Woody Allen Tries To Block Mia Farrow's NYC Testimony

NEW YORK — Actor-director Woody Allen asked a judge on Monday to stop a clothing company from putting his former longtime companion Mia Farrow and his wife _ Farrow's adopted daughter _ on the witness stand as it defends itself against his claims it used his image on billboards without permission.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Allen said Los Angeles-based American Apparel Inc.'s requests to summon Farrow, her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn and others including his sister and Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt are a "brutish attempt to smear and intimidate" him.

Allen sued American Apparel for $10 million after it used his image on its billboards in Hollywood and New York and on a Web site. Allen, who does not endorse products in the United States, said he had not authorized the displays, which the company said were up for a week. Jury selection in the civil trial is set for May 18.

American Apparel lawyer Stuart Slotnick has said the company will make Allen's relationships with Farrow and Previn a focus of the trial to show that Allen's image is no longer worth the $10 million he believes his billboard appearance merits. Slotnick did not immediately return messages seeking comment Monday.

Farrow, an actress, starred in several of Allen's movies, including "Crimes and Misdemeanors," during a relationship that ended in 1992, when she discovered he was having an affair with Previn, then 22.

During a custody fight, Farrow accused Allen of sexually abusing their adopted daughter Dylan, then 7. Allen was exonerated of the abuse charges, but Farrow won sole custody.

Allen, who married Previn in 1997, said in the court papers Monday the clothing company had shown it intends to use unproven allegations from the custody dispute "in a most lurid manner, to incite the jury's emotions and poison the jury" against him. He said it was an attempt to divert the jury's attention from the misconduct of the company, which is known for its provocative ads of scantily dressed models in tight-fitting and sometimes see-through garments.

Allen, 73, also argued that the company's failure to disclose plans to call the witnesses at the outset of the case should cause them to be precluded. He said the events surrounding his 1992 child custody dispute with Farrow and the personal lives of him and his family have nothing to do with whether the company unlawfully used his image and thus were "irrelevant and inadmissible."

He testified at a December deposition that he considered the company's advertising to be "sleazy" and "infantile" and said he didn't want to be associated with it.

One of the company's billboards featured a frame from "Annie Hall," a film that won Allen a best-director Oscar. The image showed Allen dressed as a Hasidic Jew with a long beard and black hat and Yiddish text. The words "American Apparel" were on the billboard.

Slotnick, American Apparel's lawyer, said last month the company's belief was that "after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America's desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is."

He said then he couldn't discuss whether there were any settlement talks under way, but he hinted the company might be open to avoiding a trial, saying it had apologized for using Allen's image.

Comments

[dalecaudio]

Although it seems like a 'slam dunk' for Allen, why would American Apparel ever try to pull such a stunt, especially with a entertainer that has never allowed his image to be associated with a product in the US?
I think AA, needs to be thoughfull before they stick their foot in their own mouth. As for Woody, and the affair: I've always, and continue to be a big fan of his work. Let us keep the work unassociated with the man.
One last comment: I still feel for Mia.......

[rationalthought1]

American Apparel are sleaze bags. If every celebrity who was involved in a scandal could have no legal rights when it comes to someone trying to manipulate their image there would be a million National Enquirers going hog wild. Does it matter that Allen and Soon-Yi have been married for years now? I would hope that Mia Farrow would find the prospect of testifying in this case as discusting as Woody Allen does. If Woody Allen's image is so worthless, why did American Apparel choose to use it in their ad?

[stefiz]

its not worthless... its just not worth 10 million

[robbor]

anytime an image is chosen for an advertisement it's meant to help the product not disparge it. obviously American Apparel valued Woody's image so he's due the money.

Get out your wallet, American

[ObamaEdwards]

American Apparel should be sued for this attack. First they use Allen's film (to which they have no rights, and which is protected by copyright) on billboards to sell their junk. THEN, when Allen demands payment for being used in their ads without consent, they attack him with a scandal that occurred over 15 years ago. Yes, it was salacious and we all followed it. It was sad and weird, but not an aberration. Previn was not a minor. It wasn't admirable--whose relationships are--but it was not illegal, and Allen was shown NOT to have done the things Farrow claimed he had done when she tried to hit back at him in custody battles.

So American Apparel found Allen just fine as an image, to sell their stuff. Then when he wanted payment they loudly proclaimed he wasn't worth it and was NOT an image that sells...

They are idiots and this is going to cost them.

[smarternu]

Woody Rocks! and Soon Yi was not his child - she was an adult for christ sakes. Although I think he coulda done better

[stefiz]

he was her father figure for several years... i find that icky!!

[LeeCalif]

I can't stand Woody Allen but what American Apparel is doing is wrong ! Wrong ! Wrong !

We're not going back there.

[ObamaEdwards]

Yeah, I won't buy their products either. This is outrageous. If they can do this, any well known person can be attacked with an issue that was already resolved and have their character smeared by people who simply are too cheap to pay for the images they steal for their marketing schemes.

[Doris]

that's it in a nutshell. end of story.

[JICC]

My same thoughts. What a sh*tty company. Hopefully they will pay for this.

[BlackYowe]

Go away Woody, you are getting free publicity and you don't deserve any. UGH

[justice11]

This guys got nerve. He smeared himself hooking up with his wife's daughter, adopted or not!! What a creep!

[espressobeans]

I agree with American Apparel, Allen's appearance would not sell me on a pair of jeans nor would his endorsement make me think any more or less of him. So why did they use his image without his consent?

[MIKEinNYC]

Amazing.

He still has hair.

[ihynes]

LOL

[lillibelle]

Everyone involved in this sordid mess: children, wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, lovers, lechers, etc. have tried to put the past behind them. What AA did was wrong and Woody should be compensated. Could this not have been handled in a more private, delicate manner? This has got to be very unpleasant for everyone in both the Farrow and Allen families. I hope a wise judge intervenes and soon.

P.S. Has there been any word on Mia's hunger strike?

[KirkStreet]

Why on earth is Mia Farrow prepared to embarrass her children by raking all this up again? Some people never give up.

[lillibelle]

Mia has no plans to "embarrass her children." AA is attempting to drag her into this in its hope to intimidate Woody.

"Some people never give up." Well, that is true in Mia's case. She is a tireless author, actor, mother, activisit, UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, and is presently on a hunger strike to shine an international spotlight on Darfur. She is living fully, albeit eccentrically, in the present.

Woody & AA should leave her out of their mess.

[Agathena]

"she discovered he was having an affair with Previn, then 22".

Mia Farrow found nude photographs of her daughter aged 14 taken by Allen. This is in her book and in the court documents. So why do writers try to mitigate Allen's sexual exploitation of a child? He did not have an affair with her when she was 22. He started to seduce her when she was 14.

It's on the record.

[harloquinn]

And authorities were never able to establish her real age in Viet Nam, so she could've been younger than 22...younger than 14.

[John10069]

No way. Soon-yi was not 14 in the nude photos. If she had been, then Woody would have been arrested pure and simple. This is just patently untrue - check the book again.

This is what is so horrible about this defense tactic. All of these comments so full of errors and the nature of the discussion, which has nothing to do with American Apparel's wrongful use of Woody's image.

I honestly believe that judge and jury will see this for what it is - a smear campaign - and they will punish American Apparel severely, for the use of the image and for the shameful harrassment they have inflicted on the man.

[ihynes]

great response, I totally agree

[Jeff Smithpeters]

I have the book you refer to. She was 22 in the pictures. Try again.

[JoDeeVa]

Does anyone else see the irony here? This post and the comments discussing the legality, morality and personal life of Woody Allen, Soon Yi and Mia Farrow is exactly why AA has taken the tact they have and is exactly why Woody Allen is fighting it! Here we (speaking broadly for those sanctimonious, holier-than-thou morality police) are..distracted by the lasciviousness cast on him and which Farrow's testimony would further inflame, distracting from the facts of what should be an open-and-shut case.

AA has admitted guilt in using Allen's image, but claim that image is not worth $10 million. Assuming they have a jury trial, AA is banking on having the same kind of negative BS we see here corrupting the members of the jury and thus making their case that his image is not as valuable as he claims! Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy manuever. (Nevermind that if his image wasn't valuable, they would NEVER WOULD HAVE USED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!) Or, they hoped that to avoid the negative BS, Allen would drop his case or negotiate some kind of settlement. Either way, AA is the bad guy here, not Woody Allen..regardless of how the sanctimonious morality police judge him here and elsewhere, it should have no bearing on the legal merits of the case!

[Agathena]

"lasciviousness cast on him"

Read the judge's decision from the Connecticut court. Allen was denied custody of his children for a reason, that reason being he had sexually exploited two of his children. Charges against him for molesting his 5 year old daughter (besides his 14 year old daughter) were dropped because it would cause trauma to the child to have to testify. We have no need to cast lasciviousness upon him.

Woody Allen is the sanctimonious one here suggesting that he has a good image.

[mkap]

Whether his image is "good" or not is irrelevant- it's still HIS image. And obviously they wouldn't have used it if they didn't think it was good enough to sell their stuff.

Speaking of pedophiles, the other irony here is that AA's ads are soft porn at best, and many of them feature models who look like they could be underage.

[SilentShout]

You know, American Apparel has set this up in a way that they can't lose. Even if there's a judgment against them the publicity they'll get will be worth 10 times the value of the advertising that money could buy them. They'll come out way ahead no matter what. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan from before they even used his photo. Scuzzballs.