Quentin Tarantino’s a solid filmmaker, even if I’m not his biggest fan. I’ve discussed personal frustrations with his work before, but the most-prevalent one is that his movies are shy of brilliant because he lacks restraint. I’ve yet to fully-love anything he’s directed, even if he’s come close. However, this isn’t about Tarantino’s oeuvre. That’d be too easy.
I don’t think that having issues with a director’s style is a problem. I’m not big on Tim Burton either, but he’s talented in his own right. What I take umbrage with is that Tarantino’s a prick. I don’t think that’s a secret, but between his use of racist lingo, his political takes and his relationship with Harvey Weinstein, he’s not exactly someone I’d associate with. But I’ve thought that for years, so…
Recently, Tarantino took swipes at Hollywood talent. In an interview with Bret Easton Ellis, he singled out Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano’s acting. He even claimed that Dano ruined Paul Thomas Anderson’s body of work, and he mocked his dick size (apparently). I get directors having preferences, they have tastes too, but trashing actors for no reason is nasty and disrespectful. Especially when said actors hear what you say.
The backlash against Tarantino’s remarks was instantaneous, with Lillard openly saying they were hurtful. And yeah, that it took bashing white men, as opposed to a minority, to get people reacting says plenty about society, and it’s not good. But while there’s a hierarchy of privilege in Hollywood, this is still a low blow. Especially since Lillard and Dano are working paycheque to paycheque. It’s unbecoming of a director to punch down like this.
My thoughts here aren’t some big revelation. Yes, Tarantino’s in the wrong. Yes, what he said was uncalled for. Yes, he owes Lillard and Dano apologies. All of this is true. However, there’s one facet most people overlook unless you’re Jewish:
Tarantino’s married to a Jewish Israeli woman. He’s been outspoken about his love for Israel, with October 7th, 2023’s massacre in Israel as part of why he hasn’t made his “10th film”. This has led many Zionists to call him an ally, which I understand to an extent. However, I can’t simply shrug off his behaviour. Being a Zionist doesn’t automatically make you a good person.
My thoughts here aren’t some big revelation. Yes, Tarantino’s in the wrong. Yes, what he said was uncalled for. Yes, he owes Lillard and Dano apologies. All of this is true. However, there’s one facet most people overlook unless you’re Jewish:
Tarantino’s married to a Jewish Israeli woman. He’s been outspoken about his love for Israel, with October 7th, 2023’s massacre in Israel as part of why he hasn’t made his “10th film”. This has led many Zionists to call him an ally, which I understand to an extent. However, I can’t simply shrug off his behaviour. Being a Zionist doesn’t automatically make you a good person.
I know this seems inconsequential, but it ties into a bigger problem I have with many conservative-leaning Jews. A person can be as gross as possible in every area, but the second they use the right buzzwords about Jews and Israel, all of a sudden they’re “allies”. I understand the need for allies, but this isn’t the hill people should die on. Especially when, in the cases of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, these “allies” can’t keep up the charade.
Tarantino being married to an Israeli means nothing to what I think of him. Even awful people occasionally do good, and vice versa. David Koch was a philanthropist for prostate cancer research, yet his dark money’s partly why the American political system is so disjointed. The late-Fred Rogers, ever compassionate, was averse to openly discussing queerness on his show. People are people, and they’re multifaceted. So while I appreciate Tarantino’s ally-ship superficially, that doesn’t mean he’s a good person.
Touching on the usual critiques, while not unique to him, his snobbish attitude elevates all of them. His foot fetishism in particular, which, again, isn’t exclusive to him, feels gratuitous because of that. Like JK Rowling and her blatant transphobia, everything questionable with Tarantino’s work is now extra suspect. Besides, what exactly did Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano do to deserve his ire? They have mouths to feed too!
Tarantino being married to an Israeli means nothing to what I think of him. Even awful people occasionally do good, and vice versa. David Koch was a philanthropist for prostate cancer research, yet his dark money’s partly why the American political system is so disjointed. The late-Fred Rogers, ever compassionate, was averse to openly discussing queerness on his show. People are people, and they’re multifaceted. So while I appreciate Tarantino’s ally-ship superficially, that doesn’t mean he’s a good person.
Touching on the usual critiques, while not unique to him, his snobbish attitude elevates all of them. His foot fetishism in particular, which, again, isn’t exclusive to him, feels gratuitous because of that. Like JK Rowling and her blatant transphobia, everything questionable with Tarantino’s work is now extra suspect. Besides, what exactly did Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano do to deserve his ire? They have mouths to feed too!
I’m going around in circles, but it’s because I’m getting all my thoughts out. It’s also emblematic of the problem at play. While it’s unfortunate that it took bashing some well-loved actors in Hollywood for people to realize Tarantino’s a jerk, he’s still a jerk. And in an industry notorious for crushing dreams, especially with newcomers, that lack of courtesy feels especially cruel. The world has enough cruelty without a bigwig director adding to it for no reason.
I have little else to say. It’s a shame that Tarantino took a dump on Lillard and Dano’s careers. It’s also a shame that Tarantino’s getting blowback for this now. However, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook. Like Francis Ford Coppola and the production of Megalopolis, Tarantino has a responsibility to act professional with other people. He may not want that, but he has no choice at this point.
As for Tarantino in general? I think the conversation needs reframing so that people stop mythologizing him. He may have had an unconventional education prior to breaking out, but he had to work his way up the ladder like everyone else. Therefore, he should have more humility than he does. And his base needs to not treat him like a god. Once people accept the bad with good, as with anyone else, that’s when there’ll be real and long-lasting change for the better. The ball’s in our court now, so we should take it.
I have little else to say. It’s a shame that Tarantino took a dump on Lillard and Dano’s careers. It’s also a shame that Tarantino’s getting blowback for this now. However, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook. Like Francis Ford Coppola and the production of Megalopolis, Tarantino has a responsibility to act professional with other people. He may not want that, but he has no choice at this point.
As for Tarantino in general? I think the conversation needs reframing so that people stop mythologizing him. He may have had an unconventional education prior to breaking out, but he had to work his way up the ladder like everyone else. Therefore, he should have more humility than he does. And his base needs to not treat him like a god. Once people accept the bad with good, as with anyone else, that’s when there’ll be real and long-lasting change for the better. The ball’s in our court now, so we should take it.
No comments:
Post a Comment