|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 20, 2021 17:53:26 GMT
I know! That's why it's problematic that they will show just one side. For example, The Daily Beast review has this paragraph saying that Farrow and her friends all thought Allen was a pervert for the way he behaved towards the girl so Mia confronted him and send him to a clinical psychologist. She supposedly told her there was nothing to worry because that behavior wasn't sexual at all so she let him to adopt her (actually the paragraph said she let him to adopt Moses not the girl but I understand he adopted both at the same time. Also she infamously wrote a letter in which she said he was basically the best dad ever!). Someone said on Twitter that Mia was a complicit because that and the author told her that no! She was the opposite! How is she the opposite if she let him to adopt the girl supposedly knowing he was a pervert!
My main issue with the resurfaced allegations is that they barely recognize that the psychologist who supposedly was treating him indeed always claimed that she didn't believe Allen was a pervert (I think it's the first time they admitted it although the chronology seems contradictory) but also that Mia lied because she (the psychologist) never treated him and was never informed that she thought he was a pedophile. She is a very prestigious child psychologist and she was treating the kids not him. Actually she specifically testified as the kid's therapist. She said that as part of the children's therapy she used to have talks with BOTH parents and that the theme of BOTH of them having favorites raised. She was the first person who said that Allen behavior was "grossly inappropriate", a phrase widely repeated. They just forget the next part: "but not sexual" and that she considered that Farrow was even worse with Ronan! It doesn't seem she is in the documentary but hopefully they will confront her claims because until now they mostly seems to ignore her even when the main "proof" of the supposedly pedophilic Allen's behavior seems to be "his" therapy with this woman.
So yeah, the case is much more complex and muddy that how it's presented on the media and yeah, I pathetically have spend too much time reading about this awful issue! Sorry! My excuse is that it fascinates me how once a complex theme is presented through an ideological glass people doesn't seems to care for any nuance. Anyway, I hope Dylan found peace but I'm not sure this documentary will helps her or being so definitive like the American press believes. At least not based in what I have read. I also feel sad for Allen and Soon-Yi's daughters. Whatever it happened they are the ones that are totally innocent.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Feb 22, 2021 11:44:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 22, 2021 14:12:08 GMT
I actually think that's what really bothers people: he cheating his girlfriend or ex-girlfriend with HER (not him) daughter and not necessarily the flimsy child sexual abuse allegation. I mean how it can be something more horrible than assaulting a little child but the discussion always ends with his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. The Previn is the surname of his actual father Andre Previn, by the way.
It's indeed indefensible, tho.! I agreed. A huge betray and I would understand if people "cancelled" him just for that. The thing I don't understand is the lies. It's horrible what he did but why trying to exaggerate the issue and say that she is his daughter in any way when no one never claimed that. Not even Mia Farrow who moaned that he always had 0 interest in her older kids or kids in general until he, after years of insistence by her, agreed to try to have family with her. It obviously went horribly wrong! Also remember that he never cohabited with her or even their children in common. One of the multiple contradictions is that the case seems to center now on that Allen was supposedly a creep who sexually harrassed the little girl but at the time, the defense in the custody trial centered on that he was a bad father because he just didn't like to be around kids and Farrow side moaned that he never did things like bathing Dylan! Why would they want him to bath her if he was a pervert?!
It also seems a morality issue. If he is capable of doing THAT to his girlfriend then he is capable of anything!
Anyway, I tried to watch the first episode yesterday but it was early and there was this series and they have a scene in which they were shooting a porn and for whatever reason technicians (in plural!) ended just having sex with the actress and I kind of felt sick that this "funny" scene in which a woman is treated like a joke was being followed by a "serious" documentary about sexual abuse. I will try to watch it later.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 22, 2021 14:56:43 GMT
Here are a few screencaps of the judge, who hated Allen, reprimanded him because he ignored the older siblings and didn't want to bath his own kids! Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedAttachment DeletedIt's a very complex case. Maybe he did it but there won't be justice without fairness. You can't say he was a creep to the little girl and accepting it like a fact without questioning why the psychologist who supposedly did the therapy claimed she was never his therapist and that the creep was the mother; you can't say that the older brother who claimed the mother was the abusive one and that the father was innocent is a liar who suddenly and unexpectedly changed his version because he send a letter to the judge then saying he wanted his father dead and now he says he was coached to do it and regretted it without admitting that one of the nannies seemed to "predict" that he would change of mind because she testified exactly that: this kid doubts the allegation is true and he is physically abused by the mother; you can't conclude there was a conspiracy by the two agencies that investigated the allegation and concluded it didn't happened without, at least, confront the main actors and, at most, showing some hard proofs of say conspiracy instead of just innuendo and opinions by people that were always on Mia Farrow's side. And that seems the issue with the documentary, they didnt invited anyone who could contradict the Farrow side because apparently they are all corrupted, bought or seduced by Allen and this was decided beforehand by the filmmakers! They decided not to confront the other side and because that there is not fairness, nor justice. Their documentary won't be definitive and Dylan won't have a closure.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 22, 2021 16:06:56 GMT
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist obsessed with the rich and famous nor like an Internet detective trying to solve crimes and coming to deluded conclusions so I searched for the article reporting the nanny testifying that Moses Farrow (who again was publicly defending his mother then and send a letter to the judge wishing death to his adoptive father but now says he felt pressured to do it and because that he is presented as unreliable or a liar), told her that he actually believed his mother fabricated the allegation and that she was witness of physically abuse of Mia against the boy, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-02-mn-952-story.html?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=trueI found this nanny very interesting. I understand she was older than the young rich girl daughter of a neighbor who actually was caring the kids the day of the allegedly abuse so I don't know she is still alive but if she is, she also should had bern included in a more objective documentary. She not only "predicted" Moses Farrow change of mind but, as you can see in the article, she also said the other nanny, who testified for Farrow and defended her, actually told her she never lost sight of the girl. Well, this woman later wrote a book about the case, which was made in a bad reviewed TV movie with she playing herself! (I wonder if it will be mentioned in the documentary). I haven't read it nor watched the movie. I haven't fall so low! But people are actually posting pages of the book on Twitter right now and she apparently confirmed the other nanny story! She says she lied to the old lady because she didn't want to contradict her but even if she was saying the truth...that she lied(!)...the old lady wasn't just an Allen's pawn who was bought by him as was suggested then, she really believes Farrow was lying.
In other pages posted on that and other Twitter accounts, she seemed to confirm some of Allen's saying that I never taken very seriously because seemed kind of one-sided and straightforwardly painted Farrow as an hysterical woman: she posting a note accusing him of wanting to sexually abuse Dylan one month before the incident and she arriving to the dress test as nothing happened for his new movie after formally accusing him of abusing the girl (the nanny, who again was on her side, said she did it because she REALLY needed his money so apparently want to continue their working relationship. It's crazy but ok, it's still hypocritical because remember all this is not being judged in a court of law but on TV and the declared objective is that people on Hollywood stop working with him and anyone who dares to do it, is accused of being an enabler but the mother not just defended Roman Polanski saying he should be pardoned because he was an artist but apparently, wanted to continue working with the abuser of her child). I won't dare to say that Allen is innocent but the Farrows are also very weird, hypocritical and just lie too much. Such a sad case with a lot of mirrors. IMHO the most worrying part of this is how easy it's for the modern press to take one side and run with it. I read about the filmmakers and their other very acclaimed movie was very questioned nor just about false statistics or minor detail but big lies and one of their crew members was even catched editing major things on Wikipedia pages to fit the documentary but movie critic and a lot of press still saying the film is the big thing and apparently influenced Washington to change some policies. I wonder what would had happen if the infamous Rolling Stone article about sexual abuse in campuses would had been published 5 years later! I don't understand how all this could really help victims of sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 22, 2021 22:00:02 GMT
I think the problem with this type of documentary (and which, for me, undermines it) is it is coming from a specific point of view which is not objective. The Farrow/Allen situation is so weird that the only way there is any remote possibility for the truth to be known for sure is if the whole thing was independently and objectively re-investigated. But that would be as difficult as it is unlikely to happen.
All I know is that in Allen and Farrow you have two very odd people with all sorts of underlying baggage and resentments. You can easily make a case to support either side. But there is no evidence which delivers an unequivocal answer as which party is telling the truth.
So I remain on the fence.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 24, 2021 2:16:52 GMT
I just finished the first episode and what can I say? Everyone seemed sincere to me but at the same time I couldn't ignore the criticism I already read and the obvious contradictions and gaps.
Believe it or not a lot of the documentary is about how Woody Allen was such a cool, attentive and great father! Until he was not... Dylan just loved him but at certain point he become creepy and everyone noticed it but they didn't seem to do too much to stop him. The most damaging anecdote is the one about him putting sun protection cream to the girl in a suggestive way in front of apparently all the Farrows (the anecdote was originally told by Maureen O'Sullivan for Vanity Fair in 1993 and now is told by Mia's sister. They don't tell the WTF example of him helping the girl to blowing out the candles on her birthday cake. I mean maybe he did it in an extremely creepy way, I wasn't there!, but it always intrigued me why they told that anecdote as an example of possible sexual harrassment of a father towards his child!).
Mia Farrow apparently only reacted after a famous psychiatrist Ethel Person, who happened to be a neighbor, told her she saw some behavior she thought it wasn't normal. I googled her and well, she is dead so possible not confirmation there! She said she confronted him and finally convinced him to go with a therapist who claimed everything was normal so yeah, Farrow let him to adopt her two kids. The therapist isn't named but from the trial and 90s press we know it's a child psychologist called Dr. Susan Coates who denied during the trial to be Allen's therapist and said she wasn't informed by anyone of any sexual disturbing behavior by him. After all, she was just a child psychologist, and claimed she was hired to treat that, the children! And that well, Mia Farrow was even less fit and creepier parent than the clearly flawed Allen! So a huge contradiction not mentioned there! Again maybe the woman was wrong or corrupted but it would be more convincing if they confronted her instead of just ignored her.
Other apparently contradictions: Mia Farrow straightforwardly admits that Allen showed 0 interest on kids and she had to pressure him to accept to have kids together but then later she suspects he is a pedophile; she saying he creepily told her he would like it if she adopted a blonde girl(instead the Asian ones?) but then the documentary shows images of a very bald Dylan as a baby.
Also, I just don't trust on Ronan. He just remembers too much! Maybe it was the translation because frustratedly I have HBO as an Amazon channel and for whatever reason I can't watch the channel on live in its original language. I normally watch just the series and movies on their library but this documentary isn't available there yet. Anyway, he claims (in the Spanish version) that he remembers Allen as a great father (he only had eyes for Dylan and ignored everyone else but he apparently also spend good time with Ronan!) who showed him a lot of horror movies (EDITED I'm almost sure I got this wrong because no way he said that! Probably they translated it wrong or I have some ear problems! I will try to catch it again and will correct it) he still loves! It's not mentioned that the scandal broke when he was just a 4 years old so apparently he watched horror movies with him when he was 3 or 2! In those very first 4 years of his life, he also remembers how his older sister went from a happy extrovert child to an introvert.
And well, Allen has denied he used to let the girl to suck his thumb as it's widely mentioned here (maybe he is lying or not but they just don't mention his version so...) and Mia Farrow has told the anecdote of Allen playing with the girl on bed with him just in his underwear before but on the trial and under oath, she said he always was full dressed so that seems also another contradiction.
EDITED I watched the bit about the horror movies again and indeed Ronan Farrow says that he enjoyed to watch horror and scifi movies with his father (at least in the Spanish version)... when he was a toddler. His age at the time is not mentioned, of course (he was 4 when the scandal happened and if he is referring to the aftermath of the custody trial in which Allen had access to just him, he also should had been very young, 5 or 6, at most 7, I guess because I understand those monitored visits didnt last too long). I guess it could be true but it's very odd.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 24, 2021 2:32:27 GMT
I remember another discrepancy! Mia Farrow says that when she confronted Soon-Yi after discovering the photos both cried and she told her it wasn't her fault. Actually during the trial she admitted she was so angry that she hit her so the physical abuse was totally whitewashed there!
EDITED She actually admits that she beat her in the second episode. She says that she regrets it.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 24, 2021 13:53:43 GMT
This review is very good, amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/618116/It couldn't be a closure or being definitive because it completely ignores the other side and hides contradictions and refutations of the Farrows version. But also, it's worrying that mostly American press (I have seen a lot of negative reviews in Spanish, in comparison) doesn't question so obvious bias from the documentalist.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Mar 3, 2021 16:42:18 GMT
This! It's impossible to know the truth but having watched the first two episodes, it's perplexing why something so manipulative that hides so much information could be taken so seriously by American press. Even a few not Americans, there was this disturbing tweet by a Mexican critic saying he preferred to be on the side of a liar than on the side of a possible pedophile. And it sounds logic until you think how much damage a lie like that could do to a person. And again, I'm not saying that Allen is innocent. I don't know! But if you would blindly accept all the half-truths and contradictions presented as facts in this documentary just because you fear people would think you are on the "wrong side of history" then you aren't the moral person you think you are.
|
|