Why Am I Defending Harvey Weinstein?

Enjoyed David Carr’s piece on down-but-not-out Harvey Weinstein at Sundance—found myself glad to see the guy fighting his way back from near-death of his six-year-old company, aided by the Oscar prospects of his surprise hit The King’s Speech. Carr writes well about Harvey—a large, difficult, outrageous personality, to say the least. But I found myself leaping to Harvey’s defense when I read this:

Mr. Weinstein, an opportunistic bottom feeder with a knack for resuscitating troubled projects, has become one himself.

Harvey is, or has been, many things—a blowhard, a bully, even a thug—but he’s never been a bottom feeder. He may be rumpled and crass, but he has taste, in projects and people. He doesn’t take no, or understand no, or recognize limits on how far it’s okay to go to make something happen. He plays hardball without rules. But he buys and makes interesting stuff.

He once told me he’d ruin me if I ran a story in New York magazine that made him look bad–if it took “every last penny” he had, or words to that effect. He once threatened to investigate my sex life in college as revenge for something we published. (Wait, that was Bob. And if I recall correctly, I told him to go for it.) But I can’t resist rooting for him.

Maybe that’s because I was a magazine editor—not an actor or director—so his rage couldn’t really hurt me. Maybe it’s because after the outsize threats he calls up to say no hard feelings. Maybe it’s because he once got Johnny Depp to take a picture with my daughter at a premiere. Doesn’t mean he wouldn’t lie to me or threaten me the next day, if he felt he needed to.

But there’s no way the indie film business is better off without Harvey. Bottom feeders are driven to make money. Harvey is driven to make movies. As Carr puts it:

If you have a risky movie and you’re looking for a buccaneer to team up with, there are not a lot of pirates around.