Let’s address the superficial first.
Michael Fassbender visited Letterman last night. Here are a few shots of him arriving. Those jeans... are really, really not working for me. Those jeans, they’re almost leggings hitched up to his waist, right? If I had any boner for Fassy, and, as noted the other day, it hasn’t been easy to find, the way he’s wearing his jeans would have killed it.
No doubt you will point me to his shirtless appearance on the cover of the new THR. He looks good, totally. But the best part of that interview is not the photo. As my friend Laura pointed out to me yesterday, the best part of that interview is this sentence:
Indeed, the mischevious Fassbender is known to break out in song on-set. One of his favorites, according to the confidante, is "Regulate" by Warren G and Nate Dogg.
Please.
Regulate is a chill-ass jam. Picturing Michael Fassbender grooving to it is HILARIOUS.
Not so hilarious?
This business with his ex-girlfriend and the beatdown he may or may not have given her. In 2010, Leasi Andrews filed charges against Fassbender for two incidents, alleging that he “”threw her in a drunken fury” and, later on, “dragged her alongside their car, hurting her ankle and bursting an ovarian cyst”. She also supposedly broke her nose.
A month later though, she withdrew her claim. Sources close to Andrews say that she didn’t want to jeopardise his burgeoning career and worried that he may not be able to gain entry into the US should he have the case on his record.
Supporters of Fassbender will argue that in dropping the motion, she demonstrated a lack of credibility and therefore had ulterior motives.
On the other side, you could take the position that she was paid off by those managing his career.
And still many of you prefer to stay neutral, noting that since evidence isn’t strong on either side, you won’t call him an abuser and you won’t call her a liar, either. But does he win in that scenario too? Let’s come back to this in a minute.
For all the women who are afraid to come forward, or come forward and change their minds out of fear and manipulation, are we to question their credibility too? Fame certainly changes behaviour and circumstance, making those who are famous vulnerable to nefarious intentions. But fame also affords those who are famous extra opportunities and extra allowances that civilians are not privy to. So it’s a wash then, leaving each observer of the situation to draw their own conclusions based on their interpretation of the facts presented through the prism of their own bias.
I am not comfortable assuming that Andrews is a liar just because she didn’t want to move forward in court with her complaint. Think of the dangerous precedent that sets for abused women. Abused women often back away from seeking help in their situations. We all know this.
Does that mean I think she’s right and that he did assault her?
This is not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that discrediting her based on a withdrawn claim isn’t fair. Just as it’s not fair to assume he did it because he went back to her.
Oh yes, it happened the other night.
Fassbender and Andrews were seen making out publicly in LA after the Globes. She was spotted the next day leaving his hotel, and some would argue that’s also classic abused woman behaviour. So in being with her, does that mean what she said was true? Because why would he be with her again if she almost destroyed his reputation? That’s an assumption that’s hard to support too.
Where does that leave you?
Where does that leave me?
But this is an interesting and perplexing philosophical debate isn’t it?
I am not a fan of a man who abuses women.
To be a fan of Michael Fassbender I must believe that he did not abuse Leasi Andrews.
If he did not abuse Leasi Andrews, I must believe her to be a liar.
But I don’t know if she’s a liar.
Am I fan of Michael Fassbender?
Regulate!
