Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

I feel like the flaws was always why McGowan was so important and powerful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/this-is-why-uma-thurman-is-angry.html?smid=fb-share

is this going to fuck up tarantino's career?

It had better

Man, that car crash footage!

I don’t get why they needed to use a fucked up car. She definitely is entitled to serious compensation for that.

Thurman says that in “Kill Bill,” Tarantino had done the honors with some of the sadistic flourishes himself, spitting in her face in the scene where Michael Madsen is seen on screen doing it and choking her with a chain in the scene where a teenager named Gogo is on screen doing it.

Jesus.

Like I can imagine an actor/director relationship where jumping in for stuff like that would actually make sense, but in the context of everything else mentioned in this story, just, goddamn.

Tarantino has always been the worst American filmmaker. Not that that is relevant to this. But still.

I am surprised that someone with QT's narrative fetishes is a sick fuck.

now i understand her terse response just a little better
how gross
haven't read the full deets but the info contained itt is more than enough to get the picture

His movies are incredibly hateful — gushing tributes to vulgarity with just enough ironic distance to establish his own sophistication. The paradigm, for me, of the worst possible way to make art.

Of course he would treat his actresses as objects. His entire approach — his empty formalism — involves a fundamental lack of respect for cinema, for storytelling, for human experience and vulnerability.

Treeship otm

well put indeed

making death proof after that is unbelievably fucked up

didn’t he also personally choke out diane kruger onscreen in inglorious basterds?

Yes, those are his hands strangling Kruger.

There's really no need to align his awful movies with him as a person; he's quite obviously an awful bastard in his own right.

That footage is something else.

maybe. the movies would be bad even if he was a great guy though.

Exactly.

I just rewatched Kill Bill 1&2 a month ago. I still found really great parts of the movie but the entire hospital scene with Buck was some extreme pervy/predator bullshit.

but at the same time LBI i don't think the movies are bad in a way that is totally disconnected from his own behavior. you can deduce from an artwork what the creator is like but at the same time the art doesn't come from nowhere. the trendy nihilism of those films -- which seemed so revolutionary in the 90s -- said something about our society and not something good

*you can't deduce

It's circular. There is so much surplus rape/sexual assault in mainstream movies and tv (how else to advance a storyline or provide complexity to a woman's character development???) that it feeds into men being shitty to women in real life, then the shitty men producing it onscreen. Rinse, repeat.

trendy nihilism of those films -- which seemed so revolutionary in the 90s

I was middle-aged in the 1990s. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction struck me as trendy nihilism, but hardly revolutionary. I found them rather dismaying. I thought Jackie Brown was a pretty decent movie.

credit for jackie brown rests mainly with elmore leonard, really

Jackie Brown is his best for sure, there's definitely a kindness towards the two leads he never seemed to feel for any other characters

i wonder what pam grier thinks of all this. (and bridget fonda, for that matter.)

does anyone remember how, so many of the PULP FICTION fanboys hated JB? (well except the parts with samuel l jackson.) i always wondered if that twisted tarantino in some way.

i actually forgot that qt directed jackie brown. i don't remember much about that movie but i remember liking it and thinking that it seemed very dissimilar from tarantino's other works. less stylized, seemed interested in the characters, etc

It seems pretty obvious that Death Proof is at least on some level about Uma Thurman and Stuntman Mike is meant to represent Tarantino himself, no?

I just rewatched Kill Bill 1&2 a month ago. I still found really great parts of the movie but the entire hospital scene with Buck was some extreme pervy/predator bullshit.

― Yerac

......

Yeah newsflash the scene where the guy bribes nurses so he can fuck comatose patients is extremely pervy. almost like something a rapist predator would do. jesus christ.

The Uma op-ed accuses only Weinstein of sexual assault; QT is simply accused of being an asshole and a creep, which we all already were aware of to some extent.

Not sure why we need another thread to turn into a pile-on about how Tarantino’s movies are bad not good

Putting Thurman in harm’s way by dismissing her objections to using a vehicle she was worried was unsafe and subsequently keeping the footage of the crash from her goes a bit beyond that.

Not sure why we need another thread to turn into a pile-on about how Tarantino’s movies are bad not good

― El Tomboto, Saturday, February 3, 2018 4:39 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah exactly it's just boring. there's A LOT to talk about w/r/t this story with Weinstein & Tarantino, as gyac mentioned above.

I just rewatched Kill Bill 1&2 a month ago. I still found really great parts of the movie but the entire hospital scene with Buck was some extreme pervy/predator bullshit.

― Yerac

......

― flappy bird, Saturday, February 3, 2018 1:25 PM (fifty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah newsflash the scene where the guy bribes nurses so he can fuck comatose patients is extremely pervy. almost like something a rapist predator would do. jesus christ.

― flappy bird, Saturday, February 3, 2018 1:27 PM (fifty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think women are allowed to be creeped out by this scene if they feel Tarantino's "issues" may have informed it.

That was my point as well. No need to dissect his movies with a 'but you can't disconnect the creator from his work' etc, when this thread is about misogyny and abuse of women.

xp

lol i'm not creep policing ("allowed"?), i'm just saying it's a really disturbing scene, maybe one of the creepiest in his whole body of work, and always has been

Sorry I said "allowed" after you went "....." and "newsflash" and "Jesus Christ" at a female poster over her discomfort about a rape scene in a movie

That scene never stood out to me in the film, like say, the "gimp" scene in PF. Now watching it as a much older, informed viewer it was super ugh to rewatch. The scene is juvenile and degrading (especially to the viewer.) Just all these rapey scenes in movies/tv, what real purpose are they serving?

being flippant & sarcastic has nothing to do with "allowing" or preventing anyone from feeling anything

xp gotcha. i think in both cases it's just a setup for particularly brutal revenge kill scenes. beatrix biting buck's tongue off, slamming his head in a door, that rules. same with bruce willis stabbing the dude with the katana. certainly many gratuitous & pointless rape scenes in pop culture but i wouldn't imo say that about these scenes. but thats just imo

Cool QT, you want to write rapey scenes as a little bit of comedic relief. Go nuts.

I have enjoyed some of Tarantino's work over the past twenty years since Jackie Brown but I also remember when his career held real cinematic promise w/those few three films (Morbius -- I know, I know)

He's become more juvenile the older he gets, indulging in his worst instincts rather than honing his best ones.

See and I thought it was gratuitous, not really needed for the plot and adds to the huge problem of, in this case, directors degrading and abusing their female actors. Didn't it even come out recently that the butter scene in Last Tango in Paris was a surprise to the actress?

Schneider told that story about a decade ago. Ofcourse she wasn't fully believed and up until today it comes up because people question it.

I'm glad that Keira Knightly actually stated that she tends not to do modern movies because the character is nearly always raped.

People have noticed that the Uma piece was relegated to the Opinion section, which strikes me as kind of awful. Does anyone know if it might serve as a way to provide legal cover? (It sounds dubious to me but it's the only justification I can think of.)

probably because maureen dowd is normally an opinion writer?

I just looked up the Salma Hayek one and it's listed under Opinion too.

Right, and the dodgy framing device is the quirk of a hacky opinion writer. So why assign her for a story that's not at all suited to be structured as an opinion piece? (I'm trying to figure out if it's poor editorial choices or a careful calculation of some kind. Probably the former.) xp