More
than 50 women have made allegations against Harvey
Weinstein and the number continues
to grow each day. Among the Hollywood mogul’s accusers are household names who
were still looking to establish themselves when the alleged offences took place
[1].
Subsequently, he was fired from his company Weinstein co., however; this
doesn’t counter the tradition of abuse that has become a norm within Hollywood.
The first incident of sexual assault by
powerful producer dates back 1921when
Roscoe’ fatty’ Arbuckle raped Virginia Rappe at a party. The injuries
were so severe that she died a few days later however; Hollywood performed its
first cover-up and blamed her injuries on backstreet abortions. Shirley Temple
recalled that Arthur Freed, a producer at MGM, exposed himself to her when she
was 12 years old. Marilyn Monroe
compared Hollywood to an “overcrowded brothel” [2]. The
vastly disproportionate power dynamics between men and women weren’t a
coincidence though; they were the result of years of weeding out strong women
and normalizing sexism.
As
the film business settled in a Californian orange grove, thousands of young
American women made their way to Hollywood hoping to become stars. Cinema had
become a vastly lucrative business, but it was star names, not studio brands
that sold tickets. In the 1920s, as actress Louise Brooks describes it, when
the producers realized that female stars were a threat to their dominance, they
waged “a concerted war on the star system”, and abusing the power they had to
make or break an actor’s career. Female writers and producers such as Frances
Marion and June Mathis, who had held senior positions in the silent-era industry,
were squeezed out by the 30s, and soon the business was being run by a group of
male executives, many of whom obsessively controlled the films they produced
and the women who starred in them[3]. Once
women became a star her identity was in the hands of these producers, they
created and destroyed actresses as they liked. The star was a creation of the
executive’s imagination, and his corporate asset, to be discarded as soon as
she was tagged “box-office poison” [4].
The
degree of control granted to producers led way to the casting couch culture.
The casting couch is used in reference to the supposed practice whereby
actresses are awarded parts in films or plays in return for granting sexual
favors to the casting director.
Foster Hirsch, author of The Boys From Syracuse: The Shuberts’ Theatrical
Empire,
details how Lee Shubert, the eldest of three brothers who helped establish
Broadway’s theater district in the first two decades of the 20th century, kept
“an elegantly furnished boudoir, reserved for leading ladies and promising ingénues,
and a shabby, spartanly furnished room with a single couch where he met chorus
girls and soubrettes.” one of those dancers,
Agnes de Mille, recalled about the Shubert brothers, “If you didn’t sleep with
them you didn’t get the part. The Shuberts ran a brothel: Let them sue me” [5]. The
practice goes back to the early 1960s when Joan Collins claimed
that she lost the lead in Joseph L. Mickiewicz’s
epic Cleopatra after the studio’s top dog explained that the
price for such an illustrious part was sex [6]. The
extent of the problem is clearly highlighted when even the biggest female stars
like Angelina Jolie are not exempted. It proves that this issue has its roots
in a much deeper sociological idea. Icelandic singer bjork recalls that when she worked with a “Danish director” her
“humiliation and role as a lesser sexually harassed being was the norm … it is
a universal thing that a director can touch and harass his actresses at will
and the institution of film allows it” [7]. Why is it considered normal for
powerful men to harass women in the industry? The answer lies in althrusser's
theory of the ideological state apparatus.
In
Althusser’s view, these ideological apparatuses can properly be described as
belonging to the state, even if they appear formally separate from it. He
argues that the state actually has two components: a repressive state
apparatus, which includes the army, the police, and the courts, and enforces
class domination directly, and the ideological state apparatuses (ISA), which
maintain complicity and identification with class society [8]. There’s
two ways to reproduce class structure: controlling the means of production and ideological
control. The means of production isolates the proletariat from economic freedom
and the ISA legitimizes this isolation.
The ISA is established through media control. The ownership of media
majorly belongs to the elite class that can influence the media content to enforce
class structures and submission to the bourgeoisie. They manipulate the media
content to reinstate the class hierarchy in the minds of the masses. The ISA
puts certain values in focus to instill them in the minds of the masses, so
that it is easier to control them. ISA stresses obedience and acceptance of the
ruling class as superior. It propagates the idea the isolation from the means
of production is justified. Instead they way to success are through obedience
of the capitalists and an acceptance of the system. Thereby, delaying class
consciousness because the masses start accepts their exploitation as a norm.
The situation in Hollywood works on the same Marxist principles.
The bourgeoisie are the producers who exploit the proletariat i.e. actors. In a
male dominated industry, the power was held by a few production houses women
have two choices: accept their advances
or sacrifice their career. It is an unfair choice to present but then again the
balance of power within the industry is unfair. Over time power shifted from
production houses to directors, which, not so surprisingly, were also male.
This embedded the idea of the’ casting couch’ within the members of Hollywood;
it became something whose existence cannot be denied. The idea of a casting
couch was institutionalized by the ideological state apparatus because it
championed values such as obedience and acceptance of the social structure. It
advocates submission to those who control the means of production and that they
have a right to exploit their workers. In this sense, directors where seen as
landowners or factory owners were seen in the past, granting them ample access
to exploit these actresses. Since most new actresses are mostly from the middle
class looking to have a chance at stardom, they mirror a proletariat hungry for
a job. This establishes hierarchy let him abuse women without consequences. The
ISA then legitimizes these actions by imbedding into people’s minds that this behavior
is simply something to be expected of the elite. That it normal, almost like a rite
of passage, for young women to be subject to the casting couch, because they
must listen to the producers.
Additionally, Marxist feminist theory of
double jeopardy applies here as well. Women suffer because of both sexism and
capitalism. They are first exploited for labor by the capitalist society, as
most of these aspiring actresses belong to the middle class. On top of that,
they are exploited by men in the industry because of their gender. The
historical context proves that this is something that has been going on since
the inception of Hollywood but just wasn't questioned till now. The most
plausible reason for this is the ideological state apparatus theory. If Althrusser’s
thesis is correct, it is indeed the ideological control perpetuated by the
media itself that legitimizes sexual advances by powerful men. Women are
conditioned into believing this behavior is okay by two sources: men and the bourgeoisie.
In Hollywood, the rich and powerful are inherently men. 96% of the directors of last year’s top grossing films were men
[9]. For example, Weinstein was allowed to operate like this, and for so
long, because the industry has been all-too-comfortable with the very notion of
the casting couch [10]. Several Prominent actors and directors like woody Allen, Kevin
Spacey, Robert de Niro, Bill Cosby, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon of all been accused
of sexual harassment. Infect, Bill Cosby’s defense on the matter was ‘Even if proven (and it
could not be), the age-old ‘casting couch’ is not unique to Mr. Cosby, and thus
not a ‘signature’ nor a basis for the admissibility of these witnesses’
stories, let alone a conviction.’[11]
This exploitation is especially
prominent in Hollywood because of its unique atmosphere. In the media, there is
no tangible good produced by actors, rather it’s the actors persona that is to
be up for sale. Controversial as it may be, this makes it very easy for men to
blur the lines between work and sexual exploitation. Hollywood was been
described as ‘a town where everyone is selling body and soul for fame and
fortune and all – especially women – are considered commodities’ by Peter
Keough in 1995[12]. In many
instances, directors and producers have demanded women to perform sexual acts
in an audition. Helen Mire said she was forced
to show off her body for director Michael Winner while seeking a role in one of
his projects in 1964[13]. Cara Delavigne came
forward, alleging Weinstein had sexually harassed her when she first started
work as an actress. He had urged her to kiss another woman, she claimed, before
trying to kiss her himself [14]. However, the ISA does not exist in vacuum. The
ISA was enhanced by the averment present in Hollywood. Rampant elitist culture
also legitimized inappropriate behavior; new girls were simply expected to put
up with whatever well established directors did.
On top of that, Proper mechanisms
exist to dismiss complaints. Harvey Weinstein reached more than 6 settlements
with the victims. The silencing mechanism is very robust; if you speak out
we'll ruin your career. In part, the victims feel trapped into silence. They feel
powerless against the abuser who could end their career or smear their name –
and makes open threats to do so. The ‘you’ll never work in this town again’ [14]. Actress Ashley Judd says that at
the time of the incident she thought, ‘How
do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey
Weinstein?’[15].
This predatory behavior
is propagated by two forces: acceptance and fear. Acceptance of the fact that
this is how the world - and the industry- works. That producers and directors
can exploit their power over you and you just have to roll with it. Fear works
to silence you, because you don’t want your career to end or become the next Patricia
Douglas. The ISA is to blame for both of these sentiments. First, it has made
us accept exploitation of workers as a norm and second, it has made protest
illegitimate. Obedience requires us to remain silent if our rights are
inflicted, thus speaking out no longer remains an option. This is proven by the
fact that it took 3 decades and over 50 women for someone to finally speak out
against Harvey Weinstein. We need to recognize the stimulus of our behavior if
we are to rectify it. We have been secretly enrolled in the working class
mentality by our media. The ISA has conditioned us to accept exploitation of
ourselves and our peers as a norm, and Hollywood is no exception. The very idea
of the ‘casting couch’ is a testament to that.
