By Robert B. Weide

Woody Mia 02b

So many people accept asked for my response to the announcement that HBO volition soon exist airing a 4-part documentary nearly Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, that I promised to provide 1 in a Twitter thread. I started to practice so, before realizing that threads are limited to 25 separate tweets. Having exceeded that limit, I decided to paste it all back together for another web log entry.

In brief, the past work of these filmmakers indicates this volition exist a well-balanced piece that will requite both sides fair treatment in a 18-carat effort to get to the objective truth.

HA-HA-HA! Only kidding. Okay, for real…

First of all, I don't want to exist 1 of those people who condemn someone's work before they've seen it. I can't stand up it when others exercise that. Still, I exercise remember there are enough "knowns" virtually this work to reach a few likely conclusions, bated from the fact that at that place will exist a lot of lovely aeriform drone shots. I oasis't seen the past work of these filmmakers, but I know they return repeatedly to the topic of sexual assault. And good for them. This is a topic that needs to be illuminated whenever possible and I believe that people who are guilty of it should be chosen out in a loud voice. If they are guilty.

I am myself a documentary filmmaker, and so I know the tricks of the trade. I know how piece of cake it is to create the illusion that you are being objective, while absolutely manipulating your audience to take a specific agenda. Frankly, every time you decide where to place your camera, or what part of a photograph to zoom in on, you are imposing a signal of view on your audition. I'yard non maxim this is wrong. In fact, information technology's nearly unavoidable. It's not something I worry much about, since my documentaries accept been rather non-controversial creative person profiles. But if you're trying to sway an audition, in that location are devices at your disposal that the average audience will never be consciously thinking virtually. I recently posted a trailer on YouTube for my upcoming documentary, and numerous people told me how they cried at the cease. I always chuckled to myself because I knew it was merely the music that coaxed their tears. (If I had added sinister music, those same people would have told me almost the tension they felt.) But for films on controversial subjects, there are subtle ways to arrive look similar y'all're asking an audition what they remember, when you're actually telling them what to remember.

Equally a viewer, remember of yourself as a juror at a trial. Anybody tin sway an audience by presenting one side of a case.  But could y'all, as a juror, render a fair verdict by only hearing from the prosecution and not the defense? Of form not. Not only would you lot need to hear testimony from both sides, merely each of those witnesses would accept to be cantankerous-examined to give you the full pic. And that's where these filmmakers volition probable fail you. It'southward not a question of what they include. It's a matter of what they go out out.

For all the years that Mia, Dylan, and Ronan Farrow have been having their say on mainstream and social media, I've never seen them put in a position where they weren't in control over who was questioning them, so I've never seen them have to agree up under cantankerous, so to speak. At present, in this documentary, there might be some very "soft" cantankerous questions to make it expect like the interviewers are going for the truth, but these will likely be questions where the responses are already known, creating the illusion of due diligence. (And if the answer doesn't adapt the filmmaker'south needs, it tin e'er exist left on the cutting room floor.) I know several people who could question these 3 Farrows (plus D.A. Frank Maco, "reporters" Maureen Orth and Andy Thibualt and others) that, in five minutes, would plough each of them into Cmdr. Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny."

Addendum added 2/xvi/21: I can't vouch for the specifics, just this image was just sent to me, showing an email dated 2013 from Producer Amy Herdy, asking someone to participate in a film which would be called "The Hunting Footing," about sexual crimes on college campuses, from the aforementioned filmmakers behind the Woody/Mia series. To encourage their participation, Herdy clarifies, "We do not operate the aforementioned way as journalists… there would be no insensitive questions or the need to go the perpetrator's side." I give them credit for not claiming to exist journalists, but also point out that they plain make no stardom betwixt "perpetrators" and "alleged perpetrators." They alone decide who are the perpetrators, who are the victims, so go on to human activity every bit gauge, jury, and executioner. Ane cease shopping!

herdy detai

Ask yourself why Ronan Farrow blocks anyone who ever questions his statements on Twitter, no matter how polite or well-informed they are. (This is the same Ronan Farrow who wrote an editorial for The Hollywood Reporter request why Woody Allen isn't asked "the hard questions.") Why did Ronan Farrow never respond to my Tweets offer a $100k donation to the clemency of their choice for a shred of "evidence" of any number of his provably false claims? When Ronan and I were both invited to debate the issue live, on stage, at the SoHo Forum in NYC, I responded, "Wing me out and put me upwardly, and I'm there." Ronan declined to even reply. Ronan is a lawyer and a Pulitzer Prize winner for investigative reporting. I won a prize equally "Virtually Outstanding Pupil" from the Rotary Club when I was in 8th grade. And then what is he afraid of? He knows I could effectively rebut every unmarried argument that comes out of his oral cavity on this matter. But pair him with a friendly interviewer who doesn't cross examine, and he remains Mia'due south blue-eyed Gold Child. If Ronan were to try this case or testify in a courtroom of constabulary, under oath, I clinch you, he would be sweating like Rudy Giuliani. I don't know if hair dye would run downwardly his face, but I reckon those bluish contact lenses would popular correct off his eyeballs.

I won't re-litigate here any of the specific points I've made in my past writing, but it'southward worth repeating that Dylan Farrow could still take Allen to civil court in Connecticut and sue him for every penny he's got. The statute of limitations won't elapse until Dylan turns 48. (Ronan could even be her lawyer!) But we'll never meet this happen, because their case would evaporate quicker than the Trump lawsuits claiming election fraud. Their charges make good, juicy copy, but in a courtroom of law, they have nothing. Just ask yourself why the Farrows keep trying their case in the media and the courtroom of public opinion, rather than a courtroom of law?

When HBO lists the participants in the picture, I see no ane representing Allen'southward side — no lawyers, advocating journalists, researchers, colleagues, etc. (Simply give thanks God they got Carly Simon, who, I'm certain will blow this case broad open.) The filmmakers volition gladly tell you lot that they approached Moses Farrow, Woody Allen, and Soon-Yi Previn, but "they declined to exist interviewed." Of course, they did. Considering the filmmakers' history, why would any of them participate in such an obvious hatchet job or even give them the time of mean solar day? Because my own history, if I appear I was making a documentary, and approached Mia and Ronan and Dylan and the Dishonorable Frank Maco for interviews, what do you lot think their response would be?

Encounter how it works?

I can even tell you that Woody and Presently-Yi weren't approached until the tail terminate of Dec. And so after iii years of assembling their film, do y'all call back the filmmakers were sincere about wanting to include their point of view, by requesting an interview during the final days of postal service-production, simply prior to delivering their film? Do you retrieve they wanted balance in their film, or exercise you recollect they just wanted to exist able to say they were asked? I'm guessing they volition probably present selective clips of by interviews with Allen and excerpts from his memoir (which Ronan unsuccessfully tried to cancel) to brand information technology look similar they are presenting his side, merely I'm also guessing someone will and then negate this information, without being properly cross-examined. (By the way, I'k pretty sure that if Woody had been approached by a serious investigative filmmaker who was a thorough researcher without an calendar, he would accept gladly granted an interview and waived whatsoever editorial blessing.)

Several people accept actually asked me if the filmmakers approached me about doing an interview. Uh, what do you recall? The terminal matter they want is to shoot an interview with a veritable fact machine who could dispute every unmarried indicate they're hoping to score over iv hours.

And frankly, shame on HBO. I have a long history with them that includes developing the series "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on which I used to executive produce and serve every bit the chief director. I'm even directing an episode for the new flavor right now. I also created 2 films for their previous documentary authorities — one was an Oscar nominee and an Emmy winner. Ironically, they even wanted my 2011 Woody Allen documentary which instead wound upwards at PBS' "American Masters." I'm non suggesting they owe me anything at all, but I will say that concluding twelvemonth, I offered upwards to HBO a new documentary I had just completed and couldn't fifty-fifty get a call returned. Maybe nobody wanted to await me in the eye. And by the way, isn't Ronan on payroll at HBO? I know he was paid a tidy sum for some sort of production deal, simply I don't think anything coming out of information technology. Is this pic his brand-good? I genuinely don't know.

In the tens of thousands of words I've written on this case, have I relayed everything I know? Non past a long shot. Aside from the summaries of the official investigations that cleared Allen in CT and NY, the virtually compelling evidence of his innocence comes from reading the unabridged transcript of the 1992 custody hearing (Allen vs Farrow, 1993). I presume these filmmakers had access to these same documents, since they actually named their pic later the case. I wonder what they'll make of the fact that almost every witness who testified on Mia's behalf (nannies, tutors, babysitters, friends) all have extremely contradictory recollections apropos the "twenty-four hours in question" – each one'due south testimony virtually negating the others. What will they make of the fact that according to the general timeline suggested by the witnesses, likewise as records from Allen'south auto phone, it would take been literally impossible for Allen to have had time to commit the alleged act of which he was accused (which was never rape — y'all know that, right?). Piecing together a timeline from the testimony, Allen likely arrived at Mia'south dwelling house merely nigh xv-thirty minutes before Mia arrived. It'southward as if Mia's witnesses all agreed on the crime, just forgot to coordinate their stories. Over four hours, possibly the filmmakers volition take the fourth dimension to explain that.

Finally, I ask my Twitter followers to please not await whatsoever postmortems from me following the circulate, as I don't plan to be watching. I had enough of screaming, "Bullshit!" at the Boob tube during four years of Trump and his lackeys. My blood pressure is excellent, and I'd like to keep information technology that way. I'd just every bit soon watch a series extolling the virtues of QAnon. The right filmmakers could make fifty-fifty that move look reasonable and balanced.

If you lot see things in the movie that raise questions, please don't bring them to me, equally I'm busy finishing a Adjourn episode and my Vonnegut medico and caring for a sick loved one. But in that location'south someone on Twitter with the handle @Nadie_lo_dijo whose unabridged page is devoted to debunking disinformation on this discipline. That would be a good identify to bring your questions. (English is not Nadie's kickoff linguistic communication, so allow for some clunky translations.) @bloodoftheland is also a expert resources, as is @levine2001.

If you make it through 4 hours of the HBO physician, and take another ii 1/2 hours to spare, consider watching Rick Worley'south "bootleg" YouTube video, "By the Way… Woody Allen Is Innocent." No cute drone shots, simply plenty of information you likely won't notice on HBO.

Before signing off, let me get out yous with some of my past writing on this subject. Here'south the piece I wrote for the Daily Beast in 2014 that had such a potent impact on and so many readers, they no longer wanted annihilation to practise with me.

Here'south my blog piece from 2016 called "Hard Questions for Ronan Farrow."

Here's another web log slice from 2018 called "Q&A with Dylan Farrow."

Here's a lengthy two-parter, jam-packed with of import info, called "The Truth Almost Woody Allen." Read both parts. Information technology will respond a lot of your questions about this example.

And here'southward a contempo collaboration with Rick Worley which proves what a bullshit artist Ronan Farrow is on this matter. Consider "The Ascent and FAiL of Ronan Farrow" to exist a "must-read" companion piece to the HBO serial.

But if you lot read just one piece, it should probably be @MosesFarrow'due south first-person account, "A Son Speaks Out." It's Moses' account of growing upwardly in the Farrow household, living with Mia's corruption, and his first-hand recollections of the "day in question."

Cheers for reading/listening and keeping an open listen. And, uh… savour the testify?

Thanks,
Bob Weide
February 8, 2021

Robert B. Weide is an Oscar-nominated and Emmy-winning filmmaker whose documentaries have covered the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen, and Kurt Vonnegut. He was also the Executive Producer and manager of the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm. He tweets at @BobWeide. Despite rumors to the contrary, he is not a meme.