doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Jan 16, 2018 5:17:07 GMT
from his instagram:
"This year has changed the way I see and feel about so many things; it has been a thrilling and, at times, enlightening education. I have, to this point, chosen projects from the perspective of a young actor trying to walk in the footsteps of more seasoned actors I admire. But I am learning that a good role isn't the only criteria for accepting a job — that has become much clearer to me in the past few months, having witnesses the birth of a powerful movement intent on ending injustice, inequality and above all, silence.
I have been asked in a few recent interviews about my decision to work on a film with Woody Allen last summer. I'm not able to answer the question directly because of contractual obligations. But what I can say is this: I don't want to profit from my work on the film, and to that end, I am going to donate my entire salary to three charities: TIME'S UP, The LGBT Center in New York, and RAINN. I want to be worthy of standing shoulder to shoulder with the brave artists who are fighting for all people to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2018 6:10:18 GMT
Woody:
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 16, 2018 6:18:29 GMT
Classy move. Anyways, I think younger performers like Chalamet are much less culpable when it comes to working with directors like Polanski and Allen because their careers are so vulnerable. They have so much more to lose in turning down oppurtunities than those who've established themselves in the industry. Donating his earnings to charities (especially those particular ones) can be interpreted as making the best of a bad situation. At the very least, it's good Oscars PR.
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Jan 16, 2018 8:37:43 GMT
I'd think better of him if he'd posted that after the Oscar voting period ends.
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Jan 16, 2018 10:12:00 GMT
Classy move. Anyways, I think younger performers like Chalamet are much less culpable when it comes to working with directors like Polanski and Allen because their careers are so vulnerable. They have so much more to lose in turning down oppurtunities than those who've established themselves in the industry. Donating his earnings to charities (especially those particular ones) can be interpreted as making the best of a bad situation. At the very least, it's good Oscars PR. That's a specious argument because Chalamet's fairly high status and currency are more established than that of most young actors these days. He doesn't have much to lose now.
|
|
|
Post by levpoldkahnt on Jan 16, 2018 10:43:08 GMT
Well, like with many recently it seems like they're doing it under pressure and for good PR. It doesn't seem all that noble to me. But better than nothing, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2018 11:46:21 GMT
Disappointing but oh well, people are always letting you down.
I dunno, man, I am gonna say if he said "he didn't do anything, I'm fncking lucky he even cast me and I am thankful for my salary in his film and you can all fnck off" would have been a braver answer.
Woody Allen starred in a film 41 years ago that addressed this moral quagmire in Martin Ritt's The Front. Chalamet would have been lucky to be in that movie too actually.
Now having said that all artists are entitled to their choices and their opinions and can do what they like, and that goes for Sorvino, Hall, Portman, Krumholtz, Chalamet etc.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jan 16, 2018 13:54:29 GMT
Watching all these people who worked with Allen (including the ones who were just filming with him last month, for fuck's sake) lump him in with Weinstein and denounce him to get brownie points is pretty appalling. Rebecca Hall is another one who just went from being on set with him one day to disowning him the next.
I'd get it if there was new information about him being uncovered in the wake of everything that's been going on, like with Louis C.K., but there isn't. Everything that's known now has been known for years. Some of them (like Ellen Page) I do feel are genuine in expressing regret for working with him and I can respect that, but as for others... I guess throwing Allen under the bus to cover one's own ass is the new black.
The Rainy Day in New York release cycle is gonna be a PR mess to live for.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2018 14:27:13 GMT
Honestly though "if there was new information" is precisely that point. What's changed is the accuser saying it again after all these years. See, that IS new to some people. "Facts" are tiresome, it's about the moment, which to me is grotesque but that's why.
We fall into a trap when we say Ellen Page is sincere, Portman is an opportunist, etc. who cares what their motivation is, it ends up at the same place.
Honestly Allen should just cast his next movie right now with Judy Davis and Diane Keaton - use it for his Art.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2018 14:54:05 GMT
Honestly Allen should just cast his next movie right now with Judy Davis and Diane Keaton - use it for his Art. Do you think he'll be able to make another film at this rate?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2018 15:30:31 GMT
I'm not sure given he's 82 and the one with Chalamet may get dumping into a streaming only I'd imagine from those guardians of capitalist morality, Amazon. Though that's a long way off ..........I think maybe a positive reaction (ie it's really good) to that one may make somebody - anybody, rightfully stand up for him and he might make one or two more.
Wonder Wheel was better than the reception it got imo and it suggested he had some heavy things on his mind too which kind of surprised me.
|
|
agent69
New Member
Posts: 246
Likes: 83
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 16, 2018 15:55:14 GMT
It's really hypocritical of people who worked with the man (and did/could/should have known all of his history) denounce him without ANY single new accusation let alone evidence. Didn't you have issues with working for him before? Or is it a PR pressure to distance themselves from Woody?
Whatever the case, from what I know of the accusations they are VERY questionable.
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Jan 16, 2018 17:44:05 GMT
To quote Whoopi Goldberg in her opening at the 1995 Oscars, "Alec Baldwin, bravo, baby!"
www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/16/alec-baldwin-criticizes-stars-renouncing-woody-allen-unfair-and-sad?CMP=twt_a-film_b-gdnfilm
The actor has launched a defense of the film-maker on Twitter, calling it one of the ‘privileges of his career’ to work with him
Alec Baldwin has defended Woody Allen on Twitter while calling other actors “unfair and sad” for voicing their regrets over working with him.
The star, who worked with Allen on Blue Jasmine and To Rome With Love, is the latest actor to speak publicly about the film-maker following on from Greta Gerwig, Mira Sorvino, Rebecca Hall and Timothée Chalamet.
“Woody Allen was investigated forensically by two states (NY and CT) and no charges were filed,” Baldwin tweeted. “The renunciation of him and his work, no doubt, has some purpose. But it’s unfair and sad to me. I worked w WA 3 times and it was one of the privileges of my career.”
He then proceeded to retweet a number of people sharing the story of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen’s adopted son Moses Farrow, who claims he was “brainwashed” by his adoptive mother. He denies that any abuse occurred.
“Is it possible to support survivors of pedophilia and sexual assault/abuse and also believe that WA is innocent?” Baldwin later tweeted. “I think so. The intention is not to dismiss or ignore such complaints. But accusing ppl of such crimes should be treated carefully. On behalf of the victims, as well.”
Baldwin’s comments arrive after more actors have expressed regret over choosing to work with Allen. After the initial news about alleged sexual abuse from Harvey Weinstein last year, Ellen Page shared a Facebook post in which she called working with Allen her “biggest regret”.
An op-ed from Dylan Farrow in December, criticizing the hypocrisy of actors for keeping quiet over the alleged abuse from her father has then led to more speaking out. “I can only speak for myself and what I’ve come to is this: if I had known then what I know now, I would not have acted in the film,” Gerwig said in a roundtable discusion for the New York Times. “I have not worked for him again, and I will not work for him again.”
Last week, Mira Sorvino shared an apologetic open letter addressed to Dylan Farrow while Rebecca Hall and Timothée Chamalet have both decided to donate their salaries from Allen’s new film to charities. “I want to be worthy of standing shoulder to shoulder with the brave artists who are fighting for all the people to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve,” Chalamet wrote on Instagram.
The film in question, A Rainy Day in New York, is scheduled for release later this year and also stars Jude Law, Diego Luna, Liev Schreiber and Selena Gomez. Mandy Teefey, Gomez’s mother, has used Instagram to air her thoughts on her daughter’s decision to work with Allen.
“No one can make Selena do anything she doesn’t want to,” she wrote. “I had a long talk with her about not working with him and it didn’t click. Her team are amazing people. There is no fall person here. No one controls her. She makes all her own decisions. No matter how hard you try to advise. It falls on deaf ears.”
Last year, Baldwin admitted that his behavior towards women in the industry hasn’t always been professional.
“I certainly have treated women in a very sexist way,” he said during a discussion on stage. “I’ve bullied women. I’ve overlooked women. I’ve underestimated women. Not as a rule. From time to time, I’ve done what a lot of men do, which is … when you don’t treat women the same way you treat men. You don’t. I’m from a generation where you really don’t and I’d like that to change. I really would like that to change.”
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2018 17:51:53 GMT
When Alec Baldwin starts to make sense then you know we in danger, girl.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 16, 2018 18:03:04 GMT
This is just silly.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2018 18:33:10 GMT
well, I hope these concerned citizens make sure to withdraw his/her name from awards contention 2019 for this movie.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 16, 2018 18:35:33 GMT
well, I hope these concerned citizens make sure to withdraw his/her name from awards contention 2019 for this movie. Nope. They'll win the award and donate it to those afflicted.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2018 18:48:12 GMT
well, I hope these concerned citizens make sure to withdraw his/her name from awards contention 2019 for this movie. Nope. They'll win the award and donate it to those afflicted. these people are basically telling us they have no moral code and will flip on a dime to save themselves from the potential career harm. Armie is the perfect example, he freakin apologized to casey affleck. Now casey was accused of sexual harrassment and was even sued but he apologized because he was defending nate parker at the time. I wonder if armie"s apology is still valid? Casey has elected to stay low profile cause he knows he will be a target.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Jan 16, 2018 20:20:32 GMT
Imo, the reason people are denouncing Allen now (with no new information brought to light) is due to the learning environment that's been provided over the past couple of months. Compared to a year ago, or 1992, no one paid that much attention to the Woody Allen scandal. However, with the recent MeToo and TimesUp movements, they've been given the opportunity on a silver platter to be educated on the subject. I believe it is a dangerous attitude to attack anyone who speaks out against a sexual abuser like Allen. Saying it's a "Stunt" or only doing it to "Save their careers" only hurts the denouncement and hurts the accusers themselves; all while the sexual predator is looked at in a defensive light and turned into the victim.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 16, 2018 20:34:04 GMT
Imo, the reason people are denouncing Allen now (with no new information brought to light) is due to the learning environment that's been provided over the past couple of months. Compared to a year ago, or 1992, no one paid that much attention to the Woody Allen scandal. However, with the recent MeToo and TimesUp movements, they've been given the opportunity on a silver platter to be educated on the subject. I believe it is a dangerous attitude to attack anyone who speaks out against a sexual abuser like Allen. Saying it's a "Stunt" or only doing it to "Save their careers" only hurts the denouncement and hurts the accusers themselves; all while the sexual predator is looked at in a defensive light and turned into the victim. Except you are assuming that Allen is a sexual predator despite the fact that he was investigated for Dylan Farrow's claims by the police and no evidence was found. Dylan Farrow's claims should not be taken lightly, but what do you do when a criminal investigation has turned up nothing and the victim's sibling claims no such abuse has happened and that there was "brainwashing" happening on the part of the victim's mother, who harbors a notorious grudge against Allen?
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jan 16, 2018 20:45:49 GMT
Imo, the reason people are denouncing Allen now (with no new information brought to light) is due to the learning environment that's been provided over the past couple of months. Compared to a year ago, or 1992, no one paid that much attention to the Woody Allen scandal. However, with the recent MeToo and TimesUp movements, they've been given the opportunity on a silver platter to be educated on the subject. I believe it is a dangerous attitude to attack anyone who speaks out against a sexual abuser like Allen. Saying it's a "Stunt" or only doing it to "Save their careers" only hurts the denouncement and hurts the accusers themselves; all while the sexual predator is looked at in a defensive light and turned into the victim. Except you are assuming that Allen is a sexual predator despite the fact that he was investigated for Dylan Farrow's claims by the police and no evidence was found. Dylan Farrow's claims should not be taken lightly, but what do you do when a criminal investigation has turned up nothing and the victim's sibling claims no such abuse has happened and that there was "brainwashing" happening on the part of the victim's mother, who harbors a notorious grudge against Allen? Well there wasn't "no evidence" found for example Allen claimed he had never been in the attic where the alleged assault had taken place, yet evidence was found he had been there. In addition his affair with Soon-yi Previn likely began while she was underage. Although that doesn't confirm his guilt it does make his character in general far more suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2018 20:45:57 GMT
Imo, the reason people are denouncing Allen now (with no new information brought to light) is due to the learning environment that's been provided over the past couple of months. Compared to a year ago, or 1992, no one paid that much attention to the Woody Allen scandal. However, with the recent MeToo and TimesUp movements, they've been given the opportunity on a silver platter to be educated on the subject. I believe it is a dangerous attitude to attack anyone who speaks out against a sexual abuser like Allen. Saying it's a "Stunt" or only doing it to "Save their careers" only hurts the denouncement and hurts the accusers themselves; all while the sexual predator is looked at in a defensive light and turned into the victim. I believe woody himself wrote a formal denial approx three years ago. This is about people not wanting to be called out on his/her association with him and decided it is best to speak out first rather than when twitter remembers you worked on movie. This happened to Justin Timberlake last week or so.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2018 20:48:32 GMT
Except you are assuming that Allen is a sexual predator despite the fact that he was investigated for Dylan Farrow's claims by the police and no evidence was found. Dylan Farrow's claims should not be taken lightly, but what do you do when a criminal investigation has turned up nothing and the victim's sibling claims no such abuse has happened and that there was "brainwashing" happening on the part of the victim's mother, who harbors a notorious grudge against Allen? Well there wasn't "no evidence" found for example Allen claimed he had never been in the attic where the alleged assault had taken place, yet evidence was found he had been there. In addition his affair with Soon-yi Previn likely began while she was underage. Although that doesn't confirm his guilt it does make his character in general far more suspicious. no clue when it began but we know it became public knowledge when she was 19.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 16, 2018 21:03:27 GMT
Except you are assuming that Allen is a sexual predator despite the fact that he was investigated for Dylan Farrow's claims by the police and no evidence was found. Dylan Farrow's claims should not be taken lightly, but what do you do when a criminal investigation has turned up nothing and the victim's sibling claims no such abuse has happened and that there was "brainwashing" happening on the part of the victim's mother, who harbors a notorious grudge against Allen? Well there wasn't "no evidence" found for example Allen claimed he had never been in the attic where the alleged assault had taken place, yet evidence was found he had been there. In addition his affair with Soon-yi Previn likely began while she was underage. Although that doesn't confirm his guilt it does make his character in general far more suspicious. The Soon-yi stuff (while incredibly sketchy) has little to no bearing on the matter of Dylan. Him claiming that he wasn't in the attic when they found a hair on a painting there is a little more damning, but it doesn't really prove anything. The whole situation is so murky that planting a firm flag on one side or the other is a bit problematic because there's just as much to contradict one side as there is to support it.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jan 16, 2018 21:59:36 GMT
Well there wasn't "no evidence" found for example Allen claimed he had never been in the attic where the alleged assault had taken place, yet evidence was found he had been there. In addition his affair with Soon-yi Previn likely began while she was underage. Although that doesn't confirm his guilt it does make his character in general far more suspicious. The Soon-yi stuff (while incredibly sketchy) has little to no bearing on the matter of Dylan. Him claiming that he wasn't in the attic when they found a hair on a painting there is a little more damning, but it doesn't really prove anything. The whole situation is so murky that planting a firm flag on one side or the other is a bit problematic because there's just as much to contradict one side as there is to support it. Well I wouldn't say it has no bearing since it shows Allen willfully began an affair with someone he knew as a child, as evidenced by Hannah and Her Sisters, possibly as a child in his household. He can deny he was ever a father figure to her however he was definitely her mother's partner while she was growing up. I do agree though that it does not confirm his guilt, but it doesn't paint him as a savory character either way.
|
|