Open Letter From Dylan Farrow on Abuse by Woody Allan

[8bitagent]

It's just devastating to read. Not gonna lie, Im a lifelong hardcore Woody Allen fan. I own every single movie he's done or been in. But I don't discount Dylan's account

Lemme say this tho..why is Mia such a huge advocate and friend of Roman Polanski? This is a man noone doubts drugged and raped a 12 year old girl on Jack Nicholsons couch. Noone doubts this, even his advocates

[Sounder]

8 bit wrote...

Lemme say this tho..why is Mia such a huge advocate and friend of Roman Polanski?

You or I are no different than Mia in our being abused, wanting to expose that abuse, and yet still living with the conditioning, denial, involvement with, and a sly ‘knowing’ that abuse can develop ones need and then ability to act.

Too fuckin many excellent actors is a natural result of a culture of coercion and deceit.

Enjoy your cake.

[FourthBase]

technically Sun Yi was adopted by a husband of farrow, previn. I don't think allen ever adopted her as a daughter, though it's certainly possible. marrying her mother doesn't legally in and of itself make her his daughter.

You either didn't read or didn't believe the Daily Beast article, I take it?

[FourthBase]

8 bit wrote...

Lemme say this tho..why is Mia such a huge advocate and friend of Roman Polanski?

You or I are no different than Mia in our being abused, wanting to expose that abuse, and yet still living with the conditioning, denial, involvement with, and a sly ‘knowing’ that abuse can develop ones need and then ability to act.

Too fuckin many excellent actors is a natural result of a culture of coercion and deceit.

Enjoy your cake.

Can we stop excusing Farrow for her incomprehensible hypocrisy (unless she's a total phony, in which case it's quite comprehensible)?

[FourthBase]

p.s. The reflexive groupthink on display here is unsettling. Is there NO chance that Allen is being victimized by a false accusation? Because that's what you all seem to be demanding, zero tolerance of considering other possibilities. Wondering whether Dylan was manipulated by her mother is not necessarily some FMSF angle or some such bullshit. People, you don't always have to be 100% supportive of 100% of those who claim abuse, do you? Because you're inevitably going to wind up zealously supporting a rare false accuser. This might be one of those cases? What if Allen is innocent? Then what?

[Sounder]

Can we stop excusing Farrow for her incomprehensible hypocrisy (unless she's a total phony, in which case it's quite comprehensible)?

Oh I'm not excusing Mia, rather the intention was to spread the blame to the rest of us who also facilitate abuse, yet remain in denial.

[sunny]

Wood Allen guilty? how the hell would I know, but that piece posted above is pure shit


"until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow ...
The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time ...
To be blunt: I think Woody Allen probably did it, though, of course, I could be wrong.
But it’s okay if I’m wrong.
For two reasons ...
First, because my opinion is not attached to a juridical apparatus ...
The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong."

it is a series of stupid, illogical and contradictory statements masquerading as intelligent analysis

there are 2, maybe 3 or 4 people in the world who know the truth, all the rest should shut up

It's a bit awkwardly phrased but the author's basic premise is pretty clear: Both parties are, demonstrably, being accused in the court of public opinion--one of rape, one of lying about her rape. in the absence of a court case we can either presume the innocence of WA--not guilty of child rape---or we can presume the innocence of Dylan---not guilty of lying about her rape. The presumption of innocence cannot be given to both parties. Only one of them can be not guilty. People are free to choose either presumption but as the author rightly points out, there is no epidemic of false accusations of rape. Of rape, on the other hand, there is, demonstrably, a culture of rape that routinely perpetrates, exonerates the perpetrators, and denigrates the victims.

[FourthBase]

. in the absence of a court case we can either presume the innocence of WA--not guilty of child rape---or we can presume the innocence of Dylan---not guilty of lying about her rape.

Or, in this case, we can presume nothing and examine all the possibilities? This is an exceptional conflict of narratives, isn't it? Or are we to treat it like a just a Very Special opportunity to pledge allegiance to Victims as a category, regardless of details and possibilities? (Possibilities that we here might otherwise contemplate freely, were it not for the case becoming a kind of "Whose Side Are You On? Victims or Abusers?" test.)

[Sounder]

FB wrote...

p.s. The reflexive groupthink on display here is unsettling.

That is not what I see. Maybe you just like to be an unsettled person.

Is there NO chance that Allen is being victimized by a false accusation?

Sure there is but my feelings about the matter can’t be helped. I’m no authority because don’t like many movies and don’t watch any more than seems socially required.

Still, I never cared for WA because he strikes me as someone that has commoditized his fuckedupness. Therefore it’s reasonable to at least suspect that he really is fucked up.

[sunny]

. in the absence of a court case we can either presume the innocence of WA--not guilty of child rape---or we can presume the innocence of Dylan---not guilty of lying about her rape.

Or, in this case, we can presume nothing and examine all the possibilities? This is an exceptional conflict of narratives, isn't it? Or are we to treat it like a just a Very Special opportunity to pledge allegiance to Victims as a category, regardless of details and possibilities? (Possibilities that we here might otherwise contemplate freely, were it not for the case becoming a kind of "Who's Side Are You On? Victims or Abusers?" test.)

In the absence of a court case it's really not possible to examine all of the possibilities in detail because we lack access to or knowledge of the evidence that would be presented in court. But it's a fundamental fact of this controversy: only one of them can be lying. In light of our culture of rape I feel the preponderance of doubt to a moral certainty belongs to Dylan. I choose to presume the innocence of Dylan. If you wish to remain neutral that's your business.

[FourthBase]

. in the absence of a court case we can either presume the innocence of WA--not guilty of child rape---or we can presume the innocence of Dylan---not guilty of lying about her rape.

Or, in this case, we can presume nothing and examine all the possibilities? This is an exceptional conflict of narratives, isn't it? Or are we to treat it like a just a Very Special opportunity to pledge allegiance to Victims as a category, regardless of details and possibilities? (Possibilities that we here might otherwise contemplate freely, were it not for the case becoming a kind of "Who's Side Are You On? Victims or Abusers?" test.)

In the absence of a court case it's really not possible to examine all of the possibilities in detail because we lack access to or knowledge of the evidence that would be presented in court. But it's a fundamental fact of this controversy: only one of them can be lying. In light of our culture of rape I feel the preponderance of doubt to a moral certainty belongs to Dylan. I choose to presume the innocence of Dylan. If you wish to remain neutral that's your business.

That's the thing, though. This isn't just another chance for us to prove how righteous and enlightened we are, by taking the accuser's side, because in this culture accusers aren't believed enough. This isn't just one of thousands of similar circumstances. This is an EXTREMELY UNUSUAL situation, one we surely don't and can't know everything about, but for which we do have way more information than just, say, a rumor or a mere accusation. The entire saga is documented in court records. There are various sides to the story, not just he-said, she-said. Various perspectives to consider, not just Dylan's and Woody's. In light of that, how about some attention to the individual facts, as we can know them? We cannot offer a complete judgment, no. Nor should we, we are not a jury. But we can rigorously exercise our intuition. Not just automatically align with one or another side because, well, that is the rule, that's just what one is supposed to do. I don't like that process, period, that phenomenon. Regardless of whether it's the accuser or the accused being automatically disbelieved. Yes, I give accusers of rape the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of truthfulness. But when there's as much strangeness and hypocrisy as there is surrounding Mia Farrow? You're telling me there aren't other RI-ish possibilities here to ponder? Of course there are.

[FourthBase]

There seems a huge lack of objectivity in this subject.

We're talking about someone who adopted a girl many decades younger than him, and then later married her. This means he had someone in his house that at some point he perceived as his *daughter*, and yet at a later point he was able to have sex with this person.

This fact is already dangerously close to pedo-town, how can anyone disregard these allegations with any sense of confidence?

This really seems a classic case of people being unable to separate art from the artist, and therefore they feel irrationally compelled to grasp for any story that holds together their current picture of the world.

You also apparently did not read the Daily Beast article?
What we've all assumed about the Soon-Yi thing seems to be half-wrong.
Still kind of creepy, but not nearly as creepy as the half-wrong versions.
Unless that dude is full of shit? What are the Soon-Yi facts?

[FourthBase]

First, the Soon-Yi situation:

Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

#2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

#4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

#5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

#7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

#9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

#10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend’s 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense. But why not get the facts straight? If the actual facts are so repugnant to you, then why embellish them?

Let's deconstruct that for misrepresentation and sugarcoating, because if it's all true, then people might want to readjust their appraisal of Allen's ethics (or lack thereof) in the matter? It might be half as creepy as you think. Still creepy, sure, but in a far less pathological way, no? If 1 through 10 are all true, or rather, if Weide is right?

[FourthBase]

This is all a relatively unknown subject to me, and so forgive my enthusiasm for raising points that may have escaped the attention of those of you who might have been long familiar with it -- and therefore accustomed to thinking about it in a particular way. I have no horse here. I've never been a huge fan of Allen, although sure Annie Hall and Sleeper and Small Time Crooks are among my favorites. He usually bores me, though. So, I'm not wedded to thinking of him well, and if I assessed the information in a way that led me to conclude he's a fucking monster, I would, no hesitation. But the information is simply not leading me that way. I'm still quite unsure, not willing to throw my support behind any side yet.

For instance, note that there are now two people raised by Mia Farrow who have nothing to do with her anymore, and who have taken Woody Allen's side. If it were just Soon-Yi, then it wouldn't really count as a mark against Mia Farrow. But now it's Moses Farrow, too. What might have been the cause for him to abandon Team Farrow and join Team Allen, so to speak? (Did he get bribed by Woody? Did he maybe realize something about his mother? If the latter, then what is it and why haven't his other siblings like Dylan and Ronan realized it? If neither the latter nor the former, then what?)

[justdrew]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/03/the-kangaroo-court-of-twitter-is-no-place-to-judge-woody-allen/

First off , I don’t know if Woody Allen abused his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow and nor do you. I only know what I am inclined to believe and what the reasons are. Those reasons are, in fact, opinions. Some are to do with this particular case, some with the way that victims of abuse are routinely dismissed, some with the way Hollywood operates. Some are to do with the films he makes – the texts themselves – and some with the context: the context in which so many perpetrators walk free. That context is changing.

When the custody battle between Farrow and Allen took place in 1992, social media was not around. Right now online, especially on Twitter, many people are absolutely certain that Allen is guilty. Just as they are absolutely certain that Amanda Knox is guilty, just as they will be absolutely certain that what I am saying here is wrong. There is not a lot of nuance in Hashtag Justice. There is a hashtag #IBelieveDylanFarrow.

This is destroying Allen’s reputation as much as the explosive custody case did at the time. It is worth reiterating that the judge, Elliott Wilk, found the evidence of abuse against the seven-year-old Dylan “inconclusive” and doubted that Allen could ever acquire “the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately”. He damned his parenting his skills, saying he did not qualify as “an adequate custodian for Moses, Dylan or Satchel”. He also talked about the way he isolated Soon-Yi Previn from the rest of her family, leaving her with “no visible support system”.

Was this part of the grooming he used to cover up abuse of Dylan? I don’t know, but clearly for most people he crossed over a boundary with his relationship with Soon-Yi.

Such boundary crossing is, as we know, not uncommon for the rich and powerful and nor is Hollywood Babylon the only institution to shrug it off. The Golden Globes award Allen was recently given for lifetime achievement seems to have activated the Farrow family. Dylan’s open letter is harrowing, and given more power coming via the writer Nicholas Kristof, who is not only a friend of the family but also a brilliant campaigner for the rights of women and girls. We know that it takes immense bravery to speak out. We know that false allegations do happen, but rarely. We know that the reality of child abuse is that we continue to ignore the victims.

In Britain, a weird kind of post-Savile displacement occurred where the victims were again “disappeared”. Discussion moved on to the institutions that had housed this abuse – all of them – and then focused on the management of the BBC. Right now there are ongoing trials of old men charged with rape and abuse. These are necessary, however uncomfortable. For the alternative is what we are seeing online: kangaroo courts where people not in possession of many facts are not doing the real victims any favours. Someone tweets “#IBelieveDylanFarrow because it wouldn’t be the first time a film-maker guy rapes little girls”. No it wouldn’t. I assume this is a reference to Roman Polanski.

Polanski, it is important to note, was arrested, charged, made a plea bargain and fled the US when it look like he might be imprisoned. The man is a genius, which is why I wanted to interview him some 20 years ago. Since then, attitudes have changed – and I have changed my attitude, too. I now think I should not have given him publicity. I now think I got it wrong. But with Polanski there is no doubt of his guilt.

With Allen there is doubt and probably always will be. His detractors use his films as evidence; his fans refuse to give them up. Actually, the great Joan Didion’s takedown of his characters all living in self-absorbed, privileged adolescence still hits home. The old questions are asked again, though we already know the answer: can great art be made by the immoral or the amoral? Of course, history provides the evidence again and again.

As I said, I am inclined to stand alongside Dylan’s howl of pain but it is untenable to think that any justice is served for victims by tweeting opinion as fact. Due process, the law, is slow and complicated, but we are waking up gradually to the fact that we must listen to the voices of victims. But justice is key here. Because so many victims have been ill-served by the system for so long, there is a void into which rush the certainties of online mobs.

It is easier to see that Hollywood has been complicit in child abuse than to address the shaming and blaming of victims closer to home. Indeed, home is exactly where most children are abused. And where we really don’t want to look. If Dylan Farrow’s letter helps other people speak up and get justice, she has done something heroic.