Robert Pattinson covers the Sunday Times Style Magazine. It’s an okay photo of a photogenic man – I’m kind of interested in the fact that Rob seems to be growing out his hair? His hair was way too short for a while, but he’s been wearing it longer for the past six months or so. Perhaps for a movie. Anyway, I genuinely enjoy Rob these days, and at the ripe age of 32, he’s matured and grown… wise, or something. Some highlights from the Sunday Times:
Smartphones tamed people: “The height of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. Going out then was the best. There was no English people. You’d be led into places. Astonishing. You could hang out with everyone. As soon as camera phones came it tamed people.”
Debauchery has been canceled: Pattinson described his English accent as a “get out of jail free” card, adding he thought young actors had become more strait-laced. He said: “There is not as much reverence for past … debauchery has been cancelled. The whole of debauchery.”
He supports women in the industry: The actor signed a post #MeToo “behavioural contract” before he signed onto a Netflix original called The King, in which he stars alongside Lily Rose-Depp and Timothée Chalamet, out later this year. “If it’s a question of me being paid more and getting a worse actress, or me being paid less and getting a better actress, I’ll do it for f–king free.”
He won’t talk about his romance with Suki Waterhouse: “If you let people in, it devalues what love is. If a stranger on the street asked you about your relationship, you’d think it extremely rude. If you put up a wall it ends up better.”
[From Harper’s Bazaar UK & The Irish Examiner]
I don’t think debauchery has been canceled, but he’s right about young Hollywood being different these days than it was even a decade ago. 2006-ish, that was the time of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan and random drama and pap strolling constantly and clubbing every night. Do people still do that? I’m sure they do, but they just take better precautions now with the partying. As for what he says about money and paying women… I believe him. I think Rob is shockingly woke when it comes to women’s rights, especially within the industry. He constantly works with female directors, he loves working with women in general, and there’s never been a hint of him taking advantage of any woman, financially or physically. I feel like he’s a good egg.
Cover courtesy of the Sunday Times, additional photos courtesy of Backgrid.
Um no
This cracked me up!
I do like how he “walks the walk” when it comes to women in Hollywood – works with them, obviously supports them based on that quote about pay, etc. I was so over him because of Twilight lol but he is one who I have come to really respect as a result of #metoo, which is nice because so many others have been cancelled.
To quote the great Idris Elba:
“It’s only difficult if you are a man with something to hide.”
He just finished shooting The Devil All the Time, which has a crazy good cast. So the hair was probably for that role.
He does seem more grounded these days, I think he’s happy to be out of the constant spotlight and happy being ignored by the tabloids.
He seems incredibly pretentious.
He looks absolutely vile and disgusting in the non-magazine pictures. Jesus take a bath.
Now all the debauchery is on the internet.
I don’t get the appeal of Suki Waterhouse, she’s bland and not a great actress. She’s another Sienna Miller – famous for the men she dates rather than her work.
Being bland and not a great actress doesn’t make her a bad partner… also Sienna Miller is pretty well-respected in the industry these days, watch her getting all the accolades when the series with Russell Crow is released.
I don’t remember 2006 celebrity gossip wise as being the best in terms of fun because very quickly it became clear these women were going through addictions like Lindsay and Britney Paris. At that age I went out had fun but didn’t get DUIs etc u can have rowdy friends who aren’t like that. I don’t look at that time with nostalgia like Rob is for some reason. Aso camera phones existed back then, they came out in early 2000s. Not as high quality as now but they existed
Camera phones existed, but social media wasn’t a thing yet. If people had pictures of a celeb, they weren’t instantly posted everywhere.
“If it’s a question of me being paid more and getting a worse actress, or me being paid less and getting a better actress, I’ll do it for f–king free.”
Wait, what? Is this indirectly suggesting that women are being paid less because they are not as good an actor? And why would he center himself in this? It’s an equity issue, not a caliber of talent issue.
Did I misread or miss part of this?
I’m also surprised that this comment didn’t raise any eyebrows. How is this fixing anything? Am I missing something??
I guess he explained it in reference to a limited budget of an indie movie as he agrees to be paid less so they can hire high profile actresses, it wasn’t about metoo movement in general, but indie filmmaking in particular.