MICHAEL HOFACRE

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIF.

The writer is a film editor.

To the Editor:

Re “Coming to Terms With Woody Allen” (Arts pages, Feb. 1):

I’m a great admirer of A. O. Scott’s film reviews and commentary, but his argument for reappraising Woody Allen in light of renewed allegations of abuse by his adopted daughter strikes me as weak and somewhat pandering.

Mr. Allen may or may not deserve his latest brush with notoriety. But dogged investigation into the accusations against him by child sexual abuse experts — along with the refusal of the Connecticut state prosecutor to pursue the case — suggests that the filmmaker isn’t ever likely to be tried, except in the court of public opinion, which is already happening.

Let the actors who no longer want to work with him not do so. Let the moviegoers who no longer want to see his pictures — or never wanted to in the first place — stay home. But the notion that we should now rethink his entire body of work — one that contains its share of clunkers as well as more than a few genuine masterpieces — is the worst form of historical revisionism.

While we’re at it, why not revisit Alfred Hitchcock or Elia Kazan, both of whom had something in their histories that is troubling? Just as bad art is sometimes made by good people, good art can be and often is the product of imperfect people. We throw out all the alleged rascals at our peril.

WAYNE J. GUGLIELMO, MAHWAH, N.J.

To the Editor:

Re “Woody Allen Takes a Hit in the Wrath of #MeToo” (Arts pages, Jan. 29):

The #MeToo movement is all about listening to women’s voices rather than ignoring or invalidating victims of sexual misconduct. That is a change worth fighting for. But Dylan Farrow was listened to 25 years ago. In fact, she has had the singularly exceptional attention of two separate teams of experts on child abuse from two states who devoted months to investigating Woody Allen on her behalf. They found no reason to charge Mr. Allen.