Allen v Farrow

[Siddon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKTOj7HnLbo


The four-part documentary series Allen v. Farrow, from award-winning investigative filmmakers Kirby Dick, Amy Ziering and Amy Herdy, goes behind the years of sensational headlines to reveal the private story of one Hollywood's most notorious and public scandals: the accusation of sexual abuse against Woody Allen involving Dylan, his then 7-year-old daughter with Mia Farrow; their subsequent custody trial, the revelation of Allen’s relationship with Farrow’s daughter, Soon-Yi; and the controversial aftermath in the years that followed.


Along with new investigative work — pieced together via intimate home movie footage, court documents, police evidence, revelatory videotape and never-before-heard audio tapes — the series includes exclusive interviews on the subject with Mia Farrow, Dylan Farrow, Ronan Farrow, family friend Carly Simon, prosecutor Frank Maco, relatives, investigators and experts.



Allen v. Farrow also examines the effects of trauma on a family, and features prominent cultural voices exploring Allen's body of work in a broader context and reflecting on how public revelations about the personal lives of artists can lead to re-evaluations of their work.


This is going to be a very interesting documentary because for true crime buffs like myself when you look into the case it's fairly clear Woody didn't molest his daughter. However HBO is going all in on the Mia Farrow's side, I think the most telling part of the documentary is how we're only hearing from the white children.

[Austruck]

I just saw a notice of this today and wondered a little about it. Will be curious to hear someone's initial impressions upon viewing some of it.

[Stirchley]

Next time I subscribe to HBO, it’s on my watch list.

Sad thing to me is how much of her life Dylan Farrow has made this. Encouraged by her mother & brother.

I don’t believe for one minute Allen molested her.

[Thief]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/129823b09df234d7a277df682504d5b5/tenor.gif

[Citizen Rules]

This is going to be a very interesting documentary because for true crime buffs like myself when you look into the case it's fairly clear Woody didn't molest his daughter. However HBO is going all in on the Mia Farrow's side, I think the most telling part of the documentary is how we're only hearing from the white children.It doesn't surprise me a bit that HBO is going to lambast ole Woody, as he's ripe for the picking. If his career wasn't almost already over, this documentary will most likely finish it off. Oh, he'll still make some more movies, but even more people than ever are going to believe everything they're told about Woody, especially when it's 'content' by HBO...I mean after all a documentary is always truthful:rolleyes:

[Stirchley]

⬆️ Huge fan of HBO, but I won’t change my mind.

[mark f]

The first episode was as even as they could make it. They had excerpis from Woody's 2020 audiobook and "testimony" from Woody's therapist saying there was no molestation. But that was really only a small part of the hour. It was mostly home movies edited together ro make things look "suspicious", combined with mostly current interviews with Dylan, Mia and her friends talking about Woody's inappropriate behavior and how Dylan always wanted to get away from him after a certain age. That and HBO Documentaries constant use of ominous music playing which sounds alike in all their "Social Problem" docs. It even has a closing page where you can confidentially report child abuse. It's well-made, highly-manipulative and worth-watching so far.

[Stirchley]

The first episode was as even as they could make it. They had excerpis from Woody's 2020 audiobook and "testimony" from Woody's therapist saying there was no molestation. But that was really only a small part of the hour. It was mostly home movies edited together ro make things look "suspicious", combined with mostly current interviews with Dylan, Mia and her friends talking about Woody's inappropriate behavior and how Dylan always wanted to get away from him after a certain age. That and HBO Documentaries constant use of ominous music playing which sounds alike in all their "Social Problem" docs. It even has a closing page where you can confidentially report child abuse. It's well-made, highly-manipulative and worth-watching so far.

It’s such a tricky subject. I wish Dylan Farrow would stop playing the victim & make something of her life. But how’s she gonna do this now? She’s not gonna retract her story now. It’s firmly entrenched. Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me if she believes the story herself after all these years. Sad situation for her, but her desire & that of her mother to ruin Woody Allen’s life is indefensible.

[Jinnistan]

I think the most telling part of the documentary is how we're only hearing from the white children.
Wait, so they don't talk to Moses? That's strange because he hasn't been shy to publicly offer his perspective on things. It would be journalistic negligence to not even address his on-the-record testimony.


I don't have HBO, so it might be awhile before I see it. One of the most baffling scandals I can imagine. I honestly don't know what's really going on in this family. About the only thing I'm certain of is that Ronan is a Sinatra.

[Stirchley]

About the only thing I'm certain of is that Ronan is a Sinatra.

Sure looks like him.

[MovieMad16]

I won't waste my time with this to be honest. I feel that they are just guilt-tripping most of the entertainment industry to back them or try and start a cancel culture crusade against the Hollywood elite who are so image-conscious these days. I think its just awkward now, having to watch these two tired camps throw **** at each other, with Hollywood caught in the middle trying to be dignified at best, and at worst down right cringey.

[Austruck]

I had episode 1 on in the background last night while I was putzing on the computer. It definitely felt manipulative. I go into this without any real opinions about whether Woody is guilty, so I was hoping this was more like a real documentary than it is. The interviews with both Dylan and Mia just felt like stories they've both told so often for so many years that they feel rehearsed now.

Don't get me wrong: I've had a few life events in my distant past that I can now retell with some polish and sheen to them. And I definitely know that, if you go through a psychologically difficult experience, you tend to mull it over and rethink/overthink it for many years. Even to the point where you've constructed an entire way to deal and live with it.

But in the process, you MUST fight to not overinflate the actual circumstances, and also to not allow overly supportive friends to rally alongside you to let you exaggerate the events and the aftermath. Friends will want to be angry on your behalf, and then the whole thing escalates. Add on two very famous people and the whole thing gets infinitely worse.

So, it's tough to tell how much of their stories are true, or how much of it they have slowly exaggerated over decades to the point where they now believe the updated version. Despite being a woman, I am not an "always believe the woman's story" type. Women can lie and exaggerate just as men can, of course. Nothing in our genes makes us any more trustworthy. So, I don't go into this immediately believing either side.

So far, despite the first episode being almost exclusively Mia/Dylan-oriented, I'm not convinced.

[John Dumbear]

Will it be refereed by Soon-Yi?

[Stirchley]

I am not an "always believe the woman's story" type. Women can lie and exaggerate just as men can, of course. Nothing in our genes makes us any more trustworthy. So, I don't go into this immediately believing either side.

I agree.

I’m not on his side per se, but I believe Woody.

I can, however, see where Mia Farrow might be coming from. A place of extreme hurt & humiliation even though it was a million years ago. ”Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned” and all that.

Why Dylan persists with this, I have no idea. She always looks so sad - it’s a shame her entire life has been consumed by this.

[Austruck]

I agree.

I’m not on his side per se, but I believe Woody.

I can, however, see where Mia Farrow might be coming from. A place of extreme hurt & humiliation even though it was a million years ago. ”Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned” and all that.

Why Dylan persists with this, I have no idea. She always looks so sad - it’s a shame her entire life has been consumed by this.

Agree on all that. And even if everything Dylan and Mia say is true, there's no point in letting anything like this completely take over your life. I had a few very bad life experiences that traumatized me at the time (I'd say clinical depression, anxiety attacks, thoughts of suicide, etc.), but at some point I had to make the decision about whether these incidents were going to ruin my life or just make up part of who I had become. Once you're sure the traumas themselves are completely over, it's time to make some decisions. In both of their cases (especially Dylan's), if you can talk about it that lucidly on camera and in print, then you're coherent enough and lucid enough to just get on with your life.

This is also how I feel about politics. :) If "my guy" doesn't win, I am sad but I move on. There's a life to live.

And if they're NOT telling the truth, egad--then Dylan is apparently confusing this with her possible 15 minutes of fame. Would've been better to simply DO something with her own life and not base it on telling horrid lies about someone else.

Well, okay, I guess I've said all of this two or three times now. :D I'm curious to see where the other three episodes go.

[Stirchley]

I had a few very bad life experiences that traumatized me at the time (I'd say clinical depression, anxiety attacks, thoughts of suicide, etc.), but at some point I had to make the decision about whether these incidents were going to ruin my life or just make up part of who I had become.

Yeah, been there, done that. Kudos to you if you accomplished this without therapy. You sound like a very strong woman.

[Austruck]

Yeah, been there, done that. Kudos to you if you accomplished this without therapy. You sound like a very strong woman.

I didn't used to be. :) No therapy. But I DID have an awesome support system of people who were there for me in all ways I needed them to be.

Hoping your "been there" is now in the distant past for you as well.

I'm hoping this show talks to others besides just Dylan and Mia...

[Stirchley]

I didn't used to be. :) No therapy. But I DID have an awesome support system of people who were there for me in all ways I needed them to be.

Then you were very lucky. :)

[Austruck]

Okay, I've finished the four episodes of this entire documentary. Where did I end up?

I think Woody Allen is guilty. I listened mostly to the evidences from parties other than those directly involved, which then led me to listen to Dylan's story more closely. I hate to say it, but I side with Mia and Dylan in terms of what actually happened. It was a well-done documentary, I thought, although I would have liked to hear directly from Woody, Moses, and/or Soon-Yi. Of course that wasn't going to happen, whether he was guilty or not.

I zeroed in on the unchanging story of Dylan (who, I learned, has not geared her whole life around telling this story, but rather has come back to it somewhat recently), the reasons why Allen was never formally prosecuted, and the many statements from people other than family members. Ronan Farrow was interesting to listen to, in particular. And I think Mia's motherhood credentials are no longer in question for me.

I found it interesting, for example, that more than once Allen complains in public statements that Mia is engaging in nothing more than a smear campaign--and then immediately engages in his own smear campaign about her sanity, her motherhood, and her personality.

Things like that started to add up for me as I continued to watch.

I'm surprised I came down on this side of this issue, having been a HUGE Woody Allen fan for most of my adult life. And I tried very hard not to be swayed by anyone's tears (they should have cut the bits out where Dylan was shaking, I think) or by anything other than fairly well established facts. And this is where I've landed.

So be it. I move on to binge-watch other stuff. Maybe it's back to another rewatch of Breaking Bad... :D :D

[Jinnistan]

Moses Farrow's account (there was no train in the crawlspace; Woody was never out of his sight on the day; Mia had been grooming the family to see Woody as a child molester for weeks prior to the incident) is the most compelling evidence to make me question Woody's guilt. And the fact that he was excluded from the doc is the biggest red flag to make me question the integrity of the project.

[Stirchley]

Good post from Austruck. Haven’t seen it yet, but, next time I subscribe to HBO I will be watching this.

[Citizen Rules]

...I found it interesting, for example, that more than once Allen complains in public statements that Mia is engaging in nothing more than a smear campaign--and then immediately engages in his own smear campaign about her sanity, her motherhood, and her personality.

Things like that started to add up for me as I continued to watch.
...I think retaliatory smear campaigns are very much human nature. Just look at how politics works, if one has mud thrown on them and doesn't throw back an equal amount of mud, then one can look guilty as labeled.

So I can't blame Woody for hitting back at Mia (assuming he's innocent and getting mistreated by her). Of course if he's guilty of the accusations he would still throw mud back at Mia. In the end I don't think that's a good metric to decide the issue...But I'm not trying to change your mind:) Hell I haven't even watched the mini series, nor am I a huge fan of Woody, I'm just typing out my thoughts🙂

[seanc]

I still need to watch episode 4 tonight.

I'm a Woody fan who had repressed my digust with the Soon-Yi stuff a while ago. I was very young when the big court case with him and Farrow took place, so I don't remember any of it.

Pretty sure Woody will be the first director in my life I stop watching. I'm genuinely surprised some of you still believe him.

It's stomach churning.

Amendment: I was thinking '81 not '91. I wasn't too young, but apparently I didn't give a flip. :)

[Gideon58]

I have definitely got to squeeze this one into my viewing schedule.

[ynwtf]

Misread the title and wondered, "How on earth could someone compare Alien with Mia Farrow?" Had to share how much of an idiot I can be at times. More than I'd like to remember.

[matt72582]

Misread the title and wondered, "How on earth could someone compare Alien with Mia Farrow?" Had to share how much of an idiot I can be at times. More than I'd like to remember.


She looked like an alien in "Rosemary's Baby"

[Stirchley]

She looked like an alien in "Rosemary's Baby"

She did not. She was beautiful in this movie.

[Austruck]

Moses Farrow's account (there was no train in the crawlspace; Woody was never out of his sight on the day; Mia had been grooming the family to see Woody as a child molester for weeks prior to the incident) is the most compelling evidence to make me question Woody's guilt. And the fact that he was excluded from the doc is the biggest red flag to make me question the integrity of the project.

He wasn't excluded. They stated plainly that he declined to be interviewed.

Also, if you saw through to the end, Moses's statements that you list above were all opposite of what the police themselves noticed/noted/wrote during their investigation that day. They even showed a diagram the police submitted of the layout of the attic and where the train set was.

That sort of stuff is what swayed me toward Woody's guilt: the impartial bits from police, the judge who decided not to prosecute, etc. etc. All seemed fairly compelling to me, with no skin in the game.

[Austruck]

I think retaliatory smear campaigns are very much human nature. Just look at how politics works, if one has mud thrown on them and doesn't throw back an equal amount of mud, then one can look guilty as labeled.

So I can't blame Woody for hitting back at Mia (assuming he's innocent and getting mistreated by her). Of course if he's guilty of the accusations he would still throw mud back at Mia. In the end I don't think that's a good metric to decide the issue...But I'm not trying to change your mind:) Hell I haven't even watched the mini series, nor am I a huge fan of Woody, I'm just typing out my thoughts🙂
Definitely watch it before further comment. I started out on one side of this and ended up on the other.

Also, that bit about the smear campaigns was more of an "aside" for me. NOT really swaying my thoughts. Of course BOTH Mia and Woody would say the very same sorts of things no matter which one of them was, in fact, telling the truth. It is, indeed, human nature, as I know all too well.

[Jinnistan]

He wasn't excluded. They stated plainly that he declined to be interviewed.
Moses was excluded in that his publicly available testimony was not included, something that wouldn't have required his direct participation for the filmmakers to address. This omission, and others (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/03/allen-v-farrow-woody-allen-mia-farrow-documentary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much), are what ultimately put the filmmakers' credibility in question. (The train issue is addressed here (https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2021/02/28/farrow-v-farrow-the-case-of-the-magical-disappearing-electric-toy-train/), via nanny Kristie Groteke.)

(https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hbo-allen-v-farrow-review/618116/)
This review (https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hbo-allen-v-farrow-review/618116/) which is otherwise pro-Farrow also criticizes its one-sidedness precisely because it damages the credibility of its narrative. Allen's guilt or innocence aside, this appears to be a shoddy piece of advocacy-disguised-as-journalism, and, as such, probably shouldn't be held as the smoking gun some are claiming before these inconsistences and omissions are taken into account.

[Wyldesyde19]

Misread the title and wondered, "How on earth could someone compare Alien with Mia Farrow?" Had to share how much of an idiot I can be at times. More than I'd like to remember.
Oh, we know Yn.....we know.....

[ynwtf]

Oh, we know Yn.....we know.....


What we know is: that's a goat in your avatar.

https://i.imgur.com/3HzjEjX.png

[Wyldesyde19]

What we know is: that's a goat in your avatar.

https://i.imgur.com/3HzjEjX.png
I feel judged....both by you and especially by that goat.....

[Austruck]

Moses was excluded in that his publicly available testimony was not included, something that wouldn't have required his direct participation for the filmmakers to address. This omission, and others (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/03/allen-v-farrow-woody-allen-mia-farrow-documentary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much), are what ultimately put the filmmakers' credibility in question. (The train issue is addressed here (https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2021/02/28/farrow-v-farrow-the-case-of-the-magical-disappearing-electric-toy-train/), via nanny Kristie Groteke.)

(https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hbo-allen-v-farrow-review/618116/)
This review (https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hbo-allen-v-farrow-review/618116/) which is otherwise pro-Farrow also criticizes its one-sidedness precisely because it damages the credibility of its narrative. Allen's guilt or innocence aside, this appears to be a shoddy piece of advocacy-disguised-as-journalism, and, as such, probably shouldn't be held as the smoking gun some are claiming before these inconsistences and omissions are taken into account.

Thanks for these links. I read them all... because I do want to use as much information as possible to form an opinion. I won't go into details about why some of what Mia and Dylan (and even Woody) said (and how they said it) inform my opinions, but let's just say that family and custody issues have a certain smell about them that can make one's olfactory senses about these things a little more focused and pronounced.

I appreciated the other sides of this issue in the links you provided. I will say that I knew through all four episodes that the documentary was going to be one-sided in most of its approach. You can tell that right from the beginning (read my first posts in this thread for my initial reactions). Once one side isn't even participating, you're not going to be able to do a balanced documentary.

But there was a lot of new information in this for me. I was busy with babies and my own life falling apart around this same time period, so I learned most of the details and most of Dylan's story through this documentary. Did she come off as a little bit self-centered? Sure. No question. But did I ultimately believe that she experienced these things? Yes, I still do. And if that's the only true thing I pull out of those four hours of television, that's the only thing that matters. The rest is just window dressing and radio noise. If it happened, then he's guilty. If it didn't, then he's not.

I still think it happened. I don't like it (Love and Death and Sleeper were two of my favorite movies for many years after they first came out), but I believe it happened.

And that doesn't make me happy.

[Jinnistan]

I appreciated the other sides of this issue in the links you provided. I will say that I knew through all four episodes that the documentary was going to be one-sided in most of its approach. You can tell that right from the beginning (read my first posts in this thread for my initial reactions). Once one side isn't even participating, you're not going to be able to do a balanced documentary.
The "balance" aspect is my primary interest. I'm not concerned with trying to defend Woody Allen or persuade anyone of his innocence. I'm much more concerned with defending basic journalistic standards. As you say, the filmmakers' agenda is fairly clear from the onset, so I take issue with their characterization of their series as "complete", "thorough" and "balanced". Even those who believe Dylan can't believe these descriptions of this doc. As a rule of thumb this puts the filmmakers' motives in doubt for me personally. And, if you do happen to believe Dylan's charges, this preliminary dishonesty ultimately makes it harder for her to receive justice.

Another example I've seen is, in response to a tweet from Alec Baldwin (a blow-hard that I have no interest in defending here), the filmmakers' noting how it was Woody Allen, not Mia, that originally went public with the story. That's disingenuos. If we accept the fact of the alleged abuse, what difference does it make? Which party was the first to go public has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the case. In fact, it only runs directly into the quote from Mia's lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, that Woody could have avoided the publicity if he had only accepted Mia's settlement offer. That raises a lot more ethical quandries than it puts to rest. It's a bizarre thing for them to use as a defense, suggesting that Woody's going public (refusing the private settlement) is what got him into this mess rather than the abuse itself.

I can name a number of documentaries which promote policies and causes I support but which engage in such disingenuous ethics and manipulation that makes them hurt the integrity of the cause more than it helps. A documentary can be effectively powerful but still present a frame of the facts which is misleading. There's been enough evidence to show that this particular doc is troubling in what it ignored out of convenience of its preferred narrative.

[beelzebubble]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/129823b09df234d7a277df682504d5b5/tenor.gif
Yeah ...what he said.

[matt72582]

She did not. She was beautiful in this movie.


Did you NOT see the baby? I kept calling him/her Mia Jr. :)
That bond (and resemblance) between mother and child is so close.
But in all seriousness, I find your avatar more beautiful than Mia ever was, and I'm not even English - just affected :)

[mark f]

This seems like something you've said several times before (whether a joke or not), but we never see the baby.

[Austruck]

Jinnistan, all your points are good ones. And I agree with your assessment of this "documentary" in those regards.

I watched this mostly to learn what I could (since I knew little about this case's particulars). I wasn't interested enough to start digging on my own, so the lazy side of me figured I'd let HBO hand me a bunch of information. Sure, it's Farrow-leaning. Most documentaries seem to be one-sided these days. (Not excusing any of them--just pointing it out.) Making a Murderer is a good example. As is Murder Among the Mormons, and many others.

Others seem better: the Manhunt series, the McMillions series, to name two, seemed more like they were telling us a story based on evidences and facts (and the Murder Among the Mormons doc wasn't TOO bad but had its moments).

I guess the difference is that too many documentaries no longer seem to care if they present one side over another. Gone are the initial days of creative nonfiction such as Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. We're way beyond that now, and the main idea is now to entertain and play up anything sensationalistic. And that's unfortunate.

I did try to sift through the one-sidedness of this four-part doc, though, as I watched. I felt half of Dylan's screen time was unnecessary, but was there mostly to lend sympathy to her side of things. I really didn't like the scene in the last episode where her jaw is shaking and she keeps mentioning it. I understand why they included it, given their bias, but I still didn't like it (despite siding with her story in general). It felt so obviously manipulative.

If the filmmakers were simply trying to tell Dylan's story for her, they could have done that and kept their bias and categorized this series as something else other than a documentary. You know, a fight for the underdog, or telling the story of the oppressed, or something similar. That'd leave them more on the same turf as Making a Murderer (and maybe Tiger King? ha!).

I also appreciate the distinction between Allen's one-off situation versus Weinstein/Epstein/Cosby/Jackson and their ongoing lifestyles. But having said that, if the Allen accusation is true, then he does need to experience some sort of fallout from it and, frankly, has seen very little of it throughout the past two-plus decades... until very very recently. And if he is guilty, then I'm glad he's finally seeing some sort of punishment.

If he's innocent, I have a feeling we'll never know that since both Mia and Dylan have been telling the same story for decades.

[Powdered Water]

I'll try not to say too much as I can be inflammatory and abrasive. I stand with the Farrows.

I believe them. It is very difficult for a woman in America to prove that a man raped her. It is even more difficult for a mother to prove that her husband is molesting their children.
I'll close with this. I really hate that I live in a country that can cancel pepe le pew but still pretend that a man that started banging his 17 year old step daughter and then marrying her a few years later to make it "ok" somehow... Couldn't in turn rape and or molest 7 year old Dillon? That kind of thinking makes me wanna blow my brains out. Sorry. I probably said too much. Sigh...

[Stirchley]

This seems like something you've said several times before (whether a joke or not), but we never see the baby.

True, but, in the book, Rosemary wasn’t too bothered by her baby’s appearance. She walks to the bassinet where the baby is lying. At first he looks like a normal baby, but when he opens his eyes she sees that he has golden-yellow eyes. When she asks what they've done to his eyes Roman says he has his father's eyes and his father is Satan. IIRC, Rosemary puts little gloves on Adrian (Andrew in her mind) so that his long nails won’t scratch him.

... but still pretend that a man that started banging his 17 year old step daughter and then marrying her a few years later to make it "ok" somehow... Couldn't in turn rape and or molest 7 year old Dillon.

So tired of correcting this statement. Woody & Mia never married. Soon-Yi was Mia’s adopted daughter. Woody was Mia’s boyfriend. They never even lived together.

You’re suggesting Woody married Soon-Yi to “make it ‘ok’ somehow”. That’s a terrible premise on which to base a marriage. They’ve been seemingly happily married for decades.

Woody was somewhat indelicate & thoughtless when he began an affair with Mia’s adopted daughter, but to suggest that a man who does this is also capable of rape & molestation of a child makes no sense at all.

[Austruck]

They’ve been seemingly happily married for decades.



All I'll say about this is that this doesn't make how the relationship started any more acceptable. She was underage. He was *much* older. Trust me about this: the fact that they've been married for decades doesn't excuse what happened at the beginning to start that relationship. It may seem a minor point, but I know what I'm speaking about. How a relationship started can definitely speak to what someone might be capable of.

In this case, Woody's apparent fixation on much younger girls could definitely point to a problem he might have had keeping his feelings for Dylan in proper boundaries. I don't see that as a stretch of the imagination at all.

[Wyldesyde19]

There hasn’t ever been any definitive proof that Allen had begun a consensual relationship with Previn until she was 21, which was the decision reached by a judicial investigation. This would point to the beginning as 1991.
Sure, there have been suggestions made otherwise, but there hasn’t been anything concrete as far as that is concerned.

[Stirchley]

All I'll say about this is that this doesn't make how the relationship started any more acceptable. She was underage. He was *much* older. Trust me about this: the fact that they've been married for decades doesn't excuse what happened at the beginning to start that relationship. It may seem a minor point, but I know what I'm speaking about. How a relationship started can definitely speak to what someone might be capable of.

In this case, Woody's apparent fixation on much younger girls could definitely point to a problem he might have had keeping his feelings for Dylan in proper boundaries. I don't see that as a stretch of the imagination at all.

Soon-Yi wasn’t “underage”. When Mia found the photos Soon-Yi was 21 years old.

It’s not a crime to be “much older” than one’s spouse.

Where is your proof that Woody had an “apparent fixation on much younger girls”?

There hasn’t ever been any definitive proof that Allen had begun a consensual relationship with Previn until she was 21, which was the decision reached by a judicial investigation. This would point to the beginning as 1991.
Sure, there have been suggestions made otherwise, but there hasn’t been anything concrete as far as that is concerned.

Exactly.

[Wyldesyde19]

Don’t ge the wrong, if he is guilty, then let’s by all means crucify him. But 30 years later, there still hasn’t been enough to satisfy my judgement on that.
This reminds me of the whole Depp-Heard issue. Where there were far more to it the. what we had realized in the beginning. It’s more obvious in Depps case that he had a temper (see the video of him smashing glass cabinets around) but it was clear that he may have been manipulated into such behavior (see same video where Heard seems to keep prodding him rather then leaving him alone). Also, her leaked texts.
That doesn’t excuse his actions, of course.

[Stirchley]

Don’t ge the wrong, if he is guilty, then let’s by all means crucify him.

Let’s not. If he’s ever found guilty he’ll be sentenced by a court of law.

[Wyldesyde19]

Let’s not. If he’s ever found guilty he’ll be sentenced by a court of law.
You know what I mean. I wasn’t being literal.

[seanc]

I'll try not to say too much as I can be inflammatory and abrasive. I stand with the Farrows.

I believe them. It is very difficult for a woman in America to prove that a man raped her. It is even more difficult for a mother to prove that her husband is molesting their children.
I'll close with this. I really hate that I live in a country that can cancel pepe le pew but still pretend that a man that started banging his 17 year old step daughter and then marrying her a few years later to make it "ok" somehow... Couldn't in turn rape and or molest 7 year old Dillon? That kind of thinking makes me wanna blow my brains out. Sorry. I probably said too much. Sigh...

I will stand with you and take the heat PW. Allen's relationshio with Soon-Yi is twisted. I don't care if she was 30 when she took the photos, I don't care that she isn't his actual daughter. He was in her life as a father figure for years when she was a child. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it ain't sickening.

I will add that the testimony that the relationship started when she was in high school was pretty compelling.

[Citizen Rules]

So, is everybody not going to be watching Manhattan (1979) anymore? Crazy film in that not only does Woody's self styled character fall for an underage girl, no one in the film's universe seems to care. It's almost like Woody who wrote the film was creating this fantasy world where his underage fling was actually approved by society. Anybody else ever notice that?

[Stirchley]

You know what I mean. I wasn’t being literal.

Obviously, but it’s disturbing to me how many people’s lives and careers are destroyed because of allegations - true or false - from others. To me, it’s akin to a crucifixion.

He was in her life as a father figure for years when she was a child.

Was Woody Allen a “father figure” to Dylan? Obviously he didn’t live in the same household, which doesn’t preclude his being a father figure, but is this how he was viewed by Dylan?

So, is everybody not going to be watching Manhattan (1979) anymore? Crazy film in that not only does Woody's self styled character fall for an underage girl, no one in the film's universe seems to care. It's almost like Woody who wrote the film was creating this fantasy world where his underage fling was actually approved by society. Anybody else ever notice that?

Yes, we’ve noticed this, but it’s still a great movie. One of my favorites of his.

[Citizen Rules]

...Yes, we’ve noticed this, but it’s still a great movie. One of my favorites of his.Agreed and I'll re-watch it too.

[Wyldesyde19]

I will stand with you and take the heat PW. Allen's relationshio with Soon-Yi is twisted. I don't care if she was 30 when she took the photos, I don't care that she isn't his actual daughter. He was in her life as a father figure for years when she was a child. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it ain't sickening.

I will add that the testimony that the relationship started when she was in high school was pretty compelling.

I will point to her interview back in, 2014 I think? Where she states that Allen had no role in her upbringing, certainly not as a father according to her. The testimony you referring to, perhaps from the doorman of their hotel, merely suggested they *may* have, without providing no anything substantial, unfortunately. As far as I can recall.

[seanc]

So, is everybody not going to be watching Manhattan (1979) anymore? Crazy film in that not only does Woody's self styled character fall for an underage girl, no one in the film's universe seems to care. It's almost like Woody who wrote the film was creating this fantasy world where his underage fling was actually approved by society. Anybody else ever notice that?

Noticed it, excused it, and have become bothered by my ability to ignore my feelings on it. Never thought I would get here, but I think I might not watch any of his movies anymore. Including Annie Hall, which is a top ten movie for me

[seanc]

Was Woody Allen a “father figure” to Dylan? Obviously he didn’t live in the same household, which doesn’t preclude his being a father figure, but is this how he was viewed by Dylan

Not sure what you are driving at but...hell yeah! He seemed most like a father to Dylan and Moses, to the point he adopted them.

[seanc]

I will point to her interview back in, 2014 I think? Where she states that Allen had no role in her upbringing, certainly not as a father according to her. The testimony you referring to, perhaps from the doorman of their hotel, merely suggested they *may* have, without providing no anything substantial, unfortunately. As far as I can recall.

If one of my kids come to your apartment regularly and the maid says she is cleaning up condoms and seen afterwards, I don't need video evidence.

[Wyldesyde19]

If one of my kids come to your apartment regularly and the maid says she is cleaning up condoms and seen afterwards, I don't need video evidence.
Wouldn’t that be hearsay, though? I m understand your concern, but word of mouth is hardly enough for a conviction, especially when it’s all circumstantial, wouldn’t you say?
The condoms could easily be explained as having been used for another.

[Wyldesyde19]

So, is everybody not going to be watching Manhattan (1979) anymore? Crazy film in that not only does Woody's self styled character fall for an underage girl, no one in the film's universe seems to care. It's almost like Woody who wrote the film was creating this fantasy world where his underage fling was actually approved by society. Anybody else ever notice that?

When I first watched this, I admit to being bothered by the age difference. On hindsight, it shouldn’t have, as she seemed more then willing to give her consent to such a relationship, despite the age difference. I need to give this movie another chance.
Before anyone argues otherwise, yes, a 17 is more then capable of deciding if she wishes to give consent to an older man.

[Citizen Rules]

Noticed it, excused it, and have become bothered by my ability to ignore my feelings on it. Never thought I would get here, but I think I might not watch any of his movies anymore. Including Annie Hall, which is a top ten movie for meThat's understandable...I certainly won't try to change your mind or anything like that.



It's odd that when I watched Manhattan for the first and only time how everyone in the movie was OK with Woody dating an underage Muriel Hemingway. I think I mentioned that in my old review.

[Stirchley]

Not sure what you are driving at but...hell yeah! He seemed most like a father to Dylan and Moses, to the point he adopted them.

Mia alone adopted Dylan when she was 2 weeks old.

[seanc]

Wouldn’t that be hearsay, though? I m understand your concern, but word of mouth is hardly enough for a conviction, especially when it’s all circumstantial, wouldn’t you say?
The condoms could easily be explained as having been used for another.

Conviction? Probably not. To be honest that's not my concern with the Allen stuff at this point. That ship has kind of sailed.

[Citizen Rules]

When I first watched this, I admit to being bothered by the age difference. On hindsight, it shouldn’t have, as she seemed more then willing to give her consent to such a relationship, despite the age difference. I need to give this movie another chance.
Before anyone argues otherwise, yes, a 17 is more then capable of deciding if she wishes to give consent to an older man.I could see people being bothered by the age difference, I was more struck odd by the fact that the people in the film's universe never seemed to have any problem with Woody's character dating an underage girl. I guess I expected his character to get all sorts of flack but nope that never happened.



Just an aside: in my state Washington, it use to be 16 was legal, that was when I was back in high school. The state law might have changed by now.

[Stirchley]

Noticed it, excused it, and have become bothered by my ability to ignore my feelings on it. Never thought I would get here, but I think I might not watch any of his movies anymore. Including Annie Hall, which is a top ten movie for me

Where does one draw the line by refusing to acknowledge the works of an artist? Whether it be an auteur like Allen, a composer, a painter? Picasso, for instance, was one of the very bad boys of the art world, but he was also a genius. He had sex with at least one underage girl, but I’m not going to stop loving & viewing his multi-media works of art. (God knows what other men were up to across all fields of art, film, music, etc.)

Just my viewpoint.

[seanc]

Mia alone adopted Dylan when she was 2 weeks old.

I thought she talked him into adopting the two of them later. Either way I think he became a father figure in her life.

Either way, I'm interested in how that relates to what I said about Soon-Yi

[Stirchley]

I thought she talked him into adopting the two of them later. Either way I think he became a father figure in her life.

Either way, I'm interested in how that relates to what I said about Soon-Yi

Sorry, but I’ve lost the gist of the thread & I have to leave.

Can you explain again what you’re asking & I will get back to you Friday?

[Stirchley]

I could see people being bothered by the age difference, I was more struck odd by the fact that the people in the film's universe never seemed to have any problem with Woody's character dating an underage girl. I guess I expected his character to get all sorts of flack but nope that never happened.

Manhattan came out in 1979. Way way different times man. Guessing it wouldn’t fly now, but I could be wrong.

Just occurred to me how civilized we are being to each other in this thread even though to some it’s an extremely divisive issue. :)

[Citizen Rules]

Manhattan came out in 1979. Way way different times man. Guessing it wouldn’t fly now, but I could be wrong.

Just occurred to me how civilized we are being to each other in this thread even though to some it’s an extremely divisive issue. :)If Manhattan came up today it would be cancelled, either that or openly embraced as an expression of personal freedom. (btw, I'm not saying that's my stance!)

[seanc]

Sorry, but I’ve lost the gist of the thread & I have to leave.

Can you explain again what you’re asking & I will get back to you Friday?

Just not sure why him being a father to Dylan has anything to do with him being a father to Soon-Yi. Seemed like you had a reason fir asking me that.

This is from Wikipedia. Obviously not fool proof, but what I remembered about his adoption of Dylan from the doc.

74843

[seanc]

Where does one draw the line by refusing to acknowledge the works of an artist? Whether it be an auteur like Allen, a composer, a painter? Picasso, for instance, was one of the very bad boys of the art world, but he was also a genius. He had sex with at least one underage girl, but I’m not going to stop loving & viewing his multi-media works of art. (God knows what other men were up to across all fields of art, film, music, etc.)

Just my viewpoint.

I honestly don't know the correct answer. This is the first time I have felt strongly enough about an artist to consider not watching his stuff. We shall see how woke I become. Probably not very or enough to be honest.

[Citizen Rules]

I honestly don't know the correct answer. This is the first time I have felt strongly enough about an artist to consider not watching his stuff. We shall see how woke I become. Probably not very or enough to be honest.Sean did you feel this way before about Allen? Or was it after watching the HBO Allen v Farrow?

[seanc]

Sean did you feel this way before about Allen? Or was it after watching the HBO Allen v Farrow?

Honesty time. Deep down I have always felt gross about Allen's personal life. I really knew nothing about the Dylan stuff before this but still did. You might be able to find my Manhattan review around here. I haven't read it in a long time, but I know I talk about my Allen feelings in it.

This sent me over the edge. I am not going to knee jerk and not watch stuff. I will try and take it as it comes. I need to evaluate how I engage though.

[Citizen Rules]

Honesty time. Deep down I have always felt gross about Allen's personal life. I really knew nothing about the Dylan stuff before this but still did. You might be able to find my Manhattan review around here. I haven't read it in a long time, but I know I talk about my Allen feelings in it.

This sent me over the edge. I am not going to knee jerk and not watch stuff. I will try and take it as it comes. I need to evaluate how I engage though.Thanks Sean for being honest. And I know what you mean about taking something and feeling over the edge about it, some things just hit us in the gut that way.

[Austruck]

Where does one draw the line by refusing to acknowledge the works of an artist? Whether it be an auteur like Allen, a composer, a painter? Picasso, for instance, was one of the very bad boys of the art world, but he was also a genius. He had sex with at least one underage girl, but I’m not going to stop loving & viewing his multi-media works of art. (God knows what other men were up to across all fields of art, film, music, etc.)

Just my viewpoint.

I think my own viewpoint is that since Allen is still alive, if I pay to see or rent one of his movies, I'm still putting money in his pocket. That would concern me. I think at least one person on the documentary said this (in the fourth episode): that part of the distinction is whether the person is long dead and therefore no longer benefiting from one's patronage.

It's perhaps a silly distinction, but it would likely work for me. I know a lot of people, for instance, have not only stopped buying books by Marion Zimmer Bradley (Mists of Avalon author who was accused of child sexual abuse by her daughter in 2014), but have actually destroyed the copies they already owned. One friend (a bestselling author herself) said she destroyed her copy because she didn't feel right even giving it away for someone else to read. She didn't want to encourage anyone to become a new fan of hers.

I still have my own copy but if I could easily find it (ha ha), I would probably toss it out.

So there are various ways to handle one's discomfort with an artist's sins. I think it would depend on what those sins are--since I believe that we are all sinners anyway. So, an anti-Semite writer would get yanked from my shelves permanently, for instance. As would someone convicted of any sort of sexual crime. Unconvicted? Untried, as Allen stands today? I think that has to become a more personal choice. I wouldn't dictate to someone else how to handle future viewings of his movies, but I know I'm not likely to give him another dime while he's alive. That's my own conclusion based on my own conscience in the matter.

[Gideon58]

I watched Part 1 of this documentary yesterday and I tried not to read too much of what's already posted here in order to try and remain objective about what I was about to learn. I found myself riveted and I was impressed with the element of balance the writers and directors have brought to what was revealed thus far. I was expecting Allen to be painted as a monster and he really wasn't in the first part. It was interesting that when he first met Farrow, he really wanted nothing to do with being a father. The most difficult part of the watch was watching Farrow. She mentioned that she hasn't spoken about this for decades but it was obvious that a lot of the pain for her is still pretty fresh. I was also impressed with how fair she seems to be trying to be to Woody. Her guilt about not seeing what was going on earlier than she did. This couldn't have been easy for Dylan either, but it seemed cathartic for her too and it was nice to get some perspective from some of Mia's other kids. And am I the only one who noticed Dylan's striking resemblance to former SNL cast member Vanessa Bayer? Looking forward to part 2.

[Austruck]

I watched Part 1 of this documentary yesterday and I tried not to read too much of what's already posted here in order to try and remain objective about what I was about to learn. I found myself riveted and I was impressed with the element of balance the writers and directors have brought to what was revealed thus far. I was expecting Allen to be painted as a monster and he really wasn't in the first part. It was interesting that when he first met Farrow, he really wanted nothing to do with being a father. The most difficult part of the watch was watching Farrow. She mentioned that she hasn't spoken about this for decades but it was obvious that a lot of the pain for her is still pretty fresh. I was also impressed with how fair she seems to be trying to be to Woody. Her guilt about not seeing what was going on earlier than she did. This couldn't have been easy for Dylan either, but it seemed cathartic for her too and it was nice to get some perspective from some of Mia's other kids. And am I the only one who noticed Dylan's striking resemblance to former SNL cast member Vanessa Bayer? Looking forward to part 2.

Of the four parts to this documentary, I actually found part 1 to be the least balanced and the most "sensationalistic." That was my impression anyway. I was surprised that they did start to add in quotes and documentation from other people in the remaining three episodes. They do swing back around to more of the Mia/Dylan interviews in episode 4 again, and it's clear they're trying to leave you with your sympathies in a particular corner, but by then the other bits and pieces had added up for me personally.

[Siddon]

I believe Woody Allen,



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk&t=4s


Watching both sides of the story Allen's side has always been based more on facts and evidence while Farrow's side simply has not

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk&t=4s
Thanks for posting that. I haven't watched it but I haven't watched Allen v Farrow either. I do hope those who have watched Allen v Farrow and have strong opinions about the case will watch that video you posted. Maybe it will give them a new perspective, or maybe it will confirm what they already believe. Either way watching a different viewpoint on such an important topic can't be a waste of time.

[Stirchley]

I think my own viewpoint is that since Allen is still alive, if I pay to see or rent one of his movies, I'm still putting money in his pocket. That would concern me. I think at least one person on the documentary said this (in the fourth episode): that part of the distinction is whether the person is long dead and therefore no longer benefiting from one's patronage.


Interesting viewpoint. I guess my viewpoint is: I strictly focus on the work of art (film, music, art, etc.) & not on the background or current behavior of the artiste. For some reason, I am able to separate the two.

[Austruck]

Interesting viewpoint. I guess my viewpoint is: I strictly focus on the work of art (film, music, art, etc.) & not on the background or current behavior of the artiste. For some reason, I am able to separate the two.

Usually I am. I mean, who cares if the guy gets traffic tickets, right? :)

But certain behaviors cross a personal line for me. Child abuse would be one of those lines, as would murder. I think Cosby crossed lines for me and I can't listen to his comedy anymore. That's mostly because I probably wouldn't laugh like I used to back before all his stuff broke in the news.

Also, mine is not an unusual viewpoint (of not adding to an artist's coffers while he lives). It's mentioned by several folks in the documentary, and I had already arrived there myself before they said it. Having said this, though, it's not like I'm going to go out and rent Love and Death the day Allen dies, either. I have a feeling it would no longer hold the same place in my heart that it held when it first came out. My interest in all things Allen has definitely waned since this whole thing broke in the 1990s. This documentary mostly just gave me the information I needed to back up a choice I had mostly already made.

Now...having said all THAT...

I am not a person who boycotts companies over every little thing, either. I mean, if I tried to boycott every company or product that did something I didn't agree with in principle, I'd have to live off the grid and grow my own food, make my own clothing, and somehow make my own electricity. And what would I do about the internet? :D

So I admit I may not be completely consistent in my own decisions. But since Allen was someone whose movies I truly LOVED back in the day, believing what I now do about his behavior just taints all of his movies for me. Possibly because so many of them involve him acting like a character who is so much like Allen himself.

[Siddon]

I side with Woody...and here's why




The notion that Woody is this huge star and had this massive backing is well...bull. Mia Farrow through her friends and Ronan Farrow has ties to most major media outlets, from Variety Fair to The Times, to The Washington Post to MSNBC to HBO. The more compelling documentary that actually breaks down the case is on Youtube.
The crime doesn't make sense from a practical point of view. Dylan's belief that she was molested in a crawlspace with a train set going seems like a fantasy from a seven year old. Keep in mind the allegation isn't rape so no physical evidence can conclude that a crime occurred. This also occurred in a crowded house where two witnesses that did not support Mia.
Nanny Monica Thompson and Moises Farrow both claim Mia Farrow pressured them to support the accusations. This is important because unlike 4 year old Ronan and 7 year old Dylan these are people with cognitive abilities to recognize dishonest behavior.
Moises Farrow claims Mia made him strip naked in front of his family. Soon Yi claims she was assaulted by Mia Farrow. Two of Mia's children died due to suicide one due to poverty and another child has a gofund me. None of the children Mia has conflicts with are her biological children and all of her children that she has a conflict with are not white.
Stacey Nelkin claims Mia asked her to lie about the age she ended up with Woody Allen going from 17 to 15.
Sexual Abuse is a compulsion, it's very rare to go from post pubescent girls (teenagers) to pre pubescent ones. And in the 30 years after the allegation not a single other allegation has come about Woody.
Mia Farrow had a motive, her allegations allowed her not only to keep her children and "win" the case but she also got to work with non-profits. She has a job as an ambassador even though she has abuse allegations about her.
Mia was taken in by Andre Pevin and his wife, Mia's friend Dory Previn. Mia broke up the marriage and Dory ended up in a mental asylum. Dory passes away in 2012....a year after her death Maureen Orath writes another article about Woody(20 years later) the GG's and Ronan and Dylan rehash the abuse allegations in 2014.
In 2016 we start to question Ronan's parentage, and Mia potentially committing fraud, 1 year later Ronan launches the #Metoo movement against Harvey Weinstein.
This case has never gone to civil or criminal court, this has only been tried in the media a media that believes women and has stronger ties to the Farrows.

[Stirchley]

I'd have to live off the grid and grow my own food, make my own clothing, and somehow make my own electricity. And what would I do about the internet? :D

There was me thinking you did all these things. :D

[Stirchley]

Interesting post from Siddon.

[Austruck]

There was me thinking you did all these things. :D

When I can figure out how to make my own Oreos and Cap'n Crunch, I'll let you know. :D

[Stirchley]

When I can figure out how to make my own Oreos and Cap'n Crunch, I'll let you know. :D

I’ll bring the milk. :cool:

[Citizen Rules]

I side with Woody...and here's why




The notion that Woody is this huge star and had this massive backing is well...bull. Mia Farrow through her friends and Ronan Farrow has ties to most major media outlets, from Variety Fair to The Times, to The Washington Post to MSNBC to HBO. The more compelling documentary that actually breaks down the case is on Youtube.
The crime doesn't make sense from a practical point of view. Dylan's belief that she was molested in a crawlspace with a train set going seems like a fantasy from a seven year old. Keep in mind the allegation isn't rape so no physical evidence can conclude that a crime occurred. This also occurred in a crowded house where two witnesses that did not support Mia.
Nanny Monica Thompson and Moises Farrow both claim Mia Farrow pressured them to support the accusations. This is important because unlike 4 year old Ronan and 7 year old Dylan these are people with cognitive abilities to recognize dishonest behavior.
Moises Farrow claims Mia made him strip naked in front of his family. Soon Yi claims she was assaulted by Mia Farrow. Two of Mia's children died due to suicide one due to poverty and another child has a gofund me. None of the children Mia has conflicts with are her biological children and all of her children that she has a conflict with are not white.
Stacey Nelkin claims Mia asked her to lie about the age she ended up with Woody Allen going from 17 to 15.
Sexual Abuse is a compulsion, it's very rare to go from post pubescent girls (teenagers) to pre pubescent ones. And in the 30 years after the allegation not a single other allegation has come about Woody.
Mia Farrow had a motive, her allegations allowed her not only to keep her children and "win" the case but she also got to work with non-profits. She has a job as an ambassador even though she has abuse allegations about her.
Mia was taken in by Andre Pevin and his wife, Mia's friend Dory Previn. Mia broke up the marriage and Dory ended up in a mental asylum. Dory passes away in 2012....a year after her death Maureen Orath writes another article about Woody(20 years later) the GG's and Ronan and Dylan rehash the abuse allegations in 2014.
In 2016 we start to question Ronan's parentage, and Mia potentially committing fraud, 1 year later Ronan launches the #Metoo movement against Harvey Weinstein.
This case has never gone to civil or criminal court, this has only been tried in the media a media that believes women and has stronger ties to the Farrows.


All of that is interesting. But the really interesting thing is your #4 Moises Farrow claims Mia made him strip naked in front of his family. Soon Yi claims she was assaulted by Mia Farrow.

According to what I read Moses said his entire family watched him being forced to strip naked by Mia, including an adult André. If that story can be collaborated it is sexual abuse of a child by Mia Farrow. The very act of forcing your child to strip naked in front of your family including adults is an act of: Control and Sexual Humiliation, two traits that sexual predators embrace.

[Siddon]

All of that is interesting. But the really interesting thing is your #4 Moises Farrow claims Mia made him strip naked in front of his family. Soon Yi claims she was assaulted by Mia Farrow.

According to what I read Moses said his entire family watched him being forced to strip naked by Mia, including an adult André. If that story can be collaborated it is sexual abuse of a child by Mia Farrow. The very act of forcing your child to strip naked in front of your family including adults is an act of: Control and Sexual Humiliation, two traits that sexual predators embrace.


When it's an allegation of coercion hearsay doesn't apply. I think one of the reasons this case didn't go to civil court is the fact that Mia's of coercion towards witnesses.



You also don't have any physical evidence that a crime occurred and also it begs the question why does a man who has joint custody of a child decide to molest her in a house filled with people who hate him?


You also have this Christmas card Mia sent to Woody
https://woodyallenmoblynching.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/farrow_mia_valentine_card.jpg


And as we saw in the documentary she was taping their conversations. Woody took a polygraph...Mia didn't. Mia is alleging that Woody is recording her so she's recording him, it's never been substantiated that Allen did that.

[Citizen Rules]

When it's an allegation of coercion hearsay doesn't apply. I think one of the reasons this case didn't go to civil court is the fact that Mia's of coercion towards witnesses. Do you mean the charges against Woody or the charges that Moses made of being forced to strip by Mia?

[Gideon58]

Just watched part 2, which ended up getting really ugly, despite the way it started. The beginning almost seemed like it should have been part 1, with the overview of Mia's career and the beginning of her personal and professional relationship with Woody. Loved seeing Mia's audition for Liesl in The Sound of Music. I remained calm and objective until they played those taped phone calls between Woody and Mia. Some of the things he said to her...I found those phone calls way more damaging to Woody's character than Dylan's recall of what happened, though I wanted to throw up when she said Woody told her "I have to do this." That's disgusting.

[Siddon]

Do you mean the charges against Woody or the charges that Moses made of being forced to strip by Mia?


I mean Stacey Nelkin, Monica Thompson and Moises Farrow have all come forward with claims Mia tried to change their stories about Woody.

[Citizen Rules]

I mean Stacey Nelkin, Monica Thompson and Moises Farrow have all come forward with claims Mia tried to change their stories about Woody.Ah, I see, thanks for posting that.

[Gideon58]

Just finished part three and to be perfectly honest, I still don't know who I believe. What I do know is, guilty or innocent, I will never be able to look at Woody Allen the same way again. He has always struck me as an extremely arrogant man who has always overestimated his sex appeal, but this is not about sex appeal. What has really rocked my opinions about Woody are those taped phone calls with Mia...not necessarily damning in terms of the allegations, but they just make Allen look like complete slime. These phone calls have easily been the most fascinating part of this documentary for me, revealing, in my opinion, the REAL Woody Allen. The things he says to her, my God! And I can't believe the stupidity and the cajones of him, with everything that had happened, to try and sue for custody of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses. With everything that had happened, no court on the planet would have given that man custody of those kids not to mention the fact that an unfit mother would not be allowed to adopt children. It's amazing all the different people who interviewed Dylan and how many different opinions were offered, though I have to say Dylan's account of what happened was a little vague and contained words and phrases I don't think a child would use, giving the accusation that she was coached by Mia some merit. It was different than Leaving Netherland, where those two boys told what happened when they were alone with Michael Jackson in his bedroom and their stories and the details of said stories were absolutely IDENTICAL.. No two people in this story say the same thing. It seems to be kind of like the JFK assassination or the death of Marilyn Monroe,,,we will never know exactly what happened. I loved when that guy said he can't watch Woody's movies anymore and I'm not sure I'm there, but there's no way I can never look at Woody himself the same way again.

[Gideon58]

Well I finally got around to the 4th and final part where objectivity and balance disappeared and the gloves came off. I'm still not totally convinced one way or the other who is telling the truth, but I have to admit to leaning a little more toward Woody's side because, despite everything that happened, Woody, for better or worse, has gone on with his life. Dylan seems to have centered her entire life around this and I understand that sexual abuse is something from which victims never recover, but they do find a way to get through it and I don't think Dylan has put a lot of effort in working through her own issues regarding what has happened to her. It's not just that she seems to quietly enjoy the celebrity this has brought her, but, and I'm not sure anyone will like this, but there's a point, especially in this final part, where Dylan comes off as an actress playing the part of a sexual abuse victim named Dylan Farrow. Every word out of her mouth, every gesture, every hair toss, seemed directed and rehearsed. What was really sad was the way these events tore the rest of the family apart. That sounds callous, but it's just my opinion. This documentary was definitely worth the time commitment and the most important thing I got from this film...I'm sure glad I never lived in that house.

[Stirchley]

What has really rocked my opinions about Woody are those taped phone calls with Mia...not necessarily damning in terms of the allegations, but they just make Allen look like complete slime. These phone calls have easily been the most fascinating part of this documentary for me, revealing, in my opinion, the REAL Woody Allen. The things he says to her, my God!

Is he verbally abusive to Mia in the calls?

[Gideon58]

I don't what you would consider "verbally abusive" but the man talks to her like dirt and even threatens her directly and indirectly. He's also very condescending to her, talking to her like she's a complete moron.

[Citizen Rules]

Is he verbally abusive to Mia in the calls?

I don't what you would consider "verbally abusive" but the man talks to her like dirt and even threatens her directly and indirectly. He's also very condescending to her, talking to her like she's a complete moron. I haven't seen Allen v Farrow and I haven't heard the phone call in question. But logic dictates that either Woody is guilty of child abuse...or he's been falsely accused by Mia Farrow...and if Woody was falsely accused of child abuse as pay back by Mia, then it's very understandable that he would lash out at her and say the cruelest things. I mean who wouldn't be verbally abusive to someone who falsely accused them of a horrible crime?

In others words Woody's phone conversation with Mia proves nothing. However the fact that Mia set-up Woody to record a personal conversation to use it as a smear campaign gives credence to the idea that she falsely accused him of child abuse as pay back for marrying her adopted daughter. You know what the say, "Hell has no wrath like a woman scorned."

[Stirchley]

... and if Woody was falsely accused of child abuse as pay back by Mia, then it's very understandable that he would lash out at her and say the cruelest things. I mean who wouldn't be verbally abusive to someone who falsely accused them of a horrible crime?

Maybe, but don’t downplay verbal abuse. One can get arrested for this as it is considered to be domestic violence/domestic battery. An Order of Protection is usually given to the abusee while the abuser awaits his or her’s court hearing. (This is after the initial arraignment.)

[Citizen Rules]

Maybe, but don’t downplay verbal abuse. One can get arrested for this as it is considered to be domestic violence/domestic battery. An Order of Protection is usually given to the abusee while the abuser awaits his or her’s court hearing. (This is after the initial arraignment.)Agreed. Not that I know first hand! But I've heard such before.

[Stirchley]

Just finished this extremely interesting documentary.

Did Woody Allen abuse his daughter Dylan Farrow? I have no idea.

I am very glad though for Dylan that she has found herself a very nice husband & they have a lovely daughter. Dylan had a very shaky start in life (we are told nothing of her bio parents) & then to deal with all this scandal would drive any sane person insane so I give her kudos for being a survivor.

[Siddon]

Just finished this extremely interesting documentary.

Did Woody Allen abuse his daughter Dylan Farrow? I have no idea.

I am very glad though for Dylan that she has found herself a very nice husband & they have a lovely daughter. Dylan had a very shaky start in life (we are told nothing of her bio parents) & then to deal with all this scandal would drive any sane person insane so I give her kudos for being a survivor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk&t=2165s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R21tWs-qCw