| | |  | Ben Affleck News & Gossip
|
|
| | US Mag: Ben Affleck & Jennifer almost split in 2010, then had a 'band-aid baby' | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
These photos are from August, 2010
As we saw on Wednesday, both People Magazine and US Weekly have competing covers this week for the Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner divorce. As I say in every post about these two: holy crap their publicity maneuvers are both fascinating and impressive. They are blanketing the press with positive statements, details and little stories to the point where the public doesn’t quite know what happened, doesn’t see Ben as a big bad cheating gambling drunk, and yet understands that the divorce was his fault on some general level. I’ll quit going off about this, but it’s just amazing to me. I told Kaiser it was like eating a good steak. (In no way am I reveling in the breakup of two parents or a family, I am just watching this unfold and clapping over here in my corner at how well they’re working the press.)
Both articles open with the details about Ben and Jen’s breakup vacation in the Bahamas. (Which was documented by a photographer, unsurprisingly) and then mention the couple’s statement. US Magazine’s take is much more smarmy and focused on the pain that Ben caused Jennifer. They also go into the nitty gritty of his serial cheating, drinking and gambling. People sanitizes the story, making it sound like it was Ben’s fault but that the marriage was fated to fail. I’m including some choice quotes and excerpts (which were not yet published online as far as I remember) from each below. I include more excerpts from US because they dished more dirt. Seriously, buy US this week. I can’t do it justice here, it’s a juicy read.
People: What Went Wrong
?At the end of the day, he left her no choice. But she has always been and continues to be the strongest person I know. All things considered, she is handling this as well as any person could.?
Several sources close to Garner say that allegations of infidelity (which Affleck vehemently denies) and other troubling behavior by Affleck, including gambling and drinking, weighed heavily in Garner?s decision. ?She loved Ben,? says another friend, ?but there comes a time when you have to say enough is enough and take care of yourself?
?Saying he?s a bad father and husband is an easy story, and everyone has wanted to clock him as a womanizer and gambler?
?She could be overly controlling. He couldn?t deal with her expectations.?
US Magazine: Jen’s Secret Hell
Subtitle: After years of rumored affairs – and a quiet separation – Garner had enough. Why she showed Ben Affleck the door.
It?s Ben?s Fault
?There?s a lot of bullish-t out there, but the reason they split is because of Ben?s drinking,? alleges one source, ?and his infidelities.? (A source close to Affleck counters, ?Ben did not cheat on Jen.?) While A-lister Garner, 43, back-burnered her career in recent years? her husband, 42, flitted from set to set? and with every hot new project came an opportunity to work with beautiful women. Though an Affleck pal says his wife and kids ?take priority over everything else,? another source says, ?Ben just couldn?t control himself.?
Problems built up over the years
Sometimes the actor would confess his transgressions, Garner has told sources, and beg for forgiveness? but after a decade of heartbreak and seemingly endless whispers – and a recent 10-months trial separation – she?d had enough. ?There wasn?t one thing that caused Jen to snap,? says the source. ?It was a steady buildup over the years. She really, really tried.?
Jen didn?t want to announce the split
?She had a very hard time going public,? a source says? ?Ben had been pushing her to release the statement for several weeks. He wanted to be free.?
Jen was controlling, according to Ben?s peeps
Garner source: ?She keeps Ben in line as much as she can. She was his rock??
An Affleck insider argues Garner?s impossibly high standards hurt their relationship: ?Ben was never perfect enough for her, no matter how hard he tried. It was an extremely controlling environment, with her constantly nitpicking at him.?
They almost split in December, 2010
?The spark was lost and the marriage had become a huge struggle??
They decided to spend one final Christmas together as a family. Then things changed? [but] their optimism was short-lived. During that summer, ?the downs were becoming more frequent than the ups,? says a source. But Garner also became pregnant with their third child during that time. ?That turned the whole thing on its head? You know how it is?. Baby comes and solves the issues for a bit, but it?s just a Band-Aid.?
[From People and Us, print editions]
In case you missed that, US just claimed that Samuel was a band-aid baby, which is something many gossips have speculated. I remember when those two had problems in 2010, because they were staging photo ops and In Touch reported that they were in counseling (which has since been confirmed). Around 2009, Jen stepped out with a huge diamond ring which many people speculated Ben bought it for her as some kind of apology for his transgressions.
So I think Ben’s team got to claim People Mag and Jennifer’s team got US Weekly. They’re still working together to manage the story. I truly believe that this divorce just set a whole new precedent for celebrity PR. Other bigwigs are going to want to either hire the team behind this and/or copy this method of blasting the press with positive quotes and then releasing just enough vague dirty details, which they then deny, to avoid additional digging.
All of these photos are from August, 2010. Credit: FameFlynet
More Photos Here
    |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Affleck & Garner are in the Bahamas with kids; divorcing 'like Gwyneth & Chris' | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Both US Magazine and Page Six claimed to have an exclusive late yesterday with the news the Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner have fled to the Bahamas with their kids. People has the news of course too, with similar quotes about how these two are great parents and how they’re trying to shield their kids from the media, which is smart and definitely in their best interests.
It’s worth noting that none of the tabloids had this split on their cover in the latest editions. Ben and Jen dropped this news on a holiday week when they knew the print media would be slower to pick it up. They also have meticulously controlled the information in the press, to the point where they’re giving different but complementary insider quotes to the major celebrity outlets. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had an entire media team working on controlling the story surrounding their divorce. It’s like they took a page from Goop’s divorce playbook and took it to the next level. Here are the latest themes in the Garner-Affleck divorce PR narrative.
They’re in the Bahamas to protect their kids
US Magazine’s source: “They got the kids out of L.A. as soon as school was out. [The Bahamas] is a place they?ve been going to for years that?s very private and special for their kids. When either of them have had work commitments they have been leaving to go fulfill them.”
Page Six’s source: “It was important for both Ben and Jen to get away from the media spotlight and spend quiet time with the kids. They have been spending a lot of time with the kids. This has been hard for everyone, but they are both doing everything to put the kids first.”
People’s source: “They plan on co-parenting and doing absolutely everything in the best interest of the kids… They were together as a family that day [they announced the divorce]. The family felt it was important to be together and they were together. The family is united and, no matter what, will protect the kids.”
Ben is miserable; Jen is doing great
People’s source: “This isn’t easy for anyone and it’s devastating to Ben too. He loves his family and will always put them first.”
Page Six’s source: “Ben looked more gray then usual [on vacation in the Bahamas], but Jen was in great spirits. Jen seemed in a great mood, and was spotted working out with a trainer. The gray ? it?s a concern. Ben and Jen are just worried about how the kids will adjust. That?s why they went away together.”
They’re modeling their divorce after Paltrow and Martin
US Magazine’s source: “They are going to try and model their divorce like Gwyneth and Chris. They feel like they have to be mature adults for their children’s sake and that they will figure out the healthiest way to co-parent. They want the kids lives to stay the same and to not have to change just because they aren’t going to be married anymore.”
Again, they’re great parents when Ben is around
People’s source: “Ben was a family man when he could be and his kids adore him. He traveled a lot but when he is with the kids he’s really with them, taking them out for treats, having fun with them. And there is nothing more important to Jen than being a good mom.”
People’s source (2nd story): “Ben is a good dad when he is around, but he has so many outside interests and personal issues to get beyond.”
Ben wasn’t present
People’s source (2nd story): “He?s like a ’50s dad. He thinks work is your priority and providing money for your family is your priority, and raising the kids day to day and making a nice house is the wife’s priority. It leaves too much of the burden on Jen to be a mom and dad to the children when she also has a career.”
People also has quotes from a “childhood pal” of Jennifer Garner’s, who repeats the claim that “They’re really great parents. They’re really involved.” Jennifer’s friend also states that Jennifer told her Ben was her “soul mate” a few years ago.
The Garner-Affleck divorce was planned to a T and that not only benefits their images, it should also hopefully keep things as stable as possible for their three young kids. I’m not buying this claim that Ben is miserable, though. Ben was miserable in the marriage and he was miserable being tied down. He’s probably thrilled to have his freedom now, even if that means he has to play this media game for a while.
Affleck covers the new issue of EW as Batman along with his Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice costars Henry Cavill and Gal Godot. (EW also has new photos from the film, which is out in March, 2016.) In the accompanying interview, Affleck calls Batman “the American version of Hamlet” and adds that Batman is beat down somewhat. “He?s at the end of his run and maybe the end of his life. There?s this sort of world-weariness to it.” Affleck also dissed his first, earlier superhero role, in 2003?s Daredevil, where he co-starred with his future first wife. “Daredevil didn?t work, at all. If I wanted to go viral I would be less polite. That was before people realized you could make these movies and make them well.” Yeah this guy really does need a media team.
Photo credit: Janet Mayer/PRPhotos, WENN.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | The Affleck-Garner divorce: therapy for 2 years, separated for 10 months | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Many facts are coming out about Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner’s divorce, which was predicted in surprising detail by the tabloids. One thing that Radar Online and The National Enquirer got wrong is the fact that Ben and Jen did not file or announce their divorce prior to their 10 year anniversary. They announced a day after their anniversary, which was on June 29th. This seems to indicate that Garner had a hand in the announcement date, however outlets are bending over backwards to claim otherwise.
There’s been some confusion (on my part) as to what a ten year marriage means in California divorce law. A marriage of ten years or more is considered a “long duration” marriage. This means that spousal support can be awarded to the lower-earning spouse, at a judge’s discretion, until they no longer need it. (Shorter marriages typically mean that spousal support will only continue for half the duration of the marriage.) California is considered a “Community Property” state in that earnings during the marriage by both spouses are community property from the onset. In a long duration marriage, the lower earning spouse can also go after a higher percentage of their partner’s earnings. US Magazine has more from a legal expert. All of this seems to benefit Garner.
Here are some of the many stories that have come out following the news that Affleck and Garner are over. People Magazine alone has several follow-ups, and multiple outlets have “exclusive” insider statements including E!, US Magazine, Page Six and TMZ. Garner and Affleck are obviously working hard to control the press. You get the impression that they’re willing to admit to certain “acceptable” problems, but that they’re trying to keep a lock down on Ben’s infidelity. They’re also stressing that this divorce is amicable and that they will peacefully co-parent.
They were in therapy for two years
Several articles mention that Ben and Jen were in therapy for two years. TMZ adds that “Ben did not go out and did not womanize … Jen complained he just drank and gambled too much… [they're just] 2 people who want to live their lives differently.” We’ve heard variations of this claim before.
The “10 year rule” was not a consideration in their filing date?
These two do not have a prenup and their net worth is valued at a combined $105-115 million. Affleck’s net worth is around $75 million while Garner’s is at about $40 million. Both TMZ and E! are claiming that the divorce date is a complete coincidence and has nothing to do with their tenth anniversary. This is the party line, and it sounds wholly unlikely to me. TMZ: “As for the “10 year rule”… we’re told 2 things: A) their decision had nothing to do with it B) she’s loaded and doesn’t need support.” E!: “their split had nothing to do with their anniversary on Monday… the timing was simply a coincidence and in no way had to do with ‘money reasons‘”
They’ve been separated for 10 months
E! Online: “They have… been in a trial separation for 10 months, during which time Affleck has been staying at hotels.” People is more vague about their separation date. “They’ve been separated for a few months but will continue to work together as co-parents and as two people who still care about each other.”
They both want what’s best for their children
People’s source: “This should not be an ugly divorce. They plan on co-parenting and doing absolutely everything in the best interest of the kids.”
Ben will be living in another residence on their same property
Page Six: “Ben, who has been staying in hotels in recent months, will live on the property of their Brentwood marital home, but will not share the main house, we?re told.” Multiple other reports repeat this same claim. If this is the case why were moving vans spotted there? Why was Ben living in hotels for 10 months if he could have presumably used this other residence the whole time?
Their divorce will be amicable
Page Six: “This isn?t going to end up in a dramatic court case, they are trying to resolve it as quickly and easily as possible. Ben and Jennifer have been separated for more than six months. They have been seeing counselors for years. The situation is that people change and they grow apart.”
Radar has a
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Ben Affleck & Jennifer Garner announce split after exactly 10 years of marriage | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
The tabloids, particularly The National Enquirer and Radar Online, among others, were correct about the problems in Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner’s marriage. Affleck and Garner have announced that they are divorcing after 10 years of marriage. Yesterday was their tenth anniversary and it’s unclear if they have officially filed for divorce, but they have given an exclusive statement to People about their split. Their announcement didn’t use the term “mutual,” but said that they will “go forward with love and friendship” and a “commitment to co-parenting.”
Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner have split, PEOPLE confirms.
The couple were married for 10 years, having marked their anniversary on Monday.
“After much thought and careful consideration, we have made the difficult decision to divorce,” the couple tells PEOPLE in a joint statement. “We go forward with love and friendship for one another and a commitment to co-parenting our children whose privacy we ask to be respected during this difficult time. This will be our only comment on this private, family matter. Thank you for understanding.”
Garner, 42, and Affleck, 43, intend to seek mediation, says a source close to the couple.
The two are parents to three kids: Violet, 9, Seraphina, 6, and Samuel, 3.
[From People]
This was expected, and honestly I kept checking People Magazine on Friday because I thought People would get the exclusive. Instead they had a brief story about Garner visiting a children’s hospital. I do think that they may have wanted to announce Friday but that they took the weekend and talked it out more before making the announcement. It’s possible that Garner put her foot down and made Ben wait to file until their 10 year anniversary had passed and she had more community properly rights. We’ve heard that Ben wanted to make the announcement prior to their anniversary.
Both Garner and Affleck have mentioned that marriage is work and Affleck seemed particularly unhappy lately. This is sad for their kids, and I hope that they’re able to divorce somewhat amicably and reduce their kids’ exposure to the press. I think we’ll be hearing more in the days and weeks to come about what really happened.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Ben Affleck & Jennifer Garner are 'fine,' say sources who are not official reps | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
In our last story on Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner’s headline-making presumed split, many of you pointed out that it’s telling that their reps haven’t issued a denial at all. GossipCop reports that they have a source or sources close to the couple (probably a rep off the record), but that the source, who was previously reliable, has not replied to repeated requests for comment. When GossipCop doesn’t shoot down a rumor, you know it’s bad.
Entertainment Tonight does have a kind of weak denial, which dovetails with a report in People last week about their latest outings and social plans. They claim that Ben and Jen are “fine,” which is what people always say when things aren’t fine, right? Whenever I ask my kid to do something he doesn’t want to do he says “fine,” with a sigh. This is basically all ET wrote about it, which sounds just like my kid before doing an unpleasant task.
ET can confirm that the A-list couple isn’t headed towards an imminent split.
Sources tell ET that Ben and Jen “are fine,” and that the pair is actually focusing on spending time together as a family this summer.
[From ET Online]
ET is billing this as an exclusive and add in their video report that “our sources say divorce is not on the horizon.” They add “every marriage has good times and bad, but all is ok for Ben and Jen.” Why is this coming from a “source” and not a rep?
The NY Daily News has a report which may come from one of the neighbors in the Affleck’s posh neighborhood. Apparently the two used to go out to specific places at certain times, but their couple-y outings have dwindled down.
We hear the duo’s once frequent lovey dovey brunches at the private, members only Jonathan Club on Palisades Beach Road in Santa Monica have all but died down in recent weeks, and the duo have been experiencing troubles for some time, says our source.
“The haven’t been seen at the Jonathan Club, the beach one in some time, and Ben and Jen were also talking about land and property expansion as late as December,” says our insider. “That’s all in the past.”
Our source adds that neighboring residents in Affleck and Garner’s Pacific Palisades neighborhood are throwing a private neighborhood block party soon for nearby homeowners, but have yet to hear from Garner, who usually attends most neighborhood functions with her kids.
“They’ve been out of the loop socially for a while,” says our source…
Confidenti@l reported recently that the couple have been leading separate lives for a very long time, and have sadly been on a long, slow drift apart.
“They had good times when they were living in Brentwood and hanging at Matt’s (house),” said one insider. “Things were definitely a lot more upbeat and optimistic then. Now there’s friction and tension between them. They’re like two ships passing in the night.”
[From The NY Daily News]
It’s been well over a month since rumors of their rift have covered a tabloid and now it’s on the cover of US, but still no comment. Affleck has a Facebook account where he addressed the issue of asking PBS’s Finding Your Roots program to edit out his slave-owning ancestor. That was in late April. At any point he could have put up a quick note with something like “I love my wife very much and these rumors are harmful to our children,” but so far nothing. Maybe he really has been living in a hotel and consulting lawyers, which would just be sad.
candid photos are from 5-28 and 6-14 credit: Pacific Coast News and FameFlynet. Event photos are from November, 2014. Credit: WENN.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner step out for a perfectly timed pap outing | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
You guys called it. You said that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner would do a pap stroll to counter the stories that they’re divorcing and you were right. These photos are from yesterday. Multiple outlets had them, so it’s somewhat unlikely that they just happened to be caught out. (To be fair, there’s always a lot of paparazzi interest in them and it’s even more so now.) So does this mean that they aren’t divorcing or just that they want to keep up the facade for now?
Earlier this week, Radar claimed that Ben Affleck was planning to announce a divorce from Jennifer Garner just before their tenth anniversary, which is June 29th. That would put Affleck and Garner under the mythical “10 year rule” in California. (There are a lot of misconceptions about the “10 year rule,” and the legal interpretation of it may vary. It does not result in indefinite spousal support payments, however there are changes in law that may result in a financial hit to the wealthier party. Here is an article which explains it the simplest.)
Radar’s evidence included details that these two had seemingly been apart for over a month, that Affleck has been gambling in Vegas, and that he was spotted in Nova Scotia, Canada, last month around the time of Garner’s birthday. In a follow up story, Radar claims that Affleck wasn’t even with the mother of his children on Mother’s Day and that he was with his mom and brother instead. If this is true, it sounds very bad indeed:
According to an insider, Affleck, 42, opted to spend the holiday with his brother, Casey, and his own mom. Meanwhile, Garner?s mother and father flew to L.A. From West Virginia to spend the day with her and her kids.
[From Radar]
The more Radar pushes this “Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner are over” story, the more persuaded I get. Plus, Lainey has a new blind item that pretty much cinches it for me. If you didn’t know, Lainey of LaineyGossip is a Canadian entertainment reporter and (unlike other outlets) her blind items often pan out. So when Lainey has Canadian-centric gossip, it’s even more convincing. She doesn’t name the celebrity in this item, but many people think this is about Ben:
You remember when he turned up in a small, out-of-the-way-of-Hollywood town not too long ago, for no apparent reason? He was trying to go undercover. Because it turns out, he was there with a woman?a very attractive woman? who is not his wife. They were seen holding hands at the hotel. But can you ever really hide? No. Not even out of the country. Not even by the sea. He ended up getting busted by fans and the local media got a hold of it. And the thing is, he told his wife that he was somewhere else. He and his companion have been having an affair for some time…
Of course it?s not the first time. He thought it wouldn?t get back to her that time in Oklahoma and that didn?t work out for him either. His wife forgave him then, as she always does, patiently supporting him as he works through his issues and compulsions. But he can?t help himself. When things are going well, he will always find a way to f-ck himself up.
[From Lainey Gossip]
Bedhead pointed out to me that Ben filmed To The Wonder in Oklahoma. Ben was in Cheticamp, Nova Scotia in mid April. Cheticamp is right on the Atlantic Ocean.
Gawker has some analysis as to when Ben and Jen could announce a split. They’re basing it on Radar’s reporting so this all hinges on whether Radar is correct.
I’m still hoping that this isn’t true; that the tabloids are hyping circumstantial evidence to get us through a slow gossip cycle. Maybe there’s a grain of truth to it but it doesn’t mean that these two have to be over at this point, right? Ben does self sabotage, but Jen puts up with it and I like to think that he’s A) not cheating and B) that they’ll work it out. These photos of their family outing suggest B) at least.
Here’s a photo of Affleck in character as Batman on the Suicide Squad set in Toronto this week. (It’s possible some of these shots are of a stunt double, it’s hard to tell.) Garner was said to be filming Nine Lives in Montreal, which is a five hour drive or short plane ride away. She’s obviously back in LA at this point though, for whatever reason.
Photo credit: Pacific Coast News and FameFlynet
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Are Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner going to divorce in the next month? | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Last year, Ben Affleck got in trouble in Las Vegas for counting cards at blackjack tables. He was blacklisted from playing at The Hard Rock Casino, however the casino was careful to mention to the press that Affleck was still welcome there, just presumably not at blackjack. Affleck loves to gamble, signs point to it being an addiction, and the tabloids have been calling it a problem for his marriage for years.
Radar Online claims that Ben and his wife, Jennifer Garner, haven’t been spotted together for 31 days. They point to the couple’s separate schedules, and Ben’s gambling, as evidence that they’re having problems. Here’s part of their report. It all sounds circumstantial to me.
Garner was photographed having lunch with a friend at Sant Ambroeus in Manhattan on May 13. She left their kids, Violet, 9, Seraphina, 6, and Sam, 3, back in L.A. But according to insiders, Affleck was not playing babysitter. Instead, he was spotted gambling hours away in Las Vegas!
Twitter user @LetsGoBulls11 posted at 3:19 am on May 14, ?Ben Affleck here at the #Venetian, high stakes #poker #Vegas.?
Hours later, Affleck was back in Los Angeles, photographed taking his kids to school and looking slightly worse for the wear.
As Radar has reported, Affleck has increasingly been spotted outside the family home as his marriage has crumbled. He was also photographed in Las Vegas on May 3, where he played high-stakes poker for several hours, according to reports.
And on Garner?s birthday, April 17, he was spotted on a solo trip to Canada ? not wearing his wedding ring.
[From Radar Online]
I do think that Affleck is trying to find himself, and he obviously still struggles with fame. He’s mentioned repeatedly that he hated being a tabloid fixture during the J.Lo debacle. He’s still a tabloid target, sometimes with good reason.
I’m a Garner-Affleck looney, so take my opinion for what it is. I don’t think some time apart and Ben’s gambling add up to a divorce. They fly on private jets and their jobs take them around the world. Of course they’re going to be in different places at times. Radar also claims to have a quote from an insider who says Ben has “told Jen that he wants the official [divorce] statement to come out before their ten-year wedding anniversary on June 29.” I really doubt this is true. Ben revels in his status as a family man and he uses it for legitimacy in Hollywood. They have young children together that they adore. Jennifer has said that marriage is work too, and she seems like she’ll stick around no matter what. Radar and their sister publication The Enquirer have made these claims for years. They could be onto something, but I really hope not.
Photos are of Ben out getting coffee yesterday, 5/26. Jennifer is shown on 5/19. Photo of Ben and Jen together is from 4-24-15. Credit: FameFlynet
More Photos Here
    |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Ben Affleck explains censoring PBS: 'I lobbied the same way I lobby directors' | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday we ran a story about how Ben Affleck had yet to respond to the controversy over the fact that he had requested that the PBS show, Finding Your Roots, remove footage revealing that he had an ancestor who was a slave owner. We knew this because emails from host Louis Gates Jr. were revealed as part of the Sony hack. In the emails, Gates expressed concern over the fact that a celebrity guest was trying to influence the show. We read, in Gates’s own words, that the show had “never had anyone ever try to censor or edit what we found” and that to remove the material “would be a violation of PBS rules.” Affleck’s lack of a statement at that point was kind of glaring after Gates and PBS had both issued statements on Friday explaining the change as one of editorial choice, not undue influence.
Well Affleck issued a statement last night, and unlike Gates’s kind of brief, well-stated response, Affleck tried to explain his position more thoroughly. That’s understandable, considering that the story grew so much in the interim, but I think he could have nipped it in the bud with a shorter statement earlier. The longer he avoided it, the more this story grew. Affleck wrote that he asked that parts be included and excluded from his segment, similar to the movie-making process where he makes his preferences known to a director. He’s a director too, so it makes sense to me that he wanted that level of control. Then he talked about how he felt embarrassed for his family and that it was hard to be vulnerable or something and he lost me there.
After an exhaustive search of my ancestry for “Finding Your Roots,” it was discovered that one of my distant relatives was an owner of slaves.
I didn’t want any television show about my family to include a guy who owned slaves. I was embarrassed. The very thought left a bad taste in my mouth.
Skip decided what went into the show. I lobbied him the same way I lobby directors about what takes of mine I think they should use. This is the collaborative creative process. Skip agreed with me on the slave owner but made other choices I disagreed with. In the end, it’s his show and I knew that going in. I’m proud to be his friend and proud to have participated.
It’s important to remember that this isn’t a news program. Finding Your Roots is a show where you voluntarily provide a great deal of information about your family, making you quite vulnerable. The assumption is that they will never be dishonest but they will respect your willingness to participate and not look to include things you think would embarrass your family.
I regret my initial thoughts that the issue of slavery not be included in the story. We deserve neither credit nor blame for our ancestors and the degree of interest in this story suggests that we are, as a nation, still grappling with the terrible legacy of slavery. It is an examination well worth continuing. I am glad that my story, however indirectly, will contribute to that discussion. While I don’t like that the guy is an ancestor, I am happy that aspect of our country’s history is being talked about.
[From Facebook]
E! notes that PBS has also launched an internal investigation into what happened in this instance. Outlets were questioning whether PBS had compromised their integrity by caving to Batfleck’s request and PBS took it seriously. They’re not making reality shows, they’re trying to show history good and bad.
NPR had some excellent coverage of this story during Morning Edition today. (You can hear it here.) Commentator Gene Demby pointed out that the omission of Affleck’s slave owning ancestor is very glaring “if you watch the episode in context.” Affleck’s episode focused on the fact that he had a fore-bearer who fought in the Revolutionary war alongside Washington and that his mother was active in the Civil Rights movement. So Affleck’s episode was about freedom, but he refused to include the negative parts of his genealogy along with the positive parts.
At least Affleck addressed this and admits that he should have included the issue of slavery in his story. However, I do find his statement too self-focused and defensive. This sentence in particular bothers me “The assumption is that they will never be dishonest but they will respect your willingness to participate and not look to include things you think would embarrass your family.” Did he not read the emails? He doesn’t even address the editorial integrity of PBS and he’s assuming the “collaborative creative process” applies to what is supposed to be a documentary-type show. He’s still acting as if it was his right to ask them to whitewash his ancestry when the issue was so serious that Gates sought advice on it and PBS is launching an internal investigation.
A Canadian reader sent us a tip that Ben was spotted in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia last Thursday. Reader Steph emailed me that Affleck “was seen near a Buddhist monastery in Cape Breton… He may be on a retreat there and if so, may not even be aware of all the fuss about his ancestor and his attempt to censor the story.” They have video of Affleck and everything so it’s known that he was there. It’s possible that he was on a retreat without electronics, but Affleck was photographed at the Farmer’s Market in LA on Sunday Morning, and again out with his wife yesterday. He must have learned about this story over the weekend at the latest.
Photo credit: FameFlynet, WENN.com and PRPhotos
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Ben Affleck is buff and clean cut now: hot or needs some scruff? | | Added 9 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
These are photos of Ben Affleck, 42, taking his daughters Violet and Seraphina out to karate class and shopping for Valentine’s presents. Violet is holding a fuzzy red pillow which The Daily Mail claims is for her mother, Jennifer Garner. Cute! I also like how the girls are in karate. My son used to take karate and it teaches kids discipline, self esteem and of course self defense.
Affleck looks super buff and you know that he’s trying to show it off in that tight shirt. He’s also much more clean cut than we’re used to seeing him. His hair is short and he’s not sporting any of the facial scruff that he usually has. I like this look on him, he looks much younger when he’s clean-shaven like this.
He is of course in shape for his role as Batman in Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, out in 2016. Affleck won’t be able to slack on his fitness or diet routine anytime soon. There are two sequels coming out in which he’ll reprise his role, The Justice League Part 1 in 2017 and Justice League Part 2 in 2019. I wonder if he ever thinks of all the years he’ll tied up in this franchise and questions whether he’s up to the challenge. I bet that Damon’s re-commitment to Bourne helped convince Affleck that he could also do an action franchise. Those two are close and live right down the street from each other. Damon used to say, years ago, that he was getting too old for Bourne, but he’s got a new film coming out in 2016 too.
Affleck was just announced as one of the presenters at the Oscars on February 22. I hope that his wife, Jennifer Garner, comes too and I hope they pose together on the red carpet, but that’s probably a pipe dream.
photo credit: FameFlynet
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Ben Affleck and David Fincher to remake Hitchcock's 'strangers on a Train' | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
View image | gettyimages.com
Fresh off the heels of the success of Gone Girl, Ben Affleck, director David Fincher and writer Gillian Flynn are teaming up again to redo a Hitchcock classic from 1951, Strangers on a Train. Deadline has the details, along with the fact that the film will change some plot points and take place in modern times. It’s surprising that Affleck is taking on this project, considering how busy he’ll soon be with his Battfleck duties. Deadline says he’ll fit it all in, though:
Ben Affleck and David Fincher will reteam on a Warner Bros remake of the classic Hitchcock thriller Strangers On A Train. Gillian Flynn, who adapted her novel Gone Girl for Fincher and Affleck, is in talks to write the script. The film will be produced by Affleck under Pearl Street, the Warner Bros-based banner he runs with Matt Damon. WB?s Jon Berg is overseeing. They are calling it Strangers.
Although the Hitchcock remake ? a Warner Bros library title and an adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel ? will be its basis, this film will be contemporary and redefined for the times. This one might be best titled Strangers On A Plane, as Affleck will play a variation of the role played by Farley Granger of a tennis pro who is bored with his marriage and wants to get divorced but instead gets entwined with a wealthy socialite psycho who proposes the notion of exchanging murders. The twist here is a compelling one. Affleck will play a movie star in the middle of a campaign for an Oscar during awards season whose private plane breaks down and is given a ride to LA on another plane by a wealthy stranger. In Fincher?s hands, who knows how that goes, but it sure does seem like fertile ground.
[From Deadline]
My initial, gut response is “oh hell no.” I haven’t seen this film in over 10 years but I remember how excellent it was, and it’s frustrating to see classics get remade because studios are afraid to take chances with new material. (With the exception of best selling books.) I was going to ask, what’s next: Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window? The thing is, all of those Hitchcock classics have been remade in some capacity, we just haven’t heard much about them.
Plus, I have to admit that I marathoned A&E’s newish series, Bates Motel, over the holidays. It’s a prequel to Psycho, set in current day and starring Vera Farmiga and Freddie Highmore. It is SO GOOD. The writing and acting are excellent and the plot is juicy and soapy yet never veers into melodrama. So Hitchcock’s work can be used as a springboard for other, similarly creepy stories, sometimes borrowing heavily from the incredible source material. Hopefully Gillian Flynn and David Fincher can do Hitchcock justice. I’m concerned about Affleck in the lead, but he’s passable usually.
Oh and I had to read DListed to figure out the significance of Affleck playing an Oscar nominated actor who wants his wife dead. I wonder whose initial idea this project was.
photos credit: FameFlynet, WENN.com and Getty Images
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | 5.599.032
Photos Online+ 33.678 past week
2.783
Users Online | | |
| | | | | | | | We Salute
Katrina Bowden
Photos of Katrina Bowden will not count in your daily view limit, if you are a registered member
Tribute ends in
6 days | | |
| | |
|
