Allen v. Farrow

I grew up with Woody Allen's humor which I appreciate much more than his films, not all of which are comedies. His stand-up stuff and the goofy books he wrote ("Without Feathers" and "Side Effects") along with the Marx Bothers shaped my sense of humor. Allen was a complete original and a comic genius.

I thought he was creepy ever since I saw "Manhattan" when it premiered in 1979 and his character is dating a 17-year-old girl when he's in his mid-40s. Sorry, there is no scenario when that isn't just creepy, not even in a movie-especially not in a movie. File that movie under "Ew." He made an actual movie about having sex with a child. What more evidence does anyone need?

If you needed further evidence to his creepiness, he married his step-daughter, or whatever she was. Dude, if you don't want to sully your reputations, stay away from children.

Then we learn in this documentary that Allen's favorite foreplay is watching his partner play with Lego®.

Rim shot, polite clapping, and I take a bow.

Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen. I'm here six nights a week with a matinee on Saturdays.

It seems as if many of the 1 star reviews were made before the show even aired (?) or after only 1 episode. Episode 3 aired last night and delved into the facts of the case and the investigation ...and it is very damming for Woody Allen and shows how the things that were done in 1992, likely would not have happened if it occured in 2020. It also refutes numerous problems with the findings, as well as showing how only 2-9% of victims "make up" a story...meaning about a 91-98% chance that something happened. I believe Woody Allen has already been cancelled essentially by most of Hollywood, but many people do not know this story and he is apparently still using his power and influence to buy 1 star reviews. Trying to silence the opposition - which is exactly what this documentary is about. It is similar to the unsettling feeling of the Micheal Jackson documentary which also had people trying to rail against it. It is absolutely worth seeing, is well done, and is thought provoking in how the events of that time are seen much differently from the lens of 2020. (Not in 1992 in which Woody Allen controlled the narrative, and seemingly everything about the case.)

I have watched every single bit of stuff that is around, I've read Woddy's book, I've watched this documentary, and watched many videos on YT.

There are several things that I disliked a lot in this documentary: Hiding very important details of pro-Allen people and stuff that happened, and is proven (like the letter she sent to Woody with nails on it and such weird stuff). Makes this documentary absolutely untrustworthy... it it wasn't before watching it.

Also, add to it the "movie like" sad moments, playing with the viewer feelings, make it look like a very subjective and very "sentimental" and not a serious documentary.

Adding some images that we have never seen and the taped conversations is really interesting. I didn't like that all of them are edited or cut right before an answer was heard or a part of it was needed! So when listening to the excerpts seems like the audio has been edited heavily and hidden important details.

I would suggest the viewers to now watch some other stuff not made by Allen or the Farrows. Now watch a documentary on YT made by somebody who spend a lot of time researching too, called "By the way, Woody Allen is inocent" for a deep dive on all the details and reasoning of both sides, independently of your opinion, forget the title. It comments the stuff seen in this documentary as well as Allen's book and much more.

It is way more objetive than any other thing, I think.

Anyway, I'm not convinced at all, nor by this or Woddy's version, but this one feels bad, really bad, really biased.

I still watch W. A. movies and enjoy them as a work of art the same way we can enjoy a painting by Picasso without knowing stuff he did in his private life, I can have an opinion, but that's all I can do. On the other side, I feel like Dylan, whatever is the real version, is really broken, so it's too late for her to really know if that was really what happened or not, things stick forever and they will.

I've only seen Part 1 of this 3 part series but I kept having flashbacks to Leaving Neverland . And how similar Dylan Farrow's testimony is to the allegation made by Michael Jackson's victims. Both Jackson and Allen have a fanbase that would chose not to believe and accuse the victim. . Both men used the same grooming tactics. The tactics of isolating Dylan from other family member including her mother. . Jackson employed the same methods. Showering extreme affection on one child.. Both Allen and Jackson had private designated areas to take their victims for intimate "alone " time'. And the parents were somewhat aware or made aware of going ons but chose to be complacent. Now many will deny and make excuses for these two men because they were great entertainers . But a rapist doesn't' assault every woman. Dog abusers don't abuse every dog they own. And just because someone give millions to charity and claims to adore all children does not mean he didn't sexually abuse some.

I see many are saying this documentary is biased and presents only one side. Allen said his "truth" out loud back in the 90's when he attacked with all weapons, based on his money, connections and popularity. Nobody heard Farrow back then. So it is Farrow's turn to tell her story. I'm pleased she talked, so women become aware how dangerous narcissistic men can be.