I'm so curious: have you viewed the docuseries regarding his moral monstrosities (Allen v. Farrow)? The revelations are heartbreaking and deeply disturbing. My viewing of this docuseries has led me to an intense personal boycott of his creative works. Part of the survivors' pleas and continued pain points lie around his professional successes in spite of their painful stories being brought to light for many years. The suppression of their stories has been disheartening, but I am thankful for the docuseries that amplifies their voices at long last.
You raise an important question about engaging with art made by truly morally reprehensible artists. I think we'll probably find different personal convictions on this question, but I would love to hear the thoughts of others on it. Perhaps, given the high value on empathy in this lovely community, a discussion of Allen's film should be paired with some engagement with the docuseries? Just a thought!
Dana--watching the docuseries is such a fantastic idea. I have not watched it before. Thank you for this important point of view and suggestion. I so respect your POV, and I can always change my mind on this. It is a very tricky subject because if we look into the lives of many famous artists, we find things like this, so it is hard to know how much to boycott. But what you have said here is key: "Part of the survivors' pleas and continued pain points lie around his professional successes in spite of their painful stories being brought to light for many years." In the past when teaching this class on campus, I was disheartened when researching and finding out about the profound misogyny and mistreatment of women (including their actresses) of so many of the "great" directors (Bergman, Fellini). I very much disagree with dismissing something because it was just the "norm" of a certain time period. Abuse is always abuse and wrong is always wrong, no matter how much it is normalized. But should we cut out all the art of men who are abusive and mysogynistic? As I said in my post above, I have decided to continue watching Allen's films (except for Manhattan, which seems to highlight these very issues), just as I have continued to look at the paintings of Klimt and Picasso and read the poems of Byron. Their lives of "moral monstrosities" disgust me–but is this somehow separate from the art? It is somehow different if the artist is still alive: As you mentioned above, Woody Allen is still benefitting from our engagement with his work. And does our engagement silence the voices of the abused? I have not thought of it that way, but at the same time, I will certainly never listen to R. Kelly. In his case, it is easier to boycott because I don't really love his music–and because his songs retell and glorify stories of his predatory behavior. This is a very complex question, and I would like to see the series and think on it further.
Also, I would argue that Allen's predatory sexual deviance shows up in his art not so unlike R. Kelly. The more I know about him, the harder it is for me to separate his art from his life.
Fascinating Atlantic article. Kind of a film critique of the docuseries and psychological analysis of Farrow. Ends with an interesting observation about Farrow's spiritual journey. Probably quite peripheral to the discussion here, but I thought I would just share it for anyone interested. :)
The YouTube thing wasn’t great, wasn’t the worst thing in the world though.
I don’t remember really touching on Allen’s personal life. It was one of the first weeks of the course and it was paired with Stranger Than Fiction, focusing on story and narrative criticism. The course was also particularly in dialogue with the book of Ecclesiastes, so there was more of an emphasis on moral order vs. absurdity, faith and doubt in dialogue, etc. and less a focus on auteur criticism (at least for that week).
I'm so curious: have you viewed the docuseries regarding his moral monstrosities (Allen v. Farrow)? The revelations are heartbreaking and deeply disturbing. My viewing of this docuseries has led me to an intense personal boycott of his creative works. Part of the survivors' pleas and continued pain points lie around his professional successes in spite of their painful stories being brought to light for many years. The suppression of their stories has been disheartening, but I am thankful for the docuseries that amplifies their voices at long last.
You raise an important question about engaging with art made by truly morally reprehensible artists. I think we'll probably find different personal convictions on this question, but I would love to hear the thoughts of others on it. Perhaps, given the high value on empathy in this lovely community, a discussion of Allen's film should be paired with some engagement with the docuseries? Just a thought!
Dana--watching the docuseries is such a fantastic idea. I have not watched it before. Thank you for this important point of view and suggestion. I so respect your POV, and I can always change my mind on this. It is a very tricky subject because if we look into the lives of many famous artists, we find things like this, so it is hard to know how much to boycott. But what you have said here is key: "Part of the survivors' pleas and continued pain points lie around his professional successes in spite of their painful stories being brought to light for many years." In the past when teaching this class on campus, I was disheartened when researching and finding out about the profound misogyny and mistreatment of women (including their actresses) of so many of the "great" directors (Bergman, Fellini). I very much disagree with dismissing something because it was just the "norm" of a certain time period. Abuse is always abuse and wrong is always wrong, no matter how much it is normalized. But should we cut out all the art of men who are abusive and mysogynistic? As I said in my post above, I have decided to continue watching Allen's films (except for Manhattan, which seems to highlight these very issues), just as I have continued to look at the paintings of Klimt and Picasso and read the poems of Byron. Their lives of "moral monstrosities" disgust me–but is this somehow separate from the art? It is somehow different if the artist is still alive: As you mentioned above, Woody Allen is still benefitting from our engagement with his work. And does our engagement silence the voices of the abused? I have not thought of it that way, but at the same time, I will certainly never listen to R. Kelly. In his case, it is easier to boycott because I don't really love his music–and because his songs retell and glorify stories of his predatory behavior. This is a very complex question, and I would like to see the series and think on it further.
Also, I would argue that Allen's predatory sexual deviance shows up in his art not so unlike R. Kelly. The more I know about him, the harder it is for me to separate his art from his life.
https://www.everand.com/article/511010762/What-Mia-Farrow-Knew
Fascinating Atlantic article. Kind of a film critique of the docuseries and psychological analysis of Farrow. Ends with an interesting observation about Farrow's spiritual journey. Probably quite peripheral to the discussion here, but I thought I would just share it for anyone interested. :)
Well shoot, I just picked up "Crimes and Misdemeanors" from the library this morning! I'll still watch it but will miss having a class debrief.
I would love to discuss it with you! I just know that others can't find it so figured I better switch. It's such a brilliant film.
We got a library copy too and are still going to watch it. 😉
We had Crimes and Misdemeanors assigned in our Theology and Film course at Fuller earlier this year. So weird that it's not available in the normal spaces. We streamed it through a YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwp35vPi2c4&list=PLBhkYr2-wi6LdsxWaFAth2335TvFfnIjD&ab_channel=CatorsCinema
I considered this–but it seems to be a terrible way to watch a movie: all chopped up and probably with ads. How was it for you?
I am also curious to know if the question of Allen's moral failings and predatory behavior was brought up alongside the discussion of his film.
The YouTube thing wasn’t great, wasn’t the worst thing in the world though.
I don’t remember really touching on Allen’s personal life. It was one of the first weeks of the course and it was paired with Stranger Than Fiction, focusing on story and narrative criticism. The course was also particularly in dialogue with the book of Ecclesiastes, so there was more of an emphasis on moral order vs. absurdity, faith and doubt in dialogue, etc. and less a focus on auteur criticism (at least for that week).