Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118387129#Comment_118387129

Because that's how the real world actually works.

Uglier people are happy to sleep with better looking ones.

It's programmed into humans.

He was not right to take advantage of the position but there is no suggestion that it was not completely consensual.

it's way down the scale compared to the other scandals.

In fact it's probably safe to say that he never would have slept with them save for the fact that they were in his school.

Penn

Weren't there also accusations that in his classes he made them have kissing/sexual scenes with him, removed protective shields used in filming to cover genitals, and got angry when some of them wouldn't go topless for some scenes?

I think the accusations against him went beyond just "teacher sleeps with adult student". It seems clear he was abusing his position in any way he could and putting the women in uncomfortable situations. Illegal? No. But scummy to say the least if those accusations are true.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118387673#Comment_118387673

afaik those two students (Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal) were not in some of the most dodgy classes that were supposed to have being going on.

I'm not saying that that Franco is a good guy in the slightest but it wasn't rape / sexual assault / drugging people / high-level abuse - it was consensual sex between adults and any sex classes that took place they signed up for specifically.

certainly there was a power dynamic there I agree and it's not good behaviour.

I don't know if it's a complete career-ender.

time will tell.

RabbleRouser2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118387751#Comment_118387751

I'd say him settling an earlier case doesn't look good for him. A lot of his behaviour reminds of similar stuff James Toback did. Wouldn't fall under 'rape', but it would fall under power dynamic abuse.

That said, Franco's not in the clear-him making an admission of bad behaviour means the lawsuits now have more meat to them.

RabbleRouser2k

Interesting how Noth is being blamed for the show's (more than likely) cancellation.

Couldn't possibly be because the show itsself was met with all the warmth of a bout of diarrhea. The Noth allegations probably helped get rid of a bomb.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/will-and-just-like-that-get-season-2-after-chris-noth-scandal/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118394398#Comment_118394398

I had to watch a few episodes of this, the first one was passable with North in it, and then it got beyond bad. Puke worthy

mary 2021

They did the reboot for the pay check and agreed to virtue signal everything that is wrong in the world today but it has spectacularly bombed and thank god it has these reboots ruin the original series and tarnish them. Well done Kim Cattrell for giving it a wide birth it proves she really made the orignial show what it was, these three are soo boring with out her. She carried the show and they all know it too.

Sad Professor

Armie Hammer has been Christopher Plummered.

https://deadline.com/2021/12/armie-hammer-replaced-will-arnett-next-goal-wins-taika-waititi-movie-1234903098/

Pussyhands

The MeToo movement is toxic. A lot of the times there is no sexual assault or rape, there's consent.

Like women sleeping with someone to get a role etc. That's not rape. Might be creepy and unethical but it's consensual.

"oh I slept with him because I wouldn't become a famous actress otherwise" is not rape or sexual assault. Why didn't these women report this? No, they put their career first and slept with them.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401222#Comment_118401222

I was only wondering the other what was happening with Next Goal Wins, interested to see what Waititi did with what was already an entertaining story, one covered by a documentary of the same name (IIRC). Hadn't known Hammer was involved;

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401250#Comment_118401250

You're assuming women are walking into producers' office and offering sex in exchange for a role, I'm not saying that doesn't happen but in a lot of these cases the producers or people in power are the ones eliciting sex or sexual favours which is definitely creepy and completely unethical. To turn around say "ah well, you consented, your loss" is a pretty disgusting attitude.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401356#Comment_118401356

More to the point, the whole argument that it's "consensual" misses the small detail that all described still amounts to coercion - which yeah, remains illegal. Consensual actions can't involve withheld benefits or results, it contradicts the whole notion; no more than it would be illegal in a normal office workplace, a promotion dependent on some act ... the "casting couch" should be something pursued as a prosecutable offence. It ain't, but that's the fun and corruption of Hollywood.

Pussyhands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401356#Comment_118401356

If you go into work tomorrow and my boss says "Help me launder money or you're getting sacked".

What would you do? Would you do it? or would you quit?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401356#Comment_118401356

If someone says "hey, if you give me a blowjob, I will give you fame beyond your wildest dreams" and you do it, and get fame beyond your wildest dreams, or if someone says, hey, give me a blowjob and this part is yours, and they do it and get the part, what's the issue?

If a woman consents to something in order to get something they want, then surely that's ok?

The power in this case is with the woman.

I don't agree or condone the exchange of sex for favours, but it's bizarre to see it only one way.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401854#Comment_118401854

You're framing it as some kind of amicable favour it, as if fame is the ultimate prize - as opposed to simply continuing to have work in a famously corrupting industry; as if refusal means both adults part as friends; when the reality is more like "do this OR ELSE your career is over. Refuse and I'll say you're : difficult to work with'" As said, coercing someone into an action with the threat/promise of a continued career. Acting is a job just like any other and it reduces the issue to assume actors are just fame hungry creatures, open to corruption if it gets more "fame". Most want to pay the rent, having to "please" Harvey Weinstein is not some kind of happy, mutual arrangement.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401925#Comment_118401925

Im purposely framing it that way because you are purposely framing it the exact opposite extreme.

I don't condone or endorse using sex or sexuality as a bargaining tool, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say it doesn't work both ways.

And yes, fame is absolutely the ultimate prize for any actor.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402128#Comment_118402128

I'm framing it based on how actors have described their experiences with, to take an example, Harvey Weinstein and so on; indulge me or else. So, Coercion. Hardly "extreme" to describe a codified offence. Though I suppose if you feel every actor is fame hungry above all else, it's easy to just reduce the issue to an amicable exchange and nothing else untoward. Or the complainants the problem, when they try to highlight that, hey, this multi-trillion dollar industry might be getting away with behaviour beyond the pale elsewhere. I am loving the idea of someone like Olivia Coleman, fame monster though. No, for most actors it's a job. Most jobs are

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401696#Comment_118401696

What a ridiculous comparison. You don't know what you're talking about if you think Hollywood is anything like an ordinary work environment. Coercing people who don't want to have sex with you to do so in return for professional favours is abhorrent, end of. You asked earlier why people don't report, maybe because of people like you who either want to clap people on the back for saying no or victim blame them for "consenting" while at the same time using that coerced consent to excuse the original behaviour which according to you only "might be creepy".

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118401854#Comment_118401854

The issue is someone saying "hey if you give me a blowjob, I'll give you fame". That's it, that's the issue.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402214#Comment_118402214

I never said Olivia Coleman was a fame monster. You did that framing. I said fame was an ultimate prize for her. I'm sure she would have been happy working in independent films as she gives the impression that she loves to act. But I do think her ultimate goal when she embarked on her acting career was to be a famous actress.

Some people don't have the talent that Olivia Coleman has. Some people want the level of fame Olivia Coleman has. Some people are willing to perform sexual favours to people in order to fast track their way to that fame. Some producers are unscrupulous enough to offer less talented actresses opportunities they wouldn't have earned through talent alone if they are willing to perform sexual acts.

I'm not in favour of it at all. I think it's mucky and murky. But should it be illegal?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402280#Comment_118402280

It's only an issue if you can't say no.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402287#Comment_118402287

If it's coercive behaviour, then yes it already is illegal, this is the point I'm making. The proof of that is for courts to decide, criminal or civil, but fundamentally gatekeeping career advancement - or the reverse in blackballing - through sexual predation should be surfaced, then allow options for punishment. And not blaming the victims for speaking up. The simple reason why it was allowed was ... well, history. I'd use the word that sounds "pate-a-larky", but that seems to trigger some folk.

Forget fame or gender: this is the simple lopsided dynamic of the Powerful vs. the powerless; the control isn't with the women as you suggested - TBH that's kinda naive, and a little amusing a Hollywood producer would be chastened by a female actor saying no thanks. As the trope goes in many a seedy drama, the buses are full of girls trying to make it big, so if you don't, the next ingenue will.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402384#Comment_118402384

I'm not making any excuses for Harvey Weinstein. I think he's a disgusting pig.

I just think that a fair share of people achieve fame through sexual favours and it is absolutely consentual.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402434#Comment_118402434

Id agree with this. I imagine there is a conveyor belt of actresses willing to do anything to get famous. Men too. How many end up in the porn industry?

Theres a line when someone physically does something to push someone into sex. Then its sexual assault against someones will.

If it is suggested and done without physical coercion its not illegal its a choice whether you find it distasteful or not. That person makes the choice.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402434#Comment_118402434

Wouldn't you think then that the majority, if not all of those, would be keeping quiet about willingly trading sexual favours for career advancement? Maybe the ones coming forward are the ones who felt coerced into it.

Think of the number of women over the last few years who made accusations. Most of the bigger names were ones people knew already. The majority though were fairly small, lesser-known actors. What has it done for their careers? How many could you name whose names you didn't already know or at least wouldn't recognise if you saw them? The women who've accused James Franco, what has it done for their careers? Do they even have careers? I certainly couldn't name them or recognise them.

There's diminishing returns when it comes to coming forward about these things. When bigger-name celebrities have already come forward with their stories and the number of women coming forward in general increases, someone coming forward and trying use these claims for career advancement get lost in the mix.

Maybe the ones coming forward are the ones who have genuinely been coerced and are coming forward because they've legitimately been assaulted/wronged, and the ones who have traded sex for career advancement wouldn't want to come forward because if it was reasonably proven they did so, it'd damage their careers.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402294#Comment_118402294

No, it's an issue and it's an abuse of power.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402895#Comment_118402895

I'm not sure I entirely agree or disagree with you to be honest.

Abuse of power is quite nebulous and is certainly not as black and white as some are making it out to be.

In certain cases, like Harvey Weinstein, it's pretty obvious, but other scenarios aren't as obvious or necessarily true.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403102#Comment_118403102

If you're using your position to gain sexual favour, it's an abuse of power. I'm not sure what's nebulous about that tbh. You're clearly not giving out positions or fame based on merit.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403252#Comment_118403252

If your using your sexuality/sexual attractiveness to gain advantages not afforded to people less attractive, is that an abuse of power?

Again, I don't think it's as straight forward in every scenario.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403305#Comment_118403305

Your premise assumes that actors are weaponising their looks in the first place, something of which there's not apparent evidence or testimony beyond trashy character stereotypes - not as a resting strategy - while reads a much bigger stretch of credulity than the simple act of "you need to do X for me, for Y to happen". You ignore the quantitive power wielded by the studio system, in favour of some prickling of thumbs that waves of beautiful actors are sleeping their way into jobs. Again, like it's an innocent trade of vices, as opposed to shít that'd get you fired anywhere else. I imagine many producers play by the rules and are decent humans (to the degree allowed by corporate Hollywood), as would most actors so playing the "both sides" angle doesn't really wash when the industry itself enables these power dynamics. A woman's sexuality is not a negotiable, tradable item, empowering an actor's career path. Casting directors must be riven by STDs by the sounds of it. I guess uggos have to find another way?