Scarlett Johansson has never struck me as much of an activist, but she’s a pretty decent actress, and what more can we really ask for? Well, I certainly hoped for a little more when it came to her response to Dylan Farrow‘s sex abuse allegations against Woody Allen. I’m sure you remember that Scarlett has worked with Woody on several films, and therefore it stands to reason that she’s a fan of his work. However, for some reason, the fact that he’s an accused pedophile and sex abuser seems to have passed her by, and in fact she thinks it’s “irresponsible” that her name has even been brought into this whole thing.
When Dylan wrote her open letter to The New York Times earlier this year, shaming both Woody and the Hollywood community who so vehemently supports him, Scarlett’s was one of the names mentioned. According to her, though, she has no idea what any of this is about and doesn’t think there’s a backlash against Woody at all.
“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on. That just feels irresponsible to me.”
“I’m unaware that there’s been a backlash. I think he’ll continue to know what he knows about the situation, and I’m sure the other people involved have their own experience with it. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork.”
“I don’t know anything about it. It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other.”
Well, there’s that, I suppose. It’s one thing to have an unpopular opinion, and entirely another to feign ignorance, as if you live in a bubble where popular world news doesn’t hit you at all. Sure, she might not agree with the backlash, but she’s “unaware” of it? That seems a bit strange… It would almost be more respectable if she just came out and said that she thinks Dylan is lying, since that seems to be the implication here.
Source / Photo: FameFlynet