An Open Letter from Dylan Farrow — Page 8

Mia Farrow is crazy. She has always been crazy.

That fact must be understood or no sense can be made of any of this.

One has only to read her book.

But as crazy as she is, her headband is not nearly as tight as some people's.

---

Updated On: 2/3/14 at 08:27 PM

Yes. It was a case arising out of a 2002 Vanity Fair article that claimed that shortly after Polanski's pregnant wife was killed by the Manson family that he hit on a woman in Elaine's and told her that he would make her the "Next Sharon Tate". Mia Farrow and her soon-to-be husband were at Elaine's with him at the time it allegedly occurred.
Farrow and Polanski.

This is a kind of wonderful thread. Lots of food for thought histrionics kept to a minimum. Kudos, BWW.

---

I have to disagree with the operatic pitch at which Bolonik says "we" are all operating on in these discussions and when she insists "we" gave up our weekend to be in its muck. I even more strongly disagree when she asserts that "we" are experiencing grief and anguish because these are people "we thought we knew" and that "we" thought Woody was telling us all about himself in his movies all these years. I mean, on that last point, he couldn't possibly have stressed that that isn't true about his work any more than he has.

Also, because my involvement in the coverage of this has been to read the open letter blog post, the Daily Beast post, the PalJoey links and this thread, basically, I have not been exposed to anybody writing dismissively about "adoptive" children or any of that kind of blather Bolonik is cross at "us" all for spending the weekend writing.

I think she might do better to speak for herself, and let us draw conclusions from that. Instead, she borrows Dylan Farrow's technique of implicating readers in a way that is disingenuous and detracts from the case she is so determined to make.

---

Updated On: 2/3/14 at 11:51 PM

I didn't come away thinking she's a dumb bunny. I just disagreed with her framing premise.

---

But isn't this the era we are entering? (Or have been slung into?) What is private anymore? If a tree falls in the woods and isn't reported immediately on social media, did it make a sound? If something interesting/damning/infuriating/hysterical/embarrassing happens, it immediately goes up. Passive aggressiveness or just outright aggressiveness has an easy platform. It started small, but now it seems to be a way of life. I have totally fallen into the trap, personally. When something funny happens or my daughter does something cute, I think, "I need to put that on Facebook." Part of that is to share with my distant family and friends. The other part is just a ridiculous instinct. It keeps me from truly being in the moment sometimes. With celebrity, they have TMZ, bloggers, and (as mentioned above) fan bases with unprecedented access to information on celebrities, more than willing to pick up a pitchfork. If you really want to hurt someone, it's easy and taking it back or backing down is next to impossible. Private truths or lies take off at the speed of a match strike.

I am not defending the actions of anyone involved. I do automatically want to protect someone claiming to be a victim because of my work, background and past experiences. I have dealt with horrible abuse cases. For me, that's just a given and it's personal. I know that some victims lash out in very unexpected ways, often without thinking first. I am not, however, dismissing that he (and the criminal justice system) maintains his innocence. This particular letter was obviously well written and very well planned out. Dylan is either the victim of a sexually abusive father or the victim of a mentally abusive mother. If it's the latter, she has been poisoned into thinking Woody is a monster who abused her sister, hurt her mother and ripped her family apart. In either case, she feels justified in going after him. One of her parents destroyed her youth. I don't think the blame can fall on her. It's certainly convoluted.

And why does every article have to refer to her as their "adopted" daughter? "Mia Farrow's adopted daughter." "Dylan's adopted father, Woody Allen." Would biology make this different somehow?

---

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 05:32 AM

Wow. That's even more biased than the daily beast piece. Talk about a propaganda mouthpiece for Allen.

Does that headband say "TEAM MIA" on it or something? For godsakes. Have we established what is so wrong and offensive about weighing in on a public, open letter?

What does "biased" mean in this context? Does that mean people who do not form opinions on the story?

---

Updated On: 2/4/14 at 10:01 AM

Mia has always *loved* to be viewed as the benevolent earth mother, so I'm sure it was a big blow to her when one of her adopted children ran off with her boyfriend (remember her hunger strike for Darfur a couple of years ago?).

I do understand why a lot of people really don't want it to be true that Farrow is lying because they feel like it will make real victims of abuse look bad. I'm sympathetic to those kinds of feelings. But that's not a good enough excuse to string Mr. Allen up. Nope, sorry. (Somebody told me to drink bleach the other day for bringing the up the fact that Allen was never convicted of anything, so I'm *really* tired of all of this b.s.)

Unlike, say, Angelina Jolie, who has seemed to try to work on the emotional problems she had as a young person and become a strong adult woman, Ms. Farrow continues to use her platform as one of the most privileged white women on the planet to attack her ex-boyfriend.

---

If you were besties I hope she gave you one of those necklaces of hers.

---

It will always look like ass and boobs to me.

---

I can always can on ya'll when I need a laugh. I love you guys.

---

Is she frowning because she has KAS*?



*Kardashian Ass Syndrome

---