October 9, 2017

One thing cannot be clarified: "One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew."

Says the statement issued under the name Meryl Streep. I don't know from whose mind these words sprang, but the statement continues:
Harvey supported the work fiercely, was exasperating but respectful with me in our working relationship, and with many others with whom he worked professionally.
So some, but not others, got respectful treatment. That doesn't make the behavior better. It makes it worse. It's discriminatory.
I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts.
Why didn't you know what was convenient for you not to know? Was it willful blindness? Did you have any hints, but avoid learning these details? If so, you had an obvious self-interest in standing aloof. You could, on the other hand, just be lying, but for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the statement is true and looking at the ways in which it is cagey and self-protective. 
And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.
The cagiest part of this writing is the phrase "everybody knew." If only one person didn't know, then not everybody knew. So it's easy to stand firmly on the trivial technicality that not everybody knew... especially since so many people had a personal interest in staying in the dark and not following up on the clues. But many people knew, and yet the matter was suppressed for many years. The "investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media" were neglectful, and the failure of everybody to know doesn't overcome the inference of neglect. And, indeed, there is neglect in the not knowing in some cases, such as, perhaps, yours, Meryl Streep.
The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.
Blech. You should have spoken out when it mattered. Before the bubble burst. Speak out about somebody else. The abuse of power is familiar, you say. All right, then. You there on the inside, Meryl, you raise your brave voice, if you have one. Otherwise, this after-the-fact statement is just an inadequate effort to cover your own ass and of a piece with the ignorance of the facts that served your interest before the story hit the news.

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207   Newer›   Newest»
John Tuffnell said...

Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

David Begley said...

Maybe Meryl is lying about what she knew and when. Who will contradict her? Harvey?

walter said...

Discriminatory..like the selective demand for ass eating.
Wait..that was a Laslo bit..or was it?

"watchdog media"!

M Holland said...

She's a liar. Hollywood is a snake pit of never ending gossip. EVERYONE in Hollywood knew about this guy as did the Clintons, Obamas, Schumers, Pelosi's, et al. They only cared about his $$$$ and his ability to deliver media propaganda that served their "cause".

Barry Dauphin said...

She doesn't know anything about HW, but thank goodness she knows a lot about climate change.

Curious George said...

She did know that Harvey was respectful to "many others with whom he worked professionally."
But she didn't know about ANY of those that he was a pig too.

Even Bob Corker knows she's lying.

robother said...

William Goldman's famous remark about Hollywood, "nobody knows anything," covers a multitude of sins.

John Tuffnell said...

Love the watchdog media line too. While the story finally emerged from the depths after decades, this media watchdog is the lead actress in the Miramax screenplay of Hound of the Baskervilles.

Bob Boyd said...

The scandal with the Catholic Church and abusive priests comes to my mind, probably because I see liberalism/progressivism as another religion.
Weinstein served the church, preached the word, brought a lot of new sheep into the fold and put a lot of money in the collection box.
If he'd been a heretic, he'd have been burned at the stake long ago.

Carol said...

Weinstein should write a tell-all. All those stars who uh...and since they're public figures, he's golden, baby! lol

Breezy said...

Why didn't HW hit on Meryl?

Not Sure said...

Shorter Streep: "I earned those Oscars on my talent, not my back."

rehajm said...

Later in her career Meryl became a mentor for a few lucky young actresses and was certainly an inspiration to most of the others. It's difficult to fathom she was never exposed to nor asked about navigating the uglier side of Hollywood. Hopefully that will be investigated but I won't hold my breath...that said there does appear to be a predictable pattern of protection surrounding successful sexual predators, either cultivated by the predator or as a result of the obliviousness of those not targeted.

MikeR said...

"Blech. You should have spoken out when it mattered." This was a really weird post. Streep says pretty clearly that she just didn't know. She might be lying, but writing a whole post that takes that for granted is weird.

Michael K said...

"She's a liar. Hollywood is a snake pit of never ending gossip"

Of course. He did not put her through the routine because she was a star before he was a power.

In 1978, she won an Emmy Award for her role in the miniseries Holocaust, and received her first Academy Award nomination for The Deer Hunter. She went on to win Best Supporting Actress for Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), and Best Actress for Sophie's Choice (1982), and The Iron Lady (2011).

In 1989, their successful launch release of Steven Soderbergh's Sex, Lies, and Videotape propelled Miramax to become the most successful independent studio in America.

She could ignore the stories because she had not been subjected to the masturbation and shower routines.

She was already established. Judy Dench was a fading star when he revived her career.

Her film appearances were infrequent and included supporting roles in major films such as A Room with a View (1986) supporting Maggie Smith, before she rose to international fame as M in GoldenEye (1995), a role she continued to play in James Bond films until Skyfall (2012).

Of course, Streep knew the rumors.

Rae said...

I want to know the names of the "journalists" who refused to cover this over the last twenty years. I think that's the real story.

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

- Leonard Cohen

rehajm said...

Why didn't HW hit on Meryl?

She was successful before the Weinstein's. It also makes for good cover to have a successful actress singing your praises.

PB said...

If she didn't know or didn't suspect then she's a lot less intelligent then she would have us believe. Heck in that industry there's always rumors. Most of which aren't true because there are low-power people who see it as a way to extort higher-powered people. If she didn't hear any gossip or rumors about Harvey Weinstein the not only is she less intelligent but she is also far more out of touch with the mainstream World aspiring actors and actresses struggle in.

I'm not in that world but I have friends who are and trust me if any young person comes to them with serious desire about getting into the entertainment business one of the first things they always say is to watch out for just this sort of thing.

traditionalguy said...

Meryl knew. The Bridges of Madison County is all we need to know about her perceptions of sex among the sensitive .

Sebastian said...

"The "investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media" were neglectful" Not at all. Reporters were doing their job, promoting the prog narrative, ignoring inconvenient facts, priming their audiences to vote the right way.

The only surprising thing is that the Weinstein Story came out at all, at this time. My conspiratorial theory is that an intramural prog power struggle made the dam burst. The Clintonites are losing power. Cui bono: this helps to clear a path for rising female POC--Michelle, Oprah, Kamala.

Henry said...

Butter can be clarified.

Laslo Spatula said...

A lot of A-list actresses are now breathing a sigh of relief.

Meryl has produced the narrative, and a template for which to cobble together their statements.

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

I don't understand the outrage but women are like that.

It's a mob action. Pussy hats are next.

donald said...

She lies. She knows it and she knows everybody else knows it. If she had any integrity...lol.

Owen said...

Good to know that Harvey was respectful to "the many others with whom he worked professionally."

Was he respectful to the many others on whom he "worked" unprofesssionally?

Owen said...

Laslo: agree, Meryl has helped to break trail through this howling blizzard of bullshit. Others may follow more easily now.

rhhardin said...

I have a lot of Meryl Streep flicks in the not yet watched pile.

They tend to be women's films, and get a "not at the moment" feeling.

Just-bought DVDs sit on the desk for a couple of days and then go into the not watched yet pile if they're not watched for some reason.

Action films are more reliable fare, if you're not in the mood for anything. Blow stuff up, brains scattered, that sort of thing.

I don't want to be insensitive here.

AReasonableMan said...

I am just relived that Bob Corker now feels free to speak out, just like Meryl Streep.

Bob Ellison said...

The non-disclosure agreement (NDA) angle is under-reported, under-explained. Most people do not know about such agreements.

Civil lawsuits often have no-talk provisions. I pay money, you no talk.

NDAs are everywhere, and often ignored, in private business. You sign, you no talk or I sue.

What does it take to get a Hollywood youngster to violate these deals? The money and the story are there.

No, I don't believe the "I never heard such" argument. Totally implausible. Meryl knew and kept quiet, in return for power and money.

Owen said...

Rae: good on you to quote Leonard Cohen.

And this: "I want to know the names of the "journalists" who refused to cover this over the last twenty years. I think that's the real story." Agree that is a big story waiting to be told. But whoever tells it will be thenceforth a pariah. We need to provide incentives, possibly a cash prize.

It could be called the Walter Duranty Award.

fxB1zNk3hJ8r11DRSmyQh1dLGkIF said...

Good to learn that Streep's list of accents includes Lackey.

buwaya said...

Infamia, the Roman legal and social concept.

Its time has come again.

robother said...

Its not as if the skills used to bribe and bully Hollywood players and press into awarding Oscars and Globes to his movies would be of any use in squelching inconvenient stories about Harvey himself.

There's not only a vast right wing conspiracy to get Harvey now, but apparently there was a 20 year Hollywood conspiracy to keep Meryl Streep ignorant of Harvey's predation, just so it could be truly said that "not EVERYONE knew." Meryl Streep's solitary ignorance: the tiniest of fig leaves covering Hollywood's fat ass.

Ann Althouse said...

"She might be lying, but writing a whole post that takes that for granted is weird."

Huh? The post explicitly assumes she's not lying: "You could, on the other hand, just be lying, but for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the statement is true and looking at the ways in which it is cagey and self-protective. "

Unknown said...

Everyone knows that this press release from Meryl Streep is totally self-serving. Very Sgt. Schultz of her.

-sw

Fernandinande said...

"So some, but not others, got respectful treatment. That doesn't make the behavior better. It makes it worse. It's discriminatory."

After man years of not doing so, I'm recently finding myself tempted to write "LOL" on occasions like this.

What I'm seeing with the Weinstein nonsense is one asshole, but not a criminal, and a lot of pussies of both sexes who were afraid to stand up to him, for whatever reason.

AllenS said...

No doubt that there is a lot talk/rumors flowing through the entertainment industry. Harvey Weinstein probably heard that Meryl Streep was a disappointing fuck.

PB said...

We're going to see a lot of actresses parrot the Meryl line. It's their way of saying, see, I'm a real actress, I didn't need to get down on my knees or on my back to get to where I've gotten to today.

Owen said...

buwaya: "Infamia." Yes, a powerful concept and restoring social force there. But will it work today?

Danno said...

All the Hollywood women defend these jerks like Hillary did with Billy Jejj.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And of course we now know that some reporters did try to get the word out, but the stories were suppressed.

Danno said...

Jeff

Danno said...

NowIKnow said..."Waiting with bated breath."

In your case, it is baited breath.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

If true, how much must it suck right now to be Meryl Streep?

The physically loathsome, morally depraved Harvey Weinstein didn't find you attractive enough to be worth his time.

Were I Meryl, I think I'd rather people think me complicit.

AReasonableMan said...

In these complex situations involving abusive powerful men I always ask myself, What would Bob Corker do?

DKWalser said...

Not long after Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas were heard in Congress, our office had a sexual harassment workshop. Not everyone was invited to participate. It was a facilitated, two-day, meeting. I was one of the lucky ones. Mid-way through the 1st day, it was obvious that the women were upset with the men in the room and that the men were upset by what they felt was unjustified anger directed towards them. So, the people running the meeting decided to break us into two groups -- the women and the men.

The following morning, the women were prepared to lay their grievances before us. They were angry with us because we allowed the women in our office to be groped and verbally harassed by some of the men in the office. We condoned this behavior because the men were top performers and that was all that mattered to us. The group soon learned two things: First, the men in the room had no idea that any of this was going on. Second, all of the women did. The men were truly horrified at what had been happening. And, as we demanded to know who the perpetrators were, the women were horrified at what we surely would have done to the abusers -- so they refused to name any names! I've seldom been so frustrated. How could we prevent such abuses if we weren't allowed to know who the abusers were (and to appropriately punish them)? Why should we be blamed for condoning abuse we knew nothing about?

My point is that we often assume that what we know is known by others, too. In this case, the women in the office warned newly hired women about Smith's propensity to grope if given a chance. So, since they all knew about his behavior, they (wrongly) assumed all the men knew about it too. But, this kind of activity takes place out of sight. Unless someone talks, it remains a secret.

MikeR said...

"Blech. You should have spoken out when it mattered."
"Huh? The post explicitly assumes she's not lying:..."
Again, weird. She was clear: she just didn't know. How is she supposed to speak out if she didn't know?
Maybe we have different definitions of lying.

Owen said...

Fernandinande: "...What I'm seeing with the Weinstein nonsense is one asshole, but not a criminal,..." I have not followed HW's behavior in any detail and don't plan to start, but I speculate that some of it could well be criminal. It would be a question of what evidence was offered by complainants to law enforcement (how much, what kind, how soon, how well --excuse the word-- buttressed by physical evidence, recordings, corroborating witnesses). If they failed to step forward, then yes, the tree fell in the forest. No crime, as a technical matter. But there were eight, count them, eight, settlements. Structured as civil matters but if the complainant had chosen to call a prosecutor, what then?

A wonderful mess, and a "tragic arc." Shakespeare's lost manuscript was "Harvey in Love."

LYNNDH said...

So now will these twits STFU when someone on the right "screws" up? Doubt it. Hypocrites!

rehajm said...

Having dodged both priests and principals I've observed one of the common denominators is well respected patsies.

Seeing Red said...

They knew, too., the important, people, the people who make and follow the news, like the BBC.

Others knew about the Belgian child ring

Then there's the England immigrant ring, I forgot the city:

Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who was well known in Britain for his eccentricities and, at the time of his death, was generally respected for his charitable work. He was knighted in 1990. In September and October 2012, almost a year after his death, claims were widely publicised that he had committed sexual abuse, his alleged victims ranging from prepubescent girls and boys to adults. By 11 October 2012 allegations had been made to 13 British police forces,[1] and this led to the setting-up of inquiries into practices at the BBC and within the National Health Service.

On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police Service launched a formal criminal investigation, Operation Yewtree, into historic allegations of child sexual abuse by Savile and other people, some still living, over four decades. It stated that it was pursuing over 400 lines of inquiry, based on the claims of 200 witnesses, via 14 police forces across the UK. It described the alleged abuse as being "on an unprecedented scale", and the number of potential victims as "staggering".[2][3] By 19 December, eight people had been questioned as part of the investigation. The Metropolitan Police stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile.[4][5]....

Ron Winkleheimer said...

See Meade, my prediction that Ann will get to two dozen posts on this Weinstein guy is coming true. The current count is fifteen in four days.

Yes, because posts about sex and Hollywood and abuse of power are so booorrrrriiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnng.

And the Professor is well known to have no interest in feminism. Whatsoever.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.

Oh what a line to take!
The failure of the Leftist Media to report the story must mean the story was not widely known--that's really the angle she's trying to sell.
Does she really think people will buy that instead of concluding it's much more likely that the Leftist Media knew but chose not to report the story (for reasons of self-interest, fear/cowardice, political/ideological bias, or some combination of factors like that)?
Laughably bad spin; not even Meryl Streep can sell those lines!

Seeing Red said...

This is why we need guns and we don't listen to them. They're slime. We don't trust them.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Meryl - the snake tongued.
"The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game."


She's praising and winking at the hack-D press. The undercurrent from Streep is the same tired leftwing excuse. Protect the leftwing, and hammer Trump - no matter what.
Blech, indeed. Meryl is gross.

gg6 said...

Streep's pants are on fire.
But a cagy facade, indeed. Yes, we'll see and hear it from others...ad nauseam.

Amadeus 48 said...

As I said on another post:

Bob Corker, who compromised us into the Iran deal, is sending himself to the showers, having failed to strike out either Obama or Trump. He better hope Harvey Weinstein isn't in there.

On his way to the locker room he got off a wisecrack about Trump that put him where he has always wanted to be, on the front page. I expect to see him next as the head of some global foundation dedicated to understanding among nations, where he can continue to hector us about the need to make the first concession in dealing with our adversaries.

The Soviets used to have guys like Corker for breakfast.

James K said...

If she didn't know or didn't suspect then she's a lot less intelligent then she would have us believe.

Now that's an alternative I could get behind. But I'll opt for "both": She's both lying and not as intelligent as she would have us believe. Remember 'Alar'?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

You can always count on the left for a mealy dose of moral equivalence.

So gross.

Spiros Pappas said...

Ms. Streep's personal opinion isn't important at all. She didn't need to issue a "public statement." She didn't enrich or further the debate. She didn't make any new or interesting points. I mean, really, what's her problem? It's not just virtue signaling, this woman has guilty feelings. I think Ms. Streep, somehow, reinforced Hollywood's rape culture by blaming the victims or not working with the victims who spoke out or something. Maybe in her personal conversations, she belittled Mr. Weinstein's victims as silly girls or bad feminists. Something is off here.

AReasonableMan said...

Now I Know! said...
See Meade, my prediction that Ann will get to two dozen posts on this Weinstein guy is coming true. The current count is fifteen in four days.


How many on Bob Corker? Asking for a friend.

Bruce Hayden said...

Blogger Sebastian said...
""The "investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media" were neglectful" Not at all. Reporters were doing their job, promoting the prog narrative, ignoring inconvenient facts, priming their audiences to vote the right way."

Not all though. A lot of it was raw intimidation. Read this article (‘Harvey Weinstein’s Media Enablers’? The New York Times Is One of Them) this morning telling about how Crooked Hillary Campaign Bundler Weinstein killed a NYT story a decade ago. The reporter had DNC mega donor (almost a million dollars in the last year or so) Weinstein working her bosses, as well as Russell Crowe and Matt Damon calling her personally. Maybe even a visit by Weinstein himself to the NYT newsroom.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

AA -

"Blech. You should have spoken out when it mattered. Before the bubble burst. Speak out about somebody else. The abuse of power is familiar, you say. All right, then. You there on the inside, Meryl, you raise your brave voice, if you have one. Otherwise, this after-the-fact statement is just an inadequate effort to cover your own ass and of a piece with the ignorance of the facts served your interest before the story hit the news. "

Worth a repeat.

Breezy said...

If Meryl did know, and is not being truthful in her statement, I wonder if someone who knows that she knew, will speak out and say so.

Assrat said...

>if any young person comes to them with serious desire about getting into the entertainment business one of the first things they always say is to watch out for just this sort of thing.

Yes. Hell, it's discussed at some length in Ed Wood's non-fiction Hollywood Rat Race.

As for Streep ... I don't know. I could imagine she heard rumors but thought they were exaggerated or untrue.

Personally I think that the whole story is more about media bias than anything else. Did Obama know? I doubt Obama even knew what was on the next screen of the teleprompter.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Any comment on Harvey Weinstein, ARM? or are you too much of a coward?
Anything to say at all about the topic?

After all, Harvey is a good leftist who resides in YOUR camp.

Seeing Red said...

Harvey might have never touched Meryl because she's an Oscar winner and won her first Oscar young.

Mary Louise "Meryl" Streep (born June 22, 1949) is an American actress and philanthropist. Cited in the media as the "best actress of her generation,"[1][2][3] Streep is particularly known for versatility in her roles and her accent adaptation. Nominated for 20 Academy Awards, Streep has more nominations than any other actor, and is one of the six actors to have won three or more competitive Oscars for acting. Streep has also received 30 Golden Globe nominations, winning eight - more nominations and more competitive wins than any other actor.[4]

She was getting nominated right from the start. Harvey wasn't stupid.

Seeing Red said...

Meryl can play old Hillary in the movie.

rehajm said...

"The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game."

Despite Streep's problem with logorrhea the behavior is inexcusable is all she can muster.

Now I Know! said...

Ann, please give us another post on this Weinstein guy!

M Jordan said...

By respectful, Streep means Weinstein zipped and unzipped his pants serenely, not in an aggressive manner.

AReasonableMan said...

Now I Know! said...
Ann, please give us another post on this Weinstein guy!


Who?

rhhardin said...

Inexcusable behavior sounds bad, but you knew it was going to be bad when you saw "behavior."

"Would you come in for a moment? I want to talk about your behavior."

Not a good sign, usually. It's not a Mother Teresa moment.

Bob Ellison said...

Is this Corker obsession all over the fact that Corker disagrees with Trump over North Korea? That disagreement seems reasonable. And it's ALL OVER the news and ALL OVER the leftist talking-points sites.

ARM, you are conflating sexual deviancy and policy dispute. Or maybe I've read the news incorrectly.

Francisco D said...

Meryl reminds me of our own resident Sgt. Schultz who saw nothing as a Detroit election judge, even when turnout went over 100%.

I doubt if either participated in the sordid activities involved. They knew of course, but just kept their mouths shut to get along and not create waves.

narciso said...

Its also about the Iran deal, that mirrors the framework, almost exactly. Because they were put together by Wendy Sherman

rhhardin said...

Weinstein chose the road less travelled.

exiledonmainstreet said...

It's entertaining to see how infuriated the resident leftists are because of the attention Althouse is paying to Weinstein.

"Stop writing about this! This Hollywood sex scandal is boring and not relevant at all! Pay attention to Republicans behaving badly! That's what WE want to focus on!"

Ken B said...

So the already famous big name doesn't end up on the casting couch, but the hopeful does. This surprises someone? This isn't exactly the pattern you'd expect?

AReasonableMan said...

Bob Ellison said...
ARM, you are conflating sexual deviancy and policy dispute.


I think you have me confused with Donald Trump. I am the one with the big hands.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I hope Meryl Streep takes the time to thank Bob Corker. Then retreat back to her walled Ivory Tower sanctuary and feel satisfied and smug.

Thank you Bob Corker! Here - have a golden statue for your profound bravery!

rhhardin said...

Weinstein's problem is not understanding mob action.

I'd have suggested praising every women he boffed for whatever she'd want to be praised for.

Journalistic integrity, for example; or friendship through the years. Use those flattery instincts.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillary and Meryl - 2 abuse excusing/ corruption excusing leftwing super heros! + Bob Corker!

Assrat said...

>
I think you have me confused with Donald Trump. I am the one with the big hands.

And now we see Dada in the comments.

Christy said...

Who was Streep's casting couch creep(s)? It is not as if it's a new tradition. And why did no one from her representation warn her about HW? What kind of diva is she that none of the women in wardrobe, makeup, casting ... ever gave her a heads up?

Bob Ellison said...

Then ARM, what is the thing to which you refer? You seem obsessed with Corker, all of a sudden. What's going on in your head? I can see it online, but you seem to want to say it's something else.

Paddy O said...

"to know" is a flexible concept. What does it mean "to know"?

Ambition can tighten up that word to mean it in a undeniable sense, only used as if you personally witnessed it.

Whereas hatred of someone can loosen the word so much that it is applied upon the slightest hint of rumors.

I suspect--not know--that Streep and others engaged in a life of intentional ignorance. They heard rumors--of course they did, as the rumors have been around for decades. They heard mention of it by others. They likely witnessed borderline boorishness, but explained that away however worked best. But they didn't see, see, so could confess to not knowing.

I used to be connected to some writers and influencers, some of whom were certified narcissists. But narcissists can get power and influence, and destroy those who say differently. To further my career it would have been very helpful for me to look the other way, to narrow what I meant by "know". And I know some popular authors in the Christian publishing genre who did just that, and are popular precisely because they have the ability for selective outrage and selective ignorance. My decision to speak up, lost me the favor that might have opened doors. But, I can live with myself now, and can have integrity with victims. That doesn't help pay the bills, but it's worth it.

Streep knew. I have no doubt about that. Impossible not to know, but she didn't know in a way that demanded her open condemnation. Now she knows in both ways, and has to live with the fact she had power and a voice for decades, but only says something when it's safe to do so. She has to live with herself, but supporting Weinstein, being intentionally ignorant about his behavior, led to a wonderful lifestyle where life is pretty livable. She can wash her hands of the whole business.

Chuck said...

The return of "cagey"!

That last time that I recall Althouse using the word "cagey," she was using it to describe Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primaries, saying that she thought that Donald Trump was "pro-gay, and being cagey about it."

For my part I had challenged Althouse, wondering why she seemed to be so non-critical of candidate Trump. I posited the theory that Althouse -- who has very skillfully articulated numerous conservative positions in her blogging life -- liked Trump because she thought that Trump might just be the one guy in the crowded Republican field who would support the continuing legal normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage that accelerated in the waning days of the Obama Administration.

And I agreed with Althouse. I personally thought that Trump "is pro-gay, and being cagey about it." I wrote that many times on Althouse comments.

As president, Trump must be something of a disappointment to Althouse. See, e.g., a Trump ban on LGBT acceptance in the military. That wasn't "pro-gay," and it wasn't even "cagey."

But now we've got Meryl Streep & company being "cagey"?!?

I'd have been tempted to apply all of this (as written by Althouse) to Althouse's own acceptance of Donald Trump:

Why didn't you know what was convenient for you not to know? Was it willful blindness? Did you have any hints, but avoid learning these details? If so, you had an obvious self-interest in standing aloof. You could, on the other hand, just be lying, but for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the statement is true and looking at the ways in which it is cagey and self-protective.

Sally327 said...

I'm not sure what we're expecting her to say. If it didn't happen to her, if she didn't witness it happening to someone else, if no one that it did happen to confided in her, all of which seems plausible, why should she have been expected to proclaim whatever rumors or gossip she might have heard along the way.

If Weinstein had enablers, which he clearly did, I don't see how Meryl Streep qualifies as chief among them.

Kevin said...

Perhaps this is the role Streep has been preparing a lifetime to play.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Harvey knew not to intimidate the A-listers.

+ Bob Corker!

tcrosse said...

So Streep is the piano player in the whorehouse, who had no idea what went on upstairs.

Chris Breisch said...

She's trying to save herself with absolutes when that's just word parsing on a Clintonian level.

Not everyone knows Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice either.

But quite a few people know (I hesitate to say most, even most Americans).

And those that don't know are because they are being willfully ignorant of such things.

It seems apparent that if you were a long-time actor in Hollywood and you didn't know, it was because of willful blindness on your part.

LTC Ted said...

If regiments of "journalists" missed allegations about Cosby ... Sounds like piling on, even though the target does seem a shitepoke.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Streep as Hillary. Oh yeah - do it.
We don't get enough propaganda from Hillarywood. Streep portraying poor Hillary in a Miramax/Climax production of "Who stole my election?" Yeah. That has a golden statue all over it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bob Corker.

Comanche Voter said...

If Ms. Streep's story is true, Weinstein needed Streep's talent more than he needed her skills on the casting couch. Or maybe she's just the piano player in the whorehouse.

I recently finished a biography of the Warner Brothers. There have been several written by, or with the assistance of descendants of the four brothers. And as usual in families, there are "sides" that get taken. Oldest brother Harry stayed in New York. He was a strait laced family man. Younger brother Jack ran the studios (and the starlets) in Hollywood. He was flamboyant and a cooze hound. There were fights for control of the enterprise. Harry wanted Jack to behave, and Jack wasn't having any of that.

In some ways the fight between Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein for control of their company mirrors that earlier dispute among the Warner brothers.

walter said...

Chuck: But Trummmmmp!!!

Drago said...

Dems/left/liberals and their "lifelong republican" allies once again exposed per Fens Law.

Unexpectedly.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "almost joined the military but didn't because "no draft"' Chuck: "That wasn't "pro-gay," and it wasn't even "cagey."

But it most certainly was and is pro-military preparedness and effectiveness.

No wonder the underlying premise eludes you Chuckie.

Not get back to your day job of making sure Stabenow gets re-elected.

Bob Ellison said...

Talking Points Memo main headline right now: Corker: Trump Could Set The United States ‘On The Path To World War III’"

I don't disagree completely with Corker. Might-could agree. He's talking about what to do.

But mind you who read this: this is the leftist talking point of today. If you Google "Corker", you will see this thing. Leftists get on point very quickly and stay on point.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm officially done with comments commenting on how much I'm posting on this subject.

Every post is different, with new material that is interesting to me.

If you don't like seeing another post, you can: 1. Say nothing and skip the post, 2. Comment substantively, in a post on the subject, on why the additional material does not add anything new of any significance (and I'm sure you'll be wrong, but you are welcome to say so, in a substantive albeit wrong way), 3. Read carefully to notice what is new and different, engage with that and say something new and different.

Saying over and over that you don't want to see this subject is completely boring and a waste of other people's attention. I will be weeding this out aggressively from now on. Shape up!

Drago said...

It is very, very, very, very important to the lefties and their "lifelong republican" (wink wink) allies that this subject be swept under the rug as quickly as possible.

Why, it's almost as if this topic completely exposes the hypocrisy of the lefties and their lifelong republican allies and is not helpful to the dems political cause.

Drago said...

Bob Ellison: "If you Google "Corker", you will see this thing. Leftists get on point very quickly and stay on point."

ARM and our LLR Chuckie are certainly doing their part for the Home Team dems cause. Unfortunately for them, this one isn't going away anytime soon for obvious reasons.

Paddy O said...

"...that earlier dispute among the Warner brothers."

And the Warner sister, Dot.

The solution was to lock them all in the water tower..

Drago said...

I haven't seen LLR Chuck this stoked up to defend the left since the last Stolen Valor Dem was in need and he was up to the task.

Althouse is touching on all the most salient points and observations about a truly impactful cultural "happening" and I don't expect that to end anytime either given the many layers of this issue and the players involved.

It's tailor made for blogging.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Meryl knows nothing about the big wig hot tub pedophilia in Hillarywood. Nothing.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bob Ellison,
What that illustrates is that on the right side of the aisle, there are disagreements and dissent.

Not on the left. On the left - it's lockstep lockstep lockstep.

I'll take disagreement over creepy lockstep, each and every day.

SDaly said...

Streep would be more credible about not knowing, if she hadn't stood up and given a standing ovation to Roman Polanski.

Paddy O said...

I was open to the idea that while a power player, Weinstein and his enablers weren't central to the Democrat machine.If those on the Left just kept silent, or added their words against sexual exploitation, I would have assumed he wasn't important. Yet, the way people on the Left are trying to change the topic makes me think he's quite central indeed.

I ask myself why they are treating this topic like they would a political party scandal?

To ask is to answer.

AReasonableMan said...

SDaly said...
Streep would be more credible about not knowing, if she hadn't stood up and given a standing ovation to Roman Polanski.


This is a fair point and is reason enough to dismiss anything she says.

Char Char Binks said...

"Why didn't HW hit on Meryl?"

Meryl is highly respected for her acting talent, which in Hollywood generally means "not attractive enough to be sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein".

Jimmy Savile was outed by John Lydon on BBC radio, but they didn't air it, apparently because Savile was establishment and Lydon was just a rotten punk, supposedly.

Char Char Binks said...

And Lydon did it in '78, not after "everybody" already knew.

rehajm said...

Despite Streep's problem with logorrhea the behavior is inexcusable is all she can muster.

...and since we're all in to Clinton parsing notice it isn't Weinstein that Streep condemns but the behavior.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esKnWAIgpLY

Michael K said...

What's going on in your head? I can see it online, but you seem to want to say it's something else.

It's just more TDS.

Chuck does not seem to realize that gays and trannies are not allies.

Keep up, chuck.

rhhardin said...

Love the sin, hate the sinner.

gregq said...

She did know that Harvey was respectful to "many others with whom he worked professionally."

Well, of course! He was respectful of men, and of ugly women who offered him non-sexual things he wanted.

Obviously Streep is in group 2.

rehajm said...

Streep would be more credible about not knowing, if she hadn't stood up and given a standing ovation to Roman Polanski.

Meh. Hollywood has a history of respecting the work over the producer of the product. Witness the lifetime achievement award for Elia Kazan. A bunch of Communists managed a standing ovation to recognize a guy who called out a bunch Communists.

Drago said...

rehajm: "Meh. Hollywood has a history of respecting the work over the producer of the product. Witness the lifetime achievement award for Elia Kazan. A bunch of Communists managed a standing ovation to recognize a guy who called out a bunch Communists."

The lefties in Hollywood succeeded in delaying an obvious lifetime achievement award for Kazan because Kazan wouldn't play along with the communists in Hollywood. Many of those lefties spent years successfully lobbying against Kazan and it was only after pressure built due to the Hollywood types being lambasted for not living up to their own claims of respecting the art over politics that the academy caved. Interestingly, the academy went from not allowing an award to Kazan to unanimously approving the award, so that no subset of the voters would be called out for supporting it.

There were even full page ads in Variety and elsewhere calling on the academy to deny the award.

Such is Hollywoods "respect" for bodies of work sans political filters.

Unknown said...

"I will be weeding this out aggressively from now on" apparently included my comment, which wasn't complaining about you posting too much. I was commenting on how your posting may be causing you to be seen by some folks, Ann. I happen to think these are interesting and that your take on it is also interesting.

William said...

Willful ignorance. It was in her best interests not to know any of the quaint details of Weinstein's private life, and she and those around her made sure she didn't know.........Even by the horndog standards of Hollywood, Harvey was exceptionally sleazy. Worse, there's still the possibility that some further revelation will reveal something criminal or ghastly. Willful ignorance doesn't get you beyond the curve of this story.......I wonder how she'll handle her next award show appearance. My advice would be ixnay on the moral pronouncements but that would be like advising against wearing heels on the red carpet. She'll be sure to offer us further moral guidance for these troubled times.

rehajm said...

Yah Drago. Yet some of them still stood.

Drago said...

"Yet some of them still stood."

Yes, at long last, when all other otions were exhausted, "some" stood.

Others did not.

When Meryl could not avoid addressing the Weinstein issue, she finally did. Disingenuously.

Sounds like a theme.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
...
Chuck does not seem to realize that gays and trannies are not allies.


I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say with this. For the record, Althouse wrote that she thought that Trump was "pro-gay and being cagey about it."

I presumed that that was something that she liked about Trump. But only Althouse knows the answer to that.

For my part, I agreed with Althouse on her observation, and to me it was yet another reason to regard Trump as dishonest and to oppose him in every way possible in the primary.

I'm substantially happy with Trump's action(s) on LGBT military personnel, despite the fact that it was yet another butchered initiative by the Trump White House, with the Joint Chiefs not knowing about it beforehand, with no Pentagon media preparation, with no formal orders prepared, etc. A mess. Still a mess.

I really wasn't hoping or even expecting Trump to show up Althouse's characterization in the way that he did, but I'm certainly okay with it. While Althouse and I both guessed (wrongly?) that Trump was "pro-gay and being cagey about it," for her it seems to have been a positive thing and for me it was a negative thing.

pacwest said...

"Shape up!"

Damn kids.

rcocean said...

"I was commenting on how your posting may be causing you to be seen by some folks,"

Wow, that is *so* clever.

Anyway, thanks Althouse. There's nothing dumber than going on someone else's blog and complaining you don't like the topic. If it bores you, don't read it!

rcocean said...

Shorter Chuck: No one's attacked Trump in the last 10 minutes. Better correct that!

FullMoon said...

Saying over and over that you don't want to see this subject is completely boring and a waste of other people's attention. I will be weeding this out aggressively from now on. Shape up!

Got a spanking by mom, which was the goal. Same as before, when Now was Once.

It will be back with name change and same game.

Assrat said...

>when Now was Once.

Appropo of nothing, that would be a great title for a novel about time travel.

Jason said...

Hillary still silent? Weinstein must have some serious dirt on Bill.

CWJ said...

"...all of which seems plausible,"

Any of which, surely so. But all of which?

Unknown said...

"Wow, that is *so* clever." I didn't claim to be clever, but I wasn't complaining about the post. There was no complaint there.

narayanan said...

what difference at this point does it make - meryl is a natural to play hillary
meryl must definitely have hired lawyers aka PR consultants to draft the response

James K said...

There were even full page ads in Variety and elsewhere calling on the academy to deny the award.

And a bunch of those present sat on their hands at Kazan's award presentation.

narayanan said...

@buwaya - of course there is infamia instituted by hollywood aka blacklist - or you will never work in this town again.

Michael K said...

I'm substantially happy with Trump's action(s) on LGBT military personnel, despite the fact that it was yet another butchered initiative by the Trump White House, with the Joint Chiefs not knowing about it beforehand, with no Pentagon media preparation, with no formal orders prepared, etc. A mess. Still a mess.

Chuck, I work part time examining applicants. We had a briefing on the transgender thing in June. We were all dreading the July 1 date for the new policy. We had no idea how it would be done. The noncoms were more upset than the docs.

Trump took a bullet for the Joint Chiefs, who would have been testifying before grandstanding leftists like McCaskill and the other bitch from New York. I am sure that, deep down, they are very grateful to him, no matter what they tell the NY Times.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Her comments on the media are a bit weird. She trusts mainstream and investigative media, i.e. the kind that are anti-Trump, not those horrifying ones that are pro-Trump. She even suggests the Weinstein story is exaggerated, otherwise those good media types would have covered it. She can't be that stupid.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "almost joined the military but didn't 'cuz "no draft"' Chuck: "I'm substantially happy with Trump's action(s) on LGBT military personnel, despite the fact that it was yet another butchered initiative by the Trump White House, with the Joint Chiefs not knowing about it beforehand, with no Pentagon media preparation, with no formal orders prepared, etc. A mess. Still a mess."

LOL

Poor Chuck.

It's gotta be killing him that this Weinstein story isn't going anywhere.

We feel your pain Chuck.

Perhaps another go at defending Blumenthal would make you feel better?

Kirk Parker said...

Wait, wait, wait...

You're telling me that Meryl "Alar Hysteria" Streep is clueless about reality???



This is my shocked face:

Kirk Parker said...

PB: trust me, Less Intelligent is the way to bet.

Either that or so intellectually corrupted that the intelligence doesn't matter.

Quaestor said...

ARM wrote: Who?

Quaestor shall add augur to his magisterial title. Behold my prediction from this morning:

Socialist SOP. Fall out of favor with Fearless Leader and suddenly you're an unperson airbrushed from history. First, it was Trotsky who? If Inga, Now I Know!, and the usual suspects have their way it will be Weinstein who? ASAP.

10/9/17, 6:12


My prognostications for the Breeders' Cup are coming shortly.

ARM's desperation to change the subject is quite a tell, is it not? We all know who the sucker is at this table. ARM is holding a pair of treys and is practically jumping out of his skin to raise.

Breezy said...

Weekly Standard (Lee Smith) on this topic - http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-human-stain-why-the-harvey-weinstein-story-is-worse-than-you-think/article/2009995
(hat tip Power Line)

Ron Winkleheimer said...

We had no idea how it would be done. The noncoms were more upset than the docs.

Seriously, how was that supposed to work. A 6'3 220 lb guy joins up but claims he feels like a woman. What do you do? Issue him a set of women's uniforms and put him in the female quarters? Does he shower with the women too? Since he is, after all, a woman, isn't he? He says he is, whose to gainsay it?

Kevin said...

Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.

And each voice that is raised, heard, but not affirmed by the right people working for the right media, will be rejected as heresy or right-wing hate speech.

Big Mike said...

If Weinstein had enablers, which he clearly did, I don't see how Meryl Streep qualifies as chief among them.

@Sally327, but you will concede that Streep certainly is among the enablers, right?

Michael K said...

Weinstein was much worse than has been reported.

A friend reminds me that there was a period when Miramax bought the rights to every big story published in magazines throughout the city. Why mess with Weinstein when that big new female star you’re trying to wrangle for the June cover is headlining a Miramax release? Do you think that glossy magazine editor who threw the swankiest Oscar party in Hollywood was trying to “nail down” the Weinstein story? Right, just like the hundreds of journalists who were ferried across the river for the big party at the Statue of Liberty to celebrate the premiere of Talk—they were all there sipping champagne and sniffing coke with models in order to “nail down” the story about how their host was a rapist.

That’s why the story about Harvey Weinstein finally broke now. It’s because the media industry that once protected him has collapsed. The magazines that used to publish the stories Miramax optioned can’t afford to pay for the kind of reporting and storytelling that translates into screenplays. They’re broke because Facebook and Google have swallowed all the digital advertising money that was supposed to save the press as print advertising continued to tank.

Look at Vanity Fair, basically the in-house Miramax organ that Tina failed to make Talk: Condé Nast demanded massive staff cuts from Graydon Carter and he quit. He knows they’re going to turn his aspirational bible into a blog, a fate likely shared by most (if not all) of the Condé Nast books.

Si Newhouse, magazine publishing’s last Medici, died last week, and who knows what will happen to Condé now. There are no more journalists; there are just bloggers scrounging for the crumbs Silicon Valley leaves them. Who’s going to make a movie out of a Vox column? So what does anyone in today’s media ecosystem owe Harvey Weinstein? And besides, it’s good story, right? “Downfall of a media Mogul.” Maybe there’s even a movie in it.

Rebecca Traister says the stories are coming out now because “our consciousness has been raised.” Between Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and Donald Trump, argues Traister, people are now accustomed to speaking and hearing the truth about famous, sexually abusive men.

This is wrong. It has nothing to do with “raised consciousness”—or else she wouldn’t have left off that list the one name obviously missing. It’s not about raised consciousness or else the Democratic party’s 2016 presidential campaign would not have been a year-long therapy session treating a repressed trauma victim with even its main slogan—“I’m with her”—referencing a muted plea for sympathy for a woman who’d been publicly shamed by a sexual predator.

Which brings us, finally, to the other reason the Weinstein story came out now: Because the court over which Bill Clinton once presided, a court in which Weinstein was one part jester, one part exchequer, and one part executioner, no longer exists.


And Hillary lost.

Michael K said...

"We had no idea how it would be done. The noncoms were more upset than the docs.

Seriously, how was that supposed to work."

Exactly. What if someone came in dressed as a female and when the females were all in the back, in the female section, it turns out that one of them has a dick a foot long ?

What do you do ?

Laslo Spatula said...

So if it wasn't Harvey, who's ass did Meryl Streep eat?

I am Laslo.

Ray said...

The majority of Gays are not Transvestites. I wonder how much support there is in the Gay community for transvestites politically?

I agree with Michael M, Trump took a bullet. I believe you can be Gay friendly (as Trump is, I loved his comment about what bathroom the former Bruce Jenner could use, whatever she wants). On Gays, the Trump administration from what I can see does not care as policy - which is where most of the US is. The Obama administration went from the don't care, to the you will be forced to care, which got a lot of push back.

What I have seen is a huge amount of hysteria in the press about Trump and Gays. I don't understand why. Trump is super Gay friendly, there was a picture with the Rainbow Flag during the election.

I wonder if Gays overall in the US are going to become more like the Dutch Gays, and realize the many in Islam are very anti Gay (hanging in Iran, throwing off roofs in Syria, arrests for showing the rainbow flag in Egypt, give that impression), and become more conservative.

Unknown said...

Bob Corker is a wise man, ask him to solve this issue.

Big Mike said...

Somewhere out in flyover country there is a woman with more acting talent in her eyebrows than Streep has ever dreamed of having, and better looks than any starlet on any red carpet in Hollywood, but she wouldn't fellate or spread her legs for Harvey Weinstein or anybody else, so we will never see her on the screen.

Somewhere a guy is teaching physics at a community college, with the talent and insights to formulate the Theory of Everything, but he's a conservative Christian so big research universities want no part of him. Our loss.

Inside a womb is the individual who would win a Nobel Prize for literature someday, except right now his mother is having her arm twisted to abort the fetus.

Lefties have a lot to answer for.

Kevin said...

Do you think Matt Damon and Russell Crowe read that statement, and thought to themselves "that fucking cunt"?

Here is all of Hollywood on a ship that just hit an iceberg. The people are milling about on the decks trying to determine whether it's going to stay afloat or if they need to make preparations to get as many people as possible into the life rafts.

And yet here is Meryl Streep, heading out to sea in a huge lifeboat, alone. And right next to the ocean liner she's left a pool of blood and chum to make sure the sharks are lured there and not after her tiny boat.

"No one could have known we were going to hit that iceberg. But even if everyone had known, I'm sure they'll all be saved by the hard work of the excellent crew."

That the first person to speak out after the Times article was someone immensely famous disavowing all personal knowledge really says it all.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
...
Chuck, I work part time examining applicants. We had a briefing on the transgender thing in June. We were all dreading the July 1 date for the new policy. We had no idea how it would be done. The noncoms were more upset than the docs.

Trump took a bullet for the Joint Chiefs, who would have been testifying before grandstanding leftists like McCaskill and the other bitch from New York. I am sure that, deep down, they are very grateful to him, no matter what they tell the NY Times.

You understand how little I disagree with your first paragraph, right?

As for the second paragraph, why put out some stinking little Tweet? If it is a real policy, you sit down with SecDef and the Joint Chiefs and others and tell them what you want. Tell them to get the report out, and tell them how you want policy directed.

It is the Tweeting part that is so weaselly, so dumb, so confusing. In other words, so quintessentially Trump. Like a President who governs by calling in to the Howard Stern Show.

Kevin said...

If Weinstein had enablers, which he clearly did, I don't see how Meryl Streep qualifies as chief among them.

HA! We have begun the process of splitting the people who knew and enabled Harvey into tiers, to best absolve the most useful and rehabilitate their careers.

Damon and Crowe might have gone to the NYT on Harvey's behalf, but when it's all said and done there will be lower-level people who did much, much worse, and our two leading men were only vouching for Harvey's character, which they always believed was pristine.

We will know Weinstein had enablers, but we won't see Damon and Crowe as chief among them either.

I look for their well-coordinated statements put out by their highly-paid press people expressing their shock, dismay, and utter contempt for what he did and how he did it. They have been active in the right causes and therefore will be easily believed by those predestined to believe them.

Drago said...

Bob Corker is a wise man, ask him to solve this issue

Literally just days ago Corker was labeled a right wing racist nazi white supremacist who was completely under the power of the NRA.

Now, he is another "Charlie Sykes, The Most Important Voice on Radio In The Greater Milwaukee Radio Market"!!

Hilarious.

Corker will get his 2 minutes of fame a la John McCain until such time as it will be necessary to relabel him a white surpremacist nazi who must be destroyed.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "Michigan Political Insider Who Could Not Predict His Own States Electoral Results" Chuck: "As for the second paragraph, why put out some stinking little Tweet? If it is a real policy, you sit down with SecDef and the Joint Chiefs and others and tell them what you want"

LOL

Chuck is desperately, DESPERATELY, trying to change the subject, though failing in a most hilarious manner.

Sorry Chuck, like the NFL Althouse Blog is a "results" league, not a "try hard" league.

Perhaps we should place you on Intellectual Injured Reserve?

Drago said...

Even the Weekly Standard is plumbing the depths of the lefts depravity: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-human-stain-why-the-harvey-weinstein-story-is-worse-than-you-think/article/2009995

Ouch.

"lifelong republicans" hardest hit.

Sebastian said...

"Because the court over which Bill Clinton once presided, a court in which Weinstein was one part jester, one part exchequer, and one part executioner, no longer exists." Hey, wait a minute, yours truly already peddled that theory a while ago. With the added cui bono twist missing in the Smith piece. No wonder the media are suffering: lagging way behind mere amateur blog commenters dispensing wisdom for free on the intertubes is no way to run a business.

Michael K said...

"As for the second paragraph, why put out some stinking little Tweet? "

You still don;t get it. The tweet made it something hat dumb Trump did. They can deny the whole thing.

If he had had meetings with them, they would be explaining to leftist assholes how operational readiness was more important than social justice. For months.

Why do you think the fucking navy ships keep crashing into stuff ? Global warming Navy at work.

cronus titan said...

"Not everybody knew."

What a bunch of hooey. If she knew, that makes her complicit, IF she did not, it is because she chose not to know, and did not care about Weinstein setting the price to be paid for career success for the women who came behind her.

It also calls into question how some actresses became very successful, and others failed. Perhaps the ones that failed chose not to sell themselves. THey have their dignity but no career. Others have a career, wealth, and prestige but no dignity. Put Streep in the latter category.

R.J. Chatt said...

I don't see someone on Streep's level spending her time gossiping with lower level actresses about their problems with Weinstein. I see her spending her time focused on her next big project and what awards she has just received. BTW, she doesn't live in Hollywood and doesn't hang with that crowd, never has.

IOW, I believe her. When she says, "So some, but not others, got respectful treatment. That doesn't make the behavior better. It makes it worse. It's discriminatory." Streep acknowledges that Weinstein picked on the vulnerable women. Sad and sickening behavior. That those women got picked for sexual harassment was not a compliment as some commenters have suggested. Why didn't anyone report? Why didn't anyone make a case against Bill Cosby? Because of their power and most people lack courage and fear retaliation. BTW, Streep was a star actress when she was in college back at Yale, so she's always been in a different league.

Kevin said...

Weinstein was made an honorary CBE by the Queen in 2004 for his contribution to the British film industry.

A spokesman for Theresa May said Britain's prime minister had expressed "concern" about the allegations, but said his CBE was not a matter for Downing Street but for the Honours Forfeiture Committee, where each case is "considered on its merits".


So the freaking Prime Minister of the United Kingdom knew, but Meryl Streep and a whole host of Hollywood A-listers to follow were just totally in the dark about it all.

Phil said...

I'm going to cut her a little slack. Not that she didn't hear the rumors, but that she just refused to believe them. I ran into a similar situation recently; without divulging details, a group of my friends were gossiping that one of our friends was sleeping with another one's wife. I told them they were a bunch of gossips and that it was bullshit. Right up until the friend told me "oh yeah, we've been together for months."

Sally327 said...

"If Weinstein had enablers, which he clearly did, I don't see how Meryl Streep qualifies as chief among them."

"HA! We have begun the process of splitting the people who knew and enabled Harvey into tiers, to best absolve the most useful and rehabilitate their careers."

I don't think Meryl Streep is facing any career danger. Nor is Matt Damon or Russell Crowe. Mostly they face charges of hypocrisy when it comes to future statements they might make about some GOP politicians or other leaders on the right. But I think that happens anyway.

rhhardin said...

Streep started out saying nice things about Weinstein, which gets her a lot of credit. She chickened out though. Mob rule threatens.

She'd have gotten huge credits for telling the mob where to go, but not from the mob.

rhhardin said...

The argument doesn't have to be popular, just right.

Kevin said...

a group of my friends were gossiping that one of our friends was sleeping with another one's wife. I told them they were a bunch of gossips and that it was bullshit. Right up until the friend told me "oh yeah, we've been together for months."

Then if asked at that point you wouldn't have said you didn't know. You would have said you heard the rumors but didn't believe them.

Saying you didn't know would be covering your ass and would be a lie, as people are asserting Ms. Streep is doing.

She, as a powerful woman in Hollywood, can't have known and done nothing to investigate the charges while still working for Harvey. Not and keep her feminist preacher's card, anyway.

rhhardin said...

If somebody says to Streep that Weinstein wacked off into a potted plant in front of some female reporter, she could just say that it doesn't seem like it would be very effective.

But perhaps Harvey knows reporters better than I do.

William said...

Prediction: This week the late nite comics will make a few jokes about Weinstein and, then, pivot off those jokes to attack Trump. They will try to use Weinstein as a club against Trump. I don't think that this is an effective tactic, but they will get a few laughs and hunker down in their smugness. Weinstein's reputation is destroyed, and he will take quite a few others down with him........I don't know how celebs and comics can handle the Weinstein problem. You'd think this would be the sort of thing that's in their wheelhouse, but they're really floundering.

rhhardin said...

In mob rule, there is comedy.

rhhardin said...

Behind every successful comic there is an offended woman.

Paul Jackson said...

For the worst kept secret in Hollywood, it doesn't seem like any A-list stars had heard about it, or ever had the temerity to confront ole Harvey on the whispers of his abusiveness. How about asking people who were most seen with him, professionally, but who would they be is the question. His partner/brother? Dame Judy who has a JD loves HW tattoo on her ass? Where is TMZ on this? Other gossip rags?

Kevin said...

I don't think Meryl Streep is facing any career danger.

Not unless someone comes out and says they discussed this with her. Since she claims absolutely no knowledge, her statement is subject to first-claim falsification.

Nor is Matt Damon or Russell Crowe.

You think feminist women will still watch their movies if they aided and abetted Weinstein in abusing women?

Mostly they face charges of hypocrisy when it comes to future statements they might make about some GOP politicians or other leaders on the right.

They face "shut the fuck up, you sexual predator" every time they try to speak out on an issue. The right may not have liked what they were preaching before, but they never had such a reason to disregard anything which comes out of their mouth.

As for feminist women, we can say that anyone over the age of 40 will follow the Bill Clinton precedent and give everyone a pass because they donated to Planned Parenthood and Hillary's candidacy for President. I don't know that the younger generation of women will be so forgiving.

Kevin said...

You'd think this would be the sort of thing that's in their wheelhouse, but they're really floundering.

Look, there are only two options when you come up with something this deep and this corrupt. Burn the whole thing down, or gloss over it and let it continue - on a lower level for a while and then back to where it was with new players.

It will be interesting to see if the left truly hates the exploitation of women enough to burn it down, or if it will move on knowing what it's leaving behind.

rhhardin said...

Klavan, who is a screenwriter and pitches stuff to Weinstein, says everybody knew

https://soundcloud.com/andrewklavanshow/ep394

but on the other hand Weinstein abused everybody, men and women.

Leigh said...

"Cagey" doesn't give Streep enough credit. Notice the circle she drew around the problem to re-define it: "working relationship." Anything that falls outside of that "working relationship," Streep doesn't and won't address. So, yes indeed, Streep's statement is a perfect template for others. "Well, during my working relationship with Harvey, he was respectful. [Sure, after we left the set and our work was finished, he tried to maul my co-star ... but] My remarks speak to our professional relationship, our "working" relationship. What he did on his own time is NOYB." Nifty trick.

That said, Streep's "not everybody knew" theme is becoming problematic for everyone who gained financially from dinosaur Harvey. Take Mika Brzezinski of "Morning Joe," for instance. Using her feminist piety, Mika said she would back out of her book deal with Harvey's company unless he was ejected. Implicit in that ultimatum is her denial she had a clue. But she did know, and she knew well before she signed the contract. Alas, the money was too good. Watch the clip below and you'll see Mika gets uncomfortable when another woman on the panel refers to Mika's potential financial loss by backing out. The camera pans quickly pans away, but you'll spot it.

https://youtu.be/u50yGXke_AY

Ray said...

Weekly Standard in their article, mentioned another famous director has pictures of famous leading ladies doing the dirty... I guess this is how Hollywood does sexting at a Director Level.

Hollywood strikes me as amoral, and the ends justifies the means. And being super aggressive is a feature.

I was surprised the story broke the more I read about what Mr. Weinstein got away with. The fear of blacklisting and killing your career is real in Hollywood, that is why only those that don't care have said anything. Jokes and lectures about Trump have no risk. Being negative, even doing a joke, about a big Media / Hollywood Person, probably career ending and seen as betrayal.

Lydia said...

A better statement from Glenn Close:

“I’m sitting here, deeply upset, acknowledging to myself that, yes, for many years, I have been aware of the vague rumors that Harvey Weinstein had a pattern of behaving inappropriately around women. Harvey has always been decent to me, but now that the rumors are being substantiated, I feel angry and darkly sad.

I’m angry, not just at him and the conspiracy of silence around his actions, but also that the “casting couch” phenomenon, so to speak, is still a reality in our business and in the world: the horrible pressure, the awful expectation put on a woman when a powerful, egotistical, entitled bully expects sexual favors in exchange for a job.

Ours is an industry in which very few actors are indispensable and women are cast in far fewer roles than men, so the stakes are higher for women and make them more vulnerable to the manipulations of a predator. I applaud the monumental courage of the women who have spoken up. I hope that their stories and the reportage that gave them their voices represents a tipping point, that more stories will be told and that change will follow.

The changes must be both institutional and personal. Men and women, in positions of power, must create a work environment in which people, whose jobs depend on them, feel safe to report threatening and inappropriate behavior, like that reported in the Times. No one should be coerced into trading personal dignity for professional success. I feel the time is long and tragically overdue for all of us in the industry, women and men, to unite — calmly and dispassionately — and create a new culture of respect, equality and empowerment, where bullies and their enablers are no longer allowed to prosper."

Michael K said...

These women being quoted, like Glenn Close, Meryl Streep and Signourney Weaver, who has not said anything, all come from well off families and are well educated. They probably had much less incentive to cooperate than a girl from a small town, etc, etc.

They had very little in common with Marilyn Monroe, for example.

Plus, Weinstein got his career going after they were pretty well established.

Assrat said...

>A better statement from Glenn Close:

I agree -- that is a lot better.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that a lot of rumors get spread, and it's reasonable to handwave them. I'm not surprised this sort of thing happens, especially in an industry where unemployment is around 90%, and most of the actresses are pretty much fungible.

Michael K said...

"Klavan, who is a screenwriter and pitches stuff to Weinstein, says everybody knew"

My mother-in-law was a Hollywood business woman in the 40s and 50s. Hollywood is a small town and gossip is the currency.

She referred to actors and actresses as "talent." and it was not a compliment.

Portlandmermaid said...

That boring I,I,I, statement left no cliche unsaid.
The worst thing she could say about him is that he could be exasperating while fiercely supporting her work.

Scott said...

Be nice to Meryl, please. She's just auditioning for her next Oscar-winning performance as the German mayor in the feminist remake of Band of Brothers.

"I didn't know what that bad smell from the concentration camp next door was."

And people wonder why the lectures from our 'moral betters' in the media and Hollywood are not being taken seriously.

Ken Mitchell said...

Real insult to Meryl Streep; Harvey only molests PRETTY women. Streep didn't have anything to worry about.

Blue@9 said...

Fuck her and that creep Dame Dench. Fuck Ashley Judd too. "Nasty woman"? Right, so fucking brave to stay objectively silent and only talk about an "unnamed producer." How many other women were raped/assaulted because Judd and others valued their careers more? They're scum.

You know who comes out well in all this? Rose McGowan.

Night Owl said...

I suspect that this story will not have any immediate negative impact on current Hollywood celebrities or leftist politicians, because most people are hypocrites. Feminists will rationalize reasons why their favorite stars/politicians are off the hook, Clinton supporters will believe her when she finally deigns to comment on this and claims she had no idea, etc. etc.

However, it's obvious that this story in no way helps pols who took money from Weinstein, especially those who claim to promote women's causes. Plus, the revelation that the media sat on this story for years doesn't help their credibility any. And finally, this story is certainly an embarrassment for our Hollywood "betters" who love to moralize and lecture us from their cesspool of a culture--a culture they created and choose to inhabit-- about how awful conservative men are towards women. (Will it cause them to become more introspective and shut up long enough to do what we pay them to do, which is entertain us? If only. You have to have a conscience to feel shame, therefore the worst of them will never shut up.)

Kevin said:
"I don't know that the younger generation of women will be so forgiving."

Whether there is any long term fallout does indeed depend upon how the younger generation absorbs this and reacts.

tcrosse said...

Sanctimony never goes out of fashion.

Bay Area Guy said...

CNN asks why Hillary and Obama have been silent on old Harvey.

Money Grafs:

Longtime Hillary Clinton aides have been confused by the former secretary of state's silence on the issue, questioning -- in private -- why she has not weighed in at all.
Weinstein has long been a Clinton donor with ties to the political family. Weinstein was one of many from Hollywood who donated to Bill Clinton's legal defense fund in the 1990s, a Washington Post report from the time stated. More recently, the Clintons rented a home next to Weinstein in the Hamptons in 2015, and Weinstein served as a connector between Hollywood stars and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.


Weinstein raised about $1.5 million from 1990-2016, according to data from the campaign finance-tracking Center for Responsive Politics, and was a bundler for Clinton's 2016 effort, including at a star-studded fundraiser for Clinton in June 2016 at Weinstein's Manhattan home.

Clinton personally headlined multiple fundraisers Weinstein was involved in organizing during the campaign.

Michael K said...

Hillary knows all about horny men and their activities.

tim in vermont said...

You know, this wasn't Streep's first opportunity to speak out when a powerful executive abused his power and held a 'meeting' in a hotel room. Streep did not care the either.

Not being powerless, I guess it's hard for Streep to empathise with those who are.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

wait a second...


Bob Corker! Yesterday he was a baby killing nazi - but today he's a HERO!

AllenS said...

Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Signourney Weaver and the rest of starlet Hollywood still will never say anything in support of women who claim that they were assaulted by BJ Clinton. Why? Because those women aren't cool like actresses are. I'd like someone to ask them about BJ, but I doubt anyone will.

Alex said...

The German people also claimed they did not know about the death camps.

Sorry Meryl, but that excuse is not going to work in 2017.

Bay Area Guy said...

C'mon, guys, short of murder or "rape-rape," you don't spill the beans on your own TEAM, Jeez.

Team Democrat is the only thing standing between us and the religious right, you morons.

Stay Silent!

Alex said...

Remember Meryl Streep was the one to stir up a fake-news scare in 1988 with the alar on apples? She did untold damage to the fruit industry and never a 'sorry'.

n.n said...

Team Democrat is the only thing standing between us and the religious right, you morons.

Stay Silent!


So, that's why they covered their mouths with duct tape. Loose lips sink poorly conceived campaigns to construct political congruences.

tcrosse said...

Way to piss on Hillary's book tour, guys.

William said...

The predator priests didn't prey on all the kids, just the marginal and vulnerable ones. I think that's the way it works with the casting couch lotharios. A little vulnerability and they're meat........ Harvey Weinstein looks like a bully. All his relationships are based on a power dynamic. i don't think he'd find consensual sex much fun. The challenge was to keep the coercion this side of legal rape.

Michael K said...

"The predator priests didn't prey on all the kids, just the marginal and vulnerable ones."

I believe that most "predator priests" were gays attracted to adolescents who were wavering. Today they would probably be "gender fluid."

There were a few real pedophiles but the gays took over the seminaries in the 60s. The result was the scandal, probably covered up by gay bishops.

It was called "The Pink Mafia" in seminaries.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 207   Newer› Newest»