I have read that, DAME, and frankly, it makes me feel slightly ill. While I'm not prepared to get out the pitchforks for Allen, the writer is so obviously an Allen apologist. His bullet points are bizarre at best:
#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years. Talk about splitting hairs - does anyone deny that Woody and Mia had a very serious, longstanding relationship of over a decade, involving adopting kids together and even (officially, anyway, despite recent doubts) having a biological child of their own? Ought it really matter that they weren't technically married?
#7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn. So Allen was a father (or father figure) to Soon-Yi's brothers and sisters, but not her, despite the fact that he was in her life from the age of 8? It beggars belief.
That article doesn't help Allen's case, in my opinion. Neither did Allen's interview in Time magazine back in '01. Here is one of his less charming exchanges from that:
Q. How could you get involved with someone who was almost a daughter?
A. I am not Soon-Yi's father or stepfather. I've never even lived with Mia. I've never in my entire life slept at Mia's apartment, and I never even used to go over there until my children came along seven years ago. I never had any family dinners over there. I was not a father to her adopted kids in any sense of the word.
Q. But wasn't it breaking many bonds of trust to become involved with your lover's daughter?
A. There's no downside to it. The only thing unusual is that she's Mia's daughter. But she's an adopted daughter and a grown woman. I could have met her at a party or something.Time magazine