With the claims against Morgan Freeman and the subsequent internet pushback, I contend that we should not use our warm assumptions to blanket him from blame.
This is why we can’t have nice things. On the day that we discovered Harvey Weinstein will face his sexual Waterloo, it seems we have a new name to remember, readjust and reexamine. The grand old man of making the boring sound interesting, Morgan Freeman, seems to be the latest to answer for his actions in the era of #MeToo.
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) May 25, 2018
The name bristles with disbelief, which brings a resistance to the purported facts. Not Morgan, anyone but Morgan. He’s the benevolent grandfather of Hollywood. The penguin dude. Our he freckly pal who played our God. As Friedrich Nietzsche declared: “God is Dead”
Well, our pristine assumption of him, but I contend that we should not shy away from it, as the details are both awful, and the devil in the detail.
According to a CNN investigation, one production assistant on his 2015 bank-heist vehicle Going In Style led the claims, stating: “(He) kept trying to lift up my skirt and asking if I was wearing underwear.” He never successfully lifted her skirt, she said — he would touch it and try to lift it, she would move away, and then he’d try again. Eventually, she said, “Alan [Arkin] made a comment telling him to stop. Morgan got freaked out and didn’t know what to say.”
According to other sources who spoke to CNN, one a senior member of the production staff of the movie Now You See Me claimed that Freeman sexually harassed her and her female assistant on numerous occasions by making comments about their bodies.
“He did comment on our bodies… We knew that if he was coming by … not to wear any top that would show our breasts, not to wear anything that would show our bottoms, meaning not wearing clothes that [were] fitted,” she said.
Now, it might not seem that the crimes of Morgan might not seem a pale on the crimes of Harvey, as the facts state that bar the event above (that we know about), Morgan’s purported crimes were held in the comments on upon the bodies of others. He might not be Harvey, because he didn’t do what he did, he didn’t drug anyone like Bill, and he may not be Trump because he didn’t pay anyone off.
Morgan Freeman has 8 accusers for misconduct in a workplace.
The president of the United States has 19 accusers!!!!! 19 not 8 but 19 not 10 but 19!!!!! Here it is in different languages for you Nineteen, diecinueve, neunzehn, تسعة عشر, 十九, dix-neuf, δεκαεννέα. pic.twitter.com/mfWmf6syL5
— Dominique Hamilton (@Underrated_Dom) May 24, 2018
Let’s not reduce the apparent lengths of his actions by the amount of respect/best of assumptions we have for the guy. Attaching a comparative rule to marginalise the act is something we’re all guilty of. We struggle the articulate the betrayal, the more we care about their work, and the more we think we know, or trust them, the less we believe the allegations. It’s the Rolf Rule.
For those who pass away the purported acts of Morgan with a wave of the hand, wondering if you’re not allowed to make comments to people these days, well, if it’s unwelcome, no. If people have to dress conservatively around you to not enable said comments, no. If numerous individuals take numerous years to come forward due to the possibility of personal loss, no.
I’m not in a place to say Morgan Freeman is innocent or not. But the latest trend of women coming out to accuse men of sexual assault for a remark made about them years ago is actually looking more like a deliberate act to bring them down.
— Wale Adetona (@iSlimfit) May 24, 2018
Let’s not play God with the truth. Let’s hear what it is.