It’s irrelevant in terms of receiving praise.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)
And it's also possible to still recieve praise while still wishing she had more lines and more screen time.
That doesn't really make the question the interviewer asked to QT and Robbie any less rude, though. We can't really make any judgments at all without seeing the film ourselves.
Eh, I don't mind the question much. I just hope Robbie gets some good material for this film. Her playing Sharon Tate is pretty much the only reason why I want to see this movie since I'm a fan of Robbie and Tate. So naturally for any fan of both it is disappointing to hear that she might not have a lot of dialogue or screen time even.
Thread:
i say this not in defense of a certain director, but in response to margot robbie's answer to a posed question: it sounds like ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD shows sharon tate more than it lets her speak. i haven't seen it, but if true, it's very in keeping with who tate was.
sharon tate was notoriously quiet, interior, soft-spoken, and gentle. that was, i would say, perhaps her most defining quality other than her otherworldly beauty.
(also, ya know, sometimes supporting characters have less lines than the leads. that's... how movies work.)
https://twitter.com/lindseyromain/statu ... 49062?s=21
Thank you for that thread. Hopefully I’ll enjoy the movie.
And to keep up with the famous Allstar/Artemis bitchery, imagine if you had responded with an informative thread like that instead of just talking down on my worries.
And to keep up with the famous Allstar/Artemis bitchery, imagine if you had responded with an informative thread like that instead of just talking down on my worries.
Posts: 8437
Joined:
August 2012
I think it depends not on the amount of lines and dialogue, but the overall handling of the character. If she was to be downgraded to being not an actual person, but this shallow almost mystical figure overshadowed by the leading men, whose only defining quality is her tragedy, using her infamous “moment” (her murder) as a device for Pitt and DiCaprio’s characters further growth/something for them to reflect on, etc. That would be outrageously shitty. I really really doubt that is what’s happening here.
But then again, if she was the main character here, knowing her ultimate demise irl (regardless of whether Tarantino’s going for historical revisionism), that would most likely be seen as exploitative. I feel like it’s a pretty hard territory to navigate.
Tarantino usually writes pretty kickass characters, they all feel like people. I wouldn’t be too worried about any of this tbh. I don’t know too much about Tate herself, but if she was more of a mellow, quieter type, you really can’t squeeze that much more Tarantino-esque dialogue into her scenes, if you want to nail the essence of her spirit.
But then again, if she was the main character here, knowing her ultimate demise irl (regardless of whether Tarantino’s going for historical revisionism), that would most likely be seen as exploitative. I feel like it’s a pretty hard territory to navigate.
Tarantino usually writes pretty kickass characters, they all feel like people. I wouldn’t be too worried about any of this tbh. I don’t know too much about Tate herself, but if she was more of a mellow, quieter type, you really can’t squeeze that much more Tarantino-esque dialogue into her scenes, if you want to nail the essence of her spirit.
Your first paragraph is basically what I’m scared of happening tbh. I hope it’s handled well and not in an exploitative manner.Ruth wrote: ↑May 25th, 2019, 4:21 pmI think it depends not on the amount of lines and dialogue, but the overall handling of the character. If she was to be downgraded to being not an actual person, but this shallow almost mystical figure overshadowed by the leading men, whose only defining quality is her tragedy, using her infamous “moment” (her murder) as a device for Pitt and DiCaprio’s characters further growth/something for them to reflect on, etc. That would be outrageously shitty. I really really doubt that is what’s happening here.
But then again, if she was the main character here, knowing her ultimate demise irl (regardless of whether Tarantino’s going for historical revisionism), that would most likely be seen as exploitative. I feel like it’s a pretty hard territory to navigate.
Tarantino usually writes pretty kickass characters, they all feel like people. I wouldn’t be too worried about any of this tbh. I don’t know too much about Tate herself, but if she was more of a mellow, quieter type, you really can’t squeeze that much more Tarantino-esque dialogue into her scenes, if you want to nail the essence of her spirit.
Judging from the reviews coming out there doesn’t seem to be too much controversy (unless there are reviews I haven’t read or reviews taking a contrarian stance).
I know that Tate’s sister was on board with Robbie portraying her so I hope her sister had input into how the character was handled.
Tbh i’m not really a big Tarantino fan but i’m hyped for this movie though.
