Sunday, February 23, 2014

Dylan whines to Maureen Orth who passes it on to Janet Maslin

And the press plays dumb.

Or Gawker and Vulture do.

They've taken some mild comments by New York Times book reviewer Janet Maslin and hyped them into 'blame the victim' and they really don't want you to know that not only was Maslin not blaming the victim, she was relaying what Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth told her.

Yes, we're back to the Tawdry Life of Mia Farrow, forgotten star of yesteryear who was real popular on the TV show Peyton Place about fifty years ago.  She followed that up with Rosemary's Baby and then never had another blockbuster.  She had a lot of flops.

In an attempt to appear relevant and to distract from her smear campaign against Naomi Campbell (why does Mia hate people of color?), Mia upstaged her daughter in Vanity Fair article.

Mia's war on ex-boyfriend Woody Allen has never ended for Mia.

So she decided to reveal that her son with Woody, now known as Ronan Farrow, could be her son with Frank Sinatra because even though she was divorced from Frank in the sixties, she kept sleeping with him -- through marriage, through relationships, you name it.

This little bit of gossip upstaged Dylan Farrow talking about her alleged assault in 1993 by Woody Allen.  Mia had begged Dylan to be part of the article.  Mia could get a cover, she insisted, if Dylan would talk to Maureen Orth for the Vanity Fair article.

A cover!!!!

Mia hadn't been on a cover since People magazine's 20th anniversary issue in 1994.

That was nearly 20 years ago and since then all she had really was playing a scowl on Third Watch and do the sort of trash-yourself-cinema that Joan Crawford did -- only Joan at least played the lead role in the bad horror films while Mia was a bit played who died early in the 2006 remake of The Omen.

So Dylan spoke in a vague manner and the article gets published but all anyone cares about is the revelation that Mia's claiming Ronan could be Frank Sinatra's son.

It makes for good gossip for many.

It's just Mia being tawdry and overplaying her hand.

In 1992, Mia and Woody Allen had already drifted apart and were basically going through the motions. They were set to make Manhattan Murder Mystery.  Mia went to Woody's place (they always had separate residences) and, while waiting for him, snooped around and discovered photos of her 19-year-old daughter Soon-Yi Previn.

Soon-Yi Previn.  The daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn.

Mia exploded and raged.

At her own home, she'd confront Soon-Yi and physically attack her.

Then she'd ask her other children to tell Soon-Yi that Mommy Who Hits With Firsts still loves her, just can't stand to see her.  And cuts her out of a photo and replaces her face with newly adopted Tam's face.

That's rather extreme behavior -- especially when you consider that, as Mia's revealed, she was sleeping with Frank Sinatra before Woody was sleeping with Soon-Yi.

Mia had to move on.  The one million Woody gave her as a gift (which she fails to note in her book) wouldn't last forever and even though she was willing to make Manhattan Murder Mystery with him, he was done with her.

(In all her outrage, Mia wasn't about to give up a leading role in a film.)

Then came the custody battle followed by the allegation that he'd molested Dylan.

And the nation had to endure the tawdry spectacle.

That was 1992 and should have stayed there.

But Mia's got to kick start that failed career.  You can't look fifty at 69 without a little professional help and that costs money.

So here comes Vanity Fair -- both gullible and willing to shade the truth (Ava and C.I. say, "Honey, we'll go into that next week.  Oh, is there a story there.")

But Mia's stunt means no one cares about Dylan.

And that upsets Dylan.

Janet Maslin explained last week in a panel on film discussion (at the organization she funds and heads):

One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece, that one that ran a few months ago, was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be ‘Dylan Farrow Speaks Out’ and what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, 'Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son.’ And Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself. 

Through a friend?

Maureen Orth.

Who'd heard from Mia and Dylan how disappointed Dylan was with the story.

Dylan was upset that she wasn't the takeaway.

That's why she then tried to get papers to run a letter from her.

They said no.  They included The New York Times.

Then Nicholas Kristof (Iraq War cheerleader, don't forget) took the letter and used his position as a columnist to publish it.

And the nation had to go through more tawdry drama from Mia.

Is there anyone trashier in the United States than Mia Farrow?

Probably not.

The whole thing's backfired on Mia.  Whereas in 1992, the nation embraced her, they're now wary of her because she's lied about the paternity of Ronan and because she's just so trashy.

It hasn't been good for Dylan either.  Be sure to check out Pathological Doubter's analysis of Dylan Farrow's 'open letter:'

Anyway, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Dylan has demanded that the reader,, be the judge and jury in her case, so here it goes.
Dylan’s statements to the press have made me reassess the possibility of Allen’s innocence. The language Dylan uses, in my opinion, is the language of liars and manipulators. Her statements are teeming with disingenuous, inconsistent and hypocritical assertions. I will go through her statements to demonstrate. In other words, i did not find the witness to be credible.

And things are actually going to get worse.

Next week, we'll explain the lies and we'll also address how, if the molestation is true, you can pin the blame on Mia -- you can pin the blame for the abuse, you can pin the blame for it not being prosecuted.

Mia's not a great actress.  She needs a strong and sturdy script.

In the last months, she's forgotten that and chose to wing it.  As a result she, and her supporters, have made one false claim after another.

To be clear, we don't know what happened.

But we know Mia's lied repeatedly.  Over and over.

She's defrauded the court and the state of New York.

And she's told so many different lies in the last twenty years that she's not to be believed.

Does that mean the alleged assault didn't happen?

It means there's no proof of it and in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

We think there's a very good chance Dylan's been led to believe something happened.

Whether it did or not.

With Mia, we just know she's a liar and we'll be taking that up next weekend.


Headline corrected from Janet Malcolm to Janet Maslin on 3/3/21.  Thank you to JM for catching this error and e-mailing us about it.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }