ALLEN V. FARROW, Episode Three: Disputing the Facts

If the first two episodes of Amy Ziering and Kirby Dick‘s docuseries Allen v. Farrow seemed slightly one-sided, with the third episode the mask finally slips and all pretension of bipartisanship is obliterated. The third installment is markedly different from the first two and focuses purely on the facts and details of the case as opposed to documenting the ongoing drama. No one can accuse Ziering or Dick of making a shoddy documentary – what we’re presented with is always top-tier filmmaking, and done expertly – but for a show called Allen v. Farrow, you might have hoped for a little more balance. As it is, this series may have been more accurately known as “The Farrows.”

Who To Believe?

It starts with a phone call. Mia Farrow breaks down over the phone to Woody Allen, who tells her he wants to remain friends, despite everything. “It’s way beyond that now,” Farrow cries. Allan‘s side is barely audible, but it feels here like his meekness is tantamount to guilt, especially in the face of Farrow‘s fury. Surely, you tell yourself, if he was innocent he would have protested this horrible version of events; does his silence after she tells him “I don’t know how you can live with what you did?” mean guilt? Or did the filmmakers cut the audio after Farrow‘s speech so that we’ll never know what Allen said in response? This is the kind of example that runs rife through this episode: so many details emerge that you’re left pondering what the response is. After all, if it’s such an open and shut case – as seems to be alleged here – why is Allen still a free man? We’ll get to that part later…

After the opening titles, we’re treated to something unusual, something which marks this episode out as different: a narration from Amy Ziering herself. This is jarring because there was no narration during the first two episodes, so to introduce it now feels like a change of tact. Ziering recounts the early drama of the fallout, and reveals a cache of never-before-seen court and police documentation stored away in an attorney’s storage room, “untouched since the 90s”. These files will be shown to us as damning evidence of Allen‘s guilt.

One of the first things addressed is Dylan‘s visit to the pediatrician to discuss what happened. It’s well known that on the first visit Dylan said very little, appearing reluctant to talk about what happened. During a second visit, she was more forthcoming. Allen‘s camp has pointed to this as evidence that Dylan was coached by Farrow into making a statement to the pediatrician. Farrow clears that up: Dylan was reluctant to talk about her privates, but after Farrow encouraged her to be truthful the following day, she told the pediatrician about the alleged abuse.

The Investigation

Now we come onto the series of legal actions which were precipitated by that visit to the pediatrician. Two separate states opened investigations: in New York, the legal residence of the Farrows, the Child Welfare Administration took on the case; in Connecticut, where the alleged abuse took place, the state police began a criminal investigation, headed up by Frank Maco – who provides an interview here. Maco claims the intention had always been to lead a quiet investigation, which was hampered by Allen‘s press conference, wherein Allen refuted the allegations and confirmed his love for Soon-Yi. This press conference, we’re made to understand, was detrimental to the investigation. Priscilla Gilman – a friend of the Farrow family – appears, claiming this moment as the beginning of Allen‘s cynical attempts to make the “woman scorned” argument that became the basis for his defense. “There’s a calculated reason why love enters the picture”, Gilman says of a relationship now over 25 years strong, “he’s trying to distract – this is a woman scorned, this is an unhinged woman. That’s Woody‘s narrative”.

Casey Pascal backs up Gilman. “He turned it upside down and around”, she says. “And the media ran with that story”. The meaning is clear: Allen used his relationship with Soon-Yi to derail the conversation and detract from the allegations. It’s a strange accusation given the length of Allen and Soon-Yi‘s relationship, and the fact there have been no claims of infidelity or strife in that ensuing time. The implication is that they are together now solely to deflect any further accusations, which rings hollow.

Another phone call between Allen and Farrow then takes place, with both parties insisting they wish to take the feud out of the public arena. “It’s not out of the public arena when you’re doing an interview with Newsweek“, Allen accuses. “I was told YOU were doing an interview with Newsweek“, Farrow responds. “I’m not doing an interview with Newsweek,” Allen says, “no”. Of course, the next shot is of Allen‘s Newsweek interview.

“The way he spun it was just perfect,” says Rosanna Scotto, news anchor at Fox 5, before we’re told Allen had a very powerful PR machine and one of the top lawyers in the country in his defense. By contrast, Farrow is almost angelic here: she gave no interviews, pursued no stories. Maureen Orth tells us it was only her dogged determination to hear the other side that compelled any stories in defense of Farrow. She even claims she heard “from several different people” that Farrow herself did not believe Dylan at first and offered her daughter the opportunity to admit to her lies. This piece of information is offered up as proof of Farrow‘s innocent intentions, but again it rings hollow given everything we know – from the statements of Moses Farrow, Soon-Yi, and one of the Farrows‘ nannies, Monica Thompson, who alleged that Farrow pressured her into making a statement against Allen. It’s hard not to feel just a little patronized by such black-and-white reporting.

Then we’re told Allen refused to submit to a lie detector test, but this is also disputed. Allen claims never to have been asked by the state police to submit to a test; instead, he took one given by Paul Minor, who was the Chief Polygraph Examiner for the FBI, which he passed. Farrow, on the other hand, is said to have refused to take a test altogether. Whether any of this is true or false is immaterial: it shows there are two sides to the accusation, and by presenting one side specifically as the correct one is misleading and damaging, not to mention poor journalism.

The next point of contention is with the results of the investigation in Connecticut, done by the Yale-New Haven Hospital. They found that there had been no evidence of sexual abuse and concluded that Dylan‘s statement was likely “reinforced and encouraged by her mother who was enraged with Mr. Allen“. Ziering and Dick discredit these findings and suggest Yale-New Haven had a bias towards Allen, displayed in their decision to inform Allen first of their findings and allowing him to hold a press conference on the steps of the hospital. All of the findings done by the Yale-New Haven team – some of which were very damning of Mia Farrow – were dismissed as being the result of Allen exerting his influence, which is a ludicrous premise.

New York

Ziering and Dick then take aim at the New York investigation, which was slightly muddier. Paul Williams, considered a highly competent caseworker, was assigned. We’re told he found Dylan to be “entirely credible”. Unfortunately, Williams was later fired. It is explicitly stated that there was a “strong political climate to shut this thing down”.

By the end of the episode, after we’ve run through so many disputable allegations, so many red herrings, and no attempt at balance, we’re shown that Allen failed to get custody of Dylan, Satchel, and Moses because he was deemed unfit. This is probably – and understandably – because of his affair with Soon-Yi, yet it’s held up here as an example of guilt. However, it seems to fly in the face of the earlier assertion that Allen‘s influence and PR ability could squash any attempt Farrow made to “tell the truth”. If he was powerful enough to bury child abuse allegations, couldn’t he have also won the custody battle? Again, any holes in the story are left completely un-investigated. At no point do Ziering and Dick even attempt to be impartial.

The final moments are given to Frank Maco‘s report that suggests they had enough probable cause to charge Allen, that his statements were inconsistent while Dylan‘s were fully consistent. The key to the case? Dylan herself. “The case hinged on the testimony of a 7-year-old girl”.

Conclusion

With one episode left to go, it’s hard to see exactly what Ziering and Dick might do to balance it out. Indeed, it appears they have no interest in doing so. This is frustrating because there are absolutely relevant allegations to be launched at Allen, allegations which deserve to be taken seriously, but they are buried in among blatantly biased, and sometimes disproven, accusations and false information that render the whole thing pointless. One wonders whether the filmmakers really wanted to make a thorough investigation into the affair, or whether they were simply motivated to bury Woody Allen.

As we go along with each episode, we’d love your views on the documentary and the wider drama as a whole. Please let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

Allen v. Farrow is available to watch now on HBO Max