Deconstructing Woody Allen: His crimes and misdemeanors and why we should still love his art
“Look at that woman in the tie and hat over there. She looks just like Diane Keaton in Annie Hall!”, was the unguarded exclamation that would change my life forever. As a film freak, an art aficionado and a Woody Allen worshipper there was no coming back from that moment. Because during all my revering of the grandiose maestro, I had never looked further than his directing. Who was behind those big black glasses, that seemed to frame a mastermind’s vision of daily routines, philosophical conversations and the torment that comes with mortality? Things we all experience in our lives yet can seldom capture in such a detailed depiction. The tall dark stranger next to me made me question my love for Woody Allen, so I started to look for answers.
Looking back at it now, the whole scene seems as if it was taken from a Woody Allen movie. I was in a crowded jazz bar in Rome, accompanied by some newly acquired – quite intellectual – friends. A breathy voice murmured rhythmic Bossa Nova lyrics into a microphone that looked as if the likes of Sophia Loren or Caterina Valente had already used it in their prime. We had impromptu conversations about life and death with people we had just met and – finally – I saw that Diane Keaton doppelgänger. The person next to me, who was actually sitting at another table, reacted immediately, craning his neck to see the woman in question. Nodding affirmatively, he turned to me and straight out asked, how I could possibly ever enjoy a Woody Allen movie. For a moment I was speechless, thinking “how does this guy even know I like – correction: love – his movies?” Ignoring the fact that it was a rather assuming inquiry, I started to lecture him about Allen and his artistic scope that never fails to impress me. Rather rudely interrupting me, he casually threw in: “Does it not bother you that he raped his own daughter?” And then it hit me, we were not talking about film art at all, we were talking about whether or not to judge someone’s artistic work in view of their personal lives, their unethical or even criminal behaviour. At that point, I did not know enough of the facts to really engage in that discussion, but I still had made up my mind at the end of our talk. Even if he had done that horrible act, why should I as an unassuming audience member not be allowed to enjoy his films? To me it seemed the answer was simple, art is removed from its creator, once the audience takes hold of it.
Allen vs. Farrow
It was a perfect meeting of two complete strangers, sparking new questions that needed answering. I started to research the case of Woody Allen and those rape allegations. Looking it up a few days later, I understood why the guy from the bar was so well-informed. It was all over the news, how could I have missed it? Dylan Farrow, adoptive daughter of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, had written an open letter in The New York Times in February 2014, asking Allen’s audience to acknowledge her point of view. She tells them to imagine he is a child molester and then answer the question: “What is your favourite Woody Allen movie?” She makes a compelling claim, detailing her suffering and anger at watching her abuser thrive in his career, while she cannot bear to even hear his name spoken. Pointing at the frequent failure of society to support survivors of sexual assault and abuse, she creates a feeling of uneasiness in the reader. But even if he did the things that the Farrows are accusing him of, am I really not allowed to still like his movies? Turning a blind eye on the controversy does not make me culpable for anything, does it?
Woody Allen and Mia Farrow with their children, and Soon-Yi Previn - the woman he later married. Source: Flickr
Until today, public opinion remains divided over the case as nobody can be sure what actually happened between Woody and Dylan. There are many articles, describing the events following Mia Farrow’s and Woody Allen’s split. Somehow, they all give a general opinion on who is telling the truth or what can be taken as fact. Woody Allen remains an in-demand name in the film industry through all that. Well-respected actors keep working with him. It comes down to believing in the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. The filmmaking community had been drawn into the family feud, when Dylan Farrow implied in her open letter that Cate Blanchett winning awards for her role in Blue Jasmine would give Allen more laudation, and never any punishment.
Woody Allen, Cate Blanchett and Alec Baldwin on the sets of "Blue Jasmine". Source: Flickr
As Allen had once again proven in his recent success with Blue Jasmine, he really has a way of portraying women in such an honest, rare light that many actresses jump at the chance to work with him. Since making Annie Hall he is famous for his complex female characters. Taking that into account, it becomes hard to imagine someone so sensitive to human feeling, to inflict such pain in a person they are supposed to love as a child. The problem though is, that Allen had already created precedent. He fell in love with Mia Farrow’s other adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. So he did in fact start a relationship and later on married Dylan Farrow’s sister. Under this light, he suddenly becomes a creep with a knack for young girls, his daughters.
Bringing all story lines together in this scandal, Allen’s long-lasting stable relationship with his wife Soon-Yi should be considered as an indicator towards his innocence. It definitely leads to a motive for Mia Farrow, to want to take Allen and his career down, to destroy him, as he had destroyed her carefully constructed family life. In his answering article in The New York Times to Dylan’s open letter, which he himself called his “last word on the matter”, he alleges Mia Farrow had coached their seven year old daughter into making accusations as a form of payback for his romantic relationship with Soon-Yi. Their acrimonious break-up and the following custody battle was her breaking point. He masterfully paints Mia Farrow as the villain in his story, thinking her agenda to be obvious. He has never before, nor after, been accused of child molestation and even the Connecticut police stated back then, that they did not believe Dylan had been molested by Woody Allen. Their adopted son Moses Farrow also went on record saying Allen was not guilty, rather Mia had convinced her kids to hate him.
Later that same year Woody Allen was announced to be the recipient of the Cecil B. DeMille award, the Golden Globes lifetime achievement award. This sparked up a discussion on whether or not an alleged child molester should be honoured in such a way and this time I followed the media frenzy. Allen himself did not attend the ceremony but was represented by his long-time friend and collaborator Diane Keaton. Mia Farrow and Ronan Farrow – Woody’s and Mia’s biological son – both lashed out on Twitter condemning the Globes. And thinking back on Dylan Farrow’s letter, it was the first time that I became a little uncomfortable in my unfailing support of Woody Allen. She had voiced her feelings on his continued acceptance in the industry; I could only imagine how she must have felt on that night, when his film successfully won awards. Even if it is all in her head – because her mother put it there, as Allen suggests – it is still real to her and she is the victim of a family rift. Of parents fighting and hurting each other so much, that they do not care who gets into the crossfire. I felt sorry for her, because no matter what the truth was, she was the victim in any scenario. Contemplating this though, I realized that it still had little to do with Allen being celebrated for his work. Why is his work connected to the actions he did or did not take as a family man?
Can art be disconnected from its creator?
Reaching the conclusion, that art should not be held accountable for the actions of its creator, I started to look for experts to support my theory. As a cinema enthusiast, I read many film critics, some of which I agree with even before reading their articles, while others always challenge me to take a new point of view, to look a little bit further. One of those film critics is Stefan Grissemann, the culture editor for the Austrian magazine Profil. Taking a stance on the Woody Allen controversy he told me, that to him this director is a brand that wants to be experienced and his films are the biggest part of that. Yet “the person cannot be removed from the director obviously, and as a public figure known for his statements, his particular wit, his image, he impacts his work.” Allen’s work does not become better or worse just because we ask ourselves whether or not he has raped his daughter. As a film critic, Grissemann has to ignore that information to a certain extent. In general though, background information to the works of creative minds in any field are important and can be helpful to a critic, to explain their value. The audience though should not be influenced in any other way than giving them a deeper understanding of the particular issues of an art work. “In the end, judgement is the individual’s task”, he points out. Answering my questions, Grissemann seemed determined not to take a side in the controversy but after a while it became fairly obvious that he is leaning towards believing in Allen’s innocence. He repeatedly stressed the fact that they are only allegations on weak grounds and reminded me of Moses Farrow defending his father and negating the rape allegations. Lastly, he very determinedly said that “a boycott of movies should only ever be discussed if there is definite proof of criminal behaviour”, which is not the case here.
Searching for more answers I stumbled upon a book called “The Reluctant Film Art of Woody Allen” by Dr. Peter Bailey, teaching professor emeritus at St. Lawrence University. He had a slightly different view on how an audience should deal with art, than Mr. Grissemann. When I asked him, whether it should influence our viewing of movies, who made them and what kind of person is behind it, he answered determinedly: “Absolutely! The moral, ethical and legal history of an artist should not be ignored. It should be included in assessing their work and careers. Especially in the case of Woody Allen, as he is a film maker that often returns to protagonists who are outsiders, even criminals.” Hearing that I assumed he believes in Allen’s guilt. Quite the contrary, he thinks Allen guilty only of moral lapses, but no criminal ones. To Dr. Bailey, the neatly timed charges by the Farrow camp were suspicious. “Let’s bring new charges right before Cate Blanchett is up for the best actress award for Blue Jasmine”, he scoffed.
But Bailey also shows his ambivalence toward abstracting art from its creator. When I asked him whether he connects the dots between the meanings in a Woody Allen film and the real life persona of the writer and director, he acknowledged a certain preamble to do just that: “Allen is working from his life in writing many of his scripts, but viewers cannot assume anything specific about his life from watching his films. The relationship between artists' works and their autobiographies are always more complex than we would like them to be. But, the dots are there, nonetheless.” That is why, as an audience, we are sometimes forced to ignore an ugly truth about the artist, in order to not deprive ourselves of something grand. Because a boycott of a great film, or art in general, denies us more than the creator, taking away cultural input. We try to separate the maker’s morality – or lack thereof – from the artistic work, yet we do not always feel great doing it.
With this explanation, Dr. Bailey had perfectly captured my inner conflict. He explained my need to protect Woody Allen’s reputation. We, as admirers of their work, want celebrities “to be different than us, more special, subject to different standards than those applied to the rest of us.“ There I finally had it: It was my fault that I was suddenly conflicted about liking Woody Allen movies. If I was truly able to separate art from its creator and de-celebritize him in my head, then I could ignore the allegations and move on with my yearly glee at yet another Allen masterpiece.
Talking to another expert on Woody Allen, namely Dr. Sander H. Lee, professor at Keene State College, I discovered a very simple answer to my complex questions. Woody Allen makes great films. Actors want to play in great films. So while he is still able to make great ones, actors will continue to want to work with him and audiences will continue to go to the cinema each year and appreciate his witty dialogues, nostalgic settings and neurotic characters. But more importantly, Dr. Lee also introduced me to Immanuel Kant’s ideas on aesthetic theory in his “Critique of Judgment”. Turns out, I was not the first to consider a segregation of art from its creator. Kant pointed out that it is possible to judge art independently of the moral character of its artist, fortifying my beliefs.
Always appreciate art
Over a year later, after that fateful encounter with a tall dark stranger in Rome, I went to the cinema to watch Woody Allen’s latest movie Irrational Man. The name of the movie made me chuckle, for it could be a description of Allen himself. After all the research I did on him, I could not help myself, although I had vowed to never again judge art by the moral character of its artist. Naturally, that is not easily accomplished. On our way to the cinema that same night, a friend, accompanying me to the cinema, asked me unassumingly: “So what’s your favourite Woody Allen movie?“, mirroring Dylan Farrow’s words in her open letter. This time it did not have a big impact on me. I thought about the question once more, although I knew the answer, and then said: “Annie Hall of course, I just like how close it seems to be to his real life experiences.” And in that moment I did not care that this actually contradicted everything I had come to belief. Sometimes we need to leave it be and appreciate art however we want to. No matter the predetermined guidelines. The judgement of art should come intuitively.
