Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

conorhal wrote: »

That same gossip has been prevelent for years regards a couple of high profile gay Hollywood power brokers also.
It was very telling that the outrage over the interview that brought down Milo Yiannopoulos focused exclusively on his dismissive experience of abuse by an older man but had zero to say about his allusions as to what went on at the 'parties' he attended as a young man running with this Hollywood set and how very young and vunerable some of the attendees were in that same interview.

Probably because Milo himself walked back what he'd said when asked about it and asked why he didn't report that abuse if he'd seen it. He said that when he said "boys" he meant "young men" over the age of consent.

And if it was true, surely your outrage should be directed at Milo who claimed to have witnessed all this first hand but never went to the police to report it?

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

And she had a cold demeanor which suited her well for the femme fatale characters she was invariably cast as. She was really good in 'Casino', as well.

She was brilliant in that - she's made some shíte but sure what actor hasn't. I've seen much worse actresses than Sharon Stone!

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I wonder why Rose McGowan and others weren't "brave" enough to speak out 20 years ago when the "abuse" was meant to be happening ?

Clearly putting up with it got their careers progressed - and if you are willing to accept that, it's no business of mine.

But don't come the victim decades later and expect to be taken seriously.

No, I have to completely disagree with you here Peter.

If you at one stage where young, possibly scared, certainly naïve and some sleazy **** bag like Weinstein takes advantage, but then years later as a successful, financially secure and supposedly more mature and worldly wise person you decide to speak out - that's well done you.

Sometimes people make bad decisions, for all manner of reasons, fear, greed, naivety, the stupidity of youth, whatever - but no one is complicit in their own abuse!

That's just the lie that scumbags tell their victims - you brought this on yourself, so you better be quite. It's just wrong.

Fair play to Rose McGowan - she deserves admiration and respect, not abuse!

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'm afraid that not all "abuse" is actually "abuse".

If you feel you need to sleep your way to success then I won't judge you - much.

But if you are dishonest about it, then yeah I will.

You're quite wrong actually. Rose's career has notably suffered while others who were complicit have prospered. She did not "sleep her way to the top". She was abused, she sued, and had a stagnant career as a result.

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

I know a man who worked as a stunt man in Hollywood in the late 90s, dream job but he packed it in pretty quickly because of the things he saw going on, not even at parties, on set. And I don't mean groping, I don't mean creeps like Weinstein holding young actresses' careers hostage for sexual favours or just playing sick power games (Romola Garai's story is infuriating), I mean abuse of children by very famous and well regarded men, actively, materially facilitated by others and carried out blatantly. According to this guy it wasn't fear for his career that stopped him speaking out, it was fear for his safety. All he could do was leave and not be part of it.

There's one particular actor he described as evil.

I do believe there is some shady child abuse ring going on. I've read some awful rumours.

You raise an interesting point about the stunt man being afraid of his life rather than his career.

Hollywood is a billion dollar industry, the idea that the only threat to someone who was repeatedly abused was "you'll never work in this town again" and they would be expected to keep stum is naive at best.

They or their family would be would be murdered. "Heroin overdose" or "Car crash". And the powers that be wouldn't thing twice about doing it either.

_Dara_ wrote: »

I don’t see it as a gender issue either.

Oh you're right on that, it's absolutely isn't. Must have read a dozen or more autobiographies over the years by male actors that suggested they had slept with women in order to get roles. Especially stars from the 50's / 60's era. Most were nobodies at the time but some were already successful.

In fact a male Bollywood star actually has recently claimed that a female producer told him he would only get the role if he slept with her. He turned her down though.

I'm not so sure though that I'd feel all that sorry for anyone that shags someone for a role because they felt their career would nosedive if they didn't succumb (be they male or female). Perhaps if they were threatened in some fashion but just because they themselves felt that perhaps it would be best if they obliged? Nah. No sympathy. Many an actor and actress has walked and so why not them. At some point personal responsibility has to kick in. I recall Charlize Theron saying she walked out of some Director's mansion late at night after he told her she could have the role if she banged him. Gwyneth Paltrow and Cher did the same. Joan Collins in fact said she wasn't given the lead in Cleopatra because she wouldn't sleep with the producer. Liz Taylor got it. The role I mean.

As for actors and actresses that did frequent the casting couch and had no shame about it: Burt Reynolds, Tony Curtis and Joan Crawford would be the names that spring to mind. I don't think Marilyn Monroe ever admitted it but she famously threw herself at directors for prestigious roles too.

One famous story I'm surprised hasn't been mention so far (not just the thread, but online) is the infamous Thandie Newton one. For years it was spoken about that a video was doing the rounds of her masturbating for a director during an audition when she was 18. This director apparently screened it at parties on occasion and it got back to her so she decided to speak out about it and her story was that the director told her that it would be a scene for the film and so wanted to see how she would perform. Hhhm, not sure if it was before or after Flirting but would seem odd to me that anyone would believe a full on graphic (by all accounts) masturbation scene would ever appear in a mainstream film. I mean, we're talking about a time when Sharon Stone flashing pubic hair sent the world into meltdown. Who knows though, maybe she'll name him now. Certainly don't see any reason for her not to.

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

I know a man who worked as a stunt man in Hollywood in the late 90s, dream job but he packed it in pretty quickly because of the things he saw going on, not even at parties, on set. And I don't mean groping, I don't mean creeps like Weinstein holding young actresses' careers hostage for sexual favours or just playing sick power games (Romola Garai's story is infuriating), I mean abuse of children by very famous and well regarded men, actively, materially facilitated by others and carried out blatantly. According to this guy it wasn't fear for his career that stopped him speaking out, it was fear for his safety. All he could do was leave and not be part of it.

There's one particular actor he described as evil.

Is her story that she once seen a man in his dressing gown? That's all I can seem to find!

As for the guy being afraid for his safety - I don't think it's too far a leap to suggest that the kind of scumbag that will abuse women and even kids, might go that step further to protect all those billions of dollars!

Where there is that kind of money, there are always people willing to do whatever it takes to protect it! Doesn't make any difference how the money is made.