伍迪·艾伦性丑闻与流行文化中的“厌女症”
Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and What Popular Culture Wants to Believe
ALEXIS SOLOSKI
2021年3月3日
There 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.
这里有两个故事。在一个故事里，父亲猥亵了7岁的女儿。在另一个故事里，母亲教那个女儿诬告父亲。一个是米亚·法罗(Mia Farrow)和她的支持者提出的，一个是伍迪·艾伦(Woody Allen)和他的支持者提出的，它们显然相互矛盾。没有一个理智的人可以同时接受二者。最关键的是，只有一个故事可以让你觉得，重新看一遍《安妮·霍尔》(Annie Hall)不是什么大问题。
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.
在1992年这个特别的丑闻爆发时，我只有十几岁，所以我是透过从影视里吸收的、布满裂隙的性别叙事棱镜，以及偷偷阅读的超市小报里体验它们的：女人应该漂亮，但不能太漂亮；应该性感，但不能太性感；应该聪明，但不能太聪明，要有自主权，但主要是通过穿突出乳房的裙子和高跟鞋——但这是为了你！因为你想这样！——同时又不去侵犯任何实际的权力。关于高跟鞋，有一个有趣的事实：它们让人跑起来更困难。这种文化告诉我，女人可能会有无数种出错的方式——搞砸的可能是她的身体、她的事业、她对虐待的指控。
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.
我还记得一篇文章，可能是《国民问询》(National Enquirer)上的，那篇文章对比了女性名人们的膝盖。唯一一位还算可以的明星是谁？《今夜娱乐》(Entertainment Tonight)的主持人玛丽·哈特(Mary Hart)。文中写道，她的膝盖真的挺好看。
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.
我一边看《艾伦诉法罗》(Allen v. Farrow)，一边想着这些故事——我看了两遍，像《发条橙》(Clockwork Orange)里那样把眼皮撑开来看的。这是一部由艾米·齐林(Amy Ziering)、科比·迪克(Kirby Dick)和艾米·赫迪(Amy Herdy)拍摄的四集纪录片，目前正在HBO播出，主要聚焦90年代初这桩格外复杂的性丑闻，伍迪·艾伦和米亚·法罗关系的破裂，以及随后的指控和反指控以及监护权审判和上诉。两人于1979年相识。1987年，他们有了一个孩子，那就是罗南·法罗（Ronan Farrow，他把自己的名字从萨奇尔[Satchel]改成了罗南）。1991年，艾伦正式收养了米亚·法罗最小的两个孩子，一个是指控他虐待的女儿迪伦(Dylan)，另一个是摩西(Moses)。
In 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.)
1992年1月，法罗发现了艾伦为她的另一个女儿、当时21岁的宋宜(Soon-Yi Previn)拍摄的露骨的宝丽来照片。迪伦·法罗曾说，那年8月，艾伦去米亚·法罗位于康涅狄格州的家时，她和艾伦单独待了大约20分钟，遭到虐待。由于对保姆们的报告和迪伦所称的陈述感到担心，法罗带迪伦去看了儿科医生。儿科医生向执法部门报告了疑似虐待行为。艾伦提起诉讼要求监护权。刑事调查开始了。带着你在马戏团游行中经常看到的那种狂热，新闻媒体记录了这一切。（艾伦一直否认这些指控。）
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?
迪克和齐林之前的作品包括《看不见的战争》(The Invisible War)和《狩猎场》(The Hunting Ground)，前者是揭露军队中的性侵行为，后者是关于大学校园性侵的。他们的上一部电影《记录在案》(On the Record)是关于对音乐制作人拉塞尔·西蒙斯(Russell Simmons)的指控。（他否认了对所有非自愿性行为的指控。）所以，不，《艾伦诉法罗》并不完全是一碗水端平的。然而，在虐待指控的案件中，不偏不倚真是我们想要的吗？
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.”)
艾伦和宋宜拒绝参与该片的拍摄，最近他们通过发言人表示，制片方没有给他们足够的通知。艾伦自己的解释也不是做得特别好。在1992年的一次新闻发布会上，他显得牢骚满腹，愤愤不平。后来，在接受《60分钟》(60 Minutes)节目采访时，他说自己不可能在那一刻虐待自己的孩子，因为那样做“不合逻辑”。这是大多数男人处理性侵的方式吗？仔细列出要不要性侵的优缺点清单？还有，艾伦2015年拍的电影叫是什么？它讲的是一个杀人教授和年轻的学生上床的故事——“《无理之人》(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.”
这部纪录片展示了支持艾伦的证据，主要来自耶鲁-纽黑文医院儿童性虐待诊所的一份报告，报告的结论是，迪伦要么是在幻想，要么是在她母亲的教唆下说出那番话。另一边是保姆、家人朋友和迪伦本人在法庭上和镜头前的证词。在监护权审判中，法官最终称艾伦的行为“严重不当”。
But 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.
但问题的核心是这两个故事。直到最近，公众更倾向于让艾伦继续拍电影，片中相对弱势的年轻女性心甘情愿地与年长的、更有权力的男性发生关系。
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.
去年的夏秋时节，我的婚姻悄然破裂，我把仅有的一点空闲时间都用于布鲁克林公寓附近公园里的慢跑，我想尝试着去寻找我自己的故事。我一次跑3.3英里，跑步时，我经常听一个名叫《你弄错了》(You’re Wrong About)的节目，这是一个不恭敬的、尖锐的播客，经常讨论八、九十年代和2000年代遭到诽谤的女性——安娜·妮可·史密斯(Anna Nicole Smith)、托尼娅·哈丁(Tonya Harding)、珍妮特·杰克逊(Janet Jackson)、莫妮卡·莱温斯基(Monica Lewinsky)，还有其他六七个人。
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.
这些故事中，每个人自身的责任大小存在很大差别，但在每一个案例中，流行文化都找到了指责女人的方法，通常是为一个更应该受到责备的男人开脱。以珍妮·杰克逊的“乳头门”为例，这一丑闻从未伤及贾斯汀·汀布莱克(Justin Timberlake)。还有莫妮卡·莱温斯基，她被描绘成荡妇，似乎这在某种程度上否定了比尔·克林顿(Bill Clinton)与她之间惊人的权力失衡。这让我想起了我从八、九十年代的媒体中学到的另一个教训：只有完美受害者才是好的受害者。否则那很可能是她的错。
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.
这种特殊的叙事在最近的纪录片《陷害布兰妮·斯皮尔斯》(Framing Britney Spears)中再次出现。这部影片展示了世纪之交的新闻媒体如何迫切地想要讲述一个明星行为失当的故事，一个本该留在家里的派对女郎跑出去发疯。《美国周刊》(Us Weekly)的封面上写道：“斯皮尔斯失控了。”谁的控制？小报很省事地把斯皮尔斯的丑事归咎于她自己，而不去指责那些拥有实权的人，那些塑造、监督她的形象，并且从中获益的杂志主编和唱片公司高管。
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.”
我问《你弄错了》节目的主播之一、记者莎拉·马歇尔(Sarah Marshall)，为什么流行文化喜欢把女性描绘成同谋和应当被蔑视的人。“这为压制她们提供了正当理由，”她说。“如果女性因为拥有我们认为很惊人的权力而被随意抹黑，即使情况并非如此，那么她们也可能会对自己行使权力的方式更加担心。”
Has 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.
那么流行文化终于翻过这一篇了吗？在近日的一次电话采访中，名人花边新闻专家、《太胖、太淫、太吵：不羁女性的崛起与称霸》(Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud: The Rise and Reign of the Unruly Woman)一书的作者安·海伦·彼得森(Anne Helen Petersen)谈到了90年代和2000年代对艾伦、迈克尔·杰克逊(Michael Jackson)和R·凯利(R. Kelly)表现出的同情态度。“我认为我们当时还没准备好面对这些关于虐待的故事，”她说。现在她看到，“在我们的语言组织上出现了一种更大层面的转型，以理解和谴责虐待问题，”她说。
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.
我们也许可以通过审视去年的名人丑闻来发现这种转型的痕迹——这包括了玛丽莲·曼森(Marilyn Manson)、希亚·拉博夫(Shia LaBeouf)等人。不过，在说闲话和谴责方面，男性和女性的判别尺度依然是有差异的。阿尔米·汉莫(Armie Hammer)都已经直说要吃女人了，才引起舆论哗然。（他否认这项指控。）而卡迪·B(Cardi B)和梅根·西·斯塔林(Megan Thee Stallion)只需要在说唱里提到女性欲望就足够了。在《WAP》发行几周后，梅根·西·斯塔林指称说唱乐手托里·拉內兹(Tory Lanez)曾开枪打她，拉內兹否认存在此事。一些社交媒体用户随即表示，枪击事件出于某些原因是应该怪她的。
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?”
《艾伦诉法罗》系列片会说服一部分人，但不是全部，这在一定程度上是因为影片毫不掩饰地站在了米亚·法罗的一方。然而，不管1992年在康涅狄格州那个阁楼里到底发生了什么，没发生什么，尽管我们知道或理应知道儿童性虐待的普遍程度何其可怕，并且有关虐待的报案很少失实，我们的文化只相信一个故事。现已成年的迪伦·法罗在2018年的一次CBS采访中说：“我不明白的是，为什么我被洗脑和训练过这种疯狂的故事，会比我说我被父亲性侵的故事更可信？”
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.
为什么？因为这个故事巩固了权力和控制的规范。因为这支持了女性阴险而不可信的观念。因为指认女性的错误——她们的膝盖，她们的独立——正是我们的文化乐于去做的事情。如果像米亚·法罗这样的女人——美丽、成功、相对富有——可以被描绘为恶人，那么对其他女性的污名化就要容易许多了，尤其是有色人种女性，她们经历性暴力更多，报案却又相对少。
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?
如果你相信艾伦，他的故事是一个圆满的故事，至少在“#我也是”(#MeToo)出现并导致这故事复杂起来之前是这样。他和宋宜结婚了。他又拍了一部又一部的电影。他甚至又拿了一座奥斯卡。如果你相信迪伦·法罗，你认识到她从小到大都知道虐待她的人没有得到惩罚，并且事业蒸蒸日上。那就是个很可怕的结局了。我们的文化到底要牺牲怎样的态度，来构想一个更好的文化？
