The movie producer is now in isolation at the maximum security Wende Correctional Facility in New York state, law enforcement officials told Deadline.
Harvey Weinstein was sentenced on Wednesday to 23 years in prison following his conviction last month for third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act.Justice James Burke, who presided over the weeks-long criminal trial of the Oscar-winning producer and entertainment executive, handed down the sentence in a Manhattan courtroom.Just before the sentence was announced, Weinstein addressed his accusers — many of whom were in the courtroom. “We may have different truths, but I have great remorse for all of you,” he said. “I feel remorse for the situation. I feel it deeply in my heart.”Also Read: Hollywood Reacts to Weinstein Sentence: 'No Amount of Jail Time Will Repair the Lives He Ruined'In a gravelly, almost inaudible voice, he also reflected on the trajectory of American culture in the two years since he was first accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women. He said he was the first example of “thousands of men” who have now been accused in the MeToo movement. “I’m worried about this country,” he said, saying he thinks there is a lack of “due process.”Weinstein lead attorney Donna Rotunno called the sentence “obscene” and “ridiculous.” “Of course it’s too harsh,” she said during a press conference.Weinstein, who is expected to appeal the verdict, also faces a separate criminal trial in Los Angeles on charges that he raped one woman and sexually assaulted another in separate incidents over a two-day period in 2013. The L.A. District Attorney’s office announced after Weinstein’s New York sentencing that they have begun the process of extraditing defendant Weinstein to California to face the sexual assault charges that were filed in January. No dates have been set yet.Also Read: LA District Attorney Begins Harvey Weinstein's Extradition Process for 2nd TrialThe jury found Weinstein guilty of third-degree rape of Jessica Mann and a criminal sexual act of Miriam Haley (née Mimi Haleyi). However, the panel found him not guilty of two of the most serious charges — predatory sexual assault against Haley, Mann and “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra — and the first-degree rape of Mann.Sciorra and Tarale Wulff, who testified in the trial, were among those present to support the women. Haley and Mann also read victims’ impact statements at the sentencing Wednesday.Haley started to cry discussing the “healing” nature of speaking up, then moved on to describe the paranoia she felt in the aftermath of the assault.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Called Himself 'Suicidal' and a 'Sex Addict' After 2017 Exposés, Unsealed Documents Show“I can only hope that whatever sentence the court sees fit is long enough for Harvey Weinstein to acknowledge what he has done to me and to others and to be truly sorry,” she said. Mann, too, requested “the accountability of a maximum sentence.”The disgraced Hollywood mogul was taken back into custody. After the verdict on Feb. 24, he spent about 10 days on the forensic ward of New York’s Bellevue Hospital, where he underwent a heart procedure, before he was moved on March 5 to the North Infirmary Command, the medical facility at Rikers Island.Read original story Harvey Weinstein Sentenced to 23 Years in Prison At TheWrap
Corey Feldman says he will finally name his sexual abusers from when he was a child actor in a new documentary he’s releasing called “(My) Truth: The Rape of 2 Coreys.”Feldman will use the real names of the people he says abused him when he was a young actor, something he did not do when he published his 2013 memoir and revealed that he had been abused. And Feldman will also reveal who he believes abused his frequent co-star Corey Haim, who died in 2010 of pneumonia.“The last two years have been insurmountable, but I believe that with great risk comes great reward,” Feldman said in an interview with Entertainment Weekly. “And I believe the reward in all of this, if nothing else, will be that these guys are finally exposed. I’m hoping that what happened to [Harvey] Weinstein [will happen], that multiple victims will come forward. And as a result, these guys will finally get indictments and we can put them out of business.”Also Read: Corey Feldman 'Can No Longer' Defend Michael Jackson After 'Leaving Neverland' (Video)Feldman is working to start a movement known as KidsToo to call attention to the abuse of children, especially in entertainment, and he’s a supporter of California’s Assembly Bill 218, which grants victims of childhood abuse more time to report cases and was signed into law by governor Gavin Newsom in October.“And we’re hoping it kind of clears the pathway for more justice and for more voices to be heard, because this is really about enabling the voice of the survivor and empowering the survivor and turning the tables. All of these years, it’s been about protecting the bad guys, and that’s the way the laws were written, unfortunately,” Feldman said. “This law sets me up for the opportunity to go after these guys, but it also sets up anybody else who has been a victim of sexual assault from any abuser in the state of California in the last 50 years,” Feldman says. “I watched what happened with the other cases, obviously I’ve been following everything very closely.”Feldman in the interview also took a swipe at “Leaving Neverland,” the HBO documentary featuring two men who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse when they were both children. Feldman said that documentary came across as “one-sided,” and he hopes that “(My) Truth,” which he made along with director Brian Herzlinger, provides more evidence of his claims.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Juror Says Annabella Sciorra's Testimony Was 'Convincing to a Lot of the Jurors' (Video)“What we did is line up several witnesses who had all heard firsthand from the victim himself,” Feldman said. “We think we’ve done a really good job of being even-handed in showing what the argument is and what both sides have to say, but also showing the weaknesses in their argument.”Feldman is hopeful that the documentary can change the perception people have of him and also help spur a larger conversation.“I hope that people can finally go back and appreciate my work as an actor,” Feldman said. “That would be nice if people would start recognizing me as a real actor as opposed to this kind of joke that people have made my name into for the last few decades.”He continued: “We’ll see if any of this works. Look, there’s a distinct possibility that none of this works and that people can continue just trashing my name and abusing me and saying I’m just a terrible guy…But I don’t think so, because I think we’ve really started a movement here. That’s what makes me proud. That’s what makes me feel like I’ve actually accomplished something in my life.”“(My) Truth: The Rape of 2 Coreys,” will air as a pay-per-view documentary on March 9 and 10 only via the film’s website. Read Feldman’s full interview with EW here.Read original story Corey Feldman Says His New Doc Will Identify Hollywood Men Who Sexually Abused Him as Child Star At TheWrap
Journalists at MSNBC paid tribute to colleague Chris Matthews after his abrupt on-air resignation Monday night, and so too did Fox News’ Tucker Carlson … in his own way.“Boy, you never thought you’d see that happen. I’ve known Chris Matthews very well since 1995 when I started appearing on his show regularly. He’s everything you think he is. Groveling in the end couldn’t save him; it never does. I would say his real sin, of course, was being old and unfashionable. That’s why they’re making him leave,” Carlson said on his show Monday night.Matthews, who was identified Friday by reporter Laura Bassett as the once-unnamed “famous broadcast journalist” she had accused in a 2017 piece of making inappropriate comments to her when she was a guest on his show, quit Monday. In recent days, the “Hardball” veteran issued an apology to Bernie Sanders and his voters for comparing a Sanders caucus win to a Nazi victory.Also Read: Mika Brzezinski on Chris Matthews Resignation: I Understand 'Cancel Culture' But Is There a 'Better Way'?In his commentary, Carlson then asked why Joy Reid, another MSNBC host, was still on the air after her 2018 scandal involving old blog posts. Two years ago, the FBI investigated the possibility that Reid’s long-defunct blog was compromised by an “external party” responsible for the homophobic content in recently unearthed posts, according to the MSNBC host’s lawyer. Similarly, he brought up other NBC News officials and hosts who have had scandals associated with their names.“As long as we’re making people leave for moral crimes, you gotta wonder why is Joy Reid still on the air, who lied and got the FBI implicated in her lie? Or Noah Oppenheim, the buddy of Harvey Weinstein, or Andy Lack? Joe Scarborough still works there? Really? Amazing,” he said.Representatives for MSNBC and NBC News didn’t immediately return a request for comment.Watch Carlson’s clip above.Read original story Tucker Carlson: Chris Matthews’ Sin Was ‘Being Old and Unfashionable’ (Video) At TheWrap
Tina Tchen, president and CEO of the Time’s Up Foundation, on Monday hailed the criminal conviction of disgraced mogul Harvey Weinstein, who was found guilty by a New York jury of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act.“This trial — and the jury’s decision today — marks a new era of justice, not just for the Silence Breakers, who spoke out at great personal risk, but for all survivors of harassment, abuse, and assault at work,” she said.She went on to credit individual women, including several who testified in the case for speaking out: “We owe a debt of gratitude to Mimi Haleyi, Jessica Mann, Annabella Sciorra, Dawn Dunning, Tarale Wulff,and Lauren Young and all the Silence Breakers for their bravery and resolve as they faced this man in court. We continue to believe them — all of them — and continue to be in solidarity with them.”Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty of Rape, Criminal Sexual ActIn a statement released late Monday, the acknowledged leaders of the MeToo movement said they are “grateful” to the women who came forward.“They undertook immense sacrifices and suffered many hardships in order to share their truths,” Tarana Burke of the MeToo Movement, Fatima Goss Graves of National Women’s Law Center, Ai-jen Poo of National Domestic Workers Alliance, and Mónica Ramírez of Justice for Migrant Women said in a joint statement.“This verdict sends a resounding message to survivors, to perpetrators and to allies. To survivors, this verdict reflects the fact that the jury, like millions of other people, believed them and understand the importance of holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. To perpetrators, it is proof that no one is above the law, not even those with power, money or visibility. To allies, it is a reminder of how important it is to stand with and by survivors when they come forward to share some of the deepest, most painful experiences.”“The MeToo Movement and this moment of reckoning was never about one man. It was about the many lives that he devastated and the countless people across the globe who have been afflicted with similar pain,” they continued.“While we are clear that our work is far from over, today’s verdict is an incredibly important step in the MeToo Movement and in the greater fight to end gender-based violence. It provides an opportunity to push for necessary reforms to the legal system, as well as for additional support for victims and survivors. Further, it bolsters the possibility for a societal rewiring to definitively shift culture, norms and behavior necessary to eliminate sexual violence all together.”“Though a jury has spoken today, we must remember that for the survivors who brought charges and testified at Weinstein’s trial, this verdict is not the end of the road. It is another step in their healing journey. They will continue to need support from all of us, just like all survivors do, as they move forward with their lives.”“We can not understate the importance of believing survivors, from the most visible to the least visible. May this be an opportunity for all of us to recommit to fighting for survivors of all backgrounds and to ensuring that they have the support that they need in order to pick up the pieces to put their lives back together.”After the jury announced its verdict on Monday following four days of deliverations, Weinstein was immediately taken into custody and could face up to 25 years in prison for the crimes when he is sentenced on March 11. An appeal is expected.The jury found Weinstein guilty of third-degree rape of Jessica Mann and a criminal sexual act of Miriam Haley (née Mimi Haleyi). However, the panel found him not guilty of two of the most serious charges — predatory sexual assault against Haley, Mann and “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra — and the first-degree rape of Mann.Read original story Time’s Up, MeToo Movement Hail Harvey Weinstein’s Guilty Verdict: ‘New Era of Justice’ At TheWrap
A New York jury on Monday found Harvey Weinstein guilty of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act, ending a months-long criminal trial in Manhattan that focused on the testimonies of six women who accused him of sexual assault.The disgraced Hollywood mogul was immediately taken into custody and could face up to 29 years in prison for the crimes when he is sentenced on March 11. An appeal is expected.The jury found Weinstein guilty of third-degree rape of Jessica Mann and a criminal sexual act of Miriam Haley (née Mimi Haleyi). However, the panel found him not guilty of two of the most serious charges — predatory sexual assault against Haley, Mann and “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra — and the first-degree rape of Mann.Also Read: 6 Harvey Weinstein Accusers Have Testified at His Trial - Here's What They SaidDonna Rotunno, Weinstein’s lead attorney, said she was “disappointed” by the verdict and vowed to appeal. “We knew we came in and we were down 35-0 on the day that we started this trial,” she said. “Harvey is unbelievably strong. He took it like a man. He knows that we will continue to fight for him and knows that this is not over.”“I hope women will understand the significance of the jury verdict today,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said outside the courtroom, praising Weinstein’s accusers for coming forward. “These survivors weren’t just brave, they were heroic. Weinstein did everything he could … to silence the survivors. They refused to be silenced. The spoke from their hearts and were heard. To them I would say: You broke silence to hold him accountable. A generation of sexual assault survivors have heard every word.”Haley, a former production assistant for the Weinstein-produced TV show “Project Runway,” testified that Weinstein had orally sexually assaulted her at his SoHo apartment in 2006 — an account that formed the basis of the first-degree criminal sexual act charge and half of the first predatory sexual assault charge.Mann, a former aspiring actress and hairdresser, said she had been raped by Weinstein at the DoubleTree hotel in Manhattan in 2013, making up the fourth and fifth charges — first- and third-degree rape — as well as half of the second predatory sexual assault charge.To fulfill the requirements of the predatory sexual assault charge, which requires that the prosecution prove the defendant forcibly raped at least two people, Sciorra’s account was paired with Haley’s and Mann’s for the two separate predatory sexual assault charges. Sciorra testified that Weinstein barged into her Gramercy Park home around 1993, raped her and then orally sexually assaulted her.Also Read: Inside the Harvey Weinstein Jury's Tricky Task and Why They Can't Find Him Guilty on All 5 CountsThroughout the trial, Weinstein’s defense — led by attorneys Donna Rotunno, Damon Cheronis, and Arthur Aidala — argued that these encounters were all consensual and that the women were only relabeling the incidents as assault years after the fact. Weinstein’s attorneys also pointed to several friendly emails that Haley and Mann had sent to Weinstein after the alleged assaults to attack the credibility of the women.But the prosecution, led by assistant district attorneys Joan Illuzzi and Meghan Hast, portrayed Weinstein as a Hollywood titan who used his power to take advantage of and manipulate young women seeking entry into the entertainment industry.It is not immediately clear how the verdict will impact the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, which is pursuing its own case against Weinstein. The mogul faces L.A.-based charges of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by use of force, and sexual battery by restraint. A representative for the L.A. D.A.’s office declined to comment.Read original story Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty of Rape, Criminal Sexual Act At TheWrap
Harvey Weinstein’s defense team laid out a sweeping closing argument on Thursday of their side of the case for one last time before the jury begins deliberations.Dressed in all black, Donna Rotunno — one of Weinstein’s lead attorneys — stood before the seven men, five women jury and urged them to use their “New York City common sense” as a “beacon of light” that would help them make an “unpopular” decision: finding Weinstein not guilty on all counts.“You don’t have to like Mr. Weinstein. This is not a popularity contest,” Rotunno said. “If you look at the evidence and say, ‘Maybe he’s guilty, probably he’s guilty,’ that’s not enough. … Stand your ground.”Also Read: Harvey Weinstein's Defense Wanted His Surgeon to Testify to Prove He's Not 'Faking It' With His WalkerRotunno then attacked the prosecution’s opening statement, which painted a picture of Weinstein as a predator who had a similar M.O. when choosing and assaulting his victims.“The government has to weave a story because, without the story, they know that if you had to look at the evidence alone, from their perspective, they lose. … The irony is that the ADAs [assistant district attorneys] in the case are the producer, and they are writing the script. In their story, they’ve created a universe that strips women of common sense, autonomy,” Rotunno said. “In their universe, women are not responsible for the parties they attend, the men they flirt with, the choices they make to further their own careers, the hotel invitations, the plane tickets they accept.”She then honed in on the two women whose accusations form the basis of the charges: Miriam Haley (née Mimi Haleyi) and Jessica Mann.Haley, whose account informs one first-degree criminal sexual act charge and one predatory sexual assault charge, testified that in 2013, after finishing up a stint as a production assistant, she was invited to meet with Weinstein at his SoHo apartment. It was there that she alleged he backed her into a bedroom, pulled her tampon out, and performed oral sex on her despite her protestations.Rotunno displayed a timeline of Haley’s interactions with Weinstein before the jury to highlight how she met up with him again and had a non-forcible, consensual sexual encounter; reached out to Weinstein for tickets to movie premieres; and requested a meeting with him to pitch a TV show.Rotunno then attacked Haley’s credibility and character by describing her as a “flirtatious person” who was aware of Weinstein’s intentions and referred back to a statement Haley made during her testimony about being concerned Weinstein “didn’t like [her] as much” after she rejected his offer to go to Paris with him.Also Read: Weinstein Lawyer Donna Rotunno Sparks Outrage by Saying She's Never Put Herself in a 'Position' to Be Assaulted“Why would she care? Why would she care if she thought he liked her less?” Rotunno said. “She cared because they had more of a relationship than she wants you to believe. She cared because they had a flirtatious relationship. She cared because she was using him for jobs. But she can’t tell you that because then the rest of her actions don’t make sense.”Rotunno’s comments about Mann will be delivered after court reconvenes from a short break.The prosecution will be the last to makes its closing argument, with Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi giving her summation before the jury on Friday morning.Jury selection begins next Tuesday, following the Presidents Day holiday. Weinstein faces five felony counts — two charges for predatory sexual assault, and one charge each for a first-degree criminal sexual act and first- and third-degree rape. He has pleaded not guilty and denied accusations of nonconsensual sex.Read original story In Closing Argument, Weinstein’s Attorney Says Prosecution’s Case ‘Strips Women of Common Sense, Autonomy’ At TheWrap
Natalie Portman responded Wednesday to a lengthy attack from Rose McGowan, acknowledging the criticism had some merit but also pushing back in some ways.“I agree with Ms. McGowan that it is inaccurate to call me ‘brave’ for wearing a garment with women’s names on it,” Portman said in a statement provided to TheWrap. “Brave is a term I more strongly associate with actions like those of the women who have been testifying against Harvey Weinstein the last few weeks, under incredible pressure.”McGowan went after Portman in a scathing Facebook post on Tuesday, just two days after Portman appeared at the Oscars with the names of overlooked female directors embroidered into her Dior cape.Also Read: Rose McGowan Dismisses Natalie Portman's Oscars Outfit Honoring Female Directors As 'Deeply Offensive'“The kind of protest that gets rave reviews from the mainstream media for its bravery. Brave? No, not by a long shot. More like an actress acting the part of someone who cares. As so many of them do,” wrote McGowan, who has spent much of her time in the last few years speaking out against disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein as he faces criminal charges for sexual assault and other felony counts.In her response, Portman also reacted to McGowan’s statements about her production company and the fact that Portman is the only female director credited on any of its eight films.“It is true I’ve only made a few films with women. In my long career, I’ve only gotten the chance to work with female directors a few times – I’ve made shorts, commercials, music videos and features with Marya Cohen, Mira Nair, Rebecca Zlotowski, Anna Rose Holmer, Sofia Coppola, Shirin Neshat and myself,” she said. “Unfortunately, the unmade films I have tried to make are a ghost history.”Also Read: Oscars 2020: Natalie Portman Wears Cape Embroidered With Names of Female Directors Not Nominated (Video)She concluded, “So I want to say, I have tried, and I will keep trying. While I have not yet been successful, I am hopeful that we are stepping into a new day.”Read original story Natalie Portman Responds to Rose McGowan Diss: ‘I Agree’ I’m Not ‘Brave’ At TheWrap
Rose McGowan went after fellow actress Natalie Portman in a scathing Facebook post on Tuesday, just two days after Portman appeared at the Oscars with the names of overlooked female directors embroidered into her Dior cape.“The kind of protest that gets rave reviews from the mainstream media for its bravery. Brave? No, not by a long shot. More like an actress acting the part of someone who cares. As so many of them do,” wrote McGowan, who has spent much of her time in the last few years speaking out against disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein as he faces criminal charges for sexual assault and other felony counts.“I find Portman’s type of activism deeply offensive to those of us who actually do the work. I’m not writing this out of bitterness, I am writing out of disgust,” she went on. “I just want her and other actresses to walk the walk.”Also Read: Rose McGowan Says Harvey Weinstein Doesn't Understand the Seriousness of His Accused Actions 'At All'She also tore into Portman’s history within her own production company, Handsomecharlie Films: “Natalie, you have worked with two female directors in your very long career — one of them was you. You have a production company that has hired exactly one female director — you.” (Editor’s note: Portman worked with director Mira Nair in 2008’s “New York, I Love You.”)A review of the company’s films proves that to be true. Portman has directed two of the company’s eight movies. The other six were directed by men.“I was at a Women in Film event that you spoke at once, Natalie. You reeled off depressing statistics and then we all went back to our salads. I quickly realized you and the other women speakers (and that joke of an organization) are just… frauds. You say nothing, you do nothing,” McGowan wrote.Also Read: Oscars 2020: Natalie Portman Wears Cape Embroidered With Names of Female Directors Not Nominated (Video)A representative for Women in Film — one of the longest-running organizations fighting for parity in the industry — did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Representatives for Portman also did not immediately return a request for comment.During Sunday’s pre-Oscars red carpet event, Los Angeles Times journalist Amy Kaufman tweeted a video showing that Portman’s custom outfit bore the names of Lulu Wang, Greta Gerwig, Lorene Scafaria, Marielle Heller, Alma Har’el and Mari Diop, and others. All of them are female directors who were not nominated for an award at the ceremony this year.You can watch Portman explain her fashion — and political — statement below:Natalie Portman embroidered her Dior cape with all of the female directors who weren't nominated for Oscars. Check out her explanation here. pic.twitter.com/kyyo2wVMZf— Amy Kaufman (@AmyKinLA) February 10, 2020Read original story Rose McGowan Dismisses Natalie Portman’s Oscars Outfit Honoring Female Directors As ‘Deeply Offensive’ At TheWrap
Talita Maia, a former roommate and friend of Jessica Mann — one of the main accusers in Harvey Weinstein’s criminal trial — said that Mann often spoke fondly of Weinstein and could not recall her being upset after incidents in which Mann has alleged Weinstein sexually assaulted her.Mann, who testified over the course of three days earlier this month, said that Maia — also an aspiring actress at the time — was often around her during her early interactions with Weinstein. During an encounter with Weinstein in a Los Angeles hotel, Mann said that she and Maia were asked by Weinstein to go up to his room to receive scripts for a movie he thought they would be good for the lead roles. It was there that Mann alleges Weinstein told Maia to wait out in the hotel suite’s living area, pulled Mann into a bedroom, and performed oral sex on her without her consent.Maia, who was testifying for the defense on Monday morning, said it was an “awkward” situation to be asked to go up to Weinstein’s hotel room and said Mann did not seem upset afterward as they were leaving.Also Read: Aspiring Actress Testifies 'Deformed'-Looking Harvey Weinstein Raped Her After Using Penile InjectionIn New York at the DoubleTree hotel, Mann testified that she, Maia and an agent friend of Mann’s were supposed to meet with Weinstein for a breakfast in March of 2013. Mann testified that Weinstein arrived early to the hotel and checked in, causing the two to have an argument that eventually led to Weinstein violently raping her.When asked about seeing Mann after the alleged incident, Maia said she also didn’t think Mann seemed upset when she came down for the breakfast.Weinstein’s attorney Donna Rotunno also asked Maia if Mann had ever said anything about Weinstein hurting her in any way.“No,” Maia responded.During the prosecution’s cross-examination, Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi asked Maia about her eventual falling out with Mann.“Jessica did things in my life that impacted my life in a very negative way, in a terrible way, [but] I don’t hate her or anything like that,” Maia said.Later, Illuzzi asked Maia how Mann often spoke of Weinstein.“She said a few times that he was like her spiritual soulmate,” Maia responded.Read original story Harvey Weinstein Accuser Called Him Her ‘Spiritual Soulmate,’ Former Roommate Testifies At TheWrap
In a podcast interview released Friday morning, Harvey Weinstein’s criminal defense lawyer Donna Rotunno said she has never “put” herself in the “position” to be sexually assaulted.Listeners to the New York Times’ “The Daily” used Twitter to respond, tweeting “NO ONE puts themself in that position,” and noting they audibly gasped at her comments.“Finding it physically difficult to listen to Donna Rotunno on today’s episode of TheDaily – so much victim blaming and anti-women rhetoric. What do we expect from a woman who makes money off protecting male predators? How does she sleep at night?” vented one user.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Accuser Says Her Friendly Emails 'Doesn't Change the Fact That He Raped Me'“Trying to come up with words to describe the way this interview turned my stomach. Donna Rotunno truly, truly blew my mind. Every word out of her mouth convinced me more and more that she understands nothing of what sexual assault is, as both an attorney and a woman,” wrote another.Rotunno was interviewed by New York Times reporter Megan Twohey, one of the journalists who initially broke the Weinstein story.Also Read: Audience Members Trash Bob Woodward's Moderation of MeToo Talk: 'Aggressive and Uninformed'“I’ve always made choices, from college age on, where I never drank too much, I never went home with someone that I didn’t know,” Rotunno told Twohey. “I just never put myself in any vulnerable circumstance. Ever.”She said, “All I’m saying is that women should take precautions.”Weinstein’s criminal trial in New York County’s Supreme Court began in early January — over two years after the New York Times and The New Yorker first broke stories about the disgraced movie mogul’s behavior toward women.Weinstein, who pleaded not guilty at his first indictment in August, faces five felony counts: two counts of predatory sexual assault, one count of first-degree criminal sexual assault, one count of first-degree rape and one count of third-degree rape. The charges stem from accusations by Mimi Haleyi and a still-unnamed woman for encounters they say occurred in 2006 and and 2013.Read original story Weinstein Lawyer Donna Rotunno Sparks Outrage by Saying She’s Never Put Herself in a ‘Position’ to Be Assaulted At TheWrap
More than a year after the New York district attorney’s office arrested and charged Harvey Weinstein for sex crimes, lawyers for the defense and prosecution appeared in court on Wednesday to paint their own picture of Harvey Weinstein.Wednesday’s proceedings marked the beginning of what has been — and will likely continue to be — a contentious trial lasting several months. After the jury of 12 people and three alternates was sworn in, the prosecution launched into detailed retellings of how Annabella Sciorra, Mimi Haleyi, Jessica Mann, Dawn Dunning, Tarale Wulff, and Lauren Young — the six women expected to testify in the trial — say Weinstein assaulted them. While the prosecution’s charges hinge on the accounts of Haleyi and Mann (who was previously unnamed before Wednesday’s proceedings) the testimonies from the other four women could help the state make the case that Weinstein was a predator.“During this trial, you are going to learn that the defendant is a savvy New York City businessman, that he was a famous and powerful Hollywood producer, living a lavish lifestyle that most of us will never know and will come to learn, most of us will not want to know,” Assistant District Attorney Meghan Hast said. “But the evidence both from the witness stand and from exhibits admitted during the trial will also show that that man was a sexual predator and a rapist.”Also Read: Actress Jessica Mann Named as Second Witness in Harvey Weinstein TrialAs Hast began sharing graphic details of the alleged assaults, she projected photographs onto a large TV screen in the courtroom of Weinstein in his heyday, standing before hundreds of reporters on a red carpet and posing with former President Bill Clinton, contrasted with photos of the women who will be testifying in the coming weeks. Included in Hast’s retellings were details about violent behavior and a pervasive sense of fear that the women felt.“Ladies and gentlemen, ultimately this trial is about the defendant’s desire for conquest. And it is for his complete lack of empathy that he must be held accountable,” Hast said near the end of her opening.But roughly two hours later, when Weinstein’s attorney Damon Cheronis stood to give his side’s opening, Cheronis quickly criticized the prosecution for calling his client a “predator” and “rapist.”“What we just heard from Ms. Hast was truly a narrative that was spun to explain things that are inexplicable,” he said. “Everything that Ms. Hast just told you is not evidence. None of it. She wasn’t there, she doesn’t know. She’s relying on what [the women] told her.”Also Read: Lance Maerov, Former Weinstein Co. Board Member, Called as First Witness in Harvey Weinstein TrialCheronis then began to retell the accounts of the women from a different angle, one which depicted Weinstein as a man having consensual relationships with his accusers and not a “master manipulator.”To do so, Cheronis also used a PowerPoint and quoted from seemingly friendly emails sent by some of the witnesses against Weinstein, suggesting that the messages indicated the encounters did not amount to sexual assault. He also brought up the timelines of each woman’s account and questioned the sequence of events that occurred after the alleged assaults, including instances where the witnesses reached out to Weinstein for further contact.“At some point during the course of this trial,” Cheronis said to the jury, “you’re going to say, ‘Oh my God, Harvey Weinstein is innocent.'”A black-suited Weinstein entered the packed courtroom around 9:17 a.m. ET without the aid of a walker. He was propped up by his publicist and headed straight for the defense’s table in the front of the courtroom. Observing his movements were over 70 members of the press and rows of attorneys, including Gloria Allred and Douglas Wigdor, who are representing some of the witnesses in the case, and Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance.Also Read: Actress and Activist Jessica Barth Urges 'Kindness in the Press' for Harvey Weinstein Trial WitnessesBut when the jury entered, the filled courtroom quieted down, marking the start of a day of proceedings that would be a confluence of spectacle and solemnity.Weinstein faces five felony counts for predatory sexual assault and first- and third-degree rape; if found guilty of the former charge, he faces a life sentence. He has pleaded not guilty.Read original story In Opening Statements, Attorneys Tell a Tale of Two Harvey Weinsteins At TheWrap
The 'Richard Jewell' star and Oscar-winner said 'times were different' before the #MeToo movement took hold in Hollywood.
I will now also always remember the exact, sinking instant I realized I could possibly wind up deciding Weinstein’s fate, as a trial juror.
The judge overseeing the criminal trial of Harvey Weinstein on Monday ruled that an NYPD detective who was removed from the police investigation cannot be called to testify.While Justice James Burke rejected Weinstein’s defense attorneys’ request to have Detective Nicholas DiGaudio take the stand, he said that other witnesses could testify about the cop.DiGaudio was removed from the NYPD investigation into Weinstein in 2018 after he breached protocol by instructing a witness to delete information from her phone and failing to inform prosecutors of evidence that would have been beneficial to the defense — specifically that she had told a friend she had agreed to perform a sex act on Weinstein after he promised her acting jobs.“This is not to say the defense cannot vigorously crossexamine witnesses about their interactions with the detective,” Burke added.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Trial Judge Tells Defense to 'Leave the Witnesses Alone' in Public StatementsThe unnamed female witness ultimately did not delete anything from her device, according to a letter from Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzi-Orbon, the lead prosecutor on the case. But DiGaudio’s interactions with Lucia Evans, an actress who accused Weinstein of forcing her to perform oral sex on him, added further scrutiny to his conduct on the investigation.Evans has denied that she consented to the sex act with Weinstein, and DiGaudio denied withholding exculpatory information about the case, but he was ultimately removed from the case and the prosecution dropped one criminal charge based on Evans’ accusations.Weinstein, who has pleaded not guilty, faces five felony counts from predatory sexual assault and rape. If convicted, he could face a life sentence in prison. The trial continues on Tuesday with the prescreening portion of jury selection.Read original story Harvey Weinstein Trial Judge Rules NYPD Detective Cannot Be Called to Testify At TheWrap
Rose McGowan said that Harvey Weinstein doesn’t grasp the seriousness of the accusations against him “at all,” on the first morning of his criminal trial on charges of rape and sexual assault.The actress appeared alongside other “silence breakers” Rosanna Arquette, Louise Godbold, Dominique Huett, Sarah Ann Masse, Lauren Sivan and Paula Williams on Monday to address the press before the trial began. They said in a release they were “representing the more than 90 women who bravely came forward to report Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct.”“Do you think he truly realizes what he’s done?” asked someone in attendance. “Not at all,” McGowan responded as Sivan said said, “no.”Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Trial: Here Are the Key Players“He doesn’t realize what he’s done at all and I don’t think he ever will,” McGowan continued. “He has something sick in his head like many serial rapists.”Weinstein has denied the charges against him. He faces two counts of predatory sexual assault, one count of first-degree criminal sexual assault, one count of first-degree rape, and one count of third-degree rape. He pleaded not guilty to his indictment in August.Arquette, responding to a question about those in Hollywood who might be hoping for a post-trial comeback from the producer, said “Unfortunately, there are so many people who feel sorry for the rapist, especially in Hollywood.”Read original story Rose McGowan Says Harvey Weinstein Doesn’t Understand the Seriousness of His Accused Actions ‘At All’ At TheWrap
Terry Gilliam’s mind is on the MeToo movement, his self-identification as a “melanin-light male”… and says he has had enough of white males “being blamed for everything that is wrong with the world.”“We’re living in a time where there’s always somebody responsible for your failures, and I don’t like this,” Gilliam said of the MeToo movement in a Saturday interview with The Independent. “I want people to take responsibility and not just constantly point a finger at somebody else, saying, ‘You’ve ruined my life.'”The director went on to suggest that Harvey Weinstein’s accusers were to blame for the “choices” they made.Also Read: Terry Gilliam Lets Loose on 'Don Quixote,' Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Marvel and More“There are many victims in Harvey’s life,” Gilliam said, “and I feel sympathy for them, but then, Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices. We all make choices, and I could tell you who did make the choice and who didn’t. I hate Harvey. I had to work with him and I know the abuse.”He continued: “I can tell you about a very well-known actress coming up to me and saying, ‘What do I have to do to get in your film, Terry?’ I don’t understand why people behave as if this hasn’t been going on as long as there’ve been powerful people. I understand that men have had more power longer, but I’m tired, as a white male, of being blamed for everything that is wrong with the world. I didn’t do it!”During the 2018 Karlovy Vary International Film Festival, the former Monty Python member said he tells “the world now I’m a black lesbian” in response to calls to diversify the field of comedy.Also Read: Terry Gilliam Trashes 'Black Panther': 'It's Utter Bulls--'“I don’t like the term black or white. I’m now referring to myself as a melanin-light male. I can’t stand the simplistic, tribalistic behaviour that we’re going through at the moment,” he told The Independent, referring to his older comments.“I’m talking about being a man accused of all the wrong in the world because I’m white-skinned. So I better not be a man. I better not be white. OK, since I don’t find men sexually attractive, I’ve got to be a lesbian. What else can I be? I like girls. These are just logical steps.”Gilliam’s latest film, “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote,” will roll out in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin and other top markets starting April 19. The film will also be released on all major VOD platforms on the 19th, as well, and will continue to expand theatrically throughout the spring and beyond.Read original story Terry Gilliam: I’m ‘Tired’ of White Men Being ‘Blamed for Everything That is Wrong’ in the World At TheWrap
This Monday, jury selection will begin in the criminal trial of Harvey Weinstein. Throughout his career, Weinstein abused, manipulated, bullied and sexually assaulted hundreds of women. I am one of the many that he has harmed. His criminal acts reflect an industry that condones toxic and dangerous work environments for females who are expected to keep quiet on the set. But the film industry is not singular in its abusive ways toward women.In this MeToo era, it is still the norm for women not to be believed. As we watch the Weinstein trial in real time — and his lawyers collect hefty sums to dismiss the truth and discredit the brave survivors who will take the witness stand — now, more than ever, we must support these women to see that justice is served. Make no mistake that this landmark case will affect the number of assaults and rapes that are reported and prosecuted. If we see that money and power can buy a get out of jail card, it sends a strong message to women that their truth will be always be challenged.The same is true for the life force responsible for the water we drink and the air we breathe, Mother Nature. Like the countless survivors who are subjected to scrutiny and blame for crimes that take place inside their bodies, our earth is being violently assaulted. Her roots have been torn out of the soil; her sorrow is flooding our land. We see her anger burn like wildfire. We feel her trauma in the sinking earth and we do nothing to help her.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein's Criminal Trial Starts Monday - Here's What to ExpectThe parallels between the climate change crisis and rape are as clear as a blue sky. As a longtime activist for both issues, my hope is that the only time we are looking backward is to learn from our mistakes. When we say times up, we are pointedly speaking to both the abusers and the proactive climate-change denial by the Trump administration. Both are national emergencies that are largely ignored by our representatives.It took a choir of women’s voices, centuries of abuse and bloodshed for the pendulum to swing in the other direction on abusive behavior against women. When women in film like me and many others — the silence breakers — banded together in solidarity against the gross misuse of power in our industry, the time was finally “right” for people to wake up and take notice. We, along with male allies like Ronan Farrow, were able to amplify Tarana Burke’s MeToo battle cry into a movement and demand that predators be held accountable for their actions.The silence breakers who exposed themselves in going public with their experiences were not only hoping to create change for women in Hollywood but in our culture at large. While film is a visual medium, a character is only as good as his or her voice. It is dialogue that tells the story.Also Read: LA District Attorney Is Reviewing 8 Accusations of Sexual Misconduct Against Harvey WeinsteinMother Earth needs our help too. Every human life is dependent on protecting our planet. We breathe her air, drink her water and bask in her sunlight. Yet, we have violated and abused her. We have ignored her cries for help.Women are innately connected to the earth’s ability to grow and give life. Mother Earth is MeToo. We have shared trauma that needs nurturing and healing. It is our responsibility to help her by adopting natural climate solutions and a planetary health diet, leave fossil fuels in the ground and restrict emissions.These two movements are intrinsically intertwined. They both require us, as a society, to find common ground, to respect one another and the earth we dwell upon. To look at what we can do right now to support both causes. To create and speak a language that we all can acknowledge and understand, one of hope, peace and change.As we begin not only a new year but a new decade, women are reclaiming their freedoms by seeking a better, safer and kinder world to live in. I want more for myself, for other women, for my daughter. We deserve to walk this earth without trepidation of being verbally, physically or sexually attacked on a daily basis.Also Read: Melania Trump Downplays Husband's Greta Thunberg Diss: Barron 'Is Not an Activist Who Travels the Globe'If you don’t know where to begin, look no further than the many fearless heroines leading the charge. If 16-year-old Greta Thunberg can see the error of our ways and dedicate her young life to raising awareness and demanding transparency and change, we can too. If Jane Fonda can band together environmentalists and supporters to protest with her FireDrillFridays, we can too. If the simple but profound phrase MeToo answered the cries of millions of people who had been sexually assaulted, we can muster the same kind of advocacy to combat climate change.There will always be people who seek to destroy rather than protect our earth and the people who inhabit it. With all change, there are growing pains but as a collective community, we rise above the discomfort and discrimination with steadfast determination and heart. We dig our heels into the soil to preserve and nurture it and the women who have been harmed. We will be louder and stronger than animosity and ignorance and step into our organic roles as organic warriors, the way Mother Nature intended us to.Read original story Rosanna Arquette: How the MeToo and Climate Change Movements Are ‘Intertwined’ (Guest Blog) At TheWrap
“Welcome to my velvet prison,” Terry Gilliam said as he walked into the restaurant at the Four Seasons hotel in Beverly Hills. Casual in what appeared to be a robe of some sort, the filmmaker, animator and Monty Python member was in Los Angeles for a few days, ostensibly to whip up some awards attention for “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote,” the freewheeling riff on Cervantes that had been almost three decades in the making before he finally made it with Adam Driver and Jonathan Pryce.But at the age of 79, Gilliam isn’t the kind of guy to stick to one subject – not when it’s the 50th anniversary of Python, not when he has a history of misadventures on screen and off with the likes of “Brazil,” “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen,” “The Fisher King,” “The Imaginariuym of Doctor Parnassus” and others, and not when there’s Brexit, Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, Netflix, Harvey Weinstein and the rise of the comedy police to talk about.So what brings you to Los Angeles? I don’t know. It’s a strange moment. My daughter, Amy, was one of the producers of “Quixote,” and she said, “This is crazy. It’s awards season, and we don’t exist.” Everybody’s talking about the 10 million Adam Driver films that have come out, and “Quixote” doesn’t exist because we had probably the worst distribution I’ve ever experienced in my life.So Amy talked to our fairy godmother, the lady who made the film possible — she’d come in at the last moment and given us the money we couldn’t get for years. And she said, “Let’s get Terry out here and do some things and get some press.”I don’t know what it means, because we’re not going to be nominated for anything. But we do actually have the Academy streaming the film, which is good. It’s slightly odd, but I just didn’t want the film to just disappear because it’s a really good film. And I think it’s Adam’s best performance this year, personally.Also Read: 'The Man Who Killed Don Quixote' Film Review: Terry Gilliam Finally Delivers Messy FunIn a way, I suppose it’s only fitting that even after you finished the damn thing, it’s still a struggle. It’s a perfect “Quixote” story. “Quixote” is always about the nightmare of thinking you’ve achieved something, and then bang, you’re down on the floor again.When you got to the end of it, was there a feeling of, “Oh s—, I finished this. What now?” Not really. (Pause) Well, there is the “What now?” question. Because I don’t have a f—ing clue what now. When you finish a film there’s always this postnatal depression that goes on for me [for] six months, but always there was “Quixote” waiting in the wings, saying, “Come on, come back and see if we can make this thing.” And now I don’t have anything.I’m playing with a few things, but I just don’t know. It’s the first time in my life I felt this. Maybe I have burned myself out. I’m reading like mad trying to get something that kicks me into belief again. Maybe the problem is getting old. You get weary. My life and my filmmaking has been about fights, and now there’s nobody attacking me. (Laughs)We’ll see what’s going. I’m working with Richard LaGravenese on an old script that we had years ago, trying to see if we can update it and make it work. We thought, well, maybe we can extend this and make a six-part TV series. Because the money is sitting there at Netflix and all the other streamers. But when you see Marty (Scorsese) doing what he does, the Coen brothers doing it, I’m not sure if Netflix is going to have any money left by the time I get there.Also Read: Terry Gilliam Feels a 'Huge Emptiness' Waiting for Him Now That 'Don Quixote' Is Finally FinishedSo that’s the likely course rather than theatrical? Independent distribution is really f—ed. They don’t have any money anymore. And how do you compete with “Avengers” and things like that? It’s only at this time of year when you get a sense that there are independent films out there, because they’re spending all their money for the awards.There must have been a point in your career when Hollywood would have given you “Avengers”-style movies. When I was younger, I would’ve loved to have done that kind of work. But not now. There’s so many good technical directors out there. I don’t know their names – nobody knows their names – but boy, they can do the job. And even fairly recently, somebody was talking to me about one of the big things. But I just don’t want to work on that kind of movie, because they’re basically factory systems. And why?The one person I admire at the moment is Taika Waititi. A couple of years ago at Christmas, my son put on “Thor: Ragnarok.” I said, “I don’t want to see this stuff,” but it was really funny. And I think “Jojo Rabbit” is wonderful, just fantastic.He’s facing questions like, “Should you really joke about Nazis today?” Exactly. You can’t joke about anything these days. You might cause offense, and offense is a crime against humanity and must be stopped. You might make somebody think, and that’s really dangerous.That’s why “Jojo Rabbit” is such a brilliant film, because he deals with Nazis and his touch is perfect. I never laughed as hard as I did in “Jojo Rabbit,” with the German version of “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” But his balance was so beautiful and the story is wonderful.I don’t know where we are these days. The problem is that our politicians in America and now Britain are so beyond satire. They’re the joke, but it’s not laughable. Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are the clowns, but they’re not funny. They’re the other side of clowning, the dark side.Also Read: Taika Waititi Says He Didn't Even Try to Pitch Studios on His WWII Comedy 'Jojo Rabbit'You left the United States, where you were born and raised, to go to Britain in the 1960s? ’67. I was fed up with America. I was angry because there was a war going on and the civil rights movement was in full flow and friends were getting seriously hurt. When you’re raised here, you begin to believe that America stands for truth, justice and all of those things. And it was a moment of looking around saying, “This is not the place I thought it was. I want out because I am angry, and when I’m angry I’m not much fun to be around.”Did it make you less angry to be over there? Yeah. I suppose that I realized for all the faults in the country, they weren’t my fault, because I wasn’t born there. Getting to England just took the weight off my shoulders, and I loved the culture there.I went there because I believed in what I thought the country stood for — a liberal attitude, an intelligent, liberal, embrace of everybody. And it’s now become bitter, racist, hating immigrants. It’s horrible. They’ve become as ideologically confused as Americans, and the big lie seems to work. We’re out of Europe. It is a f—ing little island that doesn’t make anything anymore, and I don’t know how it’s going to survive.When you’re thinking about what to do next, are you thinking about projects that would reflect what you see in the world? Yeah. But the problem is that it’s so hard to work out how you satirize this stuff, because it is already satirical in the worst possible way. I mean, everything I’ve done to me is relating to the world we live in in some way. And I’m finding it so hard at the moment to find a way of doing it that’s still funny. I’m just not laughing anymore.When they did the 40th anniversary re-release of “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” early this year, it could not have been much timelier. It’s totally prescient, that film. It’s prescient and it’s funny and it’s honest. But a year or so ago, the new head of comedy at the BBC made this big public statement that Monty Python would never be commissioned now, because it was six white guys. ‘Cause they’re into diversity now, not comedy. Well, I was diverse. I was an American, I wasn’t British. Graham Chapman was gay. So we were pretty diverse. Some studied English history, others weren’t into law. What more do you want? (Laughs)When I was promoting “Quixote,” I was asked my feelings about that in a press conference in Germany. And I said, “Well, as a white male, I’m really tired of being blamed for all the wrongs on the planet. From now on, I want you to call me Loretta. I’m a black lesbian in transition.”I got a laugh, of course. But the British liberal press has tried to be so much like the Hollywood press, and Hollywood is just crazed now. It’s like a little village where at any moment there’s only one way to think about things. And so I was pilloried for causing harm to people by what I said. Harm. They don’t even know what the word harm means anymore. I ruffled somebody’s feathers? That’s harm?And “I want you to call me Loretta” is, after all, a quote that Eric Idle’s character says in a scene from “Life of Brian” that’s all about the rise of extreme political correctness. The common good is not important anymore. It’s “me” and “I feel” and “you must never say anything critical of me or my behavior,” because that’s offending.I sound like some old right winger, I know. After I made that statement in Germany, I did an interview with a really good journalist who said, “Many of the things you say sound very similar to what the neo-Nazis say.” I’m 180 degrees the opposite of them. And I said, “Whatever you write, please write this: When we can’t distinguish between humor and hatred, we are f—ed.”Python must have gotten plenty of people saying, “Oh, you shouldn’t joke about that.” No, we didn’t. I did an interview for the 50th anniversary, and Python used to always refer to “fat, ignorant bastards.” And they were worried about the offense we were causing by saying that. I said, “They were fat, ignorant bastards – that wasn’t offensive, it was just a statement of fact.” (Laughs)You can’t be critical. You can’t say anything that’s humorous, critical, questioning, because somebody will be offended. I got an award once for an opera, and I talked about the fact that I didn’t want the lead singer to be just some 50-year-old fat woman. And there was so much shock over me saying fat woman that I had to backtrack and explain what I really meant: There are fat women who sing, and if they’re supposed to be playing a 16-year-old Juliet, give me a break.So basically, you’ve been saying things that get you into trouble for years. Right. I think the problem of being of an advanced age is just you get dismissed as an old fart who doesn’t know the world. I know what’s going on and, but I do a lot of complaining because I can get away with it. I don’t give a s— what you think, which is not particularly helpful.So when you started the TV show in ’69 did you guys have any sense that what you were doing was significant? We were just doing what we want to do and getting away with it. Nothing more. We were just delighted that we had the opportunity to do what we wanted to do, and we had the BBC as an outlet. There were only three channels then, right? So everybody saw what you did. We went on on Sunday night, and on Monday morning everybody at work was around the water cooler talking about it. That doesn’t exist anymore because there’s so many choices.We just thought about each show as the end, to make it as funny as we could. We argued amongst ourselves, but the good thing about the group was there was a mutual respect in the work. Individually, we’d get in huge fights about each other, but we all felt that the work was the key thing. And when I look back, it’s incredibly rare to have your own television show where there’s no producer, no executives saying, “This is what you need to do. This is the audience we want you to go for it.”That’s why I do find it funny that we are 50 years on and we’re legendary now. (Laughs) We’re national treasures, whatever that means. Because I certainly don’t feel like that. I take the tube, Mike Palin takes the tube. And occasionally, maybe a couple of times a week, someone says, “Nice, Terry.”Coming to Hollywood, the pressure is to be a real star. It’s a killer. I’ve got friends, two who committed suicide here, and on every level they were successful here. But there was always more success they hadn’t attained, and that’s the pressure of it. Which I think is terrible.Did you ever feel yourself falling into that? Yeah, yeah. That’s why I don’t like LA. I stay away from it. I know it’s contagious. (Laughs) Coming here for a couple of days, that’s it.It was one of those weird things, having grown up out here, in the Valley, and wanting to be in film somehow. It seemed so distant. Physically it wasn’t distant, but then to go to England and finally come back to Hollywood and make movies in Hollywood was always odd and interesting and quite wonderful.I think that separation is really important. I talk to friends out here, and their limited view bothers me. It’s all about how you get something through this particular system. And now I think it’s really hard if you’re a talented to survive out here and to still continue to do really good work other than just producing products.I also think it’s hard now because you make a film and you want feedback. And feedback is also the number of people that are watching it and how it plays in a cinema. You don’t get that on Netflix. You don’t know who, what, anything.And yet they gave Martin Scorsese the money to make “The Irishman” when no studio would. Exactly. Exactly. But the question is, what is the ultimate effect of the movie now? We don’t know. At least with films, you know how many people went, you can see them so you’re getting feedback so you know if you’re communicating. And maybe at a certain point and a certain age, like me and Marty, we don’t care if we’re communicating any more – we just want to do the things we’ve wanted to do for years. We want to say we’re getting away with it.Do you find it appealing to think about the longer form you could use if you did go with Netflix? Well, that’s one of the things that Richard LeGravenese and I have been doing. We did a breakdown for a six-part series which looked like it could work, but I’m not convinced. What I tend to do with my repetitive nature is dance between reality and imagination. In a two-hour, two-hour-plus film, you’ve got the audience trapped, so you play that game in route. If you’re doing it on TV, I’m not sure it works the same way. When you get to the end of an episode, do you leave it in reality or do you leave it in the imaginative stage? And then you come back and pick it up from there? But it may be the only way that it will ever get done is if we do it for Netflix.But you don’t have a timeline for when you’re liable to do your next thing? No. I don’t know. I’m reading like mad waiting for the muse to come back. I think the problem is that I know how long it takes to get a film set up, and I’m kind of worn out. What I really would like if somebody who’s got a good script and they’ve got the funding and they’re looking for a director. Hi!I mean, in a sense that that’s what happened after “Munchhausen.” That was just a nightmare, and along came the script for “The Fisher King.” I didn’t write it, I didn’t care, it’s a great script. All we need to do is get Robin Williams, and I can get Robin. And we were off. It was the same thing with “The Brothers Grimm,” which was my experience with the Weinstein bothers. That was like, you just wanted to give up. But we did “Tideland,” which was low budget and fast.So I think that’s what I’m feeling. I will work on various things. I’m doing a musical for the theater. I had a period when I did two operas. These are the things that come along — they’re ready to go and I jump in because I’ve got to work. I know all the film ideas I’ve got are not going to be easy to finance, and I’m impatient. My theory is I’m going to die very soon, and I’d like to knock off one or two more.Your problems with the Weinsteins were over their tendency to interfere in the filmmaking? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wanting to be directors. And they’re not. If you want to be a director, direct a movie. But they can’t. They’ve got to get their fingerprints all over the thing, so they can claim they did. They fired my DP and forced another DP on me. At a certain point the fun and the joy of filmmaking was destroyed.In their earlier stages, they were very good at picking up really good films and then saying to the filmmakers, “Your film is very good. It could be great, if … ” They would then get the filmmakers to compromise and do what they thought would make the film more popular and more successful. And then the films would fail, so they destroyed these young filmmakers. Really destroyed them. Once you’ve been through that experience, you’ve lost all confidence in yourself. And I know several who just gave up.The problem is, they’re smart, Harvey in particular. But in “Brothers Grimm,” Robin Williams was originally going to play the part that Peter Stormare played. They wouldn’t do a deal with Robin because they thought Robin had betrayed them on “Good Will Hunting.” Robin was the reason the film got made, and when the film looked like it might be worked for some awards, they wanted Robin to give up his back end to give them the money to campaign. And Robin said, “Why?” and he didn’t. So they refused to let me have Robin.I wanted Samantha Morton for the part that Lena Headey played. Samantha was perfect for the part, but Harvey would not do it. He said, “She’s brilliant, she’s going to win the Academy Award one day, but she’s not going to be in your film.” I talked to her and said, “What was your crime that they are behaving like this?” And the only thing she could think of was that when they were in Cannes promoting something, there was a lunch, and Harvey said, “Come to lunch. important people. I want you to wear a very short skirt.” And she came down in slacks. That was her crime. I think that was the only thing she could think of. He wanted her to look sexy and she said no.And eventually his karma caught up with him, and he’s in a real karma crash.Well, I think I’ve got plenty to work with… Enough to destroy my career? (Laughs) Thank you.Actually, you asked why I was here. I’m actually here to say things that get me into trouble when you print them.Read original story Terry Gilliam Lets Loose on ‘Don Quixote,’ Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Marvel and More At TheWrap
Ahead of Harvey Weinstein’s January trial in New York City, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing eight accusations of sexual misconduct against the disgraced producer.Details about the accusations are not public at this time, but Variety reported Tuesday that two of the accusations are recent, filed in just the last few months. Under review are four cases from the Los Angeles Police Department, and four other cases from Beverly Hills police. The Los Angeles D.A. has not yet decided if charges will be filed on any of these cases, according to Variety.Most of the accusations have been under review since early 2018 — two of the Beverly Hills cases were submitted in January 2018, followed by a third in June of that year. Three of the LAPD cases were submitted in February 2018.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein Gripes That Sex Crime Charges 'Eviscerated' His Record on Women's IssuesThe accusations are being reviewed as part of a task force investigation established by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, USA Today reported.Representatives for Weinstein did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheWrap. Representatives for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The accusations under review in L.A. are among dozens against Weinstein, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Earlier this month, Kaja Sokola, a Polish model who has accused Weinstein of sexually assaulting her when she was 16 years old, sued him, his brother Bob, Disney and Miramax under New York’s Child Victims Act.Sokola was originally part of a class-action lawsuit against Weinstein under a pseudonym and would have been a part of the $25 million settlement that has tentatively been reached between Weinstein and his accusers in early December. But by coming forward and filing her own suit, Sokola has indicated that she could not agree with the terms of the settlement and, thus, will not be participating in it.Also Read: Time's Up Denounces Settlement With Harvey Weinstein Survivors: 'A Broken System'Also in early December, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office raised Weinstein’s bail from $1 million to up to $5 million, after accusations surfaced that Weinstein may have tampered with his electronic ankle bracelet tracking monitor, according to a report in the Associated Press. Weinstein was given three options to cover a new bail of up to $5 million and was warned he could face jail time over any other issues. Through a bail bondsman, he agreed to meet the bail obligations by submitting $2 million in cash, and other assets.Weinstein’s New York trial on multiple charges of sexual assault and rape is scheduled to begin Jan. 6. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to the charges he faces, including that he raped a woman in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and that he performed a forcible sex act on a different woman in 2006. He maintains that any sexual activity was consensual.Read original story LA District Attorney Is Reviewing 8 Accusations of Sexual Misconduct Against Harvey Weinstein At TheWrap
"It all got eviscerated because of what happened," the accused rapist and former movie mogul complained in a new interview.
Emily Ratajkowski very publicly shared her thoughts about the disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein reaching a reported $25 million (£19 million) settlement with accusers.
Under the alleged settlement terms, Harvey Weinstein won't admit to any wrongdoing or pay anything to his accusers himself.
Harvey Weinstein and the board of the bankrupt Weinstein Company have reached a tentative agreement with more than 30 actresses and women who have accused him of sexual misconduct, TheWrap has learned, in a deal that the New York Times has reported to be worth $25 million.Weinstein would not be required to admit wrongdoing or pay his accusers with his own money, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations via the New York Times. The Times adds that the deal would end nearly every civil lawsuit related to accusations of misconduct dating back to 2017 brought against Weinstein and his former company.More than 30 actresses who have accused the former movie mogul of claims of sexual harassment to rape would share the payout, and several lawyers who spoke to the Times say that the global legal settlement has preliminary approval from all major parties involved.Representatives for Weinstein declined to comment or discuss the financials. Lawyers for Weinstein did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Also Read: Harvey Weinstein's Bail Increased to $5 Million After Accusations of Ankle Bracelet TamperingThe settlement would also require court approval, but if approved and signed off on by all parties, insurance companies representing the Weinstein Company would pay the sum. The payout to accusers would also be part of a $47 million settlement as part of the company’s other obligations, according to six lawyers who spoke to the Times.Weinstein is still scheduled to appear in criminal court in New York City on Jan. 6, but this settlement pertains to the civil claims that include women from not just the U.S. but also Canada and the UK.The Times also outlines the payouts that would be involved with the settlement. Roughly a quarter of the settlement package would go to cover Weinstein’s legal fees, as well as Bob Weinstein as well as former members of the board, which would insulate them against future liability from future claims. 18 of the victims would split $6.2 million, with no one person getting more than $500,000, while another $18.5 million would be set aside as part of a class-action case.Also Read: Rosanna Arquette Condemns Weinstein's Lawyer's 'Attempt to Distort the Facts' in ABC 'Nightline' InterviewDouglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer, who represent Wedil David and a Jane Doe listed among the plaintiffs, said in a statement to TheWrap, “We reject the notion that this was the best settlement that could have been achieved on behalf of the victims. It is shameful that $12 million of the settlement is going to the lawyers for the directors who we alleged enabled Harvey Weinstein and it is even more outrageous that the proposed settlement will seek to bind non participating members by providing a release to the insurance companies and the directors of the Weinstein Company itself.”They continued: “While we don’t begrudge victims who want to settle, we plan to vigorously object to any provision that tries to bind victims who want to proceed with holding Harvey Weinstein accountable for his actions which is exactly what we intend to do.”The Times adds that David intends to walk away from the tentative deal. Wigdor’s firm Wigdor LLP also represents one of the Molineux witnesses who will be testifying at the criminal trial.“This settlement is more than a math problem – it’s a symptom of a problematic, broken system that privileges powerful abusers at the expense of survivors,” Time’s Up Foundation’s CEO Rebecca Goldman said in a statement to TheWrap. “While this settlement is flawed, we know it represents the hard work of several survivors of Harvey Weinstein. We hope it brings them, and perhaps others, some small measure of justice and relief that is long overdue. Today and every day, TIME’S UP is in solidarity with the more than 80 survivors who bravely spoke out against Weinstein, catalyzing a worldwide reckoning for justice. With them, we will continue to fight until sexual harassment and assault at work are gone for good.”Weinstein’s criminal case involves just two accusations from women, including one woman who says Weinstein raped her at Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and another who says he forced oral sex on her at his townhouse in 2006. Weinstein maintains that any sexual activity was consensual and that there was no wrongdoing. Many of the other women who have accused Weinstein of misconduct either declined to participate in the criminal trial or have cases that fall outside of the statute of limitations or are not considered criminal.Read original story Harvey Weinstein and Accusers Reach Tentative $25 Million Settlement At TheWrap
Harvey Weinstein accuser Rosanna Arquette is criticizing ABC’s late-night news program “Nightline” for airing an interview Friday with the disgraced producer’s lawyer, saying the “one-sided” segment is the defense’s attempt “to distort the facts.”“ABC’s Nightline’s grossly irresponsible, one-sided reporting is shameful and deeply detrimental to the survivors like myself who were assaulted and abused by Harvey Weinstein,” Arquette told TheWrap.In the segment, ABC News reporter Amy Robach sat down with Weinstein’s attorney, Donna Rotunno, who explained her plan to defend Weinstein ahead of his Jan. 6 trial, and dismissed accusations made by the more than 80 women who accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, from harassment to rape.“It sends a dangerous message to women that by reporting a crime, we will be subjected to victim-blaming and not be believed,” Arquette continued. “As his trial date approaches, I stand by the brave women who are testifying to ensure that their voices are heard and will fire back at any misrepresentations of the truth. Despite Weinstein’s lawyer’s attempts to distort the facts, I believe his days of destroying lives are over.”Also Read: Rosanna Arquette Says Harvey Weinstein Should Go to Jail: 'Absolutely' (Video)ABC declined to comment on the criticism Saturday. Weinstein has consistently denied all accusations of non-consensual sex.In the interview, Robach asks Rotunno if she’s been accused of being “a traitor to her own gender” by defending a man accused of raping women.“I don’t believe I am. I think in many ways I would hope that I could help women. What happens in these circumstances where women don’t want to take certain responsibilities for their actions, we infantilize ourselves. You have to know that when you make certain choices, there’s a risk,” Rotunno replied.Robach’s response was to point out that “a lot of people would say that what you just said is victim-blaming.”“That’s absolutely not true. If you don’t want to be a victim, don’t go to the hotel room,” Rotunno said. “And if you don’t want to be a victim, don’t sign an NDA. Then go out onto 5th Avenue, take a megaphone and talk about what you want to talk about.”Also Read: Harvey Weinstein's Accusers and Attorneys to Sit Down for Court TV Interview SpecialGloria Allred, who represents Weinstein’s accusers Annabella Sciorra and Mimi Haleyi, responded to Rotunno’s comments in a statement to TheWrap.“I disagree with many of Donna Rotunno’s statements,” Allred said. “Many business meetings with producers of films have been conducted in hotel rooms. This statement by Ms. Rotunno appears to suggest that if a woman is asked to go to a hotel room, that it is her fault if she is raped. That defense did not work in the criminal case against Mike Tyson a number of years ago. He was convicted of raping a woman in a hotel room and I believe that this attempt to blame victims who are raped in hotel rooms will not be successful now in the era of the ‘Me Too Movement.'”In the “Nightline” interview, Rotunno made a point to say that she is “not the moral police on Harvey Weinstein” and emphasized that “Harvey has a right to a defense… If [the jurors] look at the evidence that’s going to be presented to them, I think they’re going to find him not guilty.”Also Read: Bob Weinstein Confronted Harvey Over 'Misbehavior' 2 Years Before Scandal BrokeABC News also quoted its chief legal analyst, Dan Abrams, in response to Rotunno’s claim that “going to a hotel room and having someone ask you if you’ll give them a massage is not rape, it’s not sexual assault, and it’s really not sexual harassment.”“When someone in a position of power over someone else’s career makes the pass with the either explicit or implicit promise of career benefits, that is the definition of sexual harassment,” Abrams said.On Saturday afternoon, Times Up tweeted a response to the “Nightline” segment from 21 women who came forward to report Weinstein’s sexual misconduct, including Arquette, fellow actors Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan, and Weinstein’s former assistant Rowena Chiu.“This segment displayed, to a national audience, the same dismissive, manipulative tactics Harvey implemented to silence the voices of so many women for decades,” the statement read (see it in full below). “We believe the evidence against Harvey presented in the trial next month will be a moment of reckoning and he will be held accountable for his crimes.”Lou Godbold, a Weinstein accuser and trauma specialist who signed the Times Up statement, also weighed in on the segment.“Harvey’s defense is that all men are rapists so that women should not find themselves alone with a man, despite the fact that it was a common practice for powerful men to take business meetings alone and in their hotel suites,” Goldbold said in a tweet.Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund co-founder Hilary Rosen also chimed in.“This lawyer did her client no favors with this interview,” Rosen tweeted Saturday. “Especially when she blamed the women for seeking jobs and when she struggled to suggest that HarveyWeinstein had any remorse. Kudos to [Dan Abrams] for his clarity in explaning [sic] the issues in this case.”https://twitter.com/TIMESUPNOW/status/1203439928144617472/photo/1Read original story Rosanna Arquette Condemns Weinstein’s Lawyer’s ‘Attempt to Distort the Facts’ in ABC ‘Nightline’ Interview At TheWrap