Four actresses relayed their suspicion that, after rejecting [Harvey] Weinstein’s advances and complaining about him, he had them removed from projects or persuaded others to remove them. A number of Farrow’s sources said Weinstein had referred to his success in planting stories in the media about individuals who had crossed him. … He told them that complying with his demands would help their careers, repeatedly mentioning Paltrow (without the actress’s knowledge) as someone he claimed to have had sex with. … these activities were enabled by employees, associates, and agents who set up these meetings, and lawyers and publicists who suppressed complaints with payments and threats. (
"Oops, seems Weinstein was a producer, not an agent. But producers serve a related role of evaluating and matching actors. A big part of the demand for him as a producer would be his ability to do those well."
Oops, you're a grossly intellectually dishonest buffoon.
This is something very much like a song publisher demanding a share of the writer's royalty in addition to the publisher's royalty in return for prioritizing their promotion of the song. This common practice in the music biz, and in that case it is so widely accepted (for a new writer) that it is barely even viewed as unseemly. Indeed some publishers have gotten a very bad rep for doing it excessively, but it's not illegal in any way.
It seems that Weinstein was demanding sexual favors in return for prioritizing the actresses who would grant them. We're shocked and outraged, but at least one actress who granted the favor said that at the time she viewed it simply as a rite of passage.
I personally agree that though Weinstein might be what I would consider a pig, the actresses who agreed ought to have understood this as a quid-pro-quo that they had a right to accept, with its benefits, or turn down, with its consequences. Weinstein is or was one of the most powerful producers in Hollywood, and someone you want on your side. Also, the actresses in question may already have been under contract to him, making it hard to work for someone else.
After all, it is now de rigeur to respect sex workers who take money for sex, and I don't see this as particularly different. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce.
Implicit in the above is my belief that the allegations are true, and not mere gossip. Except for outliers, of course, or other kinds of liars. But in this situation, I believe they are few, in part because of substantial verification by women who say they rejected the advances but managed to succeed in the grand manner anyway. I especially admire these women, because I admire success, especially by those who do it their way.
Just a little coda: Randy Hughes, Patsy Cline's agent, said that the advice given him by a senior colleague at the start of his career was quite valuable. The advice was, "Keep your cock out of the cash register." It appears in retrospect that poor Harvey would have benefited from said advice.
As mentioned already, he was a producer not an agent. Moreover, he was (by far) the foremost producer in Hollywood of art movies, the kind that gets nominated to Oscars. And he had significant pull on Disney as well as a network of former collaborators (actors and casting directors, as well as the two main agencies in Hollywood, William Morris and CAA). *Agents* would not have this kind of bargaining power. This is a case of theory preceding facts and being made moot by them. Get the facts straight. This has very little to do with gossip.
Consider the social changes that have been promoted in the wake of #metoo. For example, that we should embrace some aspects of traditional masculinity, through "culturally enforced monogamy" and family values. The standard argument against conservativism applies: it's not safe to expect traditional values to be well adapted to a rapidly changing social environment.
Changing norms to undermine the kinds of power structures that allow negative masculinity to metastasize is a bit harder than reverting to old norms, because we don't know what norms we'd need to adopt. But the difficulty of actually changing norms on a large scale overwhelms the added difficulty. Undermining malignant power structures seems at face like the kind of thing that would be better adapted to the modern social environment. And if we get economic efficiency as a bonus, all the better.
Yes indeed, and I think this weakens the whole example. Holding the purse strings gives you a lot more direct power so he need rely less on indirect things like a gossip cabal.
Not to say this line of thinking is wrong, but the example isn't compelling to me.
"Oops, seems Weinstein was a producer, not an agent. But producers serve a related role of evaluating and matching actors. A big part of the demand for him as a producer would be his ability to do those well."
Oops, you're a grossly intellectually dishonest buffoon.
This is something very much like a song publisher demanding a share of the writer's royalty in addition to the publisher's royalty in return for prioritizing their promotion of the song. This common practice in the music biz, and in that case it is so widely accepted (for a new writer) that it is barely even viewed as unseemly. Indeed some publishers have gotten a very bad rep for doing it excessively, but it's not illegal in any way.
It seems that Weinstein was demanding sexual favors in return for prioritizing the actresses who would grant them. We're shocked and outraged, but at least one actress who granted the favor said that at the time she viewed it simply as a rite of passage.
I personally agree that though Weinstein might be what I would consider a pig, the actresses who agreed ought to have understood this as a quid-pro-quo that they had a right to accept, with its benefits, or turn down, with its consequences. Weinstein is or was one of the most powerful producers in Hollywood, and someone you want on your side. Also, the actresses in question may already have been under contract to him, making it hard to work for someone else.
After all, it is now de rigeur to respect sex workers who take money for sex, and I don't see this as particularly different. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce.
Implicit in the above is my belief that the allegations are true, and not mere gossip. Except for outliers, of course, or other kinds of liars. But in this situation, I believe they are few, in part because of substantial verification by women who say they rejected the advances but managed to succeed in the grand manner anyway. I especially admire these women, because I admire success, especially by those who do it their way.
Just a little coda: Randy Hughes, Patsy Cline's agent, said that the advice given him by a senior colleague at the start of his career was quite valuable. The advice was, "Keep your cock out of the cash register." It appears in retrospect that poor Harvey would have benefited from said advice.
As mentioned already, he was a producer not an agent. Moreover, he was (by far) the foremost producer in Hollywood of art movies, the kind that gets nominated to Oscars. And he had significant pull on Disney as well as a network of former collaborators (actors and casting directors, as well as the two main agencies in Hollywood, William Morris and CAA). *Agents* would not have this kind of bargaining power. This is a case of theory preceding facts and being made moot by them. Get the facts straight. This has very little to do with gossip.
Why do we accept that this happens in Hollywood but not in, oh just to pick an example at random, climate science?
Consider the social changes that have been promoted in the wake of #metoo. For example, that we should embrace some aspects of traditional masculinity, through "culturally enforced monogamy" and family values. The standard argument against conservativism applies: it's not safe to expect traditional values to be well adapted to a rapidly changing social environment.
Changing norms to undermine the kinds of power structures that allow negative masculinity to metastasize is a bit harder than reverting to old norms, because we don't know what norms we'd need to adopt. But the difficulty of actually changing norms on a large scale overwhelms the added difficulty. Undermining malignant power structures seems at face like the kind of thing that would be better adapted to the modern social environment. And if we get economic efficiency as a bonus, all the better.
The argument still stands. There is no natural monopoly of movie producers. He doesn't hold the purse strings--only one purse string.
He was a producer who controlled the money. Lots of power.
Standard Jewish nepotism explains the power of 'agents' in Hollyweird. Same old, same old
And Rosanna Arquette is not getting roles because she's cute.. for a 60 year old.
Yes indeed, and I think this weakens the whole example. Holding the purse strings gives you a lot more direct power so he need rely less on indirect things like a gossip cabal.
Not to say this line of thinking is wrong, but the example isn't compelling to me.
Wasn't he a producer, rather than an agent? He financed films.