MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Tarantino Under Fire Now. Enough Already...

Tarantino Under Fire Now. Enough Already.


When one would hope that the media would concentrate on investigating actual abuse in the industry, and in all walks of life for that matter, instead it's become a goddam farce with a focus on decades old allegations that were never proven, and celebrities like Matt Damon getting in trouble for inappropriate phrasing. Since nothing has been taken to trial, we're left with celebrities at each other throats over who they worked with, what they were supposed to have apparently known, and feigning regret.

Now there's Tarantino coming under pressure. I've never been much of a fan and I found the wording he used in defense of Polanski questionable during a radio interview with Howard Stern in 2003. It seems this was only dug up after his treatment of Uma Thurman during Kill Bill came to light - which he apologized for and Uma had apparently forgiven him anyway. But that's not enough, so we get digging into his past, outrage ONLY now of his Polanski defense, celebrities feigning regret over having worked with him, and Rose McGowan accusing him of displaying a foot fetish (?). What the fuck...Add to that we have social media "commentators" using the subject of his films to judge him, along with actress Jessica Chastain tweeting that "his films used violence against female characters as a plot device to make them stronger." Huh? Where's the empowerent supposed to come from in drive-in homage action flicks like Kill Bill? Have men in action/crime films never been depicted overcoming violent adversity?

Nevertheless, we've gotten to the point when art is being used to denigrate character, assisted by random Tweets becoming click bait news stories setting off social media wars. Reactionaism is now the name of the game every which way.

reply

The movement has jumped the shark, for sure. Uma plays the world's deadliest international assassin in Kill Bill. She chooses this path for herself. Her character slaughters dozens and dozens of people in the most graphic manner possible. Obviously some of those people are going to direct violence toward her.

reply

Personally I don't blame the movement as a whole at all. I blame elements of the media, giving rolling coverage to allegations against celebrities before they can be proven in an effort to garner clickbait, reporting often only on rumours and vaguely defined inappropriate behaviour, and making stories out of random Tweets.

reply

I was once Touched By An Angel. Roma Downey is a monster.

reply


Good one, froggy!


😎

reply

That was probably the most random show for me to watch in my teenage years, but I did like it.

reply

From what I've read,since Una made her statement regarding Harvey Weinstein,she has made her peace with Quentin.The issue being that she allegedly told him about Weinstein's alleged advances towards her and he was less than helpful.
As I said I don't think she has any issue with Tarantino now,she's said he apologized.
She wanted footage of an incident which happened in a car during the filming of KB, (can't recall which one) she was injured,Weinstein's people wouldn't hand it over.As far as I know this footage has now been released.

I've no idea what this has to do with comments he made in 2003 about the Polanski case.Someone has been digging the dirt on Tarantino.

Two points I would make though.

Firstly,Tarantino obviously knew the kind of person Weinstein was,but he has told of his regret about not taking action.Not particularly worthy but I believe it to be genuine.
Secondly,he was a fool for talking about the Polanski case,it's a hot potato and probably always will be.

reply

I knew nothing about all this until last night, when I did some Googling.

You're right, Uma has made peace with Quentin now. That was the issue, that she'd told him about her experiences with Weinstein and he shrugged it off and didn't even remember it the first time. The second time she mentioned it to him, he did take some action and speak to Weinstein. She was also upset by the way he treated her on the set of Kill Bill, including insisting she do the car stunt herself, despite her telling him she was afraid to. (A mechanic who'd modified the car told her he didn't feel it was safe.)

Smart of her to insist on the footage of the accident, and stand her ground. Both Quentin and Weinstein agreed to not show her the footage. Weinstein said he'd show it to her, but only if she signed a document stating she wouldn't hold him or his company responsible for any current or future injuries. She refused.

Quentin later helped her obtain the footage, and has expressed remorse about forcing her to do the stunt. She still has injuries from the accident.

No idea what he said about Polanski, so will leave that bit alone.

P.S. HAI Dazed!

reply

HAI Cat!

I feel that Uma's response has been measured and quite fair.Within the original furore she decided to wait until she felt less angry.

I think, as Retromogul says,it is the press who are responsible for making this about Tarantino.

reply

I agree about Uma. She's responded in a measured and reasonable way. She's also expressed regret for not speaking up about what happened between she and Weinstein and takes some responsibility for playing a part in his being able to continue that behaviour with others, after her experience.

I'm not up on what's currently happening with Quinten, but wasn't part of the reason he was getting heat back when the Weinstein story broke, because he somewhat defended Weinstein? Since Uma told him twice what he'd done to her, I'd think Quinten should have at least shut his mouth, if not spoken up with what he knew.

reply

Er, Dazed, you'd best take a look at what Tarentino said in an interview in 2003. I think it'll change your mind about him. It sure did me!

https://moviechat.org/nm0000233/Quentin-Tarantino/5a7ae1d314c67500146bfd84/Quentin-Tarantino-Says-Roman-Polanskis-13-Year-Old-Rape-Victim-Wanted-to-Have-It

reply

Agreed on his woeful handling of the Polanski case. Yet many actors had continued to work for Polanski after he fled, petitions were apparently signed to have him brought back for a fair trial or something, and he received an Oscar and numerous plaudits for the Pianist.

My remembrance of the Polanski case is fuzzy. Did Hollywood celebrities believe the defense of Polanski being unaware of the girl's age, that the girl claimed she was older for a photo shoot, and that Polanski fled because he believed he would not get a fair trial? It would seem that would had to been the belief of actors who still worked for Polanski, which has now worked against them without any significant changes in the case aganist Polanski - which I find problematic even with him being a degenerate who should faced the music in the US. I find it problematic given there's no new investigation, no new revelations, and importantly no trial to justify pressure on everyone to believe Polanski willingly and knowingly, forcefully raped a minor.

Now there are reactionaries deriding those who are fans of Polanski's movies. That's some dangerous stuff there.

reply

I'm afraid my recall of the case is fuzzy too.I seem to remember that the girl's mother actively encouraged the "relationship".If that's incorrect I hope someone corrects me.
Suffice to say nobody behaved well and,unless there was a deception regarding age,Polanski was the adult in the room so ought to have halted things.But I don't know,only he and the girl know.In many ways I'm reluctant to learn anymore about it.
I wouldn't vehemently defend him,nor would I condemn him outright.
What I do know is that the girl herself,is now of course a mature woman,has forgiven Polanski and does not want him to face further charges.

Now there are reactionaries deriding those who are fans of Polanski's movies. That's some dangerous stuff there.

The same thing is happening with Kevin Spacey.Not so long ago an actor would be suspended pending investigations not outright sacked.As far as I know,no charges have been made against him?
Personally I won't find it difficult to watch him,he's a talented actor.

I seem to have diverted the topic somewhat,my apologies.

reply

Nah you okay :) Yeah that's right, the victim's mother was alledged to have encouraged the encounter and book the appointment for her daughter. And the girl has apparently forgiven Polanski and doesn't want him to be charged. Not the typical behaviour of someone who was forcibly raped, and given there's never been any other rape allegations against Polanski that come to mind although his had a penchant for much younger women. Ultimately who knows and like you I would never support him or condemn him without the hard cold facts.

I'm also not sure what the outcome for Spacey was. Although I believe he was a serial harasser given the number of the same accusations and his lack of denial - if there wasn't still an investigation then I find that troubling. A firing/blacklisting predicated on accusations that aren't investigated at all is always a disturbing prospect.

reply

Actually, there have been 4-5 other allegations against him. One has been discredited, at least IMO, the others haven't and stand.

About Samantha Geimer's mother, please see my other posts :)

reply

Well, okay, I've now changed my mind about Tarantino. Didn't know he'd said these things about Polanski and Samantha Geimer, back in 2003. What an ASS.

https://moviechat.org/nm0000233/Quentin-Tarantino/5a7ae1d314c67500146bfd84/Quentin-Tarantino-Says-Roman-Polanskis-13-Year-Old-Rape-Victim-Wanted-to-Have-It?reply=5a7b5d0b14c67500146c0074&animate=false

reply

She did not claim she was older, no. If you look at the photos he took of her that day, she looks exactly like what she was: a 13-year-old girl.

And to Dazed, their entire "relationship" took place over two days' worth of photoshoots. Polanski had told Geimer's mother he wanted to shoot her for a French Vogue piece he was working on. That's the extent of her encouragement. The moment the mother found out about what had happened (that evening), she took Samantha straight to the police.

I can't blame Samantha Geimer at all. She was only 13. Her mother should have gone with her for both shoots, but I gather she, like many, assumed someone that famous never do anything like raping her child anywhere, let alone in the a**.

Back to Retromogul, at the time Samantha Geimer was castigated in the press, blamed for what happened, and called a Lolita. You also have to remember the culture. Because it wasn't a violent rape, and she sustained no injuries or screamed for help, it wasn't taken all that seriously. It was a different time, a different culture. There were films such as Pretty Baby where girls were sexualized and Hamilton's sexualized photos of girls were popular too.

He fled because he had reason to believe the judge was going to seriously extend his sentence. He did, though, willingly and knowingly rape a 13-year-old. Forcefully? Well, not physically forcefully. Psychologically, yes.

reply

Polanski's defense was that she thought she was physically mature.
I don't think the film Pretty Baby was trying to sexualize a young Brooke Shields, and it was released a year after the case.

Polanski's probation report cited psychological evaluations determining him to not be a pedophile. The prosecuting attorney dropped some of the charges aganist Polanski and his lawyers expected probation and to report for observation. A judge then changed his mind after seeing a photo of Polsnski posing with apparently underage girls at an Ocktoberfest. Fearing imprisonment and deportation Polanski fled.
Overall, it's clear that Polanski committed statutory rape. What hasn't been proven in a court of law is if Polanski had her aganist her will and if he knew how old she was.

reply

Look at the photos Polanski took of her that day. She *looks* 13.

You don't think Pretty Baby sexualized Brooke Shields? You've got little company there. How could a film that's premise centers around a 12-year-old prostitute *not* be sexualizing her? That makes no sense. That the film was made a year afterwards just illustrates the culture of the time I was talking about.

Pedophile is and always was the wrong word to apply towards him in this case; it refers to someone who's primary sexual interest is in pre-pubescent children.

The DA didn't just drop the charges, a deal was made between him and the DA: Polanski admitted guilt to the lesser charge in exchange for the other charges being dropped.

Yes, that's what happened, about the judge. Polanski felt he'd already served his time, and didn't expect to get more, but the judge reneged on what he'd agreed on, so Polanski fled.

It's obvious he did anally and otherwise rape her. It was against her will. She said no repeatedly. That's rape. He's admitted he was wrong. What else do you need?

reply

This is why I'm reluctant to go into this too much.It's a quagmire and my feelings are very mixed about this.I have the feeling that all accounts of the incident are unreliable,drugs and alcohol were involved.I also suspect some of the adults involved might be fudging the truth to make them seem less complicit or negligent.
Naturally,if Polanski knew she was 13 then he knew she couldn't give consent.
It was statutory rape at the very least.

That's as much as I want or need to discuss details because I just do not know.

Is there a need for any further action to be taken against him now? I don't know,since the girl has forgiven him and by all accounts has a friendly relationship with Polanski.She doesn't want to be defined as a victim,forever cast as the girl Polanski raped.

As I said, Tarantino was a fool to even go near the subject.His comments were foolish but maybe,hopefully he's grown up and changed his mind 15 years later.



reply

You put me in a tough position here, Dazed. On one hand I want to honour your wish to not want or need to discuss the facts of the case because you don't want to know.

On the other, you asked for others to correct you if you had the facts wrong, and then go on to speak about his victim which isn't entirely accurate and is misleading.

A few years ago I got interested in it and did quite a bit of reading and research on it, including reading her and others' testimony. So to me it's no quagmire, it's pretty straightforward.

Polanski himself has apologized to Samantha, said he was sorry, and what happened was neither Samantha nor her mother's fault: only his. They aren't friendly, but she has forgiven him and just wants this to be over with, having been dragged through the mud and maligned by the press for so many years, and now here's Tarantino doing exactly the same thing. She's said many times that being maligned this way was worse than the actual rape.

Tarantino was 41 when he said these things, an adult who *should* have known better.

reply

"You don't think Pretty Baby sexualized Brooke Shields? You've got little company there. How could a film that's premise centers around a 12-year-old prostitute *not* be sexualizing her? That makes no sense. That the film was made a year afterwards just illustrates the culture of the time I was talking about."

So if any artist wants to create a film that focuses on the sad case of child prostitution then there automatically intending to sexualize chrildren? Was the classic Lolita focusing on depraved obessession also guilty of this? This is the danger I was also referring to. Pretty Baby was meet by controversy and was banned in some jurisdictions. It was never given a wide berth and celebrated for sexuality. Critics recognized it for what it was, with Roger Ebert writing: "Pretty Baby has been attacked in some quarters as child porn. It's not. It's an evocation of a time and a place and a sad chapter of Americana." Further he praised Shields perfomance - "she really creates a character here; her subtlety and depth are astonishing. She wasn't an empty object of lust intended to tittilate degenerates and child prostitution wasn't being celebrated.

Five of the intial charges were dropped aganist Polanski after the accusers lawyer arranged a plea bargain, claiming he wanted to protect Geimer from a public trial. This is either true, given the victim blaming that occurs, or false in that the forced rape case aganist Polanski would not stand up to scrunity. Years after the victim claims to have forgiven Polanski and not want any charges brought aganist him.
Overall, it has never been proven that Polanski forced himself on the girl. And for me personally, I think it's dangerous to judge someone as guilty without it been definitely proven and to condemn others for not believing the same all because of a sudden shift in public mood.

reply

These are stills of Brooke Shields from Pretty Baby:

http://www.filmsite.org/escenes/prettybaby3.jpg

https://denniscooperblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/016_autograph.jpg

https://girlwithashotgun.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/pretty-baby-brooke.jpg

http://www.hecklerspray.com/brooke-shields-nude

(Note: most but not all of these shots in this last link are from Pretty Baby)

It DIDN'T sexualise her, you still say? If you don't think this was a pedophile's wet dream come true, you're either sorely ignorant or disingenuous. What the hell do you think a prostitute's -- her 12-year-old character's trade -- dealt in, if not sex? Hopscotch?

Here's a shot of her at age 10, FFS! Not a still from Pretty Baby, BTW. (Scroll down to #3.)

https://www.all-about-photo.com/photo-articles/photo-article.php?id=8&title=top-10-most-expensive-photographs-(in-2014)

A mere 2 years later, at age 15, she was featured in the notorious Calvin Klein ad, leaving nothing sexual to the imagination by being given the line "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins."

But yeah, not sexualized or anything.

David Hamilton, from around the same circa, some earlier, some the same, some after:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tZoGXw5kFOg/WDva6yhktOI/AAAAAAACdqg/Imu-Loxfrk0S4Am-9qmm5zQbs-jEkEIiwCLcB/s1600/david-hamilton-24.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/06/eb/9b/06eb9b3d1ad302aa234e75b814a58869--colour-photography-david-hamillton-photography.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/af/01/d5/af01d5df0e5e8a09788a7ee02a99cbfe--young-girls-a-young.jpg

I'll address the rest of your post later.

reply

Cat Hai.
I asked to be corrected on one point and that was that Geimer's mother was encouraging of the "relationship".
Ok so no blame was given by Polanski to the mother,it was still a bizarre and negligent thing for her to allow him to do,but of course that is not tantamount to encouragement so I stand corrected.By her own daughters account she was an ambitious actress and was flattered that Polanski wanted to photograph her daughter.
That he took advantage of her trust is obvious and of course he is to blame for what happened.I don't believe I have ever suggested otherwise.
I'm not sure where you think I have spoken about the girl in a way that is misleading or inaccurate?

I hope that the past years have taught Tarantino to alter his mindset. People do.
As I said several times in this thread,he was foolish to even speak about the case.His comments were crass and I hope he understands why.
What does the media digging this up achieve,apart from vilifying Tarantino,that is?
More attention on a woman who clearly doesn't want it.

I've seen people tear each other (figuratively!) limb from limb over this case on IMDb.







reply

HAI Dazed!

I misunderstood. Because you (and the OP) said you were fuzzy on the details, I thought you meant you were welcoming correction on any of the details of the case, not just related to Geimer's mother.

I don't think it's particularly bizarre on the part of her mother. Polanski approached her and asked permission to take photos of her daughter for a French Vogue shoot. Polanski was at that point famous, and not for the wrong reasons. So, famous director approaches you and asks permission to shoot your daughter, who wants to be a model, for a piece he was working on (allegedly, so he said) in French Vogue. Bonanza for your daughter! To be in print in a highly acclaimed magazine, in photos taken by a famous director.

This happened in a much more naive time, when people placed more faith in celebrity than they do now. I get it, they thought they "knew" celebrities, and they did on the surface, far more than they did, for instance, an unknown stranger. Even now celebrities are given far more credibility in what they say, versus an unknown accuser, unless the accuser is equally "known" celebrity.

In hindsight, it was misplaced and abused trust. It's now clear what Polanski had in mind, and it wasn't a shoot for Vogue. I'm sure her mother has regretted either not accompanying her or letting her do it at all, a thousand times at this point.

I didn't mean to imply anything you said was deliberately misleading, only unintentionally due to not knowing or remembering the facts of the case.

(cont'd because I'm sure I'm going to reach the MC post limit soon!)

reply

I don't give a much weight to the alcohol and drugs involved, which is one thing you said that IMO is misleading.

There was one bottle of champagne. Polanski said he wanted Geimer to have a glass for the photo shoot (ha, yeahright). She agreed to it. He had one glass, Nicholson's housekeeper had one glass, and Geimer had the rest. Polanski kept refilling her glass, even before it was empty. It's pretty obvious now why he did that, as well as offering her 1/3rd of a Quaalude, and insisted she get into the hot tub with him, nude, against her objections (objections against undressing and getting into the hot tub with him, not the champagne or piece of Quaalude).

Was it wrong, even illegal, for him to offer champagne and part of a Quaalude to a 13-year-old girl? Of course! But he didn't force it on her, and while I'm sure the effects of even a few glasses (glass, in his case) and part of a Quaalude played a part, I don't think it'd have been very different had neither been involved.

Samantha had no gap in memory in the events, as demonstrated by her police report and testimony, and no lack of clarity recounting the events as and how they unfolded. IMO the Quaalude and champagne played a relatively insignificant part.

reply

I too hope the past 10 years have taught Tarantino to change his mindset, but thus far, he hasn't recanted or apologised for it. You'd think if he had, he'd have said so by now.

What does this achieve? Well, I'm someone who, until yesterday, had no idea he held and expressed these views, and I'm hardly a fan of "Shock Jock" Stern's, who, surprisingly, took him to task for what he said.

If you read some of the posts in this thread, as well as those on the Polanski and Tarantino boards, you'll see Tarantino's mindset is FAR from dead, and that's very disturbing, I think you'd agree.

Samantha Geimer, Polanski's victim, has taken the time and thinks it's important enough to speak out about this herself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT_4Hl_G9Co

reply

Well he actually has.
"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,” he wrote. “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.”

Just editing to insert link.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/08/quentin-tarantino-apologizes-for-polanski-defense-i-was-ignorant

reply

Thanks for that link. I note the date on it is today's.

I'm very glad, and heartened, to see this response by him. Good on him!

*Maybe* now those (including the OP, and a few others in this thread, as well as on his board) will stop agreeing with and supporting what he said in 2003, now that Tarantino himself disagrees with it. Probably not, but one can hope.

reply

Have you seen Pretty Baby? My question still stands - if an artist wants to focus and bring to light the subject of child prostitution are they automatically intending to sexualize chrildren, to make it attractive to perverts? That is not the case for Pretty Baby. It's a serious and intentionally sad film. You're being reactionary.

reply

BTW I never agreed with what Tarantino said. Read my entire argument.

reply

I don't think that the OP agrees with what Tarantino said at all Cat.

I can't speak for the OP but I think it's fair that Tarantino be judged for his ill judged remarks and for not doing more with regards to Weinstein.
What isn't fair is that this should be career changing.

It was me who diverted the topic.I thank you for all the information, you're obviously well versed with the case.



reply

[deleted]

Nice rant.

My view stated in the OP was that segments of the media are more interested in generating click bait outrage and reporting on grudges and tweets condemning people for bad wording than thoroughly investigating abuse and repressive patriarchy throughout wider society. Overwhelming coverage was given to Matt Damon stating there are degrees of abuse according to the law.
Is everyone supposed to shut the fuck up and not have any opinion whatsoever because you apparently know things and claim that celebrities are kidnapping and torturing disabled people? Can you provide any evidence of that? Have you reported on anything you claim instead of raging aganist others on line?

I know what I'm talking about. "...Meet whores??". Do you know what this was all supposed to be about or has have you betrayed yourself with faux outrage?
It wasn't meant to be Random Celebrity Takedown/Grudge Match taking precedence over everything else.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]