Well, the irony is that according to those who've read it, like Catherine Bennett in the Guardian, it's not at all a whitewash job crushing all the accusations and portraying him as a jolly decent chap who's been unfairly maligned. On the contrary, it makes his rampant misogyny crystal clear and destroys his once shiny reputation.
In which case we should all be reading it to acquaint ourselves with his thoroughly predatory attitudes.
But the row once again raises the question, is it right to ban books, or any other artistic product, because of the off-stage behaviour of the person concerned?
To my mind, a person's artistic output should be judged on its intrinsic merit, and however reprehensible their personal life, that's an entirely separate issue.
Once you start saying a book should be boycotted because of the author's "misbehaviour", you're politicising it and weaponising it. Art shouldn't be a political football, it should be a cultural experience pure and simple.
Otherwise what's the difference between right-on politicos shunning the work of a "misogynist" author and a government banning a book it deems "immoral" or "subversive" or "unpatriotic"? They're both claiming the right to decide for the rest of us what's in the public interest and what isn't. And who gave them that right? Not me, for one.
All the controversy has just whetted my appetite to read the book and see for myself just how much unbridled lechery was hidden behind the charming facade.
PS: Here's a more positive review of the book - https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/120726348/book-review-apropos-of-nothing-by-woody-allen
He's a distasteful person. I'm not boycotting the book, just not interested in anything he has to say.
ReplyDeleteMike: He's made some excellent films, so I shall continue to revisit those. But my opinion of him as a person has nosedived.
DeleteHe has every right to get published, just as I have every right to not buy his book. If he was truly repentant, he'd donate any proceeds to a women's organization.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: Good idea. But maybe he's spent all his money on legal battles and needs the cash?
DeleteHe's a paedophile and misogynist and I no longer watch his films or even have the remotest interest in his writing. If you revisit the films you will see the creepiness on full display. He is despicable.
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating censorship but I would hate to see others swallowing his lechery and predation by spending money on his filth.
XO
WWW
www: I think it's up to individuals to decide whether they want to get his side of the story or not. Attempted censorship will only encourage more people to read the book.
DeleteHow does "wisewebwoman" know that he is a paedophile ? He has not been sentenced and he is certainly not the only misogynist ön earth. The US have a pussy grabber at their head and prince Andrew seems to like very young girls too..the list is long. I'm adult and can decide what I want to read or not..
DeleteRosa: Indeed, there are serious claims against him but he's never been convicted, so to keep repeating such claims as if they're true is malicious. And yes, many many men are sexually twisted, but that doesn't mean everything they say and do should be written off.
DeleteI don't like censorship, whether official or by group pressure. He is of no interest to me, not being a film buff, but if he were I would read it nomatter what his current reputation.
ReplyDeleteFly: I'm keen to read it myself after all the hullabaloo it's attracted. Without all the fuss, I would probably barely have noticed it.
DeleteNot my cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteRamana: Fair enough.
DeleteI've never been a Woodie Allen fan, so it's of no interest to me one way or another.
ReplyDeleteJean: Well, even if you have no interest in him, I would be worried by the attempt to tell people what they should read and what they shouldn't.
DeleteI definitely agree with what Bijoux said! Honestly, I've always found Woody Allen to be very creepy, so I have zero interest in reading his book. I agree that he has the right to be published. It's just way too slippery of a slope to start banning books. It's up to people to make the choice for themselves who or what they want their money to support. There are two fiction authors I used to love but refuse to read now because of something in their books. That's absolutely my choice as an individual, just as it's the choice to keep reading them that their millions of other fans are obviously still making. Just think of all the great books we wouldn't have if it were easy to ban books.
ReplyDeleteDanielle: Absolutely, we should be able to choose what we read and what we don't without some bunch of political zealots making the decision for us. Indeed, how many great books would have perished if book-banning was routine.
DeleteThere's no such thing as bad publicity?
ReplyDeleteI've never been a Woody Allen fan but my Dave likes his movies. We won't be buying his book but I support his right to publish it.
Linda: I'm sure all the controversy will have created a big boost in sales.
DeleteI never, ever liked Woody Allen. I never went to a movie, and I'd never buy his book. That's censorship enough for me.
ReplyDeleteJoanne: That's the thing, you've decided for yourself whether to watch his films or not. Why should someone else make that decision for you?
DeleteJoanne, do I understand you correctly that you "never went to a movie [of his]?" yet you "never, ever liked Woody Allen"?
DeleteHow is that possible? Was it dislike at first sight without seeing? Sure, he is not the most appealing of men, physically. But what he may lack in sex appeal (as did the Hunchback of Notre Dame) he sure does make up with finely honed neuroses and a caustic wit.
As to the smears, attempts to take down a man, let's not forget he made fine films well before Mia Farrow went on the rampage. As an aside, and addressed to you, Nick, reminds me of Polanski (considering both Allen and Polanski are film makers) and of course, throughout history, so many people whose work worth more than the sum of their (possible) private shortcomings and misdemeanours.
My main question, Joanne, how can you "dislike" someone on the basis of nothing? I find your assertion baffling and, frankly, disheartening.
U
Ursula: Polanski is a good case in point. British film distributors refused to touch his new film "An Officer and a Spy" because of his personal behaviour. So nobody can see what is said to be an excellent film.
DeleteAllen never had any shining character or history. He is despicable.
ReplyDeleteSusan: That's a pretty decisive verdict!
DeleteI agree, let books be published, then each person can determine whether or not they want to read some author's books. I'm reminded of a woman who wrote of her incestuous relationship with her biological father. I chose to read the book years ago despite how repelled I was by that relationship because I had admired the father's artistic talents. I had seen him perform and had been totally shocked when I heard her reveal this in a TV interview promoting her book.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in the mood right now for reading autobiographies, or whatever his book is, but may eventually read Woody Allen's -- probably when I can pick up a good quality cheap used copy, or paperback if it goes to paper. It's been pretty obvious the kind of person he is so likely nothing in the book will be a shock, just some details he might reveal not previously clear.
I liked his quirky movies and characters but any time I've viewed any for years now, the kind of person he is has colored my perspective, intruding into my thinking about the storyline just for itself which is sad in a way..
Joared: You say it was obvious the sort of man he was, but I must say I never saw him as creepy until all the unsavoury allegations came along. I shall reserve judgment on him until I've read the memoir.
DeleteThe mere fact of his developing the relationship he did with a young girl to whom he was supposed to be a father figure spoke volumes to me — even though she was not a blood relative and they later even wed. I can tell you from personal experience those of most concern often are not perceived as creepy — until after their behaviors are revealed, and even then not by some— especially as the individual rationalizes their actions.
DeleteJoared: I think you're right that many creepy men don't necessarily come over as creepy, until someone spills the beans. They've often perfected a charming, harmless exterior to hide their private inclinations.
DeleteI always think it's a shame that hundreds of episodes of TOTPs can't be screened because of YOU KNOW WHO. All that pop history out the window. But then again I don't really want to see his ugly face again.
ReplyDeleteAs for Woody Allen - I was never that keen, and his films didn't appeal to me. I know people who raved about him - so I tried to watch, maybe I was too young at the time?
SXX
Ms Scarlet: I share your disappointment. Why shouldn't they be shown, perhaps with a short trailer explaining Savile's sexual misconduct? I guess you either love Woody Allen's films or they leave you cold. There seems to be no in-between.
DeleteI think he absolutely has the right to publish and people absolutely have the right to read it. But for me, I think he's loathsome and I'm not interested in anything he has to say. And, more to the point, I wouldn't want to put a single penny into supporting him.
ReplyDeleteAgent: It's clear now that he's a relentless misogynist, but he's made some excellent films which I enjoy watching. Cate Blanchett is terrific in Blue Jasmine.
DeleteI've never seen a Woody Allen movie I've liked, and that was before I knew what sort of person he was.
DeleteAgent: There seem to be two types of people - those who love his films and those who loathe them.
Delete