Gillian Anderson Addresses ‘Unfortunate’ Salt Path Controversy

Gillian Anderson has spoken for the first time about the controversy surrounding the source material for her 2024 film The Salt Path.

The Emmy winner starred opposite The White Lotus actor Jason Isaacs in the big-screen adaptation of Raynor Winn’s book of the same name.

However, last year, Winn’s book – which was marketed as a memoir upon its release in 2018 – found itself at the centre of scrutiny when The Observer published a lengthy report which cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of the claims outlined within it.

Reflecting on the situation in a new interview with Radio Times, Gillian branded it “very unfortunate”.

“The film was doing really well in the UK – beyond my expectations,” she recalled. “I think we were about to sign with Sony Classics for the United States the week when the article came out, so it sucked, and continues to suck.”

Gillian continued: “A lot of people were enjoying it, regardless, and it is special in its own right. I hope people are able to experience it as its own entity, separate from what may or may not be true or whatever controversy there is.”

In Winn’s writing, she spoke of how she and her husband Moth walked the 600-mile length of the South West Coast Path after being made homeless.

She also wrote about Moth’s struggles with the neurodegenerative disease corticobasal degeneration (CBD), which he was diagnosed with shortly before the couple lost their home.

However, The Observer’s piece raised questions about a number of parts in the book, including exactly what led to the couple being made homeless, and specific parts of Moth’s illness.

A statement provided by Winn’s legal team to The Observer at the time said: “The Salt Path lays bare the physical and spiritual journey Moth and I shared, an experience that transformed us completely and altered the course of our lives. This is the true story of our journey.”

The Telegraph also published a more detailed version of this statement last year, which said: “[The] Observer article is highly misleading. We are taking legal advice and won’t be making any further comment at this time.”