Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by futureshock

  1. 42 minutes ago, ZOK said:

    Which is what all artists have done with story since the concept existed. Building something new from a source is something to celebrate, not deride.


    I'm not deriding - the Everything is a Remix series is awesome at making the same point.

  2. 35 minutes ago, andygt said:

    Can anyone point me in the direction of the evidence that Mia Farrow opted to be part of Woody Allens lifetime achievement award?

    All I can find are lots of articles where she's criticising it.




    I produced and directed the two-part PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, that premiered in the U.S. on the “American Masters” series. I also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage that aired as part of the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement.

    When I went online the morning after the Globes broadcast, I found more than one email asking if I had seen the previous night’s tweets from Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan. A quick search led me not only to the accusatory tweets, but to the explosion of internet chatter that followed in their wake. The more benevolent comments suggested Woody should rot in jail. Others were demanding his head on a pike.


    My more recent professional association with Woody took place last month, when I was asked to work on the Allen clip montage for the Golden Globes. The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.) I thought it unlikely that Mia would object, as I had obtained a signed release for my documentary, in which she granted permission for her appearance in many lengthy clips from several Allen films. At the time, I was extremely grateful for her cooperation, for without it, I would have had a 12-year gap in my film, and Mia would have been extremely conspicuous by her absence. I even took it as a possible sign that 20 years after the fact, perhaps the healing process had begun to take hold. As a further sign of good will, Mia agreed to the use of her “Purple Rose” clip in the Golden Globe montage. The producers of the show were grateful. Everyone agreed it would have been a shame not to acknowledge Mia’s contribution to so many of Allen’s best films.


    Apparently, Mia and Ronan assigned more significance to the festivities than did Woody, seeing the televised occasion as a perfect opportunity to bring him down a few pegs. The first of Mia’s tweets, issued as the Woody segment commenced, was restrained and kind of cute: “Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS.” I smiled when I read it, and thought, “Why not? You already saw the montage when you approved the use of your clip.” Her second tweet, referencing the recent Vanity Fair article, was nastier: “A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen’s molestation of her at age 7. GoldenGlobe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors.”

    This one puzzled me. I thought it was odd to say the Globe tribute showed contempt for abuse survivors when Mia willfully participated in the festivities by expressly agreeing to the use of her clip, when she had every opportunity to decline. She certainly wasn’t pressured, and we had an alternative version of the montage (sans Mia) all ready to go in case she passed. It seemed Mia either wanted it both ways, or simply assumed no one would ever learn that she was complicit in the tribute. By the time I saw her third tweet, asking, “Is he a pedophile?” and linking to the Vanity Fair article, my most charitable thought was that this woman needs to get over herself. A more mischievous part of me wanted to repost her tweet, but swap out her link for one leading to an article about the recent 10-year jail sentence received by her brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, for multiple counts of child molestation—a topic she’s been unusually quiet about, considering her penchant for calling out alleged (let alone, convicted) molesters to whom she’s exposed her children.



  3. Just now, NickC said:



    And none of what you said is relevant. You're conflating a very real thing of why people were silent under an ogre boss like Weinstein to a totally different case where the "abuse" took place, the police were called and a doctor inspected the child on the same day. There was no silence. No "I better be quiet if I want to keep my career" stuff.


  4. 27 minutes ago, NickC said:


    No you plank, my point is that when sexual abuse is happening, and I have no idea if it took place in Woody Allen's case, people do seemingly illogical things with abusers when they have knowledge of the abuse taking place. It happens all the time.  How do you think some abusers manage to continue abusing for so long? Because they learn to abuse people or surround themselves with people that won't tell, people they think they have power over. 


    And how is any of that related to the Mia Farrow case? The award was in 2014. They hadn't been together for 20+ years. 

  5. Just now, NickC said:


    I'm not sure that's evidence of anything, is it? I mean, most of these women abused by Weinstein went on to work with him, had publicity photos taken with him, they probably praised him from time to time or clapped him at award ceremonies. And the thousands of people who knew about it shook his hand and attended his parties.


    It doesn't mean much when we're discussing the use of power to abuse people. 


    Let me get this straight - you're actually suggesting Mia signed up for the award because she lacked power and hoped to get some acting work in the future? Do you even know anything about her? Jesus H Christ on a bike, the stupidly of this comment. Talk about perfect barometers.

  6. 38 minutes ago, geekette said:

    Why are you so invested in defending some creepy old guy you have never met, and discrediting the women and children who have made allegations against him? That someone would choose to do that on this forum (and in a thread about an example of the widespread culture of sexual harassments and assault from powerful men) is the barometer for me of the state of society's bias towards powerful perpetrators and against those who speak up against them.


    Of course it is, because when you're a hammer, all you see are nails. You're not in the least bit interested in Truth, your salivating 'Ooh's and embellishments are clear for everybody to see. You're not interested that a spurned, heart-broken woman had the very real motivation to claim molestation where there wasn't any, in an attempt to ruin his life and career - all you possess is this robotic WOMAN. MUST PROTECT WOMAN mantra with no judgement on facts or reality, or how incredibly flimsy so much of the case is, not to mention the unavoidably damning revelation that she opted to be part of his lifetime achievement ceremony. If you can mentally figure out why a mother would choose to be part of a molester's Cecil B Demille award, I'd love to hear it. Really. I'm sure it's a doozy. 

  7. 3 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

    Yes, conjecture. 


    I'm trying to gauge just how naive you'd have to be to believe the story, I mean, just on the timing alone - it was a weeks after Mia and Woody exploded over Soon Yi, and while the world was watching, Woody, on one of his supervised visits, with a house full of people, decided that day was the day he was going to start his new paedophile hobby. I mean, really? Be serious. It's far more likely that people believe it because they want to believe it, or even worse, they need to believe it. It's always a safe bet to keep an eye on the type of people who protest the most and need to believe stuff like that. You know, the people who embellish the details like they were writing fan fiction. Scary people.

  8. 2 hours ago, kerraig UK said:

    Everything else is conjecture.


    Everything? We know from court documents that Mia Farrow spent three days recording 7 year old Dylan on video asking her repeatedly "where did he touch you?", which was the basis of people asking whether there was coaching or some kind of brainwashing going on. We know one nanny quit under pressure from Mia to get on board with the story.  We know Mia Farrow refused a lie detector, but that Woody took his and passed. There's a lot to the case that's more than simply "This adult made this accusation and everything else is conjecture."




    Mia’s allegations of molestation automatically triggered a criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in an investigative team from the Yale-New Haven Hospital, whose six-month long inquiry (which included medical examinations) concluded that Dylan had not been molested.

    As for the evidentiary videotape of young Dylan’s claims, it’s been noted that there were several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera “edits” to the young girl’s commentary. This raises questions as to what was happening when the tape wasn’t running. Was Mia “coaching” her daughter off-camera, as suggested by the investigators?

    The videotape and the medical exams weren’t the only problems Mia faced in bringing abuse charges against her former lover. There were problems with inconsistencies in her daughter’s off-camera narrative as well. A New York Times article dated March 26, 1993, quotes from Mia’s own testimony, during which she recalled taking the child to a doctor on the same day as the alleged incident. Farrow recalled, “I think (Dylan) said (Allen) touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” at which point Mia patted her shoulders. Farrow recalls she took Dylan to another doctor, four days later. On the stand, Allen’s attorney asked Mia about the second doctor’s findings: “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Farrow answered, “Yes.”

    Former nanny Monica Thompson swore in a deposition to Allen’s attorneys that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges, and the pressure led her to resign her position. Thompson had this to say about the videotape: “I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do… and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

    Thompson further revealed a conversation she had with Kristie Groteke, another nanny. “She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes."

    Dr. John M. Leventhal, who headed the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team looking into the abuse charges. An article from the New York Times dated May 4, 1993, includes some interesting excerpts of their findings. As to why the team felt the charges didn’t hold water, Leventhal states: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

    Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each time Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films. Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. Woody took one and passed.



    Meanwhile, Moses Farrow, now almost 40, claims Mia Farrow was emotionally and physically abusive towards her children, and coached his sister Dylan to accuse their father of sexual abuse. 

  9. 1 hour ago, geekette said:

    A person can be a "father figure" by being a prominent male in a childs life and/or by being in a relationship with a mother figure. They don't have to do active parenting tasks, to be related by blood or marriage, or to live in the household. And the term doesn't imply that there isn't also an actual father (whether biological or adoptive) in the child's life. In this instance Allen was in a relationship with their mother, used to visit frequently, be part of breakfast, read to the children, tell them stories, and join them for stays in their country house. If he wasn't nurturing, and didn't care enough to keep track of their lives, that doesn't stop him being a father figure. To imply otherwise is nit-picking and disingenuous -


    There's nothing nitpicking about it. Even Mia Farrow said he had little to do with the Previn kids, while Soon Yi said she already had a dad, so quite how and why you think she'd start seeing Woody as a father figure is quite extraordinary, given all three parties say otherwise. You're coming across as if you want it to be true.



    and let us not forget that you are coming out to do so in the cause of defending sexually inappropriate men.


    The only thing I'm defending are the facts of the matter. You literally said he was her step-father. This is demonstrably untrue. That is not a little detail to get wrong, in my opinion, so when you go on to talk about him being her dad figure for twelve years, it boggles the mind that you can possibly think that's true, but then, apparently he's her step-father, so anything goes in this crazed narrative.

  10. 41 minutes ago, geekette said:

    hardly merits a response



    You embellished facts to make the story more salacious. You said he was "a father figure for twelve years", and yet in the very link you posted from the custody battle, the judge makes it clear that he doesn't rate him as much of a father at all. So which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

    “To think that Woody was in any way a father or stepfather to me is laughable,” Soon Yi said. “My parents are Andre Previn and Mia, but obviously they're not even my real parents. I came to America when I was 7. I was never remotely close to Woody.”

  11. 14 hours ago, geekette said:

    Ooh, I hadn't twigged that the reporter who broke the story was Ronan Farrow, Woody's estranged son (who may or may not be Sinatra's biological son). No wonder he has an interest in investigating such stories, given the allegations about how Woody abused his sister. Woody also had affairs with teenage actresses, liked to mix work and personal lives, and then had an affair with his step-daughter who he subsequently married. He is about 40 years her senior, and they got together when she was 18-21* so it seems he might have some common ground with Weinstein, as well as feeling indebted to him for taking him in to Miramax after the scandal broke.


    Complicated and tangled motivations at play. However, Ronan has got a pretty impressive CV now I looked him up (and seems pretty well-balanced, which might suggest that Farrow did a good job parenting him after separating from Woody, despite all the allegations of her being manipulative and having coached Dylan/Malone to lie). Seems like NBC declined to run the story, so he offered it to the New York Times.


    * her age was estimated from bone scans, and she was presumed to have learning disabilities when adopted from South Korea, as she had no language, perhaps due to head injuries.


    4 hours ago, geekette said:

    I don't think there is any dispute that he took pornographic photographs of the 18-21 year old adopted daughter of his partner, had an affair with her and subsequently married her, despite being nearly 40 years older than her and having been a father figure to her for twelve years, since she was a very young child. 


    Don't let facts get in the way of a good ol' hanging.

    "he had an affair with his step-daughter" - She wasn't his step-daughter. 

    "a father figure for twelve years" - Andre Previn was her adoptive father and actual real life father figure. Woody was her adoptive mum's boyfriend. According to court documents and Mia's own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon Yi was 18/20), Woody "had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi". Woody and Mia never lived together. In fact, Woody never once stayed overnight at Mia's apartment in 12 years.

    Added to that, whatever peculiar shape their relationship took, according to Mia's own words on how Ronan Farrow was (possibly) conceived, it would mean that half way through her and Woody's 12 year relationship, years before she said he was guilty of anything, she tracked down one 71 year old Frank Sinatra, had his kid, and lied to Woody that he was the father. It's either the actions of a sick person, or a sick joke, especially considering Barbara Sinatra was still alive at the time.

    "learning difficulties" - Pathetic. In her own words: "I'm not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather—not by a long shot. I'm a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia."

    Mia Farrow's own description of Soon Yi changed considerably over the years, starting off by insisting she was the innocent victim of a sexual predator, which is odd considering Mia reacted by reportedly beating her, slapped her, cut up her clothes and banished her from the family, not before cancelling her college fees, of course. Once Soon-Yi found the ability to push back against the innocent tag, Mia then labelled her a sociopath who scratched, bit and attempted to kill her. 

    If anybody is still dense enough to think Mia isn't a deranged mental patient, some added bonus nuggets: 

    1. She was happy to defend Polanksi in court against a Vanity Fair libel case.

    2. Aged 19, she was happy to marry a 51 year old Frank Sinatra. 

    3. The allegations against Woody interfering with 7 year old Dylan came out just weeks after Mia found out about Woody and Soon Yi. What a happy coincidence!

    4. Mia Farrow signed releases and give permission to be included in the Golden Globes ceremony, celebrating Woody Allen's career. Nothing quite says "This man molested my child!" like agreeing to appear in a montage for his lifetime achievement award.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.