The HBO Original Programming Thread

[Northwestcoug]

Standing athwart the howling lynch mob is a hill I'm always happy to die on, regardless of the accused's race, gender, occupation, or creed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Standing athwart the howling lynch mob is a hill I'm always happy to die on, regardless of the accused's race, gender, occupation, or creed.

Lol. So incredibly stunning and brave!

[Commando]

Just watched Judas and the Black Messiah. Oof. If I wasn't already radicalized, this would be definitely a movie to help me take a step in that direction.

[SeattleUte]

Me, a sensible person: Woody Allen is a creepy guy. Maybe the age of consent and other cultural expectations of our day exonerate his relationship with Soon Yi. And maybe there's problems with the molestation accusation, and some of his accusers are shady also. But he's still a creepy guy. There is certainly smoke here, so I'll look for the fire. It's definitely possible that he's guilty of those accusations.

Seattle Ute: I'll defend Allen against any and all accusations, and I'll represent him pro bono!

Standing athwart the howling lynch mob is a hill I'm always happy to die on, regardless of the accused's race, gender, occupation, or creed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Big disagreement over whether this has been overwhelmingly one-sided in Woody's favor, but I'll move on. Why don't Dylan and her lawyer brother (Frank's kid--but now I'm being petty and off-topic) file a civil suit? With a lower threshold of proof than a criminal proceeding, and with evidence as strong as the mini-series suggests, shouldn't vindication be a lay-up?

No idea, but I doubt cash is the kind of vindication they seek. Mia has been painted as a jilted lunatic, so obsessed with vengeance and rage that she would shamelessly use her daughter as a pawn. Dylan has been painted as a victim of her mother, not Woody. If I were in their shoes, and assuming they are telling the truth, it is not difficult at all to see why they would want to set the record straight.

[PaloAltoCougar]

MeToo is what? 2 years old? Yeah, the tide is starting to shift.

Allen did an all-out media blitz when this blew up. He was on Newsweek, Time, countless NYT articles, etc. He had a PR machine, complete with private investigators digging dirt. That made it die out relatively quickly. Of course, it blew up again in 2014 when Dylan decided not to go away.

Big disagreement over whether this has been overwhelmingly one-sided in Woody's favor, but I'll move on. Why don't Dylan and her lawyer brother (Frank's kid--but now I'm being petty and off-topic) file a civil suit? With a lower threshold of proof than a criminal proceeding, and with evidence as strong as the mini-series suggests, shouldn't vindication be a lay-up?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maybe I haven't been reading a representative media sampler, but since the story broke back in the '90s, I haven't found media coverage to be overwhelmingly sympathetic to Woody, especially not since "Me Too!" It has been my strong impression that Mia and Ronan have been working the media, with considerable success, far more than Woody who has always been very private, even painfully so at times.

MeToo is what? 2 years old? Yeah, the tide is starting to shift.

Allen did an all-out media blitz when this blew up. He was on Newsweek, Time, countless NYT articles, etc. He had a PR machine, complete with private investigators digging dirt. That made it die out relatively quickly. Of course, it blew up again in 2014 when Dylan decided not to go away.

[SeattleUte]

Maybe I haven't been reading a representative media sampler, but since the story broke back in the '90s, I haven't found media coverage to be overwhelmingly sympathetic to Woody, especially not since "Me Too!" It has been my strong impression that Mia and Ronan have been working the media, with considerable success, far more than Woody who has always been very private, even painfully so at times.

Correct.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It is rather ironic when people complain the docu-series is one-sided given the overwhelmingly sympathetic bias from the media that Allen has enjoyed throughout this ordeal. In the docu-series they interview a few journalists that tried to swim against the tide and give air to the Mia/Farrow side of the debate in the early years. Allen was a god in New York and in elite media circles and took full advantage of that position.

Maybe I haven't been reading a representative media sampler, but since the story broke back in the '90s, I haven't found media coverage to be overwhelmingly sympathetic to Woody, especially not since "Me Too!" It has been my strong impression that Mia and Ronan have been working the media, with considerable success, far more than Woody who has always been very private, even painfully so at times.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Reasonable minds may disagree about the strength of Moses's arguments, but I must grieve about my own writing skills if you think his essay was poorly written... It's also evident you are more convinced of Woody's guilt than I am of his innocence, so I won't continue as a Woody advocate, although I found this story from a Woody-supporter and Curb Your Enthusiasm producer/director Robert Weide an interesting read.

It is rather ironic when people complain the docu-series is one-sided given the overwhelmingly sympathetic bias from the media that Allen has enjoyed throughout this ordeal. In the docu-series they interview a few journalists that tried to swim against the tide and give air to the Mia/Farrow side of the debate in the early years. Allen was a god in New York and in elite media circles and took full advantage of that position.

[Northwestcoug]

Me, a sensible person: Woody Allen is a creepy guy. Maybe the age of consent and other cultural expectations of our day exonerate his relationship with Soon Yi. And maybe there's problems with the molestation accusation, and some of his accusers are shady also. But he's still a creepy guy. There is certainly smoke here, so I'll look for the fire. It's definitely possible that he's guilty of those accusations.

Seattle Ute: I'll defend Allen against any and all accusations, and I'll represent him pro bono!

[Jeff Lebowski]

So now the neighbor's nanny who saw Woody with his head in Dylan's lap behind an unlocked door in a bedroom in which she freely entered is where they say this all started? She didn't say she say she say Woody molesting her. Somewhat peculiar behavior, possibly mitigated by the fact that he was in a custody battle and hadn't seen her for months. But this nanny did not see him molesting her. Nor did she say that Dylan was naked from the waist down or that Woody was in her crotch. Allegedly someone else said Dylan hadn't been wearing underwear that day.

I thought Dylan said that it happened in the attic beside a train going round and round.

You should watch the docu-series. Tons of details provided.

SU, I know it must be difficult to accept that one of your idols might be guilty of something horrible. It is easy to understand given the weight of his genius and the god-like status he has in the industry. But the chickens are coming home to roost.

The most essential, important viewing of the year so far concerns one of the most hotly litigated celebrity cases in modern American history — with the national media, the celebrity-industrial complex, and the public at large giving benefit of the doubt to one person.

The wrong one.

“Allen v. Farrow,” a four-part documentary series premiering Sunday night on HBO, is a story that could only be told in the #MeToo era. Much early criticism holds that the series is one-sided, but that elides a pervasive, decades-long truth: The dominant narrative has been created, spun and cemented by Woody Allen himself.

The triumph of this series is its methodical disarticulation of Allen’s version of events — what I, and countless others, would call his fiction.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/documentary-fully-dismantles-the-woody-allen-myth/

^Excellent review. Check it out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nor are tasteless jokes evidence of anything.

Abut Soon Yi, the age of consent in New York is 17.

Well there you go. In that case, there is nothing weird or creepy or inappropriate about that affair at all, right?

[SeattleUte]

Nor are tasteless jokes evidence of anything.

Abut Soon Yi, the age of consent in New York is 17.

[SeattleUte]

The facts of this account, though shared by a Woody-sympathizer, seem like more evidence of an offense. The day after the alleged abuse, Woody brings a catalog and says "mark off the toys you want." That sounds kind of like someone trying to buy silence.

An estranged father trying to spoil his children isn't evidence he's molested them. Good grief.