I apologize for the light blogging lately, but I should have announcements soon. When it comes to the Woody Allen thing, I think The Onion nailed it.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I begin to wonder if the folks at The Onion are the only journalists now who can tell the truth without risk of losing their jobs.
I’m fine with never watching Annie Hall again
I followed the link to the letter itself. One sentence in, my skin was crawling. It was all I could do to make it through the letter, but I felt I owed her that.
I don’t see how anyone could read that letter and believe she is making this up.
My reaction exactly.
I find that I’m having difficulty deferring judgment. The insanity of the 1980s child abuse scandals (both in daycare and recovered memory) always reminds me that young people’s memories can be manipulated by adults with an agenda. But Dylan’s essay is quite believable and shocking.
And there is no public figure I know of more likely to be a pedophile than Woody Allen. Watch Manhattan again, and see if him kissing woman-child Mariel Hemingway doesn’t make your skin crawl. Think of him being in a relationship with wispy, girlish Mia Farrow. Or marrying Soon-Yi Previn. That’s what you call a pattern.
Anyway, his movies suck, so I’m not conflicted.
There’s a lot of difference between a 7 year old girl and a 17 year old. I challenge anyone to consistently identify a7 year olds mixed with 18 year olds. So the 17 makes you a pervert while 18 makes you OK?
I really hate Woody Allen and don’t like his movies very much, but I’m not going to call him a predator for relations wit 17 year olds. I will call him a despicable jerk for cheating when he had a committed partner. But age 7 is a whole new level. Do I think he did it? Yeah! And he deserves to go to prison. But not based on attraction to 17 year olds.
Committed partner? You are referring to the mother of Ronan? I think that bundle of joy can be attributed to Sinatra, and it certainly was in the time period when Farrow was “committed” to Allen.
Soon-Li was either 19 or 21 when they started dating. She had no birth certificate from Korea before Previn and Farrow adopted her.
As far as the claim, the investigators said that Dylan either had a mental illness or was coached by her mother.
What I read was that Dylan was considered “fragile” at that time. But does it really make sense to decide what we think happened back then on the result of some investigation into a very prominent figure 20-whatever years ago?
If that’s the case, then I guess all those altar boys weren’t really molested?
If a prosecutor has evidence he prosecutes. He didn’t. Investigators, including doctors who examined Dylan, didn’t think that she had been molested. Either the prosecutor had something and didn’t prosecute, or,like most everyone in this psychodrama, he was full of shit.
If you are married, you are committed. Maybe you cheat, but while the marriage lasts you shouldn’t, even if the other partner does.
I can’t work up much outrage for Woody making a film about his character/Woody going for a near-18 near-grad of HS (just as Mariel Hemingway was nearly 18 making the film). A tad, uh, young for someone in his 40s, but no more than a chin-scratcher for me.
So I’m giving myself permission to continue to enjoy Manhattan — one of the best films of his prime decade. And I still find many of his (mostly older) films funny.
Now, getting off on 7 year olds — that’s another matter entirely. But from what I’ve seen, this one hasn’t been sussed out adequately for me to render judgment. “Not proven” — in the immortal words of that great truth-seeker Arlen Specter.
Btw, what is it about so many famous film directors/actors and underage girls — Woody, Roman, and Charlie Chaplin. Didn’t the latter marry, or get engaged to, a 16 yo when he was much older? Errol Flynn, iirc, also was supposed to like ’em young.
I don’t really see the ethical quandary – there’s a difference between the art and the artist. I can fully appreciate the art while simultaneously condemning actions of the artist. A civil engineer may turn out to be an axe murderer but that won’t stop me from crossing the bridge that he designed. I can enjoy Woody Allen’s work while simultaneously saying that he should be thrown under the jail and never again see the light of day.
I agree with the lack of an ethical quandry, Oscar. I learned this in my late teens when Elvis Costello said something completely despicable in a public place. Why should Elvis/Declan’s mistake get in the way of me enjoying his awesome songwriting and performing skills? And yes, what Dylan claims Woody did is much worse than a despicable statement, but a claim is not fact.
Both “Elvis” and Woody grapple with their misanthropic natures rather heavily in their art. Woody may self-justify in public, but his thinly fictionalized personas are shot through and through with self-loathing and a recognition that there are aspects of him which are horrible. The very acts of writing, directing and acting out the romancing of a high school student in “Manhattan” presented his weaknesses and conflictions rather openly.
If Woody conducted illegal sexual abuse, then he should be charged and his freedom should be taken away if he were found guilty. It is extraordinarily unfortunate that, instead, he will be tried in the court of public opinion without a real opportunity to defend himself, but if he abused Dylan and was not punished for his legal and moral crime, that is well beyond extraordinarily unfortunate.
“Midnight In Paris” was delightful, and Woody may be a sex criminal. One does not change the other for me.
WTF????
why are we attacking Woody Allen when one of the largest church organizations in the world has been running an active criminal enterprise for DECADES? abusing, raping children.. 1,000’s of them.
why is the catholic church NOT being prosecuted via RICO statutes??
this is unbelievable.
(preparing for silly dancing excuses as to why the catholic so called church can’t be prosecuted like other criminal enterprises.)
so because the Catholic Church is also guilty then no other child rapists should go to jail before they do?
Nope, that’s not the point.
I want the MUCH larger criminal organization fully prosecuted according the so called laws we have.
even if Mr Allen lived to be 1,000 years old, he could not ruin the lives of 1,000’s of people as the so called church has.
how many people have committed suicide due to Mr. Allen’s behavior? ZERO? that’s what I thought.
but you’re still saying that we shouldn’t worry about what Allen did because what the church did is so much worse
There’s no one here arguing that the church hurt people and for a very long time, so I guess I’m not sure what your point is then.
*that the church didn’t hurt people
Helloooooooo? IF these claims regarding Mr Allen are true, then WHERE are the indictments? trial? conviction?
Did you notice that the Onion uses, at one point, the word “pederast” where it should be using “pedophile” ? Not a good slip up, Onion. Someone should go in and edit the article.
I never dug him. Ever. He wasn’t funny; he was just clever at making excuses for his own sadness. Can’t play clarinet worth a shit, either. A faker on all levels. This is just another reason to forget about him. What a nasty little fucker he is.
AG
I want to know what Booman’s announcement will be!
Are he and Elwood putting the band back together?
Will – as God as his witness – he never go hungry again?
Has he formed an exploratory committee and vows to visit every county in Iowa?
I have been wondering that myself! Or maybe Boo is just checking to see if we are paying attention?
could be [are we paying attention?].
surprise announcements of late in my life have all had to do with pregnancies or resignations
I have a guess.
how about a hint?
nope.
Whatever it is, I think it’s something good. Last couple of posts seem different, more energized, more free, more something. I’m having trouble putting words to it.
Announcements, huh???
Hmmmmm????
You didn’t go to high school with Chris Christie, by any chance??
I read an article last night by the guy who did a documentary on Allen. It pretty much destroys the anti-Allen dogma going about. First, Allen began dating his eventual wife when she was 19 or 21 depending on which Korean birth certificate you believe. Nothing about child molestation was ever inferred until Allen began dating his wife. Recall that when Farrow got pregnant with her friend’s husband, Andre Previn, she was twenty years younger than him. Not sure what the age spread was between her and Sinatra when he allegedly produced Ronan but it had to be at least thirty years. Get out your calculators. Ronan happened when Farrow was supposed to be going out with Allen. They never cohabitated.
The police investigation at the time said that the girl was either suffering from severe mental problems or was coached by her mother. Probably a combination of the two.
After twenty-odd years living with Farrow you would expect her children to agree with her whether the story is true or not. If this is all Farrow’s way of getting back at Allen for falling in love with her and Previn’s adopted child and leaving her, then she is the abuser here.
In any case, if I were Ronan or the girl, I’d start planning on a life beyond either Farrow or Allen. If I find the link to the article I read I’ll post it.
I read an article last night by the guy who did a documentary on Allen. It pretty much destroys the anti-Allen dogma going about. …
No it doesn’t. The guy is obviously responding for Allen. I don’t remember the whole thing about Soon-Yi having to do with being under age, especially since she wasn’t. It had to do with her relationship. She was the adopted daughter of his, at the time, romantic partner.
The article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html
Thank you, toasters. That was the article I was referring to. Also, there is this about her brother:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Mia-Farrows-Brother-to-Be-Sentenced-for-Sex-Abuse-229522321.
html
There is the curious repetition of Farrow being involved with men who are twenty or thirty years older than her. And her brother, having been convicted and sentenced for child abuse, raises the question of whether there had been child abuse in the Farrow family.
I don’t find Farrow’s recents eruptions (with her kids) anymore convincing than the original findings.
Soon-Li was never Allen’s daughter. She was Previn and Farrow’s adopted daughter. Previn was her father figure. Allen never lived with her, and never actually lived with Farrow. They had separate places.
If you have a beef with older men and young women you could start with Previn and Farrow, Farrow getting pregnant with her friend’s husband twenty years her senior. And also Frank Sinatra.
yes, whatever the legal relationship, he was the father figure during her adolescence
What was Andre Previn?
separated from his wife, in TX and LA
Did he have no visitation rights to his children?
No worries. Your efforts are appreciated, no matter how long they take.
What the Onion brings up applies to Allen and a number of famous or historically significant people who despite having accomplished great things in their public life were deeply flawed and hurtful to family and others. It’s a good piece from those amazing writers.
My own personal take on Allen though is that my revulsion is so strong, I have no desire to see any of his work. Problem solved.
Divorce proceedings and abuse by a parent are very ugly events and with litigation, hardly ever is the truth unraveled. I can’t think of a reason for a young woman of 19 to come forward with a letter unless harm and injustice has passed. I believe Mia Farrow and het 14 children have moved on in life. Both Mia and Allen are actors with an uncommon personality, who knows where the twilight zone lies between the stage and reality in life. It is not uncommon for a sexual abuse case to unravel after decades have passed, see Jimmy Savile child abuse case in the UK.
Mia Farrow: ‘My faith helps me through hard times’ (The Independent – 2006)
Mother to 14 children – 10 of whom are adopted and many of those with disabilities – Farrow reached out to orphans and spotlighting human rights atrocities as an ambassador of UNICEF. All children have distanced themselves from Woody Allen. Mia Farrow’s son Ronan Seamus is likely fathered by first husband Frank Sinatra. NY Times on August 14, 1992: Woody Allen Files Child-Custody Lawsuit.
Thankfully he lost the case: NY Times: Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle.
Video: Interview Woody Allen tells his side of the story (1992)
One of the kids Allen lost custody rights to is now reconciled with him and estranged from his mother. His thoughts on the Farrow family circle are worth considering.
That must be Allen’s ‘biological’ son Ronan, see here and here.
Not Ronan. Is one of his kids named Dweezil or Moses?
.
○ Video: Interview Woody Allen tells his side of the story (1992)
○ Most of the newspaper reports are listed here – Case of Woody Allen.
○ Judge Won’t Look at Nude Photos by Allen. Custody: Mia Farrow is ordered not to take three children involved in case out of the country; Jurist rejects filmmaker’s bid on immediate visitation.
○ The Guardian: Dylan Farrow, adopted daughter of Woody Allen, alleges he abused her
I recognize the behavior of Woody Allen as extremely narcissistic, evasive and willing to destruct the lives of persons who loved him. I just read he tried to destruct the police investigation. Read also how he manipulated the outcome of the Yale-New Haven inquiry with its director Leventhal. My conclusion now: Woody Allen is quilty as hell.
Andy Thibault’s piece on Maco is quite a puff piece. Quite a heroic man. And Maco’s dad landed at Normandy!
Again, there is no explanation why Maco didn’t prosecute Allen if he indeed had enough information for probable cause, except that Dylan was “too fragile” and Allen had so much power in Connecticut that he could quash anyone making charges.
Perhaps no sexual assaults should be prosecuted because victims are too fragile. No?
Or maybe Maco wanted to prosecute Allen but didn’t have a case. Prosecutors who don’t prosecute because the victims are “too fragile” aren’t very good prosecutors. Perhaps, as the experts determined, Dylan was too “severely mental ill” or was repeating her mom’s coaching.
By the way, there are at least two other babysitters who ripped Farrow, to include her piecing together a video over the course of two or three days, stopping the tape when the kid said something contradictory. That is not being honest. Allen took and passed a lie detector test. Farrow refused to take one. It would be interesting to see what the babysitter referred to in the article now says. In fact, why doesn’t Farrow depose her?
Regarding Dylan’s comments about Allen’s assault, again, the doctor who examined her concluded that she had not been sexually assaulted.
Also, the timing of this scandal was several months after Allen began dating Soon-Li. Certainly, dating the daughter of your former girlfriend is not viewed as mainstream behavior, but Farrow spent a life getting into relationships with men twenty and thirty years her senior. Andre Previn was the husband of a friend of hers. That’s frowned upon too.
That the prosecutor failed to prosecute Allen, while even publicly condemning him and suggesting that there was probable cause, suggests malfeasance on his part, no matter whether or not his dad landed at Normandy. Either he had probable cause or he didn’t. If he did and he didn’t prosecute, he should have been sanctioned and the case passed to someone who would. If he didn’t have probable cause he shouldn’t be saying he did in public.
Also, if there was probable cause, why didn’t Farrow go to Maco’s superiors, or file civil charges herself?
If Allen did sexually assault Dylan the time to prosecute or sue him was twenty-two years ago. Neither Ronan nor Dylan really have anything but snide remarks and created remembrances from twenty-two years of Mia retelling her story to them to add to the debate. Because of that they are not believable without corroborating evidence. And saying things like, “Hair that was consistent with Allen’s was found in the attic” proves nothing. “Consistent with” could be lots of other people’s hair, and hair can be planted. As I said above, the doctor who examined Dylan said that had not been molested.
Because of reports filed at the time and lack of action taken by Connecticut authorities, and because of Farrow’s failure to act over these many years, I tend to believe that these charges were Farrow’s way to get back at Allen for dating Soon-Li. I’m willing to change my mind with new or newly revealed evidence. But nasty tweets from people who were children at the time aren’t what I consider new evidence.
.
The more I read about Woody Allen, the more I recognize his modus operandi. My earlier analysis was 100% correct. It’s clear there are two camps on this issue and in arguments, no holds barred. It has become clear Allen’s film career was put on hold due to this ‘crisis’ in his personal life. To avoid accusations of abuse, he first tried to gain custody of Dylan through a lawsuit with support of top lawyers. Ms Farrow may count herself lucky to have Alan Dershowitz on her side. Farrow wins custody case in court and in Superior Court of Appeal. Next step, Allen attempts to discredit the police investigation by using prying private detectives. Allen launches an attack on Litchfield County State Attorney Frank S. Maco. Maco spent five years fighting misconduct allegations brought by Allen. In the end, he is exonerated. Read about this courageous guy. In 1997 to put an end to further risks, Allen marries Soon-Yi Previn and shuts her up forever. This case stinks to heaven in a cover-up by persons loyal to Woody Allen. The film industry backs actor/director Allen as is seen in a number of publications. Even in The Netherlands, last night a Martin Koolhoven was interviewed as person with ‘knowledge’ of the case and dismissed Mia Farrow with the article written for the Daily Beast. His big lie: “Allen was exonerated in a court of law.” What a bs. Allen lost every case important to him for custody of Mia Farrow’s three children.
○ Spotlight Takes Toll On State’s Attorney : Faces Hearing On Woody Allen Case March 31, 1996 |By Rachel Gottlieb
○ Woody Allen Testifies In Misconduct Case September 06, 1996 |By Rachel Gottlieb | Courant Staff Writer
Maco said there was probable cause. He didn’t prosecute Allen. Nor did Mia Farrow sue Allen in civil court. Why not? Because Woody Allen is a big, scary man?
Please. Sniping is just fine for saying and not doing.
Dylan has been coached by her mother for 22 years. You don’t know what happened. I don’t know what happened. The people who investigated it 22 years said there was no molestation.
I do know that Mia has a history of getting sexually involved with men who are the age of her father. I know that her brother is now in jail for child molestation. I know Mia has been lifelong friends with Roman Polanski, an admitted child molester.
So what does it all mean? In your dreams, Oui. In your dreams.
So, twenty odd years after the birth of her son, Mia Farrow now says that she lied on his birth certificate and that Woody Allen isn’t the father. And that the father was “likely” a married man that had divorced her two decades earlier. Isn’t odd that she wouldn’t have pulled out the issue of her biological son’s paternity two decades ago when there was a custody battle between her and Allen?
Of course this could easily be resolved with a paternity test.
If Mia and her children have “moved on,” why did they use the media to put all of this on display once again? First in the Vanity Fair article, then their twitter feeds during the Golden Globe Awards, and finally the NYTimes letter from Dylan.
While my inclination is to believe a child wrt to molestation, it’s never okay not to look at all the surrounding facts. The parents in the McMartin preschool case totally believed what they were hearing from their children — and none of it was true. However, if it were true or even accepted as true in Dylan’s case, was it good parenting for her single mother to adopt four more children, leaving far less time for attention and healing for Dylan?
could never relate to his movies, too white, too Jewish.I have no trouble at all turning my indifference into dislike.
But you would admit that yours is a pretty pathetic, reactionary (not the political meaning) way to handle questions of justice. Right? “I don’t like his movies, he’s too Jewish and too white, so, sure, why not believe that he molested his daughter?”