I know, I read that too in both Vanity fair pieces? The only specific info I could find was this link about the testimony of the psychologist they mention...
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html
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 know, I read that too in both Vanity fair pieces? The only specific info I could find was this link about the testimony of the psychologist they mention...
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html
This was the opening paragraph from the first VF article in 1992 when they mention her by name...
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist.
And this seems to be the same psycholgist…?
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html
Doctor Recounts Threats By Farrow Against Allen
A clinical psychologist testified yesterday that she warned Woody Allen that she feared for his safety because of threats made by Mia Farrow. The threats were made in the months after Ms. Farrow learned that Mr. Allen was having an affair with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, the psychologist testified.
The psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, also testified that while she considered Mr. Allen's relationship with his own adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, to be "inappropriately intense," the therapist never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily "would be taken over by fantasy" when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.
The testimony of Dr. Coates -- who regularly treated the couple's biological son, Satchel, from 1990 to 1992, and often conversed or met with both parents -- appeared to provide an alternative explanation for Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan other than the one advanced by Ms. Farrow. The actress's accusation that Mr. Allen had molested Dylan at her country house last Aug. 4 is a central issue in the custody trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Mr. Allen has denied the accusation. Escalating Rage
Dr. Coates was questioned by Mr. Allen's lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Dr. Coates -- one of several psychologists and psychiatrists whom various members of the couple's family had seen over the years -- portrayed Ms. Farrow as filled with escalating rage after discovering Mr. Allen's affair with Ms. Previn in January 1992.
The psychologist said that Ms. Farrow's actions in the following months, which included angry phone calls and a gift to Mr. Allen of a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children, had convinced her that Ms. Farrow might harm herself or Mr. Allen.
"I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him," Dr. Coates testified.
"I felt it was a really dangerous situation," she said, explaining she told Mr. Allen that he should not visit Ms. Farrow and her children at their country home because Ms. Farrow remained so distraught. "In my clinical evaluation, this was a place where protection was needed."
A Knife Through a Picture
Earlier in the day, Ms. Farrow, concluding her three days on the witness stand, explained why she had sent the Valentine with the skewers and the steak knife through the picture of herself.
"It was not a threat, it was an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done," she said. "He seemed to have no concept. The morality of the situation seemed to have totally eluded him. I wanted to depict the degree of pain he had inflicted on me and my entire family."
Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow's behavior as increasingly erratic as the months progressed. Dr. Coates testified that on Aug. 1 of last year Ms. Farrow called her after having learned that the affair with Ms. Previn was continuing. Ms. Farrow described Mr. Allen as "satanic and evil," Dr. Coates said, adding that Ms. Farrow pleaded with her to "find a way to stop him."
Dr. Coates testified she was taken aback after Ms. Farrow mentioned at another point in the conversation that she and Mr. Allen had the week before been discussing the possibility of getting married.
"Do you think I should marry him?' " said Dr. Coates, reading from the notes she took at the time and quoting Ms. Farrow.
"I said, 'Are you serious?' " Dr. Coates said. "She heard my reaction to it, and realized there was something absurd about it."
Four days after that conversation, the psychologist testified, Ms. Farrow phoned again, saying that Dylan had begun complaining that Mr. Allen had abused her. Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow as having been extremely calm during the call, in contrast to her agitated state in other calls.
'She Was Very Calm'
"I was puzzled, because in that conversation she was very calm," Dr. Coates said. "I did not understand her calm."
Dr. Coates, who had continued to see Mr. Allen as part of Satchel's therapy, broke the news to Mr. Allen of Dylan's allegations a few days later. She described it as "one of the worst moments of my whole life."
"He sat on the edge of his chair and his eyes were very wide," Dr. Coates recalled. "He said, 'I'm completely flabbergasted. I'm completely flabbergasted.' He said it over and over again."
The psychologist testified that she first met with Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow in 1990, as part of her preliminary evaluation of Satchel, whom she said was alienated from Mr. Allen at the time. She said the parents' own relationship was "in considerable trouble," with the two of them unable to agree on issues as small as whether or not Ms. Farrow should keep a child's thermometer in the house.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist.
And this seems to be the same psycholgist…?
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html
Doctor Recounts Threats By Farrow Against Allen
A clinical psychologist testified yesterday that she warned Woody Allen that she feared for his safety because of threats made by Mia Farrow. The threats were made in the months after Ms. Farrow learned that Mr. Allen was having an affair with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, the psychologist testified.
The psychologist, Dr. Susan Coates, also testified that while she considered Mr. Allen's relationship with his own adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, to be "inappropriately intense," the therapist never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her. And she reported that an evaluation of Dylan conducted in 1990 found the girl easily "would be taken over by fantasy" when asked to describe something as simple as an apple tree.
The testimony of Dr. Coates -- who regularly treated the couple's biological son, Satchel, from 1990 to 1992, and often conversed or met with both parents -- appeared to provide an alternative explanation for Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan other than the one advanced by Ms. Farrow. The actress's accusation that Mr. Allen had molested Dylan at her country house last Aug. 4 is a central issue in the custody trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Mr. Allen has denied the accusation. Escalating Rage
Dr. Coates was questioned by Mr. Allen's lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Dr. Coates -- one of several psychologists and psychiatrists whom various members of the couple's family had seen over the years -- portrayed Ms. Farrow as filled with escalating rage after discovering Mr. Allen's affair with Ms. Previn in January 1992.
The psychologist said that Ms. Farrow's actions in the following months, which included angry phone calls and a gift to Mr. Allen of a Valentine with skewers through the hearts of her children, had convinced her that Ms. Farrow might harm herself or Mr. Allen.
"I understood from Mr. Allen that Miss Farrow had repeatedly called him and said that she thought he should be dead, that she wanted to kill him," Dr. Coates testified.
"I felt it was a really dangerous situation," she said, explaining she told Mr. Allen that he should not visit Ms. Farrow and her children at their country home because Ms. Farrow remained so distraught. "In my clinical evaluation, this was a place where protection was needed."
A Knife Through a Picture
Earlier in the day, Ms. Farrow, concluding her three days on the witness stand, explained why she had sent the Valentine with the skewers and the steak knife through the picture of herself.
"It was not a threat, it was an attempt to depict to a man who didn't know or didn't care what he had done," she said. "He seemed to have no concept. The morality of the situation seemed to have totally eluded him. I wanted to depict the degree of pain he had inflicted on me and my entire family."
Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow's behavior as increasingly erratic as the months progressed. Dr. Coates testified that on Aug. 1 of last year Ms. Farrow called her after having learned that the affair with Ms. Previn was continuing. Ms. Farrow described Mr. Allen as "satanic and evil," Dr. Coates said, adding that Ms. Farrow pleaded with her to "find a way to stop him."
Dr. Coates testified she was taken aback after Ms. Farrow mentioned at another point in the conversation that she and Mr. Allen had the week before been discussing the possibility of getting married.
"Do you think I should marry him?' " said Dr. Coates, reading from the notes she took at the time and quoting Ms. Farrow.
"I said, 'Are you serious?' " Dr. Coates said. "She heard my reaction to it, and realized there was something absurd about it."
Four days after that conversation, the psychologist testified, Ms. Farrow phoned again, saying that Dylan had begun complaining that Mr. Allen had abused her. Dr. Coates characterized Ms. Farrow as having been extremely calm during the call, in contrast to her agitated state in other calls.
'She Was Very Calm'
"I was puzzled, because in that conversation she was very calm," Dr. Coates said. "I did not understand her calm."
Dr. Coates, who had continued to see Mr. Allen as part of Satchel's therapy, broke the news to Mr. Allen of Dylan's allegations a few days later. She described it as "one of the worst moments of my whole life."
"He sat on the edge of his chair and his eyes were very wide," Dr. Coates recalled. "He said, 'I'm completely flabbergasted. I'm completely flabbergasted.' He said it over and over again."
The psychologist testified that she first met with Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow in 1990, as part of her preliminary evaluation of Satchel, whom she said was alienated from Mr. Allen at the time. She said the parents' own relationship was "in considerable trouble," with the two of them unable to agree on issues as small as whether or not Ms. Farrow should keep a child's thermometer in the house.
I think deep down the majority of the Allen supporters aren't so much Woody Allen supporters, but they just don't want to think about a little child being sexually abused. This kind of reaction is rampant. And I can't fault anyone for that. Denial surrounds and engulfs the sexual abuse of young children, of adololescent and adult alike.The whole issue is something people just don't want to believe.
You know what I find to be true? It's the eyes of the child being inappropriately touched. In every picture of a young Dylan she has the Eyes of the Abused. I've seen those eyes in all the pictures of young victims of abuse. They say the eyes are the mirror to the soul. Look at her eyes in those young pictures, whether the Attic abuse was the culmination or not, she grew up with inappropriate touching. I clearly see it in her eyes. They are haunting. They are the eyes of the abused. That vacant stare at the television while he breathes in and out in her lap, all too familiar and very, very true.
But I don't blame people for not believing her. It's too dark, disturbing and horrific to believe. But sadly, it's true.
You know what I find to be true? It's the eyes of the child being inappropriately touched. In every picture of a young Dylan she has the Eyes of the Abused. I've seen those eyes in all the pictures of young victims of abuse. They say the eyes are the mirror to the soul. Look at her eyes in those young pictures, whether the Attic abuse was the culmination or not, she grew up with inappropriate touching. I clearly see it in her eyes. They are haunting. They are the eyes of the abused. That vacant stare at the television while he breathes in and out in her lap, all too familiar and very, very true.
But I don't blame people for not believing her. It's too dark, disturbing and horrific to believe. But sadly, it's true.
Horrifying story, but more disturbing is Mia Farrow saying that woody Allen had been looking at Dylan sexually since she was 3 years and the abuse Dylan recalls is at 7 years old. Mia instructs babysitters that woody allen is never to be left alone with Dylan- when was this? since dylan was 3 years old or just after she was dumped? What if Soon Yi never existed? Mia farrow would continue to date and marry Woody Allen and allow her other children to be around a creep - they dated for 12 years.... Even if this is about Dylan's abuse, feels like the mother has allowed it. Why parade your precious children around a person who looks at your child like this and Woody Allen had therapy for inappropriate behavior towards them is a sign that most TPF'ERS would advise a woman to RUN. How desperate are women for a man to endanger her own children?
Dylan wants justice? The police is blind and afraid of hollywood. if these were all regular joes, Prosecutors would put Mia farrow as accessory to woody Allen's alleged crime, and then let's see how the story changes.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20785169,00.html
Dylan Farrow on Woody Allen's Response: 'I Won't Let the Truth Be Buried and Won't Be Silenced'
Woody Allen's op-ed piece may be his "final word" on the matter, but Dylan Farrow refuses to stay silent about claims that the director molested her as a child.
"Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life," Farrow, now 28, says in a searing statement released Saturday.
"His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years."
Assessing Allen's Arguments
Farrow, who told PEOPLE earlier this week that "my intention in writing [the open letter in the Times] was to put the truth on paper from a voice that was not able to speak before," uses her platform to counter Allen's arguments in his own Times piece, which will run in the paper Sunday.
"He insists my mother brought criminal charges in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as 'inappropriate' behavior with me from as early as 1991," she continues.
"He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here [on Vanity Fair's website].
Reminder of Court Rulings
To further illustrate her claims, Farrow refers back to legal documents from the custody battle between her mother, Mia Farrow, and Allen, in which a judge awarded the actress custody of the children and denied Allen visitation with his adopted daughter.
"With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:
Debunked the 'experts' my father claims exonerated him, calling them 'colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen,' criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions 'sanitized and therefore less credible.'
Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.
Found that 'there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.
Concluded that the evidence 'proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.'
Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found 'probable cause' to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect 'the child victim,' given my fragile state."
From left: Ronan Farrow held by Lark Previn, Woody Allen holding Dylan Farrow, Fletcher Previn, Daisy Previn, Soon-Yi Previn, Moses Farrow and Mia Farrow in Leningrad in 1987
Final Thoughts
Farrow concludes her response to Allen's by firmly stating that she will not "be silenced."
"From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me," she says.
"Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he's promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced."
Dylan Farrow on Woody Allen's Response: 'I Won't Let the Truth Be Buried and Won't Be Silenced'
Woody Allen's op-ed piece may be his "final word" on the matter, but Dylan Farrow refuses to stay silent about claims that the director molested her as a child.
"Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life," Farrow, now 28, says in a searing statement released Saturday.
"His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years."
Assessing Allen's Arguments
Farrow, who told PEOPLE earlier this week that "my intention in writing [the open letter in the Times] was to put the truth on paper from a voice that was not able to speak before," uses her platform to counter Allen's arguments in his own Times piece, which will run in the paper Sunday.
"He insists my mother brought criminal charges in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as 'inappropriate' behavior with me from as early as 1991," she continues.
"He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here [on Vanity Fair's website].
Reminder of Court Rulings
To further illustrate her claims, Farrow refers back to legal documents from the custody battle between her mother, Mia Farrow, and Allen, in which a judge awarded the actress custody of the children and denied Allen visitation with his adopted daughter.
"With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:
Debunked the 'experts' my father claims exonerated him, calling them 'colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen,' criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions 'sanitized and therefore less credible.'
Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.
Found that 'there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.
Concluded that the evidence 'proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.'
Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found 'probable cause' to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect 'the child victim,' given my fragile state."
From left: Ronan Farrow held by Lark Previn, Woody Allen holding Dylan Farrow, Fletcher Previn, Daisy Previn, Soon-Yi Previn, Moses Farrow and Mia Farrow in Leningrad in 1987
Final Thoughts
Farrow concludes her response to Allen's by firmly stating that she will not "be silenced."
"From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me," she says.
"Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he's promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced."
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/09/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-alleged-sexual-abuse
Between labelling Woody Allen a child molester or his daughter a liar, I feel utterly stuck
Let us assume – because it might be true, even in these daunting internet days where columnists find themselves answerable to an impossible audience of potential millions – that you are a typical Observer reader. Like me.
If so, you're probably a Woody Allen fan. You love his wordy, nerdy artistry; you think he's gone off a bit in recent years but hope Blue Jasmine signals a return to form.
You are also facing a horrible conundrum, thrown up by the open letter published by Allen's adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, repeating allegations of childhood sexual abuse – allegations that Allen again denied yesterday.
You don't need to be Alec Baldwin or Cate Blanchett (specifically named by Farrow as collaborators in Hollywood's failure to reject her alleged abuser) to feel that you should take a view. Farrow challenges Woody Allen's audience, too.
Although you cannot know what happened in the attic when Dylan was seven years old, and would no doubt prefer to feel it's none of your business, she is implying that a blind eye from cinemagoers is a form of culpability.
Here, if you are anything like me, is your problem.
Even in your own private thoughts, you do not want to label a man as a child molester when he hasn't been charged, let alone found guilty. You believe that if an allegation is enough to see a man tarred with the darkest brush there is, then we're all sunk. Perhaps you read the unbearable recent story about Bijan Ebrahimi, burned to death on a housing estate after a false accusation of paedophilia. You believe fervently in the principle of presuming innocence unless guilt is proved.
However. You know the world is full of abused children and raped women who will never see justice because, by the nature of the crime, there are no witnesses and proof is often impossible.You know that a series of individuals who have never been found guilty, so must individually be considered innocent, adds up to a vast crowd of abusers who walk free across the planet. And you know the trauma of the abused is massively compounded by the horror and loneliness of being disbelieved.
So, trapped between labelling Woody Allen a child molester or his daughter a liar, you feel utterly stuck. Either way, you are breaking one of your own deeply felt principles.
I have given this a lot of miserable thought and, I think, found a way through. Woody Allen may have assaulted his daughter in the manner defined by law; but, while principle obliges you to assume not, that doesn't mean you have to reject his daughter's truth.
It could go like this.
At the time of the alleged incident, Dylan Farrow's family has fallen apart because her father's having an affair with her sister. To the family, the fact that he never adopted or lived with Soon-Yi Previn is a meaningless nicety. He's been with Mia Farrow since 1980, when Soon-Yi was around eight (her exact age and birth date are not known). Twelve years later, Mia Farrow has found naked photographs of Soon-Yi that Allen has taken.
Seven-year-old Dylan is adjusting to a world where her parents have split up and her father's having sex with her sister. In all meaningful ways, when it comes to what it feels like for the family, he is committing incest. Technically, no. Emotionally, yes.
To her mother, it must also feel like child abuse. All the definitions of all the relationships have been disrespected and are crumbling apart. Now that Mia Farrow knows it's possible for Woody Allen to feel a sexual interest in her children, at any age, she is fighting for sole custody. So, Dylan is dealing with a father who's having sex with her sister and a mother who is trying to protect her from him.
In this context, Dylan does not want to be touched by him. That means being touched by someone who's become frightening, who is not the innocent father she believed. She has been stroked, kissed and told she is beautiful by a monster who's been casting his sexual eye around the family. It's sinister. She doesn't want it. She may not understand the detail, but everything has turned horrible and weird.
The long-term success of Allen's marriage to Previn, and the relative horror of Dylan's allegations, might cause us to forget how foul it is that he slept with his girlfriend's child. His children's sister. He stood sweaty and excited behind the camera as he snapped her nude in secret. Even if only in this way, his sexuality violated his children's innocent universe.
God knows, he's a great comedian, talented musician and skilled film-maker. But if he were my father, and his lust for my sister had been similarly exposed, then I, too, would realise that I'd spent years being touched by a creep; and my disproportionate, inappropriate awareness of his physical desires would make those touches feel like a violation.
The family boundaries were transgressed. The caresses became sinister. The memory of them felt dirty and shameful. Wherever Woody Allen did or didn't put his hands, these are the feelings of child abuse.
So, even with Allen's innocence of a crime presumed, there is no version where Dylan Farrow is lying. Either way, her father brought sex into her childhood consciousness, mixed up with family life, in a way that left psychological scars. Either way, her development was compromised by something disturbing and wrong. Either way, she remembers unwanted touches; was a victim and is a survivor.
This means that, challenged to take a view without knowing what happened, we need not be stuck with a choice between two ghastly slurs.
You cannot label Woody Allen a child molester, when he has never faced this charge in court, but it's a false and simplistic corollary to call his daughter a liar.
Between labelling Woody Allen a child molester or his daughter a liar, I feel utterly stuck
Let us assume – because it might be true, even in these daunting internet days where columnists find themselves answerable to an impossible audience of potential millions – that you are a typical Observer reader. Like me.
If so, you're probably a Woody Allen fan. You love his wordy, nerdy artistry; you think he's gone off a bit in recent years but hope Blue Jasmine signals a return to form.
You are also facing a horrible conundrum, thrown up by the open letter published by Allen's adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, repeating allegations of childhood sexual abuse – allegations that Allen again denied yesterday.
You don't need to be Alec Baldwin or Cate Blanchett (specifically named by Farrow as collaborators in Hollywood's failure to reject her alleged abuser) to feel that you should take a view. Farrow challenges Woody Allen's audience, too.
Although you cannot know what happened in the attic when Dylan was seven years old, and would no doubt prefer to feel it's none of your business, she is implying that a blind eye from cinemagoers is a form of culpability.
Here, if you are anything like me, is your problem.
Even in your own private thoughts, you do not want to label a man as a child molester when he hasn't been charged, let alone found guilty. You believe that if an allegation is enough to see a man tarred with the darkest brush there is, then we're all sunk. Perhaps you read the unbearable recent story about Bijan Ebrahimi, burned to death on a housing estate after a false accusation of paedophilia. You believe fervently in the principle of presuming innocence unless guilt is proved.
However. You know the world is full of abused children and raped women who will never see justice because, by the nature of the crime, there are no witnesses and proof is often impossible.You know that a series of individuals who have never been found guilty, so must individually be considered innocent, adds up to a vast crowd of abusers who walk free across the planet. And you know the trauma of the abused is massively compounded by the horror and loneliness of being disbelieved.
So, trapped between labelling Woody Allen a child molester or his daughter a liar, you feel utterly stuck. Either way, you are breaking one of your own deeply felt principles.
I have given this a lot of miserable thought and, I think, found a way through. Woody Allen may have assaulted his daughter in the manner defined by law; but, while principle obliges you to assume not, that doesn't mean you have to reject his daughter's truth.
It could go like this.
At the time of the alleged incident, Dylan Farrow's family has fallen apart because her father's having an affair with her sister. To the family, the fact that he never adopted or lived with Soon-Yi Previn is a meaningless nicety. He's been with Mia Farrow since 1980, when Soon-Yi was around eight (her exact age and birth date are not known). Twelve years later, Mia Farrow has found naked photographs of Soon-Yi that Allen has taken.
Seven-year-old Dylan is adjusting to a world where her parents have split up and her father's having sex with her sister. In all meaningful ways, when it comes to what it feels like for the family, he is committing incest. Technically, no. Emotionally, yes.
To her mother, it must also feel like child abuse. All the definitions of all the relationships have been disrespected and are crumbling apart. Now that Mia Farrow knows it's possible for Woody Allen to feel a sexual interest in her children, at any age, she is fighting for sole custody. So, Dylan is dealing with a father who's having sex with her sister and a mother who is trying to protect her from him.
In this context, Dylan does not want to be touched by him. That means being touched by someone who's become frightening, who is not the innocent father she believed. She has been stroked, kissed and told she is beautiful by a monster who's been casting his sexual eye around the family. It's sinister. She doesn't want it. She may not understand the detail, but everything has turned horrible and weird.
The long-term success of Allen's marriage to Previn, and the relative horror of Dylan's allegations, might cause us to forget how foul it is that he slept with his girlfriend's child. His children's sister. He stood sweaty and excited behind the camera as he snapped her nude in secret. Even if only in this way, his sexuality violated his children's innocent universe.
God knows, he's a great comedian, talented musician and skilled film-maker. But if he were my father, and his lust for my sister had been similarly exposed, then I, too, would realise that I'd spent years being touched by a creep; and my disproportionate, inappropriate awareness of his physical desires would make those touches feel like a violation.
The family boundaries were transgressed. The caresses became sinister. The memory of them felt dirty and shameful. Wherever Woody Allen did or didn't put his hands, these are the feelings of child abuse.
So, even with Allen's innocence of a crime presumed, there is no version where Dylan Farrow is lying. Either way, her father brought sex into her childhood consciousness, mixed up with family life, in a way that left psychological scars. Either way, her development was compromised by something disturbing and wrong. Either way, she remembers unwanted touches; was a victim and is a survivor.
This means that, challenged to take a view without knowing what happened, we need not be stuck with a choice between two ghastly slurs.
You cannot label Woody Allen a child molester, when he has never faced this charge in court, but it's a false and simplistic corollary to call his daughter a liar.
I thought of this exact same thing when all of this stuff started however many years ago.
I don't know if they guy is guilty or not. I do think the relationship with Soon Yi, at minimum, was odd. And if that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be speculating so much on the whole Dylan thing, or at least assuming guilt.
I am kind of baffled as to why Woody is presumed guilty and when Michael Jackson died, he was portrayed as a saint by poster after poster. IMO, there was every bit as much smoke pointing to that fire as there is here.
I am not sure if most people are familiar with McMartin, but for anyone who believes that sexual abuse can't be 'suggested' to a person in way that makes them believe it really happened, you might want to google that case. I know people that were involved in it. THEY really believe something happened there but the interview techniques they used are now known to be inappropriate. I know that as a result of that case, possible victims of abuse were then allowed to testify on closed circuit television out of the courtroom so they were not subjected to the usual tactics of defense attorneys. I should add that the woman who started the entire case by making the accusations was crazy and a known alcoholic who later died of alcohol poisoning.
As far as the poster who said they found Woody innocent, not pressing charges doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent. It means they didn't have a strong enough case to prosecute. And while it might not have been Mia's decision TO prosecute, she certainly could have kept Dylan from testifying at the time either because she believed the child was too fragile or because she had coached the girl.
I don't know what happened with Woody and Dylan. I stopped watching Woody's movies around the time all of this came out 20 years ago. I also stopped listening to Michael Jackson's music.
It's very, very hard to say anything about MJ. His stans are absolutely crazy and will go ballistic if you eve as much as hint towards something odd going on there. They basically refuse to listen (just like a lot of people who haven't looked into this whole WA refuse to listen as well.)
I honestly dont know whether to laugh or cry after reading poor victim Woody's rebuttal. Yes, he's the real victim in all this. I love how this award-winning director/writer's entire premise of defense is couched in passive aggression and shaming Mia and really, it's all about him. Poor Woody Allen. So hard done by.
So it all boils down to: "Did you know Mia's a slag? And she stole someone's husband? And it's preposterous I would abuse my child! Why? Cos I said so. Oh and all I did was fall in love. With my partner's adopted daughter but still! How dare Mia use that as an excuse to keep me from my own child? Who I never could have abused in an attic because I'm claustrophobic. Abuse! I find it ludicrous! I just dismissed it, never gave it a second thought!"
I loathe this creepy evil ****er.
So it all boils down to: "Did you know Mia's a slag? And she stole someone's husband? And it's preposterous I would abuse my child! Why? Cos I said so. Oh and all I did was fall in love. With my partner's adopted daughter but still! How dare Mia use that as an excuse to keep me from my own child? Who I never could have abused in an attic because I'm claustrophobic. Abuse! I find it ludicrous! I just dismissed it, never gave it a second thought!"
I loathe this creepy evil ****er.
You have provided a well thought out, a somewhat Scandinavian Neutrality that everyone should be able to be happy with.
Except for one little thing, had it not happened, Dylan would not have been able to so specifically describe the breathing in an out by Allen at her crotch. I am assuming that was the first you heard of such a thing, and quite probably it didn't even register. Breathing with his head in her lap? What's that? Oh I know. I know exactly what that act is. And I know Dylan wasn't lying. I also know you don't want me to describe it.
Just to be clear, my post that you quoted was an article found online, not my own words. The source is located at the top of my post.
I believe Dylan and always have.
I guess in my reading of it, I got lost in it and didn't realize, I'm sorry.
I casually asked my 19 year old, so, what do you think of the whole Woody Allen thing? Without hestitation he said "Oh, he did it, without a doubt." He rattled off a lot of the things we've discussed here, the old act he did with the inappropriate comments, the fact that he was the father figure in that household. Even in his film class, the majority opinion is yes, WA is a pedophile. And I have to attribute this to the fact that the 19 and 20 year olds, don't value him as a great filmmaker. They revere the films of Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarrantino Martin Scorsese. WA to their crowd is as he put it "A creepy guy who likes little girls, and married his kids sister."
I feel very bad about the people who blindly don't believe Dylan. It must be very hard on her.
No worries. I wanted it on record as I feel very strongly that doubting a victim makes everything worse. Makes the betrayal even more heinous, in a way. As I said earlier, someone close to me was sexually assaulted in their childhood (and disbelieved by key persons that should have protected them), and seeing the ripple effect of abuse even as these victims grow into adulthood is tragic. Everything in their lives is affected by the betrayal.