If you're open to the fact that Woody Allen wasn't really exonerated, are you also curious about how much you know is the truth, vs. birthed by his PR army?
Aka, Gaslighting a False Narrative.
If you haven't watched, the best place to start is Episode 3, which is tighter than the first two hours and laser-focused by comparison. Absent the over-reliance on home movies and Mia's confessionals, (and that feel of an iffy pet project) Episode 3 strides firmly into documentary terrain, with previously unearthed evidence and taped phone calls between Woody and Mia, plus 7-year-old Dylan's gut-wrenching videotaped testimony.
It's an outstanding watch.
In contrast and combination, the meticulously-researched legal evidence paired with the 3 principals' own words and emotions pack a wallop.
In one of the taped calls, Mia asks Woody a simple, crucial question 5 times. Pleading. He puts her off, speaks to her like a child. It sums up the whole imbalance of power in their relationship. He enjoys the pleading; she's numb to the condescension. They both have their strengths and flaws, as shown throughout, but he is strictly in the power-up position between them.
Given the amount of time spent on 'parental alienation syndrome,'I found it striking that we didn't get a talking head definition of gaslighting, with Allen/Farrow examples. This is maybe the ultimate 1-on-1 public case, as aided and abetted by loud, costly PR.
Episodes 1 and 2 are worth watching (last), in part, to see how Mia-Mom to many, capable of running a complicated household-became so reliant on Woody, there to serve his needs. The scene where she talks about adopting a child to suit Woody's taste (a man with "zero interest" in kids and no plan to live with her) is an eerie precursor to the icy Woody Allen heard on tape.
Pre-credits, Episode 1 begins with Woody's presser at the Plaza, which he opens by noting his famous press-aversion...and then immediately goes public with the allegations, followed by a quick clip of Dylan citing a history of misinformation and lies and the importance of setting the record straight now. This could have have been an attention-grabber of an opening, but then, post-credits, the narrative floats away to photo albums in CT.
This was a huge lost opportunity: Dylan's intro, countering Woody, needed to provide a window of the lies it would disprove/the truths it would deliver. A quick sentence or two would've done it, and provided the narrative with some immediacy. It's as if the filmmakers assumed they had the audience for the duration, so they began with an ellipsis instead of an exclamation mark.
It's a good way to lose your viewers.
For all the meticulous research evidenced in this docuseries, I find Christina Engelhardt's interview puzzling. She sets off obvious alarm bells. For example, she and Woody never discussed age, but "I'm gonna stand by" 17 is when relations started? Which in itself injects doubt. "Of course you're my muse" sounds like movie Woody, not the actual human talking to a teenager.
A 5-minute Google search yields a Hollywood Reporter interview with Engelhardt dated 12/17/18. Which states she was 16 when the Allen affair started. It's a detailed reference that notes 17 is the age of consent in NY. She says he never once brought up 'Manhattan' with her; the one time she said Tracy had a lot in common with her, Allen makes a non-committal comment and won't discuss it further. She admits to being miffed.
Engelhardt also claims to have had a handful of threesomes with Allen and Mia Farrow after Farrow became his girlfriend. The article is still online, with no disclaimers or corrections.
One could guess Woody Allen may've told Christina Engelhardt to be careful in future interviews-keep it to 17 and speak well of me. But he didn't sic his people on her out of concern over what else she has in her 'private' memoirs.
At a minimum, Engelhardt is an unreliable narrator who didn't sound credible. I doubt the filmmakers missed this. Did they include her to make a point about damage done? Does that outweigh using a source your viewers likely assume that you find credible?
At a minimum, she should have been asked, on-camera, what she meant by 'stand by it'. The THR piece references another WA affair with a teenager. In this case, legal consent is in doubt; that should've been made clear to viewers:
The muddled focus and narrative of Episodes 1 and 2 is a shame. The quality of research and information presented, especially new evidence, is pretty astounding.
Quality of facts & info. (esp.new info.): 8
Episode 3 as a stand-alone: 9/10.
Aka, Gaslighting a False Narrative.
If you haven't watched, the best place to start is Episode 3, which is tighter than the first two hours and laser-focused by comparison. Absent the over-reliance on home movies and Mia's confessionals, (and that feel of an iffy pet project) Episode 3 strides firmly into documentary terrain, with previously unearthed evidence and taped phone calls between Woody and Mia, plus 7-year-old Dylan's gut-wrenching videotaped testimony.
It's an outstanding watch.
In contrast and combination, the meticulously-researched legal evidence paired with the 3 principals' own words and emotions pack a wallop.
In one of the taped calls, Mia asks Woody a simple, crucial question 5 times. Pleading. He puts her off, speaks to her like a child. It sums up the whole imbalance of power in their relationship. He enjoys the pleading; she's numb to the condescension. They both have their strengths and flaws, as shown throughout, but he is strictly in the power-up position between them.
Given the amount of time spent on 'parental alienation syndrome,'I found it striking that we didn't get a talking head definition of gaslighting, with Allen/Farrow examples. This is maybe the ultimate 1-on-1 public case, as aided and abetted by loud, costly PR.
Episodes 1 and 2 are worth watching (last), in part, to see how Mia-Mom to many, capable of running a complicated household-became so reliant on Woody, there to serve his needs. The scene where she talks about adopting a child to suit Woody's taste (a man with "zero interest" in kids and no plan to live with her) is an eerie precursor to the icy Woody Allen heard on tape.
Pre-credits, Episode 1 begins with Woody's presser at the Plaza, which he opens by noting his famous press-aversion...and then immediately goes public with the allegations, followed by a quick clip of Dylan citing a history of misinformation and lies and the importance of setting the record straight now. This could have have been an attention-grabber of an opening, but then, post-credits, the narrative floats away to photo albums in CT.
This was a huge lost opportunity: Dylan's intro, countering Woody, needed to provide a window of the lies it would disprove/the truths it would deliver. A quick sentence or two would've done it, and provided the narrative with some immediacy. It's as if the filmmakers assumed they had the audience for the duration, so they began with an ellipsis instead of an exclamation mark.
It's a good way to lose your viewers.
For all the meticulous research evidenced in this docuseries, I find Christina Engelhardt's interview puzzling. She sets off obvious alarm bells. For example, she and Woody never discussed age, but "I'm gonna stand by" 17 is when relations started? Which in itself injects doubt. "Of course you're my muse" sounds like movie Woody, not the actual human talking to a teenager.
A 5-minute Google search yields a Hollywood Reporter interview with Engelhardt dated 12/17/18. Which states she was 16 when the Allen affair started. It's a detailed reference that notes 17 is the age of consent in NY. She says he never once brought up 'Manhattan' with her; the one time she said Tracy had a lot in common with her, Allen makes a non-committal comment and won't discuss it further. She admits to being miffed.
Engelhardt also claims to have had a handful of threesomes with Allen and Mia Farrow after Farrow became his girlfriend. The article is still online, with no disclaimers or corrections.
One could guess Woody Allen may've told Christina Engelhardt to be careful in future interviews-keep it to 17 and speak well of me. But he didn't sic his people on her out of concern over what else she has in her 'private' memoirs.
At a minimum, Engelhardt is an unreliable narrator who didn't sound credible. I doubt the filmmakers missed this. Did they include her to make a point about damage done? Does that outweigh using a source your viewers likely assume that you find credible?
At a minimum, she should have been asked, on-camera, what she meant by 'stand by it'. The THR piece references another WA affair with a teenager. In this case, legal consent is in doubt; that should've been made clear to viewers:
The muddled focus and narrative of Episodes 1 and 2 is a shame. The quality of research and information presented, especially new evidence, is pretty astounding.
Quality of facts & info. (esp.new info.): 8
Episode 3 as a stand-alone: 9/10.