Quentin Tarantino tells his side of the story about Uma Thurman & Harvey Weinstein

The 67th Annual Cannes Film Festival

Perhaps we should blame Maureen Dowd for the strange way she told Uma Thurman’s story in the New York Times. If I had a story to tell about Harvey Weinstein and Quentin Tarantino, I’m not sure I would go to Dowd to tell my story – I would go to Jodi Kantor at the NYT, or Ronan Farrow at The New Yorker. Anyway, many people were left feeling unsettled about Quentin Tarantino after reading Uma’s NYT piece. People blamed Quentin for a lot of what happened to Uma, including a really bad stunt-gone-wrong on the set of Kill Bill. As it turns out, Quentin believed that Dowd would be getting in touch with him to interview him and back up Uma’s story, which Dowd did not. So Quentin went to Deadline to tell his side of everything, and it’s a really, really long piece, which you can read here. I’m just going to summarize his points.

QT has been on Team Uma since the start. He says that he gave Uma the footage of the on-set car crash knowing that she would make the footage public. He did that knowing that she believes there was a conspiracy against her, a conspiracy led by Weinstein. He doesn’t know why Dowd never contacted him, saying: “Uma had people she wanted to indict, for that cover-up. Part of my job on the piece was to do an interview with Maureen Dowd, and back up Uma’s claims. And we never hooked up. Me and Dowd never hooked up. I read the article and basically it seemed like all the other guys lawyered up, so they weren’t even allowed to be named. And, through mostly Maureen Dowd’s prose, I ended up taking the hit and taking the heat.”

How the car crash happened. QT describes Uma’s discomfort with doing the stunt, so QT did the drive himself to see if it was dangerous. He had no problem with it, and he genuinely thought there would be no drama and no trouble for Uma. He convinced her to do the stunt and says that she did it because she truly trusted him and trusted that he believed she could do it. When she crashed, he describes it as “a trust was broken.” He goes into detail about why he thinks the crash happened and he still blames himself significantly for what happened.

Uma told him about Weinstein’s assault. She told him before they worked together on Kill Bill, and he had already heard from Mira Sorvino that Weinstein was awful to her too, which made him realize that Weinstein didn’t just have a crush on Mira or a thing for Uma, that Weinstein was actually a predator. QT says: “while we were getting ready to do Kill Bill, Uma tells me that he had done the same thing to her. That was when I realized there was a pattern, in Harvey’s luring and pushing attacks. So I made Harvey apologize to Uma. In the Maureen Dowd article it says, that is when Quentin confronted Harvey? Well, my confrontation was saying, you have to go to Uma. This happened. You have to apologize to her and she has to accept your apology, if we’re going to do Kill Bill together.”

On what he thinks of Weinstein’s actions now, looking back:
“Oh, my god…I’ve already dealt with my…complacency…in chalking it up to this harmless form of…For some reason that now feels wrong, back in 1999, it was easier to chalk up what he was doing, to this mid-‘60s, Mad Men, Bewitched era of an executive chasing the secretary around the desk. Now, it’s like…as if that was ever okay! One of the things that has happened in this whole thing is there is a lot of staring in the mirror. And thinking about, how did you think about things during that time? What did you do in that time? What was your feeling about things, at that time? I remember when Mira told me about the time Harvey tried to get up in her apartment. I remember being shocked and appalled and that that was going on in today’s Hollywood. The big question I keep asking myself is, when did that shock go away?”

He explains the spitting & choking. His explanation is basically that he spat on Uma and strangled Diane Kruger and choked Uma with a chain because if he did it, he would do it right and there would only be a need for one or two takes, and he didn’t trust grips or other actors to do it. He even says that it was Uma’s idea for him to choke her with the chain in a close-up shot, and Diane was fine with him strangling her. He blames Dowd for how those stunts were presented.

[From Deadline]

I think Quentin is guilty of negligence, and he cops to that, but I believe him and I believe Uma in that I don’t think he ever had malicious intent at any point, especially with regards to Uma’s stunt work. He’s in love with Uma, and he always thought of her as his partner, his muse, his friend and collaborator, and he would never set out to hurt her physically or emotionally. He knows he could have and should have done a lot of things differently, and he’s owning that. Of course there are still some blank spots in this interview, like why he continued to work with Weinstein and all of that, but since this is specifically about Uma… I think I believe what he says.

The Premiere of 'Django Unchained' held at the Ziegfeld Theatre - Arrivals

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

100 Responses to “Quentin Tarantino tells his side of the story about Uma Thurman & Harvey Weinstein”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lindy79 says:

    I like that he acknowledges that he knew something and was complacent in his knowledge. He’s owning it. He doesn’t deserve a medal or anything but he’s owning it. Too many of them are claiming they had no idea and I don’t buy that for a second.
    He didn’t do enough though

    • SilverUnicorn says:

      I am with you here.
      I never liked him a tiny bit, I think he is problematic as **** and doesn’t deserve a medal but he is the only one owning it (without screaming #notallmen)

      I only despise the fact that the bar is so low now that we are left with being not that furious when someone says “I knew and did nothing”.

    • teacakes says:

      @Lindy79 – same here, he sounds marginally self-aware unlike the Affleck, Damon etc crowd but he’s not off the hook for how Uma was treated or how he treats actresses in general, looking at the choking of Diane Kruger.

    • Erinn says:

      I liked this quote “The big question I keep asking myself is, when did that shock go away?”

      I think that’s something everyone can kind of ask themselves. Some more than others, of course. But when you’re in a workplace and you see things happening and getting worse and worse … you do sort of get ‘used to’ it as much as you ever could. Things stop being shocking. The horrible things can become the norm. It’s not okay, and nobody should be able to get used to those things. But we kind of do. In a lot of ways – even taking sexual assault and harassment off the table. When you’re in a workplace where your boss is just a crap person who does and says crap things – you kind of get used to it after a while when you don’t have other options. So I can understand how he was able to compartmentalize, but I do appreciate that he does see that that was a huge problem.

      I don’t know. I’m not a fan of his at all – but he does seem to genuinely be taking this to heart. He’s done a lot more reflecting and introspection than a lot of people in the industry have, and while it’s certainly not medal worthy – THIS is what we want to see. This kind of thing is what is going to have to happen for change to really be made permanent. Those who can take a look at their actions that were either complacent or on a lower scale of problematic and realize ‘holy hell, that was wrong of me. I need to change’ are so important. It SHOULD be enough that we have brave men and women speaking out. But unless we’re going to shove everyone else onto an island – we need the kind of people who aren’t the Harvey Weinstein’s to start looking at the things they’ve done in the past and correct them. And making sure the younger generations aren’t going to make those mistakes.

      • Ally says:

        When did that shock go away? I guess in 2003 when he was a-ok with Polanski raping a thirteen year old.

        Also he’s feigning shock about what Mira told him, but then kept working with Weinstein when he had the clout to work with other studios.

        Just cause he puts words together well doesn’t mean they’re true. His actions speak louder. He chooses to tell stories of vile violence, puts actresses in scenes where he gets to act out his kinks and endanger them, and hid that tape from Uma Thurman for 15 years. He is complicit. He has helped normalize this kind of thing for decades. He gleefully befriended men he knew were sexual assaulters. He is a big part of the problem.

    • PPP says:

      Honestly this one is my Al Franken because I’m the biggest fan of QT and now I’m looking at his work and wondering what that says about me. I had a similar reaction to his first response, he was the only one who seemed to be taking ownership. But it’s just way too fucked up that he spit on her and choked her. Another actor couldn’t do that in a take or two? Suuuuure. I don’t notice all the non-dehumanizing things he did on camera because another actor ruined his shot.

      A lot of people have gone after Dowd’s writing, but the fact that he’s going completely after her as a way to disguise his anger with Uma says a lot about him. As many problems as you have with her prose, these accusations don’t arise from thin air. Uma saw a reason to mention him choking and hitting her. She was very clear that Tarantino persuaded her to do an unsafe stunt. She’s the one who called it “dehumanization to the point of death.” And whether or not Tarantino took a spin in the car, he’s not the stunt coordinator, and was in no place to make that call.

      This isn’t a hit piece. It’s just not.

      I love the guy and have often written off his behavior as cocaine-inspired, but I remember when he spit at some reporter on the red carpet when he was with Mira Sorvino. He’s aggressive, for sure.

      It just makes me wonder about all the ultra-violent, rule-break-y, super masculine art that I love and whether you can make art like that without a cruel streak in you.

      • India Rose says:

        I feel similarly. Whenever one of the people being called out for behavior is one of my favorites, like Franken, my instinct is to find holes in the stories. But we have to listen, really listen, to what women are saying even when it’s about people we admire and respect.

        Quentin’s interview with Deadspin was very long? Not a surprise. The man talks a mile a minute, like he’s jacked up on Redbull, speed and injections of adrenaline. In hindsight we all knew about these issues in Hollywood, but he had some actual power and was at times complicit in treating Uma poorly. Maybe for the power rush it gave him?

        I really, really hope guys like this aren’t just talking out their asses and are going to make real changes in the way they do business.

      • Veronica says:

        I’m not even sure what to think about any of it anymore. These men did these HORRIBLE things because they wanted to do them and could get away with them. They either cowed the women physically into silence, or the women were afraid they would never work again. So it went on and on, with hundreds, maybe thousands of women as victims.
        And others knew, men AND women, and did nothing because the human species is amazing at making excuses for horrendous behavior from those we like or who give us an advantage. It is hard to spit in the eye of one who is helping you achieve what you want.
        This isn’t just about men abusing women. This is about a whole society structured upon the powerful being able to do whatever they want while most of us turn a blind eye and beg for crumbs.
        This is a HUGE conversation.

      • PPP says:

        @Veronica: ding ding ding. For me, from the beginning of this, I saw it first and foremost as a job issue, because the structure of the workplace is very clearly integral in driving these horrendous and systematic cases of sexual abuse. And that workplace is a steep hierarchy with no checks and balances. Most states in America are right to work states, which means they can fire you for whatever reason. This makes it incredibly easy to cover up discriminatory firings. And it’s not just about sex at all. Valerie Aurora and Leslie Honeywell are working on something called “The Al Capone Theory of Sexual Harassment.” The basic idea is that people who are morally flexible enough to sexually harass their coworkers are morally flexible enough to engage in other practices that damage the businesses that they are in. So when rumors arise, it’s worth it to investigate the target, not just in terms of sexual harassment, but to make sure that person isn’t engaging in deceptive practices. Both of these women have been working to combat sexism AND RACISM in tech because where there’s one, there’s the other. It’s not a mistake that you see the same systems and agents making things harder for anyone dis-privileged by the system, because it’s about power.

      • Veronica says:

        PPP, thank you for sharing that information. I will keep my eyes open for that project from Aurora and Honeywell.
        If I were younger, this is something I would want to study. I would want to learn how we are disempowered, even the wealthiest and most successful women among us. When it begins, how it is supported, exactly what it tells us. And how men fit into that, even the “good” guys, like my husband, who really tries to be sensitive to any imbalance of power in our relationship.
        We have a lot to learn and a lot to teach our kids.

    • Natalia says:

      I am not interested in ANYTHING Quentin Tarantino has to say. I’ve always known he’s an evil douche. Only ever saw one of his movies: “Pulp Fiction.” That was enough for me. Disgusting. Not art AT ALL.

  2. hindulovegod says:

    I don’t believe it. Tarantino has a pattern, too. He enjoys hurting women. He had no problem with Weinstein being a rapist. He knew for decades and did nothing. There is no “his side of the story.”

  3. INeedANap says:

    I believe he is someone who cared about Uma and still put her in a position to take on a lot of pain and blame, unknowingly or not. It’s not good enough to just not actively harm people; sometimes we need to actively help people. This is the fallout of ignorance.

    I hope he has learned and grown so that what happened to Uma doesn’t happen to anyone else.

    • hindulovegod says:

      It happened to people after Uma. He didn’t learn anything. Just ask Diane Kruger and Daryl Hannah. Tarantino has better PR. Let’s not confuse that with him being a better person. His actions speak very loudly. He knew Weinstein was a rapist back in the 90s and had no problem building a career with him. He didn’t change a thing after a girlfriend and a muse told him they’d been assaulted.

      • teacakes says:

        Yeah, people you love and have close professional/personal relationships with tell you someone tried to rape them and your reaction is to get a faux apology and keep working with the guy? And let’s not pretend that post-Pulp Fiction, he couldn’t have had his pick of studios or producers willing to work with him, this is where his priorities lay.

    • Veronica says:

      Man, what I wouldn’t give to leave these guys alone with my 4foot 11inch firecracker Italian mother and her iron frying pan. :) As Juliet’s father Capulet says to her, “My fingers itch!”

  4. Lucy says:

    I’m deeply conflicted about this, yet agree with the whole last paragraph. I’m not about to give him a cookie for taking responsibility, but…he’s the only one doing what all the outed abusers didn’t, and would never do.

  5. Nicole says:

    I don’t think that makes him any better than anyone else. Sure he felt bad about Uma but what about everyone else? Did he ever wonder about anyone else in his movies being assaulted by Weinstein? Or is it just because he likes Uma? That’s what I don’t get here…these guys who got told DIRECT stories felt “bad” but continued with business as usual the next week.
    I know some people think that others shouldn’t have to make these hard decisions but that’s what standing up for what’s right is. You think protestors thought it was easy to march night after night and be beaten and arrested? No it was f*cking hard. But they did it for the greater good and progress forwards. So I’m also sick of the excuses and false apologies at this point.
    (And to be clear that critique is aimed at people who were agents, directors and people who ‘knew’ but continued. Esp men in power that sent women in to this man for decades)

    • Veronica says:

      AMEN!!!! And NONE of those protestors in Alabama, India and elsewhere had any of the advantages of these people who were silent over this: not money, not fame, not security.
      And I’m conflicted as well over the women’s silence over this for years, as well. I really am.

    • Vivien says:

      “I know some people think that others shouldn’t have to make these hard decisions but that’s what standing up for what’s right is. ”

      With terrorism the onus is put on Muslims as a whole to “root out” the extremism in their “communities”. You cannot facilitate or keep quiet; it’s a potential threat to everyone and perpetrated by “others”. Sexual terrorism is different – powerful men are the ones perpetrating it & it isn’t something they themselves fear becoming a victim of. So instead of justice and accountability we have to settle for hollow discussions about human nature and “growth” from middle aged men with more wealth, privilege and power than anyone could ever dream of. It was just so hard for them.

  6. Talie says:

    He should’ve cut Weinstein off as soon as he knew this was a pattern of behavior. There were a million studios who would’ve died to work with him.

  7. sara says:


    Here’s old audio of a Howard Stern interview in which Quentin claims Polanski’s 13 yo victim wanted it.

  8. SM says:

    “That was when I realized there was a pattern, in Harvey’s luring and pushing attacks. So I made Harvey apologize to Uma.” So basically he is saying he is ok with HW being a predator, just as long as he fake apologises to Uma so they could continue making movies all together as usual. Sickening.

  9. Renee2 says:

    Did anyone listen to the footage that was posted on Jezebel last night, where he states that what happened to the 13 yr old who was raped by Roman Polanski consented? It was on Howard Stern. And Howard Stern!! and Robyn challenged Quentin. He does sound convincing here but I don’t believe him wholeheartedly, the guy is just too skeevy for me.

  10. Mia4s says:

    Tarantino has another problem as people are rediscovering his comments to Howard Stern about the young girl raped by Roman Polanski. Apparently she was a 13 year old party girl who wanted it? FFS Quentin. He’s insane.

    • Ennie says:

      What about all those girls from the rock scene who hung out with rockstars on HW boulervard in the 70s? Gaiman reported what happened, but all those girls were public about everything and police did not do anything (as far as I know).

      • magnoliarose says:

        Do you remember the movie with Kate Hudson, Almost Famous about the groupies? She was underage. In the 70s it wasn’t the taboo, it is now. Groupies were teenagers as young as 13 hooking up with rockstars.
        It is shocking now, but it didn’t seem to alarm anyone at the time.

    • Domino says:

      I know he is everybody’s fave forever, but David Bowie slept with a 14 year old groupie. This now woman says she has nothing but the fondest memories of the time she spent with David Bowie, that she enthusiastically consented.

      God my head spins. But yeah, David Bowie. Magnoliarose is right on the money.

      • greenmonster says:

        Her name is Lori Maddox and I think she was just 13 when David Bowie had sex with her. When she was 14 she had a “relationship” with Jimmy Page. And it did alarm people. Jimmy Page was well aware that he couldn’t be seen in public with Lori (at least not as his “girlfriend”). And when you watch an interview with Lori it is rather sad to see, that she still can’t see anything wrong in that relationship or that Page never loved but only used her. She seems to be stuck in that teenage fantasy.

    • Veronica says:

      I think back to the 70s, when Jodie Foster was in Taxi Driver as a hooker, Brooke Shields was in Pretty Baby and maybe 15 when she did those, “There is nothing between me and my Calvins” ads and I’m now shocked. I cannot believe society thought that was OK. I was in my teens, and I remember thinking it wasn’t right.
      Underage actresses did things we would NEVER all girls to do now. Times have changed a lot. I still believe, though, that what Polanski did was a crime and he should still be in jail for it.

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        But even in the 1970’s rape was still rape. Samantha could have been 36 and it would still be rape. She told him to stop. And what did he do, turn her over and rape her all over again but in the anus. She was not a groupie chasing after her favorite band. She just wanted to be an actress and he told her that the session was a professional one. It was a Harvey Weinstein type bait and switch.

        If you have to secretly put drugs into a girl’s drink and almost knock her out that’s rape. Pill Cosby style. Samantha’s age just makes it more sad but this is classic rape regardless of your age. The judge “settled” on statuary rape because Poliniski was famous but it was rape-rape.

  11. Wal says:

    Nope. Has anyone read the article on Jezebel where he was defending Polanski on Howard stern?
    Here’s what he said

    ““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.”

    He then went on to say,
    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.

    • deets says:

      Yeah, I’m not ok with Tarantino unless he addresses this.

      And can someone tell mewhy we are still giving him a pass for using the n word?

      • PrincessMe says:

        Look at how Quentin is being treated (so easily forgiven) versus some of the women who may or may not have heard stories through the grapevine (not directly from victims). Women are so often torn apart for “not doing something”, but regardless of Quentin’s own words and actions, he’s looked at as “not so bad”. It’s sick.

    • Geekychick says:

      sidente: can someone explain to me thos weird fantasy/myth: “they do it in Europe!”
      1. no, we don’t do it in Europe. it’s not normal here. just because we aren’t puritans, doesn’t mean we’re monsters. two very different things. FFS no, just no.
      2. I could understand that stance in say…..19th, first half of 20th century…like, two snobish upper-class gossipers “I heard that in that down and under hot Australia people live in trees and that ladies in Europe have children at 12!” But this is 21st fckin century, information is readily available…

      • BorderMollie says:

        This is a difficult part of the topic, I think, because it can’t be denied that European courts have been complacent in protecting Polanski. Not monsters, not at all, but attitudes can be far too lenient in these matters. Obviously, this is not unique to Europe, but we also shouldn’t be so dismissive of faults either.

      • starkiller says:

        Perhaps it’s because on your continent, the likes of Polanski and Woody Allen, and a host of others, are still widely fêted at film festivals and the like.

    • Bridget says:

      1) Tarantino needs to speak up about this, especially in light of his choice choice to make a Manson movie.

      2) the interview was in 2003, and people forget that was when Polanski did a HUGE push to come back. He had his powerful friends (for example, Mike Leigh was the one who asked Emma Thompson to sign the petition) pushing hard for him. What Tarantino is saying? That was the party line. We are so used to the access of information that we have now, it’s easy to forget the ease of which someone like Polanski was able to manipulate the story. “The victim wants this to go away” “It was consensual and I just didn’t know she was so young” and of course “I was so sad over Sharon’s death”.

      Now, should Tarantino speak up NOW on the subject? Hell yes. And I think he needs to ditch his Manson movie because that is disgusting. But I’m not condemning him on the basis of an interview that was 15 years ago and is based on information that was given as a massive snow job.

      • Rose says:

        I disagree with you. You make it seem like Tarantino, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Clooney and others were mindless drones. Let’s not forget Polanski was found guilty, they were not drones, they choose to sign the petition of their own free will.

        The OJ Simpson case, happened in 1995 and we had court information and information in the newspapers and on TV, so in 2003 it was a lot easier to access that information because we had the access to the Internet.

        The fact that Tarantino thought it was okay for a grown ass man to have sex with a 13 year old child was ok says everything. So yes, I will condone him for an interview he did 15 years ago. What Tarantino says shows his character plain and simple. Someone can tell me a story about how the 13 year old child they slept with wanted it, all day long and I would still know that I’m grown ass man having sex with a child is wrong. The fact is the celebrities dug their heads in the sand and choose to ignore what he did because of his “art”, which is what they are still doing today.

      • Kelly C says:

        Agree totally except I don’t think they had their heads in the sand. I think they appall the artistry of these pigs because it validates how special they are and that rules don’t apply to exalted ones. If Polanski can get away with it, then their small issues can be excused.

        I’m sick to my stomach over the transcript of QT’s interview with Howard Stern.

      • Bridget says:

        @Rose: I can’t even rebut because not only are you comparing 2 different things, but you’re also incorrect. But I’ll humor you.

        The best comparison you could find was quite literally the “Trial of the Century” that was still fresh in people’s minds, in comparison to an event that happened 3 decades prior. Polanski whitewashed by justifying the crime by saying that she had lied about her age and otherwise it was consensual. That was literally what his friends were circulating when they asked people to sign his petition – people who literally only signed because they were asked by a friend (that was Emma Thompson’s direct response when asked about her signature – are you still going to say that I’m wrong in reducing her to a mindless drone?). It was a HUGE whitewash. How do you think Polanski won that Best Director Oscar?

      • Rose says:

        It may not have been on the level as the OJ case, but it was still a Hollywood director who rape a child. It was not some average Joe so yes, it got lots of media attention and information on the case was being reported. Not to mention the victim was white which sadly makes a big difference on the amount of media coverage the case got compared to if the child was of a different race.

        Yes, I think you’re wrong in reducing her and other to a mindless drone. The information that she was 13 was out there along with other information. Signing a petition in favor of a convicted child molester because someone asks them to is pathetic. Like I said before, they signed the petition because they didn’t want to see his “art” be affected or chose to put blinders up, which again is the same thing many of them are doing to this day.

        He won Best Director Oscar because the Hollywood system has no morals values and could care less about a 13 year old rape victim. It’s the same with the Sports look at Ray Rice, who beat his wife and reduce her to a sack of potatoes and got a tap on the wrist from the NFL.

      • Dana says:

        Howard Stern literally reads from the 13-year-old victim’s testimony/court transcripts.

        Tarantino’s response is to suggest that she is lying about saying “no” to Polanski & being afraid because she didn’t want to get in trouble with her mom – that is, Tarantino KNOWS the victim described a forcible rape and he decided she’s a liar and a “party girl”.

        Tarantino literally says Polanski’s version of the story sounds more likely than the victim’s.

        He’s not some poor simpleton manipulated by Polanski’s PR.

        Tarantino had the information, he had access to both sides, and decided in favor of Polanski.

    • msd says:

      Sadly, I think many, many guys have Tarantino’s view of rape, even now. It isn’t rape unless you’re held down or punched or have a knife to your throat. If it isn’t really violent then it can’t possibly be rape.

  12. teacakes says:

    I think he’s starting to realise just how complicit he was in this, but even after reading his words, the best thing I have to say about him as that he was insanely negligent of Uma’s safety. And all for a shot of her hair blowing in the wind.

  13. Clare says:

    At least he isn’t playing the ‘I didn’t know’ card. His actions were obviously not ok, but I appreciate him owning his shit, at least to some extent.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      How could he say he didn’t know, though? Unlike the actresses/ talk show hostess, whose great ‘sin’ was not publicly and performatively condemning Harvey Weinstein as a rapist based on gossip about Hollywood philandering and prostitution, this man actually did know. Two of Weinstein’s victims came directly to him.

  14. RBC says:

    He just has a better lock on that closet so his skeletons don’t come tumbling out. I would not be surprised if some journalists are not doing some digging into his past now. Something is definitely off about this guy…

  15. boredblond says:

    He loves her, so he would never hurt her?? Every battered woman heard a man say how much he ‘loved her at some point..and I’m shocked the insurers would put up with him putting stars in dangerous situations

  16. littlemissnaughty says:

    Well … so he thinks it’s enough to check yourself and then we can all move on? I believe that there was/is a culture in Hollywood that doesn’t just allow and cover up these things, it attracts certain people, certain men. QT is one of them. He found his playground where he could live out all of his fantasies and it would be look at as “art”. And now women (and men) are finally telling all of these criminals and “artists” that there is no excuse. That basic human decency and respect don’t go out the window just because there’s a camera in the room.

    I believe that he’s shocked. Shocked that his playground was not full of people who thought it was okay but full of women who suffered. And what p*sses me off is this “Oh my god, it was a different time but that doesn’t make it okay … but it was the 90s!” Man, I was a teenager in the 90s. That sh*t was not okay back then either. Women told you. They ALL told you but you wouldn’t listen.

    That’s the issue. Not everybody explained it away. They told you. But you were having fun fake-choking beautiful women. So you ignored it.

    As if anyone has ever watched a QT movie and didn’t think oh he really loves to make beautiful women suffer.

  17. deets says:

    Can we address the fact that Uma said he didn’t believe her, not right away, and Tarantino positions it as immediate belief and movement to stop it?

    He’s rewriting history to minimize his complicity.

    Ps. Quentin, complicit is the word, not complacent.

  18. ScotiaGirl says:

    I think he sounds genuine and I believe him. I have never liked or disliked Tarantino, but he seems to be owning up to his part with regret/remorse and it does sound like the interviewer slanted the piece without even conferring with him on his side. Uma has even said she did not think he did it malicously. He was just over zealous in getting the shot and took too much of a risk with her safety. It was not a sexual harassment as such, and if it had of been a man in the role he would have wanted the actor to do the scene too.

  19. Kate says:

    He is not in love with Uma. He is obsessed with her. He sees her as his muse, his inspiration all right, but never as his equal. She is his “thing” to play with, to hurt sometimes.

    Oh, and friendly reminder that he insisted to strangle Diane Kruger HIMSELF in “Inglourious Basterds”

    • KBB says:

      His explanation for why HE had to be the one to spit on Uma is utterly absurd. He explained it like he was protecting her by being the one to do the degrading thing to her. Like you said, it’s obsession not love.

      • Ennie says:

        I kind of give him a pass… there are awful stories of suffering, violence, etc in movies. His film was written that way. yes, Quentin’s movies are over the top, but I liked the kill bill movies because of the story of the protagonist. Him doing it guaranteed one take. other film makers do a hundred takes of the same lame scene, so Uma agreed with it. in the whole context of his views and fetishism it is icky, but I would need more context in regards of what other directors do to their actors for context.

  20. NeNe says:

    I’m sure he’s not the only man who knew something was going on, and never said anything. Should that give QT a free pass the fact that he went to HW and made him apologize.?? I ‘m not too sure. I think he should have turned HW into the police as the rapist/abuser he truly is. Shame on all of the other men who stood by and said nothing. Just think, what if these women were your DAUGHTERS!!!????

    • Sky23 says:

      His girlfriend told him that Harvey sexual harassed her and he did nothing, but continued to be friends with him. He also said on Stern that the 13 year old child Polanski raped ask for it. All if that right there show his character or lack thereof.

      As other above said he continued this behavior after Uma with other actress. I think he is full of sh*t.

  21. Naomipaige says:

    I don’t by it. I think he’s getting a lot of slack, and now he’s finally saying something. Why did he stay quiet? BS QT!!!!

    • Fed Up says:

      I agree @naomipaige. He’s doing damage control to save his own a**. He probably called Uma when he saw people were disgusted with him after her story broke and begged her to clarify (more like defend) his negligence (abuse) on Kill Bill set. Those disgusting comments he made regarding Polanski’s 13 yr old rape victim repulsed me. No apology from him could ever change my mind of him now.

  22. Hmm.... says:

    Ugh, he’s complicit in all of this and no amount of sanitizing that fact at the altar of PR Self Awareness is going to change that. This guy is SO creepy. Between the Polanski victim comments and now this and all the other problematic stuff – NOPE.

  23. Bridget says:

    I said this the other day and I’ll say it again. Tarantino was willing to make the trade off of working with Weinstein, because he felt that his art was more important. That’s what it ultimately comes down to. Tarantino actually confronting who Weinstein is vs telling him to apologize (sigh) would have also meant confronting how his own partnership helped give Harvey that status, and how he traded off the safety of other women because the predator advocated for Tarantino in a way that no one else did. He made a trade off. He thought his movies were the most important part of the equation.

    • Kitten says:

      This precisely. You can just hear the guilt oozing out of every statement he makes because deep down, he knows that he used his female actors as sacrificial lambs.

      It’s f*cking disgusting and he is pathetic.

      • Bridget says:

        I think this may genuinely be the first time in 20 years he’s had to be introspective to any degree. You can see in his later work that clearly no one was editing him or giving him notes of substance. He loved working with Harvey and protected & justified that relationship the way he did because Harvey let him do what he wants.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I guess I just think he is no better or worse than anyone else in Hollywood. There are so many lies and coverups about HW I just can’t even muster much emotion about any of these so-called admissions. I believe there is some soul searching happening and genuine shame. I think some people are trying and others aren’t. I can’t get upset about what anyone didn’t do before because NO ONE was doing anything. Men more than women but some women helped this culture thrive in Hollywood too.
      Howard Stern’s show was a cesspool of misogyny anyway, and Polanski had people believing his stupid story at the time.
      I believe QT is trying.
      That is pretty much all I can say at this point. He’s overrated, and I don’t like his films much for a laundry list of reasons, but I also don’t think he is anywhere close to the worst of the complicit offenders.

      • Bridget says:

        I agree with you. I do think he’s trying, and it’s more than we can say about a lot of men right now. Does he deserve a gold star? I mean, clearly not. But we’re watching someone take a long, hard look at themself, probably for the first time in 2 decades.

  24. Moon Beam says:

    Folks go and read that Jez article, a few have already posted it. It sounds terrible and Stern and Quivers gave him several outs. Tarantino makes cool movies, but he is textbook definition of problematic. The violence against women and superfluous use of the n word is a big red flag, and then there’s that Stern audio.
    The standard defense seems to be that no one is being authentic on Stern (see Takei and Trump excuses as examples) so I’m sure he’ll use that too.

  25. Kitten says:

    Unlike most of you, I’m actually a Tarantino fan–I like a LOT of his movies–but just so much NOPE to this.
    I cannot believe how many passes some of these men get SMDH…

    The stuff on Stern about Polanski was the first time I realized how problematic he is. I remember at the time wondering if he was just trying to be controversial because he’s on Stern. Still, I could never see him the same way after that and at this stage, it’s actually hard for me to believe that there was a time when I thought he was anything other than a huge asshole.

  26. perplexed says:

    Dowd’s prose might not be great, but a journalist’s job, from what I understand, is to interpret what the subject tells you. The journalist isn’t necessarily supposed to write what you hope they’ll write. Maybe Dowd came away with a different interpretation of what Uma said than QT or even what Uma thought she was saying. I do think she could have followed up with an interview with a QT to clarify, though. Even then, the interpretation might have come out the same.

    • KBB says:

      I don’t think she misinterpreted what Uma was conveying. Uma’s quote about conflating cruelty with love says a lot, to me. Quentin has always been obsessed with her and it was always framed as her being his muse or him loving her when he was just being cruel. His explanation for why he had to be the one to spit in her face was f***ing ridiculous.

      I’m guessing he called her and talked her out of standing her ground against him. She probably feels, yet again, that she owes him kindness. I think he took pleasure in degrading her and putting her in danger. That shouldn’t be romanticized or forgiven. There was a lot of resentment towards Quentin that came through in her interview. She seems to be rather averse to publicity and I think she got gun-shy after the story blew up.

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think she misinterpreted Uma either. The words are Uma’s.

        I’m just saying that the subjects of the piece can’t expect the journalist to write what they hope to see in the piece (i.e a more flattering portrayal).

        Whatever Uma said was in the piece and I didn’t even think Dowd tried to change the context or anything like that. Anything that was off about the prose in the piece had more to do with the scenes of Uma’s house. Like, I didn’t care what Uma’s fireplace might be like. The actual words said by Uma were left for us to interpret, and I didn’t think Dowd erroneously tried to put them out of context.

  27. Sid says:

    I hope this isn’t one of those situations where Uma can forgive Quentin for anything and can forgive him anything. Especially with his comments about roman Polanski.

  28. Mina says:

    What a manipulative POS. “Supports her” but basically calls her a liar, says he feels so guilty but really it was all Harvey’s fault. Saying he knew about the NYT and decided to take the hit, making himself the victim of some slandering. Ugh, I can’t with this guy.

  29. Sherry says:

    I think he hit the point with most people in that business chalking it up to the “executive chasing the secretary around the office” —->>>> AS IF THAT WAS EVER OKAY!!!

    That is the attitude that has been so pervasive for women in the workforce for decades. It wasn’t seen as a problem and was tolerated. Tolerance breeds acceptance and acceptance breeds abuse.

  30. Misformovies says:

    Tarantino’s response that Uma had to accept his (Weinstein’s) apology is awful. What if she didn’t want to accept? Then the Kill Bill movies wouldn’t have been made and Quentin would have blamed her for that.

  31. Jayna says:

    Quentin wasn’t abusive as a director, I don’t believe. I’ve always liked that he brought actresses out that weren’t all young things. I loved how he brought back Jennifer Jason Leigh, who everybody had forgotten about.
    She has said wonderful things about working with him. “This town, or this business, really only looks at your last three projects. Quentin is the exception to that. He looks at your whole body of work. He would talk to me about moments I had in Flesh+Blood as though they were yesterday. He just sees you and what you’re capable of. That’s such a blessing, and it really made me remember who I was as an actress; I just had forgotten. Not in a bitter or sad way; it was just like I didn’t feel particularly meaningful or relevant right now. Honestly, I still look at the poster for The Hateful Eight and I can’t believe I’m in the movie. I love it so much and the experience was so grand. It really was exceptional.”

    Diane Kruger said he was a joy to work with.

    The whole car thing was awful, but if they’ve worked it out, fine. It was a horrible misjudgment. Forty miles an hour isn’t fast. An old car and then changing the direction of the road, where there was a curve Quentin didn’t know about, is a different dynamic than me in my car driving 40 miles an hour down a straight dirt road. She had a long working relationship with him and worked it out, I guess. She was right to be very upset. She didn’t want to do it, and she was injured.

    But It appears he never was sexually abusive with his stars. I have friends, women and men, who love his movies, consider him a brilliant filmmaker. I’ve never seen one of his movies. My sister never misses a movie of his.

    What I have a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE problem with is his views on Polanski. DISGUSTING. Unforgivable. The Howard Stern portion of that interview where he calls the 13-year-old a party girl who was down with it. Fvck him!


    • kwallio says:

      I disagree with the 40mph being “not fast”. On a sand road that is way too fast. Any car would start fishtailing at that speed. I 100% don’t believe that Tarantino did what he said when he said he drove the car first. I don’t think there is a way to do that stunt safely, ON SAND.

  32. browniecakes says:

    I wonder if J.J. Abrams will continue to work with Tarantino on the new Star Trek movie script.

  33. JRenee says:

    That transcript is God awful. I know she has asked people to move on, it’s hard to read what Polanski did and said and anyone defending him and then move on. I was unaware of tge Stern interview. It is another faucet of who QT really is..
    This write up stinks of white washing facts.

  34. What's Inside says:

    He is part of an wicked bunch of conspirators. Uma said this too. They are EVIL.

  35. Ellis says:

    Damage control. He has “work” on deck. In interesting timing, there was a special on today about a serial killer who mimicked the murders in Reservoir Dogs. I’ve always found his movies interesting. Different. Like looking into worlds where evil has no constraints. Where savagery within the soulless is uninhibited by anything remotely resembling good. Thus, I never tried to convince myself they were the imaginings of a sound mind, or good person. And aren’t those always the most convincing talkers? Can’t wait to see what he does with a Star Trek movie.

  36. LittlefishMom says:

    How can people comment and blame QT for continuing to work with Weinstein? I know I’ll catch heat for this but so did a lot of the women. Not a fan of QT, but it boggles my mind that ANY of these women continued to work for or with Weinstein. I just don’t get it at all.

  37. Dana says:

    I’m guessing Tarantino will be fine & this hit to his reputation will be temporary. He’s a man with talent and a much admired filmography, which is kind of like teflon. His behavior towards women, his racism, his history of questionable comments, will continue to be explained away, rationalized, justified.

    For example, in the interview with Tarantino re: Polanski, Stern reads parts of the victim’s testimony to Tarantino (he says she’s lying), he’s repeatedly told that she was drugged (which Tarantino considers to be as relevant as her age – that is, not at all). Tarantino states that he believes Polanski’s story is more likely than the victim’s claim that is was non-consensual.

    And yet I’ve seen multiple people offering excuses for Tarantino, such as claiming that Tarantino didn’t have much knowledge of the case & was hoodwinked by Polanski’s PR – never mind that nothing Tarantino says in this interview supports that in any way.

    In fact, like people do all the time when a man they admire is accused of rape, he heard the victim’s claims and decided she was a liar.

    It’s not lack of info that’s the issue, it’s Tarantino’s biases (towards Polanski & the idea that certain privileges come with being a great “artiste”) & his personal beliefs- such as what qualifies as a “real” rape (love the racism analogy he makes there – apparently, he gets to decide what qualifies as racist too), and his beliefs that it’s acceptable for adults to have sex with 13-year-olds and to drug them into compliance.

    So Tarantino shouldn’t stress about this – people want to give him the benefit of the doubt, even when he doesn’t deserve it.