Doc Corner: 'Allen v. Farrow' & 'Framing Britney Spears'
Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 10:00AM By Glenn Dunks
How do you go about making a film or a series about celebrity scandal let alone writing a review of those very projects? It’s difficult. It is virtually impossible to not bring one’s own history and baggage to a work like Allen v. Farrow or Framing Britney Spears. And then there are the works themselves, both of which confront subject matters that demand the audience assess—or re-assess—their own thoughts and responses to damaging events in the lives of the rich and famous that played as entertainment for the masses in less enlightened times of media representation.
Arguably the two biggest works of documentary to have arrived in the first quarter of 2021, I actually don’t think either of them really work. They sure are thorny works, though, that push the viewer into murky areas that need to be explored...
Allen v. Farrow is the four-part miniseries from directors Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering (Dick’s long-time producer who rose to co-director on their last collaborations, the Russell Simmons sexual abuse doc On the Record). It has been a lightning rod as one would expect given it purports to be a definitive account of the relationship and scandal between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, the (yes, alleged) molestation committed by Allen towards his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow when she was seven years old, and the distasteful (if now long-lasting) terrain of Allen’s relationship with another of Farrow’s adopted children, Soon-Yi Previn, when she was still a teenager.
As you can probably expect, this is very distressing and unsettling viewing. And, truly, that shouldn’t change no matter who you ‘believe’ at the start or the end. For the filmmakers, however, there is little question about that last part. And while bias is a forgivable asset for a documentary filmmaker, sloppiness isn’t. Dick and Ziering—as well as their editors Parker Laramie, Mikaela Shwer and Sara Newens—more or less stick to a strictly linear narrative. This probably would have been a smarter choice for a story without such ambiguities to it. Here, however, it only helps you spot holes in their telling and see the convenient abstractions and curious hypocrisies. After all, this was a scandal that unfolded predominantly in the public eye. With four hours key parts of the story (those that look good and bad for Woody Allen) were left as footnotes? Hmm.
It’s unfortunate because there are exceptional passages and remarkable ideas that arise out of its themes. One of the series’ strongest threads is that of Dylan’s testimony. First in how authorities were suspicious if it never wavered (as if from a “script” as suggested by Allen) and then skeptical if it changed by a single word. Secondly later in how a criminal trial couldn’t proceed because Dylan was suspected to be a bad witness on the stand just like almost every other child. She quite rightly shows visible frustration at how her testimony was contorted to the point of obfuscation. These elements that could have been much more interesting than the relitigating the story step-by-step. It certainly would have made Dick and Ziering’s failings elsewhere feel less frustrating.
I suspect they were blinded by the idea of a big celebrity gotcha moment—or at least that's how it comes across when previously unseen video is presented as a smoking gun despite it being no such thing. The same problems are present in the way they use Allen's on audiobook reading of his recent autobiography. In doing so they didn’t see the more successful film that was right in front of them, shining a light on the issues that repeatedly surround the bringing of abusers to account in our society. It does a disservice to Dylan Farrow that her story is left to a project that, while admirable and technically proficient, leaves itself so open to the very criticisms it lays at those involved in its whole ugly story.
The issues with Allen v. Farrow are a bit more complex than those of Framing Britney Spears. As manipulated as her vocals may be, Spears—a superstar, often thrilling performer and keen-eared popstar—has been the victim of so many emotional, mental, and physical traumas in her time in the spotlight that it’s hardly surprising that Samantha Stark’s film (her first) is just one of many reaching our screens. This one particularly focuses on the conservatorship that she has been locked into and the fraught relationship with her father that have defined her life and career for the last decade.
Well-meaming though it may be, and with some truly squirm-inducing rabbit holes through the celebrity machine of America’s pop explosions of the late 1990s, these dives through society’s uneasy voyeurism ultimately ring… if not entirely false, then at least under-examined. Framing Britney Spears is produced under the banner of “The New York Times Presents”, which alludes to something a bit harder hitting than ultimately what we get (not to mention its often crude aesthetic like cheap digital). I know many have strong thoughts on The New York Times, but for a journalistic agency to leave so much on the table is disappointing. It’s such a soft lob of a documentary that when confronted even right there in the interview chair with people responsible for her pain and torment, they briskly move along to another fan interaction.
This film fails to get at why Spears is such a fascinating celebrity and why her music did (and continues) have such an effect of generations of fans. Why does she incite such passion and such constant fascination? Particularly through the troubled periods that saw her release arguably her best work. In this instance, it may very well have been good to leave Britney well enough alone.
Release: Allen v. Farrow is on HBO/HBO Max. Framing Britney Spears is on Hulu.
Emmy chances: Tricky! I suspect Allen v. Farrow will fare better given its technical elements are of substantially high degree than Framing Britney Spears, although doesn't it feel like the latter has had a bigger impact on the pop culture landscape? I doubt the latter will be made eligible for Oscar.
Reader Comments (23)
I haven't seen A v F, but the reviews are pretty damning in how much of a pass they claim the filmmakers give the Farrow side. I understand that Mia's account of how she reacted when she found out about Soon-Yi and Woody Allen's affair is completely different from the account she gave under oath in the custody trial (under oath she admits she hit her, in the doc she says she hugged her), and yet, despite the fact that her testimony is a matter of public record, the filmmakers don't challenge her on that. Dylan claims Allen physically and verbally abused her at the dinner table in front of the rest of the family when she was young, but nobody else comes on screen to corroborate it and there are plenty of examples, again in the public record, of Mia praising Allen as a wonderful father AFTER that alleged abouse would have unfolded in front of her. That doesn't prove it didn't happen, but it's a huge hole in the story. So.... Too bad. Opportunity lost. But these filmmakers are hardly subtle or fair. Their doc about the MPAA's CARA is so obsessively one sided and that you actually begin to think through the counterarguments yourself and want to defend the people who gave THE KINGS SPEECH and ORDINARY PEOPLE R ratings.
I watched "Allen v. Farrow" with the eyes of someone who thought they knew it all. I was pleasantly surprised to find it informative and more insightful than I thought any documentary could be on this topic. I would encourage people to see it.
The interviews with the babysitters and neighbours are revealing. Also Dylan deserves more respect than the press like to give her. I came away with more respect for Mia Farrow as a Mother, and a lot of respect for the PR machine that Allen used.
I found the Britney doc unsatisfying.
It's one thing to argue that the conservatorship (as it currently stands) is exploitation. Her dad should not be in charge, no one should be enriching themselves from their participation in her affairs. That's without a doubt true. In that sense I'm 100% #FreeBritney.
But it seemed to ignore what we can see with our eyes: Britney's diminished and childlike presentation of late. It's hard to square what I see (a very sad and disturbing psychological situation) with the "Britney is a grown woman in full command of her faculties who can step in and manage her affairs immediately."
Whatever's going on with Britney doesn't excuse the exploitation. But the doc didn't seem that curious about it. It actually seemed to rationalize the 2007/8 breakdown behavior in way I found unseemly, searching for logical explanations instead of addressing it as a health crisis.
This was a terrific write up about the documentaries as a craft, rather than getting too bogged down in their subjects, as many have done.
I watched both, and found them engaging documentaries, but ultimately flawed. Perhaps inevitably so - Framing Britney is a documentary about Britney speculating about Britney and her father, without talking to Britney or her father. It did a fairly decent job of illustrating our collective complicity.
Allen v Farrow presents Team Farrow, so the title feels ill judged. And I’d imagine that, had they wanted to create a more balanced documentary, they wouldn’t have received the full involvement or access to Farrow. Ultimately, whilst the archive footage and commentary from Dylan and Mia is new to the public domain, it struggles with the very problem that ultimately we’re still left with a “we’ll never know”, and that’s sad and frustrating for whichever party is “right”. I believe that Dylan believes her truth, and it’s important she continues to voice it. I also believe that condemning a man in the court of public opinion who hasn’t been charged or found guilty is incredibly problematic. So I continue to support and enjoy the films (when they’re enjoyable!), whilst trying to respect that Dylan’s truth shouldn’t be silenced. It’s incredibly sad whatever the truth.
I have a problem with the Allen v Farrow doc because, in my opinion, repeating something again and again doesn't make it more or less true. I feel like, for years now, the Farrows have been claiming Allen is a child molester, and just because there haven't been the kind of consequences they want to see, they keep repeating it, but without any new information. They're banking on the culture to change, rather than the facts themselves to change. That bothers me.
At some point, you have to realize you're not going to get what you want and move on. This documentary won't change anything, either, and I can only imagine what they'll try to come up with in two more years.
Only when the man is dead will they be satisfied. But even then, will they go after those who still want to watch the films? I wonder...
"Here, however, it only helps you spot holes in their telling and see the convenient abstractions and curious hypocrisies. After all, this was a scandal that unfolded predominantly in the public eye. With four hours key parts of the story (those that look good and bad for Woody Allen) were left as footnotes? Hmm."
Well, what were these holes and hypocrisies? I'm just supposed to buy this argument without any supporting passages? That's annoying.
I found the documentary compelling - but maybe because I knew squat about the story going in.
Moses Farrow disputes the abuse allegations, and claimed *he* was abused by Mia. Doesn't make it true, of course, but it seems like it would have an impact if included in the documentary. And isn't Farrow's brother in jail for pedophilia, which occurred around the same time at these accusations? Another circumstantial fact that might be tangentially relevant, but was left out.
The Farrow propaganda documentary is so one-sided as to be pointless imo. It's basically just rah-rah to everything the Twitter mob already believes.
The principle of cross-examination is enshrined in the Constitution for a good reason. You have to submit to hostile questioning if you want third-parties or the general public to believe you. A more courageous documentary would have at least asked the hard questions posed by Team Allen, but this documentary is so solicitous to Mia and Dylan that it eschews anything like and instead presents Dylan as this fragile victim to whom it would be cruel to even ask. This framing obviates anything like an impartial search for the truth.
I also don't like the attempt to guilt-trip people like Cate Blanchett or Javier Bardem or so many other actors, who can't realistically be expected to know every angle of this case, or who very reasonably found things rather muddy if they did look into the matter.
Moses's claims were addressed at length in the documentary. I never knew before watching the documentary that Moses has changed his story over the years. He has contradicted some of the testimony he gave to law enforcement years ago.
Mia Farrow has a very flowery letter/card from him, sent not too long ago, about how grateful he was to have such a wonderful mother. Moses's ex-wife also said that he never mentioned any abuse to her.
Interestingly, the other children have stated that Woody offered to pay for their entire educations if they would side with him over Mia, while Mia was not in a financial position to make such an offer.
Unlike KBJr, I thought I knew the story going in. But I realized that most of the oxygen had been occupied by Allen and his defenders. I really never heard Mia and Dylan's perspective at all.
I have no interest in watching the Allen/Farrow doc as I've seen and read so much about it as I'm just over it. I do think Dylan Farrow was molested but not by Woody Allen. I think it is someone from the Farrow family and I heard the doc is too one-sided and biased. The fact that they don't even talk about Farrow's other children who have died nor the discussion about her pedophile brother is proof that Dick and Ziering are just hacks with an agenda as it makes me question why Oprah dropped out of the Russell Simmons doc.
Britney on the other hand is something I'm interested in seeing as I do feel bad for her given that she doesn't have much say about her financial and business life while I heard her sister is considered to be the person that should be the one taking control.
Only caught the first two episodes of A vs F. Kept waiting for an interview, comment, observations or explanation form Louise Lasser or Diane Keaton. Those two were married/with Woody and would’ve noticed Something in their past relationship-but it’s all Mia’s babysitters & friends. I also feel that they’re grasping for straws when they rummage their the Woody archives and find that he wrote a short story about a ‘hot, buxom 18 y/o stewardess (sic).’ Mia is portrayed too much as the Mother Teresa halo type considering her pre-Allen male relationships.
AvF is pure Mia’s propaganda as per usual.
Time and time again it was proved that he never molested Dylan.
What else is there to say, besides Mia continually bringing it up every year?
I’m not saying Allen is innocent but that documentary was so bad it almost makes you think he was. What a sloppy piece of mess.
Mia Farrow gives me chills.
@Jules Moses's original statements were made when he was a kid, living with Mia and terrified by her after years of physical abuse--at least that's what he's saying now. As an adult, he claims that he made the statements supporting Dylan's claims only due to extreme pressure on the part of his mother. Today he says he felt so guilty at betraying the one parent he had who was actually nice to him, that he broke away from Mia and recanted his story and reconnected with Allen. It makes sense to me. There's all kinds of evidence of Mia Farrow and her lawyers going to extremes to get people to testify against Allen, ask them to flat out lie, despite what they knew to be true. Just ask Stacey Nelkin.
The most striking thing about this to me us W Allen's control of the media and thus the story. The immense blanketing of the news by W Allen and his media thugs. 60 minutes segments used to be followed by many. Now it is a joke and many see it as tool. zmuch of the media is a tool and not respected.
This documentary finally! provides a deep sense of the other side. We can critically decide which items are weird fabrications and deflections.
Harvey Winstein's control of the media for so long was finally toppled. W Allen is still out there getting his media attacks revved up to counter this.
Jeff Epstein and the infamous Vanity Fair story glorifying him after uncovering massive acts of evidence of pediphilia-another wrong doing by the media.
I think an interesting story is the using of the media by these powerful corrupt people. How it is at fault and why isn't the media punished for helping these corrupt and vile people who brutally harmed do many of our young.
Calling all Rowan Fartiws of the world to start digging and telling this story!
KBJr, I don't really care to relitigate the whole story, but there are factors that other people have mentioned here in the comments.
Rob, thank you. I agree that it was almost always inevitable that both of these productions wouldn't fully hit the mark.
Yikes, some disturbing stuff here in the comments, least of all (considering the subject matter) those who chose to chime in without even seeing "Allen vs. Farrow". Ironic really, basing one's opinions on hearsay in this of all cases.
@KC I don't need to sit through all 114 minutes of TRIUMPH OF THE WILL to know with reasonable assurance that it's Nazi propaganda. As far as A v F goes, I've read the reviews, I've seen several of the filmmakers' other films (including the one where we see close up documentary footage of a man nailing his penis to a board for no reason other than cheap shock value), and I've heard what's said and what's curiously missing in the film according to honest critics. You don't need to be gored by a bull to know you don't want to get gored by a bull, but go ahead and watch JUD SÜß so you can say you listen to all sides.
@KC I haven't seen "Allen Versus Farrow", so I haven't weighed in on it, but you don't have to watch Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" to confidently feel it must be terrible and false and justifiably decide not to bother seeing it. And "Allen Versus Farrow" is more than twice as long as that. Some of us have been following this case since 1992. We also remember the McMartin Daycare prosecution. We have a lot of evidence to go already.
@MT Yikes again, touched a nerve I see, no need to get all bent out of shape. Just not a fan of critiques/reviews/opinions of something that wasn't actually seen by the one giving the critique/review/opinion, regardless of the due diligence that person shows in doing seemingly everything else but, you know, actually watching it. I will give you credit for at least admitting you didn't see it, most of the time that is not the case. And I'm impressed with your technique of referencing Nazi propaganda, that's always a nice touch, if a tad trite. But to be fair, "Triumph of the Will" has been around for over 80 years; EVERYONE knows it's Nazi propaganda. And, while I have seen "Triumph of the Will" (like every well-rounded film scholar should), I have not seen "Jud Süß", so I have no comment on it. See how that works?
@KC. Having seen four films by these filmmakers and having read almost everything there is to read about the Allen/Farrow issue, all I'm really saying is I have no interest in seeing this film. I’m guessing maybe you’ve done that before. BTW, one of the four Kirby Dick films I've seen is 2015's THE HUNTING GROUND, which, as CNN reported at the time—you can GOOGLE it—“has come under withering attack for ignoring facts that contradict the film's claims." One of those facts involves compelling evidence that suggested some specific young men discussed in the film--Black men--were accused of rape due to racism on that campus. This was completely ignored by the filmmakers who pushed aside the long history of Black men being accused of rape by white women in the South because well, who knows? They hate complexity? Then I mention a few things I've read from critics about A v F Ever done that? Actually Dan's post was a little less... okay.. I admit it, extreme and more on point. I don't need to see absurd right wing propaganda by Dinesh D'Souza to feel confident it's a bad film and not worth my time and that Hilary Clinton isn’t the Antichrist or whatever. Still, in some ways my example films are on point. I'm old enough to remember hearing anti-Semetic remarks about Woody Allen going back to the SLEEPER and LOVE AND DEATH days. I’d be shocked if Kirby Dick actually goes in to how that’s factoring into the public’s knee-jerk reaction in favor of Mia and against Woody Allen. I guess I could be wrong. But I’m not going to invest four hours on the off chance I am.
In the documentary; Miss Farrow states Mr Allen has impressed upon her with this: IT MATTERS NONE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT IS BELIEVED. Thats it in a nutshell people. Mr Allen’s quotes to the media subsequent to the documentary are these:
I BELIEVE SHE THINKS IT. I DONT BELIEVE THAT SHES MAKING IT UP. I DONT BELIEVE SHE IS LYING. I BELIEVE SHE BELIEVES THAT. Take WOODY ALLEN out of the picture and pretend ANY MAN says this ! Its damning stuff. The recap statement here would’ve been similar to this: I BELIEVE THAT DYLAN BELIEVES I MOLESTED HER. AND SHE ISNT LYING. SO THEREFORE IT STANDS TO REASON THAT I DID IN FACT MOLEST HER. And not unlike Michael Jackson or anyone else this trait is generational AND IT CAN BE BROKEN. I believe this 21 century hails a generation whom will do just that.