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.


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 207 of 207
tim in vermont said...

Young actresses in Hollywood are like young boys in Afghanistan.

Bad Lieutenant said...

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.
10/9/17, 10:56 AM

So...Unknown-89: threat, or menace?

Maybe you don't know how that sounded.

Sam said...

I lived with a studio publicist in NYC for almost 10 years. Her clients as a personal publicist (prior to going to work for the studio) included a number of well-known actors and directors who made pictures with Weinstein, and she’d had dealings with Harvey in person. I flew over to Venice one summer from a work trip in France to join up with her at the tail end of the Film Festival. I remember seeing the infamous Harvey Weinstein at the head of a big table a few tables away from our schmucky little 2-top. The thing is, to me (through her) he was notorious for his terrible temper and mistreatment of those who worked for him as a generic verbally abusive asshole boss. Nothing to do with him being a pig or a sexual harasser. Not that he wasn’t, just that maybe not EVERYBODY knew EVERYTHING. I do vividly remember that people were freaking scared of him though. It’s possible too that the few anecdotes of sexual harassment that trickled out to me didn’t stand out against the background of terrible terrible behavior at the time.

So hate on Meryl Streep all you like, Ann: she can take it, and lord knows there’s plenty for someone to hate who’s inclined to hate her. As, golly! you apparently are, Ann, I have to say. But your prosecutorial zeal seems a bit overblown to me.

Sam said...

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.

Ha, Michael, that’s my basic beef about Trump: people think he’s a ‘builder.’ He just played one on TV. He’s ‘talent’ — very talented, to be sure — not a producer. But he’s sure got you moths fluttering happily about his flame.

Delayna said...

Two words: Joe Paterno.

Rusty said...

"Ha, Michael, that’s my basic beef about Trump: people think he’s a ‘builder.’ He just played one on TV. He’s ‘talent’ — very talented, to be sure — not a producer. But he’s sure got you moths fluttering happily about his flame. "

Jaysus! And wouldn't you be liken that excuse though.
For the umpteenth time. You're dealing with a Trump presidency because you clowns insisted on running Clinton and managed to eliminate any other viable Republican candidate. Trump is all on you and the fun for the rest of us is watching you guys try and twist it into something you can understand. By denigrating anybody who didn't vote for Hillary.
Trump is the vehicle you dope. He isn't the end product. He's a means to and end. A viable republic is the goal.
It's like you guys are thick or something.

ken in tx said...

Meryl Streep is a great actress, but she is not that hot. Harvey didn't hit on her. At least he had some standards.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 207 of 207   Newer› Newest»