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

yeah that picture's the first one i've seen that felt decisive

Ronan Farrow, the estranged son and brother-in-law of movie-making legend Woody Allen, shelled out $1.495 million for a swanky Upper West Side pad, in advance of his cable-TV debut, The Post has learned.

Also refering to him as "blue-eyed." Why not go all the way and call him young blue-eyes?

that photo looks like he is in the midst of crooning

kind of don't get why that is a story

this kind of story is all the news is unless there's a school shooting or jennifer lawrence does something semi-endearing.

Like, dude comes from a family that probably has money (although I don't know what his mom's financial situation is exactly), he's a Yale grad lawyer, and he probably got a sick advance on his show. The average sale price of a Manhattan apartment now is over $800K, and over $1.3 million for new construction. Dude is moderately rich and bought a moderately rich dude apartment.

it's the Post

I was surprised he only spent 1.5mn tbh

Not so fast:

First, the Soon-Yi situation:

Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

#2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

#4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

#5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

#6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

#7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

#9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

#10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

maybe it's just me but i find it gross that he went out of his way to address Dylan by her new name

that article is VERY skewed

Τhe vf piece wasnt?

i agree that it's pretty gross. also found it kind of creepy that someone linked to her twitter upthread. xxpost

Why is that creepy?

Pieces that defend Allen on this ALWAYS start with Soon-Yi, so they can demolish all the straw-misconceptions and get off on the right foot by making it look like there's a public witch-hunt against Allen, then move on to the "more complicated matter" of Dylan.

Then there's a lot of "I'm not saying...I'm just saying" kind of aspersion casting, and he ignores a lot of the most damning evidence, and stretches the fact that prosecutors determined they didn't have enough to prosecute Allen into there being "no credible evidence," which I don't think anyone investigating the situation ever actually said but I could be wrong.

she's not a public figure in the way that the others involved in this story are, imo

also the Moses Farrow "brainwashing" quote with no context whatsoever -- a conversation with who? With the author of the article? In reference to what?

making it look like there's a public witch-hunt against Allen

uh there kind of was/is tho

she's not a public figure in the way that the others involved in this story are, imo

oh sorry. i thought you meant mia's twitter.

the "woody doesn't go online" thing in that article explains why he thought cate blanchett needed to do an IT course to be able to do interior design online

"a computer science class" iirc

there are spoiled NY richies who haven't gone online, i imagine

esp if they are like Blanche Dubois

Blanche would be on OKCupid.

too much reality, no magic.

Interesting fact in the Weide piece is that Mia signed off last month on the Purple Rose clip for the Golden Globes tribute to Allen. Wow, her rage is limitless.

why would she have the rights to that? idgi

The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.)

why would she have the rights to that? idgi

― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier)

Screen Actors Guild strict about clips showing actors who haven't given consent

she approved consent of a clip of her work, whole thing must be bullshit

her work with the child rapist who married her daughter. but still, exposure leads to casting.

She probably has a complicated relationship with those films, which feature some of her best performances.

Also, per the article, she's a defender of Polanski.

Doesn't mean she doesn't hate Woody as a person. Maybe at first she wasn't against the films being praised nut later changed her mind. Who knows

that daily beast piece is such fuckin' gross old boys network shit

My main problem with that piece and with a lot of the arguments against Allen having molested Dylan is that they implictly require you to believe that Mia Farrow somehow brainwashed a child into believing that Woody Allen molested her, and was so successful at this that she still believes as much as an adult. This is a non-impossible but highly far-fetched scenario. And also that all the circumstantial details about Allen's inappropriate behavior with her are either made up, exaggerated, or don't matter.

I mean to be fair, it is possible that the incident itself did not occur or did not occur the way she now recounts it, and that he merely behaved in a sexually creepy way to her. Yes, there's still a moral difference between someone who is merely creepy with children and a person who acts on that creepiness.

dude should have just tweeted "I respect Ronan speaking up for his sister, but I'm surprised Mia approved her presence in the Golden Globes montage" because that's really all he has to say aside from "I know Woody, and here's a jumble of horseshit rationalization and conjecture you can use to uncritically enjoy my doc about him on Netflix."

Right, exactly. I guess I would say that there are a few points in that article worth raising, but the noise-to-signal ratio is very very high.

croup otm

Unless Weide is understating his current relationship with WA, tho, he seems fairly open about that stake he has.

also croup, he seems to directly disprove things stated as fact in this thread, e.g. none of Mia's other kids have spoken against her.

they implictly require you to believe that Mia Farrow somehow brainwashed a child into believing that Woody Allen molested her, and was so successful at this that she still believes as much as an adult. This is a non-impossible but highly far-fetched scenario.

With the testimony of the Farrow domestic employee implying that she saw and heard things that suggest that possibility.

I don't know, Weide doesn't know, you don't know.

If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend’s 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense.

it does! that's a pretty fucked-up power dynamic.

"disprove" is a strong word for what the unsourced references to moses farrow in the piece does.

also, as i'm not part of the jury in the non-existence case against allen, I don't need to "know" anything, aside from the fact that his children have accused him of abuse, both sexual and - in ronan's case - violent. All the Farrows have asked us to do is let that inform how we treat Allen has a public figure, and I think that's fair.

it's not like allen's just been thrown in jail without a trial or had blood thrown on him in public - this is an article saying "Not So Fast!" to people debating whether we should have had a big Hooray For Cinema's Greatest Feminist Woody Allen celebration on network TV.

there shouldn't be any televised awards shows.

problem solved.

that article by Weide is even more useless and unnecessary than that boring doc he did.

there shouldn't be any televised awards shows.

problem solved.

― Ayn Rand Akbar (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, January 28, 2014

no need to get sniffy about Steve Tyler singing "You Really Got a Hold on Me" to Smokey

it does kinda :/ me that these allegations and their associated evidence went unchanged for twenty years during which woody allen was nominated for a million awards and won several and now we're all suddenly having an important discussion about the appropriateness of honoring him because the victim's brother tweeted a bunch about it during the lead-up to his debut as a cable television personality; if every word the farrows say is true this still speaks badly for Us