15 reviews
Can one-sided propaganda movies be called 'documentaries'?
Can a propaganda movie be called a 'documentary' if it purposefully excludes highly relevant information and spokepersons, and includes lots of innuendo, plus statements sold to its audience for facts or even 'evidence', and talking heads presented as 'witnesses'?
'Allen v Farrow' should not be listed as a documentary.
It is a propaganda movie, presenting and trying to convince us of Mia's three decades old allegation - one for which she has always shunned our legal system, and has only offered to the media since the day in August 1992 when her videotape was 'leaked' on the desk of a young reporter working for a NY Fox news channel.
That would be Rosanna Scotto, who can be seen & heard in 'Allen v Farrow'. The one young, hardly known reporter about whom Dylan's nanny, Kristi Groteke (not in 'Allen v Farrow'...) wrote in her tell-all book that she was happy to meet Rosanna, and that Rosanna was a visitor to Mia's big party when she celebrated the outcome of the custody trial.
This was the videotape that we only get to see three selected minutes from in Allen v Farrow', while we know from from court reports that the tape ran for 15 minutes, while the 'Allen v Farrow' makers maintain they only saw 11 minutes. There's something smelly here. Herdy, who did the research, never accounted for the missing 4 minutes, nor for her selection of 3 out of 11 minutes.
It is the same videotape about which Mia's own hired expert, Dr Steven Herman, testified that it was undermining Mia's allegation, since she seemed to have coached Dylan while making it, likely putting words in Dylan's mouth.
The same videotape that was investigated in full by.a child abuse expert working for the Manhattan sex crimes unit. He concluded that the child had been asked leading questions, urging her to tell what Mia wanted her to tell. He did not find the tape convincing of the abusive event to have happened, and worried that Mia's obvious 'coaching' made it more difficult for subsequent investigators to find the truth.
The makers of 'Allen v Farrow' presented the video material als new and shockingly convincing, while it was old and the opposite of shockingly convincing. Mia's expert Steven Herman was interviewed for it, but the makers 'forgot' to ask him about his negative opinion about the videotape.
This is just one of the many problems that undermine this propaganda movie's credibility.
'Allen v Farrow' has been presented as the 'definitive nail in the coffin' of Woody Allen. As such, it aims at replacing the verdict given by our legal system. Allen has been fully exonerated from the allegation after two independent legal investigations into the alleged abuse. Both investigations, done by experts in child sexual abuse, concluded in no uncertain terms that the abuse did not happen. 'Allen v Farrow' just wants us to forget that while bypassing due process.
This is a commercial tv production that aims at having a person convicted in a trial-by-media, using manipulation and deception. It wants us to give up values such as equal hearing, the innocence presumption, and due process. It feeds on the MeToo movement and is fueled by 'cancel culture'. It seeks to make money over the public smear of a person by presenting salacious allegations as the outcome of their own 'research - that has never seen any critical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny.
I have no hesitation awarding this, ahem, 'documentary' with the least number of 'stars' possible.
By the way, there is a big difference in rating between men and women. A full two points difference is extreme. Besides, half of the votes are cast by people who either award this propaganda movie with a '10' or a '1'. I guess these ratings have little to do with the 'quality' of the movie, and much more with the different political positions of its raters.
Can a propaganda movie be called a 'documentary' if it purposefully excludes highly relevant information and spokepersons, and includes lots of innuendo, plus statements sold to its audience for facts or even 'evidence', and talking heads presented as 'witnesses'?
'Allen v Farrow' should not be listed as a documentary.
It is a propaganda movie, presenting and trying to convince us of Mia's three decades old allegation - one for which she has always shunned our legal system, and has only offered to the media since the day in August 1992 when her videotape was 'leaked' on the desk of a young reporter working for a NY Fox news channel.
That would be Rosanna Scotto, who can be seen & heard in 'Allen v Farrow'. The one young, hardly known reporter about whom Dylan's nanny, Kristi Groteke (not in 'Allen v Farrow'...) wrote in her tell-all book that she was happy to meet Rosanna, and that Rosanna was a visitor to Mia's big party when she celebrated the outcome of the custody trial.
This was the videotape that we only get to see three selected minutes from in Allen v Farrow', while we know from from court reports that the tape ran for 15 minutes, while the 'Allen v Farrow' makers maintain they only saw 11 minutes. There's something smelly here. Herdy, who did the research, never accounted for the missing 4 minutes, nor for her selection of 3 out of 11 minutes.
It is the same videotape about which Mia's own hired expert, Dr Steven Herman, testified that it was undermining Mia's allegation, since she seemed to have coached Dylan while making it, likely putting words in Dylan's mouth.
The same videotape that was investigated in full by.a child abuse expert working for the Manhattan sex crimes unit. He concluded that the child had been asked leading questions, urging her to tell what Mia wanted her to tell. He did not find the tape convincing of the abusive event to have happened, and worried that Mia's obvious 'coaching' made it more difficult for subsequent investigators to find the truth.
The makers of 'Allen v Farrow' presented the video material als new and shockingly convincing, while it was old and the opposite of shockingly convincing. Mia's expert Steven Herman was interviewed for it, but the makers 'forgot' to ask him about his negative opinion about the videotape.
This is just one of the many problems that undermine this propaganda movie's credibility.
'Allen v Farrow' has been presented as the 'definitive nail in the coffin' of Woody Allen. As such, it aims at replacing the verdict given by our legal system. Allen has been fully exonerated from the allegation after two independent legal investigations into the alleged abuse. Both investigations, done by experts in child sexual abuse, concluded in no uncertain terms that the abuse did not happen. 'Allen v Farrow' just wants us to forget that while bypassing due process.
This is a commercial tv production that aims at having a person convicted in a trial-by-media, using manipulation and deception. It wants us to give up values such as equal hearing, the innocence presumption, and due process. It feeds on the MeToo movement and is fueled by 'cancel culture'. It seeks to make money over the public smear of a person by presenting salacious allegations as the outcome of their own 'research - that has never seen any critical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny.
I have no hesitation awarding this, ahem, 'documentary' with the least number of 'stars' possible.
By the way, there is a big difference in rating between men and women. A full two points difference is extreme. Besides, half of the votes are cast by people who either award this propaganda movie with a '10' or a '1'. I guess these ratings have little to do with the 'quality' of the movie, and much more with the different political positions of its raters.
Because a vote of 1 means 'awful' in IMDb terms, and because I find this movie actually 'awful', I cannot but give it a vote of 1.
Which is a shame, really, because if this movie had been purely fictional, it would have been a decent film with an interesting, albeit somewhat weird plot, and a screenplay that left something to desire. I might have given it a '5' then.
But the fact is that the makers of, and contributors to this movie knew full well, as does their audience, that the premise of this movie is decidedly NOT fictional, but envisions to portray 'real life events'. Here starts the 'awful' feeling for me.
At the end of the day, there is not a shred of proof that the events as displayed in this movie actually happened. And the makers know that. It is not just a case of 'personal opinion', like it is not a case of 'personal opinion' whether Kennedy was murdered, or that Harvey Weinstein attempted to take advantage of young actresses.
By portraying Alfred Hitchcock in this sensationalist light, and making bucks out of it, the makers deliberately hurt the memory of a man who is not around to protest anymore. The makers should have asked themselves: would we dare to make this movie, in this way, had the man been still alive? Would the evidence weigh up to the doubt and the protest? And they would have concluded that it wouldn't. The fact that they dared make this movie now Hitch is dead, shows a cowardly attitude behind it.
Why then, you ask me, is it unlikely that the events portrayed in the movie ever happened? For starters: because the many, many people who were around at the time vehemently deny any misbehavior ever happened, and just as vehemently assert that these events were *very* unlikely to happen with the Hitchcock they knew. The other actors, the other set personnel, the people close to Hitch, Mrs. Hedren's assistants, no one ever came to the fore with anything substantial that corroborates Hedren's story; instead they deny it, or at least deem it unlikely it happened without them noticing it.
Second, Hedren kept her mouth shut for many decades. That would be somewhat credible if during that time, she hadn't given such praise and devoted such warm words to her experience with Hitchcock in the mean time - which she did. It was only at the end of her career, which was not particularly successful, and only after Hitchcock was dead & gone, and only after Donald Spoto interviewed her for his Hichcock biography, that she told this narrative of an 'abusive' Hitchcock. As if she needed a reason why her career post-Hitchcock never took off - a reason outside of herself.
Thirdly, because there is ample material evidence that refute important elements in Hedren's narrative. There is a trainload of contemporary documentation (business correspondence, personal letters, media publications) that prove Hedren's memory wrong. You can get a good taste of that on the website SaveHitchcock.com, which attempts to provide objective information about the actual events. Here is a good place to start: a rebuttal to Hedren's recently published Memoirs: https://savehitchcock.com/2016/10/19/tippi-a-memoir/
In sum, this movie is a cowardly attempt to discredit and vilify a great director and a great personality, who is vulnerable because he cannot defend himself from accusations of sexual predatorism, which are based on hearsay from exactly one source.
I don't find it troubling that a single disappointed actor (Hedren) at a certain point in her life chose to follow this path; she is the only one to know her reasons for it, and whether they are honest or not. Yet I do find it disappointing that a large group of professionals in the movie industry chose to make money from trampling on someone's corpse by making this very one-sided movie. And most of all I find it troubling that the American audience seems to love it, falls for this manipulation of history, and appears to embrace this sensationalist story with a vengeance.
I am glad that Hitch is not around anymore to live through this totally undeserved character assassination.
Which is a shame, really, because if this movie had been purely fictional, it would have been a decent film with an interesting, albeit somewhat weird plot, and a screenplay that left something to desire. I might have given it a '5' then.
But the fact is that the makers of, and contributors to this movie knew full well, as does their audience, that the premise of this movie is decidedly NOT fictional, but envisions to portray 'real life events'. Here starts the 'awful' feeling for me.
At the end of the day, there is not a shred of proof that the events as displayed in this movie actually happened. And the makers know that. It is not just a case of 'personal opinion', like it is not a case of 'personal opinion' whether Kennedy was murdered, or that Harvey Weinstein attempted to take advantage of young actresses.
By portraying Alfred Hitchcock in this sensationalist light, and making bucks out of it, the makers deliberately hurt the memory of a man who is not around to protest anymore. The makers should have asked themselves: would we dare to make this movie, in this way, had the man been still alive? Would the evidence weigh up to the doubt and the protest? And they would have concluded that it wouldn't. The fact that they dared make this movie now Hitch is dead, shows a cowardly attitude behind it.
Why then, you ask me, is it unlikely that the events portrayed in the movie ever happened? For starters: because the many, many people who were around at the time vehemently deny any misbehavior ever happened, and just as vehemently assert that these events were *very* unlikely to happen with the Hitchcock they knew. The other actors, the other set personnel, the people close to Hitch, Mrs. Hedren's assistants, no one ever came to the fore with anything substantial that corroborates Hedren's story; instead they deny it, or at least deem it unlikely it happened without them noticing it.
Second, Hedren kept her mouth shut for many decades. That would be somewhat credible if during that time, she hadn't given such praise and devoted such warm words to her experience with Hitchcock in the mean time - which she did. It was only at the end of her career, which was not particularly successful, and only after Hitchcock was dead & gone, and only after Donald Spoto interviewed her for his Hichcock biography, that she told this narrative of an 'abusive' Hitchcock. As if she needed a reason why her career post-Hitchcock never took off - a reason outside of herself.
Thirdly, because there is ample material evidence that refute important elements in Hedren's narrative. There is a trainload of contemporary documentation (business correspondence, personal letters, media publications) that prove Hedren's memory wrong. You can get a good taste of that on the website SaveHitchcock.com, which attempts to provide objective information about the actual events. Here is a good place to start: a rebuttal to Hedren's recently published Memoirs: https://savehitchcock.com/2016/10/19/tippi-a-memoir/
In sum, this movie is a cowardly attempt to discredit and vilify a great director and a great personality, who is vulnerable because he cannot defend himself from accusations of sexual predatorism, which are based on hearsay from exactly one source.
I don't find it troubling that a single disappointed actor (Hedren) at a certain point in her life chose to follow this path; she is the only one to know her reasons for it, and whether they are honest or not. Yet I do find it disappointing that a large group of professionals in the movie industry chose to make money from trampling on someone's corpse by making this very one-sided movie. And most of all I find it troubling that the American audience seems to love it, falls for this manipulation of history, and appears to embrace this sensationalist story with a vengeance.
I am glad that Hitch is not around anymore to live through this totally undeserved character assassination.
This concert DVD (from a Dutch performance in 2001) has it all: a fine performance, a great atmosphere, an almost exemplary recording of both sound and image, and an interesting set list. This is certainly more than enough to please Yes fans. And because of the large variety of songs, styles and performances, I guess that listeners who are not accustomed with Yes music yet (but with good ears) will find find more than enough to understand why Yes has reached, and is still on top of the symphonic rock bill after almost forty (!) years. The symphonic orchestra adds some really nice touches, enhance yet never take over the music, just as it should be. The only drawback for me is a lack of 'bite' in some of the more raw numbers. I still prefer the studio version of 'Gates', for instance. Anderson presents most of the songs in an endurable 'in jest' way. This makes it harder for me to take him, and even the music, seriously. Yes music is not 'in jest'. It is MUSIC, pure and simple, in all its excitement, magnificence, joy, aggression, and virtuosity. Enjoy!
In spite of all the negative reviews and the low rating, I have immensely enjoyed this new version of 'The Avengers'. No, it does not replace Patrick MacNee nor Diana Rigg. But it's not supposed to, so that does not count. Yet what positively surprised me is that the film does have the flavour of the original Avengers, that it is full of understatements, and that the acting is in the - difficult - vein of what I'd call 'grotesque underacting'. Uma Thurman delivers a worthy Emma Peel with more than enough man appeal to keep me starry-eyed to the screen for 90 minutes. Mr. Fiennes combines distinction, humour and resolution in a way that is worthy of Mr. John Steed. The plot is original, yet partly predictable - but aren't all of the original 'Avengers' episodes predictable by modern audiences? Isn't a Mozart symphony predictable? Add to this the cinematography that is just delicious, and you have a real audience treat, even for those who consider themselves long-time Avengers fans like me.
Dear reader, you are going to compare film and book many times during your lifetime. Please remember that this is a perilous enterprise. You cannot *directly* compare a book and a film. They are different genres. Different. Not the same. Dissimilar. With each its own value and its own possibilities. It is a bit ridiculous to suggest that a film should relive the qualities of the book. Or that a book could ever represent cinematic qualities. Please grant each of the genres itw own essence. Thou shalt NOT directly compare. This said, we should conclude that it is no use comparing 'The Count of Monte Christo: The Movie' with the Dumas book. The film has its own graphic respresentation - a very nice and certainly acceptable one if you ask me - its own storyline, 95% comparable to the storyline in the book, and its own tempo and development. Those are filmic qualities, not literary. Please judge, no enjoy, this film for what it is. A film. not a book. If you don't, you will miss a great opportunity yourself, and you will disinform other people about this film. Guy Pearce delivers a fine performance, as well as Jim Caviezel and the late Richard Harris (I wrote this last sentence just to make this review acceptable to the IMBD editors). I bought this film for less than 6 dollars (4 euro 95) in a local (Amsterdam) supermarket, but would have paid triple as much after having seen it.
My wife was surprised that I sat out this whole miniseries with her. In fact, that was not hard at all. I loved the story, the performances, the wit and detail, the intelligence behind the dialogues and the storyline. Even though I could see the 'happy ending' looming large over the second half of the story, there remains a LOT to enjoy. The performances are so good (maybe with the exception of the two young brothers) that I can hardly believe the actors in fact have other characters than those they enacted on screen. 'Sense and sensibility' may be another fine Victorian adaptation, but I take this 'Wives and daughters' over it any time. Wholeheartedly recommended to anyone whose heart is not made of stone or cast iron.
Dishonest account (yes, I know, a harsh opinion, but I cannot write anything else) of Jewish life in one of Polands villages before, during, and after the Second World War. I call it dishonest because Marzynski is evidently 'partial' in his attempt to paint Polish people in the most antipathetic of ways.
View this 'documentary' (which does not deserve this honorary title) if you want to be easily moved by extreme emotions, and if you don't care for historical truths and nuanced viewpoints. If, however, you believe things are not as simple as they seem at first glance, if you are interested in the complexity of reality, and in a fair outlook on human life under extreme circumstances, this movie 'Shtetl' is not for you.
View this 'documentary' (which does not deserve this honorary title) if you want to be easily moved by extreme emotions, and if you don't care for historical truths and nuanced viewpoints. If, however, you believe things are not as simple as they seem at first glance, if you are interested in the complexity of reality, and in a fair outlook on human life under extreme circumstances, this movie 'Shtetl' is not for you.
A good script, fine acting (though a bit stiff, as usual in Dutch films), humor and vision admirably well integrated. A film that deserves more attention than it got when it premiered (but that is also usual for Dutch films).
A movie I just couldn't forget. It must have been months, maybe even a year since I have seen it, but tonight it popped up in my memory again. Puzzling as the film left me, I specially logged in on IMDB to see what others had to say about it. That should be recommendation enough for anyone who is looking for a fine-acted, impressive story. The Michael Douglas you didn't know yet, but will remember for ever.
I saw this film sixteen years ago, at a time when I did not see many 'filmhouse' movies yet. It made a strong impression on me, I wasn't used to so many 'open spaces' in films, which spectators have to fill according to their own ideas. Later I understood that once you start filling these 'holes' with pieces of yourself, the film becomes much more personal.
From time to time I think back to this film, like I did just now when I looked it up in the IMDB. Its storytelling, or rather story-hinting, is apparently so strong that even after sixteen years I am looking for some answers to the questions that the film raises.
In short: go see it.
From time to time I think back to this film, like I did just now when I looked it up in the IMDB. Its storytelling, or rather story-hinting, is apparently so strong that even after sixteen years I am looking for some answers to the questions that the film raises.
In short: go see it.
I have just come home from seeing this film in Amsterdam, which was the West-European premiere (12 dec. '99). I did not read anything about this film, or comments that other spectators made. So this is a direct-from-the-heart comment on the 'naked' movie.
I am truly sorry to say - and this will probably hurt many Polish spectators - that I think that as a film, 'Pan Tadeusz' has some important failures. Not being Polish, I do not have an automatic sympathy for Polish films in general, or for films about Polish history or about Polish literary works. I believe that for non-Polish audiences - or even for Polish non-literary-educated audiences - the film is hard to digest - if digestible at all. Besides, even my Polish friends were quite disappointed, and I think I understand why.
The first hour of the film is particularly hard to follow. Lots of names, situations, storylines without any explanation; a language that is archaic if not swollen, and characters that are neither introduced nor stay on the screen long enough to become interesting (with the obvious exception of Gervazy, although the man does not need to scream so much all the time if you ask me).
During the second hour I got some clue about what was going on, particularly when it came to the fighting scenes (no, I am not fond of fighting scenes, but at least I know what they are about) and with the help of my Polish company who gave some explanations. It is never a good sign if you need other people's explanations to understand a film.
The ending of the film got me back to the more chaotic circumstances of the beginning, but it included a rather forced attempt to solve the 'plot' and then again left us with an open ending which did not interest me.
In all, I think that in the transition from the poem 'Pan Tadeusz' to the film 'Pan Tadeusz', Wajda lost the strong points of the 'poem' genre, and failed to include the strong points of the 'film' genre. A 2,5 hour film focuses the spectator more on the storyline than a 20 hour book. The storyline of 'Pan Tadeusz', however, is for non-Polish audiences too thin and too mysterious to comprehend or value.
Fortunately there is one aspect that was enjoyable: the gorgeous cinematography, the great landscapes, the fine camera movements, and the nice colours. Here I could see and recognize what a great cinematographer Wajda is (I never doubted that). I just think that there were some unfortunate premisses at play in the idea of translating the literary work 'Pan Tadeusz' into a movie. At least, it did not work for me.
I am truly sorry to say - and this will probably hurt many Polish spectators - that I think that as a film, 'Pan Tadeusz' has some important failures. Not being Polish, I do not have an automatic sympathy for Polish films in general, or for films about Polish history or about Polish literary works. I believe that for non-Polish audiences - or even for Polish non-literary-educated audiences - the film is hard to digest - if digestible at all. Besides, even my Polish friends were quite disappointed, and I think I understand why.
The first hour of the film is particularly hard to follow. Lots of names, situations, storylines without any explanation; a language that is archaic if not swollen, and characters that are neither introduced nor stay on the screen long enough to become interesting (with the obvious exception of Gervazy, although the man does not need to scream so much all the time if you ask me).
During the second hour I got some clue about what was going on, particularly when it came to the fighting scenes (no, I am not fond of fighting scenes, but at least I know what they are about) and with the help of my Polish company who gave some explanations. It is never a good sign if you need other people's explanations to understand a film.
The ending of the film got me back to the more chaotic circumstances of the beginning, but it included a rather forced attempt to solve the 'plot' and then again left us with an open ending which did not interest me.
In all, I think that in the transition from the poem 'Pan Tadeusz' to the film 'Pan Tadeusz', Wajda lost the strong points of the 'poem' genre, and failed to include the strong points of the 'film' genre. A 2,5 hour film focuses the spectator more on the storyline than a 20 hour book. The storyline of 'Pan Tadeusz', however, is for non-Polish audiences too thin and too mysterious to comprehend or value.
Fortunately there is one aspect that was enjoyable: the gorgeous cinematography, the great landscapes, the fine camera movements, and the nice colours. Here I could see and recognize what a great cinematographer Wajda is (I never doubted that). I just think that there were some unfortunate premisses at play in the idea of translating the literary work 'Pan Tadeusz' into a movie. At least, it did not work for me.
Kitsch of the worst kind. They don't make 'em like this anymore.
Bad acting by virtually the whole cast. Typically your now-i-am-gonna- play-someone-angry-just-watch-me kind of acting.
Highly predictable. If you cannot predict the movie's end, you are either dead or have fallen asleep.
Beauty of the lead actress is corrupted by her overacting. Overacting is not sexy but repulsive. An overacting woman is usually on the verge of depression and marriage dissolution.
Cannot be saved by William - Marathon Man - Devane's method acting too. The man can act so why doesn't he?
Bad acting by virtually the whole cast. Typically your now-i-am-gonna- play-someone-angry-just-watch-me kind of acting.
Highly predictable. If you cannot predict the movie's end, you are either dead or have fallen asleep.
Beauty of the lead actress is corrupted by her overacting. Overacting is not sexy but repulsive. An overacting woman is usually on the verge of depression and marriage dissolution.
Cannot be saved by William - Marathon Man - Devane's method acting too. The man can act so why doesn't he?