金融時(shí)報(bào):哈維·韋恩斯坦：好萊塢的衣冠禽獸

哈維·韋恩斯坦：好萊塢的衣冠禽獸

哈維·韋恩斯坦的性侵丑聞揭露了影視業(yè)中女性從業(yè)者所面臨的人身威脅。位高權(quán)重的男人們以種種下作手段炫耀他們的統(tǒng)治地位已經(jīng)成了電影行業(yè)的一種常態(tài)。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

chronicle ['kr?n?kl] vt. 記錄

signifier ['s?ɡn?fa??(r)] n. 示意，記號(hào)

sordid ['s??d?d] adj. 卑鄙的, 無恥的

recumbent[r?'k?mb?nt] adj. 側(cè)臥的，休息的

hellish['hel??] adj. 地獄的，兇惡的

capricious[k?'pr???s] adj. 變化無常的，任性的

entrant['entr?nt] n. 競賽者，新就業(yè)者

Harvey Weinstein is Hollywood’s monster(779 words)

By John Gapper

If it takes a story in The New York Times to alert a company’s directors to prolonged misconduct by its co-founder, they are not paying much attention. Perhaps The Weinstein Company’s board did not want to listen for allegations of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein, or notice that he was a bully.

It may have come as a surprise to them that Mr Weinstein had reached private settlements with women who chronicled his alleged harassment in hotel suites over three decades. It cannot have been news that a man who propped a baseball bat in his office as his personal style signifier was prone to volcanic fits of temper and used intimidation as a management technique.

This is Hollywood, where the “casting couch” — the sordid tradition of film executives abusing their power to make female performers have sex with them — reaches back to studio bosses in the 1940s such as Darryl F Zanuck. “I’ve slept with producers, I’d be a liar if I said I didn’t,” Marilyn Monroe once said. “If you didn’t go along, there were 25 girls who would.”

The sexual side of Hollywood exploitation occurs behind closed doors. But displays of male dominance are treated not as a regrettable side-effect of creativity but as a routine part of how business gets done. The difference with Mr Weinstein is that he took the opportunity for abuse to horrifying extremes: he is Hollywood’s monster.

A few months ago, I received a message that a Hollywood director wanted to meet me. He had directed a hit film, was looking for fresh material in the business world, and apparently thought that I might help him. Flattered, I presented myself at a hotel in London to be greeted by several female assistants and ushered to his suite.

It soon became clear that the director had no idea who I was, or what I was doing there; he thought I was another journalist there to quiz him. It was the end of a day of interviews for the international release of his film, he was tired and had a sore back. He lay on a sofa and talked while recumbent.

It was not a distressing experience; in the end, it was amusing. But it was a tiny example of how the film business works: the agents and enablers who initially spread word of interest; the distant summons to a hotel room; a kinglike director who assumes that the world is one big casting call.

Mr Weinstein’s rise illustrates the point made by Jeffrey Pfeffer, a Stanford professor, in an article titled “Why the assholes are winning”. As Prof Pfeffer wrote, leaders who create “toxic and hellish work environments” are often admired nonetheless: “It seemingly doesn’t matter what an individual or a company does . . . as long as they are sufficiently rich and successful.”

This does not just describe Hollywood: the powerful and capricious chief executive with broad freedom to act as he or she chooses is a feature of much of the media industry. There is good reason: one US study found at companies gain from having strong leaders when they are in unstable industries in which decisions must be made rapidly and there is a threat of new entrants.

A CEO can draw more authority from also being a founder, and from the “soft power” of having close ties to other board members. In Mr Weinstein’s case, his brother and co-founder Bob Weinstein sits on the board that finally dismissed him this week.

At Miramax, the company which the brothers sold to Walt Disney in 1993, Harvey Weinstein used charisma to lure and nurture directors such as Quentin Tarantino. But power has a dark side if it is unrestrained. In Down and Dirty Pictures, his book about Miramax, Peter Biskind described the Weinstein brothers’ reputation “for brilliance but also for malice and brutality”.

Another study of the traits of dominant people noted that greater power triggers “disinhibited behaviour”. In other words, leaders who are allowed to do whatever they want can end up behaving very badly. The powerful “more frequently act on their desires in a socially inappropriate way”, the authors concluded.

Over-eating, over-aggression and predatory sexual behaviour were among syndromes they described for “high status, powerful individuals” whose moods swing from irritability into mania. Mr Weinstein once claimed that his tantrums were caused by eating too much sugar, and that he had behaved himself better after stopping.

This is what an industry that runs on power encourages. It has business logic, but Mr Weinstein’s long inviolability proves its perils. When personal patronage is the surest route from obscurity to glamour, danger lurks.

The fact that Hollywood has been like this for so long shows how resistant it is to reform, but the Weinstein scandal could bring progress at last. Greater honesty would also help.

請(qǐng)根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測(cè)題目：

1.What does “casting couch” refer to according to the article ?

A. Persons guilty of harassment settle claims and demand non-disclosure clauses.

B. Film studios secretly solicit casting directors for a prostitute or a brothel.

C. Film executives demand sexual favors in return for casting a performer in a film.

D. Film executives use force, threat, or coercion to aggressively dominate actresses.

答案(1)

2.Peter Biskind's book Down and Dirty Pictures reveals that ____.

A. the Weinstein brothers has a bad reputation for malice and brutality.

B. people tend to admire successful company leaders no matter what he does.

C. companies gain from strong leaders when they are in unstable industries.

D. the powerful and capricious leader is a feature of much of the media industry.

答案(2)

3.Which of the following statements about The Weinstein Company is true ?

A. The film studio has benefited a lot from Harvey Weinstein's strong leadership.

B. It was founded by Harvey and Bob Weinstein and was later sold to Walt Disney.

C. The company's board decided to dismissed Harvey Weinstein in wake of sex scandal.

D. The company has long been notorious for asking actresses to offer sexual services.

答案(3)

4.According to the study, which of the following is not among the symptoms high status, powerful individuals often have ?

A. Predatory sexual behaviour.

B. Brutal manner.

C. Over-eating.

D. Over-aggression.

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：C.Film executives demand sexual favors in return for casting a performer in a film.

解釋：“Casting Couch”指電影制作人利用他們的權(quán)利迫使女演員與他們發(fā)生性關(guān)系。

(2) 答案：A.the Weinstein brothers has a bad reputation for malice and brutality.

解釋：Peter Biskind在他所著的關(guān)于米拉麥克斯影業(yè)的書《Down and Dirty Pictures》中揭露，韋恩斯坦兄弟非常精明強(qiáng)干，同時(shí)也出了名了的惡毒野蠻。

(3) 答案：A.The company's board decided to dismissed Harvey Weinstein in wake of sex scandal.

解釋：哈維·韋恩斯坦的兄弟和合伙人鮑勃·韋恩斯坦本周決定將其解雇。

(4) 答案：B.Brutal manner.

解釋：位高權(quán)重的人常常被一些列綜合征困擾，包括暴食、攻擊性過強(qiáng)以及掠奪性性行為。

《金融時(shí)報(bào)》原文閱讀精選集