This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)

[Drenk]

Yeah, I can't get on board with the argument of "Actually, reacting to bad stuff is just as bad as the bad stuff itself."

This is not what I tried to argue. It can be misunderstood, I was not really thinking about Tarantino anymore.

Anyway, I read this last night and it was something I think we need to hear. It's more clear.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/jill-messicks-family-issues-blistering-statement-harvey-weinstein-rose-mcgowan-1083173?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_now_2018-02-08%2013%3A59%3A43_ehayden&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews&__twitter_impression=true

As we collectively seek to take action in an effort to right the wrongs so brazenly and inhumanely repeated for a generation, we must not forget one simple truth: Words have power. While we illuminate the dark corners for hidden truths, we must remember that what we say, particularly in the media, can have just as much impact if not more than our actions. We must ask more of ourselves, and of each other. We must take a moment to consider the ramifications and consequences of what we say and what we do.

Words matter.

That's why I don't buy that thinking that everything works out for the best in the end is a good position to make. It has nothing to do with personal sensibilities.

[jenkins]

i listened to the youtube video before the guy had a personal meltdown about which number film it was. damn son, walk it off.

for the thread topic, may it not be that as QT changes his perspective, which i think he has and will continue to, and i think the movement should be proud of enacting this change, as QT changes may it not be that the reaction stays in the same spot.

[Alexandro]

My personal needs? As a consumer? Asking for politeness?
You are completely misreading what I am trying to say.
My personal needs as a consumer have nothing to do with this. And I don't even know what to respond to the politeness thing.

I can take all the outrage in the world when is directed at sexual criminals. And I hope the Weinsteins of the world keep falling, as I hope that salaries get even between sexes and power dynamics disappear from the workplace. But hunting down opinions so that "culprits" can "atone" or face social rejection and professional consequences sounds and feels too much like just an angry mob mentality taking over. Whatever good is coming out from the #metoo movement is not because of that.

[©brad]

See, but you say

It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well.

and then

"His "I was playing devil's advocate" excuse is ridiculous."

This is the definition outrage culture, because even if people admit they were wrong, and they apologize, and admit that they learned something, people don't accept the apology (even if the actual victim in this case might) and basically want their career to be over. Of course, most of the people who act this way are saints who never did anything wrong in their lives, because if they had, they should be ruined forever, because no excuse would be good enough.

I never said I want his career to be over. I don't think all of these guys should be banned from life forever. I do think there's a right way to apologize. Claiming to have played devil's advocate for a rapist is not the best apology.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't buy that thinking that everything works out for the best in the end is a good position to make.

"Best" is a high standard. Things will be better for a lot of women, though, that's for sure. In fact it's sort of incalculable how much pain will be prevented by this movement. It's also about dignity — actresses shouldn't have to weigh debasing themselves against losing their careers.

By and large, people understand that Tarantino is not a rapist. Those who choose to skip his movies because they view him as a scumbag have that right. Maybe they don't want to support him financially. I don't take that position at all, but it's not without merit.

There will be clickbait headlines. There will be overreactions. There will be confusion. There will be backlashes and corrections (see Aziz Ansari). I don't think any of that is avoidable.

But hunting down opinions so that "culprits" can "atone" or face social rejection and professional consequences sounds and feels too much like just an angry mob mentality taking over.

That is definitely a more reasonable way of putting it. At the same time, understand that this is about more than cases of criminal sexual assault. Opinions ARE part of the problem. Tarantino shrugging off the rape of a 13-year-old, and/or being ignorant about it, are absolutely part of the problem.

Does he deserve to lose his career over that? Of course not, and he won't. Does he deserve to be called out on that? Even publicly shamed a bit? Absolutely. That's fine. You can call that "mob mentality" if you want — but, you know, making powerful men squirm a little is part of the strategy here.

[wilder]

Roman Polanski Rape Victim Samantha Geimer on Tarantino, Polanski, and Why Apologies Matter
By Eric Kohn
February 9, 2018
via IndieWire


Geimer has dealt with the aftermath of sexual assault for decades. A day after hearing Tarantino express his remorse, she spoke to IndieWire in an exclusive interview about the experience.


Samantha Geimer contended with sexual assault in Hollywood long before the truth came out about Harvey Weinstein. In 1977, Geimer was 13 years old when Roman Polanski gave her alcohol and pills, then raped and sodomized her, in Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home. In the midst of the ensuing media mayhem, he was accused of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and fled the country, never to return. Geimer reentered public life following the 2008 release of Marina Zenovich's documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," and has testified that Polanski should be sentenced to time served rather than facing a new trial for the crime. In 2014, she wrote a memoir about her experiences, and has publicly forgiven him.

Most recently, Geimer resurfaced in the media in a roundabout fashion, when 2003 comments made by Quentin Tarantino on Howard Stern's radio show resurfaced in which the filmmaker claims that Polanski "didn't rape a 13-year-old. It was statutory rape... he had sex with a minor. That's not rape."

Geimer disagreed with the assertion, but took issue with the way her response was characterized online. In the midst of the backlash, Tarantino issued a public apology for the remarks, and also called Geimer at her home in Hawaii. IndieWire reached her there the next day — first by email, then by phone — to discuss the ordeal, as well as her broader thoughts on the conversations taking place about sexual assault in the film industry and beyond today.


On Twitter, you said that your initial remarks about Tarantino were misconstrued. Set the record straight.

I did not call him out or slam him. When asked, I said he was wrong, as in incorrect, about what happened. I thought he knew better now, 15 years later, and did not expect that he would repeat that, because he would only make himself look bad. Okay, I said, "like an ass." But the sentiment was that he certainly knows better. The wording that he assumed I wanted to be "raped," I don't know where that came from, but he never said that. What I was really trying to say to those who called is, I don't care. I don't care what anyone says, I'm not upset, this and worse has been happening to me for years. And mostly, I am aware that my rape is being used to attack him and I really don't like that.

Did you expect him to reach out?

No. I mean, not personally. I thought that was nice. What if I was really mad? He called to face it personally.

What did you discuss and what do you make of his response?

I think he realizes that the things he said to be shocking involve an actual person — me — and he wasn't thinking about that at the time. He felt bad about it. While I had him on the phone, I made him talk to me about some of his movies. Ha, ha. Didn't want to waste that opportunity. He is sincere in his apology and I told him I felt my rape was being used to attack him by people who don't care about what happened to me, and I do take offense to that.

So which movies did you ask about?

I talked to him about "True Romance," which is my favorite movie. I was just letting him know that it was one of my all-time favorite movies. I just found out my mom had never seen it, because she was like, "Wow, Quentin Tarantino called you!" So now I'm going to watch it with my mom. It was funny. He told me that he liked Roman's early movie, "The Fearless Vampire Slayers," that he'd seen it on TV. I was like, "Oh my god, I love that movie."

Then I asked him about his upcoming movie, because I heard it's about Sharon Tate's murder. I was like, "That's just freaking me out. I don't know why. It sounds awful." He said, "No, that's not what it's about. It's about that time period and that year." Although it certainly has nothing to do with me and I'm not sure quite sure why, but I was thinking, "Don't make a movie about that!" I was happy that he could put my mind to rest on a completely random thing like that.

Generally speaking, how do you feel about the value of apologizing when people speak out of turn about sexual assault?

I think apologies go a long way to help the person who was wronged and the person that is apologizing. I often say I don't need them, but in truth, they always have a positive impact. He is under a lot more scrutiny than I am. If not for Roman and Quentin's fame, nobody would be talking to me about any of this, so their words, actions and even apologies will always be glorified and criticized. Fame magnifies everything.

What was it like to receive an apology from Polanski?

He wrote me a handwritten letter and said, "I'm sorry, it was my fault, not your mom's fault, and I'm sorry for what you went through." I was like, "Well, I knew that." I felt like he was sorry the minute he got arrested. My whole life, I assumed, of course he's sorry. I didn't feel like I needed that. But then when he sent that apology, I could tell it made a big difference to my mom, and my husband, some of my friends, and my kids. It gave my mom some kind of relief. It was really meaningful to the other people around me who care about me, which then made it really meaningful to me. Anything that can make my mom feel better is something I'm grateful for.

Like I said about Quentin, I don't need an apology, because I don't care about what he said. Why should I, right? I don't let that stuff bother me. But in actuality, I'm kind of wrong, because it seems that it is nice to have an apology. That one from Roman ended up being super-meaningful. Talking to Quentin, I know he just wasn't thinking and I didn't take it personally the way he was talking on Howard Stern. But then once I saw it in writing the next day, I realized, it did make me feel better. So, apologies — I think you should take them, even if you don't want them.

How might you relate your experience to people who have been sexually harassed by public figures, but haven't committed crimes?

Well, I think if you're going to apologize, you apologize to the person individually who you upset. I don't think you have to apologize to the whole world, or everyone who you think might hire you. An apology is only for the person who you feel you've hurt and wants an apology. I'm not sure if that has a greater effect on a wider group of people but Quentin and Roman's apologies were written straight to me. They weren't like, "I'm sorry for all the people I've offended." They were real apologies. When you have people trying to write apologies for you or help you take care of things like that, maybe you're missing the point. Unless you're not sorry. When Tarantino called, he was really just saying that was lame of him, and he felt like a jerk. I said, "I don't need a public apology, but if you were to make one, I'd understand that." When you're in that business and so scrutinized, it's hard to figure out.

Part of the challenge here is tone. Many people say things under the guise of jokes that can be seen as crossing the line, and sometimes they spiral out of control.

I am one of those people who thinks that you can have humor about anything. I have a good sense of humor, and when people make jokes about me, I laugh. I think that people should just take their indignation and not watch people they find offensive. If you don't think it's funny, you don't think it's funny. You don't have to apologize for making a joke unless you really screw it up. Apologies should be sincere. I don't think we should apologize for stuff we don't feel sorry for. All this nitpicking and attacking people is missing the point. It's like, hey, could we have some equal rights over here? How about equal pay? Perhaps stop sexually harassing people at work? Instead, it's all, "Quentin Tarantino made shitty jokes!" No, women, focus. It's not all about celebrities and taking people down. Let's be positive and move forward.

I think being spiteful and taking people down you don't like them isn't helping anybody. We all see what's happening. If you're not doing something positive, if you're not making a difference, stop pretending you are. Just be like, "I hate that guy." [laughs] I'm in a weird spot. I've been in this weird spot my whole life. People are like, "We hate Roman because of what he did to you." I'm fine, I don't want anybody to hate anybody, and you actually don't give a shit about me. What bothers me is that people are attacking somebody else at your expense. Let's throw your rape out there to attack Quentin Tarantino. That hypocrisy bothers me because I'm in that spot where that happens to me. This is just the way it goes, in my life anyway, and we all say stupid things.

The #MeToo movement has been based around women coming forward to share their stories of sexual assault and abuse. Where does that leave silent survivors? You were one for years.

The #MeToo movement has done a lot of awesome things and made a lot of conversations happen, but if this gets turned into this weapon to take down Al Franken, or some Republican, or some Hollywood person, or Hollywood in general — that's not what it's for. It's supposed to get people to rise up, not push people down. Things will always get misused like that, but we shouldn't forget we're here to make things better and demand change. I think if you're a victim of sexual assault or a crime, do what you decide to do. Come forward, don't come forward. Speak out about it, don't speak out about it. It's individual and nobody should be pressured or forced to be quiet or talk. You have to understand the consequences of your choices. If you keep quiet, then maybe that person does something else that's bad. That's not your fault. You don't have to come forward to save somebody else. It's the person doing the bad thing, it's their fault.

If you don't come forward, then it's 40 years later, and you want people to believe you — people aren't going to believe you. You have to understand that people aren't going to believe what you're saying is true when you decided not to talk about it when years later it could never be proved and charges could never be brought. So do whatever you want, but understand, there are consequences. Weigh all the potential costs and do what you want. Nobody should tell you did the wrong thing.

The climate surrounding these issues has become especially charged after the Harvey Weinstein story broke. What was your reaction to that piece when it came out, and how do you feel about the reverberations it has had over the last few months?

I think I was as shocked as anyone that such terrible behavior was still going on in 2018. I guess I thought things had changed since the '70s and '80s. But I have been sad to see #MeToo being reduced to a tool to harm celebrities and politicians. Women deserve better than that and we should stand up and demand real change, not salacious headlines.

How do you think the aftermath of your experience with Polanski would have played out around the world if you were experiencing it today?

Oh my God! I don't want to even think about it. If our phone rang off the hook, we had photographers parked outside our house and had to leave town in 1977, I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be today. Perhaps more people would "side with me," but I don't think that would make it any better. It never made any difference to me what strangers thought. I knew what happened. Actually, I don't think it would happen today. Teenage girls were very sexualized in the late '70s. Things are so different now.

In the past, you have spoken up about the danger of passing judgement on Woody Allen for a case in which he wasn't convicted. Now, it seems unlikely that his new movie will get much of a release because the backlash has been so powerful.

I think that our justice system and being innocent until proven guilty are more important than any one crime. It is not fair to try something in the court of public opinion. It's not fair to demand the belief of people or ask them to hate, shame, and vilify others. Sometimes we don't get justice, sometimes we don't want it. To imply that your recovery lies in the hands of strangers who must act on your behalf is a very detrimental thing. We can all recover and heal no matter the circumstances and that comes from within. It is important to listen to everyone. Verdicts and consequences do not come on the front of a tabloid.

Polanski's latest movie, "Based on a True Story," has yet to be released. It's hard to imagine that it would be welcomed by many moviegoers at this particular moment. What do you make of that shift in our culture?

I think that we need to work on making the world a safer place for women and the vulnerable now. Putting energy into being angry about things that happened decades ago does not serve a positive purpose. I resent those who use my case to draw attention to themselves, and make stands I do not agree with. It is another type of violation. This glorification of victimhood and pain, rather than recovery and reconciliation, is just an ugly way to use those who have been already been harmed. I think we need to look just as closely at the media when considering whether or not we are being abused. Are you getting the truth out or are you getting an attorney some air time?

Anyway, I don't think someone who has committed a crime should be forever banned for gainful employment or creating art. That's just stupid. We are all free to make own decisions about what we see and purchase, we don't need others forcing what they call their morals down our throats and making demands of us.

In the midst of the Tarantino backlash, some people fixated on his movies, and the way his female characters are often treated in brutal ways. How much do you think people should be concerned with more positive depictions of women and gender relations in the movies?

If you think someone's movies are sexist, violent, or if you don't like that person, that's your choice. If you don't like it, don't watch it. The bottom line is that we're free people, we live in America, we can say or do what you want. If you don't like something, you are not obligated to pay attention to it. Having said that, it's nice when you see that there are more women directors and people trying to make a difference by giving women more empowered roles. That's terrific and I'd love to see more of it. But in the end, nothing is for everybody, and that's OK. It's OK to say, "I don't like that," but you can't be censoring people and blaming people for things that aren't their fault because of the violence in their movies.

[Jeremy Blackman]

There's obviously a lot of wisdom in that interview. But wow, she has some... interesting opinions.

I think that our justice system and being innocent until proven guilty are more important than any one crime. It is not fair to try something in the court of public opinion. It's not fair to demand the belief of people or ask them to hate, shame, and vilify others. Sometimes we don't get justice, sometimes we don't want it.

Oof. Really? By that logic, how is it fair that Harvey Weinstein lost his career? He hasn't been convicted of anything. Hasn't even had a trial yet! Why pass judgement on him at all when the evidence hasn't been considered by a judge and jury? "The court of public opinion" shouldn't weigh in until such time. We should consider him innocent until proven guilty.

As has been said a thousand times, public opinion and criminal court have (and should have) different standards of evidence.

[Alexandro]

There's obviously a lot of wisdom in that interview. But wow, she has some... interesting opinions.

I think that our justice system and being innocent until proven guilty are more important than any one crime. It is not fair to try something in the court of public opinion. It's not fair to demand the belief of people or ask them to hate, shame, and vilify others. Sometimes we don't get justice, sometimes we don't want it.

Oof. Really? By that logic, how is it fair that Harvey Weinstein lost his career? He hasn't been convicted of anything. Hasn't even had a trial yet! Why pass judgement on him at all when the evidence hasn't been considered by a judge and jury? "The court of public opinion" shouldn't weigh in until such time. We should consider him innocent until proven guilty.

As has been said a thousand times, public opinion and criminal court have (and should have) different standards of evidence.

yes, public opinion seems to have very low standards on evidence these days. also on common sense. which is something she seems to have in spades from what's in this interview.

the harvey weinstein case is not one of low standards of evidence, even if he hasn't been arrested yet. the dude got into massive shit, there are like 50 high profile women telling all sorts of horrifying stories happening on different decades, too many people have corroborated on his behaviour, not only sexually but professionally, actively destroying careers. but even with all that, I think is disgusting the way people feel the right to attack him as an angry mob, even physically, as in a video that surfaced a month ago or so of weinstein getting smacked by some random dude in a restaurant. because he acted like an idiot and completely unprofessional for most of his career, I think we don't need a judge to point us towards the inevitable situation of losing it, but since he hasn't been judged yet, he should be able to walk the streets without being attacked by strangers, even if people think he deserves it.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I basically agree with your take on Harvey Weinstein. He should not be assaulted by strangers, and he should have lost his career.

But Harvey is an easy case. What should the standard of evidence actually be? I'm not sure I know the answer myself. Would two women coming forward be enough? Three? How bad does the harassment or assault need to be? I absolutely agree that, for example, what Al Franken did is on a different end of the spectrum from Larry Nassar, and they should not suffer the same consequences. The unfortunate thing is, when this is all happening in public and in the media, outside of the legal process, it's going to be messy.

That's frustrating to you and other Me Too skeptics. But I genuinely don't think it can be avoided. It has to happen in public. Anyone who thinks cultural change takes place in the courts is naive. "The court of public opinion" is literally the thing we have. It's not going to be perfect, but that's how it happens.

The labor movement was only successful because the public found out about shocking working conditions. Public opinion changed because people were outraged. This "outrage culture" forced an unfathomably positive change in society. The peaceful protests of the civil rights movement only worked because they deeply affected "the court of public opinion." There's now a spotlight on cops murdering black men only because the public is outraged. Marriage equality only happened because people's opinions changed.

The behavior that's being exposed is a symptom of a way of thinking that's persisted for far too long. You can't change a deep-rooted retrograde situation if people still have retrograde opinions. It's not only fine to call out those opinions — it's required.

This is not about locating the few bad apples, bringing them to court, and moving on with business as usual. Sexual harassment and assault has been systemic. To change a system you need a wide-ranging movement that pushes public opinion.

[jenkins]

one is permitted to hope that the nature of sharing opinions may be altered as well.

[Alexandro]

I basically agree with your take on Harvey Weinstein. He should not be assaulted by strangers, and he should have lost his career.

But Harvey is an easy case. What should the standard of evidence actually be? I'm not sure I know the answer myself. Would two women coming forward be enough? Three? How bad does the harassment or assault need to be? I absolutely agree that, for example, what Al Franken did is on a different end of the spectrum from Larry Nassar, and they should not suffer the same consequences. The unfortunate thing is, when this is all happening in public and in the media, outside of the legal process, it's going to be messy.

That's frustrating to you and other Me Too skeptics. But I genuinely don't think it can be avoided. It has to happen in public. Anyone who thinks cultural change takes place in the courts is naive. "The court of public opinion" is literally the thing we have. It's not going to be perfect, but that's how it happens.

The labor movement was only successful because the public found out about shocking working conditions. Public opinion changed because people were outraged. This "outrage culture" forced an unfathomably positive change in society. The peaceful protests of the civil rights movement only worked because they deeply affected "the court of public opinion." There's now a spotlight on cops murdering black men only because the public is outraged. Marriage equality only happened because people's opinions changed.

The behavior that's being exposed is a symptom of a way of thinking that's persisted for far too long. You can't change a deep-rooted retrograde situation if people still have retrograde opinions. It's not only fine to call out those opinions — it's required.

This is not about locating the few bad apples, bringing them to court, and moving on with business as usual. Sexual harassment and assault has been systemic. To change a system you need a wide-ranging movement that pushes public opinion.

I tend to agree. But there is one big difference with your examples, which is that the outrage in those cases was directed towards a well defined group, which was helped also because those awful ways of thinking were institutionalised officially. People were after companies, government institutions, official instances to make changes, well, officially. This thing is being directed at individuals, and "messy" is not really an apt word for the ramifications. If the way these situations are being dealt are between individuals, then each case is different, and the way of thinking that says: "men have to be quiet and listen" and "you MUST believe every woman no matter what" and "you must apologize and when you apologize we won't like your apology" and so on.. is wrong, it goes against the idea of dialogue and resolution.

Look, I don't feel sorry for Tarantino at all. He'll ride whatever comes his way. But just silently allowing a legitimate movement to stop sexual harassment and short circuit misogyny into a senseless "takedown" game, oozing self righteousness and hypocrisy, and eliminating nuance and critical thinking in favor of raw emotion just because in the end "it will work out", just doesn't feel right to me. But we'll see what happens.

[Jeremy Blackman]

This thing is being directed at individuals, and "messy" is not really an apt word for the ramifications.

To be clear, it still comes down to individuals. So that's fine. Sexual harassment and assault being systemic just means that predatory individuals were allowed to do their thing and in some cases even supported. They are still predatory individuals. And it's bigger than institutions, obviously... society at large was very recently perfectly okay with sexual harassment.

You're coming up against core tenets of feminism now. You have to think of this as being a corrective path. On that path, there are going to be overcorrections and re-corrections, and that's just how it works. Things don't change in a straight line.

"men have to be quiet and listen"

The only way you'll buy into feminism is if you grasp the history of antifeminism, and what an uphill climb progress for women has actually been. And yes, sometimes being quiet and listening is the only way to learn. I'd rather not express a strong opinion on something before I understand it.

"you MUST believe every woman no matter what"

Nope, it's more that our default position should lean toward believing the woman. The default for too long has been disbelief, which makes no logical sense at all. (It does make sense emotionally — it's easier to believe these things aren't happening.) So this is a corrective path. Take a data-driven approach, if you'd like: the number of real female victims is so unfathomably massive compared to the number of women who are "making it up." Like voter fraud, it very rarely happens, because you have a lot to lose and almost nothing to gain.

[wilder]

For what it's worth, #metoo had its first suicide a few days ago, which was, ironically, a woman:


Jill Messick, Producer And Studio Exec, Dead Of Suicide At 50
February 8, 2018
via Deadline

Jill Messick, the Hollywood studio executive and producer who was Rose McGowan's onetime manager, died Wednesday in Los Angeles. She was 50. Her family confirmed the news and said Messick took her own life.

The family also put out a lengthy statement today, saying Messick was "collateral damage" in the fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and McGowan's part in it. They said Messick was bipolar and had battled depression.

"Over the past few months, many women have come out with allegations against Harvey Weinstein, including Rose McGowan, who has repeatedly spoken with the press, striking out against not only her alleged attacker, but a great many others. One of them was Jill, who chose to remain silent in the face of Rose's slanderous statements against her for fear of undermining the many individuals who came forward in truth. She opted not to add to the feeding frenzy, allowing her name and her reputation to be sullied despite having done nothing wrong. She never chose to be a public figure, that choice was taken away from her." (Read the full statement below.)

Messick spent more than 10 years in exec roles at Paramount-based Lorne Michaels Productions and at Miramax, with producing credits on the film side including Frida and Mean Girls. On TV, she was an executive producer on NBC's Bad Judge. She was in the midst of producing Warner Bros' Minecraft.

She spent five years at the Weinstein-run Miramax from 1997-2003, rising to SVP Production and shepherding pics like She's All That. Frida, starring Salma Hayek, was nominated for six Oscars.

Last month, Messick's name was added to the fray when Weinstein used emails from her and Ben Affleck in an attempt to refute McGowan's claims made during her book tour that Weinstein sexually assaulted her. The email reveal, Messick's family said, devastated her.

"Seeing her name in headlines again and again, as part of one person's attempt to gain more attention for her personal cause, along with Harvey's desperate attempt to vindicate himself, was devastating for her," it read. "It broke Jill, who was just starting to get her life back on track."

Representatives for Weinstein and McGowan did not respond to requests for comment.

Messick is survived by her two children, Jackson and Ava; their father, Kevin Messick; her
father, Michael; her brother, Jan; and her partner, Dan Schuck.

Here is the family's full statement:

"The Movement" just lost one of its own.

Jill Messick was a mother of two children, a loving wife and partner, a dear friend to many and a smart entertainment executive. She was also a survivor, privately battling depression which had been her nemesis for years.

Today she did not survive. Jill took her own life.

Jill was victimized by our new culture of unlimited information sharing and a willingness to accept statement as fact. The speed of disseminating information has carried mistruths about Jill as a person, which she was unable and unwilling to challenge. She became collateral damage in an already horrific story.

Jill believed in the Movement. She supported every woman finally coming forward to share their dark truths and expose those who had committed previously unspeakable deeds. She was loyal. She was strong. Jill was many things, but she was not a liar.

Over the past few months, many women have come out with allegations against Harvey Weinstein, including Rose McGowan, who has repeatedly spoken with the press, striking out against not only her alleged attacker, but a great many others. One of them was Jill, who chose to remain silent in the face of Rose's slanderous statements against her for fear of undermining the many individuals who came forward in truth. She opted not to add to the feeding frenzy, allowing her name and her reputation to be sullied despite having done nothing wrong. She never chose to be a public figure, that choice was taken away from her.

Now that Jill can no longer speak for herself, it's time to set the record straight.

In January 1997, Jill was an entry level manager at Addis Wechsler. One of her first clients was Rose McGowan, and one of Jill's first duties was to set up a breakfast meeting with Harvey Weinstein during the Sundance Film Festival. Following the meeting, Rose told Jill what had happened – that she made the decision to remove her clothes and get in the hot tub with him — a mistake which Rose immediately regretted. Rose never once used the word rape in that conversation. Despite this, Jill recognized that Harvey had done something untoward to Rose, if not illegal. She immediately went to her bosses, the partners of Addis Wechsler, to recount Rose's story and to insist that they address the situation. They told Jill that they would take care of it. The ensuing arrangements between Rose and Harvey were then negotiated, completely without Jill's knowledge. At that time, all Jill knew was that the matter was settled and that Rose continued making films with the Weinsteins. She never knew any details until recently, when Rose elected to make them public.

Ten months later, in November of 1997, Jill received a call from the Miramax exec VP of production, recruiting her for a job as an executive at Miramax Films working in production in Los Angeles. Jill was hired based on merit and her excellent work of over two years as a young development executive working with Woods Entertainment, (prior to her time at Addis Wechsler).

Rose's most recent round of press to promote her book have included new stories involving Jill. The constant press attention Rose has garnered in print and on National TV led to Harvey Weinstein releasing two documents. One of these was an email which Jill wrote to him months prior to the first NY Times piece coming out, and at his request. In this e-mail, Jill offered the truth based on what she remembers Rose telling her about the Sundance account. In the face of Rose's continued and embellished accusations last week, Harvey took it upon himself to release the e-mail without her consent.

Five years ago, Jill suffered a manic episode. Anyone familiar with bipolar disorder knows that it is a cruel and vicious disease. With the help of doctors, her family and friends, Jill rebounded. Jill had fought to put her life back together. After a long job search, she was in negotiations to run the production division for a new entertainment company.

Seeing her name in headlines again and again, as part of one person's attempt to gain more attention for her personal cause, along with Harvey's desperate attempt to vindicate himself, was devastating for her. It broke Jill, who was just starting to get her life back on track.

What makes Rose's inaccurate accusations and insinuations against Jill ironic was that she was the first person who stood up on Rose's behalf, and alerted her bosses to the horrific experience which Rose suffered. Twenty years ago, as a very junior person in a management company hierarchy, Jill exhibited her integrity in doing the right thing – she raised the red flag with the heads of her firm. In the face of inappropriate behavior, Jill handled the situation appropriately. Hers is one of the only stories that has stayed consistent over time as we watch other media reported tales morph to beget further attention.

While journalists serve an important role in exposing predatory behavior, we are seeing irresponsible choices and an addiction to sensationalism which leads to inconsistent storytelling. The media is a powerful tool not to be taken lightly. Most individuals would be horrified to have their name spotlighted in a major international news story – let alone their photograph. We cannot forget that the media is a fearsome tool which cannot be used indiscriminately or even inadvertently to create further victims. There is a responsibility when using a platform to accurately expose criminals, predators, mistruths and misdeeds while protecting the actual truth of third parties.

As we collectively seek to take action in an effort to right the wrongs so brazenly and inhumanely repeated for a generation, we must not forget one simple truth: words have power. While we illuminate the dark corners for hidden truths, we must remember that what we say, particularly in the media, can have just as much impact if not more than our actions. We must ask more of ourselves, and of each other. We must take a moment to consider the ramifications and consequences of what we say and what we do.

Words matter.

Someone's life may depend on it.

[Sleepless]

Rumor: Sony Having Second Thoughts About Producing Quentin Tarantino's Manson Movie

Last week, Quentin Tarantino found himself trending for all the wrong reasons. The filmmaker hit the press to share his side of the story about the "Kill Bill" car accident involving Uma Thurman, which nearly left the actress severely injured. Tarantino called what went down "one of the biggest regrets of my career, it is one of the biggest regrets of my life." The director again had to go on the defensive after an interview in 2003 on "The Howard Stern Show" resurfaced, and saw Tarantino asserting that Samantha Geimer, who was raped by Roman Polanski when she was 13 years-old, "wanted to have it....she was down with this." The director issued an apology, but it seems there could be major fallout to come.

Showbiz 411 is reporting is now having "second thoughts" about producing Tarantino's brewing not-actually-a-Charles-Manson-movie project. The studio is apparently concerned about the press that swirled around the director last week, and there's probably a couple of good reasons they might be reconsidering the high profile project.

Firstly, it's going to be very expensive. The budget is said to be in the neighborhood of $100 million, and after marketing, it will need to earn $375 million worldwide to break even. For context, the director has only crossed that number once — with 2012's "Django Unchained," which earned $425 million worldwide. The next closest is "Inglourious Basterds," which tallied $321 million worldwide. Tarantino's last movie, "The Hateful Eight," was considered a disappointment financially, earning $155 million globally, on a budget of $44 million (not including marketing).

Secondly, the movie is already generating controversy thanks to the recent news that Polanski will appear as a character in the 1969 set movie.

Leonardo DiCaprio is attached to star in the movie which is set in Los Angeles, and centers on a washed up TV actor who's had one hit series and is looking for a way to get into the film business through the burgeoning spaghetti western industry in Italy. His sidekick — who's also his stunt double (which Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are apparently in contention for) — is looking for the same thing. Meanwhile, the horrific murder of Sharon Tate and four of her friends by Charles Manson's cult of followers shadows the main narrative. DiCaprio is playing that washed up actor, with Margot Robbie expected to sign up as Sharon Tate, with Al Pacino also eyed for role. (Showbiz 411 speculates that Cruise is up for the Polanski role, which makes little sense considering the director was 36 at the time of Tate's death — Cruise is 55 — and goes against previous reports that Tarantino is looking for a Polish actor for the part).

It's a big, expensive auteur project but if anything else surfaces between now and  August 9, 2019 — when the film is slated to be released — that generates further negative chatter around Tarantino, I'm sure Sony doesn't want to have a big, unreleasable movie on their hands.

Of course, none of this is official, and I'd imagine that Sony is simply watching at the moment to see how things will shake out. There's also been no word from Paramount, who are in the midst of developing an R-rated "Star Trek" movie based off a concept by Tarantino, who may also sign up to direct.

[Jeremy Blackman]

So basically, take Polanski out of the movie, decrease the budget, and he should be able to get it financed.