Scarlett Johansson wore Marchesa to the Met Gala to ‘support…two female designers’


scarlett met gala

What bothers you more, the fact that Scarlett Johansson didn’t dress on-theme whatsoever to the Met Gala, or the fact that she wore Marchesa? Personally, I was just offended by the ugly bridesmaid’s dress and the fact that it had nothing to do with Catholic imagery. But I also found it interesting that out of all the choices Scarlett had, she chose… Marchesa, a label founded and designed by Georgina Chapman. Chapman is currently divorcing Harvey Weinstein. Georgina waited a few weeks into the then-unfolding Sex-Predator-gate scandal, then she left him and hired a divorce lawyer. But throughout the Weinstein revelations, we heard more and more about how Weinstein bullied women into wearing Marchesa. Weinstein was financially invested in Marchesa too, although I don’t know for sure if Chapman has disentangled Marchesa from Weinstein financially. The point is that wearing Marchesa is still a controversial thing at this moment. So why did Scarlett do it?

Scarlett Johansson‘s standing by her choice to wear a Marchesa gown to Monday night’s Met Gala.

“I wore Marchesa because their clothes make women feel confident and beautiful and it is my pleasure to support a brand created by two incredibly talented and important female designers,” Johansson, 33, says in a statement to PEOPLE. Marchesa echoed a similar sentiment in the following statement to PEOPLE: “We are truly honored that Scarlett chose to wear Marchesa for the Met Gala. She is an amazingly talented actor who has incredible style and presence. It was wonderful to work so closely with her in creating this custom look.”

After the news about Weinstein broke, many celebrities started questioning wearing Marchesa as Chapman and Weinstein’s businesses were often linked. According to a few stars, including Jessica Chastain, Weinstein would allegedly pressure them to wear his wife’s designs on the red carpet, and in Chastain’s case, she said he mocked her when she didn’t do so.

[From People]

I think the reaction to Scarlett’s Marchesa gown is rooted in the conversation we’ve been having about complicity and who-knew-what-and-when. I tended to believe that Chapman knew her husband was having affairs, but she probably didn’t know he was raping and assaulting women. I tend to believe Chapman knew her husband “encouraged” actresses to wear Marchesa, but she didn’t know he bullied them into it. I also think it’s a bit Pollyanna of Scarlett to act like the Marchesa label is SOLELY about female-designers, when there’s this complicated and convoluted Weinstein history.

I do think it’s interesting that ScarJo chose the MET GALA for this moment of Marchesa-support. Scarlett could have worn Marchesa to any of the Avengers: Infinity War premieres or promotional appearances, but she didn’t. She chose fashion’s biggest night, so she wanted it to be a statement. As I said in the Met Gala coverage, there’s some question about whether Marchesa will even continue to have a couture line, or whether they’ll just focus on bridal and mass-market now. With friends like ScarJo, maybe Marchesa couture will make a comeback. Ugh. It’s still poorly designed bridesmaid/ice-skater fugery, but whatever.

The 2018 Costume Institute's MET Gala Benefit - Red Carpet Arrivals

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN.

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

99 Responses to “Scarlett Johansson wore Marchesa to the Met Gala to ‘support…two female designers’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lenn says:

    Maybe I don’t fully understand the whole story, but why is Harvey Weinsteins wife being boycotted for his actions? Wasn’t Weinstein involved with many companies, brands, actors and actresses? I don’t really see the harm here but I might be wrong.

    • Milla says:

      Even if she knew everything, what was Chapman supposed to do? She married for money, but she also had kids with that monster. I don’t like her much, i never did, but cannot blame her for his actions. Sometimes you simply cannot do a darn thing.

      • AbbyRose says:

        Weinstein bribed and bullied women into wearing his wife’s dresses on the red carpet. Even if she did not know about the extent of the sexual abuse, she had to have known he was intimidating the women into wearing Marchesa. And she was fine with it. Their designs are hideous, btw.

        If they want to keep the business going, they should get HW completely out financially and change the name. If ScarJo really wants to support two female designers, invest some money in the label. Or maybe she’s fully sunk in with her Paris popcorn shop.

      • DiligentDiva says:

        She directly profited from her husbands abuse. Whether or not she knew is debatable, but most of the actresses he harmed were forced to wear his wife brand and without that the brand never would have taken off. So it’s just in really poor taste to wear the brand this soon, especially given the image Scarjo wants to portray.

      • Milla says:

        That’s the thing. We don’t know what Chapman knew. Did she know that actresses had no choice or she thought her husband was just powerful and women wanted to honor him and Marchesa?

        Until we know more, i don’t wanna see Marchesa gone, cos people will lose their jobs. People who never met Weinstein.

      • DiligentDiva says:

        The company still directly profited from the abuse of women. It doesn’t matter who knew what it’s just in poor taste to wear this brand so soon.

      • FLORC says:

        Marchesa is a terrible label. It’s a war on tulle.

        She should have requested something amazing and on theme to highlight what she’s saying of marchesa. That there’s talent there. Instead she chose an off the rack bridesmaids dress.

      • organica says:

        She knew he was being accused of sexual assault in 2014 after the victim agreed to wear a wire to a Weinstein meeting. When the story broke Chapman was “furious” with Weinstein. They spent the weekend holed up in their CT compound with lawyers and PR reps. Supposedly Chapman decided to wait and see if the DA was going to press charges before issuing a statement announcing the divorce. No charges were filed. No divorce was announced.
        Fast forward two years and she’s saying she *never had any idea* Weinstein was hurting women. Fast forward two years and you’ve got her former inner circle rolling their eyes and running to People magazine with Chapman knew and could care less stories. Fast forward two years and you’ve got Chapman bff Alyssa Milano going to bat for her in a million interviews while getting her Weinstein pimp factory aka CAA agent hubby to pour money into Time’s Up. Fast forward two years and you’ve got Chapman releasing public statements with only one being about the victims, the rest are about saving the label.

    • LadyT says:

      The brand name Marchesa is inextricably linked to Harvey Weinstein. That is a problem she needs to address if she wants to remain in the fashion industry.

      • SM says:

        Exactly, as @Ladyt said:”The brand name Marchesa is inextricably linked to Harvey Weinstein. That is a problem she needs to address if she wants to remain in the fashion industry.” It is not the question of who knew what, the thing is Marchesa is linked to HW and his bullying and abuse from which the company profited. Unil the brand addresses the issue I find these kind of statements which look like a mutual kiss ass exchange on behalf of both – Scarlett and Marchesa is just eyeroll inducing. Especially coming from Scarlett, the fomer muse of Woody Allen. I realize she is probably too old for him now and he won’t hire her anyway, but did she speak out about work with him, did she address the issue anywhere?

    • Umyeah says:

      I dont know if Chapman knew, i mean there are serial killers whose wifes and children had no idea that they were murdering people for 20 plus years.

    • Frida says:

      There’s a good chance Chapman is a victim herself, so aside from the designs being hideous, what’s the big deal with supporting her brand? She never defended Weinstein (a la Cosby’s wife), so I honestly don’t have a problem with her.

    • QueenB says:

      Because she profited of Weinstein bullying women into wearing his dresses. She isnt just the woman who married him but a woman who made money from her husbands actions.

      • Heat says:

        Was she aware that he was bullying/threatening people to make her money? Is there evidence of this?

      • SheBug says:

        The brand actually pre-dates the marriage. IIRC she and her partner were getting mentions in Vogue before she was with Harvey. A certain type of fashion editor likes that whimsical, fairy-tale looking style. The marriage definitely boosted the brand’s profile, but she didn’t necessarily know what he was doing.

        There are terrible guys who work in entertainment but go to great lengths to keep their wives/families from knowing. A friend is a regular on a medical show, they had a terrible AD for the first season. He was sort of nice to my friend because she was a qualified nurse and therefore a good resource for him. Whenever there was a party/if his wife was dropping by he’d behave. And he would tell them all not to tell his wife about his behavior. They were all supposed to act like he was always that nice. He was replaced after a season, but for the season he was there everyone’s life was kind of hell.

        As for the 2014 allegations, it’s likely Harvey snowed her. “They set me up, babe. They baited me. It was a mistake. I work so hard to give you and the kids nice things and now these people want to take it away from us! I guess that’s the risk of being successful.” I actually feel bad for Georgina because he probably lied to her constantly.

      • noway says:

        You could be right or vastly wrong. Marchesa predates Chapman and Weinstein’s marriage, so perhaps Weinstein’s behavior which is now well known has drastically hurt her company more than helped. He did bully some women into wearing her designs, but his criminal behavior which is well known now has almost bankrupt Marchesa. Also, odds are with his number of victims and his aggressive behavior he abused her in some way too. If she was never associated with him, she could have a nice untainted company for all we know. Granted it would still have ugly bridal ice skating dresses, but they could still be successful. I think she needs to rebrand and rename to stay alive, but no problem with her trying to.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      Kaiser just explained it. Weinstein got her the business and would force women starting in the films to wear her clothes. She would have to have been deaf, dumb, and blind to notice those famous women only came to her when they were in her husband’s movies and not on their own. So she was at least involved in that scam. That is all she is being called out for, not for her husband’s rapes

    • Morning Coffee says:

      Exactly. If we are to blame one woman for her husband’s issues, then we have to blame ALL women. It’s ridiculous. Now, if it is proven that she knew he was bullying and badgering people to wear her designs, that’s another matter. No proof, means no blame for her, IMO.

      • Ankhel says:

        ITA.

        Georgina must have noticed certain actresses wore her dresses, who were linked to Weinstein professionally. It would’ve been natural for her to think they were trying to suck up to him, since he was an important player. You don’t have to like it, but there’s no evidence she knew he pressured her clients. They wouldn’t have told her either.

  2. girl_ninja says:

    That dress is unfortunate.

  3. TheOtherMaria says:

    I won’t dispute her reasoning, instead I’ll opt to side eye the hell out of her.

    I do not blame that pig’s wife for HIS actions, however, there are literally dozens of female designs vying for the same spotlight.

    She knows this, she just didn’t care…

    The same way she doesn’t care about representation when taking roles meant for WoC.

    • Kitten says:

      This is how I feel. I mean, it’s true that we don’t know how much Georgina knew but it’s also true that Marchesa has become toxic because of her husband. It’s ALSO true that Scarlett has a history of aligning herself with unscrupulous people and making selfish choices.

  4. MousyB says:

    Is this really the hill you want to die on Scarlett? Also are they low-key bffs? I know this wont ruin her career or anything but it seems so risky and unnecessarily so when there are so many female designers to choose from…

    • otaku fairy says:

      I think this is a shortsighted move on her part and disagree with it, but also don’t think she’s being completely dishonest about her motive for doing it. It’s more specific than just wanting to support female designers- she probably thinks Georgina Chapman and/or the other woman involved with Marchesa shouldn’t have to pay for Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, and she may even be friends with one of them. Scarlett has nothing else to gain from wearing Marchesa at this point. Why would an established, wealthy celebrity who could wear any designer she wanted publicly wear Marchesa now? Since this brand will always be associated with an abuser and bullying, I agree that avoiding it is the best decision for stars to make as a symbol of solidarity with Weinstein’s victims. But it’s not all that shocking that there will be a small number of actresses will choose to take the ‘Georgina Chapman is not Harvey Weinstein’ approach to Marchesa.

  5. Darla says:

    I like the dress. I have been a bridesmaid a few times, and believe me, none of the dresses looked like that.

  6. Kata says:

    She looks really great with that haircut and colour.

  7. Neelyo says:

    Johansson has the worst style and has for years. When she looks good, it’s by accident.

    And I HATE when people crouch their defense of questionable women with the whole ‘if you’re against this person, you’re anti’woman’ bullshit.

  8. DiligentDiva says:

    This just was a bad PR move and really shows you how fake she is about her feminist causes. I’m not saying I know his wife knew (although I suspect she at least knew the part about her husband sleeping around) but her entire brand was built off the pain and abuse of other women. It’s just too soon to be wearing it and it’s in poor taste.

  9. Veronica says:

    I have really mixed feelings about punishing Chapman for her ex-husband’s behavior because we honestly don’t know the level of her complicity. Predators are charming and calculating. They know when to go after the weak and put on the kindly face for the powerful. There’s no way to really know how much she ever knew unless she speaks otherwise.

    I think this is a PR misstep for ScarJo, but I don’t think her intent was insidious, either. I think she’s just myopic in her intent to support this particular woman and not thinking about the broader implications. Which, unfortunately, is the hallmark of “white feminism” that gets so much criticism in the first place.

    • DiligentDiva says:

      Isn’t it something else that Scarjo wants to support this (white) woman but refused to support the numerous Asian women who came forward upset over Ghost in a Shell. I believe she told them they should be grateful that a white woman stole a role from them.
      Her support for other women only goes as far as her own interests go.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      To me it’s not about punishing her. It’s about stepping away from that entire sh*tshow until someone comes forward and explains Chapman’s role in all of this. Whatever she knew or didn’t know, she profited from her husband’s power. Who in their right mind would support her without knowing exactly what happened on her end?

  10. Maria F. says:

    She knew that she was profiting from her husband’s power over these actresses and she tolerated it for her own benefit. So do not tell me she was naive and innocent. That is obviously a power play there.

    I feel bad for her kids and her re all sexual harrassment stories, but I would not wear her as a celebrity. As another poster says there are tons of female designers trying to make a name for themselves who could be supported.

    • QueenB says:

      “She knew that she was profiting from her husband’s power over these actresses and she tolerated it for her own benefit. So do not tell me she was naive and innocent. That is obviously a power play there. ”

      This!

      Why else would she have married him? She didnt need the money and she certainly could have found a man who is slightly nicer and minimally better looking.

  11. sd says:

    Does he still profit of Marchesa?

  12. QueenB says:

    Jessica Chastain and Felicity Huffman both have talked about how they were bullied and threanted their careers if they didnt wear Marchesa.
    https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/celebrities/news/a15384225/jessica-chastain-says-harvey-weinstein-tried-to-force-her-to-wear-marchesa/

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/felicity-huffman-says-true-harvey-weinstein-threatened-her-career-she-didnt-wear-marchesa-1048760

    I am so over Scarlet. She used the same COMPLETE BS to defend her white washing. Just like when she basically said “Yeah yeah asian women whatever be grateful a woman is the lead a franchise”
    It is SO disgusting when feminism is used to defend horrible actions by women against other women. Seriously!

    It doesnt matter one bit if Georgina Chapman knew all the details, I doubt Harvey raped in front of her, but she she 100% that she needed his connections and his bullying to be succesful. Literally every celeb spoke about how Harvey was a bully.

    People act like these are the only two female designers in the world. If you want to support female designers I am sure there are some who didnt profit from threatening womens careers…

  13. Meggles says:

    She absolutely knew that he’d been accused of sexual abuse, because in 2015 he was questioned by police, and “Georgia Chapman of Marchesa furious with husband over sex assault allegations” was literally on the front page of newspapers in NY. Even if the story was untrue (meaning she wasn’t furious with him about it), this is not some little homemaker hiding out on a ranch somewhere. This is the executive of a major international company. Even if by some miracle Georgina missed the fact her name was splashed all over newspaper covers, the Marchesa board and whoever runs their publicity department definitely would have picked up on it.

    Maybe she thought it was a one-off or that the woman was lying, but she 1000000000% knew about that one police case at the very least.

    • QueenB says:

      Even if she didnt know about any sex crimes she still knew he was a bully Thats more than enough for me to cancel her. Im not going to support a brand that bullies women, seriously.
      Its not conincidence that she specifically married a guy that has access to and power over actresses.
      Her brand is tainted. She made her bed with the devil and she’ll have to pay for it.

      But lets keep finding excuses for white women.

  14. Mia4s says:

    The optics of this are horrendous given how much we still don’t know; and given that the brand is only successful because Chapman married a pig who invested heavily and then bullied and harassed actresses into wearing the designs. All that baggage and a mediocre dress too. Sometimes the mantra fits: too soon.

    I’ve come to a conclusion that has helped me deal with Scarlett…she’s not very bright. She thinks she is (and she has/had a brilliant manager), but really she’s just another ex-child star who has been told she’s very smart and has important views. In reality? There’s not much going on.

  15. Lulu says:

    If people aren’t going to come for Rihanna for wearing the designs of a disgusting anti-Semite, then I don’t think Scarlet should have any issue wearing something by a woman who assaulted no one, divorced her husband and has not tried to defend or minimise what he’s done. I find what is ‘problematic’ and worth ‘cancellation’ seems to be rather arbitrarily based on how liked the perpetrator is, and Scarlet already irritates people (here at least). And while people are certainly free to critique her notion of feminism, I do think that there is an issue with a woman being castigated for wearing the designs of another woman because the sins of a man – especially when, as noted, people make no such fuss concerning men who have directly caused harm and whose designs are still being celebrated on celebrities who could have their pick of any.

    • MrsBump says:

      Agreed a 100%
      A lot of the ethical stances taken by commentors here are based on how much they like the person in question.

      • Lyka says:

        I think there must be some ethical difference between material benefit and complicity, not least because complicity requires foreknowledge. If you are “complicit” for seeing financial rewards from a funnel that started with bullying, half the cheap-gas-consuming/fast-fashion-purchasing world would be “complicit” for seeing financial rewards (money saved) from a funnel that starts with death and slave labor.

        I think it makes sense for some feminists to be wary of the kind of solidarity that doesn’t ultimately do anything for the larger cause or genuinely help the most marginalized. That’s a legitimate issue we can take with Johansson using her platform to espouse what’s ultimately a pretty toothless and impractical cause. But I don’t think it’s necessary to use our own limited information to condemn either her or Chapman as somehow in alliance with Weinstein’s evil deeds.

    • Miles says:

      Rihanna should not get a pass either.

    • Neelyo says:

      Who’s the anti-Semite designer Rihanna wears?

      I’m not angry about it because I don’t know anything about it.

    • Kitten says:

      Yes I think you make a good point about people excusing their favorites and being very quick to condemn those that they dislike. To be fair, I’m probably guilty of that. For instance, with Chris Pratt I always suspect the worst and rarely give him the benefit of the doubt. But that’s because he’s a dbag so lol…

      And while I’m making light of it, I think it’s also important to acknowledge that there’s actually something fairly toxic at the center of this kind of binary thinking. When applied to our current political climate and the cult of personality that surrounds Trump, for instance, we see how destructive it is to believe the celebrity image that is being sold to us. Most people–including celebs– are a mix of good and bad qualities and not the caricatures that people seem to believe that they are.

      But I digress….

      • Bridget says:

        Because people are unable to simply take or leave something for themselves. It’s no longer enough to simply dislike someone or say that their work isn’t for you, it has to be justified by claiming that they’re a terrible person. Even look at what you did there with Pratt. Yes, it’s destructive. We can’t constantly live in an “us vs them” world.

    • otaku fairy says:

      You brought up some good points. People in public say or do enough on their own that’s cancel-worthy or side-eye worthy (for example, the way she basically turned a conversation about whitewashing into ‘well, at least a woman got the part. #Progress’). Expecting people to not make excuses for abusers they’ve worked with/accepted products from or belittle that abuser’s victims is one thing. But it’s best if individual decisions not buy from or work with people who have done awful things comes from a place that’s genuine. There’s also the risk of people making an issue about who designs a celebrity’s clothes or who worked with a celebrity because they want to make their dislike of that celebrity look like it comes from being ‘woke’. That’s even more of an issue in the case of celebrities who aren’t male and white and straight and cis.

    • Kelly says:

      Vogue and Anna Wintour helped facilitate Galliano’s comeback after his firing from Dior, starting with him being interviewed for the cover story on Kate Moss’ wedding for the 2011 September issue. That was less than 6 months after he was fired from Dior. They were also the movers behind his residency with Oscar de la Renta in 2013.

      I was honestly shocked how quickly the Met’s Costume Institute used Galliano’s work for Dior in their exhibitions. From the publicity preview images for the current exhibition, it looks like some of the key dresses are by Galliano for Dior.

      Scarlett wouldn’t have worn the Marchesa if Anna Wintour hadn’t given it her blessing.

  16. Jumpingthesnark says:

    I don’t think not wearing marchesa means one is “punishing” GC fir her husbands crimes. As stated above, she profited from the abuse and her brand us directly tired to the abuse. GC will be fine, she still has money and her family has money– she isn’t struggling to put food on the table over this. If she wants to reboot her fashion career (especially if it is true that she wants to go down market and do ready to wear, in which case she will need to rely on us peasants to buy her stuff), then she will need to do some kind of public reckoning with how much she profited in the past from abusive and criminal behavior, and figure out ways to try and make amends. For example, she could have a percentage of profits go to related nonprofits- there are tons that could use the help. Scarjo is as insulated as a fridge and as dumb as a box of rocks if she doesn’t get this. Wearing this designer, at this point in time, suggests she doesn’t get this.

    • lucy2 says:

      I agree. Georgina is not to blame for Harvey’s crimes, but she needs to take a look at herself and her company, and make some changes if she wants to stay in the fashion business.
      If she were named of all the lawsuits or losing her company altogether, then I’d say she was being punished. But there are a lot of designers who never get the chance to have their work at the Met Gala, so I’m not going to cry for Georgina if people are opting to skip her right now.

  17. Miles says:

    I have defended Georgina in the past in regards to what she may or may have not known about her husband raping women BUT I can’t defend her on the basis that she and everyone else knew that the women who wore her brand on the red carpet were bullied into doing it. Several actresses have talked about how they were threatened by Harvey if they didn’t wear Marchesa publicly. She knew about this and didn’t care. So on that basis I can judge her because the bullying of women into wearing her designs is directly tied into her company and something she directly profited from.

    Someone on another site called Scarjo the American Kate Winslet and I couldn’t agree more.

  18. Chisey says:

    I think coming after Weinstein’s Ex wife is too far. If she was actively facilitating his sexual abuse (luring women in, looking the other way while it’s happening, etc), then yeah, that’s a huge problem and I understand essentially boycotting her. But knowing that her husband pushes actresses in his projects to wear her designs is a different matter altogether to me. Isn’t that kind of symbiosis what being a power couple is? There’s a huge leap from knowing that he pushes your dresses to cooperating with or being complicit in or profiting off of rape. This whole thing where a guy is disgusting and so all the people around him have to be cancelled too, regardless of whether they were in any way involved in the awful things he did, is where things go too far for me.

  19. Menlisa says:

    Scarlett did this for attention. This is the same woman who dismissed the claims against Woody Allen and complained about how it was affecting her ‘Google Alerts’.
    She is cold.

  20. NotTodaySatan says:

    I think that the court of public opinion is powerful, easily influenced and can be fickle. Also it is usually not fully informed. I’m not sure I ever felt comfortable with all of the allegations of who knew what and who should somehow as a result “pay” for complicity and what their penance should be.

    I’m ok with SJ attempting to influence some positivity to the Marchesa brand at this juncture.

    And I’ve often liked their designs — so sue me, (Shrugs)

  21. Bridget says:

    Georgina Chapman is making a move to really get back into the fashion game (anyone read that recent article portraying her as a plucky survivor?), and what this tells me is 2 things. 1) Anna Wintour is in her corner. That dress wouldn’t have just randomly ended in a pile for Scarlett to choose from – stars and designers are carefully paired up. This was intentional. 2) Scarlett truly doesn’t get it.

  22. Sherry says:

    When you look at timelines regarding Weinstein and Marchesa, including Harvey’s interest in getting into the fashion world prior to meeting Georgina, it’s clear that Marchesa was Harvey’s project. Georgina was the face of Marchesa, but Harvey was the money and the power behind the scenes. There was an article about them years ago and she absolutely knew Harvey pressured actresses into wearing those fugly gowns.

    If Georgina and her partner were just two of the many aspiring designers without Harvey’s connections, money and power, we probably would not even know the name Marchesa.

  23. ChrissyMS says:

    The these of the dress actually works. Google image Eucharistic Miracle. The dress looks like that. As far as Scarlett goes, she fancies herself super smart and political, but she is just a spoilt actress surrounded by yes people. The Woody Allen thing sealed the deal for me.

  24. Yasmina says:

    What can we expect from ScarJo? People here have mentioned the white washing but I also can’t forget how she dropped the NGO Oxfam (and her role as an ambassador) to side with the corporation SodaStream operating illegally in the occupied West Bank of Palestine. This is a person who defends Israeli apartheid and white washing in Hollywood. I wonder if, like another commentator on here said, she did this for attention? Still makes her a pretty terrible person sadly.

  25. tealily says:

    It looks like her legs have faded into invisibility, that skirt matches the carpet so well.

    ETA: I like the dark hair on her.

  26. Delon says:

    I find it amazing how folks are willing to turn their heads when it comes to Mrs. Weinstein but want to hold Meryl, Oprah, and others accountable.

  27. Betteboo2u says:

    Did she get paid to wear it?

  28. Quinn says:

    wow this thread is poisonous. You don’t need to tear down Scarlet and Georgina to support the Weinstein victims. Scarlet has long been a vocal supporter of the Me Too movement and now she is also showing support for Georgina. Women should support other women and think twice before tearing down other women on speculation.

    Good on you Scarlet, 👏👏👏👏
    Brave move

  29. Naddie says:

    Damn , guess I’m the only one mesmerized by the “fade to invisibility ” effect of her dress. I loved it and could look at it for hours.

  30. Boopy says:

    Just like Hillary knew about Bill’s victims but she didn’t care as long as he got her political power. Hillary is worshipped here though

    • Otaku fairy says:

      ….which still doesn’t compare to politically supporting a sexual predator who ran his campaign on making brown and black people even less safe in this country. No matter how desperate conservatives and their ass-kissing libertarian lackeys want to absolve themselves of guilt, being a Hillary supporter will never be the same as being a Trump supporter.

  31. Elisse says:

    There are a lot of assumptions made. While I respect others’ opinions, the truth is, none of us are certain Georgina knew what her husband was up to. Weinstein is so vile but maybe in his own disturbing way encouraging actresses to wear his wife’s line was how he showed some kind of fucked up loyalty to her. Secondly, Georgina has a partner in the business. Should they both suffer because of Weinstein? I don’t think so. As for ScarJo’s look…it was about as ugly as Weinstein. The hair I just can’t get over. She looks like a mad mom in a minivan. She needs some hair extension and please go back to blonde, ASAP!

  32. Molly says:

    By this point it looks like people often search for excuse to justify their dislike of some actors/singers/entertainers/etc(male and female) by trying to use “I am disliking him/her, but not because of my own personal reasons, but because of wokeness”. Oh, he/she wore THIS designer’s clothes, oh he/she worked with THIS person, talked with THIS person during party.