Keyterm: Rashomon Effect February 07, 2014

The Allen/Farrow accusation http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

I haven't pissed off a whole bunch of readers in a while now. Time for this blog to get back to what it used to do best. What do I think of Dylan Farrow's claim that she was abused by Woody Allen? The story has been taken as irrefutable by feminist writers on Salon, who follow a simple method for ascertaining truth: "Does the accused party have a penis? If so...GUILTY!" No need to weigh evidence or to hear both sides or to acknowledge grey areas. Females are holy, female are sacred, females are genetically incapable of lying or being mistaken on even the smallest of issues. Yada yada yada. We all know the drill by now. Problem: Dylan's brother Moses says it never happened. Moses says that Dylan has been continually harangued and quasi-brainwashed by her mother Mia. Frankly, his story seems more believable.

Many feminists will, of course, argue that Moses was, is, the brainwashee. They will tell you that brainwashing is a 100 percent male thing. Females would never stoop to such tactics because females are holy, females are sacred, yada yada yada.

To which I say: Let's look at who we're dealing with here. Maureen O'Sullivan may have been a goddess (I've watched Tarzan and His Mate quite a few times, and not because I wanted to see Johnny Weissmuller wrestle a crocodile), but let's be honest: Flakiness runs in that family. I'm thinking of the Beatles in India. Remember...? It was an escapade in which O'Sullivan's daughters, Prudence and Mia Farrow, played key roles. One of the Beatles' best songs came into being because Prudence refused to leave her hut unless John and Paul coaxed her out. The India adventure ended when guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi allegedly tried to rape Mia -- or so we have long been told. Here's a typical telling of the original story...

In an episode now etched in Beatle folklore, however, they, too, packed their bags in disgust after Mia Farrow fled the Maharishi's cave in tears, claiming that the supposedly celibate swami had grabbed her in his hairy arms and tried to make advances towards her. "Boys! Boys! What's wrong? Why are you leaving?" the Maharishi is said to have shouted after them. "If you're so f*****g cosmic, you'll know," came Lennon's withering reply.

That certainly sounds like something Lennon would say. But here's where things get all Rashomon-y: A more recent revised version of the story has the Maharishi kicking the boys out for drug usage. As for Mia: Another disciple, Deepak Chopra, had this to say about that... Dr Chopra said of the rumour that the guru had misbehaved with Farrow, who was part of the entourage: "There was never any truth to stories about the maharishi's womanising. When he was sick in the UK, he wouldn't even allow any female nurses near him. "As for the stuff about Mia Farrow, that was complete nonsense. I met her years later and she asked me to tell the maharishi that she still loved him," he said. Oddly, Mia just recently went back to the first version of the tale. This woman has a history of getting involved in Rashomon situations. Maybe we should all be allowed only one major Rashomon in our lives. After that, credibility suffers. I don't believe that Maharishi "put the moves" on Mia Farrow. On the other hand, Lennon's "cosmic" comment seems genuine.

So how to reconcile the two conflicting stories? Well, the simplest explanation is that a woman intent on making herself the center of a grand drama made a false accusation against a religious teacher. The Beatles believed her because men always believe women who say such things. Besides, they were annoyed by their guru's "no dope" rules. If you were a young man in that time and place, whose side would you be likelier to take -- that of the pretty hippie chick, or that of the prudish old Hindu? I realize that feminists of a certain stripe will refuse even to consider the possibility I've outlined here. Women are holy, women are sacred, and women never lie. Let's get back to this business of brainwashing children. That question is at the core of the Moses and Dylan story: One side will accuse Moses of being a brainwashee while the other will say the same about Dylan.

I prefer to look at this problem from a new direction. What's the difference between the Dylan Farrow case and the McMartin preschool molestation case? As longtime readers may recall, I got to know one of the McMartin mothers. Not well, but not glancingly. She was a nice lady. Quite smart. Artistic. Despite what some people may prefer to believe, there was no hint of religious zealotry in anything she said or did. I talked to her boy some years after the case was over. He did not retract his claim. In fact, as far as I know, none of the McMartin children have retracted their claims. Nevertheless many of you would argue that those kids were brainwashed by their parents and counselors. All I can say is, the mother I met obviously never brainwashed anyone. Her child (at the time I spoke to him) was a typical rebellious teen (or tween) who was hardly going to say or do anything just to please his mom. Quite the opposite, I should say. Nevertheless, there are many of you who will insist that the McMartin molestation claims were always pure fantasy. You will arrogantly proclaim that you can take me to school on the matter, even though you never spoke to any of the parents or children personally and know what you know only through reading. (And believe me, you haven't read as much as I have.) All right. Fine. But let me ask you this: By what standard can we accept the Dylan Farrow accusation against Woody Allen while dismissing all the claims against the people who ran the McMartin preschool? And you if you don't believe the McMartin kids, why do you believe Dylan?

I think that some people grant Dylan greater credibility not because her evidence is better but because her tale fits a larger narrative: All celebrities are fiends -- at least the male ones. The ones who seem lovable and funny are the ones most likely to be secretly fiendish. We love that narrative. That story got hard-wired into the American psyche back in the days of Fatty Arbuckle. Similarly, some of us are convinced that all females are incapable of venal or capricious or just plain nutty behavior. To such people, it is Thoughtcrime Most Foul to suggest that there have always been women who cannot distinguish between hallucination and reality. It is Thoughtcrime Most Foul to suggest that -- on occasion, not always, not often, but from time to time -- such women have caused upheavals. And while it is not Thoughtcrime Most Foul to suggest that Woody brainwashed Moses, it is Thoughtcrime Most Foul to suggest that Mia brainwashed Dylan. Therefore, Woody Allen is a pedophile. And Goody Proctor is a witch.

On a related note: While doing some quick-n-dirty googling on the life of Mia Farrow just now, I ran across this: In 2000, her adopted daughter, Tam Farrow, died of a long protracted illness. In December of 2008, Farrow faced tragedy again when her adopted daughter, Lark Song Previn, died of undisclosed circumstances. On June 15, 2009, Farrow's brother, artist Patrick Farrow, was found dead in his New York art gallery. Suspicious circumstances surround his death, but police have not revealed details. Say what...?

Update: Woody Allen's response is here (Sunday,New York Times 2- 9-14) and here. It's better than persuasive -- it's convincing. Particularly this part, which seems inarguable: 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. I'll say it again. We're all allowed one major Rashomon episode in our lives; after that, credibility suffers. Mia Farrow has now appeared in at least three major Rashomon conflicts, and it's getting hard to believe that it's always someone else's fault.

Permalink Comments: Don't forget Mia's brother was sentenced for child sexual abuse. Mia Farrow is batshit crazy. She is timing these old, old allegations (via her kids) in order to influence the Oscars and to promote son Ronan's new television show. It's as cynical as anything you will ever see. Allen "60 Minutes" interview from two decades ago: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woody-allen-defends-himself-on-60-minutes-in-92/

…… Woody's response in the NY Times:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?

If the firewall blocks you, this article summarizes it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/woody-allen-nyt-oped-2014-2

The certitude and visceral hatred being displayed by Dylan's supporters amazes me. It frightens me, too, dissuading me to this point from expressing an opinion that questions Dylan's story in any way. (The same way fear of being labeled an anti-Semite dissuades some/many of Israel's critics.)

So does this mean that I shouldn't believe Maureen O'Sullivan's (Mia Farrow’s mother and famous film actress ) statements about Cheeta's sexual proclivities? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vob5Mu-ZxB8

Anyway, here's the scoop from Mia's psychologist who broke the bad news to Woody. http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html

"Woody Allen was never Soon Yi's father, legally or in any other way. He didn't live with her. He didn't raise her. Soon Yi had a father, André Previn, which is why her name is Soon Yi Pevin. Mia Farrow made Woody Allen get to know Soon Yi because she was tired of him ignoring her."

comment by CSStrowbridge

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a-look-back-at-the-allegations-against-woody-allen

In 1972, I met Bill Wellman, whom she references in that interview. (Wellman worked on "Tarzan Escapes," a film largely reshot by an uncredited John Farrow. I think that's how he and Maureen met.) Alas, Wellman did not talk about Cheetah on the occasion when I had a chance to talk with him. But quite an occasion it was -- a day I'd love to relive. I ought to tell the whole story one of these weekends. Wellman was a great guy and a brave aviator, and I'm proud to have shaken his hand.

For the benefit of readers who don't want to follow the link, C Barr directed our attention to an interesting comment on a Talking Points Memo page. Most of that comment is devoted to the Soon-Yi situation. But this paragraph is downright intriguing: "I've heard a rather compelling hypothesis that Dylan Farrow was molested by Mia Farrow's brother, John Charles Villers-Farrow, who is currently in prison for child molesting. Mia Farrow then convinced Dylan it was Woody Allen who did it and after years of brainwashing, she now believes it completely."

I see no proof, but the idea makes sense. One man has a history of committing such offenses; the other does not. While we're talking Maureen O'Sullivan on the periphery of this story... It was only this last year while watching those fantastic first two old Tarzan films, especially the scenes of their little love nest up high in the forest, that I recognized something. Those are all willow trees growing down in the Los Angeles River bed behind the film studio in Burbank. Weismuller and O'Sullivan were probably six feet off the ground for those treetop romantic moments. I also realized the truth of why my dad was such a Tarzan fan. I can only imagine how Maureen stirred the "thoughts" of an impressionable young teenager in 1932. Oh my. How I love those movies.

Ah, CBarr, you take me back. I toured the Burbank Studios lot a few times -- on the last occasion, they had redressed the New York City set for "Blade Runner." (By "toured," read "snuck in.") Much of the Jungle area seems to be gone now, although apparently they still shoot "True Blood" there. While overflying the area via Google Earth, I was a little shocked to see what had happened to the L.A. River, which is a completely artificial construct. Nowadays, it seems, the area has been stripped back down to the concrete. But as recently as ten-or-so years ago, the place was a total swamp, completely overgrown and wild. (We would take Bella for walks in the area nearby.)

I think what made Maureen so enticing was the combination of that skimpy costume and that very civilized, posh accent. You can hear traces of it when Mia speaks. I think it's one reason why she had such a big impact on a lot of guys. Additional note, C Barr: I just read that the L.A. River was paved in 1937. Before that (when they were making the Tarzan movies), it was an often-dry creek that would overflow dangerously during rains. 1937? Los Angeles was inundated by flood waters in 1938. I remember my father talking about the devastation below Tujunga Wash. I believe the channelization occurred as a response to these floods.

Wasn't the song, "Sexie Sadie", about the Maharishi? [ The Beatles’ song, Dear Prudence” does refer to Mia’s sister who was also with them in India.) Knowing that the young lass in question was Mia Farrow puts a whole new spin on the incident. Farrow is meant to be a Polanski supporter, and Dylan's story is pretty implausible. Two words: "Rosemary's Baby"

Woody? Isn't he the one who married his daughter? There is NO excuse for that. None! Woody does share a trait with Seinfeldt - grifters gotta grift. I don't see the talent. I'm not so myopic that I can't see that!

No, Woody is not the one who married his daughter. He married the daughter of the conductor, Andre Previn, whose marriage to Dory Previn was ended in a divorce from his adulterous relationship with Mia Farrow.

Maureen Orth is the widow of Tim Russert and is not an objective reporter. She is a close friend of Mia Farrow's. I wouldn't be surprised if she and her son Luke Russert pulled strings to get Mia's son Ronan a gig with MSNBC. Her article way back in 1992 was discussed on the Allen 60 Minutes interview which I have the URL in the first post on these comments.

This is a much better article:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

Use some common sense, people. If Allen really was a molester, he and his wife Soon-Yi would NEVER have been allowed to adopt two children. He mentioned this in his column. Mia Farrow is batshit crazy and is using these old, discredited allegations as a sick publicity stunt. And no, I am not a fan of Woody Allen or his films. I just detest somebody being wrongly accused.

comment by CSStrowbridge

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a-look-back-at-the-allegations-against-woody-allen Actually Barkman is exactly Buckley. The psychologist who was my expert was also the expert in the McMartin case. He was stunned by the similarities. I therefore looked very deeply into the McMartin case. It was the same thing. The bizarre stories, the complete lack of any physical evidence, the failure to accurately describe how sexual relations occur, the way the authorities interviewed the children, and on and on. I actually interrogated one of the child accusers near the time of the accusations. I may not be a human lie detector, I don't think any of us are, but the absurdity was so obvious that I didn't need to be one. One more

thing to consider, when young children are actually physically penetrated, they are generally murdered. That is because physical penetration is so painful that the children can't stop screaming and the only way to shut them up is to kill them.