Written/Edited by: WDM(c) Staff (Lee Fenton)
Well, Harvey Weinstein is in the news again.
I’m sure you’ve heard – a recent appeals court has thrown out Weinstein’s 23 year conviction for sexual assault against three women in 2020. Before everyone floods the streets in a #METOO movement – like the world has never seen, it would pay to keep in mind that the septuagenarian film mogul is still set to serve a 16 year prison term for a conviction from another rape case that took place in 2022.
[Clarification]Unless the older conviction is overturned by an LA appeals court, Weinstein will serve his 16 year sentence. It is unlikely that the decision will be reversed since there is a difference in the LA and NY courts, when dealing with evidence that is not directly related to the trial. California tends to allow “character evidence” whereas the New York State does not.
Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Weinstein’s (other) sexual assault charge will be overturned. [Clarification]
So there is justice, kind of?
Without getting too into the nitty-gritty of the legal situation: character witnesses were introduced into the 2020 court case to supply background on Weinstein, in favour of the prosecution. At the time – the prosecution was hoping that these witnesses would establish a modus operandi for the jury, and convince them of the defendant’s (Weinstein) guilt. And it was a success – the jury ruled against Weistein, serving him a 23 year sentence in prison.
-
“Weinstein, 72, was convicted in 2020 of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape, and he was sentenced to 23 years in prison. He has maintained his innocence and denied any nonconsensual [non consensual] sexual activity.” (sic) [1] cnn.com
.
- However, on April 25th / 2024, in The State of New York Court of Appeals it was decided that this was a violation of Harvey Weinstein’s rights and the evidence prejudicial. This amounts to “the rule of law” meaning, you cannot hope to use evidence, witness testimony, or other factors if they aren’t associated with the trial at hand. Since these character witnesses were accusers of Weinstein’s but not involved in the crime that was being tried it was deemed too far removed from the proceedings at hand, and the judge who initially allowed the character evidence was subsequently overruled by the appeals court. This relates heavily to the ideal, “that every man [or woman] is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and must be allowed a fair and reasonable defense.”
Or to be more exact:
“Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present a defense (see U.S. Const Amend VI, XIV; NY Const art I, § 6; Estelle v Williams, 425 US 501, 503 [1976] “ [2]
This is a sound principle that the law is founded on. I don’t think I need to mention the ‘Salem Witch Trials’ and start off on a lengthy explanation of why presumption of innocence is necessary. It’s beneficial to everyone – keep in mind, that can include the guilty, as well.
In the Weinstein case, the prosecuting attorneys should have realized that it was too “risky” a legal strategy they were pursuing: jurisprudence severely lacking. It is apparent that Harvey Weistein is not a guiltless individual due to his other conviction (2014 Rape Charge) holding fast, so the court of public opinion is reeling with this decision; feminists worldwide are not happy with the outcome.
Hell, people worldwide are not happy with the outcome.
In short, it feels like the opposite of progress.
The biggest worry is the precedent this may set for court cases regarding SA crimes – in the future; a potential by-product of this being a landmark case, media sensationalism, and all. Hollywood has long had some insidious power structures (like most industries in North America) allowing abuse to occur “unchecked”…
The worry among the public is: since Weinstein didn’t receive a severe enough punishment, it may take away the protection that victims feel in being able to come forward. The accuser (plaintiff) will also have to endure another court case – a wholly awful experience for anyone – really. Other women who have allegations against Harvey, may now hesitate in pursuing those for fear of losing on a technicality.
Here’s a few links if you would like to learn more about the legal ins-and-outs related to the case(s):
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/york-appeals-court-overturns-harvey-132251263.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-rape-conviction-new-york-court-overturned-metoo-1.7184493
Now, I wanted to have a quick afterword about The Weinstein Company. There are so many great, and unique films, that have to carry the tainted name, and yes, they helped to promote a man that we now know was a very despicable person – in fact every time I see the name ‘The Weinstein Company’ – I wince a little.
I think most do.
So, this is the difficult part of the article.
How do I segue from talking about victims rights to film rights.
Perhaps we should let Ruth Millington (UKart.org) do the talking:
This is one Picasso from Ruth’s article on separating the art from the artist.
[On Picasso]
“He cheated endlessly on his wives, and physically, verbally and emotionally abused each one of his romantic partners: Marie-Thérèse Walter, Jacqueline Roque, Olga Khokhlova and Dora Maar. Under Picasso’s misogyny, these women provided the artist with inspiration for some of his greatest portraits, before being discarded for a younger model.”
“By separating artist from artwork, we ignore Picasso’s misogyny towards those models who are pictured in his paintings. This reductive narrative also removes the agency of his muses who were key collaborators in the creation of numerous masterpieces. Surrealist artist Dora Maar, cast as The Weeping Woman (1937), played a seminal role in introducing the painter to photography, teaching him in her darkroom.” [3] UKart.org
Please keep in mind, Harvey Weinstein is not an artist. And I’m not calling him one. He’s a bloated, greedy man, who preyed upon the weak; no doubt promoted through incompetence. I am simply using this article to highlight the fact that more works of art – than you can shake a stick at – may have someone attached to them, that is less than desirable. It doesn’t excuse the perpetrator, and if you like you can ignore the art completely. That might be your only option.
That being said, when it comes to film – there are a lot of people involved besides the producer at the top. One film production often creates a whole thriving secondary-industry in itself; essential for local vendors, prop-houses, catering, tailors, and more. This is the ripple effect of a big motion picture; it not only employs on average upwards of 450 people in a single production, there’s also the multitudes that rely on income from businesses associated with the filming process.
I guess my point is this: these films helped people start in the industry, pay their bills, and earn money to grow as an artist or in a specialized industry. Some of these releases are considered top tier indie films – so much so that you’ll see a lot of Quentin Tarantino’s pictures in this slate. We may have to wait for HD remasters down the road to remove Weinstein’s name entirely from these features; or at least add an asterisk, in the meantime, though we can rest assured that his production company is defunct.
That’s right ‘The Weinstein Co.’ is no more.
TWC sold all its film properties for a hefty sum of $289 million to: ‘Lantern Entertainment, LCC’ (https://www.lanternent.com/) in 2018.
This includes 270 movies and 3 unreleased titles.
Those last three films don’t have to bear the mark of misogyny.
Unlike Harvey’s victims.
Sources:
[2] https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2024/Apr24/24opn24-Decision.pdf
Court Decision New York Court of Appeals
[3] https://artuk.org/discover/stories/can-you-separate-the-artist-from-the-art
CORRECTIONS: A previous version of this article gave an imprecise name for the production company that bought The Weinstein Company’s film rights. [Lantern Productions]
It has been amended to include the proper name: Lantern Entertainment, LCC.
We apologize for any inconvenience and will strive to do better in the future.
A clarification was also added to inform the public that Weinstein’s other charge will probably go through. This required more research, as some news outlets were not entering into the specifics of the case. Again, we hope to have all the info required upon publishing; in the future WDM(c) will attempt to be more thorough.
