Jump to content

Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood predators


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Unofficial Who said:

Well this tweet is turning into a garbage fire.

 

 

Loads of responses peppered with “how’s this tweet working out for you?”

 

I always thought that guy was playing stupid on tv, now I know he was just being himself,

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/07/bryan-singer-lawsuit-sexual-assault-boy-yacht-rape/

 

 

And an interesting tweet someone posted on reddit :

an interesting thread from Mark Harris: https://twitter.com/markharrisnyc/status/938171360232247298

In light of the latest Bryan Singer news, I'm going to tell a story about him and the press that stems from the Apt Pupil story at the top of this thread. It'll take several tweets, so mute if you're uninterested.

In 1997 I was a young(ish) editor at EW. After this story was published (I think it was after), Singer's reps asked if we would be interested in meeting with him for a chat. We were. He came to our offices and met with about 12 of us in a conf rm.

Some context: Note that Singer, in the Apt Pupil story, was not accused of sexual assault. The dispute was about whether teenage boys were asked to disrobe for a scene by other people or whether it happened under his supervision.

Singer maintained (and I believe still does) that he had nothing to do with it. But what has always lingered with me is the case he made. He sat in the room and said he was gay--I have to emphasize how much more unusual it was to hear in 1997 than it is now.

And then he said (I'm paraphrasing) "For anyone who wants to take down a gay director in Hollywood, what is the worst thing you can throw at them? That they go after kids. So if anything, I would be EXTRA careful about how I run a set."

I was 1 of, I think, 2 gay editors in a very straight room. And, though it does not flatter me, I admit that argument landed for me. Peel away 20 years of enlightenment and think of a world in which homophobia was MUCH more acceptable. It hit home.

Also imagine a world in which Bryan Singer had made just two movies and this Apt Pupil story came up. It wasn't a case of "Believe him" vs. "Believe the victims'-- the victims were clearly telling the truth. The question was about Singer's involvement.

I have thought of that day many times since then. How, if Bryan Singer was telling the truth, that'd be awful. And how, if he weren't--if he or his reps figured out EXACTLY the argument to make to two young gay editors that they in turn would make to an older staff that was working fast to learn the new rules about talking to and about gay people--well, that would be an astonishingly shrewd and wanton act of sociopathy. The perfect way to use your own sexual identity and someone else's to play them.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, futureshock said:

 

 

The Yale-New Haven Hospital Child Sex Abuse Clinic’s finding that Dylan had not been sexually molested, cited repeatedly by Allen’s attorneys, was not accepted as reliable by Judge Wilk, or by the Connecticut state prosecutor who originally commissioned them. The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.



All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case. The report concluded Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. (For example, she had told them there were “dead heads” in the attic and called sunset “the magic hour.” In fact, Mia kept wigs from her movies on styrofoam blocks in a trunk in the attic.) The doctor subsequently backed down from his contention.

The Connecticut state police, the state attorney, and Judge Wilk all had serious reservations about the report’s reliability.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, futureshock said:
1 hour ago, futureshock said:

Sure, when something's this serious, the best thing to do is rely on Maureen Orth and Vanity Fair. 

"It's all planned. It's all rehearsed. This is craft. This is strategy. This is manipulation. This is spin."

I'm curious about why you'd need to push particular sources to discredit someone alleging abuse? Do you go rooting around for evidence to discredit people making allegations their house was burgled? Or that somebody mugged them? Or do you just save that for sex crimes against women and children? How about common or garden child abuse? Do you hang about to defend those poor perpetrators besmirched by the disclosures that 1 in 6 children in the UK are sexually assaulted? After all, most of them are only protected by civil court findings and few of the perpetrators are ever convicted of criminal offences? Or did they not have a good enough PR teams to defend their honour to give you ready made lines of attack? Or perhaps it is only famous men? Did you go digging to see whether there were any inconsistencies in the testimony of Jimmy Savile's victims? Or those who made allegations against Rolf Harris? Or Ian Watkins? Or is it specific to men you admire? Or perhaps you'd like to defend Weinstein, or Toback, Spacey, Lauer, Kriesberg, Ratner, Franken, Moore, Bush, Clinton or Trump, as none of them have been convicted, so they are just allegations, right? No? Your defender of the righteous role doesn't extend to them? So, why stand up for poor maligned millionaire director with a PR and legal team that threaten anyone who speaks against him Woody Allen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geekette said:

Do you go rooting around

 

That Guardian link is literally in the Vanity Fair article quoted above. If by 'rooting around' you mean click a link, yeah, you got me. Hands up.

 

Quote

So, why stand up for poor maligned millionaire director.

 

That you can't see the inconsistencies in this particular case is almost as interesting as the case itself. But then I remembered you're willing it to be true, and are quick to condemn anybody who points out how this case is not like the others you listed.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, futureshock said:

That you can't see the inconsistencies in this particular case is almost as interesting as the case itself. But then I remembered you're willing it to be true, and are quick to condemn anybody who points out how this case is not like the others you listed.

If by "willing it to be true" you mean generally believing victims, and feeling the court judgement is probably a more accurate weighing of the evidence than a lay person can do based upon the selective evidence leaked into the public domain by the various parties, then you've got me bang to rights. But in reality it seems you have some pretty weird ideas of what that phrase might mean, to go with your clear bias to defend perpetrators and discredit those making disclosures about their experience. You haven't yet made any case about how this case is "not like the others" - pretty much all the men deny the allegations against them and try to bring up conflicting actions or potential motivations for making them. He just did so ahead of the curve, and against a single victim, with a narrative that chimed with toxic beliefs about women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geekette said:

If by "willing it to be true" you mean generally believing victims

 

I prefer to base my thoughts on evidence and reason, rather than blind belief. 

 

Quote

 

 You haven't yet made any case about how this case is "not like the others" 

 

I already did. Go back and read what I wrote months ago if you can be bothered, where the case for him being an evil paedophile crumbles on the revelation that Mia Farrow signed off on his Lifetime Achievement Award. Or in another Vanity Fair article where she talked about speaking with Frank Sinatra , who offered to send some guys round to break his legs, and she insists that Woody was left unharmed, making her probably the only mother on planet Earth that had it in her to protect the abuser of her child. That's ODD, isn't it? Or how about even though they were together 13 years, only a few years before their breakup, she stood in court and swore he was of sound enough character to be the adoptive father of some of her children. That's WEIRD, isn't it?  On and on, the holes appear, all pointing towards a spurned bat-shit crazy ex.

 

That Guardian article, (and Weide's Daily Beast article) are both inescapably damning. That's the reality of it.

Quote

Then last week in the Daily Beast, Weide, who made the 2012 PBS American Masters documentary about Allen, followed up with his close analysis of exactly what happened in 1992. It's quite a demolition job on the Vanity Fair piece, deconstructing timeline, opportunity, and circumstance. What's more, it paints a far more complicated picture of Mia from the one she has curated about herself, including that her brother is in jail for child molestation – Mia's own family is a horribly dysfunctional one – and that her son, Moses, no longer speaks to her and accuses her of "brainwashing".

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, futureshock said:

I already did. Go back and read what I wrote months ago if you can be bothered, where the case for him being an evil paedophile crumbles on the revelation that Mia Farrow signed off on his Lifetime Achievement Award.

 

You never really explained this one. I don't understand your thinking.

 

How does someone signing off on a person's lifetime achievement award mean that it's impossible that that person is also a paedophile?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, that's the sort of stuff I don't understand.  Child abuse is littered with sad examples of mums who are in fear of abusive dads, or who have been brainwashed into thinking that abuse is normal.  Obviously I appreciate that most mums don't have such experiences, but sadly, it happens.  Abusers are really clever and manipulative - they pick partners that they think will ultimately allow their abuse to continue.  None of that is to say the mums in question are at fault - most of the time they are victims too.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but I'm not going to go back round the loop with futureshock about the details. The fact is that any lay person cherry picking from the evidence leaked to the media 25 years ago is not going to form a clearer picture than the judge who made findings on the case (findings, I note, that have never been successfully challenged despite all Allen's wealth and influence).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's milkshake duck.

 

 

You can read the whole thing at http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqc244

 

He pretty much cops to sexual misconduct in his personal and professional life.

 

Spoiler to the bit that seemed to undercut the entire piece. For me at least.

 

And I am part of the problem.



But why? What caused me to act this way? Is it all ego? Or was it the sexual abuse I suffered as a boy and as a young man in my teens? Abuse that I only ever told to my first wife, for fear of being seen as weak or less than a man?

Is it because my father left my mother when I was child? Or that she believed he never respected her, so that disrespect carried over into their son?

 

Ugh. I'm torn about this. On the one hand it speaks to patriarchal abuse that creates a vicious circle of abuse.

 

On the other hand, there are loads of abused boys raised by single mothers who made a massive effort not to become a bully or abuser themselves. And he just threw them under the bus rather than owning it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NickC said:

Exactly, that's the sort of stuff I don't understand.  Child abuse is littered with sad examples of mums who are in fear of abusive dads, or who have been brainwashed into thinking that abuse is normal.  Obviously I appreciate that most mums don't have such experiences, but sadly, it happens.  Abusers are really clever and manipulative - they pick partners that they think will ultimately allow their abuse to continue.  None of that is to say the mums in question are at fault - most of the time they are victims too.

 

like the mum who offered her child to Ian Watkins?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NickC said:

 

You never really explained this one. I don't understand your thinking.

 

How does someone signing off on a person's lifetime achievement award mean that it's impossible that that person is also a paedophile?

 

I don't get how this is some smoking gun that proves she is lying.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

 

 

 

Ugh. I'm torn about this. On the one hand it speaks to patriarchal abuse that creates a vicious circle of abuse.

 

On the other hand, there are loads of abused boys raised by single mothers who made a massive effort not to become a bully or abuser themselves. And he just threw them under the bus rather than owning it.

 

I'm reading it as his way of trying to show that hes also a human being, and more than just someone having abusing his powers. We know that childhood experiences can greatly impact our lives, some more than others. For example, we know that poverty and crime is related. If you're a child growing up without a father in the slums of Baltimore, chances are you will break the law more often than someone living in suburbia. As for me personally, the violence I lived with as a child and early teenage years definitively affected me and my personal development. Just to be clear, I've never assaulted anyone, but I did freak out when I reached puberty, and my entire life has been one cul-de-sac after the other. It took years and years of hard work to move on, to be able to break free. So when someone like Spurlock writes about his childhood, I kind of understand what hes saying. It doesn't excuse bad behavior in any way, but its a reminder than hes more than just someone having abused his powers.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Empathy 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.