Another reputable newspaper talks about extreme bias in Allen V. Farrow ...

Allen v Farrow is pure PR. Why else would it omit so much?
by Hadley Freeman
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/03/allen-v-farrow-woody-allen-mia-farrow-documentary-is-pure-pr-why-else-would-it-omit-so-much
The new HBO documentary in which Mia and Dylan Farrow revisit their 1992 allegation against Woody Allen claims to be an even-handed investigation. But its failure to present the facts makes it feel more like activism

One of those hard questions, which Ziering and Dick work very hard not to answer, could be: is it really reasonable to mention Allen alongside Cosby – and Jackson, Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and other celebrity predators – when the latter have all been charged or convicted of multiple crimes going back decades, and Allen was accused of one incident and not only never convicted but never even charged, and there has never been a hint of scandal around him since? Given how much sterling work Ronan has done in exposing Weinstein and other compulsive predators, you’d think he might ask himself that question, but apparently not. Ziering and Dick seem similarly certain of their case, but it’s hard to believe they have so much faith in it when they omit so many relevant details.

For example, despite the documentary’s claim to go beyond “the tip of the iceberg”, it never finds time to get into the testimonies of Monica Thompson, Dylan’s nanny, who was very much on the surface of the iceberg. Initially Thompson told police that Farrow was “a good mother,” but then retracted it, saying she felt she had to say it or “I would lose my job.” She then gave two sworn affidavits that Farrow had tried to force her into supporting the molestation charge, and said that Allen “was always the better parent and all the things Farrow is saying about him are not true”.

Dr Susan Coates, another one of the family’s many psychologists, testified that a 1990 evaluation found that Dylan was easily “taken over by fantasy”, even when asked to describe a tree.

The video of seven-year-old Dylan telling her mother that her father touched her on her “privates” is undeniably painful to watch, but it’s never been in question whether she said this. The question is was she coached to say it: the Yale New Haven team and, later, Moses Farrow say she was; the Farrows and all of the talking heads Ziering and Dick assemble together say she wasn’t. It would be ludicrous for outsiders to say who is right, but it’s interesting how the series glides over the detail – reported at the time by a journalist sympathetic to the Farrows – that when Dylan was asked by a doctor where her father touched her she initially “pointed to her shoulder”.

Much is made of the quote by Coates when she described Allen’s relationship with Dylan as “inappropriately intense” (less is made of her follow up that it was “not sexual”). But there are no references to Coates’ fears for Allen’s “safety” after Farrow discovered the affair with Soon-Yi, due to her “escalating rage”.

Ziering and Dick tell the story – which was reported at the time – about New York City welfare case worker Paul Williams, who was part of an investigation into Allen, and who claimed that he had been urged by his superiors to find the charges “unfounded”. When he refused – and we see him telling reporters he “believes the kid” – he was taken off the case. Ziering and Dick strongly imply that something dodgy happened here, but instead of finding any actual evidence, the film-makers air entirely unproven theories that Allen was being protected by the City of New York, even perhaps by then-mayor David Dinkins, because “he made his movies in New York and that brought millions of dollars to New York City”, theorises Farrow. (Sadly, if perhaps conveniently, Dinkins is now dead and so can’t comment on this.) At the time of the investigation, Allen’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, said that Williams was removed from the case because when he interviewed people “he acted in a rude fashion and appeared to be biased”. Now, it wouldn’t be hard to style this as shady lawyer obfuscation, so why don’t Ziering and Dick include this counter-argument in the film? Because counter-arguments are of little interest to Ziering and Dick.