Woody allen dating his daughter
It's more like a moral version of consumer advocacy, dedicated to recommending products of which one approves.
Cinema, television, literature, past and present, are all filled with important figures who are morally reprehensible, in some cases criminal. People make bad films, in some cases disgusting or depraved films, and I write about them, with a jaundiced eye, I would hope. It is also a mistake to assume that because you haven't heard something horrible about an artist you like, that they have done nothing horrible.
If you could have read the accompanying text, it would have said something like, "Quite a lovely image, too bad he's a child molester."Such reactions mean that deep down, I must believe Dylan. To suppress such reactions to Allen's work, in the name of not "spoiling" my reaction to films I love, would be personally dishonest. You can't just decide not to feel the way you feel. More importantly, trying to suppress that reaction would be tantamount to denying that Allen molested Dylan. As a witness to, and survivor of, domestic abuse in childhood, I just can't do that. So, Woody Allen has gone, in my mind, from "One of the great American filmmakers" to "One of the great American filmmakers, and probably a child molester." It's a different lens through which to view a director's work, that's for sure. I did it with Mike Tyson, one of the great American boxers and also a convicted rapist and serial batterer and one-time mugger.
If he makes a good movie I'll give it a positive review, and if he makes a bad one I'll pan it.And I'm not going to pretend to be unaware of or unaffected by knowledge of these allegations as I write about his work.I don't judge anyone who says they'll continue to watch his films and patronize new ones. It's an attempt to describe my attitude toward a man who was once simply an artist but has become an issue.I'll find a way to do this with Woody Allen's work, too.It might make my response to his films more detached and analytical, perhaps colder in some ways, like the point-of-view of somebody studying a long-dead artist whose creative achievements and personal decisions occurred deep in the past, and are now a part of a bottomless collection of facts. It'll take some time, and it will be tricky, and there will be missteps along the way, but I'll do it. *************************************** I was surprised by how much attention this piece received, and somewhat taken aback by the number of readers who were of the opinion, essentially, "if you don't approve of this artist, you should never write about them again." As if it were possible to somehow "starve" an artist or celebrity of attention and "punish" them or make them go away. The role of the critic is to write about the culture. I don't believe in selectively deciding not to write about people for this reason or that reason. It may be a perfectly wonderful other kind of writing, but I don't think it can be called criticism.