Jennifer Lawrence: Harvey Weinstein ‘was always almost paternal to me’

Guests arrive to the AMPAS 9th Annual Governors Awards

It’s still amusing to me that Jennifer Lawrence is just openly campaigning for Best Actress this Oscar season. She really wants – and perhaps expects – an Oscar nomination for ‘mother!’, a film which bombed at the box office and was critically savaged as one of the dumbest biblical allegories ever. Still, J-Law is right to campaign – she is beloved by the Academy, and she’s proven time and time again that she can get nominated for sub-par performances. Note: I’m not saying she’s a bad actress, I’m saying that she hasn’t deserved Oscar nominations for a few particular performances, like American Hustle. Anyway, J-Law sat down with The Hollywood Reporter’s Awards Chatter podcast and she talked about the nature of celebrity, her hacked nude photos, Harvey Weinstein and more. Some highlights:

She considers David O. Russell her artistic soulmate. “David, still to this day, is the most important relationship in my life, I think. We can be so deeply, deeply honest with each other, in a way that creates amazing art.”

She thinks she was miscast in Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle and Joy: “I’m obviously too young for all three.”

The 2014 Cloud hack: “When the hacking thing happened, it was so unbelievably violating that you can’t even put it into words. I think that I’m still actually processing it. When I first found out it was happening, my security reached out to me. It was happening minute-to-minute — it was almost like a ransom situation where they were releasing new ones every hour or so. And, I don’t know, I feel like I got gang-banged by the f–king planet — like, there’s not one person in the world that is not capable of seeing these intimate photos of me. You can just be at a barbecue and somebody can just pull them up on their phone. That was a really impossible thing to process.”

Why she didn’t sue: “A lot of women were affected, and a lot of them reached out to me about suing Apple or suing [others] — and none of that was gonna really bring me peace, none of that was gonna bring my nude body back to me and Nic [Lawrence's former boyfriend Nicholas Hoult], the person that they were intended for. It wasn’t gonna bring any of that back. So I wasn’t interested in suing everybody; I was just interested in healing. I think, like, a year and a half ago, somebody said something to me about how I was ‘a good role model for girls,’ and I had to go into the bathroom and sob because I felt like an imposter — I felt like, ‘I can’t believe somebody still feels that way after what happened.’ It’s so many different things to process when you’ve been violated like that.”

On Harvey Weinstein: “I had heard that he was a dog. But he was always almost paternal to me. He was never inappropriate with me. I thought that we had a nice relationship where, when he acted like an a–hole, I called him an a–hole — I actually think the word I used was ‘a sadistic monster’ — but it was just never of that nature, so that was really shocking.”

Whether she has ever been sexually abused: “I had been objectified, I had been, you know, obviously, not paid equally, I had been violated by a hacker, but I have never had a man use his power to sexually abuse me.”

How she ended up dating Darren Aronofsky: “I had a crush on him when he pitched to me and that was like a year before we started rehearsing, but he was a professional, which only made it worse for me. So we just kind of formed a friendship. He knew how I felt, he never told me how he felt — I mean, I assumed — but we just formed a friendship, and then the friendship turned into a partnership for the movie once we started working, and then, when the movie was done, I was like, ‘Alright, you’re my boyfriend!’ And he was like, ‘Alright, I’m your boyfriend.’”

[From THR]

The Harvey Weinstein stuff is so…disgusting, and yet I am still horrifyingly fascinated by the victimology, how he chose victims, and who he chose. I believe her when she says he was “almost paternal” towards her and that she had no idea of the extent of his crimes, but I’ll always wonder how she managed to avoid his predatory intentions. As for what she says about David O. Russell… no. Just no. I don’t think DOR is a Weinstein-level predator, but the guy has issues and he is well-known for being abusive to below-the-line workers and actors. She needs to be exposed to better directors. And Darren Aronofsky… ugh.

Update: Ooooh, apparently Jennifer and Darren Aronofsky have split. Awkward timing, right in the middle of her Oscar campaign. But I’m glad they’re done.

Stars the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' 9th Annual Governors Awards

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

271 Responses to “Jennifer Lawrence: Harvey Weinstein ‘was always almost paternal to me’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. marc kile says:

    She is so full of BS i can smell it through my computer screen. She sounds like she trying to cover up something she did:(

    • Karen says:

      Please! It was a moving interview if you listen it

    • Tiny Martian says:

      marc: Seriously? No. Just no.

    • gatorbait says:

      So we believe women when they say they were abused but not when they say they weren’t? Got it. For the record, I don’t know if she was one way or the other. Perhaps, if she was abused, she just doesn’t want to talk about it. Heaven forbid one not want to relive the horror of abuse by speaking publicly before they’re ready.

      • ElleC says:

        YES! This is just as bad as not believing victims, maybe worse, because it sounds like some people believe she’s been abused and yet they’re still attacking her? I’ll save my vitriol for the predators like Weinstein.

        A personal story: I had an abusive boss once and for the first years we worked together I was the golden girl, then one day, something snapped and they went from a mentor but admittedly difficult person to a terrifying bully.

        I survived, and only later found out the same had happened to every single woman before me. But had you asked me back at the beginning, I would have said the same things JLaw said. Predators pick and choose who knows and how much, and when and who they target.

      • You Are Not Your Selfie says:

        of course. People with a political axe to grind only want to ‘believe’ what supports their world view. it’s called cognitive dissonance. Point out their hypocrisy they’ll hate you for it. The truth will set you free but it will piss you off first.

    • M&M says:

      Wait so we believe the victims at their word but we don’t believe the non victims?
      That seems off.

    • tealily says:

      Eh, why should she at this point? I believe her.

    • PPP says:

      The capacity of people to angrily blame a woman for NOTHING astounds me. Who hurt you? Go to therapy.

    • severin88 says:

      Your comment is GROSS. She doesn’t have to satisfy anyone’s morbid curiosity about what might have or have not happened. She is sharing her experiences. Maybe it was different for her than everyone else. HOW IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO KNOW. Jeeeezzzzz. Nothing anyone does nowadays is enough to satiate this public thirst for hand ringing.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Funny, I feel the same way about your comment! ;)

    • K says:

      No woman has any obligation to talk about Weinstein at all. If he did anything to anyone whose career depended upon him, then that woman is a victim. If he didn’t, then she’s an innocent bystander. Either way, she has the choice as to whether to call him out, or to want to be left out of it, because she didn’t “do” anything wrong.

      She says he did nothing to her. That’s all we need to know. We have ample enough evidence of what he is, without creating extra.

      Women can’t win. You have creeps like Morissey, and half the internet, saying the women who are standing up against him are just disappointed harpies. Then you have others who insinuate those saying they dodged the bullet are liars, and this is all about “something [they] did”. It’s all just more of the same: looking at the women, and not at the abuser.

      • Brian says:

        From most of the comments I’ve seen the vitriol has been pretty clearly directed at the alleged abusers. Especially on this site.

      • magnoliarose says:

        What do you mean Brian? I am not snarky I am wondering.

      • K says:

        This site is feminist, and as such isn’t representative of the internet, or world in general, sadly. The Mail can provide you with all the evidence necessary – just look at a recent story on Lawrence, Amber Heard, Kristen Stewart, Miley Cyrus… in fact you could probably add in just about any famous woman whose image isn’t purely virginal and meek. The majority of comments are foul.

        There are comments on the most recent story on Lawrence which sympathise with men in Hollywood, knowing how loose all the women there are. That’s what some people have taken from the abuse scandals: not that women are being coerced, and that’s a form of rape. Just that they are sleeping with people for roles, and that makes them soiled. Others discuss her stolen photos as reason to despise her, and yet they see no contradiction with clearly admitting they sought them out, when they were criminally stolen, and wholly private. There are repeated casual assertions that the world now knows Weinstein was the cause of her career success – as though it’s established fact, rather than prurient and gross speculation on someone who, if they were right, would be a victim of abuse by a predator. And who has flat-out stated that she was not one of his targets.

        If you really can’t see all that, and the problem with it, then I don’t know what to say to you. But I would also point out that you’re below a comment thread in which a man accuses a woman of lying about not being abused by a serial predator, and then insinuates that such lies would be because SHE had done something wrong, had she been his target. And that’s on a site where most posters are proudly feminist.

      • aga says:

        maybe you should check the facts about Amber Heard which are accessible on Internet and don’t believe a woman who blatantly lies in her every interviews.

      • K says:

        Take a seat, aga. The facts are that Heard was abused by Depp. She has evidence; he has stans.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      I believe her. And you’re complicit. Stop enabling abuse and misogyny by dismissing women as lying whores.

    • cindy says:

      @marc
      That smell isn’t coming from your computer screen. I think your mom forgot to bring up your laundry from the basement again.

      • Plantpal says:

        @cindy
        HEY! Insulting an adult male because they live with their mother is just WRONG! If my son hadn’t come home to help me with my expenses I’d be homeless and bankrupt. When the company I worked for was sold and I was laid off, I had just purchased a condo. I was unemployed and had a mortgage for the first time in my life (my dad had passed and I used the $ left as my down payment). I would have lost the down payment (my inheritance from my dad) if my son hadn’t put his mother before himself. Using that as an insult makes me crazy, please, please stop it.
        @marc Everything else that Cindy and every other person has said here is important for you to absorb. It’s really insiduous, the victim blaming (whether a victom or not) so please learn from the passionate points of view so elequently expressed on this site. Leave the dark side and step into the light, @marc. You’ll be glad you did, as your relationships will be all the richer for your new insights.

    • charlotteshay says:

      There were rumours about JLaw being one of Harvey’s girls waaaay before the current scandals came out on him. Some Industry people still aren’t talking and may never talk as to not harm a persons career or the notion that casting situations occurred for some could taint.

      She’s not a great actress imo. Her voice is flat, no variations in sound, just flat sounding no matter what role she plays. She seems confused at times. She’s a successful young woman sorting through a messed up Hollywood machine and is attracted to questionable men.

      Some people believe JLaw when she says she was spared Harvey’s advances. Some people don’t believe her. Everyone will have an opinion. It’s not about liking her or not liking her.

      • Jane2222 says:

        But some opiniins are a lot more rooted in the type of misogyny that successful young female actors attract than others…

      • kibbles says:

        I agree with you charlotteshay. There were rumors about her and Weinstein that may or may not be true. People are titled to their opinion. There really are numerous women in the industry who played the game and slept with powerful men in the industry to advance their careers. Of course, no one would ever admit to such a thing, especially of that person’s career was helped tremendously by doing such a thing. I personally believe that Jennifer Lawrence may be among those women. She’s not Meryl Streep. Many of us have questioned how she has won so many awards and became the top actress in Hollywood for mediocre performances in most of her films. I’ll leave it at that.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Let’s be real: You can find some version of casting couch rumors about practically ALL celebrity women and girls at some point. Whether it’s ‘this rich, successful pretty girl fucks for roles’, ‘that pretty girl fucks for tracks,’ ‘this one is the new pass-around girl in the industry’, ‘that 14-year-old girl must have had to sleep with a lot of directors/ execs in order to have a career’ (yes, it gets that disgusting and rapey), ‘this girl’s parent(s) must have prostituted her to someone’, ‘That one must be a yatch girl’, or ‘this rich girl is sleeping with men in Dubai in exchange for money’.

        The reality is that in a patriarchal society, this false sexual allegation (which is far more common than false rape allegations against males) is the price of fame for ANY woman or girl who pursues a career in Hollywood. It’s one of the many, many reasons why I don’t support this “If young starlets want to be taken seriously/be respected/ not get slut-shamed or get a ‘bad reputation’, they and their parents need to make sure they’re dressing and presenting themselves in a classy manner as women and not being thirsty” argument that some people make. Nobody with a vagina gets to be famous without being accused of doing time on some unwanted dick in order to advance her career at some point. There’s automatically a narrative of ‘open for buisne$$’ and/or ‘open for abuse, for the right price’ that’s forced and can’t be avoided, especially if she’s decent-looking or better and of childbearing age. It’s all part of the objectification, and celebrity gossip-lovers are all too willing to participate by spreading it. It may be said early in a young woman’s career when she’s gaining popularity, it may be when people start to feel she’s overexposed, it may be when she starts dressing or presenting in a way that people dissaprove of, or it may happen when she starts to say or do things that annoy or are problematic. But the rumor will come at some point. Does that mean that none of these rumors are ever true about a successful, pretty woman who gets media attention? No. But the point is, the fact that this rumor exists about a woman isn’t enough to make it a fact. Repetition of a lie doesn’t make it true. “Everybody has their own opinion”, but that doesn’t mean that certain opinions aren’t misogynistic in their impact by proving very helpful to those who abuse their power and very dangerous for those who don’t benefit from straight male privilege.

      • K says:

        She was Oscar nommed for her first movie and then in the Hunger Games by the time Silver Linings came out.

        Honestly, I don’t think she deserved an Oscar for that, no. Nor did Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love, and the rumours were the same for her, too. Gretchen Mol talked about the rumours, and the harm they did her career, when she’d never worked with and never even knew him.

        And the very raising of it is misogynist. It just is.

      • Katherine says:

        @charlottehay rumors started by sexists because a woman to be successful must have had to sleep with someone. You don’t like her as an actress and it’s OK but stop with that sexist BS

      • Jordan says:

        She’s never been a great actress. I saw her as Mystique before anything else- she was supposedly ‘great’ then. I’ve been confused since day one about her being a talented actress. I agree with another poster with how flat her voice and range is.

    • Cranberry says:

      Funny all these reactions. Many have good points. Not that I’m in total agreement with @marc, but I’ve always been suspicious of JLaw’s sky rocketing right out of the gate to the top. If she’s not slated to win the Oscar, she’s always nominated? She is overrate as hell whether she did something extra with/for Wienstien or not. If something did happen to her, and she doesn’t want to come forward, that’s fine. I don’t blame her. She doesn’t owe anybody anything. It’s her choice, her conscience, her life.

      Again, I’ve always thought Jlaw’s rapid success was bit too contrived, and so am more inclined to think something did happen. But even if nothing happened between them, I still contend that she’s the total product of the Wienstien HW power machine.

      • Jbapista says:

        Lawrence is young, good-looking, with a lively personality, and she can act. You may think she’s overrated, but she was Oscar nominated at 20 for an indie film, and consistently gets critical raves. The idea that she owes her success to Weinstein is a staggeringly sexist view.

      • Katherine says:

        @Cranberry she’s became JLaw before HW with Hunger Games and you sounds like a sexist

      • Cranberry says:

        She is consistently called out for being overrated too as she from the age of 20 gets ALL the prizes (nominations and statues) even though there’s so many other very talented actresses and many of which are more interesting. That’s what smacks of the Wienstien power machine. The fact that the way things work in HW is through cutting deals and falling in step with who has power and $.

        @Katherine, How do I sound sexist when I say I’ve always thought her overrated and a product of HW deals and marketing. Maybe I didn’t make it clear that my opinions extend to how I think Hollywood works on whole and that other actors also fall into this category of promotion and hype exceeding earned merit.

  2. Seraphina says:

    She needs to stop talking. And even fathers can be predetors and use that to help bring their prey to their web. Jennifer: silence is golden.

    • Nicole says:

      Exactly where’s her publicist?

    • Peeking in says:

      I don’t see the problem with what she said about Weinstein. She said she’d heard he was a dog, but he wasn’t that way to her, ever. He was more like a father, yes fathers can be abusive, but most fathers don’t sexually abuse their daughters.

      • V4Real says:

        It still seems to me that people are disappointed that she is not one of Harvey’s victims. If she said he never did or tried anything inappropriate with her, then just take her word for it. If you can believe the victims why can’t you believe the non-victims.

        And I still feel bad for her for the leaked photos. They were very graphic though I didn’t think the 30 second video of her having sex was actually her but some say it was.

      • KBB says:

        Also, in more recent years he seemed to target European models and people with no professional acting experience. It’s possible that was his way of keeping his predation quiet. Lupita was still in college when he went after her.

        Jennifer Lawrence is kind of a loose cannon. Maybe he knew he couldn’t count on her to keep it quiet?

      • Seraphina says:

        V4Real- why would people be disappointed she is NOT a victim. That’s crazy and a huge slap in the face and an insult. Jennifer needs to think before she speaks. All she had to say was that he never did anything to her.

      • Megan says:

        Like Sarah Silverman and Gayle King, Jennifer is trying to cope with the knowledge that someone she cares about has done truly horrible things. Give her a break.

      • V4Real says:

        @Seraphina. You can’t be serious, right? I think that because it’s right here for you to see yourself. People have said on other posts that they don’t believe her and think she’s lying about Harvey not doing anything to her or that she probably doesn’t know what abuse is. It’s even been said right here on this post. Do you really have to ask why, just read for yourself.

        What’s a huge slap in the face is women believing victims but not the non-victims.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        @Seraphina: It’s awful to think about, but sadly, V4real is right. Many people are exploiting this situation as an opportunity to slut-shame.

      • Meggles says:

        I think the problem is Jen’s reality conflicts with the narrative people created around her. Jen was already an Oscar nominee with two major franchises under her belt before she had anything to do with Weinstein, yet people have this idea that he made her career or dragged her up from the gutter or something. She was powerful and famous when they met, and he preyed on powerless or newbie actresses.

        It’s the exact same thing with Alicia Vikander, she has a rep for being one of “Harvey’s girls” (a false rumour probably started by the Fassbender tinhats) when actually she’s never even worked with him apart from one really obscure film that flopped.

        It all comes from misogyny. People are so desperate to believe that young, attractive actresses must have succeeded only because of the casting couch or because some old powerful man took an interest in them. The fact young attractive women succeed on their own talent and hard work is threatening for some people.

    • Manatee says:

      “Jennifer, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
      (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
      My humble opinion

    • milla says:

      Yeah. She is humanazing a serial rapist.

      Also, didn’t she say she will not be in the media for like 2 yrs?

      • Peeking in says:

        How is she humanizing him? She was asked. People keep saying she was his victim, or that there was a casting couch dynamic, how else should she respond?
        If you listen to the interview, and not rely on these excerpts only, she also defends his victims.

      • Gill G says:

        Lawrence is not humanising a rapist, making apologies for him, or anything else. Just look at what she says. He behaved in a parental fashion towards her – that is a simple description of his behaviour, echoed by plenty of others, and is entirely consistent with predator behaviour. (They target vulnerable people, which Lawrence, an Oscar nominee at 20, was not.) Anything claiming that Lawrence is excusing Weinstein needs to pay more attention to what she actually says.

      • Belle says:

        Yeah, I feel like she’s ALMOST defending him. I don’t believe she was victimized, 100% believe her. However, I think she’s incredibly ignorant.

      • milla says:

        Thats just it. Calling him paternal figure is making him look more human. She sounds like she is talking about an old buddy, which is not helping considering not all people believe the victims.

        We are talking about high profile actress and someone who is well known. She needs to use words wisely.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        She’s not acting on his behalf, she is sharing her experiences. She’s not harming the victims.

        The sad truth is that predators can be monsters to some people, angels to others. It doesn’t harm the victims to acknowledge this, if anything, it shows the duplicitous nature of this predator. It shows that the victims were not “stupid” for falling into his trap, as he convinced a lot of people to trust him. She isn’t doing anything wrong. Trying to silence her is not the answer.

    • PPP says:

      She’s not supporting him. She sounds like she’s still processing that she had that relationship with him given that he did what he did. She’s probably as mystified as anyone as to why she wasn’t targeted.

    • ElleC says:

      I disagree completely that “silence is golden” – many people have been criticizing and reading into her silence as a sign that she was victimized, sleeping her way up or was in some way complicit in other women’s abuse. She has a right to set the record straight, since she’s being dragged by association. And honestly, I’m never going to be on board with telling women they should stop talking, especially in this context!!

      I’ve been abused on the job and before the abuse started, I would have said the exact same things JLaw said, and even after my own experiences, I was shocked to find out it happened to others, too. She’s not apologizing for him or humanizing him, or doubting his victims. She’s sharing her experience because people have been asking. As I said up thread, predators pick and choose who knows and how much, and when and who they attack.

  3. ell says:

    idk, man. her experiences are her own and i wouldn’t want to take away anything from them, but i also don’t want to hear how he was ‘paternal’. i’m just growing increasingly uncomfortable and frustrated by women who need to point out how something didn’t happen to them, and how said dudes were good to them (the al franken snl thing comes to mind). i know JL isn’t defending him, but i still find it unnecessary.

    • Ninks says:

      There’s a lot of speculation about her relationship with him, some people just outright don’t believe her when she says that he didn’t abuse her, others are convinced that she slept with him for roles. If she wants to clarify the relationship between them, and (try to) end the speculation, often quite nasty speculation, then she’s entitled to do that. She’s not in any way defending him, or denying that he’s abusive towards others, she’s just speaking about her own experience because she’s Jennifer Lawrence and everybody had an opinion on it. Plus it was in an interview where she spoke about her experiences as a a victim of sex crimes so she was asked about it.

      The women who came out in defense of Al Franken, that was unnecessary.

      • ell says:

        fair enough. i hadn’t considered the fact that it’s true; many were talking and implying casting couch or whatever it is they thought she did (i still remember some of the comments here when the weinstein news first came out, and some were saying stuff like ‘hahah JL and alicia vikander’s careers are done’, which was depressing) .

        i can understand where she’s coming from looking from this perspective, however i still believe she could have used better words than ‘paternal’ which is really strident referred to a man who renownedly preyed on young women.

      • Juliette says:

        The only persons who think she slept with Harvey for roles are are sexists who don’t accept that a woman is successful. She made only SLP with him, she was already in 2 big franchises and nominated for an Oscar. She was already offered important roles before SLP. You find these rumors only in some forums because the general public don’t believe and don’t talk about it.

      • Kitten says:

        I think there’s a lot of truth to what you say here, Juliette.

        Also if this thread is full of “I don’t believe her!” then I’m out.

      • frisbee says:

        I also agree with you Juliette, not accepting her word on this is denying her experience and makes us all gaslighters.

      • Nicole says:

        I believe that she wasn’t his victim but I do believe again that there’s something wrong with her humanizing these abusive guys.
        But I could see how she feels pressured to say no. The wording just makes my skin crawl.

      • KBB says:

        Thank you, Juliette! She’d already had her big break with the Academy with Winter’s Bone AND she was the lead of Hunger Games AND she was Mystique in X-Men. Why on earth would she need to sleep with Harvey?

      • Liberty says:

        Great comment, Juliette.

        I had the experience of working with a monster in a high position who looked handsome and quite together on the outside, and was a noted mentor and near father figure to more than a few young women and men. After a year, we found he was disgusting and abusive to some, not others, no pattern, no clear reason. My boss at the time later suggested this fiend had avoided scrutiny for a long time by employing precisely this random pattern. (Several of us though not in power spots spoke up, and there was a speedy investigation.)

    • slowsnow says:

      It’s like the comment “I almost took that plane” when there’s a plane crash.
      These people are processing.
      And people using the word “paternal” reminds me of how these predators can also be good friends anf good parents (Louis CK comes to mind). She’s not defending HW by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
      And Jennifer Lawrence was very publicly abused with the hacking of those photos but because she is strong, no one (commenters here included) seems to pay attention to the horrible pain it must have been and still is to her.
      On another note, she seems incredibly confused with what is abuse of power and what isn’t.

      • Gill G says:

        Maybe she’s not confused at all about the meaning of ‘abuse of power’. Plenty of people are assuming that she was bullied by Russell, Aronofsky and others, without the slightest shred of evidence. When DiCaprio goes intense and freezes his butt off for Inarritu, it’s intense acting by DiCaprio showing off his commitment: when Lawrence goes deep for Aronofsky and throws out a rib, it’s him abusing her.

    • BlueMoodyHues says:

      Then interviewers need to stop asking. If someone says “No comment” then that’s a story. If they give their perspective or experience, then they should just shut up. It’s a no-win situation. And if you tell them off the record not to ask, you know that will come out as well and people will say you have something to hide.

      • ell says:

        i don’t think she has anything to hide, and i’m of the opinion that even if she were hiding something because she isn’t ready to come out to the whole world, that’s her right. it’s hard to share these experiences regardless, but when you’re a public figure it’s even harder, so shade from me on this one.

        i just would like that the people who are talking would try to be more careful with their words. i think it’s important.

    • HH says:

      I said this below, but I will always side eye the men and women that are saying they heard the numerous rumors but didn’t see/experience anything, so they were “shocked/surprised” by the recent scandal.

      • slowsnow says:

        I think people are shocked with the extent of the crime, not the crime per se. It’s like the concentration camps – if you’ll allow me a horrid parallel. People knew about them but that didn’t prevent the horror it was to find out the extent of the torture that was going on.
        Have you never been in a situation where there are rumours of abuse but you don’t actually know exactly what is going on? I did and it’s always surprising for people who are sane and law-abiding to find out what really happened.

      • ell says:

        @slowsnow ok but it’s been a while now, and it doesn’t help. i accept some people didn’t know, i’m not questioning it. but there’s no need to talk about how her relationship with him was almost paternal. to be clear, i don’t think she spoke to be deliberately unpleasant, but we don’t need this.

      • Annetommy says:

        It’s not really analogous to these horrible cases of abuse, but even nasty people treat people differently. I worked for a really unpleasant boss (a woman). She was pretty much awful to everyone, but was always fine with me. No problems at all. I don’t know why. Maybe she just liked me. I did file a formal complaint about behaviour in that workplace, but not about her behaviour to me, because it was perfectly OK. So I can imagine this happening with Jennifer.

    • Veronica says:

      Honestly, I think it’s important for people like her to make honest statements like that so that others understand why predators can get away with it – because they know how to do pick their victims. J. Law had power as a Hollywood “It Girl,” so he didn’t bother making his move beyond a paternalistic one because of the backlash. When you aren’t subject to that behavior, it makes it easier to write off other rumors as consensual or over hyped. It’s a reminder that abusers do not go around wearing giant signs warning people off, and it’s easy to get pulled into their orbit via the charms they deploy to hide the monstrosity underneath.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      What Ninks said. Also, many women in Hollywood who were NOT sexually abused are probably going to be coming out and saying so now, more than ever. It seems like it’s already stared a little bit. They should be able to share the fact that they weren’t raped/molested without being dismissed as liars, being called secret whores, or being accused of covering for an abuser. It won’t be surprising if a few gay, bisexual, and pansexual people of both sexes in Hollywood who haven’t been sexually abused start to say so too. This is all another part of the conversation that may need to happen, because of the narratives that are always projected on the lives and sexualities of those who lack male privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc.

      • Veronica says:

        It also reinforces that the real issue is not sex but POWER. Abusers like Weinstein aren’t after these women because of uncontrollable sexual urges. They’re after women because they view them as inferior and vulnerable, which is the thrill of demeaning and abusing them.

      • ell says:

        ‘They should be able to share the fact that they weren’t raped/molested without being dismissed as liars, being called secret whores, or being accused of covering for an abuser.’

        i was making a different argument though. i understand that some people are exploiting the situation to call JL a liar and other unpleasant expletives, but nowhere in my comments i wrote anything about it. quite the contrary, in fact.

        my comment was about my feeling that statements such as ‘it didn’t happen to me, he was good to me’ are also used to discredit the women who accuse these men, and for some women to side with them. i made the example of the snl women writing a letter for al franken and lena dunham & her lot. i wrote some comments down that while i understand that we need to have the discussion that these sexual assaulters are often fathers, husbands, loved by someone, can be nice and wonderful and fatherly, that doesn’t mean they can’t also be guilty of assault towards other women. at the same time though, it makes me uncomfortable, because the argument ‘he was good to me’ is being used to imply or outright say that these men would never do it. it’s a tough one. i’m aware JL wasn’t defending him and i wrote it in my first comment, but i wonder if humanising these men does any good, since the ‘he was good to me’ is being used as a counterargument to diss victims.

    • PPP says:

      Well, she’s also talking about the nude hack and how it affected her quite openly, and I think it’s important since it happens to a lot of women. I think in this interview she’s thinking of the toxic atmosphere she’s been operating in and is speculating about how she got hit by some things and managed to avoid others by sheer luck. She sounds like she’s processing.

      • ell says:

        yeah, i honestly don’t have a problem with anything else she’s saying. it’s just the bit in which she talks about weinsten being ‘paternal’ that is sort of jarring to me for the reason i explained. i’m 100% sure she did not mean it to side it with him or maliciously, but i think it’s something we need to consider when we have so many defending assaulters because ‘they were nice to them’.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I believe her when she says SHE wasn’t victimized. But I still can’t stand these actors and actresses who continued to work with Weinstein and support his movies even after knowing what a pig he is. Sure, it didn’t happen to THEM, but is that supposed to make supporting his movie s”ok”? (“It didn’t happen to me, so that’s not my problem”).

      The ONE THING any of the other actors could have done is not work with Weinstein or support his movies. I don’t like the actors who work with Polanski or Allen either, even if THEY were not personally victimized by that particular rapist. Supporting their careers — which means supporting their crimes — is still wrong.

  4. Spittair says:

    “I’m obviously too young for all three.”

    No kidding. But that didn’t stop you from taking the job tho. Please girl, just hustle and let us judge the studios/directors.

    And I concur about Darren…just ugh.

  5. sarah6 says:

    What’s wrong with Darren Aronofsky?

  6. HH says:

    RE: “I feel like I got gang-banged by the f–king planet” —- In a conversation about sexual harassment and abuse, this is a poor choice of words. I know she means to say that she got violated on a massive (and unimaginable) scale, but rape is rape. It is its own house of horrors and trauma. And, I don’t feel it should not be used as metaphor or hyperbole.

    RE: “I had heard that he was a dog. But he was always almost paternal to me.” — I get that one’s own experience will be the primary perception of an individual, but I guess I’ll always be cynical of the “I heard but didn’t experience it so I’m shocked” thing.

    • ell says:

      she isn’t the most eloquent, she never was.

    • Sarah says:

      @HH Maybe you should hear the whole interview because she speaks of Harvey’s victims and defends them. And she talks about many other things.
      The leak story was told later and not when they talked about abuses

    • Peeking in says:

      They conversation wasn’t about sexual harassment and abuse. Listen to the interview, both topics weren’t talked about at the same time. I also have no issue with her using the feeling of being gang raped by the planet to describe her sexual violation, which it was. This is way different than Kstew describing getting papped as being raped. Jennifer’s violation was of a sexual nature, her choice of words is fine.

    • Lucytunes says:

      Be careful trying to dictate how a victim expresses their trauma. No, she was not raped. Yes, she was still personally violated and attacked in a type of sexual crime. Her trauma and only she can express what it feels like for her. It’s not yours to comment on in anyway.

      Regarding the paternal comment. I think it’s so important, as was said in the post, to see that sexual predators are deliberate and manipulative. there is no one kind of predator or victim. Having awareness that someone is a serial cheater isn’t the same as knowing they abuse and rape women. Just because we consume gossip doesn’t mean we know facts. Their is a reason these men are able to hide multiple crimes in plain site. I fully believe he picked some women to be nurturing towards just like he picked others to assault. Focus should be on understanding how he and others are use power to commit these crimes, rather than blaming other women, victims of sexual violence themselves, for not knowing.

      Just like people are commenting about their disdain for Jennifer’s choice of words, we need to watch ours as well.

      • slowsnow says:

        And we need to stop treating language litterally on this website in order to attack the people we like less. She is hyperbolic and curses a lot, that’s the way she speaks and she was speaking of her own abuse! Let her vent. Even a strong woman like herself needs to come to terms with the horrible horrible thing that was done to her. She is a victim too. She did say that HW was a “sadistic monster” but everyone comments on “paternal” here – talk about bias.

    • PPP says:

      I actually think that’s a great line. I’ve always thought revenge porn was the same as or worse than ripping a woman’s clothes off in public. Because the woman’s nudity is broadcast to literally everyone and she can’t ever not be naked. I remember at the time she had friends of her saying they’d looked out of curiosity and she seemed pretty shocked and disgusted by that. Imagine yourself in the same position. Further, it’s nudity with sexual intent, and was obviously part of her sexual relationship with her boyfriend, so basically the world engaged in that relationship without permission. It’s an incredible violation that you’re obviously lucky never to have been through.

      How about let’s not get into an oppression Olympics where some sex crimes are NBD and you only get to complain if you were Weinsteined.

    • Aren says:

      She said “gang banged”, not “gang raped”.
      Gang bangs are like orgies, everything is meant to be consensual.

  7. Sarah says:

    For American Hutle she won NYFCC, NSFC, many other critics awards besides Golden Globe and BAFTA. She practically almost won the Oscar.

    I loved that interview, when she talks about the burned girl almost crying she has moved me a lot. I find her more mature now although I don’t like Aronofsky seems obvious to me that she feels comfortable with him.

    She really one of a kind and always interesting in interviews.

    • Div says:

      Yup, I’m not sure why there is the dig at American Hustle. I didn’t care for the film but her performance was highly lauded, she won a bunch of critics awards, and she wasn’t even really campaigning for the Oscar. On the other hand, the nomination for Joy was crazy imo.

    • Veronica says:

      I liked her in the movie, but I did think Amy Adams and Christian Bale were the standout performances there. Lawrence injected a lot of charm and energy into the role, but we only had glimpses of depth to the character, whereas Adams had far more to work with.

  8. I think she dodged a bullet. I think him being “paternal” to her was step one. I think she would have become one of his victims once he gained enough of her trust.

    • Kitten says:

      See, I think that she just wasn’t the type of person that he felt like he could victimize. And I don’t mean that to insinuate that the other women didn’t do enough to prevent their victimization, I just mean that essentially, J Law wasn’t his “type”. He probably saw her as a bit of a hassle, a woman who can be a bit boorish, uncouth and outspoken. And it might not even have been that conscious with him, could have been something that subconsciously told him to stay away. This is all unfounded speculation on my part of course but eh..

      • Kitten says:

        Sorry I should have put “prevent their victimization” in quotes. Terrible wording on my part. I understand that ANY woman can be a victim, but I also know that abusers have patterns and that they choose their victims carefully. J Law had a fairly established career at that point and already had a reputation as a confident, self-assured spitfire. Maybe Weinstein wasn’t into her for that reason alone–too intimidating, too much work, too much risk.

      • Usagichan says:

        Kitten – much better than people here speculating that she was raped or she screwed him for roles.

      • Christin says:

        I completely understand what Kitten is saying, and think it’s a plausible theory. You put it in words a lot better than I could.

        I have theorized in workplace situations that some of this ‘categorizing’ also takes place by those in power who choose to verbally or otherwise demean subordinates.

      • Veronica says:

        I stated the same thing above, Kitten. I think it’s important to acknowledge that there’s calculation in how predators act. He’s not an animal with no ability to control his drives. His treatment of J. Law is, in fact, a reminder that he is fully capable of controlling himself when the power dynamics are not as heavily skewed in his favor.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        A couple of people here have brought up possible motives for why he didn’t abuse her. I agree a little bit with some of those, but here’s the biggest reason why I think there are women like Jennifer Lawrence and others whom he worked with/ tried to come across as chummy with without trying anything with them: Because that’s good for his image. This is a powerful man who’s been victimizing women since the 1980′s. He knew that there was a strong possibility of him being exposed some day. He also tried to come across as a generous, progressive Democrat. Having successful, left-leaning men around him is one thing. But he really benefits from there being successful, left-leaning WOMEN in Hollywood who can honestly say he never touched them. His proximity to these women (as well as to politicians like Obama and Clinton) could reinforce that trustworthy, progressive, powerful image that he was trying to project and serve as good PR for him- possibly make a claim another woman made against him look less believable. He knew what he was doing. He’s likely not the only powerful abuser who’s been operating this way in entertainment or politics.

  9. Maya says:

    I feel pity for this woman – she has been surrounded by abuse men a lot and yet cannot see it. She seems to be another Marilyn Monroe..

    • Annetommy says:

      I don’t. She doesn’t appear to me to be nearly as vulnerable and open to exploitation as MM, thankfully.

    • Belle says:

      I think that even if she doesn’t realize it, she doesn’t want to know. She seems blissfully ignorant and proud to be the one that abusive men don’t go after *massive eye roll*

    • jenna says:

      I do not understand this persistent determination to make Jennifer Lawrence a victim. Whether it’s people accusing her of lying about Weinstein, or repeatedly claiming that she’s been abused by O Russell or Aronofsky. This stuff is literally completely baseless. Yes, O Russell is a pig, but they’ve always seemed to get along. It’s weird, but whatever. By all accounts the men she’s been romantically involved with are decent guys too.

      This narrative of “abuse victim” certain people have conjured up about her is, in my opinion, completely baffling and vaguely crass.

      • Oliviajoy says:

        I remember reading when Anna Faris and Chris Pratt broke up to give it a couple months and Jennifer Lawrence would be single again too. Alot of people really believe these two had an inappropriate relationship while making Passengers. I SO SO hope it’s not true, and they dont get together. I think that would devastate Anna Faris who has said multiple times she became very insecure and paranoid when those rumors surfaced.

      • Katherine says:

        @Oliviajoy and now what does Chris Pratt have to do? It’s this kind of fake gossip that made Faris suffer because she said she knew it was fake but it was hard to read the BS invented by the media. You say you’re worried about her, but you’re still doing what made her suffer.

    • kibbles says:

      Come on. She is not like Marilyn Monroe and this is not the 1950s. Monroe was a woman of her era, and even if she were alive today, would not be so abrasive and rude as JLaw. Neither was she as strong willed as JLaw. Monroe was much more vulnerable and shy in her personal life. She was exploited, and physically and emotionally abused by her husbands. JLaw has known how to play the Hollywood game from a very young age, and she has very thick skin. Maybe they both are similar in that they have experienced success in Hollywood, and sexism comes with the territory of working in that industry, but they couldn’t be more different in terms of their personalities. And on a superficial note, Marilyn Monroe was the real deal for her beauty and underrated acting and comedic ability. JLaw is extremely overrated.

      • Otaku fairy says:

        “…sexism comes with the territory of working in that industry.”
        Which you and many others here are more than happy to be complicit in. While complaining about anti-choice victim-blaming religious women at the same time. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. It’s like Trump trying to act concerned about women being raped and disrespected, or his idiot supporters criticizing the Obamas and Clintons for possibly knowing about Weinstein.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        “…sexism comes with the territory of working in that industry…”
        Which you and many others here are more than happy to be complicit in. While complaining about anti-choice victim-blaming religious women at the same time. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. It’s like Trump trying to act concerned about women being raped and disrespected, or his idiot supporters criticizing the Obamas and the Clintons for possibly knowing about Weinstein.

  10. ArchieGoodwin says:

    I have mixed feelings about this interview.

    One one side, she was obviously violated, in a sexual way (her photos) so yes, she has been abused, IMO. Not physically, but the mindfuck she is still processing screams abuse. She sounds so sad, despondent. This is why victims cannot even speak of abuse for years. Your mind simply cannot process it.

    On the other side, this bullshit about being “deeply, deeply honest” is just that- bullshit. It sounds so contrite I had to laugh or I might throw up from how ridiculous a statement that is.

    Nice thing: I still think this is the best she’s been styled.

    • Kitten says:

      The “deeply, deeply honest” comment was so hilarious.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I vowed I was not going to say too much on this thread. But I think she is passive aggressive and probably made some enemies with this interview. I suppose someone gave her the shovel but calling a known predator paternal and then saying he was never that way with you …No words.
      The girl is going for that Oscar I can say that, but she goes to great lengths to always try to seem better or special or immune to things other actresses experience. But she says it in such a down to earth every girl way it doesn’t look like she is doing it. She is saying I am not a victim type because I can take care of myself but a known rapist who preyed on every single woman chose only me to be proper with. I am the ONLY one who could tell HW like it is. Every interview she does is strategic with a purpose. That’s how she rolls.

      JL just proved what William Macy said about putting art over doing the right thing. She worked with molester bully O’Russell but he is her artistic soulmate. I guess she wants to repair that relationship to get good roles. It was wrong when he said it but ok when she said it? I never thought it was wrong in the first place because it is the truth.

      It will be interesting to see what happens to her career without her powerful champion’s influence. I hope she chooses this time to use her temporary clout to follow Reese W’s lead (and other women) who decided to produce and try to change the dynamics.

      • Juliette says:

        “It will be interesting to see what happens to her career without her powerful champion’s influence” Sorry but JLaw made only a movie with Harvey, she didn’t need him and her career was and is fine. She was nominated for an Oscar before and after SLP.
        Stop with this talk as if she did only movies with Harvey or that he had discovered her. JLaw became an it- girl before Harvey, with X-Men, Hunger Games and her first Oscar nom for Winter’s Bone

      • magnoliarose says:

        I just don’t think this was a good interview business wise which is very different from her usual interviews. Some people will never believe her. No matter what she says and they will still think what they want to believe about the hacks.
        Actresses who have been victimized by him aren’t going to like any part of these statements about HW or David O. She said a lot of other things, but those will stand out.

        There is no right way to talk about someone like Harvey who is so hated, complicated and sociopathic. It is better for her to get distance from him and work on her career. Since Mother bombed and her movies have not made a lot of money she doesn’t have a mentor anymore, and it would be easy for her to slide. But she is far from the only one.
        Men and women who benefitted mainly from their connections to him will have to reassess their career direction. All of those interesting movies and independent to mainstream films or TV shows won’t get made. It isn’t just actors but writers, directors, producers, cinematographers, costume designers…He made a lot of period movies.

      • Juliette says:

        @magnoliarose
        “It is better for her to get distance from him and work on her career. Since Mother bombed and her movies have not made a lot of money she doesn’t have a mentor anymore”
        This is wrong. Weinstein has never been her mentor.
        I find that people are really exaggerating in analyzing her interview. But then people are always obsessed with JLaw, it’s really from Julia Roberts days that I didn’t something like that.

      • Gill G says:

        What on earth is wrong with saying that someone recently exposed as a predator behaved in a paternal way towards her? That’s a simple statement of fact – and totally consistent with how predators behave. Are people actually reading the interview, or just criticising Lawrence for the sake of it?

        Oh, and the idea that her career is dependant on Weinstein and Russell as ‘champions’ is fairly sexist. There is a small sequence of films called the Hunger Games that may have raised her profile just a little…not to mention an Oscar nom for Winter’s Bone and acclaimed performances in mother and a host of other indie/arty films.

      • magnoliarose says:

        What is sexist is believing that her career was good enough to protect her from the system. No one’s job was good enough to protect them from HW in one way or the other. He could have crushed her if he wanted to at any time. Was she more talented than Rose, Rosanna, Paz or Mira or Anabella? What you are asserting is that somehow JL is the only young actress in all of Hollywood history who was able to forge her career on her own exceptional terms. The entire point in breaking the system is acknowledging that this is impossible because it is. Men call all the shots and women are forced to deal with them in some way to do their jobs. They are forced to navigate in ways men are not.
        Interviews like this are the wrong message, and as others have tried to point out, it can read as an excuse. I don’t like nitpicking interviews, but this subject is one where the interviewee should be very circumspect when they answer.
        It is wrong to say what she said about a man whose traumatized victims are processing and coming forward. It is simple human decency and being aware of people outside of yourself. She already said she wasn’t a victim. She had to add she was shocked but when Clooney and Damon said it no one believed them. Her statement is the same and if I didn’t believe his wife or anyone else it is because I feel no one who spent considerable time with him were shocked. They adjusted their comments after but she is now saying what they initially said! Nope.
        The problem I have with the focus on believing or not believing is that it doesn’t matter and that is still buying into misogyny. Our society is set up to think a woman’s body is not her own and what she does with it needs to fit inside an acceptable guideline. Why do we even need to know that part? We should not care. She is no longer part of the story either way.
        I had just read the NYT op-ed about Anabella Sciorra and had some hard conversations with a friend, so I was in no mood for JL’s impervious girl interview. Perhaps I was harsh, but I still think it was an insensitive interview.
        Sometimes I am not articulate, but I am not sexist. This moment is about victims.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        @Magnoliarose: “Our society is set up to think a woman’s body is not her own and what she does with it needs to fit inside an acceptable guideline.”
        These important subjects will come up again, hopefully at a less busy time. But just wanted to throw two things out there for now:
        Defense of someone’s right to do as she pleases with her body is necessary for the intersectional, sex-positive, anti-victim-blaming feminist society we NEED. Repeated false allegations, non-consensual outings (for the daily public entertainment/satisfaction/exploitation of others), or revictimization- all three of those things are damaging in the patriarchal society we HAVE.

        Also, about this part: “What you are asserting is that somehow JL is the only young actress in all of Hollywood history who was able to forge her career on her own exceptional terms.” Not at all. I think there are a few whom Harvey Weinstein has publicly worked with that he didn’t choose to either rape or sleep with- especially within more recent years- because that’s also useful to him, just like donating to an aligning himself with democrats and some of his other behaviors were useful. He’s calculating and manipulative. In general, I don’t think these people mindlessly prey on every single person they come across.

  11. Mia4s says:

    If she considers that psycho, alleged niece-groper David O’Russell her artistic soulmate she is really not someone I would want to know until she’s had extensive therapy. It really makes me wonder about her.

    • Nicole says:

      The last thing I want to hear is privileged Jennifer talk about abusive men and how they are her soulmates and paternal.
      Something is not right there. At all. It’s kinda gross now to hear her fawn over such disgusting men. I agree she needed therapy yesterday. I’m so over her BS

      • Juliette says:

        @Nicole Maybe you should listen the interview because the things aren’t as you wrote

      • Nicole says:

        Thanks I heard the interview yesterday. And she mentions these guys in the round table as well. Fact is I’m over her fawning over abusive d*cks.
        She has a right to say what she wants but she sounds at best tone deaf here. Between her Weinstein comments, DOR comments and her bf’s rep I’m over it.
        And no this has nothing to do with her hack which is horrifying. We can say she was a victim and also recognize that she says offensive crap often

      • Shaunablackgurl says:

        If she does fawn over abusive dudes it called “victim mentaility” I think instead of getting mad at her for being an victim and not being able to see abusive behavior because it is normalized, let’s call out the dudes who are doing it. Let’s call out the culture that normalizes it.
        My mom was used to shitty behaviors from men and I used to get so mad at her because she stayed & constantly excused it.
        My anger was focused on her, not on the person who was doing the dirt. She should know better. The woman should know better not to abused, rather than the man should know better not to abuse women.
        But that’s victim blaming and sexist. Dudes should know not to act that way. Dudes should know not to take advantage of women.

        If Jlaw is like that? Then I hope she gets help, however I hope all those dudes get what coming to them for being abusive period.

      • Nicole says:

        Shauna I agree but I’m not going to call her a victim if she insists she isn’t one. That’s projecting something I’m not comfortable with.
        I’ve always been of the belief that her relationships or views are slightly skewed due to her being able to find these men worthy of a pedestal. I’ve always said she needs therapy to undo that. I still believe that. It makes me uncomfortable that she says half the stuff she says about these guys. Heck I believe everyone should go to therapy at some point in their life. But that still doesn’t take away the damage her words do in the larger scope of things. Just how Gabby Douglas is a victim but her words did damage the other day

      • magnoliarose says:

        I think you and I decided we were after Mother! if I recall correctly and I am still with you here too. I am tired of her.

        I agree I think if someone doesn’t feel victimized then it is no one’s place to convince them otherwise but in the scope of the men, she chooses to align herself with there is something off about that.

        I read the whole interview too.

      • Jbapista says:

        The idea that J-Law is condoning abusive behaviour in this interview is, frankly, a little nuts. Some people seem to want to obsessively criticise her for imagined slights. Her critical and commercial success really bugs some people – why?

  12. Anon says:

    So many women here are so quick to say “I believe the women” when someone comes out with an abuse story but are the same women who are quick to make J Law a victim when she has repeatedly said she wasn’t one. I get that many people here don’t like her but you can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth just because of a personal feeling of dislike because it makes your “support” of victims who have come out sound so hollow.

    • ArchieGoodwin says:

      I think that might be called “experience”.

      The language is the same, we can read or listen and see things. No, we aren’t perfect, but I feel for this girl in ways I haven’t before. She sounds so, so sad.

      I hope she gets help. I truly do.

      • Peeking in says:

        To me all the sadness coming from her is in relations to having her nakedness exposed to the entire world, when she talks about being at a bbq and anyone there being able to access those photos which were meant for Nic. I think people need to stop making her a victim of Hollywood abusive men, when she has said she’d never been sexually abused in that way. She acknowledged that she has been objectified. Stop assuming she’s too stupid to know when a man is sexually abusing her.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Sadness is understandable in her situation. In addition to the permanent violation of her sexual photos being released into this kind of culture without her consent, she’s also being falsely accused of owing her career to sleeping with a serial rapist. The sex crime combined with this misogynistic, abusive false allegation against her (that’s being repeated over and over again, and will keep being repeated) are problems that she will have to deal with for the rest of her life. And she’s far from the only famous woman this applies to.

    • Jane2222 says:

      Yes, I think people claiming that Lawrence must be a poor, exploited victim without her realising it, or must be hiding something, are engaging in some very questionable projection with misogynistic undertones.

      • Kitten says:

        This. The comments are patronizing as f*ck and I HIGHLY doubt we would make the same claims if it was a man who came forward saying that he wasn’t victimized by Kevin Spacey.

        Also the therapy comments. Does Tarantino need therapy too? What about Andrew Garfield? Andy Serkis? What about every man who has claimed to NOT know about Weinstein’s behavior or Louis CK’s behavior or Spacey’s behavior?
        Do they all need therapy too? Or is it just J. Law because we’re certain she “loves abusive men”?

        Like WTF to these threads. I’m out because I just cannot today.

      • lucy2 says:

        Good example with Spacey, Kitten.
        She’s said she was not a victim of HW. I believe her. End of story.

        I do find her description of their relationship worrisome though, in a different way. She says they had a nice relationship and he was paternal to her, but then says she called him a sadistic monster, and thinks that’s good. There’s a pattern, in who she chooses to work with, how they behave, and how she views it that seems very unhealthy. It’s like she thinks someone has to be an unstable tyrant to produce great “art”. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I often get with her.

      • jenna says:

        Love this, totally agree. It’s disgusting.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @kitten
        I would say same things I am saying and probably have so much more to say because of Spacey’s victims and the gay angle of the abuse. If some guy said Spacey was paternal, I would not claim they were a victim, but I would wonder what the point in saying it is. With plenty of mental ewwws and yucks after reading it.

        I said it before that everyone is technically a victim of HW, but some women don’t feel that way and had willing relationships with him one way or the other. Their reasons are their own, and I don’t judge it. But the timing isn’t the best in my view.

      • magnoliarose says:

        When I say relationships, I AM NOT IMPLYING SEXUAL. That doesn’t really matter to me. I don’t care if she did or didn’t. She is the same person to me no matter what choices she made or didn’t make. She doesn’t owe anyone the truth, but I do think it is a problem that with pushing the narrative that she didn’t it seems like it makes some people feel better and relieved. Shouldn’t we be at a point where we say fine because it doesn’t matter? Not simply believing but so what? She is a grown ass woman and what she does and doesn’t do is no one’s business. If she slept with every man in California, it doesn’t matter. She is the same person either way.

        The horror show is Harvey, and he does deserve loads of judgment. My problem is her words and message in the context of the entire interview.

        As to the hacking that is just low and terrible. It is a violation that will follow her forever, and I feel very sorry for her about that. I am sure she has cried over and over about it.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Agreed. They may not realize it or care, but the people who are accusing her and other women of lying, and insisting that they were either sexually assaulted/raped or that they slept with him willingly for a come-up are really saying: “Women are not to be believed. These women are all a bunch of lying whores.”

    • PPP says:

      Yeah let’s not have a repeat of the Gretchen Mol shitshow. This paternalistic dismissing of what women say when you don’t like it contributes to an atmosphere in which women don’t even bother to say what they know you won’t believe.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Right. This has the potential to be a little bit more toxic than the usual, casual casting couch rumors that no woman or girl who sets foot in Hollywood is able to escape. For the rest of their lives, these women will have to deal with consistently being falsely accused of being a serial rapist’s purchased victim or willing, paid for mistress who helped with his abuse of other women. Combine all that with the pressures of fame, and the potential for damage is even higher. To make matters worse, if that does happen to have any unhealthy or scarring effect on any of these women at some point during their time as stars, whatever happens to them will only be taken as confirmation that they had something to hide. That’s often the attitude you see toward victims of sexual bullying, for example.

  13. Cs says:

    I wonder if she was too fat for Weinstein. Not that I’m saying JLaw’s fat, but Weinstein seems like the kind of Hollywood a-hole who would think she needed to go down a size or two to be ‘prettier’.

    • slowsnow says:

      I agree. She’s said that she was asked to loose weight and I wonder if that’s when she called him a “sadistic monster”.
      I don’t like JLaw much but I think we’re very quick to forget here that she is one of the resilient ones, probably still incapable of really spotting abuse of power, but she was also a victim of hacking and exposure (a sex crime) and of bullying with the “loose weight” thing.
      Being strong doesn’t mean you don’t suffer.
      That David O’Russell thing though… Makes me worry about her, not villify her.

  14. Jamie42 says:

    One of the things I hate about this whole situation is the picking apart of what women say, whether Jennifer Lawrence or Jennifer Garner.

    • Kitten says:

      It really is exhausting. I get that she’s not the most articulate, eloquent woman but JFC can people just chill and maybe you know, reserve judgment (*GASP*) and let her share HER unique perspective/experience without projecting their own shit upon her?

      And I’m ambivalent about J. Law but I’ve found myself defending her lately because people get on her for every single thing she says to the most extreme degree.

    • PPP says:

      Yes, people ought to realize they’re not just targeting people like J-Law or Garner or Amber Heard. They’re communicating their toxic attitudes to US, the commenters, the women who have also been through stuff like this. And yeah, women can have toxic attitudes towards other women. I’m real tired of hearing “this is a gossip site” as an excuse to express toxic ideas. If you think sexual harassment is an important issue, you need to step back and do some thinking about the incredible negativity you have inside you and develop some empathy. It feels better than assuaging your insecurities with hateful proclamations, trust me.

      • Kate says:

        I would no put Garner’s offensive “due process” nonsense in the same category as anything Amber or J-Law ever said.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I agree with you about empathy. You know that.
        From my perspective, I am not emotionally connected to press interviews because I know there is always an angle and some eye-rolly whatever moments in them. I understand we are individuals and we don’t process life the same.
        Because of my background, I use that knowledge to analyze interviews or statements, but I usually think about everything I know about that person too.
        When I think of Jennifer as a victim, I think of it more as a victim of a system that is inherently exploitative. From my experience, the women who think they have some sort control have no understanding that they don’t. That attitude allows exploitation to seem like consent and two adults just doing their thing. The problem is one person has power and you are rewarded for assisting in your own exploitation because you are “down” with everything. You aren’t making it a big deal and predators love to convince themselves that the way the “down” girl behaves is how all of his victims should act and minimize their behavior even twisting into the victims is to blame.
        You cannot win in relationships with predators. They have a thousand different faces to get what they want. I don’t fault her at all. She didn’t create the dynamics in the industry.

        JL is on my nerves for other reasons, but I look at her situations almost clinically and see it as part of the system only I try to figure out where she fits into the system. My concentration is on how to change it not so much about the particulars anymore.

      • PPP says:

        @magnoliarose: Thanks for the insightful comment. This especially hits home:

        “From my experience, the women who think they have some sort control have no understanding that they don’t. That attitude allows exploitation to seem like consent and two adults just doing their thing.”

        It’s understandable that women gasp for any sense of control they can in this industry (this life, really), whether it’s being “down” like Jlaw or a “good girl” like Jennifer Garner. I don’t like what she said the other day but they are entrenched in a toxic system that controls their livelihoods and more. Everyone finds their own way to live in this world. It’s hard for everyone, and I’m not going to fault a young woman who is clearly still processing it all. Revenge porn is one of my biggest fears and I can’t imagine going it on the scale Jlaw has, and she still thinks of herself as lucky to have escaped sexual harassment.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Revenge porn should be illegal. If we have laws about voice recordings, I think we should about this as well.

        I do believe she is processing this whole thing. Absolutely. I hope that women come away from mistakes or messy situations like these with insight and strength. Her PR people should have told her this wasn’t a good time to link herself back to HW. Just for career sake. Lots of distance.

  15. Maddy says:

    Who the heck asks someone point blank if they have been sexually assaulted?!? What a personal question to just throw in there with the rest of them!

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      It wouldn’t be surprising at all to see something like, “Have you been sexually assaulted by someone in Hollywood” become the trendy new question to ask famous women and girls. Peak 2017. And you know it will only be asked of the women.* And when a woman who hasn’t been answers, she’ll get called a liar (or accused of some extra things) by people all over the internet. And if it happens to be any of the famous women who are considered ‘slutty’? There’s zero chance of them NOT being dismissed as liars or more. To sex-negative misogynists on the left and the right, their not being ‘ladies’ is a disease in and of itself. If a woman is a lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual and shares the fact that she hasn’t been sexually abused, all the homophobes on the right will accuse her of lying for the same reason. Transgender women too. And if ANY kind of woman refuses to comment or dares to show any irritation by people asking her a question like that, there will be all kinds of gross, concern-trolling speculation combined with people painting her as an unstable bitch for not liking that question. Our culture is gross.
      *And if any men get asked, it will most likely start with the ones who either aren’t heterosexual, or who are suspected of not being heterosexual.

      • K says:

        Yes. This will become the new pay gap question, and the asker will feel all woke by raising it, without realising they never challenge men on their own pay, or behaviour around women in the industry. Yet again, a way women are maltreated is a woman’s problem to discuss, to process, and to resolve.

    • PPP says:

      I’ve seen this a lot. Men don’t realize the position they’re putting a woman in when they do that.

  16. blogdis says:

    On the one hand I feel that she should just shut up about him somehow her comments on him seem well ” off ” on the other hand she is not offering think pieces on the man she is constantly being asked about him in interviews so what is she to do ?

    It is somewhat unsettling to me how many people seem to want Weinstein to have abused Jennifer. I mean didn’t she already have some success and clout when they met? Also Jennifer is no shrinking violet she strikes me as the type that would have told Harvey to f*vk off or pull your pants no one wants to see that and storm out of the room, only to storm back in and say so we still on for that lunch thing tomorrow a hole ?
    She seems to fancy herself as that’s type of girl, that old school would call a “broad ” you know ballsy like Mae West but still cool with the guys
    Dunno

  17. littlemissnaughty says:

    I have no problem with what she’s saying. She’s allowed to frame it the way she experienced it and who knows, her perspective might very well change in a few years. The gang bang comment was a poor choice of words but you can tell that hacking situation f*cked her up. I feel terrible for every woman who was affected.

    I do think it’s interesting to hear from the young women who didn’t have any negative esperiences with Weinstein because it shows how abusers can be perfectly nice, even fatherly, to one group of people and complete monsters to their victims. I think it’s actually a very important point.

    • ell says:

      re to your last point: i’m torn. because i see what you’re saying, and it made think that yes, it is a very important point, but otoh, i’m seeing so many using the being nice and fatherly to some people to discredit those who have been treated differently. we’ve seen it with lena dunham and her lot, the women who wrote the letter to defend al franken, all the commenters here who keep going on about how we would react differently if someone we love was accused etc. it’s an important point, but it gets twisted and it becomes detrimental.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Yes it does and it’s important to not let it be used as a defense or to minmize their crimes. But it’s a fact that a predator will most likely not be terrible and abusive to everyone, at least not the sociopaths like HW. I know this is an extreme example but it’s well known that Hitler was extremely charming when he wanted to be. He was also an animal lover. These are facts that have nothing to do with the horror he unleashed on three continents. It’s true but it has nothing to do with the rest. I think we need to be aware that people build facades and sometimes they truly do have two sides. That never means the one woman accusing the nice guy, the family man, is lying. That’s the point we need to keep making because it’s not easy to accept.

        Everyone here who hasn’t believed Jennifer is not exactly helping with that.

      • BaronSamedi says:

        But don’t you also think that Weinstein’s ability to be fatherly and nice if it suited him is exactly the reason why he could go on so long?

        The problem with these monsters is that they are not full time monsters but know exactly when they can get away with it. Which, yes, makes it harder for victims to be heard when they speak. But Jennifer can only speak to her truth here. I think it actually forms a more complete picture of Harvey Weinstein as a calculating monster.

        If he was actually a poor victim of his impulses as he wants to claim (or whatever) there would be NO WAY he could have kept his hands off Jennifer. The fact that he apparently has indicates to me that he was perfectly capable of not harassing women when he felt it might bite him in the ass for whatever reason.

        That’s on him and not on her.

      • ell says:

        ‘That’s on him and not on her’

        i fully agree, and i also agree with the fact that people not believing JL doesn’t help. but what i’m wondering is broader than JL’s experience, if i’m making any sense. these men can be nice to someone and horrible to another, i mean murderers also don’t kill every person they meet, and can also be completely nice people to some. you always hear those stories of how their family/neighbours/acquaintances are so surprised because he seemed such a nice lad and not like a psycho murderer at all!

        BUT, and it’s a big but, the argument of he was nice to me is being used a lot to defend these sexual assaulters. i don’t have an answer to what’s the best course of action, but it’s something that makes me wonder.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        ell, we can’t change the facts but we can change the narrative. And the narrative is so important. We have to at least try to frame the facts in a way that gives a full picture without letting people use them to their advantage. I don’t see another option. He didn’t abuse Jennifer. That’s a fact and it’s out there. It’s up to us how it’s interpreted.

      • PPP says:

        I don’t think her intent is to discredit at all. Honestly, she sounds kind of in shock that she got the treatment she did.

      • K says:

        If we pretend monsters only ever behave monstrously, we make it a lot harder for women to be believed. In fact I think that’s part of why they aren’t. That was apparent in the Stanford rapist trial, too – all these people who’d grown up with him loudly declaring he couldn’t be a rapist, because he’d been nice to them. Lena Dunham saying the same about her pal. It’s like someone has to be all evil, all the time, or it can’t be true. And it’s actually not surprising to hear he had selected pet people he treated fairly well. That’s what bullies do.

        All that separates him from men who drag women into alleys was the fact he could charm, and bully, and create an atmosphere where people either didn’t dare challenge him, or couldn’t believe it was true.

  18. D says:

    I don’t know, sometimes it seems like she wants to be the ‘cool girl’ , the ‘guys girl’ so badly that she either doesn’t recognize when men act sexist and treat her like crap or she sees it as normal. If she laughs along with them at their stupid misogynistic jokes , it just means that she’s one of them – ‘cool girl’ status accomplished.

    • jenna says:

      I’d be perfectly happy not to hear the Jennifer Lawrence/”cool girl” analogy ever again. It’s completely played out.

      • D says:

        We have different impressions of her personality then, that’s fine. None of us know her personally, so all we have to go on is what she says in various interviews and this is the impression I’ve gotten from that. Maybe my impression of her is correct, maybe it’s not. You don’t know and I don’t know…but we all still gossip and comment.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I understand what you are saying. I take it more as an observation not as a judgment. Everyone has qualities that confuse us from time to time, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a perception of a situation. She has always seemed that way, and it has been remarked on here a million times. It is only natural to wonder if JL is missing behaviors. Not that she is at fault or to blame or to victim shame but if she realizes how sociopaths work?
      Honest question.
      We don’t lose our critical thinking ability in these situations, and I don’t think any of this is cut and dry or straightforward as some people try to make it seem. You can criticize someone and not blame them at the same time.

    • keenan says:

      this comment and this thread
      this cool girl argument coming from other women is so asinine
      anyways, we really have a long way to go

      • magnoliarose says:

        Why is it asinine? This isn’t a new accusation about her, and for quite awhile she was practically despised on this site for that very thing. Some women still feel that way, and I don’t understand why their perception of her is wrong suddenly.
        Women can not like or approve or think the same things about other women. We aren’t a monolith, and everything we all say about anyone is essentially an opinion.
        She does market herself that way.

        It has nothing to do with Harvey however. Like Amber Heard, some here don’t like her, but we all agreed she didn’t deserve to be battered and abused by Depp.

      • D says:

        I’ve known a few girls like that, the type who wants to be the ‘cool girl’, the ‘guys girl’ and they often don’t recognize when men act sexist, they write it off as a joke -just guys being guys. Or they do recognize it but laugh along with it anyway because they want to fit in and be one of the guys. Whether this is accurate for Jennifer or not I don’t know, but it’s a thing.
        To be clear I’m not holding her at fault for other peoples behavior, I’m just asking if recognizes it for what it is or if she views it as normal.

  19. Shaunablackgurl says:

    The big issue is why are they asking her if she’s been sexually harassed? What? Do they ask the dudes if they’ve ever sexually harassed someone?
    I guess because they are asking Jlaw (who most ppl dislike) it’s cool to some.
    The fact that women are put in this position is crappy. Can we talk about that? Or would we rather force her to be an victim and pick her words apart?
    Rapists & abusers can be mom & dad’s. Ppl you may look up too. So for her to see him as paternal is no big deal.
    Ppl aren’t one dimensional. I don’t see anything she’s saying as offensive. I just wish she wasn’t put in this situation.
    My uncle was the best dude in the world to me, until I found out he abused his wife for years.

    • Shaunablackgurl says:

      I’m also sick of this “cool girl” talk. Ppl just want to put so many hats (most of them negative bcuz they dislike her and can’t seem to not let that seep in) on Jlaw.
      Man, how many boxes does she have to check for people (so called “woke” women) here to not be so sexist and gross about her?

    • K says:

      *The big issue is why are they asking her if she’s been sexually harassed? What? Do they ask the dudes if they’ve ever sexually harassed someone?*

      This. So, so, SO much this.

      You know the worst thing? My kneejerk reaction to your comment at first glance was, “You can’t go around asking guys that!” Which is, when there’s not a scrap of evidence, absolutely the right reaction, as you so neatly demonstrate. But somehow my outrage was over people saying she’s lying – not over people asking her at all. Says it all about the nature of internalised misogyny, doesn’t it? When it took comments on here to make me realise that we never say “a man raped a woman” but “a woman was raped” as though the act fell from the sky, independently.

      The focus on women, and what they did or didn’t do… it’s infuriating. It’s also dangerous. Because yet again, it shifts focus and responsibility away from the responsible parties.

  20. SM says:

    “He was never inappropriate with me” about Weinstein coming from someone who calls an abusive psycho her soulmate and the most important realtionship in her life and has a douchbag for a boyfriend does not count for much. Sorry JLaw. I am happy she was not raped or abused by Harvey but I think she needs to sit this one out because she isn’t helping the situation much with this talk about oh we were abusive to each other, calling names and stuff and now and look, the result is ART!

  21. Jayna says:

    I liked her interview. I believe she does really click with David O. Russell, as does Bradley Cooper. Even Amy Adams came out in an interview and illuminated more about her feelings with working with Russell, how different he was from when she did The Fighter, who she credits with giving her a breakout role playing against type, with him compared to American Hustle and his behavior. She said Jennifer was like teflon and it rolled off of her. But that he had developed this crazy way of working with Jennifer and Bradley from Silver Linings Playbook that carried over to American Hustle that was sheer mania. It affected Amy and did leave her in tears all the time, and thus he was harder on her. And she brought that pain home affecting her daughter. Plus, Amy hated seeing how he treated people. But even she said, never say never about working with him again. “She wouldn’t, she says, want to work with David O Russell again – at least, not any time soon. “Not in the near future, no. I’ll never say never, but with my daughter being where she’s at, unless the role is less damaged and there’s a way to mitigate the insanity then probably not. I just want to be a good mom, you know?”

    But for Jennifer and Bradley, they did seem to love and thrive working with David O. Russell and just weren’t affected the way Amy was because of the relationship they had developed with Russell on the previous movie.

    I thought Jennifer was honest in her interview. If you even read Gwyneth’s words about Harvey, after the initial back and forth, her further dealings with Harvey on other movies were fine and she seemed to at times have affection for Harvey. I think Nicole Kidman had affection for Harvey. She has never once said his name directly in her statements when addressing sexual abuse and that it is not acceptable. I noticed that.

    And Jennifer is one tough cookie. I do think she can handle strife and ill temper on set from a director, give it back right to their faces, and let it go and move on.

    And, no, I don’t believe Jennifer slept with Harvey.

  22. S says:

    Considering the types of directors/boyfriends Lawrence chooses and all the info from how abusive they are to her on set, and how she continues to worship them for it, I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to conclude that what Jennifer Lawrence thinks is “paternal” or “mentoring” behavior is pretty twisted and barely resembles an actual, healthy father-daughter relationship.

  23. Coconut says:

    Harvey didn’t come at her because he knew she would call him on it.

  24. Jordan says:

    How can anyone be shocked by the increasing numbers of victims coming forward? Hollywood has had stories since the beginning. It’s not surprising as a woman to see all these abusers being named. What will be shocking is if there is actual justice for the victims. I don’t believe they’ll do anything towards the perps. They’ve been able to go unanswered for so long. This is what happens when we keep sweeping important issues to the side.

    J.Law is an awful actress, I said it for you.

  25. BaronSamedi says:

    Tbh I’m less side-eyeing her for all those weird relationships to men like Russel and Aronofsky but THE MEN.

    She is young and can be said to just not know better at this point. What is their excuse for having these ‘deeply, deeply honest’ friendships and relationships with a woman who is still so immature in some respects?

    I get what she thinks she is getting out of these relationships but I know exactly what it is about for the dudes and that should be the topic here.

    • Peeking in says:

      Wow! The impression you have if a 27 year old woman. 😐

      • BaronSamedi says:

        Well she has been working with Russel for years now? Yes, I actually do not believe that a grown ass man can form a deep, honest friendship with a woman in her early twenties without side-eying it.

        David O. Russel is known for being an abusive asshole so yeah, I am wondering if her perception of his behaviour is maybe clouded by the fact that she has been working with him for years and thinks this is normal and that what they have is a friendship. I mean when she thinks that calling Harvey Weinstein an asshole to his face when he is mean is a ‘nice’ relationship she seems to have a pretty skewed view on how workplace relationships should work.

        And 27 is actually a great age to maybe start figuring out that this is NOT normal.

    • Peeking in says:

      Whatever you say. I choose to believe that as a grown woman, she knows what’s going on in her life. I also choose to believe that we’re on the outside, and don’t understand the nuances of her relationships. We do not have all the information.

  26. perplexed says:

    I didn’t think what she said about Harvey Weinstein was problematic — if nothing happened to her, that’s her right to clarify. But I think what she said about David O. Russell was strange — he was accused of assaulting his niece. Why does she like him so much? To be fair, maybe she doesn’t have time to read the internet.

  27. sr says:

    For some reason posts about JLaw just turn the misogynism up to 100. Anything to knock her down a peg, right?

    • Helen Smith says:

      I feel the same way. A lot of tall poppy syndrome going on around JLaw. I believe Jennifer when she says Weinstein did nothing to her and I don’t think she is trying to take anything away from Weinstein’s victims by relating her experience with him. She is being asked by reporters and internet users because she is the current young actress who worked with Weinstein. She didn’t seek to insert herself into this discussion of sexual abuse. She was pulled in by circumstance.

  28. Jane says:

    I don’t care much for Jlaw’s acting. I think she is hugely overhyped. It doesn’t help that i find DOR movies largely terrible.

    It is weird that 2 of the biggest creeps in Hollywood are big factors in her career. Its just … icky. I find it hard to believe Harvey’s ego would let him not make a move on her. Who knows.

    I feel so bad for her about the hacking. The comments from men at that time were so disgusting, like they deserved to see her body. It was vile. Honestly this whole thing is making me hate and not trust men… are any of them actually safe? Sighhhh.

    I don’t llike Darren Aronofsky movies either. At this point if jlaw is in a movie i tend to automatically give it a pass because im sick of hearing all this hype only to be bored out of my mind

  29. Jane says:

    I don’t care much for Jlaw’s acting. I think she is hugely overhyped. It doesn’t help that i find DOR movies largely terrible.

    It is weird that 2 of the biggest creeps in Hollywood are big factors in her career. Its just … icky. I find it hard to believe Harvey’s ego would let him not make a move on her. Who knows.

    I feel so bad for her about the hacking. The comments from men at that time were so disgusting, like they deserved to see her body. It was vile. Honestly this whole thing is making me hate and not trust men… are any of them actually safe? Sighhhh. It sucks for any decent men out there.

    I don’t llike Darren Aronofsky movies either. At this point if jlaw is in a movie i tend to automatically give it a pass because im sick of hearing all this hype only to be bored out of my mind.

  30. Kate says:

    I don’t even understand why people feel the need to imply she slept with Harvey for roles. She is relativey talented. She is young. She is pretty. She is white. She had a franchise. She was always gonna be a star. Actually, she was on the path to stardom long before meeting the hideous Weinstein.

  31. Tallia says:

    She had all ready established herself and therefore I believe he couldn’t “offer” her anything or prey on her like some of the other women. But knowing him, the paternal act was simply that, an act, and another way of using that role to eventually harass her as he did others.

  32. Gill G says:

    I’m constantly shocked by the amount of misogyny Jennifer Lawrence attracts. People keep on claiming she must have slept with Weinstein. Alternatively, they claim she must be in an abusive relationship, or else is an abuse enabler – without the slightest shred of evidence. I get that she annoys some people, and people are keen to have a go at very successful actresses. But the obsessive and sexist nature of some of the comments she attracts are off the scale…

  33. Lucy says:

    Wow, comments get especially misogynistic in here when it comes to JLaw, don’t they? I can’t believe some of the things I’m reading. Some of you are actually accusing her of lying about not being a victim of sexual abuse, as if the things she’s been through hadn’t been enough. Piss off.

    • xflare says:

      For what has basically become a feminist celebrity website – it’s astonishing and disappointing. I guess everyone is just garbage.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Yep. It’s a shame, but some people have learned nothing from what’s been happening. We see which women (and maybe one or two men) love rape culture just the way it is here, by their unwillingness to stop enabling it. They know who they are. These fauxminists are trash. The scary thing is that many of them have probably reproduced already at this point. We know what they teach their daughters and sons about women. Hypocrites.

  34. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I usually find J Law annoying and insufferable but she comes across to me as quite candid and thoughtful in this interview. What she said about the hack – it WAS a violation and I don’t think we should try to police how victims express themselves. She was a victim of a heinous violation and I honestly can’t even imagine the horror and embarrassment of something like that. And anyone who tries to minimize that simply because they don’t like her aren’t as supportive of women as they like to claim to be. As for her Weinstein comments: I’m having a hard time understanding the people who claim she is defending him. She is merely stating her experience which in no way reflects upon his victims or his crimes. There seems to be this desire to want her to be one of his victims or to say that she’s lying. Believing women goes both ways.

  35. Gill G says:

    By the way, Mother wasn’t ‘critically savaged’. It got mixed reviews, and plenty of intense raves from big critics. The savage reviews came in from right-wing nuts like Rex Reed, who hated it precisely because it offended his beliefs.

    • Charlotte says:

      Yeah, I absolutely believe Lawrence-HW always targeted women who couldn’t fight back…Jennifer Lawrence is one hell of a powerful woman who seems like she could very easily fend off scum like Weinstein.

      As far as mother! and Lawrence’s Oscar campaign is concerned-hell yes Lawrence absolutely should be campaigning!-the reviews for her performance were terrific and Lawrence went to hell and back in the roll.

      Oh, and regarding the “nominations for subpar performances”…you mention American Hustle-the performance that the majority of the critics raved about???-nope, not true, Kaiser. Lawrence is an incredibly talented actress who also happens to be successful and that’s what REALLY bugs some people. It’s so odd but, there are people who want to think Wenstein abused her, or that she is weakened, broken by the men in her life-the professional as well as romantic. Once again-nope, will never happen.

  36. Tiffany says:

    She just put out an announcement that she and Darren are done.

  37. Belle says:

    I do not believe she was abused, as she said. Sounds like she’s okay with abusive men as long as they don’t victimize her. David O Russell is your artistic soulmate? You need new friends, girl. You don’t need to hang onto their coattails for work. She does seem to LOVE douche bags, though. Aronofsky? You need to love yourself more.

  38. Jayna says:

    Breaking news! Darren and Jennifer are over.

  39. Shannon says:

    There’s no telling, tbh. But I believe she’s telling the truth – there could be any explaination. Maybe something about her reminded him of his actual daughter, I mean, who knows? Maybe he’d started to slow his evil roll due to his age? I’m throwing things out there but it could be anything. She doesn’t owe it to us to say she was assaulted if she wasn’t, that’s the opposite of what we want I thought. She’s not taking up for him – she totally seems to get that he’s an evil jackass and she didn’t see that side of him.

  40. Kate says:

    I believe Jen when she says Harvey did not abuse her. It would be nice if some of the people demanding we believe women no matter what had not spend two threads disbelieving (is that a word?) two women accusing a well-liked Senator of sexual misconduct. Believe woman, right?

  41. Vovicia says:

    I have no idea why women don’t want to believe her – or construe her comments of her truth into some kind of dismissal of other women’s experiences. Well I do, but I find it disturbing and I wish it would stop.

  42. Chloeee says:

    Please don’t tell me this split is a lead up to Pratt/Lawrence coupling. He’s really not her type but please no

  43. holly hobby says:

    Was not surprised she split from DA. Failure does that.

  44. Fed Up says:

    I’ve always been kind of meh on Jen’s acting but I do believe she has a high tolerance for dealing with the drama she has faced with some of her directors because she grew up a tough tomboy with two older brothers who treated her like one of the boys. I don’t find her to be a shrinking violet or weak in spirit. I think that works in her favor. She looks like she could hold her own with just that mouth of hers. She does seem to have a voice that carries! I can totally see her rolling her eyes or mocking bad behavior from Weinstein and Russell. And I do believe her when she says she has never been sexually assaulted by Weinstein. She probably intimidates him! LOL

  45. FF says:

    She should stop rewarding DOR’s abusiveness just because he didn’t flame on her personally. It’s very clear that he’s done it to other people and some remonstrance, or well-considered silence, would be best in his direction.

    I seriously want to know if she’s still going to be singing this tune in thirty years. Hell, twenty.

  46. LittlefishMom says:

    This is her story and her truth. Not to minimize what he has done.

  47. ALF-M says:

    Interestingly, Amy Amdams worked on 2 movies with DOR and was so incredibly, verbally abusive to her on the set of American Hustle that Christian Bale has to step in and defend her. Amy Adams will never work with him again. He was also horrific to Lily Tomlin during I ❤️ Huckabees and there is sound/video footage for proof. He was supposed to have a rehabbed approach to directing after that movie, but I guess he never changes. Yet, Jennifer he was good to? FTW. He has had fallings out with Clooney, Wahlberg, Adams and Tomlin. Not sure about Dustin Hoffman though.

    • Jussie says:

      JLaw has talked about them having explosive fights (most of which she won). She’s never said DOR wasnt angry or difficult, but she just doesn’t mind that atmosphere. Some people just don’t mind that. Christian Bale didn’t, Bradley Cooper didn’t. No one’s concerned about them being victimised and not realising it. The assumption is that they can hold their own against someone like DOR. Why do we assume the opposite of JLaw? She’s repeatedly shown that she is a supremely confident woman who speaks her mind and is fully aware of how powerful she is.

    • Jayna says:

      Tomlin is one tough woman. And she has commented twice about it. But has a different take than some might imagine. I wouldn’t work with him, but I can believe certain actors/actresses can and want to and have the personality that works with him.

      ” The film bombed, but eventually, both publicly said how much they respect each other—a sentiment Tomlin repeated in a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, where she reveals that she and Russell “made up in just a few hours”—before having a “second fracas.”
      “By then, I was like stoic in my suffering,” Tomlin said. “But we’ve overcome it. It dissipates and it’s gone. I was doing The Search [for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe] downtown every day when we were shooting. So I’d have to leave at five and head downtown. So I was probably overextended. But it wasn’t any big deal.”

      “Tomlin previously commented on their arguments, including for a 2011 Movieline interview where she called it “nothing.” “We don’t want to misbehave; believe me, it’s embarrassing. It’s humiliating, you know?” she said. “Because you just lose it. You act like a crazy person. But I adore David. I adore him as a talent.”

      She went on to say that whenever friends assume she wouldn’t work with him again, she responds, “‘Of course I would!’ I adore him, I love him,” she said. “He’s brilliant.”

  48. Marianne says:

    If she says she wasn’t abused, then we should believe her. And Sexual assualt/rape is usually about control. Maybe Harvey felt like he couldnt control her?

  49. Rob says:

    I’m reading so much sexism and misogyny in these comments.
    BTW people are obsessed with JLaw, it was maybe from the time of Julia Roberts that I didn’t see anything like this (and I speak in general and not about CB).

  50. perplexed says:

    She sounds like she might be in shock that Harvey Weinstein never tried anything on her. I don’t think she’s excusing him.

    She’s probably trying to reconcile the two different versions of Weinstein (the one she saw and the one the other women saw). I assume people who know Bill Cosby are probably trying to understand the disconnect between the two versions as well (like the girl who played Rudy Huxtable). Heck, I don’t even know Bill Cosby and I’m confused how someone could play Dr. Huxtable that well and be a complete sociopath in real life.

  51. Truthie says:

    The reason that Weinstein didn’t come on to Jennifer was because she was always David O’Russell’s girl. DOR knew full well what Harvey was doing to women and probably told Harvey to lay off this one or prepare for nuclear warfare. We know how volatile O Russell is, that would create havoc with the movie, There have been plenty of whispers about just how close David and Jennifer were/are and it most likely helped her with Harvey. She was still targeted by a middle aged creep, it just happened to be one she esteemed.

  52. Layla Love says:

    I do not buy the hash she’s slinging! She knows what she did and why she did it. No one can hustle a hustler!! She should take the 5th and enjoy her hard earned millions.

  53. JGal says:

    Paternal, huh? Guess that means she called him “Daddy” lmao

  54. KatyD says:

    Okay, I’m done with most of Hollywood at this point. BIG NOPES to Damon, Afflecks, Blanchett, Winslet, Cranston, Macy,Firth, Dunham, Stone, and any other a-hole who has worked for/apologized for Woody Allen, Polanski or the current crops of predators. My a-hole list is getting longer. Lawrence is definitely on the bad list. Her cool girl act is super annoying. Weinstein is an alleged rapist of multiple women. Show some concern for the victims! The “he didn’t do anything to me but act like my dad” is deeply insensitive given everything he has done to others. It reminds me of how she proclaimed David O Russell her best friend and soul mate as a defense AFTER it came out he had abused Amy Adams so severely that Christian Bale had to protect her. Again, no words of concern for Adams. She’s an enabler who seems to care for no one else but herself. Everyone else is concerned about the victims, meanwhile Lawrence is campaigning for another Oscar. She’s gross. At this point, my list of watchable actresses has been whittled down to Amy Adams and Jessica Chastain. All hail to the foxyfierce redheads!

    • Juliette says:

      This comment is so wrong. Jlaw just told how her relationship with Harvey was, she spoke in support of the victims and then told about her casting experience. Maybe before you judge you should listen to the interview. And for the news, Jessica Chastain is campaigning for an Oscar nom.
      And she never spoke of David O Russell as a defense after the Adams story. I think some of you should stop inventing things in their own way that Jlaw said or done.

  55. Katherine says:

    Some comments are really shameful

  56. Suki says:

    I completely believe Jennifer.

    We can only infer why Harvey didn’t go after Jennifer but I think it may be do to the fact that Jennifer is largely quite popular with women. I know many on this site dislike her, but lots of people love that she is open, fun and quite honest. Women find it easy to disbelief women that they dislike or perceive as a threat such as Amber Heard (who never came across as a girls girl) or Megan Fox at her peak, but as Jen has the woman’s vote, she might not have seemed worth the ‘hassle.’

    I am not saying that other victims did not, but Jen seems to carry herself with a sense of directness. She is quite no nonsense and I can imagine that she would be quite happy to call someone out. As she doesn’t have that filter, she could be dangerous, even to a powerful director. A popular actress or actor has the publics favour. Harvey never had that.

    I fully believe Jennifer.

  57. Erbs says:

    I’m old. If you don’t want your naked body splashed all over the Internet, use a Polaroid. Duh.

  58. Ginger says:

    Notice she said ‘almost.’ She does seem to have a certain attraction to abusive men…there have been plenty of stories about her screwed up background. I’ll bet Aronofsky was paternalistic towards her too…unbearably so. I’m glad they’re done, poor girl.

  59. Sarah says:

    Her career trajectory was on such a stellar path before working with Harvey ie two huge franchises and an Oscar nomination that this BS about her needing to sleep with him to get ahead is nonsense.

  60. Nada says:

    I dont even like jlaw anymore but this comment is so gross. she booked the xmen and the hunger games before she worked with him, and even had an oscar nomination for winters bone. you should research before you make sexist comments again.

  61. perplexed says:

    I don’t think she slept with him. That people keep saying she did is annoying nonsense (just like it was when people said Gwyneth baked cookies for Weinstein).

    She had The Hunger Games in the Bad. Her career trajectory was set. She was going to be successful no matter what.

  62. frisbee says:

    It’s also misogynistic nonsense as it presumes a woman’s talent can’t make her successful on it’s own. I’d suggest watching her in Winter’s Bone, she clearly had enormous potential even then which must have been recognised in the industry, after all, it earned her an Oscar nomination for a film that had nothing to do with Weinstein and was actually directed by a woman.

  63. Maggie says:

    She wore marchesa to hunger games premiers red carpet.

    Edit: comment I was replying to has been deleted, ugh.

  64. Kate says:

    I don’t think she wore Marchesa because of Harvey. I think she wore Marchesa because her fashion sense goes from nonexistent to tragic.

  65. frisbee says:

    Thank you, on a depressing post that made me chuckle – cheers 👍🏻

  66. Gia says:

    Hollywood doesn’t work that way. Have you ever been on a film set? I’ve worked on hundreds. 90% of the time the directors, assistant directors, writers, DPs are male. The crews on set are mostly male. They treat women like garbage. Producers hold the money, they’re the big bosses. Majority are male. They don’t need to be on set, but when they do show up, they usually have a young girl on their arm and act all big and mighty to show off their power. Hollywood seems very different on the outside. The filth that goes on inside is more disgusting and abusive than the public will ever know unless you’re deep in it and see it with your own eyes.

  67. charlotteshay says:

    plus one hundred.

    Been on sets ,worked on films and all of what you said is true.

  68. Ginger says:

    Same…and that’s why it bugs me the way she stumps for these guys, Russell in particular. She saw what he did to Amy Adams.

  69. magnoliarose says:

    I think some posters are mixing up what they want Hollywood to be like for their favorite from the extreme toxic masculinity that exists behind the scenes. Far worse than the modeling industry because there are more women and gay men, so it is more about body shaming than it is constant sexual inappropriateness. Bold and shameless. It is shocking to go on a film set and have men talk the way they do and look at you like they are thinking about screwing you. Women should carry around jugs of holy water to ward off the vampires.
    Pointing out that it is not an industry where talent stands out and is treated with kid gloves or carries power. It doesn’t. A lot of directors and producers barely respect actors and treat them like a necessary nuisance. It isn’t hating on anyone or sexist or an insult to point out men unfairly control everything.