More stories

  • in

    Former Disney Star Kyle Massey Charged With Sending Explicit Messages to a Minor

    Mr. Massey, 29, who starred in “That’s So Raven,” faces a felony charge in connection with accusations that he sent a 13-year-old girl pornographic Snapchat messages.Kyle Massey, a former Disney Channel star best known for his role as Raven-Symoné’s little brother on “That’s So Raven,” has been charged with a felony in Washington State after prosecutors say he sent pornographic messages to a 13-year-old girl in 2018 and 2019.Mr. Massey, 29, was charged on June 14 with one count of communication with a minor for immoral purposes after sending explicit messages, images and videos to the girl via Snapchat from December 2018 to January 2019, according to King County prosecutors.The felony charge stems from accusations made in a lawsuit filed in 2019 against Mr. Massey for $1.5 million by the girl’s mother. This suit was eventually dropped when the girl’s lawyers determined that Mr. Massey did not have enough money for it to make financial sense to pursue the case, according to prosecutors. In 2019, Mr. Massey denied the allegations in the suit, according to a statement obtained by People magazine.In February, the girl’s mother notified the King County Sheriff’s Office that Mr. Massey was sending explicit material to her daughter knowing that she was underage, according to court documents. Prosecutors say that Mr. Massey first met the girl when she was 4 years old, and that in their correspondence during 2018 and 2019 the girl disclosed that she would be in the eighth grade once she went back to school. Mr. Massey was 27 at the time.The mother provided Detective Daniel W. Arvidson of the King County Sheriff’s Office with a thumb drive that she said contained explicit videos and photos sent by Mr. Massey. According to the detective’s written statement, one of the videos on the drive shows a man who looks like Mr. Massey exposing himself to the camera. The girl’s mother also told the police that around the time Mr. Massey started sending the explicit content, he asked the mother if she could send the girl to stay with Mr. Massey and his girlfriend in Los Angeles.Lee A. Hutton III, a lawyer for Mr. Massey, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Mr. Hutton told TMZ that his client became aware of the charges through the media on Tuesday.Mr. Massey played Cory Baxter on all four seasons of “That’s So Raven,” beginning in 2003. He then starred in a spinoff series called “Cory in the House” in 2007.Mr. Massey failed to show up to his arraignment on Monday. A new arraignment date was set for July 12, according to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. More

  • in

    Drake Bell Pleads Guilty to Attempted Child Endangerment

    Mr. Bell, a former star of the Nickelodeon series “Drake & Josh,” faces up to two years in prison.Jared Drake Bell, a former star of the Nickelodeon series “Drake & Josh,” faces up to two years in prison after pleading guilty on Wednesday to two charges against him relating to a girl who met him online and attended one of his concerts in Cleveland in 2017.Mr. Bell, 34, who was charged earlier this month with attempted child endangerment, a felony, and disseminating material harmful to children, a misdemeanor, agreed to a plea deal at a virtual court hearing on Wednesday. He had initially pleaded not guilty to both charges.Mr. Bell’s lawyer, Ian N. Friedman, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.The sentencing range is probation to two years in prison. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 12.According to prosecutors, the charges stem from an incident at a concert in Cleveland on Dec. 1, 2017. Mr. Bell, who is also known as Drake Campana, had posted a tweet saying that he had a show scheduled at the Odeon Concert Club there on that date.Prosecutors said that Mr. Bell engaged in a conversation with a 15-year-old girl that was at times sexual in nature. An investigation by the Cleveland Police Department also revealed that Mr. Bell had sent the girl inappropriate social media messages in the months before the show, the prosecutors said.The judge told Mr. Bell that if he did serve time in prison, his activities could be restricted for up to three years after his release.“Drake & Josh,” a young adult sitcom, aired for four seasons on Nickelodeon from 2004 to 2007. Mr. Bell played one half of a pair of stepbrothers (the other was played by Josh Peck) who lived together despite having opposite personalities.In the years since, Mr. Bell has started a music career and toured in support of several albums. More

  • in

    Drake Bell Charged With Attempted Child Endangerment

    Mr. Bell, who starred in the Nickelodeon series “Drake & Josh” from 2004 to 2007, has pleaded not guilty.Jared Drake Bell, a former star of the Nickelodeon sitcom “Drake & Josh,” was charged in Cleveland with attempted child endangerment and disseminating material harmful to children.Mr. Bell, 34, pleaded not guilty to both charges in Cuyahoga County Court on Thursday. He was released after posting a $2,500 bond and agreeing to not have contact with the alleged victim.He was indicted by a grand jury on May 21.According to prosecutors, the charges stem from an incident at a concert in Cleveland on Dec. 1, 2017. Mr. Bell, who also goes by Drake Campana, had tweeted that he had a show scheduled at the Odeon Concert Club there on that date.Prosecutors said that Mr. Bell engaged in a conversation with a 15-year-old girl that was at times sexual in nature. An investigation by the Cleveland Police Department also revealed that Mr. Bell had sent the girl inappropriate social media messages in the months before the show, the prosecutors said.According to prosecutors, Mr. Bell “violated his duty of care” at the concert and, “in doing so, created a risk of harm to the victim.” A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office, Tyler Sinclair, did not say why Mr. Bell had only just now been indicted.In a brief statement on Friday, Ian N. Friedman, a lawyer representing Mr. Bell, declined to address specific questions. “All facts will be revealed in the courtroom,” he said.The felony child endangerment charge carries a sentence of up to 18 months in prison, with a minimum sentence of six months, and up to a $5,000 fine. The second charge, a misdemeanor, is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.A pretrial video hearing for Mr. Bell has been scheduled for June 23.“Drake & Josh,” a young adult sitcom, aired for four seasons on Nickelodeon from 2004 to 2007. Mr. Bell played one half of a pair of stepbrothers (the other was played by Josh Peck) who lived together despite having opposite personalities.In the years since, Mr. Bell, who now goes by Drake Campana, has launched a music career and toured in support of several albums. More

  • in

    ‘Broken Harts’ Review: Examining a Family Tragedy

    This bland true-crime documentary tells the story of the Hart family, in which two mothers hid the neglect and abuse of their six children behind an idyllic facade.The shallow documentary “Broken Harts” examines a tragic crime: In March, 2018, the Washington couple Jennifer and Sarah Hart killed their six adopted children by driving off a California cliff. At first, authorities assumed the car crash was an accident. Further investigation revealed that the women had been abusing their children, and had premeditated the plunge as an act of family annihilation.Based on a podcast by Glamour, “Broken Harts” (streaming on Discovery+) unfolds as a patchwork of true-crime clichés. After opening with a montage of sinister sound bites, the movie delves into the crash and the revelations that occurred in the days and weeks following. The details are juicy enough, but as the story continues, the investigation timeline starts to feel like superficial framing for the story.More compelling — and more challenging — are the racial and economic factors underpinning the tragedy. Jennifer and Sarah, both white, adopted the six children of color. The two went on to use social media and community platforms to curate a picture of harmony, vitality and bliss. The women’s posturing was calculated: Their idyllic facade concealed a pattern of neglect and abuse occurring behind closed doors.The movie, directed by Gregory Palmer, finds its footing in interviews with the journalist Zaron Burnett. He discusses how the Harts sold an image of white saviorism, and then he expands their story to highlight the systems that enabled their behavior. Burnett’s analysis is sharp, and his words leave a possibility hanging in the air — that with a bolder and broader framework, “Broken Harts” might have been more than fast food for true-crime obsessives.Broken HartsNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 25 minutes. Watch on Discovery+. More

  • in

    ‘Groomed’ Review: Confronting Patterns of Abuse

    In this distressing documentary, a filmmaker confronts her own lingering trauma as she explores how perpetrators prime victims for abuse.Gwen van de Pas was a preteen swimmer in Holland when she met the man who would become her assistant swim team instructor, her caring confidante and soon after, her sexual abuser. Now a filmmaker living in San Francisco, van de Pas explores the traumatic experience in the documentary “Groomed.”The film (streaming on Discovery+), which van de Pas directed, has a strong pedagogic drive, laying out the steps perpetrators often take to “groom” victims — target, befriend and prime them — for sexual abuse. Van de Pas calls on experts, psychologists and a convicted sex offender for interviews, but the most illuminating examples come from her own story. In one harrowing sequence, she returns to her childhood bedroom to find the fawning letters her abuser wrote to her, and rereads them with an adult’s eye.As the film lays bare the intricacies of grooming, van de Pas chronicles her personal journey toward closure. In interviews, she recalls how she blocked out troubling memories for years, until the encounters began appearing in her dreams. She meditates on the meaning of justice and explores her hesitancy to report the abuse. Cathartic conversations with family members and other survivors lend comfort and clarity.Much of “Groomed” was filmed with a crew, and the subjects often appear in soft focus and cool hues. But the most affecting scenes clearly arose too suddenly for a production team. Early one morning, van de Pas calls her partner on Skype to relay upsetting news. She weeps in bed as her partner, on his way to work, sits down, stunned. The documentary is deliberate in ending on an uplifting note, but it is such intimate moments of pain that linger on.GroomedNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 22 minutes. Watch on Discovery+. More

  • in

    ‘Allen v. Farrow’ Episode 4 Recap: An Adult Dylan Farrow Speaks Out

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Allen v. Farrow’ Episode 4 Recap: An Adult Dylan Farrow Speaks OutThe finale of the HBO docuseries delves into the changing perception of Woody Allen and Ms. Farrow’s decision to go public with her allegations of sexual abuse.Frank Maco, the former Connecticut state’s attorney who decided not to press charges in an investigation, with Dylan Farrow, in “Allen v. Farrow.”Credit…HBOMarch 14, 2021The final installment of “Allen v. Farrow,” an HBO documentary series examining Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegations against her adopted father, Woody Allen, covers the years from 1993, when a state’s attorney declined to prosecute the filmmaker, to the present.The previous three episodes explored what Ms. Farrow says happened on Aug. 4, 1992, when she was 7 years old — that her father sexually assaulted her in the attic of the family’s Connecticut country home. The filmmakers combed through police and court documents, scrutinized the integrity of the investigations into her accusation and sought expert analysis of video footage of young Dylan telling her mother what happened.Mr. Allen has long denied sexually abusing his daughter and has accused her mother, Mia Farrow — Mr. Allen’s ex-girlfriend — of concocting the sexual-assault accusation because she was angry at him for having a sexual relationship with her college-age daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. (Mr. Allen and Ms. Previn later married.) A spokesperson for Mr. Allen, who did not participate in the documentary, said that it is “riddled with falsehoods.”The finale covers the world’s reaction to the events of the early 1990s, Mr. Allen’s continued fame and accolades and, in recent years, a growing unwillingness among those in Hollywood to be associated with him after the #MeToo Movement.The prosecutor’s decisionThe episode begins on Sept. 24, 1993. That day, Frank Maco, a Connecticut state’s attorney, announced that although he had “probable cause” to prosecute Mr. Allen, he had decided he would not press charges to spare Ms. Farrow the potential trauma of a trial.Mr. Maco, who was interviewed extensively for the documentary, says that earlier that month in 1993, he had met with young Dylan in his office, with toys in the room and a female state trooper there. When Mr. Maco asked about her father, he said, she froze up and would not respond.“The strongest proponents for prosecution just looked at me, and we all shrugged our shoulders,” Mr. Maco said. “We weren’t going anywhere with this child.”In a news conference, Mr. Allen said that rather that being happy or grateful for the decision, he said he was “merely disgusted” that his children had been “made to suffer unbearably by the unwholesome alliance between a vindictive mother and a cowardly, dishonest, irresponsible state’s attorney and his police.”“I felt if I had just kept his secret,” Ms. Farrow says, “I could have spared my mom all this grief, and my brothers and sister — myself.”Credit…HBODylan grows upIn the years after the police investigation and the custody trial, which ended in her mother’s favor, Ms. Farrow says she suffered through a long period of guilt, thinking that she was at fault for the family rift.“I felt if I had just kept his secret,” she tells the filmmakers, “I could have spared my mom all this grief, and my brothers and sister — myself.”Siblings say in the series that Ms. Farrow often kept to herself and seemed riddled with anxiety. She says that she didn’t talk about the assault in depth with anyone — not even her mother or her therapist. In high school, she recalls, she broke up with her only boyfriend after only three weeks because she anticipated that he would want to be intimate with her.Ronan Farrow, Ms. Farrow’s brother, tells the filmmakers that his mother tried to distance her children from Mr. Allen. But, he says, “there was always a lot of incentive to be drawn into Woody Allen’s efforts to discredit” his sister. For example, Mr. Farrow says, Mr. Allen had made him an offer that if he spoke out against his mother and his sister publicly, Mr. Allen would help pay for his college education.After an awards showThe saga returned to the public discourse in 2014, after Mr. Allen received a lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes. In the past, Mr. Farrow tells filmmakers, he had discouraged his sister from speaking publicly about their father and the events of the 1990s with the hope that the family could put it behind them.But after the awards show, Mr. Farrow tweeted, “Missed the Woody Allen tribute — did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?” Ms. Farrow says that her brother’s willingness to speak publicly about the subject emboldened her to write about her memory of events, which were appeared in The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s blog. (Mr. Farrow, who helped his sister publish the open letter, said that after another newspaper declined to print the account, he took it to Mr. Kristof, a family friend.) Mr. Allen later published an Op-Ed in The Times denying his daughter’s allegations.For two decades, Ms. Farrow says, she felt isolated and alone because of her experience. After publishing her letter, she received an outpouring of messages from people she knew sharing their own experiences with sexual abuse.Loyalty to Mr. AllenStill, many Hollywood actors remained loyal to Mr. Allen despite the accusations, and his star power and industry reputation remained mostly intact..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1pd7fgo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1pd7fgo{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1pd7fgo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1pd7fgo{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-coqf44{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-coqf44 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-coqf44 em{font-style:italic;}.css-coqf44 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-coqf44 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#333;text-decoration-color:#333;}.css-coqf44 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Understand the Allegations Against Woody AllenNearly 30 years ago, Woody Allen was accused of sexually abusing Dylan Farrow, his adopted daughter. A new docuseries re-examines the case.This timeline reviews the major events in the complicated history of the director, his children and the Farrow family.The documentary filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering spoke about delving into this thorny family tale. Read our recaps of episode 1, episode 2, episode 3 and episode 4.Dylan Farrow wrote an open letter in 2014, posted by the New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof, recounting her story in detail.Our book critic reviewed Mr. Allen’s recent memoir, “Apropos of Nothing.”A.O. Scott, co-chief film critic, grappled with the accusations and his complicated feelings on the filmmaker in 2018. Four days after Ms. Farrow’s letter was published, her brother Moses Farrow told People Magazine that she was never molested. He also said that Mia Farrow coached the children to hate Mr. Allen and that she often hit him as a child. When Dylan Farrow learned what her brother said, she burst into tears, saying, “It was like I had been told that this person that I knew and loved and trusted was gone.”In interviews with the filmmakers, Ronan Farrow along with two more siblings, Fletcher Previn and Daisy Previn, say that the abuse allegations against their mother were untrue.In 2018, Moses Farrow followed up with a blog post that continued to dispute his sister’s account of sexual abuse. He targeted a specific detail of her story, which she had included in The Times letter: that while Mr. Allen sexually assaulted her, she remembers focusing on her brother’s electric train set, which had been traveling in circles around the attic. Mr. Farrow said that there was no electric train set in the attic. In Mr. Allen’s recent memoir, “Apropos of Nothing,” he also disputed that detail, calling it a “fresh creative touch.”But, according to police documents, the detectives investigating the alleged assault did find a train set in the attic. A detailed drawing from 1992, which is shown in the episode, includes an object labeled “toy train track” in the attic crawl space.Ms. Farrow with her mother, Mia Farrow.Credit…HBODylan, decades laterThis episode captures Ms. Farrow’s adult life, 28 years after she says her father assaulted her. It shows her husband, Sean, whom she met on a dating site linked to The Onion, and Ms. Farrow, now 35, playing with their young daughter.At one point, Mia Farrow asks her daughter, “Do you ever feel angry at me?” referring to her choice to bring Mr. Allen into the family. In response, Dylan Farrow says that, first and foremost, she was glad that her mother believed her account of that day in 1992, saying, “You were there when it mattered.”Another scene in the episode shows Mr. Maco, the state’s attorney, meeting with Ms. Farrow — their first encounter since 1993.Mr. Maco said that he told Mia Farrow that when her daughter becomes an adult, he would be happy to answer any questions. That opportunity came last fall — and the documentary team recorded their conversation.“A part of me really, really wishes that I could have done it,” Dylan Farrow tells Mr. Maco, “that I could have had my day in court.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘Allen v. Farrow’ Episode 3 Recap: Investigations and a Custody Trial

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Allen v. Farrow’ Episode 3 Recap: Investigations and a Custody TrialFilmmakers delve into dozens of boxes of records that documented the investigations into Dylan Farrow’s accusation of sexual abuse.Mia Farrow with her daughter Dylan in “Allen v. Farrow.” Episode 3 focuses on police and court documents, much of which had never been made public.Credit…HBOMarch 7, 2021In the previous episode of “Allen v. Farrow,” the HBO documentary series that examines Dylan Farrow’s accusation of sexual abuse against her father, Woody Allen, the filmmakers introduced viewers to key video footage of a 7-year-old Dylan explaining events to her mother.Although the footage, shot by Mia Farrow, had not been released publicly before this series, its existence has been the subject of controversy. Allies of Mr. Allen saw it as proof that Mia, Dylan’s mother, had coached Dylan. Others saw it as clear evidence that the accusations were true.Episode 3 revisits this footage and delves into the investigations, court proceedings and familial turmoil that followed.Mr. Allen has long denied the accusations of sexual abuse, and, after the first episode aired, a spokesperson for him said that the docuseries was “riddled with falsehoods.”This episode is built largely off police and court documents, much of which had never been made public, including a trove of more than 60 boxes of documentation that was in a lawyer’s storage room.Frank S. Maco, a state’s attorney in Connecticut, who worked on the case. He asked the child abuse clinic at Yale-New Haven Hospital to evaluate Dylan Farrow.Credit…HBOA high-profile police inquiryIt was Dylan Farrow’s pediatrician who first reported her allegations to the authorities, leading to investigations by the Connecticut State Police and the New York City Child Welfare Administration. (Dylan Farrow said the sexual assault occurred in the attic of the family’s Connecticut summer home.)In an extensive interview, Frank S. Maco, then a state’s attorney in Connecticut, says that he intended to investigate the accusation “quietly,” but that Mr. Allen held a news conference at the Plaza Hotel, where he shared the news of the investigation. Mr. Allen called the allegations a “gruesomely damaging manipulation of innocent children for vindictive and self-serving purposes.” He also declared his love for Soon-Yi Previn, Mia Farrow’s daughter, suggesting that the allegations were a result of Mia lashing out over that relationship.“They were doing a great job painting Mia Farrow as a scorned woman who would say anything,” said Rosanna Scotto, a broadcast reporter who covered the news at the time.Armed with that narrative, Mr. Allen went on a media campaign, while Ms. Farrow stayed relatively quiet. She told filmmakers that she was trying to establish some semblance of normalcy for her children.The Yale-New Haven reportMr. Maco, the prosecutor, said that he asked the child abuse clinic at Yale-New Haven Hospital to evaluate Dylan Farrow, to determine whether she would be traumatized by taking the stand at a trial and whether there were any “impediments” to her ability to testify — including any ability to “perceive, recall and relate.”During a seven-month inquiry, experts interviewed Dylan Farrow nine times, a number that child abuse and legal experts tell the documentary filmmakers was excessive for a child subject.“I would repeat the story over and over and over again,” Dylan Farrow says in the episode. “It was grueling and it was intense.”The final report stated that there were “inconsistencies” in Dylan Farrow’s statements and that she had “difficulties distinguishing fantasy from reality.” It found that her accusations were “likely reinforced and encouraged” by her mother. The clinic shared the results with Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow without telling Mr. Maco they were doing so, he said, and Mr. Allen announced the determinations at a news conference.Later on, during the custody battle between Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow, the director of the clinic said in a deposition that its practice was to destroy notes; experts interviewed in Episode 3 say that this is antithetical to common practice in their field.The New York investigationThe inquiry by New York City’s Child Welfare Administration was being spearheaded by Paul Williams, a caseworker who interviewed Dylan Farrow and found her to be credible.Within two weeks of the investigation, Mr. Williams determined that there was sufficient information to open a New York-based criminal investigation, but he was told by superiors that in high-profile cases like this one, it was customary for the “big wigs” to take responsibility and for the welfare administration to relinquish control, according to case records reviewed by the filmmakers.A lawyer for Mr. Williams, Bruce Baron, says in the documentary that at the time, his client “wouldn’t shut up” about the case at work, and he was fired for insubordination. Mr. Williams sued the city over the firing, arguing in part that the city had suppressed information about the case; he won in court and got his job back..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1pd7fgo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1pd7fgo{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1pd7fgo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1pd7fgo{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Understand the Allegations Against Woody AllenNearly 30 years ago, Woody Allen was accused of sexually abusing Dylan Farrow, his adopted daughter. A new docuseries re-examines the case.This timeline reviews the major events in the complicated history of the director, his children and the Farrow family.The documentary filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering spoke about delving into this thorny family tale. Read our recaps of episode 1 and episode 2.Dylan Farrow wrote an open letter in 2014, posted by the New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof, recounting her story in detail.Our book critic reviewed Mr. Allen’s recent memoir, “Apropos of Nothing.”A.O. Scott, co-chief film critic, grappled with the accusations and his complicated feelings on the filmmaker in 2018. In looking through Mr. Williams’s case files, the filmmakers found notes about a conversation he had with Jennifer Sawyer, a social worker who had interviewed Dylan Farrow for the Yale-New Haven report. According to the notes, Ms. Sawyer told Mr. Williams that “she believes Dylan” and believed that the child had “more to disclose.”In a seven-month period, Dylan Farrow was questioned nine times by clinic workers.Credit…HBOThe custody battleOn Aug. 13, 1992, nine days after the alleged sexual assault, Mr. Allen sued Mia Farrow for custody of their three children: Dylan Farrow, Moses Farrow and Ronan Farrow.In a taped phone call between Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, Ms. Farrow brings up his lawsuit against her and accusations that she was an unfit mother, to which he responds, “And I’m going to make them stick.” Ms. Farrow begged him to drop the case.During the trial, which started in the spring of 1993, Mr. Allen testified that he believed Ms. Farrow had “brainwashed” her daughter and that he was not alone with Dylan on the day that she said he assaulted her.The judge ultimately sided with Ms. Farrow, saying that Mr. Allen exhibited grossly inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and that “measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge called the Yale-New Haven report “sanitized,” considering the destruction of the notes and the team’s unwillingness to testify at trial.Expert analysisAt the end of the episode, the filmmakers return to the footage of Dylan Farrow taken by her mother, and show child abuse experts analyzing the video for the documentary. At the custody trial, where the footage was entered as evidence, Mr. Allen said that Ms. Farrow had asked her daughter “in a leading way about molestation.”But after seeing the footage, one of the documentary’s interviewees, Anna Salter, a child abuse expert and psychologist, said that Ms. Farrow did not make any “overt suggestions” in her questioning. One “implicit” suggestion Ms. Farrow makes, Dr. Salter said, is asking her daughter if Mr. Allen took her underpants off. (Dylan responds that he hadn’t done so.)“From my point of view, what’s important is Dylan’s response: Does she go along with the suggestion?” Dr. Salter said. “But she doesn’t.”As Ms. Farrow says in a taped phone call between her and Mr. Allen played at the top of the episode: “Dylan’s a baby; how could you do that to her?”Mr. Allen’s response is inaudible.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and What Popular Culture Wants to Believe

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCritic’s NotebookWoody Allen, Mia Farrow and What Popular Culture Wants to BelieveThe new HBO documentary revisits a 1990s scandal. What viewers take away from it may depend on the stories they trust about women and why.The family in happier days, with Woody Allen, third from left, and Mia Farrow, far right.Credit…HBOMarch 2, 2021Updated 4:45 p.m. ETThere are two stories. In one, a father molests his 7-year-old daughter. In the other, a mother coaches that daughter to falsely accuse the father. These stories, one proposed by Mia Farrow and her advocates, one by Woody Allen and his, clearly contradict each other. No sane person can accept both. Crucially, only one lets you feel mostly OK about watching “Annie Hall” again.I was a teenager in 1992 when this particular scandal broke, so I experienced them through the cracked prism of gender narratives absorbed from the movies and shows and stealthily read supermarket tabloids of the day: That a woman should be pretty but not too pretty, sexy but not too sexy, smart but not too smart, empowered but mostly in a way that means wearing boob-forward dresses and high heels — but for you! because you want to! — and doesn’t trespass on any actual power. A fun fact about high heels: They make it harder to run away. There were limitless ways, the culture informed me, that a woman could get it wrong — “it” being her body, her career, her accusations of abuse.I can still remember an article, probably from The National Enquirer, that pitted celebrity women against one another according to their knees. The only star with acceptable ones? The “Entertainment Tonight” host Mary Hart. Her knees are truly lovely, the article read.I thought about these narratives while watching — twice, in a “Clockwork Orange,” eyes-clamped-open kind of way — “Allen v. Farrow.” A four-part documentary by Amy Ziering, Kirby Dick and Amy Herdy, now on HBO, it centers on one of the more involuted scandals of the early ’90s, the breakdown of the relationship between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow and the accusations and counteraccusations and custody trial and appeals that followed. The couple met in 1979. They had a child together in 1987, Ronan Farrow (who changed his name from Satchel). In 1991, Allen formally adopted Mia Farrow’s two youngest children, Dylan, the daughter who has accused him of abuse, and Moses.Moses Farrow, Soon-Yi Previn, Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen in a scene from the documentary.Credit…HBOIn January 1992, Farrow discovered explicit Polaroids that Allen had taken of another of her daughters, her eldest, Soon-Yi Previn, then 21. That August, Dylan Farrow has said, she was abused when Allen was alone with her for perhaps 20 minutes during his visit to Mia Farrow’s home in Connecticut. Concerned by reports from babysitters and by statements that Dylan allegedly made, Farrow took the child to a pediatrician. The pediatrician reported the suspected abuse to law enforcement. Allen sued for custody. A criminal investigation began. The news media chronicled it all with the kind of fervid enthusiasm you mostly see in circus parades. (Allen has consistently denied the accusations.)Dick and Ziering’s previous work includes “The Invisible War,” an exposé of sexual assault in the military, and “The Hunting Ground,” which addressed assault on college campuses. Their last film, “On the Record,” explored allegations against the music producer Russell Simmons. (He has denied all accusations of nonconsensual sex.) So no, “Allen v. Farrow” isn’t exactly evenhanded. Then again, in cases of abuse allegations, is even-handedness exactly what we want?Allen and Soon-Yi Previn declined to participate in the series, recently arguing, via a spokesperson, that the filmmakers hadn’t given them enough notice. Not that Allen has made his own case particularly well. In a 1992 news conference he appears whiny, aggrieved. Later, in a “60 Minutes” interview, he says that he couldn’t possibly have abused his child in that moment, because it would have been “illogical.” Is this how most men approach predation? With careful pro-and-con lists? (Also, here’s the title of Allen’s 2015 movie about a murderous professor who sleeps with his young student? “Irrational Man.”)The documentary shows evidence supporting Allen, chiefly a report from the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Dylan was either fantasizing or had been coached by her mother. On the other side is the testimony, in court and for the camera, of babysitters, family friends and Dylan herself. The judge in the custody trial ultimately labeled Allen’s behavior “grossly inappropriate.”Dylan, left, and Ronan Farrow with Woody Allen, who has called the documentary “shoddy.”Credit…HBOBut at the arrhythmic heart of the matter were these two stories. Until very recently, the public preferred the one that allowed Allen to keep making movies, movies in which comparatively powerless young women willingly enter into relationships with older, more powerful men.This past summer and fall, as my marriage was very quietly imploding, I spent what little free time I had jogging around the park near my Brooklyn apartment, trying, I guess, to figure out my own story, 3.3 miles at a time. While I ran, I listened to “You’re Wrong About,” an irreverent, stiletto-sharp podcast that often discusses maligned women of the ’80s, ’90s and ’00s — Anna Nicole Smith, Tonya Harding, Janet Jackson, Monica Lewinsky, half a dozen more.These stories run a big-haired gamut in terms of individual culpability, but in every case, popular culture found a way to blame the woman, often to excuse a more blameworthy man. Take, for example, Janet Jackson’s Nipplegate, a scandal that never touched Justin Timberlake. Or Monica Lewinsky, portrayed as a slut, as though that somehow negated the outrageous power imbalance in Bill Clinton’s relationship with her. This recalls another lesson I learned from ’80s and ’90s media: The only good victim is a perfect victim. That otherwise it was probably her fault.This particular narrative re-emerges in the recent documentary “Framing Britney Spears.” That film shows news media at the turn of the century panting to tell a story about a star acting inappropriately, a party girl wilding out when she should have been at home. “Britney: Out of Control,” read an Us Weekly cover. Whose control? Conveniently, the tabloid framing lays Spears’s spiral at her own bare feet. It avoids impugning the people with actual power, the magazine editors and the record company executives who shaped and policed and profited from her image..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1pd7fgo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1pd7fgo{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1pd7fgo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1pd7fgo{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1pd7fgo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Understand the Allegations Against Woody AllenNearly 30 years ago, Woody Allen was accused of sexually abusing Dylan Farrow, his adoptive daughter. A new docuseries re-examines the case.This timeline reviews the major events in the complicated history of the director, his children and the Farrow family.The documentary filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering spoke about delving into this thorny family tale. Dylan Farrow wrote an open letter in 2014, posted by the New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof, recounting her story in detail.Our book critic reviewed Mr. Allen’s recent memoir, “Apropos of Nothing.”A.O. Scott, co-chief film critic, grappled with the accusations and his complicated feelings on the filmmaker in 2018. I asked Sarah Marshall, a journalist and a host of “You’re Wrong About,” why popular culture likes to portray women as complicit and deserving of contempt. “It justifies subjugating them,” she said. “If women are randomly taken down for possessing what we see as an alarming degree of power, even if it isn’t, then maybe they’ll be more fearful about how they wield it.”Mia Farrow — with her children Daisy, Fletcher, Soon-Yi and Lark Previn — cooperated extensively with the documentary makers.Credit…HBOHas popular culture finally moved on? In a recent telephone interview, Anne Helen Petersen, a celebrity gossip expert and the author of “Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud: The Rise and Reign of the Unruly Woman,” discussed sympathetic attitudes toward Allen, Michael Jackson and R. Kelly in the ’90s and 2000s. “I don’t think we were equipped to deal with stories of abuse at that moment,” she said. Now she sees “a larger shift in our apparatus of language to understand and condemn when it comes to abuse,” she said.We can perhaps trace that shift if we survey the celebrity scandals of the past year — involving Marilyn Manson, Shia LaBeouf and others. Then again, when it comes to gossip and censure, the scales for men and women remain differently weighted. Armie Hammer had to allegedly ask to literally eat women in order to provoke outrage. (He’s denied the accusations.) All Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion had to do was rap about female arousal. A few weeks after they released “WAP,” Megan Thee Stallion accused the rapper Tory Lanez of shooting her in July, a charge Lanez has denied. Some social media users then suggested that the shooting was somehow her fault.The “Allen v. Farrow” series, in part because it sides so unequivocally and uncritically with Mia Farrow, will convince some but not all. Still, no matter what did or didn’t happen in that Connecticut crawl space in 1992, and even though we know, or we should know, that child sexual abuse is frighteningly common and that false reports of abuse are rare, there was one story that our culture believed. Here’s how a now adult Dylan Farrow put it in a CBS interview from 2018: “What I don’t understand is how is this crazy story of me being brainwashed and coached more believable than what I’m saying about being sexually assaulted by my father?”How? Because that story reinforces norms of power and control. Because it supports an idea of women as conniving and untrustworthy. Because making women wrong — for their knees, for their autonomy — is what our culture loves to do. And if a woman like Mia Farrow — pretty, successful, comparatively wealthy — could be exposed as a villain, it becomes that much easier to delegitimize the rest of us, particularly women of color, who are more likely to experience sexual violence and less likely to report it.If you believe Allen, his story is a happy one, at least until #MeToo came along and complicated it. He marries Previn. He makes movie after movie. He even wins another Oscar. If you believe Dylan Farrow, you recognize she grew up knowing that her abuser went unpunished, that his career flourished. That’s a terrible ending. What attitudes would our culture have to sacrifice to imagine a better one?AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More