A REMINDER for anyone who choses to DEFEND Woody Allen - Allen v. Farrow (2021) Discussion

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

> An article explains how several attempts were made to contact him in order to get HIS SIDE of the story

Two months before air date. You do not ask someone for their side of the story in a documentary. Your comments on this matter are completely biased and one sided, so say nothing of your screaming in all caps. You also just decided to believe one side of this story, disregard anything that doesn't fit your world view, and go on a rampage instead of discussing anything reasonably.

This fake-documentary is so biased, it is not a documentary at all, it is just what Woody would have people believe, a one-sided hatchet job.

Face it, Mia has pursued this story like Woody is Jack The Ripper. Three of her adopted children have committed suicide. She lied to Woody Allen about being the father of Ronan Farrow for whom he paid her child support. Moses Farrow details physical abuse and humiliation. Judging from the dishonest devices Mia uses in this hit piece it is hard to believe anything in it. She is counting on the goodwill of most people to imagine that the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides, but since she dealt Woody out by asking him to participate long after they had done the shooting, collecting and editing, 2 months before air date, it is clear this is what she wanted.

Do you think it is good for Dylan's mental health and life that Mia has made her life revolved around whatever this incident was? And the participation of Ronan is going to ruin the good work he has already tried to do in his journalistic career. Of course, politically, and PR-wise Ronan must fish or cut bait and decide what side of this he is going to be on, and that means if he wants to maintain his public market for his books he cannot alienate the crazy people like above. He has no choice in this.

The first episode of this fake-umentary went all into Woody's movies trying to imply that if you are an older man who finds younger women attractive or writes award winning movie scripts about men who are in relationships with young women then you must be a pedophile and want to have sex with children. They never out and out say it, but subliminally that is the message.

Then they partially interviewed the young women he went out with who I am sure also had lots to say about Woody - but only small pieces of that interview were aired. It would be interesting to know how she views that relationship in the fullness of her adulthood, and whether she feels she was exploited or abused. It did not sound like it from what they put out there.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

You also just decided to believe one side of this story, disregard anything that doesn't fit your world view, and go on a rampage instead of discussing anything reasonably.

On the contrary, it's YOU who keeps posting EXTREMELY EMOTIONAL messages back to mine that one would also consider to be "hysterical" instead of being what one would call REASONABLE or RATIONAL.

And that probably also has something to do with the way that you say you also dated 17 yr old teenagers over on the other topic (the same way as WOODY did).

So of course you'd also chose to IDENTIFY more with ALLEN than with MIA.

But the FACT also still remains that the CHILD who was MOLESTED by him still also confirms that Woody has LIED about what he did to her back when she was only 7 yrs. old.

So each time that you DEFEND WOODY, then you also imply that DYLAN is the one who has LIED.

📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3800) 4 years ago

So all caps equals yelling but what does all bold type mean? Speaking in a dark, menacing (demon-like) voice?

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

Well, I keep trying, and you keep not listening and making things up.
I'd call that a bad case of trolling.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

You also just decided to believe one side of this story, disregard anything that doesn't fit your world view, and go on a rampage instead of discussing anything reasonably.

I keep trying, and you keep not listening and making things up

CORRECTION:

EVERYTHING I've said was said in ARTICLES that I've read, whereas you've completely MADE UP what you said about RONAN's job being at risk.

And since you're also the one who constantly presents just ONE SIDE of the story, and DEFENDS WOODY all of the time, this accusation also describes what you do perfectly.

As for the RAMPAGE ... and discussing something in a REASONABLE way ... also NOTE the way that [b]you RANT ON about lots of other UNRELATED MATTERS that have nothing to do with this TOPIC ... which also results in a case of YOU TROLLING MY TOPIC ... by bringing up lots of other OFF TOPIC subjects (suicides, paternity issues, etc.) in an effort to try and make MIA sound like the MONSTER that you say WOODY is being portrayed as being.

Then you take another even further DETOUR OFF TOPIC by talking about RONAN (who hasn't even said ONE WORD in this film) placing his JOB as a JOURNALIST at risk (which also has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the TOPIC either).

In other words, YOU are the one on the RAMPAGE here due to the way that you can't even REMAIN FOCUSED upon ONE THING at a time or upon what the TOPIC is here.

So like it was suggested to you before, why not take a LOOK in the MIRROR at yourself before PROJECTING or FLINGING FALSE ACCUSATIONS at others that describe YOU YOURSELF and what you do more than it does them or what they do???

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

PS: There's also ARTICLES where they INTERVIEWED the other 17 yr old girl that WOODY SEDUCED who also has plenty of DEROGATORY things to say about him and the way that she was treated by him.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

All my posts have taken both sides of the issue carefully and thoughtfully. Don't tell me about articles, put up the links, because the last link you posted about the judge who denied Woody's custody was fake and had nothing of what you said. You keep claiming things that are not true, and this story and about what I have said. People can read for themselves.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603e603e9185a41a2ca872a9/Heres-The-1993-Woody-Allen-Custody-Ruling-In-Its-Damning-Detailed-Entirety

Like was pointed out to you before, I still choose to believe what a PROFESSIONAL JUDGE has to say about the matter rather than believe what someone like you (that one knows nothing about) has to say on the internet.

And calling the NEW YORK TIMES link a FAKE also tells us all we need to know to know that what you say is also NOT TRUSTWORTHY either. Because The reason it didn't work is because you need to LOG IN or SIGN UP then post the name of the BOOK "Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle" into the search area. But you also don't need to do that either because the QUOTE also already TELLS you PRECISELY what the JUDGE said about WOODY which is also CONFIRMED by the info in the FIRST LINK posted here to this topic.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

A professional judge? You're hilarious.

Your link to the NYT has nothing about this story on it. It is a fake, like most of your claims.
I recently posted some links to real stories, actually relevant to the fake-documentary and
Woody's life. That is how you do it ... you don't make shit up.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

If you go to THIS LINK which is the FIRST LINK posted in the last MESSAGE you find the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS from the TRIAL posted there including what the JUDGE himself has to say:

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603e603e9185a41a2ca872a9/Heres-The-1993-Woody-Allen-Custody-Ruling-In-Its-Damning-Detailed-Entirety

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866

the ruling by Justice Elliott Wilk paints a particularly damning portrayal of Allen the father, describing him as “self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive,” and undercuts the claims that Farrow was “brainwashed” by her mother into inventing the tale of her sexual molestation.

Wilk’s ruling also calls into question the credibility of the much-cited Yale New Haven Hospital study, released Friday by Radar Online, that concluded that Allen did not molest Farrow and suggested that Farrow was either coached by her mother or merely a vulnerable child who fabricated her claims.

Specifically, Wilk writes:

1. “There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan” or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical "woman scorned" defense is an injudicious attempt to DIVERT ATTENTION from his failure to act as a responsible parent.

2014-02-07-nocrediblewomanscorned.png

2. The Yale New Haven study report is “sanitized and, therefore, less credible” owing to a variety of factors.

2014-02-07-YNH2.png

3. Mia Farrow was “not faultless as a parent,” but, “ironically,” her “principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen.”

2014-02-07-mianotfaultless.png

4. Allen’s “self-absorption” and “lack of judgment and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault...warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children.”

Mr. Allen's response to Dylan's claim of sexual abuse was an attack upon Ms. Farrow,
whose parenting ability and emotional stability he impugned without the support of any
significant credible evidence. His trial strategy has been to separate his children from
their brothers and sisters; to turn the children against their mother; to divide adopted
children from biological children; to incite the family against their household help; and to
set household employees against each other. His SELF-ABSORPTION, his LACK of JUDGEMENT, and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault, thereby impeding the healing of the injuries that he has already caused, warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children.

2014-02-07-selfabsorption.png

5. Ultimately, “we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992...[but] Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and...measures must be taken to protect her.”

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

Thanks for finally posting this information after many tries.

Note that this does not have any bearing on the sexual abuse case which is what was claimed against Woody Allen by Mia Farrow ... 7 months after they split. Given the evidence at the time what the judge said and his ruling was reasonable, at least in my opinion. I would not have given Woody Allen custody of those children either, but not because of unproven one-off claims he was a child sexual predator, it was Mia's family, not his.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

I would not have given Woody Allen custody of those children either

How Nice it is to know that there's FINALLY something that we can agree upon!!!

👍

What amazes me is how UNFIT the JUDGE found him to be a father at that TRIAL, yet he still somehow found a way to adopt 2 more children after that???

And we also don't know ANYTHING at all yet about what the lives of those children were like when they were growing up???

Something tells me after Woody dies we'll find out what life was like for them when there will probably also be some kind of a BATTLE over his ESTATE.

Then maybe one of the kids will also write a "DADDY DEAREST BOOK" about him that will also get made into a FILM.

😉

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

I was, of course, referring to the judge, at the time of his decision.

The judge had very imperfect knowledge and was influenced by the tenor of the sensationally anti-Woody Allen press at the time of these incidents.

Today, I don't know what I would have done or what would have been fair, though it is probably best to leave children with their mother, Moses Farrows testimonies of Mia's abusive and dysfunctional household are compelling.

Also have to point out that like most of your comments you are so anti-Woody that you are speculative to the point of pretending you can look back after Woody Allen's death and know what his children and others will say about him.

All through this fake-u-mentary we hear these comments from Mia's long-time friends. Only Mia's. If they wanted to be objective they would have talked to people who knew Woody and Woody himself. So far, we only know that they contacted Woody only after they were done with and ready to release the movie asking him if he wanted to be interviewed. That's not right, and anyone can tell since the producers of this piece of junk did not include anyone from Woody's side or any information that played against their character assassination of Woody that their intentions were misguided from the concept of this hack job right up to air time.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

your comments you are so anti-Woody that you are speculative to the point of pretending you can look back after Woody Allen's death and know what his children and others will say about him.

Once again you PROJECT onto me and accuse me of something that applies MOSTLY to YOU YOURSELF due to the way MOST of your comments are so obsessively "PRO-WOODY."

And one also isn't LOOKING BACK, but is LOOKING FORWARD, and has predicted what MAY HAPPEN due to the PATTERN of the way that WOODY has behaved in the past.

For a TIMELINE of that behavior please also see my NEW TOPIC here that describes his behavior in great DEPTH and DETAIL:

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603f00401022453c0f3f85df/TIMELINE-describes-events-that-happened-in-ALLEN-vs-FARROW

and also reveals how MOST of the information in the PRESS was "PRO-WOODY, NOT ANTI- WOODY", the way that you INCORRECTLY try to claim that it was back at the time when he SEXUALLY MOLESTED and ABUSED DYLAN when she was still just age 7.

(QUOTE): appearing on 60 Minutes and the covers of Time, Newsweek, and People magazines, to hammer home his side of the story and drown out Dylan and Mia’s.

And the press were all too ready to side with the filmmaker over Mia, who fought to keep the matter private for the safety of her children.” (END QUOTE)

And that's also what appears to be happening again NOW as you now also fill up the FORUM here with your obsessive efforts to also try to DROWN OUT what DYLAN and MIA have to say about what happened back then.

🙄

📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

> Once again you PROJECT onto me and accuse me

You should really concern yourself with the facts instead of constantly making personal attacks about my psychology that you don't have any business, right or competency to make. It helps to undercut your whole commentary here, so it's OK with me.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

You should really concern yourself with the facts instead of constantly making personal attacks about my psychology

CORRECTION

You're the one who keeps attacking what I have to say (which is also based upon content that's been QUOTED from articles as a way to present EVIDENCE of what's been said as a way to back up what's been said).

And you're also the one who keeps attacking my psychology (as you put it) when you FLING FALSE ACCUSATIONS my way saying that I'm what you called "ANTI-WOODY," when you're also the one filling up the FORUM with "PRO-WOODY" messages (along with the other one where you explained how you'd also had relationships with 17 yr old teenaged girls ... and said that you feel there is nothing wrong with having done so ... at which time one also told you that one had no interest whatsoever in you or in your sex life).

So why not PRACTICE what you PREACH to others and STICK to the FACTS ... which are how WRONG you were when you tried to portray WOODY as being a VICTIM of the so called "BIASED PRESS" ... when you've also been given PROOF that he's the one who VICTIMIZED DLYLAN and MIA in the press.

And when DYLAN also explains quite clearly in the documentary how she's been the VICTIM of WOODY who SEXUALLY MOLESTED her at age 7, imo, it also makes NO SENSE whatsoever to keep DEFENDING ALLEN and insisting that this didn't happen.

But it's your choice and if that's the way you feel about it, then so be it.

Because like was also pointed out to you before, what's also clear at this point is how there's probably also nothing else that we can say to one another that is ever going to do anything to change the way that we view the situation.

📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

> You're the one who keeps attacking what I have to say

No kidding, because you are so full of what would be silliness if it was not so nasty and one-sided.

Every one of your bizarre boldface fictions is well explained all in one place ...

By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk

You have to work very hard to ignore all those facts and selectively pick out the nastiest comments from Mia/Dylan.

And by the way, what you said so poisonously here:

how you'd also had relationships with 17 yr old teenaged girls ... and said that you feel there is nothing wrong with having done so

When I was 17 you dishonest lying creep!

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

you are so full of what would be silliness if it was not so nasty and one-sided.

You have to work very hard to ignore all those facts and selectively pick out the nastiest comments

STILL ANOTHER CORRECTION:

The FACT is YOU are the one FILLING UP the forum with NASTY ONE-SIDED comments that you make about MIA, apparently in an ongoing effort to try and portray WOODY as being some kind of a SAINT when the COURT DOCUMENTS also PROVE that HE IS NOT.

PLUS they also say how he deliberately tried to turn the KIDS against each other (which also explains the reason why MOSES behaves the way that he does now).

And THE FACT that WOODY was also having SEX with her TEENAGE daughter while she was still in HIGH SCHOOL also reveals what a kind of a DISHONEST and DESPICABLE person he was, because if he were HONEST then he'd also have broken off his relationship with MIA before seducing her daughter.

But being the 2 FACED SELFISH kind of SELF ABSORBED person that he is, he instead decides to TORMENT MIA in a PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE way, by leaving those DISGUSTING PORNO PICTURES that he took of her daughter there where he KNEW darn well that Mia would find them.

And then he plays with her EMOTIONS some more after that ... which is also revealed to us in the DOCUMENTARY and in the articles about it ... which describe how one moment he tells her that he loves her ... and then the next moment says he loves her daughter ... a process which went on for several HOURS ... and which also makes him sound like a complete LUNATIC.

And one also has NO INTEREST in watching that ONE SIDED propaganda filled youtube video that you provided a link to either.

As for you're other FALSE ACCUSATION and calling one a "LYING CREEP," since NO ONE even mentioned your age at all, it's also you who is being DISHONEST by INCORRECTLY suggesting that one has LIED about your AGE when your age wasn't even discussed.

So How about if we just AGREE to DISAGREE and you stay off my topics and I'll stay off of yours???

Sound fair enough to you???

Because as one already pointed out before, there's NOTHING either one of us can say that's going to change the mind of the other one.

Thus also making these conversations between us pretty much a complete WASTE of TIME.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

The more you misrepresent, lie and scream the more apparent your lies and unhingedness are, so, no deal. You should be ashamed, like Mia Farrow.

By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7251) 4 years ago

>Two months before air date. You do not ask someone for their side of the story in a documentary

This doesn't make any sense. You want someone to give their side of the story or not? You need more than two months to sit in front of a camera and answer questions?

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

According to the FILMMAKERS Woody was also given YEARS (not MONTHS or DAYS) to respond and offer HIS SIDE of the story:

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/woody-allen-response-hbo-allen-v-farrow-1234912070/#!

While Allen and Previn’s spokesperson say the couple was given “days to respond,” “Allen v. Farrow” producer Amy Herdy told Variety that she started trying to make contact with Allen several years ago.

Herdy said she began reaching out to Allen’s then-publicist, Leslee Dart, in June 2018 to try to interview him for the series. “I reached out to his rep a few times to try and interview him then — and got crickets back,” she said. “I know they got my request, because I was able to get an assistant on the phone saying, ‘You are getting my emails, right?’ And she said yes. But they never responded.”

But for some reason apparently he CHOSES to LIE about the TIME LINE and try to PLAY the VICTIM again.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

📌📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 4 years ago

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but isn't this making as assumption about who is lying and who is not? Seems like "he said-she said" all over again.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

Yes, I agree it does appear to be a SHE SAID/HE SAID situation ... except for when the JUDGE who handled the CUSTODY SUIT (back when WOODY SUED MIA for CUSTODY of DYLAN) issued his OPINION of WOODY which also wasn't a very good one.

Are you familiar with what that JUDGE had to say about ALLEN???

STAY TUNED and Perhaps we'll also hear what he said about WOODY in PART 3 or in PART 4 of this DOCUMENTARY???

📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 4 years ago

Well there's a non-answer. This thread's title promised to make some big point, but so far nada.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

>> (back when WOODY SUED MIA for CUSTODY of DYLAN) issued his OPINION of WOODY which also wasn't a very good one.

If there was something out there that JOI knew about why not post it?
No such post, no such citation.

Also, way back then when Woody broke the trust of Mia by going with Soon-Yi, why would he not have words for Woody about that ... but what JOI is too blind to see is that it has nothing to bear in evidence of any other way on Dylan.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

So you want me to SPOIL the rest of the documentary by saying something that's not been said or discussed in it yet???

FINE.

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT:

*

*

*

The rest of you who don't want to be SPOILED please look away and don't read any further down past this point.

Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/...

Allen Loses to Farrow in Bitter Custody Battle. By PETER MARKS. escribing Woody Allen as a "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive" father, a judge in Manhattan yesterday rejected his attempt...

PLEASE NOTE the "UNTRUSTWORTHY" part of it here which CONFIRMS what one is pointing out about how he's also LIED by claiming those who made the film only gave him a FEW DAYS to respond when he was given 2 MONTHS or more to contribute something to it.

But instead of doing so, he IGNORES all the many attempts that were made to get him to respond, and then BELLY ACHES about how he's been MISTREATED after it's made, when he was also given several opportunities to present HIS SIDE of it.

And his NOT BEING HONEST about one thing also indicates that he's possibly also NOT been HONEST about another (which is also part of the reason why the JUDGE found him to be UNTRUSTWORTHY).

📌📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

First, your link does not point to any page that has anything to do with Woody Allen. So, your last comment was yet another lie.

But second, so what? I would have said and made the same decision, although at that time the extent of Mia Farrow's abuse and what was to follow with the suicides of three of her adopted children was not understood or factored in by the judge.

And none of that has anything to do with Dylan and the sexual allegations against Woody. You are a continual agent of lies and hate as you post these dishonest and misinformed comments.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603e603e9185a41a2ca872a9/Heres-The-1993-Woody-Allen-Custody-Ruling-In-Its-Damning-Detailed-Entirety

A US study published in Pediatrics in 2001 also found an increased suicide risk among adoptees. In that study, the researchers assessed 6577 adolescents, including 214 adoptees. Of those, 7.6% of adoptees attempted suicide compared with 3.1% of children living with their biological families.

Adoptees 4 Times More Likely to Attempt Suicide

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810625

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

In that study, the researchers assessed 6577 adolescents, including 214 adoptees. Of those, 7.6% of adoptees attempted suicide compared with 3.1% of children living with their biological families.

7.6% = 3.1% = 4.5%

A 4.5% greater probability that an adoptee will attempt suicide does not explain or justify 3 fatal suicides in one family, Mia Farrow's family.

The poster, JOI, pretends to be so concerned over one unproven claim of sexual molestation from a man with no history of pedophila before or after, and just blows off the suicide and death of 3 kids in Mia Farrow's family.

Not to mention that 7.6% is not 4 times greater than 3.1%.

If you want an actual relevant perspective on this subject, the YouTube channel of Moses Farrow is a good place to start. Moses was in both this situation or being an adoptee, and the adoptee of Mia Farrow, in the family where 3 other adopted children killed themselves. Moses has written about his experiences in Mia Farrow's family, and said that Mia Farrow's family physically abused and humiliated him and other children in her family. Moses also claimed that Woody did not do what Mia Farrow claimed her did to Dylan Farrow.

In the 2nd episode of Allen V. Farrow, Mia Farrow herself admits to beating up Soon-Yi Previn when she found about her affair with Woody Allen.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

Slapping someone and then telling them immediately after that how sorry you are for doing so isn't BEATING UP someone.

What's clear at this point is NOTHING we say to one another is going to change the mind of either one of us, which also means any further attempt to discuss the matter is pretty much a useless waste of time.

🙄

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

> Slapping someone and then telling them immediately after that how sorry you are for doing so isn't BEATING UP someone.

She said she beat her up. Hit her with a phone. That is classic signs of an abusive, co-dependent, unequal relationship. Same with the way Mia treated her adopted kids compared to her own children.

I am not commenting to convince you of anything. You won't even look at the facts, you make them up. I am posting merely to point that out to people who might be swayed by your ALL-CAPS, BOLDFACE, insistence that you have a clue about this story when you clearly do not.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

Sorry Jes, but the POINT being made is how WOODY LIED about only having a FEW DAYS to respond when he was asked to do so by those who made the documentary.

So IF he LIES about that matter, the implication is how UNTRUSTWORTHY he is, and that one can't depend upon him to be telling the TRUTH about other things when he chose to LIE about this other matter.

Then another poster says 2 MONTHS wasn't enough time for him to respond or offer his side, but since he's a FILM MAKER who's made many films 2 MONTHS should also have been PLENTY of time for him to offer a reply.

But instead of doing so, now he claims to have been treated UNFAIRLY when that's also NOT the case according to what those who made the documentary have to say.

📌📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 4 years ago

So you just automatically believe one side and totally discount the other? On what basis?

Have no idea what his having made films has to do with two months. We don't have any information about what his schedule was like during that time. Maybe he was in the middle of making a movie, for example.

Anyway, why does he have to participate in a deliberate hit piece about himself. Would you? I wouldn't. Just to help them get more views and make more money? No way in hell.

I don't even see where HBO gets off making a show about someone's private life. It's a matter for the courts, not for us. This is really gossiping and nosiness taken to the nth degree.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

What DYLAN says happened makes more sense to me due to the way ALLEN LIED saying he's only been given "A FEW DAYS" to respond when he'd had at least a couple of months. So if he LIES about that, what else could he have LIED about???

Making films as a director means he's a PRO who knows how to compose a response for the other filmmakers who made the request asking him to provide HIS SIDE of the story.

And he also hasn't made a film in the last 5 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_filmography#:~:text=His%20first%20film%20was%20the%201965%20comedy%20What's,decided%20he%20wished%20to%20direct%20all%20future%20films

And of course he's also not required to appear in the documentary, but since he LIED about the reason saying he'd only had a FEW DAYS notice, that LIE implies that he could also LIE about other matters as well.

And the CUSTODY JUDGE also points that out about how UNTRUSTWORTHY WOODY is as a person (who also LIED about MIA having COACHED DYLAN when she did not).

https://moviechat.org/tt13990468/Allen-v-Farrow/603e603e9185a41a2ca872a9/Heres-The-1993-Woody-Allen-Custody-Ruling-In-Its-Damning-Detailed-Entirety

There's not that much in the documentary that's NEW. For anyone who's been around long enough they'd already know the details of most of what happened.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

What DYLAN says happened makes more sense to me due to the way ALLEN LIED saying he's only been given "A FEW DAYS" to respond when he'd had at least a couple of months. So if he LIES about that, what else could he have LIED about???

But the fact that Mia lied to Woody about Ronan being his son, and has since come out and said Ronan is or could be the son of Frank Sinatra ... that is the lie you completely discount. Wow.

I don't know how that kind of logic works, just make it up yourself I guess and assign it the weight you want assign it based on your feelings. That is called prejudice.

And Woody did not lie at all about being given a few days to respond. They produced the fake-u-mentary, it was in the can, and then they asked Woody and Soon-Yi if they wanted to be interviewed. This, after they already illegally used excerpts of his voice and his book, and distorted video of his in personal family situations. Woody would have to be a fool to play into that scam.

You don't seem to see a pattern of scamming, misdirection, distortion in Mia's actions, you ignore Moses Farrow's account, the suicide of 3 adopted children with statistics that have no bearing anything.

That is a steadfast determination to never look at this any other way but as a chance to attack and smear Woody Allen.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

Mia lied to Woody about Ronan being his son

Then why didn't he SUE her the same way as he did before instead of paying child support to her, or INSIST upon her paying him back for what he paid her for child support???

And WHY is RONAN also listed at WOODY's WIKIPEDIA site as being his SON if he is NOT his son???

Do you really think a MAN as RICH as WOODY wouldn't have had a DNA TEST done???

Mia simply made the remark about SINATRA as a way to get back at WOODY for seducing her daughter when he was still in a relationship with her.

What if you found out your SON was having sex with your girlfriend???

Maybe you'd also say something about that son not really being your Genetic son???

People say stuff all the time as a way to try and humiliate other people who do or say something to piss them off.

And that's most likely also what MOSES is doing is saying stuff to piss off MIA because he's mad at her for some reason.

And MARIE OSMOND also adopted a son that killed himself.

Does that also make her a bad mother too???

One of those suicides had AIDS.

Another one was BLIND and their death may have been an ACCIDENT.

LIFE isn't easy for an ADOPTEE. It's a HUGE BLOW to the EGO to know that the person who gave birth to you gave you up for some reason. And sometimes having other parents who love you and ADOPT you is also never enough to overcome knowing that your birth parent didn't raise you. And Often times the reason for that is also because their parent was also a young kid who was RAPED. So knowing that's how you were conceived is also not an easy thing to discover or live with either.

And your insistence upon repeatedly posting about the deaths of her ADOPTED children also doesn't help if some other ADOPTEE is also reading what it is that you have to say about the matter.

So why not CUT IT OUT so that another one doesn't see it who may also be on the EDGE of or also thinking about taking their life???

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 4 years ago

You continue to state definitively that he lied, but offer no proof. This is getting very repetitive.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5625) 4 years ago

You continue to state definitively that he lied, but offer no proof. This is getting very repetitive.

Here's the PROOF that HE LIED due to the way the FILMMAKERS say he was given "SEVERAL YEARS" (NOT DAYS or MONTHS) to respond back to them:

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/woody-allen-response-hbo-allen-v-farrow-1234912070/#!

While Allen and Previn’s spokesperson say the couple was given “days to respond,” “Allen v. Farrow” producer Amy Herdy told Variety that she started trying to make contact with Allen several years ago.

Herdy said she began reaching out to Allen’s then-publicist, Leslee Dart, in June 2018 to try to interview him for the series. “I reached out to his rep a few times to try and interview him then — and got crickets back,” she said. “I know they got my request, because I was able to get an assistant on the phone saying, ‘You are getting my emails, right?’ And she said yes. But they never responded.”

And this also indicates that WOODY is once again trying to PRETEND to be the VICTIM again ... just like he did before back when he SEXUALLY MOLESTED DYLAN at age 7 ... and then DENIED and LIED about it.

📌📌📌📌📌

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

And this also indicates that WOODY is once again trying to PRETEND to be the VICTIM again

You're hilarious. Farrow's family is complete dysfunctional and abusive. It is all here in this very long, but thorough video. Much more objective, factual and clear than HBO's fake-u-mentary.

By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

>> So you just automatically believe one side and totally discount the other? On what basis?

You nailed it there.

They did this movie, and asked if Woody wanted to be interviewed for it. Meaning that, like everything else in the fake-u-mentary, whatever he said would just be chopped up and used against him like his book excerpts included without permission, or his movies, or his archive writings. Even the interview with the 17 year old girl that Woody have a 7 year affair with was distorted and made it look like Woody seduced her when in fact ( read the comment I posted on this ) she saw him in a restaurant and slipped him a note with her name and phone number on it. I had never heard this before, and there is a lot of information on this no one has heard before.

Mia must have a lot of pull with someone at HBO for them to participate in a hack job like this. It's pretty disgraceful.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

Is that really/REALLY ,,,, ACTUALLY, ACTUAL, evidence???

reply

[–] Adam60z (3781) 4 years ago

You're an idiot to believe Dylan and Mia's lies. Pathetic and sick. Woody is innocent and everyone knows it.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7251) 4 years ago

...because I say so! [pouts]

reply

[–] Naptown317Native (524) 4 years ago

People that defend Woody are just terrible fucking people

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

No they are just better informed than people who operate from out of control emotion and ignorance. The terrible people are those who do not get all the facts before making judgements.

By the Way, Woody Allen Is Innocent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muyaCg2dGAk

reply