Taki against “Allen against Farrow”

By sir Taki Theodoracopoulos

New York- The high society life is extinct because of you-know-what and the last time I went to a glamorous party was when Marie Antoinette still had her head on her shoulders or at least it seems that way to me, while at the same time sweaty leggings are always welcome at closed parties. Here in New York, fashion has followed the dictates of the “street” for a long time, making haute couture seem as irrelevant and obscene as Anna Wintour being paid millions to “lick” celebrities.

No sweat and no tights was my only rule for the dinner for Prince Paul in an intimate family circle, cooked by Michael Mailer and attended by Arki Bussonand and three younger women. A very interesting discussion took place in the middle of the meal, one where a guest threatened to denounce me as a chauvinist until I assured her that I didn’t mind her threatening me as I am a proud chauvinist. New York today looks like Moscow in 1935, full of fear from the PC Police.

My blood pressure went up when I watched a documentary about Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, one that was made with Mia’s permission but without Woody’s cooperation. It was long and particularly boring, with prolonged shots of several children sitting around a pond and garden, with Mia Farrow dominating the proceedings followed by Dylan in the “victim” role. The only thing I mentioned that didn’t get me beheaded was when I said I suspected Dylan was patronized because of the way she focused on the camera every time she had to do her scene. She played it very well, I think, if it turned out to be a role. The reason I was on Woody Allen’s side when this madness broke out was very simple: I couldn’t imagine how a normal person would sexually harass an innocent child. And Woody Allen was a normal man, very talented but normal. That’s when my wife told me that I live in a fantasy world, and that this world is full of perverts and pedophiles. Yeah, sure, but what about Woody Allen?

I don’t recommend the above documentary because it’s very boring and one-sided and Woody Allen comes across as a monster. The problem is that if he is guilty, his place is behind bars but a documentary is not a courtroom. And then there are the memories, which are reconstructed and not repeated. Memories can be planted, especially childhood memories. But they can also be manipulated with the right questions. Language can change the way we remember things, making it easy to manipulate childhood memories. All in all, I learned nothing more about this particular case after hours of watching it, except that she accused him and he denied it. Another major factor was the “wronged woman” type scenario. Allen had refused to marry Mia and ran off with her adopted daughter, so what could be more natural than a Medea-type revenge? As I was being attacked with heavy-handed name-calling, I defended myself by quoting a quote from Voltaire, where better a thousand guilty men get away with it than one innocent man be convicted. It didn’t go well. Who is this Walter?

An honorable man with compassion is also the Connecticut prosecutor, who at the time of the alleged molestation refused to hold a trial because he would have been forced to put a four-year-old child on the stand. Woody’s lawyers would have gotten juice out of the little girl, and that’s why the prosecutor refused to do so. Now he retired and met the alleged victim on camera and Dylan told him that she wished he would have had the trial and put her on the stand. I guess we’ll never know but one thing is for sure: Woody Allen’s name will be remembered not for Manhattan, Radio Days, Hannah and her Sisters andAnnie Hall (among 40 great movies) but for sexually abusing Dylan’s four-year-old daughter.

So I ask you, have you considered the possibility that Woody Allen never touched the child and all this mess was created by the jealous Mia Farrow who decided to “kill” his career and reputation once and for all? If so, then Farrow deserves to be put on the same pedestal as similar vengeful women in history such as Medea, Agrippina, Catherine II of Russia, Clytemnestra and of course Lizzie Borden. But I also ask you, what if Woody actually did the dirty deed? And we missed it because of a modest prosecutor, his undeniable fame and talent, and his ability to tell romantic stories so well in his films? The actions hold risks, costs and benefits. Calculating correctly, Mia’s decision to go public seems to have worked. Personally, the first moment I saw it I knew the whole thing was a fabrication. Now I’m not so sure, in fact I’m 50/50. Was it his lack of self-control and inability to control his impulses that led him to this act? Even if someone had this very sick desire to “touch” a child, surely emotional intelligence plays a role. Woody denied it and all we have are the words of Mia and his daughter, which I don’t trust either after watching their 4 hour documentary. We need the Oracle of Delphi but Pythia is now outside doing hashish, legal now in this dump. Meanwhile, we have to follow Voltaire. And who is this Walter after all?