MCN Blogs

By MCN Editor

BYO How ‘Bout That Aladdin, Huh?

Be Sociable, Share!

80 Responses to “BYO How ‘Bout That Aladdin, Huh?”

  1. Bulldog68 says:

    RT rolls out their Verification System just in time for Aladdin. Viewers need to show proof of ticket purchase in order to count toward the verified Audience Score.

    Gotta say, while I wasn’t impressed with the trailers, the level of vitriol toward it could easily mushroom into this being the new whipping boy for online critics with nothing better to do.

    So far the Critics reviews could be summed as a collective “Well, it’s not terrible.”

  2. Sideshow Bill says:

    No interest in Aladdin at all.

    However I was simply very entertained by ‪BRIGHTBURN. It’s exactly as advertised. Gory, scary, silly and entertaining. It follows through and doesn’t chicken out on it’s premise. All it’s missing is some more visual style. A better director would have killed this but as it is it’s still fun as hell. 12 year old Superman as evil as fuck. Almost a slasher movie. Crazy kills!! Badger from Breaking Bad! See it. For me ❤️. I want sequels and comics. I was entertained and that’s enough sometimes.

    It succeeds where Pet Semetary fails: delivering on a simple B movie premise.

    Booksmart on Monday!!

  3. Pete B. says:

    Good to hear about Brightburn, Bill. Planned on seeing it tomorrow, but will be putting brakes on the Olds instead. Hopefully this weekend.

  4. Glamourboy says:

    I have a screening of Aladdin on Sunday and I’m looking forward to it.

  5. palmtree says:

    Of the Disney live action remakes, I’ve only seen The Jungle Book which I thought was very good. The rest I had little interest in. Aladdin is in the latter group although maybe I’ll see it just because it’s nice seeing some new diverse faces up there.

  6. movieman says:

    “Booksmart” totally lived up to expectations.
    Haven’t enjoyed a movie (in a theater) as much in eons.
    I didn’t look at my watch once: for me that’s akin to a secular miracle.
    Instant classic.

    I’ve liked all of the Disney live-action ‘toon reboots: some (“The Jungle Book” which will probably remain the gold standard until “The Lion King” arrives this summer) more than others.
    Less hopeful for “Aladdin,” but that probably has more to do with Ritchie’s rotten post-“Sherlock Holmes 1” track record than anything else.
    Thinking that I’ll probably wait to see “Brightburn” at the second-run discount house.

    Really looking forward to “Ma” and “Rocketman” next weekend.

  7. leahnz says:

    i don’t get this fixation on aladdin, who gives a shit (unless you’ve got tykes, then i feel for you, been there done that). i mean are adults going to aladdin without kids in tow? good way to get the side-eye.
    i think i’d take to the fainting couch to see a thread about ‘booksmart’ or some actual good movie instead of a monstrosity. can we get out of this dreadful alternate timeline pretty please it’s totally freaking me out

  8. amblinman says:

    Disney live action remakes are too depressing and cynical for me. I love blockbusters, and I used to love blockbuster filmmaking so it’s not that I’m anti-corporate for its own sake. But these remakes…so devoid of purpose. So worthless. Nothing new or entertaining.

    I’m happy to hear Brightburn is what it seems to be. And next weekend is Godzilla. So fuck yes.

  9. Bulldog68 says:

    It’s saying something that none of these live action remakes have lived up to the original animated versions. I’m still interested in Lion King however. Once these things keep making money I foresee them moving to the Pixar films at some point, and given the coin that Marvel movies have made, can you see anything under $1.5b for a live action Incredibles? I can’t.

  10. Sideshow Bill says:

    I’m enjoying the negative, hand-wringing BRIGHTBURN reviews moaning about it being “nihilistic “ and “nasty.” That’s why I liked it. I don’t think it’s going to do a bunch of business but I can see it becoming a cult favorite. I couldn’t really gauge the audience I saw it with.

    It is very thin on character, and doesn’t take a position on its premise. Fair points but I still enjoyed it. It delivered the goods.

  11. palmtree says:

    leah, I’m curious what you think of this whole QT thing. It’s on the MCN front page and I find myself agreeing with aspects of both sides of the argument.

  12. Christian says:

    Are any of you in a market playing “The Souvenir”? Sorry if I’ve missed discussion elsewhere in these threads. It opened in my market today, and despite knowing very little about it – I have a Film Comment cover story sitting on my end table but skipped over that article – I’m thinking I might check it out tonight. Not advisable for me to go to late shows, but life changes recently mean late shows might be the best theatrical option for me in the future – if I can find a way to stay awake through them.

  13. Glamourboy says:

    leahnz, I am an adult, without children and I am absolutely looking forward to seeing Aladdin. And I have other adult friends who are as well. And I don’t quite understand the understated shaming. To me, I’d wonder less about the person who sees a Disney musical than the person who goes to see the violent gore fests. But that is just my opinion (people who can actually enjoy gruesome murders and blood splattering…hmmmm)

    I’m a huge fan of the 1924 silent Thief of Bagdad movie, which has more energy and inventiveness that most contemporary films (I saw it a few years back where someone paired it with an ELO musical score and it was magic).

    I love fantasy films..movies with genies…I love the cheesy Sinbad movies and all the Ray Harryhausen stuff.

    I’m also a big fan of the film music of Howard Ashman who created so many beautiful broadway musicals turned his eye towards Disney and brought their animation department back from the dead. He also slyly revived the movie musical with The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. He was dying of AIDS when he wrote his last few songs, for Aladdin, but I find the songs he did finish to be wonderous.

    I enjoy movies that remind me what it was like to be a kid, when all kinds of adventures were possible.

    So yeah, maybe I’m a different type of movie lover but I’m def looking forward to Aladdin.

  14. palmtree says:

    Glamour, I’m with you. I’ve actually heard from some people that it’s a decent movie, even if it’s sort of unnecessary but at least it was well done.

    But also a correction…I absolutely love Howard Ashman’s work and he died tragically early, but to be clear Howard Ashman was the lyricist. He didn’t write the music for those films. That was Alan Menken, the composer.

  15. movieman says:

    Has anyone else seen Richard Shepard’s “The Perfection” on Netflix?
    It’s seriously f***ed up, but in a good way.
    It starts out like vintage Brian DePalma, evolves into David Cronenberg body-horror, then crescendos as a Darren Aronofsky-style freak-out.
    I found the whole thing pretty mesmerizing from start to finish.

  16. movieman says:


    1 ALADDIN (2019)
    Buena Vista

    4,476 $31,000,000

    — / $6,926
    $31,000,000 / 1


    3,850 $6,600,000

    +90.7% / $1,714
    $83,238,941 / 8

    Buena Vista

    3,810 $4,225,000

    +121.7% / $1,109
    $785,556,736 / 29

    Warner Bros.

    3,824 $3,500,000

    +118.1% / $915
    $106,322,622 / 15

    Sony / Screen Gems

    2,607 $3,025,000

    — / $1,160
    $3,025,000 / 1

    United Artists Releasing

    2,505 $2,500,000

    — / $998
    $2,500,000 / 1

  17. palmtree says:

    I guess we now have the answer to “who gives a shit” about Aladdin: a lot of people. It’s gonna be a $100m plus four-day weekend.

  18. Glamourboy says:

    Palmtree, thanks for the correction..yes, I meant lyricist…and yes, clearing a lot of people are checking out Aladdin…

  19. Amblinman says:

    Brightburn sucked. Lots of bad choices around a really good concept.

  20. YancySkancy says:

    “leah, I’m curious what you think of this whole QT thing. It’s on the MCN front page and I find myself agreeing with aspects of both sides of the argument.”

    palmtree, obviously I’m not leah, and probably no one cares what I think about this thing, but I think I’m with QT in rejecting the reporter’s hypotheses. He wrote a screenplay that included what he felt was the proper amount of screen time for the Sharon Tate character in terms of the story he wanted to tell. Margot Robbie accepted the role knowing it was a supporting part and seems fine with it. I don’t blame him at all for being put out at the reporter’s thinly veiled suggestion that he acted in bad faith somehow. Al Pacino and Bruce Dern reportedly have much smaller roles than Robbie, and last I checked they were rather acclaimed actors too, but no one’s suggesting QT was being disrespectful by not making them leads. They’re cameo roles. If the reporter had asked “Why did you make Sharon Tate a supporting role in the story instead of a lead?” then I imagine QT would’ve answered the question thoughtfully.

  21. palmtree says:

    Yeah, this reporter seems to really have it in for QT. And it’s just way too easy to point out all the great female roles QT has created with lots of lines. So it felt like shooting fish in a barrel. Your point about it being character-based and not actor-based is a fantastic one. It’s also rather weird to demand that QT himself include gender parity in a single film, when the problem isn’t him or this one film but the industry in general. So calling him out for this does feel like a false premise.

    But I just also wonder if perhaps women feel QT fetishizes certain female roles in a way that self-serving and not really generous. Obviously, you can find examples to the contrary, but I’d love to hear opinions that elucidate something that I might be missing.

  22. Amblinman says:

    I had no idea Milch suffers from Alzheimer’s. Every minute of the Deadwood movie takes on a much different meaning for me now.

  23. movieman says:

    May 24-26, 2019

    1 N Aladdin (2019) BV $86,100,000 – 4,476 – $19,236 $86,100,000 $183 1

    2 1 John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum LG/S $24,350,000 -57.1% 3,850 – $6,325 $100,988,941 – 2

    3 2 Avengers: Endgame BV $16,841,000 -43.8% 3,810 -410 $4,420 $798,172,736 $356 5

    4 3 Pokemon Detective Pikachu WB $13,300,000 -47.0% 3,824 -424 $3,478 $116,122,622 $150 3

    5 N Brightburn SGem $7,535,000 – 2,607 – $2,890 $7,535,000 $6 1

    6 N Booksmart UAR $6,512,154 – 2,505 – $2,600 $6,512,154 – 1

  24. Christian says:

    No one commented on my question about THE SOUVENIR, but FWIW, I saw it and was underwhelmed. More surprising was the paucity of turnout at my theater. Despite my reaction to the film, I’m happy the per-screen wasn’t a wipeout; looked like it might be based on my showing. Amusingly, someone who works for that theater said a woman exiting THE SOUVENIR said to her, “That was not good!” which made me feel a little less alone in my assessment.

  25. Regina says:

    High Life finally made it to my city.
    I will never get that horrifying scene of Juliette Binoche riding that fuck machine in that space fuck-box. What was that white liquid?!? I haven’t had to look away from the screen so much since I don’t know when.
    Everything with RP and his daughter was beautiful but the sexual experiments stuff was just sickening.
    I’m thinking the movie was over my head.

    Brightburn was a fantastic slasher movie. So simple, so scary. How hard was that Pet Semetary?

    Booksmart is a new classic, for me. I adored it.

  26. Sideshow Bill says:

    Now I wanna see High Life even more!

    Everything I’ve read about The Souvenir has been positive until now. Interesting that you didn’t like it Christian.

    Watching GRETA right now. Enjoying the classy junkiness.

  27. Ray Pride says:

    Claire Denis told me the white fluid is the FB’s self-cleaning mechanism hard at work.

  28. Ray Pride says:

    Milch made it public with Matt Zoller Seitz’s piece. The Rolling Stone article is also very good.

  29. leahnz says:

    1) i hope some entertainment journalist (or whatever they’re called) brings a soundbite of quentin’s radio interview comment re the child rapist/victim and plays it on their phone right there out loud for him when he’s up on stage at one of his ‘OUaTiH’ press things (actually, i hope it’s that same lady from cannes who had the sheer gall to ask the delicate slab of lard a question when he was out doing press promotion)

    2) i personally volunteer to then take quentin backstage, clockwork orange his eyelids open until he reads every last word of the absolutely heinous and sickening court transcript/testimony of polanski drugging and sodomising a 13yr old, out loud

    3) bring him back on stage and ask him how totally into it the victim was (an attitude that posits polanki isn’t really a child rapist), and why he made the choice – given his clear child rape-apologist attitude – to make a film wherein said child rapist is inevitably featured, and lionized in this case by the director in [from what i gather is] a small but crucial role. i’d be fascinated to hear the answer to that one. smug prick. (go get ’em entertainment journalists; call me: dirty deeds done dirt cheap)

    also, this myth that tarantino has created all these great female roles is highly questionable; just because someone writes woman characters doesn’t mean they’re all ‘great’, dudes think they’re great i guess. a few are well-written with a modicum of internal complexity beyond the typical male boner-lens (most notably Jackie B, a middle age woman as it happens, funny that); and some are flat-out laughable, cliche and cringe-worthy.

  30. Triple Option says:

    I was disappointed by Booksmart.

    I signed up for AMC A-List and disappointed in the selection of movies would be an understatement. I thought worst case scenario I see some films I wouldn’t otherwise see just cuz. Nope, a buncha stinkers I don’t even want to waste my time with. I seem to remember smaller or foreign films popping up on at least one or two screens here or there. This year, not so much. Pokemon, The Hustle, The Intruder look painful. Aladdin looks like direct-to-dvd, I don’t care that that’s Will Smith I see in the trailer. Long Shots? How ’bout another Vegas gambling term, No Line.

    I hope things pickup one Rocket Man touches down.

  31. Amblinman says:

    Leah, Tarantino also believes using the n-word repeatedly kills it of its power. Which, if you’re a white dork, makes sense. I wish people would remember this is a malformed male with filmmaking chops. Not a sage with anything that smart to say about our society.

    Hey, who wants to fight about the Matrix movies? I just rewatched all on Netflix. First one is still brilliant. Next two are still not brilliant, but much better than I gave them credit for. Is the freeway chase in Reloaded the last great sustained modern set piece?? How forward thinking we’re the Wachowskis in term of diversity casting? Their movies in 2003 look more like America than most things in 2019. And holy shit: they were feeding middle America BDSM without them even realizing it!

    Yup. I’m a renewed fan. Bring on the reboots. If any IP deserved a fresh start with something relevant to say, it’s The Matrix.

  32. leahnz says:

    yowza i’ll leave this mortal coil never understanding the white boy tarantino n-word pass (and his ‘belief’ is moronic). is the apparent blessings of sam L jackson that powerful and all-encompassing, like a faery’s kiss? it’s baffling.

    “Bring on the reboot”

    re the matrix, holy shit how did i not even realise this was happening. mainstream larger-budget film-making is so often generic and mediocre now that even movies that were heavy-handed and overstuffed look good now in retrospect, based purely on the basics of better film writing and direction with an eye beyond the middling and less risk-averse decision-making at the top.

  33. palmtree says:

    leah, epic response. You did not disappoint. I didn’t remember the child rape comments, but hearing about that reminded me of how he blackens up his speech when he talks to black people like a pandering fool.

    And I was one of the guys who thought his female characters were so fantastic, but then of course, this whole discussion leads me to re-examine that easy notion and be like, wait, no they were a boy’s fantasy of good female characters. Jackie Brown though is still great.

    As far as the Wachowskis, if we’re into revitalizing their careers, I’d like to vouch for Sense 8. I mean, it’s a totally ridiculous show with some real clunkiness, but once it gets going, that show is like nothing else I’ve ever seen. A real high. And for fans of genre, you’d love it because it’s almost like have every other scene in a different genre, and that versatility and fluidity that make them so brilliant are on full display. Too bad Netflix cancelled it already, but at least the seasons we have exist.

  34. Sideshow Bill says:

    I loved Booksmart. 100% entertained and satisfied and moved. I related to those girls a lot. I hid in my bedroom until halfway through college.

  35. leahnz says:

    i’m hiding in my bedroom right now

    palmtree: ha i forgot what i was going to say, so many things are depressing.
    take care of each other, fight for those who are more vulnerable than yourselves, fight for truth, knowledge, justice and beauty, fight for the planet, fight for equality, fight authoritarianism and fascism – any way you can. every little bit helps.

  36. YancySkancy says:

    Tarantino made his self-admittedly idiotic claim about Samantha Geimer 15 or 16 years ago on the Howard Stern Show, rather notoriously a venue for being deliberately provocative. When his comments resurfaced, he called Geimer to apologize and made a public apology as well, in which he called himself “ignorant, and insensitive, and above all incorrect.” He even actually used the words “I’m sorry, Samantha.” It was a textbook example of the kind of public apology that everyone clamors for in these cases, but of course in reality any apology is immediately termed self-serving and insincere, because it’s impossible for human beings to learn anything or change or feel regret or shame. Everything you’ve said or done in your past is an accurate reflection of how you are now, and you need to keep being vilified for it forever.

    I don’t know Tarantino. His squirrelly, ADD, foot-in-mouth public image can be off-putting, to say the least. I’ve liked all of his films a lot, but I’m no fanboy, and I have no interest in excusing any of his public faux pas. But I have no problem moving on from them when they happened 15 years ago and he’s owned up to them and asked forgiveness. As to whether his women characters are sufficiently fleshed out or just superficially “kick-ass,” all I know is I’ve enjoyed them and so have many women, including the actresses who played them. His male characters don’t seem appreciably more fleshed out to me — his films are genre pieces, revenge fantasies with clever dialogue. He’s not trying to be O’Neill or Ibsen.

    The reporter who asked the question about Margot Robbie may have had gall, but she didn’t seem to understand how screenwriting and casting work. Her question (which, interestingly, hasn’t actually been quoted in full in most of the articles about this story — I had to click on about 15 links to find it in print — though of course the video is out there for all to see) was this: “Quentin you put Margot Robbie, a very talented actress, actor, in your film. She was with Leonardo in ‘Wolf of Wall Street,’ ‘I, Tonya.’ This is a person with great acting talent and yet you haven’t given her many lines in the movie. I guess that was a deliberate choice on your part. And I just wanted to know why that was that we don’t hear her speak that much.”

    Her “hypothesis” comes through loud and clear, and it should also be clear why he rejects it. Who he casts and their level of talent is absolutely irrelevant to their screentime or number of lines. Also, if you watch the video, in no way can Tarantino’s response be characterized as “snapping” at her. He doesn’t even raise his voice. Sure, he could’ve politely explained his position (and undoubtedly been promptly accused of mansplaining). But maybe he just thought it was self-evident. I would hope that most women filmmakers would find the question ridiculous as well. This whole thing is such a mountain out of a molehill, I find it baffling.

  37. Stella's Boy says:

    Good points leah. Quantity is not quality. I don’t see a huge problem with asking why this famous, real-life character has little to do or say in the movie. Doesn’t seem like it proves the female questioner doesn’t understand how movies work either. Two things really struck me about the QT question and response. One was the countless women I saw cheering the question and expressing serious, thoughtful concerns about female representation in QT’s movies. This certainly isn’t the first time this issue has presented itself. The second thing that was very noticeable was the QT Dude Bro Army out in full force vociferously defending him and vulgarly condemning anyone daring to defend the question or raise issues with female representation in QT’s movies. This bro impulse to immediately go to bat for QT is gross. They sound like a bunch of incels. Some dudes don’t ever seem to stop and consider why so many women take issue with how women are portrayed in QT’s work.

    Looking forward to seeing Booksmart and Brightburn this week. The former today and the latter Thursday.

    Not a fan of The Perfection. (SPOILERS) The surprises are anything but. The presence of Allison Williams makes the first turn really easy to guess. And the reveal that they are working together at the end is also painfully obvious. It’s trying oh so hard to be down with the patriarchy but it doesn’t really work. After all the hype I was disappointed.

  38. movieman says:

    We don’t seem to agree on much of anything these days, SB.
    Next you’ll be dissing “Booksmart,” lol.

  39. Stella's Boy says:

    I swear it isn’t on purpose. But since you mentioned Booksmart, what a huge piece of-, no I kid. I loved it. Lived up to the hype. I loved the leads. Great supporting cast. Nice blend of heart/humor. I laughed a whole lot. Found it endearing and poignant. Good music. Really impressive directorial debut. I followed some of the box office debate over the weekend. “Total marketing fail. It should have been as big as Superbad.” “It actually did well all things considered.” On the one hand, it does seem as mainstream as Superbad and maybe better marketing does lead to much better numbers. But also it’s not 2007 anymore. And there’s probably a viewer problem too. Didn’t see any other males in the theater. All the dipshit dudes still screaming about Captain Marvel being unlikable are probably not rushing out to see Booksmart.

  40. Hcat says:

    Weren’t Hill and Cena recognizable people when Superbad came out? They were able to sell that and Apatow’s name to the public. I don’t know how big the marketing push was for Booksmart but I remember Superbad being pushed hard.

    Drives me a little nuts that EVERYTHING needs to be a blockbuster or is seen as a failure. This is why Netflix is thriving, because they don’t have to produce numbers and be dissected, all they have is euphoric press for a good film without the hangover of box office performance.

  41. Stella's Boy says:

    Not sure how recognizable Hill and Cena were in 2007. I don’t think they were big names but maybe I just don’t remember 2007 all that well. But Apatow was and yeah it was pushed hard. Some are saying Booksmart should have received a similar push and if it had received a similar push it would have made Superbad-type money. I think you’re right though that there’s a lack of nuance and context when it comes to immediately declaring a movie like Booksmart a failure.

  42. Hcat says:

    A push by Sony, flush with Spider-Man money, trying to save face for a disastrous summer is different by a push from whatever they are calling themselves now, two weeks after a middling Hustle release. Superbad opened against the predestined flop The Invasion, Booksmart opened against a behemoth.

    Anyone expecting Booksmart to open to 20 million was delusional, anyone writing anything that suggests the making and release of Booksmart was a bad idea is probably an enemy of movies.

  43. movieman says:

    Glad we’re back on the same page, SB.
    I was beginning to wonder: “Is it him, or is it me”,” lol.

    Agree with Mark Harris that “Booksmart” is a movie that should have been platformed. And probably would have in a different b.o. universe.
    Consider: no “stars,” femme-centric (behind, and in front of the camera), etc.
    I said all along that “Booksmart” would do 80% of its b.o. in “major urban markets” where hip Millennials and Gen Zs are uber film-savvy (and would know that it was critically adored).
    On the upside, WOM should be strong.
    But “Ghost World” didn’t make a dime outside of the “major urban markets” in 2001 either, and that’s now (rightly) considered a classic.

    Went to a matinee of “Aladdin” yesterday (bought my advance ticket–with assigned seat–last week).
    Midway through the 30 minutes of trailers (and after the 30 minute “pre-show”), a Deplorable trailer park family (grandma included) came in and sat directly NEXT TO ME.
    They had one kid: a girl, maybe 4, and she literally talked (at conversational volume) through 95% of the movie. That is when she wasn’t wailing or screaming. I don’t think her ass hit the seat once.
    Next to her–and me–was her granny who promptly removed her smelly sneakers and laid them on the railing in front of us.
    Halfway through the movie, the kid began to cough.
    And wheeze.
    And sneeze.
    Which only added to my nausea and furious agitation.
    I literally could not wait for it to end.

    How was it?
    Really hard to tell considering that my skin was crawling from start to finish, but the pre-Genie initial 40 minutes are sluggish; the songs (except “A Whole New World”) were considerably less memorable than I remembered (ha); and it definitely suffers from CGI overkill (especially w/ Aladdin’s pet monkey, Jasmine’s pet tiger and the metropolis in which J.’s kingdom resides).
    But for a post-“Sherlock Holmes 1” Guy Ritchie movie, it’s not terrible.
    Certainly better than his ghastly King Arthur and “Man From U.N.C.L.E.” reboots. Or “Sherlock 2” for that matter.

  44. Hcat says:

    Call me shallow but with a cast that good looking I find it impossible to dislike Man from Uncle.

    Hell the same is almost true of the Sherlocks.

  45. YancySkancy says:

    “I don’t see a huge problem with asking why this famous, real-life character has little to do or say in the movie.”

    I don’t have any problem with that either. But that’s not even close to what she asked. She asked why he hired a talented actress like Margot Robbie but didn’t give her a larger part. If the film were “The Sharon Tate Story,” the of course we’d expect him to share why her part was comparatively small. If the role of Sharon Tate were larger in the script, then cut way down in the editing, that would also demand some explanation. But asking why he cast a major talent in a supporting role is nonsensical. It literally happens every day.

  46. Sideshow Bill says:

    Stella: THANK YOU!

    I hated THE PERFECTION. I like the female positive message but the movie delivering was obvious, empty and had no visual style at all. People raved about this at festival? It looked like a TV movie to me.

    The characters were all completely unlikeable. It strained to be shocking and maybe some kind of riff on Asian revenge cinema. I don’t know. But I genuinely disliked it. The praise it’s getting is puzzling. It’s just not good. I could see where it was headed in the first 10 minutes. The rewind trick was unearned.

    Ugh. Women deserve genre films but this, like REVENGE, left a bad taste in my mouth. The rape/revenge sub genre…I don’t have the stomach for it. That and jungle cannibal horror films. Nope.

  47. palmtree says:

    Yancy, yeah that left a bad taste in my mouth too. You can’t ask for gender parity in a single film, because some films naturally are not going to have parity and that’s okay. But had she been asking about the entirety of QT’s output or about the entirety of the industry, that question might have been more palatable, because then at least you are talking about trends and not a single film, which isn’t even part of the Hollywood 4-quadrant machine.

    So I’d be way more interested in looking at an overly manufactured film like Aladdin and asking how much gender parity is in there since it much more likely features female roles that will impact generations of female audiences and the film itself has come out as trying to make a statement about female voices being silenced. If somehow that movie is still male-centric, I think you got a question.

  48. Stella's Boy says:

    I agree Bill. It’s painfully predictable. I’m stunned people are saying go in blind because it’s so surprising. (SPOILERS) And the rewind gimmick is so dumb and treats the audience like idiots. We already know she was poisoned and we already know they plotted the revenge together. Just pads the running time.

    Is the reporter asking for gender parity in every film? I took her question as asking why Margot Robbie didn’t have more lines in the movie, which doesn’t really seem like a question that warrants hyperventilating about or getting supremely defensive about. And isn’t his response sort of dick-ish? I don’t know I just don’t see the big deal. Is that really the worst question he was asked that day or the worst one he’ll be asked while promoting OUATIH?

  49. leahnz says:

    good grief — maybe if you don’t want to answer questions about a tale that sensationalises a horrendous historical murder of an actual person and the actress who portrays her – but is really mostly about her next-door neighbour and his mate acting a fool around nostalgia-town until it’s blood-splatter time – then don’t write and direct a freakin’ movie about it, and then do promotion with media!
    problem solved. or explain your choices with a modicum of professionalism.
    boohoo man-babies, maybe you should go into a corner and suck your binkies and finger-curl your neck hair and self-soothe until you can deal

    (imagine if women film-makers behaved so, yeah right)

  50. YancySkancy says:

    leah: What are you on about? It was a press conference, and I assume he answered plenty of questions about the film beyond what that one viral clip shows. The question in question, so to speak, was not about the story or Sharon Tate at all. It was about casting Margot Robbie and then not giving her an amount of screen time and lines that the reporter somehow deemed appropriate. I agree that instead of “rejecting her hypothesis,” he probably should’ve just given the painfully obvious answer (“Margot has fewer lines because she’s in a supporting role”), but he saw the question for the thinly veiled accusation that it was and it put him off. Not sure why so many people find it impossible to discuss this on the basis of what was actually asked and answered. All the articles spin this as her simply asking why Margot had fewer lines and QT “snapping at her.” The first part ditches the context, and the second isn’t true (really interesting how his deadpan, one-line response has been repeatedly characterized as some sort of tantrum). Again, a valid question would’ve been “Why did you decide to make Sharon Tate a supporting role in this story?” And I guarantee you he would’ve answered that one with no trouble (as I believe he already has).

    As for imagining if women filmmakers “behaved” like QT did in that situation. Okay, let’s imagine it. Hypothetical press conference:

    “Hey, Ava Du Vernay, in Selma you’ve got Oprah Winfrey, one of the most famous women on the planet and a very talented Oscar-nominated actress, playing a role in which she doesn’t have all that much screen time. I assume that was a deliberate choice. I was just wondering why we don’t hear her speak more.”

    “Um, I’m not even sure what your hypothesis is, but I reject it. She plays a character in the film, but the film isn’t about her character. It’s what we call a supporting role. Are you a moron?”

  51. palmtree says:

    leah, I’m getting confused on what the problem is. Was it that QT doesn’t give women good roles? Or was it that he answered this question without professionalism?

    Because even though “I reject your hypothesis” is kinda a dick response, the question itself was not really said very nicely either. The reporter implied that QT had silenced Robbie, when, just because she doesn’t say much in this one movie, doesn’t mean she was silenced in any way. Maybe her part could have been better, but the hypothesis of “QT silenced Robbie” is something akin to “when did you stop beating your wife?”

    So rather than say “I won’t dignify that question with a response” he said something that was curt and shitty, but actually does address the unfairness of that question.

    However, I do concede on the other question that QT has not necessarily been great for women, or at least he could be better. I think had the question been phrased to include QT’s entire output and wasn’t said as a trap, he might have said something more professional.

  52. leahnz says:

    im sorry, is this real life? this is too stupid to debate.

    but here you go, poor aggrieved boys, my god the sheer gall of this woman! the vitriol, the aggression, how did the man not faint dead away in his chair! (honestly if you think this is all out of line and spoken ‘not very nicely’… if a guy had asked in this exact same rather stammering, kind of uncertain, fairly innocuous and a bit dumb question in this exact same manner, NOBODY WOULD BLINK AN EYE. this is straight up bullshit)

    and if you actually think ava duvernay could answer a fairly innocuous question – which is ‘why does margot, a fine thespian, playing tate have virtually no dialogue’ – with tarantino’s curt reply with no insidious repercussions then you are in complete denial about sexism (and racism) and how the world works for not-white-boys. shocker.

  53. YancySkancy says:

    Okay, forget my attempt at humor re a fictional Du Vernay example. Maybe there would have been “insidious repercussions” if that shoe were on her foot. Sorry I brought it up, because it’s nothing but a distraction from the main point I’ve been making all along, which is simply that the question was dumb and slyly accusatory, and that it shouldn’t be surprising that QT didn’t take kindly to it.

    And what do you mean “Here you go?” It’s nice that you posted the video, but have you actually watched it? Because it backs up everything I’ve written here. Up above I even quoted the reporter’s question and QT’s reply verbatim and explained, in what I’m sure you all consider painful detail, why I felt the question was dumb. Nothing you’ve said negates or disproves anything I said. In fact, most of what you’ve written about the incident avoids any actual consideration of what they said and focuses on previous, unrelated statements QT has made, as well as your opinion of him and his previous films. Not sure why it’s impossible to engage with the actual subject at hand (other than posting the video as if it’s some trump card that wasn’t already on the table). It’s clearly impossible to have an honest debate with you about this subject. No one said anything about the reporter`showing “vitriol” or “aggression” (since she didn’t, not overtly anyway) but the subtext of her question is clear as crystal and would have been so if asked of a woman director (even if the woman director answered more politely and thoroughly). Whether anyone WOULD BLINK AN EYE if a guy asked the same question, I can’t be certain. To me, the question would be dumb coming from man, woman or talking dolphin. Maybe that wouldn’t be the case for red pill assholes, incels or other damaged males. But I wasn’t talking about that. I was addressing what actually happened. Okay, as usual in here, I’ve beaten a dead horse until it was reincarnated and then beat it to death again and kept beating it. If anyone wants to engage with what I actually wrote and make something resembling a pertinent counterpoint, I look forward to seeing it, but I should probably bow out now.

  54. YancySkancy says:

    Oops, like Columbo, I’ll add “just one more thing.” Perhaps I shouldn’t keep referring to the reporter’s question as “dumb” or “ignorant.” Maybe more like “sly as a fox.” Because there’s another, probably more logical explanation for the question. She knew Tarantino would see that the question suggested he was shortchanging Robbie (and maybe Tate) because she’s a woman and that he would take umbrage and deliver a good soundbite — maybe even a tantrum, if she got lucky. She had to settle for a curt dismissal that’s been weirdly mistaken for a tantrum, but mission accomplished.

  55. palmtree says:

    leah, sorry I’m not aggrieved, and I see the value of questioning female representation in QT’s work. And I’ve said so.

    But if we’re talking about the questioner and his response, I don’t think it’s so clear cut. She asked a question that implied something that wasn’t true, and he rejected the implication. It wasn’t “innocuous” unless you think saying QT silences women is innocuous. I’ve been in rooms like that before and if you want good responses to a question, you ask in a way that opens it up for the subject to speak.

    And yes, QT could have been more gracious and explained his choices and addressed sexism, but I don’t know that anyone else being asked that question would be inclined to answer any differently. If Ava said the same thing, I kinda think we’d all be applauding her for standing up for herself. So as far as hypotheticals go, this isn’t definitively for me.

  56. Stella's Boy says:

    That is making a lot of assumptions about the reporter’s intent. What’s the basis for that? You’re familiar with her work? I’m not familiar with these Cannes press conferences, how they work and who gets to ask questions. And have you considered that people are genuinely interpreting the exchange differently than you are? It’s not part of some agenda but an honest-to-goodness difference of opinion? You are going the extra mile to defend QT and bash the reporter, but do you think it’s possible this isn’t black-and-white? Unless there’s some evidence that this is a reporter with a history of asking questions with no purpose other than causing a fuss, I don’t get the impulse to go to bat so strongly for QT. I remember his Fresh Air interview from a few years back when Terry Gross tried asking him questions about violence in his movies, questions I didn’t think were unfair, and he didn’t respond very well and came across like a dick. I think there are some questions he feels he shouldn’t have to answer or are way out-of-bounds or something. Like sure ask about my influences or what I’m paying tribute to this time, but let’s not go over there. Not that I’m an expert on his interviews. Just an impression.

    Makes me wonder: has the reporter explain their intent now that there is all this fuss about it?

  57. palmtree says:

    Sorry, I don’t mean to bash the reporter, and I’m not familiar with her work.

    But I don’t think it was a neutral question. Her voice was shaking and seemed like she knew she was being critical of him in a way that was confrontational. She didn’t just say Robbie was “a fine thespian” but compared her role negatively to other roles where she had more of a speaking part. In other words, she was saying that this was a bad part and gave it a value assessment. If Ava or any other director were asked at a press conference why some aspect of their movie sucked, how do you think they would or should respond?

    Obviously it wasn’t me in that room, but my version of the question might have been, “QT, you’ve written many notable female characters with great lines in the past. I’m wondering why you chose to write in this film Robbie’s character without many lines.”

  58. YancySkancy says:

    palmtree’s response makes the points I’ve been trying to make more concisely and better than I have.

    Stella’s Boy: Maybe I’m arrogant, but I literally see no other interpretation that makes sense other than the one I’m offering. If other people have a different interpretation, I’d love to hear it, but no one has actually offered one. And I mean an actual interpretation based on the actual words she said. But here I go again. I’ve explained myself thoroughly. Agree or disagree, that’s fine. I’m not defending QT because he’s QT, by the way. I haven’t seen the film, which isn’t out yet. I have no stake in him being right and the reporter being dumb, disingenuous or sly. I just saw the video, read the words, and offered my opinion. I’m sure for leah I’m taking QT’s side because I’m a man and I’m seeing and hearing things that aren’t there, because a woman dared to upset one of my sainted brethren.

  59. YancySkancy says:

    Here’s the reporter’s question again:

    “Quentin you put Margot Robbie, a very talented actress, actor, in your film. She was with Leonardo in ‘Wolf of Wall Street,’ ‘I, Tonya.’ This is a person with great acting talent and yet you haven’t given her many lines in the movie. I guess that was a deliberate choice on your part. And I just wanted to know why that was that we don’t hear her speak that much.”

    I think the key to interpreting her intent is the phrase “and yet.” But I’d sincerely love to see interpretations of this question that differ from mine.

  60. Stella's Boy says:

    Yeah sorry I do not see the big deal. From the beginning Robbie has been pushed as a lead in this alongside Brad and Leo. She is indeed a famous and talented actress. Apparently she doesn’t have many lines in a nearly three-hour movie that she’s been sold as a lead in. Why is that the case? You can obsess over two words but I really don’t think the question was as offensive and out-of-line as you do. So see people have other interpretations!

  61. palmtree says:

    SB, I think that’s fair. I think saying her part is small compared to her marketing appearances is totally fair.

    And if I may, Yancy isn’t obsessing over two words so much as saying those words “and yet” turn a potentially neutral statement into negative one.

  62. YancySkancy says:

    Stella: She’s been promoted as a star of the film, because presumably she has some marketing value. If people interpreted that to mean she was a lead in the film, that may be understandable, but it’s on them. There was never any official word from the filmmakers that the film was going to be “about” Sharon Tate, only that the story would take place against the backdrop of the ’60s during the time of the Manson murders. If the reporter intended to inquire as to why a major star was cast in a smaller role, she could’ve done so without the insinuation. As I said before, I consider the question unnecessary, dumb, disingenuous or sly because the answer to it is so self-evident — if it were a lead role, she’d have more screen time. Her level of talent is immaterial to any likely answer to that question. Did she think Tarantino might say, “Well, yeah we *thought* she was talented, but she simply didn’t deliver on the set, so we had to trim her part back”? Or “I went into this intending to make Sharon Tate the lead role, but changed my mind after Margot had already been hired”?

    And palmtree is correct: I’m implying that “and yet” is where the insinuation lies.

  63. Stella's Boy says:

    I don’t know that it’s entirely on them. Many a time I have seen a movie and thought hey that person was promoted as being a lead but they only have three scenes. What gives. Or something like that. She’s practically the only woman in a huge cast of dudes and she’s playing a famous person and she’s very famous herself and she has been promoted alongside Leo and Brad from day one. And it turns out she’s got a small role. I don’t find it unusual for people to notice that and wonder why the role is smaller than they anticipated. Could she have phrased it better? Sure, I’ll grant you that. Otherwise, I don’t think it was a dumb or unnecessary question. We just don’t agree here, and we’re going in circles, and I hope you’ll acknowledge that reasonable people can come to different conclusions on this.

  64. YancySkancy says:

    Actually, I did think of one mea culpa. I believe it’s possible, given the stumbling way she asked the question, that she might not have intended the question to be loaded. Maybe she just meant to ask why the role is smaller than expected, based on her interpretation of the marketing. If so, I still think it’s dumb to bring Robbie’s level of talent into it. And I think you may be overstating the level of promotion Robbie got. She wasn’t in the teaser poster, just Leo and Brad. QT was mum about how heavily Sharon Tate would figure into the story. The first trailer in March clearly sells it as the story of Leo’s character — Robbie is in 3 or 4 brief silent shots. The actor playing Bruce Lee gets more screen time. Maybe she should’ve asked why Bruce Lee didn’t play a bigger role in the finished film. 🙂

  65. Stella's Boy says:

    I was going to retort, but it would be nitpicky. Better to move on. I love the Godzilla reviews I’ve read that go out of their way to point out plot holes and problems with realism. I am worried now that I won’t be able to suspend disbelief when Godzilla is fighting Mothra. And thrilled to read positive notices for Octavia Spencer’s role in Ma. Can’t wait to see it. Even if the movie isn’t great I have no doubt that she makes it worth the price of admission.

  66. Hcat says:

    Where there any other actual questions asked by other journalists or where they all softballs lobbed by starstruck junketeers? The reporter got to toss a question at the biggest attending filmmaker at Cannes, this was probably a higher career point for her than it was for anyone on the panel so she gave a challenging question. Pointed and topical, and pushed him on his art. All good things. I cannot imagine the amount of adulation QT must get just walking around the festival, when he sits down on a panel he might maybe expect a critically worded question? Which seemed like a little soft itself given he made a film that included two potential lightning rods like Manson and Polanski (I did not read about the entire panel so I do not know what was asked, only that this one apparently lit a fire under everyone). Given the content of Qt’s movies, with the explosive violence (often directed toward women) and his affinity for the N-word, questions on how he shapes his films should be expected. Hell, the sole fact that he was Weinstein’s meal ticket for a quarter century, he should probably gird his loins a bit whenever he meets a member of the press. He is a big boy, I don’t think any lines were crossed and much too much a deal is being made from this.

    And I would like to point out that Leah did not come tearing in here with a rant, someone specifically asked her opinion.

  67. Hcat says:

    Also enjoying the acclaim Spencer is getting for Ma, glad she is finally getting a clear above the title role, she deserves it. From the trailers it looks like she is having quite a bit of fun in the role.

  68. palmtree says:

    Okay, I asked Leah and I thanked her for chiming in. I did so, because I wanted to learn from her (and yes, because I respect the shit out of what she says). I just happen to disagree with her interpretation of an aspect of this issue.

    “He is a big boy, I don’t think any lines were crossed and much too much a deal is being made from this.”

    Of course QT is a big boy, and not innocent in any way. And of course no lines were crossed. I never said otherwise.

    All I was saying is that QT’s response was proportional to the question.

    And as for the journalist’s intention, she basically went on Twitter and doubled down on her position that QT doesn’t care about his female characters. That’s what was posted on the MCN front page and what got me to think critically about this whole exchange in the first place. Sorry if it bogged everything down.

    On a lighter note, the ending of Fosse Verdon was really satisfying.

  69. movieman says:

    That new McG movie on Netflix (“Rim of the World”) is pretty ghastly.
    The kids are phenomenally annoying, especially in the first half; and the relentless pop cult-referencing dialogue nearly drove me up the wall.
    What hath “Stranger Things” wrought?
    I liked some of McG’s theatrical films, too.
    But “We Are Marshall” and his “Charlie’s Angels” movies were a long, long time ago.
    What the hell happened to him?
    And to think McG almost directed a screen adaptation of “Spring Awakening” once upon a time.

  70. leahnz says:


    ftr it’s terribly convenient every single person has conveniently left out (yo yancy where’d you learn to transcribe) the part that the person wasn’t just asking tarantino the question about the lack of dialogue for the tate role, but also whatsherface (which is WHY i posted the clip. did YOU watch it? i think maybe not) — which deflates this stupid ‘OMG she was out to get QT!’ hysteria because she was clearly just nervous asking a question about the nature of the tate role of BOTH tarantino and robie and y’all just can’t handle a woman asking a perfectly fine question without making it into something nefarious. confront your subconscious bias with this bullshit.
    i submit that quentin was on the defensive going in because he knows that far more pointed questions could be asked of him in this scenario and he’s pissy because he doesn’t think he should ever be challenged, because he’s a smug prick. lucky he’s got a legion of bootlickers!

  71. palmtree says:

    leah, saw the video clip multiple times to pinpoint what was happening. “Maybe I imagined everything?” That was what I asked myself watching it, but what I saw was confirmed.

    I really like what you have to say and frankly think I could learn a lot from you. But the hysteria you’re talking about doesn’t describe me or my reaction to this. I don’t think she was “nefarious” but just phrased it poorly.

    And I never meant to defend QT as his “bootlicker.” But he responded the same way I’d expect any filmmaker, male or female, respond to that question.

    Finally, my whole point in bringing this issue up was to confront my subconscious bias. I had assumed QT had great female characters, but maybe they actually weren’t great. I think it’s a point I’d never considered before and so I appreciated it. However, I don’t see how I’m biased against this journalist who I never disparaged or bashed, but I can see how she the journalist was biased against QT (not nefariously biased, but she definitely thought QT hates his female characters), because she said so on Twitter.

    Anyway, good day, and I can’t wait to see this stupid movie that I already hate thanks to this discussion. But chances are I’ll probably hate the Bruce Lee stuff more than the Sharon Tate stuff.

  72. YancySkancy says:

    leah, okay, ftr, I admit I didn’t personally transcribe the question at all. I copied and pasted the Huff Post’s transcription. So here, ftr, is the entire quote:

    “Quentin you put Margot Robbie, a very talented actress, actor, in your film. She was with Leonardo in ‘Wolf of Wall Street,’ ‘I, Tonya.’ This is a person with great acting talent and yet you haven’t given her many lines in the movie. I guess that was a deliberate choice on your part. And I just wanted to know why that was that we don’t hear her actually speaking very much. And Margot I wanted you to also comment about being in the film and this part.”

    I know you and I seem to have different definitions of the word “clearly,” but to me, she clearly asks the question under discussion here only to Tarantino. She addresses him by name, and the question is about his motives only. Then she tacks on a separate question to Robbie at the end that’s only asking for her to comment about the film and her role, not about what she thinks Tarantino’s motives were. After QT rejects the question he was asked, Robbie answers the question that was put to her and also chooses to address the other question anyway, in a way that sounds to me like she’s defending QT’s choice:

    “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.”

    I would guess that the reason Huff Post and most every other outlet I’ve seen left off the afterthought question to Robbie is because it had no bearing on the controversy over QT’s answer. And Robbie’s answer is only pertinent (in that regard) as an example of how QT might have more diplomatically handled the question posed to him.

    Hey, at least Huff Post transcribed MOST of the question(s). Literally every other outlet I’ve checked doesn’t bother. They simply say a variation of “QT snapped at a female reporter from The New York Times who asked why Margot Robbie wasn’t given more to say in his latest film…” This conveniently leaves out the full context and nuance of the reporter’s question, so that anyone who doesn’t bother to watch the video can think, “Wow, sounds like an innocent enough question. What a dick.” One thing I’m finding interesting is that it seems to me that most of the pundits weighing in on this in the press coverage and social media seem to agree with me that it was a loaded question, including those who support the reporter and excoriate Tarantino. Their objection is more about QT refusing to engage the loaded question rather than him interpreting an innocent question as loaded. This is purely anecdotal – I haven’t read everything and I’m not claiming that EVERYONE is saying this — but it seems fairly common. Isn’t the reason many people are upset about this due to the perception that the reporter was making a thinly veiled accusation that QT shortchanged Robbie because she’s a woman, making his refusal to engage with the question evidence that he’d been “caught out”?

  73. YancySkancy says:

    Anyway, I appreciate the spirited debate here, even if it isn’t always respectful. I only wade into these things out of a genuine interest in how people can see the exact same info and come away with diametrically opposed impressions. Even if I don’t convince anyone of my take and they don’t convince (or even try to convince) me of theirs. It’s good brain exercise, and I’m sure I need all I can get. 🙂

  74. palmtree says:

    Yancy, for sure, thank you for engaging. Likely everyone has already stopped reading, but…

    I don’t mind having people genuinely disagree or having different interpretations, but I don’t like having my words twisted into things I never said or intended. We can all agree the question of female representation in film and specifically in QT’s work is a big and important question. At least I hope so. That should be the takeaway, not the imperfect exchange.

  75. YancySkancy says:

    palmtree: And thank you! Yeah, I never intended this to come off as stroking Tarantino. I took pains early on to mention that he’s said stupid things and has an off-putting public image. And I’m all for considering (or re-considering) his films in light of current trends of female representation. I just honestly thought this story did nothing to further that, because the question was so loaded, whether intentionally or not.

  76. Triple Option says:

    I saw Tarantino do a Q & A with the audience after one of his flicks. I thought he fluctuated between dismissive and pedantic. Like, I get it, you kinda gotta go into those things with your shoulders back and be ready to defend yourself and your work from every angle but he’s not the only person I’ve seen do a Q & A following their film and even the most smug and glib of auteurs seemed to take the time listen and weigh the question even if disagreeing with it. Not 100% of the time but whereas others sidestepped questions or conveniently separated their work from falling in under some general umbrella of suspicion or accusation, QT adjudicated questions outright like a Belichick presser after a loss.

    I haven’t seen the film, nor watched the clip of the question in question, but the situation itself still doesn’t seem to come anywhere close to as galling as the sheer waste of talent and possibilities as X-Men; Days of Future Past. I don’t know how much stock I take in the Bechdel Movie Test but here’s a film that you know going in has 3 female Academy Award winning actresses with a 4th nominee on deck and that film still doesn’t manage to clear the bar. I mean, no one needs some extraneous filler crud like that ridiculous tête-à-tête diner scene in Heat with Pacino and De Niro, but I’m still dumbfounded that Storm & Raven couldn’t have found one thing to say to one another?? Either by accident or the mere law of averages this film should’ve slipped by but the male writers weren’t aware of opportunity lost and obviously no one in development brought it up, either.

    I bring this up not to suggest that there should be some sort of universal standard of minimums, but to say Tarantino is hardly alone.

  77. leahnz says:

    so in recent years, for one example, using race rather than sex:
    after ‘detroit’ was released k-big faced fairly harsh criticism and was asked point-blank in several venues and interviews about whether it would have been preferable to have black writers/directors tell this important story with an eye to more authentic perspective and sensitivity.
    is this not a very ‘loaded’ question? did she pack a sad like a big baby, or did she engage a degree of introspection as an artist and say that in hindsight she probably wasn’t the best person to tell the story, live and learn. (hint: it was the latter)
    i don’t remember a mass outcry of aggrieved white boys flooding social media re accusation of a ‘loaded’ question. since when are male directors exempt from answering tough questions about their choices re: gender/sex as portrayed in their movies? if you’re an artist and can’t take the faintest whiff of criticism, gtfo. this new strain of men and their fragile ego persecution complex is laughable. maybe the male ego needs to go on a long vacay off a short pier


    “However, I don’t see how I’m biased against this journalist who I never disparaged or bashed, but I can see how she the journalist was biased against QT (not nefariously biased, but she definitely thought QT hates his female characters), because she said so on Twitter.”

    que? where has farah nayeri said anything about tarantino on twitter? i don’t believe this is accurate, you might need a re-think of your entire hypothesis.

    “But he responded the same way I’d expect any filmmaker, male or female, respond to that question.”

    what, with an inane non-sequitur and then a little chin-up toddler having a tanty look? you’d expect sofia coppola to do this in response to that question? you’d expect ryan coogler to do this? james cameron? andrea arnold? micheal mann? taika? olivia wilde? lynn ramsey? i don’t believe this for a single second, palmtree, sorry man

  78. palmtree says:

    Okay, you’re right, leah. I saw a quote posted on the MCN front page, which many people treated like she was the one who asked the question, so I went along with it. Sorry for the mistake.

    Having said that, it doesn’t change my hypothesis, because my hypothesis doesn’t depend on this journalist being biased or unbiased. It was based on breaking down the syntax of the question itself, an issue you still haven’t acknowledged or addressed.

    Hey, I’m all for people asking difficult questions and people answering difficult questions. But I expect the question to at least be open to discussion. A question about why Bigelow should direct Detroit allows her to explain why she is right for that job. It doesn’t ask her to apologize for taking on that job, it opens up the conversation to explain a topic many people are probably curious about.

    However, a question about why Robbie gets a lot of lines in other movies and then is silenced in this one does not open any conversation. The only possible reply is an apology, which no filmmaker (I don’t care if it’s coogler, cameron, arnold, mann, taika, wilde, ramsey) would possibly give. Rather than apologize, he expressed that he didn’t like the assumption of the question. I don’t think his answer was a non-sequitur, while also yes, it was a shitty answer, no doubt. I can think both things at the same time.

    “i don’t believe this for a single second, palmtree, sorry man”

    Then that’s the difference between us. I have no problem believing you. You however wish to ascribe thoughts and feelings to me which I do not have.

  79. YancySkancy says:

    Asking a white director if she was the best choice to tell a black-centric story is a legitimate, rather obvious question that Bigelow probably expected to face. Asking Tarantino why he cast a talented star in a supporting role is inane (far more inane that QT’s response) — unless of course you’re really just looking to say “gotcha” when he takes umbrage at what you’re implying. Unlike Bigelow, he clearly felt he didn’t owe anyone a mea culpa. I wouldn’t define the Bigelow example as a loaded question though. A loaded question implies a logical fallacy, such as “Why would you give a talented actress a limited role?” The implication is that it’s because he has something against women or isn’t as interested in their stories. He was insulted by the implication. He definitely could’ve handled it better, but that’s almost moot. I’m more interested in the way the press has characterized the incident, and how some people seem to admit it was a loaded question but think only Tarantino’s response was rude. Of course having your ego hurt doesn’t “exempt” you from hard questions, but neither are you required to answer a question you don’t want to dignify with a thoughtful reply.

    I do think palmtree was confusing Carmen Maria Machado, whose tweets on the controversy have been on the MCN homepage, with the reporter Farah Nayeri. I haven’t seen any response from Nayeri one way or another.

    I sure hope if I ever have a kid, his or her “tantrums” are as low-key as Tarantino’s. As the video you posted shows, he doesn’t raise his voice, change his expression from a deadpan, or even get a little red in the face. They should use that shot in film schools, juxtaposing it with various unrelated shots to demonstrate the Kuleshov effect.

    Shot of food: “Quentin’s hungry.”
    Shot of starving children: “Quentin’s sad.”
    Shot of armed mugger: “Quentin’s afraid.”
    Shot of woman’s foot: “Quentin’s turned on.”


  80. YancySkancy says:

    Obviously the above was composed before I saw palmtree’s latest.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon