An Open Letter from Dylan Farrow- Page 8

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 8:27pm

Mia Farrow is crazy. She has always been crazy.

That fact must be understood or no sense can be made of any of this.

One has only to read her book.

But as crazy as she is, her headband is not nearly as tight as some people's.

Updated On: 2/3/14 at 08:27 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 8:36pm

Dylan Farrow grew up in a chaotic household run by Mia Farrow and in which Woody Allen never once overnighted.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 8:37pm

Yes. It was a case arising out of a 2002 Vanity Fair article that claimed that shortly after Polanski's pregnant wife was killed by the Manson family that he hit on a woman in Elaine's and told her that he would make her the "Next Sharon Tate". Mia Farrow and her soon-to-be husband were at Elaine's with him at the time it allegedly occurred.
Farrow and Polanski.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 9:04pm

For the record, IF Allen is the predator alleged by Dylan, I would think the chaotic environment and unstable mother would provide a very enticing. I do not think Farrow's behavior is dispositive one way or another.

It could provide both opportunity and the basis for a claim of bias.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 9:20pm

This is a kind of wonderful thread. Lots of food for thought histrionics kept to a minimum. Kudos, BWW.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 10:48pm

The very smart Kera Bolonik on DameMagazine.com brings us all up to date on how we're discussing Dylan's open letter:

===

Let’s face it: This is a big old confusing **** show....



Why Does Dylan Farrow’s Letter Have Us So Riled Up?

Updated On: 2/3/14 at 10:48 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 11:51pm

I have to disagree with the operatic pitch at which Bolonik says "we" are all operating on in these discussions and when she insists "we" gave up our weekend to be in its muck. I even more strongly disagree when she asserts that "we" are experiencing grief and anguish because these are people "we thought we knew" and that "we" thought Woody was telling us all about himself in his movies all these years. I mean, on that last point, he couldn't possibly have stressed that that isn't true about his work any more than he has.

Also, because my involvement in the coverage of this has been to read the open letter blog post, the Daily Beast post, the PalJoey links and this thread, basically, I have not been exposed to anybody writing dismissively about "adoptive" children or any of that kind of blather Bolonik is cross at "us" all for spending the weekend writing.

I think she might do better to speak for herself, and let us draw conclusions from that. Instead, she borrows Dylan Farrow's technique of implicating readers in a way that is disingenuous and detracts from the case she is so determined to make.

Updated On: 2/3/14 at 11:51 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 11:56pm

I think we she write "we" she means the damemagazine.com community, much about which I do not know.

I only know that she's frequently smart.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/3/14 at 11:58pm

I didn't come away thinking she's a dumb bunny. I just disagreed with her framing premise.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:39am

I'm going to do something completely different and go back to using my example from a previous post. I'm going to take away the sexual allegations to make my point because it appears to me that people are still missing it.

In my previous post I mentioned that a singer I enjoy has recently broken up with his girlfriend. He is a platinum selling recording artist and she is a model/actress who seems to get work as scenery - never a speaking part that I can tell.

Their relationship was an open secret. He never said "this is my girlfriend" but we all knew due to her twitter and instagram. Every time they had a tiff we all knew about it because there would be allusions to it on twitter.

Over the weekend the relationship had a rather large implosion and we all knew about it. We knew exactly what they had fought about and exactly what she now thinks of him. We all knew he had blocked her on FB and many fans took the bait. Some fans were sending her cruel tweets and calling her all sorts of names. Otehrs were rushing to her defense saying that they lost all respect for him. Saying they would never buy a ticket or CD again now that they knew the "real" man. He's a musician who needs fans. By turning them against him she could potentially damage his livelihood.

I know this has little to what happened twenty years ago and what is happening now. But it does have its parallels and I wanted to use an example that didn't have so many strings attached. That appeared less dirty in the hopes of showing that it is not Dylan or her feelings that I am against. It is the use of social media to spread private matters. To share dirty laundry and attempt to potentially hurt someone's career. Private matters should be kept that way. Not for the court of public opinion to decide. There are a few posters here whom I would prefer not label me as "disgusting" and not respect me any more. I hope that my feelings are clear to everyone now.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 5:32am

But isn't this the era we are entering? (Or have been slung into?) What is private anymore? If a tree falls in the woods and isn't reported immediately on social media, did it make a sound? If something interesting/damning/infuriating/hysterical/embarrassing happens, it immediately goes up. Passive aggressiveness or just outright aggressiveness has an easy platform. It started small, but now it seems to be a way of life. I have totally fallen into the trap, personally. When something funny happens or my daughter does something cute, I think, "I need to put that on Facebook." Part of that is to share with my distant family and friends. The other part is just a ridiculous instinct. It keeps me from truly being in the moment sometimes. With celebrity, they have TMZ, bloggers, and (as mentioned above) fan bases with unprecedented access to information on celebrities, more than willing to pick up a pitchfork. If you really want to hurt someone, it's easy and taking it back or backing down is next to impossible. Private truths or lies take off at the speed of a match strike.

I am not defending the actions of anyone involved. I do automatically want to protect someone claiming to be a victim because of my work, background and past experiences. I have dealt with horrible abuse cases. For me, that's just a given and it's personal. I know that some victims lash out in very unexpected ways, often without thinking first. I am not, however, dismissing that he (and the criminal justice system) maintains his innocence. This particular letter was obviously well written and very well planned out. Dylan is either the victim of a sexually abusive father or the victim of a mentally abusive mother. If it's the latter, she has been poisoned into thinking Woody is a monster who abused her sister, hurt her mother and ripped her family apart. In either case, she feels justified in going after him. One of her parents destroyed her youth. I don't think the blame can fall on her. It's certainly convoluted.

And why does every article have to refer to her as their "adopted" daughter? "Mia Farrow's adopted daughter." "Dylan's adopted father, Woody Allen." Would biology make this different somehow?

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 05:32 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 7:48am

Pete Hamill in today's NY Daily News says Mia Farrow made the whole thing up.



NY Daily News: Hamill: Dylan Farrow's child molestation claims against Woody Allen were planted by Mia Farrow

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:24am

Wow. That's even more biased than the daily beast piece. Talk about a propaganda mouthpiece for Allen.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 8:46am

Okay... how about we all just let this one go. There are only two to three people who know what happened. Everything else is speculation.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 10:01am

Does that headband say "TEAM MIA" on it or something? For godsakes. Have we established what is so wrong and offensive about weighing in on a public, open letter?

What does "biased" mean in this context? Does that mean people who do not form opinions on the story?

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 10:01 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 10:13am

The way this is constructed, if you doubt Dylan, you doubt every woman who has ever been silenced--and that undoubtedly was Mia's plan from the beginning.

It's too bad we have to have this debate about "Is Dylan telling the truth or is Woody?" The really valuable answer would be to the question "Is Mia telling the truth?"

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 10:36am

Mia has always *loved* to be viewed as the benevolent earth mother, so I'm sure it was a big blow to her when one of her adopted children ran off with her boyfriend (remember her hunger strike for Darfur a couple of years ago?).

I do understand why a lot of people really don't want it to be true that Farrow is lying because they feel like it will make real victims of abuse look bad. I'm sympathetic to those kinds of feelings. But that's not a good enough excuse to string Mr. Allen up. Nope, sorry. (Somebody told me to drink bleach the other day for bringing the up the fact that Allen was never convicted of anything, so I'm *really* tired of all of this b.s.)

Unlike, say, Angelina Jolie, who has seemed to try to work on the emotional problems she had as a young person and become a strong adult woman, Ms. Farrow continues to use her platform as one of the most privileged white women on the planet to attack her ex-boyfriend.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:10pm

But isn't this the era we are entering? (Or have been slung into?) What is private anymore? If a tree falls in the woods and isn't reported immediately on social media, did it make a sound? If something interesting/damning/infuriating/hysterical/embarrassing happens, it immediately goes up. Passive aggressiveness or just outright aggressiveness has an easy platform. It started small, but now it seems to be a way of life. I have totally fallen into the trap, personally. When something funny happens or my daughter does something cute, I think, "I need to put that on Facebook." Part of that is to share with my distant family and friends. The other part is just a ridiculous instinct. It keeps me from truly being in the moment sometimes. With celebrity, they have TMZ, bloggers, and (as mentioned above) fan bases with unprecedented access to information on celebrities, more than willing to pick up a pitchfork. If you really want to hurt someone, it's easy and taking it back or backing down is next to impossible. Private truths or lies take off at the speed of a match strike.

I get what you're saying and I'm sure we all fall into the "trap". I don't have kids but I'm guilty of sharing pictures of my cats or whatever zany thought has entered my mind. Just yesterday I posted on FB that I had a dream where I became besties with Jane Seymour. But, that is harmless and doesn't have lasting consequences. It becomes murky territory when you get into what can be considered libel.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:12pm

If you were besties I hope she gave you one of those necklaces of hers.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:42pm

Open heart or something? Good times.

I agree with Borstal that this is a really excellent thread.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:46pm

It will always look like ass and boobs to me.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:49pm

Oh. Oh my. Oh my heavens. That is sensational.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 12:58pm

I can always can on ya'll when I need a laugh. I love you guys.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:12pm

I know you're not saying that like it's a bad thing. I'm just missing the days when papalovesmambo would have made the automatic first response to that pic!

[tazber]

Posted: 2/4/14 at 1:24pm

Is she frowning because she has KAS*?



*Kardashian Ass Syndrome