Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

eviltimeban

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, always disliked his stuff. Could never understand his popularity. The underlying premise of his material you could always see coming a mile off and it was generally something very liberal leaning but which would always make him look perceptive for having noticed which ever particular failing he was shining a light on. He'd quite often throw himself into whichever demographic it was that he was sneering at, but given that he wasnthe the one pointing the failing, there was never anything genuinely self depreciating about it, but people always seemed to lap it up and because he was loved by liberals (given his 'feminist comedy') he got away with some material that many other comics most certainly would not have. Such as the following SNL monologue (from 5m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzh7RtIJKZk

Sorry, I watched that and p**ed myself laughing.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

it's all those women who sold their souls for a part in a movie that made Harvey and co continue with their sexual harassment of others.

Read that back to yourself a few times.

Who is calling out all those women.?

Well there's you, a half dozen other posters on this thread, and thousands of other people all over the internet.

_Dara_

eviltimeban wrote: »

What if you still like Louis CK's work? What if you don't really think what he did was enough to kill his entire career and ruin his life?

Remember the early reports about Weinstein? The very first ones. Before the more serious allegations came flooding in.

The early reports were things like asking for massages and for women to watch him showering. The stuff reported about Louis CK is on this level.

People rightfully rounded on Weinstein straight away. Why do you think Louis CK should be treated differently?

The problem with CK is that his stand-up completely contrasts with his real-life actions. So I think that many people (though maybe not all) will not be able to look at him the same way. Maybe his material will be good but I think many will reach for the remote before hearing it. And then maybe will feel too disgusted at the potential hypocrisy to keep watching. Who he presented himself as and who he actually is - the gulf is too great.

HandsomeBob

eviltimeban wrote: »

What if you still like Louis CK's work? What if you don't really think what he did was enough to kill his entire career and ruin his life?

Usually I'd be the type that would say don't let the person stop you from enjoying the art, but with Louis CK, his art has been tainted by his utter hypocrisy.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't enjoy it and I wouldn't have a problem with people remaining a fan of his, but.....I don't know, guess the best way I can put it is that the joke is literally over for a big part of his act.

I find Im watching things with a different eye now .

I just watched the American Dad episode with the Speilberg character , and the Goonies cast and my mouth fell open.


Is it another Seth Mc Farlane outing or am I just seeing things differently now?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINv-rcrEGM

Outlaw Pete

eviltimeban wrote: »

Sorry, I watched that and p**ed myself laughing.

Like I said, no issue with the material per se, but jokes about how much pedophiles must love the taste of young boys is not something which I feel should be deemed suitable for the Saturday Night Live monologue. Material like that has an place and that show ain't it.

As an aside, a Mounds Bar s pretty much a Red Bounty, in case anyone's wondering. Mr. Simms on Dame St sell them.

branie2

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Have any women been accused yet ? Or would that be too embarrassing for the men involved.
I think all the women who took up Harvey and the rest on their offers of sex for roles in films have to feel some degree of regret, it's all those women who sold their souls for a part in a movie that made Harvey and co continue with their sexual harassment of others.
Who is calling out all those women.?

I'd say it's a matter of time before women are on the chopping block.

PeterParker957

branie2 wrote: »

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Have any women been accused yet ? Or would that be too embarrassing for the men involved.
I think all the women who took up Harvey and the rest on their offers of sex for roles in films have to feel some degree of regret, it's all those women who sold their souls for a part in a movie that made Harvey and co continue with their sexual harassment of others.
Who is calling out all those women.?

I'd say it's a matter of time before women are on the chopping block.

I don't see that happening. I'm sure it can be explained by "empowering women" yada yada yada!!!

Wibbs

Jake1 wrote: »

I find Im watching things with a different eye now .

I just watched the American Dad episode with the Speilberg character , and the Goonies cast and my mouth fell open.


Is it another Seth Mc Farlane outing or am I just seeing things differently now?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINv-rcrEGM

Indeed. For fun watch his flic "Hook" again, but with an eye looking for greasy stuff hiding in plain sight. Or not. I sincerely hope this isn't the case and that he's genuinely and honestly plugging into the lost father/parent looking for the son within his own experience meme and making great cinema from it, but I've long harboured some suspicions on this score, illogical and sad though they may be.

But then again when memes and witch hunts are this strong and pervasive, if only for an interwebs moment it can be hard to separate the good wheat from the scummy chaff.

enfant terrible

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/929803481631940609

Weinstein wrote an article in 2009 defending Polansky in the indy which they deleted recently. :pac:

Genuine LOL at "He served his time" opening.

These are the list of celebrities who signed a petition asking for Polanski to be freed, after been arrested in Switzerland for the child rape.

Be interesting to see if any them make any comments about the recent sexual abuse cases after signing that petition.

Woody Allen, Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Jonathan Demme, Martin Scorsese, Kent Jones,Harmony Korine, Richard Pena, Jerry Schatzberg, Julian Schnabel, Barbet Schroeder, Paul Auster, Mike Nichols,Diane von Furstenberg, Harvey Weinstein, Adrien Brody, Jonathan Klein, Natalie Portman

Scott Foundas, John Landis, Alexander Payne, Taylor Hackford, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Mann J. Neil Schulman, Harrison Ford

David Lynch, Terry Zwigoff

Surprised Natalie Portman wanted Polanksi freed with her been a vocal femenist
http://www.justjared.com/2017/01/21/natalie-portman-speaks-at-womens-march-wearing-we-should-all-be-feminists-t-shirt/

retro:electro

Woody Allen, course he did.

No Tom Hanks, all is okay.

Shame on all of them.

enfant terrible

anna080 wrote: »

Woody Allen, course he did.

No Tom Hanks, all is okay.

Shame on all of them.

Here is the petition they signed, grotesque

Petition for Roman Polanski

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski's arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians - everyone involved in international filmmaking - want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

retro:electro

What does "in a case of morals" mean?

Everything about that is grim.

anna080

anna080 wrote: »

What does "in a case of morals" mean?

Everything about that is grim.

Nothing to see here.
Dirty bastards.

_Dara_

anna080 wrote: »

Woody Allen, course he did.

No Tom Hanks, all is okay.

Shame on all of them.

Yup, can't wrap my head around it. They'd all be grand with him drugging up their 13 year old child and buggering them, yeah? Because he's an artiste? They would in their hoop. But the vic was a nobody so who cares about her.

Wibbs

When a bunch of cosseted muppets sign a petition in support of a convicted child rapist it should tell you all you need to know about them and the cultural environment they inhabit.

_Dara_

enfant terrible wrote: »

Scott Foundas, John Landis, Alexander Payne, Taylor Hackford, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Mann J. Neil Schulman, Harrison Ford

Oh and John Landis can fook off too. Check out the circumstances surrounding the deaths of actor Vic Morrow (father of Jennifer Jason Leigh) and two child actors on the set of his 1980s Twilight Zone film. Shocking what he got away with.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

Shocking what he got away with.

It's all about the money D. He got away with it because he was a solid earner for the studios. Polanski was generally a safe pair of hands and an "artiste" with Oscar potential. Weinstein got away with it for so long because he was both a huge earner for the studios and was feted by critics. Blockbusters that the luvvies loved. A rare combination. No way was he going to be exposed in the 90's. He was far too big an earner, so the Hollywood machine would close ranks around him. It's informative that he's only being exposed now because his star is very much on the wane and that the majority of his initial accusers were also people with most of their careers behind them. Because they had much less to lose by speaking out. Others that have some stink around them today, but are still ringing the tills are being left largely alone.

silverharp

who'd have thunk it that that there is actually a rape culture in the west and it's Hollywood and the entertainment industry

iguana

anna080 wrote: »

What does "in a case of morals" mean?

Everything about that is grim.

It's deliberately chosen language that makes it seem like he might be arrested for a crime the some people might find noble. That arrest was the first I'd ever really heard of him and the 'case of morals' coupled with the section on his French citizenry meant my first assumption was that he had done something political against the US. Something legally criminal but considered heroic by his famous defenders. Reading more and finding out he had drugged and anally raped a child was mind-boggling.

mollygreene

George Takei claiming Russia have the spread sexual assault claims relating to him.

Notions.

Shurimgreat

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yup, can't wrap my head around it. They'd all be grand with him drugging up their 13 year old child and buggering them, yeah? Because he's an artiste? They would in their hoop. But the vic was a nobody so who cares about her.

This is it exactly.
If you present yourself as an artiste it seems you can get away with anything.
Some of his friends probably view him as being persecuted by America or the like.

BUT...Switzerland and France refused to extradite him to America which also doesn't look good for them.

Lets be honest, this guy should have been behind bars decades ago and we'd be talking now about that Polanski guy who made a few films in the 70s.

PeterParker957

The problem with Weinstein and Polanski and the other hardcore pervs are that this ridiculous #metoo nonsense is detracting from the real abuse that's going on.

strandroad

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The problem with Weinstein and Polanski and the other hardcore pervs are that this ridiculous #metoo nonsense is detracting from the real abuse that's going on.

Or maybe people are smart enough to process more than one thing at a time.

optogirl

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The problem with Weinstein and Polanski and the other hardcore pervs are that this ridiculous #metoo nonsense is detracting from the real abuse that's going on.

Why is it ridiculous? Sexual harassment & even 'low level' abuse all feed into a culture where people get away with this kind of thing.

PeterParker957

optogirl wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous? Sexual harassment & even 'low level' abuse all feed into a culture where people get away with this kind of thing.

I don't agree that some of the ridiculous stories that are coming out are "low level abuse".

Take Rebel Wilson - she told a story a few years ago about Sacha Baron Cohen giving direction for her character. Right laugh she had - her words.

Fast forward to the current irrational witch hunt climate and she "suffered sexual harassment".

PeterParker957

strandroad wrote: »

Or maybe people are smart enough to process more than one thing at a time.

Yeah.

JP Liz V1

Mark Schwahn next named predator

https://www.thewrap.com/one-tree-hill-showrunner-mark-schwahn-accused-sexual-harassment-cast-crew-members/

PeterParker957

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Mark Schwahn next named predator

https://www.thewrap.com/one-tree-hill-showrunner-mark-schwahn-accused-sexual-harassment-cast-crew-members/

Getting f**king stupid now.

Outlaw Pete

Tom Sizemore (Saving Private Ryan, Natural Born Killers, True Romance etc) was apparently removed from a film set in 2003 when an 11-year-old girl said he briefly molested her.

Not sure this should be in the public domain given that it was reported to the police at the time and no charges were brought.

optogirl

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Getting f**king stupid now.

It's not stupid to call someone out for making you feel uncomfortable by touching you when it is not wanted.

PeterParker957

optogirl wrote: »

It's not stupid to call someone out for making you feel uncomfortable by touching you when it is not wanted.

It's stupid to constantly use the words abuse and assault when you have been neither abused nor assaulted!

PeterParker957

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Tom Sizemore (Saving Private Ryan, Natural Born Killers, True Romance etc) was apparently removed from a film set in 2003 when an 11-year-old girl said he briefly molested her.

Not sure this should be in the public domain given that it was reported to the police at the time and no charges were brought.

It most definitely should not.

optogirl

PeterParker957 wrote: »

It's stupid to constantly use the words abuse and assault when you have been neither abused nor assaulted!

Verbal abuse is mentioned in this case - somebody massaging you & stroking your hair uninvited is abuse, and it's intimidating.

PeterParker957

optogirl wrote: »

Verbal abuse is mentioned in this case - somebody massaging you & stroking your hair uninvited is abuse, and it's intimidating.

And the words are "get lost creep".

Was mine the last generation of women to be raised with balls ???

optogirl

PeterParker957 wrote: »

And the words are "get lost creep".

Was mine the last generation of women to be raised with balls ???

I don't have balls and neither does my mother so not sure which generation you're from? It's not as easy as all that - the whole 'why didn't they speak up' shi*e is fine in retrospect but every woman I know has let some creepy & downright abusive behaviour pass because it's humiliating and frightening & you feel guilty - I don't know why that is, but it's so. Careers were also very much on the line here - not an excuse but definitely a factor.

Thought this was a great blog on some of the reasons behind why a lot of women don't speak up there & then, and often never

http://www.katykatikate.com/2017/11/pro-tip-louis-****ing-ck.html

PeterParker957

optogirl wrote: »

I don't have balls and neither does my mother so not sure which generation you're from? It's not as easy as all that - the whole 'why didn't they speak up' shi*e is fine in retrospect but every woman I know has let some creepy & downright abusive behaviour pass because it's humiliating and frightening & you feel guilty - I don't know why that is, but it's so. Careers were also very much on the line here - not an excuse but definitely a factor.

Thought this was a great blog on some of the reasons behind why a lot of women don't speak up there & then, and often never

http://www.katykatikate.com/2017/11/pro-tip-louis-****ing-ck.html

Was "balls" too literal there ?

Then try - self confidence, certainty in your own self, knowing who you are and having the courage to express how you feel. I could use many more.

Or hide behind being a wallflower and blaming the non-existent patriarchy for all failings.

I prefer the former.

optogirl

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Was "balls" too literal there ?

Then try - self confidence, certainty in your own self, knowing who you are and having the courage to express how you feel. I could use many more.

Or hide behind being a wallflower and blaming the non-existent patriarchy for all failings.

I prefer the former.

What are you on about? You think all of these hollywood actors & actresses are wallflowers? Where did they blame the patriarchy? They are collectively saying that one of the guys working on the show was a handsy creep. do you honestly think that it's only the shy amongst us that gets abused just because they don't have the metaphorical balls to say no? The worst manager I ever had was a woman, a bully & a narcissist but nobody ever called her out because we wanted the job and she had her cliques & she could put a halt to your career. It's intensely intimidating & when sexual connotations come into such abuse it is really scary.

pjohnson

optogirl wrote: »

I don't have balls and neither does my mother so not sure which generation you're from?

#transphobic

PeterParker957

optogirl wrote: »

I don't have balls and neither does my mother so not sure which generation you're from? It's not as easy as all that - the whole 'why didn't they speak up' shi*e is fine in retrospect but every woman I know has let some creepy & downright abusive behaviour pass because it's humiliating and frightening & you feel guilty - I don't know why that is, but it's so. Careers were also very much on the line here - not an excuse but definitely a factor.

Thought this was a great blog on some of the reasons behind why a lot of women don't speak up there & then, and often never

http://www.katykatikate.com/2017/11/pro-tip-louis-****ing-ck.html

Oh and under no circumstances would I ever click on a pile of girly s***e such as something called "katykatikate". Emily Davidson is currently asking "Why did we bother ???"

PeterParker957

optogirl wrote: »

What are you on about? You think all of these hollywood actors & actresses are wallflowers? Where did they blame the patriarchy? They are collectively saying that one of the guys working on the show was a handsy creep.

"Collectively" - none of them had the bottle to say at the time "move that hand or lose it dickhead ?"

(FYI I phrase I have used myself).

retro:electro

I think it's all gone a bit barmy in here..

optogirl

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh and under no circumstances would I ever click on a pile of girly s***e such as something called "katykatikate". Emily Davidson is currently asking "Why did we bother ???"

Ok, why don't you condemn it before you've read it. Seems like a fair way to broaden your horizons. I'm sure Emily Davison* would be nodding along with a good majority of it.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

What are you on about? You think all of these hollywood actors & actresses are wallflowers? Where did they blame the patriarchy? They are collectively saying that one of the guys working on the show was a handsy creep.

I've only recently really considered how much is let pass. Something minor happens, you move on and get on with your life and don't think about it because no crime was committed and it was just a bit icky, and life goes on.

Then something major happens and you think back on all the little things you've just let go. It adds up. I think this is behind the explosion of voices articulating the big and the small things, it's added up and it feels safe to talk about, rather than letting it go because someone else will tell you it's not a big deal, not really, not like real problems. And it isn't, individually, but it counts.



ETA: that was much clearer inside my head!

ceadaoin.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The problem with Weinstein and Polanski and the other hardcore pervs are that this ridiculous #metoo nonsense is detracting from the real abuse that's going on.

So people should shut up about about being groped and harrassed because other people have had it worse? Its that attitude that has allowed victims to suffer in silence and for the abuse to continue. Should people who have been raped and didn't suffer injuries shut up too because others were also beaten? No sorry that's ridiculous.

What do you consider "real abuse"?

PeterParker957

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So people should shut up about about being groped and harrassed because other people have had it worse? Its that attitude that has allowed victims to suffer in silence and for the abuse to continue. Should people who have been raped and didn't suffer injuries shut up too because others were also beaten? No sorry that's ridiculous.

What do you consider "real abuse"?

Industrial level whataboutery.

And in bold - of course it is as I didn't say that, nor would I.

The point is that innocent flirtations are now being ramped up as harrassment and harrassment as assault, it can't end well.

Men are not the enemy. Treating them as such does nothing for either sex. Women are losing the power to stand up for themselves and the younger generations coming through are going to think it is not normal for men to approach you. They need to be taught most of it is okay, a lot isn't and how to know the difference and react accordingly.

This is generally IMHO doing women a disservice - we are going backwards, not forwards. David Schwimmer recently asked a journalist if she wanted a chaperone when going to his room for an interview. In the 21st century, a bleeding chaperone!

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So people should shut up about about being groped and harrassed because other people have had it worse? Its that attitude that has allowed victims to suffer in silence and for the abuse to continue. Should people who have been raped and didn't suffer injuries shut up too because others were also beaten? No sorry that's ridiculous.

What do you consider "real abuse"?

Just because you weren't shot, doesn't mean you can't complain about being stabbed.

There is a sense that a small number of observers want to reduce the definition of abuse to only the very worst cases to justify dismissive attitudes towards the general white noise of casual harassment. It's not the same, but it counts.

retro:electro

PeterParker957 wrote: »

And the words are "get lost creep".

Was mine the last generation of women to be raised with balls ???

Where I think you're going wrong is you're judging women's action- or lack thereof- by your own standards. I get it. I've done it myself.

However, even if they had told him "fcuk off away from me you perv". Then what? Does that mitigate his inappropriate actions? Of course not. Their response or lack of is neither here nor there when judging him for his. They could have elbowed him in the nuts but it doesn't excuse or alleviate his behaviour.
It sounds totally inappropriate, and if true, he deserves to be reprimanded for that.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Candie wrote: »

I've only recently really considered how much is let pass. Something minor happens, you move on and get on with your life and don't think about it because no crime was committed and it was just a bit icky, and life goes on.

Then something major happens and you think back on all the little things you've just let go. It adds up. I think this is behind the explosion of voices articulating the big and the small things, it's added up and it feels safe to talk about, rather than letting it go because someone else will tell you it's not a big deal, not really, not like real problems. And it isn't, individually, but it counts.



ETA: that was much clearer inside my head!

For me I find that incidents at work are pretty complex. When I'm in work my reflexive reaction to any interaction really is to be polite, calm, pleasant. It can be a beat or three before my mind recalibrates to "hey hang on a second!"

Maybe a year and a half ago I was working in a street food place very briefly. The FOH manager was about my age, seemed to exclusively hire young, pretty women. I was probably the oldest there at 27. He made inappropriate comments, would find ways to touch people etc. Several times he made some remark to me, laughed, I'd smile back and then like ten seconds later be kicking myself for not reacting differently but the moment is past by then.

Now, none of this left me some quivering wreck. I was well able to manage his behaviour towards me, I've been working since I was 16 and it was far from my first rodeo. But it was still behaviour that was wrong, incredibly annoying, and created a work environment that was unpleasant specifically for the women.

After I left ran into one of the other supervisors and that manager had been sacked, the touchy feely behaviour having escalated. Aaand he didn't even stick out enough for me to have included him in stories of harassment in the metoo thread. It's just white noise.

anna080

anna080 wrote: »

Where I think you're going wrong is you're judging women's action- or lack thereof- by your own standards. I get it. I've done it myself.

However, even if they had told him "fcuk off away from me you perv". Then what? Does that mitigate his inappropriate actions? Of course not. Their response or lack of is neither here nor there when judging him for his.
It sounds totally inappropriate, and if true, he deserves to be reprimanded for that.

And if they did tell him to f-off, they could have been afraid things would escalate and get violent. You can't tell from words on a page how intimidating a situation is, you just can't decide how people should react. Whatever gets you away safely is the right thing to do.