Woody Allen has a film out.
Annie Hall.
Vicky Christina Barcelona.
Hannah And Her Sisters.
Blue Jasmine.
All masterpieces of movie-making. All made by a man who only this past weekend said the following about his wife:
“I’m 35 years older, and somehow, through no fault of mine or hers, the dynamic worked.
“I was paternal. She responded to someone paternal. I liked her youth and energy. She deferred to me, and I was happy to give her an enormous amount of decision making just as a gift and let her take charge of so many things. She flourished.”
“Paternal” was an unfortunate word to use. Soon-Yi Previn is not only 35 years Allen’s junior, but before she was his wife, she was his step-daughter. And he likes that she “defers” to him.
Top Comments
I generally don't like to put money into the pocket of those who have committed awful crimes, but if it is alleged only that is usually different because really there is such a thing as presumed innocence unless they have been found to be guilty in a court of law. Also I guess everyone has a difference of opinion as to what is a horrible crime. For instance if a star when they were a teen punched someone but it wasn't severe and the star has made amends is repentant hasn't repeated this behaviour etc then I will see their movie, but with soneone like Tyson I refused to see Hangover because he is an extremely violent man and unrepentant rapist. If this was unknown when he was cast in the hangover then of course it's not the director/producer's fault so I don't think they should be punished for something they didn't know about, but with Tyson his disgusting acts are well known. I think people should veto seing his movies till producers get the message. For one thing there are many talented African American actors who cannot get work easily, get rid of Tyson and soneone of the African American community who is actually deserving would get work instead.
John, Ringo, Tommy Lee, Bill Murray, Charlie Sheen, Sean Connery, Sean Bean, Mel Gibson and host of other celebrities beat the wives/girlfriends. Sean Penn tied Maddonna to a chair and beat her for hours. Doctor Dre severely beat up a female reporter for asking him about misogynistic lyrics. Rick James raped and tortured a woman.
Elvis Presley went out with 13 year olds. So did Jimmy Page, R Kelly, Jerry Lee Lewis (his 13 year old cousin)
Chuck Berry filmed women going to the toilet, Mike Tyson raped a woman (he now has a fun cartoon!) Matthew Broderick killed some people in a reckless car accident, Halle Berry committed a hit and run, Eric Clapton is a vile racist, Mark Wahlberg gouged out the eyes of a Vietnamese man, Vince Neil killed a friend whilst drunk and driving, and Johnny Cash nearly wiped out an entire endangered species and didn't give a shit.
Point being, that if we are going to boycott one artist's work because of questionable activities, then shouldn't we apply that across the board? By all means, boycott a Woody Allen film, but the next time you go to dance to "super freak", head bang to "Stairway", put on Ghostbusters, or go to watch award winning actor Sean Penn in a movie, just remember that you are a bit of a hypocrite.
The problem is with what you are saying is that many of those are unsubstantiated rumours, of course they may very well be true, but I don't stop seeing someone's work if it is a rumour and it also depends on the crime if soneone accidentally killed someone I would not stop seeing their movies though I do think that the law should deal with them appropriately, but someone like Tyson I won't see his work because he is an ubrepetant rapist (amongst other things).
Most of them are substantiated. Most of them have more evidence than Woody Allen abusing his daughter.
I'm not defending Woody Allen at all. He's a weirdo and he could well have done what he is accused of, but to condemn fans of his movies for watching them without taking into consideration the above (and many more) is hypocritical.