Gloria Allred slams Hilary Swank over Swank’s new film ‘Conviction’

wenn3047154

Since you enjoyed yesterday’s Hilary Swank fashion post so much, here’s another one – Hilary wore Herve Leger on Tuesday night, to yet another screening of her film, Conviction. Though I don’t really love the dress, I applaud Hilary for somehow making vertical horizontal stripes look interesting and cute and even thinning. Hilary has a fashion problem, though. Her face is so angular, and her body is so tight – if she wears something super-structured, she fails, but if she wears something too loose and flowy, she fails too, I think. Anyway, I don’t hate or love the dress. It’s just there.

Meanwhile, Hilary is making some big news with this film. She just got a gift from publicity heaven – she’s now on Gloria Allred’s sh-tlist. And Ted Casablanca is asking – hand to God – if Hilary is a “thoughtless hag”. I kid you not. Here’s what is going down:

Hilary Swank: two-time Oscar winner…and thoughtless hag? The actress’s reputation is under attack today by none other than Gloria Allred, who is shocked—shocked!—that Swank didn’t even touch base with one of the real-life inspirations for her upcoming film, Conviction.

So what exactly is Allred’s latest beef? Seems Allred’s panties are in a bunch because she believes the actress should have had the courtesy to ring up the family of Katharina Brow, whose grisly killing is at the center of Conviction.

“We don’t think the burden should be on the murder victim’s family members on how to get in touch with Hollywood upon reading the murder victim’s going to be in a film,” said Allred. “The film’s producers, including Ms. Swank [who's listed as an executive producer] have never bothered to contact this family in the 10 years this film was made.”

Allred made the comments at a press conference today, two days before the film hits theaters, flanked by Brow’s son and daughter.

“This family has gone through a lot of pain and there’s no reason to feel they should suffer more,” said Allred. “They’re not going to profit from this film. If we’re talking about a murder we need to reach out to murder victims’ families. As far as I’m concerned that should be the new principle in Hollywood.”

“My mother was not just a name and was not and is not a person who should be used as a line in the script or just a way to make a profit in the entertainment industry,” Melrose Brow added. “She was just a human being and a member of our family.”

Allred says she plans on sending a letter to Swank via her agent (“because that’s the only way we know how to contact her”) on behalf of Brow’s now grown-up children, Charlie and Melrose, demanding a face-to-face meeting.

“They need and deserve to receive answers to many questions they have,” said Allred, adding that she wants the family to get a private screening to avoid having to re-live the incident in a theater surrounded by the popcorn-munching masses.

Specifically, the family wants to know: if their mom’s murder be seen on screen; how will she be depicted (as “the loving mother and grandmother that she was?”) and whether the filmmakers will earmark any of the profits to find the real killer.

While the public has yet to see Conviction, there have been several advanced screenings, so perhaps we here at E! can try and help clear up at least one mystery for the family.

Conviction opens in Brow’s home and we see details of the crime scene, specifically shots of blood, but viewers don’t see the actual slaying. At that point, the movie flashes forward two years to Kenneth Waters (Sam Rockwell), the man wrongly accused of the murder. Swank plays his sister, Betty Anne Waters, who eventually gets a law degree and helps prove her sibling’s innocence.

It’s that story that’s the focus of the movie and not the Brows’ tribulations, though during the end credits, a title card notes that the real killer has yet to be found. So far, reps for Swank and Fox Searchlight, the studio distributing Conviction, have decided not to take Allred’s bait.

[From E! New]

I’m a big believer in “Son of Sam” laws, which are basically laws that ensure that violent criminals cannot in any way profit from their crimes. Like, someone convicted of murder can’t write a book from prison and have it published for profit. However, that doesn’t really seem like the case here – this film is about a man’s wrongful conviction of the murder, not about the murder victim. Maybe Hilary should have met with the victim’s family – but the man who sat in prison for a crime he didn’t commit is a victim too, Ms. Allred. Team Hilary on this one.

wenn2571864

wenn3047153

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

32 Responses to “Gloria Allred slams Hilary Swank over Swank’s new film ‘Conviction’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Diane says:

    I see both sides, but really NO ONE talked to the murder victims family in 10 YEARS? As much as you hear about all the “background” these stars do, that’s really hard to swallow.

  2. Heather says:

    AFAIK, there is no legal requirement to contact the victim in this case, so why the uproar? What exactly is Allred’s point? It must be a slow day for cast-off mistresses when Allred turns to “legislating” other sorts of behaviour…..

    • Troy Brow says:

      my great aunts case isn’t some damb freakin story book to toss around, just let her rest and let my family live in piece without a reminder of that day.

  3. S says:

    I could be completely wrong, and please let me know if I am, because I want to see her point, but this just seems like more fame grasping by Gloria Allred. In everything I’ve read about the movie and in the trailers, at no point does it even seem like it would be about the initial victim. It is purely about the man who was convicted, and his sisters fight to exonerate him. She did her GED, got her bachelor’s and then went to law school, all to keep fighting to prove him innocent. THAT is the story that is being told.

    I understand why the murdered woman’s family would have interest in this movie, but it’s not about their mother at all, she is sort of the pretense for it. And while her death is tragic, and it’s unfortunate that the wrong man was put away for almost 20 years, allowing the real culprit to get off scot-free, I think this case is more about them using the media to get attention out there. I certainly don’t see how this movie has a responsibility to them – especially if E!s description of her inclusion being accurate (ie. none – just the crime scene).

  4. Amy says:

    Don’t you mean horizontal stripes?

  5. Po says:

    Ok, I’m missing something here. Is Swank playing the victim or the sister? If she’s playing the sister and the person they are portraying in the movie is not the murderer why is Gloria Alred involved in this. I don’t get it. The guy sitting in jail and the sister are the focus of the movie, right? So what can Gloria Alred possibley get out of this?

  6. K says:

    That woman is a vulture, so it’s not surprising to see her acting like she has moral and ethical concerns.

    I agree with you Kaiser; the falsely accused is a victim as well. While I can understand the hurt and anger of the murder victim’s family at not being notified of their loved ones brutal slaying being made into an Oscar contender, I don’t think they went about expressing their rage in a healthy or productive way.

  7. Po says:

    Let me add, I don’t think that this is the families fault. They were probably upset because they didn’t know how much of the victim’s murder would be shown on screen. At that point it was up to the attorney to quietly contact the studio and ask the specifics of the script or find out the specifics from someone else, the same way we all here about these movies before they are made. This was not necessary, but then again what do you expect from Gloria.

  8. Johnny Depp's Girl says:

    Shut UP Allred. DAMN! That b***h totally gets on my nerves.

    If she wants a meeting, then meet with the REAL family that this movie is about not the ACTOR. This is so stupid. Gloria just likes to be in the news ALL THE TIME. I am so sick of hearing that woman’s name.

    Anywho, I like the dress.

  9. Westcoaster says:

    There must be plans for a lawsuit otherwise why would the family retain Gloria Allred? They could have hired any other lawyer. The only reason to contact her is to make the biggest possible splash in the media,since she likes to hog the spotlight.
    As poster Diane pointed out,it is rather difficult to believe that anyone connected with the movie did not contact the victim’s family during the course of making this film.

  10. Kaiser says:

    Yes, I meant horizontal stripes. Sorry, I’m an idiot.

  11. Samigirl says:

    @S-I am RIGHT there with you. I can’t stand Gloria Allred, as she does whatever she can to stay in the spotlight. SHE is a hag.

  12. Sassy says:

    If this movie is about the man who was wrongly convicted (and if they’re only briefly depicting the murder in order to show WHY he’s in prison) and his sister’s fight to prove his innocence, I’m unclear on why the murdered victim’s family would be so upset? Like already mentioned, the man wrongly convicted IS a victim and this is his story.

    Gloria A. is a pig and a famewhore and I’m pretty sure she’s barking up the wrong tree. AGAIN.

  13. Liana says:

    There’s no basis for a lawsuit here at all, so I really don’t know why Allred is involved, except to garner herself more publicity. The family is just going to end up looking bad, especially if they attempt to file a frivolous lawsuit.

  14. mln says:

    I sympathise with the family and their pain at never finding answers about their mothers’ death. But this story is about the other victim of the killer the person sent to jail for a crime he didn’t commit. Team Hilary all the way.

  15. devilgirl says:

    Swank is playing the sister of the man, wrongfully accused. It is his story, not the story of the victims.

    As usual, Allred is lurking around for some type of pay day.

  16. K says:

    @Po: A great point about the family and the responsibility of the attourney to ask the studio QUIETLY.

  17. jen says:

    What happened, Gloria? Did you run out of whores?

  18. Just a Poster says:

    Gather around my younger friends.. For I would like to tell you that once upon a time, long ago, Allred actually was a good lawyer and she actually made a difference in the World..

    But now sadly, the money has caught her eye and ate her soul, and now she hangs with the star f*ckers to obtain her fame.

  19. Tess says:

    Gloria give it a rest.

    She’s become national symbol of famewhoredom, a whirling dervish of rank and devious opportunism, spinning from one sleezy gig to the next.

  20. Stronzilla says:

    Actually, it’s kind of ironic that Allred would try and latch on to a project about a man falsely accused and convicted, no doubt by someone with her stellar legal prowess. Where did she go to law school? Sears or K-Mart. Sorry, that’s an insult. To Sears and K-Mart.

  21. original kate says:

    the family is obviously still in alot of pain, and who can blame them? the fact that their mother’s killer got away must keep them up at night, but maybe this movie will help find the real killer and justice can finally be served. what a terrible case for everyone involved.

    as for gloria, she should stick to what she does best – representing skanks.

  22. Feebee says:

    The story is about the wrongly accused man, not the murder victim. However the film-makers could have made contact with the Brow family as a courtesy. They owe the family nothing, the murder and details are of unfortunate public record. It’s always disappointing when people go the Allred route, it immediately discredits them and makes them look like they have ulterior motives.

  23. Stubbylove says:

    I agree with you all about Gloria Allred – she’s pretty hard to take. She’s a lawyer and they have HUGE egos that unfortunately need to be fed. I believe, though, that the family should have been notified about the film during the 10 YEARS of making it. The reason is not based on a “have to legally”, rather it’s simple human decency.

  24. angel says:

    Probably if Hilary had talked to these people they would have sued because they woudl have said they contributed to teh film. Really really awful that mom’s killer is not found, but to hire ambulance chaser Allred… well that is a horrible mistake, and no human decency is going to come out of that angle either.

  25. Heidi H. says:

    Agreed w Kaiser. Completely.

  26. elisa says:

    I’ve seen the movie in an advance screening. (there were a LOT of those here in LA area…more than I’ve seen for any movie before. confidence in their product, I guess?) the victim is barely in the movie. actually, she’s only mentioned by name (and I promptly forgot the name until now), no pictures, etc. The movie does open with some blood on objects, in a house, etc, but no body. and yes, there is a title card at the end saying the real murderer has never been found. if anything, the victim’s family should be grateful that such an old case is now going to get some side publicity, maybe now the victim’s killer WILL be found.

  27. onlyme says:

    I would think the family would want the publicity. Sounds like the movie was tastfully done. In the end, it may call attention to the case and hopefully be solved.

  28. Anti-icon says:

    I am in favor of victims rights. There is still a murder victim to consider in all this. Project Innocence highlights/advocates for those who have been abused by the criminal court system. Hillary Swank is making a movie of this—and OF COURSE the children of the murder victim should have been given, at the very least, a head’s up that this was happening. The children of the murder victim are still alive, still living the trauma of their mother’s UNSOLVED murder.

    DUH, Hillary Swank. Stop trying so hard for an Oscar and pull your head out.

  29. Jamie says:

    Heather, I completely agree with you. Allred is beyond insufferable at this point and a disgrace to the legal profession IMO. Guess no mistresses have come crying to her lately, so she needs something to do. Don’t worry, though. I’m sure she’ll be back on the ‘scorned mistress’ gravy train soon enough.

  30. My spouse and I have recently mounted aluminium windows and entrance doors in my new house. It is by far the best approach to take, not only do they look good but because I reside in a higher crime place I feel risk-free. They are the best for security. My family love the new set up.

  31. F*ckin? remarkable issues here. I?m very happy to see your article. Thanks a lot and i’m looking forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?