XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Quentin Tarantino => Topic started by: Mogambo on February 03, 2018, 11:05:39 AM

Title: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Mogambo on February 03, 2018, 11:05:39 AM
.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 03, 2018, 01:24:14 PM
Yeah. Tarantino does not look good in this car crash story at all.

One thing that makes me mad, though: why the fuck would she attend an engagement party for a man she's mad at, hosted by a man she fucking hates? That's my main issue with all this Weinstein situation. A lot of people went through shit with that animal, and nobody said anything, and they even went to his parties? It's just sad that this is the way they seem to think show business needs to be.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 03, 2018, 01:32:13 PM
We suppose they have some power but a career can just...ends...because dudes like Weinstein have the real power. And it's easy to try to be "moderate" one when you're abused.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: KJ on February 03, 2018, 01:42:17 PM
Quote
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

It doesn't look great, when you add this to the fact that he insisted on strangle Diane Kruger himself in Inglourious Basterds. He said he wanted to do it himself in case anything went wrong, but yeah..
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 03, 2018, 01:47:22 PM
Quote
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

It doesn't look great, when you add this to the fact that he insisted on strangle Diane Kruger himself in Inglourious Basterds. He said he wanted to do it himself in case anything went wrong, but yeah..

About that, I wish we had more context. It's mostly actors who spit in each other faces and all (Day-Lewis bruised Dano) and it does seems weird that a director would do that, but I don't remember Kruger caring about that...

Risking the life of your actress against her consent is absolutely dumb and awful.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: KJ on February 03, 2018, 01:53:01 PM
Quote
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

It doesn't look great, when you add this to the fact that he insisted on strangle Diane Kruger himself in Inglourious Basterds. He said he wanted to do it himself in case anything went wrong, but yeah..

About that, I wish we had more context. It's mostly actors who spit in each other faces and all (Day-Lewis bruised Dano) and it does seems weird that a director would do that, but I don't remember Kruger caring about that...

Risking the life of your actress against her consent is absolutely dumb and awful.

No, she didn't care about that as far as I know, but if you get a kick out of doing this as a director I don't think you should be doing it. When you hear about these stories and look at pictures as this, it does seem like he's often abusing his power as a director to explore he's own fetishes and fantasies. You can do that to some degree I think, but it kind of leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Or am I oversensitive now?

(https://wiki.tarantino.info/images/thumb/Qtfeet1.jpg/275px-Qtfeet1.jpg)
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 03, 2018, 02:59:07 PM
as far i can tell, QT in fact makes effort against denying culpability. i don't see evidence of him trying to distance himself from choices he's made.

Quote
Quentin and I had an enormous fight, and I accused him of trying to kill me. And he was very angry at that, I guess understandably, because he didn’t feel he had tried to kill me.”

Thurman is aware of his sense of guilt. i don't believe that he's fully confronted his guilt and i don't believe that it's wrong for Thurman to ask him to. he won't come out for the better, clearly, but i don't anticipate hearing excuses. i anticipate QT accepting the responsibilities of blame.

i believe there's a difference between a person making a mistake and a person being a bad person. i don't see evidence that he's a bad person, i see evidence that his personal perspective is capable of limiting his vision of himself and others, which is a normal human quality, not exclusive to him. it was an error in judgment with serious consequences. it's ugly, overall my heart goes to Thurman.

this is a quote from Call Me by Your Name: Nature has cunning ways of finding our weakest spot. and what does the weakest spot of QT reveal about him, compared to what does the weakest spot of Weinstein reveal about him? i believe there's an enormous difference.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ©brad on February 04, 2018, 10:39:47 AM
i anticipate QT accepting the responsibilities of blame.

Don't hold your breath. He, like every other powerful guy in Hollywood, turned a blind eye to Weinstein for decades, only offering a mea culpa after the scandal broke and the egg on his face was impossible to overlook. Fuck him.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: axxonn on February 04, 2018, 01:06:14 PM
It's a little weird that his next film was Death Proof...
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 05, 2018, 12:02:11 AM
Quentin pulled a major shit move on Uma Thurman during making of Kill Bill. Showed little interest in her safety.

She was permanently injured in the process.

He argued with her because he didn't think he was in the wrong.

It took 15 years for her to get the footage she requested when she was interested in pursuing a lawsuit. It makes sense Tarantino had some hand in that (whether ignoring helping her or being a reason she didn't get it)

This definitely downgrades his overall reputation for me and goes beyond someone making a mistake.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: polkablues on February 05, 2018, 12:13:12 AM
100% agree. Willfully and needlessly endangering cast or crew is a red line. “Getting the shot” should always be a secondary consideration to the safety of the people you’re responsible for.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 05, 2018, 12:18:05 AM
This definitely downgrades his overall reputation for me and goes beyond someone making a mistake.

Rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

it's nbd. i don't care that you talked that way and i have emotional responses all the time. the fire of internet rhetoric is real.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 05, 2018, 12:31:17 AM
Jenkins, I barely read your prior post and really wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the article. I'm also responding to some Tarantino fans maybe trying to rationalize this bullshit. I know many and luckily so far, they are all slamming him big time for it.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 05, 2018, 12:37:21 AM
i was only spotting the rhetoric. slam away my friends, it's your right.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 05, 2018, 12:38:18 AM
It's a little weird that his next film was Death Proof...

Yeah, and it's pretty similar to LVT making Dogville right after Dancer to grapple with the Bjork stuff.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 05, 2018, 12:48:18 AM
i was only spotting the rhetoric. slam away my friends, it's your right.

Seemed passive aggressive. I don't know you but am moving on so apologies for any miscommunication.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 05, 2018, 01:35:57 AM
the tricky part is noticing the bad and the good together. i mean that's the tricky part, you know. i made a direct assault against the manner of speech in order to puncture the effect that such a statement is intended to make. i mentioned that i know the intention because i can speak in the same way.

i don't think it's wrong to see from Thurman's perspective. the way people defend Thurman by attacking QT is perhaps this thing i'm more aware of since it's QT. have these been easy times my friends? like i said i don't think it's wrong to see from Thurman's perspective.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: polkablues on February 05, 2018, 07:39:24 PM
In case anyone needed additional evidence of Tarantino being kind of a shitty human being, here's some more grist for the mill:

https://jezebel.com/heres-audio-of-quentin-tarantino-defending-roman-polans-1822745916
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Reelist on February 05, 2018, 07:56:23 PM
Uh oh! Milo Yiannopoulos lost his job and book deal for supporting the same views last year.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 05, 2018, 08:19:46 PM
Quote
Asked by Stern why Hollywood embraces “this mad man, this director who raped a 13-year-old,” Tarantino replied:

“He didn’t rape a 13-year-old. It was statutory rape...he had sex with a minor. That’s not rape. To me, when you use the word rape, you’re talking about violent, throwing them down—it’s like one of the most violent crimes in the world. You can’t throw the word rape around. It’s like throwing the word ‘racist’ around. It doesn’t apply to everything people use it for.”

Reminded by Robin Quivers that Polanski’s victim—who had been plied with quaaludes and alcohol before her assault—did not want to have sex with Polanski, Tarantino became riled up.

Tarantino: No, that was not the case AT ALL. She wanted to have it and dated the guy and—

Quivers: She was 13!

Tarantino: And by the way, we’re talking about America’s morals, not talking about the morals in Europe and everything.

Stern: Wait a minute. If you have sex with a 13-year-old girl and you’re a grown man, you know that that’s wrong.

Quivers: ...giving her booze and pills...

Tarantino: Look, she was down with this.

Grand Jury Transcript (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/roman-polanski-grand-jury-transcript?page=27):

(https://i.imgur.com/zLxky8T.gif?1)

Thurman's instagram post (https://www.instagram.com/p/Be0x6OCFRwQ/?hl=en&taken-by=ithurman) offered a kinder perspective, but there isn't going to be a kinder perspective ending to this. and i really don't think there has to be or should be. i still won't--as i haven't, for anyone--excite myself by speaking against him with others. in the air of deciding what kind of person people are, i'll say i'm not that kind of person. but really i should learn to never support the accused. really i should learn to listen. we're all learning to listen.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on February 05, 2018, 10:30:59 PM
Deadline interview with Tarantino about the crash:

http://deadline.com/2018/02/quentin-tarantino-uma-thurman-harvey-weinstein-kill-bill-car-crash-new-york-times-1202278988/ (http://deadline.com/2018/02/quentin-tarantino-uma-thurman-harvey-weinstein-kill-bill-car-crash-new-york-times-1202278988/)
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: KJ on February 06, 2018, 07:10:44 PM
"Maybe the opposite direction there was kind of an optical illusion."

An optical illusion! Hahaha. Worst excuse ever.

To emphasize that she isn't a very good driver is kind of a shitty thing to do too, but at least he seems very regretful and realize that it was very wrong, as Thurman already said in her article. Still, you fucked up.

And that Polanski thing is just... wow. Raping kids is not okay in Europe, Quentin. I promise you.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 07, 2018, 03:20:56 AM
I like these Tarantino interviews. He's being judged by everybody now mainly because when he speaks, he gives answers that at least seem honest. Had he taken the safe (yet completely hypocritical) route of saying he'd never even heard of anything about Weinstein, like so many other people have said, he would have been left alone. When he spoke about it, he said he knew enough to have done something about it, just like about 90% of all Hollywood, but hey, he didn't lie about it, so he must be taken to task, right?

About the Uma Thurman situation, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it was a terrible decision to have her drive that car when she felt insecure, but again, he didn't hide from it, and he gave her the footage, even if 15 years later.

About the Polanski situation, that's just another example of how we are as a society right now. Times change and people change. Tarantino said that in 2003, and a lot of people heard that. Nothing happened to him because maybe society wasn't that aware of these things then as it is now. And if today everybody cringes when listening to such a thing, they certainly didn't then, so maybe the same thing happened with Tarantino, who probably doesn't stand behind his own words from almost 15 years ago? Society changes because people change, and it doesn't mean molesting kids was acceptable then, certainly not in Europe (that was the weirdest thing about that speech, by the way), but the way we speak about it maybe isn't the same. We should all be aware of such situations and call them out because nobody is above the law, but I don't think it makes any sense to judge people left and right - he may have said unfortunate things, but he certainly didn't rape anyone (as far as we know) and he's shown that he can be introspective and reflect and learn and is open to learn from his own mistakes. If he doesn't though, then he should definitely be called out.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ©brad on February 07, 2018, 03:19:09 PM
About the Polanski situation, that's just another example of how we are as a society right now. Times change and people change. Tarantino said that in 2003, and a lot of people heard that.

Yeah no. 2003 ≠ 1953. Anyone trying to justify Polanski or blame a 13 year old in 2003 or hell, any year, is a fucking dirtbag.

The only thing that's really changed is internet culture. Everyone is online all the time now. Such was not the case in 2003, which is why the Stern interview didn't go as viral or trigger as much of a reaction as it's doing now.

Has he ever expressed remorse over those comments? Will he now, given the story just broke Monday and he's already in stage 5 PR damage control? I haven't seen anything yet, nor do I expect it to do much good if he does offer an apology.

People retroactively bashing one's work after a scandal breaks is a different issue.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 07, 2018, 04:52:56 PM
The thing with Polanski is weirder than Allen, it's as if, in the States or Europe (especially France), most artists avoid the facts only because they like his work—even people who are sensible about, well, raping 13 years old. What's shitty about this interview resurfacing in the big Bashing Tarantino Days is that it seems like a weird "added" reason to validate the hate. We're talking about Polanski, he's been working for years with big stars, received awards, etc. If you want to go against people defending him, the list is bigger than Tarantino. And it's in no way a shocking revelation hidden in the shadows.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 08, 2018, 12:07:42 AM
people need to relax. this outrage culture is exhausting and it's increasingly serving no real purpose at all.
uma thurman already said tarantino is not to blame. he already explained everything in a reasonable way.
I like that he doesn't double down on absurd shit like: "oh, he choked her, oh he spit on her" like that means anything at all. films are serious endeavours which take time and effort from everyone. pros usually take that in account first before making any choices. directors AND actors.

that said, he does sounds like he knows fuck about the Polanski case. however, my sensibilities are more in tune with Samantha Geimer's (you know, the ACTUAL victim of this awful thing) than with all these self righteous nonsense:

on TARANTINO: "I'm not upset, but I would probably feel better if he realizes now that he was wrong, after 15 years, after hearing the facts," she said. "Nobody has to be pissed off on my behalf. I'm okay."

on POLANSKI: "I have forgiven him and moved on," she told The News in 2015. "He pled guilty, served his time, and I'm not quite sure what anyone expects beyond that. That's satisfactory to me. It should be to everyone."

AND

"It's not a big deal to me what people think. It doesn't make a difference in my life. I know what happened. I do not need other people weighing in on what it's like getting raped at 13,"...

Just common sense.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tarantino-wrong-polanski-rape-consensual-geimer-article-1.3803904
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 08, 2018, 12:42:35 AM
however, my sensibilities are more in tune with Samantha Geimer's (you know, the ACTUAL victim of this awful thing) than with all these self righteous nonsense:

on TARANTINO: "I'm not upset, but I would probably feel better if he realizes now that he was wrong, after 15 years, after hearing the facts," she said. "Nobody has to be pissed off on my behalf. I'm okay."

on POLANSKI: "I have forgiven him and moved on," she told The News in 2015. "He pled guilty, served his time, and I'm not quite sure what anyone expects beyond that. That's satisfactory to me. It should be to everyone."

From what I can tell, Polanski has served less than a year in jail in total. He still hasn't been sentenced in that case. He fled the country because he'd heard the judge was going to disregard the plea bargain and sentence him to 50 years. Which is not great, but I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that 1 year is enough for what he did.

Citing Samantha Geimer's opinions on the case has absolutely no legal value. The state brought the case against Roman Polanski. There are many reasons we don't leave it to the victims to prosecute crimes like this.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: polkablues on February 08, 2018, 01:03:25 AM
I don't feel like it's a product of outrage culture to feel that someone raping a kid is bad, and another person going out of his way to try and rationalize someone's raping of a kid is also bad. I don't feel like it's an overreaction to publicly shame a film director for willfully endangering an actor. When people do objectively bad things, there have to be societal consequences, whether they be legal, social, or professional, or else we're explicitly sanctioning those bad things. Attempts to circumvent those consequences, e.g., fleeing prosecution or having incriminating footage hidden for 15 years, should be met with outrage. I don't care if it's exhausting, it's fucking necessary.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 08, 2018, 04:44:30 AM
About the Polanski situation, that's just another example of how we are as a society right now. Times change and people change. Tarantino said that in 2003, and a lot of people heard that.

Yeah no. 2003 ≠ 1953. Anyone trying to justify Polanski or blame a 13 year old in 2003 or hell, any year, is a fucking dirtbag.

The only thing that's really changed is internet culture. Everyone is online all the time now. Such was not the case in 2003, which is why the Stern interview didn't go as viral or trigger as much of a reaction as it's doing now.

Has he ever expressed remorse over those comments? Will he now, given the story just broke Monday and he's already in stage 5 PR damage control? I haven't seen anything yet, nor do I expect it to do much good if he does offer an apology.

People retroactively bashing one's work after a scandal breaks is a different issue.

I specifically wrote that raping kids (or anyone for that matter) was as unacceptable then as it is now. What I meant to say was that maybe looking at it in 2003, people thought about those things differently. As Samantha Geimer said, "I'm not upset, but I would probably feel better if he realizes now that he was wrong, after 15 years, after hearing the facts". Of course, if someone were to ask him that question again and he'd stick to his first answer, then that would be problematic. But again, Tarantino did not rape any 13 year old girls as far as we know and people are acting like he did.

The point I think I'm trying to get to is that this outrage culture is just garbage because people are more interested in screaming as loud as they can than actually trying to enlighten others. We have every right to call out Polanski for raping a kid, but not to call out Tarantino on his comments 15 years ago as if they were a crime. They are a problem, but they are not a crime. Maybe, hopefully, he learned something during this time because, well, people change.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 08, 2018, 11:29:16 AM

I didn't say citing the victim had any legal value. I did say I'm closer to what she feels regarding that matter.

And I do think it's exhausting that everyone is being publicly shamed for everything. It diminishes the real crimes when people equal saying something stupid on an interview with the actual crime. I completely disagree with what he said about the Polanski case, but the tendency today is to lump something idiotic like that with the crimes of Harvey Weinstein. Which makes no sense.

The crash incident is well beyond explained. He fucked up thinking it was not going to be complicated (why would he think that driving at 40mph would be considered a stunt?), and he admits that much. Uma Thurman is not naming him responsible for it or the aftermath.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 08, 2018, 12:32:47 PM
Quentin Tarantino Apologizes to Roman Polanski Victim Samantha Geimer For Howard Stern Comments (http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/quentin-tarantino-apologizes-roman-polanski-victim-samantha-geimer-1201926322/)

Quote
I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on “The Howard Stern Show” speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her. Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry.

So, Ms. Geimer, I was ignorant, and insensitive, and above all, incorrect.

I am sorry Samantha.

Quentin Tarantino
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: wilberfan on February 08, 2018, 12:53:13 PM
That quote strikes me as being sincere.  I'm certainly willing to forgive him and move on.  If Samantha can forgive Polanski, I'm pretty sure she can forgive Quentin as well.  Unfortunately, I think there will be many who won't...
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 08, 2018, 02:25:50 PM
And I do think it's exhausting that everyone is being publicly shamed for everything. It diminishes the real crimes when people equal saying something stupid on an interview with the actual crime.

Your second sentence is a legitimate complaint about conflation (which, yes, that happens too much). But your first sentence is itself egregious conflation.

Sure it's exhausting. That's fine. Every important social movement is exhausting.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 08, 2018, 07:48:21 PM
I think that kind of "logic" is what we're talking about when we say people are getting self righteous:

"Quick confession: Quentin Tarantino was always my answer when someone would ask me “who is your favorite filmmaker?” This is no longer the case. I’m super disgusted. And should have been for awhile with N-dropping films but I let it slide. But this Uma thing? Nah he’s canceled."

Once again, this is not about Tarantino being a douchebag or not, it's about people claiming it has an impact on his work because he can't be their friend anymore. I don't think it's as complicated as a Louis C.K/Louie thing in the way you perceive the work. We have a lot if nuanced, interesting conversations out there, but the people in Twitter getting thousands of retweeted with "Bitch please, I'm wooooooke" comments are a reality.

Is it because a lot of people watch movies as they would eat at McDonald? As if it were a product and not an object made by artists? So you hear that the person behind the counter is an asshole and it's only about trashing the person since you've already been to the bathroom?

People get smug and don't want to be nuanced when they think they're morally right. Not to say they're not, I'm on their side, but the outrage culture, its noise might be important, but not because of the noise itself, because of all the real, boring, nuanced conversations that are also taking place because it became noisy. The story about Aziz not being about saying "Asiz, you're erased" but about how too many men take sex for granted and how women accept it, a fucked up norm, is an example. And it lead to a great article:  http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure

We're in a situation where we are aknowledging shitty behaviour. It's too easy to always jump to the conclusion that all shitty behaviour is necessarily made by shitty human beings. Even things like racism don't have to be something you are in your DNA, and that you can be racist, without even being "a racist" like we understand it, is something that could make us better at understanding us—which ultimately makes it easier to change things for the better. I still remember making a transphobic comment when I was 12. So I was transphobic, didn't think it was a big deal, it was just this funny thing that made no sense to me. Guess what? It can change. And at 22, 32, etc, you can still have things in you that can be corrected—you can still improve your understanding.

Tarantino will probably stay an overbearing megalomaniac, but he won't force people to do things they don't want to, I'm almost positive about that, and maybe he'll consider if a woman—or a girl...—"wanted it" or not, even if the man is someone he admires.

I'll quote "someone":

"People think if I make a judgment call that it's a judgment on them. But that's not what I do, and that's not what should be done. I have to take everything and play it as it lays. Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail. And that's a very tricky thing on my part... making that call. The law is the law, and heck if I'm gonna break it. But if you can forgive someone... well, that's the tough part. What can we forgive? Tough part of the job. Tough part of walking down the street."

Who wants to do the work when you can be retweeted for your clean moral integrity.

Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Something Spanish on February 08, 2018, 10:05:32 PM
While I'm happy Uma's footage has been exposed, the Polanski defense is a bummer because I have a feeling it could make for a furtive QT compromising material in his upcoming Manson movie (heavily featuring Polanski) that he would have filmed had liberal Hollywood-ites remained ignorant schmucks. It's not like the Stern interview was hidden in an undisclosed bunker, it's been available on youtube for 12 years, not to mention the multiple repeat airings it had on E! when the show ran on that channel. It's just weird, is all. Tarantino said a really dumb thing on the #1 terrestrial radio show that used to do bits like spreading mayo on a girl's behind and flinging salami at it trying to make it stick. It's like these actors saying they regret working with Woody in 2017. The entire film community has known about his allegations for 25 YEARS, and you signed up for a bit nothing role in Wonder Wheel (2017) and it's the biggest regret of your career? you raging douchebag, you probably get paid more for an episode of whatever garbage soon-to-be-canceled do than that 3 minute cameo you did and you have to publicly come out said it's the biggest regret of your career??? this is after his daughter wrote that NYT piece and a quarter century after soon-yi? sorry to go on a tangent, but the hypocrisy is steep.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: wilberfan on February 08, 2018, 10:22:49 PM
I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more stories like this for awhile:

https://jezebel.com/in-2006-fergie-said-quentin-tarantino-bit-her-on-set-o-1822835117
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 08, 2018, 10:42:24 PM
That article is such a mess. What does it say?
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 09, 2018, 07:28:59 AM
yes, what drenk and something spanish are saying reflect my feelings on the matter. obviously in a civilized environment like xixax we can have smart discussions on these topics, but out there is getting increasingly noisy and dumb. I've always been turned off by self righteousness and I can spot it pretty quickly, and the #metoo movement has been widely infected with it in sinister ways. I know is not the politically correct thing to say, but it feels is more about pointing fingers and being morally superior to others than about stoping and preventing abuse.

it's as toxic an atmosphere as the one is trying to eradicate. this tarantino thing is a good example. I mentioned before that this outrage culture is increasingly serving no purpose at all, and I still don't understand the purpose or the accomplishment of unearthing a 15 year old interview on Howard Stern except if the purpose is to smear the guy. What good is that doing to rape victims, really? Or what light does it shade on the Polanski case? What's the point? Well, it's clickbait, and the situation is so predictable now that they can bring up this old boring interview and now we have a lot of idiotic voices weighing in the guy's films, his methods, his foot fetish, and wether the figure of the film director or auteur should disappear. It's all so dumb you have to re read stuff to make sure that's whats going on, and everyone is so sure of their lame opinions.

Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ©brad on February 09, 2018, 10:11:40 AM
I mentioned before that this outrage culture is increasingly serving no purpose at all, and I still don't understand the purpose or the accomplishment of unearthing a 15 year old interview on Howard Stern except if the purpose is to smear the guy.

I'm sorry, what? Reread what you wrote here and really think about what you're saying.

Men are being held accountable for their misogyny, verbal/physical abuse, and sexual assault for the first time in history. What does unearthing an interview do? It holds Tarantino accountable for shit he got away with that he didn't properly atone for. It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well. What Tarantino said in that interview was disgusting. His "I was playing devil's advocate" excuse is ridiculous.

You guys are essentially saying come on, it was 15 years ago, and he's such a great filmmaker, he deserves a pass. That's complete bullshit.

Outrage culture isn't a good way to describe what's been happening. If you're exhausted from it, take a break from the internet for a while.   
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 09, 2018, 10:31:02 AM
See, but you say

It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well.

and then

"His "I was playing devil's advocate" excuse is ridiculous."

This is the definition outrage culture, because even if people admit they were wrong, and they apologize, and admit that they learned something, people don't accept the apology (even if the actual victim in this case might) and basically want their career to be over. Of course, most of the people who act this way are saints who never did anything wrong in their lives, because if they had, they should be ruined forever, because no excuse would be good enough.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 09, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
See, but you say

It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well.

and then

"His "I was playing devil's advocate" excuse is ridiculous."

This is the definition outrage culture, because even if people admit they were wrong, and they apologize, and admit that they learned something, people don't accept the apology (even if the actual victim in this case might) and basically want their career to be over. Of course, most of the people who act this way are saints who never did anything wrong in their lives, because if they had, they should be ruined forever, because no excuse would be good enough.

yes, I was going to point at that too.

So the thing now is to search up and down for people's controversial statements of the past and exhibit them on the public courts and "holding them accountable" so they can "atone"? OK.

Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 09, 2018, 11:01:59 AM
What I wrote wasn't about giving him a pass. I'm not saying what he said is find. I think it wasn't about Polanski. Look, people are still mostly fine with everyone who's working for him, worked for him, won Oscars because of him, it was even fashionable to defend him fifteen years ago, so if you want everyone to atone for it now...Which isn't happening since I guess we're waiting for the Obi-Wan Kenobi Spin-Off Backlash before wondering what Ewan McGreggor thinks of Polanski so he can at one his previous sins? I don't know. It seems pointless, I'm more curious about what people are doing now than people writing about how they regret working for Allen, etc.

The 03 interview served as a way to feel better about the Bashing Tarantino days, as a way to counfound everything, his past comments about Polanski, the accident, the "juicy" details added in the NYT article about spiting and choking that aren't quotes from Thurman.

It feels messy on purpose.

Then: I'm not saying MeToo didn't have positive effects. Of course it did! Outrage—which here means fake outrage, noise, affirmation of your moral superiority—is social media favorite way to respond to everything. Between that and the alt-right, I'm sorry, but it's easy to be exhausted by the toxicity of the discourse. But like I said in my previous comment, there are still clever conversations taking place behind the noise, and they can be heard, too. But is it strange to worry about how the culture is reacting to everything? You can dismiss Twitter as not being real life. But it became a way of life, a way to think, to interact, and it has effects in the world. The current president of the United States is a product of the internet.

But anger is also normal sometimes. I'm not saying that anger should be hidden. What I call outrage culture isn't a judgment of every manifestation of anger in the internet.

Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: eward on February 09, 2018, 12:03:28 PM
My best friend put it thusly: Right now society is forcing out a long-lodged, thoroughly hard and black, sinking turd, that will inevitably tear along with it all manner of tissue - good, bad, somewhere in between - and that we need to just let it scoot on out, no matter the nature or abundance of the detritus. I'm still feeling out my feelings on the more "self-righteous" and "smug" elements of the Court of Public Opinion, but firmly believe the movement to be, in general, a great and necessary thing; that said, I still believe in due process. It's complicated, to put it simply. I support the movement 100%, yet I'm one of the few who will still vocally defend Woody Allen - because in that case there exists, whether you like it or not, reasonable doubt, with pretty ample evidence to back it up, which people simply reject these days. EDIT: But then again, why should I waste my breath defending him? His days are numbered, his greatest work is long behind him, he's not going to face charges even if he is guilty - what's the point? His great movies are still great. Therefore I resolve to stay off Twitter, shut my mouth, listen, and support.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 09, 2018, 12:12:56 PM
It's disappointing that people are so easily triggered by outrage, when there's so much we should be outraged about. If you can't bring yourself to feel that outrage, that's alright — take a deep breath, sit down, and let others do the work.

Demanding politeness and absolute perfect fairness from a movement forcing social change is an unreasonable expectation. It's fine to point out overreaches and examples of unfairness (because they happen and will continue to happen). But any huge shift in culture like this is going to be messy and uncomfortable. What's important is that change is happening. Your personal needs and sensibilities as a reader and consumer of culture are absolutely secondary.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: polkablues on February 09, 2018, 12:22:16 PM
Yeah, I can’t get on board with the argument of “Actually, reacting to bad stuff is just as bad as the bad stuff itself.”
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 09, 2018, 12:55:22 PM
Yeah, I can’t get on board with the argument of “Actually, reacting to bad stuff is just as bad as the bad stuff itself.”

This is not what I tried to argue. It can be misunderstood, I was not really thinking about Tarantino anymore.

Anyway, I read this last night and it was something I think we need to hear. It's more clear.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/jill-messicks-family-issues-blistering-statement-harvey-weinstein-rose-mcgowan-1083173?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_now_2018-02-08%2013%3A59%3A43_ehayden&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews&__twitter_impression=true


Quote
As we collectively seek to take action in an effort to right the wrongs so brazenly and inhumanely repeated for a generation, we must not forget one simple truth: Words have power. While we illuminate the dark corners for hidden truths, we must remember that what we say, particularly in the media, can have just as much impact if not more than our actions. We must ask more of ourselves, and of each other. We must take a moment to consider the ramifications and consequences of what we say and what we do.

Words matter.


That's why I don't buy that thinking that everything works out for the best in the end is a good position to make. It has nothing to do with personal sensibilities.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 09, 2018, 01:02:32 PM
i listened to the youtube video before the guy had a personal meltdown about which number film it was. damn son, walk it off.

for the thread topic, may it not be that as QT changes his perspective, which i think he has and will continue to, and i think the movement should be proud of enacting this change, as QT changes may it not be that the reaction stays in the same spot.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 09, 2018, 01:22:38 PM
My personal needs? As a consumer? Asking for politeness?
You are completely misreading what I am trying to say.
My personal needs as a consumer have nothing to do with this. And I don't even know what to respond to the politeness thing.

I can take all the outrage in the world when is directed at sexual criminals. And I hope the Weinsteins of the world keep falling, as I hope that salaries get even between sexes and power dynamics disappear from the workplace. But hunting down opinions so that "culprits" can "atone" or face social rejection and professional consequences sounds and feels too much like just an angry mob mentality taking over. Whatever good is coming out from the #metoo movement is not because of that.


Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: ©brad on February 09, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
See, but you say

It makes him do some much needed soul searching, think about his actions, apologize, and hell, persuade some of his other diehard fans who will seemingly follow him into the depths of hell to rethink how they deal with these issues as well.

and then

"His "I was playing devil's advocate" excuse is ridiculous."

This is the definition outrage culture, because even if people admit they were wrong, and they apologize, and admit that they learned something, people don't accept the apology (even if the actual victim in this case might) and basically want their career to be over. Of course, most of the people who act this way are saints who never did anything wrong in their lives, because if they had, they should be ruined forever, because no excuse would be good enough.

I never said I want his career to be over. I don't think all of these guys should be banned from life forever. I do think there's a right way to apologize. Claiming to have played devil's advocate for a rapist is not the best apology.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 09, 2018, 01:42:53 PM
I don't buy that thinking that everything works out for the best in the end is a good position to make.

"Best" is a high standard. Things will be better for a lot of women, though, that's for sure. In fact it's sort of incalculable how much pain will be prevented by this movement. It's also about dignity — actresses shouldn't have to weigh debasing themselves against losing their careers.

By and large, people understand that Tarantino is not a rapist. Those who choose to skip his movies because they view him as a scumbag have that right. Maybe they don't want to support him financially. I don't take that position at all, but it's not without merit.

There will be clickbait headlines. There will be overreactions. There will be confusion. There will be backlashes and corrections (see Aziz Ansari). I don't think any of that is avoidable.

But hunting down opinions so that "culprits" can "atone" or face social rejection and professional consequences sounds and feels too much like just an angry mob mentality taking over.

That is definitely a more reasonable way of putting it. At the same time, understand that this is about more than cases of criminal sexual assault. Opinions ARE part of the problem. Tarantino shrugging off the rape of a 13-year-old, and/or being ignorant about it, are absolutely part of the problem.

Does he deserve to lose his career over that? Of course not, and he won't. Does he deserve to be called out on that? Even publicly shamed a bit? Absolutely. That's fine. You can call that "mob mentality" if you want — but, you know, making powerful men squirm a little is part of the strategy here.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: wilder on February 10, 2018, 02:04:06 AM
Roman Polanski Rape Victim Samantha Geimer on Tarantino, Polanski, and Why Apologies Matter
By Eric Kohn
February 9, 2018
via IndieWire


Geimer has dealt with the aftermath of sexual assault for decades. A day after hearing Tarantino express his remorse, she spoke to IndieWire in an exclusive interview about the experience.


Samantha Geimer contended with sexual assault in Hollywood long before the truth came out about Harvey Weinstein. In 1977, Geimer was 13 years old when Roman Polanski gave her alcohol and pills, then raped and sodomized her, in Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood home. In the midst of the ensuing media mayhem, he was accused of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and fled the country, never to return. Geimer reentered public life following the 2008 release of Marina Zenovich’s documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” and has testified that Polanski should be sentenced to time served rather than facing a new trial for the crime. In 2014, she wrote a memoir about her experiences, and has publicly forgiven him.

Most recently, Geimer resurfaced in the media in a roundabout fashion, when 2003 comments made by Quentin Tarantino on Howard Stern’s radio show resurfaced in which the filmmaker claims that Polanski “didn’t rape a 13-year-old. It was statutory rape… he had sex with a minor. That’s not rape.”

Geimer disagreed with the assertion, but took issue with the way her response was characterized online. In the midst of the backlash, Tarantino issued a public apology (http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/quentin-tarantino-apologizes-roman-polanski-victim-samantha-geimer-1201926322/) for the remarks, and also called Geimer at her home in Hawaii. IndieWire reached her there the next day — first by email, then by phone — to discuss the ordeal, as well as her broader thoughts on the conversations taking place about sexual assault in the film industry and beyond today.


On Twitter, you said that your initial remarks about Tarantino were misconstrued (https://twitter.com/TheAuteurist_/status/961417784201691136). Set the record straight.

I did not call him out or slam him. When asked, I said he was wrong, as in incorrect, about what happened. I thought he knew better now, 15 years later, and did not expect that he would repeat that, because he would only make himself look bad. Okay, I said, “like an ass.” But the sentiment was that he certainly knows better. The wording that he assumed I wanted to be “raped,” I don’t know where that came from, but he never said that. What I was really trying to say to those who called is, I don’t care. I don’t care what anyone says, I’m not upset, this and worse has been happening to me for years. And mostly, I am aware that my rape is being used to attack him and I really don’t like that.

Did you expect him to reach out?

No. I mean, not personally. I thought that was nice. What if I was really mad? He called to face it personally.

What did you discuss and what do you make of his response?

I think he realizes that the things he said to be shocking involve an actual person — me — and he wasn’t thinking about that at the time. He felt bad about it. While I had him on the phone, I made him talk to me about some of his movies. Ha, ha. Didn’t want to waste that opportunity. He is sincere in his apology and I told him I felt my rape was being used to attack him by people who don’t care about what happened to me, and I do take offense to that.

So which movies did you ask about?

I talked to him about “True Romance,” which is my favorite movie. I was just letting him know that it was one of my all-time favorite movies. I just found out my mom had never seen it, because she was like, “Wow, Quentin Tarantino called you!” So now I’m going to watch it with my mom. It was funny. He told me that he liked Roman’s early movie, “The Fearless Vampire Slayers,” that he’d seen it on TV. I was like, “Oh my god, I love that movie.”

Then I asked him about his upcoming movie, because I heard it’s about Sharon Tate’s murder. I was like, “That’s just freaking me out. I don’t know why. It sounds awful.” He said, “No, that’s not what it’s about. It’s about that time period and that year.” Although it certainly has nothing to do with me and I’m not sure quite sure why, but I was thinking, “Don’t make a movie about that!” I was happy that he could put my mind to rest on a completely random thing like that.

Generally speaking, how do you feel about the value of apologizing when people speak out of turn about sexual assault?

I think apologies go a long way to help the person who was wronged and the person that is apologizing. I often say I don’t need them, but in truth, they always have a positive impact. He is under a lot more scrutiny than I am. If not for Roman and Quentin’s fame, nobody would be talking to me about any of this, so their words, actions and even apologies will always be glorified and criticized. Fame magnifies everything.

What was it like to receive an apology from Polanski?

He wrote me a handwritten letter and said, “I’m sorry, it was my fault, not your mom’s fault, and I’m sorry for what you went through.” I was like, “Well, I knew that.” I felt like he was sorry the minute he got arrested. My whole life, I assumed, of course he’s sorry. I didn’t feel like I needed that. But then when he sent that apology, I could tell it made a big difference to my mom, and my husband, some of my friends, and my kids. It gave my mom some kind of relief. It was really meaningful to the other people around me who care about me, which then made it really meaningful to me. Anything that can make my mom feel better is something I’m grateful for.

Like I said about Quentin, I don’t need an apology, because I don’t care about what he said. Why should I, right? I don’t let that stuff bother me. But in actuality, I’m kind of wrong, because it seems that it is nice to have an apology. That one from Roman ended up being super-meaningful. Talking to Quentin, I know he just wasn’t thinking and I didn’t take it personally the way he was talking on Howard Stern. But then once I saw it in writing the next day, I realized, it did make me feel better. So, apologies — I think you should take them, even if you don’t want them.

How might you relate your experience to people who have been sexually harassed by public figures, but haven’t committed crimes?

Well, I think if you’re going to apologize, you apologize to the person individually who you upset. I don’t think you have to apologize to the whole world, or everyone who you think might hire you. An apology is only for the person who you feel you’ve hurt and wants an apology. I’m not sure if that has a greater effect on a wider group of people but Quentin and Roman’s apologies were written straight to me. They weren’t like, “I’m sorry for all the people I’ve offended.” They were real apologies. When you have people trying to write apologies for you or help you take care of things like that, maybe you’re missing the point. Unless you’re not sorry. When Tarantino called, he was really just saying that was lame of him, and he felt like a jerk. I said, “I don’t need a public apology, but if you were to make one, I’d understand that.” When you’re in that business and so scrutinized, it’s hard to figure out.

Part of the challenge here is tone. Many people say things under the guise of jokes that can be seen as crossing the line, and sometimes they spiral out of control.

I am one of those people who thinks that you can have humor about anything. I have a good sense of humor, and when people make jokes about me, I laugh. I think that people should just take their indignation and not watch people they find offensive. If you don’t think it’s funny, you don’t think it’s funny. You don’t have to apologize for making a joke unless you really screw it up. Apologies should be sincere. I don’t think we should apologize for stuff we don’t feel sorry for. All this nitpicking and attacking people is missing the point. It’s like, hey, could we have some equal rights over here? How about equal pay? Perhaps stop sexually harassing people at work? Instead, it’s all, “Quentin Tarantino made shitty jokes!” No, women, focus. It’s not all about celebrities and taking people down. Let’s be positive and move forward.

I think being spiteful and taking people down you don’t like them isn’t helping anybody. We all see what’s happening. If you’re not doing something positive, if you’re not making a difference, stop pretending you are. Just be like, “I hate that guy.” [laughs] I’m in a weird spot. I’ve been in this weird spot my whole life. People are like, “We hate Roman because of what he did to you.” I’m fine, I don’t want anybody to hate anybody, and you actually don’t give a shit about me. What bothers me is that people are attacking somebody else at your expense. Let’s throw your rape out there to attack Quentin Tarantino. That hypocrisy bothers me because I’m in that spot where that happens to me. This is just the way it goes, in my life anyway, and we all say stupid things.

The #MeToo movement has been based around women coming forward to share their stories of sexual assault and abuse. Where does that leave silent survivors? You were one for years.

The #MeToo movement has done a lot of awesome things and made a lot of conversations happen, but if this gets turned into this weapon to take down Al Franken, or some Republican, or some Hollywood person, or Hollywood in general — that’s not what it’s for. It’s supposed to get people to rise up, not push people down. Things will always get misused like that, but we shouldn’t forget we’re here to make things better and demand change. I think if you’re a victim of sexual assault or a crime, do what you decide to do. Come forward, don’t come forward. Speak out about it, don’t speak out about it. It’s individual and nobody should be pressured or forced to be quiet or talk. You have to understand the consequences of your choices. If you keep quiet, then maybe that person does something else that’s bad. That’s not your fault. You don’t have to come forward to save somebody else. It’s the person doing the bad thing, it’s their fault.

If you don’t come forward, then it’s 40 years later, and you want people to believe you — people aren’t going to believe you. You have to understand that people aren’t going to believe what you’re saying is true when you decided not to talk about it when years later it could never be proved and charges could never be brought. So do whatever you want, but understand, there are consequences. Weigh all the potential costs and do what you want. Nobody should tell you did the wrong thing.

The climate surrounding these issues has become especially charged after the Harvey Weinstein story broke. What was your reaction to that piece when it came out, and how do you feel about the reverberations it has had over the last few months?

I think I was as shocked as anyone that such terrible behavior was still going on in 2018. I guess I thought things had changed since the ‘70s and ‘80s. But I have been sad to see #MeToo being reduced to a tool to harm celebrities and politicians. Women deserve better than that and we should stand up and demand real change, not salacious headlines.

How do you think the aftermath of your experience with Polanski would have played out around the world if you were experiencing it today?

Oh my God! I don’t want to even think about it. If our phone rang off the hook, we had photographers parked outside our house and had to leave town in 1977, I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be today. Perhaps more people would “side with me,” but I don’t think that would make it any better. It never made any difference to me what strangers thought. I knew what happened. Actually, I don’t think it would happen today. Teenage girls were very sexualized in the late ‘70s. Things are so different now.

In the past, you have spoken up about the danger of passing judgement on Woody Allen for a case in which he wasn’t convicted. Now, it seems unlikely that his new movie will get much of a release because the backlash has been so powerful.

I think that our justice system and being innocent until proven guilty are more important than any one crime. It is not fair to try something in the court of public opinion. It’s not fair to demand the belief of people or ask them to hate, shame, and vilify others. Sometimes we don’t get justice, sometimes we don’t want it. To imply that your recovery lies in the hands of strangers who must act on your behalf is a very detrimental thing. We can all recover and heal no matter the circumstances and that comes from within. It is important to listen to everyone. Verdicts and consequences do not come on the front of a tabloid.

Polanski’s latest movie, “Based on a True Story,” has yet to be released. It’s hard to imagine that it would be welcomed by many moviegoers at this particular moment. What do you make of that shift in our culture?

I think that we need to work on making the world a safer place for women and the vulnerable now. Putting energy into being angry about things that happened decades ago does not serve a positive purpose. I resent those who use my case to draw attention to themselves, and make stands I do not agree with. It is another type of violation. This glorification of victimhood and pain, rather than recovery and reconciliation, is just an ugly way to use those who have been already been harmed. I think we need to look just as closely at the media when considering whether or not we are being abused. Are you getting the truth out or are you getting an attorney some air time?

Anyway, I don’t think someone who has committed a crime should be forever banned for gainful employment or creating art. That’s just stupid. We are all free to make own decisions about what we see and purchase, we don’t need others forcing what they call their morals down our throats and making demands of us.

In the midst of the Tarantino backlash, some people fixated on his movies, and the way his female characters are often treated in brutal ways. How much do you think people should be concerned with more positive depictions of women and gender relations in the movies?

If you think someone’s movies are sexist, violent, or if you don’t like that person, that’s your choice. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. The bottom line is that we’re free people, we live in America, we can say or do what you want. If you don’t like something, you are not obligated to pay attention to it. Having said that, it’s nice when you see that there are more women directors and people trying to make a difference by giving women more empowered roles. That’s terrific and I’d love to see more of it. But in the end, nothing is for everybody, and that’s OK. It’s OK to say, “I don’t like that,” but you can’t be censoring people and blaming people for things that aren’t their fault because of the violence in their movies.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 10, 2018, 08:43:49 AM
There's obviously a lot of wisdom in that interview. But wow, she has some... interesting opinions.

Quote
I think that our justice system and being innocent until proven guilty are more important than any one crime. It is not fair to try something in the court of public opinion. It’s not fair to demand the belief of people or ask them to hate, shame, and vilify others. Sometimes we don’t get justice, sometimes we don’t want it.

Oof. Really? By that logic, how is it fair that Harvey Weinstein lost his career? He hasn't been convicted of anything. Hasn't even had a trial yet! Why pass judgement on him at all when the evidence hasn't been considered by a judge and jury? "The court of public opinion" shouldn't weigh in until such time. We should consider him innocent until proven guilty.

As has been said a thousand times, public opinion and criminal court have (and should have) different standards of evidence.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 10, 2018, 11:09:33 AM
There's obviously a lot of wisdom in that interview. But wow, she has some... interesting opinions.

Quote
I think that our justice system and being innocent until proven guilty are more important than any one crime. It is not fair to try something in the court of public opinion. It’s not fair to demand the belief of people or ask them to hate, shame, and vilify others. Sometimes we don’t get justice, sometimes we don’t want it.

Oof. Really? By that logic, how is it fair that Harvey Weinstein lost his career? He hasn't been convicted of anything. Hasn't even had a trial yet! Why pass judgement on him at all when the evidence hasn't been considered by a judge and jury? "The court of public opinion" shouldn't weigh in until such time. We should consider him innocent until proven guilty.

As has been said a thousand times, public opinion and criminal court have (and should have) different standards of evidence.

yes, public opinion seems to have very low standards on evidence these days. also on common sense. which is something she seems to have in spades from what's in this interview.

the harvey weinstein case is not one of low standards of evidence, even if he hasn't been arrested yet. the dude got into massive shit, there are like 50 high profile women telling all sorts of horrifying stories happening on different decades, too many people have corroborated on his behaviour, not only sexually but professionally, actively destroying careers. but even with all that, I think is disgusting the way people feel the right to attack him as an angry mob, even physically, as in a video that surfaced a month ago or so of weinstein getting smacked by some random dude in a restaurant. because he acted like an idiot and completely unprofessional for most of his career, I think we don't need a judge to point us towards the inevitable situation of losing it, but since he hasn't been judged yet, he should be able to walk the streets without being attacked by strangers, even if people think he deserves it.

Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 10, 2018, 12:10:09 PM
I basically agree with your take on Harvey Weinstein. He should not be assaulted by strangers, and he should have lost his career.

But Harvey is an easy case. What should the standard of evidence actually be? I'm not sure I know the answer myself. Would two women coming forward be enough? Three? How bad does the harassment or assault need to be? I absolutely agree that, for example, what Al Franken did is on a different end of the spectrum from Larry Nassar, and they should not suffer the same consequences. The unfortunate thing is, when this is all happening in public and in the media, outside of the legal process, it's going to be messy.

That's frustrating to you and other Me Too skeptics. But I genuinely don't think it can be avoided. It has to happen in public. Anyone who thinks cultural change takes place in the courts is naive. "The court of public opinion" is literally the thing we have. It's not going to be perfect, but that's how it happens.

The labor movement was only successful because the public found out about shocking working conditions. Public opinion changed because people were outraged. This "outrage culture" forced an unfathomably positive change in society. The peaceful protests of the civil rights movement only worked because they deeply affected "the court of public opinion." There's now a spotlight on cops murdering black men only because the public is outraged. Marriage equality only happened because people’s opinions changed.

The behavior that’s being exposed is a symptom of a way of thinking that’s persisted for far too long. You can't change a deep-rooted retrograde situation if people still have retrograde opinions. It's not only fine to call out those opinions — it's required.

This is not about locating the few bad apples, bringing them to court, and moving on with business as usual. Sexual harassment and assault has been systemic. To change a system you need a wide-ranging movement that pushes public opinion.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: jenkins on February 10, 2018, 01:51:36 PM
one is permitted to hope that the nature of sharing opinions may be altered as well.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 11, 2018, 09:58:59 AM
I basically agree with your take on Harvey Weinstein. He should not be assaulted by strangers, and he should have lost his career.

But Harvey is an easy case. What should the standard of evidence actually be? I'm not sure I know the answer myself. Would two women coming forward be enough? Three? How bad does the harassment or assault need to be? I absolutely agree that, for example, what Al Franken did is on a different end of the spectrum from Larry Nassar, and they should not suffer the same consequences. The unfortunate thing is, when this is all happening in public and in the media, outside of the legal process, it's going to be messy.

That's frustrating to you and other Me Too skeptics. But I genuinely don't think it can be avoided. It has to happen in public. Anyone who thinks cultural change takes place in the courts is naive. "The court of public opinion" is literally the thing we have. It's not going to be perfect, but that's how it happens.

The labor movement was only successful because the public found out about shocking working conditions. Public opinion changed because people were outraged. This "outrage culture" forced an unfathomably positive change in society. The peaceful protests of the civil rights movement only worked because they deeply affected "the court of public opinion." There's now a spotlight on cops murdering black men only because the public is outraged. Marriage equality only happened because people’s opinions changed.

The behavior that’s being exposed is a symptom of a way of thinking that’s persisted for far too long. You can't change a deep-rooted retrograde situation if people still have retrograde opinions. It's not only fine to call out those opinions — it's required.

This is not about locating the few bad apples, bringing them to court, and moving on with business as usual. Sexual harassment and assault has been systemic. To change a system you need a wide-ranging movement that pushes public opinion.

I tend to agree. But there is one big difference with your examples, which is that the outrage in those cases was directed towards a well defined group, which was helped also because those awful ways of thinking were institutionalised officially. People were after companies, government institutions, official instances to make changes, well, officially. This thing is being directed at individuals, and "messy" is not really an apt word for the ramifications. If the way these situations are being dealt are between individuals, then each case is different, and the way of thinking that says: "men have to be quiet and listen" and "you MUST believe every woman no matter what" and "you must apologize and when you apologize we won't like your apology" and so on.. is wrong, it goes against the idea of dialogue and resolution.

Look, I don't feel sorry for Tarantino at all. He'll ride whatever comes his way. But just silently allowing a legitimate movement to stop sexual harassment and short circuit misogyny into a senseless "takedown" game, oozing self righteousness and hypocrisy, and eliminating nuance and critical thinking in favor of raw emotion just because in the end "it will work out", just doesn't feel right to me. But we'll see what happens.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 11, 2018, 01:53:41 PM
This thing is being directed at individuals, and "messy" is not really an apt word for the ramifications.

To be clear, it still comes down to individuals. So that's fine. Sexual harassment and assault being systemic just means that predatory individuals were allowed to do their thing and in some cases even supported. They are still predatory individuals. And it's bigger than institutions, obviously... society at large was very recently perfectly okay with sexual harassment.

You're coming up against core tenets of feminism now. You have to think of this as being a corrective path. On that path, there are going to be overcorrections and re-corrections, and that's just how it works. Things don't change in a straight line.

"men have to be quiet and listen"

The only way you'll buy into feminism is if you grasp the history of antifeminism, and what an uphill climb progress for women has actually been. And yes, sometimes being quiet and listening is the only way to learn. I'd rather not express a strong opinion on something before I understand it.

"you MUST believe every woman no matter what"

Nope, it's more that our default position should lean toward believing the woman. The default for too long has been disbelief, which makes no logical sense at all. (It does make sense emotionally — it's easier to believe these things aren't happening.) So this is a corrective path. Take a data-driven approach, if you'd like: the number of real female victims is so unfathomably massive compared to the number of women who are "making it up." Like voter fraud, it very rarely happens, because you have a lot to lose and almost nothing to gain.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: wilder on February 11, 2018, 06:24:42 PM
For what it's worth, #metoo had its first suicide a few days ago, which was, ironically, a woman:


Jill Messick, Producer And Studio Exec, Dead Of Suicide At 50
February 8, 2018
via Deadline

Jill Messick, the Hollywood studio executive and producer who was Rose McGowan’s onetime manager, died Wednesday in Los Angeles. She was 50. Her family confirmed the news and said Messick took her own life.

The family also put out a lengthy statement today, saying Messick was “collateral damage” in the fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and McGowan’s part in it. They said Messick was bipolar and had battled depression.

“Over the past few months, many women have come out with allegations against Harvey Weinstein, including Rose McGowan, who has repeatedly spoken with the press, striking out against not only her alleged attacker, but a great many others. One of them was Jill, who chose to remain silent in the face of Rose’s slanderous statements against her for fear of undermining the many individuals who came forward in truth. She opted not to add to the feeding frenzy, allowing her name and her reputation to be sullied despite having done nothing wrong. She never chose to be a public figure, that choice was taken away from her.” (Read the full statement below.)

Messick spent more than 10 years in exec roles at Paramount-based Lorne Michaels Productions and at Miramax, with producing credits on the film side including Frida and Mean Girls. On TV, she was an executive producer on NBC’s Bad Judge. She was in the midst of producing Warner Bros’ Minecraft.

She spent five years at the Weinstein-run Miramax from 1997-2003, rising to SVP Production and shepherding pics like She’s All That. Frida, starring Salma Hayek, was nominated for six Oscars.

Last month, Messick’s name was added to the fray when Weinstein used emails from her and Ben Affleck in an attempt to refute McGowan’s claims made during her book tour that Weinstein sexually assaulted her. The email reveal, Messick’s family said, devastated her.

“Seeing her name in headlines again and again, as part of one person’s attempt to gain more attention for her personal cause, along with Harvey’s desperate attempt to vindicate himself, was devastating for her,” it read. “It broke Jill, who was just starting to get her life back on track.”

Representatives for Weinstein and McGowan did not respond to requests for comment.

Messick is survived by her two children, Jackson and Ava; their father, Kevin Messick; her
father, Michael; her brother, Jan; and her partner, Dan Schuck.

Here is the family’s full statement:

Quote from: Jill Messick's family
“The Movement” just lost one of its own.

Jill Messick was a mother of two children, a loving wife and partner, a dear friend to many and a smart entertainment executive. She was also a survivor, privately battling depression which had been her nemesis for years.

Today she did not survive. Jill took her own life.

Jill was victimized by our new culture of unlimited information sharing and a willingness to accept statement as fact. The speed of disseminating information has carried mistruths about Jill as a person, which she was unable and unwilling to challenge. She became collateral damage in an already horrific story.

Jill believed in the Movement. She supported every woman finally coming forward to share their dark truths and expose those who had committed previously unspeakable deeds. She was loyal. She was strong. Jill was many things, but she was not a liar.

Over the past few months, many women have come out with allegations against Harvey Weinstein, including Rose McGowan, who has repeatedly spoken with the press, striking out against not only her alleged attacker, but a great many others. One of them was Jill, who chose to remain silent in the face of Rose’s slanderous statements against her for fear of undermining the many individuals who came forward in truth. She opted not to add to the feeding frenzy, allowing her name and her reputation to be sullied despite having done nothing wrong. She never chose to be a public figure, that choice was taken away from her.

Now that Jill can no longer speak for herself, it’s time to set the record straight.

In January 1997, Jill was an entry level manager at Addis Wechsler. One of her first clients was Rose McGowan, and one of Jill’s first duties was to set up a breakfast meeting with Harvey Weinstein during the Sundance Film Festival. Following the meeting, Rose told Jill what had happened – that she made the decision to remove her clothes and get in the hot tub with him — a mistake which Rose immediately regretted. Rose never once used the word rape in that conversation. Despite this, Jill recognized that Harvey had done something untoward to Rose, if not illegal. She immediately went to her bosses, the partners of Addis Wechsler, to recount Rose’s story and to insist that they address the situation. They told Jill that they would take care of it. The ensuing arrangements between Rose and Harvey were then negotiated, completely without Jill’s knowledge. At that time, all Jill knew was that the matter was settled and that Rose continued making films with the Weinsteins. She never knew any details until recently, when Rose elected to make them public.

Ten months later, in November of 1997, Jill received a call from the Miramax exec VP of production, recruiting her for a job as an executive at Miramax Films working in production in Los Angeles. Jill was hired based on merit and her excellent work of over two years as a young development executive working with Woods Entertainment, (prior to her time at Addis Wechsler).

Rose’s most recent round of press to promote her book have included new stories involving Jill. The constant press attention Rose has garnered in print and on National TV led to Harvey Weinstein releasing two documents. One of these was an email which Jill wrote to him months prior to the first NY Times piece coming out, and at his request. In this e-mail, Jill offered the truth based on what she remembers Rose telling her about the Sundance account. In the face of Rose’s continued and embellished accusations last week, Harvey took it upon himself to release the e-mail without her consent.

Five years ago, Jill suffered a manic episode. Anyone familiar with bipolar disorder knows that it is a cruel and vicious disease. With the help of doctors, her family and friends, Jill rebounded. Jill had fought to put her life back together. After a long job search, she was in negotiations to run the production division for a new entertainment company.

Seeing her name in headlines again and again, as part of one person’s attempt to gain more attention for her personal cause, along with Harvey’s desperate attempt to vindicate himself, was devastating for her. It broke Jill, who was just starting to get her life back on track.

What makes Rose’s inaccurate accusations and insinuations against Jill ironic was that she was the first person who stood up on Rose’s behalf, and alerted her bosses to the horrific experience which Rose suffered. Twenty years ago, as a very junior person in a management company hierarchy, Jill exhibited her integrity in doing the right thing – she raised the red flag with the heads of her firm. In the face of inappropriate behavior, Jill handled the situation appropriately. Hers is one of the only stories that has stayed consistent over time as we watch other media reported tales morph to beget further attention.

While journalists serve an important role in exposing predatory behavior, we are seeing irresponsible choices and an addiction to sensationalism which leads to inconsistent storytelling. The media is a powerful tool not to be taken lightly. Most individuals would be horrified to have their name spotlighted in a major international news story – let alone their photograph. We cannot forget that the media is a fearsome tool which cannot be used indiscriminately or even inadvertently to create further victims. There is a responsibility when using a platform to accurately expose criminals, predators, mistruths and misdeeds while protecting the actual truth of third parties.

As we collectively seek to take action in an effort to right the wrongs so brazenly and inhumanely repeated for a generation, we must not forget one simple truth: words have power. While we illuminate the dark corners for hidden truths, we must remember that what we say, particularly in the media, can have just as much impact if not more than our actions. We must ask more of ourselves, and of each other. We must take a moment to consider the ramifications and consequences of what we say and what we do.

Words matter.

Someone’s life may depend on it.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Sleepless on February 12, 2018, 04:02:24 PM
Rumor: Sony Having Second Thoughts About Producing Quentin Tarantino’s Manson Movie (https://theplaylist.net/sony-reconsider-tarantino-manson-20180212/)

Last week, Quentin Tarantino found himself trending for all the wrong reasons. The filmmaker hit the press to share his side of the story about the “Kill Bill” car accident involving Uma Thurman, which nearly left the actress severely injured. Tarantino called what went down “one of the biggest regrets of my career, it is one of the biggest regrets of my life.” The director again had to go on the defensive after an interview in 2003 on “The Howard Stern Show” resurfaced, and saw Tarantino asserting that Samantha Geimer, who was raped by Roman Polanski when she was 13 years-old, “wanted to have it….she was down with this.” The director issued an apology, but it seems there could be major fallout to come.

Showbiz 411 is reporting is now having “second thoughts” about producing Tarantino’s brewing not-actually-a-Charles-Manson-movie project. The studio is apparently concerned about the press that swirled around the director last week, and there’s probably a couple of good reasons they might be reconsidering the high profile project.

Firstly, it’s going to be very expensive. The budget is said to be in the neighborhood of $100 million, and after marketing, it will need to earn $375 million worldwide to break even. For context, the director has only crossed that number once — with 2012’s “Django Unchained,” which earned $425 million worldwide. The next closest is “Inglourious Basterds,” which tallied $321 million worldwide. Tarantino’s last movie, “The Hateful Eight,” was considered a disappointment financially, earning $155 million globally, on a budget of $44 million (not including marketing).

Secondly, the movie is already generating controversy thanks to the recent news that Polanski will appear as a character in the 1969 set movie.

Leonardo DiCaprio is attached to star in the movie which is set in Los Angeles, and centers on a washed up TV actor who’s had one hit series and is looking for a way to get into the film business through the burgeoning spaghetti western industry in Italy. His sidekick — who’s also his stunt double (which Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are apparently in contention for) — is looking for the same thing. Meanwhile, the horrific murder of Sharon Tate and four of her friends by Charles Manson’s cult of followers shadows the main narrative. DiCaprio is playing that washed up actor, with Margot Robbie expected to sign up as Sharon Tate, with Al Pacino also eyed for role. (Showbiz 411 speculates that Cruise is up for the Polanski role, which makes little sense considering the director was 36 at the time of Tate’s death — Cruise is 55 — and goes against previous reports that Tarantino is looking for a Polish actor for the part).

It’s a big, expensive auteur project but if anything else surfaces between now and  August 9, 2019 — when the film is slated to be released — that generates further negative chatter around Tarantino, I’m sure Sony doesn’t want to have a big, unreleasable movie on their hands.

Of course, none of this is official, and I’d imagine that Sony is simply watching at the moment to see how things will shake out. There’s also been no word from Paramount, who are in the midst of developing an R-rated “Star Trek” movie based off a concept by Tarantino, who may also sign up to direct.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 12, 2018, 04:06:59 PM
So basically, take Polanski out of the movie, decrease the budget, and he should be able to get it financed.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Drenk on February 12, 2018, 04:27:37 PM
Yeah, and what if Tom Cruise rapes a goat before 2019? Sony is taking risks!

The movie will be fine.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 12, 2018, 11:11:59 PM
So basically, take Polanski out of the movie...and he should be able to get it financed.

What? Why? Because now Roman Polanski can't even be a character in a film because his mere existence on a piece of fiction somehow enforces sexual misconduct or perpertrates bla bla bla? You see how dumb this whole thing is? And what kind of precedent is setting? How is the presence of a historical figure on a film a "problem"? And how is this helping the cause of gender equality, exactly?

Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 12, 2018, 11:29:19 PM
Take a deep breath, I wasn't being serious.
Title: Re: This Is Why Uma Thurman Is Angry (About Tarantino & Weinstein)
Post by: Alexandro on February 12, 2018, 11:36:09 PM
Take a deep breath, I wasn't being serious.

:D