BOC said- I don't know. I think at best, she had two of the most narcissistic, shitty parents on the planet. I honestly don't believe either one.
Yup.
Hate to sound like a BK recruiter, but birds of a feather flock together (and adopt little birds to teach their tricks), and what goes around comes around.
BTW, I found part interesting in the Vanity Fair interview:http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow
It is striking how much Mia and Ronan are alike—the same porcelain skin, the same intense blue eyes, the same ability to perform. He was only 11 when he entered Bard College; Mia drove him back and forth nearly every day—90 minutes each way—for four years. Ronan is writing a book on America’s proxy wars, but he also writes songs and scripts. Mia sent me a tape of him belting out Stephen Sondheim’s “Not While I’m Around,” which she used to sing to the children, and his phrasing sounds eerily familiar.
In August of last year, gossip columnist Liz Smith wrote that he had been in Los Angeles visiting Nancy Sinatra Jr. and “has caused the anti–Woody Allen contingent to point out that such a connection gives heft to the ongoing theory that Ronan is not the son from [Mia’s] relationship with Woody, but from her post-divorce romantics with the late Sinatra himself.”
I asked Nancy Sinatra Jr. about Ronan’s being treated as if he were a member of their family, and she answered in an e-mail, “He is a big part of us, and we are blessed to have him in our lives.” She said of Mia, “From the early days until now, we have been like sisters. My mother is also very fond of her. We are family and will always be.”
I asked Mia point-blank if Ronan was the son of Frank Sinatra. “Possibly,” she answered. (No DNA tests have been done.)
Ronan attended Sinatra’s funeral, in 1998, with his mother, Nancy Sinatra Jr., and Nancy Sinatra Sr., who fusses over him and cooks for him like a grandmother, he says. Mia told me that she and the two Nancys put several items into Frank’s coffin, including “a small bottle of Jack Daniel’s and a dime, because he always told us never to go anywhere without a dime. ‘You never know who you’ll have to call.’ ” Mia also put in a note and her wedding ring.
“Was he the great love of your life?,” I asked.
“Yes.”
Welcome to the World of instant celebrity-hood with the genes to guarantee success!
That leads some to suspect there's a more cynical motive at work here (and thus, likely probable, if Mia's as smart and shrewd as those who know her best claim), explaining all of this recent head-line-grabbing and spotlight-seeking media frenzy: star-making and image-building.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/woody-allen-dylan-farrow-abuse-allegations
Indeed, the larger context for this rehashed scandal is not a pattern of abuse or the ongoing dysfunctions of a celebrated family but rather the demands of a publicity rollout. Twenty-one years after the event – all parties long quiet – a story is revived. It is an old scandal for a new generation.
The impetus seems to be to establish Mia Farrow as a celebrity activist worthy of the world stage, and, as well, to launch a public career for her son Ronan.
The campaign began in the November issue of Vanity Fair in a profile of Mia Farrow by Maureen Orth, an acquaintance (Orth is the widow of NBC's Tim Russert), in which Farrow offered the headline grabber that Frank Sinatra, rather than Woody Allen, might be Ronan's father. In a demonstration of Farrow's famous media acumen, that's all she said, Sinatra "might" be – worldwide titillation followed.
The terms of the article would have been negotiated beforehand [see footnote]. Mia Farrow is, at this point in her career, not a Vanity Fair worthy subject. Hence, in return for laudatory press coverage of her charitable work, and near sycophantic treatment of her yet-to-be-employed son, she would have had to agree to revisit her legendary scandal. That, and then some. The price of publicity for her and Ronan was, in effect, Allen.
It's an agit-prop piece. Orth wrote Vanity Fair's 1992 piece about Woody's break-up with Mia, his relationship with Mia's adopted daughter Soon-Yi (his future wife), and Mia's charges of his sexual abuse of Dylan – it is practically speaking the same piece now.
It's unremitting and unequivocal. Mia – good, great, noble. Woody – evil, duplicitous, dangerous.
Neither the other Mia of many reports, hungry for press and out for revenge, nor the long-married Allen with teenage daughters, steadily doing his work, are present here.
The Vanity Fair piece effectively launched Ronan. Overnight he went from unknown to celebrity, shortly hired by MSNBC. Two weeks ago, he was given a permanent spot on the cable news network's schedule. He has, I am reliably told, promised a grateful MSNBC that his public fight with Allen is far from over.
Several weeks ago, during the Golden Globe Awards where Allen was given a lifetime achievement award, Mia tweeted her displeasure, and then Ronan, upped the ante, and tweeted more pointedly about the 21-year-old molestation charge.
Then last week in the Daily Beast, Weide, who made the 2012 PBS American Masters documentary about Allen, followed up with his close analysis of exactly what happened in 1992. It's quite a demolition job on the Vanity Fair piece, deconstructing timeline, opportunity, and circumstance. What's more, it paints a far more complicated picture of Mia from the one she has curated about herself, including that her brother is in jail for child molestation – Mia's own family is a horribly dysfunctional one – and that her son, Moses, no longer speaks to her and accuses her of "brainwashing".
The stakes were raised, in other words.
Hence, Mia enlists her good friend Kristof to provide a forum for Dylan Farrow's letter. Kristof says it is the first time Dylan Farrow has spoken, but, in fact, that's what Vanity Fair said three months ago, when Dylan spoke to Orth. But this time, Dylan appears in open-letter form – in her own voice. It's a riveting and astute piece of writing – a study in artful composition. It is a 28-year-old's absolute memory of being a seven-year-old. Some of this she recalled for the Vanity Fair piece. But there are now many new details.
On Saturday night, shortly after the letter's release, Lena Dunham, in the midst of on her own massive media rollout for the third season of HBO's Girls, began tweeting her support for Dylan Farrow – who, one might assume, she knows only on the basis of this letter, moved by its striking language and detailed memories, rather than any outside facts. (Dunham, a child at the time of the scandal, was joined in something of a Twitter-wide celebration among other young women of the unknown but suddenly famous Dylan.) Or perhaps, she knows of Dylan directly from Mia, who added a Girl's promo to her Golden Globe tweet – "Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS" – when Allen's award came up.
If you tweet for me; I'll tweet for you.
It is a story of interlocking media deals and cultivated media cronies. Everybody is at work here. Everybody is someone else's instrument. Everybody is promoting something. Two decades have passed but the Allen-Farrow betrayal, break-up, and molestation charges are somehow, all of a sudden, as vivid as yesterday.
Here's a certainty: When you play out your personal dramas, hurt and self-interest in the media, it's a confection. You say what you have to say in the way you have to say it to give it media currency – and that's always far from the truth. Often, in fact, someone else says it for you. It's all planned. It's all rehearsed. This is craft. This is strategy. This is manipulation. This is spin.
