Should Harvey Weinstein’s physical appearance matter? Watching Ursula Macfarlane’s devastating recent documentary Untouchable: The Rise and Fall of Harvey Weinstein, I felt renewed admiration for all the courageous women recounting the alleged attacks, all denied by Weinstein. However, I was also struck by how much interviewees, generally, mentioned Weinstein’s appearance – his ugliness, his weight, his repulsiveness. Which seemed strange. Surely Weinstein’s unattractiveness isn’t the issue?
Weinstein’s appearance should be completely irrelevant. “Ugly” people attract beautiful people. And it isn’t as though women feel any less attacked if a good-looking man does the attacking. Some sexual predators are good looking (look at “handsome” serial killer Ted Bundy), but they’re still preying on women. Predators are just predators – being attractive doesn’t seem to stop them, nor does it excuse them. Why then is there so much emphasis on Weinstein’s ugliness?
Of course, his looks could have mattered to him and contributed to what he became, giving him a sinister craving for women he’d once never dreamt he could get near. Once he got near them, in a work capacity, he could have despised them for giving him professional attention because he was powerful.
But that’s just Weinstein’s pathetic inner psychodrama – it was up to him to control impulses that were as premeditated as they were dark. If, as has been claimed, he usually had enough composure, even in the “moment”, to nastily threaten his victims’ careers, he also had enough self-control to stop.
As for the complainants referring to his appearance, who’s to judge, if, for them, the ugliness of the moment, also manifested in Weinstein’s physicality, added to their nightmare? From what they say, forcing them to look at him was a significant part of his thrill. Some also seem to be saying Weinstein’s bulk made them more vulnerable.
Maybe some felt the need to emphasise how absurd it was for “ugly” Weinstein to claim they’d welcomed his sexual attention – for their appalling experience to be diminished and dismissed as just another tale from the casting couch.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. These women aren’t the ones on trial – they don’t have to police their real and visceral memories for the sake of anyone else. If that’s how they remember it, that’s that. Still, it seems odd for the physical ugliness of an alleged attacker to be repeatedly stressed. Weinstein could be drop dead gorgeous and it still wouldn’t make what he’s alleged to have done bearable. Not that the recurring focus on Weinstein’s appearance was my chief reaction to the documentary – that was still the claimed attacks. While victims are entitled to recall their experiences in any way they choose, the rest of us need to keep a sharp focus on what’s genuinely repellent about such men. Their actions. The ugliness inside.
Survival of the fittest? Temple will kick it off
The new Sky One series, Temple, starring Mark Strong and Daniel Mays, looks intriguing. It’s about surgical operations performed underground, it’s about “prepping” for the coming storm and… oh hang on. Back now, panic over, I just thought I’d better double-check, but it’s definitely a fictional drama and not Newsnight.
Talk about art reflecting the world we live in. Just as Russell T Davies’s Years and Years was about society screwing up, Temple, though set in the present day, effectively draws on future fears.
How timely, what with the recurring talk of everybody stockpiling everything from teabags to penicillin. (Underground bunkers optional. For now.) How about the possibility of going from “we’re all middle class now” to “we’re all survivalists now” within one-and-a-half generations?
Are people just overreacting about the idea of Armageddon? I hope so, but then who knows? There was a gentler, more innocent time when I thought that people were overreacting when they said that Boris Johnson might become prime minister.
What effect is this ceaseless shredding of nerves having on the national psyche? The answer could fall somewhere between a feeling akin to being trapped inside an evil wizard’s pinball game, to confusion and despair. Could the stress end up warping perceptions of what it is to be human? Psychologically and emotionally, are people being driven “underground”, increasingly searching for meaning in activism and resistance? Right after they’ve managed to locate a multipack of lavatory paper for under £50.
While usually themes such as those in Temple feel soothingly fictional and alien, perhaps they’re just that little bit closer to home than people are comfortable with.
Warning to lazy vegans: you may be harming yourselves
A study published in the BMJ says that while vegan and vegetarian diets are linked to a lower risk of heart disease, they may increase the likelihood of strokes, partly due to nutrient deficiency.
Which reminds me that I need to embark on my clamoured-for food memoir: “Confessions of a Lazy Vegetarian”. The first chapter could be titled “The Crisp Years”, the second “Children of the Quorn” and so on.
My problem was that, as someone who turned vegetarian young because of animals (third chapter: “Virtue Signalling for Dummies”), I didn’t give much thought to nutrition. Actually, that’s a lie: I didn’t give any thought to nutrition. Hence, over the years, I’ve had some health problems that were most probably linked to being a gormless, vitamin-deprived vegetarian. But that’s my own fault, isn’t it?
Vegetarians and vegans can’t blame their diets for health problems – they can only question if they’re eating properly. Vegetarians and vegans who are scrupulous about nutrition wouldn’t invite needless problems, while also reaping the genuine health benefits. The fact is, doing vegetarianism or veganism properly takes effort, which can be boring, but it must be done. Though really this applies across the board. No diet (meat or meat-free) is automatically healthy – you always have to work at it.
• Barbara Ellen is an Observer columnist
