"You had to spend about five minutes with him to know that he was a bully, he was intimidating — that was his legend... When people say everybody knew, yeah I knew he was an asshole. He was proud of that.... I knew he was a womanizer. I wouldn't want to be married to the guy, but it's not my business... But this level of criminal sexual predation is not something that I ever thought was going on" (Hollywood Reporter).
He just didn't know the level.
The clues were there and seen, but he claims not to have made any of the inferences that will put him in a bad light now.
At the same link, George Clooney is similar but different in 2 key ways:
"Harvey would talk to me about women that he'd had affairs with... I didn't necessarily believe him quite honestly, because to believe him would be to believe the worst of some actresses who were friends of mine.... The idea that this predator — this assaulter — was out there silencing women like that ... it's beyond infuriating.... There has to be a comeuppance for all of this. All of the people who were part of that chain. And then, we have to make it safe for people to feel that they can talk about it."
1. Clooney seems as though he had a simpatico relationship with Harvey. He had confidential conversations with him, and he's using the word "affairs" to refer to what Harvey did — even as he says that if the stories were true what the women were doing would be the worst.
2. And— unlike Damon — Clooney doesn't seem to have experienced Harvey as an "asshole." Clooney disapproves of the behavior that has come out recently, but he doesn't say that the man he knew first hand was "a bully... intimidating... an asshole."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
114 comments:
A lot of needles being threaded.
I am Laslo.
Locker room talk stays in the playboy's locker room.
Seriously, the New Standards have suddenly stuck all of the white heterosexual male playboys over into the basket where we used to keep the criminal gays until they were over night canonized into the new saints of sexuality.
At least we have a supply of scapegoats back. Happy days are here again.
Don Juan was a "womanizer." Harvey Weinstein is a mental case thug.
Fat Harvey -- sometimes he successfully cajoled pretty actresses into the sack; sometimes he forced them into the sack. Sometimes, he saw an attractive potted plant, and felt the need to release his inner stress.
Where was his wife Georgina during all this? She sounds like a clueless enabler, who was happy to look the other way, while Harvey advanced her fashion career.
It's all so complex:)
Think these two haven't taken some liberties with young actress wannabes? Difference being Harvey is fat, gross, and old.
Those poor girls.
I doubt she was clueless.
This all could be said about the Doofus-in-Chief. Trump is a bully who talks about women he beds. Trump takes pride in both. There are women who accuse Trump of harassment and assault.
Clooney's and Damon's excuses sound really lame, but I remind myself that they aren't very smart to begin with, and have lived in their celebrity bubbles, protected from reality by their Yes-man entourages for 20 years or more, so any survival skills, such as recognizing bad people, have atrophied away.
Which does not even get at the stories about Clooney in his younger days.
It is not a pretty picture, either way.
I wonder if Warren Beatty ever sexually harassed starlets, or if they just naturally migrated towards him like moths to the lightbulb?
Paul Newman had a long marriage to actress Joanne Woodward (50 years). He said he didn't cheat (much), said something about, Why go out for hamburgers, when you can have steak at home?
I know Harvey Weinstein. He is no Paul Newman.
The idiots like One written cannot get Trump out of their heads for 8 comments.
It more like he didn't want to know. He may have had a suspicion but choose not to pursue it by asking questions and making waves, and most likely causing all sorts of trouble. So it's a conscious choice to remain ignorant. That's how a lot of very bad behavior occurs just under the radar of the willfully ignorant. Usually ignoring something is much less trouble for yourself than actually facing it and dealing with it.
All you need to know about Matt Damon is contained within Team America.
There are women who accuse Trump of harassment and assault. - Now I Know!
Why not give us the statements of the three worst cases, complete any corroborating evidence that makes the charges compelling for you?
Here is an example of the kind of evidence that I wouldn't mind seeing, if you are going to change my mind about Trump.
Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.
Remember that all of the witnesses, and Broaddrick, faced prison if they lied to federal investigators, and Clinton could have simply denied it, which he never did, and shown he was someplace else at the time, since he had complete records of his whereabouts due to a security detail
Hows about evidence like that?
You're on to it Ann. This is the next line of defense, now that "Nope, didn't know anything" didn't seem to work. Great to see them squirm.
release his inner stress
Reminds me of Al Gore pleading with a masseuse to release his 2nd Chakra. A few years later, he divorced Tipper.
If the accusations against Trump are true, and they upset you so much, why was the alternative you offered Clinton?
So basically Damon knew about the bullying and Clooney knew HW bragged about sexual conquests. Gosh darn it...they were this close to figuring it all out and blowing this wide open, if only they'd compared notes. Well, at least it's out now, and who coulda known really.
And the sad thing is, this was happening to very pretty women. Oh the humanity!
A bunch of narcissists doing damage control. That's all
I didn't know about it but wouldn't have cared. They're adults.
The women could do better looks-wise, I'd have thought, but it's a great career move.
The women could bed much nicer guys but they know that.
They are all hypocrites, and the only time they care about sexual harassment is when it is to their political advantage. Spouting feminism as a way to get laid. In that sense, ARM is right. It's just that one party claims to have a special regard for women's rights and claims that it's the other party who is waging a "war on women."
Sometimes, it's best to mind your own business unless of course you possess twenty-twenty hindsight as foresight.
When we were first married, my wife and I were living in married student housing. One of the couples we knew from a few buildings over was having marital troubles. The husband was verbally abusive. (That was what I was told. I never heard it myself.) One Saturday, as I was leaving to play intramural basketball, my wife asked how I could be on the same team with this guy. I thought: "He's got a decent jump shot, doesn't hog the ball, plays good defense, and rebounds. Why not have him on the team?"
Confidential conversations? More likely just bragging to someone he thought would be impressed.
I'm confused, Ann. Shouldn't THIS be the text that goes under the "Let's All Give Each Other a Pass" heading?
Apparently the EU Parliament is a hotbed of Weinstesque bad behavior, which is unsurprising to the sufficiently cynical. This stuff can only happen when there's a lack of accountabilty because people choose to look the other way or choose to remain ignorant.
My point is that guys tend to compartmentalize these things. We focus on another person based on the task at hand or the role they're expected to play. If they're good at that task or role, what they do in other roles or situations (unless they are illegal) are not much of a consideration. Women tend to look at the whole person. If a man is a poor husband, he's not someone you should play basketball with (in my wife's view).
I imagine both Clooney and Damon were only interested in Weinstein in terms of how he affected them directly. They didn't 'know' about his serious sexual harassment of women because they weren't interested in his personal life. Damon knew he was a bully, but he didn't know he used bullying to get sex. He might have figured it out had he thought about it, but it wasn't something he thought about because he simply didn't care about Weinstein's sex life. That's NOT the same thing as saying he wouldn't have cared about his physically and emotionally bullying women into sex.
Hell, Harvey was their wingman!!
There is probably a MAD principal involved. Someone knows where all the babies are buried. Persist.
"to believe him would be to believe the worst of some actresses who were friends of mine"
How can two different men not have the same opinion about one other man? Something doesn't add up.
I read Clooney's statement as Weinstein told him about consensual affairs only, and that these accounts of consensual affairs made him think less of the actresses involved.
I do not read Clooney's statement as Weinstein told him he sexually assaulted women, and that Clooney thought less of them for it.
Clooney is the guy Weinstein wanted to be. Suave, handsome able to get any woman he wants on personality not intimidation. He sought to impress him. Wahlberg, on the other hand is another tough guy so it becomes a "who has the biggest Johnson" contest.
Very interesting topic
famous Positive quotes
Ha ha, speaking of memory shorter than a Johnson. Damon not Wahlberg
Clooney must have a very loose definition of "friend".
I had a colleague who could be a real slime toward women who felt they were jeopardizing their careers by telling him to go to hell.
I let those who were so inclined cry on my shoulder over stuff I hadn’t seen. Got in his way once while he was hanging drunkenly on a student. He didn’t appreciate it, but didn’t retaliate then or later. Told a couple of senior colleagues they should maybe take him aside and talk to him because we were gaining a hell of a reputation among women students.
I was told in response that this was just my convervative Republican moralizing asshole side showing. (This a few years after Bill Clinton’s troubles.)
Why, oh why, didn’t I do more?
(I don’ know - cause I’d have gotten nowhere, as long as he was more valuable to them than I was.)
I am willing to believe Damon and Clooney. Like I wrote several days ago, there are two ways to know something- first hand and every other way. Now, both can criticized for knowing the word of mouth stuff and still doing business with Weinstein, but that is it, in my opinion. That willingness to put nothing personal on the line for it does diminish both, though.
@ Bay Area Guy
Where was his wife Georgina during all this?
Sounds like a marriage of connivance -- I mean, convenience.
"A few years later, he divorced Tipper." No steak at home, or a preference for hamburgers?
"Clooney is the guy Weinstein wanted to be." They don't call him George Wannafuck Clooney for nothing.
"to believe him would be to believe the worst of some actresses who were friends of mine" I'd like a little Althousian exegesis of this one. For starters, this would seem to push her anti-sexism button: believe the worst of the actress-friends but not of Harvey?
Gabriel above makes the right point- I can't imagine these conversations were even of the type, "George, you wouldn't believe the numbers of blowjobs I get from actresses who want roles in the the movies I produce."
When I was much younger, I had a very, very close friend (or so I thought) who I held in high esteem, but later found out had a really unsavory hidden past and present. I never knew any of this history and didn't believe it the first time someone else alerted me to it, but I did look into it after the initial shock wore off, and doing so showed me just how wrong I had been. Afterwards, I basically ignored him as much as possible and the friendship died somewhere along the way. I have always wondered whether or not I should have confronted him about it, but I didn't.
A-lister boys didn't synchronize stories.
"I'm confused, Ann. Shouldn't THIS be the text that goes under the "Let's All Give Each Other a Pass" heading?"
Of course not. "Let's All Give Each Other a Pass" is about attempts to express sympathy with a person who is sick or bereaved. It's hard to know what to say and it might come out wrong, and since we need this communication to flow, we should be forgiving and assume the speaker means well.
Actions exploring and abusing other people aren't within that scope, so I've never said give Weinstein a pass, and I've been consistent in saying that the people around him who facilitated his behavior should be held responsible. They're trying to disentangle themselves from their responsibility by saying they didn't know. I think they did know and am not accepting the excuse.
You shouldn't be confused. Both of these ideas about strongly based in morality.
"I do not read Clooney's statement as Weinstein told him he sexually assaulted women, and that Clooney thought less of them for it."
If Weinstein were having affairs with women, what is bad about the women having affairs with Weinstein? Why don't the women get credit for "having affairs" or both get tarred with the insult that what they were doing was "the worst"? He's saying that if he believed the story as Weinstein told it, then Weinstein was having affairs and what the women were doing was "the worst" -- that sounds like a blatant double standard.
Ann Althouse said...
Both of these ideas about strongly based in morality.
Not sure how making a recently bereaved widow cry gets into the 'based in morality' basket.
If he thought HW was falsely characterizing his "friends", he might have told them.
"I don’ know - cause I’d have gotten nowhere, as long as he was more valuable to them than I was."
But Damon and Clooney are very powerful men. They should have done something.
"Clooney says there has to be a "comeuppance" for all those involved in the chain. Wouldn't that include him? He heard the creep's confessions."
I agree and hope my post makes that plain.
Hollywood is a place where a lot of ambitious people use one another. Young, attractive things use their bodies to try to promote their careers. And older, powerful players take advantage of that. Sleazy behavior, yes. A misdemeanor, perhaps.
But what HW is accused of is assault and rape which I don't think is run of the mill Hollywood activity. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those of who say they weren't aware of how far HW was going.
There are also many decent people in Hollywood. I don't think anyone has accused powerful figures like Eastwood, Spielberg or Ron Howard of any wrongdoing.
"Not sure how making a recently bereaved widow cry gets into the 'based in morality' basket."
X tries to console Y who is suffering and puts it in a way that seems to say something mean causing Y to cry. Y could contemplate the situation and think as Rakoff put it "people are really trying their best" and "you will find yourself on both sides of the equation many times over your lifetime, either saying or hearing the wrong thing," and — golden rule — I'm going to give X a pass.
Of course, if X meant to make Y cry, it would be a different matter. But I recommend the moral reasoning of imagining the roles reversed and thinking what would you want to happen to you if you tried to sympathize and put it in a way that made the other person cry.
I think it's an easy golden-rule question. If I tried to console a widow, and I said it in a way that touched her off to cry, I would feel terrible, and I'd really appreciate it if she would see that I meant to be good and appreciate the effort.
The hypocrisy is delicious. Lots of Liberal sycophants being exposed as exactly what they are. Clooney has been so holier than thou about Trump while ignoring problems right next to him.
I think most men don't see themselves as the sex police. And what about all the actresses who might have used sex with Weinstein to advance their careers, the male actors aren't expected to police that. People have to navigate their way as best they can given their own situation.
tim in vermont said, "Why not give us the statements of the three worst cases, complete any corroborating evidence that makes the charges compelling for you?"
Yes. This is the problem, part of which rhhardin has been writing about.
Put up or shut up.
If you have an accusation to make, make it, and name names and times and locations. Take the consequences. If you have proof, you'll be fine. If you don't, and are malicious, you'll probably pay. But all of this 3rd-wave harassment garbage is hurting women and men alike.
Quit with the #MeToo crap. Got a stone? Sinless? Throw at will.
We're in a bad time in America 2017.
This is so widespread in Hollywood that I can't believe that anyone doesn't know it.
Ann Althouse said...
I think it's an easy golden-rule question.
On the other hand, if he only rang the bereaved widow because he got himself into a self-inflicted bind after thoughtlessly criticizing other presidents for not doing so and then screwed it up because he is pathologically incapable of experiencing empathy, wouldn't this fall into the 'just deserts' basket, morally.
You shouldn't be confused. Both of these ideas about strongly based in morality.
Morality has to do with how the speaker listens. That's one of the problems with mobs.
DKWalser has wise words.
Another four-star general slaps Trump over 'absolutely disastrous' condolence call to military widow
Gen. Barry McCaffrey said, 'He wings stuff; he doesn't have any empathy'.
Meanwhile, Ann, some important stuff is going on. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/the-race-is-on-in-syria.php; http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/finally_the_missing_puzzle_piece.html; http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/secrets_and_lies_three_russian_stories.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comey-and-robert-mueller-imperil-the-rule-of-law-1508798756
www.wsj.com/articles/japans-election-warning-to-china-1508786347
https://pjmedia.com/video/dem-senator-acknowledges-hillary-clintons-kiss-death/
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/2017/10/24/republican-senator-jeff-flake-announces-not-running-senate-reelection-gop-primary-ward-trump/793952001/
Your fixation with Weinstein, though entertaining, is wearing thin. There really are a lot more important things going on that would be entertaining to discuss.
DKWalser has wise words.
Yes, but I seldom use them. (Thank you.)
I'm sorry I didn't facility Harvey Weinstein somehow. I'd like to have a stake in his side.
Somehow women have to discover that men are in a different universe from women unless they want to get laid and it's not going to change. Furthermore men have guy rules, reason and logic on their side. Math is hard.
Ann, you are asking ARM to be an honest interlocutor and/or have high self-awareness. It is wasted effort. He has no interest in a real discussion here- he is troll.
All these male stars have to worry about half of their audience in what they say. It's a money problem.
Telling women that they're being stupid isn't a good PR move, but true.
Meanwhile, Ann, some important stuff is going on. ...
This is stupid. This is her blog. She writes about things she finds it interesting to write about. She's never promised to cover everything 'important'. Many of her best posts are about interesting insights about fairly mundane topics -- such as word usage or grammar. All-in-all, it's a fairly eclectic mix of topics -- all addressed with her particular slant. Invariably well-written and usually interesting to this particular reader.
Want everything important to be addressed? Buy several newspapers.
ARM:
I respect McCaffrey but this is ridiculous.
He’s “sure” it was disastrous? Gosh, that’s almost Trump-like, spouting off over something you don’t know firsthand, but are sure must be true.
As for “cruising toward war with North Korea,” well, we’ve been doing that for a long time. This new approach may clinch it or avoid it. The previous approach succeeded only in raising the stakes.
@ARM Barry's a Democrat. Does he have access to a recording of the call or is he winging it? Barry's record is not exactly spic and span.
"In April 2008, New York Times published a front-page report by David Barstow confirming that military analysts hired by ABC, CBS and NBC to present observations about the conduct of the war in Iraq had undisclosed ties to the Pentagon and/or military contractors.[58] McCaffrey was "at the heart of the scandal" detailed by Barstow.[59] In late November 2008, the New York Times published another front-page article by Barstow, this time specifically profiling General McCaffrey. It detailed his free movement between roles as a paid advocate for defense companies, media analyst and a retired officer.[58] An earlier report[60] with some of the same information had appeared in The Nation in April 2003 but was not widely picked up. Specifically, McCaffrey signed a contract with an undisclosed equity stake and retainer to represent Defense Solutions to American military leadership. Within days after signing the contract, McCaffrey sent a proposal directly to David H. Petraeus, then the commanding general in Iraq, recommending Defense Solutions and its offer to supply Iraq 5,000 armored vehicles from former Soviet bloc countries. Subsequently, McCaffrey would continue to advocate the Defense Solutions proposal over equipping the Iraqi Army with American-made equipment." (Wikipedia)
On January 24, 2009, in an article entitled "The Generals’ Second Careers,"[63] New York Times Public Editor (ombudsman) Clark Hoyt discussed Barstow's allegations. He wrote (in part),
"McCaffrey, a much-decorated, thrice-wounded war hero, unhappily became the symbol of an entrenched system of insider access, overlapping interests and lack of public disclosure. It is an issue of high interest in Barack Obama’s Washington. Even as they testified to McCaffrey’s integrity, some of his most ardent supporters recognized that the system presented multiple opportunities for conflicts of interest. [...] McCaffrey said he will follow any disclosure rules, as long as they apply to everybody, not just retired military officers."[63]
Wearing pussy hats in sympathy might be the right move for the men.
Women might suspect it's being ironic but couldn't prove it; the men would know it's ironic.
A sex difference celebrated.
A lot of actresses/stars have been inadvertently smeared/tainted by the recent revelations and I'm guessing they're not feeling very good right now.
Vagina tee-rhits would be a good addition too. Use the feminist design, as it's pretty gross.
I recommend again Thurber's The War Between Men and Women, a cartoon series that appears in Thurber Carnival.
Women deciding to settle things about men once and for all. It's always the same.
@JPS I went to high school with McCaffrey and given his personality and achievements there I have always been astonished at his success in the military. Of course, he gets credit for a substantial victory over a fifth rate enemy, but he did win.
Yancey Ward said...
He has no interest in a real discussion here
As one of few who questions the assumptions of the many here, I think you have this reversed. There is no way to 'just give a pass' to Trump's behavior over the dead soldiers. If he is truly incapable of performing his job adequately then he should step down. What he shouldn't get is a 'pass'.
@DKWalser I agree with your assessment of Ann's blog in general However when it comes to sexual harassment issues and gay issues she can become obsessive. I guess what I really meant to say was that I would enjoy- and value - her perspective on some of the items similar to the ones I noted rather than the continued dead horse beating of Weinstein and all the complicit males and females in Hollywood.
@ARM What dead soldiers are you referring to ? The video of the call in April was an impressive performance by both Trump and the widow. NY POST link.
Even The Times disapproves.
Logic in women consists in changing their minds.
Imagine that. Damon and Clooney, two popular leftists, are moral cowards. This is the party that supported Bill and Hillary Clinton and they all just didn't know how bad it was.
Shocking.
"There is no way to 'just give a pass' to Trump's behavior over the dead soldiers."
Ann certainly attracts the leftist TDS colony.
Less obsession about Russia now that it looks more likely to bite Hillary and Bill.
You people are so transparent.
I don't think that Hollywood yet realizes how bad all this shit makes them look. It's the kind of stuff that you don't recover from. Ask Cardinal Law. What I noticed most about the interview was how softball it was. They deserve to be asked some tough questions, but they were given a platform to explain how clean and brave they are. It just adds to the cynicism. Yesterday I saw a photo of Harrison Ford handing Roman Polanski his Oscar. He made a special trip to France to give it to him, I'd like to like Harrison Ford, but that's despicable behavior. You ever wonder how a Hollywood big shot can feel entitled and protected enough to molest Shirley Temple or Molly Ringwald? It's because they live in a land where Harrison Ford makes a special trip to France to personally hand a child rapist his Oscar. There are degrees of complicity, but they're all pretty loathsome.
Damon's hoping no one remembers this from Sharon Waxman, a former NY Times reporter:
In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there. ...
After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.
Re my post at 4:18 -- Lombardo was a guy on Weinstein’s payroll who allegedly arranged “escorts” for him.
Khesanh 0802:
"I went to high school with McCaffrey"
That's interesting.
"Of course, he gets credit for a substantial victory over a fifth rate enemy, but he did win."
As he himself said, asked about a post-ceasefire engagement he didn't start, but finished lopsidedly: We weren't looking for a fair fight.
Clooney and Damon are guilty of the same thing.
Forget about parsing their words. Just assume they're lying.
So many Sgt. Schultzes, so little time.
I didn't necessarily believe him quite honestly, because to believe him would be to believe the worst of some actresses who were friends of mine.
If someone was accusing your friends of "the worst" would you not discuss it with them? If true, perhaps you should reevaluate your friendship. If not, perhaps you should be a friend and warn them.
If you truly didn't believe Harvey, wouldn't it be even easier to ask them about it? Isn't that what a true friend would do?
Based on his actions, these were some actresses he didn't give a shit about.
Ann Althouse said...
"But Damon and Clooney are very powerful men. They should have done something."
What, exactly? Punched him? Called a cop? Sued him? Had a word with him? Bought him a drink? Introduced him to their daughters? What? What?
It probably not smart to get in the middle of a he said/she said. And what man wants to get involved in the sex life of another man.
Don Juan in both the original play by Tirso de Molina (El Burlador de Sevilla) and in Mozarts/Da Pontes "Don Giovanni" he isn't just a seducer, not in the modern sense. Don Giovanni covers just the latter half of Molina's play btw.
His MO on his more benevolent side was to make offers of marriage in exchange for sex, a civil tort, at least, and seduction of this sort was itself was a felony. His worst was outright rape, and murder/manslaughter.
I have a friend who is a rabbi that studied in LA, as well as NY and Israel. His opinion is that things are much much worse in Hollywood than most people imagine. He met older seminary students in LA who were there to "cleanse themselves."
BTW, he is a devoted liberal and would not vote for a Republican unless Louie Farrakhan were the Dem nominee. Al Sharpton? Maybe.
"But Damon and Clooney are very powerful men. They should have done something."
What, exactly? Punched him? Called a cop? Sued him? Had a word with him? Bought him a drink? Introduced him to their daughters? What? What?
Taken their movies elsewhere so the women working on them wouldn't have to put up with an abusive asshole.
How about that as an opener?
I have often thought that a neighborhood is as safe as the adult men who live there require it to be. Hollywood is an example.
I don't think anyone has accused powerful figures like Eastwood. . . .
Oh dear, where to begin. Begin with Eastwood's relationship with actress Sondra Locke. Give it a Goog.
Yikes.
It probably not smart to get in the middle of a he said/she said. And what man wants to get involved in the sex life of another man.
He said the women were his friends. He said Harvey was an asshole. Assuming both statement are true, the math isn't that difficult.
And Streep, hoping beyond hope that the obvious doesn’t become a story.
Nice try you dirty celebrity fucks. You're tainted and I'll happily presume you're nearly as guilty.
Gooooood luck next time you try and lecture any of us backward hicks about, well, anything.
Eastwood had his adventures with Sandra Locke but I never heard of him molesting actresses.
I think he left them well fucked and got few complaints.
He does have almost as many kids as an NBA star, though.
Kevin said...
"Taken their movies elsewhere so the women working on them wouldn't have to put up with an abusive asshole.
How about that as an opener?"
Maybe there were lots of people who refused to have anything to do with Harvey Weinstein. And for some reason you have never heard of a single one of them.
Have you recently taken your job elsewhere, because you didn't like the guy paying your salary? How did that work out for you?
Stars like these guys and Meryl Streep are the ones who put Weinstein in the position of power that he held. I'm sympathetic to the argument that policing other peoples' sex lives is problematic, but they didn't have to lionize the son of a bitch. At the very least, given that they had to have heard the more salacious rumors (and pe Damon, knew first hand of his aggressive nature), they should have quietly stopped working for him and he'd have faded into obscurity.
Damon didn't have to arm-twist a reporter into killing a story critical of HW.
Damon -- and Cloony, and Streep, among many others -- are Hollywood machers, at least equally as powerful as Weinstein. They could said something, done something, made moves behind the scenes to curb Weinstein's behavior.
Hell, they could have hired someone to "have a heart-to-heart talk" with Weinstein.
I'm talking a conversation on the order of, "Nice little movie production studio you got here, Harv, be a shame if anything were to happen to it -- or to its owner."
You think I'm kidding? In the neighborhood I grew up in, if the men knew that some manager or boss was treating their wives / daughters / sisters / girlfriends like Weinstein treated actresses, they would have taken it upon themselves to set the guy straight. That process would likely not have been painless to the offending party.
In the tenement apartment near Cavalry Cemetery (Chicago) my family lived in, there was a guy who rented out the garage directly beneath the bedroom I shared with my brothers. He was a pervert photographer who took porn pics of women and developed the film in the garage. He had a cot and a hot plate in the garage, he was living there more or less. One fine day the garage was ransacked and he disappeared, vanished into thin air as it were. Never did know what became of him and our dads didn't tell us. But there were rumors. Hoo-boy, were there rumors.
I'm not saying this was the course of action that should have been taken against HW. But there are other ways to convince dirtbags to stop being dirtbags, and the Damons and Clooneys and Streeps certainly could have availed themselves of them, without fear of reprisal.
But they didn't.
But there are other ways to convince dirtbags to stop being dirtbags, and the Damons and Clooneys and Streeps certainly could have availed themselves of them, without fear of reprisal.
But they didn't.
Hell, all they needed to do, singularly or together, was have a press conference and announce:" I will no longer work on any project associated with Harvey Weinstein because I object to the way he treats women.", and they would have been heroes. The only possible reason I can come up with not to do so is because everyone else really was doing it, and outing Weinstein wouldn't make a difference.
Gahrie:
Yep.
Actors don't actually have to be brave and honest and true. They just have to appear to be brave while striking heroic poses on the screen. The mask has slipped. They're not so brave and they can't even protect the women and children they work with. I don't think they realize how bad this scandal makes them look. Clooney can no longer pretend to be knowledgeable and informed about the problems in South Sudan while at the same time claiming ignorance about the doings of his coworkers on set. Ditto with Damon and his balanced, informed judgement on the problems associated with fracking. These guys are claiming shrewdness and wisdom in fields where they are,at best, dilettantes and asking us to take their word that they were completely hoodwinked by a guy like Harvey. They're phonies on one or both sides of this equation.......Well, a trained actor can fake sincerity and wisdom and courage. What's difficult to fake is fuckability. Both actors remain good looking, and their female fans will probably stick with them. They know how to craft and manage images. Maybe they'll figure a way out of this mess. Softball interviews won't do it for me though.
I guess what's bothering me about this, is that it's a typical case of women having it both ways. If you kill someone, that's murder. It doesn't matter if they signed a contract saying you could do it. You better not do it, 'cause it's against the law. But if you pat someone on the ass, that's only a crime if they say it is. Now, that makes sense, given the realities of human existence. But it is evident that such a prerogative can and will be abused. It's not that women want never to be patted on the ass. It's that they want to let some men pat them on the ass because they like it, and other men pat them on the ass in exchange for a part in a movie, and other men to go to prison for even thinking about patting them on the ass. But they still want that part, in the movie. What they really want, of course, is everything they want, just the way they want it.
Woman A says, I want to be an actress, and I think I should be judged by my suitability for the part, not my willingness to have sex with an ogre. Well and good. But woman B says, "Where's the ogre?"
How are we supposed to intrude in this situation?
Maybe these two very different kinds of women should find some way to make their feelings clear. A button, or a particular style of dress.
"What they really want, of course, is everything they want, just the way they want it." And, per Althouse, for men not to want what women don't want.
Setting aside the actual rapes (if true) if HW was as good looking as George Clooney would these woman be complaining? Ugly Harvey, gross, yuck I had to barter my body for a role. Good looking Harvey, just friends with benefits.
I got the impression that Harvey's looks may have been what Clooney meant when saying that the "affairs" meant the worst from the actresses-IOW he was so repulsive that of course any sexual relationship they might have had with him was based on a quid pro quo.
ARM: "As one of few who questions the assumptions of the many here, .."
But never the assumptions of the othet many elsewhere.
Unexpectedly.
Take this thread, ARM, and tell me which of your comments question assumptions?
What kind of women were silenced by his money? It seems we already know, but they are just haggling over the price now.
I am 100% against sexual assault. But this, on the other hand, is the New Puritanism.
"One woman recounted that while she was attempting to fact-check a column Mr. Wieseltier wrote, he forced her to look at a photograph of a nude sculpture in an art book, asking her if she had ever seen a more erotic picture. She wrote that she was shaken and afraid during the incident."
Was it really just ten years ago that they were making fun of John Ashcroft for draping a coverlet over a nude statue?
Women: brave enough for combat roles, but not brave enough for art books?
Post a Comment