She Said: This is one of those films which were a flop and you don't know why. It has a good cast, a good and female director (Maria Schrader), and it does everything right in tackling its difficult and recent subject (the reporting on Harvey Weinstein) - the title, which very intentionally is "She Said" and not "She Said/He Said" - is symbolic for that. There are no flashbacks to the rapes and sexual molestations; instead, we see our two (female) reporters talking to various of Weinstein's victims, mostly the behind the camera ones (assistants, and women from the production teams), for this isn't a movie relying on famous subjects, either. (I mean, we hear (on speakerphone, we don't see her) a conversation with Rose MacGowan in which she declines to be interviewed and says why, and Ashley Judd plays herself in a key scene, but the women getting the extensive screen time are the non-famous ones. Their stories are the ones told, and the movie relies on the actresses conveying how awful the experience was by the way they talk (or don't talk) about it years later in various intense character scenes. You never see Weinstein except near the end from behind, though you hear his voice a couple of times; like I said, the movie is absolutely focused on the women and their stories and doesn't want to make this Weinstein's story in any way.

As for the reporters, they're played by Carey Mulligan and Jodi Kantor and as engaging a pair of questing journalists as can be found in a "journalists uncover a horrible truth" type of story. They're both married with children, and we see just enough of their backgrounds to know that, but no more; as with Woodward & Bernstein in All the President's Men and the Boston Globe reporters in Spotlight, the film shows them in their capacity as reporters and relies on the story they're pursuing being dramatic enough without needing to show them in cliché "But am I there enough for my children?" type of scenarios. And while the film is focused on Weinstein's victims, it is made clear by various characters that the systematic coverup and enabling problem goes far beyond Harvey Weinstein the individual.

So given all this, why did the movie when released disappear so quickly? (And is rentable for the bare minimum of money on Amazon Prime currently?) I haven't found a truly satisfying explanation. Yes, we know how it will end from the get go, it's not a question of whether or not Weinstein did it, and it tackles a recent history subject, but so did All the President's Men when filmed in the 1970s. Yes, rape is a triggery subject, but that's more than true for Spotlight as well where the raped and molested people were children or teenagers at best when raped or molested, and Spotlight was a great commercial and critical success. And Harvey Weinstein is hardly a more difficult (mostly off screen) villain to sell than the Catholic Church.


Dahaad: I watched this on Amazon Prime as well; it's an Indian tv miniseries (so far; it's from this year, so I don't know whether they intend to do another season with a different story, or whether this is self contained, which would definitely work), a solid detective(s) vs murderer tale, where what makes it unique isn't the story as such but the way it's connected to its surroundings and how the characters show their society. ( Spoilery description ensues. )

And on a note of what the hell, world? You may, or may not have seen during the last week lj posts about the way the New York Times saw fit to report the gang rape of a eleven years old girl. (Victim blaming abounded.) Now I've come about an online article reporting in more detail and depth about the circumstances. It also links a video from a local news report in which the mother of one of the boys/men (he's 19) is interviewed, and quotes from said interview.

...I'm usually adverse to the whole "blame the parents" approach. Especially with rape. And it must be a horrible situation, finding out your child has done something like that. But if you raise your son along these lines:

FOX 26: What did you do? Did you talk to your son?

Hancock: Yes I did. Yes I did. I said, ‘Baby, I’m your momma. You can talk to me.’ (The victim) said she was 17 years old and that’s what he told me.

FOX 26: But Anita, a lot of people would say, ‘This is an 11 year old child. Even if she lied, she’s eleven.’

Hancock: I understand that. I understand that. I’m not defending him. I’m not defending her. I’m not defending no child because if it were my child, I would feel the same way. My point is, where was her mother?

FOX 26: If this was reversed. If your son wasn’t your son, but you were the mother of this 11 year old, what would you do? What would you say? What is justice?

Hancock: First of all, I would know where she was. That’s the justice. Not knowing where your baby is is not justice. I feel like she should be accounted for not knowing where your baby at.

FOX 26: What lesson does you son need to learn?

Hancock: ID. Identification. This (holding up nametag and picture) is what you ask for baby.

FOX 26: So you’re going to tell your son, next time he meets a girl to ask for her ID?

Hancock: Identification.

...the you are also responsible. "Identification?" Seriously? IDENTIFICATION?

Talk about rape culture.