Uma Thurman does not believe Quentin Tarantino had ‘malicious intent’

A post shared by Uma Thurman (@ithurman) on

I covered the Uma Thurman story over the weekend, wherein Uma Thurman told Maureen Dowd at the New York Times all about Harvey Weinstein and Quentin Tarantino. Sadly, Uma’s stories about Weinstein are keeping with the pattern which is too familiar at this point – there was a meeting in a hotel room, manipulation, an attempt to throw her off balance, then an assault. Beyond that, people were very interested in what she had to say about Quentin Tarantino and how he made her feel degraded on the set of Kill Bill, and how he insisted she drive a death-mobile and then refused to show her the footage of the on-camera film crash. There were also details about how he insisted on being the one to choke her with a chain and spit on her for the films too. Basically, Tarantino came across like a total psycho too.

Well, Uma had some additional thoughts after the NY Times piece came out on Saturday. Roughly 48 hours later, she posted the above Instagram with this message:

i post this clip to memorialize it’s full exposure in the nyt by Maureen Dowd. the circumstances of this event were negligent to the point of criminality. i do not believe though with malicious intent.

Quentin Tarantino, was deeply regretful and remains remorseful about this sorry event, and gave me the footage years later so i could expose it and let it see the light of day, regardless of it most likely being an event for which justice will never be possible. he also did so with full knowledge it could cause him personal harm, and i am proud of him for doing the right thing and for his courage.

THE COVER UP after the fact is UNFORGIVABLE.

for this i hold Lawrence Bender, E. Bennett Walsh, and the notorious Harvey Weinstein solely responsible. they lied, destroyed evidence, and continue to lie about the permanent harm they caused and then chose to suppress. the cover up did have malicious intent, and shame on these three for all eternity.

CAA never sent anyone to Mexico. i hope they look after other clients more respectfully if they in fact want to do the job for which they take money with any decency.

[From Uma’s Instagram]

This clarification is odd, especially since it definitely seemed like Uma was calling out Tarantino’s treatment specifically in the NYT piece, and calling him out for HIS negligence and ego and borderline abuse for ordering her to do the stunt. But maybe we can and should chalk that up to Maureen Dowd’s weird way of writing that Uma story, where she summarized what Uma was saying without quoting her directly for the most part. In any case, it’s clear who Uma is specifically targeting now: CAA, Harvey Weinstein, the producers, etc. Also: Tarantino has now come out with a lengthy interview to explain his side of things, which I will cover separately in another post.

Speaking of Harvey Weinstein, Entertainment Weekly received a statement from Weinstein’s lawyer saying: “Ms. Thurman’s statements to The Times are being carefully examined and investigated before deciding whether any legal action against her would be appropriate.” As in, he’s threatening to sue her. God I hate him.

Uma Thurman The Parisian Woman Opening Party - Arrivals.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Instagram.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

21 Responses to “Uma Thurman does not believe Quentin Tarantino had ‘malicious intent’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. OriginalLala says:

    Weinstein wants to sue her now? what a total piece of s**t.

  2. Lindy79 says:

    I dont like Tarantino but like you pointed out, Dowd’s writing was all the place, and if this is Uma’s statement then I side with Uma. She’s not giving him an out, just that years later he did give her the footage (too late) and they seem to have made their peace.

    • Una says:

      Maureen Dowd inserted herself into the piece way too much. She interpreted what Thurman said constantly. The moment I read the piece, I knew there were going to be clarifications. This, along with Ansari piece, shows how important it is to pick a good journalist. Dowd is not a journalist that can be trusted with “important” content. I just don’t understand why NYT keeps her.

      • Lizzie says:

        that is maureen dowd’s calling card. i hate her writing. and she’s a misogynist so i expect some “Please think about the men” think piece to this later.

  3. Purplehazeforever says:

    Uma stated up until the car crash scene she collaborated with Tarantino & consented to various acts committed against her: the spitting, choking…it was only that scene she did not.

  4. trollontheloose says:

    I loathe when victims still have some “guilt feelings” or feel bad trips and have to somehow, again, shield their perpetrator, in this case Feet Fetishist Tarentula, from public opinion. The victims often have this natural instinct of protecting therefore almost diminish/minimizing assault/incident. A nd I bet you he might have had call her and play boohoo cielo hence the “I gotta tell people he’s sorry”.. that’s one of the “flaw” from abused victim: Protecting.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      I beg to differ in this specific situation. She waited to put her thoughts together and has a defined purpose. Uma is trying to move us from the shiny object (famous director) to the hidden villains that the press has still skirted around: CAA (pimp central) and the big power and money people. They are the system that allow the Harvey’s and Tarantino’s of Hollywood to survive and continue abuse.

      Even now, the press is moving delicately around them and only going after those that have lost power (Harvey, actors). I think she’s saying she has dealt with Tarantino on her own but she is not powerful enough to take on the system itself. Tarantino is a villain for sure but also an easy distraction. No matter how crazy the director, the insurance people, producers and her agent should have been on the spot in Mexico within hours to rescue her. But they failed her and covered up the incident. She was never able to sue for work injuries like me and you. Or to prevent another actress being placed in the same situation.

    • Bridget says:

      Or we can actually listen to Uma’s words and let her think and speak for herself.

  5. Nicole says:

    He’s trash. People are talking about how he talked about the Polanski victim saying she wanted to sleep with him. The host mentioned she was also drugged and he doubled down.
    I’ve hated QT for a long time now because I’m not a fan of his fascination of rape and torture and being given a pass to throw the N word around. Maybe now the rest of the world will catch up

  6. Rapunzel says:

    Methinks QT put in a phone call to Uma to get her to soften the accusation. She was definitely calling him out.

  7. BaronSamedi says:

    I think it’s great that she is coming out and clearly pointing out the people behind the scenes she holds responsible. It’s so easy for us to always go after the visible talent in front of the camera when the names of the agents, producers, etc. never get any daylight.

    I don’t mean to absolve Quentin Tarantino of his responsibility at all but once more I feel like I need to listen to the actual victim. If she feels Quentin has adequatly apologized and done his part I would like to hear from these other people now.

  8. SM says:

    Yes. This is the world we live in. A woman is harrased, psychologicaly abused and injured at the hand of a male director and still has to feel like she has to justify or defend that man’s actions.

    • Nicole says:

      This is why I found Jlaw’s (and later Mila and Natalie’s) stories about Darren Aronfonsky disturbing as well. It’s not a funny or “cute” story to talk about how you were injured on set because you were pushed beyond normal limits. It’s also not a cute anecdote to then talk about how you have to keep filming even after you’re injured. That’s not normal that’s abusive.

  9. deets says:

    It’s still not politic to crap on Tarantino. As Hayley Atwell mentioned, now it’s ok to speak out against Allen and Weinstein and not be black listed. Before now, it wasn’t possible.
    If you go to another entertainment site, people are bending over backwards to defend Tarantino from ‘the haters’.

    And despite how crappy he was to her, he helped make her career. It’s a tangled web, and it’s not uncomplicated for her emotionally, I’m sure.

    Think about how you maybe didn’t want to ruin the career of the man who said dirty things to you, or slapped your butt. You want it to stop, but you don’t want to ruin him, you know? This is a common feeling for many women.

    Now imagine it’s your ‘friend’ and a person you feel grateful toward.

    • BaronSamedi says:

      This is a great nuanced view on the topic. I agree with you that this shit is complicated and I don’t think it serves anyone if we decided to come at a complicated, personal relationship and try to put our own black/white view on it.

      I mean some of the comments here read like Uma is protecting Quentin when I can’t see that at all? She released the footage, she gave the interview and talked about his involvement. If she wanted to protect him all she had to do was not say anything and only talk about what Weinstein did to her.

      She has decided to make peace with Quentin and she is the only one who can decide this for herself. We are of course free to feel different about this but trying to say Uma shouldn’t is denying her agency.

    • Censored says:

      I agree this a nuanced view , I personally think Tarentino is a douche but He and Uma have a complicated relationship
      I also believe that whilst it is easier to ” cancel” or vilify one person. Uma seems to more concerned about taking down the entire corrupt system I.e studio execs, producers, and especially the agencies like CAA who seemingly deliberately pimp out thier actresses, or turn a blind eye and don’t lift a finger to protect them whilst earning hefty commissions

  10. teacakes says:

    I believe her but he’s still not off the hook for his complicity with Weinstein or his negligence of Uma’s safety, even if he did the right thing by getting her the footage he failed to do it on multiple other occasions because he prioritised his career over keeping his productions out of the hands of a rapist.

  11. Kelly C says:

    Hard to believe this at all. QT tried to to intimidate and control her via the stunt. And now saying it took his this long to find the footage is BS. He was the director for crying out loud.

    I hate him and his movies. He’s no better than Woody Allen, living out his sick fantasies via film.

  12. Izzy says:

    By all means, HARVEY, launch that lawsuit. Because what comes with that? DISCOVERY. Those depositions, that parade of witnesses… should be AWESOME for rebuilding your character. LMAO

    • Truthie says:

      I think he tipped his (abusive) hand here. Women have been saying that they didn’t speak out because of fear of intimidation/threats/blackballing. So what did he just do? Send an intimidating and threatening message. Nice…