Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alvy

Your favourite Woody Allen

What is your favorite Woody Allen film?   45 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your favorite Woody Allen film?

    • What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966)
      1
    • Take the Money and Run (1969)
      1
    • Bananas (1971)
      1
    • Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972)
      0
    • Sleeper (1973)
      1
    • Love and Death (1975)
      3
    • Annie Hall (1977)
      8
    • Interiors (1978)
      0
    • Manhattan (1979)
      6
    • Stardust Memories (1980)
      0
    • A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982)
      0
    • Zelig (1983)
      1
    • Broadway Danny Rose (1984)
      0
    • The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
      8
    • Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
      8
    • Radio Days (1987)
      0
    • September (1987)
      1
    • Another Woman (1988)
      0
    • Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
      11
    • Alice (1990)
      0
    • Shadows and Fog (1992)
      0
    • Husbands and Wives (1992)
      0
    • Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
      0
    • Bullets Over Broadway (1994)
      2
    • Mighty Aphrodite (1995)
      2
    • Everyone Says I Love You (1996)
      0
    • Deconstructing Harry (1997)
      0
    • Celebrity (1998)
      0
    • Sweet and Lowdown (1999)
      0
    • Small Time Crooks (2000)
      0
    • The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)
      0
    • Hollywood Ending (2002)
      0
    • Anything Else (2003)
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

103 posts in this topic

Jonathan Rosenbaum has re-posted his review of Albert Brooks's Mother and Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You, e.g.:

In Everyone Says I Love You Woody Allen’s decision to resurrect a favorite genre, the musical, that Hollywood long ago abandoned, influences our responses far more than Brooks’s pie-in-the-sky ending. Judging from some reviews I’ve read, it has even encouraged some viewers to overlook an almost total absence of wit in the dialogue and an overall alienation from the human race that’s unparalleled in Allen’s work.

I can understand this willingness to overlook, because there are a few moments in Everyone Says I Love You when I share it. I wasn’t able to laugh much at the movie either time I saw it — first at a moribund critics’ screening, where my colleagues were equally sober, then at an opening-day matinee, where some people laughed. But I can say without hesitation that Allen singing the first 16 bars of “I’m Thru With Love” on the balcony of a Venice hotel suite moved me more profoundly than anything else he’s ever done. Why? Because his shakiness as a singer exposes his vulnerability in a way that all his mechanical sad-sack routines in this movie and others never do; for 16 bars we witness him walking a genuine emotional tightrope, without a net to catch him if he falls. However, if we attend to what the song and what the movie as a whole are saying, a much better title for both would be “I’m Through With Life.”

This creepy movie has got to be the best argument against becoming a millionaire I’ve ever seen, which makes it an interesting document about what part of the ruling class thinks about itself and the rest of us, but a far cry from the light soufflé it was clearly intended to be. Like the separate episodes of Four Rooms, it unwittingly reveals so many dark and ugly facets of the filmmaker’s cloistered mind that one emerges from it as if from a crypt. This isn’t only a consequence of the fear and loathing with which Allen regards the poor, the elderly, the sick, the incarcerated, and the nonwhite in our society, or of how he feels about the ethics of privacy, or of what he assumes about the lives and attitudes of his rich Upper East Side neighbors. In this characterless world of Manhattan-Venice-Paris, where love consists only of self-validation and political convictions of any kind are attributable either to hypocrisy or to a brain condition, the me-first nihilism of Allen’s worldview is finally given full exposure — and it’s a grisly sight to behold. Yet when he’s merely recalling the personal lift afforded by Hollywood musicals — especially in standards sung or danced by him, Edward Norton, and Goldie Hawn — he’s wearing his heart on his sleeve as never before. In other words, in this movie the narcissistic self-glorification and self-pity that musicals specialize in are the only emotions, apart from fear and disgust, that seem authentic. . . .

Maybe there’s a deeper humor than I’m aware of in exchanges in Everyone Says I Love You such as “Before you leave Venice your lips will be pressed to hers” and “Unfortunately I left my Chap Stick in New York.” But I doubt it. Allen has turned himself into a vending machine for such lines, much like his avowed role model Bob Hope. If you think it’s hysterical for his character to ruminate about taking the Concorde from New York to Paris so he can commit suicide by jumping off the Eiffel Tower three hours earlier, then I suppose this is the movie for you. (I was reminded of Hope’s quip at the height of our devastation of North Vietnam that we were performing a kind of slum clearance.) Where Allen differs from Hope is in the class orientation of his product placement: in Everyone Says I Love You “Concorde” functions in the same way that the character names “Holden” and “D.J.” (both taken from Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye) do — as indicators of a certain generic pedigree, like the Ritz in Paris or Yves Saint Laurent or Harry Winston in New York. Maybe if Allen enjoyed his own wealth more he’d have less need to advertise these and other nouveau riche touchstones. . . .

Even the “young couple in love” proves bogus, because “love” in this movie never gets beyond a consumerist notion of correct brand names (Harry Winston, Tintoretto, Groucho Marx) and “perfect views.” Julia Roberts, an unhappily married art historian, supposedly falls in love with Allen’s character because his daughter D.J., after spying on Roberts’s therapy sessions in New York, supplies him with all the right cues. The odiousness of such a scam is made to seem secondary to the conviction that love consists exclusively of feeding another person’s self-validation — a compulsive activity in Allen’s movies — and Roberts falls for it so easily she seems like a numskull.

“I’ve never felt Truth was Beauty. Never,” Lahr quotes Allen as saying. “You just get an overdose of reality, you know, and it’s a terrible thing.” Defining truth as reality and beauty as unreality (which in Allen’s terms nonsensically includes the “worlds” of Ingmar Bergman, Louis Armstrong, and the New York Knicks) seems about as limiting an artistic strategy as one could define — unless one defines art simply as an escape from reality, as Allen does. (Louis Armstrong is an escape from reality? Allen must have rocks in his head.) . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordinarily I try not to get into celebrities' personal lives here, but the Woody-Mia relationship was so closely woven into their actual films that this seems pertinent. To quote what I posted at Facebook:

 

"When asked point-blank if her biological son with Woody Allen, Ronan Farrow, may actually be the son of Frank Sinatra, Farrow answers, 'Possibly.'" Oh well *that* adds a new wrinkle to the Woody-Mia scandal.

To recap: Mia's marriage to Sinatra ended in 1968. She started dating Woody in 1980. Ronan was born in 1987 (Mia was visibly pregnant with him when she starred in Woody's film Another Woman, which came out in 1988). Woody started seeing Mia's adopted daughter Soon-Yi in 1991. Woody and Mia broke up in 1992 -- and when they did, Woody claimed that his relationship with Mia had gone cold around the time Ronan was born.

So Mia has basically just admitted that she was still sleeping with Sinatra nearly 20 years after their marriage ended, and 7 years into her relationship with Woody. (Sinatra, for his part, had been married to his fourth wife Barbara Marx -- ex-wife of Zeppo, in case you're wondering -- for 11 years when Ronan was born.)

So Woody was hardly the only one "cheating" at the time. Unless, perhaps, he and Mia had a much more open relationship than they let on at the time.

In the comments, I also wrote this, in response to a friend of mine:

 

Have you ever seen Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)? Mia's mother appears in the film, playing Mia's mother, and much of the film was shot in Mia's real-life apartment, and a few of Mia's children appear in the film as Mia's children... so the film very much takes the real-life Woody-Mia relationship as its inspiration, on some level.

And what's interesting about the film is that Woody plays Mia's *ex*-husband in the film, and by the end of the film he's married to one of her sisters; meanwhile, the Michael Caine character, who is married to Mia throughout the film, has an affair with one of her other sisters before deciding he'd rather stick with Mia (and Mia never finds out about the affair). So, when it was revealed six years later that Woody had started an affair with Mia's adult adopted daughter behind Mia's back, it didn't seem all *that* unexpected.

Michael Caine, incidentally, is the one who introduced Mia and Woody in the first place, and he has talked about how strange it was to make that movie. There's a scene where Mia and Michael Caine are in bed together, and Woody was sitting behind the camera in his director's chair, and then suddenly Andre Previn (one of Mia's ex-husbands) happened to stop by to visit his children and he popped his head around the corner to see how the filming was going. So Michael Caine, an old friend of Mia's, was now in Mia's bed, with Mia, and being watched by both Mia's current partner *and* one of Mia's exes -- which he found surreal.

Ronan Farrow, for his part, has tweeted:

Listen, we're all *possibly* Frank Sinatra's son.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Ronan's tweet.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked up Woody's filmography, and discovered I've watched 32 of his films - the largest number from any one director. (Although he has another 13 directorial credits...) 

 

I guess my favourite is Hannah And Her Sisters, although I've enjoyed most of them to some extent. He had a truly wonderful run of twenty years '75-'95 when he turned out one good film after another. In terms of a quality/quantity ratio, this has to be one of the finest periods in the life of any film director I can think of. It could be argued that none (or very few) of his films reach true greatness, but taken as a group they're a spectacular achievement.

 

Ten of my favourites:

1. Hannah And Her Sisters

2. Love And Death

3. Radio Days

4. Annie Hall

5. Manhattan

6. Crimes And Misdemeanours

7. Another Woman

8. Match Point

9. Bullets Over Broadway

10. Midnight In Paris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have many more to watch, but for me:

 

1. Purple Rose of Cairo (I know many are objectively better, but this is the one I turn to when I'm home sick and want a comfort movie)
2. Annie Hall
3. Crime and Misdemeanors

4. Match Point (I think Match Point and Crimes and Misdemeanors compliment each other rather than negate)
5. Midnight in Paris

Runners up: Everyone Says I Love You, September, Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jessica Winters weighs the evidence regarding Allen's alleged sexual abuse of Dylan Farrow.

 

In the Time interview, Allen strongly suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between Farrow discovering his affair with Soon-Yi and the molestation allegations. But that account is hard to deduce from the timeline of events. Farrow found out about the affair when Allen left pornographic photographs of Soon-Yi on his mantel in January 1992—eight months before Dylan made her allegations. By Orth’s account, Allen was already in therapy for “inappropriate behavior” with Dylan before the revelation of the affair.
 
And in their May 1994 decision, the judges of the New York appellate court held that, with regard to the events of Aug. 4, 1992, “the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur.” Although “the evidence in support of the allegations remains inconclusive,” the court stated, “our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow fabricated the allegations without any basis.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jessica Winters wrote:
: In the Time interview, Allen strongly suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between Farrow discovering his affair with Soon-Yi and the molestation allegations.

 

I haven't re-read the Time interview, but wasn't the point here that the molestation allegations coincided to some degree *with the custody battle*? Farrow may have discovered Woody's affair with Soon-Yi in 1992, but the break-up with Woody didn't become public knowledge until later.

 

And what are we to do with Farrow's recent claim (via the more recent Orth article) that she cheated on Woody with Frank Sinatra a few years before this even happened (and at a time when she and Woody were busy making a movie at Farrow's home in Connecticut while Sinatra -- who was, incidentally, married at the time -- was busy singing in Las Vegas), thereby leading to the "possibility" that Satchel/Ronan Farrow is actually Sinatra's son and not Woody's?

 

Farrow's recent claim calls both her moral high ground and her credibility in general when it comes to the facts into question, methinks -- but it also exposes a deep-seated desire to distance herself and her kids from Woody as much as possible. So, add that to the mix and what do we get?

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't re-read the Time interview, but wasn't the point here that the molestation allegations coincided to some degree *with the custody battle*?

Sure. Winters gets into that in the full article. Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert B. Weide goes over the facts in some detail, and makes a couple of stunning (to me) revelations:

 

Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi. . . .

 

This is amazing to me, as Moses was one of *two* adopted children that Woody and Mia fought over in their custody battle (the other being Dylan, the girl that Mia accused Woody of molesting). At the time, Moses was quite adamant that he wanted nothing to do with Woody -- and, yes, it sounded like he was parroting the Mia Farrow party line. So to hear that he's left his mother and renewed his relationship with his dad after all these years is quite interesting.

 

My more recent professional association with Woody took place last month, when I was asked to work on the Allen clip montage for the Golden Globes. The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.) I thought it unlikely that Mia would object, as I had obtained a signed release for my documentary, in which she granted permission for her appearance in many lengthy clips from several Allen films. At the time, I was extremely grateful for her cooperation, for without it, I would have had a 12-year gap in my film, and Mia would have been extremely conspicuous by her absence. I even took it as a possible sign that 20 years after the fact, perhaps the healing process had begun to take hold. As a further sign of good will, Mia agreed to the use of her “Purple Rose” clip in the Golden Globe montage. The producers of the show were grateful. Everyone agreed it would have been a shame not to acknowledge Mia’s contribution to so many of Allen’s best films.

 

At the ceremony in Beverly Hills, actress Emma Stone, having just worked with Woody on his latest film Magic in the Moonlight, introduced the montage, followed by Diane Keaton’s surrogate acceptance speech, which was typically sentimental, loopy, and very Keatonesque. Woody, who would have never stopped throwing up had he been there, was instead in New York at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre for the opening of Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, whose book was written by Woody’s friend Doug McGrath. Woody had already told me that if the show let out early enough, he was hoping to get home in time to catch the last quarter of the football playoffs.

 

Apparently, Mia and Ronan assigned more significance to the festivities than did Woody, seeing the televised occasion as a perfect opportunity to bring him down a few pegs. The first of Mia’s tweets, issued as the Woody segment commenced, was restrained and kind of cute: “Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS.” I smiled when I read it, and thought, “Why not? You already saw the montage when you approved the use of your clip.” Her second tweet, referencing the recent Vanity Fair article, was nastier: “A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen’s molestation of her at age 7. GoldenGlobe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors.”

 

This one puzzled me. I thought it was odd to say the Globe tribute showed contempt for abuse survivors when Mia willfully participated in the festivities by expressly agreeing to the use of her clip, when she had every opportunity to decline. She certainly wasn’t pressured, and we had an alternative version of the montage (sans Mia) all ready to go in case she passed. It seemed Mia either wanted it both ways, or simply assumed no one would ever learn that she was complicit in the tribute. By the time I saw her third tweet, asking, “Is he a pedophile?” and linking to the Vanity Fair article, my most charitable thought was that this woman needs to get over herself. A more mischievous part of me wanted to repost her tweet, but swap out her link for one leading to an article about the recent 10-year jail sentence received by her brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, for multiple counts of child molestation—a topic she’s been unusually quiet about, considering her penchant for calling out alleged (let alone, convicted) molesters to whom she’s exposed her children. . . .

 

I'd forgotten about Mia's brother, but the real news here, of course, is that Mia actually approved the Golden Globes montage before she proceeded to diss it. I suppose, knowing how the industry works, I could have assumed that the show would have *had* to seek her approval before airing any footage of her, but the question hadn't occurred to me (partly, I guess, because I never watch the Golden Globes, so I haven't actually *seen* this montage).

 

Oh, and this paragraph about the Sinatra business sums up what I've been saying all along -- though the final parenthetical bit hadn't occurred to me:

 

While we’re on the subject, a word about this Sinatra business: To even say that Ronan is “possibly” Sinatra’s son implies that Mia was fooling around with her ex-husband decades after their divorce. Backdating from Ronan’s birthdate, it means that Farrow and Sinatra “hooked up” in March of 1987 when Mia was 42 and Old Blue Eyes was 71. This sort of dispels the myth that Woody and Mia had this idyllic, loving, monogamous relationship until Woody threw it all away in 1992, since Mia was apparently diddling her ex, five years earlier. If Mia was “just kidding” about the Sinatra scenario, it was an awfully insensitive thing to say, considering the fact that Sinatra’s wife, Barbara, is still very much alive. Did Mia stop to think how her coy tease might be perceived by the widow Sinatra? One can only wonder if this also fits Ronan’s definition of a “moral transgression.” (One may also wonder whether Woody is owed a fortune in reimbursement for child support.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the words of Matt Zoller Seitz, this situation just "escalated". Dylan Farrow (now Malone whatever-her-last-name-is; she's married now) has written an open letter in the New York Times, in which she goes into some detail regarding what she says she remembers Woody Allen doing to her.

 

The opening and closing sentences of the open letter ask "What's your favorite Woody Allen movie?" Fortunately, my favorite Woody Allen movie was made before Dylan/Malone was even born, much less adopted by the Woody-Mia couple. But given that Mia is reportedly still friends with her Rosemary's Baby director Roman Polanski (who was actually convicted of sexual offenses against a minor, which Woody was not), couldn't someone just as easily be asking people in the Farrow camp "What's your favorite Roman Polanski movie?"

 

I do feel for Dylan, as she has clearly been traumatized by *someone*. Whether it's the "brainwashing" of Mia Farrow and her camp (to borrow a word from Moses Farrow, the *other* child adopted by both Woody and Mia), or actual abuse committed by Woody Allen -- either way, this person has suffered. I don't assume she's lying, not at all; but I do wonder to what degree her memories could have been shaped by the charged atmosphere of the Woody-Mia split and the custody battle that ensued, etc. (As John Dominic Crossan has put it, when eyewitness testimony is a prosecution's *only* evidence, there is *always* a reasonable doubt -- and presumably all the more so when the memories in question go decades back into one's earliest childhood.)

 

Another irony here is that Mia's brother (and Dylan/Malone's uncle) John Villers-Farrow is *also* a convicted child molester; he was sentenced just a few months ago, right around the time Mia began making noises about her alleged affair with Frank Sinatra and trying to focus everyone's attention on her 21-year-old allegations about Woody again. Deflection? Projection? Transference? Etc.?

 

Make of all that what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HuffPost Live has a round-table discussion featuring Robert Weide, Matt Zoller Seitz and Samantha Geimer. [The interview predates the latest open letter]

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mia Farrow Uses Close Pal Journalist in Woody Allen War: Writer of Latest Piece is Close Friend

Mia Farrow has thrown another grenade at Woody Allen. She’s gotten daughter Dylan to accuse Woody of sexual abuse in a blog in the New York Times. It’s not in the main paper. It’s in Nicholas Kristof’s personal blog. And what Kristof says as “full disclosure” is that he’s a friend of Mia Farrow. it’s not in his preface to Dylan’s open letter, which everyone is now reading. That’s how Kristof puts it in his Op Ed piece that accompanies the blog revelation.

But Kristof and Farrow aren’t just ‘friends.’ They are close friends. Romantic? I’m not suggesting that. They travel together, Kristof writes about Farrow often, he Tweets and re-Tweets her. They are too close for him to be delivering Dylan’s accusations. There isn’t a chance that Kristof hasn’t heard complaints about Woody Allen from Mia Farrow non stop for the last five or six years. At least. . . .

Choosing Kristof for the ‘hit’ was a bad idea. He is not at all objective. He’s Mia’s pawn in this endless chess game. If she and Dylan were serious, they would have gone to someone totally impartial, someone they didn’t know.Farrow and Kristof have traveled together to the Sudan, they’ve appeared together often, there are numerous accounts of them together that can be found easily.

If the Farrows had been serious, they could have filed a police report, or a lawsuit. But they chose a quick ambush, a sucker punch, a swift attack during Oscar season. If Dylan is telling the 100 percent truth, she could have told it last fall, or next spring, or three years ago, or during the release of a Woody film that didn’t matter so much, like “To Rome with Love.”

It’s too bad because Dylan’s pain and Ronan’s Tweets are all lost in Mia’s obvious manipulations.

Roger Friedman, February 1

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Mia is either Beatrice or Morgan le Fay? Are those the options we have on the table? Because, I'll be honest, when it comes to accusations like this, attempts to portray one of the primary accusers as a manipulative she-devil make me really squeamish. And that's whomever she happens to be.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:
: So Mia is either Beatrice or Morgan le Fay? Are those the options we have on the table?

 

Um, I don't think I'm edumucated enough to fully get the references. But basically the only thing we can say with any certainty is this:

 

*Someone* has abused Dylan Farrow.

 

Whether that someone was Woody Allen or Mia Farrow is the question.

 

Personally, I'm really curious to hear what Moses Farrow has to say about all this. He and Dylan were the only two kids that Woody adopted with Mia, and apparently he's left Mia's camp and become friendly with Woody and Soon-Yi again, and he has even used the term "brainwashing" to describe Mia's effect on the kids who live with her. But I wouldn't presume from any of that to know what he thinks about Dylan's claims on this particular subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Someone* has abused Dylan Farrow.

 

Whether that someone was Woody Allen or Mia Farrow is the question.

 

 

 

Peter, I always want to latch onto the possibility of innocence. In another thread you asked if it was no worse to punish the innocent than to fail to punish the guilty. I think it is - a billion times worse.

So if the two appalling alternatives are that Woody Allen is a child molester who preyed on his partner's adopted children or Mia Farrow is an embittered, jealous woman who warped her small daughter's imagination, I refuse them both. To be hounded by accusations of molesting a little girl if you're innocent must be a nightmare. To tell the truth about abuse and be doubted and to see your abuser feted and uncontrite must be pure hell. I guess there's at least one more remote possibility, that no one planted the suggestion in the child, but that the abuse is still imagined rather than real. I believe that can happen. I don't know these people and I haven't really followed their lives. But again, however illogical this sounds and probably is, the only way I can answer your question is to try to believe in innocence - every one's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie wrote:
: I guess there's at least one more remote possibility, that no one planted the suggestion in the child, but that the abuse is still imagined rather than real.

 

If the abuse never happened, and if Mia didn't plant the suggestion initially, then it certainly wouldn't be too hard to believe that she *encouraged* it. Especially with the custody battle and with Woody leaving her for her adopted daughter by her second husband, etc.

 

There's really no news in any of the things that have been said these last few months. (Well, except for Mia's dubious claim that she cheated on Woody with Frank Sinatra a few years *before* they broke up.) The closest we get to "news" is the fact that Dylan herself went on the record this weekend (whereas, up until now, all public allegations have been made by her mother and at least one of her siblings). And the fact that Dylan's comments followed Ronan's, and that Ronan's followed comments that Mia made in Vanity Fair a few months ago (right around the time Mia's brother/Ronan and Dylan's uncle was being sentenced for *his own* child molestation, hmmm), makes the whole thing look kind of orchestrated by Mia.

 

Indeed, as sincere as Dylan's open letter may be, parts of it read like someone who has lived with -- and fully ingested -- the script that Mia gave her kids over 20 years ago. (Again, see the initial psychiatrists' report to the effect that 7-year-old Dylan's comments seemed to have been "coached" somewhat.)

 

Which inevitably makes you wonder why she and her clan are rehashing all this stuff *now*. And I think one obvious answer to *that* question is the fact that Woody Allen, after toiling away in obscurity post-1992, has experienced a surge in popularity these last few years, climaxing with the record-breaking (for him) grosses of Midnight in Paris a few years ago. And now Cate Blanchett is sweeping all the awards for playing a character in Blue Jasmine that *some* have speculated might be based (however subconsciously) on Mia herself.

 

So, it's time for Mia to take the knives out again. And the fact that Mia's own brother just went to jail for child molestation while Woody has never even been charged must make Mia really fume, if indeed she believes he really did do it.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Peter.  I took a few minutes to read about these people's lives.

I tried to imagine what it would feel like to discover your partner - the father of 3 of your kids -  had been having an affair with your teenaged daughter from a previous marriage. And I honestly couldn't. But s urely, surely, it would hit you as a double betrayal and loss and plunge you into an emotional maelstrom. If falling in love (someone wrote in another thread) is a socially sanctioned form of insanity, the passions surrounding infidelity are like its pushed-under-the-rug twin. The desire but also the desrtion. People can go kind of crazy with hurt and even *good* parents can seem to subordinate their kid's emotional health to their own anger and woundedness.  I've seen it and then wondered if I would really be that much stronger. And kids are probably far more resilient but also more fragile than we remember about ourselves.   

So I guess it could be an easy segue from discovering your partner romanticaly involved with one daughter to believing that he'd abused another very much younger daughter.

Or it might be almost a form of self-defence to abject him completely and see him as monstrous.

But that's just speculation. And I can't really invent a scenario where I don't feel gravely sorry for Mia Farrow and for the whole family.

 


So, it's time for Mia to take the knives out again. And the fact that Mia's own brother just went to jail for child molestation while Woody has never even been charged must make Mia really fume, if indeed she believes he really did do it.

 

 

 

If she does believe he molested their daughter, then outrage at his immunity and the wish to see him publicly repudiated just seem human and natural.  And however his infidelity might complicate or compound those emotions, they don't invalidate them.

If the charges against the brother came as a revelation to his family and he had contact with her children when they were small, I imagine it would be retroactively incredibly worrying.

And even if he hadnt', it must be horrible!

 

You're a journalist who's read as much of the story as is publicly available and you're defending Woody Allen against unproven allegations. Child molestation is arguably the most stigmatized, abhorred crime in American culture and in our fear of failing victims (or even our relish for scandal) we can definitely rush to convict in our minds. So I sorely want Woody Allen to be defended. And I just as strongly don't want it to come at the the price of villifying  Mia Farrow and/or their daughter and wonder if it has to. (And I don't mean you, Peter, just the general either/or, taking sides of messes like this one) I don't think anyone deserves that where there's been so much pain and mistrust and the truth is so disputed and hidden.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jessica Winters wrote:

: In the Time interview, Allen strongly suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between Farrow discovering his affair with Soon-Yi and the molestation allegations.

 

I haven't re-read the Time interview, but wasn't the point here that the molestation allegations coincided to some degree *with the custody battle*? Farrow may have discovered Woody's affair with Soon-Yi in 1992, but the break-up with Woody didn't become public knowledge until later.

 

And what are we to do with Farrow's recent claim (via the more recent Orth article) that she cheated on Woody with Frank Sinatra a few years before this even happened (and at a time when she and Woody were busy making a movie at Farrow's home in Connecticut while Sinatra -- who was, incidentally, married at the time -- was busy singing in Las Vegas), thereby leading to the "possibility" that Satchel/Ronan Farrow is actually Sinatra's son and not Woody's?

 

Farrow's recent claim calls both her moral high ground and her credibility in general when it comes to the facts into question, methinks -- but it also exposes a deep-seated desire to distance herself and her kids from Woody as much as possible. So, add that to the mix and what do we get?

 

No, it does not challenge her "high moral ground"... cheating on Woody is not somehow in his favor.  The court clearly thought there was a pretty good likelihood he did what Dylan accused him of.  There is little to suggest this was fabricated.  When we have people suggesting that Dylan is just doing this to help promote her brother's career, I find it pretty hard to be sympathetic to the pro-Allen side.  Cheating is bad, molesting children is flat out worse.  On the moral ground, Farrow would still be ahead.

 

Added:  I do not see good evidence that this is just Mia mad about the Soon Yi situation.  I will, however, point out that it was a pretty sleazy situation, no matter how his supporters want to paint it.

 

Also, false accusations are incredibly rare, and often, people do not report rape and molestation specifically because the public will often leap to the defense of the accused and attack the accuser/the accuser's family.

Edited by Thom Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mia Farrow Uses Close Pal Journalist in Woody Allen War: Writer of Latest Piece is Close Friend

Mia Farrow has thrown another grenade at Woody Allen. She’s gotten daughter Dylan to accuse Woody of sexual abuse in a blog in the New York Times. It’s not in the main paper. It’s in Nicholas Kristof’s personal blog. And what Kristof says as “full disclosure” is that he’s a friend of Mia Farrow. it’s not in his preface to Dylan’s open letter, which everyone is now reading. That’s how Kristof puts it in his Op Ed piece that accompanies the blog revelation.

But Kristof and Farrow aren’t just ‘friends.’ They are close friends. Romantic? I’m not suggesting that. They travel together, Kristof writes about Farrow often, he Tweets and re-Tweets her. They are too close for him to be delivering Dylan’s accusations. There isn’t a chance that Kristof hasn’t heard complaints about Woody Allen from Mia Farrow non stop for the last five or six years. At least. . . .

Choosing Kristof for the ‘hit’ was a bad idea. He is not at all objective. He’s Mia’s pawn in this endless chess game. If she and Dylan were serious, they would have gone to someone totally impartial, someone they didn’t know.Farrow and Kristof have traveled together to the Sudan, they’ve appeared together often, there are numerous accounts of them together that can be found easily.

If the Farrows had been serious, they could have filed a police report, or a lawsuit. But they chose a quick ambush, a sucker punch, a swift attack during Oscar season. If Dylan is telling the 100 percent truth, she could have told it last fall, or next spring, or three years ago, or during the release of a Woody film that didn’t matter so much, like “To Rome with Love.”

It’s too bad because Dylan’s pain and Ronan’s Tweets are all lost in Mia’s obvious manipulations.

Roger Friedman, February 1

 

A friend of Mia Farrow who is a journalist writes a critical blog peice?  So?  As if there are not journalist friends of Allen defending him?

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

Why is the article about Kristoff acting like they got caught trying to pull something over our eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it's time for Mia to take the knives out again. And the fact that Mia's own brother just went to jail for child molestation while Woody has never even been charged must make Mia really fume, if indeed she believes he really did do it.

 

 

 

If she does believe he molested their daughter, then outrage at his immunity and the wish to see him publicly repudiated just seem human and natural.  And however his infidelity might complicate or compound those emotions, they don't invalidate them.

 

This.

 

 

Jessica Winters wrote:

: In the Time interview, Allen strongly suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between Farrow discovering his affair with Soon-Yi and the molestation allegations.

 

I haven't re-read the Time interview, but wasn't the point here that the molestation allegations coincided to some degree *with the custody battle*? Farrow may have discovered Woody's affair with Soon-Yi in 1992, but the break-up with Woody didn't become public knowledge until later.

 

And what are we to do with Farrow's recent claim (via the more recent Orth article) that she cheated on Woody with Frank Sinatra a few years before this even happened (and at a time when she and Woody were busy making a movie at Farrow's home in Connecticut while Sinatra -- who was, incidentally, married at the time -- was busy singing in Las Vegas), thereby leading to the "possibility" that Satchel/Ronan Farrow is actually Sinatra's son and not Woody's?

 

Farrow's recent claim calls both her moral high ground and her credibility in general when it comes to the facts into question, methinks -- but it also exposes a deep-seated desire to distance herself and her kids from Woody as much as possible. So, add that to the mix and what do we get?

 

No, it does not challenge her "high moral ground"... cheating on Woody is not somehow in his favor.  The court clearly thought there was a pretty good likelihood he did what Dylan accused him of.  There is little to suggest this was fabricated.  When we have people suggesting that Dylan is just doing this to help promote her brother's career, I find it pretty hard to be sympathetic to the pro-Allen side.  Cheating is bad, molesting children is flat out worse.  On the moral ground, Farrow would still be ahead.

 

Added:  I do not see good evidence that this is just Mia mad about the Soon Yi situation.  I will, however, point out that it was a pretty sleazy situation, no matter how his supporters want to paint it.

 

Also, false accusations are incredibly rare, and often, people do not report rape and molestation specifically because the public will often leap to the defense of the accused and attack the accuser/the accuser's family.

 

 

Also this. The Allen-defense pieces all conform uncomfortably closely to a fairly typical narrative: "She's a manipulative whore and a liar, and besides look at this other thing over here." Throwing slut-shaming and guilt-by-association at Mia only serves to obscure the central question, which is "what happened?" And we've only got Dylan's word for that. Could she be mistaken or lying? Sure. I mean, we know that few-or-none of the kids who claimed that Satanists molested them in the 'eighties were actually molested. But as Jessica Valenti points out, public discourse is often slanted against rape victims from the start--particularly children:

 

We know one in five girl children are sexually assaulted. Yet when victims speak out, we ask them why they waited so long to talk. We question why don’t they remember the details better. We suspect that they misunderstood what happened.

 

 

I was more than willing to give the initial piece defending Allen the benefit of the doubt, but the narrative shaping up here after Dylan's open letter isn't just uncomfortable, it's nasty.

 

Also, this? "Kristof and Farrow aren’t just ‘friends.’ They are close friends. Romantic? I’m not suggesting that."--is so transparent that I'm going to start using it instead of glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, my blog post from yesterday on this subject.

 

Josie wrote:
: I tried to imagine what it would feel like to discover your partner - the father of 3 of your kids -  had been having an affair with your teenaged daughter from a previous marriage. And I honestly couldn't.

 

Oh, neither could I. And I don't think affairs of that sort (or any sort) are excusable at all. But at the same time, sleeping with someone who is somewhere between 18 and 21 years of age (no one knows *exactly* when Soon-Yi was born) isn't exactly pedophilia. It's not even statutory rape, at least not in any North American jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

 

: And I can't really invent a scenario where I don't feel gravely sorry for Mia Farrow and for the whole family.

 

True enough.

 

: If the charges against the brother came as a revelation to his family and he had contact with her children when they were small, I imagine it would be retroactively incredibly worrying.

 

Indeed! At least one person I know has even wondered if Dylan was transferring a memory of something her uncle did to her father. But I haven't seen anyone float that theory in the blogosphere or twittersphere yet.

 

Thom Wade wrote:
: The court clearly thought there was a pretty good likelihood he did what Dylan accused him of.

 

One judge did, if memory serves, but he didn't pursue that at all. Someone on Facebook the other day summarized the judge's opinion as being something like "We kind of think he did it... but we can't prove it... so we're going to deny him custody for this other reason instead." And admittedly, the other reason was a pretty compelling one in its own right: Woody had not just left Dylan's mother for another woman, but for Dylan's sister. (A much older sister, perhaps, but still a sister.) And that would have presumably been all sorts of confusing for Dylan, whatever other factors might be in play.

 

: When we have people suggesting that Dylan is just doing this to help promote her brother's career, I find it pretty hard to be sympathetic to the pro-Allen side.

 

Actually, if anything, one could argue that the Farrow clan wants Ronan to go into broadcasting precisely so that he can keep these family matters in the public eye. So it would be Ronan helping the others, not vice versa.

 

: Cheating is bad, molesting children is flat out worse.  On the moral ground, Farrow would still be ahead.

 

If we're comparing the Mia/Sinatra thing to the alleged Woody/Dylan thing, yes. But if we're comparing it to the Woody/Soon-Yi thing, well...

 

: Also, false accusations are incredibly rare . . .

 

But not in custody battles. It's happened to at least one friend of mine.

 

: A friend of Mia Farrow who is a journalist writes a critical blog peice?  So?

 

Well, the New York Times' own Public Editor apparently had qualms about Kristof using the paper as a platform for that, for one thing.

 

NBooth wrote:
: Throwing slut-shaming and guilt-by-association at Mia only serves to obscure the central question, which is "what happened?" And we've only got Dylan's word for that.

 

True. But if Woody's protestations of innocence are true, then the question becomes, why did Dylan tell that story? That's where Mia comes in. If discussion of Mia is ruled out-of-bounds from the start, then we are basically forcing ourselves to blame either Woody or Dylan. (And when people say "No one knows what happened then except for Woody and Dylan," I'm inclined to reply that *even Dylan* might not know what happened then. She has strong beliefs, obviously, but memory is a strange thing -- especially, I would imagine, for a seven-year-old caught up in a highly traumatic family dynamic.)

 

: I mean, we know that few-or-none of the kids who claimed that Satanists molested them in the 'eighties were actually molested.

 

Side note: a week or two ago, my bishop was found guilty of molesting a child almost 30 years ago, based entirely on the fact that the judge believed the child's (now grown-up's) testimony in court more than the bishop's. I didn't know this bishop very well -- I'd met him a couple times, but he worked out of Ottawa, three time zones away -- but it's been interesting to see how the clergy I know have dealt with his arrest and, now, conviction. Some insist they've known him for years and he couldn't have done this; others have wondered if they really knew the bishop as well as they thought they did all these years; and sometimes I see the same person wavering between both positions. And friends have raised the same "molesters never go after just one kid, where are the other victims?" objection that defenders of Woody have raised. I honestly don't know. I'm an agnostic on that case, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

: Cheating is bad, molesting children is flat out worse.  On the moral ground, Farrow would still be ahead.

 

If we're comparing the Mia/Sinatra thing to the alleged Woody/Dylan thing, yes. But if we're comparing it to the Woody/Soon-Yi thing, well...

 

Although, Mia is in the same side of that as Soon Yi....a ridiculously older man with a very young woman.  She is still not comparable to Woody in that area.

: Also, false accusations are incredibly rare . . .

 

But not in custody battles. It's happened to at least one friend of mine.

 

 

I know someone as well.  Though the kids never backed their mother up.  And there was zero physical evidence.  To this day the kids deny any abuse.  But then, us each knowing someone does not make it not rare.  Even in custody battles, it is less common than people think.

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

 

Perception: Women often allege abuse falsely to gain unfair advantage over men.

Fact: Not substantiated: (note: this document addresses many common misperceptions)

This matter was investigated by the Denver-based Research Unit of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts which performed a 2-year study which explored the incidence and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases. Contrary to the popular myth that sexual allegations in custody cases are relatively common, the study found that, in the 12 states participating in the study, only 6% of custody cases involved allegations of sexual abuse. The belief that these allegations are typically false was also challenged by the study findings. Half of the allegations were believed by the investigators to be true, and in another 17% determination of the validity could not be made with any degree of certainty. The remaining third of the cases were not believed to involve abuse. However, in most of the cases where abuse was not substantiated, the allegations were believed to have been made in good faith and based on genuine suspicions.

Similar results have been found by other researchers. An Australian study (Brown et al., 1997) found the overall rate of false allegations during divorce to be about 9%, similar to the rate of false allegations at any other time. Schuman (2000) reviewed research that found a range of 1-5% for rates of deliberately false allegations, and 14-21% for mistaken allegations.

It is also important to note that when false allegations are raised, it is not always mothers accusing fathers. Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, reviewed Canadian judges' written decisions where allegations of either physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental separation. They examined 196 family law cases that were adjudicated between 1990 and 1998. The results revealed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involved someone deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers. Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed relationship brought similar allegations.

 

 

 

 

The problem for Woody is this is a no win.  An innocent guy is going to deny guilt.  So is a guilty guy.  It is pretty rare that a high profile person accused of molesting kids comes forth and admits it.

Edited by Thom Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for Woody is this is a no win.  An innocent guy is going to deny guilt.  So is a guilty guy.  It is pretty rare that a high profile person accused of molesting kids comes forth and admits it.

Polanski did.  And one thing that does cause me to doubt Mia is that she has never complained about Polanski receiving accolades for his work, and (to the best of my knowledge) she still supports him as a director and friend.  It makes sense that she'd be more vocal about Woody, but no criticism of Polanski at all, especially when she made the highly acclaimed Rosemary's Baby with him, strikes me as odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0