Harvey Weinstein Breaks ‘No Violence’ Pledge as Anti-Gun Meryl Streep Project Languishes

ScreenHunter_02 Aug. 25 08.49

The first trailer for “The Hateful Eight,” Quentin Tarantino’s newest shoot-‘em-up, was released earlier this month to generate buzz for an end-of-year release. Famous for taking graphic onscreen violence and gore to the extreme, the upcoming Western promises more of the same, with the director explaining it will “Trap [the characters] together in a room with a blizzard outside, give them guns, and see what happens.” . . .

To those who like to watch such films — and based on box office successes, plenty do — it sounds like another hit, particularly with a cast that includes proven popular stars like Kurt Russell and Samuel L. Jackson. The only thing that doesn’t add up – or perhaps the main thing that does – is seeing that distribution is being handled by The Weinstein Company.

The reason that’s curious is because Harvey Weinstein reportedly swore off making further blood-drenched spectacles.

“I have to just choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be,” Weinstein told Piers Morgan. “And I know for me, personally, I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already.”

That was in response to observations that making millions glorifying simulated “gun violence” for entertainment purposes is hypocritical for someone pledging to make an “anti-NRA movie with Meryl Streep.” Not like the political sentiments of a Hollywood elitist who hosted a $35,000 a plate fundraiser for Obama should be a surprise.

““They are going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them,” Weinstein told Howard Stern about the project. “I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it.”

By “we,” for some reason Harvey didn’t specify if his security teams and bodyguards are included.

Weinstein can dream about having the kind of power and influence to make gun owners wail and gnash their teeth, but at this point, it’s not even certain if the film is going to be made. Both IMDB and Movie Insider show no progress beyond that’ it’s been “in development” for over a year-and-a-half, with no indications that a screenplay, director, and cast beyond Streep have been secured. That and lack of buzz are pretty good indicators the company would rather people didn‘t talk about it.

Still, you have to admit, a plot scenario that “The NRA (National Rifle Association) uses its influence with politicians to defeat a bill to expanded background checks on gun sales” just screams Blockbuster! And it’s not like using propaganda film projects to gin up enthusiasm for a state monopoly of violence doesn’t have historic precedent.

More likely though, investors cringed at the proposal and wondered if the guy was going out of his mind — particularly after Weinstein avoided criminal charges over groping the “breasts and privates” of a 22-year-old Italian model (something he did not deny it in a telephone call NYPD monitored). Fortunately for Harvey, aside from having the finest lawyers and connections money can buy, his much younger wife, who obviously married him for love, has (publicly) forgiven him, citing the welfare of their children — that and her appreciation of the birthday flowers he sent her.

Tell me that doesn’t work with your wife.

As for “The Hateful Eight,” I confess a certain juvenile attraction for Tarantino movies, even though I know, like junk food, they’re not good for me and need to be consumed in moderation. As such, and not wanting to give aid and comfort to the enemy to the extent that theater tickets provide, I can wait for them to come out on Netflix, and watch it on the big screen in HD, without having to give the potentially dangerous, offensive and overpriced hassles of “gun-free” theaters a second thought.

I can rationalize that the few cents streaming would put in Harvey’s pocket would be more than offset by the millions his company will lose if he green-lights his anti-gun drama – as if there are enough Bloomberg MILMs buying their own tickets to put it in the black. So go on, Harvey, give it your best shot.  Make us wish we weren’t alive. Produce “The Senator’s Wife.” And make sure to include plenty of graphic, blood-spattering “gun violence” to horrify audiences and manipulate their sympathies – as well as upping the budget. Maybe you can even get Tarantino to direct it.

What are you waiting for?

comments

  1. avatar Steve says:

    If you want to see it in a theater, just buy a ticket for a different movie.

    1. avatar Will says:

      Principals. They’re hard.

    2. avatar Hobbez says:

      Pay to see a movie in the theater made by or starring someone anti-gun? I think not. I only pay to see movies from folks who stay out of politics, the Magical Internet Fairies bring me the rest for free.

      It’s one of those “guilty pleasures that I know doesn’t make a difference, but sure feels good knowing I’m watching your movie and not paying your anti 2A ass for it” kinda things.

      1. avatar Njal says:

        While Weinstein is anti-gun, Tarantino (who’s definitely “making the movie”) certainly isn’t. Death Proof is a very pro-gun movie.

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      I watch a lot of movies. But I’ve paid for maybe two in the last year or so.

  2. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Hypocrisy! I am shocked!

  3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    1) I hope he has a good prenup (wonder if John Watts has one?)

    2) She actually had kids with him? Well, ok, sorta like women having babies with any number of NBA players to make sure they get a cut of future wealth (Shannon didn’t figure this one out with new hubby John Watts and have any kids with him, esp after his golden parachute from his CEO job)

    3) typical liberal – make a big splash for the media and then sulk in the corner while in time out after your temper tantrum (kinda like Shannon stomping her feet)

    4) always follow the $$ (see references to Shannon above).

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      With Shannon, her hard biological ‘use by’ date has probably expired by now.

      It would be great if John dumps her for one of Shannon’s daughters from her previous marriage…

      *snicker*

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        she is 44. plenty of women still give birth into their 40’s, esp if they want to hold on to their sugar daddy before a new model comes out.

  4. avatar Will says:

    I basically swore off QT movies with Kill Bill, and inked it with Inglorious Basterds.

    Enjoy RD, love PF, and Jackie Brown. I do like his writing and his dialog is top notch. Big fan of True Romance. NBK was a CF after Stone took it over.

    But his basic over the top violence revenge porn meme — pretty old. Pretty tired. Nothing new. He’s a fan of the assorted *Sploitation films. So, he does his own, over the top as the ends to the means.

    But you’re right, popular director, folks see his movies. I’m sure QT is exempted from Weinstein’s wrath.

    A definite director to avoid (not hard, I don’t think he’s producing any more) is Richard Donner.

    He’s always been political in his Lethal Weapons movies, but he started going explicit with ‘Assassins’ and LW 4, well, that movie just made my blood boil.

    More so than any of the political stuff from Aaron Sorkin.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      NBK is a period masterpiece, if you ask me.

  5. avatar Ing says:

    Any movie with Meryl Streep in it is a no-go for me. How that pinch-faced specimen got a reputation as an #OMGsotalanted actress is beyond me. Her only talent that I can discern is appearing in movies that are excruciatingly painful to watch. A Meryl Streep anti-gun/anti-NRA movie? Yeesh. The very thought makes my skin crawl.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    If Weinstein and Streep really want NRA members to wish they weren’t alive, all they have to do is make us watch reruns of “Plenty.”

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had blocked the memory of “Plenty”! Way to go Ralph for dragging that horror back up!

  7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    It is interesting to me this Jewish movie maker wants all guns taken from private citizens and only the government will then have firearms. Apparently this jewish man has not heard of the gun laws used to disarm jewish people in Germany and simular laws used to disarm people in other countries the Germans invaded.

    Harvey Wienstein would be asking himself how he could be escorted naked into a large shower room full of other naked people by the government he trusts.

    I doubt he would make a film about black people legally purchasing firearms training with them and using them to defend themselves against the tyrannical government of Georgia or Mississippi or Louisiana. That would not fit into his racist view of white gun owners. Or his racist view that only white people have legal guns.

  8. avatar Dustin says:

    Paying for movies? People still do this?

    It’s like going to a restaurant. I’ll pay afterwards, IF it’s not total crap.

  9. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Basically the only Tarantino movie I even really liked was Pulp Fiction now he’s just another uber-rich hack making “films” about killing white people. All the while claiming he’s still an “independent” filmmaker, he’s just one of many “independent” filmmakers who have become the establishment.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      I agree, Quimby Tarrantula is one of the most over rated hacks in Hollywierd… and a sellout, as you said.

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        Yup, he hit it big with a couple of decent movies (reservoir dogs & pulp fiction) then went downhill from there (the “AK47” quote from Jackie brown makes me cringe, and I really didn’t like inglorious basterds). But yeah… He’s a guy who has some talent but got way too full of himself.

  10. avatar truth is treason says:

    What a hypocrite Weinstein is. He is the real Fat Bastard character from Hollywood.

  11. avatar James says:

    Given Tarantino’s recent racist, anti-white statements, he’ll never get another dollar of mine.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Watch the movie without paying just to spite them.

      As for Weinstein’s pet project, I hardly seeing that as a success even for the art-house crowd, but Whinestein will probably blame the NRA for that.

      Getting a little off-topic, the producer’s of “The Dallas Buyers Club” are blaming piracy for the lack of financial success ($55 million in revenue from $5 million costs, which in Hollywood is a loss) and not the fact it was a bad film with limited interest. From a review I thought it was not a mainstream movie, much less a blockbuster, even with the Hollywood embellishments, and in the fringe-film to art-house territory. With the producer’s threats of legal action, the film deserves to be pirated on-principle.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      What statements did he make that were racist and “anti-white”?

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Not a fan ofQT(he peaked in the 90’s) -as far as weinstein it’s just $ for me but none for thee. Besides I already saw an NRA hit piece on PBS Frontline(they’re too good at what they do). So weinstein and PBS get no $ from me either…and I agree on the Meryl Streep thing-did that last over-the-hill rocker flick make a dime?

  13. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I could make a good movie without guns titled Charles Martel And His Great Adventure.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email