Allen v. Farrow

I found Mia Farrow's story, and more importantly, her daughter Dylan's account of what happened in this case, to be totally credible and believable. Hard to call it a hatchet job when Mr .Allen declined to be interviewed. Woody Allen belongs behind bars IMO.

As someone who was also the victim of child sex abuse by a step-father, I can easily relate to Dylan's story. And I am also one of those who was lucky enough to have a mother who believed me when I told her what had been going on for 4 years right under her nose. Although she immediately took me out of harm's way and divorced the man, he was not prosecuted for the same reason Allen wasn't... they didn't want to traumatize me anymore than I had already been. My memories are as clear today as they were more than 60 years ago as to what happened to me, and I have zero doubt that it is the same for Dylan.

One thing that Allen's supporters seem to ignore is that it takes time to coach a child into a story like this and Dylan's story was revealed very, very shortly after it happened. Hardly enough time for Mia to have convinced her daughter of something that hadn't really happened, I would say.

Anyway, I think the producers allowed Allen to have his say, even though he refused any personal interviews for this story. In my book, that is fair and unbiased reporting. Two thumbs up for this informative and worthwhile film series.

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.

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.)