Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Luciferian**

I agree. Even from a totally callous and coldly logical position that doesn't hold any empathy for the victims, it's easy to see how this kind of behavior can have a hugely negative impact on business. You don't want your bottom line to be affected by a pattern of sexual harassment, don't employ and protect sexual harassers. Too easy.

**NinthMusketeer**

Yodhrin wrote:
Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour

But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.

I assume you have an alternative in mind, because otherwise this would be blatant support for letting abusers keep abusing.

**feeder**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour

But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
I assume you have an alternative in mind, because otherwise this would be blatant support for letting abusers keep abusing.

I think the poster is pointing out how the closing of the company does nothing to hurt the abuser. The closing of the Wienstein Company isn't something to celebrate, only Harv in jail is something to celebrate.

**NinthMusketeer**

feeder wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour

But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
I assume you have an alternative in mind, because otherwise this would be blatant support for letting abusers keep abusing.

I think the poster is pointing out how the closing of the company does nothing to hurt the abuser. The closing of the Wienstein Company isn't something to celebrate, only Harv in jail is something to celebrate.

If I missed some context of people celebrating the company's shutdown being mentioned then I apologize, but as far as I've seen there was no mention of it at all in the thread until he brought it up. Barring that I don't see any indication that he meant it as such.

**sebster**

Yodhrin wrote:
Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour

But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.

Your argument doesn't make a great deal of sense. When O'Reilly's victims were paid their settlements O'Reilly didn't pay, FOX News did. So the people really stumping up that cash were the shareholders in the parent company 21st Century Fox. That's just life.

The alternative, to just carry on dealing with abusers and not issue any punishment because of pretend concern that third parties might be negatively affected, is obvious nonsense.

**Easy E**

I emphasize (Edit: What? I mean Empathize) with the idea that when there is a battle amongst the elites, the workers always are the ones who suffer.

However, I can't think of any better approach at the moment.

**sebster**

Easy E wrote:
I emphasize witht he idea that when there is a battle amongst the elites, the workers always are the ones who suffer.

However, I can't think of any better approach at the moment.

Its even more general than that. Its simply that whenever there is change, people with few assets behind them will feel the hurt more acutely. When a company closes for any reason the chairman with $100m in the bank will be okay, the receptionist with $1.67 in the bank, an overdue credit card bill and a car needing new tyres is going to be in a lot of trouble if they can't find a new job soon. The only way this can be prevented is if we never do anything, ever, that might force a change to anything.

Obviously that's impossible. So instead what we should note is how this concern appears so... selectively. Not having a go at the guy who raised it, I don't know him from a bar of soap, but it is a narrative that's appeared, and appears quite often whenever people are held accountable for certain kinds of behaviour that at least some people would prefer we let people continue to get away with.

**NinthMusketeer**

sebster wrote:
Its even more general than that. Its simply that whenever there is change, people with few assets behind them will feel the hurt more acutely. When a company closes for any reason the chairman with $100m in the bank will be okay, the receptionist with $1.67 in the bank, an overdue credit card bill and a car needing new tyres is going to be in a lot of trouble if they can't find a new job soon. The only way this can be prevented is if we never do anything, ever, that might force a change to anything.

Or spread the company's wealth more fairly down the employee ladder, but honestly that seems so distant these days I don't fault people for not mentioning it.

And to bring this in a more on-topic direction, that would also have a positive impact on the sexual harassment issue because executives with less ludicrous wealth simultaneously won't have as big an ego and won't be able to throw as much money into protecting themselves when that ego sends them into abusive territory. Of course, the company would almost certainly run better with employees fairly compensated actually caring for the wellbeing of the company, which would in turn boost the company's revenue and end up better for the executives too. Naturally humans repeatedly choose the completely inferior version, because of course we do. /rant

**sebster**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Or spread the company's wealth more fairly down the employee ladder, but honestly that seems so distant these days I don't fault people for not mentioning it.

E-kwal-ah-tee? Nah, that's just a made up word. Crazy talk.

And to bring this in a more on-topic direction, that would also have a positive impact on the sexual harassment issue because executives with less ludicrous wealth simultaneously won't have as big an ego and won't be able to throw as much money into protecting themselves when that ego sends them into abusive territory. Of course, the company would almost certainly run better with employees fairly compensated actually caring for the wellbeing of the company, which would in turn boost the company's revenue and end up better for the executives too. Naturally humans repeatedly choose the completely inferior version, because of course we do. /rant

I like the use of 'choose' there. Matter of fact way of saying the world is as it is, because we chose it. Nicely done.

**Spetulhu**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
And to bring this in a more on-topic direction, that would also have a positive impact on the sexual harassment issue because executives with less ludicrous wealth simultaneously won't have as big an ego and won't be able to throw as much money into protecting themselves when that ego sends them into abusive territory. Of course, the company would almost certainly run better with employees fairly compensated actually caring for the wellbeing of the company, which would in turn boost the company's revenue and end up better for the executives too. Naturally humans repeatedly choose the completely inferior version, because of course we do. /rant

Still, the ordinary workers might cover for the high-ups in either case. If they're poor and need the next paycheck badly they're not going to cause trouble, but someone being paid better might also wish to keep that better pay...

**Easy E**

sebster wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Or spread the company's wealth more fairly down the employee ladder, but honestly that seems so distant these days I don't fault people for not mentioning it

E-kwal-ah-tee? Nah, that's just a made up word. Crazy talk.

Having read Yodhrin's other posts, I know he is NOT a defender of Misogyny but IS a staunch class warrior. I do not think he brough this idea about the "right" people being punished to defend bad behavior but to point out the inequality angle.

That would lead us to talking about a Social Safety Net, and probably into Lock/Ban territory due to US Politics. Therefore, let's not talk about it.

**RiTides**

Yes, the US politics discussion ban is still in place here in the OT, so let's not venture into that area of discussion, please.

**sebster**

Easy E wrote:
Having read Yodhrin's other posts, I know he is NOT a defender of Misogyny but IS a staunch class warrior. I do not think he brough this idea about the "right" people being punished to defend bad behavior but to point out the inequality angle.

Cool. Like I said earlier, I don't know the guy and I didn't want to make any assumptions about him. But there is something to be noted about when concerns like these come up, it doesn't happen each and every time someone faces punishment. I think, though, that most times a powerful man is held to account for what is generally seen as a progressive cause, it will be noted that the real impacts tend to fall on less privileged people connected to the powerful man.

And thing is, I don't think it has to be the result of negative actors or manipulation. Lots of stuff happens just through the way things interact, how institutions and informal groups operate, how lines of thought tend to lead to other lines of thought. A lot of it likely is people on the left looking to make a point about equality or some similar issue.

But the overall impact should be noted, I think. It ends with action on issues like this being held to a higher standard than action on other issues.

**Easy E**

Harvad Professor gets caught up harassing women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/05/prominent-harvard-professor-placed-on-leave-following-accusations-of-decades-of-sexual-harassment/?utm_term=.a464b8428339

It was the early 1980s when Terry Karl complained to Harvard University that a senior scholar had repeatedly made sexual advances toward her. Karl, then an assistant professor of government at Harvard, had never heard the term “sexual harassment,” she told the Chronicle of Higher Education. It would be nearly a decade before Anita Hill propelled the issue into the national conversation.

Still, Karl knew the behavior of her tenured superior, Jorge Domínguez, was inappropriate, she told the Chronicle. She met with higher-ups, wrote to administrators, called for better reporting practices and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She ultimately left Harvard, deciding she couldn’t handle working in the same circles as him. While Domínguez was disciplined, he was allowed to stay on the faculty. He was even promoted.

In the decades that followed, numerous other women say they experienced sexual harassment from the professor, according to accounts published in a story last week in the Chronicle. Harvard’s handling of Karl’s complaint made other women hesitant to come forward with their own complaints years later, the Chronicle reported. The #MeToo movement helped connect these women and bring their stories to the surface.

**whembly**

*Update to this story*

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/asia-argento-paid-sexual-assault-accuser-report-1135872]

Argento was one of the first and most vocal accusers of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.
Asia Argento, the Italian actress who was one of the first to publicly accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault, secretly paid off a young male actor accusing her of sexual misconduct in the months after her revelations about the disgraced movie mogul.

According to a report in The New York Times, Argento paid former child actor Jimmy Bennett $380,000. Bennett claims that in 2013, a then 37-year-old Argento assaulted him in a California hotel only two months past his 17th birthday. The age of consent in California is 18.

The Times reports that it has seen the legal documents that lay out Bennett's assault claims and the payments arranged between his lawyers and Argento's.

Bennett's lawyers sent a notice of intent to sue Argento in November, claiming that the sexual assault was so traumatic that it affected his mental health and stymied his acting career. The notice was sent to Richard Hofstetter, the late Anthony Bourdain's longtime lawyer, who was representing Argento at the time.

The legal documents outlining the accusations against Argento were sent not long after she went public with her own sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. Argento accused Weinstein of raping her when she was 21 in an incident that took place in 1997 in a bombshell New Yorker report published on Oct. 10.

The avalanche of sexual assault allegations against Weinstein by dozens of women sparked the global #MeToo and Time's Up movement that exposed sexual harassment by men in the entertainment industry and wider society. Since the Weinstein allegations became public, Argento, with the support of Bourdain who was her boyfriend until his suicide in June, has spoken out about sexual harassment both in Hollywood and her home country of Italy and also gave high profile talks on the subject at Harvard University and at the Cannes Film Festival.

Shortly after the report was made public on Monday, Argento's ally Rose McGowan publicly distanced herself, tweeting, "I got to know Asia Argento ten months ago. Our commonality is the shared pain of being assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. My heart is broken. I will continue my work on behalf of victims everywhere."

Deadline has it too:
https://deadline.com/2018/08/asia-argento-tarana-burke-reaction-metoo-founder-sexual-assault-jimmy-bennett-1202448550/

Tarana Burke, the activist who coined the phrase that started the #MeToo movement, reacted Monday to the news of Asia Argento allegedly paying off an underage sexual assault victim in 2013, saying “sexual assault is about power and privilege,” and “that doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender.”

RelatedRose McGowan Says 'Heart Is Broken' After Asia Argento Payoff Report, Cautions
She added: “We won’t shift the culture unless we get serious about shifting these false narratives.”

The reaction in a series of tweets comes after a Sunday report in the New York Times that Argento — the Italian actress and Harvey Weinstein accuser, and outspoken sexual assault-victim advocate — made an arrangement to pay off Jimmy Bennett, an actor-musician who accused her of sexually assaulting him in a California hotel room 2013 when he was 17 years old.

According to the Times, Argento arranged a deal to pay Bennett $380,000. The Times said the alleged assault happened months past his 17th birthday; Argento was 37 at the time. In court documents, a selfie with the two lying in bed was included.

Burke was ahead of the curve creating the #MeToo hashtag, which became synonymous with the revelations of sexual abuse and misconduct that became national news with exposés on Harvey Weinstein last fall in the Times and the New Yorker. Since then, allegations and accusations have surfaced worldwide, leading to the downfalls of high-profile people of power in all walks of life.

“A shift can happen,” Burke said today. “This movement is making space for possibility. But, it can only happen after we crack open the whole can of worms and get really comfortable with the uncomfortable reality that there is no one way to be a perpetrator. …and there is no model survivor. We are imperfectly human and we all have to be accountable for our individual behavior.”

Another Weinstein accuser, Rose McGowan, also weighed in Monday, saying her “heart is broken.” Like Burke, rather than fully distancing herself from Argento, McGowan suggested watchers “be gentle” as “the truth of the situation” is not yet known.

Argento’s lawyer has not made an official comment, and Bennett had not released a statement. Argento — whose boyfriend was the late TV host/chef Anthony Bourdain, who committed suicide in June — has not been active on Twitter since July 24.

I wonder if Argento's infidelity was the ignition to Bourdain's suicide.

**DarkTraveler777**

whembly wrote:

I wonder if Argento's infidelity was the ignition to Bourdain's suicide.

That is a rumor floating around, but supposedly Bourdain knew of the incident and was assisting Argento with legal representation. Argento also claimed she and Bourdain had an open relationship since she was seen photographed with a man the day of Bourdain's death, so who knows what everyone involved in that relationship knew or didn't know. Really none of that matters in my opinion. The issue is a child was molested by an adult, and that adult paid the child off to avoid legal issues.

Regarding Argento, I think it is pretty rich that Rose McGowan is urging people to "be gentle" while this is investigated. This is a disgusting situation, and it looks like Argento was grooming this poor kid since he was 7 (when they shot a movie together and she played his mother). Why gentleness needs to be applied here, in this specific case, is puzzling to me. McGowan's own bias towards Argento as an ally and fellow woman seems the obvious reason for such empathy. It is hard to imagine McGowan offering the same sort of compassion if it was a male accused. I am sure saying that paints me as a rabid MRA (

), but thankfully the double standard is glaring and even women are pointing it out on McGowan's Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/1031535197433602048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1031535197433602048&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewrap.com%2Frose-mcgowan-asia-argento-assault-accusation%2F

Maybe McGowan can clarify or walk back her "be gentle" statement. Otherwise it shines a massive spot light on the hypocrisy of the #MeToo movement's biggest spokespeople - McGowan and Argento.

**cuda1179**

Looks like Rose McGowan isn't the only hypocrite in the MeToo movement.

The New York Times reported that New York University had conducted an 11-month investigation into a sexual harassment complaint by a male graduate student against Avital Ronell, a female professor of German and Comparative Literature. The university concluded that Ronell was responsible, and a group of influential academics signed off on a letter to NYU in Ronell’s defense; one of the most powerful feminist scholars on earth, Judith Butler, was one of them.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/06/blaming-the-victim-is-apparently-ok-when-the-accused-is-a-feminist-literary-theorist.html

**HudsonD**

Funny how that goes. In some country, it's sexual assault. In France, she'd have a chance at becoming First Lady !

**DarkTraveler777**

cuda1179 wrote:
Looks like Rose McGowan isn't the only hypocrite in the MeToo movement.

The New York Times reported that New York University had conducted an 11-month investigation into a sexual harassment complaint by a male graduate student against Avital Ronell, a female professor of German and Comparative Literature. The university concluded that Ronell was responsible, and a group of influential academics signed off on a letter to NYU in Ronell’s defense; one of the most powerful feminist scholars on earth, Judith Butler, was one of them.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/06/blaming-the-victim-is-apparently-ok-when-the-accused-is-a-feminist-literary-theorist.html

That is extremely disappointing. I just read their letter and, wow, just yuck.

This paragraph is particularly troubling, because in essence it is arguing that a person's contributions to their field should be considered when applying the law? That just doesn't make any sense. That is like arguing that Weinstein produced some great movies, furthered the arts and so who cares about rape? What the flying feth?

We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation. If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing loss for the humanities, for New York University, and for intellectual life during these times would be no less than enormous and would rightly invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We ask that you approach this material with a clear understanding of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship, the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field, her enduring commitments to the university, and the illuminated world she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive in her company and under her guidance. She deserves a fair hearing, one that expresses respect, dignity, and human solicitude in addition to our enduring admiration.

It does play nicely into what Tarana Burke, the original founder of the MeToo movement, had to say about the Argento situation*:

I’ve said repeatedly that the #metooMVMT is for all of us, including these brave young men who are now coming forward. It will continue to be jarring when we hear the names of some of our faves connected to sexual violence unless we shift from talking about individuals and begin to talk about power. Sexual violence is about power and privilege. That doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender. And we won’t shift the culture unless we get serious about shifting these false narratives..

What Butler and company are doing is siding with power and, like I said, yuck.

However, the only way to demonstrate that MeToo is for everyone and not just women is to publicly deal with these hypocrites and bounce them from positions of influence and power.

*Burke's comments taken from here: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-45261188

**cuda1179**

Argento has broken her silence on this. She now denies there was any inappropriate contact ever. She also blames the settlement on Bourdain (deceased boyfriend that committed suicide) basically saying that he didn't want the bad press and they should just throw money at the problem.

Wow, class act there. Throwing your dead boyfriend under the bus.

**Kilkrazy**

What if it's true?

**cuda1179**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What if it's true?

Quite frankly, even if it was the boyfriend's plan she went along with it.

I do believe she molested this boy. If other evidence comes out I'd be willing to adjust that opinion.

Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately. I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.

**whembly**

There are pictures of her and the 17 yo in nekkid in bed.

Lawd... why would you do that??!?

**DarkTraveler777**

cuda1179 wrote:
Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately.

Agreed. This doesn't take away from her victimization at the hands of Weinstein.

cuda1179 wrote:
I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.

Last I read she wasn't under investigation by police. There is photographic evidence of her and the boy both topless in bed. She settled with him out of court last year to obtain those photographs and shut him up. She got away with statutory rape it seems. What due process is she afforded at this point?

**cuda1179**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately.

Agreed. This doesn't take away from her victimization at the hands of Weinstein.

cuda1179 wrote:
I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.

Last I read she wasn't under investigation by police. There is photographic evidence of her and the boy both topless in bed. She settled with him out of court last year to obtain those photographs and shut him up. She got away with statutory rape it seems. What due process is she afforded at this point?

Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.

In other news, leaked emails and texts from Argento show that she has admitted to a friend that sex did occur when he was underage.

**DarkTraveler777**

cuda1179 wrote:
Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.

In other news, leaked emails and texts from Argento show that she has admitted to a friend that sex did occur when he was underage.

Just read that that Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is investigating, so let's see where this goes!

**AlmightyWalrus**

FWIW Butler has apologized and agreed with several of the points raised in this thread.

**cuda1179**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
FWIW Butler has apologized and agreed with several of the points raised in this thread.

All right, I think that apology is acceptable. Guess we all make mistakes.

**DarkTraveler777**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
FWIW Butler has apologized and agreed with several of the points raised in this thread.

Thanks for posting that. Butler's apology is excellent (not surprising given her ability with language) and reassuring. I was disappointed seeing her as a signatory of that letter because it seemed inconsistent to positions she has taken in the past, so her clarification is definitely helpful.

**Ouze**

cuda1179 wrote:
[Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.

I think you have a few things mixed up here.

Police don't file charges at all in the sense that you're saying - that's for prosecutors to do.

I also think you're confusing police officers and mandatory reporters. Mandatory reporters are not required to be law enforcement but as you say they are obligated to report abuse that they see, reasonably suspect, or have reported to them and can be held liable if they do not.

The reason I point out this distinction isn't pedantry, but that last point: the police absolutely cannot be held criminal liable for failing to protect. There is well established case law at this point that the police have no responsibility to protect any one specific citizen.