When Woody Allen made “A Crisis in Six Scenes” for Amazon, he likely couldn’t have imagined its title would apply a bit too neatly to his relationship with the internet giant itself–though six scenes might prove a little short for the messy devolution of this partnership. Allen recently sued Amazon for $68 million after the distributor of all things shelved his latest film, “A Rainy Day in New York,” as part of their four-movie deal. But The Hollywood Reporter posits that Allen may have the upper hand in the suit due to the lack of a morals clause in that contract.
Amazon’s likely argument is “frustration of purpose” (a.k.a. when “unforeseen events” cause one party not to be able to fulfill their end of the bargain) due to not only the recent #MeToo allegations against the long-controversial director but also the more recent public response to similar accusations and its negative impact on films’ viability. The lack of actors wanting to be publicly associated with the filmmaker likely doesn’t help, especially when considering the remaining films on the contract that haven’t started production.
READ MORE: If Amazon Cuts Ties With Woody Allen, It Might Mean A Costly Payout
Meanwhile, the Allen camp can focus on the absence of a morals clause in the legal agreement between the two parties, which is pretty standard for industry contracts. THR sees Allen’s legal route to the cash as focusing not only on this lack of this clause, but also on the fact that Amazon knew about the Dylan Farrow allegations and still proceeded without it.
As with almost all legal disputes, the Amazon-Allen feud is a complex one fueled by lawyers that make arguments that would make most people without their J.D. balk. However, arguing in favor of your agreement’s lack of a morality clause is not a good look, especially during this climate.