The Curious Case of Harvey Weinstein II: Complicit Stars

Share

The main focus of the mainstream media, after the New York Times published its piece on Harvey Weinstein’s history of sexual harassment, has been on Harvey Weinstein himself. No one has really had the guts to address Hollywood’s complicity in all of this, including the complicity of some of Weinstein’s victims. A closer look at the New York Times Piece, as well as what The Wire has written about The Times’ own complicity in all of this; reveals Hollywood’s tough talk has come only because Weinstein was exposed and they don’t really strongly oppose his salacious actions.

The New York Times, Russel Crowe & Matt Damon

The New York Times has been widely praised for its massive contribution to exposing Mr. Weinstein, which so far has led not only to his widespread condemnation in the mainstream, but has also led to him being fired from his own company. However, if the New York Times thought that they would get away from all the fallout; to only be seen as the heroes of the piece; then they were dead wrong.

The Wire Exposes New York Times on burying Weinstein Story

The Wire has published a piece, exposing how the New York Times killed the Weinstein story 13 years ago. A former new York Times employee explains how and why the story was pulled.

I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.

I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts.

I also tracked down a woman in London who had been paid off after an unwanted sexual encounter with Weinstein. She was terrified to speak because of her non-disclosure agreement, but at least we had evidence of a pay-off.

The story I reported never ran.

After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.

I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known. I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times, and that he was a powerful person overall.

From the above excerpt, despite ultimately exposing Weinstein’s activities; it’s clear that the New York Times newspaper was a big reason they were kept under wraps for so long.

Hollywood’s Silence

“Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.” (New York Times)

Since this story was broken by the New York Times; many celebrities and public figures have either come out saying that they’re not surprised by the reports of Mr. Weinstein’s activities; or have simply condemned them. However, by doing so, they have revealed that they had some kind of knowledge or suspicion that this kind of thing is common in Hollywood; but were willing to publicly acknowledge or condemn it; only after it was exposed in the papers.

President Trump, Mol & Streep on Weinstein

President Donald Trump: “I’ve known Harvey Weinstein for a long time,…I’m not at all surprised to see it.”

Gretchon Mol: ” I had heard similar rumors about other actresses and Harvey Weinstein for years, (that he sexually harassed them) even before I heard them about myself. I knew that it was not true in my case, so I naively assumed it was equally false in general.” Yet somehow now, Ms. Mol knows they’re true? Based on what evidence? Nothing has been proven in court yet. It’s safe hiding in the majority.

Meryl Streep:   “the disgraceful news about Harvey Weinstein has appalled those of us whose work he championed and those whose good and worthy causes he supported…the intrepid women who raised their voices to expose this abuse are our heroes.” You mean work like yours that he championed? According to reports, Mr. Weinstein was a prolific sexual harasser for almost thirty years. Does anyone believe that Meryl Streep had no clue? I guess she had no clue about Roman Polanski either, as she was seen giving him a standing ovation, after he was awarded an Oscar he wasn’t present for.

Moore, Ruffalo, Gill & Sarandon on Weinstein

Julianne Moore: “1. Coming forward about sexual abuse and coercion is scary and women have nothing to be gained personally by doing so. 2. But through their bravery we move forward as a culture, and I thank them. Stand with @AshleyJudd @rosemcgowan and others.” Very revealing tweet as it shows us the manner in which many of these women think. Julianne Moore may not think there is anything to be gained, but I’m sure the young women who were subjected to Harvey Weinstein’s wiles, would have all been appreciative, if the “brave” Rose Mc Gowan and Ashley Judd had come forward years ago.

Mark Ruffalo: “to be clear what Harvey Weinstein did was a disgusting abuse of power and horrible. I hope we are now seeing the beginning of the end of these abuses.”

Mark Gill: “From the outside, it seemed golden — the Oscars, the success, the remarkable cultural impact. But behind the scenes, it was a mess, and this was the biggest mess of all,” A mess you knew about all along and did nothing to stop.

Susan Sarandon: “When I got out of the bathroom from changing, everyone had left; and the director basically told me to spend the night. I gave some really lame excuse for not doing it; because we were in the middle of nowhere, and he was furious at me for the rest of the film. And he was a married man and a very well-known director,” Mrs. Sarandon of course makes the accusation without naming the accused but I’m sure she would have no problem gaining courage; and speaking out if some newspaper outlet uncovered the name.

The Complicity of the Victims

“How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein?” Ashley Judd

The victims of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment have been painted as heroes for coming out with the truth. Never mind the fact that they’ve only started speaking out after the New York Times report. How many women could they have spared from Harvey Weinstein had they spoken up earlier? But they all chose their careers over self respect and over whatever compassion for other women they’re now feigning. Notice how most of the victims who worked with or came across Mr. Weinstein; continued doing so after being sexually harassed.

Paltrow & Jolie on Weinstein

Gweneth Paltrow: “I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified…I thought he was going to fire me,” (Paltrow describing sexual harassment attempt by Weinstein in interview) It’s again rather convenient that after all of these years she finally has the “courage’ to speak out, once the story broke in the New York Times. It’s also important to note that Paltrow continued working with Weinstein after the incident; “The two would continue working together and two years later, Paltrow went on to win a best actress Oscar for her work in John Madden’s Shakespeare in Love,…”

Angelina Jolie: “I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did. This behavior towards women in any field, any country is unacceptable,”

Dunham, Sivan Judd on Weinstein

Lena Dunhum: “Yup. Hollywood shines light on Catholic Church, sex trafficking- let’s shine it on ourselves a second and what we’ve condoned.”

Lauren Sivan: To the allegation that “Weinstein then proceeded to expose himself to Sivan and began to masturbate.”  after attempting to kiss her and telling her; “Well, can you just stand there and shut up,” Lauren Sivan, formerly of Fox News tweeted; ““Yeah. This happened. luckily I didn’t need a job or favor from him + didn’t have to be polite. Others did. Keep that in mind,” Yet she was polite enough to have said nothing publicly about Weinstein’s behaviour towards her; even though the revelation could have spared many other women from the same fate or worse.

Ashley Judd: “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time; and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”

Harvey Weinstein Conclusion

Hollywood and the mainstream are just as responsible for Weinstein and the countless others, who live above the law; kissing up to them while knowing about their misdeeds, just so they can get an interview, or a job. It’s complete hypocrisy for all of these women and other actors to come out now and “tell all” after so many years. And it’s also hypocritical for celebrities who knew or worked closely with Weinstein; to come out now and condemn him, for something they knew or suspected about him for a long time. It begs the question: “How many more predators are there in Hollywood, who the “brave” actors and actresses, are covering up for?”

We know that neither Hollywood nor its actors care about stopping its sexual harassment culture. This fake outrage over Weinstein’s behaviour has to be influenced by something else.

Why did the New York Times finally print a sexual harassment story about Weinstein after sitting on at least one for 13 years? Why do the actresses and other celebrities who were subjected to Weinstein’s sexual harassment for these past thirty years; all of a sudden feel compelled to tell all? We know it’s not out of their concern over other potential victims; as they’ve proven by their choices that their own careers and successes in that regard come first.

What did Harvey Weinstein do in 2017 that compelled the New York Times to print a story he reportedly forced them to sit on 13 years earlier? The answer to what Harvey Weinstein has done I suppose (apart from the sexual harassment of course); will give us the answer to why Hollywood feels compelled to condemn him now.


Share

Dean Nestor

Learn More →

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: