Allen v. Farrow

[Miss February]

After watching the final episode, I realized I felt rather guilty for ever having been on the fence about this situation, hearing both sides and seeing how each person could be telling the truth. I read Mia's (very well-written) book quite a few years ago and I didn't doubt her at all. But when things came back into the news a few years ago, I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Woody from 1993 and found him credible enough that I considered the possibility that Mia reacted in rage and perhaps either wasn't entirely honest or falsely believed he was capable of something even more horrific than what he did to and with Soon-Yi. Seeing the Valentine's Day card Mia sent with the scissors in the heart of each child's picture made me wonder if she was (extremely) emotionally immature and capable of revenge. Woody claimed she said, "I have something nasty planned for you," and "You took my daughter, I'm going to take yours," and that she planned to be in his next movie, even after accusing him of child molestation. So, yeah, that's all a bit unusual. Also, I used to love Woody Allen movies and I was a bit taken in by the interview and seeing him in his New York apartment with all the books and being...Woody Allen. I think it's clear now that that was always just a character, and not at all what he is really like.

I now staunchly believe Dylan and Mia. I've always liked Mia Farrow and, as stated above, it seems strange to have entertained doubt about her. Of course we don't know these people, but I have viewed Mia as a good person, and I deeply respect her for spending her life caring for those less fortunate and for truly wanting to help people. She's adopted many special-needs children, and it seems obvious she's a very loving mother. Also, she works hard to bring attention to suffering people in other parts of the world. And before my momentary lapse in judgement, I've never really gotten why people have an indifferent or even negative opinion about her.

I guess I bought and possibly romanticized Woody's well-crafted persona of not caring about what anyone thought of him as an artist and that he wasn't interested in the Hollywood scene or awards, but just wanted to make films while living a writer's life of privacy. But it seems clear now that he cares very much what people think of him, and he is an extremely self-centered, entitled person who doesn't mind at all that he came into someone's life and hurt so many people, including a child, and that he continues to see himself as the victim while smearing the people he hurt. His lack of conscience is startling to behold. This has been interesting to watch and think about.

Here's the 60 Minutes interview, for anyone who hasn't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPs5TAO8Hj4

[Miss February]

On 3/16/2021 at 11:56 AM, Dr.OO7 said:

Exactly. If she wants to be all high and mighty and insist that she knew what she was doing and that Woody didn't take advantage of her, then she needs to own up to the fact that she willingly went to bed with a man who was already in a relationship--and with her mother, no less.

I know relationships are complicated and that some have resulted from one or both parties cheating, but there should be the decency and humility to acknowledge that. Instead, from these two. . . nothing. Not a trace of guilt or remorse from either of them over how badly they hurt Mia.

 

On 3/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Not only Mia, but all of the other children. Woody sleeping with Soon-Yi destroyed their family. I think that even if Dylan's abuse allegations hadn't come out, the Soon-Yi affair would have been enough to hurt all of them. It took away a father figure who was shown to be very present in their lives and it took away their sister.

In a NYT op ed from 2014, the shared self-righteousness of Woody and Soon-Yi is evident as Woody writes about how many times they, the innocent love birds, tried to see Dylan after the molestation accusation, but that awful Mia wouldn't let them:  

"I never saw her [Dylan] again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness."

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html

[lasu]

Finally finished this up last night:

Man, it is really disheartening how much misogyny plays into abusers hands.  It's crazy to me that so many people find it easier to believe that "bitches be crazy" than a father sexually assaulting his daughter.  To me, had Mia Farrow coached Dylan into this, it would be a far worse parental betrayal than what Woody actually did, not to diminish that at ALL.  I'm not saying that fake abuse allegations never happen; I'm sure they do.  But I think it's probably incredibly rare and not super relevant to this situation.  But it boggles my mind the scope of what people believe Mia did, and continues to do.

Mia Farrow does strike me a kook, and I did catch that the documentary was contradictory with her.  She talked about always being with her children and never doing anything else, and that she always brought her children to work, but then later she was talking about doing a movie in Egypt (I think?) and she mentioned she took Soon-Yi with her to help with bonding.  I inferred from that that A) she didn't always take them but it was important to take Soon-Yi this time, and B) she left the other 8549 kids at home.  They actually did the same thing with Woody - they had interviews with the kids talking about how he was always there, in CT, when they woke up and when they went to bed...but he didn't stay there?  He was going to CT to hang out every day and driving to NY to sleep?  It was confusing.

I think Mia may have been a neglectful as a mother.  I think it would have been nearly impossible to be a great parent to so many kids, even if none of them had had extra needs.  I don't know why she chose to adopt so many children, but I'm in NO way surprised they kept giving them to her.  The only one I wonder about at all is Dylan herself.  All of the others, even if Mia's home was negelectful, it was probably far better than the conditions they were removed from, and it's not like people are fighting each other to get special needs children from foreign orphanages.  I don't like to talk this way about human beings, but these were kids no one else wanted.  Now, Dylan on the other hand, white newborn baby?  People will literally kill to get their hands on those.  Dylan would have been adopted, period.  I have to wonder if it was a private adoption...geez, though, imagine if you knew THIS was the household you gave up your baby to go live in?  Horrific.

Other things that struck me - it seemed like Mia wanted to get back together with Woody even after he slept with Soon-Yi, which is bonkers in and of itself, but I can also kind of see it, especially if he negged her the way it appeared he did.  She'd been with him for 12 years and they had a family.  I think it would have been the wrong choice to stay with Woody after that, but people have done worse.  What really struck me as odd is how much they talked way into this situation.  I get that each of them was taping the other and trying to get them to say something incriminating, but it still just seemed crazy to me.  Also, that she continued working with him after she found out about the affair (but not after the molestation?).  I couldn't have done it.

Going to the DA, I've seen it posted several times that he got in trouble for what he said at the news conference.  That is simply not true at all.  Woody's lawyer filed a complaint, it was dismissed.  I have never once heard him say he thought Woody was guilty, or even that he thought Dylan was telling the truth.  I think he was very careful about that, it was his job to determine probably cause and if charges should be brought forward, guilt would be determined by a judge and/or jury - not him.  Even when he met with Dylan, he didn't say it, and I thought that was correct.  I have absolutely no reason to think he was telling the truth about why he didn't bring charges - he didn't feel he could pin a case on a traumatized 7 year old.  He even said it - he couldn't chance her freezing up.  I think he knew his case was iffy ONLY because his star witness was an abused child and might not be able to handle the cross.  Which I think is fair.  It's been suggested he made up this excuse to save face because he didn't have a good enough of a case.  Save face from who??  The public was mostly on Woody's side.  The DA could have cozied up to NY elite by simply saying nope, not enough here for a case.  So I believe him.

Finally, I don't think Woody is a typical pedophile, I think he's an ephebophile - attracted to teens, also hugely problematic.  I don't think he primarily is attracted to children, but a lot of his focus has seemed to be on bright, innocent young women who he wants to "mentor" and "nurture."  So while he wasn't attracted to MOST children, who is going to seem more innocent, more pure, more special, more untouched by anyone but him, more moldable especially to him...than Dylan?  So I think he's unnatural obsession with her combined with his ephebophilia led to a nasty place, but maybe one he never went to before or after.  Even if most abusers have multiple victims, I can't use that as evidence nothing happened here.

[ifionlyknew]

17 minutes ago, lasu said:

Now, Dylan on the other hand, white newborn baby?  People will literally kill to get their hands on those.  Dylan would have been adopted, period.  I have to wonder if it was a private adoption...geez, though, imagine if you knew THIS was the household you gave up your baby to go live in?  Horrific.

When Woody agreed to an adoption with Mia he specifically said he wanted a blond white girl.  Like he was picking out what kind of car he wanted.

18 minutes ago, lasu said:

Finally, I don't think Woody is a typical pedophile, I think he's an ephebophile - attracted to teens, also hugely problematic.  I don't think he primarily is attracted to children, but a lot of his focus has seemed to be on bright, innocent young women who he wants to "mentor" and "nurture."  So while he wasn't attracted to MOST children, who is going to seem more innocent, more pure, more special, more untouched by anyone but him, more moldable especially to him...than Dylan?  So I think he's unnatural obsession with her combined with his ephebophilia led to a nasty place, but maybe one he never went to before or after.  Even if most abusers have multiple victims, I can't use that as evidence nothing happened here.

Lots of people including Dylan said Woody was overly focused on her.  I think Dylan worded it as he was always all over me.  And then of course he sleeps with his girlfriend's teenage or 20 year old daughter. Clearly something is wrong with him. Even the adult women he was involved with seem childlike.  I don't think  Woody is capable of having a relationship with a female he considered an equal to him.

[peachmangosteen]

52 minutes ago, lasu said:

They actually did the same thing with Woody - they had interviews with the kids talking about how he was always there, in CT, when they woke up and when they went to bed...but he didn't stay there?  He was going to CT to hang out every day and driving to NY to sleep?  It was confusing.

I thought with that they were trying to dampen Woody's claims that he wasn't like a father to any of the kids and barely saw them. The kids were saying that simply wasn't true, that he was there with them a lot and that they saw him as a father figure.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, lasu said:

Finally finished this up last night:

Man, it is really disheartening how much misogyny plays into abusers hands.  It's crazy to me that so many people find it easier to believe that "bitches be crazy" than a father sexually assaulting his daughter.  To me, had Mia Farrow coached Dylan into this, it would be a far worse parental betrayal than what Woody actually did, not to diminish that at ALL.  I'm not saying that fake abuse allegations never happen; I'm sure they do.  But I think it's probably incredibly rare and not super relevant to this situation.  But it boggles my mind the scope of what people believe Mia did, and continues to do.

Mia Farrow does strike me a kook, and I did catch that the documentary was contradictory with her.  She talked about always being with her children and never doing anything else, and that she always brought her children to work, but then later she was talking about doing a movie in Egypt (I think?) and she mentioned she took Soon-Yi with her to help with bonding.  I inferred from that that A) she didn't always take them but it was important to take Soon-Yi this time, and B) she left the other 8549 kids at home.  They actually did the same thing with Woody - they had interviews with the kids talking about how he was always there, in CT, when they woke up and when they went to bed...but he didn't stay there?  He was going to CT to hang out every day and driving to NY to sleep?  It was confusing.

I think Mia may have been a neglectful as a mother.  I think it would have been nearly impossible to be a great parent to so many kids, even if none of them had had extra needs.  I don't know why she chose to adopt so many children, but I'm in NO way surprised they kept giving them to her.  The only one I wonder about at all is Dylan herself.  All of the others, even if Mia's home was negelectful, it was probably far better than the conditions they were removed from, and it's not like people are fighting each other to get special needs children from foreign orphanages.  I don't like to talk this way about human beings, but these were kids no one else wanted.  Now, Dylan on the other hand, white newborn baby?  People will literally kill to get their hands on those.  Dylan would have been adopted, period.  I have to wonder if it was a private adoption...geez, though, imagine if you knew THIS was the household you gave up your baby to go live in?  Horrific.

Other things that struck me - it seemed like Mia wanted to get back together with Woody even after he slept with Soon-Yi, which is bonkers in and of itself, but I can also kind of see it, especially if he negged her the way it appeared he did.  She'd been with him for 12 years and they had a family.  I think it would have been the wrong choice to stay with Woody after that, but people have done worse.  What really struck me as odd is how much they talked way into this situation.  I get that each of them was taping the other and trying to get them to say something incriminating, but it still just seemed crazy to me.  Also, that she continued working with him after she found out about the affair (but not after the molestation?).  I couldn't have done it.

Going to the DA, I've seen it posted several times that he got in trouble for what he said at the news conference.  That is simply not true at all.  Woody's lawyer filed a complaint, it was dismissed.  I have never once heard him say he thought Woody was guilty, or even that he thought Dylan was telling the truth.  I think he was very careful about that, it was his job to determine probably cause and if charges should be brought forward, guilt would be determined by a judge and/or jury - not him.  Even when he met with Dylan, he didn't say it, and I thought that was correct.  I have absolutely no reason to think he was telling the truth about why he didn't bring charges - he didn't feel he could pin a case on a traumatized 7 year old.  He even said it - he couldn't chance her freezing up.  I think he knew his case was iffy ONLY because his star witness was an abused child and might not be able to handle the cross.  Which I think is fair.  It's been suggested he made up this excuse to save face because he didn't have a good enough of a case.  Save face from who??  The public was mostly on Woody's side.  The DA could have cozied up to NY elite by simply saying nope, not enough here for a case.  So I believe him.

Finally, I don't think Woody is a typical pedophile, I think he's an ephebophile - attracted to teens, also hugely problematic.  I don't think he primarily is attracted to children, but a lot of his focus has seemed to be on bright, innocent young women who he wants to "mentor" and "nurture."  So while he wasn't attracted to MOST children, who is going to seem more innocent, more pure, more special, more untouched by anyone but him, more moldable especially to him...than Dylan?  So I think he's unnatural obsession with her combined with his ephebophilia led to a nasty place, but maybe one he never went to before or after.  Even if most abusers have multiple victims, I can't use that as evidence nothing happened here.

I really try to avoid judging parenting performance, except in the most extreme cases of wrongdoing. Raising human beings from childhood to adulthood is extraordinarily complex, with too many variables to count. I have no idea how good or bad a parent Mia Farrow was. I'm about 99% sure that Woody Allen sexually assaulted one of Farrow's daughters when she was extremely young, and I'm 100% sure he was having sex with another of her daughters when that daughter was still in high school.

[Dr.OO7]

On 3/15/2021 at 4:34 PM, ifionlyknew said:

It's not like this was a man where you could say oh no there is simply no way he is capable of this. He had been having sex with girlfriend's daughter. Woody was not a saint.  

Exactly. Even if you genuinely thought he was innocent of the molestation charges, this man was banging his girlfriend's barely legal daughter, who he'd known since she was a child. Even Hollywood with its multitude of May-December romances ought to have expressed some disgust at that.

[bosawks]

Soon-Yi just makes me sad.  My baseless take on it is that to her life is just about survival and all her "choices" are made out of that framework.

 

[Bannon]

20 minutes ago, bosawks said:

Soon-Yi just makes me sad.  My baseless take on it is that to her life is just about survival and all her "choices" are made out of that framework.

 

At some point in our lives we all must be accountable for what we do to others, but that doesn't preclude the reality that if you spend your first six years fighting for survival, without experiencing the love of any other person, desperation will likely be your default mode

 

[LemonSoda]

On 3/8/2021 at 8:09 AM, txhorns79 said:

I think the Sinatra family has said there is no real chance Ronan is Frank's son.  I want to say that one of Frank's daughters even stated that Frank had a vasectomy long before Ronan would have been conceived.    

 A Frank biography really delves in to this. Around the time Ronan was conceived Frank was having severe health issues. He had intestinal issues so bad he had a colostomy bag. Also during that time he was in Hawaii filming Magnum P.I., and Palm Springs with Barbara watching him like a hawk. 

I was surprised to find out Ronan’s gorgeous blue eyes are contacts. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by LemonSoda

[Pepper Mostly]

Wow, I was reading an article this morning about conductor James Levine, and the author Kenneth Woods' assessment of Levine could apply equally to Woody Allen: 

"James Levine was not a great man with a single tragic flaw.

He was an almost completely horrible person, with a single, tragic talent."

Boom. 

[Bannon]

15 minutes ago, Pepper Mostly said:

Wow, I was reading an article this morning about conductor James Levine, and the author Kenneth Woods' assessment of Levine could apply equally to Woody Allen: 

"James Levine was not a great man with a single tragic flaw.

He was an almost completely horrible person, with a single, tragic talent."

Boom. 

Yep, and that really sums up so much of our popular culture. Again, I despise nostalgia, so I don't raise the counter-example to suppose A Time when People were Better, but I saw a documentary on Audrey Hepburn this week, and the contrast was amazing. She had a childhood of extreme deprivation, abandoned by her father, living under Nazi occupation. She catches some luck, works her ass off, and ends up a movie star, with all the perks and somewhat stereotypical fiascoes of a movie star's personal life, but finally finds a compatible partner, and attempts to achieve a quiet, prosperous retirement in Switzerland.

A relative invites her to speak at a Unesco fund raiser, and she ends up spending the last 12 years of her life traveling to the most horrible places on earth, witnessing, while trying to alleviate, unimaginable suffering experienced by children.I think about that, while also thinking about Woody Allen, in his own voice, describing his life, or in the phone calls, manipulating people he sees as little more than objects that exist to satisfy his desires. Egads.

[cardigirl]

On 3/15/2021 at 5:11 PM, Dessert said:

I keep thinking about Hannah and Her Sisters. Isn’t that the one where he’s involved in or married to Mia Farrows’s character and has affairs with both of her sisters behind her back? It’s very indicative of his lack of respect for family boundaries. It disgusted me at the time.

I agree about not thinking movies should be pulled from distribution. I stopped seeing Woody Allen films before the Soon-yi scandal because I didn’t think they were very good. Afterwards, I vowed never to see another one because I don’t want to give him one penny of my money.

I do, however, watch Polanski movies. Chinatown is one of my favorite movies and I refuse to give it up. The Pianist is brilliant, too. I don’t think he should be let back in this country. Let France, or wherever he’s living, deal with him. I do think he should be prosecuted and punished for any crimes he has committed. I can also understand anyone not wanting to watch his movies.

Woody's character is not the one having the affairs, it's Mia's character's husband (Michael Caine) who is having an affair with Mia's sister. Woody's character is Mia's ex-husband.  He thinks he's dying from a brain tumor.  He ends up with Diane Wiest, another of the sisters. 

[lasu]

22 hours ago, Bannon said:

I really try to avoid judging parenting performance, except in the most extreme cases of wrongdoing. Raising human beings from childhood to adulthood is extraordinarily complex, with too many variables to count. I have no idea how good or bad a parent Mia Farrow was.

I think my original post where I said Mia was probably a neglectful parent probably didn't accurately convey what I meant.  I didn't mean that I felt her kids were neglected, but that I don't think there is any way one person could adequately parent that many children by herself.  And I do think it was a bit disingenuous the way she made it sound like she was with her kids 24/7 when she wasn't (nor do I think any parent should be).  

I'm not entering this as evidence in any way against Mia, and certainly not pro Woody.  However, I do think it's a misstep when telling a story that is so hinged on believability to have something where I'm left like, "hmmh, that doesn't seem 100% true..."  I do not think Mia was a bad or abusive parent.  But I do think she tried to make us think she spent more time with her children than she actually did - and this is the worst of the charges I can really bring against her so, really not bad.

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, lasu said:

I do not think Mia was a bad or abusive parent.  But I do think she tried to make us think she spent more time with her children than she actually did - and this is the worst of the charges I can really bring against her so, really not bad.

I think Mia didn't want to be blamed for what happened to Dylan.  If I understand correctly Woody is accused of molesting Dylan after Mia found out about Soon Yi.  I think this was before any formal custody arrangements were in place and certainly before they were suing each other for custody.  So some people (myself included) might think you knew he was having sex with your barely legal daughter why would let him continue to see his kids.  Clearly he has shown himself to be someone who doesn't care who he hurts.  Maybe she thought not seeing Woody would punish the kids.  I don't know.  I don't blame her for what happened to Dylan and I understand when you share kids with someone who did something really hurtful to you it makes things tough and honestly if it was me I would not have wanted to even see his face. So I can understand why she wasn't in the house the day it allegedly happened.

[Guest]

On 3/18/2021 at 5:56 AM, lasu said:

She talked about always being with her children and never doing anything else, and that she always brought her children to work, but then later she was talking about doing a movie in Egypt (I think?) and she mentioned she took Soon-Yi with her to help with bonding.  I inferred from that that A) she didn't always take them but it was important to take Soon-Yi this time, and B) she left the other 8549 kids at home.

I didn’t think they were contradictions because she was talking about two different time periods. The movie in Egypt would have been in 77 or 79 when she was still married. The always with them statement was about later when she was a single mom. That was also when she was filming Woody’s movies which were filmed closer to home and, probably, with more lenient for the kids being around. 

 

On 3/18/2021 at 5:56 AM, lasu said:

They actually did the same thing with Woody - they had interviews with the kids talking about how he was always there, in CT, when they woke up and when they went to bed...but he didn't stay there?  He was going to CT to hang out every day and driving to NY to sleep?  It was confusing.

I thought they were talking about NY when saying he was there morning and night. In one account of the day of the accusation it mentions Woody spent the night in a guest room and left the next morning. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Guest

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I think Mia didn't want to be blamed for what happened to Dylan.  If I understand correctly Woody is accused of molesting Dylan after Mia found out about Soon Yi.  I think this was before any formal custody arrangements were in place and certainly before they were suing each other for custody.  So some people (myself included) might think you knew he was having sex with your barely legal daughter why would let him continue to see his kids.  Clearly he has shown himself to be someone who doesn't care who he hurts.  Maybe she thought not seeing Woody would punish the kids.  I don't know.  I don't blame her for what happened to Dylan and I understand when you share kids with someone who did something really hurtful to you it makes things tough and honestly if it was me I would not have wanted to even see his face. So I can understand why she wasn't in the house the day it allegedly happened.

Yeah, she did say that she couldn't keep him from seeing them because he was their father. There was no formal custody arrangement but she probably was right that he'd use it against her if she refused to let him see her--of course, he still does claim that she refused to let him see Dylan.

I just listened to the third ep of the podcast. It has another excerpt from a conversation with Dylan about what happened. It explains again that Mia would just grab the camera whenever it seemed that Dylan was starting to talk about it--she's in the bathtub this time, which made me think about how she's topless in the other video, and made me wonder if those kinds of situations naturally made her mind go to it more than it would if she was, say, sitting at the table in a tee-shirt and shorts having lunch.

Anyway, this clip was much harder to listen to--it's not graphic and she's not explaining literally what he did, but just being hurt and confused and trying to process the betrayal of it and just so sad. Also another clip of a phone conversation where Woody blames Mia for their not getting back together because she refuses to "join him" in refuting, it seems, the Soon-Yi story. 

[ifionlyknew]

2 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Also another clip of a phone conversation where Woody blames Mia for their not getting back together because she refuses to "join him" in refuting, it seems, the Soon-Yi story. 

Wonder how Soon Yi felt about that.  I stand by my belief Soon Yi was only going to be side piece and once Mia knew and refused to forgive him he thought well I need to not look bad (as if he didn't already look like an absolute piece of shit) so I guess I have to marry Soon Yi.  

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

Wonder how Soon Yi felt about that.  I stand by my belief Soon Yi was only going to be side piece and once Mia knew and refused to forgive him he thought well I need to not look bad (as if he didn't already look like an absolute piece of shit) so I guess I have to marry Soon Yi.  

Who really can tell, but my guess is that he deliberately left the pornographic photos out so Mia Farrow would see them. Why? Because he's an A-hole. He didn't plan on being eventually accused of sexually assaulting Dylan, and once that happened, he needed to have a more permanent relationship with Soon-Yi, in order to strengthen his assertion that Mia Farrow was merely a woman scorned who was concocting false stories of sexual assault of a minor child.

He's an evil bastard, that much is certain.

[sistermagpie]

18 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

Wonder how Soon Yi felt about that.  I stand by my belief Soon Yi was only going to be side piece and once Mia knew and refused to forgive him he thought well I need to not look bad (as if he didn't already look like an absolute piece of shit) so I guess I have to marry Soon Yi.  

Honestly, given everything in this doc and the conversations we hear and the things everyone else says, it seems impossible to believe anything else. Woody himself seems to pretty much admit exactly that. He was never planning to get caught or break up with Mia. If Mia had gone along with it he'd have stayed with her and probably lie about having stopped sleeping with Soon-Yi.

ETA: The podcast confirmed that kids usually bring this stuff done when undressed because it does trigger the memory.

Edited March 19, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Bannon]

16 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Honestly, given everything in this doc and the conversations we hear and the things everyone else says, it seems impossible to believe anything else. Woody himself seems to pretty much admit exactly that. He was never planning to get caught or break up with Mia. If Mia had gone along with it he'd have stayed with her and probably lie about having stopped sleeping with Soon-Yi.

ETA: The podcast confirmed that kids usually bring this stuff done when undressed because it does trigger the memory.

16 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Honestly, given everything in this doc and the conversations we hear and the things everyone else says, it seems impossible to believe anything else. Woody himself seems to pretty much admit exactly that. He was never planning to get caught or break up with Mia. If Mia had gone along with it he'd have stayed with her and probably lie about having stopped sleeping with Soon-Yi.

ETA: The podcast confirmed that kids usually bring this stuff done when undressed because it does trigger the memory.

He might be enough of a narcissist to think he could "accidentally" show Mia Farrow that he was having sex with Soon-Yi, and that he had such power, psychological& professional, that Mia Farrow would just accept it. Then he started to think he could sexually assault Dylan as well, without consequence. Absolutely blood curdling stuff.

[sistermagpie]

12 minutes ago, Bannon said:

He might be enough of a narcissist to think he could "accidentally" show Mia Farrow that he was having sex with Soon-Yi, and that he had such power, psychological& professional, that Mia Farrow would just accept it. Then he started to think he could sexually assault Dylan as well, without consequence. Absolutely blood curdling stuff.

Yes, the fact that in a conversation that seems to have happened after Mia found the photos but before the assault, he could coldly accuse her of having "ruined" their chance at reconciliation (by not covering for him) makes it seem like he just thought could dictate whatever terms he wanted. And while I can't say it for certain, I think he does get to do that a lot with Soon-Yi. And maybe Moses too these days. 

[Cheezwiz]

11 hours ago, Bannon said:

Woody Allen, in his own voice, describing his life, or in the phone calls, manipulating people he sees as little more than objects that exist to satisfy his desires. Egads.

Yep, that's Woody in a nutshell. People are merely things to him, simply to be moved around like pieces on a chess board. He fooled everyone with a manufactured persona of a lovable nebbish. He is devoid of any compassion, empathy or humanity. As evidenced by his phone recordings and own biography, EVERYTHING is about him.

Not to drift off topic too much,  but as a more recent example, I would venture the same assessment of Louis CK. I was a fan of a lot of his standup - some of it went too far for my taste, but so much of it seemed perceptive and intelligent. Then when the allegations about his harassment (which had been percolating for a long time) finally came to light, the mask began to seriously slip. After his initial apology, he started doubling down, and displaying the REAL person behind the "bumbling regular guy trying to do his best" persona. His subsequent behavior has revealed him to be what I also believe is a complete sociopath.

I think this topic fascinates me, because in my life I've been very fortunate to escape any kind of entanglement with this sort of person. I think I'm trying to study up on them, because they initially must have a great deal of charm and charisma, and it must be absolutely devastating to have one in your life.

 

 

[Bannon]

8 minutes ago, Cheezwiz said:

Yep, that's Woody in a nutshell. People are merely things to him, simply to be moved around like pieces on a chess board. He fooled everyone with a manufactured persona of a lovable nebbish. He is devoid of any compassion, empathy or humanity. As evidenced by his phone recordings and own biography, EVERYTHING is about him.

Not to drift off topic too much,  but as a more recent example, I would venture the same assessment of Louis CK. I was a fan of a lot of his standup - some of it went too far for my taste, but so much of it seemed perceptive and intelligent. Then when the allegations about his harassment (which had been percolating for a long time) finally came to light, the mask began to seriously slip. After his initial apology, he started doubling down, and displaying the REAL person behind the "bumbling regular guy trying to do his best" persona. His subsequent behavior has revealed him to be what I also believe is a complete sociopath.

I think this topic fascinates me, because in my life I've been very fortunate to escape any kind of entanglement with this sort of person. I think I'm trying to study up on them, because they initially must have a great deal of charm and charisma, and it must be absolutely devastating to have one in your life.

 

 

Oh, yes, the high functioning, strategically competent, narcissistic sociopath, who loses all sense of being risk averse, is very dangerous. The ones that remain risk averse can actually provide significant value to society. I'd guess Steve Jobs, for example, fell into this category.

[DanaK]

I watched Episode 2 last night. Even if one were to not believe Allen molested Dylan, I don't think one can justify his relationship with Soon Yi, at least morally. That was just morally wrong on so many levels given she was part of his girlfriend's and children's family. Also, this might be covered in the later episodes, but for a young girl on the streets running with other kids, I find it very hard to believe that Soon-Yi had no experience with sex or that there wasn't sexual abuse of any kind

[Quilt Fairy]

It's probably been posted earlier in the thread, but this is the judge's ruling in the custody case.  I recommend reading it, because it's more than just the final decision.  The judge recaps, in great detail, the background of Mia's marriages and children and her relationship with Woody, as well as Woody's relationship with Dylan, Ronan, and Moses.  There were many details that were left out of the documentary.  For one thing, my impression from the show was that Woody had basically scared Mia into silence for the last 25 years, but that's not the complete picture.  Now, Woody still comes off as a sick shit, but it's clear that the producers framed the story a particular way.  

Edited March 22, 2021 by Quilt Fairy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

For one thing, my impression from the show was that Woody had basically scared Mia into silence for the last 25 years, but that's not the complete picture. 

How? It was written in 1993 and really doesn’t deal with Mia’s actions after the accusation. 

[Maysie]

On 3/21/2021 at 8:58 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

Now, Woody still comes off as a sick shit, but it's clear that the producers framed the story a particular way.  

I’m sure they did, and if it’s accurate, I have no problem with that. Years ago, when I was in journalism school, we were told that it’s almost impossible to not be biased-everyone has an opinion. However, it was critical that we be accurate. There’s nothing that says this documentary had to present both sides (it’s not a debate), and god knows Woody Allen didn’t give Mia Farrow rebuttal time in his press conferences (nor should he). I think showing clips of the press conference and reading Woody’s own words from his biography give us a pretty complete picture of his point of view.

It boils down to who you believe. I believe Dylan. And it makes me sad and angry that people are so much more willing to believe the established, wealthy white guy instead of the victim. I understand that these are allegations that can ruin lives and careers, and I don’t expect Woody Allen to suddenly cop to it, so he’s doing what I would expect him to do. But it’s so disheartening to realize how strong the trend is to dismiss the victims, and in the case of Woody Allen, laud him because he’s an artist. 

I think if Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Diane Keaton, or any one of his other defenders could say honestly, in their heart of hearts, that they would have been fine letting their 7 year old daughter hang out in the attic with Woody that afternoon, I will accept that they really buy what Woody is selling and see nothing wrong with fawning over him. But for fucks sake people, he was sleeping with his girlfriends college age daughter!!!!! How does that not make you at least give him the side eye????? 

[DangerousMinds]

The documentary may have been less “biased” if Woody, Soon-Yi, or Moses had consented to be interviewed. They were all asked and declined. 

[Lady Whistleup]

One interesting thing: Moses Farrow has an instagram. Nowhere on his Instagram are any recent pictures of Woody or SoonYi. Makes me wonder how much contact they actually have.

[ifionlyknew]

19 hours ago, Maysie said:

I think if Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Diane Keaton, or any one of his other defenders could say honestly, in their heart of hearts, that they would have been fine letting their 7 year old daughter hang out in the attic with Woody that afternoon, I will accept that they really buy what Woody is selling and see nothing wrong with fawning over him. But for fucks sake people, he was sleeping with his girlfriends college age daughter!!!!! How does that not make you at least give him the side eye????? 

And that was never disputed. Her exact age was but not the fact he had sex with his girlfriend's daughter who was young enough to be his daughter. The sister of three of his children.  And Hollywood acted like it was no big deal. Normally I don't care about May/December romances. If both people are legally adults fine whatever you found someone good for you.  But I think the age difference is relevant here because he knew Soon Yi as an underage girl.  He watched her grow up. 

[Maysie]

I realized today that when someone has a personal relationship with an accused, it may really affect their judgment. Case in point: about 10 years ago I came across a letter on the desktop of a shared work pc as I was cleaning stuff up. I took a quick look to see what it was and asked my friend who wrote it if I could delete it. She said yes and explained that it was a letter to a judge requesting leniency in sentencing for an old family friend who was accused of watching/ downloading  child pornography online. I was a little stunned because at the time, my friend had elementary school aged children. Her position was that she grew up with this man who was like a second father to her and that she didn’t know the specifics of the charge; she figured it was kind of a barely legal kind of thing.

A few days later the paper ran the story of his sentencing because he was well known/liked (and an attorney). Evidently the porn was of 2/3 year old children and it was on the computer seized by the FBI. I was disgusted beyond belief but I didn’t bring it up with my friend. She brought it up with me a few days later and said she had no idea that’s what the charges were and she was conflicted about having written the letter, but she still viewed him as this great father figure from her own childhood.

So the guy goes to prison, does his time and when he gets out about five or six years later is invited to the kids’ bar mitzvahs (my friend specifically invited him knowing that it would be a parole violation). I don’t know if he went, but she really wanted him there, which I found pretty disturbing on a number of levels.

So even in a situation when someone cops to doing a disgusting, amoral, damaging and illegal thing, people will still find a way to hand wave it away if they have a favorable personal history with the accused. When money, prestige, fame, etc are in the way, I guess it makes it even easier to overlook these inconvenient issues (or truths, when proven).

[carrps]

Man, Maysie, what a creepy story. I'd be giving this friend the side eye for a long time.

[AAEBoiler]

Ok, to inject a little levity into this sad affair ... whenever a notification from this thread pops up on this page I keep mis-seeing it as "ALIEN-v-farrow" and wonder what sort of dark, vindictive turn the Alien sci-fi franchise has taken.

[Maysie]

2 hours ago, carrps said:

Man, Maysie, what a creepy story. I'd be giving this friend the side eye for a long time

We’ve since gone our separate ways, but that was the first thing in our friendship that made me see her in a different way. I’ve often wondered how forgiving she would have been if it had been one of her kids on the hard drive. (And I asked her if she’d leave her kids alone with him and she said she didn’t know, which, points for honesty I guess but wtf???) And that’s the thing: this is someone’s baby. But like the famous actors who stick by Woody Allen after all of this, I guess it’s hard to conceive that it’s possible if it didn’t happen to you/someone you love. I think for some people, they have to be directly impacted because they can’t really empathize well (which it turned out my friend had a difficult time doing).
 

Back to Woody Allen: even if you take Dylan out of the picture, there’s the whole Soon Yi thing, and even if she was of consenting age, it’s messed up and creepy as hell to take naked pictures of your girlfriend’s daughter. And it disturbs me that a whole raft of people are just fine with that.

[carrps]

19 hours ago, Maysie said:

Back to Woody Allen: even if you take Dylan out of the picture, there’s the whole Soon Yi thing, and even if she was of consenting age, it’s messed up and creepy as hell to take naked pictures of your girlfriend’s daughter. And it disturbs me that a whole raft of people are just fine with that.

Apparently, they weren't simply naked pictures, but pornographic ones (as I read them being described). I imagined something like the Dr. Laura spreadeagle shots.

[Cheezwiz]

23 hours ago, Maysie said:

Back to Woody Allen: even if you take Dylan out of the picture, there’s the whole Soon Yi thing, and even if she was of consenting age, it’s messed up and creepy as hell to take naked pictures of your girlfriend’s daughter. And it disturbs me that a whole raft of people are just fine with that.

Yes, THIS. So many people had willful blinders on way before any accusations regarding Dylan came out: "Nope, two consenting adults, nothing to see here...Just a vengeful crazy lady trying to take down a revered genius" and it continues to this day.

I'm now convinced Allen only married Soon Yi as a matter of convenience to try and legitimize the relationship in the eyes of the public. He got himself a built-in helpmate for life, and he could continue on his merry way. The arrangement worked out for the two of them, but devastated a bunch of other people.

[Quilt Fairy]

On 3/26/2021 at 12:27 PM, carrps said:

Apparently, they weren't simply naked pictures, but pornographic ones (as I read them being described). I imagined something like the Dr. Laura spreadeagle shots.

Mia described them as Hustler, not Playboy. 

[chediavolo]

Woody is giving an interview that will be shown on Paramount Plus.  I don’t have it and am not paying for it so hopefully it will be shown on a free platform later. 

[pasdetrois]

Long before the allegations, I thought Woody Allen was weird and Mia Farrow was disturbed (because she collected children). While nannies and house keepers can handle the babysitting and chores, no one can effectively give enough parental attention to 14 children, especially little ones and special needs kids.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the actual photos of Soon Yi in the media. Wasn't she perched spread-eagled on a fireplace mantel? Or maybe I'm remembering another pervert's news story.

I believe Dylan. The video of Allen clutching her while she wiggles, then succumbs, staring stiffly into a camera, horrified me. It spoke volumes.

He may have groomed Soon Yi. It's also possible that she actively sought his attention and did not suffer because of it. I say that because some children emerge from severe poverty, neglect and abuse as budding sociopaths. She may have had a great drive toward wealth and security. I agree with another poster's speculation that Allen used her to spin his narrative - vindictive Mia, the Soon Yi scandal deflected from Dylan. The two of them may have made an undeclared pact. But for years I've thought about the safety of their two adopted children. Are they adults now?

I'm pretty sure Woody was financing Mia during their years together. Didn't he briefly reference paying for the children's schools and such? I feel like Mia is making excuses for not intervening earlier than she did, and for justifying her response to the warning signs she clearly saw. While I believe that Allen dominated her, gaslighted her, held the power, etc., I found myself angry at her on-camera excuses. I thought she was dependent on Allen for money and for work. Why did she stick with a guy who had to go to a psychologist to learn how not to smother Dylan? She's spinning the narrative. I do think she feels remorse and guilt now.

My close family member was a teacher at public and private schools for 30 years. The number of incidents where parents mistreated their kids, or allowed a partner to do so, and denied or made excuses, is astounding. Everyone from recent, impoverished immigrants to wealthy, powerful members of national government.

To be clear: I believe Allen abused Dylan exactly as she (and others) described. I don't blame Mia for Allen's abusive transgressions. I'm glad Dylan is getting some measure of justice and vindication. I thank the Creator that the judge was apparently horrified by what was going on and denied Allen custody and visitation. That decision saved Dylan.

ETA: Surely Ronan has quietly had his DNA tested for parentage?

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by pasdetrois

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, pasdetrois said:

I'm pretty sure Woody was financing Mia during their years together. Didn't he briefly reference paying for the children's schools and such? I feel like Mia is making excuses for not intervening earlier than she did, and for justifying her response to the warning signs she clearly saw. While I believe that Allen dominated her, gaslighted her, held the power, etc., I found myself angry at her on-camera excuses. I though she was dependent on Allen for money and for work. Why did she stick with a guy who had to go to a psychologist to learn how not to smother Dylan? She's spinning the narrative. I do think she feels remorse and guilt now.

 

If he paid for anybody's schools, it would have presumably only been his own children's--Ronan, Dylan and Moses--and apparently only agreed to pay for Ronan's higher ed if he denounced his sister, which he didn't. Mia was working exclusively in his films, but that's still working. He had a lot of success with her performances, he wasn't just bankrolling a mistress.

While I do think Mia has good reason to feel guilty about sticking with him, at the same time, she didn't exactly ignore warning signs. She insisted he see a psychologist who assured her that his interest in Dylan was benign, just misguided, and he agreed to work on it. Since he was her father, even if she'd left him he still would have been in Dylan's life as much as ever. Remember, they didn't live together to begin with anyway. Clearly she was in denial and didn't want to see the danger and she has responsibility for that, but I can believe at the time she thought or told herself she was being responsible and he was a good part of the kids' lives on the whole. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Guest]

9 hours ago, chediavolo said:

Woody is giving an interview that will be shown on Paramount Plus.  I don’t have it and am not paying for it so hopefully it will be shown on a free platform later. 

It’s actually an interview from last July when there was the controversy of Allen’s book. CBS apparently shelved it at the time and has now released it along with Dylan’s interview with Gayle King. 

 

6 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

Didn't he briefly reference paying for the children's schools and such?

He said that he paid child support for Ronan’s childhood. It came up when he was asked about the possibility that Ronan was Frank Sinatra’s son. 

6 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

ETA: Surely Ronan has quietly had his DNA tested for parentage?

He would have to have the cooperation of one of the men involved or one of Frank’s children. 

 

6 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

While I believe that Allen dominated her, gaslighted her, held the power, etc., I found myself angry at her on-camera excuses. I thought she was dependent on Allen for money and for work. Why did she stick with a guy who had to go to a psychologist to learn how not to smother Dylan?

Because he dominated her, gaslit her, held the power, etc. She didn’t trust her own instincts and when she tried to get help was told something was wrong but not that. 

[Swartz]

https://quillette.com/2021/03/28/allen-v-farrow-intellectually-dishonest-propaganda-meets-emotional-blackmail/

 

‘Allen v. Farrow’: Intellectually Dishonest Propaganda Meets Emotional Blackmail

[Quilt Fairy]

56 minutes ago, Swartz said:

https://quillette.com/2021/03/28/allen-v-farrow-intellectually-dishonest-propaganda-meets-emotional-blackmail/

 

‘Allen v. Farrow’: Intellectually Dishonest Propaganda Meets Emotional Blackmail

Wow, that's a very interesting article.  It was obvious that the producers had Mia-friendly point of view, but now I feel like a dope for not questioning more of what they showed. 

[sistermagpie]

36 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Wow, that's a very interesting article.  It was obvious that the producers had Mia-friendly point of view, but now I feel like a dope for not questioning more of what they showed. 

If I was going to question more of what the doc showed, it wouldn't be because of an article on Quillette--a right wing site with a commitment to downplaying sexual assault as a problem--that includes the author deciding that the video of Dylan we all saw looks "rehearsed" to her despite the child looking "angelic," a word obviously meant to remind us of the duplicity of the pretty female face. (Likewise, it's emotional blackmail to expect us to believe Dylan just because she's talking about her own experiences, but objective good sense to believe Woody that she's been brainwashed by her mother.)

Edited March 29, 2021 by sistermagpie

[Guest]

18 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

If I was going to question more of what the doc showed, it wouldn't be because of an article on Quillette--a right wing site with a commitment to downplaying sexual assault as a problem--that includes the author deciding that the video of Dylan we all saw looks "rehearsed" to her despite the child looking "angelic," a word obviously meant to remind us of the duplicity of the pretty female face. (Likewise, it's emotional blackmail to expect us to believe Dylan just because she's talking about her own experiences, but objective good sense to believe Woody that she's been brainwashed by her mother.)

It lost me with the statement that Allen was exonerated in two investigations. Allen wasn’t exonerated of anything because he was never tried for anything. Inaccurate legal language to lend more credibility then would exist without it always bothers me. Particularly when someone is complaining about the other side distorting facts. 

Don’t even get my started on people who thing they can watch snippets of Dylan talking and have a better read on what is happening than the many experts who watched those tapes. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Guest

[sistermagpie]

29 minutes ago, Dani said:

It lost me when the statement that Allen was exonerated in two investigations. Allen wasn’t exonerated of anything because he was never tried for anything. Inaccurate legal language to lend more credibility then would exist without it always bothers me. Particularly when someone is complaining about the other side distorting facts. 

Don’t even get my started on people who thing they can watch snippets of Dylan talking and have a better read on what is happening than the many experts who watched those tapes. 

Yeah, iirc it also seemed like they claimed the real problem with Dylan's train story was that as an adult (not sure about it as a child) she said it was an *electric* train set and that's what Moses was denying. Except that Moses said there was *no* train set. And both he and Woody claimed Dylan only recently as an adult invented the train set at all. Like they were happy to adjust Moses and Woody's words to fit new facts, but Dylan should just be considered discredited if she gets any detail wrong, even 30 years later. The doc had transcripts and police notes that backed up their facts. The article had a lot of speculation and opinion.

Also, iirc, the article claimed that the doc was wrong to say that the one study destroyed its notes because there was stuff in the documentary from the study that was based on the notes. Except...that's the whole point. The original, contemporaneous notes were destroyed. That's the kind of shady arguments the article keeps making.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, iirc it also seemed like they claimed the real problem with Dylan's train story was that as an adult (not sure about it as a child) she said it was an *electric* train set and that's what Moses was denying. Except that Moses said there was *no* train set. And both he and Woody claimed Dylan only recently as an adult invented the train set at all. Like they were happy to adjust Moses and Woody's words to fit new facts, but Dylan should just be considered discredited if she gets any detail wrong, even 30 years later. The doc had transcripts and police notes that backed up their facts. The article had a lot of speculation and opinion.

That part also bothered me. Dylan is given no leeway and is expected to be the mythological perfect victim. If her recollection is too good she’s been coached and if she has normal human inconsistencies it’s proof she’s lying. Meanwhile, Moses and Woody’s versions are given every benefit of the doubt. 
While reading it I wasn’t entirely certain exactly what they believe happened. Sometimes it’s that Dylan was too rehearsed showing it was planned and other times it seems to be that Dylan lived in a fantasy world and was making it all up. 

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Also, iirc, the article claimed that the doc was wrong to say that the one study destroyed its notes because there was stuff in the documentary from the study that was based on the notes. Except...that's the whole point. The original, contemporaneous notes were destroyed. That's the kind of shady arguments the article keeps making.

I’m glad you pointed that out. A large part of the argument seems to be that the documentary relies on too many cover-ups. As though it is preposterous to think Woody Allen could have so much influence. I don’t know how anyone can make that argument after cases like Weinstein, Cosby and Epstein.

The most surprising (and damning) aspect of this whole case is that the custody judge shot down Allen’s entire attack of Mia. That’s something that critics of the documentary pay almost no attention to, unless it’s to point out his criticism of Mia or imply he was biased against Woody. 

[WinnieWinkle]

1 minute ago, Dani said:

A large part of the argument seems to be that the documentary relies on too many cover-ups. As though it is preposterous to think Woody Allen could have so much influence.

This is the part that has always bothered me.  That Mia is considered by Allen's apologists as some kind of evil genius who has been manipulating everything from the get go and that Allen is a simple soul who did no wrong.  I honestly don't get it.  

[ifionlyknew]

14 hours ago, Dani said:

As though it is preposterous to think Woody Allen could have so much influence. I don’t know how anyone can make that argument after cases like Weinstein, Cosby and Epstein.

A lot of powerful people made money off Woody Allen. Any number of people could have did things behind the scenes.   His publicist and lawyer at the time were known to be sharks.  

14 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

This is the part that has always bothered me.  That Mia is considered by Allen's apologists as some kind of evil genius who has been manipulating everything from the get go and that Allen is a simple soul who did no wrong.  I honestly don't get it.  

We could blame the patriarchy. But I think a big part of it is in show business Woody was a much bigger player.  The celebrity apologists didn't want to burn a bridge with Woody. He might hire them for one of his movies.  And let's not forget this whole thing broke not that long after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill confirmation hearing.  A lot of people believed "scorned" women made up lies to "get" the man who scorned them.

It does break my heart that for almost thirty years Dylan has been called at best confused or at worst a liar.