This really is not a political post but a social post about America's ethics. I watched the Golden Globes the other night with a friend of mine. I probably would not have watched them alone yet I found them to be very interesting. I thought that Woody Allen had fallen out of the lime light. There is no doubt in my mind that Woody Allen can be equated with Mary K Latourno. Latourno is married to the child with whom she had sex and Allen is married to the child with whom he had sex. Allen did not have to serve time as Latourno. This is not because Allen is a man, but because he is famous.
One of my mentors and I sang some German songs last year because he was teaching a German class. I must say that I was a bit apprehensive about singing these songs because I found out that the composer, Wolf, was on the side of the Nazis. He explained to me that music is a form of art that takes us to places and transcends our understanding. Giving credit to the composer is merely putting the songs in an historical frame. It is important to understand that Wolf wrote some beautiful music regardless of his life choices.
Woody Allen does not need to be honored. History gives us information on Allen and Wolf and we should keep that at the forefront of our minds. Art is a reflection of the times. The more accurate the reflection, the better the art. That is why something ugly can be so artistically worthwhile. Society at times is just as ugly. I have not seen Woody Allen's movie but I did see Penelope Cruz talking about the movie and showing great excitement over working with Allen. That night Allen was moved to a god like position. People talked about him with a gleam in their eye. Would you speak of Latourno in the same way?
I do understand that people need to be forgiven and we shouldn't judge because we don't know everything but laws in this country are put in place to protect the innocent. Someone that is 18 is still a child because their brain has not fully developed. These children were well under 18.
It just reminds me of O.J. Simpson with that stupid televised trial and Hitler on the cover of Time magazine. In my own profession (and I could not find the sources on the internet) there is a famous conductor who molested young boys and is still being praised because of his fame.
This actually made things feel a bit more normal in my own life. There are times when someone who makes bad choices on a constant basis will be uplifted by society. The opposite is true for those who speak out about it. They will be shunned. If someone is praising Woody Allen after knowing his actions (and shunning Mia Farrow), the only logical conclusion is that society sees what it wants to see.
I know I have chased a few rabbits in this posting but the main thing is that art would be better judged on the basis of its relevance to society and not on the ability or talent of the individual who created it. Secondarily, society's majority is much like a teenager with a new fad. It doesn't have to be ethical nor does it have to make sense. It merely is.
5 comments:
I am guilty. I separate “art” from its creator. Woody Allen’s personal actions have nothing to do with the excellent films he makes. If we turned our backs on artistic creations on the basis of the creator’s actions, we would have to scrap half of the world’s masterpieces – be they in art, music, film or literature. Ingrid Bergman left this country because she fell in love with a married man and had an open affair with him. One of my most admired women, Katharine Hepburn, also had such an affair, but she told the world her personal life was none of its damn business! Imagine not watching any of these two women’s films!
A word about Hitler on the cover of Time as what was designated at that time “Man of the Year:” most people misunderstand the criteria for the Time selection each year. It is NOT an honor. Time selects the person (or persons) whose actions – good or evil - have most influenced the world that year. The year (or was it years?) Hitler was selected it is indisputable that his actions had most influenced what was happening in the world.
I have questioned some of Time’s selection, but not that one – it met the criteria.
BJ
BJ, Maybe I didn't word myself correctly. Separating art from its creator is exactly what I want to happen. To say that the movie is great is one thing. To say that the man is great because the movie is great is quite another thing. I love the movie "Airplane" but I am not going to stop seeing it because O.J. should be in jail. I have never really liked Woody Allen's movies. They speak to a prior generation and his "endearing" nervousness just pisses me off. They don't speak to me but I do see their artistic relevance. My point is that he should be held accountable for his actions just as Latourno was held for hers. Instead, people act like nothing has happened and speak of him as if he is a model example of a human being in our society. I do not want to have anyone grow up to think Allen's actions were okay. Just think of the movie that he could make after that jail sentence that we will never see. I would have gone to see that movie. Martha Stewart shifted money from one place to the next and had to serve time. She never touched anyone.
However, I did not know that about Hitler. Our history teachers painted us a different picture.
I absolutely understood your post and thought I was just augmenting it with my comments! I’m the one who probably didn’t word my comments right. As for the Hitler information, I do hope you understood that the Time choice goes to the person – good or EVIL – who most affects circumstances in the world. The years he was chosen, he and his armies were eating up Europe in his quest to gain land – room enough to increase his “master race.” He brought the world into war, thus was the greatest influence on what was happening in the world.
BJ
AHHH!!!! I see now. Sorry about that.
I would really like to learn more about the Hitler/Time saga. We really were taught differently in school and I have used that for years as an example of a big mistake and misjudgment of character. What you said truly makes more sense about Hitler. I guess we always thought of Time's Man of the Year as a way of giving a Nobel Peace Prize.
Time's Person of the Year is not an award. A person (or persons) does not "win" it. It is merely a selection based on the criterion I mentioned.
In 2001, when Time named Rudy Guiliani, I disagreed with that choice. Based on the criterion, it should have been Osama bin Laden, who, in my opinion, was the person who most shaped events that years. I think Time crumbled on that one, because Bush's approval rating was at 80 percent, and the editors knew people would misunderstand and raise hell over bin Laden. (Ignorance is rampant in this country.)
Other persons selected who affected the world in a negative way: Khomeini, Kruschev and Stalin.
BJ
Post a Comment