She Said Falls Short of a Feminist Reckoning

She Said, a movie released last November based on journalists Jodie Kantor and Megan Twohey’s successful attempt to track down Harvey Weinstein’s history of sexual assault, was set to rake up all the cinematic awards. It was supposed to be timely, revolutionary, powerful and a feminist’s dream. In reality, the film was critiqued for its less-than-revolutionary production values and content and was a box office flop.

The movie highlights Weinstein’s blackballing of actresses, the case of victims’ disappearing roles if they attempted to speak out, the threats of professional punishment, the nondisclosure agreements, and the payouts. It portrays Hollywood as an industry that sweeps allegations such as those made against Harvey Weinstein under the rug, out of sight. But She Said ultimately fails to recognize the harmful Hollywood system in which the film itself functions and the overarching American fascination with Hollywood that contributes to the system — a mission that seems crucial to this film’s ability to justify itself as one of the first films to address Hollywood’s history with sexual assault.

In the beginning of the 21st century, it seemed that Hollywood was built on Harvey Weinstein movies; they were the standard of film excellence and at least one was included in the film repertoire of every American film fan, including me. Award shows with millions of views, red carpets, and bright lights highlighted the producer’s so-called brilliance. Weinstein has won and been nominated for an Oscar and won or been nominated for four BAFTA awards among other honors. And movies like Pulp Fiction, Emma, Shakespeare in Love, and Good Will Hunting are regarded as classics. In addition, Weinstein has been thanked 34 times in Oscar speeches. Gwyneth Paltrow even thanked the producer in 1999 when she won an Academy Award for best actress for her performance in Shakespeare in Love — although Paltrow later revealed that she had previously been assaulted by Weinstein.

However, in 2017, Weinstein fell after the publication of Kantor and Twohey’s investigative article on the producer, the catalyst for the #MeToo movement. She Said reveals the journalists’ investigative process; Kantor and Twohey are shown receiving tips about victims like actress Rose McGowan and chasing down interviews with Weinstein’s assistants and other industry insiders. After the historic publication of the article, 82 women released their own allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

But as allegations mounted, Harvey Weinstein apologists — including Lindsay Lohan, Donna Karan, and Tony Denison — attempted to protect his Hollywood image, largely by blaming the victims. Industry giant Oliver Stone was initially not ready to believe Weinstein should be condemned. Plenty of Hollywood insiders worked hard to protect Weinstein’s image and, with it, the image of Hollywood. And that is also the root of my irritation with the film.

The film’s existence as a Hollywood title that addresses Harvey Weinstein’s persecution attempts to rewrite Hollywood and its films as entities that promote feminism. Yet, it disregards a simple fact: The system that protected both Weinstein and Hollywood’s images by silencing Weinstein’s victims is the same one that, through She Said, protects Hollywood’s image by “proving” the industry is fighting against harassers. In fact, the film’s final minutes, which include the publication of Kantor and Twohey’s article and Weinstein’s declared leave of absence, provide a manufactured, Hollywood-style resolution that doesn’t exist in the industry. The film’s feminist lens dulls when it doesn’t directly address other, unresolved sexual misconduct or assault cases looming in Hollywood. She Said, therefore, doesn’t dismantle the system, but contributes to promoting it. In fact, that She Said is a film at all feels unseemly.

Perhaps the movie is trying to claim that even though it alone cannot undo the cyclical corruption of Hollywood, its existence can provide a platform to home in on the victims’ voices and inform the public of Hollywood’s danger. But even so, the movie falls flat as a reckoning of the Hollywood system as it disregards current industry dangers and there are many other legal changes that can be made to protect Hollywood talent that don’t necessarily make profit.

For example, industry heads could promote narrow legal jargon emphasizing the consequences of sexual harassment to protect the safety of women in the business or morality clauses which would allow distributors and streaming services to more easily pull out of projects if an offender involved is exposed. Even banning or limiting nondisclosure agreements that male industry members dole out to their victims would be beneficial. Although these reforms are being passed in some states, the changes are still patchwork and must become universal.

Change in Hollywood does not materialize from a movie, especially not one that disregards existing industry threats. To me, change begins at the legislative level. Without this true legal change, testimonies slip by again and again and again, swept perfectly, marvelously, glamorously under the Hollywood rug.