I’ve said this several times already this Oscar season, but I hope to God that Gary Oldman doesn’t win Best Actor for wearing a bunch of prosthetics to play Winston Churchill. It’s utter bullsh-t. Oldman’s biggest competition is possibly Daniel Day Lewis, but I honestly think Timothee Chalamet is capable of a late surge. Chalamet’s Oscar campaign for Call Me By Your Name has been nearly impeccable – he strikes the right tone between humility and ambition, he’s funny and charming and he hasn’t said a bunch of dumb sh-t like his costar Armie Hammer.
The only blemish for Chalamet is that last fall, he filmed a role in Woody Allen’s A Rainy Day in New York with Jude Law, Elle Fanning, Rebecca Hall, Selena Gomez and more. We’ve seen in recent weeks that there is a path for actors to publicly apologize for working with Woody Allen, which is what Rebecca Hall did several days ago – she publicly apologized to Dylan Farrow and she donated her salary from the film to Time’s Up. I complained that few of the male actors were even getting questions about their work with Woody Allen, but it seems like Chalamet did get some questions. And he thought about it, and decided to apologize and donate his salary too.
A statement from @RealChalamet, acting on his conscience. pic.twitter.com/aq4tBjGErx
— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) January 16, 2018
It’s interesting that Chalamet frames it as trying to emulate the older actors whose careers he admires, many of whom have worked with Woody Allen at some point. Does that excuse him? Does his youth and relative inexperience in the industry excuse him? Eh. But as I said regarding Rebecca Hall’s apology and donation… we absolutely should allow actors – and just everyday people – the chance to learn, grow, apologize, and try to make up for their errors.
And yes, I wonder if Chalamet would have done this if he wasn’t in the middle of an Oscar campaign. But it is what it is.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
He is a young actor and doing this, while the tide seems to be turning re the culture of Hollywood, could still jeopardize his career. I don’t know what his background is or how many films he has done to date, but I can’t afford to donate an entire paycheck to charities as much as I would like to. There is no guarantee that he will continue to get offers.
His family is in the industry. He will be alright.
” Chalamet’s uncle is the filmmaker Rodman Flender; his aunt is television producer and writer Amy Lippman, and his maternal grandfather was the screenwriter Harold Flender.”
Yeah, Allen, and Chalamet’s grandfather, Harold Flender, both wrote for The Jackie Gleason Show in the 1950s, though Allen was unaware of this family relation when he cast Chalamet.
Something about the “contractual obligations” bit smells…funny. Not exactly on him, but it makes me think about what happened with several (male and female) actors during W*inst*in’s reign of terror. Threats about never working again, having their lives destroyed…Idk if Allen has that amount of power, but I’m sure he comes close.
It’s not Allen who has Chalamet in a bind (if anyone does). It’s Amazon who produced both Wonder Wheel and this next one that he stars in. No one wants to piss them off. Interestingly, both projects were approved by Roy Price who was one of the first ppl outed by MeToo. People are theorizing this might all mean Allen is done with this next project because he won’t be able to get financing or his actors to market without damaging their reputation.
No, contractual obligations in this case is probably something rather typical: he and the other main/supporting actors in a yet to be released movie would be under a non-disparagement agreement in the contract they signed. Basically don’t say or do things that could cause the movie to lose money for producers, investors, those whose livelihood depends on the film. Rebecca Hall was a day player so she would not have the same contract.
To be honest, I’m not sure if he didn’t violate that clause anyway by doing this. He didn’t “say” anything…but he implied. They probably won’t go after him but other producers might side eye. Or more likely the studio is not releasing the film and told him they would not hold him to the agreement.
As for salary? It’s not much money. These movies are for scale. Rebecca Hall’s donation was about $300. Residuals are where the real money is at…so while people are focused on the only remaining movie, top stars are still making hundreds or thousands of dollars off of Midnight in Paris or whatever Allen movie they did in the past. So…🤷♀️…to all of this. Can we go back to exposing industry abuse now?
“Basically don’t say or do things that could cause the movie to lose money for producers, investors, those whose livelihood depends on the film.”
Yes it will be one of those typical clauses. Actors are also more diplomatic because of those clauses. But I highly doubt they could enforce that. Not now. Imagine Amazon going after someone for calling out Allen. That wouldnt fly.
Yeah, I feel like his actions (donating his salary) say as much as any words, which he deftly avoided. It was an extremely smooth move, imo. A very well written statement that hits most of the right notes, but definitely very smooth.
Thanks for the explanation. Because that contact thing stood out for me. Like does Allen force his actors to sign agreements preventing them from discussing his private life? Oh and by the way did anyone check Ellen Pompeo’s twitter rant on Allen. She is savage.
I think that was an eloquent statement and I have no criticism.
Agreed! 👍🏻👍🏻
Agree as well. Good for him. The old dinosaurs can take a lesson.
Yes he managed to say a lot without saying anything and got around that contractual obligation. I hope more people start speaking out about WA.
I know people are saying he is doing this because of the awards and eveything but I don’t think of the majority of oscars voters care about the acusations against Woody Allen, all the contrary, he’s has like 24 nominations. So If anything this hurts his chances more than anything.
This.
Allen had 24 nominations before change of climate, it doesn’t matter now, not that much, so actually atm it hardly could hurt Chalmet’s chances for the awards and in fact can serve as useful tool for his campaign for the awards.
I completely agree. The Academy has shown no evidence of turning against Woody Allen or actors who worked with him. They won’t nominate his shitty films like Wonder Wheel, but that has nothing to do with the allegations against him.
This was more in response to the public outcry and maybe some personal regret. No way this helps his chances, best case it doesn’t hurt him.
Good. Another step in the right direction, whatever his reasoning.
I bet Colin Firth is glad he is not campaigning this year.
Never understood why Firth chose to work with him tbh. He already had awards and was successful.
Agree. This is a good move. He and his people handled it well.
Next, Timberlake & Law. When will they be asked?
My favorite thing about him and Rebecca Hall doing this is that it increases the chances that Timberlake has to answer questions about working with Woody Allen.
If timber does say anything about Woody, I would be shocked. He’s such a wimp.
If any of them had any sense, they’d follow suit and get out ahead of this too. But Margo is right, Timberlake is a wimp. He and his wife made a donation, but I’d be SHOCKED if he ever actually stuck his neck out to make a statement.
Good. And yes I think being relatively new to the industry (even with connections) means that you are more willing to take any job.
And considering that the Oscars is where Polanski got a standing ovation and winslet is talking about how amazing Allen is…the campaign is not exactly in danger as a man.
I think he’s done better than a lot of people older, wiser and that have been around the block longer. Him having connections in the industry doesn’t really mean much as to what you may have known.
And kudos for being the first dude to take a stand about working with Allen.
And kudos for being the first dude to take a stand about working with Allen.
this!
He is not the first dude to take a stand about working with Allen. Griffin Newman and David Krumholtz already took a stand and regretted working with WA.
SallyS
have you seen david krumholtz on twitter? he was so mad that a lot of people were criticizing him for accepting to work in the film in the first place, he was calling people a lot of names. it didn’t seem that genuine to me, it looked like he did it for publicity and got angry that people weren’t thanking him enough or something lmao
@tsc tsc,
Well, Chalamet also did it only after he was repeatedly asked by media about working with Allen, after Greta Gerwig (director of Lady Bird, where Chalamet is a part of cast) denounced Allen and after Griffin Newman and Rebecca Hall, who both are also part of the Allen’s 2018 movie, regretted working with him. And Chalamet right now has awards campaign and is trying to win himself awards.
So if to talk about being really genuine than it was probably Griffin Newman who regretted the whole thing back in October.
“I think he’s done better than a lot of people older, wiser and that have been around the block longer”
IA. Kate Winslet looks worse everyday. Saying all that s*hit and defending him for the possibility of an eighth nomination and a second oscar.
I made a comment and it disappeared, oh no! I mentioned as well that Kate Winslet and Blake Lively should pay attention to what this MAN is saying. You can’t advocate for women’s rights out of one side of your mouth and praise Woody Allen out of the other side.
Agreed nancy. the double talk is completely stupid
Yeah, I like that he did this.
It shows he is intelligent and wants to get it right. It makes me want to support him more. He didn’t have to do this, and he would have been fine, but he did.
I like what you are saying here, Kaiser. I appreciate this article for pointing out that we want growth and learning. It is our only way forward.
He’s only a few months older than me, and if I was surrounded by managers and agents who told me to work with WA, I probably would’ve made the same decision as well. Not to say that It’s okay, but people are allowed to make mistakes and grow. I applaud him for his choice.
I say good for him. He’s a very young man still finding his footing in a very difficult industry. We can be cynical about his Oscar campaign but he seems like a good kid with a good heart, and let’s face it, he could be part of the next generation of Hollywood elite. This indicates that there may be honest change in the system for the next generation.
No idea who he is, but it seems to me accepting the role and then rejecting the money is going to become a much bigger statement than if he had just declined to work with Allen.
Not saying he planned it, but that fortunately it’ll be a huge deal now.
If he had declined the role, someone else would have taken it. Maybe that’s the mindset the actors (especially the young and up-and-coming ones) are working with — that they can’t really affect change because someone else is going to play the part anyway, so they might as well not hurt their careers.
But donating the money does bring wider publicity to the bad things Allen has done.
Good point.
I absolutely love this guy. So happy!!
i’m so glad he did this. even if it seems like he’s taking an opportunity for good press i don’t begrudge him. he’s young and he comes from hollywood but lets get real – the grandson of a guy who wrote for the jackie gleason show 60 years ago has way less pull that woody allen and amazon. he’s standing up to a big force in hollywood and it is risky and impressive. not only is he doing this for himself – his actions (as well as the others who have spoken out about working with allen) puts the clamps on people who haven’t addressed it. those people are more powerful than him and could hurt his chances for roles in the future. for instance – if oscar winner kate winslet doesn’t like that some punk’s statement forced her into a bind in wonder wheel interviews she could refuse to work with him on future prestige material. he could lose work for this and he did it anyway. its really cool.
I love that the tide is turning on Woody Allen. It heartens me to think of Dylan Farrow finally, slowly starting to be vindicated after a lifetime of public gas lighting.
I applaud Timmy C. for this, I really do, but I hope this thing of donating salary for time up dosn’t become in a excuse for working with Woody Allen, for example, “Hey, I accepted this role because I want to help¡¡¡¡” :/
Apologies for my ignorance. I never really knew the ins and outs of WA allegations. Wasn’t it inferred that Dylan was coached to say that WA touched her and it ended up being he said/she said? WA was never convicted. It may be because he was powerful enough to escape but no rumours seem to have followed him since. Why are people so sure that WA actually did anything? I’m not defending WA but I always got the impression that the truth was never known so why should celebrities feel guilty with working for him?
At this stage, it is a he said/she said. Allegedly, charges weren’t brought forwards against Allen at the time to protect Dylan. That’s led to people choosing to believe that it means he’s innocent. Others take Dylan’s story, plus Allen’s story with Soon Yi and his obsession with very young women as proof he’s guilty. There’s no “proof” other than the involved testimonies. I believe Dylan, but I can understand that some people believe she was messed with by Mia Farrow because she’s not the example of a estable, selfless parent. And I think many actors chose not to judge Woody Allen without further proof. The problem is that we are at a stage in which victims are (rightly) being heard and believed, so you can’t really be on the side of the alleged abuser without some serious consequences. I don’t think anyone feels guilty about working with him, but they do say it to protect their image.
this was so perfectly articulated @mina – thank you!
This is the judgement handed down over Allen’s failed attempt to sue for custody, which the Huff Post has put online: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html
He appealed twice, and failed both times.
There’s a huge amount more out there.
And that’s a very good argument against Allen (and one of the reasons I believe Dylan), but if you dig for the other side you’ll also find some interesting points in favor of Allen’s version (like what you find here https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/amp/?__twitter_impression=true). Bottom line is, there’s not the concrete proof some people need to reject Woody Allen (and honestly I feel like even a conviction wouldn’t derail his biggest supporters) but it’s better for most in the current climate to just stay away from him altogether.
That’s not a “side”. It’s a binding legal judgement. Allen appealed twice, and lost both times. It was upheld. That’s not “a very good argument against Allen.” It’s the most neutral reading of the situation we will get, determined by highly experienced family court professionals, party to all evidence from all sides. And that is why it is the most valuable; all else is special pleading.
Some people are suspect in making allegations around their children’s fathers in high conflict cases, absolutely. Kelly Rutherford and Halle Berry made really unconvincing allegations in court, and constantly lost. But if you give equal weight to a family court judge on the one hand, and Allen’s apologist in chief on the other, then essentially you’re ranking peer-reviewed evidence (literally peer-reviewed, when appeals are factored in) alongside a vaccine conspiracist’s site. They are not, evidentially, of equal weight.
Here’s a link that matches yours, in approach and value (I mean that sincerely, as it’s also interesting reading, albeit equally biased against Allen – she notes many areas in which he has contradicted himself, and points out that people always try to insist they aren’t attacking Dylan, oh no, but…):
https://excrementalvirtue.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/brainwashing-woody/
I also note that Weide claims he links all valid rebuttals, but ignores one of the most compelling and brief, which directly answers his own Daily Beast article’s main areas of error: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
I didn’t link any of the rest, because the court judgement is the best we have. It’s the simplest and most reliable, because all the rest are, by definition, from one or other camp.
There are cases where the truth is murky. Here, it’s definitely not something we can know for sure… but the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is very firmly against Allen. People often defend these people by insisting they deserve their day in court, and that public opinion is meaningless. He had his, and with the best lawyers money can buy. If he’d won his case, it would be seen as the last word. People would impatiently dismiss those arguing against as proven wrong. They do (I do) over Kelly Rutherford, for example. Yet somehow, a judgement resoundingly against Allen is seen not as evidence against him, but as onesided and biased. Despite it being reiterated through two appeals, with different and more senior judges presiding in those appellate courts.
Hey K, I agree with you, as stated before, I wholeheartedly believe Dylan and I have no interest in defending Woody Allen. I’m just trying to explain why some people are (were?) willing to hold their judgement against him. That court ruling does not establish he molested Dylan, it mentions inappropriate behavior and how he was unfit to be granted custody. But if you’ve ever been close to a nasty custody case, rulings are hardly neutral and they don’t always tell the whole story. To me, that ruling is further proof that Dylan is telling the truth, but to Allen defenders, it’s not enough. I’m just trying to put both sides of the case out there so people can make their own minds about it.
Your move, Selena and Blake…
We are waiting!
Also Timberlake. I hate that guy. And to think he is playing the superbowl while Janet Jackson is still banned. I hope he is grilled and looks even worse.
Selena’s mother said she advised her to not work with w Allen but the conversation didn’t made her change her opinion and she still choose to work with him
What about Cate Blanchett and a host of other from previous movies?
Makes me sick.
This is starting to get a little ridiculous. How is it possible that artists are bullied into apologizing and having to donate their rightfully earned money just to appease the crowds? If they are really ashamed of working with Allen, then they should do it quietly. Or not work for him at all. Are we supposed to believe they suddenly regret it because of morals and not because they are afraid of the social media backlash? At this point, it just looks unprofessional that someone will agree to do a movie only to come out publicly later saying how much they regret it, basically dooming the movie (and all the people who worked hard in it, beyond Woody Allen). If this is an issue that concerns them, then they should be careful in the future with the projects they take on.
I don’t think it’s unprofessional because the movie business is market-oriented. If the market right now is against Allen, a young actor turning around expressing professional regret probably isn’t going to make much difference to how the movie performs (do Woody Allen movies actually do well to begin with? A lot of them seem like vanity projects to me).
It reminds me of Tom Hiddleston, he’s smart, educated, mature, shy and sweet, at the same time super fun, he’s my new favorite actor now.
Did anyone know jude law has a girlfriend he’s been with for 2 years