Let's put aside the fact that there is no new evidence of Allen's supposed wrongdoing, and hasn't been for 25 years.
Let's put aside the fact that this whole thing was investigated and there was shown to be no credible evidence and Allen passed a lie detector test which Mia Farrow refused to take.
Let's put aside common sense.
All that said, this entire line of thinking- that art is "bad" if the culture deems the artist to be politically incorrect - smacks chillingly of totalitarian regimes.
As a flaming liberal, I do not want to tell people which art is acceptable based on my political or cultural mores. I don't want anyone to do that.
All of us human beings are complex and flawed, and always will be. Great art explores the human experience warts and all.
God forbid we wind up in a culture where art and artists must be approved of by purity tests. We are edging dangerously close to that now.
A.O. Scott and the NYT should know better. They are on the wrong side of this current moment.
8
I'm going to not note the obvious misogyny for now, just focus on the mechanics. The use of actors, off screen, speaking critical dialogue always made his movies inaccessible for a hearing impaired person.
1
Two things struck me as I read Scott's piece. One, he writes that Allen's films matter more than whether or not Allen molested his daughter. That makes no sense because he is reviewing Allen's movies because of the durability of the charges. These charges are serious and involve real people. The characters in Allen's films are just that: characters.
Two, he seems to base whether or not Allen is a great filmmaker on the reviews of critics. How interesting that this is standard. Ultimately time will be the only standard. And Allen's films from the 70's and 80's certainly have influenced many filmmakers who have come afterwards.
1
The author doesn’t answer the title question. He only rambles about Allen’s personal life. I think Allen has a massive body of work that has been culturally influential. Some are bombs, but several are works of great and indelible art. I’m sorry the author can’t put aside his personal feelings about Allen and judge his film achievements on their merit.
5
The author misses the larger point: Allen makes 'film', not 'moovies'. This ,by definition, defines 'greatness' because film provokes thought, while moovies entertain.
In other words, the greatness of any film-- as with any art-- is defined by the thought that's provoked to any given viewer. So who would deny that allen's films provoke thought?
Moreover, outright badness and intentional deceit can easily provoke thought thought the siphon of disgust. For example, Green Berets and Gone With The Wind.
Otherwise, thoughtful film is typically met with anger if the working assumption of the viewer was to be entertained. For example, Showgirls.
All mature criticism distinguishes the creator from his/her product. In this particular, Allen's personal life is a non-starter. This is Contre St Beuve redux; Proust must be laughing from his grave at all those moralistik amerikanz.
4
Allen's "philosophical despair" has deeper roots. His kind of atheism means nothing really matters, which makes his movies increasingly what no movie should be--boring.
2
I never thought he was a great filmmaker because I've never found his subject matter - himself and his uneasy relationship to the world - interesting. (I can't tell you the number of boyfriends who've wanted to show me "Annie Hall" - which was a great way of weeding them out.) His work has never played as universal to me. I never saw myself or anyone I recognized in it. While his earlier, more absurdist, Chaplin-esque moments can be funny, Chaplin always does it better, so I'll just watch that.
And I suppose I always thought he was a misogynist. It never occurred to me he wasn't. His films overflow with it, which is, of course, off-putting, but since so many other filmmakers and writers are also misogynists, it doesn't seem fair to hold it against him. Yeah, he's gross - that was obvious in film #1. If that's what you struggle with as a critic or fan, then you just need to admit to yourself that there is some part of your that likes misogyny, as there is in most people (not just men). And then, maybe try to keep that misogyny in check.
What I do hold against Allen is his tiresome, solipsistic POV. He tells the same story over and over, failing every time to connect with anything outside himself.
2
To draw a highly contentious yet revealing comparison, Heidegger was a committed Nazi who never apologized, and at the same time an inspiration to some of the most critical writers later. The Heidegger controversy cannot go away because the two questions it poses arise for every person who contributes to history.
Did his pro-Hitler politics infect his writing? Of course, every word.
Is his work worth reading? Of course, every word.
Readers need to read him--and everyone else--with multiple lenses and endless questions.
And so for Woody Allen (whose films I personally do not admire all that much).
Did his personal life and flaws infect his films? Of course. Every film. They're part of what makes them interesting.
Are his films worth reading (I'll leave "great" aside)? Of course, in part for what is most terrible to think about them.
That's what art and thought are for, to open up our minds and worlds. Sometimes painfully.
Mr. Scott,
It may be time for you to get on the couch over this issue. Why would you want to re-visit Allen's films through the lens of an event that most likely never happened?
Two investigations and lie detector test have shown no evidence of a crime. Of course nobody but Woody Allen can know for sure -- but what we do know is he is a brilliant writer/director, and his work is a national treasure. Who else can combine such touching drama with laugh-out-loud comedy?
7
Some of Allen's movies have been very funny and I think of his more "serious" films, "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is his best. That's my assessment of his career and I don't dwell on it much beyond that. As far as Dylan Farrow's accusation against Allen goes, my assessment of that is that it is far from having been proven.
But Scott, who has judged Allen guilty based on dubious evidence, has decided that he can no longer "stick with Mr. Allen" as he has for the past 25 years. Does this mean he will never view or review any of his films again (despite many references to his oeuvre in this op-ed piece) or, more likely, he will just try hard not to laugh?
I have no opinion on the "Woody vs Mia" controversy, since I was not there & don't know either of them. And neither do I think most out of you out there. I could comment on that type of behavior, which I would find disgusting.
As far as Mia goes though, I think I 1st saw her in Rosemary's Baby. And then the various Allen movies. She seems to be playing the same unpleasant, unlikable character through every movie she has been in. And not very successfully. And now in life as well.
Sorry A.O. - this was a very tough one to slog through. Yikes
What utter nonsense!
You don't get to look back at art and decide in retrospect that it wasn't really that great at all now that you've decided you don't like the artist. That's not how it works.
If you decide to believe that Woody Allen is guilty of something, and if that therefore makes you enjoy his films less, that is your choice. But they do not suddenly become lesser art. I know you might wish they would, but they just don't. And just because you can look back at them and write about how, actually they're not as great as you remembered doesn't say anything about the films, it just says something about your ability to be impartial.
4
Woody Allen's movies were often about breaking away from convention. The tension in his stories often involve making fun of those who follow the rules and making the protagonist into a hero for doing things differently. As teenager, I really enjoyed his movies and especially got a kick out of how he demeaned the "rull makers" and conventional society. Then, there was the high humor that showed him shoving those "Anti social" behaviors in everyone's face. I really enjoyed this rebel / director / actor's artistic work when I was a kid. But, then I grew up, got my education, got married, had kids and developed a new respect for society's rules and I left his work behind. Some folks like his style, some no longer find it enlightning. It's a choice in how we want to spend our time. But, as an adoptee, I can not condone the joke Allen made out of adoption. We don't want our children killed in their schools and we don't want parents (adoptive or other wise) marrying their children. Mr. Allen, certain rules should never be broken. Please get out of the public life and go hide under a rock.
1
What is the relationship between the art and the artist? Allen’s character in “Manhattan Murder Mystery” jokes that he can’t listen to Wagner because it makes him “want to invade Poland.” This is funny not because a Jew is making fun of an anti-Semite, but because obviously Wagner’s anti-semitism isn’t going to “rub off” on listeners. Allen’s films don’t glorify or even vaguely approve of child molestation. But will his (alleged) misconduct rub off on us if we watch his films? I think problem is that it *bothers* us to think about it. Allen's films of the 70s and 80s instilled in me an awareness of what is greatest and most awful about life: love, heartbreak, irony, Cezanne's pears, self-doubt, sarcasm, sex, death, small portions, betrayal, la di da, pretentiousness, squash, self-deprecation, lobsters, Bergman, Prokoviev, Bogart, "not even the rain has such small hands," Rhapsody in Blue... His work enriched me as a human being and for that I owe him an inestimable debt. When I watch those older films, I think of the Woody back then, before all of this, and I block out the noise. The work hasn’t changed, only our perception of it.
12
Is it my imagination or are there far more male commenters on this topic than female, and if so, what if anything might that mean?
3
mr scott's tortured first steps at adjusting his creds for renewal of his membership in the faux left's self-styled (i.e. denatured or dumbed-down- to-suit-their-limited-grasp) cognoscenti, are a tough read...unwinding his uncritical consumption of woody allen's films toward finding the flaws he must, to be admitted to the natalie portman wing of "regretters" over past praise or association for allen, he then, even more painfully, searches the outtakes of his mind for evidence of his erroneous ways.
that anyone could have such regard for the films in the first place, especially "annie hall" puzzles the will, as least this one, they are, at best, entertaining in the way allen's stand up was, reflections on a theme, of you will.
but the rush to belong, to wave all the "stinking badges," (the "trash trump" banner, the outrage of the long-silent abetters of all the harveys, the sterner glance of the once-fawning, now- enlightened acolytes. etc.) is epidemic, as though the comfort of unity will ally the guilt of self-serving complicity.
2
Take away the films that he clipped from Ingmar Bergman and his 'talent' is more shallow.
2
I find Woody Allen films trite male fantasy. Gorgeous girl falls for whining, never happy wimpy ugly guy who just wants to sleep with them and has commitment issues? Haven’t we all heard this before?
What is so disappointing is how many film critics, directors and actors seem to think that these movies have such great meaning. Maybe you guys should all rethink whether someone is truly a great artist just because his films spoke to you and seemed witty at a particular point in your life.
Culture is all viewed through this very male lens, served up to us by the same men with the same fantasies over and over. I am not a raging feminist - but for AO Scott not to even acknowledge his could be true in his piece illustrates exactly why Hollywood has a woman problem.
3
The man has made some winners, some in betweens, and some sour disappointments. But his sexual shenanigans have always been questionable and to conflate the two is absurd. Wagner was a vile anti-Semite, but his works stand as monumental music.
1
WOODY ALLEN'S CHARMS AND KING DAVID'S PSALMS
Since David, author of the Psalms, seduced fair Bath-
sheba on whom he peeped while she was in her bath,
and had her husband killed, a royal psychopath,
should we now on his Psalms be pouring moral wrath?
I ask this question reading about problems Woody
Allen's movies face. He was no goody-goody,
which links him to King David, though a lot less bloody,
good reason to treat him, like David, as my buddy.
[email protected]
Flawed genius but I do not believe allegations of child molestation.
Although I am a movie FANatic, I have a library of approximately 1500 films and DVDs, I have never liked Woody Allen. And I am a child of the sixties. Many times certain movies will carry themes, Westerns ...well we all know about them, horror...there’s another, but the Allen film is so damned predictable it’s even more tiring than a PePe LePew cartoon from Warner Brothers. I got fed up with the “poor, inadequate misogynistic Jewish guy who somehow always seems to bed the beautiful woman.” It never ended. There seemed to be something a bit freakish in it and the fact that the theme rarely changed. Boring, tiring, repetitive whatever, Allen movies just got dull. So here I am writing this to the NYT waiting to get vilified. Still I love New York and the Times.
3
Read the whole article, hoping against hope for an insight. Good grief, this man can't watch a movie without wondering whether its maker is a greater or lesser devil. And he's even going back to the older films to make sure his pleasureable memories are sent to the dust bin via the latest purges. But as Freud would say, sometimes a movie is just a movie.
3
I stopped enjoying Woody's films while watching one. I was attracted to the self deprecating humor; even Woody felt at some point it was time to get serious. When he did, it eventually became clear that as written in James 18, 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways'. In my view, whoever might share it, will power is the stabilizer; and it seems likely that means taking morality into account; acting in accord or contrary to.
As a result, I've been forced to find other movies to watch or things to do; not so hard for me. Woody probably hasn't noticed.
'The culture right now is in a state of acute ambivalence about Woody Allen, which is to say that, as in so many other matters, the public conversation is defined by conflict, polarization and the exclusion of the middle ground'. True, fanatics at the extremes get to define what appears in the media. This fits with, 'if it bleeds it leads'. And it speaks to the power of destroyers. They find no moral issue with such attacks; whatever the truth might be, they will make an example.
4
Since the question is as to his filmmaking and not his personal character, I restrict my comments to his films. Many of his films are great and I have enjoyed them as I learn more about filmmaking myself. I am, however, becoming bored with his use of the same style in every film. It may be time to change it up.
3
Of course he's a great filmmaker - at least 4 or 5 are "great. It's never fair to mix artist and person. There's virtually no relation between them. Think of Riefenstahl, Mel Gibson, John Wayne, Jon Voight, Wagner, Hitchcock, Godard......the list goes on. One is born with genius - the rest of being human is collateral damage.
11
This piece on Woody Allen is not useful at all. Re: D.F.’s “allegations,” the reader is already either 1) persuaded of -- or finds credible -- the ALLEGED abuse attributed to Woody Allen or 2) considers the reiteration of charges from decades ago merely convenient to resurrect in light of the current "Me Too" movement. Either way, the reader who has viewed and Mr. Allen's movies over the decades may find it hard to justify or even imagine that his body of work should be "reexamined" at this time; that he be castigated for dealing with issues of the day humorously in the decades in which he made his movies. I, for one, admire -- and think very favorably about -- much of his early work. I certainly cannot imagine anyone taking the time to re-analyze his movies à la this article. A.O. Scott apparently has way too much time on his hands.
11
Distinguishing, me me me, i, i i, director. who would take that kind of friend who is always me me me, no one. Never ever liked him, what kind of woman would like him. I suggest Allen boycott.
5
When I wanted to make my husband a musician laugh, just a bit of singing on my part had him in a stitch. We enjoyed Woody Allen's comic stand-up skits and performances on our old record-player in the 70s. Great fun.
'Manhattan' was harder to view when it first showed, but planning to watch it again. This week last was humming a jazzy tune for no particular reason and realized earlier that it was the theme for 'Midnight in Paris'. His late movies are really terrific. His homage to Bunuel in 'To Rome with Love' is an all-time favorite.
The French artist, Marcel Duchamp, was quiet, with a wry sense of humor, and I can see that there might have been a friendship in the making between these two complex men and their work.
My French stepfather liked Buster Keaton, and he used to take me in Paris to see Laurel and Hardy, dubbed, which made the movies even funnier. We would share a great laugh together.
Keep going, Mr. Allen. Just when I am about to take life too seriously, you come to the rescue; and it is a pleasure to say 'Play it again, Woody!'
7
Dear Mr. Scott,
With Stardust Memories in our eyes, would you consider closing this discussion on whether Woody Allen's work has merit? Nicholas Kristof has gone to bat twice already for the injured parties in this family saga. Tragedy knocks on the door when least expected; ghosts from the Past on occasion resurface.
Woody Allen is not a great filmmaker: He is brilliant and original. What if this viewer did not care for his work but thought it was my business to come in with bows, strings and arrows.
The Public, of which I am a member, can be lethal when uniting with The Press, and we are prone to finding these 'scandals' more entertaining than reading about the Nobel Winner for The best Film nominated for the Oscars.
Mia Farrow is a Good-Will Ambassador to a Global Children's Humanitarian Agency. She cares. Her daughter, Dylan, who sounds traumatized from having been the object of parental abuse in early childhood shows love for her own family, husband and child.
This is not our Family Laundry to air. Woody Allen's long career has been effectively tarred and feathered. He might be the first to recognize that the Gods of Mythology are cruel, and since we mere mortals are unable to detach his personal life from his work, it is time to close the door on the matter, and look to our own family, while going about our daily business.
3
Mr. Scott tosses out so many tentative ideas in his latest column on Woody Allen that it's hard to discern his central argument, but, as near as I can tell, it's this: If there's a case for Mr. Allen as a great filmmaker, we'll need to identify more evidence in his body of work of real development--of a metamorphosis in his male characters especially from self-deluded neurotics who escape unsatisfying reality, often through a misguided and misogynistic romanticism, to a more mature engagement with the world and women. Mr. Allen's struggle, in both his art and his life, to make this transit leaves his critical reputation in doubt, now and in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Allen's neurotic male characters may not be to everyone's taste, but, in their very neurosis, they have often vividly embodied the conflicts and unresolved fears of more ordinary men. Are they projections of the filmmaker? Of course, but they are also artistic creations that go beyond him. To wish they were otherwise--or that their creator would cause them at long last to evolve--is to impose a psychological and even moral burden on both character and artist that suggests an extra-literary agenda.
And that may just be what we have: a reappraisal of Mr. Allen and his films in light of how far each falls short of our current concerns with male boorishness and worse. If this is true, let's acknowledge as much and move forward: Like films, theories about films also need to be examined, debated, and tested.
7
This is reminiscent of when Annie and her boyfriend are standing in line in at the movie theater, and a great pontificater behind them is trying to impress his date. He goes on tediously at length about the art of film-making and what happens next is a great laugh. Thanks for the reminder.
5
So, the tortured PCed psyche of A.O.Scott insists of instigating this so far empty debate on Mr. Allen's work. The fact remains that he's still officially innocent, which should mean something even in this moment of feminist lynching hysteria. If I were the kind of person to nurture paranoid fantasies, I'd entertain the idea that Mia Farrow commissioned this article.
11
I totally agree with your opinion. I believe that A.O.Scott intended, some years ago, boycott Woody Allen's movie with an acrid commentary, perhaps when all the scandal started. At that time I thought it wasn't the job of a movie critic to help any of the parts in dispute, but objectively inform us about the merits of the work of art, if any. I stopped trusting Mr. Scott as a serious impartial critic. Time and the lack of conviction, plus the superb talent and intelligence of a great artist can appease the "lynching hysteria" toward Mr. Allen now. So, it seems that the critic has found a way to keep his de-merit alive, no matter what. Under the name of 'debate' the old and forgotten are told again and again and again (remember, please...) without any risks for the writer - two birds with one shot- . Well, I don't think so!
9
no. it's funny but the only scene i can remember from any of his movies is the one where he is a sperm riding in the delivery pod awaiting arrival. Lots of angst. That was funny. But generally Woody Allen seems overly New York. and I'm not sure how many New Yorkers would actually relate. He's something of a nebbish really.
2
All great artists that have the ability to engage and move people draw from their own heart and life experiences - tragic and joyful. I believe Woody Allen falls into that category and created a movie style all his own. And, I can say having witnessed something similar, that sadly, some mothers in times of deep rage towards their husbands, will use their daughters to get back at them. I believe that is what Mia Farrow did. Not only did he cheat, but with her daughter!! Rough one! Still, the heart wants what the heart wants and he did not break any laws and I believe never molested their daughter Dylan. What a coincidence that the one and only accusation was during the time of their breakup? Poor Dylan needs therapy to let go of this deep pain she is carrying and to free herself, even if it means learning that her mother was the one that hurt her, not her father.
9
Everytime I watch a film by Eric Rohmer, I am struck by the similar sensibilities that Allen has in his less comic films, the cinematography, the complex yet sympathetic plot structure and characters. The scene shift sequence. Lots more. A Summer’s Tale would be an example: a comparison to Allen’s Matchpoint or the other way around would not be very far fetched.
The angst of Woody is mindboggling. To me it is so simple - you either believe Woody or you believe Mia. Woody is a narcissistic, manipulative artifact from a generation of women who wanted to prove that intellect/sensitivity was more appealing than brawn. And Mia is a narcissistic, manipulative artifact from a time when she was the ingenue that could steal away husbands with a bat of an eyelash. Could Woody have done it, sure. Could Mia have lied and created the drama, sure. Are some of his films great, yep and some are unwatchable. Are some of Mia's appearances beautiful, yep, and some are unwatchable. The great tragedy here is that regardless of what happened, the poor child believes it happened, and that is her reality. For me, both of them are horrific individuals who put themselves before their own child but would I watch their work if it was on, depends if it was a good one. However, I consider their legacy less than what I consider I am having for lunch.
3
You really missed the boat big time. I read the entire piece waiting for the obvious second grader comment. The man is obsessed with younger women. Not girls necessarily. I do not know what happened with his daughter. Nothing I suspect. But his movies have twenty and thirty year age differences between the lead male and female characters over and over again, which includes his last movie, Coney Island. I frankly for one got bored with his singular plot years ago. I think everyone is.
4
Yes, the Woodman is one of the greats of all time. As for all that other "stuff" you speak of, well, that along with an occasional gaze at one's navel is all well and good. But I have no time for that nonsense. I've admired Mister Allen since "Take The Money And Run". I am always on the lookout and curious of his latest endeavor.
Woody's a journeyman, someone who's never rested on his laurels and hardy handshakes from fans. While others are noted for one or more masterpieces, their other works leave much to be desired. Often becoming repetitious, they mine the same vein ad nauseam, to a lesser effect which each effort. Woody, in contrast, if not a roller coaster, is more like the intervals of an ocean's waves. Surfers will tell you, every wave is not a winner. One has to wait for that that perfect wave to catch, and ride. As Brian Wilson wrote, "catch a wave and you'll be sitting on top of the world". No one will ever confuse Woody with some tall, fit, Californian blonde surf bum. What they will find similar is Woody's desire to always reach for the best, accepting failure, then getting back out there again and again.
Over fifty years, Woody has put out almost as many films. Some mediocre, some good, some great, some classics, some masterpieces that last the test of time. Is Woody Allen a great film maker? When I read your headline Mr. Scott I took it as rhetorical. To question his greatness is to question the greatest of this city of ours.
DD
Manhattan
11
So, five articles on Woody Allen so far this year, this most recent one on a question that's been asked and answered in the affirmative for over 30 years. Maybe you can get Woody to eat at Salt Bae's place, and kill two birds with one stone?
3
This is a pointless piece. The daughter was seven/eight years old at the time of her ‘remembered’ experiences, and since the benchmark McMartin case in NC decades ago, professionals generally agree, they are highly suspect. Mia Farrow’s eldest son was there, and disputes her charges, noting her numerous unhinged moments.
Scott does Allen a disservice by muddling thru what the courts (twice) determined to be baseless charges.
Finally, how do u not talk about Manhattan in this article? Poor work.
10
Woody Allen is a great auteur, writer, director, producer and actor, his work and wit appreciated worldwide, his 49 movies chronicling life over the past half-century. The allegations against him could not withstand court examination and he exhibits none of the markers of pedophilia.
15
Why would Mr. Scott avoid discussing Manhattan-- the most relevant movie when considering if Mr. Allen is... icky.
I think it's very unlikely Woody Allen is a child molester. But dating a seventeen year old when you're in your thirties is fundamentally unacceptable. They are not at all comparable actions, molesting a child and dating a seventeen year old. But seventeen is icky.
4
Perfect/near-perfect discussion ("near-": such a topic confined to a brief article inevitably entails omissions, which can't be faulted).
1st, nearly every Woody Allen film offers some sort of meditation/meta-analysis on the nature of art, incl. the relationship between reality & fantasy/imagination/culture, often 4 categories of f/i/c/: sexual fantasy, artistic fantasy, religion, nostalgia. In each case, the imagination/culture can be salutary (therapy or moral improvement/uplift ) or baneful (escape, rationalization). True to the Freudian outlook, Allen has a main character open "Manhattan" declaring bluntly on Allen's behalf "the purpose of art is to offer a 'working through' experience." (Allen's films probably achieve this, both for himself & viewers, at least to an extent, yet narcissism is never fully -possibly impossible for anyone- overcome, & confession-rationalization are the effect, for good & ill).
Finally the more obvious glaring omission: Jewishness & Jewish mother/feminine Jewishness (eg, NY Stories/Annie Hall), rebellion against both & the quest, respectively, for romantic fulfillment/love & for solid yet attainable post-Jewish moral bearings (confrontation of aforementioned character by Allen at Mahattan's conclusion), seeking(?) alternative to nihilism (Crimes & Misdemeanors, Matchpoint).
AH-Manhattan-Hannah are thus about Jewish-Protestant flirtation on both levels, & more broadly, assimilation (Zelig). "Jewish-American groping art." (Roth, Mailer...)
5
I would add, finally, that the very final (unresolved) scene of Manhattan solidifies Allen's worth and credibility as an artist being ultimately poetically (very much, maybe even spectacularly, so) faithful to reality ("mirror of life"), however untidy and tainted.
After shame-driven to reject his 17 year old WASP mistress (literally Hemingway's own daughter no less! - and if that isn't an Oedipal thing - are you listening Harold Bloom? - I don't know what is, anyway a point thoroughly confirmed in "Midnight in Paris"), he decides after all that she is what makes life special and goes after her.
As he tries to reclaim her (as poignant as a remarkably similar conclusion in "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"), she tells him she can't be with him, at least for now, b/c she's going off to Europe to build her career, her (at least for now), separate life. In ambiguous consternation, he concedes her departure.
Film closes with "Manhattan"/fireworks montage: even in disappointment, being alive & experiencing is the main thing, what life, "Manhattan"/America, & culture are all about. It couldn't be more poetically said.
But ultimately "is it true?" is Allen's unanswered question. The controversy that dogs him may continue to haunt him and us. But certainly the religion of Allen's upbringing has things to say about it, and the same text that gave Hemingway his title and opening epigraph of his most famous novel tells us "There is nothing new under the sun."
2
Of course, w/ Crimes & Misdemeanors several years later, the Plot Thickens as DISENCHANTMENT ("un-wild again, un-beguilded again, simpering, whimpering jaded post-child, nihilistic for that matter, again") w/ the romance (Mia, the Protestant-Jewish shtick) sets in (as Mr. Scott observes, the "unwanted mistress" problem)-- thickens into MURDER!
By this point, Allen's rebellion at/retreat from Jewishness & The Jewish Woman hasn't gone far enough: it turns out Protestantism & the genteel Mia are still TOO Jewish! Time to go KOREAN! & for that matter, Juvenile Asian. (As if the Protestant thing were gateway drug requiring the ante to be upped).
This whole thing BTW is the plot of Roth's "Indignation." The alienated Jew runs from his tyrannical mother & faith into soft genteel arms, only to discover she's just as messed up. And the spurned Law (capital L) comes crashing down on him wreaking its vengeance, IN KOREA of all places!!!!! After the Jewishness-rejecting kid embraces the blonde "shikse", he's expelled from his genteel gentile college & killed in KOREA!
The theme: you can't escape your Jewishness (however "tyrannical"), you can't escape The Law.
Poetic justice, art truly being what Baudelaire called "the mirror of life."
(In Crimes & Misdemeanors and Matchpoint, the regretful adulterers successfully kill their unwanted mistresses, but the matter of moral guilt is painfully unresolved).
Judaism addresses these matters w/ principles of repentance & divine retribution.
1
Anyone interested in this interpretation, look at HANNAH's structure, which, while divided into quite a few chapters/episodes/subplots, has classicly Freytagian 3 major sections: a Thanksgiving celebration exposition, a TG celebration (a year later) coda/conclusion/denouement, the 2 bookending the plot development (ie, rising action, climax, falling action). Obviously this structure can be formulaic/mechanical; for that matter mirroring the sex response cycle phases excitement, plateau, orgasm, resolution. Allen's film plays w/ this correspondence as part of the meta-analysis aspect of art's (artistic fantasy/gratification) relation to sex.
But thematically, the bookending TG episodes representing 'ideals' of family & cultural concord (with the aging parents conspicuously present, indeed resolving their own spousal issues, intergenerational as well), stasis/stability, albeit fissured & tenuous, w/ the main action centered on illicit flirtations & infidelities eventually resolved w/ TG's return. At every stage, sexual & cultural (Protestant vs. Jewish) dynamics mutually echo in perfect correspondence. Fittingly btw, the musical theme at each TG dinner is (J-Pr) "Bewitched, Bothered, Bewildered" (Wild Again, Beguiled again, a simpering, whimpering child again).
After touring the religious & sexual menu, at TG-2 Allen "resolves" on a comfortable (but not passionate), mutually therapeutic relationship, assimilated liberal Protestant Jewish ethnicity/outlook & artistic identity.
1
Just what IS the problem that A.O. Scott wants to address?
We're to believe that Woody Allen now has to be a great film maker to defend himself against decades old charges that were thoroughly investigated and rejected? Because some viewers believe the abuse allegations, we're all duty bound to forensically examine his work for tell-tale signs of rot, even if we're perfectly comfortable with his films? Maybe we should ask instead whether A.O. Scott is a "great critic"?
Thank god someone (Allen) has been making films all these years -- not just during the mid-eighties and early nineties -- tussling with mortality and religion, art and redemption, insecurity and failure -- not to mention exploring rather than exploiting sexuality on screen. Add to that all the great female characters who (I've said it before) outshine the male protagonist(s).
As for critics, I can't count the number of times I've seen serious films (not always wholly successfully, but seriously addressing their themes) savaged while anodyne reviews of the usual Hollywood pablum are routinely churned out. So much more fun to destroy or at least chip away at genuine works of art when you can. Even more than exploiting the controversy over Allen, I take the exercise of this column as part of that general. impulse. I leave Mr. Scott to it.
25
In terns of output, there is no doubt that Woody Allen is a genius. While his films may vary in quality, he is able to crank out at least one gem per year.
That is, if one can forgive his personal percadilloes. Which is hard to do. But does the one cancel out the other? I for one am able to forgive his personal weaknesses but not disregard them. Who is the closest parallel? The Marquis de Sade, perhaps, or even just Hemingway? Can we just blow off his films as the products of a child-molester, even a family member. No, I would say. His art deserves its own standing, and personal judgements of his personal morality must come later, or alongside. The one does not cancel the other, in whichever way one leans.
3
What is the criteria for great filmmaker? If entertainment, Allen’s prolific career as a director qualifies him alone. If variety, then he may only be good at best, for his films are not unlike a sitcom; same stories, different characters and in Allen’s case the stories are sex, death, and insecurity about both. Repeat.
1
Woody Allen is not Harvey Weinstein. Period. No actress or woman has ever come forward with tales of exploitation in exchange for fame and fortune. His step daughters claims were taken very seriously and investigated by the best child services agencies that rich white people can buy and still there was no conclusive opinion or proof and unlike other men accused of horrible crimes, he did not release a statement through a publicist but chose to directly confront them through a personally written OP ed in this paper. All the actors denouncing him now are doing so in fear of twitter. The accusations around him are not new. They knew who they were signing up with and they did it because they know he is a great film maker. Ronan Farrows agenda probably stems from the fact he was told Woody is his dad when he is clearly no way genetically related to him ( Frank Sinatra) which leads me to wonder if Mia Farrow might tell him
that then what else would she be willing to try and convince her children to say? As for sun yee they’ve been married over 20 years. The media talks about her like a teen concubine when she is a highly educated woman in her 40s. Can she live or what?
14
Don't even get me started on the NYTimes staff bandwagoning on the Woody Allen ostracism without taking 30 seconds to IMDB Woody & google Mia Farrow's sterling record of psychological stability & credibility. But that whole conversation is just le sigh...End of the day, shaming people w/ his excellence Heywood Allen (Allan Stewart Konigsberg) will go down as the GOAT. He provided equal pay, equal opportunity across the board for all of his productions, 53% of his productions were female led, & this is all on top of 15 BAFTA's, 3 Golden Globes & 3 Oscar's spanning over 6 decades. He's been married to the SAME woman for 26 years & thats true love & it's simply not fair to attach him to the absurdity that has transpired over the past year. Clicks are good for business New York Crimes, so is Woody Allen a great filmmaker? YES, INDEED!
19
I am very disappointed seeing that the New York Times has been giving a forum to what appears to be Mr Scott's personal campaign against Woody Allen. As a litigating lawyer with decades of experience, I find concerning that Mr Scott seemingly do not afford the principle of innocent until proven guilty to Woody Allen, in the public arena.
I used to enjoy reading Mr Scott's film reviews even though I did not always agreed with his views. However, I do not appreciate when Mr Scott impersonates a a qualified psychologist when re-appraise Woody Allen's body of work.
I have liked and sometimes even loved the movies of Woody Allen even though I have not always agreed with his personal life choices.
Will continue to watch Woody Allen movies but will think twice about reading Mr Scott's writing, in the future.
25
The media & social media have to stop trying to get the public to not like the men in entertainment that were accused of wrongdoing during the #metoo movement. We all acknowledge that their sexual misconduct was horrendous & these men are paying the consequence for it as they should. But many of us can and will continue to enjoy their art. Its time for the media to stop prodding us into exiling these people. We wont.
2
Despite a few obvious flops, Allen's movies have always ratcheted up the quality of American films, and are unique when compared with others in the same language, which is why I think that in a hundred years his more serious films will remain relevant and examples, like Ingmar Bergman's and David Lean's, of quality cinematic relics worth keeping. His private life will also no doubt arouse much interest, but probably only among those who love juicy celebrity bios. Who for example even knows, or cares, now that Bergman is no longer with us, how he treated his wives and children?
6
I love your writing. But there is way too much hand wringing here. Allen is one of the best filmmakers of my lifetime. He also has issues that make it impossible for me to watch his films with pleasure anymore. My loss. And his.
3
Evidently Mr. Scott feels that endless public reappraisals of Woody Allen's career in the aftermath of ancient and still unproven charges against the filmmaker are more material to his job than reporting on more than two or three new movies per week (i.e., the ones he predictably enjoys). Is A. O Scott a great film critic? Is he now even a relevant one? Disgusted.
36
"The only thing you owe the public is a good performance."
Humphrey Bogart
27
People are still misinterpreting "Manhattan," then using their version to "prove" Mr. Allen is a child molester. Rubbish.
Let's leave aside that the movie is fiction, an invention, not a documentary.
In the very first scene the Allen character displays unease with dating the younger girl. He's troubled. HE then breaks it off. It is also very clear that he has real affection for the girl. It is hardly a dirty old man/lust situation.
Anyone who believes otherwise is only interested in "confirming" an ignorant prejudice, not understanding the subtle Woody Allen screenplay.
28
For me, it is beyond question that Mr. Allen is the greatest living American filmmaker. Frankly, A.O. Scott's descent into Allen-loathing has been embarrassing. Maybe we should be discussing whether Mr. Scott is a "great film critic," rather than reexamining and reevaluating Mr. Allen's corpus in pursuit of evidence that the films are not a good as we thought they were. I have also returned to watch most of these movies, and have found that the ones that were thought to be great are still great. Viewers who cannot get past the allegations (and that is all that they are) display an inability assess art on its own terms.
43
Whatever else he is, yes, he is a great filmmaker. Many of his movies are works of comic genius. Judge his private life if it makes you feel better, but his public talent is well documented.
39
How I wish the NYT, with the resources it once had to pursue the truth, had focused sharply on the skirt-the-law enterprises of the Trump family. If it had, then perhaps the world would not be in quite the pickle that it is.
I don't think Woody Allen poses similar dangers to the world. He is an aging artist whose works will survive and be enjoyed by the future, even as his professional tormentors are forgotten. I think its time for the NYT to lay-off of him.
38
Anybody weighing the personal questions should google Moses Farrow and read what he says.
13
Ummm he married his own daughter....
1
Because her brother tells the truth and she doesn’t?
No, because her many statements have included significant and substantial inconsistencies. Moses Farrow, age 14 at the time, was a contemporaneous witness to the events where the allegations arose. His rebuttal to Farrow is relevant because he has personal knowledge of the events, and location of the alleged abuse, - the cramped attic - and, consequently, is able to impeach her credibility regarding both her alleged absence from the party, and the new detail in her story regarding the operational electric trains, supposedly set-up in the cramped attic space, which was primarily used to store boxes. This new, previously never-mentioned-detail, is both factually improbable and extremely unlikely, and is the sort of contrived embellishment that ultimately undermines a witness' credibility.
2
Ahh revisionism. Generally driven by some ideology. Sorry but no thanks. Right or left the ideologies that have led to revisionist thinking have a pretty poor track record. Anywhere. Be it in a Communist state, Nazi Germany or parts of the US where To Kill A Mockingbird is pulled from shelves along with a few other tomes. No thanks.
14
Perfect, or near-perfect summary of the topic/issue, "near-" b/c such a complex matter confined to a brief article will entail inevitable omissions, for which Mr. Scott's discussion shouldn't be faulted.
But briefly, I'll consider a couple of the most glaring omissions, & consider what these suggest.
First, nearly every Woody Allen film offers some sort of meditation/meta-analysis on the nature of art, including the relationship between reality & fantasy/imagination/culture, often 4 categories of f/i/c/: sexual fantasy, artistic fantasy, religion, nostalgia. In each case, the imagination/culture can be salutary (therapy or moral improvement/uplift ) or baneful (escape, rationalization). True to the Freudian outlook, Allen has a main character open "Manhattan" declaring bluntly on Allen's behalf "the purpose of art is to offer a 'working through' experience." (Allen's films probably achieve this, both for himself & viewers, at least to an extent, yet narcissism is never fully -possibly impossible for anyone- overcome, & confession-rationalization are the effect, for good & ill).
Finally the more obvious glaring omission: Jewishness & Jewish mother/feminine Jewishness (eg, NY Stories/Annie Hall), rebellion against both & the quest respectively for romantic fulfillment/love & for solid yet attainable post-Jewish moral bearings (confrontation of aforementioned character by Allen at Mahattan's conclusion), seeking(?) alternative to nihilism (Crimes & Misdemeanors, Matchpoint).
2
I see that Mr. Scott is picking at the same scab he picked in a previous over-wrought and over-thought column. His simply mentioning the long list of Allen's important films makes us wonder if he really does have a bone to pick. Nor does he ever follow up on the artistic conundrum of that quirk of human nature to instill genius into a morally compromised person. That would have been more interesting than the effusion of what one previous reader called "psychobabble." Time to move on, Mr. Scott.
27
Comedies made Woody Allen a great filmmaker in his day: comedies that were funny and smart. A.O. Scott has missed all of the high points of Allen's career, making this column very meta: it's a navel gaze like Allen's later work.
6
You can be a scumbag and the greatest living filmmaker . This idea that we should deny someone is great at something because they are a deplorable human being is an antiquated notion. Babe Ruth was a great ball player and also a horrible womanizer who died of syphullus . Shall we obliterate Ruth’s home run records or forget he existed ? John Lennon abandoned his first son. Are you going to stop listening to the Beatles? Woody Allen married the 18 year old daughter of his girlfriend who was step sister to some of his own children (an expert forensic child therapist determined Dylan Farriow had been coached when the allegations arose, I believe the accusation is bunk). I think Woody Allen is a scumbag; but he is also the greatest living filmmaker, maybe the greatest ever. The high quality of his work combined with an unparalleled productivity put him in his own league . Those who decline to see his films because of his character are within their rights. I would not see his films if I thought he had molested his daughter . His marriage to his step daughter was only horribly deplorable and completely unacceptable. Being good at something does not make you a “good” person. We need to stop expecting our heroes to be Disney protagonists.
8
"The anxious, self-conscious, perpetually dissatisfied persona Mr. Allen projected in his films of the ’70s presented neurosis not as a mental disorder but as a style. His alter egos were not case studies; they were role models."
You summed it up quite nicely, sir, all the reasons I cannot stand Allen or his films. My opinion predates any allegations, what you see is what you get with him, and I wouldn't spend 5 minutes with him or his films or anyone like him, for that matter.
8
I'm in the fortunate position of having always detested Woody Allen's output as a filmmaker, so learning about allegations of vile behavior didn't force any kind of reassessment, but I don't think moral judgments about the man himself are totally irrelevant to the reasons I dislike his films so much.
The aggressively narcissistic worldview on display in every Allen film I've seen--even the ones that lack overt philosophical pretensions--is for me the most offensive and obnoxious thing about his artistic output, regardless of how that worldview happens to have manifested itself in his personal life. It's what deprives his characters' inner struggles of any dramatic interest and what makes his supposedly profound philosophical insights so trite and useless, at least to anyone who lacks his self-absorption. In many ways, cravenly trying to pass off his acceptance of that attitude as the product of some kind of spiritual struggle (as in Crimes and Misdemeanors and many of his other "art" movies) is even more offensive than taking it as given and bludgeoning the audience with it as he does in a glib little piece like Match Point.
10
Of course he's a great filmmaker. His films have already withstood the test of time, inasmuch as film as one of the youngest and most lowbrow art mediums we have today. If people will still be watching Singing in the Rain and The 7th Seal in 50 years, and they will be, they will also still be watching and very much enjoying Love and Death and Manhattan then too.
Hey, even Beethoven was a wart personally, and we won't even start talking about Wagner.
7
Immediately after the Louis CK stories broke, I re-watched the concerts to see if my responses were influenced by the facts that had been revealed (and to which Mr. CK had admitted). I was pleased to find that I still enjoyed his comic observations, and was made no more-or-less comfortable by what I had learned about his behavior. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
Mr. Allen's work was always more hit-or-miss to me than Mr. CK's -- many of his lesser efforts feel half-baked or "cranked out." But if the things Mr. CK ADMITTED TO didn't alter my perception of his gifts, why would incidents that have been vehemently DENIED by Mr. Allen? I believe Mr. Allen IS guilty of behavior (falling in love with his girlfriend's ADULT daughter, to whom, it must be stressed, he has been seemingly happily married for 2 decades) that people whose business it is NOT find creepy -- nothing more.
I am sorry for Ms. Farrow (Dylan, not Mia), because I believe she believes she was abused, and I hope she finds peace. But I also find it telling (as did investigators and jurists) that she denied the abuse in court, a recess was called, ice cream was supplied, and when court reconvened she accused Mr. Allen of abuse.
I'lll continue to enjoy Mr. Allen's work, as well as that of Louis CK, Frank Sinatra, Lauren Bacall, Jerry Lewis, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, and others whose atrocious behavior has been well documented. His being a "great filmmaker" remains academic.
12
I'm a Woody Allen defender, but I started out not knowing whom to believe. Contrary to Mr. Scott's assertion I am not claiming anyone who disbelieves the accusation is a witch hunter. I assume they have not read all the articles and primary source materials I've read. It takes hours: you have to read several articles and op-eds over the past 25 years that have appeared in the NYT, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, The Daily Beast, Baltimore Sun, Huffington Post, Leagle, Radar Online, People, and other magazines, newspapers, and Web sites. Plus, there are videos to watch on YouTube related to the case. Taken as a whole and thoughtfully considered, the facts and opinions I've read (and watched) overwhelmingly support Mr. Allen's innocence. Surely, research of this depth is not beyond Mr. Scott's ability, but he must not have devoted the time. This is his second hit-piece on Allen; this one better disguised, but no less biased.
19
This is the first time I've seen my opinion echoed by anyone else about this issue. The problem with the trial by gossip wave that seems to have stemmed from the MeToo/TimesUp movement is that it requires all of us to take time out of our lives to become detectives.
Any accusation should be taken seriously. But that requires doing more than abruptly jumping to an opinion. It requires thoroughly looking at every piece of information. And very few people have the energy, interest or time to do that.
I don't know Woody, Dylan, or Mia, or Moses, or anyone in that family. There's plenty of information to support both sides. Whom do you believe? Woody or Dylan? Moses or Ronan? The multiple investigations or the judge and the prosecutor? How could I possibly know enough to know what really happened. I tend to think he didn't do it. But seriously, I wasn't there and quite frankly this issue is none of business or responsibility.
Woody Allen is a BRILLIANT writer and director. So many great movies, with exceptionally insightful and funny dialogue and ingenious situations - his superlative work (Blue Jasmine, Midnight in Paris, Cassandra's Dream, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Hannah and Her Sisters, Bullets Over Broadway, Match Point, Annie Hall, Purple Rose of Cario, Zelig, Stardust Memories, MANHATTAN, to name just twelve) shall forever remain the best filmmaking.
18
Match Point was offensive, male ego-driven, violent dreck with audience taunting thrown in to boot. It was a horrible movie.
3
No.
4
There is perhaps another, more compelling aspect to the current trend towards seeking justice, with regard to considering artists' biographies in assessing the greatness of the oeuvre they produce. That is, to recognize that there are artists who -- despite creating similarly masterful works -- have been denied their place in the pantheon by those whose lives are ethically bankrupt. Only when we realize how differently their undervalued art would have contributed to the positive development of humanity can we appreciate our loss from having mistakenly elevated those whose behaviors are universally acknowledged to be morally corrupt.
1
" morally corrupt?"
If you had proof.
Why are you even running this article during a time when so many women are sick of men getting away with disgusting behaviors and women being disbelieved? Do you really think this is a good time for this?
4
hind sight 2020 -- manhattan so uncomfortable to watch today as are the mia farrow movies. have boycotted him since sex with girl family enough and young enough to be his daughter. haven't missed him.
2
What a bunch of phychobabble nonesense. Woody Allen is a great artist that presents the human condition as it is, with a particular sense of the absurd and cruel aspects of existence. He tells stories that make us question what a human life feels like when confronted with joy and horror.
18
Stanley Kubrick or Robert Altman great? I don't think so imo.
Many of Allen's films are repetitive and overemphasize his neurotic Jewishness. I can watch "Seinfeld"'s George Constanza for that. I prefer his films when Allen is NOT an actor in the film. He's actually a pretty good actor, but his persona can dominate a film's interesting subtexts.
However, Woody Allen has made some really great movies, e.g., "Crimes and Misdemeanors". Jerry Orbach was a Broadway song and dance guy...until Allen cast him as Martin Landau's mobster brother. Then Orbach went on to fame in "Law & Order" as cop Lennie Brewster.
In fact, most "famous" American directors, no matter how successful they are, NEVER make a single decent money.
Moreover, Woody Allen goes places in the American psyche where almost no other director will go (except maybe John Waters or Todd Solondz and a couple of other indie directors; early Spike Lee and John Sayles), including into his own psyche, which is a bit twisted. I almost never even bother to see an American movie unless Frances McDormand, Laura Linney or Bill Murray are in it.
Although his decision to elope with his stepdaughter was weird (which was also cheating on his wife at the time, he has been investigated for his alleged crimes and has not been charged. An alleged "she said, he said" that happened decades ago just is not going to ever be a provable case in court.
2
The accuser has been deemed credible ... the accused not ... hmmmm??
I'd like to know how the people making these determinations are coming to them ... what info do they have that I don't? Unlike Weinstein accusers, have others chimed in to reinforce – as in Weinstein's case – an obvious pattern of behavior? I find the Freudian analysis dangerous.
I see the uncertainty of certainty here, a 'desire' to believe. Ignorance is not bliss.
4
This is a strange but true story. I am from a small south Georgia city where we do have an established Jewish community but they are so assimilated you don't know if they're Irish or Eastern European. That said, my exposure to 'N Y Jews' was zero.
Woody Allen films educated me from first film to present, as to how New York Jews live, interact with other people, and their angst. Pretty much everything I know and love about American-Jews comes from his films. When I lived in London I remember going to see Bananas and being the only person in the cinema laughing. And I laughed hard. After the lights went up after the film ended, people rushed over to me to ask me about how they could appreciate Woody Allen the way I did. I had a little hen circle around my seat as I expounded on the genius that is Woody Allen. This is how I came to live in Manhattan. I wanted to learn and experience life through the eyes of other Woody Allens. I savor all that this group of people have to offer. Food, politics, intellectual pursuits, speaking out, having an opinion. Woody saved me from a fate worse than death: growing up ignorant, ultra-conservative and judgmental in the South! For that I will always thank him.
15
It's not easy being thoughtful and humorous.
5
I thought he was OK in the 1970's when I was I college and he was making comedies. After that I just got tired of the older man chasing younger women schtick. I must say though all my East Coast, liberal female friends of a same age still give him a pass and say he's a genius, what's up with that?
3
Dear AO Scott - hey - let it go. You're just putting your foot deeper and deeper into it. I am a progressive, liberal Democrat of long standing and a strong proponent of women's rights, on all fronts. This further 'exploration' of Woody Allen and now his filmography, is just absurd, and embarrassing. I encourage you to look at the big picture, as a film critic, and back off feeling the need to plunge into the controversies of the moment. We've really no idea what went on in the Allen/Farrow households, nor is it any of our business, it really isn't. The director in question is a great American artist and a beloved New Yorker by many of us. Just drop the Scarlett letter biz and move on.
51
And I've know of Mr. Allen for 35 years. As an artist: great during the biographical beginning, unbelievably bad for the second half. What's up with that?
I wouldn't had a problem with the relationship with adoptee Soon-Yi. It's lasted, is proof to my opinion. However it started, it was legal, a heart wants what a heart wants, and we must assume he has one of his own. I can imagine a tumultuous marriage with Farrow, or anyone, and maybe some game playing taken to fruition. The circumstances to fancying the young girl were dicey, but he had the courage and conviction come what may. He's always been bold and rebellious.
Other accusations could have been perpetuated by the scorned spouse whose livelihood the other children depended on. I thought this matter was settled fair and square. That means however painful the business is to others, that's the best system we got, and move on, right? And Im of the impression, that case weighed heavily in Allens favor. A real slam dunk.
I've admired him during this whole fiasco, so why had it inspired the lousiest work? Weird.
3
Although it is hard to separate Mr. Allen's alleged sexual misconduct from his career, the work remains. Like Roman Polanski, he remains an important figure in Cinema. Many of his so-called "lesser" works (i.e., "Small Time Crooks," "Broadway Danny Rose") are some of his most interesting ,even if the overall body of work gets more diluted year after year. Still, years from now - long after Mr. Allen is gone and his transgressions are forgotten - film lovers will still be viewing "Hannah and Her Sisters," "The Front" and "Purple Rose of Cairo." I would submit that his earlier efforts like "Sleeper," "Bananas" and "Take the Money and Run" now qualify as classic comedies. History has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff and artists who are very flawed human beings from their work. It is the work that endures and therefore my answer is an unqualified "Yes!"
12
If you want to spend an evening holding your sides in pain because you are laughing so hard watch Take the Money and Run.
3
Change "is" to "once was" and my answer is absolutely yes.
1
Maybe the question should be different. Perhaps we should be asking why we know so much about the personal lives of artists and if indeed this kind of voyeurism is in itself wrong.
Sometimes, especially recently, as I'm reading accounts of intimate details of an artist's or celebrity's life I find myself cringing. Do I, a perfect stranger, need to know these details? Are they important to appreciating or understanding, or enjoying the work?
Do I have the right to judge personal information that is not first hand but comes via the media?
15
As a screenwriter who has written or co-written numerous films, I am in awe of Mr. Allen's singular achievement. Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors are masterpieces.
Purple Rose of Cairo, Broadway Danny Rose, Stardust Memories are near masterpieces. Unlike Spielberg or Scorsese, Woody actually wrote (or co-wrote) all these films! We can debate his morals endlessly (although I suspect he's innocent of child molestation) but his achievement is beyond equal. What contemporary writer/director has anything like his body of work?
35
Scott is no movie critic. He assumes, despite evidence, that Mr. Allen is guilty of something, then pretends to strain towards an acceptance of Mr. Allen's talent. This is writing in bad faith. Scott is trying to have it both ways.
By the way, there has been no American director who has equaled Mr. Allen in quality and quantity of writing/directing.
16
The real question is not whether or not Allen is worthy of the mantel of great filmmaker. The question is why are we condemning people based on unproven accusation? Arthur Miller was disturbed enough by this question to write a brilliant play on the subject. I find this current climate of condemning people, ruining reputations and careers and lives based on accusation disturbing and reactionary.
36
One thing we've learned about sexual predators is that there are always multiple victims; these are men whose compulsion forces them to offend again and again.
In the case of Mr. Allen there is only one alleged victim over his long lifetime. While in the past there was a culture of shaming and silence, this is a time when women are encouraged and empowered to come forward.
Given that, and the lack of any evidence aside from that one alleged victim's claim, there is no basis whatsoever to assume that Allen is guilty.
11
Separating the art from the character of the artist, and without commenting on the latter, there is no doubt in my mind that Woody Allen is one of the greats and to insist that Allen's best works are limited to the Mia Farrow years does vast injustice to "Annie Hall" and, perhaps his best straight comedy, "Manhattan." That said, I do think "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is his masterpiece, a nihilistic gut-punch delivered with a smile.
9
Generally I know very little about the personal lives of the people who make the films that I watch or perform the music I listen to or write the books and newspaper articles (including film reviews) that I read. Woody Allen is an exception because he is also a performer and a celebrity and he has lived a very public life. The fact that i happen to know more about Allen than the others does not cause me to judge his work any differently. His work stands on its own, and it is great.
I think Mr Scott is off on a tangent. He is fascinated with the connection between Allen's work and his personal life, which I find to be mildly interesting, no more, and nothing that diminishes my enjoyment of or respect for Allen's work.
4
Yes. Judging the art, not the artist, Zelig (Genius before Forrest Gump) & Broadway Danny Rose are Masterpieces. Endlessly entertaining on multiple re-watches.
The editing alone on the above films schools most of the revered SciFi classics that the movie going public has spent the bulk of it's money on.
Not a huge fan of his romantic movies, but that's just me. Some of them are very good, but overall there have been better films out there for romance date movies.
Dragging Woody Allen through the lens of societys norms is not art. That is seperate, and I think you are asking me if it is a criteria for his work? No, it is not.
Nobody asks me if the winner of the World Champion Texas Hold Em series is a saint, or the guy who ate the most Hot Dogs, and I never really cared, they achieved the goal sans gluttony and vice. An honest days work.
I'm giving Woody Allen the same consideration.
2
Although some artists, writers and directors make movies to make money and for various forms of recognition, many artists do so because their inner demons compel them to do so. So it is in a way hypocritical to denigrate the works of art based on our changing standards of their personal behavior. For if one were to adopt that standard, we may also have to revise our appraisal of works of artists who have passed away long ago rather than those that are still alive.
Regardless of what one think of Woody Allen and his works, one cannot deny that many actresses including Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton achieve their highest professional recognition by starring in a Woody Allen Movie. So even when Woody Allen offer a comparatively small financial reward to those who agree to perform in his films, many actresses, until recently, clamor for that opportunity, and their work should not be downgraded just because they did their best work in a Woody Allen movie.
4
I can't answer the question "Is Allen a great filmmaker?" I have enjoyed several of his films, especially Annie Hall and Hannah. My problem is that Allen puts so much of himself in his movies, that it is extremely difficult to separate the man from the film. When I see Allen's character canoodling with the young student in Manhattan, I can only see a filmmaker who probably abuses young girls. In his scripts and his direction, he has made it impossible for us to separate Allen from his product. That was probably his intention early on, but now it has "MeToo" consequences that he never anticipated. He made himself front and center. Now he needs to live with it.
5
Great? One thing I'm pretty clear on is that Woody doesn't care what any of us thinks.
As for me, I'm no expert but I have seen my share of films and I must say that Allen's have stuck in my mind more than most. A good laugh is hard to come by and that's what drew me in. There were so many laughs that rang so true for me. Later, in the films Scott emphasizes, laughter turned to wryness and even seriousness I guess. I didn't connect quite as well with those but they were often still remarkable.
Allen's also been quite prolific, continuing to work now in his eighties, MOL a film a year. As one would expect with such a large body of work, some great, many good, some not so much. But yes, I think he's a great filmmaker and certainly dedicated to the art and the actors and others involved.
As to what we learn from his films about him, I think we see someone obsessed with understanding love and romance with adult women as influenced by the other things in a man's life, his upbringing, his environment, his other relationships. But there is a big difference between the women in his films and a seven year old in an attic.
The deserving films will endure. The crises of this "family" will fade in memory. I'm sorry for those involved, from Woody right though Dylan. The rest of us may have our opinions but we'll never know. And I don't think Woody's films will tell us. We are each free to watch or not, act or not, fund or not. But I think Woody will endure. I hope the same for Dylan.
8
He was once a fine comic filmmaker (Annie Hall) and comic actor (Play it Again Sam) who decided to become "serious" (as some comics do) and started imitating Bergman. I lost interest. (If I want Bergman, I'll watch Bergman.) That was the downturn for me -- arguably, his last few comedies were weightless -- and Allen never recovered in an enduring way. His work for the last 30 years has consisted of increasingly bland employment projects.
7
For me it is easier to have this discussion through the prism of the much and likely justly reviled Roman Polanski. I saw his first film while in college in the sixties, the Polish classic Knife in the Water. Chinatown supersedes its genre, standing alone as a surpassing work of brilliant cinema. Most everybody considers me to be a nice and kind person, yet looking back upon my 68 years, I find far too many behaviors that cause me to cringe inwardly. We are all imperfect beings more than capable of both good and evil. This article may shed important light on the genesis of Mr. Allen's body of work. But I remain skeptical that these works should be judged by his personal behavior.
15
Thank you for your piece on Woody Allen that helps to affirm the confusion/sometimes guilt I feel every time I watch one of his films. Recently "Anything Else" aired on cable and since I had never seen it, I took the opportunity to watch. Rated a "bomb", it was not his most brilliant, but I watched from beginning to end, probably due to Friday night inertia. Then, I thought, what would my 33 year old daughter think? She and her friends have taken an anti-Woody Allen stance, along with most of their generation, based on the continuing allegations of Dylan Farrow, Woody's duplicitous behavior towards Mia Farrow with Soon Yi (old news but still notable). I don't blame my daughter and her friends for feeling this way. But, being younger, she also doesn't get his films (especially the early ones) in the same way I do. We discussed why I feel guilty watching; mesmerized by something that's morally ambiguous. Or is it just that I remember when I saw Annie Hall about 10 times during the summer of 1977 or we rushed to see him play clarinet at Michael's Pub back in the day? Woody Allen was part of an intellectual maturing for some of us of a certain age and hit the spot in articulating the confused emotions we felt in visually and comically engaging stories that seem to have withstood the test of time. Which doesn't mean I condone unethical, bad behavior, I'm as confused as everyone else.
3
I'd like to say that I don't find it "ethically or intellectually tenable" for A.O. Scott to predicate his reevaluation of Allen's, or anyone's, work on the basis of his supposition that Allen is a "bad man." Maybe Allen is: But the evidence for that is disputable, and is surely biased by our current context. It is disconcerting to see Scott's eagerness to demonstrate that he falls on the proper side of the debate, even if this eagerness requires him to become a moral scold. There's not much intellectual or ethical courage involved in glomming onto a wave of public fury to condemn an artistic figure. Indeed, it's a common and callow tendency--a little touch of Greta von Sustern venting against an accused person, wrapped in the pieties and sensitivities of "fairness."
33
Woody Allen is a great filmmaker. Interesting stories and characters. Awesome sets. Superb music. And, of course, his comedy.
36
As the expression goes, the dogs bark while the caravan moves on. How many pipsqueaks does it take to equal a giant? (Hint: none.)
4
I treat Mr. Allen ( personally ) in the context of ''innocent until proven guilty'' and his body of work ( professionally ) as a dearth of excellence that needs to be revisited again and again to be fully appreciated.
I suspect most people are in the same camp, yet will not say so publicly.
32
Quite surprised the author didn't spend a little time on "Manhattan", which I consider Allen's greatest film, and coincidentally (or maybe not) offers up a lot of grist for speculation in the current cultural environment,
5
For me, Allen has always been an extremely hit or miss filmmaker. I loved Hannah and Her Sisters, Annie Hall, Midnight in Paris, and a few others, but several of his films fall so flat that I can barely believe they were made.
I don't know enough about film to make a ruling with regards to Allen's lasting greatness, but I think his best films certainly qualify him as such.
I'm more intrigued my Mr. Scott's preoccupation with Allen, which mostly centers on his abuse allegations, and him trying to square his admiration of Allen's art with the allegations against him. Scott's previous article (on Allen's guilt vis-a-vis his films) begins with a tired, ridiculous premise of ascertaining an artists guilt or innocence through his or her work. While I'm unsettled by the seeming connection between those accusations and some of Allens work (Manhattan), I still rewatch and enjoy his films--well, the ones worth watching.
4
Allen has made more films worth rewatching over and over again than any other filmmaker, and more of Allen's films are worth rewatching than are not.
7
Mr Scott's (and others) hounding of Mr Allen in the guise of "criticism", is the most disgusting serial persecution of an artist I've ever seen in the New York Times.
This is worthy of the old Soviet press. Please stop New York Times, you're making a giant error of judgement.
83
Easily one of the worst analyses of anyone's films I've ever seen. Most of it is prologue and the analysis of Freud is simply pathetic. Allen's output by many yardsticks has always been uneven. He often tried to do too much, particularly in his efforts to produce "serious" films. His real gift has been satire whether it was satirizing genres, as he did in his early firms or when he inserted into the dialog which became common later. The relationships he portrayed could be be cringeworthy--see for example Manhattan. OTOH, he has had any number of strong female characters. The idea that characters need to be "independent" of him is ludicrous---relationships by definition include a certain amount of symbiosis. There's also the question of how he functioned in relation to female actors he employed. He resuscitated the career of Mia Farrow and was able to get her beyond her usual Sandy Dennis without the tics acting style in Radio Days. He employed actresses like Colleen Dewhurst who had plenty of gravitas. Much of the debate about Allen is basically a matter of taking sides in a custody battle, a situation that typically favors the mother, even if the facts raise questions about her. We'll never know the facts and what we know about his current relationships that it's a bit bizarre in its origins. With Allen and many, many other film makers we have to decide what we can accept from deeply flawed people and Scott, sadly is now help in trying to work through that.
4
The basic argument of Scott’s piece is flawed. To support his statement that Allen’s “…reputation as a major artist… rests upon the movies he made in the mid-1980s and early 1990s”, he’s conveniently ignores that some of Allen’s least successful films are part of that era: 1987’s September, 1990’s Alice, and -- perhaps his worst movie ever -- 1991’s Shadows and Fog. Scott also ignores that Allen’s early, funny films of the 1970s quickly established his reputation as an artist, and that his two late 1970s masterpieces, Annie Hall and Manhattan, cemented his standing as an important American filmmaker.
Why have Mr. Scott and the Times been revisiting the Allen investigation so fervently these past few weeks? As eager as she is to connect the two, Dylan Farrow’s recent reiteration of her 1990s accusation has nothing to do with the current #meToo movement. And unfortunately, unless some compelling piece of evidence emerges, none of us will ever know 100% if Allen is guilty or not. Therefore, this rehashing of a 25 year old scandal and court case -- as well as this discussion of Allen’s reputation as a filmmaker -- seems unnecessary. It also smacks of an agenda.
79
I have always enjoyed Woody Allen; his wit and humor and spent many years in analysis myself. As I have been truly humbled by my own failings in life and understand now that perhaps I/we may not struggle with the same issues and missteps of Woody Allen, one must always remain cognizant that we all are sinners and if iwe turn to the loving presence of Jesus Christ, we will be saved by His grace, mercy and never-ending love. Jesus loves us all and Woody Allen is one of His chosen people. He loves Woody A. daughter and Woody the same. He knows the truth of what happened and is standing at the door waiting to help heal them both. We as a society have been taught by wrong religious doctrine to categorize sin by suggesting that "other" peoples sins are worse than our own but, the truth is that in Gods eyes if we sin in one area we are guilty of all. This is why Jesus warned us to never judge another because we will be judged by how we judge others. I was the least likely to ever get saved and I am thankful that I can see Woody Allen's failings through the lens of Gods grace. Jesus loves Woody Allen more than he could ever imagine. He is not a religion of which has lead many of us astray. He is our savior who came to save the broken, the lost, the judged and the condemned. He stands at the door knocking to pour out His love.
4
I'm not sure we needed an entire article to pose some fairly basic, though admittedly provocative, questions. Is it too much to ask for some initial analysis, a hypothesis or two?
2
Yes, let's discuss the pros and cons of eliminating access to all work created by men who broke social rules regarding sexual consent and did what today we would call sexual assault.
That would mean, by the way, losing access to more than half of the major works of philosophy, literature, music, and visual art. That's a big loss to take for humanity. But it does have the flip positive side of bringing more attention to those people who were able to be creative while also staying within our modern moral notions.
The idea of social engineer by choosing who to throw out of the tribe and who to give more voice to is here to stay. Nor is it the first (or even twentieth) time when people have decided to "purge" their society of unwelcome members and erase memory of their contribution to the society. Can you think of any examples at other times and places?
3
Well written post. Allen's movies never appealed to me. Rented "Annie Hall" a long time ago, and fell asleep after the first five minutes. Painfully boring. Avoiding his films will not be a problem.
The Nazi bookburning bonfires? Socrates drinking the hemlock? The Dreyfus Affair?
I treat Mr. Allen ( personally ) in the context of ''innocent until proven guilty'' and his body of work ( professionally ) as a dearth of excellence that needs to be revisited again and again to be fully appreciated.
I suspect most people are in the same camp, yet will not say so publicly.
3
Good article. Such a big, common problem.
As the papers are full of it today, read about Billy Graham's damaged family life and you see another example of the same thing -- surely national religious leaders are artists as well; and deeply flawed as well.
This is what Christians mean when they say that "every man sins." And Public People, the artists & the leaders of all kinds, put so much of them self on display ... we should always buy in very carefully, reject the debased parts, and never give hero worship: No human can sustain that.
For most of the 70s and 80s film goers always looked froward to the next Woody Allen film which he produced steadily for many years. Many films were extremely well received since they occupied a place in the genre with funny and troubled characters that people could relate to for their wants and desires and disappointments. If you want to revisit his films and reassess them in light of the current political and social culture, then you will no doubt find much to criticize. I for one do not think that Allen should be maligned. Does he have the reputation or behavior on movie sets to question his behavior towards women? Do we know for certain that he abused his daughter? Did he abuse her again and again like most pedophiles? The man is a brilliant artist in my experience. I will not begin to analyze his work looking for proof of moral failure.
4
I'm enjoying Scott's thoughtful, ongoing pursuit of insights into the thorny issues involved in The Allen Problem, but was struck by an oddity in this essay: It seems that what's being assessed here is almost everything but "filmmaking." Meaning: Mr. Scott isn't really discussing or analyzing Allen's filmic technique - his directorial use of imagery, camerawork, editing, lighting, sound, etc. - all of the specific elements that one usually associates with the term "great filmmaker." He's really looking at Allen as screenwriter, whereas Allen as director is only glancingly explored (e.g. the choices made in the Annie Hall therapy scene that Scott discusses in his second paragraph). One could write an essay, for example, on Allen's largely unsung mastery of the long take... if one were a film school grad or Cahiers critic, but you get the idea. Granted, the essay is about Allen's artistic character and persona rather than his aesthetics, delving into arguably more substantive aspects of what goes into the assignation of "greatness" or lack of same, but... What are we really talking about when we talk about "great filmmaker?"
4
I have never thought that Woody Allen is a "great" filmmaker, but I find this reassessment of Woody Allen's life work as writer, humorist and director, based on the allegations made against him by Mia Farrow, troubling and distasteful. One cannot avoid the impression that an effort is being made to tailor artistic judgments ex post facto to the present unhealthy political climate. This is not to claim that the work of an artist must be evaluated entirely apart from all other aspects of his life. But the essential link between "unsavory" aspects of an individual's life and his/her artistic work must be clearly demonstrated. Aside from the fact that Woody Allen has denied the accusations, Mr. Scott's effort to establish such a link is entirely unpersuasive, if not utterly far-fetched.
14
I treat Mr. Allen ( personally ) in the context of ''innocent until proven guilty'' and his body of work ( professionally ) as a dearth of excellence that needs to be revisited again and again to be fully appreciated.
I suspect most people are in the same camp, yet will not say so publicly.
2
E. M. Forster said of C. P. Cadafy that “he looked at life at an angle”. This may actually be a requirement in order to be a great artist. Along with that type of unique offbeat brain, often come, unsurprisingly enough, other undesirable characteristics. I feel quite comfortable admiring Degas, the artist and loving his work, while despising Degas, the man, whose antisemitism grew to despicable proportions as he grew older. I don’t listen too much to Wagner because he doesn’t touch me as much as Debussy, who didn’t like him for the silly reason that the Germans had won the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. While familiarity with the life of an artist might help understand what he/she might have been trying to say, the art work is out in the world, beyond his/her reach, for its viewers, readers or listeners to experience. I wouldn’t want to have Woody Allen in my family, but his films speak for themselves.
3
To be fair, the idea that the life of an artist should be irrelevant to our understanding of his work is itself only one school of thought, dominant in the mid-century, but not universal. Those who claim otherwise are not on solid ground. That said, given the juvenile dreck that has dominated Hollywood for the last quarter century--cartoons and car chases and violent fantasy--any movie that contains mature characters, thoughtful dialogue, and lush location shots must necessarily seem brilliant in comparison.
2
There is no question Woody Allen is a great filmmaker, beyond a shadow of a doubt. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
Compare his stature in his field to other greats in their fields: authors, musicians, athletes, politicians, physicians, lawyers, business people, journalists, movie critics, whatever. He is a giant, he has been in the public eye for decades, he has done fantastic work, his movies can be watched over and over again, they are timeless, fascinating.
Although irrelevant to his greatness as a filmmaker, I do not for one minute believe he assaulted Dylan Farrow. His relationship with Soon-Yi has endured.
5
The neurosis he portrays is the sort caused by over bearing mother figures for whom nothing is good enough. So maybe he was telling us something all along but I expect we would have heard of who "she" is in reality by now if it weren't just a creation of his art. Probably from what he observed in the world.
You can discuss his talent to the extent that you can also accept or not the fact that he is married to a woman who is for all intents and purposes his step daughter who his then mate adopted. Regardless of what you think for me and I like his stuff, it always pops into my head eventually and that brings everything else to a halt. Like right now it hits me how young Mariel Hemingway was in Manhattan and how that story went.
Yea he did some good funny stuff but the guy is creepy, not more or less creepy than many of the men of his day and in his movies except none of them is arrogant enough to be married to his step daughter.
I'm with Pauline: hot and cold. Mostly cold the last 20 years, with the notable exception of "Sweet and Lowdown." He's always been proud of his neuroses and pseudointellectualism, parlayed them into a uniquely self-effacing career. He is probably reveling in all the approbation that is currently feeding his lifelong guilt.
A.O. Scott doesn't answer the question posed by the title of this article. Instead he writes a prudent politically correct overview of his take on the morality of Mr. Allen's films. Is he afraid of the backlash he would get if he answered the question honestly?
Of course Woody Allen is a great director. The quality of the cinematography, the actors' performances, the choice of music, the brilliance of the dialog - these are the hallmarks of a great filmmaker.
Too bad Mr. Scott doesn't have the moral courage to say so.
10
This article's headline poses an intriguing question: Is Woody Allen a great filmmaker? But it does not actually address that controversial question. Instead, it asks: what should we think of Allen's films in the light of the abuse allegation brought against him? Do we judge an Allen film based on what we know about the man or by some objective standard. The article meanders around, neither making a conclusion or providing the basis for making one.. Bringing in Freud doesn't help; Freud rarely rarely said anything incisive or conclusive. The Freud references aren't even particularly relevant.
I would welcome a further attempt to discuss this subject.
21
Many of his movies were entertaining in a deeper, yet still sensual/sexual way than most romantic comedies. However, when he was on screen, he played creepy characters, so it is not hard to imagine how he would also be creepy in real life.
1
No, I only like half of the movies , he has made.
The writer doesn't mention another film, "Bullets Over Broadway", in which the characters ask the question, "Are you in love with the man, or his art?" It's a fair question, and applicable to many great artists, from Miles Davis to Picasso. If we banished the art of these artists on the basis of their personal moral failings, what a loss we would suffer. Woody Allen does seem, at this time, to be a narcissistic, dishonest, dirty old man. Nevertheless, I have watched many of his movies multiple times and still find the best of them richly human, nuanced, beautifully composed, and very funny. So call me neurotic. I can love the art, and not love the man.
6
Mr. Scott, you might want to backdate slightly the start of your Woody Allen examination -- say, to 1983, and "Zelig," a masterwork by any other name. Yes, Mia Farrow is there (in fact, she's always there, lurking watchfully in the background), as defender and passive love interest of "human chameleon" Leonard Zelig), but for one movie fan, Mr. Allen's achievement in conceiving and then realizing "Zelig" is more than enough to assure his place in purgatory if not paradise.
2
I always say Woody Allen is the Tyler Perry of a certain neurotic coastal elite. His characters are all the same.
1
The brilliance of Annie Hall and Manhattan alone, not to mention several other works, make Allen a great film maker. Condemning him for what he did not do, despite questionable allegations by Farrow (what has she done lately) is idiotic. People love to hate success and intelligence, especially when they don't have it.
2
What he did or did not do????? Really, he married his stepdaughter. That is enough to make him reprehensible. And questionable allegations by Farrow? Again, really, what about her son Ronan, brother to the victimized girls, he has done a lot lately, does that make him more dependable to you?
1
When you produce as many films as Woody, some are bound to be better than others, and there are going to be a few duds. Actually, his musical "Everybody Says I Love You" is one of my top 10 favorite films -- I had to buy the DVD since you can't stream it anywhere -- and it was a colossal flop. So, yes, he is a great filmmaker. As for his personal life, that's personal. As a reporter, I've interviewed writers and filmmakers over the years, and one of my favorite writers turned out to be the rudest, most unpleasant person I've ever met. But that didn't stop me from loving his books. And yes, not everyone "gets" Woody's milieu. I saw "Annie Hall" in Israel with another American friend, and we were the only ones in the theater laughing. Humor does not always translate. Unless you're French. See "Paris-Manhattan"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1885331/
1
You will look in vain for anything in here about dramaturgy, blocking, lighting, lens choice, editing, music, dialogue, sound design, set design, use of shadows, use of color, use of black and white, costumes, casting, or any other aspect of filmmaking.
Which you’d think would be relevant to the question in the headline.
That is, if you were being purposely naive about what Scott is doing—inoculating himself from any MeToo blowback based on his prior views of Allen’s films. He can dress it up as some Deep Cultural and Self-Criticism, but it’s one part me-too-a culpa and the other part clickbaitery.
11
Yes he is.
3
We live in a time where political correctness is both revered and assaulted. We have a true vulgarian monster occupying the White House while abused women are finally getting their illusive stage for complaint. The daily revelations of creepy men doing appalling things to women is a great catharsis for the women and a welcome shattering of careers for those men. And then there is Woody Allen.
I have not been either an ardent fan or a hater of his films. I also have more than passing familiarity with mental illness. Woody Allen does not in any way fit the mold of the typical female abuser, in my view. Here we have a young woman who clearly believes that Mr Allen abused her. I believe her and I also believe Mr Allen. This accusation was thoroughly vetted years ago. Now we have Mr Allen's alleged son, Ronan aka Satchel, inciting the mob. Notwithstanding the undeniable fact that said son looks more like Frank Sinatra and that his mother seems more like the unhinged cat lady than a protective mom, what is the payoff for these people to indict Mr Allen on the basis of a single charge?
The answer lays in the twisted family notions of payback that only exist in unhappy families. The actors that have publicly expressed their regrets for having worked with him need to come forward with evidence that Mr Allen has engaged in such abuse more than once. I have never witnessed a creepy man who was content with female abuse on a one-time basis.
12
"Dylan Farrow’s allegations and the other episode they bring up — the demise of Mr. Allen’s 12-year relationship with the actress Mia Farrow and his affair with her daughter Soon-Yi Previn, who is now his wife — are to many people, especially young people, a deal breaker, evidence of a creepiness they find impossible to see past."
You don't mention that before Woody Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi Previn he portrayed a man in his forties dating a 17 yr old girl and keeping her because of his "incredible sexual technique" in the movie Manhattan. This fantasy became a reality and creepiness revealed.
2
"You don't mention that before Woody Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi Previn he portrayed a man in his forties dating a 17 yr old girl and keeping her because of his "incredible sexual technique" in the movie Manhattan. This fantasy became a reality and creepiness revealed."
This is your twisted version of "Manhattan," which bears no relationship to the movie. Seek help.
3
I noticed that you didn’t say that the description was false.
This is sort of like the NYT's profile of sympathetic Nazis in the mid-west. With the wide, vast, wonderful world, why waste your time Tony, yet again considering the work of this middling filmmaker and real-life loser? I mean, it's not as if we haven't already heard enough about Allen's films.
Why not a retrospective consideration of literally any other filmmaker's work? I know, I know: the answer is that Woody Allen's name is clickbait. But I came for the critical thinking of A.O. Scott, and I hate to see it wasted on this tired and unworthy subject.
2
Mia Farrow was a great actress ( yes actress - gender is very important in this profession ) and woody Allan a great director ( for this profession gender is quite unimportant ) and while the Freudian emphasis here is titilating it is not admissible in jurisprudence . In the state of Connecticut results of a polygraph test are admissible and Allen’s exhaustive test showed he was not lying when he said that he did not molest Dylan Farrow : Mia Farrow constantly refuses to be polygraphed . Someone is lying . Until Mia Farrow takes the test by default it is not Woody Allen .
14
Of course he's a great filmmaker. 'Annie Hall, Manhattan, Take the Money And Run, Bullets Over Broadway, Everyone Says I Love You"...is there even a doubt?
Would we even be having this conversation if Mia Farrow's family, whenever he has a new movie being released, didn't trot out their hollow accusations that Allen's a pedophile, despite having no facts to prove their charges beyond a reasonable doubt?
No, we would not.
6
I may watch Woody Allen movies again when he is dead.
1
Blue Jasmine was a masterpiece. He wrote and directed it.
This picture alone cement him as a great filmmaker.
2
I don't remember Andy Warhol living a particularly prudent lifestyle but his paintings are hanging in the MOMA. Best not to think too deeply into these matters. If Woody Allen were creating family cartoons, I might feel more inclined to criticize his personal conduct. As things stand, I don't really want to have any part of it. The guy is weird. We can leave the discussion there.
I do resent the comment about young people though. Maybe I'm weird but, if you haven't already noticed, I don't particularly care. I enjoy Woody Allen's films for what they are. I'll forever chuckle at the "Annie Hall" sex scene with Diane Keaton reading a book. Otherwise though, Woody Allen was unique without being exceptional. Meh. His personal life won't determine whether I pay to see another Woody Allen film one or the other. I wasn't going to pay to see a new film anyway.
I think Woody Allen is a brilliant filmmaker. He has consistently captured, with humor, some of the idiosyncrasies of human nature. His humor sometimes borders on genius and sometimes is scatological. But, his work is always entertaining.
2
On top of everything else, somehow, in "Blue Jasmine," Woody Allen managed to remove all the gays from San Francisco. What's up with THAT?
Sorry if Mr. Allen excludes the subject you want him to write about. That is his prerogative as a writer/artist. Deal with it.
You should also be angry at Tony Bennett for not mentioning gays when he left his heart in San Francisco.
7
Perhaps the NYT could refuse to review any further Allen films just so they can make a reality of the courage of their convictions. I guess I am damaged but I still enjoy many of Allen's films. I also appreciate the fact that when you look at them, many show you New York as it no longer is; but only old people appreciate those things. I find it interesting too that for a "molester" he has remained married to this woman for 20 years and that's after a five year relationship which was after Soon-Yi left Ms. Farrow's home. In an article from Newsweek from 1992 Soon-Yi states, "I'm not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather-not by a long shot. I'm a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia. I admit it's offbeat, but let's not get hysterical. The tragedy here is that, because of Mia's vindictiveness, the children must suffer. I will always have a feeling of love for her because of the opportunities she gave me, but it's hard to forgive much that followed." Was she brainwashed? Stupid? Unaware? Only those involved know the truth. I haven't seen many of Allen's most recent movies (Blue Jasmine was the last one) but I can't help but remember how much pleasure they have given me through the years. It's a puzzlement. Of course, that's not true for those who have made up their minds.
41
Based on Soon Yi's statement, the critic might like to look at the question "Is Mia Farrow a great actress? Makes as much sense as this article.
2
It's impossible to ask the question whether or not WA is a great filmmaker and regulate the discussion to 10% of the his work. Dismissing "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" as unrepresentative of Allen's major works but simply as an "observer of the social mores of New Yorkers," seems like a cop out in order to steer the discussion towards the Mia Farrow years - presumably, to be provocative and keep focused on a social agenda - when the truth of the matter is that Farrow's involvement in Allen's filmography represents a mere 12 of the 47 films written and directed by Allen. Scott is right though. These are great films written in an inspired period, but why only should his "greatness" be determined by a period of 5-6 years?
But, okay, let's dismiss the pre-Farrow years and instead look at the post: "Bullets Over Broadway," "Mighty Aphrodite," "Match Point," "Blue Jasmine," "Midnight in Paris," "Vicky Christina Barcelona..."
These films alone would constitute a worthwhile and great oeuvre of any other writer/director. Woody's career as a filmmaker and as a writer isn't over and won't be over until he is dead and gone. And once that happens, and we're standing at the box office deciding between a movie based on a comic book and one about machines and technology we'll be sorry, longing fr the days in our seats watching the opening opening credits accompanied by a cozy 1940s Jazz tune and ending with the comforting words of "Written and Directed by Woody Allen."
19
How is this even a question?
Annie Hall is one of the great American films of the last century.
Manhattan and Blue Jasmine are borderline masterpieces themselves.
Sweet and Lowdown is underrated. Sleeper is a classic. Hannah may be the best of all. And so many others...
What does it take to be considered among the greats?
50
1- general consensus,
2, mastery of several genre in a given medium, and
2- the passing of time.
Mozart is a perfect example, as there is hardly anybody anywhere who doesn't agree that he is one of the greatest musical geniuses of the Western European Art Music tradition. And these same people agree that his output across the board whether chamber music, vocal works, instrumental sonatas, symphonic works, operas, etc. are uniformly superb. Over the last 250 years, his music has become some of the most performed in Western history.
Great like Kurosawa or Fassbinder? He literally asks the big questions but always asked by highly neurotic characters. He didn’t change the way we think about movies. I like Gus van sant and Robert Altman more.
2
....But did he make Golden Raspberries as thouroughly bad as 'Even Cowgirls Get The Blues' or 'Popeye'?
1
One of the things that we seem to be losing sight of these days is the distinction between the art and the artist. It is possible for one to be a great artist and a deplorable human being, and it should be possible for us to form an opinion on the quality of each piece on it's own merits without regard to the baggage the artist carries (unless that baggage is the subject of the art).
It should, for example, be possible to admire the art of the acting performances of Kevin Spacey that one has already consumed, while at the same time deciding not to view his performances in any medium that grants him income going forward. The Usual Suspects did not go from a great movie to a terrible one with the revelations of his behavior.
13
If we actually knew what some of famous artists were like, we would never watch any of their shows. When someone like Kevin Spacey or Charlie Rose get booted off their shows? Sure, they deserve it. But everyone else who worked on the program has to go to the unemployment office.
2
Allen conflated the real world and dramatic world in his films, most notably by appearing in them as himself: the joke was that he was "playing" a character, an act that came naturally to him, hence he was all the more himself in front of the camera.
Also, the themes and other people in his films were issues and people in his lives, most notably, psychotherapy and Mia Farrow. Allen's films are creative nonfiction, and he uses humor and narrative to keep us from identifying his works as strictly documentaries.
Therefore, it is not so easy to separate the man from his films. Watching a Woody Allen film is watching Woody Allen, and to me that is not unlike what it would have been like to watch surveillance camera footage of the many Harvey Weinstein interactions when women were sent to his hotel room for business. Both men are playing themselves, and the degree to which one is fiction and the other is not should be discussed in the philosophy of art salons, such as this comment section.
Weinstein tried to hide his actions, which had the effect of fictionalizing them, making them appear to have not happened -- to many his activity was myth. He fell from greatness when it became known his actions were real, not fictional, as so many other men have been outed, and it could be said that this was the biggest and truest "film" release of his career.
Both men used fiction to cover up their real lives, Allen did it in the dramatic world and Weinstein did it in the legal world.
6
I am a filmmaker and a huge fan of Woody Allen's movies. They have been influential on me as a filmmaker and many have them have made me laugh until I cried. I am 65 now and have so many artistic heroes that have done despicable things. That is why I judge the art, not the artist. That is why I don't really like to know about the artist's life. I just want to purely experience their art. If not, I would be banning Picasso from my consciousness, Henry Miller, Roman Polanski, the list is endless. I don't like every one of Allen's films, but I will continue to see them. I'm sure he has a few gems left in him and I do believe he will go down in history as one of the great filmmakers of all time.
63
Ultimately Woody Allen's greatness and his relevance to our lives in the late 20th and early 21st centuries will be determined by his films' longevity, the extent to which they drive our conversation. While Scott may have determined for himself that we must judge the man by his "neurosis," I have a sneaking suspicion that Woody's films will be a part of our lexicon for generations to come and that his comic generosity and determination to make his life a part of his art will always mean he's regarded as a great film artist.
20
Woody Allen is a genius, pure and simple. To say anything else is unfair and disingenuous. His films have stood the test of time and will continue to do so.
While there are allegations against him, the investigation into those allegations at the time they were made cleared him.
You can dislike Allen as a person and think what you want about him, but you cannot deny the greatness of his work as a filmmaker.
59
This is a beautiful and thoughtful essay. I appreciate the emphasis on loving partnerships in art--so often the role of the female partner is minimized. This overview suggests that Woody Allen called himself out as fallible and worse, as capable of the worst deeds throughout his films. Following romantic tradition, the victims of these acts would suffer silently, or in the age of Freud, they could work through their suffering with their therapists. Public shaming and reprobation of a "perpetrator" is something new, and changes all the rules. What's also different is the idea that victims or survivors will demand public acknowledgement of the harm they've experienced, and some way to know it won't happen again to them or someone else. In the romantic vision of Woody Allen, it will happen again, over and over, such is life.
2
Great artists are not always great people. Compound that with the changing of times and social norms and it becomes difficult to separate character from creativity. The same actions that made a man seemed enlightened toward women in 1800 might get him fired in 2010, and in both cases the reaction would be correct...for the time. I think that the temporal and cultural distance between ourselves and current pariahs like Kevin Spacey or Woody Allen is so small that it becomes impossible to watch their works and separate them from what we know of their character. However, I can view a painting by any old master without knowing a thing about his personal conduct or political views, and just enjoy the painting for what it is. I don't see that dichotomy changing.
11
Controversy of Manhattan aside (not one of my favorites), I agree with the sentiment that any filmmaker with the resume of Annie Hall, Sleeper, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Hannah and her Sisters along with Manhattan Murder Mystery would be a candidate for a Kennedy Center Award. Not all of his films are hits, to be sure. Aside from the drama surrounding his extended relations, many viewers have opinions on whether he channels his personal life thru his movies. He says no. He remains controversial for his films and his sometimes nebbish character. So be it, those films above should put him in the Hall of Fame. Period.
25
Woody Allen is definitely a great filmmaker. Not for having a 'perfect record' or anything like that, but for his consistent and prolific output and for his independence of vision. Over his career he's made a lot of greats and he's made a lot of not-so-greats. But he keeps going and he keeps going. I like that approach and I think that's what makes him great.
I think the tropes in his films are clues toward understanding a whole picture. Looking at them as a lens, or worse, as evidence toward his own (alleged) personal behavior is a big mistake. Maybe the films are revealing, but then, maybe they're not. Because the subject that we are hoping to glean from–Sexism, and all of its iterations, machinations and ramifications–is part of us. It's a part of our society that we must try to understand deeply if we are to have a reckoning.
27
I agree that status as a "great" artist is an arbitrary and subjective label. if we take all the molesters and mysogynists out of the museum's there will be no lack of previously "undiscovered" contemporaries to choose from to fill the blank walls as a result. Women, people of color, indigenous people, you name it, we're excluded from consideration at the time when Gaugin was stunning the world with color while infecting his young adolescent models with syphilis. I have always loved his work but don't believe for a second that there weren't any number of people in the world at that time who demonstrated innovative approaches to painting who would without the cultural filters of the time I with Gaugin on merit. There's a separate inquiry to be made as to what value there is in the linear development of what we have decided is Western "history of art." This could apply equally to film makers, writers and actors. If white males dominate "the Art History narrative" it's not because they were superior. They had access and preference. I am ambivalent about revisions to the narrative but at a time when we are facing up to the dirty past and tearing down Confederate monuments I believe the effort has merit so we can acknowledge that the "geniuses" we have put on pedestals are there at a cost to veracity.
7
Scott's essay is thoughtful but at the same time it completely dances around the fact that Allen is still alive, Allen is not a long dead artist. That matters.
1. It makes judging Allen's complete works of films and contributions too soon yet Scott thinks we should be doing that right now. "Why do that now"? now is a question Scott should be asking himself.
2. Again -- Allen is alive -- which makes Allen possibly criminal even if too much time has past to prosecute. Hence, Allen is more than just "creepy" (Scott's words about how millennial talk about Allen, which sounded dismissive to me).
3 AND All of the above makes the movie watcher to some small degree complicit if they watch Allen's films. THAT's why many serious film viewers do not see Allen's films anymore. Why be complicit Mr Scott? It is a serious question.
When Allen had died: as always with artists -- there will be re-assessments of his life's work. Let's wait til then OK Mr Scott? No rushing on Allen's account needed as far as I can see.
5
He was cleared and not prosecuted. Whatever you think of his behavior you cannot call him criminal.
6
Complicit in what? It would be convenient if everything about a "bad" person were bad, and everything about a "good" person were good. But life is inconveniently complex. Many people have done both great things and terrible things. Watching a movie you enjoy is not an endorsement of the artist as a person. And none of it has anything to do with whether or not the artist is alive.
3
Jeepers. Do we all have to be "complicit" in Wagner's hatred of Jews if we watch and enjoy any of his operas too?
3
Why not at least touch on "Manhattan?" (I hope I have the title right.)
Where Allen beds a 16 year old?
That would seem relevant for multiple themes raised in your article.
I remember many classic moments from earlier Woody Allen movies.
I found it difficult to continue enjoying his work, years ago - well before all he was accused was laid out in front of us.
30
The female character was 17 and 17 is the age of consent in the state of New York. However, whether he molested a seven-year-old is a criminal issue.
1
Actually, she was 17.
2
I think this is the crux of the matter or, at the very least, indicative of intellectual rigor: it was Mr. Allen's CHARACTER who bedded a 16 year-old.
2
When I’m watching a Woody Allen movie – or any movie – I live in that world and experience it on its own terms. Period. If I think so little of the director, or the stars, or anything else external to the film itself, I simply don’t enter that world. (Cf. Mel Gibson.)
For myself, “Hannah and her Sisters“ and“ Broadway Danny Rose“ are two beautiful works of art that I will return to as long as I live.
41
The older I've gotten the less I've liked Allen's films. In High School and early college I was absolutley enamored in large part becuase I knew little of art or cinema and thought Allen was brillant by means of name dropping Freud, Flaubert, Bergman etc. and engaging in intellectual converstaions in the backdrop of beautiful New York. As I grew older, and ironically, engaged with some of the figures Allen name dropped I realized how shallow his movies were and how he just engaged in pseudo-intellectualism typically with the same upper class white characters with the same neuroses and sentiments. Looking back the films of his I now like best are his "early funny ones" as they were, and still are, very funny but I mostly can't take bear him when he tries to be "serious" anymore.
69
The older I've gotten the less I like Monty Python, which I loved when I was younger.
But I actually think I like Allen more now than when I was younger because many of his early movies were silly.
2
The humor in many of Allen's movies is based on characters who ".....engaged in pseudo-intellectualism typically with the same upper class white characters with the same neuroses and sentiments. That is the source of the humor, that is what is funny, and brilliant. It seems to me your criticism is equivalent to finding fault with a filmmaker of westerns because you have decided you don't like cowboys anymore. Your views are personal to you, which is fine of course, but not relevant to the greatness of the filmmaker.
5
"A look at the archive of reviews, and a sampling of his prolific body of work, reveals that his reputation as a major artist — as something more than a comedian or an observer of the social mores of New Yorkers, a prisoner of his own mannerism and preoccupations — rests on the movies he made in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, the years of his involvement with Mia Farrow."
I think most of Allen's fans would say, it's the early funny films, culminating in "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan," and it is a limited, snooty vision to claim one cannot be a "major artist" unless one is "something more" than a comedian. And while the social mores of New Yorkers is restricted, many, if not most, great artists have concentrated their works on a small world (Homer on down), because, after all, we are all human, and the specific if well chosen generalizes.
15
Woody Allen is the greatest most underrated film director in American history. is as simple as that. no other director has ever shown us the whole spectrum of human behavior and emotions in such candid and at times terrifying ways. allen is still as prolific as he was 40 or 50 years ago, a testament to how much he still has to say and share about the human condition. without artifice, he has revealed more of our contradictions than any other director ever did or will.
89
he has won four Academy Awards, ten BAFTA awards, and two Golden Globe Awards... he is a multi-millionaire who releases any film he wants every year with A-list talent. I think he's good.
I was a fan and loved the early films, everyone could relate to a degree but this is not the human condition. This is a narcissistic and warped fantasy. Read up on the Mariel Hemingway interviews being the teen object of his desire. His sickness outran his talent.
4
Really? I thought he was pretty boring years ago so I stopped watching him then. Now, I have no reason to watch his films at all.
2
It would seem that people that live in NYC or Los Angeles think Allen is a genius. The rest of America finds him lacking, although he has done a few very good films.
22
The rest of the world and the US in particular are not illiterate rubes waiting for the next Dumb and Dumberer. Allen's body of work, from the first comedies though Crimes and Misdemeanors, Match Point, and even Cafe Society beautifully exploring the vagaries of life's turns and how our choices are always suspect, are splendid thought provoking movies. We hicks even get this out here in the mountains of Western North Carolina.
5
Nobody outside of NYC or LA watch Allen's films? Many theaters not in either city bring his films in. Getting the financial backing still means he is a moneymaker though no mega director. His films don't fill the mega action, super special effects slots that much like for today's movies. Woody isn't going to make any Star Wars but will make movies showing human flaws and vulnerability. His movies tend to show males as being extremely weak and flawed, though his female characters also do much of the time though not as flawed.. Any character he has played certainly are not positive roles or even close. If one didn't know him I would swear he was a female director with a touch of male hatred much of the time. never mind his weird sense of humor operating below the surface.
3
If you want a great film about "the rest of America", see "Nebraska." It is brilliant and spot on. I know. My parents were from Nebraska. "Three Billboards is a pretty good portrayal of "the rest of America." So is Ashley Judd in "Ruby in Paradise", which is set in Florida.
2