ReportWire

Tag: #MeToo

  • How Intimacy Coordinators Became Such a Touchy Subject

    [ad_1]

    Both say that the gig isn’t just about appeasing a production’s most famous names. “When you’re dealing with a big star and number 25 on the call sheet…there’s a really big power dynamic between [them]. That’s where we can help bridge a gap, make sure they feel good, and then get out of the way,” Duenyas says.

    And even if opinions about them may vary, ICs are here to stay. On December 3, SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP announced that they’d “reached a tentative agreement establishing the first-ever collective bargaining agreement covering intimacy coordinators working in scripted, dramatic television, theatrical, and streaming productions.” Details about the agreement were not available at press time, but it will go before the SAG-AFTRA National Board for consideration in the coming weeks.

    Years after #MeToo, sets are still experiencing something of a culture shift. “Part of what the intimacy coordinator has brought to the industry is growing awareness of how people have been impacted by nonconsent, by power dynamics, growing conversation and awareness of harassment in the industry,” Steinrock says. “It was kind of just an assumption that if you are going to be in this industry, you can expect to face a certain level of harassment. Now the conversations that are being brought, in many ways thanks to intimacy coordinators and the intimacy-coordination movement, are that these things don’t have to be normalized and there is a different way of operating on set. I’ve seen how that awareness can have a trickle-down effect [on] other scenes, whether or not those scenes are intimacy-related. For example, my husband, who works predominantly in fights and stunts, has dramatically shifted his process to be more consent-forward.”

    “I’ve never heard so many people talk about consent and boundaries in real life until a few years ago,” Thackeray says. “That’s really empowering for people and important.” But, taking a wider lens, one can’t help but wonder how nouveau conservatism and studio consolidations might impact the depictions of intimacy we get to see. Thackeray says his full dance card is a good sign, and that he hopes to be respected as a department head on set—but that doesn’t always happen. “What I don’t want to see is that we are unraveling what everybody’s worked so hard to get to,” he says. “That would be a real shame, and it would be quite dangerous, if I’m honest.”

    [ad_2]

    Vivian Manning-Schaffel

    Source link

  • Harvey Weinstein may face more NY sex assault charges after Britain drops case – National | Globalnews.ca

    Harvey Weinstein may face more NY sex assault charges after Britain drops case – National | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    Spared from prosecution in Britain on Thursday, Harvey Weinstein now faces the prospect of a new indictment in New York, where prosecutors retrying the disgraced movie mogul’s rape case are taking steps to potentially charge him with up to three additional sex assaults.

    Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service, which authorized two charges of indecent assault against Weinstein in 2022, announced Thursday that it decided to discontinue the proceedings because there was “no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.’’

    “We have explained our decision to all parties,’’ the CPS said in a statement. ’’We would always encourage any potential victims of sexual assault to come forward and report to police, and we will prosecute wherever our legal test is met.”

    At the same time, the Manhattan district attorney’s office in New York has begun presenting evidence to a grand jury of up to three previously uncharged allegations against Weinstein -– two sexual assaults in the mid-2000s and another sexual assault in 2016.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The New York grand jury’s term expires Friday, and a vote on an indictment could happen by the end of the week, though it’s possible the process could extend beyond that. Prosecutors said they would seek to combine any new charges with ones previously brought against Weinstein so that they could be tried together.


    Click to play video: 'Harvey Weinstein expected to return to NYC court as he faces a retrial of #MeToo rape case'


    Harvey Weinstein expected to return to NYC court as he faces a retrial of #MeToo rape case


    In April, New York’s top court overturned Weinstein’s rape and sexual assault convictions and ordered a new trial. The state’s Court of Appeals found that the judge in the 2020 trial unfairly allowed testimony from women whose claims against Weinstein weren’t part of the case.

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Get breaking National news

    For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

    Prosecutors shared some information about the additional allegations that the grand jury is weighing at a court conference on Tuesday.

    They include alleged sexual assaults at the Tribeca Grand Hotel, now known as the Roxy Hotel, and in a Lower Manhattan residential building between late 2005 and mid-2006, and an alleged sexual assault at a Tribeca hotel in May 2016.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Judge Curtis Farber elicited the details as Weinstein’s lawyers weighed potentially having him testify before the grand jury, which they said he’d wanted to do. Weinstein was not present at the conference.

    Defense lawyer Arthur Aidala said Thursday that he’s decided against Weinstein testifying, citing a lack of sufficient information about the new allegations. He criticized prosecutors for seeking to add additional accusers to the case rather than simply trying Weinstein’s original indictment again.

    “The case was overturned in April and they spent six months trying to dig up someone to come after him,” Aidala said.

    Weinstein, 72, has denied that he raped or sexually assaulted anyone. He remains in custody in New York while awaiting a retrial in Manhattan that’s tentatively scheduled to begin Nov. 12. He is expected back in court for a pretrial hearing Sept. 12.


    Click to play video: 'Harvey Weinstein’s conviction overturned by N.Y. court, #MeToo founder calls for action'


    Harvey Weinstein’s conviction overturned by N.Y. court, #MeToo founder calls for action


    Weinstein became the most prominent villain of the #MeToo movement, which took root in 2017 when women began to go public with accounts of his behavior. After the revelations emerged, British police said they were investigating multiple allegations of sexual assault that reportedly took place between the 1980s and 2015.

    Story continues below advertisement

    In June 2022, the Crown Prosecution Service said it had authorized London’s Metropolitan Police Service to file two charges of indecent assault against Weinstein over an alleged incident that occurred in London in 1996. The victim was in her 50s at the time of the announcement.

    Unlike many other countries, Britain does not have a statute of limitations for rape or sexual assault.

    After Weinstein’s conviction was overturned, New York prosecutors said they intended to bring new sexual assault charges against him and were actively pursuing claims of rape that occurred in Manhattan within the statute of limitations.

    At the original trial, Weinstein was convicted of forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actor in 2013. Those allegations will be part of his retrial. Weinstein’s acquittals on charges of predatory sexual assault and first-degree rape still stand.

    After the retrial, Weinstein is due to start serving a 16-year sentence in California for a separate rape conviction in Los Angeles, authorities said. Weinstein was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022.

    Weinstein, the co-founder of Miramax and The Weinstein Company film studios, was once one of the most powerful people in Hollywood, producing such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love.”


    &copy 2024 The Canadian Press

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    [ad_1]

    Although it’s easy to shit on Sex and the City in the present, there are occasional moments in the show when one realizes how truly visionary it was for its time. You know, going to a tantric sex workshop and vaguely acknowledging white privilege while you’re getting a pedicure—things like that. But one thing Sex and the City rarely gets credit for is providing the kernel of the idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This occurred in season four of the series; specifically, episode six: “Time and Punishment” (the same episode where Charlotte York [Kristin Davis] was shamed for having “free time” instead of working). Which aired three years before Eternal Sunshine… was released in 2004.

    But back in July of 2001, when “Time and Punishment” first aired, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) had the sudden “revelation” that cheating on Aidan Shaw (John Corbett) back in mid-season three was the worst mistake of her life—or at least her romantic life (which, in truth, embodies one hundred percent of Carrie’s existence). Therefore, narcissist that she is, Carrie obviously believes it’s within her power to get him back…just because she decides on a whim that’s what she wants. And apparently, she’s not wrong in her assumption, wearing Aidan down with her seduction methods (however stalker-y) until he concedes that, sure, he wants to get back together.

    But before that glorious (for Carrie) moment, Bradshaw gives us one of her signature voiceover “insights” from the column de la semaine she’s writing, ruminating on a person’s inability to forgive if they can’t really forget. So it is that she tell us: “Later that day, I got to thinking about relationships and partial lobotomies. Two seemingly different ideas that might be perfect together, like chocolate and peanut butter. Think how much easier it would all be if there was some swift surgical procedure to whisk away all the ugly memories and mistakes and leave only the fun trips and special holidays.” Yes, Carrie is perfectly describing what Charlie Kaufman would call “Lacuna Inc.” in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Minus the part where even the fun trips and special holidays are remembered. For, in Carrie’s ideal version of relationship memory erasure, you still at least remember the person existed in your life prior to the “procedure.”

    Kaufman and Michel Gondry did that concept one better by making it key for all traces of the person to be forgotten. Even though it only set up someone like Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) for the trap of gravitating right back toward the person they ended up finding toxic in the first place. Which is also something that Zoë Kravitz’s Blink Twice addresses in a more ominous way. But what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind prefers to do is position the inevitable “re-attraction” between two people who were already unable to make it work before as something with a more hopeful tinge. Not just more hopeful than what Blink Twice does with the concept, but also with what ends up happening to Carrie and Aidan by the end of season four (hint: total emotional catastrophe/an even more painful breakup than the first time around).

    However, before the reasons for their first breakup are proven yet again (and tenfold), to conclude her thoughts on the matter of “forgiving and forgetting,” Carrie adds, “But until that day arrives, what to do? Rely on the same old needlepoint philosophy of ‘forgive and forget’? And even if a couple can manage the forgiveness, has any[one] ever really conquered the forgetness? Can you ever really forgive, if you can’t forget?” In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there’s no need to forgive because all has been forgotten.

    As for setting up the premise for “Time and Punishment,” the episode that precedes it, “Baby, Talk Is Cheap,” also refers to the “unforgettability” (therefore, unforgivability) of what Carrie did to Aidan. An egregious sin he feels obliged to remind her of when she has the gall to come to his door late at night and plead her case for getting back together. None of her “logic” trumps the fact that, as Aidan screams, “You broke my heart!” But Carrie sees that only as a “minor detail” when presenting him with the “argument,” “Look, I know that you’re probably scared and I would be too, but it’s different now. Things are different. I-I’m different.” She then tries to prove it by taking a pack of cigarettes out of her purse and declaring, “Cigarettes, gone.” Of course, if they were really “gone,” they wouldn’t have been in her purse in the first place.

    Nonetheless, Carrie continues to insist that this “new” her was clearly not responsible for the actions of the old her and, thus, shouldn’t be punished by being denied another chance. She assures Aidan, “Seriously, all bad habits gone. This is a whole new thing because I miss you. And I’ve missed you.” As though her desire for him alone should be enough for him to want to forget about all the pain she caused him. And when Aidan screams the aforementioned line at her audacity, Carrie displays the kind of immaturity and embarrassing behavior she’s known for by simply running away instead of staying to face the firing squad, as it were.

    Ultimately, though, she gets what she wants: for Aidan to submit to her. Granted, not without an initial bout of passive aggressive behavior in “Time and Punishment” that finally prompts Carrie to say of the co-worker he’s been openly flirting with, “Why don’t you just fuck her, then we can both be bad.” When he comes to her door at the end of the episode, Carrie tells him, “I know that you can’t forget what happened, but I hope that you can forgive me.” But she was onto something before in her column—the idea that no true forgiveness can be attained without forgetting. Ergo, her wish for a Lacuna Inc.-like enterprise that wouldn’t “exist” until three years later…perhaps after Kaufman caught sight of Carrie’s column. And while Carrie might not have been the first to wish for this form of a “relationship lobotomy,” she was the only one to say it out loud in such a crystallized way before Eternal Sunshine… came along to perfect the notion.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    [ad_1]

    Romy Schneider once said, “Memories are the best things in life, I think.” But are they, really, if some of them serve only as a brutal, triggering source of trauma? In both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice, that’s the main type of memory being dealt with, therefore suppressed. But while one is a “rom-com” (Charlie Kaufman-style), the other is a horrifying thriller with a #MeToo slant. Both, however, do center on “the necessity” of memory erasure as it pertains to the relationship between men and women.

    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, of course, is much “lighter” by comparison. Even though, in its time and its place, it was considered just as “bleak” as it was “quirky.” It’s also more hyper-focused on one relationship in particular, in contrast to Blink Twice speaking to the overall power dynamics between men and women as it relates to sex rather than “romance.” More to the point, the power dynamics between rich men and “regular” women. In Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s narrative, the main “sufferers” (or beneficiaries, depending on one’s own personal views) of select memory loss are Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey). But it is the former who “brings it on both of them,” as she’s the one to initially enlist the memory-erasing services of Lacuna Inc., run by Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson). Joel merely follows suit after comprehending what she’s done, deciding that she shouldn’t be the only person in the relationship permitted the luxury of forgetting about all that they shared together. Good and bad.

    So it is that he, too, undergoes the procedure, briefed on the ins and out of it by Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), the receptionist at Lacuna, and Dr. Mierzwiak before opting to excise Clementine from his brain as well (in a scene later to be repurposed by Ariana Grande for the “we can’t be friends [wait for your love]” video). Of course, this isn’t to say he’s not extremely hurt by her “whimsical” decision to “remove” him. Alas, by way of explanation, Dr. Mierzwiak can only offer, “She wanted to move on. We provide that possibility.” One can imagine that Slater King (Channing Tatum) tells himself something similar about his own nefarious operation on a private island that might as well be referred to as Little Saint James (a.k.a. the former “Epstein Island”).

    Sex and the City, incidentally, provided something of a precursor to the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind “idea kernel” (de facto, the Blink Twice one) in the form of the season four episode, “Time and Punishment.” This due to Carrie’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) theme for her column of the week being whether or not you can ever really forgive someone if you can’t forget what they did (to you). The answer, in both Eternal Sunshine… and Blink Twice, seems to be a resounding no. Though, in the former, there appears to be a greater chance for redemption even after the couple remembers everything that happened between them (and still decides to give it another shot). This courtesy of Mary, who not only unveils the truth to all of Lacuna’s clients (or “patients”), but also unearths her own bitter truth vis-à-vis memory erasure: Howard did it to her (per her request) after the two had an affair. And yet, just as it is for Frida (Naomi Ackie) in Blink Twice, it’s as though we are doomed to repeat the same behavior/gravitate toward the same toxic person regardless of whether the slate (a.k.a. the mind) is wiped clean or not.

    In Blink Twice, Zoë Kravitz’s directorial debut (which she co-wrote with E.T. Feigenbaum), that gravitation proves to be much more harmful for Frida, who drags her best friend, Jess (Alia Shawkat), along for the ride after infiltrating Slater’s fancy benefit dinner for his requisite “foundation.” Although the two are initially working the party as cater waiters, Frida has them both switch into gowns (which scream “trying too hard” while still looking embarrassingly cheap). Naturally, Slater invites them to accompany him and his entourage back to the island where he’s been sequestered in order to “work on himself” as part of a grand performance of a public apology for “bad behavior” past (there’s no need to get specific about what that might have entailed, for there’s a whole range of bad behavior [typically, sexual abuse/harassment-related] that female viewers can easily imagine for themselves). Though, usually, if one is truly working on themselves, they do so by not buying a private island to retreat to. By actually trying to exist in and adapt to the world around them, rather than creating an entirely new one that fits their own “needs.” But that’s the thing: Slater and his ilk don’t want to adapt, don’t want to acknowledge that things have changed and so, too, must their old ways. Instead, they’ve set up a “paradise” for themselves that happens to be every woman’s hell.

    The only requirement to keep them there? Scrubbing any memories they have of being sexually assaulted every night on the island. In lieu of Lacuna, Slater needs only a perfume called Desideria, conveniently crafted from a flower that’s only found on that particular island. It’s, in many ways, a slightly more implausible method for making someone forget a traumatic experience than all-out memory erasure through a “scientific procedure” like Lacuna’s. But, for Kravitz’s purposes, it works. Those purposes extend not only to holding up a mirror to the ongoing and new-fangled ways that men, even post-#MeToo, still manage to behave like barbarians, but also to the ways in which women “self-protect” by conveniently “removing” memories that are too painful to deal with, especially when it comes to men and their egregious comportment. This, in part, is why the Desideria is so effective. There’s a sense that the women of the island are only too ready to forget/ignore what horrors befell them the previous night.

    In the abovementioned Sex and the City episode, there’s a scene at the end where Carrie repeats (seven times) to Aidan (John Corbett), “You have to forgive me” in different “Oscar-worthy” manners. Just as Slater repeats, “I’m sorry” in different dramatic ways until he then askes Frida if she forgives him yet. Seeing (and expecting) that she definitely doesn’t, it only serves to prove his point that, no, you cannot forgive without forgetting (though, to be fair/in this case, maybe just don’t act like women owe you unfettered access to their bodies/treat them like disposable objects designed solely for your amusement and there won’t be any need to forgive).

    Thus, he considers himself in the right (or at least that he “had no choice”) for doing what he did in order to get what he wanted out of her and the other women he lures to the island with his charm (and, of course, the allure of his wealth). In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there is also a belief, on Clementine’s part, in being “in the right” for willingly expunging her own memories without any man needing to do it for her. In this sense, one might say that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is all about the importance of agency in having certain aspects of your memories erased for the sake of self-preservation.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Zoë Kravitz Aims to Open Eyes With Blink Twice

    Zoë Kravitz Aims to Open Eyes With Blink Twice

    [ad_1]

    As a film whose working title was Pussy Island, it’s to be expected that the subject matter of Blink Twice is “controversial.” That is, if one is “off-put” by the notion that women are still “bitter” about men’s behavior—even after all the supposed progress that’s occurred in the wake of #MeToo. And yes, it’s no coincidence that Zoë Kravitz first started writing the screenplay (with E.T. Feigenbaum, who also wrote an episode of the Kravitz-starring High Fidelity) the same year that the “male backlash” began. Or rather, the appropriate and long overdue response to an abuse of power so entrenched in “the system,” it took ousting many men at the top for anything to start making a difference.

    Some of those men at the top were known for going to Little Saint James Island a.k.a. “Epstein Island.” Like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump. None of these men ever got quite the smackdown that Harvey Weinstein did, but there was no denying that further ignominy befell their already less than upstanding reputations when it came to being pervy sexual abusers. Something that happens to Blink Twice’s own “Jeffrey Epstein,” Slater King (Channing Tatum). A tech billionaire that someone like Frida (Naomi Ackie) can’t help but lust after and idolize—something we see as she scrolls through her phone and adoringly watches an interview he gives about how he’s a “changed man” now that he’s “taken some time” to “reassess” himself and his priorities on the remote island he currently lives on (and, needless to say, owns). It’s all very familiar-sounding, with no shortage of potential inspirations for Kravitz when it comes to similar rich douchebags from which to mine material.

    As Frida watches the interview on the toilet, transfixed, her drooling is interrupted by her best friend and roommate, Jess (Alia Shawkat). When Frida admits she doesn’t have her portion of the money for the super because she’s invested it in something else for the two of them, Jess is surprisingly chill about it. Almost as if there’s nothing Frida could do that would ever make Jess turn her back. Such is the nature of a truly strong female friendship bond. By the same token, that doesn’t mean that women don’t get in their fair share of contentious spats, one of which arises between Jess and Frida when, while the two are at work (serving as cater waiters—or, for the more misogynistically-inclined, “cocktail waitresses”), Frida accuses Jess of having no self-respect because she keeps going back to the same toxic asshole every time they break up. This, of course, will turn out to be extremely ironic later on, when the biggest twist of Blink Twice comes to light, and viewers see that Frida has been doing exactly the same thing.

    In any case, Frida immediately realizes how harsh she sounds and apologizes right away to Jess as they continue to prep for serving drinks at Slater’s big, fancy event (with their male boss annoyingly telling them, “Don’t forget to smile!”)—presumably something “benefit”-oriented. It doesn’t much matter to Frida, who is so unabashed in her eye-fucking of Slater from afar, that it comes as no surprise when she tells Jess that what she spent all her money on happened to be two gowns for each of them to wear so that they could infiltrate the event as guests rather than servers (though, to be honest, the gowns look more like they’re from Shein than, say, Chanel). Jess, ever the down-ass bitch, complies even though she is not even remotely affected by Slater’s looks or wealth. Eventually making a fool out of herself by tripping in the most visible way possible, Slater takes Frida under his wing at the event and, by the end, the two have such a “connection” that he decides to invite her and Jess back to his island with the entourage he’s been parading.

    If it all sounds somewhat implausible, Kravitz is well-aware of that, stating during an interview with CBS News Sunday Morning, “I like playful filmmaking.” This is made apparent by her use of stark, all-white backdrops (think: Blur’s “The Universal” video, itself an homage to A Clockwork Orange) whenever the audience is in Slater’s world outside of the island, as though to emphasize that, to him, there are no gray areas. Kravitz also added, “I like when the audience has a sense of, ‘It’s a movie,’ you know what I mean? And we’re all in it together and it’s not reality.” But it is, indeed, very true to the reality of how power is so grossly abused by white men with billions (or even just millions) of dollars, finding loopholes for being as disgusting and depraved as they want to be no matter how much cancel culture continues to thrive post-#MeToo. In this case, that loophole is found through the manipulation of the five women on the island’s memory. In addition to Frida and Jess, there’s also Sarah (Adria Arjona), Camilla (Liz Caribel) and Heather (Trew Mullen), all of whom keep spraying themselves with a perfume called Desideria that’s strategically placed in their rooms, just begging them to use it. As Slater says, it’s made from a special “extract” of a flower that can only be found on the island. How convenient for him and his fellow rich white men that it also acts as a kind of super-charged Rohypnol.

    It is the memory loss element of Blink Twice that most closely aligns it with Jordan Peele’s own seminal psychological thriller, Get Out. For the loss of each woman’s memories of the particularly traumatic events that happen to them during the night are what make them trapped inside a kind of “sunken place” during the day. Thus, prone to chirpily answering, almost Stepford wife-style, “I’m having a great time!” whenever Slater asks, “Are you having a good time?” Their muddled memory—almost tantamount to being lobotomized—makes it retroactively all the more cruel when they first arrive and a Polaroid is taken of the group as Vic (Christian Slater), Slater’s “right- and left-hand man,” shouts, “Everybody say, ‘Makin’ memories!’” The irony being, of course, that the women on the island will have no ability to recall what’s going on. What horrors are being wrought upon their bodies when night falls.

    At one point, Slater promises a fellow rich man named, what else, Rich (Kyle MacLachlan) that he can do whatever he wants because: it’s like the more traumatic the event, the more readily they forget. And it is true—women’s minds are extremely adept at that form of self-protection, mainly because dealings with men in any sphere tend to be violating in some way or another, so “blotting out” becomes a kind of automatic coping mechanism. And in the world of rich men, violation is merely the rule, not the exception.

    Of course, in these “polite” times, men like Slater feign going along with the “new world order.” For example, when the group arrives on the island and Stacy (Geena Davis, in a kind of Ghislaine Maxwell role) starts collecting everyone’s phone into a bag, Slater assures, “You don’t have to do anything that you don’t wanna do.” But, of course, the pressure to oblige him—one that is perennially ingrained within women—gets the better even of Jess. Even though it is she who is the one to be hit much more quickly with the revelation, “Did we just jet off to a billionaire’s island with a bunch of strangers?” For the number one rule learned by every millennial as a child was: don’t talk to or go anywhere with strangers. Frida insists, “He’s not a stranger. He’s Slater King.” Such is the danger of 1) parasocial relationships being intensely nurtured in a social media age and 2) the automatic carte blanche that powerful people—nay, powerful men—are given when it comes to trust. Despite all long-running evidence that suggests only inherent distrust ought to be placed in them.

    It doesn’t take long for Frida and Jess to fall into the “routine” of the island. Which goes something like: wake up, get high, swim, start drinking, eat a dinner prepared by Cody (Simon Rex), another alpha male (though there are also beta males like Tom [Haley Joel Osment] and Lucas [Levon Hawke, a fellow nepo baby like Kravitz), get so trashed you “black out,” repeat. Soon enough, the days and nights all meld into one, with Frida and the others long ago losing track of what day it is or even how long they’ve been on the island. At one point, Frida asks Slater, “When are we leaving?” He shrugs, “Whenever you want.” Naturally, that’s not true, nor is it really an answer. Besides, he knows Frida will soon forget, informing her during one of their “intimate walks,” “Forgetting is a gift.”

    Indeed, one would think that the female gender does have collective amnesia sometimes when considering how willing they are to “forgive” men for all their transgressions. And this, too, is another key theme of Blink Twice, which essentially posits the Carrie Bradshaw-penned question: “Can you ever really forgive, if you can’t forget?” As Slater will tell Frida during their final showdown, the answer is definitely no, resulting in an Oscar clip-type performance as he angrily repeats, “I’m sorry” to her and then demands if she forgives him yet. “No?,” he says when she doesn’t reply. Of course not.

    Nor does she seem likely to ever forgive a woman like Stacy, who is not only complicit in what’s happening on the island, but also prefers the “ignorance is bliss” philosophy that Slater keeps promoting through Desideria. That Davis is involved in the film is also especially significant considering she runs the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, which “advocates for equal representation of women and men.” Blink Twice certainly has plenty of that. Though perhaps the most memorable character out of anyone is the woman billed as “Badass Maid” (María Elena Olivares). Tasked primarily with catching the snakes on the island that, according to Slater, have become a blight, it is she who will become the savior of the oppressed in this fucked-up situation.

    As for Frida’s past history with Slater (which she, of course, forgot), it begs the question: are people—particularly women—doomed to repeatedly gravitate toward the same toxic situation so long as it “feels good” enough of the time to forget, so to speak, about how bad it is overall? The conclusion of the film would like to make viewers believe otherwise, ending on a “hopeful” even if “sweet revenge” note.

    As for changing the name from Pussy Island to Blink Twice, it wasn’t just because marketing the film was going to be nothing short of an ordeal with the MPA’s censorship limitations, but also because, as Kravitz found, “Interestingly enough, after researching it, women were offended by the word, and women seeing the title were saying, ‘I don’t want to see that movie,’ which is part of the reason I wanted to try and use the word, which is trying to reclaim the word, and not make it something that we’re so uncomfortable using. But we’re not there yet. And I think that’s something I have the responsibility as a filmmaker to listen to.”

    Perhaps if women had taken the word in the spirit intended when it refers to callow men, there might have been more acceptance. However, regardless of the title change, Blink Twice will undoubtedly still come across as “hardcore” to plenty of filmgoers. Mainly the ones who don’t like to see a mirror held up to a society run by soulless, amoral, bacchanalian knaves. Post-#MeToo or not.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Fired CFO’s texts revealed a 10-year affair that led to higher pay and promotions, company says

    Fired CFO’s texts revealed a 10-year affair that led to higher pay and promotions, company says

    [ad_1]

    Royal Bank of Canada said it has proof that its former chief financial officer engaged in an intimate relationship with a colleague that she failed to disclose, citing exchanges between the two over text messages and emails. 

    Canada’s biggest lender filed a statement of defense and counterclaim on Friday in the wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed earlier this month by Nadine Ahn, the executive it fired in April after 25 years at the bank. 

    The legal filing said Ahn began a close personal relationship with a colleague, Ken Mason — an executive in the bank’s corporate treasury group — as early as 2013 and that it continued until the time of her departure. 

    The document offers a remarkably detailed look at how the bank alleges the relationship played out over more than a decade. It includes descriptions of how the two bankers frequently met outside work for cocktails, celebrated anniversaries, swapped romantic poetry, and called each other by pet names — “Prickly Pear” for Ahn and “KD” for Mason.  

    Their text messages “fantasized about a life together, such as reading in bed together,” RBC’s court filing states. 

    “Ms. Ahn forwarded romantic poetry to Mr. Mason, expressing that she had fallen in love with Mr. Mason when she first saw him,” according to the filing. “Ms. Ahn and Mr. Mason continued to regularly see each other outside of the office during this time period, arranging a lunch on August 18, 2017 to celebrate their ‘fourth anniversary.’”

    The close relationship continued after she was promoted to CFO in 2021, according to the documents. RBC alleges that Ahn used her position within the company to orchestrate promotions and pay raises for Mason, an endeavor it says Mason referred to as “Project Ken” in a document he drew up. She also shared confidential information with Mason, the bank claims, such as a draft of a speech to be given by Chief Executive Officer Dave McKay.  

    Read More: RBC’s Ex-CFO Says She Had Shot at CEO Job Before Bank Fired Her

    The filing states that RBC doesn’t have access to their messages, “except to the extent that Ms. Ahn and Mr. Mason copied personal communications to RBC systems.”

    Lawyers for Mason and Ahn didn’t reply to messages seeking comment. Ahn said in her lawsuit that she and Mason were friends but denied that they were romantic partners. Mason, who filed a separate wrongful dismissal lawsuit against RBC, also denied a romantic relationship and said the bank would have treated them differently if they had both been men. 

    ‘I Love You Too’

    The bank cites “intimate communications” exchanged between the two via text message. As one example, it states, “On March 11, 2019, Ms. Ahn messaged Mr. Mason to say, ‘I love you.’ Mr. Mason responded 15 seconds later, ‘I love you too.’”

    The two allegedly used calendar invites to schedule “liquidity meetings,” which the bank said was code for going for cocktails. At one such meeting, the two scribbled notes about their drink orders and other topics such as “concert, night out, winery” on a coaster from Canoe, an upscale restaurant in Toronto’s financial district. Mason had the coaster encased in plexiglass and kept it in his office, RBC claims.  

    The bank said it began investigating in March after an anonymous whistleblower alleged that Ahn and Mason had been seen “hugging and kissing and exiting the elevators” at the Fairmont Royal York, a hotel that’s right beside RBC’s head office. 

    Bank officials “immediately commenced a thorough investigation conducted by external legal counsel,” RBC spokesperson Gillian McArdle said in an emailed statement on Friday. “We were disappointed to learn the allegations were true.”

    The Globe and Mail newspaper earlier reported on RBC’s court filing.

    Ahn’s lawsuit complained about the way Royal Bank handled the investigation, the speed with which she was fired after being confronted with the allegations on April 5, and the damage to her reputation when the bank put out a press release that same day. 

    “Contrary to the statements of claim from Ms. Ahn and Mr. Mason, the investigation showed there was an undisclosed close personal relationship, and that Ms. Ahn misused her authority as CFO to directly benefit Mr. Mason,” McArdle said. “As she was a Named Executive Officer, we had an obligation to disclose.” 

    Ahn’s lawsuit is seeking almost C$50 million ($37 million) in pay and damages while Mason is suing Royal Bank for more than C$20 million in pay and damages. 

    In its counterclaim against Ahn, RBC is seeking about C$4.5 million for “excess compensation” paid to Mason and to claw back bonuses paid to Ahn, plus other damages and costs.

    RBC’s filing states that when another employee raised concerns about Mason’s pay, Ahn terminated that person’s employment without cause. The bank said that former employee “has demanded compensation from RBC for bad faith termination of his employment, because of Ms. Ahn’s conduct.” 

    Recommended Newsletter: CEO Daily provides key context for the news leaders need to know from across the world of business. Every weekday morning, more than 125,000 readers trust CEO Daily for insights about–and from inside–the C-suite. Subscribe Now.

    [ad_2]

    Christine Dobby, Bloomberg

    Source link

  • French Directors Benoit Jacquot, Jacques Doillon Questioned by Police Over Rape, Sexual Assault Accusations by Judith Godreche

    French Directors Benoit Jacquot, Jacques Doillon Questioned by Police Over Rape, Sexual Assault Accusations by Judith Godreche

    [ad_1]

    French directors Benoit Jacquot (“Farewell, My Queen”) and Jacques Doillon (“The Little Gangster”) were summoned by police on July 1 for questioning in connection with complaints filed by actor Judith Godreche on Feb. 8.

    The two directors were taken in custody by the Juvenile Protection Brigade, according to the AFP.

    Godrèche lodged a rape complaint against Jacquot and accused him of “predation” and “violent rape of a minor under 15 years old committed by a person in authority.” She met Jacquot in 1986, when she was 14 years old (the director was then 39) on the set of his movie “Les Mendiants,” and began a relationship with him which went on for six years. She also starred in his 1990 film “La Desenchantée.” The offences were alleged to have taken place between 1986 and 1992. Jacquot has denied all of Godrèche’s accusations.

    The director’s attorney, Julia Minkowski, told Variety that Benoît Jacquot “had requested to be heard since the beginning of the investigation. He will finally be able to express himself before authorities.”

    Minkowski also noted that the Paris prosecutor had “refused to give him access to the files of the procedure, despite the continued attacks on the presumption of innocence.”

    Doillon, meanwhile, has been accused by Godreche of two counts of sexual assault in the 1980’s when she was a minor. Godreche claimed the sexual assault happened at the home that Doillon shared with his then partner Jane Birkin, during the shoot of “La fille de 15 ans.” Godrèche, who was at the time in a relationship with Jacquot, had the lead role in Doillon’s film and starred alongside Melvil Poupaud and Doillon himself. The movie came out in 1989. Doillon has denied these claims. Variety has reached out to Doillon’s legal representation for comment.

    An actor-turned-filmmaker who presented the short film “Moi Aussi” on opening night of Un Certain Regard at Cannes, Godreche has been credited for spearheading France’s new MeToo reckoning with her allegations against Jacquot and Doillon. Since she filed these complaints against the two directors, other female actors came forward to accuse them. Julia Roy accused Jacquot of sexual assault, while Isild le Besco accused him of rape. Le Besco, who is Maiwenn’s estranged sister, has also accused Doillon of sexually inappropriate behavior, as did Anna Mouglalis.

    Godreche’s testimonies have also led the French parliament to approve the creation of a commission whose task is to investigate abuse and sexual violence within France’s film and TV industry, as well as performing arts, advertising and fashion. It remains to be seen whether this commission will be pursued in the wake of France’s overhaul of the National Assembly. The far right party, Rassemblement National, which won the first round of the parliamentary elections and could soon enter the French government, has a lackluster track record when it comes to progressive issues, including women’s rights.

    [ad_2]

    Elskes

    Source link

  • The Sour Smell of Victory: Harvey Weinstein’s Legal Win and the Message It Sends

    The Sour Smell of Victory: Harvey Weinstein’s Legal Win and the Message It Sends

    [ad_1]

    The overturn of Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction sent waves of nausea and resignation through the entertainment industry. One film executive who formerly worked with Weinstein viscerally recalls how she felt on the day in March 2020 when the disgraced movie mogul was sentenced to 23 years in prison: “I personally felt a lot of relief, knowing that he was behind bars. I just felt safer moving through the world.” Before the rise of #MeToo, a film producer believed that a powerful man like Weinstein was “unstoppable—he could do anything and break any rules.” The conviction proved to her that, “finally, there were consequences.”

    Both women were horrified this week when they woke up to headlines announcing that the disgraced mogul’s New York conviction had been overturned on appeal. It was like having the stitches ripped open on a monstrous wound. “There was a lot of hope and change in the air,” the producer says, “and it kind of feels like we’re backtracking…. It feels to me now like the pendulum is swinging back the other way.”

    The 2017 unearthing of Weinstein’s grotesquely predatory behavior helped spark a mass exorcism that became #MeToo, and his New York trial was one of the first major criminal cases to emerge from the reckoning. More than 80 women eventually accused Weinstein of assault or misconduct, but the Manhattan case focused on just two: former aspiring actor Jessica Mann, who alleged that Weinstein raped her in 2013, and former Project Runway production assistant Miriam Haley, who alleged that he forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006.

    Other women also testified during the trial to establish a pattern of bad behavior on Weinstein’s part. They included actor Annabella Sciorra, who accused Weinstein of raping her in the early ’90s and then harassing her for years afterward. (Weinstein has long denied all the allegations the women have made against him.) It was this testimony from additional women that contributed to the decision to overturn the verdict, according to the New York State Court of Appeals. “We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” New York’s highest court declared in the ruling.

    “I thought the approach that was taken by the prosecutors in the case really gave some life and meaning to the experiences of victims of sexual violence,” says Anita Hill, who helped educate Americans about sexual harassment back in the day and is currently chair of the Hollywood Commission, which aims to end harassment and abuse in the entertainment industry. “Sexual assault is not a simple crime to prove, and it’s nuanced in terms of the different ways that people respond to sexual violence. And so I thought [bringing in other women to testify] was very helpful—it humanized the people who were bringing the suit and helped explain their behavior and response to the violence of the experience.” Hill says that the testimonies of other women with similar experiences provided important context in this case, because Weinstein was not just another creep—he was powerful enough that he could ensure accusers and those around him would stay silent.

    Weinstein’s downfall rattled Hollywood enough to raise consciousness about sexual assault and put in place new systems for avoiding and reporting abuse. Many insiders believe that things have improved since the dawn of #MeToo, but the Hollywood Commission’s 2022–2023 survey of more than 5,200 entertainment-industry workers found that there were still high rates of misconduct and that it was heavily underreported, as only 31% of respondents believed “it is likely that a powerful harasser will be held accountable.” Hill confirms that regardless of respondent demographics, “there was never a category where a majority of people believed that a powerful man would be held responsible.”

    I think about something a veteran movie producer told me more than a year ago while discussing what had changed in Hollywood since #MeToo. “Men are afraid to behave badly because there have been enough situations where [they] are now suffering consequences,” she said. “It would be nice if that wasn’t the only motivation for behavior to improve. But I’ll take it, you know?”

    So what happens when a landmark case like Weinstein’s goes up in smoke? Does the threat of consequences diminish? Not that the disgraced mogul will be taking off his prison uniform anytime soon. The Manhattan district attorney’s office has vowed to do everything it can to retry the case, and Weinstein still has a 16-year sentence to serve for similar charges in Los Angeles—though he has filed a notice of appeal in California. Could Weinstein, avatar of the shitty media men whom #MeToo vowed to curb, end up walking free?

    The former Weinstein Company executive I spoke to is emotionally fried by this turn of events, but she’s mostly disturbed by the idea of victims being made to testify again: “To put all of these women through this all over again is just so traumatizing for them…. I also can speak from experience that once [Weinstein] is out of your life, you want to close that door forever.”

    I ask Hill if she thinks the overturn of this landmark case will make victims less likely to come forward in the future. “Every time there’s a setback, we hear the same thing: that people will not come forward now,” she says. “And every time they do.” Hill believes that outrage can help: “Knowing that there is a public out there that actually does believe in justice for victims of sexual violence—that is helpful. [I] really wish that we didn’t have to get the outcry in this particular way, but it can have a positive effect…. This effort to end sexual violence is something that is ongoing, [and] we can’t unsee the things that we’ve seen.”

    [ad_2]

    Joy Press

    Source link

  • Jury finds metro Detroit tattoo artist Alex Boyko not guilty of sexual misconduct

    Jury finds metro Detroit tattoo artist Alex Boyko not guilty of sexual misconduct

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Plymouth Police Dept.

    Alex Boyko’s mugshot.

    On Friday, a jury found metro Detroit tattoo artist Alex Boyko not guilty of three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct after dozens of women in 2018 accused him sexual harassment or assault.

    Witnesses who said that Boyko inappropriately touched them testified in the trial, detailing their encounters with the artist as his clients during tattoo appointments.

    On Thursday, prosecutors said the people accusing Boyko were “looking for accountability,” while his lawyer called it “a smear campaign.”

    Boyko was the subject of a 2018 Jezebel article about the tattoo industry’s #MeToo movement.

    Boyko, 26, of Livonia, was arrested in Wayne County on a warrant for three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, charges that carry a maximum penalty of two years. The victim was identified as a 24-year-old woman from Redford Township who alleged “inappropriate sexual contact” from April to June 2015, according to a press release from the Wayne County assistant prosecutor.

    Jezebel spoke to seven of Boyko’s accusers, who alleged the artist inappropriately touched, harassed, or assaulted them. He was also accused of allegedly soliciting nude photos under the guise of using them to draw tattoo outlines and sending unsolicited nude photos of himself.

    In 2023, Metro Times reported that Boyko was continuing to work in the Detroit area under the alias “Lee Knows How” and making light of the allegations against him in social media posts.

    [ad_2]

    Layla McMurtrie

    Source link

  • Millennial Mindfuck, Or: Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV

    Millennial Mindfuck, Or: Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV

    [ad_1]

    For many millennials living in the U.S., Nickelodeon wasn’t just a staple of growing up…it quite literally raised a generation. With the curtain presently being pulled back on what went into making the shows (or “creating the content,” as it would now be said) that formed the millennial mind, it seems just another “house of horrors” (as one child actor’s mom put it) to reckon with (along with Britney Spears’ conservatorship being a needless sham). Another unmasking that proves everything that was once presented to the public on the surface is a lie. But it’s an unmasking that has been slowly peeled back over the years, whether via speculation about the inappropriate relationship between Amanda Bynes and Dan Schneider or the slew of viral compilation videos from Schneider-produced shows that feature overtly sexual innuendos (among the most blatant being Jamie Lynn Spears getting squirted in the face in a manner that mimics a cum shot and Ariana Grande stroking a potato like a penis and demanding, “Give up the juice”). 

    In Mary Robertson and Emma Schwartz’s four-part docuseries, Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, these are among the topics explored, along with the urgent need to overhaul the entertainment industry and its handling of child actors. For, despite certain “rules” being in place, like the requirement of a parent or appointed guardian to be on set at all times when their child is working, there remain far too many ways for a child to be abused or taken advantage of. As was the case for many child actors working on Schneider’s sets. Among the most shocking revelations is Drake Bell of Drake & Josh (a series that ran from 2004 to 2007) revealing that he was the one who was sexually assaulted by Nickelodeon-employed dialogue coach Brian Peck during the period between The Amanda Show and the filming of Drake & Josh. Bell was fifteen and sixteen during the time when it happened. 

    Although the court sealed the documents with the name of the child star in question, certain key people (particularly the higher-ups at Nickelodeon and Schneider himself) were aware of the “incident” (a word that puts things mildly). Which was hardly limited to one occasion, but rather, ongoing and relentless. With little opportunity to escape from Brian’s clutches as he had maneuvered his way into every aspect of Bell’s existence, even managing to oust his father, Joe Bell—the only person who could see Peck for what he was (i.e., a creep and a pedo)—from his life by convincing him that Joe would ruin Bell’s career. Naive and inexperienced enough to believe Peck had more knowledge about succeeding in Hollywood, the management of Bell’s career was then deferred to his mother, who let Brian handle most of it, including driving Bell to auditions and then suggesting he simply spend the night instead of being driven all the way back to Orange County and then have to wake up extra early to get to another audition in L.A. 

    As Bell begins to slowly unravel his horror story, he reaches the moment of truth in describing his inevitable abuse. Unable to put into words what happened, Bell told Schwartz, who interviewed him for this portion, “Why don’t you do this? Why don’t you think of the worst stuff that someone can do to somebody as a sexual assault, and that’ll answer your question.” Schwartz was, indeed, instrumental to getting Bell to finally share his story, with Bell remarking, “She was very sensitive, and we kind of became buddies before [the docuseries], and I could tell that she was coming from a genuine place. When we started our back and forth and it wasn’t [from] an angle of, ‘Okay, what do I have to say to get him involved’ and ‘I’ll just say what I need to say to convince him.’ I really felt a comfort with her.” 

    The type of comfort that was obviously lacking from Schneider’s sets. Not only because no one felt safe telling him “no,” but because overtime was frequently an expectation. Especially on the “all-new” All That, with former cast member Kyle Sullivan stating, “The set on All That was dysfunctional. You could just kind of get away with more. Like going overtime in ways that were sort of pushing the envelope.” Former cast member Bryan Hearne adds to that, “They’d be like ‘Hey, can you stay an extra however-long?’ ‘I guess, sure.’ You kind of look at your mom like, ‘We’re ignoring child labor laws again, do you know that?’ All right, let’s shoot.” Indeed, Hearne’s mother, Tracey Browne, is the one who brands the network a house of horrors in Quiet on Set, both upset that Hearne was ousted from the series after just one season, but relieved to see him released from the toxic environment that would turn out to be more toxic than she ever could have fathomed. In fact, it was parents like Brown who often “ruined” their kids’ careers for being “too involved” or “too concerned.” That isn’t something Schneider could abide on his dictatorial sets. And since many parents wanted their children to succeed, they went along with it. Much as the parents who let their children sleep over at Michael Jackson’s house. 

    Amanda Bynes’ parents, Lynn and Rick, ostensibly had a go-with-the-flow attitude as well. What with Bynes instantly becoming Schneider’s “new favorite” and often spending plenty of time alone with him in his office while others remained on set. According to former All That cast member Leon Frierson, “There would be times where Amanda would just be missing, and a lot of times we would just hear that she would be with Dan pitching ideas and writing.” Regardless of whether or not Schneider managed to do something sexually inappropriate during those countless hours spent alone with her, there’s no arguing that someone of his age and power position should not have ever been totally alone with Bynes. As for the potentially sexual nature of their dynamic, resurfaced 2010 tweets from Bynes’ account when she was going by Ashley Banks state the disturbing information, “Can you imagine having an abortion at 13 because your boss impregnated you.” While not everyone is convinced that the account was Bynes’, something about that declaration rings eerily true based on everything viewers are shown on Quiet on Set—especially the clearly rampant pedophilia at Nickelodeon (side note: another documentary [released in 2020] called Happy Happy Joy Joy dissects Ren and Stimpy’s creator John Kricfalusi, and the eventual sexual allegations against him). 

    Schneider’s perverse sense of humor (if that’s what one wants to call it) was also deeply rooted in the “thrill” of getting overtly sexual innuendos past the censors. For example, one idea that Dan came up with and certainly not Amanda was to create a character named Penelope Taynt. The word “taint” being a reference to the area between the penis and the anus. Per Jenny Kilgen, one of two female writers on The Amanda Show who were illegally asked to share one salary for what would have been given readily to a male writer, Schneider told the writers of that word, “Don’t tell what this word really means. He wanted us to keep that a secret.” Which is one of many reasons why the final statement he gives to Quiet on Set for inclusion as a title card at the end of the show is total bullshit. In it, he assures, “Everything that happened on the shows I ran was carefully scrutinized by dozens of involved adults. All stories, dialogue, costumes and makeup were fully approved by network executives on two coasts. A standards and practices group read and ultimately approved every script, and programming executives reviewed and approved all episodes. In addition, every day on every set, there were always parents and caregivers and their friends watching us rehearse and film.” 

    Obviously, the approval of all his work stemmed not only from his ability to “sneak in the sex elements,” but his immense power at the network. Which was at a level that would never allow him to be questioned. After all, this was their “brilliant” hitmaker, why “intervene” with his “process” when the money kept rolling in?

    Kate Taylor, a journalist for Business Insider, paints the picture of Schneider’s increasing power at Nickelodeon in the final episode, “Too Close to the Sun.” A depiction that knocks Schneider’s response about the whole thing out of the water: “By the late 2000s, Dan had more control than pretty much any showrunner at Nickelodeon. He had created his own little fiefdom.”

    Culture writer Scaachi Koul added, “[His style] really pushed the boundaries of sexualizing young girls.” Cue the cut to a scene of Ariana Grande on Sam & Cat being surrounded by a circle of boys spraying her with their water guns while she laughs and laps it up in a bikini top and shorts, or Tori (Victoria Justice) asking Jade (Elizabeth Gillies), “Wanna get slapped with a sausage?” while holding up an actual sausage on a skewer. Jade leans her cheek toward it and says, “Sure.” Then cue another scene with a joke about being “on the wood” (“I want to be on the wood! What’s the wood? I want to be on it”).

    As the episode then pushes into the Zoey 101 era, a costumer for the show who chooses to keep her face off-camera notes, “I always thought Dan had a little bit of an arrested development and he was like that boy that wanted the cute girl to like him.” Based on this endless barrage of examples from his shows that parade these “jokes” that usually degrade the girl at the center of them, that theory holds plenty of weight. 

    In another segment, Mike Denton, a cameraman for iCarly, Sam & Cat and Victorious, commented, “In my mind, a kids’ show should be exactly what it is: a kids’ show. And sometimes there were scenes where there was a prop that was like, ‘Hmm, that could be a sexual innuendo.’” Complete with melons being held up to one’s chest, sucking on pickles, a latex glove blown up to look like a nipple-laden udder—we’re talking the gamut. And then there is Schneider’s well-known fetish for close-ups on feet and tongues licking various objects. “Was anyone able to say anything—?” “Oh no, no. This is, it’s Dan’s baby.” Again, this speaks to the immense power Schneider had over the network. Whatever he said went, and he made them too much money for them to pull at any very glaring threads. 

    “Dan was Nickelodeon’s golden boy,” Koul confirms. “And even if he and the network were at odds, he had the power to push back. It was very hard to say anything to him.” Even and especially when it came to the “online extras” that were released during the Victorious era. Namely, videos of Ariana Grande licking/biting her own foot, putting tomatoes into a bra and pouring a bottle of water all over her face (because, needless to say, Schneider likes cum shots). In effect, these videos come across more like OnlyFans content than kid-friendly fare. 

    In terms of Schneider’s conceptualization for Victorious, his ominous take was: “If there is anything I’ve learned about kids today—and I’m not saying this is good or bad—it’s that they all want to be stars.” So “desperately,” in fact, that they would endure the abuse of working for Schneider. As though to drive home the point that Nickelodeon in general and Schneider’s series in particular were a breeding ground for abusers (and, oh yeah, pedophiles), Łukasz Gottwald a.k.a. Dr. Luke provided the theme song for the show, and undoubtedly greased the wheels to get Kesha to appear on it (when she was still Ke$ha) in 2011. Just three years later, at the beginning of 2014, Kesha would blaze a trail for blowing the whistle on abusive men by checking into rehab for her eating disorder, which she mentioned was mostly due to the verbal lashings she suffered from Dr. Luke telling her things like how was the size of “a fucking refrigerator.” 

    By the end of the year, the extent of Dr. Luke’s abuse was further revealed when Kesha filed a civil suit against her longtime producer for “infliction of emotional distress, sex-based hate crimes and employment discrimination.” If only some of the Nickelodeon stars and staff had been able to do the same. But in 2014, it can’t be overstated how groundbreaking Kesha’s announcement actually was. After all, this was the same year that Schneider was honored at the Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards with a Lifetime Achievement Award. This in spite of all the open secrets and whisperings about his behavior that had gone on for decades at this point. In this regard, there’s certainly no denying the Harvey Weinstein parallels to Schneider—complete with asking women for massages. While Schneider “at least” didn’t do so after cornering them in a hotel room, it was a different kind of degradation to be asked to do such a thing in front of so many people. Not to mention the implication that Schneider didn’t value the actual work these women were employed to do on the set (i.e., wardrobe and costuming). 

    Schneider’s repeated ability to bake sexual and debasing content into his shows not only went unchecked, but undoubtedly influenced an entire generation of unsuspecting child viewers who were, at the time, too innocent to read into what they were seeing. Of course, a spokesperson for Schneider claims that it’s only perverted “adult minds” that would think such a thing, insisting, “Unfortunately, some adults project their adult minds onto kids’ shows, drawing false conclusions about them.” Um no, the conclusions are pretty clear. And there’s no doubt that this content was able to slip through the cracks precisely because, for many kids watching, these shows were their “caretaker,” their “babysitter” when there weren’t any adults around. Just as there seemed to be no adults around on the set of Schneider’s various series. 

    “Who is sexual innuendo for on a kids show?” Koul ominously asks at what point. The only answer can be, well, pervs and pedophiles. Like the very people who worked on and created these shows. Because it wasn’t just Schneider and Peck who turned out to be of dubious intent in their dealings with children, but also Jason Handy (of all the last names), a production assistant/self-described “full-blown” pedophile, and Ezel Channel, a man who was already registered as a sex offender when he was hired to work at Nickelodeon’s Burbank lot. Subsequently, he brought an underage boy to that lot and abused him there.

    As for Schneider’s attempt to “make good” with what amounts to a twenty-minute deflection posing as a mea culpa, Alexa Nikolas of Zoey 101 said it best when she responded, “Where’s a phone call of an apology? How come you can do all of this, how can everyone do all of this but not reach out to the person that they hurt?” Drake Bell made a similar assessment about Nickelodeon’s public apology, deeming it “pretty empty.” 

    As for millennials who ever dare to rewatch any of these series in the present, they might as well have the same disclaimer as Quiet on Set does before each episode: “This series investigates the abuses experienced by children from the adults they were expected to trust.” In a way, the same statement can be applied to millennials who were expected to trust the generation of adults that created the current climate (literally and figuratively).

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Vin Diesel Accused of Sexual Battery in Lawsuit by Former Assistant

    Vin Diesel Accused of Sexual Battery in Lawsuit by Former Assistant

    [ad_1]

    A former assistant to actor Vin Diesel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles today alleging that the Fast & Furious star sexually battered her while she was working for him in the fall of 2010, during the filming of Fast Five.

    Diesel’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, responded to Vanity Fair‘s request for comment with the following statement: “Let me be very clear: Vin Diesel categorically denies this claim in its entirety. This is the first he has ever heard about this more than 13-year-old claim made by a purportedly 9-day employee. There is clear evidence which completely refutes these outlandish allegations.”

    In the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles and obtained by Vanity Fair, plaintiff Asta Jonasson states that she was hired by Diesel’s company, One Race, to work for the actor on location in Atlanta, where Fast Five was in production. The suit describes Jonasson as a recent film-school-program graduate at the time, whose job responsibilities included organizing parties, accompanying Diesel to parties, and ensuring that she was in close physical proximity to him in case photographs were taken of him with women when he attended events without his longtime girlfriend.

    The suit alleges that late one night in September 2010, Jonasson was asked to wait in Diesel’s suite at the St. Regis hotel while he entertained hostesses he had brought back from a club. Once the other women were gone, the lawsuit claims, Diesel “grabbed Ms. Jonasson’s wrists, one with each of his hands, and pulled her onto the bed.” She asked him to stop, escaped his grasp, and waited by the front door of the suite for him to leave.

    Instead, the lawsuit says, he again approached Jonasson and began to grope her breasts and kiss her chest, despite her pleas to stop. “Ms. Jonasson was afraid to more forcibly refuse her supervisor, knowing that getting him out of that room was both crucial to her personal safety and job security,” the suit continues. “But this hope died when Vin Diesel dropped to his knees, pushed Ms. Jonasson’s dress up toward her waist, and molested her body, running his hands over Ms. Jonasson’s upper legs, including her inner thighs.”

    According to the lawsuit, once Diesel moved to pull down her underwear, Jonasson screamed and ran down the hallway toward the bathroom, where Diesel pinned her to the wall, placing her hand on his erect penis, even as she verbally refused. He masturbated, the suit alleges, while “terrified, Ms. Jonasson closed her eyes, trying to dissociate from the sexual assault and avoid angering him.”

    Hours later, the suit alleges, Samantha Vincent—Diesel’s sister and the president of One Race—called Jonasson to terminate her employment after less than two weeks on the job.

    “It was clear to her that she was being fired because she was no longer useful—Vin Diesel had used her to fulfill his sexual desires and she had resisted his sexual assaults,” according to the suit, which says that Jonasson’s “self-esteem was demolished, and she questioned her own skills and whether a successful career would require her to trade her body for advancement.”

    [ad_2]

    Joy Press

    Source link

  • UK TV & Film Industry “Failing Employees” In Its Approach To Tackling Sexual Harassment, Says Report

    UK TV & Film Industry “Failing Employees” In Its Approach To Tackling Sexual Harassment, Says Report

    [ad_1]

    The UK’s film and TV industry is “failing employees” in its approach to tackling sexual harassment six years on from #MeToo, according to a first-of-its-kind study.

    The Safe to Speak Up? report interviewed 18 people who described in detail 22 instances of sexual harassment, assault or violence experienced at work since December 2017, including sexualised comments, having unsolicited sexual images shared with them, unwanted sexual approaches, indecent exposure and sexual assault.

    The University of York research found that abuse is still occuring, as interviewees detailed a range of damaging impacts associated with their experiences, including feelings of shame and self-doubt, panic attacks and the loss of career opportunities and confidence. Most of the incidents described were recent, occurring since 2020, with six happening over the past year.

    “Six years on from #MeToo, it is clear that the current approach is still failing employees, especially women,” the report concluded. “As such, new regulatory mechanisms need to be devised and implemented.”

    Some interviewees described being encouraged to speak out about harassment and abuse, but then being punished or victimized when they did so. Four interviewees said they spoke to the harasser directly and asked them to stop the behavior or explained why the behaviour was problematic, but none of these efforts were effective in getting the harassment to stop or getting the person to understand.

    Employers’ handling of complaints was placed firmly in the spotlight by the report, which can be read in full here. Many interviewees were not aware of initiatives to tackle sexual harassment in their workplace and reported a strong reliance by employers on informal responses to complaints, which were not adequate to address the situation and sometimes resulted in further discrimination. “I look back and I realise that the informal phone call to [my bosses to raise concerns] was a mistake because they turned around to me and said, “Oh look, it would be very bruising if you raised this formally,” said one interviewee.

    Anna Bull, who penned the report, recommended more regulatory oversight for broadcasters and commissioning channels to incentivize them to take more responsibility for sexual harassment on productions that they have commissioned. Her report comes with CIISA, the independent body set up to police bullying and harassment complaints in UK TV and film, set to go live in the coming months.

    Bull said the research has “uncovered evidence of some of the worst – but also the best – responses from employers that I’ve ever seen.”

    “This range of responses shows that while there is good work happening in some parts of the industry, there’s still a lot of work to be done,” she added. “My hope is that this research – and the industry and policy briefings that accompany it – will contribute to making the screen industries safer and more equal places for everyone.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jason Derulo Accused Of Dropping Woman From Record Label For Refusing Sexual Advances

    Jason Derulo Accused Of Dropping Woman From Record Label For Refusing Sexual Advances

    [ad_1]

    A 25-year-old singer is accusing pop star Jason Derulo of sexual harassment, alleging that he pressured her to drink and have sex with him after signing her to his record label and then dropped her when she refused his advances.

    In the lawsuit filed Thursday, Emaza Gibson said that after Derulo had signed her with the promise of collaborating on several albums, he used physical aggression to intimidate her and then refused to record with her once she insisted on maintaining a strictly professional relationship with him.

    As a result, Gibson claimed, she was deprived of the resources and funding to complete and promote the planned album.

    “I worked really hard,” she told HuffPost. “I shouldn’t have to sleep with anybody to secure a deal.”

    Derulo’s representatives did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

    Singer Jason Derulo performs onstage at the Lollapalooza Festival Berlin on Sept. 10, 2023.

    Britta Pedersen/picture alliance via Getty Images)

    Derulo was acting as Gibson’s mentor and supervising agent in a deal he struck for her with Atlantic Records and his own label, Future History, Gibson said.

    Her lawsuit claims that before they recorded any music, Derulo advised her that in order to succeed, she would have to participate in “goat skin and fish scales,” which she interpreted as “conducting sex rituals and doing cocaine.”

    Derulo invited Gibson to dinner and drinks “on multiple occasions,” according to the lawsuit, but she turned him down because she wanted to keep their relationship “purely professional.” But at the studio, she said, he pressured her to drink alcohol with him, even though she told him she doesn’t drink.

    “Compounding the sexualized nature” of his drink invitations, Gibson claimed, he deliberately scheduled their recording sessions for late at night, when he continued to pressure her to drink.

    In November 2021, Gibson met with Derulo and Atlantic executives in New York City. Another woman, who is not identified in the lawsuit, allegedly told her privately that Derulo only invited Gibson to the meeting because he wanted to have sex with her.

    Gibson said that when she asked Derulo about the other woman after the meeting, he “lost control,” waving his arms across her face and screaming, which made her feel “trapped and afraid” in the car.

    Gibson was alone, she told HuffPost, on several other occasions when she claimed Derulo was “being aggressive” and yelling at her. She said that her mother, who was her manager, was with her in her final recording session with him in June 2022, when Gibson alleges that he yelled and “charged towards” her because he was angry that the two women were late. He calmed down and tried to hug her, she said, but she ran to the bathroom, crying, she said.

    One of Derulo’s engineers tried to comfort her, describing his behavior as “just tough love,” Gibson’s lawsuit claims.

    “It’s not tough love,” she told HuffPost. “I know about abusive men. I shouldn’t be in that predicament in a professional setting … I could have been pulled to the side to talk about these things or approached differently. And I was embarrassed.”

    Emaza Gibson claims in a lawsuit that Jason Derulo pressured her to drink and acted aggressively toward her before he dropped her from his label.
    Emaza Gibson claims in a lawsuit that Jason Derulo pressured her to drink and acted aggressively toward her before he dropped her from his label.

    The next day, Gibson’s mother contacted Derulo’s manager, Frank Harris, who responded that Derulo “is going to do whatever he’s going to do” and that “I’m not his master,” according to the suit.

    Harris and Atlantic Records, also named in the lawsuit, did not respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment.

    As a result of Derulo’s aggression, Gibson said, she feels uncomfortable around other men.

    Gibson’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, called Derulo’s behavior “despicable” and “another example of the music industry’s dark underbelly.”

    “He not only broke promises and breached contracts, but his threats of physical harm and unconscionable sexual advances toward this young woman who is just trying to break into the industry were outrageous and illegal,” Zambrano said in a statement shared with HuffPost. “Executives knew of Derulo’s behavior without a care. No one should have to suffer through such treatment by their employer, and in this case, by someone who preyed on the plaintiff’s vulnerabilities and desire to succeed, then just threw her away like garbage when he didn’t get his way.”

    Gibson is seeking a jury trial and compensation for lost wages and benefits, legal fees and medical expenses related to the emotional distress she claims she suffered.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former teen performers accuse an agent of sexual assault. They’re hoping it’s Japan’s #MeToo moment

    Former teen performers accuse an agent of sexual assault. They’re hoping it’s Japan’s #MeToo moment

    [ad_1]

    TOKYO (AP) — Kazuya Nakamura says he was 15 when one of the most powerful men in Japanese entertainment history forced him to have sex while he was part of a troupe of backup dancers managed by the legendary talent agent.

    At least a dozen other men have come forward this year to say they were sexually assaulted as teenagers by boy band impresario Johnny Kitagawa, who died in 2019, beginning with three who spoke anonymously to the BBC for a documentary broadcast in March.

    The story has all the elements of a major #MeToo reckoning, but in Japan, response has been muted.

    Former Manchester City defender Benjamin Mendy has been found not guilty at a retrial of one count of raping a woman and the attempted rape of another woman.

    Kevin Spacey has denied that grabbing men by the crotch was his “trademark” pickup move. The Hollywood star got increasingly testy under questioning on Friday in court in London by the prosecutor who accused him of sexually assaulting four men.

    A New Jersey lawyer already charged in connection with a series of sexual assaults in Boston about 15 years ago has pleaded not guilty to new charges stemming from a different series of sexual assaults in another area of the city that occurred at roughly the same time.

    A retired Army colonel has reached a court settlement of nearly $1 million in a sexual assault lawsuit against Air Force Gen.

    While opposition politicians set up a committee in parliament to investigate, and the talent agency Kitagawa founded promised to do the same and offered a brief apology, the news still rarely makes the front pages or lead television news broadcasts.

    Kitagawa shrugged off similar allegations for decades. National media almost completely ignored the story, and Kitagawa’s business continued to thrive, even when a Tokyo appeals court found several accusers to be credible in a libel case in 2003. When Kitagawa died, he was honored with a massive funeral that filled a stadium.

    Nakamura hopes that this time, Japanese society will acknowledge what happened to him.

    “I just want to speak the truth,” Nakamura said. “It happened.”

    The Associated Press does not usually identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Nakamura has chosen to identify himself in the media.

    Kitagawa’s agency, Johnny and Associates said in response to the AP’s request for comment that all matters had been placed under investigation, and that it will also help with the “mental care” of those who come forward.

    ALLEGATIONS WERE LARGELY IGNORED FOR DECADES

    In 1999, Japanese weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun wrote in a series of articles based on anonymous interviews with former performers that Kitagawa forced boys to have sex.

    Kitagawa sued the magazine for libel in 2000, beginning a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court finding that “it was demonstrated that the sexual harassment was factual,” and the testimony of the accusers, who appeared in court anonymously, was reliable.

    In Japan, the imported phrase “sekuhara,” short for “sexual harassment,” is used to refer to all kinds of sexual misconduct.

    However, the magazine was ordered to pay damages over assertions that Kitagawa gave minors cigarettes and alcohol.

    Mainstream Japanese media almost completely ignored the story. No criminal charges were filed, and Kitagawa and his agency remained popular and powerful.

    Toshio Takeshita, who teaches journalism at Meiji University in Tokyo, blames cozy relationships between corporate media and entertainment companies for the long silence. Access to stars is essential to media companies, so they’re often afraid to cross powerful entertainment figures.

    NAKAMURA DESCRIBES A 2002 ASSAULT

    Nakamura joined the Johnny’s Jr. backup dancers in 2001, after his mother helped him apply.

    Johnny’s Jr. is the first step on the ladder for many aspiring Japanese male performers, a barely paid training camp for dancers and singers. Hundreds of boys practice with the group every year, and the most successful are picked to perform alongside stars represented by Johnny’s. A select few become stars themselves.

    Nakamura said that on Oct. 19, 2002 — he remembers the exact date — he spent the night at Kitagawa’s home after a performance at the Tokyo Dome stadium.

    Kitagawa regularly invited dozens of boys to stay at his home, which had a swimming pool, and was stocked with snacks and video games, according to Nakamura and other accusers.

    Nakamura said he was sleeping in a bed with two other Johnny’s Jr. members, lying in the middle, when Kitagawa, then 70, forced him to have sex. He just closed his eyes and prayed it would be over. The other two boys kept quiet, sleeping or feigning sleep.

    The following day, Nakamura said, Kitagawa handed him one or two 10,000 yen ($125 at the time) bills. He refused, but Kitagawa squeezed the money into his hand.

    He performed again that evening. “When you’re on stage at the Tokyo Dome, the view of the penlights is so beautiful,” he said. “It was still so beautiful, but I couldn’t feel the joy.”

    He stopped going to the dance lessons.

    For years, Nakamura felt ashamed and told only a few close friends and his mother.

    He said that he decided to break his silence after another accuser came forward earlier this year. Kauan Okamoto alleged in a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Tokyo that Kitagawa forced him to have sex repeatedly, a month after the BBC’s documentary aired. Okamoto was the first person in decades to accuse Kitagawa without anonymity.

    Okamato said he was assaulted beginning in 2012, a decade after Nakamura. It made Nakamura regret not coming forward sooner.

    He gave an interview to Shukan Bunshun in June, and was asked to speak to the committee in parliament later that month.

    FRUSTRATING APOLOGIES

    In May, following a new series of public allegations and the start of a parliamentary investigation the new head of Johnny’s apologized to fans in a YouTube video. Company President Julie Keiko Fujishima also hired former prosecutor Makoto Hayashi to head a three-person investigation.

    Hayashi said that the company is not considering monetary compensation, but he said the investigation will move forward with the assumption the sexual assault took place.

    But Nakamura said he couldn’t reach the investigators.

    He filled out a form on the company’s website to take part in the investigation, he said, and was given a time for a phone call with an administrative assistant, which led to another call, and then an email about scheduling yet another, still not with Hayashi or his team. Nakamura gave up after two weeks of back and forth.

    Hayashi declined to be interviewed for this story, and said he did not have a timeline for completing the investigation.

    Nakamura said he was planning Japan’s equivalent of a class action with several others. Details were still undecided, and the case’s legal prospects are even more uncertain.

    “This is not about winning or losing. It’s important we raise our voices,” he said.

    ACCUSERS HOPE RENEWED ATTENTION WILL CHANGE ATTITUDES

    Kitagawa’s accusers, and others, are hoping that more attention will lead to changes in Japanese society.

    Japan has been criticized by the U.N. for not doing enough to protect children, amid widespread reports of corporal punishment, neglect and sexual abuse by adults, including parents and teachers.

    A legal revision that officially banned violence against children kicked in only three years ago. Last month, Japan raised the age of sexual consent from 13 to 16.

    Both Nakamura and Okamoto have testified in parliament, although the opposition, in charge of the investigation, is greatly outnumbered by the ruling coalition and has little power on its own to change legislation.

    Okamoto gathered more than 40,000 signatures on a petition to demand tougher laws to protect children, which he submitted to parliament last month.

    Yoichi Kitamura, a lawyer who defended Shukan Bunshun in the libel lawsuit and is giving legal advice to Nakamura and other accusers, said the case could be a turning point in Japanese attitudes.

    But he’s been disappointed before.

    During the trial, Kitamura said, “I felt: We got him.”

    Now, decades later, he’s again helping Nakamura and others seek resolution.

    Nakamura said that Kitagawa’s accusers doubt that a moment like this will come again.

    “We all feel that this is our last chance,” he said.

    ___

    Yuri Kageyama is on Twitter https://twitter.com/yurikageyama

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘I’m A Big Flirt’: Kevin Spacey Denies Sexual Assault Allegations At Trial

    ‘I’m A Big Flirt’: Kevin Spacey Denies Sexual Assault Allegations At Trial

    [ad_1]

    LONDON (AP) — Kevin Spacey took a dramatic pause in his testimony Thursday and appeared to almost choke up as he recalled the “intimate” and “somewhat sexual” friendship he shared with a man now accusing the actor of violently groping him. He said he was “crushed” when he learned of the allegations.

    “I never thought that (the man) I knew would … 20 years later stab me in the back,” Spacey testified in his own defense in his sexual assault trial in what could be the most consequential speaking part of his life.

    Spacey spoke in a calm voice and earnest demeanor — humorous, humble and self-deprecating at times — as he breezed over his career and then fast-forwarded to the early 2000s when he was in London working at the Old Vic Theatre.

    Four men have accused the two-time Oscar winner of sexually assaulting them between 2001 and 2013, describing disturbing encounters that escalated from unwanted touching to aggressive crotch grabbing. One man who called Spacey a “vile sexual predator” said he passed out or fell asleep at the actor’s London flat and woke up to find the actor performing oral sex on him.

    Prosecutor Christine Agnew has called Spacey a “sexual bully” who “delights in making others feel powerless and uncomfortable.”

    Spacey, 63, has pleaded not guilty to 12 charges that include sexual and indecent assault counts and one count of causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent.

    One of his accusers said Spacey on several occasions over the years had touched his inner thigh, buttocks and crotch in unwelcome ways that made him uncomfortable.

    The fondling culminated when the man was once driving Spacey and the actor grabbed his crotch so violently he almost ran off the road, the man had testified.

    The alleged victim told police he warned Spacey to never do it again and threatened to knock him out.

    “That never happened,” Spacey testified. “I was not on a suicide mission in any of those years.”

    He described the relationship much differently, appearing wistful as he looked at a photo the man sent him from a mountainous trek he took to raise money for charity.

    Spacey said the man was funny and charming and recalled their flirtatious time together, saying he probably took the lead in making physical contact: “I’m a big flirt.”

    Kevin Spacey leaves after giving evidence at his sexual assault trial at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday in London.

    Dan Kitwood via Getty Images

    Slowly, the two men began touching each other, Spacey said, but it never went much further, because the man made it clear he didn’t want that.

    “He said things like, ‘This is new for me,’ so I think he may have been surprised by his reaction,” Spacey said. “The only thing he made clear was he didn’t want to go further than we were going and I respected that.”

    Spacey’s description of gentle stroking was in direct contradiction to what the alleged victims testified about. They said he caught them by surprise when he aggressively grabbed their privates through their clothing.

    “It wasn’t like a caress,” one man testified. “It was like a cobra coming out and getting hold.”

    Spacey called that man’s account “madness” and said it never happened. He also denied he made racially offensive remarks to the man during a rehearsal for a charity theater event.

    Spacey poked a hole in the driver’s story by calling the timing of the account into question. The man testified he was grabbed while driving Spacey in 2004 or 2005 to an annual gala that Elton John holds.

    Spacey presented work schedules and itineraries that showed he was filming far away — once in Australia — those years. He said he only attended the event in 2001.

    The man said he could have had the dates wrong, but that he remembered the groping incident being the last straw. He said he stopped spending time around him after that incident.

    Spacey testified that the man still has photos of the two of them together posted on social media.

    Spacey began his testimony revisiting his start in theater and transition to the big screen, career, joking that his mother would say that he began acting the moment he emerged from the womb.

    The American actor was one of the biggest stars of the silver and small screens when sexual misconduct accusations brought his career to a halt. If convicted, he could face a prison term that would doom his hopes of a comeback.

    Spacey told German magazine Zeit in an article published last month: “There are people right now who are ready to hire me the moment I am cleared of these charges in London.”

    Spacey, who owns homes in London and the U.S., is free on unconditional bail.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘That ’70s Show’ Star Convicted on Two Counts of Rape | Entrepreneur

    ‘That ’70s Show’ Star Convicted on Two Counts of Rape | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Danny Masteron, the actor known for his roles on “That ’70s Show” and “The Ranch” was found guilty in a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday on two counts of rape. But the jury was deadlocked on a third count resulting in a mixed verdict.

    This was the second rape trial for Masterson, who played Steven Hyde on That 70s Show—the first trial ended in a deadlock last November, resulting in a mistrial.

    Drugging drinks

    Prosecutors accused Masterson of raping three women on separate occasions at his home in the Hollywood Hills between 2001 and 2003. Two of his accusers are members of the Church of Scientology, which Masterson also belongs to. According to court documents, the Church discourages women from reporting rapes to the police — a claim that the Church vehemently denies.

    The AP reported that Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller told the courtroom that Masterson slipped drugs into the drinks of his girlfriend and two women he knew through the Church of Scientology.

    “The evidence will show that they were drugged,” Mueller said.

    Both women described harrowing experiences of becoming weak and woozy and then waking up at Masterson’s home, where he threatened one with a gun and called another “white trash” while repeatedly spitting on her.

    The trial lasted two weeks, and it took the jury a week to reach a verdict. It is seen as a victory for the #MeToo movement, which has been working to raise awareness of sexual assault and harassment.

    Masterson is scheduled to be sentenced on January 24, 2023, and faces up to 30 years in prison.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Small

    Source link

  • Matthew Lawrence Shares ‘MeToo’ Experience: ‘My Agency Fired Me’

    Matthew Lawrence Shares ‘MeToo’ Experience: ‘My Agency Fired Me’

    [ad_1]

    By Emerson Pearson.

    Matthew Lawrence is sharing an incredibly dark personal experience.

    The 43-year-old actor began the April 28th episode of his “Brotherly Love” podcast with a gripping story regarding his experience as a victim of sexual harassment in Hollywood.

    The show, which is co-hosted by his brothers and fellow actors Joey and Andrew Lawrence, had Lawrence reflecting on an audition for a Marvel project in which a director asked him to take off his clothes during a meeting and Lawrence’s refusal to comply.


    READ MORE:
    Cheryl Burke Supports Ex-Husband Matthew Lawrence Wanting Kids With Chilli: ‘Wishing Him Well’

    “There’s been many times in my life where I’ve been propositioned to get a huge role,” Lawrence began on the podcast.

    The actor then began to disclose how he “lost his agency” because “I went to a hotel room” where Lawrence allegedly met with a prominent director, who “showed up in a robe, asked me to take my clothes off, said he needed to take Polaroids of me and said if I did X, Y, and Z, I would be the next Marvel character.”

    Lawrence further alleges that his agency, which he didn’t name, fired him for not proceeding to the hotel room with the director.


    READ MORE:
    Cheryl Burke Wins Custody Of Dog Ysabella Amid Matthew Lawrence Divorce: ‘2023, We’re Off To A Great Start!’

    Later in the conversation, the actor complimented the efforts of the #MeToo movement for helping shine a brighter light on sexual harassment in Hollywood. However, he also argued that not enough conversation surrounds the experiences of men working in the industry.

    “Not a lot of guys in my opinion have come out and talked about this in the industry,” Lawrence finished.

    [ad_2]

    Emerson Pearson

    Source link

  • Penn Badgley Confirms What You Already Knew: It’s A Sexless, Sexless, Sexless, Sexless World

    Penn Badgley Confirms What You Already Knew: It’s A Sexless, Sexless, Sexless, Sexless World

    [ad_1]

    There are some who have speculated that we live in such a sexless time because of technology. Not just because porn made the transition to the internet, but because the human has essentially “become one” with the screen. Inferring an inherent lack of tactility that has extended into a general absence of desire for “tangible flesh.” Of course, this mainly applies to the generation known as Z, being that they’ve never experienced an era when the screen wasn’t an additional bodily appendage. And as the AI fuses into “RI” (“real” intelligence), the prospect for any interest in sex as it once existed in our erstwhile “horn dog” society continues to dissipate—and all with the sanction of those formerly most involved in “presenting it.” That is to say, Hollywood actors.

    So it is that, on the heels of a Penn Badgley feature in Variety called “You Don’t Know Penn Badgley: Surviving Gossip Girl, Staying Sober with Blake Lively and Finding Himself in a Sexy Serial Killer,” the key remark many have taken away is the declaration on Badgley’s part that he will no longer “do” sex scenes. In the Kate Arthur-written article, she prefaces his aversion to a common expectation of the average mainstream actor’s job description with, “Less typically, he was also concerned [about] how inherently sexual the role [of Joe Goldberg] was, and how many intimate scenes he would have to film. In later seasons, the show has had an intimacy coordinator, but when production began in 2017, that job didn’t exist. The whole series revolves around Joe’s romantic fixations, and how he gets the women he’s fallen for to submit to his charms. You has a ton of sex.” But not so much in its fourth season, where Joe, now under the assumed identity of Jonathan Moore, has taken a shine to the “British prude” identity of an Austen character as he finds himself enmeshed in the inner circle of an elite London friend group (yes, it sounds kind of like Gossip Girl). Hence, the presence of a moniker like the “Eat the Rich Killer”—a “branding” that proves anti-capitalism is still capitalism in that it can be sold.

    Among that crew is Kate Galvin (Charlotte Ritchie), a woman who initially passes herself off as “different” from the rest of her born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-their-mouth ilk but actually turns out to be the richest one among the lot (as is usually the way with rich people trying to pass themselves off as “just like us”). Before Joe finds this out, he’s already gone down the rabbit hole of his obsession with her, sidelining the one that brought him to Europe in the first place: Marienne Bellamy (Tati Gabrielle). When he follows her from Paris to London, he ends up staying in the latter city after a cover identity falls into his lap thanks Elliot Tannenberg (Adam James), a fixer hired by Love’s (Victoria Pedretti) father to find and kill Joe. Obviously, Elliot conveniently opts for a different approach to dealing with Joe, and now, “Jonathan” is on his merry way to clothed “sex” in a garden with Kate by episode three.

    But, as Badgley was sure to mention in the Variety interview, “[On-set romance is] not a place where I’ve blurred lines. There’s almost nothing I could say with more consecration.” Which means he’s apparently “blurred” his memory about dating Blake “Serena van der Woodsen” Lively while the two starred in Gossip Girl together. Nonetheless, Badgley insisted, “That aspect of Hollywood has always been very disturbing to me—and that aspect of the job, that mercurial boundary—has always been something that I actually don’t want to play with at all.” And yet, if he, and more actors like him, don’t want to “play with” it, then one must ask the blunt question: what, exactly, are you being paid the big bucks for to have so many “caveats” and “limitations” in order to take on a role?

    Ah, but then there is the cry of “artistic integrity” and “morals.” It is the latter category that finds Badgley hesitating on sex scenes more and more as he told Variety, “It’s important to me in my real life to not have them… [To] my fidelity in my relationship… And actually, it was one of the reasons that I initially wanted to turn the role down. I didn’t tell anybody that. But that is why.” Ironically, the person he wants to show fidelity to is Domino Kirke, the sister of Jemima a.k.a. Jessa from Girls, a show that prided itself on gratuitous sex scenes. Maybe that’s why Kirke was the one who encouraged him to do it regardless of his “misgivings.” And, after all, if Taylor Swift could loosen the reins on Joe Alwyn to “let” him engage in all the sex scenes of Conversations with Friends (which Jemima Kirke also appears in), then surely Domino could do the same. Even if Badgley might have had the option to give Joe more action through the wonders of CGI—as was the case in, of all movies, You People, when Jonah Hill and Lauren London didn’t actually kiss at the end.

    In point of fact, the sudden inalienable right of the actor to become “bashful” about the notion of onscreen intimacy—at a time when intimacy coordinators are actually in existence to make everything feel as “safe” as possible—seems to open the door further for AI as an option to oust real actors from the jobs they won’t actually do. Regardless of how many millions they’re being paid to do it. Whether or not the shift in Hollywood’s willingness to “perform” stems from being a reflection of the sexless culture at large, there’s one thing that’s certain: “sexiness” as a concept has all but disappeared in large part because all mystery has disappeared. Once an industry that could pass itself off as something to aspire to with the tinsel and glitz promoted in now-defunct movie magazines like Photoplay and Screenland, the gradual decline of post-studio system Hollywood coincided with the advent of entities like television and, then, the internet. Therefore, unchecked gossip rags like TMZ and Perez Hilton that effectively dismantled any notion of “glamor” or “aspirational desire” re: being famous. A notable example of that in the 00s occurred with Britney Spears as she went from being the teen dream to a “Jezebel slut” who “deserved” her downfall, courtesy of constant media stalking that drove her to rightful madness.

    Incidentally, Spears was a large part of why sexiness remained strong in the early 00s before giving way to the “trashy-chic” aura exuded in the mid-00s by paparazzi shots of her looking sloppy drunk while exiting a club or accidentally flashing her pantyless snatch as she got out of a car. Decidedly not sexy so much as sleazy because it took away all semblance of mystery. An additional factor in the assurance of sexlessness in entertainment today is the result of the post-#MeToo reckoning, with most men quaking in their boots about being accused of “untoward” behavior. Least of all portraying something that might end up being construed as “non-consensual” or “glamorizing rape.” With that in mind, the Badgley feature was also sure to point out that the actor is increasingly uncomfortable with sex scenes because “he’s also now older than his romantic interests on the show. ‘Didn’t used to be the case,’ he says.” And, where once even the vastest age gap between stars (i.e., Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina) wouldn’t have caused the slightest bat of an eyelash, in the present moment, the only person still willing to carry on with that type of shit is, well, Woody Allen.

    What it all amounts to is that the overall climate of fear about doing or saying or, yes, acting the wrong way has undeniably and “subconsciously” fed into the sex scene about-face among actors like Badgley, who insist that such scenes are “superfluous” or “don’t add anything to the story.” Obviously, someone like Paul Verhoeven would disagree. But then, he’s of a different generation (and also not American). More of the Bernardo Bertolucci school of thought on “impromptu” sexual interactions (e.g., the infamous butter rape one in Last Tango in Paris), as Sharon Stone would later note of Verhoeven’s snatch shot in Basic Instinct, “After we shot [the movie], I got called in to see it. Not on my own with the director, as one would anticipate, given the situation that has given us all pause, so to speak, but with a room full of agents and lawyers, most of whom had nothing to do with the project. That was how I saw my vagina shot for the first time, long after I’d been told, ‘We can’t see anything—I just need you to remove your panties, as the white is reflecting the light, so we know you have panties on.’”

    And yet, as mentioned before, actors now have the unprecedented advantage of working on sets that would never allow for something like what befell Maria Schneider or Sharon Stone to happen again. Only to thumb their nose (or genitals, in this case) at it and declare, “No, I have my principles.” Thing is, if one is getting paid for anything, no such claim can really be made.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Time’s Up to halt operations, shift resources to legal fund

    Time’s Up to halt operations, shift resources to legal fund

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — The Golden Globes carpet typically glitters with crystal-studded gowns in pastel hues, but it looked different in January 2018: The ballgowns were black, and the night’s key accessory was a pin that read “Time’s Up.” Onstage, Oprah Winfrey brought guests to their feet with a warning to powerful abusers: “Their time is up!”

    Five years later, Time’s Up — the now-embattled anti-harassment organization founded with fanfare during the early days of the #MeToo reckoning against sexual misconduct — is ceasing operations, at least in its current form.

    A year after pledging a “major reset” following a scandal involving its leaders’ dealings with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo amid sexual harassment allegations, the group tells The Associated Press that Time’s Up is shifting remaining funds to the independently administered Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, and stopping other operations.

    The decision, which board chair Gabrielle Sulzberger said takes effect by the end of January, caps a tumultuous period for an organization that made a splashy public entrance on Jan. 1, 2018, with newspaper ads running an open letter signed by hundreds of Hollywood movie stars, producers and agents.

    Following the highly visible show of support days later at the Globes, donations large and small flowed into a GoFundMe to the tune of $24 million, earmarked for the nascent Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund. The following months saw the formation of the rest of Time’s Up, which promised a house-cleaning of an industry rocked by the stunning allegations against mogul Harvey Weinstein.

    By January 2023, Time’s Up looked very different after a radical house-cleaning of its own — sparked by a damaging internal report — with only a skeleton crew and three remaining board members. Remaining funds now total about $1.7 million, Sulzberger said; the millions from the early donations already went to the legal fund.

    “It was not an easy decision, but the board was unanimous that it’s the right decision and the most impactful way we get to move forward,” Sulzberger told the AP.

    She and the remaining board members — Colleen DeCourcy and Ashley Judd, the actor and one of the most powerful early Weinstein accusers — will step down as Time’s Up Now and the Time’s Up Foundation, the two groups that formed what is commonly known as Time’s Up, shut down.

    “Very simply, the Legal Defense Fund really reflects who we were not only at our inception but really at our core,” Sulzberger said. “We really just decided that at the end of the day, we needed to go back to our roots. (The fund) was the first initiative that we formed and funded, and remains at the heart of everything we stood for.”

    The fund is administered by the National Women’s Law Center in Washington and provides legal and administrative help to workers, most of them identifying as low-income and 40% as people of color. Time’s Up Now and the Time’s Up Foundation had focused on policy and advocacy work.

    Uma Iyer, vice president of marketing and communications at the law center, says the fund has helped connect more than 4,700 workers with legal services, and funded or committed funding to 350 cases out of just over 500 that applied.

    Employment and civil rights lawyer Debra Katz, long among the nation’s most prominent attorneys dealing with sexual harassment cases, called the fund a crucial resource for survivors and their advocates.

    “They understand these issues and they’ve always been completely survivor-centric and respectful of survivors,” Katz said of the National Women’s Law Center, with which she’s worked for decades.

    But Katz, who represented key Cuomo accuser Charlotte Bennett, was highly critical of the Time’s Up organization, specifically former CEO Tina Tchen and former board chair Roberta Kaplan’s dealings with the Cuomo administration. Both resigned in August 2021 amid uproar over revelations they had offered advice after Cuomo was accused of misconduct and that Tchen initially discouraged other Time’s Up leaders from commenting publicly on allegations by accuser Lindsey Boylan.

    “You cannot backchannel to corporations and entities and believe you were providing strategic advice when you’re also suing those entities because they’ve engaged in serious wrongdoing,” Katz said. “That’s what they attempted to do. It just erodes trust with survivors.”

    Current Time’s Up leaders make a point of noting that the organization was instrumental in the fight for legislation increasing protections for workers, including extending the statute of limitations on rape in 15 states, and working toward achieving pay equity in women’s soccer. The group also worked on issues involving working families impacted by COVID-19, such as emergency sick leave.

    “I have two adult daughters, and the kinds of issues that I faced as a young woman in the workplace, I feel Time’s Up has made a huge difference in moving that needle,” Sulzberger said.

    Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, paid tribute to “those bold and brave individuals who banded together in 2017,” saying they disrupted a power balance that was allowing abuse to continue.

    “It is never easy to create something new,” said Graves, who also co-founded the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, “and their vision fueled a beacon for justice that we can all be proud of.”

    Despite early fundraising success, Time’s Up was plagued by issues from the start, often accused of being too aligned with Hollywood’s rich and powerful — a theme of the early #MeToo movement overall. The group had leadership problems, too. In February 2019, CEO Lisa Borders resigned over sexual harassment allegations against her son. A bit more than two years later came Tchen’s and Kaplan’s departures.

    Announcing its “reset” in November 2021, the organization made public a report prepared by an outside consultant that listed numerous deficiencies. Among them: confusion over purpose and mission, ineffective communication internally and externally, the appearance of being politically partisan, and seeming too connected with Hollywood.

    Part of the problem, the report said, was how fast the organization grew, ramping up “like a jet plane to a rocket ship overnight.”

    The staff was reduced to a skeleton crew and the few remaining board members spent a year, according to Sulzberger, listening to the group’s many stakeholders before making a decision.

    Katz said it would be wrong to see the travails of Time’s Up — or any organization, for that matter — as a sign of weakness of the overall #MeToo movement. Quite the opposite, she said: It shows the movement’s resilience.

    “As movements progress and become more mature they go through phases. But if anything, this shows the power of this movement because victims of sexual violence came forward and said, ‘We’re not going to countenance this (conflict) within our organization,’” Katz said. “It shows the power of individuals demanding clarity in their organizations and leaders.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trial in shooting of Megan Thee Stallion exposes misogynoir

    Trial in shooting of Megan Thee Stallion exposes misogynoir

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Megan Thee Stallion is a three-time Grammy winner and hip-hop superstar, but her success wasn’t enough to shield the 27-year-old artist from the power of widespread misinformation and social media vitriol leveled against her after she was shot in 2020.

    The Houston-born rapper, whose legal name is Megan Pete, was shot multiple times in both feet after leaving a Hollywood Hills party in 2020 with rapper Tory Lanez, whose legal name is Daystar Peterson, and former assistant Kelsey Harris. Megan needed surgery to remove the bullet fragments from her feet. On Friday, a jury found Lanez guilty of all three felonies with which he was charged, which could lead to up to 22 years in prison.

    Three months after the shooting, Megan accused Lanez of wielding the gun. The ensuing onslaught of criticism reached a fever pitch this month during Lanez’s assault trial. Experts say it stems from misogynoir, a specific type of misogyny experienced by Black women.

    Tia Tyree, a professor at Howard University, described misogynoir as “contempt, dislike” or mistreatment of Black women.

    Tyree, whose research focuses on representations of Black women in mass media, social media and hip-hop culture, emphasized that misogynoir has been part of the Black female experience in the U.S. for centuries, dating back to the beginnings of American slavery.

    “Many people see the term, and they’re intrigued by it. They think, ‘Wow, what is this new thing happening to Black women?’” she said. “And that’s the most disappointing part of the narrative about misogynoir. There’s nothing new about the mistreatment and disrespect of Black women in the United States.”

    Megan said she did not tell Los Angeles police responding to the scene until three months after the shooting because she was afraid for her safety.

    The shooting happened on July 12, 2020, less than two months after George Floyd died at the hands of Minneapolis police.

    Fear of police violence could have played a role in her reluctance to share specifics with officers, Tyree said, adding that Black women are expected to protect Black men in society.

    A cycle of silence prevents many Black women from sharing their experiences, explained Melvin L. Williams, a professor at Pace University who studies hip-hop feminism, Black male rappers and hip-hop culture.

    “They face industry blackballing and fewer professional opportunities when they speak out,” Williams said.

    Megan alleged that Lanez and his team spread misinformation about the shooting. Social media users have claimed that Lanez never shot her and have posted about her sexual history to discredit her.

    Lanez, who has now been convicted of all three felonies and awaits sentencing, has maintained his innocence. In closing arguments this week, his lawyers argued that Harris was the shooter and that Megan tried to create a more sympathetic narrative by blaming Lanez.

    Harris’ attorney has declined to comment on her involvement.

    “Tory came out and told so many different lies — about me not being shot, about him not being the shooter and making this all about a sex scandal,” Megan testified last week.

    When jury deliberations began Thursday, misinformation claiming that Lanez had already been acquitted abounded. Social media platforms have also played host to intense scrutiny of Megan’s story — specifically her credibility.

    Rappers Drake and 21 Savage mentioned her in their joint album with specific lyrics that attempted to discredit her allegations. 50 Cent posted memes mocking her interview with Gayle King as well.

    Megan is “infiltrating what is a very hypermasculine space,” Tyree said, referring to hip-hop culture. “And just as any other hypermasculine space, there are bro codes that exist, and she is at the point bumping up against them, and you see the response for it.”

    She is a part of a chorus of Black women — including #MeToo founder Tarana Burke and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters — who have spoken out about violence against women. Burke and Waters signed an open letter supporting Megan.

    Social media attacks against Megan have drawn comparisons to television coverage in the 1990s of Anita Hill’s congressional testimony and, more recently, to online racist hate targeting Meghan Markle. Another recent example was Johnny Depp’s defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard, which drew many social media posts that spread misinformation and cast doubts on Heard’s credibility.

    Northwestern University law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer, the author of “Credible: Why We Doubt Accusers and Protect Abusers,” noted that these trials came five years after the #MeToo movement sparked a global social reckoning, followed by a backlash.

    “We can look at this outpouring of stories as being really significant and meaningful, and it is, but until we can have figured out how to fairly judge credibility, and how to hold perpetrators to account in a meaningful way, then I think there’s just a lot of work left to be done,” Tuerkheimer said.

    Race is a key difference in the treatment of accusers, said Izzi Grasso, a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington who studied misinformation around the Depp-Heard trial.

    Grasso’s research concluded that people with marginalized identities are disproportionately targeted for harassment, online misinformation campaigns and discriminatory content moderation. The online world reflects the “systems of power and domination that we see in the real world,” Grasso said.

    Moya Bailey, a Northwestern University professor who coined the term misogynoir, found that social media platforms such as TikTok and Twitter perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Black women because it’s profitable.

    Algorithms normalize the dehumanization and objectification of Black women for other people’s pleasure or ambivalence, Washington University in St. Louis professor Raven Maragh-Lloyd said.

    Lanez has claimed that Harris and Megan were fighting over him. People are more likely to see content about Megan’s sexual history as “some sort of justification” for not believing her — or for blaming her for getting shot, Maragh-Lloyd said.

    She said it comes down to what sells — and misogynoir provides the fuel: “To perpetuate misinformation about Black women’s bodies or Black women’s desires, it’s going to garner clicks and eyeballs.”

    ———

    Haile reported from New York.

    [ad_2]

    Source link