Woody Allen Responds: ‘I Did Not Molest Dylan’

Woody Allen
Alexia Silvagni

In an open letter to the New York Times, which will appear in the paper’s Sunday Review, Woody Allen has responded to the 1992 molestation allegations from his ex-partner Mia Farrow and their children Ronan and Dylan Farrow.

Read his full response below:

Twenty-one years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary’s home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I’d go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.

Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn’t. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn’t take a lie-detector test.

Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992… In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, “we will probably never know what occurred.”

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, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we’ve been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)

Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.

I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn’t know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his.” I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.

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 it’s 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.

Not that I doubt Dylan hasn’t come to believe she’s been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I’d never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I’m a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, “With My Daddy in the Attic.” It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia’s betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, “Beware of Young Girls.” One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother’s shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.

After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?

Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter’s well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 158

Leave a Reply

158 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. bella says:

    Woody Allen is a creepy pedophile. Of course he denies it. What else do you expect him to say.

  2. Adopting a child, then eventually marrying her, still weird.

    Twilight IS a better love story.

    • LizDee says:

      Woody Allen NEVER adopted Soon Yi.
      She is the adoptive daughter of Mia and her then husband conductor Andre Previn. She and Previn had I believe 3 biological boys, a set of twins and another boy. They later adopted 3 or 4 more children and Soon Yi was one of them.
      Woody Allen was nothing to Soon Yi other than her mother’s boyfriend.

  3. Ben says:

    WoW! Intriguing stuff. I am on Allen’s side. I don’t know much about Farrow, but I certainly know personally how screwed up women can get and the tall stories they concoct. A sordid and unsuccessful attempt at an assasination of a character.

  4. Marco says:

    Any parent who poisons their children’s minds against their other parent are simply not evil parents.

  5. LizDee says:

    Ronan Farrow is set to host a new show on MSNBC.
    I wonder if all of this now after 20 odd years is to get some publicity.
    Mia after Rosemary’s Baby wasn’t doing much of anything, until she met Woody, and he had her in starring roles in every movie he made during their time together. But, that was over 2 decades ago, her money is probably dried up and maybe they need Ronan to succeed in order to help support the family?

  6. Darling Me says:

    I certainly have no idea what happened or didn’t happen those twenty some years ago. My question is: Why does Woody’s teenage “adopted” daughter Manzie look like so much like Woody Allen, petite with red hair and brown eyes? Was she truly adopted or made with a surrogate (she does not resemble Soon Yi)?

  7. it must be tough for Dylan. Her brother is getting his own TV show, and she’s nowhere. It’s understandable how she might grasp at her only opportunity to get public attention. She’s had all of her adult life to bring this up, but this will give her max limelight.
    I am hugely sympathetic to the idea of ending child abuse, but I don’t think Dylan’s motives are much more than sibling rivalry.

    • ConservTex says:

      You should read the judge’s order in this case, it is scathing! I do not care what each side’s expert says in a trial. They are not going to put someone on the witness stand that doesn’t say what they want them to say! Woody Allen was denied visitation because his behavior was so inappropriate with Dylan. Maybe you should educate yourself before speaking.

  8. John Laurich says:

    Much easier to believe that an older woman was losing her meal ticket and decided to sabotage his entire person than lose anything else to this man.
    Of course women will defend a black widow. It’s in their nature to gather like a bunch of angry hens than to believe and admit one of their own was vengeful and spiteful in the worst and most detrimental way.
    No way could she have been grasping at being left all alone had Woody gotten the kids in a divorce.
    It stinks and this sort of sabotage is all too common. The family courts are women’s territory and they want to defend their turf rather than play fair as equals.
    Sad and disgusting that they would destroy a 7 year olds life in the process, but they see children as their property and not as it’s own individual and independent entity.
    Truth.

    • Electrix says:

      We should not make this some sort of men vs. women thing.

      It is about Mia Farrow sabotaging their lives and our sympathies. She has a hell of a lot to answer for, but probably never will.

  9. Pete White says:

    Woody never adopted Soon-Yi. her was not her father or stepfather.

  10. Dwadd says:

    I think Woody is right.

  11. Arthur Cohen says:

    I’ve been hearing the same tired attacks on Mr. Allen for years from sanctimonious self-rightous moralists full of false piety and manufactured outrage over his marriage to Soon-yi. Aside from the facts that she was an adult at the time, not related by blood or law, and that far from being lust, it was a love that has lasted almost 20 years so far, it’s not your damn business. Everyday, in this country and all over the world, young girls–much younger that Soon-yi–are forced into marriages full of horror, misery and abuse, in the good ol’ USA as well as Pakistan. Every day wives are raped, maimed, murdered, by their husbands, killed for some offense to someone’s insipid superstitious hegemony, and not a peep from you hypocrites. Every day we are treated to portrayals of lust over younger women–younger than Soon-yi was then–and the abuse foisted on them by their “lovers” or husbands, in our poplular media, in our movies and TV shows, in our commericals and adverstisements, in our trials where rapists are exonerated and victims taunted and tormented. You are silent.

    And you express your outrage over two consenting adults who fall in love and form a long-lasting bond that outlasts more than have of the marriages in this country.

    And you use that puffed up outrage to twist and diminish the historical facts in this case that indicate at the very least that you don’t know anymore than anyone who wasn’t in that house if anything happened, and overlook the body of fact that at the very least puts as much suspicion on Farrow as on Allen. You believe every word of the jilted lover and her daughter, but dismiss the other son’s contrary testimony as untrue without any hesitation.

    Farrow’s past is not free from taint, yet you dismiss that because her ex had the nerve to fall in love with her adult adopted daughter. Nevermind the claims of child abuse from Moses, the affairs that caused pain and hurt to others. She is above reproach, and those claims have no merit. Such is your agenda that you would dismiss her errant behavior that is factual, to condemn another based on unproved–in fact, disproved–accusations.

    You sound like teaparty conservatives. Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.

    • PS says:

      Finally. A voice of reason. Well said, Mr. Cohen.

    • Robyn Wh. says:

      This is sheer rhetoric and dispersion well done! however it’s not about
      Soo Yi or Mia Farrow is it?

      You know it’s an accusation made by Miss. Dylan Farrow the adopted daughter of Woody Allen
      for sexual molestation. She is asking to be believed now she is an adult.
      Her father has the right to deny his molestation however not at the expense
      of the Mother’s character assassination.

      • Arthur Cohen says:

        Of course it’s about Soon-yi and Farrow too.

        Does anyone seriously contend that if Allen hadn’t run off and married Soon-yi that there would be this firestorm today?

        And the attacks on Allen aren’t character assassination? As Woody says, Dylan appears to believe what she is saying. Moses states, with a chronolgy of events, not only that it did not happen, but that she was coerced by a vengeful and abusive mother. Why is he less believable? He was there. You weren’t. There’s no question in psych circles (look it up yourself) that such childhood memories as Dylan claims can be created. And everything I’ve said about Farrow is demonstrably true. I don’t need to assassinate her character; She’s been doing that herself for two decades.And her son Moses agrees. Ask Dory Previn if Farrow is an innocent angel. And who given the charges and horror visited upon Allen by the charges, he is being remarkably restrained.

        Look, you could argue that this is just a case of he said–she said, but there’s no proof. That Dylan believes it is not proof. Doesn’t mean the accusation shouldn’t be taken seriously and investigated. In fact it was in glorious technicolor. And so there’s no evidence it happened. You can believe he’s guitly, and no one may change your mind. Doesn’t make it any more so than a creationist believeing the world is 6000 years old.

        You can also research pedophilia yourself, and you ought to. There’s no such thing as a one-time-is enough pedophile. It’s a mental illness that doesn’t simply manifest once and then be done with it. Ask a priest. And so there’s no evidence in Allen’s life, other than the words of the accusers, that this was ever a factor in Allen’s life, before or after this purported event. That is simply not tenable in pedophilia.

  12. Arnie Tracey says:

    Allen has so many blind supporters (cc, vinessa, obloodyhell) that this entry will be gone quickly. Read fast.

    Bulldog in an episode of “Frasier” said, “Hey, I’m an artist we live by different rules”.

    Same could be said about Allen.

    Fact is Soon-yi was raised in what seemed and was flogged as a loving partnership between consenting adults. Allen was not the mother figure to the brood. He was, he says, the “father” figure. And his actions over the years say so—up to a point.

    No, he was not legally married. Nor did he live on site. But he saw Soon-yi paternalistically in the beginning, as one of his charges, a creepy quasi-daddy. He helped raise (groom?) Soon-yi through puberty. Then, suddenly, and quite “opportunistically” he plucked this low hanging, now ripened fruit.

    Upon discovery of his betrayal of the Farrow clan, he became extremely myopic. Altogether oblivious to the wrong, the transgressions he perpetrated. Decades later, in the NY Post, he would even claim the scandal as a sort of feather in his cap.

    But Jiminy Glick called it best in “La LaWood Fables”: Woody Allen and the Family Affair.

    “Common-Law Step-Daddy,” was the term used, and it’s bang on.

    Allen’s Trans-Central Park booty-call grotto / centerfold studio, sounds like it belongs in “Deliverance,” or “Child Bride.” Hardly a Preston Sturges or Frank Capra rom-com, to me. As Diane Keaton’s character said to Allen’s in “Manhattan” about Hemingway’s “Little girl” character . . .

    “No threat.”

    The suggested attic tryst was not recorded. So, it’s she said, he said. Most of us can remember trauma from age 4. So 7? Piece of cake. Can we be brainwashed at 7. Sure. Grown men can be. So what?

    Whom do you trust? Whom do I believe. Like Seinfeld’s sitcom, I love Allen’s art, including his bombs. But I also know he’s more than a bit of an ass. He once called a woman, who was auditioning, “retarded looking.” I saw him on Cavett, whack Dick’s shin, hard, and though Cavett yelped, Allen said nothing. No apology. Just a retarded looking grin. Egocentric to the nth. Sociopathic, even.

    So, in the same way I cannot judge Seinfeld’s wife for opportunistically leading Jerry into a sitcom plot of a romance. (Who can blame her? The guy’s loaded.) In that same way, many men can rationalize the taking of an dependent, gullible, easily had 18-21 year old, for whom one has not enough love, little regard, and no respect.

    It merely requires a only few facile, mental gymnastics to clear the legal and moral hurdles. Afterwhich the marriage is just “spin.”

    To paraphrase Allen: The genitals want what they want.

    And I still say: Nobody’s going to win this one.

  13. Vinessa says:

    This week, a number of commentators have published articles containing incorrect and irresponsible claims regarding the allegation of Woody Allen’s having sexually abused his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. As the author of two lengthy, heavily researched and thoroughly fact-checked articles that deal with that allegation—the first published in 1992, when Dylan was seven, and the second last fall, when she was 28—I feel obliged to set the record straight. As such, I have compiled the following list of undeniable facts:

    1. Mia never went to the police about the allegation of sexual abuse. Her lawyer told her on August 5, 1992, to take the seven-year-old Dylan to a pediatrician, who was bound by law to report Dylan’s story of sexual violation to law enforcement and did so on August 6.

    2. Allen had been in therapy for alleged inappropriate behavior toward Dylan with a child psychologist before the abuse allegation was presented to the authorities or made public. Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan.

    3. Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police. Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

    4. Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”

    5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”

    6. Dylan’s claim of abuse was consistent with the testimony of three adults who were present that day. On the day of the alleged assault, a babysitter of a friend told police and gave sworn testimony that Allen and Dylan went missing for 15 or 20 minutes, while she was at the house. Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements. These sworn accounts contradict Moses Farrow’s recollection of that day in People magazine.

    7. The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.
    All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case. The report concluded Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. (For example, she had told them there were “dead heads” in the attic and called sunset “the magic hour.” In fact, Mia kept wigs from her movies on styrofoam blocks in a trunk in the attic.) The doctor subsequently backed down from his contention.
    The Connecticut state police, the state attorney, and Judge Wilk all had serious reservations about the report’s reliability.

    8. Allen changed his story about the attic where the abuse allegedly took place. First, Allen told investigators he had never been in the attic where the alleged abuse took place. After his hair was found on a painting in the attic, he admitted that he might have stuck his head in once or twice. A top investigator concluded that his account was not credible.

    9. The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.” Maco told me that he refused to put Dylan through an exhausting trial, and without her on the stand, he could not prosecute Allen.

    10. I am not a longtime friend of Mia Farrow’s, and I did not make any deal with her. I have been personally accused of helping my “long-time friend” Mia Farrow place the story that ran in Vanity Fair’s November 2013 issue as part of an effort to help launch Ronan Farrow’s media career. I have also been accused of agreeing to some type of deal with Mia Farrow guaranteeing that the sexual-abuse allegation against Woody Allen would be revisited. For the record, I met Mia Farrow for the first time in 2003, more than 10 years after the first piece was published, at a nonfiction play she appeared in for a benefit in Washington, D.C. I saw her and Dylan again the next day. That is the last time I saw her until I approached her in April 2013 to do a story about her family and how they had fared over the years. I talked to eight of her children, including Dylan and a reluctant Ronan. There was no deal of any kind. Moses Farrow declined to be interviewed for the 2013 piece.

    Read: The scathing 33-page decision from the presiding judge in Woody Allen’s 1992 custody suit against Mia Farrow.

  14. Anon says:

    Soon Yi wasn’t HIS adopted daughter, she was Mia’s with another man…

  15. Anon says:

    Very well said, hopefully this will be an end to it and he can maybe patch things up with his kids finally…

  16. Well this letter rases som questions and indications to me about WA.
    1. Refering to lie-detector tests as proof is wrong,since they have prooven unreliable, kinda like torture, So using this as a point is to lie or deceive, which does not speak in his favour.
    2. He refers to experts from “Yale” reaching out to status as a way to reach trust. This is ofcourse in no way true that anyone from yale would be more trustworthy then anyone else, do you trust your politicians, banksters etc? No you don’t. So this does not spek in his favour either.
    3. He continues to try provide proofs through others like his son, but he really has no clue either. A son in a family matter unless extremely righteous would follow the populist path.
    4. The attic, he tries to say he would not go upp the attic to see his daughter, a grown man? Don’t believe that.
    5. Looking through some of his work, playing with ‘older men’ – ‘younger girls’ as a somewhat theme + wifing his adoptive daughter is to me a bad sign.

    So is he quilty? I think only two people really know that.

    • Thor says:

      I agree with Njordskälvan, Marrying your adoptive daughter puts you in a position to drown. You can’t compare Mia and Frank, Mia isn’t Frank’s Adoptive Daughter. It’s so sad, but what do you expect, this was coming and everyone with any sense knew: When you are labeled as a sexual predator (Having sex with your wife of 16 years who was your adoptive daughter you’ve know since 8), one must assume other things will pop out of the box! He is Woody Allen, a Genius in his field, He could have started a relationship with anyone…anyone, instead he chose to keep it in the family. What man does that?

      Can anyone out there show me a Man or Woman that has done such a feat and assumed it was normal? Let us PLEASE open up our eyes on this one.

      • Pete White says:

        Soon-Yi isn’t his adoptive daughter! She was adopted by Mia and Previn. Hence her maiden name. Also, woody always maintained his own residence. It’s more like he and Mia dated for years. They weren’t living as a nuclear family.

    • obloodyhell says:

      You lack quality of rational thought.

      }}} Referring to lie-detector tests as proof is wrong,since they have proven unreliable, kinda like torture, So using this as a point is to lie or deceive, which does not speak in his favour.

      He doesn’t claim it as proof. It is EVIDENCE to support his claim. And that Mia has refused is also evidence to support his claim. Is it PROOF? No — but it’s indicative, and, with a host of other information, implies something.

      }}} He refers to experts from “Yale” reaching out to status as a way to reach trust. This is of course in no way true that anyone from Yale would be more trustworthy then anyone else, do you trust your politicians, bankers etc? No you don’t. So this does not speak in his favour either.

      I trust my banker to keep my money safe. That’s their job. If they screw up, I’ll find another banker.

      Sorry to advise you, but I’ll give an expert’s advice more weight than a non-expert. Lacking evidence to believe the expert is wrong, I’ll assume the expert is correct. He refers to not just “people from Yale” — he refers to an investigating body specifically chosen for their investigative talents in a given arena.

      Your failure to grasp the relevance of this does not speak in YOUR favor.

      P.S. — where do you keep your money, in a mattress? Wait, Norwegian, right? I see. No money after taxes, then?

      }}} He continues to try provide proof through others like his son, but he really has no clue either. A son in a family matter unless extremely righteous would follow the populist path.

      First off, the son had special access to the family actions and activities at a key time. If something actually happened, he had more opportunity to observe it, to be told in confidence about it, to twig — even years later — that something was going on. He would be able to recall observing the behavior of family members and recall if they seemed, in retrospect, reluctant or evasive in being with the accused.

      So yeah, sorry, his son IS, not proof, but certainly indicative of the truth.

      Second, I dunno how Norwegians raise their kids, but WE don’t do it that way. If a child observes a wrong, they are encouraged to do, or say, something about it. Yes, they do often fail, but, years later, if his son had seen something indicative of abuse, he’d almost certainly say something about it now.

      }}} The attic, he tries to say he would not go up into the attic to see his daughter, a grown man? Don’t believe that.

      He said he’s got a PHOBIA about tight spaces, which actually fits his perceived personality of the last 50 years. And that would be something others would know, and deny, if it were not so, so the chances of this statement being a fabrication is unlikely.

      So he’s claiming that he did not LIKE that space, had a hard time even BEING in it, it set off his phobia so bad, and as a result it is a singularly unlikely place for him to have chosen for the act in question.

      As proof, this fails on the fact that it’s his own statement regards to his own proclivities. But, IF true, then it does support his claim, as well. So the key question of this is if anyone reliable comes forth to put the lie to it.

      }}} Looking through some of his work, playing with ‘older men’ – ‘younger girls’ as a somewhat theme

      Seriously? Yes, Hollywood pairs Sean Connery (b 1930) with Catherine Zeta-Jones (b. 1969). And in real life, Catherine Zeta-Jones MARRIES Michael Douglas (b. 1944). And that’s just two among THOUSANDS — on and off screen.

      Hollywood is the Drama Central of May-December romances.

      Claiming it’s “a theme running through his works” without a detailed list of at least, oh, six, to show an unusual degree of interest in such, fails. Badly. And glaringly obviously.

      And no, as the Connery/CZJ/Douglass thing shows, just filmed pairings of older men with younger women isn’t going to cut it. That’s so common in Hollywood that it’s a feminist talking point.

  17. Ken says:

    I have always and still believe Woody Allen. The sad thing about this whole occurrence is that he has to share this with the world. And that is exactly Farrow’s intention. To let him go down in the annals of movie history as a child molester rather than a brilliant filmmaker. Of course none of us mortals know the exact details. It also doesn’t help that he married the daughter of his ex-wife. The whole reason Farrow made her daughter make these false allegations. Of course, a careless observer could easily jump to superficial conclusions based on these emotional claims. Who wouldn’t take a young woman serious. It is almost moral flaw if you don’t. But although we love the twisted reality of his fiction in the real world we judge based on facts. So besides all the emotions, please realize, he was acquitted years ago after careful investigation and consideration and he had everything against him in that case. So first think before you post your opinions.

    • ConservTex says:

      He wasn’t acquitted he was never charged. You seem to be using terminology you don’t understand. After hearing all the testimony the judge denied him visitation and had a lot of praise for Ms. farrow. The guy is a complete narcissist and possible sociopath as he has no understanding of basic human relationships.

  18. Rielly says:

    Who married their adopted daughter? This is about Woody Allen–he married the daughter of his ex girlfriend. Allen never lived with Mia Farrow. He never spent the night in her apartment. Soon-Yi’s adoptive father is André Previn.

    • obloodyhell says:

      Don’t confuse the feminists with your worthless facts. They’ve got a man to hate.

      Get in the way of that at your own peril… :-P

  19. Bernd Schmid says:

    Mia Farrow’s brother is in jail for 10 years because he had sex with young boys. Sometimes those who were forced to have sex during their childhood become molesters themselves. It might be true for Mia’s brother, and very well be that Mia was also molested (or more) herself and is dealing with her own trauma through projections, in such an unhealthy way. The clue to this affair may be Mia’s childhood.

  20. raghavendra prasad says:

    WOODY ALLEN IS GREAT ARTIST AND JUST LIKE MANY RICH AND FAMOUS PEOPLE THERE LIES SOME KIND OF MISERY AND SAD PARTS .THIS IS ONE OF THEM .WOODY ALLEN WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT FATHER .NO FATHER IN THIS PLANET CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT A CHILD AND THAT TOO NOT SEEING SINCE MORE THAN TEN YEARS

  21. PS says:

    Except for the fact, that she wasn’t his adopted daughter, he never was a father figure to her and they never even lived in the same household. Seriously, why can’t people not look at facts and/or make up their own stories to form an opinion?? Is that accidental or deliberate???

    Stupid are the people making up opinions, despite not knowing enough to form those opinions.

    If you would have common sense, you would try to gather as much factual information as possible, before coming to a conclusion.

  22. Deborah Hayter says:

    No mother would want her child put through repetitive questioning and investigation if she didn’t have a basis for these accusations. Child molesters always have a good story ready. This man should be in jail.

    • Pete White says:

      A sociopathic mother would. And I believe that’s exactly what Mia Farrow is.

    • Anon says:

      Well it sounds like Mia did. There are a lot of mothers who have been really selfish and done awful things to there children and it looks like Mia Farrow is one of them…

    • OBloodyHell says:

      }}} No mother would want her child put through repetitive questioning and investigation if she didn’t have a basis for these accusations. Child molesters always have a good story ready. This man should be in jail.

      Oh, PLEASE. Spare us all from the “sacred motherhood” crap. Mothers do horrific crap to their children all the time. Search on “Munchausen Syndrome”.

      Mia Farrow fits the banner: “A woman scorned”. She felt (somewhat understandably) betrayed and abused when Woody dropped her for Soon Yi — which one could question on all sorts of levels when it started, but can hardly challenge now. But scorned she no doubt felt and quite clearly still feels — and “Hell hath no fury” — yes, Mia would put her child through an experience like that, to strike at him. The evil it is, the hatred it requires — clearly she has embraced them both, with no restraints.

      Sorry, you’re clearly too ready to convict. The litany of EXPERTS who analyzed the situation, and said, without any hesitation, that he DID NOT do it is more than amply sufficient to match the spoken-only, evidence-free, long after account of a then-child under the evil manipulations of a mother looking to strike out at her ex.

      Did you learn NOTHING from the “recovered memory” debacle of 20 years ago?

    • Larry says:

      Sorry to disappoint you Deborah, you must be a sane, rational, and loving human being… but I am here to tell you…. Hell hath no fury, like the wrath of a woman scorned.

    • Arthur Cohen says:

      Your comment is patently absurd. You clearly have no idea what hate will compel a mother to do. You think all mothers all the time will put the child’s interests ahead of her own (or fathers as well)? Any casual reading of the news on any given day will give lie to your premise. Accusers also always have a good story ready. So do false rape accusers. People will believe what they want to believe if it supports their agenda, regardless of facts. Our species has enough serious problems with rape and child molestation without this kind of sanctimonious twaddle.

  23. Gene says:

    It seems obvious to me that Mr. Allen did NOT molest Dylan.
    But the guy is still a scumbag for marrying his ex-wife’s adopted daughter.

    • Anon says:

      Mia Farrow’s an even bigger scum bag though it is her that has used and abused her children..,

    • PS says:

      Yes obviously. And because he is a scumbag, people, foolishly believe everything else that the Farrow family says about him.

      • PS says:

        Oops… that one slipped. Allen and Farrow were also never married. And Farrow is the same scumbag, for having an affair with Andre Previn, while he was still married and obviously was still sleeping with Frank Sinatra, despite him being married and her being in a relationship with Allen.

  24. Arnie Tracey says:

    Allen has so many blind supporters that this entry will be gone quickly. Read fast.

    Bulldog in an episode of “Fraser” said, “Hey, I’m an artist we live by different rules”.

    Same could be said here.

    Fact is Soon-yi was raised in a loving partnership. Allen was not the mother figure. He was the “father” figure. His actions over the years say so. No, he was not legally married. Nor did he live on site. But he saw Soon-yi as a child, and he helped raise (groom?) her through puberty. Then quite “opportunistically” he plucked this low hanging, now ripe fruit.

    Upon discovery of his betrayal of the Farrow clan, he became myopic and oblivious to the wrong he did. Decades later, in the NY Post, he would even claim the scandal as a feather in his cap.

    But Jiminy Glick called it best in LaLaWood Fables: Woody Allen and the Family.

    Common-Law Step-Daddy

    Sounds like a “Deliverance,” “Child Bride” romance to me. As Diane Keaton charcter said to Allen’s in “Manhattan” about Hemingway’s “Little girl” character.

    “No threat.”

    The suggested attic tryst was not recorded. So, it’s she said, he said. Most of us can remember trauma from age 4. So 7? Piece of cake.

    Whom do you trust? Whom do I believe. Like Seinfeld’s sitcom, I love the Allen’s art, and his bombs. But I also know he’s more than a bit of an ass. He once called a woman, who was auditioning, “retarded looking.” I saw him on Cavett, whack Dick’s shin, hard, and though Cavett yelped, Allen said nothing. Egocentric to the nth. Dys-empathetic.

    So, in the same way I cannot judge Seinfeld’s wife for opportunistically leading Jerry into a sitcom plot of a romance. (Who can blame her? The guy’s loaded.) In that same way, many would rationalize the taking of an dependent, available 18-21 year old. It merely requires a few mental gymnastics to clear the legal and moral hurdles.

    To paraphrase Allen: The genitals want what they want.

    Nobody’s going to win this one.

    • Arnie Tracey says:

      Why discuss his defensive arguments? Allen is, as ever, exceedingly articulate, quite clear.

      Bash is a strong word. I would say: slice, maybe: dice, perhaps both.

      I define the appellation: “ass,” for myself, don’t we all?

      My station, superior or inferior, is irrelevant.

      Biologically, of course, females choose.

      Nobody’s right, if everybody’s wrong.

    • Electrix says:

      I suppose it depends if you trust Vanity Fair or the authorities more, doesn’t it?

    • cc says:

      Arnie, your post is LOADED with TV and other pop culture references, as though what “Bulldog” said in a TV series provides a worthy foundation for discussion of a serious matter. Reply to the content of Woody Allen’s statement, you’re not as clever as you imagine yourself to be. You’re boring, actually.

      • Arnie Tracey says:

        obloodyhell
        I was kinda with you. Really. I was on the train. But then you just started writing like an embittered, but decidedly Less Ridiculous “cc.” cc, who I dispatched hours ago, with aplomb.

      • Vinessa says:

        I agree with you. Arnie is boring.

      • obloodyhell says:

        Dude, you didn’t start a “debate”, that would require you put out some facts, and/or assertions suggested by facts. Did you have any that were patently absurd?

        It’s conceivable that Allen “groomed” Soon Yi, but there’s no evidence to support this other than his presence. Yes, it is UNUSUAL for a relationship to develop in that manner, but the fact that they’ve been together for 16 years either argues in favor of Allen being a positively byzantine manipulator of behavior worth of the Borgias (really? Woody ALLEN?), or just that they did, in fact, find themselves in a good relationship under odd circumstances.

        There has been no sign AT ALL that he did anything inappropriate with Soon Yi while she was under age. And that’s not just to US, that’s got to have been under the scrutiny of a LEGAL INVESTIGATION regarding Dylan (yes, they would have examined his history with Soon Yi for clues)

        }}} The suggested attic tryst was not recorded. So, it’s she said, he said. Most of us can remember trauma from age 4. So 7? Piece of cake.

        Here’s the closest thing to an adequate assertion you managed, and rejecting it is amazingly trivial:

        Yes, most of us can remember trauma that occurred during the ages of 4-7.

        Unfortunately, as the “recovered memories” debacle showed, we can also be FED memories from 4-7 quite readily. So, unfortunately, Dylan’s memories are necessarily subject to the possibility of tainting by Mia Farrow’s relentlessly evil meme, and cannot, of themselves, be trusted. Farrow has had far too much time to confuse a young girl’s memories.

        I’m not saying that Allen didn’t do anything wrong. I’m saying that, if he did, it’s currently far too well covered up by actual facts in evidence to argue in favor of it.

        Criminy, if you could only have gotten this kind of outrage over Hollywood’s defense of Polanski, who DID rape and sodomize a 13yo girl, without the slightest question, and showed ZERO regret even years later.

      • Arnie Tracey says:

        (Softly) Oooooooh. You had me at LOADED, cc”
        To quote Rutger Hauer in “Blade Runner,” “It hurts!”

        What’s wrong with Mr Bulldog Briscoe?
        Are you some kind of a homophobe, cc?
        Is that why you’re afraid, and so hide your name?

        cc . . . Imaginative, too.

        n.b. You have advanced this debate, not at all.

        Back to business : Yeah. Right. So I’m boring that, to go all Alka Seltzer on you, “You can’t believe you read and replied to the WHOLE thing.” Can you?

        Lives are for sale in aisle 10, cc. Do us a big favor: Get one!

    • flo22437 says:

      thank you for the facts Julia. it goes deeply into the case.

    • Ivan says:

      Vanity? Fair? Stop to ready this type of things, girl. It will gonna make you a better human being.

  25. Fritz Kohle says:

    I understand Woody’s predicament and hope he fights hard for his children. It is the one thing they will examine later.

  26. Kieran says:

    Mia farrow is one cold hearted evil bitch!.. Just when the world had forgotten you ever existed! You surface again, and your money/attention wanting daughter has aswell, crawl back under your little rock and do us all a favor!..

    • obloodyhell says:

      }}} You must be an inbred if you think Woody’s actions are okay.

      Exactly which ones? The accusation of child molestation, or his evil act of finding a young girl, of legal age, interesting enough to MARRY? Yes, one might have assumed that he manipulated her then, but 16 years of marriage later, well, that falls a bit thin. Yes, she may just be endlessly and easily manipulated by that towering mountain of Alpha Male manliness that we call “Woody Allen”, but that seems… kind of comical.

      Your comments show cluelessness, since it’s pretty self-evident that Mia Farrow has almost certainly put her children through hell for her own evil purposes, regardless of whether you think Allen took untoward advantage of his proximity to Soon Yi… he’s clearly done well by her since, even if it was coldly calculating on his part early on.

      Just curious — did you post any anti-Polanski diatribes when he got arrested a couple years back?

      I mean, THAT was someone who actually raped and sodomized a 13yo girl.

      Not “merely statutory” rape (though @13y of age, “mere” should hardly be applied by a rational person — yes, I’m talking to YOU, Whoopi).

      She was pleading all along for him to not do it, and to stop. A crying, pleading 13yo girl.

      And he ignored her pleas.

      And, years later, showed not the least contrition about what he’d done.

      Did you express ire about that? Just wondering how much of a hypocrite you are.

  27. J.E. Vizzusi says:

    America and the world us not a giant court of law. The parties involved need to settle this between themselves. in my State alone there are 20,000 registered sex offenders and most are non violent offenses and many never had the resources for proper representation. Just being accused of a sexual offence is the kiss of dearh in a society filled with vigilante violence. Unless new charges are filed and he is found guilty we need to put this case to rest. John V.

  28. Woll_North says:

    Dylan might have been molested by someone at some stage. She might even have been molested by Woody Allen but the day she describes in her original letter seems a bit too far fetched to be believable. Why would someone pick an attic if they’re claustrophobic? Obviously, that doesn’t prove his innocence or anything, it’s just worth thinking about. Second question would be why would he pick that day of all days to do it? It’s a day during the divorce, so people would be extra observant of his behavior, there was a whole bunch of people at the house, like both Dylan and Woody has mentioned, so I’m sure someone would’ve noticed both of them disappearing, yet no one has supported that claim. Thirdly, and this is obviously a very sickening thought, but why, if Allen in fact did molest Dylan, would he choose that day to start doing it? He’s had full access to this person for years, yet he’ll pick the last day he sees her to molest her? Like I said, it’s a bit too far fetched to be believable. Now, Dylan might’ve been molested by someone in the attic at some stage and just convinced herself it was Allen that was the culprit, or Allen might’ve molested her at some other stage during her childhood and she has convinced herself it only happened that one time in the attic. Obviously, I don’t have the answer to this but I feel a lot of the factors speak against the current events depicted from being true. The ones I’ve mentioned are some, but there’s obviously other things you can question about this event. I do also question the timing of this. Why bring it up now? Yeah, they’re honoring him with a lifetime achievement award but he won an Oscars just two years ago, wouldn’t that be just as fitting? I do also feel it’s in poor taste to drag in actors/actresses in this as well, especially people that weren’t even associated with Allen at the time.

    • Maybe it was Mia’s brother John Charles Villiers-Farrow from the 2012 Huffington post:
      Mia Farrow’s Brother John Charles Villiers-Farrow Arrested In Maryland On Child Sex Abuse Charges
      Posted: 11/15/2012 5:33 pm EST Updated: 11/16/2012 12:28 pm EST
      WASHINGTON — Mia Farrow’s brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, has been jailed in Maryland on charges of sexually abusing two boys for years.

      Villiers-Farrow, 66, who lives in Edgewood, Md., is charged with sexual abuse of a minor, perverted practice and child abuse stemming from incidents that took place from 2000 to 2008, police said. He is accused of sexually abusing two men who at the time of the abuse, were “between the ages of eight until their early teens,”

      Interesting how all those who “Know” Woody did it never seem to remember this “nice guy” Or mention the fact she is the BFF & a HUGE supporter of ROMAN POLANSKI a man who plead guilty to molesting a 13 yr old. Why do these two get a free pass but Woddy a man who NEVER molested his adopted daughter is always guilty?

  29. Alvinjh says:

    Also–has any child molester–especially a famous one–ever said “yes–I did it”? Um..no. For all you ready to dismiss the charges against him, read the vanity fair list of pertinent facts too. I believe Mia Farrow and her child, Dylan Farrow. Woody Allen’s paragraph regarding the fidelity of Mia farrow (or not) is unintentionally laughable. A large body of his work explores the comedy of the notion of fidelity. Yet here he hold forth as the wounded provider, the wronged party, the faithful man wounded? Puhleeze.. Woody Allen is a writer who has explored every aspect of the comedy of being. He is a very good writer. And funny. That doesn’t excuse him from the norms of society. And he is credibly accused of violating those norms by having sexual intimacy with a child. That is a crime, but many famous people get away with crimes. Don’t act so shocked. O. J. Simpson killed Nicole and Ron. If you have not figured that out by now, there will be no point in bringing up the fact that Woody Allen’s hair was found in an attic where he claimed to have never been–the attic where Dylan Farrow was molested.

    • PS says:

      Woah, slow your horses… there wasn’t “all the accusations surrounding Michael Jackson”. There was one accusation of Jordan Chanlder’s father, after a failed extortion attempt, then there was someone exploiting that accusation and made up one of their own and instead of going to authorities, sold their story to tabloids. They both got money and went away (suddenly their kids weren’t molested anymore and it wasn’t important anymore to put the “molester” behind bars). And then 10 years later another grifter family tried get money out of Jackson, despite claiming several times that no molestation ever occured and he was nothing but good to them. Michael Jackson was vindicated in a court of law. 2 other nutcases, who used the hoopla of the ’03 accusation, didn’t even made it into a court, despite the D.A.’s open casting call, because their accusations were so ridiculous and unbelievable that even the D.A. could smell a rat.

    • JAMES says:

      He WASN’T CLEARED they just didn’t lay any charges.

  30. Renee says:

    When will people get it through their skulls? Soon-Yi was not his daughter! She was his ex’s daughter which makes it okay for him to have underage pictures of her (that don’t in any way suggest any tendencies of being attracted to young girls [Dylan or otherwise])! Geez! Leave him alone.

  31. Alvinjh says:

    Before you believe Woody Allen at face values read this as well.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

  32. Jamie Ransom says:

    I had no idea that this had even happened but I wholeheartedly believe every word Woody says. What a nasty thing to do, shame on you Mia Farrow

  33. Abdo Esper says:

    Come on people! Its obvious mia farrow was super angry at woody allen because of soon-yi and she wanted revenge, otherwise why would moses (dylans own brother) support woody? And its very clear that when they first asked her about it dylan said she hadnt been molested and after she returned from talking to mia she said the opposite.

  34. heidi says:

    So sad for Woody and his family….no one should have to endure such false accusations. It’s certainly a powerful way for an ex to seek revenge….and tragic that our society almost encourages such disparagement of public figures.

    • flo22437 says:

      So sad for Dylan heidi. are you ridiculous. he is the man who probably abused a child, who has destroyed a family with his behavior. live in reality, not in your wishing form.

  35. Name*Lon says:

    As eloquent as I find this letter, I do not believe Woody Allen. Once again, must say the fact that he married his girlfriend’s young daughter is disturbing. He can keep referring to his wife as Mia’s adopted daughter, but the fact remains that he lived in a home with her in the role of her father. During that time he gave interviews that validated his feelings of being attracted to young girls. It is 21 years later and Dylan has the same story. She is an adult, her mother is not making her speak her truth. Yet, Allen’s letter is attacking Mia’s character as a form of defense. Unbelievable.

    • Electrix says:

      He focuses on her character because her character is the reason that all of this happened in the first place. It would be impossible to defend himself against these accusations without recounting Mia’s behaviour, and therefore her “character” as well.

    • Steve Chirp says:

      He didn’t marry his girlfriends young daughter, he married his former girlfriend s adopted daughter once she was legal age. Uncomfortable, but not illegal. And Farrow and Allen never lived together. How do you know he was her father figure?

    • LizDee says:

      Your wrong. Woody Allen although he and Mia were together for a long time NEVER lived with Mia in her home. Throughout their relationship he maintained his own place. I remember reading that years ago.

    • Rielly says:

      But he did not live with her. All parties agree that Allen never even spent the night at Mia Farrow’s apartment. In her autobiography Farrow says that when Soon-Yi was 19, she (Farrow) encouraged the two of them to spend time together because they had no real relationship.

    • Really? So you approve of a vindictive woman perjuring herself & slandering an innocent man? How about THOSE Facts?

      • LizDee says:

        Add to that what Allen had to say about how Mia’s mother Maureen Sullivan spoke of her father the director John Farrow. From what I remember reading or hearing when maybe some biopic was done on Sullivan, Farrow was cheating on Sullivan for the entire time they were married. Allen says Mia was raised by a mother who claimed her father molested her sister, and said hateful things about him. So the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. Mia reacted the same way her mother did, when her marriage eventually ended to Mia’s father. Now, her brother is in jail for the molestation of someone that was ongoing for 8 yrs.
        Could it be that it was Mia’s brother who molested Dylan? Was Dylan mentioning Uncle John touched me and Mia panicked and picked the person she was most angry with, in order to protect her brother?

  36. s says:

    good for you, say no more, and live in peace.

  37. I.don’t. believe. a. word. of. it. And if you really cared about this daughter of yours which half the time when convenient you are calling your daughter and half the time denying… is it possible for you to ever be less concerned about your job/reputation over working this out with her in private? We can excuse her, but you with your power and experience, the you who rails against having this done to you in public chooses to return your response in kind without regard for this daughter … who you half the time point out is not, then is …shows your concern for your career and reputation over her … how very interesting…..

    • Paul B says:

      Woody Allen has never denied that Dylan is his adopted daughter. I’m not sure why you wrote that, unless you think she’s his biological daughter and he’s denying that. She has chosen not to speak to him for years…do you think she would have if he called and said ‘We need to talk about that letter you made public’ ? And like it or not, he’s in the public eye…he’s expected to respond publicly.

  38. Fred Adelman says:

    Well said, Mr. Allen. Well said. The timing of t6his letter by your daughter always bothered me and I am 100% sure Mia is behind this. This woman just doesn’t know how to let go. Her vindictiveness shows no bounds. You’ve said your piece and explained it quite well and to any smart person’s satisfaction. I don’t particulalrly care for your films, but I hate to see someone falsely accused of such a heinous crime because a mother has droned it into her daughter. Here’s to hoping you and Dylan connect as father and daughter very soon. It has been much too long and she has suffered enough emotionalo torture.

  39. Robyn Wh. says:

    Mr. Allen thank you for your response to Dylan’s accusations, to be brief and I agree it is dreadful.
    however as a mother, I would be compelled to protect and believe my daughter if she made this accusation, you would be also scourged by my anger, for child abuse is unacceptable absolutely.
    As such, this story belongs in the hand of Miss Dylan Farrow, it is her decision to go further, and prove
    her story as best she can. Even Socrates talks about mprinted memory suffered from trauma.

    You are an amazing Director/Writer a man of great talent that I have followed all my life.
    you do deserve the Oscar for Life Achievement for your work, however this story is another matter.

  40. Nick says:

    I guess you could also chalk this to women getting revenge on men treating them like chattel for so long. However, this new cult of female empowerment has come at the expense of men and children and created an imbalance in the opposite direction.

  41. Fact says:

    Woody Allen’s 1976 interview about admitting that he is into young girls. Check at this http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066950,00.html

    • Arthur Cohen says:

      So that’s your proof? All of America is into young girls. Have you ever watched a TV show, commercial,movie, or, god forbid, a porno? This country sexualizes girls from puberty on, if not earlier, and never lets go. Comedians joke about famous men and their young girlfriends. That this man may, like almost every other American man–maybe just every man, since this goes on all over the world–, be sexually attracted to young women, teenagers, is not news. And is not proof of anything. Nor would it have any connection to pedophilia. It’s like rightwing bigots equating homosexuality with pedophilia–it’s nonsense, and reflects an agenda or motive on the accuser that is not salubrious.

      Allen’s interest in Soon-yi does not in any way support an interest in 7 year olds. To think so says more about the accuser than Mr. Allen.

  42. Steven Kaye says:

    An excellent piece that comprehensively, eloquently and persuasively addresses all the salient points. Anyone who reads this and is still on Mia Farrow’s side is a hysteric who simply cannot be appealed to rationally. Well done, Mr Allen.

  43. ralph says:

    99% of children’s claims of sexual abuse are shown to be factual when there’s no custody/divorce involved. When there is, 4 of 5 claims are shown to be fictional. There was no evidence — no evidence found insinuating abuse. It is sad that so many ignore the statistics, ignore the lack of facts, and instead conflate a distaste for a man’s choices with illegality.

  44. Michael says:

    I’ll tell you one thing I’m sick of. People still, STILL, weighing in with how Allen married his adopted daughter. Anyone who knows even half of this story knows that Mia and Andre Previn adopted her, hence her maiden name, Soon-Yi Previn.

    • John says:

      He raised Soon-Yi as his own daughter and then married her. He was 38 when she was born and I know age shouldn’t matter but it is quite disturbing. That is why it keeps coming up. That is why people find these accusations believable.

      • connor says:

        He started dating Mia when Soon Yi was 10 and had a 10 year relationship with Mia and your saying there is no way Woody didn’t help raise her. And a year after he breaks off the relationship with Mia he then marries that girl he had know since she was 10 and would have helped father.

      • Bruce says:

        He did NOT raise Soon-Yi. Facts are troublesome, no? It “keeps coming up” because people like you refuse to learn the actual facts.

  45. William Springer says:

    He’s talking too much. A person who is innocent of this would just ignore it. He’s trying desperately to get people to believe him.

    • J.E. Vizzusi says:

      We still don’t know all the specifics of the case especially the incident that sprung an investigation. And, as the Judge said… we will probably never know what happened.

    • Of course there will be haters who dismiss an Oscar winning writer’s response, and the suggestion that he is “talking too much” in desperation is laughable considering that this is the one-time to he has chosen to offer a logical and thorough-as-possible defense in kangaroo court. I respect what he says here and I believe him, especially the claustrophobia detail. He does not have the option of ignoring a smear on this level. He has more business to conduct than, say, Mia does. And I can’t believe MSNBC fires Alec Baldwin for swearing at a paparazzi but they’re eager to give Ronan a talk show.

    • Nick says:

      My now-ex-wife made the same false accusations, and once that bell is rung, there’s always an element of doubt in people’s minds. And, unfortunately, unless one is wealthy, the judge is usually content to throw the accused under a bus. Lawyers keep using this tactic, because it is very effective. Even though the accused have rights, most are to willing to consider an honest man guilty before proving innocence.

  46. Paula says:

    It seems to me that Mr. Allen is getting a pass purely because he is a talented performer and a celebrity. If he were just a regular guy, I seriously doubt that those presently giving him a pass would be so sure that he’s innocent.

  47. Biff says:

    Of course there’s a chance that Mr Allen did molest Dylan Farrow (no one will ever know for sure, save Woody himself) but the weight of evidence, not to mention the behaviour of all parties, strongly suggests he didn’t and he should be given the benefit of the doubt. The state prosecutor at the time, Frank Maco, suggested there was probable cause to press charges but that he didn’t want to put the fragile 7 yo Dylan through a long and draining trial. The statute of limitations meant she had until the age of 20 to press charges against Allen. Surely, if Maco and Mia Farrow were certain the abuse took place and that they had the evidence, wouldn’t they have gone ahead when Dylan was emotionally stronger, say when she was 16, 17 or 18? But they never did. If you knew for certain, would you let a pedophile escape with their crime? There’s a pretty strong stench over this case, and it’s coming from the Farrow side not the Allen side.

More TV News from Variety

Loading