WP: Do you believe the fact that Harvey Weinstein was the first man to be exposed by what would later become the Me Too movement is suggestive that this problem of men in power abusing their positions is uniquely related to Hollywood’s culture, or was this more spurious? So how closely related do you think the Hollywood industry is to this?

Sahana: Well, to answer your first question, I don’t think it’s a problem unique to Hollywood at all. I think that the first real, big journalistic investigation into this type of claims being centered around Hollywood is because it’s particularly effective in galvanizing people because these are names we all know, right?
Because the first big story this year was focused on Hollywood, and because it involved names we all knew, that really galvanized people into taking action, but no, just because it was more notable and newsworthy in Hollywood, I don’t think that the problem is endemic to only Hollywood. I just think their names are bigger and tend to take up more headlines.

WP: I think perhaps I didn’t phrase the question correctly. My question is not so much “Is this unique to Hollywood,” it’s … “What has lead to Hollywood being an example of something such as this?”

Adrian: I think Hollywood is an industry. It doesn’t have any accountability over how movies are made. For most people, they’re a black box. So I think Hollywood is an industry where we see the completed product, they provide services and they get paid for those services. But even if you know nothing about an industry, they generally all follow the same rules. Because of the number of moving parts that go into a movie, it’s very hard for the general public and even for people [involved] to really get the full picture of what goes into the Hollywood system, and Hollywood is an industry that’s often defined by nepotism, of who gets higher for what projects and connections in Hollywood play a very big deal. Connections play a big deal in every industry, but especially in Hollywood. For other industries, we can look at things like profit margins or how useful their product is, but for Hollywood, it gets a lot more wishy-washy. Of course, we can look at box offers, performances, but once we actually get into the Hollywood machine and all the different companies that finance and go into a movie, it very hard to have accountability over that many moving parts. That combined with the fact that Hollywood of course with the publicity that everyone in Hollywood gets, just for example with Harvey Weinstein that Harvey Weinstein’s reputation as a bully, not just towards women but just generally towards filmmakers and towards everyone he worked with, there’s almost a mythology around Harvey Weinstein that you don’t really see in other industries maybe with people like Steve Jobs with their violent temper, but these sort of mythological individuals in Hollywood with power that is not derived from things that the public can see very easily, but it comes connections and things that are mostly behind the scene. It’s sort of a perfect storm for individuals where what they do is sort of unknown to the public but they’re sort of known for allegations against Harvey Weinstein and other members of Hollywood can get the conversation started.

Sahana: And the one thing that has contributed to Hollywood being the industry that’s been blown up more than everything else recently is the fact that these are public figures. We’ve seen accusations in the Me Too movement across all industries at this point, but not every other industry has the same platform and visibility as Hollywood does. When Harvey Weinstein was accused, when Kevin Spacey was accused, those are names people know – they’re already famous. But when you accuse your boss in a tech company in Silicon Valley, it just doesn’t have the same big name recognition I guess, so although Hollywood is blown up much more publicly, I don’t think any of the factors Adrian listen that contributed to this problem are – I think they’re everywhere, but I think that Hollywood was just the first to fall because it was perhaps the biggest and easiest to see once the first person started speaking up.

WP: So one of the points that are often brought up as criticism of the Me Too movement is that it centers around very high profile, very visible industries. What are the shortcomings of this fact? What is the problem with a movement that centers around the very public and very visible?

Sahana: I don’t think it only centers around the very public and very visible. Me Too has been going through millions of women across the country, but the only Me Toos we, of course, hear about are the ones in Hollywood. I think that’s what they’re trying the rectify, that fact that women in Hollywood are getting – the people they’re accusing are the ones being taken down. Women who already who have status are the ones whose problems are being most widely recognized and rectified at this point, and I think that’s the reason why they started Time’s Up right because they acknowledged that despite what happened to them they have the privilege that other people don’t have.

WP: So what is Time’s Up?

Sahana: From my understanding, it’s 300 writers, producers, directors and actresses who came together who came together and started a legal defense fund for women of the working class to hire attorneys in their own ongoing claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Adrian: A large part of the financial force, as well as just the general momentum behind Time’s Up, has been many of the talent agencies which represent many of the talent agencies which represent many of the actors and actresses within Time’s up, which brings up an issue because Hollywood is run by just a very few number of talent agencies, but much of the misconduct and the crimes which happened behind the scenes were under the watch of these talent agencies, the same talent agencies which are now funding Time’s Up and the power that grants them maybe not to have to power to change history, but definetly the power to shape the narrative to serve their own purposes.

Sahana: I think that’s definitely what’s irritating people a lot. the fact that people who were aware of the problem, even if they weren’t perpetrators of the problem were people who let it happen and never spoke about it and were silently complicit are now coming forward in support of the women of the Me Too movement.

Adrian: “I think a lot of it comes from Hollywood’s eagerness to forgive individuals within their community, even for Roman Polanski, whose case is rather cut-and-dry and whose crimes were of course heinous. Even though there was a legal action against him now at least, exiled, he stayed in France  for a long time and now he’s sort of all around the world. But even with Roman Polanski, there are people in Hollywood and definitely in international film industries which are very very eager to forgive him, and a lot of that is just because of the quality of the films he created and the amount of influence he had. I think Hollywood from as early as things like film school — of course not everyone in {hol comes from that kind of background — but in many film school classes, a core part of the curriculum would be 1915’s Birth of a Nation, where even though the content of the film was of course very very racist, that the innovations in cinematography and the various parts of filmmaking in that film and the influence it had on American cinema for all the way up to today, where people will still — even acknowledging the racist content of the film — that it will still be studied and revered. Hollywood in general, even though many people Hol. respects its directors and actors, many films in general often separate the art between the director and the people who put in work into that film for that reason where Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, who both had very prolific careers before their accusations — this sort of culture of separating the artist and their art, as well as eventually forgiving people that — it sort of leads to these accusations. Of course there are many people who are going to believe that these accusations weren’t true, and the situation with Woody Allen isn’t exactly crystal-clear, but just because of HOllywood’s eagerness to forgive, even if those accusations are true, —people would still be very very happy to work with Woody Allen on one of his future projects.

Sahana: “I think what makes it so hard for everyone to believe is that there’s not much of a divide between, like Adrian said, the work and the person, or the person and their friend. Hollywood is a culture but also a tight community when you compare it to any other industry. Everyone knows everyone, and everyone’s willing to believe the people who step forward with accusations until the accusations are against osmeone they know personally. So it’s twofold insofaras people are having a hard time separating the quality of someone’s work from the eprson they were when they were making that work. This is anecdotal, but the most common reaction I heard to Kevin Spacey’s demise was, ‘oh, well, House of Cards was so good.’ Sure, but that’s interesting that that’s someone’s first reaction. And another thing is, I think it was Sarah Silverman—I will fact check this for you—but when one of her close friends was accused, despite her standing up for every other person who had come forward so far, she didn’t stand up for and in fact criticized the woman who accused her friend—who I will again look up. It’s like selectively believing based on who the person is, if you’re friends with them, what you think of their work, and if you think that Hollywood — if their troubles and crimes, however heinous they are, are worth the work they’ve contributed to the industry.

“Often times, many of the women that have been assaulted by directors find difficulty sharing their stories because of the fact that there is such a great power dynamic. Can the silence of some of the individuals be forgivable given that they may face a power dynamic such as this in being able to ‘challenge the boss?’

Definitely. That assumes that there are people who stay silent because maybe it happened to them too and they can’t talk about or that person was similarly their boss and also had authority to fire them. In terms of talent agencies contributing to Time’s Up, those were people with power I don’t think people are condemning those who had no authority to fix it, or to change it, or to call them out, but I think they are criticizing them not speaking out, I think they’re criticizing people people that had enough influence to make a little difference but nevertheless did not because people are skeptical of people like Meryl Streep or Oprah Winfrey; people who had the influence.

What culturally needs to change in Hollywood?

I think we’ve definitely seen little hints of actresses that have explicitly talked about, there have definitely been implications that they imply that there was abuse going on and that some of these actresses did come out with accusations and they maybe didn’t have the confidence themselves against tycoons of hollywood that have been in the industry for decades. I think it is forgivable in terms for some actresses no matter how powerful you are. Going against the leaders in your industry alone is extremely difficult. A lot of which I don’t think are complacent to approach the issue in interviews where none of this can be confirmed.

The weird thing about “Me Too” is that people have accused men in power before. Dylan Farrow, Woody Allen’s daughter/step daughter has accused Woody Allen multiple times molesting her as a child. She’s written dozens of letters, affirmed it every step of the way for decades. The odd thing about that accusation is that even as Me Too has come into cultural consciousness, popular media and other actresses and actors in hollywood media believe that Woody Allen and Dylan Ferro…
It’s weird that we think this the end of a toxic era in hollywood, but Woody Allen is such a powerful person in hollywood that if all these accusations and all the accusations aren’t enough to make anyone reconsider hers about him.

Sahana: The most common reaction I heard to Kevin Spacey’s demise was “oh, well, ‘House of Cards’ was so good.” Sure, but that’s interesting that that’s someone’s first reaction. And another thing is I think it was Sarah Silverman-I will fact check this for you-when one of her close friends was accused, despite her standing up for every other person who had come forward so far, she didn’t stand up for her and in fact criticized the woman who accused her friend. It’s selectively believing based on who the person is, if you’re friends with them, what you think of their work and if you think that Hollywood, if their troubles and crimes, however heinous they are, are worth the work they contributed to the industry.

Adrian: I think for Hollywood, a lot of people-of course actors and even directors-they have public fronts as well as sort of characters they play within their films. As Hollywood, even though that they are a very public industry, they’re very selectively public-Hollywood has had a long history of having very good control over media and journalism and what they reveal to the press. Even though Hollywood would love to market its movies in terms of the actual production, a headline story about one of their films is controversy, which of course affects box office performance. There’s definitely a divide between the public image of Hollywood and the behind-the-scenes world, which doesn’t really exist in other industries. In those industries, you don’t really hear about people ever-you may buy something from an industry-let’s say the tech industry, you may use an app-but you will never have to really confront the people behind that app or people within those companies. For Hollywood, when everyone is seen but the public is seeing the public facade of Hollywood members but never seeing who they actually are within the industry before a movie gets marketed, that sort of dissonance creates a lot of issues for bringing accusations to fruition.

WP: I guess sort of related to all of this is this question of do the revelations about specific directors change the way that their work will be perceived?

Adrian: The historical answer is no. Maybe for the record(s)? and the very recent work, but for movies decades old, such as the example I was talking about before, Roman Polanski’s films are still revered by film fans and people in Hollywood.

Sahana: I’m a firm believer in being able to appreciate something for its merits and its prose while simultaneously acknowledging everything problematic about it and actively working to fix it. I took Lit Into Film this semester and we prefaced our watching of “The Wizard of Oz” with a discussion about how the production crew put the main 17-year-old actress-and this is confirmed-on drugs to hype her up in the day and things to calm her down at night. When we were watching “The Birds,” even though we enjoyed the movie and praised Hitchcock, we simultaneously discussed how he wouldn’t let the lead actress Tippy Hedren converse with anyone else on set and similarly to what’s happening now, when she didn’t want that kind of relationship with him, he blackmailed her? (sounds like blackcalled, around 22:06)-allegedly. I know that no one’s going to think any less of House of Cards of Weinstein’s movies now, especially when it’s a director or something, I think you can definitely appreciate a work on intellectual or entertainment merits while simultaneously not only acknowledging and condemning everything perhaps horrible that went on behind the scenes but then doing whatever you can to actively root it out. I don’t want to be a passive consumer of “oh, I like this movie and I know terrible things happened, but whatever.” I think it’s a dichotomy of not necessarily devaluing every movie behind which someone did something terrible, but acknowledging that person’s role in the movie and the awful things they did while simultaneously appreciating the movie. The one man does not make the movie. It’s important to keep both in mind and not brush off the accusations in favor of the work.

WP: Are you optimistic that there will be any cultural changes in Hollywood after the #MeToo movement?

Adrian: I think it really takes systematic change in order to actually enact change. Of course, changing the culture helps and creates an environment where bringing accusations against people in power is easier, but when you hear about Harvey Weinstein, the reason why a lot of actresses were willing to work with Harvey Weinstein despite what they knew about him through things like whisper networks, which of course were very helpful back then, was that Harvey Weinstein was the guy who you would go to to win an Oscar. You would win an award, and that would kickstart your career. That sort of dream, for a lot of actresses, was very very attractive to them. A lot of it comes from the influence that the award season has for film-not just for film, but for actors and actresses in general-that cutting out the influence of big producers like Harvey Weinstein will lessen the power they have. I don’t think it brings any detriments to the value or I don’t think it detracts from the value of the award(s)? season, which should just be a reflection of a film’s quality or an actor’s performance.

Sahana: Not really. We are hearing symptoms literally setting up multi-million dollar funds to alleviate the symptoms of a worldwide millennia-long problem, so no, I don’t think #MeToo is going to vastly change everything. Will it slightly change power dynamics in Hollywood? Yes, because those type of men now know that they actually do have consequences for their actions and they will be held accountable and that it can and very much will ruin careers. Sure, maybe that fear and that knowledge that there will be consequences may encourage them to change their behavior, but it may also encourage them to just do it in a more insidious way that they can keep quiet about. I’m not exceptionally optimistic, no. You would have to address the root, which is men who feel inclined to sexually harass and manipulate and use their power to coerce sexual favors, and that’s more endemic?

WP: As you can tell, I’m not terribly conversant in this topic. Were there any points you wanted to make to each other, since you might be able to direct the conversation a lot better amongst yourselves than I can?

Sahana: I’m not sure we necessarily disagree on anything, although we did talk about slightly different aspects of the problem.

WP: This doesn’t have to be a pro-con; it’s just a conversation.

Adrian: If you aren’t optimistic, what do you think can change? It doesn’t have to be a cultural change, like just anything, what can?

Sahana: Like duct-tape solutions?

Adrian: Sure. And if they help, they help.

Sahana: Duct-tape solutions are all we can do in the short-term. I don’t know! I’ll have to get back to you about that. If I think of something, I’ll record it and send it to you.

This piece was originally published in the pages of The Winged Post on February 5, 2018.