The Woody Allen Dilemma

I am second to none in my admiration of Woody Allen, the artist. Since I was in high school, I have devoured his work as a filmmaker, a stand-up comedian, a playwright, and a writer. In fact, I can trace my ambition to be a writer and a creative person to him. In my opinion, he is unequaled as a comic genius.

But is he a great man, as well as being a great artist? I have no idea. And there are hints that he is not. His relationship with his de facto step-daughter, though it has lasted for more than twenty years, gives many of us a bad taste in our mouths. And we are once again reminded of the accusation against him of sexual assault on a minor, as Dylan Farrow has written an open letter accusing him of such a crime upon her when she was seven years old, a charge Allen denies, and which he was never charged, let alone, convicted of.

I have no idea who is telling the truth in this matter, and only two people in the world know for sure--Dylan and Allen. There has been a firestorm of commentary on the Internet about this--whether a child can have a reliable memory, whether many choose to believe Allen because he is a white celebrity, etc. But I think what's interesting to me about this, beyond what Dylan and Allen are going through, is whether it matters to me as an admirer of his. Can we, should we, separate the art from the artist?

It's an old problem. There have many geniuses who have been problematic. Picasso was a horrible man, Charlie Chaplin favored young girls, Ezra Pound was a Nazi. Does this mean we can not enjoy their work? Some people will make this distinction, and I can't say that they're wrong in doing so. But is it our responsibility, as patrons of the arts, to research the foibles of everyone we watch, read, or hear? Woody Allen may be a pedophile, but what about the many other actors, directors, painters, singers, musicians, etc. who may have skeletons in their closets? Sure, we know about Allen's accusation because he is far more famous, and we can't unlearn it, but ultimately, should it matter?

This extends even further than the artist's possible crimes. There is now a habit of choosing to boycott people we disagree with politically. My mother, for example, won't watch any movies with Susan Sarandon because of her leftist politics. I think that's kind of silly, as it won't hurt Sarandon at all, and may deprive my mother of watching a movie she might otherwise like. But I've probably done that myself. The instant I hear about some celebrity, like Jon Voight or Kelsey Grammer, make some asinine political statement, my appreciation for them goes down considerably. But I don't think I would take the step of refusing to watch a Frasier re-run. One separates the art from the artist.

I'm also troubled by rushes to judgment. I can understand why Ronan Farrow supports his sister, but for the casual person in the street, do we really have to be told over and over again that the accused are presumed innocent? Until I know otherwise, I have to presume Allen is innocent, while deeply sympathizing with Dylan Farrow's plight.

Maybe I'm being too cold-hearted in all this. Maybe I shouldn't be watching the films of Roman Polanski, who was convicted of a crime. Maybe I'm putting my selfish needs to be entertained ahead of the victims, alleged or not. But I don't think I'm wrong, and I've made my peace with it. The next Woody Allen that comes out, I'll be there in the theater.