James Franco’s accuser: ‘James is absolutely not a Harvey Weinstein’

Embed from Getty Images

James Franco was not nominated for an Oscar for The Disaster Artist. The film didn’t get nominated for Best Picture either, although it did pick up one nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. This is being read far and wide as the Academy voters hearing about Franco’s sketchy reputation and believing the women who came forward post-Golden Globes. The Oscar noms just happened to come out on the same morning that a few of Franco’s accusers spoke to Good Morning America as well. They say he was not a Weinstein-level monster/predator, but he was exploitative and gross.

Even those accusing James Franco of sexual misconduct don’t necessarily think he’s a monster.

“James is absolutely not a Harvey Weinstein,” Sarah Tither-Kaplan said on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday. “He’s not an unfeeling monster who has no sense of reality.” However, Tither-Kaplan, 26, does believe that Franco, 39, abused his power and influence when teaching at his Studio 4 film school, which made her and four other women who accused the actor of sexual harassment afraid to speak out for years. “I’m shaking,” she said. “Being an actor and working in this industry has been my dream since I was 5 or 6, and I knew that coming forward with this was risking my career.”

Tither-Kaplan reiterated that when she was in Franco’s sex scenes course at the Studio 4 school in Los Angeles, many women felt uncomfortable with the work.

“There were a lot of scenes that were added after we were given the original scripts that I felt — I wished I had more time to consider them or understand the artistic value of them,” she explained. “A lot of times they seemed gratuitous or exploitative … He created an exploitative environment on his sets.”

Fellow accuser Violet Paley, who was in a consensual relationship with Franco when she claimed he pressured her to perform oral sex on him, detailed the alleged incident.

“He kinda like, pushed my head down and was saying, like, ‘C’mon,’” she said, adding that she knows her relationship with the actor complicates her story. “I am regretful,” she said. “I was young. He was a celebrity I looked up to.”

[From Page Six]

I don’t think that Harvey Weinstein should be used as the go-to example of “well, he’s not a total Weinstein.” To be clear, none of it is okay. Sexual harassment, exploitation, abuse, assault and rape are all awful and intolerable. You don’t have to be a Weinstein-esque rapist to make women feel unsafe, to exploit women, to abuse women and to do it all under the guise of being a woke ally. That being said, Violet and Sarah have every right to tell their stories wherever and however they want, and to frame their stories however they want. I still believe that we’ll be hearing more about Franco, and that the LA Times piece came out ahead of schedule because Franco won the Globe. My guess is that media outlets have additional stories but they were waiting to see if Franco got nominated for an Oscar.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

21 Responses to “James Franco’s accuser: ‘James is absolutely not a Harvey Weinstein’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. KBB says:

    He wasn’t nominated because he didn’t deserve a nomination. The story came out with only two days left of voting. The allegations likely had very little to no effect on his lack of a nomination.

    • me says:

      Yeah there have been other men who have had allegations against them but it didn’t hurt their ability to be nominated for an award. Hell, Kobe Bryant got an Oscar nom this year !

    • CS says:

      You are incorrect: Voting closed for the Oscars five days *after* the Globes; it STARTED three days before the Globes were given out (Oscar voting running January 5 – January 13). The stories started breaking as soon as Franco won that Sunday night, January 8th. There was absolutely plenty of time to kill his chances with the negative stories.

      • KBB says:

        The LA Times story on James Franco was published on January 11th, two days before voting ended on the 13th. I’m not aware of any other exposès on him.

      • CS says:

        I’m talking about the accusations that came up the night of the Globes, almost as soon as he won. There were stories about those allegations before the Times article. His momentum the night of January 8th was immediately derailed.

    • Actually, says:

      This. Gary Oldman is a worse person than Franco by a mile and he keeps winning and getting noms this year, so… I think there’s a lot of faux outrage/judgment going on from several corners.

  2. hmmmm says:

    They cut out the part where the other girl had more specific details about other women and said in some ways he was. It’s really frustrating.

    • hmmmm says:

      To clarify, you didn’t cut it out Kaiser, GMA did. And you’re spot on in some of your hunches. I have very personal connections to this case and the way the media is handling it is so strange. He has hurt several women as badly as Weinstein hurt some of his victims.

  3. perplexed says:

    “… Franco’s sex scenes course”

    There are actual acting courses for sex scenes? I’m asking this as a serious question.

    • Odetta says:

      I guess there probably is…having sex and acting in a sex scene is quite a bit different I imagine

      • perplexed says:

        If a teacher is the only one leading the course, I feel that a lot of boundaries can get crossed without anyone stepping in to help prevent abuse of power. Based on that, I’m surprised such a course could even exist.

  4. Tess says:

    Ok he’s not a Weinstein but he IS still a Franco so…

  5. babu says:

    Nope. He is just a very hypocritical creep, sexually preying on less powerful women as their teacher, at work, in his private life and on social media with minors.

    Enough slime already to be cancelled far and wide and forever.

  6. Louise177 says:

    I don’t think James was a shoo-in for a nomination even before the allegations. His wins were for comedy. He would have a tougher in combined categories.

    • KeepingItReal says:

      Actually, he was. He won the Golden Globe, and it’s highly unusual for an acotr to win a GG and then get snubbed in the Oscar noms. It’s a pretty well-known fact that the Golden Globe winners are pretty accurate predictors of the Oscar winners.

      • perplexed says:

        Wasn’t he also a nominee for the SAGs? Those are also predictors for who will be nominated at the Oscars.

  7. Sigh... says:

    So he’s not “a Weinstein.”
    But more than an “Affleck”…?
    “No” on being a “Spacey,” then?
    Not legacied enough to be a “Hoffman…”
    Maybe kind of a “Rautner”…?
    With shades of a “Louis” thrown in?
    Jury’s still out on what *exactly* an “Ansari” is, right?

    And the list (and shaky defense) just goes on and on…
    (**inhales from my soul**)

  8. K (now K2!) says:

    Well yeah, and Weinstein isn’t Ted Bundy.

    Precisely how low does the bar have to be?