Page 4 of 4

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:07 am
by TheButcher
Thomas Tull to Exit Legendary Entertainment (Exclusive)

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:42 am
by TheButcher
Jim G In Play: Legendary, Sony, Warner Bros.?
Anita Busch wrote:Fox Filmed Entertainment Group Chairman and CEO Jim Gianopulos is said to be helping his old friend at Wanda Jack Gao behind the scenes on figuring out what to do with Legendary in the wake of the surprise exit of the production company’s CEO Thomas Tull. The relationship between Gianopulos may blossom into something more permanent as we’ve confirmed that Wanda has been heavily courting him. Does that mean that he will take the reins at Legendary? It’s not certain as the former executive’s name is also being bandied about for other top spots around town, including to replace Michael Lynton at Sony and also to take over Warner Bros.

Gianapulos and Gao’s relationship goes back many years when the latter was a top executive at New Corp.

The word of this comes only two days after Tull said he was exiting Legendary, the company he founded 11 years ago after clashing with Wanda owners. With no one to hand the reins to, Gao stepped in as interim CEO. Gao is the trusted right hand man to Dalian Wanda Group‘s chairman Wang Jianlin and has great business relationships in Hollywood. He currently serves as SVP & CEO of International Investments and Operations at Wanda Cultural Industry Group. The hiring of Gianopulos would be a coup for Wanda and Legendary.

Gianopulos has years of experience in distribution and production. In fact, he rose out of the international distribution ranks to eventually head Fox. He left the studio early last year. Stay tuned. Gianopulos could not be reached for comment.

Variety August 23, 2016:
Fox Film Chief Jim Gianopulos to Exit Early (EXCLUSIVE)

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:48 am
by TheButcher
Wanda Says Thomas Tull Exit Reflects Restructuring, Not Flops
Patrick Frater wrote:Legendary Entertainment’s Chinese owner, Dalian Wanda, said Friday that the abrupt exit of founder Thomas Tull is part of its larger restructuring plans for growth but that the change at the top did not reflect dissatisfaction with Tull or the recent release of “The Great Wall,” which some have described as disappointing.

“Legend’s personnel adjustments are due to Wanda Pictures’ overall structure” and are part of Wanda Chairman Wang Jianlin’s previously announced expansion plans, a statement from the Chinese conglomerate said.

“‘The Great Wall’ has just begun its worldwide release, and it has not yet been released in the North American region,” the statement added. “Its so-called failure is a fiction.”

The Zhang Yimou-directed action film, which reportedly cost $150 million to make, has generated slightly more than $200 million at the box office, most of that in China, since its December release. How it performs in the U.S. after it hits theaters there next month will be closely watched.

Tull announced his resignation as CEO on Tuesday in the U.S., with Jack Gao, senior VP of Wanda’s Cultural Industries group, taking over as interim leader. Sources say that Wanda has held preliminary talks with Jim Gianopulos, former head of distribution at Fox, as a possible replacement.

Wanda had remained silent on Tull’s departure but issued a three-paragraph statement in Chinese to Variety on Friday. In addition to its terse explanation of Tull’s exit, Wanda said it would “release big news concerning the film industry soon.”

Wanda bought Legendary in early 2016 for up to $3.5 billion, a price tag that baffled many in the industry. Concerns that it had overpaid appeared to be confirmed when a regulatory filing showed that Legendary lost hundreds of millions of dollars in 2015.

In his annual work report a week ago, Wanda chairman Wang noted his company’s ambition to control 20% of the global cinema market, which he believes would give it ample bargaining power when negotiating with the six major Hollywood studios. Speaking this week in Davos at the World Economic Forum, Wang said that Wanda is planning $5 billion to $10 billion of overseas deals this year, with the major focus on entertainment and sports.

Wang has made no secret of his desire to buy a Hollywood studio. But recently he said talks were not making progress, for lack of willing sellers.

Legendary’s performance over the past couple of years has been mixed. In 2016, its two film releases in China both scored big box-office numbers. “Warcraft” was at its most successful in China with $221 million, compared with $47.3 million in North America.

Since its December release, “The Great Wall” has earned close to $166 million (RMB1.14 billion), making it one of the biggest films of 2016 in the Middle Kingdom. That figure was below some projections, though the overall slowdown at the Chinese box office last year makes comparisons tricky.

With its big production budget, “The Great Wall” still needs to score well in other territories. To date, it has grossed more than $40 million in ongoing theatrical release in Asia and Europe. Its North American outing, handled by co-financier Universal Pictures, is set for Feb. 17.

Wanda previously attempted a restructuring of its film businesses in the months shortly after the Legendary acquisition. That corporate reshuffle was to have seen some 20 outside companies provide investment for Wanda Pictures. However, the deals were halted by regulators, who expressed concern over the financial viability of the maneuvers.

That is a pattern that has played out previously. Two years earlier, regulators halted the IPO of film exhibition unit Wanda Cinema Line, only for Wanda to present new accounts and list the company on the Shenzhen stock exchange in January 2015.

Despite a dramatic retreat in the value of Chinese stocks in 2016, Wanda Cinema Line is valued at $6.8 billion (RMB46.9 billion) compared with the $3.45-billion market capitalization of AMC Entertainment, the U.S. theatrical market leader which Wanda also controls.

Wanda Denies Legendary's Thomas Tull Was Fired Over 'The Great Wall'
Wanda appears to have set its sights on expanding Legendary instead. And Tull, for one, is not their man for the job.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:50 am
by TheButcher
Is Jeff Robinov Looking for the Exit? What’s Behind Studio 8’s Slow Start

Jeffrey Katzenberg’s Investment Venture WndrCo Raises $591.5 Million

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:55 pm
by TheButcher
Sony’s $962M Entertainment Write Down: A Cautionary Tale For Hollywood Investors
David Lieberman wrote:There’s something about Hollywood that dazzles overseas investors — most recently led by those in China. But the $962 million write down that Sony took this morning for its entertainment unit should give them pause.

Sony’s announcement contributed to a 3.5% drop today in its U.S. shares. And it revives painful memories from 1989 when the Japanese conglomerate believed it could ride the entertainment tiger — and made one of the worst deals in corporate history.

Today’s announcement heightened speculation that CEO Kazuo Hirai is setting the stage for a change — possibly a sale of the studio — although he and Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Michael Lynton assured employees this morning that the company’s commitment to movies and TV remains “unchanged.”

SPE is “a very important part of Sony group” and the company “will continue to invest to achieve long-term growth and increased profits in this space,” they said in a memo.

Still, it’s easy to appreciate why many Sony watchers wonder whether Hirai is thinking about a change.

This was the first big impairment charge for the unit since the shocking $2.7 billion one Sony took in 1994. That tacitly acknowledged that the Japanese conglomerate paid about twice as much as it should have in 1989 when it laid out $3.4 billion for Columbia Pictures stock, assumed $1.4 billion in debt, and agreed to pay Warner Bros. another $500 million to let producers Peter Guber and Jon Peters out of their contract so they could move to Sony.

Generally speaking, it’s easier for sellers and buyers to discuss asset values after write downs that get bad news out of the way. With Lynton planning to leave, the charge also would help a new leader — or owner — to craft a story showing growth and other improvements.

And the timing of the announcement is curious. Sony didn’t respond to a sudden or unexpected development. It took the charge to recognize a long term trend: DVD and other home entertainment sales have diminished to the point where the financial types felt they had to assign a new asset value to the studio — which it had carried at the 1989 purchase price less the 1994 charge — the company says.

With the new write down, Sony says that the Production & Distribution operation (not including Media Networks) is just worth the value of the hard assets. It no longer puts a dollar figure on the brand name, or other hard-to-quantify qualities that the accounting world classifies as “goodwill.”

To be sure, the writedown makes sense without assuming ulterior motives. Hirai and Lynton said this morning that the company is “moving forward” with efforts to improve movie profits — and is prepared to be patient.

“One of Sony’s great strengths is the diversity of its business portfolio and unifying power of the ‘SONY’ brand,” they say. “Each business must be autonomous, self-sustaining, but at the same time they work cooperatively under the common identity of ‘SONY’, aiming to enhance the total corporate value of Sony group. It is important to keep in mind that there was a time when some businesses were facing tough challenges; other businesses helped us to improve and sustain the profitability of the entire Sony Group.”

But that isn’t what Sony bargained for when it became a Hollywood power. And it should serve as a sobering reminder for those eager to buy into show business that it’s like no business they know.

Re: The Alleged Pixar Wage-Fixing Cartel

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:17 pm
by TheButcher
Animation Workers Reach $100 Million Settlement With Disney in Wage-Fixing Suit
Ted Johnson wrote:Also part of the settlement are Two Pic MC, formerly known as ImageMovers.

The settlement was disclosed in a court filing on Tuesday.

Disney and its companies were the last remaining defendants in the litigation. Earlier this month, a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a $50 million settlement with DreamWorks Animation, following previous settlements of $13 million with Sony Imageworks and $5.95 million with Blue Sky. All of the sums will be put in a settlement fund.

The workers contend that the roots of the anti-poaching agreements go back to the mid-1980s, when George Lucas and Ed Catmull, the president of Steve Jobs’ newly formed company Pixar, agreed to not raid each other’s employees.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:44 pm
by TheButcher
Who Wants to Be a Studio Chief? Legendary Ouster Sparks Hollywood Exec Scramble
Kim Masters wrote:Legendary has a library of its homegrown films, most of which didn't perform well, including Blackhat and Seventh Son. Its biggest hit was the 2014 Godzilla, which grossed $529 million worldwide. It also has stakes in major hits that Tull helped finance, including Universal's Jurassic World, and the right to invest in sequels. (Tull did far better as a financier than as a producer.) "Is Legendary a finished product? Absolutely not," says a source close to the company. "It's a platform on which something can be built."

For now, Legendary sources say the company has financing to move forward, but it appears to be enough only to cover perhaps two or three movies a year. And Legendary's pipeline is not exactly bursting. It has wrapped production on Kong: Skull Island, set for March 10 (and it has plans to make a Godzilla sequel and a third Godzilla-meets-Kong film at Warners). It is in production on a Pacific Rim sequel, TV producer Steven S. DeKnight's feature film debut. Parent is trying to make a deal to get Dwayne Johnson to star in an action movie called Skyscraper and to launch an adaptation of the sci-fi novel Dune, with Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) directing.

A source close to Wanda says the company's leadership wants Legendary to produce more prestige projects, becoming less identified with the megabudget monster flicks and fanboy fare that Tull favored. At a gala in L.A. in November, Wanda's chairman Wang Jianlin spoke out against the reliance on sequels, remakes and effects-heavy spectacles, saying, "We have to make Hollywood go back to storytelling."

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:49 am
by TheButcher
The New Power of "Yes": Who Actually Has Greenlight Authority at the Movie Studios
Paramount re-evaluates Brad Grey's influence as industry upheavals alter internal politics all over town and committees become the norm. Gripes one producer, "You used to know whom to appeal to — and now you're not sure."

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:13 pm
by TheButcher
Deadline March 24, 2017:
Fox Film Production Exec Veep Mark Roybal Leaving Studio
Mike Fleming Jr wrote:EXCLUSIVE: 20th Century Fox feature executive vice president Mark Roybal is leaving the studio, Deadline has learned. I’ve heard Roybal’s name for a couple of jobs in town recently, including the Focus Features president of production post that Jim Burke is vacating to return to producing. Roybal will exit when his contract expires within the next few weeks. I’ve confirmed the exit from Fox, and insiders there say he is leaving on good terms.

Roybal has spent the past four years at Fox and most recently was involved in bringing in The Post, the Liz Hannah-scripted Pentagon Papers drama that Steven Spielberg is directing with Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep for Fox and Amblin. Other films he has shepherded include the Chernin Entertainment pic Underwater with Kristen Stewart and TJ Miller, the Alien Nation pic with Jeff Nichols and the upcoming Matt Reeves-directed War for the Planet of the Apes.

Before Fox, Roybal was an exec at Indian Paintbrush for four years, where he oversaw films including Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom. Prior to that he spent 14 years working for producer Scott Rudin, where he brought in such projects as No Country for Old Men.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:25 pm
by TheButcher
THR 3/24/2017:
Warner Bros.' Kevin Tsujihara Among Hard-to-Get Candidates for Sony Studio Job
Kim Masters wrote:As Viacom appears to be wrapping up a deal with former Fox studio chairman Jim Gianopulos to run Paramount Pictures, industry insiders are turning their attention to Sony Pictures, the other troubled studio currently in search of new leadership.

Speculation over who will replace outgoing Sony CEO Michael Lynton has involved a couple of major names that may prove to be ungettable. Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Sony had its eye on Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara, 52, for the top job, but complications in extricating him from his present position have caused him to fade, for now at least, from Sony's shortlist. Another candidate, Tom Staggs, is seen as unlikely to be lured by the Sony job but remains of interest. Former Fox Networks Group chairman Tony Vinciquerra has also been mentioned as a possible candidate. Sony declined to comment on the search. FX chief John Landgraf was also approached about the job, according to sources, but passed.

It is easy to see why Tsujihara’s background running a diversified film, television and digital studio would be appealing to Sony's Japanese owners. In addition, Tsujihara's experience in home video and gaming would seem like a major positive for Sony, which hopes to create original content for PlayStation, one of the top gaming consoles and an entertainment hub. And Tsujihara, the industry’s first Asian-American studio chief, is of Japanese descent, which might hold some appeal for Sony executives in Tokyo.

Meanwhile, there has been longstanding speculation in the industry that when and if AT&T completes its purchase of Time Warner, the new owner would make changes at Warners. Tsujihara might feel that moving to the top job at Sony Pictures is preferable to waiting to see what unfolds. Warners did not respond to a request for comment.

Tsujihara became Warners' chairman and CEO in 2013 after a tortured bake-off process that saw his chief rivals, top television executive Bruce Rosenblum and film studio chief Jeff Robinov, leave the company. The studio has had mixed success in the years since. The D.C. Comics universe has been a top priority, and while films featuring the characters have pulled in respectable grosses, they have failed to please many fans or to match the consistent success of Disney’s Marvel. (Even Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, with the two most iconic characters in the history of comics, topped out at $873 million. In contrast Disney got Captain America: Civil War — to take a recent example — to $1.15 billion.)

Tsujihara was credited with courting J.K. Rowling for a series of Harry Potter spinoff movies; the first installment, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, grossed $812 million and restarted the dormant franchise. He also has been negotiating with theater owners to allow premium, in-home viewing of movies.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:59 am
by TheButcher
THR MARCH 30, 2017:
The Terminator Comes to Hollywood to Destroy Old Copyright Grants
From a mockumentary classic to an Oscar winning best picture, studios are fighting to hold onto properties from hungry authors.
Eriq Gardner wrote:In James Cameron's sci fi classic, The Terminator, a cyborg is sent back in time to assassinate. Something similar is playing out in Hollywood at the moment thanks to a mid-1970s change to copyright law that allows authors or their heirs to terminate a copyright grant. And like the film, there's resistance.

When Congress decided to extend the copyright term in 1976, it chose to recognize those who had created works at the early stage of their careers but handed their rights over without much bargaining power. By allowing authors to serve notices of termination to publishers or studios, those authors were allowed to enjoy the benefits of the latter stages of a copyright term. Authors just had to wait at least 35 years for another bite at the apple. As Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "I'll be back."

The time is now for many authors, and what first created hassles in the music industry has slowly crept into the purview of filmmaking just as major studios are in the midst of reboot mania. Even The Terminator itself appears be the subject of a termination battle judging by an only partly-informed Deadline story reporting a "copyright reversion" 35 years after the release of the 1984 film. Sources close to Cameron refuse to discuss what's happening, citing ongoing negotiations.

Studios will, of course, fight back.

In late February, for instance, in the midst of trying to defeat a $400 million lawsuit over This Is Spinal Tap, Vivendi and StudioCanal insisted that the co-creators of the 1984 rockumentary didn't have standing to sue over contingent profits, but did acknowledge that a court would likely have to weigh in on Harry Shearer's attempt to effectuate a termination.

On Wednesday, before arguing that the co-creators were beneficiaries of contracts and can indeed sue, the defendants' lawyer wrote of a "grossly inappropriate litigation threat against Harry Shearer" and also revealed that termination notices were also recently issued by Rob Reiner, Christopher Guest and Michael McKean. (Read here.)

According to Vivendi, Shearer has no right to terminate because the movie and its music were created as works for hire. That would mean he and his cohorts are technically not the statutory authors of the work. The termination provisions have an exception for works made for hire. It's a common studio defense that is also being litigated in a dispute over Friday the 13th rights.

As more and more termination notices are sent, expect the fights to become exotic. Paul McCartney's suit against Sony over Beatles songs he wishes to reclaim signals how international differences in law may come into play. Thanks to a recent decision over in England, contractual promises made by foreign authors could potentially interfere with their ability to cancel copyright grants.

That's not all.

In a move that's never been reported until now, writer Avery Corman sent a termination notice over Kramer vs. Kramer, his novel that served as a basis for the film that won an Academy Award for Best Picture in 1980. In response to an attempt to grab back rights to a work that ironically is focused on a custody battle, Sony's Columbia Pictures contested the termination last year to the U.S. Copyright Office.

The studio's position is that the grant of Corman's rights came via an oral agreement made in 1977, and only grants executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978 are eligible for termination. The parties formalized the details of a license after that date, but Sony insists, "It is immaterial when, exactly, the 1977 Longform or 1978 Copyright Assignment was executed. Under either the 1909 or 1976 Copyright Acts, such subsequent writings serve to validate the oral grant of rights as of the time the oral agreement was made."

Corman has hired Marc Toberoff, a specialist in termination rights who once did battle with Warner Bros. over Superman and is also currently representing the screenwriter of the original Friday the 13th. So far, however, no lawsuit has been filed over Kramer vs. Kramer.

THR MARCH 21, 2013:
Judge Confirms Warner Bros. Owns Superman Rights

Marvel, Jack Kirby Estate Settlement Brings End to High-Stakes Battle

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:12 am
by TheButcher
Warner Bros. Facing $900 Million Lawsuit Over 'The Conjuring' Franchise
Gerald Brittle, author of a 1980 book on the paranormal investigators, claims not only to have had an exclusive deal with Lorraine Warren, but that producers substantially lifted his work.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:07 pm
by TheButcher
THR 7/26/2017:
Imax to Screen More Hollywood Tentpoles in 2D, Citing "Clear Preference"
Etan Vlessing wrote:The giant-screen exhibitor says domestic moviegoers prefer 2D versions, compared to 3D.

Imax looks to be jumping off the 3D bandwagon.

The giant-screen exhibitor on Wednesday said it will play more digital 2D versions of Hollywood movies domestically, given a "clear preference" from consumers for 2D in North America, according to Imax CEO Richard Gelfond.

Imax Entertainment CEO Greg Foster confirmed during an analyst call that his company will start playing fewer 3D versions of movies and more 2D versions. "The demand for 2D films is starting to exceed 3D in North America," Foster said.

For example, the domestic release of Bladerunner 2049 will be shown in Imax theaters only in 2D this fall.

And, to drive more revenue from its theater network, Imax will play more movies for only one week on its screens. "We intend to shorten the length of play that we allot many films, which helps keep the content on screen fresh," Gelfond said.
Foster added Hollywood movies that use Imax cameras during production, like Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, will have longer runs in his theaters. "We have to be very opportunistic about how we schedule," he told investors.

Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War – Parts 1 and 2, from directors Joe Russo and Anthony Russo, will use the Imax/Arri 2D digital camera to capture the entire two-part installment of the global franchise. The move marks the first time a Hollywood feature film will be shot only using Imax cameras and its exclusive aspect ratio.

THR 7/26/2017:
Imax Posts Second-Quarter Loss, Revenue Falls
Etan Vlessing wrote:Box-office disappointments like 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales' and 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' pulled down results.

Imax on Wednesday reported a second-quarter loss as the giant-screen exhibitor faced a weaker Hollywood box office.

Led by CEO Richard Gelfond, Imax posted a loss of $1.7 million on overall revenues at $87.8 million. That compared to a year-earlier earnings at $6 million on overall revenue at $91.7 million.

The earnings per-share was a loss of 3 cents, against a year-earlier 9 cents profit. The adjusted earnings per share was 15 cents, which excludes charges and impairments associated with the company's cost-reduction initiative.

Imax missed as analysts forecast $89.3 million in overall revenues. Warner Bros.' Wonder Woman performed on Imax screens, but other tentpoles like Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and Warner Bros.' King Arthur: Legend of the Sword didn't live up to industry expectations.

That was echoed during an analyst call where Imax's Gelfond said several movies "underperformed" expectations during the latest quarter. He looked ahead to a possible halo effect as Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk did better than expected on Imax screens on its opening weekend, pulling in $12 million in box office domestically.

"While we still view that market as a growth driver long-term, a number of titles didn't resonate with filmgoers" during the latest quarter, the exec said of his company's performance in the fast-growing Greater China movie market. Gelfond also pointed to Imax recently laying off around 100 employees as part of its latest corporate restructuring to get costs more in line with overall revenues.

Imax had gross box office globally from digitally remastered film titles at $268.9 million during the latest quarter, compared to a year-earlier $260.8 million. But the per-screen average globally was $237,800, down from $268,200 in the same period last year, mostly due to weaker box office in China.

The domestic box office for digitally remastered titles was $85.9 million, down from a year-earlier $88.8 million. Greater China box office was $97.2 million, against $97.1 million last year, but the per-screen average fell sharply to $235,100 during the second quarter, against $325,300 during the year-earlier period.

"While we entered the year with an optimistic view on full-year box office trends after a disappointing 2016, we clearly underestimated how much of an overreaction to the downside could be in store for Imax shares on a single quarter of weaker-than-expected box office," B. Riley analyst Eric Wold wrote in a recent investors note.

The year-earlier second quarter had Captain America: Civil War and The Jungle Book driving box-office revenues for the large-format exhibitor.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:47 am
by TheButcher
The New Yorker October 10, 2017:
Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories
Multiple women share harrowing accounts of sexual assault and harassment by the film executive.
Ronan Farrow wrote:

Since the establishment of the first studios a century ago, there have been few movie executives as dominant, or as domineering, as Harvey Weinstein. As the co-founder of the production-and-distribution companies Miramax and the Weinstein Company, he helped to reinvent the model for independent films, with movies such as “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “The English Patient,” “Pulp Fiction,” “The Crying Game,” “Shakespeare in Love,” and “The King’s Speech.” Beyond Hollywood, he has exercised his influence as a prolific fund-raiser for Democratic Party candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weinstein combined a keen eye for promising scripts, directors, and actors with a bullying, even threatening, style of doing business, inspiring both fear and gratitude. His movies have earned more than three hundred Oscar nominations, and, at the annual awards ceremonies, he has been thanked more than almost anyone else in movie history, just after Steven Spielberg and right before God.

For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now—Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old; some of them are older—has never come out.”

Last week, the New York Times, in a powerful report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, revealed multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Weinstein, a story that led to the resignation of four members of his company’s all-male board, and to Weinstein’s firing from the company.

The story, however, is more complex, and there is more to know and to understand. In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.

Three women—among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.

Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace. They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models. All sixteen said that the behavior was widely known within both Miramax and the Weinstein Company. Messages sent by Irwin Reiter, a senior company executive, to Emily Nestor, one of the women who alleged that she was harassed at the company, described the “mistreatment of women” as a serial problem that the Weinstein Company was struggling with in recent years. Other employees described what was, in essence, a culture of complicity at Weinstein’s places of business, with numerous people throughout the companies fully aware of his behavior but either abetting it or looking the other way. Some employees said that they were enlisted in subterfuge to make the victims feel safe. A female executive with the company described how Weinstein assistants and others served as a “honeypot”—they would initially join a meeting, but then Weinstein would dismiss them, leaving him alone with the woman.

Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation. “If Harvey were to discover my identity, I’m worried that he could ruin my life,” one former employee told me. Many said that they had seen Weinstein’s associates confront and intimidate those who crossed him, and feared that they would be similarly targeted. Four actresses, including Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette, told me they suspected that, after they rejected Weinstein’s advances or complained about them to company representatives, Weinstein had them removed from projects or dissuaded people from hiring them. Multiple sources said that Weinstein frequently bragged about planting items in media outlets about those who spoke against him; these sources feared that they might be similarly targeted. Several pointed to Gutierrez’s case, in 2015: after she went to the police, negative items discussing her sexual history and impugning her credibility began rapidly appearing in New York gossip pages. (In the taped conversation with Gutierrez, Weinstein asks her to join him for “five minutes,” and warns, “Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”)

Several former employees told me that they were speaking about Weinstein’s alleged behavior now because they hoped to protect women in the future. “This wasn’t a one-off. This wasn’t a period of time,” an executive who worked for Weinstein for many years told me. “This was ongoing predatory behavior towards women—whether they consented or not.”

It’s likely that women have recently felt increasingly emboldened to talk about their experiences because of the way the world has changed regarding issues of sex and power. These disclosures follow in the wake of stories alleging sexual misconduct by public figures, including Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump. In October, 2016, a month before the election, a tape emerged of Trump telling a celebrity-news reporter, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” This past April, O’Reilly, a host at Fox News, was forced to resign after Fox was discovered to have paid five women millions of dollars in exchange for silence about their accusations of sexual harassment. Ailes, the former head of Fox News, resigned last July, after he was accused of sexual harassment. Cosby went on trial this summer, charged with drugging and sexually assaulting a woman. The trial ended with a hung jury.

On October 5th, in an initial effort at damage control, Weinstein responded to the Times piece by issuing a statement partly acknowledging what he had done, saying, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.” In an interview with the New York Post, he said, “I’ve got to deal with my personality, I’ve got to work on my temper, I have got to dig deep. I know a lot of people would like me to go into a facility, and I may well just do that—I will go anywhere I can learn more about myself.” Weinstein went on, “In the past I used to compliment people, and some took it as me being sexual, I won’t do that again.” In his statement to the Times, Weinstein claimed that he would “channel that anger” into a fight against the leadership of the National Rifle Association. He also said that it was not “coincidental” that he was organizing a foundation for women directors at the University of Southern California. “It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.”

Sallie Hofmeister, a spokesperson for Weinstein, issued a statement in response to the allegations in this article. It reads in full: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.”

While Weinstein and his representatives have said that the incidents were consensual, and were not widespread or severe, the women I spoke to tell a very different story.


Lucia Stoller, now Lucia Evans, was approached by Weinstein at Cipriani Upstairs, a club in New York, in 2004, the summer before her senior year at Middlebury College. Evans wanted to be an actress, and although she had heard rumors about Weinstein she let him have her number. Weinstein began calling her late at night, or having an assistant call her, asking to meet. She declined, but said that she would do readings during the day for a casting executive. Before long, an assistant called to set up a daytime meeting at the Miramax office, in Tribeca, first with Weinstein and then with a casting executive, who was a woman. “I was, like, ‘Oh, a woman, great, I feel safe,’ ” Evans said.

When Evans arrived for the meeting, the building was full of people. She was led to an office with exercise equipment and takeout boxes on the floor, where she met with Weinstein alone. Evans said that she found him frightening. “The type of control he exerted, it was very real,” she told me. “Even just his presence was intimidating.”

In the meeting, Evans recalled, “he immediately was simultaneously flattering me and demeaning me and making me feel bad about myself.” Weinstein told her that she’d “be great in ‘Project Runway’ ”—the show, which Weinstein helped produce, premièred later that year—but only if she lost weight. He also told her about two scripts, a horror movie and a teen love story, and said one of his associates would discuss them with her.

“At that point, after that, is when he assaulted me,” Evans said. “He forced me to perform oral sex on him.” As she objected, Weinstein took his penis out of his pants and pulled her head down onto it. “I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’ ” she said. “I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him.” In the end, she said, “He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.” At a certain point, she said, “I just sort of gave up. That’s the most horrible part of it, and that’s why he’s been able to do this for so long to so many women: people give up, and then they feel like it’s their fault.”

Weinstein appeared to find the encounter unremarkable. “It was like it was just another day for him,” Evans said. “It was no emotion.” Afterward, she said, he acted as if nothing had happened. She wondered how Weinstein’s staff could not know what was going on.

After the encounter, she met with the female casting executive, who sent her the scripts, and also came to one of her acting-class readings a few weeks later. (Evans does not believe that the executive was aware of Weinstein’s behavior.) Weinstein, Evans said, began calling her again late at night. Evans told me that the entire sequence of events had a routine quality. “It feels like a very streamlined process,” she said. “Female casting director, Harvey wants to meet. Everything was designed to make me feel comfortable before it happened. And then the shame in what happened was also designed to keep me quiet.”

Evans said that, after the incident, “I just put it in a part of my brain and closed the door.” She continued to blame herself for not fighting harder. “It was always my fault for not stopping him,” she said. “I had an eating problem for years. I was disgusted with myself. It’s funny, all these unrelated things I did to hurt myself because of this one thing.” Evans told friends some of what had happened, but felt largely unable to talk about it. “I ruined several really good relationships because of this. My schoolwork definitely suffered, and my roommates told me to go to a therapist because they thought I was going to kill myself.”

In the years that followed, Evans encountered Weinstein occasionally. Once, while she was walking her dog in Greenwich Village, she saw him getting into a car. “I very clearly saw him. I made eye contact,” she said. “I remember getting chills down my spine just looking at him. I was so horrified. I have nightmares about him to this day.”


Assia Argento, an actress born in Rome, played the role of a glamorous thief named Beatrice in the crime drama “B. Monkey,” which was released in the U.S. in 1999. The distributor was Miramax. In a series of long and often emotional interviews, Argento told me that Weinstein assaulted her while they worked together.

At the time, Argento was twenty-one and a rising actress who had twice won the Italian equivalent of the Oscar. Argento said that, in 1997, one of Weinstein’s producers invited her to what she understood to be a party thrown by Miramax at the Hôtel du Cap-Eden-Roc, on the French Riviera. Argento felt professionally obliged to attend. When the producer led her upstairs that evening, she said, there was no party—only a hotel room, empty but for Weinstein: “I’m, like, ‘Where is the fucking party?’ ” She recalled the producer telling her, “Oh, we got here too early,” before he left her alone with Weinstein. (The producer denies bringing Argento to the room that night.) At first, Weinstein was solicitous, praising her work. Then he left the room. When he returned, he was wearing a bathrobe and holding a bottle of lotion. “He asks me to give a massage. I was, like, ‘Look, man, I am no fucking fool,’ ” Argento said. “But, looking back, I am a fucking fool. And I am still trying to come to grips with what happened.”

Argento said that, after she reluctantly agreed to give Weinstein a massage, he pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop. Weinstein “terrified me, and he was so big,” she said. “It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare.”

At some point, Argento said, she stopped saying no and feigned enjoyment, because she thought it was the only way the assault would end. “I was not willing,” she told me. “I said, ‘No, no, no.’ . . . It’s twisted. A big studly man wanting to eat you. It’s a scary fairy tale.” Argento, who insisted that she wanted to tell her story in all its complexity, said that she didn’t physically fight him off, something that has prompted years of guilt.

“The thing with being a victim is I felt responsible,” she said. “Because, if I were a strong woman, I would have kicked him in the balls and run away. But I didn’t. And so I felt responsible.” She described the incident as a “horrible trauma.” Decades later, she said, oral sex is still ruined for her. “I’ve been damaged,” she told me. “Just talking to you about it, my whole body is shaking.”

Argento recalled sitting on the bed after the incident, her clothes “in shambles,” her makeup smeared. She said that she told Weinstein, “I am not a whore,” and that he began laughing. He said he’d put the phrase on a T-shirt. Afterward, Argento said, “He kept contacting me.” For a few months, Weinstein seemed obsessed, offering her expensive gifts.

What complicates the story, Argento readily allowed, is that she eventually yielded to Weinstein’s further advances and even grew close to him. Weinstein dined with her, and introduced her to his mother. Argento told me, “He made it sound like he was my friend and he really appreciated me.” She said that she had consensual sexual relations with him multiple times over the course of the next five years, though she described the encounters as one-sided and “onanistic.” The first occasion, several months after the alleged assault, came before the release of “B. Monkey.” “I felt I had to,” she said. “Because I had the movie coming out and I didn’t want to anger him.” She believed that Weinstein would ruin her career if she didn’t comply. Years later, when she was a single mother dealing with childcare, Weinstein offered to pay for a nanny. She said that she felt “obliged” to submit to his sexual advances.

Argento said that she knew this contact would be used to attack the credibility of her allegation. In part, she said, the initial assault made her feel overpowered each time she encountered Weinstein, even years later. “Just his body, his presence, his face, bring me back to the little girl that I was when I was twenty-one,” she told me. “When I see him, it makes me feel little and stupid and weak.” She broke down as she struggled to explain. “After the rape, he won,” she said.

In 2000, Argento released “Scarlet Diva,” a movie that she wrote and directed. In the film, a heavyset producer corners the character of Anna, who is played by Argento, in a hotel room, asks her for a massage, and tries to assault her. After the movie came out, women began approaching Argento, saying that they recognized Weinstein’s behavior in the portrayal. “People would ask me about him because of the scene in the movie,” she said. Some recounted similar details to her: meetings and professional events moved to hotel rooms, bathrobes and massage requests, and, in one other case, forced oral sex.

Weinstein, according to Argento, saw the film after it was released in the U.S., and apparently recognized himself. “Ha, ha, very funny,” Argento remembered him saying to her. But he also said that he was “sorry for whatever happened.” The movie’s most significant departure from the real-life incident, Argento told me, was how the hotel-room scene ended. “In the movie I wrote,” she said, “I ran away.”

Other women were too afraid to allow me to use their names, but their stories are uncannily similar to these allegations. One, a woman who worked with Weinstein, explained her reluctance to be identified. “He drags your name through the mud, and he’ll come after you hard with his legal team.”

Like other women in this article, she said that Weinstein brought her to a hotel room under a professional pretext, changed into a bathrobe, and “forced himself on me sexually.” She said no, repeatedly and clearly. Afterward, she experienced “horror, disbelief, and shame,” and considered going to the police. “I thought it would be a ‘He said, she said,’ and I thought about how impressive his legal team is, and I thought about how much I would lose, and I decided to just move forward,” she said. The woman continued to have professional contact with Weinstein after the alleged rape, and acknowledged that subsequent communications between them might suggest a normal working relationship. “I was in a vulnerable position and I needed my job,” she told me. “It just increases the shame and the guilt.”


Mira Sorvino, who starred in several of Weinstein’s films, told me that he sexually harassed her and tried to pressure her into a physical relationship while they worked together. She said that, at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, 1995, she found herself in a hotel room with Weinstein, who produced the movie she was there to promote, “Mighty Aphrodite,” for which she later won an Academy Award. “He started massaging my shoulders, which made me very uncomfortable, and then tried to get more physical, sort of chasing me around,” she recalled. She scrambled for ways to ward him off, telling him it was against her religion to date married men. (At the time, Weinstein was married to Eve Chilton, a former assistant.) Then she left the room.

A few weeks later, in New York City, her phone rang after midnight. It was Weinstein, saying that he had new marketing ideas for the film and asking to meet. Sorvino offered to meet him at an all-night diner, but he told her he was coming over to her apartment and hung up. “I freaked out,” she told me. She called a friend and asked him to come over and pose as her boyfriend. The friend hadn’t arrived by the time Weinstein rang her doorbell. “Harvey had managed to bypass my doorman,” she said. “I opened the door terrified, brandishing my twenty-pound Chihuahua mix in front of me, as though that would do any good.” When she told Weinstein that her new boyfriend was on his way, Weinstein became dejected and left.

Sorvino said that she struggled for years with whether to come forward with her story, partly because she was aware that it was mild compared to the experiences of other women, including another actress she spoke to at the time. (That actress told me that she locked herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein, and that he masturbated in front of her. She said it was “a classic case” of “someone not understanding the word ‘no’. . . I must have said no a thousand times.”) The fact that Weinstein was so instrumental to Sorvino’s success also made her hesitate: “I have great respect for Harvey as an artist, and owe him and his brother a debt of gratitude for the early success in my career, including the Oscar.” She had professional contact with Weinstein for years after the incident, and remains close friends with his brother and business partner, Bob Weinstein. (She said that she never told Bob about his brother’s behavior.)

Sorvino said that she felt afraid and intimidated, and that the incidents had a significant impact on her. When she told a female employee at Miramax about the harassment, the woman’s reaction “was shock and horror that I had mentioned it.” Sorvino appeared in a few more of Weinstein’s films afterward, but felt that saying no to Weinstein and reporting the harassment had ultimately hurt her career. She said, “There may have been other factors, but I definitely felt iced out and that my rejection of Harvey had something to do with it.”


In March, 2015, Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, who was once a finalist in the Miss Italy contest, met Harvey Weinstein at a reception for “New York Spring Spectacular,” a show that he was producing at Radio City Music Hall. Weinstein introduced himself to Gutierrez, who was twenty-two, remarking repeatedly that she looked like the actress Mila Kunis.

Following the event, Gutierrez’s agency e-mailed to say that Weinstein wanted to set up a business meeting as soon as possible. Gutierrez arrived at Weinstein’s office in Tribeca early the next evening with her modelling portfolio. In the office, she sat with Weinstein on a couch to review the portfolio, and he began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real. Gutierrez later told officers of the New York Police Department Special Victims Division that Weinstein then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested. He finally backed off and told her that his assistant would give her tickets to “Finding Neverland,” a Broadway musical that he was producing. He said that he would meet her at the show that evening.

Instead of going to the show that night, Gutierrez went to the nearest N.Y.P.D. precinct station and reported the assault. Weinstein telephoned her later that evening, annoyed that she had failed to appear at the show. She picked up the call while sitting with investigators from the Special Victims Division, who listened in on the call and devised a plan: Gutierrez would agree to see the show the following day and then meet with Weinstein. She would wear a wire and attempt to extract a confession or incriminating statement.

The next day, Gutierrez met Weinstein at the bar of the Tribeca Grand Hotel. A team of undercover officers helped guide her through the interaction. On the recording, which I have heard in full, Weinstein lists actresses whose careers he has helped and offers Gutierrez the services of a dialect coach. Then he presses her to join him in his hotel room while he showers. Gutierrez says no repeatedly; Weinstein persists, and after a while she accedes to his demand to go upstairs. But, standing in the hallway outside his room, she refuses to go farther. In an increasingly tense exchange, he presses her to enter. Gutierrez says, “I don’t want to,” “I want to leave,” and “I want to go downstairs.” She asks him directly why he groped her breasts the day before.

“Oh, please, I’m sorry, just come on in,” Weinstein says. “I’m used to that. Come on. Please.”

“You’re used to that?” Gutierrez asks, sounding incredulous.

“Yes,” Weinstein says. He later adds, “I won’t do it again.”

After almost two minutes of back-and-forth in the hallway, Weinstein finally agrees to let her leave.

According to a law-enforcement source, Weinstein, if charged, would have most likely faced a count of sexual abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of three months in jail. But, as the police investigation proceeded and the allegation was widely reported, details about Gutierrez’s past began to appear in the tabloids. In 2010, as a young contestant in a beauty pageant associated with the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Gutierrez had attended one of his infamous Bunga Bunga parties. She claimed that she had been unaware of the nature of the party before arriving, and eventually became a witness in a bribery case against Berlusconi, which is still ongoing. Gossip outlets also reported that Gutierrez, as a teen-ager, had made an allegation of sexual assault against an older Italian businessman but later declined to coöperate with prosecutors.

Two sources close to the police investigation said that they had no reason to doubt Gutierrez’s account of the incident. One of them, a police source, said that the department had collected more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. But the other source said that Gutierrez’s statements about her past complicated the case for the office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. After two weeks of investigation, the District Attorney’s office decided not to file charges. The D.A.’s office declined to comment on this story but pointed me to its statement at the time: “This case was taken seriously from the outset, with a thorough investigation conducted by our Sex Crimes Unit. After analyzing the available evidence, including multiple interviews with both parties, a criminal charge is not supported.”

“We had the evidence,” the police source involved in the operation told me. “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Gutierrez, when contacted for this story, said that she was unable to discuss the incident. According to a source close to the matter, after the D.A.’s office decided not to press charges, Gutierrez, facing Weinstein’s legal team, and in return for a payment, signed a highly restrictive nondisclosure agreement with Weinstein, including an affidavit stating that the acts Weinstein admits to in the recording never happened.

Weinstein’s use of such settlements was reported by the Times and confirmed to me by numerous sources. A former employee with firsthand knowledge of two settlement negotiations that took place in London in the nineteen-nineties recalled, “It felt like David versus Goliath . . . the guy with all the money and the power flexing his muscle and quashing the allegations and getting rid of them.”


Last week’s Times story disclosed a complaint to the Weinstein Company’s office of human resources, filed on behalf of a temporary front-desk assistant named Emily Nestor in December, 2014. Her own account of Weinstein’s conduct is being made public here for the first time. Nestor was twenty-five when she started the job, and, after finishing law school and starting business school, was considering a career in the movie industry. On her first day in the position, Nestor said, two employees told her that she was Weinstein’s “type” physically. When Weinstein arrived at the office, he made comments about her appearance, referring to her as “the pretty girl.” He asked how old she was, and then sent all of his assistants out of the room and made her write down her telephone number.

Weinstein told her to meet him for drinks that night. Nestor invented an excuse. When he insisted, she suggested an early-morning coffee the next day, assuming that he wouldn’t accept. He did, and told her to meet him at the Peninsula in Beverly Hills, where he was staying. Nestor said that she had talked with friends in the entertainment industry and employees in the company who had warned her about Weinstein’s reputation. “I dressed very frumpy,” she said.

Nestor told me that the meeting was the “most excruciating and uncomfortable hour of my life.” After Weinstein offered her career help, she said, he began to boast about his sexual liaisons with other women, including famous actresses. “He said, ‘You know, we could have a lot of fun,’ ” Nestor recalled. “I could put you in my London office, and you could work there and you could be my girlfriend.” She declined. He asked to hold her hand; she said no. In Nestor’s account of the exchange, Weinstein said, “Oh, the girls always say no. You know, ‘No, no.’ And then they have a beer or two and then they’re throwing themselves at me.” In a tone that Nestor described as “very weirdly proud,” Weinstein added “that he’d never had to do anything like Bill Cosby.” She assumed that he meant he’d never drugged a woman. “It’s just a bizarre thing to be so proud of,” she said. “That you’ve never had to resort to doing that. It was just so far removed from reality and normal rules of consent.”

“Textbook sexual harassment” was how Nestor described Weinstein’s behavior to me. “It’s a pretty clear case of sexual harassment when your superior, the C.E.O., asks one of their inferiors, a temp, to have sex with them, essentially in exchange for mentorship.” She recalled refusing his advances at least a dozen times. “ ‘No’ did not mean ‘no’ to him,” she said. “I was very aware of how inappropriate it was. But I felt trapped.”

Throughout the breakfast, she said, Weinstein interrupted their conversation to yell into his cell phone, enraged over a spat that Amy Adams, a star in the Weinstein movie “Big Eyes,” was having in the press. Afterward, Weinstein told Nestor to keep an eye on the news cycle, which he promised would be spun in his favor. Later in the day, there were indeed negative news items about his opponents, and Weinstein stopped by Nestor’s desk to be sure that she’d seen them.

By that point, Nestor recalled, “I was very afraid of him. And I knew how well connected he was. And how if I pissed him off then I could never have a career in that industry.” Still, she told the friend who referred her to the job about the incident, and he alerted the company’s office of human resources, which contacted her. (The friend did not respond to a request for comment.) Nestor had a conversation with company officials about the matter but didn’t pursue it further: the officials said that Weinstein would be informed of anything she told them, a practice not uncommon in smaller businesses. Several former Weinstein employees told me that the company’s human-resources department was utterly ineffective; one female executive described it as “a place where you went to when you didn’t want anything to get done. That was common knowledge across the board. Because everything funnelled back to Harvey.” She described the department’s typical response to allegations of misconduct as “This is his company. If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

Nestor told me that some people at the company did seem concerned. Irwin Reiter, a senior executive who had worked for Weinstein for almost three decades, sent her a series of messages via LinkedIn. “We view this very seriously and I personally am very sorry your first day was like this,” Reiter wrote. “Also if there are further unwanted advances, please let us know.” Last year, just before the Presidential election, he reached out again, writing, “All this Trump stuff made me think of you.” He described Nestor’s experience as part of Weinstein’s serial misconduct. “I’ve fought him about mistreatment of women 3 weeks before the incident with you. I even wrote him an email that got me labelled by him as sex police,” he wrote. “The fight I had with him about you was epic. I told him if you were my daughter he would have not made out so well.” (Reiter declined to comment, but his lawyer, Debra Katz, confirmed the authenticity of the messages and said that Reiter had made diligent efforts to raise these issues, to no avail. Katz also said that Reiter “is eager to coöperate fully with any outside investigation.”)

Though no assault occurred, and Nestor completed her temporary placement, she was profoundly affected by the incident. “I was definitely traumatized for a while, in terms of feeling so harassed and frightened,” she said. “It made me feel incredibly discouraged that this could be something that happens on a regular basis. I actually decided not to go into entertainment because of this incident.”


De Caunes replied that she had to leave, since she was already running late for a TV show she was hosting—Eminem was appearing on the show that afternoon, and she hadn’t written her questions yet. Weinstein pleaded with her to retrieve the book with him, and finally she agreed. As they got to his room, she received a telephone call from one of her colleagues, and Weinstein disappeared into a bathroom, leaving the door open. She assumed that he was washing his hands.

“When I hung up the phone, I heard the shower go on in the bathroom,” she said. “I was, like, What the fuck, is he taking a shower?” Weinstein came out, naked and with an erection. “What are you doing?” she asked. Weinstein demanded that she lie on the bed and told her that many other women had done so before her.

“I was very petrified,” de Caunes said. “But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.” She added, “It was like a hunter with a wild animal. The fear turns him on.” De Caunes told Weinstein that she was leaving, and he panicked. “We haven’t done anything!” she remembered him saying. “It’s like being in a Walt Disney movie!”[/size]

Emma de Caunes, a French actress, met Weinstein in 2010, at a party at the Cannes Film Festival. A few months later, he asked her to a lunch meeting at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. In the meeting, Weinstein told de Caunes that he was going to be producing a movie with a prominent director, that he planned to shoot it in France, and that it had a strong female role. It was an adaptation of a book, he said, but he claimed he couldn’t remember the title. “But I’ll give it to you,” Weinstein said, according to de Caunes. “I have it in my room.”

De Caunes told me, “I looked at him and I said—it took all my courage—but I said, ‘I’ve always hated Walt Disney movies.’ And then I left. I slammed the door.” She was shaking on the stairs down to the lobby. A director she was working with on the TV show confirmed that she arrived at the studio distraught and that she recounted what had happened. Weinstein called relentlessly over the next few hours, offering de Caunes gifts and repeating that nothing had happened.

De Caunes, who was in her early thirties at the time, was already an established actress, but she wondered what would happen to younger and more vulnerable women in the same situation. Over the years, she said, she’s heard similar accounts from friends. “I know that everybody—I mean everybody—in Hollywood knows that it’s happening,” de Caunes said. “He’s not even really hiding. I mean, the way he does it, so many people are involved and see what’s happening. But everyone’s too scared to say anything.”


One evening in the early nineties, the actress Rosanna Arquette was supposed to meet Weinstein for dinner at the Beverly Hills Hotel to pick up the script for a new film. At the hotel, Arquette was told to meet Weinstein upstairs, in his room.

Arquette recalled that, when she arrived at the room, Weinstein opened the door wearing a white bathrobe. Weinstein said that his neck was sore and that he needed a massage. She told him that she could recommend a good masseuse. “Then he grabbed my hand,” she said. He put it on his neck. When she yanked her hand away, she told me, Weinstein grabbed it again and pulled it toward his penis, which was visible and erect. “My heart was really racing. I was in a fight-or-flight moment,” she said. She told Weinstein, “I will never do that.”

Weinstein told her that she was making a huge mistake by rejecting him, and named an actress and a model who he claimed had given in to his sexual overtures and whose careers he said he had advanced as a result. Arquette said she told him, “I’ll never be that girl,” and left.

Arquette said that after she rejected Weinstein her career suffered. In one case, she believes, she lost a role because of it. “He made things very difficult for me for years,” she told me. She did appear in one subsequent Weinstein film, “Pulp Fiction,” which she attributes to the small size of the role and Weinstein’s deference to the filmmaker, Quentin Tarantino. (Disputes later arose over her entitlement to payment out of the film’s proceeds.) Arquette said that her silence was the result of Weinstein’s power and reputation for vindictiveness. “He’s going to be working very hard to track people down and silence people,” she explained. “To hurt people. That’s what he does.”

There are other examples of Weinstein’s modus operandi. Jessica Barth, an actress who met Weinstein at a Golden Globes party in January, 2011, told me that Weinstein invited her to a business meeting at the Peninsula. When she arrived, he asked her over the phone to come up to his room. Weinstein assured her it was “no big deal”—because of his high profile, he simply wanted privacy to “talk career stuff.” In the room, Barth found that Weinstein had ordered champagne and sushi.

Barth said that, in the conversation that followed, he alternated between offering to cast her in a film and demanding a naked massage in bed. “So, what would happen if, say, we’re having some champagne and I take my clothes off and you give me a massage?” she recalled him asking. “And I’m, like, ‘That’s not going to happen.’ ”

When she moved toward the door to leave, Weinstein lashed out, saying that she needed to lose weight “to compete with Mila Kunis,” and then, apparently in an effort to mollify her, promising a meeting with one of his female executives. “He gave me her number, and I walked out and I started bawling,” Barth told me. (Immediately after the incident, she spoke with two individuals who confirmed to me that she related her account to them at the time.) Barth said that the promised meeting at Weinstein’s office seemed to be purely a formality. “I just knew it was bullshit,” she said. (The executive she met with did not respond to requests for comment.)


Weinstein’s behavior deeply affected the day-to-day operations of his company. Current and former Weinstein employees described a pattern of meetings and strained complicity that closely matches the accounts of the many women I interviewed. The employees spoke on condition of anonymity, they said, because of fears about their careers in Hollywood and because of provisos in their work contracts.

“There was a large volume of these types of meetings that Harvey would have with aspiring actresses and models,” one female executive told me. “He would have them late at night, usually at hotel bars or in hotel rooms. And, in order to make these women feel more comfortable, he would ask a female executive or assistant to start those meetings with him.” She said that she was repeatedly asked to join the meetings but refused.

The female executive said that she was especially disturbed by the involvement of other employees. “It almost felt like the executive or assistant was made to be a honeypot to lure these women in, to make them feel safe,” she said. “Then he would dismiss the executive or the assistant, and then these women were alone with him. And that did not feel like it was appropriate behavior or safe behavior.”

One former employee said that she was frequently asked to join for the beginning of meetings that, she said, had in many cases already been moved from day to night and from hotel lobbies to hotel rooms. She said that Weinstein’s conduct in the meetings was brazen. During a meeting with a model, the former employee said, he turned to her and demanded, “Tell her how good of a boyfriend I am.” She said that when she refused to join one such meeting, Weinstein became enraged. Often, she was asked to keep track of the women, who, in keeping with a practice established by Weinstein’s assistants, were all filed under the same label in her phone: F.O.H., which stood for “Friend of Harvey.” She said that the pattern of meetings was nearly uninterrupted in her years working for Weinstein. “I have to say, the behavior did stop for a little bit after the groping thing,” she said, referring to Ambra Battilana Gutierrez’s allegation to the police, “but he couldn’t help himself. A few months later, he was back at it.”

Two staffers who facilitated these meetings said that they felt morally compromised by them. One male former staffer said that many of the women seemed “not aware of the nature of those meetings” and “were definitely scared.” He said most of the encounters that he saw seemed consensual, but others gave him pause. He was especially troubled by his memory of one young woman: “You just feel terrible because you could tell this girl, very young, not from our country, was now in a room waiting for him to come up there in the middle of the day, and we were not to bother them.” He said that he was never asked to facilitate these meetings for men.

None of the former executives or assistants I spoke to quit because of the misconduct, but many expressed guilt and regret about not having said or done more. They spoke about what they believed to be a culture of silence about sexual assault inside Miramax and the Weinstein Company and across the entertainment industry more broadly.


Weinstein and his legal and public-relations teams have conducted a decades-long campaign to suppress these stories. In recent months, that campaign escalated. Weinstein and his associates began calling many of the women in this story. Weinstein asked Argento to meet with a private investigator and give testimony on his behalf. One actress who initially spoke to me on the record later asked that her allegation be removed. “I’m so sorry,” she wrote. “The legal angle is coming at me and I have no recourse.” Weinstein and his legal team have threatened to sue multiple media outlets, including the New York Times.

Several of the former executives and assistants in this story said that they had received calls from Weinstein in which he attempted to determine if they had talked to me or warned them not to. These employees continued to participate in the article partly because they felt there was a growing culture of accountability, embodied in the relatively recent disclosures about high-profile men like Cosby and Ailes. “I think a lot of us had thought—and hoped—over the years that it would come out sooner,” the former executive who was aware of the two legal settlements in London told me. “But I think now is the right time, in this current climate, for the truth.”

The female executive who declined inappropriate meetings told me that her lawyer advised her that she could be exposed to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits for violating the nondisclosure agreement attached to her employment contract. “I believe this is more important than keeping a confidentiality agreement,” she said. “The more of us that can confirm or validate for these women if this did happen, I think it’s really important for their justice to do that.” She continued, “I wish I could have done more. I wish I could have stopped it. And this is my way of doing that now.”

“He’s been systematically doing this for a very long time,” the former employee who had been made to act as a “honeypot” told me. She said that she often thinks of something Weinstein whispered—to himself, as far as she could tell—after one of his many shouting sprees at the office. It so unnerved her that she pulled out her iPhone and tapped it into a memo, word for word: “There are things I’ve done that nobody knows.”

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:54 am
by TheButcher
THR 6/25/2015:
Rose McGowan's Agent Exits Innovative Amid "Firing" Flap
Sheila Wenzel's departure preceded that of McGowan, who tweeted yesterday that she had been let go by the agency for making fun of a sexist Adam Sandler casting notice.

THR 9/26/2015:
Rose McGowan: Hollywood Is "Doubling Down on this 'Mad Men' Era Bullshit and It Needs to Stop"
"I literally feel pity for a lot of the stupid idiots that I have to deal with," the actress and director tells THR of sexism and lack of creative thinking in the industry.

Vanity Fair OCTOBER 6, 2017:
Was Rose McGowan Trying to Warn People About Harvey Weinstein?
The actress posted damning tweets back in 2016, alluding to an unnamed studio head who allegedly raped her.

The New York Times OCT. 10, 2017:
Rose McGowan Attacks Ben Affleck Over Harvey Weinstein: ‘You Lie’

THR 10/10/2017:
Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie Claim Harvey Weinstein Harassed Them

The New York Times OCT. 5, 2017:
Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

THR 10/10/2017:
Gretchen Mol Breaks Silence on Harvey Weinstein and Misogynistic Rumors (Guest Column)

THR 10/10/2017:
Jeffrey Katzenberg Shares His Email to Harvey Weinstein: "You've Done Terrible Things"

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:12 pm
by Fried Gold
I wonder how long it'll take for Weinstein to board a plane for France.

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:37 pm
by so sorry
Fried Gold wrote:I wonder how long it'll take for Weinstein to board a plane for France.

And who will be on the flight with him...

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:57 pm
by TheBaxter
so sorry wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I wonder how long it'll take for Weinstein to board a plane for France.

And who will be on the flight with him...

I know one who won’t be... his wife

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:38 pm
by so sorry
TheBaxter wrote:
so sorry wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I wonder how long it'll take for Weinstein to board a plane for France.

And who will be on the flight with him...

I know one who won’t be... his wife

Hmmm, might be Affleck

Re: World of Film Information Hotline (aka Hollywood news)

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:36 pm
by TheBaxter
so sorry wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
so sorry wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I wonder how long it'll take for Weinstein to board a plane for France.

And who will be on the flight with him...

I know one who won’t be... his wife

Hmmm, might be Affleck

you could say that ben's in a fleck of trouble.