Gwyneth Paltrow on her complicated feelings about Harvey Weinstein: "I'm not sure how I feel"
Aux Features Gwyneth Paltrow
Gwyneth Paltrow was one of the key voices that ushered in the reckoning of disgraced Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein, citing her own experiences with sexual harassment allegedly at his hands and encouraging other actresses to come forward with their own stories. Still, sizable chunks of her career and life are inextricably linked to him, which ultimately has an impact on her feelings about the Shakespeare In Love producer. She explained as much during a chat with Andrew Ross Sorkin at New York Times’ DealBook conference on Wednesday, per CNN.
“You know, I don’t like to be binary about people or about things,” Gwyneth said when asked about her feelings regarding Weinstein. “I think we’re all equal parts or varying percentages light and dark.” She explained further:
“He was a very, very important figure in my life. He was my main boss. He gave me incredible opportunity and yet during that time we had a very, very fraught complicated relationship. Highs and lows. And the postscript to that chapter of my life is where it gets extremely complicated for me, because information came to light about who he was and how he was behaving that I didn’t know during my already very difficult time with him. So I’m not sure. I’m not sure how I feel.”
Sorkin went on to ask if there was anything that men like Weinstein could do to “repent” for their alleged abuse, for which Weinstein goes on trial beginning January 6, 2020. Paltrow hypothesized that a full surrender of power would be key: “There’s a spectrum, but it does seem to me, for the more egregious offenders, that really loss of power is what keeps them from further offending. So if they don’t have the power, then they lose that dynamic and then the game’s over.”
94 Comments
Guys, I’m beginning to think Gwyneth Paltrow isn’t a very good person
Yes God forbid we have a nuanced adult answer.
Nuanced? Adult? This is the girl behind GOOP!
So we believe woman unless we disagree with them? Plus she is the founder of Goop which honestly makes her brilliant. It is the customers of Goop that are shall we say challenged.
What!?
The commenter thinks he’s a comedian of some sort. Don’t get sucked into his bullshit too much.
Nnothing about Goop makes anybody brilliant
“So we believe woman unless we disagree with them?”
Fuck you, you disingenuous fuck.
What’s GOOP have to do with this?
What’s GOOP got to do, got to do with this? Who needs a heart, when a heart can be broken?
No no no it goes “who needs an egg when an eggs up your hoo ha?”
How about we don’t conflate moral confusion with adulthood, however linked they tend to be.
I’m not surprised she’s conflicted. She’s among the group of actresses whose careers survived Weinstein, and she’s attributing her Oscar win and her career in part to him. I imagine this is highly personal to her and as much as people don’t like the idea, some of these victims are having to work this through in stages. As a public personality, she has to work this all out in public, which means she runs the risk of being publicly wrong. It can’t be a very easy position to be in.
She’s not morally confused. Her feeling to the person is confused. She clearly knows these actions were terrible.
Can we link moral confusion with humanity? Since it exists in almost everyone’s brain almost all the time?
There’s ‘nuanced’ and then there is ‘anodyne’. They are not the same thing.
For an anodyne comment, it certainly got a few people riled up.
There’s no nuance.She herself has spoken of how she heard the rumors but didn’t fear them because of who she was. She got a pass other women didn’t get. So for her, it’s easy to say she’s “conflicted” and can’t speak in a “binary” way.All she had to say was, at the end of the day if he did even half of what he’s accused of, she’s sorry she ever knew him.It’s THAT simple. To say anything else is to say that his crimes don’t matter because he did her a good turn.
On the internet? Getouttahere! This is the digital age and that includes people.
Nuance is definitely in short supply these days.
“Yes God forbid we have a nuanced adult answer.”
Nuanced.Cute.
The NYT reporters that broke the Weinstein story say that Paltrow was instrumental in helping bring in women who had suffered his abuse so they could tell their tales. There are plenty of things to find ridiculous about Paltrow, but I don’t think this is one of them.
I don’t know, Paltrow was lucky because Brad Pitt stepped in and protected her from Weinstein (if we’re to believe that story where he threatened Weinstein, and it does seem to be corroborated). I don’t think she’s in denial about Weinstein, but she also understands how instrumental he was in making her a star while also knowing how many lives he ruined. I imagine this is like the cast members of “The Cosby Show”, they can’t deny the positive impact being on that show had on their lives. And “The Cosby Show” was “important”, not just a goofy comedy (although it was that) but also a positive cultural force, as preachy as it was. Now we know Cosby is a literal monster, but rather than saying good riddance to “The Cosby Show” and its legacy, it’s actually a shame it’s been so tarnished. Now Weinstein wasn’t actually an artist himself, but you’d be crazy to say he didn’t have a huge impact on 90s cinema and the movie industry as a whole.
You know, she can still think he’s a worthless piece of shit while acknowledging that he helped her with her career.
She could, but you can’t and shouldn’t tell her how to feel.
Are you stupid?Her entire dilemma was summed up by my comment. I’m not telling her how to feel, because it’s pretty clear that shes conflicted about it for both those reasons.You shouldn’t tell people what they can or can’t say.
This is a really bad take, considering she was one of the biggest names to go on the record about her experiences with Weinstein, propelling that story forward in its infancy.
Saying she has some mixed feelings about him because he propelled her
to massive stardom and wasn’t an actual movie villain 100% of the time they worked together doesn’t make her a bad person; it just makes her honest.
What did she say that a wrong?
I mean she isn’t, but relationships with abusive people can be very complicated. Usually those same people know how to get in people’s head and maybe even do care for them in their own messed up way. Still, I hope he never sees sunlight again
SHUT UP RETARD
Can i still mock her
“I think we’re all equal parts or varying percentages light and dark”
as being an absurd bit of nothing-goop? I mean, there’s an Alignment Chart, isn’t there? Didn’t she go to Elf homeschool?
YES EVERYONE IS EITHER GOOD OR BAD
Sorkin went on to ask if there was anything that men like Weinstein could do to “repent” for their alleged abuseSure. He can go to prison and die.
Once again, if we’d only just listened to Worf from the beginning. . .
Maybe she can consult a steamed jade egg. Upside her head. And then feel the proper amount of disgust and outrage.
Ah, yes, beat the woman you don’t agree with. Enlightened!
You obviously don’t understand hyperbole but, ok.
Hillary Clinton tried to protect Harvey Weinstein from ever facing consequences for what he did according to Ronan Farrow. Democrats should be ashamed and disgusted by the actions of the Clintons and their campaign. The lack of outrage is why monsters like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein get away with it for so long.
Fuck off racist troll.
Fucking evil monsters like you are why sex predators like Harvey Weinstein gets away with it. You are a fucking evil dumbass. You support a rapist you fucking evil piece of shit just like piece of shit Hillary Clinton. Fucking losers like you elected Trump. Stupid fucking loser.
she had consensual sex with him to get shakespeare in love. She’s not conflicted at all.
“On one hand, he did terrible things to many people. On the other hand, I benefited from the power structures that enabled him to do that.”She’s definitely trying to have her cake and eat it too, here.
I really dislike this cake idiom even though everyone uses it. Who wants a cake to keep and not eat? I mean, c’mon.
Now there’s something we can all agree on.
Because the idiom is misquoted. The actual idiom is you can’t eat your cake and have it, too. But literally every person on earth gets it wrong.
CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!
I just lost a couple paragraphs on my own confusion about this particular phrase that ended when I saw an elaborate cake that was so artistically done that I actually thought that it was going to be a shame when it was carved up and eaten. This wasn’t until my 30’s. Also, the original phrase was “eat your cake and have it too” which could work on a couple levels as metaphor.
That’s not what she meant and you know it
Interpreting things in the worst possible way to maximize outrage is beyond obnoxious.
Welcome to the internet. That’s what we do here.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what she meant.
It is explicitly what she said, you are the one misinterpreting her words.
Gwyneth Paltrow doesn’t eat cake. She pays someone to eat it for her.
Gwyneth Paltrow didn’t even know there was cake until a reporter asked her about it.
And then that person vomits immediately.
She consumes cake through her vagina.
OK BOOMER
I mean, the human brain can entertain conflicting thoughts, particularly where self interest is involved. Mine does it almost constantly.
“He was a very, very important figure in my life. He was my main boss.
He gave me incredible opportunity and yet during that time we had a
very, very fraught complicated relationship. Highs and lows. And the
postscript to that chapter of my life is where it gets extremely
complicated for me, because information came to light about who he was
and how he was behaving that I didn’t know during my already very
difficult time with him. So I’m not sure. I’m not sure how I feel.”
“It probably helps that he never tried to enter me.”
…he did, though.
The bees didn’t keep him away?
Uhh . . . he did, though. Have people really forgotten that part of the story already?
There’s plenty of people that seem to be commenting here in ignorance both of her history with Weinstein, and her role in helping to bring him down, which turns out to be considerable.
Can’t let even the most basic amount of research get in the way of ~my snarky superiority~
The cooter stone didn’t protect her?
Very edgy, son.
You’d think they’d at least recall it in reference to the Brad Pitt threatening Weinstein story.
She seems to have…
YOU COULD PROBABLY TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE IGNORANT BUT I DOUBT YOU COULD
THE CAPS LOCK KEY WAS JAMMED?
Normally I’d love the opportunity to take the piss out of Paltrow but I think I’ll pass just this once. If you haven’t had the misfortune of having someone important in your life revealed to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing consider yourself lucky.
This is the take I dug through the comments for.
“I’m 99% made out of mislabeled GMO glycerin…and this is real…so syntax error…”
She doesn’t know when she’s beaten. She doesn’t know when she’s winning either. She doesn’t have any sort of sensory apparatus!
“What a great twit!”
I don’t like to be binary about people either Gwyneth… you’re a complete ass hat and I’m done with your BS. Uncoupling activate!
Like I give a shit about the opinion on Weinstein from either one of the white privilege twins.
Yes, I suppose we are all either equal parts or varying percentages of two things.
I’d say it’s usually hundreds or thousands of things.
“he never made me suck his dick and helped me make a lot of money. I don’t know how I feel”
Actually, he did try to fuck her, you waste of space.
“Actually, he did try to fuck her, you waste of space.”
Where did j4x_ say he didn’t try to fuck her.
Do you know how to read? Do you have the ability to comprehend what you read?
Aha.More fuel for my initial take, which was, “fuck this vapid hoe blatently making excuses for Weinstein”
Seems like a fair answer.
Everyone knows what Weinstein is at this point. I don’t understand the purpose of asking anyone something like “What do you feel about Weinstein?” What could possibly be the purpose of a question like that, other than to hope they drop the ball in their answer in some way that leads to something clickbaitish.HEY EVERYONE, INSTEAD OF SAYING HE’S EQUITABLE TO HITLER PALTROW SAYS “I’m not sure how I feel,” AND YOU BELIEVE WHAT SHE FEELS AFTER LEARNING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK DOCTORS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!
I guess he didn’t steam her vagina, then.
Read: she stll wants to work.
Me thinks she needs to lay off her supplies of Goop vaginal eggs and use her brains for a few seconds.
Believe women.Unless they express an opinion that you don’t agree with.
Perhaps, “unless they are trying to diminish the holiness of sexual assault”.That might be more accurate
Listen, I’d blow Mr. Weinstein for a 3 picture deal.
“On the one hand, he’s an amoral monster who abused his power to precision levels, employs hitmen and spies as enforcers, and ruined dozens of people’s lives to decades’ worth of crickets from everyone in the business. He may have even had people killed.”“But on the other hand, he’s rich. So I’m *conflicted*!”
I had thought discovering people you loved were horrible monsters was just part of life. And yet Paltrow appears to struggle with this concept. There are multiple internet commenters championing the childish innocence of this white woman, as there always are, even when it’s a movie whose villain is a white woman. What other basic developmental steps has this rich white woman skipped? Discovering what death is? Learning Santa isn’t real? Does peek-a-boo still work on her?