Mia Farrow's son -- Ronan Seamus Farrow -- really creeps me out!

slate did a big series on memory a few years ago that i found compelling. it had a large impact on my beliefs about how memory works. i haven't reread it recently, and i don't know if the consensus has shifted from its findings, but it led me to believe memory was far less trustworthy in almost every situation. nb i have no opinion on how it relates to this case. ppl itt have mentioned that this might be different bc it's a consistent claim from childhood to adulthood + maybe that's so. i'm not an expert, but if we're going to discuss false memories, i thought this was relevant: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_memory_doctor/2010/05/the_ministry_of_truth.html

― Mordy , Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:33 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is interesting, but the kinds of "memories" we're talking about here are of an entirely different nature -- i.e. remote events that the subjects would be unlikely to remember correctly in the first place rather than deeply troubling personal events. I have yet to see a study that shows that something as powerful as an incident of child molestation can be whole-cloth fabricated and then "implanted" in the mind of a seven-year-old.

Is there a reason a 7yo can't "recover" a repressed memory of childhood abuse just like an adult? The premise in both is that the trauma repressed it- not that it was too distant and malleable. I think the slate series discusses maybe in a later installment?

ftr it does not appear that the memory in question was ever repressed

I mean if I were going to be charitable I would say ok, maybe Mia Farrow didn't plot to "implant" a memory in Dylan's brain, but maybe in the grip of the moment, with all of the family strife going on, the incident occurred where Dylan was found without her underwear, and then Farrow, already furious with Allen and concerned about his behavior and under intense stress, believed something must have happened. And then maybe in the grip of that belief she over-suggested the idea to Dylan, and maybe Dylan's overall discomfort with Allen resonated with the idea and she came to believe it happened. That seems far-fetched to me too, but at least it doesn't rely on a quasi-conspiracy theory.

I have certain childhood memories that I can't straighten out in my mind. I once got a swim counselor fired when I was 5 years old because I told my parents she had held me under water. I was very afraid of swimming and of being underwater, and I know that I went underwater, and I know that it was traumatic, and I remember that the swim counselor was impatient with me, but I was never sure, even shortly after I told them, if that was what had really happened.

I have another memory of I think getting attacked by some older kids in a locker room at camp, maybe age 6, and it's a scary memory, but it's this fuzzy, blurry memory and I'm not always sure what or even whether it happened, and the more I think about the "memory" the more the kind of mental image I'm creating becomes fixed in place of any memory, like a criminal suspect that starts to look more like the police sketch.

Neither of these amount to memories of being sexually abused, however, and, again, I've never read a story of a person who was coaxed into falsely believing they were sexually abused and continued to believe as much into adulthood (although it would be difficult to conclusively establish that).

ftr it does not appear that the memory in question was ever repressed

― How dare you tarnish the reputation of Turturro's yodel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:01 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Correct

yeah her testimony describes the abuse as coloring and affecting her whole life, doesn't sound like there was any "gap" of time where the memory was repressed and then later recovered

That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

also she's not just recalling a single traumatic event, she describes a pervasive pattern of stuff

Anyone have a quick reputable link to a story with which I can refute my reporter friend's contention that Allen can't be a pedophile because (a) Farrow is the only accuser (b) pedophiles have patterns of behavior?

yes, it really is so bad, you dense and hateful drama queen.

― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:18 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'd like to stab a couple of you fuckers through the heart

― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:19 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

will try that, thanks!

see, da croupier, that's what my oldschool Queens editor friend who dated Woody's teenage gf would call "faggot shit." And I'm never offended.

xxxpost: i feel like those contentions are just sort of illogical -- pedophiles don't always have obvious 'patterns of behavior' because a) they're not always caught and b) they don't always get the opportunity to act on their impulses. plus, like anonanon notes, there was a pattern of behavior, it just happened to be directed toward one person.

I kind of feel like the burden of proof should rest on the person asserting that bit of folk wisdom in the first place

I do happen to know someone who was molested by a relative who did not also molest their siblings, not that that thirdhand story will win any arguments with your friend.

obviously any categorical "ALL pedophiles drive like THIS" equation is specious

it's true there's usually a pattern, but extrapolating a universal from that is wrong

I found this:
http://oregonsatf.org/about/satf-membership/offender-management-committee/myths-and-misconceptions-about-sex-offenders/

there are no citations unfortunately

why is woody allen never also accused of compulsive child-collecting, he has adopted four to mia's nine and also acquired and quarantined one of hers.

thats going to be a super fucking dark episode of "Hoarders" when they get around to it

my god

sickened

partic cos i just spent the interim trying to work 4/9 into one of his movie titles, damn

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/an-imbalance-of-power-the-woody-allen-and-dylan-farrow-controversy/

molly lambert rules, i wish she had a better place to write

I need to get off Facebook tonight. I've gotta say: the three worst skeptics on my wall have been gay men.

from lambert: "Weide defended Allen based on his own interactions with him, painted Mia Farrow as unstable, and publicly revealed Dylan Farrow’s new name."

not having read weide, i didn't know this happened.

one of my fb friends just posted the weide thing again as "a well-researched look at the facts" and unfortunately it's someone i really shouldn't be picking a fight with

Maybe it's fodder for a different thread, but the mention by Lambert of Polanski reminds me of how shocked I was to find out that so many of the famous groupies of that era were essentially high school freshmen - what was it about the '70s that celebrities frollicking with 13 and 14-year olds was acceptable?
Was it just a transfer of the semi-acceptability of young marriage (Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chaplin) combined with the changing sexual mores?

To be fair on one point, Weide didn't really "publicly reveal" Dylan's new name -- you could find it pretty easily with a quick google search.

I think it was mentioned in other prior articles about the farrows

that doesnt mean he didn't publicly reveal it...

https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/status/247025259562295296

#1 thing i've learned itt is y'all are facebook friends with some assholes jfc

ah i see

still...

xp

painted Mia Farrow as unstable

ball two

yes, we get it

#1 thing i've learned itt is y'all are facebook friends with some assholes jfc

― worthless lucubrations w/ ill-concealed apathy bro (zachlyon), Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:43 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you aren't?

I'm mostly only facebook friends with people who are less of an asshole than I am. Sometimes it winds up in embarrassment, like the time I made fun of that paleo-running thing and a runner got really offended, or the time I shat on Macklemore and an acquaintance was like "come on, you know it's awesome :)"

Maybe it's fodder for a different thread, but the mention by Lambert of Polanski reminds me of how shocked I was to find out that so many of the famous groupies of that era were essentially high school freshmen - what was it about the '70s that celebrities frollicking with 13 and 14-year olds was acceptable?
Was it just a transfer of the semi-acceptability of young marriage (Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chaplin) combined with the changing sexual mores?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:14 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It even predates that. Suzy Shaw tells a story in the first Bomp! book about how she and a friend were hanging out on the Sunset Strip in the mid-60s when the were both 14-15, and they were approached by a promoter who needed 'talent' to entertain bands he'd brought into town (this was back you could bring, say, the Animals over and book them at the Whisky for 1-1 1/2 week engagements). They accepted and ended up working with the guy for around six months before bowing out (I believe Suzy married Greg Shaw not long after). She goes on to mention going to work at labels and at Bomp! in the 70s and re-encountering many of the musicians she'd been with, who always told her they felt they knew her from somewhere, but to save embarrassment she wouldn't remind them where or how or when.

one of my fb friends just posted the weide thing again as "a well-researched look at the facts" and unfortunately it's someone i really shouldn't be picking a fight with

admit it, it was woody

i just spent like an hour catching up with this horrible thread:
1. lex never responded to that thing about shady protags but he was being misread and also otm -- it's way too common in film/tv for writers to write their characters with skepticism/irony in mind and then completely betray that by filming them with in a way that seems unaware of the intention. it's more difficult in tv where the viewer's commitment to a character is long and sometimes grueling and that horrible, horrible character still needs to be written and presented in a way that keeps ratings up. but in wide-release mainstream film, too, the baseline is "the audience is meant to relate to the main character" -- that's what's expected, and if a major film isn't very actively chipping away from that in a way that might be too obvious to be good, that horrible character is going have a lot of horrible fans. and sometimes filmmakers are just shitty at using film language and technique to communicate a character's repugnance. it's one of my big problems with breaking bad (spoilers?) and vince gilligan acting so surprised and angered that so many fans supported walt to the end, necessitating that terrible speech to skylar/the camera in the last episode -- it doesn't matter how many times you pound your script with CHARACTER IS BAD if the camera is still portraying him as a hero. please no one respond to this i don't want to derail this thread into breaking bad arguments i never want to talk about breaking bad i'm sorry

2. "these are fundamentally different things tho. rape is a crime. being crazy is not."

ugh in this context accusing mia farrow of insanity is as important as the rape accusation because it's the #1 thing used to invalidate what dylan wrote and defend woody allen in this court of public opinion come on

3. wishing rape on people for any reason invalidates the experiences of people who've been raped and is probably like in the top 5 Ways To Promote Rape Culture come on

you aren't?

― flopson, Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:58 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no one who shows up on my feed at least has defended woody, just generally not friends anymore with ppl who value facebook as a means of preaching about current events like this one. idk like i'm 25 and i know my """generation""" generally doesn't have much invested in woody but i've possibly made a concerted effort to avoid the types of people my age who are invested in woody

sounds like everyone is generally talking about like their critic friends or professor peers or smth, i'm not friends with those types and apparently that's a good thing

yeah when i saw that comment my first thought was "you're young".

worthless lucubrations of ill-concealed apathy imo

idk like i'm 25 and i know my """generation""" generally doesn't have much invested in woody but i've possibly made a concerted effort to avoid the types of people my age who are invested in woody

I just realized this (probably because I never really thought about it) the other day, but people my age (I'm 31) only know the Soon-Yi-era Woody persona because that's what we grew up with. I was 10 when the controversy was first in the news, and that had to be my introduction to his name. Of course I saw his films later, but viewing them came through that filter, and any discussion of them among peers did as well.

That Didion piece up there is really OTM in some ways, off the mark in some ways. And reminds me of Kael's review of "Play It As It Lays," which IIRC is scathing in a similar way-- so there's some irony there.

I don't really feel inclined to re-evaluate Allen's work in the context of Farrow's account or search for clues in his filmography relating the two because it just feels pointless, and overly biographical readings of people's work (be it music, film, literature whatever) have always seemed tiresome and reductive to me.

Generally speaking, agree with the latter point; recognize you might be referring to some of my posts here.

In my defense, I'm not reading WA's work biographically, tout court. Coming at this as someone who's been a long time fan of WA movies, watched and thought about many of them many times. TBH, I have found myself at times, in passing, engaging in some biographical conjecture-- but think this is almost inevitable with WA, for various reasons (in fair part his own doing)-- anyway this is the least of my interests in, thoughts about, or readings of the films.

I'm not engaging in an "objective" re-evaluation of the films. I'm just describing a *subjective* re-evaluation.. noting a change in the way I, personally, experience and read the films… and I'm interested in probing the how and the why of this change. None of this is generalizable.

Don't mean to be self-righteous or tell anyone else what to think/ feel; I'm more interested in trying to be/ stay honest with myself. NB I read the Vanity Fair and other articles some time ago, and have watched a number of WA films since then, and mostly kept all of that out of my mind. But something, now, for/ in me, has been jostled.

the more general thing is that my friends don't really seem to use facebook as a real social hub for discussion or anything like it anymore and apparently old people do (jk everyone knows that already). actually i'm pretty sure that's just my life idk

xps

the age point is interesting - I've noticed I see more older people defending him on facebook than younger. As one commenter on the grantland piece put it: " I think a lot of us remember what went down over 20 years ago as a kind of War of the Roses between Woody and Mia. "

That explains a lot to me -- at the time the whole thing seemed like such a crazy mess that people threw up their hands, and after all, at that time you had a possibly unreliable and coached seven year old making allegations, not an adult. Now I think a lot of those same people have their opinion of the situation already calcified and are having a hard time processing the new information that has come out -- which isn't really new except that it's an adult maintaining the same allegations.

I am of the age where I (and my high school peers) were culturally "invested" in Woody. We quoted his compiled humor pieces from the New Yorker and film jokes right along with Monty Python's shit. I did "The Moose" standup monologue in drama class. From around 1977-87, starting with Annie Hall, I saw every film of his in Manhattan on opening day.

I found the whole Soon Yi thing creepy in '92, but not especially more creepy than Chaplin's three teenage brides. In the last 15 years the movies got mediocre-to-bad, and when I got a chance to review his last film before this one, I gave it one star out of four, accused him of a pattern of lazy misogyny, and suggested he retire.

So I'm no longer invested. The DF letter was frightening to read. I have a 7-year-old niece and I won't tolerate anyone saying I'm not sufficiently sensitive to child abuse. I still don't know what happened, am sickened by the possibility that he's a child molester, and don't really plan on thinking or reading about this anymore.