L'intouchable, Harvey Weinstein

I am certainly no apologist for Weinstein, he has been despicable in a dozen ways, and even before the revelations about his predation on young women came out. Those predations against young women were criminal and I give high level of credibility to his accusers. But this film does not honestly explore how broadly this was known and accepted in Hollywood and how prevalent the casting couch culture has been -- and remains -- and how it fit into so well into the media and entertainment business and why. We have Ken Auletta pontificating, when Auletta was perhaps the closest of journalists to Charlie Rose, a friend and professional collaborator, appearing on the Charlie Rose show 96 times, when Charlie Rose's predations were an open secret. Indeed Rose's production company had been pushed out of PBS offices and moved to the media offices most well known to be toxic toward women -- the offices of Michael Bloomberg. Why no Rose and Bloomberg in the context?

It's a decent enough documentary but I didn't learn anything new from what's already been reported. This film kind of consolidates most of that reporting. A good point toward the end that it makes is that there are certainly others like him out there not only in Hollywood but other industry segments, more as a warning to potential victims than a preview of any upcoming prosecutions. Currently, Harvey is awaiting criminal trial in 2020, even as he just settled more lawsuits without admitting fault or otherwise being held accountable.

This film provides some insight but leaves you with many questions as to why and how this monster was allowed to roam the streets for so long. A deeper dive needs to be taken into this topic with expansion on the how's. . so many in the entertainment industry are aware of the "dirty little secrets" of these rich and powerful (mostly men) in the industry who prey upon the vulnerable using their wealth and power . . . So many time we hear only after decades of abuse - Cosby, Epstein, Kelly to name just a few. Why ? Why do people not want to believe the accusers? Why do the enablers not face consequences for their complicity ? Why does our justice system fail the victims time and again?

We know the facts about Harvey Weinstein. We've read them in the papers or heard about them in the news. What this documentary adds, is the story behind the facts. The incredible story about how this man was able to get away with so much misbehaviour for such a long period. The film shows how his power, his success, and his personality made him get away with anything. It made him, yes, untouchable. A big part of the documentary consists of Weinstein's victims talking to the camera about their unfortunate experiences. Not only actresses, but also a journalist who was physically threatened and verbally abused by Weinstein, as well as several staff members of Miramax. The personal accounts are powerful, at some moments the actresses are visibly very emotional. Director Ursula Mcfarlane does a very good job capturing the distress and damage Weinstein has caused them. The contrast with the archive footage of Weinstein laughing, partying and celebrating is striking. One fragment of the documentary struck me in particular: people in popular TV shows openly joking about Weinsteins reputation with women, and referring to the rumours that apparently were common knowledge in Hollywood. 'Untouchable' is a devastating film for Weinstein, but the good thing is that it ends with a positive message. After the disclosure of his misconduct, the world has become a different place, without any tolerance for misogyny or gender related power abuse.

Any "backlash" against #MeToo is difficult because unlike chasing Soviet spies among Hollywood's greatest talents during McCarthyism or burning witches the purpose of it is surely not absurd and wrong. But this film shows quite a few problematic things with the movement born as a hashtag. The biggest problem I see is the conscious choice of bypassing the official justice system. I mean Weinstein is awaiting a trial now and he surely hopes for a fair one. Only Paz de la Huerta seemed to understand that if you were ready to go on Twitter or before cameras with your accusations, you should make at least a symbolic attempt at approaching the prosecutors to simply maintain some credibility. Other big problems are gossips and inside jokes treated as evidences of guilt. I think the film is premature to put it gently and quite morally questionable despite its noble intentions. "Leaving Neverland" comes to mind, although surely not a premature film - quite the opposite.