The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Woody Allen's Old Jailbait Girlfriend Comes Clean
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Hollywood Reporter:

Woody Allen’s Secret Teen Lover Speaks: Sex, Power and a Conflicted Muse Who Inspired ‘Manhattan’
by Gary Baum December 17, 2018, 6:00am PST

Not that secret, since Allen made one of his most famous movies, 1979’s Manhattan, about their affair, with Mariel Hemingway playing his high school student girlfriend. It was considered uncool at the time to have moral objections to the film, but I always found the movie distasteful. Still, it’s kind of Peak Woody Allen, along with 1977’s Annie Hall, the way Lolita is extremely distasteful but it’s also Peak Nabokov. (By the way, Lolita isn’t really that good — it’s overly long and show-offy — while Pale Fire and Speak, Memory are wonderful and don’t make you read about child abuse.)

Open and thoughtful, Engelhardt unspools a life story that took root in a strict German immigrant household and blossomed into a Zelig-esque series of adventures as she attempted to break into modeling: partying with Iman, jet-setting with Adnan Khashoggi

This is the international arms dealer who was in the news all the time a generation ago. He was the cousin of the Khashoggi who was murdered by the Saudis.

, dining with Stephen King, working as a personal assistant to Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier later convicted for soliciting an underage girl. Following her time with Allen, she went on to become a platonic muse to Federico Fellini during the auteur’s late-life journeys in Rome and Tulum, Mexico, then spent years tending to egos as a hostess in the executive dining room at Paramount before landing her current gig, working as an assistant for producer Bob Evans.

Hoo boy, she can pick ’em. I’m surprised she didn’t also sleep with Armand Hammer.

… Another element that may have factored into her dynamic with Allen, Engelhardt muses, was her German background. “I had been taunted, tormented as a ‘Nazi child’ in the Jewish neighborhood I grew up in: Matawan, New Jersey. [The family moved to a rural area of the state when she was a teenager.] My father ran around in lederhosen. I had doors slammed in my face.” Her parents were both postwar emigres, her father — by his account — a 14-year-old ditch-digging conscript into Hitler’s army serving near the French border before the end of the war. “Woody’s the uber-Jew, and I’m the uber-German,” she says. While the pair never discussed their difference, she contends it hovered, at least on her end: “There was a chip on my shoulder about wanting to please those who cast me aside. I wasn’t confrontational because I thought, ‘Nobody likes Germans.’ ”

As I wrote in Taki’s Magazine last March after the Oscars:

While film critics have been wondering recently how they could have been so…toxic as to have long admired Woody Allen’s 1979 movie Manhattan about a 42-year-old man sleeping with a 17-year-old girl played by Mariel Hemingway, the Academy voted the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar to 89-year-old James Ivory for Call Me by Your Name, a movie about deflowering a 17-year-old boy.

But that’s different because Ivory, unlike Allen, is gay.

So that’s okay.

Also, please keep in mind that Allen is in bad odor these days because of his inveterate white maleness. Nobody is apologizing for why Woody, a hardworking, Pete Rose-like talent but not exactly a transcendent genius, was so lavishly praised by critics for all those decades, which has something to do with his casting in Manhattan the granddaughter of the most prestigious arch-gentile of his youth, Ernest Hemingway, as the high school shiksa he’s shtupping.

That predilection would be…not appropriate to discuss in print, you understand.

 
Hide 376 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    Many “aspiring models” end up being “escorts” or have “sugar daddies” i.e. become prostitutes to wealthy men. As they age out, some of them transition to assistant positions to these men where they assume madam like roles and recruit and groom the next generation of “aspiring models”. This appears to have been her career trajectory, reading between the lines from the figures she’s associated with.

  2. Fuck it. Look at her pre-18 modeling photo from the time Allen was dating her. We’re all–all of us–supposed to view her as a sex object, but no actual man can ethically sleep with her? Fuck it. I’m almost the age Allen was and if this girl came to my apartment and gave me a signal, I’d sleep with her too.

  3. J.Ross says: • Website

    It’s not news and there is no reality in which Woody Allen would ever receive a hundredth of the communally-required vitriol and ostracism directly at Mel Gibson.
    But it is kind of useful to people who try to keep track of things that what we all knew is confirmed, both in the sense of Woody’s preferences and in the sense of how the people who are defending us from Russia and our own president frame the information.
    ———
    https://postimg.cc/QBHxVcK4

    • Agree: JMcG
  4. Anonymous[341] • Disclaimer says:

    the Academy voted the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar to 89-year-old James Ivory for Call Me by Your Name, a movie about deflowering a 17-year-old boy.

    Have you seen it?

  5. Jason y says:

    Er, it’s been awhile since I revisited Pale Fire, but if memory serves, King Charles the Beloved had a whole heap of page boys fall into his room on one occasion, and there are many similar episodes described throughout, like the lascivious descriptions of a teenage boy in a throwaway scene about the gropings of Gradus. Kinbote’s pederasty is treated very lightly and served as one of the many ways Kinbote is a mirror image of John Shade. It’s all part of the game, which is a bit show-offy and requires a great deal of investment on the part of the reader to fully appreciate.

    I actually think there may be more references to sex acts involving children in Pale Fire but I am not going to count.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
  6. inertial says:

    “Not that secret.”

    Woody Allen in a 1976 interview:

    I’m not above reproach; if anything, I’m below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him.

    It was a different time.

  7. Yuck. Almost ruined a high-end monitor with projectile vomit when learning that she’d been employed by that reptile Epstein, especially. Woody (a pun-ready adopted nick), at least is a wimp and not as powerful financially/politically.

    But she was honest about the anti-German prejudice experienced in some coastal US spots. That’s a very real thing. It’s a bummer to have one’s fellow homeroom students write on the blackboard that you’re evil and a N**I, simply based on one’s background.

    “My father ran around in lederhosen,” she complains. Hell, I’ve got mine in the next room.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Erik L
    , @Pericles
  8. Anon[760] • Disclaimer says:

    Looking back on the Academy Awards for these past couple years, it seems like it’s been a pretty bad run. Is there any general awareness/embarrassment in the film industry that a lot of these choices didn’t age well (The Artist, anyone?).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture#2010s

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Anon
  9. Anon[811] • Disclaimer says:

    Because writing a script isn’t the same as doing it on real life?

    Because you HBD autistes keep saying boys and girls are totally different?

  10. @Chrisnonymous

    American society is really, really weird about age gaps in romantic relationships.

    You can make an argument that it’s not the best idea to sexualize girls who are coming of age, but in that case it’s not enough to keep established men away from them. There’s also the matter of the high school football captain.

    I’ve never understood why it’s wrong for a 41 year old man to screw a 17 year old girl but totally acceptable for an 18 year old man to do so.

  11. He was the cousin of the Khashoggi who was murdered by the Saudis.

    Like anybody in Arabia isn’t the cousin of everybody else.

    Call Me by Your Name, a movie about deflowering a 17-year-old boy.

    “Defoliating” might be a more appropriate term in cases like that. Is this the worst premise ever for a movie? It’s been erased from the star’s own IMDB page.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Gay_Movie
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443431/?ref_=nv_sr_1
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1298546/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

    Speaking of jailbait, there are an awful lot of young women in this orchestra, and they and their mostly bare shoulders are placed right up front for the audience. Or vidience, as the case may be.

    The conductor (conducteuse? conductrice? conductrix?) is apparently a woman, too, but fully covered.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    , @Jack D
    , @Kemidov
  12. Anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    I like how she complains about an unequal power dynamic between the super hot girl and the older rich guy, as in, “He controlled the TV remote and choose the wine.”

    She had the power to hang up on his phone calls and go out with another guy.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  13. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Woody Allen has directed a zillion movies and there’s been what, zero, actresses (other than his harpy ex) who have accused him of anything untoward?

  14. @Anon

    It’s hard to predict what movies will age well.

    “Citizen Kane” is said to have emerged as a classic a few years after it was released in 1941 out of conversations among top Hollywood guys in the military in documentary/propaganda film crews in combat zones. I don’t remember who exactly but I’m guessing people like John Huston. They had a lot of hurry up and wait time on their hands to talk about movies, and they kept coming back to “Citizen Kane” as The One, which I don’t think they had anticipated.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Anonymous
  15. anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry, better things to get upset about than behavior whose “evil” depends on what state you’re in. If I recall, the age of consent is 16 in New Hampshire, Hawaii, Massachussetts……

  16. @J.Ross

    Safety tips from Anubis! ROTFL!

    • Replies: @Jack D
  17. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Looking back on the Academy Awards for these past couple years,

    Couple of years? That’s been the case forever.

  18. Truth says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    We’re all–all of us–supposed to view her as a sex object, but no actual man can ethically sleep with her? Fuck it. I’m almost the age Allen was and if this girl came to my apartment and gave me a signal, I’d sleep with her too.

    Boy, Bro; and Him, as in; “I’m almost the age Allen was and if this boy (apparently with size 12+ feet and the ability to palm a basketball) came to my apartment and gave me a signal, I’d sleep with him too…

    But, hey, too each his own Big Chief.

  19. @Dave Pinsen

    Woody Allen has directed a zillion movies and there’s been what, zero, actresses (other than his harpy ex) who have accused him of anything untoward?

    They’re too old for his tastes.

  20. J.Ross says: • Website

    Huge underreported news: Christopher Steele yanks the rug out from under Robert Mueller
    Christopher Steele flat out admits he was hired to help Hillary win after she lost

    This is a major development, because Steele’s “research” was the basis for the peepee dossier that was submitted for the illegal FISA warrant. Steele has now admitted directly that Hillary was responsible for the dirty dossier.

    British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election.

    He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference.

    His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer.

    In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.

    “Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.” The Democrats never filed a challenge, but Mr. Steele’s answer suggested that was one option inside the Clinton camp, which funded Mr. Steele’s research along with the Democratic National Committee.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/12/christopher-steele-hillary-clinton-was-preparing-t/

    http://archive.fo/E29q8

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    , @Autochthon
    , @Jack D
  21. Truth says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Orson Welles was our most overrated film director and it is not close. Mediocre director, excellent teacher of film technique.

    When I watch CK or The Magnificent Ambersons, I spend about 20-30 minutes marveling over the dialogue, camera angles, lighting and acting…then I fall asleep.

    Edit:

    Come to think of it, you could throw Tarantino and Peckinpah in there as well, so I guess it is close.

    • Agree: Abe
  22. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen

    There was probably a feeling that, if Woody Allen has his way with you, you really need to start working out.

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  23. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    dining with Stephen King, working as a personal assistant to Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier later convicted for soliciting an underage girl. Following her time with Allen, she went on to become a platonic muse to Federico Fellini during the auteur’s late-life journeys in Rome and Tulum, Mexico, then spent years tending to egos as a hostess in the executive dining room at Paramount before landing her current gig, working as an assistant for producer Bob Evans.

    Sheesh, maybe the Nazis were right about Aryan features being the highest form of beauty. After all, even Jews who got burned by Aryanism slobber over Aryan women.

    So, if Aryanism is the gold standard of beauty, maybe it should be preserved. Race-mixing with certainly downgrade it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  24. Arthur J says:

    So you have moral objections to a 42 year old clacking a 17 year old? That’s weird.

    Young Christina Engelgardt was a babe. Woody Allen wasn’t good looking at any age. I’m impressed he got it in at 42 while she was in her prime. Fresh.

    I’m in Europe. 17 is legal here; actually younger most places. I probably wouldn’t go lower than 16 though. 15 if she had a decent rack. Germany, it’s 14 but i suppose just because you can go that young doesn’t mean you have to. America still suffers from Puritanism. American men are suffering. It’s basically pussy pedestalising. Missing out.

    I take my cues from the 20th century’s greats, Sartre, Escobar, Elvis etc All the greats were teenage clunge plungers. If you’re in your 40’s and you can’t get a fresh teenage pie, you’re probably not successful in life or probably still believe girls don’t like mickey. They’re all dirty sluts at least some of the time. Even 17 year olds. Not a thing wrong with being old and enabling a young filly’s fantasies.

    I’m mostly doing girls I’m their twenties because I’m not yet a great artist. Unsuccessful. Still, itty bitty teens are only a book deal away. I’d say there’s always dreaming, but tumblr is gone now. They disapproved of the teen show too. Shame.

  25. I mean, we got a pretty great movie out of it, and at least she wasn’t his daughter….

    • Replies: @Anon
  26. It was considered uncool at the time to have moral objections to the film, but I always found the movie distasteful. Still, it’s kind of Peak Woody Allen, along with 1977′s Annie Hall, the way Lolita is extremely distasteful but it’s also Peak Nabokov. (By the way, Lolita isn’t really that good — it’s overly long and show-offy — while Pale Fire and Speak, Memory are wonderful and don’t make you read about child abuse.)

    Lolita isn’t really that good?

    Nabokov’s most famous novel is also his best novel. By just about any measure. By critical acclaim. By sales. By how well the story is remembered. By how often it’s reread.

    Nabokov’s later novels – Pale Fire, Ada or Ardor, and the very short Transparent Things – are all interesting to read in their own ways, but none of them have a plot to drive the story. They’re literary puzzles. With the financial success brought by Lolita, Nabokov became increasingly invested in creating literary puzzles and less interested in writing original stories that might have broader interest. There’s no memorable story in any of them, as there is in Lolita. And the earlier novels of Nabokov that I’ve read – Mary, The Defense, and Invitation to a Beheading are all stale and unmemorable, perhaps because they were originally written in Russian before VN translated them to English.

    With Lolita, Nabokov hit a sweet spot he never had before and would never find again. He wrote a story compelling enough for many readers, but still loaded it with the literary puzzles and hidden gems he liked to put in almost all his later novels.

    Pale Fire is a great novel, but Lolita is better. Your comment about Lolita – that it’s “overly long and show-offy” – would be more appropriately used for Pale Fire, a book which is about the same page length as Lolita, but reads longer because of the 999-line poem.

    As for your moral qualms about the book, there’s nothing of pornographic interest in it. Chronic jerk-offs will turn page after page in disappointment. They’ll find more of interest in your beloved Updike. For the seduction scene, for example, VN cribs a scene from Gogol that cloaks all sexual detail even as it lets the reader knows what has happened. As for distasteful subject matter, weren’t you just praising Clockwork Orange the other day?

    Speak Memory is perhaps the greatest memoir I’ve read, but it’s an autobiography, not a novel. I just don’t know how one would compare it to Lolita.

  27. @Anonymous

    Agree.

    It’s sad, really. This Engelhardt girl was obviously healthy and had something on the ball, yet she managed only a life of high-end prostitution, specializing in appeasing the ethne that most assailed her. In a different world, she might have been and done something better.

    When Germany lost the World Wars, it wasn’t just a military defeat. Apparently their sons and daughters are doomed to be cucks and concubines unto the nth generation.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    , @Neuday
    , @moshe
  28. Thursday says:

    Manhattan (the movie) has great cinematography and music, but it’s actually really boring. All of Allen’s serious films are incredibly dull.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @syonredux
  29. OT but speaking of Hollywood, the yearly list of the “best” (you’ll get the scare quotes after browsing through) unproduced screenplays just came out: https://deadline.com/2018/12/black-list-2018-scripts-ranking-list-screenplays-1202521338/

    It’s nothing but ‘black’, ‘trans’, ‘the first woman’, etc etc. It’s basically a 101 on the talking points of the left nowadays.

    Get a load of this:

    “A disillusioned and indoctrinated American teenage girl travels to Syria to help ISIS build their Caliphate and, what she has been led to believe, is a better world. Through her relationship with an everyday Syrian family, she will discover the true face of Islam and the courage to fight for what is right against insurmountable odds.”

    “When a young African-American woman takes a job at a well-known venture capitalist firm in Silicon Valley, she must figure out a way to succeed in an elitist society where she feels inherently excluded.”

    “A young woman must get home by herself on Halloween with no cell phone battery and a group of gamergate trolls out to get her.”

    Coming soon to a theatre near you!

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @anon
  30. jb says:

    Woody gave the game away on more than one occasion.

    “…the best thing is…blond 12 year old girls…two of them…whenever possible…”

    Also, although you’ve probably already seen this: The Remarkable Laziness of Woody Allen.

    • Replies: @moshe
  31. Don’t like Woody at all but only in the USA is there this nonsense about the age differences between men and women. This girl was not some innocent creature. In most of Europe they are saying, “What.” The interesting stuff is that she said that Woody invited other women for threesomes including Mia Farrow.

    • Replies: @Gigidy
    , @ken
  32. Anonymous[961] • Disclaimer says:

    Part of the American cultural meltdown into hysterical matriarchy/faggocracy is the age of consent zealotry.

    A sane society doesn’t classify an adult who has sex with a 17 year old in the same category as an adult who has sex with a 7 year old. But in many jurisdictions in the USA these are both dreaded pedophile sex offenders who must register with the authorities for the rest of their lives.

    The government creates a magic line and the idiotic self-appointed deputies (usual feminist hags and beta cucks) call for burnings at the stake if the vixen is one day under the line.

    Even worse is the horny school marm going to prison for educating the horny high school boy. Back before America became a neurotic mess this kind of thing was not a big deal.

    America never shakes its puritan insanity. The insanity just morphs and re-concentrated against the new transgressors. But it’s always the old witch-burning mentality at the root of it.

    • Replies: @Red Pill Angel
  33. @Thorfinnsson

    It’s better for society that teenagers bumble around with each other rather than getting swooped up by 40 year old men willing to pay for everything. That destabilizes things.

    Also in the current year there is a huge difference between an 18 year old and a 23-25 year old. Modern 18 year olds- due to years of coddling in school and lack of life experience- may as well be 13-14 year olds in some respects.

    However a 10 year age gap isn’t that icky for an 18 year old girl.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @L Woods
    , @anon
  34. @Chrisnonymous

    That’s one stupid outfit. Are you sure you couldn’t find an underage supermodel with better taste in swimwear? Just sayin.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    , @Jack D
  35. Adnan Khashoggi is said to have hung out quite a bit with Donald Trump back in the ‘80s. When Khashoggi ran into financial trouble, he sold his yacht to Trump.

    Later, when Trump ran into his own financial difficulties, he sold the yacht to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s arch rival, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (whom Trump likes to call “Dopey” Prince Al-Waleed).

    Prince Al-Waleed is a minority shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp. A few years ago, he attempted to start his own Arabic news network. He hired Jamaal Khashoggi to run it.

  36. @Truth

    What in the Hell did you just write, son? The king’s English: do you speak it?!

    • Replies: @Truth
  37. Kylie says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    “I’m almost the age Allen was and if this girl came to my apartment and gave me a signal, I’d sleep with her too.”

    I don’t have a problem with that. My objection is to the creepy control Allen exerted over her, only meeting at his place, coercing her into threesomes, etc. It was a pretty one-sided relationship, to put it mildly, one in which he seems to have gotten all he wanted from it and she got what he chose to give her.

    I would hope that you would treat her with some respect and consideration for her feelings.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Jack D
  38. J.Ross says: • Website

    Police in Germany stop a young woman and demand to know her political views, because she has braided (and un-dyed) hair, which is now the same thing as a swastika. Previously: daycare proctors to report parents interested in sports as possibly right-wing.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Mr. Anon
  39. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clifford Brown

    John Simon’s review of MANHATTAN is spot on. It’s a very dishonest film. It’s just smarmy NYers showing off their neurosis as status symbols. Allen was very much a part of that world but sneers at it as an ‘outsider’ while wishing to be accepted as an insider while mugging before the camera that, yes, he is fully aware of all these contradictions, and that makes him a tormented seeker of truth.

    But Andrew Sarris inexplicably called it the best American film of the 70s. I hope he changed his opinion later.

    https://www.villagevoice.com/2007/07/03/defending-manhattan/

    When Manhattan opened in April 1979, Andrew Sarris began his Village Voice review as though granted a vision: Manhattan had “materialized out of the void as the one truly great American film of the ’70s.” Leaving aside the decade’s avant-garde and documentary productions, this is still a remarkable claim to make of a massively mythologized period. Where was the void? Why did Sarris love Manhattan so? For the first time, Allen’s visual rhetoric was equal to his writing. For the first (and also the last) time, he graced the screen with a fully realized vision. And then, of course, there was the shock of recognition: Manhattan‘s world was a glamorized version of Sarris’s.

  40. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Kylie

    A big age difference in a hookup or one relationship among many is only noteworthy now because the new puritans decided to worry about it. There’s arguments for it (campfire rule, greater maturity, etc). What is creepy is that this was not a chance encounter as Chrisnonymous describes — Woody clearly always needs to be the daddy in the worst sense.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @AndrewR
  41. J.Ross says: • Website
    @S. Anonyia

    Letting teenagers bumble sounds worse.

  42. Lurker says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Well there is the whole Korean stepdaughter wife thing. Nothing weird about that at all. . .

  43. I’m still trying to figure out why anyone would sleep with Woody Allen or see his movies. He must be a gifted hypnotist or something. Ugly and boring are the most apt descriptors otherwise. Oh, let’s not forget Thank Heaven for Little Girls creepy.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Kylie
  44. L Woods says:
    @S. Anonyia

    Stupid reasoning. The current system means that sportsball players, drug dealers etc get the attractive women in their prime, rather then men who have accomplished something. It’s iniquitous and destroys the incentive to achieve anything useful. Sexual liberation “destabilized” everything by making the spoils extremely unequal — where’s the concern about that?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @miss marple
  45. L Woods says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Because women want to hedge off younger competition as much as possible.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @L Woods
  46. @Reg Cæsar

    That film seems stupid. 9 Dead Gay Guys is comedy gold, though.

  47. L Woods says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    I mean, I wouldn’t, out of fear of our (completely illegitimate and unjust) law, but in principle you’re obviously right. There’s really no defense for a contrary opinion. American society is raving, viciously insane.

  48. @J.Ross

    Police in Germany stop a young woman and demand to know her political views, because she has braided (and un-dyed) hair, which is now the same thing as a swastika. Previously: daycare proctors to report parents interested in sports as possibly right-wing.

    Heil Pippi!

  49. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheMediumIsTheMassage

    This Black-List idea isn’t a total loss.

    HOT SUMMER NIGHTS was noticed as a ‘black-list’ movie, and it’s a pretty interesting and impressive movie though it over-reaches with significance that isn’t there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Summer_Nights_(film)

    But there are surprises too, esp with the depiction of the father of one of the girls. Usually, in these movies, the parental types are party-poopers who say NO to fun, but there’s a scene in the movie where we come to understand the father has a story too and perhaps a deeper perspective on things. Rather odd considering that the writer-director is some Negro who seems steeped in drug culture and tattoos. And yet, he created white characters on the opposite side of the spectrum whose worldview he at least empathizes with.

    At the very least, a project like Black-List gives independent film-makers a chance.

  50. @Lurker

    Well there is the whole Korean stepdaughter wife thing. Nothing weird about that at all.

    She was of age, and legally and genetically unrelated to him. In other words, that marriage was arguably the least objectionable part of his private life the last 50 years.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Mr McKenna
    , @Lurker
  51. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Lurker

    She was never his step daughter.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    , @Anon
  52. “The interesting stuff is that she said that Woody invited other women for threesomes including Mia Farrow.”

    Yeah, that really puts a massive kink in Mia’s whole outraged harpy schtick. It’s not “you bastard, you were unfaithful!” but “you bastard, you’re having threesomes with my pretend daughter instead of me!”

    I also loathed Manhattan. But as for Woody having sex with a 16 year old who threw herself at him…Jesus, it was the 70s. Barely worth mentioning. And it was a misdemeanor at best.

    She’s been a whore for 40 years. Why care now?

  53. syonredux says:
    @Thursday

    Manhattan (the movie) has great cinematography and music,

    The great Gordon Willis, perhaps the best cinematographer of the 1970s.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @PiltdownMan
  54. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Lolita isn’t really that good?

    I only read first two pages, and it was fine writing. Kubrick’s adaptation is pretty great and probably more palatable because the girl has been made older. It’s an interesting work on the subject of power. The POWER that Lolita has over Humbert is a nut that he can’t crack, and certainly we can’t crack.

    And that kind of fetish-obsession may be the most powerful. It will remain a mystery for the viewer UNLESS he happens to share Humbert’s fetish for that particular girl. Most viewers will just see some pretty girl(like any other pretty girl). Pretty but what’s the BIG deal? Surely, Humbert has seen many pretty girls, but for some reason, Lolita has a hold on him like no other person. She set off something within him that he hadn’t known existed.
    Kubrick was fascinated with the subject of power, and he found this kind of power to be most potent, dangerous, and mysterious. It’s like Alice’s recollection of the naval officer. She didn’t just say he was a handsome guy she felt the hots for. Instead, she confesses she fell into a trance and was willing to give up everything for him. Now, that is some power. And the thing is the naval officer didn’t even make any moves on her. A mere glance of him struck a deep chord within her, and even she can’t understand it and why she felt that way. The only kind of person who has power over such power is someone like Quilty who is so totally brilliant, cynical, and unscrupulous. As such Quilty can’t be a slave of any romantic obsession, but there is nothing human about him. He might as well be a human computer of snark.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  55. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    His harpy ex and his kids

    Also, there was that whole thing where he was banging his stepdaughter

  56. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “She was of age…”

    …after a while.

  57. syonredux says:

    Also, please keep in mind that Allen is in bad odor these days because of his inveterate white maleness. Nobody is apologizing for why Woody, a hardworking, Pete Rose-like talent but not exactly a transcendent genius, was so lavishly praised by critics for all those decades, which has something to do with his casting in Manhattan the granddaughter of the most prestigious arch-gentile of his youth, Ernest Hemingway, as the high school shiksa he’s shtupping.

    Ernest Hemingway from Midnight in Paris:

    Mariel Hemingway in Manhattan:

    One assumes that Woody deeply regrets that F Scott Fitzgerald doesn’t have a granddaughter in the business…..

  58. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheMediumIsTheMassage

    There’s a guy calls himself Neon Revolt, one of those Q-anon true believers, who wrote a couple of massive and almost totally incomprehensible screeds about the guy behind the Blacklist. It was all about how the guy is connected to the elite Illuminati cabal that secretly controls the world.

    I couldn’t make head nor tail of it, nor am I inclined to try. But he was definitely on to something, insofar as this guy was seriously connected – Soros-funded groups, media bigwigs, one of the (mediocre) scripts was written by some kid connected to the Obamas, etc. There might actually be a story there if one can wade through the muck.

  59. syonredux says:
    @syonredux

    David Thomson on Gordon Willis:

    Meanwhilee, you might reach the conclusion that in KLUTE, the two parts of THE GODFATHER, ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, and THE PARALLAX VIEW, one cinematographer had established a kind of noir color look, rich in brown, amber, and shadow, that was a vital force in the noir movies made in Hollywood in the 1970s.This is not just a matter of recording the images efficiently, it is in the understanding of a new dramatic need and the technical ability to deliver it. Willis in the early 1970s is as important to film history as Henri Decae and Raul Coutard are a decade before.

  60. black sea says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    There is another woman who claims that she and Allen had an affair when she was a 17-year-old aspiring actress. Jewish, I believe. As she puts it, her mother was “totally cool” with it.

    https://www.thewrap.com/woody-allen-ex-girlfriend-says-sex-abuse-charges-publicity-stunt-ronan-farrows-show/

    Muriel Hemingway says that Allen tried to seduce her shortly after she turned 18.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/woody-allen-mariel-hemingway-manhattan

    I guess whether or not these are untoward is a matter of opinion. There’s an awful lot of evidence suggesting that Allen is/was inordinately attracted to teenage girls, or at least had fewer inhibitions than most men about acting on such an attraction. Then again, the most recent woman to reveal an affair — Engelhardt — initiated contact with him by leaving her phone number on his table at Elaine’s, and I think she knew where this was going.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  61. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    I read that article twice. Carefully. I really don’t have any sympathy for her at all. I think she was an incredibly foolish young woman. Probably still is, except for the young part. With her great looks she should have had no trouble snagging a desirable mate. Instead she pursued the very unattractive Allen, and basically wasted eight years of her life (peak sexual attraction years) allowing him to use her sexually. She seems to have gotten nothing out of the relationship. I am not surprised to see she is now divorced.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
  62. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @L Woods

    Ah yes, the 50’s: the golden age of old men fucking teenagers.

  63. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anon

    Andrew Sarris began his Village Voice review as though granted a vision: Manhattan had “materialized out of the void as the one truly great American film of the ’70s.”

    For god’s sake, you don’t even need to change the religio-ethnic group and sexual preferences of the director to find the right answer there, and Sarris still screws it up!

  64. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @S. Anonyia

    Half your age plus seven. That’s the rule.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  65. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    I’ve never understood why it’s wrong for a 41 year old man to screw a 17 year old girl but totally acceptable for an 18 year old man to do so.

    That’s because you’re a filthy disgusting foreign pervert. You probably don’t even want to ban alcohol

    • Replies: @Jack D
  66. J.Ross says: • Website

    But it’s not like pedophilia is being normalized —


    Ten year old boy branded as “Desmond Is Amazing” (the “is amazing” is part of his stage name) dances at a New York gay bar for money.

    • Replies: @tyrone
  67. Anon[815] • Disclaimer says:
    @miss marple

    You should be able to deduce this by a simple process of elimination: You’ve seen Woody, you’ve seen his movies, what haven’t you seen? Presumably, what’s between his legs: A mammoth schlong.

  68. @L Woods

    On the contrary, the sexual revolution means underage supermodels don’t have to be objectified by the likes of WA but can do the objectifying. What kind of guy would Englehardt have chosen for herself if she hadn’t been sexualized at an early age? Isn’t Mariel H a lesbian, btw?

    Opportunists will always be around who make it their business to be appealing to those who can reward them with money or favors. This woman, for instance, was she hoping Allen would cast her in a movie? This dynamic would exist in the film industry no matter what sexual mores existed elsewhere in society.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  69. @Truth

    Yep. Agree. Charlton Heston once said that Welles was the most talented director he ever worked with, but wasn’t the best, mainly because he was lazy and indulgent. Though, I did catch some of his Falstaff movie recently and it was interesting. Not a great, or even good movie, though.

    • Replies: @Truth
  70. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Kubrick’s adaptation is pretty great

    Second-tier Kubrick. And it spends far too much time on Peter Sellers.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  71. @Anon

    Pauline Kael, a much better reviewer than Sarris, saw right through Woody back when everyone was celebrating him. She viewed him as something of a hack; a mediocre story-teller and vapid showman for all things New York, whose vision of the city (aside from shots of grand buildings) consisted of little more than the burblings of his suffocating roster of friends. Notice in Woody’s films from the 70s, no one is ever mugged, feels unsafe or has to leave the city because they lost their job and can’t pay the rent. Economic and physical security are assumed. What New York does that resemble?

    • Agree: Clyde
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Clyde
  72. @anon

    Dumbass women who screwed themselves out of money (pun intended) is a long list indeed. Lindsay Lohan is one, but an older one, that Playmate of the Year (MacDougal?) is another one. All they had to do was look reasonably pretty, have two kids, and hey, if they had to settle for marrying lower tier lawyer, or a dentist, they’d still be better off.

    But there’s that mindset. Getting naked for photographers, or even sleeping with a certain so and so can pay off, but only if you can follow through and keep your eyes on the prize.

    For me, the #metoo thing enlightened me about how many respected actresses did lay for play.

  73. @Lurker

    The Asian thing is a typical Jewish male thing now. Ever notice how there are no shiksa jokes or guilt feelings with Asian/black females? Before Allen hooked up with the Korean, his movies mostly dealt with the problems he had with shiksas. Philip Roth was another example of this type of Jewish male. Jewish filmmakers won’t make movies dealing with their issues with Asian/black females because they are now gravitating to what is natural for them. There are no conflicts for them.

  74. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @miss marple

    Presumably, she didn’t pick the outfit. Models generally don’t, do they?

    • Replies: @miss marple
  75. @Pincher Martin

    Exactly right. Hard to see how Lolita is “distasteful.” It’s actually a powerful novel about evil. The narrator is evil and destroys a young girl’s life while blithely (or cynically?) assuming the reader will find him sympathetic. It is clear that Nabokov does not sympathize with the narrator. It is well done but maybe too clever for some.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @dfordoom
  76. @J.Ross

    Yeah yeah yeah…but what does the far more dashing Remington Steele have to say about it all? Hmmm?

  77. Woody Allen’s 1979 movie Manhattan about a 42-year-old man sleeping with a 17-year-old girl played by Mariel Hemingway, the Academy voted the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar to 89-year-old James Ivory for Call Me by Your Name, a movie about deflowering a 17-year-old boy.

    But that’s different because Ivory, unlike Allen, is gay.

    So that’s okay.

    The Current Year is already a step ahead. Today, old-queer-on-10yearold-boy action is totally okay.

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/12/16/10-year-old-boy-performs-at-gay-strip-club/

    Thought exercise: 10-year-girl performing at hetero strip club would lead (and rightly) to what consequences … ?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  78. Kylie says:
    @miss marple

    I don’t even try to figure out why anyone would see Woody Allen’s movies or have sex with horridly creepy him. It’d be like trying to figure out the appeal of coprophagia. Bad enough to know it even happens.

  79. @Dave Pinsen

    Can I infer that you hope your chances for getting a hot chick improve if she’s seen in public wearing an ugly swimsuit? Kinda like with carbs – fiber: Good body – ugly clothes equals socially awkward, nerd girl who might date Dave Pinsen. You know if she had chosen the outfit herself, you’d be right.

  80. Mr. Anon says:
    @Truth

    Nobody knows what the f**k you’re talking about, nitwit. But given who you are, and that eveything you write is stupid, it doesn’t really matter.

    • Replies: @Truth
  81. duncsbaby says:

    So I suppose Stacey Nelkin is chopped liver now?

    According to Nelkin, Woody Allen’s film Manhattan (1979) was based on her romantic relationship with the director, whom she met when she was 16 on the set of Annie Hall. Her bit part in that film ended up on the cutting room floor, and their relationship began when she was 17 years old and a student at New York’s Stuyvesant High School, and Allen was 42. Allen has said that they dated for a time, but that Nelkin was not underage.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Nelkin

  82. Mr. Anon says:
    @J.Ross

    She said that wearing her hair in a bun under a watch-cap looks stupid.

    And yet she’s sporting a nose-ring like Bessie the Cow.

  83. @Pincher Martin

    Lolita is a beautiful book for anyone who loves America. It’s Huck Finn for the 1950s instead of the 1850s. There’s so much authentic Americana in its language and mores and economy and it’s all seen fresh from an outsiders’ eyes.

    From Obvious Arizona to schools run at the whim of PC fashions, you meet America again though Nabokov’s expert eyes. He sees everything fresh that you learned to ignore.

    It’s a love letter to America, so desperate that it’s a bit painful to read. Just the right amount painfull.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Pincher Martin
  84. @Almost Missouri

    We had a German girl in my office years ago. The ‘tribalists’ who ran the place were absolutely vicious with her. Glad to say I did intervene, but then I could.

  85. Mr. Anon says:

    She looks somewhat like Scarlett Johansson. Who, coincidentally (or perhaps not) starred in three Woody Allen movies, according to IMDB, including Vicky Cristina Barcelona in which she played the role of “Cristina”. Maybe Allen was reliving the whole affair on film.

    Allen’s predilictions are perhaps not so surprising given what maladjusted narcissists comedians often seem to be.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  86. @Reg Cæsar

    Well, he might have mentioned to his wife that he was doing her daughter.

    I will grant that she’s ugly, though, so maybe that mitigates.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  87. @Almost Missouri

    It’s so weird that we live in a society that criminalizes a furtive glance from a straight white male yet permits (celebrates?!) this sort of disgusting depravity.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  88. Mr. Anon says:
    @Truth

    When I watch CK or The Magnificent Ambersons, I spend about 20-30 minutes marveling over the dialogue, camera angles, lighting and acting…then I fall asleep.

    That’s because you’re a dullard with poor taste. Maybe you should stick to movies with Pauly Shore or Jim Varney.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  89. @Mr. Anon

    Woody Allen actually did Scarlett Johansson a good turn about a decade ago, telling her to knock off the partying or she was going to turn into Lindsay Lohan rather than Meryl Streep.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  90. @Anon

    materialized out of the void as the one truly great American film of the ’70s.

    Huh? Who could say that? After The Godfather and The French Connection?

    • Replies: @Anon
  91. @Chrisnonymous

    At first glance I thought it was that fabulous swimsuit that Sascha Baron Cohen wore in Borat!

    • Replies: @pheasant
  92. Gigidy says:
    @niteranger

    The interesting stuff is that she said that Woody invited other women for threesomes including Mia Farrow.

    Agreed. I was just imagining Ronan reading it and saying, “wait, wait, wait, now, what?!” Also his poor sister. She calls out her dad for being a freak, and now finds her mother is a freak.

    Christmas dinner is gonna be fun at the Farrow house this year!

  93. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bragadocious

    Notice in Woody’s films from the 70s, no one is ever mugged, feels unsafe or has to leave the city because they lost their job and can’t pay the rent.

    He got all of that out of his system with his own crime movie.

  94. it’s overly long and show-offy

    Huh. That’s what she said.

  95. Jailbait Girlfriend

    “Not that there’s anything wrong with that, am I right or am I right, people?”

    [ budoonk-doont-doont-doo-doo-boodoonk ]

    • Replies: @Clyde
  96. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @(((Owen)))

    Huh? Who could say that? After The Godfather and The French Connection?

    I find it head-scratchy myself. Maybe it had something to do with Sarris’ preference for classic cinema of John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock. Sarris gained some notoriety in the 60s for favoring MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE over both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and JULES AND JIM.
    And Sarris didn’t really appreciate Peckinpah and wrote a lukewarm review of THE WILD BUNCH.

    https://criticsroundup.com/film/the-wild-bunch/

    https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/08/30/andrew-sarris-picks-the-best-films-of-1969/

    Even though Kale and Sarris were regarded as opposites, they had one thing in common. They tended to accept/appreciate European films as Art and preferred American movies as Genre. So, Kael could write long appreciative reviews of EMIGRANTS and NEW LAND and really love LAST TANGO, but the kind of American movies she loved best were comedies, musicals, and genre dramas like THE GODFATHER.

    Sarris loved Old Hollywood and made his reputation by arguing that the best Hollywood directors were artists in their own right and actually superior to foreign directors.

    http://academic.regis.edu/jgschwin/409auteur.htm

    2. distinguishable personality of the director
    • director’s “signature” = recurrent characteristics of style in their films, indicating the way they think and feel
    • American directors superior to foreign directors (have less freedom with scripts).
    – They are forced to express their personalities visually rather than through literary content.
    – this allows them to develop a more abstract and interesting visual style

    Maybe Sarris felt that New Hollywood of the 70s was trying too hard to be European. And even though Allen also exhibited similar ambitions, there was something very classic and nostalgic about MANHATTAN. It’s a 30s movie made in the 70s.

    Notice a 70s movie he rated highly was LAST PICTURE SHOW by Peter Bogdanovich who shared Sarris’ high regard for Old Hollywood.

    http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/sarris.html#y1970

    But Sarris, unlike Kael, often changed his opinions. In AMERICA CINEMA, he rather dismissed William Wyler in the category of ‘less than meets the eye’ but later upgraded him in the 80s to ‘more than less than meets the eye’.

    Allen wrote but didn’t direct PLAY IT AGAIN SAM. Hilarious crime scene. Maybe not realistic in that the thugs are white but still…

    GOODBYE GIRL has a hilarious urban crime scene where Richard Dreyfus chases down muggers who mug him some more.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  97. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @(((Owen)))

    Lolita is a beautiful book for anyone who loves America. It’s Huck Finn for the 1950s instead of the 1850s. There’s so much authentic Americana in its language and mores and economy and it’s all seen fresh from an outsiders’ eyes.

    First two pages had brilliant writing. Maybe I should read the whole thing one day. But the story is about a 12 yr old, which is more disturbing that the movie where she is 14(and looks 16).

    That said, there is a key difference between the relationship in LOLITA(the movie) and MANHATTAN. The guy in LOLITA is madly in love with the girl whereas the guy in MANHATTAN just sees it as an interesting fling. His attitude on women is come-and-go. He is not obsessed about her, and when he finds someone more interesting, finds some devious way to dump her.
    In contrast, Humbert is madly obsessed with this one girl. Is it pederasty or some such? Even this isn’t so sure. If Humbert is a pederast, he would have been crazy for young girls all his life. But there is no such indication in the movie. He’s certainly not a serial pederast(or pedophile). A serious pederast would be lusting for young ones everywhere. But with Humbert, it was something unique about Lolita that possessed his soul. It’s her and no one else, and it might not really be her age that is the key factor.
    It’s rather like the obsession that grows within Scotty in VERTIGO or what happens with the guy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS when he is seared by the Light.
    If Humbert was a just a perv-pederast, he could probably let Lolita go and find another girly. But his feelings are attached only to her. (It might be different in the novel. My sister read it after seeing the movie long ago and said Humbert had a fantasy of having kids with Lolita and making them part of his harem or some such. No such in the movie.) Portnoy isn’t attached to any one woman. He just wants to stick his thing in as many as possible. Humbert is different. There is a kind of sick but real romanticism there.

    AI is like reverse-Lolita. In this case, the child grows powerfully attached to ‘mother’. She is unique and he wants to be too but discovers he is just one of many products. I think Kubrick was attracted to both stories(and EYES WIDE SHUT) for same reason. The power of attachment so strong that is’ beyond the infinite in terms of reason or control.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Jack D
  98. @miss marple

    This woman, for instance, was she hoping Allen would cast her in a movie?

    Doubtful. I think she slept with Allen because of his good looks.

  99. @Anon

    go out with another guy

    Who knows? She probably was banging a younger, hotter guy on the side. There’s no way a girl that attractive wasn’t taking pipe from a guy she found attractive.

    Are we supposed to believe she was monogamous with Woody Allen? LOL.

    • Replies: @Anne Lid
  100. @anon

    Ohio, unless you’re a teacher.

  101. Anne Lid says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    No legal repercussions will ever come out of it, but I believe the nameless source that says (call it gossip) that he had underaged girls massage him and he pawed them all over. He was too old to do much more.

    Watch from 10.25. Before that it is about Dylan and I know that lots of people think that the whole thing was put in her mind by Mia Farrow, and that is perfectly possible.

  102. Anne Lid says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    It is perfectly possible. She was infatuated.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  103. AndrewR says:
    @J.Ross

    I had to look up “campfire rule.” Basically: if you’re dating a much younger or less experienced person, seek to leave them as well emotionally as you found them. But this applies to everyone. If you’re dating someone the same age or older, you should also seek to not leave them emotionally worse off. The only difference is that it’s generally easier to emotionally harm a younger or less worldly person.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
  104. Woody needed to modify his mantra to “95% of life is shutting up.”

  105. AndrewR says:
    @inertial

    Wow…… That’s some next-level creepiness

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Blodgie
  106. @Mr. Anon

    Don’t EVER insult Jim Varney again.

    • Agree: Corn
  107. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    The Go-Go Years.

  108. she went on to become a platonic muse to Federico Fellini

    Is this some sort of covert, artsy euphemism for nudie pics?

  109. @Anne Lid

    An attractive young woman was “infatuated” with a man who looks and sounds like this?

    Um, what?

    When was the last time you saw a teen heartthrob who looked like that?

    Even with money and fame, you can’t buy love. You can, however, rent it. Which Woody Allen (and many other celebs and directors) have done over the years.

  110. utu says:
    @Kibernetika

    “the anti-German prejudice experienced in some coastal US spots” – Steve Prefontaine supposedly was impacted by anti-German prejudice while growing up in Oregon.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  111. Clyde says:
    @Truth

    Troof that is her in a gay directed modeling pose from the 70s or a bit later. She was feminine in real life. This is my thinking.

    • Replies: @Truth
  112. Clyde says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    But he didn’t marry her, amirite. She was his 16 year old sex machine. She churned him.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  113. What a life! Woody should write an autobiography detailing the wonders of his girlfriends. The bankers front him the money for his movies because he has mastered the art of successful sentimental movies not worth seeing like the last one of his I saw, featuring dancing on a bridge in Paris in the moonlight. Give me a break! OTOH, some of his earlier movies are quite good, like the doctor or psychiatrist who murders Angelica Houston after she won’t let go of their affair. As for his encounters with those golden girls, I deeply sympathize having had my own shiksa moments.

  114. Altai says:

    On the subject of James Ivory’s film-long celebration of gay pederasty, here is the shirt he wore to accept his Oscar.

    • Replies: @Ben Sampson
  115. Clyde says:
    @Bragadocious

    I can count the number of Woody Allen films I have bothered to see on one or two fingers. I must be an ignoramus because I just did not get it. For peak Marielle Hemingway see trashy B movie Lipstick with her older sister Margo who was amazing 40 years ago.. Hmmmm I might see if any torr.ents for the holidays.
    ________________

    Lipstick (1976 film) – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_(1976_film)

    Lipstick holds a 14% rating at Rotten Tomatoes based upon 7 reviews. Rotten Tomatoes says about the film, “Lipstick is a cheap exploitation film pretending to make a social statement about rape and revenge.

    Directed by: Lamont Johnson
    Starring: Margaux Hemingway, Chris Sarandon, Mariel Hemingway, Anne Bancroft

    Written by: David Rayfiel
    Produced by: Freddie Fields

    Plot · Reception · Remakes

    • Replies: @Red Pill Angel
  116. dearieme says:

    Why on earth do some American states have the age of consent as high as 18?

    This is a separate question from “why does the left-wing Woody Allen get off with this sort of playing with his biological clarinet?”

  117. When coming on to the young uns, Woody Chop-Dick was almost subtle . . .

  118. I remember when I was young how we wanted to get copies of Lolita..and I – we – read reviews of Nabokov avidly. we did not know he was Jewish..and if we did read that he was we did not have a clue what Jewish meant in the world

    we were far away from the centre of things in this universe and although there was much to be read about such as Nabokov and books Lolita,Lady Chatterlys Lover…about Hollywood and its stars, there was nothing to read that said the Jews made up 85% of the faux Russian revolution and what that meant

    55 years later its all clear and my urgent feeling to take a bath wont do much to cleanse my soul of all I though was real, great, cutting edge as they say. cutting edge it may have been but advanced in what..human corruption and sexual degradation.

    there was no future in it save hell. that we did not know then but I know now and I want to wash. but its too late for that. I know too much now. yet I can put much, most, almost all Jewish produce western cultural corruption aside, dated tagged, archived and out of the way although there is some popular trash I will keep, that I like and find harmless, at time even enervating stuff like the Star Treks of Picard, Janeway and Sisco

    but Jewish white America was not the light of the world in any way at all..and it is time for new directions

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Anonymouse
  119. @Ben Sampson

    Nabokov wasn’t Jewish.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @Anonymouse
  120. tyrone says:
    @J.Ross

    They parents must be so proud .

    • Replies: @Corn
    , @Almost Missouri
    , @J.Ross
  121. Dumbo says:

    but not exactly a transcendent genius, was so lavishly praised by critics for all those decades

    I think the only reasons that Allen was allowed to make so many films was that: a) he was Jewish in a heavily Jewish industry and b) many young actors and actresses could show off their “artistic skills” in a supposedly “high brow” movie instead of their usual commercial films.

    It’s funny that when someone mentions Woody Allen they will mention “Manhattan” or “Annie Hall” or maybe “Hannah and Her Sisters”, but not, hm, “The curse of the Jade scorpion” and the dozens of other duds. Has there ever been a high profile director that made so many bad movies and got a pass? Even his best films don’t come close to the films of his idols Fellini and Bergman and Billy Wilder. Even a second-rate movie by Wilder or Fellini is better than Allen’s best.

    Also, has there ever been a more solipsistic director? All his films are about himself. I remember a film he made in the 90s with Christina Ricci and a male protagonist who was, of course, pretending to be Allen. The film was set in the 90s but the character, a guy in his 20s, was buying old jazz records and going to the opera and doing all the things Allen likes. It didn’t make any sense. Also that other awful film he made with Larry David playing a “genius” bored by the dumb average people around him (obviously how Allen sees himself) and using his unusual mental talents to… screw young blonde women.

    I think his best films and the ones he will be remembered for are the early comedies “Sleeper” and “Love and Death”, which still have funny parts. I did like some other films such as “Hannah and her Sisters” and “Purple Rose of Cairo”, but I don’t think that they aged so well.

    As for his personal morality and sexual behavior, I think the less we know, the better.

  122. Dumbo says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Not only he wasn’t Jewish, he was perhaps someone who today would be considered an anti-semite. He was a Russian nobleman whose family was basically expelled from Russia by the Revolution. He didn’t have a good opinion of communists and of many Jewish intellectuals of his day (he hated Freud, for instance).

    That said, while I liked “Lolita”, I don’t find it as great as other people say, and I could not read any of his other books. Except for a few short stories which were good, and some parts of Speak, Memory. He’s a genius, I suppose, but then again, as someone said before, he is more a show-off interested in literary puzzles than what I would consider a great writer with interesting stories and characters. Apparently he hated Dostoyevsky and Cervantes, but it is likely that their works will last longer than Nabokov’s other works besides Lolita.

  123. @Dumbo

    Nabokov’s wife was Jewish. They had to flee the Communists in Russia and the Nazis in Berlin and then Paris.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
  124. @Altai

    I hope I can say this still..that it is not against international law to point out the disgusting thing this is..old men and young boys as a way of living sung to the high heavens and awarded in gold, set up as example and cultural practice

    I have never see something more sick disgusting, perverted in my life.

    can western culture continue to stand up, overwhelmed by this sort of thing?

    I really don’t car however..but I would hate to see it forced down the throat of the world.

    UNZ is calling for a boycott of Israel much as South Africa was cut off from the rest of the world on its systematic apartheid. I would recommend to the world, that it extends such boycott to include western cultural products that promote unspeakable sexual behavior that are social evolutionary dead end

    • Replies: @Kemidov
  125. @Steve Sailer

    Nabokov’s son Dimitri was in the same US Army reserve unit as I around 1958 way west on 42nd street past 10th Ave. About 6′ 8″ he was a forbidding figure. I understand that he has subsequently up and died. Eastern European gentry they were, domiciled in upscale Swiss hotels. Lolita is a masterpiece, so is the movie with Peter Sellars as Quilty, Shelly Winters as Lolita’s blowsy mom and James Mason as the anti-hero. Directed by Kubrick with Nabokov as screen writer.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Ben Sampson
  126. @Ben Sampson

    >but Jewish white America was not the light of the world in any way at all..and it is time for new directions

    You need deprogramming and I mean that in the nicest kind of way.

    • Replies: @Ben Sampson
  127. what can I say after all?

    I saw Play it again Sam, Annie Hall and one more I think. I don’t want to remember. a girl friend dragged me to the theatre

    Woddy Allen was a scam pure and simple. it may have been his time after apprentice time serving up years of trash: so they cranked up the propaganda machine and gave him a run, imposing Jewish middle/upper class sensibilities on the world, dressed up as fine art in the speaking organs.

    nutten got the yuppies up more than ‘art’ dressed up as high art in the speaking organs.

    Woody Allen never got within a continent to my video collection! Brando is in there, Richard Pryor, Samuel Jackson..but no Woody. hahahaha

  128. @Anonymous

    Absolute truth. We now have age of consent laws in most states well above the age at which most girls become mature enough to attract the eye of normal men. We still have Hollywood continuously cranking out movies about teens having sex (C$&@ Blockers most recently) in which the entire conceit is to put the viewer in the position of voyeur of teen sex. We give teen girls birth control and access to abortion, sexualizing teens at the same time we put them off limits. Result: grooming adult men to label themselves pedophiles. Next step: Well, if all adult men are pedos, who’s to say . . .

    Then there’s the whole idiotic idea that sex in which one person is more powerful is evil somehow, as if all adult sex isn’t about power and submission to some degree, however disguised with lace and flowers. The alternative is little kids playing doctor, and I’m not entirely certain about that being a completely level playing field.

    The age of consent should be lowered to around sixteen. Below that, a pregnancy should be evidence of child abuse or parental neglect.

  129. @Anonymouse

    and talking about my video in the mention of Peter Sellers..he too is in there..as are Monty Python and Rowan Atkinson

    George Carlin is in there too

    to be honest I would not be able to go on were I not able every now and then to go back into these guys..Rowan Atkinson as an interview and a vicar… John Clease in everything he did… Carlin cutting up the world… Richard as the total, deep and socially conscious riot he was

    Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Dreyfus and Jason Alexander would make it into my collection long before Allen. at least those guys were ‘uproariously’ funny as they say..very fine actors: especially the Dreyfus girl who played Elaine

    there was much I found artistic, accurate, socially useful, conscious and incredible funny in Seinfeld

  130. @Clyde

    I remember “Lipstick.” It was violent rape porn, pure and simple. Hollywood is sick, sick, sick.

  131. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    no the point is smart beautiful young females are a precious resource for a nation and we cant have them misused they are to be distributed to our own men not as prostitutes to genetic failure of another race like Allen Epstein etc and they are to be put into useful production which means marriage and children who will be well taken care of, so you want one of these prizes and who wouldnt you do your bit for the volk and make yourself worthy, or pretty soon youre living in an idiocracy colonized by wolves.

  132. Mr. Anon says:
    @Truth

    You seem to see boys everywhere – even in pictures of nubile young women.

    Hey, we’re cool with you being the moron that you obviously are. But please keep your creepy tranny-obsession to yourself. Seriously. It’s weird.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Truth
  133. @Anonymouse

    a couple of hints on how to might help. I am always open-minded

  134. Mr. Anon says:
    @Dumbo

    His early comedies were indeed his best: Take the Money and Run, Sleeper, Bananas, What’s Up Tiger Lilly? I thought Crimes and Misdemeanors was pretty good.

  135. George says:

    “in bad odor these days because of his inveterate white maleness.”

    Marrying his wife’s adopted daughter is “inveterate white maleness”. I mean there are 2 whole countries of Koreans not to mention diaspora Koreans, that he ended up with the one Korean woman that would be improper is an act of depravity.

  136. @Pincher Martin

    It is always interesting to find how tastes are very, very different. For instance, in my opinion, Nabokov is a vastly overrated author, basically a minor prose writer with a major style. His “characters” are lifeless, his thoughts are mush, his everything is cartoonish & brain-dead.

    His best work remains his book on Gogol. As for his memoir, I’ve found nothing in it. The book cannot sustain comparison with immensely richer work by Berdyeav. let alone classics like Herzen or Saint Simon.

    And yet, Nabokov’s reputation may remain solidly high, along with other faux-aesthetic & post-post-post-… authors like Borges, Calvino, Latin boomers etc.

    As for Woody, he’s a watchable funny little creep with something fake about it all.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  137. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    Earnest Saves Christmas is a true classic. A giant of a film. Rivalled only by Encino Man.

    • Replies: @Truth
  138. @Thorfinnsson

    In most states , including New York, it is perfectly legal for a 41 year-old to have sex with a 17 year old. In Pennsylvania it is legal for adults to fornicate with 16 year olds.

    Statutory rape only applies to 16 year olds. Jerry Seinfeld had a relationship with a 17 year old when he was 38 and this was perfectly legal.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  139. BB753 says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    What’s more, if it’s illegal to sleep with a 17 year old, why can boys the same age, 16 or 17, sleep with her? At least both parents should be held responsible for abetting statutory rape!

  140. Corn says:
    @inertial

    It was before my time but I’ve read that back in the ‘70s some writers and intellectuals tried to normalize pedophilia and adult-teen relationships.

    Fortunately the rest of society decided that was taking the Sexual Revolution too far.

  141. Truth says:
    @Autochthon

    No, thankfully not. England hasn’t had a king in a while, but if he talked like Prince Charles, I would think he was a fag.

  142. Corn says:
    @tyrone

    The parents should be hauled into court for child abuse.

  143. Neuday says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Yeah, there’s a certain special group of people you don’t want to annoy. They have long memories and centuries of experience in subversion. Given how huwytes are being treated, with our young becoming either “cucks or concubines”, “Ich bin ein Berliner” has a new meaning. We’re all Germans now. Never again will we be allowed to have our own countries. Never Again.

  144. Truth says:
    @Clyde

    that is her in a gay directed modeling pose from the 70s or a bit later. She was feminine in real life. This is my thinking.

    Could be.

    Or it could be a 6′ 150 lb. eunuch with size 12+ feet, broad shoulders, fake-tits, a masculine jaw and posture and no hips.

    I do tend to err on the Occam’s razor side, generally though…

  145. Truth says:
    @South Texas Guy

    Yes!

    Interesting, but not good. Excellent way to phrase Welle’s work.

  146. ATBOTL says:

    When are we going to start noticing that Hollywood is doing the same thing to white girls and boys as Muslim taxi drivers and kebab shop workers are in the UK?

  147. Truth says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Well now, Grasshopper, the “Earnest” movies were a fairly underrated canon.

  148. Ted Colt says:

    “…[Woody] Allen is in bad odor these days because of his inveterate white maleness.”

    Except he isn’t White and his masculinity is solely a function of genetics and biology, at best.
    The sooner we restrict the application of the label “White Male” to a narrow range of extraordinary specimens, the less we’ll need to defend against slanders originating in the notoriety of “men” barely fit to claim the label.

  149. Truth says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Oh by the way, here’s Miss Spain from the weekend’s “Miss Universe” contest. And this is a fact reported in every major news outlet, not farce…

    The end is nigh, and a hellofalot nigher for blind simpletons.

  150. @Mr McKenna

    When I was younger, I thought that WWII had put vicious ethnic strife to rest forever. I was naive. Sadly, for instance, there are increasingly prominent Jews bent on proving Hitler right, and they seem completely un-self-aware.

    Glad to hear you did your part to stem the tide, BTW. Any tips for other prospective tide-stemmers?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  151. Dmitry says:

    To your opinion of Nabokov below –

    Peak Nabokov. (By the way, Lolita isn’t really that good — it’s overly long and show-offy — while Pale Fire and Speak, Memory are wonderful and don’t make you read about child abuse.)

    I have not all his books.

    However, from what I can notice, his better books, are written when he was younger.

    The later books from his old age (Pale Fire, Lolita), are too self-indulgent.

    I recommend from books I read from this author.

    In English:

    1. The true life of Sebastian Knight

    2. Bend Sinister.

    3. Glory (this is also a lot about his experiences as an immigrant)

  152. Pericles says:
    @Dumbo

    Well, apparently his movies are inexpensive. I believe Allen even so had some problems with a long-time financier after producing too many duds, but revived himself with that threesome movie. And then doing a string of semi-tourism movies (Paris, Rome, weren’t there more?) that were presumably easy to fund.

  153. @Dumbo

    “Has there ever been a high profile director that made so many bad movies and got a pass?”

    It might because his movies are pretty cheap to make. It’s usually just him going around his usual haunts with a camera, script and a young actress or two. As a business proposition, the studios can afford to bankroll a lot of them for only a few hits. And of course, he gets to keep his shiksa hopper stocked.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  154. Pericles says:
    @Dumbo

    Wikipedia claims his father and grandfather were highly pro-Jewish and Nabokov himself married a Jewess, though so did Lovecraft.

  155. ken says:
    @niteranger

    Age difference isn’t a big deal with a 24 year old woman and a 48 year old man.

    I wouldn’t want my 17 year old daughter banging a 48 year old, but I also raised my daughters in a way that they’d never try to chase after a man at such a young age.

  156. nsa says:
    @Pincher Martin

    What really rankled American critics of the 1950s was not the prurient content of Lolita, which the arty farty elites always enjoy, but rather the blatant and relentless lampooning of American culture, mores, and people…..”philistine vulgarity” in the great man’s own words. Lolita is probably the most anti-American book ever written. As the likable old world pervert Humbert debauches the not so innocent new world Lolita, Nabakov takes the opportunity to troll the reader through the American heartland……the tacky motels and resorts with ridiculous names, the unimaginative moralistic population as personified by Lolita’s middle aged mom Charlotte, the relentless consumerism, the car / highway culture of billboards and truly abhorrent cuisine, the deviancy phoniness of the country’s elites (think Quilty). Ole Nabokov really had it in for his new American hosts…….

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Anon
  157. @Mr McKenna

    I don’t think “weird” is the correct description here. I think “planned” is.

  158. Jack D says:
    @Prodigal son

    Statutory rape only applies to 16 year olds

    The age of consent varies by state between 16 and 18:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

    In addition, some states have “Romeo and Juliet” ( close in age) exceptions.

  159. Jack D says:
    @anon

    In our Sharia Law future we will permit sex between older men and young girls but ban alcohol.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  160. Jack D says:
    @J.Ross

    The brightest women are not as bright or fast on their feet as the brightest men but they tend to make up for it by being more organized and prepared. We saw this in the debates where Hillary had memorized pat answers to every possible question and Trump would just go out there and wing it.

    This sometimes includes an obsessive “covering all the bases” mentality. So it does not surprise me that Hillary had a Plan B for challenging the election in the court system if she lost in the first count. This has been part of the Democrat playbook for a while now, going back to Gore’s loss (and has worked to get them some lower offices) . I would not read too much into this – Hillary probably had contingency plans for all sorts of things (most of which we will never learn about).

    Apparently the one thing she didn’t have a contingency plan for was making a concession speech and she sent all of her supporters at the Javits Center home while she got drunk and wept in her hotel room.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Anon
  161. Alfa158 says:

    Manhattan was a gorgeous movie to watch but yeah, really creepy. Unfortunately art often seems to be made by skeevy characters. The great Renaissance painter Caravaggio was so degenerate he was eventually murdered by people who had finally had enough of him.
    I also enjoyed Chinatown when it first came out, not realizing at that time, which was before Roman Polanski’s statutory rape arrest, that he probably thought he had given the movie a happy ending by having the rich old pervert triumphantly drive away with his pubescent daughter.

  162. Jack D says:
    @Truth

    This is probably because you’ve seen them a dozen times and because every director since has copied techniques that Welles invented, so they seem commonplace now. When you look at the Mona Lisa it’s hard to see what the big deal is too, because it’s been spoiled by over-familiarity.

    Young Welles was a force of nature, a world class once in a century genius (and a jerk) but old Welles was just a sad, fat parody of his younger self.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
  163. Jack D says:
    @Anon

    They say in Brazil, where many models come from, the best looking models are German-Italian or German-Slavic mixes and not pure Germans (lots of Czech beauties for that reason also).

    You can see in the above photo of Miss Lederhosen that she is okay (more than okay) but not the absolute best – a 7 or an 8 and not a 10. Of course the horrible ’70s bathing suit and lack of Photoshop and a modern workout obsession makes things look worse – nowadays they’d do some digital or real liposuction on her midsection, but even her face is less than perfect.

    • Replies: @inselaffen
    , @Paleo Liberal
  164. She wrote of allowing herself to be chronically abused:

    “There was a chip on my shoulder about wanting to please those who cast me aside.”

    Pretty much reflects the societal decay of the West.

  165. Jack D says:
    @miss marple

    This was the ’70s, a particular low point in fashion, but fashions from the past always look stupid, at least for several generations until they come back into style again.

    • Replies: @Anon
  166. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Huh? Who could say that? After The Godfather and The French Connection?

    I find it head-scratchy myself. Maybe it had something to do with Sarris’ preference for classic cinema of John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock. Sarris gained some notoriety in the 60s for favoring MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE over both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and JULES AND JIM.

    Definitely an odd opinion. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE is a good film, but it’s not peak Ford. Now, if he wanted to argue that The Searchers is better than Lawrence of Arabia, that’s a notion that I could get behind….

    • Replies: @Anon
  167. Jack D says:
    @Kylie

    It was a pretty one-sided relationship…

    She chose to have this relationship and if she didn’t like it she could have left, but she was probably enjoying the attention and gifts from the rich famous man and traveling in his circles, etc. while her other friends just had pimply teenage boys for their dates.

    It’s pretty natural that an older man like Allen is not going to be equally interested in her intellectual interests, if any. Is he going to take an interest in rock bands or horses or other things that 17 year old girls care about? Obviously, he was going to be the mentor and she the mentee. The modern obsession with “equality” is ridiculous. Some things in life are inherently unequal and should remain that way.

    • Replies: @Kylie
  168. Erik L says:
    @Kibernetika

    I’m Jewish ethnically and that part of the story, the way she was treated in Matawan, made me feel terrible for her. There is no excuse for that

  169. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    https://www.latimes.com/la-tm-spanked09feb29-story.html

    Daniel Fessler, an assistant professor of anthropology at UCLA, notes that Hollywood in many ways functions as a classic ethnic group. “Essentially, the movie business is a culture of its own in which members use common behavioral markers—their style of dress, various decorations, a distinctive dialect and so on. What these markers are telling you is that another person shares the same values and cultural understandings and expectations of what is appropriate. An out-group female may be allowed in, because from an evolutionary perspective the in-group males stand to benefit from the opportunity to mate. But an out-group male is merely a competitor for resources.”

  170. Jack D says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    If you want to know why this is a bad idea, look at any Muslim society (or a Mormon polygamous sect). The older men monopolize all the women and younger men end up being rootless and fly airplanes into skyscrapers out of sexual frustration.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @Trevor H.
  171. @Jack D

    oh god, it’s ‘internet rating guy’ here to tell us that an extremely attractive woman is only a ‘7’…

    • Replies: @Jack D
  172. Jack D says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    They have not figured out a suitable outfit for female classical orchestra members. In most modern American orchestras, , the Asian women wear feminine (but not as revealing as in this vide0) black dresses and the white women wear shapeless stretch pantsuits like Hillary Clinton in black or WalMart widows.

    Lately the conductors have exempted themselves from the traditional dress code and wear some kind of “creative” black silk Mao suit or Mexican Guayabera or something. Only the male musicians are required to wear the traditional (and not very comfortable) uniform of white tie and tails.

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  173. Jack D says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I don’t get the joke. I realize that Annubis is the god of the dead but I still don’t get the joke.

  174. Jack D says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Lolita is certainly the more commercial and readable book but Pale Fire is beyond brilliant. Scholars will be parsing its hidden meanings for centuries to come. With Lolita, what you see is what you get (pretty much) but Pale Fire is like a whole collection of Faberge eggs with hidden locks. Sure it is show-offy but Nabokov had the chops to actually pull it off – who else could have done this?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  175. @Jack D

    Lately the conductors have exempted themselves from the traditional dress code and wear some kind of “creative” black silk Mao suit or Mexican Guayabera or something.

    Check out the gold coat or robe or something on the conductor here…love it!

    • Replies: @Ir0nCurtain
  176. @Jack D

    Lolita is certainly the more commercial and readable book but Pale Fire is beyond brilliant. Scholars will be parsing its hidden meanings for centuries to come.

    Why would you think that such scholarly treasure hunts are the purpose of great literature? It’s as if you don’t get the joke of Pale Fire, which is that scholar squirrels are to be laughed at, not venerated.

    Faberge eggs with hidden locks. Sure it is show-offy but Nabokov had the chops to actually pull it off – who else could have done this?

    Joyce. Borges. Others.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @syonredux
  177. Dmitry says:
    @Pincher Martin

    With disclaimer I haven’t all his books.

    His better books are probably his earlier books – these are written in both Russian (first) and English (later).

    Later books from his old age (Pale Fire, Lolita), and with perhaps too much American focus.

    I recommend books I read from this author, with the English titles which can be a bit different: (i) The true life of Sebastian Knight; (ii) Bend Sinister; and (iii) Glory (one of the better books about being an immigrant, which was the author’s own situation).

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  178. @Jack D

    A friend of mine travelled to some universities in Brazil. At one point he met a really hot looking young scientist from a family known for their combination of brains and beauty. Hint: her sister is married to a famous 5-time champion quarterback

  179. @(((Owen)))

    From Obvious Arizona to schools run at the whim of PC fashions, you meet America again though Nabokov’s expert eyes. He sees everything fresh that you learned to ignore.

    It’s a love letter to America, so desperate that it’s a bit painful to read. Just the right amount painfull.

    Many people have made this observation. I think even Nabokov somewhere says something along these lines (or agrees with a commentator who says something along these lines). And there’s something to it, even if comparing it to Huck Finn as a classic piece of Americana is a bit over-the-top.

    Nabokov’s travels around America in search of butterflies made him something of an expert in America’s hotels and folkways, which came in handy when he made Humbert retrace his steps.

  180. @Peter Akuleyev

    Exactly right. Hard to see how Lolita is “distasteful.” It’s actually a powerful novel about evil. The narrator is evil and destroys a young girl’s life while blithely (or cynically?) assuming the reader will find him sympathetic. It is clear that Nabokov does not sympathize with the narrator.

    The style and tone of the book works in distancing the reader from what is happening as well, which is something the movies couldn’t recreate (although Kubrick’s version does a better job of trying to recreate the tone than does Lyne’s version).

  181. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    An attractive young woman was “infatuated” with a man who looks and sounds like this?

    It’s called “Fame Game.” For details, read Heartiste.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  182. @Mr McKenna

    Well, he might have mentioned to his wife that he was doing her daughter.

    What wife? Louise Lasser? Harlene Rosen?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  183. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    There was a lot of post-facto embarrassment in Hollywood over how Welles had been treated. The failure to support him and the movie against Hearst was simple cowardice.

  184. L Woods says:
    @Jack D

    That would make far more sense than the current state of things. Alcohol is actually a pretty nasty drug.

  185. L Woods says:
    @Jack D

    As opposed to the caddish parasites who monopolize them in the West? Polygamy is actually not that common in most of Islamic society — its demographic impact is bound to be fairly minimal in practice. The distributional disparities in the West, I am quite certain, are far worse than in the Islamic world. And that’s not even getting into the issues of security, etc associated with modern “relationships.” The only winners when older competition are cut out are the starting lineup and your “cool” local drug dealer.

    • Replies: @Anon
  186. L Woods says:
    @L Woods

    The other element, I should mention, is otherwise impotent fathers of daughters trying to swing their dicks around. Sure, they can’t stop their princesses from bringing home Tyrone or riding the carousel in college and their post-graduation city, but at least they can ruin the life of that “pervert/rapist/whatever” who tries to come around and tries to “ruin her innocence” (LOL). Age of consent laws are one of the very few avenues of power and control they have; they thus milk them for all they’re worth.

  187. @JohnnyWalker123

    An attractive young woman was “infatuated” with a man who looks and sounds like this?

    I don’t believe for a moment that’s Chippewa Falls. The grammar is too good. Woody “should of went” there himself to learn the dialect.

    Someone should do a film about CW native Gus Dorais, who overthrew the pass on the beach at Cedar Point that led to the revolutionary running catch of forward passes. (Before that, even long bombs were caught at a standstill facing the QB, like a screen pass.)

    Fun fact: as baseball coach at Gonzaga, one of Dorais’s players was Bing Crosby.

  188. bjondo says:

    hearts of darkness:

    british
    neocons
    hollywood/movie directors

    5ds

  189. @utu

    “the anti-German prejudice experienced in some coastal US spots” – Steve Prefontaine supposedly was impacted by anti-German prejudice while growing up in Oregon.

    Because “Prefontaine” sounds as German as Blutwurst or raw minced pork meat?

    • Replies: @utu
  190. @Dave Pinsen

    Lurker is talking about Soon-Yi Previn, making the point that Woody Allen is a noted perv.

  191. MarcB. says:

    “There was a chip on my shoulder about wanting to please those who cast me aside. I wasn’t confrontational because I thought, ‘Nobody likes Germans.’ ”

    This was matches my impression of West Germans back in the 1980s. The most prevalent looks were the meek-looking hippies in granny specs or the cheesy, feminized Eurotrash. It was if they were actively working very hard to be non-threatening out of collective guilt. The East German men in Saxony remained archetypal Germans.

  192. @inertial

    It was a different time.

    When Al “Grandpa Munster” Lewis ran for Governor of New York, I listened to an interview on a Utica station. He described his ideal woman as a 15-year-old Japanese girl with “one of those hats”. I have no idea what kind of hat he meant, and I have never been able to find a transcript or recording of the interview.

    Still, my great-grandmother married (in Manhattan) at 15, and Great-Grandpa was n0 pervert. It was still normal in those days, as long as you did it right. And they were married for 58 years.

  193. Jack D says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Joyce. Borges.

    Exactly – Nabokov was in the literary Big Leagues. Maybe he was not the Dickens of the 20th century but he was certainly an important Hall of Famer in his time. This is an especially amazing accomplishment considering that English was only 1 of his many languages.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  194. Bill B. says:
    @Anonymous

    Yeah.

    jet-setting with Adnan Khashoggi

    She was a whore. Khashoggi didn’t “jet-set” with young girls he paid them for sex and supplied them to his clients and customers.

    I know people in Asia who have been to Khashoggi “parties” – he gave out girls like after dinner mints.

    It is conceivable that a young and pretty girl with family ties to real power and/or money might briefly hover in the same ballpark as Khashoggi without being expected to put out on command but not a girl like this riding the wave.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  195. utu says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    His mother was German straight from Germany.

    ““Steve was raised with a German mother and when he was little, he heard nothing but German and English at home, so when he went to school, he had a hard time knowing how to speak and the kids would make fun of him. “

  196. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Excellent post, one quibble: Hillary didn’t have to worry about every possible question because CNN gave her the questions in advance.

  197. Trevor H. says:
    @Jack D

    Old Welles did ‘Touch of Evil’ and ‘The Trial’.

    Hollywood hadn’t completely wrecked his genius.

  198. moshe says:

    Sex is one of those things that for pretty damn good evolutionary reasons people take quite seriously. Damn, people will DIE for their children and, uh, those are made by sex.

    Steve, most white guys (including moi) have some primordial brain displeasure about black guys shtupping white girls. it’s quite innate. It also happens to be a real predilection. Only intellectual Semitiphobes have a dog ear for every mention or occurance of some accomplished jewish guy saying or doing something licentious with a girl who is not jewish.

    It’s funny to see you hearing this dog whistle both when it’s real and when it’s tinnitus .

    I mean to make no comment about the reality of it or not other than to point out how funny it is. I don’t think the average person, mormon, wealthy, jewish, cashier or minnesotan thinks often about the sexual writings or fantasies or activities of people like phillip roth circa 1960 or that louis ck using his charm to get women to watch him masturbate has to do with his 25% jewishness.

    It’s just that, like you said, you used to imagine that you were genetically jewish because you related to how many famous jews were doing things you thought were really smart. I mean once puberty got through with giving you 6 feet and 3 inches you figured your previous assumptions about your semitism were unlikely and felt left out or abandoned or whatever but, descended from rashi or not, you’re very damn jewish so it’s the dpings of jews that you notice. Heck, you’re pissed off at Obama for preferring to marry a black girl instead of a white one. What regular white American isn’t Relieved about that.

    But you probably read just a tad too much old fashioned antisemitic stuff about jewish bignoses leeeeering over shiksas that it touched some deep part of your brain and made it one of those things you have strong evolutionary concerns about.

    Now that I think about it, the FUNNIEST part of it is that you actually probably got that trigger itch not from der strumer cartoons from the 40s but from jews having fun triggering people by writing (and directing) outlandish things about sex and shiksas from the 60s thru 80s.

    The secret belief that jews are innately perverted and enjoy doing horrible things to precious innocent naive gentile girls is not really a thing these days except among the truly truly low class bottom dwellers who DO identify with der strumer cartoonists….and highly creatively and intelligently sensitive people who grew upwith some kind of jewish identity, live in california and have forever taken a keen and appreciative interest in the productions of intelligent and creative jews…

    It’s like your whole anger at black girls thing. I have no guess at all where That came from but it’s also weird and uncommon. Being a RACIALLY unatttractive girl in an american media culture that encourages black men to marry white women has got to be some tough stuff. The group of girls with the highest libidos getting shunned has my pity but you’re all up a’Beckying about them. It’s also funny.

    Anyway, I still recommend Happy Weekend or Wednesday posts when you turn your focus to the awesomeness of things. Constantly pointing out bad shit whether real like the White Death or of your own unique things to be upset about (WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT CLINTON HAVING A LOCKER IN A TRUMP GOLF COURSE?!?!?!) can’t be the best window thru which to view the world. Talk up the good stuff, there’s lots of it.

    • Replies: @Anon
  199. Jack D says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Obviously he means Mia Farrow. They were never married but they were “partners”, in the modern parlance. Nowadays only gays get married, everyone else just has “partners”.

  200. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Where was this office, 1920s Berlin?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  201. Pericles says:
    @Kibernetika

    that reptile Epstein

    Here is how the Epstein affair turned out, in case you wonder.

    Some of the most shocking allegations against Epstein surfaced only after the conclusion of an FBI probe, in civil suits brought by his victims: for example, the claim that three 12-year-old French girls were delivered to him as a birthday present. But the feds did identify roughly 40 young women, most of them underage at the time, who described being lured to Epstein’s Palm Beach home on the pretense of giving a “massage” for money, then pressured into various sex acts, as well as the “Balkan sex slave” Epstein allegedly boasted of purchasing from her family when she was just 14.

    Sex crimes of the kind Roberts alleges took place typically carry a term of 10 to 20 years in federal prison. Yet when all was said and done, Epstein served his scant year-plus-one-month in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail and was granted a 16-hour-per-day free pass to leave the premises for work.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-hedge-fund-mogul-pedophile-got-off-easy

    Epstein is currently fighting his being a registered sex offender in New York City.

    (DO-DON.) (Roll L&O credits.)

  202. @Jack D

    Exactly – Nabokov was in the literary Big Leagues. Maybe he was not the Dickens of the 20th century but he was certainly an important Hall of Famer in his time. This is an especially amazing accomplishment considering that English was only 1 of his many languages.

    I think Nabokov is one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century, but a large part of that deserved fame is due to Lolita. That novel cemented his reputation. If Nabokov had to rely on Pale Fire to be his greatest novel, his reputation would be lower in the same way that if James Joyce had to rely on Finnegan’s Wake or A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man rather than Ulysses to be his greatest novel, far fewer people would read the Irishman today and far fewer critics would celebrate his novels.

    But my comment to you was mainly about your comment on scholars seeking out “hidden meanings.” Joyce said something similar about Finnegan’s Wake, but almost no critic today considers that novel to be the equal of Ulysses, and many critics consider it a bad novel. Such literary treasure hunts are not what makes great literature, even if occasionally we find such treasure hunts in great literature. Pale Fire is not a great novel because of those hidden meanings. It’s a great novel because of its style and structure. It also happens to have a lot of hidden meanings. (As does Lolita, by the way.)

    I agree that one of Nabokov’s most amazing accomplishments (and he has many) was his ability to write critically well-regarded works in three different languages (Russian, French, and English) in which tough critics abound. I find that astonishing. He didn’t write much in French, just a short story or two, but what he wrote was considered first-rate.

  203. Trevor H. says:
    @Jack D

    That’s right, sports fans, in the latest display of transparent deflection he’s blaming sex for 9/11.

    Whatever the cause was, one thing we know for certain is that it had absolutely nothing to do with America doing the chosen people’s dirty work for the past several decades. That much we know. We absolutely know that.

  204. @Dmitry

    His better books are probably his earlier books – these are written in both Russian (first) and English (later).

    Later books from his old age (Pale Fire, Lolita), and with perhaps too much American focus.

    No critic agrees with you.

    All readers have their special and often odd preferences. I know a guy (online) who swears that The Real Life of Sebastian Knight is one of the greatest novels he’s ever read. Many people swear Tender is the Night is Fitzgerald’s greatest novel.

    I have my own. I really like Transparent Things. But I’m not about to argue that its Nabokov’s greatest work.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  205. Anne Lid says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    My sister raised her children alone after the father died. At fifty, still a reasonably good looking, slim and good natured woman she married a guy who could be her father. He is not attractive, old and decrepit. Not smart, rather stupid, in fact. Doesn’t have a penny. “He is such a sweetie.” The children would not have minded if she had a nice guy, would have been happy, if she found a good man. This creep they hate, though they keep it to themselves. I guess our rotten childhood and an empty nest made her look for someone who “needed” her. I have no idea.
    Normal looking people have pathologies that make them do stupid things that aren’t for their benefit.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  206. moshe says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Dan’t worry your little hairy balls madam, this was HER fantasy, it aint ours. We don’t find your german attractive. Granted we produced amy farra fowler but far too many german girls look like zombies or picasso during his angular period. if any group of people need to mischling themselves its germans and northward. Blondies are (or were anyway) highly over rated. but the light red haired colored german girls are the scariest. What in the name of hell IS that?

    then again, as a fella who fell short of missouri (shoot for the stars son!) you probably aren’t quite as aware of the nuances of human phenotypes as i am.

    don’t worry, german girls aint concubines (i mean other than to their dads in their basements) they’re wholly free to enjoy the oddest sexual people on earth, german men.

    • LOL: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Hermy Germy
  207. Trevor H. says:
    @AndrewR

    I had to look up “campfire rule.” Basically: if you’re dating a much younger or less experienced person, seek to leave them as well emotionally as you found them. But this applies to everyone.

    It’s a rule. It applies to white people.

  208. @Bardon Kaldian

    It is always interesting to find how tastes are very, very different. For instance, in my opinion, Nabokov is a vastly overrated author, basically a minor prose writer with a major style. His “characters” are lifeless, his thoughts are mush, his everything is cartoonish & brain-dead.

    What is it that Tolstoy said about Shakespeare? That he was tedious, repulsive, and even evil?

    Thoughts on great literature will always vary somewhat, and they will occasionally vary in the extreme, but I’m sure Nabokov’s reputation will endure. That is, if people continue reading great literature at all.

    The only part of your criticism of Nabokov with which I agree is that his characters are often “lifeless.” The one major exception to this, of course, is Lolita.

    I had to laugh at your “his thoughts are mush.” Who reads novels for the thoughts of the author? As Nabokov himself knew, we read them to discover a superior creative style and structure. Next you will be telling us that you read novelists for moral instruction.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Anon
  209. @nsa

    Ole Nabokov really had it in for his new American hosts…….

    I think Nabokov loved America, and his detailed literary reporting of its byways is honest and funny.

    But it’s telling that the moment VN got enough money after the publication of Lolita, he moved to Switzerland. The American scene just didn’t suit him.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Anon
  210. moshe says:
    @jb

    The first half of that was espescially hilarious and the second part not bad. i’m from the post woodyallen era. i’ve never actually seen a single one of his movies (wait, i may have seen part of his larry david russian chess one on an airplane). someone DID give me “without feathers” once and i loved it. are his movies worth watching? actually, other than kubrick, what other pre-millennial directors are worth going into the past for. (I discovered kubrick by accident. a hollywood guy told me that cloclwork orange was the best movie ever and i watched it and had one of rhe angriest reactions to a film i’ve ever watched. i’ve since watched it while high with a close friend and now love it. and somehow i ended up turning a channel and seeing Strangelove and realized that kubrick was a genius. so i sought out full metal jacket and…well, yeah, people produced really amazing stuff before my time. Is woody one of them?)

  211. Blodgie says:
    @AndrewR

    Grown-ass men do not use the term creepy

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @AndrewR
  212. @Bill B.

    She was a whore. Khashoggi didn’t “jet-set” with young girls he paid them for sex and supplied them to his clients and customers.

    I know people in Asia who have been to Khashoggi “parties” – he gave out girls like after dinner mints.

    Like an 80s Arab version of Epstein.

    Here’s an interesting article about him. He seems to literally have been a pimp.

    https://www.maxim.com/entertainment/the-currency-of-love-jill-dodd-interview-2017-10

    It is conceivable that a young and pretty girl with family ties to real power and/or money might briefly hover in the same ballpark as Khashoggi without being expected to put out on command but not a girl like this riding the wave.

    When I read about all the famous (and unattractive) men that she had consorted with, I immediately knew this girl was a hooker. I wouldn’t be surprised if this “aspiring model” had probably sold herself to a few wealthy men before she finally hit the jackpot with Woody Allen. When he was done with her, he probably handed her off to one of his friends.

    It’s funny how dishonest women can be about these things. She makes it seem like she was drawn to his charm and personality, when in reality she was cunning go-getter looking for a sugar daddy.

  213. Truth says:
    @Mr. Anon

    “I know you are, but whudamI?”

    “I know you are, but whadamI?”

  214. Truth says:
    @Whiskey

    Hey Grasshopper, it appears Whiskey, and a few others confirm that your taste in movies sux too.

    Man is your life awful.

  215. @syonredux

    “Fame game” only exists when you combine fame and game (good looks can help a lot too). When you combine fame with Woody Allen’s neuroticism and his emaciated body, at best you draw high-priced hookers or those looking to sit on the “casting couch.”

    Woody Allen is a raging sexual pervert with bizarre fetishes. So I bet he probably just pays “modeling agencies” to send him women, usually highly under aged. In this case, however, the under age “model” came to him directly and probably offered up a proposition. I’m sure she had experience doing this type of thing before.

    I’m sure Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen would have a lot to talk about.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @syonredux
  216. The is something unseemly about a 65 year old bitter white man using the expression “jailbait.”

    Please have some more class and act your age.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
  217. @Anne Lid

    At the age of 50, what a woman is looking for in a man is going to be much different than what she wants at the age of 20 Especially if she has spent her life taking care of children by herself, she’s used to giving to others. So maybe your sister felt sorry for her new husband and wants to take care of him.

    Personality traits (like selflessness) don’t always have an “on” and “off” switch, sometimes they’re just constantly “on.” Your brother-in-law seems to have been lucky to meet a woman who’s evolved to be a giver instead of a taker (which is not very common).

    A 16 year-old girl isn’t looking to take care of anyone. Especially if she’s drawn to rich&famous men, she’s looking to be pampered and spoiled. Just look at the other guys who she consorted with over the years, especially Khasoggi and Epstein. Those two are LITERALLY pimps.

    This girl knew what she was doing and got what she wanted. Now, decades later, this past-her-prime hooker is trying to get back in the limelight by portraying herself as victim. A “nice girl” seduced by the charm of a much older man who “took advantage” of her “naivety.”

    I’d feel more sorry for her if she hadn’t spent years hanging out with Jeffrey “Lolita Express” Epstein. The man was operating a brothel and used his madams (female “assistants”) to lure in young runaway girls. So in all likelihood, Woody Allen’s former mistress probably worked as a madam. Which is why nobody should feel sorry for her or think she was somehow “innocent.”

    • Replies: @Anne Lid
  218. Anon[151] • Disclaimer says:

    “Is there any general awareness/embarrassment in the film industry that a lot of these choices didn’t age well (The Artist, anyone?).”

    There is among those who actually make films, although they’d never be caught dead publicly expressing such an opinion. Unfortunately, the Academy is filled with lower tier people who fancy themselves artists but who can’t actually produce art themselves; real film art – that takes talent, hard work, and a willingness to go your own way en lieu of appealing to a closed social group. Below the line voters have ended up encouraging socially ambitious filmmakers to make pseudo-artistic dreck en lieu of the once “good” movies of the past. Combine that with talent dilution across streaming and video games, and Hollywood ain’t what it used to be. The industry can still make a profitable tent pole, but even tent poles used to have some real art in them.

    “American society is really, really weird about age gaps in romantic relationships.”

    It could be the result of multiracial democracy, which is unique to this degree to the United States. In order to protect themselves from predatory groups run amok, whites imposed a set of somewhat ridiculous rules and regulations – then demanded acquiescence to them without question for all parties. The age gap thing may just be an unintentional offshoot of that. Same with the public’s seeming blindness to our many outdated drug policies, hesitance to fix the needlessly wasteful healthcare system, and refusal to negotiate a lower defense budget. The unstated reasoning here is that any compromise on these rules might lead to a situation that disadvantages white taxpayers; of course, they won’t say that aloud and some may even have convinced themselves otherwise.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  219. @Pincher Martin

    Tolstoy criticized Shakespeare for moral & “artistic representation” (“Nobody talks like that in real life”) reasons- and he was, basically, right. For instance, I find his arguments (moralizing aside) convincing: Shakespeare is full of absurdities, Lear’s initial burst of madness being on the top. In short, Shakespeare, in many crucial turns (say, Edmund’s unconvincing final transformation) is not “real”- life is simply not like that. Just, Tolstoy overlooked Shakespeare’s greatness which cannot be measured by ordinary realism standards & particularly by normative Christian morality.

    Personally, I see that I agree with normative literary canon, perhaps, 80%. There are esteemed authors who are, in my opinion, highly overrated, while I happily agree with most of the literary mob. As for thought- some (not all) great writers are great thinkers, too. Among supreme novelists, Dostoevsky & Proust; among great- not supreme- authors: Mann, Musil & Broch.

    It was, I think Henry James who said that great literature helps augment our inner selves. Nabokov fails at everything except flashes of poetry. This, of course, is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

  220. Anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Allen has the “auteur” bit too though, though superficially this seems like the wrong kind of girl to fall too hard for that.

  221. Anybody have any knowledge of the super-bug STD’s that are pandemic?

    Of course, those only happen to someone else.

  222. @Clyde

    Four years of “churn” with an amicable split. I doubt either party has any regrets.

  223. AndrewR says:
    @Blodgie

    Your gratuitous insult makes me wonder if you can relate to Woody Allen’s comment there

  224. AndrewR says:
    @Beggar Steve

    I don’t think Steve is 60 yet

  225. Speaking of lechery….

    Moonves is all over the news. Apparently he slept with a lot of women who were then promoted within the corporation as a kind of recompense or perhaps to hush them up about any scandal. He maintains all these relations were consensual. The internal investigation finds the shenanigans occurred and he was terminated for cause (violation of corporate policy).

    Accepting all the facts in the light most unfavourable to Moonves – no allegations of force, assault, or rape are being made, it seems – he is being deeemed some kind of monster who victimized the women. The facts certainly would make him a creepy philanderer, but those facts also make the women complicit adventuresses and vixens. If duress regarding their careers were involved, the same policies which prohibited Moonves’ shenanigans doubtless also required the women to report those shenanigans and cooperate in a prompt investigation. It is inconceivable those policies permit persons involved with such shenanigans to keep quiet for years after accepting (requesting? demanding?) undeserved promotions as a payment to keep quiet.

    The facts as presented make the women culpable co-conspirators – arguably blackmailers! – yet they are being universally presented as put-upon victims.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  226. Jack D says:
    @Arthur J

    The way that their affair started was that Engelhart saw Allen at a famous restaurant (where she had been taken by another sugar daddy) and left him a note with her phone #. She was the predator and he was the prey.

    In those pre-cell phone days he had to call her house where her mom or younger brother would pick up s0 it was not exactly secret (although Allen, unlike the movie character, hid Babi in his apartment and did not show her off to his friends). And no one, surely including her family, had any delusions that Allen and Engelhart were spending their time together discussing Kierkegaard.

    Engelhart, to her credit, does not portray herself as a victim despite many open invitations to do so from the media.

    Allen always had a taste for young flesh. His wife #1 was only 17 when they married. He was young too (20), but even in the 1950s it was no longer common for middle class Jews to get married so young (unless the bride was pregnant, which she wasn’t).

  227. Jack D says:
    @inselaffen

    So you’re saying she’s a “10”? What does that make Gal Gadot or Margot Robbie or Gisele Bundchen in her prime? In order to have a meaningful scale you can’t just call all beautiful women “10”. You’ll notice that Engelhart never really had a meaningful modeling career. Just because I’m not a major leaguer myself doesn’t mean I can’t rate Pete Rose vs. Ty Cobb.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  228. @Arthur J

    “If you’re in your 40s and can’t get a fresh teenage pie, you’re probably not successful….”

    Or, here’s a crazy alternative explanation: decent, mature men in their 40s who care about something more than themselves, typically aren’t still single, let alone f—–g like an animal without love or commitment and then being childish and morally troubled enough to brag about it.

    You know, by that age you might actually be married, faithful to your wife, doing the hard work and reaching the fulfillment that comes from raising children together, perpetuating your family and your nation.

    With your attitude towards women, I’m guessing — and hoping — that you don’t have daughters.

    If you do have daughters, are you alright with some creep like you using them for fun and discarding them, moving on to the next one? Are you alright with teaching your daughters that that’s all they are worth?

    • Replies: @L Woods
  229. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arthur J

    I’m in Europe. 17 is legal here; actually younger most places. I probably wouldn’t go lower than 16 though. 15 if she had a decent rack. Germany, it’s 14 but i suppose just because you can go that young doesn’t mean you have to. America still suffers from Puritanism.

    Having sex with underage girls in the US has been like smoking pot. Common with hardly any enforcement.

    But the real issue is parenting. What kind of shi* parents raise their girls to be jumping from bed to bed with all sorts of men, even pervs?

    Would you raise a daughter to act this way? Why go through the whole trouble of bringing life into this world, feeding her, and raising her just to see her become a whore at young age? This isn’t parenting but producing life to offer to Mammon. A form of child sacrifice.

  230. Jack D says:
    @Pincher Martin

    But it’s telling that the moment VN got enough money after the publication of Lolita, he moved to Switzerland. The American scene just didn’t suit him.

    Nabokov had been fabulously wealthy before the revolution. As a child he had vacationed in 1st class Swiss resort hotels like the one he moved into (and never left) once Lolita was published. Then after the revolution he endured 4 decades of rootless poverty and turmoil – his father was assassinated, his brother died at the hands of the Nazis, etc. In America he didn’t fear for his life but he lived the life of a marginal college instructor barely scraping out a living. So I don’t begrudge him an old age that reminded him of his glorious childhood.

    I don’t think this was any knock on America. You can tell from Lolita that he loves America. In some ways Lolita herself stand for America – Nabokov loves her BECAUSE she is young and innocent and free from European guile and sophistication. The tacky roadside attractions and cheap motels appeal to Nabokov BECAUSE they are so sincere and free from cynicism. In America (at least in the old America) political fanatics don’t murder your family members. Americans are open and welcoming. He is not making fun of the hicks.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  231. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @moshe

    The secret belief that jews are innately perverted and enjoy doing horrible things to precious innocent naive gentile girls is not really a thing these days except among the truly truly low class bottom dwellers who DO identify with der strumer cartoonists

    But guys like Weinstein and others are DOING what the Sturmer types are yapping about. So, a lot of Jewish men act out ‘antisemitic’ stereotypes.

    Polanski married the most Aryan woman he could find, and then he did some odd things to a young girl… and Hollywood and French Jews all circled the wagons to protect him.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  232. Jack D says:
    @Anon

    I don’t know whether this applies to age of consent, but you are right that race is the elephant in the room for so many things in America. For example, our whole crazy “holistic” college admission system exists only because America is a multi-racial society (originally the purpose was to reduce the # of Jews, now it is to increase the # of blacks). In monoracial cultures like Japan and China they just rank order the admission test scores and leave it at that. No one gives a damn about whether you volunteered in a Costa Rican orphanage or had a hard childhood.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  233. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Jack D

    This sometimes includes an obsessive “covering all the bases” mentality. So it does not surprise me that Hillary had a Plan B for challenging the election in the court system if she lost in the first count.

    It would have gone nowhere without collusion of Deep State.

    Suppose Trump had such a plan, lost the election, and made his case.

    All of Deep State and Media would have snubbed him and mocked him.

  234. Anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Nabokov loves her BECAUSE she is young and innocent and free from European guile and sophistication.

    Only: is she?

    He is not making fun of the hicks.

    He is and he isn’t. He’s making fun of them for not being like him, and himself, or HH (who is not really him, of course), for not being like them. It’s a pretty clever trick to successfully pull off.

  235. Anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Who reads novels for the thoughts of the author?

    It’s a good reason, though not the only reason, to read Chesterton and an okay reason to read Sartre. A man’s philosophy is the most important thing about him.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  236. I can’t say I have any respect for Woody the man but I’ve liked alot of his movies. I get the sense that he is the opposite of alot of directors. Instead of making goofball comedies to fund pet projects he seems to do the PC Hollyweird movies to fund his sillier movies.

  237. Anne Lid says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Your estimation of my sister is very kind. We just think she lost her mind. The old fart is not even nice (when you said ‘your brother-in-law’, I did not understand at first, how he came into it, since he passed away many years ago). She has a grandchild to dote on, if she wanted to feel useful. About this girl you may be right. She said they met about a 100 times in eight years, that is about once a month.

  238. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @nsa

    Lolita is probably the most anti-American book ever written. As the likable old world pervert Humbert debauches the not so innocent new world Lolita, Nabakov takes the opportunity to troll the reader through the American heartland……the tacky motels and resorts with ridiculous names, the unimaginative moralistic population as personified by Lolita’s middle aged mom Charlotte, the relentless consumerism, the car / highway culture of billboards and truly abhorrent cuisine, the deviancy phoniness of the country’s elites (think Quilty). Ole Nabokov really had it in for his new American hosts…….

    But in the movie, the joke is as much on Humbert as on the Americana he is mocking. It’s true that Humbert is far more intelligent and sophisticated than the laughable Charlotte. But he is to Quilty what Charlotte was to him. Humbert found Charlotte ridiculous and amusing, and Quilty finds Humbert to be ridiculous and amusing. Quilty runs circles around him. It’s like there are gradations to everything. In EYES WIDE SHUT, Bill Harford feels confident as an affluent doctor who is good-looking. He lives in a nice place and knows rich people. And he makes people turn their heads. But when his wife confesses of some guy who captivated her with just one glance, he feels as a mortal before the gods. And when he goes to the rich man’s mansion, he feels insignificant.
    So, in a way, LOLITA is as much about mockery as self-mockery. You look down on dummies, but you’re also the dummy to other eyes.

    Also, Quilty is like a Dr. Strangelove figure. A kind of dark hero. He is so smart, penetrating, and witty that nothing fools him. He has X-ray eyes through people’s psyche. And because he sees through people, he sees no soul. He is utterly cynical and outwits everyone, even the smart and urbane Humbert. But then, even he falls into his own trap. Outwit enough people and turn them into fools, and they may stop playing the game and just come at you with a gun… or pitchfork… like in HOUSE OF GAMES and eXistenZ. Quilty fails to realize that he can go on winning ONLY IF people stick with the game. But someone who loses in chess(and is mocked by the winner) may just pull out a knife and stab the gloater. This is a part of Jewish Anxiety. Jews can outwit everyone… but what if people stop playing the game and do something very stupid… and effective, like what Humbert finally does to Quilty. Just shoot him. This is why Jews fear Populism.

    Anyway, based on the movie(as I haven’t read the book), it seems the story dwells on Humbert’s heart but sees through Quilty’s head. And I think Nabokov felt closest to Quilty who knew the ins and outs of everything. He is not your typical American elite. He is above-elite, a Dr. Strangelove or that all-purpose chameleon villain in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS(who is undone by stupid Brad Pitt character who doesn’t understand the game and fails to realize that the guy isn’t really a Nazi but a gamer of power; in some ways, stupidity can be the most dangerous weapon to intelligence; unable or refusing to play the game, it goes for most brutal option and wields the hammer against the head).

    The reason why 007 always survived was because the villains always played the game. When they had him, they could have just shot him… but it was beneath their dignity to do something so stupid. So, they had to come up with some hyper-brilliant and elaborate way to kill 007… but of course Bond outwits them or is favored by gods with their endless deux ex machinas. It goes to show that sometimes, the stupid option is the most effective. Just shoot him.

  239. J.Ross says: • Website
    @tyrone

    The “parents” are counting the money, just like the ones who had Michael Jackson’s phone number.

  240. Dumbo says:
    @Arthur J

    Sartre, Escobar, Elvis etc All the greats were teenage clunge plungers

    Satre, Escobar (Pablo?) and Elvis “the 20th century greats”? You gotta be kidding…

    I have no objections to marriage with a young girl, and I don’t see much (legal or ethical) difference between a 20 year old and a 40-year old banging a 17-year old. That said, just sex of an older guy with a teen is really a form of prostitution. She is most likely not attracted to him, but expects something in return, money, fame, etc. So it is a form of corruption. Marriage is more of a deal. Yes, many girls in that age are already sluts or corrupted, especially in our culture, and prostitution is part of life, still, it’s not the best idea for society to promote that kind of behavior. If I had a daughter, I wouldn’t want her banging Woody Allen, would you?

    If you’re in your 40’s and you can’t get a fresh teenage pie, you’re probably not successful in life

    Or maybe you just have other priorities than banging teens?

    I’m mostly doing girls I’m their twenties because I’m not yet a great artist.

    I doubt you will be, but you can still be a great pimp, check out the guys at Rotherham, they also liked young European flesh. (Reading the comments, I seem to understand now why so many Unz readers want “white shariah”…)

    • Replies: @Anon
  241. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anon

    And some of them talk very openly about it, frequently quoted in these pages, no need to recopy it yet again. There is now a reverse phenonenon dependent on perceptions of Jews as a ruling class and ideas of a valuable but inaccessible Jewess. Hizbullah released a propaganda novel that climaxed in converting a hot Israelah to post-Zionism, then to Islam, and finally marrying her.

    • Replies: @Anon
  242. @Jack D

    Not to defend the poster to whom you were responding, but any 1-to-10 rating system for women’s attractiveness would have to acknowledge that such limited parameters, if evenly distributed, would include ten percent of all women in the top tier. That means, a decent-sized co-ed high school with 2,000 students (i.e., 1,000 female students) ought to have 100 girls rated as a 10.

    Of course most people seem to think 1-to-10 rating system is shaped more like a bell curve, with at best a small handful of women scoring a 10 and the vast majority of women stuck somewhere in the fat middle section.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
  243. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I think Nabokov loved America, and his detailed literary reporting of its byways is honest and funny.

    I can’t comment on the book because I only read two brilliant pages. But if the movie if faithful to the worldview of the novel, I would say Nabokov found Americanism both childish & stupid and awesome & forbidding.

    In Europe, hierarchy had much to do with class, education, and position. Humbert is a smart and educated guy but his overblown self-esteem has to do with cultural factors. He’s solidly bourgeois and upper middle class in upbringing. He knows enough about arts and literature. He is a cultured and refined scholar. Not upper-echelon but reasonably respectable. So, his status in life is grounded in cultural and social norms of traditional Europe(though changing fast under modernity).

    So, it’s amusing for him to observe childlike simple-minded American neo-middle-class yahoos act like they’re cultured/refined or hip/experimental. It’s like kids playing at being grown-ups. America simply doesn’t have the roots and tradition of arts, culture, and intellect like Europe does. So, Humbert feels superior to this side of America.

    But there is the other America, the Quiltian American(which maybe cryto-Jewish). Because Americanism has no deep roots, tradition, or firm conventions, the game of power has fewer restrictions and hang-ups. And because Americanism has less concern for respectability, one cannot rest on one’s laurels of background, education, and social position. In Europe(of Humbert’s period), one could get far by naming what school you went to, where you live, and who your ancestors were.
    In the US, what really counts is what you can deliver and prove yourself. And Quilty exhibits his kind of Americanism where there’s no limit to the wit. In Europe, such a man might have been thought uncouth and vulgar, no matter how brilliant. After all, his specialty is TV and entertainment. But in America where the main theme of prestige was ‘rags to riches’, it doesn’t matter what Quilty does for a living. The fact is Quilty knows how to make people laugh(and privately laughs at people who laugh at his jokes). With money and fame, he plays his best jokes on real people(like Andy Warhol), and he toys with Humbert like cat with a mouse. Is it any wonder that Jewish Power became most formidable in the US with fewer restraints of class, tradition, convention, and respectability?
    Quilty is like Howard Roark and Gail Wynand(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD) rolled into one. He shamelessly works in entertainment and gives people what they want with a sprinkle of wit(as most people don’t get real wit) and makes a lot of money and wins over lots of fans. In that, he’s like Wynand. But he’s also like Roark in pursuing his game of power to the fullest logic, happily wrecking lives and being amused by it like a decadent Roman Emperor. He’s a foul person but pure in his utter devotion to misanthropism.

    America is both the land of idiocracy and geniocracy. The ‘aristocratic’ mindset might look down on the idiots but cannot stand up to genius-without-restraint(moral, economic, cultural).

  244. @Anon

    It’s a good reason, though not the only reason, to read Chesterton and an okay reason to read Sartre. A man’s philosophy is the most important thing about him.

    There is a literature of ideas, but it’s a very small part of serious literature. And rightly so. Most authors don’t have serious ideas. Who cares what Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald thought about anything? Instead we care about how they write (i.e., style) and the scenes they are able to recreate (i.e., narrative structure).

    If Sartre hadn’t been a philosopher, I’m pretty sure no one would read his novels today. (Do people still read Camus?)

    Even with writers like Orwell or Koestler, does anyone really read them to understand that totalitarianism is bad? Because that’s a banal idea. Rather they are celebrated – or ought to be celebrated – because they were good at creating stories that illustrated that idea. And that again comes down to style and structure.

    The one literary genre which is an exception to my rule that ideas don’t matter in literature is science fiction. Or so I’m told. I haven’t read enough good science fiction to know.

    • Replies: @Anon
  245. @Anon

    The problem with Kubrick’s “Lolita” is he filmed it in black and white in England. He should have filmed it in color on the road in America, in the Finger Lakes region of New York and in Colorado, where Nabokov went most summers to collect butterflys.

    • Replies: @Anon
  246. Anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    As every war is in some degree a religious war, all literature is in some degree a “literature of ideas”.

    The reason, indeed, is very simple. A man cannot be wise enough to be a great artist without being wise enough to wish to be a philosopher. A man cannot have the energy to produce good art without having the energy to wish to pass beyond it. A small artist is content with art; a great artist is content with nothing except everything. So we find that when real forces, good or bad, like Kipling and G. B. S., enter our arena, they bring with them not only startling and arresting art, but very startling and arresting dogmas. And they care even more, and desire us to care even more, about their startling and arresting dogmas than about their startling and arresting art. Mr. Shaw is a good dramatist, but what he desires more than anything else to be is a good politician. Mr. Rudyard Kipling is by divine caprice and natural genius an unconventional poet; but what he desires more than anything else to be is a conventional poet. He desires to be the poet of his people, bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, understanding their origins, celebrating their destiny. He desires to be Poet Laureate, a most sensible and honourable and public-spirited desire. Having been given by the gods originality– that is, disagreement with others–he desires divinely to agree with them. But the most striking instance of all, more striking, I think, even than either of these, is the instance of Mr. H. G. Wells. He began in a sort of insane infancy of pure art. He began by making a new heaven and a new earth, with the same irresponsible instinct by which men buy a new necktie or button-hole. He began by trifling with the stars and systems in order to make ephemeral anecdotes; he killed the universe for a joke. He has since become more and more serious, and has become, as men inevitably do when they become more and more serious, more and more parochial. He was frivolous about the twilight of the gods; but he is serious about the London omnibus. He was careless in “The Time Machine,” for that dealt only with the destiny of all things; but be is careful, and even cautious, in “Mankind in the Making,” for that deals with the day after to-morrow. He began with the end of the world, and that was easy. Now he has gone on to the beginning of the world, and that is difficult. But the main result of all this is the same as in the other cases. The men who have really been the bold artists, the realistic artists, the uncompromising artists, are the men who have turned out, after all, to be writing “with a purpose.” Suppose that any cool and cynical art-critic, any art-critic fully impressed with the conviction that artists were greatest when they were most purely artistic, suppose that a man who professed ably a humane aestheticism, as did Mr. Max Beerbohm, or a cruel aestheticism, as did Mr. W. E. Henley, had cast his eye over the whole fictional literature which was recent in the year 1895, and had been asked to select the three most vigorous and promising and original artists and artistic works, he would, I think, most certainly have said that for a fine artistic audacity, for a real artistic delicacy, or for a whiff of true novelty in art, the things that stood first were “Soldiers Three,” by a Mr. Rudyard Kipling; “Arms and the Man,” by a Mr. Bernard Shaw; and “The Time Machine,” by a man called Wells. And all these men have shown themselves ingrainedly didactic. You may express the matter if you will by saying that if we want doctrines we go to the great artists. But it is clear from the psychology of the matter that this is not the true statement; the true statement is that when we want any art tolerably brisk and bold we have to go to the doctrinaires.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Kemidov
  247. @Thorfinnsson

    I’ve never understood why it’s wrong for a 41 year old man to screw a 17 year old girl but totally acceptable for an 18 year old man to do so.

    Well the Asperger crowd found this post.

    Anyway, it’s wrong because the older man has much more life experience than the young girl. She should be learning with boys her own age.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @L Woods
    , @agent orange
  248. @Jack D

    So I don’t begrudge him an old age that reminded him of his glorious childhood.

    I don’t begrudge him it, either. I like almost everything Nabokov. His beautiful writing. His ideas on literature. His hobbies (Lepidoptera and chess). His insane language skills. His conservative politics.

    But … when given the choice to continue to live in America as a wealthy man or head back to Europe, he headed back to Europe, even as he continued to call himself an American author. And he didn’t even hesitate in making that decision.

    Did he love America? Sure, I guess so. But he was married to Europe. And most comfortable there.

  249. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    What goes around comes around.

  250. Rob McX says:
    @Jason y

    Nabokov’s homophobia would be censored nowadays. It comes out at its sharpest in his attitude to the French pederast Gaston Godin in Lolita – “a glum repulsive fat old invert”.

  251. Kylie says:
    @Jack D

    “…she was probably enjoying the attention and gifts from the rich famous man and traveling in his circles, etc.”

    I read the whole article and I didn’t see any mention of her getting gifts from Allen or traveling in his circles. I inferred she didn’t actually get much attention from him outside of his bedroom.

    “The modern obsession with ‘equality’ is ridiculous. Some things in life are inherently unequal and should remain that way.”

    Definitely. I hope nothing I’ve said here or elsewhere would make anyone think I believe differently. Indeed I would dearly love to live in a tiered society in which certain inequalities were not only the custom but the law.

  252. Rob McX says:
    @Steve Sailer

    One of his pet hates, along with communists, Freudians, bourgeois middle-brows, etc. was anti-Semites. It comes up again and again in his writing. He took care to distance himself from Russian right-wing nationalist anti-communists, whom he termed “pogromystics”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  253. J.Ross says: • Website
    @ScarletNumber

    This reply is missing a lot. Teenagers “learnin’ from each other’s knowin’” sounds like a worst case scenario in every way. That’s the theme of the movie “Kids” (in which an African following the way of his people seeks to cure his AIDS by bedding young virgins).
    The issue here isn’t age at all, it’s what happens tomorrow morning, what happens when she’s pregnant, it’s responsibility. An honest older guy who is not just looking for a forgettable romp and will properly take care of the girl is better in every way than an earnest teenager.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @ScarletNumber
  254. @Anon

    I can’t comment on the book because I only read two brilliant pages. But if the movie if faithful to the worldview of the novel, I would say Nabokov found Americanism both childish & stupid and awesome & forbidding.

    He didn’t. He always spoke fondly of America. Always.

    Nabokov’s America

    Much of the novel’s [Lolita‘s] energy derives from the love-hate relationship Nabokov had with America’s postwar culture of crap TV shows, bad westerns, squawking jukeboxes—the invigorating trash that informs the story of a cultured European’s sexual obsession with an American bobby-soxer who is, as Humbert calls her, the “ideal consumer, the subject and object of every foul poster.” Nabokov always refused the label of satirist, and it would be an oversimplification to say that “Lolita” merely skewers the materialism of fifties America; throughout the book, there is a sense of hypnotized wonder and delight at the happy consumerism of the country and its inhabitants, and Nabokov took overt joy at clipping and cataloguing examples of that consumerism, which he carefully worked into the very texture of “Lolita.”

    And you shouldn’t trust the Humbert narrator. That’s really clear in the book, but perhaps not as clear in the Lolita films. Do NOT trust the narrator in any of Nabokov’s novels. You’ll just get yourself into trouble.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Reg Cæsar
  255. L Woods says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Won’t someone think of the poor sluts!?

  256. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross

    And some of them talk very openly about it, frequently quoted in these pages, no need to recopy it yet again.

    https://forward.com/culture/384996/why-ill-be-teaching-both-portnoys-complaint-and-this-harvey-weinstein-essay/

  257. @inertial

    Don’t forget the courtroom scene in Bananas.

  258. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Do NOT trust the narrator in any of Nabokov’s novels.

    Okay, I’ll take that as good advice, but should we trust Nabokov’s words about America or anything else? Maybe he was doing a Quilty on us? A European who’d gone ‘American’. Maybe he did it with wit(whereas Rand did it with Will).

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  259. @moshe

    German ladies are far from being anyone’s concubines, DAHN-keh!

    We LOVE our Lena!! She defeats all mongrels!!!

  260. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross

    in which an African following the way of his people seeks to cure his AIDS by bedding young virgins

    I really don’t see any barrier against this African being 40 or thereabouts, though, whatever his actual age was.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  261. @L Woods

    This guy gets it.

    He’s Tiny Duck with more words.

  262. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    As most of the movie takes place indoors, I don’t it would have mattered. Apart from battle scenes, PATHS OF GLORY was also mostly about interior space. Also true of DR. STRANGELOVE. Interiors of office, War Room, and airplanes. The only exception is a bit of cinema-verite battle footage.

    In this, Kubrick had something in common with Hitchcock who was also a control freak and preferred interiors or studio sets over exterior reality. More interiors, more control.
    In 2001, even nature was mostly on a studio set, and rest of the movie is interiors of space ships. SHINING opens with great shots of Montana, but most of the movie happens inside a hotel. BARRY LYNDON is maybe his most exterior-heavy movie, but it goes from palace to palace, a world where even exteriors are carefully controlled. And the battle scenes in FULL METAL JACKET was filmed in some place in UK with abandoned buildings. It became like a huge ‘studio’ for Kubrick.

    Would LOLITA have been better with THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT approach where Cimino used America’s natural wonders as backdrop for a crime thriller? He did same with DEER HUNTER. Why such emphasis on nature? In T&L, was Cimino saying US was natural wonders stolen from Indians, and therefore the entire theme of Americanism is robbery? In DEER HUNTER, the point is what? US was founded by hunter-adventurers, and so Americans went hunting in Vietnam and got hunted in turn?

    Anyway, Kubrick’s version seems to have everything HE wanted to say, and it said quite a lot.

    And with a few exceptions, color from that period lacked the subtlety it would develop later. In Europe, maybe it was due to funding. In Hollywood, the reason could have been studio insistence that movies have a certain look, thereby suppressing experimentation.

    The real standouts in use of color from them is PURPLE NOON, ACTOR’S REVENGE, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

    But by the mid 60s, use of color became more stylized and interesting. A MAN AND A WOMAN looks fantastic(though a dumb movie). THE GRADUATE looked real special and still does. IPCRESS FILE looks more special than any 007 movie. And Nicholas Roeg’s use of color in FAHRENHEIT 451 revved it up a notch. Sensational use of color in BLOW-UP and LE SAMOURAI.

    With a few exceptions(like VERTIGO and REAR WINDOW), I prefer b/w movies to color one prior to mid 60s when color took on new tones and palettes.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  263. @Pincher Martin

    Do NOT trust the narrator in any of Nabokov’s novels.

    Don’t trust the narrator in anybody‘s novel. They call it “fiction” for a reason.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Pincher Martin
  264. @ScarletNumber

    Anyway, it’s wrong because the older man has much more life experience than the young girl. She should be learning with boys her own age.

    For some people, interpersonal relationships and business can never be mutually exclusive. Particularly with strikingly gorgeous women, there’s NO way they would EVER marry someone who did not manage a hefty stash of power and cash. Why would they? Why would they marry the likes of YOU if they didn’t have to? Amazing looking women don’t have to. You’re not even on their radar. You’re noise to them.

    Lauren Bacall, for example, struck a business deal with Humphrey Bogart. She barter’s her youth and beauty, and he gives her his money and movie industry connections, which he’d built for 20 years. Sure, he dies early on, but she’s gifted with the inheritance, the son, and the movie industry connections she NEVER would have gathered at that age without him, allowing her to be in movies she NEVER would have been in without the power of her husband. She tried doubling down with Frank Sinatra, but he was too smart, and she was no longer as young as she used to be, and he ducked her. Not so lucky with Mia Farrow.

    In any case, Bacall didn’t make a bad trade, I’d say. Many stunningly beautiful women make that trade all the time, and don’t think twice about it. Ask Catherine Zeta Jones.

  265. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dumbo

    Sartre, Escobar (Pablo?) and Elvis “the 20th century greats”?

    Get girls with words, drugs, or songs.

    LOVING PABLO is conventional but pretty entertaining movie. Relevant too in a world ruled by even bigger gangsters.

  266. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    It’s not just that it looks stupid, it looks stupid on her and she is posed very awkwardly with a bizarre expression on her face (put that last bit down to a photo at the wrong moment and the effect is still lacking).

    She’s not Lolita and I’m a lot closer to her age then than most of you but that photo gives me a bit of the creeps.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  267. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Or trust the narrator completely– he can’t be “lying” about what doesn’t exist, surely?

    NB. That’s not my argument but that of an acquaintance.

  268. dfordoom says: • Website
    @syonredux

    Kubrick’s adaptation is pretty great

    Second-tier Kubrick. And it spends far too much time on Peter Sellers.

    Yep.

  269. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev

    It is clear that Nabokov does not sympathize with the narrator.

    It’s truly amazing how many people miss that, even though it’s very very obvious.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  270. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    In contrast, Humbert is madly obsessed with this one girl. Is it pederasty or some such?

    A pederast is a homosexual who likes them young.

    Even this isn’t so sure. If Humbert is a pederast, he would have been crazy for young girls all his life. But there is no such indication in the movie. He’s certainly not a serial pederast(or pedophile). A serious pederast would be lusting for young ones everywhere.

    It’s many years since I read the book but from memory Lolita is just one of string of young girls he’s been obsessed with. But he does seem to be more obsessed with her than any of the others.

    You have to remember that Humbert Humbert is a middle-aged representative of an over-civilised exhausted decadent European culture whilst Lolita is American, young and completely uncultured. She’s a barbarian.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  271. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anon

    I don’t understand this reply. Kids was a thinking person’s horror movie about totally unsupervised kids destroying themselves and those around them. Their frequent, meaningless, and disease-spreading sex is a function of being kids and being in a small community. The proposition was for a program of structured sexual mores to penalize disposable hedonism and reward responsibility. This automatically favors older men.
    >yeah but they could still
    They can do whatever they want: if it looks nothing like what I described, then I can hardly be asked to defend it. Also consider what bin Laden said about the strong horse. If Muzzies bother, ask yourself what’s the alternative.

    • Replies: @Anon
  272. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    True she’s the daughter of one of his girl friends. Woody and Mia never even lived together, so there’s not even that connection.

    Woody’s movies are awful. As a man, he’s totally unappealing

  273. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Lolita was 12 when he aquired her. How much culture does the average 12 year old have?

    I got the impression that the narrator was only interested in very young girls but wasn’t agressive enough to just grab and rape them.

    Then the widow with no relatives or friends suddenly died and he was able to obtain the daughter. I thought that plot device was the weakest part of the book.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  274. Jack D says:
    @Anon

    If Humbert is a pederast [sic. – pedophile], he would have been crazy for young girls all his life. But there is no such indication in the movie.

    This is true but the book does give him an extensive pedophilic backstory which was completely omitted from the movie.

    I would suggest that maybe you should read more than the 1st two pages of the book. It is well worth reading.

    • Replies: @Anon
  275. Jack D says:
    @dfordoom

    Nabokov does the same thing in Pale Fire. The narrator Kinbote is even less likable than Humbert.

  276. Jack D says:
    @Anon

    It’s just a bad photo. Despite her pretensions, Engelhart was more of a groupie than an actual fashion model. This looks like it was done by some 2nd rate hack mall photographer for a modeling “portfolio” and not as actual commercial work. Everything about it is 2nd rate.

    Even a top quality modeling photo from the ’70s is going to look bad to our eyes. Not only have clothing fashions and hair and makeup styles changed but even women’s bodies have changed. Fashion models are (except for the ones who are super fat) expected to be super thin and to have their bodies sculpted in the gym and/or surgically.

    But 2nd rate work like this photo is going to look especially ridiculous and unable to withstand the test of time.

  277. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    A pederast is a homosexual who likes them young.

    Okay, what’s the term for adults who like young ones but not children? Those who go for children are pedophiles, but I’d say Humbert in the MOVIE isn’t a pedo. Lolita is somewhere between girlhood and womanhood(and blossoming fast).

    It’s many years since I read the book but from memory Lolita is just one of string of young girls he’s been obsessed with. But he does seem to be more obsessed with her than any of the others.

    I only read two pages, so you’re surely right about the book. But in the movie, there is no indication that Humbert has a special thing for young ones. Just for Lolita. When he visits her at the girl camp, there are lots of young cuties all around, but he shows no interest in them(or in Lolita’s friends). It’s just Lolita. And even when he meets up with Lolita few yrs later when she’s a pretty much a full-grown woman and pregnant, he still wants her, and he wants to be with her forever. So, he wants to grow OLD with her. If he were a true perv with hots for young ones, he would have lost interest in the older Lolita. But she’s the only one he still cares for.

    Something about her switched something on within him, and it’s not exactly hots-for-young-ones because he shows no such interest in OTHER young girls. Whatever was latent but lit by Lolita was something more than hots-for-young-ones.

    This side of him remains mysterious precisely because Kubrick doesn’t present Lolita as a figure of mystery. We can see why Scottie becomes besotted with Madeleine in VERTIGO. Hitchcock details all the tricks of the trade that turned ‘Madeline’ into a dream-goddess. We are shown the inner-mechanics of beauty and allure and how it can trap a man.
    But Lolita seems like some shallow teeny-bopper tart. One of the many pretty girls, nothing special. But Humbert sees something in her that we don’t see, and he sacrifices everything, even sanity, to pursue his dream. Our incomprehension makes what is happening insider him even more mysterious.

    James Mason was also in GEORGY GIRL where he has this special thing for the Lynn Redgrave character and only her.

    There’s something similar with the John Hurt character in LOVE AND DEATH IN LONG ISLAND.
    Now, it’s fair to say the John Hurt character is a homo, but he seems to have been a latent-homo for most of his life. We learn that he was even married once and lived a pretty normal and uneventful life. But one day, he sees some dumb American movie and totally falls in love with an actor. His passion(along with his buried sexuality) finally bursts forth. Even as a life-long homo, he never felt homo-passion and kept it under the lid and had no problem leading an outwardly straight life. So, most men never did it for him. They never brought out the inner-homo. But he sees this ONE guy, and he’s totally smitten. So, his passion is more than homo.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @syonredux
  278. Svigor says:

    Hoo boy, she can pick ‘em. I’m surprised she didn’t also sleep with Armand Hammer.

    Yeah I skimmed that one real quick this morning, saw that bit, and was like “wow what a whore.” Jews really seem to zero in on that type.

  279. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    This is true but the book does give him an extensive pedophilic backstory which was completely omitted from the movie.

    Okay, but I think the movie was sufficiently altered to lend different meanings. Same with THE SHINING, with key differences from the novel.

    I think Nabokov was okay with the movie, but King bitched endlessly about his adapation. Now, it may well be that LOLITA the novel is a greater work than the movie(which I think is a masterpiece), but surely the movie version of SHINING is 1000x better than the novel. (I read about 1/4 of it and quit, it sucked so bad.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  280. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Definitely an odd opinion. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE is a good film, but it’s not peak Ford. Now, if he wanted to argue that The Searchers is better than Lawrence of Arabia, that’s a notion that I could get behind….

    Not peak Ford, but come to think of it, John Ford, like Alfred Hitchcock, had several peaks. In contrast, Capra was unable to reinvent himself after his masterpiece IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

    LIBERTY VALANCE is not his greatest work but it’s certainly his last great work(even though auteurists like Sarris highly rated SEVEN WOMEN too; a good solid work but nothing major). LIBERTY VALANCE is to Ford what PSYCHO was to Hitchcock. Pared down de-mystification. Barren and sad. Hitchcock featured many psycho-killers in earlier movies, but they had style and even glamour. They could be seductive like Joseph Cotten in SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Or brilliant and eccentric like the killer in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. Soon afterward, Hitchcock began to make these big budget prestige color movies like REAR WINDOW and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Then, suddenly he made PSYCHO, a low-budget b/w movie and, this time, a psycho as psycho. Just a sick pathetic killer without even the saving grace of the cool factor. It was cold and brutal, like murder really is.
    Likewise, LIBERTY VALANCE features a stripped-down humdrum version of the West. The whole movie is like a high-school play staged within the mind of the narrator, James Stewart character. And it has the least heroic killing of any Ford Western.

    The difference with PSYCHO is that, whereas the Hitchcock movies brings up close with the brutality, everything is at a remove in LIBERTY VALANCE. Even though some of the incidents and details are vivid(and even frightening), there’s an artificial sense that everyone is replaying what happened in a ghost play. It was along this basis that Sarris defended the fact a visibly aged Wayne and Stewart played their younger versions. It’s like a psycho-drama of Stewart’s character retracing the steps to reveal the truth(as at the end in VERTIGO). It’s like breaking open an old coffin and piecing together the bones to retrieve the tale.

    Where PSYCHO and VALANCE converge is in the sense that souls grow sick with the lie. It can lead to madness(as with Norman Bates) or a sense of guilt/shame/compromise, a need to finally air the truth. Bates went mad because he could never come face to face with what happened to his mother. Finally, Stewart tells the truth and what really happened, but even that is rejected. He rides off back to DC still as ‘hero’ but he’s sadder than ever.

  281. @Rob McX

    Nabokov’s dad, who had been, I believe, justice minister in a brief reformist government in 1905, was murdered in Berlin by a rightwinger in 1922.

  282. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jack D

    In some ways Lolita herself stand for America

    That’s how I read it. And Humbert stands for Europe.

    – Nabokov loves her BECAUSE she is young and innocent and free from European guile and sophistication.

    Yeah. But I think he sees her as also dangerous, for the same reasons. Just as he probably saw America as dangerous because of its innocence and lack of sophistication. Humbert knows she’s dangerous but can’t help himself. I think Nabokov loved America and was appalled by it at the same time.

    And I think he identifies to a certain extent with Humbert’s sophistication and culture while being appalled by his decadence. I suspect Nabokov loved Europe and was appalled by it at the same time.

    Nabokov doesn’t strike me as a guy who could love or admire anything in a simple straightforward way.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  283. Kemidov says:
    @Ben Sampson

    old men and young boys as a way of living sung to the high heavens and awarded in gold, set up as example and cultural practice

    I have never see something more sick disgusting, perverted in my life.

    can western culture continue to stand up, overwhelmed by this sort of thing?

    What is your view of Ancient Greece?

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  284. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    Lolita was 12 when he aquired her. How much culture does the average 12 year old have?

    None at all. That’s why Nabokov made her twelve. To Nabokov America was a country too young to have any real culture or intellectual accomplishment. Lots of energy and vitality but undirected and undisciplined. To represent America he needed a character with the same strengths and the same flaws that he saw in America. A precocious 12-year-old girl seemed ideal to represent that idea.

    I don’t think the novel has anything at all to do with sex or sexual/emotional relationships. I think that would have seemed to Nabokov like a terribly banal idea for a novel. I think it’s a novel about a dying exhausted decadent civilisation encountering a barbarian society that has not yet reached the level of a civilisation. The barbarians are vulgar but dynamic and they’re the future, for good or ill. Humbert/Europe has no future. Lolita has a future but she’s likely to break lots of stuff and generally wreak havoc.

    If you look at history since the novel was published Nabokov was pretty accurate in his judgment.

    I suspect that Americans and non-Americans see this novel very very differently.

  285. @Bardon Kaldian

    Tolstoy criticized Shakespeare for moral & “artistic representation” (“Nobody talks like that in real life”) reasons- and he was, basically, right.

    No, I would say he completely missed the point.

    Shakespeare’s art is not to be found in his representation of real-life speech. It’s found in his poetry. We should thank God everyday that Shakespeare chose not to write speech as people back in the Elizabethan era actually spoke it.

    Tolstoy supposedly read English, but my guess is that he didn’t read it that well, certainly not well enough to hear the music in Shakespeare’s speeches. And not being able to read a literary work in the language it was written will diminish its power. This is not just true of poetry, but also of prose written by authors who take, or took, great care to select the right words to create their work (i.e., Flaubert in French) or who use a regional idiom (i.e., Twain in English).

    It’s kind of crazy to read Shakespeare with the idea he was – or should be – representing real life. He was creating wind music, my man. That’s why so many of his sayings have entered the English language, even though most people who use them have forgotten the source.

  286. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    but surely the movie version of SHINING is 1000x better than the novel. (I read about 1/4 of it and quit, it sucked so bad.)

    If you’re making a movie it’s often a very sound idea to adapt it from a mediocre novel. King’s THE SHINING is about as mediocre as you can get. King is a hack. Kubrick was an artist.

  287. @dfordoom

    This is just so counter to what Nabokov was doing that it sends me into paroxysms of laughter. You must be the kind of guy who reads Anna Karenina or Madame Bovary and says that the point of the stories is to show how adultery is no damn good.

    “Style and Structure are the essence of a book; great ideas are hogwash.” – Vladimir Nabokov

    What VN means by that is that a great piece of literature is only great because of its style and structure. The idea in it (if there is one) doesn’t elevate or diminish the work. Only the style and structure can do that.

  288. @Anon

    As every war is in some degree a religious war, all literature is in some degree a “literature of ideas”.

    You have made two falsehoods equivalent. Not every war is a religious war; not even most wars are religious wars. And great literature has nothing to do with ideas. If it did, our best thinkers would write the best artistic work, and they clearly don’t. Many notable authors are blockheads who are good at only one thing – writing literary stories that attract widespread attention.

    You could take two or three dozen of America’s greatest fiction writers and not fill a thimble with their original ideas. What great and original ideas do you think Fitzgerald or Hemingway had, for example?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @syonredux
  289. @Reg Cæsar

    Don’t trust the narrator in anybody‘s novel. They call it “fiction” for a reason.

    Yes but many narrators are there to serve as either the authorial viewpoint or to help the reader learn by reading about what the narrator learns (which is sort of what happens with Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby). They usually aren’t – as they invariably are in much of Nabokov’s work – deliberately misleading.

  290. @Anon

    Okay, I’ll take that as good advice, but should we trust Nabokov’s words about America or anything else? Maybe he was doing a Quilty on us? A European who’d gone ‘American’. Maybe he did it with wit(whereas Rand did it with Will).

    Nabokov gave many interviews during his life in America and Switzerland over the course of two decades. You can read most of them in the collection called Strong Opinions.

    Nabokov was not overtly political, and didn’t have strong opinions on most political subjects, but to the degree he did have them he appeared to be a conservative of the National Review type. That would be the National Review of the fifties and sixties, not the National Review of today.

    If he said a bad word about America in those interviews, I can’t remember it. He was invariably polite about his host country, even after he decamped to Switzerland. He even called himself an American author.

  291. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Why such emphasis on nature? In T&L, was Cimino saying US was natural wonders stolen from Indians, and therefore the entire theme of Americanism is robbery? In DEER HUNTER, the point is what? US was founded by hunter-adventurers, and so Americans went hunting in Vietnam and got hunted in turn?

    Eh. I think that Cimino just liked pretty scenery. Note how the the hunting scenes in Deer Hunter are supposed to be set in rural Pennsylvania, but Cimino filmed them in the Cascades in Washington State. Grandeur over realism….

    • Replies: @black sea
  292. @Almost Missouri

    Agree with your points, but alas no helpful advice here. I was untouchable for awhile due to serious competence. Even they respected that because it made them serious money. But that was then and this is now.

  293. syonredux says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    “Fame game” only exists when you combine fame and game (good looks can help a lot too). When you combine fame with Woody Allen’s neuroticism

    Don’t confuse Woody with his comedic persona. From everything that I’ve read, the actual Woody Allen seems quite confident and in-control…..

    • Replies: @black sea
  294. @Pincher Martin

    At his best (and he was often at or near his best) William threw a density of meaning and beauty of language at you in equal portion, and to witness it in skillful performance (as I often have) is bracing in the best way. It’s hard to keep up when you are marveling so much at what you’re hearing, but it’s worth the effort.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  295. syonredux says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Faberge eggs with hidden locks. Sure it is show-offy but Nabokov had the chops to actually pull it off – who else could have done this?

    Joyce. Borges. Others.

    Joyce, yeah….But I’m not sure about Borges. His mode was the short story. I can’t imagine him writing something novel-length….

  296. Kemidov says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Call Me by Your Name, a movie about deflowering a 17-year-old boy.

    “Defoliating” might be a more appropriate term in cases like that.

    I would just like to take the opportunity to point-out that there are at least some of us whose abhorrence for all buggery— let alone the buggering and sodomizing of tender, adolescent boys by older males– is no less than than the appeal (including but not limited-to erotic appeal) that we find in said delightful creatures. Granted, possessing this particular combination of views and sentiments may place me in a distinct or even tiny minority. Alone, however, I surely am not.

    It is difficult to imagine many topics as fraught, radioactive and taboo as just about anything having to do with just about any form, instance or aspect of passionate affection on the part of men toward boys. The mere terms boy love and, certainly man-boy love, have been sullied and tainted, probably irredeemably, by Sodomite degenerates.

    How many people even know, for example, that there is apparently a whole tradition of self-described chaste, yet nonetheless explicitly aesthetic and even sensuous adoration and celebration of boys? (Referenced in the Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy book that John Derbyshire recommended in the piece of his I linked above.)

    Incidentally, on the topic of films that feature inter-generational homo-eroticism, I wonder what the views of Mr. Sailer and his readers are of the 1992 Dutch release For a Lost Soldier?

  297. Kemidov says:
    @Pincher Martin

    And not being able to read a literary work in the language it was written will diminish its power.

    That’s an understatement.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  298. @Pincher Martin

    Of course you are right, but that’s not where Shakespeare’s universality lies. For instance, Dostoevsky and Victor Hugo, who both adored Shakespeare, could not speak English. Shakspeare’s influence on German & Russian, and to a lesser extent on French & Italian literatures, is centered in his representation of human condition, which transcends limits of language & purely national culture and its referential points.

    Tolstoy, moralizing aside, found Shakespeare inadequate because, in his view, Shakespeare was artificial, chaotic, unconvincing re character representation & development. Essentially, Shake was fake. Just, it is surprising that Tolstoy admired Homer, who, in this respect, is even more fake…

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Pincher Martin
  299. black sea says:
    @syonredux

    Note how the the hunting scenes in Deer Hunter are supposed to be set in rural Pennsylvania, but Cimino filmed them in the Cascades in Washington State.

    I’ve always thought that was a mistake. You don’t have to shoot in Pennsylvania, but the scenery has to at least look like it could be in Pennsylvania. If not, why not just film the scene in the Alps?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  300. black sea says:
    @syonredux

    I doubt that one can direct a film well if overburdened with self doubt. At any given point, on any given day, you might be screwing something up that won’t be evident until your’e in the editing room (if they still use editing rooms). And while you’re working, there are other people — actors, crew, executives — second guessing you, looking over your shoulder or breathing down your neck.

    On the other hand, an absence of self doubt tends to make for pretty formulaic writing. The capacity to see a situation from one angle and then another, aesthetically, dramatically, or ethically, lends an element of complexity and ambiguity that elevates a story.

    As the art critic Robert Hughes said, “The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize.”

  301. It is a terrible crime this White Woman had no White Male Protector to give her White Children.

    The rarest and most valuable and most worthy human beings are: White Women of child-bearing age.

    It is the duty of all White Men to protect our White Women, nurture them, procreate, and pro-actively raise the next generation of Whites to protect our people.
    White collectivism for White survival and White flourishing is the greatest good. In turn White People preserve civilization and global peace. No one else will, no one else can.

    Anything else means the destruction of our people. After that, the end of civilization followed by a global dark ages that would be unspeakably horrific for all people of whatever race. All evidence proves this true.

    • LOL: L Woods
  302. @Kemidov

    Up and coming ancient Greece was good and fine; when you’re fighting other city-states and barbarians just to protect what you have, fighting, f**king, and raising the next generation to step into the breach and help, you’re robust and good and build temples and write epics. Once the fighting is done and the empire is in place, you get old and start to think a dumb idea (buggering young boys) is actually a good idea, and then, well, next thing you know a Roman centurion is beating the s**t out of you and telling you how’s he in charge now and he’ll take your daughter now, thank you very much. So where is ancient Greece now? For that matter, where is modern Greece now?

    Victory—>Empire—>Decadence—>Defeat—>Vassal—>Obscurity

    • Replies: @Kemidov
    , @Kemidov
  303. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Who said ideas should be original? This is why you aren’t catching my meaning, I think.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  304. Jack D says:
    @Autochthon

    I don’t think these women were (for the most part) regular CBS employees – they were actresses and Moonves might get them some bit part on a CBS series or something for a couple of thousand of $. So they had no duty to report anything. They were nobodies and he was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood and making hundreds of millions of $. There is no symmetry there. Nor was it necessarily a completely voluntary exchange. Moonves might pressure them into sex and then afterward get them a part to shut them up. There may be cases where women are gold diggers and offer themselves up in exchange for parts or jobs but this doesn’t seem to be the case with Moonves, at least not in the cases that they got him on.

    MeToo has gone too far, but it’s wrong to consider a woman who was pressured into sex an “adventuress” and a “vixen”. You seem to live in some kind of black and white world where women are either rape victims (hopefully with some black eyes and blood to prove it) or else they are vixens but the real world has many shades of gray. What Moonves did does not necessarily meet the legal standard for the crime of rape (and no one is prosecuting him for rape) but it is nevertheless despicable and ample grounds for terminating his contract for “cause”. One of the very reasons why Me Too has gone to far is precisely because there are guys like you who demand impossible standards of proof, so that the people on the other side want to keep lowering the bar to right the balance.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  305. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    PM has, or is projecting without having, a conception of writing as a purely aesthetic exercise, a sort of interesting word-game, which would render the incredible popularity of Shakespeare in languages other than English a matter of simple puzzlement. But the way Shakespeare gives human life to thoughts, to ideas, and to universal sentiments is -I will not say unparalleled- but certainly rarely paralleled.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  306. Jack D says:
    @black sea

    Movies are often filmed in places different than where they are supposed to be set for reasons of cost or unavailability (e.g. they couldn’t film Dr. Zhivago in Russia) or because those places no longer look like the time period in question (Prague looks more like Paris in 1900 than actual 2018 Paris looks like 1900 Paris). If you look closely, there are often clues that what you are seeing on the screen in not really New York or London or wherever. It’s no big deal – the whole thing that you are watching is a fantasy. In the old days the “mountains” would have been cardboard sets in a studio because it was too hard to film outdoors and the audience was willing to accept it. Nitpicking the inconsistencies is missing the point.

    The other day I saw a bit that Jay Leno did – he said that people were complaining about the movie Gravity that the weightlessness simulation was wrong – when the astronaut dropped the wrench it should have gone one way and it went the other way. Leno said, “You’re kidding me. You’re willing to believe that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are astronauts but you’re worried about the wrench?”

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @black sea
    , @Kemidov
  307. @Mr McKenna

    At his best (and he was often at or near his best) William threw a density of meaning and beauty of language at you in equal portion, and to witness it in skillful performance (as I often have) is bracing in the best way. It’s hard to keep up when you are marveling so much at what you’re hearing, but it’s worth the effort.

    Give an example of “density of meaning” in Shakespeare.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  308. @Kemidov

    Yeah, I probably should’ve wrote that if you don’t read a literary work in its original language, you don’t read it at all.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  309. Mokiki says:
    @Arthur J

    Inventor Arthur Allen Jones is dead.

  310. @Bardon Kaldian

    For instance, Dostoevsky and Victor Hugo, who both adored Shakespeare, could not speak English. Shakspeare’s influence on German & Russian, and to a lesser extent on French & Italian literatures, is centered in his representation of human condition, which transcends limits of language & purely national culture and its referential points.

    I think that’s all bullshit.

    The people who make the reputation of a writer are the readers of that work in its original language, who are overwhelmingly native speakers. If you don’t read French, you don’t read Proust or Flaubert. If you don’t read German, you don’t read Goethe or Schiller. If you don’t read Russian, you don’t read Tolstoy or Pushkin. You read some pale simulacrum of those writers.

    I enjoy reading Madame Bovary and Remembrance of Things Past (In Search of Lost Time) in English, but I don’t fool myself into believing that I’m reading those actual works. I’m not. And the only reason I’m reading those translated works is because I’ve picked up from a bunch of English writers and critics who read French that Flaubert and Proust are worth reading, who in turn picked up their views from an even larger bunch of French writers and critics that Flaubert and Proust are masters of the French language. But that filtered-down knowledge is something I just have to take their word on.

    I might enjoy – and indeed have enjoyed – the translations I read. There can be an artistry in them that reflects, however imperfectly, the artistry which inspired the translators to try their hands at rewriting the books into English. But that’s not close to the same thing as reading the actual books.

    You think a Frenchman or Russian can read James Joyce’s Ulysses in their native languages and get anywhere close to the same experience we get by reading him in English? How could they possibly do that when there is a density of linguistic legerdemain going on in Joyce? The brief answer is that they can’t. It’s impossible. They can read translations – perhaps even marvelous translations – but what they think of Joyce ought to be irrelevant to what I think of Joyce. Because I can read Joyce and they can’t.

  311. black sea says:
    @Jack D

    To reiterate: “You don’t have to shoot in Pennsylvania, but the scenery has to at least look like it could be in Pennsylvania.”

    If you shoot a scene in Prague which is meant to stand in for Paris, and anyone who’s ever seen a postcard of the Paris skyline knows it can’t possibly be Paris, it’s a problem. I’ve never been to the any part of Pennsylvania, and I saw the Deer Hunter as a teenager, and I knew from the moment I saw those mountains that they couldn’t be anywhere in the Appalachians.

    It’s no big deal – the whole thing that you are watching is a fantasy.

    For a fantasy to work, it has to bear some kind of resemblance to reality.

  312. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    I think that’s all bullshit.

    But what does bullshit think of you?

    They can read translations – perhaps even marvelous translations – but what they think of Joyce ought to be irrelevant to what I think of Joyce. Because I can read Joyce and they can’t.

    Are you an Irishman, and can you claim to read Joyce? Are you in fact other than Joyce, and claim to read him? This is a good starting point for an argument, but it is not an end to the argument, and this is not the place for an intelligent one.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  313. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @L Woods

    Indeed, Muslim and Jewish communities suffer from a startling lack of caddish parasites, and it is principally for this that they are admired by the young ladies of England.

  314. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross

    It seems we are talking past each other. Obviously it is a bad thing for young girls to run around unsupervised with beaux of 14 or 40.

    If Muzzies bother, ask yourself what’s the alternative.

    Christian civilization has had a long and a good run. I doubt if the Muslim model of society were, relatively speaking, so attractive on its own merits its adherents would have to find some of the outlandish ways they do to demonstrate the strength of their horse.

  315. Bill B. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    a decent-sized co-ed high school with 2,000 students (i.e., 1,000 female students) ought to have 100 girls rated as a 10.

    I’m going for the bell curve rating. I think most men are interested in standards of absolute beauty.

    This means for example that the number of 7s and 8s etc will have shrunk with the rise of obesity and grunge lifestyle.

  316. syonredux says:
    @Pincher Martin

    You think a Frenchman or Russian can read James Joyce’s Ulysses in their native languages and get anywhere close to the same experience we get by reading him in English? How could they possibly do that when there is a density of linguistic legerdemain going on in Joyce? The brief answer is that they can’t.

    Lewis Carroll is the one that I wonder about. How on Earth would someone go about translating :

    Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    Take “slithy.” Note how it conflates “lithe” and “slimy.”How would one go about achieving that effect in, say, Russian?Or Japanese?

    And while I’m on the topic, what about strongly demotic writers like Mark Twain? How do translators cope with his mastery of non-standard English? I assume that they simply pick dialects in their own languages that seem roughly equivalent……but that requires a lot of delicate choices….

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  317. syonredux says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Yeah, I probably should’ve wrote that if you don’t read a literary work in its original language, you don’t read it at all.

    “Poetry is what is lost in translation”

    -Robert Frost

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  318. @Pincher Martin

    You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. Just- I happen to agree with Goethe that world literature exists & that virtually everything is available to us in modern languages. We don’t need to know ancient Greek in order to read Plato & Aeschylus, Hebrew to read OT, German to read Goethe, Spanish to read Cervantes…

    Lyric poetry is something different, but most works of drama, epic, novel, short story, essay,..-not.

    In this respect, I also agree with Tolstoy- true index of literary worth is universality, to hell with language constrictions.

  319. syonredux says:
    @Pincher Martin

    You have made two falsehoods equivalent. Not every war is a religious war; not even most wars are religious wars. And great literature has nothing to do with ideas. If it did, our best thinkers would write the best artistic work, and they clearly don’t. Many notable authors are blockheads who are good at only one thing – writing literary stories that attract widespread attention.

    You could take two or three dozen of America’s greatest fiction writers and not fill a thimble with their original ideas. What great and original ideas do you think Fitzgerald or Hemingway had, for example?

    Reminds me of TS Eliot’s famous line about Henry James:”He had a mind so fine that no idea could violate it.”

    • Replies: @Anon
  320. Jack D says:
    @Pincher Martin

    You have a point – I enjoy reading Shakespeare in the original Yiddish.

  321. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Perhaps the aspiration of Mr. PM as well?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  322. @Captain Tripps

    But these, sir, are madyars. Conductor is probably from Transilvania and related to Drakula.

  323. Neoconned says:

    Like Polanski and his many flaws I love Allen’s movies. I saw the Love in Rome or whatever it was several yrs ago in the theater w alec Baldwin and a slew of others in ensemble roles and I really enjoyed the movie.

    Like many artists before him I think he let his eccentric personal life overtake the genius of his work

  324. @syonredux

    Lewis Carroll is the one that I wonder about. How on Earth would someone go about translating :

    Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    Take “slithy.” Note how it conflates “lithe” and “slimy.” How would one go about achieving that effect in, say, Russian?Or Japanese?

    Brief answer? They can’t do it.

    But it’s doubtful they can do it for even far less challenging texts like Lolita or Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or All the King’s Men.

    They can probably do it for a writer like Hemingway, though, since his stripped-down style has been shorn of almost all obscure references, ornamentation, or poetry which might make translation difficult.

    Read this excellent Julian Barnes’ essay on the difficulties of translating in general and translating Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary in particular. He shows how translating even what appear to be simple sentences can be surprisingly difficult, fraught with all kinds of hidden trapdoors and dark, back alleys that can waylay the most knowledgable, enterprising, and disciplined reader of the text.

    Barnes mentions Nabokov’s infamous translation of Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin, a work which precipitated the break between the famous Russian expat novelist and his American literary critic friend, Edmund Wilson. Nabokov decided to translate Pushkin’s text literally in the mid-nineteen-sixties, draining it of all its artistic power. This is surprising considering how perfectly suited Nabokov was to writing an artistic version of Eugene Onegin. But the Russian-American novelist demurred, instead publishing a literal English translation of the Russian epic poem pulling with a boatload of annotations with it. Nabokov, who knew Russian and English almost equally well and wrote novels in both languages, was too aware of what an English-language version of Pushkin would be missing to attempt such a translation.

    But when Edmund Wilson publicly attacked Nabokov over the Pushkin translation, most observers felt that Nabokov won the duel. Wilson had studied Russian for many years and probably had a decent grasp of the language, but by attempting to duel with Nabokov on detailed matters of how to translate Russian, Edmund was clearly overstepping what he knew. There’s a lesson to be learned in that. Even if you know a foreign language, don’t presume you have nearly as good a grasp of its details and intricacies as does a knowledgable native speaker.

    The flip side to Nabokov as a translator is Arthur Waley, who was the first to translate many Japanese and Chinese literary texts into English. Waley was a beautiful writer in English who taught himself Japanese and Chinese without ever visiting either of those two countries. So he could not speak either language. He also made numerous mistakes in his translations. But he wrote beautiful English and the translations still hold up for that reason.

  325. @Jack D

    According to The New Yorker the matter involves some six “employees of CBS” – one named as a writer and actress, and the other as a writer. The first of those is probably more accurately described as a writer and an aspiring actress. These women are not “nobodies” or contractors at an arm’s length from the corporation (as most actors would be); they are employees, subject to the corporation’s policies. The reporting also refers to “promotions,” not “rôles” or “parts.” I reiterate I have not the time nor interest to’ve exhaustively investigated the matter, so I am happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better, but I don’t reckon you are that guy.

    I don’t think “duress” means what you think it means. A fourteen-year-old whose pastor molests her is not a vixen. An unintelligent criminal groped by a corrupt policeman while in his custody, fearing no one will believe her allegations because she is already caught out as a disreputable person, and other such scenarios can and do occur. A grown-ass woman sharp enough to get a job writing for television, employed by an enormous corporation with armies of HR ladies, and annual training on sexual harassment, in a town full of plaintiffs’ lawyers who would be happy to make her very rich via a civil suit, and all the rest of it – no, I don’t think being come on to by anyone, even the CEO, puts such a woman in such a situation in any position to accept a promotion to keep quiet about voluntary sex, then feign victimhood later. Again, if physical coercion was involved, that would be different, but it it would also make the case a fortiori that the woman should have contacted police at the earliest possible opportunity – taking a promotion or a raise instead to keep quiet is downright reprehensible. The nonsense about my considering any woman pressured into sex to be an adventuress or vixen, or that I “demand impossible standards of proof” has no basis in anything I wrote.

    I’ve paid attention to the commenters who have spoken of declining civility in this forum over the years, and upon reflection I think they have a point. I have examined my own penchant for snark as a result. I’ve worked to decrease any unmerited incivility, baseless ad hominem attacks, or even discussion of personal matters t all on my part, to better focus any discussion on the topics of discussion themselves. I encourage you and others to do the same.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  326. @Anon

    I love discussing ideas and I love discussing literature, but they are two different loves. Mixing them up is no more appropriate than mixing your dishwater with your drinking water.

    • Replies: @Anon
  327. @Bardon Kaldian

    Bardon,

    See my post #338 to syonredux and read the Julian Barnes’ essay which is included in it.

    We don’t need to know ancient Greek in order to read Plato & Aeschylus, Hebrew to read OT, German to read Goethe, Spanish to read Cervantes…

    But you really do if you want an informed opinion about their literary value in their original language.

    If you are just seeking information, on the other hand, then you can just get by with an annotated text.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  328. @Anon

    Who said ideas should be original? This is why you aren’t catching my meaning, I think.

    So is it the unoriginal ideas that hold your attention when you read a novel?

    • Replies: @Anon
  329. @Bardon Kaldian

    I earlier wrote to you:

    See my post #338 to syonredux and read the Julian Barnes’ essay which is included in it.

    That post is now found at #342.

  330. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Read the quote I posted previously with the caveat I posted in mind and all will become clear…

  331. Anon[599] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Which one is the dishwater?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  332. @Anon

    PM has, or is projecting without having, a conception of writing as a purely aesthetic exercise, a sort of interesting word-game, which would render the incredible popularity of Shakespeare in languages other than English a matter of simple puzzlement. But the way Shakespeare gives human life to thoughts, to ideas, and to universal sentiments is -I will not say unparalleled- but certainly rarely paralleled.

    Most people in the world like things because they are told to like them. I would venture to say that some posters here, for example, are talking about the merits of authors they haven’t even read, simply because they want to be part of the discussion.

    So why would you care what Victor Hugo says about Shakespeare in French? Are you even sure he read Shakespeare? Why would you care that Felix Mendelssohn wrote one of his most famous Overtures about Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream? Are you sure he even read a German translation of Shakespeare’s play before writing that Overture? Would it matter to the quality of his music if he hadn’t?

    Literature isn’t a global popularity contest.

    Aesthetic considerations are the primary considerations in literature for the very simple but powerful reason that how you say something in a novel is far more important than what ideas, if any, you are promoting in a novel.

    Gore Vidal once said that he couldn’t get very excited about John Updike’s work, perhaps because of the mundane subject matter. But he immediately corrected himself by saying that he wasn’t very interested in adultery in provincial France, either, but that Flaubert commanded his attention. (Vidal read French.)

    Style and structure are everything in literature. You think that Jane Austen or Charles Dickens or Robert Frost had any ideas that weren’t shared by millions of their contemporaries? No. Stripped down of their language, their ideas were banal. What makes us read them today is how they said what they said, not what ideas they were promoting.

  333. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    A pederast is a homosexual who likes them young.

    Okay, what’s the term for adults who like young ones but not children?

    No, the point I was making is that the term pederast refers purely to homosexuals who like young boys. You can’t be a heterosexual pederast.

  334. @Anon

    Are you an Irishman, and can you claim to read Joyce? Are you in fact other than Joyce, and claim to read him? This is a good starting point for an argument, but it is not an end to the argument, and this is not the place for an intelligent one.

    Well, for once, you’re right. Not every native English speaker is equal to the task of reading a piece of English literature. Reading Joyce is certainly not for the beach. There are many levels, even among native speakers within a language, of critical reading skill, which is why I ignore what most of you native English speakers have to say about your own homegrown literature.

  335. JMcG says:
    @Autochthon

    Your last paragraph is spot on. I think I’ve cancelled more comment replies than I’ve posted lately. It would behoove us all to remember why we visit here at all.

  336. @Pincher Martin

    I think we’ve come to an impasse. I’ll summarize my position.

    1. I’m talking about “high literature”, classics, not about mediocre or below-average works

    2. your examples (Nabokov & Pushkin etc.) are mostly about poetry (novel in verses) & other atypical works. Joyce’s central work is saturated with puns & other linguistic tricks, basically word-play on steroids which I’ve always found no more than childish or second-rate device of literary art; he is a highly “literary” writer- unlike, say, D.H. Lawrence, in my opinion more powerful & permanent visionary novelist. I am writing more about prose works, or about fictions where people, action, relations, human or superhuman condition … is what is written about. Lyric poetry is another matter (although it can be sometimes more than adequately translated into a foreign language, depending on a language’s capacity & structure)

    3. some translated works are better than in the original. This may sound humorous, but I happen to agree with Garcia Marquez that Edith Grossman’s translations are better than his original works (though I don’t know Spanish, I’ve read some significant parallel translations). Many great masters, after all, have not been great stylists or lords of the language (Balzac, Stendhal, Zola, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, D.H. Lawrence, ..)

    4. the central thing is this: the peak in major works is irradiation of the sublime (I know it sounds preposterous, just..). For instance (I don’t read fiction anymore, so I’m writing from memory), this is what I feel, elation, a sort of electric current rushing through my body..when I read (have read): great triumphant Clytemnestra’s speech over her murdered husband’s body in Aeschylus; core teaching about the triad of Man-Earth-Heaven in “The Doctrine of the Mean” of the Confucian canon; great Socrates’ prophetic & visionary oratory on the immortality of soul in “Phaedo”; Macbeth hallucinatory speech when he is in final phases of his doom; the penultimate chapter in Flaubert’s “Sentimental Education”, when old & crushed lovers part, leaving us with their unconsumed love and unlived lives; a few pages in Proust’s “The Fugitive”, located in Venice, when the Narrator, upon receiving a telegram & wrongly assuming that Albertine may be alive, receives an epiphany that he’s been “cured” of jealousy & love, and has definitely died to his former self & youth; Ilyushechka’s dying & death in “The Brothers Karamazov”; castration & agonising death of Joe Christmas in Faulkner’s “Light in August”; final two pages in Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”; the execution of “Billy Budd”; last stand of Tolstoy’s Hadji Murat; ….

    These are high sublime epiphanies, burnt into protoplasm of my inner being I’ll never forget (until I get Alzheimer). They don’t have much to do either with language they’ve been written in or with the translator’s skill. It is the fusion of heart, mind & spirit that gives them lasting value, rendering much of language-related issues superfluous or of secondary importance.

  337. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Okay, what’s the term for adults who like young ones but not children?

    Ephebophilia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

    • Replies: @Kemidov
  338. @Pincher Martin

    Nabokov cleared and prepared the ground for Trump. Russians know how to play the long game. The only American artist even close to that level of spool was Paul Walker.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  339. @Neil Templeton

    Nabokov cleared and prepared the ground for Trump. Russians know how to play the long game. The only American artist even close to that level of spool was Paul Walker.

    Hahahaha!

  340. @J.Ross

    An honest older guy who is not just looking for a forgettable romp and will properly take care of the girl is better in every way than an earnest teenager.

    This is what Ted Nugent says.

  341. Lurker says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, technically. But it’s still weird and creepy.

  342. @syonredux

    Hear, hear!

    On the strength of a nodding acquaintance of this sort* (it may be supposed), one famous critic informed his public that Beowulf was “only small beer.”‘ Yet if beer at all, it is a drink dark and bitter: a solemn funeral-ale with the taste of death…. [T]he use of Anglo-Saxon evidence is never, of course, entirely safe without a knowledge of the language. No translation that aims at being readable in itself can, without elaborate annotation, proper to an edition of the original, indicate all the possibilities or hints afforded by the text. It is not possible, for instance, in translation always to represent a recurring word in the original by one given modern word. Yet the recurrence may be important…. No translation, whatever its objects … should be used or followed slavishly, in detail or general principle, by those who have access to the original text. The effort to translate, or to improve a translation, is valuable, not so much for the version it produces, as for the understanding of the original which it awakes.

    He who in those days said and who heard flæschama (“flesh-raiment”), ban-hus (“bone-house”), hreðer-loca (“heart-prison”), thought of the soul shut in the body, as the frail body itself is trammelled in armour, or as a bird in a narrow cage, or steam pent in a cauldron. There it seethed and struggled in the wylmas, the boiling surges beloved of the old poets, until its passion was released and it fled away on ellor-sið, a journey to other places “which none can report with truth, not lords in their halls nor mighty men beneath the sky.” The poet who spoke these words saw in his thought the brave men of old walking under the vault of heaven upon the island earth beleaguered by the Shoreless Seas and the outer darkness, enduring with stern courage the brief days of life, until the hour of fate when all things should perish, leoht and lif samod. But he did not say all this fully or explicitly. And therein lies the unrecapturable magic of ancient English verse for those who have ears to hear: profound feeling, and poignant vision, filled with the beauty and mortality of the world, are aroused by brief phrases, light touches, short words resounding like harp-strings sharply plucked.

    [MORE]

    Quite possibly (probably? certainly?) the most qualified expert on translating literature who ever lived, given his super-genius level skills in both philology and writing (N.B. the second paragraph supra – it’s from a scholarly essay about translation, but it’s more beautiful and poetic than most writers’ efforts at beautiful poetry!) coupled with his fluency in so many languages, even Tolkien said of translations that they lost an “unrecapturable magic.”

    I highly recommend his essays “On Translating Beowulf (cited supra) or his similar writings about Sir Gawain & the Green Night to anyone interested in this topic.

    *I.e., the sort that comes of reading a work’s translation, rather than learning the work’s original language and then reading it in that language.

  343. @Steve Sailer

    Woody Allen actually did Scarlett Johansson … about a decade ago….

    I actually read the text as I edited it above upon first glance, probably influenced by the context. Maybe my edited version of events also occurred, given Hollywood’s depravity….

  344. Kemidov says:
    @syonredux

    If the attraction is to those who are freshly pubescent or peri-pubescent/ on the cusp of puberty, then the proper term would be hebephilia.

    The approximate age-range of attraction for hebephilia is 11-14. For ephebophilia, it’s closer to 15-19.

  345. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @black sea

    I went to Elaine’s once, a year or two before she died. Unremarkable Italian food, but they gave me a complementary digestif, which was nice. Too bad for Woody and friends that Elaine’s heir had no interest in keeping the place open.

  346. @Bardon Kaldian

    1. I’m talking about “high literature”, classics, not about mediocre or below-average works

    I agree. I would also limit the discussion to fictional literary works. I’d leave Plato out of this. He’s an excellent writer (or so I’ve heard – he certainly translates well), but he writes nonfiction, not fiction.

    2. your examples (Nabokov & Pushkin etc.) are mostly about poetry (novel in verses) & other atypical works.

    I’ve given other examples of novelists who are less extreme: Flaubert, Twain, Robert Penn Warren, Dickens, etc.

    I also admitted that a few novelists are probably not that hard to translate. Hemingway, for example.

    Joyce’s central work is saturated with puns & other linguistic tricks, basically word-play on steroids which I’ve always found no more than childish or second-rate device of literary art; he is a highly “literary” writer- unlike, say, D.H. Lawrence, in my opinion more powerful & permanent visionary novelist.

    If you believe D.H. Lawrence is a more powerful novelist than James Joyce, you hold a minority opinion. Lawrence is little more than a soft-porn peddler who dressed up his smut with enough writing to win a few powerful champions of his work. I read Sons and Lovers and Lady Chatterley’s Lovers when I was about twenty and found them boring. I haven’t read anything of his since.

    I have similar feelings about Henry Miller’s work. These cock-and-cunt novels might’ve been powerful stuff in 1920s’ England or 1950s’ America, but who reads them now, other than those sad souls who like their pornography soft, like viewing some late-night Showtime flick.

    The execrable Norman Mailer championed both these men’s work.

    Many great masters, after all, have not been great stylists or lords of the language (Balzac, Stendhal, Zola, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, D.H. Lawrence, ..)

    Do you read French or Russian? I ask because I noticed that all of your “great masters,” with the exception of D.H. Lawrence, wrote in those two languages. So how do you know what their styles were if you can’t read them in their original languages?

    *****

    As for your #4, I largely agree with you. But I think you don’t appreciate the degree in which those feelings are elicited by great literature through the artistry of the arrangement of the words and how the narrative is structured. Instead, you seem to believe that the literary mise-en-scène just does the eliciting by itself. But then great literature has a way of making you forget that you are reading.

  347. @Bardon Kaldian

    By the way, did you read the Julian Barnes’ essay on translating Madame Bovary that I linked earlier. It should show you just how necessary a good translation is for appreciating a literary novel written in a foreign language.

  348. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    B-side movies

  349. Kemidov says:
    @Captain Tripps

    Once the fighting is done and the empire is in place, you get old and start to think a dumb idea (buggering young boys) is actually a good idea,

    Just how much of ancient Greek pederasty actually involved buggery (i.e., anal penetration)?

    (Not that I am necessarily okay with even non-penetrative forms of sexual contact between adult males and adolescent males, or even, for that matter, any form of active homo-eroticism. My actual personal views in this area are somewhat complex and nuanced.)

    The famous “romantic friendships” the Greeks favored, between an older man and a young boy, did not usually involve buggery. Greek fathers — warriors, athletes and orators, who believed women belonged in the kitchen — did not care to think of their sons “playing the part of a woman.” The classicist K.J. Dover’s 1977 book Greek Homosexuality, based on a careful analysis of ancient pornographic pottery, revealed that what went on was “intercrural” sex — between the thighs. (This was also the technique favored by Oscar Wilde, according to one of his biographers.) It is clear from the Greek Anthology that while buggery certainly occurred, it was furtive and disapproved of. In every consequential society, in fact, under almost all circumstances, buggery has been out of bounds.

    That’s an excerpt from How Perfectly Disgusting, the John Derbyshire piece that I linked-to in a previous post in this thread.

    An article that goes much further in its assertions: Rescuing Historical Pederasty from: Pedophiles, Pornographers, Liars & Arse-Fukkerz (Graphic content)

    Selected excerpts:

    Pederasty was NOT sexual contact with a pre-pubescent boy.[…]

    Pederasty was NOT sex with dirty old men, either. It was a CONSENSUAL, INTENSE MALE BONDING MENTORSHIP between the “youth” (pais) and the mentor – Median mentor age range from 18 to 27. And again, it was consensual: “boys (pais) usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate.” This is obvious. These guys were training to become WARRIORS. Anyone under the notion that they could abuse the “PAIS” was at risk of being disemboweled by that same PAIS. DUH!

    I note that the last assertion in the above quote makes no sense to me. We are to assume that an adolescent youth, even if fully physically developed, would pose a bodily threat to his older trainer (who was still well within his prime)? Why?

    Once the issue is framed- as AnalSex rightfully put in its historical place of criminal & shameful behavior … THEN the proper context is easily derived and suddenly it all makes sense.

    Returning, now, to Captain Tripp’s words,

    Victory—>Empire—>Decadence—>Defeat—>Vassal—>Obscurity

    I wonder where, within that cycle, you would place the U.S. at the present moment in history.

  350. Kemidov says:
    @Jack D

    In the old days the “mountains” would have been cardboard sets in a studio because it was too hard to film outdoors and the audience was willing to accept it.

    In radio productions during that medium’s Golden Age, all visual imagery was ultimately conjured within the imagination of each listener. The Theater of the Mind.

  351. Kemidov says:
    @Captain Tripps

    Once the fighting is done and the empire is in place, you get old and start to think a dumb idea (buggering young boys) is actually a good idea,

    Is “buggering young boys”, though, actually an accurate description of the phenonmeon that we know as ancient Greek pederasty?

    The question concerns both the “buggering” (i.e., anally penetrating) descriptor as well the “young” descriptor that you used.

    Consider, first, the following passage from the John Derbyshire piece that I linked-to in a previous post in this thread.

    The famous “romantic friendships” the Greeks favored, between an older man and a young boy, did not usually involve buggery. Greek fathers — warriors, athletes and orators, who believed women belonged in the kitchen — did not care to think of their sons “playing the part of a woman.” The classicist K.J. Dover’s 1977 book Greek Homosexuality, based on a careful analysis of ancient pornographic pottery, revealed that what went on was “intercrural” sex — between the thighs. (This was also the technique favored by Oscar Wilde, according to one of his biographers.) It is clear from the Greek Anthology that while buggery certainly occurred, it was furtive and disapproved of. In every consequential society, in fact, under almost all circumstances, buggery has been out of bounds.

    Now consider, if you will, the following excerpts from a piece that goes much further in its assertions, Rescuing Historical Pederasty from: Pedophiles, Pornographers, Liars & Arse-Fukkerz (Graphic content)

    Pederasty was NOT sexual contact with a pre-pubescent boy.[…]

    Pederasty was NOT sex with dirty old men, either. It was a CONSENSUAL, INTENSE MALE BONDING MENTORSHIP between the “youth” (pais) and the mentor – Median mentor age range from 18 to 27. And again, it was consensual: “boys (pais) usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate.” This is obvious. These guys were training to become WARRIORS. Anyone under the notion that they could abuse the “PAIS” was at risk of being disemboweled by that same PAIS. DUH!

    I note that the last assertion in the above quote makes no sense to me. Why would we assume that an adolescent youth, even if fully physically developed, would pose a bodily threat to his older trainer (who was still well within his prime)?

    Once the issue is framed- as AnalSex rightfully put in its historical place of criminal & shameful behavior … THEN the proper context is easily derived and suddenly it all makes sense.

    (None of what I have posted on this topic should be construed as implying that I am necessarily okay with even non-penetrative forms of sexual contact between adult males and adolescent males, or even, for that matter, any form of active homo-eroticism. My personal views in this area are somewhat complex and nuanced.)

    Returning, now, to Captain Tripp’s words,

    Victory—>Empire—>Decadence—>Defeat—>Vassal—>Obscurity

    I wonder where, within that cycle, you would place the U.S. at the present moment in history.

  352. Dmitry says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Critics” – some person’s opinion.

    For a lot of American readers or critics, there is perhaps a little bit of nationalist bias as well (]Reading the discussion above on here, books the author wrote about America seem to be very popular, while everyone ignored the three shorter ones I recommended – two of which in England, none in America.)

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  353. @Bardon Kaldian

    I cannot stand any analysis of Shakespeare presuming he was a writer and not a playwright (his poetry notwithstanding). I am in good company:

    Tolkien argues that it’s foolish to read Shakespeare . . . except in conjunction with seeing performances of the plays:

    Plain news is on the airgraph; but the only event worthy of talk was the performance of Hamlet which I had been to just before I wrote last. I was full of it then, but the cares of the world have soon wiped away the impression. But it emphasised more strongly than anything I have ever seen the folly of reading Shakespeare (and annotating him in the study), except as a concomitant of seeing his plays acted. It was a very good performance, with a young rather fierce Hamlet; it was played fast without cuts; and came out as a very exciting play. Could one only have seen it without ever having read it or knowing the plot, it would have been terrific. It was well produced except for a bit of bungling over the killing of Polonius. But to my surprise the part that came out as the most moving, almost intolerably so, was the one that in reading I always found a bore: the scene of mad Ophelia singing her snatches

    One cannot know anything of Shakespeare’s genius by merely reading his plays. Drama is a different form of art altogether from literature. In this translation is all but futile.

    As to “nobody talks like that in real life” – you had might as well claim of Bach’s works “those sounds do not occur in nature.” (See Tolkien’s essays on fairy tales for more about this silly conflation of art with the mundane.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  354. @Dmitry

    “Critics” – some person’s opinion.

    At least critics can make a convincing demonstration that they’ve read the books.

    Do a lot of critics make huge mistakes in judgment? Of course. But if a critical consensus is reached on a work over at least two or three generations, it usually lasts. A phenomenon then takes place, sort of like what Charles Murray shows in Human Accomplishment with his compilations of critical assessments, where if any group at all talks about, say, 19th-century American literature in general, Mark Twain’s name is always near the top and Lew Wallace’s name is not.

    That’s the purpose of the critic. We all rely on them whether you believe so or not.

    For a lot of American readers or critics, there is perhaps a little bit of nationalist bias as well

    For American critics, I don’t believe that’s true at all. For American readers, yes, it’s most likely true.

    I’ve read some American critics – Gore Vidal, for example – who believe that American literature is so sparse in quality that it can hardly be said to exist at all.

  355. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Autochthon

    Tolkien argues that it’s foolish to read Shakespeare . . . except in conjunction with seeing performances of the plays:

    Agreed.

    It’s also possible that Shakespeare’s enormous reputation is due to the fact that his plays do get regularly performed (and filmed). If you want to see Shakespeare performed it’s easy. If you want to see Jonson or Marlowe or Webster performed then good luck. They do get performed occasionally but the average person is unlikely to be fortunate enough to see such a performance. And they don’t get filmed.

    The other major dramatists of that era

  356. @Pincher Martin

    Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York.

    Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
    Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
    ’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him,
    And makes me poor indeed.

    Ask for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man.

    I have no spur
    To prick the sides of my intent, but only
    Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself
    And falls on the other.

    Not where he eats, but where he is eaten.

    No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red.

    Not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun.

    A little more than kin, and less than kind.

    No die, but an ace for him, for he is but one.

    (Take a few; they’re small.)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?