March 3, 2023 • 39 mins
This time the Brothers discuss even more sentences being handed down to sexual offenders Harvey Weinstein and R. Kelly - who were both some of the first people to be accused of sexual misconduct when the "Me Too" movement began. Then they lay out opposing viewpoints on the recent settlement given to Vanessa Bryant (Kobe's Widow) after graphic photos of her husband's and daughter's death were mishandled. Next they talk about the SAG Awards being called out for having Mark Wahlberg present an award to the Asian cast of “Everything Everywhere All At Once” despite the fact he once went to prison for assaulting two Vietnamese men. And finally they wonder about Woody Harrelson on Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart on Late Night with Steven Colbert saying right leaning things about the origins of covid 19 and the vaccine.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hello once again, my entertainment fellowbrother, brother Hackett, It's good to
see you, good to hear you. We have a lot to talk about
today. And one of the thingsI like about the SKED that's newspapers speaking
by the way, for schedule,because I always get an education when I
come here. You know, yeah, I do what I can. We've
got a lot of stories, anda lot of them have emotion wrapped in
them. You know. One ofthe things that you know, you and
(00:20):
I discussed is the kind of whatyou know where emotion and law meet.
And arguably every legal case has someemotion in it, but it seems to
be rather palpable in a lot ofthese cases, which we will get to.
We've got some sentencings, we've gotsome controversy, we've got some history
being revisited, all kinds of stuff. So stay with us, the ladies
and gentlemen, once again from TimesSquare. We are the Entertainment Brothers,
(00:52):
and now the Entertainment Brothers. Here'sLarry Hackett and Thomas Valentino. Welcome back
everybody. Like we said, there'slots going on. Let's start with a
kind of historical point. Last week, Harvey Weinstein and R Kelly were both
sentenced for the latest trials where theywere convicted and found guilty of sexual assault,
(01:15):
rape, and various other sexual crimesthat kind of was sprung out of
the Me Too movement in twenty seventeen. It's not to say that people didn't
know about these guys behavior, butdefinitely the kind of dawn of the Me
Too movement is what led finally tothese guys getting convicted. Some interesting parallels
in these cases. It was bothsentencings for the second conviction of both men,
(01:38):
convictions in two different cities, overtwo different cases. We're talking about
a total of about ninety years ofjail time for each. In the case
of Harvey Weinstein, he will serveI think it's twenty nine years consecutively.
More than likely that he will diein prison. He's seventy years old now.
In the case of R Kelly,it's fifty years, but they were
being served concurrently. He's fifty six, so it remains to be seeing what
(01:59):
will happen with him. We weretalking yesterday. This kind of draws a
line through I think what could bethe first phase of me too. What
do you think about these sentences andwhat it means at this moment in time,
Well, the sentences are a messagesaying that obviously this kind of conduct
is not going to be tolerated.But you know, I didn't know where
(02:20):
this was going to go. Solet's break it down a little. I
thought R Kelly, because of thenature of his crime with a god daughter
and a minor, that doesn't surpriseme at all. But the Weinstein thing
was going up and down and aroundand here and there, and so I
wasn't really sure. And frankly,I thought it might be a little less
(02:40):
not because I'm saying he deserved itor not, but that's what I just
thought the legal system was going torender. I think you're right. There
was a lot of anxiety before thela case began. This case we tried
a couple of months ago, andagain he was just sentenced last year.
It involves one woman. He wasacquitted on various O accounts involving other people,
but the woman who was Jane Doe, who has since come forward that
the conviction was based on that rapeof that woman in twenty thirteen in a
(03:02):
hotel in Los Angeles. As weknow, he was convicted earlier on for
crimes that he committed here in NewYork. But there's always been a lot
of anxiety, particularly after the NewYork State Appeals Court decided that his case
would be heard, the specifics ofwhich we do not know yet and what
it ly ruled on, but therewas a concern that Harvey would once again
(03:23):
get away with it. Absolutely.What has come out in the years since
he was first accused in twenty seventeenin the New York Times and The New
Yorker are the efforts that he usedto stop people from writing about this and
unmasking him. For decades. Arguably, journalists like Ken Aletta and David Carr,
the late Tavid car of the NewYork Times, had tried to get
this. The degree of his predationwas unknown, but the fact that he
(03:45):
was a bad guy and that therewere stories out there about him were known.
But he employed all kinds of variousspying activities and surveillance, private investigators,
and just old fashioned bullying to keeppeople from talking NDA's where he had
signed with In he had many,many, many settlements with women he had
attacked who signed NDA's and were scaredto come forward to the press and to
(04:09):
prosecutors. So at many, manyinstances, as we know historically, whether
it was newspapers or magazines or prosecutorswere stymied from going after him. That's
all ended. He's in jail.There may be other cases, but justice
has been serving that case. RKelly case not that different, going back
at least twenty years. Their allegationshe beat a rap in two thousand and
eight over a video and allegations involvingunderage people. Jim de Rogattis, who
(04:32):
was a journalist in Chicago, wasonto this guy twenty five years ago.
Correct. It was the documentary thatcame out several years ago, Surviving R
Kelly that really focused attention, broughtup back into the public light, and
led prosecutors to get him. Soit's kind of a sort of team effort
of the media and prosecutors and ultimatelyvictims feeling empowered to come forward. But
you said something to me interesting yesterdaythat in spite of these verdicts and in
(04:57):
spite of these very tough sentences meetedout by just around the country, now
we've got LA Chicago and New York, victims are still scared. If you're
asking me how much this moves theneedle I don't know how much it really
moves a needle moves a needle alittle. We're all going to acknowledge that,
right, But I still think thatif this type of behavior is going
(05:20):
on, that whoever the victim is, Now, let's remember the victim can
be a female, it can bea male too, Right, we've seen
that. Yeah, that people arestill hesitant. Now why are they hesitant?
Well, the main reason that they'rehesitant is because there's a lot of
(05:40):
emotion involved in this, and thenall of a sudden, you're putting yourself
out there, and then all ofa sudden, maybe people now have a
different perception of you, and you'reforever associated with this, even though you
were innocent. Okay, So there'sright, So there's this idea of you
really can escape it. Obviously youdon't want it to define you. But
(06:04):
I think it's had an impact obviously, but not enough, right, not
enough. I think it's clear fromlooking at these cases and talking about what
I just said regarding the media andprosecutors and everybody kind of being part of
a phalanx of support, right that'sthen brought against these perpetrators. I think
that's what required the idea that you'regoing to go into this by yourself still
(06:24):
so daunting, right, Yes,whether or not you just want to withstand
the attacks of the person you're accusing, whether or not in your own mind
and life, you've kind of reconciledyourself to this and put it behind you,
and you don't want to re exhumeit again and go through it again.
Correct, And the idea as yousay that you're going to be defined
by this and that what happened isnow public, will be chewed over by
(06:45):
people, will be doubted by somepeople, and that is a toll that
a lot of people just don't wantto take right, and it can affect
your career in the bed too.You don't realize it, but you know,
you don't know what the end resultis going to be five years from
now. A degree of satisfaction thatboth of these guys have gone away.
As I say, I think itkind of marks the end of the first
phase of me too. It remainsto be seen what happens next. As
(07:06):
we know, a lot of theorganizations that popped up in Hollywood, for
example, Times Up have kind offaded away. They've all for a variety
of reasons. It's impossible, asyou and I both know, to sustain
the kind of energy that emerged intwenty seventeen. So it's going to need
to kind of move into a newphase. And we'll see what that's like,
(07:26):
and we'll see if these cases andthese verdicts and these sentences have any
bearing on whether or not going forward, it's easier to bring these cases and
that women will feel confident that they'llbe heard. A couple of things here.
One thing about the movement, itnever seemed to sort of formally crystallize.
In other words, there wasn't someonenamed a president and a vice president
(07:50):
as you would in an organization.Right, you never really saw that.
I saw a lot of but butthere didn't really seem to be anyone who
could sort of organize it, takeit to the next level and make it
sustain itself more powerfully than right now. You can do that when it comes
to public awareness and the acknowledgement thatthese situations of power and abuse and predation
(08:13):
go on. But then once itbecomes a court case, every case is
different, every case. Yeah,so that's where it gets difficult. And
then, um, one more thing, Yes, sir, this is a
moral issue. Right. This isa guy, let's I'm talking about Harvey
Weinstein that the way he became successfulwas by people saying no, and he
(08:37):
would say yes as a businessman.Right, So you can't deny his track
record as a businessman. And thatmeans when you're the underdog, which he
was. This guy was a concertpromoter. Right, he walks into Hollywood
and I'm sure he wasn't well received, and then all of a sudden he
turns this around and becomes a veryvery very prominent filmmaker or obviously producer,
(09:03):
you know, the most famous manor powerful man in town. You don't
get there by just saying you know, by not saying yes when people are
saying no. The problem is thathe took that into his other personal relationships,
and you can't do that, right, And a lot of people can't
separate the two. So while inone hand it may be an admirable quality
(09:26):
in business, it's a despicable qualityin his personal life. Exactly. Yeah.
It's a moral issue, yeah.Yeah. When I say no,
I mean no, exactly right.And it depends, in my view a
lot on family matters in domestic situations. So let's see what happens another case.
(09:58):
It's just breaking that just yesterday isthe case of Vanessa Brant. Totally
different, but again to what wediscussed earlier, a lot of emotion around
this. Yeah, So, VanessaBrant had sued Los Angeles County officials over
what she said was the pain andsuffering an ongoing trauma that she was experiencing
because of photographs, grizzly photographs,gastly photographs that were taken at the helicopter
(10:22):
crash site where her husband, Kobethe basketball star, and her daughter Gianna
died, along with other individuals whodied there. She was suing because she
was terrified that these photographs were goingto be released. She lived in constant
fear that they're going to be released. In fact, the photographs were shown.
First of all, they had noinvestigative value. It's not as if
investigators at the site crash site weretaking pictures to do something that was going
(10:46):
to be in some kind of postmortar or some kind of official This was
nothing official about these photographs. Yeah, indeed, some of these photographs were
These guys showed photographs to each other, They were shown to a bartender.
They may have been shown at somekind of like social event that first responders
had something like that. They werenever sold. But clearly in the wake
of Kobe's death and the death ofVanessa's daughter, she had emotion on her
(11:09):
side, and she was adamant andvery strong in pursuing this case. Los
Angeles has agreed to pay her twentynine million dollars. They've agreed to pay
other victims in the case twenty milliondollars. This is going to cost fifty
million dollars for photographs that were takenthat have never been released. Correct,
(11:30):
Now you think this is a fairdecision. Correct? I'm very troubled by
this decision. We've discussed this onthis podcast before. But why don't you
take the good decision POV on thisone, Okay, and let me know,
and I will take the opposite takeif you're gonna I'm taking good.
Right. So the economics of this, saying that you know it's taxpayer money,
well that just falls short to me, because we all know taxpayer money
(11:56):
is wasted essentially, right, Okay, But to me from get she never
needed this money. I mean shehas a fortune. Right. This was
always about a deterrent saying to otherpeople you can't do this. You shouldn't
do this. You had a higherlevel of responsibility and therefore this is going
(12:20):
to make you think twice next timeyou might think of doing something like this.
This was all about a deterrent.So let me ask you a question.
What is doing something like this?What in your mind is the County
of Los Angeles paying for They're payingfor the fact that they allowed these photos
(12:43):
to get out in any shape orform not publicly disseminated. Let's say,
I don't mean to cut you off, but let's just say no, no,
you want to go to battalion.Let's say Kobe Bryant and his daughter
had lived and someone took photographs ofthem being rescued from the crash site.
Right, would the same thing applynot a little different? Why? Why?
(13:05):
Because they're not dead and it's notas gruesome. But where the law
doesn't, it doesn't have the sameeffect. These are two people that are
deceased, and it's a it's ahorrific site question. The other way that
you're talking about is not as horrific. And then are there any damages in
a situation like that? Does Vanessaeven think about bringing it? But where
(13:26):
do not I guess what I'm confusedabout is where does gruesomeness get codified as
laws? Oh okay, well,because once god, I will stipulate that
this behavior was not can you talusand insensitive? How can you not?
Obviously right? But how do youapply the law to that? The law
(13:48):
is punitive? Right? Punitive?In other words, the law is penalizing
you for doing this because your conductwas abhorrent. That's what the law is
doing, and that's why the lawexists. And so you may not agree
with the number, but the ideais that next time, hopefully someone's gonna
(14:09):
think twice. I find this reallyreally, really despicable. Fine, I
freaking give them a hundred million,give her a hundred million. I okay,
I find it very true. Ifeel horrible together. It's a tragedy.
But the idea that you can somehowprescribe jerky behavior. It's not jerky
(14:33):
behavior. But if they had afiduciary responsibility, not literally, but to
take curatively, not to not toshow them. They didn't people they showed
them in a bar. I know. But the idea, the whole energy
behind this case, Okay, thewhole hundrey behind this case is that she
was terrified they were gonna get publishedin a tablet, which is which is
very very very legitimate, And Ibelieve that that could have put her over
(14:54):
the edge to see that in adaily mail. But they didn't. But
they didn't, and that's why shethe case. Now, she didn't do
it. They might if she didn'ttake the action that she took from get,
one of these jerks would elaked itsomewhere for five grand. Absolutely,
so good, Okay, So hereare the issues I have with this.
They made a mistake and they paidfor it. What should happen? They
(15:16):
behaved despicably, that's right. Don'tknow whether or not there should be laws
that banned this kind. Why not? Some people who behave despicably, but
there aren't laws against it. Here'smy problem most things. The problem I
have with this. This is avery blunt instrument, right, and the
idea. Now, I think thiscould be applied to legitimate news gathering.
(15:37):
Right, if you take a photographof someone in a war zone, if
you take a photograph of someone whohas lost a limit a war zone.
I've seen photographs not here in theUnited States, but in Vietnam and Hanoi
photographs from during the war that arehorrific photographs that were never printed here.
Hang on a second, They werenever packed it here in the United States
because legitimate news organization said they weretoo gruesome to show. The system that
(16:03):
exists right now works when it comesto legitimate news organizations, they don't print
things. The reason you haven't seenthese photographs is that even news organizations that
the Daily Mail decided not to printthem because they were too gruesome. The
system is self policing. You don'tneed a law to do this, and
the fact that this has now beendecided is a repudiation of the how the
(16:26):
system actually does work. Legitimate newsorganizations, even up and down the chain,
would not print this. Even socialmedia didn't print this number one,
number two. Legitimate news photographers,for example, might find that someone who's
traumatized by their photo is going togo to court because they suffered a trauma.
I'm not minimizing her trauma. It'slegitimate and it's real, But I
(16:48):
don't think that a lot of thenews business makes other people uncomfortable. That's
the way it works. But youmay find this to be a ridiculous extension
of that kind of like newsworthy newsgather ring ethos and maybe it is.
I just saw this and I thought, this is all about emotion and making
Vanessa Bryant trying to ease her pain, which is a legitimate human reaction.
(17:11):
It should not be the role ofthe court to do that. Well,
let's first go back to the warsituation. That's a war, Okay,
So I think that fact pattern makesit a little different, right, But
everything comes down to Vanessa Brian's trauma. Okay, that's why she sued.
(17:32):
Okay, Okay, Well, peoplewho are victimized who lost a loved one
in a war, who are traumatizedby the photograph of said dead person or
said loved one who's now dead,what's the difference if she didn't bring this
lawsuit. When she brought this lawsuit, do you think that someone would have
(17:52):
published these photos without her bringing thelawsuit? He died in January of twenty
twenty. No one printed a photographbecause she immediately set out to sue,
and she attacked the sheriff's office withintwenty four hours. Unless that's a counterfact,
that's a counterfactual that I can't answer. Let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question,Oh, do you think the fact
(18:14):
that this verdict has been rendered andthis settlement has been reached and this kind
of money is being sent, doyou really think this is going to stop
future knuckleheads from taking similar kind ofphotographs. I think it might. It
might make them think twice, andso in that respect, I think it's
effective. And I do think it'seffective in the respect that the photos never
got out, so I think it'sI do think it's effective completely. Wow.
(18:40):
Well, you and I will differon this one, and again I
think it's I hope it's obvious thatI don't harbor any ill will towards Vinstary.
No, No, I just don'tthink. No, the core okay
was the vehicle to somehow mitigate heragony and her ok okay. So so
what is the number right that youor anyone might feel more comfortable with?
(19:03):
In other words, do you thinkshe should have got something? Here's a
quote here, I'd answer, Iwould be more comfortable if somebody don't get
me wrong here. No, no, no, you know, I would
be more comfortable if a photograph witha scenario wherein someone did print the photo
right, and she then took actionagainst the publisher who took that photo,
(19:26):
and then they stood or fall basedon their decision to take something public.
There's something about that set up thatseems to me more legitimate than the kind
of prophylactic suing of some guy whotook a picture that doesn't ever get released
that might have gotten released if shedidn't sue. And this is a woman
who's been in the public eye andthe Papa Razzie. I mean there were
(19:49):
people following them when they went tothe airport that day, right, so
she her perspective is also a littledifferent. Right, But I do go
back to you know what, ifit was five million, would that oh
make you feel maybe? Yeah?Maybe so maybe, But it's still good.
It's still good that the heart ofmy issue with why I find this
(20:11):
a difficult decision and a troubling decision, would not be different. A jury
has decided that photographs that were takenat a scene that we all would agree
was gruesome and heartbreaking is somehow differentfrom photographs taking in other situations where other
people might be traumatized. I gota problem with it. The other thing
in is wait a minute, waita minute, what about if she the
(20:32):
minute she serves the LA whatever policedepartment, and they settled. Then why
did they have to go to court? And they just said, hey,
let's work this out. Look,you and I both they've read the testimony.
They didn't they didn't do that,and they and they gave mixed answers
that the officials at Los Angeles,okay, were like it was a clam
car. They didn't know what theywere doing, okay, and they were
insensitive. Okay. So now becauseyou don't know what you're doing, you're
(20:53):
paying the price because you don't knowwhat you're doing. All right, sound
familiar, that does? But Ijust I think this is all about emotion
and not about the law. Disagreeabout this. Everything blowing back on legitimate
news going. I mean, Imay be getting to get your concern,
but whatever, Yeah, all right, walking down the emotional gang clank.
(21:27):
Here a really interesting story. Onlyyou could say that because it goes to
the notion of history and past andforgiveness and all kinds of things can be
an interesting tale. On Sunday night, at the Screen Actors Guild Award the
mostly Asian film Everything Everywhere, Allat Once, which is caused a sensation
starts Michelle Yoe and other people.It's a terrific, terrific movie. One
(21:48):
for Best Picture or whatever the equivalentis at the Screen Actors Guild Award the
Best Cast. I can't remember.The award was given out to the cast
by Mark Wahlberg, huge movie star. Well, a lot of people probably
don't know, but a lot ofpeople did know, was that as a
sixteen year old well let met whenMark Wahlburg first emerged on the scene in
the early nineties, he was MarkyMark, and he was in the Fun
(22:11):
Bunch, and he was a rapper, and he had amazing abs, and
he was on at Calvin Klein Adsand he was a sensod abs come on.
And part of his kind of originstory was that he'd been a thuggish
kid in Boston. He was thebrother of Donnie Wahlburg, who was already
famous having been in Kids on theBlock, New Kids on the Block.
And part of his thing was thathe had street cred because he was a
tough kid from Dorchester, which isa neighborhood in Boston. While among his
(22:34):
credentials for being a tough kid inBoston were a nineteen eighty six case where
he chased down. He another guychased down a black kid in the neighborhood
and beat him with his stick andused racial slurs and were only stopped when
an off duty ambulance driver came by. And another case two years later where
he beat brutally a Vietnamese man andused anti Asian racial epithets against Tim.
(22:57):
He was arrested for that. Hewas sent to what we used to call
it reform school. Oh my god. He served forty five days, yes,
for this assault right, which wasnever classified as a hate crime,
but all the circumstances around it certainlyin a kid that it was a hate
crime. It was today it probablywould be. He has been open about
discussing his past. As I said, he used it to become It was
(23:17):
part of his story when he becamefamous, but in subsequent years where he's
become a much more sober individual anda much more contrite individual. He's talked
about this varying degrees of specificity,but he has said I was a bad
kid, and I've tried to livea life to atone for that, which
he has. I mean, there'sno incidents or anything that's gone on since
then that suggests he harves any ofthat kind of hoar. He was a
(23:37):
sixteen year old idiot and violent andhe turned his life around. Yeah,
But of course the optics of himgiving this award to this cast caused in
the world we live in now socialmedia to light up Asian Twitter, as
my partner calls it, was fullof comments about this, Some people outraged
by it, some people kind ofriley cynical about it, a lot of
(23:59):
people thinking that he had not reallyfully atoned for this, and the idea
that he only got forty five daysfor this brutal, brutal, brutal beating
was ridiculous. And of course thisis all seen now through the prism of
a greater awareness of anti Asian violence, the prominence of Asians in the culture,
the fact that this film starring mostlyAsians is now likely to certainly it's
(24:21):
on that film nominated and it couldwin the Oscar Award. The debate has
centered on is it fair to bringup this, you know, thirty five
year old case, take it away. I throw all of that to you
about your thinking about this, becausethis exists to some degree at the intersection
of law, to some extent,but mostly notions of fairness and certainly public
(24:44):
opinion, right, and how someonehas led their life in the intervening years.
Well, is it fair? Imean, it happened. It's reality.
It happened thirty thirty five years ago, so it's brought up. Is
it fair? Well, you didit, It happened. Someone decided to
bring it up. It could haveeither been brought up or not brought up,
obvious, right, right, Butthe fact is it was brought up.
(25:07):
So is it fair depends on hisstate of mind to me, Okay,
a little bit as a kid,no, no, no, no,
no, now, well, andas a kid is also important because
not that it's an excuse, butyou know, I mean he had apparently
a troubled or you know, yeahchildhood or a street teenhood. Yeah exactly,
(25:30):
Yeah, okay, right, soeverything now, Yeah, I don't
think a lot of people really understandthat he's not only one of the top
five actors currently in Hollywood with arange that's phenomenal, right, going from
like Ted to you know, LoneSurvivor or whatever, but he's also a
(25:52):
very successful movie producer. Okay,So I think in his mind he thought
this was given back and trying torectify his past what was by giving this
award? You thought in his mindhe was somehow atoning for what he had
done by yes, by giving it. Didn't tell anybody about that, Well,
(26:14):
why would he because it was inhis mind? Okay, I don't
know. I think he actually thoughtif he told anybody, then it's bringing
it up directly in this way justby doing it. It was a symbolic
gesture. Yeah, I personally thinkthat's a bit of a reach. And
I think, you know, butin the crazy world of Hollywood, the
idea that I gave an award tosomeone on a show somehow, you know,
(26:37):
help it is hollywod xpiate my sins? It is Hollywood. It is
Hollywood. So so he xpiated hissins right in church or whatever, right,
went and confessed in all this,and then apparently the man that he
attacked also forgave him. Okay.That says a lot. Okay, because
generally you don't forgive someone unless they'revery sincere and their apology. That's been
(27:02):
my experience, having been down thatroad with so many people I can't even
mention, right, Yeah, andI think that in his mind, even
though you might be saying, whatdo you mean, what do you mean
he just figured like, okay,this is making good. Let me take
the opposite tack. Don't you thinkthat? Again? In a world where
Asian led projects in Hollywood and inpop culture, while they're growing a lot,
(27:27):
they still remain small. The ideathat this movie wins this award,
it's the moment of glory for thepeople who made this film and the people
who act in this film, andthe award is given to them by a
man who nearly killed an Asian guywhen he was sixteen years old. Don't
(27:48):
you think that's an unforced error?Yes? And don't you think it minimizes
to something? Or how do youthink don't you think that people involved could
find that a bit of a slapin the face. Totally? Totally And
I'm not and I'm not saying heshould have done it right or I'm really
not falling each way here. Okay, So here's what's important. The question
(28:11):
becomes when you're an advisor, Okay, you're supposed to tell people I don't
think you should do this. You'rereally as an attorney, most of what
I'm doing when I'm not doing paperworkand giving advice to people is telling them
what not to do okay, toprotect them, don't do this now.
(28:33):
He might have been given that adviceand just said, no, I really
want to go out there and givethis award to make me feel better.
And I'm big enough that I cansurvive the blowback. And my prediction is
he will easily survive the blowback,and right right, I think, honestly,
I think some of it will hangon how he responds to this.
(28:55):
If he's forced to respond to thisin some way. I will say this
about him. He has been someonewho's been pretty straight up about his past,
yeah, and has tried to recastit as something that he's certainly not
proud of. And while he mayhave kind of dined out on it in
nineteen ninety one where he was tryingto get some street cred and this was
part of his marquee Mark persona,he's pretty much repudiated that as a tool
(29:18):
to create his persona. It's fascinatingto me, and I don't know the
answer whether or not his people,his PR people, his PR handlers and
managers in et cetera, and theindividuals involved in the Screen Actors Guild even
knew about this. I mean,my point, his success has been so
effective that unless you're of a certainage, you might not even know that
(29:38):
he had done this in nineteen eightyeight. Right that, I'm guessing there
are certain kind of people who mightwork for him who have no idea this
even happened, right right? Thatcould be because I think his stardom and
his success has kind of eclipsed whateverhis past was. Like we know people
who you know, you mentioned theirname, Comma, and then their past
will be that's I done bad,that's that was not going to be his
(30:03):
Okay, so go ahead. Sothat I think may have been a factor
here that people just forgot about thisor didn't know it. Obviously a lot
of people did, but I thinkthere's two camps of people are like,
huh, I had no idea thateven happen. Is huh, how could
you be so unbelievably naive? Pratically, I think if you're Asian or Asian
American, because this is something thatdoes define this god, right, Okay.
(30:25):
One of the things here is thatneither one I believe there were two
crimes, right well, there wasone involving an African American kid two years
earlier, and then the much morebrutal beating of the guy in nineteen eighty
eight, the Vietnamese guy, whichis the one I believe is the one
that he that basically had. That'sthe reason he was sent away. He
was stopped for the first one,but he didn't get incarcerated in the second
(30:47):
one because he was clearly heading downa path of increasing violence. He did
again five days. The idea isalso that let's not look at whether what
he did is right or wrong.Right of the idea is that the sentences
that were imposed, we're not severe. So it's almost like forty five days
(31:07):
and what we you know, Yes, that's like really minor, it is.
And so if it had been fiveyears in prison or ten years in
prison, we'd be having a differentconversation. We would be so, I
think so, I think that's oneof the reasons this is an interesting and
probably a worthwhile conversation. The ideathat in nineteen eighty eight you would only
get forty five days for doing whathe did right would be inconceivable today,
(31:30):
Yes, correct, And I thinkit's an interesting way to kind of look
at where we sit today and wherewe sit or maybe not inconceivable. It
might be an outrage. Right,let's not right, I do not go
too far. Yeah, yeah,yeah, So I think a lot of
this becomes interesting as a way tore examine Asian Americans roles in society,
in the culture, and as always, when those conversations become less theoretical and
(31:52):
more about a specific time and person, they can be more fruitful. So
I think you're right. I thinkhe survives is I don't think. I
think I think it'll be interesting tosee how forgiving social media as a kind
of you know, organism is um. But I think already the conversation certainly
has been joined about this, abouthim, about his actions, and about
(32:15):
the context of these actions when thisfilm comes out, and what it means
for the role of Asian Americans inAmerican society. I think it's just a
conversation, well, Sam, andI think that's probably the best that's going
to happen, and that's why we'recovering it, right. I think the
idea of you know, was hepunished enough and all that, that's going
to go on, but yeah,that's the end. We just talked about
(32:35):
that with Vanessa. Yeah right,yeah, and you know, very quickly,
why did he get forty five days, all laws local, right,
so we're going right back to rustin a certain respect, right, and
who knows who he knew? Right, how I got it? All that
worked? And then it was Bostonin a different twer's right, all right?
(33:05):
All right? One last story thatI think it's all sort of interesting.
It's kind of a melding of twodifferent stories. COVID, which we
probably a lot of us think isover, is not over if you look
at the world of celebrity too interestingdisparate cases, but interesting developments this week.
Yeah. The first was Woody Harrisonon Saturday Night Live and in his
monologue talked about what many believed tobe a kind of unfounded conspiracy theory involving
(33:28):
drunk companies and vaccines. He's kindof anti vax and it was a kind
of spun joke about basically wrapped upa lot of anti vax beliefs that he
shares, and that was delivered onSaturday Night Live. He has since become
a kind of hero to the altright about that, and it's kind of
interesting because I think politically speaking,I'm not sure Woody Harrison is an alt
right guy. Yeah, probably notat all. Yeah, he's better known
(33:50):
for his kind of like pot smokingin a sort of you know, stoner
vibe. Let's talk about an epitat. But this whole kind of anti vax
thing and conspiracy theory regarding COVID isinteresting and new, and one thought that
that was not going to be somethingthat was discussed. Days later, John
Stewart was talking on his podcast andsaid that he felt vindicated by the report
this week by the Energy Department thatthey believe, although not very strongly,
(34:16):
that they believe that the Wuhan virusemerged from this animal testing lab in Wuhan,
China, right, which he hadfamously said on the Stephen Colbert Show
about a year ago, amid verynervous titters and handwringing in the audience and
from Colbert, who clearly were uncomfortablewith Stuart stating, as a matter of
factly as he did that he believedit had come from this lab. They
(34:39):
may seem somewhat disconnected, but itjust seems that COVID and theories about COVID,
which we know that we're headed for, that's going to be all kinds
of revisionist history or rethinking of historyabout masks about where it came from about
vaccines is being led by two unlikelycelebrities this moment. What do you make
(35:00):
of this? If anything, Well, I make of it that there's a
part of me we know it camefrom one place or the other, right,
and it's been going back and forthand back and forth, and there
was never a determination and I stilldon't think there is. So we I
think most people would agree because Ialways like to try to find the place
that people agree and then sort ofwork down from there that it came from
(35:22):
China. Right, It's a questiondid it come from the you know,
animal markets or did it come fromthe lab? And either way, it
got out and it came here anda lot of people suffered from it.
So if they want to spend aton of time debating it where it came
from, I'm not sure I reallysee the energy in that. Well,
(35:45):
I think we're going to have that, and I think there should be reassessments
about whether or not masks work,and there should be reassessments about whether or
not the response to all that,And I think there's gonna be obviously that
we're gonna I think it behooves scienceand to figure out where our came from.
I just worry, as I alwaysdo, when celebrities are the vehicles
in these case, hello, right, And whether it's Woody Harrelson or John
(36:10):
Stewart, I mean, obviously inthe scheme of things, I think people
find John Stuart more incredible than WoodyHarrelson. But in either case, yeah,
it's it's troubling. We had scientists, okay, without getting political again,
we had scientists, and people weresaying to the scientists, you don't
know what you're talking about, eventhough they're scientists and they spent thirty years
(36:30):
at it, right, So itreally became a celebrity issue from almost get
in the sense of you know whichside are you gonna line up on now?
And it seems here's what's really fascinating. I was talking to a friend
of mine yesterday and he started goingoff on the whole thing, you know,
about the vacts and stuff, andit seems like it's gaining energy again
(36:53):
obviously because of what was said.But like it came, it either came
from the lab or it came fromyou know, the animal markets. Either
way, it got here and wesuffered. Okay, I guess there's some
value in talking about it, buteither want to get vaxed or you don't
like That's where we're at. Ithink these conversations about this kind of stuff
(37:16):
are in danger of becoming like thevirus itself. Yes, a virus it
is. It is a sick Iwas talking to a friend of mine who
lives in Europe and she is completelyconvinced that this was all a big conspiracy.
And then it was about drug companiesand the lockdowns were unnecessary, and
it was all about governments and controland a very Orwellian take, yes,
(37:36):
yes, which you could go therewith President Kennedy and up on down the
line. And the issue was whenyou're involving celebrities, they are inherently maybe
not more believable, but certainly listento absolutely in a different way. And
the media picks up on that.Yeah, it'll be interesting to see where
this goes. But I think rightnow, like a virus, it's kind
of waddling, you know, runningall over the place, and it'll be
(37:59):
interesting to see what happens. Then, I think, if you're given a
platform and you're you're lucky to getthat platform, right, because come on,
I don't care you have a lotof talent and everything, but you're
still, you know, given certainthings in life. I don't see why
you should use that platform to dividepeople. I think you should use that
platform to unite people. It's probablyeven if you don't agree with so I
(38:21):
don't disagree. I think it mayjust be a coincidence. But I remember
there was a time when I wasthe audit to people, and there was
Jenny McCarthy was a very very stronganti factor for kids, not about how
she was one of the first,and they were peddling crap science. Yeah,
and we were giving them a platformbecause they were famous, and I
regret it. Okay, we dida lot of work in the stories that
(38:42):
we wrote about a kind of counterit, countering it with science. Yeah,
But the sheer reason we were evencovering it is because they were celebrities,
you know, and there's nothing aboutit's a bigger debate exactly because should
celebrities see this is always a thing, right, politics, whatever, whatever,
whatever, and you know, we'llsee what the next chap to us.
Yeah, lots of stuff. Itfeels like it, although I don't
(39:04):
know. Every time we do this, it feels like it's five minutes and
then we look at the clock andbam and over. I certainly hope our
listeners feel the same way. Yeah, all right, tell your friends about
us. It's good to be Maxand happy March everybody where. The Entertainer
Brothers will see you next week.Bye.
Hello once again, my entertainment fellowbrother, brother Hackett, It's good to
see you, good to hear you. We have a lot to talk about
today. And one of the thingsI like about the SKED that's newspapers speaking
by the way, for schedule,because I always get an education when I
come here. You know, yeah, I do what I can. We've
got a lot of stories, anda lot of them have emotion wrapped in
them. You know. One ofthe things that you know, you and
(00:20):
I discussed is the kind of whatyou know where emotion and law meet.
And arguably every legal case has someemotion in it, but it seems to
be rather palpable in a lot ofthese cases, which we will get to.
We've got some sentencings, we've gotsome controversy, we've got some history
being revisited, all kinds of stuff. So stay with us, the ladies
and gentlemen, once again from TimesSquare. We are the Entertainment Brothers,
(00:52):
and now the Entertainment Brothers. Here'sLarry Hackett and Thomas Valentino. Welcome back
everybody. Like we said, there'slots going on. Let's start with a
kind of historical point. Last week, Harvey Weinstein and R Kelly were both
sentenced for the latest trials where theywere convicted and found guilty of sexual assault,
(01:15):
rape, and various other sexual crimesthat kind of was sprung out of
the Me Too movement in twenty seventeen. It's not to say that people didn't
know about these guys behavior, butdefinitely the kind of dawn of the Me
Too movement is what led finally tothese guys getting convicted. Some interesting parallels
in these cases. It was bothsentencings for the second conviction of both men,
(01:38):
convictions in two different cities, overtwo different cases. We're talking about
a total of about ninety years ofjail time for each. In the case
of Harvey Weinstein, he will serveI think it's twenty nine years consecutively.
More than likely that he will diein prison. He's seventy years old now.
In the case of R Kelly,it's fifty years, but they were
being served concurrently. He's fifty six, so it remains to be seeing what
(01:59):
will happen with him. We weretalking yesterday. This kind of draws a
line through I think what could bethe first phase of me too. What
do you think about these sentences andwhat it means at this moment in time,
Well, the sentences are a messagesaying that obviously this kind of conduct
is not going to be tolerated.But you know, I didn't know where
(02:20):
this was going to go. Solet's break it down a little. I
thought R Kelly, because of thenature of his crime with a god daughter
and a minor, that doesn't surpriseme at all. But the Weinstein thing
was going up and down and aroundand here and there, and so I
wasn't really sure. And frankly,I thought it might be a little less
(02:40):
not because I'm saying he deserved itor not, but that's what I just
thought the legal system was going torender. I think you're right. There
was a lot of anxiety before thela case began. This case we tried
a couple of months ago, andagain he was just sentenced last year.
It involves one woman. He wasacquitted on various O accounts involving other people,
but the woman who was Jane Doe, who has since come forward that
the conviction was based on that rapeof that woman in twenty thirteen in a
(03:02):
hotel in Los Angeles. As weknow, he was convicted earlier on for
crimes that he committed here in NewYork. But there's always been a lot
of anxiety, particularly after the NewYork State Appeals Court decided that his case
would be heard, the specifics ofwhich we do not know yet and what
it ly ruled on, but therewas a concern that Harvey would once again
(03:23):
get away with it. Absolutely.What has come out in the years since
he was first accused in twenty seventeenin the New York Times and The New
Yorker are the efforts that he usedto stop people from writing about this and
unmasking him. For decades. Arguably, journalists like Ken Aletta and David Carr,
the late Tavid car of the NewYork Times, had tried to get
this. The degree of his predationwas unknown, but the fact that he
(03:45):
was a bad guy and that therewere stories out there about him were known.
But he employed all kinds of variousspying activities and surveillance, private investigators,
and just old fashioned bullying to keeppeople from talking NDA's where he had
signed with In he had many,many, many settlements with women he had
attacked who signed NDA's and were scaredto come forward to the press and to
(04:09):
prosecutors. So at many, manyinstances, as we know historically, whether
it was newspapers or magazines or prosecutorswere stymied from going after him. That's
all ended. He's in jail.There may be other cases, but justice
has been serving that case. RKelly case not that different, going back
at least twenty years. Their allegationshe beat a rap in two thousand and
eight over a video and allegations involvingunderage people. Jim de Rogattis, who
(04:32):
was a journalist in Chicago, wasonto this guy twenty five years ago.
Correct. It was the documentary thatcame out several years ago, Surviving R
Kelly that really focused attention, broughtup back into the public light, and
led prosecutors to get him. Soit's kind of a sort of team effort
of the media and prosecutors and ultimatelyvictims feeling empowered to come forward. But
you said something to me interesting yesterdaythat in spite of these verdicts and in
(04:57):
spite of these very tough sentences meetedout by just around the country, now
we've got LA Chicago and New York, victims are still scared. If you're
asking me how much this moves theneedle I don't know how much it really
moves a needle moves a needle alittle. We're all going to acknowledge that,
right, But I still think thatif this type of behavior is going
(05:20):
on, that whoever the victim is, Now, let's remember the victim can
be a female, it can bea male too, Right, we've seen
that. Yeah, that people arestill hesitant. Now why are they hesitant?
Well, the main reason that they'rehesitant is because there's a lot of
(05:40):
emotion involved in this, and thenall of a sudden, you're putting yourself
out there, and then all ofa sudden, maybe people now have a
different perception of you, and you'reforever associated with this, even though you
were innocent. Okay, So there'sright, So there's this idea of you
really can escape it. Obviously youdon't want it to define you. But
(06:04):
I think it's had an impact obviously, but not enough, right, not
enough. I think it's clear fromlooking at these cases and talking about what
I just said regarding the media andprosecutors and everybody kind of being part of
a phalanx of support, right that'sthen brought against these perpetrators. I think
that's what required the idea that you'regoing to go into this by yourself still
(06:24):
so daunting, right, Yes,whether or not you just want to withstand
the attacks of the person you're accusing, whether or not in your own mind
and life, you've kind of reconciledyourself to this and put it behind you,
and you don't want to re exhumeit again and go through it again.
Correct, And the idea as yousay that you're going to be defined
by this and that what happened isnow public, will be chewed over by
(06:45):
people, will be doubted by somepeople, and that is a toll that
a lot of people just don't wantto take right, and it can affect
your career in the bed too.You don't realize it, but you know,
you don't know what the end resultis going to be five years from
now. A degree of satisfaction thatboth of these guys have gone away.
As I say, I think itkind of marks the end of the first
phase of me too. It remainsto be seen what happens next. As
(07:06):
we know, a lot of theorganizations that popped up in Hollywood, for
example, Times Up have kind offaded away. They've all for a variety
of reasons. It's impossible, asyou and I both know, to sustain
the kind of energy that emerged intwenty seventeen. So it's going to need
to kind of move into a newphase. And we'll see what that's like,
(07:26):
and we'll see if these cases andthese verdicts and these sentences have any
bearing on whether or not going forward, it's easier to bring these cases and
that women will feel confident that they'llbe heard. A couple of things here.
One thing about the movement, itnever seemed to sort of formally crystallize.
In other words, there wasn't someonenamed a president and a vice president
(07:50):
as you would in an organization.Right, you never really saw that.
I saw a lot of but butthere didn't really seem to be anyone who
could sort of organize it, takeit to the next level and make it
sustain itself more powerfully than right now. You can do that when it comes
to public awareness and the acknowledgement thatthese situations of power and abuse and predation
(08:13):
go on. But then once itbecomes a court case, every case is
different, every case. Yeah,so that's where it gets difficult. And
then, um, one more thing, Yes, sir, this is a
moral issue. Right. This isa guy, let's I'm talking about Harvey
Weinstein that the way he became successfulwas by people saying no, and he
(08:37):
would say yes as a businessman.Right, So you can't deny his track
record as a businessman. And thatmeans when you're the underdog, which he
was. This guy was a concertpromoter. Right, he walks into Hollywood
and I'm sure he wasn't well received, and then all of a sudden he
turns this around and becomes a veryvery very prominent filmmaker or obviously producer,
(09:03):
you know, the most famous manor powerful man in town. You don't
get there by just saying you know, by not saying yes when people are
saying no. The problem is thathe took that into his other personal relationships,
and you can't do that, right, And a lot of people can't
separate the two. So while inone hand it may be an admirable quality
(09:26):
in business, it's a despicable qualityin his personal life. Exactly. Yeah.
It's a moral issue, yeah.Yeah. When I say no,
I mean no, exactly right.And it depends, in my view a
lot on family matters in domestic situations. So let's see what happens another case.
(09:58):
It's just breaking that just yesterday isthe case of Vanessa Brant. Totally
different, but again to what wediscussed earlier, a lot of emotion around
this. Yeah, So, VanessaBrant had sued Los Angeles County officials over
what she said was the pain andsuffering an ongoing trauma that she was experiencing
because of photographs, grizzly photographs,gastly photographs that were taken at the helicopter
(10:22):
crash site where her husband, Kobethe basketball star, and her daughter Gianna
died, along with other individuals whodied there. She was suing because she
was terrified that these photographs were goingto be released. She lived in constant
fear that they're going to be released. In fact, the photographs were shown.
First of all, they had noinvestigative value. It's not as if
investigators at the site crash site weretaking pictures to do something that was going
(10:46):
to be in some kind of postmortar or some kind of official This was
nothing official about these photographs. Yeah, indeed, some of these photographs were
These guys showed photographs to each other, They were shown to a bartender.
They may have been shown at somekind of like social event that first responders
had something like that. They werenever sold. But clearly in the wake
of Kobe's death and the death ofVanessa's daughter, she had emotion on her
(11:09):
side, and she was adamant andvery strong in pursuing this case. Los
Angeles has agreed to pay her twentynine million dollars. They've agreed to pay
other victims in the case twenty milliondollars. This is going to cost fifty
million dollars for photographs that were takenthat have never been released. Correct,
(11:30):
Now you think this is a fairdecision. Correct? I'm very troubled by
this decision. We've discussed this onthis podcast before. But why don't you
take the good decision POV on thisone, Okay, and let me know,
and I will take the opposite takeif you're gonna I'm taking good.
Right. So the economics of this, saying that you know it's taxpayer money,
well that just falls short to me, because we all know taxpayer money
(11:56):
is wasted essentially, right, Okay, But to me from get she never
needed this money. I mean shehas a fortune. Right. This was
always about a deterrent saying to otherpeople you can't do this. You shouldn't
do this. You had a higherlevel of responsibility and therefore this is going
(12:20):
to make you think twice next timeyou might think of doing something like this.
This was all about a deterrent.So let me ask you a question.
What is doing something like this?What in your mind is the County
of Los Angeles paying for They're payingfor the fact that they allowed these photos
(12:43):
to get out in any shape orform not publicly disseminated. Let's say,
I don't mean to cut you off, but let's just say no, no,
you want to go to battalion.Let's say Kobe Bryant and his daughter
had lived and someone took photographs ofthem being rescued from the crash site.
Right, would the same thing applynot a little different? Why? Why?
(13:05):
Because they're not dead and it's notas gruesome. But where the law
doesn't, it doesn't have the sameeffect. These are two people that are
deceased, and it's a it's ahorrific site question. The other way that
you're talking about is not as horrific. And then are there any damages in
a situation like that? Does Vanessaeven think about bringing it? But where
(13:26):
do not I guess what I'm confusedabout is where does gruesomeness get codified as
laws? Oh okay, well,because once god, I will stipulate that
this behavior was not can you talusand insensitive? How can you not?
Obviously right? But how do youapply the law to that? The law
(13:48):
is punitive? Right? Punitive?In other words, the law is penalizing
you for doing this because your conductwas abhorrent. That's what the law is
doing, and that's why the lawexists. And so you may not agree
with the number, but the ideais that next time, hopefully someone's gonna
(14:09):
think twice. I find this reallyreally, really despicable. Fine, I
freaking give them a hundred million,give her a hundred million. I okay,
I find it very true. Ifeel horrible together. It's a tragedy.
But the idea that you can somehowprescribe jerky behavior. It's not jerky
(14:33):
behavior. But if they had afiduciary responsibility, not literally, but to
take curatively, not to not toshow them. They didn't people they showed
them in a bar. I know. But the idea, the whole energy
behind this case, Okay, thewhole hundrey behind this case is that she
was terrified they were gonna get publishedin a tablet, which is which is
very very very legitimate, And Ibelieve that that could have put her over
(14:54):
the edge to see that in adaily mail. But they didn't. But
they didn't, and that's why shethe case. Now, she didn't do
it. They might if she didn'ttake the action that she took from get,
one of these jerks would elaked itsomewhere for five grand. Absolutely,
so good, Okay, So hereare the issues I have with this.
They made a mistake and they paidfor it. What should happen? They
(15:16):
behaved despicably, that's right. Don'tknow whether or not there should be laws
that banned this kind. Why not? Some people who behave despicably, but
there aren't laws against it. Here'smy problem most things. The problem I
have with this. This is avery blunt instrument, right, and the
idea. Now, I think thiscould be applied to legitimate news gathering.
(15:37):
Right, if you take a photographof someone in a war zone, if
you take a photograph of someone whohas lost a limit a war zone.
I've seen photographs not here in theUnited States, but in Vietnam and Hanoi
photographs from during the war that arehorrific photographs that were never printed here.
Hang on a second, They werenever packed it here in the United States
because legitimate news organization said they weretoo gruesome to show. The system that
(16:03):
exists right now works when it comesto legitimate news organizations, they don't print
things. The reason you haven't seenthese photographs is that even news organizations that
the Daily Mail decided not to printthem because they were too gruesome. The
system is self policing. You don'tneed a law to do this, and
the fact that this has now beendecided is a repudiation of the how the
(16:26):
system actually does work. Legitimate newsorganizations, even up and down the chain,
would not print this. Even socialmedia didn't print this number one,
number two. Legitimate news photographers,for example, might find that someone who's
traumatized by their photo is going togo to court because they suffered a trauma.
I'm not minimizing her trauma. It'slegitimate and it's real, But I
(16:48):
don't think that a lot of thenews business makes other people uncomfortable. That's
the way it works. But youmay find this to be a ridiculous extension
of that kind of like newsworthy newsgather ring ethos and maybe it is.
I just saw this and I thought, this is all about emotion and making
Vanessa Bryant trying to ease her pain, which is a legitimate human reaction.
(17:11):
It should not be the role ofthe court to do that. Well,
let's first go back to the warsituation. That's a war, Okay,
So I think that fact pattern makesit a little different, right, But
everything comes down to Vanessa Brian's trauma. Okay, that's why she sued.
(17:32):
Okay, Okay, Well, peoplewho are victimized who lost a loved one
in a war, who are traumatizedby the photograph of said dead person or
said loved one who's now dead,what's the difference if she didn't bring this
lawsuit. When she brought this lawsuit, do you think that someone would have
(17:52):
published these photos without her bringing thelawsuit? He died in January of twenty
twenty. No one printed a photographbecause she immediately set out to sue,
and she attacked the sheriff's office withintwenty four hours. Unless that's a counterfact,
that's a counterfactual that I can't answer. Let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question,Oh, do you think the fact
(18:14):
that this verdict has been rendered andthis settlement has been reached and this kind
of money is being sent, doyou really think this is going to stop
future knuckleheads from taking similar kind ofphotographs. I think it might. It
might make them think twice, andso in that respect, I think it's
effective. And I do think it'seffective in the respect that the photos never
got out, so I think it'sI do think it's effective completely. Wow.
(18:40):
Well, you and I will differon this one, and again I
think it's I hope it's obvious thatI don't harbor any ill will towards Vinstary.
No, No, I just don'tthink. No, the core okay
was the vehicle to somehow mitigate heragony and her ok okay. So so
what is the number right that youor anyone might feel more comfortable with?
(19:03):
In other words, do you thinkshe should have got something? Here's a
quote here, I'd answer, Iwould be more comfortable if somebody don't get
me wrong here. No, no, no, you know, I would
be more comfortable if a photograph witha scenario wherein someone did print the photo
right, and she then took actionagainst the publisher who took that photo,
(19:26):
and then they stood or fall basedon their decision to take something public.
There's something about that set up thatseems to me more legitimate than the kind
of prophylactic suing of some guy whotook a picture that doesn't ever get released
that might have gotten released if shedidn't sue. And this is a woman
who's been in the public eye andthe Papa Razzie. I mean there were
(19:49):
people following them when they went tothe airport that day, right, so
she her perspective is also a littledifferent. Right, But I do go
back to you know what, ifit was five million, would that oh
make you feel maybe? Yeah?Maybe so maybe, But it's still good.
It's still good that the heart ofmy issue with why I find this
(20:11):
a difficult decision and a troubling decision, would not be different. A jury
has decided that photographs that were takenat a scene that we all would agree
was gruesome and heartbreaking is somehow differentfrom photographs taking in other situations where other
people might be traumatized. I gota problem with it. The other thing
in is wait a minute, waita minute, what about if she the
(20:32):
minute she serves the LA whatever policedepartment, and they settled. Then why
did they have to go to court? And they just said, hey,
let's work this out. Look,you and I both they've read the testimony.
They didn't they didn't do that,and they and they gave mixed answers
that the officials at Los Angeles,okay, were like it was a clam
car. They didn't know what theywere doing, okay, and they were
insensitive. Okay. So now becauseyou don't know what you're doing, you're
(20:53):
paying the price because you don't knowwhat you're doing. All right, sound
familiar, that does? But Ijust I think this is all about emotion
and not about the law. Disagreeabout this. Everything blowing back on legitimate
news going. I mean, Imay be getting to get your concern,
but whatever, Yeah, all right, walking down the emotional gang clank.
(21:27):
Here a really interesting story. Onlyyou could say that because it goes to
the notion of history and past andforgiveness and all kinds of things can be
an interesting tale. On Sunday night, at the Screen Actors Guild Award the
mostly Asian film Everything Everywhere, Allat Once, which is caused a sensation
starts Michelle Yoe and other people.It's a terrific, terrific movie. One
(21:48):
for Best Picture or whatever the equivalentis at the Screen Actors Guild Award the
Best Cast. I can't remember.The award was given out to the cast
by Mark Wahlberg, huge movie star. Well, a lot of people probably
don't know, but a lot ofpeople did know, was that as a
sixteen year old well let met whenMark Wahlburg first emerged on the scene in
the early nineties, he was MarkyMark, and he was in the Fun
(22:11):
Bunch, and he was a rapper, and he had amazing abs, and
he was on at Calvin Klein Adsand he was a sensod abs come on.
And part of his kind of originstory was that he'd been a thuggish
kid in Boston. He was thebrother of Donnie Wahlburg, who was already
famous having been in Kids on theBlock, New Kids on the Block.
And part of his thing was thathe had street cred because he was a
tough kid from Dorchester, which isa neighborhood in Boston. While among his
(22:34):
credentials for being a tough kid inBoston were a nineteen eighty six case where
he chased down. He another guychased down a black kid in the neighborhood
and beat him with his stick andused racial slurs and were only stopped when
an off duty ambulance driver came by. And another case two years later where
he beat brutally a Vietnamese man andused anti Asian racial epithets against Tim.
(22:57):
He was arrested for that. Hewas sent to what we used to call
it reform school. Oh my god. He served forty five days, yes,
for this assault right, which wasnever classified as a hate crime,
but all the circumstances around it certainlyin a kid that it was a hate
crime. It was today it probablywould be. He has been open about
discussing his past. As I said, he used it to become It was
(23:17):
part of his story when he becamefamous, but in subsequent years where he's
become a much more sober individual anda much more contrite individual. He's talked
about this varying degrees of specificity,but he has said I was a bad
kid, and I've tried to livea life to atone for that, which
he has. I mean, there'sno incidents or anything that's gone on since
then that suggests he harves any ofthat kind of hoar. He was a
(23:37):
sixteen year old idiot and violent andhe turned his life around. Yeah,
But of course the optics of himgiving this award to this cast caused in
the world we live in now socialmedia to light up Asian Twitter, as
my partner calls it, was fullof comments about this, Some people outraged
by it, some people kind ofriley cynical about it, a lot of
(23:59):
people thinking that he had not reallyfully atoned for this, and the idea
that he only got forty five daysfor this brutal, brutal, brutal beating
was ridiculous. And of course thisis all seen now through the prism of
a greater awareness of anti Asian violence, the prominence of Asians in the culture,
the fact that this film starring mostlyAsians is now likely to certainly it's
(24:21):
on that film nominated and it couldwin the Oscar Award. The debate has
centered on is it fair to bringup this, you know, thirty five
year old case, take it away. I throw all of that to you
about your thinking about this, becausethis exists to some degree at the intersection
of law, to some extent,but mostly notions of fairness and certainly public
(24:44):
opinion, right, and how someonehas led their life in the intervening years.
Well, is it fair? Imean, it happened. It's reality.
It happened thirty thirty five years ago, so it's brought up. Is
it fair? Well, you didit, It happened. Someone decided to
bring it up. It could haveeither been brought up or not brought up,
obvious, right, right, Butthe fact is it was brought up.
(25:07):
So is it fair depends on hisstate of mind to me, Okay,
a little bit as a kid,no, no, no, no,
no, now, well, andas a kid is also important because
not that it's an excuse, butyou know, I mean he had apparently
a troubled or you know, yeahchildhood or a street teenhood. Yeah exactly,
(25:30):
Yeah, okay, right, soeverything now, Yeah, I don't
think a lot of people really understandthat he's not only one of the top
five actors currently in Hollywood with arange that's phenomenal, right, going from
like Ted to you know, LoneSurvivor or whatever, but he's also a
(25:52):
very successful movie producer. Okay,So I think in his mind he thought
this was given back and trying torectify his past what was by giving this
award? You thought in his mindhe was somehow atoning for what he had
done by yes, by giving it. Didn't tell anybody about that, Well,
(26:14):
why would he because it was inhis mind? Okay, I don't
know. I think he actually thoughtif he told anybody, then it's bringing
it up directly in this way justby doing it. It was a symbolic
gesture. Yeah, I personally thinkthat's a bit of a reach. And
I think, you know, butin the crazy world of Hollywood, the
idea that I gave an award tosomeone on a show somehow, you know,
(26:37):
help it is hollywod xpiate my sins? It is Hollywood. It is
Hollywood. So so he xpiated hissins right in church or whatever, right,
went and confessed in all this,and then apparently the man that he
attacked also forgave him. Okay.That says a lot. Okay, because
generally you don't forgive someone unless they'revery sincere and their apology. That's been
(27:02):
my experience, having been down thatroad with so many people I can't even
mention, right, Yeah, andI think that in his mind, even
though you might be saying, whatdo you mean, what do you mean
he just figured like, okay,this is making good. Let me take
the opposite tack. Don't you thinkthat? Again? In a world where
Asian led projects in Hollywood and inpop culture, while they're growing a lot,
(27:27):
they still remain small. The ideathat this movie wins this award,
it's the moment of glory for thepeople who made this film and the people
who act in this film, andthe award is given to them by a
man who nearly killed an Asian guywhen he was sixteen years old. Don't
(27:48):
you think that's an unforced error?Yes? And don't you think it minimizes
to something? Or how do youthink don't you think that people involved could
find that a bit of a slapin the face. Totally? Totally And
I'm not and I'm not saying heshould have done it right or I'm really
not falling each way here. Okay, So here's what's important. The question
(28:11):
becomes when you're an advisor, Okay, you're supposed to tell people I don't
think you should do this. You'rereally as an attorney, most of what
I'm doing when I'm not doing paperworkand giving advice to people is telling them
what not to do okay, toprotect them, don't do this now.
(28:33):
He might have been given that adviceand just said, no, I really
want to go out there and givethis award to make me feel better.
And I'm big enough that I cansurvive the blowback. And my prediction is
he will easily survive the blowback,and right right, I think, honestly,
I think some of it will hangon how he responds to this.
(28:55):
If he's forced to respond to thisin some way. I will say this
about him. He has been someonewho's been pretty straight up about his past,
yeah, and has tried to recastit as something that he's certainly not
proud of. And while he mayhave kind of dined out on it in
nineteen ninety one where he was tryingto get some street cred and this was
part of his marquee Mark persona,he's pretty much repudiated that as a tool
(29:18):
to create his persona. It's fascinatingto me, and I don't know the
answer whether or not his people,his PR people, his PR handlers and
managers in et cetera, and theindividuals involved in the Screen Actors Guild even
knew about this. I mean,my point, his success has been so
effective that unless you're of a certainage, you might not even know that
(29:38):
he had done this in nineteen eightyeight. Right that, I'm guessing there
are certain kind of people who mightwork for him who have no idea this
even happened, right right? Thatcould be because I think his stardom and
his success has kind of eclipsed whateverhis past was. Like we know people
who you know, you mentioned theirname, Comma, and then their past
will be that's I done bad,that's that was not going to be his
(30:03):
Okay, so go ahead. Sothat I think may have been a factor
here that people just forgot about thisor didn't know it. Obviously a lot
of people did, but I thinkthere's two camps of people are like,
huh, I had no idea thateven happen. Is huh, how could
you be so unbelievably naive? Pratically, I think if you're Asian or Asian
American, because this is something thatdoes define this god, right, Okay.
(30:25):
One of the things here is thatneither one I believe there were two
crimes, right well, there wasone involving an African American kid two years
earlier, and then the much morebrutal beating of the guy in nineteen eighty
eight, the Vietnamese guy, whichis the one I believe is the one
that he that basically had. That'sthe reason he was sent away. He
was stopped for the first one,but he didn't get incarcerated in the second
(30:47):
one because he was clearly heading downa path of increasing violence. He did
again five days. The idea isalso that let's not look at whether what
he did is right or wrong.Right of the idea is that the sentences
that were imposed, we're not severe. So it's almost like forty five days
(31:07):
and what we you know, Yes, that's like really minor, it is.
And so if it had been fiveyears in prison or ten years in
prison, we'd be having a differentconversation. We would be so, I
think so, I think that's oneof the reasons this is an interesting and
probably a worthwhile conversation. The ideathat in nineteen eighty eight you would only
get forty five days for doing whathe did right would be inconceivable today,
(31:30):
Yes, correct, And I thinkit's an interesting way to kind of look
at where we sit today and wherewe sit or maybe not inconceivable. It
might be an outrage. Right,let's not right, I do not go
too far. Yeah, yeah,yeah, So I think a lot of
this becomes interesting as a way tore examine Asian Americans roles in society,
in the culture, and as always, when those conversations become less theoretical and
(31:52):
more about a specific time and person, they can be more fruitful. So
I think you're right. I thinkhe survives is I don't think. I
think I think it'll be interesting tosee how forgiving social media as a kind
of you know, organism is um. But I think already the conversation certainly
has been joined about this, abouthim, about his actions, and about
(32:15):
the context of these actions when thisfilm comes out, and what it means
for the role of Asian Americans inAmerican society. I think it's just a
conversation, well, Sam, andI think that's probably the best that's going
to happen, and that's why we'recovering it, right. I think the
idea of you know, was hepunished enough and all that, that's going
to go on, but yeah,that's the end. We just talked about
(32:35):
that with Vanessa. Yeah right,yeah, and you know, very quickly,
why did he get forty five days, all laws local, right,
so we're going right back to rustin a certain respect, right, and
who knows who he knew? Right, how I got it? All that
worked? And then it was Bostonin a different twer's right, all right?
(33:05):
All right? One last story thatI think it's all sort of interesting.
It's kind of a melding of twodifferent stories. COVID, which we
probably a lot of us think isover, is not over if you look
at the world of celebrity too interestingdisparate cases, but interesting developments this week.
Yeah. The first was Woody Harrisonon Saturday Night Live and in his
monologue talked about what many believed tobe a kind of unfounded conspiracy theory involving
(33:28):
drunk companies and vaccines. He's kindof anti vax and it was a kind
of spun joke about basically wrapped upa lot of anti vax beliefs that he
shares, and that was delivered onSaturday Night Live. He has since become
a kind of hero to the altright about that, and it's kind of
interesting because I think politically speaking,I'm not sure Woody Harrison is an alt
right guy. Yeah, probably notat all. Yeah, he's better known
(33:50):
for his kind of like pot smokingin a sort of you know, stoner
vibe. Let's talk about an epitat. But this whole kind of anti vax
thing and conspiracy theory regarding COVID isinteresting and new, and one thought that
that was not going to be somethingthat was discussed. Days later, John
Stewart was talking on his podcast andsaid that he felt vindicated by the report
this week by the Energy Department thatthey believe, although not very strongly,
(34:16):
that they believe that the Wuhan virusemerged from this animal testing lab in Wuhan,
China, right, which he hadfamously said on the Stephen Colbert Show
about a year ago, amid verynervous titters and handwringing in the audience and
from Colbert, who clearly were uncomfortablewith Stuart stating, as a matter of
factly as he did that he believedit had come from this lab. They
(34:39):
may seem somewhat disconnected, but itjust seems that COVID and theories about COVID,
which we know that we're headed for, that's going to be all kinds
of revisionist history or rethinking of historyabout masks about where it came from about
vaccines is being led by two unlikelycelebrities this moment. What do you make
(35:00):
of this? If anything, Well, I make of it that there's a
part of me we know it camefrom one place or the other, right,
and it's been going back and forthand back and forth, and there
was never a determination and I stilldon't think there is. So we I
think most people would agree because Ialways like to try to find the place
that people agree and then sort ofwork down from there that it came from
(35:22):
China. Right, It's a questiondid it come from the you know,
animal markets or did it come fromthe lab? And either way, it
got out and it came here anda lot of people suffered from it.
So if they want to spend aton of time debating it where it came
from, I'm not sure I reallysee the energy in that. Well,
(35:45):
I think we're going to have that, and I think there should be reassessments
about whether or not masks work,and there should be reassessments about whether or
not the response to all that,And I think there's gonna be obviously that
we're gonna I think it behooves scienceand to figure out where our came from.
I just worry, as I alwaysdo, when celebrities are the vehicles
in these case, hello, right, And whether it's Woody Harrelson or John
(36:10):
Stewart, I mean, obviously inthe scheme of things, I think people
find John Stuart more incredible than WoodyHarrelson. But in either case, yeah,
it's it's troubling. We had scientists, okay, without getting political again,
we had scientists, and people weresaying to the scientists, you don't
know what you're talking about, eventhough they're scientists and they spent thirty years
(36:30):
at it, right, So itreally became a celebrity issue from almost get
in the sense of you know whichside are you gonna line up on now?
And it seems here's what's really fascinating. I was talking to a friend
of mine yesterday and he started goingoff on the whole thing, you know,
about the vacts and stuff, andit seems like it's gaining energy again
(36:53):
obviously because of what was said.But like it came, it either came
from the lab or it came fromyou know, the animal markets. Either
way, it got here and wesuffered. Okay, I guess there's some
value in talking about it, buteither want to get vaxed or you don't
like That's where we're at. Ithink these conversations about this kind of stuff
(37:16):
are in danger of becoming like thevirus itself. Yes, a virus it
is. It is a sick Iwas talking to a friend of mine who
lives in Europe and she is completelyconvinced that this was all a big conspiracy.
And then it was about drug companiesand the lockdowns were unnecessary, and
it was all about governments and controland a very Orwellian take, yes,
(37:36):
yes, which you could go therewith President Kennedy and up on down the
line. And the issue was whenyou're involving celebrities, they are inherently maybe
not more believable, but certainly listento absolutely in a different way. And
the media picks up on that.Yeah, it'll be interesting to see where
this goes. But I think rightnow, like a virus, it's kind
of waddling, you know, runningall over the place, and it'll be
(37:59):
interesting to see what happens. Then, I think, if you're given a
platform and you're you're lucky to getthat platform, right, because come on,
I don't care you have a lotof talent and everything, but you're
still, you know, given certainthings in life. I don't see why
you should use that platform to dividepeople. I think you should use that
platform to unite people. It's probablyeven if you don't agree with so I
(38:21):
don't disagree. I think it mayjust be a coincidence. But I remember
there was a time when I wasthe audit to people, and there was
Jenny McCarthy was a very very stronganti factor for kids, not about how
she was one of the first,and they were peddling crap science. Yeah,
and we were giving them a platformbecause they were famous, and I
regret it. Okay, we dida lot of work in the stories that
(38:42):
we wrote about a kind of counterit, countering it with science. Yeah,
But the sheer reason we were evencovering it is because they were celebrities,
you know, and there's nothing aboutit's a bigger debate exactly because should
celebrities see this is always a thing, right, politics, whatever, whatever,
whatever, and you know, we'llsee what the next chap to us.
Yeah, lots of stuff. Itfeels like it, although I don't
(39:04):
know. Every time we do this, it feels like it's five minutes and
then we look at the clock andbam and over. I certainly hope our
listeners feel the same way. Yeah, all right, tell your friends about
us. It's good to be Maxand happy March everybody where. The Entertainer
Brothers will see you next week.Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!