Allen v. Farrow

[up_the_hampipe]

Allen not Alien, although that would have been a lot better. And no, it's not an actual match between them as the title promises. It's just another HBO documentary series.

I'm sure you all know the story, but to recap: Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were together, Woody fell in love with Farrow's adopted daughter, the revelation of the affair rocked the family, on top of this Woody seemed to have an unhealthy obsession with his child Dylan, which resulted in an alleged molestation. The documentary presents the events and subsequent trials from Mia, Dylan, some of the family, some of their friends and their legal team.

The press have been saying it's the final nail in Allen's coffin, and there are certainly plenty of things that don't look good for him. Critics say it's just a one-sided rehash of what we've already heard. The allegations of abuse against Mia by Moses Farrow have, so far, not been addressed. Woody, Soon-Yi and Moses all declined to be involved. I'm watching and enjoying it purely because the situation is fascinating, if exhausting and frustrating. But, as a documentary, there's clearly an agenda and the filmmakers aren't even really trying to hide that, so it comes off a little sensationalist. Are you even going to bother?

[Dex Sawash]

[C_Larence]

Whoever wins, we lose.


Hope the documentary talks about this:

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I won't be watching this, but I nonetheless declare myself qualified to say Woody is innocent.

[Mister Six]

Whoever wins, we lose.


Hope the documentary talks about this:

What's the context? Is that a Google search she used to find a picture of her own daughter?

[C_Larence]

What's the context? Is that a Google search she used to find a picture of her own daughter?

Yeah, Mia tweeted that screenshot without realising that the term she had searched was visible.

[daf]

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Search Engines (But Were Afraid to Ask) :

#1 - Don't bother typing "and her", you soppy sod!

[phantom_power]

Whatever the truth of the matter, and I am not sure that will ever come out, this documentary does seem to be very one-sided given the participants and who is missing from that list

[El Unicornio, mang]

Also slightly odd that Farrow is still close friends with Roman Polanski.

[Moribunderast]

Whatever the truth of the matter, and I am not sure that will ever come out, this documentary does seem to be very one-sided given the participants and who is missing from that list

To be fair, Woody, Moses and Soon-Yi all declined to be interviewed. Maybe that's because they thought they wouldn't get a fair shake but most of their defences are put forward over the course of the documentary. Moses and Soon-Yi claim they were abused - all the other kids say that isn't true. I don't think it's possible for us outside the situation to know the truth of whether Woody assaulted Dylan or whether Mia was abusive towards Moses and Soon-Yi. The documentary is definitely slanted against Woody but it does show a lot of evidence that makes it really hard to think nothing happened. At the very least, Dylan absolutely believes he abused her and she has told the same story for decades.

I definitely understand the reticence to watch a documentary that one feels is unfairly slanted but I don't know if I agree that it really is. Maybe there's a lot of testimony or evidence I'm unaware of that wasn't included - but I did read one piece in the Grauniad that claimed the doco was pure PR and that's ended up looking silly as almost all the things the writer argued weren't in the documentary actually ended up being shown/talked about.

[thugler]

Allen not Alien, although that would have been a lot better. And no, it's not an actual match between them as the title promises. It's just another HBO documentary series.

I'm sure you all know the story, but to recap: Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were together, Woody fell in love with Farrow's adopted daughter, the revelation of the affair rocked the family, on top of this Woody seemed to have an unhealthy obsession with his child Dylan, which resulted in an alleged molestation. The documentary presents the events and subsequent trials from Mia, Dylan, some of the family, some of their friends and their legal team.

The press have been saying it's the final nail in Allen's coffin, and there are certainly plenty of things that don't look good for him. Critics say it's just a one-sided rehash of what we've already heard. The allegations of abuse against Mia by Moses Farrow have, so far, not been addressed. Woody, Soon-Yi and Moses all declined to be involved. I'm watching and enjoying it purely because the situation is fascinating, if exhausting and frustrating. But, as a documentary, there's clearly an agenda and the filmmakers aren't even really trying to hide that, so it comes off a little sensationalist. Are you even going to bother?

I've been watching this, and have seen some of Dick's previous work which is mostly good. Thought this has been poor. Everyone interviewed is strongly on the side of Farrow, and those on the other side of the argument are referred to but never allowed to actually speak. There's no critical questioning of anyone either from the filmmakers, you get the sense they are wholly convinced from the start also. Many of the arguments on Allen's side are presented to some extent, but there's always multiple interviewees on Farrow's side to deny it or support her story.

Now I'm actually pretty sure that Allen is at the very least dodgy as hell, his documented obsession with relationships with much younger women mean this isn't a massive surprise. But I think there are some questions to be asked about Farrow as well, the way she was amassing all of these children, some of whom now allege abuse or neglect, seems to warrant some questions at least.

The bias in this is really laid on thick at times though, they make strong implications of conspiracy or undue influence from the fame of Allen that is somewhat believable, but It's not like he personally suggested that they refer the case to the Yale Sexual Abuse clinic which found the claims doubtful. Now maybe they could have got this wrong, but I'm a bit less inclined to suspect that professionals tasked with investigating child abuse claims are so ready to overlook it. If you look at the facts of the case there's a lot of stuff left out and moved around to make things seem more clear cut as well. They could have presented things more fairly and asked more difficult questions to those they interviewed, but I'm sure it was hard to get anyone who disagrees to participate in an anti Allen doc really.

But he still more likely than not did it, I think.

[up_the_hampipe]

So, episode 4 does a good job of dismantling Moses Farrow's allegations, at least in regards to disputing Dylan's molestation. Ronan mentioned early on that Woody told him he'd provide financial support if Ronan publicly defended him. Suggests Moses may have needed money, so he sold out to the richer parent.

The allegations against Mia, however, are simply dismissed without much scrutiny. Mia talks about Woody "weaponising the children" against her, yet when Woody's similar defence is raised regarding Dylan, the documentary launches into an examination of the 'Parental Alienation' tactic. The documentary seems to show as much sympathy towards Mia as they do towards Dylan, when I think she should have been challenged a little more. I was often a bit skeptical of how Mia was portraying herself, but recently someone I know said about Meghan Markle "at first I thought she was acting, but then I remembered she's just American". They can be quite intense people so they're hard to read.

[kngen]

But I think there are some questions to be asked about Farrow as well, the way she was amassing all of these children, some of whom now allege abuse or neglect, seems to warrant some questions at least.

So I'm guessing this is never raised in the doc? People seem to shy away from raising it, presumably because they think it gives Allen ammunition, but it is possible for him to be absolutely bang-to-rights guilty of being a horrible paedo cunt, and her to be deeply strange, with a kind of Mother Theresa complex where she 'saves' children and neglects them at the same time.

I wonder what concessions were given to the Farrow camp to get the kind of access and footage that they did.

[up_the_hampipe]

So I'm guessing this is never raised in the doc?

If you read my post just above yours...

[kngen]

Ah, my apologies. Must have been reading an older version of the thread.

That's pretty weak of the documentary-makers. (And, like I said, I wonder what concessions they gave to get this kind of access.) As an adoptive parent, Farrow's stamp-collecting approach to childcare repels me on an almost visceral level: 'I love you all. Now you listen to your carers, as I'm going away for a couple of days to a warzone with Angelina Jolie to bring you back some brothers and sisters.'

Not that this should diminish Woody Allen's unforgivable actions in any way, the cunt.

[thecuriousorange]

Tag: Requiem

EDIT - ever post a gag based solely on the thread title, then realise the essenseof it is in the very first line?

[mr. logic]

At one point in episode two, one of Mia's friends says that while he would praise her in interviews, he would not praise her in private. It then plays clips of woody praising her acting over sinister music.

Firstly, you have only proved half of the statement there. Secondly, is it really proof of anything? I turned off the documentary there and won't be going back to it. It's awful and it appears to have been a complete bomb.

[SOMK]

Allen in all his defences repeatedly refers to the Yale New Haven Report which was dodgy as fuck and my understanding is the documentary goes into this. Won't be watching, researched this case to death circa 2015, in and around the time of the NYT op-ed and the Cosby case, went into thinking he was innocent, left it convinced he was guilty, I could dig up a 40,000-ish word doc plus various saved docs on it from my old computer if I had to, but I won't. To be honest I went way too deep into it back then without appreciating how unhealthy that kind of activity is and it took a big bastard bite out of my mental health, but I was on a downward spiral at the time.

Is the doc biased? Reality isn't some bullshit news program where media convention (which serve the interest of power) demands false equivalency between traumatised victims and powerful and sociopathic perpetrators. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a child molester is just a child molester. A guilty party knows to keep their mouth shut, if someone made up such allegations about me you'd have to stitch my mouth up and chop off my hands so I couldn't rip them out to stop me talking, I would be a maniac to clear my name, I wouldn't stand for it. Does Mia Farrow have to be a saint for Allen to be guilty? A perverse expectation, plenty of people can do harm when meaning well, that's a world away from child abuse. To do what Allen is claiming she did (something there is no evidence is actually possible BTW, namely the implantation of false memories into a child to the extend they believe these still to be real as an adult remembering not the alleged coaching (nor anyone else witnessing said coaching), but the fictitious abuse, the MK Ultra experiments showed you can wipe a mind, but you can't implant memories, apparently Mia Farrow's coaching is more effective than medical doctors in clinical conditions armed with electro shock therapy and LSD) it's not a question of questionable adoption practices, it's a question of evil, it's a question of how can someone outside of the realm of fiction be so equally unhinged and freakishly competent.

To set out to actively plant a fake story in the mind of a child out of sheer spite, you're talking a high-functioning, vicious sociopath, you'd have to be a very sick puppy to wilfully implant the memory of sexual abuse into a seven year child to the extent they believe it was real (which would be an act of equivalent brutality to actual abuse, arguably worse because you're screwing with their entire perception of reality) and there is no guarantee such coaching would work or would go undetected, you're not only being psychotically vindictive, willing to destroy a child for the sake of injuring an ex and taking a massive risk, but demonstrating a level of evil you can't keep a lid on, it implies both psychotic vindictiveness and extraordinary high functioning forward planning and manipulation, by all accounts I'm aware of bar Moses (who had actorly/film making ambitions) her children have nothing but praise for her. It reads more like psychological projection on his part.

Read the op ed he wrote, note the failure to address anything specific, he offers no hard facts or direct rebuttals, "they say X, but in truth is was Y and I can prove it thus", that's how you defend yourself from "crazy" allegations when the truth is on your side, if someone lies about me I go on the attack, I take their words, find the inconsistencies, throw it back in their faces, lying because you are making up a story involves a certain degree of cognitive load telling the truth does not because you have memory to rely on, as opposed an ever complicated story that gets more and more convoluted, with each layer you add (hence people who lie tend to stick to the same story) but Allen doesn't respond with facts, the only hard fact he can offer in his defence is the Yale report, his response is laced with rhetorical questions and innuendo, an entire paragraph of rhetorical questions is dedicated to Ronan Farrow's parentage. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html

Followed by the following, "NOW it's 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement." He avoids addressing any these "added creative flourishes" directly and again repeats the only hard fact he can speak to, the report. He doesn't quote or directly rebut anything said against him. Really in 21 years that's the best you've got, a dodgy report cooked up in very suspicious circumstances?

It's also worth noting the man not once has ever expressed regret over the damage marrying a woman who was in effect his adopted daughter did to what was then his family. Not once in his op ed does he acknowledge that the toxic nature of his break up with Farrow was entirely his own doing, or accept any blame or responsibility.

That is very telling.

Or just watch Manhattan and ask yourself what kind of middle-aged (and highly intelligent) man writes a story starring himself, featuring multiple love interests where this is the happy ending.

https://youtu.be/VIugrczLUl0?t=433

"Guess what I turned 18 the other day, I'm legal, but I'm still a kid"

Remember what I said about not being able to keep a lid on it?

It's there, it's right there in front of your eyes. This is how abusers operate in plain sight. This is how they get away with it.

Don't fucking let them.

[Dr Rock]

As I recall, two things Dylan said when interviewed by the quacks added to their conclusion that she was prone to fantasies or lived in a bit of a dreamworld. One was that she referred to 'the magic hour, and said the attic was full of heads. Turns out 'The Magic Hour is what filmmakers call dusk, which she no doubt picked up from Mia or Woody, and the attic was reportedly where Mia kept a lot of wigs on little heads.

[lazyhour]

Watched the first two and while it doesn't look for Corbyn Woody, it's the most laughably one-sided tabloidy bollocks overall.

Here's a very interesting interview with Soon-Yi from 2018:

https://www.vulture.com/2018/09/soon-yi-previn-speaks.html

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

I don't dispute that Woody Allen is at best a very flawed individual, with a creepy interest over barely legal women (in the State of New York).
But Mia Farrow's point would be much better asserted if she said one word about Polanski or about her own brother, who was sentenced to 10 years (he served 7) for child molestation. That would clear things about what comes from denouncing an horrible crime and what comes from a personal vendetta.

[thugler]

So, episode 4 does a good job of dismantling Moses Farrow's allegations, at least in regards to disputing Dylan's molestation. Ronan mentioned early on that Woody told him he'd provide financial support if Ronan publicly defended him. Suggests Moses may have needed money, so he sold out to the richer parent.

The allegations against Mia, however, are simply dismissed without much scrutiny. Mia talks about Woody "weaponising the children" against her, yet when Woody's similar defence is raised regarding Dylan, the documentary launches into an examination of the 'Parental Alienation' tactic. The documentary seems to show as much sympathy towards Mia as they do towards Dylan, when I think she should have been challenged a little more. I was often a bit skeptical of how Mia was portraying herself, but recently someone I know said about Meghan Markle "at first I thought she was acting, but then I remembered she's just American". They can be quite intense people so they're hard to read.

I took that bit with a pinch of salt really. It's a very one sided view and given that there's noone with a dissenting view in the entire doc. It strikes me as strange that he'd be willing to lie about his own sister's molestation for money, and besides that, is Farrow not independently wealthy herself? I found all that stuff about Allen's riches a bit misleading since she's clearly a millionaire and finances should not be a huge issue for any of them. He seems to be an educated professional with a decent job and not a guy down on his luck needing money.

As for Mia, they didn't even seem to broach the issue of her collecting children at such a rate. All these friends/employees of Farrow being interviewed really add nothing and are not particularly trustworthy.

I still think he probably did it, but it's just a weak doc. And 4 parts was way too many.

Allen in all his defences repeatedly refers to the Yale New Haven Report which was dodgy as fuck

I think this may well be true, but the doc insinuates it was all set up by Woody, or that the professionals involved were somehow stooges. I can believe the report to be flawed and that it's not Woody personally seeing to it that it finds him innocent.

Is the doc biased? Reality isn't some bullshit news program where media convention (which serve the interest of power) demands false equivalency between traumatised victims and powerful and sociopathic perpetrators. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a child molester is just a child molester. A guilty party knows to keep their mouth shut, if someone made up such allegations about me you'd have to stitch my mouth up and chop off my hands so I couldn't rip them out to stop me talking, I would be a maniac to clear my name, I wouldn't stand for it. Does Mia Farrow have to be a saint for Allen to be guilty? A perverse expectation, plenty of people can do harm when meaning well, that's a world away from child abuse. To do what Allen is claiming she did (something there is no evidence is actually possible BTW, namely the implantation of false memories into a child to the extend they believe these still to be real as an adult remembering not the alleged coaching (nor anyone else witnessing said coaching), but the fictitious abuse, the MK Ultra experiments showed you can wipe a mind, but you can't implant memories, apparently Mia Farrow's coaching is more effective than medical doctors in clinical conditions armed with electro shock therapy and LSD) it's not a question of questionable adoption practices, it's a question of evil, it's a question of how can someone outside of the realm of fiction be so equally unhinged and freakishly competent.

Agree that the allegation that she was coached is not convincing. But both the doc being poor and Allen being guilty, and Farrow's actions being questionable can all be true at the same time

Really in 21 years that's the best you've got, a dodgy report cooked up in very suspicious circumstances?

I'm not quite following the 'cooked up' aspect of the report. It's not like Allen himself directed them to take it to Yale is it? Quite willing to believe that it's flawed though.

[Echo Valley 2-6809]

I love Woody Allen's comic prose and a lot of his films (ehefo), but I'm under no illusions about how odd and solipsistic and emotionally cold-blooded he is - and that impression makes it really easy for people to say "I think he probably did do it".

But without a confession I don't see how we can ever know whether it happened, and none of the strange things he says in his autobiography or in interviews, or the age differences in his films or private relationships, are proof of guilt, or of him "hiding in plain sight".

Having said that I think he probably I like it when he slips on that giant banana skin in Sleeper.

[Keebleman]

It's there, it's right there in front of your eyes. This is how abusers operate in plain sight. This is how they get away with it.

What, by making a really good film over a decade before you start abusing a child who doesn't exist yet? Whew, that's planning.

[dissolute ocelot]

If you are trying to prove something you can anticipate likely objections, and present and then disprove them, or you can just glide over them and throw a lot of vague insinuation and gloomy music. The former is what you do if you're interested in the truth (or indeed looking to make an argument that stands up in court), the latter is the mark of the sensationalist hit-job.

There is a place for the sensationalist hit-job documentary (e.g. Michael Moore's entire career) but it's fundamentally just entertainment and shouldn't be mistaken for a serious investigation.