Here's the thing about the Allen-Previn affair/marriage, though; there have been others like it- * Charlie Chaplin & Oona O' Neil-met when she was 17, married a year later (he was in his mid-40's) B. D. Hyman-daughter of Bette Davis, met and fell in love with David Hyman when she was 16 and he 29 (there are a few others, but they've escaped me for the moment.) The match-ups above have gone on for a long time (in Chaplin's case, up to his death) and the Allen Previn marriage is still thriving, so make of that what you will (mind you, I'm not advocating this kind of thing for everybody but sometime s, it works, and Previn was in her early 20's when she married Allen, so..)
^^^ We're not just talking about a big age difference. There have been no shortage of relationships in that regard, especially involving an older man and a much younger woman. We're talking about a man who started a sexual relationship with his longtime girlfriend's daughter, a young woman who was the sister of his own children. The examples you cite aren't analogous in that regard. That's what makes the situation so creepy. She wasn't Allen's adopted daughter - it would of course have been even more creepy had she been - but it was creepy, selfish and inappropriate enough as it is.
This thread TL;DR (well, I did read some of it). Yeah, it was a dick move by both Allen and Soon-Yi. But I think Farrow is a terrible hypocrite, given her marriage to Sinatra (51 and 21 respectively), and her sense of betrayal (not entirely unjustified) seems to have darkened her a lot.
I never said she was his child or that he was a parent. I said she was his children's half sister and that there is a societal boundry there. Do you seriously not see that?
Since Woody and Soon-Yi were not related either biologically or legally, the "societal boundary" is a matter of subjective opinion -- an opinion the two of them obviously didn't share. BTW, I'm somewhat surprised that a number of posters claim NEVER to have seen even one of Woody Allen's movies. Not even some of the early, funny ones?
No, I don't. By "she", are you referring to Soon Yi? By "his children", are you referring to Mia's other children? Woody had no children of his own (you appear to contradict yourself here), so how could Soon Yi be the half sister to his children as you state? If you respond, please use names instead of pronouns so it is clear who and what you are talking about.
Woody Allen did have children of his own. He and Mia Farrow adopted two children - Dylan and Moses - and had one biological child, Ronan (although his true paternity is now in question). Soon-Yi was therefore the sister of Woody Allen's own children - an adopted stepsister, but a sister they'd grown up with nonetheless. The term half-sister wouldn't apply, though, since that requires sharing one biological parent.
I would define it as just sharing one parent. There is no need to differentiate between biological and adopted children. Soon-Yi wouldn't be a step sister. That would be a parent's partner's child from a completely separate relationship.
The press often refers to her as a step-sister, but you're right that's actually not correct. My mistake. To be completely technically correct Soon-Yi was the maternal adoptive half-sister of the Allen/Farrow children. But - in short - she was simply their sister.
Esquire has charted a series of scenes from Allen's work that deal with child sexual abuse in ways both comic and dramatic.
Director Bryan Singer is being accused of sexually assaulting an underage boy. The lawsuit, which was filed in Hawaii, is full of very serious accusations against the director. You can read more about it here. Singer’s lawyers have said the lawsuit is without merit and that it was filed now (the abuse is alleged to have occurred in 1999) to coincide with the publicity push for the new X-Men movie.For movie fans, the suit raises some tricky moral questions about how we spend our money. The lawsuit is only an accusation right now, nothing has been proven. But if any of it is true, how can we go to see X-Men and let ourselves be swept away knowing that a person who may have taken advantage of a young boy profits from the film? Even if you take money out the equation, is it right to enjoy a film if it was made by a very bad person?Of course this isn’t the first time film lovers have dealt with this quandary. Most recently, many of us have wondered if we can still love Woody Allen’s movies as accusations that he molested his adopted daughter when she was 7 have resurfaced. Allen’s ex, Mia Farrow, and his son, Ronan Farrow, have been publicly shaming Hollywood for continuing to work with Allen and lavish him with praise (the Hollywood Foreign Press recently presented the director with the Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award). His daughter Dylan, who he is accused of molesting, recently spoke out for the first time, asking people like Cate Blanchett how she can work with Allen. Blanchett won the Best Actress Oscar this year for her work in Allen’s Blue Jasmine.Then there are people like Roman Polanski who was arrested for having sex with a 13 year old girl. The crime led to Polanski traveling the globe to escape being put in prison but some of Hollywood’s brightest are still willing to work with him. Kate Winslet and Jodie Foster costarred in Polanski’s movie version of Carnage in 2011. Both actresses were nominated for Golden Globe awards for the movie. http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothy...uestions-about-which-movies-we-choose-to-see/ accuser says he was raped http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1...-was-raped-by-the-director-in-late-1990s_news
Woody Allen and Bryan Singer are not the same person, and accusations are not the same thing as convictions.