艾伦对决法罗

当我们生活的年代可以通过“你说，他/她说，我说”，来给一个人下有罪判决书，当我们生活的年代可以否决那些背叛普世价值观的人应有的权利时，当我们在舆论大浪里随波逐流，兴奋地口沫横飞声讨所有“不道德”时，请记住，你手里这把锋利的尖刀，在今天是你杀死他人的工具，也可以在明天也可以成为他人毁灭你的武器。

Woody Allen和Mia Farrow就未成年子女的抚养权争夺而引发的一系列丑闻，早在九十年代就是各家媒体争相报道挖搅过的新闻。这么多报道看下来，会让人发现事件里有太多的复杂面，而各家媒体的报道往往是偏袒男方或者女方角度而出发的。终于，我等到了HBO关于此事件的纪录片。因为HBO过去纪录片剧集的一贯高水准，我抱着能够看到对于整个事件没有偏袒，冷静深刻剖析的期待开始追剧。

然而，很快我意识到整个剧情是由既定Woody Allen猥亵养女成立，从事件主角之一的Mia Farrow的视角展开。因为早前看多过很多被Mia Farrow领养的孩子讲述和她生活的经历，我很难带入到Mia Farrow母爱无私的视角里。

Mia Farrow是14个孩子的母亲，这其中4个是自己生的，10个是领养的。以下是几位被Mia领养仍在世的孩子对他们的童年的回忆。

Soon Yi，Woody Allen的现任妻子，这样回忆她的童年：

"When Soon-Yi was a girl, she says, Farrow asked her to make a tape about her origins, detailing how she’d been the daughter of a prostitute who beat her. The request puzzled her, Soon-Yi says, since she had no memory of anything like that, so she refused.

From then on, things got worse, in Soon-Yi’s telling, though a family spokesperson refuted all her memories of physical abuse, neglect, or showing favoritism to one child over another.

Soon-Yi remembers, for instance, the first bath that Farrow gave her, in a Korean hotel room, as traumatic. “I’d never taken a bath by myself, because in the orphanage it was a big tub and we all got in it. Here, it was for a single person, and I was scared to get in the water by myself. So instead of doing what you would do with an infant — you know, maybe get into the water, put some toys in, put your arm in to show that you’re fine, it’s not dangerous — she just kind of threw me in.

Despite the pastoral tranquillity, Soon-Yi says, she felt achingly unhappy, a state of affairs that was not helped by Mia’s and André’s “bone-chilling tempers” or by Mia’s playing favorites. “There was a hierarchy — she didn’t try to hide it, and Fletcher was the star, the golden child,” she says. “Mia always valued intelligence and also looks, blond hair and blue eyes.” Soon-Yi had arrived without knowing a word of English, and Mia was impatient with her new daughter’s learning curve. “She tried to teach me the alphabet with those wooden blocks. If I didn’t get them right, sometimes she’d throw them at me or down on the floor. Who can learn under that pressure?

The family first lived on Martha’s Vineyard, where Soon-Yi remembers an incident in which she was excluded from playing in a paddling pool with the younger children. She “maneuvered” her way in, Soon-Yi says, and when Lark got hurt, “maybe slipped or something,” Farrow rounded on her, yelling, “Look what you’ve done! You never listen! I should send you to an insane asylum!” As Soon-Yi puts it, “I was shaking. I was so scared I thought she was actually going to put me in an insane asylum — and I understood what it meant.

“Mia used to write words on my arm, which was humiliating, so I’d always wear long-sleeved shirts. She would also tip me upside down, holding me by my feet, to get the blood to drain to my head. Because she thought — or she read it, God knows where she came up with the notion — that blood going to my head would make me smarter or something.” Farrow also resorted, as Soon-Yi describes it, to “arbitrarily showing her power”: slapping Soon-Yi across the face and spanking her with a hairbrush or calling her “stupid” and “moronic.” Sometimes, according to Soon-Yi, Farrow lost it completely, as when she threw a porcelain rabbit that her mother had given her at Soon-Yi (“She never really liked it,” Soon-Yi wryly observes. “That’s probably why she threw it at me”), smashing it to pieces and startling both of them. “I could see from the expression on her face that she felt she had gone too far. Because it could have really hurt me.” - (//www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html)

Moses Farrow, 上图戴眼镜的男孩

Mia另一位收养儿子Moses Farrow回忆：

“It was important to my mother to project to the world a picture of a happy blended household of both biological and adopted children, but this was far from the truth. I’m sure my mother had good intentions in adopting children with disabilities from the direst of circumstances, but the reality inside our walls was very different. It pains me to recall instances in which I witnessed siblings, some blind or physically disabled, dragged down a flight of stairs to be thrown into a bedroom or a closet, then having the door locked from the outside. She even shut my brother Thaddeus, paraplegic from polio, in an outdoor shed overnight as punishment for a minor transgression.

Soon-Yi was her most frequent scapegoat. My sister had an independent streak and, of all of us, was the least intimidated by Mia. When pushed, she would call our mother out on her behavior and ugly arguments would ensue. When Soon-Yi was young, Mia once threw a large porcelain centerpiece at her head. Luckily it missed, but the shattered pieces hit her legs. Years later, Mia beat her with a telephone receiver. Soon-Yi’s made it clear that her desire was simply to be left alone, which increasingly became the case. Even if her relationship with Woody was unconventional, it allowed her to escape. Others weren’t so lucky.

Most media sources claim my sister Tam died of “heart failure” at the age of 21. In fact, Tam struggled with depression for much of her life, a situation exacerbated by my mother refusing to get her help, insisting that Tam was just “moody.” One afternoon in 2000, after one final fight with Mia, which ended with my mother leaving the house, Tam committed suicide by overdosing on pills. My mother would tell others that the drug overdose was accidental, saying that Tam, who was blind, didn’t know which pills she was taking. But Tam had both an ironclad memory and sense of spatial recognition. And, of course, blindness didn’t impair her ability to count.

The details of Tam’s overdose and the fight with Mia that precipitated it were relayed directly to me by my brother Thaddeus, a first-hand witness. Tragically, he is no longer able to confirm this account. Just two years ago, Thaddeus also committed suicide by shooting himself in his car, less than 10 minutes from my mother’s house.

My sister Lark was another fatality. She wound up on a path of self-destruction, struggled with addiction, and eventually died in poverty from AIDS-related causes in 2008 at age 35.

For all of us, life under my mother’s roof was impossible if you didn’t do exactly what you were told, no matter how questionable the demand.” - （http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html）

如果舆论告诉我们Woody Allen是可怕的恋童癖，强奸犯，我们要抵制所有他的电影，要声讨所有仍然愿意跟他合作的演员，更要用这种大潮淹没所有仍然为Woody Allen出来辩护的人。那么这是仿佛可以代替法院的作用来给人判罪的力量。是否有污点的人，不配拥有做人的基本权利，有污点的艺术家，更不配再有创作的自由。我想想那句老生常谈的“ Separating art from artist" ，诚然“艺术”不应该是保护犯罪行为的托词，同时“艺术家”的身份也不该是代表高尚道德的楷模。

作为女性，我为自己生活的时代感到幸运。因为这个时代给了女性群体更多的空间和权利，因此我有了相比上几代女性更多的生活选择。然而当看到某种政治正确大潮正在席卷而来要消灭所有不同的声音时，我不禁觉得背脊发凉，这又会不会是一个时代悲歌的前奏？

Woody Allen有罪与否，我在看了很多从双方角度的资料后仍然没法给自己一个定论。我只知道，从小到大在我心里那些搂着跟自己子女年龄相仿小女友的中老年男人，难免都散发着油腻和恶臭。但他的私生活并不会让我觉得《蓝色茉莉》或者《午夜巴塞罗那》这些电影变成了劣质的作品。Woody Allen是我从少年时代一直喜欢的导演，如果未来他仍然有机会拍电影，我想我还是会去看。倘若有天有从Woody Allen没有犯罪角度制作的记录片/宣传片，我也会抱着尽量客观的心态来看。

而那些因为种种原因被原生家庭抛弃又再被Mia Farrow领养的亚裔孩子们，就像小猫小狗一样被领养，被嫌弃，然后再在媒体上被渲染成那些白人养父母的善心产物。有多少主流媒体，有多少人在意过他们的声音，他们的呼救呢？看着电影里把Mia像天使老母亲一样描绘，我不由地感觉不适。如果说记录电影带着某种社会责任，我想那应该是作品核心努力把持的一杆秤。很遗憾，看完这部由HBO精致制作的“纪录片”，我恍然大悟自己其实看的是宣传片。2009年，Mia的亲弟弟饮弹自尽。2013年，Mia的哥哥因为性侵两名男童入狱十年 （//www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/mia-farrows-brother-to-be-sentenced-for-sex-abuse/1957532/）。我想，不幸的童年就像是一种瘟疫在一个家族里生根蔓延，而那些被领养的孩子存在在这个家庭的最底层生命像野草一样消亡，无人问津。看罢，我唯一的结论是，儿童领养，特别是发达国家对非发达国家儿童的领养，应该有非常严格的审核方式，毕竟不是所有人都有资质为人父母。

说到HBO的记录剧集，我最后不得不推荐《纽约灾星》（//movie.douban.com/subject/26292143/）

男艺术家需要女性扮演三种不同的角色：贤惠的妻子、风骚的情人和灵感缪斯，分别承担维系稳定的家庭、满足肉体的欲望和提供创作灵感的作用。这在费里尼带有自传性质的电影（比如《八部半》）里有清晰的表现。如果幸运，这三重角色将降临在同一位女性身上，如果不是，男艺术家就会出轨，不断寻找情人和缪斯。

归根结底，男艺术家都是自私的人，他唯一信奉的是艺术，其他所有一切都可以为艺术而牺牲，自然包括女人。从常理上看，道德伦常只会阻碍他的艺术创作。于是，他需要越过道德规范，从而将一切越矩的经验转化为创作的素材，最终进入作品之中。我们不清楚男人是不是都是坏东西，但我们很清楚男艺术家里没有好东西。

只有少数天才能够被允许逾越道德，因为天才的责任在于提供观察世界的崭新方式，这将受益于全人类。天才的才能是属于全体人类的宝藏，而非他私有。因此，人品和作品应该分开看待。强奸犯波兰斯基和恋童癖伍迪艾伦，是坐实的事实；我们在人品上可以鄙夷他们；但对于作品，我们需要一视同仁。因为，艺术是无辜的。

突然想起了当年的迈克尔杰克逊猥亵儿童事件

记得当年那个卑鄙无耻的男童诬陷迈克尔杰克逊猥亵他，导致迈克尔杰克逊的事业走入低谷。

麦克杰克逊含冤死后多年，真相才大白，那个男童当年只是为了从麦克手里骗取天价和解金。

还有那个电影《狩猎》，男主角因为拒绝的女童的爱意，就被女童诬陷猥亵她，导致男主角社死。

男人在外面一定要小心，有些事情你是解释不清楚的。

尤其是不要和儿童在非监控区域独处，千万要小心

人性本恶...............

关于《Allen v. Farrow》（艾伦对决法罗），我看到collider.com的文章给出的标题是“A One-Sided Story, but a Pretty Damn Convincing One”（“一个片面的故事，但相当有说服力”），但可能在我的观点里，这个标题需要倒过来：A Pretty Damn Convincing One，but a One-Sided Story.

尽管片中提出了两个非常值得探讨的问题，一是关于好莱坞权势人物利用强大的公关资源掌握话语权来掩盖自己的不恰当行为，二是当女性受害者试图反抗控诉时遭遇的不公平待遇。（另外片中关于大众对艺术家的无意识的保护心理也值得思考）但本片中的有些明示或暗示，真的让人觉得非常刻意且主观。如果说把伍迪艾伦和宋宜之间的病态关系（一个老男人和自己多年女友的十几岁养女发生关系，还不够病态吗？）和多年来伍迪艾伦电影中反复出现的少女迷恋老男人剧情（《曼哈顿》在第二集占据很大篇幅，42岁男人和17岁少女）作为他在男女关系上本身就没有底线、存在很大问题的佐证还可以算作合理的话，那当叙述米亚法罗和伍迪艾伦讨论再收养一个孩子（也就是Dylan）时，伍迪艾伦明确提出要一个金发孩子、伍迪艾伦从小对Dylan的强烈偏爱（片中用他对Ronan Farrow出生时是儿子而不是女儿的失望来作对比），这种手法就稍显拙劣。纵使伍迪艾伦是一个恋童癖禽兽，但用这样铺垫来暗示他从一出生就对孩子有不纯目的，确实是太过主观臆测了。又或者是Ronan Farrow指出伍迪艾伦曾经试图用物质上的诱惑来让他公开反对自己的母亲，来暗示Moses Farrow甚至宋宜也是因为这样才选择站在伍迪艾伦的一边，这样的指控就跟Moses Farrow和宋宜说米亚法罗对他们有虐待行为一样，都是一面之词。而这样刻意主观的表达在本片中实在是不少。好比片中表达出伍迪艾伦承认和宋宜的关系是用来掩盖伍迪艾伦恋童指控的工具，的确，它听上去非常合理，我也觉得很有道理，但这也只是臆测。

我当然会相信Dylan Farrow。伍迪艾伦在好莱坞的强大权势让他的单方面观点更容易被人听到，也让法罗一家的声音多年来很难被充分听见，这些年好莱坞风向的改变，#MeToo的兴起，让她有越来越多为自己发声的机会。她的自述，本片呈现的那些家庭录像、电话录音、庭审和证词记录、调查报告、检察官最终选择不起诉伍迪艾伦的原因，以及伍迪艾伦辩护者视为强证的耶鲁纽黑文医院报告的不合理性等等等等，Dylan Farrow所提供的一切，当你看到后，很难不为她感到心痛。但这部作品最让人遗憾的就是，这本该是Dylan充分叙述自己遭遇的完美契机，却被这部纪录片的创作者的创作选择蒙上了一层阴影。

说几个非常简单的点，不带情绪：

1- Woody Allen 和 Mia Farrow 的恩怨，有没有可能是Mia是心里扭曲的变态？

2- 所谓娈童，性侵，等等指控，都因证据不足而根本没打官司。也就是除了一张嘴，没有人能提供事实证据。

3- 在没有证据起诉的前提下，Woody Allen 早年主动申请测谎，顺利通过。

4- Woody Allen 让 Mia Farrow去测谎，Mia Farrow拒绝。

5- Mia Farrow 的养子 Moses Farrow 力挺 Woody Allen, 有理有据，但其声音被媒体埋没。

6- Woody Allen 的养女 Bechet Allen 力挺 Woody Allen，但其声音被媒体埋没。Woody Allen 妻子宋宜出来说话，声音被淹没，这就很讽刺了。为什么媒体对这三个亚洲人的说辞视而不见呢？

7- Mia Farrow的孩子死了三个，如果按Moses Farrow的回忆和质疑来看，死因细思极恐。有兴趣的可以去找来看看。

8- 有趣的是，所有死了的，被忽视的养子养女，被塑造称“反派”的宋宜，都是有色人种。有媒体话语权的，以绝对优势霸占媒体的----是两个白人孩子。Mia 自己发过一个照片，为了突出Ronan的“杰出”，Mia直接把照片里的亚裔孩子给涂成了黑色---抹掉了，这个行为无论你如何解释，都是令人作呕的病态心理。为什么最后被包装成受害者的，卖惨的是两个上层社会有权有势的，精致优秀的白人孩子，而同样经历了那个时期的，可以作为证人的有色人种的孩子，要么死了，要么直接被无视。整个事情真的那么简单吗？Mia的动机，媒体的立场，真的那么简单吗？

9- 如果Woody Allen是个惯犯，或者行为不端，在其漫长的生涯中，几乎每年都有作品，从未停止工作，却没有任何一个工作人员和演员站出来指控----甚至造谣诽谤。为什么从头到尾，都是Mia这个都不能测谎的女人来指控呢？

10- MeToo运动和流行的女权主义浪潮，有没有可能被人利用当作杀人利器？我们要的是合理逻辑和真相？还是自我道德优越带来的快感？

女权是女性自我的认知，是自强不息的精神。是通过对自己内在的改变，来影响外在客观的环境。女权不应该是一种工具，不应该是尚方宝剑，可以肆意挥砍，逆我者亡。

和Mia Farrow充满仇恨的执狂相比，Woody Allen的妻子宋宜，更是一个让人钦佩的女性，她选择了比她老那么多的男人，面临这么大的社会压力，截然选择了爱自己想爱的人，过自己的生活，并且过得很好，当初被人诟病的忘年恋，不伦恋，居然持续了几十年，还有什么比这个更浪漫的，对于Woody和宋宜，对彼此的相伴就是对外界一切最大的反击。

希望他们幸福。

这个年代长大的、喜欢电影的人，很难对Woody Allen不产生一些情节，好在看过他的《Annie Hall》和《Midnight in Paris》之后我并没有被他俘虏。承认他的才气，认可他的风格，但并不是我的菜。我对他作品的最大诟病在于他的电影确实像流水线生产，类似的元素排列组合。这部纪录片也给了更多人不喜欢他电影的理由：他作为男友、父亲、公众人物、影人的失格。

说回纪录片聚焦的他性侵女儿的事情，这个十多年来闹得沸沸扬扬的案子，成了把影人和影迷分为两派的决定性事件，也是我们这个时代“艺术和人格要不要分开”这个议题的最经典例子。四集的纪录片介绍了Allen和Farrow的历史，案件细节，和多年之后的余波，片子努力摆脱那种“he said she said”的drama，支持Dylan这方的真相。不过最后一集中Dylan和律师的对话，Dylan和Mia的对话有点staged的感觉，其实可以去掉，虽然加上也传达了很多必须传达的message。

看完后最同情也最敬佩Mia Farrow，真的是吸引了好多渣男，交往12年的男朋友拐走了自己的养女并性侵另一个7岁的养女，之后电话录音他们谈话内容，完全在法庭上不顾前情。经历了这些之后她还能这么勇敢的抚养孩子，拍电影，做慈善，真是需要很强大的内心了。

从几处clip可以看出Woody Allen有紧张时就会下意识的咳嗽和不跟对方眼神接触的习惯，很难相信他在讲真话，不过好似他确实比起Harvey Weinstein他在努力节制自己欲望。但对这类事件来讲，受害者数量不是关键，因为哪怕仅有一个受害者，她的生命已是无法可想的。