The Movie Star and Me - supposedly about Jake Gyllenhaal

[Anonymous]

People, the correct spelling is “sleazeball.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I feel like this is kind of disturbing to me (the reactions in this thread). It seems like we almost all agree on these two things:

1) She was old enough to have some responsibility/culpability
2) He is a sleezeball

But our reaction is to scoff at her complaint (of COURSE he's a sleezeball why was she such a moron?) instead of feeling like it is changing our perception of him.

This guy is a famous sex symbol who gets fawned over wherever he goes but has a known reputation to collecting young naïve girls and playing with them and tossing them aside. And when one speaks up to say, 'you know, I think the way that guy behaves is pretty jerky and it made me feel incredibly crappy' we get upset with her for saying it at all.

I imagine she spoke up so maybe the next girl he's with googles him and sees this and thinks twice before allowing herself to become 'the next one'. Not to get him fired and certainly not for a criminal prosecution. Just a really fascinating dynamic here in the comments.

If we all agree he is a sleezeball, I don't see your point. She got what she wanted. If we are also critical of her behavior as an adult, that's separate.

I guess my point is that I think its interesting how many people are talking about her culpability while waving away his. And that the posts that talk about her, in contrast, feel the need to make sure they note that she was responsible too. So a guy swindles a lot of people out of some money with a lame scam. And when people relay the story are they talking about how 'those people were naive how did they fall for that' or are they talking about 'that predator who stole from those people.' Do they asterisk every criticism of the scammer with, 'but man those people were dumb'? People here seem to think its more important to focus on her flaws than his. And I think that is interesting because I think the scammer should always be the focus of the ire. And in these comments, even when we basically know he has a Leonardo DiCaprio esque pattern, people want to say she's dumb. Even you say she got what she wanted, but of course she didn't. Did she want to feel used, strung along and then professionally ostracized?

Asking this genuinely, how did he scam her? I don't think the parallel is apt.

Its just another situation where someone is acting badly, pretty clearly, and other people are a victim to that bad behavior but have a decent amount of culpability themselves in their victimhood.

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to think through why I don't like this piece, and I suppose it's because I am uncomfortable with "hit" pieces on people that just point out how this is a bad person who acted badly toward me (though not rising to the level of criminality or sexual harassment). Just -- this is a narcissistic person who strung me along, used me, and was very selfish. I know dozens of people who had done things like that -- both men and women. Some have done it to me or have done it to my friends, and I've been the shoulder to cry on.

It just has a tinge of revenge which makes me uncomfortable. I also wouldn't approve if someone I knew wrote all the terrible things his or her ex had done and blasted it out on social media. Just why?

I just don't see the social utility of it -- it doesn't appear to be advocating for changes in the workplace or to warn off interns who might encounter this person in the future. You wouldn't be warned because you googled this person because his name isn't even in it! You'd know if there were whispers about it among those who know the players -- but she herself was warned of his reputation and it didn't stop her! It just seems she wrote it to get back at him, knowing that he can't give his side of the story which is a bit unfair.

[Anonymous]

It’s icky all around. How can anyone find it surprising that in Hollywood a world in which youth is prized- men in power hold and dole out access, and young, attractive people (men, but primarily women) eagerly see themselves as “prized” and use that to gain access and power?? I would imagine working in that system could quickly skew ones sense of healthy relationships.
That perhaps it is an anomaly for a man to be drawn and working for that power over others to get his wants met - whatever they may be?

Similar in other fields, but in Hollywood this IS the model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to think through why I don't like this piece, and I suppose it's because I am uncomfortable with "hit" pieces on people that just point out how this is a bad person who acted badly toward me (though not rising to the level of criminality or sexual harassment). Just -- this is a narcissistic person who strung me along, used me, and was very selfish. I know dozens of people who had done things like that -- both men and women. Some have done it to me or have done it to my friends, and I've been the shoulder to cry on.

It just has a tinge of revenge which makes me uncomfortable. I also wouldn't approve if someone I knew wrote all the terrible things his or her ex had done and blasted it out on social media. Just why?

I just don't see the social utility of it -- it doesn't appear to be advocating for changes in the workplace or to warn off interns who might encounter this person in the future. You wouldn't be warned because you googled this person because his name isn't even in it! You'd know if there were whispers about it among those who know the players -- but she herself was warned of his reputation and it didn't stop her! It just seems she wrote it to get back at him, knowing that he can't give his side of the story which is a bit unfair.

I see this (I'm OP, and have posted in here very critical of him) perspective. I think there is a benefit to calling out this dynamic publicly to change things in the industry. I do think there is an overall very indulgent attitude in the current culture of expecting no one to ever be mean to you. And there is a lack of resilience in people in this way. I think the pendulum is swinging back and forth between calling these issues out and stopping these generational cycles of bad behavior (ALL women learn to deal with guys like this right?! she's not special!) and telling people to be less sensitive. I think its really difficult to figure out where the right line is. The line was not in the right place 10 years ago, I kind of agree its not in the right place now, but I'm not sure this woman's story crosses it into a bad territory for me. I do, however, think the Aziz Ansari one did. I thought that was ridiculous. So I guess we're all muddling towards a hopefully better future but its hard to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to think through why I don't like this piece, and I suppose it's because I am uncomfortable with "hit" pieces on people that just point out how this is a bad person who acted badly toward me (though not rising to the level of criminality or sexual harassment). Just -- this is a narcissistic person who strung me along, used me, and was very selfish. I know dozens of people who had done things like that -- both men and women. Some have done it to me or have done it to my friends, and I've been the shoulder to cry on.

It just has a tinge of revenge which makes me uncomfortable. I also wouldn't approve if someone I knew wrote all the terrible things his or her ex had done and blasted it out on social media. Just why?

I just don't see the social utility of it -- it doesn't appear to be advocating for changes in the workplace or to warn off interns who might encounter this person in the future. You wouldn't be warned because you googled this person because his name isn't even in it! You'd know if there were whispers about it among those who know the players -- but she herself was warned of his reputation and it didn't stop her! It just seems she wrote it to get back at him, knowing that he can't give his side of the story which is a bit unfair.

I see this (I'm OP, and have posted in here very critical of him) perspective. I think there is a benefit to calling out this dynamic publicly to change things in the industry. I do think there is an overall very indulgent attitude in the current culture of expecting no one to ever be mean to you. And there is a lack of resilience in people in this way. I think the pendulum is swinging back and forth between calling these issues out and stopping these generational cycles of bad behavior (ALL women learn to deal with guys like this right?! she's not special!) and telling people to be less sensitive. I think its really difficult to figure out where the right line is. The line was not in the right place 10 years ago, I kind of agree its not in the right place now, but I'm not sure this woman's story crosses it into a bad territory for me. I do, however, think the Aziz Ansari one did. I thought that was ridiculous. So I guess we're all muddling towards a hopefully better future but its hard to figure it out.

I think it's a bit dramatic, but I don't mind this particular piece. She doesn't call JG out specifically, but it's easy to infer it's him, based off his own public behavior of pursuing young ingenue types. He made his bed, by treating the women he sees poorly. If he doesn't want breakup songs written about him, or aspiring playwrights to recount her first bad relationship, maybe he should date more mature women.

I do think the Aziz Ansari article was in bad taste, though after one bad date.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t read JG as the villain of this piece.
The villains were all the jerks on production staff that
Just needed her to help coax that all important performance out of him.
Let’s be real, he’s no Mandy Patinkin. It seems like he wasn’t the choice of the director.
I was a little unclear about her mentor’s role. Didn’t she refer to her mentor as the composer?
This is about Sunday in the Park, right? Well that’s Sondheim.
Anyone have any clarity on what was what, and who was who?

[Anonymous]

I think part of the reason that this is landing the way it is, is becasue JG already has a sleazy reputation. Like with Franco -- everyone was like "uh, you were surprised he was a sleazeball?" So it is a little like giving your money to someone that calls on the phone and says you need to wire money to this address to get your grandma out of jail. Of course the other person is a bad person -- but no one is surprised by that.

I think the REAL villians of this story are the people that implied, or actually did act in a way, that tied her willingness to acede to sexual demands to her career prospects. It's not clear to me that JG did that (unlike a Lauer or Weinstein). Instead, it seems like OTHER people pimped her out, or assumed that JG would get mad if he was rejected, and so put pressure on her. Those people are awful, and they deserve to be called out for that behavior, if that's what they did. I don't know why they would assume that JG would be so fragile tat he couldn't handle someone telling him "sorry, not interested in that..." I assume he's a big boy with a solid ego that gets plenty of play and would just say "your loss!" and move on. From his perspective, they were probably mutually consenting adults that just wanted to flirt and have some hot sex and move on with their lives. He didn't hire her, right? Are we now saying that people can't have casual sex with co-workers? Only where there is an age differential? Or is this because people are assuming he had the power to fire her? It's not clear to me that he did, and I'd guess he probably didn't see himself in that role either.

There is probably a larger problem in acting, especially in Hollywood where:
1) the casting instinct is always to hire older, powerful men and younger, sweet-seeming women for romantic pairings; and
2) encourage blurring of lines because the acting is better when it's "method" or when there is real sexual tension.
The two things together are gross, in general. I remember reading an interview with Cary Grant where he said he retired from acting because he felt like he was an old man playing against girls -- one of his last movies, he was 60 and playing against Audrey Hepburn who was 35 (but seemed younger).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to think through why I don't like this piece, and I suppose it's because I am uncomfortable with "hit" pieces on people that just point out how this is a bad person who acted badly toward me (though not rising to the level of criminality or sexual harassment). Just -- this is a narcissistic person who strung me along, used me, and was very selfish. I know dozens of people who had done things like that -- both men and women. Some have done it to me or have done it to my friends, and I've been the shoulder to cry on.

It just has a tinge of revenge which makes me uncomfortable. I also wouldn't approve if someone I knew wrote all the terrible things his or her ex had done and blasted it out on social media. Just why?

I just don't see the social utility of it -- it doesn't appear to be advocating for changes in the workplace or to warn off interns who might encounter this person in the future. You wouldn't be warned because you googled this person because his name isn't even in it! You'd know if there were whispers about it among those who know the players -- but she herself was warned of his reputation and it didn't stop her! It just seems she wrote it to get back at him, knowing that he can't give his side of the story which is a bit unfair.

Sorta.

I mean, he’s a celebrity, so he has power. If he abuses it, then he should be prepared for his shenanigans to be publicized. Fame is a double-edged sword.

Sure, lots of people treat others like garbage—especially cute guys who know how to manipulate young women. I do believe that women need to take responsibility for their choices though. And, I don’t think actresses get a free pass here if/when they knowingly and willingly go the casting couch route to advance their career and then rewrite history to criticize the guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does feel sleazy -- her included. She had been in the business for years according to her and not like he screwed her the first time they met on the casting couch.

I don't understand younger women, all about women power except when it comes to them and ZERO personal responsibility.

This was a 19 year old who hadn’t even had a boyfriend yet. At 19 I was in a similar boat - a virgin with no experience with men. My first boyfriend was in college. It’s gross and creepy for a man twice her age in a position of power to aggressively pursue her.

She was 23 he was 35.

[Anonymous]

Not sure why some see him being sleazy. He flirted, she accepted flirtation. She pulled back when it came time for sex and he seemed to respect it. He didn’t force her to please him.

The people around her are the sleazy ones, IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why some see him being sleazy. He flirted, she accepted flirtation. She pulled back when it came time for sex and he seemed to respect it. He didn’t force her to please him.

The people around her are the sleazy ones, IMO

People see him as being sleazy because he's sleazy. When he was 30 he dated a 20 year old Taylor Swift. Sleazy.

[Anonymous]

If you don’t work in the industry, you just aren’t going to understand.
Actors are absolutely infantilized.
In a production like this, there would be a company manger as well as his coterie of management people.
The company manger is a glorified babysitter.
I’m not saying every actor is an ass…
But like … 72% are.
Seriously they are the worst.
Don’t get me wrong. I have many actor friends, but I would never rely on them for anything. They “play” for a job.
Company mangers get calls from actors in the production all times of day for things that any functional adult should be able to handle. “ I need a dentist” - at 2am…
“My Uber didn’t show” - 9 am ( 17 min late for rehearsal) etc etc
I write all of that to put the delicate coddling of JG into perspective. And no. The hot 23 year old intern isn’t yet hip to anything. Theatre productions are sprawling and it can take years to even completely understand the pecking order. Every contract is different, every regional house is different.
This chick didn’t have a clue.
The villains were the production staff ( mentor , director, producer etc) they were pleased as punch to whore her out, in the name of “art”. JG comes across like a million other dudes in the arts. He just makes more money than most. At least he stopped when he should have. It’s a tough lesson for her, but she’ll see his type coming a mile away next time. And there will be a next time. He’s a dime a dozen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t work in the industry, you just aren’t going to understand.
Actors are absolutely infantilized.
In a production like this, there would be a company manger as well as his coterie of management people.
The company manger is a glorified babysitter.
I’m not saying every actor is an ass…
But like … 72% are.
Seriously they are the worst.
Don’t get me wrong. I have many actor friends, but I would never rely on them for anything. They “play” for a job.
Company mangers get calls from actors in the production all times of day for things that any functional adult should be able to handle. “ I need a dentist” - at 2am…
“My Uber didn’t show” - 9 am ( 17 min late for rehearsal) etc etc
I write all of that to put the delicate coddling of JG into perspective. And no. The hot 23 year old intern isn’t yet hip to anything. Theatre productions are sprawling and it can take years to even completely understand the pecking order. Every contract is different, every regional house is different.
This chick didn’t have a clue.
The villains were the production staff ( mentor , director, producer etc) they were pleased as punch to whore her out, in the name of “art”. JG comes across like a million other dudes in the arts. He just makes more money than most. At least he stopped when he should have. It’s a tough lesson for her, but she’ll see his type coming a mile away next time. And there will be a next time. He’s a dime a dozen.

I’m always fascinated by “behind the scenes” info on just about any industry, but definitely anything involving famous people. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t work in the industry, you just aren’t going to understand.
Actors are absolutely infantilized.
In a production like this, there would be a company manger as well as his coterie of management people.
The company manger is a glorified babysitter.
I’m not saying every actor is an ass…
But like … 72% are.
Seriously they are the worst.
Don’t get me wrong. I have many actor friends, but I would never rely on them for anything. They “play” for a job.
Company mangers get calls from actors in the production all times of day for things that any functional adult should be able to handle. “ I need a dentist” - at 2am…
“My Uber didn’t show” - 9 am ( 17 min late for rehearsal) etc etc
I write all of that to put the delicate coddling of JG into perspective. And no. The hot 23 year old intern isn’t yet hip to anything. Theatre productions are sprawling and it can take years to even completely understand the pecking order. Every contract is different, every regional house is different.
This chick didn’t have a clue.
The villains were the production staff ( mentor , director, producer etc) they were pleased as punch to whore her out, in the name of “art”. JG comes across like a million other dudes in the arts. He just makes more money than most. At least he stopped when he should have. It’s a tough lesson for her, but she’ll see his type coming a mile away next time. And there will be a next time. He’s a dime a dozen.

Thanks for this perspective. That’s the impression I got too, that the production staff, including her “mentor,” either willfully or tacitly had her play the role of his romantic plaything. Something to keep his mind and ego in check so they could get on getting this show out successfully. At the very least, it was limited to some creepy (in hindsight) flirting, and one awkward, but consensual, sexual encounter.

The author doesn’t imply that she felt she had to play along to keep her career going, but I can very easily see that being the case.