Kate Winslet on the allegations against Woody Allen: ‘It’s just a difficult discussion’

The 'In Style Awards 2017' in LA

What do we expect from Kate Winslet at this point? I’m really asking. Winslet wants to view herself as some kind of responsible adult, a brave truthteller in Hollywood, someone engaged in political and social issues. But the truth is, she’s just sort of a regular actress, lying her ass off about dumb sh-t, trying to make herself the biggest heroine or the biggest victim of every story she tells, or completely misjudging the national mood. Kate covers the latest issue of Variety to promote her new film, Wonder Wheel. Wonder Wheel was directed and written by Woody Allen. This is not the year to promote a Woody Allen film, let’s just say. Variety makes it clear that this interview was conducted before the Harvey Weinstein story blew up, a scandal in which Winslet told a story about refusing to thank Weinstein at the Oscars (even though she thanked him at the SAG Awards just a few weeks beforehand).

So what should Winslet do with this promotional tour? Pull a Fassbender and just jet off to Ibiza with Ned RockNRoll? No, she can’t. But she also can’t give the same kind of response that she gave back in September, in her New York Times interview:

NYT: Did the allegations against Woody Allen give you pause?
Of course one thinks about it. But at the same time, I didn’t know Woody and I don’t know anything about that family. As the actor in the film, you just have to step away and say, I don’t know anything, really, and whether any of it is true or false. Having thought it all through, you put it to one side and just work with the person. Woody Allen is an incredible director. So is Roman Polanski. I had an extraordinary working experience with both of those men, and that’s the truth.

[From a previous Celebitchy story]

So that’s what she said two months ago. What is she saying now? From Variety:

Variety: There’s been a discussion about actors in Woody Allen’s movies as a result of the allegations against him. Did that factor in your decision to star in his new film?
Um. [Winslet narrates her own silence.] “She pauses.” It’s just a difficult discussion. I’d rather respectfully not enter it today.

Variety: There was criticism on social media of an interview you gave to The New York Times, where you said Allen provided “an extraordinary working experience.”
I don’t read how people respond to things. We’re always as actors going to say the wrong thing. I think it’s better to respectfully step away from the discussion.

[From Variety]

To be clear, this is her version of being “smart” – she doesn’t want to give anyone a juicy quote that will make people yell at her. OF COURSE she doesn’t “read how people respond to things.” That’s why she’s being so f–king cautious about it. And to be clear, it’s not like she refuses to talk about Woody Allen at all – she praises him throughout this Variety interview, she humblebrags about how she’s so brave and fearless when he criticized her for being “too actressy,” brags about Woody calling her personally to offer her the role, and talks about how her late mother was “so proud” that she (Kate) was working with Woody. She only wants to “step away from the discussion” when the conversation is critical of her actions and choices. Man, this is going to be a fun promotional tour.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Variety.

Related stories

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

176 Responses to “Kate Winslet on the allegations against Woody Allen: ‘It’s just a difficult discussion’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. QueenB says:

    F*ck Kate Winslet.

    On another note she must constantly think: God dammit, why did Cate Blanchett get away with it???

    • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

      Lmao! I read that saying the same damn thing QB… F@&k Kate Winslet.

    • SK says:

      well, to be fair, Dylan wrote her op-ed after Cate already filmed that film and was in the midst of promoting it. I think people gave her somewhat of a pass because of that.

      • QueenB says:

        I know but it still must get to her to see Blanchett win an Oscar while she is grilled about it.

      • Little Jo says:

        It may have been before Dylan publicly shared her truth but it was still after he married his own step daughter for crying out loud! The Soon Yi situation should have been enough reason to black ball this creep. Marrying her may have been legal but it most certainly was immoral and repulsive.

      • Brandi says:

        Honestly, Cate Blanchett doesn’t deserve a pass or any fairness. She named her kid after Roman Polanski! And there’s no way she doesn’t know about Polanksi’s history as a convicted child rapist…

      • msd says:

        Oh ffs, Cate Blanchett clearly didn’t name her son after Roman Polanski. Watch the interview.

        I side eye people working with him after Blue Jasmine because that’s when Dylan’s op ed came out but it irritates me that women get so much more crap than men do for it. The worst thing is, it’s women criticising other women while giving men a free pass.

      • Brandi says:

        @MSD, uh, yes I did watch the interview, it was Jimmy Kimmel, and she says, ” and Roman … Polanski, but it’s also the French word for book…” so obviously Polanski was under consideration for name inspiration otherwise why mention it at all? Ffs yourself

    • Megan says:

      Did she think she was so special the press wouldn’t ask her why she chose to work with a child rapist?

      • homeslice says:

        Yes I think so. Kate gives off the vibe she is very much better than you. How dare us plebs question her, such a serious actress.

        I’m done with her. And everyone else who works with this slob. Oscars should be very uncomfortable this year…lol!

      • Agapanthus says:

        Yes, she does. She humblebrags (this is my word of the day, thanks to Kaiser) that she is ‘down with the ordinary folk’ but really she contradicts herself all the time and is rather precious.

    • courtney says:

      F Her indeed. she is the epitome of hypocritical hollywood condemning only when convenient at no risk to her career, which she so obviously holds above her conscience. she is garbage. nothing she says now can make up for her true feelings- she didn’t give a shit about the abuse only for her career. gross gross gross.

      • Kit says:

        Such a hypocrite.
        Because sexual abuse of Hollywood stars deserves forceful condemnation, but sexual abuse of a 7 year old is too difficult to form an opinion?

  2. Sparkly says:

    I’m glad we’re finally starting to see more criticism of predators and those who work with them. There’s no graceful way to say, “Oh, I just don’t care about the victimization of others.”

    • LaraK says:

      Yeah but half the women in Hollywood happily work with Polanski and Allen. It’s gross.
      I have only ever seen one Allen movie, back in college before I read about him and his molesting ways. Frankly I don’t see the appeal.
      But even the biggest genius would lose appeal if he was a monster. And I’ve lost respect for countless actresses because they excuse child rapists – Winslet, blanchett, Keaton, Emma stone etc. All glorifying a rapist.

      • Imqrious2 says:

        AND countless ACTORS. THEY shouldn’t get a pass!

      • Crowdhood says:

        I don’t know if anybody here listens to the bodega boys podcast/watches Desus and Mero but they address Woody Allen in a pretty hilarious and spot on way. Like their disbelief at the fact that he married his daughter is palpable and it made me realize just how f*cked up society’s acceptance of certain men has been.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No one should get a pass. Not one. I heard that this might blow up too because again Hollywood is hiding a known fact. Before Dylan it was sketchy, but after the expose, all the rumors could not be denied.
        There are stories that no one would let him be alone with their kids going back to the 70s. Blow the lid off and tell that perv to eff off and take those poor daughters away from him.

    • Midigo says:

      I agree. Because, you know, my perception is that many actresses consider themselves “tough” and “Smart” and “reliable” because they can live and prosper in that disgusting environment without a minor hesitation or disconfort JLaw is another one that comes to my mind, a young woman who accepts to work multiple times with David O Russel not to mention the guy the shares her bed with.

    • Serene Wolf says:

      Funny, I expressed similar angry feelings toward Blake Lively feining cluelessness re Weinstein and my post was deleted. In short, I have no tolerance toward women who don’t care about other women. It is odd.

      • JG says:

        I have posted this before. I think the moderator has to approve of the content of your post before posting it. So it probably didn’t pass muster, as many of mine don’t.

      • HeidiM says:

        It happened when I asked why the Brad Pitt/Weinstein story was pulled. I guess they are answerable to someone on the content.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Some people flag a lot of posts they don’t like, so it isn’t always the moderator though they get blamed for it unfairly. I don’t flag posts except for spam. Plus it was early in the scandal, and a lot of posters were struggling with the whole thing.

      • Bejkie says:

        And Kristen Stewart, for the same movie, after Dylans open ed came out. She feigned ignorance and deference to her male Co stars opinion on the matter. But last week she was proclaimed some kind of hero for speaking out in defense of makeup artists etc..

      • Lynnie says:

        This flagging the comments is new to me although I shouldn’t be surprised. To those that do it grow up smh. That being said I think it’s half and half. There are definitely comments the moderators make disappear sometimes which is a shame.

      • Lady D says:

        Sometimes comments just disappear, despite their benign content. The bottom of this page explains how you can retrieve comments that might have been lost.

    • FLORC says:

      She might care. What the take away is, is simple. Kate Winslet cares more about her professional relationships and career than the victimization of others. That’s not happening in her bubble. And that’s what matters.

    • Maren says:

      In this country, at least, what do we expect from an actor/actress? We have Senators who are afraid to speak up against a sex offender fake president, and we don’t stand outside their houses and scream at them every day, and we expect actresses to be the voice of conscience?? Not happening. They all gave it a pass, every single Oscar winning actress of the last dozen years. Am I wrong? Who spoke up years ago, when those rumors of Weinstein came out? They all knew. All of them.
      And the GOP lawmakers all give Trump a pass. White women mostly gave him a pass. Do we really think anyone cares?? Really?? Women are “sacred,” we are to be put in a shelf, and used at men’s discretion.
      I am really angry about all of this right now. I have always considered myself a feminist and never felt I had to really scream that, but now…I am not tolerating any sexist crap coming from the men around me anymore.

  3. Pedro45 says:

    Hey Kate, you know what else is a “difficult discussion”? Being a survivor of incest and rape. Thanks for nothing.

    I agree with Woody on one thing, you ARE too actressy.

    • kaiko says:

      Yep, the old pervo was at least right about that! She is a put on priss, on screen and off.

      • Totally old says:

        And her performance in wonder wheel is terrible imo. She over acts in every scene. I was at NYFF on the night WW premiered and was aghast at the love and adulation Woody Allen received after the movie. He got a standing ovation! One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen – happy the tickets were free. This was the 2nd WA movie I’ve seen, the other was Hannah and Her Sisters….will also be the last.
        On another note, why is there nothing said about Justin Timberlake? Shouldn’t he and Belushi be asked the same questions as the female actresses? Just a thought.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      I agree! She was SO over the top in that dreadfully overrated Mildred Pierce thing. Jaysus, she got so much praise for it and I could barely sit thru her actressy turns and had to stop watching. I think she fancies herself a *REAL* Hollywood actress of the old school. You can SEE her acting, and instead of Winslet disappearing into the character, the character disappears into her. Yet she gets so much credit all the time.

      If you can SEE someone acting, it’s not acting. It’s posing.

  4. minx says:

    Sigh, I used to be such a fan. Now I can’t even look at her.

    • Snazzy says:

      Me too. I actually feel the same way about Cate Blanchett. I used to love her so much. But now I am just so utterly disappointed by the two of them…

      • Lucy2 says:

        Same here. I think both are such talented actresses and I love their work, but both are disappointing on a personal level. Kate more so because she chose to work with WA after everything was brought up again a few years ago.

    • AbbyRose says:

      I know, right? She was one of my favorite actresses of the 90s and early 2000s but she has become such a disappointment. I think she’s gone Hollywood in the worst way and has become so ambitious and ego driven. She obviously doesn’t give a rats ass about working with sexual predators if it gets her an Oscar.

    • YeahRight says:

      This X 10000. My yearly viewing of The Holiday will not be as fun

    • ell says:

      same. one of my fav films ever is heavenly creatures and when i was a kid i used to love her so much. such a disappointment.

    • Redgrl says:

      @minx – me too….

    • Handwoven says:

      Sense and Sensibility was on TV over the weekend and my goodness, her original face! I admired her so much when Titanic came out for being a more “normal” body type, knowing she was getting a lot of sh*t for it.
      But between the lies, more lies, endless lies, supporting paedophiles and abusers, and general bullsh*t coming from her, I just can’t.

      Other takeaway from rewatching the film: damn, Emma Thompson is amazing and DAMN, I miss you Alan Rickman.

      • minx says:

        Oh, Sense and Sensibility is one of my all time favorite movies. I love that Greg Wise and Emma Thompson ended up together in real life. And Alan Rickman was so brooding and wonderful as Col. Brandon.

      • Indiana Joanna says:

        I love Alan Rickman. He and Emma were so great in films they did together.

        I miss him, too.

      • Liquorice says:

        She peaked in S&S. She acted really well in that, really sensitive and touching, and avoided the overacting that’s just about everywhere else (as someone upthread pointed out). Out-acted by her teen costar in The Reader, which I believe she what she won her Oscar for.

  5. Agent Fang says:

    I don’t know why established actors put so much stock in being in Woody Allen movies. The movies aren’t that good or commercially successful. And even if they were he’s a creep.

    • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

      His movies are akin to Indie music, poetry readings, art gallery events, specialty coffeehouses, microbreweries and wine tastings, etc. I can almost hear the ‘intellectuals’ discuss the production nuances juxtaposed with narrative particulars, how his understated genius is in the spaces between, blah blah blah. You know the type lol.

      • shelly says:

        Lol Mabs. I always found his films overrated not that I’ve actually watched one in ages, as his dubious attitude towards his Daughter and step Daughter put me right off him.
        As for Winslet I’ve always loathed her for some reason, and refuse to watch anything with her in it too.
        But lets face it, if you are in the acting profession chances are you’re a ruthless, insincere, attention seeking nightmare, imo. I would imagine there a very few actors who are well rounded decent people, if they were they wouldn’t be in show biz.

      • Megan says:

        Allen is a prolific filmmaker so some of his movies are brilliant, some are duds. Admittedly, I have not seen one of his movies in years, but you don’t have to be an “intellecutal” to recogize good writing that revolves around interesting characters, good acting, and good cinematography.

      • Kitten says:

        Nah don’t bring microbreweries into this.
        You can bash the elitism surrounding wine-drinking all you want though.

      • Monica says:

        Oh yeah the ‘liberal elite’ this comment sounds like a pressed parody of what republicans think of people who like to go to movies.

      • dumbledork says:

        Spot on! And they always carry the Eau de Douchebag scent too.

      • Erinn says:

        Leave my music and my beer outta this, lady!

        I do know what you mean, though. I don’t listen to the really obscure experimental indie stuff because I just can’t. I’m all for more raw talent type indie though.

        I always considered Woody Allen films to be more directed to an older crowd with more money than brains though – the snobby wine swirling (I love wine, I’m not against wine!), “mmm yes, my child got into 2 ivy league schools!” “oh, well my daughter got accepted to THREE!” types.

      • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

        Don’t get me wrong… I love Indie. I love wine. I love art, coffee and movies. I don’t, however, speak elite-ese, and my jaw doesn’t tense when I opine haha.

      • Agent Fang says:

        @Mabs. 😂

    • QueenB says:

      No they are not but they often get Oscar attention.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      They consider themselves artistes so one must work with the genius that is Woody Allen, of course. Thing is, that used to work. His films used to look great one actors’ resumes. But I think that will change. There are more than enough young directors who are far better than he is, who provide that “artiste” credibility sh*t and didn’t marry their daughter (just to mention the most obvious issue). At this point, he is not providing anything to actors but they haven’t realized it yet.

      And Kate Winslet can go f*ck off. Seriously. You put your name to the film, you work with him, that means you support him. And that support from Hollywood has meant that this creepy creepy little man got away with everything. Disgusting.

    • Millenial says:

      I don’t get it either — how does this man church out a film every year or two? And why is everyone falling over themselves to get into them?

      • msd says:

        Woody is responsible for more acting Oscar nominations for women than any other writer-director in history, that’s why actors work with him.

    • magnoliarose says:

      His prooduction costs are very low and actors don’t get their normal fees so there is always a profit.

    • Miss Jupitero says:

      I have heard it is because Allen doesn’t work anyone especially hard, and the day always wraps up before 6pm because he wants to go home and watch whatever game is on. Big paycheck, light workday. Liam Neeson commented on this.

  6. Indiana Joanna says:

    Diane Keaton, one of my favorite actresses, also is a Woody apologist. I just don’t feel like being hypercritical of actresses who work with Woody at this time because you know that Jim Belushi, a hasbeen actor, is also indifferent to Woody’s past in order to work for him.

    Maybe it’s my exhaustion and heartbreak caused by everything going on with drump and Weinstein, but I think I’ll stop short of accusing Winslet of condoning Allen’s sanctimony while he has committed crimes against against young women. It’s Allen who will get my scorn and whose movies I haven’t watched in decades.

    • Ponytail says:

      But Roman Polanski ? Kate Winslet knows that he admitted to raping a 13 year old, has never done the time he was supposed to, and yet still agreed to work with him. That film put me off a number of actors, whereas Woody Allen is a slightly different case – I still loathe him and won’t see his films, but I can see how people can turn a blind eye to his actions.

      • Indiana Joanna says:

        Whatever, blame Kate. To me there are much worse crimes happening now than an actress defending her hideous directors. I’ve never seen any of her films so maybe that’s why I don’t care about her ( and you can lump a lot of other actors together with her regarding her defensiveness all in the name of getting work).

      • milla says:

        But its her job…and Allen and Polanski are big names. Its a no win situation for many actors.

        Most directors have shady past, i am guessing thats a HW norm. Its not like she sips tea with them or go shopping. She’s doing her job. And she is among many of both actors and actresses who work with them.

        I get why people are pissed. But really, can an actress aford to say NO to Allen or Polanski?

      • Valois says:

        Of course they can afford to say no. Saying no would mean giving an excuse like saying you’re involved in other projects or so.
        And I’m pretty sure there are actresses that said no to Allen. Isn’t there a rumour that brie Larson did exactly that?
        Winslet is one of the most sought-after actresses of her generation, she’s won an Oscar. She has a choice.

      • lucy2 says:

        Sure they can milla. There are lots who haven’t worked with either who have great careers.
        Those who can afford to say no, who will certainly get other opportunities and who aren’t struggling to pay their bills and feed their families, they should say no. Men and women.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They can say No. I don’t believe in not challenging a woman or a man’s choice in working with these rapists. Neither director makes blockbuster films. She is famous enough that she could have skipped him easily.

      • Kitten says:

        Jim Belushi also worked with Polanski.

        I’m *somewhat* with you, Indiana Joanna. I’m conflicted. I find these threads really tiresome at times.
        And while I wouldn’t watch an Allen movie knowing what I know about him, I just can’t be arsed to chastise/shame every actor who choses to work with a scumbag. In my view, actors are artists and historically, artists have never been particularly high-minded or principled people.
        That being said, if people want to call actors out, I’m not trying to stop them and I support anyone’s choice to boycott.


      • Milla says:

        In a perfect world they would be locked up. Allen didn’t even get a trial.

        My point was that she cannot change that. So, wheater she works or doesn’t work with them, it changes nothing. They are adored among highest circles. Police cannot touch them. If she says no, some other actress will replace her and that’s it. It still can damage a career cos, as you know, all other big directors are supporting them.

        Why should she do what’s clearly a case for the authorizes?

      • magnoliarose says:

        Woody Allen is not Kate’s fault nor is she to blame. But there is nothing wrong with asking in this climate. I would think the actors would expect it in this climate. It is better to have an answer or avoid press for a little while.

    • Mina says:

      Diane Keaton is more than a Woody apologist, she dated him and has been his friend for ages. I can sort of understand her position, though. Assuming she really doesn’t know anything about his tendencies aside from what’s reported, she chooses to go but what she knows, and she knows Woody as a good person that wouldn’t do the things he’s accused of. It’s easier to believe a victim when she’s talking about someone you don’t know that when it’s someone close to you. Are we all willing to immediately believe that our dad / brother / best friend / husband has done something of the sort if we’ve seen no indication of it? (I’m giving her a huge benefit of the doubt here, of course).

      As for Kate Winslet, I’m not saying I agree with her, but she’s clearly one of those that completely separates the person from the artist. I believe she doesn’t think about what those people have done in their personal lives, and just focus on the work they are doing. This is a woman who had to endure James Cameron being horrible to her on set, and now will work with him again. I also think she’s not used to being questioned over her personal choices so doesn’t really know how to respond when that comes up.

      • StumpyCorgi says:

        Previously, I never had strong feelings about Diane Keaton as an actress, but I always thought it was creepy that she’s always been such a champion for Woody Allen. I can understand that it would be hard to believe that someone you love committed repulsive crimes. But after years and years, more and more evidence, I don’t feel that’s enough to keep having blind faith in anyone, even a family member. What’s worse is that by continuing to defend him, she indirectly makes it easier for him to keep abusing other people, including children. She is a powerful “reference” for him. Many probably see her as a highly respected actress and a trustworthy person. If Diane Keaton says Woody is innocent, surely he must be! At this point loyalty to him is far more important to her than supporting or protecting his victims. That is unforgivable.
        Plus, and this is a mini rant that sort of relates, I recently saw that godawful mess, “Something’s Gotta Give,” which to me is one of the most blatantly misogynistic films of modern times, made even more disgusting because many women see it as romantic. Ugh, that scene when she’s wailing into a typewriter for 100 years or so has never ceased to haunt me.
        Diane, if you have nothing good to say, if you want to keep blindly championing a known child molester, if you think portraying a professional woman means wailing like banshee on the moors while working, making us all look like fucking idiots, well… you suck, and please, STFU.

  7. ArchieGoodwin says:

    Her, and Rose McGowan. Calling a convicted pedophile “kind and gentle”.

    “extraordinary”, is he? That’s just so fucking pathetic, I can’t even.

    The thing is, HW will get away with it. He’ll be back, making movies, just like WA, RP, and VS. And countless others.

    So thanks, Kate, for contributing to the abuse of others.

    • Alissa says:

      Uhm…you know he’s not a convicted pedophile, right? He was accused, not convicted.

      • ArchieGoodwin says:

        Google Rose McGowan and Victor Salva.

        Sorry it wasnt more clear. I was quoting Rose.

      • magnoliarose says:

        There are records from the therapist and court documents. Harvey W isn’t convicted either. If someone wants to work with him, then they make that choice, but it doesn’t serve to make Woody Allen look better to do that.

  8. sun says:

    she HAD to know that these questions would come up. and this is her best answer?

    • Snazzy says:

      Right? These people either have terrible publicists or are so obnoxious they don’t listen to their publicists (I assume the latter)

    • Wren33 says:

      I know! Especially given everything that has come out she could probably say, “Everyone in the industry is flawed to some extent and I don’t want to be responsible for personally investigating and deciding the truth of every allegation against my future coworkers and bosses. I am here to do a job, not endorse anyone’s private life.” I mean, it would be BS but slightly more sympathetic.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      But what else could she say, really? There is no good answer because the question itself already puts you in a position where you have to defend something that’s indefensible. The only truthful stratement any of these people could make is “I don’t care. I put my career first.” There is absolutely nothing else. You either work with him and admit you don’t care (or don’t believe) or you make the decision to not be in a Woody Allen film. Which is no loss, really.

    • Reef says:

      What is the right answer here? She filmed the movie. It sounds like she really likes Allen, as most of the actresses that work with him do. What if she may believe his and the other Farrow son’s version, that Dylan was brainwashed by Mia. In that case, what can she possibly say that would smooth this over?

      • Faye says:

        Great comment, Reef. Kate isn’t wrong here. It IS a difficult discussion. The case itself isn’t black or white. Dylan says she was molested, and I believe her. Do I think it was Woody or her weir perverted Uncle who went to prison for child rape? I don’t know. The Soon-Yi thing is more complicated than people realize, and also creepy. Mia has never been a source of stability for these kids. The entire case is absolutely tragic.

        While I believe Dylan and were I in the shoes of an actress, would never work with Woody, I understand why others have their differing opinions. Do we convict people on the basis of no evidence? What does that say about our justice system? About us?

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Faye, that’s not the point. He married his daughter and I’d love to hear what is so complicated about that. Or the fact that he took nude photos of her when she was a teenager. I don’t know what insights you have that we don’t but for me, that’s enough. I believe Dylan but even if I didn’t, the Soon-Yi thing is enough. To me, that’s not a difficult discussion at all but hey, I guess some people need more.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        I think that might be somewhat true of people who work with Allen. They’ve bought into the “Mia is crazy and manipulative, and messed with Dylan’s mind to make her think Woody Allen molested her, because Mia is bitter and out for revenge. He was not convicted!” theory (That combined with some problematic “Besides, he’s been nothing but a nice guy around me, so all that other stuff must be tabloid fodder” reasoning). But some of these people are also more than happy to work with and praise Roman Polanski. Can’t pretend what he did is ‘tabloid fodder’.

      • jenna says:

        I hate to defend Woody Allen, because he’s gross, but he didn’t marry his daughter. People keep saying that and it’s literally not true.

        He married his ex-girlfriend’s adopted daughter, who she adopted with Andre Previn. Woody never shared a house with her, or acted in any way like a father figure.

        Yes, it’s still gross, but not quite as gross as Woody Allen adopting a girl and then marrying her, which is what I feel some people believe.

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is semantics because she is the sister of HIS children and he was the male figure in her life for a very long time. Even if you said he was a long-term bf, it is still gross, and he lived close.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @jenna, you can be someone’s parent without being related by blood. Otherwise you told every adoptive parent that they don’t really count. That’s just not fair and it’s not true either. He was, for all intents and purposes, her father.

      • Rose says:

        @Reef and Faye

        She praised Roman Polanskfi too please explain that.

    • Katie says:

      I thought the phrase that she “narrates her own silence” was particularly bitchy. Isn’t that just a pause for thought? It’s clear that the reporter was determined to make a story out of whatever she did.

      Kate has absolutely no right answer here. She says “you’re right I made a mistake” – instant headline. She says “professions investigated and decided that he wasn’t guilty” – instant headline + vilification. She says “no one is perfect and I just wanted to work with a great director and get a juicy part” (pretty much the truth) — instant vilification.

  9. LuckyZeGrand says:

    Liar,liar pants not on fire b/c apparently can get away with saying no comment when asked about a freakin’ child predator.

  10. Maya says:

    Well 2017 is interesting and depressing so far – so many people from Hollywood have showed their true colours.

    So many people I had to put on my “no watch list” for various reasons.

    Thankfully, my favs such as Daniel Day Lewis, Denzel Washington, Angelina Jolie, Jamie Fox, Marion Cotillard etc haven’t done anything to make me put them on that list.

    • Mia4s says:

      Sigh…I could take down at least two of the people on your “favs” list but I won’t. I’m feeling nice today. Just watch what you want to watch. Have you watched a Hollywood movie in the last…well…ever? Then congratulations, you’ve supported someone or something awful. Don’t get too stressed about it; they’re all a mess.

  11. Really? says:

    First she wouldn’t talk about the controversy of actresses not getting paid nearly half as much as actors for similar roles saying it was “difficult ” to discuss. Now this issue with Woody Allen is also “difficult”. So basically she is afraid to express her point of view for fear for being ostracized by white Hollywood.

    She’s becoming another Matt Damon for me. Used to like her, now I can’t stand her.

    • Katie says:

      I think the real problem is simply that she has no point of view. She’s just not a very intelligent or thoughtful person.

      • roses says:

        Or she just doesn’t care and is only concerned about herself.

      • Squiggisbig says:

        Her point of view is that if it benefits her she doesn’t give a shit about right or wrong.

        She only respectfully declines to talk about things when complicity personally benefits her. Things she has talked about for seemingly no reason: 1. Her fake childbirth story 2. Her incontinence.

        She’s playing dumb because that’s easier than saying she just does not give a crap.

      • Indiana Joanna says:

        I think not being very intelligent is true of so many actors. And because we see them in the media we think we know them. We don’t. When they do show their true colors, we often are disappointed because we allowed ourselves to be deluded by the glitz, their fashion and the magazine editors whose job it is to project these people as better versions of ourselves. They just aren’t.

  12. Sixer says:

    Privileged woman who was – and is – happy to throw all other women under the bus. Simple.

    Kate: we see you.

    • SlimJim says:

      Thank you for mentioning this.

      Winslet can’t be a sister friend to other actresses because she has to be entirely self-serving to get what she wants. It’s the way that system has always been rigged. When you are extremely ambitious as an actress, for instance, there’s a whole lot of mental gymnastics you have to execute in order to justify some bad behavior, either yours or others, to get to the most desirable prestige projects.

      Roman Polanski is an unrepentant, high level predator who never dealt with his childhood trauma and he acts as unstoppable violent chaos in the lives of innocent young people, taking from them what was taken from him. He needs to get help or be removed permanently from interacting with young people (especially young women). Nobody should ever be an apologist for this devil; don’t care how great “Chinatown” was.

      We cannot separate the artist from their art if innocent people are constantly getting hurt. Time to try out new artists. (Hollywood has always been way too incestuous, anyway.)

      People always have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us from being treated as prey. The innocent and vulnerable must to be protected across all cultural spheres, or we don’t have a society.

      And if sheer ambition (looking at you, Ms. Winslet) gets to that point that we are making excuses for the monsters walking among us, such as Polanski and Allen and Weinstein, it will reach a critical point (and it has) where high art will not be attained, anyway. God-given talent melded with the professional work ethic that give us art we love through the ages, are sacrificed for the perversions and exploitation and abuses of the power hungry, with the help of ambitious co-conspirators.

    • Lola says:

      But you support Grace Jones who has also been abusive? I don’t understand the cognitive dissonance going on here,

  13. detritus says:

    Am I reading correctly that she narrates her own pause? She says out loud ‘she pauses’ . Good grief.

    And honey, miss winslet, ma’am, we’re here because people like you have been refusing to have ‘difficult discussions’. You’re part of the problem.

    • Sixer says:

      YES! She really, really did that. Or at least, that’s how I read it.

      She said…


      Then she said…

      “She pauses” while doing air quotes with her hands.

      I think that’s what we’re intended to read it as. Quite incredible. She’s Walter Mittying her own interview.

      • amin says:

        I was trying to work out what was going on with that “narrates her own silence”. English isn’t my first language so I thought it was one of those things that made sense in the writer’s native tongue or a poetic idiom etc, because I read it as you did and could not fathom that that was the correct implication.

      • Sixer says:

        I can’t see any other interpretation. The woman is completely oblivious, isn’t she?

      • detritus says:

        Ok, now that I’m sure this is the case, I’m dying. “she dies”
        I’d start narrating my day like this, but I don’t think anyone else would get it.

      • Sixer says:

        Sixer concurs. Sixer would do the spitting on the keyboard thing but has failed to put on her kettle so has no drink with which to do it.

        Sixer ponders whether all Celebitchy posters should restrict themselves to third person commenting today, in honour of Ms Winslet.

        *narrated with arms waving airily*

      • Spring says:

        LOL, the legendary Kate Winslet, above it all.

        Me: “She eyerolls herself right off the chair.”

      • Spring says:

        I forgot that she lied about her C-section. “I said that I had a natural birth because I was so completely traumatised by the fact that I hadn’t given birth [vaginally].”

        “I was so completely traumatized by … birth” = “I am so completely self-absorbed.”

      • SlimJim says:

        I remember when Winslet got an Oscar, she did this dramatic hyperventilating at the podium and then she pretentiously directed herself out loud, drawing her hands in the air and reminding herself to: “Gather.” It was so insufferably transparent in its spotlight hogging. And she wasn’t a decent enough actress to pull off her ‘surprise’ at winning.

    • Alissa says:

      Pretty sure her point was that she was pausing because she was considering her response, and recognized that the author would note “she pauses” in their write-up. She was just calling out the fact that they would note that she hesitated before answering. Why does everyone get so uptight on this comment section?

      • Spring says:

        A journalist friend who has interviewed plenty of notable (& sometimes pretentious) people & sat through plenty of long pauses says he’s never, ever had someone narrate themselves. He’s afraid he’ll burst out laughing if anyone ever does, though he’s way too professional to ever do so.

        Just because some of us are rolling our eyes at Winslet, especially in the context of other comments she’s made, doesn’t mean we’re uptight. In my case, it just means I strongly prefer people who haven’t repeatedly sounded full of themselves & that I sometimes enjoy calling out people who have.

  14. Katherine says:

    How hard can it be to say that it’s horrible if it’s true and condemn these things as we know they happen to too many in all corners of the world and support measures to stop that? Donate a bit of salary to relevant charities?

  15. Zapp Brannigan says:

    “I don’t care that children are abused by a sexual predator if it gets me an Oscar” There you are Kate, that is what you are trying to articulate in this “difficult discussion”.

  16. Katie says:

    If she’s got any sense at all she’ll take a big step back from awards campaigning now. Wonder Wheel is another one of Allen’s painfully mediocre offerings, not a Blue Jasmine, so she’s got no real chance at an Oscar and continuing to promote this film can only hurt her.

  17. Nicole says:

    And this is why I say some people are complicit. She was so AGAINST Weinstein last week but with Allen she doesn’t want to step into the conversation. It’s because she wants that Oscar nom. Not because she believes in ending any corrupt system Hollywood exists in. She full of it. Kate have several seats

  18. Mel says:

    Been canceled for a while.
    Also giving MAJOR side-eye to Cate Blanchett because she’s getting props for her speech the other day but she didn’t comment on it either during her Oscar campaign.
    On the plus side though, she’s learning from Matt Damon, it seems, and realized that sometimes you need to STFU!!!
    I also love that Ronan Farrow’s name is attached to the Weinstein scandal. It harder to step away from THIS conversation.
    I’m also having flashbacks to the Cannes Film Festival when Laurent Lafitte caught so much flack for making a joke about Allen/Polanski at the ceremony. He was only speaking the truth but somehow, everyone was shocked (yeah, right). How can we move forward if we cannot talk about it?
    People need major news outlet to give them to okay to feel outrage? Stupid fashion trends take, ALL THE TIME, but somehow, indignation and backbones are hard to grow…Smh…

    • kibbles says:

      I’m giving myself credit for listing the follow actors and actresses as cancelled in my book ever since the first day the Weinstein scandal broke out: Winslet, Streep, Lawrence, Lively, Clooney, Affleck, and Damon. All of their responses to the scandal seemed disingenuous from the very start. To this day I believe they either knew or were willfully ignorant to the abuse around them. And yes, as cool as she is, Cate Blanchett really does belong on the sh*t list for her continued love for Allen and Polanski.

    • Mala says:

      Laurent Lafitte said just after the joke that everyone misunderstood, he was criticizing “American Puritanism” and defending Polanski with this joke, and he wasn’t aware of Dylan Farrow’s story. (put rapists in jail = american puritanism, I guess …)

  19. stephka says:

    Oh, Kate. So disappointing.

  20. Kinta07 says:

    This is … interesting. I guess the difference is: HW went after „grown“ women while WA seems to have a thing for children. That makes both of them assholes but one of them seems to be less threatening to actresses that are over the age of 15. Maybe that is the reason why these ladies continue to work with one and condemn the other? Seriously asking.

  21. frisbee says:

    An ambitious driven women? No bad thing, an ambitious, driven women blinded by it to the point of ignoring those who don’t enjoy her privilege and suffer horrible experiences as a result? One of the causes of a deeply entrenched problem and all the more sickening when you factor in how she likes to present herself as a ‘fearless truth teller’. She really needs to just get out of the way of her own ginormous ego and STF up, she clearly has nothing useful to add to the debate.

  22. Nancy says:

    Well Rose in her wildest hopes of forever love couldn’t find a way to shift her body and allow Jack to live while her heart went on and on. Did I think she would close her eyes to incest? Did she think somehow WA taking nudes of his daughter and leaving them in position for Mia to find and destroy a family’s life is fine b/c she didn’t see it? Does she think oh Hell, Roman is a genius who cares if he raped a 13 year old girl, she was drunk. STOP THE MADNESS

  23. jammypants says:

    I’ve said it on another Kate discussion, but I’m seeing a pattern with actresses who support Allen and Polanski but not Weinstein. Despite being gross predators, the former two keep it professional at work. So their sex scandals appear “private” and “personal matters” to these actresses. For Weinstein, his sexual predatory, unprofessional behavior is at work, so they actually witness it, hence why they feel more comfort speaking out against him. I’m just assuming that’s why they have this weird cognitive dissonance.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Good theory. That, and the voices of child victims are discounted. If it’s hard for grown women to be taken seriously, it’s infinitely harder for children.

    • JG says:

      I disagree. I just think it is bc HW’s career is effectively over, so these actresses have nothing to lose by piling on the criticism. Whereas WA and RP might make another movie that they could potentially/hopefully get cast in, so no criticism will be spoken. I think you are giving them way too much credit for having a moral compass in this. They don’t.

  24. Chef Grace says:

    Wonder how Lord Dragonfly, Tom Hiddleston would reply on working with WA?
    Or does he get a pass?

    • Boston Green Eyes says:

      Does anyone even think about Hiddles anymore? He was on everyone’s mind a year or two back, but I think his sell-by-date already happened – and that was when he “dated” Miss Angst.

    • shelly says:

      Ditto Liev Schrieber, Colin Firth, Alison Pill, Marion Coitillard, Ewan Macgregor, Naomi Watts, Rachel Mcadams, Michael Sheen, and many many more.
      All prepared to worship at the alter of WA’s dubious genius.

  25. Rose says:

    Regardless of what Woody Allen is accused of, he hasn’t made a decent film in 20 years, why would any credible actor work with him on that score alone?! I’m constantly staggered by these actors clamouring to work with him when he makes such crap now. I’ll never understand it.

  26. SM says:

    “Winslet wants to view herself as some kind of responsible adult, a brave truthteller in Hollywood, someone engaged in political and social issue” this such an accurate assessment of her character. And this is why I actively hate her ass because she is not. And she goes for the same rationalization that Matty D gives: i haven’t seem anything so I know nothing”. Overall watching these people who want to think of themselves as liberals struggle to guess and understand what would be the most progressive and woke thing the people want to hear in light of HW scandal is unbelievebly frustrating because it just shows how many of them are clueless and that most of them just pretend to care about inclusivness, women’s rights and non discrimination. And it all helps the connservatives who call out the hollywood liberals for their hypocricy. This is why I am so mad with Meryl Streep who calls out the orange tyrant for being a bully (rightly so) and then eas fast to release her statement on HW basically saying: “color me shocked. Never saw any abuse happening here”

  27. DiligentDiva says:

    So sick of her. I’m so glad this movie didn’t get a red carpet. Can Hollywood just stop with Woody Allen and his shitty movies already?

  28. Artemis says:

    I remember it was said J-Law was more like the 2nd coming of Kate Winslet than Meryl Streep but J-Law has more guts than these two combined because she can mix the silly with trying to be political at times (that’s not to say she’s successful at it but she does speak up against the system/industry and can make a valid point that goes against her likability with men).

    Anyway, Winslet has been cancelled for me for a while. She cannot keep up with the uprise of calling out industry people because she doesn’t care so it’s even more obvious she ain’t shit.

    • Shijel says:

      I wouldn’t trot out J-Law as gutsy and outspoken against the industry, considering her statements on the Weinstein mess and how cavalier her attitude is towards directors who have, let’s not mince words, flat out abused her.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Jennifer’s statements weren’t bad in my opinion. She said that she didn’t know about his sex crimes- which is controversial because many people are on team “Every Single Person Must have Known about him sexually assaulting women”. She said that she didn’t experience that from him- which is where things took a darker turn, because Jennifer Lawrence was one of the women who ugly, (at least on the inside) complicit misogynists in ‘feminist’ clothing wanted, NEEDED to have been sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. Most importantly, her condemnation went to the abuser and her support went to the victims. Later on she shared her own story about exploitative and abusive behaviors in the industry.

  29. serena says:

    This is so frigging infuriating. ‘Difficult’ my ass, it’s just not convenient for you (and the thousand of actors and actresses willing to turn a blind eye).
    It’s gross and disgusting, they talk about abuse (looking at you Kate) and then they are all enabling him.

    • SM says:

      I guess in this case guttsy means willing to take the abuse and keep going as if all is good. A lot of people confuse being strong as in the ability to stend up for your self with the ability to nlt pay attention to the abuse normalizing it. And at times women feel that they do not have that choice which also is the real problem.

      • serena says:

        You are absolutely right, but most of the ‘famous’ names who work for Allen have means and choices. Alas, they still decide to ignore his shady af past just to be attached to one of his projects.

  30. Shijel says:

    To be honest at this point it’s time to accept that if you’re a player in the elite of any sort of industry – entertainment, tech, whatever, you have to be ruthless and morally flexible. People up there are so powerful and so hell-bent on protecting that power that if you’re encroaching that status, you’re goaded (or jump) in any kind of apologism or even depravity.

    Partly because ‘you just can’ and partly because it’s an initiation of sorts, the “you’re in the club now, and we’ve now got dirt on you so as long as you don’t blow the whistle, we’re all good, all chummy, and your little perversions get swept under the rug”.

    You cannot be good, kind and considerate to get to that kind of power, influence, the only way to there is on the backs of other people. For every genuinely good person in HW or any other elite of any industry there’s 100 people who are rotten in some way.

    • jmacky says:

      THIS. Power/institutions/elitism and control. Once you get to this level of the “top” and are allowed in by the gate keepers, you become one—consciously or subconsciously, tacitly or not. You contribute to the culture and behavior.

  31. PlayItAgain says:

    I’m not excusing Kate, but why do I keep seeing people tearing apart the women who star in Woody Allen films, but not the male actors? Why do they get a pass? Are only the actresses held to a higher standard? And if so, is that fair?

    • Shijel says:

      People do comment on men too. But yeah, with not as much vitriol I’ve noticed. I suppose it stems from “women should know better, women should speak up more to protect their own”, and all I get from this is “women should be responsible for the behaviour of men and policing them.”

      So now not only do many people think that it’s the woman’s fault, she should’ve known better, but it’s also become “it’s the woman’s fault, she should’ve stopped him”. And yet, even if a woman does a lot, she, in today’s climate, will always have far more to lose and in most cases will lose. You know, take down one arsehole, be branded as ‘difficult’ by the rest and get shunned.

      That said, openly speaking up to -defend- some sordid arsehole is still deplorable. Women do have their own agenda and are perfectly capable of being aggressively awful.

      Anyway, nothing new here, the world still hates women, sometimes women themselves hate women, and women are always held to a higher standard no matter what because it’s always a little bit shocking when bad behaviour comes from “one of your own”. Men’s crappy behaviour is just old news.

    • Boston Green Eyes says:

      Very true. I think it’s because it’s *mostly* men who commit the abuse so I think that we just automatically dismiss the men’s opinion in these matters.

      And of course, it’s always the women “who should have known better.” They should have known better not to have worn those clothes, they should have known better than to go to the hotel room, they should have known better than to have trusted that man with their child. And the list goes on and on and on.

      At no time do we sincerely hold the men accountable.

    • JG says:

      I am perfectly happy to boycott Justin Timberlake for everything (Woody, Janet). Oh right, I’ve been doing that since he first started.

    • Ruthie says:

      All. The. Time. It drives me crazy. If anything, men should get MORE flack than women do for choosing to work with scumballs. Their careers have much less of an expiration date than actresses that have to get the work in before they are put out to pasture.

    • buckley says:

      Also I haven’t seen Jodi Foster mentioned. She was in that Polanski movie too.

  32. Darla says:

    IMO we are witnessing a sea change and I am loving it! No, now is not the time to be promoting a Woody Allen movie. They are all going to be through the wringer, as they should be. As they always should have been.

    And I believe there will no longer be a line of a listers panting to get into an Allen film. I think he’s done.

  33. Paris says:

    WTF, Kate Winslet? WTF?

  34. Emilymoon says:

    I have been over Winslet for a while which makes me sad as I loved some of her earlier films, (Hideous Kinky!) but aside from her deliberate ignorance on this issue she also never stops talking about how it is a miracle an ‘ugly chubby duckling ‘ like her is a famous actress, she seems to paint herself as this outcast when in fact she is classically beautiful and models for major companies. I really dislike false modesty.

  35. Mina says:

    I’ve met countless of actors in my life, and I’m sorry to say this is how most of them think. I don’t know if it’s a mentality formed by their profession or what, but most of them believe in leaving aside personal judgements and just looking at the artist and not the man. Can’t say I agree with that, I find it very hard to separate things especially when there are crimes involved, but I assure you that most people in Hollywood think the same way she does. They won’t touch Weinstein now because he’s been universally condemned but they won’t stop working with Woody Allen because “nothing has been proven” and Polanski because he was “railroaded by justice”.

  36. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    Every. Single. Actor. And. Actress who hides from their complicity with Polanski, Allen and/or Weinstein is no different from every d-bag politician who doesn’t speak and act out about tRump.

    Money before morality. That’s where we are today, folks.

    • Kitten says:

      I get what you’re saying but I can’t really agree with it.

      Politicians have far, FAR more power to affect change than an actor. They have the ability to deny people their civil rights and we are quite literally seeing that happen here in the US.
      Their legislation affects EVERYONE.

      Honestly, the comparison irks me slightly because it downplays the power of politicians and undermines/minimizes the idea that politics MATTER, much more than which skeezy director some actress chooses to work with.

      Being complicit within the entertainment industry may be morally reprehensible, but being complicit within the political sphere could mean state-sanctioned murder–literally allowing American citizens to die, some of which could be your constituents-the very people who hired you in the first place.

      Finally, I have to say that I really WISH people cared as much about the voting history of our elected officials as much as they care about the personal history of actors/actresses.
      But hey, welcome to the United States, right?

  37. Happy21 says:

    I’ve always thought she came across like an entitled, privileged, ‘better than the rest’ a$$hole. This proves it.

  38. madonami says:

    i have ZERO fcking time for any of these folks, male or female, who are financially set for life and 1,000% set for life in a way that hardly anyone will ever be, giving stupid excuses or just being unwilling to even discuss, let alone do anything about this sht. There are a gazillion women who put up with sht OR THEY CAN’T PAY THE GD RENT.

    “We’re always as actors going to say the wrong thing.”

    Poor dear.

    Oh, DO fck off, Kate.

  39. Wickster says:

    Shame on her. And shame on anyone working with Woody Allen: They all know he is guilty of, at the very least, luring a vulnerable young girl with limited experience and severe psychological damage from a horrendous past into a sexual relationship, then marrying her to make it “okay”. Even if they do not believe he molested his 7 year old daughter ( I do believe her based on the testimony of the nanny; he was legally denied contact with her for a reason)– that they continue to work with him knowing this is appalling. Winslet, Jude Law, Timberlake, etc– have a CHOICE. They don’t need the money, or the cachet, of an Allen film. They are not desperate to make their next mortgage payment and thus have to justify their working for him. Not to mention that his movies are terrible: lazily written, unfunny, stale, basic cinematography. And the way he portrays women in his films is appalling. Unlike so many who thought Blue Jasmine was wonderful, I thought his continual display of women as stupid victims is reflective of his general misogyny. As for Polanski–to ignore his past, as if his drugging and rape of a girl was a mistake that can be rectified through time or talent, is disgusting.

  40. courtney says:

    I’m over the half hearted, self congratulatory movement in hollywood. the same people who fawn over roman polanski and woody allen give PR statements about weinstein. this is part of the problem. picking and choosing who to condemn based on what is convenient for you. stop patting yourselves on the back for doing the BARE MINIMUM at most! cate and kate are not role models here… ok? can we agree on that already? we dont need disingenuous hollywood actors to take the charge here. they are part of the problem. gross

  41. DIv says:

    Alright, Kate W, Cate B, and Colin F. have long been some of my favorite actors but I’ve come to accept that they are problematic for working with Allen and/or Polanski. I do believe that they deserve criticism, although I’m sure someone will accuse me of being a blind stan for my take.

    At the end of the day it’s not Kate Winslet that’s allowing Allen to continue working in Hollywood or even the talent agency that represents him…..it’s the producers and distributors. Amazon’s film division is what is allowing Woody to flourish, as SPC did with Blue Jasmine. I understand why CB focuses on Kate since this is a gossip site, but if Variety writers had real guts they’d hound Amazon executives for working with Allen. But they’re hesitant to p*ss off the true power players & they want to keep getting scoops for future Amazon projects, so they’ll focus on the female actresses who are sure to garner internet hits and bury their heads in the sand while declaring themselves “brave” for addressing the issue even if they aren’t getting at the root of the problem. And the cycle will continue, with Selena and Elle being the focus of the next outrage cycle (and that’s not to say they don’t deserve criticism) while the male actors get a pass and the Amazon executives keep funding and distributing Woody’s pics.

  42. Jenna says:

    Wouldn’t be a difficult discussion if it were your daughter Ms. Winslet.

    She is a bandwagon activist.

  43. Penelope says:

    Can’t stand her. And her plastic surgery is awful–she doesn’t even look like herself anymore. IIRC, she lied about that, too.

  44. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I just wanted to thank this website for reminding the public of who supports child rapists like Roman Polanski. I understand that gossip sites have to promote movies and stars, and that’s all part of the business. But I’m grateful that Celebitchy ALSO reminds us of the predators in Hollywood and their supporters. It really does affect what movies I am willing to pay money to see. So thank you.

  45. Margo S. says:

    They’re all idiots. You work with Woody, Polanski, you’re an idiot.

  46. hmmm says:

    It’s not a difficult decision- believe Dylan and Mia or the perv. She also knowingly worked with a convicted rapist. We know on which side her bread is slathered.

  47. Layla says:

    When are people going to realise that Hollywood is full of morally bankrupt individuals?
    If I found out that the person I would be working with had been accused paedophilia, I would most certainly not proceed.

  48. bikki says:

    Winslet thinks she can play both sides (praise the rapist as they give her work, and also be a champion woman who will not be ‘victimized’).
    She fails to understand that the viewer – at least, most female viewers – in this modern era will see right through her hypocrisy. Who knows what legacy she will leave for herself.
    It is really, really hard to ignore Woody Allen’s depravity. There’s a huge degree of acceptance of what he has done that you ultimately make known the moment you agree to work under him..

  49. Rose says:

    She say she doesn’t know the family or what when on and that she doesn’t know anything when it comes to Allen. Yet last week she spoke out against Harvey, she wasn’t a victim and wants their we he abused others yet she deemed him guilty funny how that works.

    Of course she had a great experience with Polanski and Allen their victims are children.

    She can’t dig her self out of the hole she has made with the Woodly, Polanski And Harvey situation so of course she going to go silent. We see you Kate .

  50. Sky says:

    I know this is going to seem harsh, but I wonder if Allen or P assaulted one of her kids will she be able to continue to work with them.  I’m sure if something happened to one of her kids, she would be raising hell.  She would be going after anyone who praised the person who hurt her child and  seeking support from everyone.

    I wonder in her eyes what makes other children expendable and what they went through something that she is able to turn a blind eye to. Dose she and others not have any empathy for the victims.