Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Scott]

Anne wrote: "Woody Allen for marrying his daughter"

This never happened.

[Scott]

Gary wrote: "Is Woody Allen in the mainstream news a lot lately? He keeps coming up in Goodreads threads."

There are a lot of busybodies who still, over twenty years later, can't get over their faux outrage about somebody else's private life.

[Anne]

Adopted step-daughter? Did not mean to offend Scott, Woody is welcome to do his thing. His (ex)family came out with all that, I did not make it up. The subject applies somewhat to this conversation.

[Scott]

Anne wrote: "Adopted step-daughter? Did not mean to offend Scott, Woody is welcome to do his thing. His (ex)family came out with all that, I did not make it up. The subject applies somewhat to this conversation."

Nope, not adopted, either. Allen and Farrow were never married, and from what I understand, he and Soon-Yi barely spoke to each other at the time.

[Gary]

Hokay... I wrote this up and then decided not to post it, but I'll go ahead and do it since it keeps coming up.

Here's a summary:

That whole business is decidedly messy. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't think it is fair to say he married his daughter or that he left his wife to be with his adopted daughter/daughter, because he neither adopted Soon-Yi nor married Mia Farrow. Rather, it would be more accurate to say: Woody Allen had an affair with his long-time girlfriend's adopted daughter, and then he married that same young woman. "Unconventional" doesn't really cover that kind of thing, but it's a whole mire of accusation and egos that seems to make for a lot of wild drama.

Soon-Yi was neither his adopted daughter, nor his step-daughter, but the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and her then husband Andre Previn (who has said his relationship with his adopted daughter now is "She does not exist.") Meaning, he married the adopted daughter of a woman with whom he has also adopted children (We don't have a term for the adopted sister of someone's adopted son and daughter... daughter by proxy?) but he never lived with her in a traditional, familial way as he and Farrow always lived apart.

Soon-Yi's age is, incidentally, in doubt as she has no birth certificate from Korea and her birthdate was set as a result of a bone scan. It could very well be off by a year or so either way.

There isn't any evidence that he molested Soon-Yi. However, the breakup was sparked by Farrow finding nude photographs of Soon-Yi (as an adult, mind you) that Allen admitted to have taken, and during the custody proceedings for their children (two adopted, one biological--more on that in a minute) he was accused of molesting one of the children that he and Farrow did adopt, Dylan. However, it must be said that the police appointed team that reviewed that allegation reported that she had "either invented the story under the stress of living in a volatile and unhealthy home or that it was planted in her mind by her mother" and their other adopted child, Moses, claims that Farrow was actually the abuser, physically and mentally, and that their mother planted the idea in his sister's mind. Those with ties to Farrow made their accusations, those with ties to Allen defend him and accuse Farrow back. They said/They said.

However, (lots of "however" in this story) the judge of the custody case found the evidence and testimony "inconclusive" and his ruling wasn't great for Allen. There are an awful lot of inconsistencies on both sides.

Then there's their Ronan, born in 1987 (bear in mind, the relationship with Allen ended in 1992) who Farrow has said is probably really her first husband Frank Sinatra's child (they were married when she was 21 and he was 50, and divorced in about two years) because she and Sinatra "never really split up" after their divorce. If your adopted daughter went off and married a man 30 years her age after you, I don't know... did the exact same thing yourself, that might get your goat. Adopted apples don't necessarily fall any further from the tree than any other apples. That's to say nothing of said older man still popping over for the occasional baby-daddy dance.

Meanwhile, Woody Allen and Soon-Yi are still married, well over a decade on, and have adopted yet more kids, and are by all accounts happy.

SoooOOOooOOOoooOOoooo.... Take from all that what you will. If you refuse to watch Woody Allen movies because you're a Believe the Children advocate, then I wouldn't argue the point with you. If you find the evidence a little shaky then I can't argue that either. I generally like Woody Allen's movies, and have paid attention to the artist behind the art, but I have no conclusive evidence one way or another.

A personal note: As an adoptee myself, I find the idea that someone is only a relative by blood or is otherwise outside the family (and thus not related for the purpose of determining incestuous relationships) deeply offensive. Family is a notional concept as much if not more than a biological one.

All of the children that were adopted or produced during the Farrow-Allen relationship use Farrow as their last name, and appear to have remained under their mother's household. How involved Allen was in bringing up Soon-Yi? I can't say.

However, (again with the H's) I don't see him participating in the Farrow household in a familial way, so I don't think that issue necessarily is at issue. It's weird and creepy in a May/October way, but if you can't stand the seasons, you should live in Miami where it doesn't get so cold.

Really, from an outsider perspective, we can only offer up opinions and conjecture. It certainly seems weird, particularly given the dynamics of the careers of Farrow (Rosemary's Baby) and Allen (all the movies he makes with the hot young current actress.)

I have to put a big "I DON'T KNOW" stamp on this one, folks.

[Scott]

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Gary.

[Anne]

Yes indeed thanks Gary. Don't hesitate to educate! Lots of info. Agreed on the adoption statements.

First let me say none of this Woody thing is my business. I don't judge any of them or claim to know anything. I don't mean to be a busy body, I wish all of them well. I admit that I am trying to make sense of some of our cultural values through the lens of that family.

I'm sure Mia is no fountain of mental health or stability. I feel sorry for all of those kids. What a nightmare of a household. However, I cannot simply discount what Ronan and Dylan say out of hand because they "might" be brainwashed. Do we just ignore them? This complex topic goes back to the 'rape culture' that David mentioned where we discount the testimony of some people because of gender or money or ? in favor of others. Why is Woody more credible than the others? Has Soon Yi ever spoken out? If not, why not? I also put Gary's I don't know stamp on it.

Biological or officially married does not mean much to me, there are common law families in many combinations. Hence the word married his "daughter". Even if it was just an uncle type thing it is unusual. If his movies are any indication, Woody Allen is obsessed with young women. Has he made a movie about a women his own age? Hasn't he done more than one movie about old guys in love with a young women out of their league? Here is my art vs. artist dilemma again. I'm not really his target audience but I would still watch some of his older stuff if I came across it (New York stories was my fave).

Going back to the Lolita movies, I did not read clockwork orange but really liked the movie in a horrified way. I just don't know if I want to give up 3 hours of my life to find out if I'd like his rendition of Lolita. I did not even like the book so why am I even talking on this board? :)

[Gary]

You're both welcome.

Anne wrote: "Going back to the Lolita movies, I did not read clockwork orange but really liked the movie in a horrified way. I just don't know if I want to give up 3 hours of my life to find out if I'd like his rendition of Lolita."

Clockwork Orange has some pretty horrific stuff in it... but it's kind of cartoonish at the same time. At a certain point, the conspicuously sexy victims start to look like what we see in exploitation films or just outright porn. It turns into something unreal (his thematic "ultraviolence") and loses some of its impact.

This gal has an good review of both films:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuS6Z...

Anne wrote: "I did not even like the book so why am I even talking on this board? :) "

Sometimes it's good to talk about books you don't like. A buddy of mine (a screenwriter) once told me you could learn as much about films from a bad movie as a good one. Then he made me watch Zardoz the son of a bitch.... He was right.

[Anne]

Thanks for the interesting tip Gary. And thanks for the literal laugh out loud at the picture of Sean C. in the wikipedia entry for Zardoz hahaha omg. Deliver us. :)

[Laureen]

Anne wrote: ""Genius" tainted with destructive narcissism and misogyny."

"Misogyny", the latest overused word, flavor of the year, or whatever you want to call it. It simply means "hatred of women". This is such a general term, how can anyone take it seriously as an affront.

[Dushyant]

"I am horrified, appalled, disgusted and scared that people seem to be on his side."

Opinions can be subjective and objective. Female readers might feel in a different way.

[Anthony]

Gary wrote: "Hokay... I wrote this up and then decided not to post it, but I'll go ahead and do it since it keeps coming up.

Here's a summary:

That whole business is decidedly messy. However, in the interes..."

excellent

[Anthony]

Dushyant wrote: ""I am horrified, appalled, disgusted and scared that people seem to be on his side."

Opinions can be subjective and objective. Female readers might feel in a different way."

if you mean Woody, I am not sure what you base it on, if you mean HH, I don't think many people really take his side. some get confused, and I think that is more a fault of them watching movies instead of reading the book.

[Laureen]

Dushyant wrote: ""I am horrified, appalled, disgusted and scared that people seem to be on his side."

Opinions can be subjective and objective. Female readers might feel in a different way."

I don't see that taking sides is an issue, it is a bit like politics - one sided arguments do not teach us anything and people generally lean towards people who support their own opinion. I like to hear an opposite argument so I can be assured I am making an educated choice in what I think but, even so, dogmatism is not something I admire.

[Chloe]

deleted user wrote: "Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."

This is a ridiculous statement to make."

why?

[Anthony]

On a moral plane, they are equal, the difference being rape is not quite as fatal, though it can pretty much destroy some. I hardly see the point in differentiating.

[Dushyant]

Agree with you Anthony..the other difference, I feel, is in the way the victim copes up with rape and looks to the life ahead...Murder won't give one that chance.

[Scott]

Anne wrote: "If his movies are any indication, Woody Allen is obsessed with young women. Has he made a movie about a women his own age?"

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger, for one.

[Dushyant]

I don't mean Woody.

[Anthony]

The trade off being so e rape victims recover and build a life, but as far as we know, dead people suffer no more... Which is worse? Which is better? Having suffered neither, I cannot say

[Anne]

Laureen wrote: "Anne wrote: ""Genius" tainted with destructive narcissism and misogyny."

"Misogyny", the latest overused word, flavor of the year, or whatever you want to call it. It simply means "hatred of wome..."

Okay Laureen, maybe it is overused but sadly it is applicable in lots of places. For clarity let me substitute it for "domination and potentially deadly indifference."

Scott I take back my assault on Woody's art. I'll only say we should be careful to defend his ex-family as much as him. Is there a reason to believe him over them?

[Scott]

Anne wrote: "Scott I take back my assault on Woody's art. I'll only say we should be careful to defend his ex-family as much as him. Is there a reason to believe him over them?"

The court has heard as much as can be heard and made its decision a long time ago. It's over. People need to move on.

[Anne]

Does that mean we are not allowed to mention him when we discuss old guys that have a thing for young girls and/or family members?

[Anthony]

Anne, I suppose you could mention Jesus Christ then,too, but it's hard to say what factual bearing either would have on the case. I would say if you know an older man messing with under aged children of either gender, you should contact the police, not make snarky comments about something that you do not know about.

[Anne]

I sincerely apologize if it sounded snarky. Honestly did not mean to. But also did not realize Woody was hallowed ground. I am sorry if I offended anyone. Warm regards to all.

[Scott]

It's not that he is hallowed ground; it is just very frustrating to hear people still repeating the same misconceptions over two decade later when the facts are freely available for anyone who wants to know them.

[Anthony]

Exactly what Scott said. I certainly don't hold Woody up as a model of decency, but, except for a handful of family members, the rest of us do not know the facts well enough to judge. Unlike this book, whee the facts are. Pretty clearly laid out (eventually) so that we can see HH for the sick "monster" that he is

[Anne]

The courts are not infallible. I respect your right to defend Woody. But I reserve the right to be made uncomfortable by him. I offer a friendly truce on the matter.

[Anthony]

Sounds fair. I think I would be uncomfortable if most celebrities lived in my neighborhood

[Scott]

Bloody paparazzi!

[Anne]

Agreed but for besmirching blame the exfam.

[Gary]

Anne wrote: "And thanks for the literal laugh out loud at the picture of Sean C. in the wikipedia entry for Zardoz hahaha omg."

Yeah, man, let that image burn into your subconscious. I still have nightmares....

[Gary]

Anthony wrote: "On a moral plane, they are equal, the difference being rape is not quite as fatal, though it can pretty much destroy some. I hardly see the point in differentiating."

The argument that murder is worse than rape or child molestation is entirely rational. Murder is, after all, final. Rape and child molestation are not.

However, that argument fails to recognize that crime is not, itself, based on rationality. There is no rational justification for rape and child molestation, though one could rationally justify something that is, technically, murder.... (See Dexter for how that might be done.)

While we might want to embrace a rational legal system, even a rational one must recognize the irrational nature of certain crimes. But the details of how/why that works is something of a sermon, so I'll leave it at that.

[David]

Why are people outraged for Woody?

Innocent or not, the man describes a scenario I find highly unlikely; that a woman, 20 years later, is 'brainwashed' into risking public scorn and ridicule to speak up about alleged abuse.

Considering how few women ever name their abusers or speak up, I think we have to at least give it a 50/50, not pretend that it is an open & shut case with Woody found innocent.

What made me decide I was sick of him was his response to her; it treated her like she wasn't even human. I do believe the man who wrote that letter is capable of what he has been accused of.

[Anne]

David wrote: "Why are people outraged for Woody?

Innocent or not, the man describes a scenario I find highly unlikely; that a woman, 20 years later, is 'brainwashed' into risking public scorn and ridicule to sp..."

<3

[Scott]

David wrote: "Innocent or not, the man describes a scenario I find highly unlikely; that a woman, 20 years later, is 'brainwashed' into risking public scorn and ridicule to speak up about alleged abuse."

She's been brainwashed since she was a child. It didn't just happen. I don't doubt that she believes it, since she's been told it happened her entire life.

What made me decide I was sick of him was his response to her; it treated her like she wasn't even human.

How would you respond to someone who accused you of such a thing?

[Anne]

The more I read the more horrifying it is. If they are crying wolf it is just despicable. If not it is also despicable.

I regret the digression though I do enjoy being on team David.

[Esdaile]

Fatin wrote: "macgregor wrote: "Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."

This is a ridiculous statement to make."

What I mean by that is, I would rather be murdered than raped. Of ..."

That is the view which the church promulgated over the centuries, which led many People to their death (suicide after rape) and is probably still the view of many Muslims. I consider such a view to be risible, abject and defeatist. It flies in the face of nature.

[Esdaile]

Mickey wrote: "I don't think Beth's idea of Humbert's insanity is unusual. On the reading guide questions for Lolita for Random House Inc. one of the questions is this:

"We also learn that Humbert is mad—mad eno..."

Everyone who is far apart from a given consensus is liable to be considered "mad"-calling someone "mad" can be the use of the term to protect against the potential influence or power of the "mad" Person. Christ, Mohammed, Hitler, were/ are often labelled mad by many of their enemies for that very reason. Saying someone is mad can be a pretext for not listening to them for fear of what they have to say.

[Esdaile]

Anne wrote: "Esdaile wrote: I do not think people say "I am going to be a drug addict/homosexual "

I want to go on record as objecting to homosexual being in this category. Homosexuality does not cause harm. L..."

Homsexuality does not cause harm? Never? That is patently untrue. Homosexuality certainly causes harm especially if the popular consensus is against it. Saying that "terrorists" maybe brainwashed is excuse me a major Evasion of the issue. Firstly I do not think that someone like Gerry Adams is brainwashed and secondly we do not have to take the example of terrorists. An answer please to the question (which the original peson has not repsonded to at all) Is a child ALWAYS the victim of the more serious crime being sexually touched by an adult than if tortured, maimed, deprived solong as there is no sexual element in the murder or maiming or deprivation? Will anyone in full seriousness say "yes" in answer to that question?

[Anthony]

What?!!!

Homosexuality causes no harm. The harm is when adults if either gender has sex with children if either gender, that causes a lot of harm. Rape, of an adult or a child, by either gender, no matter the gender of the victim, causes great harm. Again, homosexuality causes no harm, there is no connection between rape and homosexuality, nor pedaphilia and homosexuality.

[Daisy]

Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she's compared hi..."

You are not suppose to sympathize with him, the whole point is that we do not know if he is telling the truth. this whole story of him and Lolita may have never happened, it could possibly be all in his mind. Nabokov is trying to manipulate us into sympathizing with him because of the way H.H. talks to us. That is an interesting thing to talk about and anyone reply if you wanna discuss.

[Scott]

I don't know why so many people think he's not telling the truth. It's not as if he's hiding anything that he did.

[Daisy]

Scott wrote: "I don't know why so many people think he's not telling the truth. It's not as if he's hiding anything that he did."

No, but Nabokov has put in that he has been in an insane asylum and we have that weird preface that tricks people into thinking this is an actual story. Also his initials are repetitive just like the guy who wrote the letter and the language itself is sleepy and dreamy and murky and confusing. Nothing is straight forward, no one can trust a word he says

[Esdaile]

Anthony wrote: "On a moral plane, they are equal, the difference being rape is not quite as fatal, though it can pretty much destroy some. I hardly see the point in differentiating."

"on a Moral plane they are equal"... How do you make judgements on "moral planes", why should anyone accept what you say is a moral plane and what exactly is a moral plane in any case? IMO murder is obviously more damaging than rape, since one humiliates or hurts a person (unless they are a masochist and the issue there is not as easy as some pretend) while the other is total destruction. Total destruction is clearly "worse" in terms of survival, since destruction is per definition non-survival. Making rape the most heinous crime in the calender is largely the result of religious and post religious belief. I think a lot of things are worse, which does not at all mean I think it is good. Torture is worse, life imprisonment is worse, destruction of someones livilihood is in my opinion worse, destruction of the environment is worse vivisection is worse encouraging war in order to profit from war is worse making the atom bomb is worse. Nobody has to agree with me about that but I should like to know on what basis or "moral plane" anyone can claim that rape is objectively "worse" than any of these things.

[Anne]

Regarding Anthony/Esdaile conversation: By that logic being alive causes harm. I concede that. To say torture is worse than sex abuse is to compare apples to oranges. What is the value in comparing these things? They both cause physical and mental harm. One is a public political act, the other a private selfish act. With a political act, the person can be said to be acting toward what they perceive as a greater good, even if severely misguided and ignorant.

Gerry Adams was not an official "member" of the IRA. He has expressed regrets, recently regarding McConville and that was not a one off regret: "On the 30th anniversary of the bombs he said: "I certainly regret what happened and I make no bones about that." "

We are all brainwashed (religion / politics / etc..) But when people become physically violent then the brainwashing has reached a level where fear causes people to act against it. On the other hand it seems we can tolerate an unlimited amount of brainwashing for the purpose of financial gain and societal control that only occasionally includes physical violence or includes physical violence against those outside our own area of concern.

Regarding previous conversations with Scott and others that I promised to stop talking about(last one I promise): http://www.buzzfeed.com/millicentsome...

[Scott]

Anne wrote: "Regarding previous conversations with Scott and others that I promised to stop talking about(last one I promise): http://www.buzzfeed.com/millicentsome..."

That article is so absurdly biased I didn't even get through the whole thing. Her main contention seems to be that the situations were "strange." That means what? I'm willing to bet most relationships would seem strange to an outsider. Life is strange. It means nothing.

Also, taking to someone is "grooming"? PLEASE.

It's laughable.

[Anne]

I felt the same until I read the whole thing. We are trained to be biased. Admittedly the source is dodgy but some content holds water.

Pictures were for "modeling?" PLEASE! Previous shrink found him fixated, admitted to lying, etc... Not saying he is guilty, just that he is as incredible (un-credible?) and messed up as she.

[Anthony]

Y'all carry on, I weary of the sameness from the same people.

[Scott]

Anne wrote: "Pictures were for "modeling?" PLEASE!"

I fail to see why it matters at all what the pictures were for.