Felicity Huffman: Harvey Weinstein forced me to wear Marchesa in 2005

Embed from Getty Images

Back in 2005, Felicity Huffman starred in a film called Transamerica, for which she was nominated for an assortment of big awards – Golden Globe, Independent Spirit and Oscar nominations, all for Best Actress (she won the Globe and a Spirit Award). Transamerica was distributed by The Weinstein Company, and Harvey Weinstein had a lot to say about Felicity’s Oscar campaign. I remember that, actually – it was a really small indie film, but Weinstein made sure that Felicity got all of these big nominations, seemingly out of nowhere. Throughout the awards season, Felicity wore a lot of Marchesa, because of course. We’ve all known that it was Harvey’s rule, that the women he promoted wear Marchesa. Well, now Felicity is confirming that:

Felicity Huffman confirmed a report that Harvey Weinstein threatened to stop financially supporting the promotion of her 2005 Oscar-nominated drama “Transamerica” if the actress didn’t wear his fashion designer wife’s clothing at various red carpet events.

“Yeah, it’s true,” Huffman told TooFab Thursday night in Los Angeles at the Eva Longoria Foundation Gala. Amid allegations of Weinstein’s serial sexual harassment and sexual assault, The Hollywood Reporter published a story Monday citing several anonymous publicists who said the movie mogul used his influence over various stars to promote Georgina Chapman’s label, Marchesa.

According to one LA-based publicist, Weinstein gave Huffman the ultimatum to make sure Chapman’s designs would be front and center while the actress — who earned an Oscar nomination for playing a transgender woman in the film — promoted the movie on the red carpet. The same publicist recalled Weinstein also pressured actress Sienna Miller, who starred in Weinstein’s 2006 drama “Factory Girl,” to wear his wife’s designs at the Golden Globes.

“He was the mastermind behind Marchesa — orchestrating deals and using his influence in terms of the celebrity connections for her on behalf of the brand,” an LA-based female fashion publicist told THR. She added that Chapman not only knew her company was benefiting from Weinstein pressuring his actresses to wear her clothing, but also alleged that “she certainly knew about his bad behavior.”

[From TooFab]

Felicity’s former stylist Kevan Hall also confirmed the fact that Felicity was forced into wearing Marchesa, telling THR: “I was disappointed when she told me that she could not wear my gown for her nomination for Transamerica because the ‘godfather’ said she had to wear ‘his girlfriend’s collection.’” Again, while this is far from the WORST thing he’s being accused of, it’s a good confirmation of what many of us always assumed, which is that if you are a woman and you ever worked with Harvey Weinstein in any kind of circumstance, there’s a very good probability that he threatened you over something, whether it be sexual favors or clothing.

Felicity also posted this Instagram, saying something similar to George Clooney: Weinstein’s reputation was as a serial philanderer, not a rapist and sexual assailant.


A post shared by Felicity Huffman (@felicityhuffman) on

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

128 Responses to “Felicity Huffman: Harvey Weinstein forced me to wear Marchesa in 2005”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maya Memsaab says:

    Apart from the financial gain from pushing his wife’s brand, this disgusting man also wanted ownership of women’s bodies in every sense – from assaulting them, to dictating what they could wear.

    • Veronica says:

      I know it seems minor in comparison to sexual assault, but both are derived from the same place of utter objectification of women. We are chattel to men like him.

      • Maya Memsaab says:

        Yes, absolutely. It’s as if it isn’t enough that he is subjecting them to horrible things to them in private, but he seems to derive a sick satisfaction from knowing that he can also pressure successful women in Hollywood into wearing Marchesa almost as an act of branding them as his property. If you’re a woman in Hollywood merely trying to work and exist, I can’t imagine how terrible it must be to be forced into silence, then having to wear clothes that this monster asks them to, and then having to put up with his company socially and smile with him in pictures. He really seemed to get off on this total and utter control.

      • Sixer says:

        It’s not minor and you’re right. It’s all about power and control, whether it’s clothes to wear or body parts to make available.

        Frankly, I doubt Wankstain himself has even considered there’s any difference. All the same to him.

      • tracking says:

        Yes, this.

      • milla says:

        Its not minor. It is a big deal. He was forcing women to watch him, to please him, to wear what he wants. And his wife knew. She was a model turned actress turned designer… Do you know how difficult is to be a designer and survive in that business? She used his money and his connections. He is a monster. She is a victim of her own greed.

    • emma33 says:

      Yes, that is the pattern here – absolute control. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I felt sorry for his wife reading this. On the surface, it looks like he was doing this ‘for her’, but manipulators often do things for people so they can have total control over them and never have to be accountable for their actions.

      • Enough Already says:

        You may be right but unless Chapman says she was a victim of his abuse I will save my sympathy for the professed victims.

      • Radley says:

        I don’t feel sorry for Georgina. It seems she’s a cold blooded opportunist. And like I’ve said before, she made a guy who isn’t father material a father two more times. I still can’t get past that.

        She may not have known every dirty detail about his crimes, but she knew he was gross, inappropriate, aggressive, sexually fixated and a power abuser. I’m sure he approached her the way he approached many of these other women and she said, yeah I’m gonna run with this. It chills me to the bone. Sick, selfish woman.

      • Sherry says:

        @Radley – I said on another thread today that Harvey is classic NPD. I doubt Georgina saw anything from him but charm and over the top wooing prior to marrying him. Once she was married and he had her financially and emotionally dependent on him, I suspect the mask fell and she’s been living with a monster and too afraid to get out.

        She has probably been verbally, emotionally and financially abused for years.

      • Cbould says:

        Hey @Sherry, missed the other thread u posted, what’s a NPD?

      • Sixer says:

        Sherry – yes, wife = favoured possession he was fond of, insofar as he’s capable of finer feeling for another person; actresses = utilitarian possessions there to satisfy need, whether that need be “do this role”, “wear this dress” or “perform this sex act”. Everyone = Weinstein possessions.

        It’s nothing to do with his wife or any other person anywhere. It’s everything to do with the abusive psychopathology of a man who, unhappily, had inveigled himself into a position of power.

      • tracking says:

        Well stated, Sixer.

      • Sherry says:

        @Cbould – Narcissistic Personality Disorder – it’s way beyond just calling someone a narcissist.

        Harvey ticks all the boxes for this disorder. I’m not a psychiatrist, but I am married to a man with NPD. It took me years and a lot of research to figure out what was wrong with my husband. I don’t put up with his crap anymore and just live my life. Like most abusers, 90% of the time, he’s okay to live with. The other 10% used to bother me, now I just ignore him.

      • Radley says:

        @ Sherry I totally disagree on your assessment of his relationship with Georgina. We’ve already heard from other women he wanted some sort of relationship with. And he was brusque and crass with them too. I find it hard to believe he was any different with her. The other women were beautiful, successful and I’m sure interesting as well. Some even had the bonus of being famous (bonus in Harvey’s eyes), so I don’t see her as being extra special in that he would treat Georgina differently.

        The speculation and excuse making reminds me a lot of when people were struggling to explain why so many white women voted for Trump. Some women are just shady. Period. I think she made a deal with the devil, eyes wide open.

      • Shambles says:


        You call her a “Sick, selfish woman” and then complain about speculation? Seriously? I honestly think it’s pretty sick that you’re making some MASSIVE assumptions about a woman you know absolutely nothing about. We don’t know what her marriage was like. We have absolutely no idea, and you’re making some huge leaps here. Maybe she knew. Maybe she was just as much a victim. I don’t think it’s cool to assume that she “made a deal with the devil” and is “cold hearted” until we know more.

      • Really? says:

        Georgina profited from his power, that’s why she married him. The only reason she is divorcing him now is because he is no longer of use to her. She comes from an upper middle class-wealthy background; she didn’t need to marry him. She may not be responsible for his actions, but it’s highly unlikely that she didn’t know he was coercing stars to wear her fairy gowns.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No, Georgina gets no pass on this part. She is not to blame for his actions in assaulting women sexually, but she is complicit in forcing actresses to wear her designs. She hurt other designers, stylists and talented people who the actresses had relationships with and whose designs they personally loved for her ambition. I try to be fair before saying things like this, but that has always been one of the things I have never liked about her even before this scandal.

        It may seem small to some people, but it isn’t. Award season can mean
        increased attention for a new talent, and his actresses were always on red carpets, and they were always the actresses designers salivated over to dress.

        She is a crap designer without merit who used her husband’s bullying to promote a brand that the actresses didn’t even like because she had the misguided dream of being a top designer. On her own, she got nowhere with it because she didn’t deserve it as she was just a failed actress and a talent-free accessories designer. Nothing wrong with being that but the minute she takes up with HW, a brand is born and then BOOM the brand thrives.

        I would feel the same if Kate Middleton made crappy hats and used her titles to make them a success over much more talented people and made people wear them against their will. Or if Ivanka made women in Congress or wives of men in Congress wear her jewelry when it hasn’t stood on its own and was fully aware of it, but it also came with professional gain.

        There is supporting women, but there is also calling women out. I don’t give a woman a pass just because her husband is an evil monster just like I don’t blame her for his actions. This part though is hers to answer for too.

      • Sixer says:

        Here’s the thing: nobody is responsible for the crimes of another, even if they are married to the criminal.

        Unless this woman specifically colluded with her husband to force, with sexual and career threats, specific women to wear specific clothes that would profit her business, SHE IS NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING.

        It doesn’t matter if she is a virtuous saint or if she is a horrible person you wouldn’t even have a coffee with. It doesn’t matter. She has nothing to do with it. Her husband is the criminal sex offender, so why is she the topic of anybody’s conversation? HE IS THE CONVERSATION. The beginning of it, the middle of it and the end of it.

      • Wren says:

        I think Georgina was used just as everyone else was used, she just fulfilled a different role. How extremely convenient for him to have a fashion designer wife. That way, his demands that his actresses wear certain clothes become very plausible and easily explained. You *have* to wear this designer? Why? Oh, because it’s my wife’s business and all in the family and so forth. Imagine him pulling this with some other unconnected designer, people would talk and awkward questions would be asked repeatedly. How simple to deflect all that while maintaining control over every player?

        The fact that her designs are often ugly and tacky and poorly constructed was icing on the cake. He knew perfectly well that few would willing choose to wear Marchesa, meaning he got the double satisfaction of having his wife’s business dependent on him and having women wear clothes at his behest that they didn’t like and wouldn’t choose. What a rush, knowing the business that his wife cares deeply about is under his control, while knowing he and he alone decides what his actresses wear?

        I also imagine that he treats/treated Georgina much differently than the others, his relationship with her was meant to be longstanding, not immediately or easily disposable. As someone pointed out, she’s a different type of possession, one to properly maintained.

      • Megan says:

        If Georgina knew Harvey threaten to cut off funding for Felicity’s Oscar campaign (and by implication roles in other Weinstein films) unless she wore Marchesa gowns, then she is complicit in abuse.

      • Nic919 says:

        I put her in the same category as the agents and publicists who enabled Weinstein to continue his predatory behaviour. They all profited from him and his abusive behaviour. Simply being a spouse wouldn’t put her in the category, but she had legitimate business interests and profited from his bullying. Without all the enablers how does Weinstein continue to do what he does for so long? If agents and publicists stopped sending the women to the hotel meetings, then it becomes much harder for him to continue. They are complicit. Rose McGowan is going after the Weinstein Company just as hard because there were a lot of people who created this situation.

      • Anilehcim says:

        @Radley: “I don’t feel sorry for Georgina. It seems she’s a cold blooded opportunist”

        This. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe she was in a tough spot, but obviously she got the same offer that Minka Kelly did–the whole spiel about the life she could have if she would be his girlfriend; private jets, trips around the world, all her dreams coming true–but she didn’t have the character or dignity to say “no” and pursue those things on her own. She took the offer… and she turned a blind eye to him abusing other women.

        Georgia Chapman gets no pass. I hope she’s blacklisted also.

        Slightly off topic, but what nerve Harvey has. He still doesn’t get it that he’s done. He’s threatening lawsuits, lying that people are defending him, and refusing to just go away quietly.

      • passerby says:

        100% spot on Radley!

        Georgina knew all about Harvey The Flagrant Assaulter. Some folks believe she was the last woman in the bubble who didn’t know. If there was any doubt, all you have to do is look into the accounts of Minka Kelly.

      • Enough Already says:

        You can’t put thehorse back in the barn. I’m sorry but just focusing on Weinstein doesn’t work. It works if we just want to put our noses down until this blows over but if there is to be change we should critically examine this entire, ugly mess. It’s like a senate commission report following a tragedy or scandal – beyond the headlines how did this toxic environment thrive? Weinstein is the only rapist/assailant in this story, we know and understand that. But he is a Hydra. Cut him down and three more take his place. Why? How? We need to keep asking these questions and no, women aren’t exempt from scrutiny. More importantly, no woman should be made to feel like a traitor to the girls’ club for asking provocative (not inflammatory, mind you) questions about something so horrid and personally impactful.

        As for Chapman, I’m bothered by people infantalizing her and making anecdotal acquittals. I didn’t say it’s wrong to form an opinion but the double standard grates my last nerve. Chapman’s agency is not compromised as yet since nothing supports that narrative so she’s not a victim. Good enough for the Gretchen Mol and Blake Lively commenters, good enough for Chapman.

      • passerby says:

        “I also imagine that he treats/treated Georgina much differently than the others, his relationship with her was meant to be longstanding, not immediately or easily disposable. As someone pointed out, she’s a different type of possession, one to properly maintained. ”

        I don’t mean to laugh at this statement but a pig like Harvey doesn’t discriminate. *IF* he treated any women in his life differently it would be his mother and daughters. The end.

      • Sixer says:

        Enough Already – I’m inclined to say that this Weinstein affair is two things. Firstly, an individual criminal issue, and that this individual criminal issue should be dealt with by the justice system. Secondly, a structural issue for the entertainment industry and that this structural issue should be dealt with as I said below – with inquiries and commissions set up by the industry to institute proper safeguarding procedures.

        I see the endless conversations about complicity – his wife and what she knew, who spoke up and who didn’t, the value of industry figures’ individual comments, etc – as unhelpful if we are talking about Weinstein as a criminal. They are HIS crimes, nobody else’s.

        These conversations would be useful if we are talking about practical reforms to make a corrupted industry safer. But, since nobody in power is proposing any such initiative, I think all they do is distract from Weinstein’s offending, for which he is solely responsible.

        Hope that makes sense!

      • Wren says:

        Passerby, I’m merely speaking from my own experience. I’ve known several horrible people who acted 100% differently to different people depending on their use for them. Master manipulators are absolutely not one note, and will most certainly change their behavior depending on the game they are playing. Depending on what he needed/wanted out of Georgina, I can easily believe that she did not see, at least for a long time, the brutish side of him.

        This “he’s a pig so of course he was horrible to (insert name here)” is disingenuous as best. Yet another iteration of “you must have known”.

      • Radley says:

        @ Shambles

        Maybe you should re-read my comments because I certainly didn’t shame anybody for speculating and never said I wasn’t either. I disagreed and gave my opinion. Most of us don’t know any of the people that Celebitchy posts about, which makes our opinions largely speculative, so what exactly is your point?

        Actually, you getting indignant in my mind proves my point. Once again, a lot of people are ready to bend over backwards to give a certain type of woman the benefit of every doubt. I know what it is. Lemme tell ya, I’m a self made woman of color. I’ve been around the block and back again. I’ve never ever encountered a woman personally (emphasis on personally) whose hubby was involved in something scandalous who wasn’t aware of said scandalous behavior before it all went public. Never. I think it’s naive to assume these woman are victims when much more often they’re co-conspirators and enablers.

        Also to other commenters, “acting different” around person X doesn’t mean person X doesn’t have the sense God gave them to sniff out a rat. Come on now. I doubt Georgina Chapman is either dumb or naive.

        *Tamara from RHOC shriek*

        THAT’S MY OPINION!!!!!!

        Good day.

      • passerby says:

        Nothing disingenuous about it. It seems we are speaking of two different experiences. I know of men like him (less criminal, just pig) and you can spot him from a mile away. Not to mention, you’ve heard about him and you’ve seen him in action too many times to remember. Perhaps, in Harveys’ younger years he was able to hide his criminal and piggish ways-but by 2000 EVERYONE knew.

        I agree with you -there are men who are able to turn it on and off …Harvey isn’t one of them, IMO

      • Enough Already says:

        Very well thought out.
        I’m still struggling with my views on progress, complicity and accountability with all of this but that doesn’t preclude me from having an instant, positive response to your comment. At the risk of getting yelled at I will say this: I’m sickened that the commenters on a celeb gossip blog are anguishing over this and giving the problem more thought than 3/4 of the men in Hollywood.

      • kibbles says:

        I’ve read a lot of comments on various websites about the Weinstein scandal, and people like to either place blame on women, or call all of them victims. It’s not black and white. For all of the women Weinstein did victimize with either rape, assault, or harassment, I’m sure there were plenty of other women in the business who were complicit or had consensual sex with him to further their careers. It is also possible to be complicit and victimized. I’ve always felt that Weinstein and Chapman’s marriage was more of a business arrangement. There is little chance she would have married this nasty ogre otherwise. I’m sure she was complicit and may have even persuaded Weinstein to force actresses to wear her designs. That was part of their business deal as a married couple. I can also see her knowing that he was a philanderer or even to an extent a predator who bullied actresses. She could also be a victim if there was any sort of abuse in the marriage, verbal or otherwise. I don’t know why people can’t see women as complex humans who are often victimized by patriarchy but also use it when they can to help further their own careers/agenda or that of their husband’s. Just remember that over half of all white women voted for Trump. Oftentimes women do things that are in the best interest of their husbands even if it hurts other women because that helps maintain stability and financial security of their own household.

      • Enough Already says:

        Nic919, Magnoliarose
        Consistently great observations. as I said before, Chapman was not a stay at home mom who only got her info from her husband. She was a business partner and Hollywood insider. If that matters for the brother it matters for the spouse. To only entertain the assumption that she was a helpless, hapless, cowering victim is to forcibly reject the possibility that she knew and/or knew and completely did not give a crap knowing those women would be forced to skyrocket her brand. I’m only speaking for myself but if I give Chapman a pass because she is a woman then I would feel like a misogynist.

      • Enough Already says:

        Yes! This boils down to personhood and choices. If Chapman went along with this it’s the moral equivalent of one person robbing the bank and another person laundering the money. I’m not letting one off the hook by questioning the other about what he knew/agreed to.

      • Enough Already says:

        Here’s a great piece from a Weinstein victim. She lays out cogent arguments for real, system wide change. These are some of the very things you discussed below and on other HW threads.


      • Sixer says:

        Enough Already – thank you for posting that! Yes. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Until systems like that are put in place, I genuinely think it’s pointless having conversations about complicity because, as things currently stand, EVERYONE is complicit. It’s virtually impossible to have anything to do with Hollywood without some degree of complicity. Are we to blame for buying cinema tickets or DVDs of Miramax films? Where does it end?

        At this point, I think there are only two lines of thought worth pursuing – a) how could a criminal prosecution of Weinstein be achieved, and b) how can the industry effect meaningful, enforced, structural change?

        Who knew precisely what and precisely when and what score of complicity any individual has just seems like a waste of energy to me.

      • noway says:

        I want to know what’s the personality disorder when people have to proportion blame on a crime or a big incident on people other than the perpetrator, especially placing some the responsibility on other women. The only thing we know for sure is HW abused these women. He even admitted it, not eloquently, but he admitted it. Everything else is conjecture. Just wondering cause whenever something similar occurs, the collective “we” have to have a big conspiracy of lots of people who caused this person to do this. When a man cheats, it’s his fault, but also the wife or significant other get some blame too. If the woman stays in the marriage or relationship then she gets more blame. Keep in mind this thinking isn’t far from If a woman is raped it’s the victims fault, because she was in the wrong place or wore the wrong thing. I don’t know what Georgiana did or didn’t know, but I do know HW would have done what he did in some form whether he met her or not.

  2. Enough Already says:

    Weinstein’s soon-to-be ex-wife should be held accountable for her complicity. I’ll never hear the brand again without feeling revulsion. Polanski and Woody Allen often make me feel hopeless about Hollywood but the scope of this scandal is unlike anything I’ve seen in Tinseltown and I really, really want to believe there will be changes made. Some good has got to come of this…

    • ELX says:

      An acquaintance of mine actually did some work for her–he described Georgina as “sweet, anxious to please, and very conscious of the fact that she, a non-Jew, had married into a Jewish family that didn’t fully accept her.” This doesn’t sound to me like she’s some calculating Mata Hari; she’s pretty enough, but neither particularly sharp-witted nor well educated. I think it’s far more likely that Harvey was attracted to her because she’s rather passive, unsure of her place, and someone he could keep squarely under his thumb. She seems to be the sort of person who wants her partner to rule the roost, but, unfortunately for her, she picked the wrong ‘boss.’

      • minx says:

        Weinstein’s family should have been kissing Georgina’s feet for introducing beauty into that godawful gene pool.

    • Wren says:

      As I said above, I think she was used too. Unless she was actively involved in procuring, luring, or threatening the other women, which so far there has been no hint of such, she’s not at fault. This is ALL on him. All of it. This is yet more patriarchy oozing its toxic influence all over the place. Somehow his wife must share the blame for his crimes.

      • Darla says:

        Unless it’s revealed she has a 60 IQ, these descriptions of her are quite hilarious. I’ll pass on viewing her as helpless belle, without a thought in her head, just trying to please everyone.

      • Wren says:

        I don’t really think of her one way or the other, but all this talk of her being complicit or needing to face retribution for someone else’s crimes is getting ludicrous. I’m sure Harvey is thrilled his wife is getting her share of the flack, takes the focus off him.

      • Veronica says:

        She can be both a victim and complicit in the victimization of other women. You’d be surprised how often women are both.

      • Justjj says:

        I’m with you Wren! I think a large proponent in this Georgina crap is people who lack understanding of how psychological and financial abuse work and how people who are NPD or sociopathic abusers really are. You do not have to be dumb or blind to fall for, and ultimately be trapped by, a manipulative psychopath. That’s the unnerving part that people don’t understand. It can happen to you. The fact you think it can’t happen to someone with wits or common sense, just helps someone with NPD string you along all the easier. I’m SURE she and the children were manipulated and abused. To what degree, not sure but this guy is about as toxic as can be.

      • Enough Already says:

        The only way I can put it is the police will arrest the person who knowingly passes counterfeit bills as quickly as they will the person who printed it. They face different charges in court but they both played a part. If Chapman reaped the benefits of Weinstein’s abuse and intimidation, knowing that these women were being put through sheer hell, then she earns my contempt. If she did this while being dominated by Weinstein then she has both my sympathy and my contempt. I have no reason however to believe she was a victim. We’ll see.

  3. emma33 says:

    What we are hearing at the moment is all the women who refused to go along with Harvey, and many paid for it in some way. The people who we’ll probably never hear from are the women who did sleep with him out of desperation and fear.

    These women are just as much (if not more) Harvey’s victims, but sadly, because of this toxic shaming-culture we live in, they probably feel too ashamed to come forward and tell their stories. They don’t fit the narrative of the ‘perfect victim’ and are silent. It is very, very sad.

    • Enough Already says:

      This is why the environment in which these things happen has to change. When it became clear that child stars were being financially ruined by their parents and would often be penniless by the age of 18 laws were put into place to protect them. I wish something similar could be done to protect cast and crew members from exploitation and abuse.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes. The correct response to this *should* be some kind of inquiry or convention whereby the industry, together with its various unions, defines and implements safeguarding procedures. You know, like we have in all sorts of other industries and institutions. There are blueprints to choose from and adapt.

        The rest is all sound and fury and will achieve nothing.

      • Enough Already says:

        I mean even working animals in films and on television have Reps on the set to protect their interests. This could happen if Hollywood really wanted change.

      • Sixer says:


        And the fact that there is precisely ZERO discussion of such a thing happening tells you that there is also precisely ZERO appetite for change in the people with power.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Absolutely and it won’t happen unless some women are brave enough to take the risk and if powerful men support them.
        This kind of thing crushes a woman, and the scars are for life. I can tell you even when you have some pull behind you it does not give a woman full protection against predators. It isn’t just starving starlets, and that should tell everyone how pervasive it is. Of course, it is worse for women who haven’t established themselves or who can’t call their father the super agent and have him throw his weight around, but it doesn’t mean it is a total shield. Victimization comes in many forms and can seem consensual when it isn’t.
        Only the people with power can make this change. Getting women more influence and positions where they control at least 30 to 50 percent of the industry would quash this nonsense quickly.

    • noway says:

      You did hear from one, Asia Argento in one of the first articles. I thought she was very brave to tell her story about how she ended up having a sexual relationship with him. At first it was forced, and then she was forced mentally to have it.

  4. Neelyo says:

    This is terrible and predictable but the headline did make me laugh.

  5. sereneeirene says:

    How could all this women smile and embrace him in photos knowing who he was or even worse, after being assaulted by him. H O W ????

    • Enough Already says:

      There are lots of valid reasons. Shame, trauma, shock, fear of reprisal, sublimation. A picture is just a split second in time and doesn’t convey more than what we already want to see. Taylor Swift’s assailant tried to use the photo of them together as proof that if something bad had happened she would have looked more uncomfortable.

      These women are victims. End of.

    • Cintra.C says:

      Enough Already has given good reasons. Weinstein was very, very powerful. Rebecca Traister recently wrote a column detailing an event where Weinstein verbally assaulted her, and then physically assaulted her boyfriend in front of photographs. No pictures of the assault appeared in any newspapers. That’s when she realized how powerful he was, and didn’t pursue any legal action against him.

    • Sixer says:

      Some guy at work gropes you.

      You don’t report it because you saw what happened the last time a woman at your company reported something similar to HR. It all descended into he said, she said, the woman was followed for months by rumours and whispers and her whole future at the company became defined by this single incident. Even though the guy was reprimanded, nobody forgot. In the end, she buggered off to work somewhere else even though it probably meant delaying advancement in her career for several years.

      But the guy bloody groped you!

      The next week, you have to go to an industry dinner. It’s quite important for you because you’re ready to move upwards in your career and this is vital networking. The groper is there and at some point, the photographer wants a group photo. The groper stands next to you. You remember that colleague. You grit your teeth and you smile. A few years later, the guy is outed as a serial abuser. The photo appears on the internet and everyone calls YOU out.

      You’re the woman, after all.

      • Christin says:

        Good points.

        And what if the guy at work was in an executive position, which made it even harder to be heard or taken seriously. It’s not as simple as some might think. Making a living, power, all those factors come into play. And the boss’ boss (or equals) don’t always listen. They sometimes prefer to ignore or lean to a he said/she said attitude until the accusations simply pile up. Even then, the guy may be allowed to set his own departure and really never face real repercussions.

      • Shambles says:

        Sixer, you’re a true warrior for taking the time to explain this in such a relatable and well-thought-out way.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Yes and then the woman goes home and feels terrible and shaken by the incident. She feels shame and weaknesses for taking the picture and allowing him to spend the evening as if he never did anything wrong. You feel like you just let him off the hook and the anger with yourself lasts for a long time.

        Meanwhile, groper gets a little satisfaction at putting the victim in her place and then never thinks of that particular victim afterward until he gets caught. Then he has no qualms about using the victim yet again by showing photos and instances where she looked okay with it after all.

      • Sixer says:

        Anyone who is, after all the conversations and explanations on here, STILL failing to understand how women respond to sexual assault and why, the best book to read is by Professor Liz Kelly. It goes through all the strategies women employ and why they employ them.


        It was written the best part of thirty years ago. It’s as relevant today as it was when it was first published.

        Nothing. Has. Changed. And this is largely because everyone is still asking the same, disbelieving, questions.

      • Catherinethegoodenough says:

        Sixer just nailed it. And please let’s not forget that looking happy at award shows and other events is part of an actress’ JOB. She is contractually obligated to promote her movie, and that includes throwing her arm around that movie’s producer and fake-smiling at industry events.

      • porcupette says:


      • noway says:

        The other thing people forget or don’t want to admit is what Daniel Day Lewis said about HW, Harvey had an enormous talent at picking movie scripts and making movies but otherwise was a horrible human being. (Says a lot about HW that he was the one who spread this quote around) What if the abuser was good at their profession, and you are the victim and know this. Theoretically, the victim should turn them in or quit, but maybe they are really good in their chosen field and they are not ready to give up on their career. Which is probably what you are asking most of these women do. HW did produce some really good movies. I think a lot of these women justify the abuse as not that bad, and just suck it up because they can move on in their chosen profession. I think a lot of women think that some of this behavior is expected in your chosen field.

      • jugil1 says:

        @ Sixer, Brilliantly said.

    • Megan says:

      It’s a double edge sword. On one hand, Harvey is a serial abuser they despise, on the other hand, he is a major power player in Hollywood who is helping them achieve the career goals they have spent years working towards.

      I have to admit, early in my career I worked for someone who was universally despised and revered in our industry. It continues to open countless doors for me two decades after the fact. When I see this man at industry events I smile, kiss his cheek, and ask about his kids.

    • Sandra says:

      As a teenager, I worked in a kitchen at a nursing home. It was my high school job and it was important for me to save money for college. There were three male cooks in the kitchen all in their mid to late twenties who serially harassed the female staff. They were buddies with the boss, by the way. I was 17 and didn’t know how to respond to what they were saying to me. I watched another woman go to the boss several times to report their harassment. The solution? The boss did nothing and the cooks were 10 times worse to her and would relentlessly ridicule everything about her to other employees. By the time I’d had enough and wanted to quit, I only had a few weeks left until I was leaving for college. It was pointless and I needed the paychecks. So I continued to take their abuse and would try to be buddy buddy with them so they weren’t too awful to me. This happens everywhere.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      Because the ENTIRE industry is like that. Weinstein may be the most powerful of the men that do this-but he is surely not alone. If you’re an actress you are aware of this and have to make all kinds of decisions to have a career. One of those decisions is to smile with a man who you know is creepy, but is powerful. You wear his wife’s designs, you stand with him at an award show. I think the people who are questioning all of these people who worked with him (thinking he’s a philanderer and a creep but not realizing he’s assaulting women) are naive. Does it need to change? Of course. But Hollywood has always had a casting couch.

      • magnoliarose says:

        If you research this and reactions by the outspoken women like Rose and others it will speak volumes about what hasn’t been said.

        Incidentally, Ellen Barkin said Kate Winslet had her own subversive moment when she thanked everyone BUT Harvey Weinstein. The women knew exactly why she did it.

  6. The Original G says:

    Wear Marchesa dresses? Ok, lots of companies make branding and merchandising deals.

    The photos, however of actors falling all over HW, celebrating, betrays the dirty secret- they all knew how the sausage was being made but went with it when they were the ones invited as guests dinner.

    • Esmom says:

      Have you considered that they’re laughing with him and smiling because they’re terrified of what he might do if they didn’t? If you look closer at these photos, Felicity doesn’t look truly happy. Look how hard he’s gripping her arm. And her smiles look pretty forced to me.

      • The Original G says:

        Have you considered that many suppressed their disgust because they benefited from his power?

        The HWs are one issue. systemic acceptance is another.

      • FHMom says:

        Not to mention, the success or failure of a film impacts everyone that worked on the film. The actors are only the face of the film. A lot of people who don’t earn big salaries need the film to be successful and promotion is all part of that.

      • CharlotteCharlotte says:

        The Original G, PLENTY of people have done more than just ‘consider’ that these victims are not victims. It is still, on many comment boards, the dominant theory. Maybe you could head over to The Daily Mail and join in the hate there? You may find yourself more at home. No more victim-blaming here, yeah?

        This is the part where you come back with ‘free speech’, right? Ciao.

      • The Original G says:

        Wow Charlotte, how is pointing out companion behaviors as evidence of systematic acceptance of HWs behaviour blaming the victim? A system that allowed a HW to flourish at the upper echelon of his industry is deeply troubling.

        The industry is complicit and their subsequent accomplishments and accolades are all tarnished by this piece of garbage operating with impunity.

      • Bridget says:

        @The Original G: saying that they benefitted from their exploitation is a moot point. Harvey Weinstein systemically used his company’s power, influence, and money to get women to sleep with him for career advancement. Calling them complicit completely ignores that what he was doing was sexual harassment.

        Yes, some women chose to sleep with him. That is going to be a huge burden, and one that they will likely continue to hide. But they are not responsible for Harvey Weinstein’s crime. They are not responsible for the fact that he chose to systemically abuse his position of power.

      • The Original G says:

        Bridget, no woman is responsible for Harvey’s crimes. None.

        Unfortunately, the SYSTEM seems to have rewarded those who accepted his behaviour and that must change as much as HW must be punished. This guy extended his influence from show business into politics with massive fundraising. The roots have to come up here with the tree.

      • Bridget says:

        The way you’re trying to frame it as “the SYSTEM” and ‘look at these women falling all over Harvey trying to keep him happy’ very much blames the women, though. There is no getting around that. You can’t make that point without masking who is truly at fault and responsible here.

      • The Original G says:

        But, Havey’s partners and co-workers, his employees, their unions and professional associations, the industry’s governing bodies, their awards organizations, the entertainment press, the general press and politicians all adjusted themselves to minimize and normalize Harvey’s conduct. This truly begs the questions how many other Harvey’s , Roger Ailes etc there are and how compromised everyone has become.

      • Bridget says:

        But that wasn’t your point or your question. You were specifically identifying the women who posed with Harvey and who said “yes” as being culpable.

    • Bridget says:

      You mean they knew that he was vindictive and powerful and could break you and your career on a whim and never be called to account for it? Yeah, I wonder why they still smiled in photos.

    • Sandra says:

      I’ve been in that situation at a job before that it just gets worse for you if you report it. So you continue and try to be buddy buddy with the abuser so they aren’t too awful to you. It’s a horrible position to be in. This happens everywhere to women. Don’t blame her.

    • The Original G says:

      @Bridget. So, they all knew, they took steps to protect themselves and benefit from their association. If it makes people uncomfortable to evaluate participants culpability, sorry. That’s the situation and and high profile minimizers of sexual abuse and the impact of turning a blind eye should soul search about it.

  7. Juls says:

    Something doesn’t sit right with me: she knew he was a “serial philanderer” but not that he was a sexual predator. But makes sure to point out she took her husband to all meetings with HW . Why? Was it because these meetings were in hotel rooms? Because he had previously propositioned her? Or was it because she actually did know, or had heard rumors, that he is a predator? Hmmmmm…

    • LadyT says:

      She thought he was skeevy and domineering so she took back-up. So what? Seems prudent to me. Refocus on the real issue here.

    • crogirl says:

      A philanderer knows boundaries and understands the word NO so husband would not be needed. She knew Harvey was worse than that.

      • LadyT says:

        Ridiculous. So she wanted to skip *being hit upon and saying no* altogether and get straight to to the actual business meeting she was there for.

      • pwal says:

        So we’re getting mad at Felicity for being preemptive about her safety?

      • BJ says:

        I don’t agree.I know philanderers (I call them f#ckboys) I am not afraid of them raping me. I just don’t want to deal with them hitting on me nonstop so I would take my man with me.

      • crogirl says:

        LadyT I get what you are saying, I don’t blame her for taking her husband there, but the very fact she tought she needed him means she knew Harvey wasn’t harmless. I don’t blame these women for working with him, I would just appreciate if they say they knew he was a predator but couldn’t avoid him if they wanted to work on certain projects.

      • The Original G says:

        **I don’t blame these women for working with him, I would just appreciate if they say they knew he was a predator but couldn’t avoid him if they wanted to work on certain projects.**

        Well said.

      • REading says:

        Ridiculous. Being a cheater doesn’t mean someone is a predator.

    • The Original G says:

      So under WHAT circumstances would you take your husband (another actor) to a job interview? And would the two of you be OK with you being subjected to this kind of circumstance? HW is sh!t, but let’s not think because this dragon may be slain we should rejoice.

    • Louise177 says:

      Maybe Felicity brought her husband because she didn’t want to be hit on in the first place not because she thought she was going to be threatened or raped. To me there is a difference between a philander and a predator. A philander will make a pass and move on while a predator is threatening and violent. I can’t get around victim blaming. So many women were harassed and attacked but didn’t say anything but then they are angry with people who knew or had suspicions of Harvey but didn’t say anything. Most didn’t have first hand knowledge, just rumors. What could they do without any evidence or a victim? But then I think of the model who did go to the police and the DA dropped the case. What does it take if a taped confession is meaningless?

      • The Original G says:

        Of course, that’s why she brought him. My point is why is it that Hollywood as an entity was OK with working with him in spite of the widespread understanding he was a threat to women?

      • Wren says:

        Exactly. I noticed very quickly how differently men treated or even looked at me when my boyfriend was with me at certain events than when he wasn’t.

    • magnoliarose says:

      You take your husband because you don’t want to be hit on AT ALL. You don’t want him to flirt with you, and you want to keep it all business and don’t forget Harvey is also a huge bully. I have done it before and I didn’t think the guy was a rapist but I didn’t want to be alone with him either. I knew working with him had large benefits, and I didn’t want to be misunderstood from the beginning, so it sets a tone. It is easy to say just don’t work with that person but that person is one of many people and at least this one can make a difference. Her husband is a respected actor so she knew he would be on better behavior.

      So now Felicity has to explain her decision to make herself more comfortable? She said she knew he was a philanderer. Getting hit on by someone you know you have to turn down is stressful because it makes things awkward from then on, and he may get snotty about it.
      Still, it doesn’t “feel” like predatory behavior to women because it has happened so many time but this guy has enormous power. Therefore, it is better to be on the safe side.

      • Wren says:

        Some men don’t want to take no for an answer unless you can demonstrate that you are already claimed by another man. They’re not rapists, but they will harass you and bug you and generally make interactions awkward and unpleasant. By bringing said man along you can nip that right in the bud and hopefully get on with the business at hand.

        Disgusting but true, and yet how many people are clamoring to somehow make it the woman’s fault for feeling uncomfortable?

      • CynicalAnn says:

        I totally agree. Just like sometimes I have my husband deal with our jerk neighbors. He’ll listen to another guy-but might be rude to me. I am sure she was just trying to ensure it was ALL business.

      • magnoliarose says:

        None of these women are to blame for his actions. I don’t know why something as smart as nipping it in the bud, as wren said or being expedient like Cynical Ann said is wrong.
        If you are even slightly uncomfortable with a guy why not bring a man if you can. It is better to be safe and if the guy has a problem because of it, you can walk away knowing he was up to something nefarious all along.

    • Catherinethegoodenough says:

      C’mon, you guys. She took her husband with her because, at that time, he occupied a higher slot on the industry totem pole. He’d recently received an Oscar nod for Fargo and had the support of the Coen Brothers. That gave her currency with which to negotiate. The fact that it was protection against possible assault was a bonus. Had she been married to, say, a big burly plumber, you can bet she wouldn’t have been bringing him to meetings with Weinstein.

    • thedecorguru says:

      Exactly. Surely Weinstein knew, as we all do, that she is married. A person who doesn’t respect another person’s relationship to hit on them is an a**hole, not simply unfaithful to his partner. She likely heard or knew something more than him being a philanderer.

    • REading says:

      That was my first thought too. She knew he was a predator but ignored it for the work.

  8. Ninetta says:

    A bit of topic: I really like Marchesa dress designs. What a shame…

    • Sarah L says:

      I do too. I remember thinking at the time of the 2005 Golden Globes that Felicity’s dress was my favourite that year, also Mischa Barton’s dress from the 2006 BAFTA awards has always been a favourite of mine. Marchesa did produce some gorgeous dresses around 2005/2006. Its awful to think of the backstory behind those dresses.

    • OTHER RENEE says:

      I love those gowns too.

  9. Sherry says:

    Knowing what we know now, I found this article from a year ago very interesting. Especially the marketing aspect of Marchesa and how “she” decided to market it as red carpet fashion.

    • stinky says:

      Whoa – what a difference a year makes :(
      Thats one helluva gushing article.
      And i know everyone on Celebitchy likes to slam Marchesa as ‘ice-capades costumes’, but i’ll say it loud and proud i always liked her stuff. Always. But even i (who like it) pulled a question mark when Felicity H was wearing that flowing white Grecian-goddess dress….
      I REMEMBER saying to myself: “That’s just incongruous”

  10. HelloSunshine says:

    I’m really uncomfortable with how many people are questioning why these women took pictures with him or worked with him. All of this is about power and having control over women. He did all of this knowing that, because of his powerful position in Hollywood, he wouldn’t get called out because he could destroy careers and lives. Imagine having to decide that what you’ve worked your whole life for and what is supporting your family means staying silent about being assaulted. Imagine carrying that with you every single day and having to see the man who did at events and being successful in general. Imagine how powerless that must feel. Stop questioning why these women continued to do what they worked so hard for and start questioning why this monster of a man was able to do it for so long.

    • passerby says:

      I agree. I imagine them taking the picture thinking- okay that’s done now get off of my back! Much like thanking him when they won an award.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      Agreed. And again-this is the entire culture of Hollywood. Weinstein is not the only one.

  11. Stinky says:

    Somebody needs to make a movie about this!!!

  12. Anilehcim says:

    “She added that Chapman not only knew her company was benefiting from Weinstein pressuring his actresses to wear her clothing, but also alleged that ‘she certainly knew about his bad behavior.’”

    This is very damning information. Up until now, I believed that MAYBE Georgina was in a tough spot and I reserved judgment instead of just writing her off as a loser who married a rich man for the life he could provide her. She is not a victim of her husband’s behavior or deserving of a pass as a “long suffering wife.” She’s a co-conspirator.

  13. Birdie says:

    Guys, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hollywood is filled with people even worse than him, who sexually abuse kids. This is just a small scratch on the surface.

  14. Ivy says:

    You don’t have to bring your husband to deal with a “serial philanderer”… #JustSayin’

  15. Peanutbuttr says:

    Does anyone remember an episode of Law and Order Criminal Intent where Mo Rocca’s gossip columnist character is murdered, and it is revealed he was planning to go after a movie producer who raped his younger sister? I’m now wondering if the producer character was meant to specifically be based on Harvey Weinstein.

  16. Amelie says:

    Ugh I really don’t know what I think of Georgina. She is a victim somewhat if she really had no idea what her husband was doing when he invited all these actresses to his hotel room. I get marrying a rich powerful man with lots of influence. Maybe he was so charming in the beginning, who knows. But did she really never hear any rumors? Were the rumors not enough to keep her from marrying him and having children with him? If she knew all of that and still decided to have kids with him, I can’t help but judge her for that. I know that’s terrible but I don’t understand it!

    And if she was aware actresses were bullied into wearing her terrible designs, that definitely makes her complicit. I guess she could be a victim and complicit at the same time? Is that even possible? I’m so confused what to think of her. I really hope eventually she does a tell-all interview at some point when the initial shock/furor has worn down. I doubt it will answer all my questions but I might be able to make more sense of her poor life choices.

    Also though it’s possible Felicity didn’t know the extent of Harvey’s sexual misconduct, the fact she brought her husband William H.Macy to all the meetings to me indicates she did hear rumors of awful stories and wanted to make sure he didn’t force her to do anything she didn’t want to do. If she truly was that afraid of him, I get wanting to protect herself but I think she knew more than she is letting on (or at least heard uncorroborated rumors and she didn’t want to take any chances which makes total sense).

  17. happyoften says:

    Nobody is going to admit they were aware he was a serial rapist. Nobody is going to admit they knew he was punishing women that didn’t give in to his demands. They all use words like philanderer, and cheater. Like the women he victimized were willing participants. It helped everyone sleep better, thinking these women had a choice. At this point, I honestly do not believe the man had consesual sex with any woman for at least 30 years. All of those women felt threatened by him, in one way or another. He ruined careers, he had you blacklisted, he completely shut you out.

    So yes, women brought people to meetings, wore his wife’s gowns, and smiled. Jesus, like they had options.

    • Justjj says:

      Exactly. No one can say: ‘I knew he was a serial rapist and sociopath’. People are going to say what they have to in order to make themselves look okay. And also. Do we have to keep parsing Harvey’s behavior with the phrase ‘casting couch’? That just seems like the subject matter of jokes and gossip and seems too light hearted for what’s going on somehow. He is a rapist. It’s a little beyond a ‘casting couch’, imo. Even if the power dynamic is skewed, a casting couch implies consent somehow. That’s not what’s going on here.

  18. madonami says:

    I have reserved judgment re Georgina til more came out. This makes pretty clear that Felicity – and likely others – see Georgina’s move to divorce as a means to save herself and Marchesa and pretend like she didn’t know – and they’re not having it.

  19. Trump Hater says:

    While many here were saying that we shouldn’t blame others who were complicit and enabled Harvey to abuse and rape all these women, I have said from the beginning that we need to turn our eyes onto all the people who had the power to speak up might earlier and stop Harvey or at least warn others from working with him (like Angelina Jolie). Harvey couldn’t have continued for decades like he had, if he didn’t have an entire system backing him. If he didn’t have all these people who stayed quiet because it benefitted them and looked the other way while Harvey abused and raped

    Georgina is complicit too. She shouldn’t be off the hook just because she is a woman (many celebitchies are doing Just that because she’s a woman). Georgina is a talent-less, greedy woman who shouldn’t have been a designer. I don’t care that she was abused in a different way, she would’ve known her darling husband was doing this and stayed quiet for her own gain at the expense of others. I hope her label crashes and burns and she’s only known for being complicit in abusing woman’s bodies alongside her husband and for her terrible plastic surgery that makes her face look like a melted wax candle already.