"What Harvey Weinstein’s Overturned Conviction Means for Donald Trump’s Trial."

A good title. It's something I was trying to parse on my own yesterday.

The article is at The New Yorker, written by Ronan Farrow. Subheadline: "The legal issue behind Weinstein’s successful appeal is also at the heart of the former President’s hush-money case." The subheadline in my head was: Big man brought down by sex. Or should it be: Pile everything together and the monster will be visible?

Consider this: Farrow's book about Weinstein was called "Catch and Kill" (commission earned), and in Trump's trial, David Pecker has been testifying about the National Enquirer’s "catch and kill" scheme. 

From a CBS News story about Trump's lawyer's cross-examination of Pecker:

Pecker said he first gave Trump a heads up about a story in 1998.... [Trump's lawyer Emil] Bove had Pecker walk through negative stories that he had killed about other figures, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods.

"I just always hope that God is a movie fan and also forgiving, because I’ve made some poor choices in my past. ‘Boogie Nights’ is up there at the top of the list."

Said Mark Wahlberg (last November).

I would have blogged that last November if I'd seen it at the time, but I didn't, so why (you may ask) am I seeing it this morning? I've been up since 4:30 a.m. and reading about the movie we happened to watch last night, which was something that had been sitting on the DVR since early March, "The Big Lebowski." Everyone was talking about "The Big Lebowski" back then because it was the 20th anniversary of the release of the film, which was a big flop in theaters (I saw it at the time) but became the very definition of a cult film over the years.  I found it on some cable channel, recorded it, then left it festering.

Weirdly, it made about exactly the same impression on me, watching it for the second time, that it made originally, which was something like this is awfully self-indulgent and I'm uncomfortable with the treatment of women. But I woke up this morning — song cue — thinking about the women of "The Big Lebowski" in a different way. The men in that movie are ruined and marginalized, and the women are doing the marginalizing (and rarely on screen because the cameras are trained on the dead ends of loserville).

So I was reading things like "Maude and The Dude: Feminism and Masculinity in The Big Lebowski" (Bitch Flicks) and thinking about Julianne Moore (Maude) led me to "Julianne Moore Reacts to Mark Wahlberg's Boogie Nights Diss: 'It Made His Career!'"



There's something so sad about that. Moore is laughing at him for feeling bad about something that gave him worldly success and showing no feeling whatsoever for Walhberg's religious orientation, which (I assume) would make him more penitent about the things he did that brought him worldly success. Bible verse that comes to mind:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Time's Up! — after a week of shaming — for Mark Wahlberg (who didn't do anything wrong).

The NYT reports:

Mark Wahlberg and his talent agency, William Morris Endeavor, will donate $2 million to a fund dedicated to fighting pay inequity and harassment of women in Hollywood.

The donation will be made in the name of Michelle Williams, Mr. Wahlberg’s co-star in the movie “All the Money in the World,” after an outcry about pay discrepancy in reshoots for the film. Ms. Williams received a per diem of $80 for 10 days of work while Mr. Wahlberg negotiated a fee of $1.5 million. The two actors are represented by the same agency.

“Over the last few days my reshoot fee for ‘All the Money in the World’ has become an important topic of conversation,” Mr. Wahlberg said in a statement. “I 100% support the fight for fair pay and I’m donating the $1.5M to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Michelle Williams’ name.”

Why shouldn't I presume that the agency would get the best deal it could for all of its clients? I guess, going forward, anyone representing an actress will be able to get more based on the bad publicity potential of disparate pay. But in this particular case — as I understand it (hard to tell from the NYT) — Williams had a contract that agreed to do reshooting and Wahlberg did not. That put Wahlberg in a strong bargaining position, and the agency got him $1.5 million for the extra 10 days of work. Williams was stuck performing on the contract she'd already signed, which may have been the best deal for her at the time it was made. Who had any idea this strange calamity would hit the film? (Kevin Spacey became so toxic, his scenes had to be reshot with a different actor.)