Woody Allen: separating the artist from the individual

[David]

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last twenty years, or at least a nice cosy cave where no celebrity gossip ever filters through (please, tell me where that cave is), you'll be at least vaguely aware of the very ugly and very public Woody Allen/Mia Farrow custody affair from the early '90s. Essentially, for those who don't know the story, the couple (who had been with each other�famously, living separately�for over a decade, and had a kid together) split up when Farrow discovered that Allen was seeing her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi, who was then 21. Contrary to ongoing popular misunderstandings, Allen was not Soon-Yi's adoptive stepfather, and in fact had little to do with her until she was an adult. They later married and are still together today.

Anyway, that particular soap opera drama has sometimes served to obscure a much nastier allegation that surfaced around the same time: that Woody Allen had molested his 7-year-old adoptive daughter, Dylan. Police investigated at the time but found insufficient evidence to prosecute Allen, who (naturally) vehemently denied the allegations. A tedious "did he/didn't he" debate (similar in some ways to the Michael Jackson allegations) was held amongst the press and general public, and was still simmering along until the Golden Globes last month decided to give Allen a lifetime achievement award for his substantial contribution to the American film industry. Mia Farrow and Allen's estranged son took to Twitter to protest and remind everyone of the allegations of 20 years previously, which culminated in Dylan speaking to the press about the incident for the first time today. Her open letter, published by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times, seems pretty damning: she details what sounds like a long history of child abuse.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/

The presumption of innocence (something, it seems, that a lot of people mention without taking very seriously or remembering why it's necessary) is particularly important in this case. As the director of the recent Allen documentary writes here in a long and detailed post, this is a complicated and sordid case that suggests that, while we have no reason to disbelieve that these are the facts as she remembers them, Dylan's testimony should not necessarily be taken at face value.

What's my stance on all this? Personally, I think it'd be entirely presumptuous of me to make a call either way. My respect and appreciation for Woody Allen as a filmmaker will inevitably make me want to believe he is innocent, so my judgement can never be objective. While I am very cautious to point this out�as I am well aware that it is a tactic sometimes used by child abusers to silence their victims�we cannot always trust our memories, particularly those formed during childhood. On the other hand, we should be aware that child abuse happens on a much more regular basis than once thought, so we should not be automatically incredulous about allegations that a well-loved public figure has done such a thing. I think the best thing is, if at all possible, for the case to be reopened so that the facts can be heard before a court of law. The court of public opinion, at the end of the day, is neither a balanced nor a just one.

Despite this long preamble, this is not the subject I most want to talk about. What I really want to discuss is the thing that set these recent events in motion: Woody Allen's lifetime achievement award. Kristof, the facilitator of Dylan's open letter, states the following in his accompanying column: "Look, none of us can be certain what happened. The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn�t the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable? Yet the Golden Globes sided with Allen, in effect accusing Dylan either of lying or of not mattering. That�s the message that celebrities in film, music and sports too often send to abuse victims.". Dylan herself begins and ends her letter by asking: "What's your favourite Woody Allen movie?" (mine's Stardust Memories). The suggestion is clear: how can you now bring yourself to watch his films, knowing what the man is alleged to have done? How can the film establishment bring themselves to celebrate him?

I think this is an important topic that transcends the specific (very relevant) topic of child abuse and the lesser, more superficial exercise of condemning Woody Allen or Mia Farrow based on what we've heard. The question is, how do we deal with public figures in our society who (allegedly) don't behave in a way that we find morally appropriate? Whether we're talking footballers, politicians or artists, I feel this is an extraordinarily vexed topic in this day and age. The common approach, used by many employers, is to suspend the employee if he or she is accused of doing distasteful things and then sack them if they're found guilty (as you all well know, I thoroughly disapprove of this practice). Things are a bit trickier in the world of film and popular music, because these people often don't have employers, so to speak. If Allen's regular producers step away from his next film, he'll find others. A lot of people were always going to still go to Michael Jackson concerts, even if he had been found conclusively guilty (people have a good way of believing what they want to believe).

So, how should we react? Is it best to boycott Woody Allen's films, lest we be seen to support alleged child molesters? Ought we to consider it unethical, or at least troubling, to continue supporting him financially by buying cinema tickets and renting his movies? Friends have suggested just that, but it doesn't even cross my radar. I will continue to watch Allen films whether he's guilty or not, just as I watch films by Roman Polanski (who admitted to raping a 13-year-old girl), Leni Riefenstahl (who made propaganda films for Hitler) and Luis Bunuel (who admitted in his autobiography to seducing and then bashing homosexuals in public toilets in his youth). I just wrote my first published academic essay on a film by the last of these.

For me, there's a fundamental distinction between the artist and the individual. I come from a position where I recognise that all human beings are flawed and that the idea of 'good' or 'evil' people is a childish myth. When I watch a beautiful film, listen to an amazing piece of music or read a great poem (like, say, one by the fascist Ezra Pound), I respect the artist for their creativity, but make no judgement on their worth as a human being. How could I? All I know about them comes from interviews, gossip and hagiographies. How do I know who they have hurt, and to what extent? How do I know to what extent they have repented or made amends? I cannot pass judgement on the righteousness of these people because a) I lack the data�I never knew them, and have only heard about snippets of their life; and b) even if I had access to every argument, every moment of violence, every moment of manipulation, what of it? I am in no position to judge. I've done things I'm ashamed of too. So have you. The person who has nothing to be ashamed of is either a saint or a narcissist (probably the latter).

But, you might protest, I've never taken advantage of a child. There are sins, and then there are sins. Some things are unforgivable.

I'd resist such easy categorisation. Consider my favourite director, Ingmar Bergman. This was a man who made some of the most beautiful works ever committed to cinema. He explored the pain of loneliness, the point of living without God or afterlife, and the ability of people to cause harm to each other. I've learned a lot about life and human behaviour from watching his films, and consider myself a much better person for it. Yet, Bergman knew firsthand about hurting people. He was a serial cheater and homewrecker, who left several damaged relationships in his wake while pursuing casual flings and even left young children without child support (at a time when it would have been much more difficult than now to be a single mother). Shortly before his death, he wrote the script for a film called Faithless, in which a man's selfishness drives his new lover (and her husband) to suicide. It is at least partially autobiographical.

Bergman never, as far as I know, killed anyone, raped anyone, stole large amounts of money from anyone or molested any children. But the trail of devastation he left in his wake is at least equal to if not greater than that left by Polanski or (if the allegations are to be believed) Allen. And yet, the guilt he felt for his terrible acts and the pain that he had experienced and caused made his films even stronger. I have no hesitation in declaring him one of the most important artists of the 20th century. To avoid his films because we disapprove of his behaviour would be stupid and pointless. What would it achieve? We would deny ourselves exposure to great, thought-provoking art, and we would be satisfied for showing how morally upright we are. There is a term for that: self-righteousness. It's probably a characteristic best avoided.

Beyond the matter of giving Allen the benefit of the doubt, as he still deserves, I have no problem applying the same standard to him. He is not nearly as great a filmmaker as Bergman, but I enjoy his films, ethically oppose acts like the one he is accused of committing, and see no inconsistency in that. Same goes for Polanski, and all the others.

When we consume art or entertainment, we are engaging with a form of communication. It's like a philosophical thought, or a scientific discovery, or a joke. Even if I were the type to pass moral judgement on others, I'd have to acknowledge that there's a fundamental distinction there. And if I like that film, or that thought, or that discovery, or that joke, I'll have good reason to follow what else the person responsible has written or said in hope of further enlightening, entertaining or thought-provoking content. I take the fact that it comes from a flawed human being as a given.

[think positive]

Ever since that happened there is no way I'd watch that scums movies. Dylan was 7, 7 years olds can't make up that stuff, they don't know what it is.

May he rot in hell

You wTch his movies, your saying it's ok, just like Polanski, child abuse is never ok

[David]

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. Child abuse is never okay. Neither are any of the other things I mentioned above. My point is that consuming an artwork does not equate to condoning the artist's actions. Actually, it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

And let's not forget that Allen has not been convicted of anything. Read the other article I linked to and you'll see that there's much more to this story.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

[think positive]

Long article

I still think he's scum

And no matter what the circumstance you don't marry your exs daughter.

He's disgusting, whinney, and just yuk.

[David]

^ I'm of the belief that consenting adults can do what they like. Doesn't Soon-Yi get a say in who she gets married to?

[watt price tully]

[David]

^ I'm hesitant to point fingers at anyone in this whole sordid affair, but there's certainly no doubt that Mia Farrow had sufficient motivation to lie about this and brainwash her daughter. On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss Dylan's testimony lightly. All I know is I wasn't there and my opinion as to whether it happened or not doesn't count for much anyway.

[Wokko]

I've never liked his movies or him and don't understand the critic stroke fest over every one of his films. Rolf Harris on the other hand is one I just can't get my head around. The man is a childhood icon, I think the impact of his sick (alleged) crimes are much greater than an artsy film director.

[think positive]

Yeah I know what you mean but he was closer to home, and he also was sort of a kids host with his various acts.

[watt price tully]

[David]

[think positive]

how quickly you rush to the defence of someone because he is "smart"

and the holocaust didn't happen either

[David]

Er, is that directed at me, or WPT? Neither of us are rubbishing Dylan's claims. We're just aware that there are many twists and turns to this story, particularly given some of Mia Farrow's behaviour.

From the article I posted above:

[think positive]

That's a fair answer David, cheers.

[Tannin]

I wouldn't know Woody Allan from a bar of soap. I have probably seen one of his movies at some time, maybe more than one. If so, it obviously wasn't very memorable. And I have no idea who Mia Farrow is or was. So no axe to grind from me either way, none whatever.

The fundamental bottom line here is that a person has been horribly damaged by very public allegations for which there is no credible evidence. In my book, that is a crime, and a dreadful one. Most people would rather do five years in jail than have to live with the damage Allen has suffered. (I know I would.)

^ These are the known facts. The only known facts.

Against this, we must consider the possibility that there really is some truth to the allegations. If that is so - and I repeat if - then we should not worry too much about the damage caused by the allegations, indeed, we should not worry at all. He's lucky to get off so lightly - if the allegations are true. But we don't know that they are true, and on the balance of the public evidence, any fair-minded observer would have to lean pretty firmly towards a "not true" conclusion. That is what the police investigation found also.

In short, it is a disgrace that a person can suffer such damage without trial or substantive evidence. Even if we thought that there was a fair chance the allegations were true - and on the evidence presented that conclusion isn't justified - the person accused is fully entitled to be presumed innocent until found guilty.