A Personal Note on Allen/Farrow and a Plea For Sanity
Monday, February 3, 2014 at 6:15PM I'm about to pull a Hannah Horvath and make something that's not about me entirely about me for a moment but... I had a really difficult week. As long time readers undoubtedly now, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow as artists and as a unit were largely responsible for making me the cinephile that I am today. The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) was a major turning point in my life, the moment that I realized innately if not quite in a self-aware way, how much the movies meant to me.
Woody & Mia in the 80s
I will never be able to thank either of them enough for that gift. Were it not for them, and over the rest of the 80s an actress we should probably just call "Michellyl Glenn Turnstreepfer", I would not be the person I am and you would never have read The Film Experience as it would not exist.
So Allen and Farrow were a superhero duo to wee Nathaniel and their movies, events. To this day, I'd rather think of them that way. I turned up every year from 1984 (Broadway Danny Rose, my older brother drove me because he said "it looks funny") through 1992 (Husbands and Wives, their last film together) even when I had to drag reluctant family or friends. The catatrosphic end of their relationship -- there's no other word for it -- drove Farrow away from Hollywood and thus tarnished her justified place in film history (I hate how often I've had to explain her career/celebrity/talent to people over the years) and permanently tarnished Woody's own reputation; no one who has ever been accused of child molestation, whether or not they are convicted (and Woody was never even charged), is ever presumed innocent again. [more...]
As for me, I will always opt for separating the art from the artist. I wish more people could take the advice of Roman Polanski's victim Samantha Geimer, who urged us to do this when speaking out on the Woody Allen topic very recently to Huffington Post.
Either you’re going to say you separate the art from the artist or you’re not. If you don’t like his movies and they creep you out, don’t see them. If you don’t like him, don’t see his movies.I think it’s kind of a personal choice, what you spend your money on. I don’t think anybody has a place to forgive him but his own family. As far as a public boycott, I think we should save that for public corporations that are doing harm, not artists who make movies.
I have to separate the art from the artist in the case of both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, neither of whom have (to me) ever come off well in regards to the subject of Dylan Farrow, but who have made indelible contributions to the world of cinema and comedy and cinema and humanitarian endeavors, respectively. I've heard people on the internet boasting on various websites and on twitter that they can't even think of the name of a Woody Allen movie, as if cultural ignorance is a badge of pride, or that they'll never watch one of his movies again, as if boycotting a huge swath of modern cinema will somehow ease Dylan's pain.
This is glibber than I feel but there is truth to it:
Oh jesus. You're not a hero if you stop watching Woody Allen movies. Take that self-congratulatory righteousness and donate to RAINN.
— Vincent Scarpa (@vincentscarpa) February 1, 2014
And here is how to donate to RAINN if you'd like to... which is undoubtedly a better use of your resources than condemning Woody Allen or Mia Farrow (whichever "side" you're on, if you've felt the need to choose one).
I was publicly attacked on twitter recently by someone I was once online-friendly-with for merely suggesting that people ought to know facts before they passed judgment. I was concerned that people were forgetting that "innocent until proven guilty" is the backbone of our whole judicial system and as much as I may feel for Dylan Farrow, I have to admit that the health of our entire nation's legal system is more important to me than her personal journey. I was very aware of this case back when it first reared up and read about it voraciously. "Reading about it voraciously" back in the early-mid 90s was much less time consuming and produced more rational responses since the internet did not provide an instant feedback loop and you had to wait it out between articles. I don't think it makes me a bad person (though some obviously do think so) to admit that I'm far more comfortable with our legal system sorting these gordian knots out than the court of public opinion.
Or as @jazzt put it recently on twitter: "are twitter and open letters the new judiciary?" If so we're all doomed. The internet doesn't really encourage nuanced thinking at least not in 140 character increments and in anything written very quickly (as the bulk of internet articles are). Binary thinking is just terrible for complex situations.
In case you missed any of they key statements articles that people have been discussing they are like so:
- Vanity Fair -the original Mia Farrow article... published during Husbands and Wives release in 1992
- The New York Times - Dylan's Open Letter about her abuse. This was published on Nicolas Krystof's blog. He is friends with Mia Farrow and Ronan Farrow.
- The Daily Beast - Robert Weide attempts to clear up some misperceptions of what originally went down with the investigation and lack of legal proceedings. He is friends with (and a documentarian of) Woody Allen. (I have seen many attack on this article but I would like to note that most of the issues that people seem to take with this piece, apart from its tone, is with its opening gambit of 10 falsehoods about Woody's relationships to both Mia Farrow and Soon-Yi Farrow Previn. This saddens me because these are all verifiable and people would do well to know of what they speak. The only non-facts listed, if you want to get technical are points #5 (how could he know about the last sentence?) and points #9 which is more of an observation of perception... but as someone who lived through the first media war, I can also attest it is basically true since I heard people saing awful and racist things about SoonYi back then.
- CNN Woody's Legal Team Statement
- The Guardian -Michael Wolff claims that the Farrow family is in the Anti-Woody business and stand to benefit from his downfall
- Hollywood Elsewhere Cate Blanchett's Statement to Jeffrey Wells at the Santa Barbara Film Festival
What still might be coming? Some people suspect Moses Farrow, estranged from his mother Mia and friendly with Woody Allen again, might weigh in but I personally doubt it*. Woody Allen's team says Woody himself will soon make a public statement.
*UPDATE (2/5/14): Wrong. Moses has come forward saying that Woody is innocent and that Mia poisoned the children against him and also beat him as a child. Dylan denies her older brother's new claims.
Naturally most of those articles are condemned by some as being "garbage" or agenda-laden, particularly since the people writing them are friendly with either Allen or Farrow and thus have career-interest in making them look good. Yet even in the "balanced" articles there is the whiff of judgement. Take Catherine Shoard's recap article on all of this in The Guardian. It's mostly just journalistic news-sharing but for the brilliantly sly way she describes the plot of Blue Jasmine at the end of the article.
The film tells the story of a wealthy New York socialite and pathological liar whose inability to control her rage on learning of her husband's infidelity leads to the whole family's downfall.
That is a skillfull and funny "Guilty!" verdict right there* cause you could just as easily describe the plot like so, i'll illustrate.
"the film tells the story of a wealthy New York socialite who is driven to madness by her husband's infidelity and criminal behavior which leads to the whole family's downfall."
...which redirects the anger at Woody as if it were written by Mia. It's also equally true.
*UPDATE (2/4/14): I have since received clarification about this from Ms. Shoard who did not intend it the way I read it. Which only further underlines the point that phrasing and multiple possible interpretations make talking about this incident and the articles surrounding it very challenging.
When I was suggesting that people think about the entire history of this case and not just one open letter 20 years later, I was told that this meant I was advocating silencing the victims. Which is a strange charge. Shouldn't we want more than one voice in any complicated situation where whole lives and reputations, and several of them, too, hang in the balance? I understand the passionate advocacy yet even here I find the rhetoric overblown. How is anyone silencing the former Dylan Farrow or even advocating silence? I don't mean to joke, but I kinda have to: If an Open Letter in the New York Times is considered silence, what is shouting?
More disheartening (at least at this very moment) than any facts -- especially since you and I will never be fully privvy to most of them -- is the angry overheated rhetoric on the internet which seems, by and large, to be arguing that the presumption of innocence until someone is proven guilty is an outdated notion that we simply have no use for. Or as Mark Harris so succinctly and smartly tweeted...
A) "Innocent until proven guilty" and "All accusations are true" don't go well together. B) I don't know. C) YOU don't know. So don't guess?
— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) February 2, 2014
Naturally someone took offense to his sensible balancing act as well calling it 'cut from rape cloth'.
But here is the current 100% most tragic aspect of all of this given that it requires no proof of any sort and applies to any perceived truth on either side of what transpired. Whether Dylan Farrow's recollection of events from her childhood is a) 100% accurate, b) a mix of fantasy, misunderstandings, and agenda-laden misdirection/brainwashing or 3) some mix of the two... and certainly one of those three options must be true... they're all totally traumatizing. So it's impossible not to feel for her or deny that she's the victim in all of this.
Still and all, I wish that Farrow, in her personal grief, hadn't begun lashing out at blameless people who had nothing to do with her victimization. There is no need to compound the tragedy by dragging other faultless people into it. Apart from Diane Keaton none of the other people name-checked had ever even met Woody or Mia or Dylan at the time. Unfortunately the internet, in its bottomless need for drama and people, in their bottomless need to feel superior to other people, have focused on this part of her letter in which Dylan calls out Diane Keaton, Alec Baldwin and Cate Blanchett (and other celebrities who have worked with Woody Allen) and we start to get pieces like 'Ethical Dilemmas hang over the Oscars' or a wave of tasteless punditry pieces like 'Does this hurt Cate Blanchett's Oscar chances' (and no I will not link to any of those tacky articles). Dylan also (indirectly) calls out all people who have ever loved a Woody Allen movie, which is really just a step way too far.
FACT: Diane Keaton, Alec Baldwin, and Cate Blanchett, and You (if you've ever loved a Woody Allen movie) and I have nothing at all to do with Dylan Farrow's abuse as a child. Let's just stop with that nonsense, even though it's born from a place of understandable grief.
Many people on the internet this week have been, even possibly without realizing it, asking for a world in which we accept that all allegations are true (no need for laws, investigations, courts, professionals to determine veracity) and for which the result should be banishment from society and/or imprisonment. But this scorched earth desire would result in an ugly world that I think none of us would be comfortable living in and it would most certainly be bereft of a healthy artistic culture. Let me explain. Do we really want to go back to the McCarthy era mentality of the blacklist? Once you begin to banish or shame artists because of professional relationships, friendships, biological relations, associations and belief systems including "innocent until proven guilty", who is ever going to escape the all consuming fire of it? Do we also have to condemn their fans as Dylan indirectly suggests? I mean, I'm not going to suddenly start pretending I don't love The Purple Rose of Cairo, Manhattan, Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters and to anybody who thinks that makes me a bad person - 'nice knowing ya!'
If Diane Keaton and Cate Blanchett should be publicly dissed for being friends or professional colleagues with Woody Allen and if Mia Farrow should be publicly shamed for staying friends with Roman Polanski and for having a brother who is in jail for child molestation, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? When do we stop compounding the tragedy? Do we really want a world where no one who has ever been accused of a crime is allowed to have any friends or colleagues or family who can risk being associated with them. I don't even want that for hardened criminals since everyone needs people to love them unconditionally no matter what heinous things they've done.
Once people calm down -- I fear Woody Allen's impending statement will only reignite fury on both sides -- I hope I will be less lonely in the place of choosing to reserve judgment and leave the legal system and the families involved to sort this all out privately (not that some of them don't want it to be public) without the ignorant chorus of people (including me) who weren't there and who know much less about everything to interpet anything they don't like as "garbage" and the rest as "perfect truth" adding more fuel to this very sad bonfire.
As per usual Cate Blanchett seems the wisest person in the room. Her response, via Jeffrey Wells:
It’s obviously been a long and painful situation for the family and I hope they find some sort of resolution and peace.
What she said. And only that.
Reader Comments (128)
Thank you for writing this excellent, rational, and well-argued essay.
[Applauds.]
Ugh I wrote a novel, but I also wanted to say that I think part of the other problem is that we all seem to be thinking of the possibilities in a binary fashion. There are two sides to every story. Guilty and not guilty. Either Dylan is lying or Woody is. Either Mia manipulated Dylan or Woody is a rapist. Personally, in a situation as complex and painful and messy as the Farrow/Allen separation, I don't know know if any of the black and white scenarios that have largely been presented seem plausible to me. I am just sad for all involved.
Morgan -- i thank you for your longtime support of the site and for your feelings here. I'm sorry this article disappointed you but in no way shape or form am i blaming Dylan except for the part where she tried to shame people who had nothing to do with her trauma -- like celebrities who don't know her and moviegoers who don't know her who enjoy her father's movies (obviously myself among them). I am not responsible for her pain. Neither is Diane Keaton. Neither is Alec Baldwin. And so on. Is she not in therapy? What good could possibly come of blaming anyone outside of her own family for her miserable childhood?
I have known two people who were raped and it is awful terrible thing that fucks with people's self worth and mental health but even with this tangential experience I can't claim to be an expert on the topic at all. But surely the reason abuse victims are encouraged to make public statements is so that they can find peace and closure. But can peace and closure come from spreading pain? I highly doubt it. Again I don't know the current professional opinion on this but if therapy encourages the spreading of blame to people who aren't involved in your pain I can't truck with modern therapy.
I mean good christ Cate Blanchett was only 21-23 years old and living in Australia when all this was happening. She hadn't even made a movie yet!
Rebecca wait, what did Fassbender do?
Fassbender was accused of beating his girlfriend.
Thank you.
@Flickah--Did you read the rest of what I wrote? I'm not trying to say that he didn't do it or that his work should somehow hold the key to the case--I'm trying to explain why it's hard for people to believe the allegations, even if they support Dylan and the many other survivors of abuse whose stories don't get published in the New York Times. Woody Allen's art consciously presents itself as self-portrait, and it's a self-portrait that feels totally complete, while being totally inconsistent with the charges. That's all.
I'm sorry if that was unclear, but frankly your comment seems kind of ungenerous.
Oh and totally unrelated, but I agree with those who have been calling out that Daily Beast piece. I felt sick reading it. What on earth does Mia Farrow's relationship history have to do with her daughter's abuse? Disgusting.
I'm not going to get into the issue too much because this piece is everything I could possibly want to say and said so articulately.
As for the Cate Blanchett element. I mentioned this on Twitter as to what she was/is supposed to do about it. At the time of the initial incident, Cate hadn't a screen role to her name and would only go on to appear in POLICE RESCUE: THE MOVIE in 1994, By taking a role in a Woody Allen film some 18 years later when a) he was never charged, let alone jailed, and b) she had no reason not to, I fail to see how she is somewhat complicit enough for Dylan to rather unfortunately point her and her children out. "What if it were your children, Cate?" (or however the exact quote) reeks of, unfortunately, an editor not being employed, which is a shame since I think the letter could have done so much more as a piece of action for child abuse protection. Some people think it's about a person such as Cate making a choice about working with an accused child molester or not, when really it's about choosing to work with (or, in our case, watch) who was never charged or arrested or jailed. If everybody who has had a finger pointed at them over a crime (whether it be as evil as child molestation in Woody's case, or as minor as lying as in Dylan's case) was forced to never work again then the world would indeed be a stranger place.
@TB - Yes, I read your entire comment and was agreeing with how you expressed how complicated and thorny the entire thing was, then I got to that point and was flabbergasted by it. My questioning your point had nothing to do with whether I believed Allen was guilty or not of being a pedophile, but how you seemingly expressed that since you couldn't detect any leanings of pedophilia in his work, it seemed unlikely that he was one because of how complete and transparent his work is as a reflection of himself,which had no signs of pedophilia in it at all. I had to object because the implications of that statement are frightening. Perhaps I should have toned my own response down, but had that been your full argument as I originally thought, generosity would have been the last thing it deserved. Your clarification certainly helps, and I apologize for any misreadings on my part.
Stardust Memories has a very disturbing scene where Charlotte Rampling and Allen arrive home from a dinner. Rampling knows that Allen was playing footsie under the table with an underage girl. She confronts him with devastating anguish and he's completely nonchalant. Not saying this is the smoking gun but if you want to build a case from his art -- there you have it.
Working in law enforcement, I cannot thank you enough for this article. I'm seeing the facts of the cases I have been working on twisted in publishing almost every day, often beyond the point of recognizability - and these are cases in which there was a public, where everyone could see and listen for himself what the evidence is. Seeing people making up their minds about cases where there is no evidence at all to be scrutinized is nothing buy highly repulsive to me.
The problem with abuse cases is that often, the only evidence is the testimony of the victim. Contrary to some made-up numbers I read on these comments, no one can tell the percentage of false claims (the numbers I heard about are anywhere between the 2% mentioned here and more than 50%, it all depends on who you are asking to guess them). Also, it is a common phenomenon I encountered myself more than once that someone who wrongfully claims to have been a victim of abuse at an early age in his/her life is actually convinced that happened, because at one point recollection and imagination have become an intricate, convoluted composite that no one can dissolve any longer.
The point is: We know nothing, so we probably should shut up (although it is understandable that we can't, as the allegation is so grave).
As many other posters have said thank you for articulating how I feel about this whole sorry mess. The only other thing I would add is I wonder if Woody Allen in this exact same situation looked more like Robert Redford or Warren Beatty (ie more classically good looking) how much less venom would be directed at him. A lot of people I read who comment who are ready to believe he is guilty are the ones who have the biggest issue with the Soon-Yi relationship and see it as creepy. And yes the age difference is massive but in the eyes of the law not illegal and guess what none of us were there to know what their relationship was like when she was younger or when it started to so I chose not to speculate.
Also I feel sorry for Dylan Farrow and I hope she finds the peace she deserves and I am not here to victim blame anyone.
Nat, Generally agree with you. I don't think I am required to choose who to believe. That does not mean I am calling Dylan Farrow a liar. Memories are not what we think. (As a mild example, my siblings and I never saw any old Disney films growing up because our mother had been so scared in her childhood. But my younger sister remembers one and her reaction but her description is Mother's memory not hers. We have told sister that she must have overheard Mother and taken her mermory but Sister won't believe us.)
Investigators know that children's memories sometimes are not true as they don't fit the physical evidence but that doesn't mean they aren't really traumatic. In this case there doesn't seem to be physical evidence.
@Nat,
so reasonable and sensible attitude toward this matter is so welcome. I firmly share your view. If you lose some readers for this written piece, it¡s their loss.
It is impossible for me to boycott Woody Allen's work without boycotting the work the wonderful actors and crew that were part of his films. Sure, he is the directed and wrote his films, but that does not take anything away from the significant contributions Diane Keaton, Dianne Weist, Cate Blanchett, Judy Davis and Mia Farrow herself have made to cinema through his movies.
At the same time, I would also like to thank Amanda for pointing out the unfair treatment of Mia Farrow. I find it appalling that people are endorsing Bob Weide's article, because, while it did clear some misconceptions I had about the Soon Yi -Allen affair, I find it disgusting the way he systematically destroys Mia Farrow's credibility by painting her as this crazy vindictive scorned woman who would stop at nothing (even putting her own child through a lifetime of pain and shame) to get back at her ex. I'm sure everyone realizes how grave the insinuations in his essay are. The idea of a woman being blinded by rage and completely losing sight of reality is a popular trope in Hollywood - but am I completely naive in thinking that this does not happen in real life to the extent to which Hollywood and the "scenario floating" Bob Weide would like us to believe?
Well presented. Yeah, very sad all around. Bottom line is, I don't like these OPEN LETTERS. Just happen to think you shouldn't 'air your dirty laundry in public'. Now that's not meant to be glib or hurtful/insulting to anyone...but I just think a family's business should be kept PRIVATE. And even when a family goes through a breakup, the relationships just morph and change, but they continue to exist, sometimes not the way we would like!
To take this all public and to social media seems wrong to me and quite distasteful. And really, it's no one's business except for family members.
If there are crimes committed, that's what the court system is for.
I wouldn't even presume to make a comment on anyone's innocence or guilt, but frankly I hope Woody Allen maintains a 'dignified silence' on the issue and maybe the 'laundry can be folded and put away' and some healing can be focused on. Because if nothing else is obvious? that still needs to be addressed......and badly.
@Morgan-love, love, love, love tour comment. I stand by it completly. Couldnt agree more. Thanks.
Regarding the Daily Beast article, it goes out of its way to stress that Soon-Yi was Mia's ADOPTIVE daughter. Other places are doing it as well. What's the diference whether she adopted? The moment you adopt someone, the adopted person is your child and you are a parent. Legally, there's no diference whatsoever between biological and adopted children. They are the same in the eyes of the law.they have the exact same rights.
Woody wasnt Soon-Yi's father, but she was his girlfriend/partner child. Who he met when she was what, 9? And then Mia and Allen adopted children of their own. These children were Soon-Yi's siblings. He had na affair and married their children's sister. This is na act of betrayal not only to the girlfriend/partner but to the children as well. Having a affair with their sister behind their mother's back........
And the Daily Beast article also goes out of its way to remind us of Mia's busy and complicated love life. What does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with child abuse? With Dylan?
What if their relationship was an open one? What if it wasnt and both cheated? What do her previous boyfriends and husbands have to do with this mess?
So, she had many lovers. So did Allen. Why should we only hold it against her? Slut-shaming. Misoginy.
Great article, Nathaniel. I, too, am a huge fan of Woody Allen's work (and Mia's for that matter) and I find myself terribly inflicted by this whole thing. I am trying to reserve judgment and just appreciate the art for what it is - great art. There are a lot of great artists who aren't great (wo)men. Also, thanks for the link to RAINN.
Well, the thing is no one was there that time the situation happened, except the two.
It's like a real "Doubt" (RIP PSH) situation. Did he or did he not? We the outsider can't be sure of either guilt or innocence.... at all.
But it's "bad" timing, because it still could "change" things at least in terms of Oscar. I don't hope so, because if Blanchett somehow looses the Oscar her highly acclaimed performance in BJ, any of the other actresses would suffer hugely because of the situation behind them. Maybe no one even dares to except it. They'd know Blanchett would only loose because of this "scandal".
And it's hard to blame the victim, if she really is one. Yes it happened decades ago, but enough victims sexual crimes live with their situation for the rest of her lives and you can break down even after twenty or thirty years.
Gawd, this is really so hard to tell who's lying and who's not.
What a world we live in...
As a point of fact, the decision not to prosecute was not because of insufficient evidence, but to spare the child--she was 7 and it was felt a trial was too traumatic. This is a matter of public record.
Deborah -- i appreciate your comment. But presuming Dylan's innocence (I do) does not mean that Woody is guilty or that Mia is guilty but it means someone is or some combination of people are in terms of what she believed or was told or what actually happened as a child.
That would be absolutely true and valid if we were talking about a child, but we are talking about an adult who says she clearly remembers everything that happened. Children who were fed stories as children grow into adults who remember being fed those stories. The tragic daycare center cases where innocent people were convicted are being revisited now that the children are adults now, who can recall that nothing happened and that their testimony was coached.
Dylan (Malone) Farrow is an adult woman who is talking about what she remembers and also says her mother was supportive. So, in this case, the whole idea of coaching and implanting memories should be set aside.
He devoted his life's work to showing us who he is, and nowhere in that work is there a sign that he is a pedophile.
Except, of course, for the entire movie about the romance between a fortysomething man and the high school girl. Oh, and the movie where the protagonist spies on a woman's therapy to coerce her into bed. Oh, and the other movie where the protagonist reads a woman's diary in order to coerce her into bed.
Would love to jump in and dispute some of these comments, but in the spirit of this excellent piece I think I'll just echo Blanchett's wise disengagement and leave it at that. Thanks for writing this though, Nat. It's a dicey topic to wade into, and yours is the most nuanced and respectful take I've read yet.
I'll wait for the inevitable Allen/Farrow Lifetime movie before I pass judgement.
Well written Nat. Any "followers" you may have lost from this balanced article were not worth having.
Excellent article, wish some of your followers' views were as balanced.
Deborah -- but we can't know this. People who went to jail because of false testimony... even if they were released later... they still spent their lives as criminals. I mean it's horrible. And I have read competing "facts" on why the charges were dismissed. Generally when there are multiple people involved in investigations and legal proceedings you get multiple interpretations of what went down.
and also... your point suggests that we MUST find Dylan Farrow a mentally healthy 28 year old woman. I don't know that that's the case. Certainly her letter is full of rage -- not just at Woody which would be understandable -- but at people who have nothing at all to do with her like people who have worked with her father (literally hundreds of celebrities and thousands of non famous people in the industry if we want to go there) people who knew her (I don't know how well) as a child like Diane Keaton or anyone who sees her father's movies. I sincerely worry that she is not getting good mental health treatment -- what kind of therapist would encourage this kind of "everyone is to blame!" mentality? That does not sound like healing to me. I feel so much sympathy for her but I want her to heal, not to damage even more people.
In the grand scheme of things it hardly matters if Cate Blanchett has a second Oscar but it is an ugly ugly stupid world if Blanchett gets painted as a "pedophile lover" because she worked with someone who was accused of something wherein an investigation took place with inconclusive findings and no charges were filed.
The thing is I am sincerely worried for the interference of other people's agendas in this matter. If people really wanted Ronan to heal they would not be encouraging misdirected anger.It does no one any good, certainly not Dylan Farrow!
@ Deborah:
What you say is - at least in parts - simply not true. If a child gets fed lies he/she is supposed to parrot to others (and I'm not saying that that happened in this particular case! I maintain that we know nothing, period), it will not dawn on him/her one day that these are lies he/she was fed from another source, but it will become part of what he/she remembers as something that really happened. I do have experience with such tragic occurences.
Thanks, Nat for your wonderfully level headed thoughts on this truly awful topic. Unfortunately, no one but Woody will ever know with 100% certainty if he's guilty or not (can we ever with those accused of rape, unless the accuser recants their accusations?). The grossest thing I keep reading is the equating of Woody's long term relationship with an 18ish woman (and some gossip of other sexual affairs to women in the 17-20 range) with being a pedophile. In what way is an 18 year old's sexual attractiveness the same as a 7 year old's?! That is either a truly effed up view of sexuality, or people grasping at reasons to convict. You can say he fell for her at an earlier age, but you would be talking out your butt, cause there's no evidence of that.
Other reasons I'm somewhat comfortable believing Woody's version
-No physical evidence. Dylan (or Mia) came forward right after this allegedly happened and there was no evidence found that Dylan was molested at all.
-Woody passed a lie detector, Mia wouldn't take one. Certainly, some percentage of people can beat a lie detector, but it's a small one. Not conclusive, but certainly helps his case in my eyes. The fact that Mia wouldn't submit to one is unfairly or not, usually associated with lying.
-Psychiatrists/police at the time said Dylan's story kept changing and she had a hard time distinguishing b/w what was real and what wasn't. Some have insinuated that these people were being paid off by Woody, but do you really believe that multiple professional adults would all agree to cover up a 7 year old getting raped? It's much more realistic that the girl simply had some mental health issues.
-Pedophiles in general work in a sick pattern. This is how they usually get caught/convicted. One comes forward, then more, people start seeing things, etc. They just can't help themselves. Not the case here. No one outside of Dylan has ever claimed inappropriate behavior by Allen towards children and it's been over 20 years since the initial allegations.
Again, really outside of a child that was professionally said to have problems recognizing reality, just Woody Allen knows for sure what happened, but by all evidence we actually have, the most logical conclusion is that he's innocent.
nathaniel,
Back in 92/93 I was a child, I didnt even know who these people were. I only watched the Woody?Mia movies many years later. So I have no memory whatsoever of when this events first took place.
But I read more than once that the prosecutor- who retired in 2003- thought the abuse DID indeed happen, but he dropped charges because not only Dylan wouldnt cooperate, but also because he was worried about how deeply traumatized she was.
And you say she may not be a healthy adult. How many children who go throught what she -allegedly-went through end up being 100% mentally healthy adults, at least as far as the event in case is in question? How can one measure the scars, the wounds, the damage. Remember, if this whole thing really happened, she was SEVEN. He was her FATHER.
The overall reaction to this letter and the Daily Beast article is awful. Innocent until proven guilty yet people call for torches and people telling the author of the article he is disgusting as if he was name calling Dylan Farrow. People saying they want Allen dead, people saying they 'will unfollow' anyone who defends Allen'...we live in a horrifying society filled with idiots ready to crucify a man because of a letter, the timing of which couldn't be more petty and suspicious.
Amanda -- that's a fair point and I have said over and over again that I fully believe that Dylan was traumatized by her childhood. What concerns me in everyone rushing to defend her and brooking no other points of view is that a) only allowing one POV in *any* complicated situation involving multiple people is super bad form b) one person's recollection of very complicated events which were fully investigated 20 years ago (for six months and with lie detector tests and all of that) and in which no charges were filed is not the only part of a complicated story and c) the things she seems to want in the letter -- people never being able to watch movies they love again without thinking of her and wanting celebrities to feel ashamed of their contributions to the cinema... is just...
I'm genuinely curious to hear from people who disagree why this helps Dylan? Because from my perspective it sounds like a misery so profound that it is sees only one course of action: to spread. The spreading of misery never healed anyone... at least not to my knowledge.
@Nathaniel -- your article is for the most part eloquent and well measured and I emailed this link to friends who were interested in a well-reasoned argument. Some of your responses have been giving me pause though.
Why does the condition of perfect and/or stable mental health rest on the adult Dylan Farrow alone as you seem to imply on your response to Deborah? Dylan stated in her open letter that she had rough years when she was younger, but she's now in a really good place. You can't know her condition, but you certainly keep casting doubts upon her stability and implying that she still needs to be within the care of a mental health professional for healing, which is disturbing. Who's to say except her therapist and Dylan that she has healed?
So with that in mind, why does writing an open letter to the NYT hinge upon the advice of a mental health professional, and not the willpower and independent thought of a well-adjusted woman? Why do you believe that her open letter wouldn't be healing and cathartic for her? I don't think it was fair for her to call out Allen's coworkers either, but surely you can see how calling them out might have helped her when she stated in her letter that only a precious few of the Hollywood luminaries ever gave her a second thought after she made the accusations.
Samantha Geimer is an admirable woman, but to set her as a benchmark for mental health for victims of abuse is unfair, especially since Geimer's healing happens to coincide with the kind of healing that the movie world likes best. That was her path to healing, but you cannot dictate or presume to know Dylan's path to healing or what's best for her. As you argue eloquently above, we cannot know everything. This includes Dylan Farrow's current mental well-being and her path to healing, and to imply in your responses that OMG what kind of therapist is she seeing...well, it reads like an implication that she's still crazy and needs help. That weakens your overall argument above, because if you believe the accuser needs mental health intervention, then you've already exercised your judgment too.
Well, I dont watch Polanski movies. I wont give a single penny of mine to his movies. That´s my personal choice, and I´m fine with it.
I was disgusted with that filthy, pathetic petition everyone and their mothers signed so that he could violate INTERNATIONAL laws to attend a film festival to collect some award, because "film festivals are a special place" WTF????? Who do these people think they are? They are above federal law?
My respect for Emma Thompson sky-rocketed when she refused to sign said petition. It also increased a lot for Chris Rock, who I knew next to nothing about but who publicly said on TV he didnt understand why people were defendig a proven child rapist who had been, for so many years, evicting and escaping the law.
Its up to each person to know what to do and how to handle these situations. No, its not Cate Blanchett or Alec Baldwin or Scarlett Johansson fault.
But Emma Thompson made a choice. So did Chris Rock. The cases are not the same, no. But think about Dylan´s pain to see the _alleged- abused always praised as a genius, a master, being lauded and loved and adored. It must be hard. I get where she is coming from.
What we do with that is up to each of us.
She mentioned a few in Hollywood who did not turn a blind eye to this whole situation. Who were the actors who refused to to work with Allen? I vaguely remember something about Angela Basset saying that she wouldnt work with him because he was a racist, or saying his movies were racist or something like that. But I dont know who could Dylan be refering to when she mentioned people who did not turn a blind eye.
Samantha Geimer, who I also admire, is much older than Dylan. She is in a diferent place in her life. She has had more time to mature, process, digest, come to terms with it. Also, Polanski was not her father.
And Woody has been given some goodwill others in Hollywood have not, for whatever reason, deserved.
mel Gibson is no longer allowed to have a career.
Winona Ryder lost hers for doing something that harmed no one, taking her years to come back to secondary roles.
Meg Ryan cheated on Dennis Quaid with Russell Crowe, she’s black-listed, Crow goes on to win the Oscar.
But apparently Allen is untouchable and above it all.
STANDING FUCKING OVATION.
So sad I missed this yesterday (internet decided to go all wonky in the snowstorm and I had to make do with old-fashioned pleasures like books). I saw Hannah and Her Sisters for the first time this past weekend and it instantly made me want to watch every single film from that period of Allen's work (which I have never seen apart from Annie Hall). We absolutely have to separate the person from the artist or how will we EVER enjoy ANY art? I remember being cursorily aware of this whole fiasco when it happened (I was too young to really know or care, but a the time I remember being kind of horrified about the Soon-Yi thing), but even then I just felt it was better that no one get involved. This is (or should be) a private matter among this group of people - not something splattered across the world's newspapers, magazines, and internet sites.
But given the topics this whole thing involves, it is playing with fire no matter which side you're on. Like it or not, these are topics that mean a lot to a lot of people. It's a messy business when even pleas for being reasonable can be seen as attacking/letting off the hook one side or the other.
Fmr. teen girlfriend defends Woody Allen
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/showbiz/2014/02/04/pmt-intv-stacey-nelkin-defends-woody-allen-amid-allegations.cnn.html
Flickah -- that's a fair point you make about me doubting her mental health. See how hard it is not to judge? I have been in therapy a couple of times in my life to deal with problems (depression, generally, but also one traumatic loss) and the experience for me was very positive and healing and definitely made me LESS depressed and angry). So from my limited knowledge of therapy and healing I have real trouble imagining successful therapy / healing being the kind that leaves you with misdirected anger or encourages you to be angry about complete strangers who have nothing to do with your life.
I just have a hard time imagining it. If someone can address this aspect I would appreciate it. Are there paths to healing that encourage people to judge and resent total strangers?
My larger point, which got lost maybe in the article?, is that even if Woody is 100% guilty --despite the fact that he passed a lie detector test and there was no evidence of molestation and no charges were filed -- , the tragedy is not and will not be alleviated by bringing down other careers and spoiling people's happy memories of good movies. It just won't. This is the thing of which I am most certain in all of this.
So I resent and am sad for the internet's rage. I find both sides of the battle dumb and here's why: complete hostility/hatred towards Mia or Woody or Dylan or Ronan or any of their friends OR complete trust in Mia or Woody or Dylan or Ronan or any of their friends -- all of whom none of us know -- strike me as very foolish gullible stances and at the very least exceptionally stupid reasons to be at war with each other on the internet merely because we might have different suspicions.
Amanda -- yes, people do lose their careers for stupid reasons. It's all kind of random except for the fact that men have an easier time recovering from scandal because we live in a sexist patriarchal society.
I totally agree that it's a sexist and often woman-blaming culture. But that doesn't solve ANY particular case. And that can't be rectified by always presuming guilt of men.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is a legal standard. It's for courts, not public opinion. You remind me of people who say "what about freedom of speech?" whenever they get criticized. I may not be a hero for no longer being able to stomach Woody Allen films, but you're no champion of the integrity of our legal system either.
Always presuming guilt of men is not an option, obviously not. But people so desperatly want Allen to be innocent, and have decided so in such a solid manner, that it makes me wonder how far people arent blinded by celebrity culture and love for his art.
What if this letter - this whole affair, really- was not about Woody Allen, but about Joe Smith? Not about the New Yorker intellectual genius, oscar winner, opera lover, keeper of upper middle class good taste, but about some african american namelss faceless construction worker from some poor neighbourhood? About a puerto-rican driver who droped out of high school and lived in the Bronx? Some uneducated redneck from the deep south? Would people be so quick to jump so blindly to his defense?
Since the only facts that went to a court were from the custody case, your article should include the article describing the trial outcome, where Farrow was deemed a fit parent and Allen was not : http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html
I am all for being fair and not creating a court of public blame. But, it seems that in the defense of Allen, many have taken to accusing Ms. Farrow of all kinds of heinous acts. The same people who don't want me to consider his marriage to her daughter, will fling her marriage to Frank Sinatra.
If only people would give Farrow an ounce of the respect they demand for Allen, I would respect them and listen to them, but frankly, I don't see it.
I think you're right Nathaniel that the lashing out at the end of Dylan's letter is a cause of confusion for many of us. What exactly is she saying Diane Keaton and Cate Blanchett and everybody else should do? Refuse to participate in Woody's films based solely on her accusations? When she says she's not going to be silent as he's rewarded, is she implying that by speaking up she expects to change the public's interactions with Woody? Is she passing moral judgment on those of us who will continue to watch his films?
It's one thing for Mia, Dylan, et al. to cut Woody out of their lives, and even urge mutual friends to do the same thing. But it seems to me like a bridge too far to ask the general public, who have no first-hand knowledge, to take sides and judge his art by his personal life. That's a rabbit hole I'm unwilling to go down.
I imagine it's common for crime victims to get a "the whole world's against me" feeling, and that's why a lot of people, who may see themselves in Dylan, are upset at people who are trying to be agnostic on the issue.
That's it Clio. Respect. Respect to all parties involved, respect to the victim.
But apparently only Mr.allen deserves respect in this situation.
I don't think that fame is an invitation for people to make judgement about people s personal lives. Celebrities who know what's good for them live their careers in the spotlight but their family lives very privately. Cate Blanchett is a prime example. She is probably the most accomplished actress of her generation. She is extremely busy professionally yet she protects her family life intensely. She lives far from hollywood. Woody Allen lives in isolation too. Personally I enjoy his good movies immensely. I think he's a fantastic writer. I will continue to think that. No one endorses pedophilia but I can guarantee you that people will continue to enjoy his movies forever. This man has not invited us into his private life. Cate blanchett hasn't either. They work in the movie business and they invited us to enjoy their product and their product is fantastic. Not me nor you nor anyone that is not involved forst hand with this case knows or needs to know enough to make a judgement and i suggest instead of making assumptions and passionate opinions about assumptions, we focus our good intentions and energy on support of abuse victims. The healthy way.
@Nathaniel -- your original article is one of the most reasonable I've read and I'm in complete agreement with your larger point. It was your responses to commenters about Dylan's state of mind that made me seek some clarification.
As for the possible therapeutic approach, I can only speak to personal experience that is no way comparable to Dylan's, but the impulses and history she shared in her open letter felt achingly familiar. The objective of calling out people who have worked with someone who did something terrible in secret is a demand of acknowledgment as person, as someone worth your time and someone not to be buried under silence. The power of a crime like molestation often lies in secrecy not just of the perpetrator, but also the the circle of silence around the perpetrator. Blasting it open takes away a significant power of the crime.
Most unfortunately for everyone involved, Allen has a much wider, much more famous circle, so we as a whole gawk, point and form our own wildly varying opinions and share them with other people. That's part of the call out too though -- I think they were unfair to those called out because they weren't involved at all, but it got those people to acknowledge her. She was heard, not just by those she accused but also those who have been through the same experiences. She was heard for the first time using her own words and her own voice -- she was a protected child when this fracas went on before and she couldn't speak for herself as eloquently as she can now as a grown woman. There was positive feedback going her way instead of an implacable defense of the one she views as her abuser. It also reconfigures the field, because now she knows who her allies are and who she can turn to for support outside her immediate circle. That's healing too, as imperfect as it may be.
@Right let's not ever have an opinion on anything. Let us not speak on Zimmerman, OJ or anything ever.Let's just enjoy their talents and excuse or turn a blind eye to everything else.
I'll bite- Let's imagine a situation where filmmaking is removed from the equation. Let's imagine an accountant. An op-ed appears in the local newspaper wherein the accountant's daughter accuses him of having molested her thirty years prior. In the op-ed, the daughter includes the name of people who have their taxes done by the accountant, indicating that she considers such people implicit in child sexual abuse.
What would "respect" for the alleged victim look like in such a situation? To the extent that "respect" includes a presumption that the unproved charges are true, I'd say that's a pretty scary thought. With no controlling principle ("Accept my account 100%, or you're guilty of Rape Culture!"), it's a quick trip to mob rule and "I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil."
"Innocent until proven guilty," I'd also note, is more than a dry, clinical legal idea. It's a deeply held ethic of American justice. If we're suggesting that certain allegations are presumptively true without corroboration, I don't hesitate to use the word "unethical" to describe that idea.
You nailed it, Flickah.
Clio -- this site has always been a Mia friendly zone. I love her acting and admire her humanitarian work and have often called for her to receive an honorary Oscar. But I won't condemn Woody just to praise Mia. Or vice versa. It doesn't help them and it doesn't help me and i personally don't believe that it would help Dylan.
Joshua -- i never said I was a champion of anything (except maybe movies). I just don't get all the rage from people on both sides. Unless rage is productive -- which is why i linked up to RAINN -- it's just self-punishing or other-punishing.
Lisa -- lol. well played but alas, Zimmerman and O.J. we have LOTS of info about what went down to form opinions with. I'm not sure anyone is clearheaded enough to have a valid opinion on this particular tragedy because from where i sit on my unhappy fence people who blame Woody and people who blame Mia alike conveniently refuse to acknowledge the details of the history that don't go their way.
Point blank Nathaniel and others like him are twisting their backs to be "objective" because they like Woody Allen's overrated racist ass films. You really couldn't pay them to be this "objective" if this was a regular joe. That is the main issue I see here. They won't admit that they're being biased because they like Woody's movies.While I can admit that I think Woody Allen is a fucking racist so yes I am also biased.
FLICKAH -- oh and I meant to say, thanks for clarifying. I can see what you're saying about why its valuable to blast open secrecy and take power away even if there's collateral damage. doesn't mean i agree with doing it, but i totally get it. this is exactly what i was asking someone to explain so thank you.
@Nathaniel
Right bc there were hoards of people there when Nicole got killed. Everyone saw the Martin/Zimmerman scuffle first hand. The babysitters in Allen's case were also lying I guess.
Joshua - I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that 'innocent until proven guilty' is not just for lawyers and judges. IT IS MOSTLY FOR SOCIETY. The argument that you don't need to follow this is kinda scary. Without it you can condemn a man based on something as singular and biased as a letter. Blind sheep with torches, everywhere.