Statement Regarding Miramax, The Weinstein Company, & Harvey Weinstein

When it’s important to note a movie’s and/or filmmaker’s connection to the trouble history of the two companies and the crimes of the formerly influential executive producer, Harvey Weinstein

This is important to note as some titles I have planned for review on the podcast and any number of titles I might post in the “Currently Watching” blog entries may have been produced and/or distributed by Miramax (1979-2005) or The Weinstein Companies, both of them founded by recently convicted serial sexual predator and rapist Harvey Weinstein and his brother and enabler Bob Weinstein.

As it’s been reported by Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker and by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey in the New York Times in 2017 and reporting that followed, it was revealed to the public that the influential movie producer Harvey Weinstein had a history of preying on women actors, often leveraging their career prospects to coerce sexual encounters with them. Weinstein has since then been tried, convicted, and sentenced for rape and sexual assault in New York and has been tried and convicted for the same kind of crimes in Los Angeles, but yet to be sentenced as of this statement.

While Miramax and The Weinstein Company were not the main distributors of queer cinema, they have in their catalogs films such some by Todd Haynes (Velvet Goldmine, Carol), Tom Ford’s A Single Man, the Alan Turing biopic The Imitation Game, Transamerica, and transgender coming of age story 3 Generations.

The indie, arthouse, and prestige film markets dominated by Miramax gave Harvey Weinstein industry and cultural power that enabled him to commit his crimes against women in addition to messing with films and careers of others during his tenure. Even as The Weinstein Company had more competition and less clout than Miramax in the post-Disney years, Weinstein still leveraged his power against women and their career prospects, keeping up his pattern of assault and rape.

His behavior wasn’t limited his interactions aspiring actors, but took similar actions towards women behind the scenes of a film’s production and on the festival circuit.

It had been documented that some directors, actors, and even political campaign assistants (most notably those of Hillary Clinton) went out of their way to defend Weinstein. When it applies to a discussion of a film here, this will be noted.

The careers of other film makers have been greatly impacted, whether through his treatment of women film makers or his sidelining of projects, both of them intersecting in a case like Sarah Kernochan’s All I Want To Do. Also notable is his executive meddling and abhorrent treatment of Salma Hayek during her production of Frida, most notably forcing her to insert a sex scene and a history of behavior that fits his pattern.

Whether they were actors, filmmakers, or producers, or having multiple roles like producer and actor, Weinstein’s actions have had significant impacts on their careers and mental health, with career deaths for many and PTSD.

All of these things are serious matters to consider when watching/revisiting a film associated with Miramax or The Weinstein Company or if the film maker has some connection to those companies at some point in their career.

For some, it can be hard to track statements good or bad regarding their time with Miramax or The Weinstein Company. This should not be inferred as being complicit as this should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And for some of those directors, their films suffered from issues such as lack of promotion or having release dates shuffled around, essentially signs they were sidelined. And this could also be a case of Weinstein was willing to lose money on a title in order to have access to the women starring in the film.

In addressing any of the issues where Harvey Weinstein through his actions and the use of his companies had an impact on the actors and/or filmmakers, the discussion of those incidents will be linked to sources documenting them.

This post will be linked in any blog post or podcast episode that discusses a Miramax or The Weinstein Company title along with a content warning of discussing sexual violence if applicable.

2 responses

  1. We must give each other permission to study art divorced of the sins of its creators, financiers, and the inevitable corruption of the market systems that distribute the art to the world. The art should stand alone.

    Like

    1. It’s only been very recently that I’ve been able to watch movies from the Miramax and The Weinstein Company catalogs. During the past few years I couldn’t, I couldn’t help seeing the deep shadow, the stain, he cast over these works. In this case, it helps that he wasn’t the film maker, the writer, the editor even as his input affected the films at all these levels. Understandably, he had some very good input but there was also ones such as what Salma Hayek mentioned.

      Overall, I think most of these films are solid works and deserve to stand on their own. However, I can’t completely divorce the problems of HW, so I feel the responsibility to address that in the discussions where it applies. The crimes matter, but in discussing the films critically, there are other questions to be asked like “was that amount of executive meddling necessary?” Or how valid was that input?

      Like

Leave a reply to Shinichi Kanna Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About the author

Sophia Bennett is an art historian and freelance writer with a passion for exploring the intersections between nature, symbolism, and artistic expression. With a background in Renaissance and modern art, Sophia enjoys uncovering the hidden meanings behind iconic works and sharing her insights with art lovers of all levels.

Get updates

Spam-free subscription, we guarantee. This is just a friendly ping when new content is out.