|
Post by DNA on Oct 25, 2005 7:03:47 GMT -5
new york daily newsLowdown By Lloyd GroveQuirky actor Vincent D'Onofrio, star of "Law and Order: Criminal Intent," is again drawing attention to himself. At a recent mandatory NBC Universal workplace harassment seminar for the show's cast and crew, the bachelor D'Onofrio, 46, argued with the network lawyer conducting the proceedings until the class finally had to be cut short. The trouble began when the lawyer presented a hypothetical scenario - involving a costume assistant stumbling on a male actor looking at hard-core porn in his trailer - and asked if that constituted sexual harassment. "Why is it always a male actor?" D'Onofrio interjected bitterly, according to a Lowdown spy. "This policy is unfair! It's a matter of subjectivity, pitting one person's idea of what's acceptable against another's." He continued: "When you ask actors to do a provocative show with provocative material, they might need to study up on risqué things - looking at a porn site to understand the character better. The policy discriminates against the artists, who might be doing things in the interest of their art." As the lawyer grew frazzled, D'Onofrio continued to berate him, even drawing scattered applause at one point. Says the spy: "He got all belligerent. When the guy would try and move on, Vincent kept pressing him with more." D'Onofrio doesn't have a personal publicist. A rep for the show told Lowdown yesterday: "NBC Universal is committed to providing a workplace free of harassment of any kind, and provides training for all of our series. However, we do not comment on the specifics of any internal meetings."
|
|
|
Post by DNA on Oct 25, 2005 8:16:06 GMT -5
Check out The Reel, they have this "article" posted and below they have excerpt from Forbes.com ("Vincent D'Onofrio On Dealing With The Media" ) I found it ironic reading both articles together. The Forbes one dealing with VDO's thought's on dealing with the media and then by some "quirky" twist of fate this offering by the New York Daily news. (I'm not familiar with the NY Daily, so I'm not sure where it's standing as a "newspaper" falls, perhaps one of you NY residents could enlighten?).
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 25, 2005 9:32:42 GMT -5
THE DAILY NEWS is more reliable than the POST, but not in league with the TIMES (although with all the TIMES has gone through lately...) The POST and THE DAILY NEWS have been involved in battles of the gossip columnists in recent years, so I don't know how much I'd credit any story appearing in its gossip columns.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by DNA on Oct 25, 2005 10:21:15 GMT -5
Cheers Pat. I thought maybe it was occupying the middle ground between the Post and Times and leaning toward the Post, but I wasn't sure.
Most of the time I find in the British press we have a clear line drawn between tabloid (trash) and regular journalism, with US newspaper's I sometimes have difficulty gaging where the line is, or if it even exists, but universally speaking any article that includes the words Spy, Insider, undisclosed source...etc gets filed under mmkay...
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 25, 2005 10:52:58 GMT -5
Well, gossip columns are gossip columns -- their credibility is always up for grabs. However, I gotta step in and defend the NY Daily News. True, it doesn't have the national and international creds to compete with The NY Times, but it is far, far more in depth than either The NYT or The NY Post on matters concerning New York City, State and surrounding areas... And its credibility is far, far above that of The NY Post.
|
|
|
Post by Summerfield on Oct 25, 2005 10:54:03 GMT -5
That line alone just shows the writer's bias toward VDO. And why, why did they have to mention VDO as a bachelor? What does that have to do with the reporting? The writer didn't mention the marital status or gender of the attorney.
By the way, I think VDO does have a point.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 25, 2005 10:56:26 GMT -5
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a seed of truth in this story. Remember what D’Onofrio put himself through while preparing for The Cell? Now someone is telling him that if a woman had seen certain aspects of that, he would have been guilty of harassment?? I can imagine him arguing about that. And I can imagine him challenging the idea that it’s “always a male actor.” I would have, if I’d been in such a class. There are plenty of women who like sexually explicit pictures and films – and there are no doubt female actors who need to do research/preparation – and there are certainly young men who would feel uncomfortable if they walked in in the middle of it. What a lot of people – male and female – don’t get is that the kind of sexual discrimination implicit in singling out male actors and female victims isn’t “just” reverse discrimination. It’s a *part* of the same kind of discrimination that oppresses women, and it helps maintain the attitudes and atmosphere that allow certain aspects of oppressive discrimination to continue, and to seem normal. Of course, it is *also* unfair to men – which also matters, and was probably his main reason for arguing that particular point...
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 25, 2005 11:05:31 GMT -5
I tried, but I just can't let this one go ...
In the interest of their art? Well, I'll grant him that it could happen, but if an actor is watching such material in what is supposed to be a place where he can expect some privacy, then it seems to me that he need not offer up any explanations or excuses for it, and a person should knock before entering someone elses private space. What if he was getting dressed instead of watching porn?
Where did he think they lawyer was going with this? And why take it on so strenuously? Does he not think that such protections are still needed in the work place?
I agree that more often the scenario's presented in such seminars involve a man as the offending party, but that's because in most of the real life cases THEY ARE!!!!
Sure, women can be perverted, gross, and terribly un-pc, as well, but how many times have those of us working shmoes heard a woman utter such a thing -- or worse, say it directly to someone specific, compared to how many times you've heard a man do it?
I'm sorry guys, but you're in the majority for being offenders and women are in the majority for being victims of both insensitivity and outright offensiveness. And if a guy like D'Onofrio can't accept that as the truth, and look at such seminars as a protection of his coworkers, his sisters, his mother, his daughter from people who can't seem to, or just refuse to control themselves, then he's a part of the problem, not the solution, and I‘ve just lost a little respect for him.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 25, 2005 11:25:19 GMT -5
I'm puzzled, Trisha... first you say that in the scenario presented, the person in the dressing room had a right to be doing whatever they were doing, and the "victim" should knock. Then you say that you've lost respect for D'Onofrio because he argued the point?
I don't believe he would ever defend any man's right to harass a female co-worker, and I don't think we should assume he would, based on his irritation over these things always being presented as having the male actor be in the wrong. Even if most of the offenders are male, men who don't offend get pretty tired of hearing about how it's "always" the man. Because it isn't. Women do sexually harass men sometimes. Statistically less often, but still, it isn't "always" the man. Yet that's how people tend to present the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 25, 2005 11:44:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I was trying to hold back on this one too: but come on.
Is it always a D'Onofrio in the right do or die? Hero worship is not called for here. Let's take this article for a basically true report (there would be a whole other premise otherwise & I am NOT claiming this is true - but carrying on a convo based on this article) .....
This was harrassment of the person giving the seminar. Plain and simple. Who thinks this guy just stopped by and wanted to pound out his personal views? No one. This was "scheduled" and to show what a brilliant toad he is he has to come up with this research angle? Anyone could have streched the old brain and come up with a situation that looks like harrassment & is not.
Frankly, if it did happen, all an actor would have to do is show the script he was preparing for and show that he had the door closed & it would be the end of the story.
Ok - so D'Onofrio challenges it is always the male ..... so friggin what. This is not a time or place for class clowning. This whole thing is out of line. You wanna change the world? do it politically - vote and lobby etc ...... don't disrupt something that everyone wants to sail through and get back to work on.
This "male" or not, porn in the trailer issue should all be coffee table talk at a dinner party. He was way out of line and disruptive. If true, I also have lost a major portion of my respect for this actor.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 25, 2005 11:55:13 GMT -5
Observer, that's just it, I think the first part of my statement was really all he needed to say, but, according to the article, that's not what he said and certainly not the point that he was arguing.
Innocent men need not be insulted by such seminars, just like non-racists need not be insulted by warnings not to use the word nigger or cracker to connote something negative. Would it insult him just as much to hear a seminar that focused on that? Or one that focused on not using the word gay to mean weak, or any other such thing that has in the past been acceptable to so many?
I take no offense to being told these things, and I don't consider them an encroachment on my civil liberties, or a way to stifle anyones creativity. I see them only as information that even in this day and age, hasn't gotten through to a great many people and needs to.
It seems to me that D'Onofrio or someone close may have had someone claim to be harassed by, or offended in some way by them, and he decided to take out his indignance over it on a poor, unsuspecting seminar speaker who's only crime here was to do his job.
And in the mean time, he trivialized the fact that there are victims, and the majority of them are women. His self righteousness here absolutely galls me.
|
|
|
Post by Summerfield on Oct 25, 2005 12:04:48 GMT -5
Uh...maybe he was just pissed because he had to attend the meeting? Maybe he resented having to be there discussing what should be the obvious? From what's been "reported" in the past, it seems he has a low opinion of network executives and their mouthpieces. It looks to me that the lawyer opened the door with his weak scenario and Vincent took the opportunity to make his "point" and in the process caused the meeting to be cut short.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 25, 2005 12:23:45 GMT -5
I can't argue as to the truth of this - that cannot be determined by us.
Can we discuss this "as if" ? If so, then, since harrassment happens all over & all the time, it is not obvious to many people. It may be obvious to D'Onofrio, in which case he should be napping with his eyes open & then go off to work. Merely manners. It also never hurts to be refreshed on what work policies are and current LAWS; so for his own good - he should pay attention to make sure he stays in line with policy and laws.
I know you won't believe it; but even I have said some things when I was younger that I would be horrified to say now. Not racist, as I never was; but some of my opinions of the world were worlds away from where I am now - I could have used some seminars myself.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Oct 25, 2005 12:24:55 GMT -5
Is it always a D'Onofrio in the right do or die? Hero worship is not called for here. He was way out of line and disruptive. If true, I also have lost a major portion of my respect for this actor. Thank you, Metella! Admittedly I don't know diddly about New York publications so I can't offer any kind of assessment of the source, but if this is based on some sort of true incident...ugh. "Pitting one person's idea of what's acceptable against another's." What? They weren't saying it was acceptable for women to view porn, they just happened to use the male in a hypothetical. If the lawyer was just giving a "for example", how is that an attack? The only way that might possibly be seen as a dig against someone is if it had been an issue in the past and delivered with a pointed look or tone of inflection. Can we presume that wasn't the case here? If you have a concern about a policy, maybe ask a couple of questions but don't get ugly about it, make an appointment to see someone one-on-one for further explanation or questions so you don't have to drag the poor mouthpiece and the rest of the staff into it. I personally would be mortified if I were attending a meeting where someone hogs time and gets downright tacky and irrelevant in forcing their own opinions. I've been in seminar classes where that happens and the professor won't shut the obnoxious one up; meanwhile the rest of the class is sitting there going Dear God, can we PLEASE get on with the rest of the material?!?!So someone walks into your trailer and sees porn--knocking being a separate issue we'll leave aside--say you're doing research and tuck it away for later. Considering the work on a TV show set--I'm presuming there are lots of people in and out, fetching actors or whatever to give cues or five-minute notices, etc., shouldn't you anticipate this kind of thing? Just put a "Knock, please" or "Do not disturb" on the door to buy yourself some time. It doesn't sound like the network is trying to oppress anybody, they're just a corporation trying to cover their butt so they don't get sued--policy applies to everybody. I don't think it's harassment unless you bring it into the conversation or deliberately try to get a reaction from the stumbler. I mean, I would feel uncomfortable stumbling across something like that but unless the person intentionally brought me into it or shoved it in my face I wouldn't call it harassment. "Whoops" of embarassment, blush, drop it. Or am I just a silly sheltered naive little baby in my approach? --Catbird ETA: Considering the project I helped a friend with a couple weeks ago outside the library I'm not really in a position to snicker at "Oh sure, research". Hee hee.
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Oct 25, 2005 13:45:25 GMT -5
What's that old saying? There is no such thing as bad press. Or something along those lines. Seems rather timely to me, considering the upcoming November sweeps period and the 2-hour 'event.
And if this report is true, then I have to agree with Trisha and Metella's takes on this. Very obnoxious behaviour.
|
|