Armie Hammer deleted his Twitter after calling a critical Buzzfeed article ‘bitter AF’

2017 LACMA Art and Film Gala

On Sunday, Buzzfeed published an article called “Ten Long Years of Trying to Make Armie Hammer Happen.” The Buzzfeed piece was not a traditional interview or a glossy profile, or even a non-traditional review of Hammer’s latest Oscar-buzzy film, Call Me By Your Name. The article was more an analysis of how Armie Hammer is a good-looking but mediocre white guy who has been given a million chances to “happen” in Hollywood, because Hollywood loves to reward white mediocrity, especially when it comes in a “pedigreed” package. The problem that some Hammer-fans had with the Buzzfeed piece was that it seemed like the focus was less on the structural problems which enable the Armie Hammers of the world and more about how Armie Hammer isn’t all that. You can read the piece here.

Like, I agree with some of what Buzzfeed says, that Armie sometimes comes across as a rich, privileged dude-bro and he’s had a dozen major flops, so why is he still trying and why is Hollywood still trying to make him happen? But some of the attacks did feel personal. I think Hammer has a serious case of white privilege and male privilege too, but I think that about most white dudes, honestly.

Anyway, Armie read the Buzzfeed article, and he apparently tweeted about it, writing: “Your chronology is spot on but your perspective is bitter AF. Maybe I’m just a guy who loves his job and refuses to do anything but what he loves to do…?” Fair enough. We’re entitled to think Armie is bathed in white privilege, and he’s entitled to think that we’re bitter AF, and he’s entitled to keep working. I don’t see the big deal here. Apparently, it became a thing though. People yelled at him and about him on Twitter, to the point where he ended up deleting his Twitter account! Now people are calling him a big butthurt baby because he deleted his Twitter after ONE unflattering essay. As the president would say, SAD!

Here are some photos of Armie with his wife Elizabeth at the Gotham Awards last night. Call Me By Your Name won Best Feature Film. Armie will be fine, y’all.

2017 Gotham Independent Film Awards

27th annual Gotham Awards

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

146 Responses to “Armie Hammer deleted his Twitter after calling a critical Buzzfeed article ‘bitter AF’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nicole says:

    I mean his latest film is great but the article was correct. He’s allowed to have a million bombs and continue to get big roles. Minorities of all backgrounds mess up once and it will take forever for someone else to give them a shot.
    It’s part of the reason I’m afraid to fail (and once when I did I had a massive issue) because I grew up knowing I wouldn’t get many chances to get it right in life. Because we have to be MORE than to get a seat at the table.
    Meanwhile white mediocrity will get chance after chance forever. Anyways Armie needs thicker skin if he’s going to survive.

    • ArchieGoodwin says:

      Not really anything to add, after this first post.

      I wish the entire internet could read it.

    • Hh says:

      The article is right in its overall premise, but singling Armie Hammer out seems unnecessary and clickbaity. I don’t like when an article with a good point feels cheap, especially on important topics such a race.

      Also, can someone please write such a piece about Rita Ora? Can she go away now?!

      • Nicole says:

        Pretty sure there are many many articles shading Rita. And I think she chose Armie because its awards season and he’s in the spotlight

      • KTate says:

        YES PLEASE!

      • Lua says:

        Totally agree.
        Just makes me feel bad for him. He’s allowed to continue his passion if he wants to. Just mean singling him out for being mediocre, yet let Chris Brown continue to thrive…

      • Christina says:

        I like Rita Ora. She is a good singer and I like her new songs. So weird for you to randomly bring her up. Obsessed much?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think he is the symptom, rather than the cause. It would make more sense to me if she used him as one of many examples illustrating a bigger problem. Because it is a bigger problem than this one actor.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It was too personal especially when he defended Amber Tamblyn is known as a nice person. There is nothing he can do about his birth or his look or the privilege. That is a societal issue, and he is in the middle of his breakout and award campaign.
        The issue is correct but it is was poorly written and unfair. Do a takedown on the truly mediocre guy like say Matt Damon who has proven with his statements and he bathes in it. At least pick an a-hole.

      • Vanessa says:

        Well, Rita is Muslim, ethnic Albanian, and left Kosovo with her family to avoid persecution. Not quite the same as white male actor.

      • Otaku fairy says:

        ITA, Vanessa.

    • Geekychick says:

      Minorities(in every shape and form-by that I mean race, gender, class…you name it) won’t even get a chance, mostly.
      That’s why I haven’t got many tears to shed for him. he is ok guy, it seems-and that’s great. but man, you’re steeped in provilege and it’s clouding your view-recgnize that and work on it before you issue another of your woke statements about poor nate parker, it would do you good. By being a big whiny baby, he’s just making worse.

    • Jellybean says:

      I am a white female from a working class background. I went all the way with my state-funded education, but I have always felt limited by a fear of failure. I know so many people, with so much potential, great ideas and a strong work ethic who have to deal with the knowledge that failure could mean losing everything, ending up on the street and struggling to feed themselves. People like Armie can take risks and keep trying because they always have had and always will have opportunities, or at least a cushion to break their fall. The actors I admire most are the one who kept trying for their dream despite everything and the toll their lives have taken shows on their face; Armie is pretty, but characterless. He has done some good work, but I am not interested in him as a person.

    • FlyLikeAbird says:

      Lua, if you want to mention Chris brown , do so on a thread about abusive drug addicted a-holes. But don’t ever attack that man’s talent. He can dance better than MJ and has the vocal chords of a god. Odd that you thought of Chris brown who still hasn’t recovered career-wise from assaulting rihanna as a counterargument to white privilege.

      • Ozogirl says:

        Vocal chords of a god? LMAO Ok.

      • magnoliarose says:

        So much No to unpack I can’t begin. He beats the women in his life including his mother; he is a drug-addled fool who stalked his last gf.
        He will never recover because he is a terrible human being.

    • Blinkbanana says:

      White men fail upwards. Cry me a river Armie and actually take a look at your peers who are generally struggling to fulfil their dreams but can’t because they aren’t white, aren’t male and don’t have an oil tycoon as a relative. Someone has to stop bankrolling mediocrity here. The fawning reviews of his latest film smack of hubris. It’s LA LA Land all over again.

  2. Ninks says:

    There’s plenty of times I’d love to delete my Twitter and I rarely interact with anybody on it. If I was constantly being sent abuse and criticism on Twitter, I think I’d delete my account too. He’s being getting it for weeks because of the James Wood dig, the controversy around CMBYN and now this. He is privileged and probably is being a big baby, but Social Media is so toxic that I don’t blame anybody who wants to take a break from it.

    • Des says:

      Uh, he’s also been getting TONS of support and love because of his Woods jibe and CMBYN. They love him on Twitter a whole lot more than they hate him. Even this Buzzfeed article got a lot of criticism from people who didn’t even know him for god’s sake.

      He’s a thinskin baby.

    • Cranberry says:

      Agree with the toxic social media Ninks. So many people like @Des just use it to put people down and call them names. There’s no sense of civility anymore. Everyone is just called out and dragged on the pavement for anything they do because it’s gratifying for some to bring them down a peg or two.
      I understand the criticism of him here, but I’m sick of all the vitriolic reaction that people think they’re justified to do because someone makes a mistake or does something that’s pretty harmless and without malice. If I was getting a bunch of mean, toxic tweets, I wouldn’t put up with that shit either. If people really had something important to tweet then they would have put more thought and care into their words. He’s got the right take on it. If people are just trying to hurt you then don’t even bother with it – shut them off.

  3. Rapunzel says:

    He needs some preparation H for that butthurt.

  4. Crowdhood says:

    Plus it was buzzfeed? I mean don’t get me wrong I read their stuff too but it’s the Home
    Of “ten roller coasters to puke on before you die” and “are you a Logan or a Jess” quizzes. So like, probably calm down there, Arm and Hammer.

    • third ginger says:

      LOL. Don’t forget 10 Reasons Your Pet Hates You.

    • OG OhDear says:

      The Buzzfeed longreads are generally pretty good, and the author of that article is known for her posts on Old Hollywood for The Hairpin.

      Though I agree that it was a bad move on his part. If he wants to be a movie star, then he has to get used to criticism (fair or not). I mean even in my cubicle farm job I’d get called out if I reacted like he did.

      • milla says:

        It is such a bitter piece. I understand his pov, it was more than his flops, it felt like the writer hates him. I do not see why someone would have an agenda against him, he is very vanilla and its not like actresses or female singers are bursting with hits and talent.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I agree with you milla. It seemed personal.

      • Cranberry says:

        It’s one thing for actors to have to get used to public criticism. It’s another thing to be a willing whipping post for nasty social media minions that thrive on the anonymous, petty pain they can wield on someones life that they otherwise would have no access to. Social media is out of control on so many levels. Just look at the elections and all the professional and non-professional agitators that led the way and were rewarded for it to all of our demise.

    • tealily says:

      Anne Helen Peterson (the author) also has a PhD on celebrity culture and has taught at a university level. I think this piece was a bit pointed, but she genuinely knows here culture criticism stuff.

    • Olive says:

      Buzzfeed News ≠ Buzzfeed.

      Their news site is highly regarded and does great journalism, has for a while now, and the author of that particular article has been around for years, and she’s super smart. She did her PhD in celebrity gossip – so past and present, she knows her stuff.

  5. third ginger says:

    The writer had an important point about white, straight, male privilege, but she obscured that point by using most of her 5,000 word article to bash Hammer. Therefore, many readers lost her point completely and saw the essay as a “hit piece.” I think it was an unhelpful strategy to use one particular actor to make her point. She does throw in some other names, but does not address how privilege works in their careers.

    Hammer should never have responded. It makes him look petty.

    • Bex says:

      Yep, this. If I were her editor, I’d have been yelling ‘main thesis in the first paragraph!’

      She claimed on Twitter that she was analysing the persona and not the person, but I’m not sure she structured the piece well enough from the outset to make that totally obvious, so the good parts got lost.

      Hammer just looks humourless for flouncing.

    • Lucy2 says:

      This, exactly. The main point is spot on, and he certainly checks every single box of privilege. I’m sure he’s had way, way more opportunities than many other actors are allowed.
      But i think the timing of this is odd- he’s getting recognition for good work in a small movie- if this had come on the heels of another big budget, starring role flop, I could see it, the “stop trying to make him happen!” Tine, but this implies he doesn’t deserve any success, rather than just focusing on the endless open doors to a guy like him.

      A nice follow up piece might be talking about some of those actors who, for their race, gender, sexuality,, have not been given a fair chance, and who we deserve to see more of.

      • third ginger says:

        Yes. I was expecting those examples in the essay.

      • magnoliarose says:

        How about Ryan Reynolds who is a colossal jerk even by egomaniac actor standards. This is personal. Maybe they have a connection in the past or somewhere.

    • msd says:

      Yeah, I don’t understand people defending the actual article or the writing. It was needlessly snide and personal – for clicks – and didn’t explore white, male privilege effectively at all. I think a lot of people didn’t read the whole thing?

      It was disingenuous to target him when there are more egregious examples. Not that using one actor to represent a systemic problem is ever a great idea; it lets the real people with power off the hook. They did it because he’s ‘hot right now.’

      Now there are snippy articles telling him to ‘man up’ (god I hate that phrase) and Twitter dudes calling him butt hurt (urgh, gross when he’s getting attention for playing a gay character) … sigh.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Agreed. At the same time, this seemed like something he could have just ignored. Because let’s be real: If he had been a woman, the article (and those who agreed with it) probably would not have stopped at just basically calling him bland, overrated, and privileged. Especially in this post- Weinstein/Ratner/Simmons, etc. climate. Things would have gotten a lot nastier and all kinds of accusations would have been flying around if he had boobs and a vagina.

    • Sherri says:

      Yeah, the article was personal and seemed unjustified to me. Why single out this one good looking white dude? Would women and POC get more chances if he retreated to the Cayman Islands and lived a trust fund life? No. I always thought he was super vanilla too, but CMBYN was a really interesting choice, and he’s been promoting the hell out of it. I agree with the author’s overall point, but 5,000 words to trash one example? Nah.

      • Geekychick says:

        he’s from old-oil, Great -American-style-rich-family. he’s the ultimate example of white, male, wasp privilege. and he’s in a film that could be an Oscar contender. I totally see why he was the focus of the article, bc there is no better example.
        honestly, I think that with less boring, blonde,blueeyed steretype yes, HW producers maybe would look at the facts and realise that not all women and all amn want to look at and admire the same white, waspish anglo-saxon man type.
        Maybe they’d look around and see Fassbender, Miller, Momoa, Asian actors…. It’s so sad that I really struggled(I’m not a big movie fan) to remember non-white male leads aside from Elba and such? but we have 3 Chrises and Hiddleston, and Reynolds and so on and so on..

      • Cranberry says:

        So because of the privilege he was born into he should be punished because he’s more privilege than other white actors? This is your reasoning why you include Fassbender in your list of alternative “waspish anglo-saxon men”? Maybe Army’s family has more $, but last I looked Fassy is as wasp and anglo-saxon as they come and has enjoyed all the privileges that come with the designation.

  6. Fa says:

    He will be fine, but man up at least.

  7. Millenial says:

    I generally like Ann Helen Petersen articles, but I do think some of her articles have a mean-spirited undertone. Like, why pick on Armie Hammer, specifically? His comments on Nate Parker were a bit off the mark, but for the most part, he hasn’t said or done anything too egregious. I think it would have been better to write an article on ALL the mediocre white men who’ve been given second, third, fourth, and fifth chances — Armie is just one of many.

    • third ginger says:

      Agree. She undercut her own thesis and can now be labeled as just hating this particular performer.

    • grabbyhands says:


    • Kitten says:

      I think you’re absolutely right. There is PLENTY of white male mediocrity to go around. I will say though that not every mediocre white male comes from a background as wealthy and privileged as Armie.

      But I still completely agree that it turns into a bit of a hit piece when you focus on ONLY one white dude.

      • magnoliarose says:

        The funny thing kitten is some do but hide it, or they have deep connections and pretend they don’t. Julia Louis Dreyfuss’ father was a multi-billionaire and is from a more distinguished and old family going back to France.

      • Cranberry says:

        Yes plenty of white male mediocrity. If you’re going to tackle this issue then I think it’s important to not mix white male privilege with economic privilege even if they’re linked. If the article was making the point of how many chances white actors get because of their race and gender then leave out class privilege. We all know wealth gives an advantage to those that have it. It muddles the initial point.

    • Queenfreddie says:

      I diagree but I have hated him since he defended not having any native americans in lone ranger. He said that Natives were happy about it! He has history of saying dumb stuff along with the Nate Parker stuff.

      • ichsi says:

        Yep, he’s been saying a lot of dumb stuff in his past interviews, if she’d wanted to get personal she could have focused more on that. I felt like the article was a little too long but not a particular attack on him, however, he completely proved her point by replying the way he did. So maybe she did it because she knew how he’d react or, more likely, like @Marianne said, he’s in an Oscar contender movie. CMBYN has a lot of issues if you ask me (some of which Armie also adressed poorly) and it’s small, but it’s still Oscar bait-y af and half of the Academy are creaming themselves over it. So it makes sense to me she’d look closer at one of its stars.

    • Marianne says:

      I think she singled out Armie specifically because Call Me By Your Name is a contender for the Oscars.

      • Cranberry says:

        So. It’s not the first time or even the 10th time a marketable “safe”, mediocre, white guy has been nominated for an Oscar, hell even won one.

    • Cranberry says:


  8. Mia4s says:

    Eh, I’d rather see a focus on the privilege that shielded someone like Casey Affleck. Or how someone like Emile Hirsch is still working (although at a much lower level) after choking and attacking a woman in front of dozens of witnesses. Armie doesn’t bother me. He also had the personal money to wait for his million chances. Life’s not fair but on the list of Hollywood crimes that’s pretty low on the list. There are bigger fish to fry.

    • Rapunzel says:

      The protection of white mediocrity is not nearly as awful as the complicit celebration of white criminality under the guise of “talent”

    • lucy2 says:

      You are so right, on both of those examples. Casey especially, who seems unrepentant and entitled.

  9. anna says:

    what stood out for me on the last cb article about him was the incredible amount of goodwill he got from most of the posters here, even though what he said about nate parker being unfairly put in “director’s jail” (as opposed to actual jail, where he belongs imho) was at best problematic and at worst, a rape-apology. what a contrast to the vitriol amber heard got a day before for saying really benign stuff about the lack of good roles for women etc. the double-standard is astounding. so i think anne petersen is on to something.

    • Geekychick says:

      yes. taylor swift is main enemy of all women, although she raises some good points and she never, ever said anything really damaging (it’s the fact she didn’t come out and take a strong political stance, but as I said, I live ina country where political views aren’t made, led and shaped by singers, actors and so I see it as politically immature, anyway)-but Armie Hammer, who said and aluded really disgusting point about Parker (CAsey got an Oscar, Parker got disgraced, whyyyy???booohoooo? he just raped and drove his victim to suicide!) is ok in many many books here. I just don’t get, if it isn’t all about subtle misoginy and classicism.

    • ell says:

      i didn’t know he said that, that’s really nagl. and yes, i see your point.

    • PPP says:

      As one of the commenters defending her, yeah. However, I’ve never thought the way to elevate one person is to denigrate another, and though I love Anne Helen Peterson, her article is a case in point. I’d rather ask why someone like Heard doesn’t have good will than be upset at Hammer for having it. Instead, use him as a model for how to treat female performers and performers of color. As we can see from his reaction, this sort of negative approach doesn’t get through.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        I don’t know, I feel like his reaction shows that he is rarely criticized. As a public person that’s some rare privilege.

    • DiligentDiva says:

      I thought he was more pointing out how Hollywood easily throws MOC under the bus when they are accused but fail to do the same for white men. I thought it’s an interesting point to make. I’m not sure he’s the person to do it and I think it wasn’t framed correctly but I do think there is still a point to be raised how white men get away with crimes while black men get punished for theirs.
      I’m not saying no punishment should be had, but there certainly is white privilege going on in some of these cases.

      • Cranberry says:

        Yes, he did have a point. The contrast between the outcomes of the two men’s lives are like night and day.

    • Kitten says:

      Yeah that thread was an abomination.

    • Elaine says:

      Yeah @Anna, I too felt as if Armie was dismissing the outcry against Nate Parker. A kind of “It happened when he was 18! It was terrible! But everyone should just let it go! Why won’t they?”


      I loved him in the Social Network. He was so privileged, so menacing *shudder*

      I find this new film to be problematic. Isn’t the boy character underage? Not ok with pushing the boundaries on age-of-consent laws.

    • milla says:

      He was pointing out how white guy gets an Oscar black guy gets …well nothing. Sensitive matter, but it is reality. Both should be jailed, but Armie is not the judge. That is what i read. As many others.

      And with all that Affleck brothers did, who knows what Armie knows. He was kind of giving a hint. In a less than perfect world we still need to talk about double standards. It this case it was skin color and connections.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I never took it as a defense of Nate but as an example of how two terrible men got treated differently because of skin color and Casey’s behavior was recent and won an Oscar. I didn’t read it as anything positive.
        I thought of Nate being used as an example of hypocrisy.

        Perhaps I missed something. Idk

      • anna says:

        armie said: “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. (…) [Parker] had one incident — which was heinous and atrocious — but his entire life is affected in the worst possible way.”

        that’s not a defense of nate? i feel like your comment proves my point. look at these quotes and think how you’d feel if let’s say halle berry had said that. oh she would be cancelled. there would be screaming. the goodwill towards armie hammer is out of control.

      • Geekychick says:

        Nate Parker gang-raped, afterwards stalked and harrassed his victim and his act ultimately led her to suiicide, destroying her life.
        casey Affleck sexually harrassed 3 knwn women.
        sorry, but you can’t tell me that’s the same.
        even more, IMO, you can’t defend Parker: there is no comparison, no time, no redeeming that could make him deserving of anything.
        look at it this way:Armie H, bc of his role in a Parker’s movie that should have been greatly praised, feels sorry for a guy who did all of this disgusting things, destroyed a life, and never went to jail for it. no legal consequences! none!

        I think CA shouldn’t have a career in HW, I think he should face the law.
        I think Nate Parker should rot in hell.
        and I think Armie Hammer is canceled for me: I don’t have patience for clueless, privileged males who have no understanding of anyone else’s troubles.I feel complicit that way.

  10. Talie says:

    I’m a fan of these long-form pieces Anne Helen does, but I do agree that she had a certain bent with Armie because he is the epitome of white privlege…with the billionaire heritage and all.

    But I also think Armie keeps getting cast because it is unusual to find a waspy guy as tall as he is and fits a certain look. The Australians have the height and look as well, but in a different way.

  11. grabbyhands says:

    I’ve never understood his appeal – he has all the screen presence and charisma of a Ken doll. I guess looking like an Aryan poster boy has its benefits.

    While I think the article did get a few hits in, mostly I didn’t understand the purpose of it. Well, that’s not exactly true – I DID understand the intention, but at the same time, like, who is even checking for this guy? Why was he worthy of a huge article about what a flop he is? He’s likely to fade back into the C list soon – unless all this press has brought him the kind of attention the writer thinks he shouldn’t have for being a mediocre white actor to begin with.

  12. Wen says:

    Those Hollywood people have such frail egos. They just want to be heaped on with praise and admiration, otherwise they can’t hear it.

    • Sherri says:

      I guess I have a frail ego, too. Twitter ain’t for sissies, which of course I know going in, but a long hit piece, yeah, it would sting. Unfortunately for him, his limited range means that he has to have the right part, much like Keanu Reeves, whom I adore but let’s be real. I’m more bothered by his referring to himself as an artist in recent interviews. Dude, get over yourself. You are a handsome, privileged actor who is lucky to have gotten so many shots at success.

    • Cranberry says:

      It’s not like HW isn’t one of the most cut throat, carnivorous industries around even for privilege white dudes.

  13. littlemissnaughty says:

    These people (celebrities, “artistes”) really have no impulse control and don’t know how to take criticism, valid or not. Christ. Most of us deal with fair or unfair criticism all the time and we breathe a few times, get some coffee, and move on.

    Also, who is going to suffer because you delete your Twitter? I don’t understand this move. It’s like your bitchy cousin not coming to your wedding as punishment for calling them bitchy. I mean, thank you?

  14. rachel says:

    I don’t think his response to Anne was fair at all. He used his star power to put a target on her back and now her mentions on twitter are probably filled with hate from his crazy fans. It’s an obvious power play and if I didn’t have strong opinions about him before I definitely do now. As for the article there’s nothing that deserve the outraged reactions she got. Sure using multiple exemples might have been better but other than that. Frankly there are worst things written about actresses everyday and yet I never seen the Jlaw, Vikander or Lupita answering like this.

    • JustJen says:

      He has crazy fans? I’m going to zip over to IMDB just to find out what he’s been in so I can jog my memory.

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t think he should have taken it so personally, but I also think the journalist also has to be willing to take heat if they write something. She decided to interpret his individual personality in a certain tone — she now has to be willing to see how people respond to it.

      If she had interpreted Donald Trump’s personality, I’d be more sympathetic. But Armie Harmmer plays such a small role in the world at large, I think the time spent doing an investigate piece on his personality, instead of the big figures doing actual damage, is a bit weird in the current times we’re living. At the same time, maybe he should be flattered that anyone paid that much attention to him. Okay, I’m conflicted.

  15. Giulia says:

    For me Armie is a throwback to a time when there was space for mid-level leading men. I don’t have a problem with the guy. And Twitter makes everyone into a a-hole sometimes. It’s too bad the article’s point got lost because the writer turned it into a personal attack on an actor. That’s just bad writing.

    But mainly I want his wife Elizabeth’s fierce AF shoes!

  16. Yawn says:

    Ehhhh… she lost me when she just continued to lambast the guy for being a privileged white dude. Hammer’s done nothing but act-He ain’t the best actor but he’s far from the worst, it’s not like he kicked your puppy or anything… go pick on the dudes that deserve the vitriol like Casey Affleck or Ed Westwick.

  17. Felicia says:

    This has nothing to do with white privilege per se and everything to do with fact that his family is super well connected and very very wealthy. His great grandfather was the Chairman of Occidental Petroleum, for those who don’t know that.

    It’s very likely that his continued access to good roles has far more to do with the color green than it does with the color white. Not to say he’s buying his roles, but if the guy you hire has the connections to possibly bring money people in to invest in your project, no one in HW is going to turn that down.

    I would consider this to be far more a form of hand-me-down nepotism and that quite frankly is not something confined to any particular skin colour or gender. I’m sure we can all think of a few dozen examples of families using their connections, wealth or both to give their kids or grandkids an advantage or an “in” that the little people don’t have.

    • Jayna says:

      And I can think of a lot of major celebrities’ kids with powerful connections who get nowhere in their career compared to their parents, no matter how much they try to make it happen. In fact, most don’t.

      • Geekychick says:

        but it’s not the same. this is totally different level of power and connections, that his family has. it’s like…he’s the son of the president and celebrity kids are seceretary’s children.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You are right Jayna. It doesn’t seem that way because those kids didn’t make it, so you don’t know. You get a chance, but it won’t make you a star. His family is wealthy but in the scheme of big wealth it is much less than 45’s or Brad Pitt’s.

    • eto says:

      why can’t it be both?

    • ellieohara says:

      There are tons of well connected billionaires’ kids in Hollywood. The Mara sisters, Kimmy Schmidt and the girl who ruined the Last Airbender movie (who was only cast as a favor to her father and then because she was white meant that they had to white wash the film).

      Hollywood is full of nepotism and singling out one person for it makes no sense.

    • Cranberry says:

      Well if his family was buying him in as you suggest, and you are suggesting that, then why didn’t Anne bring this up considering all her research and laser focus on him.

      The amount of $ to make a decent film is a lot for anyone to simply foot the entire bill with no guarantee of a return. You need multiple investors, and usually none of them, even family and friends, are interested in losing $ if it flops. That’s something that even the big studios can’t control no matter how much $ or how many celebrities they put in a film.

      Having connections in HW is extremely important, but the connections have to be HW connections. Otherwise it’s all about the cash which might get you in the door to the right people, but no one’s going to give out lead roles to someone that doesn’t have some talent and commitment. Having a very rich family will help you pay for agents and training, and get you in the door, but it won’t buy you success in HW if no one will pay the price of a ticket to see you.

  18. Belle Epoch says:

    Anyone else think the body language is off in these photos? Of course the pictures are only 2 seconds out of their lives, but they aren’t responding to each other.

  19. JustJen says:

    “Maybe I’m just a guy who loves his job and refuses to do anything but what he loves to do…?”

    See, most people don’t have that luxury regardless of their gender or skin color. So he pretty much offended everyone but the people rich due to an inheritance. Personally, I can’t get past the name “Armie”. Really??? Armie, yes I know it’s a nickname but it’s still awful.

    • Geekychick says:

      This! thank you!
      I also love my job, but considering I have to put food on my kid’s table, unfortunately, after 10years of mind-numbingly intensive, financially exhausting education-I will try to find any other job. Lucky you, Armie, you don’t have to.

    • Kitten says:

      Haha…exactly. Your privilege is showing, Armie.

      I don’t think he’s a bad guy per se, just unaware and clueless like a lot of white dudes and white women for that matter.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Now, this should have been the point and not single out anyone as benign as Armie. He isn’t the problem nor did he create it. He is a beneficiary or a result of a long-standing racist social order that included eugenics.
      The point is lost.
      The article should have been about the system, examples of this injustice and ideas to improve.

      However, he should have just ignored his Tweets and had an assistant delete them. No one needed to know it bothered him. He should just acknowledge it because it is the truth. His Aryan looks, wealth and white male privilege have given him more than is fair and he knows it. To ignore it and not learn to understand it makes him look obtuse and even more like a pampered rich boy. A sense of humor and self-deprecation goes a long way.

  20. hey-ya says:

    …having seen Justice League Id like to say that somehow Affleck has presence maybe charisma…not sure how he does it…Armie however has nothing..except his wmp…

  21. ell says:

    i literally never even heard of this dude until call me by your name. he seems harmless though, privileged, but harmless.

    i wish they were writing more articles about the affleck brothers, or other renowned abusers/harassers.

  22. Margo S. says:

    I agree. I thought the article should have focused more on the whole white cisgendered dudes of Hollywood. Maybe even gone more in-depth about other actors, like Ryan reynolds. I found it quite crass and remember thinking, “damn, this reporting has it out for armie!”

  23. Juju says:

    I’m having a hard time with the question “why is he still trying”? Isn’t everyone allowed to keep trying to achieve their career aspirations? I see this a lot on this website. That certain actors should stop trying when it comes to their movies or fashion or political views. I don’t think it’s fair to hold him to a higher standard than we would an average Joe accountant or something. Isn’t perseverance an admirable thing?

    That being said, white male privledge certainly exists and yes it benefits men like Armie. But I blame the system and not him, unless he fails to acknowledge the benefits. But I feel like he has done that (although I have not read every article or interview with him so this perception is only partially informed).

  24. Samantha says:

    It’s a petty move and reflects badly on him. I wish he’d stay to make a response to Casey Affleck’s pathetic statement. I think that entitled, insensitive statement that was meant as a thinly-veiled threat deserves far more media scrutiny. But somehow everything Casey does goes under the radar.

  25. happyoften says:

    A spoiled ass white boy was singled out and attacked for being a spoiled ass white white boy, so he broke his toy and went home. Thereby proving he’s kind of a spoiled ass white boy. Huh.

    Mr. Hammer is a big, good looking, wealthy white male. He was given many opportunities because of this. Hell, he was born with an ecxess of every single marker for success, except for maybe ambition. An ambitious Armie Hammer would have taken over the world by now. This cat just wants to star in a few movies. Probably we should be thankful.


  26. Parigo says:

    He needs to stop talking and take the high road. Everytime he opens his yap recently his foot goes right in it.

  27. DiligentDiva says:

    This is all so stupid. The article has a point, but at the same time, it was oddly framed in a way which did make it seem like a hit piece. Armie Hammer is stupid for deleting his twitter, but I do get his anger over the piece. It just seems so stupid. The article would have been much better had it had multiple actors likes Hammer and compared them to women and POC who have had similar career setbacks and how it differed.

  28. Neha says:

    I don’t know, I think Hollywood is just different and lots of people, regardless of color and sexuality and socioeconomic background, gets lots of chances despite failures. It was a dumb article. I’d much rather yell at AH about his stance on false Nate Parker/Casey Affleck equivalency than being born white and male. He hit the jackpot, but it’s not his fault unless he refused to acknowledge that privilege.

  29. manta says:

    The guy who said he had never laughed so hard in his life before the Oscar debacle, who jumped on his coach watching the mess, is calling someone else bitter?
    Please, poor thing is still hurt, after his initial buzz for The social network, that none of his high profile or prestige projects really took off.

  30. KBB says:

    This guy comes off as completely arrogant, over sensitive, and a little unstable IMO.

    He’d be a lot more appealing if he could laugh at himself and his box office bombs just a little. He’s constantly claiming his movies were specifically targeted by malevolent critics. It’s bizarre.

  31. Jamie42 says:

    Just looked at the article–it was too personal and too specific to be anything but a hit piece on him, and most certainly was not a thoughtful meditation/analysis on white privilege. Is it time to stop trying to make this kind of snarky “journalism” happen?
    That being said: he gave it 1000 times more visibility by responding.
    I don’t much like him as a screen presence (haven’t seen the recent film though) and he should use Armand, even if it is French, rather than Armie (which is awful). That’s the end of my thinking on the subject.

  32. Mina says:

    I was one of the people that criticized Armie Hammer’s take on the whole Parker/Affleck thing but anyone who criticizes Buzzfeed wins points with me.

  33. Mina says:

    I was one of the people that criticized Armie Hammer’s take on the whole Parker/Affleck thing but anyone who criticizes Buzzfeed wins points with me.

  34. JG says:

    Generally can’t stand Anne Helen Peterson. She did a takedown of Tom Hanks a while back – what’s not to like about Tom Hanks? So I agree she just brims with anger and hatred and resentment,. She basically has a Ph.D. in celebrity gossip. Literally. Nevertheless, if she had focused on the mediocrity of Ryan Reynolds Instead of Armie Hammer, I would agree,. At least Armie is handsome, semi-talented, and has appeared in at least one decent move (The Social Network). Not the case at all for RR. Flop after flop after flop until Deadpool. And he isn’t even handsome!!!

    • Pineapple says:

      I agree Ryan Reynolds is really unattractive (on top of being super thirsty like his wife) but I was pleasantly surprised by Woman in Gold. He can act.

  35. Greenie says:

    I read that he doesn’t get along with his father and he’s not actually getting any of that family money. So he may have grown up with money but he’s not wallowing in it.

    The Buzzfeed article felt like a hit piece, targeting him as more than just the poster child for a demographic of actors (that I feel he mostly but not quite fully represents), taking the criticism to a rather personal and at times almost petty level.

    That being said, he’s still not the most sympathetic character. I didn’t really appreciate his take on Nate Parker. Also, of his movies that I’ve seen, I only liked his performances in The Man from UNCLE and TSN. Plus he really is quite thin-skinned, and that only plays into the idea that he’s precious and cannot take criticism, unfair or otherwise.

    All in all, I’m just meh about him, which I suspect is the problem of his career—not many people seem to be that emotionally invested in him or his success, because he’s not an underdog and most things for someone like him are always going to work out all right.

    • Div says:

      His great-grandfather and grandfather were a Russian Jewish communist and very liberal, respectively, while his father converted to Christianity and became very conservative. His dad also ran an extremely conservative Christian school and Christian radio station (my friend knew someone who went to the school, that’s how I know the tea). Armie has made several very critical comments of Trump and his racism and seems to make a point of stating his Jewish identity that his Dad has seemingly rejected.

      Basically, I wouldn’t be surprised if he and his father were at odds at all.

      • perplexed says:

        So Armie Hammer is Jewish? All this time, I thought he was 100 percent White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant.

    • leigh says:

      Why do you need to be emotionally invested in his background? Why do you need to even know his background??? He’s an actor, not your friend.

    • perplexed says:

      He probably would have made it big in the 1950s.

      I think audiences are now rebelling against bland people. It’s somewhat interesting to see.

  36. Greenie says:

    Ugh sorry, double post.

  37. courtney says:

    with all the terrible things going on in the world and the assault in hollywood coming to light, this guy has the thinnest skin. would it feel good to be singled out like that? of course not, but the article, while critical, was not cruel or hateful. he needs a thicker skin in this industry. he is a privileged, mediocre actor who wants praise and no criticism. he’s in the wrong field for that. he showed no grace or humility. his fragile ego is embarrassing and he handled it poorly. he is also a major rape apologist masquerading as a woke dude. all that passion for calling out hollywood against vile rapist nate parker and his “ruined career for one stupid mistake at 18” and not a word about the REAL victims. he’s pathetic in my opinion. weak and cowardly.

    • Geekychick says:

      Finally! thank you. that’s exactly who he is and I can’t believe that a number. of comments are saying he’s harmless and why don’t we focus on bigger problems. bc people like Armie, in real life, are the people that profit and maintain this kind of scial order-classisit, provileged, mysoginistic. let’s call it by its name: rape apologists aren’t a small problem.

  38. Sarah6 says:

    Armie isn’t using his families wealth to pay his bills. His parents disowned him when he dropped out of high school to pursue acting. And he and his gf now wife struggled for years. Hollywood has not tried to make him happy. He learned after 2 or 3 flops to make smaller movies. And Call Me By Your Name had a budget of 3.5 milion and he’s quite moving and has a good chance to be nominated and win an Oscar. as for the “man up” comments here on and on Slate because he decided to leave a toxic social media platform, really? A man can’t be sensitive or have feelings? Why are we surprised a human being has feelings because he’s tall or had a rich upbringing? I’m glad people are recognizing what a terrible and misguided article Ann wrote and that Call Me By Your Name is now an early box office hit despite its limited release.

    • Kitten says:

      A better question would be: when are men ever NOT allowed to have feelings and to be (overly) sensitive? Have you seen who’s running our country right now FFS?

      Every single guy I’ve ever dated–even my current BF who is much more emotionally strong than any of my exes–has been overly sensitive when it comes to their own feelings.

      The difference is that generally-speaking, men are sensitive when it comes to THEM and not as much when it comes to the feelings of others.

      Women on the other hand are USED to fighting for everything we have. We are USED to being criticized and perpetually taken down a notch. We are USED to being unheard, especially in a room full of men. And we are USED to working harder than men for the same achievements/successes. Men, however, are NOT used to being criticized, especially by women who aren’t their mother. They are NOT used to being told that they are wrong. They are NOT used to being corrected or talked over.

      Men are FRAGILE AF compared to women and society not only allows them to be that way, we make it as comfortable as possible for them while protecting their precious feelings from public scrutiny. Kinda like you did right here, actually.

      We just wrapped up a month of listening to women (and some men too) come forward with their own stories of workplace (and non-workplace) harassment at the hands of men. Many of these women lost jobs or were forced out because they couldn’t/wouldn’t endure the abuse. And here we have a man who is privileged for all intents and purposes, who hasn’t had to worry about being cornered by Weinstein or worse, being revictimized by society and called a liar, etc after coming forward and people rush to coddle him. AH has had it really f*cking easy compared to a lot of people and he has a meltdown because of one critical article? Nah.

      • Kitten says:

        To add, I do think it reads as a “hit piece” but I also think he should have ignored it and I’m not going to rush to indulge precious feelings from a guy who has had it pretty good by most people’s standards.

      • ellieohara says:

        So the solution (instead of getting people to be nicer to women) is to yell at men and call them babies? That’ll get us the world we won’t, clearly.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Abstractly our misogynistic society has created a language that benefits no one. I am not one for man-up language because that reads like men are supposed to be stronger and more stoic than women. It implies that emotion and hurt feelings are for women and therefore weak. It plays into toxic masculinity and male abusive behaviors and bullying. Being thin skinned is gender neutral as is being thick skinned.

        This is the attitude that worries me for my sensitive little boy while ignoring the strengths of my feisty girl individually but I hope our world is better my children and everyone else’s.

      • housy says:

        it’s ridiculous how everyone is yelling at him for leaving twitter. especially when they compare it to the treatment of famous women. because, guess what: you can’t compare it to your own experiences so you gotta take someone else’s since you have never experienced being hated on via social media from all sides 24/7. comparison of who has it worse is stupid anyway, because ‘bullying’ is ‘bullying’ and everyone has their individual boundaries. who are you to invalidate feelings? I recently read something along the line: if one drowns in 8ft of water and the other in 20ft, they’re both drowning in the end

      • I Choose Me says:

        Two words: emotional labor. Everything you said kitten is spot the f-ck on.

  39. Div says:

    White systematic privilege is a big problem in Hollywood and does need to be addressed. Armie, Ryan, Chris Evans getting a big chunk of money to direct and write his own movie without ever having written or directed so much as a music video before, etc. can even be used as examples. What really should be addressed is men like Depp and Casey A. getting chance after chance despite their pasts full of abuse and harassment. I’d also argue that white posh privilege is something that should be addressed, as James McAvoy and David Oyelowo have pointed out repeatedly.

    However, the article had several glaringly wrong points, as several film critics pointed out, and made overly personal, almost abrasive digs about Armie himself and his wife. Furthermore, the whole center was on Armie, not systematic white privilege, so it also failed in that regard. Armie’s response was a bit petty and it seemed a bit childish to delete his twitter if it was just for the Buzzfeed article, but the Buzzfeed article is rightfully getting some blowback for being too mean and just not a very good take on a very real issue.

    *If anyone is interested, Ira Madison tends to write in a more cognizant manner on race in Hollywood (most likely because he is a Black, gay writer and we need more POC voices in journalism to talk about these issues) and he also summed up the issue with the Armie piece in a few tweets.

  40. perplexed says:

    I think technically the writer was correct, but there’s a certain tone to Buzzfeed writing that could be construed as personal.

    I vaguely remember Chris Rock making a joke about why Jude Law is still in movies, but his commentary made sense since he’s a comedian and he has the timing to make the joke funny as….uh, AF. I think journalists have to be more measured in how they write. I also think Chris Rock’s comment was brief enough. When a journalist goes on and on about an actor, I tend to get a weird vibe off of it. Maybe I feel it takes over effective writing and makes the writing hard to read, even though the general point might be correct. But that of course could come down to the writer and how they make their point. Another writer might have done a better job of making the same point.

  41. FF says:

    lol, He’s not the only Fetch they’ve been trying to make happen. That’s all Hollywood exists for making white guy fetchs seem like exotic, ” genius” commodities and using that framework to exploit/assault/harrass as many people as possible in the name of white guy “talent”/”genius”.

    Chris Pine is another one they keep shoving into every franchise going. It’s far from just a one guy issue, and at least Armie is easy on the eye. It’s worse when they try to convince your average looking guys at best are gorgeous.

    Also, as Rapunzel said: The protection of white mediocrity is not nearly as awful as the complicit celebration of white criminality under the guise of “talent”

    Personally, though, I think one feeds into the other but singling out one actor when it’s an endemic issue with multiple examples undermines the main arguement leaving it open to the “personal grudge” type of derailment. Buzzfeed needs to think a little further along with these pieces, a lot of them keep falling short.

  42. Mia says:

    Maybe I am just a cynical black woman…actually no I am quite cynical and even more so these days but the piece sort of just reads like a white woman wanting brownie points for dragging another white man. I think a lot of white actresses are also given plenty of chances and the industry also tries to make them happen. White women benefit from white men second to none in a system of white supremacy.

    Yeah she had some good points but I am in no mood to hear it today.

    Maybe because this weekend at my job at a non profit the white women who came to ask about donations looked at me like I was absolute trash before I even opened my mouth. Then proceed to ignore me when I tried to help and only talk to my white co worker. Not even gonna get into how my co workers treat me.

    I would have tried to not let it bother me so much if I didn’t already get similar looks and rude whispers shopping on black Friday where I was looked up and down like I wasn’t even human by some of the white ladies sales staff repeatedly. I got the message that my black behind wasn’t welcome there. And yes it crushed my spirit for the rest of the day.

    The lack of self awareness and the hypocrisy of white women talking about how white men benefit from the system is baffling to me.

    • msd says:

      “the piece sort of just reads like a white woman wanting brownie points for dragging another white man.”

      It does rather read like that. Sort of forced, as though she’s trying to prove how woke she is…

      Would a woc have singled out Hammer or made it personal? Probably not because she would have had an authentic experience of the wider issue.

      I’m sorry for your experiences at work and in your daily life. I won’t pretend I understand what that’s like – I don’t – but I am truly sorry.

    • alternative fact says:

      @ mia

      “the piece sort of just reads like a white woman wanting brownie points for dragging another white man. I think a lot of white actresses are also given plenty of chances and the industry also tries to make them happen. White women benefit from white men second to none in a system of white supremacy.”


    • magnoliarose says:

      Hmmm. That has more to do with sexism than race, but I agree with the fact that mediocre white actresses are a problem too. Chris Pratt and the Hemsworths for some more men to throw on the pile.
      I think all the Jens are good examples of women.

      I reread your post a few times and then thought about it. She made a class argument, but that is a smaller by far problem than race. So primarily she was addressing a white problem among white people and just one guy in particular.

      I mean well even if I make a fool of myself here sometimes, but I am glad you stick around mia and all the WOC. As sad and pathetic as it sounds (because it is) and it isn’t your job, but you elevate the conversation and open my eyes to a lot. Thank you.

    • Snowflake says:

      I’m so sorry, that’s terrible

  43. Hi it’s me says:

    I’ve never heard of this person before and can guarantee that that I have not nor look for his social media. Ever. Is he an Actor?

  44. CK3 says:

    The author had a point that she obscured in a 5000 article that singled out one guy, who isn’t even the biggest beneficiary of this. I also think it’s a bit unfair to any actor (and more importantly) supporting actors to single them out as responsible for the flop w/ many of the critical issues don’t rest on their shoulders. Armie isn’t Taylor Kitsch. The movies aren’t being marketed around him. Aside from “The Man from Uncle” (even though Cavill got more attention for that), he’s always been a supporting player. Hell, even in the smaller indie film CMBYN, he’s the supporting player. No studio is tossing money trying to make Armie work. They’re trying to make someone/something else work and are casting what they assume will be a nice supporting player.

  45. jello says:

    he should have written one on Channing Tatum. so damn over rated and cannot emote to save his life

  46. Petitehirondelle says:

    Same for good looking women: Megan Fox, Jennifer Lopez, Eva Mendes ( that moment in The Women was a disaster),… and they have had so Many roles! They are thousands better actress in drama school in London, Paris, New York,…

  47. perplexed says:

    I don’t think Armie Hammer is articulate, but if the problem is that he keeps getting roles, I’d target Tobey Maguire over him. Tobey Maguire isn’t conventionally handsome and he isn’t particularly nice and he isn’t prodigiously talented and he isn’t charming or charismatic — like, why does HE keep getting roles? Hammer at least fits some pre-existing condition of being good-looking and I was under the impression Hollywood prefers good-looking people.

    I’m not saying I would pay to see a movie with Archie Hammer in it, and I agree with the assessment that he’s so good-looking that he’s actually kind of boring, but I’m not really confused as to why he’d get cast in stuff either. If the men get to see boring but really good-looking women like Natalie Portman act so that their eyes can delight in the visuals of beauty, I don’t see why women shouldn’t have the same option made available to them too. I don’t think Jonah Hill is untalented, but, you know, having the other option of looking at a good-looking man try to act doesn’t have to be made off-limits to women.

  48. Anare says:

    There are so many hateful trolls on Twitter. I’m just a nobody from nowheresville who rarely posts anything to Twitter and I have had trolls make random ugly comments to me and it takes me aback. I am decidedly not thin-skinned either but the quick nastiness can be unnerving. I can hardly imagine what it would be like to be a famous person on Twitter.

    Why pick on Army Hammer FFS? He’s the best example of white privilege that someone could come up with? 🙄

    • JoJo says:

      Agreed. I think the writer should have focused more on the structure that enables this and makes this same trajectory nearly impossible for those who aren’t white males vs. singling our Hammer. It diminished her overall point.

      That said, if she was going to focus in on someone, I agree with @magnoliarose above – what about someone like Matt Damon or Ryan Reynolds. Damon in particular is a blatantly obvious choice, and I find it interesting and notable that he gets yet another pass here (and to make it worse, the writer doesn’t even mention Damon in her list of other men who get the same type of Hammer treatment in Hollywood, although she mentions his BFF Affleck.) Damon is a perfect example of the A-list white bread boy, super connected in Hwood, who gets chance after chance while making decades of movies that are bad to boring to meh. He’s also largely gotten a pass for his role in propping up Casey Affleck for the Manchester award. This is notable to me – that this writer chose to focus on a relatiively harmless/benign example like Hammer, when Damon would be a poster child for this story. Was Damon too big a target for her?