TIME October 23, 2017
The View
THE CONCEPT OF THE CASTING COUCH IS AS OLD
as Hollywood itself, and the tacit code of silence
about it is just as old. Actresses who have been
propositioned—or worse—by moguls have long
opted to remain silent for fear of losing parts.
When you’re a rabbit caught in the jaws of a lion,
going limp at least gives you a chance of survival.
In a better world than the one we live in, any
performer coerced in this way—made to feel that
her career hinged on her sexual compliance at
the hands of a powerful bully—would feel free
enough to speak up. But until shockingly recently,
the outcome of doing so was entirely predictable:
a woman who spoke up risked losing standing in
her profession, or at the very least being labeled
a whiner who didn’t know how to play the game.
And the man in power would lose nothing. If
anything, he’d just grow more powerful.
That code of silence protected Harvey Weinstein
for an unconscionably long time. The day the New
Yo r kTimes ran its exposé, when Weinstein offered
that initial “I just didn’t know any better, this is just
Twenty-five women
have publicly
accused the mogul
of various misdeeds
in bombshell
investigations in
the New YorkTimes
and theNew Yorker
as well as on social
media. Weinstein
denies many but not
all claims.
A TIMELINE
OF THE
ACCUSATIONS
AMBRA
BATTILANA
GUTIERREZ
Says Weinstein
groped her in his
Tribeca office in
2015ASHLEY JU D
Says Weins n
asked her o
give him a
massage a d
watch him
shower in t
1990sLAURA
MADDEN
ys Weinstein
repeatedly
asked her for
massages
s rting in 1991ROSE
McGOWAN
Received a
$100,
settlement in
1997 for an
incident in a
hotel roomZELDA PERKINS
Received a
settlement
in 1998 after
complaining
about
Weinstein’s
remarks and
requests in hotel
rooms‘I opened
the door
terrified,
brandishing
my 20-lb.
Chihuahua
mix in front
of me, as
though that
would do
any good.’
MIRA SORVINO,
to theNew Yorkerhow we did things in the old days” defense, that
thunderous sound you most certainly heard was
the audible eye-rolling of women around the world.
Even in the days of Darryl F. Zanuck, Harry Cohn
and Howard Hughes—men who were said to extract
sexual favors from a woman in return for career
advancement (or even just one measly part)—
there were plenty of men who knew better. There’s
enough shame in being a man who thinks it’s O.K.
to conduct yourself like a caveman. That, even as
he was allegedly apologizing, Weinstein seemed
to be off-loading responsibility for his behavior—
essentially standing there in his short pants with
his lollipop, blinking in disbelief that women could
be so damn uncool about everything—makes that
behavior even more monstrous.
The only plea I would make in the aftermath
of Weinstein’s downfall—a victory that’s both
wretched and sweet, considering how many
people have been hurt along the way—is not
to turn against the movies themselves. In the
days after the Weinstein story broke, I noticed a
number of young women on social media fretting
that movies they had loved growing up—like
Shakespeare in Love, The English Patient, Jackie
Brown andGood Will Hunting, to name just a small
number—now seemed tainted. Could they ever
bear to enjoy them again?
But to reject the movies themselves amounts to
punishing the victim. It undercuts the fine work
that so many women—and decent men—have put
into Weinstein-produced movies over the years.
The ugly reality that some of those women were
working under duress makes their contribution,
and their fortitude, even more admirable. Don’t
let Weinstein takeShakespeare in Love—or your
particular favorite—down with him as he slips into
the hole he’s dug for himself. Don’t grant him that
victory. He deserves to go down empty-handed.Zacharek is TIME’s film criticUDD
stein
r to
a
and
m
theSay
r
as
m
sta