Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

I saw that on Newsnight last night. It seemed horribly self indulgent on his part. He's not a victim in any of this so why was his opinion sought after?

He's a luvvie. Performers by their very nature have a higher than background level of attention seeking, self indulgence, self promotion and a visceral need for an audience, so when they see a showboat they want to be on it.

Attention for luvvies is like blood in the water for sharks and this is a huge feeding frenzy. We will doubtless observe as this unravels further that on top of the main women who have come forward with stories of sexual assault at his hands, we'll also start to get others trying to get on this showboat with little more than "he looked at me sexually, once. #imavictimtoo". There's been already an element of this with the Affleck guy. We have two videos, one cringe level 10, but the woman involved has come out and clearly stated it was a pre arranged all for show setup and he was actually a gentleman when the red light was off. The other where a woman said he grabbed her tit, yet it could be argued he must have arms like a gibbon to reach said mammary.

They also are very aware of the right and wrong types of attention. They have to be. If they're not, their agents and handlers are. Hence the sluggishness of so many to make waves while this was going on. In particular I'm thinking of the men in these women's lives who did eff all. And the real sluggishness in supporting the women who first broke this. It wasn't until the attention direction was sure did they release their statements condemning it.

That's why someone like Streep is so all over the place. She's a great actress, but not exactly the sharpest axe in the toolshed*, so will be caught up in the "art" of a rapist like Polanski, because it isn't relevant enough to her to get through her skull. She'll not notice, or she won't particularly care about Harvey's peccadilloes because again it wasn't relevant enough to her, beyond the consensus that Harvey was a "genius".





*While you certainly have people like Matt Damon and Jodie Foster who are bloody clever people, people who can go off script and have actual discussions and hold actual opinions of their own, there are a shedload of pretty thick Hollywood types, and ending up in that kind of sycophantic bubble won't help their brains. They get by with well rehearsed public personas that are honed on talk show couches and go which ever way the wind is currently blowing(or are told to go), but if they're asked to go off script and think....

Pac1Man wrote: »

This kind of stuff dilutes the actual victims here.

It pales in comparison to what Weinstein did.

No he shouldn't have done it etc. etc. but is this really the time to bring up your horrific ordeal? Attention seeking.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Make up artist claims Affleck groped her in 2014.


https://twitter.com/amtendler/status/918209962056339456

Me. Just now. wrote: »

Attention for luvvies is like blood in the water for sharks and this is a huge feeding frenzy. We will doubtless observe as this unravels further that on top of the main women who have come forward with stories of sexual assault at his hands, we'll also start to get others trying to get on this showboat with little more than "he looked at me sexually, once. #imavictimtoo".

Like I said, there's blood in the water. And the worst thing about all this is Weinstein(and Affleck to a lesser degree) will be the focus and all the ills of Hollywood will be fired at him, to a) increase attention and b) deflect from other "weinsteins" that are active now.

Me. Way back on the first day of this. wrote: »

They also tend to be attention junkies so I expect much outrage for a time, each fighting over twitter to be the most supportive/victimised.

When something like this happens in Hollywood, or music biz or the fashion biz and goes public I think: A) sounds like he pissed off enough of the top movers and shakers or this would have never come to light(often they wait until a greasy bastard is dead). After all he kept paying off his previous victims to keep quiet for twenty years. Something changed. It's a pressure release valve for the ongoing stuff we never hear about and C) it looks like the industry is "taking this very seriously" and need a sacrificial goat to pin out, but tomorrow another aspiring actress(or actor) willing to do almost anything to be a "star" will be looking down the barrel of another greasy bastard on another casting couch. Business as usual.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Furthermore, I'm not comfortable with the attempted hijacking of these abuses by the feminist crowd too.
Notice how most of the luvvies like Ben Affleck, Emma Thompson, Glenn Close, Merl Streep etc have been trying to rebrand it as a 'women's issue', with very little paid to the actual core problem. Which is rampant abuse of men, women, and children in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

Well of course BL. The "feminist crowd" are the flavour of the day and their mouthpieces are just peddling that. It sells. PLus your Hollywood types have pretty much been right on middle class Neo liberals since the 70's. For them the 70's never went away, so that's their frame of reference. And as I said many of them are as bright as a two watt lightbulb. Switched off.

We've already seen allegations of male abuse from Terry Crews, James Van Der Beek, Corey Feldman, Corey Haim etc. And I'm willing to bet there's going to be a lot more too, as I alluded to with the likes of Kevin Spacey in an earlier post.

Sure, but male abuse is allied to the Gay side of things, so because these muppets are mostly thick they are afraid of calling out such things in case they're seen as homophobic. Which is a nonsense. Indeed there have been a few guys from the Gay community who have called out such dodgy goings on in Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Rightfully. I condemn Weinstein and other greasy bastards like him who prey on women, does this make me heterophobic? Bollocks it does.

Sexual abuse in Hollywood/entertainment isn't an exclusive problem for women. (Although in the case of Weinstein, the victims have been women so far it must be acknowledged of course.)

Exactly. On both counts. There is also a sleazy side where young male stars are paraded around parties to be leered at and fondled by older women in the biz, mostly wives and relatives of big players and investors. Greasy old bitches leering at young men(and sometimes women) isn't as commonplace as greasy old bastards leering at young women(and sometimes men), but it goes on.

And if they're REALLY serious about tackling this problem, now they have momentum that is unprecedented in Hollywood history. The entire world's media is focused on them, so now is a once in a lifetime opportunity to destroy the paedophile and sexual assault networks that have infested Hollywood.

How about a massive, general strike until working conditions are changed?
They already have the network from the previous women's march, and those pussy hats are sitting in the closet lying idle.

It's time to shit or get off the pot, celebrities.

Never gonna happen B. The honey pot is too sweet and there's too much money at stake. The obvious and greasy bastards like Weinstein are the tip of the iceberg. And he was hugely obvious, yet he got away with it for over twenty years. He likely would have got away with it entirely if *allegedly* people closer to home, his brother, according to Harvey himself, didn't want him out of the company.

Years ago I read a good book(whose name escapes) about the history and people in the US porn business and among all the weirdness and such, I also recall one actress who had been a brief time in the Hollywood arena, who then went on to porn and what she said about the differences. It was along the lines of: at least with porn you knew what you were getting into. It had sleazy men and not so sleazy, but they were honest and up front. If I gave the director/producer a blowjob I'd get the gig and it was nearly as much about my "talent". In Hollywood the blowjob was the start of it and all about power. Porn was honest, Hollywood was not.

She and others, men and women, also reckoned that porn was more internally supportive back then and dodgy men(and the occasional woman) were weeded out and fast if women complained about anyone. When porn went mainstream in the 70's they had a lot of the Hollywood types sniffing around looking for what angle they could get from it and again the porn types reckoned that a lot of the Hollywood types made them look like innocents.

I'll try and dig out the book title, it was interesting from a human point of view.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

"But you're damaging an entire industry!" :rolleyes:

Venom wrote: »

This is all the hollywood types care about.

As I said early on wrote: »

This would be seen as a venial sin, though a bad one as it went public, the true mortal sin of Hollywood and for which forgiveness is rare is to lose money.

That's all they care about and the actors, the mouthpieces peddling the current philosophy/politic de jour are an easily digestible pill for the mob who hang on their every word. It's all about the money. Always has been and is more than ever these days. One reason why the good stuff is more on TV. Cheaper with fewer losses, so the bigwigs care less about it. The Godfather if made today would be a Netflix series. No way would it get green lit by the studios. Neither would something like Star Wars. The rejig of same, The Farce Awakens a perfect example of how hollow and unimaginative the mainstream studios have become.