Skip to main content

Evan Rachel Wood Returns to Instagram and Makes an Interesting Admission of Drug Use as a "Child"

On April 24th 2024, Evan Rachel Wood deactivated her Instagram, as previously reported , and remained completely away from the public eye until she reactivated her Instagram account on June 11th 2024, nearly two months later. Whether she did this merely to take a break or not is unknown, though I explored some possible explanations in my previous post. However, it does seem like it is interesting timing that she did return when she did. Here are a few reasons why. First, the day prior to her return, on June 10th, it was widely reported that Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman were returning for a long-awaited Practical Magic sequel, and that Akiva Goldsman, one of the writers behind the original, will pen the screenplay. In the original 1998 film, Evan Rachel Wood plays Kylie Owens, the daughter of Sandra Bullock's character, and it has long been speculated that if there was a sequel, then it would focus on the daughters, especially Evan's character. And if there has been one mo

A Brief Look at Two Articles Released on March 15th 2022 Set to Coincide With the Release of Evan Rachel Wood's 'Phoenix Rising'

When it comes to Marilyn Manson news in the month of March 2022, it was pretty much dominated by Evan Rachel Wood's documentary Phoenix Rising, released conveniently on the Ides of March, on March 15th and 16th on HBO as a two-part series. During the week of its release, Evan made four television appearances and Amy Berg the director made one appearance, and these I have already covered here. A few weeks before this, earlier in the month, Marilyn Manson issued his lawsuit complaint against Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore, which changed the narrative a little in media circles, though it would soon be ignored (because we know how much the media hates their narrative changed and how scared they are to go against a woman who makes accusations in the MeToo era).  Besides the documentary and the multiple television appearances, we were overwhelmed with a large amount of media coverage, whether it be film reviews for the documentary, interviews, podcasts, and other types of investigations and analyses. Below are two articles that were released on March 15th with the documentary, one interview with The Cut and another expose by Time, with some personal thoughts on each.

- The Cut (March 15, 2022)

On March 15th The Cut featured an interview with Evan Rachel Wood (including a shamefully inappropriate modeling photoshoot by Amanda Demme), which took place at the Chateau Marmont, for obvious reasons, since it was at the Chateau Marmont that Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood first met in 2006. In fact, the interview begins with Evan staring up at the place where she met Manson, singing an Alanis Morrisette, as if she is a woman out for revenge, like her character Delores on Westworld. It's pretty weird if you ask me, but Evan is a very weird person with multiple mental illnesses and those tend to come out in interviews like these, especially in the past few years. Frankly, the more she talks, the more you see she is really playing a character that she has created in her mind, and there is nothing authentic about her anymore, which is pretty sad when you think about it. Her identity has been entirely absorbed by her pursuit of Marilyn Manson, and she thinks what she is doing is healthy and admirable and should be imitated by all "victims". The more one honestly evaluates it, however, the more one sees it as her pathetic display and can only either pity her or leave her to wallow in the dung pile, by which I mean the filth of her imaginative world.

Of course, the only reason Evan wanted this interview done at the Chateau Marmont is because she wants to point out that Manson targeted her and groomed her, when she was an innocent and naive 18 year old Hollywood starlet wearing a a dress with polka dots. Evan is presented as a frightened woman who could not name Manson after she left him due to fears of retaliation against her career and her family, which is why by naming him on Instagram and making a documentary she has been able to give herself her greatest form of protection. This is how Evan sells her shameful conduct, and naive women especially, like Angelina Chapin who wrote this junk-piece, eat up her dumb narrative like its the latest episode of Westworld, which is what Evan wants it to be.

One of my favorite sentences in this article reads: "In the documentary, Wood is at times panicked, dressed in loose clothes as she stares into the distance or literally jumps at loud noises." What the author fails to mention is that she is only like this in the documentary, because in real life since the end of her relationship with Manson, she is the complete opposite of her "character" in Phoenix Rising. Yes, in Phoenix Rising, Evan Rachel Wood is a character, not a real life person. There is nothing real about Evan in Phoenix Rising. It is an entirely fictional account, and this can be demonstrated when real journalists do their research, that is, when we had real journalists that cared more about the truth than a fictional tale they themselves embellish in order to destroy monsters of their own imagination who are in fact innocent. It's sort of like that story of actress Andie MacDowell, who confessed that she had her first panic attack in 2016 when she walked on to a set and saw nothing but men, and felt attacked just by their presence, even though none of them did anything wrong to her. This is what contemporary feminism (especially from the past six years or so when some women became deranged with the rise of Donald Trump) has done to women, putting them in an alternate realm of reality that has no substance to it but what they distort their brains with when they subscribe to a wacky ideology. Even Evan's son Jack sees how weird this all is, as personified in his mother Evan, when he asked her, “Why are you acting so weird?” Her response is nothing short of manipulation.

The interviewer describes Evan as "at times leaning on clich├ęs", which is true, because when Evan talks there is nothing authentic about her. She is a programmed robot like Delores, who has the script prepared in her head after years of studying for this role as a woman who has been raped and abused by Marilyn Manson. You see the reporter's like-minded agenda, when she writes things like: "A cherub-faced teen was dating America’s vampire, and that was especially irresistible to certain male writers, who seized on Wood’s reputation for playing the rebellious, hypersexualized love interests of older men (Thirteen, Pretty Persuasion, Running With Scissors, Down in the Valley). They asked her overtly horny questions...." These are all clearly women who hate men and hate sex with men unless they can control every single situation and take every opportunity to demean male intentions by using their sexuality against them. Angelina Chapin, who reveals her own mental illnesses throughout the article, in turn even goes after the male reporters of the past, like Eric Spitznagel and Mark Kirby, who actually asked Evan good and relevant questions in 2007 and 2009, unlike her. In fact, in one of those past interviews, Evan even said about her relationship with Manson: “If it doesn’t work out, I would never blame it on the fact that he’s Marilyn Manson." Is this dis against male reporters of the past also meant to eliminate these incriminating statements by Evan?

"Phoenix Rising is Wood’s chance to reframe a story that has been seized upon by tabloids and social-media trolls intent on painting her as 'Marilyn Manson’s jailbait crazy girlfriend' or his jilted, lying ex." Interesting confession - Phoenix Rising is meant to serve Evan's ego. Nice. So it is all about her after all. She wants the media on her side by only presenting her side and demonizing everything and everyone else who does not stand with her. She is a control freak of the highest form, who wants to be seen as a hero by everyone that knows her, especially her manipulated family and her manipulated son.

“At the end of the day, this is how Amy has chosen to tell the story,” says Evan, looking down. “And that was a little daunting.” Amy Berg cannot escape being responsible for the lies and falsehoods presented in Phoenix Rising. No doubt she encouraged Evan to do this, instead of tried to restrain her from going too far. This is because Amy Berg is just as radicalized in her far left extreme form of feminism as Evan and Angelina Chapin. This is all about serving an ideology that was established years before the documentary. None of them are new converts.

Throughout the documentary, Evan's parents speak as if at one time or another, they were fully aware of the abuse suffered by Evan, and even helped her escape it. But then Evan contradicts these statements and says they had no awareness of the abuse she suffered until recently. In this article we also hear the same: "It’s the first time her parents, who appear throughout Phoenix Rising, have heard about their daughter’s experience in detail." This is interesting, because Evan has been talking about the details since 2016. When Evan saw the documentary for the first time with her mother, she told Evan she had already imagined the worst scenarios in her head before the documentary. You can see the process of this manipulation by Evan of her parents, with these stories and the way Evan uses cliches to explain everything that happened to her. She even makes it sound like she was in some sort of a cult that her imagination created to paint the situation as out of her control as possible: "It’s like escaping a cult. I’m really not proud of what I did while I was in the cult.”

The article is also very anti-Jamie Bell. He is described as one of “the least supportive” people throughout Evan's process of coming forward and that “family court is one of the worst places to put a domestic-violence survivor.” This is in reference to Evan kidnapping her son in 2020 and moving him to Nashville without Jaime's knowledge, that resulted in a custody battle. Evan's attempt to make her documentary more dramatic backfired on her and resulted in a lawsuit that reveals her control-freak nature for what it truly is.

One of the more revealing, questionable, odd and laughable moments of this article is this:

"On February 1, 2021, a Navy SEAL officer stood outside a rented home while Wood posted a statement to Instagram that began, 'The name of my abuser is Brian Warner, also known to the world as Marilyn Manson.'”

What does this reveal? Well, supposedly we have this all documented and filmed for us on Phoenix Rising, so it reveals that the home this took place in was a rented home in North Carolina that she invited her brother and father's family too, and a Navy Seal was outside protecting them even though it is a completely undisclosed and remote location in the middle of the woods. Even if there would have been a reaction to the Instagram post, it would take days to organize something. It's sort of odd that if a Navy Seal was there (an interesting detail), they didn't show him in any way in the documentary or even mention he was there. Nor do they mention they were in a rented home or why. They don't even say they were there for Evan to make her Instagram post. It's laughable she would go to such lengths over a non-existent threat if these things are true, but I found these "facts" to be questionable. And how she convinced everyone to be there for an obviously non-existent threat is disturbing, knowing how much Evan must have guilted and manipulated everyone to be there and make a dramatic show for her documentary. This information just enhances the absurdity of the whole situation.

Another revelation in this article is Illma Gore's involvement, as stated by Evan, saying that Illma “is no longer affiliated with the Phoenix Act and hasn’t been for some time now.” Well, now we know why the Phoenix Act website is no longer running and why Illma has not said a word about the documentary.

Yet a third revelation comes from Amy Berg, who says "that her team shot Wood going to an FBI interview last April." This is a complete lie, as it has been demonstrated that this coverage is completely fake and done for the camera. In fact, an FBI agent representing the Nashville office has explicitly stated in a confirmation call that the FBI office in Nashville would not allow this, and this is confirmed by the fact that the FBI office in Nashville is never even mentioned in the end credits.

"After naming him, Wood noticed an instant transformation. She suddenly had more energy and says that some chronic pain disappeared, including stomach issues often triggered by mental distress." I mean, this is pretty meaningless and strange, seeing that, even if true, these are all things she would have created in her own mind and have nothing to do with abuse inflicted by someone else, though no doubt she would interpret it as part of her abuse. In fact, let's be honest, this is nothing but propaganda to encourage women to follow her example and feel sympathy for her. She is basically saying, before her "brave" Instagram post, she was a fearful mess, but after her Instagram post, she became an unstoppable warrior. Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.

"Wood was forced to ditch two projects while working on the Phoenix Act." How was she "forced"? Is this Manson's fault too? Perhaps she chose not to take those roles to focus more on the Phoenix Act? This sentence demands further clarification.

"She has had to walk off a few photo shoots that triggered memories of the pictures she says Manson used to take of her." First of all, as we have shown, Evan has had many revealing photoshoots, so what makes Manson's photos worse, photos that have never been seen or even described but left for us to imagine, like Evan's mom was left to imagine everything as the worst possible scenario before she saw the documentary? I would like to hear from the people on the set of these photoshoots and have them describe exactly what happened and what they asked for that was so different from all the other photoshoots she has done in the past.

"Wood would often miss work meetings back when they were still together because she wasn’t allowed to leave the house." This is a convenient excuse for missing a work meeting and blaming Manson for it. I'm sure her agent and assistant from that time can confirm this, or did Manson have them fired and make himself her assistant and her agent in order to take over her life and control all aspects of it, like she wants us to imagine?

"Though she has had a string of relationships since splitting up with Bell and spoken out many times about her bisexuality, intimacy of any kind is still hard." Something else to blame Manson for, even though she has always talked about being awkward, an introvert and shy, even before she was with Manson.

We have another interesting revelation:

"She’s in the process of removing a black-heart tattoo on her left thigh that she and Manson got one Valentine’s Day because 'the connotations are just too dark.' But Wood’s keeping the '15' tattoo behind her right ear (Manson has a matching one), a reference to a song of his that she still listens to as a reminder of what happened."

I must say, this sort of blew me away the first time I read it. First, it's understandable to remove a tattoo associated with an ex, but the connections with her PTSD or whatever memory ailment she claims is just unnecessary. Second, we have here a weird confession that Evan still listens to the song "15" off of the album The High End of Low, which is why she says she decided to keep it, because it reminds her of what happened. Not only is it weird to listen to a song by your abuser and keep a tattoo of his lucky number that reminds you of the abuse you supposedlysuffered, but I am also willing to bet that the last words of that song, which are: "Not letting you win won't satisfy me, I'll teach you about loss," is probably where she got the idea that Manson was a threat to her; it is sort of like she is creating a subliminal message for herself that Manson is out to get her, if she truly does believe Manson is a threat to her.

"I don’t want to play the girl who’s in trouble anymore. I want a woman in power, a wise woman, a mother, a teacher. Somebody who is on the other side of that pain." This is a revelation from Evan as to the character she is playing now that she presents as her true self, and it also reveals a motive for coming out with the false allegations that Manson abused and raped her. Her perception of reality changed when she took the role of Delores on Westworld, and this altered perception is a prime motive in her false accusations.

"She has most recently been cast as an ’80s-era Madonna in an upcoming movie about Weird Al Yankovic." For someone who presents herself as anti-Nazi symbolism, it seems she has chosen to overlook the fact that Madonna used Nazi symbols on her tour, for ulterior symbolic purposes, about a decade ago and refused to apologize for it.

“Once the documentary is out, I don’t know what else there will be to say.” Manson's lawsuit has opened all new doors, and this isn't going away any time soon.

"When I call Wood to talk about Manson’s lawsuit, she’s disheartened, her voice low and tired as she talks about another hurdle that puts her 'back in the ring with the person who hurt' her. The effect is tangible. Wood is looking over her shoulder again and has hired security guards to follow her around as an extra precaution." Imagine how Manson and Lindsay must be feeling, when false accusations have overturned their world.

- Time (March 15, 2022)

This article, titled "Evan Rachel Wood, Marilyn Manson and the Stories We Tell Ourselves About Iconoclastic Rock Stars", was written as an expose by a woman notorious for expose's and notorious for being wrong, Judy Berman. She is most notorious for writing an unfounded hit piece against Michael Jackson that helped to sully his reputation. But she is also, like all the women mentioned above from The Cut article, a far left feminist extremist more bound to an ideology than the truth. She is the type who would say something stupid like this, from a 2013 interview:

"I remember discovering Nirvana pretty late — Kurt Cobain died when I was nine. I got into them a year or two later. I remember, in middle school, it being this private thing for my friends and I. And then getting to high school and realizing that all of these gross, macho older boys were super-into Nirvana, too. I just remember thinking that the whole thing felt sullied to me; it changed the way I thought. I had to think about why this appealed to them, when to me it was the ultimate outsider music."

This is a woman who also doesn't like men too much and has demonized manhood to the point where she can't function around it (you can read more about it here). When we know that a woman like this is writing an expose of Marilyn Manson through the perspective of Evan Rachel Wood's documentary, then we know exactly what we are going to get, and this is indeed exactly what we get.

For example, Judy writes in the article:

"If this is what a conspiracy looks like, then you have to wonder why so many participants would risk the wrath of Manson’s lawyers and fans. Search the rocker’s name on Twitter, and you’ll see that toxic stan culture isn’t just for pop divas."

What Judy doesn't seem to realize is that there are many motives why someone would falsely accuse a famous person and issue lawsuits against him. Empty promises from another famous person, like Evan Rachel Wood, could be another major motivating factor. Career opportunities, money, public perception are all strong motivating factors. Social media posts from Manson supporters are nothing compared to the fact that every media outlet and tabloid has taken the side of Evan and the other Manson accusers. The majority of people still treat Manson as guilty before he has been given the opportunity to state his case after his denial of the allegations. It is also hypocritical and one-sided to call "toxic stan culture" when Manson supporters voice their opinions, but when Evan's much more numerous supporters voice theirs, then it is looked upon by the media approvingly and is even encouraged (the "journalists" participate in it themselves, including Judy on Twitter).

"The #MeToo movement has been slow to make inroads into the testosterone-soaked corner of the music industry where Borland and Cleary still work; these guys aren’t exactly incentivized to promote feminism."

Yikes, all that testosterone is leaking on to Judy and she just can't stand it. But at least there is Dan Cleary and Wes Borland, who were somehow able to contain their testosterone and make a pro-feminist stance without incentive. Without incentive? Both of these guys worked for Manson, and are notoriously disgruntled former employees who crave attention, but this incentive isn't even mentioned by the great journalist.

Isn't it funny that the more we read through this article, the more Judy Berman writes like an apologist for Evan and her fellow accusers instead of doing any investigating. She actually tries to make one excuse after another for why none of the accusers could ever have a motive or incentive to go against Manson.

Judy even brings up the film Groupie as if it is a film that depicts something that really happened, when months before this article Pola Weiss came forward in an interview with Colonel Kurtz as the actress in the video who is still alive and well and explained how much of a joy it was filming the short movie with Manson, who was her boyfriend at the time. If Judy stopped trying to defend Evan and did some actual investigating, she would have known this, or maybe she did know this and chose to ignore it anyway.

Judy also doesn't seem to know what expressionist art is, which focuses on the inner world instead of the outer world, that Manson portrays in his art, nor does it seem did she look at his dozens of other paintings, otherwise she would never repeat the falsehood of Phoenix Rising about his art, because he paints almost everything and everyone with similar features:

"She also describes, and Berg presents, a series of portraits he painted of her throughout their five-year relationship, each one more tortured than the last."

The propaganda gets more and more ridiculous as you read on.

At one point, Judy confesses that she too was once a fan of Marilyn Manson when she was younger, and understood his persona the way other fans perceived it. But she presents this type of mentality as an opportunity for Manson to abuse younger women. Chris Brown, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and the 70's groupie scene are brought up as examples. These examples are only brought up by Judy to reinforce her objective which this hit job of an article tries to present. It is apologetic material to defend Evan and the accusers, and nothing else, and it does a very poor job at doing it.

She continues this defense of Evan when she plays up the "sexism" Evan encountered when Dita accused Manson of cheating on her with Evan, and the fact that Evan was looked upon as the homewrecker and real-life Lolita. This is pretty funny and desperate of Judy when you consider the fact that Evan is the one who started the whole Lolita resemblance as a joke, and Manson himself treated it as a joke with Evan.

By the end of the article, Judy calls for the music industry to encourage "erotic encounters that enrich people’s lives" instead of the debauchery of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Otherwise, there will be a lot more Marilyn Manson's in the years to come. Can't there be room for both, though? It seems like this is what people want. What really is needed to prevent real abuse is education, not censorship.