By the way, folks, remember Norman Mailer stabbed his wife, and William Burroughs shot his. Caravaggio was probably a murderer, and Gesualdo definitely was.
There are a shit ton of bad actors in the history of the arts.
It’s ok to judge a man by his actions, but it doesn’t make sense to judge the actions by the man.
The quality of a performance or piece of art is not based upon who created it.
Man, Harlot’s Ghost was good. I have to reread that.
FTFY.
I take all but bald assertions of fact in forums to have an implied IMO attached to them.
There have been a few here that said they can’t separate the man from the art, but it’s fine if others can. That’s sort of an acceptance, tolerance, if you will, of a different point of view. I am not going to blame someone for watching Spacey, but I will not separate the monster from his human skin.
We must be the opposite. I’ll keep watching his movies, but I’m completely willing to flay his skin off.
But seriously, I don’t think I’ll feel bad just watching his movies, but I’ll make damn sure that none of my money ever gets to him.
Plenty of people dislike various actors for reasons other than egregious wrongdoing (I have multiple female friends who HATE Anne Hathaway, for seemingly no reason at all.)
If you can see that affecting your enjoyment of a film the actor features in, it’s not at all a leap to say that your enjoyment might also be affected by knowing they’re genuinely a creep.
Separating the artist from the art is always an individual thing.
I can do it sometimes and other times I can’t. Really is a case-by-case thing for me.
Spacey… I dunno yet, if I’m honest. I really, really liked him and haven’t watched a single thing he’s done since this all came out.
God damn. This is some shit.
The video of the Kill Bill car crash is horrible. It’s sad to think that during the film’s production and release, all this nastiness was going on behind the scenes. While the article only briefly touches on this, the promotional cycle for actors must be especially tough in these circumstances. Being contractually obliged or feeling pressured to be positive about your collaborators that have betrayed you on the red carpet and across hundreds of interviews must make an already traumatic experience so much worse, especially so here, as the film was cut in half and had two theatrical releases.
Her story makes me so angry. To be bullied into a dangerous situation, targeted for unsexual advances… I don’t care how rich actresses or celebrities are, they should not have to put up with shit like that.
The ethos that’s drilled into directors is “get the shot no matter what it takes. We’re over budget, running out of time, losing daylight, still have 14 other shots to do today… get the shot! get the shot!” Safety often takes a back seat, which is of course unacceptable. Quentin’s behavior toward Uma is comparable to what John Landis did on the set of The Twilight Zone albeit with far less disastrous results, fortunately.
Really, there should be a person on set who has the authority to override the director on all matters regarding crew and cast safety. (Perhaps there already is, but it doesn’t seem to be an authority that’s sufficiently respected.) Because the director’s agenda is a different one. Get the shot. Everything will be fine. Get the shot.
The sad thing of course is when you look at the finished film, has there ever been a shot that was worth risking someone’s life over? Well, maybe the Copacabana shot in Goodfellas. Good thing nobody tripped and broke their skull on Henny Youngman.
The actress also claims that Tarantino spat in her face and strangled her with a chain for other scenes, something that Chastain specifically called out. “I keep imagining Tarantino spitting in Uma’s face and strangling her with a chain for KILL BILL. How many images of women in media do we celebrate that showcase abuse? When did this become normalized ‘entertainment’?” she tweeted.
What precisely is Chastain objecting to? Is it that the scenes of violence and degradation were not filmed in a safe and professional way, or that they were filmed at all? If the latter, is there any context in which, in Ms. Chastain’s view, it’s OK to show a scene of violence against women? If so, who determines that context?
It’s a little odd he did those scenes himself… spitting in her face? Oh and supposed Tarantino was told about Weinstein and he just… ignored it.
It’s just so weird considering it’s a movie with a strong female lead kicking ass and getting revenge against aging white men who tried to kill her.
I feel sorry for the way Uma was treated prior to the car scene and in the aftermath. I can certainly understand that Tarantino has alot of conflicting interests here, and probably had advice that the car was fine, but actor safety should be everyone’s number 1 at the end of the day.
Nevertheless, I think people are so ignorant that immediately jump to saying things like “it’s not sexual, but it’s still gendered mistreatment, Tarantino is a misogynist who spat and choked her!” etc… If you read the actual interview Uma herself has a more nuanced view of Tarantino’s personal liability (and his apologies later) than many of the responses.
But Chastain isn’t just objecting to how the content was filmed. She’s objecting to the content itself. So when is it OK to show violence against women in movies?
I think it’s totally fair to call the director a misogynist if he spits on and chokes actresses.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be able to depict such acts, but it seems obvious that you can fake spittle without actually spitting on somebody, and you can choke someone in a movie without the director personally doing it. These are clearly scenes in which (due to edits or what not) you don’t have to see both actor’s faces in the same shot. Why Tarantino feels obligated to use his own spittle and his own hands is unbelievably creepy and unacceptable.
You do realise we’re talking about a movie right, and not a guy who “spits on and chokes actresses”?
I’m sure you can fake spit, but they decided not to, and since the spit came from off-camera I am assuming that the director chose the person who could best spit to do it and had the consent of the person being spat on. Tarantino, if you aren’t familiar with him, is an eccentric guy who makes eccentric movies.
For it to be ‘fair’ to call him a misogynist he must have wanted to do these things personally for the specific reason that it was a woman actor on the receiving end and that he enjoys recreating these things for his own personal gratification. I think that’s simply unbelievable, most importantly due to the fact that this was during the shooting of a movie that is basically everything feminists want from hollywood. A strong female lead, a vast majority of the acting ensemble being women as well, who get big speaking roles and aren’t simply cast for being sex objects. They all ooze cool and badassness without any sexuality that I can remember. The whole movie is about an old white guy (and other men/women) who does these horrible things to Uma and she gets revenge. Why would he make this kind of movie if he was that kind of misogynist who gets off on spitting on women?
It’s actually pretty common for real spit to be used in movies when there’s a spit in the face scene.