Woody Allen's daughter details how she was sexually abused by him in the NYT
- Thread starter Sasha2012
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
I'm sorry, but I can't compare an adult man dating a younger woman to an adult man who was the father figure in the younger woman's family thereby making him a step/half brother instead of the dad figure when they marry.
Apples and oranges IMHO.
Yes, it's icky when a man or woman dates or marries an extremely younger person. But it's not quite the same.
Apples and oranges IMHO.
Yes, it's icky when a man or woman dates or marries an extremely younger person. But it's not quite the same.
I'll respond to you because your question was far less combative, which I appreciate
I never said I would be okay with it. Of all the girls he could date, once he broke up with Mia, he had to pick this one? Bloody hell. I would be a wreck. I'd be beyond heartbroken and beyond angry.
The only good bit to come of this disgusting thing is that it appears to be genuine and he married her and they've been in a committed relationship for over 20 years. He didn't molest her and run the only good news is that he didn't do that.
Would I be angry enough to try and brainwash my children? Oh dear Lord, I hope not. That's what Moses Farrow said. So did Ronan as a young child. Would I repeatedly try and coerce my nannies to make up stories about Allen being alone with Dylan? Would I approach Woody's old GF (Stacey someone) to lie about molestation charges?
All I can say is, I would hope I would not be so enraged and vindictive that I would do anything to damage my children. I'd like to think that I am more stable than Mia has been known to be and far less explosive, as she proved in her younger days but you know what? I have no idea how I would react. I just hope I wouldn't abuse my children.
But that's easy for me to say, isn't it.
Did I answer your question?
ummm what??? It's ok to molest someone as long as you marry them? Ummm ok.
But i don't think she really cares...she's getting enough from the View and residual off other stuff, i don't think she has a need to be in a Hit.
Wow, Meryl wasn't playing.
VERY telling!
Is it just me, but I think he's throwing blanks, I dont think Ronan is his.
That quote from him is VERY troubling. It cant even be defended as being in jest, like youd be joking around in an interview and say something outrageous like Yeah Im into orgies with farm animals. This was a comment about a very real and appalling everyday issue and for him to have actually said that and people have actually normalised his behaviour that it doesnt raise alarm bells? I cant understand that at all.
I dont know what to make of Moses comments. I cant imagine that Mia whose mission in life seems to literally be: save the worlds children, would be so evil as to plant thoughts and ideas in her childs head and subject her to years of trauma. Sorry, I dont care how crazy Mia is purported to be, I just dont believe she did that. I believe Dylan is telling the truth and Moses just didnt know it was happening. He clearly has his own issues with his mother though.
I've been thinking about this situation a lot. Over the years I've worked with children who have been abused in unspeakable ways. I have also worked with children who have been incredibly damaged by their supposed caregivers, who are so damaged themselves, until they can no longer differentiate between what is true and what they have been told.
I think that's why I have been so annoyingly stubborn about the importance of the "facts".
It's clear this was an incredibly dysfunctional home. I think its likely that no matter what happened, both Dylan and Mia Farrow believe they are telling the truth. Its possible Woody Allen does too. And if that's the case how excruciating that must be for all of them.
I also found this article particularly poignant. I imagine Dylan thought it would be somehow freeing and empowering to have her letter published. I hope in the end it helps her, I know she has received a lot of public support, but at the moment I tend to agree with this author...
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcari...ristof-20140205,0,2013610.story#axzz2sUx6AYsJ
Heres what Ive learned this week from the Dylan Farrow/Woody Allen scandal:
Everybody loses.
I wonder if New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof really knew what he was unleashing when he gave over his journalistic real estate on Saturday to Dylan Farrow, who re-ignited charges that her father, Woody Allen, sexually molested her in a Connecticut attic 21 years ago as her parents were engaged in a high-profile custody battle.
The revived scandal has prompted a flurry of discussion about the duty we owe children who say they've been wronged, whether an artist should be judged by his life as well as his art and the wisdom of dragging a painful family scandal back into the public arena.
The charges have prompted many people to re-read two Vanity Fair magazine stories by Maureen Orth, who paints a portrait -- if not a slam-dunk case of sexual abuse -- of a chaotic household whose primary adult male figure touched his daughter inappropriately, ignored his son and eventually violated the most basic family taboo. (He married the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, his longtime lover and the mother of his children. That is moral, if not legal, incest.)
Apart from a brief statement calling the charges "untrue and disgraceful," Allen has not responded publicly. Which is why Im looking forward to reading his side of the story, which the New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan, said Wednesday may be forthcoming. Allen, she wrote on her blog, requested the opportunity to make a rebuttal in the same forum that Farrow was allowed use.
Allen has always denied the sexual molestation allegation and was never criminally charged.
That does not mean he has not behaved inappropriately, or caused his family extreme mental anguish or even that, like so many great artists, he is not a horrible human being with a broken moral compass. ("What was the scandal? he asked a Reuters reporter during a 2011 interview. I fell in love with this girl, married her.)
Nor does it mean that Mia Farrow did not stand to gain something from destroying the reputation of the man who fathered her children and then married her daughter.
I applaud Slate legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick for cautioning against allowing the Court of Public Opinion to render a judgment in this impossible debate.
In the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility, Lithwick wrote. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that choosing silence or doubt itself is a prosecutable offense.
Thats the problem. You hear the charges and the denials and you believe you must take a side.
Did Woody Allen molest Dylan Farrow, now 28? I dont know, and you dont either.
Even their family is split.
"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," Moses Farrow told People magazine on Wednesday. Moses, said People, is a 36-year-old therapist who is close to Allen and Allen's wife, Soon-Yi, who is Moses sister. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.... I dont know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."
Dylan Farrows response? Moses, she told People, is dead to me.
This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family, she said. My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life. My mother never coached me. She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her. When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up.
Another child demolishes a parent, another family relationship implodes for the pleasure of strangers.
I wish the Farrow clan all the best.
But did this awful spectacle really have to happen?
I think that's why I have been so annoyingly stubborn about the importance of the "facts".
It's clear this was an incredibly dysfunctional home. I think its likely that no matter what happened, both Dylan and Mia Farrow believe they are telling the truth. Its possible Woody Allen does too. And if that's the case how excruciating that must be for all of them.
I also found this article particularly poignant. I imagine Dylan thought it would be somehow freeing and empowering to have her letter published. I hope in the end it helps her, I know she has received a lot of public support, but at the moment I tend to agree with this author...
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcari...ristof-20140205,0,2013610.story#axzz2sUx6AYsJ
Heres what Ive learned this week from the Dylan Farrow/Woody Allen scandal:
Everybody loses.
I wonder if New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof really knew what he was unleashing when he gave over his journalistic real estate on Saturday to Dylan Farrow, who re-ignited charges that her father, Woody Allen, sexually molested her in a Connecticut attic 21 years ago as her parents were engaged in a high-profile custody battle.
The revived scandal has prompted a flurry of discussion about the duty we owe children who say they've been wronged, whether an artist should be judged by his life as well as his art and the wisdom of dragging a painful family scandal back into the public arena.
The charges have prompted many people to re-read two Vanity Fair magazine stories by Maureen Orth, who paints a portrait -- if not a slam-dunk case of sexual abuse -- of a chaotic household whose primary adult male figure touched his daughter inappropriately, ignored his son and eventually violated the most basic family taboo. (He married the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, his longtime lover and the mother of his children. That is moral, if not legal, incest.)
Apart from a brief statement calling the charges "untrue and disgraceful," Allen has not responded publicly. Which is why Im looking forward to reading his side of the story, which the New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan, said Wednesday may be forthcoming. Allen, she wrote on her blog, requested the opportunity to make a rebuttal in the same forum that Farrow was allowed use.
Allen has always denied the sexual molestation allegation and was never criminally charged.
That does not mean he has not behaved inappropriately, or caused his family extreme mental anguish or even that, like so many great artists, he is not a horrible human being with a broken moral compass. ("What was the scandal? he asked a Reuters reporter during a 2011 interview. I fell in love with this girl, married her.)
Nor does it mean that Mia Farrow did not stand to gain something from destroying the reputation of the man who fathered her children and then married her daughter.
I applaud Slate legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick for cautioning against allowing the Court of Public Opinion to render a judgment in this impossible debate.
In the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility, Lithwick wrote. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that choosing silence or doubt itself is a prosecutable offense.
Thats the problem. You hear the charges and the denials and you believe you must take a side.
Did Woody Allen molest Dylan Farrow, now 28? I dont know, and you dont either.
Even their family is split.
"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," Moses Farrow told People magazine on Wednesday. Moses, said People, is a 36-year-old therapist who is close to Allen and Allen's wife, Soon-Yi, who is Moses sister. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.... I dont know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."
Dylan Farrows response? Moses, she told People, is dead to me.
This is such a betrayal to me and my whole family, she said. My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life. My mother never coached me. She never planted false memories in my brain. My memories are mine. I remember them. She was distraught when I told her. When I came forward with my story she was hoping against hope that I had made it up.
Another child demolishes a parent, another family relationship implodes for the pleasure of strangers.
I wish the Farrow clan all the best.
But did this awful spectacle really have to happen?
This story is just sad. There isn't any winner and most probably we'll never know what really happened...
I noticed one interesting note in The Daily Beast article - the author writes about Farrow's brother who was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing two boys... strange thing and brings lot of questions. And minimally what is evident is that Mia is quite "difficult" and not really stable person ...
I'm so sorry for Dylan because she's definetely a victim whatever really happened. It could by all true and Woody really attacked her or she could be abused by somebody else and all the situation around Woody/Soon Yi and Mia (who was naturally profoundly hurt by it) and plus the subsequent investigation manipulated her to believe that it was Woody or nothing really happened and she was "only" manipulated into it and as a young kid she started to believe that it really happened - the more that Mia probably pictured Woody as a bad person because of Soon Yi ...
Don't get me wrong I think that Woody's relationship with Soon Yi was pretty questionable (maybe not legally but definetely morally) - he was partner of her mother, father of her siblings, eventhough Woody and Mia lived in seperate appartements he somehow functioned as a father figure for the kids... The only one positive thing is that Woody and Soon Yi seems to be pretty happy couple together for a quite a long time now.
I noticed one interesting note in The Daily Beast article - the author writes about Farrow's brother who was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing two boys... strange thing and brings lot of questions. And minimally what is evident is that Mia is quite "difficult" and not really stable person ...
I'm so sorry for Dylan because she's definetely a victim whatever really happened. It could by all true and Woody really attacked her or she could be abused by somebody else and all the situation around Woody/Soon Yi and Mia (who was naturally profoundly hurt by it) and plus the subsequent investigation manipulated her to believe that it was Woody or nothing really happened and she was "only" manipulated into it and as a young kid she started to believe that it really happened - the more that Mia probably pictured Woody as a bad person because of Soon Yi ...
Don't get me wrong I think that Woody's relationship with Soon Yi was pretty questionable (maybe not legally but definetely morally) - he was partner of her mother, father of her siblings, eventhough Woody and Mia lived in seperate appartements he somehow functioned as a father figure for the kids... The only one positive thing is that Woody and Soon Yi seems to be pretty happy couple together for a quite a long time now.
Read this today:
Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...de_s_attack_on_mia_farrow_and_her.single.html
Don’t Listen to Woody Allen’s Biggest Defender
Why are so many journalists lauding Robert Weide’s sleazy, passive-aggressive attack on Mia Farrow and her daughter?
On Jan. 27 in the Daily Beast, Robert Weide, director of the two-part PBS special Woody Allen: A Documentary, wrote a 5,600-word defense of Allen against allegations that he molested his 7-year-old daughter Dylan Farrow in 1992. A few days later, Dylan, now 28, published her own account of the alleged molestation in the New York Times. Dylan’s open letter convulsed the Internet, forcing Allen’s defenders to confront the public statements of an adult woman who says, with no caveats, that she was sexually assaulted by her father. In the aftermath of Dylan’s essay, Weide’s Allen apologia seemed, at best, embarrassingly timed. At least, that’s what I assumed everyone who had read the Daily Beast piece would think. But very many people did not agree. New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse, sharing Weide’s article on Feb. 2, said that it “raises serious questions about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.” The following day, no less than the Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, linked to Weide’s piece and wrote, “I urge those who have not yet done so to read Mr. Weide’s illuminating article. It provides essential context.” Also on Feb. 3, tech-journalism superstar Kara Swisher tweeted Weide’s article to her 930,000 followers, calling it “the counter” to Dylan’s letter. And on that same day, Michael Wolff praised Weide’s piece as “detailed and powerful” in an unhinged Guardian column that hypothesized that the “rehashed scandal” was being revived in the public memory to raise the public profile of Allen’s ex-partner Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan, both of whom made public statements in support of Dylan after Allen was honored at last month’s Golden Globes ceremony. (Weide worked on the celebratory montage of Allen’s films for the broadcast.)
The first thing you need to know is that this is what Robert Weide’s Twitter profile looks like.
How can we possibly trust a young woman’s firsthand account when we’ve got this fellow to patiently explain the situation to us?
Now let’s turn to the article itself, which promises a “closer examination” of charges that Allen molested his daughter. Here are some highlights from its first 1,800 words:
Weide uses Dylan’s current name, though she prefers to keep it private. Later, when called out for this on Twitter, Weide justified the choice by digging up a 1 ½-year-old tweet from Mia Farrow that referred to Dylan by her current name.
Weide clarifies that Farrow’s daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whose affair with Allen when she was 19 pulverized the Allen-Farrow household, was in no way like a family member to Allen, despite the fact that she was his children’s sister and his longtime partner’s daughter.
Weide quotes Ronan Farrow’s famous condemnation of Allen—“He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression”—and then adds: “However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mia’s recent revelations that Ronan’s biological father may ‘possibly’ be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50.” This passage doesn’t track—it’s not clear if the “particular dilemma” is the Woody/Soon-Yi relationship or Ronan’s feelings toward it. But the upshot is that if Farrow did indeed sleep around, then that’s a lucky break for Ronan, who can rest easy about the whole Soon-Yi situation.
Weide then spends two more paragraphs auditing Mia Farrow’s sexual history. Alleged victims of sexual assault are commonly subjected to such scrutiny, but when we’re dealing with a 7-year-old, it seems her mother will serve just fine by proxy.
All of that is just an appetizer. It’s when Weide finally arrives at his ostensible subject—unpacking the child-molestation accusations—that the piece becomes most noxious.
Here is Dylan Farrow’s account of the events of Aug. 4, 1992, in her mother’s Connecticut home, called Frog Hollow, as it appeared in the Times:
When I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.
And here is Weide’s:
During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, “touched her inappropriately.”
The “shall we say” is the worst rhetorical crime in a piece brimming with them, glibly framing an unconscionable act as a bit of innuendo. It’s the skeleton key to the entire article’s sneering cluelessness.
What’s most galling about Weide’s writing is its preening faux-gentility. He adopts the pose of a gentleman who is above the fray. He is “not here to slam Mia,” who is “an exceptional actress.” He is not “blaming the victim,” Weide insists. He is “merely floating scenarios to consider.”
The scenarios that he floats are thinly veiled smears, not-quite accusations that Weide shovels in at regular intervals. I’m not saying that Mia and Dylan Farrow are liars, he insists throughout the piece, but if you come to that conclusion then I wouldn’t disagree.
Here is a representative passage:
Much is made by Mia’s supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I won’t wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than I’ll claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughter’s recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.)
Given one data point that points to Allen’s guilt, Weide will offer up three more that imply his innocence. He doesn’t follow through on these insinuations, and constantly pleads ignorance on their significance, and that’s fine by him. His rhetorical aim is to cast doubt.
Weide spends the middle section of the essay cherry-picking the strikes in Allen’s favor: a Farrow household nanny’s doubts that Allen did anything wrong without any reference to the other childcare providers who had deep suspicions; the Yale–New Haven Hospital investigative team’s conclusion that Dylan likely had not been molested; an early inconsistency in the 7-year-old’s testimony; the Connecticut state attorney’s office’s decision not to press charges against Allen.
This accounting of evidence will not be unfamiliar to those who have followed the case. The one bit of new information is this bizarre bury-the-lede aside about Dylan’s older brother, Moses.
Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.
It’s not clear that the “recent conversation” is with Weide or someone else, but if Weide did conduct an interview with Moses, that’s huge. Allen and Farrow’s oldest child, Moses has been conspicuous in his absence from the renewed controversy; he was a central figure in Allen and Farrow’s epic 1990s custody battle, when the teenager refused to see his father. In a 1994 decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, discussing Allen’s continued relationship with Soon-Yi, cited “the obvious ill effects it has had on all of the children and the especially profound effects it has had on Moses.”
If Moses has indeed cut off contact with his mother, reconciled with his father and sister/stepmother, and is talking to Weide about it, then it’s extremely puzzling that Weide chooses to quote Moses using a grand total of five words’ worth of sentence fragments. It’s one of many moments in the Daily Beast piece where the lack of editorial judgment is glaring. Update, Feb. 5, 2014: In a piece published online on Wednesday, Moses Farrow spoke with People magazine at greater length to defend his father against the molestation allegations, which he described as false. "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister,” he told People. “I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.” Moses Farrow also stated, "Of course Woody did not molest my sister.” Also in People, Dylan Farrow responded to her brother's comments: "My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life."
The last third of the piece is in keeping with the first third: not a “closer examination” of the molestation accusations but a grab bag of tendentiousness and disingenuity masquerading as “context.” Weide’s got cutesy anecdotes about Allen’s teenage daughters, the ones he adopted with Soon-Yi Previn. He reminds us yet again that Ronan Farrow may not be Allen’s biological son, which for Weide is a twofer: a proof of his mother’s licentiousness and, bizarrely, a pretext for excusing his father’s sexual relationship with Ronan’s sister.
Photo attached was in article and is Weide's twitter profile page photo.
Article continued in next post..
Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...de_s_attack_on_mia_farrow_and_her.single.html
Don’t Listen to Woody Allen’s Biggest Defender
Why are so many journalists lauding Robert Weide’s sleazy, passive-aggressive attack on Mia Farrow and her daughter?
On Jan. 27 in the Daily Beast, Robert Weide, director of the two-part PBS special Woody Allen: A Documentary, wrote a 5,600-word defense of Allen against allegations that he molested his 7-year-old daughter Dylan Farrow in 1992. A few days later, Dylan, now 28, published her own account of the alleged molestation in the New York Times. Dylan’s open letter convulsed the Internet, forcing Allen’s defenders to confront the public statements of an adult woman who says, with no caveats, that she was sexually assaulted by her father. In the aftermath of Dylan’s essay, Weide’s Allen apologia seemed, at best, embarrassingly timed. At least, that’s what I assumed everyone who had read the Daily Beast piece would think. But very many people did not agree. New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse, sharing Weide’s article on Feb. 2, said that it “raises serious questions about Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.” The following day, no less than the Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, linked to Weide’s piece and wrote, “I urge those who have not yet done so to read Mr. Weide’s illuminating article. It provides essential context.” Also on Feb. 3, tech-journalism superstar Kara Swisher tweeted Weide’s article to her 930,000 followers, calling it “the counter” to Dylan’s letter. And on that same day, Michael Wolff praised Weide’s piece as “detailed and powerful” in an unhinged Guardian column that hypothesized that the “rehashed scandal” was being revived in the public memory to raise the public profile of Allen’s ex-partner Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan, both of whom made public statements in support of Dylan after Allen was honored at last month’s Golden Globes ceremony. (Weide worked on the celebratory montage of Allen’s films for the broadcast.)
The first thing you need to know is that this is what Robert Weide’s Twitter profile looks like.
How can we possibly trust a young woman’s firsthand account when we’ve got this fellow to patiently explain the situation to us?
Now let’s turn to the article itself, which promises a “closer examination” of charges that Allen molested his daughter. Here are some highlights from its first 1,800 words:
Weide uses Dylan’s current name, though she prefers to keep it private. Later, when called out for this on Twitter, Weide justified the choice by digging up a 1 ½-year-old tweet from Mia Farrow that referred to Dylan by her current name.
Weide clarifies that Farrow’s daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whose affair with Allen when she was 19 pulverized the Allen-Farrow household, was in no way like a family member to Allen, despite the fact that she was his children’s sister and his longtime partner’s daughter.
Weide quotes Ronan Farrow’s famous condemnation of Allen—“He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression”—and then adds: “However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mia’s recent revelations that Ronan’s biological father may ‘possibly’ be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50.” This passage doesn’t track—it’s not clear if the “particular dilemma” is the Woody/Soon-Yi relationship or Ronan’s feelings toward it. But the upshot is that if Farrow did indeed sleep around, then that’s a lucky break for Ronan, who can rest easy about the whole Soon-Yi situation.
Weide then spends two more paragraphs auditing Mia Farrow’s sexual history. Alleged victims of sexual assault are commonly subjected to such scrutiny, but when we’re dealing with a 7-year-old, it seems her mother will serve just fine by proxy.
All of that is just an appetizer. It’s when Weide finally arrives at his ostensible subject—unpacking the child-molestation accusations—that the piece becomes most noxious.
Here is Dylan Farrow’s account of the events of Aug. 4, 1992, in her mother’s Connecticut home, called Frog Hollow, as it appeared in the Times:
When I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.
And here is Weide’s:
During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, “touched her inappropriately.”
The “shall we say” is the worst rhetorical crime in a piece brimming with them, glibly framing an unconscionable act as a bit of innuendo. It’s the skeleton key to the entire article’s sneering cluelessness.
What’s most galling about Weide’s writing is its preening faux-gentility. He adopts the pose of a gentleman who is above the fray. He is “not here to slam Mia,” who is “an exceptional actress.” He is not “blaming the victim,” Weide insists. He is “merely floating scenarios to consider.”
The scenarios that he floats are thinly veiled smears, not-quite accusations that Weide shovels in at regular intervals. I’m not saying that Mia and Dylan Farrow are liars, he insists throughout the piece, but if you come to that conclusion then I wouldn’t disagree.
Here is a representative passage:
Much is made by Mia’s supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I won’t wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than I’ll claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughter’s recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.)
Given one data point that points to Allen’s guilt, Weide will offer up three more that imply his innocence. He doesn’t follow through on these insinuations, and constantly pleads ignorance on their significance, and that’s fine by him. His rhetorical aim is to cast doubt.
Weide spends the middle section of the essay cherry-picking the strikes in Allen’s favor: a Farrow household nanny’s doubts that Allen did anything wrong without any reference to the other childcare providers who had deep suspicions; the Yale–New Haven Hospital investigative team’s conclusion that Dylan likely had not been molested; an early inconsistency in the 7-year-old’s testimony; the Connecticut state attorney’s office’s decision not to press charges against Allen.
This accounting of evidence will not be unfamiliar to those who have followed the case. The one bit of new information is this bizarre bury-the-lede aside about Dylan’s older brother, Moses.
Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.
It’s not clear that the “recent conversation” is with Weide or someone else, but if Weide did conduct an interview with Moses, that’s huge. Allen and Farrow’s oldest child, Moses has been conspicuous in his absence from the renewed controversy; he was a central figure in Allen and Farrow’s epic 1990s custody battle, when the teenager refused to see his father. In a 1994 decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, discussing Allen’s continued relationship with Soon-Yi, cited “the obvious ill effects it has had on all of the children and the especially profound effects it has had on Moses.”
If Moses has indeed cut off contact with his mother, reconciled with his father and sister/stepmother, and is talking to Weide about it, then it’s extremely puzzling that Weide chooses to quote Moses using a grand total of five words’ worth of sentence fragments. It’s one of many moments in the Daily Beast piece where the lack of editorial judgment is glaring. Update, Feb. 5, 2014: In a piece published online on Wednesday, Moses Farrow spoke with People magazine at greater length to defend his father against the molestation allegations, which he described as false. "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister,” he told People. “I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.” Moses Farrow also stated, "Of course Woody did not molest my sister.” Also in People, Dylan Farrow responded to her brother's comments: "My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life."
The last third of the piece is in keeping with the first third: not a “closer examination” of the molestation accusations but a grab bag of tendentiousness and disingenuity masquerading as “context.” Weide’s got cutesy anecdotes about Allen’s teenage daughters, the ones he adopted with Soon-Yi Previn. He reminds us yet again that Ronan Farrow may not be Allen’s biological son, which for Weide is a twofer: a proof of his mother’s licentiousness and, bizarrely, a pretext for excusing his father’s sexual relationship with Ronan’s sister.
Photo attached was in article and is Weide's twitter profile page photo.
Article continued in next post..
Attachments
Continued from above:
In fact, the real subject of Weides piece isnt Dylan Farrow or even his main man Woody Allen. Its what Weide sees as Mia Farrows hypocrisy. Shes a hypocrite because shes friends with convicted rapist Roman Polanski. Shes a hypocrite because her brother is a convicted child molestera more mischievous part of me, Weide writes, wanted to tweet about Mias brothers abuse of children during the Golden Globes. Shes a hypocrite because she approved a clip from The Purple Rose of Cairo for Allens Golden Globes tribute, and then publicly complained about the tribute. This woman needs to get over herself, Weide writes of Mia Farrow.
And isnt that the wish of all of Woody Allens defenders, that these women would just get over themselves? (Stephen King, for one, tweeted that Dylans letter smacked of palpable *****ery.) Weides piece performs a neat substitution of Mia for Dylan, performing a greasy character assassination of the mother as if it could dismantle the daughters claims. That Dylan has now spoken for herselfin her own words, standing 100 percent behind the story she told over and over and over again to a team of investigators 21 years agoshould grind Weides piece to dust.
Thats not how Weide sees it. In an editors note appended to the bottom of his piece, he writes:
This continues to be a very sad story from every angle. I can only say I found nothing in Dylans letter that hasnt previously been alleged in the two previous Vanity Fair articles, which Ive already addressed. I also see nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast. If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece. As Ive already stated in my article, I hope she finds closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace shes been looking for.
Its not surprising that Woody Allens No. 1 fanboy continues to go to the mat for his hero. It is surprising that so many respected journalists continue to line up behind Robert Weide, insisting that his voice should be at least as loud as Dylan Farrows. Thats exactly what Weide wants: When their voices are equal, they cancel each other out, and theres nothing left to hear.
In fact, the real subject of Weides piece isnt Dylan Farrow or even his main man Woody Allen. Its what Weide sees as Mia Farrows hypocrisy. Shes a hypocrite because shes friends with convicted rapist Roman Polanski. Shes a hypocrite because her brother is a convicted child molestera more mischievous part of me, Weide writes, wanted to tweet about Mias brothers abuse of children during the Golden Globes. Shes a hypocrite because she approved a clip from The Purple Rose of Cairo for Allens Golden Globes tribute, and then publicly complained about the tribute. This woman needs to get over herself, Weide writes of Mia Farrow.
And isnt that the wish of all of Woody Allens defenders, that these women would just get over themselves? (Stephen King, for one, tweeted that Dylans letter smacked of palpable *****ery.) Weides piece performs a neat substitution of Mia for Dylan, performing a greasy character assassination of the mother as if it could dismantle the daughters claims. That Dylan has now spoken for herselfin her own words, standing 100 percent behind the story she told over and over and over again to a team of investigators 21 years agoshould grind Weides piece to dust.
Thats not how Weide sees it. In an editors note appended to the bottom of his piece, he writes:
This continues to be a very sad story from every angle. I can only say I found nothing in Dylans letter that hasnt previously been alleged in the two previous Vanity Fair articles, which Ive already addressed. I also see nothing that contradicts what I wrote for The Daily Beast. If I wrote it today, it would be exactly the same piece. As Ive already stated in my article, I hope she finds closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace shes been looking for.
Its not surprising that Woody Allens No. 1 fanboy continues to go to the mat for his hero. It is surprising that so many respected journalists continue to line up behind Robert Weide, insisting that his voice should be at least as loud as Dylan Farrows. Thats exactly what Weide wants: When their voices are equal, they cancel each other out, and theres nothing left to hear.
Fina-****ingly! Everything I wanted to articulate about that toolwad's so-called piece of journalism. I am so damn sick of seeing Mia's affairs and alleged craziness dragged into this fracas as if her being a hoe back in the day makes Dylan's claims any less valid. And some of these journos cant even be bothered to get the facts right. Mia Farrow is NOT friends with Roman Polanski. She answered that question on Twitter when someone took her to task over it. I've also seen horrible comments that she's a "crazy baby collector" because God forbid that a woman be moved by the plight of the world's orphans and want to adopt them all. I hope Angelina Jolie gets called that too.
My two cents to the media who are still caping for this creepy ****er: go on, take a leap of faith, drop your kids off with Woody Allen for a weekend and then come back to me with how he's innocent until proven guilty.
My two cents to the media who are still caping for this creepy ****er: go on, take a leap of faith, drop your kids off with Woody Allen for a weekend and then come back to me with how he's innocent until proven guilty.
Her craziness is being brought up cause the prosecutor felt that Dylan's story was coached by her mother...Mia. Look, I have no idea what happened. I too think Allen gives off a sleezy vibe. It also seems as if Dylan believes what she's saying BUT, there have been plenty of cases where kids have been coached and stories have been made up. On another board I frequent, one of the posters recounted his mother coaching him to lie about sexual abuse. It was only after therapy that he realized that it never happened. There was a comparison of this to a break in. Really?? When there's a break in, you have solid facts. Fingerprints, camera footage, etc. Unfortunately there are no solid facts here. It's just someone's word against someone else's. That's why this is so hard and why a lot of people, while they might think Allen is a perv, still work with him...cause he's never been prosecuted on anything, much less found guilty.
I'm not discounting Dylan...it's just that the whole situation is f*cked up the whole way around. Hell, maybe Mia's brother was the one who molested Dylan and she was told it was Allen. I don't know, but like I said, at the time, the state said that her testimony wasn't consistent, it was coached, and didn't feel it was genuine. That is why people are looking at Mia, cause given some of the evidence, if that's the case, it's likely that she's the one who coached her. I also think that people are using his relationship with Soon Yi to support that he's a pedophile. Being sexually attracted to a 17/18/19 year old girl is not the same as being sexually attracted to a 7/8/9 year old girl. The latter is pedophilia, the former is not.
I'm not discounting Dylan...it's just that the whole situation is f*cked up the whole way around. Hell, maybe Mia's brother was the one who molested Dylan and she was told it was Allen. I don't know, but like I said, at the time, the state said that her testimony wasn't consistent, it was coached, and didn't feel it was genuine. That is why people are looking at Mia, cause given some of the evidence, if that's the case, it's likely that she's the one who coached her. I also think that people are using his relationship with Soon Yi to support that he's a pedophile. Being sexually attracted to a 17/18/19 year old girl is not the same as being sexually attracted to a 7/8/9 year old girl. The latter is pedophilia, the former is not.
By that logic, can we assert that Woody coached Moses to lie about physical abuse at the hands of his mother?
Here's what it boils down to me for me.
Woody Allen fell in love with and married the adopted daughter of his long-term partner, a child he met when she was 8.
Dylan Farrow made these allegations years ago and her story has never changed.
Context is everything. And the two are linked. It implies a clear predilection for underage girls. Couple that with his ****ing dodgy comments about waking up in an orgy of 12-year-old girls, his movies that consistently portray him as the object of young girls' affections, and I'm sorry, what are we still defending here?
I'll never believe that poor ole Woody only fell for Soon-Yi right on the stroke of her 18th birthday. Sorry, dont buy it, never will. Dylan's story hasn't changed over the past two decades.
The man is a paedophile who will never be convicted. More's the ****ing pity. This topic enrages me. I'm out.
Here's what it boils down to me for me.
Woody Allen fell in love with and married the adopted daughter of his long-term partner, a child he met when she was 8.
Dylan Farrow made these allegations years ago and her story has never changed.
Context is everything. And the two are linked. It implies a clear predilection for underage girls. Couple that with his ****ing dodgy comments about waking up in an orgy of 12-year-old girls, his movies that consistently portray him as the object of young girls' affections, and I'm sorry, what are we still defending here?
I'll never believe that poor ole Woody only fell for Soon-Yi right on the stroke of her 18th birthday. Sorry, dont buy it, never will. Dylan's story hasn't changed over the past two decades.
The man is a paedophile who will never be convicted. More's the ****ing pity. This topic enrages me. I'm out.