Sheen, Abuse & And Scared Reporters #notwinning
I was reading Anna Holmes’ NYT Op-Ed on Charlie Sheen and the failure to see the women in his life as proper victims, and besides some overreaching on her part, what really rang a bell for me was that I have been watching some of the worst interviewing that I’ve ever seen in his back yard (literally, in his back yard).
I haven’t heard a single one of these alleged journalists – all employed by high-profile news organizations – ask a decent, probing follow-up to even the most obvious elephants in the room.
1. CBS is threatening his livelihood, so it’s war. Wait. Haven’t they paid him $100 million or more so far for his work on this show? Does he has a $2 million a week nut?
Realistically, the cost of being Charlie Sheen could cost him $1 million a month. That would not be a shocking number, assuming that he is paying for the homes of ex-wives, etc. Private planes and real estate and a payroll of sycophants can add up. The Goddesses alone must be earning at least $1k each a day.
But instead of sitting there with a dumb smirk on their faces, haven’t any of these people considered pushing this guy even the tiniest bit?
2. The Goddesses Even though Ms. Holmes seems to feel that noting that one of these women is a porn actress and the other probably has been selling her feminine wiles privately for years (based on her behavior and Sheen’s proclivities) is degrading to them… well, sorry, can’t sign off on that.
Don’t you think that one of these media monkeys would have said by now, “So Charlie… I Googled one of your Goddesses and one of the first things that came up was her being fornicated anally by two men at once. Is that going on in your home, in a bedroom near your children? If so, shouldn’t the mother of the children be concerned? And if not, did your relationship start with extreme sex and become something more spiritual?”
Or how about this obvious question… “How many times a day is one of the Goddesses engaging your penis? And if they stopped doing so, would they still be welcome in your home?”
3. Aren’t you concerned that you have now become a joke and will never again be taken seriously by the industry?”
It’s like these people are just afraid that he’ll turn off the access if they challenge him in any way and then they can’t crawl over each other trying to differentiate what is basically the same interview over and over and over and over and over. So they smirk when they get a crazy answer and delicately try to prod him into the next crazy answer. It’s more a circus act that an interview.
As for Anna Holmes, I must object a little. She is completely right that the coverage has been gentle… and in the case of Piers Morgan, he did an entire hour with Sheen’s male juices splayed across his face, lapping it up and begging for more. It was gross and it made me think less of Piers Morgan than I have before. But… since Kelly Preston, who didn’t just get shot in the arm, but was beaten often, the industry has known what Charlie Sheen is, in terms of women. And yes, the industry looked the other way. But so has every woman who has been with him since.
Denise Richards seems very sober about Sheen now. But she didn’t get involved with him without having heard about his history with women. And you can be sure that she did every form of sexual and drug gymnastics with him that she could survive. That is the cost of entry into this particular man’s life. Sleeping with her kids across the hall from a manic, drugged Daddy with a porn performer in his closet is surely not anywhere near rock bottom in her experience with Sheen. At least she wasn’t the one in the closet.
I don’t know the woman, so I won’t presume to know why she thought it would be safe for her to marry him or have his children. But she was not uninformed. And as such, there is culpability.
“Gold diggers,” “prostitutes” and “sluts” may be epithets, but in most of Sheen’s relationships with women, they have also been the fact.
Ms Holmes writes: Some are sex workers — pornographic film stars and escorts — whose compliance with churlish conduct is assumed to be part of the deal. (For the record: It is not.)
Others, namely Ms. Richards and Ms. Mueller, are less-famous starlets or former “nobodies” whose relationships with Mr. Sheen have been disparaged as purely sexual and transactional. The women reside on a continuum in which injuries are assumed and insults are expected.
For the record, Ms. Holmes can’t speak for all sex workers or their expectations. In a world where porn has become more and more ugly, who is she – and who would I be – to decide where that line is for every person? I’m sure there are women who didn’t know what they were getting into when they were sent to see Sheen. But not many.
Dealing with Charlie Sheen is to expect enormous charm and enormous amounts of churlish conduct. And I don’t think that Richards and Mueller are necessarily diminished by people. I don’t see them as people who deserve abuse. But I do believe they got into relationships with a man whose sexual proclivities, drug use, and repeated violent behavior towards women was extremely well known, especially in the communities in which they all live. And they made that choice. I don’t really care why. But the degree to which they are victims is limited by the awareness. No one forced them to make that choice.
Even if you think of either woman as a gold digger (and I don’t, actually)… they could have dug elsewhere just as successfully. There are plenty of men who would want them on their arm who may not be nice or attractive, but are certainly rich and don’t have the history of serious abuse.
There is no limit on how victimized their children are by this. The kids never had a choice, though like most kids, on the small part of the surface I have seen, they seem to have adjusted on the fly. But this cannot be good for them, long term.
And for the record, the difference between Sheen and Lohan is that he did show up to work, it seems, reliably. She did not. And in her behavior, she threatened people’s livelihoods. Her work issues are not about being vilified in the media. Her work issues are that she became nearly impossible to work with. And THAT is the ultimate sin in Hollywood, not what you do on the weekends.
And indeed, as David Carr in The Times on Monday, the straw that broke the camel’s back here wasn’t the drugs or the women, but the public breaking of a privately unhappy relationship with his showrunner. And even if Sheen is sober as The Pope, he can’t just turn up on set and improvise a tiger blood sitcom. He needs someone to run the show, whether he likes it or not. Warners and CBS are deeply involved with Chuck Lorre in multiple shows and surely intend for more shows to emerge. Two more years of 2.5 Men would be very profitable… but less so than the loss that would be incurred if they tried to replace Lorre against his will.
We seem to forget, in a haze of Adonis DNA, that Madonna did everything that one was supposed to be able to do to destroy her career and didn’t. (Only old age seems to slow that roll.) Elizabeth Taylor stole husbands and married all those times. Brando’s antics just led to bigger paydays. And one of the world’s favorite actors right now is a recovering heroin addict who couldn’t do studio movies for years.
America looks the other way all the time. And perhaps forgiveness is a great attribute as a nation. It is absolutely reasonable to wish that Sheen was being called out as the sick pig that he is. But trying to spin that against The Industry is a reach, even if it is another room loaded with wealthy white men who lean to misogyny and racism as rich, cloistered people tend to lean. But the game show hosts posing as journalists and their bosses who care more about ratings than journalism should all be ashamed of themselves.
Or maybe they’re just gold digging ratings whores high on tiger blood and the benefits of taking advantage of the latest sick fuck who needs help, not indulgence.
At least two of the women who were married to Cary Grant claimed during divorce proceedings that he beat them. Not regularly – but not rarely, either. John Wayne had a similar marital history. I’m certainly not mentioning this to defend Charlie Sheen — or any other SOB who hits women — but, as you say, America looks the other way all the time. I would imagine that, after a while, if you’re continually granted a free pass, you assume that the rules simply don’t apply to you.
You know why some people do terribly bad things? For the same reason other people do wonderfully good things. Because they can.
It’s more important for weak, impotent men to huzzah him as if he represents some primal force.
By far the best piece of commentary I have read or heard on this whole sick feeding frenzy. Kudos, David Poland.
Re: the interviewers’ relationship to Sheen – I can only say that you don’t often see the barker at a carny giving one of their geeks the third degree for the shit they’re doing either. It’s almost a healthy sign that there isn’t a journalist more serious than Billy Bush sitting across from Charlie Sheen’s imploding husk.
I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you this, but the whole ‘journalists not challenging their subjects for fear of losing access’ is what hampers political journalism as well. I’ve often babbled about the similarities between entertainment journalism and political journalism, but here’s just another obvious similarity.
And thank you DP for being the only one to acknowledge that Sheen’s ‘firing’ is less about Two and a Half Men and more about not wanting to lose Lorre. Two and a Half Men may have 2-3 seasons left, but The Big Bang Theory could easily run for another six (especially with the creative shot in the arm of successfully adding two female regulars to the predominantly boys-club cast), along with the zillions that can be made by whatever other hit sitcoms Lorre can create for CBS. If CBS forces Lorre to work with Sheen, they risk Lorre leaving both shows in the muck, rather than just one. As I joked when this first hit the fan, I bet the cast of The Big Bang Theory really wishes they waited a few months to renegotiate their per-episode fees. And the cast of How I Met Your Mother must be thrilled, as they’ve just gone from ‘on-the-bubble’ utility player to network MVP.
Joe, either provide a link about John Wayne beating his wives, or please stop repeating something that’s about as baseless as you are Santa Claus and have been stiffing kids their presents since the 80s!
ETA: Scott, HIMYM stopped being on the bubble back in 2008. They probably do enjoy being the second most important comedy on CBS at the moment though.
Joe does bear a striking resemblance to a more svelte Santa Claus.
IO: They hide that sort of information in those things they call books.
Don: It runs in the family.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19336084@N07/5501687100/
“HIMYM stopped being on the bubble back in 2008. They probably do enjoy being the second most important comedy on CBS at the moment though.”
Um, no, that would be BIG BANG THEORY…though admittedly it could be #1 very soon.
One of the things I have always disliked is the willingness to disregard the bad things a person does as long as they are successful at what they do. Often, celebrities do not get treated the same as regular people in the justice system and I am not just talking about their ability to have the best lawyers. They get more chances than I would. Robert Downey Jr. changed after being sent to a real prison and not celebrity jail. I used to like Charlie Sheen years ago, I haven’t liked him for a long time.
SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN.
GOD.
BOW.
Sheen’s Korner – 1 hour of new web video
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13119584
there;s a great piece running on Real Sports on HBO about Gawker and Deadspin.com, and how they used off the record conversations as the basis for stories.
there’s a great quote, when asked “why should anyone trust you when you use off the record conversations in stories” and he said:
“most of the time i don’t use off the record material”
nice.
On a not entirely unconnected note: Josh Marshall appears to think that the folks at Fox News know Glenn Beck is certifiably bonkers — but won’t cancel his show as long as he gets ratings and earns money. Does this sound familiar?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/fox_looking_to_unload_beck.php?ref=fpblg
Beck is safe until he publicly calls out Rupert or Roger.
Beck is either mentally ill or playing Lonesome Rhodes.
I mean, this guy has like eight chalkboards lined up around him – a schizophrenic’s wet dream.
What’s scary is how fervently Beck’s fans defend him no matter what the guy says. I’ve made the mistake of getting into arguments with them before, and they are just as insane as the man they worship. “Prove he’s wrong. Prove progressives are not aligning themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood to establish a New World Order.” They state it with such absolute conviction. It’s freaky.
And the clearly mental Michelle Bachmann says Beck can solve all of America’s problems on his chalkboards. And she was elected…
It’s like I tell my students: There was a time when Network was viewed as a satire. But now…
You know, now they’ve actually gone ahead and done it, I have to admit: I did not think CBS would fire Charlie Sheen.
Along the lines of Network….
How could CBS fire Sheen in the middle of his explosion as a ratings bonanza? I mean, just do a Howard Beale show with Sheen pontificating about how we can all be rock stars from Mars and winning.