Gwyneth Paltrow Has Every Right To Feel Conflicted About Harvey Weinstein

She was one of the key figures that ushered in the MeToo movement.

We pull no punches when it comes to Gwyneth Paltrow and the many, many weird GOOPy things she does. But when it comes to serious matters like Harvey Weinstein and MeToo, we have nothing but respect for the big part she played in the movement.

She’s spoken a bit about her past experiences with sexual harassment at the hands of Weinstein and played a huge part in encouraging other victims to come forward with their own stories, all of which resulted in the MeToo movement happening.

But despite having successfully made her way out of Harvey Weinstein’s influence after her Oscar win for Shakespeare In Love, Gwyneth Paltrow will forever be linked to the disgraced movie mogul in some form and it’s clear that this weighs on her.

Speaking to Andrew Ross at the New York Times’ Dealbook conference (via CNN), she says that her feelings about Harvey Weinstein, particularly during the MeToo era, are complication and she ultimately isn’t sure how she feels about him.

“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.”

This may initially sound like some fence sitting from Gwyneth but she is more than in her right to feel conflicted about Harvey Weinstein.

People need to remember she’s also a victim and it’s not uncommon for victims to feel this way. When you combine this with the fact that Weinstein played such a big part in her successful career, it’s hard not to empathise with her and the complicated feelings she has regarding her situation.

This isn’t Gwyneth Paltrow trying to defend Weinstein or trying to avoid answering the question, it’s her working through something very difficult and that’s perfectly okay.

When asked how disgraced men like Weinstein, who goes on trial beginning January 6, 2020, could somehow repent themselves, Gwyneth thinks that a potential pathway will involve these men losing power:

“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.”

Gwyneth did all the right things regarding the Harvey Weinstein/MeToo saga. If she seems unsure and conflicted about the whole thing, she’s well within her right to feel that way.

For A Dollar, Who Would You Have Sex With: Chris Evans Or Paul Rudd?

Be honest.

In an age of fake news and misrepresentation of facts, there are two things that remain true no matter how much spin you try to put on it: Chris Evans and Paul Rudd are two gorgeous men.

And as one is wont to do when two mega attractive Hollywood celebrities are talked about in the same sentence, you are obligated to ponder on the following question: who would you rather bone, Chris Evans or Paul Rudd?

This isn’t just some thirsty little hypothetical that I’ve been dwelling on for years (well, mostly). I bring this up because of Chris Evans’ appearance on Billy Eichner‘s popular Billy on the Street series.

The first chunk of the episode is the usual collection of greatest hits from all the other Billy of the Street episodes – Billy yelling a lot, many confused strangers, the celebrity guest being dragged along for the ride – but things get taken up a notch when Billy and Chris happen to run into Paul Rudd on the street.

And since it was a golden opportunity for some shenanigans, Billy and Chris decide to take Paul along for a lightning round of asking people, “for a dollar, who would you have sex with: Chris Evans or Paul Rudd?”

Look, it’s a big question and one we should dedicate a lot of time pondering because choosing between Chris Evans and Paul Rudd is one of the most difficult hypotheticals ever devised.

On one hand, you have a hunky chap whose charm and surprising intelligence is matched by his Captain America physique and ability to rock a full beard.

But on the other hand, you have an immortal vampire who never ages and is capable of keeping you entertained from now until the end of time (or your life) with his comedic chops. You will have to deal with the fact that he’s married and has two kids but that’s easily swept under the rug.

So what’s it going to be (for a dollar): Chris Evans or Paul Rudd?

If it was a game of “bone, marry or kill”, I’d bone Chris, marry Paul, and kill Chris Pratt because I needed a third name and Pratt is the worst.

But since that isn’t the question, here’s my answer because I’m a cop out and it’s the only one that makes sense:

Let James Dean Rest In Peace, There Are Plenty Of Other Actors Out There

I'm sure he'd absolutely be thrilled with being brought back to life using CGI.

In the pantheon of people who have been taken away from us far too soon, Rebel Without a Cause star James Dean is at the top of the list. The leather jacket-wearing, cigarette-toting cultural icon who couldn’t take a bad photo if he tried died in a 1955 car crash at just 24 years old, but his legend continues to live on.

Well it seems like Hollywood isn’t content with having just James Dean’s legend living on because it’s just gone and “cast” the late star in a new film.

You heard me.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Rebel Without a Cause star will be brought back to “life” using CGI for the role of Rogan in the upcoming Vietnam action-drama, Finding Jack.

It’s not just a short little cameo (ala Carrie Fisher in Rogue One) either as Dean will be playing a sizeable “secondary lead role”. The plan is to recreate the late actor with CGI using actual footage and photos while someone else provides the voice.

As for why Dean was cast instead of, I don’t know, the many living actors currently working in Hollywood, Finding Jack co-director Anton Ernst explains:

“We searched high and low for the perfect character to portray the role of Rogan, which has some extreme complex character arcs, and after months of research, we decided on James Dean.”

Hoo boy.

James Dean was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of star and replicating him using CGI isn’t just disrespectful, it’s completely pointless. Art isn’t something a computer can just pump out and it’s already been proven that trying to do so will end in nothing but misery (and unintentional hilarity).

Why do you think Rebel Without a Cause hasn’t been remade yet? There was only one James Dean and he’s gone, and no amount of computer trickery can recreate what he brought to the movie screen.

Then there’s the gross commercial aspect of this whole stunt casting saga. I get that Hollywood exists to make money, but shamelessly capitalising on a deceased star’s image like this is pretty unsavoury, even for Hollywood.

This whole thing also takes that god-awful excuse of “oh we simply couldn’t find the right actor/actress for the role” to a new low. I simply refuse to believe there isn’t an actor/actress alive right now who could handle the role of Rogan in Finding Jack.

This whole thing over why resurrecting James Dean using CGI is a terrible idea is perhaps best summed up by none other than Chris Evans:

It’s already weird enough to recreate deceased actors using CGI for roles they previously played (like Peter Cushing in Rogue One…again), let alone generating an entirely new character and performance.

So to those geniuses working on Finding Jack who thought this whole thing was a good idea, please just let James Dean rest in peace and go find another actor. Hollywood isn’t short on talented folk who could easily play the role.

Honestly, the Finding Jack directors should just go cast Scarlet Johannson or something at this point. She’ll be a massive improvement over the plans they have for James Dean.

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us