Allen v. Farrow filmmakers say Woody Allen is "welcome to do an interview" with them anytime
Aux Features Woody Allen
Ahead of last night’s airing of the fourth and final (more on that in a moment) episode of Allen v. Farrow, directors Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering, along with lead reporter Amy Herdy, spoke at length with THR about the series, which re-examines Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegations against her former adopted father, Woody Allen, in harrowing detail. Allen recently issued a statement about the series through a spokesperson, calling Allen v. Farrow a “hatchet job,” and claimed that he was given just “days” to respond to an interview request that was made two months before Allen v. Farrow premiered. In response, Ziering refuted the idea that Allen’s voice was not heard, and extended an open invitation should Allen actually want to be interviewed, adding that HBO would probably do another episode of the series:
His perspective, his first-person testimony is included throughout the series. We have his own voice reading, his own writing, his press conferences in his words, his court testimony. His side is represented. And he’s welcome to do an interview [with us]. Standing offer. We’re sure that HBO would do a fifth episode. We’re here.
Herdy additionally rejects Allen’s claim that he wasn’t given adequate time to respond to interview requests, revealing that she actually reached out to his publicist twice in 2018 following a widely-publicized interview in which Allen called himself the “poster boy” for the #MeToo movement. Says Herdy: “And I know that they got my request because I spoke to an assistant, who confirmed that they got my request. They never responded. And so I continued to do a deep dive.”
The result of that work is a wrenching series that gives Dylan Farrow a platform to tell her story in full—something she had avoided sharing in depth, even with loved ones, until recently: “Growing up, I never spoke about it with any of my siblings. None of them asked,” says Farrow of the abuse and subsequent investigations she endured as a seven-year-old child. “They all went through their own gauntlet of emotions over this. I didn’t even speak about it in any depth with my mom. Even with my therapist.” The documentary features interviews with several of her siblings, including Fletcher Previn and Ronan Farrow (who admits that he once had “knock-down, drag-out fights” with his sister when she expressed the desire to go public with her story), as well as their mother, Mia Farrow. In addition to the alleged abuse of Dylan, Farrow had to contend with Allen’s lawyers and a child custody battle following their split; Allen, who continues to deny having abused Dylan, was caught having an affair with Farrow’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, and the pair subsequently married.
107 Comments
It’s strange and nasty watching people come to the defence of Allen, somehow claiming that because Dylan’s mother may have been neglectful than her account must be false, despite the fact that Mia wasn’t even the one who wanted to file the police report. It’s gross, and my heart breaks for Dylan having an entire public prove yet again that they are more willing to believe the man that abused her then the little child she once was, holding up criminal reports that were very much biased and with outdated beliefs from the 90s.
I think Allen’s likely guilty, but referring to the allegations against Mia as being simply “neglectful” is like calling Allen simply “problematic” when the fact is he’s an alleged child rapist. If we’re believing victims, we need to believe all victims: whatever the case, that household was clearly not a safe place for children, and the whole thing is gross and painfully sad.
If we’re believing victims, we need to believe all victimsThat’s not really how it works, though? We want to hear from all victims. We believe Dylan because her allegations are obviously heartfelt, they are logical, comport with the evidence, and are corroborated.That doesn’t mean that every allegation everywhere has to be given equal weight.
And I just realized that you may have meant Allen’s accusations against Farrow, the charges of being an unfit mother.I hope not, because if so… gross. That accusation was actually litigated and found to be baseless.
Don’t know what happened to that last sentence. Should be “That accusation was actually litigated and found to be baseless”.https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/08/nyregion/allen-loses-to-farrow-in-bitter-custody-battle.html
kinja has been eating links lately. If you try to use a link in a comment, it will mix up your text sometimes. You know, typical kinja stuff.
“That accusation was actually litigated and found to be baseless”.
This. And anyone who continues to push this narrative of Mia Farrow as a child abuser should be required to read that judge’s scathing judgment of Woody Allen.
“That’s not really how it works, though?”It’s so obvious how disingenuous these people are. They KNOW that is not how it works, but they think they can manipulate us. As if they ever had any intention of being part of that “we” they insist are believing “all” victims.
Exactly.“Believe all victims/women” comes from the same place as “All lives matter”. And is every bit as disingenuous.
Depends on who you ask. Most of Mia’s children say she was never abusive towards them and that they never witnessed any of the abuse claimed by Moses and Soon Yi. So for most of the children, absent Woody’s toxic presence, it’s far from clear that the household “was not a safe place for” them. That said, you are right that we should believe all victims, and that most of the children did not experience abuse and did not see abuse does not mean that abuse did not happen to Soon Yi and Moses, and I definitely could have done without the documentary giving the other children a platform to cast doubt on Moses’s claims beyond “I didn’t experience that and I didn’t see that.”
See, and that is a very important distinction. The other kids have not been saying “He was not abused.” They’ve been saying “I wasn’t abused by abused by our mom.” “I never saw my mom abuse my siblings.” “We never saw our mom abuse any us.” “What he’s claimed went on in our house growing up was not my experience.” They’re not speaking for him; they’re speaking for themselves.But Moses is speaking for his siblings (particularly after they die and conveniently can’t any longer counter his claims), and further is insisting everyone believe him over them.The other kids have every right to debunk any claims he’s made speaking for them or their sibling who are not here to speak for themselves.Particularly since a lot of the claims he’s making are particularly outrageous and indict the entire household as being complicit in years of public abuse. I mean, I can’t say what my own parents did or didn’t do to my siblings in private, but I can absolutely unequivocally state that they never threw my siblings down a flight of stairs or constantly berated kids in front of everyone or locked anyone in a garden shed in freezing temperatures.
I’m willing to be proven wrong, but there were parts of the discussion in yesterday’s episode where some of the other kids pretty clearly cast doubt on Moses’s and Soon Yi’s claims, and I’m pretty attuned (I think) to the difference between “I didn’t see it, I didn’t experience it” and “They didn’t experience that.” You are right that Moses definitely does this though.
Specifically what claims? Because if Moses says: “X happened to me secretly when no one else could have seen it” then it would be wrong for someone else to unequivocally say it never happened (like it is wrong when he does that exact thing to Dylan). But if he claims: “X happened to this other person right in front of everyone all of the time” then EVERYONE has a right to say if they saw that happen or not.
Well, if I recall, they didn’t really quote any of Moses’ specific claims about the abuse he suffered, so I don’t know that it could be that specific. I’d have to go back and watch, but my impression was that Fletcher, Dylan, and Ronan especially were pushing back not just on whether they saw any abuse, but whether Moses and Soon Yi actually experienced any abuse.
And? It doesn’t sound like any of them did what you’re asserting they did.It sounds like you really want them to have, though, so you can waggle a finger at them.
Okay! I distinctly had this impression while I was watching the documentary yesterday, because I specifically think people shouldn’t cast doubt on Moses and Soon Yi’s own recounting of their own experiences, which really have little relevance to Dylan’s claims in any event. I just remember being struck by it. If I’m misremembering or if I misunderstood, fine. I’m not really in a position to go back and try to parse it or pinpoint what I’m talking about, because it’s not that big of a deal to me, I’m much more concerned with the massive apparatus Woody Allen’s PR machine built to undermine Dylan’s ability to tell her own story, rather than whether or not a few of the Farrow kids said “They weren’t abused” about Moses and Soon Yi.
“I’m much more concerned with the massive apparatus Woody Allen’s PR machine built to undermine Dylan’s ability to tell her own story”Then talk about that.
i did
…and indict the entire household as being complicit in years of public abuse.This is fairly common in households with an abusive parent. Certainly was in mine.
That’s because Mia’s non-white children are either dead or beyond screwed up because of her.
that’s fair, I simply meant people are using Mia’s potential abuse as a reason to negate Dylan’s abuse by her father and following misinformed MO’s of what predatory behaviour has to look like.
I 100% believe Dylan and that Allen assaulted her. Watching him made my skin crawl. Watching A v F was also tougher than I expected on another front, as something did feel off to me about Mia and I realized I went in wanting it to be a simple “good people vs bad people” narrative. I very much recognize there are no perfect victims and predators like Allen often choose folks who have existing trauma or personality features that make them less “believable.” But my gut sense, for whatever it’s worth, I also believe Moses’ and Soon-Yi’s experiences of abuse (Mia even acknowledged that she physically assaulted Soon-Yi when she caught her on the phone with him) and that, at the very least, there was a harmful lack of consideration for the lives of vulnerable special needs children cross-culturally adopted. Very gross and painfully sad.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that.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
that article was a bunch of shitty points to disprove a child and again uphold Allen as not guilty. this is bonkers the way people are rationalizing some incorrectly remembered details as reason to not believe her, and ignoring what she actually endured. It speaks a lot to our societies deep need to not understand victims, I think this just further cements my belief that going forward for victims is fucking brutal and she must ask everyday if telling her truth was worth it.
A hostility to everything that doesn’t fit the narrative? I guess the documentary had its intended effect.
No lol, those are some lazy ass points brought up in that article, and really don’t add much.
People like to be told what to think. The left is just as susceptible to this as the right, unfortunately.
The left is actually MORE susceptible to this than the right at this point,
ok, this has nothing to do with left and right, it’s about justice against a child rapist.
No, you don’t get to shit on The Guardian just because you believe Dylan. The article has merit.
the article had lazy points that didn’t add much to Allens defence lol.
Yep.Essentially that Guardian opinion piece, written by long-time Allen fangirl Hadley Freeman, says: the documentarians didn’t give equal weight to Allen’s obvious PR bullshit (that has always been given more weight than facts because… money) as they did to well-researched, vetted facts and that’s not fair!In response, the documentarians issued a statement: “The filmmakers behind ‘Allen v Farrow’ meticulously examined tens of thousands of pages of documents, including court transcripts, police reports, eyewitness testimonies and child welfare records. We spoke with dozens of persons involved with the case who had first-hand knowledge of the events and whose accounts could be independently corroborated. ‘Allen v Farrow’ is a complete, thorough, and accurate presentation of the facts.”They gave weight to what could be verified. Allen’s defense could not be verified. Done.
Its some real cult of personality shit, not too unlike the one that sprang up for Michael Jackson after the Leaving Neverland documentary. My mom, a victim of domestic abuse herself, still thinks that bastard is innocent.
i thought people came to his defense because the place where it supposedly happened didn’t exist or something? the attic? and his lack of recidivism which is usually rare for that kind of crime. it’s not a fantastic alibi but i think it was more than just discrediting her.
I first read the headline as Alien vs. Farrow, which I’d definitely watch. No doubt it would be pretty short, but still.
I dunno. The xenomorph might be like “you people are fucking weird” and just nope right out of there.
I think Alien vs. Predator works well enough for this story already.
More like “Alienated vs. Predator,” but this still deserves more stars. Sexual assault definitely left me, at least, feeling alienated AF.
Considering the aggressive sexual overtones of the Alien, it definitely works less the more you think about it. But I’m so very glad that you’ve gone from feeling alienated to being Lady Commentariat herself.
I misread your humorous misreading as Alien vs Ferrari. Like most people I did not see Ford vs Ferrari so this meant nothing to me.
I think the film did OK business, but more importantly it was released in the UK as Le Mans ‘66, which is a much better and more indicative title. The Ferrari chaps barely even feature as characters, for one thing.
Tough shit for Allen. His PR machine has worked relentlessly, and successfully, for decades to present a false, misogynistic narrative of Mia Farrow as a woman scorned* who brainwashed Dylan, a theory for which there isn’t any evidence (as the court that rejected Allen’s lawsuit for custody, there was “no credible evidence” for that theory, and also that his behavior towards Dylan was “grossly inappropriate”). He’s had a two-decades head start getting his bullshit narrative into the public, and it’s past time for a corrective.I’m so glad this documentary dismantles so much of the bullshit that Allen’s team so successfully spun to his defense, especially the Yale-New Haven report that supposedly “exonerated” Allen. For so long so many people have clung to that report, seemingly unaware of how thoroughly it has been taken apart, both for its methods—interviewing Dylan an excessive NINE TIMES, destroying notes that would allow people to assess the supposed “inconsistencies” that partly formed the basis for their conclusion she had not been assaulted—as well as for basic factual errors that led Dr. Leventhal to have to walk back much of it, including jumping to the conclusion that Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality because of her statements referring to things like “the magic hour” (which referred to certain times of day when there were particular lightings) and “dead heads” (which referred to mannequin heads her mother had for wigs) when it turned out those phrases had perfectly innocent explanations.*And by the way, the alchemy that takes his horrific behavior in tearing his family apart by FUCKING his daughter’s own sister, a girl he met in her own right when she was like 10 and whom he was certainly a sort of father figure for, and turn that into a DEFENSE against accusations that he raped Dylan, is amazingly infuriating.
Just wondering how the usual crowd is gonna defend Allen’s recently reported close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein
That’s the result of Mia’s “brainwashing,” too, somehow.
According to the youtube comments on the trailers for this show, Allen was faking his friendship and was helping Trump to secretly save us all from Epstein and his real friends. Not kidding.
According to the youtube comments on the trailers for this show, Allen was faking his friendship and was helping Trump to secretly save us all from Epstein and his real friends. Not kidding.
Even the term “mental gymnastics” doesn’t fully capture the Gordian intellectual knot that represents.
Have you seen the prices of first class airline tickets? Who could blame Allen for getting some free rides on Epstein’s private jet? I sure nothing weird at all went down.
They would absolutely eat him alive. Woody knows he wouldn’t survive.
Because he’s a fucking monster in his 80s who never got punished for his crimes and has no actual recourse?
Oh, absolutely. I didn’t even consider how this could be read the other way.
I think it would be pretty anti-climactic (not that there’s any real chance his lawyers would let him do this in their absence). He’d just stick to the same bullshit story he’s always stuck to. I’m not even sure I could watch that because he made my skin crawl before all this, but now I don’t want to even look at him.
Good. That child molester cannot die soon enough.
It’s 8:30am on a Monday. AV Club user recognitions receives a notification: An article has been posted about Woody Allen! He scrambles out of bed, shoving aside the weekend’s supply of vape cartridges and adderall, and slams his unshowered rump in front of his command center of justice. Like he’s done this a thousand times before — and he has — he tabs away from his home page (news.avclub.com) to plug “Woody Allen news” into Google. With all the skill of a warrior who has studied the key for untold hours, he deploys his bait and feels a surge of dopamine as he presses “Publish.” Now, all he has to do is wait. And wait. And wait.
You posted like fifteen minutes after me, bud. But clearly you’re mad about someone making fun of a pedophile
Just as I resent both you and Shia, so too can I resent both you and Woody. It’s like how you can be an abuser and still spend 99% of your time distancing yourself from abuse, except I’m hating on shitty men and you’re defending one (yourself).
So literally the only thing you can point to about me is that I’m willing to call an abuser an abuser. And yet to you, that’s more deserving of your ire than a literal pedophile. I’d ask what goes on in your head, but I really don’t think I want to know.
It’s 8:45am on a Monday. AV Club user TheUnnumberedOne receives a notification: A comment has been posted by recognitions! He scrambles out of bed, shoving aside the weekend’s supply of weed and Xanax, and slams his unshowered rump in front of his command center of justice. Like he’s done this a thousand times before — and he has — he taps the letters “AV” into Google, letting autofill do the rest. With all the skill of a warrior who has studied the key for untold hours, he deploys his bait and feels a surge of dopamine as he presses “Publish.” Now, all he has to do is wait.
You posted like fifteen minutes after me, bud. But clearly you’re mad about someone making fun of a pedophile
Probably better to rush to stridently demand accountability for perpetrators of child sexual abuse and incest than to rush to make fun of someone for too stridently demanding accountability for perpetrators of child sexual abuse. I mean “Haha, look how much this guy wants to hold Woody Allen accountable for fingering his own 7 year old daughter, can you believe it?” doesn’t exactly seem like a noble pursuit. But we all have our passions.
This is all assuming that Allen is guilty, which a court decided was not the case.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Woody Allen’s case, nor even the continued importance of believing women. Woody’s a monster and deserves to burn in hell for it. I can’t blame you for not seeing the wider context of recognitions’ role on this site, but trust me when I say that he does not do this in good faith. I’m sure your comment made him climax right in his pants, though.
That’s funny because all I ever see you guys do is try to use animosity towards this one commenter to shut down any dissent of Allen’s PR bullshit. Woody Allen is a monster and you (I’m specifically saying you) are protecting him with this bullshit. https://uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/aquaman-fuck-you.gif
I don’t even know how to respond to this. But if you’re going to lob a fucking uproxx gif at me, I’m not sure I feel compelled to.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Woody Allen’s caseOh?It’s 8:30am on a Monday. AV Club user recognitions receives a notification: An article has been posted about Woody Allen!Huh.I understand you (and others) may have issues with recognitions’ general demeanor and how he argues things on this site. But maybe his combativeness asserting that Woody Allen should be condemned for fingering his own daughter isn’t the place to have that battle. Like, he’s not condemning Woody Allen in good faith for fingering his own daughter? Okay……? I kinda don’t think there’s a “bad faith” way to make that argument, nor am I even sure what that even means.
This was in reference to the fact that recognitions had just commented on an article about Woody Allen. You can see me elsewhere in these comments calling Woody Allen a predator before I posted this, but I think you’re making a bunch of facile judgments about a situation you don’t fully understand.Now, there are absolutely some rape apologists on this website. Bunch of crotchety fucks around here, and I like swinging at them, too. But in my view, any argument is in bad faith when you’re making it for the wrong reasons. Recognitions just likes aggroing people left and right.
This was in reference to the fact that recognitions had just commented on an article about Woody Allen.I mean….yeah….it’s about Woody Allen.What is your argument here? That recognitions should not be argumentative in, like, condemning Woody Allen? If you think Woody Allen is a predator, what do you care that someone says that, even if they are combative about it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with this specific instance. I’m not mad at recognitions for commenting that Woody Allen was friends with Epstein, specifically; that’s a perfectly reasonable thing for a person to comment, and something I myself hadn’t seen yet, actually. I’m contextualizing his presence here, because of course, with his galling track record of self righteousness on matters far less concrete than Woody. It’s just the moment I decided to write that post, basically. Knew it would draw some flak from people who aren’t really in on the satire, but you know, I’d still fully defend it for what it is.
I dunno, it’s a little difficult to buy that this “has absolutely nothing to do with this specific instance” when your call out was on this specific article, about Woody Allen, and you mentioned Woody Allen right up top! Like, what is your point here? What is someone supposed to take away from your comment?
It was solely for the people who get it. I don’t know what else to tell you.
I don’t know what else to tell you. I guess I can think of worse things than not being part of the group of people that “get it,” where “it” is “Haha, how ridiculous is it that this guy is so dedicated to condemning an incestuous child rapist and his defenders!”
I think I did myself a disservice yesterday in my defense by saying the post wasn’t for people who aren’t “in on it.” The appropriateness of a joke is determined by the target. In this case, the target is not “people who are dedicated to condemning abusers.” It’s “men who manufacture outrage.” And if you’re about to say that intent and impact are the same… recognitions’ intent is generally easy to divine from his impact. This comment section is not one of those times.Also, please. It’s a comment section community that is absolutely saturated with recognitions’ many, many tussles. Pretty impossible to miss, and harder still to not have an opinion on.
Lol, I’ll agree that you did yourself a disservice yesterday. I’ll also say that if recognitions is such a ubiquitously toxic commenter who is so often arguing transparently bad points in transparently bad faith, there should be plenty of opportunities and you can probably pass on making fun of him for rushing to condemn an incestuous child rapist.
I just have such a problem with this moral equivalency between intent and impact you’re making here. His most common tactic is gaslighting by way of oversimplification — “I’m condemning this man, therefore I am in the right and your opposition to me is wrong” — when the fact that we’re both condemning the person in question is lost every single time. Your stance seems to be that as long as you’re condemning abusers one way or another, you’re exempt from accountability for the way you conduct yourself. Is that right?It’s exactly this precious didacticism that’s ruined American liberalism.
I’m not making any “moral equivalency” between anything (???). I can’t comment on whatever “gaslighting” tactic you’re talking about, except to say that, in my opinion, condemning Woody Allen is right, and anyone who stands in opposition to condemning Woody Allen is wrong, and I don’t think that’s an oversimplification. So at least in this particular instance, I’m not sure I see what your objection is to his making that argument here, one that you seem to agree with. If your argument is “Well, sometimes he condemns people who don’t deserve condemnation,” I mean, fine, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant here.It’s exactly this precious didacticism that’s ruined American liberalism. Lol, I’ll bet you think you’re REAL fucking smart for having typed this meaningless jumble of words out.
“Precious”Condescending, self-rightous.“Didacticism”Turning everything into a matter of two sides.“Liberalism”A political ideology that has been ruined by condescending, self-righteous people who turn everything into a matter of two sides. My intent wasn’t to dazzle you with big words or whatever. But maybe that’s why you still think like this.
Think like what? Woody Allen is bad, because he’s an incestuous child rapist, and incest and child rape are bad. Defending Woody Allen is bad, because defending people who have committed incestuous child rape is bad. Condemning Woody Allen is good, because condemning people who have committed incestuous child rape is good (in my opinion, we should always seek to signal to the world that incestuous child rape is bad). I can believe that Woody Allen being bad for raping his own daughter is itself pretty much a matter of black and white without necessarily abandoning nuance in all other areas, thus leading to the downfall of liberalism. Jesus Christ dude, talk about engaging in fucking hysterics!Here’s the point, my man. You came in here to dunk on someone for rushing to condemn a child rapist. That is what happened! That is what I’m objecting to. I didn’t realize that objection was the leading to the downfall of Western liberalism.
Ugh, I honestly feel like I’ve been wasting your time by even trying to explain this when it was going to turn into this no matter what. I’m not saying that you’re being didactic about Woody Allen — I also think he’s evil!! My opinion on this is extremely black and white. I’m saying you’re being didactic by thinking that attacking the spirit of a criticism is the same as attacking the criticism itself. It’s stark to me because it’s allowed you to slip into a place where you’ve aligned yourself with someone I’m just so sure you don’t want to be aligned with.But I’ve explained this a few ways at this point. It’s the kind of thing where if we were talking in real life, I think we’d both be on the same page within the minute. Finally, I don’t think I’ve accused anyone of “hysterics.” The opposite, in fact. I don’t think there’s any emotion behind recognitions’ comments whatsoever.Wait, not actually finally. Here’s the “finally”: Woody Allen is bad, because he’s an incestuous child rapist, and incest and child rape are bad. Defending Woody Allen is bad, because defending people who have committed incestuous child rape is bad. Condemning Woody Allen is good, because condemning people who have committed incestuous child rape is good (in my opinion, we should always seek to signal to the world that incestuous child rape is bad).You know that we agree on this. You fucking know it.
I’m saying you’re being didactic by thinking that attacking the spirit of a criticism is the same as attacking the criticism itself.I’m not entirely sure what this means, but I’m confident this is something I have never thought, much less said. And even if I had thought or said it, I’m pretty confident that attitude has nothing to do with the downfall of liberalism (if that even is a thing that is happening).It’s stark to me because it’s allowed you to slip into a place where you’ve aligned yourself with someone I’m just so sure you don’t want to be aligned with.I’m not sure what this means. I’m not recognitions friend. I’m not defending him on any basis other than he is absolutely right to condemn Woody Allen, in strong terms. I’m fully comfortable being aligned with him on that! You made fun of him for coming to defend Woody Allen. That’s what I’m objecting to! I’m also comfortable with that.You know that we agree on this. You fucking know it.
I do know it, which is why I’m not entirely sure why you ran to a comment section to call out someone who also agrees with it.
Come on, man. I’m a Clubber of reasonably long standing (oh, Disqus, we never knew how good we had it), so I know recognitions’ MO and how far they can go. But you started this comment thread, and you started it swinging. So recognitions came here to post about Woody Allen being a piece of shit; so did a whole bunch of other commenters. The comment wasn’t even especially vitriolic, it was just drawing attention to the fact that Allen has defenders no matter what revelations come to light about him. You chose to start a whole new thread pitching recognitions as some slovenly beast seeking a dopamine rush. It’s openly antagonistic, so can you see why some people are looking askance at you taking the time to lob pre-emptive attacks out of the blue?
I can absolutely see why, and hold no ill will against people who think I’m an asshole for posting this. Frankly, if recognitions only got into it in comment sections about the Allen and Polanskis of the world, I wouldn’t have a problem with him. Could I have clarified that in my post? Sure, at the cost of the satire. Which absolutely holds given the contingent of men online who routinely manufacture outrage because they know it gets them attention. I figured that since I’d already posted elsewhere in these comments against Allen (twice), that would provide the context for people actually combing.
He that is without dopamine among you, let him cast the first comment.
Oof. I bet you were so proud of this.
Just gonna leave this here:
Favorite thing is when that film historian went through every single piece of Allen’s work given to…Yale, or wherever, including all his unpublished scripts and such. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM involved a younger, usually VERY young woman, falling in love with and fucking an older man.Dude is weird, dude’s work is just one giant echo of itself growing fainter and fainter. Maybe stop acting in his movies and hope he just fucking retires already.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-read-decades-of-woody-allens-private-notes-hes-obsessed-with-teenage-girls/2018/01/04/f2701482-f03b-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html
the disconnect between his insecurity (which I think we can all agree might be his best acting job ever) and his extremely icky openness in talking about his sex life with much younger and more attractive women has always puzzled me. When he talked in his book about Soon Yi being “appropriately libidinous” (or whatever needlessly wordy but cutesy phrase he used), it made me want to barf.
I’m not a fan of Allen’s and part of it was the incessant stammering and nervous throat-clearing, which always seemed like affectations designed to disarm. Hearing how cold and calculating he was on those phone calls affirmed that. He didn’t even sound like the same person as in his movies and public persona.
his crack about “and I’ll make them (accusations of abuse against Farrow) stick” was what did it for me. He’s the worst example of what happens when you give a lot of power to someone who was bullied—they turn into even worse pieces of shit than the people who used to bully them.
Allen also hired the same lawyer to do a hit job on Mia that Weinstein used to intimidate his victims. Elkan Abramowitz is a take no prisoners type of lawyer and he’s the one who put out there that Mia had implanted Dylan’s memories. And guess who else just hired him — Gov. Cuomo.
I’d like to see a docuseries on Elkan Abramowitz and one on Leslee Dart. Both monsters.
I was ambivalent about using his filmography as a cudgel, but what stood out to me, especially with Manhattan, was how, in the relationship between his character, in his 40s, and Hemingway’s, who was 17, he managed to portray Hemingway’s teenager as, somehow, the wily, worldly, sophisticated, powerful one driving the relationship.
If I were advising Woody Allen (probably not likely, but hypothetically), I’d probably recommend he not participate for the same reason I’d advise someone not to give an interview to The Daily Show. They edit it, they’ve already decided what they’re going to want to get from it, and it won’t make much of a difference how strong of a case you make.Also, it’s not like these two filmmakers (and whoever this researcher is) haven’t had problems on previous documentaries for doing the things they’ve done here. When you behave like advocates but expect to be taken seriously as journalists, the results generally have issues.
A commenter here once said they dug deep and it turns out that by all accounts Allen and Farrow are fucking garbage people, and should never have had children in the first place. Nuff said
I’m sick and tired of everyone shitting on Alien! The Xenomorph deserves our respect.
Still, I think we can all agree that Alien’s early movies were better than the later ones.
they finally at the end got to the point that I wondered about all along but never seemed to be addressed—if that actually happened to you as a child, it would be impossibly frustrating as an adult to maintain that story (because it happened) and still have people say “that never happened”, or “you’re not remembering it right”, or even worse, “you were coached as a child and as a result of that coaching you’ve been brainwashed”, instead of “he’s a lying pedophile scumbag who came *thisclose* to winning custody and molesting her forever.” What possible benefit would there be to fabricating something like that *and* continuing to insist it was true into adulthood?
Yep. Dylan said she’s so tired of “not being believed — and being told that I’m wrong about something I know 100 percent for fact. I’m tired of being told that my experiences don’t matter. I’m tired of feeling like he matters more than me. I’m tired of this whole argument of separating the art from the artist so that you can feel better about it.” “who came *thisclose* to winning custody and molesting her forever.”Yes! How horrifying is that?!
I haven’t finished watching Allen vs Farrow yet but did the doc put out there that Allen came “this close” to winning custody? Cause he really didn’t. The judge in the case was absolutely scathing in his decision, and he actually awarded sole custody to Mia. You can find the decision online and read it.
The judge in the case was absolutely scathing in his decision, and he actually awarded sole custody to Mia. While that is true, Allen was still walking around and able to sue multiple times for custody rather than sitting in jail where he belonged. I interpreted the “this close” as being Dylan’s mom giving up or being unable to afford to keep fighting Allen in court year after year after year, particularly when he’d gotten her blackballed from working and ostracized by the world of cinema. I mean, after what the first case he lost, it became clear he was attempting to get custody through attrition, not merit.I give a lot of credit to Mia Farrow for standing by her kids through all of that, through all of these years. It must have been so difficult to be that strong when it seemed like the whole world was against you.
no, the doc covered the judge’s written decision, and it was scathing, but the fact that Allen had a shot with a more sympathetic judge in spite of the allegations here was way too close for comfort.
I haven’t seen the documentary so I don’t have the full context, but I think it’s pretty well-known that false memories are a thing, so even if someone isn’t fabricating a memory it doesn’t guarantee it actually happened.
Is slate.com pro-Allen too? Here’s what they had to say about the previous documentary made by Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/the-hunting-ground-a-closer-look-at-the-influential-documentary-reveals-the-filmmakers-put-advocacy-ahead-of-accuracy.html
can someone notify Congress in the next 2 years or so about passing a law to restrict the “parental alienation” defense, or anything to ensure it isn’t used so effectively to take kids away from their moms as a response to allegations of abuse, which are then followed by further allegations of abuse 88% of the time after the father gets custody of the child? What the fuck people???
come on who wouldn’t watch that
https://twitter.com/RealDylanFarrow/status/1371306663718744069Dylan Farrow on Twitter: “To have my truth finally acknowledged by so many of you means the world to me. Thank you all for listening to my family’s story over the past month. Never stop believing survivors.”
Completely irrelevant, but for some reason every time I see this title I keep reading it as “Alien vs. Farrow”.Probably a much more entertaining and less depressing read on the entire issue.*edit*Looks like I’m not alone in that