I Will Never Watch Another Woody Allen Movie Again

Dylan Farrow

 

Dylan Farrow comes forward in a riveting open letter:

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore. When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

Go here to the New York Times to read the rest.

39 Responses to I Will Never Watch Another Woody Allen Movie Again

  • For the sake of His sorrowful passion have Mercy on us and on the whole world.

    Fame honor and riches builds a huge pride. No room for humility. No room for decency.
    Another success story for Satan. Yes I will pray for him tonight.

  • I have no use for a man who sexually abuses a child. I have never watched a Woody Allen movie and I never shall. Oh let me guess. He is the quintessential liberal progressive Democrat!

  • That is one of the sick consequences of the diabolical, Freudian,
    Marxist counter-cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s. Allen
    was a popular, leading voice of that criminal movement, which
    destroyed the U.S. and which corrupted many American, Christian
    churches.

  • He started branding humor for the dark enlightenment. The three stooges and the pink panther had more class than his forcing ‘funny’ on psycho-sexual freedoms.

    His daughter’s difficult letter should serve as a kind of scarlet letter for him and for his defenders, who further oppressed her innocence.

  • God bless this young woman for writing this letter. I hope it gives courage to other victims .

  • “I Will Never Watch Another Woody Allen Movie Again”

  • Imagine the reaction of the lame stream media had this freaking pervert been a Catholic Priest or even a Protestant Evangelical Minister. The more I think about this, the angrier I become. Time to pray the Serenity Prayer.

  • Mr. Primavera,

    You know, as well as I, that the powerful elite protect their own. Entertainment, politics, Big Labor, Big Business…how often are the people in these entities who commit crimes made to pay for the crimes they have committed?

    Rarely if ever. We live in a pop culture enviornment. I see the trash of it when I pay for the groceries for the family each payday. It permeates the checkout line. I( skip the Super Bowl entirely when my team isn’t playing because it is a pop culture event and not a football game anymore.

    Woody Allen and his ilk will meet their judgement, as will I.

  • Woody Allen did not believe that God was watching him. This is what becomes of atheism. The progressive secular humanist does not believe that God is watching him.

  • And I shall meet my judgment, Penguins Fan. I know darn well what I deserve. We all committed Deicide. We all murdered God’s only Son. Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

  • Recall that Mr. Allen previously married the adopted daughter- Soon-Yi Previn – of his former lover Mia Farrow. (Ms. Previn was 35 years his junior.) Near literal incest. Social-relational incest to be sure. This is a twisted man.

  • To those who are willing automatically to assume that this is a credible and reliable complaint – uncorroborated and untested by cross-examination, I can only say, as Lord Meadowbank once said to a jury, “God keep my life out of your hands.”

  • He married his adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, so he could permanently “Be” with a child- if you understand what I mean. SHE WAS/IS HIS DAUGHTER! Marrying her does not stop him from being her father. That’s abuse in it’s continual form. Psychologically, spritually AND Physically.

    Even if he never gets prosecuted for abusing Dylan, her public letter is enough. God Bless her and give her His Peace. And God bring Allen and all unrepentant abusers to His justice.

  • This complaint is aligned with a long-term pattern of behavior. We do not need to make assumptions here. He was a hollywood darling and protected for years with connections to the media establishment. He was even on the cover of Time magazine. It is time he was “outed” by his own family. He betrayed his family. It is only fair that his family give a response. There is no “gag” order in place after all.

  • In the interests of precision, Soon-Yi Previn was the daughter of Andre Previn, not Woody Allen. The association between the two walked right up to the line of incest but did not quite cross it.

    I do not doubt that Allen is as a matter of course self-centered and has no serious ethical sense, but I would tend to take the allegations of both this woman and her brother with a big hunk of rock salt.

  • It makes no difference. I never watched one before.

    I have Jewish buddies who are more entertaining and humorous: same “genre” better execution.

  • Perhaps it is the lawyer in me, but I agree with Art that a letter, however public in intention and credible in nature, is not proof. We should be careful to leave open the possiblity that Allen is innocent, or at least not guilty in the way the letter suggests. Subject to that caveat however, I’m inclined to believe Ms. Farrow and will pray for her healing and Allen’s moral conversion and immortal soul.

  • When the totality of facts and motives remain unknown, and none of the parties have been subject to cross examination; Reserve judgment.

  • In the custody battle Allen was denied visitation rights with the trial judge finding that Allen’s conduct with Dylan had been “grossly inappropriate” which, in my experience is very strong language for a court to use in a custody case. Dylan of course will never have her day in court against her adoptive “father” as the statute of limitations has run.

  • I recollect some years ago when the custody action was pending that New York newspapers reported the existence of alleged “pornographic” photographs of then daughter, now wife, Sun Yi Previn. It was unclear whether Sun Yi was a minor at the time the alleged photos were taken.

  • “In the interests of precision, Soon-Yi Previn was the daughter of Andre Previn, not Woody Allen. The association between the two walked right up to the line of incest but did not quite cross it.”

    From The Daily Beast: “Soon-Yi’s relationship to Ronan Farrow? His adopted sister. His relationship to Woody, as far as he’s concerned? “He’s my father married to my sister,” Ronan has said. “That makes me his son and his brother-in-law.” As far as Andre Previn (Farrow’s second husband) is concerned, Soon-Yi “does not exist””

    There are over 7 billion people on this earth, with just less than half being female. Woody Allen chose his children’s sister, for the sake of precision, to take nude photos of and eventually marry. He couldnt find another female to be with?!!

    And as cunning as he is, she was just over the legal age of consent. BUT, who knows when the sexual relationship started ….?

    Without “legally” being her father, what would he be if he was with Soon-Yi’s mother, her step-father? Well then psychologically and emotionally its incest, even though legally its not.

  • Donald R. McClarey wrote, “Dylan of course will never have her day in court against her adoptive “father” as the statute of limitations has run.”

    What if Allen were to raise an action for defamation or verbal injury?

    I do not know the position in the US, but in Scotland, justification of an allegation of crime must be proved to the criminal standard, that is, beyond reasonable doubt and by corroborated evidence.

  • “What if Allen were to raise an action for defamation or verbal injury?”

    Allen is a public figure and under US law it is practically impossible for a public figure to win a defamation suit. Additionally he would have to worry about committing perjury in the defamation suit. Alger Hiss went to prison not because of his espionage, the statute of limitations had elapsed on that, but because of perjury he committed in testimony before Congress, the perjury indictment being precipitated by a libel action that Hiss brought against Chambers and damning evidence that Chambers revealed against Hiss in defense against the libel suit.

  • And in Hollywood….All Publicity is Good Publicity….as the spotlight once again shines upon Woody Allen, his latest movie, and the Academy Awards which will no doubt draw multitudes of new viewers and commercial sponsors intrigued with all things Woody Allen.

  • Donald R. McClarey

    One recalls Oscar Wilde’s memorable prosecution of the Marquess of Queensberry for criminal libel. His Lordship had fleft a card at Wilde’s club, addressed “To Oscar Wilde posing as a somdomite [sic]”

    Justification was pled and proved and Wilde promptly arrested.

  • I think at this point, it is difficult to know if these accounts by the Farrow crew are memories or conflations of memory and what they’ve been told by adults around them or self-conscious concoctions (see the work of Elizabeth Loftus on this point). The whole business at the time was a train wreck of people who put what they wanted at any given time above every other consideration. Mia Farrow is a piece of work herself and had and has interests which may confound the pursuit of what is true. I tend to doubt that Dylan or Rowan Farrow have a reliable understanding of their life as toddlers.

  • Art Deco, Dylan Farrow was older than a toddler when she as abused. So im not sure how you can disregard her testimony, as a brainwashed story, cococted by Mia Farrow.

    Regardless of Mia Farrows mental state, Dylan’s recollection of Allen’s behaviour and questioning whether it was “normal” is alarming.

    And the fact that Soon-Yi adoptive father has disowned her over her relationship with Allen is another party opposing Allen’s behaviour. Idiots know its immoral to have sexual relations with your step-daughter…don’t they?! Or has the moral compass swims so far out that its barely recognisable?

    So, now you have Mia, Dylan, Ronan and Priven against Allan. Plus you have Allen marrying his step-daughter….and you still think he is an innocent victim in this whole charade?

    The fact that Mia Farrow is perceived as a “peice of work” through her own actions or through the portrayal of her in the media, should not cloud the fact that Dylan claims she was abused- and sticks to these claims DECADES later.

    I find it very difficult to see Allen’s innocence in this all, just because he is a Hollywood heavyweight up for an Oscar. It’s the Elite twisting the standards to keep themselves relevant, and edgy.

  • Ez, if you wish to converse with me, address what I said, not the voices inside your head.

  • Art Deco if you wish to address me, try doing it without being rude.

  • Thank you for helping me to undertnd better the conversations that must have taken place in dioceses the world over, with regards to abusive clergy.

    Where the allegations are horrible, we see the application of stringent legal norms to non-legal determinations that tend to favor the accused. Here, as there, we see the conflation of legal requirements of proof with philosophic ides of knowing truth and we see the application of a common sense of what is right and good that attempts to cut to the truth of the matter and its proper response.

    Perhaps I’ve been harder on the bishops than I ought to have been. I need to think on that.

  • David Spaulding

    I would venture to suggest that it is not a question of applying legal norms, but of applying the same standards that would be used by historians, textual critics and journalists (when they refer to “unconfirmed reports”). That is, information from a single source, however apparently credible, is not to be relied on; not that we should reject it as false – it could well be true – but that we should suspend belief.

    Here, we are referred to nothing that is capable of providing support for, or confirmation of, or fits with, or is consistent with, the lady’s story.

  • My comment wasn’t meant as a critique. Quite the opposite, really.

    There is danger in applying only one standard to such a complex subject. The legal, historical, and philosophical proofs are valid. So too are the common sensical and contextual proofs offered by some on the thread.

    Taking it over the the clerical abuse scandals, I can imagine high church officials regularly holed up, wrestling with these same issues and struggling to reconcile what their hearts told them with church and secular law standards. My only point being that this discussion has forced me to put myself in their shoes and that’s a good thing.

  • Art Deco if you wish to address me, try doing it without being rude.

    There is only one person who has been rude in this discussion, and it ain’t me. I have made my points in this discussion and you went on a whinge that has no referent in any of my remarks.

  • Whinge? Ok.

    I refuted your argument that suggested that the testimony of Dylan might be “memories or conflations of memory and what they’ve been told by adults around them or self-conscious concoctions”. Decades later?

    I refuted your suggestion that ” Mia Farrow is a piece of work herself and had and has interests” as being irrelevant when her child has claimed for decade Woody abused her. She questioned normal father-child behaviour.

    I corrected your statement “that I tend to doubt that Dylan or Rowan Farrow have a reliable understanding of their life as toddlers” as incorrect. Dylan was 7. Seven year olds are not toddlers.

    I questioned your view that Allen and Soon-Yi relationship wasn’t incest “The association between the two walked right up to the line of incest but did not quite cross it.” Legally? No.
    Psychologically, emotionally? Yes.
    Immoral? Yes.

    You may want to re-read your comments before you claim I made them up or in your unkind words “listen to the voices in my head”. These are your words.

    I understand. I won’t address you in the future. You clearly don’t like your point of view to be challenged.

  • You refuted nothing and were not reacting to anything I wrote.

    If you are interested in my view (you’re not, but I will re-iterate it anyway), it is thus: the utterances of both Farrows are not particularly reliable for reasons stated. Again, see Elizabeth Loftus on how our memory lies to us. Or read Anne Tyler’s Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant for an ace depiction of how three siblings can come to a divergent understanding of the home in which they grew up.

    That the statements are not reliable is a reason to suspend judgment about this matter. Getting at the truth would require intense labor rummaging through the available documentation, and you still might not get there.

    Farrow and Allen are both train-wrecks with many things they have to atone for and the Previns father and daughter have caused more than their share of trouble in the realm of domestic life. Allen may or may not be guilty of a particular set of class B and class C felonies; I see no reason to have a vehement opinion on that particular matter.

    Since 1975, I have seen two Woody Allen films beginning to end and fragments of three others. In every case, it was on the television. So the point of the opening headline is moot in my case.

  • Up to this point, the only people who know what really happened is Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen. It comes down what you choose to believe. I think Dylan Farrow was abused by Allen. And unless there is definitive evidence to the contrary, I will continue to choose to beleive that.

    I think our conversation is over.

  • And unless there is definitive evidence to the contrary, I will continue to choose to beleive that.

    One should not really operate this way.

  • “One should not really operate this way.”

    Yes they should. If they want to be informed which artist they should choose to support the work of.

    That’s the point of this article Art Deco.

  • The human being is created in truth and beauty and innocence, moral and legal innocence, the standard of Justice for the nation.
    .
    The Supreme Court unleashed the demons from hell, unchained lust, licentiousness, lasciviousness, viciousness and gave our constitutional posterity up to pornography. The Court gave freedom to vice and evil. The court refused to censure pornography, indecent exposure, rapaciousness, violence and handed our minor un-emancipated children a snake instead of an egg.
    .
    The Supreme Court took God away from people and put itself up as final arbiter of our souls.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .