Variety: On Wednesday, director Ridley Scott announced a plan that is virtually unprecedented in the history of Hollywood: With his new film “All the Money in the World” already in the can and less than two weeks from its planned world premiere, he will recast Kevin Spacey’s role (as deep-pocketed oil tycoon J. Paul Getty) and reshoot the publicly disgraced actor’s scenes with 87-year old Christopher Plummer, while still attempting to adhere to the film’s Dec. 22 release date.
10 comments:
The time frame for this switch is very short--but I am very glad that Ridley Scott made the choice to remove and recast Kevin Spacey. I do think that people would understand a delayed release, but I understand that such a delay would cost money. I think the article is a little cynical: "That’s where Scott’s decision — backed by producers Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas — was such a stroke of genius. Rather than putting the film on a shelf and waiting for the scandal to blow over (it won’t: Spacey is dunzo), or attempting to downplay the two-time Oscar winner’s involvement in a movie that hinges on his character, Scott announced a scheme to salvage the project altogether. By recasting Spacey, he not only sends a loud-and-clear message that the director disavows the actor, but also gives audiences (and potential Oscar voters), who might have boycotted the film in light of the accusations against Spacey, reason to endorse it instead," but that said I do believe Scott and the producers thought of the optics long and hard. I hope that even if they thought this could blow over, or if the optics were lest certain, they would have still made the same decision. The loud and clear message part is the most important aspect to me, and I hope that this will set a strong example for how such situations should be handled in the future.
Yowzah, what a fast turnaround. Kevin Spacey's public opinion has plummeted in the past few weeks. This is crazy, I think Lee Harvey Oswald had a more delayed hatred time than this. I do agree with the switch, but since Sapcey has yet to be convicted all of these cancellations of his shows seem a bit premature. I appreciate that Hollywood is taking these sexual assault accusations seriously, but I would like a little more proof. The article states: "Spacey's role took between 8 and 10 days to film, and his character plats a pivotal part in the story, obviously. Scoot has once before had to reshoot important parts of the film, when Oliver Reed dies during production of Gladiator-though these are obviously very different circumstances" Which, of course, one reshoot was due to an actor DYING while another has been making sexual advances towards minors. We'll see how that turns out.
It is great to hear that the producers and directors of this film decided to take on a great feat like this to cut Kevin Spacey out of the movie. I know that the article mentions that this was a smart move for the producers and directors of "Money" because with all of the information that has come out on Spacey and the attention surrounding him, the movie would have certainly not been received well. I certainly see this as one of the main factors to make a decision like this, but I hope the principle of the thing was also a part of this big decision. To give them a little more credit, they could have just waited for the storm to pass and took their loses on the movie, I mean they were so close to opening the movie, but they didn't. Overall, I am glad that things like this are happening. It gives me hope.
I think it's an incredibly bold, but very smart decision to recast Kevin Spacey's role in this film. From a marketing standpoint, opening a movie starring Kevin Spacey at any time in the near future would be recipe for disaster and enormous monetary and popularity losses. Millions of people would boycott the movie entirely because of Kevin Spacey. By recasting this movie, they are really putting themselves on the line, as they obviously will be spending a lot more money and time on this film than previously budgeted, but I think with news like this, people will see the movie just because of the decisions that the team made regarding Spacey. Which is kind of the exact opposite of boycotting. Aside from the marketing and economic aspects of this, I'm just really glad that things are finally happening. There are countless actors and directors that have been accused of sexual assault and domestic abuse, but that are still enormously successful. Finally, careers are starting to actually be ended when things like this happen. Finally, awful, wealthy men are being held accountable for their actions.
This is pretty uplifting to see that some of the high profile people in the industry take the stand of not being complicit in enabling or excusing criminal behaviors. Recasting Spacey is absolutely a bold move. It is a statement that the cast crew and the producing company refuse to cover for a narcissistic sexual predator. It is a huge challenge for the director, the entire cast and the production team to make the shift and make to the film’s planned world premiere which is in less than two weeks. But at the same time, it is a brilliant chance. If it works, it will stand as an example that crossing the line and making a stand against unacceptable misconducts will be rewarded. We should not see faces of sexual predators who are not feeling any regret of what they have done to others, who use their sexual orientation to divert the public attention from their horrible molestation, who shrug the accusations off, on the screens representing the best of this industry can offer.
I think it is really great that Ridley Scott is taking this situation very seriously with Kevin Spacey and putting in a lot of hard work to prove that he does not condone this behavior. It is really important that the industry is now punishing these people for their actions by cancelling their shows and not hiring them to work anymore or using their business. It is both hurting the person that is at fault, but also helping the company or person that is speaking out against it. Now they look like a good person in the eyes of the public, which makes them look good and will help their careers in the future. Ridley Scott took Spacey out of the film for 2 reasons, 1 because he does not want to be associated with Spacey and showing that he thinks his actions are okay. The second reason is that he wants to look like a hero who put in all this extra work and money to go against Spacey and sexual abuse. The film would have done poorly if he kept Spacey in, but now it will be a movie people want to see because it was drastically changed at the last minute.
Scott is making a monstrously huge move in cutting Spacey from the film, and with a deadline fast approaching, he really is setting the bar by saying that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated in his industry. He is pushing his team and his movie to potential pushback or failure in the hopes of adhering to a prosperous moral code of human decency. As such a famous director who has a lot to lose in either direction, be it tabling the film or completely reshooting this role, this decision is telling other members of the industry that it is not okay to endorse this behavior and no amount of public statements or indecision will fix it – only action will. I am immensely proud to be a part of this time of “the Reckoning” and hope this director sets the pace for all other post-accusation behavior and action. Maybe more change is coming.
I am so impressed by what Ridley Scott has done here. Yes, it will cause a mad scramble to finish the movie but it really shows his commitment to doing the right thing. Recasting a whole role with only a month left until release is basically unheard of, and will definitely be a big challenge for the cast and crew. Not only do they have to change the movie itself, but also their marketing campaign and promotional materials. My dad and my sister just saw a movie yesterday, and apparently they were still running the ads with Kevin’s Spacey in them. I wonder if they will take the time to re edit and redistribute a new ad, or if they’ll just focus on creating a new movie. No matter what he decides to do this really takes anyway anyone else’s ability to say about working with predators “oh it’s too late to change it” or “we didn’t know about this while filming”. Without major names in Hollywood taking a stand against sexual abuse things will stay as they are, and by Ridley Scott’s willingness to adapt we may see some real change.
I would like to think that this is the first ripple of change of many that will be spreading throughout filmmaking and Hollywood as an industry. Looking at Kevin Spacey as a case study for the implications of getting caught in a web of sexual misconduct is fascinating. As such a ubiquitous person in the entertainment industry - indeed, no medium has been left untouched as even theater reels from Spacey's tenure as Artistic Director of the Old Vic in London - seeing how the variety of current projects he was working on recover from this, and seeing just *how many* projects have to recover is a powerful lesson indeed. I am glad Ridley Scott has elected to remove Spacey altogether from this upcoming film, despite the immense obstacles this now poses for those producing the film. This truly reads as zero tolerance for Spacey's behavior, and I think the film just might benefit from its bold and unforgiving stance against Spacey.
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but part of me just thinks Scott is doing this simply to save his film rather than to make a statement. With Spacey becoming a pariah in both the industry and in society at large, a film starring him would be sure to bomb out no matter what the subject material was. However, I suppose change (even change driven by fear of a more conscious and pro-active public) is good even if the motives behind it are questionable. It's something I've been thinking about in the last few weeks as both women and men across the industry have come forward to call out, by name, industry professionals on sexual harassment and assault and the industry has actually been responding to these claims (well, at least most of them): Is change done in the name of what's socially fashionable or the result of the fear of public backlash a good/solid enough foundation to get true societal and industry-wide change started?
Post a Comment