Some of Hollywood’s most powerful figures are due to discuss what action should be taken by the hosts of the Oscars against Harvey Weinstein.
The board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is convening for an emergency meeting called as the film industry reeled from the sex abuse scandal.
Comprised of leading artists, directors and executives including Tom Hanks, Whoopi Goldberg and Steven Spielberg, the 54-member board may choose to expel Weinstein from the Academy’s illustrious ranks.
Meanwhile the Oscar awarded to the producer in 1999 for his work on Shakespeare In Love may also be considered for nullification, according to reports.
The British Academy Film Awards (Bafta) has suspended the producer’s membership, while organisers of the Cannes Film Festival said they were dismayed by the allegations.
Harvey Weinstein with the award for best film for Shakespeare in Love at the British Academy Film Awards in 1996 (Toby Melville/PA file)
Since accusations of sexual harassment first emerged last week, Weinstein has faced a litany of allegations, including three of rape.
Police forces in both the US and the UK have announced that they are investigating allegations made against the mogul, who has apologised for elements of his past behaviour but strongly denies any claims of non-consensual sex.
The scandal, which now has potential to see criminal action, has destroyed Weinstein’s reputation as one of Hollywood’s leading executives, which he acquired as a co-founder of studios Miramax and Weinstein Company.
The mogul was dropped by the firm’s board soon after being placed on indefinite leave earlier this week while he underwent “therapy”.
On Friday his brother and co-founder, Bob Weinstein, was forced to deny reports that the company or its board were trying to find a buyer, saying it was “business as usual.”
“Our banks, partners and shareholders are fully supportive of our company,” he said in a statement.
US banking giant Goldman Sachs had earlier confirmed it was “exploring options” for its near $1 million (£752,000) stake in the Weinstein Company.
The bank’s announcement came amid questions about what the independent film studio’s board may have known about the movie mogul’s actions.
Alice Evans and husband Ioan Gruffudd (Ian West/PA)
Meanwhile the list of female stars to go public with allegations of sexual impropriety against the 65-year-old has continued to grow on Saturday, with UK actress Alice Evans alleging Weinstein made a “sinister advance” towards her.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, she suggested that her refusal to respond when he said he wanted to “touch your tits. Kiss you a little” influenced his decision not to give her film roles.
On Thursday US actress Rose McGowan – one of the first women to accuse Weinstein of sexual harassment – tweeted that “HW raped me”.
The 44-year-old actress made a series of claims in several tweets to Amazon chief executive and founder Jeff Bezos.
She wrote: “I told the head of your studio that HW raped me. Over & over I said it. He said it hadn’t been proven. I said I was the proof.”
1) @jeffbezos I told the head of your studio that HW raped me. Over & over I said it. He said it hadn’t been proven. I said I was the proof.
— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) October 12, 2017
Amazon said studio head Roy Price had been put on leave of absence “effective immediately” and said it was “reviewing our options for the projects we have with The Weinstein Co”.
McGowan’s disclosure followed accusations from stars including Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and UK model Cara Delevingne.
British actress Kate Beckinsale has also described an alleged encounter when she was a 17-year-old schoolgirl.
The stream of lurid allegations has seen condemnation heaped on the producer, with figures from showbusiness to politics describing their horror and disgust at the scandal.
On Friday filmmaker Alexander Payne told the Press Association Weinstein was a “bully and a thug” who was “asking for” his downfall.
Meanwhile former US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton commended the women who had spoken out, telling the BBC such behaviour “cannot be tolerated anywhere”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel