Allen v Farrow is pure PR. Why else would it omit so much? | Hadley Freeman
The new HBO documentary in which Mia and Dylan Farrow revisit their 1992 allegation against Woody Allen claims to be an even-handed investigation. But its failure to present the facts makes it feel more like activism
The problem with bias is that it undermines everything you say, however interesting or credible. Of greatest significance to obsessives about this case is the revelation in the documentary that, in their map of the house, the Connecticut State Police drew a train track in the attic space where Dylan says her father molested her. Since 2014,
she stared at an electric train “as it traveled in its circle around the track” while her father abused her, promising, she has said, that she would be “a star in his movies”.Moses and Allen have written that there was no electric train in the attic, and
Allen has saidthat the attic allegation was inspired by a song by Dory Previn, whose husband André left her for Mia in 1970. With My Daddy in the Attic is about incest and molestation and features lyrics such as “Door closed on Mama … / With my Daddy in the attic / That is where my dark attraction lies.” (This song appears on the same album as Dory Previn’s notorious song, Beware Young Girls, which was about Farrow’s affair with André.) headtopics.com
The police drawing suggests Dylan was telling the truth. However, Robert B Weide, a director and friend of Allen, hasblogged in response to the seriesthat a nanny in the household testified at the time that there was a train set kept up there – not a small electric one, but a chunky plastic train the children would sit on and ride. So in other words, everyone is right and also wrong: a train was stored up there, as Dylan said, but not an electric one that could have circled the track, as Moses and Allen said. It’s a point that sums up so many of the grey areas to this case, and yet another one that Ziering and Dick denote instead as black and white.
Dylan Farrow in Allen v Farrow.Photograph: HBOwhich was reported at the time– about New York City welfare case worker Paul Williams, who was part of an investigation into Allen, and who claimed that he had been urged by his superiors to find the charges “unfounded”. When he refused – and we see him telling reporters he “believes the kid” – he was taken off the case. Ziering and Dick strongly imply that something dodgy happened here, but instead of finding any actual evidence, the film-makers air entirely unproven theories that Allen was being protected by the City of New York, even perhaps by then-mayor David Dinkins, because “he made his movies in New York and that brought millions of dollars to New York City”, theorises Farrow. (Sadly, if perhaps conveniently, Dinkins is now dead and so can’t comment on this.) At the time of the investigation, Allen’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz,
said that Williams was removed from the casebecause when he interviewed people “he acted in a rude fashion and appeared to be biased”. Now, it wouldn’t be hard to style this as shady lawyer obfuscation, so why don’t Ziering and Dick include this counter-argument in the film? Because counter-arguments are of little interest to Ziering and Dick.
Rich and powerful men do and did get away with a lot – this is a given. But the documentary’s contention that “if you are a powerful celebrity male, you are nearly impossible to prosecute” is undermined by its frequent comparisons between Allen and male celebrities – Weinstein, Cosby, Polanski, and so on – who have, in fact, all been prosecuted. Why not Allen, the documentary asks? Well, there might be some good reasons for that which have nothing to do with Mayor Dinkins. headtopics.com
Contrary to longstanding rumours that Allen refused to take a lie-detector test administered by the Connecticut State Police, he was never asked to take one. Instead, headministered by Paul Minor, who for many years ran the polygraph division of the FBI. He passed.
Allen and Soon-Yi Previn with their daughters, Bechet and Manzie Tio, in 2002.Photograph: Alonso Gonzales/REUTERSSimilarly, the image the series draws of Allen as terrifyingly powerful, his thumb drilling down on the scales of justice, is contradicted by the fact that Judge Elliott Wilk ruled against him in the custody case, which was going on during the scandal, when Allen sued for custody of Ronan, Dylan and Moses, and lost. Farrow, on the other hand,
her next adopted child, Thaddeus, the middle name Wilk, as a sign of gratitude to the judge.Thaddeus later died from whatMoses has called suicide, while another child adopted by Farrow, named Tam, died by what Moses claims is suicide and Farrow says was a heart ailment. The film mentions neither – nor a further adopted child, Lark, who died in poverty from an Aids-related illness. There is a similar silence in the section on Mia’s family about her brother,
John Villiers-Farrow, a convicted paedophile.Then there’s Soon-Yi. The documentary, and the Farrow family, can’t decide whether she’s an evil seductress who must be shunned, or a tragic victim of a sexual predator, as they claim Allen to be. A friend of the family says in the documentary that Allen only said he “loves” Soon-Yi in a 1992 press conference in order to distract from the molestation charge; no one in the entire documentary points out that Allen and Soon-Yi have now been together for almost 25 years, which suggests their relationship – as distasteful as it was at first – is clearly more than a smokescreen, and now looks close to conventional. headtopics.com
Moses and Mia Farrow at the wedding of Liza Minnelli and David Gest, 2002.Photograph: Charles Sykes/REX/Shutterstock Read more: The Guardian »
COVID news live – latest UK updates: Lockdown rules warning for warm weather over next two days
Coronavirus latest: Warning to resist peer pressure to break COVID rules as temperatures soar past 20C; Canada pauses Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine for under-55s.
This is a terrible take. I don’t understand why anyone defends this man. Even if you think every word Mia says is a lie, he still took naked pictures of her daughter and made movies normalizing grown men dating teenagers. This is so irresponsible HadleyFreeman Your paltry attempt at research shows. Plenty of things you state as fact that have later been corrected. You’re defending a child molester.
Wow, this article reeks of bias. Just say you don't want to believe a grown woman who consistently reported sexually inappropriate behavior by her father who has a well reported history of sexually inappropriate behavior. Really So w how come her tune was different when it's Michael Jackson? Hypocrisy at its finest!!!!
🤮🤮🤮 How about Leaving Neverland? That movie was full of proven lies, old myths debunked years ago and impossible timelines. You should watch this video: Why are you such a hypocrite? Where was this fairness to Michael Jackson? Racism is not always conscious. It's sometimes the bias that allows you to be more empathic with a white person than a black one. When you think it's wrong to have a one-sided hit piece about a white man, but the same thing about a black man has your full support.
Imagine saying a man’s own child is lying about alleged abuse but being quick to believe two grown men peddling sick fantasies about Michael Jackson in hopes for a quick buck! The caucacity of this woman to denouce the Allen doc, when she was shoveling manure on Michael Jackson’s grave and eating up the lies in L*aving N*verland! Why does she believe the yt man and not the Black man found innocent in a court of law?
Besides the obvious hypocrisy from this columnist. What does Farrow gain by lying? It doesn’t make any sense to continue to push this narrative if it’s false. They’d just be happy they got away with the lie for this long - why renew it. Thanks. I’ve been waiting to read a critique of that ridiculous documentary.
PR is why this article is written. Hadley = Diabolical double standards & henious hypocrisy. 🤢🤮 A whole volume can be written on what Leaving Neverland omited & its ... ya know what, you just can't teach bigoted stupid & the system that supports it. Anyway, hit Amazon Prime or YT & type in Square One.
A Tale Of 2 HBO Hit Pieces. Michael Jackson. Black man, unable to defend himself, fully & unanimously exonerated in life w/provably false allegations. Freeman: 'Abuser' & 'Predator'. Woody Allen: White man, alive/able to defend himself. Freeman: Doc is so biased & partial. 🖕 Written by Hadley and this is the headline...anyone surprised? Loool. Sounds about white.
Haven't heard from this hack 'journalist' for a long time. So, she's still a karen. Hasn't HadleyFreeman been sacked yet? My God the hypocrisy of that clueless, spiteful 'woman'. Leaving Neverland: Omits 7 years of litigation that outlines in forensic detail how the accusing parties have committed serial perjury while seeking (but failing) millions. Hadley: Perfection Allen v Farrow: Carbon copy of Leaving Neverland. Hadley: This is not fair
Why this woman who promoted happily a pedophile fiction and attacked the Jacksons on Twitter is still not fired ? She doesn't do journalism, but propaganda. Its the same argument against Leaving Neverland, but Hadley is a hypocrite of the highest order. Allen v Farrow: Why would it omit so much? Leaving Neverland, the blue print for Allen v Farrow: Right side of history. Hadley speeking to a black family who were left heartbroken after an attack on their loved one. 'keep sucking on that money teat'.
Mia Farrow, so hot back in the day Double Karen... the media still ignoring BJackson82 ,when are you going to stop ignoring her? Never right? you only need one side against the dead black man (which was proven innocent by court)but when it’s the white Allen suddenly you must hear his side? You never hide your biased and racist agenda Guardian specially when you give to a blatant RACIST propagandist the space to slander an INNOCENT DEAD BLACK Michael Jackson but defending a WHITE man or giving him the right to look at his side unlikely Freeman did with MJ.
althea_sansone jin_chohan Look at this. The same outlet who pushed leaving Neverland. I thought you wanna see this Wasn’t she cancelled & fired for being a TERF? She’s back? The embodiment of White privilege. I will take Hadley Freeman seriously when she will take seriously what Amber Turd did on Johnny Depp, how Michael Jackson has been mistreated by conmen & racist MSM, & how Johnny Depp is mocked by misandrist UK associations/rag hacks/politicians.
Buffoons. The hypocrisy here stinks. That's all I'm going to say Let's not forget the way she ♥ 2 mistreat Johnny Depp by calling him horrible names. Because when she attacks him saying BS, yet doesn't denounces the abuse Amber Turd did, then I have problem taking her word seriously (even though I defend Woody Allen).
Why did Leaving Neverland omit so much? Like Robson & Safechuck's lawsuits, Robson's relationship with Jackson's niece, Safechuck's time-traveling train station, Robson BEGGING to do tribute show etc Funny how Hackley believed that garbage but not this one The vile way Hadley Freeman behaves by mistreating Michael Jackson makes her work less respectable & taken seriously when she tries 2 defend the artists she wants to defend. If she has time 2 watch BS pieces like LN, she has time to watch Square One MJ.
Hackley just couldn't help put Jackson in there too, eh? Despite the fact she's been proven WRONG about HBO's bullshit 'documentary' about him that aired 2 years ago? I don't know enough about Allen case yet but Hackley insulted/blocked real abuse victims who exposed her lies. Strange double standard from that Rita Skeeter 2 defend Woody Allen (whom I support & defend), but not the same rigour 4 due process & denunciation of biased 1-sided pieces. Especially when she defended the quickly debunked BS Leaving Neverland by HBO. 1/
Double standards so much. If only Hadley had had the same sense of justice and fairness with Michael Jackson, who was slandered without a chance to defend himself in Leaving Neverland, a documentary that in no way, shape or form showed the other side. What a joke. Is this the infamous white privilege? Seriously, the double standards are astonishing.
A typical Allen apologist, Freeman thinks 'Allen v Farrow' isn't balanced because there's not enough character assassination of Mia Farrow utterly unrelated to Allen's rape of Dylan. In Hadley's bizarre calculus, the tragic death of Farrow's children makes Allen less guilty. oh dear