She was opposed to him being in the porn industry but she still took all the money. She actually complained about him working in the porn industry while driving in a sports car - what a *beep* hypocrite.
And then to divorce him for nothing, he didn't even sleep with Audrey yet, but of course she took half his porn money in the divorce.
Did we watch the same movie? It explicitly said they never got divorced, she didn't take any money, he moved back in with her. I think she was actually quite understanding considering the danger he put her and their children in.
Also, Im pretty sure they did have sex even though they only showed them kissing. Regardless, he indcated to her that he had been with someone else. Im pretty sure all of her actions and reactions were quite justified. Yes I supposed she could have moved out and gotten rid of all the money and the house, but I don't think she was the least bit hypocritical. What he did was incredibly dangerous.
Did YOU watch the same movie?
While you were right about them never getting divorced, you are way off in terms of the conversation in the car. As far as she knew at that point in the movie, she and the children were in absolutely no danger at all. She was never told about the Russian involvement, and in fact didn't find out until toward the end of the movie. In truth, she WAS being a bit hypocritical at that moment (hence why she apologized for it later).
Also, he never indicated to her that he had been with someone else. Not wanting to have sex with your spouse (or otherwise not "being there") does not equal having "been with someone else." The scene was (intentionally) ambiguous. The point was, via his body language, she knew something was not right, though didn't have any details. She, seemingly, assumed the worst based off of assumptions and valid insecurities surrounding his line of work. It really just seemed like he was simply having second thoughts about his marriage because he couldn't get this other woman out of his head. But regardless, the scene was all body language, which is far less specific than you characterize it in your post.
The fact was, she was being hypocritical. However it was a very human level of hypocrisy. Was she a bad person? Certainly not. But despite the hard stand she held near the beginning of the movie, she was, in the years directly following, more than happy to use the money that came from what she initially characterized as "the stupidest idea she ever heard."
Incidentally, even if she did know about the danger he put them in, it would have no bearing whether or not she was being hypocritical, as it doesn't change the fact that she was accepting the fruits from an endeavor she claimed to hate.
Now the fact that she took him back at the end, after the full extent of the danger he had put them in was known, THAT was enough to make her a goddamn saint.
[deleted]