Has anyone seen Laura Dern in “Smooth Talk”? She was 15 at the time. This film looks like a terrific bookend for it.

Whether he would have fired her or not seems like a red herring to me. Of course they wouldn’t have fired her. What they could have done was labelled her “difficult” and made it very difficult to get star vehicles ever again. But, Weinstein wouldn’t do....oh wait.

Hi there, just a few points:
1. From what I can gather Newt was referring to active directors in regards to bullies.
2. Tarantino not only pressured her to do this scene (which was completely unnecessary due to the angle, remember Zoe Bell? You wouldn’t know the difference), but lied (straight road?) and withheld…

Does it matter that much? She expressed her discomfort and the fact that there was someone more qualified to do it would say that it is actually the fault of her boss. In this case, the director.

The Crow did it.

This is going to be a controversial take, but...

Agreed. Abuse, in any and all shapes and forms, needs to be rooted out.

And in the old days only men played in the theatre. Studios have changed, film itself have changed. It doesn’t mean it’s bad.

If he had fired her for insubordination, he’d have to replace her for the whole movie. You can’t use footage with the main actress (or any actor) that is no longer assosciated with the movie, because you fired her. That would have required practically re-shooting the whole movie. If you honestly believe that Tarantino…

Dangerous Liaisons was excellent - but her part was but a blip. But ‘Prime’ with Meryl Streep was pretty good.

So is the only option let people get away with bad behaviour, because oh no, the geniuses might get discouraged? Nonsense. All of those men you mentioned were persistent as hell. Let alone all the abused women and minorities who persisted. Talent does not go hand in hand with being an asshole. How about George…

Hitchcock bullied his actors. Kubrick bullied his actors. Kurosawa bullied his actors. Cameron bullied his actors. Woody Allen, by contrast, has never bullied his actors, but we don’t like his work now for other reasons.

Er... what?

That sounds like a stretch. Even assuming the absolute worst about Tarantino, if he wanted to arrange a stunt to flat out kill someone... that would be possible. You wouldn’t bet on something unpredictable like a car losing control and hitting a tree.

You’re implying that Tarantino himself should have blown the lid off this whole thing. What about the thousands of other people in the business that knew about this stuff since the beginning of Hollywood? But you’re singling out Tarantino. Also, this sort of thing is the responsibility of the adult victims to report.…

Nope. Tarantino is not that bad.

I really like her movie “Prime” with Meryl Streep. It’s a better than average romantic comedy.

Is it OK to say that while Thurman’s story is powerful, Dowd’s write-up of it leaves something to be desired? It vacillates between florid and overwrought in places (“We’re talking about Hollywood, where even an avenging angel has a hard time getting respect, much less bloody satisfaction.”) to vague to the point of…

The most upsetting part of the interview for me is not what Weinstein or Tarantino did to Thurman, as disgusting as their respective behaviour was, but what Thurman says about the unnamed 36-year-old male actor who attacked her when she was still a 16-year-old model/aspiring actor.

No doubt, this is more a reflection of Maureen Dowd’s poor writing, but I found the piece very confusing, with details that were jarring and unnecessary (her father thinks she’s a reincarnated buddhist goddess?), and lack of other details that would have been helpful. Like, Weinstein is a fucking monster, we know…