[TV] Allen vs Farrow Sky Documentaries

[Lenny Rider]

Started watching it last night, savage stuff from the outset, strange times we live in that a global star still alive can have his reputation dismantled rather than the usual process after they've died?

I would have thought Woody Allen would have had the funds to have stopped this or at least diluted the content down?

 

[elwheelio]

Worth looking up the Hadley Freeman article about this doc. It was in the Guardian a few weeks ago, was a good read.

 

[NooBHA]

I watched all 4 episodes. The man is quite evil in my opinion. Like many wealthy men in similar positions in the past. His wealth and power are what kept him from going to jail.

He will eventually be slaughtered after he dies instead of convicting him while he is alive.

The old adage is true. The Criminal Justice System treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.

 

[Insel affe]

Started watching it last night, savage stuff from the outset, strange times we live in that a global star still alive can have his reputation dismantled rather than the usual process after they've died?

I would have thought Woody Allen would have had the funds to have stopped this or at least diluted the content down?

Not that I am a Woody Allen fan at all, in fact I have a strong dislike for his films as well as his acting ability.
But if he had tried to stop it, that would add fuel to the guilty as hell camp.
I have no idea if he is, if I had to guess though....


This review sums it all up very well.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/15/allen-v-farrow-review-sky-hbo-documentary

 

[schmunk]

Worth looking up the Hadley Freeman article about this doc. It was in the Guardian a few weeks ago, was a good read.

Indeed it was: https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...ary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much

I watched all 4 episodes. The man is quite evil in my opinion. Like many wealthy men in similar positions in the past. His wealth and power are what kept him from going to jail.

He will eventually be slaughtered after he dies instead of convicting him while he is alive.

The old adage is true. The Criminal Justice System treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.

Have a read of this article and then see how you feel about it.

 

[Stato]

Indeed it was: https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...ary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much



Have a read of this article and then see how you feel about it.

And the blog from Moses Farrow, who the programme makers also didn't feature: http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Nobody on the outside knows the truth behind this, but it seems fairly clear that this particular series has worked with one side and dimissed the other.

 

[keaton]

I watched all 4 episodes. The man is quite evil in my opinion. Like many wealthy men in similar positions in the past. His wealth and power are what kept him from going to jail.

He will eventually be slaughtered after he dies instead of convicting him while he is alive.

The old adage is true. The Criminal Justice System treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.

Presumably after divorce settlements from Frank Sinatra and Andre Previn and 10 years or so of a career as an actress Mia Farrow wasn't claiming unemployment benefit, not sure how she would be poor

 

[NooBHA]

And the blog from Moses Farrow, who the programme makers also didn't feature: http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Nobody on the outside knows the truth behind this, but it seems fairly clear that this particular series has worked with one side and dimissed the other.

Moses refused to take part despite being invited to do so. No doubt because back in the original investigation Woody Allen himself had stated that he had gone off on his own that day so any claims he could make in support of Allen would be contradicting Allen's own original testimony. So for sure he didn't take part on instruction from Allen's Advisers.

 

[NooBHA]

And the blog from Moses Farrow, who the programme makers also didn't feature: http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Nobody on the outside knows the truth behind this, but it seems fairly clear that this particular series has worked with one side and dimissed the other.

I am inclined to believe the child . Now an adult making the claim. I am not one for looking to discredit potential victims just because it is uncomfortable to accept that an Artistic Deemed Film Making Genius might not be what he portrays himself to be.

Retrospectively looking at his film scripts shocked me with all these older man relationship with teenage girls. I hadn't quite noticed before that they portray the young girls as the predatory participant in the relationships on screen. To virtually validate such relationships.

 

[Jam The Man]

There are even odder rumours and allegations made about Papa John Phillips by his daughter Mackenzie that can be found online.
Quite horrific if true. She stands by them to this day, but Mama Michelle Phillips claims it’s all false and attention seeking.

 

[Seagull58]

Mia Farrow is as mad as a box of frogs and has been for many. many years. There have been calls in times past to investigate her parenting methods but they have been pushed aside by her relentless attacks on Allen.

 

[Stato]

I am inclined to believe the child . Now an adult making the claim. I am not one for looking to discredit potential victims just because it is uncomfortable to accept that an Artistic Deemed Film Making Genius might not be what he portrays himself to be.

Retrospectively looking at his film scripts shocked me with all these older man relationship with teenage girls. I hadn't quite noticed before that they portray the young girls as the predatory participant in the relationships on screen. To virtually validate such relationships.

I'm not inclined to speculate in either direction. I commented only on the filmmakers' partiality. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with documentary taking one side, but when done, it should be done openly. All of the reviews that I have read have indicated that this may not have been done in this case.

 

[NooBHA]

I'm not inclined to speculate in either direction. I commented only on the filmmakers' partiality. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with documentary taking one side, but when done, it should be done openly. All of the reviews that I have read have indicated that this may not have been done in this case.

There is a part in one of the episodes which screenshots how Woody Allen's PR team sent out threats to Media Outlets ways of discrediting the victims and threatened to ban the media outlets who didn't come down on his side . Indicating it would ban them from from ever having access to Woody Allen film premiers etc in the future if they didn't do so.

I actually froze my screen to look and see what type of media outlets the emails targeted and it was essentially a blanket email to all types of media outlets. Even the BBC wan on there.

The Farrow family got hold of that email because Ronan Farrow actually works in the Media and his Media Organisation was cut from an invitation list because they didn't follow the smear campaign they were guided to follow.

So how media outlets cover this will be distorted .

 

[NooBHA]

Mia Farrow is as mad as a box of frogs and has been for many. many years. There have been calls in times past to investigate her parenting methods but they have been pushed aside by her relentless attacks on Allen.

She has given home to about 9 adopted children in her lifetime.

She has spent about 20 years or more working in a Humanitarian and Charitable environment.

I would say she has given more to Society than most in Hollywood. Mad as a Box Of Frogs isn't what springs to mind when I think of what she has given in her lifetime.

 

[Acker79]

Documentaries often have a slant. The people making them do so for a reason. This is essentially a filmed version of an investigative article that appear in a US paper a while back that clearly had compelling enough evidence to convince them. It is about them laying out the case as they believe it to be. Of course that is going to be one sided. They have offered Allen the opportunity to response and are willing to add a fifth episode with him putting his side across, to date he has not responded (I would be surprised if he does - it's a documentary being made by people who believe him guilty, they will control the interview and how it appears, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him co-operate with (and possibly fund) a rival documentary).

 

[Stato]

There is a part in one of the episodes which screenshots how Woody Allen's PR team sent out threats to Media Outlets ways of discrediting the victims and threatened to ban the media outlets who didn't come down on his side . Indicating it would ban them from from ever having access to Woody Allen film premiers etc in the future if they didn't do so.

I actually froze my screen to look and see what type of media outlets the emails targeted and it was essentially a blanket email to all types of media outlets. Even the BBC wan on there.

The Farrow family got hold of that email because Ronan Farrow actually works in the Media and his Media Organisation was cut from an invitation list because they didn't follow the smear campaign they were guided to follow.

So how media outlets cover this will be distorted .

Using evidence from the documentary to argue with my suggestion that the documentary may not be a reliable source for a balanced view is a circular argument.

 

[Seagull58]

She has given home to about 9 adopted children in her lifetime.

She has spent about 20 years or more working in a Humanitarian and Charitable environment.

I would say she has given more to Society than most in Hollywood. Mad as a Box Of Frogs isn't what springs to mind when I think of what she has given in her lifetime.

Taken from an article in The Grauniard: -
Today, if I was so inclined, I would use the hashtag #IbelieveMosesFarrow. Moses has written a weary and disturbing blog about the physical and emotional abuse he says he suffered as a child. But he claims that the abuse came from his mother, Mia Farrow. He says Dylan was not abused by his father, rather that she was coached from a very young age into making these allegations. Mia Farrow has responded by saying: “Moses has cut off his entire family – it’s heartbreaking and bewildering that he would make this up. We all miss him and love him very much.”

Moses writes of the darkness in Farrow’s family: Mia’s brother who molested children, another uncle who killed himself. There is also the the suicide of his adopted brother Thaddeus. Another sister, Lark, died in her 30s from pneumonia after contracting HIV. He talks, as he has before, of Mia’s rages, physical violence and bitterness. In his version, the adoption of seven children from completely different cultures looks like skewed egoism.

Moses writes that Satchel (who would later change his name to Ronan) was only four when he would announce to a nanny “My sister is ****ing my father” so often did Mia repeat this. Allen’s penchant for much younger women, “evidenced” by his films, meant that when Dylan Farrow alleged he had sexually assaulted her, Allen was seen as a paedophile who had also groomed Soon-yi.

His entire experience of childhood sounds traumatic, and the interplay between trauma and memory is immensely complicated. Survivors of sexual and other abuse often experience dissociation and then begin to gradually disclose. Moses doubts Dylan’s version of events, and now we have these competing narratives of victimhood.
It is possible to believe that Dylan believes she was abused. It is possible to believe that Moses is telling his truth too – that these children were both the collateral damage of a custody battle between adults neither of whom seem to have a clue actually how to be a parent in the first place. There are myriad violations and alleged violations here. Allen violated the family for sure.

Mia had violated Dory Previn’s trust when she had an affair with a much older André Previn. She had, at 21, married a 50-year-old Frank Sinatra so knows a thing or two about age gaps in relationships. None of this is to excuse anything, it is simply to point out all this dysfunction. In families where sexual abuse happens , it is indeed common for siblings to have entirely different accounts of what took place.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And the blog from Moses Farrow, who the programme makers also didn't feature: http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

Nobody on the outside knows the truth behind this, but it seems fairly clear that this particular series has worked with one side and dimissed the other.

Indeed. From the bbc link:

"Journalism’s job, the truism goes, is not to hear from each side what they think the weather’s like but to stick your head out of the window and see if it’s raining. The new HBO documentary Allen v Farrow (Sky Documentaries) has a running length of four hours, which would be ample time to do so. Alas, though, the film attempts to be an investigation, we do not hear from both sides and are working with the curtains very firmly shut. It is the Farrows’ show throughout."

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

She has given home to about 9 adopted children in her lifetime.

She has spent about 20 years or more working in a Humanitarian and Charitable environment.

I would say she has given more to Society than most in Hollywood. Mad as a Box Of Frogs isn't what springs to mind when I think of what she has given in her lifetime.

And Beverley Allitt cared about people so much she became a nurse. Proves nothing.

 

[keaton]

She has given home to about 9 adopted children in her lifetime.

She has spent about 20 years or more working in a Humanitarian and Charitable environment.

I would say she has given more to Society than most in Hollywood. Mad as a Box Of Frogs isn't what springs to mind when I think of what she has given in her lifetime.

Good point. I can't think of anyone with a long history of charity work who was remotely dodgy or weird.