I don't have a high opinion on Ben Affleck but this just stinks of guilt-by-association.
Very trueEven better:
Never idolize people you don't know personally.
Does seem like a total clickbait article. This update also doesnt really help her case:So, this is a total bullshit click bait, right? Damon and Crowe legit vouched for this Italian studio head as having done actual work for films.
Look, Damon and Crowe could *both* be shit heals who knew about everything Weinstein was doing, but in this case they were simply providing relevant background details to the NYT.
This journo had nothing and now that someone else proved Weinstein is who we thought he was, is trying to reverse engineer having been silenced when she broke the story, and I see nothing of the sort going on here.
Update: Several have asked why I did not pursue the story once I started TheWrap. Fair question. Five years later, 2009, the moment had passed to go back and write the missing piece about Lombardo, who was no longer on the scene and whose story had been half-published in the Times. Miramax was no longer part of the Walt Disney Company. And I did not have sufficient evidence to write about a pay-off, even though I knew one existed. My focus was on raising money, building a website and starting a media company. In the subsequent years since then I did not hear about further pay-offs or harrassment and thought the issue was in the past. Weinstein had made a big effort, supposedly, to curb his temper and behavior, which was reflected in other areas of his public life.
She also mentions that Disney wasn't aware of him, which would explain why Damon and Crowe might have been asked to vouch for his job, especially if he is setting up parties for actors to premiere movies and shit. And don't expect Disney to know all of the people each of there subsidiaries has threw out the world, especially if you don't mention who you asked.It's weird, because the alleged sexual assault victim from London doesn't appear to have anything to do with Lombardo or as far as we know Damon or Crowe. The way it is put in the article and OP, you'd think they were connected. It's just randomly put in the article before Damon and Crowe are mentioned, but after talking about Lombardo. This Lombardo guy seemed to be the guy setting up the parties and events, which knowing this business it wouldn't be surprising if he hired escorts for the parties.....
Well, at least Stranger Things 2 and Mario Odyssey are almost here.
What is Lombardo's connection to the payoff?
I don't see anything justifying these leaps here.
May reporters never dig dirt on Nintendo executives, so we can live in blissful ignorance forever that Miyamoto, Koizumi and the rest are 100% good guys.
Why does there need to be? If he was being accused of covering the rape, there would need to be connective tissue. As it is, all of these associates of Weinstein are being accused of assisting in killing the article which included the accusation.
Unclear if Damon/Crowe knew about the Weinstein stuff in the article but this is why it's a bad idea to vouch on people sight unseen.
I think this is the best read. From Damon and Crowe's perspectives, what presumably happened is he tells them someone is writing a profile on Lombardo and asks if they'd send a quick message to the reporter about their experiences. There's no evidence they were even told what the reporter was looking into. It's a step too far to say they were knowingly complicit in killing the angle the reporter was most interested in.So, this is a total bullshit click bait, right? Damon and Crowe legit vouched for this Italian studio head as having done actual work for films.
Look, Damon and Crowe could *both* be shit heals who knew about everything Weinstein was doing, but in this case they were simply providing relevant background details to the NYT.
This journo had nothing and now that someone else proved Weinstein is who we thought he was, is trying to reverse engineer having been silenced when she broke the story, and I see nothing of the sort going on here.
"He owns you guys, all of you," bitches one West Coast film executive. "All media is controlled out of New York, and he is the king. He has the kind of Teflon none of us can understand."
Having had my own torturous negotiations with Weinstein, I've gained an understanding of his ability to maintain custody of his image.
"There is one story that needs to be told about this guy, and you are not going to tell it," hisses a New York film executive. "You're going to write another story about this amazing indie genius, and if you think I am going to participate in the lionization of that fat fuck for even a second, you are out of your mind."
Weinstein buries me in star power and testimonials, making sure that I know he's possessed of a broad streak of altruism. As I'm walking through the Village one day, my cell phone rings. It's Paul Newman, calling to tell me that when he mentioned to Weinstein that the kids at his Hole in the Wall Gang camp needed a gymnasium, Weinstein agreed to pay for it without asking how much it would cost.
Certainly, if you're being asked to call up a reporter and give a positive comment, you should probably ask some questions about the story your comment would be accompanying, and what agenda it may or may not be serving.Unclear if Damon/Crowe knew about the Weinstein stuff in the article but this is why it's a bad idea to vouch for people sight unseen.
The article is a response to the NYT's about Media Enablers. The point is that this person had a story and it was buried because the NYT (in '04) collapsed under pressure from Weinstein and industry friends.
It's impossible to say how much sway Russell Crowe and Matt Damon had on the story being buried but maybe we can read between the lines and say it was enough that they felt the need to name and shame all these years later. I don't know.
It wasnt sight unseen. They worked with Lombardo.
The article is a response to the NYT's about Media Enablers. The point is that this person had a story and it was buried because the NYT (in '04) collapsed under pressure from Weinstein and industry friends.
It's impossible to say how much sway Russell Crowe and Matt Damon had on the story being buried but maybe we can read between the lines and say it was enough that they felt the need to name and shame all these years later. I don't know.
I mean without understanding what the article was about. Did they just say, "yeah he works in the movies" and hang up or did they know the details of the article? They called in to help kill it off so if they knew about the Weinstein stuff in the article that is what makes them complicit. If you call to help kill an article, you can't beg off that you were only trying to kill this little bit not that part.
Im not sure why this all gets lumped into one thing here. They vouched for Lombardo. Thats all we know. That dude so far has no known relevance to the payoff or the abuses. Hes mentioned as a guy who the author alleges to have provided Russian escorts at parties. Was that going to be used to flesh out a profile of Weinstein? I dont know. Nothing from the author gives us those details.
Hi this is Matt Damon and Im calling to kill the article about Harvey Weinstein. Yes, Ill hold.
I mean, cmon. They were asked to provide background on some guy they worked with at Miramax. Thats the extent of what we have.
Hi this is Matt Damon and Im calling to kill the article about Harvey Weinstein. Yes, Ill hold.
I mean, cmon. They were asked to provide background on some guy they worked with at Miramax. Thats the extent of what we have.
I mean, it's pretty well known that Miyamoto is a tough boss and not above dressing down employees to get results. Hardly the worst thing in the world, but it's not a surprise that he can be pretty tough to deal with.
yeah I agree with everything you're saying (and stooge above) it's conflating issues which is causing some confusion. My takeaway from it was that even if they didn't know the whole story it speaks more broadly to an industry and a culture that protects its own which enables powerful people to do awful things.
I'm sure he said it in a nicer way but that's literally why he called. How about "I was asked to call to provide background for this article but didn't here what it's about. What's the story on?" When you are asked to put your good name on the line, which is literally what vouching for someone is, it's probably a good idea to get some idea of what you are doing.
I'm sure he said it in a nicer way but that's literally why he called. How about "I was asked to call to provide background for this article but didn't here what it's about. What's the story on?" When you are asked to put your good name on the line, which is literally what vouching for someone is, it's probably a good idea to get some idea of what you are doing.
Milkshake ducks, milkshake ducks everywhere. Very depressing to find out all those people are assholes in real life.
Or they were told there was an article coming out that was alleging that he wasn't actually doing any real work for Miramax and someone asked Damon to call up and talk about the guy running a party of Master and Commander premier successfully.
Why would you not do that?
Like, if I got a call from someone I worked with on a project who was being accused of not actually doing job A, why would I now mind putting my name on the line saying "naw, I saw that dude. He did Job A pretty well"
I'm sure he said it in a nicer way but that's literally why he called. How about "I was asked to call to provide background for this article but didn't hear what it's about. What's the story on?" When you are asked to put your good name on the line, which is literally what vouching for someone is, it's probably a good idea to get some idea of what you are doing.
I would ask myself why a guy being accused of not doing his job is a story in a national paper and get more information probably.
I would ask myself why a guy being accused of not doing his job is a story in a national paper and get more information probably.
And what would be that more information?
What the article is about more specifically which should reveal the sexual allegations, "What are they accusing him of?" Things like that which are fairly natural questions a person would have.
What did Lombardo have to do with the article? You keep just assuming a connection here despite it being not just completely unsubstantiated but entirely unstated.
Why were they calling to vouch for him if he's not involved in the article?
a lot of people knew the rumours but unless you can prove it (or you're one of the people he actually abused) all you're doing is throwing your career down the pan by picking a fight with one of the most powerful people in hollywood.
Someone post that list of directors and actors signing for Roman Polanski
Even better:
Never idolize people you don't know personally.
AFP is reporting that a grand assembly of filmmakers, actors and producers from around the world have signed a petition urging the release of director Roman Polanski, who was arrested Sunday in Switzerland on a warrant for a 1977 underage sex case in the United States. Woody Allen, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, Wong Kar Wai, Harmony Korine, Stephen Frears, Alexander Payne, Michael Mann, Wim Wenders, Tilda Swinton, Julian Schnabel, and Pedro Almodovar are among the 100 and counting film industry figures who have signed the petition, coordinated from France by the SACD, an organization which represents performance and visual artists.
I'm taking it as Crowe/Damon were (as a favor to Weinstein) vouching that Lombardo actually did the work he was being paid for - referencing the publicity tour for Talented Mr. Ripley and the Master and Commander party.
What I'm reading here is Crowe and Damon said they worked with an Italian guy who may or may not have helped cover up sexual assault allegations?
Haha. Wait you're serious.It looks like I'm the only decent human in the world.