Skip to main content

View Diary: The Best Piece I've Read on the Whole Woody Allen Thing (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You might be right - but you can't be certain (13+ / 0-)

    There are multiple statements, from those involved at first hand, on both sides of the issue. The judicial and psychological investigators, who looked deeply into the evidence at the time, came out on different sides of the issue.

    Anybody on Daily Kos, reading multiple conflicting second and third-hand accounts decades after the fact, can't be certain what happened. The strong emotions, the pressure from the adults involved, and her age at the time mean we can't even rely on Dylan's own testimony as incontrovertible:

    Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.
    Coquiero, I know you hate that "awful article", and I'm not pointing to it as gospel truth. I'm saying this is a complicated, melodramatic mess, and those sworn statements from professionals introduce a reasonable doubt. Human memory, in emotional pressure-cookers, is not the same thing as video tape.

    Your final question, "Who is watching out for those girls?", is reasonable. On the other hand, serial child molesters usually have poor impulse control around children who attract them. If Woody was truly a dangerous man on this score - well, he's had millions of friends, colleagues and strangers looking at him a little warily since he married Soon-Yi. So if he was a serial molester, or even acted creepy around young girls, wouldn't someone have raised a hue and cry about it in the last two decades?

    You're certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said at first, you may be right. But any kossack who is 100% sure of what happened between Woody and Dylan, based on such a messy mass of opinions and conjecture, is making an emotional judgment, not a factual one.

    "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

    by Brecht on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:39:11 PM PST

    •  I absolutely agree with your final statement (13+ / 0-)
      any kossack who is 100% sure of what happened between Woody and Dylan, based on such a messy mass of opinions and conjecture, is making an emotional judgment, not a factual one.
      I don't presume to know the truth, and I know that the story is a messy one.  My main point is that it's easy to discredit a 7 year old's statements and testimony.  That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

      I'm not saying Allen is guilty, although my personal opinion is that he is guilty.  I'm not trying to sell myself as fair and balanced.

       

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:45:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (0+ / 0-)
        I don't presume to know the truth, and I know that the story is a messy one.  My main point is that it's easy to discredit a 7 year old's statements and testimony.  That's like shooting fish in a barrel.
        Which is why professionals are brought in to determine the veracity of the allegations at the time they are made.  Brecht's comment is spot on.

        This, from the findings of the professionals who investigated at the time, bears repeating:

        Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.
        Also noteworthy are Moses's statements regarding how he was treated as a child in that household, and the poisonous atmosphere in that house regarding Allen at the time he and Farrow's split.

        http://www.people.com/...

        I'm not saying Allen is guilty, although my personal opinion is that he is guilty.  I'm not trying to sell myself as fair and balanced.
        And those who are stepping up to defend Allen are not attacking Dylan, as a matter of fact, in several diaries I have participated in, I have repeatedly said that I do not doubt that Dylan has suffered a childhood trauma.  In spite of that constant caveat, my opinion of Allen's innocence is evidence of me being unfit to be alone with children.  
        No, sorry (1+ / 3-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero
        Hidden by:
        cville townie, Jarrayy, corvo
        Given your consistent defense of Woody Allen and, by implication, the creepy behavior witnessed by multiple adults, there is no way I would let you alone with any 7 year old for 2 minutes, much less 2 hours.

        This is not to say you're a child molester yourself, of course. But where the safety of a child is concerned, it's better to be safe than sorry.

        I only wish Mia Farrow had followed that principle

        .

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 11:45:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  First of all, Mia didn't need Woody Allen (9+ / 0-)

      to prop her up...  "poor, poor mother who lost a career in Mr Allen's films."

      And he only paid her $200k per film that she made.

      She stood on her own and raised her kids. She didn't take alimony from Sinatra. Nor Previn. And she sure didn't need Woody Allen handouts for her professional film career.

      As for Dylan making up the sexual abuse story because of her "intense relationship with her mother" that is horrendous to dismiss a child's plea for help so casually like that.

      Every child has the right to feel safe in their own home. And many of those children in that large family did not feel safe nor comfortable with Allen in their home.

      And it's not just the children from Woody Allen's personal family life that found him icky. A lot of people find him to be an icky person.


      One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

      by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:20:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When you're making the "icky person" argument, (5+ / 0-)

        and calling sworn testimony that merely raises a possibility a "horrendous" dismissal, you're reacting emotionally and stating your opinions with more certainty than the evidence supports.

        Which doesn't refute my central argument, it demonstrates it.

        I don't mean to condescend here, just to analyze. This whole drama pushes everyone's emotional buttons, which is why millions of people are weighing in with their views all over the internet. But lots of opinions are all we've got here, in the end.

        "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

        by Brecht on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:38:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Like this diary states... it's public opinion that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, poco, churchylafemme

          is weighing in right now.

          Woody Allen doesn't face jail time nor any government-sanctioned punishment for his transgressions. He won't lose his freedom of movement.

          What will weigh on him will be public opinion. People will avoid him. Avoid his films. He may lose a little freedom of association. Maybe. Or not.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:28:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is emotional to find a father molesting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, churchylafemme

          his daughter as "icky." And there is nothing wrong with emotional logic in a decision-making capacity. Our culture frowns heavily on incestuous relationships and the abuse of children.

          And you can bet the defense makes good use of emotion when sentencing comes down the pike. Or to sway a jury for human empathy to mitigate the crime.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:10:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I might have had a similar reaction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OldDragon

        as you have had, had I not read the most recent Vanity Fair article written by Farrow's friend whose objective was clearly to paint Farrow as a poor and victimized saint.

        Should you want to cast aspersions on people portraying Farrow as a powerless victim, you should really start by attacking her friend, the Vanity Fair article author.

        Now maybe it is wrong, but I really question the mental state of people who collect children and animals.  The story of Farrow's collecting is portrayed as some sort of saintly and generous act on her part, but a lot of it easily could be read as self-aggrandizing and irresponsible obsession with trying to make oneself relevant.

        Why did Farrow agree to be paid "only $200,000" per Allen film?  $200,000 doesn't go very far on CPW.  The author says "that's all" Allen paid her, but Farrow agreed to work for that fee.  AND what does that have to do with Farrow's accusations against Allen?  Would she have charged more had she known that he was a child sexual abuser?

        Then there is the totally confounding, confusing and contradictory Sinatra story.  Farrow married Sinatra when she was 21 and he was 50.  She, of all people, should understand how a romance between a very young woman and older man could occur.  Sun Yi and Allen, however, are both leaders of an evil empire as far as she is concerned - and that MIGHT make sense if she believed after all these years that her relationship with Frank Sinatra was wrong.  It might make sense if she had not basically admitted in the VF article that she continued to sleep with Sinatra for decades after they divorced and if she did not say that he was the love of her life.  I read a combination of self-loathing; holier-than-thou; and total disconnect in that part of her story.

        Prior to reading that VF profile, I figured that she was operating on fairly basic adult logic that a person that much older than another is going to hold such a great advantage over the younger party that it is unrealistic to think that the relationship is sound or really real.  But then Farrow goes on to say that Sinatra was real for her and hasn't a whit of self-reflection about how screwy her own experience was.

        None of what I've said above absolves Allen of "guilt", but I think this claim that Farrow is a saint who holds all of the truth in these stories is more than a stretch.  I think she is as responsible for this mess as anyone who could be considered adults as this stuff all played out.

        •  Wait... Farrow and Sinatra were *not not not* (5+ / 0-)

          father and daughter.

          BIG difference. You just cut that part right out and it's pretty important.

          AND Allen had taken pornographic photographs... disturbing pornographic photographs it is said... of Soon-Yi when she was HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER.

          AND his children found the disturbing pornographic photographs of their SISTER on THEIR FATHER'S mantle.

          Do you have any clue how incredibly shocking that was to those children?

          And, the Sinatra-Farrow relationship worked over the decades because something in each of them clicked with the other. Didn't click for living arrangements on a permanent day-to-day basis, but something clicked and they respected and liked each other.

          Farrow was an independent headstrong woman who lived her life to the fullest as she wanted. She owes no one an explanation for her intensities nor her loves. Nor her peccadilloes with whomever she choose because they were all adult grown men who were not her children.

          And I can't believe that you are holding it against her for sleeping with Sinatra after their divorce. That stuff happens all the time. Not everyone pulls out the daggers for each other when they go their separate ways. Some people stay friends and lovers over their lifetime. They just don't want to live together.

          As for the fees that she was paid from Allen's films... I mentioned it because she's accused of being a hanger-on who needed Allen's films. And she didn't need him nor his stupid films at all.

          Finally, the Vanity Fair piece understood her Catholicism (lapsed or not) without turning her into a saint. You obviously read it differently though.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:48:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allen and Sun Yi Previn were (0+ / 0-)

            "not not not" father and daughter, either.  

            You've got a lot of stuff that you are willing to accept from her that is not aligned with stuff you might accept from him.

            Sorry, but that is true.

            Personally, I think that they are probably both fucked up and that the collection of children that she has out together is unfortunately road kill in their emotional discontent.

            •  now you know that it isn't true that Allen was not (3+ / 0-)

              the father figure in that family during this period.

              Doesn't matter that Soon-Yi and Allen were not blood. He was the father figure for the Farrow household at that time.

              And our culture does not accept incestuous relationships. Whether by a blood or psychological context.


              One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

              by bronte17 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:56:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  And what is "collecting people and animals?" (4+ / 0-)

          wtf?

          Now maybe it is wrong, but I really question the mental state of people who collect children and animals.  The story of Farrow's collecting is portrayed as some sort of saintly and generous act on her part, but a lot of it easily could be read as self-aggrandizing and irresponsible obsession with trying to make oneself relevant.
          You are questioning her mental state because she adopted children whose lives had been difficult?

          As Ronan stated in some interview... what do you do when see these things? Do you walk away? Or do you actually try to do something?

          99% of the world walks away. Mia Farrow is in the 1% that doesn't.

          And she could have easily chosen the truly "self-aggrandizing" life of "irresponsible obsession" with trying to make herself relevant. She chose the more difficult path.

          We don't get to judge what is a relevant life (would that be the "perfect" life of Paula Deen or an Ann Romney life?).


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:02:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well before any of these allegations came (0+ / 0-)

            to the fore, Farrow appeared to be a collector.

            Sorry.

            •  Farrow self-supported abused children (3+ / 0-)

              and cared for them herself. That is how she chose to spend her life energy.

              Yet, Mother Teresa was a saint for the doing the same thing albeit with other people's money. And she didn't discover the children of poverty until she was well into her 40s.


              One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

              by bronte17 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:00:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site