Is Armie Hammer right about a ‘conspiracy’ to hurt his Oscar campaign?

2017 LACMA Art and Film Gala

By most of the Oscar predictions, this was going to be Armie Hammer’s year. Critics love Call Me By Your Name, and Armie is basically guaranteed an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his performance as the object of a lustful teenager’s affection. Armie has been front and center – more so than the star, Timothee Chalamet – for the Oscar campaign for the film. He’s doing magazine covers and industry-paper interviews. And sh-t has gone off the rails rather quickly. Armie’s Hollywood Reporter interview was messy AF, and he just seemed to strike the wrong notes overall about Nate Parker and the “conspiracy” around Birth of a Nation. Armie also came across like a rape apologist, which is never a good look. Add to that the fact that Armie deleted his Twitter account after Buzzfeed published a brutal essay on his white, pedigreed mediocrity, it definitely feels like Armie’s Oscar campaign is taking some hits. But what if he was right all along about the “conspiracy” against him?

Just because Harvey Weinstein is out of the Oscars picture, it doesn’t mean there won’t be the usual dirty tricks, smear campaigns and intense awards jockeying behind the scenes. In a bombshell Hollywood Reporter interview, Armie Hammer — who starred in last year’s front-runner turned awards-poison “The Birth of a Nation” — accuses an unnamed industry player of sinking that movie by leaking details to the media about director Nate Parker being accused of rape. The actor predicted he’ll be hammered again this year for his latest film, “Call Me by Your Name,” a gay romance set in 1980s Italy.

Hammer claims the timing of headlines about rape allegations made in 1999 against Parker “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 declined to name the culprit, but speculation has swirled that the competing leaker was uberproducer Scott Rudin, another awards mastermind, who had “Fences” up for the 2017 Oscars.

But another source insisted of the speculation, “It had nothing to do with Scott. It was literally on Nate Parker’s Wikipedia page. It was simply [distributor] Fox Searchlight’s mistake.” (Parker was acquitted in 2001.)

Yet Hammer was expecting more subterfuge this season, adding: “Given my history . . . I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop.” By Tuesday, perhaps it already had. BuzzFeed had posted a critical piece on Hammer, asking, “How many second chances does a handsome white male star get?” after failures including “The Lone Ranger.”

Hammer tweeted in response: “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?” Then he deleted his Twitter account. Rudin, who declined to comment, gave Hammer his big break in “The Social Network.” He also produced Greta Gerwig’s “Lady Bird,” which is rivaling Hammer’s movie for Oscar buzz.

[From Page Six]

I still maintain that Birth of a Nation’s Oscar campaign was over before it started because Nate Parker couldn’t talk his way out of a paper bag. His ill-conceived apology/explanation tour was what destroyed his Oscar chances, plus people actually learned the real facts around the rape trial, and the fact that Parker’s victim committed suicide. There was never going to be a way to “explain” any of that, but Parker made it infinitely worse with his “tour.” Now, was Armie wrong that Casey Affleck’s history of sexual abuse and harassment allegations was ignored? No, he wasn’t wrong. Casey was a protected and well-connected white man and he ended up with an Oscar, and Armie has every right to point that sh-t out. As for the conspiracies that someone – SCOTT RUDIN?!?!?! – is trying to harm Armie’s campaign… well, I want to hear more. I absolutely believe that Scott Rudin is that Machiavellian.

Incidentally, Armie chatted with The Wrap this week about why he deleted his Twitter account following the Buzzfeed essay. He told The Wrap: “I just have no impulse control. So if somebody says something stupid, I couldn’t help but say something back, and then it just exploded. This is a toxic environment, and my life is way better off. It’s so funny — People are so addicted and into Twitter, it seems crazy that someone could walk away from it! They’re like, wait, he DELETED IT? It was actually really easy.” I don’t hate this explanation, honestly.

The Hammer Museum 15th Annual Gala

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

67 Responses to “Is Armie Hammer right about a ‘conspiracy’ to hurt his Oscar campaign?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. third ginger says:

    I am not a fan, but I am looking forward to seeing CALL ME BY YOUR NAME. Hammer, whatever his complaints, needs to calm down. Nominations are often won not only through talent but through being polite and humble Or at least appearing to be.. This will come as no surprise to those who follow the Oscar race. One of the worst things that can happen to a potential nominee is that his or her controversies distract from the film’s reception.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      He is so arrogant and unlikeable to me. It makes me not want to see the film he’s in. *sigh*

  2. Nicole says:

    Honestly please shut up. I really don’t need another white man whining about things being unfair. He’s average and he got more chances than anyone else (not being a cis White male) would get.
    Have ALL the seats.

    • Whoopsy Daisy says:

      He’s also from a very rich background. So he’s privileged even among cis white man.

    • Rev says:

      Wah, privileges, wah, cis white male…

      If y’all spent less time playing victim and more time trying to do something with your life, you may actually achieve something. If you need advice, talk to a hard-working “cis” white male.

      Whining about being “marginalized” won’t get y’all any “privileges.” Just make y’all one of those failures “cis” white males is going to have to support/carry/babysit in one way or another.

  3. Mina says:

    Sounds to me that all this talk is just part of his Oscar campaign as well.

    • Char says:

      White man acting like a victim, nothing new here.

      • Squiggisbig says:

        I also think this is a strategy. Pretend it would be some conspiracy to NOT get nominated thus securing a nomination.

        Also fences was a better film than birth of a nation. That has nothing to do with Scott Rudin.

  4. amanda says:

    Why is he referencing old rape allegations tanking an Oscar campaign then questioning whether his own history will come back to haunt him? Does he have raped skeletons in his closet? This guy needs better management.

    • friday'd says:

      he was literally referencing his history of movies flopping/campaigns combusting, that’s why taking quotes out of context is so dangerous

  5. grabbyhands says:

    “I just have no impulse control. So if somebody says something stupid, I couldn’t help but say something back, and then it just exploded. This is a toxic environment, and my life is way better off. It’s so funny — People are so addicted and into Twitter, it seems crazy that someone could walk away from it! They’re like, wait, he DELETED IT? It was actually really easy.”

    It’s a good explanation. Of course, the cynical bitch in me is like, “yeah, that was an excellent PR ploy to get all the right attention and then come back later after telling everyone that your fans demanded it or something”

    • Sigh... says:

      Cynical bitch here: I don’t see how his flounce off of social media immediately after being INdirectly insulted (so it wasn’t toxic when he was left alone or congratulated for going at James Woods), responding, blocking those who “liked” the article, etc, is any different/more “noble”/whatever than Ed Sheeran doing the same after being ridiculed for his cameo on Games of Thrones and, Sheeran was called “over-sensitive/thin skinned”…? Is it because “pretty” Hammer’s clearly chasing Oscar…?

    • Kitten says:

      “So if somebody says something stupid, I couldn’t help but say something back”

      All the people who dragged him after his Nate Parker comments know the feeling.

    • Mgsota says:

      His explanation is why I deleted Facebook on election night. I knew I had no impulse control and would cause irreparable damage by calling all of my family that live in Pennsylvania deplorable morons… I just deleted it and haven’t regretted it once…and don’t miss it.

  6. Erinn says:

    His explaination honestly makes so much sense.

    I went through a huge purge last January. Deleted/blocked/unsubsribed from all the people on fb that would cause me unnecessary stress. I am SO much happier using it at a minimum. I basically use it to message people, and maybe post a photo a couple of times a year. I still get into a trap of looking at the comment section on news articles though, and I have to stop. It’s just not healthy. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person – but it’s SO easy to get sucked into outrage over strangers comments – I completely get where he’s coming from on that front. And I’m someone who’s quick to come up with a retort in most cases, so it’s especially hard to not say anything when someone says inflammatory, hurtful things about politics/people/whatever.

    And I have a love hate relationship with arguing. I swear I get a bit of a rush from it – and in the last few years I’ve had to make a really big effort to tone it down because it’s just not helpful in some circumstances. I’ve literally given my husband counter-points that he could have argued against me because I’d already thought of them and had a rebuttal prepared in my head – and he hadn’t even fully realized them yet. Not saying I have some sort of horrible tumultuous relationship – arguments like that are usually around “WHY I SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER CAT” or “Why Hawaiian pizza is a great pizza”. There are the usual kind of spats between two people who have to share a roof but for the most part it takes a lot for me to have a serious argument with him. But I’ll start reading comment sections and end up ranting/venting to him about how stupid people are – and for both of our sakes I’ve had to just cut myself off haha.

    • Kitten says:


      Because cats make everything better and more cats just makes everything more better.

      “Why Hawaiian pizza is a great pizza”.

      Because sweet and salty is the best flavor combination ever.

      This should not be up for debate, Mr. Erinn. -_-

      • Erinn says:

        Lol, I think I made him sick of hawaiian because for a while it was the only pizza I wanted. It’s delicious though, and I have no regrets.

        And yes, all cats, all the time. He actually started a new mountain bike fund which means as soon as that happens, another cat is going to show up. Neither of us will say a thing about either acquisition and just pretend it’s all completely normal. He’s been warned, and I keep sending him cat related things on instagram. I’m currently threatening a Sphynx which I’ll then name Bungo Baggins because it’s just a horrible sounding nerdy name. But I’m so deep into this story of Bungo that I’ve created, I almost think I’m going to need to carry through with it, ahhaa.

    • India Rose says:

      I can so relate to this! In public, I tend to be calm and maintain good impulse control. But when I rant to my husband or complain about something and he’s being quiet, I’ll start offering him reasons why I could be wrong. 🙂

      Sometimes I write lengthy responses to the internet, then cut & save in another file. I’ve gotten the words out, figured out how I feel and I don’t always need to share them to have expressed myself.

      And I’ve changed my use of FB much like you mentioned, Erinn. It sets off my anxiety and THAT doesn’t do anyone much good. I do like it to keep in touch though… I do much less browsing and just a few check-ins with my special people.

      Did you read about the experiment FB did where they flooded some people’s feeds with negative stories to see if that impacted how much they used FB? Not a good idea for people with depression/anxiety. They got called on it, but who knows what other social psychology experiments they’re doing? My mood and my life are not your guinea pigs, Zuckerberg!

      • Erinn says:

        ahahah, I do the writing and saving thing too! Sometimes I’ll tuck it away ‘just in case’ but it’s really more just to get it out.

        I ended up using instagram a lot more since I cut out of fb more. I don’t read comments, just look at photos/videos and post some of my own. It’s a lot more relaxing, and I’d rather just scroll through photos than read about a bunch of people’s complaints/political crap.

        I hadn’t heard about the experiment, but I’m also not really surprised. That’d have gotten to me, for sure.

  7. Lizzie says:

    am i reading it wrong? he declined to name the person behind the birth of a nation thing but how does that jump to the conclusion that he thinks there is a conspiracy specifically against him? when he was saying “given my history” i think he was talking about himself. he didn’t really cook up a conspiracy. scott rudin is harvey weinstein minus the rape. of course he tries to sabotage his competition and he is a racist sexist pig which was leaked all over the sony hack. that isn’t a conspiracy – it is a fact proven in his own writing. the best thing tom cruise has done in his career is roast scott rudin in tropic thunder.

    his explanation for leaving twitter was good though. if you can’t take getting picked on but also can’t shut yourself up – twitter is not for you.

  8. BaronSamedi says:

    I don’t actually read his comments like he is smelling a conspiracy theory against himself? The “…given my history” thing could simply he him acknowledging that he hasn’t been that mainstream successful so far and that he’s taking a wait and see approach.

    And his explanation for leaving twitter sounds exactly like what it actually was. He didn’t leave in a huff because some reporter wrote a hit piece but because the reactions were so toxic. Which… judging by the comments on here, I don’t even want to know what people tweeted at him. At least we have moderation on here.

    Yes, he is a privileged white man. But he hasn’t harassed anyone, didn’t say anything racist/mysoginistic/etc. He just called that article out for what it was. I think he’s entitled to an opinion on it even if he probably should not have said anything. Which he ALSO admitted.

    I honestly don’t see what all the fuss is about.

    • Felicia says:

      I have no problem believing that Oscar politics are dirty and comprised of doing what you can to smear the competition. While wooing the voters. Not much different than regular politics.

      I haven’t seen the film, but the buzz is that he wasn’t “mediocre” in it. So why did someone write a hit piece on him now downplaying his performance as white male privilege of a mediocre actor? Why him specifically and why now? With everything going on in HW with a whole bunch of abusive pigs who benefited from white male privilege for decades to keep it quiet, why is this guy being singled out right now?

      I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, but the timing and the target looks to me to be back-room dirty politics.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I am not bothered by him. He elicits a shrug for not being articulate as he should, but he is telling the truth about conspiracies. HW had bloggers and writers on his payroll, and his interview could have certainly been edited to seem worse than it was. I can’t say that is true, but it has been done before to sink someone. I know why he thought Nate for his example because of the smear campaign, but he maybe should have run that by someone. Nate is abhorrent. He deserves to be kicked out. There are other perfect nonwhite women his people should have cleared for him to use as examples.
      He hasn’t learned that he will never please everyone so he should be like Clooney and craft answers and have a smooth public persona. He should say little of substance and keep it light and fluffy.

      He gets a lot of resentment because of his upbringing as if an infant can just pack a bag and relocate to another family. Not being dorky or English makes it worse so again say little because it won’t change.

      In the basket of average white guy actors, there are several others that I can’t stand, and some aren’t even average and get do-overs. ZAC EFFRON and 3 of the 4 Chris guys.

  9. anna says:

    another man with no impulse control. wonderful. and of course in his mind if his work isn’t lauded all over the place, there must be evil forces behind it. i was wondering after the hollywood reporter interview if by blaming a conspiracy for the fact that parker being a rapist became public knowledge, isn’t he trying to say to oscar voters, hey folks, you owe me a vote this year?

    • perplexed says:

      At least his lack of impulse control has to do with Twitter. That’s benign compared to everything else we’ve been reading about men (in power) lately.

      That said, I didn’t even realize he had starred in a “Birth of a Nation.” Oh, it’s all starting to make sense now as to why he was even talking about that in the first place.

    • Shijel says:

      I’m a woman and I do the exact same thing as him, it’s not a man thing, it’s very much a human thing. I have no impulse control. Which is why I also often disengage completely. I’ve learned to anticipate situations which may make me lose my cool and stuff both feet in my mouth, though it’s been very difficult to learn, recognise, or sometimes even want to back off, because the thrill of getting a word in gives a hell of a rush.

      Honestly, good on him for recognising, and taking steps to disengage from something that triggers someone’s temper or impulse control.

      The rest though sure does almost sound like paranoia, though what we’ve learned about hollywood this past year, I’m actually pretty willing to give stock to many a conspiracy.

      • anna says:

        thing is, even if there was a so-called conspiracy out to get nate parker, then those evil forces did good for once. it’s almost like that quote from “Faust”: “Part of that power which still/ Produces the good, while ever scheming ill.”

      • Kitten says:

        Nate Parker never served a day in prison for what he did. He’s still winning even if his movie tanked because of his past actions.

  10. FishBeard says:

    I still like him. I have since TSN. Maybe it’s because I’m a virgo too and understand the impulse control thing *shrug*.

    I don’t think this is a smear campaign though. The buzzfeed article would’ve received far less attention had he not acknowledged it.

  11. Samantha says:

    The Buzzfeed article was ridiculous, but Armie’s response was OTT and unnecessary as well. I wish he’d responded to the entitled and brazen response Casey released about him instead.
    Also, his attitude in general needs some work, and what he said about Parker was ignorant at best, but I don’t find *him* offensive or rage-inducing when looking around in the industry. If his performance deserves it, I hope he gets the Oscar nom.

  12. Ferdinand says:

    I saw Call me by your name last month and it is great. Both Timothée and Armie are amazing in it.

    I do think there’s a little off in all these articles coming at the same time making him look bad. He’s been building momentum since January and now that the movie is out and claimed he wants to keep riding that wave and I can’t blame him. “Given his history” he’s more used to the bad side of things that when finally something good comes his way he has second thoughts.

    He’s not as bad what he does as others and yeah, I always wondered why he’s not a bigger deal. He’s got everything Going on for him.

  13. Umyeah says:

    When the first article came about him talking aboit Birth of a Nation i thought the only reason he was talking about it was bc that was his first shot at an Oscar, obviously the backlash made him pretty much ineligible. So i dont think he really cared about Parker or Affleck, he cared he missed his shot at the nomination.

    • Yawn says:

      Ehhh I’m not sure his role in BIrth of a Nation was award worthy in the least. His point in talking about it wasn’t about trying to pump up his own role, but more about the contrast in the huge backslash his director got for his rape background versus the tiny handslap Casey Affleck got for having sexual abuse claims of his own in his past. He did not express himself well enough, and some only saw “rape apologist” in his words, which I didn’t get myself, what I got was that he was trying to say this black guy got buried because of his background, but this other white guy was gifted an oscar.

      I kind of like Armie- I don’t think he’s the greatest actor, but he’s far from the worst. Thought he was ok in TSN and the Man from UNCLE.

      • Umyeah says:

        I dont see him as a guy who cares about any injustices that dont impact him directly, again just my opinion, it sure as hell didnt seem like he cared about the victims of Parker or Affleck just that Parkers film got buried.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        Umyeah, completely agree with your take.

  14. Queenfreddie says:

    Women get ten times the critcism this guy has gotten.

  15. Ferdinand says:

    Also, there’s a great article in OUT magazine about how telling Armie to man up and reopen his social media is not going to solve Hollywood’s diversity problems. Worth a reading:

    • ichsi says:

      I think the attacks on his manliness by some authors were dumb too and I agree that actors don’t owe us anything. HOWEVER, he’s in a business where getting critiqued is the status quo, most actors hear a lot more (deserved or undeserved) mean s**t about them, especially the young women (imagine one of them had reacted to a critical article like he did, would people still defend them?) and he’s gotta get used to taking this with some form of dignity if he wants to be taken seriously. To me it’s not about maning up, it’s about being a successful professional in his chosen line of work. Which he apparently isn’t. Except of course, and I agree with some people above, if this is all part of the self-promotion plan. It sure got the (social) media’s focus drawn to his ken doll face.

  16. Belle says:

    This guy seems really insecure and insufferable…maybe he should work on his impulse reaction skills in order to sound like less of a tool next time. His comments on Parker prove he talks out of his ass.

  17. minx says:

    OT the top pic….his shirt, tie and jacket look ill fitting. He’s a big guy. Looks great in the second pic, though.

  18. WombatNation says:

    I love him, I love his sexy voice. That is all.

    • Ferdinand says:

      He is incredible and his voice is sexy. I bought the “Call me by your name” audiobook, best money ever spent. Greatest 7 hours of my life just listening to him recite the book.

  19. JA says:

    Cry me a river insanely rich white dude!!! They want to ruin my Oscar chances, poor me! They said mean things about me!! Now all i have is movie offers and huge stacks of money to support myself even if my career goes down the tubes… will ANYONE THINK OF ME!!!! Wahhhhhhhhh. Jesus, get a grip and stop talking douche

  20. QueenB says:

    Nothing as fragile and weak as a man.

  21. manta says:

    This guy,so prompt to think others are bitter, seems the one actually bitter.
    He was tipped as the guy to follow after The social network. And what happened?
    He clearly thought J Edgar would pave his way for a nom. I mean Eastwoo+Dicaprio+a biopic= winning formula. Too bad, it was one of the rare times Dicaprio’s picker was broken and Eastwood underperformed.

    Next The Lone Ranger: Playing the sidekick of a still appreciated Depp at the time. Bam, another crash. And for those arguing that he’s a least harmless since he never made a racist comment , I suggest a look at his answers about the lack of Native American actors in this one.

    Next step: The man from Uncle. Sure, he wasn’t expected awards for this one but at minimum box office success, probably imagined Guy Ritchie would struck another Sherlock Holmes. Another crash.
    Then the prestige project Birth of a Nation. Everyone knows what happend.
    He clearly sees himself as overdue and thought he was on the right track this time.I’ve seen him in few things and don’t think a conspiracy is needed to deprive him of a nomination.

    • Marianne says:

      He was in Mirror Mirror as well and I believe that was panned by most critics.

    • jetlagged says:

      Don’t forget Free Fire. It tanked in a big way too. On paper it looked great, a British auteur director who was poised for his big US break, exec produced by Martin Scorsese, a top-drawer cast including a recent Oscar-winner, screened at TIFF, etc. Too bad the thing was a bloody mess, and had no chance of appealing to US audiences.

      After Armie’s big blockbusters flopped, he pivoted and went after supporting roles in prestige, Oscar-baity projects, and like dominoes all of them fell from grace just as they were poised for success. None of the parts he had in those films were award-worthy (in my opinion), but if the films and his co-stars had won awards, he would have had success by association. It was a career tactic designed to be a stepping-stone to bigger/better things, and he’s been trying for years to get it to pay off, without success. No wonder he’s bitter.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      Just look at DiCaprio and think about how long it took him to get his Oscar with all his talent, and his list of great films. I can’t stand this guy’s complaining and self pity, he talks like the world owes him. Most men with long careers don’t get an Oscar until their 40s/50s.

  22. Lightpurple says:

    It is almost as if he were a real life Winklevii.

  23. island_girl says:

    I don’t much about Armie, except that the Lone Ranger was a very bad idea. I’m on my second go round of this book and it just kills me. Actually the audiobook because of my commute, that Armie narrates. His voice is flawless and beautiful and I’m looking forward to seeing the movie.

  24. Marianne says:

    No. I think its like that buzzfeed article was stating….why is hollywood still trying to make him the next big thing. He’s had several chances and nothings really taken off. Maybe he just doesnt choose good roles or he’s not charming or good enough of an actor. Thats not anyone purposely sabatoging his chances. Just fate.

    • TotallyOld says:

      He may be pretty to look at but my thoughts for his lack of success is he is just bland as hell. Beautiful, blond guys (Hemsworth brothers I’m looking at you too) are usually just bland as white paint. He doesn’t have that one unique feature that sets him a part and obviously has no personality either. I would be more attracted to an ugly dude over the beautiful specimen, if the ugly dude had a personality. These bland blondes just don’t get it. It takes a hell of lot more to make it in Hollywood that being beautiful, blonde and bland. He’s the Troy Donahue of modern times.

  25. Tiffany :) says:

    I kind of understand that he feels targeted…but this is such a poor way to respond. You can’t win when you get riled up over petty stuff. He should shrug it off and say something like, “The buzzfeed article asks why am I still around. I am really excited about my new film, and I hope that after people see it, their questions will be answered”.

    Supposedly he does a great job in this film. He should let his work speak for itself.

    • third ginger says:

      Tiffany:) you are absolutely correct. He has to let the work be the dominant part of the conversation if he wants that nomination. Some show business news: Timothee Chalamet has just won the prestigious NY CRITICS AWARD for best actor. This certainly starts that very young man on his way to the Oscars ;however, it is in no way a guarantee. Oscar analysis is one of my sillier hobbies.

  26. Tess says:

    Oh no, a white man of privilege isn’t getting the outstanding credit he thinks he deserves for “work”! Shut the hell up Army.

  27. Michelle Scott says:

    He’s a man who should be seen and not heard.

  28. Bridget says:

    Well, he is a guy that says pretty much everything that pops into his head without thinking about it. So yeah, maybe it was a good idea to delete the Twitter account.

    I personally have always wondered why Casey Affleck was given such a pass last year when Nate Parker got the least of what he deserved when he was cast out of Hollywood. And I think the “conspiracy” part was the release of the tapes, which were incredibly damning. It was a case of gamesmanship actually exposing someone for the sleaze that they are. Oscar campaigning is indeed notoriously cutthroat.

    • Jussie says:

      Nate was totally on track to get the same pass. All the information about what he and his writing partner did had been out there for years, including the fact that his victim committed suicide. The media didn’t touch it at all.

      It was Parker who ‘broke’ the story wide by talking about it. He wasn’t asked to comment by anyone, he just willingly chose to bring it up. At that point it was just something a very small amount of people would mention in comment sections on gossip sites or on Twitter when his name came up, but I guess he thought he was about to become this huge star so he wanted to shut it down early. Of course it had the opposite effect, primarily because everything he said was so clearly in the mindset of a rapist. After that there were still loads of people trying to give him a pass, but he just kept talking and digging himself deeper and deeper. Even after that there was a prolonged conversation about whether the film (which contains two totally fictional rape scenes written by two rapists) would have to be cancelled along with him. In the end it was the mixed reviews that put an end to that.

      If he’d stayed quiet about it like Affleck he would have been fine (at least up til Weinstein), but instead he shined a massive spotlight on his own misdeeds then said all the worst things. He brought himself down. I’m sure quite a few competitors were happy to see it, but Parker was the only one who got the ball rolling. The most involvement someone like Rudin could have had would have been pointing some reporters in the right direction right after that first interview, and having some negative thinkpieces written.