person to believe a lie that was told to them since the age of seven, but I just don't think Mia Farrow is THAT cunning and calculating.  For this sort of thing to have lasted as long as it has, wouldn't Mia have to be a criminal mastermind?  And hasn't Dylan been interviewed by professionals and hasn't she been going to therapy for years?  IDEK.

I don't know that one has to be a criminal mastermind.  People believe what they want to believe and I'm sure if a trusted caregiver tells a small child that something has happened to them, and repeatedly reinforces that message, the child will begin to accept that as the truth, and eventually present it in a way that convinces other people.  

 

3 hours ago, Dani said:

I agree. I’ve really come to see those “one-sided” claims are really about only wanting Woody’s side to always be told. He can do press conferences and write a book telling his side but this documentary shouldn’t happen because he didn’t participate. That’s just a double standard masquerading as logic and fairness. 

I think it would depend on the documentary.  If you knew or suspected that you were going to be portrayed in a negative light, why would you make much effort to participate?  I mean, I don't think anyone is arguing this particular series is striving for objectivity.   

[Growsonwalls]

Just watched the third episode tonight. This episode was so icky. 

Woody Allen needs to burn in hell forever. His refusal to take a lie detector test said it all.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Growsonwalls

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't know that one has to be a criminal mastermind.  People believe what they want to believe and I'm sure if a trusted caregiver tells a small child that something has happened to them, and repeatedly reinforces that message, the child will begin to accept that as the truth, and eventually present it in a way that convinces other people.

The thing is that there is really no evidence to support this happening in this case. Multiple experts including the judge felt Dylan wasn’t brainwashed. The one report that supports this theory is incredibly suspect and one of the experts involved apparently did believe Dylan. I felt the documentary’s strongest section was in independent experts tearing that report to shred and the description of what was done to the social worker who believed Dylan.

Those experts felt that Mia was not leading Dylan most of the time and when she tried to Dylan stood her ground and refused to parrot back what Mia was saying. 

17 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think it would depend on the documentary.  If you knew or suspected that you were going to be portrayed in a negative light, why would you make much effort to participate?  I mean, I don't think anyone is arguing this particular series is striving for objectivity.   

I never said that he should participate. My point is that attacked the documentary for being one-sided while also refusing to participate is a way of silencing the other side. He gets to tell his side and everyone else is also supposed to tell his side in the interest of fairness. 

He and his supporters have no problem with one-sided interviews, press conferences and books when it’s his side being presented. Then when Mia and Dylan tell their side suddenly it’s all about fairness. That’s the double standard I’m talking about. 

[txhorns79]

25 minutes ago, Dani said:

My point is that attacked the documentary for being one-sided while also refusing to participate is a way of silencing the other side. He gets to tell his side and everyone else is also supposed to tell his side in the interest of fairness.

I don't think he's trying to silence the documentary.  As I said, I don't think anyone is arguing that the series is striving for objectivity, so pointing that out is a fair criticism.  It would be the same thing if someone made a series only presenting Allen's side.  People would be justified in saying that project was not objective.  

[Maysie]

I’ve long been annoyed by Woody Allen. I’ve watched (and enjoyed/been bored by) some of his movies over the years, but never been a “fan,” though I could respect what he was doing. I remember when the Soon Yi stuff was in the news and finding that incredibly creepy. Between the age difference and the fact that she was Mia’s adopted daughter, it seemed just a little off. The stuff with Dylan wasn’t on my radar, so the thought that he may be using Soon Yi as a tool - a diversion for the press as well as a way to provide a narrative for why the accusations about Dylan were happening-never occurred to me. I just thought he was a bit of a creeper.

This series has moved me from annoyance to kind of hating him. I think he’s a loathsome, manipulative, misogynistic prick. The phone calls with Mia, combined with the disturbing videos of Dylan, were quite convincing. Throw in the nyc social worker investigation and the revelations about the way the New Haven investigation was conducted and I am pretty sure he did what Dylan said he did. The things he said-“I’ll take you to Paris” and “you can be in my movie”-reflect what he offered to other females to entice them to get what he wanted. But Dylan was what, 7 years old? It was gross that he was offering a trip to Paris to 17 year old Mariel Hemingway, but doing that to a 7 year old is repugnant. 

He is a master of manipulating the narrative and putting people on the defensive. He declared himself cleared before the state of Connecticut saw the New Haven report and sues for custody of kids that he never really wanted to begin with (remember, he told Farrow he wouldn’t be financially responsible or responsible for their care before she adopted Dylan). Everything is about him dictating the storyline.

 I don’t feel one way or another about Mia Farrow. I don’t think she’s a spectacular actress and she may be a little wacky. However I’m a little taken aback by the vitriol directed at her. I have no idea if she was a horrible or wonderful parent. I don’t know if she was over her head, if she favored some kids or not. I understand one kid is unhappy about their upbringing and a couple/few of the children are dead. But it seems that the kids we’re hearing from in this are generally supportive of their mother and I imagine if there’s any kind of damning story to tell about Mia, Woody Allen will find a way to tell it. She may well be awful, but for me, right now this is a story about Woody Allen abusing his adopted child. From what I can tell, Mia handled that situation properly. To start questioning all the adoptions and her parenting choices is whataboutism that isn’t really relevant to this particular story, IMO. That stuff would have been aired at the custody hearing, I would think.

[Growsonwalls]

25 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't think he's trying to silence the documentary.  As I said, I don't think anyone is arguing that the series is striving for objectivity, so pointing that out is a fair criticism.  It would be the same thing if someone made a series only presenting Allen's side.  People would be justified in saying that project was not objective.  

Allen has done a number of articles telling his side.

He wrote an op-ed for the NYTimes.

SoonYi had a friend of Woody's write an article.

Woody Allen has published his own book. I mean, there's been plenty of opportunities for Woody to tell his side of the story and yet each time he tells it he sounds creepy.

There has to be a reason the judge ruled so harshly against him.

[sistermagpie]

 

21 minutes ago, Dani said:

The thing is that there is really no evidence to support this happening in this case. Multiple experts including the judge felt Dylan wasn’t brainwashed. The one report that supports this theory is incredibly suspect and one of the experts involved apparently did believe Dylan. I felt the documentary’s strongest section was in independent experts tearing that report to shred and the description of what was done to the social worker who believed Dylan.

Those experts felt that Mia was not leading Dylan most of the time and when she tried to Dylan stood her ground and refused to parrot back what Mia was saying. 

Yeah, that's the thing. While we can't rule out that it's possible, the version where Dylan was telling the truth got a lot of support in this ep while the brainwashing story has never really had to provide evidence for itself at all beyond "or maybe she brainwashed her." The main support for it was that Yale study which has good reasons to not trust it and sometimes even contradicts that. 

So yeah, it certainly is possible that people believe things that didn't really happen--we know this is true without brainwashing. People absolutely have memories of things they only heard about and would be surprised to learn happened before they were born or weren't there. But people also seem more willing to believe that Mia did that to Dylan than Woody Allen did it to, say, Moses more recently. Dylan's story has always been approached from the perspective of being a possibly lie made up by Mia.

1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't think he's trying to silence the documentary.  As I said, I don't think anyone is arguing that the series is striving for objectivity, so pointing that out is a fair criticism.  It would be the same thing if someone made a series only presenting Allen's side.  People would be justified in saying that project was not objective.  

But then, it also depends what "objectivity" means. That is, often today it seems to mean that if there are two sets of facts, they both need to be presented as equally believable as he said/she said. And a lot of stuff in this story is that, of course, because people are talking about their own experiences, but some stuff has been verified or clarified. Even if you can't pin everything down, that sort of thing can matter. As can, say, patterns of relationships etc.

[txhorns79]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But people also seem more willing to believe that Mia did that to Dylan than Woody Allen did it to, say, Moses more recently. Dylan's story has always been approached from the perspective of being a possibly lie made up by Mia.

It's probably because the allegations came in the midst of a nasty break up between Farrow and Allen.  

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

It's probably because the allegations came in the midst of a nasty break up between Farrow and Allen.  

Oh, I know that makes it a no-brainer. But I was saying that whatever the reason, clearly it's not a concept that is hard to get people to consider since it's been there from the beginning. And it's not like many of Moses's claims now couldn't be argued against the same way.

[Quilt Fairy]

There's something I don't understand.  Why were there two investigations opened up, one in Connecticut where Dylan was assaulted and a second in NYC? 

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't know that one has to be a criminal mastermind.  People believe what they want to believe and I'm sure if a trusted caregiver tells a small child that something has happened to them, and repeatedly reinforces that message, the child will begin to accept that as the truth, and eventually present it in a way that convinces other people. 

Coaching doesn't just happen with trusted caregivers. It can happen with investigators who unintentionally lead a child with their questioning. 

False allegations are a tricky area because there is no standard definition of a false allegation.  Those figures can include allegations made by a child OR made by an adult on their behalf (ripe for divorce proceedings).  The ages can encompass anywhere from 2 to about 16 years of age.  As one can imagine, a false allegation made by a 3 year old is likely to be very different than one made by a 16 year old in that teenagers are old enough to come up with this on their own.

In the instances where it's children, it's unclear to me how many are coached to make the false accusations--intentionally or unintentionally--and continue to hold the memory of abuse into adulthood.  There have been famous cases of children who were coached to lie who later recanted.  Everything I've read about false memory syndrome deals with recovered memories.  That doesn't sound like that's the case with Dylan.  She has believed it since she was 7. 

I bring this up because I think Mia "brainwashing" Dylan to think she was molested and to have Dylan still have the same [false] memory 26 years later would probably put her into a unique subset of false allegations.  I thought it was interesting that she actually describes being coached in her interview--but it wasn't by Mia.   In the interview, she mentioned that during the nine interviews she underwent as part of the Yale investigation, she started to change some of her answers because she felt she wasn't giving them the "right" answer or the answer they wanted.  That's one way to coach a child.  In this case, it led to some inconsistencies.  But if she truly remembered her experience reacting to unending questions, I also think she'd remember the experience of Mia "brainwashing" her.

As for the criminal mastermind part, it's more than coaching Dylan; it'd be about setting up all the corroboration. 

3 hours ago, Dani said:

The one report that supports this theory is incredibly suspect and one of the experts involved apparently did believe Dylan.

And the report just said it could have happened.  It doesn't sound like they have evidence that it did.  And since they burned the notes of the original interviewers, we don't know their thoughts or how they conducted the interviews.

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

It's probably because the allegations came in the midst of a nasty break up between Farrow and Allen.  

Speaking of the breakup,  a while back in the Hollywood's Dirty Secrets thread, there was some discussion about why Dylan was Woody's only victim because pedophiles don't usually stop at one.  That was Woody's argument in this ep as well.  I remembered something I read about there being situational molesters and I brought it to the thread. Situational molesters don't prefer children the way pedophiles do but might take advantage of a situation to molest them.  Some of the reasons given included curiosity which is what I would have guessed initially.  Another reason given?  To hurt someone who loves the child. I might lean more towards that theory after this ep.

The argument that Mia made this all up because of the breakup can equally be applied to Woody in that he did this to hurt Mia because she was leaving him.  I actually do believe he didn't want his relationship to break up.  Mia was the socially acceptable partner. It seems like he always had those.  The relationships or attempts at relationships with "very young women" were more stealth in nature.   When he learned that doc had gone to the police, he realized that he could at least weaponize that creep to discredit anything Mia or Dylan might claim.

 

50 minutes ago, Hava said:

Soon-Yi reminds me of Roman Polanski's victim--although what happened to Polanski's victim was clearly rape, his victim does not consider herself a victim and has resisted the media's framing of her. I always feel very conflicted about how far we should go in acknowledging and honoring someone's interpretation of events. 

This is not true about Polanski's victim. She thinks she was raped.  She just has chosen to forgive and wants to let it go as she feels her rape is being used as a tool by people who don't really give a damn about her.

(Sorry for the novel, everyone!)

Edited March 9, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Cheezwiz]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

There's something I don't understand.  Why were there two investigations opened up, one in Connecticut where Dylan was assaulted and a second in NYC? 

I was wondering about this as well. I'm just guessing, but maybe it's because Mia had residences in both places and travelled back and forth?

[Sessa]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

There's something I don't understand.  Why were there two investigations opened up, one in Connecticut where Dylan was assaulted and a second in NYC? 

New York was their legal residence, but Connecticut is where the crime actually occurred.

[SimonSeymour]

1 hour ago, Sessa said:

New York was their legal residence, but Connecticut is where the crime actually occurred.

And also, the investigation in NY was a child welfare investigation, whereas the Connecticut investigation was a criminal investigation. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Interview with Allison Strickland, the nanny who witnessed Woody with his face in Dylan’s crotch

Quote

Amy Herdy—an investigative journalist who headed the research on HBO’s four-part docuseries Allen v. Farrow — spent two years trying to track down Allison Stickland in the U.K., eventually writing snail-mail letters to people by the name of “Allison Stickland” in the U.K. They only heard from Stickland after the Allen v. Farrow episodes had locked, so she unfortunately didn’t make it into the docuseries.

Edited March 9, 2021 by ElectricBoogaloo

[ElectricBoogaloo]

16 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Iirc, her original name was Dylan and Ronan's was Satchel. When all this was going on the children changed their names--or their names were changed--to Eliza and Seamus. But it seems that as they grew and chose their own names, Dylan just preferred her birth name where Ronan became Ronan. Don't know if that was maybe his middle name or what.

Ronan’s birth name was Satchel Ronan O’Sullivan Farrow. 

I really like that so many of Mia’s kids felt comfortable enough to change their names later in life. Some parents would take it as a personal insult or as a rejection and get mad about it. One of my friends hated her given name so she had it legally changed, but most of her family still calls her by her birth name. 

[ifionlyknew]

6 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

The argument that Mia made this all up because of the breakup can equally be applied to Woody in that he did this to hurt Mia because she was leaving him.  I actually do believe he didn't want his relationship to break up.  Mia was the socially acceptable partner. It seems like he always had those.  The relationships or attempts at relationships with "very young women" were more stealth in nature.   When he learned that doc had gone to the police, he realized that he could at least weaponize that creep to discredit anything Mia or Dylan might claim.

Woody even with his I'm awkward and fumbling persona strikes me as someone who is very controlling.  I said in an earlier post I 100% believe he thought Mia would forgive him for Soon Yi and they could continue on with their relationship. The only relationship I remember Woody having before Mia was Diane Keaton.  I was unaware of his two previous marriages. He doesn't seem to have ever really been single.  That there was always a woman right after the previous woman was no longer in the picture. I also believe if Mia  had forgiven Woody he would have either ended things with Soon Yi or continued to secretly see her.  I think the reason Woody does himself no favors when he talks about Dylan's allegations and his affair with his girlfriend's daughter is because he doesn't think he has done anything wrong.  That  he so badly wants to say yes OK all of it is true but so what. As he once said the heart wants what the heart wants.  It's impossible for someone to feel guilt or regret if they think they are in the right.  I wonder if Soon Yi ever felt any regret or guilt for what she did to her mother.

[Hava]

7 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

This is not true about Polanski's victim. She thinks she was raped.  She just has chosen to forgive and wants to let it go as she feels her rape is being used as a tool by people who don't really give a damn about her.

My mistake. I will delete my original post. 

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Woody even with his I'm awkward and fumbling persona strikes me as someone who is very controlling. 

In fact, the persona is part of how he controls people--he even makes a joke of it in Annie Hall. And there's an incident where you can see him using it to control the situation in the Wild Man Blues doc here too. After all this time, he's very good at it.

[sadie]

Did anyone else notice when Mia was on the phone with Woody that his voice was different? It was almost an octave or two lower than that kind of whiny high pitched sound I’m used to hearing out of his mouth. It made me wonder how much of his “persona” is a put on, that deep threatening tone he had in those talks struck me as the real Woody, the man behind the mask. Chilling. 

[carrps]

27 minutes ago, sadie said:

Did anyone else notice when Mia was on the phone with Woody that his voice was different? It was almost an octave or two lower than that kind of whiny high pitched sound I’m used to hearing out of his mouth. It made me wonder how much of his “persona” is a put on, that deep threatening tone he had in those talks struck me as the real Woody, the man behind the mask. Chilling. 

Yes, I did. I was listening from another room, and I had to ask if it was a reenactment. It sounded so different from how he usually talks. But, no, I was told. It was an actual recording.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, sadie said:

Did anyone else notice when Mia was on the phone with Woody that his voice was different? It was almost an octave or two lower than that kind of whiny high pitched sound I’m used to hearing out of his mouth. It made me wonder how much of his “persona” is a put on, that deep threatening tone he had in those talks struck me as the real Woody, the man behind the mask. Chilling. 

 

47 minutes ago, carrps said:

Yes, I did. I was listening from another room, and I had to ask if it was a reenactment. It sounded so different from how he usually talks. But, no, I was told. It was an actual recording.

Iirc, that even comes up in the podcast. They say that in the recordings in the show he sounds really cold, and was that just in those moments, and the filmmakers say that that's just in general what he talked like in the all the recordings. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Allen v. Farrow Podcast: Part Two

Quote

Award-winning filmmakers Amy Ziering, Kirby Dick and Amy Herdy go deeper inside Part Two of the HBO Original Allen v. Farrow, and examine Mia Farrow as a mother and the controlling nature of Woody Allen’s relationship with her. In addition, they share never-before-heard audio clips from Tisa Farrow, Casey Pascal and Carly Simon that illuminate Mia's relationships to her family and to Woody Allen. In an exclusive first-time interview, Casey Pascal’s former babysitter Alison Stickland describes what she witnessed between Dylan and Woody on the day of the alleged attic incident. Later, author Rachel Louise Snyder examines the concept of coercive control relationships.

 

 

[Dessert]

On 3/6/2021 at 7:47 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

Regarding the age difference in many of both Mia and Woody's relationships, I was recently reminded of the classic story of a May-December romance: Vladimir Nobokov's Lolita.  There was a long opinion piece in the New York Times by actress Emily Mortimer on whether it would even be published today, and whether it would garner the rave reviews it did back in 1959

Lolita is one of my favorite books. It is NOT a May-December romance! Humbert Humbert is the ultimate unreliable narrator. He is also a pedophile who kidnaps a young girl and destroys her life. Nabokov, himself, referred to Humbert Humbert as a monster. 

Woody Allen is also a monster. It’s been obvious since came to light that he had sex with Soon-yi, his son’s sister. Even if she was of age when the sex started, the incestuous nature of the relationship is grotesque.

From the beginning, Allen has controlled the narrative of this nightmare through his sycophants in the press & movieland. I remember watching in disgust as it rolled out. Poor Dylan has grown up, not only having to live with memories of the abuse she endured, but seeing herself depicted in the public realm as insane. 

I’m glad that this documentary has finally been made. May he rot in hell.

[Guest]

 

On 3/8/2021 at 8:16 PM, txhorns79 said:

I don't think he's trying to silence the documentary.  As I said, I don't think anyone is arguing that the series is striving for objectivity, so pointing that out is a fair criticism.  It would be the same thing if someone made a series only presenting Allen's side.  People would be justified in saying that project was not objective.  

That’s also not what I said. The argument presented by his supporters (and fed by Woody) that the documentary is flawed and worthless because it’s not balanced is metaphorical trying silence the other side (Dylan and Mia). There is a double standard in that Woody can tell his side and only his side but when Dylan and Mia tell their’s there are complaints about fairness. That is hypocritical. 

I am talking about a very specific thing I have seen amongst many Allen supporters and not everyone who points out that the documentary isn’t objective. People who cling to a few points repeating them ad nauseam all while ignoring any facts that aren’t convenient. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Guest

[Guest]

20 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Interview with Allison Strickland, the nanny who witnessed Woody with his face in Dylan’s crotch

Thanks for posting that. It was the one interview I had been wanting to read. She really is the one that most effectively dismantles the brainwashing theory. She is the only eyewitness, wasn’t an employee of Farrow, wasn’t a friend of Farrow and did not stay in contact with anyone involved. There is no reason for her to lie particularly after nearly 30 years. There really no version where she is telling the truth that lines up with brainwashing unless we’re supposed to believe Mia was prepping Dylan waiting for someone to walk in on something that looked inappropriate to set into effect her master plan. 

Her story also proves Woody is lying when he says he was never alone with Dylan. It also creates problems with Moses’s claims that he was sitting in that same room the whole time. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Guest

[ElectricBoogaloo]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

Thanks for posting that. It was the one interview I had been wanting to read. She really is the one that most effectively dismantles the brainwashing theory. She is the only eyewitness, wasn’t a employee of Farrow, wasn’t a friend of Farrow and did not stay in contact with anyone involved. There is no reason for her to lie particularly after nearly 30 years. There really no version where she is telling the truth that lines up with brainwashing unless were supposed to believe Mia was prepping Dylan waiting for someone to walk in on something that looked inappropriate to set into effect her master plan. 

Her story also proves Woody is lying when he says he was never alone with Dylan. It also creates problems with Moses’s claims that he was sitting in that same room the whole time. 

In one of the early interviews about the documentary, one of the producers mentioned that the babysitter who witnessed Woody and Dylan together contacted them only after it was too late in the filmmaking process to include her, so I was really hoping that she would be interviewed or publicly come forward in some form. When the producers mentioned this, it was just one sentence in passing. They didn't talk about the lengths they'd gone through to try to find her. After the first episode aired, I did some googling to see if she had done an interview or released a statement to coincide with the release of the series and was disappointed not to find anything. I'm glad she did this interview and confirmed it all. Like you said, she has no reason to lie about this 30 years later. You know she's going to get nothing out of this but complaints from Woody stans. I'm guessing they'll go with the usual accusations typically hurled at sexual assault reporters ("she's a liar," "she's just doing this for attention," "she's a nobody who wants to be famous," "she wants to get paid").

Sadly, the thing that has been made really clear in the wake of the MeToo backlash, the Kavanaugh confirmation, and what Mia and Dylan have been dealing with for decades is that people would rather believe that a woman lied than believe that a man did something bad/gross/inappropriate and then lied about it.

[ifionlyknew]

7 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Sadly, the thing that has been made really clear in the wake of the MeToo backlash, the Kavanaugh confirmation, and what Mia and Dylan have been dealing with for decades is that people would rather believe that a woman lied than believe that a man did something bad/gross/inappropriate and then lied about it.

Woody proved he was an asshole at the very least by sleeping with his girlfriend's daughter.  So people accepted he did that but went and continue to go out of their way to say no he would never do anything to Dylan.   I don't think it's that much of a leap to believe he had sex with a teenager to he molested a child.   Woody was 57 years old when he was caught having sex with Soon Yi.  It was gross. Doesn't matter if he married her later on.  He is clearly a man who thinks he should get to have sex with whoever he wants.

[Clawdel]

5 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Woody proved he was an asshole at the very least by sleeping with his girlfriend's daughter.  So people accepted he did that but went and continue to go out of their way to say no he would never do anything to Dylan.   I don't think it's that much of a leap to believe he had sex with a teenager to he molested a child.   Woody was 57 years old when he was caught having sex with Soon Yi.  It was gross. Doesn't matter if he married her later on.  He is clearly a man who thinks he should get to have sex with whoever he wants.

This a million times. He constantly joked about pedophilia and child abuse in every other movie he ever made. I just finished his autobiography Apropos of Nothing and it really was just a bunch of nothing. Woody claims he married Soon-Yi to protect her financially for when he drops dead of old age. He's incredibly shallow. I've been a fan since I was a child and own a ton of his movies: Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Take the Money and Run, Bullets Over Broadway, Husbands and Wives, Deconstructing Harry, Love and Death, and New York Stories. I've seen literally all of his movies, the good, the bad, the funny, the dramatic, and the I want my money back drek.

I believe Dylan Farrow. I don't believe Woody Allen. I think Mia Farrow is a nut job and bit off more than she could chew, but her heart was mostly in the right place. I feel awful for Moses Farrow. I think Soon-Yi is despicable and am upset those two were allowed to adopt two more girls. Was Mia an abusive mother who treated her biological and adopted children differently? Probably. Is it concerning that three of her adopted children are dead? Yes. That's why I follow Moses Farrow's YouTube channel to get his side of the story.

I am a prude who was raised by prudes and am disturbed that Mia videotaped Dylan talking about her sexual abuse unclothed, a point Woody brought up in his autobiography. We see Dylan in a constant state of undress on camera, even if it's blurred out. What upset me the most was Dylan talking about all the times Woody had her in bed in only his underpants.

[candall]

In a sense, "Woody's side of the story" is represented by all the people gushing over Manhattan's Hometown Boy, child molestation charges notwithstanding.  "You're not a real New Yorker until you've bumped into Woody Allen!"  Huzzah.

 

I was struck by the man (journalist?) who had observed the complete custody trial.  He said he loved Woody Allen's work, had always been a huge fan, but much as it killed him, he just could NOT get past the truth he saw developed in the courtroom.  He was forced to agree with the judge--Dylan hadn't being manipulated, Woody couldn't care less about custody, Mia was being railroaded.  Gee, did it hurt when they pulled your teeth to make you admit that?

I'm thinking the rest of Woody's fans weren't privy to all 72 days of the hearing.

 

 

Even here, the aspersions cast against Mia Farrow are startling.  Her acting has been called mediocre, her motives suspect, her temperament flighty, crazy, neglectful, ill-equipped, right up to a bizarre note that three of her adopted kids are dead.

That you, Wood?

 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

9 hours ago, Clawdel said:

I am a prude who was raised by prudes and am disturbed that Mia videotaped Dylan talking about her sexual abuse unclothed, a point Woody brought up in his autobiography. We see Dylan in a constant state of undress on camera, even if it's blurred out.

This didn't bother me because Mia and her friend both said that Mia would grab the camera and start recording when Dylan brought up what happened. To me, that sounds like Mia wanted to make sure that Dylan was comfortable and she didn't want to upset her by saying things like, "Well, let's put on a shirt first." As someone else mentioned earlier (I think it was after the first episode aired), Mia said several times in passing that the kids were running around outside naked. If that's what they were used to, then I think it's fair to assume that Dylan was comfortable being topless and that's why she was seen that way in the videos where Mia asked what happened to her.

My in laws are not hippies by any stretch of the imagination. They live in a regular suburban neighborhood and the kids go to the local public school. But their kids' state of dress varies from voluntarily wanting to wear nice button down shirts reserved for holidays and running around in their underwear. They've been leaning a lot more towards running around in their underwear since the pandemic (these days it's normal for them to only be half dressed at any given time, meaning either they only have shirts on or they only have pants on but not both). That's why I didn't really think anything of what Dylan was wearing (or not wearing) in the videos.

On top of that, there were definitely some photos or videos shown where Ronan was wearing only a diaper (no shirt or pants) and Dylan was close in age to him so it didn't seem unusual to me that Dylan wasn't wearing a top in these videos.

[txhorns79]

9 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

On top of that, there were definitely some photos or videos shown where Ronan was wearing only a diaper (no shirt or pants) and Dylan was close in age to him so it didn't seem unusual to me that Dylan wasn't wearing a top in these videos.

Wasn't  she 7 or 8 when the molestation allegedly took place?  That's fairly old for a little girl to still be running around topless on any regular basis. 

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

Wasn't  she 7 or 8 when the molestation allegedly took place?  That's fairly old for a little girl to still be running around topless on any regular basis. 

Depends on the kid, it seems. I mean, the thing that's at the center of it is that girls don't go topless because women have breasts, but at 7 there's no different between Dylan's chest and Ronan's.

I do think it's particularly obnoxious for Woody Allen to try to use that as a sign that Mia's inappropriate given his own pictures of Soon-Yi. Which I realize bring up a totally different context, but it just seems like yet another point where he strikes the pose of concerned parent when it's convenient and clearly doesn't care about it at all in general. He didn't seem to have any objections to Dylan not wearing a shirt when he was constantly at the house. 

17 hours ago, candall said:

note that three of her adopted kids are dead.

Yeah, that seems like a touchy issue because it defines these dead adults as simply failures of Mia's parenting when there's a lot more going on. Lots of parents have kids who become addicts or suffer from depression, and AIDS and suicide can be unfortunate results of that. (According to shows like Intervention one shouldn't support an addict etc.) And if they started out their lives in harsh circumstances, that could also contribute to her. I don't mean to absolve Mia of any problems as a mother since I don't know her, and I certainly can't say the real reasons these tragedies happened, but this situation seems to often points to things as "proof" that Woody or Mia is totally innocent or totally guilty and it's probably more complicated. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by sistermagpie
Typo

[txhorns79]

1 minute ago, sistermagpie said:

Depends on the kid, it seems. I mean, the thing that's at the center of it is that girls don't go topless because women have breasts, but at 7 there's no different between Dylan's chest and Ronan's.

7 or 8 is a little old for a young girl to still be running around without a top.  It doesn't really depend on the kid, so much as it does on the parents setting boundaries.  From how it was described, it does not sound like the Farrow household was particularly good at setting boundaries.     

[sistermagpie]

40 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

7 or 8 is a little old for a young girl to still be running around without a top.  It doesn't really depend on the kid, so much as it does on the parents setting boundaries.  From how it was described, it does not sound like the Farrow household was particularly good at setting boundaries.     

She was 7. But what exactly are the boundaries her parents are failing to set and why? Because it seems more like a question of people having different levels of comfort or expectations more than something that's actually unhealthy or a sign of danger to me. I'm not saying it couldn't ever be a problem, but it seems like we need to think about why if it is. Ironically, in the video Dylan is defending her boundaries.

Edited March 11, 2021 by sistermagpie

[txhorns79]

27 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But what exactly are the boundaries her parents are failing to set and why?

I think a child that age is well beyond the point where it's appropriate to run around without clothes.  It's part of how we teach children of school age how to be appropriate around their peers and siblings, along with how we teach them to recognize when someone is inappropriately invading their bodily autonomy.              

[ElectricBoogaloo]

13 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think a child that age is well beyond the point where it's appropriate to run around without clothes.  It's part of how we teach children of school age how to be appropriate around their peers and siblings, along with how we teach them to recognize when someone is inappropriately invading their bodily autonomy.              

It's also how we teach them that boy nipples are acceptable at any age but girl nipples are not.

When I was 7, I had no shame about being naked around my parents or siblings. My little sister and I still took baths together and my parents supervised our baths and helped us get dressed/undressed. I wore clothes the rest of the time and I wasn't running around flashing anyone, so I think it's possible for a child to be comfortable with their body and still know how to behave appropriately.

But as was pointed out but a previous poster, Woody clearly had no issue with Dylan running around the house topless until he was trying to deflect accusations and get custody. If Dylan's general state of undress was an issue before then, as a parent he could have and should have done something about it.

[sistermagpie]

18 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think a child that age is well beyond the point where it's appropriate to run around without clothes.  It's part of how we teach children of school age how to be appropriate around their peers and siblings, along with how we teach them to recognize when someone is inappropriately invading their bodily autonomy.              

But that's just one opinion arbitrarily saying when it's okay for a little girl to not wear a shirt. And that's significant because you're linking it to her being molested by her father, as if that contributed to it when there's no reason to think that it does. Mia did note Woody's lack of boundaries with Dylan and he went to therapy for it. The comfort with pre-pubescent shirtless-ness at home and the reaction to Woody's behavior were always two different things. As they really usually are anyway. Teaching strict rules about covering girls bodies very often go along with teaching them the opposite of bodily autonomy. 

In fact, in the very video where Dylan isn't wearing a shirt she's talking about how she did not like her father touching her privates. She doesn't confuse the two things at all. 

[txhorns79]

27 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

And that's significant because you're linking it to her being molested by her father, as if that contributed to it when there's no reason to think that it does.

My viewing is that it was a chaotic household.  I don't think anyone in that household had a good sense of boundaries.  It is not surprising to me that they ended up where they are today, with allegations still going back and forth about who did what to whom.           

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

7 or 8 is a little old for a young girl to still be running around without a top.  It doesn't really depend on the kid, so much as it does on the parents setting boundaries.  From how it was described, it does not sound like the Farrow household was particularly good at setting boundaries.     

Why should a flat chested little girl need to wear a shirt around the house?

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I think a child that age is well beyond the point where it's appropriate to run around without clothes.  It's part of how we teach children of school age how to be appropriate around their peers and siblings, along with how we teach them to recognize when someone is inappropriately invading their bodily autonomy.              

It’s ok for little boys but not little girls? And I mean only at home.

[txhorns79]

12 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

It’s ok for little boys but not little girls? And I mean only at home.

Without getting too off topic, unless there is a particular reason, I would think both boys and girls of that age should be dressed while at home.  From what we've seen, Mia Farrow and Woody Allen do not agree with me.  I am more than willing to accept they view things differently.     

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

My viewing is that it was a chaotic household.  I don't think anyone in that household had a good sense of boundaries.  It is not surprising to me that they ended up where they are today, with allegations still going back and forth about who did what to whom.           

I would say chaotic is different than not having boundaries, though. It was probably chaotic--there were a lot of people who all have their pov and secrets, which happens even in small families. But that seems different from boundaries, because Woody was the person seen to be crossing them and it was noticed an acted on when he did it, first through therapy, then with a disturbing report from a babysitter and then with Dylan objecting to what he did.

Everybody in that house probably had their own set of issues, but Woody seemed to be really unique in how much he pushed boundaries, whether by monopolizing Dylan, laying out conditions for not being responsible for kids or having sex with Soon-Yi--the last one (and allegedly molesting Dylan) being stuff he did in secret. It's funny now I think about it that even Daisy's story of Woody as a father figure was about how if she came sneaking into the house as a teenager having been out all night, he would help her not get caught. Iow, it was understood that Daisy could expect some sort of discipline from her mother from doing this, but Woody would help her sneak in. 

[lovinbob]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:15 AM, Growsonwalls said:

Also Mia missed so many red flags with Woody. Like he said he had no interest in her kids. Why would you date someone who wasn't interested in your kids? Then he said if they had kids that he only wanted a blonde girl. Again, why would that sort of thing matter? 

I don't think Mia's judgment about men was great. She married Frank when she was 21 and he was 50. Not sure of the timeline but it seems like she didn't stay single for long--divorced sinatra in 68, married Previn in 70, divorced him in 79, began her relationship with Woody that same year. I'm not judging it but it seems like she was attracted to powerful, controlling men. (Though I should say, don't know much about Previn.) 

On 3/9/2021 at 8:25 PM, Dessert said:

Woody Allen is also a monster. It’s been obvious since came to light that he had sex with Soon-yi, his son’s sister. Even if she was of age when the sex started, the incestuous nature of the relationship is grotesque.

His son's sister and his partner's daughter. That is not ok at all.  I'd love to know what his diagnosis is, because his treatment of people he would claim to love is despicable. Not that I trust his psychiatrist, if the creepy shit that Mia said about the photos of Soon-Yi is true.

On 3/10/2021 at 3:23 PM, Clawdel said:

I am a prude who was raised by prudes and am disturbed that Mia videotaped Dylan talking about her sexual abuse unclothed, a point Woody brought up in his autobiography. We see Dylan in a constant state of undress on camera, even if it's blurred out. What upset me the most was Dylan talking about all the times Woody had her in bed in only his underpants.

I know people have different mores about nudity, but watching Dylan talk about her molestation while unclothed made me so uncomfortable, as did the way Mia explained away the fact that she taped it. ("The therapist was away" etc.) Admittedly her constant videotaping of everything is not something I can relate to.  I didn't know that Woody had commented on this in his book--it was just my honest observation watching the show.

Party of 1: I have never seen a Woody Allen film. I have no interest, even though I'm a New Yorker. I feel like it is a cultural deficit, but at this point I can't bring myself to start. 

I feel terrible for Dylan. She seems just so fragile. 

[candall]

Mia said she recorded Dylan when Dylan wanted to talk about what had happened.  Maybe Dylan felt the most comfortable talking when she was relaxed and fresh out of the tub or drowsy and getting into her pj's for bedtime.  Who knows?

That kid got dressed up and combed out and plopped down in front of literally dozens of investigators and authorities and psychologists.  Should her mother really have told her to just wait a sec before she started sharing what was on her mind so she could get a shirt on?

 

I can't believe the extensive conclusions that are being drawn about a whole family because there's a little kid talking to her mother for a couple of minutes about something serious and she's not wearing a top!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

1 hour ago, lovinbob said:

Party of 1: I have never seen a Woody Allen film. I have no interest, even though I'm a New Yorker. I feel like it is a cultural deficit, but at this point I can't bring myself to start. 

Same here. As a kid, I saw the movies my parents let us watch. As a teenager, I would see ANYTHING that was out just so I could go to the movies with my friends, yet somehow I never saw a single one of his movies. By the time I was an adult and was making conscious choices about what movies I was actually interested in seeing, neither he nor his movies held no interest for me. The only snippets I've seen of his movies were the ones shown in this docuseries and if Manhattan was supposed to be this great masterpiece that's representative of his work, then I clearly haven't been missing anything. The scenes they showed were just self inserts of Woody letting a teenage girl beg to be with him.