The Top 40

To this day - while I grew up in the milieu of a pop culture polluted in far too many ways by this self-absorbed, neurotic boor - I have never watched a Woody Allen movie (not in its entirety, anyway). And I find the public's manufactured interest in Allen's perversions - irrespective of whether they're real or fantasy - perverse in and of itself.

I have to believe I am not alone in this.

The problem is that false claims of sexual abuse of children is common. It is the perfect excuse for divorcing wives to extort more money and prevent having to share the childrens time with the ex. Lawyers, even good and decent lawyers (I know there aren't really any good and decent lawyers) will advise their clients to use the threat of claiming sexual abuse to extract more from the husband in the divorce. It is so common that it is likely the false claims are far more common then the real crime is. So how does someone far removed from the people involved know the truth? Even if their is a criminal trial these often convict innocent men simply becauase the crime is so heinous and the jury wants to punish the crime. So which is worse: Being sexually abused as a child or going to jail for 20 years for something you didn't do?

Just read Mia Farrow's Wiki entry: then join the dots. Then read up on 'False Memory Syndrome'. Then read Marlow's words on the hellish fury of women scorned. A sad, sorry, scandalous story. Exploitation of children runs through this serial fantasy, like 'Brighton' through stick of candy 'rock'. But who did what to whom will remain moot - forever!

Back in the 80s several little kids said they were raped at school. It was the Salem Witch Trails all over again. People went to jail and lives were ruined. And then, the authorities said "Oops, we were wrong." Kelly Michaels went to Hell for five years. And don't foget what happened in the McMartin case. And the bottom line is that Mia Farrow is a woman scorned. All of this accusation came out after Woody dumped her. There was no proof. You can not convict a man with nothing but a story. Even if you hate Woody Allen if you can convict a man on the word of his ex and no forensic evidence then none of us is safe.

Back in the 80s several little kids said they were raped at school. It was the Salem Witch Trails all over again. People went to jail and lives were ruined. And then, the authorities said "Oops, we were wrong." Kelly Michaels went to Hell for five years. And don't foget what happened in the McMartin case. And the bottom line is that Mia Farrow is a woman scorned. All of this accusation came out after Woody dumped her. There was no proof. You can not convict a man with nothing but a story. Even if you hate Woody Allen if you can convict a man on the word of his ex and no forensic evidence then none of us is safe.

I have never understood once how on earth Woody Allen has ever been so worshiped and revered by so many people, especially New Yorkers. Its like a cult, they are absolutely groveling toward the man and nothing in his past or work has ever justified anything remotely like that.

But I think we can be extremely ... um... skeptical of Woody Allen's sexual tendencies given his films and his relationship with his adopted daughter/wife. And when it started.

And this is by his daughter, who never changed her story, always protested his abuse, didn't suddenly remember anything. Not Mia, but his adopted daughter.

Dylan's story has the very ring of truth.

It's the Lie that needs so much support, explanations, postulations, citations of "false memory syndrome" et al ad nauseum.

Like the blind man before the Sanhedrin, all Dylan knows is what happened. She offers nothing else, not even reams of bitter prose about the Hell it brought her, just a mild nod to the pain.

It's all any pedophile victims are allowed, sans hard evidence. The cruelest cut is that it will be men who come up with all the theorems and doubts, but the fact will remain that the odds for abuse are higher than known and secret, the odds for false accusation are low, but have provided the perfect cover of doubt-- reasonable or not-- for the pedophile.

The women who know the very tone of Dylan's plaintive statement will sigh along with her at this extra and deeper pain of not being believed. It's also all we're allowed, there is no remedy.

"The cruelest cut is that it will be men who come up with all the theorems and doubts"

Why? What you are really saying is because the accusation is against men you are inlined to believe it.

My initial problem with her open letter is this: She said she was sexually abused but she is fully clothed and laying on her stomach. What exactly was that sexual abuse, a back rub? I don't know. It seems she doesn't know either. But if you are predisposed to believe the worst then the statement "She offers nothing else" is all you need to hear. But what, exactly, did he do. The telling allows us to find the tells that it is true or false. If a child makes up a story it will be ful of obvious inconsistencies where as if the story is fed to them by an adult it becomes to complex and detailed for a child.
Your belief that "false accusation are low" is naive. A family law lawyer once told me he has every female client make that claim so that it can be used to negotiate for higher alimony.

I have one additional observation: It appears that often more harm is done to the child by the public and constant reminder of a childhood incident. Have you ever noticed the pride and joy some people, usually movie and TV stars take in exclaiming they were victims of abuse? It certainly appears that as a child the "abuse" is used by adults to get attention and the child learns to use it as an adult for the same purpose.

While I agree that all it takes is an accusation against a man to destroy him and that's just awful, and I agree that there are some false accusations thrown around out there on occasion (nobody knows how often) to leverage a court case, I don't see any rational basis to assume that's what's happening here.

This girl is not an actress, not a star, and not someone who is involved in some kind of court case. She's not suddenly remembering anything, and the details she gives are not unreasonable or unlikely. Given Woody Allen's behavior in the past (admitting a sexual relationship with his adopted daughter before she was 18 and then marrying her and continually casting very young women as lovers in his movies) the accusations have some plausibility to me.

In fact, I see no reason to doubt this girl except for the target of her accusations which for some reason a lot of people - particularly New Yorkers - irrationally revere and honor.

What about Hollywood and its history has led anyone to believe that this is implausible?

I have no "anti-male" agenda. I love men, love manly men, kind men, goofy men, cave-man men, men in their man-caves and men in their competitions.

I do have issue with men online who go to great lengths to excuse the accused, while millions of men never, ever find themselves in Woody Allen's unfortunate defensive posture. Now, that some men are falsely accused by women, grown females, there is no doubt that it happens. That men are falsely accused by children with "coached memories" may happen, and may even be verified by PhDs and other mind-fuckers with the title, "Doctor." But I tend to think the numbers and the odds fall to the favor of the child.

We are many, and quiet, those of us who have gone on with our lives while our tormentors went on to be beloved figures in our families, churches, and communities. What good does it do to talk about it after so many years? We were not believed as a child, or we were believed but were expedient to other concerns of the family. If I could have known Dylan I would have told her, "Let it go. It's too late and you will never be vindicated by Woody Allen's admission or apology, and it can never be proved. Move on. Find your own strength and leave the rest to God."

My problem with her story is that she choose to make this accusation out of the blue. Why? Why would she bring this attention on herself? Very odd. Why not 10 years ago when he could have been prosecuted? Why speak out publicly at all? Why not accuse him to his face and get some satisfaction? What's next a lawsuit and a big payoff? Her "detail" is in fact a total lack of detail. Do you know what he did? Just an open letter with some vague accusation. We know more about the toys in the attic then we do about what he did.
As for Woody my first thought was the little pervert probably did sexually assault her. And there in lies the problem. I am ready to convict based on what I know about him without knowing a damn thing about the so-called assault. And that is the way most people feel. And that is why innocent people go to jail. The nature of the crime is so heinous that we want to punish. Proof! The hell with the proof. All that matters is she was a child and he is a dirty old man and I or someone I know was sexually assaulted/harrased once and I want to see someone go to jail. The hell with justice or facts lets get a rope.

She has made the accusation repeatedly in the past, as she says in the letter. Why the NYT decided to print it now makes me wonder. She did give specific acts, but thankfully didn't go into more detail than she did (and what she listed was pretty awful).

It wasn't out of the blue. Events provoked her.

And no one is ready to convict him in a court of law. Anyone with half a brain sees the hopelessness of that course. But maybe just one less child will not have to suffer from being left alone with him. Sometimes being a warning to others is the limit of a victim's cold comfort.

Woody was creepy enough without the perv allegations. I do find it curious that Hollywood circles the wagons around guys like Allen and Polanski as if artistic skill makes up for bad behavior.

Well said, Joan. I believe you are right.

I suspect though that much is wrong with Mia Farrow.

That Woody Allen would put the moves on who was essentially his Step-Daughter is all I need to know. He's a sick fuck, and will get no benefit of doubt from me.

Joan - yes, exactly. I saw your comments at Ace's place on Sunday, too, and added one of my own there, though it was probably so late in the thread that it went unseen.

Lileks proffered this W.A. interview from People Mag:

Nah. 1976 interview:

He has little interest in family life: "It's no accomplishment to have or raise kids. Any fool can do it."

He goes on: "I'm open-minded about sex. I'm not above reproach; if anything, I'm below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." Allen pauses. "Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone," he ventures helplessly. "I admit to it all."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066950,00.html

Lileks proffered this W.A. interview from People Mag:

Nah. 1976 interview:

He has little interest in family life: "It's no accomplishment to have or raise kids. Any fool can do it."

He goes on: "I'm open-minded about sex. I'm not above reproach; if anything, I'm below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." Allen pauses. "Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone," he ventures helplessly. "I admit to it all."

I'd post the link, but it would never appear here, caught in comment Hell.

[I'll help

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066950,00.html

]

Funny how MacKenzie Phillips' far more serious accusations against her (now-dead) celebrity father were taken at face value, whereas Dylan Farrow is so widely disbelieved. Any idea on why that may be?

Funny how MacKenzie Phillips' far more serious accusations against her (now-dead) celebrity father were taken at face value, whereas Dylan Farrow is so widely disbelieved. Any idea on why that may be?

Woody Allen is definitely strange, but that doesn't mean he's a child molester. If you read this story:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

it seems like Mia made it up as revenge for the Soon-Yi affair.

Because people worship Woody Allen like he's some kind of deity.

It is not for any of us to judge, we were not there. But if true a mean and vile man, and if false shame on the accuser.

Thanks Joe for the link, very interesting. I'm thinking this might be more about money. If we see Dylan or Mia in a press conference with their lawyer Gloria Allred in the near future sueing him for a million dollars then it wlll all make sense.

We already know he's a child molester from his present wife. The question is whether he also molested this child. The desperate need to defend the man is depressing to me though.

So is the bizarre assertion that this is somehow the work of Mia Farrow as if a grown woman is some kind of marionette on strings. Mia didn't write or publish this letter.

Well....

I don't know that marrying Soon Yi at 19 qualifies as child molestation, for one thing.

And the idea of a spurned wife poisoning the mind of a child to the extent that she attacks her father 20 years later is no stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Unfortunately.

He admitted having sex with her long before Soon Yi was legal. And as repeated in her letter and in this forum several times, she didn't suddenly bring this up out of the blue but has been saying it for years.

I can only guess that you are a huge fan and just cannot imagine the man being this evil and horrible cause gosh his movies are so great and doesn't everyone say he's a genius?

Geez. When did it become okay to marry a daughter/step-daughter? I didn't get the memo.

Here are all the players in one glimpse. I can't help but wonder if this is just more fallout from the whole Rosemary's Baby opening of a door that wasn't meant to be opened:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/rosemarys-baby-a-warning-to-the-curious

Geez. When did it become okay to marry a daughter/step-daughter? I didn't get the memo.

Here are all the players in one glimpse. I can't help but wonder if this is just more fallout from the whole Rosemary's Baby opening of a door that wasn't meant to be opened:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/rosemarys-baby-a-warning-to-the-curious

He didn't admit to having sex with her before she was oflegal age and the evidence is that he did not. But that does not matter because in a witch hunt you must burn witches at the stake and innocence or stupidity is no barrier. The most recent comments are EXACTLY what Iwas referring to in my original post. After reading the link that Joe Kerr posted I am convincedthat this was allmade up by Mia and forced on her adopted daughters mind in exactly the devious way somany other women have to destroy their ex. Ironically Mia destroyed her adopted daughters life in her revenge. One can oly wonder how many other lives have been destroyed by this nefarious technique.

I can only guess that you are a huge fan and just cannot imagine the man being this evil and horrible cause gosh his movies are so great and doesn't everyone say he's a genius?

Easy, big fella. Let's rein in the projector, OK?

Woody was funny as the nebbishy neurotic standup in the '50s. His movies, at least the few I've seen, have often featured gorgeous photography of New York and great adult music. Meh.

Mia Farrow, ever since she destroyed Andre Previn's marriage while casting herself as the victim, gives every evidence of being a controlling, selfish and spoiled bitch who would happily destroy the life of anybody stupid enough to get in her sights. And yes, I was unfortunately married to one of those, and she has destroyed my daughter's life as a means of getting even.

So yeah, to the extent that I give a damn about the lives of people I'll never meet, I favor the male side of the equation. Call it self-interest.

I'm baffled where this "Mia is the mind controller" thing comes from. How did a 2 bit actress become svengali in this whole equasion? Amazing the lengths people go to to protect their icon.

Look, I'm a guy, I know how easy a target we are for lies about sex that destroy us. I understand the reaction to leap to defend the man when he's accused.

The problem is I know so many girls who were sexually abused as kids by men in their lives - perhaps even a majority of them - that I cannot just shrug this one off, especially on the basis that people here are.

I mean, the man himself said "there's nothing so perverse and disgusting you could accuse me of that wouldn't be true, yep, underage kids, shouldn't surprise you."

You think this is going to hurt him or his career in any way? You think this girl somehow gains anything at all by bringing this up? How does Mia Farrow suddenly get involved in the entire discussion, since she has nothing to do with the letter?

Allen is a proven scumbag, what on earth leads anyone to presume this is all some lie by a wicked mind controlling woman? Good lord.

"goy" is not alone. I have never seen a Woody Allen movie either. I was never sufficiently intrigued enough to pay money to see one, and on television there is always something better to watch.

I confess that I am not a movie-goer. I've seen perhaps 25 movies on the big screen in my sixty-two years. I grew up very poor, and the library was free, so I never developed a movie habit.

CTaylor,

Sigh.....What is all this "protect their icon" bullshit? Once again I submit that you're projecting the living shit out of something. Nothing I've said could possibly be read as a defense of Woody Allen, morally, artistically, historically, whatever. Besides being a fraud, he's a damn fool for ever letting the little head convince the big head that Poor Little Mia needed looking after. The fact that he never questioned the advisability of starting an affair with her young step-daughter in the same house speaks volumes about his reality testing.

Further...

If the majority of women you know consider themselves to have been sexually abused as children, then you've sought out a community of victims, and my experience is that the victim that they have chosen is you. Go study up on Borderline Personality Disorder sometime - and Mia Farrow, for that matter. It's notable that one son, at least (himself a shrink) has come out of the woodworks to expose her as an angry control freak.

What does she get out of this? The nasty satisfaction of getting even while appearing virtuous, that's what. If you don't think there are women like that, I would suggest you're in deep denial, particularly since you've known so many "victims." The rescuer becomes the identified problem becomes the victim, inevitably and in short order - hence the whole Codependents Unanimous scam.

The shining armor gets heavy, and eventually rusts solid. Put it down.

All this to and fro is for naught. He not being arrested, charged or shunned. Must be a relative of Mao.

I've watched and often rewatched at least a couple of dozen Woody Allen movies and hope for the opportunity to see them all. His many talents and boundless energy, which seem to grow as he ages, astound and hearten me. "Bullets Over Broadway," "Manhattan Murder Mystery" and "Broadway Danny Rose" are among the top ten funniest movies I've ever seen. "Purple Rose of Cairo," "Hanna and her Sisters," "Radio Days" and "Match Point" are a few other of my favorites.

His work has enriched my life enormously. Even though I don't necessarily agree with such bits and pieces of his politics and etc. that I happen to know about, I admire the man for his heart and intelligence and willingness to tackle the big questions, the main questions, in our human experience.

I can't know that he didn't molest his daughter Dylan, but I can say that it would take more evidence than is at hand for me to believe that he did. It isn't just her word against his word, it's her word against the content and thrust of his life's work and achievement. That said, the whole situation is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Dylan and any of her siblings who were scarred by upheaval of the breakup between Allen and Farrow.

" it's her word against the content and thrust of his life's work and achievement."

I have no response to that which could resupply the oxygen that just got sucked out of the room upon reading it.

Oh, here we go!

10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts?mbid=social_retweet

Forty comments for this schmuck?

That's because it takes forty comments to have a witch trial don'tcha know.

I note that in countries where women are chattel, there are seldom prosecuted crimes against groping or raping or abusing little girls. It seems to be the default behavior of men in uncivilized countries and only recently was eschewed by dint of the influence of Western law and mores; the which are being exuberantly subsumed again down into the anarchy and tribalism of the Arab Spring. Huzzah! Freedom! Democracy! Sex!

Not that abuse is taught outright, but that it's never opposed as egregious or monstrous. Even their self-defense of such behavior does not have to bend the world into a pretzel of timelines, witnesses, doctors, or suppositions in the media-- but is much more simple and animal: "she is a girl, a financial burden, animal stock, and mine to do with as I please." Fine. Next case.

Women around the world know how thin the line of civilization really is. As thin as an unbridled desire.

That is so, Joan. But for the first time Western women have also been given the opportunity to destroy civilization, and they are not wasting the opportunity.

I blame it on giving us the vote. I wasted my first one on a Democrat. As do we all.

Regardless of the gender politics, or the artistry of the 'accused', the evidence is flimsy and the character of the main protagonist (Mia) eminently challengeable. Therefore any prosecution would fail. So no sane prosecutor would risk flying a kite on such skimpy and dubious assertions. Vanity Fair? FFS!

It's a question of the rule of law - not a bar-rooom debate on whether Allen is a perv or not. Opinions (as they say) are like arseholes - every has one, but only experts, usually arseholes themselves, are allowed in
to offer them in a court of law. You are therefore free to go, Mr Allen. But watch the step!

Frank, go read the judge's 33 pages detailing every matter of the case. I did.

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

OK, I concede. I will no agree that any woman has a constitutional right to make false claims of sexual abuse and the accused man only has the right to go to jail. After all Males have had too much privilage all these years and it's time for some payback.
One other point, angry judges with sex abuse problems of their own are fully within their rights to set blame and make provocative statements contrary to good order and justice even if the state bar does think what he did was wrong and totally inappropriate. That way it facilitates the newly anointed rights of women to destroy the lives of former friends and lovers.

GWTW: you've read nothing. You know nothing. You project mightily. There's plenty of cases where what you want to be true in this instance are actually true. But not in this instance. Why so incurious? Do you work for MSNBC?

I read the very informative link that Joe Kerr posted above. I suggest you read that link and you will discover perhaps why VanityFair is so eager to burn him at the stake. In any event the writer at that link was very specific and complete in his research and it refuted many of those 10 so-called truths. The short story is that the experts concluded that Woody did not molest Dylan and that Mia did indeed make the story up. As for the judge and the prosecutors you may discover that they both faced possible disbarment for their inappropriate actions in this case and yet you depend upon the judges inaccurate statements to prove your point.
"incurious"? Well did you read Joe's link? The simple fact is the evidence is heavily on the side of this being a trumped up charge by a vindictive ex.

I read it. I read it before I read anything else after Dylan's recent protest. I read it before you did.

“I have some kind of knack for getting to know or becoming very close with people I've long admired. Kurt Vonnegut and I—it's not an exaggeration to say we were best friends. And I grew up just idolizing him." ”
—Weide in October 2008

"“Woody Allen was always the big ‘get’ for me,” says Robert Weide, best known for his long-term directing/producing stint on Curb Your Enthusiasm, which earned him Emmy® and Golden Globe® Awards. “The prolific nature of Woody’s output has provided me with an embarrassment of riches. In fact, Woody will have made three features just in the time it’s taken me to make this one documentary.”

I'd say your star witness has his own agenda, and his own reasons to preserve his "big get" legacy. Everything he writes in defense of Allen is suspect. And PBS has a lot at stake in Allen's reputation within the sponsorship of Weide's documentary. So, he has his very real motivations rooted in his reputation and his money. See how that works? See how easy it is to vilify and project into someone a sense of ulterior motives? I'd say his motives are hugely suspect in his problematic defense of another of his idols. They're in the same squalid industry.

"See how that works? See how easy it is to vilify and project into someone a sense of ulterior motives?"

Yes. That is the second time you have done it. The first time your vilified Woody.

The thing is I don't care about Woody, I don't care about Mia and as far as I'm concerned they can destroy each others lives and I don't care. My point is and has always been that it is so easy and so common for people to jump to a conclusion about these kind of cases and get on the witch hunt bandwagon. You have either intentionally or unwittingly provided ample proof of my thesis.