Allen v Farrow

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hamlet. wrote: »

In addition, Si Yoo was never WA's daughter in law. It's another narrative pushed that's fake. She never lived with him, barely spoke until she was of age and a very important detail is this, the fact that they are still together to this day speaks volumes.

Urm, yeah, that technicality doesn’t make it less creepy. He was a father figure in Soon-Yi Previn’s life for a decade until she became an adult. Doesn’t matter that he and Farrow never lived together. He was Soon-Yi’s mother’s goddamn long-term boyfriend. Farrow had a biological child with Allen and adopted two others with him. As if Soon-Yi barely knew him. :rolleyes: Like, are you really saying that he would have treated the children he had with Farrow as his but Soon Yi as just some random child he barely knew? Me. Balls.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

You're unusually rattled to the point I question why. Documentary has new information, and video, never seen before. Should watch it in full, then remark.

I’d agree. The bolded phrasing below is so odd and really speaks to somebody overly invested. “Corrupt little body”?

Hamlet. wrote: »

They declined to be involved because they knew their stories wouldn't be given fair treatment. How can you expect a fair shake when you have the likes of Ronan Farrow, who did everything in his corrupt little body to kill Woody Allen's book being published pulling the strings?

Ted_YNWA

MOD - Thread moved from AH

HalloweenJack

Hamlet. wrote: »

The abuse is in her bloodline not his.

You've posted a lot of drivel but this really is disgusting. Are you saying that Mia can't be trusted because her relative is an abuser? That we should all be shunned for our relatives' crimes?

How does that logic apply to people abused by their own family members? Bear in mind that the overwhelming number of abuse cases involve people known to the victim, a lot of these being family members.

That's quite a radical and hurtful argument you are pursuing and one that you should re-visit if you want to be taking seriously on here.

forumdedum

So I've watched all 4 episodes. It says at the end that Dylan published a novel and the sequel is on the way.

ceadaoin.

forumdedum wrote: »

So I've watched all 4 episodes. It says at the end that Dylan published a novel and the sequel is on the way.

Yeah a young adult fiction novel. What does that have to do with anything?

forumdedum

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah a young adult fiction novel. What does that have to do with anything?

Mentioning that in the credits makes it a promotion. Just think it's unfortunate. It's a possible motivation for making the documentary.

ceadaoin.

forumdedum wrote: »

Mentioning that in the credits makes it a promotion. Just think it's unfortunate. It's a possible motivation for making the documentary.

Jesus, it's extreme lengths to go through to promote a book dont you think? And they got the former DA and all involved in this promotion too? They must have had it all planned for 20 years! Lol

I just thought they mentioned it to show that Dylan has moved on, has a career etc and is successful is her own right but what do I know.

Hamlet.

Hamlet. wrote: »

I respect the verdict of two separate state investigations.

Investigations do not give verdicts.
Only courts give verdicts.
You cannot be proven innocent.

forumdedum

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Jesus, it's extreme lengths to go through to promote a book dont you think? And they got the former DA and all involved in this promotion too? They must have had it all planned for 20 years! Lol

I just thought they mentioned it to show that Dylan has moved on, has a career etc and is successful is her own right but what do I know.

I never questioned what you know.

I didn't say it was all put together to promote a book. Seems odd Dylan hasn't gone to court now as an adult.

frosty123

forumdedum wrote: »

Seems odd Dylan hasn't gone to court now as an adult.

Watching interviews of her, it seems like she has everything rehearsed like reading from a script..to me it's just an act..I just don't believe her.

I'd like to know the financial situation herself and her mother are in? Is this just a cynical way of cashing in??

ceadaoin.

forumdedum wrote: »

I never questioned what you know.

I didn't say it was all put together to promote a book. Seems odd Dylan hasn't gone to court now as an adult.

Under Connecticut law, there is currently no statute of limitations for most sex crimes perpetrated against children. However, that law was amended after the alleged abuse of Dylan Farrow in the attic of the the family’s country home.

While, Woody Allen could theoretically be prosecuted in a different jurisdiction for an alleged sexual assault that took place in 1992, the potential assault of Dylan in Connecticut would likely be time-barred by the statute of limitations that would apply to the case .

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/could-woody-allen-be-prosecuted-for-alleged-sexual-assault-of-dylan-farrow-after-all-these-years-we-answer-this-and-other-legal-questions-raised-by-hbos-allen-v-farrow/

ohnonotgmail

ceadaoin. wrote: »

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/could-woody-allen-be-prosecuted-for-alleged-sexual-assault-of-dylan-farrow-after-all-these-years-we-answer-this-and-other-legal-questions-raised-by-hbos-allen-v-farrow/

That is only for criminal prosecution. I think the other poster was asking why they hadn't taken a civil case.

forumdedum

ceadaoin. wrote: »

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/could-woody-allen-be-prosecuted-for-alleged-sexual-assault-of-dylan-farrow-after-all-these-years-we-answer-this-and-other-legal-questions-raised-by-hbos-allen-v-farrow/

Thanks for the clarification.

I find it hard to believe anyone (child or adult) would lie about such a disgusting act.

The book 'promo' weakens Dylan's case imo. Also found the documentary a bit too staged in places.

forumdedum

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

That is only for criminal prosecution. I think the other poster was asking why they hadn't taken a civil case.

Just noticed this post now. Indeed, why not a civil case

GirlatdRockShow

I found it strange that while all this was going on farrow continued to adopt more children both during and after. Surely the priority should have been looking after Dylan and the many children she already had and supporting them through this time, as whether it happened or not I'm sure it was still a traumatic time for all the kids nonetheless.

retro:electro

forumdedum wrote: »

Just noticed this post now. Indeed, why not a civil case

Because maybe she doesn’t want to? Maybe she doesn’t care about getting his money, and maybe she’s aware it will just give people more ammunition to claim she was only ever after his money. Answer me this, if the allegations are false why doesn’t he take Dylan to court?

You see this can work both ways.

ohnonotgmail

retro:electro wrote: »

Because maybe she doesn’t want to? Maybe she doesn’t care about getting his money, and maybe she’s aware it will just give people more ammunition to claim she was only ever after his money. Answer me this, if the allegations are false why doesn’t he take Dylan to court?

You see this can work both ways.

take dylan to court for what?

retro:electro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

take dylan to court for what?

Defamation? His career has been damaged as a result of the allegations. He would have grounds there for a case if he believes them to be untrue. So, why doesn’t he?

So half the posters believe Woody because Mia is a crazy b*tch, and half believe Mia because Woody wears corduroy and glasses.

ohnonotgmail

retro:electro wrote: »

Defamation? His career has been damaged as a result of the allegations. He would have grounds there for a case if he believes them to be untrue. So, why doesn’t he?

he can't. if you make a criminal complaint against somebody they can't sue you for defamation. Statements to police have qualified privilege. if you think about why this might be it should be clear why it has to be this way.

retro:electro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he can't. if you make a criminal complaint against somebody they can't sue you for defamation. Statements to police have qualified privilege. if you think about why this might be it should be clear why it has to be this way.

Even if limitations has expired? Anyway he could still sue Mia or HBO

ohnonotgmail

retro:electro wrote: »

He could still sue Mia or HBO

I'm sure he doesn't want any more publicity about this. It can also backfire. ask johnny depp.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

So half the posters believe Woody because Mia is a crazy b*tch, and half believe Mia because Woody wears corduroy and glasses.

Personally I only judge Allen on definites. He is married to the adopted daughter of his former girlfriend, who would have been a child when his children with Farrow were also children. People defend him by saying “He never lived with Farrow and therefore never lived with Soon-Yi!”. But that means that he also probably only half the time lived with his children with Farrow. To suggest that he barely got to know Soon-Yi when she was growing up with her half-siblings that belonged to Allen and Farrow seems entirely absurd. And if he DID distance himself from Soon-Yi, that would also be really odd. And seems massively, hugely unlikely.

forumdedum

retro:electro wrote: »

Because maybe she doesn’t want to? Maybe she doesn’t care about getting his money, and maybe she’s aware it will just give people more ammunition to claim she was only ever after his money. Answer me this, if the allegations are false why doesn’t he take Dylan to court?

You see this can work both ways.

Yes, probably wise to avoid a legal minefield. There is something very odd about all of this in my opinion. Dating the daughter of your partner's adopted daughter is pretty out there. Soon-Yi seems to trust Woody won't abuse the 2 children . . .

BorneTobyWilde

The fact he went out and adopted a little blonde girl from Texas with Soon Yi only adds to the creepiness , she was like a Dylan replacement. Weird.

retro:electro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure he doesn't want any more publicity about this. It can also backfire. ask johnny depp.

Well this was kind of my initial point. People will easily judge Dylan for not pursuing a civil case against Woody, but excuse Woody because it “wouldn’t be worth it”. Her reason not to pursue civil action should not be used against her. I’m sure she has her reasons.

tipptom

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Personally I only judge Allen on definites. He is married to the adopted daughter of his former girlfriend, who would have been a child when his children with Farrow were also children. People defend him by saying “He never lived with Farrow and therefore never lived with Soon-Yi!”. But that means that he also probably only half the time lived with his children with Farrow. To suggest that he barely got to know Soon-Yi when she was growing up with her half-siblings that belonged to Allen and Farrow seems entirely absurd. And if he DID distance himself from Soon-Yi, that would also be really odd. And seems massively, hugely unlikely.

Seems from the docu that Soon yi was very much a loner and did not engage much with the family or Allen.
Not excusing a strange relationship but they seem to be a very happy couple over the years and it is what it is now,nothing illegal happend and its only bearing on the accusations is that the accusations seems to have come hot on the heels of his relationship with Soon YI but Farrow had continued working with Allen on his films.

The film industry is a cesspit and I cannot listen to any of them anymore preaching to us,and the arch preacher/hypocrite Meryl Streep brought it to a head for me for giving a standing ovation to Roman Polanski.

Disappointing thread.

Thought this was about Allen v DPP

("Which one?"says he)

Natterjack from Kerry

Very one sided, which is disappointing in any documentary today and borders on irresponsible. Whatever the truth. It is four episodes of the case for the prosecution. While interesting, the themes of his movies, and his own relationships with young girls is all very circumstantial, but presented to lead to sustaining the allegation.

Nevertheless, unless I missed it somewhere, what exactly are they alleging Woody did ? Is the long and the short of it, that he 'touched my privates' ? And without condoning that in any way, it would strike me as very low on the scale of child molestation, and, would such a single event really lead to the lifelong trauma the Dylan seems to display ?

On his innocence or not, I think watching that, I would be 50-50. Which makes me think that if their were four episodes with open interviews from all parties on Woody's side, it would probably sway me to no guilty. The condemnation of so many actors of him does seem premature and jumping on a righteousness bandwagon following the likes of undoubted monsters like Weinstein.

R3_Regera

The suggestion that this is a one sided documentary is fair, but on the other had, we've had nearly 30 years of Woody presenting only his side of the story - multiple videos quoted dating back to the 1990s on this thread with no response at the time. No mention of those interviews being one sided though.

This one from 1992 for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPs5TAO8Hj4 was posted previously.