<p>Did he have a biological child with Mia Farrow? She later said the father of Ronan could have been Frank Sinatra and from looking at his photo, Ronan looks a lot like Sinatra and nothing like Woody Allen.</p>
<p>Even if Rowan is not Allen’s biological child, he signed the birth certificate as his father. Allen and Farrow had a long, very involved relationship. And Soon-Yi was her child.</p>
<p>Ronan does look like Frank Sinatra. Woody Allen has been married 3 times and didn’t have biological children with any of his wives so I do wonder if he really is Ronan’s biological father. </p>
<p>As noted, Soon-Yi was not Allen’s daughter in any sense (unwise to use the Daily Mail as a source); he didn’t even share a home with her. I agree that the ick factor is high, and that Allen was betraying Farrow when he started the relationship, but, hey, when you don’t take marriage vows or even live with someone, you don’t get to expect fidelity–not that fidelity was ever a big deal to Farrow, who started an affair with Andre Previn while he was married. </p>
<p>Is anyone even a little suspicious that Ronan Farrow is suddenly popping up in the news (his mom’s “his dad could be anyone” nonsense and his high profile with respect to his sister’s claims) after years of obscurity just as he’s beginning a TV career? In truth, I wouldn’t want to be stranded on a desert island with any of these people.</p>
<p>Mother Jones has update the story with 2 responses from Woody Allen’s people:</p>
<ol>
<li>From his attorney Elkan Abramowitz:</li>
</ol>
<p>“It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces after it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities. The one to blame for Dylan’s distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen.”</p>
<ol>
<li>From his publicist Leslee Dart:</li>
</ol>
<p>“Mr. Allen has read the article and found it untrue and disgraceful. He will be responding very soon…At the time, a thorough investigation was conducted by court appointed independent experts. The experts concluded there was no credible evidence of molestation; that Dylan Farrow had an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality; and that Dylan Farrow had likely been coached by her mother Mia Farrow. No charges were ever filed.”</p>
<p>And this is why stuff like this is both toxic and not handled well by courts. What is true? Memories of a 7 year old that came out only when the family fell apart? Denials that those memories are true?</p>
<p>I don’t know but I act cautiously because I remember very clearly the “Believe the Children” bumper stickers and even posters. What were they for? Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations at pre-schools. Children coached, telling utterly horrific stories of massive abuse (and secret tunnels and animal sacrifices, etc.). People went to prison. And absolutely none of it was true. Memories can be implanted and manipulated. We now understand better that coaching can make a memory real. So what happened with Woody and Dylan? Can anyone say anything other than “I choose to believe x” with no other evidence at all?</p>
<p>He was in a relationship with Mia Farrow for about 10 years, making Soon Yi about 9 or 10 when the relationship with her mother started. His son with Soon Yi’s mother (he was at the time considered to be his biological son) was raised with Soon Yi as his sister. I don’t see any way to look at WA starting a relationship with his lover’s daughter and son’s sister as anything other than repugnant.</p>
<p>As far as his movies, I never got what people saw in them, so my opinion of him isn’t a factor in my not watching them.</p>
<p>His movies have always underwhelmed me. His demeanor and awkwardness make me uncomfortable. </p>
<p>Holly cow! I have been lied to for years by the media. </p>
<p>MommaJ, what would you think to have a mom friend dating a man for many years with whom she adopted a child and then, shortly thereafter, dates and marries her 20-year-old daughter? It’s not just a matter of infidelity but repugnant, exploitative behavior. Sure, a 20-year-old is an adult (sort of) but this was beyond the pale.</p>
<p>I don’t love all of Woody Allen’s movies, but enjoyed many, many, many of them. I do think he holds an important place in American movies and believe he’s very influential. I find Dylan Farrow’s allegations tremendously troubling, as I do the whole business of Allen being tried in the media and in the court of public opinion. This is nasty business, and unlikely to have any good resolution for anyone involved. This is one troubled, divided family - or, former family. </p>
<p>Lergnom–I doubted those daycare stories from the beginning. Because they came from a culture that produced them. I DO NOT doubt Dylan’s story–because it comes from a culture of family sexual abuse, not a culture of made up stories. Totally different situations.</p>
<p>The children in the daycare stories were much younger and clearly manipulated in the transcripts, plus the “expert testimony” has been totally discredited.</p>
<p>The opposite is true of sexual abuse of children overall. There is no evidence that Dylan was coached, only evidenced that Allen’s celebrity trumps what a seven year old says she experienced.</p>
<p>The two sides argument is a reiteration of the rape culture playbook. The daycare stories were an exceptional case, and it’s a travesty to put them forward to defend any other case.</p>
<p>The daycare stories were not an exceptional case – there were many situations in that era involving divorce where suddenly child sexual abuse was claimed by the mother. One of my former colleagues ended in this situation, and didn’t get to see his young daughter for a year until it could be proved that the allegations were not substantiated. </p>
<p>Mia Farrow is …odd, and she certainly followed her own pattern of inappropriate relationships with much, much older men. I wonder what Dory Previn thinks of the claims. </p>
<p>Actually, Dory Previn died in February of 2012.</p>
<p>She was (rather inexplicably, to me) reportedly very supportive of Mia Farrow. </p>
<p>I remember this Dory Previn song “Beware of Young Girls” – written after Mia had an affair with Dory’s husband.</p>
<p>We were friends
Oh yes
We were
And she just took him from my life
Oh yes
She did
So young and vain
She brought me pain
But
I am wise enough to say
She will leave him
One thoughtless day
She’ll just leave him
And go away
Oh yes</p>
<p>Beware
Of young girls
Who come to the door
Wistful and pale
Of twenty and four
Delivering daisies
With delicate hands</p>
<p>garland, I have no expertise in childhood sexual molestation, but isn’t it actually the case that young children’s memories are incredibly suggestible, which is why only really competent interviewers should ever be talking to children about sexual molestation claims? I can really see how a parent with either a conscious or unconscious agenda could influence a child’s interpretation of another parent’s behavior.</p>
<p>Unfortunately in many cases, it’s impossible to know just how accurate a child’s memory of these kinds of events are. They should always be taken seriously, but with great care as children can be so easily manipulated.</p>
<p><a href=“The Suggestibility of Children: An Evaluation by Social Scientists”>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/suggestibility.html</a></p>
<p>I tend to believe what Dylan is saying, but only Woody would know if she is telling the truth. It seems that she has been traumatized. She was 7 years old, which, imo is old enough to remember. Woody always seemed creepy and neurotic to me, and always had a thing for young females–VERY young. I’ve seen only a few of his movies. I did like Midnight in Paris (at least he got someone else to play “himself”–I recall the Owen Wilson character walking off with the young French girl at the end. Typical Woody. He keeps getting older, but the girls always stay the same age.)</p>
<p>I think it’s a travesty to assume a seven year old doesn’t know what she’s saying. That with no proof, the assumption is she might have been manipulated. Wonder how many kids don’t speak up or are not believed because of that kind of thinking?</p>
<p>This article sums up well my position on this: <a href=“http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/woody-allens-good-name/”>http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/woody-allens-good-name/</a></p>
<p>In the days of not so long ago, people believed you could “recover memories”. A number of people are in prison - and more have had their lives ruined - because a child (and sometimes a relative or baby sitter or other unrelated person who visited) claims abuse that surfaced through therapy. The people in prison of course tend to have had allegations made when the child was young, meaning within the statute of limitations, and that is usually in the context of some other family trouble, often but not always divorce. </p>
<p>Problem is the entire idea of recovering memories is scientifically wrong. It has been showed over and over and over that memories can be implanted quite easily, even in experiments when people know what’s going on, when they realize they’re being manipulated. </p>
<p>We’ve also learned that children’s memories are more pliable than adults, that they tend to accept as real what adults might label as dreaming or fantasy or imagination. (This should be obvious given stories like The Velveteen Rabbit and the way we’ve seen kids play.) Researchers have found it’s easier, not harder to implant memories in children. And they can create horrific memories. Some of this seems to happen because children’s brains form what occurs to them into a coherent story so if they’re manipulated into a story that x happened then it makes sense in their story for x to have happened. </p>
<p>I believe Allen’s attorney had it correct: this may not be about Woody or Dylan, that both may be victims. Whatever happened, Dylan believes this is what happened and these are her memories now. Woody’s position is that this occurred because Mia and perhaps others manipulated the children when the great betrayal with Soon-Yi was found out. </p>
<p>As an addition, the creation of memory is not fixed but occurs over time. You pull up something in new context each time and that new context makes a slightly different - or very different story. This is why eye witness testimony is actually the least reliable. Remember My Cousin Vinnie: the guy who was making breakfast says he put the grits on as he saw the guys enter the convenience store and then saw them come out … and it took Vinnie to point out he’d lost 20+ minutes because it takes that long to make grits. </p>