This morning The Hollywood Reporter‘s Tatiana Siegel revealed that a secretly-shot, four-part documentary about the whole Woody-Mia-Dylan thing (Jesus…again?) will soon air on HBO. It’s called Allen vs. Farrow. Episode #1 will be shown on Sunday, 2.21 with subsequent episodes airing over the next three Sundays.

The tone of the Siegel article, in particular a paragraph that says the forthcoming Kirby Dick-Amy Ziering miniseries is “reminiscent” of Dan Reed‘s Leaving Neverland, another HBO-aired investigative piece about sexual predation, gave me concern in view of the fact that Reed’s doc eviscerated Michael Jackson with first-hand victim testimony. Not to mention Siegel’s statement that the Kirby-Ziering doc contains “exclusive, in-depth interviews on the subject with Mia Farrow, Dylan Farrow, Ronan Farrow and family friend Carly Simon“….what is this, some kind of deny-the-facts hit piece? Where are the Woody friendlies?

An hour ago I emailed and texted the following to co-director Kirby Dick:

“Kirby,

“We’ve conversed in Park City once or twice, but you’re not expected to remember. We know a few of the same people, etc.

“I have two urgent questions about Allen vs. Farrow, or more specifically Tatiana Siegel’s THR article about it, which broke this morning. Two points in particular have me concerned.

“One, by comparing it or making an analogy to HBO’s Leaving Neverland, Siegel instills a clear impression in the minds of readers that your doc is a hit piece — that it will get Woody big-time.

“Two, she states that a significant number of the talking heads are friendly to or otherwise supportive of the completely unfounded, completely unsupported by facts accusations against Woody. The talking heads mentioned in her piece are Mia Farrow, Dylan Farrow, Ronan Farrow, family friend Carly Simon…WHAT? Did you talk to Kate Winslet also?

“What about Woody himself, not to mention Moses Farrow, not to mention Soon Yi, not to mention eloquent Allen defender Bob Weide, not to mention…??

“I’m guessing that (a) Siegel might be a Mia-and-Dylan supporter and that (b) she therefore wrote this article in such a way as to give an impression that Allen vs. Farrow will torpedo Woody like the Neverland doc nailed Michael Jackson. That’s just a guess.

“The other interpretation is that Allen vs. Farrow does lean toward the Farrow side and away from the Woody side in defiance of all the facts, evidence and professional conclusions of the investigators.

“Question #1: Does Tatiana Siegel know something, or is she just presenting a sketchy impression that she would like to see realized in your four-part doc?

“Question #2: Did you really not interview anyone on the Woody side (outside of prosecutors, investigators and other official examiners)?

“A sooner-rather-than-later reply would be greatly appreciated.

“Cheers — Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere”

I am 98% certain that Ronan Farrow is full of shit when he maintains that Woody Allen sexually molested his younger adopted sister, Dylan Farrow — an alleged incident that happened in August 1992, when she was 7 and Ronan was 4. His insistence that all the Woody-exonerating evidence (which there’s a ton of) and the Woody-exonerating view of his adopted older brother Moses is not to be trusted is, I feel, inescapably deranged.

I also strongly suspect that he’s the biological son of Frank Sinatra, whom Mia Farrow once speculated may “possibly” be his actual dad, and not Woody, whom Ronan doesn’t begin to even slightly resemble — looks, temperament, nothing.

Otherwise he’s obviously a respected investigative journalist who’s done some excellent work regarding Harvey Weinstein‘s history of sexual assault, and of course with the best-selling book “Catch and Kill“, which also accused NBC News of discrediting or dismissing his investigative work along these same lines.

But now Farrow himself is taking a bit of sniper fire. The bullets were fired yesterday by N.Y. Times reporter Ben Smith (former editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed) in a piece titled “Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?“, and subheaded as follows: “He has delivered revelatory reporting on some of the defining stories of our time. But close examination reveals the weaknesses in what may be called an era of resistance journalism.”

In response to Smith’s article Robespierre purists are twitter-slamming the N.Y. Times for daring to go after a figure they regard as the triumphant crusading knight of wokester #MeToo journalism.

One reliable measure of wokester fervor is Vulture columnist Mark Harris, who tweeted today that access journalism is just as fraught with problems and prejudices as resistance journalism. Writer-comedian-podcaster Akila Hughes tweeted that Smith wrote the Farrow hit piece out of jealousy.

Journo pally: “It’s interesting where I think perhaps you and I differ on the significance here. You see the Robespierre of it all and I see the media monopolies twisting truth into pretzels of it all.

“I just watched a doc from around 2012 called Shadows of Liberty, which is the leftward view of how dangerous ‘fake news’ really is. Now that Trump has co-opted that clarion call, is the news any less fake that all the leftists were saying it was before Trump ever stumbled onto the public stage? ‘Resistance journalism’ is a fancy term for propaganda. Just like Fox imho.

“In any event, this is a major piece.”

The Daily Beast is reporting that “some” employees of the Hachette Book Group “walked out” of the publisher’s U.S. offices today in protest of the company’s decision to publish Apropos of Nothing, a new memoir by Woody Allen. According to the story, this cabal of #MeToo blacklisters has “been furious” with a decision by Hachette imprint Grand Central Publishing to release Allen’s book “despite allegations that Allen molested his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow.”

This is why everyone hates the wokester Khmer Rouge and the whole cancel-culture mentality. Because they’re totalitarian brutes at heart, and because in this instance they (the Hachette squad that walked out, I mean) are illogically opposed to what is indicated by the facts. This is one instance in which “believe the victim” is a highly questionable guideline.

Here, for the 19th time, is the HE argument:

(1) There is no evidence to support Dylan’s claim. But there’s a fair amount of evidence and ample indications that Mia Farrow, enraged by Woody’s romance with Soon-Yi Previn, made it all up to “get” Woody during an early ’90s custody battle, and as part of this determination coached Dylan to make the claims that she did. I happen to personally believe this scenario. There’s simply no rational, even-handed way to side with the “I believe Dylan Farrow” camp.

(2) If after reading Moses Farrow’s 5.23.18 essay (“A Son Speaks Out“) as well as Robert Weide’s “Q & A with Dylan Farrow” (12.13.17) and Daphne Merkin’s 9.16.18 Soon-Yi Previn interview…if after reading these personal testimonies along with the Wikipedia summary of the case you’re still an unmitigated Dylan ally…if you haven’t at least concluded there’s a highly significant amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in this whole mishegoss, then I don’t know what to say to you. There’s probably nothing that can be said to you.

(3) Excerpt from Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic report (issued in 1993): “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992.

(4) “In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

“I have been asked in a few recent interviews about my decision to work on a film with Woody Allen last summer,” Timothy Chalamet said on Instagram Monday evening. “What I can say is this: I don’t want to profit from my work on the film, and to that end, I am going to donate my entire salary to three charities: TIME’S UP, the LGBT Center in New York and RAINN.”

In other words, Chalamet considers his fee for acting in Allen’s A Rainy Day in New York to be dirty money, which is tantamount to calling Allen a dirty filmmaker, or more precisely a guilty filmmaker.

Along with other actors, Chalamet has presumably arrived at this belief by way of faith and solidarity with Dylan Farrow and her longstanding charge that Allen sexually abused her as a child. It’s well known that facts, evidence, two investigative agencies and Farrow’s own brother, Moses Farrow, strongly dispute Dylan’s recollection, but that’s not Chalamet’s concern at this point.

The 22 year-old actor is playing it smart for the sake of his career and the maintaining of a progressive, forward-looking, Time’s Up-embracing industry profile among his contemporaries. It is far easier and safer to throw in with the anti-Woody gang (Greta Gerwig, Mira Sorvino, Rebecca Hall, Natalie Portman, Reese Witherspoon). Throw the 82 year-old filmmaker under the bus, terminate his career, wash your hands.

Chalamet had no choice, right? His career would have definitely been hurt if he’d taken Allen’s side or adopted a neutral posture. He had to join the throng.

Hollywood Elsewhere has been saying all along that Chalamet’s Call Me By Your Name performance is far richer and miles above Gary Oldman‘s broad performance as Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour. But I can’t honestly say that I admire Chalamet at this point in time, or that tonight’s statement has shown him to be a man of balls and character.

For the 17th time, the facts are right here in Robert Weide’s 12.13.17 piece, “Q & A With Dylan Farrow.” I realize that facts are secondary in this matter, but they should matter to some degree…no?

It was three long–ass years ago when news broke that Timothee Chalamet would play the creatively transitioning (acoustic folkie to electric poet-with-sunglasses) Bob Dylan in James Mangold’s A Complete Unknown. Now it’s actually, finally going before the cameras sometime in March.

This is Chalamet’s big chance to step out of the not-quite-happening place he’s been standing in for the last six years (throwing Woody under the bus, Little Women, Beautiful Boy, Bones and All, the Dune franchise, Wonka) and do something cool and provocative for a change. Maybe.

Posted last spring…

All is forgiven if Timothee Chalamet stars in a full-length, 21st Century remake of Edward Scissorhands…minus the electric Caddy, of course. He’ll be forgiven for throwing Woody under the bus, forgiven for the forthcoming Dune (which is going to have problems), forgiven for everything. Winona Ryder is forgiven also. Just make this….please! Directed by David Shane (who helmed the commercial) or maybe Edgar Wright. I’m not kidding. Absolute genius-level Superbowl spot.

Two days ago I mentioned the “enticing” possibility of Woody Allen‘s A Rainy Day in New York playing at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival. I remarked that a booking of Allen’s most recent effort “would be a way for festival topper Thierry Fremaux to not only honor a relationship with a still-important filmmaker but declare that Cannes is about cinematic art first and nervous-nelly politics second.”

This morning a friend passed along second-hand dope from a “Cannes insider”, the gist being that (a) A Rainy Day in New York “is being heavily considered,” and (b) the pulse-quickening notion of screening the Woody (which costars Timothee Chalamet, Selena Gomez, Elle Fanning, Jude Law and Diego Luna) is currently “outweighing the ramifications of any bad press” that may result — i.e., the Robespierres chanting that a film by a director who may have molested a seven-year-old adopted daughter 25 years ago shouldn’t be so honored.

(l. to r.) Timothee Chalamet, Selena Gomez, Woody Allen during filming of A Rainy Day in New York.

Fremaux is a longtime Woody loyalist. Since joining Cannes in ’01 he’s been instrumental in booking seven Allen films — Hollywood Ending, Match Point, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger, Midnight in Paris, Irrational Man and Cafe Society. Given this history it’s hardly surprising to hear that Fremaux “wanted to book A Rainy Day in New York before it was even shot last fall.”

Another factor favoring a Rainy Day appearance is that Fremaux also wants to play Felix Van Groeningen‘s Beautiful Boy (Amazon, 10.12), a drug-addiction drama costarring Timothee Chalamet and Steve Carell. This plus Rainy Day would theoretically double the Chalamet press coverage…or would it?

With Chalamet having thrown Woody under the bus by announcing that he’s standing with the Robespierres as well as donating his Rainy Day salary to a #TimesUp defense fund, will he attend the Rainy Day Cannes premiere or duck out of town?

LETTER FROM HE to WES ANDERSON, SENT AT 4:55 PM EASTERN:

Wes,

When filmmakers and actors have lately (i.e., since 2017) been accused of unsavory off-screen behaviors, it’s become the fashion for colleagues to throw them under the bus and run for tall grass.  Sadly, deplorably.

Example:  Timothee Chalamet‘s chickenshit response following accusations of Woody Allen‘s long-refuted issues with Mia and Dylan after starring in Allen’s A Rainy Day in New York.

I therefore genuinely admire your reply to questions about allegations of questionable behavior on the part of Bill Murray during the filming of Aziz Ansari‘s Being Mortal. Hats off, crisp salute.

Jeff

Excerpt from 6.12 IndieWire piece by Samantha Bergeson, titled “Wes Anderson Is Standing by Bill Murray Amid Sexual Misconduct Claims Against The Actor“:

“Asteroid City filmmaker and frequent Murray collaborator Anderson told IndieWire’s Eric Kohn that the allegations against Murray will in no way impact their working relationship:

“My experience with Bill is so extensive. Bill was such a great supporter of me from the very beginning. I don’t want to speak about somebody else’s experience, but he’s really part of my family. You know, he’s my daughter’s godfather. In fact, he actually baptized her. He’s the one who splashed the water.”

I first interviewed Drew Barrymore in the summer of 1982, when she was seven. It was for an Us magazine cover story about E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial. I ran into her again in ’99 at that Sunset Marquis bar (Bar 1200) — she and Luke Wilson were parked at a table, and I sat down for a chat.

The Drew Barrymore Show has been happening since 9.14.20. I like the red-yellow-green flag game, and I enjoyed this session in particular because Stewart strikes me as a no-bullshit type who has her own opinions and holds her ground when challenged or prodded.

Unlike Barrymore, I should add. During a 5.17.21 interview with Dylan Farrow and during a discussion of Allen v. Farrow, Barrymore threw Woody Allen under the bus. In ’96 Allen cast Barrymore in Everyone Says I Love You, the second best film she made in her life.

Last night The Ankler‘s Richard Rushfield posted a strong contrarian view of the whole Olivia Wilde-Florence Pugh-Harry Styles-Shia Labeouf + Move Over Darling contretemps.

Titled “Trades Gone Wilde,” Rushfield basically adopts a woke/#MeToo posture by accusing Variety and others of a semblance of old-school sexism by giving Wilde a much harder time than they would a male director in a similar situation.

Excerpt #1: “Imagine a male director was having a somewhat messy divorce. And had a relationship with an actress on his film, which annoyed another one of the stars who felt he wasn’t getting enough attention. Would this be a story that the trades would even mention? It would be more of a story on the set where that didn’t happen.” [HE recalls how Kirk Douglas shared a certain resentment over director Richard Quine favoring girlfriend Kim Novak during filming of 1960’s Strangers When We Meet.]

Excerpt #2: “Just for comparison’s sake, here’s an extremely partial list of male director/leading lady relationships, many of which began when the director was married: Peter Bogdanovich and Cybill Shepherd, James Cameron and Linda Hamilton, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw, Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, Darren Aronofsky and Rachel Weisz, Joel Coen and Frances McDormand, David Lynch and Isabella Rossellini, Taylor Hackford and Helen Mirren, Martin Scorsese and Illeana Douglas, Danny Boyle and Rosaria Dawson, Sam Mendes and Kate Winslet. Shall I go on?”

Excerpt #3: “Of course, I wish that every time Olivia Wilde is asked [questions about her on-set affair with Styles and everything that has come from that] she would ask the reporter to stand up, repeat their names and the name of the editor who assigned them to fly across the world and ask this question and challenge them to reveal when they’ve ever asked a male director a question like that.”

HE to Rushfield: Strong piece, well-written, striking viewpoint. But you side-stepped what I feel is a basic issue.

I agree that it’s no biggie if Wilde decided to have an on-set affair with Styles. Happens all the time, right? And yes, Don’t Worry Darling will probably make decent coin. The consensus is that it’s not very good but who cares as long as it brings in a handsome profit, right?

But as you well know, the most interesting aspect of the whole mishegoss is Pugh’s frosty behavior. That’s the thing, the all of it. Pugh, not Wilde.

What leading lady or man has ever conveyed to certain parties, weeks or months in advance of a film’s release, that he/she strongly disapproves of an on-set affair? Can you imagine Harrison Ford saying he didn’t approve of Spielberg and Capshaw during the making of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Or one of the costars of Blood Simple (Jon Getz or Dan Hedaya) saying he didn’t approve of Joel Coen and Frances McDormand having it off during principal photography?

Who gives a shit if a name-brand director (married or not) has an affair with a star or costar during shooting? Certainly nobody who’s been around. It happens all the time. And yet since this whole thing blew up in July, Pugh has made no secret of her disdain for Wilde — not just the affair-with-Styles thing but the kind of film she was making**. And she’s kept it going. She wouldn’t get on the phone with Variety for a Wilde profile, and wouldn’t participate in the Venice press conference — only the Venice red carpet.

Pugh could have made the whole thing go away by simply pretending to be on good terms with Wilde (i.e., saying nice things on social media, making friendly eye contact with Wilde during the Venice Film Festival) but she refused.

An adult would have shrugged the Wilde-Styles affair off (“Whatever, none of my business, all’s fair in love and war”) and simply focused on delivering a strong performance. But Pugh threw a big judgmental hissy fit (second only to Keke Palmer‘s hissy fit over Bill Murray‘s alleged hair-tugging), and in so doing made this thing into a huge media mishegoss. There would have been nothing to write about if Pugh had just turned the other cheek and gone all noblesse oblige.

Jordan Ruimy: “Pugh’s beef seems to be about the awkwardness of having Wilde’s then-partner Jason Sudeikis visiting the set with their two kids while everyone knew she was cheating on him.”

HE: “Okay, sure, I get it. But that’s life. People cheat, hearts get broken, love stinks & marriages sometimes collapse under the burden of this. But when did the affair ignite? Sometime around October of ‘20, which is when filming began. And Pugh is STILL hanging onto this resentment, nearly two years later? You gotta move on and be a pro.”

Ruimy: “I suspect Pugh was going to let go of the feud until that video message from Wilde to Shia leaked online. In it Wilde basically says it’s Pugh’s fault that Shia decided to leave the film, plus she calls her the condescending name of ‘Miss Flo.'”

HE: “Probably but who knows?”

Ruimy: “I hope Ryan Murphy makes a TV miniseries out of this melodrama.”

HE: “A five-part Miss Flo Disapproves miniseries from Murphy is a GREAT idea! Did you post this? Everyone would totally watch it.”