Armie Hammer slams the industry response to Nate Parker versus Casey Affleck

36cover_highres (1)

Armie Hammer is ridiculously good-looking, right? I used to think that his dorky personality took away from his beauty, but nowadays, I think his personality enhances it. I think that’s because I’m sort of charmed by the idea that a tall, traditionally handsome, privileged guy is actually kind of messy and strange and says sh-t that he shouldn’t. Armie is promoting Call Me By Your Name, which will likely garner him many nominations for Best Supporting Actor, and he might even win a few of those gongs. He covers the latest issue of The Hollywood Reporter, and he talks about his film, of course, but he also talks about what it was like to work on The Birth of a Nation, which got early Oscar buzz until Nate Parker’s rapist past came to the limelight. You can read the full article here. Some highlights:

His one-percenter background & childhood: “I definitely wasn’t like, ‘This is how everyone grows up.’ We got to live in amazing places. We had great things, toys, stuff like that. We would drive around in really nice cars — but at the same time, if we rolled down the window, my mom would be like, ‘You’re wasting air conditioning!’ ”

His childhood in the Cayman Islands:
“You can’t hide behind anonymity. You have to be nice to everybody, or else you get a reputation.” It was also where he first became acutely aware of his whiteness: “Everybody was multiracial. There was a lot of mixing. So I was always ‘the white boy.’ ”

On his viral Twitter spat with James Woods: Hammer wasn’t expecting his response to go viral; he was merely acting on impulse, irritated that Woods, who hadn’t even seen the film, “had no moral high ground to stand on and was cheapening what we did…We weren’t trying to make some salacious, predatory movie. The age of consent in Italy is 14. So, to get technical, it’s not illegal there. Whether I agree with that or not, that’s a whole ’nother Oprah, you know? Would it make me uncomfortable if I had a 17-year-old child dating someone in their mid-20s? Probably. But this isn’t a normal situation: The younger guy goes after the older guy. The dynamic is not older predator versus younger boy.”

On sexual abuse in Hollywood: “It’s been permissible for too long for people in positions of power to abuse, and for the powerless to be expected to just take it. The system seems to be shaken, and thank God.”

On the different responses to Nate Parker and Casey Affleck: The timing of the headlines “was orchestrated for sure. There was another person in the industry who had a competing film for the Academy Awards, who decided to release all of the phone records and information. I’ve been told who did it — by several people.” (Hammer refuses to say who he believes it is). He thinks the incident reveals a double standard. “Nate had the stuff in his past, which is heinous and tough to get beyond. I get that. But that was when he was 18 and now he’s in director jail. At the same time, the guy who went and won an Academy Award has three cases of sexual assault against him.”

Whether that’s a reference to Casey Affleck: “Yeah… And [Parker] had one incident — which was heinous and atrocious — but his entire life is affected in the worst possible way. And the other guy won the highest award you can get as an actor. It just doesn’t make sense, you know? Look, I’m not saying Nate should not have been in trouble. I’m saying that they got in different levels of trouble. And that’s the disparity. It’s like there are two standards for how to deal with someone who has this kind of issue in their past, you know?”

He laughed his ass off at the Oscar Best Picture debacle: “I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard. I literally stood up off my couch and applauded — in a schadenfreude way.”

He was just invited to join the Academy: “I always open my mouth too much, but f-ck it. I think I got accepted into the Academy largely because of the way the Birth of a Nation thing was handled.”

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

To be clear, I think Armie comes across like a rapist apologist just a tad in his defense of Nate Parker. On the other hand, he’s not wrong at all about the double-standard within the industry and the media for how Casey Affleck was handled and how Nate Parker was handled. Again, the Parker situation involved a criminal trial and the victim committed suicide. Casey Affleck was never criminally charged with anything, but he did settle out of court when the two women sued him. Nate Parker also completely and utterly bungled his response to the PR crisis, while Casey Affleck simply got all of his bros to stand up for him. There were other differences too, of course. Cough.

Embed from Getty Images

Cover courtesy of THR, additional photo courtesy of Getty.

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

198 Responses to “Armie Hammer slams the industry response to Nate Parker versus Casey Affleck”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. QueenB says:

    Hard to compare those two cases. Of course a black man is at disadvantage in Hollywood but what Nate Parker did was worse. And as you said he even made it worse with his PR strategy. I also dont care if this was leaked by a rival studio.

    But generally I am always thrilled to read the opinions of one-percenters. Seriously fame was the only privilege that was missing for him.
    He collected them all!

    • Thebees says:

      Sadly there are levels of creeps and violators which makes me feel sick thinking about it, but hollywood protects and favors certain men, mostly white ones. I heard about Parker did and his whole court case when he first started staring ik n movies. It does seem like there was a renewed campaign to destroy him when he started to gain praise for his movie. Why not lay him out when they fisrt found out. The thing about this for me is having a person who went through the system and was found not guilty but people still drag him 18 years after the fact ( maybe rightfully so), and having someone who has faced no music, winning awards being protected and people say … well he hasn’t been charged so……

      • V4Real says:

        @Thebees I agree with you and Arnie. I don’t think he comes across as a Nate apologist he’s just stating the truth, esp, the timing of it all.

      • LAK says:

        It wasn’t double standards. It was Nate Parker being completely unapologetic, and dismissive of his victim whilst positioning himself as the victim, and finally the ‘but i have daughters’ response to questions regarding his transgression.

        He bungled the response over several interviews conducted over weeks, even AFTER being informed of his victim’s suicide. Regardless of the legal outcome, he refused to acknowledge that he had done wrong. Couldn’t even stretch to the standard ‘i’m sorry you are offended, i’m off to rehab’ non-apology that these people give.

        Black writers and bloggers called him out and the best he could say was ‘toxic masculinity’ after several of them ranted at him publicly. He used the execrable Steve Harvey as part of his self-victimisation campaign.

        Nate Parker was poised to be celebrated as a cinderella story because of the work and effort he put into his film with full industry backing not to mention Hollywood using him as the poster child shield against the #oscarssowhite campaign, but his press after this became wider knowledge is how he killed his own career.

        Yes, double standards do exist, but let’s not give this POS person a pass because double standards. What he did back them was horror. Not just the incident, but the aftermath. On a personal level, unforgivable regardless of legal outcome.

        Put from a *devil’s advocate marketing standpoint decades later, his own hubris stoked the flames of his demise.

        *in the context of setting aside his heinous crime so the film can be sold to the public.

      • Bridget says:

        But I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that Parker’s crime should be set aside – in fact, the opposite – that Affleck should have been subject to greater scrutiny, especially in comparison to what happened to Parker. Affleck didn’t put his foot in his mouth because he was BARELY asked about the allegations. It’s easy to not bungle a response when you aren’t being asked for one.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Bridget
        Good point. Casey was protected by white A-listers and did not get dragged and asked the tough questions so he couldn’t get it wrong. The troubling thing is Casey did this recently, and the women are here to speak and yet nothing.

        My sympathy for Nate doesn’t exist.

      • LAK says:

        Nate Parker had full backing of the studio and studio publicists. Their decision to let him get infront of this story by explaining his truth was a sound one. The PR of the movie was based on his being the cinderella of the season. The feelgood success story that had the bonus result of Hollywood using him as their shield against #oscarssowhite campaign.

        He had 8months to prepare an answer. The studio arranged a sympathetic journalist to walk him throught it, and he bungled it.

        Then repeatedly bungle it in interview after interview for a fortnight. From a PR/ marketing point of view, It was horrific to follow in real time. Every day you woke up to a worse interview. You would think he had no studio backing or publicist. I remember wanting him to stop talking, stop giving interviews because he didn’t understand how badly he was coming across.

        And eventually the studio pulled him from the press campaign and started using the women instead, but it was too late. The damage was done.

    • SilverUnicorn says:

      @QueenB
      Exactly, re: Parker/Affleck situation.

      Also ‘age of consent’ is 14 in Italy but frequently it’s not frowned upon if both parties are teenagers (for driving licence age, electoral roll, etc. Age is 18).
      Someone in his 20ies or older dating a 14 year old could incur in some trouble, legally speaking, as in Italian law parents hold ‘parental responsibility’ over children until they reach the age of 18.

      So he’s talking out of his backside in many regards.

      Archived under ‘extremely hot, sexy and privileged but lacking full-grown brains’.

    • Raina says:

      You know what? For some reason I thought about this article today and something was bothering me. Just had a chance to relax and think about it.
      I think I know what it is: He seems righteously appropriate in his disdain for what Parker did. He seems to call Casey out because of how unfair it was that Nate Parker was called out more due to a double standard. Even though Parker’s crime was far worse, I agree that Casey had a ton more privilege due to nepotism and, let’s face it, color of skin. That’s the harsh reality.
      But, only now, did I figure out what was bugging me enough to formulate a sentence regarding it; Armie seemed sooo much more outraged about the inequality of punishment, the dent to a career, the fallout, ECT..
      But did you get the vibe he was genuinely outraged or empathic about what these women went through?? He did his lip service, his duty, played the good guy…
      But no. He felt nothing for them. He is caught up in the movie part. He wants to care. I just don’t think he truly does.
      Empathy is tricky.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Yes, LAK, I’m with you on this.

  2. Darla says:

    Yeah, not into this at ALL.

    Listen, Casey’s day is a comin, and my guess is it will arrive circa March 2018, but Nate Parker’s actions cannot be compared, in my view. And I don’t like what hammer is doing here.

  3. Milla says:

    He is right despite the fact that Parker is a bad guy. The other bad guy got Oscar.
    Yeah, this guy sounds reasonable and he is drip dead gorgeous..
    It’s hard to say anything rational about this cases. But he has a point. Afflecks must be stopped.

  4. Lucy says:

    I do not think he comes across as an apologist. I do wish he had explicitly said the words “white privilege”, though.

  5. Radley says:

    Bottom line, Casey Affleck’s whiteness and connections insulated him from the kind of instant karma Nate Parker experienced.

    Privilege. It’s what’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

  6. OG Cleo says:

    The “one incident” line reminds me too much of the “five minutes of action” line. STFU, Armie, while I still appreciate your hot.

    • TR says:

      Totally agree (although we’ll have to agree to disagree about the hot).

      • ichsi says:

        @ TR seems like we agree on all accounts xD
        Armie Hammer has rubbed me the wrong way ever since he gave interviews for that Lone Ranger debacle and I have my issues with CMBYN despite (and partially because of) what he claims here. My social media accounts, however, are flooded with his face atm because loads of my friends have the hots for him, so I guess I’ll have to try to get through this awards season without becoming too sick of him.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Agree. He has a valid point about race and privilege, but he should have left out “one incident” and “he was 18.” 18 is more than old enough to know not to gang-rape someone, just like 17 or 15 is old enough to know not to sexually abuse siblings and other children (cough cough Duggar).

  7. Red says:

    I get what he what he was trying to say, but the way it comes across, no. Nate Parker’s entire career was ruined because of that one incident? You mean like how the victim’s life was ruined as well? When she killed herself because of what happened? Eff off.

    • Esmom says:

      Yeah, I didn’t appreciate how he glossed over the gravity of Parker’s crime. I also am not sure it’s “ok” for a teenager to have a relationship with someone older (never mind the legal age of consent) just because the younger party made the initial overtures.

    • Kitten says:

      Agreed and then this: “Would it make me uncomfortable if I had a 17-year-old child dating someone in their mid-20s? Probably. But this isn’t a normal situation: The younger guy goes after the older guy. The dynamic is not older predator versus younger boy.”

      PROBLEMATIC. Literally this is what people have been saying about Spacey’s victim (you know the one who was raped by his older cousin??) and some of the comments from the gay community have been really enlightening to me. It seems that this is not entirely unusual. It also seems that men have an easier time justifying intimacy with younger boys than if it were younger women. As if gay boys should be flattered and excited to get with an older gay man who is in a position of authority/power. This double standard really needs to die. Children and adults should not be engaging in sexual relationships PERIOD regardless of gender.

      And I can’t even believe that I have to type that but there it is.

      • Kiki says:

        @Kitten I 100% agree with you. This is why I refuse to watch “Call me by my name” because it is complicit. I get it is a love story between the heartbreak of two men who are madly in love with each other. But guess what “whose to say that a pedophile or a rapist needs “love ” too right?”

        This is a grown a** man having intercourse with a young boy. I don’t care if the age of consent in Italy is 14 ( which by the way, if you a teenager who can’t vote, buy or rent anything and still living under your parents and don’t work, shouldn’t consent to anything, let alone sex) that is called statutory rape and down right yuck.

        Armie Hammer is just another dumb celebrity with pretty boy looks. I would expect intelligence out of his head.

      • Geekychick says:

        I strongly suspect that age of consent in Italy is 14 if the other peson is not older than 18, or less than 6 years older than the underage person. We are neighbouring country and our law permits consent at 14 if the other person is also underage(or under 20, if I remember correctly). I’m not thrilled with that, but it is not the same as Hammer claims.

      • Kitten says:

        The insinuation beneath condoning older men/underage boys in intimate relationships is that young men are somehow more emotionally-equipped to deal with “casual sex” (really it’s predatory behavior, period) than women are.
        Sort of like how the public (mainly men) made disgusting excuses for Mary Kay Leterneau preying upon Vili Fualaau i.e. “He’s a lucky kid!” “He’s living out a fantasty” and on and on…gross.

        A 14-year-old mind is a 14-year-old mind. They don’t have the life experience and emotional maturity of an adult.
        NO adult should be pursuing minors, boy or girl.

      • Esmerelda says:

        Italian here, and yes, the 14 yo consent is intended for relationships between teens. A 17 yo dating a 20 yo would be somewhat ok, but a 28 yo stepping out with a 14 yo would be beyond the pale.

        The ‘real’ colloquial age of consent is known to be 17. (which is still young, I know)

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        I don’t see a 17- year-old with a 20 or 21-year-old as a problem, but 28 is too old. For both sexes. I don’t have an issue with that being shown in a movie though- especially if it’s legal and accepted there.

      • Annetommy says:

        Once again, the kid in the film is 17. Armie’s character is meant to be mid twenties. He isn’t in any position of authority over the boy. I’m not going to clutch my pearls about it.

      • Kitten says:

        @ AnneTommy-I’m not talking about a fictional movie. I’m talking about specifically how problematic it is to insinuate that a boy engaging in an intimate relationship with an older man is somehow ok because the boy “pursued it”. Nope. That line of thinking is what MAMBLA and molesters use to justify preying upon boys.

        I don’t care if the kid was 14 or 17. Adults have NO BUSINESS engaging in sexual contact with boys or teenagers.

      • Domino says:

        @Kitten, just curious where you have read comments from older men saying it is ok to date much younger men? I used to read the column savage love by Dan Savage, who iirc had an older gardener/younger gardener trope, like it is a ‘thing’ in the gay community for older men to hook up with younger men (how much younger I do not know) and show them the ropes of the gay world.

      • Annetommy says:

        There is a vast difference between 14 and 17. The age of consent in the UK, where I live, is 16. So teenagers – 16, 17, 18, 19 – can have sex with whoever they damn well want. Some will doubtless have sex with the wrong people, including people who are too old for them. But you can’t legislate for that. You legislate for an age of consent. And putting it any higher than 17 would be bloody ridiculous.

      • ichsi says:

        PREACH!!!
        I wonder if people would still call it such a great romance if it was a 17 year old girl going after an older man. But it’s a boy, so it’s aaaaaall ok and certainly not an older writer’s wishful thinking.
        Thing is, I don’t even have that big of an issue with the age difference in the book/movie. 17 and 24 certainly isn’t great but it happens and while icky it’s still kinda sorta almost in the confines of Ok for me (age of consent is 16 over here, yes, for all ages). What seriously annoys me though is that someone purposefully (you can NOT tell me that they didn’t see this) cast an actor who looks 35 and one who looks 15. Doesn’t matter that the actors are ONLY ten years apart, this plays into a seriously problematic aesthetic that I wish wasn’t praised so much.

  8. Reef says:

    I’m not sure when I read comments regarding disparate treatment of abusers based on race how any of the people bringing it up want the audience to respond or really how they feel about the abuser. Do they want all abusers to get off like Casey or do they want all abusers to get shunned like Nate Parker? Most folks just dangle the point out there without making it clear. I’m not sure where Hammer falls on this particular point either to be honest.

  9. Renee says:

    Eh he may not be very eloquent but he’s not wrong. Casey came out largely unscathed and is still continuing to line up work.

    • Jayna says:

      Nate came out unscathed from his charges for a long time. He finished college, got into the acting business, never hid what happened, because I remember seeing it talked about, and worked steadily for years. His movie had a bidding war with the distributors and studios knowing his background. He had every reason to believe his career would continue on just like it had, with some mention of his past, but not affecting him.

      His downfall was deciding to do an interview and discuss it and came off absolutely horribly in the interview. It hurt him. Then it comes out his victim killed herself. Then her siblings came out giving interviews talking of the damage done to her by Nate and his friend, who harassed her on campus after the allegations trying to intimidate her. I mean, you couldn’t get any worse than that, giving that tone of interview and then it being announced she had killed herself several years later and distraught siblings giving interviews.

      Plus, he co-wrote the movie with his accused partner, Celestin, who at one point was convicted, and they put a fictional rape scene in the movie. Seriously? They never saw that as problematic in terms of optics? Even working with Celestin just brought more attention to the project that wasn’t good.

      Plus everyone went online and started reading trial transcripts of what happened to her. The visual was hard to take, especially the third friend testifying they were motioning him in to take part. I had read a little bit years before of the testimony. It’s been out there. Nate kept trying to backtrack and do damage control in more interviews, but it was too late. Potential viewers were turned off. Plus the movie got okay reviews, not great. I still would have watched the movie on Netflix to support the actors who put a lot of work into it, but that fictional rape scene written by Parker and Celestin to put in the movie was the clincher that I wouldn’t. I found that so disturbing.

      Casey, who wasn’t accused of rape, but multiple egregious acts, and I mean, multiple, was involved in a civil suit, not criminal, and it was settled. And he was advised smartly, and did not discuss it during interviews. Had he discussed it, I think he would have been just as smug as Nate in the interview, and it would have hurt him a lot. He has the same attitude towards the accusers as Nate did his, that they were victims themselves, not the women. He just kept quiet and didn’t address it for the most part during his promotion of the movie.

      And Casey, in my mind, didn’t deserve the Oscar anyway. I saw the movie free on Amazon Prime, and I was not impressed with Casey’s acting. Denzel deserved it.

  10. Sam says:

    I didn’t get rapist apologist from this. I got “a black man did it once and was (rightfully) called on it (although it was all politics- someone did it with the intention of thwarting an award attempt, not because of outrage) and will be punished indefinitely and yet the white guy did it three times and won an award.”

    • Nicole says:

      Yea he worded it a tad badly but I think that’s what he was going for. Seemed like he was also pointing to the fact that one crime or mistake by a minority will end his career while a white guy can f*ck up countless times (and worse) and get redemption

    • Kristen says:

      But you can’t really say both men “did it” because the things they were accused of are not the same. Actually *raping* someone and sexually harassing/trying to sleep with someone are, while both despicable behaviors, nowhere near the same.

      • Kate says:

        Not the same but both highly reprehensible. And nothing happened to Casey. Also it’s remarkable that Hollywood who loves to remind us that Woody Allen has never been charged and is therefore totally innocent does not believe Nate Parker being acquitted meant anything in this case. (Just a little FYI: I do not believe Parker is innocent and I do not believe that not winning an Oscar is a suitable punishment for gang-rape).

      • Kristen says:

        We’re saying the same thing: “both highly reprehensible”/”both despicable.” Still not equal. And I agree with you that the legal/criminal judgments or lack thereof don’t matter a bit in any of these cases since we know how often victims are intimidated/coerced/scared or don’t want to deal with a trial or public shaming/scrutiny.

      • Geekychick says:

        this. sorry, but gang-rape, discreditation and harrassment which ultimately led to suicide of the victim is definetely not the same as groping/harrasment.
        sorry, it’s just not. borth are despicable. both should be punished, at least with losing career opportunities, but it is not the same.

    • magnoliarose says:

      His only point was that Casey deserved the same as Nate. There is racism in how both disgusting men were handled. He isn’t defending their actions.

      • Fleurucci says:

        After Weinstein gate it’s obvious that whst Affleck did was not shocking or unusual to hollywood
        Letting your friend rape your girlfriend while she’s black out drunk and then bullying her seems a bit worse. Though to be honest if she hadn’t ended up suicidal and her family hadn’t spoken out, people might not have cared as much.
        Parker bungled the PR but what he did was very unforgivable anyways (to me personally , Its especially that he involved his friend, (oh and the bullying.) having sex with your own girlfriend when drunk in 1999 or whenever is a lot more of a Grey area, of course just sharing my personal instinctual feelings on this I know others feel differently.)

  11. Lizzie says:

    i get what he’s saying but he should have taken a beat before answering to get that shit out a little smoother. its not a crime to say “i’d like to think about that more before answering” his wife wrote on an instagram comment that the interview was “out of context” and i kind of believe it but also – no one feels bad for nate parker’s whole life be ruined. define ruined. he was able to produce, direct and star in a film that was strongly considered for the academy awards so i’m not sure ruined is the right word.

    he’s trying to come off as woke bae and i think in his heart he probably is – but what he’s actually doing with his words is equating gang rape – for which the other participant was convicted and the victim committed suicide – to sexual harassment allegations** and they actually not the same thing.

    **i want to make clear i believe casey affleck to be a gross jerk who did what he was accused of and he should not be celebrated at all but it still wasn’t a conviction for gang rape

    ***armie hammer is painfully beautiful but i also suspect not as smart as he thinks he is and he could afford to occasionally shut up

  12. sr says:

    He doesn’t come across as a rape apologist, he is one. He thinks since it happened when Nate was 18 that he shouldn’t be in “director’s jail” now.

  13. ArchieGoodwin says:

    ” But this isn’t a normal situation: The younger guy goes after the older guy. The dynamic is not older predator versus younger boy.””

    Whoops. I bet he wishes he had worded that 1000 times better. Because the adult always hold the power.

    Look, he is sloppy. Sloppy with articulating his opinions, sloppy with the equivalencies he draws, just sloppy.

  14. HadToChangeMyName says:

    I can’t muster up any sympathy for Nate Parker. I DO wish Casey gets what’s coming to him, but I’m not ready to cape for Nate’s rapist a$$.

  15. Jussie says:

    Nate Parker was being protected. The allegations against him had been out there for a couple of years pre Birth of a Nation, since he first got attention for Beyond the Lights. It hadn’t hurt him at all. He had a ton of adoring female fans. He still got to make his vanity project with his fellow rapist, and the fact that they added fictional rapes to the story wasn’t even enough to get the media talking about their history. His film sold for a record amount of money, he was fawned over, and he was totally on track to sail through awards season without it being an issue.

    Then he decided to talk about it, completely his choice, and said basically all the worst and stupidest things someone could say in his situation. And then it came out that his victim had committed suicide, and he talked some more, and dug himself even deeper. And on and on, until it had become such a big story no one could ignore it. That was all him. No one went looking for that story, he just inexplicably handed it to everyone then lit a match under it repeatedly.

    If Affleck had done that he’d have been over too. Instead he stayed quiet and he tried not to draw attention to himself (Matt and Ben leant him the fame and movie star cred instead of him going after it himself). 9 months ago that was enough to get away with it. If Nate Parker hadn’t addressed it, had just ignored it, he’d have gotten away with it too. I’m glad he didn’t. Affleck should be finished too, but that’s the issue. That his career should end, not that Parker should get his back.

  16. Bridget says:

    He’s right. Nate Parker’s accusations caught fire, and everyone ran with them. And yet, Casey Affleck was barely questioned, and his team requested unflattering articles to be pulled. Both men were accused of serious crimes, and yet only one of them was held to account.

  17. Kate says:

    Of course, it was about race. It is always about race. There’s reason why (white) America is still outraged about OJ being acquitted more than a decade ago but does not give a fuck about Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice. But, as a Black woman, my answer is not all rapist should get off scot-free because white ones usually do. No, my answer is let’s punish everyone. Nate Parker and Casey Affleck, Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski, Chris Brown and Woody Allen.

    • Kitten says:

      OJ also largely benefited from white men who notoriously shielded him because they viewed him as a “good black”.

      Nicole Brown Simpson called the police on OJ countless times and the police did absolutely nothing to protect her. On one of the many calls, they literally sat by and allowed OJ to jump into his car and flee his own property without even attempting to drive after him. If you ever read the transcripts of her 911 calls, even the male dispatcher said “OK. So basically you guys have just been arguing?” after Nicole was forced to detail his rages, busting in the back door, stalking her, hitting her etc.

      They protected OJ and failed Nicole. Miserably.

      So I agree with you but I think it’s worth pointing out that black men who are “adopted” by white people because they “properly assimilated” into white culture (i.e. Simpson, Cosby) get treated entirely different than black men who proudly embrace their blackness (i.e. Nate Parker). I think the latter is threatening to whites and provokes a different reaction, one that makes white people far more comfortable throwing them to the wolves. It’s f*cking gross but that’s how we (WP) are.

      • Sandy Eggo says:

        @Kitten: You are so right. I continue to appreciate your non-BS comments.

      • Mina says:

        It’s not so much as white people protected him, but he was protected by his celebrity and the fact he was an admired football player. In some circles, athletes can do no wrong. Let’s not forget that he was acquitted of the crime because racial bias was constantly brought up and in the end people were afraid it would look like he was convicted over his race.

        People are not outraged that OJ was acquitted because he was black, they are outraged because he was obviously guilty and even had the gall to write a book that basically mocked his victims.

        Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice are certainly examples of how race influences the take of a crime but they can’t really be brought up in this situation because they are victims. The fact they didn’t get justice is disgusting but not relevant here.

        People have got away with crimes because they are celebrities and often have powerful people backing them up, not so much because they are white. Bill Cosby should be in jail, but he’s not. Chris Brown still somehow has a career, so do Snoop Dogg, Will Smith (who nearly blinded one man), 50 Cent, Terrence Howard, etc. Parker’s case is not an example of Hollywood racism, there’s plenty of that around.

      • Kitten says:

        @Mina-”It’s not so much as white people protected him, but he was protected by his celebrity and the fact he was an admired football player.”

        So is Colin Kaepernick. Ask yourself why CK is treated like a pariah while OJ was beloved by the white community. Because Colin rejects white supremacy and white approval while OJ Simpson all but courted it. Look, there have been countless articles written about it, you don’t have to take my word for it. Just know that there are many black celebrities, athletes, etc who are not insulated by their fame and fortune (Meek Mill, anyone???). The ones who keep out of politics, move to predominantly white neighborhoods, marry a white woman, and hang out at country clubs with circles of white friends get treated differently than those that eschew white validation.

        And it’s not that I don’t agree that black celebrities are treated better than the average black person or maybe even the average white person, but the average white celebrity is still treated FAR better than the average black celeb. That’s racism.

    • Annetommy says:

      Kate, while he apparently behaved appallingly, Casey Affleck hasn’t been accused of raping anyone. I agree with you about the role of ethnicity and it’s shameful. But one name that is very rarely mentioned in these threads is Michael Jackson. Yes he’s deceased and can’t defend himself. But he made several settlements – far larger than Casey Affleck’s – with the families of juveniles he was alleged to have molested. I don’t notice him being “cancelled” on this site. So yes, let’s be consistent.

  18. JA says:

    No comparison at all! Nate parker participated in a gang rape then not only wrote a gang rape into the film but wrote it with the man who was convicted for his actions in that rape… birth of a nation was a movie and that woman ended up coming suicide!! Yes Affleck was scum but Parker got what he deserved as far as career death… I’m waiting for him to get what he deserves for his crimes soon enough even if he wasn’t convicted. Caseys time is coming no doubt but to compare and then say Not Fair? STFU you privileged rich kid who only cares cause no one saw the movie he was in by said rapist.

  19. Kate says:

    I would really love to hear Ben Affleck and Matt Damon on what they did last year to protect Casey. Especially Ben who is “learning”, according to himself.
    Also, for the it was ony harassment crowd, there were several comments on Jezebel explaining that Casey had done much worse but nobody would ever know the extent of it because of his bro’s influence. Obviously, it’s a comment section and anybody can make things up but Jezebel/Gawker got the Louis CK’s story right before anybody else so maybe they also got that one.

  20. Samantha says:

    I wish Armie had got the details about Casey’s case right. It was 2 harassment cases, not assault. The allegations against Casey are super detailed and quite egregious. But when someone gets the details wrong, it just opens the door for people to start yelling “witch-hunt”.
    Mind you, I think at least one incident bordered on being an assault, but the woman who was involved didn’t phrase it that way.

  21. Don't kill me I am French says:

    i don’t remember when Casey Affleck was accused of rape .
    I don’t remember when Casey ‘s victims of his sexual harassment committed suicide .
    I don’t remember when Casey Affleck blamed his victim’s behavior.

    • Samantha says:

      Casey did blame his victims. Marty Singer trashed one of the accusers in the media, described her as a “devious extortionist”. Imagine the repercussions for a behind-the-scenes freelancer in HW (she was a producer).

    • magnoliarose says:

      Casey never got any hard interviews. It isn’t about the crime. It is about how the men were treated and questioned.
      It is also about winning the highest award in the industry and the other being rightfully canceled. That is a problem.

      • Miles says:

        You do realize that Nate Parker himself was the one who started doing the interviews, right? He brought it upon himself. He did an interview with Deadline to specifically talk about the incident. An incident that no one asked him about prior

      • Reeny says:

        A few corrections. Casey wasn’t allowed to talk about the details of the case. That was part of the deal when they all settled in court. So Casey always had an easy out. Therefore the reporters didn’t bother trying to ask him any questions b/c they knew he wasn’t allowed to talk about it anyway. Some tried, but Casey always said “sorry, I can’t talk about it”. And another correction, Nate only brought up the incident with Deadline b/c they were going to publish the records on their site. Nate wanted to get ahead of the story, to give his side of the story first. That’s how that Deadline interview happened in the first place. He did not bring it up himself. Why on earth would he do that?

  22. Margo S. says:

    I love armie hammer. So friggin handsome. Like damn. I have to say, I like that he’s calling out how unfair it was for Nate to be blacklisted and not Casey. Can’t wait to see his movie!!!

  23. manta says:

    In other words, poor lamb is still hurt that a film he starred in was shunned from the big awards campaign. Probably already pictured himself on some stage holding a statuette.
    And the best picture debacle was the hardest he laughed in his life, jumping on his coach?
    Guy is weird. Hope for him, he’ll experience funnier things in life.

    • I Choose Me says:

      In other words, poor lamb is still hurt that a film he starred in was shunned from the big awards campaign. Probably already pictured himself on some stage holding a statuette.

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      Surprised so many people are buying his bullsh-t tbh. Couldn’t be because he’s tall and handsome now could it? Nah, that couldn’t be the reason his problematic af statements are getting a pass.

  24. Annie says:

    If the Cassey Affleck revelations came out today, he would not get away with it. Which is why it’s so important that people are coming together saying ENOUGH. Things are about to change worldwide. I was reading that Robyn and other Swedish pop stars are coming together to denounce sexual harassment/abuse in the Swedish pop scene. This is now global. I also read on the NYT that the most important women in Hollywood are now getting together in secret to figure out solutions and strategies to protect each other. People like Oprah, Shonda Rimes, Reese Witherspoon. About time! I’m sick of the Kate Winslets and company who easily work with Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and Weinstein because getting Oscars is far more important to them. Women have the opportunity to finally change this industry, they need to take this opportunity and work together to end this abuse. It sucks that women have to clean up this mess, but men have had the chance to do it and were nothing but enablers and accomplices. It is clear men cannot do this job. It’s up to us.

    • manta says:

      “I’m sick of the Kate Winslets and company who easily work with Roman Polanski, Woody Allen”
      I can’t wait to read the comments about Chalamet when his Oscar campaign begins.
      I’m impatient to see the flavor of the moment grilled the same way as Winslet,Lively, Stewart and co for working with Allen. No doubt he’ll be dragged over the coals for this, and cancelled of course.
      Or not.

  25. sr says:

    It sucks that so many are so quick to excuse Hammer. I don’t see how this is anything but rape apologism. He’s not saying Affleck should have been judged harder, he’s saying Parker was judged too hard.

    • TR says:

      +1

      He must thank f*ck he looks like he does or else he’d be instantly thrown to the wolves and “cancelled” already. Weirdly, I’ve seen comments completely ignoring the caping for Nate Parker bit (bad look, Armie!) and highlighting the disparity of punishment bit (good look, Armie!).

      He’s a rape apologist. He may be an unwitting one, because he’s not as eloquent or as smart as perhaps he thinks he is, but he’s still wandered over the line to sit in that camp. He’s dismissive and flippant and was given several opportunities to clarify what he meant by the interviewer and didn’t. So, praise be to his genetics and the fans who love to look at him, I suppose, because if he wasn’t a handsome white man he’d have screwed his future award chances up completely with this interview.

    • Umyeah says:

      Parker was not judged too hard, he was judged as a man who gang raped a woman should be.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That isn’t what he said. He was stating the facts and pointing out how different each man was treated. Racism was involved in the reaction and treatment. You can’t tell me it isn’t problematic that Casey won an Oscar even after everyone knew the accusations and he never got questioned as he should have.

  26. Frosty says:

    The intriguing part to me is his claim that a competitor organized the release of the Parker story to undermine his movie, not out of a sense of justice. And we know now how Harvey systematically intimated his victims. All these machinations behind the scenes…

  27. emma33 says:

    Do you think that if Casey were up for the Oscar next year (instead of this year) he would still win it?

    I think the climate has changed so much over the last 2 months that his campaign would grind to a halt. I hope he doesn’t come back to present, I think there will be a lot of pressure for him not to.

    • Samantha says:

      I think he’ll be back to present because I don’t think the general public cares that much about “harassment”. Most don’t know how how horrific his actions were. The petition to prevent him from presenting got less than 20k signatures. I think Affleck will be fine unless more accusations surface.

  28. Monsy says:

    I think he means well but he misses the point regarding Nate Parker’s actions. In my country the age of consent is also 14. But there’s also the crime of ” estupro” that takes place when an adult has sex with someone who is between a 14-17 and use their position of authority or the sexual ignorance of the victim to make them consent to have sex. Has similar penalties to the crime of “violación”, rape and “violación impropia”, statutory rape
    I think adults shouldn’t have sex with anyone under 18. Period.

    And yeah he’s suuuuuper hot like..Wow. It’s ridiculous.

  29. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Nah – this doesn’t read as him being a rape apologist. He is pointing out what we in the black community talked about a LOT last year. Nate Parker is trash. But so is the guy who won the Academy Award for best actor. One has been black-balled. The other has won the highest acting honor in the world. And the only major difference (besides the fact that Nate was in fact tried and found not guilty for whatever that’s worth) is their skin color. Period. Point blank. I have to say I was alway pretty meh about Hammer. He just looks like a non-descript white guy to me. But I like that he has the guts to say something like this in the press. But that is also his white privelege at work.

    • Mina says:

      “Nate had the stuff in his past, which is heinous and tough to get beyond. I get that. But that was when he was 18 and now he’s in director jail”. If that isn’t rape apology, I don’t know what it is.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        What he said was factual. And I’m sure it’s easy to remove the racial elements of this story if they don’t apply to you. But they exist nonethless. Nate Parker was tried and found not guilty. Roman Polanksi was tried and CONVICTED and is still working with major actors to this day. Casey Affleck won an Oscar despite THREE women accusing him of sexual assault. Danny Masterson is still working on his new series despite and ongoing rape investigantion by the LAPD involving three victims. Is Nate Parker innocent? No he isnt. I firmly believe he raped that woman along with his co-defendants. But let’s not pretend that Hollywood took the moral high ground by black-listing him. If he were a white man his film would have probably been nominated for Best Picture.

      • Vera says:

        TWO women were accusing Affleck,not three.

      • Mina says:

        So saying it’s something that happened when he was 18, as if it was just some teenage mischief, is not being an apologist to you?

        I agree that there is a double standard. But I think in Parker’s case it wasn’t so much about his race, but because he was a virtually unknown director at the time who had no powerful support behind him, as Affleck, Polanski and others have. He also gave very tone deaf responses when the rape charges were brought up, so he really shot himself in the foot too.

  30. Mina says:

    I was so disappointed by his analysis of that case. I thought his criticism would be to people giving Affleck a pass, but somehow it turned out to be criticism of not giving Parker a pass too. He seems to forger that one of Parker’s problems is that when he was first confronted with the allegations, he spoke very coldly and callously about the victim. He made it sound like it wasn’t his problem.

    Also this line: “But that was when he was 18 and now he’s in director jail”. Alright, so if you are accused of rape at 18 it shouldn’t count?

    I understand his talk about double standards and agree with him in that, but I think Affleck should have been as attacked as Parker, and not the other way around. He does sound like a rape apologist and I hate it.

  31. Geekychick says:

    All of Casey’s victims are alive, Nate Parker’s isn’t.
    There hasn’t been an information that Casey actively employed his co-rapist, like Nate did.
    I personally haven’t read about the evidence of defaming and harassing his victim even after the assault in Casey’s case, While Nate’s harrassement was very well documented.
    double standard? of course, Casey is from a family of industry insiders (Affleck, Phoenix), Parker isn’t. Casey is white, Parker is black.
    But to imply that he “did something in his past, and now he’s still paying the price, gosh darn, and our movie was cancelled, and the other one wasn’t..” while he DESTROYED that woman’s life. Dude, no Oscar, no career advancment is worth one single life. not one.
    all who are guilty should be canceled, shunned, punished. ALL. and I won’t give leeway to one just bc that other one got away. it doesn’t work like that. it shouldn’t.

    btw, I kinda hope this new trend of multi-atractivness (isk how to name it any other way) is here to stay: no, I don’t find Hammer, Chrises (except Pine, bc of his image more than looks)-my god, I will never get Evans and all thise bland, blond, blue-eyed types attractive. they are just bland to me.
    Diego Luna? Yes, better. McAvoy, Even Fassbender. but for God sake, Hw stop bombarding me with bland clones of what you directors in that board room think women find hot!

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      I highly suggest you look up the details of Affleck’s case then. Because while yes his victim is still alive he did all of the things you listed just as Parker did. Both are trash. And both should have been treated equally. Period

    • Kate says:

      Casey and his friends did blame the victims, accused them of being extorsionist, crazy. Fortunately, they did not commit suicide but that does not change what he did.
      Casey is a piece of shit, just not as much as Nate, and Hollywood looked the other way because he is white and well-connected.

  32. Ginger says:

    Casey Affleck is a douche, but he didn’t cause a woman’s suicide. Sit down, Armie.

    • Kate says:

      Not for lack of trying tough. Abusing these women, trying to destroy their reputations by calling them crazy and accusing them of extorsion could have easily led to suicide. The fact thta it did not is not something I would attribute to Casey.

      • jetlagged says:

        Exactly. If you read through the legal documents, it’s pretty clear Affleck went out of his way to make their lives horrifically difficult, even after they left the film. Both describe the mental anguish they endured. One of the women was so overwhelmed during filming she became physically ill while on set, and had bouts of debilitating anxiety months later.

    • perplexed says:

      Isn’t that sort of down to luck, in Affleck’s case, though? If he tried to make them feel like they were crazy for feeling the way they did, the outcome could have gone the other way.

    • Ginger says:

      Not saying Affleck didn’t do harm. Go back and check the legal documents surrounding the Parker case. I don’t care which race these men are, and they’re both asshats, but Parker’s actions were further down the spectrum of abuse.

  33. ashleesimpsonsnose says:

    “… but that was when he was 18”
    lmao shut up

  34. SM says:

    I refuse to equate rape with harrasment. And Parker’s victim commited suiside. Leaving a child alone in this world. Not the same thing as getting a settlement for harrasment. There, the hell jist froze over because I just deffended Affleck scum. On the bright side – I hope his judgement day is coming

  35. sarah6 says:

    There is a double standard. Black men are always treated with longer sentences, less plea deals and so on. There were quite a few articles and even comments on this site about the disparity between how black men and white men are treated during controversies or crime allegations. He said it, and now he’s wrong? Call Me By Your Name deserves many Oscar nominations. It’s the most affecting love story I’ve ever seen. I’m still thinking about it. And no critic who has seen the film has mentioned the age difference in a negative light. There is a difference between a movie and a documentary.

  36. perplexed says:

    “The timing of the headlines “was orchestrated for sure. There was another person in the industry who had a competing film for the Academy Awards, who decided to release all of the phone records and information. I’ve been told who did it — by several people.” (Hammer refuses to say who he believes it is).”

    I thought he was revealing how Oscar campaigns work.

    I wasn’t entirely sure what he was saying here as you seem to have to insider information to understand what he was getting at, but it does seem like he was talking about how actors/directors try to one-up each other to get the awards?

  37. Tess says:

    MAybe I’m reading what I want into it but I see his point and he’s not wrong. He’s not talking about the crime or the situation, which he admits was horrific, he’s specifically referencing the aftermath which I take to mean due process and “justice”. The argument very easily turns into “all crimes matter” but he’s not referencing the crime , he’s referencing the aftermath.
    Parker went through due process and as much as anyone disagrees and thinks he’s guilty (I do) he had his day in court. Affleck has current victims he’s paid off, he still has “open” accusations against him I think, and he’s hardly seen his day in court.
    He’s talking about black perpetrators of crime continually getting the maximum sentences, continually getting the book thrown at them and being “made examples of” and the door shut and locked behind them while white perpetrators of crime are continually getting slaps on the wrist, probation, and “oh but his future, his talent”, “well we don’t know so innocent until proven guilty”.
    Parker SHOULD be blacklisted, but blacklist them ALL don’t just black list the black guy with the black movie.

    • Mina says:

      If you want to play that card, both Parker and Affleck solved their respective legal conflicts before these scandals were brought up. Parker had been acquitted, but he always got very defensive when asked about it, said a bunch of things about how painful it was for him, and never showed any compassion for the victim, which would have helped him in the public eye. He blacklisted himself. Affleck, clearly better advised than Parker, chose to remain silent about his case, which left little door open for more criticisim. I agree that they should all be blacklisted, but Hammer is making it sound like Parker didn’t deserve what he got just because Affleck won an Oscar. Affleck didn’t deserve that Oscar or being given a pass, but Parker wasn’t treated unfairly.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        So basically you’re saying Affleck got a pass because he was better at PR? Affleck had a LOT of protection. Journalists werent allowed to ask questions about certain things. If Parker had done the same I dont think the outcome would have been any different. Parker didn’t start talking about it until it suddenly was all in the news around the release of the film. Do I think he should have just shut up? Yes! But I don’t think the way things played out would have been any different from what they were. As for Patker being treated unfairly. That’s not what anyone is saying. We are saying they should have been treated equally. They were not. We can eliminate Affleck from this entire convo and the disparity still stands when measured against Polanksi, Allen, Gibson, Depp, the list goes on and on of white male celebs who have been abusive sexually or otherwise to women and not only go on to have careers but have flourishing careers. Its not about fairness – its about disparity.

      • perplexed says:

        “Affleck, clearly better advised than Parker, chose to remain silent about his case, which left little door open for more criticisim.”

        If he was better advised, then that also shows a disparity. He had the right people (Damon and Ben Affleck?) in the right places of power to tell him how to handle the situation better from a PR standpoint, and as a consequence, get treated better. That still shows a divide in preferential treatment.

      • Mina says:

        That’s not what I said. I said Affleck didn’t talk about the case, so no one could criticize him about the way he referred to it. He was indeed armored by powerful people in Hollywood, including his brother. And yes, he was better advised in the sense that a lawyer surely told him not to refer about the harassment and shut down all the questions about it. It’s just not possible to interview a person about a specific issue when they don’t want to talk about it.

        I think he shouldn’t have got a pass, but he did, and part of the reason was his standing in Hollywood, and another part of the reason was that he didn’t make the situation worse by speaking about it.

        Nate Parker, on the other hand, did choose to refer to his case and did it in such a bad way that it only attracted more bad press to him, because then he had to explain and re explain his words. I don’t know if he was advised by a lawyer before giving interviews, but if he did, he didn’t listen. Part of his problem was how he presented the case and didn’t spare one compassionate comment for his victim. Which of course, led to a lot of nitpicking and analyising of his words. Hence, he destroyed his career. And obviously, he didn’t have the backup Affleck had, so no one could save him. Not because he was black, but because he was a newbie that no one would have risked their own careers for.

        I agree with you that there is a disparity, especially gross in Polanski’s case, but like I said before, I don’t think in this case it’s about race. There other things involved: timing (after Weinstein these cases won’t be treated the same, no matter who it is), Hollywood standing, legal involvement, after scandal behavior.

        @perplexed, considering Parker went through an actual trial (unlike Affleck, who just settled) and that he’s a smart guy, he should have known that his best call was to stay quiet. Choosing to speak actually shows how little he understood his audience, he really believed that because it was something from his past and he’d solved it legally he could saw what he did. PR is fundamental in this business, let’s not be naive.

      • perplexed says:

        “PR is fundamental in this business, let’s not be naive.”

        Yes, it is fundamental. That tends to actually highlight the hypocrisy of the industry itself, not diminish it.

        If proper PR can lessen the public’s wrath towards you, there’s still an ethical problem in how people choose to have different responses to criminal actions. The criminal action still stands on its own as criminal, with or without good PR.

      • Annetommy says:

        I assume Casey Affleck signed a non-disclosure agreement when the harassment case was settled, so that precludes any comment by him. Lightpurple would know for sure if that’s likely to be the case. I was harassed (non-sexually) at work, not in the US, and part of the severance agreement was that I would not discuss it. Ever. The other party signed up to that too. Sometimes it is frustrating, but that is what commonly happens.

      • Mina says:

        perplexed, I didn’t mean to say that public’s wrath would be diminished by PR. It was more of an added reason as to why the media and the industry hit one harder than the other. To be honest, I think a big chunk of the public doesn’t really care about Affleck or Parker, probably don’t even know who they are. It’s not like many people saw Manchester by the Sea or were particularly rooting for Affleck to win the Oscar. I just wanted to point out that it wasn’t just disparity from others, but Parker handled the situation a lot worse than Affleck did.

        I agree with you about criminal action, and I think both deserved to be out of the race. The fact that Affleck won the Oscar was the last straw in Hollywood’s eternal game of hypocrisy and ignoring bad behavior, and I think it eventually helped push Harvey Weinstein’s case forward.

      • LAK says:

        What Mina said.

        I’ll also add that Parker had full studio backing and studio publicists. He sold his film with the details of his casevknown to the public and to the studios bidding to buy his film at Sundance.

        He arrived at the opening of his film as the cinderella success story of the season to go all the way to oscar glory and the highest ever sale of a film by a first time director at Sundance. He was the showpiede of a PR strategy to sell the film to the public and awards circuit.

        And anyone who doesn’t think PR doesn’t diminish public wrath is naive. So many bad things are sold to the public or repositioned as not so bad things due to PR. You only have to look at the rehabilitation of Dick Cheney as a cuddly grandpa on the view sofa and getting his own biopic instead of the monster he was previously viewed to be. PR.

        Going back to NP, as the build up to the opening, the studio realised they couldn’t hide this story. I think it was the right decision to have Nate Parker get infront of it to tell his truth. The initial interview was conducted by a very sympathetic journalist. And Nate Parker screwed it up. Which infuriated everyone. And for the next fortnight kept screwing it up. Made worse by the availability of the transcripts of the case and his utter inability to show remorse whilst painting himself the victim. Even when told that his victim had committed suicide, he couldn’t apologise or show remorse, empathy etc. He infuriated everyone black AND white. Influential black journalists called him out and the best he could say was ‘toxic masculinity’ in response. And still no remorse or empathy.

        If Nate Parker had handled this crisis better, this would have blown over. Hollywood likes a redemption story most of all.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Exactly. People keep thinking that this is about defending Nate – it isn’t. It’s about treating them ALL the same. Blacklist them ALL

  38. perplexed says:

    Maybe the examples he’s used (Nate Parker vs. Casey Affleck) are difficult to compare, but in a larger systemic context I don’t necessarily think he’s wrong. Roman Polanski gets respect from Meryl Streep. I don’t think a director who is a person of colour necessarily would. Because one director can you get an Oscar and the other can’t may also play a role. People in Hollywood are weirdly selective about what they will tolerate from people they consider to be their friends (or like them?) and people who perceive as different from them.

    I do think Matt Damon would have also distanced himself from a person of colour who did the same things as Casey Affleck (or Ben). But he will go out of his way to protect his white friends.

    Yeah, I do think there are differences in how people get treated in Hollywood, but you have to be really, really articulate to convey this difference adequately in an interview. If asked about the same thing, I’d have to suss out my words carefully to make sure the point I’m trying to make is the one that actually comes out. As a result, I probably wouldn’t give an interview at all.

    • jetlagged says:

      Hollywood really needs to figure out a consistent response when garbage like this surfaces, there is such blatant double standard at work here. AMPAS very publicly tossed Harvey out of the club, probably thinking they would score PR points for taking a stand, and yet Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Casey Affleck and Roman Polansky are still members in good standing. It’s starting to look like Harvey was expelled because he was universally disliked by everyone in the industry, and not because he was a sexual predator. Hypocrites all of them.

      • LAK says:

        It’s pretty obvious that Harvey was expelled because everyone hates him. That was pretty obvious when they refused to back him after the first article came out.

        If you can find friends in high places, and you are generally liked, not to mention making money and or winning awards, Hollywood will forgive anything – see Allen Polanski, Gibson. Harvey has been on a downward spiral in the past 3-4yrs in the money / awards front AND everybody disliked him.

        Expelling him was easy.

      • jetlagged says:

        Right. It felt almost like they were glad to have an excuse, any excuse. Which really sucks, because it makes the action meaningless.

    • perplexed says:

      To add, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have given the interview. I’m just saying I would probably be too scared to given an interview for fear of not being properly understood, because this kind of topic has so many layers to it.

    • Annetommy says:

      Matt produced the film that Casey won for, so distancing looked an unlikely prospect.

      • perplexed says:

        Why did he even cast Casey Affleck in the movie he produced, though? I doubt he didn’t know what his friends were up to. He could have cast someone else and spared himself of being connected to Casey Affleck.

      • Annetommy says:

        He actually cast himself originally but for some reason couldn’t do it. Matt has apparently known Casey since Casey was around five years old, so I presume that influences the way he perceives him. Casey says he didn’t do that stuff. I presume Matt beIieves him. Or thinks it was exaggerated. Or like many men felt it was just “boys will be boys” gone a bit OTT. As GOP men in Alabama seem to feel about Roy Moore, whose alleged behaviour included molestation of a minor. And as many GOP men (and quite a few women) seem to feel about the current inhabitant of the White House.

  39. perplexed says:

    Scanning his words over again about the Oscar campaigns specifically, I thought he was basically saying that Casey Affleck shouldn’t have been rewarded with the Oscar. Which does seem like a fair enough point to make.

  40. Belle says:

    I’m guessing this guy is still cool with Nate. it seems like he’s ONLY taking sides because they worked together? He was 18? It was only one victim? That’s who you know of. This guy seems to be okay with leaving his head up his ass.

  41. WhiteSwan says:

    He and his wife are unlikeable characters. Fame obsessed, ruthless, and vapid. They use their kids non-stop on instagram. He’s not that good looking. Very bland and ken doll.

  42. Scout says:

    Nate Parker has blood on his hands – his actions directly led to his victim committing suicide. So miss me with this one, Hammer.

  43. Othermeena says:

    Lol @ all the white women on this board twisting themselves into pretzels while arguing that race wasn’t a factor here 🙄

  44. Truthie says:

    The bottom line with me is that I will never go see a Casey Affleck movie and I refuse to see anything with Nate Parker in it either. Did the academy do the wrong thing in awarding Casey an Oscar? Easy, yes. They are both box office poison to me. And since when is the academy fair? Since…never?

  45. perplexed says:

    I think Nate Parker shot himself in the foot with the general public.

    But in terms of the actual Hollywood industry, I do think they show a general preference for white directors who do bad things.

    Everyone I know in real life thinks Roman Polanski is gross. But for reasons that are unclear to me Meryl Streep will sing his praises and Natalie Portman will sign a petition for him.

    I also think that in real life most people would distance themselves from Casey Affleck, even if they had been childhood friends with the guy. But people in Hollywood have long-lasting affection for people who do wacko things. Mel Gibson was always nice to Jodie Foster; therefore she will always excuse him. However, I don’t necessarily think a woman outside the industry would maintain a life-long friendship with him. Maintaining a life-long friendship with someone like this is somewhat more perplexing to me than someone choosing to work with him for career reasons. Like, okay, Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet choosing career over ethical considerations is somewhat understandable to me from a flawed human being’s perspective (nobody is perfect and maybe the onus shouldn’t be on them to police everyone’s behaviour or take a stand since someone else will probably take the role they gave up). But for them to actually sing these people’s praises? That’s just straight-up weird to me.

    Honestly, I don’t get it. Whether this is down to race or blind loyalty, I have no idea. But Hollywood shows abnormal responses to gross situations.

  46. wood dragon says:

    I like Armie more and more. He was the best thing in the Lone Ranger.

  47. Talia says:

    No, he doesn’t come off as a rapist apologist, because he doesn’t excuse what Nate Parker has done. He simply points out that a person (Affleck) with much more recent and repeating actions of the same nature went ignored while completely shutting down Nate Parker.

  48. mint says:

    his victim did not commit suicide. she died by suicide. learn the difference

  49. ash says:

    well in the black world it was double standards for sure…. definitely…

    but yal continue to tit for tat on how one instance was diff than the other… the nate parker thing clearly outlined in black america or POC america how you will be resurrected into the demonization and white america will not….and go on to win oscars.

  50. Brian says:

    While reviewing some of the details of Parker’s case makes me personally believe that something bad happened I do think it is worth noting that he was acquitted of the crime and accusations in court. So, technically he isn’t a criminal. I just think it is important to clear that up in the language we use vis-a-vis Parker. His accuser sought the proper legal and judicial channels and lost her case.

    As for Hammer and what he is saying, I think he hits the nail on the head as to how public and industrial perception and treatment for whites and other people of color.