Allen v Farrow

I was watched this very disturbing behavior

It’s a good documentary. There’s lots of home footage where you can see how intense he is with Dylan and how infatuated he was with her when she was a child. He is an absolute creep

It's a very poor, one-sided, lazy, propaganda 'documentary' posing as investigative journalism.

For starters, it doesn't involve Woody, Soon Yi or Moses, the latter who is adamant that his mother Mia is a raging nut.

Secondly, the documentary uses National Enquirer-esque gutter reporting, rehashing old interviews, and ignoring that two separate state investigations found that Woody Allen was innocent of all accusations.

The documentary also manipulated interviews to suit their case, as Samantha Jane Geimer revealed on Twitter and she is now suing the makers for doing so.

No mention either of the fact that the Farrows are a supremely damaged family, full of incest, sex crimes and suicides. A quick google search will show you how dark they are.


Shockingly made documentary that highlights the power of narrative in an age where people will swallow pretty much anything if they see or hear it.

Have a read of this if you truly want educating on the matter: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

In addition, Si Yoo was never WA's daughter in law. It's another narrative pushed that's fake. She never lived with him, barely spoke until she was of age and a very important detail is this, the fact that they are still together to this day speaks volumes.

Hamlet. wrote: »

It's a very poor, one-sided, lazy, propaganda 'documentary' posing as investigative journalism.

For starters, it doesn't involve Woody, Soon Yi or Moses, the latter who is adamant that his mother Mia is a raging nut.

Secondly, the documentary uses National Enquirer-esque gutter reporting, rehashing old interviews, and ignoring that two separate state investigations found that Woody Allen was innocent of all accusations.

The documentary also manipulated interviews to suit their case, as Samantha Jane Geimer revealed on Twitter and she is now suing the makers for doing so.

No mention either of the fact that the Farrows are a supremely damaged family, full of incest, sex crimes and suicides. A quick google search will show you how dark they are.


Shockingly made documentary that highlights the power of narrative in an age where people will swallow pretty much anything if they see or hear it.

Have a read of this if you truly want educating on the matter: https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-truth-about-woody-allen-part-i/

In addition, Si Yoo was never WA's daughter in law. It's another narrative pushed that's fake. She never lived with him, barely spoke until she was of age and a very important detail is this, the fact that they are still together to this day speaks volumes.

He was receiving therapy for an inappropriately intense fixation of Dylan. She is also on camera as a child detailing where he touched her. Pretty bizarre how you can dismiss those things.

Hamlet. wrote: »

Ever heard of coaching?

Feel free to dispute the other points that clearly show the documentary is a nonsense while you're at it.

Bit weird you'd take the word of a deranged woman and a shockingly one-sided documentary full of holes over 2 separate state investigations by the way.

I’m taking the word of a child who confessed on camera that she was sexually abused by Woody, the man who had to enter therapy for an intense fixation on her when she was little more than a baby, the man who cheated on Mia with the daughter she raised since a child, who had a string of movies where he played a man who openly groomed young women.
Dylan has never strayed from her allegations and the fact you think she was “coached” over the very obvious fact that he is a creepy old paedo says more about you.

I haven't seen the documentary, but I hear it's very one sided. And isn't it from the makers of that college campus documentary a few years back that had credibility problems as well? I think people involved were editing wikipedia to support their claims. And I hear with this they basically make no effort to show why the claims against him may not be true. So if the TV is the court of public opinion, it's only the prosecution side we're being show. Whereas if they'd shown why the claims may not be true people would be in a better position to condemn him in their own minds or not.

However, I have never been able to watch Woody Allen films without thinking of his relationship with his ex partners adopted daughter. It's not necessarily technically illegal, but it just screams all kinds of wrong. His films are fantastic. But it's always in my mind that he married his ex partner's adopted daughter.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is Woody Allen the one that got away, the slippery Eel who wiggled free from the MEtoo net.??

He is, among a few others who are considered too valuable to the industry.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Did anyone watch Allen v Farrow on sky documentaries ?
Pretty damming stuff.

I started watching it, got about 20 minutes in before I decided it was rehashing the same old shìte that had been played out in the media as Allen v. Farrow 20 years ago. Celebrities occupy a different stratosphere to ordinary people in society, they’re akin to Royalty, which is one of the reasons why Prince Andrew has never had to break a sweat either.

fryup wrote: »

i finished it the other night, and to honest with you i don't know what to make of it...i just don't know who to believe? at the end of the day it one person's word against another - a child and a adult man

there's definitely something off about the whole family, it wasn't your conventional family household, looking at the camcorder footage it seemed a very much bohemian/hippy upbringing

it all boils down to what happened that day in the attic room? was Allen just resting his head on Dylan's lap showing affection or was there something more sinister in it?

btw - One thing i'd like to know did Allen start his relationship with Soon Yi before or after the assault allegations surfaced??

Before. It's when she found out that a scorned Mia fabricated the story to try and ruin his life, per the result of two state investigations that lasted months.

Hamlet. wrote: »

Before. It's when she found out that a scorned Mia fabricated the story to try and ruin his life, per the result of two state investigations that lasted months.

c'mon now we don't know that, the investigations were inconclusive...mainly because the chief prosecutor didn't want to traumatise Dylan anymore by putting her on the stand

Hamlet. wrote: »

I'll take the word of two separate state investigations that found that Woody Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan Farrow. You can have a HBO documentary that went so deep that it has to use Carly Simon for interviews.

Ah sure god love him he was just an ordinary misunderstood bloke who had an inappropriate fixation on his toddler daughter.

but not when it comes to a child's mental well being, which is perfectly understandable...what age was she then seven?

The relationship with Mia daughter is strange, he was a father figure to allot of the kids , even if he said he wasn't. He was on holiday with then , over at the house , eats breakfast with them.
And then he goes off with one of Mia daughters.
He's 85 now , nothing will happen , lets just hope the daughter comes out with the true story after he dies, weither it be good or bad.
I don't have kids but if I did I wouldn't let him near any of them.

fryup wrote: »

but not when it comes to a child's mental well being, which is perfectly understandable...what age was she then seven?

I don't know if it is. Would a prosecutor really choose not to prosecute a man they believe to be guilty of this when he is the guardian of other kids? Maybe they'll just get him next time if that child isn't too traumatised?

I don't know what if anything happened. But I do think that sounds a bit unrealistic. Whereas the kid not being a reliable witness as has been alleged sounds a bit more plausible.

bubblypop wrote: »

So the prosecutor said there was probable cause, but you took that to mean he was innocent?

Erm no. Read all the replies.