Kevin Hart Steps Down As Oscars Host After Declining The Academy's Offer To Apologise

That was a rollercoaster from start to finish.

After a lot of back-and-forth between Kevin Hart and his Instagram followers, he has decided to step down as the host of the 2019 Academy Awards, following the resurfacing of several old tweets of his that were more than a little homophobic.

In addition to posting tweets where he joked about AIDS and used homophobic slurs, Hart also has a history of homophobic stand-up sets.

In his 2010 special, Seriously Funny, he said that one of his biggest fears was that his son would turn out to be gay. He added, “If I can prevent my son from being gay, I will.”

I mean… what on earth does that mean? Conversion therapy? Beating it out of him?

Hart’s homophobic jokes were no laughing matter, and while many of them were old, there’s no real indication that Hart has apologised, learned from his mistakes, and made amends to the gay community.

Following an online backlash, Hart posted an uncomfortably intimate Instagram video, in which he’s shirtless and rambling about how ‘crazy’ the world has become, because it’s now easier than ever to hold people accountable for the awful things they’ve said.

Instead of apologising, he explained that he’s a positive person who loves everybody, and he’s also “in love with the man he’s becoming”. It was a fantastic way to completely avoid any sort of accountability and a masterclass in making a situation about yourself instead of the community hurt by your actions.

Then, two hours ago, he posted a second video explaining that the Academy had just called him and asked him to apologise for his tweets, otherwise his hosting gig would be in jeopardy.

He again declined to apologise, because when you’re that famous the idea of there being consequences for your actions is unfathomable and undesirable.

Just as media outlets were publishing that story, the news dropped that Hart was stepping down as host of the Oscars. In his tweet, he did apologise to the LGBTQ community, but after two videos in which he insisted he didn’t need to, it feels a little hollow.

In my opinion, the only way forward now is to choose a gay person to host the Oscars instead. My vote is for Hannah Gadsby, who, if nothing else, would make a lot of men in the room feel incredibly uncomfortable. Wouldn’t that be a delight to see?

Hannah Gadsby Is Tired Of Good Men, Good White People And Good Straight People And It's A Big Mood

Unsurprisingly, men are offended.

Hannah Gadsby delivered the opening remarks at The Hollywood Reporter‘s Women in Hollywood Gala on Wednesday, and her speech was a searing criticism of good men, and good white people, and good straight people, who criticise bad men/bad white people/bad straight people, but do so while constantly shifting the goalposts of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’.


Gadsby started by saying she wanted to talk about good men, which garnered applause from much of the room. She followed that up with “…you’re going to regret that clap.”

In her speech, she mentions the abundance of ‘Jimmys’ on late-night television and in the public arena who are given the space to condemn ‘bad men’ while reminding everyone that they’re one of the good guys.

“But the last thing I need right now in this moment in history is to have to listen to men monologue about misogyny and how other men should just stop being “creepy,” as if that’s the problem.”

Gadsby’s issue with these men and their monologues is that, to them, there are two types of bad men: irredeemable men like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, and the ‘FOJs’: the Friends of Jimmy, like Louis CK, who are otherwise decent men who made a mistake. “These are apparently good men who misread the rules — garden-variety consent dyslexics.”

Gadsby’s issue with this is that men often draw a different line in the sand of acceptable behaviour for different occasions.

“They have a line for the locker room; a line for when their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are watching; another line for when they’re drunk and fratting; another line for nondisclosure; a line for friends; and a line for foes.”

Gadsby says that we need to talk about this line, because only good men are the ones allowed to draw it, and all men believe they are good. Good men get to draw the line to suit their own needs – if they make a mistake, and, say, masturbate in front of colleagues without their consent, they can just move the line so that their behaviour isn’t ‘completely unacceptable’ but simply ‘a mistake’. And their friends, the Jimmys, will support them in this. (And sometimes, women can be Jimmys too.)

In Gadsby’s words, “they move the line for their own good”.

She doesn’t just stop at calling out ‘good men’, though.

“Now take everything I have said up until this point and replace “man” with “white person,” and know that if you are a white woman, you have no place drawing lines in the sand between good white people and bad white people. I encourage you to also take the time to replace “man” with “straight” or “cis” or “able-bodied” or “neurotypical,” et cetera, et cetera.”

As Gadsby explains, everyone believes they are fundamentally good. Of course people are going to give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and of course their friends are too. But that’s exactly why it shouldn’t be up to those people, or their friends, to determine what is an isn’t acceptable; to determine where the line is drawn.

Naturally, some men responded poorly to Gadsby’s remarks:

Here’s the thing, men who see themselves as good: if you genuinely are a good person and supporter of women, you won’t worry about what someone who’s never met you, and who isn’t specifically talking about you, has to say about you. You’ll just get on with the job of holding other men accountable and not shifting the goalposts whenever a ‘good man’ you know is accused of something unsavoury.

Or you could just go on Twitter and demand congratulations for not having assaulted anybody, because apparently the bar is that low. That’s another option.

You can watch the speech here, or read a transcript over at Vulture.

Charlie Sheen Is Down To His Last $10 Million So Please Dig Deep And Donate What You Can

He says he's been blacklisted by Hollywood, much like I've been blacklisted by all the jobs I'm woefully unqualified for.

Charlie Sheen has filed requests to modify his child support payments to Denise Richards and Brooke Mueller, because he’s fallen on hard times as a result of Hollywood apparently turning its back on him.

In court documents obtained by PeopleSheen claimed he’s had a “significant reduction” in earnings, and is experiencing a “dire financial crisis” because he now has less than $10 million to his name.

The documents mentioned debts to his lawyers, the IRS and on his mortgage. He even owes his pool cleaner and gardener money, although I wonder why he can’t pay them out of the $10 million he still has.

He said that his reduction in earnings is a result of being “blacklisted from many aspects of the entertainment industry”, which is legal-speak for “getting passed over for jobs because everyone knows you’re a nightmare to work with and not a very good actor, anyway”.

Hey, remember this meme?

Sheen pays Richards $20,000 a month for their two daughters, and Mueller $55,000 each month for their two sons. In February, he listed his Beverly Hills mansion for sale for $9,999,999, so let’s hope it sells so that he can settle his debts and get back to living his ridiculously ostentatious and obnoxious life ASAP.

If anyone’s keen to start a GoFundMe for poor Charlie, let me know, I’ll chip in $0.69.

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us