Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

26-02-2021 8:27am

pixelburp wrote: »

I'll be honest, I didn't foresee this thread turning into El Rifle and Potatoeman's attempts to lament the difficulty of being. Simply. So. Desirable :rolleyes: :pac: It's a tough life.

Its a Dirty job but someones gotta do it!

FunLover18 · 27-02-2021 3:52am

A Variety article on Whedon and the work environment on Buffy and Angel. Not much new information but an interesting read nonetheless.

https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/joss-whedon-buffy-angel-charisma-carpenter-toxic-workplace-1234915549/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

santana75 · 27-02-2021 1:38pm

Who's to say an older man shouldn't date a younger woman? I mean these things happen all the time, theres lots of examples, Richard gere, Mick Jagger, mel Gibson, denis Quaid......and as far as I know both parties have gone into these unions fully with their eyes open and nobody was held at gunpoint. I think the difference between that and Gerard D and Harvey Weinstein is intentions. They set out to rape and control and it was one sided non consenting. I think the truth is a lot of people both male and female will condemn and judge older men with younger women because deep down they're jealous that they cant hook up with a beautiful younger actress or model themselves. I dont think theres a double standard either. I've seen older women with younger men and nobody cares really. And men dont have the monopoly on being creeps, I've had plenty of older women creep on me and be inappropriate with what they say and also with being groped. I think theres a tendency to view women as a whole, as victims when the truth is something else entirely. Both men and women can be creeps.

Need a Username · 27-02-2021 1:47pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

A Variety article on Whedon and the work environment on Buffy and Angel. Not much new information but an interesting read nonetheless.

https://variety.com/2021/tv/features/joss-whedon-buffy-angel-charisma-carpenter-toxic-workplace-1234915549/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I had wanted to read more about so thanks for the link

Brief_Lives · 18-03-2021 10:47pm

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0318/1204827-actor-armie-hammer-accused-of-rape-in-los-angeles/

Hollywood actor Armie Hammer has been accused of raping a woman in Los Angeles.

The woman, a 24-year-old named only as Effie, made the allegations during a virtual press conference held by high-profile US lawyer Gloria Allred.

The accuser broke down while reading a prepared statement, alleging she first met Hammer, now 34, on Facebook back in 2016.

She alleged he raped her for four hours and slammed her head against a wall. Hammer, known for films including The Social Network and Call Me By Your Name, previously described social media allegations against him as "vicious and spurious online attacks against me".

The PA news agency has contacted his lawyer, Andrew Brettler, over the latest claims.

powered by Rubicon Project
When asked if Effie would be pressing charges, Ms Allred, known for taking on cases involving women's rights, said: "Effie is providing what she thinks might be relevant to law enforcement and then it is for law enforcement and the prosecutor to decide if there is sufficient evidence to pursue it.

"But I will only say that Effie has the courage to cooperate in any investigation that may be taking place"

Sakana · 19-03-2021 2:35am

Brief_Lives wrote: »

Hollywood actor Armie Hammer has been accused of raping a woman in Los Angeles.

Hammer was up to a lot of seriously demented stuff, allegedly.

19-03-2021 11:51am

Sakana wrote: »

Hammer was up to a lot of seriously demented stuff, allegedly.

kinky sexual preferences are one thing

rape is another

Will I Am Not · 19-03-2021 11:56am

Is that normal? To have a press conference to allege a rape? Is it just for celebrities? Seems a bit weird.

19-03-2021 12:07pm

Background is that she was involved in the prior abuse allegations (there were others subsequently also alleging)

Claims not to be going after money (civil suit) and that it's about his consensual claims

Would be very much a he said / she said issue so would it go to trial?

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/woman-accuses-armie-hammer-rape-abuse-lapd-1144122/

At a press conference Thursday, the woman named “Effie” — also the name of the person who runs the @houseofeffie Instagram account that allegedly revealed Hammer’s sexual fantasies — shared her experience with Hammer and the abuse she suffered during a four-year affair that took place between 2016 and 2020.

Effie’s lawyer Gloria Allred said her client came forward publicly to deny Hammer’s previous statement that his sexual relationships were “completely consensual in that they were fully discussed, agreed upon and mutually participatory,” and that Effie would not pursue a civil case against the actor, the Wrap reported.

19-03-2021 12:51pm

glasso wrote: »

kinky sexual preferences are one thing

rape is another

Thing is, the two exes said that it was more than a kink and he was pretty manipulative and abusive.

19-03-2021 12:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, the two exes said that it was more than a kink and he was pretty manipulative and abusive.

yes but rape if convicted can put you in jail for a long time

either way does bring up the question again of these things should go through the criminal system or should it be possible to destroy a person's career with some social media posts with no actual judicial process?

pixelburp · 19-03-2021 1:10pm

glasso wrote: »

Background is that she was involved in the prior abuse allegations (there were others subsequently also alleging)

Claims not to be going after money (civil suit) and that it's about his consensual claims

Would be very much a he said / she said issue so would it go to trial?

My understanding that's the fundamental problem with a lot of sexual assault cases regardless of fame with the accused: the charge is usually made after the assault, for a host of reasons, so legally it nearly always becomes a "he said, she said" situation. There's no smoking gun, no killer piece of evidence to convict 'cos the nature of the crime is itself intimate, secret; the victim more often than not simply trying to move past it, if they can. With any biological evidence quickly gone. And in which case, more often than not the "he" is given the benefit of the doubt in a court.

19-03-2021 1:23pm

without a system based on law what is there but lawlessness

Weinstein was jailed for 23 years

Justice was served

pixelburp · 19-03-2021 1:31pm

glasso wrote: »

without a system based on law what is there but lawlessness

??

Not advocating lawlessness, but in cases that by their nature are "he said, she said" because the crime is almost always private, there's no sense the victim has much recourse. And as we see, cases made long after the fact are assumed to by money chasing when the accused is famous.

Wouldn't know how that changes, but what little I've read on the subject, "the law" doesn't automatically seem especially equal with private crimes.

19-03-2021 1:33pm

glasso wrote: »

without a system based on law what is there but lawlessness

Weinstein was jailed for 23 years

Justice was served

There was a recording of Weinstein admitting to crimes that was shelved for a decade or so until the likes of Ronan Farrow started investigating... So Justice got served as a result of investigative journalism more than anything.

19-03-2021 2:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a recording of Weinstein admitting to crimes that was shelved for a decade or so until the likes of Ronan Farrow started investigating... So Justice got served as a result of investigative journalism more than anything.

recording from 2015 is a decade or so?

he was jailed in early 2020 for 23 years

scandal broke in 2017

he was arrested in 2018

here is the transcript of it - was judged not to be enough evidence

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/harvey-weinstein-full-transcript-of-audio-with-ambra-gutierrez/9037268

19-03-2021 2:32pm

glasso wrote: »

recording from 2015 is a decade or so?

he was jailed in early 2020 for 23 years

scandal broke in 2017

he was arrested in 2018

here is the transcript of it - was judged not to be enough evidence

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/harvey-weinstein-full-transcript-of-audio-with-ambra-gutierrez/9037268

I stand corrected on the period of time, in terms of lack of charges. The DA and NYPD blamed each other. There would have been no prosecution if it weren't for investigative journalism imho.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/nypd-prosecutors-point-fingers-over-harvey-weinstein-probe-n809756

19-03-2021 3:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I stand corrected on the period of time, in terms of lack of charges. The DA and NYPD blamed each other. There would have been no prosecution if it weren't for investigative journalism imho.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/nypd-prosecutors-point-fingers-over-harvey-weinstein-probe-n809756

if you read the transcript I can see why a court case was not brought

https://www.wnyc.org/story/reports-say-manhattan-d-declined-prosecute-weinstein/

"what emerged from the audio was insufficient to prove a crime under New York law, which requires prosecutors to establish criminal intent. Subsequent investigative steps undertaken in order to establish intent were not successful. This, coupled with other proof issues, meant that there was no choice but to conclude the investigation without criminal charges.”

this was for a much less serious groping of breast allegation

wasn't even involved in the actual trial for rape where he was put away for 23 years

B.A._Baracus · 19-03-2021 4:14pm

Came across this:

Kate Beckinsale: Harvey Weinstein encounter 'left in tears'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51850916

... In an Instagram post which contains highly offensive language, Beckinsale uploaded a picture of her outfit and recalled her encounter with Weinstein.

The actress said she was reluctant to attend the premiere for her film Serendipity because it took place less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks, which she says felt "disrespectful".

But Beckinsale claims Weinstein, whose entertainment company Miramax distributed the film, "insisted" the premiere go ahead.

The actress agreed to attend the event as a result and was photographed attending wearing a white suit on 5 October, 2001 ...

... "He said: 'If I am throwing a red carpet you get in a tight dress, you shake your ass... you do not go down it looking like a lesbian'," Beckinsale recalled in the post ...

'You ruined my premiere!': Beckinsale recalls Weinstein's obscenity-filled rant
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/mar/12/kate-beckinsale-harvey-weinstein-rant-new-york-premiere

“The minute the door closed, he started screaming, ‘You stupid ****ing CU*T, you CU*T you ruined my premiere.’ I had no idea what he was talking about and started to shake … He said, ‘If I am throwing a red carpet, you get in a tight dress, you shake your ass, you shake your tits, you do not go down it looking like a ****ing lesbian, you stupid ****ing cu*t.’”

Lovely bloke :pac:
Call me foolish on this one, but I would have assumed Beckinsale would have had some sort of pull / power at the time. Like, Weinstein wouldnt have torn into her. But I guess he was the one with the power. Which is why he got away with it for so long.
Like that you might think some actor or actress has pull, but they don't in comparison.

19-03-2021 5:28pm

Weinstein is an absolute monster but I don't think that any movie producer who financed the large financial budget of a feature movie release which was a hetro rom-com would be happy to have the female lead head down the red carpet at the premiere dressed like Ellen DeGeneres

even more so twenty years ago

pixelburp · 19-03-2021 5:50pm

Funny, Beckinsale looks just as stunning in a suit as a dress, cos clearly she's a striking woman; but it tracks Weinstein would basically treat his female stars like cattle or meat to be paraded about. Presumably for as much his pleasure as others. There's no "in fairness" here, and we can't know how other producers might have acted; especially as given Weinstein and the overall mood of the industry, other similar transgressions would have surfaced by now.

mikhail · 19-03-2021 6:15pm

She does look great there, as usual. I wonder how it did in terms of press coverage. Were there yokels looking at that on the front cover of a magazine and deciding not to pick it up? Even if there were, it doesn't excuse the language or the tantrum.

Tony EH · 19-03-2021 7:02pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

“The minute the door closed, he started screaming, ‘You stupid ****ing CU*T, you CU*T you ruined my premiere.’ I had no idea what he was talking about and started to shake … He said, ‘If I am throwing a red carpet, you get in a tight dress, you shake your ass, you shake your tits, you do not go down it looking like a ****ing lesbian, you stupid ****ing cu*t.’”

Lovely bloke :pac:
Call me foolish on this one, but I would have assumed Beckinsale would have had some sort of pull / power at the time. Like, Weinstein wouldnt have torn into her. But I guess he was the one with the power. Which is why he got away with it for so long.
Like that you might think some actor or actress has pull, but they don't in comparison.

The head of a studio will always have significantly more power than any actor. That power includes the ability to ruin careers in a very real way.

In any case, I think most guys would be happy looking at Kate Beckinsale dressed in anything at all.

19-03-2021 7:16pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Funny, Beckinsale looks just as stunning in a suit as a dress, cos clearly she's a striking woman; but it tracks Weinstein would basically treat his female stars like cattle or meat to be paraded about. Presumably for as much his pleasure as others. There's no "in fairness" here, and we can't know how other producers might have acted; especially as given Weinstein and the overall mood of the industry, other similar transgressions would have surfaced by now.

it's not "in fairness"

nobody deserves to be verbally abused like that but it's part of a feature film actor's remit, most especially for a rom-com, to be part of the marketing and promotion and that was an ill-advised move on Beckinsdale's part at the very least.

The White Wolf · 19-03-2021 7:27pm

Even though that Beckinsale post is years old it's still relevant, as she's only now in recent years been able to branch out and show some depth.

Her career did fall in some strange hole that couldn't be explained. The Underworld films were not the best but hardly career destroying given Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy managed ok.

Even if you don't rate her as an actress there is still a clear tranjectory her career should have been on where she would always have work, so the only explanation is that she was scrubbed from consideration at the behest of someone powerful.

The funniest, or most tragic, thing is that she seems pretty put together still as a person comparing her to another victim of Weinstein's like Rose McGowan. It's not like she became a trainwreck and that's why the work dried up.

pixelburp · 19-03-2021 7:28pm

glasso wrote: »

it's not "in fairness"

nobody deserves to be verbally abused like that but it's part of a feature film actor's remit, most especially for a rom-com, to be part of the marketing and promotion and that was an ill-advised move on Beckinsdale's part at the very least.

Nobody deserves it, you're right. That's where it ends, and there's even less justifying it over a clothing choice. It's not like Beckinsale wore a plastic bag and crocs for goodness sake, it's just Weinstein couldn't **** into a pot plant over her choice. Marketing for movies includes press junkets and interviews, find me a contract that says a lead must also dress in such a way at a premiere and I'll take your point. Wear a dress or else? Naw. And given she says she decided on it out of respect for 911, then fair play. A showy princess dress would, yeah, feel a bit awkward for those caught the moment at that point in America. Not like male stars are obliged to dress like penguins at these things. But when a woman decides to deviate, it's headlines.

19-03-2021 7:33pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

Even though that Beckinsale post is years old it's still relevant, as she's only now in recent years been able to branch out and show some depth.

Her career did fall in some strange hole that couldn't be explained. The Underworld films were not the best but hardly career destroying given Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy managed ok.

Even if you don't rate her as an actress there is still a clear tranjectory her career should have been on where she would always have work, so the only explanation is that she was scrubbed from consideration at the behest of someone powerful.

The funniest, or most tragic, thing is that she seems pretty put together still as a person comparing her to another victim of Weinstein's like Rose McGowan. It's not like she became a trainwreck and that's why the work dried up.

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

19-03-2021 7:35pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Nobody deserves it, you're right. That's where it ends, and there's even less justifying it over a clothing choice. It's not like Beckinsale wore a plastic bag and crocs for goodness sake, it's just Weinstein couldn't **** into a pot plant over her choice. Marketing for movies includes press junkets and interviews, find me a contract that says a lead must also dress in such a way at a premiere and I'll take your point. Wear a dress or else? Naw. And given she says she decided on it out of respect for 911, then fair play. A showy princess dress would, yeah, feel a bit awkward for those caught the moment at that point in America. Not like male stars are obliged to dress like penguins at these things. But when a woman decides to deviate, it's headlines.

you're part of the product and promotion

big money is at stake.

she was certainly not naïve enough to think otherwise

20-03-2021 9:43am

glasso wrote: »

you're part of the product and promotion

big money is at stake.

she was certainly not naïve enough to think otherwise

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'.

Homelander · 20-03-2021 10:54am

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.

Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

Comments