Weinsteinism isn't limited to only movie industry. It is quite pervasive elsewhere. Where the physical attractiveness is part of the job-description, it is a just a part of the life.
In real life, with full knowledge that it would attract both bricks and bats, in my opinion in making of Weinstein, he was only partly responsible. A lot of responsibility would go to the aspiring persons, who made him believe that he can do anything and get away with.
Here is exactly same take on another of the glamour industry, the haute couture.
The chief of the fashion house, Raymond Rouleau (Philippe Clarence), practices Weinsteinism, and quite openly, and without any hesitations on who the target is, even his best friend's fiancee Micheline Presle (Micheline Lafaurie), who has come expressly, to marry and that too very shortly, not excepted. Where it would all end, who will get whom, is not kept in suspense (in fact is disclosed the moment the titles are over). I won't go much into the plot of the movie, which had been covered in other reviews.
This, the Weinsteinism, isn't uncommon in movies, even on screen, especially Hollywood, where the Heroes get away with all their escapades, and in the end (almost) repentant heroine comes to him, whatever profession the hero may be (from conman, to Lawyer). The Hayes code (of morality) didn't apply to men, it was reserved for women.
This movie is with a slight difference. It highlights this aspect, but neither castigates it, nor condones it. It rather tries to show the effect it could have on different people. The best friend whose betrothed he has seduced, the seduced fiancee, his ex-flames, his motherly-associate etc, and even on himself. It also highlights another mind-set of these people "I should be the one to walk out" though that had been probably spoken only once, but what happens if it is she, the women, who walked out on them? That formed the crux of the movie.
It would be wrong to claim that when the amber is dying, but not yet dead, and she walks out, it would blaze again, as it did here. But it won't be very rare either, considering it would deeply wound male ego, and till the specific member of male-declared-inferior class had been subjugated again, he won't rest at peace. Once she is, naturally he would again allow ash to pile up.
This facet, some times spoken, other times displayed, and the balanced approach, in bringing it out, puts the movie in above average category. There are no unnatural, blind, forgive-and-forget. Even if some one is ready to forgive, the director doesn't let us believe, nor the on screen characters believe, that he or she would forget, definitely not permanently.
In real life, with full knowledge that it would attract both bricks and bats, in my opinion in making of Weinstein, he was only partly responsible. A lot of responsibility would go to the aspiring persons, who made him believe that he can do anything and get away with.
Here is exactly same take on another of the glamour industry, the haute couture.
The chief of the fashion house, Raymond Rouleau (Philippe Clarence), practices Weinsteinism, and quite openly, and without any hesitations on who the target is, even his best friend's fiancee Micheline Presle (Micheline Lafaurie), who has come expressly, to marry and that too very shortly, not excepted. Where it would all end, who will get whom, is not kept in suspense (in fact is disclosed the moment the titles are over). I won't go much into the plot of the movie, which had been covered in other reviews.
This, the Weinsteinism, isn't uncommon in movies, even on screen, especially Hollywood, where the Heroes get away with all their escapades, and in the end (almost) repentant heroine comes to him, whatever profession the hero may be (from conman, to Lawyer). The Hayes code (of morality) didn't apply to men, it was reserved for women.
This movie is with a slight difference. It highlights this aspect, but neither castigates it, nor condones it. It rather tries to show the effect it could have on different people. The best friend whose betrothed he has seduced, the seduced fiancee, his ex-flames, his motherly-associate etc, and even on himself. It also highlights another mind-set of these people "I should be the one to walk out" though that had been probably spoken only once, but what happens if it is she, the women, who walked out on them? That formed the crux of the movie.
It would be wrong to claim that when the amber is dying, but not yet dead, and she walks out, it would blaze again, as it did here. But it won't be very rare either, considering it would deeply wound male ego, and till the specific member of male-declared-inferior class had been subjugated again, he won't rest at peace. Once she is, naturally he would again allow ash to pile up.
This facet, some times spoken, other times displayed, and the balanced approach, in bringing it out, puts the movie in above average category. There are no unnatural, blind, forgive-and-forget. Even if some one is ready to forgive, the director doesn't let us believe, nor the on screen characters believe, that he or she would forget, definitely not permanently.