That makes Michaels look like he's overly familiar with sexual harassment or that he thinks it's sophisticated to condone it. Why would he want to look like that?
Meanwhile, at The Wrap, Sharon Waxman tells about her work at the NYT, back in 2004, preparing an exposé about Weinstein...
I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.... I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts....Was that "a New York thing"?
The story I reported never ran. 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 stripped of any reference to sexual favors or coercion and buried on the inside of the Culture section, an obscure story about Miramax firing an Italian executive. Who cared?
Is Harvey Weinstein a freakish outlier, or was he doing what many other powerful men are doing?
I've been doing a lot of posts on Weinstein, and one type of comment I've been seeing minimizes the importance of what he's doing because it's just business as usual — the way it's always been. Like I'm unsophisticated to care. Like I just don't get a New York thing.
But it's more important if it's systemic and widespread. It's not enough to kick out Weinstein because he went too far and his story finally made it into print. Let's get the whole story out in the open, the story that includes all the covering for Weinstein, including all the bias injected by men who were keen on preserving male privilege and the subordination of women — in the entertainment business, in journalism, and in politics.
Posts
237 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 237 of 237I think I'm putting together a picture of what's happening here.
This "outing" of Harvey Weinstein was orchestrated probably by his brother Bob, but also by those around him or the board at the Weinstein Corp. HW is 64. My guess is that, even by HW's standards, something recently snapped, & mentally he just went over the edge. My guess is that his behavior was becoming more & more outrageous, including credible threats of violence.
The brother & board wanted him out, so they used the closest weapon at hand to use against a 21st C liberal -- sexual exploitation. Racial would have been better, but HW seems clean on that score, so they went with what they knew they had hundreds of examples. BW probably scouted around until he found someone like Rose McGowan who'd come forward, & he promised her that 1) they were planning to take HW out of the business for good & 2) the Weinstein Corp would give her all the support & protection it could. After McGowan & Ashley Judd came forward, it was clear to the rest that the dike had sprung a leak, & it was okay to come forward.
Things are not going well for the Weinstein Corp. Creditors calling & past funding partners no longer taking HW calls may have just drove him over the bend, & he snapped. My guess is that the Weinstein Corp's creditors, stockholders, board members, & business partners told Bob that Harvey goes or they're done. So, Harvey went.
>I think I'm putting together a picture of what's happening here.
I believe that you're painting a very credible picture.
I'm dubious about the national politics connection, since it's not going to tar the Democrats. It's unlikely that Streep heard no rumors, but Hillary could make the same claim plausibly.
@YoungHegelian
I initially thought it was a power move to signal donors to distance themselves from Hillary. And a veiled threat to Hillary herself. Look what happens when we remove the Media Shield. Now, I'm not so sure. Perhaps Weinstein was removed for the reasons you cited and was used to send a signal.
ARM wrote: On what planet? It was a direct statement, refutable only if you believe that the Obamas had no other options for finding an internship for their daughter - an unlikely premise for further argument.
Totally and easily refutable. "Clearly the Obama's didn't know or they would not have sent their daughter to work in his firm.” That's an assertion without evidence, therefore it can be refuted without evidence. Nevertheless, I'll give you some. 1) The NYT sat on this story for 13 years. The Times spiked it in 2004 because the Democrats feared political repercussions in an election year. The story could have broken once again in 2008 but didn't. Why? Obama was winning without it; there was no need to poison the well. 2) No woman of color has since come forward with an accusation against HW, ergo it is probable that his appetite did not include both oysters and snails. 3) Mali enjoyed Secret Service protection, therefore whatever evil Weinstein may have committed in his heart, the First Daughter could safely perform the internship. 4) Being a steady source of funding HW was a treated as a friend — he was always included in the White House social calendar, and while on vacation in the Vineyard the former President often played golf with Weinstein. The Obamas didn't ostracize HW because the political costs far outweighted the political benefits.
There were no political costs. Obama couldn't run again and he was the fucking president, he didn't need Weinstein, who is not that rich, for anything. Stupid arguments.
he didn't need Weinstein, who is not that rich
$150,000,000 seems pretty rich to me. But I am often surprised how small some of these donations are considering what the donors expect in return. Probably the real money is coming in from back channels.
Bay Area Guy, you win the thread.
That makes Michaels look like he's overly familiar with sexual harassment or that he thinks it's sophisticated to condone it. Why would he want to look like that?
Maybe Michaels is mourning the end of his own casting couch privileges, or he feels he may be exposed next. And he's probably upset that the best he could do while running SNL was Julia Sweeney, Molly Shannon, and Al Franken.
>And he's probably upset that the best he could do while running SNL was Julia Sweeney, Molly Shannon, and Al Franken.
Now, if Michaels had said this, I'd have some grudging respect for him.
Weinstein got taken down because Hillary lost the election.
Bill and Hillary don't have the power anymore. Maybe some Democrats are starting to think about winning an election.
Georgia 6 showed that all the money in the world did not wipe away stench. I think a couple of Democrats are figuring this out.
Not many, but some.
Good to see ARM sticking up for the Rich Democratic ally vs the poor starving female.
In ARM's world, if you're a Democrat, you can sexually harass or rape any woman.
He always shows up to defend any Democrat under attack at the Althouse blog after all.
Maybe he starts every Monday morning after clocking in 430 South capitol Street, to come onto the Althouse Blog to defend every Democratic Party malfeasance. After all, when has he NOT defended a Democratic Party politico or ally in trouble?
ARM supports Rep. Weiner's sexting, after all, he was a D who supported Clinton.
Bears no relationship to what I actually wrote, which is that Althouse is eliding the issues of the day.
"It's a New York thing"--really? I'm not sure what Lorne Michaels meant by that, and it sounds like a smokescreen to me; but (unlike Mr. Michaels, a Canadian transplant) I'm from NYC--born and bred--and spent most of my adult life in Manhattan; and if not making a joke to spare someone's feelings is a New York thing. it somehow escaped my notice.
Of course, NYC has changed a lot since I lived there (the last time I was up there I was in Planet of the Cell Phones, surrounded by twenty- and thirty-somethings who seemed glued to their cell phones; so maybe the old take-no-prisoners attitude is no longer a New York thing. But to me Trump's pugnacity--that "punch back, twice as hard" attitude--is much more of a New York thing than tippy-toeing around offending someone because they're rich and powerful.
But ARM, you say that every time.
This is not your first rodeo defending a Democrat in trouble.
But you haven't denied that a Democrat ally or politico can rape or harass a prole girl or woman in your world. In fact, every time it happens on the Althouse Blog, you are there to defend the Democrat, either for sexting an underage girl or sexual harassment or other issues.
Every time.
If you see any photos of Weinstein, you can see that No Way in Hell could he ever get attractive women to have sex with him without paying them outright or using his power as a studio head to do a some casting-couch quid pro quo.
I was amused when I was watching the CBS news yesterday with a Jewish friend of mine, a lady "of a certain age," very intelliogent, but pretty out of touch with current celebrities and celebrity scandals. When the newscast went into the Harvey Weinstein story and showed his photo, she exclaimed, "Ugggh!!! Who the hell is that!?" I explained a little about Mr. Weinstein and t5he scandal, and she was dismayed. "He's a walking embodiment every anti-Semite's caricature of a fat, ugly, sleazy Jew!"
Weinstein has nice eyes.
Find an example of me defending either Weinstein or the other guy. If you can't then you are full of it.
Weinstein and the other guy are indefensible, as is your argument.
ARM,
Your M.O. is to deflect from the post at han with a "whataboutism,"
You always come in first with a non sequitur to defend a Democrat in trouble....like Weinstein.
Then you move the conversation to another subject unrelated to AA's post.
Thus, you defend Weinstein and Weiner by use of "whataboutism,"
Every time.
Just look at how fast you came onto this post.
This whole post is an example of you defending Weinstein.
Until you got called out, you didn't care what he did.
There has been 15 posts on Weinstein, I have commented on one. Your argument lies in ruins.
I agree that this is wrong. It is an abuse of power, unprofessional, and a poor business decision unless people are willing to cover it up on the basis of your political beliefs.
But I'm uncomfortable with the "sisterhood" approach to the problem. I think HW is disgusting but there may have been women who went into this without reservation for the benefits they hoped to receive. Is it a form of slut shaming to call them to account for their actions? If it is a woman's choice (because it's her body) in regards to abortion, why would we gainsay her on this?
There are so many commenters here, hasn't anyone else ever gotten a job because they fit a type? My second clerking position I was hired because the hiring partner had a type. I didn't find out for a few months until he was in the process of hiring another person. He was always polite and professional but the admins in the office could identify who was going to be hired after seeing them walk in for an interview. It didn't bother me. I was newly married and I needed the income and the experience. When I passed the bar they offered me a job and I happily took it.
This is nothing on the level of what HW did, but it's probably more prevalent. It doesn't leave me inclined to cast stones at the women who were fine with what happened. The women who felt coerced or demeaned were victims and you don't blame the victim.
Ashley Judd protests Trump with a pussy hat and a vulgar poem... because Trump said something over a decade ago that she found offensive.
Harvey Weinstein actually harassed her with unwelcome sexual advances ....and
No jokes from SNL.
Harvey Weinstein actually harassed her with unwelcome sexual advances ....and
...she didn't push it because she faced the prospect of actual loss.
There are so many commenters here, hasn't anyone else ever gotten a job because they fit a type?
No one is against that. We're against the three people who fit the type being asked to pleasure the boss to see who gets hired. We're against the type being "someone who will agree to my sexual demands".
And if you're one of the people on this thread who thinks that's perfectly OK by consenting adults. Then I respond, then they won't have any problem when it's made public how they got the job.
If they did it willingly and without reservation and remorse, they should own up to it so their fellow actors and actresses know why the powerful people felt it was within reasonable business practices that they were asked to take off their underwear and lie on the couch as part of the interview.
We have yet to have an actress Tweet how she willingly gave it up to Harvey for the role and would willingly do it again if asked. And I doubt we will.
>Find an example of me defending either Weinstein or the other guy.
>There has been 15 posts on Weinstein, I have commented on one. Your argument lies in ruins.
This has got to be the most inept attempt at moving the goalposts I've ever seen.
I'm curious about how agents fit into this.
If I were a young actress, or if one of my kids wanted to get into the business, no way in hell do I, or they, she up for a meeting, interview, or audition without someone who represents my interests, and who acts in the same capacity as a nurse or assistant during a medical exam.
I imagine that some young people can't afford to hire an agent before they get their first role, but some of these women like Ashley Judd grew up in the business. And even if you're a starving young unknown, find a friend to go with you and introduce him as your agent.
I'm curious about how agents fit into this.
They are the pimps. They tell the women that Harvey might do something inappropriate, but they'd better take as much of it as they can because if they refuse to harshly or say anything afterward they will never work in this town again.
It is my sincere desire that all the enablers will be outed in this process so the cancer can be completely excised from the industry.
The argument was that I always rush to the defense of the Weinsteins of the world, when in fact I have never defended him and didn't even comment on the first 14 posts on this topic. My only reason to post at all was to attempt an intervention on Althouse's part, since she seemed to have developed monomania.
@Kevin: yes, that's how I see it as well. What's more, as someone mentioned upthread, I suspect that a lot of children, male and female, are being groomed and abused as well and that is sickening.
No one is talking yet about the other elephant in the room. The elephant that Hollywood has become a one-party town and that ostracizing people for their political views is a great example to people who might make sexual harassment allegations against the same powerful people.
If the people at the top will blacklist a screenwriter for voting for Romney, what do you think they'd do to a young actress who complained about her treatment at an audition?
And once everyone is getting in bed with one political party, it makes taking down selected members a greater cost to the causes one holds dear.
As the Chinese say: "Kill the chicken to frighten the monkey."
I suspect that a lot of children, male and female, are being groomed and abused as well and that is sickening.
There are plenty of child actors and actresses who have been abused over the years. I hope they won't be lost in this round of bloodletting.
Kevin - that's why Hollywood is really Hillarywood.
Corrupt, leftwing, asshole - the whole enchilada.
"Several women have come forward alleging that Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood, political, and media mogul, sexually assaulted them. One of them is former Fox News host Lauren Sivan. She sat down with her former colleague, Megyn Kelly, to discuss the incident.
She describes how he (allegedly) lured her downstairs at a restaurant he owned and tried to kiss her. After she rejected his lustful approach, he blocked her exit and told her to just stand there. He then masturbated in front of her. She said, "It was disgusting, and kind of pathetic."
Weinstein, who was an integral part of the Miramax studio and later founded The Weinstein Company, has been dismissed from the movie studio he helped found. The board declared his actions and related comments to be not in keeping with their company's goals and mission.
A reminder -- this is a person who has held fundraisers for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. This is a person whom Michelle Obama called "a wonderful human being." "
He's wonderful, because big bucks for dems
You want a just society? This story has to be told in the light, and Harvey needs to be treated just as would some other unfortunate impetuous nobody who like Harvey also has no self-control.
Like Trump, for instance.
There's no business like show business I know .... Hey the codes are all fractured. Twisted and bent by the sixties man, so now there's no innocence left for those who might have adhered to some naive notion of honorable behavior. Do your own thing man forget those middle class square ideas of propriety and polity. Live like the aristos, fucking like alley cats while maintaining in public the great New Puritan standards of loving mother earth and your fellow man, especially those not like you from afar of course and anyway they could never breach the gates of my community. Could they?
There are no aristos like the hollywood aristos: Roundheeled women and swinging dick men with manicures of course.
Did SNL ever joke about Carols Danger /Anthony Weiner?
I doubt it.
So I'm supposed to be scandalized that one of the fat greasy degenerates in DC, uh, sorry, Hollywood does things like, say, waylaying women in the halls of a private venue so he can wank into potted plants in their presence?
HEY!!! Have you seen my movie?
https://youtu.be/FWx6IsqPUKk
I don't remember if HW and I worked together on this one, but talk about HOMAGE!
Post a Comment