Sex behind cameras: Harvey Weinstein’s side of the story

To start the Harvey Weinstein story I need to remind us that we are mortals infected by the virus of good and evil—long we do good, we punctuate it with evil to remind us that we are mortals. This is why we look up to immortality where perfection can be attained, perhaps after death. As soon as anyone attains perfection that person is old enough to die.

Weinstein is a name in filmography that cannot be over-looked despite multiple sexual allegations against him. His cadence of ingenuity and historical prowess would make one to be saddened for the “baby” about to be thrown away with the bathwater. Weinstein is a victim of sexual instinctual Trojans but his victims are as well instinctual upholstery. Thus, titivating the complexity of substantiating human foibles from sin as well as nightmares for trances but for those who are holding trust for righteous municipals may not agree for the separation of personality from creativity because to them both are thick as thieves— as the indivisible personified.

Hence, Weinstein becomes a case study of sexual harassment than a distinguished paragon who had 34 mentions in Oscar Speeches, promoted and ensured 80 statuettes in filmography, obtained an Order of the British Empire, a Legion of Honour as a Knight and an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters. How then do we judge Weinstein as genocidal-necrophiliac and his victims as vulnerable mannequins in the laboratory of Weinstein Experimentation? But I think somehow—victims sometimes are conspirators to their victimisation as masochists. Hence, we need to know the reality of Weinstein’s allegations.

It was argued by Molly Ringwald in the New Yorker that various actresses were “bullied, cajoled, manipulated, and worse, and then punished.” by the Weinstein’s threats. The question is “what actually brought them to Weinstein’s Dictionary? I think, we are eager to know what brought them to such stage and how they kept quiet for many years until they made God their ambitions. They have become great actresses with high estate in relevance capital before reporting and seeking the Weinstein prosecution.

If these ladies/women were indeed ethicists having godliness as capitals and good behaviour as moral investment they would have brought Weinstein to the attention of the public long before the days of Cain. I guess to say these ladies enjoyed the fruit of evil yet expecting goodness because evil has not paid the price of it wrong. These were the friends of Caesar who like to set Rome ablaze.

Every profession has its own hazards. It is left for the practitioners to accept or reject based on conviction. Let us take a look at Ringwald, one of Weinstein’s victims who told us about herself and the many more woes she encountered—New York Times. She went on to tell us of a young man she had a crush on and other issues that happened behind the cameras. Indeed as this may sound as rumour or house-hold gossip the truth remains that behind the cameras there are lot of dirty dealings going on and if the public must intervene in such matters they have to tell both self-acclaimed victim and victor that those who come to equity must come with clean hands and should never try to be a judge of sentiment because it is easy to weep for dead Dido than knowing what actually killed Dido.

However, the reality is that the ways actresses struggle for priced roles posits themselves not only to the danger behind the cameras but as well as themselves becoming the dangers behind the cameras. So, as the male producer is facing his own challenge (quest to control their libido) of making production possible with these connoisseurs of Aphrodite who are not only randy but as well as tormenting saints and the good angels to abandon their missions of missionaries. Any complete man, except those sexually depersonalised by their Maker may need to see a physician if not aroused by these lampooners of sincerity. For at least there is no legislation in the court of conscious. For every thought is thinkable.

Same Weinstein faces the challenges of this mammoth temptations and hallucinating attractions, ranging from innocent sexual predators and the preys to predators who heavily invested their attentions as prices for survival. These female gladiators settle in the ring-chain of the film industry and subdue male producers severally in their search for career fulfilments.

In due fairness, we need to probe the allegations levelled against Weinstein properly. As much as some are true but in what faith were they raised? Is it to sanitise the public space or reports are made for self-adventures? This is not to exonerate his act but to examine the genuine claims pillowed against him as a producer as well refute them by telling his accusers where they also went wrong. Not Weinstein alone went wrong; his accusers are also those who are so clean that they did take their bath in the mud. It is sarcastic that the first actress to bring Weinstein case to the public attention is Ashley Judd. She said the sexual exploitation had taken place twenty years ago. After Judd more than forty of her kindred came up with similar accusation. This created another sense of curiosity and disappointment about these actresses. They all kept quiet over the years and now that they have achieved their legendary feats as aided what is left is to pay back by coming to involve the public on what happened at the back of the cameras. How sincere is this?

These sexually disgruntled ladies should also be charged with an omission to act, actus reun, for their silence. They are also culpable of allowing heinous crime by keeping it to themselves in order to achieve a coup. Yes, they did achieve their frantic feat of bravery before they saw it fit to inform the public as an accessory. But the public should not be a one-sided judge who hastily concludes in a summary judgment as soon as moral issues are raised. If not carefully analysed moral issues will become debris of immorality reconfigured to right perspectives. Hence, we should question these supposed patriarchal victims likewise their assailants. In the case of Weinstein the ladies involved should not be exonerated on the facade that they came forth. I mean coming up after thirsty years of fusty duplicity is not an excuse for purity. We really need to know what stopped them several years before now: 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years from speaking.

Weinstein’s accusers alleged that multiple of them were raped by Weinstein but none of this “multiples” were reported to the police or acquainted any authority about Weinstein as a principal gladiator at the dispositional act of sexual rascality. And this is said to be rape. Then after the rape what happened? They were given roles in various films to compensate them yet it is a rape. If the first was raped why going to Weinstein to be raped for career advancement or having slots in his movies? This is double standard and pillages of doubt to ingenuity as they are go-getters who deserve their burnt. So, here is the price for their various icarus complexes. Their sexual involvements are consensual as they have the right to reject Weinstein’s overture as a price for their moral rectitude.

Picking on few of these ladies, names like Asia Argento will run one crazy. In Argento’s words, her father was the first person that brought her to stage. Later on she referred to her foible of being loved like a prostitute. Argento had her first child for Anna Lou in 2001, a rock star whom she might have learnt the act of singing from, later she married Michele Ci veeta, a filmographer, perhaps to future more in production. She divorced him in 2013 and goes into relationship again with Anthony Bourdain (FoxNews.com). She was also a partner having two children for Marco Castoldi between 2000-2006. So, how do we exonerate this character from sexual rascality for a puritan gospel against Weinstein? I think Argento is one of the wrong persons to put forth the case of assault because she has lived by that game—sexual puckishness. Perhaps, I should say she even lured and raped Weinstein who is a hapless sexual child of erotic imbalance. Her biography shows that she has no case in the court of moral Justice however the world may sympathise with her.

Another annoying name on the list of Weinstein accusers is Jessica Barth, a waitress, who wriggled her way to the film industry. However, her navigation from the status of a waitress to a popular actress is a gruesome book yet unwritten. She is 39 and still waiting or vacant for possible vacancy. Although one of her blogs hinted that she is pregnant and she said in her words that she is “I am even prouder of the fact we tackle our deadlines!” Deadline being tackled rather than meeting deadlines and “I look so forward to continuing to shore our journeys together”. Hence, “Look so forward” etc. (mommabares.com). So, these are the types of accusers of Weinstein who only want to hike their prices in the entertainment industry. I perceive that the public should be sensitive than allowing a Pygmalion as someone nice to look at may not be nice to go with.

Similarly is the popular case of Bill Cosby (79 year old) sexual allegations. I quote from New York Times: “The outcome denied vindication to either the defendant or the dozens of women who have accused Mr Cosby, one of the world’s best known entertainers, of assaulting them over a span of decades.” This is the observation reported about one of Cosby’s accusers:
Ms. Constand did not react visibly to the proceedings, staring straight ahead in her seat in the front row. She stood as Mr. Cosby passed her just a few feet away, and then, smiling slightly, she hugged her supporters—including her mother and six other women who have accused Mr Cosby. She seems to be comforting them more than the other way around. Her lawyer, Dolores Troian, said they looked forward to a trial, adding, ‘We will get to do it again.’”

The question is “Get to do what again?” This is the game of the righteous sinners. I am not opining that there are no elements of truth in these allegations but the motive behind bringing them up is not for the good of humanity or progress of any rectitude rather an attempt to gain and get cash out of the said cash cow roped in sexual tournaments but a critical quantum of weighing the merit of intentions should be adopted when considering cases like this. For actresses to come up 20 or 30 years after an alleged harassment reduces us to the servitude of instinctual primitivism.

In as much as Harvey Weinstein may be held responsible for his life behind the cameras, the allegations of actresses accusing him behind the cameras after ten, twenty or thereabout years should be checked against the concepts of good faith, witch-hunting, vendetta and pay back. By so doing we would have saved the public from the hands of these ladies who want to gain or use us to profile themselves. The case of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual accusations has proven this in auspicial trend from actresses and there should be laws to guide such felonious disposition as a personality defect hence, endorsing the position that anyone who offers sex for career fulfilment is as guilty as the sexual predator.

Taofeek wrote from Mountain Top University