Weinstein was not the first
Re “The stunning, rapid downfall of Harvey Weinstein,” Oct. 12
Back in the 1950s, when I was a young actress, there were many Harvey Weinsteins. Luckily, I was part of a group of actresses who tipped each other off about these guys, so we were prepared.
One producer had his secretary call and ask actresses to watch a screening with him. You knew the outcome already and declined.
Two brothers who were producers would have you read for a part. One would sit across from you, to distract you, while the other sat next to you trying to grope you. You knew it was coming and just pushed the creep away to protect yourself.
No, you didn’t get the part. However, you left with your pride intact and with the knowledge that they were now aware the word was out about their scheme.
This was in the 1950s. It isn’t anything new.
I am at a loss to understand the difference in reaction by the public when two famous and famously badly behaving men are accused of sexually exploiting women.
The country seems to be in a lather about Weinstein when similar accusations were made against Donald Trump before he was president, but no one cared.
Disgusting behavior is disgusting behavior — no excuses — but Weinstein appears at least somewhat contrite while Trump, true to form, has lied. The lesson is obvious: It is OK to be a disgusting person as long as you are willing to lie about it. Arlene Shayer
Weinstein forgot to check the script.
He saw this movie a few years ago, but he seems to have forgotten the part where one writes off a woman who speaks out as a “narcissistic loony toon” or an erupting “bimbo.” If he had also used those lines, perhaps things would have been swept under the rug.
After all, this worked well in the first version of that movie. Julia Lutch