On Sunday, I argued that Woody Allen’s “art and his craft is so extraordinary in its range and scope and creative integrity that it escapes the twisted psyche that gave birth to it.” Gracy Olmstead disagrees:
There are many artists, it is true, who lived with little to no morals. But there seems to me an important difference between the person whose sins are voluntarily indulged in, and the person who takes advantage of the young, the vulnerable, and the voiceless. This seems to be too horrific to ignore. Perhaps I am too sensitive. But I do not want to douse my mind in the artistic thought of a man with such inexcusable inclinations and actions. … Art changes us: it affects our perceptions and our world views. Can we really trust ourselves—our minds, eyes, and ears—to Allen’s hands?
Eric Sasson wants journalists to stop assuming that Allen is guilty of molestation:
Woody Allen’s defenders point out that he was never charged with molesting Farrow, and a team of child-abuse specialists concluded that she hadn’t been molested. His detractors note that a state attorney at the time said there was “probable cause” to charge Allen, but that he chose not to prosecute the case to avoid traumatizing the young girl. There are plenty of reasons to doubt both sides. For journalists to “react” to Farrow’s letter without acknowledging those doubts does the public a disservice, and for them to question the morals of those who remain in doubt does journalism itself a disservice.
Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, on the other hand, considers why the rich and famous often get away with these types of crimes:
Celebrities are particularly effective at discouraging victims and witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement and prosecutors in cases involving sex crimes against underage victims. Their testimony is critical to securing a conviction, but the alleged victims and their families are understandably reluctant to weather public scrutiny and a high-profile trial indefinitely and at uncertain cost for an unknown outcome.