The scandal surrounding Kostiantyn Temliak: a brief timeline of events
On August 9, photographer Anastasiia Soloviova (Chornobai) publicly accused her ex-boyfriend, actor Kostiantyn Temliak, of years of domestic abuse and humiliation. She described numerous incidents of physical and psychological violence. According to her, Temliak hit her, pulled her by the hair, twisted her arms, pushed her, controlled her life, and forbade her from communicating with friends or wearing revealing clothes.
Anastasiia shared photos showing bruises on her body, videos of the actor’s aggressive behavior, and screenshots of abusive messages as evidence. Following her statement, musician Moonmanita claimed that Temliak had sent her inappropriate messages when she was 15 years old. Temliak publicly admitted to using physical force against Soloviova during their relationship, though he has not commented on other allegations — including the alleged sexual correspondence with a minor.
After lawyers from the Miller Law Firm became Anastasiia’s legal representatives, she was officially recognized as a victim in the criminal case. With the firm’s involvement, she underwent the initial investigative procedures. The legal team collected and submitted evidence to the police, indicating not only violence against Soloviova but also other possible cases of abuse against women, and even the alleged corruption of a minor.
The situation resurfaced in the media just before the 2025 Golden Dzyga National Film Awards ceremony.
Divided reactions within the film community
The decision to present Temliak with an award sparked public outrage. Opinions in the film industry were sharply divided: some argued that the Ukrainian Film Academy should have at least postponed honoring the actor until the investigation was completed, while others stressed that such a prestigious award should reflect not only artistic talent but also moral integrity.
Actress and Academy member Olesia Zhurakivska joined the critics, sharply condemning the decision in a public post. She wrote that those responsible for awarding Temliak were “mocking victims and undermining the foundations of a civilized society.” Zhurakivska reminded readers that similar cases had occurred before — such as director Andrii Bilous, who was granted an academic title despite allegations of sexual harassment.
Temliak’s decision to return the award
Temliak ultimately responded to public demands by voluntarily returning his award the day after the ceremony. In his official statement, the actor said he was giving up the prize because the situation around his name required personal and legal resolution. He considered it inappropriate to keep an award that symbolizes public recognition amid such controversy and expressed a desire to focus on his work and cooperate honestly with investigators.
“Returning the award is, for me, a sign of respect for the film community, the audience, and the award itself,” Temliak explained.
The statement was generally welcomed online — many commentators noted that the actor had shown greater accountability than the award organizers, who had failed this reputational test.
Ukrainian Film Academy’s response
Following the backlash, the Ukrainian Film Academy announced plans to review its award regulations. Executive Director Hanna Machukh explained that at the time of the voting and award ceremony, there were no mechanisms to revoke a prize once it had been granted. The Academy has now begun polling its members about the possibility of annulling Temliak’s award and intends to amend its regulations next year to allow such reviews in similar situations.
The Academy also clarified that the voting for Temliak’s nomination took place before the public accusations and criminal proceedings were initiated and that Temliak himself is not a member of the Academy. At the same time, it pledged to communicate its stance and actions more transparently in future cases of this nature.
Why the Academy Failed the Reputation Test — and What It Should Have Done
First of all, there was more than enough time.
From August 9 — when the first evidence of abuse was made public — to the September 13 awards ceremony, 35 days passed. That’s more than a month — ample time for the Academy’s board or general assembly to convene and make a decision: at the very least, to suspend or revoke the award. For comparison, Hollywood institutions have taken decisive action within days.
After the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, both the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and BAFTA expelled him within a week. Netflix and the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences ended their cooperation with Kevin Spacey within days of the accusations. BAFTA revoked Noel Clarke’s award immediately after The Guardian’s investigation was published.
In all these cases, the decisions were swift and principled — no court rulings, no bureaucratic excuses.
Secondly, the Academy is a private organizationч
The Ukrainian Film Academy is registered as a non-governmental organization (NGO). By law, NGOs are private associations created by individuals, not the state. They are not government bodies, and thus not bound by the principle “only what is explicitly allowed by law is permitted.”
In private law, the reverse applies: “everything that is not forbidden is allowed.”
This means that even without a special procedure in its bylaws, the Academy had every right to act — to make a reputational decision based on ethics and values.
All statements like “we don’t have such a mechanism in the regulations” or “changes will come next year” are manipulations. No law prevented the Academy from convening urgently and making an extraordinary decision. Western institutions have done so repeatedly — cancelling awards, cutting ties, or expelling members without pre-defined “procedures” — simply because the situation demanded it.
Thirdly, the Academy demonstrated reputational impotence
Instead of taking responsibility, the Academy hid behind talk of legal formalities, the absence of a court verdict, and promises of “discussion” and “future reform.” That is not defending values — it is abandoning them.
Reputational responsibility is independent from legal responsibility. It’s not about punishment through law, but about public trust. When the prestige of the country’s main film award is at stake, taking a principled stance should have been unconditional. Otherwise, the award’s credibility — and the Academy’s — collapses.
The proper course of action was clear
- Emergency board meeting or general assembly.
- A public statement: the award is suspended or revoked.
- Protecting institutional integrity and expressing solidarity with survivors of violence.
This is standard global practice, and precisely what Ukrainian society expected. Instead, the Academy chose bureaucratic inaction — and lost the chance to prove that values, not formalities, guide the film community.
Legal vs Reputational Responsibility
The Temliak case exposed a fundamental misunderstanding: the difference between legal and reputational responsibility.
Legal responsibility operates within the legal system — it begins only when guilt is proven in court or confirmed by official authorities. It requires evidence, due process, and adherence to the presumption of innocence. This is a lengthy process involving investigation, trial, and a final verdict. Only then does the state impose punishment — such as imprisonment or fines.
Reputational responsibility, however, is entirely different. It’s not about courts or police — it’s about the community’s response to unethical or harmful behavior. It comes into play when a person faces professional and social consequences — loss of trust, career setbacks, or exclusion — even without a court ruling. It’s a “social sanction” imposed by peers and institutions that refuse to associate with someone whose behavior contradicts shared values.
In the film industry, reputational consequences almost always precede legal ones. After multiple #MeToo allegations, studios and institutions routinely terminated contracts or rescinded awards — regardless of pending legal proceedings.
The key point: reputational responsibility does not replace legal responsibility — but it also does not depend on it. One does not need to wait for a court ruling to make a morally right decision. When it comes to awards, public honors, or trust, organizations and peers have both the right and the duty to act on credible allegations.
The presumption of innocence governs criminal law; in professional and creative communities, another principle applies — the presumption of a safe environment. The priority must be the well-being and dignity of the community’s members — especially in creative settings built on trust and mutual respect.
Reputational Responsibility in Global Cinema
In the global film industry, swift reaction to misconduct has become the norm — especially since the #MeToo movement. According to Axios, since 2017, hundreds of influential men have faced allegations of sexual harassment or violence; at least 201 lost their jobs or high-ranking positions, while only a handful faced formal convictions.
Some of the most well-known examples:
- Harvey Weinstein (USA): In 2017, after dozens of women accused the producer of sexual assault and harassment, he was immediately dismissed from his own company, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences unanimously expelled him. At the time, no charges had yet been filed — but the film community refused to wait.
- Kevin Spacey (USA): After several men accused him of sexual misconduct in October 2017, Netflix halted all projects involving him, removed House of Cards from production, and reshot entire scenes of All the Money in the World with another actor. No court decision was needed — reputational risk alone justified the action.
- Brett Ratner (USA): When six women accused the director of harassment in November 2017, Warner Bros. immediately terminated its partnership and cancelled upcoming projects. Although there were no convictions, Ratner has effectively been barred from the industry ever since.
These examples show that reputation carries real accountability — and that institutions maintaining public trust cannot afford to remain silent.
Why Reputational Responsibility Matters
Global experience shows that reputational mechanisms are a way for society to self-regulate, especially where formal law acts too slowly or fails to respond effectively. When an industry takes responsibility to remove individuals whose behavior violates basic norms, it thereby:
- Protects potential victims. Reputational sanctions help prevent further abuse. For example, suspending a teacher accused of misconduct immediately after the first complaint can protect students even during an ongoing investigation. In Temliak’s case, his former partner admitted she had remained silent for years out of fear and shame. A system of reputational accountability creates an environment where survivors see the community’s response and feel supported — it becomes easier to speak up, knowing they will be heard and protected.
- Upholds declared values. If organizations publicly claim that “violence has no place in the industry,” the logical step is to avoid supporting those accused of violent behavior. Otherwise, words and actions lose alignment.
- Safeguards the reputation of the community and the award itself. The prestige of an award like the Golden Dzyga — or any other — declines if it is given to someone with a questionable moral reputation. Such recognition should represent not only artistic excellence but also integrity. Reputational oversight protects the credibility of the brand and the audience’s trust: ignoring a scandal can undermine the legitimacy of the entire award.
- Drives social change. When a well-known actor or producer faces reputational consequences, it sends a clear message: such behavior is unacceptable, and consequences are inevitable. This acts as a prevention for potential offenders and as validation for survivors. The success of the #MeToo movement lies precisely in this — public exposure was followed by swift repercussions, gradually transforming cultural norms.
In summary, the situation with Kostiantyn Temliak became a kind of test for the Ukrainian film community. Initially, this test was not passed properly — excuses prevailed over moral imperatives.
The key lesson: “Innocent until proven guilty” does not mean worthy of awards or trust until proven guilty.
Legal responsibility will take time and deliver a verdict, but reputational responsibility already defines a clear boundary: violence and abuse will find no justification within the creative community, and protecting its values should not require a court seal.
Leave a Reply