I missed the first round of talk about the New York Times’ publication of a moving and forthright letter by Woody Allen’s adopted daughter Dylan of his alleged sexual molestation of her over two decades ago.
Woody Allen is an American icon as well as a human being capable of all things human, perhaps including the capacity for the inhumanity of humans.
I admire those on this website who have taken on the subject and expressed a philosophical and/or moral stance about Allen’s reported alleged behavior.
It is a troubling scenario with only speculation not evidentiary confirmation achievable from our distance as citizens and consumers. His alleged crime is certainly inflammatory in nature and thus all the more fodder to be titillatingly skewed by a mainstream corporate media so often less than reliable in framing scenarios within mature, moral, restrained and empathetic boundaries.
On the other hand there is a potential for skewing the story in a minimizing direction, as well. The “celebrity popularity” factor, and a consumer level of cronyism toward him or non-cronyism regarding his former partner Mia Farrow and even a consumer level of cronyism with the crony celebrities of Allen which can induce a dismissive or minimizing take on the grave allegations. (Diane Keaton being one of Allen’s long term supporters might impact a perspective. Just as Carly Simon’s loyalty to Mia Farrow and her daughter Dylan might impact one.)
Our dialoguing is important and beneficial -- to explore and express where we stand in terms of a mutual collective sensibility and/or seriously diverging perspectives -- influenced by our individual values, temperaments, social histories, psychological identifications and projections, ages, genders, or, again, fan-cronyism.
This conversation is capable at times of reaching uncomfortable and contentious proportions, paralleling but not coming at all close to the anguish generated for those directly and more closely embroiled in the dramatic and troubling ongoing controversy.
It has been so many years now since the Woody Allen molestation scandal broke, along with the scandal surrounding Allen’s affair with Mia Farrow’s teenage daughter, Soon-Yi, adopted by her and Andre Previn.
I grew up with Woody Allen movies. I loved the broad and often surreally satiric humor of the early ones, and the more sophisticated, New York hip and edgy later ones.
The movie “Annie Hall” certainly spoke to and for my generation. Even my choice in fashion was impacted by that movie in its day.
Allen always presented a very sympathetic, vulnerable, self-deprecating and relatable male anti-hero hero persona on the screen and stage. This made him beloved by many, including me, on down through the decades. Well, by me until the scandals hit.
I’ve got to say, however, that even before the scandals broke, Allen’s plotting of the difficulties of romantic relationships has often impressed me as a kind of propaganda for men to find ultimate serenity and comfort with less contentious, necessarily younger and more naive women. It made me squirm in my seat at times.
Allen’s depictions of such younger women have often been well drawn and well played by his chosen actresses, but again, that ongoing thematic direction has often grated on me. Allen’s heroes, often played by himself, were proverbial “baby chasers” and “-catchers” by the end of most of his movies. The May/December relationship was portrayed as the most gratifying and wholesome for the main characters.
Was this an indictment of mature women by Allen? Maybe not an indictment. But surely something confessional from Allen himself, and relatable and/or appreciated by many of his fellow men, in particular. We all know how tough male-female sustained bonding can be. The politics of modern relationships. Impressionable and appreciative younger women can be far easier on a male’s ego than a partner closer in age and closer in proactive willfulness.
How many of us were not haunted by those depictions of Allen’s heroes with younger women when both scandals broke? We as long-time audiences were ourselves seemingly cast by him as unwitting and cheerleading endorsers or at least condoning accepters of Allen’s apparent proclivity for much younger women. And the beat seems to go on in his movies even now.
There are two perhaps oblique additions I want to offer to this conversation of this stage of the Woody Allen scandals. For what they are worth. Even I am not sure.
The first has to do with Mia Farrow. A serious time ago after the scandals broke, Farrow was interviewed on television about her tumultuous conflict with Allen over not only the ugly allegations but the consequential child custody issues. Toward the end of the interview Farrow expressed a seemingly genuine dismay and disappointment that Woody Allen was not going to star her in his next movie.
“Excuse me?” I addressed the set. Did she seriously expect him to? Apparently yes.
Did she not get the depth and scope of these allegations? Would she expect to merrily continue on with their professional relationship? The interviewer did not follow up on that amazing disclosure from Farrow. Maybe she had been as dismayed as I was, hearing it.
The other anecdote is just as confusing to me.
On rare occasions living in New York City one happens upon a celebrity on the street, in a restaurant, a store, a museum, even using mass transit. Go figure. Years ago, but, again, after the Woody Allen scandals had broken, I was strolling north on Park Avenue and came upon two men to my left talking in an animated way. One was shorter, dressed in a khaki army jacket with a matching khaki hat pulled down over tousled orange-brown hair. This man’s posture was a bit twisted, and I assumed the younger, taller man beside him had been going the opposite way and had interrupted the khaki-clad man’s journey north.
I was startled to suddenly recognize that the shorter man was Woody Allen.
A very angry looking Woody Allen for some reason.
Our eyes met for only a second. I am sure he noted my recognition of him. I was surprised at the degree of his anger. I was also surprised how his many freckles gave his face a kind of orangey cast.
Now my personal code when my path on such a rare occasion accidentally and inadvertently crosses with a celebrity's is to respect his or her privacy and not engage. Curious as I might be. In fact if I had had time I would have erased the surprise from my face and looked away from Allen. But he had caught me in my surprise.
I continued on my way up the block. Sometimes I opt to walk on Park Avenue since the sidewalks aren’t as crowded with pedestrians as Madison’s or Lexington’s. There are mostly residences on Park, classy ones with pretty entrances and lobbies. Gracious and alert-looking doormen often are just outside, standing guard. There are few commercial establishments.
I continued to enjoy my walk. Suddenly, someone rushing by me whacked me across my upper right arm. Enough to make me exclaim, “Hey!”
Apparently a man walking by must have been swinging his arms rather roughly and widely and intercepted me with his left arm. It startled me. It stung, in fact. It also seemed odd, since there was so much room on the sidewalk for both of us. Annoyed, I looked over at him, moving at a fast clip. I saw the back of Allen in the khaki jacket and hat.
Whaaaa ....?
Was it accidental or on purpose? It sure felt on purpose, but postured as not being on purpose. But why? Our eye contact had taken less than a second. Surprise over my recognition of him was the only expression I had had time to register before I had hastened on by.
I can’t speculate on Allen’s motive for that whack, if there even was one. But I can’t help ultimately remembering it when the subject turns to Woody Allen as it has now.
------------
He likely whacked you because he was in pursuit of a younger woman, spiriting away.
Justice is seldom served when public opinion makes it nearly impossible to have a fair trial by Judge and Jury. R.
Justice is seldom served when public opinion makes it nearly impossible to have a fair trial by Judge and Jury. R.
Not sure what to make of this post... all that I can say is that if Dylan Previn's account of Allen's behavior is true, I hope that he's learned to restrain those impulses. R&R
The whole thing is a convoluted mess. None of us observers know what happened or did not happen. We only know who has sided with whom.
That said, on YouTube yesterday I watched a clip of Woody Allen on "60 Minutes" discussing the sex-abuse allegations more than 20 years ago. In this old interview, he, too, stated that despite the serious allegations that Mia Farrow had just made against him, she fully expected to appear in his next film! Wow!
He also showed the valentine that she'd given him with sharp objects stuck into the hearts of those in the family photo, including a steak knife stuck into her chest in the photo. Creepy.
Allen also claimed that Farrow told him that because he'd stolen her (adopted) daughter (Soon-Yi) from her, she would steal his (adopted) daughter (Dylan) from him.
There is enough she said, he said, to make it impossible to know for sure what happened.
The only thing we can be fairly certain of is that one side is lying, or at least mistaken.
Speaking of which, I hope that Allen, if it was Allen, did not intentionally hit you those years ago. If it was he and he had accidentally hit you, he certainly should have apologized.
That said, on YouTube yesterday I watched a clip of Woody Allen on "60 Minutes" discussing the sex-abuse allegations more than 20 years ago. In this old interview, he, too, stated that despite the serious allegations that Mia Farrow had just made against him, she fully expected to appear in his next film! Wow!
He also showed the valentine that she'd given him with sharp objects stuck into the hearts of those in the family photo, including a steak knife stuck into her chest in the photo. Creepy.
Allen also claimed that Farrow told him that because he'd stolen her (adopted) daughter (Soon-Yi) from her, she would steal his (adopted) daughter (Dylan) from him.
There is enough she said, he said, to make it impossible to know for sure what happened.
The only thing we can be fairly certain of is that one side is lying, or at least mistaken.
Speaking of which, I hope that Allen, if it was Allen, did not intentionally hit you those years ago. If it was he and he had accidentally hit you, he certainly should have apologized.
I've been avoiding reading about this latest news but I knew that you would have a different take on it, I'm glad I stopped by.
I have never been a Woodie Allen fan, I never watched Annie Hall and skip past any TV movie that has his name in it. I couldn't give you a reason for not liking him, I just found him offensive. Maybe it was rebellion, if all of his movies were about submissive young females.
As I read this I wondered how many of his actresses he slept with during filming...
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post. It would be interesting to know if he smacked you on purpose.
I have never been a Woodie Allen fan, I never watched Annie Hall and skip past any TV movie that has his name in it. I couldn't give you a reason for not liking him, I just found him offensive. Maybe it was rebellion, if all of his movies were about submissive young females.
As I read this I wondered how many of his actresses he slept with during filming...
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post. It would be interesting to know if he smacked you on purpose.
P.S. Yes, Allen's portrayals of, and his use of other male actors more or less apparently standing in for him in their portrayals of, middle-aged to older men chasing younger women is, indeed, fairly pathetic, and your insight that immature older men prefer younger women because older women won't put up with their bullshit sounds on target to me.
However, there's a difference between chasing legal adults and legal minors, and conflating Allen's affair with (and eventual marriage to) Soon-Yi with pedophilia is inaccurate and unfair.
While I, approaching age 46, couldn't see myself with anyone who was more than around 10 years younger than I am, I don't see that I have the right to judge others' relationships, as long as the participants are of legal age. (That said, the legal age in Britain is 16 years old, and we don't consider the Brits to be particularly uncivilized, so that indicates, I think, that there is plenty of gray area in the area of what is too young.)
Also, as many have pointed out, Mia Farrow was in her early 20s when she married Frank Sinatra, who was in his 50s. That's a similar age difference between Soon-Yi and Allen when they started their relationship.
However, there's a difference between chasing legal adults and legal minors, and conflating Allen's affair with (and eventual marriage to) Soon-Yi with pedophilia is inaccurate and unfair.
While I, approaching age 46, couldn't see myself with anyone who was more than around 10 years younger than I am, I don't see that I have the right to judge others' relationships, as long as the participants are of legal age. (That said, the legal age in Britain is 16 years old, and we don't consider the Brits to be particularly uncivilized, so that indicates, I think, that there is plenty of gray area in the area of what is too young.)
Also, as many have pointed out, Mia Farrow was in her early 20s when she married Frank Sinatra, who was in his 50s. That's a similar age difference between Soon-Yi and Allen when they started their relationship.
I agree with Robert about the relationship with Soon-Yi having nothing to do with pedophilia. Not a fair parallel. It's also interesting that that marriage has lasted. If there were serious exploitation involved, I doubt it would have.
I don't know anything here. I can't assume, so I can't pass judgment, and I respect your not doing so either.
I don't know anything here. I can't assume, so I can't pass judgment, and I respect your not doing so either.
Good essay, Libby. I just posted my own thoughts on the Woody Allen scandal. Curious to hear what you and others think.
This is the best I've seen yet about Allen's recent mire of publicity. I, for one, can compartmentalize the work and the person, and will continue to enjoy the movies even as I've come to think less of Allen as a person in recent years. His early movies helped pull me out of the dumps years ago, so I owe him a personal debt of gratitude. From your own experience, though, he doesn't sound like much of a mensch.
Stick, damned rate!
That really rings true at some subterranean level - believe the whack. He was furious at being caught out being furious.
People are complex, capable both of brilliant and monstrous acts.
r.
r.
Dylan Farrow's open letter has provided a lot of food for discussion and thought. My recent post discussed my ability to compartmentalize Allen's work from his alleged personal indiscretions. The themes of those films might be telling about what makes Allen tick, but in the end, I can evaluate the film on the basis of not only theme, but execution, acting, writing, etc.
I believe Dylan's account of what happened when she was seven. Since I do believe her, I automatically have to disbelieve Woody Allen's claims of innocence. I have always found his quirkiness annoying, but his directing is good if not great. I am not at all surprised to read here about his fury on the streets of New York; that he might be temperamental is no great stretch. If he hit, you, though, that raises a whole new bushel of red flags.
Lezlie
I believe Dylan's account of what happened when she was seven. Since I do believe her, I automatically have to disbelieve Woody Allen's claims of innocence. I have always found his quirkiness annoying, but his directing is good if not great. I am not at all surprised to read here about his fury on the streets of New York; that he might be temperamental is no great stretch. If he hit, you, though, that raises a whole new bushel of red flags.
Lezlie
Nah. Compartmentalizing Woody Allen is excusing evil. (and though he has not been convicted by your eminently able judicial system ::roll eyes:: there certainly is WAY more than enough "smoke" to yell "fire" and NOT disbelieve the words of one of his victims.)
It is no different that "compartmentalizing" Mussolini's having made the trains run on time vs. the atrocities he committed, approving of Yeltsin's leadership savvy vs. his treatment of Russian LGBT folks or thinking Barry Obama is a swell guy for FINALLY appointing a woman to a senior position vs. the THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children he has murdered with his drones.
A few good acts (or movies) is no excuse for accepting evil.
It is no different that "compartmentalizing" Mussolini's having made the trains run on time vs. the atrocities he committed, approving of Yeltsin's leadership savvy vs. his treatment of Russian LGBT folks or thinking Barry Obama is a swell guy for FINALLY appointing a woman to a senior position vs. the THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children he has murdered with his drones.
A few good acts (or movies) is no excuse for accepting evil.
Like to see Mr. Allen do a C. Greene (does not GS (google search) well) biography in the genre of Man on the Moon.
I'm otta visine but love the syntax, L. I'm trying to Dremel-out an ice sculpture of a bench vice. Hands too cold to type. Must be going.
You funnie girl. One of those 'otta my league' hip Eastcoast girls.
I'm otta visine but love the syntax, L. I'm trying to Dremel-out an ice sculpture of a bench vice. Hands too cold to type. Must be going.
You funnie girl. One of those 'otta my league' hip Eastcoast girls.
There are two issues here and I think we'd better make sure they're separated. One is compartmentalizing the artist from the human being, if he did it. The other is the question of whether or not he did it. I haven't followed him in many years and I don't really have anything invested personally in him, so there is no loyalty component to anything I say here.
We have a judicial system that's ostensibly based on the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, most of those I know here who are familiar with this issue seem to think there is a far higher probability of his guilt than innocence based on what they've seen. From a legal standpoint, that's not enough, but we're not talking about a legal standpoint here because we aren't deciding on his imprisonment. We're talking mostly about a personal standpoint. I don't know enough to draw a conclusion I'm sure enough of about whether he did it. All I will say in that regard is that his relationship with Soon-Yi does not comprise evidence of his guilt.
It's one thing to defend him as an artist if we aren't convinced of his guilt (which is a far cry from being convinced of his innocence). It's another if we are. Most of those who I've seen defend him on OS do so primarily on the basis of being unsure of his guilt, not of saying "So he molested a kid twenty some odd years ago, he's still a great artist."
I guess we'll all draw our own conclusions and maybe trip over enough information to be really convinced one way or the other.
We have a judicial system that's ostensibly based on the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, most of those I know here who are familiar with this issue seem to think there is a far higher probability of his guilt than innocence based on what they've seen. From a legal standpoint, that's not enough, but we're not talking about a legal standpoint here because we aren't deciding on his imprisonment. We're talking mostly about a personal standpoint. I don't know enough to draw a conclusion I'm sure enough of about whether he did it. All I will say in that regard is that his relationship with Soon-Yi does not comprise evidence of his guilt.
It's one thing to defend him as an artist if we aren't convinced of his guilt (which is a far cry from being convinced of his innocence). It's another if we are. Most of those who I've seen defend him on OS do so primarily on the basis of being unsure of his guilt, not of saying "So he molested a kid twenty some odd years ago, he's still a great artist."
I guess we'll all draw our own conclusions and maybe trip over enough information to be really convinced one way or the other.
vicki christina barcelona, one of my fave movies of all time.
I'd like to see Mr. Allen cast Ed Asner and Betty White for the stage.
He's egocentric some days. I picuture his cameo in a pharohch~air.
Am I the only one rememburing the Gilette commercial / Woody A in Everlast boxing gloves?
Peoria?
Not so much.
All in all, you know, it's pretty hard to surpass Snakes on a Plane for tension and comic relief and compartments.
!Go Samantha Go!
He's egocentric some days. I picuture his cameo in a pharohch~air.
Am I the only one rememburing the Gilette commercial / Woody A in Everlast boxing gloves?
Peoria?
Not so much.
All in all, you know, it's pretty hard to surpass Snakes on a Plane for tension and comic relief and compartments.
!Go Samantha Go!
People so much, and for reasons I cannot fathom, want so much for life to be either/or...and in so many areas of life.
Certainly criminal courts (when decisions are in the hands of juries) must nearly always take an either/or model as they adjudicate cases.
Yet we know that people, all people, are complex. While I do not know what happened in that family, I have no problem at all with the idea that we are all complex, nuanced creatures, wholly capable at the same time of brilliance (in art, film, writing, sports, woorworking,what-have-you) and horror.
Certainly criminal courts (when decisions are in the hands of juries) must nearly always take an either/or model as they adjudicate cases.
Yet we know that people, all people, are complex. While I do not know what happened in that family, I have no problem at all with the idea that we are all complex, nuanced creatures, wholly capable at the same time of brilliance (in art, film, writing, sports, woorworking,what-have-you) and horror.
Nicely nuanced look at it libby. If I were forced to bet an an all knowing, all seeing Supreme Being pledged to reveal the truth, I guess I'd bet that Dylan's account was closer to the truth. But Robert C has made a convincing enough case that agnosticism also remains a reasonable option.
As for separating the artist from the man, it ought to be possible as they are two distinct forms of judgment. Having a high regard for Manhattan or Hannah and Her Sisters doesn't imply endorsement of child molestation. But it's not so easy in practice. In praising a person's work, there's implied praise for the person who created it. Then one feels obliged to qualify such praise with "of course I don't approve of..." as though one recognizes that the two can't easily be separated.
That said, I've probably enjoyed more of his movies than those of any other director except Hitchcock. His weakest movies are no worse than so-so and his best are among the best of anyone's.
Oh, and happy birthday too. I'm now raising a glass to you.
As for separating the artist from the man, it ought to be possible as they are two distinct forms of judgment. Having a high regard for Manhattan or Hannah and Her Sisters doesn't imply endorsement of child molestation. But it's not so easy in practice. In praising a person's work, there's implied praise for the person who created it. Then one feels obliged to qualify such praise with "of course I don't approve of..." as though one recognizes that the two can't easily be separated.
That said, I've probably enjoyed more of his movies than those of any other director except Hitchcock. His weakest movies are no worse than so-so and his best are among the best of anyone's.
Oh, and happy birthday too. I'm now raising a glass to you.
Happy Belated Birthday
No comments:
Post a Comment