Posted on 10/28/2017 7:13:17 AM PDT by Strac6
Has anyone noticed something a bit odd about the actresses accusing Harvey Weinstein?
The trash talk TV floodgates have burst wide open with women who now accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment. But has anyone noticed something very odd about this group. With a few rare (and aging… or aged… or very aged) A-listers, the accusers are all women who never succeeded in Hollywierd.
We are hearing nothing from the major movie actresses, and I think the reason is obvious. These women, now household names, did what aspiring actresses (and actors) have done for 90 years. When they were fighting for roles early in their careers, and all the others up for the roles were willing to go down for anyone in the casting system, they did the Horizontal Mambo too.
And of course, once they were into the system, they couldn’t suddenly become reconstituted virgins and stop “laying down on the job.”
The reason they are not complaining now? They are still active and don’t want to be thought of as simply very high paid, very beautiful, and somewhat talented women (and men) who sold their bodies for dollars and fame.
Or if they are War Criminal Jane Fonda, who claims she just learned about Weinstein a year ago, they also don’t want the world to know these “Women’s Rights Champions” were willing to stay silent, not tell the world what they did to get their movie roles, and sacrificed the next generations of their sisterhood for their own fame and fortune,
They’re all hookers. Only the price is different.
weeeeaaaak.....try harder.
Next time, read before you comment.
My clients were not the sluts who said “yes.” They were the ones who said “no”... and “Hell no!”
PS, trying to lecture me on m practice.... Don’t try, and I promise not to tell you how to make change for your “all-day breakfast” customers at the drive-up window.
Uh, where did you read that?
“If you have to trash somebody, trash the ones who gave in and aren’t criticizing Weinstein.”
In the post and subsequent comments, that’s what I did. I agree with you completely.
Be well
No, I don’t work at a drive through. Far from it.
Nor am I an attorney. I am not that comfortable stretching lies until they become truth. Nor am I comfortable being a shake down guys.
Funny how you admit your sluts are the ones who said no. You still admit your clients are sluts. That’s rich.
On the correct answers to the Bar Exam.
Sorry if you feel the need to stereotype lawyers. Most that do have gotten themselves in rather serious trouble with the law, and are angry that the lawyer did not bail them out.
Regarding your comment that “Funny how you admit your sluts are the ones who said no. You still admit your clients are sluts.” That’s the exact opposite of what I said.
Now I know why you don’t write well. It’s very simple. You don’t read well.
For this point forward, your comments will receive the response they deserve. They will be ignored.
Now I know you are a liar and a fraud. There is no limit on disclosure of secrets given to the attorney that is predicated on disclosing the client’s name. Think about it for while you are asking about supersizing the fries, you moron. The only confidence that would fall into that category would be something unique to the client. Secrets are not limited. Try reading 1.6 fool.
PS: re: “No, I don’t work at a drive through.”
Sorry you lost that job. See if your state offers and manual labor retraining programs to those on unemployment insurance.
It’s amazing what you do not understand.
I posted no confidential information. I simply said our practice had represented a number of women in pre-litigation settlements against potential show business/producer defendants. I did not identify as client, event or possible def. I told no “secrets.”
Would you care to quote the Bar ethics violation you think that illustrates... or are you as foolish as your comments.
Please be specific in your attempt, not “I saw on an old Perry Mason that....”
1.6 does not define a secret as one wherein a client or a perpetrator could be identified by name. Secrets are secrets. and, if you really represented them as you claimed you would know that.
1.6 requires identification of the harmed client. That can be by name or other singularly identifying information, such as someone saying “I represented the wife of a still-living former secretary of state who speaks with a heavy Germanic accent and wears thick rectangular glasses.”
By the way, that was an example given at a Bar orals prep course.
Let me put it in terms you can (possibly) understand. Without identification, there is no possible harm. No possible harm, no possible foul.
Your claim is complete BS.
People in the industry tend to complain to their agents or a union rep, not the head of a union. When I’ve done Equity theater, we elect the guy on the first day of rehearsal.
My anonymous and unnamed client tells me that stacy6 is a homo pedo.
Tippi’s career ended because she wasn’t the greatest actress on earth. She had been a model and a very good one. Her best performance is in The Birds, she’s dismal in Marnie.
Alfred Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors ever. Tell it to Ingrid Bergman or Joan Fontaine or Kim Novak that he harassed all his actresses. This is the kind of nonsense that people who aren’t interested in film history but love gossip push.
So I guess the biographers are all lying. Don’t think so.
It is your personal opinion that Tippi was a bad actress. I’ve seen the other movies, she wasn’t any worse than the other actresses. The Birds was definitely better than Marnie, but that wasn’t just because of Tippi’s performance.
Hitchcock was a serial sexual harasser. He singled out Tippi in particular because of his lust for her and he treated her very badly. He blacklisted her for personal reasons, it had nothing to do with her talent.
From time immemorial, actors and actresses have been thought of as whores, robbers, cheats, immoral, louche creatures. This began to change in the mid-1800s, though did NOT really change all THAT much, until the 1920s or so. Eve then, many people still had negative views of threatre and movie people, though they were captivated by them and yes, "STAR STRUCK"!
It took until the beginnings of this nation's cultural downfall ( the 1960s-'70s ) for almost all of the "old" memes to get short shrift....except now on this hypocritical site.
And you're 100% correct about the now scourge of useless, mostly stupid and banal, damned VANITY posts!
OTOH...once women began to work outside of the home, for others, no matter WHAT fields of endeavor, there were predatory males who harassed and demanded sexual favors, and/or raped them.
There have also been women who "slept their way to the top"...whether that meant marrying a wealthy man, or rising in a business!
Lots of pre-Code movies were made about the above, see : "BABY FACE", for but one example of the early years of the 20th century and "THE BEST OF EVERYTHING ( taken from the book by the same name) for a 1950s view of women working in a publishing house.
Re child actors and actresses.....there probably were some pedos, but the worst things that child actors and actresses had to worry about, was a parent/s stealing their earnings and/or being overworked and later, doped up to keep up and then for sleep.
And as far as movies about making it in Hollywood...WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD ( the first A STAR IS BORN movie ) sort of covers it. The movies about making it on Broadway, have been and are, for the most part, Hollywood whitewash/hoax.
When many theatre troops were run by actor/managers ( talking now about the mid 1800s onwards )and the whole family were involved, the children were protected and some ( the Booths, Drews, Barrymores, etc. ) went on to become some of the all time GREATS and very famous.
Sorry for the longish history lesson, but am trying to catch up and reply to many of the stupid posts on this inane thread.
I never said Hedren was a bad actress. I said she wasn’t the greatest actress in the world which is demonstrably true. She’s very good playing the trickster socialite Melanie and out of her depth playing the psychotic Marnie. Her voice is much too high and thin for that kind of serious role and it stretched her small talent too far.
No, I don’t believe many biographies of stars or directors, which all emphasize outlandish claims of sexual misconduct. It’s what sells books. Instead, when I want to read about Hitchcock, I stick with Francois Truffaut’s book or Peter Bogdanovich’s excellent studies. Reading Donald Spoto gets one nowhere.
No Pardons: I watched Psycho last night on Turner & was again stunned by Janet Leigh’s and Anthony Perkins’ performances. The scene between them when he feeds her dinner is one of the greatest Hitchcock ever directed. I organized a dinner for her back in the 90s and she was an elegant lady who, get this, adored her “Hitch.”
Ah, yes, the Jackie Coogan laws that came into being because his parents spent all his money. Of course, like most laws, it didn’t do much good and many parents continued to blow through child actors’ earnings.
Did you know I used to work for Freddie Bartholomew in the 70s? He was a soap opera director at ABC. I worked in the office. The dearest, sweetest man I have ever met.
Well, your notion that show biz people are continued to look down on is certainly true. Just look at the ignorant rants on this thread! LOL!
Enjoyed your history lesson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.