Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Publisher cancels Woody Allen memoir amid backlash


Recommended Posts

Publisher cancels Woody Allen memoir amid backlash

Hachette Book Group announced it has canceled the planned publication of Oscar-winning filmmaker Woody Allen's memoir A Propos of Nothing.

"Hachette Book Group has decided that it will not publish Woody Allen's memoir A Propos of Nothing, originally scheduled for sale in April 2020, and will return all rights to the author," the publishing company said in a statement Friday.

"The decision to cancel Mr. Allen's book was a difficult one. At HBG we take our relationships with authors very seriously, and do not cancel books lightly.

"Over the past few days, HBG leadership had extensive conversations with our staff and others. After listening, we came to the conclusion that moving forward with publication would not be feasible for HBG."

People.com said the company made the decision after about 75 staffers walked out to protest the publication of Allen's book.

Earlier in the week, Allen's estranged son -- Puitzer Prize-winning journalist and #MeToo advocate -- Ronan Farrow cut his ties with Hachette, which had also published his book Catch and Kill.

Ronan Farrow has for years publicly supported his sister Dylan Farrow, who said Allen sexually abused her as a child.

Allen has denied any wrongdoing and has not been convicted of any crimes.

The Farrows expressed on social media their gratitude to those who objected to the book's publication.

******************************************************

Good luck to any publisher that touches this with a ten foot pole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very sorry to hear this news.  I think it would have been courageous of  Hachette Book Group to go ahead and publish Woody Allen's memoirs regardless of the protests.

I sincerely do not believe that Woody is guilty of Dylan Farrow's allegations against him. However -- and this will generate a lot of anger, I'm sure --I think the book should be published no matter what anyone thinks about Allen.  If he did do what Dylan claims he did, that is heinous and despicable and sick, but it  doesn't delete or take away from the fact that he made some great films.  And his memoirs about that would be worth reading.  I guess what I'm saying is (a)  I believe Allen is innocent of these charges  and (b) even if he were not, he is one of American's best living filmmakers, and as such, his memoirs should be published.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I'm very sorry to hear this news.  I think it would have been courageous of  Hachette Book Group to go ahead and publish Woody Allen's memoirs regardless of the protests.

I sincerely do not believe that Woody is guilty of Dylan Farrow's allegations against him. However -- and this will generate a lot of anger, I'm sure --I think the book should be published no matter what anyone thinks about Allen.  If he did do what Dylan claims he did, that is heinous and despicable and sick, but it  doesn't delete or take away from the fact that he made some great films.  And his memoirs about that would be worth reading.  I guess what I'm saying is (a)  I believe Allen is innocent of these charges  and (b) even if he were not, he is one of American's best living filmmakers, and as such, his memoirs should be published.

Do you think he's similar to Roman Polanski, in terms of how he has a polarizing effect on people? On one hand, we have a genius filmmaker. And on the other hand, we have a man besieged by allegations of misconduct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A great filmmaker has been blacklisted. Make no mistake, this is not a Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby situation. No formal charges have been presented. This is a "he said, she said" thing. Amazon won't show his latest film either. It's a shame.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I'm very sorry to hear this news.  I think it would have been courageous of  Hachette Book Group to go ahead and publish Woody Allen's memoirs regardless of the protests.

I sincerely do not believe that Woody is guilty of Dylan Farrow's allegations against him. However -- and this will generate a lot of anger, I'm sure --I think the book should be published no matter what anyone thinks about Allen.  If he did do what Dylan claims he did, that is heinous and despicable and sick, but it  doesn't delete or take away from the fact that he made some great films.  And his memoirs about that would be worth reading.  I guess what I'm saying is (a)  I believe Allen is innocent of these charges  and (b) even if he were not, he is one of American's best living filmmakers, and as such, his memoirs should be published.

Well MissW, I gotta admit I TOO have always questioned those allegations made against Woody.

(...BUT, after happening upon his movie Manhattan on TCM just last week or so and after not watching for it for many many years, and THEN watching him putting the moves on then very VERY youthful Mariel Hemmingway in his flick and when he was a middle-aged man, I NOW gotta FURTHER admit I'm not so sure about this whole thing anymore!) LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Do you think he's similar to Roman Polanski, in terms of how he has a polarizing effect on people? On one hand, we have a genius filmmaker. And on the other hand, we have a man besieged by allegations of misconduct.

The tendency to compare the two is understandable, but a mistake, in my opinion. Polanski admitted to what he did, and is still an active fugitive from justice. Allen has always denied the charges against him, and court proceedings have exonerated him, although obviously not to the extent necessary for some people to accept it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dargo said:

Well MissW, I gotta admit I TOO have always questioned those allegations made against Woody.

(...BUT, after happening upon his movie Manhattan on TCM just last week or so and after not watching for it for many many years, and THEN watching him putting the moves on then very VERY youthful Mariel Hemmingway in his flick and when he was a middle-aged man, I NOW gotta FURTHER admit I'm not so sure about this whole thing anymore!) LOL

I wouldn't compare Allen's May-December romance in Manhattan to the later charges of sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Do you think he's similar to Roman Polanski, in terms of how he has a polarizing effect on people? On one hand, we have a genius filmmaker. And on the other hand, we have a man besieged by allegations of misconduct.

I do.  I'm not really a fan of Polanski's, not the way I am of Allen.  And I also think the situations are different, in that Polanski doesn't even deny what he did, I believe it was proven  (?? not sure about the legal details about the case.)  Whereas with Woody Allen, he did undergo an investigation at the time which relieved him of all charges against him.

Still, it's kind of the same idea,  the "cancel culture" thing. What bothers me is, if I say I don't support the whole concept of "cancel culture", it makes me look as though I think what the artist being "cancelled" did - or is alleged to have done -- is ok.  And of course, I don't.  I think what Polanski did is horrible and he deserved the legal repercussions which he avoided (by escaping to France and living there, as far as I can tell, for the rest of his life).

It's never ok to sexually assault anyone, especially an underage person.  And men in a powerful position who take advantage of that are all the more disgusting when they do so. I am not giving a "out of jail free" pass to anyone who commits these crimes.  But I am saying, we should keep the crimes the artist commits in their private lives separate from the art they produce.

What if we were to discover that Beethoven had had a relationship with a 14-year-old?  ( Now don't go thinking he did, I'm absolutely making that up just to serve as an example)  Would we stop listening to the great music he made?  What a loss if we did.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

The tendency to compare the two is understandable, but a mistake, in my opinion. Polanski admitted to what he did, and is still an active fugitive from justice. Allen has always denied the charges against him, and court proceedings have exonerated him, although obviously not to the extent necessary for some people to accept it.

Thanks. To be clear, I wasn't comparing their so-called crimes (proven or unproven). I was sort of looking at Miss Wonderly's comment and asking hypothetically if we should diminish or quash a publication about any filmmaker, since as she suggested, that could prevent information from being shared about how the films were made. 

When Kirk Douglas died, there were angry things expressed about him...and we saw how his legacy could be tarnished because of rumors or allegations about his personal conduct.

So I could have just as easily "compared" Allen's current situation to the Douglas situation. Hope that makes sense.

The real point here is that some people struggle with separating the work from the person's private life.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Me-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "Me Too"movement wll have a very negative effect on his carrer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of Polanski, he was convicted of the crime and evaded sentencing by fleeing the USA.

In Allen's situation, at best the situation can be described as murky as both sides of the Farrow family are at odds with one another over the veracity of the claims. Nevertheless, Dylan Farrow is adamant in saying that she was molested by Allen, and we as a culture are becoming more receptive to believing accusers than we were previously, so lots are reluctant to continue giving Allen a pass.

As to the art created by people who do bad things (or are at least accused of it), I would hope there's a mature way of handling this. Whether people as individuals want to watch a Polanski or an Allen film is up to their own discretion, but collectively I think there should be a way that we can continue to watch these films, but also be critical or cognizant of their behavior and question to what extent this might show up in their works (the example of "Manhattan" being one such example). It might be a tricky line to walk, but we have to try.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Well MissW, I gotta admit I TOO have always questioned those allegations made against Woody.

(...BUT, after happening upon his movie Manhattan on TCM just last week or so and after not watching for it for many many years, and THEN watching him putting the moves on then very VERY youthful Mariel Hemmingway in his flick and when he was a middle-aged man, I NOW gotta FURTHER admit I'm not so sure about this whole thing anymore!) LOL

Ok, Dargs,  I know.  And that weird creepy age difference in Manhattan bothers a lot of people, including some fans. It bothers me.  However, it doesn't stop me from thinking Manhattan is a great movie, and I would not refuse to watch it because of that.

Also:  and this is key:  although the Mariel Hemmingway character is disturbingly young in that film, she is still in her late teens (I think she turns 18 before its ending). I think there is a huge difference between a 7-year-old being molested  (which is the allegation Dylan makes against Allen)  and a 17 year old willingly having an affair with a much older man.  The scenes in Manhattan between Tracy and Isaac make it very clear that Tracy is in this relationship of her own free will and choice. In fact, it is Tracy who wants to continue their love affair, and is heartbroken when Isaac breaks it off.  

So I do not think the fact that Woody Allen depicts a sexual relationship between a much older man and a 17 year old girl, uneasy though that might make us, is in any way comparable to the pedopheilia which molesting a 7 year old would be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I wouldn't compare Allen's May-December romance in Manhattan to the later charges of sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child.

Yeah yeah, I know Lawrence.  ;)

And even though I'D classify that as more an "April or even late March-December romance" in that movie, I ALSO have to admit that whenever this whole thing with Woody comes up, it reminds me of the infamous McMartin Preschool case that took place near my old stompin' grounds of Manhattan Beach California back in the 1980s, and the possible parallels it might have with Woody.

In THAT one as you may recall, the whole idea of planting false memories within the minds of small children in order to get a conviction for the accused, would become one of first celebrated cases of such. And something of which would become the very reason THAT case would eventually be thrown out of court.

And so, because of the possibility of a similar sort of thing being directed to and at Woody, THIS has also been my primary reason for questioning these allegations directed towards him.

(...and so yes, my previous posting was once again just another example of Your's Truly looking for the easy joke around here, that's all)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Yeah yeah, I know Lawrence.  ;)

And even though I'D classify that as more an "April or even late March-December romance" in that movie, I ALSO have to admit that whenever this whole thing with Woody comes up, it reminds me of the infamous McMartin Preschool case that took place near my old stompin' grounds of Manhattan Beach California back in the 1980s, and the possible parallels it might have with Woody.

In THAT one as you may recall, the whole idea of planting false memories within the minds of small children in order to get a conviction for the accused, would become the one of first celebrated cases of such. And something of which would become the very reason THAT case would eventually be thrown out of court.

And so, because of the possibility of a similar sort of thing being directed to and at Woody, THIS has also been my primary reason for questioning these allegations directed towards him.

(...and so yes, my previous posting was once again just another example of Your's Truly looking for the easy joke around here, that's all)

Yeah, I recall the McMartin case. A horrifying story. There was a good cable movie made about it starring James Woods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok, Dargs,  I know.  And that weird creepy age difference in Manhattan bothers a lot of people, including some fans. It bothers me.  However, it doesn't stop me from thinking Manhattan is a great movie, and I would not refuse to watch it because of that.

Also:  and this is key:  although the Mariel Hemmingway character is disturbingly young in that film, she is still in her late teens (I think she turns 18 before its ending). I think there is a huge difference between a 7-year-old being molested  (which is the allegation Dylan makes against Allen)  and a 17 year old willingly having an affair with a much older man.  The scenes in Manhattan between Tracy and Isaac make it very clear that Tracy is in this relationship of her own free will and choice. In fact, it is Tracy who wants to continue their love affair, and is heartbroken when Isaac breaks it off.  

So I do not think the fact that Woody Allen depicts a sexual relationship between a much older man and a 17 year old girl, uneasy though that might make us, is in any way comparable to the pedopheilia which molesting a 7 year old would be.

Yes, I agree, MissW. And pretty much on all counts.

(...and now read my most recent reply to Lawrence to grasp the true intent to my first posting in this thread)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He could end up self-publishing the book, just to defy his detractors.

Obviously there must have been a chapter or two about his side of things re: Dylan, or else the Farrow family wouldn't have been eager to suppress the book.

Sure he loses a lot of money if a large firm doesn't publish it, but I sincerely doubt Woody Allen is going to let other people censor him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Yeah, I recall the McMartin case. A horrifying story. There was a good cable movie made about it starring James Woods.

Btw here Lawrence, then isn't it also rather funny in an ironic sort'a way that word is James Woods likes 'em pretty young TOO?! ;)

(...well, I find this kind'a funny, anyway)

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Yeah, I recall the McMartin case. A horrifying story. There was a good cable movie made about it starring James Woods.

Shirley Knight won an Emmy for it, as I recall. Mercedes Ruehl, Sada Thompson, Henry Thomas, and Lolita Davidovich were also in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard about this case for years. It's a terribly murky case, and not open and shut. But I have come to believe that Allen is most likely innocent. I heard that the ceilings of this attic where the abuse allegedly took place are only about 4 to 4 and a half feet tall. Woody is not a tall man, but if somebody would commit such an action they would have to be standing up I'd think., and that throws it a bit into doubt, as too does the date this abuse happened.It supposedly happened on August 4, 1992, the day of a party at this house. Bear in mind, it was Mia's house and she was not at this party. Mia discovered the Polaroids of Soon-Yi in January 1992. She immediately cut ties afters Husbands and Wives finished filming a few days later. Woody did not see the kids for several months until he received an invitation out of the blue to come to this birthday party that day. 

i think it was meant to be a trap if you ask me.  For such a crime to happen on what was by that time enemy territory,the claim  is dubious at best. If it didn't happen (which I believe is the case), it would have still been drummed into those children's heads for close to 30 years, long enough to make it seem real (Munchhausen disease). Woody would have to have been twisted of mind and stupid at the same time to be guity. And while he might not be the smartest (he actually wanted to ask Mia to appear in Mighty Aphrodite 3 years after the scandal until his sister told him he was nuts to even consider it) and he has been known to like young women, it just smacks of dubiousness that a then 56 year old man decides to be guilty of a grave sexual offence against a young kid, and there is absolutely no evidence that he did anything to young kids both before and after this date. Sex offenders typically have a whole history or related cases, more than just one. And in this day and age of the #metoo movement, if there had been other victims of Allen they would have jumped on the bandwagon by now and accused him. Nobody else has. That plus what i wrote above (not to mention some other things I'd rather not say about Mia) make me think he is innocent.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I have heard about this case for years. It's a terribly murky case, and not open and shut. But I have come to believe that Allen is most likely innocent. I heard that the ceilings of this attic where the abuse allegedly took place are only about 4 to 4 and a half feet tall. Woody is not a tall man, but if somebody would commit such an action they would have to be standing up I'd think., and that throws it a bit into doubt, as too does the date this abuse happened.It supposedly happened on August 4, 1992, the day of a party at this house. Bear in mind, it was Mia's house and she was not at this party. Mia discovered the Polaroids of Soon-Yi in January 1992. She immediately cut ties afters Husbands and Wives finished filming a few days later. Woody did not see the kids for several months until he received an invitation out of the blue to come to this birthday party that day. 

i think it was meant to be a trap if you ask me.  For such a crime to happen on what was by that time enemy territory,the claim  is dubious at best. If it didn't happen (which I believe is the case), it would have still been drummed into those children's heads for close to 30 years, long enough to make it seem real (Munchhausen disease). Woody would have to have been twisted of mind and stupid at the same time to be guity. And while he might not be the smartest (he actually wanted to ask Mia to appear in Mighty Aphrodite 3 years after the scandal until his sister told him he was nuts to even consider it) and he has been known to like young women, it just smacks of dubiousness that a then 56 year old man decides to be guilty of a grave sexual offence against a young kid, and there is absolutely no evidence that he did anything to young kids both before and after this date. Sex offenders typically have a whole history or related cases, more than just one. And in this day and age of the #metoo movement, if there had been other victims of Allen they would have jumped on the bandwagon by now and accused him. Nobody else has. That plus what i wrote above (not to mention some other things I'd rather not say about Mia) make me think he is innocent.

I think it was a trap too. And I think it could be said that Mia's been psychologically harming Dylan and the others by perpetuating this for almost 30 years.

Her real issue is with Soon-Yi the daughter that Woody Allen married, but this is all being transferred on to Dylan, Ronan and the other children in a warped sort of way.  We have a famous person inventing a story to discredit her equally famous ex. And they're all coming out losers, all coming out suffering because of it.

Mia does not want any of the children to have a proper relationship with Woody so she is going to have to go to the grave with this big lie, or else they will all turn against her in the end. It's a sad thing for the Farrow family to deal with. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...