HBO’s Allen V. Farrow is an overwhelming documentary series; its emotional intensity should come with a trigger warning. The docuseries scrutinizes the sexual abuse allegations against Oscar-winning director Woody Allen made by adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow in 1992, when she was only 7. This case has been excessively covered by the media for decades now, but Allen V. Farrow attempts to go beyond headlines by featuring intimate interviews with Dylan, her mother Mia Farrow (Allen’s former partner), brothers Ronan and Fletcher Farrow, as well as other family friends, witnesses, experts, journalists, and investigators. For the most part, the docuseries is a powerful venture. It gives Dylan a safe space to recount traumatic experiences, goes down the rabbit hole of the Farrow-Allen custody battle, and uncovers more about Allen’s marriage with Mia’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Most importantly, it acts as a damning mirror for the society that let Allen thrive after the allegations became a major public scandal.
An excessive amount of time is spent charting Allen’s rise into a massively popular figure in New York City and the entertainment industry. In the larger overview of the series, perhaps this helps offer some insight into how he was able to overcome the severity of the allegations to continue winning awards and making films with famed actors. But some inclusions seem superfluous, including a particular analysis of Allen’s movies like 1979’s Manhattan, and how they fixated on his older character romancing younger women. It’s a critical point—perhaps enough to make a wholly separate journalistic project—but here it feels a bit ham-fisted, especially for viewers already familiar with Allen’s body of work.
But Allen V. Farrow is still a riveting and often difficult watch. It’s on track with filmmakers Amy Ziering and Kirby Dick’s previous documentaries, from 2012’s The Invisible War, which examined sexual assault in the U.S. military, to 2020’s On The Record, one of the most thorough examinations of the sexual harassment allegations against hip-hop mogul Russell Simons. The filmmakers, including Amy Herdy, spent four years researching the series, and it shows. Allen V. Farrow frames its narrative using reams of legal documents, previously unseen footage, and witness interviews. There are lots of videos from Dylan’s childhood, which show her playing with Allen in the pool, hanging out at home, and traveling across the world with other siblings. The footage paints a picture of a supposedly happy time but, as Dylan says in her interview, there was allegedly more to it than meets the eye.
Allen V. Farrow somewhat follows a chronological order, with the first couple of episodes tracking the growth of Allen and Mia Farrow’s careers, relationship, and family. Mia, who hasn’t spoken too much publicly in several years, reflects on her relationship with Allen, calling him her biggest regret. “It’s my fault. I brought this guy into our family. There’s nothing I can do to take that away,” Farrow says. In one agonizing scene, she describes the day she found revealing Polaroids of her daughter Soon-Yi in Allen’s apartment, when all hell finally broke loose.
The documentary goes on to provide granular details of the custody battle, as well as the police investigations against Allen in the states of New York and Connecticut. Throughout their custody trial and in media appearances (included in clips), Allen claimed that Mia coached Dylan to lie. He tried to paint his ex as a woman scorned, an incredibly resonant example of gaslighting. Allen, Previn, and Moses, his adoptive son with Mia, declined to be interviewed for the docuseries. Moses is the only member of the large family who has gone on record to side with his father. Allen’s appearances in Allen V. Farrow are largely through secretly taped phone calls between him and Mia and audio clips from his 2020 audiobook, Apropos Of Nothing. The documentary looks at the flawed manner in which the Yale New Haven Clinic conducted Dylan’s post-allegations evaluation. Frank Maco, the investigating prosecutor at the time, is also interviewed. It was his decision that kept the case from being tried, because he did not think Dylan was in the state to testify. No criminal charges were ever filed against Allen.
The emotional anchor of Allen V. Farrow is Dylan, who finally gets to patiently tell her story. It’s wrenching to watch her recount the traumas she experienced from a very young age, starting with Allen’s possessiveness over her (corroborated here through interviews with different people: babysitters, a tutor, siblings, family friends, her mother). At one point, she has a visceral physical reaction akin to a panic attack while thinking about all of it. These aren’t easy things to remember, let alone talk about and be judged on by audiences. But the filmmakers do an admirable job of giving her the time and space to discuss it. The most stirring part comes from videos of Dylan as a child that Mia filmed over two days, in which she describe specifics of the sexual assault she accuses Allen of. Fair warning: The description can be graphic.
But Allen V. Farrow doesn’t want to define Dylan solely by her past. “I am tired of feeling that he matters more than me,” she says toward the end, while reflecting on why she started speaking out more at the onset of the #MeToo era. Allen V. Farrow also ends up being a scathing story about worshipping celebrities and celebrity culture which inevitably creates a landscape that impacts the delivery of justice in cases like this one. Ultimately, it’s an intriguing docuseries that will interest those invested in the case to reexamine it through the lens of four compelling, often uncomfortable episodes.
220 Comments
She’s so strong and heroic. I really hope she’s finally able to put all this past her someday soon and be seen as her own woman.
The idea that folks still work with him and Polanski is astounding to me.
Yeah and it’s no coincidence both are still celebrated in Europe.
“Europe”? I vaguely recall a roomful of assholes giving Polanski a standing ovation at some awards show. The same moral authorities I’m supposed to give a shit when they spout their political idiocies.
Well at least alleged rapist Trump isn’t and never was celebrated in Europe. And they have no rapists at their Supreme Courts nor a case like Epsteins. Save Europe for the Magas – they don’t know anything.
Really astounding is also that Mia Farrow defended Roman Polanski in public and never took it back.
You’re really claiming that “Europe” has had no cases like Epstein? Because that is… wildly inaccurate. Jimmy Savile springs to mind.
Savile was gossiped about and even investigated once but he wasn’t on trial as Epstein and didn’t have a deal with the state after confessing to his crimes. Another case would be British 1970’s pop star Gary Glitter (child abuse over decades!) – he’s in jail now.
But no one was “celebrated” AFTER the allegations of crimes as Trump and Kavanaugh who became President and Supreme Court judge. That’s a difference to me. And I haven’t seen much celebration for Allen and Polanski in Europe. The French film academy people (César) were slow to act but in the end they excluded him just one year after the US Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science did. So dragging Europe into the failure of dealing with Dylan Farrow when she was a child and probably let down by people who worked for the US justice system is a bit hard to swallow.
So Savile is a better case than Epstein because he was never charged for his horrifying crimes? What? And what are you talking about? Polanski was awarded the Best Director award at the Cesar awards just last year for a recent film. There was an enormous awards ceremony.
“Better”? The way you twist words is interesting.I haven’t claimed that Polanski didn’t receive an award (he got it Feb. 29, 2020). I wrote he was expelled from the Academy (who present the Césars), that happened Nov. 12, 2020.
Around a year after the Oscar academy did the same I thought. Actually this is wrong. The Oscar academy did confirm that finally in Aug. 26, 2020. Less than three months before the French academy…Now you can still argue about “celebrating”. If you’ve actually seen what happened at the Césars it wasn’t called a celebration in the press but the biggest scandal in the history of that French film academy. There were protesters outside and inside. A few in the audience left the show when his name was called out as winner. A lot has happened since his Oscar win in 2003.
So you think that Savile was worse? Equivalent? What do you mean?There are protestors about Trump too. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Did he or did he not receive an award at a lavish ceremony celebrating his recent accomplishments?
And how is him being expelled in 2020 evidence of anything except him being praised for literally decades?
Savile was different because he wasn’t charged. Epstein was charged and had a deal with the state. I don’t think you find a similar case in Europe where a criminal of that extent deals with the justice system and is free afterwards (what happened to Epstein for a few years). This is why I asked to leave Europe out of it. Polanski committed a crime in California, he got out of custody and escaped – thanks to the justice system.
Focus on the US justice system that according to the Farrows failed them when Dylan was young. Did anything change since for children who are part of such investigations?
It isn’t telling to you that Polanski’s method of avoiding the justice system was to flee to Europe where he was able to live comfortably for decades? With minimal social consequences? France is right this minute going through it’s own “me too” crisis. Worsened by its legal system which does not have strict age of consent laws. Your position is completely baffling in light of current events.
I would differentiate “Europe” from “France.”He hasn’t been to the UK in 40 years, because he’d be immediately arrested and extradited.
https://www.advocate.com/film/2020/2/28/celine-sciamma-adele-haenel-storm-out-roman-polanskis-cesar-win
Trump aside, some European cultures still seem to really celebrate the “tormented” male artist and are still in the 1960s with notions of what’s appropriate.
france is finally coming to grips with the idea that incest might be wrong.
You confuse “cultures” with single journalists.
some European cultures still seem to really celebrate the “tormented” male artist and are still in the 1960s with notions of what’s appropriate.It’s not like the USA is any better. Case in point: Woody Allen.
lol yeah that’s def a European problem only, America certainly doesn’t have any issues with sexualizing children
Allen getting celebrated at the Golden Globes is what spurred Dylan to write her 2014 letter. Don’t act like Allen isn’t still widely celebrated in the USA, too.
Why the fuck are you dragging us into this? They aren’t celebrated here.
He makes great movies.
A: what’s the last “great movie” this husk has made? And more importantly
B: if making great movies is worth working with an incestuous rapist to you then you can go fuck yourself. Or let yourself get adopted by Woody Allen and he’ll do it for you.
I was just suggesting why people work with him. Soon-Yi and he seem to still be in love. That was creepy, but not something I have found concerning in over 20 years.
Oh, and to answer your first question – Midnight In Paris.
Ten years is a long time spent making garbage to use the present tense when it comes to making great movies, bud.Considering you seem to be a legit apologist for this monster from your other post, I’m done with you. Enjoy defending a fucking creep!
But it was 18 years after the incidents in question and you asked why anyone would work with him after that. You need to keep track of your statements bud. I am not an apologist, but prior to this documentary I do not believe Dylan’s claims were unimpeachable, and the Soon-Yi stuff is creepy, but not something that appears to have been a problem.
CHRIST you’re pathetic.
i’ve read all the thread under this, and maybe it’s about time that people just stop writing “europe” to mean “france”
Ok. Overdue, but I’m done. For those who haven’t gotten there already, it’s time to move past the comfort of ambiguity and on to processing (or not processing) Allen’s films as the work of a depraved individual whose sicknesses and entitlement was supported by money, power, and the perpetuation of a personal myth. The Farrow camp most certainly has its issues, like your family, like mine. It doesn’t matter. For those who have trouble letting it all go, fine. But let it all go.
“The Farrow camp most certainly has its issues, like your family, like mine.”Is your brother a paedophile and you had multiple children kill themselves?
What does this have to do with Woody Allen, and whether or not he molested his daughter?
mumbles wrote that Farrow’s family has “issues” like any other family. I would argue that isn’t the case. The fact her brother is a paedophile and some of her children have killed themselves go far beyond normal family squabbles.
I don’t see how you can hold someone responsible for what their siblings do.
I think only one of her children died by suicide. In any event, two of my grandmother’s four children died as adults. There are 900,000 sex offenders. Both of those things about Farrow’s family are tragic, but neither one strikes me as something that would be wild and unheard of for a family to experience. Frankly, from the perspective of Dylan and her siblings, probably the wildest thing about her family (putting aside her father rubbing her genitals) is that her father fucked and married her sister. Family, amirite?!
One child has been confirmed to have died by suicide. The other was alleged. And the fact her brother is a paedophile while she supported Polanski strikes me as a tad odd. Farrow seems to have a strange relationship to child sexual abuse. Then again, you’re right. These things are relative. Dory Previn – writer of the 1970 song “With My Daddy In the Attic” – would likely believe that the wildest thing was to ever trust Farrow in the first place. Or Moses would say the wildest thing that ever occurred was the abuse he and his foster siblings faced at Farrow’s hands.
The other was alleged. And the fact her brother is a paedophile while she supported Polanski strikes me as a tad odd. Mia Farrow isn’t responsible for her brother’s actions. I don’t see what’s so odd about that. She’s a hypocrite with regard to Polanski, and her defense of Polanski is inexcusable. But so what? OP’s point, at the end of the day, was none of this really matters. It has nothing to do with Woody Allen. It has nothing to do with whether Woody Allen molested his own daughter, as she consistently and specifically alleges. It is a distraction. You can independently think Mia Farrow is a bad mother and a hypocrite (and I guess a bad brother or something?) and still believe Dylan’s story, because the two have nothing to do with each other. Mia Farrow’s shittiness, as a mother, as a person, has absolutely nothing to do with Dylan Farrow’s credibility.would likely believe that the wildest thing was to ever trust Farrow in the first place. Or Moses would say the wildest thing that ever occurred was the abuse he and his foster siblings faced at Farrow’s hands.
Thing is, adultery and abuse aren’t that uncommon, unfortunately. What we know for a fact Woody Allen did, which was to fuck and marry his children’s sister, actually is uncommon.
“You can independently think Mia Farrow is a bad mother and a hypocrite (and I guess a bad brother or something?) and still believe Dylan’s story, because the two have nothing to do with each other.”Somehow this has gotten lost in the shuffle. I actually believe that Mia was a trash mother to her adopted children but that keeps getting thrown out as a defense of Allen
Mia Farrow seems pretty terrible. That’s probably why a child molester decided to target her kids.Peados go after at risk youth. The ones who have no one in their corner defending them.
Exactly. I just really wish that pointing out Woody Allen’s revolting behaviour didn’t result in painting Mia Farrow in an Angelic light. It’s been stated (I believe in a Vanity Fair article) that Mia actually beat Soon Yi when she found out she was having an affair with Allan. It’s entirely possible that both are horrible people. He could have groomed Soon Yi AND she could have abused her. He could have molested Dylan AND she could have beat Moses.There’s no need to absolve one to condemn the other.
I mean, Mia Farrow being abusive could very well have made her kids more vulnerable to exploitation. And Moses Farrow stated that Mia would physically and mentally abuse the kids. The household situation just seems like a total disaster.
“actually beat Soon Yi when she found out”*gasp* A woman was angry to have discovered she and her children had been betrayed by people she loved and trusted? What a crazy bitch to be upset about her kid’s dad fucking her daughter – that’s such a totally normal thing to happen in a normal family and isn’t deviant or fucked up or pure evil at all; she must be crazy to have been freaked out about the situation. Did I mention she was crazy to be bothered? Crazy. Woman scorned, you might say… [blahblahblahmoremisogynyblah].Allen lied to everyone and said it was all Soon-Yi’s fault, that she was acting out and had “seduced” him, a totally innocent man. Soon-Yi, FOR SOME REASON (totally not grooming though because according to Allen’s supporters, he and Soon-Yi had never even met before this moment or something), just went along with that, for almost a year, and through their family counseling. She took all the blame and all of the anger for trying to “seduce” her siblings’ dad/mom’s long-term partner and kept quiet about their on-going secret sexual relationship so that Allen could convince Mia to give him another chance and they (including her) could all stay together as a family. He wanted to continue having sexual relationships with both Soon-Yi and her mom (and was engaging in grooming with Dylan), and Soon-Yi was completely aware of all that the whole time.Do you know how fucked up Soon-Yi had to have been to just go along with that? Do you know how fucked up Allen is to have done any of that?If anything, Mia Farrow should have been a lot more angry.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious here. The mother finds out her husband is fucking her child and you’re justifying her beating the CHILD?
Wait, you are actually trying to say that a dad fucking his kids’ sister is OKAY and no one, especially the mom, should have a reaction to that?You are fucked up, man.
I get it. You’re a troll.
That’s right, anyone not swallowing your misogynistic bullshit is a troll. Poor you, going through life like that.
Just to be clear. I’m saying both were shitty parents.Soon-Yi was groomed/abused by Allan, then (allegedly) beat by Farrow. And you’re saying that it was understandable for Farrow to beat the already victimized child?And you’re calling me a misogynist for saying that Farrow’s behaviour (if it did happen) was shitty?
.
Nevermind
Completely irrelevant to your meaning, but there’s a copy/paste mangling in your posting that is exactly like one I had yesterday on this site: some italics text escaped the format and got moved to the front of its paragraph.
“some italics text escaped the format and got moved to the front of its paragraph”Yeah I’ve been seeing formatting errors like that lot lately. Kinja needs to fix that.
And the fact her brother is a pedophile while she supported Polanski strikes me as a tad oddOr it helps explain why she was vulnerable to getting involved with a predator – she came from a highly dysfunctional family. Predators often target victims they perceive as vulnerable to their manipulations. You don’t have to like Mia farrow to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Allen is a predator.
FYI, Mia Farrow didn’t support Polanski. That’s pure projection from Allen’s PR team. Look at the petitions. Farrow did not sign one. Allen signed them all.It’s telling that Allen supporters try to condemn Farrow for the things Allen has done.
This. I don’t know Mia or anyone like her in my life. Her family life seems to be a hot damn mess and I wouldn’t have wanted her to be my mother. That being said what the actual fuck does that have to do with this case. From my understanding the judge and investigators in this case put it on record that they thought, regardless of the custody battle going on, that they believed this happened to Dillion. Woody has reputation for the harassment and exploitation of young girls, including his current wife. Ronan’s happy brother-in-law’s day father’s day joke is true and its gross. The Mariel . All of his admittedly autobiographical films feature late middle aged men creeping on young women. Mia was allegedly a terrible parent and Woody was allegedly a molester. Both things can be true at the same time. The world is gray and there are times where no one is the hero. I’m going to air on the side of the women who’ve spoken out about Woody and the pretty obvious nature of his current relationship with his de facto step-daughter/wife.
What it has to do with the main matter is the question “could a woman who was abusive and manipulative have coerced her daughter into lying about what her father did?” Several of the surviving children believe that to be the case.
I have a cousin in prison for sexually abusing a child, and at least one family member dead from suicide. A lot of families have similar issues, unless you think pedos spring magically from the ground and all suicide victims are orphans.
“Is your brother a paedophile…” Um, a lot of “paedophiles” have brothers and sisters. “… and you had multiple children kill themselves?” In this place called the real world, there are a lot of abusive environments filled with addiction and poverty (and the parents in those environments may have lots of kids anyway), but we get it: you’re only thinking about rich Hollywood stars…
Why do you feel the need to make this point? Really. Why? What’s motivating you?
Here’s the correct re-edit: “Hmm, why do you feel the need to make this point, hmmmmmmm? Really, haaaaa. WHYYYYYYYYYYYY? What’s motivating you? Hmmmm.”I posted because your comment was disingenuous. Farrow’s life has never been a normal one. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous and no “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” bull on your behalf would change that truth.
I think you don’t know what disingenuous means. I think you also didn’t read the part you’re contradicting in which I acknowledge Farrow and her family have lots of issues. I’m not wink nudging. I’m saying it doesn’t matter if she and her family are fucked up or live in a weird, rarified world. They are and they do. I’m just personally no longer willing to look at the identical testimony of a seven year old girl and a rational woman in her thirties and say, “You weren’t actually abused because your mom brainwashed you in a custody battle several decades ago.” Because that would be shitty. And, where possible, I prefer not to be shitty.
Actually, I used the term “disingenuous” precisely in your case.“I’m just personally no longer willing to look at the identical testimony of a seven year old girl and a rational woman in her thirties and say”I didn’t ask you to. No one has. Pretending you have been forced to (by whom, exactly?) is “shitty”.Oh, and ignoring the allegation abuses by Farrow’s non-white adopted children is equally “shitty”. So you’ve failed your non-”shitty” MO.
Try not to be “shitty”, bruh. It’s not hard, bruh.
“Pretending you have been forced to…”
Nope.“…ignoring the allegation abuses by Farrow’s non-white adopted children…”Nope.“…bruh.”Oh jesus nope.
Mia Farrow may be the most terrible mother in the world. The kids still don’t deserve to be raped.
That’s a disgusting inference. These allegations have been examined twice through the legal system. If these allegations need to be examined, then they should be. We should not blindly accept the word of Mia Farrow, given the allegations that she abused her non-white children and her decades-long support of Polanski.
It is disgusting. Child abuse and incest is very disgusting. If you don’t want to accept Mia Farrows word, maybe you should watch the documentary which feature independent witnesses and Dylan Farrow.
Unlike you seemingly, I have actually followed this story including a witness for Farrow who later changed her tune. I am willing to look at any new info and, if this case needs to be re-examined, I look forward it to be looked at via the justice system.
I would tell you to watch the documentary, but if you really have followed this from the beginning, seen a middle aged man start a relationship with his girlfriends daughter and found nothing wrong with it I fear you may be beyond help.
You took from the above from this? “I am willing to look at any new info and, if this case needs to be re-examined, I look forward it to be looked at via the justice system.” It certainly appears someone is beyond help.
Yeah, well, I’m never going to look at a man having sex with his girlfriends teenage daughter and think it’s okay. If that is something you are ok with we certainly have differing values.
Lol, who do you think you are?Its time for people to be given a fair trial and for art to be enjoyed as it always was.
I’m a person who at this point thinks he is siding with a credible victim. No one is on trial because no charges have been brought against anyone. If that happens, we’ll see about fairness. If you can watch Allen’s films and not think about the mindset that went into creating this persona, asking those questions, cracking those jokes, setting up this and that relationship dynamic, forgiving this and that character for objectively terrible behavior, you do you. I can’t do that. I don’t know what that means for my engagement with Woody Allen films in the future, should I ever engage again. It might be complicated. It might not. His films used to mean a lot to me. But I’m not gonna remain willfully ignorant of the whole picture just to prioritize my need to be comforted and entertained, then distort my self-deception by calling myself an advocate for art. Thanks for asking though. Who the hell do you think you are?
In the case of this thread, unproductive message board screaming seems to be the primary problem.
I read this as Alien v Farrow
It was a bold move casting Vanessa Bayer as the alien.
Whoever wins, we lose.
No matter who wins… we lose, given that we, as a society, are as well-equipped to fend off space invaders as we are when it comes to believing and supporting victims of sexual violence.
she’s already taken on Satan!
(But lost.)
So did I.
The part where the Xenomorph was breathlessly defending himself after the shocking expose appeared in the New Yorker was something else.“He’s got it all wrong! My relationship with Kane was completely consensual!”
Ronan may be a synthetic human. It’d explain a lot, and that discovery may be even a relief to him.
Which means the sequel documentaries will be mixed. Space Marines in the next one, which will escalate the spectacle and fun, then too much studio meddling in the following ones. Then muddled prequels arrive and we wonder why we cared so much in the first place except for Michael Fassbender’s arrival in the Farrow home which everyone will agree was charming.
1. The series seems to be in line with the way the Farrows have acted throughout this, in that in one breath they go from “believe survivors and let them hear their stories” to hand-waving away the fact that two of her kids claim she was physically abusive.2. It wasn’t just investigated by Yale. It was investigated in New York, who thought he was such a monster that they let him adopt two more kids.3. Maybe the documentary will address this, but the idea is that a man in his 60s molests a child for the first time, does it once, in someone else’s house, and then…never again? 4. She’s been telling her (side of) the story for 7 years. In the New York Times, CBS News, everywhere. His other kid, the one who’s on his side, had to write it on some WordPress forum.
Ah, the incel take.
Ew, Woody Allen’s PR team has arrived. They’re so gross.
Do other opinions pain you that much?
Oh, it’s vol. Trust me.
Ah the believe everyone but actually don’t but wait I don’t know what to say ok you are an incel take, very nice
Maybe come back and try that one again?
1. The series seems to be in line with the way the Farrows have acted throughout this, in that in one breath they go from “believe survivors and let them hear their stories” to hand-waving away the fact that two of her kids claim she was physically abusive.Moses and Soon-Yi and whatever other of her kids have claimed she abused them have been allowed to tell their stories. I don’t recall Mia Farrow taking penning NYT op-eds to push back against their allegations, or deploying an army of people to defend her against their allegations with specious arguments, or hiring private investigators to try to find things to smear them with. What is even your argument here?2. It wasn’t just investigated by Yale. It was investigated in New York, who thought he was such a monster that they let him adopt two more kids.
Wow, that would be the first time a powerful person ever used their power to get something a less powerful person wouldn’t be able to get in the same circumstances.Oh, and speaking of that New York investigation, turns out the investigator who looked into it…who actually spoke to Dylan and others…determined that Dylan was credible, but was then removed from the case and wrongfully terminated. Hmmm…Incidentally, you should read the opinion of the NY judge who denied Woody custody of Dylan because he had acted “grossly inappropriate” to her.3. Maybe the documentary will address this, but the idea is that a man in his 60s molests a child for the first time, does it once, in someone else’s house, and then…never again?
It wasn’t the first time he had been inappropriate towards Dylan. So this idea that it just came out of nowhere is specious. And assuming he hadn’t done it before and didn’t do it ever again, so what? What do you think that proves?4. She’s been telling her (side of) the story for 7 years. In the New York Times, CBS News, everywhere. His other kid, the one who’s on his side, had to write it on some WordPress forum.
Interesting, because his other kid was offered the chance to appear in this documentary, and declined, so I guess I’m not too sympathetic to this idea he is being silenced. But Moses Farrow isn’t the only one of Mia Farrow’s children/Dylan’s siblings on Woody’s side. Remember Soon-Yi? She is Dylan’s sister (Dylan is Woody Allen’s daughter). Woody Allen fucked and married her. They are still married. I’m certain she could have gotten a favorable profile or placed an op-ed somewhere other than WordPress if she wanted (and she has gotten at least one sympathetic profile where she defends Allen and smears Farrow).
“3. Maybe the documentary will address this, but the idea is that a man in his 60s molests a child for the first time, does it once, in someone else’s house, and then…never again?” You do know that claiming to have omniscient, psychic awareness of every second of the actions/thoughts of Allan Stewart Konigsberg is deeply, seriously cree—No. You really don’t know that. Just like you didn’t know he was in his fifties…
That’s what he’s being accused of, is my point. And my implication is that that feels, if not impossible, implausible.
“And my implication is that that feels, if not impossible, implausible.” Well, now, there’s a winning legal argument, counselor. 😀 😀 Again, you might want to first ‘feel out’ things like— the actual biographical details of his age… 😀 😀 :D(Ex: 1970 – 1935 = 35. So that would be the age difference between him and Soon-Yi. And again, he was still in his fifties when Mia Farrow found those NUDE PHOTOS… 🙄)
Everyone tries to shift it to Soon-Yi. Because the argument of him as a child molester has weaknesses that they’re reluctant to address.
Wow, Woody Allen instigated the affair (with the then 21-year-old Previn), Woody Allen took the nude photos of her, Woody Allen admitted to Mia Farrow about having sex with her (after, of course, he GOT CAUGHT)— and you say online that I’m “trying to shift it to Soon-Yi.”🙄[Know what’s a real argument “weakness”? Claiming to know absolutely nothing about a building’s attic— until your DNA is discovered there.]You are not good at this. I would say you’re an expert on shiftiness, but that’s giving somebody who can’t get math straight an awful lot of credit. 😀 😀 😀
Taking Dylan to the bedroom which had until quite recently been his and Mia’s bedroom seems very spot-on for a situational child-molester, the most common kind of child-molester according to the FBI and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Their goal is often about hurting someone who loves the child through violating the child. Doing that in a place where Mia felt safe and comfortable (her bedroom), and that was a space the children enjoyed and felt was a bit magical and fun and safe from adults (the attic playspace) is very much typical situational child-molester behavior. Kinda like a maladjusted brat acting out by breaking someone else’s toy when they don’t get their way.Think about Amy ruining Jo’s manuscript in Little Women, that wasn’t about hating the book or the story Jo was writing; it was all about hurting Jo by ruining something she held dear.Allen had wanted to continue having sexual relationships with both Mia and her daughter, Soon-Yi, and continue the grooming behavior he was engaging in with Dylan. He went through great lengths for months trying to get things back to what he wanted. He even asked Mia to marry him after she found his spread-eagle nude photos of Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi was okay with all of that -remember, that she was the one that knew he was secretly still involved with her while trying to mend everything with Mia and the rest of the family (which… wow). Mia wasn’t okay with even the one part of his plan she knew about: him continuing in a relationship as her life-partner. Mia was also unwittingly going to end his grooming of Dylan because after he and Mia breaking up his visits with Dylan were going to be supervised. Allen was angry he wasn’t getting his way and it was all falling apart because of Mia. So Allen got back at Mia by violating Dylan. The least out of the ordinary thing out of all of that entire situation is the child-molesting, sadly. Who the fuck tries to have relationships with a mother and daughter at the same time, while you’re all raising your other children together as a family? Allen is so incredibly fucked up. I’ve always been stunned anyone took his side at all, let alone all of the fawning over him and vilifying anyone who criticized him. It’s like a cult. So much like a cult.
“Most importantly, it acts as a damning mirror for the society that let Allen thrive after the allegations became a major public scandal.”This.“when all hell finally broke loose.”That’s not when hell broke loose, sadly. Because Woody Allen was able to lie and manipulate both Soon-Yi and Mia Farrow. He somehow got Soon-Yi to take all the blame for “acting-out” and “seducing” him, and he got Farrow to believe him being “seduced” by her “acting-out” daughter was a one-time mistake.All hell didn’t break loose until 8 months later when a friend’s babysitter questioned Allen’s sexual behavior towards Dylan and Mia Farrow asked Dylan about what he father had done. That’s when the floodgates broke and all of Allen’s lies and manipulations started to come to light.
I remember an interview with Mia in the 90’s where she said that even after the Soon-Yi revelation, things had “improved” to a point where she and Woody had planned on making another movie together. Then the babysitter and Dylan’s accounts came out some time later.
Husband and Wives released a couple weeks after Dylan made her accusation and Manhattan Murder Mystery was set to start shooting after that, Farrow was eventually replaced last minute with Diane Keaton. One of the reasons the PR around the accusations in the moment was so bizarre was because his film coming out, Husband and Wives, featured him cheating on his wife, played by Farrow, with a student played by teenaged Juliette Lewis. His script was so autobiographical that it made the real life story, his press conferences about Soon-Yi in particular, seem like a terrible attempt at a publicity stunt. A couple of years later when he made Mighty Aphrodite, according to him in an interview, he wanted to cast Mia Farrow in the film and had to be talked out of contacting Farrow by his sister.
Y’know how people say separate the art from the artist?
Okay, Woody Allen is accused of grooming young women in real life, so how can I watch his films where his characters also groom young women?
That’s not just bragging about it, that’s bragging about it and every third time getting an Oscar nomination.
What a monster to put Mia Farrow through that too. The entire time he was writing it and they were filming it, he was secretly fucking her teenaged daughter and destroying their entire family. On top of everything else, which is already a whole lot, that is such a cruel betrayal, pure sadism.
What a monster to put Mia Farrow through that too. The entire time he was writing it and they were filming it, he was secretly fucking her teenaged daughter and destroying their entire family. On top of everything else, which is already a whole lot, that is such a cruel betrayal, pure sadism.
“I am tired of feeling that he matters more than me,” she says toward the endThat toxic loser absolutely does not matter more than Dylan. It makes me angry, so very angry, the way society allowed shitty men to cause so much damages to vulnerable woman and children. Thank god that generation is dying off and they can take their toxic legacy with them.I’m so glad Allen knows that his legacy is dead. I hope he lives to be 100 so he can watch himself fall into obscurity, only known as a footnote regarding the way society once turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of minors.
lol, who cares about legacy? And even then he will be remembered by millions of people as one of the best writers of all time, doesn’t seem so bad for a legacy
I’m really looking forward to watch this. It was really difficult for me to talk about Allen and Farrow for a long time. I always want to believe the victim but Allen used to be my favorite director when I was a teenager/in my early 20s and Annie Hall used to be my favorite movie. I’m ashamed to say that I used to be on his side and I even used Moses’s words as a proof that he must be right. Fortunately, I grew up. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to watch any of Allen’s films again but I also don’t care about them anymore. I feel really bad for Dylan that so many people like younger me try to discredit her truth because of some works of fiction.
Disagree, Moses’s words clearly prove him right.
Thank you for saying that. It reminds me of some friends I had growing up. The kids were split between the two divorced parents, they got to pick who to live with, and they would visit back and forth. The one set was obviously getting fed all sorts of hate, which started off light but ended up full-blown, while the other set wasn’t. When they got older, the hateful set finally caught on to what was happening and had a sort of reckoning about how badly they’d treated the non-hateful parent based on believing all of the nasty things the hateful parent said, basically to cover-up the fact that the hateful-parent’s cheating is what ended the marriage. If all you hear is propaganda that you’re already inclined to believe and get kinda inured to, then it is really hard to see through any other lens.The kids all ended up living with the non-hateful parent, btw, and are pretty happy and well-adjusted. And the hateful parent now hates them, too, for their “betrayal” and never even tries to see them.
Out of curiosity, what made you go from considering Moses’ testimony as a “proof” to the polar opposite ? That is, “definitely believing one side” on both cases ?
Counterpoint: He’s innocent and y’all buttmad over nothing.
she’s Meryl Streep fat actress Kirstie Alley the murderess in the alley in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol played by Lea Seydoux who was the hired killer pretending to be a waitress in The Sting played by Dimitra Arliss who presumably was my aunt though I’m supposed to believe she wasn’t murdered until later so that was a death threat probably by the SS in the CIA she appears again in the movie Allied as the wife of the German army officer shot during the murders in Morocco where she was played by Camille Cottin who earlier in the movie subliminally calls the character played by Marion Cotillard a fucking bitch in the same way the character played by Sylvia Hoeks in Blade Runner 2049 is called a whore when she is complimented on having a name there is no end to the number of actresses who could be murdered in reply to this why because Dylan Farrow is a United States Air Force pilot from World War II and no one wants someone flying a B-25 bomber into the side of a building again do they also Alien vs. Predator good title very amusing family of creeps that lot how does anyone believe anything Ronan Farrow says how are you doing Emma sorry you got dragged into this thing about Hillary Clinton
“Moses, his adoptive son with Mia, declined to be interviewed for the docuseries. Moses is the only member of the large family who has gone on record to side with his father.”He’s had very uncharitable things to say about Mia so no surprise that he would not be interested. Ultimately this is about Dylan and hopefully she finds peace of mind.
“2012’s The Invisible War, which examined sexual assault in the U.S. military”Will they be doing a 2022 version? This doesn’t seem to have improved any.
You need to read http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html to get the other side. There is another side, being studiously ignored by the filmmakers and the entertainment media.
But Moses dead-named his brother, therefore he’s a rapist monster.
This is not the other side. As far as I can tell, Moses has never claimed he was there when this happened or witnessed anything that would be relevant to what happened. His sole contribution to this is his assertion that the place where this is alleged to have happened was too small to have an electric train set, which I believe was the first time that had ever been asserted by anyone (including Woody), so I’m not sure why I’d take that at face value? Beyond that, I’m not sure why Moses would be a better narrator of Dylan’s experiences than Dylan is.
Because he was 14 years old and there in the house before, during, and after all that happened happened. For me, and for a lot of people I think, I have more clarity in my recollections from when I was 14 than when I was seven and four years old. I wouldn’t really trust myself to remember anything that happened when I was four, and know the difference between what I remember happening and what’s been told to me happened. Lot harder to fool a 14 year old.
Okay, let’s put aside for now how dumb it is to say that because he was 14, he’s better positioned to talk about Dylan’s experiences than Dylan herself. Three adults, all older than Moses, corroborated Dylan’s story. So….
And other adults, from nannies to therapists, who raise questions. And no one “corroborates” it. The story is that Woody, in the middle of a break-up and after filing for custody, at some point in a house with three children and three adults there to supervise the visit, all of whom had spent months and months hearing about what a monster he is, slipped away with one of the children to a secluded upstairs part of the house without anyone noticing them leaving or that they were gone.It’s sadly common for parents to be accused of child abuse during custody battles. It’s public record that Mia Farrow purged anyone who stepped out of line, as people in her inner circle did, from therapists to nannies to her children. It was probably the most heavily investigated accusation of child abuse in a contentious custody battle of all time.
And other adults, from nannies to therapists, who raise questions. Raise questions based on what? Two nannies confirm that Dylan and Woody were both missing at the same time for around 10-15 minutes. Another said she saw Allen’s head in Dylan’s lap. These are the ones who corroborate it.The story is that Woody, in the middle of a break-up and after filing for custody, at some point in a house with three children and three adults there to supervise the visit, all of whom had spent months and months hearing about what a monster he is, slipped away with one of the children to a secluded upstairs part of the house without anyone noticing them leaving or that they were gone.So, you managed to pack a bunch of bullshit into this! First, he hadn’t filed for custody yet. He was apparently ready to give up custody. In any event, he didn’t sue for custody until after he was notified of Dylan’s accusation. Second, multiple people noticed that Woody and Dylan were both gone. That is actually a pretty key piece of evidence for you not to be aware of.It’s sadly common for parents to be accused of child abuse during custody battles.
There wasn’t a custody battle! Again, Allen was ready to give up custody, and only sued for custody after he became aware of Dylan’s accusation.
“It’s sadly common for parents to be accused of child abuse during custody battles.”It’s common for women to find out their spouse is molesting the children, leave, lose custody and then have to hand over the child for more abuse. Very sad.
“there in the house before, during, and after all that happened happened”He wasn’t actually. He was a teenager and was out with his friends like a normal teen. He was not hanging out with his 7 year old sister. Proof of this, unequivocal proof, is the police report listing the parties present at the time of the crime and Moses isn’t on it and was not interviewed by investigators.
I have read it. I believe it. Mia Farrow was a bad mother. Woody Allen is still a child molester.
It’s not often when I browse AV Club’s pages that I see a photograph of my home city.
I’m disappointed we won’t be getting a weekly review for this.
All resources are focused on Wandavision
I really don’t get why they decided to do a tv show with the two of the most boring characters in the Avengers movies.
Are there any other culture sites that haven’t lost their collective mind about this issue and objectively look at what happened in this case? Only recall that that Salon/Slate occasionally published Woody dunking articles and the commentary was heated but mixed. This site seems to be so far gone that the mere mention of a young girl who was obviously brianwashed by an abusive mother is met by virtual pitchforks.
There is nothing “obvious” one way or the other in this speciic case, but apart from that, I see your point. It’s distressing to the the AVClub rate so high a documentary that openly looks at only one side of a dirty, complex, emotional story, and it’s distressing to see the tweet-level crowd hurling itself at a designated direction.But I know of no site where this doesn’t happen. The internet is a warzone, where people just come to side with opinions, as fast, cheaply and satisfyingly violently as possible, and the AVClub plays this game on the “progressive” side. Whereas other medias or pundits play it on the other side (that is, usually, when people defend Polanski or Woody Allen, they also defend every each clear cut case of ongoing pedophilia apology or systemic sexual abuse – whereas those who denounce pedophilia and systemic abuse mechanically see every potential instance as an obvious proof/example of it). It’s always an all-or-nothing, triggered by a couple of keywords matching a pre-formatted sentence. Nobody gives a damn about realities anywhere. It’s about “choosing to believe this” (if you’re a good person) or “choosing to believe that” (if you’re a bad person). If you don’t believe anything, you’re a bad person for both sides.So, in short, everyone picks a side solely based on the “grand narrative” it matches, and you only have the choice of the least unhealthy “grand narrative”. I know of no place where you can select details based on interest for the reality of individual cases. It comes in big packages, and “true/false” is never the criterion, only “good/evil”. An old fight for truth has become an all-encompassing war of religion, just deal with it.
Lumping Polanski with Allen seems foolish. Allen’s situation is murky and hard to judge. But are you seriously arguing there is any question Polanski’s conduct was criminal rape of a child?
The complexities of Polanski’s case lie elsewhere. Disagreements on whether he “paid” enough or not for the S.G. rape, on whether the trial was fair, on how to deal with the fact that she really wishes him to be left alone with that story, and, what is way much important in my eyes : the veracity of the other accusations (he has admitted and apologized to Sam Geimer, but he’s denying other stories, some of which have quite convincing elements), and also how to deal with time (the complex matter of evolving individual identity, prescription, and what is at stake exactly 40 years afterwards, compared to the neutralization of active predators, not to mention the accessibility of truth and the consequences of it). It’s a huge pack of difficult questions, that are swept away with the twin twitter logics of “burn him burn him” (also : burn the collective works he’s involved in) and “how dares she how dares she” (and the shield formed by french pseudo-intellectuals known to also loudly defend proud pedophiles à la Matzneff).So, again, complexities tldr for the twitter logic and its “pick which side to scream with” injunction. For the time being, the only one I respect is Geimer’s tightrope. Even though I disagree with some of her arguments (such as her vague “speak out on the spot or shut up forever”, although I understand the bitterness it comes from, given how isolated she’s felt when it mattered).
Looks like a lot of words that have nothing to do with whether Polanski is guilty of raping a child.
Excellent illustration of what I’m saying, though.
I disagree. My comment was clear and to the point whereas yours including a lot of prevaricating verbiage with no clear thesis or theme.
What I’m saying is precisely that people like you cannot process more than one variable, just want their on/off toggle switched, and run with it. Whereas actual fairness would require the consideration of the many, many elements that you trim out (as “verbiage”, “murkiness”, or “headache”) in favor of twitter-friendly one-liners that offer you the cheap impression of understanding all there is to understand, and seem to justify a clear-cut course of action (yay action).It’s usually a trait I notice among conservatives (about the obvious “illegality” of undocumented migrants, or “terrorism” of islam, or “unnatural” gender issues, etc) but it’s also a common strategy among progressives when it comes to fueling with anything at hand the global fight against systemic sexual abuse. The thrill of one-sentence-says-it-all.And the reality, as Geimer points out, is that you actually don’t give a damn about the “child” in question.
I notice that you still haven’t presented your thesis. You tell us all that there are many variables that we need to consider? Ok. Having considered them, what is your conclusion? What does “giving a damn about the child” mean to you?Saying, “It’s complicated and there are lots of variables,” is pretty easy because it’s always true. It’s the excuse people have used for centuries to do nothing at all. Actually saying, “It’s complicated and there are lots of variables, but, having considered them, this is what I think,” is what actually takes some moral and intellectual risk.
“Giving a damn about the child” means taking Samantha Geimer’s perspective in account. I’ve worked in an NGO where, amongst other things, we helped victims of racist violence. There had been a very mediatized case of a young Afghan kid beaten up by Golden Dawn thugs. All the NGOs were on him, using him as a flag, as a symbol, or wanting to use him (as we always want) to bring the thugs to court. But the kid himself wanted none of that. He only wanted to leave the country and join his mother abroad (another european country). He was the priority. We gave up our big plans for this publicized trial, we ensured he went away to safety as fast as he wanted. In contrast, Geimer was used -and keeps being used- against her will, as a symbol, for a disgusting act she overcame, by a creep she’s now friends with. For matters that are 40 years old (and I consider that an individual isn’t the same person 40 years later, there’s an amount of time after which you’re punishing a different person). So, respecting Geimer then and now, is respecting the fact that she’s both open about the act of Polanski (and against those who minimize it) yet against those who keep bringing it up. In my view, Sam Geimer isn’t the issue anymore, it’s an old story that all protagonists have put beyond themselves, and this should be respected. The issue with Polanski is the new testimonies (and how hard it is to establish their veracity).My own position (which wasn’t the subject) is that, at this point, truth is the only thing that matters. Punishment is moot. And judging movies (collective works) based on his history is wrong. It’s a ship that has sailed. It happens. But the stigmata and the US exile and the lifelong informal pressure of Polanski’s life is a poetic justice in and by itself. Which, by the way, doesn’t make justice to the social/cultural context where his action(s) was deemed okay – a lot of guilty people there, enablers, or apologists, await History’s judgement. And I also think that truth is invaluable, and that other deeds should be made public. The attention should shift completely away from Geimer, and onto Valentine Monnier’s claims.My position is also that humans are not symbols.But more importantly : my point here was not about my own position. It’s about the intensity, black/white, stances of the general public in front of immensely complex issues. This is what tires me. Like there’s only two available stances. Like certitude is mandatory. People have to learn to not know. To accept that judgement is sometimes difficult. And that, where judgement is difficult, it cannot be intense. The mere fact that it’s a complicated situation means that the stances should be tones down. And it’s terribly sad to see that this isn’t even an option. Because twitter rage wargh. Because it feels so good to form a symbolic enemy and charge at it. It’s a relief from our sentiment of discouragement, of powerlessness, in front of inaccessible truths and uncertain opinions. I’m tired of this laziness.So no, going “woah, this is complicated, I don’t think I’ll be able to immolate someone with self-righteous certainty here” is not laziness or weakness. It’s humility in front of life and in front of cognition. It’s cautiousness. In the Woody Allen situation, every side is ready for a horrible horrible mistake (and yes, being unable to decide is itself also horrible, because, hidden somewhere, there is a truth we are not privy of). In Polanski’s, same thing for other reasons. I’m advocating for honesty in front of that, instead of self-indulgent grandiose posturing (my current self-indulgent grandiose posturing here is on a different, “meta”, matter, and not on life stakes and events I judge based on partial echoes). Twitter judgments is a stupid game. Reduction to three (linguistically misleading) keywords is a stupid game. And progressive thinking should be all about dealing with all the elements and accepting to not be the one solving the equation if there’s too many unknown variable (factual or moral ones).Or else, the argument becomes “you write a lot of words but how do you explain the big bang then if you don’t believe in god huh? huh?”.
Again, this is just a lot of rambling that leads nowhere and means nothing.We shouldn’t judge his art by his actions… but he shouldn’t be famous… but we shouldn’t focus on one victim we should focus on another victim… but we should judge his enablers… but not come to snap judgments… but we should be honest… but it’s wrong to have certitude…
That means nothing or whooshes 184’000 km above your head.If you can’t deal with more than one idea at a time, stay on twitter.
Twitter? What? Do you think I’m some kind of twitter personality or something? I am, sadly, a bit of a Twitter novice. I only joined a few months ago with the hope that I’d be able to learn recent election news. I do enjoy that there is an account that tweets pictures of cool rocks and minerals.
So many words spent without addressing the issue at hand, and a lovely inclusion of “people like you” to boot. All ensconced in erudition which clearly implies the inherent rightness of their position.
But I guess it’s just “people like us,” eh?
I know right? And, it’s not even clear what “people like [me]” are doing exactly. Apparently we’re going on Twitter and … saying things?
“… it’s also a common strategy among progressives when it comes to fueling with anything at hand the global fight against systemic sexual abuse.”Or (and just hear me out for a moment here) maybe you really need to just slow down and edit yourself for clarity. 😀 :DNote the economy of phrasing. 😀 😀 And I didn’t even try to pull any GASLIGHTING as to my psychic knowledge of the “reality” of what you give a damn about…
Except what you consider the inability to process more than one variable the rest of us clearly see as cutting away the bullshit. If people are ignoring your rambling nonsense. it’s not because they misunderstand your genius, it’s because it’s they see through it’s rambling irrelevance.
You really like dancing around whether or not you think Polanski raped a child or not. There aren’t shades of gray in child rape, you fucking sicko
So you’d call a “fucking sicko” the child in question if she posted here. Because I haven’t been saying anything different from her, no matter what you manage to grasp about it or not.
“What I’m saying is precisely that people like you cannot process more than one variable, just want their on/off toggle switched, and run with it.”There may be various aspects, dimensions, circumstances, “variables,” etc., involved in the objective facts and circumstances surrounding the Polanski case, but there is one question that is morally paramount: Did Roman Polanski rape a child? Any serious-minded approach to this issue must be predicated on a good-faith effort to answer that question.
Kinda understand what you’re saying and I guess I’ll share that noose with you. It’s like my lefty friend who has his car ALL adorned with bumper stickers. It was ALL Warren/Saunders ALL the time until Biden got the nomination, then, it was all Biden. Just because of the party. Blind loyalism is no way to be led; and in a LOT of ways he’s no better than a lot of the ideologies he attacks with ad homoneim attacks. Merely vociferously jumping on Dylan’s band wagon because one feels a certain way about Allen does NOT make her right.
The whole “was Polanski treated fairly” question is such a red herring. He was offered an extremely lenient sentence because he was rich and famous and the judge did the right thing by not accepting it. He had every right, both morally and legally, to do so. The fact that Polanski thought he was going to get a lighter sentence and then didn’t in no way excuses his unspeakable crime or his 40 year evasion of justice.
Also, people don’t generally know other big details about the Polanski case. Light sentences like that are based on the idea that the perp had ‘learned his lesson’ by being through the system and had already proved himself not to be a further danger to society. But between his evaluation and the sentencing, when Polanski was allowed to travel and work like normal, he went out in the media and actively mocked the laws he’d supposedly ‘learned his lesson’ about and publicly announced that he planned on continuing his ways unabated.It’s like if you go into traffic court and the judge is about to dismiss your speeding ticket because you haven’t had a ticket before and you played contrite and promised to be more careful and respect the speed limits. Then you turn to your buddy in the back of the courtroom and call out “I can’t believe this chump’s lettin’ me off! Rev up the engines man. I’ll race you to Waffle House! Loser buys!”
I mean he raped a child. When i need any additional complexity, I turn to Calvin TrillinA youthful error? Yes, perhaps.But he’s been punished for this lapse–For decades exiled from LAHe knows, as he wakes up each day,He’ll miss the movers and the shakers.He’ll never get to see the Lakers.For just one old and small mischance,He has to live in Paris, France.He’s suffered slurs and other stuff.Has he not suffered quite enough?How can these people get so riled?He only raped a single child.Why make him into some Darth VaderFor sodomizing one eighth grader?This man is brilliant, that’s for sure–Authentically, a film auteur.He gets awards that are his due.He knows important people, too–Important people just like us.And we know how to make a fuss.Celebrities would just be foolsTo play by little people’s rules.So Roman’s banner we unfurl.He only raped one little girl.
wow
lol “complexities” “whether he ‘paid’ enough” HE REMAINS A CRIMINAL FUGITIVE TO THIS DAY
Disagreements on whether he “paid” enough or not for the S.G. rape, on whether the trial was fair, on how to deal with the fact that she really wishes him to be left alone with that story, and, what is way much important in my eyes : the veracity of the other accusations (he has admitted and apologized to Sam Geimer, but he’s denying other stories, some of which have quite convincing elements), and also how to deal with time (the complex matter of evolving individual identity, prescription, and what is at stake exactly 40 years afterwards, compared to the neutralization of active predators, not to mention the accessibility of truth and the consequences of it).I’ve read this three times and I still have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Is it common knowledge what “the S.G. rape” is?
It should be for all those people who claim to know so much, understand so much and care so much about Polanski’s rape(s) and his victim(s).But obviously he’s just a buzzword, an internet toy.
He’s a convicted child rapist. But to you that is a “buzzword”
You care for what happened, how it happened, to whom it happened, what has been lived then, what has been lived since ? You don’t. You have no idea. You’re even completely baffled by Sam Geimer’s initials, you have no idea who she is, what she went through. You don’t give a damn about the whole history.So yeah, for you it’s just a buzzword you’re toying with. For her it’s become a life. And you don’t have the good role in it.
You’re baffled by the reply button. Replying to the wrong person. How embarrassing for you.
You’re baffled by the reply button. Replying to the wrong person. How embarrassing for you.
He’s a convicted child rapist. But to you that is a “buzzword”
There were two independent investigations into the incident, one by Yale New Haven Hospital and the other by the New York State Department of Social Services and both concluded that no abuse took place. While “obvious” might be a bit of a stretch, the preponderance of the evidence is clearly on Allen’s side.
Actually, this site – along with many of its sister sites – doesn’t fall on the “progressive” side of these He Said/She Said cases; they all tend to see them as He Lied/She’s A Victim. They all long ago decided that Johnny Depp is the devil incarnate and Amber Heard is an angel who never tells a lie. If anything, the court cases prove that Heard is pretty much a psycho and Depp stooped to her psychotic-bullshit level instead of getting the fuck away from her. But according to the Gizmodo sites, Depp should never work again and Heard should apparently get every acting role available, when the truth is Hollywood should be serving both with Restraining Orders.Little is different here. Maybe Allen perpetrated. Maybe he didn’t. There are literally only two people who KNOW this for a fact. Unlike these Gizmodo sites, I don’t view one gender as more deserving of another so I don’t view Mia’s or Dylan’s stories as more “deserving” of belief compared to Woody’s or Moses’s. This writer is especially egregious in this regard mentioning Moses’ opposition in one short sentence, yet the unproven “gaslighting” of Mia Farrow is written as unadulterated fact. Anyone who has seen more than one interview with Mia would not be able to insist that she is an entirely stable human being, which pretty much makes anything coming out of her mouth questionable. If she said it was daytime, I’d ask Alexa if that were true. But then I live on Planet Earth, where the LEAST trustworthy people are exes talking about their exes, followed by children talking about their parents. Add in Ronan’s questionable investigative methods and Soon Yi’s long happy-seeming marriage to Woody, and there’s at least enough here to make a reasonable person have difficulty convicting anybody without regrets. “But Dylan cried!” So did Jussie Smollett. So did Brett Kavanagh. Emotions can be faked. Easily. They are not evidence of shit.If a courtroom finds someone guilty? They got their day in court, so people can freely take sides, even though we know the courts are not infallible. If courts haven’t had their say, then we should all strive to be a little more thoughtful than a Gizmodo writer. If dozens of women accuse one man of rape? That’s a textbook case of “preponderance of evidence”, so I’ll take a side there. If a bunch of women accuse a CEO of harassment? There’s no set number for me to start judging, but “several” will get me onboard. What about a one-sided documentary with no smoking gun, only two people with actual knowledge of the event (with an interview of only one of them), AND a bunch of people with opinions? I’ll ignore that garbage like a judge ignores a case by a Trump lawyer!
who was obviously brianwashed by an abusive mother is met by virtual pitchforks. Can you cite a single piece of actual evidence that supports this conclusion that is so obvious to you?
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html
I’ve read that. There is no evidence there that Mia Farrow brainwashed Dylan to lie.
So what you really mean is “I’ll believe Dylan, but I will not believe Moses”
I believe Dylan about the abuse she says she experienced. I believe Moses about the abuse he says he experienced. I don’t believe Moses about something he says Dylan experienced that she says she never experienced. Why would I? I also don’t believe, or wouldn’t believe, anything Dylan says about what Moses did or didn’t experience at the hands of Woody and Mia. Why would I?
Well that’s perfectly reasonable. So is believing a 14 year old over a 7 year old, especially when the former has done years of therapy to become a therapist. But in the end it really doesn’t matter what we believe anyway…
Dylan isn’t 7, and I’m not sure why you’d believe a 14 year old over a 7 year old over the 7 year old’s own experiences. Also not sure what the relevance is of Moses having “done years of therapy to become a therapist” (or what that even means).
Oh, hell— he can’t spell the word “brain.”
😀 😀 😀
“Are there any other culture sites that haven’t lost their collective mind… This site seems to be so far gone that the mere mention of a young girl who was obviously brianwashed…”Know what I’ve noticed, in every comment section on this subject featuring “objective” thinkers who lead off with ‘has-everybody-lost-their-rational-minds’ chest-thumping? You all end up typing things like– ahem– “brianwashing”… 😀 😀 😀
“and objectively look at what happened in this case”“obviously brianwashed by an abusive mother”yeah, just dripping with objectivity o’er here
Yeah, whatever the truth of the situation, this doc is bad journalism. I believe that Dylan is the victim of….something. I believe that her trauma is real. But I also have a nagging suspicion that Mia coached her somewhere along the line, perhaps fed her details to amp up the true core of the story. This is a condemnation of Mia, not Dylan As much as Moses also has his own trauma, he raises some uncomfortable points. Dylan’s experience may very well be true, but the Mia-approved version of the story really does have some issues.
fuck it’s hard for kids to come forward about sexual abuse.
I know this firsthand, thank you. Mia’s driving hand is concerning.
I love how Woody Allen’s apologists are all pretending to not understand what documentaries and journalism are, all of a sudden. lol
Well I trust your judgment since you must have watched all 4 episodes and rendered your verdict here.Oh you didn’t? You just decided to Not take the victim’s word for it? Cool.
Did you vote for Biden?
Um, Yes, why?
You don’t mind him raping someone and his fondling of children? Yet Woody Allen is the bad guy?
Oh cool, I guessed right. You were hoping to catch me being a hypocrite, Yes?I believe Tara Reade.I voted for Biden, who I believe to be a rapist, in order to remove Trump, the other rapist, who also happens to be a fascist.Rapist > Rapist/Fascist
If you’re looking for investigative journalism into this issue, which has by and large found her allegations very credible, maybe don’t look to a culture site like AV Club that’s been bought up by multiple large funds and stripped for parts over many years. You seem to be looking for news and journalism, and there are many places you can find them.Any flaws Mia may have are sort of beside the point—his daughter has always had a consistent story of “that day” and there are mountains upon mountains of circumstantial evidence that damn him.I know you’re just avoiding as many facts and truth as you can so you can continue to live in your little troll hole (lol, IAS), but I felt the need to call out how silly you’re being.
AV Club chases social justice porn. They have for a few years now. It’s why hardly anyone visits or comments anymore. But I suppose there are clicks to be gotten for profit out there. People love to be outraged, and in turn it directly fuels thought bubbles. Ironic that conservative and left are the same in terms of rancid, shame filled rants. Clickbait leftist trash belongs in the same pool as Breitbart and Infowars. They troll the same detritus with emotion-filled nonsense.
I think NAMBLA has an entertainment section on their site.
So you’re pro fucking your stepdaughter? That is evil and disgusting. And no amount of blaming Mia Farrow or anyone else is going to change the fact that Ronan Farrow had to grow up knowing his father is also his brother-in-law.
A documentary which doesn’t look into Moses Farrow’s allegations of abuse or the fact a couple of her kids killed themselves. Sound fair.
Can a documentary be titled Allen v Farrow when only one voice is heard?They take excerpts from his biography obviously none of them bad for Mia, they don’t mention that Moses claims he was physically and psychologically abused, they don’t talk about the suicides in the family.Just title it Dylan Farrow but no marketing first, justice second.
It’s referencing the court case. Did you discount ESPN’s OJ Simpson documentary because OJ didn’t sit for an interview? Woody had the opportunity to participate in this documentary, and even without his participation there is plenty of opportunity for his voice to be heard.
What are you talking about? Farrow comes across terrible. She let her children be exposed to a child molester, ignored multiple warning signs and didn’t even get the hell out of there after knowing for a fact her boyfriend was fucking her daughter.
I don’t wanna watch 4 hours just to find out what he did… So what was it?
Dry humping, necking, wet humping, finger banging, wheelbarrowing, the old one-two, the old one-two-three, the old one-two three-four, the Bavarian pretzel, Denver omelets, the double-double, the double-down, the triple-double, the double dip, the daily double, saltwater taffying?
He should be very happy Frank Sinatra isn’t around anymore.
Just like with Christine Blasey Ford, there is nothing Dylan could say that is compelling enough, precise enough, consistent enough, to get convince anyone who really want to believe Allen (a stance I’m sure has nothing to do with how much they love Manhattan or whatever). They have seized on something completely unfalsifiable to discredit her testimony—that she was brainwashed by Mia. There’s nothing she can say to respond to that, because it’s an argument designed so that it can’t have any response. Nevermind there is literally no evidence that is the case. Just like the Republicans who insisted that, despite her compelling testimony, Christine Blasey Ford must have been mistaken about the identity of the man who attempted to rape her. How can you disprove that? It’s a shame that some people don’t care about evidence, they just care about protecting a sacred cow,.
Well, a big part of Woody’s defense is that Dylan has been
brainwashed
and indoctrinated by her mother. Moses’ account of his upbringing is
supporting that by describing the manipulation he experienced from her and the manipulation he has seen from her towards the other children.
If a seven-year-old child was constantly manipulated by her mother (for years), false memories of an alleged assault would indeed seem a plausible
effect.Another important argument (it has been uttered many, many times over the past decades, of course) is that in nearly all known cases, pedophiles do act repeatedly on their disgusting urge throughout their adult life and do not limit their criminal doing to just one case when they are well over fifty. Woody Allen simply does not fit the profile. Of course, this is not definitive proof of innocence. But it makes his alleged wrongdoing seem a lot less likely.
Botton line is: I cannot prove that Woody Allen is innocent. But
there is easily reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. We will never
know for sure. What more can be said?Although the tide of public opinion may have turned due to cultural shifts in the landscape (#MeToo), the case has not become clearer or more convincing with time. In court, testimonies that refer to events decades ago lose credibility for good reasons. Science has shown that they become increasingly unreliable. That’s why there are statues of limitation. This reasoning applies to newly filmed recollections in this documentary, too.
From my view, it is a shame that HBO comes up with such an *overtly partisan* “documentary” at this point in time. It’s marketable, I am sure, but above all, it is an opportunistic move, following the perceived trends of the time.
fuck off
An inadvertently apt comparison.
Not sure what it says about me but I see that picture and I go “Hey, its the Winter Palace in the background.”Anyway…I want to see this. I’ve always found Allen off-putting in real life and in his films, none of which ever resonated with me and I haven’t watched outside of class in college in the early 90s
“I’ve always found Allen off-putting in real life and in his films, none of which ever resonated with me…. “ This makes us fortunate. I too studied Allen’s work at school. And I’m a goy married to a (proudly) nerdy Jewish man and I STILL find his movies “puerile and under dramatized.”
Let’s see what’s on AV Club today
I have a lot of respect for Ziering and Kirby, and none at all for Woody Allen but I really hate that most media is still intent on flattening this story as if it was simple. As usual, the words of Moses Farrow do not matter. The suicides of Mia Farrow’s children don’t matter. Only the side of the story led by the child with a journalism background matters. This is not me discrediting Dylan Farrow. She is probably telling the truth but that is not a reason to treat Mia Farrow as a victim in this. I really just hope that everyone unlucky enough to be attached to the undoubtedly monstrous Woody Allen and Mia Farrow manage to have happy and healthy lives.
As usual, the words of Moses Farrow do not matter. The suicides of Mia Farrow’s children don’t matter.What are they supposed to matter for? Moses Farrow has recounted a harrowing childhood, much of it because of Mia’s parenting, and the deaths of some of Mia’s adult children are indeed tragedies. But I’m not sure what any of that has to do with Dylan’s story?
The fact that the children killed themselves is likely to be a result of growing up in a train wreck family where their mothers boyfriend fucked their sister. Things like that are traumatising.
The Allen supporters are now trying to claim that Lark’s tragic death from illness at 35 was her mom’s fault. But, I mean, the “wild days” (shoplifting clothes at a mall) in her youth correspond to the timeframe in which her sister, Soon-Yi, with whom she was supposed to have been the closest, started fucking the father in the home behind their mother’s back and then ran off with him and never spoke to Lark again. At the time Soon-Yi ran away to go live with Allen, she was supposed to be at college but wasn’t there and her family didn’t know where she was, Lark went looking for her and even went to the press and asked Soon-Yi to come home. Then the press found Soon-Yi living with Allen and it was after that when he held a press conference proclaiming he and Soon-Yi were “in love.”That’s all pretty fucked up and has zero to do with Mia or her mothering skills.Lark ended up going to nursing school at NYU, getting married, having two kids and living a regular life.
Thank you, I know I’ve read this but I couldn’t remember the details. It’s nice to know some of the kids are ok today.
Allen.
Farrow.
“The Grapple in The Big Apple”
On Pay-Per-View.
The documentary isn’t even out and the Woody Allen stans are declaring it an inaccurate, dishonest mess.How bout you guys watch it first. Get all the evidence in front. Listen to Mia Farrow’s testimony for fuck’s sake.
They probably just figure that there was a six-month criminal investigation followed by a separate 14-month criminal investigation into the allegations at the time, both clearing him as much as anyone can be cleared, with findings like: “Dylan was not abused by Mr. Allen,” ; “No credible evidence was found that [Dylan Farrow] has been abused or maltreated.”Two agencies, over a year of two investigations, one conclusion. That used to be enough to get someone the benefit of the doubt. Time doesn’t add clarity to stuff like this, and the documentary is explicit about airing one side of the story.
Actually I think Dylan is who we should listen to. Mia has her own accusations of abuse and defense of pedophiles to answer to
That’s a typo, I meant Dylan. Dylan’s testimony.
GotchaNot that it exonerates Woody Allen, but I think painting Mia in a sympathetic light was not a good move. I get that documentaries can exist with bias but in this case I wish the focus of the interviews had been on Dylan and only Dylan.
For your comfort, everything has to paint Mia Farrow in a unsympathetic light? That’s some bullshit.
Anyone else getting weary of celebrity trauma porn?
“a damning mirror for the society that let Allen thrive” The amoral, deeply compromised theater/entertainment society, you should say. “America” in the aggregate has never let Allen off the hook. It’s the filmmaking and theater subculture that looks the other way, or shifts uncomfortably and makes excuses.
I love it the way leftists continue to claim the moral high ground.
Man- I just watched the first episode and I mean we don’t know what we don’t know- but I don’t see how Woody Allen’s career survives this.
I so wish this could have come out years and years ago.
Who cares really he’s old and he most likely isn’t going to make a good movie anyways.
as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, reading these comments cements my belief that going to court would result in me ending things. I’m finding my own way of healing, but I see people bend over backwards to defend molestation, and for most of us survivors, the court system would be our destruction. this is why it keeps happening, it’s just as much as the pedophiles fault as it is the public who defends them and makes it impossible for us to seek justice safely.
Woody Allen had to see a therapist because his feelings for/actions towards his daughter Dylan were “inappropriately intense”. Very normal stuff! But sure, Dylan’s lying, Mia’s lying, the multiple family friends are lying, the prosecutor’s lying, everyone’s lying except the creep who took naked Polaroids of his barely-legal sort-of daughter.
Christ. The internet is the death of nuance and civil adult debate. On any topic at all.
Anyone who points out how murky this case is (without even claiming Allen is innocent!) is called an ‘incel’, or a ‘misogynist’, or any other disgusting thing designed to get them to shut up and stop asking questions. Instead of addressing the points being raised, a random insult about a stranger seems to be enough to dismiss them and head back into the comforting echo chamber. All morality is black and white, good vs. evil, with nothing in between allowed. People are to be automatically taken at their word and no dissent must be raised, and if you dare raise objection, a pariah dog you’ll be. Y’all talk a big game about the ‘team sports’ mentality of those on the right, but how is this True Believer bullshit any different? It’s to the level of religious mania with some of y’all. People asking questions about a significant legal situation are not Satan because they ask a question, or refuse to hand-wave away accusations of abuse by one person because said abuser is on the ‘good side’. What are y’all getting out of being so goddamned obdurate and closed-minded? In no way is such a blinkered approach to the many complexities of humanity reflective of actual reality and how people actually work. NOTHING is a simple binary of ‘pure’ and ‘wicked’. Is this how you carry yourselves in everyday life, in discussions with coworkers, friends, family? If so, it’s absolutely repulsive tripe.
Life, and its people, are complex and full of grey areas. Events, especially as they recede into the past, are even more tangled. It’s difficult to discern the truth from the revisions, because as people, we begin to revise past events the moment they end. We fill in what we want to have happened or erase what we wish we could forget. That’s human nature. None of this is to say Allen is or isn’t guilty. But the fact that you can’t raise questions here about a case this murky and tangled without getting the most putrid of vitriol hurled your way is shameful and disgusting. Is that how y’all were raised, to discuss such issues as these with all the unbiased logic and receptiveness of a witch-finding party? Would you speak that way to your debater were they in front of you IRL? We’re all human beings here, for fucks’ sake. Many of us have children. Many of us, including myself, have survived childhood sexual abuse and still manage to raise questions and look at evidence when such serious allegations are levied. We don’t clamp our hands over our ears and cry ‘la la la not listening!’ when people question the facts, all because we desperately want someone to be guilty, someone to brand as ‘wicked’ so we can feel better about ourselves and our perceived decency. I dunno about y’all, but I was raised a little less naive than to believe in such fairytales (and by a single mother). Maybe don’t spit out unfounded cruelties because you can’t handle hearing someone else’s opinion.
Casting first stones won’t save you when the finger eventually comes ‘round to point in your direction. Know that much.
I really don’t know how many more times Farrow’s accusations can be debunked.