Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[DarthSkywalker]

Sometimes, yeah, people will excuse anything because they love their work. It's part of the relationship between the artist and the consumer. But I'm sure not giving him a pass for his comments. It's just not something to totally condemn him for. He said something ugly and stupid. Okay. I've said stupid and ugly stuff myself like that a few years ago that I'm not proud of. I just wasn't equipped with the knowledge because it just wasn't as taught so widely or in the culture. Sue me. There's a bigger problem where that needs to happen, so we can prevent ignorant statements like that from happening. I don't think people should burn in hell for that. I think the only way to teach people and change is to tell them it's wrong first instead of just throwing them out. It eliminates the problem, temporarily, but I don't think it creates a lot of change. Though a Weinstein is an exeption. He'll never change.

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. And what is the punishment for defending and taking exception to a pedophile with semantics and ill information? Um... a slap to the face? Maybe?

It takes a village to teach a fully grown man that you can't date a or "sleep" with a 13 year old.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Moral of the story, if you like the dudes work, he gets a pass.

I think this has sort of always been true. Heck, I remember when Aaron Hernandez was going to appeal his conviction, I heard many Pittsburgh radio stations say once released the Steelers should get him. You know, the convicted murderer.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Sometimes, yeah, people will excuse anything because they love their work. It's part of the relationship between the artist and the consumer. But I'm sure not giving him a pass for his comments. It's just not something to totally condemn him for. He said something ugly and stupid. Okay. I've said stupid and ugly stuff myself like that a few years ago that I'm not proud of. I just wasn't equipped with the knowledge because it just wasn't as taught so widely or in the culture. Sue me. There's a bigger problem where that needs to happen, so we can prevent ignorant statements like that from happening. I don't think people should burn in hell for that. I think the only way to teach people and change is to tell them it's wrong first instead of just throwing them out. It eliminates the problem, temporarily, but I don't think it creates a lot of change. Though a Weinstein is an exeption. He'll never change. But John Lasseter, as far as I know was not the right way to handle it. That guy should have been sat down and told what he was doing was wrong and if he did it again, you're gone. But nope. I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

Firstly my comment was aimed at Tarrantino's "defense" of Polanksi, his fanboys then defending him is also problematic, but as to what Tarrantino said, I'm sorry but I've never been uneducated or ignorant enough to ever think there was any excuse for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old child, a one that he plied with booze and pills first, and Tarrantino wasn't some kid when he made the comments, he was an adult acting like a teenager at a Bieber concert over a director he likes, there are lines, it's only entertainment. I have a friend here who stopped watching the Steelers due to their QB being a rapist that got his crimes covered up as he was the city's sports hero, that's the type of stand we as a scoiety need to take IMO.

 

[Hunter Rider]

It does feel that even with all this talking, that is what it boils down to.

Yep, and this is how these guys have gotten away with their **** for so long, people just turning a blind eye.

I think this has sort of always been true. Heck, I remember when Aaron Hernandez was going to appeal his conviction, I heard many Pittsburgh stations say once released the Steelers should get him. You know, the convicted murderer.

Oh I've seen this in football here as well, scumbags getting passes because they have some talent and could help a team on the field. It's like all those years ago when Janet Jackson was villified because her nipple was out for a second at the Super Bowl show, yet how many guys have played in the Super Bowl over the years and actually committed crimes and don't get anywhere near the moral outrage?

 

[Greens]

It takes a village to teach a fully grown man that you can't date a or "sleep" with a 13 year old.

He doesn't need to be taught that, because Tarantino says in the interview that he agrees that it was wrong.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think this has sort of always been true. Heck, I remember when Aaron Hernandez was going to appeal his conviction, I heard many Pittsburgh radio stations say once released the Steelers should get him. You know, the convicted murderer.

Didn't he have like another two trials on the way as well? For other murders?

 

[Spider-Fan]

It takes a village to teach a fully grown man that you can't date a or "sleep" with a 13 year old.

Firstly my comment was aimed at Tarrantino's "defense" of Polnaksi, his fanboys then defending him is also problematic, but as to what Tarrantino said, I'm sorry but I've never been uneducated or ignorant enough to ever think there was any excuse for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old child, a one that he plied with booze and pills first, and Tarrantino wasn't some kid when he made the comments, he was an adult acting like a teenager at a Bieber concert over a director he likes, there are lines, it's only entertainment. I have a friend here who stopped watching the Steelers due to their QB being a rapist that got his crimes covered up as he was the city's sports hero, that's the type of stand we as a scoiety need to take IMO.

I agree with the above. It's one thing like the people defending Woody Allen because they legit think he didn't do it (I am not such one, but for those that defend him, at lease they don't see wrong doing as having happened). It is another to defend Polanski, especially if you acknowledge he in fact did it. That crime is inexcusable. I could see maybe having a level of denial, but if you know they did that, how can you possibly try and rationalize it? Even if it boils down to arguing what should or should not be rape, the guy had sex with a drugged 13 year old. There is no excuse for that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He doesn't need to be taught that, because Tarantino says in the interview that he agrees that it was wrong.

Everything else he said really shows that isn't the case though. Namely saying she was into it. Like a 13 year old can give consent. So basically him saying it is wrong, almost off hand, is his version of, "I don't mean to offend you but" then proceeds to offend. Or in this case, proceed to defend child rape.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Oh I've seen this in football here as well, scumbags getting passes because they have some talent and could help a team on the field. It's like all those years ago when Janet Jackson was villified because her nipple was out for a second at the Super Bowl show, yet how many guys have played in the Super Bowl over the years and actually committed crimes and don't get anywhere near the moral outrage?

In a strange way, one could link the current out cry in Hollywood as having started with Ray Rice and the botched suspension and awareness of domestic violence. Just has been growing since then it feels.

Didn't he have like another two trials on the way as well? For other murders?

That sounds about right. I know he at least had 1 other one. I think one of the other murder trials may have been dropped, but I am not 100% sure on that front.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Firstly my comment was aimed at Tarrantino's "defense" of Polnaksi, his fanboys then defending him is also problematic, but as to what Tarrantino said, I'm sorry but I've never been uneducated or ignorant enough to ever think there was any excuse for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old child, a one that he plied with booze and pills first, and Tarrantino wasn't some kid when he made the comments, he was an adult acting like a teenager at a Bieber concert over a director he likes, there are lines, it's only entertainment. I have a friend here who stopped watching the Steelers due to their QB being a rapist that got his crimes covered up as he was the city's sports hero, that's the type of stand we as a scoiety need to take IMO.

But there's a difference between a rapist and someone defending a pedophile. The repercussions in terms of reception of the defense of the person with the actual person should be two different things.

We also need to look at where Tarantino is coming from. The guy is an egotist celebrity director who lives in another reality and people never sat him down and told him about this stuff. And yeah, that includes Polanski. Of course he probably isn't having this conversation we are. Of course he fanboys over Polanski because he's a movie nut so of course he'll defend him. That's where he comes from first and how he thinks. So yeah, he's ignorant. But I don't think his intent is vile and malicious like he's a guy who would condone pedophilia across the board. That is not an excuse, it's just in this context, he sees it as that. I just don't think he's aware. That still doesn't excuse how he thinks, but does that inform him totally? Not necessarily.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But there's a difference between a rapist and someone defending a pedophile. The repercussions of the defense of the person with the actual person is should be two different things.

We also need to look at where Tarantino is coming from. The guy is an egotist celebrity director who people never sat him down and told him about this stuff. And yeah, that includes Polanski. Of course he probably isn't having this conversation we are. Of course he fanboys over Polanski because he's a movie nut so of course he'll defend him. That's where he comes from first and how he thinks. So yeah, he's ignorant. But I don't think his intent is vile and malicious like he's a guy who would condone pedophilia across the board. That is not an excuse, it's just in this context, he sees it as that. I just don't think he's aware. That still doesn't excuse how he thinks, but does that inform him totally? Not necessarily.

roman Polanski is a rapist. Also I don't think having an ego or a celebrity should be an excuse. That is giving someone a pass for what they do or say because they are a celebrity. Isn't that how we got here in the first place?

 

[Greens]

Everything else he said really shows that isn't the case though. Namely saying she was into it. Like a 13 year old can give consent.

Well yeah he's wholly uninformed on that topic and what constitutes (statutory) rape, which honestly doesn't leave me dumbfounded. I've been around enough people to know that they're gonna say dumb ass, uninformed things. Still, like Doctor Jones said, I don't see anything malicious about it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But there's a difference between a rapist and someone defending a pedophile. The repercussions of the defense of the person with the actual person is should be two different things.

We also need to look at where Tarantino is coming from. The guy is an egotist celebrity director who people never sat him down and told him about this stuff. And yeah, that includes Polanski. Of course he probably isn't having this conversation we are. Of course he fanboys over Polanski because he's a movie nut so of course he'll defend him. That's where he comes from first and how he thinks. So yeah, he's ignorant. But I don't think his intent is vile and malicious like he's a guy who would condone pedophilia across the board. That is not an excuse, it's just in this context, he sees it as that. I just don't think he's aware. That still doesn't excuse how he thinks, but does that inform him totally? Not necessarily.

But back to Hunter's and Darth's point, even if he is somehow unaware something like that is wrong, it is scarier. If you cannot decide on your own drugging and having sex with a 13 year old is wrong, then I question your entire ethical code. This should not be something QT should need taught.

Now, as for should this be cause for QT to be exiled from Hollywood...I leave that to the Court of Public Opinion. I don't think saying that is equal to actually doing it or anything, but it is another brick in a wall that seems to be forming around him.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well yeah he's wholly uninformed on that topic and what constitutes (statutory) rape, which honestly doesn't leave me dumbfounded. I've been around enough people to know that they're gonna say dumb ass, uninformed things.

Yes. But there is being dumb and uniformed about tax law or how to hook up your cable. And then there is when you decide you are going to comment on a case of rape of a 13 year old girl. If he thinks its okay, what does that say about what he thinks is okay for him to do?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But back to Hunter's and Darth's point, even if he is somehow unaware something like that is wrong, it is scarier. If you cannot decide on your own drugging and having sex with a 13 year old is wrong, then I question your entire ethical code. This should not be something QT should need taught.

Yes, exactly. So even in the best case scenario for Tarantino, it is suddenly why does he believe that?

 

[Poppy]

But back to Hunter's and Darth's point, even if he is somehow unaware something like that is wrong, it is scarier. If you cannot decide on your own drugging and having sex with a 13 year old is wrong, then I question your entire ethical code. This should not be something QT should need taught.

For real.

The "he needed to be educated on that topic" argument can only goes so far.

 

[Greens]

Again, he agrees in the interview that Polanski should have abstained from sexual contact even if she was offering herself to him, which is what transpired in Quentin's view of the events. The whole thing he's upset about is the use of the word rape, because he's sticking with his own definition (one that is widely shared and a lot of people learn when they grow up). Why is he so hot and bothered about it? Because he's Quentin Tarantino, a known argumentative weirdo.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But back to Hunter's and Darth's point, even if he is somehow unaware something like that is wrong, it is scarier. If you cannot decide on your own drugging and having sex with a 13 year old is wrong, then I question your entire ethical code. This should not be something QT should need taught.

Maybe he actually does in terms of Polanski. He needs to be taught that there's no distinction. He's letting his fanboyism for Polanksi in the way of what's right and wrong. But given we don't know (and I highly doubt) Tarantino uses this same line of thinking for pedophiles, I do not think he has some ****ed up moral code and deep down is this awful person. That's way too much for us to assume. He just said and believed in an awful thing. I feel we're talking in absolutes here when it should be more nuanced.

This is the thing. We can't assume everyone knows what we know. And no, that doesn't include defending pedophiles in general. I think this is a certain case in this context because Tarantino is defending someone he geeks over. It still doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at how these things are wrong and not address them, but we're making the mistake of applying our own aware thinking and using that to just come down on them and condemn when we don't tell them why they're wrong. In a way, we're using the same standard the same people who didn't tell Tarantino this stuff, because they're a celebrity. It's a similar blanket thing and just as harmful.

It's weird, people are talking about starting conversations, but I have not seen any conversations. All I've seen is, "Take them out." Works for Weinstein, Spacey, Polanski, Allen, but it doesn't for instances like this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Again, he agrees in the interview that Polanski should have abstained from sexual contact even if she was offering herself to him, which is what transpired in Quentin's view of the events. The whole thing he's upset about is the use of the word rape, because he's sticking with his own definition (one that is widely shared and a lot of people learn when they grow up). Why is he so hot and bothered about it? Because he's Quentin Tarantino, a known argumentative weirdo.

And here is where I don't buy that Greens:

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.

He starts bringing up European morality, like suddenly this is a question of morality on whether trying to have sex with a 13 year old is really that bad or even immoral. Which is why he follows it up with that she was "down with this".

So he knows about the drugs, he knows about the "sex", which the young girl said she didn't consent to. That Polanski even introduced drugs and alcohol should have stopped Tarantino in his tracks in terms of consent. It didn't.

Also, according to Tarantino's definition of rape, you can't rape a person who is passed out unless you are super violent about it.

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.”

So in his eyes, Brock Turner isn't a rapist.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Moral of the story, if you like the dudes work, he gets a pass.

Moral of the story, if someone worked closely with Weinstein, that person totally likes rape and sexual abuse. Grab your pitchforks, fellas!

 

[Spider-Fan]

Maybe he actually does in terms of Polanski. He needs to be taught that there's no distinction. He's letting his fanboyism for Polanksi in the way of what's right and wrong. But given we don't know (and I highly doubt) Tarantino uses this same line of thinking for pedophiles, I do not think he has some ****ed up moral code and deep down is this awful person. That's way too much for us to assume. He just said and believed in an awful thing. I feel we're talking in absolutes here when it should be more nuanced.

This is the thing. We can't assume everyone knows what we know. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at how these things are wrong and not address them, but we're making the mistake of applying our own aware thinking and using that to just come down on them and condemn when we don't tell them why they're wrong. In a way, we're using the same standard the same people who didn't tell Tarantino this stuff, because they're a celebrity. It's a similar blanket thing and just as harmful.

It's weird, people are talking about starting conversations, but I have not seen any conversations. All I've seen is, "Take them out." Works for Weinstein, Spacey, Polanski, Allen, but it doesn't for instances like this.

This is the part of the debate that would make me think the most. At what point should the exile occur? Unfortunately for QT, this is not the only thing he is facing. On top of this, you have his association with Weinstein (which he did very little about and kept working with him after he knew what happened by his own admission) and the car incident with Uma. It's all part of a pattern forming around him, and not a good one. If it was just 1 stupid comment, that's one thing. But it's becoming apparent it is not just that 1 thing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Moral of the story, if someone worked closely with Weinstein, that person totally likes rape and sexual abuse. Grab your pitchforks, fellas!

He condones it if you are his friend or he likes you a lot.

 

[Doctor Jones]

This is the part of the debate that would make me think the most. At what point should the exile occur? Unfortunately for QT, this is not the only thing he is facing. On top of this, you have his association with Weinstein (which he did very little about and kept working with him after he knew what happened by his own admission) and the car incident with Uma. It's all part of a pattern forming around him, and not a good one. If it was just 1 stupid comment, that's one thing. But it's becoming apparent it is not just that 1 thing.

Tarantino twice now has admitted to him being complicit with Weinstein. And after Thurman cleared it up and when Tarantino gave his side of the story and owned up to it being a mistake and how much he regretted it, that case is closed. Those two are good now. That should be put to rest. I recommend reading both articles. It just takes on a pattern because of the timing and we see it like that to try to link this up. It's a series of mistakes and bad things he did in his life that put together in three's look to be a pattern of him being this terrible guy. We all knew he's an egotist dick who's his own biggest fan. These are results of that. But it seems now those things are being used to inform his whole person hood. It's inside out. If anything, the thing he's guilty of is him being a self centered dick. This is what happens when you're a self centered dick.

Doesn't make what they did and said right, but when it's put up like this and this is used as a form for someone's entire career to be ruined, then that's concerning and doesn't do any favors for anybody.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Tarantino twice now has admitted to him being complicit with Weinstein. And after Thurman cleared it up and when Tarantino gave his side of the story and owned up to it being a mistake and how much he regretted it, that case is closed. Those two are good now. That should be put to rest. I recommend reading both articles. It just takes on a pattern because of the timing and we see it like that to try to link this up. It's a series of mistakes and bad things he did in his life that put together in three's look to be a pattern of him being this terrible guy. We all knew he's an egotist dick who's his own biggest fan. These are results of that. But it seems now those things are being used to inform his whole person hood. It's inside out. If anything, the thing he's guilty of is him being a self centered dick. This is what happens when you're a self centered dick.

Doesn't make what they did and said right, but when it's put up like this and this is used as a form for someone's entire career to be ruined, then that's concerning and doesn't do any favors for anybody.

I did read them both. What gets me on the various directors who knew about this is they just went to Weinstein and were like apologize to person X. So, sexual assault should on garner an apology?
Like, that makes you all square like if I apologized for bumping into your shopping cart at the store? Not, you know, contacting cops? At no point, did these people seek to report him for crimes. At the end of the day, QT valued his movie more than preventing future sexual assault. That rubs me the wrong way. It's one thing if you worked with Weinstein and didn't know. But if you knew, and you admit you understood the extent of what he did, then you needed to step in. This is a massive failure on QT's part, and something that does hurt his character for me. Regardless if he and Uma are good now.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I agree with the above. It's one thing like the people defending Woody Allen because they legit think he didn't do it (I am not such one, but for those that defend him, at lease they don't see wrong doing as having happened). It is another to defend Polanski, especially if you acknowledge he in fact did it. That crime is inexcusable. I could see maybe having a level of denial, but if you know they did that, how can you possibly try and rationalize it? Even if it boils down to arguing what should or should not be rape, the guy had sex with a drugged 13 year old. There is no excuse for that.

Exactly, there is no defense for having sex with a 13 year old period, then when you add in the fact he got her drunk and drugged up first, it becomes a defense of rape.

But there's a difference between a rapist and someone defending a pedophile. The repercussions in terms of reception of the defense of the person with the actual person should be two different things.

We also need to look at where Tarantino is coming from. The guy is an egotist celebrity director who lives in another reality and people never sat him down and told him about this stuff. And yeah, that includes Polanski. Of course he probably isn't having this conversation we are. Of course he fanboys over Polanski because he's a movie nut so of course he'll defend him. That's where he comes from first and how he thinks. So yeah, he's ignorant. But I don't think his intent is vile and malicious like he's a guy who would condone pedophilia across the board. That is not an excuse, it's just in this context, he sees it as that. I just don't think he's aware. That still doesn't excuse how he thinks, but does that inform him totally? Not necessarily.

They may be different levels of being a piece of ****, but at the end of the day they are both still a piece of ****.

I don't buy that at all, Tarrantino wasn't born and raised in some celeb bubble, he grew up no different to you and me and then found success as an adult, there is no excuse for him defending Polanski and not knowing that having sex with a drugged up 13 year old is absolutely a crime and reprehensible, no one is that ignorant.