The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

[Proclone]

1 hour ago, dusang said:

Wouldn't you, at the bare minimum, think, "Geez, this guy is not acting in the best interest of my film by casting someone based on sexual favours rather than skill or talent?" These women weren't background extras. Also, after twenty years of consistent rumours of accepting sexual favours in exchange for career advancement, wouldn't you start to think this married man was not a good guy?

I'm just saying that all these excuses are fundamentally flawed.  Even if it is the norm, that's because the norm is wrong.

I would absolutely think the guy was a pig and a creep...but my point is that I wouldn't necessarily think that his behavior was predatory unless I had stories of him coercing women or forcing them to sleep him (or any of the other things Weinstein has been accused of).  Like I said there is a difference between not being a "good guy" and being a sexual predator.  Obviously with everything that has come out about Weinstein he falls into the latter category, but I can see why people in Hollywood might have shrugged off rumors even if they thought they were partially true if they hadn't heard the extent of his behavior.  What needs to change IMO is the culture (and not just Hollywood's culture) where women (or men) don't feel they can come forward when they are victims.  

Though I do think that Hollywood specifically needs to change their culture where genius excuses all bad behavior and not just predatory sexual behavior.  How many directors have there been stories or even recorded evidence of them being verbally abusive to actors or crew?  David O Russel's profanity-filled rant, James Cameron who's been accused of everything thing from calling Kate Winslet fat to nearly killing Ed Harris to get a shot and the list goes on and on.  If feel that I'm being harassed at work even by my boss, I can go to HR and it will be investigated.  I think the main problem in Hollywood is there isn't much recourse for actors (or crew) if they do feel as if their being harassed (sexually or otherwise) except to go public and if there aren't multiple people doing that then there's a real risk of not being believed.  I think the Guilds should start actually protecting their members and start investigating when their members complain of harassment and if it's found to be true the Guilds should start saying to studios we will not let our members work with director X or producer Y.  I think that would change behavior rather quickly.

[Stuffy]

5 hours ago, absnow54 said:

 

Based on when many of the claims were made, I think it would have been impossible to work with Harvey in the 90's and not suspect anything foul about his behavior. I think Rose McGowan alludes to that in response to Ben Affleck's statement. It sounds like he knew about what Harvey did to her and told him to cut it out privately, while still working with and supporting Harvey publicly. I don't think that makes him a terrible person, but it makes his statement yesterday sound like total bullshit.

Ben has his own problematic history, so he's a hypocrite either way.   He grabbed Hilarie Burton's breast when she was a MTV VJ. If it was when she first started, then she was still a teenager.  Those Affleck brothers aren't the best guys, so of course they'd keep working with Harvey. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Stuffy

[ChelseaNH]

Would this have happened 10 years ago?

https://qz.com/1099864/why-wasnt-harvey-weinstein-fired-for-sexual-harassment-until-now/

[Irlandesa]

13 hours ago, absnow54 said:

Her blind tweeting exacerbated the whole Sharon Waxman/Matt Damon story that headlines took wildly out of context. I hate to use the term "fake news" but so much of the media is like a game of telephone where one outlet reports on another outlets reporting with their own bias, and it's important to do your own research before you get trigger happy on social media.

That was already spreading before Jessica tweeted.  That was all on Sharon Waxman and it was intentional, IMO.  She dropped it into her blog post and only clarified later after it was getting the traction she wanted.

[Dejana]

Vanity Fair is updating a list of women who have made allegations of sexual harassment and assault against Harvey Weinstein.

 

 

Weinstein accused of threatening actresses into wearing his wife's fashion label

 

Quote

According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."

The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Dejana

[SeanC]

Regarding the contract issue, while it says he can't be fired for sexual harassment, it doesn't say anything about, say, causing tons of negative publicity for the company, which he also did.

They do appear to have violated the provisions relating to arbitration/mediation, however.

[aradia22]

I'm not sure where I am on Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson saying they didn't know. But otherwise Emma's answers in that interview were spot on. Especially the part about it only needing to happen once. 

[AshleyN]

16 hours ago, Dejana said:

 

 

Here's the Emma Thompson interview in full, which is very much worth watching:

 

She always has such an intelligent, no bullshit way of talking about these things and this is no different. Since there was some discussion of it earlier, I particularly like what she has to say about the "casting couch", that it's not a matter of whether individual incidents were consensual, but about the fundamental power dynamics that lead to young women thinking that they have little choice but to trade their bodies for opportunities. I also appreciate that she acknowledges her own role in contributing to the problem (she initially signed the Polanski petition that went around a few years back).

[pau]

5 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I'm not sure where I am on Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson saying they didn't know. But otherwise Emma's answers in that interview were spot on. Especially the part about it only needing to happen once. 

Please..they knew..it is not just Weinstein, he is just an obvious, obscene example..it is the Hollywood system who is like that..And honestly it is not only the old/obvious pattern : older powerful men vs young starlets, which is the most common granted..but actually it is people in situation of power (being men AND women..yeah..) vs people who want to work in this industry and are in position of subordination (being women AND men).

5 hours ago, aradia22 said:

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by pau

[BetterButter]

Sarah Polley: The Men You Meet Making Movies

[Dejana]

 

Strong precedent being set here...if more Academy members are hit with multiple allegations, are they getting kicked out of AMPAS, too? Is this just a going forward thing, or are they willing to look back at other members who've faced similar allegations, not to mention convictions? Do they give Adrien Brody get a warning for forcibly kissing Halle Berry at the podium (the same year that *oof* Polanski won in absentia and the Weinstein-backed Chicago took Best Picture)? Does Casey Affleck's winner's invite to present Best Actress next year get "lost in the mail"? BAFTA merely suspended Weinstein, the direction I thought the Academy might take. He's American and largely based here, so a UK organization probably faces slightly less pressure about taking a stand against him than some British producer caught in the same way. Awards season is going to be very interesting and quite the roller coaster, I suspect...

 

Short roundtable about the Weinstein allegations and Hollywood culture but some have an issue with the representation (or lack thereof)...

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Dejana

[Silver Raven]

Brie Larson said she didn't applaud when she gave Casey Affleck his Best Actor Oscar because of his past bad deeds.

[aradia22]

Quote

Brie Larson said she didn't applaud when she gave Casey Affleck his Best Actor Oscar because of his past bad deeds.

I'm sorry... but does anyone care? It's not a big move as far as speaking out or protesting goes. I don't know if anyone even noticed. 

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I'm sorry... but does anyone care? It's not a big move as far as speaking out or protesting goes. I don't know if anyone even noticed. 

People definitely noticed her frostiness when presenting Casey Affleck with awards vs. Denzel at the SAGs during awards season, there were side-by-side .gifs and everything. She's pretty vocal about social issues on her Twitter account. AFAIK, I don't think she's just come out with a statement about clapping or not clapping for Casey Affleck now or anything, in the wake of the Weinstein allegations. OTOH, Kate Winslet revealed just yesterday that she purposefully refused to thank Harvey in her Oscar speech:
 

Quote

When Kate Winslet won the lead actress Oscar for “The Reader” in 2009, she thanked 19 people by name along with many others in general.

She did not mention Harvey Weinstein, whose company financed and distributed the movie.

“That was deliberate. That was absolutely deliberate,” Winslet told The Times in an interview Saturday.

“I remember being told. ‘Make sure you thank Harvey if you win.’ And I remember turning around and saying, ‘No I won’t. No I won’t.’ And it was nothing to do with not being grateful. If people aren’t well-behaved, why would I thank him?”

“The fact that I’m never going to have to deal with Harvey Weinstein again as long as I live is one of the best things that’s ever happened and I'm sure the feeling is universal,” Winslet added.

Winslet made her first movie, Peter Jackson’s psychological drama “Heavenly Creatures,” for Weinstein’s Miramax Films — a fact, Winslet says, that the disgraced producer brought up every time she saw him.

“For my whole career, Harvey Weinstein, whenever I’ve bumped into him, he’d grab my arm and say, ‘Don’t forget who gave you your first movie.’ Like I owe him everything. Then later, with ‘The Reader,’ same thing, ‘I’m gonna get you that Oscar nomination, I’m gonna get you a win, I’m gonna win for you.’”

“But that’s how he operated,” Winslet continues. “He was bullying and nasty. Going on a business level, he was always very, very hard to deal with — he was rude. He used to call my female agent a [vulgar name for a woman] every time he spoke to her on the telephone.”

She goes on to discuss more of what she calls Harvey's "disgraceful" dealings during The Reader (though nothing of a sexual nature) and that led her to refuse working with him in the future. Of course, when she released her initial statement about Weinstein earlier in the week, she faced criticism for working with Roman Polanski and Woody Allen. It's just as well for her that Wonder Wheel is not looking to be a critical juggernaut, so she'll be able to sidestep all the awkward questions she'd inevitably face during an extended awards campaign.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Dejana

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I'm sorry... but does anyone care? It's not a big move as far as speaking out or protesting goes. I don't know if anyone even noticed. 

I do remember there was some discussion about whether or not she'd show up to present given what a frontrunner he was.  While I don't recall whether or not she clapped, the people holding the envelope don't always considering how awkward it would be with the envelope in hand.  But I do remember the frostiness.

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I'm sorry... but does anyone care? It's not a big move as far as speaking out or protesting goes. I don't know if anyone even noticed. 

Sorry I brought it up

[aradia22]

Just to clarify, not a criticism of you @Silver Raven 

I just don't know what some people want. You don't get a cookie for a subtle thing most people didn't pick up on. Real change takes action. It's all well and good for Kate Winslet to complain now but she didn't complain then and she continued to work with him. So what good did that do? Brie knew he was the frontrunner (though I remember buzz about the tides maybe turning) and still chose to present and didn't make a statement (that got traction) afterwards so... meh. 

Again, I'm not blaming women for the actions of these men. But I don't get what they want. Good job engaging in your silent, mostly unnoticed protest and disgust and resentment? If that's how you chose to deal with it, that's your choice but I don't believe it deserves commendation. 

[pau]

Now that he is disgraced they talk and talk and condemn him again and again..it is really easy..better late than never..but it is really really easy for folks like Kate Winslet and co..And she will continue to shut up and cover for  others..MANY others..

Edited October 16, 2017 by pau

[absnow54]

I'm sorry... but does anyone care? It's not a big move as far as speaking out or protesting goes. I don't know if anyone even noticed.

I remember the next day there were a lot of tweets and headlines about it. I can never stay up for the end of award shows so I usually DVR it and watch the next day if something interesting happens (and with the whole Moonlight/La La Land snafu, I sure as hell checked in on that one.) I was prepared for a super icy encounter between Brie and Casey, but instead I saw the requisite half hug and cheek kiss that every winner/presenter seemed to engage in.

[alihart41]

12 hours ago, absnow54 said:

I remember the next day there were a lot of tweets and headlines about it. I can never stay up for the end of award shows so I usually DVR it and watch the next day if something interesting happens (and with the whole Moonlight/La La Land snafu, I sure as hell checked in on that one.) I was prepared for a super icy encounter between Brie and Casey, but instead I saw the requisite half hug and cheek kiss that every winner/presenter seemed to engage in.

Yeah, their interactions at the Oscars and the Globes were perfectly normal. It wasn't Julia "I Love My Life" Roberts effusiveness, but it's far from the iciness all the gossip would have you expect. People are only over-analyzing it because of the allegations against Casey. They interacted more than Leo and Emma did (Leo also didn't clap because he, like Brie, was holding the Oscar and the envelope). The only Brie awards presentation that made me go WTF that everyone seems to forget/ignore (maybe because it doesn't fit the anti-Casey #narrative) was ironically at the SAGs: She left the award on the podium and randomly patted Denzel on the shoulder while walking away.

Anyway, Mayim Bialik tried to explain/defend her op-ed today.
 

Edited October 17, 2017 by alihart41

[absnow54]

26 minutes ago, alihart41 said:

Anyway, Mayim Bialik tried to explain/defend her op-ed today.

I wish she would just stop. The more she defends herself and claims everyone took her statement out of context, the more it become apparent that people took it the right way the first time. She's entitled to her own opinion, but I really wish she'd realize how insensitive her tone is, to not only the celebrities who are coming forward with their incredibly personal experiences, but to women outside the entertainment industry who are sharing their own stories on social media. It's like posting "NOT ME!" on your facebook feed. 

[aradia22]

I don't want to bother with the NYT paywall. What stupid thing did Mayim Bialik say? (I'm assuming it was stupid because although she is very smart, she says a lot of dumb things when it comes to social issues.) 

The person who has NO defense is Donna Karan. There's no way that was taken out of context and her scrambling after the fact is weak.

[methodwriter85]

On 10/14/2017 at 4:50 PM, BetterButter said:

Sarah Polley: The Men You Meet Making Movies

Sarah Polley. Talk about someone who forged their own path and refused to play the game. I miss seeing her act, but I think she pretty much decided that stardom wasn't worth having to play the game.

[pau]

1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

Sarah Polley. Talk about someone who forged their own path and refused to play the game. I miss seeing her act, but I think she pretty much decided that stardom wasn't worth having to play the game.

yeah..i 'like' the term 'play the game'..it embrace/cover so many things..sometimes pretty shady things let's be honest.. 

And did you read screenwriter Scott Rosenberg open letter ?..At least he is more honest than most..although pathetic and despicable..yeah they loved the perks too much..but honest..

Edited October 17, 2017 by pau

[methodwriter85]

Well, Sarah Polley was a child actress. She got schooled early on about what expectations were. Back in 1991, 12-year old Sarah was wearing a peace sign at a rewards ceremony protesting the first Gulf War. Disney executives asked her to remove it, and she refused. That soured her relationship with them, which probably explains why she never did any Disney stuff aside from Road to Avonlea. Although it was probably for the best she wasn't pushed by the Disney machine. A lot of those stars seem to express bitterness towards them.

Edited October 17, 2017 by methodwriter85

[absnow54]

I don't want to bother with the NYT paywall. What stupid thing did Mayim Bialik say? (I'm assuming it was stupid because although she is very smart, she says a lot of dumb things when it comes to social issues.)

In the NYT piece, her message boiled down to "I've never been assaulted because I'm not conventionally attractive and I dress conservatively" and it came off as victim blaming, like if you followed Mayim Bialik's advice, sexual harassment would be a thing of the past. She then defended her piece saying that she was talking specifically about Hollywood, and doubled down on her women dress and carry themselves in a way that's dictated by the male gaze, again placing the burden on women and not on the men who are abusing their power. I also roll my eyes when she constantly declares herself a feminist and then lists all the caveats to the type of feminism that she endorses. That said, her comments are no where near Donna Karan's insipid remarks. I just feel like they're not constructive to the national dialogue that's currently happening.

[LegalParrot81]

On 10/15/2017 at 3:46 PM, Dejana said:

(the same year that *oof* Polanski won in absentia

And all the members of the academy gave him a rousing standing ovation.  This guys a convicted pedophile.  Harvey's a creepy, slimy, warped  sack of abhorrent gas, but if they're kicking him out of the academy, they better be using the second kick on Polanski or their hypocrisy will simply go on.

Newest allegation just came out about the brother.  The Weinsteins in H-wood are toast and good thing.  No woman, or man for that matter, should be subjected to any unwanted sexual advances or ongoing harassment for the sake of a job.  

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, LegalParrot81 said:

And all the members of the academy gave him a rousing standing ovation.  This guys a convicted pedophile.  Harvey's a creepy, slimy, warped  sack of abhorrent gas, but if they're kicking him out of the academy, they better be using the second kick on Polanski or their hypocrisy will simply go on.

On thing i never understood about Polanski is that he is a fugitive right. So if an American movie company produced on of his movies, basically giving him money, isn't that aiding and abetting a fugitive?

[pau]

About Polanski..it is really about opening a can of worms..it was the 70's..Polanski was the one who got caught..but he was not alone once again..also there is his talent..immense talent and his history as a survivor of the holocaust and the horrible murder of his pregnant first wife in the states..and he never did it again OR got caught again..i don't defend him, i just explain the context..a pretty particular context about Roman Polanski..

I live in France, for us Roman Polanski is like a national artistic treasure, we consider him like a french among us..not polish but french..he is really discreet, which we appreciate..and yeah he benefits from a totally special treatment..it is totally unfair and hypocritical..but he gets it because of WHO he is..

I love his work and i consider him like one of the most talented director ever..but i can be objective about the Polanski's case..and i am aware/i know his treatment is problematic..to say the least..

Edited October 17, 2017 by pau

[aradia22]

Quote

In the NYT piece, her message boiled down to "I've never been assaulted because I'm not conventionally attractive and I dress conservatively" and it came off as victim blaming, like if you followed Mayim Bialik's advice, sexual harassment would be a thing of the past. She then defended her piece saying that she was talking specifically about Hollywood, and doubled down on her women dress and carry themselves in a way that's dictated by the male gaze, again placing the burden on women and not on the men who are abusing their power. I also roll my eyes when she constantly declares herself a feminist and then lists all the caveats to the type of feminism that she endorses. That said, her comments are no where near Donna Karan's insipid remarks. I just feel like they're not constructive to the national dialogue that's currently happening.

Oh boy... thank you for saving me from having to read that. Setting all the many ways in which this is unhelpful thinking that plays into so many harmful social constructs (we would be hear ALL DAY)... it's just flat out wrong. Women in Islamic societies and fundamentalist Mormon societies dress conservatively... and still get raped. Women of all types of non-white ethnicities who are seen as less desirable in the eyes of Western-dominated ideals of beauty... still get raped. Women of a diverse range of body types, particularly those who are heavier and seen as undesirable... still get raped. And don't even get me started on the rationale of the criminals and abusers in these specific cases because it is depressing AF. Just start with "she should be grateful" and imagine how much worse it gets from there. 

[Dejana]

8 hours ago, LegalParrot81 said:

And all the members of the academy gave him a rousing standing ovation.  This guys a convicted pedophile.  Harvey's a creepy, slimy, warped  sack of abhorrent gas, but if they're kicking him out of the academy, they better be using the second kick on Polanski or their hypocrisy will simply go on.

Newest allegation just came out about the brother.  The Weinsteins in H-wood are toast and good thing.  No woman, or man for that matter, should be subjected to any unwanted sexual advances or ongoing harassment for the sake of a job.  

It was 2003 and the makeup of the Academy has changed since then (a lot of the people who wouldn't watch Brokeback Mountain weren't with us anymore to complain about Moonlight), not to mention society. Then again, they just nominated Mel Gibson and gave an award to Casey Affleck last year. I suppose it's easier for AMPAS to react to a new round of accusations than older ones, but I have to wonder if his ouster is really more because voters lacked any sort of lingering personal sort of goodwill to him. There are people who may be horrible monsters in one area in their lives but were kind/funny/interesting with someone, so if you met this figure in a non-monster context you could at least think, "Well, I never saw anything bad and he was nice to me." A selfish, but human way to think. With Harvey, many people whose dealings were strictly business also seemed not to care for him as a person. Another big thing with respect to AMPAS is that the sort of campaigning he brought to awards season was very controversial and disliked in many corners.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Dejana

[UYI]

On 10/17/2017 at 1:21 AM, methodwriter85 said:

Well, Sarah Polley was a child actress. She got schooled early on about what expectations were. Back in 1991, 12-year old Sarah was wearing a peace sign at a rewards ceremony protesting the first Gulf War. Disney executives asked her to remove it, and she refused. That soured her relationship with them, which probably explains why she never did any Disney stuff aside from Road to Avonlea. Although it was probably for the best she wasn't pushed by the Disney machine. A lot of those stars seem to express bitterness towards them.

AFTER, yes. But she did a few Disney movies before that.

She'll always be the TV version of Ramona to me, honestly.

Here's Molly Ringwald's story:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/all-the-other-harveys

[AshleyN]

On 10/17/2017 at 8:19 PM, pau said:

About Polanski..it is really about opening a can of worms..it was the 70's..Polanski was the one who got caught..but he was not alone once again..also there is his talent..immense talent and his history as a survivor of the holocaust and the horrible murder of his pregnant first wife in the states..and he never did it again OR got caught again..i don't defend him, i just explain the context..a pretty particular context about Roman Polanski..

I live in France, for us Roman Polanski is like a national artistic treasure, we consider him like a french among us..not polish but french..he is really discreet, which we appreciate..and yeah he benefits from a totally special treatment..it is totally unfair and hypocritical..but he gets it because of WHO he is..

I love his work and i consider him like one of the most talented director ever..but i can be objective about the Polanski's case..and i am aware/i know his treatment is problematic..to say the least..

Just FYI, he may not have been charged or convicted in other cases, but at least three other women have accused Polanski of assaulting them.

Also, aside from the obvious horror, the thing that really pisses me off about Polanski, especially when people go on about moving on and letting it go, is that I don't think he's ever (publicly at least) expressed any meaningful remorse over what he did. Any comment I've ever seen from him on the subject basically amounts to whining about what a victim he is. You know, because he's had to spend the last four decades living in luxury and continuing to make movies and be celebrated and acclaimed in Europe without being able to freely travel anywhere he wants. What a tragedy.

Edited October 18, 2017 by AshleyN

[pau]

5 hours ago, AshleyN said:

Just FYI, he may not have been charged or convicted in other cases, but at least three other women have accused Polanski of assaulting them.

Also, aside from the obvious horror, the thing that really infuriates me about Polanski, especially when people go on about moving on and letting it go, is that I don't think he's ever (publicly at least) expressed any meaningful remorse over what he did. Any comment I've ever seen from him on the subject basically amounts to whining about what a victim he is. You know, because he's had to spend the last four decades living in luxury and continuing to make movies and be celebrated and acclaimed in Europe without being to freely travel anywhere he wants. What a tragedy.

I agree with you, even if i love his work..i agree with you.

And yeah he lives in luxury in France, he is acclaimed by the european/french cinema/showbiz 'intelligentsia'.  Actually he somewhat became a  light subject of controversy/embarrassing subject these last years because of media controversy/highlighting coming from the USA..before it was never talked in Europe, Polanski was just the very discreet/great/sophisticated/fragile/smart/so small and cute cinema genius Roman Polanski..with his younger (much younger) and so 'lucky' (to have such a genius as her husband) beautiful spouse Emmanuelle Seigner, french theater's aristocracy heir..yeah.

Edited October 19, 2017 by pau

[Kel Varnsen]

22 hours ago, Dejana said:

 gave an award to Casey Affleck last year. I suppose it's easier for AMPAS to react to a new round of accusations than older ones, 

Considering the award is best actor, not best actor who also isn't an asshole, I am not sure i have a problem with that. Mostly because i assume there are a lot of assholes in Hollywood. You start adding some personal character requirement to awards then campainging is going to get super dirty since all you need to do to win is hire a PI to dig up dirt on your competitors.

That being said, for anyone who is an actual asshole, i am all for public shaming, losing jobs and where it fits civil lawsuits or criminal proscution

[UYI]

3 hours ago, AshleyN said:

Just FYI, he may not have been charged or convicted in other cases, but at least three other women have accused Polanski of assaulting them.

Also, aside from the obvious horror, the thing that really pisses me off about Polanski, especially when people go on about moving on and letting it go, is that I don't think he's ever (publicly at least) expressed any meaningful remorse over what he did. Any comment I've ever seen from him on the subject basically amounts to whining about what a victim he is. You know, because he's had to spend the last four decades living in luxury and continuing to make movies and be celebrated and acclaimed in Europe without being able to freely travel anywhere he wants. What a tragedy.

From what I can tell, the only reason he even admitted to what he did was because he BRAGGED about it, thinking that the age of consent was too high and thinking he didn't do anything wrong because in parts of Europe, the age of consent is considerably lower than in the US. 

[LegalParrot81]

15 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Considering the award is best actor, not best actor who also isn't an asshole, I am not sure i have a problem with that

But it's more than him just being an asshole, it's him being a harasser and paying off more than one woman to drop lawsuits. That's where my problem lies.  

Sexual harassment & assault has always been Hollywood's worst kept dirty little secret. Something everyone looked away from and never said anything about, but continued to award the harasser's, the assaulter's, etc.   Will these revelations about Weinstein change that or will it go back to business as usual when he's no longer front page news?  Time will tell.

[Dejana]

37 minutes ago, LegalParrot81 said:

But it's more than him just being an asshole, it's him being a harasser and paying off more than one woman to drop lawsuits. That's where my problem lies.  

Sexual harassment & assault has always been Hollywood's worst kept dirty little secret. Something everyone looked away from and never said anything about, but continued to award the harasser's, the assaulter's, etc.   Will these revelations about Weinstein change that or will it go back to business as usual when he's no longer front page news?  Time will tell.

Right, Casey Affleck was accused of sexual harassment and settled with multiple women, the number of allegations are not on the scale of Weinstein, but where is AMPAS going to draw the line with others? Will it be the number of accusers, the seriousness of the allegations, how high up the Hollywood food chain the accused happens to be, how old the allegations are--all of the above? When other big names get called out, figures who are more personable than Harvey, I have my doubts that AMPAS will find it as painless to bounce them.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

2 hours ago, Dejana said:

Right, Casey Affleck was accused of sexual harassment and settled with multiple women, the number of allegations are not on the scale of Weinstein, but where is AMPAS going to draw the line with others? Will it be the number of accusers, the seriousness of the allegations, how high up the Hollywood food chain the accused happens to be, how old the allegations are--all of the above? When other big names get called out, figures who are more personable than Harvey, I have my doubts that AMPAS will find it as painless to bounce them.

It is a shame this is a question that must be asked but here is an idea, you draw the line at zero tolerance.

This is about career of the perpetuators right?  Instead of the victims' careers suffering because of they spoke up or didn't consent to the advances, the careers of the Weinsteins and Afflecks' of Hollywood, and everywhere, should be what is on the line.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Deputy Deputy CoS

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, LegalParrot81 said:

But it's more than him just being an asshole, it's him being a harasser and paying off more than one woman to drop lawsuits. That's where my problem lies.  

Sexual harassment & assault has always been Hollywood's worst kept dirty little secret. Something everyone looked away from and never said anything about, but continued to award the harasser's, the assaulter's, etc.   Will these revelations about Weinstein change that or will it go back to business as usual when he's no longer front page news?  Time will tell.

So then what? Do you make the award best actor, actress, director or cinematographer who is also a decent person? If so when happens if after the nominees are announced it is revealed that every nominee in a catergory is a jerk? Do they not just give the award that year? I am not sure i want the Oscars trying to police things.

[aradia22]

@Kel Varnsen Well, a lot of guys are doing this at work. So you can make the argument that it's not giving a raise or an employee of the month award to a guy who is creating a hostile work environment. That's different from morality policing. You could still commit adultery or be a drug addict in your personal life. Or maybe you make the argument that you don't give awards to people suspected of criminal behavior. That's far different from being a "jerk."

[Kel Varnsen]

25 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

@Kel Varnsen Well, a lot of guys are doing this at work. So you can make the argument that it's not giving a raise or an employee of the month award to a guy who is creating a hostile work environment. That's different from morality policing. You could still commit adultery or be a drug addict in your personal life. Or maybe you make the argument that you don't give awards to people suspected of criminal behavior. That's far different from being a "jerk."

So what do you change the name of the awards to? If actions outside of what happens on the screen could get someone disqualified from an Oscar, it is no longer best actor, best screenplay or best director. And then what do you do if everyone in one category gets disqualified between nominations and awards night? Or does everyone who submits themselves to try and get a nomination have to undergo a thorough background check?

[Irlandesa]

5 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

So then what? Do you make the award best actor, actress, director or cinematographer who is also a decent person? If so when happens if after the nominees are announced it is revealed that every nominee in a catergory is a jerk? Do they not just give the award that year? I am not sure i want the Oscars trying to police things.

It's not like if people decide not to support Casey Affleck that there will be no deserving actors to receive the "Best Actor" award.  Last year Casey won the Oscar, Adam Driver won the LA Film Critics award, Denzel won the SAG award.  It's subjective which is why they do the whole campaign thing. 

[Proclone]

On 10/19/2017 at 6:16 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

So then what? Do you make the award best actor, actress, director or cinematographer who is also a decent person? If so when happens if after the nominees are announced it is revealed that every nominee in a catergory is a jerk? Do they not just give the award that year? I am not sure i want the Oscars trying to police things.

Plenty of employers include morality clauses in their contracts.  There are people who have lost jobs because there were pictures posted of them being drunk online. So people being held accountable for their outside behavior at work isn't exactly unheard of.  While I don't necessarily agree with that in many cases, I do think that the Acadamy refusing to reward those who criminal sexual misconduct claims have leveled against isn't unreasonable.  Like I said, I see a big difference between not being a decent person and being a sexual predator.  A person might cheat on their spouse or just generally be unpleasant but once you cross the line into predatory behavior there needs to be repercussions for those actions.  Winning an Oscar makes one a member of The Academy.  I don't see why The Academy shouldn't have the right to refuse membership to people who have had serious sexual assault or harassment claims or leveled against them.  Genius shouldn't excuse every bad behavior and there should be repercussions for actions.  "Hollywood" doesn't really exist.  It is not one entity.  It's hard to punish someone who is a predator because there isn't one HR department who can just fire the person.  You can't be fired from making movies there will probably be someone out there willing to make a film with you no matter (or maybe even because of) what you've done.  The only way to police behavior in Hollywood is to have organizations like The Academy and the Guilds put their foot down and say, "This behavior is unacceptable and we will not reward it in any way."

Edited October 21, 2017 by Proclone

[Dejana]

The Academy came up with the Oscars to award achievements in film and also to generate positive publicity for the movie industry. If it ever happens one year that they are compelled to kick out multiple nominees for being predators, having to cancel an awards show category wouldn't be the biggest problem for AMPAS by a long stretch...

Some believe in separating the art from the artist, but AMPAS isn't operating that way anymore, otherwise Harvey Weinstein would still be in the Academy--if kicking him out was really about setting a new standard going forward and not just a PR move. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dejana

[absnow54]

With many lawsuits settled out of court for people with deep enough pockets, could the AMPAS really set a precedence for excluding members without a conviction? Members of the academy aren't every day people checking off boxes on an application, most of them come with a powerful legal team. I wouldn't be surprised if Harvey sues the academy if he makes it through all his other lawsuits. Which is why I think AMPAS move to expel HW was purely just to placate the masses without having to take a firm stance, since Harvey is by no means the only bad grape in the bunch.

[aradia22]

Quote

With many lawsuits settled out of court for people with deep enough pockets, could the AMPAS really set a precedence for excluding members without a conviction? 

I mean at the very least, if it is out in the open (as opposed to something... regardless of the specifics that's hidden behind settlements and NDA's and lawsuits) and generally agreed upon to be true, I think that's how it can be dealt with on a case by case basis. I don't understand the need for strict standards at this time. Are people planning to commit crimes and now having to think twice because no one has settled on the possible rules if they later want to win an award. I'm... sorry?

[HunterHunted]

9 hours ago, absnow54 said:

With many lawsuits settled out of court for people with deep enough pockets, could the AMPAS really set a precedence for excluding members without a conviction? Members of the academy aren't every day people checking off boxes on an application, most of them come with a powerful legal team. I wouldn't be surprised if Harvey sues the academy if he makes it through all his other lawsuits. Which is why I think AMPAS move to expel HW was purely just to placate the masses without having to take a firm stance, since Harvey is by no means the only bad grape in the bunch.

Sued for what? It's a voluntary professional organization. As long as they aren't bouncing him for something that is protected by law (race, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, and maybe sexuality because they are incorporated in California), they are good. He has no "right" to be a member of AMPAS. He doesn't have to be a member of AMPAS to be nominated. Membership is not a license or certification, which courts have found have property interests. But his expulsion from the Producer's Guild is another thing. They actually certify the amount of work a person has done on a production to determine their producer credit as well as if a person has the requisite number of production credits to be nominated for awards.

This is from the AMPAS bylaws:

Quote

Section 3. Any member of the Academy may be suspended or expelled for cause by the Board of Governors. Expulsion or suspension as herein provided for shall require the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all the Governors. No Governor, nor the Academy, nor any member thereof, shall be liable to any member or former member by reason of any action taken hereunder. The procedure for hearing or investigation shall be as determined by the Board of Governors.

[JBC344]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:01 PM, aradia22 said:

Just to clarify, not a criticism of you @Silver Raven 

I just don't know what some people want. You don't get a cookie for a subtle thing most people didn't pick up on. Real change takes action. It's all well and good for Kate Winslet to complain now but she didn't complain then and she continued to work with him. So what good did that do? Brie knew he was the frontrunner (though I remember buzz about the tides maybe turning) and still chose to present and didn't make a statement (that got traction) afterwards so... meh. 

Again, I'm not blaming women for the actions of these men. But I don't get what they want. Good job engaging in your silent, mostly unnoticed protest and disgust and resentment? If that's how you chose to deal with it, that's your choice but I don't believe it deserves commendation. 

Maybe you can help me, because I really don't understand but what should Kate Winslet have done?  It seems to me, her issues with Harvey were that he was an asshole.  She was annoyed by him constantly bringing up her first movie and then she did a movie that he produced twenty years later.  I also think that people get the wrong idea when they claim that so and so "worked together".  Harvey is a mega producer and studio head, he most likely wasn't on the set and Kate probably had no interaction with him outside of the initial deals for the film and maybe the press tour afterward. 

This is where I think we collectively need to pump the breaks on "person A should of said something, they would of stopped this whole thing" rationale especially when it pertains to "bad behavior" that is different or non criminal.  For example, are we now going to hear from someone who saw Harvey jay walk four years ago?  Then everyone will say "Why didn't you speak up? You could of prevented this all from happening.

I have to tell you, if every actor or actress stopped "working with" someone who they "thought/heard/experienced" was a jerk there would be no more movies ever made. 

To me, these accounts all show and paint a picture of Harvey's character, but for the most part are isolated incidences that don't always warrant some grand action taken.

[aradia22]

Quote

Maybe you can help me, because I really don't understand but what should Kate Winslet have done? 

Not work with him. And Roman Polanski. And Woody Allen. 

If there's anyone I seriously side-eye, it's Kate Winslet. She gets no cookies for speaking out about things that affect her (wage gap, media representation of women's bodies) and then making all the excuses she wants to in order to work with men whose hands are not clean. 

I never said that she would have stopped anything by refusing to work with him or even coming forward and making a statement. But you don't get a cookie for not thanking him in your speech. The standard for cookies cannot be that low.