Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

99% of adults aren't Asia Argento though 🤷‍♀️

More than that probably.

poll

Reports that it was Bourdain who made the payment just add a whole new level of grimness to what already feels like a sad and fucked up situation.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Unsexy-Truth-About-the/244314

Thanks for the link, Milton. By far the most enlightening analysis I've read so far.

very good piece

The most terrible part of the harassment, she said, was not the sexting. It was the exhaustion she felt, the sense of depletion, as she tried and tried, and tried again, to manage this man’s attention and demands. How to respond to late-night texts in a way that would rebuff him without jeopardizing her position at the magazine? How to be available for the work without making herself available to the harassment? How to do all of this with some semblance of grace and repose, without losing all confidence that his interests in her had at least something to do with the quality of her work?

Feel this extremely, wow

Yeah, it's a great piece, and this particular aspect of harassment hasn't received the attention it needs to get.

It's your turn, Gérard Depardieu.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gerard-depardieu-accused-sexual-assault-1138559

Isn't that one where there were already very public accusations way back when? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

Kevin Costner may have been the man of the hour at last week's Academy Awards (his Dances with Wolves walked off with seven Oscars), but it was one of the evening's losers who provided the award season's biggest flap. Gerard Depardieu, who was nominated for Best Actor for Cyrano de Bergerac, was a no- show at the ceremony. Even so, he was at the center of a fire storm over comments about his wild days as a youth.

The ruckus stemmed from a TIME story about the French film star published in late January. Depardieu, 42, was asked about remarks he had made in an interview published in 1978 in the magazine Film Comment in which he described his rough childhood and said, "I had plenty of rapes, too many to count." Asked by a TIME reporter if he had participated in rapes, Depardieu said yes. "But it was absolutely normal in those circumstances," he added. "That was part of my childhood."

That admission, not surprisingly, drew an outcry from women's rights activists, newspaper columnists and others. Depardieu later denied making the statements and threatened a libel suit against TIME and any news organization that reprinted them. "It is perhaps accurate to say that I had sexual experiences at an early age," the actor said in a statement. "But rape -- never. I respect women too much." The TIME interview, which was conducted in French, is on tape. The Depardieu camp contends that his words were mistranslated and that he admitted only to having witnessed rapes. TIME has refused the actor's demand that the passage be retracted.

Anyone who says 'I respect woman too much' is suspect.

*ilx search*

A reminder dude became a Russian citizen for tax evasion purposes.

And because he loves women too much to be on board with Western feminism.

Not surprised.

EXCLUSIVE: NBC threatened Ronan Farrow If he kept reporting on Harvey Weinstein https://t.co/Al5UlHrlsw

— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) August 31, 2018

donald trump... welcome to #m oh god I can't even finish typing it

NBC FAKE NEWS, which is under intense scrutiny over their killing the Harvey Weinstein story, is now fumbling around making excuses for their probably highly unethical conduct. I have long criticized NBC and their journalistic standards-worse than even CNN. Look at their license?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2018

Moonves out at CBS (six more accusations)

norm macdonald . . . thank's

What about when someone admits to wrongdoing?

The model used to be admit wrongdoing, show complete contrition, and then we give you a second chance. Now it's admit wrongdoing and you're finished. And so the only way to survive is to deny, deny, deny. That's not healthy — that there is no forgiveness. I do think that at some point it will end with a completely innocent person of prominence sticking a gun in his head and ending it. That's my guess. I know a couple of people this has happened to.

Who?

Well, Louis (C.K.) and Roseanne (Barr) are the two people I know. And Roseanne was so broken up [after her show's reboot was cancelled] that I got Louis to call her, even though Roseanne was very hard on Louis before that. But she was just so broken and just crying constantly. There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day. Of course, people will go, "What about the victims?" But you know what? The victims didn't have to go through that.

I have always told you people he's a deeply horrible asshole.

Norm, wtf

What about all this emboldening of racism, though?

I live in L.A., where I'm always faced with the lunacy of the left. I didn't know that the same lunacy existed on the right.

This could be, to the letter, how my cousin in L.A. would respond to that question.

morbz otm

I wonder if Louis CK was like "it's okay to be horribly racist, plz don't kill yourself" and Roseanne was like "oh thanks, its okay to be a sexual predator, plz don't kill yourself" and then went and got ice cream in the full knowledge that both of them are actually good people.

norm is a jordan peterson fan and conservative

there is nothing shocking about him believing this shit

the passing of the baby boomers is going to be a bracing tonic for society

are you including all of them in that generalization? Springsteen? me?

yr already a bracing tonic, ol chap

The model used to be admit wrongdoing, show complete contrition, and then we give you a second chance.

How about a model where, when you have grossly abused your position of power, first we remove you from that position of power, then you show complete contrition, part of which is not merely admitting to wrongdoing, but atoning through your words and your actions and living out your contrition in meaningful ways, so that you earn renewed trust, forgiveness and a second chance? And if you don't like that model, fuck you.

me after reading pretty much every response he gives in that interview

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEPwn47XkAMHMUa.jpg

How about a model where, when you have grossly abused your position of power, first we remove you from that position of power, then you show complete contrition, part of which is not merely admitting to wrongdoing, but atoning through your words and your actions and living out your contrition in meaningful ways, so that you earn renewed trust, forgiveness and a second chance? And if you don't like that model, fuck you.

us Jews call this t'shuvah

calling Norm MacDonald a typical boomer is a little weird, as millennials seem to be his most impassioned fans.

Meantime...

https://jezebel.com/a-star-is-borns-notorious-producer-has-been-sued-for-se-1828957531

I think an element of this which has been noted from time to time, but which seems to be not something people like to talk about, is the complicity of our celebrity culture in this stuff. I don't mean in a patriarchal sense (though that is obviously also very important), I mean the way famous people (especially famous men) are rewarded for being famous with a huge amount of social capital which means they can often get away with indulging their worst impulses without any pushback from any of the people around them. I remember when the first things were coming out about Bill Cosby, so many people were so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that power always corrupts, but isn't it abundantly clear now there are definitely a substantial group of people who will, if given the impression they can do anything they like, do the most terrible things they can?
Sorry, very long way around to it, but as far as "a model" is concerned, I know the USA always has to view everything as individual choices, but really, fuck all of these abusers, focusing on their comebacks or whatever is just more attention, the attention they were given is what made them feel like they could do this in the first place, fuck their redemption stories, just let them fade into the past and look forward to the day we can judge their work without feeding them our attention.
I think since some of the extended fallout of the Jimmy Savile scandal (att an artist I used to respect a lot (NOT JS obvs) was never jailed for a crime but I am 99% sure he is guilty) I've tried to operate on a zero-hero-worship policy, assume all artists and famous people are flawed human beings and don't put anyone on a pedestal. But obviously this does nothing at all to fix the problem, just takes away some of *my* disappointment when something else is revealed. How to stop people giving celebrities the benefit of the doubt whatever they do? I feel like we are now some of the way along, but there is such a long way still to go.

really good post imo

the other side, and it doesnt outweigh it but its a consideration maybe, is that we show much more interest in the supposed, alleged and proven misdeeds of celebrities than we do of other people who are nothing to do with us.

Typical Norm. Stupid comments. Still a brilliant comedian.

hero worship and putting celebrities on pedestals is never going to go away. Norm is far from alone in his views. as much as there's progress being made in some circles, just as many people are digging their heels in and even going backwards. there is a difference between Louis CK and Bill Cosby and eliding that has led to a lot of people getting off the bus. conflating Aziz Ansari with TJ Miller, Charlie Rose, and even Louis is really counterproductive. it'll be borne out when these guys make their "comebacks," I really don't think they're going to be shunned or rejected for much longer.

Yes, good post, CamaraderieAAL. No worship.

the way famous people (especially famous men) are rewarded for being famous with a huge amount of social capital which means they can often get away with indulging their worst impulses

Perhaps the causality may be the other way round? I mean, the people who become famous are mostly people who very much wanted to be famous. So "famous men" isn't like "left-handed men" or "blue-eyed men." It's a somewhat self-selecting group. Yr Bill Clinton types (or whoever) are obviously already known to have outsized appetites. To my mind, that mindset probably preceded fame.

I'm not saying fame or ambition are automatically bad things or that they're only sought by bad people. But it seems safe to say that "men with insatiable appetites for power over others" overlaps with "men who seek power" which overlaps with "famous men." At no point is there much incentive for that complex of traits to veer toward repect of others, or toward impulse control. Or even toward the obligation to adhere to the basic morality that, one presumes, is for mere mortals.

im trying to find a way to formulate the question of whether, accepting the above contention of a whittled set of shared traits in a self-selecting group, the same or a smilar hunger for fame/celebrity in women manifests itself in ways that have fed into this long and sorry affair and whether the entertainment industry, or any such almost-totally personality driven sphere, is more susceptible to this type of prolonged abuse (i mean theres a lot questionable there but it seems to follow on, or not?)

afaict, many men in many fields (politics, cuisine, religion, sports, business) have perpetrated this complex of crimes. We hear about the entertainment industry because these people are more famous than the people at the top of, say, accounting or plumbing or dentistry.

I acknowledge this is only half an answer

not at all, it was certainly no better than half a question rly

Pursuant to responses prior to CaAL's post, I was gonna type something but realized that I already expressed my thoughts fairly completely upthread

Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

Pursuant to CaAL's post-- good post, tho I 100% disagree with your "fuck all abusers forever" mentality, and think that this black-and-white thinking has (ironically) complicated a discussion that is simpler and easier when discussed with nuance. I also think that "cancellation culture" is detrimental to progressivism and runs counter to the goals of a restorative justice movement. "Cancellation culture" fundamentally disagrees with what #MeToo was defined as, and continues to be defined by, from the mouth of its founder-- "it's about power, not about crime and punishment".

But "cancellation culture" has some strong rhetorical bear traps in its backpack-- "you can't tell survivors how to be a good survivor" is one. "Violent protest is necessary to upend systems of power" is another. These are statements I agree with. But I don't believe in them blindly, and am more inclined to call bullshit when I see that these arguments have created a completely toxic environment where dialogue seems impossible. And, this year, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this movement has been nearly completely co-opted by corporate interests, by media outlets who make money off (i.e.) "the hypocrisy of Rose McGowan" and other awful abusive tangents, and by creeps who aren't survivors at all but have learned the language to troll.

The quotes pulled from Norm MacDonald's interview upthread-- I mean, Norm is special. Norm is one of the few public figures whose political views I disagree with, but respect. Bill Maher plays at progressivism but is just an edgelord using the language to cling to power, like 75% of other progressive white people (and probably me as well). Comparatively: at the root of Norm's corny ideas and bad opinions is compassion and empathy and I'm a little frustrated that people don't read the quotes linked above and see through to the heart of what he's trying to say: he's worried about famous people killing themselves. Seeing the profound effect that Roseanne's being "cancelled" after a racist joke-- and, to be fair, five years of Zionist fucking nonsense-- has him questioning the efficacy of "cancellation culture", which is something that I also question. George Takei described his year as being labelled an abuser as being more psychologically gruelling than being in WW2 internment camps. Exile, historically, was considered "a fate worse than death". And if "exile" is how we deal with abusive people, it is going to make abusers, and their friends and family (or "enablers" as many people would describe them), far less willing (or capable) of admitting wrongdoing. If, say, we were aiming toward actual accountability processes-- remember them?-- instead of ostracization, there would absolutely be a more productive outlook for non-legal-system-related systems of recourse.

My opinion (from my post I linked): I don't think many of the accused-famous-people (from basically Louie CK's level of 'crime' on downward) really deserve to lose their job, so much as they should go through a response system that doesn't exist yet. One that would allow them to respond to allegations frankly and fully, to slim down the possibility of legal recourse and thus skip all the meaningless denials, agree to some manner of punishment/rehabilitation that didn't feel rote or stupid, and reorganize the power structure that put them in the place in which they were able to abuse that power so that they were no longer able to abuse it.

edit: I wasn't fully aware of the extent of Louie CK's abuses when I wrote that initial post, and I hope my post doesn't bely the fact that I'm profoundly disgusted and disappointed in what Louie did.

Pursuant to the last few posts, I think that the conversation is focusing on "power" and "celebrity worship" and forgetting that these people are powerful for a reason-- they have, by dint of a privileged upbringing, by dint of racial and gender privilege, by dint of inherited wealth-- but also because they've worked hard, because they're innately talented: these people do work that is societally valuable. Within academia and the entertainment industry (as opposed to accounting or plumbing or dentistry), there is an aura that accompanies people who do this work. And people are attracted to that aura the way people are attracted to people with nice teeth.

From my own experience, I've observed that people are less attracted to "celebrities" than they are, simply, to people who do good work, and/or people who have affected comfort and security as a result of their work. And I'd like to skip a few steps and get to my galaxy brain final thought because I need to walk the dog: this all comes back to American exceptionalism-- and the fact that the health of American bodies is dependent upon the accumulation of capital-- I know it's hilarious that every argument with me about any social movement comes back to "nothing will change until there is single payer health care in America" and/or "nothing will change until CCWs are banned" but... staying on brand, I guess

i don't think norm is all that worried about famous people killing themselves; he's worried about his friends losing adulation and television shows. (to be fair, i'd probably be defensive if they were my friends too.) the fact that he thinks these extremely wealthy people -- not to mention that louis already has a system in place where he can avoid sjw gatekeepers and deliver his work directly to fans -- have 'lost everything' while their victims haven't suffered similarly does not show compassion or empathy

The idea that extremely-wealthy-people, by dint of their wealth, don't suffer extraordinarily psychologically as a result of public humiliation and seeing their life's work upended-- as if there is some top tier version of therapy that only wealthy people have access to? some magical spa?-- is a line of logic I don't particularly understand.

But anyway, I just Twitter-searched "Roseanne" to see if bots were still profiteering off that issue, and discovered that now Norm MacDonald has been cancelled! Modern times continue to surprise me.

His scheduled Tonight Show appearance has been canceled, to be clear.

Fallon very selective about guests clearly

i'm sure that being shunned as an abusive wanker/racist has been psychologically hard on louis/roseanne, but a) they have hardly 'lost everything' -- i mean here's louis, out on the road nine months later! b) i would suggest that they (particularly louis, as i'm not sure how ~well~ roseanne is) *deserve* to suffer psychologically! louis did this shit for years! and everyone knew! and the bulk of his audience doesn't even care!

i feel bad for george takei, and i'm sure i'll feel bad for that hypothetical innocent celebrity who commits suicide, but neither louis nor roseanne has gotten a particularly raw deal. no one is going to jail, no one is losing their children or livelihood. norm's empathy seems limited to the people he knows personally

and exile *from fame* is not the same as literal exile, c'mon

mook otm

I don't think "the permanent death penalty" in the arts for MeToo offenses is universally a good idea, but neither is instant reinstatement.

I would be more scornful of Amazon attempting to bury the completed Woody Allen film if it wasn't for the fact that he hasn't made anything really good in 20 years.