By treating Harvey Weinstein as a farcical subject, David Mamet has missed the opportunity to sincerely interrogate important issues in entertainment, and is arguably perpetuating Weinstein’s silencing of female voices, writes Saeed Taji Farouky.

Whenever protest emerges against a work of art, I feel the real heart of the issue gets lost in arguments about freedom of speech and art’s responsibility to confront the darkness. I love art about the darkness, and I think art is a very powerful way of examining it. Every film I’ve ever made has been about the darkness, so I would never argue lightly about a work of art that confronts a controversial subject. But every once in a while I do feel disappointed by the very creation of a work of art, and I think it’s important to understand why others can be infuriated by it. Here are a few thoughts on David Mamet’s new play Bitter Wheat.
For those who don’t know, Mamet’s new play — opening in London in June — will star John Malkovich satirising Harvey Weinstein.
As Malkovich said in his Radio 4 interview (quoted in the article above), “a lot of people may not like.” Indeed, many people are very angry about the play. I would describe my reaction as exasperated, not angry, but I want to examine why others are angry and why it’s important we don’t just dismiss that as a call to censor art...Keep reading on Medium