I’ve always thought that the weight of the “evidence,” especially the two investigations by experts trained in these matters to try to determine whether Allen abused Dylan Farrow that concluded he hadn’t, falls preponderantly on his side, and, too, that the “evidence” of the kind of person Mia Farrow is reveals her to be a monster of a kind.
So I was highly attentive to the discussion the big gap between what the forensic facts show and the cultural narrative as “sacred text,” which is a great phrase here and has so much resonance for how these narratives get culturally cemented.
I think btw there is a discordance between the last question and answer: the question is whether it’s a fair criticism that she didn’t include in her essay more or what Dylan and Ronan Farrow have had to say; her answer is that she gave them opportunities to speak with her before the essay came out but they weren’t taken up, which is something different.
It was always pretty clear that hell had no fury like Mia Farrow spurned. But thanks to the excellent public relations ability of Farrow’s son and the enlistment of the #MeToo army, Woody’s goose has finally been cooked. Shame on the Hollywood crew that was frightened into submission to the prevailing puritanical mob.
Great listen. Thanks!
Thanks for this.
So interesting.
Ms Merkin is most thoughtful.
I’ve always thought that the weight of the “evidence,” especially the two investigations by experts trained in these matters to try to determine whether Allen abused Dylan Farrow that concluded he hadn’t, falls preponderantly on his side, and, too, that the “evidence” of the kind of person Mia Farrow is reveals her to be a monster of a kind.
So I was highly attentive to the discussion the big gap between what the forensic facts show and the cultural narrative as “sacred text,” which is a great phrase here and has so much resonance for how these narratives get culturally cemented.
I think btw there is a discordance between the last question and answer: the question is whether it’s a fair criticism that she didn’t include in her essay more or what Dylan and Ronan Farrow have had to say; her answer is that she gave them opportunities to speak with her before the essay came out but they weren’t taken up, which is something different.
There’s no discordance. She answered the question perfectly.
How do you figure?
To repeat, as I remember it, question was about criticism that she hadn’t included, as in “taken into account,” what the Farows, R and D, had to say.
Her answer was she gave them opprotunites to speak to her and they never took those up.
Problem is, criticism is aimed at what they had to say in the past.
Her answer was discordant.
It was always pretty clear that hell had no fury like Mia Farrow spurned. But thanks to the excellent public relations ability of Farrow’s son and the enlistment of the #MeToo army, Woody’s goose has finally been cooked. Shame on the Hollywood crew that was frightened into submission to the prevailing puritanical mob.
Well worth the full listen. Ms. Merkin comes across and forthright and unbiased. What a complicated situation. Very interested to hear the podcast!
Woody Allen is the tragic, innocent victim of the evil of Mia Farrow and the stupidity of the public.