vmnieowan873

OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says.

That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?

So define "forced" here. She could have said no and not made the film. Does that mean this was OK?

We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem? The fact that nudity in film is common allowed Harvey the pretense to demand full-frontal nudity, "the senseless scene," as Hayek described it.

The point I'm trying to make, apparently too subtly, is, how many nude scenes were coerced just like Hayek describes the one in Frida in order to satisfy the lusts of the male director/producer/writer just like this? It doesn't seem far-fetched, with all the revelations of sexual harassment coming out, that it's a lot of them.

Maybe it's so many that we should simply not tolerate nudity in films. If there was some way to certify that the nude scene wasn't "forced" then it would be OK, but if we accept that this was an act of force on Weinstein's part (Salma could have chosen not to do the movie, yet we all seem to agree this was still evil on the part of Weinstein), then how could that certification ever be done?

Equating Salma's ambition here (make a movie about an important minority historical figure) with Harvey's and then calling it small and selfish? Seriously?

Yes, this was probably a very isolated incident. Keep telling yourself that.

Anyone who thinks, "a little nudity in a movie is harmless" needs to read this.