You will no doubt recognise Mr Harvey Weinstein in the picture above as he issues a clear message to somebody out of camera shot. You cannot have failed to notice the slew of accusations against Weinstein ranging from inappropriate attempts at engaging in sexual interaction with women through to sexual assaults and rape. So far, more than thirty accusers have come forward although undoubtedly that number is set to rise.
Weinstein has apparently fled LA by private jet to the US $ 40 000 a month The Meadows rehab facility in Arizona. The mainstream media has bandied around phrases referring to him seeking treatment for sex addiction, that he is a sexual predator, he has abused his considerable power as a Hollywood producer but as ever one word is consistently missing – narcissist.
So, what are his accusers saying about him and how does this link to him being a narcissist? The analysis is based on what the accusers are stating as being true (and we will come to more of that in due course).
The French actress Lea Seydoux stated :-
“We were talking on the sofa when he suddenly jumped on me and tried to kiss me.
“I had to defend myself. He’s big and fat, so I had to be forceful to resist him. I left his room, thoroughly disgusted.
“I wasn’t afraid of him, though. Because I knew what kind of man he was all along.”
This behaviour shows a sense of entitlement and no regard for boundaries. He has no empathy for how a young woman would feel suddenly being treated in this manner.
The American actress, Heather Graham alleges he tried to force himself on her and told her his wife would have been fine with it.
“He could sleep with whomever he wanted when he was out of town. I walked out of the meeting feeling uneasy.
“There was no explicit mention that to star in one of those films I had to sleep with him, but the subtext was there.”
Once more there is a huge sense of entitlement not only with Ms Graham, but also with the perception that he could sleep with whomever he wanted. Yet again there is a failure to observe boundaries and moreover a lack of accountability. Not only does he not see or care that there might be a repercussion for such an unwanted advance, he goes further and states that his wife would have been fine with it. Note also the suggestion of subtext referred to by Ms Graham, which evidences the plausible deniability which we so often engage in. Had Ms Graham complained at the time, Weinstein would have course denied the accusation pointing out it was just the word of some crazed, wannabe young actress. Undoubtedly he would then have gone on to ruin her career, demonstrating the desire to exert control over an appliance and the application of punishment since Ms Graham would be painted ‘black’ for her treachery, even though Weinstein is the one in the wrong.
Model and actress Zoe Brock says she was brought back to Weinstein’s hotel room under false pretences in the south of France in 1997. It isn’t clear whether it was Weinstein or another who applied the false pretences, but either way, this is a further indicator of the narcissist at work. Lies have been told, manipulation has been applied and has either been done by Weinstein himself or through a Lieutenant on his behalf.
Brock explained that Weinstein emerged naked from another part of the suite and asked for a massage – once again no boundary recognition and a sense of entitlement, plus the usual lack of empathy for the individual placed in this situation.
“I did not want to do that and he asked if he could give me a massage… I didn’t know what to do and I felt that letting him maybe touch me a little bit might placate him enough to get me out of there somehow.”
Before long, Ms Brock fled into the bathroom. He banged on the door with his fists before eventually retreating, putting on a dressing gown and starting to cry.
This last paragraph provides us with further insight into Weinstein’s narcissism. When Brock fled, that was an act which wounded Weinstein. Her removing herself from him signalled to him that he was not important, that his control was not complete and he was wounded. His initial response was one of ignited fury as he banged on the door with his fists but this clearly drew no response from Ms Brock and more importantly no fuel and also wounded Weinstein further. He was forced to retreat and with his fuel levels being depleted by the wounding and the lack of additional fuelling appliances. Thus, withdrawal was his only option. Unsettled by his plummeting fuel levels and the potential for further wounding, his self-defence mechanism shifted and he began to cry. He was crying for himself as a consequence of the construct now starting to fall apart and also as a pity play in the hope that this would lure Ms Brock into being sympathetic and thus provide fuel to him.
Italian actress and director Asia Argento’s first dealing with Weinstein’s company Miramax was when she appeared in their crime drama B Monkey. She says she was left alone with him in a hotel room on the French Riviera after being told she was going to a Miramax party. Argento says she reluctantly agreed to give him a massage, but he then raped her.
Weinstein “terrified me, and he was so big”, she said. “It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare.”
“I know he has crushed a lot of people before. That’s why this story – in my case, it’s 20 years old, some of them are old – has never come out.”
Argento has not spoken out until now, saying she feared it would ruin her career to do so.
Once again there is the sense of entitlement, the lack of boundary recognition, the lack of empathy, the manipulation, the lies about the true intention and the threat of repercussion. Note that Ms Argento refers to being aware that he has crushed a lot of people before, therefore not only has this behaviour been systematic (further supported by the many revelations which are now coming forward) but it also exhibits the control that Weinstein exerted over people and as you know, control over everything is something we must have.
Mira Sorvino appeared in several of Weinstein’s films and has said that he sexually harassed her and tried to pressure her into having a physical relationship.
She was in a hotel room with him at the Toronto International Film Festival in 1995. Ms Sorvino explained that :-
“He started massaging my shoulders, which made me very uncomfortable, and then tried to get more physical, sort of chasing me around.”
Weeks later, she alleges he turned up to her apartment under the guise of having marketing ideas for the film.
“I opened the door terrified, brandishing my 20-pound Chihuahua mix in front of me, as though that would do any good.”
She told Weinstein her new boyfriend was on the way round, after which he apparently became dejected and left.
Once more there is the sense of entitlement, lack of boundary recognition, absence of empathy for how the victim of his behaviour would feel, a lack of accountability for his actions, manipulation and lying. Ms Sorvino’s comment about her new boyfriend being on his way around wounded Weinstein as not only was she rejecting him, she preferred somebody else. A Greater Narcissist, whilst wounded by such a comment would have kept his ignited fury in check and pressed on regardless, confident in his ability to charm and coerce to achieve the desired outcome. Weinstein, however, was wounded and he clearly anticipated further wounding. His dejection was an attempt to gain sympathy from Ms Sorvino, to gain fuel to address his wounding, but it failed and thus once again he was forced to withdraw.
The scale of the allegations covers not just actresses but those who worked in the various echelons of his company.
Various workers at the Weinstein film company have reported their unpleasant experiences dealing with Weinstein and this includes Emily Nestor who was a temporary front desk assistant who explained she had to refuse the advances of Weinstein on at least a dozen occasions. This evidences his sense of omnipotence and power, everybody is available to him and underlines his grandiosity – he can pick whoever he wants and they had better give him what he wants otherwise he would punish them.
Weinstein is clearly of the somatic cadre as his modus operandi to gaining fuel and extending control over appliances is through sexual overtures. Of course, this will be dressed up as him being a sex addict but it misses the fundamental point. Yes, he is an addict but he is addicted to fuel (just as all of our kind are) but he uses sex as a major method of gaining this fuel. Of course Weinstein will have sucked up the fuel at the lavish parties he threw, the glamorous ceremonies he attended, revelling in the applause and adulation from tertiary sources and Non Intimate Secondary Sources (friends, family and colleagues) but he wanted the more potent fuel from those he sought to make his Intimate Partner Secondary Sources. He had his wife as the Intimate Partner Primary Source but through these various acts of infidelity she was being devalued and we do not know what other behaviour she has had to endure – perhaps that will emerge over time.
The money, glamour, parties, beautiful people etc all fit within Weinstein belonging to the somatic cadre. He is not a physically attractive man however, overweight, out of shape, small piggy eyes and a face that would not look lost on the loser of a boxing bout but of course to certain somatic these physical shortcomings are not a problem. Firstly, the delusional nature of his narcissism will have told him that he was an adonis and irresistible to these people and as more and more victims piled up, this reinforced his notion of him being such a magnet for women. Secondly, he had his manipulative nature and the power of making or breaking people’s careers as a hugely influential force to ensure that he would achieve his aims most of the time. One does not have to have the looks of Brad Pitt to be of the somatic cadre.
So, the evidence from his accusers (and there is plenty more along similar lines to that detailed above) all supports that he is a narcissist. But what does Mr Weinstein have to say at this early stage to these allegations?
First of all, let us turn to the statement that has been issued on his behalf :-
Weinstein’s spokeswoman Sallie Hofmeister issued a statement in response to the allegations of sexual harassment and assault. She stated,
“Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr Weinstein,” she said. “Mr Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances.
“Mr Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr Weinstein has begun counselling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path.”
What does this tell us? Most telling is the admission that Mr Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. This is noteworthy for two matters. Firstly, he is not denying the relationships took place, thus it is highly likely that he is admitting to acts of infidelity with regard to one or both of his two marriages. This evidences a lack of empathy for the ex-spouse and soon to be ex-spouse. It also shows once more his sense of entitlement. Secondly, an uninformed reader might see the use of the word ‘believes’ and think ‘oh sure he thought they were consensual’ with a shaken head of disbelief, but here is the rub, Weinstein will, from his narcissistic perspective believed that they were consensual because he is entitled to anything he wants, no means yes and he has to control everything. Nobody refuses him.
His spokesperson naturally denied any suggestion of criminality on his part and as Mandy Rice-Davies stated in the Profumo Affair, “well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” but not only is this careful management by his advisors, Weinstein will believe he has done nothing wrong because he is unaccountable in his world.
The final sentence is typical deflection and very much in the mould of But I Can Change as people are invited to consider him to be a lost and damaged soul who needs guidance and therapy. It is just facade management.
However, this is what the carefully stage-managed spokesperson has said on his behalf, how has Mr Weinstein responded since the explosion of these revelations?
When leaving his daughter’s home to get into a vehicle to whisk him away, presumably to the waiting private jet, he was reported as stating
“And you know I’ve always been loyal to you guys, not like those fucking pricks who treat you like shit. I’ve been the good guy,”
This sentence packs so much of his narcissism in, it is hugely interesting.
- I have always been loyal to you guys – he is convinced he is a decent person and is also seeking sympathy with this comment, further evidence of his delusions thinking and his bid for fuel;
- Not like those ‘fucking pricks’ who treat you like shit – deflection by lashing out at other individuals, provocation towards the unnamed ‘pricks’;
- Sense of victimhood – I am the decent fellow here who has always been good to you lot and look at how I am being treated now
- ‘I’ve been the good guy’ – as ever the facade fights to remain in place and the obsession with being seen as a decent person continues
- Sense of entitlement – I have been loyal to you and now in my hour of need you had better support me;
- Sense of treachery – referring to how he is being vilified.
The picture accompanying this article shows Weinstein giving the finger on both hands as he attends his lawyer’s office. Hardly the behaviour of a contrite individual who “has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path.” No, at this juncture this was a narcissist who was fuelled (he had several supporters with him when the picture was taken) and when confronted no doubt by a press pack this was Challenge Fuel, so Weinstein feeling fuelled and confident, but needing to assert his perceived superiority engaged in a provocative act to draw more fuel from those observing and to assert his supposed superiority.
Whilst at his daughter’s house she apparently telephoned the police concerned that her father was suicidal. The repeated wounding he felt as allegation after allegation landed against him, from people he regarded as loyal and under his control, was smashing holes in his construct and making him feel desperate, like his world was literally caving in on him. Add to this the condemnation from other members of the industry, the fact that BAFTA has suspended his membership and The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was considering his role and condemned his behaviour, add Mr Weinstein was facing massive wounds. Rather ironically, even Hillary Clinton stated that the funds Weinstein had donated to her presidential campaign would be donated to a charity instead. Once again, members of the brethren only look out for themselves.
Little wonder that he felt suicidal and was described as being in meltdown. Starved of fuel as hitherto reliable appliances turned off the provision of fuel as they turned their backs on him, he was also being repeatedly wounded, no wonder he commented
‘Guys, I’m not doing OK but I’m trying. I gotta get help. I’m hanging in, I’m trying my best.’
For once a statement of honesty in terms of him not doing okay, but once again his narcissistic self-defence mechanism kicks in as he refers to needing to get help, that he is “hanging in” (brave little soldier eh?) and he was “trying his best” so of course, feel sorry for the man, give him a break, he has realised he has made mistakes and is going to improve himself.
No he is not.
It is telling that when Weinstein met with executives of the film company before he was dismissed, he stated he wanted to go into heavy therapy and counselling in order to make a comeback. That is what matters to Weinstein ; himself. He is not going into therapy to be a better person, he is doing it because he has enough awareness (and no doubt suitably advised) that it is what he ought to do. He is doing it as facade management. He is doing it in order to draw fuel as part of a massive Pity Play, but most of all he is only doing it in the hope that he can stage a comeback. That is what is central to this current behaviour.
The executives were not persuaded and refused his request.
There is so much material that has emerged and is emerging to support the fact that Weinstein is one of us that it merits a book. However, the most damning indictment against him and one which reinforces what he is, is his utter lack of empathy.
Has he said sorry? Has he apologised? Has he been contrite?
What do you think?
I have given you some clues in the article above, but can you apply your knowledge to ascertaining which school of narcissist Harvey Weinstein is?