Did Woody Allen Molest His Daughter, Dylan Farrow? And If So, Should You Disavow His Films?

The New York Times’
Nicholas Kristof has posted
a letter from Dylan Farrow, the daughter of Woody Allen and Mia
Farrow, in which Dylan says her father repeatedly sexually abused
her:

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you
should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the
hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor
of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my
brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He
talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl,
that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d
be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train,
focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To
this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains….

Dylan Farrow (also known as Malone Farrow) has
circulated the letter because Allen is the recipient of a
Golden Globe Lifetime Achievement Award and is nominated for an
Oscar.

In an introductory note, Kristof writes that Allen “was never
prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he
deserves the presumption of innocence” but also that “because
countless people on all sides have written passionately about these
events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at
the heart of them.”

Farrow’s letter concludes:

Imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by
Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at
the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her
tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen
movie?

Read the whole thing.

The issue has many similarities with the controversy surrounding
Roman Polanski, who in 1978
pled guilty to a charge of unlawful sex with a minor and then
fled the United States before the sentencing phase. In 2009, when
Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and put under house arrest,
many critical admirers and Hollywood associates of the director
came to his defense, saying that he should not be imprisoned
despite his admission of guilt.

Allen, of course, has never been prosecuted, let alone
convicted, of any sex crime. As Farrow writes in her open
letter:

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my
mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of
probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words
of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” 

In a recent story
at The Daily Beast, Robert B. Weide, who directed a documentary
about Allen, throws significant shadows on the claims made by the
Farrows (Dylan, brother Ronan, and mother Mia) over the years while
hardly exonerating Allen. “Did this event actually occur?,” asks
Weide, “If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each
believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult
Malone (Dylan) say it happened? Because she obviously believes it
did, so good for her for speaking out about it.” By his own
admission, Weide doesn’t say he can definitively say what did or
didn’t happen, but he makes a strong case that the accusations,
while doubtless believed by Dylan Farrow, are not true.

With the understanding that clarity doesn’t abound in the case,
I’m curious as to how readers feel about evaluating creative work
in light of not simply scandalous but criminal biography. In the
case of Polanski, I’ve generally stopped seeing his films, a
decision made easy by the fact that most of his movies are simply
terrible. With some few notable exceptions, his output is
tilted decidedly more toward execrable junk like Pirates, Frantic,
Fearless Vampire Killers, and The Ninth Gate than it is toward
Chinatown. Similarly for Allen, who ceased to produce consistently
interesting movies decades
ago (IMO at least).

But is there a general principle that should be applied? If
artists are not simply awful human beings but criminals, should we
turn away from their work? Arthur Koestler
was a rapist, according to one of his biographers. Does that
mean his great anti-totalitarian novel, Darkness at Noon, should go
unread? Edmund Wilson was a wife-beater, Picasso well beyond a
sociopath, and on and on. When it comes to figures such as Martin
Heidegger (an actual Nazi) and Paul de Man (a Nazi collaborator)
and others in the past, the question is simpler: We can add new
disclosures or information to a study of their influence and an
estimation of whether their reputations are deserved. When faced
with living, breathing creators such as Allen and Polanski, that
sort of dodge isn’t really available. Add to that the notion that
even the most devoted critic of either would have to really be nuts
to claim that The Curse of the Jade Scorpion or another version of
Oliver Twist would justify a parking ticket much less sexual abuse
of children.

What do you think readers? When – if ever – does the biography
of a creator mean that you cannot or should not in good conscience
patronize an artist?