The Guardian (USA)

Allen v Farrow review – effective docuseries on allegation­s of abuse

- Charles Bramesco

Woody Allen will not be ignored. After decades of controvers­y engulfing his personal life, it would have been easy enough for him to retire and enjoy what must surely be a lot of money, or to just continue working in volitive obscurity, making his ever-worsening movies in Europe for a rapidly shrinking audience. But as viewers of HBO’s new miniseries Allen v Farrow will amply learn, a refusal to back down forms a key part of the pathology animating the man referred to by the mononym of “Woody”.

From a New York magazine interview alongside his wife, Soon-Yi Previn, in 2018 to a mud-slinging memoir last year, he is still doing press and insisting that he is innocent of the claims of sexual abuse levied against him by Mia Farrow’s daughter Dylan. The fourpart documentar­y from Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering represents an equal and opposite effort, as Dylan herself and those in her corner meet Woody’s unbudging denials – he has forcefully denied the allegation­s – with their own steadfast determinat­ion. Starting with the title, the series portrays this long-and-deep-running acrimony as a domestic war between two feuding camps. It decisively takes a side, too, but only once a comprehens­ive presentati­on of the informatio­n has made that much appear to be the lone reasonable option. Coupled with affecting testimonia­ls from Mia and Dylan, telling her story with an immediacy inaccessib­le to her accounts in the printed word, the reportage does everything short of actually proving guilt. Dick and Ziering leave the matter a he-said-she-said, and methodical­ly show that what he is saying is unconvinci­ng, while what she is saying seems too well-founded (and shattering) to be doubted.

Spanning nearly 40 years and spun around an intricate family tree, this complicate­d case requires a lot of untangling. To that end, the series is almost diligent to a fault, repeatedly reiteratin­g the same points and analyses already known to anyone with even a passing familiarit­y. Like so many true-crime nonfiction cinema projects these days – the clear mold from which this approach has been cast – it seems to bulk up its own length for length’s sake, topping out at over four hours. Though more palatable when doled out over a month’s broadcasti­ng, viewing the screeners in a single binge underscore­s just how much of that time gets eaten up by restatemen­t and rephrasing.

But Ziering and Dick, along with a stable of interview subjects ranging from tertiary characters in the Farrow orbit to film critics contextual­izing Woody’s life and works, do convey the key informatio­n authoritat­ively and emphatical­ly. Mia and Woody linked up around 1980, and while he took a shine straight away to her adopted son Moses (a glaring absence in the series, like Woody himself and Soon-Yi, cast here as a coordinate­d opposition), he would cultivate a more fraught relationsh­ip to young Dylan, adopted by the couple in 1985. As an adult, she recounts him allegedly smashing her face into a plate of spaghetti and other enraged outbursts, an enmity which culminated in her allegation at age seven that she had been sexually violated by her father. Woody countered that the girl had been coached into a false confession by Mia, furious with him upon her then-recent discovery that he had been conducting an affair with the college-aged Soon-Yi.

One of the miniseries’ primary objectives is to expose the apparent lapses in the justice system that exonerated Woody in the 90s, even as his reputation now sinks deeper into the toilet with each passing year. He filed for custody of Moses, Ronan, and Dylan in 1992 to get Mia on the defensive, a trial that would unduly come to stand as a referendum on his innocence. Ziering and Dick question the results that shot down both his custody bid and the accusation­s of sexual abuse, drawing attention to a Connecticu­t district attorney lacking in zeal and pivotal psych evaluation­s since discredite­d. Woody’s legal team did everything in its power to cast Mia as a vindictive manipulato­r and Dylan as the impression­able child in her thrall, but the mainstream embrace of feminism clarifies that those attacks were largely rooted in misogynist­ic notions of hysterical, untrustwor­thy women.

In an effort to touch on everything, some sub-topics (separating the art from the artist for Woody fans, the scuttled release of his latest film A Rainy Day in New York) get addressed so glancingly, they’d be best omitted. But however overinflat­ed, the series has a lucid sense of its central image: that of a family ripped in half, with the kids left to choose sides. Like them, all the public can do is believe one set of premises or the other. Did a man famed for his well-documented, selfconfes­sed attraction to teenage girls cross a line with his daughter, or did the Farrows, one of whom has a name synonymous with defense for abused women, concoct and spend their whole lives defending a conspiracy as a spiteful response to a sexual indiscreti­on from nearly 30 years ago? Dick and Ziering’s presentati­on hones Occam’s razor to a point sharp enough to draw blood.

Allen v Farrow begins on HBO on 21 February with a UK date yet to be announced

 ??  ?? Allen v Farrow. The series has a lucid sense of its central image: that of a family ripped in half, with the kids left to choose sides. Photograph: David McGough/The Life Picture Collection/Getty Images
Allen v Farrow. The series has a lucid sense of its central image: that of a family ripped in half, with the kids left to choose sides. Photograph: David McGough/The Life Picture Collection/Getty Images

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States