For those of you who don't know, Dylan Farrow had accused her adoptive father of molesting her at some point. The allegations came shortly after a dramatic divorce between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow. The allegations were explored shortly after they surfaced, with the courts ruling that (in a nutshell) Dylan Farrow had "difficulty determining fact from fantasy", and that no such molestation happened.
The open letter addresses (for the first time that I'm aware of) what happened from Dylan's point of view, in addition to her feelings and the repercussions of what transpired. It's a brave piece for someone in her position to publicize; Woody Allen is a revered public figure, and the backlash this situation received in the past has exploded ten fold with the publication of this letter. The fact we live in an internet age doesn't help at all.
In the letter, Farrow points a finger at actors and actresses who have worked with Woody, most notably, Cate Blanchett:
"What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis C.K.? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten about me?"
In doing so, Farrow is not only asking the public not to support Allen, but she points the question to the people who help bring his work to life. She also addresses the fact that Blue Jasmine (the film in which Blanchett and Allen have collaborated on) is an Academy Award Nominee for Allen's writing.
So, what does this all mean for The Academy Awards? And more specifically, Cate Blanchett?
In naming Cate Blanchett, Dylan Farrow has now dragged her into the hailstorm that is this debate of whether or not The Academy should reward her. On one hand, Blanchett is not Woody Allen, and her performance is really one of (if not) the best of the year. Why shouldn't the Academy reward her? On the other hand, Blanchett's performance is apart of a Woody Allen film; in rewarding her performance, you are rewarding the film and ultimately Woody Allen himself.
As I mentioned before, Blue Jasmine is also a nominee for Allen's screenplay. Though never a threat to win (the race is seen as Spike Jonze's screenplay for Her vs. that of American Hustle's), the Academy has already rewarded him with his 21st nomination (they gave him the award for Midnight In Paris). Are they simply trying to reward the art and not the man himself? Is there even such a thing as doing so? At the end of the day, Allen is rewarded, and Farrow is left in the background to deal with the repercussions of what she claims took place.
So, it falls on The Academy now; the ball has been left in their court. Do they reward Blanchett and ultimately Allen himself? Or do they turn the other way and shun him in light of this recent transgression? Do they crown Blanchett and snub Allen? Or do they snub both Blanchett and Allen together?
The only other contender (that makes sense) to reward is Amy Adams, who recently gained a lot of momentum (Globe Comedy win, BFCA comedy win, SAG ensemble win). Hustle was poised to win Best Picture after it was announced it won 10 Oscar nominations, but once the PGA anointed both Gravity and 12 Years A Slave, its chances slimmed a bit. There's no way it'll go home empty handed though, as beloved as it is. 4 acting nominations for its principle cast... and if Jennifer Lawrence is going to lose to Lupita Nyong'o, this could be a chance to not only snub Allen's picture in light of the open letter, and crown Adams with her first Oscar (after 4 other nominations).
So, I'll hold the question to you now. Do you think Blue Jasmine should go home empty handed? Or should Blanchett's excellent performance should not suffer because of its director? Is this even the Academy's responsibility? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment