Hmmm... What does his personal life have to do with his acting, writing, and directing career. It'd be like arguing Babe Ruth doesn't deserve to be in the hall of fame because he was a drunk and a womanizing asshole.

The award is for "outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment," and I agree that there is an argument that personal life should generally have little to do with creative work accolades, but does it not seem wrong to honor a man who has been accused of molesting the daughter of his at-the-time girlfriend? "A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen's molestation of her at age 7. GoldenGlobe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors." Take the Duke head football coach's molestation scandal as a precedent, and does it seem right for Hollywood to honor this kind of person?

Oops, meant Penn State. sry.

No, Draug, it'd be like arguing that Pete Rose doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he was a gambler and a stuck up asshole.

(I'm not a big college football guy.) Granted, in the football case, Sandusky was actually brought up on charges and convicted. And, that case involved numerous charges, and not a single one, but I think the principle should still apply.

Has he ever been CONVICTED of any crime?

Also, bear in mind that prior to the initial charge of sexual abuse against his adopted daughter, Allen had an affair with his girlfriend Mia Farrow's other adopted daughter, Soon-Yi.

So, I don't know anything about any of this, but here is one thing to consider:

What precedents have been set by this institution? Are they typically activists or passive when it comes to considering people's character for this award?

@maple No, and that's one of the strongest points against the argument I'm supposed to make. The only objection I've ever been able to come up with along that angle is that OJ Simpson *was* brought to trial and acquitted, but he is still largely viewed as guilty. Just because Allen wasn't ever brought to trial does not make him innocent.

But do award organizations have any obligation to consider things other than the actual creative product? Dylan Farrow says that they do, and I think there might be at least something to the claim, even if only in extreme circumstances.

Personally, I think the evidence for Allen's child molestation is pretty ambiguous. While "innocent until proven guilty" is a priori only a legal principle, I believe it should be applied along with common sense in general life, too. Would I leave my 8-year-old niece in a room with Allen? Certainly not, he might be guilty.

But am I ready to start assuming he did it and start punishing him via his legacy? Also certainly not.

**accused** end of story. Investigated and cleared.

God Forbid we ever live in a world were anciemt accusations of wrong-doing can destory a man's accomlishments. And yet...we are *rapidly* becoming exactly that society, where the perverse Left-Wing Thought Police are stormig through society, destroying lives ad careers based not only on indiviuals actions, but on their perceived beliefs which others judge them for.

I'm not much of a Woody fan - but *fuck anyone* that seeks to destroy him for this unconfirmed ancient accusation.

@Abge: They've been accused of being susceptible to bribes in the past, but otherwise there's been relatively little controversy surrounding the lifetime achievement award.

It may be useful to note also, that "Blue Jasmine" did not win the Best Screenplay award after the accusation resurfaced following its nomination. Whether the "scandal" was a part of that decision, we can't know for sure, though I'm sure it was at least considered as a factor in the minds of several of the voters.

@semck: Generally, I agree with that sort of attitude on the matter as well, especially considering all the facts framing the accusation. Unfortunately, I'm not assigned to present the side of this argument I think should win; I get to be the super moralist.

If the Lifetime Achievement award is for his achievements in film--

He sure as hell deserves it.

If it's supposed to take into account his character--

The man hasn't lost a case, but from everything swirling around the man...it really sounds like "Woody" is an all-too-appropriate name for the guy...he sounds like a real skeez.

If it's an award for achievement, he deserves it...
If it's an HONOR, I'd think twice.

If it takes into account "character" then I dare say there isn't a single person in Hollywood that wasn't at one time a drunken, philandering asshole, and none of them deserves accolades. That town is a fucking cess pit - puts Sodom and Gamora to shame for god's sake.

Well if that's the side you're arguing, Warden, just say that an award is a way that society tells somebody it values him, and we as a society should not send the message that we separate morality from achievement, or are willing to overlook moral turpitude as long as you do good enough work in some other field. This is actually a good argument except for the evidence being ambiguous, so you're going to have to be ready to rebut an argument that the evidence is ambiguous.

@semck - again, how is Allen's morality any worse than others who have won awards with moral failings to make two-bit whores blush?' He had a legal affair with an unrelated persom....big deal. And he has unconfirmed accusations against him. By the way, our President has unconfirmed accusations against himthat, if true, should have him executed. Shall we invalidate the vote on the unconfirmed susicions of some? Bahhh,....

krellin,

IF the accusations are true, then his morality is worse, because the thing he's accused of is worse. Anyway, as I already said, I agree Allen should not be judged. But Warden needs to make an argument the other way in a formal debate, so I was pointing him out a direction I think he should pursue. Even false things have a best argument for them.

Well technically Allen has lost court cases dealing with the events. From the Vanity Fair article, "4. Allen subsequently lost four exhaustive court battles—a lawsuit, a disciplinary charge against the prosecutor, and two appeals—and was made to pay more than $1 million in Mia’s legal fees. Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is 'no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.' " Granted, this is not nearly as strong as a verdict in a criminal case, but if you are supposed to make the case against Woody Allen, you have to first convince the reader that the allegations are true, and then make the argument semck83 used, as it is the strongest you can use against.

I appreciate the advice there, semck. And since I go to a Mormon college (no, not BYU) I can probably make the argument that morality is more important than achievement, let alone that it shouldn't be considered separately. As for the ambiguity of the evidence, I have some defense for that lined up as well. Mostly stuff along the lines that a judge wanted the case brought to trial, but the prosecutor didn't. And the undeniable fact that Allen *did* have sex with Dylan Farrow's adopted sister--even married her. So it's not too far of a leap to think he might've gotten involved sexually with other members of the family.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Allen's body of work is vast, varied, innovative, and commercially successful. Of course he merits lifetime achievement awards.

"And the undeniable fact that Allen *did* have sex with Dylan Farrow's adopted sister--even married her. So it's not too far of a leap to think he might've gotten involved sexually with other members of the family. "

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

having sex with someone who he didn't have any parental relationship with (he never adopted her), and was a consenting adult is whole different from what he is being accused of. The circumstances of him being accused are also rather suspect. I'm not saying he did or did not do it, but you can't use his affair against him (even if i think it is weird), and i think regardless he deserves the award. Dali was a fascist but his clocks painting are still pretty damn good.

@WardenDresden - perhaps you should draw some parallels with other famous people who have had questionable contact with minors. Elvis, Michael Jackson, Jerry Lee Lewis, Gary Glitter, Pete Townsend, etc

Some would argue that their work still deserves recognition and those that hate Woody Allen but love Elvis, Jacko, etc may have more sympathay for your line of arguement.

I would question this mans morality but not his acting or directing ability.
Of course you shouldn't take sexual advantage of a young child in your care, also at what age did this start, he would have watched her grow up and had access to this child from a very early age, you then ask yourself the question, was he caring for her as a good father should or was he grooming her, she would not have realised the difference as she would have seen it initially as a fathers love, he would have access to the most intimate moments with her, bath times, dressing her, cuddles, etc, etc.
Was he a good father or a sexual predator, I don't know enough about this case but about 90% of all child abuse cases are committed by a close relative or guardian. He doesn't have to have adopted her to have committed a crime ...... hang him !!

Sorry, was he not her guardian ..... what do I know !!

"That town is a fucking cess pit - puts Sodom and Gamora to shame for god's sake."

That's my home, Los Angeles County alright! :D

Your calls for hanging are suffering from inflation Nigee ;-)

''does it not seem wrong to honor a man who has been accused of molesting the daughter of his at-the-time girlfriend? ''

The key word here being 'acused', no. Blatantly NO. He could he guioty and if so should be punished, i actually sympathise with the recent open petter written by his accuser.

Still if you want to debate the other side, you have to take apart the self-appointed commitee making this award. What is their goal (not Justice, which any court would claim) but if you look at this goal then you kight be able to twist a good arguement for why he shouldn't be awarded... Though if personal life is ignored then that might be hard.

Still this is holywood, right? Not really a place where personal lives are considered 'private', in this one industry more than any other you should be able to claim his personal life does matter. As a role model, as an inspiration to others. (i might think this is stretching to get an arguement, bt it's the best arguement i can see, you've clearly got to dismiss the obvious legal case of 'innocent until proven guilty' - but not being a court that's pretty easy... You could attack his actual contribution to art, but that is highly subjective and may be difficult to sway a large percentage of the audience, aside from being offtopic; you have to go after public reputation in a public profession where personal life is not private!)

Apologies, when I see hang him I mean let him live in Palestine on the wrong side of the wall with all the terrorists ......

''Dali was a fascist but his clocks painting are still pretty damn good.''

The difference is context. Dali exists in the past where His fascism can be safely forgotten. Allen exists in the present where his *victim has stated publically that every time she sees a big opening of his new film is hurts her.

He exists within the context of a culture and the public record of his actions add meaning to his life, whether innocent or guilty. This organisation has the means to make a statement about his life, in that context, and there is every reason to claim that morality should weigh in.

You can still acknowledge Dali's works without being seen as a supporter of fascism.

Neither of those women had big chabobs. Now THAT'S a crime.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal argument. Given that this award is not of any legal relevance, it has no application as an argument here.

@ ora, and you can still appreciate a woody allen film without condoning sexual abuse - even if he has been proven guilty, let alone when the case against him is suspect. I don't think there is a reason why the should let morality weigh in to an assessment of his work - him as a person, sure, but his work? Whether he molested or not does not change the artistic merit of his films, even if it stops you being able to appreciate them.

Mendax has perfectly summed up the non-assignment part of this topic.

Warden, if I was grading this assignment, here are two things I would like. First, do some research. Has this award been withheld from someone with some other moral or political misdeed on the books? If, for example, someone who supported Apartheid didn't get it, you can ask about the relative merits of child molestation vs. white supremacy, which will make your opponents uncomfortable. Researching and preparing makes teachers happy, so really wave it around.

The other thing, which might be effective for a heavily religious and perhaps especially for a Mormon audience, is to emphasize that America has a particularly broken sexual culture: flaunting uninhibited sexuality, glorifying violence (including sexual violence) against women, and condoning abuse of children or the weak by the powerful and famous. Then you push further: we have to make a stand, as we did with racism and other forms of discrimination, and this is the place to do it. We must prove we won't allow the kind of behavior that abuses children.

@WardenDresden - I misread, I thought you were speaking for grant Allen an award.

You need to do some research on peer pressure. Peer pressure can be very good at settings social norms, in this case if an award is withheld (and importantly visually withheld) then others who grave recognition and attention (ie allother actors and directors) know what is and isn't acceptable. I'm not saying that others will conciousy decide not to folow a certain path based on the withholding of this award, but you'd be surprised how insecure actors can become and how frightened they are of the phone not ringing.

I'll go with what ckroberts and maniac said above and add in that many actors are strong extroverts. For the ones that aren't egomaniacs, peer pressure, fitting in, and being popular are all strong motivators. Being immoralized ...err.. immortalized with awards is another.