Woody Allen Vs Mia Farrow Via Dylan Farrow

Mia Farrow Vs Woody Allen Via Dylan Farrow

The trouble with doing dirty laundry in public is that no one ends up with a clean result when the washing is done; in the Woody Allen vs Mia Farrow via Dylan Farrow there will be no winner. Mia Farrow is holding onto a 21 year-old grudge; Dylan Farrow was either abused or, at the very least, believes she was and Woody Allen will wind up tarnished by the claim that he “messed” with his 7 year-old adopted daughter.

Will the truth be told at the end of the day? Probably not; the truth has most likely already been told over 20 years ago. As unwilling spectators to this family problem that began in 1992 when Allen fell in love with Soon-Yi Previn, his partner’s adopted daughter, the public are dividing into camps. It almost has the feel of a train wreck television reality show, albeit, one that has some big names instead of the unknown or Z list celebs trying to make a comeback.

It is a sad fact that however this drama plays out, lives will be affected. Some, like Dylan Farrow’s have been affected already. If her version of events are true, she has lived with the knowledge that her abuse was unrecognised and unpunished. According to her, the chance to prosecute her adoptive dad was passed over when it was first brought up. Woody Allen has stated that there was never any proof because it never happened.

Two of the players in this triangle of misery have been heard from. Allen has answered the allegations with his own version of an open letter. The 78 year-old film auteur’s response was denial; a declaration of love for his adopted, yet estranged children and he stated that it is his firm belief that Mia Farrow “indoctrinated” their daughter into thinking that he’d abused her as a child.

Woody Allen revealed that during the breakup of the Farrow/Allen union, which was rather unconventional with both “partners” maintaining separate households, Mia exuded a transparent “self-serving” malevolence. Allen points out that he was a 56 year-old man in 1992 who had never been accused of child molesting and, apart from Dylan Farrow’s accusations, still had not. Supporters of Dylan Farrow have reacted with outrage at Allen’s denials and spit the same sort of venom at those who dare to support the filmmaking legend.

Ronan Farrow, is not really a part of this triangular dirty laundry airing apart from supporting his sister. It really is Woody Allen versus Mia Farrow via Dylan Farrow. Ronan, who may actually be the offspring of a union between mother Mia and her former husband Frank Sinatra, is estranged from his “biological” father Woody. As Allen himself says, Ronan certainly looks more like the “Chairman of the Board” than Woody. The very fact that 68 year-old Mia has enough vitriol left in her system to make the Sinatra claim in her 2013 Vanity Fair interview shows that Allen was not too far off with his observance of personal malevolence.

Another child of the couple, Moses, has come forward to say that at 14 he remembers his mother “drumming it into him” that he should hate his father for “tearing apart” the family. He claims that Dylan never had any issues with Woody until Mia Farrow created an atmosphere of “fear and hate.” Moses also states that Allen never molested his sister.

Supporters of Dylan Farrow will no doubt react with the same outrage reserved for outsiders who dare to take Allen’s side of this increasingly ugly drama. The charges of child abuse are disturbing and, if true, are sickening. Just as sickening is the thought that Allen and Moses are right. That the whole sordid mess started 21 years ago when one half of a partnership reacted angrily at the betrayal of her man.

Mia Farrow has been pretty quiet since her magazine interview and, apart from the odd tweet, she has taken a backseat to the events unfolding under the gaze of the world’s press. If this is all about revenge because Woody “left” her for Soon-Yi Previn, who is the real monster here?

It most certainly is not Dylan Farrow. In this entire mess, she has paid the price for something she has believed for years to be the truth. If this was “implanted” into her memory then Mia Farrow has a lot to answer for and not Allen, whose biggest mistake in 1992 was to listen to his partner’s advice and to spend more time with Mia’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi.

In this Woody Allen vs Mia Farrow battle via Dylan Farrow, and to a lesser degree brother Ronan, no one will walk away unscathed. At the end of the day, the public will believe whoever shouts the loudest with the information that they think is correct. So far everyone who has dared to go against Dylan Farrow has been castigated; with the 28 year-old victim going so far as to “name and shame” Allen’s supporters. If her claims are disproved it would seem that Mia Farrow could have a lot to answer for.

By Michael Smith

Sources:

Variety

FOX NEWS

THE DAILY BEAST

Guardian Liberty Voice

5 Responses to "Woody Allen Vs Mia Farrow Via Dylan Farrow"

  1. Nik   March 1, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    The only proven abuser is Mia, who admitted to beating Soon-Yi; the only demonstrated perjurer is Mia who now says ‘Woody’s” son is really Frank Sinatra’s son, contradicting her testimony under oath. The only time this charge of abuse of Dylan arose was when there was something to gain; it has been used as a means to an end, never as an end in and of itself, to bring a man to justice – but instead first as a tool to gain custody (and FYI false charges of sex abuse are epidemic in custody cases); and second as a means to derail Woody Allen’s Oscar chances. Dylan even names Cate Blanchett in her letter. Notice how Mia help set Woody up for that one by granting permission to use film footage of her at his Golden Globes tribute? Why would she have done that if she really believe he had abused Dylan? Makes no sense. Speaking of tells, it is very telling that Dylan at the end of her letter asks the reader to “imagine” Woody Allen doing this, and “Imagine” Woody Allen doing that. Imagine, imagine, imagine. That’s what Dylan has been doing as provoked and prodded and bullied nearly all her life by Mia. The plague of false charges of abuse in the 80s and 90s, resulted in investigations that brought to light how children were repeatedly bullied and persuaded and brainwashed to believe that they had been abused by overzealous prosecutors and experts. Dozens of people were imprisoned then set free after appeals. This Dylan fiasco falls right in line with that. Given the plague of false charges of abuse in custody cases, and given the extreme vitriol MIa has had for Woody on account of his relationship with Soon-Yi (see Mia’s Valentine’s Day card on 60 Minutes?), it would have been a miracle if false charges of abuse had not been alleged in this case. It would have been utterly out of keeping with Mia’s character and the trend of the times in lawsuits. But this is now the 21st Century, and we don’t so quickly stand and join reflexively in such accusations. Recent history, for those who care to study it (and it looks like more than a few posters here are clueless regarding the copiously documented sex abuse hysteria of the late 20th century; watch for starters, Innocence Lost, a Frontline documentary) has made us more cautious than that.

    Reply
  2. John Gardiner   February 20, 2014 at 9:36 am

    Examine the timing. OPEN LETTER CHARADE published Saturday Feb 1st in NYT Sentencing of John Villiers Farrow…Mia’s brother for sexual child abuse Feb 4th.

    Reply
  3. John Gardiner   February 20, 2014 at 8:57 am

    Woody Allen needs to receive another Lifetime Achievement Award…this time for MOST INCOMPETENT PREDATOR. Here’s a guy who blew millions of opportunities to gain access to little girls for years then meets Mia and gets BAMBOOZLED BY A 7 YEAR OLD GIRL!
    The purpose of this entire “OPEN LETTER CHARADE” was to get public focus on a 20 year old custody squabble….WHILE A CONVICTED PREDATOR BROTHER OF MIA FARROW WENT TO JAIL UN NOTICED….

    Reply
  4. Ande Wanderer (@wanderargentina)   February 9, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    Agree with the above poster. Safe to give the benefit of the doubt to the person/s who has no major creep action in their past and, who has absolutely no motive to lie.

    Frustrated by these articles by men who seem to have no idea of the psychological ‘tells’ and recognizable patterns of abuse when writing about this matter.

    Reply
  5. qoilho   February 9, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    It is regretful that this writer has nothing good to say about Mia Farrow, portraying her as this monster either way. No proof of that. I wonder if in all your wisdom Michael you considered that it would be normal for a mother to tell her children that their father was a monster who ripped apart their family if Woody did in fact, and I tell you everything points to that, molested his daughter. Even if you are in such denial that you cannot believe it (because here you sound as if you are trying really hard to be fair, but it is obvious that you are not) this man did rip this family apart. What kind of a person starts dating a woman in her late teens, early twenties, who he has known since she was eight or ten years old, that he was a father figure to in one way or another and that is his partners daughter? While everything points out to the fact that he doesn’t make the normal choices other human beings make when it comes to children, all you have to say are bad things about Mia, who has never been accused of doing anything bad in her entire life.

    Dylan, who almost every defender of Woody agrees is the victim here, tell us that her mother (in normal mother behavior given the circumstances) at some point sat her down and told her that if she had made it all up, it was ok, that no one would be mad at her. That was a very smart thing for Dylan to include, because I can’t imagine (can you?) how Mia would have planted that inside her head. That is not what would come out of years of brainwashing.

    You claim she holds a 21 year old grudge… are you kidding? I would hold a grudge until the day I died if someone molested my children!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.