Claims of ‘Hateful Eight’ Misogyny ‘Fishing for Stupidity,’ Harvey Weinstein Says

The Hateful Eight
Courtesy of The Weinstein Co.

Quentin Tarantino and Jennifer Jason Leigh also respond to the debate.

Ever since “The Hateful Eight” first unspooled at industry guild screenings last month, whispers of misogyny set the film up for a possible backlash. Throughout Quentin Tarantino’s Western, the dastardly Daisy Domergue (played by Jennifer Jason Leigh) finds herself on the receiving end of a lot of violence. And all of it — whether a gun-butt crack over the skull or a back elbow to the nose or a dousing of hot stew to the face — gets an audible reaction.

According to Tarantino, that’s by design. “When John Ruth [played by Kurt Russell] cracks her over the head that very first time, you feel this ripple going through the audience — because it almost does seem like one of the last taboos left,” the two-time Oscar winner told Variety in a recent interview. “You’re supposed to say, ‘Oh my God. John Ruth is a brutal bastard!’ That is what you’re supposed to say. I want your allegiances, to one degree or the other, to shift slightly as the movie goes on, and frankly, depending on where you’re coming from.”

With the film heading out into release this weekend, reviews are of course taking note of this element. But reaction seems intriguingly split, and not necessarily along expected gender lines.

“The more [Domergue] gets hit, the more she grins and cackles, as if she were drawing banshee strength from the abuse — a notion that may seem like misogyny but is in fact its triumphant opposite,” Time critic Stephanie Zacharek wrote earlier this week in her review.

Retorted The New York Times’ A.O. Scott two days later, “At a certain point, the n-word gives way to the b-word as the dominant hateful epithet, and ‘The Hateful Eight’ mutates from an exploration of racial animus into an orgy of elaborately justified misogyny.”

Justified? Thoughtful? Superficial? Deep? Obviously — perhaps refreshingly — there is no definitive answer.

What hasn’t been too thoroughly considered, however, is that the relationship between Ruth and Domergue is played with a complex touch. Whether he’s carefully assisting her down from a coach or wiping food from her face with a fatherly touch, it’s all part of a film that keeps you on your toes and guessing. In one scene that has Domergue plucking a guitar while singing an old Australian folk tune, Ruth shifts on a dime from peacefully listening to splintering the guitar against a post with rage (admittedly riled by a casually antagonistic line in the song).

Leigh first addressed all of this herself in an interview with Variety earlier this month. In claiming she never once worried that the treatment of her character would be perceived as misogynistic, she said, “She’s a leader. And she’s tough. And she’s hateful and a survivor and scrappy. I thought it was funny, but I didn’t think it was misogynistic for a second. [Tarantino] doesn’t have an ounce of misogyny in him. It’s not in his writing. It’s not in his being.”

Indeed, ask “The Hateful Eight” backer Harvey Weinstein about such a perception and he’s quick to point out Tarantino’s track record.

“This guy is the most pro-woman ever,” Weinstein said in an interview. “[Look at] Uma Thurman [in “Kill Bill”], Pam Grier [in “Jackie Brown”], Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger [in “Inglourious Basterds”]. If there are cries of misogyny, we will sit down and make them watch ‘Jackie Brown,’ and at the end of the ‘Jackie Brown’ seminar, they will have to say, ‘Hey, we’re just fishing for stupidity.'”

Adds Leigh, “Quentin writes the best parts for women out there. He really does. He writes very brave, bold, insane, fabulous women. Nobody writes women like he does.”

Ultimately — and with space of course allowed for interpretation — Zacharek’s reading of the film is closest at least to what Tarantino says he intended.

“Violence is hanging over every one of those characters like a cloak of night,” he said. “So I’m not going to go, ‘OK, that’s the case for seven of the characters, but because one is a woman, I have to treat her differently.’ I’m not going to do that.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 113

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Matt says:

    A film in which a man gets mouth raped and another gets his dick shot off is still accused of being misogynistic because a woman gets beaten about. Are these people trolling us?

  2. Jonnyarlathotep says:

    Lol the cries of mysogny sound so much like the howl of misandry…..kind of hilarious….equal rights but with preferential treatment. “We wanna be equal….but when the ship sinks we still want on the lifeboat first”
    It’s rather amusing.
    Just wait till women get drafted….oooooo boy equal rights!!!!
    The same voice crying this nonsense is the same one that calls men condisending patriarchical heathen when opening a door for them and mysogynist pigs when it’s not.
    Boohoo chicky-poo…..can’t have it both ways

    • Sal U. Lloyd says:

      Johnnyamonhotep, you’re right in that they can’t have it both ways. But the rest of your post is ridiculous.

  3. Wyatt says:

    It’s amazing how elaborate this article is in its attempt to hide just how much they agree with the notion of beating the crap out of a woman for the sole crime of being the asshole’s sister. And for that, she gets hanged? Because her brother shot his balls off? Because she refused to surrender to the men?

    All of you so angry at women because you’re ugly af. DISGUSTING

    • Mischa says:

      She did more than just be the sister of an “asshole” (murderer) she’s a murderer and a gang leader. She’s no wispy waif of a damsel. Your insistence that she should be spared from physical violence because she’s a female is ironically sexist in and of itself.

    • Sal U. Lloyd says:

      Hollywood is obviously struggling with its own set of contradictions.

    • Dominic White says:

      Wether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. If you want someone to see your point of view then it’s not the best idea to insult them. Calling them ugly af or DISGUSTING probably isn’t the best way to approach someone. In fact it will distance them even more from seeing your side of things.

  4. Bliz says:

    Im shocked that most of the comments criticizing the film as misogynistic are shallow feminazi women…what a surprise

  5. Stinkyweezleteet says:

    Never made it through the whole movie. I walked out halfway through. Waste of time and money.

  6. Caroline says:

    I wish I had not seen this film. The hanging of Daisy was done almost as a rape, horrendously misogynistic from beginning to end.

    • Bliz says:

      Also daisy was a monster being killed by monsters…it was also about these two men at the end, who have suddenly developed a comadery of survival against daisy and her crew who just tried to kill them both yet were antagonistically black vs white bastards, united in their last act of revenge and they sadistically savoir it just as the public savoired these spectacles in public hanging rituals. They also both respected to john ruth and his determinationto hang daisy in public rather than just killing her to collect the bounty. Didnt matter if it was a woman or man: it was the criminal killer that tried killing everyone and was being brought to hanging justice by the hangman everyone respected. Then theres the motivation of making the audiences sensibilities be provoked and exploited by taboo spectacle that wasnt taboo spectacle for uts times. Theres so many angles to this ending.

    • Adam says:

      I’m sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. The treatment Daisy received in the film was by far the most unrealistic aspect of the movie.
      At the time in our history that the film is set in, women were considered little more than a man’s property. (Either her father’s or her husband’s)
      It was totally legal fir a man to beat his wife, or to rape her. Many women were raped, beaten and murdered during the course of the Civil War.
      Daisy is never sexually assaulted in the film, she isn’t even sexually harassed.
      The same cannot be said for the male cast.
      A man is stripped naked and forced to walk in the snow for hours before he is raped and murdered.
      Another man is castrated and emasculated by a gunshot.
      As for the violence that she is subjected to, it is always in reaction to something that she says or does. She never cries or begs for mercy. She takes the brutality ‘like a man’, and is only waiting for a chance to dish out some brutality of her own.
      The film makes it completely clear that Daisy is a hardened criminal. She would have been executed if they had ever reached town.
      She watches an innocent man drink poison (O.B.) and does nothing to stop it simply because it may help her escape.
      Throughout the course of the film 15 people are killed on her behalf. Seven of those people are completely innocent, and four of those seven are women.
      The two men that hang her are bleeding to death because of her. She had freed herself just moments before, and intended to kill them both.

      There is a troupe that you will find in many old westerns:
      “Hanging’s too good for em!”
      If Daisy had been Dale or Don, I bet that is what you would have been saying as you walked out of the theater.

      The truth is, the real misogyny isn’t on the screen, but in the audiences mind. It’s ok for the men to be tortured, raped and murdered; but a woman must be treated gently and with compassion, even if she is a cold blooded killer.

      If what happened to Daisy in the film disturbed you, don’t stop to think what would have really happened to her if this had actually happened in the American West of the 1870’s.

  7. Sara says:

    To be honest, after seeing the movie, (which was, indeed, kind of on the boring side and certainly forty minutes too long) I was holding out hope that the overall commentary was supposed to draw attention to the concepts of misogyny / violence against women / etc. The things that drew discomfort for me mainly being –

    – Daisy is constantly on the receiving end of physical and emotional violence which she has no means of defending herself against. This is not the case for any other character. Even the innocent characters who were murdered were at least not literally chained to their captors while being beaten.
    – The long wait in the movie for the reveal of what Daisy did to earn the 10k bounty felt cheap when we finally learn that it was barely about her.
    – Somehow, despite this last fact, Daisy is considered to be so deplorable that she deserves a more gruesome death than any of the other characters.

    Truthfully, if the overall commentary of the movie was somehow supposed to be drawing attention to this, even though it would have been a bit poorly done, I still could have been forgiving of it. But now that I see Tarantino saying practically verbatim that violence against women being “the last taboo” is closer to the reason for it, I’m more than a little disappointed, although maybe not surprised.

    I’m not trying to say that Quentin Tarantino is a misogynist, but the manner in which female characters are treated in his films – when, indeed, there are women in his films – is usually not great. If you’re feeling like throwing Kill Bill at me, or any of his other films, I’d recommend a rewatch of any of them, keeping an on things like – what sort of things happen to the female characters to motivate them, and how much of their motivations are influenced by men, or the things men have done to them.

    • Bliz says:

      Daisy is only one restrained since she is the only criminal being brought to be hanged. The reality is that her gang and brother are there and have every advantage and they kill everyone. Thats whole tension and twist of power relations. She was the seemingly victim first half (but not really since she was a criminal being hanged), then second half she is the center of tension and power as the vicious gang boss orchestrating death. Theres no sympathy for the devil (s) here folks.

    • David says:

      “I’m offended by Quentin Tarantino.”
      “No, I’m offended by Quentin Tarantino.”

    • Bob says:

      “– Somehow, despite this last fact, Daisy is considered to be so deplorable that she deserves a more gruesome death than any of the other characters.”

      Mexican Bob disagrees.

      • Bliz82 says:

        As does OB and ruth vomiting up buckets of blood and slowly dying, and civil war generals son sucking black johnsons stripped naked crawling in the freezing cold

  8. Noel says:

    I have to disclose immediately that this entire movie was extremely superficial- just a thin plot with no real substance underlying anything. And, yes, it is obviously misogynistic. The producer that wants to say ‘oh, but Tarantino wrote other movies that weren’t misogynistic’ isn’t making an argument, he’s just asking people not to think about the specific content of this movie, which after viewing is flawed for one major reason- we know nothing about the female character except what’s on the surface. Every one else has a story, and they are given backgrounds both problematic and endearing, and they also commit both heinous acts and courageous ones so that the audience can be comfortable condemning them and supporting them- our collective guilt over any violence against them is eased because we know that they are all ultimately scumbags. But for the female character- nothing. We don’t know what she did, we’re not provided any moments where she does something that makes her fair game for violence (except an occasional remark that makes her sound mean) and she’s in a subordinated position the entire movie. In effect, she’s just there to be beat up and nothing else. That’s why the movie is misogynistic, even if Tarantino put more thought in his female characters in the past, he didn’t do so this time and we have an extremely boring character in Jennifer Jason Leigh to show for it.

    • Bliz says:

      I have to disclose immediately that you are an ignoramus douche bag that knows nothing about film. Your critique is thin with no substance.

  9. Susan says:

    This movie is horrible regardless of whether you think it is misogynistic. I wish I could get a refund.

  10. Vanessa S. says:

    Having concerns about misogyny is only “fishing for stupidity” to those who shrug off the concept that misogyny still exists in any significant way, just as people who haven’t themselves experienced racism tend to characterize any discussion of racism in pop culture as obsession with race. I’m conflicted about whether Tarantino’s use of violence against women who are themselves extremely violent; it’s hard for me to watch, but in practical terms there’s no room for chivalry when a woman is actively trying to kill you. On the other hand, there can be a fuzzy line between exploitation and empowerment when the subject is this loaded. Similarly, is Tarantino’s adoration of “nigger” edgy, or racist? I don’t know the answer; I’ve read convincing as well as flawed arguments on both sides. What I do know is that there was no ripple of discomfort through the audience when I saw the movie; rather, there were belly laughs every time Daisy took a hit or Marquis was called “nigger.” That made me far more uncomfortable than the movie did.

    • you cannot blame the filmmaker for the intelligence (or lack thereof) of his audience. Tarantino has realized some of hollywoods finest female characters in the last 25 years, and those that don’t see that are not worth bothering with.

      The fact that in his spare time he frequents strip clubs DOES leave me with somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth, but it’s a part of an American culture I am not sure I will ever understand – let alone truly appreciate as having a positive or negative role in the lives of women… I’m not sure as a man I even have a say in that. It does not however colour my respect for him as a filmmaker.

  11. Graham says:

    I hate sexist nonsense. Why is violence against a women worse than violence against men? That attitude it more misandry than misogyny. But, to these idiots EVERYTHING is misogyny.

    • Sal U. Lloyd says:

      Mmmaybe it’s because it’s us MEN who commit the forcible rape . . .

      • Bliz says:

        Right. Theres no rape in this film mmmmmsoooo…moron

      • Matt S. says:

        Ummm, women can rape men too. Yes, it’s more often committed by man, but it still happens. And I’m sorry, but women can’t have it both ways. You want equality, that’s great and fine! But then you can’t complain about a woman getting hit like a man in a movie with everyone else being hit like a man. Equality doesn’t work that way.

  12. Dave C says:

    So, is In Contention still about movie awards speculation, or has it been infected with the gender war/race war bug that plagues the Western online world?

  13. Andy Tabar says:

    Tarantino says that he isn’t going to treat women differently, which I would believe if he actually treated all the characters the same. Certainly the threat of violence hangs over all of their heads but of all the main characters she is the only one that receives the particular type of violence (physical assault instead of gun shots or the occasional stabbing) and her assaults are the only ones that seem to be played for comedic effect (at least judged by the laughter of the audience I saw it with).

  14. Kyle says:

    Hahaha I actually thought this was a really awesome female role! Tarantino has had many positive female characters before, like Beatrix Kiddo, but he also has a way of writing a really evil, yet somehow likable, villain (i.e. Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds). This is the first time he has done this for a female character (as far as I can think of at the moment) and I honestly loved it. The whole time watching, I was thinking, “She’s a horrible person and deserves to die, but I don’t want it to happen because she’s so much fun to watch!” Now that’s a great character! Anyone who actually considers this as misogynist needs to gently remove their head from their own butt and grow up.

  15. In our PC world only “redskins “is allowed. Misogyny is all around us with every rape and domestic abuse but we want our cinematic doppelganger to be above it all. Women against violence must show the voilence they are against. In this case, Quinton Tarantino.

  16. Oliver says:

    By watching this movie, I’ll get to piss off both Mike Huckabee supporters* and self-righteous liberal men who sit down to pee — sign me up!

    *PS: He won’t ever be President, ha ha ha ha.

  17. SPIKE says:

    tarantino, you’re just a sick, bloodspilling, exploitatioinist f–k

  18. Elana Leanna says:

    What a load of crap. The female role is awesome. She’s not treated like a woman, but like a criminal. It’s completely the least misogynist portrayal I’ve seen in any film all year.

  19. docweasel says:

    Exactly what I liked about the movie is that the woman doesn’t get away with it. You give that script to any modern screenwriter and they change it to where the woman gets away with it and the 2 surviving men are humiliated. Period. You name a recent (in the last 10-20 years) film where this isn’t so, unless the person catching the female criminal is also female (as in The Black Widow). Films are almost universally like Bound or Gone Girl, where the female villain gets off scot-free and her male antagonists are humiliated and defeated.

    Members of the audience actually cheered when Channing Tatum got his, at least partly because I think they suspected it wasn’t going to be another case of the female protagonist getting away with despicable behaviour and becoming the hero of the movie. The same for when JJL’s character got hers. In any other screenwriter’s hands, Sam Jackson and Goggin’s characters are throw-away males who are there to be bested by the scrappy girl character. Instead they hung her. Good for them.

  20. Daniella Isaacs says:

    What Weinstein needs to realize is what any sophomore film studies minor with a C+ average knows: Saying a movie is misogynist and saying it’s director is misogynist are two very different things.

  21. Terry Barlow says:

    I am in complete agreement with Jaden Hollis’ assessment of QT and can’t really add to anything s/he has said. I knew QT was a sick puppy when I saw Resevoir Dogs (on tv). Like JH said, Pulp Fiction was a ‘one off’ and QT should go back to working in a video store. I was tempted to see Hateful Eight because I happen to like Kurt Russell but had some misgivings. Sorry Kurt, I’ll have to pass on this one. I saw Django on t.v. as I wouldn’t pay to see it at a movie and my view of same was confirmed. How he can get otherwise good actors to work with him is beyond me.

  22. Tam Dl says:

    Tarantino is consistently one of the most interesting film makers, but how serious he is, versus entertaining, is another mater. Most of his works do not hold together. They have brilliant scenes, but I wouldn’t try to learn too many life lessons. So he pushes our buttons, no point in reacting as though something serious is going on. He uses stereotypes, scenes of torture, S&M, Nazi’s, whatever, just to get an audience response.

  23. ChauvSwine says:

    Misogyny don’t real. I think you’re thinking of that equality you asked for.

  24. MAGOOS says:

    If you want misogyny, listen to Trump and other Republicans.

    • Sal U. Lloyd says:

      Funny that Weinstein, a promoter of LGBT and now Q, shrugs off accusations of misogyny from an established film critic.

  25. “fishing for stupidity” ? He’s admitting that there IS, indeed, stupidity to be found there … a burning lake of stupidity AND misogyny … why are these people in charge? I mean … the inability with language is shocking.

    • Adam says:

      >the inability with language is shocking
      ironic, because you can’t say ‘inability with’. the word ‘inability’ is followed by an infinitive.

      secondly, he’s not being misogynistic y subjecting a female character to violence. he’s being gender egalitarian, as he’s treating her as he would the male characters. you are stupid.

  26. Free says:

    I’ve noticed that the comments blindly defending Tarantino haven’t seen the movie yet, and those who take issue with it, have. I’m a big Tarantino fan, myself, and I generally liked the movie. But the way Daisy is handled (esp. at the end) justifies the claims of misogyny.

    • OTWway says:

      Uhm…you *do* realize why she was treated that way at the end, correct? Not only was it a thematically fitting end as punishment for her racial antagonizing (symbolically representing a supposed end of a chapter of racial hatred in American history…even if irl it just turned over a new leaf and evolved into something else), but also the natural conclusion and fate of a character who strung about handfuls of men to commit violence for her benefit, and even attempting to use her racial prejudice in a similar manner towards the very end (and as such, makes the way she died thematically ironic)?

      I swear, you sorts are pretty oblivious and hypocritical at best….or outright malicious at worst. “Oh noes, even tho this character is the direct manifestation of old-spirited Southern slave-loving racism, bigotry, and violence, I can easily elect to ignore all of that and whittle away to “she made a mistake” and look at her treatment at behest of the film through the lense of her gender instead of the merits of her personality!!”.

      That’s a pretty disturbing thought tbqh.

      • Sara says:

        That’s great. That’s fine. Sure.

        Why only Daisy, though? What makes her more racist than other characters? And why, when writing the movie, did the role have to be delegated to a female character? These are the kinds of questions that you’re intentionally ignoring to defend a movie that wasn’t really that good and certainly wasn’t deep enough to warrant it.

  27. IT 2 IT says:

    ———–PSYCHOPATH directed,
    ——————————-Hollywood franchise slum ‘latest’.

  28. other mike says:

    have not seen it yet but tarantino probably has one of the best track records when it comes to fully formed female characters. its the best thing about his movies. Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof is a bunch of women, 8 in total i think, Inglorious Basterds. etc. Django is the only one that the female character seemed underwritten.

    Still, as a dude, im not going to tell women what is and isnt misogynist for them.

    • ‘Still, as a dude, im not going to tell women what is and isnt misogynist for them.’

      FUCK YEAH. Thank you. It really is that simple.

    • Luthor says:

      oh but movies where women are beating up and killing men isn’t misandrist? What about the fact that every movie in general most of the violence is against men. Why is that OK, but violence against women is not? How is that “equality”. As for your last comment..women don’t have an issue telling men that misandry doesn’t exist so why should a “dude” have an issue with telling a woman misogyny doesn’t exist. Also..take note how spell check doesn’t recognize the word “misandry” or “misandrist”…

  29. Tor says:

    The ending of this movie was such blatant misogynist storytelling.I literally turned to my friend and said, “Aww, nothing brings men with differences together like bringing down a ‘b—-‘!” I’ve never thought Tarantino was misogynist until this movie.

    • OTWway says:

      Like I alluded to in another reply, you have to have some level of critical analyst to realize that it wasn’t nearly as much about her being a woman why they took pleasure in hanging her, but because she as a character (irrespective of gender) represented the absolute worst of the old-school Southern racism mentality that spurred the Civil War to be a thing in the first place.

      She was a relic of a (not so distant) past trying to worm their way on living in the new environment, w/o learning to adapt to it, and after all the animus she presented, the one character who was the target of her full hatred and the one character who actually evolved to grow outside of that poisonous racial thinking, are the two characters who survive (at least towards the end), bond, and kill her in an ironic symbolic fashion.

      Seems most people simply aren’t thinking nearly as deep enough as they should, but hey it’s a Tarantino film, I guess they figure he could never put those kind of messages in his movie in the first place, amirite?

      • graphy says:

        You are right, but even without thinking deep, there are reasons for Major Warren and Chris to want her dead. Obviously for Major Warren, Daisy has been openly hostile, racist, and oh yeah, tries to convince Chris to kill him while he’s laying right there. Then, while Chris ponders her offer, he remembers that she was just fine with sitting by and letting him drink the poisoned coffee. She is a hateful, selfish, murdering… fill-in-the-blank, who would have been happy with either or both men ending up dead. Also, remember that even though Warren and Chris are of questionable character at best, she is the criminal here. She already had a death sentence hanging over her. Her death had absolutely nothing to do with gender (and nothing any character said implied that it did). It was because she was the ‘bad guy’ and got what she had coming.
        Other comments that I’ve seen that acknowledge this last fact, but still want to crucify the movie as misogynistic say, “well, why did the evil criminal have to be a woman?” Simple answer that addresses true equality – why not?

    • Rot says:

      I haven’t seen the movie, but lets say your what. Most Misogyny exist because of the Misandry that exist in this culture/society/government. I doubt Tarantino is a TRUE misogynist(AFAIC he doesn’t do interviews complaining about women) but i know women like Patricia Arquette,Emma Watson and Lena Dunham to name a few are TRUE Misandrist. This women attack men at every turn.

  30. Tykeysha says:

    Violent, mysterious and hilarious. This movie was such a joy I had to watch it twice.

  31. Sanman$ says:

    The movie sucks! I want my money back!!!

  32. Sanman$ says:

    The movie is all about white guys killing black people and calling them the N – word. I don’t find this entertaining. It’s just garbage !

  33. Sanman$ says:

    The Hateful 8 is the worst movie I have seen since his last movie. He should do the world a favor and go back to working in a video store.

  34. vermontave says:

    Hateful 8 is a snore. Anybody who thinks this is a great film should see a doctor — there’s something wrong with them. Weinstein will take a bath on this one — doubt it will gross 20 million on its 44 million budget.

  35. jadenhollis says:

    Clearly Harvey W. forgets Alabama being pummeled by Gandolfini in True Romance. Kill Bill also took perverse pleasure in messing up Uma Thurman(and Beatrix Kiddo, by the way, was not a great character at all– she was a non character, a blank nothing of a character, holding a sword and acting out Tarantino’s daddy revenge stuff.) But all this is besides the point. Tarantino has nothing to say. Tarantino is the new Wacko Jacko. A talented guy who lost his way and his mind and now one can really, in truth, only describe his movies as ghoulish and toxic. What is strange is that there aren’t more people stepping up to say– not only is this guy very ill, very disturbed, but he also has no idea how to write a script, he has no idea how to write metaphors, he has no idea how to tell a story, and he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    If you go back to True Romance, what seemed wonderful and fresh then has now soured. Because he is still saying n word n word n word, only now he’s over 50 and tries to attribute it all to political importance. Like he is shining an intelligent light on racism, going where no one one else will go. Actually, no he’s not. He’s not a clear enough person to address the subject. He’s too full of anger and hatred to address the subject. And there is the added problem of him still trying to be black, still thinking he is so soulful that he passes. The Gary Oldman character in True Romance, Drexl Spivey, is Tarantino. A really confused white dude who thinks he’s black. But Tarantino would never write that character now. Because it would be too exposing.

    Tarantino is not the only old white guy who is obsessed with being black. Keith Richards comes to mind. Keith Richards’ book should not have been called Life. It should have been called, My Obsession With Black People. Michael Mann is a director who constantly is showing off how down he is with the brothers. He loves to drop Charlie Bird Parker’s name. And I think Ali existed solely for Mann to show everyone how down he is. So, it’s not like QT’s confusion is unique. And in the case of Keith Richards, his obsession with black culture actually helped a lot of blues players make money in later life and it helped Keith create maybe the greatest rock n’ roll of all time. So, good, in a way. Although after reading Keith’s book, and watching footage of him hanging out with only Jamaicans in Jamaica, I would caution Richards that obsessing over African Americans is a sort of racism in itself. That is it say, look deeper than skin color, even if you are in adoration. But back to QT. Tarantino’s confusion is not fostering good work. He hasn’t touched Pulp Fiction levels since Pulp Fiction. Django and Basterds were confused revenge cartoons where Tarantino used his hatred of his father and projected it onto slave owners and Hitler. As a Jew, I can say, no thanks. You wanna work out your daddy stuff, do it with your daddy. Don’t make dumb cartoons about Hitler. And if you do make dumb cartoons about killing Hitler, know that Jews did not get no catharsis out of watching you kill Hitler. It just felt like what it was. A simpleton teenager who thinks that violence is the solution to everything. And his way way way out messianic complex(of course it was cinema that killed Hitler, and we all know who the savior of film is.)

    QT knows nothing about reincarnation. QT knows nothing of Newton’s Law that says energy can’t be increased or decreased, only transformed. QT knows nothing of the way of Martin Luther King. QT knows nothing about what Marvin Gaye was saying when he sang– “War is not the answer, for only Love can conquer hate.” Guns are not the answer(like the gun Marvin’s father killed him with.) No, LOVE. QT knows nothing about cartoonish gun violence on screen actually being a factor in the numbing of our society and a real influence on the deranged shooters who shoot up little kids. QT knows nothing of any of this. He just knows that violence is cool and fun and it’s his thing. And if you don’t get it, you’re uptight and not hip and you’re stupid. But I honestly can’t think of anything less hip, in 2015, then having people shooting each other up in a movie. It’s so lame. So not cool.

    Sam Jackson has become a cartoonish and buffoonish actor and the Tarantino/Jackson partnership is dangerously close to Mammy Al Jolson Blackface territory. Jackson, using the same ridiculous voice as he does in commercial after commercial, is artificial, broad, and every line he utters is designed to impress, just as QT’s lines are designed to impress. But who is impressed now besides the two of them? No one I know. He’s stepping and fetching and doesn’t even know it.

    It’s sad that no one says to Tarantino, when they read The Hateful 8– hey, the dawdling interminable right after cocaine high fuzzy slow paced thing is wonderful. You have the clout and talent to have five minutes where people just get stew and have to negotiate their handcuffs. Great. But by the time you get to the end, even though you try to bring in Lincoln and racial history(and the history lessons feel as dumb and stuck on here as they did in Django and Basterds)– the thing is, you ain’t sayin’ nothin’. These characters don’t work but on one cartoonish level. Your scripts are flat and don’t work on a symbolic level. And there is no point to the movie, unless we buy the stuck on America history stuff, which feels like a piece of bubble gum stuck onto a pile of dog shit. And your understanding of symbolism, which is to announce stuff like– The Bar is Philadelphia!– that understanding of symbolism and metaphor is on a fifth grade level. That’s the truth. And your understanding of screenwriting is amateur too. No one noticed it because you had M Night tricks. Your gimmick was to switch up time, go from ends of stories to beginnings of stories. And it worked. For a little while. But like with M Night, the gimmick wears thin after four or five times. And it becomes exposed as a gimmick. And like with M Night, it’s become clear that you can’t write a straight script, because you don’t know. Because you lack fundamentals. You are not no Tim Duncan. You lack simple fundamentals. So that by the time you flashback to Channing Tatum and crew entering Minnie’s, it’s like– who cares? Do you think you are blowing our minds with this basic Law and Order stuff? It’s fifth grade stuff. And maybe with enough cocaine and enough people telling you you’re a genius, you actually think that it’s complex chess, and it’s really all about America, and it’s working on a bunch of levels. But it’s not. It’s a flat, one dimensional, unimaginative, cartoon. Just like Django. Just like Basterds. And that you think it’s great, and that you are an egomaniac who thinks stepping into the proceedings to do a corny voiceover about Domergue’s Secret is cool and fun, only adds to the noxious air that almost suffocated the theater I was in.

    Pulp Fiction, it becomes clearer and clearer, was a fluke masterpiece by a one hit wonder. One can still feel some movie magic in QT’s films. There’s still that special something for a send or two, here or there. A looseness, a recklessness, a wildness, a truth. But years of cocaine abuse and people telling him his shit don’t stink has made him into his own worst enemy. Because he believed it. But underneath the high, he knew better. So he got angrier. And instead of growing up, he became another Wacko Jacko. Another warning. Another horror story of arrested development. Another racially confused man child cutting himself off from reality.

    • Jordan says:

      Your insistence that Tarantino is trying to teach us a “history lesson” and that he is too self-serious, but that Carpenter’s films are profound because they don’t take themselves too seriously taints your entire argument. You make some interesting points, but your main point about how ‘sick’ and ‘depraved’ Tarantino is seems built almost exclusively on the lie that his films lack humor and a knowing sense of irony, which they simply don’t. And the crap about Tarantino’s art perpetuating violence is nauseating.

    • Adam says:

      “To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life, but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures.”
      – Stanley Kubrick
      I guess he doesn’t agree with the Lancet, or you.

      You went on quite a bit there. I read through your play by play analysis of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. I can’t imagine why you felt the need, but since you did…

      – I felt sympathy for the Jews murdered under the farmer’s floor. If you didn’t, that says something about your character, not the film.

      – There are no heroes in Inglorious Basterds, the very title of the film explains that. I was stunned into silence when I left the theater when I first saw this film. I was struck by the fact that people were applauding terrorist murdering innocent women, shooting them in the back with machine guns. And yes, I just described the Americans as terrorists. Tarantino tells you from the very beginning of the film that there are no heroes in this movie. The point of the film is to challenge the notion that violence is heroic. Even Shoshana Dreyfus becomes a villain, that’s why she dies before she gets to see her plan completed, like Moses denied entry to the promised land. By the way, her sin is pride, just like Moses. I’m sure you remember the film she made for the Nazis (and their innocent guests) to watch as they burned to death.

      Actually, I’m not going to go over these films frame by frame with you. We disagree, and that is that. Besides, you are a bit to quick eith personal attacks for me to take you or your opinions seriously enough to have an in depth discussion with you.

      For the record, there was a huge backlash against a Clockwork Orange and Stanley Kubrick because of the violence in the film. Kubrick himself pulled the film from released in the UK. On its initial release in the United States it was rated X. Not everyone saw it as a critique of violence as you have suggested, some people suggested it glorifies violence. the Catholic Church rated it C for condemned, for instance.

      Do you want us to start censoring movies? who is it that will decide what is proper and what isn’t?

      If we start banning film, don’t be surprised if some of the films you like get banned.

      (Just so you know, I am a huge Kubrick fan, and I for one would like to see films like a Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket banned.)

    • Adam says:

      I didn’t compare Tarantino to anyone, I asked your opinion about their work.
      You think Shakespeare didn’t know the Moors were black? I bet he didn’t know they were Muslims either, right?
      You think I’m a ‘fan’ because I saw his movie on Xmas. I don’t celebrate Xmas, I go to the movies and eat Chinese food. My wife picked the movie.
      And speaking of the movie, everyone dies. No one gets away with anything. In fact, karma and redemption are central themes in every movie of his I have seen.
      As for Kubrick, Alex (Clockwork Orange) gets away with everything. he doesn’t have a karmic comeuppance. at the end of the film he goes right back to being a thug. In fact, Kubrick totally honest the last chapter of the book from his film. in the chapter Alex realizes the error of his ways, not so in the film.
      Finally, one of Tarantino’s father figures was a black man that his mother dated.he was raised in African American culture, he is just living out the values he was taught as a child.
      If you think Tarantino is trying to teach people that violence is ok, then you aren’t paying very close attention to his films.

      • Sal U. Lloyd says:

        The last chapter of CLOCKWORK was not published until a latter edition. Yes, the cold Kubrick was more interested in its visual potential. Burgess, however, had a Christian message about man’s choice between right and wrong and how one (or the State) cannot impose “goodness” on the individual.

      • Adam says:


        I was responding to someone else’s assertion that Quentin Tarantino was ‘racially confused’ and trying to ‘act black.’

        Personally I think the phrase acting black is racist because not all black people act the same way.

        Your nom de plum suggest that you are in fact a white supremacist, so I have nothing more to say to an ignorant fool like you.

        Nice friends you have there………

      • OTWway says:

        What is “African American” culture? I’m really curious what the culture of this monolithic, violent and angry congregation of people is in your words, b/c if Tarantino is such a representation of those “values”, then I guess I can’t think very highly of African Americans can I?

        Please learn to think for a minute and learn to clarify your points before posting them.

      • Jadenhollis says:

        Not only did you compare Shakespeare to Tarantino, you continue to do so in this text. Shakespeare writing about moors was very different than Tarantino. What exactly don’t you understand? Holy shit. Shakespeare was not Drexyl Spivey. I am not saying no one can write about race. Everyone should write about race, it is part of the human experience. Unfortuantely we have a sociopath named Quentin on our hands who is trying to teach us about race from hid deluded mountain top by spewing the word Nigga Nigga Nigga and aways going back to his childish blood for blood life lessons.

        Everyone dies does not equal karma, Adam. Wow. The two characters hanging the woman don’t look a bit haunted. In fact, they are in nirvana heaven when they string her up.

        I think you’re a fan because you are not very bright. And I think that is who Tarantino attracts now. I think Tarantino is the Trump of cinema. And he attracts angry Americans who are not very bright.

        As for Kubrick, I noticed you can’t say anything about the movies I mentioned, but ok, you want to talk more about Clockwork Orange. The movie that you misunderstood. Alex does not realize the error of his ways because Kubrick was criticizing the violence of society. Everyone who saw that movie knows it. Kurbick has always been anti-violence, and a true humanitarian.

        Tarantino was not taught values as a child. He never knew his dad. Which is why he makes movie after movie about killing father figures over and over and over. So whatever black father figure you are talking about, that is part of his arrested development. He has the black father figure killing the white father. Fine. Because he is stuck and angry and still trying to get revenge on his real father.

        If I think Tarantino is trying to teach people that violence is ok? Tarantino is a sociopath. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. he’s confused and very ill. I am paying very close attention. You aren’t.

    • Adam says:

      My racial worldview? Did you read anything I wrote? I have a black wife. My son is half black. I’m a liberal. I live in Philly. You should re-read what I wrote.

      You didn’t mention your family anywhere in your posts.
      My ex-wife is black, and we have children together as well. I don’t see what difference that makes. Do our wives and children give us a lifelong exemption from being racists?

      You mentioned Tarantino’s ‘racial confusion’ multiple times, to me that sounds racist.

      I can’t help but notice that you didn’t respond to any of my points regarding other directors and writers. I seem to have accidentally responded to myself instead of you. Perhaps you could scroll down and read it.

      Nice ad hominem attack by the way.

      Being a liberal and living in Philadelphia doesn’t exempt you from being a racist either. if you put forward racist ideas, don’t be surprised when people think you’re a racist.

      • Jadenhollis says:

        The bottom line in this bottom line-oriented town is that violence sells — and as long as it continues minting money for the studios, they’re going to continue churning out big-screen fantasies that encourage audiences to thrill in brutal displays of carnage. It’s no wonder that Tarantino, who has made his fortune in films that cater in hyper-masculine aggression and fantasy violence, would take the same perspective.

        Still, I wonder how he would explain this 2005 Lancet meta-analysis which, after surveying 217 scientific studies, found that “exposure to media violence leads to aggression, desensitization toward violence and lack of sympathy for victims of violence, particularly in children”? Or this one from the Journal of Adolescent Health, which concluded: “…exposure to electronic media violence increases the risk of children and adults behaving aggressively in the short-run and of children behaving aggressively in the long-run. It increases the risk significantly, and it increases it as much as many other factors that are considered public health threats”? Or this one from the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, which “showed that there were overall modest but significant effect sizes for exposure to media violence on aggressive behaviors, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, arousal levels, and helping behavior”?

        To deny that films and other forms of media can influence the human brain and human behavior is to reject basic human psychology and years of scientific studies demonstrating a positive correlation (see above). Cinema, as Hollywood is so wont to remind us, is a powerfully persuasive art form. In the most extreme circumstances, music [and] the manipulation of the screenplay have even been used to aid murderous regimes in their quest to commit genocide.

        Violent, macho fantasies of the sort so skillfully mounted by Quentin Tarantino and the like may not create murderers, but they can certainly contribute to a violent mindset and even serve as inspiration. In Joshua Oppenheimer’s powerful 2013 documentary “The Act of Killing,” we watch as the members of a Sumatran death squad — perpetrators of the U.S.-backed Indonesian genocide that took place between 1965 and 1966 — gleefully recreate the murders they committed in the spirit of their favorite Hollywood gangster films. In Washington Post film critic Ann Hornaday’s insightful commentary on the 2014 mass shootings perpetrated by Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista California, she describes the troubled young man’s final videotaped message as

        “remarkably well-made,” before going on to write: “…as important as it is to understand Rodger’s actions within the context of the mental illness he clearly suffered, it’s just as clear that his delusions were inflated, if not created, by the entertainment industry he grew up in.”

        Do we hold these films and filmmakers responsible for the crimes they inspired? Of course not. But there’s an argument to be made that an industry that consistently touts its left-wing virtues at star-studded luncheons should walk the walk by taking a good, hard look at the product they put out, and perhaps begin to acknowledge the power it has to inform the actions and attitudes of vulnerable people, from children to individuals suffering from mental illness (not to mention the less-severe but still-toxic actions and attitudes of the citizenry at large).

        Quentin Tarantino is not going to change his stance on film violence the way that Jim Carrey did around the release of “Kick-Ass 2,” a hyper-violent film he chose not to promote following the firearm murder of 20 children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Tarantino is toxically beholden to the idea that movies don’t contribute a lick to what happens in the real world. But he is wrong. And there is proof he is wrong. But his fame and money all comes from violence, and he knows it. He serves up blood, and the people come. Like a sad circus.

        Quentin Tarantino has formidable filmmaking skills, rooted in his deep knowledge of movies famously acquired during his years as a video store clerk. His ability to create images, to build fluid visual progressions and elaborate displays of action, is complemented by a savant’s dazzling knack for exhilaratingly wordy dialogue rich in non-narrative tangents and the kind of discursive pop culture riffs which suddenly make you sharply aware of something you’ve known all along but have never really thought about before … at his best, Tarantino seems to have the power to make manifest the clutter stowed in the back of the viewer’s mind, and he does it in a way which flatters the viewer for sharing his awareness.

        Blood and pain remain for Tarantino a kind of dark joke, and those who inflict it on others are his comedians. Even in Inglourious Basterds, in that opening scene in the farmhouse, Tarantino (and the viewer) falls in love with the sly, verbally adroit Nazi played by Christoph Waltz … and the Jews slaughtered beneath the floorboards don’t even register as people.

        I guess what I’m saying is that, as a filmmaker, Tarantino is a kind of high functioning sociopath. His work is rich in cleverness, in charm, it has the power to draw the viewer into its hyper-real cinematic universe, offering visual and verbal pleasures beyond the capability of most other directors … and yet his work is utterly devoid of the empathy which is essential to genuine art, drama or literature.

        While Pulp Fiction consisted of several interlocking narratives which circle each other and wind up in a satisfying sense of order, Inglourious Basterds has two parallel storylines – the one involving the Jewish refugee Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), hiding out as the manager of a repertory movie theatre in Paris, and Colonel Hans Landa, the SS officer who, for his own amusement, allowed her to escape from that opening massacre; and the one involving Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his commandos operating in Occupied France. The Dreyfus storyline offers an interesting and suspenseful dissertation on the intersection of film and history culminating in an overwrought revenge fantasy in which Hitler is assassinated at a movie premiere (film ultimately supplanting history in an attempt to provide an emotional satisfaction which reality denied to history’s victims). The Raine storyline on the other hand is a crude series of sadistic killings committed by a bunch of thugs.

        In Tarantino’s world, the audience is expected to cheer and laugh at the sadistic violence of the “good guys” while despising the “bad guys” … all that matters is that Raine’s men are Americans and Landa is German. Strange thing is, the bad guy is witty, articulate and cultured while the good guys are moronic thugs. Tarantino, so in love with his ability to write the kind of dialogue Landa speaks and obviously enjoying Waltz’s richly comedic performance, seems completely unaware of all the moral confusions running through the movie.

        Django: The essence of a good genre film is the balance maintained between fulfilling prior expectations and adding in new and unexpected elements; too much of the former and the work becomes formulaic, too much of the latter and the viewer may lose his bearings and become frustrated. Here Tarantino has the two hunters easily find their prey at the first place they stop. The Brittles are quickly killed, eliminating that initial dramatic motor; any suggestion of plausibility vanishes as plantation-owner Don Johnson accepts the idea that a black man shooting the white brothers on his property is legal and allows Django and Schultz to ride away with the bodies.

        After this the script starts to ramble episodically, a collection of sequences without a compelling through-line. For a while, Schultz trains Django in the trade and finally, about half way through the almost three-hour running time, they finally get a lead on Broomhilda’s location. She was bought by a brutal plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). So the pair cook up a plan to get in with Candie and try to buy her back …

        By this point any real sense of tension has dissipated thanks to Tarantino’s love of long discursive conversations. Waltz has to carry the bulk of the movie alone as Foxx is generally silent, offering little more than angry scowls, and for a while Dr Schultz is entertaining enough to make you ignore the way the movie deflates as it progresses. But the leisurely pace also gives you time to wonder about just what it is that Tarantino is trying to do.

        He picks the name Django, but his script has as little to do with Corbucci’s anti-hero as most of the European movies which appropriated the name for box office cachet in the ’60s and ’70s. And, despite apparently wanting to do an homage to the genre (he even includes an in-joke with Foxx meeting the original Django, Franco Nero, and telling him how to spell the name), he relocates the action to the South rather than the southwest and instead of the frontier, we get the slave states two years before the Civil War. So we can assume that Tarantino has something he wants to say about the institution of slavery and its place in American history … except it quickly becomes apparent that he’s just using slavery to power a revenge fantasy similar to the one at the heart of Inglourious Basterds, slave-owners becoming generic villains like that film’s Nazis. Richard Fleischer’s Mandingo (1975) and Jacopetti and Prosperi’s Addio Zio Tom (1971) have far more to say about the social and moral horrors of slavery than Tarantino’s action-comedy does.

        In fact, as the movie plays out, it’s hard not to suspect that the whole reason for setting it in this time and place is Tarantino’s affection for having black actors call each other “nigger” and “motherfucker”. And once we reach Candie’s plantation and discover that the old black retainer Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) actually runs the place, meting out punishments to disobedient slaves and manipulating Candie, who turns out to be an immature jerk who’s too stupid to realize what’s going on without Stephen pointing things out to him – it starts to seem that the institution of slavery not only rested on compliant blacks, but was actually run by them. In fact, the white establishment is generally treated as a joke, with the film’s funniest scene also proving to be one of its most troubling: Tarantino presents the Klan as a crowd of buffoons who can barely see through the holes in their hoods, rather than as the vicious terrorists they were in reality.

        In the remarkably sloppy final stretch of the movie – Tarantino scraps the mythic clarity of the authentic spaghetti western showdown in favour of an overblown bloodbath, quickly disposing of characters we would have expected to be important for a dramatic finale – everything narrows down to Stephen being the final villain, the one who warrants the most protracted death. The implications of this are disturbing, but what made me even more uncomfortable was that, in typical Tarantino fashion, you get the feeling that there’s supposed to be something funny about the way Django dispatches Stephen; at least, at the screening I attended on Christmas Day, by this point the audience was laughing at every death meted out by the righteous killer (a particularly big laugh when he shoots Candie’s sister Lara-Lee [Laura Cayouette], a moment played for slapstick effect).

        So not only does Tarantino structure his script to dilute the most basic level of pulp drama, he ends up with a completely muddy view of the history he’s chosen to exploit. Despite some impressive scenes and stretches of amusing dialogue, this long rambling mess may be the worst film he’s made yet. Although he has the freedom to make pretty much anything he wants, he’s forgotten how to tell a satisfying story; narrative coherence is replaced by his typical desire to shock with transgressive ideas which seem undigested and confused.

      • Jadenhollis says:

        By re-read what I wrote I meant– I did not put forth any racist ideas. At all.
        And oh yeah I definitely just responded to your other directors. You’re funny.

    • Sal U. Lloyd says:

      KILL BILL pts I and 2 are supposedly “feminist.”

    • Adam says:

      I just realized why you think John Carpenter’s The Thing is profound.
      At the end of the film you have two men, one white and one black. At the beginning of the film they are friends, but by the end of the film they view each other as enemies, each of them thinking the other is the monster. The film ends with the two of them staring at each other waiting for death.
      Tarantino’s Hateful Eight ends exactly the opposite way. Again you have two men, one white one black. The film begins with them as enemies, but through the course of fighting a common enemy they become friends. These two men wait for death together as friends.

      Both films are filled with over the top violence. You think one of them is profound, and the other is sick. Your opinions are based purely on your racial worldview.

      Thank you so much for bringing The Thing into the conversation, it would have been much more difficult for me to prove my point without it.

      • Jadenhollis says:

        My racial worldview? Did you read anything I wrote? I have a black wife. My son is half black. I’m a liberal. I live in Philly. You should re-read what I wrote.

        My point was, the reason John Carpenter’s best movies have a profundity is because they aren’t coming from a place of self-seriousness. Tarantino believes he is a teacher. He is now teaching us all history and teaching us how to overcome history. The problem is he is an ill sociopath.

        Ya know, Adam, the more you write, the more I see how idiotic Tarantino’s fan base is.

    • Adam says:

      You have spent quite a bit of time attempting to analyze someone you don’t even know. Why?

      You’ve gone beyond expressing an opinion about a film, and have decided instead to give us your opinion of a filmmaker. ( and others as well )

      Mr Tarantino’s films are representative of the world we live in, including the violence and vulgarity we all see everyday. Popular music is filled with profanity and ‘the N-word’. You can go online and see actual beheadings. Why should any filmmaker or artist of any kind hesitate showing the dark side of our world for even a moment? Shakespeare didn’t.

      As for your assertions of ‘racial confusion’; simply put, you sound like a racist that is upset because some people actually respect and admire African Americans. Also, you should be aware that you don’t speak for all Jews. There are many Jews who enjoyed Inglorious Basterds.

      One final though, making a violent film doesn’t mean you are a violent person, or that you believe that violence is the solution to all of the world’s problems. Mr Tarantino’s films are meant to be viewed for entertainment, not as a guide for living your life.

      • Jadenhollis says:

        Shakespeare’s violence was very different than Tarantino’s. Shakespeare wrotre about the karma of violence. You wanna murder someone? Fine. But be prepared to be met by lots of ghosts. Shakespeare understood karma. Tarantino thinks you can shoot a bunch of people and not be haunted. He thinks it’s fun. No one is visited by ghosts in Tarantino’s films. Tarantino knows nothing about karma. Yes, you should be embarrassed, comparing Tarantino to Shakespeare. You wanna compare Bob Dylan to Shakespeare, fine, I’m with you. Dylan knows about karma.

        The crowds that go to Star Wars? That’s your argument? What is popular is good? Usually it’s the opposite. Especially in America in 2015, when everyone has ADD. Do you know what herd mentality is? Look it up. JJ Abrams Star Wars is junk. Anyone not just going along with the herd knows that. You must think McDonalds is gourmet and healthy.

        My comments suggest I have issues with race? No they don’t. My comments suggest that I find white men who are obsessed with being black to be adolescent and childish. My wife is black. My best friend is black. But I don’t need to be black. That’s the difference. Someone like Tarantino is so obsessed with being down and with being an honorary brother, that he actually is racist. Because he is not looking past skin color. He’s obsessed with being black. That’s his issue. I live a life that looks past skin color. My son is half white and half black. He is the embodiment of my values. So just stop it, dude.

        Stanley Kubrick?!!! Have you seen his movies!? He was a genius who loved to explore violence and the repercussions of violence. Have you seen Paths of Glory? That is maybe the most anti-violent movie of all time. You haven’t seen it, I’m sure. But it’s the most anti-war and anti-violence movie I can think of, aside from Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. Watch Kubrick’s war movies and then watch the joke that is Inglorious Basterds and then try to compare Tarantino to Kubrick. Kubrick was a humanist who showed how sick war and violence are. Tarantino is the opposite.

        Othello? Shakespeare didn’t think he was black, and Othello was a masterpiece. Come correct. This is just dull.

        And then you say Tarantino’s popularity proves that he is a great artist. Right. Because popularity is what tells us what is true and what is not. Hey, Trump is popular. Hitler was popular. George W. Bush was popular enough to be voted in twice(sort of.) Barry Manilow was popular. Maroon Five and Backstreet Boys and One Direction are popular. Justin Beiber had one of the top ten selling albums this year. Jurassic World was the number one box office movie 0f 2015. Wake up!!!!!!!

      • Adam says:

        A film can reflect real life AND be entertaining, good films do both.
        I should be embarrassed for bringing up Shakespeare? Many of his plays are extremely violent.
        As far as ‘cartoonish’ violence, and your claim that film violence shouldn’t be ‘funny’, have you seen the new Star Wars film yet? I’m sure the crowds that have been packing the theaters to watch Episode VII would totally disagree with you.
        You don’t like his ‘lessons’ on American history and race relations, because they challenge your worldview. Your comments suggest that you have a few race issues of your own.
        John Carpenter’s The Thing was profound? I love that movie, but profound is not one of the words I would use to describe. I wouldn’t use it to describe The Hateful Eight either. You call the cartoonish violence in John Carpenter films profound, but the cartoon violence in Quentin Tarantino films ‘sick’. It sounds to me like your judgments are based more on your political views and personal feelings than any rational metric.
        Was Stanley Kubrick’s sick for directing a Clockwork Orange?
        Was Tobe Hooper sick for directing Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
        Was William Shakespeare sick for writing Othello? If you remember that story has a strong black lead, and everybody dies at the end. I bet you think Shakespeare was ‘racially confused’.
        Are they all sociopaths?
        Does Spike Lee have a messianic complex because he talks about race and American history?
        As for mr. Tarantino’s abilities as a screenwriter, I think that you would have to agree that his popularity proves that he has at least a modicum of talent. Even this film, which so many people seem to dislike, made 1.9 million dollars in one day in just 100 theaters.
        You can think whatever you want about Tarantino or his movies, but it is based on your politics and your racial beliefs, not on the merits of his movies.

      • Jadenhollis says:

        Tarantino doesn’t show violence. He shows Bugs Bunny cartoon violence. You embarrass yourself bringing up Shakespeare. True violence is not fun. Not a punch line. You ask me why I spent time analyzing him and his work, it’s because I am deeply saddened by no one in the media standing up an saying– this artist is really lost and the work is not good anymore.

        You say his films are reflections of life, then you say they are just entertainment. Make up your mind. The truth is, they are not supposed to just be entertainment. Nor is any art. And Tarantino has such a serious messianic complex that it’s definitely no longer meant to just be entertainment. He is giving us lessons from the mountain top on racial equality and American history. There’s only one problem. He’s a sociopath who doesn’t know basic screenplay fundamentals.

        The profundity of John Carpenter’s The Thing was that it snuck up on you because it had a sense of humor about itself. The Hateful 8 has no sense of humor about itself. Tarantino is making confused cartoons that think they are profound. And that’s where the toxicity level really gets high. He’s making spaghetti shoot em ups that aren’t good, and then shackles his messianic complex to the proceedings.

  36. Ronnie says:

    The movie is called The Hateful 8. And all the main characters have something awful about them. That includes the female lead as well. I don’t see anyone complaining about the how brutal some of the violence the men receive. Every one of those hateful yet interesting characters experience something excessively violent to the amusement of the audience.

  37. kenzyme says:

    i think that the sitting down and watching of a tarantino movie is itself “fishing for stupidity.”

  38. Jimmy Green says:

    This movie hates normal behavior by any sex or gender. A true aberration on every level. Sick not slick, perversion not diversion, pornographic not photographic, wasteful not tasteful and unfortunately boring.
    I suspect a 12 yr old could have written better dialogue. Pray this filth disappears within a week.

  39. BERTONIFILMS says:

    I’ve also found gender to be a throwaway when it comes to Tarantino’s writing. You could cast his female roles with male actors, and vice versa. Change their names, of course, and no one would would be able to say, “Hey wait! Something’s wrong here!” That, I think, is a tribute to his terrific writing and storytelling. The same is true of race or ethnicity. He writes about people, who despite superficial physical differences are beyond gender, race, or ethnicity.

    • says:

      I completely disagree. Tarantino’s characters are absolutely inseparable from their race, gender, off screen upbringing, etc. From dialect and language to thought process, to decision making, his characters are specific to an identity. Only a handful of actors (sometimes only 1) can play as one specific Tarantino character.

      For an example of characters existing beyond race, gender, etc. take a show like Hawaii Five O. Except for specific expository dialogue that states otherwise, every character in the show is stripped of any unique personality qualities, thus making them all vanilla and interchangeable. It is precisely Tarantino’s ability to draw out of his characters their unique personality traits (often inseparable from their race, gender, upbringing, etc.) that makes them so memorable and compelling.

  40. Sal U. Lloyd says:

    Wait, so producer Weistein who promotes lesbianism in CAROL, SHRUGS off charges of misogyny in THE HATEFUL 8???


  41. Sal U. Lloyd says:

    WHAT??? No comments??? WHERE are the Tarantino fanboys??? And WHERE are the feminists??? Come on, people!!!

More Film News from Variety