His contract says he’s allowed to settle allegations of, ahem, “misconduct” as often as he wants so long as he pays the company some blood money, does it not? Well, no one’s claimed he’s in arrears. Can’t fire a man if you’ve put a “rape fine” clause in his deal and he’s been good about staying current.
The most darkly funny part of this is Weinstein thinking he still has a career to return to. The idea that Hollywood would welcome back a man who’s been credibly accused of abject degeneracy seems … totally plausible, now that I think of it.
Coming to theaters in 2019 from the Weinstein Company: “Twelve Angry Men” starring Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, in which a well-meaning progressive is unjustly accused of assaulting 8,000 women.
Harvey Weinstein will challenge his firing by The Weinstein Company at this month’s Board of Directors meeting … TMZ has learned…
We’re told Weinstein’s position — he did not violate his current contract, which he signed in October 2015. He maintains no sexual harassment complaints were lodged after he signed the contract. We’re told TWC never gave Weinstein it’s reason for the firing.
What’s more, we’re told [his lawyer] will argue Weinstein could only be terminated after mediation and arbitration.
That’s an interesting claim, actually, that no harassment complaints have been filed against him since 2015. Assume it’s true. Question one: Should Weinstein be punished now after the company raised no objections to previous settlements when it re-signed him two years ago? That was my point last night, that it had every reason to investigate the old deals before handing him a new contract in the very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely event that the board sincerely didn’t know what he was up to. Whether willingly or through negligence in not doing their due diligence, they assumed the risk of this exact mega-scandal detonating on the company like a nuclear bomb.
Question two: If they had put a traditional “moral turpitude” clause in his contract, which they allegedly did not, could they have canned him for a mere allegation of harassment? How about an allegation of rape? How about a few dozen allegations of harassment, extortion, and rape? He’s innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but on Earth 2, where he has a standard employment contract, there’s no reason for the Weinstein Company to sit by and watch as its reputation goes up in flames as the accusations mount. They fire him immediately on the theory that surely *some* of these allegations are true. Back here on Earth 1, though, where the contract reportedly has a “pay to prey” clause in place of the traditional moral turpitude language, why shouldn’t they be forced to keep him on staff until he’s convicted of something?
Relatedly, anyone want to buy a pile of garbage that’s on fire?
Weinstein Co. is exploring a sale or shutdown in wake of sexual-harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein https://t.co/KTIlRTRnIs
— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 13, 2017
The question of Weinstein’s employment will likely be moot sooner or later. The Weinstein Company will be scrapped and parted out; investors are already looking to offload their interests, naturally. Plus, Weinstein’s otherwise appalling contract *did* say he could be fired if he’s indicted for a crime, according to TMZ. That seems increasingly likely, whether here or in the UK, especially since Weinstein made the monumentally stupid decision to admit to unspecified misbehavior towards women in his initial damage control efforts. Convictions will be difficult since, in addition to the usual he said/she said dynamic, many of the alleged assaults date back a decade or more. But there’s no statute of limitations on serious sex crimes in New York or in Great Britain. And as I say, if TMZ’s story is accurate, all it would take for the company to drop Weinstein is for charges to be filed.
Anyway, his fate is less interesting at this point than the extent to which other Hollywood A-listers knew what he was up to since he became a player in Hollywood in the 90s. Literally every movie Quentin Tarantino’s made with one exception has been released either by Miramax, Weinstein’s original outfit, or the Weinstein Company; the one exception was released by Dimension Films, which was founded by Bob Weinstein, Harvey’s brother. Tarantino’s been working with Big Harv for literally 25 years and even dated one of Weinstein’s accusers, Mira Sorvino. Somehow, in spite of all of that, the news of the past two weeks has come as a shock to him. “I’ve been stunned and heartbroken about the revelations that have come to light,” said Tarantino in a statement released this morning. “I need a few more days to process my pain, emotions, anger and memory and then I will speak publicly about it.” Go figure.