As with the stories told by plaintiffs suing Bill Cosby, it seems that a lot of the stories about Harvey Weinstein begin with a consensual trip to the at-the-time-powerful mogul’s hotel room.
For example, “‘I had to defend myself’: the night Harvey Weinstein jumped on me” (by Léa Seydoux in the Guardian):
When I first met Harvey Weinstein, it didn’t take me long to figure him out. We were at a fashion show. He was charming, funny, smart – but very domineering. He wanted to meet me for drinks and insisted we had to make an appointment that very night. This was never going to be about work. He had other intentions – I could see that very clearly.
He invited me to come to his hotel room for a drink. We went up together. It was hard to say no because he’s so powerful.
How about this for the title of a book with collected stories about Hollywood: I went to this married guy’s hotel room and then…
Harvey Weinstein was not an IT middle manager in Fortune 500 company. In movies industry work at home arrangements are common. Of course, stopping by after drinks at night is suspicious, but business house visist there are not out of the ordinary.
What I keep wondering is how many times this obvious play of his worked and what are all those women commenting now? Some got exactly what they expected from this pig, others now see it didn’t have to go that way (from the published stories it seems he gave up when encountering resistance to the massaging/drinks idea). How do you accept the fact you were too weak to just say no and get out of the room?
Isn’t it time to quote Captain Renault feigning shock upon learning that there is gambling in the casino?
There is some shock. Everyone knew that Hollywood had its own morals but not to that degree. Harvey Wienstein is no young Brad Pitt (or old Brad Pitt) but is an old morbidly obese guy and unlike Mr Pitt he does not marry and divorces his lovers. So I would not rule out actual violence involved.
If he was a skinny computer programmer with no influence, she would have told him to fuck off at the word “drink”. What are we supposed to think? This is the generation born 20 years after the generation which set out to reform showbiz & they still organize the same way.
At least she admits that she understood his intentions. The only thing that shocked her was Weinstein saying “You’d be better if you lost weight”! Really? I thought that was standard Hollywood advice for actresses.
The 7 Habits of Hugely Effective People
The Old Man and the Semen
RAPED: 20 year olds who couldn’t outrun an unarmed 350 lb. senior citizen.
The Very Hungry Producer
Who Moved My Bimbos?
Harvey and the Harlot Factory
The Pussy Driven Life
The Fat-ass, the Bitch, and the Lawyer
How about this story: Imagine yourself a handsome young man who has spent the last few years waiting tables in LA and spending every spare dollar and hour on training and chasing auditions. You are working as an extra on a Weinstein production which is exciting because (1) its work, and (2) you’ve heard they are working on another project for which you’d be a very good fit. Harvey Weinstein comes on set and you think he notices you. As the day’s shoot winds up, a messenger invites you to Harvey Weinstein’s hotel room for drinks later than evening. You’ve heard about his legendary temper and his behavior toward women; you’ve never heard anything sexual about him and men. You don’t know what the visit would be about, but if it is an opportunity for a career in the business it is likely the best one you’ll ever have. Do you go?
@Neal, no I would not go, even if I was a woman (or Hollywood was a woman).
As a software engineer, I have been to a numerous conferences, to numerous meetings with my bosses (male and females) — not even once the meeting was held in such a private setting. In all cases, the meeting was a lunch or a dinner or a lobby or office meeting.
Why is it only in Hollywood and in show business that employers meet employees in a hotel room? What we see here is the culture of Hollywood.
With all the news that is out there about Weinstein and how women are fumed about it, I’m sure, right at this moment, there are 100’s of other Weinstein’ers and women falling for it.
George A: We’re using the phrase “hotel room” in this thread, but I don’t think the image it conjures for us plebeians corresponds to the kind of suite Harvey Weinstein actually inhabited. It seems unlikely someone like Harvey Weinstein would invite an unknown extra (male or female) to a one on one. Thus, the invitation is probably to a social event in the suite’s living or dining rooms. Of course, in the scenario you don’t know this for sure.
Neal: It was Ms. Seydoux , the actress, who used the phrase “hotel room” in her article (cited in the original post). Regarding whether there was confusion as to the purpose of the meeting, Ms. Seydoux wrote “This was never going to be about work. He had other intentions – I could see that very clearly” (see original post).
So Ms. Seydoux planned to join Mr. Weinstein for a non-work encounter and the destination was, in her parlance, a “hotel room.” Why isn’t that a good prelude to a story for a book titled “I went to this married guy’s hotel room and then…”? Harvey Weinstein did not identify as a “guy” or the upgraded suite did not identify as a “room” or something else?
George: I think what Neal is trying to say is that when Hollywood people come to stay in hotels, the hotels remove all of the beds from the rooms because they know that what movie industry people are famous for is using their hotel rooms and suites as exclusive work venues. So the beds get swapped out for desks and conference tables and the hotel meeting rooms on the first couple of floors are rented out for a difference conference due to the fact that all of the Hollywood folks are holding meetings in their private rooms.
Ms. Seydoux notes that the (unnamed) director she “really liked and respected … has slept with all of the actresses he filmed.” Since Harvey Weinstein was a producer rather than a director, there was no reason for Ms. Seydoux to suspect that Weinstein might have a sexual interest.
@philg: What I was saying is that people like Mr. Weinstein rent suites which have bedrooms but also include other rooms that can and are used for for more public purposes like parties and business meetings (not sure there is a difference in Hollywood). Where on earth did you get the idea that I was proposing that “the beds get swapped out for desks and conference tables and the hotel meeting rooms on the first couple of floors are rented out for a difference conference due to the fact that all of the Hollywood folks are holding meetings in their private rooms.”? I said or implied nothing of the sort.
In my comment, I didn’t dispute that the prelude to book titled “I went to this married guy’s hotel room and then…” could contain the anecdote from Ms. Seydoux which you reference. However, the comment was intended to imply that such a title would not capture the full Harvey Weinstein story or even the essence of the story.
I’m not sure about your domestic situation right now, Neal, but maybe you can experiment with this and report back to us. Tell domestic senior management that you’re spending a lot of 1-on-1 time in hotel rooms with opposite-sex industry colleagues, but that the “rooms” are actually luxury suites so there is really no possibility of the meetings straying from the business purpose.
Othello certainly would have been a lot mellower if only Desdemona had told him that she was just meeting Cassio every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon in her suite at the Four Seasons.
The question of whether to classify encounters as innocent or sexual is helpfully addressed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LazrAzBP_0I (starting at about 2 minutes in)
@philg: No need to run the experiment, I can confirm definitively that your proposed experiment would not fly. However, I don’t see how that is relevant to the thread.
@Neal, do you mean to tell me as soon as those women who walked into Weinstein or Cosby “hotel room” were wowed by the hotel “suite” as such there mind was shut off and gave in to Weinstein demand? Or was it the nightgown that Weinstein was wearing, in the “hotel room”, all alone, somehow convinced those women the meeting was all about business?
Sure many of those women were in need and should not have been taken advantage of by Weinstein, Cosby or any other man (or woman). But the fact remains, they gave in (i.e.: used their body) to advance their career. And most of them, if not all, are doing very well today because of that. It was a choose they made and they need to accept it and live with it instead of saying they were sexually harassed or assaulted.
Note that, I’m not justifying Weinstein action, I’m highlighting the culture of Hollywood because this is being refereed to on the news as “Harvey Weinstein’s Fall Opens the Floodgates in Hollywood”. Is this really a “floodgate”?
This whole thing reminds me of philg’s comments past comments about hedge fund managers being willing to act against their own financial self-interest. (Ellen Pao?) Unless you really believe that being willing to perform sexual favors translates into some kind of method acting “willing to do anything” dedication, there’s no way that this behavior wasn’t, by alienating women and reducing the pool of acceptable candidates for roles, reducing the Weinstein company’s prospects for success. You’d think that, all other things being equal, a broader talent pool would give better results. Add the chance of lawsuits onto this, and it’s a wonder that the partners and investors would put up with this. Get ready for the age of the female studio executive!
George A: If the women were not “sexually harassed or assaulted” then you are indeed “justifying Weinstein action”
Neal: No he isn’t. George A is pointing out that while Weinstein is a repulsive predator, what he doesn’t appear to be in the detailed stories that have come out is a rapist. He made offers using the social and financial power he had as leverage, and an alarming number of women accepted. And they not only accepted, but they continued to cover for him after becoming rich and successful by, at best, refusing to name him while making vague accusations (Ashley Judd) or, at worst, praising him in public and hanging all over him in pictures (tons of others). And he did this for decades, and everyone in Hollywood and even the non-entertainment circles he traveled in knew it. And the women all waited until someone anonymously leaked a memo before piling on like they were doing something commendable and virtuous when, at that late date, it cost them nothing at all to name the monster.
Almost all of them had to have known what Weinstein was before they took him up on his not-so-subtle invitation. He was an infamous lecher. But now they want to cry rape or sexual assault after covering for him for all this time? All of them? Really?
George’s point is this is not black and white, and Weinstein being a piece of trash doesn’t make the women into helpless victims who had no agency. Women are not children. In an age where unproven accusations of rape can easily ruin the life of the accused, the idea that all of these women had no power and no choice at any point is absurd. Most of them voluntarily submitted to his advances for material gain by their own admissions. And even if they were all so intimidated and felt so threatened that they had to endure his sick voyeuristic performances, they had many choices in the years afterwards, especially after becoming wealthy and powerful themselves, to expose him, but they did nothing. They could easily have pooled their resources to guard against a legal backlash, but no, not worth it apparently.
RemnantPsyche: If Harvey Weinstein is a “repulsive predator” then the women are his victims in basically the same way that even someone who chooses to pay a blackmailer is still a victim of blackmail. It really is that black and white. The cavalier comment “not worth it apparently” misconstrues the power dynamic at work for most of the episode. Mr. Weinstein was very powerful making coordinated action risky and difficult. Most of the women faced this alone and their choices were basically to accede to or try to deflect Mr. Weinstein or face the consequences. Those consequences could have (and in some cases apparently did) include active damage to their careers, not just giving up any “benefits” Mr. Weinstein might bestow on them (benefits in quotes because were are talking about jobs which they were otherwise qualified for).
Of course women are responsible for their own actions and choices, I have not suggested otherwise. Of course much of Hollywood, including many women, need to carefully consider their role in avoiding and/or enabling the problem and thus allowing it to go on for so long (this is something I pointed out in the previous HW thread). Of course many people would like to avoid the necessary introspection by piling on to Mr. Weinstein. However, claiming that the victims were not victims only contributes to the problem by making it less likely that others in the same situation will think they will be believed and supported if they speak out.
learned from another post on this blog from a comment that this particular actress, similar to Julia Louis-Dreyfus, comes from money, so perhaps that explains why she extricated herself (but does beg the question as to why she didn’t insist they remain in the hotel’s lobby/restaurant/bar to discuss business). From Wikipedia: “The Seydoux family is widely known in France. Her grandfather, Jérôme Seydoux, is the chairman of Pathé;[14] her granduncle, Nicolas Seydoux, is the chairman of Gaumont Film Company;[14] her other granduncle, Michel Seydoux, also a cinema producer, is currently the chairman of the Lille-based football club Lille OSC; and her father is CEO of the French wireless company Parrot.[10] Her mother Valérie Schlumberger is a former actress-turned-philanthropist.” (N.B. Schlumberger)