October 20, 2017

"What I did was marginalize the incidents. Anything I say now will sound like a crappy excuse."

Said Quentin Tarantino, accepting responsibility for continuing to work with Harvey Weinstein. Tarantino knew some — who could know all? — of what Weinstein did. He made choices that were in his self-interest at the time, and it has now become so obvious — Mira Sorvino was his girlfriend — that it's also in his self-interest to do a mea culpa now.

Here's the article about him, in the NYT.
“I knew enough to do more than I did,” he said, citing several episodes involving prominent actresses. “There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn’t secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things.”

“I wish I had taken responsibility for what I heard,” he added. “If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have had to not work with him.”
Done the work? Is that psychotherapy talk or is he using the term in some other way? He admits that anything he says now sounds like a crappy excuse, so he knows "if I had done the work" is a crappy excuse.

I think, reading the article carefully, that "done the work" means that he should have taken the parts of the story he knew were real — Sorvino, Rose McGowan, and another actress the NYT doesn't name — and inferred the existence of "a larger pattern of abuse." I'm sorry, I don't believe that 3 solid data points plus all the rumors don't force an intelligent person to hypothesize that there is a modus operandi. I think Tarantino would have had to have done work to distance himself from the obvious and to view the 3 things he knew as isolated instances.

I put the right 2 sentences in the post title. He tells us the "work" he did: "What I did was marginalize the incidents."
When Mr. Tarantino read the articles about Mr. Weinstein, he was horrified by the scope and severity of the alleged abuse, especially the rape accusations, he said. But some of the accounts were deeply familiar to him. “Everyone who was close to Harvey had heard of at least one of those incidents” chronicled in the first few articles, he said. “It was impossible they didn’t.”
Everyone who was close to Harvey facilitated him. 
Now Mr. Tarantino said he regretted not taking the women’s stories seriously enough. “I chalked it up to a ’50s-’60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk,” he said. “As if that’s O.K. That’s the egg on my face right now.”
Oh, please! He's talking about the late 90s, four decades after the era of laughing at the image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk. The use of the corny old expression "egg on my face" is a tell. There's no way he wasn't up to speed on what sexual harassment and sexual assault are. I cared about his movies back then. "Pulp Fiction." "Jackie Brown." If I had thought at the time that he had the mindset he's now claiming to have had, I wouldn't have been interested in that idiot's movies. But he is not an idiot. He's a man who did what was in his interest then, and he's doing what's in his interest now. 
Asked how the news about Mr. Weinstein would affect how the public views his own record and body of work, Mr. Tarantino paused. “I don’t know,” he said. “I hope it doesn’t.”
It does.

"I hope it doesn't" is the last sentence of the article, and I wondered whether the NYT, having given the man a nice platform for his mea culpa, was ending with a nudge to the reader to react the way I did: This changes the meaning of your movies.

But one thing makes me think this was not the intent of the NYT: They've disallowed comments.

ADDED: The NYT does allow comments on its other big Harvey-Weinstein-related interview published the same day, "Lupita Nyong’o: Speaking Out About Harvey Weinstein."

Why doesn't Lupita Nyong’o get the same protection from comments undercutting her opinion that the NYT gave Tarantino? What bargaining goes on behind the scenes as these famous names give their stories to the newspaper? Maybe the difference is just that Nyong'o will be seen as a victim and the prediction was that comments will praise her for her courage in telling her story now, but Tarantino looks like a facilitator and there was a real risk that commenters would say things like what I've said here.

Nyong'o concedes that she was part of "the conspiracy of silence that has allowed this predator to prowl for so many years." Her excuse is that she "felt very much alone" and "blamed myself for a lot of it," but now can tell her story because she can see it and explain it as "part of [Weinstein's] sinister pattern of behavior."
Harvey led me into a bedroom — his bedroom — and announced that he wanted to give me a massage.... I began to massage his back to buy myself time to figure out how to extricate myself from this undesirable situation. Before long he said he wanted to take off his pants. I told him not to do that and informed him that it would make me extremely uncomfortable. He got up anyway to do so and I headed for the door... I opened the door and stood by the frame. He put his shirt on and again mentioned how stubborn I was. I agreed with an easy laugh, trying to get myself out of the situation safely. I was after all on his premises, and the members of his household, the potential witnesses, were all (strategically, it seems to me now) in a soundproof room....

I didn’t quite know how to process the massage incident. I reasoned that it had been inappropriate and uncalled-for, but not overtly sexual. I was entering into a business where the intimate is often professional and so the lines are blurred.....

[On another occasion, at some bar or restaurant in NYC] Harvey arrived and the assistant immediately disappeared... [H]e announced: “Let’s cut to the chase. I have a private room upstairs where we can have the rest of our meal.” I was stunned. I told him I preferred to eat in the restaurant. He told me not to be so naïve. If I wanted to be an actress, then I had to be willing to do this sort of thing. He said he had dated Famous Actress X and Y and look where that had gotten them.
She declined, and he backed off, saying "Then I guess we are two ships passing in the night,"* an expression she'd never heard before. He told her to go, and she did. She worried that he would hurt her career, but she offers no evidence that he did. Not long afterward, Nyong'o appeared in the movie "12 Years a Slave," and she won an Oscar. She never worked on a Weinstein project. She adopted a "survival plan" of "avoid[ing] Harvey and men like him at all costs." And that plan worked for her, but now she wants to be part of "a sisterhood — and brotherhood of allies" that can outweigh the power of individuals like Weinstein.

I wrote all that before reading any comments. They do — as I think the NYT could predict — praise Nyong'o lavishly. The top-rated comment is: "What an incredible young woman who can say, 'I would not be able to sleep at night if I did what you are asking...' This is exactly what a mother wants in a role model for her daughter. Absolutely brilliant."

______________________

* Is this — like "egg on my face" — a Hollywood thing? When they need to get some distance, do Hollywood guys use corny clichés? Do they retreat into blatant uncoolness or is this some kind of ironic hipster pose? By the way, "ships that pass in the night" originates in a Longfellow poem, "Tales of Tales of a Wayside Inn/Part Third/The Theologian’s Tale/Elizabeth":
Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing,
Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness;
So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another,
Only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence.

137 comments:

America's Politico said...

Prof:

Excellent analysis as usual. I wish you were a columnist for NYT or WSJ or WashPost.

Anyway, a prediction. NYT's Jodi Kantor will get Pulitzer next year. Also, DJT will not run in 2020; he will be scared now. The next POTUS is increasingly Liz Warren.

Cheers!

Dave Begley said...

La La Land was great. America wants more movies like that. Not QT's sewer. We don't like him.

rhhardin said...

Now Mr. Tarantino said he regretted not taking the women’s stories seriously enough.

It's the problem of what the hell do you have to say to women when they go nuts.

There are time-control plots where the guy gets to try several versions until one works.

Other than that guys don't care.

It's all moves within the war of men and women.

Kevin said...

“Everyone who was close to Harvey had heard of at least one of those incidents” chronicled in the first few articles, he said. “It was impossible they didn’t.”

People like Matt Damon and Meryl Streep.

David Baker said...

I believe one must climb into the liberal mind to understand people like Weinstein, Tarantino, and all of Hollywood. That everyone, including Mira Sorvino, is "fair" game, thus to wallow in such absolute permissiveness; Come on, Harv, get into the bed, there's plenty here for both of us.

Which may also explain the second law of permissiveness (ie liberalism), that the "victim" goes along with it - as repulsive as that may seem.



Dave Begley said...

QT just adds to a cultural degredation. Murder. Drugs. Fun!

RNB said...

Has anyone made the comparison between Hollywood and 'Good Germans' yet? Hitting the Godwin Barrier in 3... 2... 1...

rhhardin said...

I liked Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, not that I've rewatched them. The one where the lady is a nagging bitch summarily shot by the thug for it was a great moment, like punching out the horse in Blazing Saddles was, when that used to be funny at a younger age.

Unaffected.

Snark said...

There’s a criminal investigation now in LA. Is it standard at the NYT to disallow comments when there is a related criminal matter? I don’t know, but it is at other online news sources I haunt.

It’s against my instincts to hang too much on any individual in these situations. Over and over we see patterns of looking down or away in situations where large, interconnected bodies should have acted differently. The Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Penn State, the BBC, the CBC, Fox News, Hollywood, others - all looked at as distinct failures of individuals or a particular internal culture. The more logical conclusion is that the problem is generalized human behaviour under similar pressures, and the more useful approach is to understand and talk about why the group as a whole responded as it did rather than holding up individuals for scorn. If that worked we wouldn’t have organization after organization failing in the same way despite the very public lessons of those that went before them.

Skyler said...

It seems unrealistic to expect Tarantino to behave in a moral manner. Is there anyone who thinks he is a paragon of virtue? Is there anyone who would say he has anything approaching normal values?

Save us your lame apologia, Quentin. We know what you are, it’s on display in all your works.

rhhardin said...

and the more useful approach is to understand and talk about why the group as a whole responded as it did

Sometimes what the accepted line about life is does not in fact correspond to what life is. The line is there because women want you to appear to agree.

There's always a war between men and women. They interact. Suspicions, grudges, narcissistic postures, fears, needs, desires.

The goal is domestication not elimination.

Feminism ought to be accepting the deals women make as their deals. Prosecute crimes as crimes and forget the rest.

A rape is not a deal.

Snark said...

Seeing this primarily as a personal failure of individuals is a missed opportunity. It’s the difference between, for example, seeing the people nearby during the murder of Kitty Genovese as callous or morally flawed instead of developing an understanding of the bystander effect. The latter gives us collective tools to understand and push back against an instinct that harms others and ourselves, while the former prepares us for nothing and teaches us even less.

Nice said...

I just love celebrity acts of contrition---crafted by their lawyers. This apology is very confusing. (or is that the point?) He's sorry for what he only "heard", or ---what he may have "known" but thought it was just a game and thus didn't take seriously ???

I keep thinking about the Jeff Katzenberg/Molly Ringwald: He's sorry about what she had to read that was mistakenly attributed to him, but he never said. Cleverly vague.

Rae said...

The the corrupt media out in Hollywood are trying to make it through untouched. Remember, "everybody" knew about this. Yet nobody but Farrow had the guts to investigate.

rhhardin said...

Farrow was motivated to get Harvey. A vendetta.

He spotted the possibility of a mob virtue cascade. He may not have expected the guillotines.

Bob Boyd said...

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important
They don't mean to do harm
But the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
T. S. Eliot

Nice said...

My understanding is that the NYT had always used to routinely edit out comments that didn't fit the narrative they were going for. Maybe their budget has dried up and they no longer have money to pay moderators?

Ann Althouse said...

"It's the problem of what the hell do you have to say to women when they go nuts."

Why not think of women as real human beings from the start? There's really nothing to say once it's too late and you are exposed. It's your own hell, and it's good for you to notice where you are.

Karen of Texas said...

""I chalked it up to a ’50s-’60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk,” ...

Oh, please! He's talking about the late 90s, four decades after the era of laughing at the image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk."

Professor, I read that as him purposely crafting an image in his head that was a dismissive, 'cartoonish' image so that he could justify not taking any action. "That Harvey. Just like those idiot schlubs who chased their pretty secretaries around the desk - and failed."

Ann Althouse said...

America's Politico said...
Prof:

Excellent analysis as usual. I wish you were a columnist for NYT or WSJ or WashPost.

Anyway, a prediction. NYT's Jodi Kantor will get Pulitzer next year. Also, DJT will not run in 2020; he will be scared now. The next POTUS is increasingly Liz Warren.

Cheers!


1. Cheers!

2. It's nice to see the return of America's Politico, complete with the confident predictions about future elections we know and love here at Althouse.

3. "Increasingly Liz Warren" should be the name of a TV sit-com, like "Suddenly Susan."

4. Remember "Suddenly Bissage"? Perhaps a blog called "Increasingly America's Politico" could fill the gap left when Bissage disappeared.

5. Wishing I were a columnist for NYT or WSJ or WashPost is like contemplating killing the goose that laid the golden egg. What Althouse is is a blog. You can't unscramble that omelette.

rhhardin said...

Why not think of women as real human beings from the start? There's really nothing to say once it's too late and you are exposed. It's your own hell, and it's good for you to notice where you are.

They're real human beings with crazy brain wiring.

Something happens in the news that upsets your gf and there's no sex that night. Is that rational?

No sex for a week after Nixon resigned. A father figure, apparently.

rhhardin said...

Althouse represents the crazy women's point of view on these things. That's valuable.

rhhardin said...

Men's brain wiring is also crazy, especially when it comes to women. It's put there to make women attractive. In fact they are attractive, as a result.

So men also accommodate women, but a lot of it is not what they're inclined to think. They know better than to say it, is all.

Men realize that their brain wiring is crazy in that regard. That logical gap can be moved around, and is the source of humor that women don't fine funny.

Ann Althouse said...

"I believe one must climb into the liberal mind to understand people like Weinstein, Tarantino, and all of Hollywood. That everyone, including Mira Sorvino, is "fair" game, thus to wallow in such absolute permissiveness; Come on, Harv, get into the bed, there's plenty here for both of us."

How far is the Weinstein thing going to take us? Nyong'o's story is of a man trying to use his power and fame to seduce a woman. He stops when she says no, and he loses interest in her when she's not up for sex with zero seduction. If the #metoo includes all that...

rhhardin said...

The inherent contraditions arising between men and women are much more interesting and human than enforcing the party line of the day about men and women.

It sort of goes along with let them make their own deals and prosecute the non-deals.

rhhardin said...

trying to use his power

I wish I could get people to see power is not a thing. Think phlogiston and fire. A reification error. If there's a word then there must be a thing.

Quaestor said...

It's nice to see the return of America's Politico, complete with the confident predictions about future elections we know and love here at Althouse.

Warren is either greatly elated or severely depressed at the news.

rhhardin said...

The problem is women using their power to manipulate Harvey.

rhhardin said...

Harvey has an unusually susceptible brain. Probably it helps with producing movies.

David Begley said...

Trump is absolutely fearless. He runs for reelection. Liz Warren? Please.

donald said...

You forgot the public education system Snark.

Well, I'm bet you didn't forget the single largest violator of young people, just wouldn't be prudent I suppose.

Paco Wové said...

Another beautiful day here at Weinhouse. What's that? It turns out an industry legendary for being full of scumbags is, indeed, full of scumbags? Well, color my face red!

rhhardin said...

What keeps women from realizing their brain wiring is crazy. Men can do it with theirs.

MikeR said...

"What an incredible young woman who can say, 'I would not be able to sleep at night if I did what you are asking...' This is exactly what a mother wants in a role model for her daughter. Absolutely brilliant." Jeepers. We don't usually shower people with praise for stories they tell about themselves. We wait till someone else tells about their selfless heroics, someone who has no ulterior motive for making them sound good.

Ann Althouse said...

"Professor, I read that as him purposely crafting an image in his head that was a dismissive, 'cartoonish' image so that he could justify not taking any action. "That Harvey. Just like those idiot schlubs who chased their pretty secretaries around the desk - and failed.""

The boss chasing the secretary around the desk was an actually meme in magazine cartoons in the 50s and 60s. It worked back then because it was considered lighthearted before sexual harassment in the workplace came to be regarded as an inequality in working conditions. Yes, no one, seeing those cartoons, thought about the boss catching the secretary and then ripping off her clothes and raping her. (Though I'm sure in dirtier magazines, there were cartoons that too the old meme to that extreme.)

Tarantino was referring to the late 90s. A boss pressuring employees for sex at that time was not someone intelligent Americans would think of as an "idiot schlub." Tarantino is portraying himself as an idiot and hoping we'll buy it. I do not buy it. He is not an idiot. And we shouldn't be idiots either. He's trying to come as clean as he can now so he can escape being caught up in the scandal. But he was a facilitator. He did if out of self-interest, and he has not done enough to extract himself, perhaps because he can't.

Expat(ish) said...

It's interesting me that Fra Althouse is no longer interested in QT's movies now that she knows more about him. I've received endless criticism and commentary for my refusal to see anything by/with Tom Hanks, Woody Allen (I miss re-watching Sleeper!), etc, etc.

I'm happiest when I know *nothing* about the entertainers politics and personal life.

Burt Reynolds has been an exception - I am fonder of him now that I've listened to his biography. And it made me want to learn more about Dinah Shore.

-XC

rhhardin said...

Here's the outline.

I. reality
...A. men and women
......1. war between men and women

Althouse is putting her insights at the top, I. In fact it's an insight within 1, at the bottom.

MikeR said...

I continue to believe that the _continuing_ fuss about Harvey Weinstein - and the #meToo comments about all kinds of annoying male behavior that falls way short of actual harassment - are part of an attempt by Hollywood and the media to stop the rest of us from demanding the names and details on everybody else who does this stuff. #whoElse

Ann Althouse said...

"They're real human beings with crazy brain wiring."

You're the one bringing the crazy here. Don't you believe in evolution? Why do you think female brains are different from male brains in the ways that they seem to be? If you believe in evolution, it doesn't make sense to say "crazy." What is it about your "brain wiring" that makes you impose an insanity template?

Ralph L said...

I wonder why HW let some women escape but allegedly not others.

rhhardin said...

He's trying to come as clean as he can now so he can escape being caught up in the scandal.

What women regard as a scandal.

Ann Althouse said...

"The problem is women using their power to manipulate Harvey."

As usual, you are forgetting to include the women who do not choose sex and the access it brings. You put a frame around part of the picture and describe it.

rhhardin said...

It's crazy in the sense of not logically related to what ought to be reasonable plans of the person.

It's perfect for evolution. Everybody get laid.

A guy will see a woman as crazy in that way, and vice versa. Or perhaps women see guys more importantly as susceptible to seduction, albeit with inexplicable interests in guy stuff.

Chuck said...

How did Althouse blog the series of women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and/or harassment over the years?

In a sworn deposition, Ivana Trump accused The Donald of raping her. (In a fight over Donald's postoperative pain following scalp reduction surgery.) She recanted, after she got her divorce settlement. But then there were others last year. And Trump promised that they would all be sued for their claims. But nothing has happened.


rhhardin said...

As usual, you are forgetting to include the women who do not choose sex and the access it brings. You put a frame around part of the picture and describe it.

There are lots of married women. Not every actress is in films.

Bob Boyd said...

"Tarantino was referring to the late 90s. A boss pressuring employees for sex at that time was not someone intelligent Americans would think of as an "idiot schlub.""

That's right. They'd think of it as presidential. But Tarantino wasn't going to say that.

rhhardin said...

Guys on the other hand are willing to be seduced, so it's not like marriage is a fraud on them. It can be, or it can be the domestication that it seems to offer.

rhhardin said...

Lots of bosses married their secretaries, before assortative mating.

rhhardin said...

Where you have men and women, you have deals.

Ralph L said...

Looks like someone would have gone to Disney management, if only for a payoff. Have they said anything?

Lewis Wetzel said...

What do women bring to the bargaining table other than sex? What do men bring bring to the bargaining table other than money?
People need to grow up. It is a different thing to manage a fallen world than it is to unmake a fallen world.

Quaestor said...

The next POTUS is increasingly Liz Warren.

Hollywood will become hyper-feminist in compensation for Weinstein et al. Of course, Hollywood was feminist before the story broke. Weinstein made all the PC gestures in public, did he not? But we ain't seen nuthin' yet. Production companies will prefer female producers. The producers will buy more scripts from female screenwriters who write about downtrodden women triumphing over their male oppressors. They will hire more female directors and use more elderly talent, like Streep and Close. In spite of their poor box office, Ghostbusters and Wonder Woman will spawn sequel after sequel.

Hollywood will become hyper-feminist. The question is, will feminists be fooled — again?

Nice said...


QT gets a pass, via the NYT. It's a case of separating the artist from his art. "Artists" have always gotten a pass for any number of crazy things they've done, and nothing has changed with the HW scandal.

--Also--

Ann Coulter's take on the whole HW scandal is brilliant. She says the ugly gals were recruited to help pimp out the pretty ones. Revenge of the Ugly girls, according to Coulter. If you were ugly, HW still had a place for you, to keep the pretty ones quiet and in-line. I don't usually read Coulter and this Ugly -vs- Pretty theory is rather primal and cliche, but evidently that's they way things are in Hollywood.

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
How did Althouse blog the series of women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and/or harassment over the years?

In a sworn deposition, Ivana Trump accused The Donald of raping her. (In a fight over Donald's postoperative pain following scalp reduction surgery.) She recanted, after she got her divorce settlement. But then there were others last year. And Trump promised that they would all be sued for their claims. But nothing has happened."

Others? Name them asshole. And make their case.

Assrat said...

>for example, seeing the people nearby during the murder of Kitty Genovese as callous

Wasn't this shown to be a NYT hoax? That the neighbors called the police, who arrived too late or something?

Mary Beth said...

Was the Lupita Nyong’o story put out there because she rejected him or to dispel the talk that he only went after white women?

Earnest Prole said...

Boycot a man’s art because he didn’t distance himself sufficiently from a monster? We don’t boycott this man’s art, nor this man's, despite their actual horrific deeds. Proportion is a key element of justice.

buwaya said...

Hmm. My wife, a technical writer, married me, an engineer for whom she was working, after I deliberately courted her. That was some decades ago. These days that would probably count as harassment I suppose.

The problem here is the area is far too complex and "fuzzy" for formal rules to apply.

AllenS said...

Ann Althouse said...
Tarantino was referring to the late 90s. A boss pressuring employees for sex at that time was not someone intelligent Americans would think of as an "idiot schlub."

You're referring to BJ Clinton, aren't you?

Rick said...

She worried that he would hurt her career, but she offers no evidence that he did. Not long afterward, Nyong'o appeared in the movie "12 Years a Slave," and she won an Oscar.

These are the best elements to emphasize. These predators can't hurt you nearly as much as they claim and you fear. Tell them no and expose them.

It's revealing none of the self appointing champions has chosen to emphasize the most effective path to ending these practices.

Quaestor said...

In a sworn deposition, Ivana Trump accused The Donald of raping her. (In a fight over Donald's postoperative pain following scalp reduction surgery.) She recanted...

A wise person would conclude that sworn depositions should not be trusted without corroborative evidence.

Ivana did what she did for money. The others said what they have said for Hillary. Truth hasn't much of a chance against Greed.

Chuck said...

Curious George said...
...
...
Others? Name them asshole. And make their case.


If I named them all asshole, we'd get them mixed up with you.

So instead let's use their real names. There's an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

And no, asshole, I am not going to "make their case" any more than Althouse is going to make the case against Harvey Weinstein. Althouse is aggregating press reports and commenting on them in her blog.

buwaya said...

Hyper-feminism is very unlikely.
Just a guess, but done the "feminist" way it would be box-office poison - no pretty girls, no humor, and too much clothing. And wouldn't sell in foreign markets.

Sydney said...

Re: Quentin Tarantino, women, and movies. June Carter Cash got it right:

I’ve been looking everywhere for Tiffany Anastasia Lowe
She’s my own granddaughter
She didn’t know how to play the guitar
So I took Mother Maybelle’s and taught her

She came out here to Hollywood to be a star
And Tiffany, I’m wondering where you are

She talked a lot about a man named Quentin Tarantino
Have you seen some of his movies that I’ve seen
I thought he was a country boy from Knoxville
But Quentin Tarantino makes his women wild and mean

So Tiffany, run and find an earthquake, girl
Go jump in a crack just don’t let Quentin Tarantino find out where you’re at
Cause Quentin Tarantino makes the strangest movies that I’ve ever seen
And Quentin Tarintino makes his women wild and mean

Now Quentin Tarantino’s women sometimes gets stuck with a hypodermic needle
They dance a lot and lose a lot of blood
But what’s the good of loving John Travolta
If he’s always dragging you through the mud

So Tiffany, run and find an earthquake, girl
Go jump in a crack just don’t let Quentin Tarantino find out where you’re at
Cause Quentin Tarantino makes the strangest movies that I’ve ever seen
Yeah, Quentin Tarantino makes his women wild and mean

Ralph L said...

The boycots will be next on the agenda, now that we've exposed the couches.

Matthew Sablan said...

Tarantino and others should be given the same leeway they'd give someone for holding abhorrent views. What's Hollywood think of Orson Scott Card?

Rick said...

If you were ugly, HW still had a place for you, to keep the pretty ones quiet and in-line.

I don't think this is right. Generally the female allies are older women who went through the same process but are no longer participants due to age. Think about how this works in modelling.

sane_voter said...

The real story about the murder of Kitty Genovese is the NYT fabricated the claim that many people callously observed the assault and did not report it to police. Typical NYT behavior

rhhardin said...

It's possible that women's brains are wired as crazy to make women appear helpless. It melts men.

sane_voter said...

How can the acadamy awards show be held next year? That statue symbolizes the misogyny and hate of an industry that has existed for it's entire history. It must be torn down.

David Baker said...

"How far is the Weinstein thing going to take us?"

As far as your mind allows based on personal experience. By that I mean, what you have observed and processed during a lifetime.

"My" cumulative observations find nothing about Weinstein & Co. at all surprising. Not in the least.

What I do find surprising is how far one and all will go to acquire fame and fortune. On the upside, it must be a testament to human resilience, to survive and thrive after such (apparent) degradation. Including Weinstein, who degraded himself a thousand times while getting richer and richer. How does one rationalize such self-demeaning behaviors, not once or twice, but time after time and for a lifetime.

I strongly suspect the answer is permissiveness, which not only allows deviant behavior, but acts as a mental safety valve. The "beauty" of permissiveness is that it can tolerate and/or rationalize anything. This also applies to the alleged victim(s), especially during the pre-shaming period.

Phil 3:14 said...

The problem is women using their power to manipulate Harvey.

I believe Harvey was hoping for some powerful female manipulation.

CJinPA said...

How can Hollywood produce films with an even more strident feminist/Leftist bent? We're about to find out.

Curious George said...

"Chuck said

And no, asshole, I am not going to "make their case" any more than Althouse is going to make the case against Harvey Weinstein. Althouse is aggregating press reports and commenting on them in her blog."

Oh, the list of women who came out AFTER Trump got the nomination. You really want to compare this to Harvey Weinstein? Really?

buwaya said...

The sheer number of these confessions and accusations is astounding.

I don't suppose we will see the same re the Clinton scandals. Those people work through lawyers.

It would be interesting to get a Tarantino-type apology from Comey and Mueller.

rhhardin said...

How can Hollywood produce films with an even more strident feminist/Leftist bent? We're about to find out.

The female revenge films are good, though men and women get different things from them. They could focus on those.

buwaya said...

I dont expect big budget feminist movies.

I expect more of a "shut up and sing" approach from the entertainment financiers, and hence corresponding instructions to their employees.

But perhaps I am being optimistic.

CJinPA said...

The female revenge films are good, though men and women get different things from them. They could focus on those.

That will probably be just one idea of many. Get ready for a lot more female presidents, senators, mayors, generals, Star Fleet captains, judges, lawyers, cops, CEOs, scientists, fathers, quarterbacks and drill sergeants. And all of them will have more wisdom and compassion than you.

rhhardin said...

The woman punching the thug out is the good part.

Darrell said...

If the Michigan Republican Party doesn't kick Chuck into the gutter, they shouldn't get a dime from a single voter. What a miserable lying sack of shit. You probably think Jeri Ryan was telling the truth in her divorce/child custody case when she twisted Jack Ryan's sweet joke* to her in Paris into a "traumatic" experience.

* Jeri and Jack were in Paris for their honeymoon. They asked for restaurant recommendations at their hotel and were told that there were several excellent restaurants withing a short walk down the street the hotel was on. They looked at the menus posted in windows. Before they chose a restaurant, they passed an unmarked storefront with bright red lacquered doors, and wondered what was in there. After they ate, they were walking back to the hotel--but as they passed the mystery building, there was a doorman in place. They asked him what was inside and he said it was a club for swingers. The doorman's English wasn't very good, so they asked more questions--like if he meant "swinging nightclub" like in the Swinging Sixties--and he said no, it was a sex club where couple exchanged partners. Jeri Ryan said "Oh, I guess we won't be going in then." and Jack said "Hold on, not so fast. If we go in I'll be with the most beautiful woman in the place and all the other guys will be jealous. Jeri laughed and they walked back to the hotel. At the divorce trial, she claimed he tried to force her to go into the club and said she was traumatized--she could hardly breathe. Another couple that met up with them later said that Jeri was laughing and telling stories when they joined the Ryans for drinks. Jeri told the judge she was in a coma-like state after the incident--it was like she was paralyzed. Ryan's life, btw, is essentially the plotline for Jeri's TV show--Boston Public--big shot lawyer quits to teach in an inner-city school.

Bay Area Guy said...


It's important that this not be portrayed as "man-woman" thing. In the real world, men and women don't interact this way. In the business world, you'd get your ass sued or fired.

This is the wretched world of Leftwing Hollywood, where young, attractive women (and if Corey Haim is right, young boys) are simply prey,

What other social system or industry can compare? None

In college, there's normally a ton of attractive young women, away from home for the first time. But you don't see professors coaxing, cajoling and pressuring them for sex to get good grades. College life is generally safe and pleasant, the exception every so often being drunken escapades at the frat houses on weekend nights. But this is correctable. Don't get sloshed at parties with horny young men.

In Hollywood, powerful weirdo predators (like Harvey) along with their bevy of enablers have now been exposed.

Let's see how it plays out.


Ps Hated Pulp Fiction, but loved Jackie Brown

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillarywood is filled with cowards. Hypocrites and cowards... and they a support the corruptocrat party and they all voted for the most corrupt pol to ever seek highest office.

Fritz said...

rhhardin said...
It's possible that women's brains are wired as crazy to make women appear helpless. It melts men.


It's not crazy, it just appears that way to those of us who are not wired that way. It probably makes perfect sense from their perspective.

Marcus said...

Ralph L said...
The boycots will be next on the agenda, now that we've exposed the couches.

THIS is vicious wordplay, my nomination for comment of the month!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bill Clinton's abuse thru the decades:

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Bluelast week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

more...
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Amexpat said...

I read "do the work" as getting his films financed and promoted, which HW did quite well for him. QT cared mostly about making his films the he wanted to, which is not easy when you need a substantial budget. HW made that possible. For QT that was more important than money or status.

Fernandinande said...

The horror stories from Lupita Nyong'o and Mira Sorvino sounded less traumatic than a butt-pinch.

Darrell said...

Of all the accusations against Trump, the Media determined that the best one with traction was the story of the woman on the airplane. Most of the other tales fell apart when the facts were examined--like their names not being on the guest list and plenty of witnesses around Trump at the event. Then the airplane woman turned out to be a secretary for Hillary at the Clinton Foundation--a fact never mentioned until some blogger dug it up. There were also dozens of pictures of this woman with Hillary--after the woman claimed not to know Hillary. The final straw was a British man with a certified eidetic memory coming forward giving a complete running transcript of everything said around him on the flight. He's been tested at universities against videotaped session from more than twenty years ago and scores 100% for accurate recollection. Somebody up there likes Trump and hates the lying Left. Now make me cry by telling me tales of the Bill O'Reilly abuse--like telling a woman that her purse was ugly or calling another woman "hot chocolate" when she uses that exact phrase for herself all over social media for years.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Snark said...
"Over and over we see patterns of looking down or away in situations where large, interconnected bodies should have acted differently.... The more logical conclusion is that the problem is generalized human behaviour under similar pressures, and the more useful approach is to understand and talk about why the group as a whole responded as it did rather than holding up individuals for scorn. If that worked we wouldn’t have organization after organization failing in the same way despite the very public lessons of those that went before them."


Quite correct, Snark. All groups have norms, and it is an uncommon individual who will go against the norms of the group. But organizations and groups lack a conscience, which an individual has.

YoungHegelian said...

I think Tarantino would have had to have done work to distance himself from the obvious and to view the 3 things he knew as isolated instances.

I don't see any reason to not assume that Tarantino & others in Hollywood at his level of power are innocent of sexual abuse. Maybe not at HW's level of mayhem, but abusive none the less.

What's the old Hollywood joke? "Didja hear about the blond actress who was so dumb she slept with a writer?". Well, both producers and directors have the power to make or break an actor's career, so I'm sure we'll find out about some directors who were major-league bastards in their own right.

Annie C said...

I recall the last award show, though I don't recall what award it was. The girls from the movie 9 to 5 came on. Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda bashed Trump as a predator like the boss they had in the movie. Dolly Parton stayed silent.

Why didn't they mention Weinstein? Wasn't he even more like that fictional boss?

Oso Negro said...

Has it occurred to anyone else that Harvey Weinstein was pretty much a Johnny One Note when it came to seduction. "I want a massage"? Really? That's all the game you've got? And the sum of testimony in the press is that the women universally ran in horror. Except, apparently Meryl Streep. But she had already done Fredo.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

According to HIllary - we are supposed to believe these women. Except in Bills case. All of Bill's accusers MUST be lying.

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse says:
"..Remember "Suddenly Bissage"? Perhaps a blog called "Increasingly America's Politico" could fill the gap left when Bissage disappeared."

Bisaage's last post, "Uncooperative Deer is Being Uncooperative" makes me deeply sad.

The last half of the comments is the accumulation of spambots and assorted internet debris like corrosion on a sunken ship.

As Neil Young once said, Rust Never Sleeps.

I am Laslo.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Johnny One note. What else do you need when you can wield such power.
Spoiled rich elitist entitled leftwing man-baby has needs, and career lollypops..


Gahrie said...

Asked how the news about Mr. Weinstein would affect how the public views his own record and body of work, Mr. Tarantino paused. “I don’t know,” he said. “I hope it doesn’t.”

It does.


And this is how we know that Althouse is and has been a Lefty.

Maybe now she understands the Right's feelings about Jane Fonda and the Dixie Chicks.

Ann Althouse said...

"'Tarantino was referring to the late 90s. A boss pressuring employees for sex at that time was not someone intelligent Americans would think of as an "idiot schlub."' You're referring to BJ Clinton, aren't you?"

I agree with the implication -- and I've said it before on this blog -- that the understanding of Weinstein and the ideas about whether to expose him need to be put on a timeline with Bill Clinton's problems.

What kept me from bringing that up -- though I thought about it -- as I was writing this blog post is: "When he and Ms. Sorvino started dating in 1995, she told him...." That date is after the Clarence Thomas hearings (1991) and before the Lewinsky situation emerged (1998).

But the motivation to protect Clinton could have begun earlier. Paula Jones filed her lawsuit against him in 1994. Remember that Clinton got his helpers to bring Jones to his hotel room, Jones seems to have believed it was career-related for her, and Clinton exposed his erect penis and demanded "Kiss it." That has a lot of points of alignment with Weinstein's apparent modus operandi.

From the declaration Paula Jones filed in her lawsuit:

11. Trooper Ferguson then escorted me to the suite whose number had been written on the slip of paper he had handed to me earlier. When I arrived at the suite, the door was slightly ajar. I knocked on the door frame, and Mr. Clinton answered. I went into the suite, while Trooper Ferguson remained outside.

12. Mr. Clinton shook my hand, invited me in, and closed the door.

13. We talked for a few minutes. Mr. Clinton asked me about my job. He told me that Dave Harrington (who at that time was in charge of the AIDC) was his "good friend."

14. Mr. Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to me, took my hand, and pulled me toward him, so that our bodies were close to each other. I removed my hand from his and retreated several feet.

15. Mr. Clinton approached me again, saying "I love the way your hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves." While saying these things, Mr. Clinton put his hand on my leg and started sliding his hand toward my pelvic area. I did not consent to him doing this. He also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I would not let him do so.

16. I exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and escaped from Mr. Clinton's reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset and confused and I did not know what to do. I tried to distract Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door. Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."

17. I was horrified by this. I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said: "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do." Mr. Clinton then stood up, pulled up his pants and said: "If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I'll take care of it." As I left the room, Mr. Clinton detained me momentarily, looked sternly at me and said: "You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves."

Darrell said...

Clinton's defense against the Kathleen Wiley assault accusation was that her tits were too small. No wonder Lefties love the guy.

mockturtle said...

Give me a break! All this rueful faux virtue, as if Hollywood ever had morals or principles.

Krumhorn said...

I find myself in rare disagreement with our hostess. Doing “the work” could easily mean taking on Weinstein and suffering the consequences. And there surely would have been consequences. He revealed the consequences in his statement when he said he would no longer be working for that company.

And THAT is the problem. Lost in all this mob action (and yes, it has now become a shrieking leftie feminist mob) is Weinstein’s indisputable talent as studio head. He championed some extraordinary indy projects that would never have seen light pass through film stock. No major studio has the remotest interest in films that Tarantino makes. Oh, they might now because he has had success, but without Weinstein, we would never have heard of Tarantino.

You can’t imagine how hard it is to get financing, promotion and distribution. Pulp Fiction maybe cost $10 million to make and at least that much in marketing, not massive sums compared to the output of a major studio. But it is a virtually insurmountable obstacle to getting a film made if Warner’s or Fox or Disney isn’t a buyer at the pitch. While there is Fox Searchlight and SONY has a specialty shop, They are mostly festival buyers after the film is in the can. And their pickup price never covers the negative cost.

So WTF was Tarantino expected to do? Weinstein would pay for the development, production, marketing, and distribution of films nobody else would make. And he was a master at the award show game. Look at the man’s credits from Miramax and TWC. He has credits on over 300 films, many of which were completely forgettable; many were extraordinary. Was his behavior horrible? We’re luxuriating in his downfall. But where is the next Tarantino going to get backing?

I think it is positively absurd to think that Tarantino had any duty to deal with Harvey Weinstein at the expense of finding himself out in the film school graduate wilderness trashing around for film financing. And to ladle retro vision feminist crap onto the films that came from that studio is as cock-eyed as viewing the founding documents of this country as somehow contaminated because Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and George Washington were slave owners.

- Krumhorn

William said...

I read the article by Lupita. It was well written and presented a clear narrative of her interactions with Harvey. Harvey had a practiced, well crafted seduction technique. I suspect it worked often enough for him to keep using it. Lupita comes off looking good, but by looking good and by turning down Harvey's proffered role, she makes all the other actresses look bad. You can't help but wonder about the women who starred in his more successful films. Harvey is the stain that keeps on spreading. I don't think it was possible to work with him and come away without something under your fingernails.

Known Unknown said...

I started writing a comment but then realized Krumhorn basically nails it.

rcocean said...

Shorter Krumhorn - What's a little sexual assault and possible rape? Put some ice on it, Harvey Weinstein made good pictures.

Fernandinande said...

Gullible Darrell said...
The final straw was a British man with a certified eidetic memory coming forward


That would be the scammer Anthony Gilberthorpe.

giving a complete running transcript of everything said around him on the flight. He's been tested at universities against videotaped session from more than twenty years ago and scores 100% for accurate recollection.

"A number of people claim to have eidetic memory, but science has never found a single verifiable case of photographic memory. Eidetic imagery is virtually nonexistent in adults."

William said...

I listened to Howard Stern's interview with Harvey. The interview gives us the impression that we're hearing the inside scoop and that Harvey is being self revelatory under Howard's prodding questions. That's the impression, but it's not the truth. The truth is that Howard is giving Harvey a gentle tongue bath and allowing Harvey to glorify and glamorize his role in producing movies without any pushback or skepticism from Howard. Howard buffed the image that Harvey presented.......Now Howard is saying that he knew Harvey's answers were bullshit, but if you listen to the interview, Harvey comes off looking like a visionary, and Howard looks like a syncophant.......If you try to wash out a bloodstain with hot water, it just fasten the stain like a dye. The dye is cast with Hollywood and the stain of Weinstein.

Krumhorn said...

If it became known that Mozart had a penchant for diddling young boys, would we be any less inclined to listen to AND ENJOY a performance of his works? I have it on good authority that Prince Leopold regularly kicked his dog and fucked the ducks in the Kothen ponds when he was Bach’s patron, and that the racket the dogs and the ducks made inspired his six Brandenburg concerti.

I still love them. And if Bach was corn-holing an alto as she was screaming “Nein, mein Kappelmeister!” while composing his cantatas, I’m not going to love them less.

Let’s have an end to all this chest-thumping of the femmy beta cucks and shrieking leftie harpies. Harvey was a bad guy. He’ll swallow a barrel soon, and we’ll see how long it takes for the next Goodwill Hunting to get made....which is to say, it won’t.

- Krumhorn

Guest videos said...

Meh. I am not impressed with a story that goes: 1. he asked for it. 2. I thought about it. 3. He pressured. 4. I said no. 5. He pressured some more. 5. I said no. 6. He accepted no for an answer. 7: I am successful anyway. This is a nothing burger, or is that one word - nothingburger?

I call this life. It is not brave to tell this story of a man wanting something and asking for it. We all have said "no" when we were not interested, no big deal - maybe even flattering. Even if inappropriate, but there were zero identifiable repercussions from saying no, then again not a big deal.

What is brave is saying - yes, I banged Harvey had a wonderful career and I would have done it again. I was not stupid but knew what I was doing. It was something I was willing to do for my career. That is brave. Being responsible for your choices in life is brave.

Or - yes, I banged Harvey. He did nothing for my career, though he promised to. I knew what I was doing but got screwed (literally and by the deal). I would not be stupid enough to do that twice. Now, I am famous anyway - not because of him, but because my acting chops are solid. That is brave. Admitting a mistake, so publicly, is very brave.

Or - I said no to Harvey - he took that as a yes and raped me. That is allegedly Rose McGowen. Are there others? That is being a victim of a crime. It is brave to go to the police and prosecute the a-hole.

Even a story of I said no, and you never heard of me is not a good story. Maybe you just suck as an actress. Meh.

Assrat said...

>What's a little sexual assault and possible rape?

That's probably a bit harsh. It's kind of hard to say what the responsibility is for people who personally did nothing wrong.

I won't watch Polanski films, but I'm not going to criticise someone who loves Chinatown.

William said...

The mask slipped with Tom Cruise. In a couple of interviews he came off looking fatuous and silly. I'm not talking about scientology or occult sexuality, just his fatuity. It's hard to believe in a movie hero's courage and wisdom when the star has revealed himself to be vapid and asinine. Well, Cruise has weathered the storm, and he might, in the end, turn out to be one of the more ethical stars in Hollywood......I'm not so sanguine about some of the others. If you listen to Howard's interview with Harvey, you will lose respect for his vaunted interview techniques.......I'm a fan of Eva Green. She has a formidable screen presence and gives off an aura of mystery and strength. She did nothing wrong with Harvey, but she did allow herself to be bullied and intimidated. The Eva Green we see on the screen would make short work of someone like Harvey. The mask slipped.

buwaya said...

I wonder whether Weinsteins role was that of being a gifted producer of quality movies, or that of hogger of the limited market for quality movies. Or rather there is only a limited amount that can be raised to speculate on quality movies, and he was a specialist in grabbing a large chunk of that niche which would exist regardless.

And redirecting attention from better men, like Clint Eastwood.

Krumhorn said...

Shorter Krumhorn - What's a little sexual assault and possible rape? Put some ice on it, Harvey Weinstein made good pictures.

There is nobody enjoying his collapse into a puddle of tears more than I. But Ann’s point was daffy in my view. Why on earth should she view a director’s films any differently today knowing that, at the time, Tarantino kept his mouth shut about a predator who was developing, financing, marketing, and distributing his films as alternative to ratting the guy out and working at Starbucks or in the WME mailroom while imagining a great scene with Sam Jackson reciting some Old Testament text and a tasty burger.

- Krumhorn

Luke Lea said...

A good comment worth repeating:
"Blogger Snark said...
There’s a criminal investigation now in LA. Is it standard at the NYT to disallow comments when there is a related criminal matter? I don’t know, but it is at other online news sources I haunt.

It’s against my instincts to hang too much on any individual in these situations. Over and over we see patterns of looking down or away in situations where large, interconnected bodies should have acted differently. The Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Penn State, the BBC, the CBC, Fox News, Hollywood, others - all looked at as distinct failures of individuals or a particular internal culture. The more logical conclusion is that the problem is generalized human behaviour under similar pressures, and the more useful approach is to understand and talk about why the group as a whole responded as it did rather than holding up individuals for scorn. If that worked we wouldn’t have organization after organization failing in the same way despite the very public lessons of those that went before them."

Assrat said...

>Why on earth should she view a director’s films any differently today knowing that, at the time, Tarantino kept his mouth shut about a predator who was developing, financing, marketing, and distributing his films

There's certainly nothing daffy or hard to understand. If Tarantino were a hero, Tarantino would have blown the whistle, wrecked his career, and the media would have refused to cover it.

He chose not to, and that means people will think less of him.

SeanF said...

Rick: "She worried that he would hurt her career, but she offers no evidence that he did. Not long afterward, Nyong'o appeared in the movie '12 Years a Slave,' and she won an Oscar."

These are the best elements to emphasize. These predators can't hurt you nearly as much as they claim and you fear. Tell them no and expose them.

It's revealing none of the self appointing champions has chosen to emphasize the most effective path to ending these practices.


You can't suggest that the "most effective path to ending these practices" involves the women changing their behavior.

You can't even suggest the women's behavior has anything to do with it at all.

That's "victim blaming," you know.

wwww said...



I find it credible Tarantino didn't understand the situation. He's on the west coat & Weinstein was on the east coast. Tarantino doesn't strike me as one to realize this sort of thing.

The parsing of when exactly the Paula Jones story came out assumes that everyone watched or read the news as much as Althouse. I didn't have a TV set or a newspaper subscription at that time, so basically missed the Clarence Thomas & Paula Jones news stories. I heard a bit, but not very much. I wasn't aware of her story for years after it came out in the news. If you follow politics, it's very very easy to assume that everyone else is just as interested in politics. A lot of people are not interested or don't have time.

I'm surprised Althouse now doesn't want to watch movies or consume art connected with anyone who has done something bad. Weinstein wasn't the scriptwriter or director or Tarantino's movies. Throughout history, you can find supporters of art that have dubious backgrounds. Renaissance Florence and Venice funded a lot of great art. Are you going to morally approve of every one of the funders?

W. H. Auden:
The condition of mankind is, and always has been, so miserable and depraved that, if anyone were to say to the poet: “For God’s sake stop singing and do something useful like putting on the kettle or fetching bandages,” what just reason could he give for refusing? But nobody says this. The self-appointed unqualified nurse says: “You are to sing the patient a song which will make him believe that I, and I alone, can cure him. If you can’t or won’t, I shall confiscate your passport and send you to the mines.” And the poor patient in his delirium cries: “Please sing me a song which will give me sweet dreams instead of nightmares. If you succeed, I will give you a penthouse in New York or a ranch in Arizona.”

Guest videos said...

I am pretty sure that dropping trousers in a public place is also a crime - public indecency?
Exposure? Notice none of these "Harvey was naked" events took place in public, or even in an office. Ladies, rule of thumb: do not try to conduct business with a man in a bedroom unless the business you plan to conduct is the sort of business Harvey was trading in. Location, location, location.

I guess if all these actresses are saying - look, I was dumb enough to go there, and it was obviously a mistake, is sorta brave, goes to my admitting a mistake is brave, part. But, not quite on the same level.

Darrell said...

Anthony Gilberthorpe came to prominence in Britain in 2014, when he accused several Conservative Party politicians of hosting sex parties in the 1980s, and said he provided young boys for the events. He was 17 at the time and he was one of the boys abused. His claim was that he was sent out to recruit boys his age that fit the type the politicians were interested in. Police were investigating sex abuse in politics at the time and Gilberthorpe's testimony was taken, but not acted on because the politician he named were already dead. A politician that was associated with the dead ones called him a "tittle-tattle." Wow, that is conclusive proof that he was lying--you got me there, Fernanusandandy.

Krumhorn said...


I wonder whether Weinsteins role was that of being a gifted producer of quality movies, or that of hogger of the limited market for quality movies. Or rather there is only a limited amount that can be raised to speculate on quality movies, and he was a specialist in grabbing a large chunk of that niche which would exist regardless.

And redirecting attention from better men, like Clint Eastwood


I understand your point, and it’s a good one. However, Eastwood can get any movie made he wants. Warner’s would pay any price sight unseen. No pitch required. He gets premium release dates and a huge marketing spend. He’s earned it many times over. That’s not the same for someone who is not Eastwood, to get My Left Foot made. Whether or not Weinstein has any talent is an open point, but if it were that easy to assemble capital and pick films and mount Oscar campaigns, and make money on films that don’t have Eastwood acting or directing, then the Eskimos would be down here doing it.

Frankly, I think it is disgusting to see what Brenda Fricker and Daniel Day Lewis are saying about Weinstein. The fact that Weinstein took a shot on that film is the proximate cause of why any of us has ever heard of either of them. They should STFU and count their blessings that he was walking the Earth and crossed their paths. And that goes for quite a few others he didn’t rape or harass.

- Krumhorn



Sebastian said...

"But where is the next Tarantino going to get backing?" From all the hot-shot women producers and studio builders and rich actresses who will finally unleash their superior creativity now that the yoke of Harvey has been lifted.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Quentin Tarantino was called many years ago out in a song by the great June Carter Cash.

n.n said...

Progressive social liberalism embraced by second and third-wave feminists, female chauvinists, advocated for women to grab their feminine virtues and exploit the natural bias of men.

Placing conception before Choice denied agency to women. The broad, sweeping characterization of men as rapists and rape-rapists is an effort to remove agency from men.

tim in vermont said...

Whether it logically should affect how a movie is viewed, it does. QT always had a real eye for automotive and feminine pulchritude. Now the ladies part is tainted.

William said...

I saw the recent Tom Cruise movie, The Mummy. The movie got terrible reviews, but the stunts, explosions, and special effects looked pretty good. There's one scene where a zombie eats the face of one of his victims. When you stop to think about it, that was an effective visual metaphor for having oral sex with Harvey Weinstein.......The movie deserved its terrible reviews. There were plot holes, inane conversations, and generalized stupidity. My background in physics leads me to believe that medieval knights in full armor cannot swim underwater, but through the magic of special effects you could see it with your own eyes.......Why are the people who design special effects so talented and inventive, and the people who write dialogue and plots such half wits. In he nineteenth century, surgeons knew how to set fractures and amputate limbs but those physicians who practiced internal medicine were mostly casting voodoo spells......Anyway the only real thing in most Hollywood pictures are the special effects. All the rest is posturing and poses by assholes with symmetrical features......A kind word for Tom Cruise: He looks fatuous in interviews as opposed to, say, George Clooney who appears to be knowledgeable and wise. Let he record show that Tom Cruise, so far as is presently known, treated his coworkers and wives with respect, and there are no bad stories coming from the sets of his past productions. Not so with Clooney. Clooney's charm and wisdom look like a pose. Advantage Cruise. Plus, Cruise's filmography shows far fewer clunkers.

Krumhorn said...

If the hotshot women producers and rich actresses think dealing with Harvey was bad, he at least, had a publicly traded company and shareholders, directors, and a track record of excellence, success, and marginal profitability. Now that he’s no longer a buyer, wait until they have to do a lap dance for some private equity film fund managers we’ve never heard of and will never hear about as they pitch projects that no studio will touch. rhhardin talks about deals and our hostess talks about bad bargains, but there will be no deal worse than the exchange for a private equity lap dance.

There will be no promise of a marketing spend or of distribution, leave alone a massive and passionate awards campaign. If they are lucky, they’ll have to show up with a spec script in order to get the right to flog the film at every film market on the globe in the hopes of attracting a distributor who will pay slightly more than the value of a bag of peanuts for the rights in some country we can’t spell but ends with ...stan. And they’ll blow that guy’s cock too.

All of a sudden, Harvey is looking like a pretty good deal.

This excuses none of it, but as Hyman Roth said, “And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business! “

- Krumhorn

mockturtle said...

As Mae West once explained in answer to an exclaimed, Goodness!, "Goodness had nothin' to do with it."

rhhardin said...

Tom Cruise certainly knew the right slightly humorous approach to deal with difficult women, in Edge of Tomorrow. Scene talking in the car and the farmhouse.

Always taking her seriously but still bemused.

BJM said...

“Don’t forget, darling, tomorrow you’re going to be a star.”
-attributed to Darryl F. Zanuck.

Another legendary studio mogul Jack L. Warner was said to have invented the casting couch, but Warner fell far short of Zanuck closing down production at 4:00 PM for his daily casting call via a private passageway into his office suite.

Whom do these people think they are fooling? Aided and abetted by the media, sexual and financial exploitation has been the norm since the inception of the entertainment industry and most of us out there in the darken theaters knew it. We winked at niece jokes when the older studio heads appeared with young starlets in public, or a 60+ actor divorced an aging wife for a woman 30 years his junior (Yeah, Harrison I'm looking at you).

Sorry, but I am not sympathetic to the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, Jennifer Lawrence or Rose Mcgowan, they accepted the trade-off, they are not brave or victims of anything but their own ambition. Paltrow is from a Hollywood family, she was no naif. The same with Judd, her family knows how the entertainment industry works and she went along to get along until political ambition reared it's ugly head.

As to Tarantino; he played the game, and lost.

Khesanh 0802 said...

It's so easy to be brave like Tarantino after everyone else has absorbed the enemy fire. These people are full of shit and they know it.

dustbunny said...

Except for Hillary and Barack, the two smartest people in the world, everyone knew what was going on. Plus Meryl who was planning on portraying Clinton in the bookend to her Maggie-in-dementia Oscar.
Despite everything I still love Pulp Fiction, every scene but especially the twist contest. People rarely quit loving their favorite movies even when it turns out the director was a shit. Lots of artists are jerks but if the work is good, that is what lasts. In the 60's the left had disdain for John Ford's films with John Wayne. Watch Ford's Stagecoach, magnificent movie.

dustbunny said...

Tarentino lived in a cartoonish world shaped by old films and Asian martial arts movies. The boss chased Dolly Parton around the desk in Nine To Five, she got her revenge of course, but it was still a recognizable sterotype in the eighties. I doubt Tarantino saw himself as the boss, just as he always is, a voyeur.

D. B. Light said...

A lot of this obsessive caterwauling is coordinated battlefield preparation for the coming pre-election assault on President Trump.

JaimeRoberto said...

I'm going to play devil's advocate for Tarantino. How much credibility would you give your girlfriend's comments about Weinstein? I once had a girlfriend who told me that her ex-boyfriend raped her years after it happened. But then she also thought I was cheating on her because she saw it in a dream, so I'm far from convinced about her veracity. Are you going to stick your neck out for her? Unless you witness it with your own eyes it is easy to disregard the stories, especially when you have the carrot of success dangling in front of you. Would I have acted any differently than Tarantino did? I doubt it, and if we are being honest, most of us would have done the same.

indiana118 said...

"Over and over we see patterns of looking down or away in situations where large, interconnected bodies should have acted differently. The Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Penn State, the BBC, the CBC, Fox News, Hollywood, others - all looked at as distinct failures of individuals or a particular internal culture. The more logical conclusion is that the problem is generalized human behaviour under similar pressures"

The pattern I see: right around the time we were culturally concerned with "liberating" ourselves sexually, every institution that dealt with vulnerable populations was gleefully exploiting that population sexually.

Then, in the 1980s, we had what was then and later described as "witch hunts" - paranoid and aggressive hunting of real and imagined sexual abusers (the employees of one day care were only just recently let out of jail, in recognition of the fact that they didn't get a fair trial).

Now, we're still trying to grapple with the reality that we hold two deeply conflicting viewpoints, and both can't be true. The very people who are most persuaded that sexually aggressive men should be viewed as evil predators are the ones who can't seem to decide whether to include Bill Clinton in the group of "bad men".

Char Char Binks said...

Was Tarantino a police officer, or a government official whose job it was to investigate or prosecute sexual harassment claims? Is hearing rumors the same as knowing facts? Unless I actually witnessed HW committing a crime, I would have done exactly what QT did about him -- absolutely nothing, only I wouldn't apologize for it. If women are the victims of crimes, they know the number for 911.

mockturtle said...

If women are the victims of crimes, they know the number for 911.

Yep. But they'd rather put up with the 'crimes' if it gets them the parts they want, the publicity they desire and the star status they crave. We used to call women like that 'whores', did we not?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Char Char Binks said...
Was Tarantino a police officer, or a government official whose job it was to investigate or prosecute sexual harassment claims? Is hearing rumors the same as knowing facts? Unless I actually witnessed HW committing a crime, I would have done exactly what QT did about him -- absolutely nothing, only I wouldn't apologize for it. If women are the victims of crimes, they know the number for 911.
10/20/17, 6:23 PM





Isn't this literally hearsay we're talking about here? And inadmissible?