Woody, Should He?

There aren't too many filmmakers more reliable than Woody Allen.  Since 1969, with rare exceptions, he's come out with a new film every year. (He's reliable in that he releases films--quality-wise he's all over the place.)

But now his backers wish he weren't making so many pictures.  In the #MeToo era, he's become persona non grata.  In fact, his latest completed film, A Rainy Day In New York, is at present unreleased, and it's uncertain will ever see the light of day. (Something similar happened to Louis C. K.'s feature I Love You Daddy.)

So Woody's suing Amazon Studios for $68 million since they want to back out of their four-picture contract.  Perhaps it wasn't a great deal when it was signed--Allen may have meant prestige, but not necessarily profit--but there's no question Amazon now wants nothing to do with him.

Woody argues Amazon can't walk away over "baseless allegations" about his behavior (his stepdaughter says he molested her 25 years ago).  Amazon responded it's not just that, but also his "controversial comments" and the "increasing refusal of top talent to work with him...."

It's not clear what's in the contract--though there's apparently no morals clause--but can Amazon legally blame Woody for their problems?  The molestation allegation may have resurfaced, but it was around when they signed the contract.  As for top talent not working with him, that's still to be seen, and, besides, why should Woody be blacklisted by Amazon because other people want to punish him?

And as for his controversial comments, he was known to speak his mind when he signed the contract.  And are his controversial statements that controversial?

Woody has made statements supporting #MeToo in general. But some were bothered by his saying "The whole Harvey Weinstein thing is very sad for everybody involved...Tragic for the poor women that were involved, sad for Harvey that his life is so messed up." I assume everyone feels for women who are harassed or attacked, but is it so completely beyond the pale to also feel sad for the mess that is Harvey Weinstein's life?  There are different ways to interpret this, but wouldn't it have been better if Harvey never harassed anyone and so weren't in trouble right now?  And even if you violently disagree with Allen, is this enough to drum him out of show business?

Another "controversial" statement dealt with Allen warning against a "witch hunt atmosphere...." Even if you think Woody is taking the problem too lightly, it shouldn't be considered outrageous to say that we should be careful about a movement going too far, no matter how positive the cause. In fact, if you're not allowed to criticize a movement, it's a sign that things probably have gone too far.

So maybe Amazon blew it with this contract. And maybe it was due to unforeseeable changes in the social atmosphere.  But even if Amazon is stuck with a white elephant, that doesn't mean they don't have to pay up.