I've avoided the topic for a number of reasons but, if I post David on Harvey and don't comment, I'll look like a hypocrite.
Here goes: Meryl Streep is lying.
She knew.
Everyone knew.
For years, a number of us tried to get it addressed. (I was never mauled or attacked by Harvey. But he's trash and he knew I felt that way about him.)
I'm calling Meryl out because, unlike many others actors and acresses, she had a choice. She could work with anyone she wanted. Despite never carrying a hit film*, she's been given every opportunity in the world.
She could have said no -- could have and should have.
For her to lie now . . .
There are others who knew as well who suddenly pretend like they didn't.
Why?
Because now it's an issue.
But as long as it was a secret, the George Clooneys refused to take this seriously and their attitude was "But he gives to so many causes so we should look the other way."
They would have continued to if this hadn't come out.
Why did it come out?
No one gets that in any of their 'analysis.'
Sorry, Harvey ticked people off.
He could piss me off -- and did -- with what he was doing to young women.
But that didn't bother the entertainment industry.
What did Harvey in?
What ended the protection?
Look at previous pieces here.
He pissed me off on an issue that others could relate to.
Couldn't relate to assault of women, but they could relate to having their work torn down.
Harvey is trash and a bully.
He thought the way to compete for an Academy Award was to burn everyone else in the race.
He did one campaign after another where he spread lies about the other films up for nominations or the other actors or the directors.
And a number of us documented this over the last few years and spread it around.
Harvey doesn't have a friend left right now.
He's trash, absolutely.
But what finally destroyed his protection racket was the fact that he turned something that was supposed to be about excellence in art (the Academy Awards) into a blood sport with his lies and attacks. And a number of front groups helped him out. (They're suffering now in the same way their one time donor Harvey is.)
[*MAMA MIA was a hit in spite of Meryl who showed no flair for musicals. It would have been a hit regardless of whom was cast in it.]
http://davidswanson.org/what-about-weinsteins-public-offenses
Harvey Weinstein, I’ve just read, is “the disgraced Pulp Fiction producer.” But isn’t someone who encourages millions of people to think of murder and torture as super cool and fun already pre-disgraced? Doesn’t he arrive in the locked office with the actress cowering in the corner already publicly disgraced and intent on disgracing himself in private?
This is a man whom we have to thank for Reservoir Dogs, Gangs of New York, Kill Bill, Rambo, Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained, and mountains of similar trash. I imagine he doesn’t donate to the NRA, but I can guarantee the NRA would have donated to him if asked.
Does it take something away from the appropriate outrage at Weinstein’s hidden offenses to notice his publicly accepted offenses? I don’t even think people believe that it does. I think they mostly just find his public offenses completely inoffensive. Sure, he promotes violence, sadism, sexism, and all forms of nastiness to the globe through the most powerful medium available for influencing the least educated audiences available. Sure, thousands of people act on what their culture feeds them. But only when Weinstein acts like a pig off-camera are we supposed to finally get upset?
This is a theme we see in all sorts of variations, from cheering for military leaders who slaughter Iraqis until they share secrets with their mistresses, or applauding presidents who end welfare, create NAFTA, create media monopolies, and drop bombs on people, but who must be impeached for sex with interns in the White House, or presidents who go out of their way to destroy the natural environment and risk World War III but whom we must denounce for their personal crudeness.
Aren’t we suffering from a bad case of misprioritized outrage? That is, shouldn’t we be even more outraged than we are over Weinstein’s sexual offenses, but shouldn’t we be still more outraged than that by the insidious effect that the entertaining filth he produces for a living has on our young people and the young people of the world?
I asked Heidi Tilney Kramer, author of Media Monsters, her view, and she replied,
“We have seen the poor behavior of many media executives, including the leaked internal memo from (former) Disney CEO, Michael Eisner: ‘We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.’ The Weinstein brothers battled with the Disney corporation for some time and Harvey Weinstein has promoted some fine work on screen, not least of which is Billy Eliot the Musical, promotion of the beautiful Hayao Miyazaki films, and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom; however, he is also the person who gave us the shocking brutality of the Scary Movie series, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Halloween and Inglorious Basterds. He also gave us Spy Kids, pitting kids against criminals.
“The pattern we see here is excessive, often gory violence. It does not surprise me that Mr. Weinstein has so many allegations against him. He, like many industry others, has so much power that he not only thinks he can subject his audiences to brutality, but those around him.”
--
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.
Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate. Sign up for these emails at https://actionnetwork.org/forms/articles-from-david-swanson.
