It's been a while since I wrote anything here about the Woody Allen matter. I think the last time, my view was that he didn't do it but I probably didn't sound as adamant as some of the people we now see insisting that he's — as they used to say in Doonesbury — GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. The more I read about this case though, the more I move towards NOT GUILTY, NOT GUILTY, NOT GUILTY.
Seems to me that a lot of people have made up their minds about this matter based on hearing about 50% of the story. In today's online world, that's a lot. It seems to happen with every controversy, as does the tendency to stake out a position and refuse to ever budge from it no matter what additional info comes to light.
Stubbornness, of course, way predates the Internet but nowadays, just as you are never more than two clicks away from porn, you are never more than two clicks away from disinformation or from someone who concurs with and reinforces the stupidest thing you may have chosen to believe. I can easily find people who agree with me that Shemp was a better Stooge than Curly, that Batman was better when he wasn't psychotic and that cole slaw should never be taken internally.
What I'll get from them is a lot of "You're so right" and many bogus corroborating "facts"…but I could still be wrong except, of course, about the cole slaw.
I was a little reticent to get into the Allen/Farrow brouhaha again here for several reasons, chief among them that I absolutely support the #MeToo movement and think it's waaaaaay (with at least six a's) overdue to call out and expose human beings who don't act like human beings — i.e., Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, et al.
I know and have known women who have been abused doubly — first by men who abused power in order to abuse women; secondly by a system that made the women afraid to say or do anything about it. I'd hate to be accused of not supporting a crusade that empowers the powerless simply because I have some doubts about one specific allegation…or even a few of 'em.
And it's not just about women. Isn't it still the #MeToo movement when it empowers men who are abused by men or women who are more powerful? If it isn't, it should be.
Secondly, I like and respect Woody Allen the comedian and filmmaker. Like a lot of folks who do, I'm not particularly enamored of most of his recent films but that's irrelevant to the question of whether he did the foul deed that so many have decided he did. In any case, I don't want to make the easy-to-make mistake of siding with him just because I liked Annie Hall or Midnight in Paris or his old monologues. I didn't make that mistake with Bill Cosby or a few others and I don't want to make it here.
And thirdly and lastly for now: I see a lot of people whose belief that Allen is a pervert and a molester starts with the fact that he dated and wed a woman 35 years younger. That seems to be all some need to hear to believe any allegation about him, especially of a sexual nature.
I would not argue with someone who said that the break-up with Mia and leaving the nekkid photos where they could be found was foolish and/or cruel. If you care at all about this nastiness, you know what I'm talking about. I might though wonder if we know as much about that whole story as we think we know. I wonder that about a lot of stories in the news about the private lives of public figures, including the Trumps, the Obamas, the Clintons and anyone named Kardashian, Baldwin or Jenner.
I would argue with someone who insisted, as so many do, that Woody wooed and married his own daughter. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. And having decided Allen did one terrible thing, others who dislike him figure that proves he did or probably did any terrible thing that is charged. That leap, I don't buy. I keep thinking of something one of my college professors said once: "A faulty argument is a faulty argument even if it points to the truth." Even in the Court of Public Opinion with its general lack of rules, a person should not be convicted of a serious crime via a faulty argument.
So that's one thing that bothers me about the case against Woody Allen. Another is the push to ignore the older brother of that seven-year-old girl who of course is also the younger brother of Soon-Yi.
Moses Farrow is now a fully-grown professional family therapist, which suggests he might have some understanding of families and how dysfunctional some can be. He doesn't think Woody did anything wrong in marrying Soon-Yi and does not believe Woody molested Dylan. Those who are pressing the portrait of Woody Allen as child molester have dealt with Moses's contrary accounts by simply pretending he does not exist.
Yesterday's New York Times had another article by Nicholas Kristof, the columnist who more than anyone else perhaps has been driving this story that Allen molested Dylan. A self-described close friend of the Farrow family, he repeats a lot of the damning things he's said over and over about Woody but as in so many of these pieces, there is no mention of Moses.
I'm going to quote here from one of the few columnists who has acknowledged his existence, Hadley Freeman…
…in the past 26 years the only new development has been the emergence of Moses Farrow, Dylan's older brother, who has become increasingly vocal about the abuse he claims he suffered at the hands of his mother; he claims Farrow brainwashed her children about Allen. Dylan has dismissed her brother's allegations as "irrelevant". But why is one child's claim of abuse irrelevant and another's urgent?
Good question. So many of those who say we must "listen to the victims" seem to not want to listen to Moses — or for that matter, to Soon-Yi, who has similar tales of abuse. That's a large part of what I was referring to earlier about passing judgment on this matter based on 50% of the evidence.
I mentioned earlier that I was hesitant to write about this controversy for several reasons and I've named two. A third has to do with what I see as another of those faulty arguments. There are those who, leaving aside the question of whether Woody had any sort of actual parental role in Soon-Yi's upbringing, insist that someone's desire to have consensual sex with a much-younger woman of 20 proves he must have wanted the non-consensual kind with a seven-year-old child. I can't see how it follows for anyone that the gap of years 'twixt Woody and Soon-Yi suggests any predilection for pedophilia. I have a self-interest here which will be addressed beginning in the next paragraph.
Yes, there are those who find the age difference in the Woody/Soon-Yi relationship creepy, just as some think it's wrong when two consenting adults of the same gender get together….or two consenting adults of different races. Me, I've long believed that if two people are consenting adults, their sex lives are none of my business and if the relationship works for them, great. There are 876,000 divorces in this country per year so obviously, Mr. Allen and his mate of 2.6 decades are happier together than millions of pair-ups where both parties were of approximately the same age. Over a much shorter span, I have been quite happy in my current relationship with a lady who is 42 years younger than I am.
I'm embarrassed to say I balked at speaking up because I didn't want anyone saying, "You're just defending him because you like younger women!" I do like some younger women. I also like some older women. My last lady friend was older than me and I was with her for twenty years.
When the present one wises up and dumps me, I'll hope to find someone else I like and as long as she's an adult and wants to be with me, her age won't matter one bit. (For the record, the last time I so much as fantasized about a woman under the age of eighteen, I was under the age of seventeen. That's what happens when you skip grades and everyone in your classes at school is older than you are.)
I do not know Mr. Allen. We've never met, though we do have some mutual friends including my cousin David, author of this book on the man. David, who I consider a smart guy and a good reporter, believes Woody is innocent but his conclusions are his and mine are mine.
Also, a recurring topic on this blog, because it is a long-held concern in my life, is the wrongful conviction of innocent people. I posted something about that recently and many times before that. Since the dawn of man, innocent people have gone to prison or even been executed based on fallacious testimony. Does anyone doubt that's still possible?
And also, I see all these articles online where folks wrestle with the question of how to view the work of Woody Allen now that he is a proven child-molester. Before I do that, I'd like to be convinced he's a proven child-molester…and so far, I'm not.