Since I established myself here by commenting on the Blake Lively - Justin Baldoni lawsuit, I thought I would point out that New York magazine did a detailed account of the history of the movie and the aftermath based on all the information that's been made public in discovery. The gist of the whole thing seems to be that both Lively and Baldoni have issues that came into conflict as they were making a play for big budget movie greatness, largely having to do with the difference between who they are personally and who their friends are.
Baldoni is a good looking guy with an ability to actually make movies, who has a bunch of friends with money that thought they could use his talent to make a big splash in Hollywood. They gave him the money for the rights to a Colleen Hoover book and to hire a big star, without asking whether he really had the skills to work with women who were going to be hyper-sensitive about the sexual dynamics of the story and the production. For Baldoni's part, his TED-talk feminism wasn't sufficient to suggest that he ought to have a lot of women he trusted working in the production, so he could get feedback about how to address Lively's concerns ASAP. Based on the story, it doesn't look like he has a lot of female friends, period, and that his sense of himself as a female ally may have more to do with getting along with his wife.
Lively is a talented actress who was getting advice on how to negotiate industry politics from two people with world-historical charisma, Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift. Reynolds and Swift make decisions based on the sure and certain knowledge that, whatever they do, massive numbers of people will really like them. Lively is less charismatic and less secure in herself, and she therefore took more time to react negatively to things that were bothering her, but when she did, she was adopting strategies that assumed the public wouldn't judge her (as it already had) as someone who was a "difficult actress".
When the production ran into problems, Lively used her power to get what she needed, but Baldoni's backers started working the PR angle on her being trouble. The lawsuit was essentially her best way of getting out the fact that the Hollywood machine that keeps women subservient had been working on Baldoni's behalf. At this point, with Baldoni dismissed as a defendant, it's literally a lawsuit by an actress who is likely to lose a decade of her career against a PR industry that makes money by defaming women in public.
The question for the Lively-haters would really seem to be - What has Lively done that is so bad that it's worth taking the side of a multi-million dollar industry whose main purpose is to humiliate women in public because they're women?
Also worth mentioning, although Swift is not a main character in the New York article, they do quote a number of communications she had with Lively, which give a sense of Swift's views of how to exercise power. Nothing surprising, but she did encourage Lively to act in ways that Lively might not have done on her own, for better or worse.
I totally agree with this (esp your last question) but I hadn’t really thought about the charisma factor—it kind of helps me understand why the conversation about Taylor can get so crazy but she always pulls through it. Also why people end up joining her anti-fandom instead of losing interest. That’s still the effect of charisma I guess!
dinner with jack + this interview + his interview where he talks about her… a terrible 24 hours for people who thought they were beefing bc they have no object permanence
Since I established myself here by commenting on the Blake Lively - Justin Baldoni lawsuit, I thought I would point out that New York magazine did a detailed account of the history of the movie and the aftermath based on all the information that's been made public in discovery. The gist of the whole thing seems to be that both Lively and Baldoni have issues that came into conflict as they were making a play for big budget movie greatness, largely having to do with the difference between who they are personally and who their friends are.
Baldoni is a good looking guy with an ability to actually make movies, who has a bunch of friends with money that thought they could use his talent to make a big splash in Hollywood. They gave him the money for the rights to a Colleen Hoover book and to hire a big star, without asking whether he really had the skills to work with women who were going to be hyper-sensitive about the sexual dynamics of the story and the production. For Baldoni's part, his TED-talk feminism wasn't sufficient to suggest that he ought to have a lot of women he trusted working in the production, so he could get feedback about how to address Lively's concerns ASAP. Based on the story, it doesn't look like he has a lot of female friends, period, and that his sense of himself as a female ally may have more to do with getting along with his wife.
Lively is a talented actress who was getting advice on how to negotiate industry politics from two people with world-historical charisma, Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift. Reynolds and Swift make decisions based on the sure and certain knowledge that, whatever they do, massive numbers of people will really like them. Lively is less charismatic and less secure in herself, and she therefore took more time to react negatively to things that were bothering her, but when she did, she was adopting strategies that assumed the public wouldn't judge her (as it already had) as someone who was a "difficult actress".
When the production ran into problems, Lively used her power to get what she needed, but Baldoni's backers started working the PR angle on her being trouble. The lawsuit was essentially her best way of getting out the fact that the Hollywood machine that keeps women subservient had been working on Baldoni's behalf. At this point, with Baldoni dismissed as a defendant, it's literally a lawsuit by an actress who is likely to lose a decade of her career against a PR industry that makes money by defaming women in public.
The question for the Lively-haters would really seem to be - What has Lively done that is so bad that it's worth taking the side of a multi-million dollar industry whose main purpose is to humiliate women in public because they're women?
Also worth mentioning, although Swift is not a main character in the New York article, they do quote a number of communications she had with Lively, which give a sense of Swift's views of how to exercise power. Nothing surprising, but she did encourage Lively to act in ways that Lively might not have done on her own, for better or worse.
I totally agree with this (esp your last question) but I hadn’t really thought about the charisma factor—it kind of helps me understand why the conversation about Taylor can get so crazy but she always pulls through it. Also why people end up joining her anti-fandom instead of losing interest. That’s still the effect of charisma I guess!
i think getting dinner with jack and suddenly doing press again were clues btw. a storm is coming...
dinner with jack + this interview + his interview where he talks about her… a terrible 24 hours for people who thought they were beefing bc they have no object permanence