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.
Add a Review
-
In watching the entire documentary, I have updated my review to this final.
Let me begin by writing the following: My favorite Woody Allen movie is "Bananas." My favorite Mia Farrow movie is "Rosemary's Baby." And that will never, ever change.
But this documentary isn't about that. It is about things above it - what happens in an entertainment family beyond work. The question of separating an artist's work from who they are and what they do is one of those never-ending dilemmas for us once we get exposed to it. We like their work. We support their work. But we find out they are not the half-way decent people we thought they were. Some are much worse.
Allen v. Farrow's documentary makes us think about that. It gets into this family's dysfunctions, and one member who has been trying to live with it all, find answers to questions, get closure, get her truth told. Suitable for the adult Dylan, as that is the most critical issue here. Her childhood, no matter whose story you want to believe, was ruined. She cannot get it back. Never lose that focal point of this documentary. Dylan has struggled daily with trying to live. We learn it's been a hard struggle through her adolescence and her still forging into adulthood now being a wife and mother herself.
So in Episode 1, there had to be some background to help the viewer look at how this started. Mia Farrow's concerns and others with the allegations of sexual abuse from Mia's then 'boyfriend' Woody Allen. In this documentary, we are confronted with sorting that out - was Allen a partial live-in boyfriend, was he a father, an adopted father? What?!? It is a very complex journey, and the documentary cannot even provide a definitive answer. It even gets more complicated with Mia finding her older daughter carrying on an affair with Allen. And when that all comes out, Allen claimed he wanted to keep it quiet for some time longer.
Allen does make the accusations that Mia predicated Dylan's whole sexual abuse recollections in finding out about his relationship with Soon-Yi, rather than his behaviors. In the unveiling of this documentary, Allen v Farrow it is clear that while Soon-Yi has been placed as a trigger element, she isn't. She shouldn't even be brought up at all UNLESS she was underage when Allen began his affair with her. It seems that was one of the things Mia was trying to investigate as well. However, it is unclear in this documentary still. Allen is a director, and we learn that he wants to be in charge of the story narrative at points. For example - in the recent Soon-Yi New York Magazine article, Allen reportedly directing her interview. And we hear of an accusation of Allen trying to pay Ronan's college tuition for 'good press' on this matter. Off that, we see that Allen has created consequences for his actions. Mia made consequences for her actions too, but they were based on what she saw, what she heard, and how her daughter Dylan acted.
In this documentary, we hear from Mia Farrow first about her accusations against Allen, witnesses. Again, the most important person to hear from is Dylan, and we lightly do here, but not as much as we should. Yes, we needed the background, and Mia provided that in episode 1, and we heard from Dylan a bit in episode 1. Episode 2 was more of a recollection of the accusations and by whom. Episodes 3 & 4 take us through Allen's court filings (and it would be with Soon-Yi) to gain custody of Dylan (and Ronan and Moses). It failed, and on appeal failed. Then we go through more of the systems (legal and interviews of a child). And in episode 4, we hear from Dylan and how this all has weighed on her. That is the point of this documentary.
In this documentary, it is essential to be focused on how this affected Dylan only, not what you know going in. Not what you think you know going in. Put your focus on Dylan because that is what this is all about.
Soon-Yi does not matter much in this story, and neither does their length of time together. She is not of concern, so she should not be interjected. She is not of concern. Moses's newly conflicting reports claiming Mia was abusing him and things he once said were in the house are not are of concern. But not for a reason to discredit Dylan's story but for his credibility.
Again, the focus is on Dylan. Dylan's voice matters in THIS documentary. Dylan being able to move forward with her life around all of this does. You can see in this documentary Dylan is still hurting, haunted, and torn -- and has taken all of the family problems and division during that time on herself. For that reason, his becomes another story of a high profile Hollywood dysfunctional family that has gone on for decades for us to witness. -
blanbrn13 April 2021"HBO" has once again done it with a near excellent and blunt revealing doc as this looks at and examines the real life drama between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, as a viewer you are drawn into the drama of "Allen v. Farrow" as the 4 part doc has you asking for questions as to who to believe or not to believe. Clearly you see a family that has been torn apart as Mia had to deal with her filmmaking partner Woody having an affair and later marriage to her daughter Soon-Yi, to complicate matters bad things may have went down between Woody and Mia's adopted 7 year old daughter Dylan. Director Kirby Dick really moves this doc with intimate and real feel by showing vintage old home family movies, clips and drawings of court documents, interviews, and real network news reports as even raw evidence was examined in this very high profile case that involved custody and abuse. Overall watching you feel emotion while looking at a pop culture legend in Allen still you can form your own decision from watching as this is one must see headlining documentary.
-
Well made documentary and excellently told story. This needs to be seen by all. I have seen the hole series and I found it to be shockingly truthful. It is visually beautiful and well edited, even if it is so heartbreaking. Dick and Ziering build up a strong piece with new never shown material, footage and recorded phone calls, combined with interviews with prosecutors, witnesses and child psychologists. They don't choose the truth, it was out there and they grabbed for i, cause it cannot be ignored anymore. This is a story about a horrible family tragedy, but it is also a story of our culture, and the context we live in, a context that lets powerful men off the hook. It's about lack of justice and what part media plays in it. In the core, how ever, is a little girl who was stolen of her innocence and childhood, who was not heard or believed. This little girl is a grown woman now, and it's time to listen to her.
-
I see many are saying this documentary is biased and presents only one side. Allen said his "truth" out loud back in the 90's when he attacked with all weapons, based on his money, connections and popularity. Nobody heard Farrow back then. So it is Farrow's turn to tell her story. I'm pleased she talked, so women become aware how dangerous narcissistic men can be.
-
leftbanker-129 March 2021I grew up with Woody Allen's humor which I appreciate much more than his films, not all of which are comedies. His stand-up stuff and the goofy books he wrote ("Without Feathers" and "Side Effects") along with the Marx Bothers shaped my sense of humor. Allen was a complete original and a comic genius.
I thought he was creepy ever since I saw "Manhattan" when it premiered in 1979 and his character is dating a 17-year-old girl when he's in his mid-40s. Sorry, there is no scenario when that isn't just creepy, not even in a movie-especially not in a movie. File that movie under "Ew." He made an actual movie about having sex with a child. What more evidence does anyone need?
If you needed further evidence to his creepiness, he married his step-daughter, or whatever she was. Dude, if you don't want to sully your reputations, stay away from children.
Then we learn in this documentary that Allen's favorite foreplay is watching his partner play with Lego®.
Rim shot, polite clapping, and I take a bow.
Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen. I'm here six nights a week with a matinee on Saturdays. -
kiramango38 March 2021I notice people writing the really scathing reviews have not actually seen this documentary. Today is March 8th and the 3rd in the series has just come out. The one star negative reviews are in February. Anyway, I started this series not knowing anything about Dylan and the accusations about her abuse by Allen. After episode one was somewhat on the fence although I believed Dylan when she spoke. Episode 2 was OMG this may be true. Just watched episode 3 and feeling no doubts at all. Allen has controled the narrative for all these years and obviously has an enormous support for his side. Meanwhile Mia has just been labeled the vengeful 'scorned woman' on a vendetta agains poor Woody Allen. Yeah, right. So, yes the documentary is one sided, telling Mia's side, and most importantly Dylan's, but that doesn't make it untrue. As far as the film goes its very well done in all the ways. Well researched, a compelling story and visually great to watch. The thing that stands out most for me is how the story builds in momentum using interviews and court cases. I am glad that Dylan finally gets her story told.
-
paul-allaer22 February 2021"Allen v. Farrow" (2021 release; 4 episodes of about 55 min. each) is a documentary about the alleged sexual abuse by Woody Allen of then 7 yr. old Dylan Farrow, the daughter of Mia Farrow with whom Allen was involved at the time. As Episode 1 opens, we are at "The Plaza Hotel, NY, August 1992", and Allen addresses the frenzied press and flat-out denies the allegations made against him. We then go to "Connecticut" as Dylan Farrow mentions that "there is so much misinformation out there, and it's time that I speak out". Dylan looks back at at photo albums from back in the day when things were seemingly going so well. Then Mia Farrow gives her take on it: "It's my fault, I brought this guy into our family". At this point we are 10 min. into Episode 1.
Couple of comments: this documentary mini-series is directed by well-respected and veteran documentary makers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering ("On the Record", "the Invisible War", etc.). Here they reassess the sexual abuse allegations by Dylan Farrow against Woody Allen. It needs to be stated upfront: this documentary is NOT an objective assessment. Instead it is a part of the Farrow clan's version of what happened: Mia, Dylan, Ronan to be specific; Soon-Yi and Moses refused to collaborate (as did of course Woody Allen). What is striking in Episode 1 is the seemingly unlimited amount of video footage of the Farrow family in the 80s and early 90s (someone comments that Mia apparently was constantly videotaping the kids in those days). Woody Allen's version of the facts comes entirely from either public comments he made, of from the audio version which he himself narrated for his 2020 memoir "Apropos of Nothing"). Episode 1 carries us through early 1992, when Mia finds naked pictures of Soon-Yi taken by Woody Allen, and the remaining episodes look to be even more explosive. Even though this documentary mini-series is one-sided in its approach, I nevertheless will watch the remaining 3 episodes, so that I can make up my own mind, if that is possible.
"Allen v. Farrow" premiered on HBO this weekend, and Episode 1 is now available on HBO On Demand and other streaming services. New episodes air Sunday evenings at 9 pm Eastern. I encourage you to check it and draw your own conclusion. -
mandagrammy15 March 2021As 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. -
chiltonsjillfreeport15 March 2021If you're open to the fact that Woody Allen wasn't really exonerated, are you also curious about how much you know is the truth, vs. birthed by his PR army?
Aka, Gaslighting a False Narrative.
If you haven't watched, the best place to start is Episode 3, which is tighter than the first two hours and laser-focused by comparison. Absent the over-reliance on home movies and Mia's confessionals, (and that feel of an iffy pet project) Episode 3 strides firmly into documentary terrain, with previously unearthed evidence and taped phone calls between Woody and Mia, plus 7-year-old Dylan's gut-wrenching videotaped testimony.
It's an outstanding watch.
In contrast and combination, the meticulously-researched legal evidence paired with the 3 principals' own words and emotions pack a wallop.
In one of the taped calls, Mia asks Woody a simple, crucial question 5 times. Pleading. He puts her off, speaks to her like a child. It sums up the whole imbalance of power in their relationship. He enjoys the pleading; she's numb to the condescension. They both have their strengths and flaws, as shown throughout, but he is strictly in the power-up position between them.
Given the amount of time spent on 'parental alienation syndrome,'I found it striking that we didn't get a talking head definition of gaslighting, with Allen/Farrow examples. This is maybe the ultimate 1-on-1 public case, as aided and abetted by loud, costly PR.
Episodes 1 and 2 are worth watching (last), in part, to see how Mia-Mom to many, capable of running a complicated household-became so reliant on Woody, there to serve his needs. The scene where she talks about adopting a child to suit Woody's taste (a man with "zero interest" in kids and no plan to live with her) is an eerie precursor to the icy Woody Allen heard on tape.
Pre-credits, Episode 1 begins with Woody's presser at the Plaza, which he opens by noting his famous press-aversion...and then immediately goes public with the allegations, followed by a quick clip of Dylan citing a history of misinformation and lies and the importance of setting the record straight now. This could have have been an attention-grabber of an opening, but then, post-credits, the narrative floats away to photo albums in CT.
This was a huge lost opportunity: Dylan's intro, countering Woody, needed to provide a window of the lies it would disprove/the truths it would deliver. A quick sentence or two would've done it, and provided the narrative with some immediacy. It's as if the filmmakers assumed they had the audience for the duration, so they began with an ellipsis instead of an exclamation mark.
It's a good way to lose your viewers.
For all the meticulous research evidenced in this docuseries, I find Christina Engelhardt's interview puzzling. She sets off obvious alarm bells. For example, she and Woody never discussed age, but "I'm gonna stand by" 17 is when relations started? Which in itself injects doubt. "Of course you're my muse" sounds like movie Woody, not the actual human talking to a teenager.
A 5-minute Google search yields a Hollywood Reporter interview with Engelhardt dated 12/17/18. Which states she was 16 when the Allen affair started. It's a detailed reference that notes 17 is the age of consent in NY. She says he never once brought up 'Manhattan' with her; the one time she said Tracy had a lot in common with her, Allen makes a non-committal comment and won't discuss it further. She admits to being miffed.
Engelhardt also claims to have had a handful of threesomes with Allen and Mia Farrow after Farrow became his girlfriend. The article is still online, with no disclaimers or corrections.
One could guess Woody Allen may've told Christina Engelhardt to be careful in future interviews-keep it to 17 and speak well of me. But he didn't sic his people on her out of concern over what else she has in her 'private' memoirs.
At a minimum, Engelhardt is an unreliable narrator who didn't sound credible. I doubt the filmmakers missed this. Did they include her to make a point about damage done? Does that outweigh using a source your viewers likely assume that you find credible?
At a minimum, she should have been asked, on-camera, what she meant by 'stand by it'. The THR piece references another WA affair with a teenager. In this case, legal consent is in doubt; that should've been made clear to viewers:
The muddled focus and narrative of Episodes 1 and 2 is a shame. The quality of research and information presented, especially new evidence, is pretty astounding.
Quality of facts & info. (esp.new info.): 8
Episode 3 as a stand-alone: 9/10. -
couzijn22 September 2021Can 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. -
GeorgeTinNYC8 March 2021This low rating is either: a. Woody Allen fans (much like MJ fans) who cannot abide the truth Or b. Paid for poor reviews
Dylan, gets an opportunity to tell her story. Yet the facts, images, interviews and documents are all "lies"? I was about 6-7 when Allen started dating his adopted step daughter and thought 'that's weird? If he was her dad EVEN IF adopted when she was a kid, why would he want to date her? Then at 7-8 when Allen filed for custody, I remember thinking 'no that guy is gross! I don't care what people say about his movies'. We owned a chain of movie stores, so film was a big part of my upbringing in NYC. However I always found Allen in all his films as child as someone who made me uncomfortable. If as a kid I didn't like him and questioned his behavior then as a adult I'm pretty much the same. I'm just appalled at every 1 star review for this doc. Because it just goes to show that, you'd rather live on fantasy island because the truth about an artist you respect and admire is too much. I loved Michael Jackson, however I (and I'm realizing this support of victims may be grounded in the mere fact that I was a victim of sexual assault as a child so it explains a lot) remember as a child thinking, 'no! How could you do that to a kid who loves you!?'. Then when "Finding Neverland" was released I was a puddle, but I was able to understand and support those victims despite my love of his music. In any case this doc, is amazing! Because believe it or not Allen still made films into the 2000s! He wasn't cancelled and he should've been. It was easier for his fans to believe the Mia Farrow jealous ex-wife narrative then to believe a child's experience at the hands of her father. I'm still sidelined at how many people labeled this docuseries a "hit-job!". However it isn't, it's a presentation of facts and stories from witnesses and family friends. If you love Allen enough to still support him, then you know... go, find him and you all can ship yourselves to an islands and live happily ever after. Be sure to bring your children if you have any. Since he's completely trustworthy. -
indiapaige23 February 2021Regardless of how well presented, researched or documented it's sad to say healthy viewers aren't entertained by this subject matter, as they should never be! Surprised that following the "me too" movement, we don't see more support for this family and their story. In parts as it's presented possibly too soon to rate until all episodes are well digested. Female viewer who's not looking for anything other than truthful recount of full story. Women still have odds against them in 2021 when revealing ugliest behaviors of powerful men. Let's commit to changing the unbalance of power here.
-
debbierufus23 February 2021This is a review of the first episode only. Maybe things will change after further episodes.
So far there are some worryingly constructed aspects to this documentary, which are of great concern in terms of credibility and method.
One issue is the seemingly face-value approach to the interview content, especially concerning Dylan and Ronan Farrow. I can't speak to Dylan's memories yet but Ronan's interview poses a problem too, as he recollects Woody's predatory behaviour with absolute conviction, as if it were yesterday, yet he was five years old at the time. Maybe he had an exceptional memory from an early age, but even then, these are distant events, easily coloured by subsequent history. On this subject its worth watching 'Capturing the Friedmans'. An excellent and relevant documentary.
Another issue is the suggestive slow-motion footage of Woody and Dylan in intimate home movie footage underscored by unsettling music. Recontextualised you could easily create a portrait of a great father instead. This is rather irresponsible of the film-makers.
One of the few facts that is stated in the first episode is that Dylan was taken to a therapist before the alleged abuse where she revealed that she had 'a secret'. This secret is not itself revealed, so even in its suggestive context, its meaningless. Perhaps this is setup to be addressed in a later episode, but if not, that is highly speculative film making indeed.
Lastly, so far we are not given any countering opinion or content, there are only a few snippets of Allen's narrated autobiography, and these are not used to counter Mia, Dylan and Ronan's recollections. Only a written statement of denial from Woody is included at the very end.
There are some lovely shots of New York and Mia's house, but the overall glossiness doesn't paper over the apparent partiality to the film makers' approach, and only serves to highlight the lack of factual content. Let's see where this goes... -
alexiou-7022 February 2021I found it very well made and Mia farrow and Dylan very convincing as was everyone else who participated In this documentary, you don't have to believe it but you have to see how easy it is to groom young children. I have only watched the 1st episode and has made me think on how disturbing these rich and famous people are. Do I believe it? So far they have given me an inside look into there lives and Mia seems genuine as does her daughter, what reason do they have to lie, ofcourse woody Allen will dispute it,, its wierd how people are quick to call woman liars especially when someone rich and famous like woody is. I am enjoying it but I am also disturbed by it. Every one should watch it it might make us a little more aware of our surroundings.
-
mherrity23 February 2021I'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.
-
billsoccer17 March 2021Let me admit right off that some of the criticism I've seen seem valid - since Woody didn't participate there's an air of one-sidedness to it. The fact that Dylan had a therapist at what - age 5? - seems to give credence to the 'icky' feeling you get observing the lifestyle of Woody/Mia. Moreover, the way the series is edited makes you wish they'd condensed it and maybe Dylan was coached. However, if you're sure of who's lying/telling the truth after watching the 4th episode I'd suggest you shouldn't try to get on any juries till you regain your objectivity.
-
Danusha_Goska22 February 2021Wow. I didn't think this would move me so much. I followed the news accounts and read the dueling op eds. I didn't expect anything new from this series. I honestly thought I'd watch about ten minutes and then move on. I was glued to the screen for the entire first episode. It's honest, detailed, intimate, and devastating.
What gets you is the truth: you are most hurt by people you love and trust. -
Did he or didn't he? The question that came about in the 90s when Allen ran off with Farrow's daughter and the allegations surfaced. Because he fought the allegations with the 'woman scorned' mitigation we never really got to the truth. Back then. But we do now. Straight from the child's mouth. Live on videos. Tapes. Very well put together documentary. No stone left unturned. The very weird and sick world of Woody Allen on screen.
-
lhollan22 February 2021This is a well-edited recount of the early days of a rather perverse plot. It's always been easy to criticize Mia Farrow for just assembling a huge family of children to care for, but that is less of a target here. The slow-burn of Allen's "inappropriate" behavior with selected children is intriguing...and you just want to know more. Why? Because it is downright weird. It's about time someone documented this story and let people make up their own minds. This is a good documentary.
-
Runrig15 March 2021There is no doubt, this is a well produced and researched insight into one of the biggest scandals of modern day history. The only two people that really know what happened for sure, is Dylan and Woody. For my own part, given the experience I have had with this subject, and the hurt it has caused those around me, there was nothing of Dylan's story that suggested it was a planted memory, or the result of a manipulative mother.
Hats off to the family for stepping forward and putting this out there. The documentary itself was well done, however, it could have be edited down to 3 episodes without losing anything of its thrust. I felt I had learned nothing more from Episode 4 than what was already presented.
Overall, well worth the watch. -
vanessa-892-2200701 April 2021It was obvious that the documentary was completely one-sided and portrayed in a way that could make one think that there is beyond reasonable doubt to believe Dylan and Mia Farrow's story. The saying is there are two sides to every story and then there's the truth. Unfortunately, the documentary only followed one side to the story. The series was quite disturbing but there seemed to be missing pieces to the puzzle that weren't pursued further and a string of Mia Farrow followers that wanted to push a specific narrative that suited their side of the story.
One thing I found particularly peculiar was that Mia Farrow brought up slapping her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi. However, that topic was never pressed further by the interviewers and came off from a viewers perspective as nonchalant. Wouldn't an investigated journalist pursue that topic further by asking other adopted sons and daughters if there was any kind of behavior at home from Mia Farrow and also investigate other siblings point of views.
For a documentary that claimed to take years of research, it didn't want to present the full case and present a different side of the story. It wanted shock value and to further destroy and alienate a famed director. -
slicknewface23 February 2021Those who say "one sided" need to remember this series is based on the memories and experiences of a child who lives it and continues to live with her past.
Her reality is her reality, it can't be reduced to he said/she said. Mr. Allen is free to make his own documentary about his experience.
That said, the collaborating memories of others is damning for Mr. Allen. The family's home movies, commentaries, and input are pieced together in mosaic that tells the tale of innocence stolen. Well worth watching. -
kmaxi26 February 2021Loved this documentary, all the inside info, HOWEVER, Berrie Berenstan, wife of Anthony Perkins was inaccurately labeled as Mia's sister. No. Anyone who knows anything recognizes Berrie.
-
One can argue whether or not documentarians should adhere to the truth and whether or not they should have journalistic integrity, but it is clear these days that many documentarians just use them as a platform for themselves to rise.
In this case Woody Allen is thrown under the bus together with any fairness or balance and no attempt were made to find the truth or show both sides. Many important facts and pieces of evidence were left out to make room for the attacks and they didn't just go after the man's integrity but also his career or right to even have one or for his films to be seen.
This amounts to nothing but a smear campaign against Woody Allen and I highly recommend viewers to either shy away or make sure they investigate the truth and the matter a little more.