Observations On The Times Review Of “Apropos Of Nothing”

Woody Allen in “Manhattan” with a 16-year-old Mariel Hemingway (playing a 17-year-old)

To be clear, I haven’t read Woody Allen’s autobiography, “Apropos of Nothing,” and I won’t. I found myself unable to endure anything related to Allen after he married his own quasi-daughter following a sexual affair with her while they were both living with Mia Farrow, Allen as her supposed lover and domestic partner, Sun-Yi Previn as her adopted child. While I maintain that the works of artists should be kept separate from the character flaws and misdeeds of their creators, that’s an intellectual and ethical position, not an emotional and gastrointestinal one. The latter are non-ethical considerations, but that doesn’t mean I can ignore them.

If I were a professional book reviewer, however, I would be forced to put my revulsion aside, or refuse the assignment of rendering a verdict on “Apropos of Nothing.” It is undeniable that the New York Times book reviewer, Dwight Garner, couldn’t or wouldn’t do that. To be fair, the Times no longer enforces the core journalism ethics principle that journalists shouldn’t allow personal biases to infect their reporting, but that is an explanation, not a defense. Some observations:

  • “Volunteering to review it, in our moral climate, is akin to volunteering for the 2021 Olympic javelin-catching team,” Garner writes. What “moral climate?” The cancel culture isn’t moral, it’s totalitarian. #MeToo isn’t moral either, nor will it be ethical unless and until it begins respecting due process and fairness, which, so far, it does not and shows no signs of doing.
  • As Garner admits toward the end of his piece, Allen has been married to Sun-Yi for 20 years. He was still getting accolades, with Hollywood royalty eagerly signing up to do his movies, until another Farrow offspring accused him, without evidence, of sexually molesting her when she was a child. Allen’s weird and icky fetish about teenage girls had been on display most of his career (Notably in “Manhattan”), and the “if it feels good, do it” crowd, the Left of the period,  saw nothing wrong with that. Jerry Seinfeld had a teenage girlfriend in the 90s. Heaven knows how old some of Bill Clinton’s prey was. Now the Times critic is retroactively disgusted by what his paper shrugged off for more than two decades, because of an unsubstantiated accusation that came many years after the alleged abuse?
  • The reviewer writes of the Dylan Farrow accusation, “I believe that the less you’ve read about this case, the easier it is to render judgment on it.” If that’s true, and having read a lot about the case myself, I think it is, then why doesn’t the reviewer begin by saying that the book is important because it gives the accused, Allen, a chance to rebut pervasive character assassination? He refuses to do that.
  • The reviewer praises Allen when he is brutally honest about himself in ways the reviewer (and I) find refreshing, as with his admission that he’s not the intellectual he has posed as through the years. (“I have no insights, no lofty thoughts, no understanding of most poems that do not begin, ‘Roses are red, violets are blue.’ What I do have, however, is a pair of black-rimmed glasses, and I propose that it is these specs, combined with a flair for appropriating snippets from erudite sources too deep for me to grasp but which can be utilized in my work to give the deceptive impression of knowing more than I do that keeps this fairy tale afloat.”) Yet he attacks Allen for giving readers an unglossed look into how he views the world, which is, in fact, pretty close to the attitudes his movies had been revealing from the beginning.

“His friends should have warned him that ‘Apropos of Nothing’ is incredibly, unbelievably tone deaf on the subject of women,” tte reviewer writes. No, Allen is tone deaf on the subject of women, and doesn’t pretend not to be. A good, honest autobiography doesn’t present the image of a writer than the reader would like to have, it should reveal the writer as he really is. Woody Allen likes women, and thinks about sex a lot. What a surprise. Yet Garner would have him disguise this central driving force in his art because it’s “tone deaf,” meaning “offensive to political correctness and the current social norms of a different generation.”

“Nearly every time a woman is mentioned, there’s a gratuitous pronouncement on her looks,” he writes. What’s gratuitous about it? That’s what Allen, the author, is attracted by.  The reviewer’s bias causes him to take offense at the harmless. “While in London filming ‘Casino Royale’ (1967), a James Bond spoof, he writes, ‘one could stroll on the Kings Road and pick up the most adorable birds in their miniskirts.’ Birds?”  Yes, you dolt, in 1967 young Brits called young women “birds,” and they didn’t mind it at all.

  • Because of the reviewer’s anti-Allen bias, he gives us “not funny!” sneers at Allen’s wit. “About the notion that we should simply believe all women, he writes: ‘I mean, tell it to the Scottsboro Boys.'” I’ll be using that one, thanks.

Now I’m curious about how the Times reviewed Bill Clinton’s autobiography.

8 thoughts on “Observations On The Times Review Of “Apropos Of Nothing”

  1. ‘Manhattan’ is, by far, my favorite Woody Allen movie; though it has nothing to do with his inappropriate relationship with the too young yet mature beyond her years character played by Ms. Hemingway. The film is brilliant in it’s cinematography, the dialog is effectively blunt and yet passive aggressive, use of music as a metaphor for the protagonist’s emotions, the highly effective use of black and white as well as light and shadow. As always, Woody just plays his hyperbolic New York Jewish neurotic self. It is a film I watch every time I can.

    I will not read his autobiography.

  2. Well, it is probably easy to say you hate something after it’s made you a ton of dough and presages socially uncomfortable and unethical things to come.

    • Re Crimes and Misdemeanors – Allen’s character is in fact an entitled, insufferable Nice Guy (TM) who can’t get out of his own way, and his obnoxious brother-in-law seems like a genuinely decent person who happens to be loud (and confident! Which is why Mia Farrow chooses to be with him. Which is not a moral failing on her character’s part, by the way).

      This characterization undercuts the whole “bad things happen to good people and vice versa, because the universe is meaningless” message, and I still can’t tell if Allen intends it that way or not. It would make a lot of difference in how I feel about the film.

  3. There is only one Allen film I like unreservedly: Radio Days.

    Some of his earlier comedies are okay, but back in his “funny” days, he had nothing on vintage Bob Hope.

    About all the “revelations” — well, the media establishment was fine with his appalling behavior for years. Now he’s a pariah. I have to confess that it’s always fun to watch them eat one another.

    • Yikes.
      Allen’s movies before he learned how to direct were crude, but had multiple scenes and gags worth remembering—I still believe that the trial scene in Bananas inspired “Airplane!”—Take the Money And Run, Banana, What’s Up Tiger Lily?, Sleeper.

      After Annie Hall , his movies were marred by his own mediocre acting (if he was in them) and an underlying pomposity, the latter reaching its zenith in “Interiors.” Most of them just blur together in my mind.

      Bob is in the large class of iconic performers who I appreciate what they did and how they did it, but personally never enjoyed that much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.