Publisher cuts the Sacha Baron Cohen stuff out of U.K. version of Rebel Wilson’s memoir
A page of material about Sacha Baron Cohen and The Brothers Grimsby has been cut out of U.K. editions of Rebel Wilson's Rebel Rising
Aux News Sacha Baron Cohen
The U.K. version of Rebel Wilson’s new memoir Rebel Rising will be a bit different from the version previously published in the United States—to the tune of most of the material contained in the attention-heavy chapter “Sacha Baron Cohen And Other Assholes,” and specifically all of the stuff about Cohen himself. The Guardian reports that the Cohen stories in Wilson’s book, which cover unhappy experiences she had on the set of 2016's The Brothers Grimsby, have been redacted with big black bars in the British version of the book, along with a short preface from Wilson explaining that the story “can’t be printed here due to peculiarities of the law in England and Wales.”
Cohen himself took some issue with that descriptor today (while celebrating the redaction in general), putting out a statement via a spokesman in which it was noted that “Printing falsehoods is against the law in the UK and Australia; this is not a ‘peculiarity’ as Ms. Wilson said, but a legal principle that has existed for many hundreds of years.” Cohen’s statement also accused publisher HarperCollins of failing to fact-check the chapter, saying that the publisher has now taken “the sensible but terribly belated step of deleting Rebel Wilson’s defamatory claims once presented with evidence that they were false.”
All told, it sounds like the Cohen/Grimsby material in the book only added up to “most of one page with some other small redactions,” according to a statement put out by HarperCollins; the story, already pretty well-recounted by now, involves Wilson asserting that she was deliberately put in humiliating clothing and other degrading situations during the make of the film, including saying she was pressured to film a nude scene despite having a no-nudity clause in her contract. Cohen’s team has aggressively pushed back on these assertions, stating that Wilson was “welcomed as a collaborator in all creative areas; the script, costume, hair, makeup.”
Rebel Rising was released in the U.S. back on April 4; its release in other territories has been delayed, officially “to coincide with Rebel Wilson’s press tours.”
39 Comments
I certainly don’t claim to know much about England’s libel/slander laws, but this seems like a pretty big admission that the publisher thinks the accusations against Cohen aren’t true.
From Wikipedia:English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation. Allowable defences are justification, honest opinion (previously known as fair comment), and privilege. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth.English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable and unrecognisable by U.S. courts if they don’t comply with U.S. protections for freedom of speech and due process, which was made largely in response to the English laws.So basically, were Cohen to sue, the publisher would have to prove that the allegedly defamatory statements were true rather than Cohen being required to prove that the statements were false.
Interesting, thanks.
I recommend you watch the movie Denial starring Rachel Weisz, it based on a true story where professor got sued by a Holocaust denier and she had to prove he was Holocaust denier in British court.
Better yet, read History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier by Deborah Lipstadt, the true story on which that movie was based
That movie is harrowing as hell. It’s good, though. I shudder to think how easily that verdict could have gone the other way.
It’s the same reason Depp first sued Heard for defamation in England instead of the U.S.
Thus definitively proving that Depp is, in fact, a wife beater.
Beat me to it. Another thing to be aware of is that in the US, you not only has the platiff have to prove its a lie, they also have to show that the lie caused them harm(generally financially).
I don’t think you have to have a thorough understanding of English law to have a working understanding of how lawyers work- and the latter would suggest that it doesn’t really matter what they think is or isn’t true, it matters what they’re willing to defend in court.
Yeah you clearly do though
How can you possibly form that conclusion given your stipulation that you’re unfamiliar with England’s libel/slander laws? How do people just grasp about in the dark like this without constantly bumping into things?
Sonar.
No, it means they can’t prove it’s true, which isn’t the same thing. In England a defamation defendant has to be able to prove it’s true. In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, who would have to prove it’s false. So the publisher even if it’s true would have to go through a legal battle to prove it, which would be expensive and maybe impossible depending on how much of the stuff happened in private.Edit: I see this has been covered.
My god, is this fat cunt still making news?
So since SBC’s statement mentioned how printing falsehoods is against the law in Australia, are these the same type of laws that allowed Rebel Wilson to sue an Australian publication for saying she made up stories about her early life? Even though my understanding is that she did make up stories about her early life. Because I never really understood how she won that one.
I’m no fan of Cohen, and I’m biased to believe women in these situations, but there’s just something _off_ to me about Rebel’s accusations here. Perhaps I’m being pushed this direction by the press, but usually when someone makes these kind of accusations, other people step forward. Has that happened here? Didn’t she also talk shit before about other celebrities? I mean I don’t honestly care that much but this whole thing just seems weird and fishy.
Also prior to her weight loss, humiliation and cringe were pretty much her career.
And post her weight loss, she doesn’t really have career.
Harsh but fair. My take on the situation is Cohen strikes me as someone who will go absolutely anywhere if he thinks the result will be funny, and probably doesn’t put much care into whether people will be insulted by his suggestions. So even if everything she says is true, it strikes me more as Cohen being oblivious as opposed to an asshole.
“it strikes me more as Cohen being oblivious as opposed to an asshole.”Idk, after a while if you’re oblivious to the fact that you’re making people uncomfortable, it means that you’re choosing not to pay attention to how you’re actions affect people, which makes you an asshole. Like, “doesn’t put much care into whether people will be insulted by his suggestions” literally sounds like the definition of “asshole”
I make the distinction over a lack of intent, and perhaps even awareness that he’s being offensive. Self-centered? Sure. But his suggestions to Wilson weren’t meant to demean her for sport, he just thought it would make their movie funnier. I can see that being a blind spot for someone like Cohen whose entire career has been based on that kind of humor.
Nah. I mean not nah to you; you can draw the line where you like. But for me intent doesn’t matter over impact. If someone goes through life choosing to ignore how their actions affect others, that’s asshole behavior.As for whether they were meant to demean or thought they would make the movie funnier, there’s no way to know that, plus he should have known that asking a co-worker to put her finger up his butt is inappropriate in literally any and all work-based circumstances. That’s the kind of thing you know is going to make someone else uncomfortable and you have to make a deliberate choice not to care.
I’m with you here. I think intent can play a part in how much of an arsehole you are – if you plan to go about hurting people you’re a monster, if you’re oblivious you’re just a garden variety arsehole – but it doesn’t lessen the fact that you’re actually going about making people’s lives harder.
Regarding whether Cohen was aware that he was being offensive or insensitive, the appeal of his entire body of work rests on the understanding that he knows EXACTLY what he’s doing, as a professional provocateur. And I feel he’s blurred the line between what he does and who he is far too often to say “I was just doing a bit.”
Which is where I’ve been going with this – he’s a guy I believe WAS just “doing a bit.” Whether that makes him an asshole is obviously subjective. Oblivious for sure and potentially unpleasant to be around if you’re not on the same wavelength (or willing to say “no” and just move on), but again my threshold for assholery is intent. Plus…she signed on for a SBC film. His brand of humor was hardly a mystery at that point.
What does this mean exactly? Because her weight loss happened in 2020, and it’s not exactly as if a lot of movies were being made that year. Since then she’s had 2 come out in 2022 and has 5 upcoming.
The two that came out were really stinkers and what she is appearing in next doesn’t sound very good either.Look I’m not her biggest fan. And I won’t fault anyone for losing weight and getting healthy. But it’s clear she fit a niche in Hollywood pre weight loss and it’s yet to be determined if she can pivot to new things after that are actually successful
“The two that came out were really stinkers”That’s fine, but she did the job and got paid for them—that equals having a career.“and what she is appearing in next doesn’t sound very good either”A lot of what she did before her weightloss didn’t sound very good. What’s your point? Your claim wasn’t that she isn’t making Oscar-worthy films (which she never has). Your claim was that she isn’t working. Which is it?“But it’s clear she fit a niche in Hollywood pre weight loss and it’s yet to be determined if she can pivot to new things after that are actually successful”lol That’s absolutely not “clear” at all though. That’s just a restatement of your hypothesis. You can’t restate your hypothesis as proof of your hypothesis. That’s why I asked you what you meant by not having a career, and it seems that for you a career equals “making movies that Nilus personally thinks are good”? She’s an actor and she’s working. That’s literally the definition of having a career.
It’s the internet, kiddo. Don’t invest that much emotion into it… If you need to anonymously virtue signal online you should share that stuff with a therapist.
On the one hand, I’d say Cohen’s entire reputation is all about how he pushes the limits of comfort and tries to mine humor out of putting people in uncomfortable situations. On the other, that entire thing also hinges on manipulating media and getting in the news for faking things that are just on the edge of credulity.I have nothing to back it up beyond gut feeling, but this being a minor scandal, about a movie nobody saw, being covered on one single page of a book that’s in need of promotion…
Maybe but it’s not like they’re rape allegations. They’re just allegations of him being kind of a jerk. I don’t know that’s widely known as being a lovable, nice guy? I think he’s already known to be a bit obnoxious so there’s not much for anyone else to add.
I find it fascinating that this is literally the only thing keeping this book in the news. The other bombshells, that her agents wanted her to stay fat because she’d be more marketable and that she was a virgin until her mid-30s, barely lasted half a day in the news cycle.PS: Brothers Grimsby isn’t even a good movie! I saw it, and didn’t remember Rebel Wilson was even in it until the news about this book. All I remembered about it is that it tanked so hard it derailed Sacha Baron Cohen’s career, probably leading him to agree to make Borat 2.
First this article made me think “I’ve lost all respect for Sacha Baron Cohen”. Which of course led me to ask “Did I have respect for Sacha Baron Cohen?” Slander laws and libel laws shouldn’t be a thing, especially for celebrities and memoirs. Given the truth-bending art Cohen has made of casual character assassination for satire, he should be leading that charge. This is like bringing a stinking weasel with mange onto an airplane and complaining to the stewardess about the noisy kids seated next to you.
Here in the US at least, if you are a public figure claiming defamation, you have to prove that not only is the statement false, but that it was made with “actual malice,” meaning it was published either knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity (like you knew it was likely to be false but you didn’t check when checking would have been easy). So you can sue for defamation if you’re famous, but it’s harder to prove. If you’re a regular person you just have to prove that it was false, and that it harmed you.I do think there should be libel laws, though, in general, especially for regular people. Remember during the red scare your entire livelihood could be destroyed if someone said you were a communist, even if you weren’t. If you were a woman your entire reputation could be destroyed if someone insinuated you weren’t a virgin. You should be able to recover against people who cause you actual harm with lies about you.
But noisy kids are objectively worse that stinking weasels with mange. Quiet kids, too.
English defamation law as I understand it is pretty fucked up. If you’re the one suing someone, you should have to prove your case, not the other way around.
why every piece of news about this drama is full of commenters shitting on Rebel Wilson?
I would like to remind everyone that Rebel Wilson has an LL.B.