Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Drogo

Hollywood's Dirty Little (Open) Secrets: Harvey Weinstein and Others Like Him

Recommended Posts


Quote

although had NBC released the actual reports?  I assume not, so maybe there is daylight between what the law firms found and what NBC reported out.

Link to the report (NBC had it linked from this article). I thought the report for TVO looks more professional as it identified who was creating the report, etc.

Quote

So whoever she reported it to at the very least must have known something was up, and as Ann was one of the most powerful women at the network, well, she’s not going to be reporting that to the janitor—that’s going to higher levels than where she is at.

The footnote states: Ann Curry has stated in the press that, in 2012, a woman came to her claiming that Lauer had sexually harassed her and that Curry then told management at the time that they should be concerned about Lauer’s behavior toward women. In a discussion with the investigation team, Curry confirmed that she did not disclose to anyone in management that she had received a specific complaint.

It would be interesting if we could get the transcripts for these interviews.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, kili said:

In a discussion with the investigation team, Curry confirmed that she did not disclose to anyone in management that she had received a specific complaint.

I initially read that to mean that she generally warned management about Matt’s behavior (for example, based on her observations of staff interactions) without saying that someone had specifically come to her, but does this actually mean that she lied in her public statement and that she never talked to anyone in management about this at all?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Peace 47 said:

I initially read that to mean that she generally warned management about Matt’s behavior (for example, based on her observations of staff interactions) without saying that someone had specifically come to her, but does this actually mean that she lied in her public statement and that she never talked to anyone in management about this at all?

No, I think NBC is having it both ways. Presumably, the woman who told Curry didn’t want her name involved and wasn’t  comfortable going to the bosses herself. So, Curry did what she could by going to the bosses with a general concern without specifics to maintain the woman’s privacy.  Since there were no names or incidents revealed, the bosses could claim there was nothing to investigate.  And, of course, Curry and Lauer were not exactly besties, so they could dismiss it as sour grapes.

The real problem is that there was an atmosphere in the workplace where people were afraid to speak up and were intimidated into keeping silent.  So, NBC can claim all it wants that there were no specific complaints lodged; but that doesn’t mean the bosses weren’t aware that bad behavior was happening and did nothing to investigate further and put a stop to it.  And that employees knew management wasn’t going to do anything except make life miserable for anyone who dared speak up.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and, imo, it simply comes down to this:  everyone should take safety precautions at all times.  For example, no one should be walking down a dark alley in the middle of the city at midnight--that raises your chances of being attacked substantially, but I'm willing to bet that if a man is attacked while doing so, he's far less likely to be asked "What did you think would happen?",  "Why did you do something so stupid?", etc...

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and, imo, it simply comes down to this:  everyone should take safety precautions at all times.  For example, no one should be walking down a dark alley in the middle of the city at midnight--that raises your chances of being attacked substantially, but I'm willing to bet that if a man is attacked while doing so, he's far less likely to be asked "What did you think would happen?",  "Why did you do something so stupid?", etc...

I absolutely agree.  I choose to lock my doors at night and I also choose to not put myself in situations where I might be taken advantage of. Could my house still be broken into? Yes.  Could I still be a victim of an attack? Yes, but I'm still going to take a few precautions to make myself and property a little bit less of a target.  

Edited by Brooklynista · Reason: words matter
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, possibilities said:

Some choose to take the risks because they want a particular career ...

Reading about the cheerleaders has made me roll, this back in my mind even farther than how much women do or don't need to protect themselves to wishing they didn't even want those jobs in the first place. Learning about the demeaning minimum-wage contracts that can include requirements for bikini photo shoots and that dictate who the women can speak to, what they look like, how they run their own social media accounts, etc., makes me downright sad.

I'm not referring to cheerleading or dance teams as a sport, but only these particular major league contracts. Perhaps I'm missing something and am open to counterarguments, but those seem like really shitty "jobs" to me. The way the women are treated, especially compared to the players, is disgusting.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

NBC News Offers Internal Investigation of Tom Brokaw Sexual Assault Allegations
 

Quote

 

NBC has offered to look into sexual harassment and assault allegations against Tom Brokaw by former NBC correspondent Linda Vester. But Vester has declined the request at this point, because the network wouldn’t bring in outside counsel to run the investigation.

“We will not be participating in any investigation by NBC of NBC,” Ari Wilkenfeld, Vester’s attorney, told Variety. He added that he informed the news organization that his client would be “more than willing” to participate if there was an investigation commissioned by outside counsel.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and, imo, it simply comes down to this:  everyone should take safety precautions at all times.  For example, no one should be walking down a dark alley in the middle of the city at midnight--that raises your chances of being attacked substantially, but I'm willing to bet that if a man is attacked while doing so, he's far less likely to be asked "What did you think would happen?",  "Why did you do something so stupid?", etc...

 

4 hours ago, Brooklynista said:

I absolutely agree.  I choose to lock my doors at night and I also choose to not put myself in situations where I might be taken advantage of. Could my house still be broken into? Yes.  Could I still be a victim of an attack? Yes, but I'm also going to take a few precautions to make myself and property a little bit less of a target.  

Exactly. I don't think telling a woman (or a man) to be cautious in some circumstances is blaming the victim if something happens. There are bad people (of both sexes) in the world. You don't have to live in fear, but people should take basic precautions to protect themselves from them. Saying that the bad people have to be held accountable for their actions is fine, but itis not going to stop them from committing those crimes.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, 2727 said:

I'm not referring to cheerleading or dance teams as a sport, but only these particular major league contracts. Perhaps I'm missing something and am open to counterarguments, but those seem like really shitty "jobs" to me. The way the women are treated, especially compared to the players, is disgusting.

I don't know either.  I don't know why men get paid millions of dollars to play a game.  I've never been to a game.  Never watched one on TV, and never will.  Don't buy the merchandise either.  However, any employee who is asked to attend a work event should be protected and respected.  No one should be treated the way those poor cheerleaders were.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

 if we talked about consent and respecting women as much as we talked about how bad it is to steal, then I think we could reduce how often this happens.  

Stealing is not a good comparison to make. Everybody I know has had something stolen from them while only some of them have been sexually assaulted. The only reason you call the police when your car gets broken into is to get an insurance number and for tracking crime statistics. The police are always telling people  to lock their cars and doors and get alarm systems. There has even been talk of charging people who don't do enough to protect their cars from being stolen. Stealing rarely even gets the criminal a slap on the wrist unless guns are involved. And people have been told not to steal since biblical times.  We don't want sexual assault to be treated like stealing. 

Better to compare it to assault or murder which are still treated as serious crimes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, BW Manilowe said:

What crap, notice how nobody is mentioning how Harvey forced actresses to wear her dresses? She knew, no way I am ever going to believe she didn't know about that.

On a related note, Scarlett Johansson has forever lost my respect for wearing that Marchesa gown (which didn't even have anything to do with the theme & looked like she was going to the prom) to the Met Gala.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GaT said:

What crap, notice how nobody is mentioning how Harvey forced actresses to wear her dresses? She knew, no way I am ever going to believe she didn't know about that.

On a related note, Scarlett Johansson has forever lost my respect for wearing that Marchesa gown (which didn't even have anything to do with the theme & looked like she was going to the prom) to the Met Gala.

Especially because Marchesa runway shows continued to get terrible reviews from noteworthy fashion critics like Cathy Horyn and Robin Givhan and in publications like the Independent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/london-fashion-week-marchesa-show-review-9731907.html

Fashion journalists regularly insinuated that starlets were pressured to wear Marchesa dresses. So it's hard to believe that Georgina was clueless. Furthermore, I hardly recall ever walking into a Saks or Neimans and seeing a Marchesa salon. I don't know where they sell their dresses.

The only person who seems to like their work is Anna Wintour who is the chair of the Met Gala. It makes me wonder if Scarlett has an upcoming project that might possibly get her on an upcoming Vogue cover.

Edited by HunterHunted
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

The only person who seems to like their work is Anna Wintour who is the chair of the Met Gala. It makes me wonder if Scarlett has an upcoming project that might possibly get her on an upcoming Vogue cover.

Anna Wintour also put Kim Kardashian & Kanye West on the cover of Vogue. I no longer consider her to be an arbiter of fashion. 

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

Well I still like her gowns, very eartha pretty to me. If she says she didn't know,  then I'll believe she didn't know. I can also buy her not knowing people sere being forced to wear her clothes. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

Well I still like her gowns, very eartha pretty to me. If she says she didn't know,  then I'll believe she didn't know. I can also buy her not knowing people sere being forced to wear her clothes. 

Are we selective in choosing which women to believe?

Why would she know what her husband was up to? Pretty sure he wasn’t sharing those little tidbits.

Edited by WarnerCL45
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't blame Georgina for the shit her spouse did.  It is really easy to believe that a spouse knows everything that her husband does.  But I think there women all over the world and through history who can write volumes of testimony about shit their spouses did that they had no knowledge of.

IMO, Harvey did what sociopaths do.  They charm and manipulate.  They charm and manipulate the people closest to them the most.  I find it very credible that he could hide parts of himself away from his wife.  And if she heard rumors and asked him point blank, he was probably very charming and reassuring to her.  Like she said, she thought she had a good marriage.  I think the fact that she divorced him with a quickness and in no time ever attempted to stand by her man speaks volumes.  Some may believe that she is just abandoning a sinking ship, which would be valid.  But it could also be that she has finally been slapped in the face with truth and can't believe the monster her husband has been revealed to be. 

And if he was strong arming actresses into wearing her clothes,  unless they came and told her that was happening, she'd have no idea that anything other that normal everyday Hollywood nepotism wasn't the reason she was gaining a higher profile.  Unless we know absolutely that she was aware of his methods and what he was doing, I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.  We can blame her for being the recipient of the power of his connections, but then that sort of access to people who can make your business a success based upon who you know and who you are related to is business as usual.  Tons of relatives and friends or powerful people only get what they get because of who they know and not because of their own hustle and talent.  That said, i think her clothes are rather pretty.  A damn sight more pretty than Stella McCartney's whose stuff manages to be on the bodies of A-list actresses despite the fact her shit is butt ugly and whose professional glow up reads like a text book on the benefits of having a famous father.

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Are we selective in choosing which women to believe?

Why would she know what her husband was up to? Pretty sure he wasn’t sharing those little tidbits.

 

I had heard years ago that her husband was known for his mistreatment of women (and others) and I live a couple thousand miles away and never met the guy.  If she didn’t ever hear the rumors, it’s because she chose to be willfully ignorant. 

Same thing with her clothing line.  Most of the time, the actresses who ‘chose’ Marchesa for the red carpet were ‘coincidentally’ promoting a Weinstein production.  I think she realized it, but decided to not investigate further.

‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ suited her at the time so she put her fingers in her ears and sang ‘La, la, la’ whenever there was a chance she might hear something bad.  Maybe she really is that clueless and disengaged, but I doubt it.

It’s not her fault her husband is a monster, I can believe she wasn’t subjected to his ugly side.  However, just like all the others who came out of the woodwork and admitted they had some idea of what he was doing; she did, too, but, because she herself was benefiting from the association, she ignored it. Once the cat was out of the bag, she jettisoned him pronto.  While I’ve got no problem with that, let’s face it; there was absolutely no chance of saving her business if she stood by his side.  Her choices all along look pretty opportunistic to me.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I don't blame Georgina for the shit her spouse did.  It is really easy to believe that a spouse knows everything that her husband does.  But I think there women all over the world and through history who can write volumes of testimony about shit their spouses did that they had no knowledge of.

IMO, Harvey did what sociopaths do.  They charm and manipulate.  They charm and manipulate the people closest to them the most.  I find it very credible that he could hide parts of himself away from his wife.  And if she heard rumors and asked him point blank, he was probably very charming and reassuring to her.  Like she said, she thought she had a good marriage.  I think the fact that she divorced him with a quickness and in no time ever attempted to stand by her man speaks volumes.  Some may believe that she is just abandoning a sinking ship, which would be valid.  But it could also be that she has finally been slapped in the face with truth and can't believe the monster her husband has been revealed to be. 

And if he was strong arming actresses into wearing her clothes,  unless they came and told her that was happening, she'd have no idea that anything other that normal everyday Hollywood nepotism wasn't the reason she was gaining a higher profile.  Unless we know absolutely that she was aware of his methods and what he was doing, I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.  We can blame her for being the recipient of the power of his connections, but then that sort of access to people who can make your business a success based upon who you know and who you are related to is business as usual.  Tons of relatives and friends or powerful people only get what they get because of who they know and not because of their own hustle and talent.  That said, i think her clothes are rather pretty.  A damn sight more pretty than Stella McCartney's whose stuff manages to be on the bodies of A-list actresses despite the fact her shit is butt ugly and whose professional glow up reads like a text book on the benefits of having a famous father.

I’ve seen her stuff on the red carpet & mostly liked it.  (Agree about Stella’s clothing.) And the wife is REALLY the last to know.  Who’s going to tell her?  I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.  Do we blame politicians’ wives for thei shortcomings?

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it's entirely possible that Miss Chapman would by no means be the first (or last) case of  others thinking 'the wife's the last to know' turning out to be 'the wife's the last to WANT to know'.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Well, it's entirely possible that Miss Chapman would by no means be the first (or last) case of  others thinking 'the wife's the last to know' turning out to be 'the wife's the last to WANT to know'.

It's somewhat similiar to Pamela Aldon's statement after the Louis CK story broke. I think it's perfectly plausible that she loved her friend and because that wasn't how he treated her and she valued their professional collaboration she didn't believe the rumors and never questioned him or looled into it further but she implied that she had never heard them and was completely blindsided and that I don't believe. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on not knowing about the sexual assault, but not the actresses being forced to wear her gowns. She wasn't a part of the sexual assaults, but designers don't just send out a gown to an actress & hope it looks good on her. There are fittings & alterations, she would actually be meeting with the actresses, & she would have to notice that some were less than enthusiastic about the dress, or maybe somebody made a remark about Harvey wanting them to wear the dress, or even maybe the actress' stylist would say something. Something would have alerted her to there being a problem, & she either willfully ignored it or didn't care.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Her dresses are very nice, so I don't know why celebrities would be less than enthusiastic.  Her assistants would probably do the fittings & alterations.  If someone said something about Harvey wanting them to wear the dress (which I doubt that anyone would), who would think they were being "forced"?  20-20 hindsight - one can believe or no.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

 

Her dresses are very nice, so I don't know why celebrities would be less than enthusiastic.  Her assistants would probably do the fittings &

 

Because many people do not like them and often have designers or looks that they actually favor. Being told you have to wear something because your bosses wife made it isn’t cool. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Are we selective in choosing which women to believe?

Believe about what?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GaT said:

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on not knowing about the sexual assault, but not the actresses being forced to wear her gowns. She wasn't a part of the sexual assaults, but designers don't just send out a gown to an actress & hope it looks good on her. There are fittings & alterations, she would actually be meeting with the actresses, & she would have to notice that some were less than enthusiastic about the dress, or maybe somebody made a remark about Harvey wanting them to wear the dress, or even maybe the actress' stylist would say something. Something would have alerted her to there being a problem, & she either willfully ignored it or didn't care.

Oh I certainly think that actresses were her dresses because they were told to,but I also think that actresses are told to wear dresses by different designers regardless of whether they want to or not, so I don't think this would be any different. I've always assumed red carpets are a marketing tool between the house and the studio. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

13 minutes ago, callie lee 29 said:

've always assumed red carpets are a marketing tool between the house and the studio. 

Not usually which is what made the arrangement noteworthy. Its typically the actress amd their team. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GaT said:

Something would have alerted her to there being a problem, & she either willfully ignored it or didn't care.

Don't know how we can assume this.  But, whatever.

 

41 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Because many people do not like them and often have designers or looks that they actually favor. Being told you have to wear something because your bosses wife made it isn’t cool. 

Many people?  

Being told to wear something is not cool.  Being told NOT to wear something is cool (for instance, Scarlett Johansson).  Am I correct?

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Her dresses are very nice, so I don't know why celebrities would be less than enthusiastic.  

A matter of opinion, I don't agree.

9 minutes ago, callie lee 29 said:

Oh I certainly think that actresses were her dresses because they were told to,but I also think that actresses are told to wear dresses by different designers regardless of whether they want to or not, so I don't think this would be any different. I've always assumed red carpets are a marketing tool between the house and the studio. 

Designers don't tell actresses which dress to wear, they offer them to them (usually through their stylist) & hope that they pick their gown to wear. It's great publicity & can seriously boost a designer's cache for an actress (especially a major one or someone who is known as fashionable) to appear at a red carpet event in one of their dresses, so the actresses & stylists are the ones with the power. Harvey Weinstein told actresses that he wouldn't promote their films if they didn't wear Marchesa, that's blackmail.

2 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Many people?  

 

Yes, many people don't like Marchesa because so many of her gowns look like princess prom dresses.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Many people?  

Yes, many people. Most of her collections have not been well recieved by a lot of fashion critics and those people into fashion. 

8 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Being told to wear something is not cool.  Being told NOT to wear something is cool (for instance, Scarlett Johansson).  Am I correct?

People should be able to wear what they want but that doesn't mean people can't criticize that choice. By the way many people thought Scarlett's dress at the Met Gala was a miss when they first saw it and before they knew it was Marchesa.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, slf said:

Believe about what?

My guess is believing, in this particular case, women about what they knew or didn't know about someone accused of sexual assault or misconduct.

(Apologies to the original poster for jumping in here.)

Edited by UYI

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering, though--if these women who suffered sexual harassment by Harvey Weinstein were afraid enough of him to not say anything, for fear of ruining their career, why would they risk him ruining their career by saying anything to Georgina or her assistants about being forced to wear on of her dresses?  If I was that afraid of what someone could do to me, and he forced me to wear his one of his wife's dresses, I wouldn't breath a word of it to anyone who might get that info back to him. I would think that someone who is bold enough to behave the way Harvey did would also be petty enough to ruin your career over  letting the wife know that he was insisting that they wear something from one of her collections.

Edited by Shannon L.
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

46 minutes ago, Vera said:

Oh, who cares about the dress?! It's a fashion choice, some will like it, some won't.

I don't get why she is being held responsible for Weinstein's behavior. We can play the 'Who knew?' game for hours. But knew what? That he was cheating? that he was an asshole? That he was assaulting women? You'd be amazed at what people like him are capable of covering up especially from their families. 

Let's not pretend that people aren't waiting to blame a woman for a man's actions.

THANK. YOU.

I hate that the majority of people find some way to blame the women. Not just the victims, mind you, but also ones that were somehow involved with the shitty man in question: wives, coworkers, costars, etc. At least Georgina dumped his ass and isn't standing by him in blind denial like certain other women I could mention.

  • Like 24

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

At least Georgina dumped his ass and isn't standing by him in blind denial like certain other women I could mention.

I am not blaming Georgina for the actions of her husband. I do however wonder how she could be so disconnected from her company that she never chose to look into the rumors that he was forcing people to wear her clothes. 

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Her dresses are very nice, so I don't know why celebrities would be less than enthusiastic.  Her assistants would probably do the fittings & alterations.  If someone said something about Harvey wanting them to wear the dress (which I doubt that anyone would), who would think they were being "forced"?  20-20 hindsight - one can believe or no.

Felicity Huffman said that she and her stylist had already chosen a gown from another designer to wear to the Golden Globes when she was informed that Harvey Weinstein was going to pull all promotional funding from her film, Transamerica unless she switched and wore Marchesa.  I don't think there is any mistaking the message there.  

Marchesa gowns are lovely for the most part, but they're not to everyone's taste.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

I don't believe her, period. There were rumors about how badly he bullied and mistreated her partner and staff just he like he did the actresses. There is no way that Chapman didn't hear about the rumors about his sexual assaults, everyone in Hollywood knew. She just looked the other way because he was basically funding her company and bullying the actresses into wearing their clothes. However, she is deluded if she thinks that she and Marchessa can make a comeback so soon.

 

17 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

The only person who seems to like their work is Anna Wintour who is the chair of the Met Gala. It makes me wonder if Scarlett has an upcoming project that might possibly get her on an upcoming Vogue cover.

 

I expect that is exactly the case. Notice how the timing of Johannsen wearing the dress coincided with the interview. Clearly, Chapman has a publicist coordinating with Wintour and Johannsen to start Marchessa's "comeback" as if any of those actresses will wear their mediocre dresses without someone twisting their arm. Johannsen's dress was embarrassingly bad.

Edited by SimoneS
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I don't believe her, period. There were rumors about how badly he bullied and mistreated her partner and staff just he like he did the actresses. There is no way that Chapman didn't hear about the rumors about his sexual assaults, everyone in Hollywood knew. She just looked the other way because he was basically funding her company and bullying the actresses into wearing their clothes. However, she is deluded if she thinks that she and Marchessa can make a comeback so soon.

 

I expect that is exactly the case. Notice how the timing of Johannsen wearing the dress coincided with the interview. Clearly, Chapman has a publicist coordinating with Wintour and Johannsen to start Marchessa's "comeback" as if any of those actresses will wear their mediocre dresses without someone twisting their arm. Johannsen's dress was embarrassingly bad.

Anna Wintour was known to be close friends with Harvey Weinstein, travelling in the same social circles. Many actresses have been featured on the cover of Vogue promoting their roles in Weinstein films.  Wearing Marchesa, of course.  It's in her best interest to support Georgina Chapman and to insist that Georgina had absolutely no idea that her husband was a bully and a pig.  After all, she is sort of in a similar boat and she needs to promote the narrative that Harvey completely bamboozled his wife and friends.  Interesting, isn't it that while she's quick to jump in and launch Georgina's redemption tour, she hasn't put Ashley Judd or Mira Sorvino or any of the others whose careers were devastated by Weinstein on the cover.  They are, after all, the real victims here.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, kili said:

Thee of Weinstein's victims have weighed in on Chapman and Wintour in this article

 

Quote

I wish the woman well and hope her career and brand are very successful, but I hope she doesn’t believe that everything will be back to normal. Now she has to face that her career and her brand were built on an abuse of power

And this is really the crux of it when it comes to Marchesa. Would anybody really even know who she was without Harvey? Does she think she got the gig being one of the judges on Project Runway (where she is always called "the beautiful Georgina Chapman") all by herself & her design abilities? Or does she realize that it was only because her husband's company produces the show? We don't even know how many actresses he coerced into wearing her gowns, there could be many more. I just don't believe she really thinks she earned it all on her own & Harvey had nothing to do with it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size