Friday, February 07, 2014

The "woman scorned" problem

Woody Allen has responded to Dylan Farrow's allegation by blaming Mia Farrow for everything - which is what his online partisans generally do, in my experience with them. And like them, Woody Allen has a "woman scorned" problem:
I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
Now the "woman scorned" issue comes from the saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." The tacit meaning of the woman scorned argument is that Mia Farrow was so distraught over Allen rejecting her for her own daughter that she would destroy Allen at all costs. But if Farrow was seeing Sinatra, then clearly she wasn't all that invested in her relationship with Allen.

And as far as integrity, I was amazed when Allen stated:
I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. 
According to Farrow's autobiography not only did she have a problem with Allen's behavior,  years before the incident, but a therapist who witnessed Allen's behavior with Dylan said it was inappropriate and Allen was seeking treatment for it, including for his compulsion to stick his thumb in her mouth. If this is not true, why doesn't Allen say it was not true? Why doesn't he claim that Farrow invented the therapist out of thin air?

And finally, Allen tries to suggest that the judge in the custody trial was biased against him:
But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia’s adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman...
But no matter how biased the judge was, there doesn't seem to be any way for Allen to dispute what the judge states, which is a description of a trial that was recorded as it happened and is in the public record. Is Allen suggesting that Wilk was so biased against him that he would perjure himself to say this?
None of the witnesses who testified on Mr. Allen's behalf provided credible evidence that he is an appropriate custodial parent. Indeed, none would venture an opinion that he should be granted custody. When asked, even Mr. Allen could not provide an acceptable reason for a change in custody.
That hardly seems likely.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Allen's failure to get custody of the children, combined with his known inappropriate behavior towards Dylan should be enough, in themselves to tarnish his reputation.

But I suggest that even if Dylan's charges were proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is unlikely it would impact Woody Allen in any significant way. As Roman Polanski has proven, even if you are a convicted child molester, you can still have a nice life and a thriving career.

And the lesson in this is that Great Men of the Arts can do anything they want, and get away with it.

No comments:

Post a Comment