I want to comment on this case because it involves Oliver Stone. You know that, in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, many women have come forward to reveal that they were sexually harassed, or worse, by a famous Hollywood man. And it's gone beyond Hollywood. Several women have accused George HW Bush of patting their backsides- from his wheelchair- but, I have to wonder if he's mentally competent. When was the last time we've heard from him? They don't let him speak for himself in public any more. He doesn't write anything. I fear he's gone the way of Reagan.
But, the case I want to talk about, which involves Oliver Stone, is that of Val Kilmer being accused of battery by actress Caitlyn O'Heaney. It was during an audition for the role that eventually went to Meg Ryan in the movie The Doors. She said Kilmer slugged her in the face with a closed fist. The movie came out in 1991, which is the same year that JFK came out.
So, it was an argument scene, but it didn't call for him slugging her or getting physically violent except for throwing things at the wall, and even if it did, he couldn't actually do it. There's a reason why they call it "acting." Here are the known facts:
1. The only witness who has come forward is the casting director from the movie, a woman, and she is claiming that Ms. Hearney is exaggerating. She said she recalls him pinning her to the wall, but there is a big difference between being pinned to a wall and being slugged in the face.
2. There was a Los Angeles police report of battery. But, it wasn't filed until a month later. This is directly from the police report: "Victim and suspect (actor) were reading a script for a movie role. Suspect became angry and stuck victim on her face with his closed fist. Suspect grabbed victim and pushed her to the floor. Suspect jumped on victim and held her down." But, didn't Los Angeles Police pursue it and go talk to Kilmer? It didn't say that they did, but I have to presume that they did. Don't you? And, after that, I presume they questioned other people who were present and witnessed it. And after that, they, apparently, decided not to press criminal charges and arrest him.
3. There was a settlement of $24,500, which included a non-disclosure agreement, which she has just broke. But, what are they going to do? Sue her? For $24,500? Although I suppose if he's denying it outright, he could sue her for slander. But, he's not going to do that. I don't think anything is going to come from her breaking the non-disclosure agreement.
So, what's the bottom line? The bottom line is that something definitely happened. Kilmer and Stone would not have paid her $24,500 if it didn't. Paying admits wrongdoing. If you know you didn't batter a woman, you're not going to pay her anything; not even a dollar. Right? So, even though the wording absolved them of wrongdoing, paying admits wrongdoing. But, it will be interesting to hear what Kilmer and Stone have to say in response to this and whether anyone else speaks up.
But, if not, it will come down to deciding who you want to believe. Is it possible that the truth is somewhere in-between, that the abuse occurred, but not to the extreme that she is claiming? But, the thing is: a punch in the face is a punch in the face, and there aren't any that don't count. My inclination, at this point in time, is to believe her.