Can one-sided propaganda movies be called 'documentaries'?
Can a propaganda movie be called a 'documentary' if it purposefully excludes highly relevant information and spokepersons, and includes lots of innuendo, plus statements sold to its audience for facts or even 'evidence', and talking heads presented as 'witnesses'?
'Allen v Farrow' should not be listed as a documentary.
It is a propaganda movie, presenting and trying to convince us of Mia's three decades old allegation - one for which she has always shunned our legal system, and has only offered to the media since the day in August 1992 when her videotape was 'leaked' on the desk of a young reporter working for a NY Fox news channel.
That would be Rosanna Scotto, who can be seen & heard in 'Allen v Farrow'. The one young, hardly known reporter about whom Dylan's nanny, Kristi Groteke (not in 'Allen v Farrow'...) wrote in her tell-all book that she was happy to meet Rosanna, and that Rosanna was a visitor to Mia's big party when she celebrated the outcome of the custody trial.
This was the videotape that we only get to see three selected minutes from in Allen v Farrow', while we know from from court reports that the tape ran for 15 minutes, while the 'Allen v Farrow' makers maintain they only saw 11 minutes. There's something smelly here. Herdy, who did the research, never accounted for the missing 4 minutes, nor for her selection of 3 out of 11 minutes.
It is the same videotape about which Mia's own hired expert, Dr Steven Herman, testified that it was undermining Mia's allegation, since she seemed to have coached Dylan while making it, likely putting words in Dylan's mouth.
The same videotape that was investigated in full by.a child abuse expert working for the Manhattan sex crimes unit. He concluded that the child had been asked leading questions, urging her to tell what Mia wanted her to tell. He did not find the tape convincing of the abusive event to have happened, and worried that Mia's obvious 'coaching' made it more difficult for subsequent investigators to find the truth.
The makers of 'Allen v Farrow' presented the video material als new and shockingly convincing, while it was old and the opposite of shockingly convincing. Mia's expert Steven Herman was interviewed for it, but the makers 'forgot' to ask him about his negative opinion about the videotape.
This is just one of the many problems that undermine this propaganda movie's credibility.
'Allen v Farrow' has been presented as the 'definitive nail in the coffin' of Woody Allen. As such, it aims at replacing the verdict given by our legal system. Allen has been fully exonerated from the allegation after two independent legal investigations into the alleged abuse. Both investigations, done by experts in child sexual abuse, concluded in no uncertain terms that the abuse did not happen. 'Allen v Farrow' just wants us to forget that while bypassing due process.
This is a commercial tv production that aims at having a person convicted in a trial-by-media, using manipulation and deception. It wants us to give up values such as equal hearing, the innocence presumption, and due process. It feeds on the MeToo movement and is fueled by 'cancel culture'. It seeks to make money over the public smear of a person by presenting salacious allegations as the outcome of their own 'research - that has never seen any critical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny.
I have no hesitation awarding this, ahem, 'documentary' with the least number of 'stars' possible.
By the way, there is a big difference in rating between men and women. A full two points difference is extreme. Besides, half of the votes are cast by people who either award this propaganda movie with a '10' or a '1'. I guess these ratings have little to do with the 'quality' of the movie, and much more with the different political positions of its raters.
Can a propaganda movie be called a 'documentary' if it purposefully excludes highly relevant information and spokepersons, and includes lots of innuendo, plus statements sold to its audience for facts or even 'evidence', and talking heads presented as 'witnesses'?
'Allen v Farrow' should not be listed as a documentary.
It is a propaganda movie, presenting and trying to convince us of Mia's three decades old allegation - one for which she has always shunned our legal system, and has only offered to the media since the day in August 1992 when her videotape was 'leaked' on the desk of a young reporter working for a NY Fox news channel.
That would be Rosanna Scotto, who can be seen & heard in 'Allen v Farrow'. The one young, hardly known reporter about whom Dylan's nanny, Kristi Groteke (not in 'Allen v Farrow'...) wrote in her tell-all book that she was happy to meet Rosanna, and that Rosanna was a visitor to Mia's big party when she celebrated the outcome of the custody trial.
This was the videotape that we only get to see three selected minutes from in Allen v Farrow', while we know from from court reports that the tape ran for 15 minutes, while the 'Allen v Farrow' makers maintain they only saw 11 minutes. There's something smelly here. Herdy, who did the research, never accounted for the missing 4 minutes, nor for her selection of 3 out of 11 minutes.
It is the same videotape about which Mia's own hired expert, Dr Steven Herman, testified that it was undermining Mia's allegation, since she seemed to have coached Dylan while making it, likely putting words in Dylan's mouth.
The same videotape that was investigated in full by.a child abuse expert working for the Manhattan sex crimes unit. He concluded that the child had been asked leading questions, urging her to tell what Mia wanted her to tell. He did not find the tape convincing of the abusive event to have happened, and worried that Mia's obvious 'coaching' made it more difficult for subsequent investigators to find the truth.
The makers of 'Allen v Farrow' presented the video material als new and shockingly convincing, while it was old and the opposite of shockingly convincing. Mia's expert Steven Herman was interviewed for it, but the makers 'forgot' to ask him about his negative opinion about the videotape.
This is just one of the many problems that undermine this propaganda movie's credibility.
'Allen v Farrow' has been presented as the 'definitive nail in the coffin' of Woody Allen. As such, it aims at replacing the verdict given by our legal system. Allen has been fully exonerated from the allegation after two independent legal investigations into the alleged abuse. Both investigations, done by experts in child sexual abuse, concluded in no uncertain terms that the abuse did not happen. 'Allen v Farrow' just wants us to forget that while bypassing due process.
This is a commercial tv production that aims at having a person convicted in a trial-by-media, using manipulation and deception. It wants us to give up values such as equal hearing, the innocence presumption, and due process. It feeds on the MeToo movement and is fueled by 'cancel culture'. It seeks to make money over the public smear of a person by presenting salacious allegations as the outcome of their own 'research - that has never seen any critical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny.
I have no hesitation awarding this, ahem, 'documentary' with the least number of 'stars' possible.
By the way, there is a big difference in rating between men and women. A full two points difference is extreme. Besides, half of the votes are cast by people who either award this propaganda movie with a '10' or a '1'. I guess these ratings have little to do with the 'quality' of the movie, and much more with the different political positions of its raters.