An Open Letter from Dylan Farrow- Page 2

[ghostlight2]

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

:) Thanks DAME. I needed that.

theatreguy, I hear what you're saying. This situation is a good deal more complicated, though. Allen was the adoptive father for two of Mia's children, the biological father of a third, and somehow he is "not a father to her [other] adopted kids in any sense of the word"? They are still brothers and sisters and they occupied the same house that he visited daily for over a ten year period. It just makes no sense to me. Allen may not have lived with Mia, but they took family trips to places like Russia together. Also, I think it is certainly possible to have more than one father figure.

As a bit of continuity regarding Dylan's letter, from the Vanity Fair article referred to in DAME's link:

To close the nightmare down, a few days before the Newsweek and Time cover stories came out, Mia told friends, Woody had agreed to drop the custody case and sign the original agreement if Mia would say she was dropping the abuse charges and the family would deal with the issue privately. “I think Woody’s big thrust is: You poisoned the atmosphere so much that Dylan’s making this thing up,” says Lynn Nesbit. Thus, an eyewitness who has given an affidavit to police says, Mia went to Dylan to see if she was willing to recant. Mia said, “Dylan, you know, we all make up stories. Everybody does that. Sometimes we know we made it up.” But the little girl would not back down. “If he says he didn’t,” Dylan answered, “he’s lying.”







'92 Vanity Fair article Updated On: 2/2/14 at 02:12 AM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 7:19am

While I am not a woody fan, nor a farrow one either. This just reeks of dirty laundry being aired.

[tazber]

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

Does anyone know what precipitated Dylan to reveal this now?

Then there was this odd paragraph from a story about Dylan's letter on Buzzfeed:

At the Oscars on March 2, Cate Blanchett is favored to win Best Actress for Blue Jasmine, in which she played Jasmine, a mentally ill wreck who ruined her life by turning her husband in for his (financial) crimes. The movie ends with Jasmine talking to herself on a park bench, and for those of us who saw real-life parallels in the story, and who also thought throughout the movie that Blanchett physically resembles Mia Farrow, it does feel like a revenge fantasy on Allen’s part.

I loved Blue Jasmine and think Blanchette gives a stunningly brilliant performance, but I never picked up on the Jasmine/Farrow connection.

The whole family is a hotbed of dysfunction. I'm not prepared to pass judgement on any of them because it seems like they all (including Ronan) have agendas.

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 08:01 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 8:17am

1) There have always been and always will be some great artists who do and or who may have done some horrid things. I, personally, have no problem separating the facts of the bad people have done from the good they have done.

2) I don't recall anything like this for Michael Jackson who was lionized at his death, and was still beloved by hundreds of millions of people after his umpteenth accusation of child sexual abuse. And there is no reason why Jackson shouldn't have been beloved and lionized as an artist. The same is true of Allen.

3) Even people who decades ago actually commit horrible acts - let alone those who are either never convicted or never admit to having committed them, so the status remains that of allegations, however convincing those allegations might be - should, in my opinion, still be able to work and contribute to society. This is true whether they are manual laborers or great artists.

4) I have no issues with Dylan Farrow talking about what happened to her - or, at the very least, what she believes happened to her (leaving aside the possibility that she is just making it up, which remains, with due respect to Ms. Farrow, a possibility; people do make things up, even sometimes people we believe are completely sincere and reliable). I have no issue with her publicly speaking up.

5) She is shaming Allen, and I can well understand why she might feel the need to do this.

6) However, I think it's unfortunate that she feels the need to shame people who work with Woody Allen or those of us who continue to love his work. There is no shame in loving the work of the shameful or the wicked. And the only shame in collaborating with them is when one collaborates with them in wicked or shameful acts. I also think it is unfortunate that she shames Diane Keaton as a friend of Allen's. First of all it may well be that Keaton does not believe that Allen abused Farrow. Second, even if Keaton does believe that Allen abused Farrow, or that he might have done so, loving people who have done horrible things is, in my opinion, human and, if the world's great religions and spiritual guides teach us anything, isn't it that the kind of compassion which provides continuing love even for those who have committed horrible acts is a supreme virtue, not something deserving of shame?








Updated On: 2/2/14 at 08:17 AM

[tazber]

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

Yes, I agree Henrik. I don't think it does her any favors that she shames people who work with Woody.

Again, I'm not discounting her letter nor am I running to condemn Allen. There is so much that we simply don't know.

For me, the real issue is separating Woody from his work. It's a general discussion that has been had on here several times and remains as thorny and ever.

All I can say is that I loved Blue Jasmine and was deeply moved by the writing and acting.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 9:37am

"I also think it is unfortunate that she shames Diane Keaton as a friend of Allen's."

This is what I find strange about her attitude. Keaton may have been close to Allen, but that doesn't mean she knew what was going on. Why drag her into all of this?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 9:51am

However, I think it's unfortunate that she feels the need to shame people who work with Woody Allen or those of us who continue to love his work.

Abuse, hidden abuse, suspected abuse and imagined abuse are all horrible things that leave families scarred. They often end in "teams" being carved out: those who "believe" the child on one side and those who "defend" the adult on the other. No one feels good about being on the side they end up and, and there is enormous ambivalence all around. These families usually splinter, and people stop speaking to siblings and parents for years, decades, sometimes the remainder of their lives.

By speaking out publicly about someone who has been revered for decades, Mia, Ronan and Dylan Farrow are prosecuting Woody Allen in the court of his extended family of his colleagues and fans.

No good can come of it. No peace, no clarity, no understanding and certainly no apology or forgiveness. At least in families, a confrontation or mediation can sometimes--not always--allow people to move on without being consumed by anger and bitterness. I see no hope for that here.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 9:53am

Regardless of what the truth is, clearly Dylan has suffered a lot.

Still, her mother is doing the exact same thing she talked about in her letter by continuing to support Roman Polanski.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 10:03am

In this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. None of us knows the truth. Whatever you feel happened or didn't happen is your opinion, but no one can say that yes, he definitely abused her, or no, he did not. We may never know, and until then, IJ'll continue to separate the man from the art.

p.s. I have to agree with henries' entire post. Very well said.

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 10:03 AM

[NYadgal]

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

henrik and PalJoey - I agree with every word you've written. As I agree with everyone who has shared an opinion that they wonder why she is going after those who worked with and are friends with Woody Allen.

And, I do continue to wonder: why now?

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 11:08 AM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:20am

'Why now?' Can be applied to a lot of abuse victims toward people who are public figures. The various members of the Catholic Diocese, the countless victims of BBC presenter Jimmy Savile, etc. I'm just staying humane toward Dylan.

Sam Adams of IndieWire does a good job unpacking a lot of the pieces, gets to my problem with the Daily Beast piece (which sorry, that author was not an objective observer), and the art/artist issue because that seems to hang over a lot of opinion:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-open-letter

[Gothampc]

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

"You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?"

I find it interesting how people's minds work. Dianne Wiest also knew her as a little girl, but she's not mentioned. Is Dylan acting as a channel for her mother's enemies? Because Wiest stayed friendly with Mia, she gets a pass? Because Keaton was a muse of Allen's, she gets targeted?

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 11:22 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:24am

I think (hope!) we're all staying humane to Dylan. It's a devastating letter to read.

I think we all agree this is just a sad situation for all involved.

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 11:24 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:28am

I do not know what the truth is, and at this point, no one will really know - except that Dylan's truth is that she was molested by Allen. I wonder if the Daily Beast article motivated her statement, since it seemed like a biased piece of writing that reeks to me of Hollywood spin control after Ronan's statements at the Golden Globes. The author had a personal and professional relationship with Allen. It was not an objective third party piece.

Dylan clearly believes this happened, but no one really knows the truth other than she and Allen - and if the allegations are false, well, then she needs a lot more help working through whatever happened to her in her childhood.

For the record, I have a harder time separating the art from the artists - How many of you would continue support an avowed homophobe, anti-Semite or racists? Because this is an allegation, and not a statement of fact, Allen is entitled to the benefit of the doubt - but there are times at least for me, because art is so personal, where the artist does overwhelm the art.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:37am

It is like the internet is living the scene from August: Osage County when Karen leaves the house in the second act.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:50am

Yes! It's very much kind of like that.

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 11:50 AM

[Jane2]

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

"How many of you would continue support an avowed homophobe, anti-Semite or racists? "

I feel able to do that. Art is so much a part of me that I do it. I have a hard time articulating what I feel, as usual but it's almost like there is no artist behind the work. I look at a piece (or listen to it) and can be carried away with awe. It doesn't matter to me who created it. That's how much I"m impressed by what they can do.

I know this sounds wacky.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:57am

It's not that I doubt anyone's humanity it's that when there was the prior thread and before the letter I got almost zero sense of it. There was a reason that thread disappeared.

Anyway, Adams does note how personal the art can be on that artist, especially with Allen. He also notes it is hard to have it both ways with somebody like a Polanski and think his issues with women, young women to be more specific, can be tabled in any discussion on his career but his own personal traumas of the Holocaust are one of his defining, informed statements within his art.

I have zero doubts that TDB piece had some roll in the letter. The Golden Globes controversy had petered off before that piece was published. Also, 'Woody is claustrophobic so it could never happen there' is one of the most chilling lines of defenses I have ever read on the subject.

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 11:57 AM

[trentsketch]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 11:58am

The Daily Beast list is the worst and the knee-jerk "but but but" linking/copying pisses me off.

#10 is the most disgusting part. Read it carefully. The author is blaming Mia Farrow for any possible abuse. It's her fault that Woody Allen may have abused her children because she insisted the man she was dating for 12 years actually play a role in the life of her children. That settles it. Lock her in a cell and throw away the key. Mia Farrow is the real monster for daring to trust the man she dated for 12 years with the well-being of her children.

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 11:58 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 12:08pm

"How many of you would continue support an avowed homophobe, anti-Semite or racists?"

I think if Woody Allen were an avowed inveterate child sexual abuser, the discussion might be a very different one.

But he's not. He denies it. He's certainly not someone who, as in your examples of avowed homophobes, anti-Semites or racists, not only confesses the harm but advocates and promotes it as a philosophy of life and continues to do so.

(Btw, I take it you aren't speaking of reformed racists but of people who keep up the struggle for supremacism. As an example of people supporting reformed racists, Ted Kennedy had no problem being a very supportive friend of Robert Byrd's. (which brings up the many who forgave Ted Kennedy for Chappaquidick but that's another matter, although not without any materiality for this discussion).

Updated On: 2/2/14 at 12:08 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 12:13pm

Which is exactly why I said he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. These are unproven allegations, and there clearly are different takes on what happened.

I was addressing the more abstract argument that art is art, irrelevant of the artist.

Specifically, " 1) There have always been and always will be some great artists who do and or who may have done some horrid things. I, personally, have no problem separating the facts of the bad people have done from the good they have done."

I understand those who can appreciate art in a vacuum. I just cannot. Especially when appreciating art entails providing those people with financial means and resources to continue the conduct in the process. Perhaps once they past, and the damage they can do in real time is over I would be more forgiving. But I have seen and heard too much enabling of the "tortured" artists without any accountability for the behavior of such men and women to willingly provide financial support to them.

I get that others can do it. I just cannot.
Updated On: 2/2/14 at 12:13 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 12:30pm

" I understand those who can appreciate art in a vacuum. I just cannot."

Maybe I do, I don't know. For example, I know David Hockney well enough to understand what he's about. In fact, I am the model in one of his works. BTW, he has done nothing wrong! I'm using him as an example because I know him to be quite a genius - in his technical ability and in his knowledge of other artists. When he speaks, I'm transfixed on his every word.

HOWEVER-when I look at his work, yes, I can say "Oh, I know him" but even though he is the one who created the work, I am able to appreciate a painting for its color, composition, etc. without reflecting on the artist's personality, including their good or bad traits.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 12:35pm

Jane, I think the commerce side of the art is where I have issues - when by appreciating the art, in this case prints, books, movies, music and/or other works sold to the masses, you are financially supporting the artist (albeit in a very very small way).

I think I would be better separating the art from the artist once the commerce component of the art is gone at least to the extent it directly benefits the artist.

But again, that is just me - other people have different reactions and internal compasses - I am not saying I am right, just responding to the earlier post.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 12:51pm

I think what weakens Dylan's letter is her casting blame on all the people Woody has worked with. Her letter would be much stronger if she had just stuck to her story. Lighting a torch and trying to form a lynch mob makes her look mentally unstable.

All of this will blow over. Woody already has a strong body of work that won't be tarnished. Dylan should focus her energy on helping abused women and children.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/2/14 at 1:04pm

I think part of what Dylan is responding to indirectly in her letter is that Cate Blanchett’s awards speeches and Diane Keaton’s tribute to Allen at the Golden Globes largely centered on praising Allen for the roles he has created for women in his films. What Dylan seems to be saying is that people and in particular the actreses who are praising Allen for this seem to have forgotten- or avoided Allen’s (abusive in her words) treatment of women in his actual life.

Can you separate those two things? Art from life? That’s what this debate is likely to center on.