woody allen and celebrating the art of horrible men

Until recently, what I knew about director, screen-writer and actor, Woody Allen was limited to what I had learned by watching his films. I knew the King of Neuroticism has thick, black glasses, a scrawny hunched back, and small hands that are always kept close to his body. But beyond this, my opinion on Allen stopped at ‘I like his films’.

A few days ago however I learned that Allen leads a more controversial life than his nervous performances let on. In 1992 he was accused of sexually abusing 7-year-old Dylan Farrow, daughter of his former partner, Mia Farrow. The same year it was revealed that Allen was in a sexual and romantic relationship with another of Mia Farrow’s children, her then 20 year old adopted daughter, Soon Yi Previn, whom he married in 2002.

You could forgive me for my ignorance to these controversies if you watched the 2014 Golden Globes awards’ ceremony last Sunday, where Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement. Between Diane Keating taking stage to express her ‘pride and affection and love’ for her ‘wonderful’, ‘amazing friend’ Allen, and the tribute montage of his greatest achievements, he was painted as both an auteur and a brilliant person.

In response, the Farrow family took to Twitter. Dylan’s brother, Ronan tweeted:

‘Missed the Woody Allen tribute – did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?’

As The Guardian’s Hadley Freeman put it, ‘it takes a cold heart not to have sympathy for (the Farrow’s)’. They perceive the celebration of a man who they allege wrought immense suffering as morally unjust and disempowering; forgotten is the voice of Dylan Farrow, who in a November interview with Vanity Fair said of Woody Allen, ‘I’m scared of him, his image’.

Yet most have responded to Allen’s golden globe with guarded criticism at most. Besides the lack of evidence for the allegations (a court found the charges of molestation inconclusive), the situation raises another moral conundrum.

Should we celebrate great artists even if they commit moral wrongs?

On the one hand, Allen’s award not only slaps the Farrow family in the face, but has implications for society at large.

It infers we are not always obligated to denounce heinous acts; that immorality can be forgiven and forgotten (so long as you’re rich and talented). Alternatively, abiding to a rule that we don’t reward people who have committed great wrongs may rear greater welfare for all by supporting victims and discouraging future crimes. If this is so, the 2014 Golden Globes adjudicators have been morally irresponsible.

And they’re not alone; film critics and audiences have a track record of celebrating artists with questionable morals.

Director of the acclaimed 2002 film The Pianist, Roman Polanski is guilty of unlawful sex with a minor. Polanski was later awarded an Oscar for best director. Multi-award winning auteur, Alfred Hitchcock mistreated his female actresses; while filming Psycho’s shower scene, he lunged and struck at actress Janet Leigh with a knife to incite true terror within her. In 1992, Cinecon film association even gave a lifetime achievement award to Nazi propagandist and close friend of Hitler, Leni Riefenstahl.

As CNN’s, Saeed Ahmed writes, ‘Hollywood is a forgiving town’.

However, this ‘water under the bridge’ attitude isn’t simply due to Hollywood’s forgiving nature, but also its acknowledgment of an uncomfortable fact. People who have committed great wrongs sometimes produce valuable art.

Indeed, Hitchcock pioneered subjective camera shots, among many others, and we can thank Riefenstahl for experimental colour palettes and every scene in which the camera moves while filming. Beyond technical innovations, some art simply touches us; profoundly affecting the human spirit.  Further, these artworks play a role in catalysing influential political and philosophical movements. And regardless, we may say “l’art pour l’art”.

Perhaps we can’t blame award judges for wanting to draw audiences’ attention to good art, and to thereby ensure that their industries maintain support.

Ultimately, this conundrum comes down to a value judgement: Is it more important that we boycott wrongdoers, or that we encourage good art?

Hadley Freeman may be right to suggest that we pursue some middle ground: appreciate the art, but do not celebrate the artist as a person. To this end, the Golden Globes ceremony has failed.

It is hard to ignore the seemingly obvious alternative offered to Sunday night’s adjudicators: to award another, brilliant film maker.

And though we may appreciate Woody Allen’s art, it is harder still to ignore the otherwise forgotten voice of Dylan Farrow.

 

Image credit: Val Pearl