<p>Geez, it’s not what I’m saying, it’s what I’m reading in court documents. Post numbers would help, here.</p>
<p>The child molestation is an accusation and I would have believed too until I read more. Now, I have doubt. That’s all I’m saying. I’m defending no-one.</p>
<p>Again, I fail to understand how bringing this up and essentially demanding a trial in the public’s mind is helpful toward letting go of bitterness and of achieving healing. Putting aside Woody and Mia, a bunch of siblings have no relationships with each other and this only makes the chances of reconciliation worse. Again, Samantha Geimer has the only intelligent take on this, that if a case is prosecutable or not, you still have to put it behind you and move on with your life as a healthy, happy human being. </p>
<p>I have no trouble thinking that Mia Farrow and Woody Allen are both narcissists - heck, Allen has made a career out of that - and that over the years neither of them has done a remotely good job of helping their families put this in the past. As my wife pointed out, we’ve known Holocaust victims who’ve done a better job of getting past much worse … and Mia doesn’t talk to her daughter and this kid doesn’t talk to that kid and this kid attacks that kid in public and this kid attacks that one. Bad parenting. </p>
<p>Are you saying it doesn’t help to see your attacker punished? Lergnom, I don’t understand your post. Let a murderer or rapist go since it won’t help you heal? That’s a strange notion. I am sorry but it helps to see your attacker punished. It also helps to diminish the bitterness. In fact the bitterness increases if your attacker isn’t punished.</p>
<p>The problem is that the truth is very elusive in this particular case. My mind changes back and forth with every article I read. The judge’s decision swayed me toward guilt by Allen, but even there the psychologist said the inappropriate behavior was not “sexual” in her opinion. Well, what does that mean? So yes, it does help to have your attacker punished, but that can’t happen without her bringing an action against him. Unfortunately, the Statute of Limitations has expired so she and Mia are turning to the “court of public opinion.” Not sure that is going help this family going forward. Just more bitterness and dysfunction. Very tough situation all around.</p>
<p>
Are we assuming here that the behavior that required correction was sexual in nature? That seems unlikely. What mother would allow continued contact between a father and a parent who molested that child no matter what kind of therapy he was undergoing? (From at least one of the articles I read, it appears Allen was focused to the point of obsession on Dylan, not letting her have a moment of independence when they were together. Problematic behavior, definitely. Equivalent to molestation, not at all.) So either Farrow was so completely unhinged that she left her daughter available to be prey to a molesting father, or the behavior being addressed in therapy was non-sexual in nature, in which case I don’t see it’s relevance to the molestation accusation.</p>
<p>
It’s long past the point when Allen could be “punished” by the state, but I suppose if you consider public shaming “punishment”, then your statement makes sense. I have to wonder if Allen couldn’t get Dylan to shut up by bringing a libel suit against her. Truth is the only defense to libel, and given the muddied history, I question whether Dylan could ever prove her allegations are true. I think Allen must at least be considering this tactic.</p>
<p>They will go forward when they are ready. I am sure it would help them if they win in the court of public opinion and prevent WA from getting another award. It is what it is. Whether it truly helps them or not, they gotta do what they gotta just as WA did by revealing confidential notes about 7-year old Dylan on the steps of Yale. What theater.</p>
<p>MommaJ, I agree with Iglooo that this is all about the court of public opinion. Dylan Farrow’s statement was released after Woody Allen received the People’s Choice lifetime achievement award and was cited by many of his contemporaries as a genius. And that started this round of statements by the Farrow faction and the Allen faction.</p>
<p>IMHO, you can be both a genius and a horrible person. He wouldn’t be the first.</p>
<p>All we know for sure is that the entire family was dysfunctional in a variety of ways. I believe Dylan believes he molested her but that doesn’t necessarily mean it happened. There are plenty of problems in that family to raise doubts about all of them. imho.</p>
<p>Allegedly WA doesn’t care about getting awards. He never goes to the ceremonies. I remember a line from Annie Hall when she tells him she is going to the Grammys with her new boyfriend. </p>
<p>WA’s character says
</p>
<p>So I don’t know if keeping WA from getting any more would have the effect Dylan hopes. </p>
<p>If your murderer would rather be in jail than free, would you rather see him not convicted? I would still like to send him to jail.</p>
<p>The Roman Polanski example shows that people will still give awards to somebody who was convicted of a serious crime and is essentially a fugitive from justice. So it’s unrealistic to think that these revived accusations are going to do much harm to Woody Allen at this point. I’m not saying that it’s wrong or right–but it’s an effort doomed to frustration.</p>
<p>^^^I agree. And if the only thing which heals Dylan is WA going to jail, then she is never going to heal. </p>
<p>I would think it would be easier to heal if one’s abuser is held fully accountable. But that is often not possible (they are never convicted or they die before they are ever exposed, they never even acknowledge it much less apologize, etc.). In those cases, the victims may have to work a little harder to find peace, but they will be much better off if they can do so. If they stay angry for life, it seems to me that that hurts them far more than it hurts the perpetrator. I hope Dylan is still working with a therapist to help her find peace.</p>
<p>That may be. But more people are learning about WA’s discretion. I certainly didn’t know anything about Dyaln until now. Before that he was just a weird guy touching and marrying his girlfriend’s daughter. That’s bad enough but to me forgivable. Molesting a child is on a whole new level.</p>
<p>Those charges were raised at the time. Reaction was mixed, just the same as now. It was 20 years ago. And, even the other kids have varying versions of the truth. Some outright say it’s all a big lie. Others support Mia & Dylan. </p>
<p>I don’t now I think it’s very unhealthy to stew about this anger for that long at her mother’s encouragement. The flames are being fanned and there’s really no way to explain that in a positive fashion. It accomplishes nothing.</p>
<p>^^^^^^I imagine it could be like a cancer eating you from the inside out. </p>
<p>Flossy, if the abuse story was merely the product of Mia’s delusional jealousy then why does the court give her sole custody of the children despite, I believe, two appeals by WA?</p>
<p>Krililies - I have no idea about child custody or if he even wanted it. I mean he was very clear about the fact that he never wanted to be a father at that time. Mia just kept adopting all these kids and they weren’t even married.or living together. He had a separate apartment across the park. The whole thing was a mess that was painted as a very hip, cool, non-traditional relationship. But, there was plenty of dysfunction to go around.That’s clear.</p>
<p>Did he do it. I don’t know. But, here’s another interesting version of the tragic tale.</p>
<p><a href=“Woody & Mia: A Greek tragedy”>http://nypost.com/2014/02/08/woody-mia-a-greek-tragedy/</a></p>
<p>In response to Igloo, as Samantha Geiner points out, there are cases you can prove and cases you can’t prove. In her case, her mother wanted prosecution, a deal was agreed to and then the judge refused to go along - the full details of that are complicated. Samantha didn’t want to go through the ordeal of a trial.</p>
<p>But she’s clear and I think all the responses here make clear: this is not a case where there can be a trial or a conviction and all that happens is people respond to bits and pieces of old evidence, with statements taken out of contexts, but it isn’t a trial, there can’t be a trial and there is no “punishment” possible … unless you believe that keeping open wounds festering and that perpetuating enmity among siblings is “punishment”. I suppose it is, but this is the exact kind of thing that we’re taught should be put in the past. In other words, we expect people in various countries to put aside that their relatives have been murdered and their houses destroyed but that this family isn’t supposed to get past this? Why? Because they’re famous? So everything we’re taught about how to be healthy and happy doesn’t matter if you need revenge … </p>
<p>BTW, I believe Woody tried for custody because of the battle. You sort of have to do this if your counter argument is that Mia was coaching the kids. Mia was the mother of 6 other kids - not even counting Soon-Yi and Ronan - and Woody was only adoptive father of two of those, Dylan and Moses. (As we know, Moses is now aligned with his father’s side in this, though he wasn’t then.) Mia raised the children in her house while Woody had his own house. I find the idea he could get custody silly; he wasn’t the father of any but 1 (and now that’s a maybe) and didn’t live full time with them. </p>
<p>People will negotiate their hurt in their own way. No one can lecture them how or what should be done. Clearly that was what WA was doing when he publicized the confidential notes on 7-year old Dylan. Why don’t you lecture him, too? Did you tell him back then however much it hurts, he needs to protect his young kid’s privacy and keep mouth shut to be a father?</p>