Musings on Weinstein
Musings on Weinstein
Normal commenting rules apply.
Over the weeks prior to Harvey Weinstein’s conviction, there were – I noticed – roughly two fields of thought online. One insisted that Weinstein would skate, that his years of building up influence with political leaders, reporters and editors and suchlike would pay off; he’d get a slap on the wrist, nothing more. The other insisted that Weinstein would be convicted, regardless of the legalities of the case; Weinstein had become so hated, so much the poster child for the METOO movement, that no one would dare to vote for acquittal. (It won’t surprise you to hear that both sets of arguments veered towards misogyny and misandry.) Thankfully, Weinstein’s conviction – in my opinion – upheld the rule of law.
[image error]
Weinstein faced five separate charges. It is telling, I think, that he was only convicted on two of them. This is not the complete sweep his opponents wanted – although, given his age, it is fairly certain he will die in prison – but, at the same time, it is not a complete disregard for the legalities that others feared. The prosecutors could only prove two sets of charges. They were enough to convict Weinstein without destroying the legal framework and the rule of law.
And yet, it cannot be denied that Weinstein’s lawyers faced an uphill battle. Weinstein was famous, then notorious. His lawyers are – no doubt – already planning an appeal on the grounds Weinstein could not possibly be given a fair trial. He was, in a way, tried and convicted by social media a long time before his case was brought before the court. It was vanishingly unlikely that anyone could approach the case without at least some awareness of who Weinstein was and what he’d done.
The prosecution – too – faced an uphill battle. In one sense, Weinstein’s behaviour was common knowledge well before 2017. Hollywood made jokes about it (which tells you everything you need to know about Hollywood). In another, it can be difficult – very difficult – to prove rape, particularly a rape that took place years before it became public. A woman who goes straight to the police has a credibility that a woman who says nothing for years, or exchanges flirty emails with her rapist for years, simply lacks. Weinstein was practiced at covering his tracks. We simply don’t know how many prospective actresses he victimised before he was finally exposed. The combination of a vast level of clout, non-disclosure agreements and a simple reluctance to look facts in the face provided all the cover a predator could possibly want. Weinstein’s victims were not always convincing. A young wannabe actress, all too aware that a word from Weinstein could ensure her career never got off the ground, cannot be faulted for keeping her mouth firmly shut. Famous actresses like Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd and Gwyneth Paltrow have far less excuse.
The blunt truth, in these cases, is that establishing truth beyond all shadow of a doubt is not easy.
And yet, the affair has uncovered two deeper – darker – truths about both Hollywood and human nature.
First, those who live and work in a toxic environment rapidly become toxic. Their sense of normal practice, of where the lines are drawn, becomes blurred … then fades altogether. It is quite possible that Weinstein discovered, quite early on, that he could push the limits about as far as they could go – and, as he pushed them, realised he could simply keep going. His behaviour, to an outside eye, is beyond appalling. To people on the inside, it was simply a part of doing business. Weinstein did not invent the ‘casting couch.’ The concept of would-be actresses trading sex for roles was well-established long before Weinstein came on the scene
The blunt truth is that, when there is such an immense imbalance of power, that ‘consent’ can be a very slippery thing indeed. (This is why the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky relationship was so inappropriate.) Weinstein did not need to say, bluntly, “have sex with me or you’ll never work in this town again.” He had enough power to make the threat implicit without ever having to make it explicit, without ever crossing a line that his enemies could use to bring him down. The disparity in power was so great that, regardless of what the actresses claimed, no one could consider consent to be wilfully given. A relationship between someone who was, effectively, ‘the boss’ and someone far junior should have ended in the boss being unceremoniously terminated. Instead, far too many people just smiled weakly and took it.
I don’t know why Weinstein chose to act in such a fashion. I’ve seen no shortage of speculation, ranging from ‘creepy male feminist’ to ‘long-standing hatred and resentment against women’. The point is that he lived and worked in an environment where such behaviour tended to go unnoticed (or at least unpunished) until it was far too late.
And this leads, neatly, to the second point. The dirty secret of Hollywood – of big business and politics and just about everywhere else – is that wealth and power excuses anything and everything. As long as he was powerful, as long as he made money, people would make excuses for him. And Weinstein’s connections reached very far indeed. Hillary Clinton might have taken more cash from Weinstein’s coffers than anyone else, if the New York Post is to be believed, but she was far from the only Democrat to take his money. The First Daughter, Malia Obama, interned for Weinstein! The Secret Service must have been asleep at the switch.
Hollywood chose to cover up Weinstein’s perversions as long as he made money. He was allowed to do whatever he liked; his accusers were pushed into signing NDAs as a condition of their payouts. (Weinstein can spend the rest of his life suing anyone who broke one of those NDAs, if he wishes.) Brad Pitt deserves credit for threatening Weinstein after Weinstein harassed Gwyneth Paltrow, but it didn’t seem to occur to him that a man who was prepared to threaten a world-famous actress might have a string of less prominent victims. It wasn’t until Weinstein started losing his power that people started speaking out about his behaviour. And then it was far too late.
Weinstein was not the only one. Woody Allen remains honoured in Hollywood, despite sexual abuse allegations. Roman Polanski likewise, despite a conviction for child-rape. (Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, tried to defend him.) And how many others remain unknown?
The blunt truth is that Hollywood has become a cesspit (if indeed it was ever anything else). Dozens of famous names had been named and shamed, their careers damaged or destroyed over the past few years. Right now, there are damaging rumours about a producer who might be a very big name indeed … although I have no confirmation one way or the other. And it has become clear that, for all their claims to ‘wokeness’, the big-wigs have been very ‘unwoke’ indeed. It is no longer possible to take Hollywood’s moralising seriously. Why on Earth should we take heed of people who closed their eyes to monsters in their midst? And why should we listen to them about Donald Trump?
Hollywood praises itself on its ‘bravery’ in ‘speaking truth to power’ (i.e. constantly assaulting Donald Trump/Republicans/Conservatives). This has now been exposed as a lie. Hollywood is brave as long as the target is easy – and safe. When faced with harder targets, targets that can and will push back, Hollywood chooses not to fight. No one takes actors and actresses seriously any longer and why should they? It isn’t just that the stars of stage and screen enjoy a lifestyle well above the average. It is that they’re hypocrites.
In fact, the worst thing Hollywood could do to Trump would be to endorse him.
The broader implications for the future may bear contemplation. METOO has exposed the festering cesspit of Hollywood. It has delivered a certain, if limited, justice to some of the worst people on the planet. At the same time, however, it has flip-flopped on many important issues. It has not, as Spiked pointed out, done anything about working-class girls abused by grooming gangs in England. Nor has it realised the limits of social media outrage, that it runs the risk of both giving the guilty an ironclad defence and doing irreparable damage to innocent men. Indeed, there is a very good chance that, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, ‘Ban-The-Box’ and innumerable diversity and inclusion ‘educational’ sessions, METOO will do considerable harm to the people it claims to help. If the risk of being accused – and of being simply thrown under the bus without a fair trial – is deemed too high, why should anyone take the risk? Apparently, women are already losing mentorship opportunities that should otherwise be theirs.
But these are matters for a later essay. For the moment, let us be happy that Weinstein is facing justice for at least some of his misdeeds.
