You are correct that the show does not address either of these, though I think sometimes it refers to something like “about 20 minutes”, which may be an attempt to hedge.
I agree it’s not really a documentary about the dispute between Mia Farrow and Woody Allen (it doesn’t even pretend to give his side). It’s not a documentary about whether Dylan Farrow was sexually molested as a child (it presents no new evidence on this question). It could have been a documentary about Mia Farrow’s story (how her world crumbled when she found those pictures of Soon-Yi with Woody), or about Dylan; near the end of episode 3 there is a scene in which Dylan says the video her mother took of her accusing Woody of molesting her captures her true self - “I am that 7 year old girl.” It’s heartbreaking, but probably not in the way the filmmakers intend. On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 10:03 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > I applaud your persistence and fortitude in watching this farrago, but > have two questions, neither of which is dealt with in the show (I refuse to > call it a "documentary"), I assume. This first is that I thought it had > been established that the infamous "twenty minutes" were actually no more > than five. Is that not the case? Second, is the concept of Allen choosing > that day, when he was under extremely close watch, to be the perfect time > to make his alleged move dealt with, or is it ignored, as with any other > exculpatory evidence? > > --Dave Sikula > > On Sunday, March 7, 2021, 9:54:52 PM PST, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Okay, so Episode 3 is the strongest of the three hours shown so far, > (though still in my view not very good) after Episode 2 last week, which > was by far the weakest (and again I so agree with the point made by others > that the bloat in the documentary is atrocious). > > The heart of any argument that the evidence is clear that Allen molested > Dylan has to be in explaining why the official investigations into the > allegations did not find them convincing. Episode 3 engages these issues, > and raised some valid questions (e.g, why did the Yale Child Sexual Abuse > Clinic destroy their notes? Why did they interview a 7 year old child so > frequently?). Unfortunately the documentary is again not transparent or > complete in its discussion of these issues. They have a couple of experts > say that notes are never destroyed in a forensic assessment like this, but > neglect to report that in the early 1990s it was not just common > professional practice, but state law, to destroy notes after a > determination was made that alleged abuse had not occurred. I agree that > frequent interviews of young children are poor practice, but the doc does > not say (and, having read the summary of the Yale Clinic’s findings, I > still do not know) how long each of these interviews were, or how many of > them covered the same ground. The documentary also fails to point out that > the video Mia made of her daughter prior to taking her for formal > evaluation was itself composed of many sessions, with the camera turned off > and on repeatedly. > > I have been thinking that if the Doc had any chance to justify itself, it > would be in presenting new evidence to show malfeasance in the CT and NY > investigations, but there is nothing new here, mostly warmed over (often > directly quoted) allegations from long time Allen critics like Maureen > Orth. I also thought there might be reports that Mia was alleging multiple > incidents of abuse, but so far the focus is on those missing 20 minutes > allegedly in the attic. It’s not impossible that Woody Allen is a single > incident child molestor, but that is hardly the typical pattern. Dylan was > examined by physicians and even her mother acknowledges no physical > evidence of sexual abuse was ever found; this does not rule out many kinds > of sexual abuse, but again there is no evidence here that abuse occurred. > The long section of Ep 3 that is Allen critics annotating the custody trial > and outcome is of no bearing on the central issues. As the doc point out, > it is common for fathers accused of abuse to sue for custody (sometimes > vindictive punishment by psychopaths, other times genuine and heartsick > attempts to rescue children from toxic envionrments), but in my experience > even conventional fathers most often do not win, and putting child abuse > allegations to the side, Woody Allen is hardly a conventional father. > > Maybe episode 4 will bring something new (one would think they would try > to end with a bombshell - and they hint at some explosive explanation why > the CT DA did not file charges at the end of Ep 3) but after 3 bloated > hours there is nothing substantively added to what was previously known > about this case. > > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 7:05 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > She stole my line...except, that is pretty much the only thing to say > about this case, at least if you want to bend over backwards to be fair to > Mia and Dylan. > > Freeman appears to have seen all four episodes in the last couple of > weeks, after saying when episode 1 aired that she hadn’t seen it at all. If > she’s right then the series is worse than I assumed, in that it never > addresses most of the contrary evidence. > > The filmmakers have been saying in the media that their documentary does > not need to be balanced, because Woody’s version has for 25 years been > dominant, and they are bringing balance by supplying Maia and Dylan’s > version. I’m not convinced there was ever a time that this was true - Allen > has said relatively little over the years, and a search of Twitter will > show that most people expressing an opinion about this assume “Woody Allen > married his step daughter and molested his own child; WHY ISN'T HE IN JAIL?” > > I have been reluctant to bring this next point up, because it is ugly and > has the effect of undermining Mia Farrow’s version even though as far as I > know she has no connection to it. As I have been reading Twitter comments > on this story I have been surprised at a steady stream of both latent and > manifest antisemitism animating much of the anti Woody posts. (Raising this > of course risks enacting a central trope from Annie Hall, but then I always > preferred that to Manhattan). > > I’m not saying that anyone who believe the worst about Allen must be > suspected of being an antisemite, but it does seem that, far more than with > Harvey Weinstein (or Matt Lauer, though perhaps that is more > understandable), Allen’s Jewishness is referenced in some way by a > surprisingly large fraction of his detractors. I suppose that is due in > large part to Allen making his Jewishness a big part of some of his films, > and that for many Americans he has been their most influential exposure to > Judaism. The ugly sense I get though is that for some, the molestation > charges, even with relatively low levels of validity, free them up to > basically say: “I always found that weird little Jew to be creepy.” > > My point in bringing that up is to suggest the explanation lies in the > ambiguity surrounding the charges, which allows observers a less > constrained field to project their own biases into the story. > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 5:12 AM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: > > A key paragraph perhaps considering what @Pgage has been saying: > > "Ziering and Dick don’t know what happened between Dylan and her father. > Neither do I and neither, perhaps, does anyone at this point, as repeated > retellings take the place of real memory. Braver and better film-makers > would drill down into how historical truth can change over time, and how > two people can look at one image and see very different things." > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:09 PM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: > > The previously mentioned Hadley Freeman from The Guardian has a decent > piece just published on what the documentary makers appear to have to left > out: > > > https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/03/allen-v-farrow-woody-allen-mia-farrow-documentary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tvornottv/4ZMX-YOnBtg/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJidk5pHH3deE%3D_vu%3D%3DP2R-kgZdfibLzxkcwyOy-D0HDA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJidk5pHH3deE%3D_vu%3D%3DP2R-kgZdfibLzxkcwyOy-D0HDA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/557629740.406173.1615183399331%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/557629740.406173.1615183399331%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLokrxCXavM6142FfYEU6kx2ix0z6cw-kgTz%3DXNepP0zw%40mail.gmail.com.
