The controversy continues…
As we reported, after facing backlash for starring in Woody Allen‘s upcoming film A Rainy Day In New York, Timothée Chalamet announced on Instagram he is donating his salary to various charities, including Time’s Up.
However, the Call Me By Your Name star claims he is unable to answer questions about why he chose to work with Allen — who has denied allegations he sexually assaulted daughter Dylan Farrow — due to “contractual obligations.”
In a HuffPost report published on Friday, author Yashar Ali is calling BS on the 22-year-old’s reasoning, and suggests his charity donation may have an ulterior motive.
The website obtained a copy of Chalamet’s contract from his representatives, who point at a specific clause which they say prevents him from criticizing Allen. As seen here:
3. It appears that @RealChalamet is trying to play both sides of the field here amid awards season. Two actors I spoke to (who aren’t up for awards this year) explained what Chalamet appears to be doing here.
However, after reviewing it with two attorneys, the author says the clause does NOT prevent him from talking about Allen’s public accusations, or expressing support for Farrow. Ali also mentions how costar Rebecca Hall — who donated her entire salary from A Rainy Day In New York to Time’s Up — has publicly apologized to Dylan.
Additionally, the HuffPost writer suggests Chalamet’s Instagram post was conveniently published before voting closes for the SAG Awards (Friday 12 p.m. PST), and ahead of nominations for the Oscars (announced Tuesday, January 23).
Two anonymous SAG Award-winning actors (not nominated this year) believe he is playing both sides: to appease those who believe Farrow, and to appease those who believe Allen.
When the article was released, some readers came to Chalamet’s defense, and believe he was truly under obligation to stay silent about Allen. One Twitter user wrote:
Yashar should have basic understanding of contracts before writing a hit piece. A standard SAG provision doesn’t trump whats in the contract itself which might contain actual provisions addressing promotion. Irresponsible journalism is depressing.
— Geek To Sheek (@geektosheek) January 19, 2018
Ali shot back by writing:
2. And if you read my story @geektosheek, which you clearly did not, you’d learn that it was Timothee’s reps that insisted I look at the SAG attachment for proof that he couldn’t speak.
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 19, 2018
The debate rages on…
[Image via Sheri Determan/WENN.]