Not as Enjoyable to Read (or Write!) as Satire

Don't you hate it when you try to write a blog and you can't quite get your words in order... and The Onion articulates it perfectly?!

We disagree on so many things, but there are a few things we claim to agree upon, hands-down, no questions asked. One of those issues that everyone agrees on is that violence against children, including sexual abuse, is absolutely, always, no-doubt-about-it wrong. We start disagreeing when we talk about teenagers and how we define where childhood ends, but we've roughly estimated it at age 18, and that's what we've agreed upon as a nation. Age 7 is definitely, definitely well below within the boundary, and there is no room for debate.

Ronan Farrow tweeted regarding Woody Allen's recognition at the Golden Globes (which I didn't actually watch). He missed the tribute, and tweeted:

"...did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?"

My brain went in about 100 directions when I read about the tweet. Just because someone has made some great art, do they get a pass on seedy behavior? I don't mean legally, because legally, no they don't - at least theoretically. I am not talking about the justice system, but how deviants are viewed socially and historically.

IF the allegations that Woody Allen molested a 7 year old are true. If it's true, then the if/then chart leads us back to the law. This legal situation  involves another of Mia Farrow's daughter's accusations. But that court case was, according to CNN, dropped.

So my debate is not whether or not Woody Allen is guilty. It's about that gray area of humanity where we draw the line between open-mindedness and common sense, between judging a person we don't know and being forced to judge in order to protect the innocent. And between art and its creator.

He clearly has some disturbing proclivities and isn't deterred by the most widely accepted social mores. You know the one I mean, the one that says you don't marry your common-law stepchild.

However, in spite of the fact that we, as a society, find him icky, he keeps making movies. And we, at least some of us, keep enjoying them! I myself am guilty! I guess I can let myself off the hook for enjoying the old ones, right? But then I had to see the one with that guy I like, and before you know it, I'm watching the films of a person who I am pretty sure is a guy I would not let into my home, really. Take away the talent and genius (yeah, I'm actually going to say I think he is a genius, although many disagree) and what are you left with? A creepy dude at the very least. But you can't separate the genius from the man. How is it, though, that people seem to manage to separate the creepy?

So he has pretty much violated our most sacred code, and aside from some negative PR here and there, he hasn't really suffered publicly, absolutely not enough to lose his career and wealth. He remains a sought-after talent.  And here is the real, chewy nougat of the problem at hand:

Should he be allowed to continue to do that? Who is allowing him to do that? Everyone who's not trying to stop him? I could blame myself and all of us guilty of watching the films, but we can only watch them after they've been made and lots of money has already been exchanged. And I definitely had nothing to do with him getting an award! So here's the real question: why are people, people who can actually really hire and fire this guy, so enamored of celebrities that they'll put up with the worst behavior? Because the truth is - nobody's listening to ME and my friends. The people in charge are working with him because they choose to do so. And I think it's weird, at the very least. Because surely there are some geniuses out there who do NOT give us all the heebie-jeebies.

So what's wrong with these studio executives who will continue to work with him? How do they decide that they must develop his work, when there are literally millions of un-produced works of art up for grabs? Sure, he's made some great movies. How about giving someone new a chance, since we've already gotten an enormous amount of entertainment out of this guy's brain? 

What makes one scandal a nightmare with the firings, and pulling of the merchandise and another scandal almost unmentioned? The Food Network fired Paula Deen. In 1997, Marv Albert was fired  because of a sex scandal. Of course, he ended up becoming more successful than ever after beating the rap, but the point is that employers have the right to fire people. Executives have the power to terminate contracts. Studio executives have the right to refuse to produce scripts. While Paula Deen had and still has her supporters, that network was within their right to fire her if that's what the bosses decided to do. She can find a way to make a living elsewhere. She isn't in jail; she just got fired. 

But we've long been inconsistent about who we persecute and who we revere. (Don't even get me started on Bill Clinton.) There was some backlash when Woody Allen married his former common-law stepdaughter, but have we just decided, as a culture, that it is far enough in the past? In a few decades, will we be seeing tributes to Mel Gibson? He's all but banished. Why? Because he said some very stupid, vile things. Because he was violent, or at least threatened to be. Those were terrible things to have said, and everyone understands why everyone is appalled by his words. Why, though? Because he got caught. And in this case, we just have the word of one person against another. 

So why do some people "get away with it" and some don't? Is it the greatness of their art? Isn't that subjective?

When you look at a Picasso, do you think of the string of heartbroken wives and lovers and their children whose father was undoubtedly ridiculously selfish? What about when you're reading Hemingway, which students are often required to read?! A long time ago, I saw Beth Ann Fennelly read a poem she wrote, "Letter from Gauguin's Daughter." She nailed it! I highly, highly recommend everyone look her up and buy some of her poetry. 

It's a long standing tradition, it seems, for the talented, to often also be awful, and maybe we've resigned ourselves to that. Too many examples come to mind to list them all, but notably, Picasso and Hemingway. Their art survives and maintains its value. They were womanizers. Not someone who got caught up in some feelings and had some relationship overlap. Not midlife crises. Not young guys who did some carousing and then settled down. These guys were lifelong, pathological cheaters. Hemingway at least said he'd left his wife for another woman, "because I am a bastard." Is there anything to be said for the self-awareness? Or was that just narcissism?

And maybe, because these guys are very long dead, we can now enjoy their art left over, just as we could the inheritance we might receive from a dastardly uncle.

But womanizers from a century ago still aren't considered as vile as pedophiles. And while I admit to adoring "Annie Hall" I think a lot of what Woody Allen has done has seemed very repetitive. And I don't mind that, either. It's just that I don't think even a magnificent body of work excuses ill intentions, and surely there is at least one nice person somewhere making great films who could have garnered the award recently bestowed him! Sort of how you might be very qualified for a job, and although the employer can't legally discriminate against you, they can still choose to hire someone "better suited" once they see the Facebook photos from your "SPRING BREAK 2008" album.

At least someone finally arrested Roman Polanski, (caution, this link is explicit) - and at least Salon remembers!Thank you, Kate Harding!  To pretty much everyone else, where was the outrage? And there's that nagging fact that  Roman Polanski admitted guilt, and Woody Allen has not.  The mere suggestion of such things is enough to ruin most ordinary people's lives, or at least alter them permanently for the worse. Where are the ordinary consequences? And does the guy really need an award at this point? Was no one else deserving? Who voted on this? I guess I could look up some of these questions and delve further into it, but I'm not going to waste my time because not one thing I could read would sufficiently answer the real question: Why?!

So... I guess at this point, all I'm asking is this: Hey, famous-movie-producing-money-having and award-giving-out people? What are you thinking?