Goldie Hawn stood up to Harvey Weinstein and sort-of won
Goldie Hawn says Harvey Weinstein undermined the version of Chicago she was developing with Madonna
Aux News Goldie Hawn
Rob Marshall’s 2002 Chicago is considered one of the great movie musicals in Hollywood history, one can’t help but be curious about the never-made version starring Goldie Hawn and Madonna. Alas, though the two stars toiled away on the project in the late ’80s, their efforts were sabotaged by the now infamous producer Harvey Weinstein.
“Harvey basically undermined me and Madonna,” Hawn, who got her start as a Broadway dancer, tells Variety. Despite an agreement with Hawn, who was supposed to be a producer on the project, Weinstein commissioned a new script wherein Velma Kelly was 20 years younger than Hawn was at the time. “I said, ‘Don’t fuck with me. Because I know just what you’re doing. We’ve made a deal,’” she shares.
“You stand up to a bully. And sometimes, you win,” Hawn adds, revealing that Weinstein did pay her for her work. She doesn’t know how Madonna felt about it (“You know, she just went with the tide”), but Hawn herself felt more charitable to Weinstein in the aftermath. “I said to him afterwards, ‘You know what the best part of you paying me is? Not the money. You restored my faith in dignity and ethics.’ Little did I know.”
Reached for comment by Variety, the imprisoned Weinstein responded, “Acting roles were always chosen based on what was best for the project, artistically and financially.” Miramax went on to produce Marshall’s take on the musical, which won numerous accolades including the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (for Catherine Zeta-Jones’ Velma Kelly) and Best Picture. Weinstein’s statement continued, “We felt we did the best we could on Chicago and I’m proud of it, and I am so elated that Goldie’s experience was a positive one, and that she has the fortitude to say that in this environment. I would simply say, ‘thank you.’”
Describing Hawn’s story as a “positive experience” is a hefty PR spin, even if she did give him a modicum of credit for paying up. He must have missed the part where Hawn said “He’s finally living his karma.”
15 Comments
Reached for comment by Variety, the imprisoned Weinstein responded, “Acting roles were always chosen based on what was best for the project, artistically and financially.”This guy will be in prison for the rest of his life, why should we really care about what he has to say anymore?
Bizarro they orchestrated this conversation between Hawn and Weinstein by reaching out, I don’t think she was looking for a dialogue from someone that I’m sure hurt some of her friends, she was just expressing the facts.
I don’t think you have to care, but I think it makes sense to get his comment if they’re trying to tell the story of the interaction. But it is weird that AVClub picks this instance in which to try to be actual journalists, though they just cribbed the story from Variety so I guess they didn’t do the actual work.
“I don’t think you have to care, but I think it makes sense to get his comment if they’re trying to tell the story of the interaction.”
Yeah, it was clearly very important that they have him on record pretending that this was a good thing that happened and not a shitty, misogynist thing.
It looks like this is the second time this week they’ve posted plagiarized material.https://www.avclub.com/1850192702I’m not sure if I agree that his comment is necessary though. It’s hard to take anything a convicted rapist, manipulator, and outright liar says seriously.
They do it all the time. It’s always “per [other source from which we get the details].” Certainly, and the reader can always choose to take or leave what he says, but I don’t think it’s weird that it’s included at all. The audience is free to be like “ah that lying POS.”
What the fuck is Variety even doing talking to this guy about his career?
Yeah, being in prison forever should really be the definitive “..could not be reached for comment.”
Prisons have phones.
sure, then “should not be reached for comment.”
On the other hand, you can’t really claim to be too busy to respond in prison.
Seems like ‘describing Hawn’s story as a “win” is a hefty PR spin too.From what I remember (from Miramax’s legal staff at the time), Hawn’s payout came out of *Madonna’s* stream & end, as a consequence of a producer wielding approvals killing the project. Madonna didn’t care, because she had 2 other projects going with MMX then.Weinstein went on to produce the beloved (not IMO) version – which notably still featured the down-aged Velma. I’d count *NOT* getting a Hawn/Madonna version of “Chicago” as a major victory for the *audience*, TBH. [And, of course, all that said: why the FAHK is Variety harvesting quotes from the disgusting freak felon in any event?]
“Seems like ‘describing Hawn’s story as a “win” is a hefty PR spin too.”
Well, she stood up to him and got paid.Is that not a “sort-of” win? Because a “sort-of” win is how it was described, if you care to read the actual words.
My mom says I’m handsome like Harvey.
All these years I thought that Goldie would’ve been Roxie and Madonna would’ve been Velma.