By: Leslie Parker
Dec. 8, 2017
“Why has the #MeToo movement overlooked Woody Allen?”
We are witnessing a pivotal moment as influential male figures in entertainment, journalism, and politics face repercussions for allegations of sexual misconduct. From Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey, many careers have crumbled in the aftermath of these revelations. Yet, a shadow remains over Woody Allen, whose continued presence in Hollywood raises questions about accountability.
In 2014, Fairchild penned an open letter to a prominent newspaper detailing her claims that Allen, once her adoptive father, sexually assaulted her during her childhood. Despite the gravity of her accusations, Hollywood has largely failed to sever ties with him.
In her recent op-ed for a major publication, Fairchild criticized high-profile actors such as Emma Stone and Olivia Wilde for collaborating with Allen while vocally condemning others like Weinstein. Many of these stars have aligned themselves with the #MeToo movement, yet they seemingly compartmentalize their values when it comes to Allen.
“We are in the midst of a revolution. Why has the #MeToo revolution spared Woody Allen?” Fairchild questions. “At the age of seven, Woody Allen took me to a secluded space, away from the caregivers who had been instructed never to leave me alone with him. He then assaulted me. I have consistently shared this truth for over two decades.”
This raises an uncomfortable inquiry: why do some victims receive empathy while others are marginalized? If the #MeToo ethos is centered on believing survivors, why do the same Hollywood elites who denounce perpetrators like Weinstein continue to endorse and collaborate with Woody Allen? This dichotomy exemplifies hypocrisy at its worst. The fact that being cast in an Allen film is still viewed as a prestigious accolade is disconcerting and disrespectful to Fairchild.
Fairchild highlights the influence of “money and power” that shields individuals like Allen from accountability. “In this deliberately constructed haze, A-list stars agree to appear in Allen’s films, while the media often steers clear of the topic.” She juxtaposes the statements of female actors regarding Weinstein against their comments about Allen, revealing a striking inconsistency.
For instance, Fairchild referred to Emma Stone’s comments on Weinstein: “The bravery of these women speaking out about the misconduct of a significant figure in our industry is deeply moving.” In contrast, when discussing Allen, she remarked, “I can’t speak to the personal matters in his family. As an actor, you just need to focus on your work and set aside everything else. Woody Allen is an exceptional filmmaker.”
Despite my admiration for Emma Stone, such statements are troubling. They mirror those of Olivia Wilde and other actresses who openly critique Harvey Weinstein yet remain mute when it comes to Allen. Is it not time to move beyond the tired notion of “separating the art from the artist”? Weinstein was skilled at producing compelling films, yet that does not excuse his alleged actions.
Fairchild notes that while there is apparent momentum in changing societal attitudes, significant challenges remain. No one should have the privilege to cherry-pick which victims to believe. “It’s not just systemic power that enables alleged abusers to maintain their careers and secrets,” she asserts. “It’s our collective tendency to complicate clear issues and dismiss straightforward conclusions as a matter of ‘who can say’? The system has protected Harvey Weinstein for years, and it continues to do so for Woody Allen.”
To learn more about the complexities of home insemination, you can refer to this excellent resource for pregnancy and home insemination.
In summary, Fairchild’s op-ed serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing hypocrisy within Hollywood regarding accountability for sexual misconduct. While progress is being made, the selective belief in victims underscores a troubling divide that must be addressed.