Margot Robbie is a lovely person, but I generally find her to be a boring interview. That wasn’t the case here, with her Porter Magazine interview. They did a long-read with Margot and they covered a lot of subjects, from her role in Mary Queen of Scots (where she plays Queen Elizabeth I), to her costar Joe Alwyn (she didn’t know about his relationship with Taylor Swift), to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (where she plays Sharon Tate) to MeToo and a lot more. You can read the full Porter piece here. Some highlights:
On working with Quentin Tarantino: “That’s a life goal. When I first sat down with my team in America and they asked me what I wanted out of my career, I said: ‘Pie in the sky? Tarantino.’ Everyone asks me: ‘How is it? How is he on set?’ I’ve been on sets for pretty much the last 10 years and I still walk on and think, ‘This is soooooooo coooool! Look at that! That’s amazing! Oh my gosh!’ I’m like a kid in a candy shop and then Tarantino walks on and he’s got the same, if not more, enthusiasm and he’s so excited. It’s his film set and he’s not jaded at all – he’s just so happy to be there.”
Whether she Polanski to speak about his wife? “No, I didn’t, but he wrote a book and there’s so much detail in there that I actually didn’t need to.”
She didn’t come from wealth: “I had the best upbringing. I know that I can get by with very little money. I know how to do it. I’ve done it and I’m not scared of it.”
Marrying Tom Ackerley & working with him: “I always thought, ‘Urrgghhhh, being married sounds really boring.’ I thought I might bite the bullet in my late thirties and see how it goes. I’m a great advocate of doing business with your partner. Being married is actually the most fun ever, life got way more fun somehow. I have a responsibility being someone’s wife, I want to be better.”
On babies: “No! Definitely not. Three days ago my husband stopped by a dog shelter on the way back from the airport, and we now have a pit-bull puppy. We already have a two-year-old [dog] who still acts like a puppy. I love him but he’s a handful, and for the last three days I haven’t slept. I’m like, ‘We’re fostering her for the week,’ and my husband’s saying, ‘No! We’re keeping her.’ And I’m saying, ‘We absolutely cannot and if anything, you are now cementing in my mind that we cannot have kids. I can’t cope with two puppies, let alone children!’ If I’m looking into my future 30 years from now, I want to see a big Christmas dinner with tons of kids there. But definitely not at the moment. That’s 100 percent certain.”
Whether things have gotten better for women post-MeToo: “Definitely, definitely. In terms of people viewing it as a problem that they can say no to. Or even calling it a problem. I’ve said this before, but I didn’t know what constituted as sexual harassment until the #MeToo movement. I’m in my late twenties, I’m educated, I’m worldly, I’ve traveled, I have my own business, and I didn’t know. That’s insane. I didn’t know that you could say, ‘I have been sexually harassed’, without someone physically touching you, that you could say, ‘That’s not OK.’ I had no idea. I now know because I’ve researched what constitutes illegal sexual harassment so as to have negative connotations for your job and how you get paid.”
“I have a responsibility being someone’s wife, I want to be better.” That’s sort of a weird statement, right? I’m not going to go too deep on it because I think it was just an off-hand comment about how much she loves being married, but it comes across as Stepford-ish. I liked what she said about babies and dogs though – she’s not in the mood to have babies right now, and her husband keeps bringing home puppies.
As for all of her joy about working with Tarantino, all she did was remind me of how problematic this film is going to be. She’s playing Sharon Tate and there are photos of her on the set with a pregnant belly, meaning the film will absolutely feature her murder, I am sure. Ugh. And don’t forget, Emile F–king Hirsch is in this mess too.
Here are some photos of Margot-as-Sharon Tate. Ugh.
Cover courtesy of Porter, additional photos courtesy of Backgrid.
I don’t think it’s a weird statement. I want to be a better person because I’m my husband’s wife. I feel a responsability, because I vowed to be in a lifelong partnership with him, to strive to be my best. I expect the same from him. I hope that being my husband inspires him to be his best. I guess in my mind I replace the words “wife” and “husband” with “partner”, because that’s what you’re really talking about. And of course you have a responsibility to be a good person for your partner that you made solemn vows to.
I thought that one of the advantages of being married would be that you’re free from all the striving that’s synonimous with being single and that you could relax and just be yourself.
True, but that doesn’t mean you don’t evolve and grow just because you’re in a committed relationship. Building a life together involves compromise and change. I get what she’s saying and I agree.
I disagree. Be yourself, but also be a good partner. Sometimes being a good partner is work. But if your partner is also working hard to be a good partner, there’s a good balance and a give and take. When you are down, or unable to give it your all, your partner can pick you up. But it can’t only be one sided. Roles have to reverse sometimes.
Yeah, I saw it the same way I’d see, “I have a responsibility to be a better business owner/employer” or “mom” or anything you choose for your life and want to be good at.
This, exactly. My husband is one of the most honest people I know, and he makes me want to be more honest just by being around him. As an example.
I enjoy QT films, as problematic as they can be but something about glorifying a pregnant woman’s violet murder just doesnt sit right with me.
To be fair, Sharon’s sister Debra was against the movie at first but changed her mind after meeting QT and reading the script, which leads me to believe they did not film the murders. I know the general synopsis for the film is centered around the characters in LA around the time of the murders but it’s not about the murders.
What I don’t like is how QT created 2 fictional dudes (Pitt and Dicaprio) to focus on. But we’ll see how the final product turns out.
I think all the best relationships in my life, romantic and platonic, are ones that inspire me to be a better person — better to myself, better to others.
I listened to a 3 part podcast about the Manson murders, and I love a QT movie but I dont think I can sit through it if they are going to show the death of Tate. It was gruesome and terrible. I cried at my desk listening to that podcast I dont think I could take the movie.
She is just so beautiful! You are right on the boring interview, though…
I hope this film tanks. Everyone involved in this and every other movie about her should be ashamed about exploiting the murder of this woman for their own glory. I don’t know what her sister was thinking giving Tarantino’s movie in particular her blessing because there is no way that he isn’t going to wring every bit of salaciousness out of it and what he can’t recreate from history, he’ll just make up. I love a lot of his past work, but he should have walked away from this one.
i totally agree. you have to consider the man at the helm. Tarantino’s signature is graphic violence, gratuitous violence, particularly against women that is his jam so the story being told by him is inherently problematic. in his hands, the story will no doubt be graphic and disturbing (more than it already was in reality). it is sickening to me that hollywood is so keen to work with this man after what has come up about him. he has harassed women, put them in danger to film scenes AND lets not forget he vocally and passionately defended child rapist roman polanski saying ” that girl was there to party” ahem she was a child who was drugged and raped repeatedly. its sick. i detest this project and those involved including robbie. her take on the #metoo movement is hollywood pr bullshit. she’s working with a creep. she’s no feminist pioneer.
I do NOT understand some men’s brain blockages about sex with children. WT everloving F “she was there to party”? He said that about a victim?
Have they given her fake teeth for the Sharon Tate role? She’s got a gorgeous smile, but her teeth look bigger in that picture, somehow.
they do! looks like those “flippers” the kids at the pageants wear. Weird. Good eye.
damn, i love that outfit. wont be seeing the movie though
i bet $100 he doesn’t show the sharon tate’s murder.
Of course there are responsibilities. In any partnership, regardless of scope, we must do the best we can. Our friendships deserve it. And certainly our spouses. On this however, ‘I didn’t know that you could say, ‘I have been sexually harassed’, without someone physically touching you, that you could say, ‘That’s not OK.’ I had no idea. I now know because I’ve researched what constitutes illegal sexual harassment so as to have negative connotations for your job and how you get paid.”’
I realize there are scales of knowledge and all, but I was telling no to boys long before puberty. No. Go away. Get lost. Take a hike loser. As I aged, I simply grew more accute and succinct…well versed and thorough. And I didn’t fully escape my youth from a few who didn’t listen or succumb to ‘no.’ She’s much younger. If she truly didn’t know; I find that shocking. And frightening.
All of her statements about the metoo movement have been…off. It sounds like she wishes to avoid discussing it and feels afraid to say the wrong thing. But recently has jumped on the bandwagon to try and raise money for it. I guess that’s nice she’s trying to help now, it’s just her comments on the matter make you raise an eye brow. I still side eye her for working with Tarantino at the height of it all in this role no less, but she really wants an Oscar.
I don’t actually think she didn’t know what sexual harassment is – I just think she refrains from discussing the metoo movement in depth.
She’s very ambitious and not in THAT way, it’s just that she has big goals and and doesn’t want to piss off anyone in Hollywood.
Not 100% sure what you mean by THAT way but I agree about the not wanting to piss anyone in Hollywood off. That’s the part that makes me side eye her though.
Works with someone gross like QT when she says all about female empowerment and fair treatment. I get why she’s working with him, in the sense that he’s an acclaimed director but it doesn’t excuse his actions and treatment of woman. And I don’t think she should excuse one of the problems just because it’s convienent to her individually. And also that refrains from talking about the metoo movement to not piss anyone off, but raises money for the cause when she realizes it’s the current popular thing in Hollywood.
I thought it was a strange comment too. She never realized demeaning comments were harrassment?
A surprising number of people don’t. For some, if you grow up in a system that treats it as normal, you think you just “that’s life”.
My guess is she thought a lot of that stuff was just the way it is on movie sets or whatever, because for so long women were conditioned to expect and accept that. She’s noticed a change, and changed her own way of thinking, so it’s all good, IMO.
How can this sound stepfordish when, in the same sentence, she shows enthusiasm for going into business together, like entrepreneurs being partners ? Meaning WITH him not for him, not sitting just waiting for him or catering his every need. That would be stepfordish.
I understand what she is saying about her marriage. I never wanted to get married or have children but we had a surprise pregnancy, chose to keep our sweet daughter and got married. I want to make my husband proud of me and he feels the same way about me. Being a wife and a mother was a big change but in a fantastic way. One of my biggest goals in life is to make my husband and daughter proud of me by being my best self. The beauty of it is that even when I’m not at my best, my husband inspires me to be better with kind words and inspiration. No grudges, no judgement. Only love.
One of the reasons I married my husband is that he’s the best person I know. It has always (we’ve been married 12 years) made me feel the desire to be my best self, because I admire him so much. I’m guessing her sentiment is similar. So, it didn’t strike me as odd, per se. Perhaps not ideally worded, but I get where she was going.
I like Margot, but Tarantino is totally cancelled. His friendship with polanski, his career made by Weinstein & his own comments of a 13yr old rape victim “she wanted it”. Never see anything he is involved with again.
yep. and i judge the whole cast for taking part in this trash, especially margot since she pretends to be woke and an ally. she’s not. which is fine but stop pretending. its gross. tarantino is human garbage leo and brad dont suprrise me with their choices. they are not great men.
I like Margot too, but her signing on for this is a big disappointment, especially after all that Uma Thurman revealed about working with him.
Tarantino will always be a big no for me, and coupled with exploiting the Manson victims yet again? Hell no.
“Whether she Polanski to speak about his wife? ”
Ah, I get it now–the words “speak” [spoke] and “Polanski” were transposed.
I used to have those go-go boots…..that’s all…. 🙂
A friend of ours went to a wedding where Margot Robbie was sat on the same table- she performed oral sex on her husband under the tablecloth.
Sure she did.
That totally sounds made up.
That’s not a weird statement.
Just like how when someone becomes a parent, and they want to step their game up- the same goes for marriage.
You still retain a sense of self, and what you want/need, but you just want to so that and more because you want the best (not just for yourself) but for another person.
True crime movies are a thing and have been for as long as I can remember. I remember back in the day when ABC, CBS, and NBC used to have the two night miniseries about real life murder victims. I’m struggling to understand why every one is up in arms about this particular movie, when Hollywood has been dramatizes murders for ages. I guess either way I’m relatively indifferent to the movie. I have no desire to see it because I just think these particular murders have been analyzed to death and the less famous victims always get lost in the shuffle.
How come she wants to preach for women empowerment while working with a man that literally abused women in set, thinks a 13 yo wanted it and wrote a movie where a young woman’s brutal murder might be exploited? Hypocritical much?