Halston, Harvey and The New York Times

Did anyone else find Cathy Horyn's interview in with Harvey Weinstein strangely sycophantic? She says "He is polite, gregarious, at times charming. . .Weinstein, in this environment (front row at a fashion show), has the companionable air of a man holding out his mitts so his wife can unwind her knitting yarn."

That ought to make Eisner chuckle.

Then she goes on to list his film successes and his other investments but neglects to mention a little project called Talk, which was a spectacular failure. She talks about his desire to make a movie about Halston, but neglects to mention that it was part of the deal he made with Hilco to buy the brand. But she gets one thing right: "...the beauty of the Halston deal is that it provides him with another way to tap into the culture's obsessions, and at relatively low risk." Low risk for him, that his. If the brand doesn't take off it will be Hilco's money that's lost -- Harvey's financial contribution was more symbolic than anything.

And although Jamie Salter thinks that the reported $20 million they paid for Halston was a deal "If you had run a proper auction, the brand would have gone for over $100 million," many in the industry think they vastly overpaid for a brand with big name recognition but negligable sales. The seller of Halston, James Ammeen, got his full asking price -- plus he retained a stake and a seat on the board. Something even he wasn't initally expecting.

The usual Cathy Horyn would be a bit more questioning -- I'm wondering if she has visions of writing for Hollywood dancing in her head.