Woody Allen May Not Be Talking, But His PR Offensive Is Heating Up

Woody Allen May Not Be Talking, But His PR Offensive Is Heating Up

In the wake of abuse allegations, the director's longtime publicist is barraging the media and Hollywood with links to pro-Allen commentary

When Woody Allen broke his silence over accusations that he'd sexually assaulted his adopted daughter, his comments ended with the parenthetical note, “This column will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party.”

But plenty of people have since spoken out – if not on Allen's behalf, then in his favor. And Allen's longtime publicist has made sure that the filmmaker's supporters are being heard, forwarding links to pro-Allen commentary to a select email list that includes television networks, print and online journalists, film executives and producers and other public-relations execs.

Also read: Woody Allen Timeline: What Happened to the 1992 Allegations

On Tuesday alone, for instance, Leslee Dart of 42 West sent out four emails in less than three-and-a-half hours — a barrage that could be seen as overkill on behalf of a client who has vowed silence, but one that has also been part of an offensive that appears to have given Hollywood enough evidence not to condemn Allen.

(Whether it will prove to be as effective with the general public has yet to be seen.)

Tuesday's emails began with a  link to a Washington Post opinion piece by Richard Cohen that began with the line, “The defenestration of Woody Allen started Feb. 2 with a column in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof,” and takes both the Times and Kristof, in whose column the original Dylan Farrow accusations were made, to task for being negligent and imbalanced.

Less than 10 minutes later, she sent out a link to a column from TheDish that referenced a Dory Previn song called “With My Daddy in the Attic” (Previn's husband Andre divorced her for Mia Farrow), and also included extensive reader comments about implanted memories and false accusations that swept daycare providers around the time of the McMartin case in Los Angeles.

An hour later, Dart sent a a third email linking to a Huffington Post story by David J. Toussaint criticizing the way in which Nicholas Kristof presented Dylan Farrow's letter, and concluding that “the evidence points to Allen's innocence” and “when it comes to push-button topics, facts are considered insulting; sound bites are divine.”

Also read: Woody Allen Ex-Teen Girlfriend Says Abuse Allegations Are a Publicity Stunt for Ronan Farrow Show

And two hours after that, she sent a link to a piece in Psychology Today that begins with the line, “At the turn of the 20th century, lynchings of African Americans were not only commonplace, but when the media — largely newspapers at the time — covered them, they almost always did so as if they were deserved.” The focus of the piece was the media's “mob mentality,” and how it created an unfair rush to judgment.

“As I have said in an earlier essay, I don't know if Woody Allen is guilty or not,” wrote cultural anthropologist Janice Harper. “But what I do know is that the manner in which the accusations against [Allen] have been presented by the media constitutes mobbing, by any definition of the term.”

Dart has been on the offensive since the day after the allegations were first published, when she issued a statement saying that Allen found the story “untrue and disgraceful,” and asking the media to point out that no charges were filed, and a 1992 investigation found “no credible evidence of molestation.”

And after Allen's own response, which made the same points and also attacked Mia Farrow on a number of fronts, Dart continued to send links to stories that bolstered Allen's story.

Also read: Dylan Farrow Fires Back at Woody Allen Defense: ‘Legalese, Distortions, Outright Lies’

The court of public opinion isn't close to rendering a verdict in the mess, and it is still possible for the allegations to seriously affect Allen's life and career. But in his first five days of “silence” since he delivered his last word on the subject, Woody Allen appears to have a loud voice on his side.

  • 2tall4u

    He's a pedo. Smmfh

    • Damn-Deal-Done

      No he isn't.

  • boycartoonist

    Woody rules!

  • Andres

    Of course he is a pedo… You married a 17yo Japanese girl (and they look like 12yo even when they are 30yo)…. Just because he is WOODY ALLEN he can get away of this… Shame on you Hollywood.

    • Helena_Buckett

      Soon-Yi is Korean, not Japanese. And Soon-Yi Previn was 27 years old when she and Allen married, not 17 — no matter how “they”look to you.

      • JF

        She may have been 27 when Woody married her but she was just 7 years old when he met her as the adopted daughter of his girlfriend. He was “caught”having an affair with Soon-Yi when she was 17 but when did it start is the question? 14.15,16? Who knows but it's sick no matter what.

        • hardyharhar1603

          17? Even at 17, that's technically the legal age of consent in NYS. Besides that, newspaper reports indicate 19 / 21 when they started hanging out. In fact, nobody is sure exactly when she was born — 1970 or 1972.

          • Silentmonkeys

            He lied to Mia Farrow for six months while he was sleeping with her daughter. Then, after Mia found pornographic pictures of Soon-Yi, he lied to her again, telling her he'd end it. He didn't think Mia considered his affair with her daughter any better or worse than if he'd been sleeping with his secretary. He didn't consider Soon-Yi's family a “real” family because the kids were adopted. He thought her brothers and sisters were just a “collection of children” that would have no problem with the fact that their father/father figure was sleeping with their sister. People's willingness to believe Woody Allen's lies after proving himself to be a liar with no understanding of familial bonds and boundaries continues to astound me.

          • cite

            Do you have a pipeline into Woody Allen's mind? Where do you get all this strange rambling info? From your imagination? Cite your source for all this weird gossip…

          • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

            The custody decision relates most of it, and more, such as Woody Allen was in therapy for his lack of boundaries with Dylan for months before Mia discovered he was sexing up her daughter

          • Damn-Deal-Done

            Woody And Mia's relationship was pretty much over anyway by that time and she had an affair with Frank Sinatra whilst she was with Woody so you can;t use that as character assassination against Woody solely. The collection of children remark is exactly what Mia does, NOT Woody. Collecting children is Mia hobby. Woody had very little care for them and he certainly was not a father figure to anyone other than to his own three children, Dylon, Ronan and Moses.

          • Silentmonkeys

            Whether it was over or not, Soon-Yi was her daughter. He had no concern or even regard, much less remorse, for the damage his pursuit of sexual gratification did to this family. Even if you do not believe Dylan's account of her sexual assault by Woody, witnesses testified under oath that he was found with his head in her crotch, that he ran his fingers through her buttocks, that he had her suck on his finger, that his fixation on her was inappropriately intense. By his statements, he has no concern or regard, much less remorse, for the damage this alone has done to the now-adult object of his obsession or her family. You can justify that till the cows come home. Not everyone – including every judge who heard his arguments – sees it your way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

            You read as deviant as Woody Allen behaves. It doesn't matter what was between him and Mia, whether or not they were over. His children saw Soon Yi as their sister. Allen showed a complete and utter lack of empathy for his own children and a sociopathic level of narcissism by sleeping with his children's sister. That you cannot understand that shows that you also have problems understanding normal healthy familial boundaries.

          • Stone cold

            Actually the court could not prove when the relationship started but only when they were caught. Allen had taken numerous trips around the world together as a family.
            Their trips were in
            1988 2- 4 years old during trips Dylan
            1989 Soon-Yi was 15-19 during these trips..

            Soon-yi's estimated age 1970-1972 adopted 1977-80. Age when she met Woody for the first time was 8-10.

            So again we don't know when he started grooming her for sexual acts.

            But his new adopted daughters look just like Soon-yi and Dylan.
            Click to see photos of the girls now… it's the past repeating itself.

          • observer

            No dog in this fight, but the court was not concerned with the Soon Yi relationship as it was legal and not relevant. You imply they were “caught” by authorities. Back up your position with relevant info, not lies and the irrelevant

          • Jill Friedman

            I recommend reading the judge's decision. Woody's behavior with Soon Yi was of great concern to the judge and one of the main reasons he ordered very limited, supervised visitation with Satchel and delayed visitation with Dylan and Moses.

    • luzzjl524

      my Aunty Sienna recently got a year old
      Jaguar only from working off a home computer… Recommended Reading B­i­g­4­1­.­ℂ­o­m

    • Mindy Lopkin

      Andres – Wow… Racist much?

      Shame on you for such a statement.

    • wr

      Well, no one can say if WA is a “pedo,” but it's pretty obvious that you're a racist. “They” look like 12 when they're 30? You mean all those “Japanese” girls from Korea? Or do they all just look alike to you?

      Yeah, we'll all be taking your opinions seriously.

    • mymaypo

      There is no such thing as “Hollywood”. Everyone who works in this town has their own mind and opinion.

    • Liz

      She was 25 when they married. She's Korean. He's not getting away with anything, he's being publically castigated for unsubstantiated allegations. Hollywood has nothing to do with it.

  • MatterEater

    should point out those cases about Micheal Jackson, Kobe, Cosby and others.

  • MatterEater

    Mobbing? You mean being pressed like a father unto his daughter trying to molest her? The Wood would know.

    1. Mass hysteria over a 20 year period, orchestrated by an irrational woman who is also a master of manipulation….or the statement of a victim, a previous judge's report, and the Wood having admitted to abusive behaviour in the past. Of course, be logical.

    2. The Wood has been found to lie He lies that he took a valid lie detector test and passed, with Mia refusing. His test was administered by his own legal team, and not the police, so it was seen as the total crap that it was. Mia was NEVER asked to take a lie detector test, the prosecutor has confirmed so. A man as scorned as the Wood needs to make crap up.

    3. The Wood claims not only was Mia out to get him, but the prosecutor was media hungry. No one bloody heard of the prosecutor since the case, was cleared of all lawsuits brought by the Wood, and not heard from…he won a distinguished award from the bar. The Wood besmerched his good name. Why? Because's he's the Wood.

    4. The Wood said that would be his last statement. Well, again, obfuscation and deception actions.

    • fOb

      1) There was no mass hysteria over a 20-year period. Many of the people now hysterical didn't even know about the case. The investigative team completely dismissed the charge–because the story of the “victim” changed multiple times on any given day.
      2) Allen never said the police gave him the test–the police never asked him to, so he had to have it arranged by his own team. The police never asked him to take it again. Allen asked for Farrow to take one–not directly, but as a dare–she doesn't seem to have responded.
      3) The prosecutor was almost immediately forced to resign his position after this event because he engaged in misconduct when he put out a statement that nah-nah, he had enough evidence to indict but wasn't because “the victim was so fragile.” Allen asked for the evidence–it wasn't provided. The prosecutor was lucky to get off without serious charges–but, then, he did resign.
      4) Allen is not making a statement, nor is his PR team. They are just making sure that statements made by others are being noted. This means that the PR team has been shut up by Allen and is stewing because this is all they can do.
      Try reading the information about the case–Allen is clearly in the wrong in many, many ways–he clearly caused damage to this young woman by his poor parenting skills–he clearly caused damage to the family by suing for custody when no one in his/her right mind was going to even give him visitation–but he isn't guilty of going into an attic (an attic–seriously–this guy is neurotically claustrophobic–and you should listen to the Dory Previn song) and assaulting the child. That's Farrow's guilty conscience talking–she felt bad for exposing the child to Allen's behavior, any minor issue on his part was going to get blown up, and the child was already destabilized and open to suggestion. But, while Allen is by no means an innocent victim here, he also was completely cleared of this charge because the charge is transparently bogus.

      • MatterEater

        I did read it. Minor issues such as, according to a judge, taking his child in his boxer shorts, and having them suck his thumb?

        Nope sorry, you twisted it again. He was asked to do the test with the police and courts to make it valid. He didn't. He can offer to take it again with the authorities if he so chooses…if he doesn't pass though, it might lead to charges of lying to authorities.

        He sued the prosecution and others. He lost.

        Woody denied going to the attic. His hair was found there. Then he admitted popping his head up once in a while. He was found not to be credible by the authorities.

        He wasn't cleared of charges. They weren't brought forth. For reasons clearly stated, because of the fragility of a 7 year old.

        He already said he had given the last word…but now he is twisting that as well? Of course, all credibility is now gone from whatever he has said.

        Honestly, ocham's razor applies rather than some weird twisting and turning of Woody.

        Please, if you are going to shill, it would be great if you could let everyone know if you took any payment to try to muddy the waters on the sexual assault of a 7 year old by her father.

        • Louis

          So you're telling me a DA let a pedophile go to molest more girls just to ‘spare Dylan the trauma of trial.’ What a great DA!

  • Porfivor Nixon

    That's okay, no one believed him anyway when he said he was going to stop. I mean, after so many lies, why would he end with telling the truth? Woody may be an amateur magician, but he's not going to be able to make Judge Wilk's Custody Ruling disappear, which contradicts what he says. He's already lost the Twitter war, the rest won't be far behind. But then again, maybe he is a magician, because the public can see straight through him.

    • B22

      Someone should call him and tell him what Twitter is… Surely he'll care.

  • JF

    It would mean more if the one defending Mr Allen wasn't being paid by him

    • B22

      Err, isn't that what a publicist does for a living?

  • Simone

    sorry miss dart it's not gonna work. why would i trust or listen to a word you have to say????? YOU WORK FOR WOODY ALLEN!
    what really happened is only known by dylan, woody and God. as an outsider and a mother with 4 girls its hard not to believe the child…especially who has nothing to gain and much to lose – as in her privacy.

  • Izziefans

    I'd like to know the motivation of Steven Pond to write this one-sided piece of garbage. The irony: I came to this story from ‘Tom Brokaw has myeloma'. Steven Pond and Tom Brokaw – What a contrast!

  • Stone cold


  • Dr. Diva

    Dylan should be asking her mother, the judges, the prosecutors, and child protection team that allowed her child molester to walk free during a time of increased legislation protecting the health, safety, and empowerment for all children, exactly what risks were involved by not allowing her to testify as a seven year old? Studies show even in 1992 that the immediate risk of trauma in child molestation cases do not out weigh life-long-trauma for victims in molestation cases going unresolved. It's highly unlikely a child protection team, during this time in history, would allow an alleged child molester walk free rather than pursue prosecution based on 7 year old Dylan's description of her molestation.

    Children are considered far more resilient in their recovery when justice prevails. The earlier the better. Mia and her child protection team had these resources, research, and legislative protections at their fingertips. Why did they not proceed with prosecution when clearly SHE WAS traumatized by the alleged abuse?

    The idea that a mother would rather see a molester go free rather than empower her 7 year old to believe her mother, her only advocate in this case, has control over putting her alleged molester behind bars does not fit into the 1992 timeline here. It's just not likely anyone during this time would let a child molester walk free regardless of the trauma or age of the victim.

    I think it's highly likely that Dylan continues to suffer from a trauma of living in family that is in serious denial about what defines “child abuse.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

      Please link to these studies that showed what you claim…

      And are you seriously going to try to distract from Allen's guilt by foisting it on those who were trying to look out for Dylan?

  • Woody Allen disgusts me

    I wonder if Woody Allen has his latest batch of adopted daughters suck his fingers?

  • David Ehrenstein

    Oh yes. Self-defense is “overkill” Why not just scream “KILL THE JEW!” and get it over with Steve.

    • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

      Come on, a young woman is accusing the man that raised her for her first 7 years of violating her. There is ample proof he was inappropriate with Dylan Farrow in many ways both big and small. To make this about Allen's ethnicity when it clearly is not is appalling… especially since there is plenty of real antisemitism out there to get your panties into a twist over, you don't have to look for it here.

      • Louis

        Where's the ample proof he was inappropriate with her? The two psychiatrists said it was not sexual, he just spend too much time with her. Another expert group said she was not molested.

        • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

          I posted a link to the court decision, but they are moderating it, so I do not know if they will end up posting it. If you read the child custody ruling you will see why they judge ruled the way he did, and why other courts upheld his decision

    • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

      After reading your tampax comment I wonder if you are working for Allen… or maybe you are Allen himself…lol. He also insists that his grown adoptive daughter cannot possibly have formed her own ideas, or even the words in the letter she wrote to the NYT. How condescending you are. How utterly expected from someone that seems to suffer from his own hysteria

  • George Ludwig

    When I think of what happened to Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan etc over relatively minor infractions – or talented people like Lars VonTrier and John Galliano being mob attacked by the press and denigrated and blacklisted but Woody Allen and Roman Polnaski – child rapists and predators of single mothers and their daughters — get nothing but love by the Weinsteins, the Speilbergs, the cohens at the post, the Barbara Walters at ABC – the horror of the cover up becomes clear. To think the same people who attacked the Catholic Church and priests for molestation are now covering up for their own is repugnant. The oscars can rot – they are meaningless in house awards between biased friends and have no reflection on the American people. May Dylan farrow and all rape victims find solace and peace.

    • Louis

      Dylan Farrow was NOT raped. She was checked by a doctor and she was ‘intact.’

      • BumpIt McCarthy

        All right, to be technical, she was molested, but digitally. Same mental anguish, different method. You're all heart, Louis.

  • cozzete

    Thinking back to when I was six and some older boys in the neighborhood asked me to take off my clothes for some candy….and I did…and then changed my mind and put my clothes back on. Something wasn't right about the whole thing to my six year old mind. I never told anyone. And only mentioned it to someone when I was in my thirties. I don't think children that young can put something into words to tell their parents. They might feel something isn't right but when it involves a parent…children might feel something and then forgive and forget. The trauma to the little Dylan could have been that this person who loved her was all of a sudden no longer in her life…and she might have felt that it had something to do with something she did because of all the hoopla. That seems to be where the tragedy lies for Dylan.

  • http://www.facebook.com/julia.oceania Julia Oceania

    You can see his PR machine in any comments section referencing Dylan's letter. I have a hard time believing all of the people making pro-Allen statements incessantly are doing so for any other reason than they were paid to.

  • Louis

    I wish I was paid to make ‘pro Woody’ comments. Then I could afford an Xbox One. Seriously… all one has to do is read the Yale New Haven report. They said no molestation took place. All that stuff in the custody judge's decision is hogwash. So what, he couldn't scrutinize their notes? Who is the custody judge to tell an expert group how to do their job? And if the DA had a problem with the way they came to their conclusion, why not have Dylan checked out again by another expert child abuse clinic? So the DA just let a pedophile go to molest other kids, just so he could spare one child from the trauma of trial? Give me a break.

    • BumpIt McCarthy

      That report has been thoroughly discredited. The doctor who led the Yale team never interviewed Dylan, and later admitted to making serious mistakes, the most egregious of which was smearing her as “thought disordered” for talking about “dead heads in a trunk” that turned out to be movie wigs on wig blocks, and “Magic Hour,” which is a movie industry term for sunset that lay people don't know. Wrap your mind around this: Woody knows the term, had to have read the report himself, and didn't correct the record — he just let his daughter's sanity be questioned, because it benefited him.

      The “expert group” was two social workers who refused to testify, and the pediatrician who never interviewed the child.

      They interviewed Dylan 9 times, which is excessive. Perhaps the DA should have allowed her to undergo more interrogation, but it is sadly common that molestation cases don't make it to trial because the children aren't able to stand up to more questioning.

  • steven

    And again the rich walk away from their sins

    • Albertine Disparue

      And again the dimwits get away with stupid comments.