Cate Blanchett is the president of this year’s Cannes Film Festival jury. Which I forgot about until just now. That will be fun just from a fashion standpoint – Blanchett either wears absurd, controversial fashion or she wears the absolute best stuff, and nothing in-between. Like, I doubt we’ll see her in Elie Saab, you know? To promote the Cannes Film Festival, Blanchett sat down with Variety to discuss Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Time’s Up, pay equality and a hell of a lot more. It’s a good read, even though Cate doesn’t want to get into too many intimate details about what exactly Weinstein said and did to her – you can read the full piece here. Some highlights:
Whether she’s a feminist: “Yes, absolutely. I never thought otherwise. I’ve never understood the stigma around that because it’s really just a drive toward equality. It’s not about building a matriarchy, although given the endless millennia that we’ve labored under a patriarchy I wouldn’t mind a small slice of matriarchy somewhere.
Whether she’s ever been sexually harassed: “Well, there’s layers and layers to sexual harassment. I’ve been pestered, of course. I don’t know that there are many people who haven’t been.
Whether Harvey Weinstein ever behaved inappropriately towards her: “With me, yes. I think he really primarily preyed, like most predators, on the vulnerable. I mean I got a bad feeling from him. … He would often say to me, ‘We’re not friends.’ [Meaning], I wouldn’t do what he was asking me to do. [When asked to clarify, Blanchett declined to specify.]… I’m interested in those people being prosecuted. We have to set a legal precedent.
Getting predators arrested, prosecuted & sent to jail: “I think it’s really important that people get tried through the judicial system. It’s a really important arm of democracy that we must uphold because it’s under threat from a lot of different quarters.
What she thinks about Dylan Farrow’s claims: “Obviously, Dylan Farrow has been living in a world of pain, and if the case has not been properly tried, then it needs to be reopened and go back into court because that’s a place where those things get solved.
Whether she would work with Weinstein or Allen again: “I don’t think Harvey will be making films with anybody. He was brought on as the producer on many films that I had absolutely no say on. I didn’t have a creative or functional relationship with him. Would I work with Woody again? I had a very productive time working with Woody, and he has written some of the most extraordinary roles for women. But at the time I worked with him I knew absolutely nothing about what was going on, and it came out subsequently. But, far more important than me adding to yet another headline … and finger-pointing is, if that issue has not been dealt with … I am absolutely for it to go back into the courts because there lies the solution.
The last time Cate did a longer interview, it was in March of this year and she was asked a lot about Dylan Farrow – go here to review. There’s definitely a slow evolution on what Cate says about Dylan and Woody, and I keep waiting for Cate to speak as if she’s really sat down and read about the case and, like, watched one of Dylan’s interviews or something. Dylan explains what happened very well, and she explains why there was no prosecution of Woody Allen at the time. Saying now, decades later, that she hopes that Dylan’s case can be re-opened is… not likely. It’s actually just a filler opinion, a cop-out, rather than a substantive statement about whether we should believe women and believe victims and actually work to push predators out of their jobs.
I am interested in hearing more about what Cate has to say about Weinstein though – he really did produce a number of her films. But she seems very touchy about not wanting to be a “headline” about it. Yeah, well… Ashley Judd didn’t want to be a headline about it either. Neither did Gwyneth, or Angelina or Annabella Sciorra or Lupita Nyong’o. But they came out and told their stories so other victims wouldn’t feel alone. But I understand: it’s Cate’s right to not speak about it too. We have to respect that at well. That being said, it sounds like Cate is coming dangerously close to saying that Weinstein never tried to rape her because she was too strong, i.e. not “vulnerable.”
Cover courtesy of Variety, additional photos courtesy of WENN and Getty.
Everything else aside, WTF did they do to her face on that cover?
I came here to say the same thing: she looks like Madonna!
I wish women would STOP with the idea that only the vulnerable or “weak” get assaulted. Such a harmful line to even put out there.
And her answer on Woody is still…like you really haven’t seen or absorbed anything that has been written about the case have you? Nor do you know the stats on rape cases and the court system here. Rarely do we get a win there. Cosby’s verdict was truly shocking to me. That’s how little faith I have in the system (among many many other reasons).
Ultimately this interview is meh for me.
She didn’t say weak, she said vulnerable. It is a simple fact for me to say that as a privileged white woman of means with a strong family and great job with strong HR policies that I am less vulnerable to sexual assault and violence than a trans woman, a woman living on the streets, or a woman struggling with addiction. It doesn’t mean any of them are weak, far from it. It also doesn’t mean I’m not vulnerable at all, just less so. Weinstein was unique because his position of power made almost everyone vulnerable to him. None of these women were weak but yes, some were more vulnerable.
Exactly. Excellently said.
Well said. This was my interpretation as well. He did seem to target those people over which he had some kind of leverage, usually with their careers.
I see that at where I work now, but I think vulnerable is the absolute wrong word. My boss threatens and bullies the powerless. He steers clear of me but goes after those who are new, or have no tenure, or are in the lowest positions. He punches/ bullies down.
That is what I was thinking she. I read her comments.
But she knew nothing about Woody A? Was she frozen in a time machine? BS on that.
I no longer care for her…onscreen or off….
+1
I can’t stand her anymore. Her acting is hammy as hell. She put in her Cannes bio that she “was one of the first in Hollywood to speak out against Harvey Weinstein.” BULLSHIT! She released a perfunctory statement just like everybody else, long after the story had broken, at no personal risk to herself whatsoever.
And she needs to stop pretending like she had no way of knowing what happened with Dylan Farrow before she worked with Woody Allen. His marriage to Soon-Yi and the custody battle with Mia are common knowledge and if you are going to work with somebody that messy, you look into that stuff. She just didn’t care.
She has basically said over and over again that she won’t acknowledge any accusations unless they are prosecuted through the court system. Eff her. For many victims, it’s not a realistic option. That’s just her way of not taking responsibility for working with predators who can advance her career and win her Oscars.
@flatsy
Thank you and +1
Blanchett is a big hypocrite. On the one hand she’s bringjng up the rear accusing Weinstein of affecting her career and harassment…
..and yet Dylan needs a verdict in a court of law, for Blanchett to criticize and say no to Woody Allen or acknowledge he’s problematic re young girls at least?
Come on. Blanchett is trash.
If Weinstein had done what she said, why did she ever work with him again, or even be photographed with him?
He came on to Angelina Jolie, she rebuffed him and swore she’d never have anything to do with him again, and she never has. Too bad all the women did not think the same way.
The photos of Gwyneth Paltrow sitting on his lap just a couple years ago and hugging him like a lover disgusts me.
There’s a lot of good expertise evidence available as to the variety of ways people respond to harassment and assault. People often don’t respond how we expect.
It is common for women in particular to minimize what happened to them, to not confront the person who hurt them, and sometimes even be friendly with them or have a relationship with them. Go do some reading on the expert who was brought on to testify by the Cosby prosecutors. She is a real expert in the area of response to trauma.
What she is saying is true- predators do prey on weakness. I am a lawyer who does primarily sexual harassment investigations. What I see over and over again is that these men will behave one way with those they think have power and another way with those that don’t. It’s not about victims blaming- it’s about identifying the very targeted, very intentional behavior of predators. They can perfectly well control it because they will when they think they can’t get away with it. It’s not about a woman being individually strong or weak- it’s aboit what the predator thinks of the woman’s position of organizational strength.
I’m not a lawyer, but I completely agree. They’re not dumb; they’re going to target the person they can get away with targeting. I think for some of them the real reward is “collecting” important people as their targets. Mira Sorvino. Princess Victoria. Taylor Swift.
Yes to this. I think the problem lies in the way we talk about sexual assault-we still don’t really talk or have conversations about the motivations of men. Like, why does Louis CK get off jerking off in front of women who don’t want to see his dick? Why did Cosby like having sex with unconscious women? We don’t really talk about these things, and when we see predators praying on the vulnerable it becomes about how women need to change themselves to be less vulnerable. Which is absolutely ridiculous, and wrong, and disgusting. But I think a lot of women also like this fairytale because it gives them a false sense of security-if I’m strong, I’m safe, it won’t happen to me.
Absolutely. He preyed – from his position of immense power and wasta – on those who didn’t have power and clout in Hollywood. They’re not weak in a personal sense, necessarily, but they’re vulnerable to exploitation given the great disparity in their positions vs Harvey’s within that industry. I’m sure he got away with more quid pro quo involving beautiful, unknown actresses than we will ever know about.
SO very well stated, momoffour! Thk u.
It seems like she’s trying to remain open minded, but not get involved. Which is fine if she really wasn’t involved. But It seems like she has experience here though that may help others. So in that case, staying quiet feels like a cop out.
Fortunately with Harvey Weinstein, he’s not onscreen, so we can still celebrate the work of all the artists on the films he was involved with, without continuing to celebrate him. Thankfully, he didn’t systematically insert his perversions into the film (as we now know he did do with the gratuitous sex scene in Frida). Just take the time to curse his name whenever that title card comes up.
I think she meant HW has always operated through his immense amount of power, which obviously made everyone “above” him vulnerable in comparison.
The word she used is vulnerable, not weak. And that’s perfectly reasonable. Using the promise of jobs (or the threat of their removal) to coerce sex is designed to exploit people who have vulnerability around their work. It’s ineffective if you, like Blanchette, are not vulnerable. And, this particular MO makes it much easier for men to get away with predatory behavior, as it leaves targeted women (and juries, by and large) with the impression that the women consented.
@drSnark
*high five for the comment* I came to say the exact same thing.
yes
Why do you need to hear more? Angelina has said nothing more either. People aren’t pressing her for the exact and dirty details. Cate rebuffed him. The story is really about the women he sexually harassed or molested or raped or those that rejected his aggressive behavior and their careers were affected by him in retaliation. That didn’t happen to Cate.
Well, whatever happened didn’t stop her to work with Woody Allen and to get an Oscar for said work. She as an Oscarwinning A-Lister enabled Woody Allen to work, so if she talks about how predators go for vulnerable women, maybe she should also think about how not to enable such men in general? If women with her power continue to enable such men, then she is participating in creating an environment that makes it impossible for vulnerable women to receive protection or to get heard.
I think it’s a dangerous argument to say that working with a predator equals enabling him.
She did not have a choice in appearing in Harvey’s movies and she has said that she was not aware of Allen’s history when she worked with him. I choose to believe her on this issue and even if she DID know I will say this: ALL of Hollywood kind of knew about Harvey, Allen and all the other predators long before the reckoning that startet last year.
I think it doesn’t help to retroactively crucify everyone who might have known something or heard a rumour. Her approach of “let’s get them prosecuted and into jail now that we’re talking about it” seems a lot more productive to me.
I got abused from a doctor. To be precise from a prof. of pyschiatry specialised in treating children and teenagers – he’s been over decades a well known expert in this field. He also worked as a court-appointed-expert in other fields. I was forced to talk to him against my will as a child because of issues my mum had. To this day, my father, a lawyer refuses to fully support or believe me because he knew that men who behaved so professional towards him.
That man abused children left and right over decades, focused on children in children’s homes. Every now and then some parents believed their children but they were shut down. In a very small area where everybody knows everybody and where constantly children tried to say they don’t want to be left alone alone with him and that he was harming them. At some point there was even a process which was swept under the carpet for not damaging his reputation. When the very first accusations were made public there could even be find articles in newspapers where it got explained that it might all be a communicative misunderstanding because you know there are pyschiatric examinations that make you feel abused. That would be normal and this kids were having issues anyway.
So I do not consider it to be dangerous to go for powerful people who turn a blind eye to such an amount of accusations in a professional field because they are making it impossible for the victims to come out. I consider it to be vital to held such people accountable and to make them aware that they are creating an environment that protects and enables predators. Especially in such cases. Woody Allen is not a whispered rumour round the corner. HW wasn’t either.
And if Kate WInslet is getting shit for working with Woody Allen, but for going for HW, then it is just fair to go for Cate Blanchett too.
@Jayna
I disagree. The story is about all the women who Harvey abused. Even the ones who managed to do fine without him as benefactor. Because who’s to say “their careers were unaffected,” everyone loves to tell the story of Blanchett vs Paltrow (Cate Oscar nom’d for Queen Elizabeth and Paltrow for Shakes in Love) The whispers were that Paltrow was, as Matt Damon called her ‘Queen of Miramax,’ so Harvey of course pulled all the strings and got the win for her. Cate could have been in Paltrow’s shoes perhaps if she had acquiesced to his advances maybe? It took her almost another 15 yrs to finally win the Oscar that many said she should have won that year.
That’s a career that was affected.
As for Angelina, I’m sure Harvey being on biard of films she was possibly reading scripts for, affected whether she took them or not-
she said outright she wasn’t going to work with with him ever. She never did. Say what you want the man has produced some of the best films in Hwood over a couple of decades. She immediately took herself out of contention early on.
Yes she achieved an Oscar win and more noms and waa highest paid, but it did affect her career.
So does it mean that Paltrow did the deed with Harvey to get that Oscar?
“So does it mean that Paltrow did the deed with Harvey to get that Oscar?”
No.
-.
Agreed. No one owes the world their story of rape/abuse/harassment if they don’t want to share it. I appreciate that it is immensely helpful to other victims, to feel not so alone, to have “back up” etc. But for some people it is TOO hard to speak of.
No one knows my story, not friends, not family…not my husband. When “metoo” started and everyone was adding the hashtag on facebook, I didn’t. I did feel bad about it…seeing how many other brave people came forward. But I just could NOT do it.
Cate has said a lot of problematic stuff, I don’t mean to defend her for all of it…….but if she went through something and doesn’t want to share the details, I do not have an issue with that.
I’m sorry but I didn’t get the impression that she was saying Harvey’s victims are weak AT ALL.
Vulnerability does not equal weakness. Language is a precise tool and I think it is doing her words a great disservice to misunderstand her like that.
Harvey was in a position of power over every. single. one. of his victims. That made them vulnerable to all kinds of consequences depending on how much power he had over them. We KNOW what the consequences for many of them were and how he used his influence to ruin their careers and lives. That is what vulnerable means and it has nothing to do with weakness.
thk u.
semantics.
Not reading this post as I’d like to continue to enjoy her work. Just wanted to say Cate Blanchett in suits is my favorite Cate Blanchett. Very few women can wear a suit like her.
Exactly! Words mean something. Let’s keep it that way.
… Her Dylan Farrow comments have been and continue to be weak. If she is going to make statements like that she really needs to do her homework about the American judicial system and why it is so hard for victims to come forward. In Dylan’s case, the reason for not going forward with the trial was made clear. Blanchett is either too lazy to educate herself, or is content living in a bubble of ignorance. Either way, it’s not a good look.
I am annoyed that her thoughts on working with Allen rest solely on whether or not a conviction is possible. As far as not knowing about the accusation made by Dylan prior to agreeing to work with him, she – and every other actor – knew damn good and well that he groomed and then married the daughter of his ex wife. That should have been plenty of reason for anyone to call this predator out for being exactly what he is, and walking away from his movies.
It is also not an objective measure: Weinstein went after who he THOUGHT would be vulnerable, in his mind. It doesn’t meant there is an objective measure of vulnerability or weakness, it’s that his predatory pattern drew on his assessment of a woman’s vulnerability, which is subjective and particular to his own thoughts and psychology. he obviously tried it on with Kate, and she didn’t go along and he reminded her of that every chance he got.
She sounds so ignorant. Does she think that the courts are fair and unbiased? Does she honestly think that victims are treated with respect?
Here in Ireland we just had a devastating court case against rugby players. The girls underwear was handed around at one point. It was a shambles.
It troubles me that she equates the difficulty victims have in getting their cases into the justice system with the difficulty the right-wing has in supporting a system of equal justice. Somehow this conflates how victims stymied by the power structure and statutes of limitation at least make their allegations public, with an organized political assault on equal/civil rights. NO.
I’m mad about her harping on “the courts” for a few reasons:
1-It’s not up to her to decide what the best course of action is for victims. That’s up to them to decide. That doesn’t mean they aren’t victims. Almost all of the #metoo stories we’ve been hearing since last October are things that would not realistically be punished by a court of law.
2-She is implicitly stating in regard to Dylan Farrow that if a case hasn’t prosecuted -AND WON – in court, then she has no moral obligation to acknowledge that the abuse happened.
I hate her. There are plenty of other men and women turned a blind eye to Woody’s personal behavior because working with him would be good for their careers. Most of them now have had the decency to admit they were wrong, or at least keep their mouths shut.
Cate is and has always has been up herself. I think Australia wanted to give her back to whoever borrowed her because she came home and made a mess of some theatre arts group. With her husband. She was really loud about it. And apparently told everyone she was Cate Blanchett and therefore not to be instructed or advised. Australians don’t play like that. They’ll feed you to crocodiles if you try that upstairs/downstairs shit. I think she is still seen as a cultural disaster over there.
I’m Aussie and she’s not seen as a cultural disaster over here. However your post seems to sum up the tall poppy syndrome. She and her hubby seem to see themselves as cutting-edge theatre people and they were managing the Sydney Theatre Co, which is probably the most significant theatre group here. I have no idea what happened during their tenure and it’s certainly not a big deal or reported as a big failure in the Aussie media (people don’t care) if they “failed” at it. Her hubby hanging out with that young actress and looking lovey dovey got far more attention.
Having spent all that time typing that however, I agree she’s magnanimous and quite overrated as an actor.
I like her so much as an actress, but I want her to do SOOO much better on her answers about Woody Allen. She seems to want to stay out of it, but after coming up in multiple interviews for years, it should be clear to her by now that she can’t. I’m willing to believe she didn’t know the full story when signing onto the film years ago, but she knows the full story now.
She keeps deflecting to “the courts, the courts” but he doesn’t have to be convicted for her to say no thanks to working with him again – many other actors have already done so. The justice system is one thing, but who you are willing to associate with is another.
If she doesn’t want to publicly share what Weinstein did to her, that’s her right.
Just a little gossip. I know a family that had her to their home for dinner. The instructions they received beforehand regarding her dietary preferences were ridiculous. However they said she was quite a lovely guest who made herself at home and set them at ease.
Starving herself?
For health reasons, I eat almost zero carbs and almost no sugar/caffeine. Everyone thinks I am ridiculous/crazy. Those exact words. When I stray, diarrhea (and more) is my constant companion. One time I was explaining to my doctor that it is tough to eat 100% clean at work, it is social bonding. For example that day, my finance department made a big cheesecake for everyone to celebrate my bday. I love my Doctor but she quickly retorted “but you can’t have any of that!” Sadly, I can’t talk about of the consequences because I will be profiled for dicey-health concerns. Cate could very well have something like me, you just can’t talk about it.
Good points. Many people’s food restrictions are health based.
Weinstein preyed on everybody because in comparison to him pretty much everybody in the movie world WAS WEAK.
Predators prey on the strong and the weak and the middle types. Predators don’t have one type. Some enjoy breaking the strong. Some enjoy breaking the weak. Else you could just teach everybody to not be a “predator’s type”.
I think Cate is afraid that if she says that she will never work with Allen again people could remind her that she got her second Oscar by working with him and demand to renounce that Oscar or smh.
She condemns Harvey and acts like he needs to be sent to jail, but then praises Woody Allen for writing good parts for women like it’s an excuse or something. Sounds to me like she wants the book thrown at Harvey because of the way he treated her personally, but because Woody was nice to her, she’ll overlook the accusations unless he’s convicted of something. Ugh…
Sure she knew absolutely nothing about Allen. The accusations started in 1992, prosecutors investigated in 1993 (Wiki’ing here), and he lost his custody case in 1993.
“But, far more important than me adding to yet another headline … and finger-pointing is, if that issue has not been dealt with … I am absolutely for it to go back into the courts because there lies the solution.”
Someone needs to introduce the woman to the concept of statutes of limitations.
Agree with you and all the commenters upboard noting she seems to be “letting herself off” or deflating a bit by saying it needs to be dealt with through the legal system.
Cate should have kept her mouth shut. She can attack Harvey because he isn’t coming back and will have no influence on her career. Woody, however, is still directing and writing so better not be critical in case there is future work there. She’s skating across serious issues and ghastly people in order to keep her own options open.
Big ol’ BS on the “I didn’t know” line. Nope. She’s still all the way cancelled.