Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

Ødegaard said:
Just want to clarify, you mean those (likely) men that were out of Weinsteins grasp of power should have stood up to him? Agree fully.
But people are taking it (i think) as you saying even the men who can be crushed by Weinstein should have spoken up, despite that being a defending point for a lot of victims.

Mind, I still havent read that Tarantino article, but I believe the discussion moved more towards general terms instead of Tarantinos case specifically.
Click to expand...

Yep, simply saying that those who knew of his actions and did nothing are more complicit than the victims.

A lot of Harvey's power over his victims came from the fact that nobody was going to question him or hold him accountable.
The similar theme throuhout all the stories of harassment & abuse that the victims have shared is that they couldn't believe that Weinstein was doing what he was doing and everyone around him knew and said and did nothing.

If an environment is created where their actions are held to account, you can weed out the Weinstein's and open up more opportunities for others.

MadMike said:
I don't think anybody reasonable is blaming the victims. That's a bit of a strawman argument, entertaining the opinions of a very few lunatics.

I think Tarantino is as much to blame as other directors or major movie stars who knew about it but did nothing. Tarantino is showing some remorse over his lack of altruism publicly (whether we buy it or not is another issue) which others are not, they are all hiding behind the "he was too powerful for us to go against him" curtain. And I'm saying that technically speaking that curtain is there for Tarantino too, whether he chooses to hide behind it or not. Bob Weinstein fecking knew about it for years and he's as powerful as his brother but he covered for him all these years.



Most powerful people in Hollywood are men. Are white. Are Jewish. Shall we blame it on the Jews? :p
Click to expand...

But see i'm not disagreeing with you on that. I don't really believe Tarantino's remorse personally but at least he's said something. That's more than the others in a similar position to him who have kept quiet so far.

As for the last sentence, I was talking about all across hollywood, not the most (as in the biggest) powerful people, I was saying that most of the powerful people are men - exec's, producers, director's, screen writers, agents, hiring managers, ceo's etc. all across that spectrum can't all be Jewish, surely?
 
JPRouve said:
Why should she have been?
Click to expand...
One would think the following achievements might lead to a position of power:

In partnership with her husband Michael, Julia Phillips was one of the most successful film producers in Hollywood during the 1970s. Their second film, The Sting, grossed almost $160 million and won seven Academy Awards, making Julia the first woman to win a Best Picture Oscar. Their third film, Taxi Driver, brought them a second Oscar nomination and won the Palme d'Or in 1976. In 1977 they co-produced their most financially successful movie, Steven Spielberg's $300 million-grossing Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Click to expand...
 
SteveJ said:
One would think the following achievements might lead to a position of power:
Click to expand...

It depends on how much money you have, how good you are with politics, blackmail and other things like that. Hollywood is a cesspool and I don't doubt that the boysclub attitude exist but in the end, it's a business and money talks, if you didn't put yourself in a position to control people financial destiny, you have no power, no one will hand you any sort of power because you won Oscars and Palme D'Ors, money is everything and fresh money is even more important.

I think that this comment from Tarantino is telling:” he added. “If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have had to not work with him.”

The way he says that, looks like he weighted the consequences of his possible actions and decided that it wasn't worth it.
 
vi1lain said:
As for the last sentence, I was talking about all across hollywood, not the most (as in the biggest) powerful people, I was saying that most of the powerful people are men - exec's, producers, director's, screen writers, agents, hiring managers, ceo's etc. all across that spectrum can't all be Jewish, surely?
Click to expand...

Most. All. Different words. Most are, not all. Not that I see a correlation, I'm just pointing out how identifying a commonality among a group of offenders and then generalising it from there is a dangerous thing.

But yes, one of the sources of the problem for Hollywood is the fact that pretty much all the money people, are men. Not the only industry to be like that of course. Tech, Finance, Pharma, Oil, Construction. What's the proportion of female board directors or CEOs to that of males? Difference in Hollywood is that a) one of the important assets of the employees are good looks and b) women (and men) are more desperate to get into that industry than say Construction, because of the fame and money that it can bring. Which creates the right conditions and fertile ground for some creeps at the top to take advantage.

Evening out the distribution of power will go a long way to solving problems like that. Like in the past in many jobs where men were the vast majority of the workforce you would openly hear sexist comments. Or racist, if the distribution was completely of one race. As the demographics changed in a lot of these jobs, so has the attitude of people in it. The top remains pretty unaffected by that though. God knows how long that will take to change.
 
Tarintino isn't some up and coming director who desperately needs Weinstein. That may have been true at the start of his career, but he could have easily dropped Harvey and found another studio later on. He willfully turned a blind eye to it all because the alternative was too inconvenient. He also maintained a close friendship with him despite personally knowing victims of his.

Sounds to me like he just didn't want the hassle of cutting ties with his movie making buddy.
 
MadMike said:
Most. All. Different words. Most are, not all. Not that I see a correlation, I'm just pointing out how identifying a commonality among a group of offenders and then generalising it from there is a dangerous thing.

But yes, one of the sources of the problem for Hollywood is the fact that pretty much all the money people, are men. Not the only industry to be like that of course. Tech, Finance, Pharma, Oil, Construction. What's the proportion of female board directors or CEOs to that of males? Difference in Hollywood is that a) one of the important assets of the employees are good looks and b) women (and men) are more desperate to get into that industry than say Construction, because of the fame and money that it can bring. Which creates the right conditions and fertile ground for some creeps at the top to take advantage.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the need for a pretty face being more enticing especially women, i'm not really a big fan of equality in the sense of numbers because some industries will attract more men, others will attract more women, both of them don't need 50/50 for each. They just need to provide equal opportunities for everyone.
It's pretty clear that Hollywood certainly hasn't been doing that.

I think in the long term, Hollywood is slowly fading out anyway, a lot of their blockbuster movies aren't doing as well on a net revenue basis. Sure they still gross and earn a lot, but they also spend a lot too.
Plus it seems like consumers are far more interested in consuming Netflix-style content and cinematic TV shows over movies and you've got new studios which produce low budget movies in return for a high net revenue return - I think the same studio that produced Paranormal Activity & The Purge are good examples of this, then you add that to the controversy over the lack of diversity at the Oscars (or Emmys?) in 2015 I think it was? and now these revelations about Weinstein et al
It doesn't make for pretty reading.
The Hollywood formula needs to change, they can't keep doing what they've done in the past because the momentum is clearly shifting.
 
kps88 said:
Tarintino isn't some up and coming director who desperately needs Weinstein. That may have been true at the start of his career, but he could have easily dropped Harvey and found another studio later on. He willfully turned a blind eye to it all because the alternative was too inconvenient. He also maintained a close friendship with him despite personally knowing victims of his.

Sounds to me like he just didn't want the hassle of cutting ties with his movie making buddy.
Click to expand...

You could argue the same about any big movie star, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck etc. More so in fact. Every single movie that Tarantino wrote or directed, was financed by Weinstein. To say he just "didn't wan't the hassle" is severely understating the level of impact it would have had on Tarantino to go to war with Weinstein.

N1KDaBM.png
 
MadMike said:
You could argue the same about any big movie star, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck etc. More so in fact. Every single movie that Tarantino wrote or directed, was financed by Weinstein. To say he just "didn't wan't the hassle" is severely understating the level of impact it would have had on Tarantino to go to war with Weinstein.
Click to expand...

Of course, you could and should put others like Pitt and Affleck in the same category.

Not sure what your point about all his movies being financed by Weinstein is about. That was entirely his choice and is why there is more of a spotlight on him right now. He militantly chose to only work with Weinstein. You don't think other studios would have loved a Tarantino movie?

This is why he deserves more criticism because the power dynamics at work are different. This was him doing Weinstein a favour out of loyalty and not the other way around.
 
kps88 said:
Of course, you could and should put others like Pitt and Affleck in the same category.

Not sure what your point about all his movies being financed by Weinstein is about. That was entirely his choice and is why there is more of a spotlight on him right now. He militantly chose to only work with Weinstein. You don't think other studios would have loved a Tarantino movie?

This is why he deserves more criticism because the power dynamics at work are different. This was him doing Weinstein a favour out of loyalty and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

First I hear about the bolded part. Is that something Tarantino has admitted or that is verified public knowledge?
 
MadMike said:
First I hear about the bolded part. Is that something Tarantino has admitted or that is verified public knowledge?
Click to expand...

You think only one person in the whole of Hollywood would be willing to finance a Tarantino movie?
 
MadMike said:
I think Tarantino is as much to blame as other directors or major movie stars who knew about it but did nothing. Tarantino is showing some remorse over his lack of altruism publicly (whether we buy it or not is another issue) which others are not, they are all hiding behind the "he was too powerful for us to go against him" curtain. And I'm saying that technically speaking that curtain is there for Tarantino too, whether he chooses to hide behind it or not. Bob Weinstein fecking knew about it for years and he's as powerful as his brother but he covered for him all these years.
Click to expand...

I don't think Tarantino had much choice.

With their close collaboration over his entire career, he was bound to be interrogated about what he knew of Weinstein's behaviour at his first interview or press conference. An attempt to stonewall or a refusal to answer wouldn't be acceptable. Responding with a variation of the Big Lie? - 'I knew nothing beyond tittle tattle or gossip' - would be hugely risky. He'd be leaving himself vulnerable to being ratted out by one of the women who told him about Weinstein - as Affleck was by Rose McGowan. Could he trust them to support his story?

I'm sure he and his people thought long and hard in the days prior to his interview with the NYT, realised that the shit was likely to hit the fan sooner or later, and decided that sooner was best. He could exercise some control over the way the story emerged, and maybe earn a few brownie points for his 'honesty'. Better than being afraid to open his morning newspaper for the next six months in fear of the headline - "Exclusive - Tarantino knew all along. We talk to the woman who told him!"

It'll be interesting to see what Clooney will do.
 
Anyone else having difficulty watching Weinstein films now ? I'm a massive Tarantino fan but if I'm honest, I'm not sure if I can watch without thinking about what Weinstein was doing at the time when these films were being made.
 
kps88 said:
You think only one person in the whole of Hollywood would be willing to finance a Tarantino movie?
Click to expand...

Oh so it was an assumption on your part? That he militantly chose to only work with Weinstein?

I don't know how many in Hollywood would be willing to finance a Tarantino movie. And I certainly don't know how many would if Weinstein pressured them not to. You are assuming that he's more powerful than his paymaster and his connections. That's a pretty big assumption to make.

It's obviously not as easy as you make it sound, or someone would have talked in these 20 years. Yet the only ones who did were some minor actresses whose voices were squashed (or silence was bought) and who never worked in Hollywood again.

I'm not exonerating Tarantino, but I seriously think you're underestimating the situation if you think that it would have been only an inconvenience for him to take on Weinstein. And that he simply chose to not be inconvenienced, over speaking out.
 
Last edited:
Will Absolute said:
I don't think Tarantino had much choice.

With their close collaboration over his entire career, he was bound to be interrogated about what he knew of Weinstein's behaviour at his first interview or press conference. An attempt to stonewall or a refusal to answer wouldn't be acceptable. Responding with a variation of the Big Lie? - 'I knew nothing beyond tittle tattle or gossip' - would be hugely risky. He'd be leaving himself vulnerable to being ratted out by one of the women who told him about Weinstein - as Affleck was by Rose McGowan. Could he trust them to support his story?

I'm sure he and his people thought long and hard in the days prior to his interview with the NYT, realised that the shit was likely to hit the fan sooner or later, and decided that sooner was best. He could exercise some control over the way the story emerged, and maybe earn a few brownie points for his 'honesty'. Better than being afraid to open his morning newspaper for the next six months in fear of the headline - "Exclusive - Tarantino knew all along. We talk to the woman who told him!"

It'll be interesting to see what Clooney will do.
Click to expand...

And that's partly why I'm not fully buying into Tarantino showing genuine remorse over not speaking out.
 
MadMike said:
Oh so it was an assumption on your part? That he militantly chose to only work with Weinstein?

I don't know how many in Hollywood would be willing to finance a Tarantino movie. And I certainly don't know how many would if Weinstein told them not to. You are assuming that he's more powerful than his paymaster and his connections. That's a pretty big assumption to make.

It's obviously not as easy as you make it sound, or someone would have talked in these 20 years. Yet the only ones who did were some minor actresses whose voices were squashed (or silence was bought) and who never worked in Hollywood again.

I'm not exonerating Tarantino, but I seriously think you're underestimating the situation if you think that it would have been only an inconvenience for him to take on Weinstein. And that he simply chose to not be inconvenienced, over speaking out.
Click to expand...

Not saying he has to speak out or take him on. Just don't work with him. Or, you know, have him as a close personal friend despite knowing what he did. At least someone like Pitt only kept it professional. And yes, of course there are plenty of people out there willing to finance a Tarantino movie.
 
Urgh.
Sarah Solemani said:
My first experience of sexism in showbusiness came early, when I was 19. I was invited to the director’s house for dinner, just the two of us. He cooked. It was delicious. He’d had practice, to be fair, being in his 50s. After dinner he asked how I felt about nudity. Another role in the project we were working on had involved nudity, so it didn’t feel a strange question, being 19 and ever so keen.

“Oh, but your story needed it,” I gushed. “It was brilliantly done.”

“But would you ever get naked?” he asked.

“Yes!” I said. “Of course, if the story needed it.”

He looked at me. He smiled. “Go on then,” he said, gently. “If you think you could, why don’t you just take your clothes off right now?”
Click to expand...
The TV and film industries are toxic – and it starts in the audition room:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...s-toxic-starts-audition-room-harvey-weinstein
 
Raoul said:
Anyone else having difficulty watching Weinstein films now ? I'm a massive Tarantino fan but if I'm honest, I'm not sure if I can watch without thinking about what Weinstein was doing at the time when these films were being made.
Click to expand...
I can disassociate the Weinsteins from the films since they're mainly about the actors and directors.

It's not a situation like Andy Signore on ScreenJunkies. He was in a similar position to Weinstein at that company but he also appeared regularly in the content and even hosted some of the shows. Hard to dissasociate with him considering he's right there in your face.

Weinstein you can forget about if you skip the opening credits.
 
Raoul said:
Anyone else having difficulty watching Weinstein films now ? I'm a massive Tarantino fan but if I'm honest, I'm not sure if I can watch without thinking about what Weinstein was doing at the time when these films were being made.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I have no trouble watching films from or with Kinsky, Riefenstahl, Polanski, Herzog or anyone else either.
 
HTG said:
Not at all. I have no trouble watching films from or with Kinsky, Riefenstahl, Polanski, Herzog or anyone else either.
Click to expand...

The obvious exception being those are ancient history compared with something that is taking place in the present. But I do take your point. I still love watching Mel Gibson's directing films despite his recent problems.
 
Raoul said:
The obvious exception being those are ancient history compared with something that is taking place in the present.
Click to expand...
I haven't tried to watch a Weinstein movie recently, I think I'm one of the folks who enjoy movies but know very little about the stuff behind the scenes. I know of some publishers & some actors/actresses names but that's basically how far it goes.

If I knew the movie was funded by the Weinsteins I don't think i'd give it much thought, but if I see for example Jennifer Lawrence or someone else I believe to be victims of his to some extent in those movies, I'd likely feel a bit bad for them, but it's the same as when i look at this thread or see videos/articles around the topic being published.

Separate the art from the people behind it is a saying, but I think it's much easier for those of us who barely know anything about the artist.
 
Raoul said:
The obvious exception being those are ancient history compared with something that is taking place in the present. But I do take your point. I still love watching Mel Gibson's directing films despite his recent problems.
Click to expand...
I don't mind Von Trier either. I'm enjoying the art, not the artist.
 
HTG said:
Judging from what I've seen from him, which is not much, he's always like that. Which is basically why I don't like to see him that much.
Click to expand...

Letterman is an arrogant, unfunny, moody git. He's not a good interviewer at all. Never understood why people in the US like him and his show. Graham Norton and Craig Ferguson are a million times better than him.
 
Bobcat said:
I don't see flirting or the general dating game as something you have to "deal with". I know women have to deal with a lot more unwanted attention than most men, but that's just how the whole flirting/dating/relationship dynamic works. Men in general has to deal with a lot more rejection from the opposite sex, but the ones complaining about that are usually the bitter "nice guys" who only want one thing from women.

Most sensible blokes give up when a woman does not reciprocate their interest, some does not, but that's just bellends being bellends. I read somewhere that some women gets unwanted attention from men several times a day, but imo that must mean they are either super duper attractive or they misinterpret signals. I don't know, maybe it's a culture thing? I can't imagine it happens so much here in Norway, because we are such fecking shut ins we barely manage to look another human in the eye unless we had 5 pints of lager (or 3 of mead) and only hug our mum like twice a year at the most
Click to expand...

The key is what you mention. "is a cultural thing?" and yes, it is. Is the male chovinist culture were is so engraved in ourselves, in our acts and vocabulari (don't be a pussy, you cry like a little girl, etc..) and we don´t even realize. There is nothing wrong in flirt, ask for date...nothing. But at the first NO, you have to stop! accept it, don´t try to convince. And is not bellends being bellends. Is harassment, and sometimes even more

Calling things to a woman is not even flirting, is an empowering thing, they get turned on just to make unconfortable a woman:

I guess people already seen that, but take a look at that video:



I don´t know if it is staged or not, but I have seen that so many times, and for a man it would be easy, even if it would be as constant as with a girl, because we know about our physical superiority.

But as I read lately, how a man should behive is how they would be like to be treated in a max prison in a shower full of dudes.

Our language matter, our language matters, specially to transmit to the next generation and make everything more normal
 
JPRouve said:
At which point the fact that he is a man become relevant? It's not.

He should have done something about it because he knew about it not because he is a man, the same is right for all the woman who knew about it.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.

I like to think this is a habit/crime of a tiny minority of men and that the majority of us don't even have the inclinations towards sexual harassment towards women. I don't understand why men or women don't challenge friends or colleagues behave this way. Why don't they act?

Tarantino's stance makes me think he is part of the problem: he allowed such a culture to exist in the worlds that he led in or was in a position of power. Maybe he's even committed similar acts. Who knows.
 
Last edited:
One thing that puzzles me with this entire episode is the entire 'faux outrage'. The 'Casting Couch' is as famous a phenomena as Hollywood itself, and exists in the movie and photography industry in every country in the world. It's often been quid pro quo, albeit an absolute abuse of power from male figures of authority.

Its certainly huge progress for this phenomenon to blow up as it has in past few weeks but I'm not sure why people are so shocked at how widespread it was.

Likewise, sexual harassment of women has also been a massive issue in Western society, as #metoo has proven, it was just swept under the carpet by the male owners and powerbrokers of western media and infrastructure. Trump being voted President after his public misogyny, was just the last hurrah for a generation who will soon cease to exist.

As Tom Hanks noted in his recent interview, the genie is now fully out of the bottle and 'Weinstein' will be recorded as a seminal moment when society bettered itself.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
No, he's in France and they don't extradite their citizens. But a new person has claimed she was molested by him when he was a child in the 70s.
Click to expand...

I know the FBI narrowly missed getting Polanski a couple of years ago when he traveled to another country.
 
It's interesting that with all the talk of the furore surrounding the Weinstein revelations representing a watershed event, and predictions of a sea change in attitudes from now on, none of the actresses who've come forward with stories of abuse by Hollywood bigwigs other than Weinstein have named names!

Reese Witherspoon claims she was assaulted by a director when she was sixteen years old, but omits to say who he was! If he's still in the business, that individual can assault another young actress tomorrow, confident that, even in the once in a generation shitstorm Hollywood is experiencing at the moment, he will never be publicly accused. Despite all the posturing, everybody is still playing it safe.

Plus ca change...
 
That bothered me too, that she didn't name the director. What's the point in even saying anything if she's not going to act on it? Perhaps she's afraid of being blacklisted aka Tippi Hedren, etc.
Or maybe she thinks she doesn't have a good enough case to pursue it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.