(IMAGE: The Storming of the Bastille” by Jean-​Pierre Houël, from the Bibliothèque nationale de France/​WikiCommons)

Power is per­cep­tion. That’s obvi­ous­ly sim­pli­fy­ing a com­plex con­cept, but from a broad, his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive, it’s not far afield of the truth. The two most momen­tous polit­i­cal rev­o­lu­tions of the past sev­er­al cen­turies – French and Russian – did not turn on a change in tac­tics, tech­nol­o­gy or even cul­ture. They turned on a change in per­cep­tion. Once the peo­ple were con­vinced that the monarch in ques­tion – whether King Louis XVI or Tsar Nicholas – was dam­aged goods, the jig was up. Nothing would hold them back from tear­ing down the ves­tiges of pow­er and replac­ing them. When French rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies stormed the prison and armory com­plex known as the Bastille on July 14, 1789, it was a sym­bol­ic act. Only sev­en pris­on­ers were held inside at the time, and there was no prac­ti­cal rea­son to attack the fortress oth­er than that it was an emblem of pow­er and oppression.

The Bastille, of course, was not the first such instance of per­cep­tion under­min­ing pow­er – Shakespeare’s plays are rich with warn­ings about pride and the rela­tion­ship between pow­er and hubris, almost always couched in a his­tor­i­cal con­text. It’s the cen­tral theme of both Julius Caesar and Othello and plays a large part in Richard III, Macbeth and King Lear. Oblivious to the fragili­ty of his pow­er and the inevitabil­i­ty of his fate, Caesar says of him­self in Julius Caesar, Act I:

Such men as he be nev­er at heart’s ease whiles they behold a greater than them­selves, and there­fore are they very dan­ger­ous. I rather tell thee what is to be feared than what I fear; for always I am Caesar.” 

Which brings us to Harvey Weinstein. The pre­cip­i­tous fall of the man who single-​handedly res­ur­rect­ed the inde­pen­dent film indus­try, who for­ev­er changed the way Oscar cam­paigns were designed and run, whose larger-​than-​life per­sona and pugna­cious man­age­ment style echoed the bygone gen­er­a­tion of moguls who built Hollywood, whose pow­er to make or break careers was con­sid­ered so absolute as to make him untouch­able, has sent shock waves through the movie busi­ness. Given Hollywood’s his­toric tol­er­ance for bad behav­ior – any­thing that shocks this town war­rants attention.

As with past Hollywood scan­dals, it’s going to take time to sort through it all and fig­ure out where we actu­al­ly emerge on the oth­er side. Most of us want to believe we will end up in a bet­ter place – but we’ve had that hope before. It’s incum­bent upon every­one – the peo­ple who make movies, write about movies and watch movies – to main­tain the pres­sure – not just to insure that we nev­er go through this again, but to insure that our daugh­ters and sons nev­er go through it at all.

this is about the victims, the tireless dreamers – men and women – who for generations have been lured like the children in Stephen King’s IT into a sewer of exploitation and abuse by reprobates posing as dream merchants.

At the risk of evok­ing Mark Antony, my aim here is not to fur­ther bury Harvey but to hope­ful­ly pro­voke some self-​reflection and soul-​searching. There’s no point in rehash­ing the hor­ri­fy­ing rev­e­la­tions from the New York Times piece that set events in motion, nor the more recent New Yorker piece that fur­ther mag­ni­fied Weinstein’s report­ed grotes­queries. My col­league Ray Greene has curat­ed a superb chronol­o­gy of the entire Harvey Weinstein affair here, to which I would refer any­one look­ing to get a han­dle on the avalanche of events that are still com­pound­ing at this very moment. These are still the ear­ly days of a scan­dal that promis­es to deep­en and broad­en over the com­ing months, and there is undoubt­ed­ly much, much more to come. Lest we allow our­selves to be con­sumed with the tawdry and the sen­sa­tion­al, it’s impor­tant that we main­tain some perspective.

We should remem­ber that this is about more than Harvey Weinstein; there remain far too many preda­tors still lurk­ing in Hollywood’s board­rooms, agen­cies and exec­u­tive suites whose pre­da­tions must con­tin­ue to be exposed until they are weed­ed out and poli­cies imple­ment­ed to pre­vent their kind from ever again hav­ing sway in the cor­ri­dors of pow­er. But most impor­tant­ly, this is about the vic­tims, the tire­less dream­ers – men and women – who for gen­er­a­tions have been lured like the chil­dren in Stephen King’s IT into a sew­er of exploita­tion and abuse by repro­bates pos­ing as dream mer­chants. Whatever we do going for­ward, it should serve their inter­ests; what­ev­er enables them to heal and receive jus­tice, what­ev­er insures that we build a bet­ter indus­try for future gen­er­a­tions – we must do.

I grew up hear­ing far too many sala­cious sto­ries about Hollywood fig­ures of yes­ter­year. My father had worked in the stu­dio sys­tem as a speech and dra­ma coach, and had wit­nessed a good deal of bad behav­ior. These were not sto­ries recount­ed at din­ner par­ties for the amuse­ment of guests, but sto­ries shared pri­vate­ly with me when­ev­er he per­ceived that I was becom­ing undu­ly seduced by the illu­sion of Hollywood glam­or, as he once was. Still, hear­ing some­thing sec­ond­hand is nev­er as pow­er­ful as wit­ness­ing it firsthand.

It was the ear­ly 90s and I was bare­ly out of UCLA film school when an acquain­tance, a free­lance pro­duc­tion man­ag­er, offered me a job as a pro­duc­tion assis­tant. It wasn’t much – just a week­end unit for a fea­ture film that was shoot­ing pri­mar­i­ly out of state, but need­ed a few scenes shot in Los Angeles. Of course I said yes. It was work on a set and it paid $250. That’s all I need­ed to know.

As it turned out, the Los Angeles Unit” was basi­cal­ly a sham cre­at­ed by one of the pro­duc­ers to build him­self a direct­ing reel. None of it had to be shot in Los Angeles, much less as a sep­a­rate unit. The pro­duc­er in ques­tion had sim­ply carved it out of the reg­u­lar sched­ule and award­ed it to him­self. Along with that impe­ri­ous act came an impe­ri­ous atti­tude – con­de­scen­sion, ver­bal abuse, phys­i­cal intim­i­da­tion. It was humil­i­at­ing, to me and to oth­ers, but none of it was espe­cial­ly shock­ing – until the last day. As we were wrap­ping the final loca­tion on UCLA’s Sorority Row, I observed and over­heard the pro­duc­er in ques­tion and anoth­er mem­ber of the crew flirt­ing with one of the soror­i­ty sis­ters. Had this been a ran­dom pick-​up in a bar, it would sim­ply have been sleazy and tacky. That it was tak­ing place between a mar­ried Hollywood pro­duc­er and a young female col­lege stu­dent made it all deeply dis­turb­ing. After the flir­ta­tion end­ed and the girl returned to the house, the mar­ried pro­duc­er and the crew mem­ber had a high-​fiving bro moment after which the pro­duc­er quipped: Oh, yeah! She knows how the game is played.”

In that one, stomach-​churning moment, I expe­ri­enced the fatal­is­tic real­iza­tion of so many pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions that this is sim­ply how the busi­ness is. It wasn’t for me to try and change it. Who was I but a pow­er­less pro­duc­tion assis­tant? In the end I wasn’t even paid my $250. What’s the point of imag­in­ing you can change the entrenched behav­iors of peo­ple who can’t be both­ered to meet a pay­roll? Did I real­ly want to wreck my career before it had begun? I had no pow­er. These peo­ple had all the power.

Some years lat­er, I crossed paths with the pro­duc­er again. He had long since fall­en from grace and his hoped-​for direct­ing career had nev­er mate­ri­al­ized. It was at the Loews Hotel in Santa Monica dur­ing the annu­al American Film Market, in the hotel lob­by where film buy­ers and sell­ers from around the world rub elbows in a foul-​smelling fog of sweat, sleaze and avarice. I spot­ted him instant­ly from across the lob­by – after all, he still owed me $250. Moments lat­er, in the cor­ner of my eye, I caught him in a double-​take of me. He knew he rec­og­nized me, but couldn’t place the face. Was I some­one he should remem­ber? Someone impor­tant? Someone with power?

Power… is perception.

The past few years have been a peri­od of painful but nec­es­sary tran­si­tion for the movie busi­ness. Already strug­gling with a chang­ing tech­no­log­i­cal and busi­ness envi­ron­ment under­min­ing much of its estab­lished foun­da­tion, Hollywood has been forced to con­front an array of deeply engrained racial, sex­u­al, polit­i­cal and cul­tur­al prej­u­dices. Many have been called out and con­front­ed. Others need to fol­low. A new aware­ness and sense of respon­si­bil­i­ty is tak­ing root. More needs to be done. Part of this is of neces­si­ty – the days when pow­er­ful press agents could con­trol the flow of infor­ma­tion and cov­er up their clients’ indis­cre­tions or keep secret the nature of their sex­u­al­i­ty are long gone. In the era of social media, trans­paren­cy isn’t just an eth­i­cal oblig­a­tion – it’s com­mon sense. The old ways, how­ev­er, die hard and their most ardent prac­ti­tion­ers will not go down with­out a fight. Harvey Weinstein is no lone wolf. Such inci­dents as have been report­ed this past week are shock­ing only because of the names involved and, frankly, because they’ve actu­al­ly been report­ed at all. The prover­bial Hollywood Casting Couch exist­ed long before Harvey and even in the wake of his fall it will per­sist for the very sim­ple rea­son that we – all of us – have accept­ed it.

How do I know that? Simple. Because it’s the prover­bial Hollywood Casting Couch. The prac­tice of trad­ing sex for career advance­ment – the deprav­i­ty of the pow­er­ful exploit­ing the vul­ner­a­ble – became so engrained and accept­ed that it was giv­en a name, a euphemism, which became part of show­biz vernacular.

When we gave the lan­guage per­mis­sion to euphem­ize the sex­u­al exploita­tion of the weak, we tac­it­ly accept­ed the practice.

That’s not to say such accep­tance wasn’t under­stand­able. When con­front­ed with a Sisyphean prob­lem – such as my PA expe­ri­ence – accep­tance is typ­i­cal­ly the only ratio­nal path for­ward. Until we real­ize that pow­er… is perception.

We... need to insure that we do not miss this opportunity to learn, to educate, to heal and to fix, once and for all, a broken system that has been handed down, from generation to generation, degenerate and injurious, for far too long.

What we should take from the Weinstein affair is a real­iza­tion that no one who still clings to the old ways is untouch­able. Not Louis XVI, not Tsar Nicholas, not Caesar, not Harvey Weinstein, not what­ev­er name­less preda­tor is des­per­ate­ly hop­ing Harvey is the sac­ri­fi­cial lamb that saves the flock. The moment to storm the Bastille is now.

To be sure, Hollywood is no stranger to attacks – politi­cians, cen­sors, reli­gious lead­ers and cul­tur­al man­darins have all launched broad­sides at one time or anoth­er which pow­er bro­kers have sim­ply swat­ted away like biplanes buzzing about King Kong’s head. What’s dif­fer­ent now is the attacks are com­ing from with­in – from the artists and cre­ators who have final­ly, at long last, had enough. Those with the courage to step for­ward are to be com­mend­ed and sup­port­ed. Others still live in fear of reprisal and des­per­ate­ly need the sup­port – legal­ly and emo­tion­al­ly – to come for­ward and bring the abusers to jus­tice. When the weak per­ceive that the pow­er­ful no longer have the means to do them harm – then and only then will they be set free because pow­er… is perception.

This is not to sug­gest that chang­ing per­cep­tion is an easy task, nor that there aren’t seri­ous prac­ti­cal hur­dles to clear first – legal hur­dles in par­tic­u­lar. It’s been over five years since Corey Feldman came clean on the child­hood sex­u­al abuse he and his late friend and col­league Corey Haim suf­fered at the hands of grown men, one of whom he says raped Haim when he was just eleven years of age. He is, how­ev­er, unable to name names,” he says, because statutes of lim­i­ta­tion have expired and the risk of law­suits favors the abusers. For any­one who has nev­er been trapped in the jus­tice sys­tem, it’s easy to call that a cop-​out – but ask­ing vic­tims of sex­u­al abuse to endure years of cost­ly lit­i­ga­tion, includ­ing humil­i­at­ing depo­si­tions and threats of coun­ter­suits as a means to achiev­ing jus­tice is effec­tive­ly ask­ing them to be vic­tim­ized all over again. For per­cep­tion to change, laws and statutes need to change with the full force of the Hollywood com­mu­ni­ty brought to bear to make it happen.

I was in high school when I read Indecent Exposure, the first of many best­sellers to cap­i­tal­ize on Hollywood scan­dals (which all sit on my shelf like vol­umes of the Talmud). The book, for the unini­ti­at­ed, is a cau­tion­ary tale that is rel­e­vant to cur­rent events on many lev­els. In 1977, when Oscar-​winning actor Cliff Robertson received a 1099 for a $10,000 pay­ment from Columbia Pictures he nev­er received, it tipped off an inves­ti­ga­tion that exposed stu­dio chief and for­mer agent David Begelman as a forg­er and an embez­zler. This cre­at­ed a rift in the studio’s board and when all was said and done, both Begelman and Columbia CEO Alan Hirschfield were gone, and Cliff Robertson was blacklisted.

All over $10,000.

That a third of the Weinstein Company’s board resigned over the deci­sion to sanc­tion and even­tu­al­ly fire Harvey from the com­pa­ny he co-​founded is evi­dence that despite chang­ing atti­tudes on the ground floor, the cul­ture in the suites is still deeply entrenched in the past. There remain many who place a pre­mi­um on loy­al­ty above all else. We should not assume that the cul­ture that once pun­ished Cliff Robertson for doing the hon­est and decent thing in stand­ing up to pow­er will not also attempt to pun­ish those like Ashley Judd for sim­i­lar­ly refus­ing to back down. Since the Weinstein sto­ries broke, Rose McGowan, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Asia Argento, Mira Sorvino, Rosanna Arquette and oth­ers have added their sto­ries to the nar­ra­tive and their voic­es to the cho­rus for change. We must heed their call. How this affair is han­dled, how the indi­vid­u­als involved are treat­ed, will be close­ly watched by those who have not yet decid­ed whether the risk in com­ing for­ward is worth it.

We, as a com­mu­ni­ty of film­mak­ers, film­go­ers, film lovers, for the sake of our indus­try, for the sake of our art, for the sake of our friends, co-​workers, fam­i­ly mem­bers and just com­mon decen­cy, need to insure that we do not miss this oppor­tu­ni­ty to learn, to edu­cate, to heal and to fix, once and for all, a bro­ken sys­tem that has been hand­ed down, from gen­er­a­tion to gen­er­a­tion, degen­er­ate and inju­ri­ous, for far too long.

Both the French and Russian Revolutions failed to stop at the top­pling of their mon­archs, so great was their ani­mus toward tyran­ny. Both quick­ly descend­ed into an orgy of regi­cide, mass mur­der and vengeance. Both nations suf­fered great­ly for their missed oppor­tu­ni­ties and quick­ly fell back under the pall of oppression.

The cur­rent moment fur­nish­es us an oppor­tu­ni­ty to learn from the past, a rare chance for Hollywood to rein­vent itself. Storming the Bastille need not devolve into vengeance and ret­ri­bu­tion lest we miss a cru­cial chance to seize the high­er road of jus­tice and redemp­tion. As we expose the fragili­ty of pow­er and empow­er the vul­ner­a­ble to step for­ward, those respon­si­ble for uphold­ing the old ways will face what­ev­er jus­tice soci­ety elects to mete out. Our task is to replace the old ways with new ways, to give vic­tims a path for­ward and to give future gen­er­a­tions a bet­ter path in – herald­ing a new cul­ture that rewards decen­cy, exalts tal­ent, hon­ors integri­ty and right­ful­ly earns the trust and respect of film­go­ers. The mea­sure of our suc­cess will not be found in the rub­ble of the Bastille but in what we choose to build in its place.

Page Reader Press Enter to Read Page Content Out Loud Press Enter to Pause or Restart Reading Page Content Out Loud Press Enter to Stop Reading Page Content Out Loud Screen Reader Support
%d bloggers like this: