An Open Letter from Dylan Farrow- Page 13

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/7/14 at 10:56pm

Carlos, here it is:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

I was just reading it today....very bizarre.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/7/14 at 11:35pm

Wasn't there an article from like 92-93 in Vogue about this?

Maybe I have the magazine wrong but I feel like it definitely started with a "V".

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/7/14 at 11:46pm

That day, August 5, Casey called Mia to report something the baby-sitter had told her. The day before, Casey’s baby-sitter had been in the house looking for one of the three Pascal children and had been startled when she walked into the TV room. Dylan was on the sofa, wearing a dress, and Woody was kneeling on the floor holding her, with his face in her lap. The baby-sitter did not consider it “a fatherly pose,” but more like something you’d say “Oops, excuse me” to if both had been adults. She told police later that she was shocked. “It just seemed very intimate. He seemed very comfortable.”

......

Mia, who never sought to make the allegations public, also told Dr. Coates, who is one of three therapists Woody Allen has seen on a regular basis. Coates too told Mia that she would have to report Dylan’s account to the New York authorities, but that she would also tell Woody. Mia burst out crying, she was so afraid. Ironically, the next day, August 6, Woody and Mia were supposed to sign an elaborate child-support-and-custody agreement, months in the negotiating, giving Mia $6,000 a month for the support of Satchel and Dylan and 15-year-old Moses, the other child of Mia’s whom Woody had adopted on December 17, 1991. Mia believed Woody’s sessions with Dr. Coates had definitely improved his demeanor with Dylan, but because of her concern about Woody’s past history, she had insisted that he not have unsupervised visitation until Dylan and Satchel were through the sixth grade, and that he no longer be able to sleep over at her country house, as he had so far insisted on doing, but stay in a guest cottage across the pond.


Vanity Fair Profile - November 1992

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/7/14 at 11:56pm

Do you get kickbacks from Vanity Fair every time somebody clicks on one of your links to that same article?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:05am

Somebody asked for an article I happened to be reading. Relax, dude.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:12am

One, I was asking Liza's Headband.

Two, you should probably read a thread before posting in it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:18am

And now Dylan Farrow has taken to the Hollywood Reporter to respond to Woody Allen's response to Dylan Farrow's response to the Vanity Fair article not getting the kind of attention she wanted it to get.

Now. WHAT IS IT SHE WANTS? Maybe if she could just articulate what her dream of a best case scenario would be it would go a long way to clarifying things.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:20am

One, you never specified who you were talking to. Two, I posted the link to the article without realizing you had already done so. Now, he has several options for the exact same long ass, bizarro article. Everyone wins.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:21am

Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?

I don't know.

Why would a director who thought his ex had vindictively orchestrated an evil smear campaign against him consider her for a part in a movie a couple of years later? (As told to Stig Bjorkman in Woody On Woody - the movie was Mighty Aphrodite and the part later went to Helena Bonham Carter.)

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:22am

"WHAT IS IT SHE WANTS?"

I think she wants everyone to hate him as much as she does. What else is left?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:25am

Jay, I would say the Might Aphrodite part seems like it could have been a peace offering after a couple of years had passed. WHY sign off on the montage days before condemning the award the montage was created for?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:30am

I honestly don't know. Maybe she's proud of her own work on the film.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 12:53am

Yeahhhhhhhhhhh.

I guesssssss.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 1:03am

Okay, maybe I was clutching at straws there - but still, I don't think it necessarily points to anything sinister. Turn the question around - does it work in favor of her supposed "scheme"? Not that I can see.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 9:35am

It's entirely possible I missed this in one of the links, but do we know she even had to give her permission?

Don't those clips belong to the studio? I always assumed that those montages/clips that are used in various awards shows/fetes were approved for use exclusively by the owners of the films.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 10:01am

Yes, it's a SAG rule. Actors must give permission for their likenesses to be used in award-show montages.

Besty probably knows the details.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 10:22am

"Why would a director who thought his ex had vindictively orchestrated an evil smear campaign against him consider her for a part in a movie a couple of years later? (As told to Stig Bjorkman in Woody On Woody - the movie was Mighty Aphrodite and the part later went to Helena Bonham Carter.)"

Whether or not Woody' guilty of sexually abusing Dylan, it's an extremely odd thing for him to consider offering Mia a role in Mighty Aphrodite. It's no more odd if he is in fact not guilty, the victim of a smear campaign, or if he is in fact guilty, that he would even consider working with a woman who is angry about him actually sexually abusing her daughter.

Let's face it, these are two very strange - and extremely talented - people in a very complex family. I find it no more telling that Mia Farrow thought perhaps that her collaboration with Woody Allen on screen was a large part of Woody Allen's work - and an important part of American cinema - and deserved not to be excluded from his montage than I do that Woody Allen would have considered Mia for Mighty Aphrodite.

Neither is informative about whether Woody sexually abused Dylan.

The truth is we just don't know what happened for sure and likely never will. Of course, though, Americans find it hard to admit they may simply not know something for sure; we'd rather entrench ourselves in smug half-baked, even harebrained theories which support our overly confident conclusions.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 10:55am

So, whadda you think?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:08am

We were all f*cked up by Perry Mason or in my case, Matlock and Murder She Wrote. (I loved watching TV with my grandparents!) The old courtroom/mystery dramas used to ALWAYS wrap up tightly with the lawyer or detective revealing what REALLY happened. I will never forget when the O.J. verdict was handed down and I honestly had trouble comprehending that we would never know the truth.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:16am

Allen has claimed that when charges were initially made, he passed a polygraph and Farrow refused to take one. Even though polygraphs are not admissable at trial, if his claim is true it mitigates in his favor.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:18am

A new Vanity Fair article posted yesterday on their site.


10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:21am

Yes, it's a SAG rule. Actors must give permission for their likenesses to be used in award-show montages.

Besty probably knows the details.

Correct, PJ. I should add that at least it is for the Oscars, so I imagine it's a broadcast/SAG rule. They send out short letters to members who will have their likenesses featured on the telecast. It also says what likeness/film/scene will be shown. It's kinda like a permission slip for school. But if you don't sign it, you can't go on the field trip.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:22am

J'adore when words like "undeniable" are used by Maureen Orth, of all people.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:53am

Except that the polygraph he passed was done by his own legal team, and he allegedly refused to take one conducted by the state. The state of CT refused to accept the polygraph his own team performed. According to the link provided by Betsy.

"Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation."

If Mia refused to take a polygraph conducted by Allen's team - I would not blame her. As an attorney, I would demand that she take a polygraph conducted by an independent third party.

[Luscious]

Posted: 2/8/14 at 11:54am

Woody Speaks Out