Is anyone else planning on watching it???
Since it ended on a CLIFF HANGER last week ... with DYLAN saying that she realized she wasn't the only child being SEXUALLY MOLESTED by Woody ... after MIA found the NUDE PENTHOUSE style porno pictures that he'd taken of SOON YI ... one also wonders if that also means that he also took pictures of a NAKED DYLAN as well???
Nothing was said about whether or not porno photos were taken of DYLAN like WOODY took of SOON YI, but PART 2 also covered nearly everything that one read and posted about over in the other REVIEW topic here:
Found an article in the daily beast where the actress (Mariel Hemingway) from the MANHATTAN film said this:
You were just 17 and he was 43, and he propositioned you and repeatedly begged you to let him take you to Paris.
Yeah. Ugh. I was like, “I’m not going to go to Paris with you
What's with ALL the CAPITALS ? Are you TRYING to SELL something ?
It's also pretty CREEPY how they investigated the FILES of MOVIE SCRIPTS that ALLEN has at PRINCETON where it shows an ONGOING PATTERN where WOODY also keeps creating scenes over and over again where an OLDER MAN SEDUCES a younger woman.
The IRONY of course is how an 18 year old teenage MIA was also involved with a much older FRANK SINATRA.
So it's also as if HISTORY for some reason has a way of REPEATING itself in general.
Yeah, are the movie scripts creepy?
If it is so creepy how come in the movie business it is older geriatric guys like Robert Redford, Sean Connery, Bruce Willis ... every major male movie star has a girlfriend decades younger ... it is a societal meme, if not a movie meme, if not a meme for almost all men and some women. Men dream about the younger women who sees something in them even if they are older, and there are a lot of women I've known who for various reasons like, or at least go with much older men. Mia Farrow for instance with Frank Sinatra. From just a purely capitalistic viewpoint, would men even go to the movies if they did not get to see the eye-candy of young beautiful women?
And by the way, the movie "Manhattan" was a huge hit, and it was written and directed really well. It is one of my favorite movies. So ... was Woody doing all these movies because he was a maniac looking for younger and younger girls, or because he was a good writer and film-maker and they were good plots, written with wit, humor and pathos? It is at least somewhat of a cheap shot to go those movies and rummage around in Woody's psyche ... to try and show he is a child molester?
All these things are presented so close together, with ominous music, and innuendo, and some fact, but all designed to be 100% attacking Woody and his credibility. Mia is shown with her children, and all these women, and crying and saying she had no idea. I do think Woody was on some of those occasions lying ... possibly about how early he and Soon-Yi were together. But all the posed telephone calls and videos, and the readings from Woody's book.
It is hard to be sensitive and objective watching this show, because everything is set up to make Mia look the victim, and no doubt she was. But why dramatize and amplify it so much to make the case. I really do not know what to think. Woody Allen came out there to their house on the lake and waited for 20 minutes while 3 supervisors were supposed to be keeping track of him and Dylan.
Why would Woody Allen make the absurd bribe or promise to take Dylan to Paris ... what would Paris mean to a 7 year old girl? And what about Soon-Yi. It is bizarre, but that is the story they are sticking to.
They really did not show much interview with Woody's muse, the 17 year old girl who he had an affair with in his younger days. But a 17 year old girl young as she is, is still not a child as Dylan was.
This doesn't have much to do with Dylan, but what about Ronan. After all these years they have not established who his father was. They just say it was Woody. But Ronan looks nothing like Woody, and everything like a combo of Mia and Frank Sinatra ... he is almost the spitting image of Old Blue Eyes.
This is a mess, but I guess Mia has to get something out there to counter Woody's golden memories of the past in his book. What a mess, and the one who is damaged that I have the most sympathy and understanding for is Dylan - she got a raw deal no matter what was true or how this broke down. For a movie about her ... is is Allen V. Mia Farrow, or Allen V. Dylan Farrow, and if it is, Dylan, at least so far is not doing the majority of the talking.
You seem to be forgetting about how WOODY SEDUCED his own STEP CHILD while he was also still in a relationship with her mother. Even the JUDGE who granted CUSTODY of the kids to MIA told WOODY how DISGUSTED he was with him and the way he'd behaved.
Why would Woody Allen make the absurd bribe or promise to take Dylan to Paris ... what would Paris mean to a 7 year old girl?
> You seem to be forgetting about how WOODY SEDUCED his own STEP CHILD while he was also still in a relationship with her mother.
No, I didn't. There is a lot wrong with what you are saying in every post you have made. I guess that is part of your argumentative tactics, overwhelm with implicit arguments and cloud the issue.
I have not forgotten or even failed to mention that ... only "seduced" is a loaded term that you have no right to assume. You are framing things in as negative a way as you can, but for one thing, it does not bear on the main accusation that Woody assaulted or molested Dylan. You seem to have not learned many of the statements that different family members have made over the years, especially Moses, who was there and was older than the other kids. Moses even said there is no attic in that house. There are YouTube videos of Moses talking about this and life in Mia's house. Maybe you should take a look at them.
You seem to have forgotten, if you want to go that route, that Mia has lied to Woody about being Ronan's father - and taken money for child support for him.
Then talking about a predator, as if you are some kind of expert, you again implicitly already assume Woody is guilty. You are not trying to find the truth or even discuss the weights of various testimonies or pieces of evidence - you are making a case of dishonest comments against Woody. You can do that, most people who are after him do exactly that, but it does not mean I am or anyone else is going to take you seriously. All I can do it point out your little tricks, and your disregard for the truth.
I did not dismiss what Dylan said. All I have heard he say as an adult is that she maintains that he father sexually assaulted her. There are many meanings that term from violent beating and rape to unappreciated touching. Remember two women who claimed Al Franken sexually assaulted them. One said he kept arguing with her on the phone and then came over to her house and argued with her more. Another said that in taking a selfie Al touched her or posed her in a way that made her feel fat and undesirable.
Again, it is ---- possible that Dylan is lying or misremembering. Moses Farrow has flatly said that is the case and that it could not have happened the way Dylan or Mia describe it. Also, think about a 7 year old child who only has their mother to depend on. All their shelter, care, love comes from this one parent, and Moses has said this was a dysfunctional family, and Dylan may still be dependent on Farrow for her social and economic status. I don't know what to make of Dylan's testimony, but I never said she was lying or discounted her experience, it is just changed and been fuzzy over the many years.
According to one bit of information I read, when Mia took Dylan to describe her experience a police or doctor ... someone asked her what happened. She said that Woody touched her privates. When the doctor asked her what she meant by that she pointed to her elbow or something - not her groin or chest area. Then Mia wanted to take a break and they went for ice cream. When they came back Dylan changed her story. That does indeed imply coaching.
In terms of lying, if you want proof of lying, what about Mia telling Woody that Ronan was his son in order to get child support? If you are going to try to make heads of tails of this you have to get the facts straight and decide what they mean and how to weight them. Something I don't think any member of the public outside of this can really do.
So, based on that you and other just want to eviscerate Woody Allen despite the fact that he never before or since has had any other accusation of child molesting, and that the one case even if it was true, and here is where it gets dicey to me - was touching. Touching that over the years has stigmatized Dylan to the point where I think she is still in trauma because this is part of her mother's identity and goal in life ... whatever else it might be for Dylan.
Do you at all see where I am coming from or will I just get another wall of accusations and claims to know it all from you?
that is part of your argumentative tactics, overwhelm with implicit arguments and cloud the issue.
> she's also NEVER said anything about MIA coaching her to say what she said at that age about how she'd been SEXUALLY ABUSED by WOODY up in the ATTIC.
Does that surprise you? Of course she would not.
Are you aware that 3 of Farrow's adopted children committed suicide? What do you make of that please? In light of Moses Farrows stories of abuse and humiliation? Do you know about that?
how come in the movie business it is older geriatric guys like Robert Redford, Sean Connery, Bruce Willis ... every major male movie star has a girlfriend decades younger ... it is a societal meme, if not a movie meme, if not a meme for almost all men and some women.
MASCULINE TRAITS: [/b]
heirarchal
competitive
aggressive
mastery
goal directed
warrior
seeker
hunter mentality
separate
independent
[b]FEMININE TRAITS: [/b]
egalitarian
co-operative
receptive
living in process w/relationship & natural world
working together co-operates receives
Caregiver
lover
connected
2 Paths by Pearson
[b]MASCULINE PATH: [/b]
begins w arrogance & hubris ( is a result of patriarchy)
too much ego
must sacrifice ego to achieve humility & find one's true identity
over emphasis on oneself & achievement
devalues dependency needs & support of others
[b]FEMININE PATH:
begins w humility & submission (males born into slavery fit this pattern too)
too little ego
must find worth & achieve a healthy ego to make a contribution
over emphasizes relationship & devalues the self
over emphasis on others
The Goal is the birth of our consciousness.
To become a WHOLE person--to Individuate-- to overcome archetypes of
our culture that become stereotypes.
If we don't, our culture suffers.
*************
(END of CLASS NOTES that were taken)
Also NOTE the way MIA says in PART 2 that she tried to please WOODY and be whatever he wanted her to be ... by doing and/or saying whatever she thought he wanted her to say ... (by being funny but not too funny, talking but not talking too much, etc.).
In other words, eventually she probably also OUTGREW this kind of ROLE where she was SUBORDINATE to him which is the reason why WOODY moves on to having a relationship with a younger female that is willing to let him BOSS her around.
Don't condescend to me you fool.
Look at your own mistakes in perception.
Only an true idiot uses the excuse that you society is unbalanced
to point the finger or criminal guilt at someone with insufficient
understanding or proof. You are way off the deep end here.
Don't condescend to me you fool.
Look at your own mistakes in perception.
Only an true idiot uses the excuse that you society is unbalanced
Whole article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/allen-v-farrow-is-a-horrifying-indictment-of-woody-allen
shareThanks for the link Satan.
Apparently we're now half way there and we also have 2 more episodes of this 4 PART DOCUMENARY left to go.
The New Haven report Woody defenders cite is NOT credible. More from the Daily Beast article:
As for the NYC Child Welfare Administration, investigator Sheryl Harden assigned the case to Paul Williams, a star employee who’d been awarded “Caseworker of the Year” by the City of New York. Williams found Dylan to be credible, and per his contemporaneous notes—which were obtained by the filmmakers—concluded that there was sufficient evidence to open up a case of child sexual abuse against Woody Allen, and included an exchange with Sawyer where she told Williams that she “believes Dylan.” But then Williams was mysteriously fired for “insubordination,” causing the case to die. When Williams’ firing was contested, a judge determined that Williams shouldn’t have been fired, reinstated him, and awarded him backpay.
“In the end, the result was that people with power were able to get the case removed,” Gloria Steinem, who supported Williams’ case, says in the film. “It just seemed to me, like everything I could glean as a reporter, to be a case of great injustice.”
Harden, who appears in Allen v. Farrow, was so disgusted with the process that she quit the NYC Child Welfare Administration about a year after the Dylan case.
In addition to the media, Allen v. Farrow points a finger at Hollywood for continuing to support Allen and strengthen his mystique. There’s footage of Allen receiving a standing ovation at the 2002 Academy Awards, and a montage of A-list actors who worked with Allen after 1992 singing his praises, from Scarlett Johansson and Javier Bardem to Penelope Cruz. Then there was Emma Stone, who presented a lifetime achievement honor to Allen at the 2014 Golden Globes, which was accepted by Diane Keaton on his behalf. Dylan, Mia, and Ronan looked on in horror as Hollywood continued to celebrate a man they saw as a monster.
It's pretty much the same as the case was with MICHAEL JACKSON who also had LOTS of MONEY that he could use to HIRE HIGH PRICED ATTORNEY's as a way to find a way to MUDDY the situation and have the PREDATOR look like he's been the one VICTIMIZED.
But also NOTE the way that 35 yr old DYLAN isn't saying that she was COACHED to say what she says at age 7 on that VIDEO that was made by MIA (which is also what WOODY said happened as a way to try to DENY that what DYLAN says in it is TRUE).
It's really SAD the way RICH PEOPLE use their MONEY to get away with a lot of what they do, but unfortunately nothing much is probably ever going to change to prevent that from happening.
Except that Soon-Yi was 21, and not being "molested", and it has yet to really be determined or proven if Woody actually did what you are taking for granted and just state as fact. Hardly fair of you to state that.
I wonder if those Polaroids are as bad as Farrow says, but this whole "documentary", in quotes, is exaggerated in tone, music, innuendo, etc. If it was going to be done it should have been done objectively based on the probable facts.
SOON YI wasn't 21 when WOODY began molesting her. She was still in HIGH SCHOOL because the DOOR MAN also said she was wearing her HIGH SCHOOL UNIFORM, and the MAID also testified that she frequently would find CONDOMS in the trash and SEMEN on the SHEETS after SOON YI had been their at Woody's place.
And since those are QUOTES from the article and from the SHOW ITSELF, I'm also NOT the one who stated those FACTS about him.
And I also don't think the documentary has been exaggerated in tone either.
> SOON YI wasn't 21 when WOODY began molesting her. She was still in HIGH SCHOOL because the DOOR MAN also said she was wearing her HIGH SCHOOL UNIFORM, and the MAID also testified that she frequently would find CONDOMS in the trash and SEMEN on the SHEETS after SOON YI had been their at Woody's place.
Maybe, maybe not. But again you are making the FALSE equivalency that having sex with a post pubescent girl, woman, i.e. Soon-Yi is the same as, or somehow proves that Woody molested Dylan, and sorry to invade your reality with reality, but that is invalid reasoning, in life and in a court of law. It is the same as this documentary is doing by manipulating emotions and throwing up a lot of suspicion.
I heard what Mia said the maids and doorman said. I don't know what to make of it, but again, even if it is true, no one dragged Soon-Yi there, in fact she wanted to be there with Woody, and still fucking is now - married. It's her business, it's her life. And Soon-Yi is not Dylan. Can you digest that information?
sorry to invade your reality with reality, but that is invalid reasoning, in life and in a court of law.
So when I was 17 I was having sex with 17 year old girls in high school.
What makes a 17 year old girl OK to decide to have sex with a 17 year old
boy, but when it comes to an older adult somehow they are unable to make
their own decisions? What about me ... was I groomed or seduced by my
then girlfriend? Did we rape each other? Your way of looking at this is
incoherent and outdated, and to me suggest that you are working out your
own trauma within this public arena of someone else's life that you really
do not have enough information, understanding or objectivity to do validly.
you are working out your
own trauma within this public arena of someone else's life