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.