Exploring the Harvey Weinstein Mess

Most of the commentary on the revelation that hugely successful movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is a lecher has dwelt on that simple fact. He was able to engage in his swinish conduct because he was a rich and powerful figure in not only the movie industry but also in progressive politics, able to dole out career-enhancing roles and contribute money to favored politicians. He had power over the power-less and the ostensibly powerful both. He delighted in making use of this power in disgusting ways. That's only a part of the story, however. The repulsive wretch could indulge his vices only because others wanted what he had to offer.

Obese, obnoxious, unattractive Harvey Weinstein is 65 years old. His attractive actress and fashion designer wife Georgina Chapman is 41, an age difference of 24 years and not an unusual match in the elevated society of finance and entertainment. It's difficult to believe that if Weinstein had been limo driver for Miramax or a janitor at some sound stage that he and Miss Chapman would have become a couple. The chemistry that brought these two together is obvious to even the slightly cynical. Weinstein acquired a trophy wife and Chapman found access to funding and influence that would advance the interests of her clothing label.

Not to say that there's anything wrong with this. Relationships have been based on those kind of considerations for as long as humans have existed. At the same time, we should realize that women are willing to engage in a relationship with a slob if there's a reward down the line.  See Mrs. Bill Clinton, Huma Abedin, and many others. We don't know what innocent females expected when entering the presence of the bloated cinema genius but we can guess.

Of note is the fact that the reporter who wrote the expose' of Weinstein's misogyny is Ronan Farrow, son of Mia Farrow. Mia Farrow married singing and acting legend Frank Sinatra when she was 21. Sinatra was a handsome, talented and wealthy man but he was also 61 years old at the time.

Another aspect of the Weinstein crisis is the rejection of his $5 million donation for  an endowment for women filmmakers at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. Chances are that if Weinstein, probably having well-clogged arteries, had left this mortal coil a couple of months ago his donation would have been cheerfully accepted by the feminine auteurs. Maybe a chair at the university would have been established in his name or, even better, his name might have been emblazoned over the doors of a campus theater. This is the danger of memorializing still-living financial benefactors. They sometimes turn out to be scoundrels.

Even those that seem to be worthy of remembrance at a particular time and place after their demise can sometimes undergo reconsideration in the future. We can't be too careful about whom we honor.