MovieChat Forums > Evan Rachel Wood Discussion > She certainly has changed her tune.

She certainly has changed her tune.


Just because Evan Rachel Wood and Marilyn Manson are no longer together, that doesn't mean the 23-year-old actress won't always have a soft spot for her ex. "He had a hand in raising me!" she tells the November issue of Nylon. "I'm always gonna love that guy. He's a genius, he's an amazing artist, we're still friends. Some things just aren't meant to be."


https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/evan-rachel-wood-23-ex-marilyn-manson-had-a-hand-in-raising-me-20102510/

Or maybe she was misquoted or the interview was made up. If it's genuine I'm surprised it hasn't come up before now.



reply

cunt

reply

That interview is from 2010

reply

Yes the interview took place after she split up with Manson who she was in a relationship with from 2007 to 2010. What's your point ?

reply

Didn't she say that it took her some time to come to terms with the fact that she was abused?

reply

If the article is accurate then she has done a 180 degree turn. Some may find there is nothing inconsistent in that but others may have a different opinion.

reply

I don't believe what she says especially after wrongfully calling Kobe a rapist. She can eat shit, this accusation doesn't sound true

reply

I mean, Kobe did have to pay off his rape victim, so there's that.

reply

I don't know if Kobe raped someone or not, but settlements aren't proof whatsoever that someone is guilty of anything. If you're massively rich and famous, people are always trying to sue you over whatever they can. You're an easy target. Because they know it's less of a hassle for you to just cough up some money than to have to drag things to court, throw away tons of your time (making it more difficult to work), spend probably as much money on lawyers as they're trying to get from you, and have your case on the news every single day as the case drags on (and then have at least half the public still think you're guilty even if you're found innocent; which, being found innocent even if you are innocent wouldn't even be a guarantee). It's easier to just drop a few million (which is nothing to what you make in a year) to have the whole thing be done with.

Again, I don't know if that's the case here. But the fact that anyone settles out of court over an accusation doesn't necessarily mean anything in itself.

reply

It isn't done with though, it still follows you around when you don't clear your name. Buying your wife a HUGE dimond afterwards seems suspect too.

reply

While I obviously couldn't know the stats on such a thing, I'd suspect we don't know about more settlements than we do. And, in most cases, when the money is paid we probably never hear the story. Which is probably the initial plan from most of these guys. Either pay the money or take it to court and face a long, exhausting PR nightmare.

But yeah, it can follow you around in the way you mention, of course, especially if the story had already gotten out beforehand. But even in that case, you're still avoiding a potentially months-long spectacle if you go to court — such as in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard thing — where you're going to be headline news every day a new witness hits the stand (exposing every detail of your life to the masses). So while the problem is still haunting you (as it would regardless of what you do) at least it's not an active beast anymore. You settled, it's done. Now just try and move on, deal with the damage that's already done, and hope people either side with you or forget about it.

(I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this mentality, but I can see how even an innocent person may have it)

As far as the specifics of Kobe buying his wife a diamond ring afterward, like I said, I don't know whether he's guilty or not. I don't really have an opinion. I'm not trying to defend him specifically. I was just speaking about settlements in general lol.

reply

I can't shake the feeling that there's something more psychological at play with many of these accusers.

I've had moments in my own life where I've perceived my own history in a much different — and much more exaggerated — light than I used to. These were incidents that I once saw as not a big deal but then, after becoming older and acquiring a different set of beliefs, I looked back on and saw as a huge deal. The history remained the same, but the lens through which I interpreted reality had changed.

One could claim that I (or anyone else) was in denial before. And that this current reevaluation was an epiphany of sort, where I finally grew to accept the true magnitude of something awful that I had previously blocked out. And I can see how that could be true for many people. But the thing is, it's not necessarily true (it certainly wasn't for me). There's other possible explanations for these changing perspectives.

We're living in a time where everyone (especially women and minorities) is being very strongly influenced to LOOK for problems. To reevaluate their lives and experiences and to actively search for signs of abuse, racism, oppression, and other injustices. We're like little kids being repeatedly told that there's monsters under the bed. And if you tell a kid something like that enough times, they're going to start believing you. They're going to become hypersensitive to what constitutes evidence of monsters. The pattern-seeking mechanisms in their brain are going to have them thinking they see signs of them everywhere, in every bump in the night or movement in the shadows. Doesn't matter if they actually exist or not. We'll find evidence for them regardless, because we've been overly primed to become hypervigilant of them.

I don't know if that's the case here or if she really was abused. But this is why hard proof is so important in these matters, IMO. You just can't trust people not to lie to themselves. Let alone to others.

reply

West World is a great show, hope she's in S4 out this summer.

reply

Odd response to my post, but I agree. lol

reply

Emmitt Till was murdered by White Thugs over a false allegation by a white woman looking to be offended. That wasn't recently either

reply

It is entirely possible for some people to convince themselves of something that is untrue, to convince themselves that they did something that they never did, that they saw something they never saw... I've know some people that did this kind of fucked up thing and after realizing they were capable of accepting a delusion as fact I was alway left unable to believe a damn thing they said. I've seen it happen with both men and women though in my experience the two things that tended to marker for it was age, the ones I have seen were older. It've also noticed it more in women than in men. So frankly I have to question the believability of someone like this woman when she provide a glowing take on someone and then suddenly 10 years later does a 180. At this point I would hope she looks at what happened to Amber Turd and thinks long and hard about whether she is being honest. It does however seem odd that these actresses only seem to come up with accusations against men when their careers start to go down the toilet.

reply

The sex abuse allegations Manson was recently being investigated for have resulted in no charges against him. I guess ERW needs to find something else to grandstand over and her resemblance to Amber Heard doesn't help now that she's poisoned the already phony #MeToo movement.

reply