Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:05:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Filthy Rich- Epstein Doc (Netflix)

Started by fatguyranting, May 28, 2020, 11:07:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

fatguyranting

This four-parter landed yesterday. Doesn't add much to the available information in the public domain but some of the witness testimony is very harrowing. Things don't look great for Prince Andrew either with new witnesses coming forward to confirm his relationship with his accuser.

privatefriend

I watched this last night but felt it failed to address the massive elephant in the room, namely Leopoldo Gout's involvement in this whole sordid affair. Who is he, does even have gout?

privatefriend

He was also a producer on a film called Once Upon an Island!. This sorry mess just gets deeper and deeper..

Quote from: privatefriend on May 28, 2020, 12:07:53 PM
He was also a producer on a film called Once Upon an Island!.

New Quentin Tarantino film linked to someone just as bad as Weinstein.

Noodle Lizard

I've only seen the first two so far, and it's making me realize I really don't like the style or presentation Netflix documentaries tend to have - the emphasis on "emotion" and manipulation over information. I thought taking up most of the first episode with making several different women recount their abuse in graphic detail, complete with sad strings and ominous hero shots, really cheapens it and doesn't especially help to advance the progression of the case. It feels almost exploitative on the part of the documentarians, really, and Netflix certainly have prior for this. Furthermore, I don't think most people need to be manipulated into feeling horror at some of this stuff - it's grim enough just to read the bullet-points.

Simultaneously, it also feels like some people from Epstein's past are using the documentary as a way of score-settling or redeeming themselves in the public light. The fact that the documentarians present everyone they interview as credible so long as they're saying "I don't like this Jeffrey Epstein fellow" is a sign of lazy journalism, but then again how long could this documentary have taken to make?

I'm also no Trump supporter, but I thought the frequent, deliberate use of photographs juxtaposing him and Epstein or Maxwell was a bit cheeky and cynical especially since, as far as I know, there's far less to link Trump to any of their wrongdoings than some other high profile figures I can think of.

I hope the final two episodes will properly delve into what makes this case so unusual and the implications it might have, but I somehow doubt it'll have any teeth to it. Granted, there's not enough concrete evidence to go on without risking a lawsuit, so I guess it gives them an excuse to make a sequel in a couple of years' time.

Retinend

#5
Oooooh boy. Just watched 2 episodes of this and I thought it was groundbreaking telly.

OP rightly says that this was all in the public domain already, but I don't think the pure facts portrayed the full picture.

The b/w version as read in the papers is a true recipe for hysterical and conspiracy: massive sums of money; "pedophile island"; private jets; royals; politicians; public intellectuals. One soon believes that there MUST have been a network of adults to have set it all up. The truth as set out in this show is much more more disquieting.

In Epstein and Maxwell's "sexual pyramid scheme" there were untold numbers of underaged victims - and have no doubt at all that all the girls were victimized.... yet at the same time here we have a hierarchy of victimization, where the least victimised girls were the best rewarded and least damaged. Not only did the dirty money of Epstein pay for the silence (or worse, compliance) of young girls with low self-esteem, but it also sinisterly empowered other girls to do evil themselves in knowingly recruiting others for abuse out of the playground - a system that (counter to conspiracy theorists' claims) bypassed the adult world entirely. Only once the affair came to light did the corruption of the adult world play its role, but at this point in the series (end of episode 2) we are only just getting into that aspect.

It was utterly heartbreaking to hear the story of Virginia Giuffre, who - after the first instance of abuse - allowed herself to be brainwashed into becoming a prostitute for Epstein's pedophilic inner circle. She recounts how she - not coming from wealth - allowed herself to think that, essentially, she had never had it so good(!!!). It struck a cold fear in me to imagine the face she presented to Prince Andrew - the brainwashed, good little slave - totally in conformity to a pedophile's ideal of willing servitude, and embodying the dark side of sexual "liberation", which let's get controversial here is closer to sexual slavery.

On that point, I admit fascination for the odious rapist and fugitive Ghislaine Maxwell. Educated; sophisticated; beautiful; worldly wise; a patron of the arts: she could hold court amongst the brightest minds of her generation. If you could somehow gain her confidence, and ask her "why?"... would she simply say: "I got off on it; on being queen-bitch and corrupter of innocents"? Or would she justify her abuse in highfalutin terms, in the name of liberation? individualism? against the sexual establishment? Would she try to portray him and herself as a modern day Sartre and de Beauvoir?



edited for word choice; no slander of Sartre/de Beauvoir intended

chveik

Quote from: Retinend on May 29, 2020, 08:57:51 AM
a modern day Sartre and de Beauvoir?

they were polyamorists, not criminals

fatguyranting

'I'm also no Trump supporter, but I thought the frequent, deliberate use of photographs juxtaposing him and Epstein or Maxwell was a bit cheeky and cynical especially since, as far as I know, there's far less to link Trump to any of their wrongdoings than some other high profile figures I can think of.'

This is an excellent point and I found myself thinking the same thing. It came across as tacky and manipulative.

Retinend

I'm surprised this thread isn't more lively. It was one of the biggest news stories of 2019.

Anyway, I'm a little embarrassed by my last post claiming that this was "groundbreaking telly" because after watching the remaining half of the series, I can understand a lot better where Noodle Lizard was coming from.

Maybe I should just leave it at that, since it's a sensitive topic but I felt it was kind of .... overly sentimental? How they talked about the judge in this sappy way and how they showed the pastel portraits and how Guiffre's wedding day was the happiest day of her life and so on. The more they let them speak the more I felt manipulated, especially with the one who knew what Epstein was, had been victimized by him, but still encouraged her sister to be alone with him. There are no "perfect victims", for sure.

One last thing: regarding the "suicide or assassination?" conspiracy theory, I would have appreciated at least a little additional research. Who was the guard on duty? Impossible to contact? Would have been nice to know. Who was manning the CCTV? Do they really record every cell 24/7 as a rule? Would also have been nice to know... Is this kind of oversight unprecedented at this federal prison? We get a hint that it wasn't, but would have been nice to know for sure. And anyway what did the pathologist who wasn't being payrolled by Epstein's brother have to say about the evidence for this being a genuine suicide? 've been nice to know. What means of death did the pathologist who was being payrolled by Epstein's brother actually suggest? And who would have paid this supposed assassin? We get some heavy insinuation that Epstein was building a database of blackmail tapes - but didn't you say the house was raided and that his stashes of private photos were seized? Yeah. It would have been nice to know more and to have dispelled some of the more hysterical rumours, but they ended up giving credence to them instead.

Yeah, a disappointing end to the series but still overall worth a watch, if you're up for feeling bad.

BlodwynPig

Netflix doesn't allow screenshots it seems, but the grainy footage of the two girls interviewed by Palm Beach police in the first Episode (Susan and Heather) were surely the same girl...granted quite pixellated. Perhaps it was just a recreation and they got lazy.

I've watched the first two episodes so far. I'm curious how Epstein made his billions, it was implied that he skimmed money from Les Wexner, I believe they said 46 million dollars. Was it a case that he gamed the stock markets to compile his wealth?

The corruptive power of money made me feel sorry for the girls who ended up recruiting other victims. The innocent became somehow guilty, and that was used by the defence team to frame them as unreliable witnesses.

BlodwynPig

These threads would tens of pages deep back in the days of titbo.

A lot of scum in this doc. Acosta being the main scum, and Durshowitz - fucking hell, the balls on that crypt dwelling slice of evil.

Retinend

Quote from: BlodwynPig on June 04, 2020, 09:22:27 AM
These threads would be tens of pages deep back in the days of titbo.

those
were
the
days my friend
we thought they'd never end
we'd flame and bamlem for ever and a day...

PlanktonSideburns

I feel like the model for true crime dramas on Netflix is a really poisonous way to talk about these things, really hated the way that tiger king show felt like a love letter to two rapists

Anyone listen to the trueanon podcast? Thought their coverage of this case was really definitive, entertaining without being exploitative. I've not got the stomach for this story to be told to me like a Netflix true crime thing I think

amputeeporn

Perhaps it's my familiarity with the basics of the story, but I felt like it stopped short of the really interesting/disturbing stuff. It seems to be based on a book by James Patterson dealing primarily with the Palm Beach case, whereas I'd much rather see a broader look at Epstein the man and how he operated. Also the Patterson connection probably explains the soft treatment of Clinton, who is a very good friend of his.

I'd like to know, really, where the money came from. How it was built, where it went (last mention in the documentary was that it was transferred to the Virgin Islands. What does that even mean?) No talk about the fact that he owned businesses with some of the young women in his life (his private pilot for example), and also apparently in some cases the apartments/buildings where they lived.

We had no talk of the rumour that his private pilot was potentially one of the young women he'd 'purchased' as a child, no suggestion that Epstein's public persona was an intelligence construct as alleged quite convincingly by Eric Weinstein. No suggestion that Epstein's status as an intelligence asset (and possession of potentially incriminating materials) was a major part of why Acosta gave him such a sweetheart deal. Some light suggestion I guess in one of the girls saying there were cameras everywhere in his house. But who owns that house now? Who owns the island? There was drone footage of his office on the island after his suicide. Between then and the feds arriving to raid it, computers had disappeared.

Maybe the producers' hands were tied - it's much easier for someone online to say these things than it is Netflix, although you can't libel the dead so I'd say go for it.

In fairness even the basics of the story are insane, and some of the surrounding corroboration of the Prince Andrew stuff was certainly new to me. My main jaw drop moment was just the memory of PA doing that interview - I can't believe how disconnected and insulated you'd need to be to think you're charming people in his position.

PlanktonSideburns

is it weird that its based on a book written by a guy who makes Dekker/whitehousedown/taken-esque airport thrillers with sex-slave loyalty card holder billiam of clinton?

Retinend

I find the conspiracy theories a bit tedious tbh. What's the hard evidence for his supposed "honey pot" activities? What's the precedent for individuals using this method to accrue amounts of health normally reserved for, oh I dunno, investors, art dealers, real estate people and just about everything that was already part of his resume? Is it so hard to believe that he combined many admirable qualities that led to great material wealth, which he turned to impressing the best and brightest? One of my heroes, Steven Pinker, is featured prominently in the photos in the documentary but never addressed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinkers-aid-jeffrey-epsteins-legal-defense-renews-criticism-increasingly

The point is that people like Pinker got drawn into his orbit more for the "connections" and others got drawn into his orbit more for the "great parties". He lived two lives, just like Prince Andy did. That's why they understood each other so well.

lankyguy95

The absurd hopping back and forth in time to drip feed you new bits of information is a consistently irritating thing with Netflix documentaries.

Quote from: Retinend on May 30, 2020, 10:51:40 AM
Maybe I should just leave it at that, since it's a sensitive topic but I felt it was kind of .... overly sentimental? How they talked about the judge in this sappy way and how they showed the pastel portraits and how Guiffre's wedding day was the happiest day of her life and so on. The more they let them speak the more I felt manipulated, especially with the one who knew what Epstein was, had been victimized by him, but still encouraged her sister to be alone with him. There are no "perfect victims", for sure.
It's odd that with such a story as the Epstein one, documentary makers still feel unable to let the information speak for itself. It speaks to a lack of trust in the audience in my opinion. The strength of the victims who appeared over the four episodes stood out for itself; the music, the shots, some of the emphases on certain narratives could really only get in the way. The pastel portraits thing seemed especially silly to me. I understand that the 'powerful' closer is to focus on the victims, their courage and their ability to have come out the other side of their ordeals. But the documentary demeaned it slightly with such a corny ending.

I have to say, I can't quite get over the staggering arrogance of Epstein's home massage 'arrangements'. There had to have been hundreds of girls who were abused in one way or another. You'll never find a clearer case of a man believing he would never get caught.

BlodwynPig

Has evil ever been so...beige. He always was a nothing man. A Walter Mitty with 'good looks' and sociopathy. Not a great combination. People like that need denotching early in their adult life.

C_Larence

This is based on James Patterson who was once a friend of Epstein and continues to be a very good friend of Bill Clinton (they just wrote their second book together, "The President's Daughter"). He was paid handsomely for his involvement.

It features Vicky Ward, the journalist who disclosed to Ghislaine Maxwell that Maria Farmer was telling people about her experience with Epstein and Maxwell. She was, apparently, paid $100,000 for her appearance.

The victims were paid nothing.

I have no interest in watching this, the true story would of course never be told on Netflix.

I'm avoiding this for the same reasons I have avoided the Leaving Neverland and R Kelly docs. There is just too pain there and I doubt there would be a conclusion that resolved all the questions given that this is TV which is selective in what it chooses to present and feels it needs to sensationalize.

Retinend

Quote from: C_Larence on June 06, 2020, 02:33:32 AMIt features Vicky Ward, the journalist who disclosed to Ghislaine Maxwell that Maria Farmer was telling people about her experience with Epstein and Maxwell. She was, apparently, paid $100,000 for her appearance.

She was very positively portrayed as the journalist who wanted the victims to be featured in the "The Talented Mr Epstein" Vanity Fair article: in spite of her wishes, the article expunged all references to Ms. Farmer and her sister due to legal considerations (i.e. they carked it). It seemed as if Ward was the one fighting their corner, not selling them out.

C_Larence

Quote from: Retinend on June 06, 2020, 10:12:15 AM
She was very positively portrayed as the journalist who wanted the victims to be featured in the "The Talented Mr Epstein" Vanity Fair article: in spite of her wishes, the article expunged all references to Ms. Farmer and her sister due to legal considerations (i.e. they carked it). It seemed as if Ward was the one fighting their corner, not selling them out.

https://youtu.be/PYUpTjlZO4E

Excerpt from a phone call with Maria Farmer where she talks about this.

Retinend

Oh wow. That's literally disillusioning.

BlodwynPig

The documentary itself produced by friends of Epstein's circle. Sounds about right. He's gone now. Obfuscation and misdirection masquerading as revelation and empathy.

Pathetic, evil and infectious.

Retinend


Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

I can't be bothered watching this because I already listened to The Mysterious Mr. Epstein on Wondery. Ye should all just listen to Wondery podcasts. They had a series about Joe Exotic about a year before Netflix did their version, too.

Thomas

Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on June 06, 2020, 09:22:22 PM
I can't be bothered watching this because I already listened to The Mysterious Mr. Epstein on Wondery.

Is that about Jeffrey or a different one

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

Quote from: Thomas on June 06, 2020, 09:46:45 PM
Is that about Jeffrey or a different one
oh there's a bunch of infamous Mr. Epsteins and each episode is about a different one

chveik