|
This isn’t a defense, but the term rape has been brought to light a lot more than it was back then. A lot of people really did think of rape as the throwing and hurting kind. Where’s the other kind was just icky, but hey they made the choice so it’s not rape! They forget that despite any kind of maturity a young person might have, they’re still young and don’t know any better. Now the light has been cast and shows a bit more detail on what rape really is, and it’s not just “this thing and this thing only.” It’s a good thing it’s been changed, but I won’t hold it against someone for being ignorant about it years ago. If he says it now and he still agrees with it, then gently caress em.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I feel like Dowd could've mentioned some of this in the article...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 10:20
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I feel like Dowd could've mentioned some of this in the article... According to Tarantino's interview, he was supposed to participate in the interview but Dowd never got back to him and every other man involved lawyered up to avoid being mentioned by name, leaving him and Harvey Weinstein the only ones actually named in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:According to Tarantino's interview, he was supposed to participate in the interview but Dowd never got back to him and every other man involved lawyered up to avoid being mentioned by name, leaving him and Harvey Weinstein the only ones actually named in it. Also looks like Dowd tried to create her own narrative (QT stating that Uma didn't even mention the spitting thing to her, Dowd got it from somebody else).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:Also looks like Dowd tried to create her own narrative (QT stating that Uma didn't even mention the spitting thing to her, Dowd got it from somebody else). In general, Dowd tries to create a narrative that I don't think Uma quite wanted. The way Tarantino tells it, they had been initially working together on getting the story out about the crash, her interactions with Weinstein, and how they intersected (including finding the footage of the crash together so she could publicize it). The choking and spitting weren't part of the story she provided at all, and were inserted by Dowd to create the impression that Tarantino is a lunatic getting off on hurting women. Speaking as someone who's worked on film and TV for 6 years, I believe Tarantino when he explains some of the story behind the crash. As director, he wouldn't have been personally responsible for the condition of the car and the negligence would lie in the people who converted it to an automatic and provided it to the set. A random teamster who had suspicions about the vehicle should have been talking to them, not slipping rumors to the actress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Do we know how Uma Thurman's story end up in an editorial? It seems like it's news and should have been written by an actual reporter. Maureen Dowd obviously did a bad job with it, but it also seems like it wasn't her job to do this sort of thing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Do we know how Uma Thurman's story end up in an editorial? It seems like it's news and should have been written by an actual reporter. Maureen Dowd obviously did a bad job with it, but it also seems like it wasn't her job to do this sort of thing in the first place. Journalism at big papers is about access and networking and there's no attempt made to obscure it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:i'm kind of getting the impression that Tarantino used to be a really, really lovely person, but had some kind of epiphany at some point and has legitimately been trying to turn around and use his platform for good I kind of had the same reaction. The Deadline piece is a shitload of him talking, and all of it is sensible and reasonable and displays some degree of self-assessment and awareness. The Polanski thing.... A lot of people have been on the wrong side of that one. I wonder where he's moved to on it in the intervening years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
I suppose the larger question that goes unanswered is "why were so many people on the wrong side of the Polanski thing" 10 years ago? It's not like people thought raping children was good in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
I think it's also worth remembering that you can't always read a transcript of a Howard Stern interview and take it at face value. Obviously it's in bad taste to joke around about rape or sexual assault, but I can't tell you how many times I've read articles that present controversial things celebrities have said to Howard Stern as completely earnest, when having heard the interview myself I know that wasn't at all the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I suppose the larger question that goes unanswered is "why were so many people on the wrong side of the Polanski thing" 10 years ago? It's not like people thought raping children was good in 2007. There’s no sane reason for there to be such a change, as ideally sexual assault of a minor would always and forever have been not good, but I have to believe that part of it is a generational thing, much in the same way that Woody Allen is finally feeling the heat. Specifically I’m talking about the people who identify Polanski as a filmmaker first and foremost in their minds, before identifying him as a rapist. For example, I’m in my early thirties. For me, Polanski has always been a rapist. His career and his offense are inseparable; they’re a unified narrative. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
He's both an excellent filmmaker and a child rapist. That one would negate the other is preposterous and that goes both ways, the idea that his millionaire's exile is some kind of punishment is grotesque. I don't even see how it's possible to regard it another way, unless of course what you're saying is that consequences are only for people no one cares about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Oh, I’m not providing an excuse, just a possible reason. Like I’m on the same page as you. I’m talking about why dudes like Tarantino might have found it appropriate to give him a pass. To reiterate: Polanski is and always will be a rapist to me. Period. He was a rapist when I first discovered his filmography, and he’ll be a rapist to me until the day he dies, an all other days beyond. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Tarantino himself says in that interview that he had seriously examined himself during the 90s and early 2000's and tried to figure out why he wasn't outraged at the things he was hearing about Weinstein. It's an unanswered question for a lot of these guys, even if they seem to have good intentions now. There isn't going to be a satisfying answer, that's what they're gonna have to deal with, it's an entire generation of powerful men that have to come to terms with the fact that they somehow rationalized this horrible behavior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Oh, I’m not providing an excuse, just a possible reason. Like I’m on the same page as you. I’m talking about why dudes like Tarantino might have found it appropriate to give him a pass. I know, I just meant in the abstract, because it comes up a lot and it's puzzling to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I know, I just meant in the abstract, because it comes up a lot and it's puzzling to me i mean from a lot of the celebrity stories i've read from the '60s and '70s, statutory rape was just something you did back then (obviously the Polanski thing is more than just statutory rape)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i mean from a lot of the celebrity stories i've read from the '60s and '70s, statutory rape was just something you did back then (obviously the Polanski thing is more than just statutory rape) I'm also guessing he may have heard Polanski's side of the story direct from Polanski himself, which probably cast Polanski in a slightly more positive light than "yeah I drugged a 13 year old and then raped her." That doesn't make it right, but it can take a lot of introspection to consider that you, or someone you like and respect, did a really awful thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i mean from a lot of the celebrity stories i've read from the '60s and '70s, statutory rape was just something you did back then (obviously the Polanski thing is more than just statutory rape) This is the closest thing to understanding it as I get. As you say, read literally any oral history or biography of some entertainer's life pre-1990 and be amazed at how casual they all are about loving highschoolers. The thing I always get stuck on is that this wasn't something that only recently became frowned upon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
There were limits to what the public would look the other way on though, even then. I remember a famous musician's career basically came to an end after he became engaged to like a 12 or 13 year old girl, I just can't remember what his name was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out what kind of masterful spin one puts on "had sex with a 13 year-old" to make someone think, "Oh, well that's not so bad."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
I mean, loving certain high schoolers is legal in plenty of the United States, and Canada. Not to say those laws are good and enlightened of course, or that they entirely reflect social mores. I don't even want to think about Europe.Das Boo posted:I'm just trying to figure out what kind of masterful spin one puts on "had sex with a 13 year-old" to make someone think, "Oh, well that's not so bad." "She forgave him" or whatever has been part of it, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There were limits to what the public would look the other way on though, even then. I remember a famous musician's career basically came to an end after he became engaged to like a 12 or 13 year old girl, I just can't remember what his name was. Jerry Lee Lewis. Also she was his cousin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There were limits to what the public would look the other way on though, even then. I remember a famous musician's career basically came to an end after he became engaged to like a 12 or 13 year old girl, I just can't remember what his name was. Jerry Lee Lewis. That was more because she was his cousin than because she was 13, though. From what I gather, we used to be in a sort of (and I hate using this metaphor because it sounds click-baity, but bear with me) Altered Carbon/Elysium situation where the rich and famous were quite literally held to a different and looser set of moral standards than average people; there are a very select few lines you don't cross, but there's a lot less of them than for you and me. We still are in this boat, of course, but it's at least starting to change, we're not cool with the rich being pedos anymore at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is the closest thing to understanding it as I get. As you say, read literally any oral history or biography of some entertainer's life pre-1990 and be amazed at how casual they all are about loving highschoolers. The thing I always get stuck on is that this wasn't something that only recently became frowned upon. Jimmy Page basically kept a teenage girl as a sex slave and it's seemingly never come back to bite him
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Jerry Lee Lewis. Also she was his cousin. Who did he think he was, Edgar Allen Poe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Who did he think he was, Edgar Allen Poe? they both had the three names thing going for them
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Am I wrong or did Ted Nugent not do the same thing to seemingly no reprecussions. e: just googled it, I'm kinda wrong. She was 17 and he adopted her and I feel grosser for having put this back into my memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is the closest thing to understanding it as I get. As you say, read literally any oral history or biography of some entertainer's life pre-1990 and be amazed at how casual they all are about loving highschoolers. The thing I always get stuck on is that this wasn't something that only recently became frowned upon. The 70s and 80s were insanely libidinous, which is, you know, reflected in the media of the era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The 70s and 80s were insanely libidinous, which is, you know, reflected in the media of the era. i know it always gets brought up in conversations like this one, but Revenge of the Nerds literally had someone having sex with a girl who was under the impression that he was her boyfriend in a costume and that dude was the drat protagonist (who that girl falls in love with, but only after his fraternity sells naked pictures of her gained illicitly). the 1980s were hosed up, and they were only able to get there thanks to the 1970s and 1960s. can you imagine where we'd be today if AIDS didn't come in and ruin everything and kill millions of people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Not Operator posted:Am I wrong or did Ted Nugent not do the same thing to seemingly no reprecussions. You were right the first time, Nugent's daughters have said he would occasionally bring 12 year olds home and lock them in his room for days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Not that Doug Hutchison has had any kind of tremendous career, but he's my go-to when I think of recent creepy af Hollywood types robbing the cradle. Married a 16yo when he was 51, and the only reason it was legal in Nevada was one of her parents consented. This was in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:Not that Doug Hutchison has had any kind of tremendous career, but he's my go-to when I think of recent creepy af Hollywood types robbing the cradle. Married a 16yo when he was 51, and the only reason it was legal in Nevada was one of her parents consented. This was in 2011. blecccch, that dude is so slimy to begin with, that's nauseating
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:Not that Doug Hutchison has had any kind of tremendous career, but he's my go-to when I think of recent creepy af Hollywood types robbing the cradle. Married a 16yo when he was 51, and the only reason it was legal in Nevada was one of her parents consented. This was in 2011. i remember that. He and his wife were Soup mainstays back in the day. She's a piece of work herself, although obviously all of her reality show attention-gimme tactics pale in comparison to actually marrying a 16-year-old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
The Uma Thurman story about the accident on the Kill Bill set is getting a lot of traction in the media today...at least here in Toronto. Noticed that the BBC News website has it in their list of top stories too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:Not that Doug Hutchison has had any kind of tremendous career, but he's my go-to when I think of recent creepy af Hollywood types robbing the cradle. Married a 16yo when he was 51, and the only reason it was legal in Nevada was one of her parents consented. This was in 2011. Who? Oh you mean Courtney Stodden's ex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Uh sir, show some respect to Looney Bin Jim from Punisher: War Zone. (no wait don’t)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Speaking as someone who's worked on film and TV for 6 years, I believe Tarantino when he explains some of the story behind the crash. As director, he wouldn't have been personally responsible for the condition of the car and the negligence would lie in the people who converted it to an automatic and provided it to the set. A random teamster who had suspicions about the vehicle should have been talking to them, not slipping rumors to the actress. Well as a director he bears some ultimate responsibility especially if there was anyone saying there was a problem. However it looks like after the fact he did right in letting the footage get out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
He bears actual ultimate responsibility if the chain of command is working. Tarantino says that if there was anyone expressing doubts about the car he didn't hear it from his subordinates. Now I could certainly see Tarantino creating an atmosphere where those subordinates would be afraid to say anything to him that would upset the schedule. Especially if the shooting schedule still reflected a safe straightaway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
I do think a consideration was, KB was easily the most stunt-heavy project he'd done up until that point. It's possible the logistical complexity of that contributed to a breakdown in communication. Since then his stuff has featured some more elaborate setpieces (Death Proof most prominently) and there haven't been reports of recklessness or unnecessary endangerment so I think whatever lesson he did need to learn, he has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I suppose the larger question that goes unanswered is "why were so many people on the wrong side of the Polanski thing" 10 years ago? It's not like people thought raping children was good in 2007. Basebf555 posted:I think it's also worth remembering that you can't always read a transcript of a Howard Stern interview and take it at face value. Obviously it's in bad taste to joke around about rape or sexual assault, but I can't tell you how many times I've read articles that present controversial things celebrities have said to Howard Stern as completely earnest, when having heard the interview myself I know that wasn't at all the case. The link that was posted with the quote from Tarantino actually has the full audio clip of the discussion with on the Howard Stern Show. I recommend people listen to it, if they haven't. It's a a lot more detailed than the posted quote. There wasn't any joking in this case, they were having a serious discussion. Tarantino comes off *far* worse, and just keeps digging deeper and deeper. His defense of Polanski is completely ridiculous. You can actually dig out the context of where Tarantino was coming from based on his argument. In the interview he keeps repeating things like the girl was a "party girl" and "she was into it". Hollywood strikes me as exactly the kind of place where it would be perfectly normal for underage teenagers to be bouncing around the party scene without anyone blinking an eye. In fact, I'd bet a lot more underage sex goes on in Hollywood than people think. And I don't mean in the secret society of pedophile sex traffickers way, but just horny teenagers out to party and bang famous people. It's a town filled with famous actors, artists, musicians and parties that never end, after all. When much-loved Fast and the Furious star Paul Walker died at 40 he was dating the same girl he'd started dating when he was 33 and she was 16. So no doubt the pervasiveness of this kind of behavior formed part of the basis for Tarantino's argument. And when you include the fact that Hollywood is a cartoonishly corrupt poo poo hole where nearly everyone got their job because of who they know, all of which contributes to Stalinist Russia level fears of speaking truth to power and pissing off the wrong people, it's a little easier to understand why someone as famous and as artistically beloved as Polanski would be awarded Hollywood's official pedophile hall pass. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 22:25
|
|
