If Cate Blanchett wins the Academy Award for Best Actress today for her breathtaking performance in Blue Jasmine, will she thank Woody Allen? Should she thank Woody Allen? Could she refuse the award altogether on moral grounds? Or can she find a way to accept the award without mentioning her director at all?
When Cate‘s (hopefully) called to the stage in her no-doubt flawless gown, she’ll hug presenter Jennifer Lawrence and stand at the podium, possibly tearful but probably composed (because Cate) and deliver the most highly anticipated and utterly fraught acceptance speech in history.
The whole world will be watching, breathlessly, waiting to see if she acknowledges Woody Allen or not.
In that victorious moment, will Cate think about Dylan Farrow? Will Dylan’s allegations of sexual assault against Woody Allen enter her head?
Remember that when Dylan wrote the words “For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away,” She added: “What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett?”
In that one personal appeal, Cate Blanchett was pulled into the fray of Woody Allen’s scandal. Journalists and famous people around the world have got some strong suggestions for what Cate should do.
One Tree Hill's Bethany Joy Lenz Lived In A Cult For 10 Years
The Spill
Top Comments
Blanchett's insistence on making women central
to the movies, not niche figures, was an extraordinary tribute to
Allen--a personal tribute. In film after film, he writes great parts
for women, and in film after film, women win awards and nominations for
the best because of those great parts and great writing. I see lots of
anti-feminism in articles and blogs quickly dismissing Blanchett's achievement to write
about old wacko abuse charges which no unbiased person who studies the
case in detail can possibly believe and tthat n the woman-hating
references to Diane Keaton, Scarlett Johansson, Penelope
Cruz, Soon-Yi Previn, etc., etc. Blue Jasmine may be the greates and Bnchett's performance may be the best of a complex woman, but Allen's
films feature over and over interesting, smart women at the nub of their
plots and no other American film director (compare him to
Scorsese, the Cohns, Frank Capra--anyone) comes within a mile of
featuring so many bright, complex interesting roles for women in their
work. Down with the anti-feminism and irresponsibility of false accusation in the attacks on Allen and the questioning of Blanchett's demeanor.
When you say women, are you also referring to the 17 year old who played his romantic interest in Manhattan; to his 40 year old? You do not know if thes accusations are false, any more than you know that they are true. I for one feel that his misogyny shines through his depictions of women. I find them one dimensional and brittle.
What doesn't sit well with me is the focus on Cate Blanchett in all of this. Countless actors have started in his films over the years from Scarlett Johannson to Leo, to Bette midler. Where is the condemnation of those actors who got paid completing work for Allen? Why is it Cate that is singled out? Because she was up for an oscar? It seems as though this is a huge publicity grab because Blanchett is currently in the spotlight. Not that Woody Allen is necessarily innocent, but why is this such an issue over a decade later?
Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by the question, why is this such an issue over a decade later? If you are referring to why did Dylan Farrow come out with the accusations, I think she stated that it was because of the fact that WA was being honored with an award of some description- she has been silent through the multiple other times his movies have been nominated, but his being awarded as a person that people should look up to- that she just couldn't stomach. As for it being an issue, surely you are not saying that sexual abuse should not be 'such an issue' for someone over a decade later in their lives?