Hollywood sex abuse allegations - rush to judgement?

I didn't see her mention censorship, only that there is a problem. So recognizing that may cause writers to reach for the "woman brutalized as character development for man" storyline less often. I see it as a bit like the "black character dies first" cliche:

www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/videos/10156242346286800/

Which doesn't mean that black characters can never die in movies. Only that writers should be more aware of a POC coincidentally, more often than not, being the most disposable member of a diverse cast.

Seeing female or POC characters as more integral to the main story, or even as the main characters themselves and less as plot devices, is an example of seeking better representation on film.

She was talking specifically about Tarantino’s The Bride and mixing the character with the real life abuse because well, it seems Tarantino did abuseivd things supposedly preparing her actress for role which it’s completely wrong. But the character was interpreted at the time as a strong female and yes, she is abused, she lost or thinks she lost her baby girl (saving the girl trope or revenge the girl, an actually male trope) as a consequence of that attack (just one attack, remember at the beginning of the films she is a killer trying to achieve a normal life so in some ways she is a male cliche strong character before being abused). The violence in it is lurid but at the same time cartoonish. There is a lot of much more realistic and more painful to watch scenes in other movies and my question is if she is also offended by them? Is she against victims of violence as heroins? I know there are cliches and tropes, something that Tarantino strong female characters weren’t, by the way (he is an idiot in real life but not so conventional in his stories) but a) they aren’t so common like they were years before and b) the alternative of the all powerful and invincible is not actually interesting (or realistic) except when they are villains or antiheros and ironically returning to Tarantino, that’s what The Bride was but in a monstruos way like Truffaut’s own The Bride (she kills because they killed her groom) in The Bride Wore Black (or in a male version but without a so clear cause Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Man and other bad guys in Coen’s Brothers movies), a vengeful figure who savagely kills anyone who did her wrong. In some way the victims are the villains here UNTIL she discovers her girl is alive and then she is suddenly humanized and change of purpose: now just want to save her and be with her!
I still thinking that tweet was dumb, even when bad cliches exists. I wouldn’t like it that people like her decide which are good or bad female representations and considering the general mood of censure and hysteria I doubt she was talking just about wanting open discussion about the theme.
Im not sure about awarding books by what they DON’T do. It actually sounds to promote (auto) censure to me.

It could be we are reading it differently, but to me "how many images in media" means she is talking about film in general as a theme, not only that one movie in particular. Though the catalyst for her tweet is Uma's comments about Tarantino, so she mentions him:





According to Wikipedia they have "a near monopoly of A-list actors, writers, and directors" so it's a lot of peoples' agency, I wouldn't assume anything based on that. I agree that they were complicit in the HW abuses; several actresses mentioned that CAA sent them to Harvey in spite of knowing about him. One article said that to CAA, actresses are a dime a dozen, 100 new faces a year, while Harvey is there hiring their talent and making movies for decades. There definitely needs to be some changes and better protection for their clients put in place. If they are sponsoring the Time's Up movement, it's just to make themselves look better in an attempt to deflect from acting as HW's pimp for years (it's kind of like Donald Trump claiming "no one is less racist than me.")



The article you linked has a very good point,



...but to be fair, when we discuss abuse of women in books and films, we are very rarely talking about something to the level of 'To Kill a Mockingbird', or something intended to challenge prejudice (or sexism.) More often it's an issue of exploitation, or lazy plot writing.

I am not assuming anything but they were indeed involve. The NYT reported it, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/us/harvey-weinstein-complicity.html, they even published an apology deadline.com/2017/12/caa-apologizes-to-anyone-let-down-1202220778/ and there were rumors that they tried to interfere with the exposes against Weinstein pagesix.com/2017/12/07/ronan-farrow-splits-from-caa/

McGowan is attacking them in a big melodramatic way but it seems they are indeed behind the organizations of some of the events pagesix.com/2018/01/14/rose-mcgowan-caa-agents-were-weinsteins-pimps/ I think she is unstable but Thurman article again confirms the close relationship between Weinstein and CAA and this make me wondering why is not it discussed this instead of the violence in Tarantino movies. Good for Chastein for trying not to work ever with Weinstein but after reading the Thurman’s article how is that she seems more worried by the conservative thing (“movies are SO VIOLENT!”) that about her own agency protecting real life abusers? Why hasn’t she split with them?