The Smearing of Woody Allen
Soon after Rolling Stone published a sensational — and, as it turned out, false — account of a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity, Richard Bradley, the editor of Worth magazine, suspected that something was amiss.
Basic journalistic rules, such as seeking comment from the alleged perpetrators, had not been observed, he noted on his blog. Details of the assault, one of which seemed ripped from “Silence of the Lambs,” were lurid past the point of plausibility.
Woody Allen on a film set in 2014.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
But what most stirred Bradley’s doubt was how perfectly the story played “into existing biases,” especially the sorts of biases Rolling Stone readers might harbor about fraternity life at Southern universities.
Since the account of the rape “felt” true, it was easy to assume it was. Since the alleged victim had supposedly suffered grievous harm, it was awkward to challenge her version of events. Since important people took the story on faith and sought to press it into the service of an undeniably noble cause, the story’s moral truth overwhelmed its factual one.
All this, Bradley knew, was the surest way to fall for the biggest lies. It’s a caution that could serve journalists and the wider public well in the case of Woody Allen’s alleged molestation, in 1992, of his then-7-year-old adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow.
The case is news again thanks to Farrow, who in December penned an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times titled, “Why Has the #MeToo Revolution Spared Woody Allen?” She repeated her charges against Allen in a tearful interview last month on CBS, and her efforts seem to have had their intended effect: From Mira Sorvino to Natalie Portman, A-list actors are expressing bitter regrets for having worked with Allen. The director is officially radioactive.
But if Farrow wants an answer to her question, it’s because we know that the charges #MeToo has leveled against men such as Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey are almost certainly true. The reason they have not been spared is because they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts, not the allegations, prove it.
Not so with Allen and Farrow. The only in-depth, contemporaneous and independent investigation into the allegations, conducted over several months by the Yale-New Haven Hospital in 1992 and 1993, noted that there were “important inconsistencies in Dylan’s statements,” and that “her descriptions of the details surrounding the alleged events were unusual and were inconsistent.” It concluded categorically: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen.”
That investigation (most of which remains under seal) may or may not be dispositive. It has been criticized over the years, including by a judge who ruled against Allen in his custody battle for Dylan and her siblings.
But since the State of Connecticut declined to press charges against Allen, it is what we have to go on. Shouldn’t the weight of available evidence, to say nothing of the presumption of innocence, extend to the court of public opinion, too?
That is a thought lost in some of the commentary about the case. Dylan Farrow is a persuasive interviewee who seems absolutely sincere in her belief that she was molested by Allen as a child. Allen, by contrast, comes across as a grouchy neurotic who, in his late 50s, had a distasteful affair with Mia Farrow’s adopted, barely adult daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. In the contest of sympathies, it’s not hard to guess who wins.
But it’s precisely because Dylan’s account plays to our existing biases that we need to treat it with added skepticism. Most parents know that young children are imaginative and suggestible and innocently prone to making things up. The misuse of children’s memories by ambitious prosecutors against day-care center operators in the 1980s led to some of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent U.S. history. You don’t have to doubt Farrow’s honesty to doubt her version of events.
Nor have we learned anything else about Allen in the intervening years that might add to suspicions of guilt. He married Soon-Yi and has been with her ever since. Nobody else has come forward in 25 years with a fresh accusation of assault against him.
If Allen is in fact a pedophile, he appears to have acted on his evil fantasies exactly once. Compare that to Larry Nassar’s 265 identified victims.
It goes without saying that child molestation is a uniquely evil crime that merits the stiffest penalties. But accusing someone of being a molester without abundant evidence is also odious, particularly in an era in which social-media whispers can become the ruin of careers and even of lives.
That’s something for all of us to think about, even when it comes to wealthy, peculiar old men for whom we feel no love. We still live in a country that paints a bright line between accusation and fact. Smear the accused, smudge the line, and the truth will never out.
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
211 visitors
I'm not sure I agree with one of Stephens's two lines of argument. He says that if a set of information pleases us, we should be wary of it... because writers purposefully try to "win us". This seems to me to be a formula for paranoia and conspiracy theories. It's simpler to be wary of all information...
OTOH, the fact that the only serious inquiry into the Allen/Farrow conflict concluded that nothing had happened... and the fact that the competent authorities have never brought charges... do require us to apply the presumption of innocence.
OMG... I have been convinced by Brett Stephens!
Will my soul be foever blackened?? 
Allen, by contrast, comes across as a grouchy neurotic who, in his late 50s, had a distasteful affair with Mia Farrow’s adopted, barely adult daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. In the contest of sympathies, it’s not hard to guess who wins.
From my point of view, Mr. Allen began the initial application of the smear by this activity. It's a bit too hinky for me to digest.
Woody and Soon-Yi are still married, 25 years later. How is that distasteful?
Are you kidding Bob? He played the father role in the house, and then marries the girl who he fathered? That isn't gross to you?
I don't care how long they are married, he married his child and I was done with him after that.. Dylan is just the icing on the cake.
I agree. Elvis Presley had the same mindset of "raising his wife" except that Priscilla is the only one that he actually married. He just "played house" with the rest of them.
Oh yeah.. thought that was creepy a long time ago, when I found out how old she was when he first cast his eyes on her..
I really don't know. I think that's Stephens's point. We're quick to jump to conclusions.
A lot of ugly stories are coming to the surface, so we're prepared to accept another one... even if it is not at all the same.
Bob,
I realize that men are suddenly can be accused of sexual improprieties since the me too movement. But then again, I can give you a running list of women that I know personally, including myself, that had unwanted sexual advances.. so it is not such a unique thing to have men who are pigs out there. BTW, because of this sudden run to accuse, I am not a big fan of the movement, despite my own personal experiences.
Perrie,
Woody Allen's fate is not a big deal. He has had an enviable career, and done some work that will stand the test of time. So in a way, Allen isn't the subject of Stephens's article. If his career ends now, it's no big deal.
Stephens is asking aloud if there is a risk that in the current movement to name and shame, we may become a mob. It's a good question.
It wasn't his child. That would be incest. I don't think he was charged with incest, was he?
Buzz,
My sister has an adopted daughter. If my brother in law did that to her, it would be incest.
I'm not defending Woody, but I'm a little confused about the facts - you said he raped his 7 year old adopted daughter and I thought I saw it was improper touching. Doesn't rape mean penetration by a penis, i.e. sexual intercourse? Sorry but I'm not up on American law, or as it was at the time.
I guess I'm confused about American Law. I thought that the definitions of incest required that there be sexual intercourse, and I thought that in Woody's improper adventures, sexual intercourse was not the complaint, rather it was some other improper act.
Maybe whatever he did was detestible, but perhaps it was neither rape nor incest which is what he is being accused of in the comments here.
Perrie,
You express the ambiguity of the situation pretty well. There are a lot of pigs.
There's a wide spectrum of behavior from boorish to predator, so that it is sometimes difficult to know just where a particular pig is situated. A boor deserves contempt, but not criminal charges. A predator deserves prison time.
Stephens is asking, "What amount of evidence is needed to define a person's place on the pig scale?"
I believe it varies by state, but object or digital penetration without consent may also be defined as rape.
You are correct.. there is a wide range of boorishness. Allen can only get contempt by NY law. The statue of limitation is done barring DNA evidence, which I am pretty sure doesn't exist. . Here is what we do know. He behaved disgustingly with Soon-Yi. But to dismiss what Dylan says, is also wrong, even if we can't prove it to the legal standard.
The man married the child that he was the father figure to. I don't care if Soon-Yi was OK with it. Allen was the adult in that picture, and so was the authority figure. Soon-Yi was groomed for this by Allen. The evidence are the sexualized pictures of Soon-Yi and Soon-Yi's own words.
And his own words:
Woody Allen says his 23-year relationship with Soon-Yi Previn worked because of their previous parent-child relationship.
“I’m 35 years older, and somehow, through no fault of mine or hers, the dynamic worked,” the 79-year-old director told NPR in an interview published Wednesday . “I was paternal. She responded to someone who was paternal.”
“She deferred to me, and I was happy to give her an enormous amount of decision-making just as a gift and let her take charge of so many things,” he continued. “She flourished. It was just a good luck thing.”
I don't think that's correct based on what I've read of it. This article has a good summary:
So not only did Allen start dating Previn when she was an adult (the nude pics were taken several years later), but he never acted as her father or was a father figure to her. The only violation of social conventions was that he had an affair with the adult adopted daughter of the woman he had been seeing, and no state prohibits that in any way. But it is a big unwritten taboo precisely because of that legal kinship between Farrow and Previn.
As far as Allen's paternal feelings towards Previn, I'm not sure but that seems to be what he feels in more recent interviews because of their 35-year difference in age & life experience. I don't think he was talking about how he felt towards her when they started dating. I can understand why he feels that way but I hope he understands the dangers paternalism can pose to a relationship, not for reasons of incest but for respecting one's spouse as an equal.
I wonder if your comment would change the minds of those who are better led by rumour.
I doubt it, but I can't blame them given the awkward circumstances.
I wonder if the public reaction would have been different if Woody had dumped Mia for her younger sister?
The hinky parts comes from the diddling about with a virtual child, this ain't Alabama. You may find it acceptable behavior, I do not.
We're just looking at it through a different lens.
Bob,
The me too movement is about women who have been sexually accosted. It is not about children. Children are a whole different thing.
When kids go before the court, their stories often change. The are confused and scared and in the case of two parents conflicted. In the 4 cases that I was involved with regarding child abuse, even in cases where the child had signs of physical abuse, it was a 50/50 chance that they would return to the home because of inconsistent testimony. It was one of the most shocking revelations to me as a teacher (who is mandated to report). The families involved were poor families and still, with crappy lawyers played the system.
Now throw into the mix a guy like Woody Allen. Tons of money, loads of notoriety. Next throw in some reasonable doubt, like the wife is bitter, and case close.
Now Dylan is the liar. It's not bad enough that Allen is of questionable morals.. she has to be dragged through the mud. Meanwhile Soon Yi even said her and Allen's relationship started when she was a minor..
The man is a pig and a liar. I stopped seeing his movies years ago... along with Mel. Thank goodness for one honest cop, otherwise Mel would have said it was a lie, too.
I don't know. I wasn't there. It's obviously a... strange... family, all of them.
I think that's the point: we don't know. You're ready to hang Allen on the testimony of a girl whose story was examined very closely by Connecticut authorities... who decided not to pursue Allen. You don't know the case as intimately as those authorities did... but you're entirely confident that your conclusion is wiser.
Allen has never been accused of molesting any other girl/woman. He is still married to Soon-Yi. nevertheless, it is certain that he's a pervert.
Whatever...
Bob that was a long time ago in a far less enlightened time. That is why today, we have the MeToo movement. For years powerful Hollywood types got away with naughty if not evil things. The fact that Dylan said it as a child and now as an adult, does carry merit. And this is about a specific type of child molestation.. incest, and that is as old as mankind.
Based on the fact that he married a child he raised from the time she was 7, yeah. And that is why I believe Dylan. Incest only happens within the home.
Look, I loved Kevin Spacey and Dustin Hoffman, but now I am disgusted by them. The only one I forgive is Louis CK. Yes it was kinky and strange what he was into, but he asked those women first if it was OK to disrobe and masterbate and they said yes. He never touched them. All were adults and all they had to do was either say no, or leave the room. Instead they chose to not be adults about their own behavior, and they are another reason I am not on board with the NotMe movement. Sometimes we all have to be adults and responsible for our behavior.
.. and she married him (tbere was no shotgun), and they're still married 25 years later. OK, it's... odd. For sure. But does that make it "wrong"?
Isn't it significant that no other woman has accused Allen of anything? All the other men who have been accused have had multiple accusers.
Presumption of guilt?
Yes, since he raised her since she was 7. Loads of people adopt 7 year olds and 99.99% don't marry them. When they do, it's called incest.
First of all, it's not about adult women. It is about control when it's about incest. Look it up in the DSM. Second he was accused, by his other daughter Dylan. Btw.. Soon-Yi had said there was flirting and sex play well before her adulthood.
I am not sitting in the courtroom. In fact, I would have to recuse myself. This is what I believe based on other monsters I have dealt with while being a teacher.
Are we confusing Previn and the claims made by Dylan Farrow? Allen didn't adopt Previn or raise her.
Yes.
Why are you telling me something I already know? How is this relevant to Woody Allen?
Yes.
Because your article mentions it in this context.
... and you thought I didn't understand, so you had to explain? Gee... thanks!
Bob that was not meant as an insult. I was only pointing out to you that I was on topic.
By definition Elvis was a hebephilia. Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent (early adolescent) children which is typically ages 11–14. It differs from pedophilia and from ephebophilia (the primary sexual interest in later adolescents, typically ages 15–19)
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
The APA will eventually bend to progressives calling pedophilia a sexual orientation.
I am a "progressive" and I am not calling for anyone to label pedophilia as acceptable in any manner. That would like labeling rape as a sexual orientation.
The APA dropped homosexuality and transgenderism from its list of mental disorders it's only a matter of time before Pedophilia becomes just a sexual orientation. When it does happen progressives will be agreeing with them. Those that don't agree will be called bigots.
Well while everyone is entitled to their opinion, I would recommend against holding your breath waiting for this to happen
Are you saying that people who hold animus against LGBT folks aren't bigots? That's an obviously false claim which reveals a great deal about you, and it reveals your underlying anti-LGBT agenda when you made the utterly baseless and moronic claim that "The APA will eventually bend to progressives calling pedophilia a sexual orientation."
FYI, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM as a disorder because there was NEVER any credible science to treat it as a disorder - all there was the culturally pervasive anti-gay bias which you so clearly exhibit. To a very large extent it's the same issue with being transgender and with gender dysphoria - as psychiatrists have learned more about the neurology behind gender identity and learned to drop their cultural biases against people outside gender norms it's helped them both understand the condition and provide better and more appropriate treatment for it. Fortunately the APA no longer takes its cues from Christian superstitions or from your ilk.
And you base that utterly moronic claim on what exactly?
Gotta agree with that... I hate it when people make these outrageous claims based on nothing.
LOL. You must be a bit gullible or think that other people are.
.
No one is ever surprised that the right wing lies and is grossly misinformed, or that they peddle long-debunked memes peddled by hate groups like the American Family Association :
You sound upset that both the APA and Snopes debunked your moronic and false claims.
.
I'm not at all surprised that you think an anti-LGBT group isn't a hate group.
Most folks don't need to assume what you are thinking. You wear your agenda like a big-ass hat that's glued to your head.
You mean apart from your defense of an anti-LGBT hate group and the false claims you spread about the APA?
You've always been pretty transparent in your animus against LGBT folks.
Sorry, sugar-bush, but you have to be 18 to have an account here. So please go away and stop annoying people.
Cute image, though.
Let's see.....first you posted a link which made false claims which I easily debunked, then you claimed an anti-LGBT hate group which spread those false claims wasn't a hate group.
At the very least it seems your agenda is the same as that hate group's agenda. Are you a member of the AFA?
Instead of "progressives", I suspect that it is pedophiles that are behind the movement to view pedophilia as being acceptable.
14 was Elvis "magic" age and might have been younger according to some people.
Elvis was a pedophile.
I only learned about this a few years ago. I was thoroughly disgusted with how all of the people who knew protected Elvis instead of his victims.
Our country needs to protect children instead of pedophiles.
Sick is correct. However, when it comes to pedophiles, the goal is not marriage. They want to have sex with children that they can control. Elvis did not necessarily want to marry Priscilla. It has been reported that Elvis' manager coerced Elvis to marry Priscilla.
In theory about half of US states have no lower age limit as long as a judge grants approval.
.
Some US states like Texas, Tennessee and Floriduh continue to allow child marriages, particularly if the girl was raped by an adult:
My understanding is that they first met and started dating when she was 14, but she married him a few weeks before she was 22 and didn't have intercourse before that. Pretty creepy though for a 24 year old to be dating a 14 year old and to have her living with him by 17.
I agree, but it was perfectly legal at the time in the states and countries in question.
At least Elvis didn't try to rape her like Roy Moore did with one of his victims.
Generally yes, especially in the bible-babble belt. At least historically child marriage practices have been by far the worst in those states.
Previn wasn't Allen's daughter in any sense at all - she was his girlfriend's daughter and they didn't start dating before she was an adult, nor did they have much interaction before then. What Elvis did was quite different because there's no doubt Priscilla was 14 when they started dating.
I have 4 stepdaughters through my marriage and while I didn't adopt them I did help raise them. They're all young adults now, quite beautiful and very smart.....but I can't imagine dating them because I see them as my children and I know they see me as one of their dads. But legally I could do that despite how creepy it sounds. Allen didn't have that father-daughter relationship with Previn (at least not according to them), nor was Previn biologically related to Farrow. So at worst I think you can accuse Allen of being a cad and exercising poor judgement, but more power to them if they're both happy and it was consensual. Given that Previn doesn't seem to take any shit from Allen it's hard to argue with their 25 year marriage, particularly given the high level of social condemnation of their relationship.
Call me prejudiced but I have always had a thing for Mia Farrow's Mother Maureen O'Sullivan who played Jane in the original Johnny Weismuller Trazan movies, Tarzan and Jane and Tarzan and Boy. How dated does that make me? Here is a cover story from People Magazine from back in the day...
He wasn't Soon-Yi's father, adoptive or otherwise.
But I don't see how he could have avoided being seen as a father figure. It's still emotional incest, IMO.
As both Allen and Previn have stated, he was not a father to her and they had very little interaction. You're writing something into their relationship which never existed - he was just the guy who dated the woman who adopted her.
I can only go by what Allen and Previn have said and they both say he had very little interaction with Farrow's kids. And Previn says her only dad is Andre Previn.
Of course that doesn't make it any less awkward, creepy or unusual.
Skrekk, then the girl is brainwashed. Here is Soon-Yi as a girl on an outing as a family.
Allen was stepfather to Farrow's children (here in 1986) until 1992, when he and Soon-Yi (right) got together
Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So Allen once went somewhere with Farrow and her kids. What does that make Andre Previn?
I agree completely.
I've already expressed my views about that to you, so I'm not sure why you're asking again.
But I'll ask you a question - let's say you date a guy for a while and the relationship comes to an end. Which members of his immediate and extended family are you not allowed to date and why?
No, I'm not defending their relationship so much as asking what's taboo about it given that it's perfectly legal. Is it that there's a legal kinship relationship between Previn and Farrow? Isn't that similar to a guy who drops his GF because he gets along with her younger sister better (or gasp.....her mother)? What if the new object of affection has no legal or biological kinship to the old GF but was her best friend? Or even worse, what if the guy realizes he likes his GF's brother more? Is it the 35 year age difference? If so why don't we always condemn such "March-November" even if it works well for the couple?
Is it your presumption that there was a parental relationship between Allen and Previn despite their denials that there ever was one? Does it matter that Previn was adopted and isn't biologically related to Farrow?
I'm not asking you to discard the creepy feeling you've got about their relationship, just to inspect the underlying issue.
Nor have we learned anything else about Allen
Other than he took nude photos of his adopted daughter
Yep. He began his...relationship...with Soon-yi while she was a teen in the 80's. Although he and Mia Farrow had been, and were still, in a long term relationship, they kept their separate residences, but usually resided together at Mia's because of the children. Mia had no idea what had been going on until she found the nude photos several years later. I can't even imagine what went through her mind. I still remember Woody Allen's public statement which said, in part, "It started as a fling, but developed into something more..."
My bottom line is that it doesn't matter how one looks at it, Woody Allen was a father-figure to this girl, yet had no problem molesting her while Mia Farrow was giving birth to their son in 1987. He kept his dirty deeds a secret for years, but couldn't very well deny it after Mia found the polaroids. He later said in an interview that he subconsciously wanted Mia to find the photos. Even more disgusting was this statement he made in 2015:
'She (Soon-Yi) enjoyed being introduced to many, many things that I knew from experience, and I enjoyed showing her those things.'
In that same interview, he said, "I was paternal. She (Soon-Yi) responded to someone paternal."
I'm sorry, but Woody Allen is long overdue an ass-kickin'.
Gettem sister
In the name of all decency this thread should be closed.
Why shouldn't we discuss child predators and every other topic relating to sexual abuse of anyone, anywhere and at any age?
Exactly. This is what victims of sexual abuse have to contend with - a man who has already admitted to one "affair" with an underage girl who saw him as a father figure is still given more credibility than his other victims.
And we wonder why victims don't speak out. This is why. They aren't believed. The abuse is minimalized. Normalized. They are dragged over the coals themselves. They are re-victimized, but the second time, it's for all to see.
Agreed. If there is one topic that must be discussed - it is sexual exploitation of women and children.
Sexual predators are in positions of power throughout our nation - including in our legal and legislative system. Of course, the victims must be silenced for the sexual predators to stay out of prison. The sexual predators in Hollywood have been only too happy to oblige by painting women as sexual objects who just say "no" until a man stalks them long enough to wear them down to have sex.
This system has worked very well for the sexual predators until this past year when enough victims had the courage to speak out in numbers that were impossible to ignore.
The sexual predators are still in our legal and legislative system and fighting back by trying to undermine the victims.
It is no different than the Roman Catholic Pope justifying priests raping children.
I have two articles about this - first is serious...
second is "The Onion"....
Rex, people NEED to NOT shove this under the rug.
It should make people uncomfortable, but that doesn't men it shouldn't be discussed, cause if it isn't, it will continue.
That's why pedophile priests were so good at it because everyone wanted to cover it up, including sometimes even the victims of rape or molestation. It's just not talked about in polite company.