Over the past few days, I shared on Instagram a video from the set of Richard Gere’s upcoming film Asymmetry, currently being filmed in New York with Diana Silvers, who plays the young protagonist, Alice.
What surprised me most was not the excitement surrounding the film, but the reaction of some viewers. A number of people completely misunderstood the context, assuming the images reflected Richard Gere’s personal life rather than a fictional story. Others, while recognizing that it was a movie, criticized both the production and Gere himself for portraying a relationship with a significant age gap, with some even drawing comparisons to real-life criminal cases.
Reading those comments made me reflect on something much bigger than this particular film.
Fiction is not reality
Asymmetry is a film adaptation of Lisa Halliday’s acclaimed novel. It tells a fictional story created by an author exploring human relationships, emotional complexity, and the imbalance of power that can exist between people of different ages and social positions.
It is not a documentary. It is not a biography. It is certainly not an endorsement of every choice made by its characters.
Too often today, people confuse the story being told with the beliefs of those telling it. If an actor plays a flawed character, it does not mean the actor shares that character’s values. If a filmmaker explores controversial themes, it does not mean those themes are being celebrated. Storytelling has always been about exploring every aspect of the human experience—including the uncomfortable ones.
Art must remain free
I believe that one of the greatest strengths of cinema is its freedom. Films should be free to tell stories that make us uncomfortable, ask difficult questions, or even provoke disagreement. If artists become afraid of criticism every time they tackle a sensitive subject, we risk creating a world where only “safe” stories can be told.
History’s greatest films often dealt with difficult themes: war, corruption, betrayal, obsession, addiction, violence, prejudice, and morally ambiguous relationships. Their purpose was not to glorify those realities but to examine them. That is what art has always done.
Let the audience decide
No one is forced to watch Asymmetry. When the film is released, every viewer will have the freedom to make their own choice.
Some may love it.
Some may dislike it.
Some may strongly disagree with its message.
That is exactly how cinema should work. What concerns me is the growing tendency to judge a film before seeing it, reducing it to a few photographs or short behind-the-scenes videos shared online. A story deserves to be experienced in its entirety before conclusions are drawn.
Richard Gere has never been afraid of complex roles
One of the reasons I have admired Richard Gere throughout his career is his willingness to choose intelligent, layered characters. He has never limited himself to roles designed simply to make audiences comfortable. Instead, he has often portrayed deeply flawed, conflicted, and vulnerable individuals.
That is one of the qualities that has made him such a compelling actor for more than five decades.
Actors are storytellers. Their responsibility is not to present perfect people, but believable ones.
My perspective
As someone who has followed Richard Gere’s career for many years, I am genuinely looking forward to watching Asymmetry. Not because I expect to agree with every decision made by its characters, but because I believe cinema should encourage us to think, question, and reflect.
I have no interest in judging a film before it reaches theaters. I prefer to watch it with an open mind, experience the story as the filmmakers intended, and only then form my own opinion.
That, to me, is the most respectful way to approach any work of art. Because true artistic freedom exists only when stories are allowed to be told—and audiences are free to decide what they think about them.
Art should challenge, not comfort: my thoughts on the reactions to Richard Gere’s asymmetry
