Tha academy's statement reads: “The era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.”
Take note: Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski are still members.
Harvey Weinstein, while a monster, is Mother Teresa compared to Cosby and Polanski.
- At least 58 women have said Cosby raped or sexually harassed them between the mid-1960s and the late 2000s, including dozens who say he drugged them before raping them, some of whom were less than 18 years old.
- The Polish perve pled guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," which is what he plea bargained down to, for the act of drugging and forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old girl against her will. The victim testified that Polanski gave her champagne and a quaalude, and performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. (Many celebrities continue to defend him! Yeah, no hypocrisy there.)
To me, the real test of Hollywood's sincerity will be how they treat Ben Affleck, who has allegedly being sheltering Weinstein for years, maybe decades, despite knowing exactly what was going on. (This is according to Rose McGowan, who has no motivation to lie.) My forecast is that nobody will ever mention Affleck's enabling again, and it will be swept under the table, unless Fox News takes up the gauntlet.
Not sure how Affleck could have sheltered Weinstein. Ben's grip on the upper echelon of Hollywood has been tenuous at best since 2003. Harvey has been much more powerful and could have easily torpedoed Ben's career if he ever spoke out against him.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if they knew but Clooney, RDJ, Pacino, DeNiro, Streep, DiCaprio would be the only ones immune to anything Harvey could have done.
As for Rose, I'm not sure why she's angry at Ben. She told him at a party? I mean a heavily sarcastic and (most likely bombed) Affleck is not who I would confide an assault to. She took a settlement and didn't tell the press, I mean that seems like she's still (rightfully) angry but I just don't understand the target.
Well, let me see. In 2007, Ben Affleck was chosen to direct a film co-produced and distributed by Miramax, even though he had never shown any credentials as a director (or, for that matter as an actor).
DeleteGee, I wonder why Harvey was willing to take a chance on such an untested rookie. Can't imagine.
Oh, I don't know, let's see, could it have something to do with ... Satan???
(Affleck promising in turn to keep his mouth shut?)
I don't know, but it seems like a pretty good guess. At the time everyone seemed to think it was insane to let Affleck direct a film. I suppose he just got a movie to direct instead of a cash settlement with a non-disclosure agreement, like Rose.
That's just a guess, but I'm betting that Affleck was silenced by being given a chance to direct, just as so many women were silenced by being promised roles or handed settlements.
(As it turns out, he was really good as a writer-director, but that's really beside the point. There was no way to know that, so it could have gone either way.)
As for the source of Rose's anger, that's obvious. It was the hypocrisy. She never said a thing about him until Affleck wrote that ridiculous, sanctimonious Tweet saying how he was saddened and angered by Harvey's mistreatment of women (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). That ticked her off since she knew for a fact that Ben had known, not only about her, but (based upon his response when she told him) about the whole situation, but stayed silent, for reasons of his own.
Of course, that's only one guy. Speaking of George Clooney, when he was given his first opportunity to direct, take a guess who produced that film. And then there was David O. Russell, who had directed the micro-budget Spanking the Monkey when Miramax suddenly ponied up a bunch of money to give him the helm of Flirting With Disaster and an all-star cast if Hollywood A-listers. Did Weinstein see Russell's genius right through all the ineptitude of his earlier work, or were darker forces at play?
Anyway, back to my original point. Maybe he's 100% innocent, maybe not. Affleck's complicity hinges on the accuracy of Rose's charges. Obviously, any good journalist would address that issue with him. Did she tell you? Did you make that response, as she claimed? What did you know and when did you know it? Why didn't you speak up? Were you promised anything for your silence?
My point is that even though every journalist and talk show host SHOULD ask those questions, I am betting that none of them WILL. You wanna take that bet?
Well if your point is that entertainment journalists aren't going to ask tough questions, you won't get any pushback from me. I say entertainment journalist because I'm not sure that anyone in the industry sits down with any reporter not named Mario Lopez until things settle down a bit.
ReplyDeleteRose said she told Ben at an event that Harvey assaulted her in 1996. Ok. Let's assume that is 100% true. What exactly is he supposed to do with that information? It's not like they dated and she was a trusted confidant (like with Pitt and Paltrow).
If it comes out that Ben set up "meetings" for Harvey or had casting sessions with him, then yeah, let's grab the pitchforks and burn that motherfucker down. But I'm not going to villify someone who didn't willingly destroy their career to defend someone who willingly accepted a settlement that paid them a little but of cash and let the accused off without admitting guilt.
You missed the point. Following your assumption that Rose told the truth, the key fact is not that Ben got the word from Rose, but his response to her. He obviously knew of the whole scenario, yet chose to be silent.
DeleteI think you can argue that he kept silent for his own gain, which places him in exactly the same position as the women who kept silent for money or roles. In that sense, he is one of the powerless, not one of the powerful, and therefore certainly less culpable than the actual exploiter. But the hypocrisy of his pious Tweet is not to be believed.
Where do Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes fit in on the list?
ReplyDeleteUm, Polanski is a Saint compared to Harvey. Harvey has raped and assaulted a literally unknown number of women for decades. Dozens we know of. Polanski plead guilty in a plea deal that was then ignored by the sitting judge (likely illegally, but Polanski would have to be in court for that to be decided) who craved fame.
ReplyDeleteAt worst, Polanski is guilty of one crime. Harvey? The same crime and dozens or even hundreds more like it.
I can see that you don't know much about Roman Polanski. He was legally guilty of one crime. That was not his only offense. It was simply the only time we was brought to trial. (So far.) His predations were frequently against children. Four women have accused him of forcible rape when they were children. He has admitted to many, many other consensual relations with teens as young as 16, and has no remorse whatsoever. He justifies it because "everyone wants to fuck young girls."
DeleteHarvey is merely a sexist monster. Polanski is satan himself.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/16156902/roman-polanski-child-rape-charges-explained-samantha-geimer-robin-m
There have been other allegations against Polanski that have come out since that one incident. He's a terrible person.
ReplyDeleteHe has four accusers. Two just came out after decades. Only one has been proven/confessed. A lot surrounding Polanski rumor, character assassination, and profiteering/fame seeking. The fact that he's lived in Europe for decades without any further credible or criminal accusations speaks volumes. Look at the instances in that story you linked: 1972??? Revealed last month?!? That's not credible. What's more, it's impossible to prove or to defend against. This is the trend these days: make allegations that are impossible to disprove, and angry mobs destroy your target for you. For everyone talking about how terrible he is, there are dozens who actually know the man and have worked with him for decades so say otherwise. That's hardly "satan" compared to Harvey, who has zero people saying what a great guy he is. Everyone knew he was a monster. Nobody dared challenge him.
ReplyDeleteThose are only the forcible rapes you are talking about. That is just a tiny percentage of his black legacy.
DeletePolanski himself admitted to all the statutory rapes, even bragged about them. And again, these were children, not adult women. Yes, it's true he has not been a bad boy as recently as Harvey, but that's about the only point in his favor. And that point is cancelled out by the fact that he is not only lacking in remorse, but still justifies his actions.
The Academy has people in it who have used the Casting Couch to their advantage for years. Cosby, with his many accusations and Polanski with his admissions of guilt are still members and so what with Hollywood's history of this type of abuse (I can make you a STAR!), this whole thing sounds like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black.
ReplyDelete