Harvey Weinstein Expelled From the Academy
Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 5:07PM By Nathaniel R
It's the end of an era. Harvey Weinstein has been expelled from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences given the avalanche of sexual harassment and rape claims that have hit in the past week. That's quite a downfall for a man once synonomous with Oscar Night. Or as The Los Angeles Times succinctly puts it
The move... in symbolic terms, amounts to a virtual expulsion from Hollywood itself.
The Oscars aren't the house that Harvey built, of course. They have survived many scandals and scandalous members and will survive this. The organization predates his birth by 25 years though how's this for an eery bit of Oscar/Harvey trivia: the very first televised Oscars were held on the night of baby Harvey's first birthday on March 19th, 1953. The producing giant didn't come into prominence until the early 1990s with the rise of Miramax but once he did he changed the way Oscar campaigns ran, was thanked relentlessly in acceptance speeches, and made prestige mini-majors the dominant Oscar players across town.
Of course one could argue that the Weinstein era had ended years ago. The Weinstein Company has struggled in recent years against the rise of now-powerful awards players like Fox Searchlight, A24, Amazon Studios and more. There isn't even much to say about the way the Weinstein sexual harassment scandals will affect the Oscars this year. TWC only had one release this year that was successful enough to justify a campaign of any kind (Wind River) but that was a long shot at best even before the company was embroiled in this scandal. The period drama The Current War was their Christmas hopeful but its festival response was tepid and with the company falling apart and cries to "dissolve the board" out there it seems unlikely that it will see release any time soon.
The Academy's Board of Governors (incidentally just one woman shy of being 50% women) was right to get this scandal off their plate immediately given that the Honorary Oscars are just around the corner. Who could be celebratory with anything like this depressing hurtful story on their minds? But on a deeper level they're taking a stand against the way Hollywood has been run for years. They state that they made the move in order to send a message:
The era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.
Well done.
Reader Comments (51)
Next to castration itself, one can hardly imagine a stronger form of poetic justice for HW. It's as if he lived for Oscar's approval.
Danno: Damn straight!
So just to bring it up again, because last time Nathaniel you kind of threw a fit about me and other refusing to watch any art, I would bring up Casey Affleck in relations to the Oscars. Their statement says "The era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over." They were complicit in it last year when they gave him the best actor statuette. Which I not to say they should not have expelled Harvey, and I certainly hope going forward they do their best to live by those words. But I would point out Casey did the exact same thing as Harvey. He showed up naked in the middle of the night in one of his employees bed, and when she rejected him he retaliated at work. He also encouraged this make employees to expose themselves to another female crew member. (See, very Harvey like). After they came forward he then paid them off with settlements, quietly. Just like Harvey. I saw you tweeted about Emma Thompson's kick ass statement, part of which was "does it have to happen loads and loads of times to count, or does it just have to happen once?" I'm with her, I think it's the latter.
Let's hope they don't invite him back. In fact, have him banned from all film festivals including Cannes. If he decides to show up. Grab him and get a bunch of women with anything they can get their hands on and give him the ass-kicking of a lifetime. Then get filmmakers he's fucked over and beat his ass up too.
S - I'm half on the side of Nathaniel (the more reporting of Weinstein's expulsion and the Board's decision as a sign of progress, the better) and half on your side (I'm horribly conscious that most actresses who've revealed their awful experiences with him are either half-retired - Paltrow, Jolie - or have other ambitions - Delevigne, McGowan).
Emma Thompson is Emma Thompson - I love her for her strident comments (though appreciate that she was also probably never the actress to attract lecherous producers in the first place, so will not lose future opportunities).
In a strange way, I've gravitated to Beckinsale especially - she probably has most to lose career-wise yet still did it.
All the actresses (and actors, if we're leaning towards openly-discussed "casting" practices employed by certain directors) should be able to name and shame without fear of reprisal in their careers.
The fact that so many victims are, clearly, afraid to do so? It speaks volumes about how many "Weinstein types" are still powerful in the industry.
Let us celebrate the shaming of Harvey. Let us also not relent when it comes to tidying up Hollywood in general. Nobody's work is "done" yet...
"The era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over."
Empty words. This wasn't kicking out Harvey because of what he did, it was because it was a scandal too big for the Academy to be associated with and bad PR. This is the Academy that welcomed back Mel Gibson with open arms and bestowed its greatest honor on another man with allegations on his name less than 7 months ago.
Seeing the Academy take this stand on Harvey is wonderful but I have a hard time praising any entity for their condemnation of predatory sexual behavior when they have honored the likes of Casey Affleck, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski is recent years.
@kermit_the_frog oh just to be clear, I am super on board for his expulsion and I think this subject should be brought to light as much as possible, to shine a light onto this predatory behavior. And I feel nothing but respect and admiration for the women who have shared their stories, and also for the women who have not, because it is an impossible, unfair position to be in. My fear is simply that these will end up being empty words from the Academy, considering they just last year awarded Affleck, and invited Gibson back to the table.
(Which side note, it always bugs me with Gibson that people only seem to bring up his anti-Semitic rant, which absolutely terrible and worthy of scorn, but completely leave out the fact that he was charged and took a plea deal for domestic abuse. There is literally a voice recording threatening his ex and wishing she would get raped by a "pack of n-word". It says something about how culture and how unimportant women are that people mostly still only thing Gibson is bad because of that rant. End side note)
Academy of Arts and Hipocrisy of Hollywood.
Harvey Weinstein Expelled From the Academy...
And take with him badly directed films like Shakespeare in Love and the usual MOR bipics like Imitation Game. And for crying out loud!!... Chocolat!! Tastes like boo boo.
Bot hold the good ones... The Piano, The Crying Game... when he used to call himself Miramax.
They needed to do this but does it solve anything? Dozens if not hundreds of people had to be involved with his settlements and degradation of women. What about other men like Michael Bay, Steven Soderbergh, James Cameron, Bryan Singer, Mel Gibson and others who grossly abuse men and women but are still protected and handsomely overpaid? I need to see some standards that are enforced - not just gestures - to believe anything has changed.
It had to be done. I'm more into lawsuits that into public lynchings though.
@Marie- The academy is about awarding art not the people themselves. What about Oliver Stone, Lena Dunham, Michael Fassbender, Woody Allen, and Polański (who actually fled the country to escape jail time)? I’d be fine with kicking Polański cause his case is so egregious and he’s clearly not innocent but otherwise turning things into a witch hunt would not be good. They are not the moral police to be “enforcement” as you say. It’s not their job, pure and simple. What would happen if they were is they would end up kicking mostly lesser known, new or disliked actors anyways.
With all that said, I agree with kicking out Harvey. His case is egregious, his activities effected many of the current female membership and it’s just so widespread, it is the right move.
So Harvey can’t vote for films anymore? Seems minor. I believe standards above applied to Hollywood culture and ethics.
@S
Here's the thing. To a lot of people the Academy Awards aren't (or at least shouldn't be) a popularity contest. They're supposed to be about deciding what the very best in a given field is in a given year, period. Granted, everyone knows that there's a variety of bullshit that influences who wins Oscars, but it shouldn't, and simply replacing one set of non-merit-based factors with another just isn't the goal.
If you want Roman Polanski to go to jail I can totally get behind that, dude was a criminal. If you want Casey Affleck to be fired and never work again... that might be a bit extreme but I'm willing to listen. I'd also be fine with either of them losing their Academy voting privileges and perhaps having them dis-invited to the ceremony. However, Polanski is not in jail and Casey Affleck is still acting, and to just pretend that they stellar work doesn't exist when trying to decide what the best of a certain year is just seems kind of nuts.
People keep wondering how Weinstein got away with so much for so long and this thread already has multiple comments of "but it's about the art! and they're so good at what they do" so there you go. That's how Harvey was able to get away with it.
"They needed to do this but does it solve anything? Dozens if not hundreds of people had to be involved with his settlements and degradation of women. What about other men like Michael Bay, Steven Soderbergh, James Cameron, Bryan Singer, Mel Gibson and others who grossly abuse men and women but are still protected and handsomely overpaid? I need to see some standards that are enforced - not just gestures - to believe anything has changed"
This. I'm all for expelling Weinstein, but this is also the result of the perfect storm that's made Weinstein a liability for them. This thing has been such a PR nightmare that it now directly benefits them to shed him. He's been feared and respected, but never likeable or loved. It's in the Times and the New Yorker. A-listers have come forward, etc.
What about the next time when it's not as clean-cut? When it's about powerful men abusing women/girls who are unknown and outside of the industry, like Polanski and Allen? When it's not a slimy corporate dude at the end tail of his career but a revered cultural icon? (Bill Murray reports, anyone?) What about when it's dudes still at the height of their prowess, like Mel Gibson? What about when its only 1-2 women as opposed to dozens?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Harvey got away with this because of whatever reasons the women had for saying nothing.
@steve_man, exactly right! People justifying abusive behavior because they like their art, or probably in Harvey's case, made them a lot of money/ garnered a lot of awards. I know Nat got pissed off when I said it last time, but it's the same as people who said it didn't matter because they liked Trumps politics (though he is a special case in that he is also a racist, homophobe, maniac) or people who support a football player who beats his girlfriend because he's good at the game. Hell, even convicted rapists get easy sentences because they are good at swimming, like Brock Turner.
@ MJS, so part of my problem with what you say is describing Polanski as criminal (he is) but Affleck as some lesser thing. I really wish as a society sexual abuse didn't have to be rape to count. Every day, women have learned to deal with a medium level of abuse. I do not know a single woman, including myself, that hasn't at some point experienced harassment for a man in a position of power that makes them feel unsafe, embarrassed, degraded. Again, as Emma Thompson said, does it have to be the most extreme case to count? And secondly, the Oscars are an industry award, voted on by industry people, not some outside arbitrars of art, winning one can be highly political, and it is viewed as a career boost and marker. So in its industry people saying that Casey Affleck (or Polanski, or Allen, or Gibson), that their art is more important than keeping women safe. Especially in Affleck's case, since the women he assaulted WORK IN THE INDUSTRY and it was on a film shoot.
Lots of Academy members have had sexual harassment allegations hurled against them and they weren't kicked out. I think what makes Harvey Weinstein expulsion special is that he has Academy members among his victims.
And @markgordonuk- way to blame women for not only their own assualts, by the assaults of others! Gross. How about blaming the lawyers, the board members who signed off on the payouts, how about blaming all people who heard from women what was going on and choose to hid it, how about blaming news and journalism outlets, who sat on the story, or Harvey's people who push the pressure on them to squash those stories, how about blaming the TWC board which knew about the settlements and allegations since 2015. How about the general culture in which women have been made disposable objects for powerful men? There is a lot of blame to go around, do we have to put it on the victims?
@huh,
Here's the thing, I don't think anyone is saying Casey Affleck never has to work again or we should not watch his movies. The Academy should not award him with one of their highest accolade. I think that's all people are saying. We shouldn't laud them with all of these awards.
Yes, @ Michael, yes.
Nobody likes to admit they are complicit.
Art is not more important than people lives. Rapists, harrasers and pedophiles have no god given right to keep working in the film industry because people like their work. And they have no right to keep winning awards or being rewarded. It's that sort of unsconscionable lack of moral compass that allowed a Harvey Weinstein to happen. It allows a Woody Allen to happen. It allows a Victor Salva to happen. It allows a Roman Polanski to happen. It allowed a Casey Affleck to happen.
The world is full of great artists looking for a break or an opportunity. All the ones that broke the code of basic humanity can be replaced, but a lot of selfish fans don't want to let of of certain perverted individuals who made work they liked. People need to look deeply at themselves and question their own decency and humanity.
I found it disgusting when critics kept giving Casey Affleck every award they could muster. They were complicit. He wasn't even undeniable (or the best performance. That was Denzel). They were just being obstinate and wanted to make sure no one could tell them that they couldn't award another garbage white guy whose work they enjoyed.
And white women critics were complicit. Just like they were in electing Trump against their own interests. The Women Critics Circle voted Affleck Best Actor, because just like they did with Trump, they'll happily vote with an abusive white man against their own gender.
@S, I specified Polanski as a criminal in that he was literally convicted of a crime. If criminal charges were to be brought against Casey Affleck, then so be it, if I were on the jury I'd happily convict. I realize it sounds strange to say that I'd like to see someone in jail but would also defend their right to win a small gold statue, but that just how I see it, I feel like they're two completely separate issues. My bigger point is that while this work exists it deserves to be judged in and of itself freed of all the surrounding nonsense. I hate when campaigns decide Oscar winners, I hate when industry politics decide Oscar winners, I hate when popularity decides Oscar winners, I hate when notions of who is or isn't "due" decides Oscar winners... and I also don't like when judgements about who did what awful thing in their personal lives decides Oscar winners. The system as it is isn't perfect, but replacing it with another system that decides these things based on different outside factors is not the solution I want.
I guess we can add Kevin Spacey to the list as people are now sharing stories about him on Twitter.
"Harvey got away with this because of whatever reasons the women had for saying nothing."
Ugh, no.
A lot of women said something. Ambra Battilana went to the *police* and the DA refused to press charges. There are at least 8 settlement agreements, last I heard, with Weinstein. Paltrow told Brad Pitt, who confronted Weinstein and God knows who else. And we don't know what other women spoke up and have declined to press charges.
You do not get to blame victims for this.
@MJS
The problem with your statement is these people are not teachers or janitors who would likely lose their jobs. These are famous people who get paid millions. The money is their reward.
I'm sure many male actors, lawyers, agents and managers are shaking in their boots right now, hw is not the only one. I feel for the women who sadly gave in and are now remaining silent.
@Michael I'm not sure what that has to do with any of what I'm saying. I've already said that I'm fine the people accused getting whatever professional repercussions they should get, the issue is the awards, which are ultimately supposed to be about the performances and not the people.
MJS,
Campaigning, likeability,politics, marketing strategies, "overdue factor", money almost ALWAYS influence, If not decide, the Oscars. 99% of the times.
Affleck's Win last year was disgusting. Polanski winning and getting a standing ovation was imoral, nauseating, vomit-inducing.
Saint Meryl, always ready to preach others on morality and right or wrong, was the First to Stand on her feet to give Polanski a standing ovation.
@MJS, but that's based on opinion, Art is subjective not objective. So awards are a mute point IMO. There are people who felt like Denzel should've won last year and Casey just mumbled through his performance. There are folks who felt that Denzel yelled through his performance etc. So I don't get your point about allowing them to have the right to win Oscars. The entire Separating the art from the artist is BS anyway and we all know it. Art is an expression of yourself. So you cannot separate the artist from the art.
The Academy was in a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" situation. If they didn't kick Weinstein out citing that they aren't the arbiters of morality and don't want to judge their member's lives, we all know what the reactions would've been. Of course right now people are calling out the Academy's hypocrisy. Why Weinstein and not [loooong list of every abusive assholes]?
Unfortunately, it's going to take some time. Like the Academy's current initiative to diversify membership, it'll be gradual and it won't be perfect. I do hope they don't pat themselves in the back, but continue to try to live up to their statement of addressing "willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment" in the industry. In the meantime, the general public should recognize this and do everything they can to support this initiative. I'd like to think screaming at the Academy about how they're doing it ALL wrong, at this early stage, isn't productive for anyone.
As I said with the Weinstein thing started coming out this week. This is JUST the beginning. It should've happened WAY earlier, but let's focus on moving ahead together.
@MJS
This may be a better analogy
If Casey Affleck scored the highest points in a sports game and won an award based on that, that's different. But saying that he has the RIGHT to win an Oscar based on what opinions? campaigning, friends that voted for him. Like I said awards are a mute point .
@MJS Here is a little secret, no one wins Osvars based on performance.
There are people who were not even nominated who gave a better performance than Emma Stone and Affleck last year.
You think Ben voted for Casey bc he thought he gave the best performance or bc Casey is his brother?
@MSJ, not winning an industry award, arguably its highest honor, (an Oscar) is a professional repercussion. And it's all fine for you to say that the two should be separated, because it speaks to your privilege of not being a victim of sexual abuse. For me, it's a reminder that men, if their output (which is what a performance is. You literally cannot separate a performance from the person performing, otherwise you are talking about liking the character in which case award the writer) is deemed important enough, then it trumps any professional set back for their abuse. There are literally no consequences for him. Because he was good I guess in a movie. Cool, cool cool.
I just love how NOW EVERYONE seemed to know what a monster he was but they had not problem getting his money for their project
@Michael, @S, @Nikki
When I say he has a "right" to an Academy award I mean he has a right to have his performance considered on merit. I realize that campaigning etc influence these things and have been acknowledging it for a while, but it's not everything, if it was Harvey would have won every single year on the strengths of his campaigns and Hollywood royalty like George Clooney would probably have a few more on his shelf. If you're cynical about the Oscars to the point where you don't think merit plays into them at all then... well I'm not sure why you're reading an Oscar blog in the first place.
What I am saying is that whatever his merit, he should be disqualified for his abuse of women within his industry, on a film set. Honest question, do you think Ray Rice or another football player who has been charged with domestic abuse, but still plays a good season should be awarded MVP or whatever the equivalent individual football awards are? I would argue they shouldn't, and should lose the chance to be considered at all. Of course the Oscars should be merit based, look no further than Moonlight's won last year. What I am saying is that abuses within the industry should disqualify a person from even entering that discussion. Because otherwise, what is the incentive for him, and other men in positions of power, not to continue their predatory behavior?
@S and MJS: I get what both of you are saying, and I wanted to comment. S: for me, the problem with refusing to let actors such as Affleck compete for awards is that it presumes that we know that the actors who are allowed to compete have clean records - and who could carry out such an assessment? So I get your concern, but I just find it difficult to see how it could be made practicable in terms of the Oscars. In answer to the question that you put to MJS, I think that the incentive for men in positions of power not to continue their predatory behaviour should be that they will be arrested for it, that people will call them out for it, that people will refuse to work with them or finance their work - even if that work in the past has won Oscars (and therefore financial reward for the project's backers). That way, a message can filter through that predatory behaviour is unacceptable behaviour. MJS: I do agree with you that, ideally, the Oscars would be given on merit alone (merit of course being subjective, but that's the fun of it) and that that is a hope we must cling to. Of course, it's not always like that - and it is sometimes hard to overlook someone's personal circumstances when considering their work.
@MSJ this is a site called the filmexperience is it not? I was unaware that this site only focuses on the Oscars.
I also think criminals who serve their time should have the right to work and provide for their families. Being honored for an award is not a necessity of life.
@Edward
"...it presumes that we know that the actors who are allowed to compete have clean records - and who could carry out such an assessment?"
I think it's the KNOWING awarding of plaudits to individuals, despite their grotesque (and sometimes criminal) behavior, that's the issue. We knew what Affleck did...but it didn't matter to those voters because they privileged "art" over his behavior. The same can be said for Polanski (who is STILL defended by old-guard Hollywood), Allen, etc.
Yes, we should presume that those who compete have clean records - until we're smartened up - then we can act accordingly.
You know what Else is vomit inducing?
This:. http://www.vulture.com/2017/10/woody-allen-weighs-in-on-sad-harvey-weinstein-scandal.html
Exactly! @KBJr.
@ Amanda, I know, it's so gross. Although his comments about this leading "to a witch hunt" don't seem so different from some of the comments on this thread... :(
We wouldn't give an educator with a thirty-year history of student abuse an award as teacher of the year, so I don't see why we're still having this conversation regarding separation of artist from art. No one would care that the students' test scores were the highest in the city or that more of them went on to be National Merit scholars than any others in the state. We'd be focused on seeking justice for the victims and ensuring that the systemic issues which led to the tragedy never repeated. These attempts to compartmentalize people's professional accomplishments from the atrocities they commit against others is part of the reason we still have Confederate statues and monuments standing in this country in 2017. There is no need to give space to these people in life.
Troy H- say it louder for the people in the back.
@S. I'm not exactly sure how MVP awards are voted on, but my understanding is that they're supposed to be entirely about their stats and whatever observations are made about playmaking ability and leadership on the field. Optimally I would want someone like Ray Rice to be kicked out of the league, but if the NFL sees it fit to keep him employed I don't see why he wouldn't also be eligible for whatever awards that anyone else would be eligible for. I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy who "won" the award despite clearly having worse stats just because the voters wanted to "send a message." I could see someone being refused an award like that if they were caught using PEDs or doing something else that could give them an unfair advantage, but I'm not coming up with an Oscar equivalent to that (a screenwriter caught plagiarizing maybe).
@Troy H. I'm not sure I agree with those analogies either. A "teacher of the year" award implies that what you're awarding is a body of behavior, so yeah, that would be off. However, an award for "Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture" or "Best Picture" are supposed to be about an individual performance in an individual movie and would be more akin to honoring the aforementioned teacher with an award for an individual paper or something.
Similarly those confederate statues aren't "compartmentalizing" so much as they're a direct celebration of exactly the aspects of those people that are objectionable. A closer comparison might be to a statue of someone like Thomas Jefferson, who did some genuinely good things which could be what that statue is celebrating while also having some rather abominable aspects to his life that also need to be reckoned with.
@MJS
Might we all simply agree that any awards-body decision is inherently subjective - as judging art is an inherently subjective enterprise? Awards-bodies choose performances it deems as best. There's no objective rationale for characterizing Casey Affleck's performance as the "best." If the Oscars was in any way an objective process - what would be the need for campaigning? Why have sites such as these?
And since we know the entire ordeal is subjective - driven by choice - motivated by all-sorts-of-considerations - we know that Academy voters chose to privilege Affleck/Polanski/Allen's "art" over their deplorable behavior. If they did so - okay - own it - but they shouldn't sell it to the rest of us as some undeniable prospect. No, they literally had four other choices. They CHOSE.
...and they shouldn't tell the rest of us that they aren't then complicit when the system of rewarding predatory behavior is exposed.
Ok, listen, @MJS. you are entitled to your own opinion, but I believe, as a survivor of sexual assault, your rationalization and compartmentalization contributes to rape culture.