Locul unde cititorii de la PEROMANESTE pot initia automat, urmari, comenta linii de conversatie pe care le doresc. Intentia de a moderara este minima! Ca urmare, va rugam sa nu alocati resursele categoriilor nepublicabile. Multumim!
Harvey Weinstein was a passionate cinephile, a risk taker, a patron of talent in film, a loving father and a monster.
For years, he was my monster.
This fall, I was approached by reporters, through different sources, including my dear friend Ashley Judd, to speak about an episode in my life that, although painful, I thought I had made peace with.
I had brainwashed myself into thinking that it was over and that I had survived; I hid from the responsibility to speak out with the excuse that enough people were already involved in shining a light on my monster. I didn’t consider my voice important, nor did I think it would make a difference.
In reality, I was trying to save myself the challenge of explaining several things to my loved ones: Why, when I had casually mentioned that I had been bullied like many others by Harvey, I had excluded a couple of details. And why, for so many years, we have been cordial to a man who hurt me so deeply. I had been proud of my capacity for forgiveness, but the mere fact that I was ashamed to describe the details of what I had forgiven made me wonder if that chapter of my life had really been resolved.
When so many women came forward to describe what Harvey had done to them, I had to confront my cowardice and humbly accept that my story, as important as it was to me, was nothing but a drop in an ocean of sorrow and confusion. I felt that by now nobody would care about my pain — maybe this was an effect of the many times I was told, especially by Harvey, that I was nobody.
We are finally becoming conscious of a vice that has been socially accepted and has insulted and humiliated millions of girls like me, for in every woman there is a girl. I am inspired by those who had the courage to speak out, especially in a society that elected a president who has been accused of sexual harassment and assault by more than a dozen women and whom we have all heard make a statement about how a man in power can do anything he wants to women.
Well, not anymore.
In the 14 years that I stumbled from schoolgirl to Mexican soap star to an extra in a few American films to catching a couple of lucky breaks in “Desperado” and “Fools Rush In,” Harvey Weinstein had become the wizard of a new wave of cinema that took original content into the mainstream. At the same time, it was unimaginable for a Mexican actress to aspire to a place in Hollywood. And even though I had proven them wrong, I was still a nobody.
One of the forces that gave me the determination to pursue my career was the story of Frida Kahlo, who in the golden age of the Mexican muralists would do small intimate paintings that everybody looked down on. She had the courage to express herself while disregarding skepticism. My greatest ambition was to tell her story. It became my mission to portray the life of this extraordinary artist and to show my native Mexico in a way that combated stereotypes.
The Weinstein empire, which was then Miramax, had become synonymous with quality, sophistication and risk taking — a haven for artists who were complex and defiant. It was everything that Frida was to me and everything I aspired to be.
I had started a journey to produce the film with a different company, but I fought to get it back to take it to Harvey.
I knew him a little bit through my relationship with the director Robert Rodriguez and the producer Elizabeth Avellan, who was then his wife, with whom I had done several films and who had taken me under their wing. All I knew of Harvey at the time was that he had a remarkable intellect, he was a loyal friend and a family man.
Knowing what I know now, I wonder if it wasn’t my friendship with them — and Quentin Tarantino and George Clooney — that saved me from being raped.
The deal we made initially was that Harvey would pay for the rights of work I had already developed. As an actress, I would be paid the minimum Screen Actors Guild scale plus 10 percent. As a producer, I would receive a credit that would not yet be defined, but no payment, which was not that rare for a female producer in the ’90s. He also demanded a signed deal for me to do several other films with Miramax, which I thought would cement my status as a leading lady.
I did not care about the money; I was so excited to work with him and that company. In my naïveté, I thought my dream had come true. He had validated the last 14 years of my life. He had taken a chance on me — a nobody. He had said yes.
Little did I know it would become my turn to say no.
No to opening the door to him at all hours of the night, hotel after hotel, location after location, where he would show up unexpectedly, including one location where I was doing a movie he wasn’t even involved with.
No to me taking a shower with him.
No to letting him watch me take a shower.
No to letting him give me a massage.
No to letting a naked friend of his give me a massage.
No to letting him give me oral sex.
No to my getting naked with another woman.
No, no, no, no, no …
And with every refusal came Harvey’s Machiavellian rage.
I don’t think he hated anything more than the word “no.” The absurdity of his demands went from getting a furious call in the middle of the night asking me to fire my agent for a fight he was having with him about a different movie with a different client to physically dragging me out of the opening gala of the Venice Film Festival, which was in honor of “Frida,” so I could hang out at his private party with him and some women I thought were models but I was told later were high-priced prostitutes.
The range of his persuasion tactics went from sweet-talking me to that one time when, in an attack of fury, he said the terrifying words, “I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”
When he was finally convinced that I was not going to earn the movie the way he had expected, he told me he had offered my role and my script with my years of research to another actress.
In his eyes, I was not an artist. I wasn’t even a person. I was a thing: not a nobody, but a body.
At that point, I had to resort to using lawyers, not by pursuing a sexual harassment case, but by claiming “bad faith,” as I had worked so hard on a movie that he was not intending to make or sell back to me. I tried to get it out of his company.
He claimed that my name as an actress was not big enough and that I was incompetent as a producer, but to clear himself legally, as I understood it, he gave me a list of impossible tasks with a tight deadline:
1. Get a rewrite of the script, with no additional payment.
2. Raise $10 million to finance the film.
3. Attach an A-list director.
4. Cast four of the smaller roles with prominent actors.
Much to everyone’s amazement, not least my own, I delivered, thanks to a phalanx of angels who came to my rescue, including Edward Norton, who beautifully rewrote the script several times and appallingly never got credit, and my friend Margaret Perenchio, a first-time producer, who put up the money. The brilliant Julie Taymor agreed to direct, and from then on she became my rock. For the other roles, I recruited my friends Antonio Banderas, Edward Norton and my dear Ashley Judd. To this day, I don’t know how I convinced Geoffrey Rush, whom I barely knew at the time.
Now Harvey Weinstein was not only rejected but also about to do a movie he did not want to do.
Ironically, once we started filming, the sexual harassment stopped but the rage escalated. We paid the price for standing up to him nearly every day of shooting. Once, in an interview he said Julie and I were the biggest ball busters he had ever encountered, which we took as a compliment.
Halfway through shooting, Harvey turned up on set and complained about Frida’s “unibrow.” He insisted that I eliminate the limp and berated my performance. Then he asked everyone in the room to step out except for me. He told me that the only thing I had going for me was my sex appeal and that there was none of that in this movie. So he told me he was going to shut down the film because no one would want to see me in that role.
It was soul crushing because, I confess, lost in the fog of a sort of Stockholm syndrome, I wanted him to see me as an artist: not only as a capable actress but also as somebody who could identify a compelling story and had the vision to tell it in an original way.
I was hoping he would acknowledge me as a producer, who on top of delivering his list of demands shepherded the script and obtained the permits to use the paintings. I had negotiated with the Mexican government, and with whomever I had to, to get locations that had never been given to anyone in the past — including Frida Kahlo’s houses and the murals of Kahlo’s husband, Diego Rivera, among others.
But all of this seemed to have no value. The only thing he noticed was that I was not sexy in the movie. He made me doubt if I was any good as an actress, but he never succeeded in making me think that the film was not worth making.
He offered me one option to continue. He would let me finish the film if I agreed to do a sex scene with another woman. And he demanded full-frontal nudity.
He had been constantly asking for more skin, for more sex. Once before, Julie Taymor got him to settle for a tango ending in a kiss instead of the lovemaking scene he wanted us to shoot between the character Tina Modotti, played by Ashley Judd, and Frida.
But this time, it was clear to me he would never let me finish this movie without him having his fantasy one way or another. There was no room for negotiation.
I had to say yes. By now so many years of my life had gone into this film. We were about five weeks into shooting, and I had convinced so many talented people to participate. How could I let their magnificent work go to waste?
I had asked for so many favors, I felt an immense pressure to deliver and a deep sense of gratitude for all those who did believe in me and followed me into this madness. So I agreed to do the senseless scene.
I arrived on the set the day we were to shoot the scene that I believed would save the movie. And for the first and last time in my career, I had a nervous breakdown: My body began to shake uncontrollably, my breath was short and I began to cry and cry, unable to stop, as if I were throwing up tears.
Since those around me had no knowledge of my history of Harvey, they were very surprised by my struggle that morning. It was not because I would be naked with another woman. It was because I would be naked with her for Harvey Weinstein. But I could not tell them then.
My mind understood that I had to do it, but my body wouldn’t stop crying and convulsing. At that point, I started throwing up while a set frozen still waited to shoot. I had to take a tranquilizer, which eventually stopped the crying but made the vomiting worse. As you can imagine, this was not sexy, but it was the only way I could get through the scene.
By the time the filming of the movie was over, I was so emotionally distraught that I had to distance myself during the postproduction.
When Harvey saw the cut film, he said it was not good enough for a theatrical release and that he would send it straight to video.
This time Julie had to fight him without me and got him to agree to release the film in one movie theater in New York if we tested it to an audience and we scored at least an 80.
Less than 10 percent of films achieve that score on a first screening.
I didn’t go to the test. I anxiously awaited to receive the news. The film scored 85.
And again, I heard Harvey raged. In the lobby of a theater after the screening, he screamed at Julie. He balled up one of the scorecards and threw it at her. It bounced off her nose. Her partner, the film’s composer Elliot Goldenthal, stepped in, and Harvey physically threatened him.
Once he calmed down, I found the strength to call Harvey to ask him also to open the movie in a theater in Los Angeles, which made a total of two theaters. And without much ado, he gave me that. I have to say sometimes he was kind, fun and witty — and that was part of the problem: You just never knew which Harvey you were going to get.
Months later, in October 2002, this film, about my hero and inspiration — this Mexican artist who never truly got acknowledged in her time with her limp and her unibrow, this film that Harvey never wanted to do, gave him a box office success that no one could have predicted, and despite his lack of support, added six Academy Award nominations to his collection, including best actress.
Even though “Frida” eventually won him two Oscars, I still didn’t see any joy. He never offered me a starring role in a movie again. The films that I was obliged to do under my original deal with Miramax were all minor supporting roles.
Years later, when I ran into him at an event, he pulled me aside and told me he had stopped smoking and he had had a heart attack. He said he’d fallen in love and married Georgina Chapman, and that he was a changed man. Finally, he said to me: “You did well with ‘Frida’; we did a beautiful movie.”
I believed him. Harvey would never know how much those words meant to me. He also would never know how much he hurt me. I never showed Harvey how terrified I was of him. When I saw him socially, I’d smile and try to remember the good things about him, telling myself that I went to war and I won.
But why do so many of us, as female artists, have to go to war to tell our stories when we have so much to offer? Why do we have to fight tooth and nail to maintain our dignity?
I think it is because we, as women, have been devalued artistically to an indecent state, to the point where the film industry stopped making an effort to find out what female audiences wanted to see and what stories we wanted to tell.
According to a recent study, between 2007 and 2016, only 4 percent of directors were female and 80 percent of those got the chance to make only one film. In 2016, another study found, only 27 percent of words spoken in the biggest movies were spoken by women. And people wonder why you didn’t hear our voices sooner. I think the statistics are self-explanatory — our voices are not welcome.
Until there is equality in our industry, with men and women having the same value in every aspect of it, our community will continue to be a fertile ground for predators.
I am grateful for everyone who is listening to our experiences. I hope that adding my voice to the chorus of those who are finally speaking out will shed light on why it is so difficult, and why so many of us have waited so long. Men sexually harassed because they could. Women are talking today because, in this new era, we finally can.
Egglantine New York, NY
This is one of the best pieces I've read on this subject, for all the obvious reasons, especially its connection to inequality in the workplace. Sexual harassment is not about sex. It's about the abuse of power. More frightening to me is not that a sexual predator is capable of such acts, but that the system allows them to get away with it. I think if more men understood this, they would realize this isn't just a problem for women or a problem that women have to solve. They are complicit and have the ability to make changes too.
Also, the line about in every woman there is a girl brought tears to my eyes.
Laura Manes Toronto
Salma, as a young Latina growing up in the 90s, you were an inspiration to me from your very first film--Fools Rush In was required viewing for all my well-intentioned but somewhat clueless American boyfriends. Through the years, I have watched you move gracefully from romcom actress, to producer, to artist, with your own voice and point of view on the world.
To this day, you have never let me down. You challenge the stereotypes by being a strong, smart, funny, cheeky and talented role model... and yes, beautiful, but that is just icing on the cake.
I am heartbroken to hear that this is how your masterpiece was made, and the parallels between your fraught relationship with Harvey Weinstein and Frida's own challenges living in the shadow of Diego Rivera are not lost on me.
Many people wrongly assume that life must be easy for the 'beautiful people.' They fail to realize that sometimes being valued only for your appearance is a challenge that needs to be overcome in the path to being valued as a whole human with so much more to offer. Thank you for offering this very personal and painful story with us; your courage helps make the world better for young women everywhere.
Talbot is a trusted commenter New York
I have always thought Salma Hayek was both beautiful and talented.
But this piece is extraordinary. Nothing I've read about Weinstein, Hollywood's despicable treatment of women, etc, has moved me as much.Or made me as angry.
How many woman have had their projects taken from them, or had to meet extraordinary demands, or had their successes ignored?
How many full-frontal scenes were shot as part of some coerced deal?
Thank you Ms Hayak, for this important piece.
Teka Hudson Valley
I've always thought Ms Hayek seemed unusually strong and intelligent. This story shows the truth of that. The writing is excellent; the story is shocking. It's amazing how many, many times she categorically said no to Weinstein yet he kept coming back. It's amazing that as an little-known actress she was able to meet his prohibitive demands for rewrites, financing, and costars. What's most surprising, frankly, is that she never gave up on making this film. How many people, male or female, would have been able to do most, let alone all, of that?
She only gave in on the added scene because by that point so many other people were invested in the movie and had helped her that she could not let them down. That scene struck me as curious when I saw it; while not implausible, it seemed tacked on from some other movie; it just didn't seem to fit with the rest if the film.
This story is Exhibit A of how even the strongest, most capable womens' careers can be -- and surely have often been -- diminished if not extinguished by sexism. Think how many talented women must have given up in the face of its irrational hate and humiliation. Think of how much greater Ms Hayek's career would likely have been if she had only had to face the level and type of challenges men in Hollywood face.
The unfairness of it is staggering. The loss to the world is literally unimaginable. What might have been...
This story was heartbreaking to read. It made me flash back to a taunt that was often thrown at feminists back in the 1970s: "Where is your Shakespeare?" as if women simply did not have the level of talent that men possess. The real question is "How many potential Shakespeares have been suppressed due to entrenched misogyny?"
Thank you, Salma Hayek for illuminating the mechanics of oppression, and thank you for your beautiful memorial to Frida Kahlo.
Amit Mukherjee Singapore
A few months back, I heard you on NPR. You spoke about how hard it was to make Frida when the only parts available to women of Mexican origin were of maids (though you did not tell this horrific tale then). At one point, you said something that caused me to pull up my car on the side of the highway so I could write it down. Your words: "I'd rather have a hard road into excellence than an easy road to mediocrity." No human's -- let alone woman's -- road should be hard be sexual harassment or abuse of any sort ever, and I'm sorry for your pain. I do want you to know that your words were inspiring. Thank you for not letting the hard (horrific) road deter you.
DECALOGUL LUI MĂLĂELE „Trebuie să ai orgoliul modestiei tale" 1. Nu îţi crea o imagine falsă. Este incomodă, greu de întreţinut şi uşor de depistat. 2. Fii prietenul duşmanilor tăi. Un proverb islamic spune că „numai iubindu-i poţi să-i distrugi".
3. Rămâi modest. Dar fă în aşa fel ca lucrul ăsta să se ştie. Trebuie să ai orgoliul modestiei tale. 4. Dacă pierzi teren lasă impresia că ai facut-o intenţionat. Impune un principiu: am dat doi paşi înapoi, ca să-mi pot lua avânt.
5. Nu fura pe nimeni. Dacă o faci totuşi, schimbă obiectul într-o altă podoabă. 6. Nu refuza ajutorul imbecililor. Pentru a rămâne sus îţi trebuie unanimitate.
7. Nu-ţi explica greşelile. Învăluie-le în mister şi abstracţiune. Nu schimbă mare lucru, dar derutează. 8. Nu te întinde prea tare. Rişti să-ţi pierzi controlul graniţelor.
9. Nu lupta împotriva cabalelor întemeiate pe ambiţie şi frustare. Îţi pierzi vremea, iar lor le creezi scop. 10. Dacă nu reuşeşti, modelează-ţi existenţa după principiul: „Nu se întâmplă decât ceea ce trebuie să se întâmple". Este o dură, dar relaxantă fatalitate.
„Politica este pentru mine o chestiune paralelă" Joci, desenezi, eşti regizor de teatru şi de film. A devenit Mălăele o instituţie acum, când a împlinit 57 de ani? Reprezint instituţia Mălăele al cărei director, muncitor şi şomer sunt. Cred în teatrul care emoţionează, cred în forţa gândului, în dictatura ideii. Cred în teatru, indiferent de categoria stilistică ce îl impune. Actorul este un om care izvorăşte continuuu şi care caută permanent. Platon spunea că „poezia e ceva plăpând, înaripat şi sacru". Eşti ironic în toate spectacolele tale faţă de „gogoşile" politicii. Politica pentru mine este o chestiune paralelă. Mă amuz însă cât pot… Dar e un râs-amar, un fel de râsu'- plânsu'… Îi ironizam şi înainte de 1989 pe comunişti, era o colaborare, o înţelegere tacită între mine şi public, care înţelegea toate aluziile, în acea perioadă grea. Ne bucuram şi tăceam împreună. Şi aşa puteam merge mai departe. Cât de absurdă e „Lecţia", pe care ai montat-o la Naţional? Poate că „Lecţia" este piesa cea mai puţin absurdă a lui Ionesco. Un profesor dezvoltă o doctrină matematică şi lingvistică, pe care încearcă să o impună, ca pe o doctrină politică. Când nu reuşeşte, îşi sacrifică interlocutorul. E o demonstraţie. Spectacolul e polisemic, nu vorbeşte numai despre dictatură, despre spaţii coercitive sau despre sex, ci vorbeşte despre relaţia dintre putere şi sex şi despre dictatură în toate felurile ei. Este un spectacol plin de semne şi de semnificaţii, cu un umor amărui. Umorul, mai mult sarcasmul, cinismul şi ironia ta sunt adesea strepezitoare. Cât de mult te joci pe tine însuţi?
În scenele de jonglare, de echilibristică pe o margine de lume sunt poate cel mai mult eu însumi. Da, totul devine dramatic, prin liniile îngroşate ale personajelor şi prin caricaturizarea societăţii şi a moravurilor. Nu prea te interesează artificiile de decor în montările tale. De ce? Urmăresc simplitatea, pun accent pe lumină şi culoare, mizez pe text si pe interpretarea actoricească. În „Revizorul", de la Comedie, costumele sunt deşucheate, în culori stridente, personajul colectiv are adesea priviri mirate, ochi nedumeriţi, feţe machiate în alb. Toti ceilalţi sunt hidoşi, poartă pe chipuri o prelungire a caracterului lor, într-o lume în care banii sunt laitmotivul vieţii si dezumanizează, într-o lume în care onoarea şi cuvântul dat nu mai înseamnă nimic. După montarea lui Ciulei din 1970, cum i-ai văzut acum pe „Leonce şi Lena", în ultimul tău spectacol, regizat la Comedie? Iubesc foarte tare acest spectacol, făcut cu o trupă foarte tânără de la Comedie. L-am redescoperit pe Georg Büchner, care a scris intens şi cu patimă. Am avut revelaţia acestei bijuterii, care se numeşte „Leonce şi Lena", o piesă cu adevărat frumoasă.
Într-adevăr, gene raţia mea a fost marcată de un „Leonce şi Lena" magnific al domnului Ciulei, cu datele politice ale vremii, şi totuşi detaşat de politică, cu o frumuseţe în sine, metafizică, dar şi acel „terre á terre" necesară unui spectacol. Eu i-am creionat însă pe eroi în felul meu. Cel mai titrat şi mai galonat critic de teatru al nostru, George Banu, spunea, după ce l-a văzut la Sibiu, că spectacolul meu este „un balsam". M-am bucurat enorm că i-a plăcut. Ce amintire ţi-a rămas cea mai dragă din copilăria petrecută la Târgu- Jiu, unde te-ai născut? Totul… Şi satul, şi casa de la ţară, casa tatălui meu, casa Tehomirului meu, ce-şi trăgea numele după un copil de-al lui Basarab îngropat în picioare. Tehomirul meu cald şi nostalgic, cu oameni săraci, dar gospodari, guralivi şi beţivi, oltenii adevăraţi dintre dealurile ce despart Gorjul de Mehedinţi, oltenii mândri ai fratelui Minulescu… Copilăria este cadoul ce ni-l face viaţa pentru ce vom avea de îndurat. Mi-e dor de tot, de nedeile satelor, unde mâncam colaci sfinţiţi, caltaboşi, sugiuc, turtă dulce şi mai ales îngheţată colorată de la ţigani. Dintre poeţii contemporani, reciţi foarte des din Emil Brumaru. Da, sub bisericile Iaşiului îl redescopăr pe Emil Brumaru: „Eram la mare tebecişti, atât de graşi, atât de trişti/ Şi stăm la bar nebând, fumând/ În pielea albă tatuând durerile/ Şi apoi plângând / De ce exist?". „Copilăria este cadoul ce ni-l face viaţa pentru ce vom avea de îndurat. Mi-e dor de tot, de nedeile satelor, unde mâncam colaci sfinţiţi, caltaboşi, sugiuc, turtă dulce şi mai ales îngheţată colorată de la ţigani…"
Legea lui Slous: Daca indeplinesti o sarcina prea bine, vei ramane cu ea pe cap.
Legea lui Franko privind locul de munca: Daca-ti place ceea ce faci, probabil ca faci ceea ce nu trebuie.
Prima capcana a geniului: Nici un sef nu va pastra un subaltern care are dreptate tot timpul.
Legea lui Raphel referitoare la afaceri: Cu cat angajatii au mai putin de lucru, cu atat vor lucra mai incet.
Maxima biroului: Telefonul nu suna niciodata cand nu ai nimic de facut.
Legea lui Otto: Intotdeauna faci ceva lipsit de importanta cand seful trece pe la biroul tau.
Legea lui Chapman: Daca nu poti sa-ti termini treaba in primele 24 de ore, lucreaza noaptea.
Regula lui Harry: Cand nu stii ce sa faci, mergi grabit si ia-ti o mina ingrijorata.
Concluzia coridorului: Poti sa te duci oriunde daca ai o mina serioasa si duci cu tine un dosar.
7 miracole la barbati:
1. Toti barbatii sunt al dracului de ocupati. 2. Desi suntem ocupati, avem vreme de femei. 3. Desi avem vreme de femei, nu prea ne intereseaza de ele. 4. Desi nu prea ne intereseaza femeile, tot timpul avem una langa noi. 5.. Desi tot timpul avem una langa noi, ne mai "dam" si la alta sau altele. 6. Desi ne mai dam la alta sau altele, ne enervam daca femeia cu care suntem ne paraseste. 7. Desi femeia cu care suntem ne paraseste, tot nu invatam din greselile pe care le facem (si tot ne mai dam la altele).
7 miracole la femei:
1. Pentru o femeie, este tot timpul importanta securitatea "materiala". 2.. Desi este important a supravietui din punct de vedere material, ele tot timpul isi cumpara haine scumpe. 3. Desi ele tot timpul isi cumpara haine scumpe, niciodata nu au cu ce sa se imbrace. 4. Desi ele spun ca nu au niciodata cu ce sa se imbrace, tot timpul se imbraca frumos. 5. Desi tot timpul se imbraca frumos, haina pe care o pun pe ele este doar "carpa veche". 6. Desi ele zic ca este doar o "carpa veche", se asteapta de la tine sa le faci complimente. 7. Desi tu incerci sa le faci complimente, ele nu te cred niciodata..!
Sunt femei care, in loc sa-i faca sa sufere pe mai multi barbati, asa cum e firesc, se concentreaza asupra unuia pana il extermina. Acestea se numesc "fidele".
HOTII iti cer viata sau banii............FEMEILE ti le cer pe amandoua......