Quentin Tarantino snapped at a reporter when asked about the ‘Sharon Tate’ role


Once upon a time in Hollywood photo call

Here are some pics from Wednesday’s Cannes Film Festival photocall for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Everybody looked happy to be there, especially… Brad Pitt? “Sources” told People Magazine that Brad “was very happy to be there. [He was] absolutely relaxed and smiling like I haven’t seen him for some time.” How long will have to sing this song, this “Brad was so depressed after he caused the end of his marriage and smeared his estranged wife” song? Over the past two years, sources always claim that Brad is super “happy” NOW, unlike the last year of his marriage, I guess.

Anyway, the reviews from Cannes are coming out and it looks like most critics like it. The biggest criticism I’ve seen is that Margot Robbie – who plays Sharon Tate – doesn’t seem to do or say much in the film. At the press conference after Wednesday’s photocall, Quentin Tarantino seemed to take issue with a journalist bringing that up:

Quentin Tarantino snapped at a female reporter from The New York Times who asked why Margot Robbie wasn’t given more to say or do in his latest film “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”

“I reject your hypothesis,” he said at a press conference for his new film on Wednesday morning at the Cannes Film Festival. At the press conference, Tarantino scowled — looking visibly upset — at the question as Robbie tried to tactfully answer it.

“I think the moments I was on screen gave a moment to honor Sharon,” Robbie said. “I think the tragedy was the loss of innocence. To show the wonderful sides of her could be done without speaking. I did feel like I got a lot of time to explore the character without dialogue, which is an interesting thing. Rarely do I get an opportunity to spend so much time on my own as a character.”

Sony Pictures’ “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” premiered at Cannes to strong reviews on Tuesday night. This terse exchange came at the end of 30-minute press conference where Tarantino and his cast fielded mostly congratulatory questions, which didn’t address Harvey Weinstein (who frequently worked with Tarantino) or Uma Thurman (who gave an interview last year to the New York Times detailing the alleged abusive behavior she had to endure at the hands of Tarantino on the set of “Kill Bill”).

[From Variety]

The fact that NO ONE in the room asked one single question about Harvey Weinstein or Uma Thurman speaks volumes. To be clear, Uma has said that she’s pretty okay with QT after everything that happened on Kill Bill, and to be clear, Tarantino has also come clean about how he should have done something or said something or protected women more. But yeah, Margot largely playing a wordless Sharon Tate? Doesn’t sound great.

Tarantino was asked about Roman Polanski – who was married to Tate, and is portrayed in the film – and he didn’t say one word about the fact of Polanski’s admission of rape, or of the multiple women who have come out to say that Polanski assaulted them or was inappropriate with them when they were little girls.

Once upon a time in Hollywood photo call

Photocall 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood', Cannes Film Festival

Once upon a time in Hollywood photo call

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

121 Responses to “Quentin Tarantino snapped at a reporter when asked about the ‘Sharon Tate’ role”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    I mean, despite “times up” and “me too” and everything, Hollywood is still going to Hollywood, and that means not holding people like Tarantino accountable. That means not making the big Hollywood stars too uncomfortable at events like this. It’s gross, but like I said, Hollywood is gonna Hollywood.

  2. OriginalLala says:

    It’s nice to see that both #TimesUp and #MeToo really affected the way Hollywood holds men accountable for their actions :(

    • anp says:

      What a fake organization.

      • OriginalLala says:

        I’m not putting the blame on the organizations, the blame is on all of us who refuse to speak with our money. Don’t support these creeps until things start to change.

      • Rainy Red Carpet says:

        Ah well. They do what they can.

      • Hoopjumper says:

        Totally agree, Lala. Money talks.

    • anp says:

      These organizations do not stand up to QT, BP and LD for their very bad behaviors. I will Not pay to see any of their overrated films.

      • lucy2 says:

        They are social movements, not organizations.
        What exactly do you want to these movements to do? Because of #metoo and #timesup, we are aware of QT’s actions. We are aware of the full depth of Weinstein’s. Women have a voice to speak out against that behavior, and knowledge to decide who we want to support or not with our box office dollars. You (and I) are not going to contribute to their success.

    • blinkers says:

      @originallala yep :(

  3. Eyeroll says:

    I truly don’t get why he was so bothered by the question. It’s a sensible question to ask as a reporter who just watched the movie. It was sold as a movie that would involve Sharon Tate/Manson Family and they made such brouhaha about casting Robbie as the female lead, so it makes to ask why she didn’t seem to have significant dialogue. Especially by a guy who’s won screenplay Oscars. It’s something many critics pointed out. Guess he was offended the question came from a female reporter? It’s like he thinks a female asking about a female character implies she thinks he’s sexist. (He is IMO, but that clearly wasn’t the point of her question.) If he had just answered the question calmly, no one would care.

    Good on Robbie for saving that ridiculous exchange. The movie does look interesting and I’ve liked most of QT’s movies, but I didn’t know much about the guy until Uma Thurman revealed what he is. So probably won’t be seeing this in theaters.

    • SKF says:

      I watched the interview and I have to say, the questions was fine, but the tone it was asked in was a bit negative and he obviously took it as a critique and didn’t respond very well.

      The reviews are mostly saying that Margot is extraordinary, that she is the heart and soul of the film, and that although she doesn’t SAY much, her acting is fantastic and incredibly expressive – she has these sort of wordless scenes where she just emotes.

      I think it was therefore a good question – perhaps if asked slightly differently and if he hadn’t been so intent on taking it the wrong way. Why did he make this choice to feature her mostly silently? To feature her through the lens of others? What was the artistic choice there?

      As for Uma and Tarantino – yeah he did a terrible thing to her. According to Uma he deserves part of the blame. However, he also felt really bad about it and worked to make it up to her – including getting her the footage when told not to. They are still friends and she has said she is angrier at others (those who actively covered it up). I think he did and said a lot of shitty things in the past. He also has apologised without reservation and admitted he was weak and part of the problem. Most of his female stars love working with him. I think it is a layered thing. This article pulls all the pieces together: https://www.insider.com/uma-thurman-quentin-tarantino-harvey-weinstein-kill-bill-controversy-explainer-2018-2. My take is he isn’t cancelled (I hate cancel culture anyway); but he has a lot of work to do in order to fix his mistakes.

      • Original Jenns says:

        She is more forgiving then I. It took him over 10 years to finally give her the film she wanted. I think it’s great that he is working to get better, but he’s not there and needs to remember that he still has a lot of work to do.

        I haven’t heard what he said about Roman Polanski, but to not mention what a demon that man is gives me pause that he’s still too Hollywood.

      • Cay says:

        Just wondering. Did he come out and say he did all of these terrible things before it was brought to his attention or did he admit to them after he had been outed?

      • Mina says:

        @Cay he only apologized once Uma came forward with the story last year. At first he refused to comment on the original article, when Uma told what happened, despite repeated attempts of the journalist to get his version. Uma and him are not friends, by his own admission they are just “ok” which means they don’t talk to each other but they won’t go out of their way to avoid each other either.

    • Mina says:

      Tarantino has always answered very rudely when he doesn’t like a question. He’s a big a-hole and I’m surprised people are still surprised by that fact. I’m pretty sure that shrewd journalist was expecting some kind of rude answer from him too (and for his standards, this was pretty tame), which is why she asked it in the press conference and not in the private one on one interview the New York Times can surely get.

      • Felicia says:

        The journalist was surprised by his reaction if her own comments on her Facebook page are anything to go by. She wasn’t expecting that at all.

    • clairej says:

      A female family member of mine was friends with Quentin and has nothing but high praise for him. She said he was one of her biggest cheerleadersvin the business and very supportive. Uma and Quentin were more than friends at one point.

  4. smcollins says:

    That’s it? That all that was said? So basically he took umbrage with a reporter questioning his artistic choices. Granted MR’s response was more accommodating, but people should know by now that QT doesn’t exactly take criticism very well. As far as his response about Polanski, he was addressing his artistic influence on him as a filmmaker not as a person. I don’t think there’s an easy way around that discussion but he definitely successfully avoided it.

    • SKF says:

      I mean, actually he was commenting on Polanski through the lens of the time and the film. He actually corrected them and said “I didn’t say he was the greatest director at the time, I said he was the hottest” (or something to that effect. The point is that in 1969 Polanski’s film Rosemary’s Baby was an absolute smash hit that no one expected and he was indeed the hottest director around. That influences things that happen in the film. Later he was asked if he asked Polanski’s permission to do this and he said no. So he actually said nothing about what he thinks of Polanski now, or about crimes Polanski later committed. He only talked about Polanski in relation to who he was in the time-period the film was set in.

    • Janie says:

      I’m on board for most (if not all) of the criticisms of this movie except the one about Polanski. Sharon Tate was Polanski’s wife and it would be difficult to remove his presence from the movie. The movie is about Charles Manson, not Polanski, and addressing Polanski’s despicable history of sexual assault and pedophilia can’t be done in a single throwaway line or scene. So if the movie were to address Polanski’s crimes in a thorough and responsible way, the entire movie would be all about Polanski. I seriously doubt his victim wants that movie out there in the world.

      I feel like Tarantino should’ve made a statement denouncing Polanski and explaining this, though. And I really hope he’s been careful with his portrayal of Polanski in the film.

      I think it would’ve been smart to pick another subject. I’m all for free artistic reign; however, this story has been done to death by much better artists. The unabashedly gleeful violence in Tarantino’s movies are a lot of fun, but much less so when the victims are real people and not imaginary characters. Nobody had to live with the consequences of the deaths in Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs. Many people still live with the consequences of the Manson Family murders. Tarantino has shown no evidence that he is equipped to deal with this issue in a responsible way, and that worries me.

      • Courtney says:

        You expressed that better than I could. Both your points about Polanski and the violence in the film!

    • Janie says:

      [TRIGGER WARNING: SEXUAL ASSAULT]

      Massive Yikes. He should not be making this movie. God, Hollywood men have no conscience. Disgusting. This is what Tarantino said about Polanski in 2003:

      “He didn’t rape a 13-year-old. It was statutory rape … he had sex with a minor. That’s not rape,” Tarantino said. “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.”

      Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/quentin-tarantino-defended-roman-polanski-in-a-2003-interview-2018-2

      • SKF says:

        Yes he did say those things. Geimer refutes his comments and said that yes, by any definition, it was rape.

        Then last year, when those comments resurfaced Tarantino contacted Geimer by phone to extend his apology and then he made the following official statement:

        I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on “The Howard Stern Show” speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her. Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry.

        So, Ms. Geimer, I was ignorant, and insensitive, and above all, incorrect.

        I am sorry Samantha.

        Quentin Tarantino

        As far as apologies go, it was decent. I don’t think that going around permanently cancelling people who ever said the wrong thing or had bad opinions is an effective way to change rape culture and toxic masculinity. We need to allow people room to understand, to learn, to grow and to apologise and move forward as better people. Otherwise we just create permanent divides and make it harder and less appealing for more people to grow and change.

  5. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Just keep at it. Questions need to keep coming, never stop. It obviously bugs the shit out of ‘em which is super lovely lol. The more they’re asked, the angrier they’ll become and two things will happen; they’ll stop doing interviews or they’ll snap and bury themselves. I’m fine with either lol.

  6. smee says:

    It was more of an observation than a hypothesis, but I guess he thinks he sounds smart shutting her down like that.

    • DM2 says:

      Yes! Observation/opinion/impression – cripes. Read a dictionary. What a tool.

    • Meg says:

      LOL exactly trying to sound smart using a word not often used then using it wrong. What a tool

    • lucy2 says:

      He’s a self-important man-baby who’s been praised for far too long and can’t handle anything but.

  7. elimaeby says:

    Agree with everyone above and can’t really add to how gross the Tarantino situation is, so something nice: Margot Robbie is one of the most natural-looking, stunningly gorgeous women I have ever seen.

  8. Kayla says:

    Is it just me or does Leo look annoyed with Brad in literally everything. Photos, interviews together, even the movie trailer I got this annoyed vibe.

    • Nikki says:

      I think so too. Leo looks and turns way away from Pitt, and when seated next to him, has his arms crossed in front of him. I think it’s a tad creepy Brad has the same facial hair style exactly as Leo…as if you’d want to emulate Leo!!

    • Jegede says:

      I don’t see that at all. 🤷‍♀️

      Leo and Brad have known each other for years.

      There are many Cannes pics/videos showing them relaxed with each other.

    • Original Jenns says:

      Haha, I hope so. Finally some boy drama. I hope we hear about one of them leaving a restaurant when the other walks in, or whispers about plastic surgery they know the other is getting!

    • OriginalCarol says:

      Nah, you are not alone. Pitt was pawning all over DiCaprio it’s almost sickening. Hugging and kissing as if they were BFF”s whenever they were together and said he’d loved to work again with DiCaprio. No such returned feelings from DiCaprio though. Funny, how the mighty has fallen. Pitt used to act like he’s so cool & hip and far above the bromance with the other male co-stars yet here in Cannes, he acted like he’s Leo’s number one fan, lol. Pitt probably realized that his stardom peak is almost over especially now with the tarnished reputation as a deadbeat and abusive daddy dearest. He’s trying to revive his career by latching onto any A+ star like DiCaprio and some successful yet controversial director in Tarantino. He hasn’t been able to carry the movies by himself based on his last two flops so he’s hoping to ride the success of this one. Talk about staying relevant in HW.

      • Truth hurts says:

        Brutal but dealing true. He is putting on an act for the cameras. Leo knows and so do the smart people. I wouldn’t say his career is dead but him being a fantastic actor is a big NO. He can’t carry a film by himself. This is the main reason he latched on to this project..just what he needed. His production co is his main vein and run by two other smart people.
        He needs to stop trying to be 20 and act his age. His inability to sit still puzzles me and his love affair with being high hasn’t gone anywhere. Speaking about he and Bruce Lee getting high together in that Esquire interview . It was a hard task to stop cold turkey being he had been engaging for nearly forty years.
        He tries to hard to act cool and it is school boyish which is the main reason I believe Angie dipped! Tired Of a man child!
        To take nothing from him he is still quite handsome but had he been a clean guy he would have aged beautifully.
        Leo is annoyed with his over the top antics towards him seriously I can see it. He seemed more professional And uptight.
        So yeah u hit the nail on the head.

  9. Jessica says:

    The answer he gave about Polanski didn’t surprise me. I would not have expected Tarantino to make any comments about the rape case in this setting. As we know, this just isn’t the type of thing Tarantino prioritizes (can be said for many men really, especially in Hollywood). It’s not something the Cannes Film Festival prioritizes either, sadly.

    Since I wasn’t surprised he sidestepped that, I guess what struck me was the kind of…abruptness…of his answer? “I’ve met him one or two times,” or whatever he said. The Sharon Tate tragedy happened eight years before the rape case and it was (along with the Holocaust) the great tragedy of Polanski’s life (as it would be for anyone who has endured such a thing). No one can deny the effect it had on him, despite his later criminal conduct and how that rightfully impacts our view of him in hindsight. I am genuinely curious what Polanski thinks of this film, the approach Tarantino has taken, and the sudden resurgent interest in these events with the 50 year anniversary coming up. I don’t think Polanski’s opinions on this, if he’s expressed any, have surfaced anywhere, but I am curious what they are. Maybe he just doesn’t engage at all.

    • SKF says:

      I mean, I wouldn’t comment on Polanski in this context either. Polanski is a minor character in his film. The film is set in 1969 – before he raped Samantha. His rape of Samantha has no bearing on this film. Tarantino doesn’t even say that he is a big fan, he just correctly says that at the time the film was set, Polanski was the hottest director in town coming off the back of Rosemary’ Baby. That is a fact – he was. That is characterisation. I don’t think anyone there wanted to get into long discussions about Polanski’s later crimes. Tarantino made some terrible comments about it almost 20 years ago and has since retracted them in a major way. I don’t think he actually needs to discuss it anymore – I think he should shut his mouth about it because why do we want to hear from him about it anymore? I have no issue with this. It’s not like the film is a biography of Polanski’s life or anything to do with his later life or crimes.

  10. ds says:

    it’s Cannes.They really don’t see a problem with white men privileges. Never have. Apart from Lars Von Trier and that was a different subject matter. When it comes to women they will see no issues.

  11. Amaryis says:

    I mean, they should expect to get asked questions about Tate, Polanski, etc.
    Tarantino makes a film about significant events in Hollywood history & has a hissy fit when asked questions about it?
    OK….. 🙄

  12. LahdidahBaby says:

    Margot Robbie is so pretty. And she was a good casting decision for the Sharon Tate role. Too bad they didn’t give her more of a chance to speak/act.

    • Eliza says:

      I imagine her role is very spied on. As Brad/Leo ate her neighbor’s, it’s probably all through their eye. Hence the no speaking but on screen acting role.

    • SKF says:

      Well the reviews I read say she is the heart of the film and does a lot of emoting with just her face and reactions. I’ll wait and see what I think I guess?

  13. Maria says:

    Fuck them all except for Margot Robbie.

    • Yemi says:

      No, fuck her too. She didn’t have to sign on for what is essentially a bit part. She’s an Oscar nominated A-list white blonde 20-something with a Chanel contract and her own first look deal at Warner Brothers. She would have been fine without this.

      • KLO says:

        She wanted to work with Tarantino. Can you REALLY blame her for it? He is a legend, whatever anyone says.

      • Lady D says:

        Easily blame her. The man is garbage who enjoys women hurting. Did you read the comment yesterday that said he personally choked 3 actresses himself for his films? He didn’t trust the pros he hired to do it right. He enjoys inflicting pain on women. HE LIKES IT. There are half a hundred directors just as good or even better than Tarantino, and he’s a legend for all the wrong reasons. Easily blame her.

      • cate says:

        amen she is just as thirsty and spineless as most of hollywood. she’s no icon

      • olive says:

        @LadyD i think he’s said that before too – he doesn’t trust the pros who are trained to choke people safely – that’s terrifying, i was so disturbed when i heard about how he choked diane kruger when choking someone is a HIGHLY strong indication they will go on to murder that person

    • KLO says:

      @Lady I think you are talking about something else than the subject I replied to. But yes, I also find your views completely valid and I know what you are referring to.

    • lucy2 says:

      I’m annoyed with her too. I really like her and think she’s a good actress, but I’m disappointed she took this role and worked with this director. I suppose she felt it’d be good for her career, but ugh.

    • Naddie says:

      I remember vividly, in one thread here she says she would never “sell her soul for a paycheck ” . I wonder what it means to her. I’m disappointed because I really like her.

  14. Xoxo says:

    Is it just me or does everyone look totally wasted

    • KLO says:

      haha I watched the whole press conference at lunch today and the thought never crossed my mind. They do look like they are hot though.

  15. Nikki says:

    Well I’m not going to see the movie, and I don’t like Tarantino. He’s lucky I wasn’t interviewing him, or Kaiser. I would LOVE to see Kaiser interview Mr. Scowly Rat.

  16. Loretta says:

    I can’t stand Tarantino, he’s gross and a jerk.

  17. Lena says:

    From the little I’ve read (tarintino made a big deal about reviews not giving any spoilers so the critics are kinda tied) Robbie is the heart and soul of the movie, has gotten great reviews as has Leo and Pitt. I’m looking forward to seeing it. I have a love/hate thing going on with Quentin.

  18. Octoshark says:

    That criticism reminds me of Django Unchained where Kerry Washington was given almost no dialog at all. I felt it would have helped the second half of the movie so much if she had been allowed to play an actual character (like the men where permitted to) instead of a weird blank slate.

  19. line says:

    According to the critics the film is divided into two parts, the first part concentrating on the characters of Dicaprio and Brad Pitt (the ones that the critics have generally liked) and then the second part this focus more on the women of the sect of Manson, and the apparitions of Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate are the same appearances that had Amanda Seyfried in the Veronica Mars series. (the reviews are more mixed) But I really hope that Tarantino did not reduce Margot Robbie to a mere body , as she was at Martin Scorsese.

  20. Mia4s says:

    He’s been PR briefed on how to handle the Polanski question. That’s crystal clear. He’s all but excused his raping that 13 year old in the past.

    Oh and conspicuously absent? Emile Hirsch. Not named in any of the trailers even though he apparently has high billing in the credits. I guess the studio finally noticed that casting a piece of garbage who tried to choke a random woman to death in a club in a movie about a women who is violently murdered is not a good look. Gross Tarantino, gross.

    • Jegede says:

      Good point.

      Though many co-stars are absent on this particular tour – Al Pacino, Tim Olyphant, Lena Dunham e.t.c

      I’m guessing Hirsch – like them – is a bit player.

    • KLO says:

      The saddest thing is that at this time in history, Polanski`s peers in the movie and music industry pulled that kind of shit all the time. There are various stories of even David Bowie having sex with a 14 year old – it has been known but noone dragged him for it. Or Elvis Presley with his child bride.

    • SK says:

      I’m sorry but that is untrue. I watched the whole interview. The movie is from a period before the rape. He only talks about who Polanski was in ‘69. He actually corrects a journalist who said Tarantino said Polanski was the greatest (or best, I forget which) director of the time and said: no I said the hottest director – which he was. And then explains that Rosemary’s baby made something like $23 million at a time when $8 million was a lot. He gave no judgments about his character then or later – he simply stated that his career was huge at the time – which it was. Later someone asked him if he had asked Polanski’s permission and he said: no I did not. I recall he also said he’d seen one or two of his films but it was in a bit of a dismissive tone. He liked Rosemary’s Baby. That’s it. It takes some major reading between the lines to assume these responses mean he has forgiven and forgotten the rape. Indeed, Tarantino came out a few years ago trashing his own comments from 15 years earlier and condemning Polanski and the rape. He has already spoken on it. I find these criticisms ridiculous. Why on earth would they comment on Polanski’s rape when he is a minor character in the film they have made from a period before that happened?

  21. Dali says:

    Who again is president of the United States? Mister grab em by the pu€€y
    How many millions of people voted for him?

    Any more questions about hollywood or the success of this movie? I doubt

  22. Chaine says:

    So sick of Brad wearing that same stupid style of cap everywhere all the time.

  23. Reeta Skeeter says:

    Given that he chose to make a film about a controversial topic, or that links to a controversial topic, he should be prepared to answer questions about it in a mature fashion.

  24. truth hurts says:

    All he had to do was give a decent answer, but when you are dealing with an arrogant butthole this is what you get. Whoa is me if I question you about a womans role in HW. Brad was sitting there with a s##t face too like he was appalled but he knew better than to open his mouth. I laugh at how he squirmed in his seat esp when the reporter asked about their personal growth and about he and Leo’s humanitarian efforts. HA!
    They are all the same, HW is male driven. They are given roles no matter the age, coddled, excused for bad behavior and put on a freakin pedestal and all is well in glory land. They despise strong women and have no use for them. The thing I hate is that it is so complex that women don’t stand up for other women. But its like that everywhere.

    • KLO says:

      From my experience this is what the world is. From age 15 onwards the men will win no matter how hard you try. And it is perpetuated by our own mothers who coddle their sons so they would give them the love they never got from their husbands and hate their daughters because they are jealous of the love their fathers give them.

      There is no use in this world for a woman who rises above men.

  25. MrsDeAndre says:

    Margot’s dress in those photos is SO bad. Looks like a Ross Dress For Less item lol and is unflattering. And Brad’s style has been SO BAD for years now. He always just looks dumb nowadays, like a poser of aome sort but I’m not exactly sure what? Leo and QT look fine, but I kind of agree with the commenter above that Leo, professional as he probably is, seems to find Pitt kinda annoying lol.

  26. Patty says:

    The movie isn’t really about Sharon Tate. The primary focus of the movie is Hollywood – during the same time period that the murders occurred. There’s a difference.

    • Eyeroll says:

      Then Tarantino should’ve answered it that way. He didn’t need to get pissy over a valid question about the limited dialogue for his lead female character. The guy has won Oscars for screenplay. He knows the importance of dialogue and has written iconic dialogue. He should’ve just explained his artistic reasoning behind showing but not hearing Tate in the movie. Robbie gave the appropriate answer.

      • KLO says:

        @Eyeroll exactly!
        I think his only reason to answer like this was to explicitly express his annoyance with the reporter`s loaded question. The reporter and QT are both silly, the one who came out of it smelling like roses was Margot. Kudos to her for that, she is a smart cookie.

  27. TIFFANY says:

    I will say this for Leo, he never shows up for promotion looking like he just rolled out of bed and picked up the 1st tshirt off his floor.

    • Nona says:

      Yep, he brings that ole Rat Pack glam. He’s not ridiculously handsome, but he manages to make the other guys, including Brad Pitt, look ordinary. And that’s hard to do to Brad, because love him or hate him, Brad usually catches the eye. Not this time, though. In that photo of the two of them together, Brad looks like a fan posing with a movie star.

  28. Nicegirl says:

    I will not be seeing this film.

  29. Kim says:

    Margot WAS the reason I was going to watch the movie…I like watching her roles, because she does very well them. I DO NOT want to waste my time on more male-centric movies bc they’re boringAF and been done to death…

  30. Case says:

    Tarantino is talented but a huge man baby. This response was so out of line given the innocence of the question.

    That said…I’m confused. First people were mad that the movie was about Sharon Tate, and now they’re mad that it’s actually not about Sharon Tate and Margot isn’t in it that much?

    • Tiffany says:

      Tarantino has a history of not writing his female characters well, so now we see Margot on all this promotion and 3rd billing and her involvement is minimal to no dialogue in the final product.

    • KLO says:

      It was a very transparently intentioned question. It was a critique. I watched the whole thing. How well founded the reporter`s intention was, i have no idea because I have not seen the film. Mostly I`m just like….”ohh you just asked this from a man who did Kill Bill? OK sweety :)

    • jen says:

      @case–that was my thought too! It seems like a no-win situation. And why would anyone be expected to ask him about uma thurman when she has nothing to do with this new film? I don’t love or hate Tarantino, but some of the critiques thrown at him seem farfetched.

      • Case says:

        Agreed. I don’t like him as a person but love his movies and I’m excited to see this. And the Uma thing is weird — she is still friends with Tarantino and as mentioned in the post, they’ve both addressed what happened in the past and what he should’ve done differently. So I have no idea why Uma would ever come up in a press conference about his new film.

  31. adastraperaspera says:

    Leave it to QT to dredge up not only the Manson clan, but Polanski. And try to tell us it’s entertainment. No thanks.

  32. jen says:

    In other news, Margot looks like she’s ready to jump in the pool with those arm floaties.

  33. CES says:

    I know she’s not his type because she’s too old, but Margot and Leo would make a lovely couple

    • KLO says:

      Margot is very happily married. And Margot is also not his type because he mostly goes for women who look like the younger version of his mom and Margot is not that :)

      Other than that, I completely agree, they do look good together.

    • Tiffany says:

      If nothing happened when they worked together on Wolf of Wall Street, it ain’t happening now because Margot is older.

  34. Valerie says:

    Yeah, not even Pacino can make me excited for this. I’m not a Tarantino fan and this movie won’t make me one.

  35. Margo Smith says:

    This just shows how clueless people in Hollywood are. So ridiculous.

  36. 2lazy4username says:

    One doesn’t need to speak to give a brilliant, oscary-worthy performance. Example: Sally Hawkins, Shape of Water.
    I understand Tarantino’s response. (Though, no need to be defensive about it.)

  37. ChiaMom says:

    See this article when wondering why I don’t watch QT films

  38. Marjorie says:

    In 1969, we didn’t have #metoo and women’s lib was about burning bras. Sharon was an adjunct to her famous husband – she a spectacular beauty but wasn’t that great an actress and had mostly done tv sitcoms and dumb/exploitative movies. She jumped on a trampoline in a bikini in one. She wouldn’t have had many lines in real life.

    I have her biography by Greg King. He’s a celebrity biographer but it’s still a good book. What Sharon was was kind, smart, sweet, and loyal. She was raised in a military family and grew up around the world. Despite her privilege, she hadn’t had it so easy, had been sexually assaulted as a teen and had to deal with 60s Hollywood. The book hints that life with Roman wasn’t perfect, but she was mad happy that she was going to be a mom.

  39. Dani says:

    After reading this article, I fell down the Sharon Tate/Manson murder and I’ve come to the conclusion that Tate wasn’t really exceptional as an actress IRL but she was a very gentle, loving woman so in a way it makes sense that her character was more of an emotional reacting type as opposed to very wordy and in your face. It seems she was very passionate and friendly and I think she was cast fine and portrayed well.

    • Lady D says:

      There is a book about the Manson family and their murders. It’s called Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry. It was my introduction to Sharon Tate, and that book affected me badly. I was 13 at the time.

  40. Mash says:

    In this situation QT should either deflect or face it head —you win some you lose. But getting flabbergasted is just not the way and comes of as angry bro white man rage.

    QT should have just said “you know in this movie I really wanted to focus on blah blah blah…and then say look i didnt force Margo to play the role i had of Sharon but she brought some amazing energy even through not having much dialogue, when i say the footage she scream that Mid century 60′s innocence and naivete that I felt that Sharon exuded. Of course this is all my opinion. The movie I wanted to make called for that, I believe—i must stress that. I really dont want or intend to make this film in which i obtained some of the best of the best giving their all in various ways and methods to be diminished with baity questions. I really hope our fans and critics can enough this, though the subject matter was indeed dark and unfortunate, we really bonded and came out through it stronger.”

    i should literally do PR LOL

  41. sp says:

    I’m surprised at the posters trying to shame others into boycotting this film. Everyone is entitled to research the issues for themselves and decide if QT deserves to be cancelled. I don’t think he does. He publicly apologized for his comment about the Polanski rape while others in Hollywood still openly support Polanski. His initial comment about the rape stated what many in Hollywood and elsewhere believed at the time (and some still do, thus the continued support in some quarters for Polanski.) He actually confronted Weinstein about his behavior more than once, though he admits he should have done more. Everyone should have done more, but it was a different time. Even Uma admitted conflicting feelings about being both a victim of Weinstein and a perpetrator of his behavior by continuing to act in films he produced. Uma’s daughter with Ethan Hawke is in OUTIH and Uma herself said she’s open to working with QT again. I don’t like, nor have I seen, all of his films, but I enjoyed Kill Bill and the lead was definitely an empowered female. LOL. OUTIH seems like an interesting look at Hollywood and the very issues raised here.

    • OriginalCarol says:

      I don’t believe that some posters are trying to shame others into boycotting this film. If you voice your opinion publicly then prepare to defend it. As for Tarantino, he’s an a$$hole who likes to inflict pain on women and using his films to get away with it. He only apologized for his comment about the Polanski rape case not too long ago due to the recent Me Too movement. Same can also be said about his disclosure of confronting Weinstein for his monstrous behavior toward women. Personally, I don’t care for him or his movies so it’s no issue for me whether or not to boycott this one.

      Bottom line, if Tarantino could get away with all his ‘crimes’ he would, so don’t do him any favor by justifying or excusing his so-called talent for his cruel preference in abusing women. He’s jerk who’s dressing up as a talent film maker. Enough said.

  42. Turtledove says:

    I didn’t see the film…so I can’t speak too much about the reporter asking why MR didn’t have more lines. But it seems like there was some sort of artistic decision to have her role more “emotive”. And it seems like that worked…she is getting great reviews.

    A LOT of negative things can be said about QT and his treatment of women. But he has made many movies where there were MANY women that never shut up. He is known for having too MUCH dialogue across the board, and he often features female characters. Someone said they watched the interview and the reporter came across with a critical tone. So, one would assume that maybe the question was sort of like “why was Margot just eye candy that didn’t even get lines?” And I just think of all the things you can blame QT for…that just ain’t it.

    • sp says:

      I wonder if this “emotive” portrayal of Sharon is one of the reasons that her sister signed off on the film.

      • KLO says:

        @sp what do you mean by “sign off”? Did she give her permission? (sorry english is not my first language)

      • sp says:

        @KLO: It was reported that Sharon’s sister, Debra, initially objected to her sister’s murder being part of the story because the tragedy had been exploited by the media so often. She also objected to the proposed release date (the 50th anniversary of the crime.) She changed her mind after meeting with QT and reading the script. Sony also moved the release date. QT didn’t need her permission but it helped from a PR perspective to have her on board.

      • Turtledove says:

        Maybe. Makes sense, right?

        Honestly, I am sure Sharon’s sister heard that Tarantino was making this movie and thought it was going to be a gorefest that exploited her sister’s murder. But it sounds like the movie isn’t really “about” Sharon’s murder, and when the sister saw the script, perhaps she saw that and that IS why she signed off?

    • KLO says:

      I agree with everything you said.

  43. anp says:

    Pitt can not carry a film on his own any longer, needs Leo to elevate his film career again.

    • sp says:

      Ensemble casts are a QT hallmark. From the initial reviews, it sounds like the Leo/Brad casting was a good choice.

  44. Sue Denim says:

    I posted the other day about QT nearly killing Uma Thurman for his “art,” this from someone she’d considered a friend, and lucy2 added that he’d also stepped in to “act” in his own films in order to hurt other women himself…

    Anyway, here’s a good article on it — https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/02/06/the-growing-quentin-tarantino-controversy-explained/?utm_term=.a651f9f6c1d4.

    Make of it what you will but I won’t be supporting any part of this.

  45. clairej says:

    A female family member of mine was friends with Quentin and has nothing but high praise for him. She said he was one of her biggest cheerleadersvin the business and very supportive. Uma and Quentin were more than friends at one point.

    • Mash says:

      that’s the fact that people always forget….. uma and OT def were a f-buddies at least

      • msd says:

        And? Is this supposed to reflect badly on her somehow? She got upset when he put her life in danger on set. He also didn’t stick up for Daryl Hannah or any of the other women Weinstein went after while working with Tarantino, even when he was directly told about it.

  46. Hilarityensues says:

    I’m confused…she doesn’t speak much but is the “heart and soul” of the film? She’s beautiful but she is not that great of an actress to pull off that kind of nuance.

  47. Tuntmore says:

    Is it just me, or does Margot Robbie look a lot like Denise Richards in some photos? Besides them both being beautiful, I mean. (I’m sorry-not-sorry, but I love Denise Richards.) Denise’s features are a bit larger and more angular, but there’s something about them. I’ve done plenty of double-takes on pics of Margot because I initially thought they were of Denise.

    And that’s my super-insightful contribution.