George Clooney gets surprisingly real about what he knew about Harvey Weinstein

Embed from Getty Images

I think George Clooney is trying to become the Meryl Streep of “dudes talking about Harvey Weinstein.” Surprisingly, I don’t hate it. Meryl seemingly gave actresses the blueprint for what to say about Harvey and how to say it, and some of the biggest female celebrities in the world have followed Meryl’s course. Now we’ll see if the men follow George Clooney’s path. After refusing to comment on articles being written at other media outlets, George went to the Daily Beast, an outlet which has been very friendly to him in the past. George gave a lengthy interview, he accepted follow-up questions and he really laid it all out there. As I said, props to him. You can read the full Daily Beast piece here. Some highlights:

On the history of rumors about Weinstein: “I’ve heard rumors, and the rumors in general started back in the ’90s, and they were that certain actresses had slept with Harvey to get a role. It seemed like a way to smear the actresses and demean them by saying that they didn’t get the jobs based on their talent, so I took those rumors with a grain of salt. But the other part of this, the part we’re hearing now about eight women being paid off, I didn’t hear anything about that and I don’t know anyone that did. That’s a whole other level and there’s no way you can reconcile that. There’s nothing to say except that it’s indefensible.

The “you had to have known” thing: “A lot of people are doing the “you had to know” thing right now, and yes, if you’re asking if I knew that someone who was very powerful had a tendency to hit on young, beautiful women, sure. But I had no idea that it had gone to the level of having to pay off eight women for their silence, and that these women were threatened and victimized. I’ve been talking with a lot of people about this, and I don’t know many people who knew of that.

Complicity in Hollywood, complicity of the media:
“Sharon Waxman over at The Wrap said she was working on a story about Harvey over 10 years ago at The New York Times and they killed it, and if that’s true, then that’s a shameful thing because a lot of women wouldn’t have been made victims if this had come out. By the same token, I do want to say that Sharon’s been running her own influential website, The Wrap, for quite a long time, and if she did these interviews and this investigation, she didn’t run the story either, and I and a lot of other people would have liked to have known it. A good bunch of people that I know would say, “Yeah, Harvey’s a dog” or “Harvey’s chasing girls,” but again, this is a very different kind of thing. This is harassment on a very high level. And there’s an argument that everyone is complicit in it. I suppose the argument would be that it’s not just about Hollywood, but about all of us—that every time you see someone using their power and influence to take advantage of someone without power and influence and you don’t speak up, you’re complicit. And there’s no question about that.

It was a lot worse than he thought: “When you find out how much worse it is than you thought, then it’s a news story. And this is a big news story now. And I feel very bad for all of the victims. I mean, cornering a young anchorwoman in the kitchen and jerking off into a potted plant? That’s not just some rumor about Harvey hitting on a woman; it’s disturbing on a whole lot of levels, because there had to be a lot of people involved in covering that up. That’s frustrating. If politicians knew these stories, I doubt they’d have been taking donations from him at the DNC [Democratic National Committee], and I hope that they will all give the money back or donate it to good causes.

Trump vs Weinstein, and what comes next: “That is a funny part of it: In “liberal” Hollywood the guy loses his job, but then this other guy [Trump] gets elected president. There are a couple of good things that have to come out of this, because something good has to come out of this. One of those things is that victims have to feel safer to come out and tell their stories without the fear of losing their jobs, and they also need to be believed, which is a very important element of this. Also, this should be a shot across the bow that people in places of power cannot abuse that power, and if you do, you’ll be outed publicly, shamed, and even prosecuted. When it comes to most of the people that I know, where we’re shocked is by how bad it was. This is about show business but it isn’t just about show business—it’s about everything. We need to get to a place where we can call these people out much quicker before it becomes such a deeper, long-running problem. This apparently went on for almost 30 years.”

[From The Daily Beast]

George brings up an interesting point, which I think is probably the way many men (specifically) thought about Harvey Weinstein: that they all knew he was a “dog,” that he hit on young women, but they believed Harvey understood the word “no” and that it doesn’t hurt to hit on women (young women with little power). George is saying sure, he knew Harvey was a dog, a womanizer, a cheater, a man with an appetite for an endless parade of younger women. But George didn’t know about the harassment, the sexual abuse, the payoffs. I also think George makes a great point about the casting couch rumors and how the abuse of power Harvey likely employed was weaponized against the actresses specifically.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

164 Responses to “George Clooney gets surprisingly real about what he knew about Harvey Weinstein”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jayna says:

    Good for him, not dancing around it with a short little supportive blurb.

    • Lucytunes says:

      Not replying to you specifically , but I just have to say this. How come Clooney is given high praise, but Jennifer Lawrence is made out to be complicit? So many posts about how she HAD to have known and that she was too worried about being cool to have understood what PROBABLY happened to her was wrong. So many posts by OTHER WOMEN raking her over the coals, but he gets high praise. He was far more powerful and connected than she and he didn’t even know for sure. Something’s wrong with how we consume our GOSSIP, if we use a woman’s “likeability” as a measure of her acceptance of a real issue like sexual assault.

      • Josie says:

        Exactly, why is Meryl being dragged and Clooney isn’t?

      • LadyT says:

        George acknowledged the rumors we’ve all heard. Streep’s statement did not and that omission felt disingenuous.

      • V4Real says:

        Well he just spoke up, give it time.

      • Josie says:

        Ah I get it – she let her pr write the statement. She should’ve written it herself or been interviewed like Clooney.

        What about the comment above about Lawrence, and that Clooney is much more influential in the industry as a director and producer?

      • LadyT says:

        Josie- I’m just talking about the quality of their statements, like comments 2 3 4 etc. below. Not complicity. That’s a different subject altogether. I’d start by putting that onus on the people with knowledge of his 8 harassment payouts, (something truly actionable, unlike rumors) which would not be Clooney, Streep or Lawrence.

      • tealily says:

        Did you read Lawrence’s statement? And then did you read this one? One was a very good statement that felt really truthful and well thought out. The other just fell flat and read like her publicist wrote it. I’m not getting on Lawrence’s case about any of this, but this is a silly comment. People are reacting to the statement itself, not to the gender of its creator.

      • homeslice says:

        Eh, I still don’t believe these people didn’t hear about him being a sick pig. But what can you do…
        Clooney has aspirations in politics, he made a very careful statement. It’s ok for Harvey to be dog with women but not an outright pig…OOOOOKKAAAAAY…let’s see how he feels when it’s his daughter.

      • PPP says:

        Yup, exactly. Ten times this. And I want to see A LOT MORE reporting on this Matt Damon and Russell Crowe shit, because that is the most egregious thing to come out of this and it speaks more to ACTIVE complicity than anything else.

      • noway says:

        Yes!!! One thing I bet Clooney was never sexually harassed by Weinstein. It’s a lot easier to talk like this when you were never personally affected. You know all these women are thinking well I don’t think he harassed me, but wait I did have a meeting at his hotel and he was dressed inappropriately, or you know he did say I was looking fat. Even though he had a pattern, I am sure it wasn’t exactly the same way. He probably didn’t jack off in a potted plant to all of them. If he did it wouldn’t have lasted 30 years. Plus people take events differently. Still good to them all for speaking out however they feel comfortable doing it. We need to stop blaming others, especially women and think about safe places and ways for women to talk about it.

        Kudos to George cause he didn’t say it, but you know he was thinking yeah I thought Harvey was a dog who hit on younger women who were trying to make it in the biz, but people thought that of me too. Doesn’t mean he is an abuser, I’m not. Still he spoke when it came to light.

      • PotatoHash says:

        Because George admits they all knew/heard about it while Meryl Streep claims she had no idea.

    • cindy says:

      I appreciate that too. I genuinely believe him.

    • bobslaw says:

      I just wonder how “Harvey chasing young girls” and “Harvey being a dog” isn’t really “Harvey is harassing women”. That’s a problem in and of itself. Whether or not he ejaculated on them in a basement hallway.

      • homeslice says:

        Exactly! Go away George. His career is drying up as an actor and director and now he’s gonna be a politician. Good luck with that! From the rumors out there about him, I wonder if he every paid anyone off? Cause apparently it’s ok to treat women like crap, but you just can’t pay for their silence. GTFO.

      • Josie says:

        This infuriates me. The casting couch is Ok? That’s what Clooney is saying, really: there’s nothing wrong with young/newbie actresses being asked directly or indirectly to trade sexual situations for job opportunities, it’s only bad when the guy doesn’t accept no as an answer.

        The problem is that misogynistic Hollywood uses sex to manipulate powerless women. And everyone knew Harvey did that. These statements just feel so, so gross to me. They can’t acknowledge the gross sexual dynamics of their field to save their lives.

        (This is all part and parcel of their values about youth and sexuality. You can’t cast a 38-year old love interest for a 50-year old because women only exist to gratify male sexual fantasies. Did he really think the female subjects of those Weinstein rumors had free choice? UGH.)

      • Tiffany :) says:

        He didn’t say the casting couch was ok. He said:
        “It seemed like a way to smear the actresses and demean them by saying that they didn’t get the jobs based on their talent, so I took those rumors with a grain of salt.”

      • boredblond says:

        ++bobsled, homeslice and josie

      • Tara says:

        To me, his statements connote that we also need to re-evaluate our acceptance of “womanizing dogs,” especially if there’s a power gap.

      • A.Key says:

        THIS!!!! Basically all powerful men in Hollywood knew about Harvey but they thought he kept it within legal boundaries so I guess no harm done if it ain’t against the law. Oh but now they find out he broke the law and suddenly they’re “shocked” (not).
        George sounds like he knew exactly Harvey was a first grade sickening douche who was dangerous to young powerless women but since everyone knew that and everyone thought Harvey wasn’t explicitly breaking any laws they were all OK with that and OK with working with Harvey.

      • returningvisitor says:

        “I just wonder how “Harvey chasing young girls” and “Harvey being a dog” isn’t really “Harvey is harassing women”.

        Yes, yes, yes. Clooney may know to say other, better things, too; but this is just one side-step away from ‘boys will be boys.’

      • PotatoHash says:

        Anthony Bourdain just tweeted it’s definitely time to call Harvey Weinstein what he is: a rapist.

    • Sasha says:

      @ Jayna
      Please. “Indefensible” and “he’s admitted it” aren’t exactly damning. How about ‘disgusting’, ‘horrifying’ and ‘despicable’? I’m completely unimpressed.

    • Maisie says:

      Clooney’s entire statement is careful and completely disingenuous. Everyone in Hollywood has known everything about Weinstein for YEARS, and to pretend otherwise is completely ludicrous. And Weinstein is only one of many, some who do far worse things. But now is the time for self-righteous posturing and denials of being aware of anything “untoward” except “rumors” – in other words, they are all toeing the line their PR reps have drawn for them. And the sexual predators will continue unabated.

  2. Moon says:

    I’m glad he owned up and gave an honest take, not some slick PR blurb.

    • Maisie says:

      Oh my dear. This was very well-rehearsed. Not for nothing is he married to a lawyer, as well as having many, many PR flacks working overtime to create a “good, sincere, concerned” take on Weinstein. Remember: he’s an actor. He’s also been a player in Hollywood for many years, as were members of his family. He knows very well what goes on.

  3. CommentingBunny says:

    Good on him. I got the feeling he was acknowledging his own role in creating the kind of world where men like Harvey can get away with what they do. He seems reflective.

  4. JenE says:

    Glad he’s speaking about this beyond issuing a canned statement.

  5. Natalie S says:

    It isn’t a secret that Harvey is vindictive and has a violent temper. The implicit coercive element of Harvey hitting on a young actress is really obvious so I don’t believe George and I don’t like his attempt at minimizing what he was observing.

    There is so much deflection in his answers. And some shaming of Sharon Waxman by name (!) instead of calling out the board members of TWC or Matt Damon and Russell Crowe. BS that they certainly didn’t know and help cover it up. Talk about judging women and ignoring the men.

    All these people are shocked at how open they’ve left themselves to being sullied by association. Harvey has been a broken step for decades and I think they’re stunned at how accepting they were of it to the detriment of their self-image rather than sympathy for the victims. They have an approved way to respond to this story led by Meryl and George and they’re going to circle the wagons and protect each other.

    • msd says:

      He kind of has a point about Sharon. She isn’t to blame for anything and she isn’t the problem but I don’t really think she can take the moral high ground either, not when she did exactly what other journalists did: kept quiet.

      • Natalie S says:

        Sharon needed a major legal fund to publish this kind of story. The individual journalists are the little guys.

        The NY Times killed a story over advertising dollars and Sharon was right to call them out over it. I think there is a moral high ground there. The NY Times could have stood up to Harvey in a way that wasn’t career ending and instead they choose to keep taking a sexual predator’s money.

      • msd says:

        I’m not even talking about exposing him, which she clearly didn’t feel she could do herself. The Wrap has promoted Miramax movies, has promoted Miramax stories and press releases, has taken Miramax advertising money over the years … I’m glad she talked about her experience and pointed out the NYT’s hypocrisy but no one in the media deserves the moral high ground.

      • zinjojo says:

        I recommend reading the interview with Lainey at Vox — she talks about why to break this story, it needed to be at the level of the New York Times because of the vast amount of power and influence Harvey Weinstein had. And Natalie S. is right on — in 2004 the NYT killed Sharon Waxman’s story after Harvey threatened to pull all advertising. This wasn’t something Waxman could take on with a small site; Harvey would have crushed her.

      • Natalie S says:

        @msd. I’m open to your point if The Wrap took money from TWC.

        In terms of Miramax, the Wrap started in 2009 and Weinstein left Miramax in 2009. So if Weinstein wasn’t part of those projects, the Miramax money isn’t Weinstein related.

      • msd says:

        Because I remember the 90s I tend to call both Miramax but TWC yeah … all the film sites, plus the big trades run FYC ads for TWC movies. That doesn’t mean they’re all complicit but they’re all compromised by that. No moral high ground anywhere in the press imo.

        I have issues with anonymous gossip sites (yeah I know, I’m here) because they don’t need to verify anything. Plenty of gossip is rubbish or fantasy. But with open secrets like this they (and social media) can be the only non-compromised form of reporting.

    • StormsMama says:

      Yes Natalie I agree

      George may be more measured and thoughtful now
      And secure in his success

      But he is underplaying what he knew and what he can say he knew bc he can. Being a dog IS a gross thing if you have that much power. So…yeah no accolades from me for this statement George

    • Wren says:

      There’s also a lot of seeing what you want to see. To me it seems like George was perfectly happy to look the other way and adopt a sort of “live and let live” attitude towards Harvey. I have no doubt George has indulged in plenty of things that would label him a “dog”, so why would he really and truly think it’s that big a deal?

      However, now that he’s hearing details, exactly what happened, it’s not at all like he imagined. There’s a very big difference between “this guy hits on women” and the gory play by play of Harvey cornering and forcing himself on a young woman.

      This just highlights the main problem with sexism and harassment: men truly have very little idea of just exactly what women deal with. They don’t know. Why would they know if it never happens to them, rarely (if ever) happens in front of them, and women more often than not don’t say anything? I believe he really didn’t grasp the severity of the situation until right now. Why would he? He’s George effing Clooney. But if his little “I had no idea” routine inspires other men to even just listen the next time a woman speaks about sexism, sexual harassment, or assault, then something good will come of it.

    • PPP says:

      I definitely want someone to push him on Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, ESPECIALLY since he’s willing to call out a reporter with little power and no legal resources. People are falling over themselves to be happy with George Clooney for his bravery in admitting his willful blindness, while they pick apart the women and call them liars when they say they didn’t know.

  6. Ib says:

    I am a survivor of sexual violence and assault in my own life (not in Hollywood), and I’m here for what Clooney has to say. His is by far one of the best statements on this. After the 5 actresses who came out with statements of support for HW’s survivors *last* week. I am deeply irritated that the majority of people in the industry stayed silent until only after HW was fired.

  7. EOA says:

    I am not a Clooney fan but I suspect he’s giving voice to the way a lot of guys think. Namely, “hey, guys hit on girls, what’s the big deal?” And given Clooney’s own history as a serial monogamist, I suspect he was equating his own behavior to Weinstein’s. (Obviously, there is a difference between hitting on someone and assaulting them, which Clooney rightfully acknowledges, but I think a lot of men just willfully ignored the assault gossip to focus on the more benign “he hits on young women” gossip).

    But this is part of the problem, IMO. So many men don’t believe a woman when she makes an accusation because they see it as an accusation against them personally. A lot of guys will say, “are you sure you didn’t misunderstand?” or just assume the woman was exaggerating the incident – because they make a leap in their own heads to their own (often far more innocuous) behavior.

    I think Clooney was being honest here and I take him at his word but I also think it indicates why more men need to do more soul-searching about why they disbelieve women.

    • CommentingBunny says:

      EOA I found your comment very insightful. Thanks.

    • LooseSeal says:

      Nailed it. When men call someone “a dog” women tend to call them a predator.

      • Chaine says:

        And too often, when a guy calls another guy a “dog” it’s with a chuckle or a wink, in an admiring way. They are not calling the other guy out for being a “dog,” they’re envious about his presumed conquests.

      • godwina says:

        Yup. And there’s so much to say about “asking someone out” vs “hitting on” vs outright assault or harrassment. I hate it when that distinction gets muddied. We can’t live in a world where people can’t tell someone they’re attracted to them–would you like lunch sometime? etc. If it’s your boss/producer/casting director, it’s a problem. Otherwise…nuance matters. But “he’s a dog” is a red flag and then some–re. both the dog in question and the dude who uses the term. Eye-twinkle optional.

    • Erinn says:

      I think there’s probably a good deal of men who personally might hit on someone, but leave it at that if the woman says no, or tells them to stop. So they see other men hitting on women and because they personally wouldn’t go too far, they assume other people have the basic human decency to act similarly.

      And like you said – there’s a huge issue when these kind of guys don’t believe women when they DO come out and say something. I’m willing to believe that Clooney (and other men) might not have been present to the over-the-line type of behavior – and unless they’re close to one of the women that it’s happened to they might not hear any of the terrible things they’ve been through.

      The main thing that men need to realize is that just because THEY might have good intentions it doesn’t mean that every man has been raised with that kind of intention/respect – and if a woman has built up the courage to come forward they need to support her and really start pushing these shitheads out of the picture. They need to stop holding the creeps up as brilliant artists or businessmen or what-have-you. They need to start really enforcing that there’s lines that you can’t cross and walk the walk when it comes to making sure they’re not in a position where they can continue to take advantage of others.

    • Nicole says:

      EOA I had the same feeling. “Dog behavior” to men screams predatory behavior to women. And that’s another issue which I said in my comment as well

      • tealily says:

        I think the issue is exactly this. I have had this conversation with my husband and other male friends before. What pings my radar doesn’t necessarily register on theirs, because we are always looking under the surface of what’s being said and done, trying to assess if someone is a threat or not.

      • jc126 says:

        I agree Nicole and tealily. I’ve found that guys I know aren’t as keyed in to the severity of a creepy or sexually aggressive man’s behavior as women are. And of course most predators aren’t as aggressive when another man is present, they really escalate when there’s no witnesses who would be a check on their behavior.

      • Wren says:

        Men also tend to give each other the benefit of the doubt. I think it’s because they sympathize with the fear of rejection when flirting with a woman or asking her out as well as not understanding (or believing they don’t understand) how women think. Men learn from an early age that boys don’t understand girls, when there’s nothing at all mysterious about how women feel about being trapped, cornered, and perused by a person likely bigger and stronger (and often more socially powerful) than they are.

        All men see is the pressure put on them as men to initiate contact and the ego-destroying possibility of rejection. The male fantasy of hoards of beautiful women fawning all over them is a common one for a reason.

        This way of thinking essentially blinds them to creepy, predatory behavior, or even allows them to engage in it themselves without feeling guilt, until it gets cartoonishly bad.

    • Christin says:

      My hopes are that we open up everyone’s mind as to the prevalence of harassment and abuse in all walks of life. My friend endured harassment 20 years ago, as she was starting her professional career. The executive she reported to first told her she should dress more provactively. She didn’t, and she later refused to be a wing person as her same age (20s) co-worker took him up on the offer (divorcing and all but admitting an affair). My friend’s career stagnated while the other woman is now about to take the guy’s executive role.

      I recently had a chance to say something to a longtime higher-up about the long pattern of inappropriate behavior (more has happened to others) and received a “well, his old boss in the 1980s-90s liked girls and was kind of a flirt”. How would men react if their wives or sisters were treated that way? Would it still be denial, excuses or brushing off the behavior?

      • Wendy says:

        George Clooney is a very savvy self promoter. He knows the best defense is a good offense and he’s “getting ahead” of any accusations he ignored the rumors and actual first hand knowledge of the predatory behavior by Weinstein. He may not have had to suck a dick to further his career, but ignoring the fact that many of his female costars had to speaks volumes about his own character. I’m sure he was very aware, but hey, it wasn’t happening to him, so why get involved?

        I’m looking at you, Clooney, and every other person who passively looked on or looked away.

    • Wren says:

      EXACTLY. I tried to say something similar before I read your comment.

      Men do not witness nor experience this type of thing, so why would they know what really happens? What they see or imagine and what they hear women describe are vastly different experiences, on the rare occasion a woman speaks up. The closest many have come to such an experience is being afraid a gay man might check them out or hit on them in the locker room at the gym. Oh gee, someone sexualizing you and possibly entering your space and touching you uninvited when you are in a vulnerable position? Wonder what that feels like…….

      Even my husband doesn’t really get it. I’m trying to help him understand, but it’s slow work because he’s a large, physically imposing man who has never been victimized nor has any reason to fear such a thing. When I met him, he was honestly surprised and confused as to why I didn’t want to walk alone through a dark parking lot at night. He literally thought I was afraid of the dark. No, sweetie, I’m afraid of what, or more precisely who, might be lurking in the dark. That thought had never occurred to him.

      So if George can open a few more eyes, even get a few more men to listen the next time this type of thing is brought up, then I’m all for it.

      • AVVSAJNC says:

        Exactly. Men don’t realize just how limiting life can be for a woman, because we cant do other normal things because a man might kill us. SO MANY THINGS. Go into a pub alone, walk at night alone, ride the tube (subway) at night alone – yes we could all do those things but in the back of minds always is ‘will a man kill or rape me if I do this?’ We are not free.

    • Asiyah says:

      My thoughts exactly, EOA. Thank you for being much more insightful than I ever could be <3

    • babu says:

      You have perfectly defined where the hiatus begins, when good guys (and, at large, patriarchal society) don’t get it anymore, consciously or subconsciously.

    • magnoliarose says:


      I agree with your thoughtful post.

    • A.Key says:

      Yes, men don’t really understand or experience the kind of creepy predatory advances that women often experience in their lives. From the guy on the street at midnight who approaches you while you’re waiting for the night bus/taxi to the inappropriate ogling or touching by men on public transport to inappropriate touching and aggressive drunk advances in the nightclub etc. etc.
      Men really have no idea because they never go through this.

      I remember vividly sitting with my work colleague years ago in the park on a bench, we were waiting together for our bus ride home after work. A drunk older man sat next to me and started to nag and nag and come on to me to the point where it became really awkward and inappropriate. In the end he left because luckily I was sitting with a male friend. When he left my colleague told me honestly that he absolutely could not believe what had just happened, he was so shocked. He was convinced it was some crazy psycho that we encountered and I said no, it’s just your average drunk douche who likes to bother women. My colleague was even more shocked by the fact that I was not shocked at all and that I find this kind of behavior sadly common and unsurprising. He was totally floored. He said he had never ever heard anything similar nor seen anything similar. Of course I said, you’re a guy. You probably wouldn’t have even seen this except the dude was too drunk to care and probably not sure whether I knew you or not since we were just sitting quietly side by side. So yeah, welcome to the world of women.

    • Sarah says:

      Well said EOA.

  8. Aiobhan Targaryen says:

    For now, I believe that he did not know about it. But reserve the right to drag him if evidence comes out that he did know and said nothing.

    He also brings up a few good points whether intentional or not:
    some men view sexual harassment differently from some women. What some men few as “dog like” almost harmless behavior, some women can view the same situation as inappropriate, aggressive, and demoralizing.

    Why didn’t Sharon publish her story on The Wrap or leak it to a competitor? She is not as complicit in this situation as Harvey and Matt Damon, but I really want to know why she choose to keep her information to herself when she had evidence to back her up.

    Where is Matt Damon on this? I really hope he does not believe that this is going to pass over like previous debacles he has been involved in. At least, I hope he is held accountable for his actions.

    • Kitten says:

      Hopefully Ben is deeply focused on his outpatient rehab right now.

      I noticed that Clooney said “they killed the story” without specifically naming Damon as being part of that.

      But overall I thought his statement was good. He didn’t dance around shit which is more than I can say for a lot of Hwood men.

    • Natalie S says:

      Because she was definitely going to be sued and have whatever publication who ran the story lose advertising dollars. The NY Times wouldn’t stand up to Harvey. We should focus on who was in charge of that decision.

      She didn’t immolate her career over a gamble that it would stop Weinstein. It was a weasel move by George to focus on her when so many people with so much more power, including those who were supposed to back her up, worked to kill the story.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I think his point about Sharon was that a lot of people feel guilty now for supporting someone they had no idea was such a monster. It is possible she could have written it without naming names but again woulda shoulda coulda.
      I am sure mistakes were made by many people but no one can change the past, so I don’t blame her either.

    • xena says:

      Sharon was a small journalist and seriously, until yesterday, I had never heard of her. And if he was able to stop the times, what might he been able to do to her?
      So I think this part of Clooneys comments about are a bad deflective Streep-like move, who also attacked media. And that leaves a taste. Is it really the job of journalists to clean up hollywood? It feels as if the big names know that not much will change and are therefor careful with their wording. I wonder why the labour unions who aren’t exactly wearing gloves normally are not saying anything now or never felt the need to build up a bit of a protectionshild against the couch casting.

  9. MousyB says:

    Finally. A self-aware and eloquent response from someone in Hollywood.

  10. Nicole says:

    Very direct. Interesting. I will say it again…Amal is good for him.
    I still don’t buy the “no one knew” but I get what he says about guys thinking it was typical gross behavior. Which is another issue in itself. However as women we know when that behavior crosses the line and I think that’s what I can’t get my head around.
    Yes Hollywood is complicit. I think we know this.
    Yea the hypocrisy from the right is amazing

    • Kitten says:

      At least Dems are donating the money Weinstein gave them to charity. It might be just for optics but it’s better than nothing.

    • Giddy says:

      I agree that Amal is good for him. So is fatherhood. He now knows the overwhelming love and protectiveness that parents feel. He can now look at situations like this and imagine if it was his daughter. I have seen so many men, including my sons, turned to absolute mush by their baby girls. Every one of them cannot imagine the guy good enough for his precious daughter, and the idea of a disgusting pervert using a position of power to harass and abuse her is anathema. So good for George.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I think so too and what I always appreciate in anyone is growth. Once you know better, then you should do better and admit mistakes when they happen. What is saying is believable because men who aren’t pigs don’t know what the signs are or the subtleties involved. They see a guy is a creep, but they don’t know automatically that a man is like Harvey.
      What he said about smearing actresses by talking about it is also very believable.

      George isn’t perfect, but he really is a nice guy and a decent human being. He is very charming and not a skeeve, and he has that old gallant Hollywood charm. When I first saw him, I was surprised by how sexy he is and good looking. I am glad he stepped up, but I am not surprised he got it right.

      • Jayna says:

        @Magnoliarose, I agree with you about George.

        He’s probably only one of the few producers and/or directors that have spoken out, because too many of them don’t want to leave themselves open about their own behavior, maybe someone coming out of the woodworks.

  11. Gretchen says:

    The ‘casting couch’ is still an abuse of power and NOT OKAY. Hitting on an endless stream of young women whose careers HW held in his hands is also NOT OKAY. All of this is weaponised power. Yes, forcing a woman to watch you jack off into a potted plant or in the shower is extremely disturbing, but I don’t understand why specifically these scenarios are the invisible line that shouldn’t be crossed, compared to the others…none of it is harmless.

    • Div says:

      This. It’s all an abuse of power and while I believe George didn’t know the worst of the situation…it speaks to the systematic misogyny in our society in that he was able to “normalize” some of Harvey’s behavior. I agree though with Kaiser’s take that George is right in that he knew people would “weaponize” the abuse to demean the women.

      *George thought of Harvey as a dog for hitting on young women…but he clearly never thought of the fact that those young women knew Harvey could not only ruin their careers but make things hard for their team.

      • Gretchen says:

        Right? So many of these guys think they’re ‘woke’ and they’re not even half way there. All you have to look at is the imbalance of power to see something is up, but obviously George (and so many others) need these sorts of accusations to be *explicitly* horrifying to sit up and give a damn.

  12. Clare says:

    What about the part where his pal Matt Damon rang Sharon Waxman in support of Harvey? No mention of that? I mean this is good PR for George, I suppose, but they are all complicit in their CONTINUING silence.

    Sure you can pick and choose the bits you want to talk about…but come on, you’re all still eating off the same plate. Walk away from the table. Name and shame everyone involved. THEN try and come off as the good guy.

    • L84Tea says:

      That’s how I feel about it. They’re all complicit because they all knew. I’m giving major side-eye to everyone in Hollywood over this.

    • Nicole says:

      Agreed Clare

    • Pam_L says:

      “After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.”

      Clare, at no time in the reporter’s comments posted here yesterday, and that is a direct quote above, did she say that Matt Damon and Russell Crowe called her in support of Weinstein. She very clearly stated, as you can see in her quote above, that Crowe and Damon called her about Fabrizio Lombardo to verify the fact that he was legitimate in the film industry. The calls that went ‘above her head’ about Weinstein that eventually got the story killed were not from Crowe and Damon.

      • Clare says:

        Pam, let me clarify – Clooney called our a journalist, by name, with reference to how she COULD have published something about Wienstien on her own platform, but chose not to. He left out the part where his best pal Matt Damon was involved in trying to keep that very story out of the papers. Come on, let’s not be obtuse about this.

      • Pam_L says:

        The only way to reply to your comment is to point out that you completely dismissed what the journalist herself said. Those are her words above that I posted in my previous comment. She does not say that Damon was involved in trying to kill the story about Weinstein only that Damon and Crowe called her about Lombardo.

        I don’t care if you insult me but how about not being what you called me by at least commenting on what the reporter actually said.

      • Clare says:

        Pam, I don’t know how Damon calling her with regards to the story doesn’t count as him interfering.

        I also don’t see how I’ve insulted you?

      • Tara says:

        @pam: obvious reading comprehension problems with Clare.

  13. Lindy says:

    He makes some good points. He’s definitely spot on that somehow, in liberal Hollywood Weinstein gets fired. But conservatives don’t care at all about Trump’s sexually predatory behavior. I’m not saying that Weinstein shouldn’t have been called out and fired years ago, or that the culture in Hollywood is excusable at all. Just that, in the end, conservatives who are crowing over the Weinstein stuff are a bunch of hypocritical deplorables.

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t think Weinstein would have been fired if the scale of his harassment hadn’t been so vast. I think his situation got so out of control, HW had to fire him to protect their bottom line. I don’t really think Hollywood is radically different from Washington, like Clooney hopes we might believe. I do think they’ll protect their own when it’s beneficial to their own interest and discard whoever isn’t.

      Nonetheless, I do agree that conservatives are hypocritical.

  14. Mindy says:

    They didn’t know? Please. They all knew. You want to know why no one spoke up? Because Harvey was a MONEY MAN. Everyone in Hollywood wants/needs money for their projects and he can make or break a film. Money is a big influencer on getting folks to ‘turn a blind eye.’

    Geez… I heard about all of this from my brother (who is in the business end of the industry – – a part of the business that can’t be influenced by money) YEARS ago. And considering that he’s had to deal with Harvey far too much for his taste, I know that he’s spent the last few days doing a happy dance.

    • msd says:

      So your brother knew he sexually abused and harassed women and paid them off and kept working with him. Awesome.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        You can’t always choose who you work with and especially for. In what world??? I doubt her brother is George-Clooney-levels of powerful.

  15. Lucy says:

    I’m on board with this. No bs, no shrugging, no dancing around the issue. Hopefully more men will follow George’s example.

    • AnneC says:

      Exactly. Hoping that this reopens some stories about trump. I’ve heard about some women who didn’t come forward last year out of fear. Trump and Harvey are like two peas in a pod. Narcissistic, huge egos and sexual predators. Trump, like Weinstein, has probably been protected and enabled by lackeys around him. Weinstein should disappear (or be charged), I would love for trump to suffer the same fate.

  16. KC says:

    So glad to hear him say this. It’s exactly what I’ve been thinking in response to this unfair and without credence “everyone is complicit” argument. I think it does in some way take responsibility for hearing “rumors” and not shutting them down but also helps us better see that many weren’t in a position to see them as anything more than rumors or the extent statements like “Harvey is a dog/womanizer” went.

    I really hope this helps employ protective measures for women in the industry as well as George’s statement helping us to put the responsibility and disgust where it belongs -On Weinstein and those who covered up his bad behavior, not on other women or even men who were not harassed, had no personal experience, heard rumors that left them unsure if it was about Weinstein the dog or belittling a woman.

  17. L84Tea says:

    All this entire HW debacle has proven to me personally is that while actors love to play the self-righteous champions, they all know who is doing what and go right along with it. Everyone in Hollywood knew about HW. If we, the public, knew, then they all KNEW. They can release all the statements they want, but in my opinion, not only does this whole ordeal expose HW for the sick bastard that he is, but that everyone in Hollywood is equally disgusting because they stick their heads in the sand for the sake of their careers, and they know it. I think this makes all actors and actresses associated with him look bad and they’re all squirming this morning.

  18. Surely Wolfbeak says:

    If paying off women is what makes this appalling, then what about Casey Affleck. The fact that he paid off women was public knowledge before he won an oscar.

    • K says:

      Ok to be fair he never said the paying off was what made it bad. He said he didn’t know about the claims of harassment or payoffs which with the Nda agreements could be true.

      Also I could be wrong but has Clooney ever supported Casey Affleck? I don’t pay that close if attention to Affleck stuff (either one) so I could have missed it but I don’t think he did.

      This is a good statement. I mean he admitted they were wrong this went on so long, that he heard some things but assumed it wasn’t assault and harassment and that he turned a blind eye thinking he was just a “dog” and that they and all of us need to do better.

      We aren’t going to get anyone to come out and go look I knew but I couldn’t risk everything and I’m sorry. And maybe this is what they knew, and he viewed some of this as a way to disparage the actress.

    • magnoliarose says:

      This isn’t about Affleck. This is about Harvey Weinstein so why would he bring him up?

  19. Mia4s says:

    I was glad to read this and it also got me thinking; One of the unspoken complications here is that the casting coach is wrong and gross…but that transactional relationships do happen. Look no further than: 1. Weinstein’s own marriage, and 2. THE. WHITE. HOUSE. How to make sure that women are protected without being patronizing and still respecting her autonomy? The only way I can think of is to better the options and ability for a woman who needs to come forward while still respecting due process. Gee, that will be easy (she said sarcastically). 🙁

  20. Skylark says:

    Not at all keen on what he said about Sharon Waxman and her ‘failure’ to use her own ‘Wrap’ platform to publish the story the much more powerful NYT chickened out on, as if she was somehow remiss in failing to bring Weinstein’s gross behaviour to his attention. How easy for him to completely disregard the immense power Weinstein had and instead tut tut over Waxman’s failure to put herself/her career/her life on the line.

    • dre says:

      But he’s right, she sat on her information just like everyone else but when the Times finally had enough people to speak on the record and they felt they could publish she goes after them. She has had The Wrap for years and could have written about it but didn’t because she knew he was too powerful and she didn’t have enough on the record accounts. The point is that the “everyone knew” thing may be true but we are not acknowledging that speaking out ruined careers and didn’t change behavior patterns until just now (if it really will change behavior, we’ll have to wait and see). Sharon Waxman complaining about the Times not publishing her story but not accepting her own accountability for not publishing on her own site is being disingenuous at best and a total hypocrite at worst.

      • Natalie S says:

        “disingenuous at best and a total hypocrite at worst”

        How. The NY Times didn’t want to lose advertising dollars while Sharon didn’t have the legal fund to stand up to Harvey. Two different motives. The NY Times made a craven decision and I’m interested in the names that made that decision. I think they should be published.

      • LadyT says:

        I disagree. She complained about a giant cowing to him. She’s not a giant. She published when she felt safe to do so.

      • dre says:

        I’m not saying the NY Times is right to have held a story (and I think their explanation is BS) or that any media was right to have held stories but they all were afraid of Harvey’s power, which was very significant. She was also afraid and didn’t publish on her own site which is literally the same thing. He had immense power that even the NY Times, LA Times, Variety and Nikki Finke way back when wouldn’t touch. So in calling them out why isn’t she apologizing for her own failure to speak out at the same time? Maybe she is and I missed it, but I didn’t read any of that in her original blog post.

      • Natalie S says:

        It’s about resources and motive. If Sharon Waxman had the same legal resources the Times could supply, she would have taken Harvey on. She was willing to risk her career but if she couldn’t fight Harvey without the proper resources, she risked giving his side of things undeserved credibility. Imagine Harvey getting to say he shut down the Wrap over that story? How would that affect other victims coming forward?

      • dre says:

        I see what you are saying and I wasn’t thinking of her as someone working without the backing of a huge company like the Times, instead I was just thinking she had sour grapes because they didn’t use her story and then she also sat on it for a decade. You’re correct, her resources are not the same and there is no way she could have run a story on him without losing everything but the Times could have tried even if they lost a lot of money and had to deal with a lawsuit (which they inevitably would have). I do go back to my argument that her original story didn’t have enough people willing to go on record, and this new one did, and that had a huge impact but you are right about it not being a level playing field for The Wrap vs The Times.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I agree. The point is everyone was afraid to say anything big or small.

  21. tifzlan says:

    I thought this was a good statement by Clooney. Interesting thoughts – i especially appreciated his opinions on how he thought the rumors were used to demean and devalue women in HW. I’d rather this than “i absolutely had nooooooooo idea” type of statements, so thanks George. Props to ya mawma.

  22. LadyT says:

    I like his comment much better than Streep’s because it sounds truthful, hers did not. Mind you I don’t fault either for not putting on a super hero cape to take out HW with the knowledge they had. I primarily fault those that knew of his eight harassment settlements for allowing it to continue.

  23. Carol says:

    I am going to use an example from this site. For years it was rumored that Gwyneth Paltrow slept with Harvey and “stole” the “Shakespeare in Love” role from Winona Ryder. I learned about the rumors from the comment sections of this site, and they were always used to bash Gwyneth. Now, if we are saying that people like George always knew or should have known about Harvey because even we outsiders heard the rumors, then should our reaction to the Gwyneth story have been to slut-shame her? Because it was. I think George is right that we are all complicit to some extent.

    • Courtney says:

      That’s exactly what came to my mind too, Carol.

    • perplexed says:

      I think there were also a lot of people who didn’t believe Gwyneth slept with Harvey Weinstein because she didn’t need to. The rumours might have been repeated as heard from Ted Casablancas or whoever, but I didn’t get the impression that people believed that Gwyneth had to sleep with someone to get the role. Her family was extremely well-connected, and that was enough to give her a head start in the industry.

      I never believed she had to sleep with Harvey Weinstein — not when Steven Spielberg is her godfather.

      • Nic919 says:

        Her story certainly clears up how she felt about him. And if not for Brad Pitt threatening Harvey, who knows what more he would have tried.

  24. Aerohead21 says:

    I knew and I’m a little nobody from Kansas who has never been to California, let alone Hollywood. Come on. If you heard a rumor, why’d you let it slide as “he’s just a dog.” Are we no longer saying “locker room talk” is bad? Any unsolicited sexual activity/advancements fall into the harassment category if the person was bothered by it or if the people witnessing were bothered by it. Idk about you, but I’d be bothered by a married man flirting, let alone the other disgusting behaviors HW engaged in. You’re all complicit cuz you wanted his money and he knew it.

  25. Merritt says:

    I don’t get the praise for Clooney here. He doesn’t say anything about his friend Matt Damon helping kill a story about HW. But he does throw Sharon Waxman under the bus for not running the story.

    • Sk says:


      Will I think he made a good comment that was much more insightful than some others. In a way he shames Sharon Waxman and her ‘failure’ to use ‘Wrap’ platform to publish the story, but doesn’t call out Matt Damon and Russell Crowe by name.

      Sandy this seems to be another way guys In-N-Out of Hollywood protect each other.

    • Skylark says:

      Right? I said the same above re Waxman. How ‘courageous’ to throw shade at her while completely ignoring the part his good friend Damon played in preventing the story getting a NYT airing. But then, this is typical, self-serving Clooney hypocrisy.

    • Shirley says:

      He did exactly what Streep did – throw the Media under the bus whilst circling the wagons – we didn’t know!!, not ‘know’ know… what is this the new rape rape? what a prick, he doesn’t mention ‘the boys’ Damon et al putting extreme pressure on the Journo – and good god of the New York Times cannot cope with the pressure put on it not to release of course the f*cking wrap cant!

      And his ‘oh we thought he was just a Dog’ does he know what a Dog is when they relentlessly hit on women with no power even if they are not jerking off into plant pots? its still predatory George, because its ‘polite’ coercion. He only thinks its bad because a man got his d*ck out ( and worse)

    • magnoliarose says:

      Matt Damon didn’t kill the story. NYTs killed the story. He vouched for the Italian guy as being legit and that was what Sharon said.

      It isn’t George’s place to speak for Matt Damon and how would he know what Matt knows?

  26. lisa says:

    this was such a great statement on the first read

    but dragging a woman (sharon) and not the men who helped get the story pulled is problematic to me

    and here we are how many days later, #whataboutbob indeed

    cant wait for ronan’s next piece

  27. Tulsi 2020 says:

    ‘ If politicians knew these stories, I doubt they’d have been taking donations from him”

    Only if they knew he was going to be outed.

  28. msd says:

    This statement/interview is much better, although it probably brings up a few too many nuanced points for the “everyone knew everything” crowd.

    Clooney has had no hesitation in the past loudly, publicly attacking people like David O Russell. If Harvey had behaved that badly in Clooney’s presence then we would have heard about it so I can only conclude he didn’t.

    I suspect his experience is similar to a lot of people in Hollywood. They all need to do some soul searching now about the industry’s tendency to give rich powerful men so much leeway when they “like young beautiful women” or are seen as “big characters.” Lord knows women and poc are rarely cut such slack.

  29. Danielle says:

    I’m on the fence about this one. I want to believe that George didn’t know about the darker abuse and rumors about Weinstein. I don’t think he turned a blind eye to women being victimized but I believe he did what most people do which is take the past of least resistance. You hope that the rumors aren’t true but don’t put much effort in to finding out the truth. That goes for Meryl and other A list celebrities. They’re so far removed from the world of struggling actors/actresses.

  30. ANOTHER DAY says:

    What continued to amaze me in this day and age is not understanding that you simply cannot have a completely consensual sexual relationship between a boss figure and an employee. There is a disproportionate allocation of power. The foundation of George’s position is completely void of this basic premise. So annoying.

  31. Madly says:

    I think Meryl gave the actresses the blueprint of what not to say.

    • Bluthfan says:

      Yep. I would never equate Clooney’s with Streep’s. Clooney owned up to what he knew and didn’t pretend to be completely clueless about Weinstein. Streep’s was a bunch of PR nonsense IMO. I thought Close’s statement was much, much better than Streep’s and I’d equate Clooney’s with Close’s.

  32. ArchieGoodwin says:

    I’m not ok with any of the “I didn’t experience this personally” comments, from anyone. That includes my favorite, Judi, and I was disappointed she went that route.
    It’s blaming, to me, to say something like that. Blaming the victims, in a way, to say that they didn’t experience it, personally.
    So what, if you didn’t? Doesn’t make it less true. Certainly doesn’t mean you didn’t KNOW, just that it didn’t happen to you. So, from George to Meryl to Judi to Jen, not one gets any kind of cookie from me for they way they handled this. They are still covering their asses. They can now say they came out against him, but that they also know how to play the game and when it mattered, they kept their mouths shut. See what good little actors and actresses they are? It’s sick 🙁
    Glenn, I am still deciding.

    • Madly says:

      My heart is breaking over how Judi Dench handled this. I love her but will never see her the same again.

    • Felicia says:

      I don’t really see why, if someone didn’t experience it personally, saying so would be a problem. Should they lie about it?

      I also don’t think that’s a means of “casting blame” on those who did experience it. So far, those who have said they didn’t have that experience personally, have also roundly condemned his behaviour.

      The point that Clooney brought up about discounting rumours that an actress got a part by sleeping with someone is valid. I’m sure that HW is a snakepit of malicious gossip, some of it true, some of it designed to damage the career of a rival. It happens often enough outside of HW. Factor into that the aspect of some of these people, their friends, their colleagues, their families, being the targets of completely made up gossip rag stories all the time, and it’s not that difficult to believe that at some point, seeing is believing and the rest is just rumours.

      • ANOTHER DAY says:

        I tend to agree with you first paragraph. If they didn’t then they didn’t. Make no statement, you are damned for your silence, Make any statement condemning it without disclosing your personal non impact ….well that leaves the door open for unsubstantiated rumor and speculation.

        I’m fine if they acknowledge they didn’t if they didn’t. They cam still be appropriately outraged that others did.

  33. slowsnow says:

    Clooney is an old school rich “good” kind of guy.
    For him, hitting on younger powerless women is just ok. Fine, who cares? If I knew that a female colleague of mine was hitting on young interns, I wouldn’t be patting her on the back and I’d have a serious conversation with her about it.
    Also, how does he not understand the need to go after this kind of man through the NYT rather than The Wrap? She would never have the leverage and the money to defend herself against these attacks.
    The only thing I praise him for is for being candid and putting hiself out there. So no need for being harsh, Just patient and calmly explain these dudes what power with bad intentions means against powerless people.

    • Madly says:

      George has been objectifying and using women for his branding for years, still is. I don’t think he truly believes men and women are equals. He is just a charming phoney

    • xena says:

      George Clooney should actually know how it feels to be sexualised and objectified. I mean that he must have made his share of at least uncomfortable experiences with women due to his extreme sexsymbolstaus. Is it possible that he didn’t realise this? Or did he and on a different level used women too? One needs to be desensitised to deal with this industry.

  34. Tulsi 2020 says:

    Still waiting to hear someone come out with ‘I was only following orders.’

  35. Felicia says:

    I’m still waiting for the statements of those who certainly DID know. His brother, the Board Members (I don’t care if they resigned or not) and let’s not forget, probably the people high up in Disney as well. Because this has been going on for 30 years yes? Someone was signing those cheques to the women who received settlements.

  36. Madly says:

    I actually don’t like what he had to say. I think he is full of it. People were warned bout this guy. People graduating from school and going into film were warned about him. I wa working in LA and was warned about him. George is full of shit. He knew it went farther, but he is trying to spare himself and seem “real”. He is trying to save face and be the voice of opposition on this. You can’t have it both ways. How do you not know that actresses and the less powerful get intimidated by the biggest bully who is also the biggest dog? How do you not piece that together?

    • perplexed says:

      He just kept talking and talking…the more he kept talking, the more he seemed to be deflecting. The part about “liberal” Hollywood and the guy getting fired vs Donald Trump getting elected seemed like an attempt to say that Hollywood isn’t that terrible. He just talks and talks and talks…

  37. Greata says:


  38. Anare says:

    Clooney got one thing right:

    “That every time you see someone using their power and influence to take advantage of someone without power and influence and you don’t speak up, you’re complicit.”

    • Skylark says:

      He did get that right. It’s a shame it’s precisely the form of gross abuse the company that Clooney’s made millions from for over 3 decades and for whom he happily continues to shill is notorious for. Complicity indeed.

  39. Ana says:

    This is the right response to have, I think. And I believe it too. If you keep hearing about actresses sleeping with producers to get jobs, why would you butt in? It’s different than hearing said producer is harassing/raping women.

    I like that he addressed Sharon Waxman in the way he did because she’s well known inside the media trade for her unethical approaches to several subjects. She’s as complicit as everyone else she’s accusing.

    • Sky says:

      All the while  Clooney  stayed silent on his friend  Matt Damon and also Russell Crowe involvement who helped shut down to the New York Times story in 2004. Calling out Sharon he ok with, but not calling out Matt.

      • Bluthfan says:

        Eh, I can see why Clooney didn’t see anything. It’s a rumor coming from Waxman which the NYT already said wasn’t true. I wouldn’t publicly drag a friend based off a rumor especially coming from someone with Waxman’s reputation.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Yeah she isn’t the best messenger and he would trust his friend not her anyway.

      • Ana says:

        You know, maybe it doesn’t seem like that in this social media world we live in, but it’s generally more appropriate not to judge others’ actions publicly (unless they are blatant crimes, like Weinstein’s obviously), especially when they are your friends. It would be quite horrible of Clooney if he started commenting on what Damon did or didn’t do, he should only speak for himself.

        That being said, the Waxman piece doesn’t say Crowe and Damon tried to bury her Weinstein exposé, despite misleading titles. What it says is that they called her to vouch for the head of Italy’s Miramax, whom she was investigating as being in the job as a pimp and not as a movie producer. I know some people want to think everyone is in the Harvey conspiracy and turned a blind eye while they saw him raping women, but that’s not how it works.

      • Carol says:

        Sharon herself confirmed on twitter that Matt did not shut down or interfere with the piece.

    • Holla here says:

      Just curious, what is Sharon Waxman’s reputation like? I’m not American (and don’t live in US) so I don’t know her reputation as a journalist.

      • magnoliarose says:

        She is known for stretching the truth and betraying off the record comments. Her sources are sometimes dubious, and people don’t like talking to her because she doesn’t follow up, and she has burned a bunch of bridges.

      • Ana says:

        I don’t know if she was like this in her NYT years, but ever since she’s had The Wrap (which is one of the worst websites of its kind), she’s shown she’s willing to do anything to get more clicks, even when that involves bad reporting or publishing “scoops” without even checking facts or calling sources. Just look at how she dropped the whole Damon and Crowe thing. That’s incredibly unethical.

  40. jugil1 says:

    I’m glad he issued this statement. It’s not great, but it’s decent. It’s about time the MEN start speaking.

  41. Konfused says:

    I’m glad these women are telling their truth. “Casting couches” is something that’s prominently known about but little is done to stop it because of the power these men have. Weinstein had the power then…but people have replaced him and have even more power now and that’s terrifying to think about. I’m still waiting for an exposé on Hollywoods worse kept was brought to light a couple years ago and swept under the rug so fast it was vomit inducing..also what about “yachting” and visits to the Middle East? Cannes?…This story is barely scraping the surface.

  42. isabelle says:

    Harvey isn’t the only one doing the “casting couch”, the one thing George did dance around. It is not such a big deal because Harvey isn’t the only rumored to be a dog, to give roles by the casting couch.

  43. robyn says:

    Clooney framed the situation in a very conclusive way. I’m glad he spoke out about it as it’s important for men as well as women to say something when they know something. It really does take “a village” of people who are willfully blind to allow such things to happen over decades.

  44. sg says:

    Being a “dog” and hitting on young women screams predator to me. I appreciate his statement and think it’s one of the better ones, but it really goes to show the gap between the way women view men and the way men view men. There is a deep gulf between the sexes in terms of what is considered acceptable and/or excusable, even with “good” men who would call themselves feminists or allies. Until men are able to see dog-like behaviour for what it is–predatory behaviour made socially acceptable by patriarchal norms–then nothing will change, and people like Weinstein will continue unabated.

  45. Bliss 51 says:

    It’s everywhere, this abuse. My little back water town, in academia, the military, the schools, the government at all levels, the hardware store, even playgrounds. Everywhere.

  46. magnoliarose says:

    Sharon Waxman is a problematic person who has a habit of not being entirely truthful, and she doesn’t follow up on her stories. She also hung with Harvey, so she is also a hypocrite. That is the shade George is throwing at her. There have been accusations she just makes up crap if she hates someone, and she has an ax to grind with the NYT.
    As a source of honesty, she is not and has had a bad rep for a very long time.

    I would like to know if what she said about Matt and Russell is even true. George was right to call her out since she never minded throwing other people straight under the bus when she felt like it.

    • Ana says:

      Yes, yes, yes.

    • LadyT says:

      Her version of 2004 and the NYT version don’t come close to matching. She says her article was gutted due to pressure from HW. The Times says her story wasn’t nailed down, she had one off-the-record source and it was inadequate to print. Take your pick.

    • xena says:

      Now this information sheds a bit of a different light on her version. But if I were the times, I’d tried to devalue her statements too. That leads all just to more questions. So I’d like to hear why the times came out now.

      • Ana says:

        They won’t say it, but the main reason they came out now is because Ronan Farrow was investigating the case for the New Yorker, and the victims were starting to feel a bit more willing to speak up now. You can see that the NYT article is more rushed and has less sources than the New Yorker’s, they seem to have assembled it quickly and around one main accusation (that memo) supported by bits of others in their eagerness to publish first. Either way, thanks to them daring to do it is that we finally see some repercussions to this sort of behavior.

    • Jayna says:

      Well, she has come out and agreed with Matt’s response on his call to state his working relationship with the guy on set in Italy she was doing the investigative piece on, whatever that guy’s name is in Italy. You’re right about her and her honesty, now backtracking from the click bait that he tried to kill the story, insinuating more by the way she wrote it.

      Sharon Waxman on twitter:

      I endorse Matt Damon’s statement. He called me briefly,wasn’t informed – nor should he have been – abt investigative aspect of piece.

      • LadyT says:

        I’ve been doing further reading about her in an effort to find the truth. When questioned as to why she did not publish the story on her site The Wrap she responded “I did not have sufficient evidence to write about a pay-off, even though I knew one existed.” So her original assertion that she had this story in 2004, NYT gutted it because of HW pressure is not true. I’m not going to believe her about Damon, Crowe either at this point. Liars lie.

  47. Ellis says:

    Finally, a comprehensive statement However, in the world at large, when you have evidence that someone has a problem with morals, it is beyond naïve, right down into disintelligent (yes, I made that word up because it works finitely here) to not think that it goes much deeper than what is on the surface. There is no such thing as a “little lack of morals”, or a “small lack of integrity”. Both are all or nothing principals. Obviously. Proven again. Like I needed more. And aren’t he and Pitt good buds? Pitt confronted HW about his predatory behavior toward Paltrow, and his wife wouldn’t work with HW because of it. Never came up? Odd. Predation is not “hitting on”. Whatever, Hollywood definitions aside, George, you run, I’ll vote for you.

  48. I Choose Me says:

    I also think George makes a great point about the casting couch rumors and how the abuse of power Harvey likely employed was weaponized against the actresses specifically.

    Yes it freaking was. Glad he said it and I’m glad you highlighted that point Kaiser.

  49. annie says:

    what about Katie Holmes HW set his sights on her, after her divorce , high profile lunch with tons of pics, bought the rights to The Traitors Wife for Katie to star in……..then everything went quiet, nothing came of it……pics of Katie with him and the lunch , she started wearing Georgina Chapmans clothes, then Katie distanced herself from Georgina and Harvey……….maybe someone whispered in her ear…….sure looks that way now!