Adrien Brody: Woody Allen’s past behavior is ‘not something to focus on’

wenn23574338

Here are some photos of Adrien Brody and his long-time girlfriend Lara Lieto at the Vanity Fair Oscar party back in February. They’ve been together since 2012 and my guess (since I cannot find her age verified anywhere) is that she was pretty young when they first got together. Like, maybe she was 19 or 20? And now she’s in her early 20s. I’m making a point here – Adrien is 43 years old and he likes younger women, possibly even 20 years younger. That’s not illegal, of course, but add that fact to Brody’s professional associations, and there will be some raised eyebrows. Brody won his Best Actor Oscar for The Pianist, directed by Roman Polanski. Brody also worked with Woody Allen back in 1989, for New York Stories, and in 2011 with Midnight in Paris. So when Adrien went on Jenny McCarthy’s radio show on Monday, they ended up discussing Polanski, Woody Allen and more. Some quotes from the interview:

Brody on the separation of artists from the art: “Life is very complicated. I look to collaborate with artistic people and to go into an endeavor without judgment and to hopefully be treated with the same. It’s an artistic pursuit, and Polanski for instance had a very complicated and difficult life. It would be unfair of me to delve into something as complicated as the past that was brought up in the media.”

When asked if he thinks private lives should be separated from work: “Well, to a certain extent. I mean, again, people make mistakes in lives.”

Whether there’s a difference between Bill Cosby & Woody Allen: “I don’t even read about these things, to be honest. I choose not to indulge this kind of fodder. I think there’s a lot of catastrophe in this world and a lot of cruelty and a lot of carelessness. Of course it’s horrible what comes out sometimes, and people have done things in their lives that may be inexcusable, but it’s not something to focus on.”

[From People]

I have sympathy for people who want to engage in a genuine conversation about the separation of art from artist, or conversations that come along with the revisionist histories that we learn about artists years and decades after the fact. Even Steven Spielberg was not immune during the Cannes Film Festival this year – his film, The BFG, was based on a Roald Dahl book and Spielberg was asked questions about Dahl’s history of anti-Semitic statements. Spielberg ended up saying that he wasn’t aware of Dahl’s personal history and that it shouldn’t affect how people see the film. What’s the difference between that and what Adrien Brody is saying? Well… I think Brody comes across as dismissive. I don’t understand this idea: “people have done things in their lives that may be inexcusable, but it’s not something to focus on.” Why? Why shouldn’t those “inexcusable” moments be focused upon?

wenn23574335

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

209 Responses to “Adrien Brody: Woody Allen’s past behavior is ‘not something to focus on’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Denisemich says:

    Ugh. Why did he comment? Can we separate what someone achieves from how they lived their personal lives? Not in today’s current climate.

    A lot of artist do suspect things. Woody Allen is not a convicted child molester.We just believe his accuser because he had a very suspicious affair and married the child of his lover. Roman Polanski is a convicted child molester.

    Unfortunately, a lot of artists, great artists have horrible pasts, Picasso, Caravaggio. Many had marriages or affairs with younger women/or girls but it wasn’t a crime then.

    It is up to you whether you decide to see their work.

    I am not a fan of either, I am just saying I understand the Pianists point.

    • Naya says:

      But what does he mean by “private lives”?! When you commit a sex crime (Woody, Polanski and Cosby) it becomes the publics business. I hope all the idiots keep poking their heads up, so we have a comprehensive list of the assh*les in Hollywood.

      • noway says:

        Brody didn’t say private lives the interviewer did, and I read it to mean his personal not business life. Obviously a lot of people on here don’t believe you can separate the work from the person. However, I personally feel you can and I am not supporting his criminal act by seeing his work.

        I am curious though, because of our weak justice system in regards to sex crimes, even if Woody was convicted, or if Roman had served his time instead of fleeing both would most likely have served their sentence by now, would you still boycott their work and the people who work with them? Yes this is a hypothetical, but there are at least sports heroes who have served a sentence and reentered their profession. I guess I just don’t think film making is such an important profession. To be honest there are so many other occupations I wouldn’t want a convicted sex offender to be in and film making isn’t really one of them.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Such a lazy argument. The artists you use for examples are dead. They aren’t flourishing among us while Hollywood chooses to turn a blind eye and suck up to them. So don’t be bothered. I’m thankful that some people in “today’s climate” actually care if a child is sexually molested by her father and they chose not to participate in the celebration of the molester.

      • Kitten says:

        Plus there’s a big difference between having an affair and molesting a child.

      • Birdix says:

        And what about this old stereotype: “A lot of artist do suspect things.” wth? PEOPLE do suspect things, whether they are artist, political candidate, hedge fund manager, priest, accountant, or doctor, etc.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        GNAT hit the nail on the head. Comparing Polanski and Allen to long-dead historical figures is like comparing apples to oranges. Dead v. living. Acceptable behavior for the times v. unacceptable behavior for these times. Affairs v. molestation of a child/incestuous at that. Why not let all living perverts slide because men in biblical times had multiple wives (sisters many times), slept with and married their cousins, and often-times practiced sex on little boys. There is no reason or logic in that line of thought.

        The only logic I walk away from that with is that perhpas Brody is a bit of a perv himself when it comes to just how young his girlfriend was when they got together so he’s not going to throw any rocks while living in a glass house himself.

      • MC2 says:

        Yes! And there is the unspoken point that these men’s careers, fame & fortune helped them commit their crimes or at least helped them get away with it!

        Cosby, Polanski, Richardson & Allen use/d their “art” to victimize people & get away with their crimes. That have not paid because they are “artists”. So f-you when you ask me to separate the art from the artist.

        It’s inexcusable, but let’s not talk about it……get out of here you a$$ kissing has been. If he was a women he would have been victimized & spit out by these pr!cks a long time ago.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        MC2 You’re getting me riled up. When you speak of predators actually using their art to victimize people and get away with their crimes, I immediately thought of Terry Richardson…..and I got really mad!!!

      • Denisemich says:

        @GNAT, . I understand that this is a hot button issue.

        As stated previously, this is not a lazy argument for Woody Allen or Polanski. It is asking if you can see people as multi dimensional. If Woody Allen molested a child he should be punished for that.

        The argument that it should impact his livelihood and negate the fact that he is a great artist is questionable. Even if he had been convicted this should not be the case. How does a released felon not become a burden on the state if he can’t find income?

        Also… Caravaggio was a murderer I don’t believe time makes that more palatable.

    • CornyBlue says:

      Just because someone else was not convicted does not mean Woody Allen should not be. Just because we cannot catch all murderers should we let the ones we can catch go ?

    • Pinky says:

      OJ was not convicted. Didn’t stop people from treating him like a murderer. TMZ never once refers to him as “accused” or “alleged” killer. Never. They just call him a killer. Why does it stop people from treating Allen like a molester in this case? Hmm?

      –TheRealPinky

      • thebeautifulnorth says:

        That Allen is Jewish, just like Polanski? As is Brody (and Hollywood) to a large extent?

        Hmm.

      • Mike says:

        @thebeautifulnorth

        Are you actually trying to imply that Jewish people are more likely to be pedophiles? You may want to not.

      • Megan says:

        @thebeautifulnorth

        Or are you saying that Jewish people look the other way on each other’s crimes? Please clarify what comes across as a very ugly statement.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I think Truthful meant that maybe they cover for eachother because they share a culture – like a brotherhood. Not that they are any more perverted as a culture than any other. That was my take.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        OJ Simpson was convicted in the civil trial that followed the criminal trial, so the press was able to change the way it described him.

        What about the entertainment business looking away from Bill Cosby’s history of rape? This is not a black vs Jewish thing.

        The veiled anti-Semitism in that comment is reprehensible.

      • thebeautifulnorth says:

        I think before you ask me to clarify anything, it would be far more proper for all of you to ask Pinky to clarify her post (she did post before me, you know). Though I’m not really surprised no one is asking her to do this.

        Pinky is surely hinting at something in her post and I’m very interested to know what it is. As opposed to Pinky’s question, mine was not “veiled”, just stating an obvious fact and asking if that’s what she meant. Most of you, for reasons all of your own, drew your own conclusions from that fact and strangely enough are acting like I should be held accountable for them.

      • Megan says:

        @thebeautifulnorth let me be more blunt. Your comment was racist and inappropriate but I was willing to let you walk it back. So are you accusing my people of being pedophiles or conspirators? And the let’s drop the “Hollywood is controlled by Jews” stereotype. It’s just vulgar.

      • Pinky says:

        Sorry, @thebeautifulnorth. You’re on your own with this one. I did not mention Brody or Polanski and it hadn’t occurred to me that either man was Jewish, though I might have known it at some point in my life. I also didn’t bring up Hollywood at all. I was asking the people on this board why they themselves couldn’t or wouldn’t make the leap to just flat out call Allen a molester when no one has a problem with labeling OJ that way. Neither was convicted in a criminal court. So why the reluctance to call Allen out as well? And can or should we do that with all men of this ilk? Like Cosby or Terry Richardson? Why do some get qualifiers and the benefit of the doubt while others do not? I brought up OJ because his is the most glaring example of this double standard, especially where TMZ is concerned. And they are unabashedly flagrant in their reporting of anything that has to do with him. My guess is that Levin thinks if OJ were to sue TMZ, he’d have to prove that what they were stating is false (that he didn’t kill Nicole and Goldman), and he’d be opening up a big can of worms there…one they’d be happy to litigate with him to, as a byproduct, settle the murder case. They’re actively taunting him.

        Anyway, my post did not have racial or anti-Jewish underpinnings, but if that’s where you want to take your head, go for it. I’m comfortable stating my exact thoughts and not asking people to read between the lines to find any kind of veiled bigotry. If I want to spew racist or bigoted invectives, I’ll write them out, plain and simple. (Though I doubt they’d be approved anyway so, again, you’re on your own.)

        –TheRealPinky

    • Carol says:

      @Denismich I understand your argument. I don’t think its a lazy one either. I think separating the artist from the art is a complicated issue. Artists throughout history have engaged in behavior we think is offensive and now illegal yet we still ‘enjoy’ their work in museums, libraries and on stage. I don’t know. I love Woody Allen films, they make me laugh, yet it makes me furious that he had no qualms to start an affair and then marry his stepdaughter. It makes me sick when thinking of Cosby, yet I remember fondly and enjoyed the Cosby Show. I think Polanski is a genius filmmaker but it puzzles me that he thought it was ok to drug and “have sex” with a 13 year old (although he thought she was older and the girl said she was older, why drug her at all?). I have no problem with people deciding not to watch their films. I get it. Maybe whether their art is excellent and superior is beside the point. How would our lives be affected if all the art from artists we questioned be removed from museums and libraries? I don’t know. Its complicated.

      • Denisemich says:

        Thanks Carol. I was in meetings and just saw all the responses.

      • Timbuktu says:

        But at the same time, I think that “separating the artist from the art” smacks of compartmentalization, which, claim a few sources I’ve read, is how Nazis were able to be loving Dads at home while gassing children at “work”.
        Where and how do we draw the line? Is being a good artist more valuable than being a good Dad, so we should overlook more for them?

      • Lucrezia says:

        I agree that it’s complicated. You could call it compartmentalisation, but you could also call refusing to separate the art and artist “black & white thinking”.

        And it’s not just a question of separating the art and the artist. The underlying ethical dilemma is present in other scenarios: is it acceptable to use Nazi “research” to advance our knowledge of medicine? Is it acceptable to torture terrorists to prevent another attack?

        There are so many facets to each dilemma, I don’t think a simple yes/no response is right. You have to address each case individually.
        - How bad was the offense?
        - How important is the end product? (Which is partly subjective. While medicine and potential terrorist attacks are obviously more important than art, I do acknowledge that it’s super easy for me to give up Allen and Polansky flicks because I’m not into arty movies in the first place. Someone who was a fan would judge differently.)
        - Does it matter if the offender is still alive?

  2. Jenns says:

    “and people have done things in their lives that may be inexcusable, but it’s not something to focus on.”

    Well, in that case Adrien, you probably shouldn’t have won your Oscar for playing a victim of the Holocaust. Because the Nazis did “inexcusable” things, but we shouldn’t make movies focusing on that, right?

    • Kitten says:

      Precisely. We could go on and on with examples…

      I enjoy the debate surrounding the separation of art/artist but what he said here is just weak as hell and I agree that it is just very dismissive. Honestly, he comes across as someone who doesn’t have much depth.

      Disappointing because I always liked him a lot.

    • MrsBPitt says:

      Exactly…Hitler like to paint…Shall we say his paintings should be seperated from the man, himself…I could never stand Brody…always thought he was very, very overrated! He is an average actor, at best…

      • Annetommy says:

        Entirely disagree, his performance in The Pianist was sublime, and he had already proven how good he was in a number of films, including Summer of Sam and Bread and Roses. He does sound dismissive here, but I suppose he has no more insight into Allen’s activities than anyone else. That said, Polanski was convicted, and Allen is at very least an appalling sleasebag – while the situation with Dylan may be unproven, the situation with Soon Yi is very obvious, and even on its own is pretty atrocious. Whether Brody should be commenting on this is I suppose his call.

      • tealily says:

        Yeah, I disagree too. He is one of those guys who I’d really, really like to like because I think he is great on screen, but the more he opens his mouth and shows us what a creep he is, the more distracting I find it when I see his films.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        According to him, though, you should watch his films anyway and seperate his art from his being a d–k!

    • tealily says:

      What he means is that it’s not something to focus on if he is not the victim and he has something to gain by ignoring it or something to lose by addressing it. I have no patience for the selfishness of this line of thinking.

    • MarcelMarcel says:

      I want to chime in because my class at art school had a discussion about separating the art from the artist the other week and I think it’s fascinating. I’m gonna break it down from my perspective
      a) I totally have problematic faves! Azelia Banks springs to mind. I listen to her music but decided to not go to her concert because she has said transphobic things and I have trans friends. (I didn’t realise at the time that she had said other awful things). So in that particular case while I still listen to her album I haven’t ‘supported’ her further by buying tickets, merchandise or following her on social media. I think it’s okay to have problematic faves however one should have self awareness and be able to acknowledge that they are problematic.
      b) SOME LINES CANNOT BE CROSSED and frankly, sexual abuse and child abuse is an uncrossable line for me. I will cannot condone Woody Allen’s work because he has not dealt with the ramifications of his actions nor he has acknowledged them in public. Whenever he has discussed Dylan he has invalidated her experiences which is gas lighting, a very common technique used by abusers to manipulate and/or hurt their victims. There are complex legal reasons for rapists and molesters to not be brought to court- the process is so traumatic for the survivor that it is counter productive, in the case of one of my friends when they tried to report sexual assault they were laughed out of the police station etc… My enjoyment of Midnight in Paris matters a lot less to me than my horror that a pedophile has faced no consequences for their actions and continues to thrive without even acknowledging that their behave had a deeply traumatic impact on a minor.
      c)Related to the above there are lesser transgressions like having affairs or being rude or shoplifting. I don’t mind watching art produced by people who have done that because even though it’s unethical I don’t equate with it bigger transgressions i.e. Kenneth Brannagh and Helen Bonham Carter had an extramarital affair. I will still see their films because while I don’t condone cheating, it’s a lesser transgression so I can separate the art from the artist.
      d) If a perpetrator has either experienced legal consequences and/or acknowledged & apologised for their behaviour I will reconsider my veto of their work. Roman Polanski ran away instead of going to court so I won’t engage with his cinema.
      e) If the artist is dead I may engage with their art but I won’t celebrate it by wearing band shirts or hanging up posters etc… i.e. I listen to the Beatles but after finding out Lennon was abusive I don’t feel comfortable wearing band merchandise.
      This is a super long comment! It’s such an important topic that I wanted to lay out my perspective. I enjoyed reading the other comments in this thread.

      • Saks says:

        Great comment! And I have to say I have similar guidelines when dealing with people I like as artists but not as persons. Even if I do enjoy someone’s work I do feel is a social responsibility to make decisions based on morals before just enjoyment.

      • MC2 says:

        Great comment. I also wonder if the use of the art to get the victims or not pay any consequences plays a role in separating the art from the artist?

        I can’t look at Richardson’s photos because he has victimized women while taking their photo and used the photo sessions to abuse them.

        Cosby had women ‘audition’ for him. Some of the women in the Cosby show (his patients as an OB- blech!) were victims. I can’t watch then & separate it.

        Poanski, same thing. He used his fame to lure that girl & gain her trust. Allen would never be still working like he is while marrying his daughter if he wasn’t rich & famous.

        So I wonder- if the artists themselves use their art to victimize how are we asked to separate the art from the artist. Once I know that a beautiful picture was taken & then that woman was raped….I just can’t separate that.

        I wouldn’t let a guy come into my house and fix a light if I knew he was a rapist. I do not separate his life from his work. If he cheated on his wife, come on in & fix my light & I’ll pay you- like you said above, there are shades to transgressions. Raped a kid…nope- door shut & locked. I feel the same when I go to movies or shows.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I tend to follow these general guidelines as well when separating art from the artist or not as the case may be. I do think it is important to differentiate between an unspeakable/unforgivable act v. lesser transgressions.

  3. CornyBlue says:

    I think there should be a threshold of separation of art from artists. This is about two men who are literally pedophiles. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to praise any facet of their lives.
    Adrien Brody can stay being irrelevant. I know he is the youngest male Oscar winner but what a hack of a career after that.

    • Megan says:

      If Polanski had served his jail term and made restitution to his victim, we would feel very differently about him today. But rather than accepting responsibility for his actions, he skipped town and has spent decades whining about how he is the real victim.

      • holly hobby says:

        Not to mention asking for a pardon or having the case thrown out.

      • Birdix says:

        Agreed. Was thinking of exactly this yesterday regarding Susan Sarandon’s comments about Allen. And her sensitive portrayal of Sister Helen, with her message being that only through taking responsibility is there a path to redemption.

      • MC2 says:

        And, in turn, made the real victim’s life a living hell. I know she speaks differently then what my opinion might be but if he had done his time then it wouldn’t have been an international incident & she wouldn’t have been re-victimized all over again. By not doing his time, he didn’t allow the victim to put this behind her and move on. I think this is the biggest travesty of it all.

  4. Locke Lamora says:

    I think there is a difference between appreciating art from artist with “troubled” pasts who are long gone, and giving funds, praise and accolades to artist who are still alive, whose victims are still alive. Can we appreciate the work Polanski has done? Yes. Should we allow him to continue to make movies and get awards like nothing happened? No.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Exactly. The problem is that they are alive, unpunished and flourishing among us, celebrated for their “genius” while their LIVE victims look on.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        I wouldn’t hire a plumber that I thought/knew abused children. I don’t see the difference between an “artist” and a “plumber” if their common element is child molestation. The difference is that “artists” hide behind their “artistry” and in Hollywood, “artists” make a lot of money for a lot of people and the charade of good moral character has always been used to bring in the fans.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Awesome comment!!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Such a good point, Who.

      • teacakes says:

        and really, the only kind of justice Allen, Polanski and Cosby’s victims will ever get is the tarring of their “artist” reputations, or the ‘ewwww child molester/rapist” reaction people are going to have in the future when they think of these men.

        The whole world knowing what they’ve done and having that mental ‘ick’ at the thought of them may not be an ideal form of justice, but for Dylan, and for Jimmy Saville (roast in hell) and Bill Cosby’s many, many victims, it’s actually a good thing that history isn’t going to set their rapists down as untarnished cultural icons.

      • Aren says:

        Very good point WATP. There shouldn’t be a reason to “separate” a person’s work from who they are. All people should be held accountable of their actions.

    • MarcelMarcel says:

      I completely agree!

    • Sam says:

      This is a good point. I can look at a Picasso painting today and not feel badly because the man is dead. Any money left to be made off his name benefits his heirs, not him. He can’t get further enriched by people enjoying his work. On the other hand, going to Polanski or Allen film directly results in money going to them, or their studios – and, more importantly, it sends a message that they should stay in the public eye and continue to create.

      To me, supporting victims should always take precedence over the abstract value of any alleged “art” that gets created. Dylan Farrow has to live with the damage done to her. Any “value” that Allen’s art might have is not consequential when held up beside her. Allen may very well be a superb artist – but to me, that is beside the point. He could be the next Orson Wells and I would not pay a cent to see a movie of his, nor would I watch them – because doing so would be the statement that art can mean more than actual victims, and I never want to send that message.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Couldn’t agree with you more.

  5. Shambles says:

    These people keep showing their asses. Stop. Just stop talking.

  6. Jayna says:

    Well, a lot of people went to see The Pianist in spite of Polanski’s troubled past because it was true art and brilliant. There are times where people absolutely do separate art from the person. He acted in the movie Polanski made. But how is that different from all the people that saw it and were moved? I finally rented it the other day, and it was truly transcendent. The movie stayed with me for days, as did Adrien’s performance. I guess I separated the art from the filmmaker with a dark past. In that sense, it becomes hard to judge these actors and actresses for working with these filmmakers. I did go see Blue Jasmine and pay to see it, because I really wanted to see that movie and all the great actors in it. I don’t really go to see Woody Allen movies, except Vicki Cristina Barcelona and Blue Jasmine.

    I guess I should judge myself before I judge others. I don’t make excuses for their past behavior, though, nor think it should be swept under the rug, not to be discussed. Adrien lost me on, “It’s not something to be focused on.”

    • Naya says:

      Maybe you need to think about how your dollars help sustain these peoples power. As long as somebody like Woody is considered profitable, he will keep getting work. His remaining in the public eye as an artist keeps the media from asking the right questions. And Dylan has to watch her abuser feted.

      There are thousands of great movies, old and new that you could occupy yourself with. It wont kill you to give up this two unrepentant child molesters.

      • Jayna says:

        I don’t have to give up Woody, because I never followed him. I doubt I will ever see another movie by him again. I didn’t lie about seeing Blue Jasmine, though, and don’t regret it. But I won’t deny that I did make a choice to separate the art created from the man who made it and maybe the hypocrisy of my decision. Vicki Cristina Barcelona was so many years ago, that when we went I think a lot of what happened had faded in the minds of people, me included.

        I’ve never seen a Polanski movie, but all these years later did rent this Oscar nominated movie, because I heard amazing things about The Pianist. I had just watched Schindler’s List again and it made me think of The Pianist and realized i had never seen it, so rented it. I can’t deny that it was a movie that I consider brilliant and am glad I watched it, and I feel it was a very important film about the Holocaust and moved me on so many levels.

        I understand the judgment from you, though.

      • Annetommy says:

        I agree with you Jayna. And perhaps the many people who take even soft drugs should consider how they are supporting the violence of the cartels. Renting a Polanski movie is pretty much the same thing. I don’t see it as an endorsement of the maker, anymore than listening to a David Bowie or Led Zeppelin or Rolling Stones track is an endorsement of some of the extremely dubious activities of those artists. Personally I have never given my money to hear or see Allen or those musicians, but I have seen The Pianist and some of Polanski’s other brilliant films.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        I too find this really hard. Not so much Woody, becau

      • Marty says:

        Annetommy- Did you just equate taking recreational drugs to someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl?

        So it was more important to y’all to see a film you enjoyed then reject the works of a disgusting sexual predator. Got it.

      • Birdix says:

        It’s a personal line, and people draw it different places. My mom was recently horrified to learn where I have a checking account, because of that bank’s predatory lending practices, and she clips out articles to remember not to support companies that have unfair labor practices. A lot of people on this board have serious concerns about our presidential candidates and will face a moral dilemma there. It’s a personal line, and better to consider the impact of your choices than “just not focus on it.”

      • Annetommy says:

        No I didn’t do that Marty, and I wouldn’t dream of doing so. I was pointing out that consuming various products may have knock on effects and broader consequences. i don’t think that those taking cocaine are endorsing Columbian drug gangs, just as those watching the Pianist are not endorsing Polanski’s behaviour. If people choose not to watch Polanski’s films because of his behaviour, that is a moral stand. I don’t think that I and millions of others are immoral because I have watched them. I would probably not pay to see a new Polanski film however.

    • anon says:

      I didn’t watch the pianist for this very reason and I would never knowingly support anyone who is a pedophile and/or rapist.

    • Pinky says:

      I appreciate this conversation and line of dialogue. It is an important one with no easy answer, because plenty of people prefer to remain in the dark or ignore the troubled pasts and presents of artists. We wouldn’t have some of the greatest masterpieces of our time if we, say, burned or buried the paintings and books of pedophiles, murderers, assholes, etc. (Let’s not get started on Lewis Carroll.) Do and should artists or politicians get a pass? Should anyone? Would, perhaps, stopping those people in their tracks and not supporting them make way for other, perhaps better voices to shine through? Or will we have lost out on life-changing or life/saving ideas by silencing them? And how do we monitor and police each other’s behavior? Where is the line drawn? How can you draw the line between a moral and a Puritanical society? Especially in cases where there have been no convictions? Who are we to judge and how high are our own horses?

      I ask this with pure intentions, because you all know how strongly I feel on the Woody topic….

      –TheRealPinky

      • ShazBot says:

        Pinky, these questions are brilliant. The way you stated everything here is so eloquent.
        I agree, there is no easy answer. People can make a stand on these 2 men in particular, but then go about, unknowingly enjoying art by another despicable human.
        So at what point does the separation become acceptable? After the artist dies? For past works that occurred before the act? Before the trial/public takedown?
        Woody’s case in particular highlights the difficulties with sexual assault cases, in that so few are tried, and even fewer convicted. People always tout “he’s never been proven guilty in a court of law”, but it’s a sleazy way out in a case like this, as most abusers are never found guilty in a court of law. Some tough questions.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        There’s a difference between sexual assault on a child and sexual assault on an adult, in that both are heinous but the former requires someone who is still a dependent, with marginal or no resources, to make a claim, most often against a family member, often in the face of ongoing pressure or threats, and against the ticking clock of the statute of limitations.

        As for the art question, no easy answers except it’s been hard to view Woody Allen as an ‘artist’ for several decades. It seems male-dominated interests protect other men, period, whether artist or hack. Men in academic protect the abusers working in academia, men in science protect the abusers working in science, men in business or global affairs protect the abusers working in business or global affairs … Hollywood is just so visible and has pretended to be some kind of moral cultural standard-bearer for so long.

      • Birdix says:

        A–holes get a pass, murderers and pedophiles, no. That’s an ok line for me. I don’t believe the transformative power of art justifies murder or pedophilia. And I think a moral and a Puritanical society would fall on the same side of the argument there. Yes, there is the huge elephant in the room that he is not proven guilty. I’m not totally sure what to do about that, and it troubles me.
        There seems to be, in many people’s eyes, a correlation between genius and madness. Should we indulge the madness to get the benefit of the genius?
        Somehow I went to a college filled with truly brilliant people. Most of that brilliance did not come with madness. And yet, with at least three close friends, it did. Does the genius seem brighter because it is manic/larger than life? Perhaps, especially with artists, writers, etc. but I also see the brilliance of those toiling quietly, creating incredible work while still totally stable. So with the huge caveat that anecdote does not equal evidence, I’d say yes, ignore the voices of pedophiles and murderers, we’ll be fine.

    • SilkyMalice says:

      Jayna, you gave a perfect reason for why you chose to see The Pianist, and how you felt about it. If Adrian Brody had gave such a soul searching answer, he would have come across a lot better. Instead he comes across as a dismissive ass.

      I think each person needs to decide for themselves whether art can stand on its own and be appreciated without condoning the artist’s behavior.

    • Sam says:

      To me, I feel the opposite. I have heard amazing things about the Pianist, and I do not doubt for a second that Polanski is a genuine artist with amazing talent. But I still won’t watch a single thing he puts out.

      That is because, to me, there is no art on this planet that can justify the pushing aside of sexual crime. Art is an abstraction, and the crimes are real. The victims are real. The damage they will carry every day for the rest of their lives is real.

      At some point, lines have to get drawn. Decisions must be made. And people need to confront their own cognitive dissonance. Either you think it’s okay to support known sexual predators if their “art” is deemed good enough or you don’t. I know so many people who will rail against lesser people as “I would never want to support that” but when it comes to Allen or (especially) Polanski, “well, you have to understand, it’s high art.” And to that I say, BS. Maybe there will be time for a nuanced conversation when they’re dead and can no longer be enriched by people watching their films. But they’re still alive, and they don’t need the validation.

    • Timbuktu says:

      Funny, for me Schindler’s list and Pianist are on the opposite ends of “holocaust movie” spectrum. I love the former (as much as one can “love” a movie on such a topic) and was completely unmoved by the latter. I found Brody’s character completely not compelling and felt like any one of the many people who were hiding and saving him far more worthy of a movie than the pianist himself. I feel like it’s a movie about a very compelling time, rather than a compelling movie.

    • Trashaddict says:

      Soooooo Jayna,
      Does that mean if he were a shitty artist, you wouldn’t give him a pass on his behavior?
      And the adjective you use to describe past is not “troubled”, it’s “criminal”.

  7. roxane says:

    I’m really perplexed by this kind of comment, in the same situation the first thing I would do is gain informations, but those actors love this ignorance is a bliss mentality.

  8. grabbyhands says:

    and people have done things in their lives that may be inexcusable, but it’s not something to focus on.”

    He molested his daughter, you one hit wonder f*ckwit. F*ck you, seriously.

  9. Lindy79 says:

    Oh go buy another fame hungry girl a castle and pose in Hello again and shut the hell up.

    The mere fact he was on Jenny McCarthy(!?!)’s talk show says all I need to know about him. Polanski wasn’t just rumours, he was convicted and to avoid serious jail time (45 days isn’t serious imo) he skipped the country..how can you defend that??

    • CornyBlue says:

      That was literally the best magazine spread i have ever seen. I wonder what happened to the castle now that she is banging Thor

      • Naya says:

        I know little about Elsa Patakay but I watched Adriens documentary about the castle. He didnt buy it for her and if he ever claimed that, it was him pandering to his female fans. He bought to give himself a project away from Hollywood (and make his stupid renovation documentary). My sense from the docu was that Elsa dumped him because he seemed more in love with the castle than with her.

        MY first clue that he is a dbag was when the documentary was trashed by the locals. Apparently, it wasnt anywhere as run down as he claimed it was. A local family had decades ago adopted it and spent their life savings doing the major work. They also opened it up to the locals every summer so many of them had fond childhood memories of the place. When the family was forced to sell, Adrien put up the “celebrity wall” and refused the locals access to a landmark that had always been treated as a community property. They dont like him. His documentary tanked even worse than his career.

      • tealily says:

        Oh my god, I missed this entire castle thing completely. Off to google…

      • Lindy79 says:

        He may not have bought it for her but those Hello magazine spreads (the castle and then the African one) she definitely had a part in. This is the same woman who sold photos of her in her wedding dress to Hola! even though her husband isn’t in them

      • Naya says:

        @Lindy79

        The Taj Mahal narrative was most likely a PR thing. They were probably trying to position as a star couple to watch. I dont doubt you if you say that her team laid it on very thick. The truth is probably she just happened to be the girlfriend at the time that this struck his fancy. The documentary covers a portion of their relationship and then a few years after as he “rebuilds” it, trust me that castle was about his own desire to “escape” the industry that he felt was rejecting him. And by rejecting I mean shifting him further and further from the roles he wanted. One of the reasons the final documentary was so poorly rated is because he didnt explore the career/castle relationship even though it seemed pretty obvious there was a connection there.

    • Esmom says:

      Yeah, my first thought was that Jenny McCarthy is hardly the person to spark an important discussion. But his dismissiveness is really bothersome — clearly he doesn’t want to focus on criminal behavior because the opportunity to work on potentially career-elevating projects outweighs anything else. That’s why so few people speak out, they’re putting their careers before anything else. People in HW have lost a grip.

  10. PunkyMomma says:

    Enough of these a**kissers.

  11. ell says:

    this chick was 25 in 2012, she should be 28/29 now so her age is fine. AB is still the worst though, like people make mistakes?? there’s making mistakes, and there’s being a polanski or an allen. those things they’re accused of aren’t ‘just mistakes’.

  12. littlemissnaughty says:

    “I think there’s a lot of catastrophe in this world and a lot of cruelty and a lot of carelessness.” Yes, absolutely. Just look in the mirror for that carelessness, honey.

    I understand the problems with disregarding every racist/a**hole artist’s/writer’s work and I’m not 100% sure how to approach that. We would have to throw out a LOT of great literature, paintings, etc. But can we PLEASE draw the line at abusers who are still alive and are still making money and whose victims are still suffering? I don’t mean to downplay anti-semites, racists, bigots, etc. but to me personally, there is a huge difference between a man whose views were repulsive but who’s been dead for 25 years and a living child molester. One who married his daughter and one who was convicted.

    Also, Adrien Brody is a moron. Is Susan Sarandon really the ONLY actress out there who has had the guts and brain to speak up? If someone knows another one, please let me know. Between this and Courtney Stodden, it’s not the best day.

    • Neverwintersand says:

      My approach is that death mostly covers up all of one’s mistakes, but some people leave a lasting damage to the world. We can appreciate accomplishments of the former and disregard the legacy of the latter. As for the still living authors like Allen and Polanski – supporting them means adding to the grief and damage of their victims, think.

    • Pamela says:

      ” I don’t mean to downplay anti-semites, racists, bigots, etc. but to me personally, there is a huge difference between a man whose views were repulsive but who’s been dead for 25 years and a living child molester.”

      Agreed. There IS a huge difference. Look at it this way, let’s use the “art” of writing as an example. Now, I don’t really WANT to read a book filled with racist characters, but to an extent, books open us up to different views/opinions. Part of what makes reading enjoyable is reading things that are not what WE normally think, feel, see. Not to say I would enjoy reading a racist novel, but , many people loved “The Road” for example, and that was (as far as I know) not racist, but had some extremely dark and gruesome subject matter. Maybe reading a racist novel would have the affect of turning the reader into a pro-equality activist. I don’t know.

      But Woody and Polanski? They are getting rich, and respected and honored while their victims sit by watching. It is AWFUL.

      Not gonna lie, I saw “Rosemary’s Baby” as a teen. Long, before I ever knew anything about what he did to that girl. I loved that movie. I still do to an extent, though I wish I didn’t. I could lie and say I don’t, but I do. But I don’t think that makes it ok that he got away with, STILL gets away with his crimes. If Woody Allen and Roman Polanski were both locked up today–with no parole, and could never make another film, the world would not suffer. We would just go see other movies from other directors that haven’t raped any kids. It is soooooo gross that we allow them to be not just free men, but exalted, working, profiting men.

      • Jayna says:

        Polanski’s victim has been vocal for years she is no ongoing victim because she ended up with a great husband and children and life, and that while what happened was “gross” and “scary” and “creepy,” it was what happened afterwards by the media that truly damaged her. She has said she lives a great life except when hounded by the media.

        She wrote an article urging the Academy voters to choose Polanski and his film “The Pianist” as Oscar winners and wrote that what happened all those years ago should not affect their judgement. She has said a few years ago that she and Polanski were in minimal e-mail contact. She also believes he should be allowed to come back to the States. She has said she feels no sympathy for him but no hard feelings for him either.

        I would feel differently, but she doesn’t seem to want his career destroyed. I don’t get it, but that’s how she feels, and doesn’t want others to tell her how she should feel as it’s her life.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Jayna, I don’t think it’s so much about people telling her how to feel but people believing that the man did something wrong and never received the appropriate punishment. Sure, she is perfectly entitled to forgive him in some way. But punishment for a crime is not solely about the victim. He just left the country and his career continued to flourish. The press should leave her alone but not him.

      • Jayna says:

        @littlemissnaughty, I agree how she feels doesn’t change how the public should feel. But her feelings on the subject I only posted in response to @Pamela’s one specific comment, “But Woody and Polanski? They are getting rich, and respected and honored while their victims sit by watching. It is AWFUL.”

        My point was Polanski’s victim wasn’t affected by Polanski’s ongoing success making films. She had moved on, and, in fact, wrote an open letter to the Academy urging them to vote for The Pianist on its merits, not his past..

        Dylan is a different story. She is greatly affected by his ongoing public adulation and success.

      • Sam says:

        Jayna, that is why the justice system is separate from victims’ rights. Polanski’s victim may very well have moved on and might actually forgive him. If she has, then I wish her all the best in the world and hope she is well.

        But that is not an excuse to look the other way. That is not an excuse to let him get away with it. I’ve say with multiple victims and families of victims who have chosen to forgive, and it’s powerful. But at no time did that result in the charges getting dropped, and it’s not an excuse to do justice. Polanski should still be returned to the United States to face justice for what he did (and let’s be clear – what he did is not in dispute). The victim doesn’t get a say in that process, and it is good that she doesn’t, since our system is supposed to be impartial. So I don’t understand your argument that Polanski should somehow be absolved by the fact that his victim has moved on.

      • Jayna says:

        @Sam, never said he should be absolved.

        My comments about what she has said was in response to the comment the victims have to sit by and watch their success. My only point was in the case of Polanski’s victim she had no issues with his ongoing success.

        I should have made that clear, that I was only responding to that one point, not that he shouldn’t have gone to jail. I believe he should have. Although, she has always been vocal about the fact that she was upset that the Judge didn’t accept the plea deal that her family and the State Attorney and Polanski had agreed to, and with him facing much more time, he fled. She wanted it behind her. That doesn’t excuse him fleeing. He raped the girl and needed to pay for it.

      • Naya says:

        There is definitely a difference between Woodys and Polanskis victims, in tha one wants justice done and the other wants it dropped. Polanskis also seems to view the term “victim” as shameful just going by her statements. I’m pretty sure she received a cash settlement and probably agreed to publicly support him. But in addition, I think she had to find a way to live with what had happened and took the path many victims of non violent abuse take. She convinced herself that it wasnt so bad, that she should be greatful he didnt beat her and that she was probably responsible too. Its a coping mechanism.

        As an aside; to each her own recovery but I still think she has done great harm to the cause generally and facilitated Polanski to continue doing as he likes. In case people are unaware, Polanski was linked to a few more vulnerable young teens. E.g. There was Natasha Kinski, the daughter of a maniac, and yet also celebrated, actor who wrote a book boasting that he molested her and whose other daughter later came out to say that he did molest them. Natasha was 14 when Polanski started hanging out with her. There is no way that there arent plenty of other victims scattered in Polanskis wake. Its a tragedy he hasnt met a Dylan, somebody who fights to the end.

    • Saks says:

      The only two I know are Sarah Silverman who tweeted Ronan’s editorial with a message calling out Woody’s PR. And Kat Dennings who re-tweeted Dylan’s open letter.

    • Aren says:

      Exactly. Adrien is contributing to make this world a much worse place.

  13. Nancy says:

    He refers to child molestation as fodder, as if you’re speaking of what’s on tv tonight. What a maniac. He is on the list of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and just pretend it doesn’t exist. A hole.

  14. NewWester says:

    Whenever a celebrity makes a comment that is dismissive like this or in support of people like Woody Allen, Bill Cosby etc… I just feel like that is another person I refuse to go see in a movie, or other performance.
    They have the right to give an opinion or comment and I have the right to not spend money or watch them in a movie anymore.

  15. Sam says:

    You know I can somewhat get a person who is working with Woody Allen (Currently Jessie, Kristen and Blake) who are asked these questions and they answer them in a way that makes you roll your eyes somewhat. And they answer questions in ways that allow them to avoid the situation because they want to make themselves feel better at night for working with a creep. But I can’t for the life of me understand why someone who isn’t even working with this pedophile, outright say his past is irrelevant. Even those who have worked with him haven’t gone as far as to say that. Just shut up and go away Adrien.

  16. nicole says:

    “people make mistakes” – sure, I agree with that when it comes to many many many things that people regret. People change and grow and learn from experiences. . Sexual abuse of a child is not one of those things.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      That’s right. And not only that, Allen shows no sign of regret, remorse or learning. Anything but.

      • Dingding says:

        And Allen shows no compassion for Dylan and he should definitively not make things worse for her with his comments. Whether Dylan is just a victim of Mia Farrow’s revenge or whether Dylan is a victim of child abuse – Woody Allen should not make things worse for her. He acted as her father for quite a while. Does he have no compassion for those around him? And no mercy with them?
        And I believe he is guilty of child abuse.

  17. Dangles says:

    I can understand why people would boycott Allen. I wonder if they also boycott watching films made by Fox Searchlight after all the Fox Network has done to encourage wars, perpetuate inequality and stall action on climate change.

  18. Caela says:

    I feel like people who do terrible things shouldn’t be prevented from making art, but isn’t the issue here that these people (Allen, Cosby) are denying they have done wrong over and over again? And the justice system has failed the victims and their families, so they can never make peace and move on.

    I don’t have a problem with people who say ‘I did this terrible thing, I regret it, I tried to make amends and have changed my behaviour’. But this constant shielding by PR, news outlets and celebs is just horrible. I think then I sort of want them to be dragged through the mud as some kind of penance.

    I’m a strong believer in justice, so reparation, rehabilitation, reintegration, but to be reintegrated into the community you have to have done the first two steps, which these guys haven’t. I hate this whole ‘oh I don’t know, I don’t get involved, it’s not important’ because it’s like saying abuse is not important. And the whole ‘I choose not to be involved in this fodder’…you choose that when you chose to work with Allen.

    Rant over….

  19. Mia4s says:

    I don’t see the equivalence with the Roald Dahl issue at all. Dahl may have had certain beliefs I personally find disgusting…but committed no crime that I know of. If we cannot separate “beliefs” then we will need to throw out 90% of our classic music, films, and literature. I’m ready to separate art from artists there. The others committed sexual crimes against women. There is my line.

    (Someone will likely bring up Tom Cruise. He’s welcome to believe in his alien cult but the apparent use of slave labour and attacks on families pushes it over the edge.)

    • tealily says:

      Yes, I agree with this. Although I love Dahl’s books and hadn’t heard about these comments before, and now I’m feeling pretty disappointed in him.

    • teacakes says:

      my feelings exactly. I’m Indian and love Rudyard Kipling’s books despite knowing he was a huge old racist/imperialist, and that’s exactly where I draw my line – problematic beliefs of long-dead people are one thing, crimes are entirely another.

      • Dingding says:

        I love Kipling’s books, too. And I am not into forbidding such books because the author was a racist or because you can find some slight traces of racism in his books. I think such things should be taught and critically questioned. Books should like these could / should have a foreword or a post scriptum which puts things into perspective.
        But don’t forbid them. That would be just like hiding racism and pretending it had never existed. Rather educate people about it.

  20. HK9 says:

    OK, if Woody Allen was some Real Housewife who stole a couple hundred bucks worth of merchandise somewhere, that would be something that could be ignored. He molested a child and married his stepdaughter. I’m sorry, but imma gonna stop and look at that.

    Secondly, if his own family can’t trust him because of his criminal tendencies, how can you as an actor really trust him during the process of making a movie much less with your career? I guess this is the deal actors make, publicly say “nothing to see here folks” and you get and Oscar.

  21. Frosty says:

    “I choose not to indulge this kind of fodder.” He’s such an ass. It’s understandable why people don’t want to hear about more pain and ugliness humans cause, if only for one’s temporary peace of mind, but then don’t comment on it at all. And “fodder” makes it sound like rape and sexual abuse only concern the common folk.

  22. K.T says:

    As someone passionately involved in the arts on quite a few levels, I find a lot of the debate about the separation of art and artistic work really simplistic and not how the creative practice works.
    Without going into detail, it feels like the discussion about Woody Allen and how is ‘genius’ transcends critical discussion of his work AND his life, becomes much more about the fandom and idolatry – the belief in a ‘hero’ narrative. Rather than it being about moral relativism of art and creativity, it’s more like the a belief and/or self identification with a famous sports star or sports team. So much fan worship until there’s a blindness to anything but the fandom and the ‘team’.
    Brody pretends to be profound…but basically stating he’s fatally thirsty. I still think about his photo with Leo-douchecaprio where they were at a festival in face masks, pretending to be incognito while posting pics on social-media.

  23. Red32 says:

    I’m curious about Jenny McCarthy’s reaction to his comments, since her anti-vax campaign was all “WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?” Vaccines bad, child rapists ok?

  24. Deedee says:

    This guy is a smacked ass.

  25. Bambilee23 says:

    “I don’t even read about these things…” has become such a common answer when a celebrity doesn’t want to outright defend or side with the accused (Cosby, Allen, Polanski, etc.), as though that excuses them from the question. This isn’t simple tabloid fodder that you “choose not to indulge in.” With Ronan Farrow’s recent call to action, maybe these celebrities truly are surprised that these questions are being asked; however, putting your head in the sand and feigning ignorance can no longer be acceptable.

  26. Ann says:

    It’ amazing how people don’t want to “focus” on men’s abusive behavior towards women and children.

  27. I can completely separate the life of an artist from the artists work, as long as they they don’t rape children, murder people or debase others in general. Hey, if you are a miserable, alcoholic with a fabulous ability to express yourself via paint, music, dance etc, I have no problem supporting you because you hurt only yourself. When you cross the line and begin to hurt others then you have lost me. It’s not all that complicated really.

  28. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Because the truth is its about WHY you all don’t want to acknowledge what Woody did.

    That’s what it is. It isn’t that you have a difference of opinion, have carefully weighed the facts and decided he’s innocent. It is because you have made a CHOICE to decide facts don’t matter, molestation doesn’t matter, rape and abuse don’t matter IF there’s an opportunity to be gained.

    You celebs want to pretend it’s anything but that? That you’re not mentally writing the check that says, “I defended you in the press, if the time comes I expect a role or something.”

    You can’t have it both ways, and this also goes for people like Tilda Swinton and the Coen Brothers and everyone who choose to take advantage of injustice to line their pockets. On one hand when the goings good you all want to appear deep and wax poetic about a variety of topics and then, when it’s time to actually put your money where your mouth is you all devolve into these vague simplistic arguments and cross your fingers praying that we don’t put 2 + 2 together and realize that in the end you were another shallow puddle just trying to make sure your lifestyle continued and you never had to sacrifice and struggle.

    Then your lame pathetic pr reps will give you some charity or cause to front and we’ll be expected to laud you for caring about – fill in the blank – all those convenient tragedies far enough away that you never have to change your lifestyle or really do anything.

  29. serena says:

    These actors “don’t read these things” when it’s not convenient, they’re just about the art! Leave all these trivial matters to others, actors shouldn’t really be justifying their work.
    *eyerolls*
    “It would be unfair of me to delve into something as complicated as the past that was brought up in the media.”… are you f-ing joking? What is unfair is what these predators have done to their victims! Now the media is the enemy and these people the victim? I’m cringing.

  30. Kelly says:

    It’s more like he doesn’t want to focus on it as long as I get a job.

    Used to like him, but nope.

  31. Jade says:

    It’s not the mere fact they committed the crimes. Yes everyone can make mistakes or crime. For example, people who are released from jail can still be accepted into society. It’s that they were never punished for them nor were they sorry. The victims live on…damaged till the end. If WA had gone to jail, expressed remorse and his sincere apologies etc. perhaps, yes, some actors can use the reasoning that the past is the past etc. But…there’s been nothing. So shut up Brody. SHAME on you, shame on people like Blanchett, Blake. I CANNOT.

  32. BRE says:

    This is why child molestation is still such a problem in this day and age, because so many people excuse or dismiss it. It doesn’t matter how long ago it happened or if the perpetrator had a “difficult” life, the damage stays with that child forever.

  33. Miss Jupitero says:

    For me, it is partly a question of where I draw the line. There are plenty of artists and poets I love whose lives range from less than exemplary to downright odious, but if I cut them out, I wouldn’t have much of an intellectual life. So I get that argument up to a point.

    However, there is no excuse for Brody’s dismissiveness. There is no excuse for running away from the issue. And having a difficult life? Give me a break– plenty of people have very, very difficult and painful lives and they don’t pull the sh*t Polanski has pulled. That is NOT an excuse.

    If someone continues to enjoy Woody Allen’s films, they can go ahead– but Dylan Farrow shouldn’t have to shut up or disappear, nor should those of us who are outraged and want to see real change in how the entertainment industry treats women have to keep silent or stay out of the way to make someone else’s “enjoyment” easier and more convenient. Watch whatever films you want, but know what you are doing and show some respect for others who have something to say.

    Woody Allen really crosses the line for me, and although in the past I have liked some of his films, I don’t think I can watch his work anymore without barfing into my popcorn bag. Same goes with Polanski. This is partly because of the nature of their misdeeds, but also I think partly because they are current and so is all of the damage they have done and continue to do. It is very hard to take the business as usual attitude in the middle of all of this and I resent being expected to do so.

    • Josefina says:

      I agree. I respect it if former Woody fans no longer want to watch his movies because of this. But I think it’s unfair to call those who still do abuse apologists, just because they still like his movies. If they make excuses for him or treat Dylan’s accusations without the respect and attention they deserve, give them hell. But you can watch Woody’s films and still think he should be held accountable for his crimes. I’d do it, but I’ve always hated his films.

      We all hate child labor and contractual slavery. And I’d bet most of us don’t bother to look up the reputation of the clothing and electronic companies we buy products from. There’s three words that should immediately make you wary of laboral conditions – “Made in China”. So going by that train of logic, most of us are dismissive of slavery and child labor or flat-out support it. How do you feel about that? Calling you a slaver because you decided to buy a hat?

  34. mellie says:

    I actually heard this interview and he was really stumbling/scrambling over his words, lots of “Uh, uh, uh’s…” He clearly wasn’t prepared to be asked anything like that and he clearly failed with his response. What a d-bag.

  35. Irene says:

    “I choose not to indulge this kind of fodder.”

    How nice for him that he has the luxury of not caring about rape.

  36. Melody says:

    The Catholic Church wishes their whole thing could just blow over, too…

  37. OriginallyBlue says:

    I didn’t know rape and molestation were “mistakes”. Seriously these people are sick and are exactly why victims don’t come forward. My shit list is getting longer and longer the more they speak. It’s also interesting how they all claim to never read about the details, but have no problem bending over backwards to defend the person.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      They lie about knowing because actors gossip and word spreads like fire about someone. It was everywhere when it happened and you know it was discussed in Hollywood. He simply doesn’t care.
      There is a line and raping children shouldn’t even require a debate.

  38. Boo says:

    Sigh…wrote a comment but it disappeared.

    Adrien Brody grabbed Halle Berry, against her will and without permission, and bent her over and kissed her deeply on stage live during academy awards. In front of masses of people. Millions of us watched him assault a woman and he laughed it off as if “hey it was my chance”

    This guy is a creep. I don’t know how far his tendencies go obviously but that was the action of a sexual predator. No wonder he thinks ‘past behaviour’ shouldn’t be mentioned. He’s probably as bad as Woody Allen.

  39. Xav says:

    Someone posted this on twitter : I wonder if Rachel McAdams was doing research for spotlight while shooting midnight in Paris .
    Someone should have asked her this question on the press tour

  40. Jag says:

    When people say such things in the way he has in this article, it makes me wonder about them. What has he done that would be considered inexcusable, that he doesn’t want known?

    As you pointed out, he is dating a much younger woman. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t care, but taken in the context that he is saying that two men who raped and molested underage girls – and another who raped women that he drugged – shouldn’t have to be called out on what they did, I think he’s horrible.

  41. Guest says:

    Tell that to his daughter you arse….

    Can’t believe that an actor says something like this but hey what should I expect from someone who has worked for Polanski. They should be ashamed ffs.

  42. Jaded says:

    “I choose not to indulge this kind of fodder…”

    So he’s referring to child molestation and rape as tabloid fodder. He is a despicable human being whose head is so far up his arse he can’t be bothered to do anything but make a passive-aggressive comment about his “art”. Where’s Susan Sarandon when we need her? She’d take him down a notch or two.

  43. Net says:

    God help but that statement reads to me like hes got bones lying around too..

  44. Green Is Good says:

    This thread is excellent. Open discussion, interesting incites.

  45. stinky says:

    ‘Rosemary’s Baby’.
    I could watch it every day.

  46. holly hobby says:

    I’m marking off this slimy greasy unkempt thing from my list of actors to watch. Sorry you can forgive someone for stealing but not this. Those perverts ruined the lives of young girls. That’s not something to forgive and forget.

    I also do not take kindly to his comments. I hope he never has a daughter because imagine how he would feel if some pervert did that to his daughter?

  47. truthSF says:

    It’s over between us Adrien, It’s f–king OVER!!!!!

  48. Tallia says:

    He is entitled to his opinion and to voice same. I disagree. When it comes to crimes against children until their is justice it should always be focused on. Now go away little man.

  49. censorednt says:

    Havent any of these people heard of the term ” No Comment ”
    Uuugh!

  50. shewolf says:

    He’s just following rape protocol.

    No one is supposed to talk about it… ever… and if someone does you’re supposed to a) be uncomfortable to the point of doing/saying nothing b) blame the victim or both. If one should feel like acknowledging any aspect of rape, the only acceptable acknowledgement is that it happened in the past.

  51. Pandy says:

    Oh! Well, if Adrian Brody says we shouldn’t focus on it … there you go! Poof!

  52. LP says:

    I think Lainey said it perfectly:

    “These things.

    Fodder.

    Is that what it is? Over 40 women – and counting – drugged and raped by a man in power and bullied into silence, and a daughter who alleges that her father sexually abused her…

    All of that waved away by Adrien Brody because we shouldn’t focus on it. And, well, isn’t that why victims aren’t heard in the first place?”

  53. censorednt says:

    I have never been a fan of Brody’s since he came up to Halle Berry , grabbed her and tongue r@ped on Stage while they were presenters at an awards show
    You could see she was stunned and caught completely off guard but couldn’t react/make a scene in that split second up there on stage. IMO men who do that kind of thing are not only entitled but manipulative ….No Surprises Here

  54. Josefina says:

    As I said yesterday, I do believe in separating art from artist. I don’t think watching Woody’s movies makes you an abuse apologist. Making excuses for him or dismissing the accusations does.

    That’s what Adrien Brody is doing here. We SHOULD focus on those accusations because we’re talking about a child being abused. I’m tired of people treating this like a sleazy love triangle. We’re talking about a very serious crime here.

    Journos should just flat-out ask these people if they would leave their kids alone with Woody.

  55. Green Is Good says:

    I just had a disturbing thought. Mia Farrow has worked with two pedophiles: Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. Yikes.

    • Carrie W says:

      Don’t forget her brother John Farrow Jr. is a *convicted* (homosexual) child molester. He’s married, denied everything and is serving a 50 year sentence.

      She is or was apparently still friends with Polanski since the scandals. He participated in the Intimate Portrait documentary Lifetime did on her several years ago.

  56. Tara says:

    I used to like him. What an imbecile.

  57. Shelley says:

    I’m amazed to have read that antisemitic comment above. That has no place on this forum or anywhere else. Wondering why people in Hollywood stick together? Money and profits. Being Jewish has little to do with it. I say that as a Jew without a lot of money.

    I see both Polanski and Woody Allen as pedophiles. The same, but different. Roman Polanski was a child of the Holocaust, whose family was murdered by the Nazis, who comes to the US and then has his wife and infant son killed. I’m not sure what that must do to a man.

    On the other hand, Woody Allen grew up in NY, began seeing a psychiatrist in his 20s’ and, from viewing almost every movie of his, had a very clear understanding of right and wrong. His behavior has tainted everything he has ever made.

    But please leave religion out of this. If someone hates Jews, at least have the decency to keep it to yourself.

  58. Otaku Fairy says:

    He can discuss separating art from the artist all he wants, but by dismissing sexual abuse reported by someone’s children as ‘past mistakes not to be judged’ and ‘fodder’, he’s defending not just the art, but the person too. And how does he even know that the abuse is just ‘past’ behavior for Woody? Doesn’t Woody have grandchildren or kids with Soon Yi? Who’s to say he won’t abuse them too?

  59. kri says:

    Let me add my own personal experience as an 8 year-old girl and the painful lessons learned at the hands of a predator-ANYONE who makes excuses for one of these human devils, these garbage bins -you are ENABLING their evil. You are helping them get what they want.God forbid any of these Hollywoodbrains have a kid and “ignore other people’s past behavior”.

  60. Margo S. says:

    Oh yeah. Some people make mistakes and do inexcusable things like let’s say, molest their 7 year old, but yeah. Let’s not focus on that. Let’s just ignore that, because it’s Woody Allen and you don’t read about all that stuff. Eff. You. Brody. What a bad person.

  61. Aren says:

    I can’t believe the work of those directors is considered as a good excuse to ignore they’re rapists.
    It might be a matter of taste but what I’ve seen from them sucked, and I doubt their films are really going to transcend to future generations.

  62. siri says:

    Those HW people are in the business of pretending, and most of them don’t seem to know how to be human anymore. It’s all about the next role, the next chance to pretend, the next accolade. It’s a completely selfish business. But they can’t escape their humaneness, and when reminded of it, they either act arrogant and ignorant (“I choose not to indulge that fodder.”), or retreat to generalizations (“…there’s a lot of catastrophe in this world and a lot of cruelty and a lot of carelessness.”). But first and foremost, we are human beings with a concsiousness, not actors/artists, plummers, or gardeners. And as such, we DO know what’s right and wrong, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I would give him the benefit of the doubt in the way that he, like most people, is greatly uncomfortable to reflect on things that are painful for our soul, but after seeing him jumping all over Hale Berry to kiss her on stage at some award show (forgot which one), I tend to think he feels like those predatory actions are within the normal range of behaviour. And besides all that, there are millions of abuse victims alive in this world, who have to deal with (mostly) men who think they can prey on women/children, so this kind of ignorance simply shouldn’t be accepted any longer. And I hope there will be much more media/press action on this subject.

  63. Mrs. Odie says:

    What to expect from a man who won an Oscar on Polanski’s back? No reason for him to focus on the suffering of young female children if it doesn’t help his career. May you get what you deserve, Brody.

  64. Tia says:

    Having learnt more about him since, while I do think Elsa is thirsty, I wonder how much of her publicity seeking he was pushing. He always got mentioned when they were together, his castle got shown off but he got to be a serious artiste concerned only with his art while she took all the flak.

  65. NeNe says:

    It’s official, in my opinion, Adrien Brody is a schmuck!!!

  66. Addison says:

    It seems a lot of people here also don’t want to focus on your career anymore.

  67. Redd says:

    “A mistake?” A MISTAKE????? A mistake is losing your keys or slamming your hand in the car door. Raping children is called a DECISION, you IMBECILE.
    I will never see another thing this idiot is in again. Money is CLEARLY all that matters to ANYONE who sticks up for that pc of GARBAGE – WOODY ALLEN.
    He’s married to his daughter for Christ’s sake! People – COME ON!