Kevin Spacey Replaced / Removed From "All the Money in the World"
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:56AM by Ben Miller
a performance that will be erased -- Kevin Spacey in "All the Money in the World"
On Wednesday night, I was talking to my wife about All the Money in the World. The upcoming thriller from director Ridley Scott features the true story of billionaire J. Paul Getty and his involvement with the kidnappers of his grandson. I brought it up because (alleged) serial sexual harasser Kevin Spacey was set to play Getty.
My discussion focused on how unfair it was to Scott, stars Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg, and especially young Charlie Plummer, who is poised for a breakout role as the aforementioned kidnapped grandson. Just because Spacey is a terrible human doesn’t mean the people involved in a production should suffer.
The backlash from Spacey’s allegations was swift...
The AFI Fest announcing on Monday they were pulling All the Money in the World from their closing night premiere schedule. The film was still set to be released on its December 22 date, but the buzz for the film had fallen off a cliff. Many pundits had slotted Spacey in as a potential Best Supporting Actor nominee for the film (Nathaniel had him as a potential back-up), but as soon as the allegations started pouring in, there were tweets like this one.
Part of the talk about Spacey in the film was his performance. What if it was revelatory? How good would he have to be to even break back into the Oscar conversation? Is there no level? Why do we give some artists a pass for past sins while immediately vilifying Spacey? There is a momentous can of worms that can be opened with this discussion.
30 minutes after our discussion, the news broke that Scott will replace Spacey with Oscar-winner Christopher Plummer in the film.
All the Money in the World is still planning on hitting its Christmas week opening. Scott said he will reshoot all of Spacey’s scenes with Plummer while Williams and Wahlberg are coming back in for said reshoots. It will be like Spacey never worked on the film.
This is a really big deal.
This venture of erasing Spacey cannot be cheap. Supposedly, he only worked on the film for eight days and many of his scenes were by himself, but the scenes from the trailer show the deserts of Jordan and the mansions of Italy. Scott and his producers must have realized how DOA the film will be with Spacey still attached. Plus, the director actually gets his way; he wanted Plummer in the first place, but was overruled by the producers who wanted a bigger name in the role.
This signals something profound to Hollywood. Producers and directors can be silenced from films they worked on because they were behind the scenes. Actors have the luxury of being the face of those films. With this announcement, the world has shown that no one is above being replaced, no matter the cost.
Spacey's next picture "Billionaire Boy's Club" is currently in post-production. The film stars Jeremy Irvine, Ansel Elgort, Taron Egerton, Thomas Cocquerel and more...
Spacey’s career is in serious jeopardy (by his own hand). Netflix announced the cancellation of his Gore Vidal biopic, while the only other upcoming film is Billionaire Boys Club. Could the new production company Armory Films do the same thing Scott did?
I see this as a best case scenario for the film. This announcement may be a cloud that hangs over the release, but for once in Hollywood, the right thing is being done.
Reader Comments (76)
I'm REALLY DISGUSTED by what is happening right now.
Now Matthew Weiner? Because he said something inappropriate?
Yesterday Louis C. K. - because he likes to masturbate in front of women? WHO CARES? He asks them and when they say no he does not do it - so where's the problem and why anyone should be interested in this story?
There are bigger problems in the world.
I have mixed thoughts about this actually. Spacey's career deserves to go in the toilet but
Hollywood knew about this. Anyone who had any sort of knowledge about the industry knew there were TONS and TONS of Spacey being a predator in all the nasty ways the press is talking about now. Scott didn't take this decision because oh he's really grossed out by Spacey, he did it because he's looking out for himself and the financial prospects of the movie. Excuse me for not thinking Ridley "I can't cast Mohammad whats his name" Scott isn't some kind of advocate for justice. And my problem lies here in that if they remove Spacey they clean their hands from their own complicity.
Spacey was able to get away with all this crap because he was Kevin Spacey. And people, Hollywood, looked away as long as he was Kevin Spacey and made money. When Scott and producers signed him up for the movie they provided Spacey more of the power that allowed him to get away with this crap. Washing it away erases their own complicity.
It's like people who work with Woody, Roman or Mel are suddenly in the middle of seeing a film they did in danger because more allegations against men who have a dirty history sink the prospects of the film.
Nathaniel, this is too much. It's time to join 2017.
"yes i am still 'separate art from artists'."
Actually, it's totally OK and human--unavoidable, even--for your experience of art be colored by your perception of the artist. Art is subjective, after all. You don't stop being human the moment you enter the theater. Even artists have recognized this. For a recent example, Kevin Smith, who owes his career to Harvey Weinstein, had a moment of honest reckoning and declared that he would donate residuals from Miramax films to women's organizations.
"there's no other way to do it unless you want to do background checks of all people involved in every piece of art you watch and since 100s of people are involved with every stage production, film, or tv show, good luck with that. Plus you'd have to throw out basically 80% of past art."
This ridiculous false dichotomy shows you're more interested in intellectual self-preservation than critical thought. It's dishonest.
No one said you have to boycott every movie that a "bad" person has worked on, yet you pretend this is what's demanded of you every time this topic comes up. There are many ways this statement is wrong, but here are three of them:
1. There's a difference between the producer or director and the nameless crew members. No doubt there are sexual harassers in all of these groups, but the first group is more visible and powerful than the other.
2. The logistical impossibility of vetting everyone who works at the movies doesn't absolve you of enabling the bad deeds of prominent people who have been vetted.
3. It's not about throwing out bad art, it's about being mature enough to acknowledge that our experience of art doesn't occur in an illusory cultural and authorial vacuum. Check out Emily Nussbaum's nuanced take on Louis CK on the New Yorker today. Or, for another example I encountered just minutes ago, what recent Smackdowner Mark Harris just tweeted about Project Runway, which involves seeing the show (and some of its misogyny) in a new, critical perspective. Hell, one could still think Project Runway is a great show! But the least one could do is be mindful of how many lives Weinstein has allegedly destroyed before voting to give him an Emmy for producing Project Runway. None of this requires you to boycott Project Runway (or Carol, or Rosemary's Baby).
"I value art too much to be that much of a baby about it. I'm an adult."
I actually LOLed at this. You're the one clutching to MUH POLANSKI, yet it's Emily Nussbaum and hundreds of other critics and artists who don't sufficiently value art. Babies!
"i can separate people's personal lives from their work. I can watch Rosemary's Baby and know it's a masterpiece and still think Polanski committed a terrible crime. but in Spacey and Weinstein's case I'm glad Hollywood is cleaning house because no one should have to work in a hostile environment. I can watch Rosemary's Baby and know it's a masterpiece and still think Polanski committed a terrible crime. but in Spacey and Weinstein's case I'm glad Hollywood is cleaning house because no one should have to work in a hostile environment."
I actually don't disagree with the first two sentences, but the rest of the above shows you're moving the goalposts. Is work/life difference the threshold question now? I thought the problem was that you "couldn't" keep track of who had allegedly done what, as though someone who writes about this field full-time and has an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of actresses and decades of Oscar trivia were cognitively incapable of processing highly publicized allegations against some of the most well-known people in the industry. The truth is, you never liked Kevin Spacey or Harvey Weinstein to begin with (in fact, you disliked them before their scandals), so you didn't care that they were disgraced. You probably don't much care for Woody Allen or Roman Polanski as individuals, but for some reason you have such an obsessive defensiveness for their work that you construe criticism of them and their work as attacks against you.
Samantha Gailey was an aspiring actress doing a photo shoot for French Vogue when Roman Polanski drugged and raped her. So he did create a hostile work environment--certainly no less than when Kevin Spacey allegedly harassed Anthony Rapp at a party.
Michelle Pfeiffer recently said that even though she never worked with Harvey Weinstein, she and every woman she knows in the industry have experienced some kind of sexual assault or harassment. For a film critic who purports to champion actresses, you're awfully loyal to men who abuse them.
I hope there's more of this because it's really sending the signal that you cannot do these things anymore. I hope it continues, I really do.
Nathaniel is a man. Men, gay or straight, Will always side with other Men before they side with women.
There ia nothing gay man worship more then straight Men. Stockholm syndrome, opressed emulating the oppressor.
Nathaniel must think Jessica Chastain is a baby, because she Said she wouldnt work with Polanski or Allen.
He must also think Brie Larson is a baby because of the way she behaved through This past awards season and because she refused to applaud Casey Affleck ON Oscar stage.
He is the only adult. Praise him.
Idiotic.
Well said Percy. I have been very disappointed to see Nathaniel and some commenters who claim to celebrate actresses seemingly disregard their abuse.
Well said Percy. I have been very disappointed to see Nathaniel and some commenters who claim to celebrate actresses seemingly disregard their abuse.
@amanda I am also a man and I can say that I will always try to side to what´s right and in this case, you are right. All this is inexcusable, no matter the artistic achievements, no one should have to tolerate this kind of behaviour.
A few months ago, I invited a guy I was dating for a month to come over to my house to watch some movies. He showed up DRUNK and tried to force himself on me, we wrestled and I have to punch him on the face and leave my own home. I am 26 years old and I invited him to my home, so does that mean that he can violate me? Am I to blame? And what if he were Pedro Almodóvar or Haneke, whose work I adore? Should that make things ok and could I continue looking at their fils the same way? Human beings (men and women) must learn that NO IS NO. There´s no relativity on it. NO IS NO.
Yes, in fact, personal and artistic life are two different things, however one influences the other and trust me that I do not get any and TRUST ME that I cannot separate personal life when being a rapist and a pediphile inspire you to create "master pieces". And yes, EVEN THOUGH, he may not indulge into a sexual activity, the fact that a man touches or conductes himself in a sexual way to an underminor, with or without its consent, should be persecuted, and this is not a subjectivity of mine, but a fact that is backed up by law regulations.
Finally, I applaude that all this is finally getting exposed and yes, maybe Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein were the unlucky guys who got caught doing what maaaany people do, but if they had not engaged in this kind of behavior, they would not be in this position, so excuse me for not feeling not a bit of simpathy for them.
Amanda you write
please stop stereotyping and generalizing. I am gay and I do not fit this at all. I've never been into straight men -- never remotely had a phase of obsessing over them and largely find society's obsession with them pointless (there are so many ways of being - why must it always be about straight white men?. You can disagree with me all you like but you don't have to make gross generalizations that aren't true as if you know "all gay men". That's so, i dunno... it reads a bit homophobic if you ask me.Show a little restraint when you feel like attacking someone.Daisy --I do not disregard abuse. I just don't react to these stories exactly as you do. And that's okay. we all have different ways of processing things.
Percy -- a couple of comments in there are definitely worth me thinking about -- i just wish you weren't so judgmental about addressing them. Citing some people i know in real life and love and claiming i'm calling them babies is really just too much. But anyway it's true that it's much easier for me to be judgmental about someone if i don't like their work. I wasn't attempting to move goalposts. I was just trying to be realistic. Maybe because it's that i have a background in Human Resources that I understand more about how complicated workplace environments are than a lot of people who like to pontificate on the internet and make sweeping generalizations or condemnations. like "JUST DON'T WORK WITH THEM"Those things just dont work well in real life... at least not legally.
But, again, i feel like most of what people are angry about with me lately is because they're making broad generalizations about what I feel (and extrapolating it into things I don't feel) just because I am uncomfortable with thought policing and boycotting and am fundamentally uncomfortable with court of public opinion as judge, jury, and executioner (always have been -- long before any of these stories happened... one movie that's really smart about this human problem is that Meryl Streep picture A CRY IN THE DARK)
I am deeply uncomfortable with collective rage and mob mentality in general. I know there is a time and place for it (and certainly i've felt it rage these past couple of years when everything seems to have gone insane and the worst parts of human nature keep being rewarded) but I also know enough about life to know that it rage, unless carefully harnessed and directed for change, can do tremendous harm.
anyway. I am i promised to shut up about these things and I was doing a good job until now. peace out.
Philip -- totally agree. I hope it continues too --because no one should be behaving like this and people shouldn't have to be that scared or harassed at work. I really hope it leads to lasting change (it's weird and sad that some readers think I am not on the side of this but i realize this conversaion is not actually about me)
I hope as much as they do for a better world where women are treated with respect and those in power don't abuse it.
Nathaniel, thought policing and boycotting are irrelevant to this discussion. Complete strawmen.
What you're doing isn't noble restraint. It's wilful ignorance. Refusing to reckon with the rape and harassment that permeates the film industry doesn't make you realistic or fair-minded. It makes you, a film critic, complicit in rape culture.
Kevin Spacey's, Harvey Weinstein's and Roman Polanski's movies are blood diamonds. Beautiful, yes, but also morally troubling. As a taste-maker, you must deal with these moral problems responsibly. It's not good enough to focus only on the beauty of the diamonds, and lavish praise on the diamond makers, while ignoring (or criticizing only generically) the ugliness of the diamond industry.
You're not being brave by condemning sexual violence in theory (who doesn't?) but continuing to put abusers on pedestals. In fact, it's incredibly cowardly. Look around you. Film critics and journalists are (finally!) becoming less deferential and worshipful of the powerful, abusive men who run Hollywood. Over the past few news cycles, I've thought hard about how I can be a better ally to people of color, LGBT people, and women. As a film critic who advances actresses, you could be at the center of this movement. Don't blow this opportunity as a churlish bystander wondering when all this mob mentality fuss will die down so you can go back to enjoying without guilt the movies made by abusive men.
I know you don't think Emily Nussbaum and Mark Harris are babies. But you did impugn the way critics like them and others in the industry have approached the recent revelations. I think the way they have done so is mature, nuanced, and the opposite of childish.
Percy -- It's your prerogative to judge me. But I do wish you'd be more thoughtful before lobbing hurtful grenades. I am a person like anyone else and like anyone else I a) don't like to be told what to do, b) dont like being called a coward because I'm not saying exactly what someone else wants me to say c) don't like my words to be twisted -- Amanda claiming I thought Brie Larson was this or Jessica Chastain is that (when I love and respect both actresses and their politics and have only ever said kind things about them is the heighth of disingenuous trolling) and d) and don't appreciate being told I'm "refusing to reckon with ____" based on someone else's standards of what that reckoning would look like which I couldn't possibly know.
I never called critics who I cherish babies.
I don't impugn people who approach these revelations thoughtfully. I value them (I loved both of the pieces you referred to though you have projected onto me that i hated them) which is quite the oppoosite. I only have problems with people who pretend that moral reckoning and legalities and art and how to feel about and solve industry wide systemic troubles aren't incredibly complex topics.
I never claimed I was brave for condemning abuse (what the hell?).
I don't put abusers on pedestals (liking classic films is different than putting the people who made them on a pedestal. Admitting that you grew up idolizing someone is different than continuing to put them on a pedestal. I can't rewrite my childhood for you and pretend that the films of Woody Allen & Mia Farrow weren't incredibly important to how I saw the world. sorry 'bout it.)
I do think, like you, about how to be a better ally to others (just because you think i don't doesn't make that less true)
It's rape and harassment in the film industry. Don't blank it out like it's a dumb fad or a topic-of-the-day that meanies on the internet are using to play Gotcha. You're not being asked to judge people who like pineapple on pizza or some such stupid thing. You're being asked not to uncritically empower abusers. It's important because, as I know you agree, film critics like you are important taste-makers in our society.
Over and over on this site, you have minimized and dismissed the moral problem of supporting abusers in Hollywood. When others have pointed this out, your response has always been the same combination of ill-considered rationalizations:
1. Saying it hurts your feelings to think negative things about the heroes who made the movies you watched as a child. No one said this was going to be comfortable. It's possible for a person to be both a skilled filmmaker and an monstrous abuser. Focusing exclusively on one element of reality and excluding the other is pointless and harmful.
2. Claiming your refusal to engage with difficult moral questions gives you the moral high ground. No, it just makes you irresponsible.
3. Invoking a person's constitutional right to be believed innocent until proven guilty. In a criminal trial, 100% yes. In other contexts, it's more complicated than that. Even Mitt Romney understood this when he tweeted today that Roy Moore should step down. You seem happy to be rid of artists who haven't been proven guilty in any court of law but continue to defend an actual convicted rapist. And yes, I've seen A Cry in the Dark.
4. Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of oversimplying the issue. No one disagrees it's complex. Nothing we do will single-handedly solve abuse. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing about it. Please don't accuse others of failing to approach the issue thoughtfully while you are seriously contending that reconsidering your position equals thought censorship or requires throwing out 80% of all art.
Nathaniel, I don't know what is going on with all these people, but I will say that you seem to be the target of a lot of misplaced anger. Percy: seriously, time to maybe give it a rest. He's said his piece.
Rob -- over and over again I have to say a mantra to myself "it's not about you" which i forget to say to myself sometimes here when i engage in comments. I know it's not about me because so much of what is said about me is false and projected. But the truth is a lot of people are really angry. There's a lot to be angry about. I dont begrudge anyone their anger about this horrific topic
Though of course I do wish they wouldn't point it at me but at actual abusers, rapists, and the like. There's enough hurt in the world without multiplying it. Over and over i see this dynamic on the internet where people just carry hostility around with them and fire it off in every direction and assume the worst of everyone who doesn't parrot their exact thought back at them.
There are so many ways to do good:
1. Donate to RAINN
2. Support politicians who would fight for better legislation for victims
3. Go to see movies made by women to support a more equitable distribution of jobs and thus power
4. If you're an artist create art that promotes better values or fantastically illustrates the problematic so that people understand it better.
5. i'm sure there are many more productive things and i'm happy to take suggestions.
Hopefully people can learn to find proactive ways to channel their rage. I know sometimes I dont know what to do with mine so I understand how it can fester without anywhere useful to go.
Spacey obviously is not well liked in Hollywood. If he had been a more likeable star would his witch burning had been so swift an severe?
Nathanial: I'm glad you're taking care of yourself. It cannot be easy having certain people hectoring & browbeating you like that, making their same self-righteous points again and again, trying to change fundamental values in you and other people.
Nathanial is not the enemy, people.
Thanks for letting me vent. Anyway, love TFE, keep up the good work!
I'm on Nathaniel's side on this one.
This is the problem with our hypersensitive 21st century in which anyone who dares to question the "oppressed" is labeled sexist, racist, homophobic or worse.
All art is not created by saints are we suppose to burn every book, painting or film made by someone who does not fit the political correct gestapo's approval.
This is a dangerous witch hunt- which is just as wrong as the blacklists of the 1950s, the persecution of homosexuals in Cuba in the 1960's - Ray Bradbury warn us about these political correct tyrants in " Fahrenheit 451"
Donating to RAINN > Donating TFE.
I want to echo Rob and jaragon's comments. Anyone who reads this site regularly can surely see that Nathaniel is as compassionate as they come. He doesn't deserve the scorn that some contributors have hurled at him in some recent posts.
We're all on the same side. We all believe that sexual harrassment and abuse and rape are terrible things. But while we're squabbling amongst ourselves like this, it is misplaced anger. We're all doing our individual soul-searching - we're all having to reassess our feelings in relation to aspects of this industry and this art form that we love. And we're all determined to do what we can to help ensure that sexual abuse is eradicated from the workplace, and that on a wider level no one is seen as exploitable. Let's support one another in that process.
I didn't know only enemies could be criticized. Creating a false dichotomy between enemies and allies to shut down criticism is pretty low, but you do you. I will drop the issue since it's clear I'm wasting time, but the desperate cling to the myth of separating the art from the artist has already aged terribly.
I have to agree with Rob and Edward L. I am a woman and have experienced sexual harassment from the time I was 14 years old. People close to me have been victims of rape and assault. That doesn't mean I don't see shades of grey regarding these issues (Jeffrey Tambor is an example - a man doesn't engage in sexual harassment for the first time in his early 70s, and if the story is valid, more women will come forward). There is a difference between trying to discuss this issue logically and dismissing the idea of abuse in Hollywood.
Nathaniel has been a good ally for women. That doesn't mean he takes the absolutist approach at all times (plenty of the people who do this, whether male feminists like Joss Whedon or the Evangelicals like Roy Moore, have their own skeletons to deal with) but that he values and supports women. This is obvious is you have followed his writing for years, as I have.
Onree wrote
100% agreed! lol.
I hope everyone will consider donating to them (I have Onree, have you?). Another thing I hope everyone will consider donating to if they want to make a difference in the moral fabric of our country is the political campaign of Doug Jones who is running against Roy Moore who the GOP is protecting despite allegations of pedophilia and abuse of minors (the latter admitted to... sort of, well he admits the "dating" part of underage girls but not the abuse.) It's an uphill battle because it's Alabama and they are deep red even when they have to make a choice between a democrat or a pedophile.
Why is Spacey took a non-traditional orientation?