Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

In fairness, his statement even by 2001 standards was misogynistic and nasty. And clearly she had a hell of a lot more class based on her rationale.

FunLover18

Homelander wrote: »

Not defending Harvey Weinstein obviously but ...

Don't think I've ever seen an argument begin that way non-ironically before.

pixelburp

Homelander wrote: »

Not defending Harvey Weinstein obviously but that ill-fitted white suit is pretty atrocious. Weinstein being pissed off 20 years ago that his blockbuster rom-com lead was dressed like that for a premiere isn't really shocking.

Most producers would have been annoyed, it's really disingenuous to try and pretend otherwise, putting aside Weinstein's language. It's part and parcel of the job, looking the part for promotional reasons. And this was also 20 years ago, which is contextually important. If she said "I did it specifically to get back at him" is one thing, but "he shamed me for my then-outrageous fashion choice" is very 2021-cashing-in-on-2001.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. In that first photo she looks crap, lets not pretend otherwise. She purposefully did it to piss him off, which is fair enough. Clever enough to have her exit and future secured which gave her the strength to do it.
This is a little disingenuous now, following the fake trend that is this industry these days. In my opinion it would have been far cooler had she just said I did this to 'stick it to Harvey'.

I'm not pretending, and not being disingenuous. *shrug* My opinions will always be honest, and don't believe the flouncy T&A dress is that engrained in romcom premieres outside a Golden Age of Hollywood long dead by 2001; nor that it justified the reaction - or that any other Hollywood producer might have reacted the same.

By all accounts, Weinstein seemed an especially arrogant, hostile and unilateral individual (see his propensity for cutting movies to shreds) and it's debatable how he stacks up against other producers of infamy like Don Simpson or John Peters. It's all maybes. Peters would probably insist one of his cast go as a giant spider :pac:

Honestly, I think this entire segue is more about "do I personally find her choice attractive?", and yeah. I do; I find suits on attractive women very appealing. So no, I don't think she "looks crap", and wouldn't ever presume other people's metrics of beauty TBH. Now, I'll grant you. That loose fit? It was very early-2000s, and a bit rubbish - but to that point so is the photograph. It's an exposure nightmare, the white of the suit totally blown out. Googling, I can see better photos that do the suit more justice - so maybe Beckinsale's poorest choice was not considering a different colour, given a nighttime premiere, and the necessity of flash-photography.

if you think that many producers and directors haven't put actors to the sword with nasty verbals for "going off script" you're deluded.

Michael Cimino held a loaded gun to the head of an actor on the set of Heaven's Gate.

Weinstein isn't in jail for 23 years for calling Bekinsdale a count - he's in jail for multiple rapes

him balling Beckinsdale out-of-it wouldn't even be a story if it wasn't in the context of his far worse heinous illegal crimes

pixelburp

glasso wrote: »

if you think that many producers and directors haven't put actors to the sword with nasty verbals for "going off script" you're deluded.

Michael Cimino held a loaded gun to the head of an actor on the set of Heaven's Gate.

Weinstein isn't in jail for 23 years for calling Bekinsdale a count - he's in jail for multiple rapes

him balling Beckinsdale out-of-it wouldn't even be a story if it wasn't in the context of his far worse heinous illegal crimes

Never claimed anything of the sort, and if you read this thread you'll see me argue why toxic behaviour shouldn't be tolerated in Hollywood; I'm plenty familiar with the (in)famous examples of directorial abuse palmed off as "auteur" behaviour; I literally namedrop examples, while debating the issue with El Rifle only 2 pages back, so you can drop the "delusion" hostility thanks

What's being spitballed is whether any other producer would have verbally abused an actor for their fashion choices at a Premiere for a romcom, to the extent that Weinstein did. I don't believe it's as common as you're suggesting, or that it could otherwise contextualise, if not openly excuse Weinstein's behaviour. I'm sure agents and PR departments made sure female stars were all gussied up back in the day; I debate the extent to which producers did the same. It's easy to forget just how powerful Weinstein was in his heyday, and how much power he extended over those within his reach.

johnny_ultimate

A woman does not deserve abuse for any clothing she wears to a film premiere. That goes quadruply so for the level of abuse in this case.

No ifs. No buts. No middle ground.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

if you think that many producers and directors haven't put actors to the sword with nasty verbals for "going off script" you're deluded.

Michael Cimino held a loaded gun to the head of an actor on the set of Heaven's Gate.

Weinstein isn't in jail for 23 years for calling Bekinsdale a count - he's in jail for multiple rapes

him balling Beckinsdale out-of-it wouldn't even be a story if it wasn't in the context of his far worse heinous illegal crimes

I'd actually suspect a producer would think twice about saying something like that now. And it very much so shows how he treated women like meat. Like he basically told her that she's there to turn people on... So even if he wasn't found guilty of a load of crimes, even those comments are that of a misogynistic creep. Also I'd happily see anyone being thrown out the door for that.

Also I would say that the likes of Heaven's Gate behaviour tends to be more an example of the extreme behaviours of the period. People got away with a lot of **** in the seventies and early eighties. Anyone behaving like that later on would have been out the door.

I never suggested that it's common for producers to give out to stars for what they wear at a premiere.

I also never commented on whether it's about whether she looked attractive or not as you have claimed that this is about.

I said that it's hardly surprising in this case that she got rebuked for what she did. It's what she did, not just what she wore.

As said I don't condone the language.

She was dressed like a lesbian would be expected to dress at the time.

As said this was a hetro romcom movie so that was in no way helpful at the time to the promotion of the movie, quite the opposite.

It's not as if she was a wearing just a drab dress. The image she was projecting (especially for the time) is an actual act of sabotage against the premise of the movie and marketing of same.

She already had her acting fee in the bag but not a cent of the $30 million or so movie budget had been recouped at this point.

In 2001 in the premiere was very much front and centre as one of the key marketing events along with press and tv /cinema advertising and more than today it would have been coordinated with press and tv channels to ensure maximum coverage.

There were no smartphones in the modern sense with widespread internet access on them and there was no youtube.

At this stage it's gone way off the actual thread topic.

Weinstein is a horrible multiple rapist - that's why he's in jail.

Beckinsdale was no innocent victim in this stunt. It was a completely deliberate action very much against helping the movie.

I would say the bottom line is that the behaviour was unacceptable and you're very much so trying to sanitise it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say the bottom line is that the behaviour was unacceptable and you're very much so trying to sanitise it.

nope

said the language can't be condoned.

we all know that he's a long-time mega prick and he thankfully he was jailed for over 20 years for the serious crimes that he committed.

all rapists should face jail.

her behaviour was deliberate though in terms of "anti-marketing" the film so can't see any producer or director not "having a word"

if you go out to sabotage the revenue prospects of your employer in any job, especially on the most public of stages, it's not going to lead to a clap on the back.

JP Liz V1

glasso wrote: »

She shacked up with Len Wiseman and by marrying yourself (literally) to a b-movie franchise like underworld for over a decade you're effectively determining what parts you will get

OT but had Kate work done, she does look well

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would say the bottom line is that the behaviour was unacceptable and you're very much so trying to sanitise it.

Personally I’d rather be shouted at then get a reputation as being difficult and not working again. There are expectations on actors to sell the movies they are in to the best of their ability. These days they are told what to wear and even who to bring.

Tony EH

Potatoeman wrote: »

These days they are told what to wear and even who to bring.

"These days" are nothing compared to what actors and actresses went through when under contract with studios years go. They may have to do a few contractual appearances here and there today for a particular picture, but back in the 40's and 50's a studio owned you.

mikhail

Wiener-stein now trying to avoid having to face further charges in California by fighting extradition.

This prick is going to rot in jail until his decrepit ass croaks.

Agent Coulson

Noel Clarke has been accused by 20 women of groping, harassment and bullying.

Bafta suspends outstanding contribution award and actor’s membership


Alleged misconduct including claims he secretly filmed naked audition
Doctor Who and Kidulthood star allegedly showed colleagues sexually explicit photos and videos of women

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/29/actor-noel-clarke-accused-of-groping-harassment-and-bullying-by-20-women

Harry Palmr

Read that, so much first hand testimony. I'd say if only a bit of what's alleged sticks he's toast.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Read that, so much first hand testimony. I'd say if only a bit of what's alleged sticks he's toast.

That secret recording of nude auditions is just so predatory in own right. Think he's pretty fecked based on that alone.

KaneToad

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Noel Clarke has been accused by 20 women of groping, harassment and bullying.

Bafta suspends outstanding contribution award and actor’s membership


Alleged misconduct including claims he secretly filmed naked audition
Doctor Who and Kidulthood star allegedly showed colleagues sexually explicit photos and videos of women

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/29/actor-noel-clarke-accused-of-groping-harassment-and-bullying-by-20-women

Just read that article. Not a fan of trial by media. I hope we see a court case and that justice will be done.

Incidentally, I'd never heard of this guy before. Nor any of his acting or producing/directing work (except for Dr Who).

Fysh

Will be interesting to see what comes of this one, given that Clarke's involvement in producing/directing as well as acting. He's made his reputation on a sort of "if you can't get the roles, create the roles" basis and speaking put against what he sees as unfairness or discrimination in the industry - but that means being held to the standard he talks about, and those allegations suggest something quite different.

It sounds like there's proof of him sending d*ck pics, which isn't a goos look from someone in a producer/director role ("consensual flirting" nonsense excuses notwithstanding); if there's proof of the recorded naked audition he's definitely toast, but I would expect even if none of the allegations can be substantiated and he gets backing for future directing/producing gigs, there will be a lot more scrutiny of how his sets are managed, particularly if they involve sex scenes.

CastorTroy

I find it weird they keep focusing on the fact that he secretly recorded the naked audition instead of the fact that he got someone to do a naked audition

CastorTroy

CastorTroy wrote: »

I find it weird they keep focusing on the fact that he secretly recorded the naked audition instead of the fact that he got someone to do a naked audition

It's not unheard of unfortunately, granted it's for predatory reasons generally. James Franco was doing it with acting students too. Have a weird feeling that it might be rampant in Hollywood but not sure about UK.

pixelburp

20 women is quite the number; sure, you can plead one or two cases of miscommunication or "bad dates" (see Aziz Ansari, from what I recall of that particular example), but there's a critical mass of complaints that goes far, far beyond that. The videoing of a naked audition is just ... yeesh. It's behaviour so beyond anything I'd consider even marginal, I wonder how you get to that point. Did Clarke start out that way from his teen years, or was it just the entertainment industry that gave him this vulgar, outsized sense of his own importance and power that he felt those actions were appropriate - or that he could get away with it, even if he knew it was wrong?

B.A._Baracus

That's the end of him. Being accused is enough to end your career but 20 cases is the sealant.

FunLover18

Sky have halted production on Bulletproof and are looking into ways to continue the series without Clarke.

Earthhorse

pixelburp wrote: »

Did Clarke start out that way from his teen years, or was it just the entertainment industry that gave him this vulgar, outsized sense of his own importance and power that he felt those actions were appropriate - or that he could get away with it, even if he knew it was wrong?

I doubt anyone who's doing stuff like that thinks those actions are appropriate; they know it's wrong. I get the impression with a lot of these guys they do something like make a comment or grope someone and realise there will be no downside to doing so, so they just continue doing it and even maybe getting bolder and bolder in what they're doing as time goes on.

silverharp

there seems to be a side angle to the story with Adam Deacon (no idea who this person is) but Deacon had called him out on something in the past and then felt he got snubbed by the industry.

pixelburp

Earthhorse wrote: »

I doubt anyone who's doing stuff like that thinks those actions are appropriate; they know it's wrong. I get the impression with a lot of these guys they do something like make a comment or grope someone and realise there will be no downside to doing so, so they just continue doing it and even maybe getting bolder and bolder in what they're doing as time goes on.

True enough: I suppose it's more down to the power and the powerless; something that has existed in the entertainment industry for decades now. If you can get away with it, with no worry over repercussions, you'll always get a percentage of people that'll take things to extreme levels. Whether it's sexual misconduct like with Clarke, or "just" boilerplate abuses like politicians working around a lack of oversight in their actions.

But as I've said before, this is the result of the industry indulging "the auteur", whereupon the behaviours of individuals are tolerated because of this lingering bullshít ideology that "art" can only come from the minds and actions of outrageous, horrible people. That film cannot be a collaborative environment, but an authoritative one.

Earthhorse

pixelburp wrote: »

But as I've said before, this is the result of the industry indulging "the auteur", whereupon the behaviours of individuals are tolerated because of this lingering bullshít ideology that "art" can only come from the minds and actions of outrageous, horrible people. That film cannot be a collaborative environment, but an authoritative one.

Maybe. Like you say though it exists in other fields, like politics, where the auteur myth doesn't hold as much sway. And it's hard to know where exactly the line is; I've definitely worked with people (not in film) that are way more productive than others and they do get more latitude because of it. I think that's through universally and, although I know nothing about Clark, I imagine a the franchises he originated simply wouldn't have happened without him (other stuff would have happened but not those specific things).

Potatoeman

pixelburp wrote: »

20 women is quite the number; sure, you can plead one or two cases of miscommunication or "bad dates" (see Aziz Ansari, from what I recall of that particular example), but there's a critical mass of complaints that goes far, far beyond that. The videoing of a naked audition is just ... yeesh. It's behaviour so beyond anything I'd consider even marginal, I wonder how you get to that point. Did Clarke start out that way from his teen years, or was it just the entertainment industry that gave him this vulgar, outsized sense of his own importance and power that he felt those actions were appropriate - or that he could get away with it, even if he knew it was wrong?

The Aziz situation though creepy was consensual. Not sure why it was focused on, it was not a good example of anything. In fact the self described ‘victim’ didn’t come off well at all. She meet him when on a date with someone else and exchanged numbers, then meet up with him for a date that week and had awkward consensual sex and made the allegations well afterwards.