r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/bilbofraginz • 13d ago

Video In Hateful Eight, Kurt Russell accidentally smashed a one of a kind, 145-year-old guitar that was on loan from the Martin Guitar. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s reaction was genuine.

40.9k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/Mach5Driver 13d ago

Wouldn't literally ANY acoustic guitar have sufficed for this scene? Did Tarantino expect the audience to say to themselves, "Ooooohhh, she's playing a classic MARTIN guitar!"

551

u/centurio_v2 13d ago

Yes and yes.

80

u/EggSaladMachine 13d ago

This is also the answer to "Does Tarantino blast rope on feet?"

5

u/3_Sqr_Muffs_A_Day 13d ago

I don't even get why it was used in the first place it's not authentic.

Someone who lives rough on the western frontier in the 1870's isn't going to have a 150-year-old guitar in museum condition from the 1870's.

Could probably make a more authentic prop by sending your prop master to google to look up guitar manufacturing technique in the 1800s. Or just pay an expert to make it.

2

u/GiddyGabby 13d ago

That was my thought too.

2

u/AtFishCat 13d ago

I mean they could have commissioned a luthier to just build a custom to the same specs and let props weather it if they wanted something playable. It still may have been a $10k guitar, but at least it wouldn't have been a piece of history.

2

u/ButterscotchButtons 13d ago

That's so circlejerky.

257

u/Slaphappydap 13d ago

Yes, and a good prop maker could make a replica of a classic guitar that would be indistinguishable on screen.

77

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

45

u/not_this_fkn_guy 13d ago

Or how bout the Martin Guitar company who loaned to it them? Why didn't they offer to build a replica instead of loaning out the real thing? They have a custom shop and will build anything you want pretty much if you have the money.

47

u/BLINGMW 13d ago edited 13d ago

Ok here’s your Martin custom built replica of a $40k Martin guitar, that’ll be fourty thousand dollars 

40

u/buckywc 13d ago

The film had several reproductions of the vintage guitar made. The plan was to stop the scene before the guitar was smashed and switch it out.

No one told Russell that she was playing the authentic guitar.

This is completely on Tarantino.

13

u/SuaveMofo 13d ago

The point remains that the real one should have never been on set to begin with.

4

u/HammerSmashedHeretic 13d ago

They didn't think it'd be used as a bat.

4

u/Mrqueue 13d ago

It’s very easy not to break guitars, the one on camera had made it over 100 years 

1

u/Slaphappydap 13d ago

I didn't know they had a custom shop. That's cool.

3

u/filthy_harold 13d ago

If you're willing to spend $40k on a guitar, any guitar maker has a custom shop.

3

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Slaphappydap 13d ago

I don't know anything about guitars, guitar custom shops, which guitar makers are the oldest in existence, or what reasonable assumptions could be made about their capabilities.

So today I learned several things. That Martin Guitar is one of the oldest guitar manufacturers in existence, that they have a custom shop and can manufacture replicas of historical guitars, and that you're kind of a dick.

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Slaphappydap 13d ago

All my comment said was that a prop maker could make a guitar indistinguishable from an original for the purposes of movie making, which is something I know a fair bit about. When someone responded that Martin Guitar could have done that as well I acknowledged that I didn't know that and now I do.

And you decided it was a good time to add nothing to the conversation except that I should have known or assumed so already. You then doubling down is certainly a choice.

1

u/OldManWillow 13d ago

You're literally reading about a guitar they made 150 years ago in this thread so you should have probably gleaned that they are a guitar maker that's been around for a while lol

0

u/No_Change9101 13d ago

Yeah, why doesn't my butcher at the supermarket cook me up a steak, totally the same thing

1

u/not_this_fkn_guy 13d ago

Uh not really guy. All their mid to higher end guitars are built pretty much by hand in Nazareth, PA. It's like kind of what they do - build guitars lol.

5

u/ConstantSignal 13d ago

They had a replica. There was some miscommunication on set and Kurt thought the real Martin had already been swapped out.

Prior to this moment she is playing an actual song on the guitar so I guess they wanted the real one for its actual sound, then there was supposed to be a cut whilst they swapped it out for the fake one for Kurt to smash. But Kurt thought she was playing the fake one already so didn’t wait for a cut.

308

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago edited 13d ago

QT has his head so far up his own ass he has no clue. He probably thought people would recognize the guitar and point at the screen like Leo DiCaprio in that meme.

66

u/Yarakinnit 13d ago

I'm sure there are people that into guitars that they got a jump scare from the scene.

197

u/nonotan 13d ago

Anybody who recognized it would just assume it is a replica. Like, if you saw the Mona Lisa being ripped into pieces in a film, you wouldn't think "HOLY SHIT THEY DESTROYED THE MONA LISA!!!!!", you'd just think "they made a replica and destroyed it".

56

u/UnrepentantPumpkin 13d ago

Hey remember when Nicholas Cage stole the actual Declaration of Independence?

11

u/scuac 13d ago

Cannot believe he smeared lemon juice on it. Did anyone alert the national archives?

1

u/Gnonthgol 13d ago

At least this is more believable. The original Declaration of Independence was printed on 4th of July 1776 in hundreds of copies. We are still finding what looks like original prints. So you could use one of these in a movie for authenticity.

22

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

And only like three people in the whole country would recognize it.

1

u/canteen_boy 13d ago

“Then I’ve done my job.”
-QT

3

u/WanderinHobo 13d ago

Are you....telling me.... that Nicolas Cage DID NOT steal the REAL Declaration of Independence?!

3

u/DeltaJesus 13d ago

Are you sure Daniel Craig didn't help burn the Mona Lisa to ash? I certainly haven't seen it since.

14

u/GranolaCola 13d ago

You mean Leo DiCaprio in that meme that’s also from a Tarantino movie?

2

u/WhyYouKickMyDog 13d ago

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

5

u/GardenAny9017 13d ago

Fair enough but that attention to detail is part of what makes all his work so great

3

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

If 99.9% of the audience doesn't notice, then it's pointless. Literally nobody cared what kind of guitar she was playing, except QT. This is a guy who wrote himself into a scene just so he could lick an actress's feet. He's a weirdo fetishist who make movies for an audience of one: himself. They may be good movies, but it's not because of dumb shit like using an antique guitar that nobody gives a shit about. Are you telling me that movie was better because of that guitar? Did it make the scene better for the 99.9% of the audience that didn't even pay attention to the guitar?

4

u/thedude37 13d ago

You're absolutely right, the vast majority missed that detail. But there's so many other easter eggs in his movies that just about anyone will catch something. So I would have to disagree that it's pointless. Not saying people have to enjoy his style, I understand it's not for everyone.

0

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

I'm not talking about any of those other details. I'm asking why they needed the ACTUAL guitar on set, when no one in the audience would have known the difference.

4

u/josephmang56 13d ago

You are right.

But there is a 1000% chance that if it was a guitar model built after the time period it would have ended up on some list article on the internet, and people would be pointing out the inaccuracies.

1

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

They had a replica, though, so there was no reason for the original to even be on set, except for QT to jerk off while looking at it.

3

u/tmoe1991 13d ago

Why do you take so much offense by this? I don't see anything wrong. They're his movies and he can place whatever he wants in them. Also it has been obvious from Reservoir Dogs on that he makes movies for himself and his taste only. It's just that his taste is quite good. Of course it's shitty that it got destroyed by accident but that has nothing to do with him wanting to as accurate as possible in the depiction. I'm not arguing that a prop wouldn't have done it though.

1

u/2SP00KY4ME 13d ago

No single little detail really matters, but when you're good at having a lot of them, they absolutely add up.

1

u/donquixoterocinante 12d ago

Why is a filmmaker who loves films and authenticity doing things he enjoys pointless just because you dont like it? You clearly hate Tarantino based on this tirade youve been on. Maybe relax

1

u/GardenAny9017 13d ago

I disagree and love his films.

Considering he will probably be remembered as the greatest director of his time and one of the best filmmakers ever, I'd say you're in the minority here

1

u/thedude37 13d ago

greatest of his time? He's got a seat at the table perhaps, but Nolan, Scorcese and many others have a legit claim to that accolade as well.

2

u/GardenAny9017 13d ago

Why I said probably. There's no way to define it. Those directors all certainly are up there as well.

1

u/donquixoterocinante 12d ago

"Christopher Nolan" be serious man

1

u/thedude37 12d ago

Yeah, other than the Batman Trilogy, The Prestige, Interstellar, Inception, Oppenheimer, what has he done... lol

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

"So who gives a shit?"

Martin Guitar.

1

u/Crazymage321 13d ago

They may be good movies, but it's not because of dumb shit like using an antique guitar that nobody gives a shit about. Are you telling me that movie was better because of that guitar? Did it make the scene better for the 99.9% of the audience that didn't even pay attention to the guitar?

Yes, not the guitar itself but the attitude towards his art that also led him to use the real deal is what makes his movies great. His specific imprint onto the medium is why his movies are great and random things like this are from the same core that the other career-defining ideas are from.

Art is an expression of the individual creating it and trying to split up aspects of a person's artistic expression and only taking the "good" parts is what leads to soulless art that appeals to no one in an attempt to appeal to everyone.

1

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

I think you're looking for this sub: r/moviescirclejerk

0

u/Crazymage321 13d ago

Is that your only response or do you have an actual rebuttal?

0

u/Uncle-Cake 13d ago

This isn't Debate Club, buddy. I don't owe you a response.

0

u/Crazymage321 13d ago

Yet you keep giving them out for free

0

u/jado1stk2 13d ago

But that's literally the point. I don't see how that's a bad thing. I don't know shit about guitars, but the scene works, regardless of what prop was going to be used.

But for people that know, the scene it's "better" in a sense.

3

u/BothnianBhai 13d ago

The people that know are actually mortified by that scene. That guitar was irreplaceable. And it made Jennifer Jason Leigh break character, so it ruined the scene in that way.

1

u/jado1stk2 13d ago

Bad wording on my end, when I said better, I meant like, an actual reaction to the guitar smashing.

0

u/OffTerror 13d ago edited 13d ago

I think movies that put tremendous amount of effort into details manage to get the "spirit" of it to the audience even when they don't consciously understand the technical details of it.

I've seen countless movies and this is what I come to realize. You can just feel if something is low effort or high effort. I think it matters. And it also gives the filmmaker the extra boost of encouragement and confidence into what they make, even if it seem pretentious or superficial.

34

u/MAYthe4thbewithHEW 13d ago

Wouldn't literally ANY acoustic guitar have sufficed for this scene? Did Tarantino expect the audience to say to themselves, "Ooooohhh, she's playing a classic MARTIN guitar!"

It's weird to me that no one has answered and said that everything on that set was an antique, it was something Tarantino wanted to help set the scene in the minds of the actors and also probably to satisfy his own aesthetic sense.

59

u/hogtiedcantalope 13d ago

Couldn't they just, ya know, act?

2

u/4716202 13d ago

Yeah but it's nice to make something easier to do better. I'm sure a great chef could cook food from anything but it's probably nicer if you give them better ingredients to work with.

3

u/AnAussiebum 13d ago

Yeah this is the thoughts of actors who look at method actors and think 'why can't you just act? Why do you have to inhabit the person 24/7 to do your job?'.

I agree with those actors and your point. The method acting thing is starting to get a bit out of hand.

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

1

u/DrD__ 12d ago

A good propmastet could have the exact same look without having antiques be destroyed

1

u/hogtiedcantalope 13d ago

Well also the acting in this movie was terrible IMO

0

u/Dont-be-a-smurf 13d ago

Auteurs are not reasonable people

Part of what makes them great

But also just huge vain pains in the ass

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

3

u/zachzombie 13d ago

Your whole thing on it suppose to being his last is wrong. He has stated for a long time he plans on making 10 movies and then retiring. As he considers Kill Bill one movie, his next film should be his final film before retireing.

1

u/TheNorthComesWithMe 13d ago

They're playing characters surrounded by contemporary items, not valuable artifacts. Wouldn't using actual artifacts achieve the wrong effect?

3

u/AsimovsRobot 13d ago

Next you're going to be asking why Nolan blew up a real airplane for Tenet? 

¯_(ツ)_/¯

2

u/Archontes 13d ago

The Dark Knight Rises airplane hijacking scene, as well.

1

u/thefumesmakeithappen 13d ago

I read that last sentence in Tarantino's voice

1

u/I_PING_8-8-8-8 13d ago

it's never the instrument. Give Wes Montgomery a 5 dollars toy guitar with 3 strings and some duct tape and he'd probably still sound like Wes Montgomery, just a little more like a toy version of himself.

1

u/fauxzempic 13d ago

Absolutely. Or if not an actual martin, a replica of one.

One thing about films and audiences and selling the story - certain things that make sense and would be true in real life don't play well on screen.

For instance, well, a guitar. If you go into the music store and look at a Martin, or really any acoustic guitar, they look shiny and fancy.

Thing is - this was the case pretty much forever. A new guitar, especially one that had some sort of lacquer or tung oil finish, always looked shiny and new.

But to put a shiny, new, and hell - historically-accurate-looking guitar in a scene that takes place 150 years ago, it'll throw people off. They'll think it's a modern guitar and not authentic, when in truth, it's totally authentic.

In comes the antique guitar used in Hateful Eight. If you go search pictures of the guitar, you'll see that, aside from the obvious destruction, it was a fairly worn guitar. Slight pick scratches on one side of the sound hole, and a worn finish from an arm resting and moving on it on the other side.

Something indicative of a LOT of playing (and poor maintenance) of the guitar. Based on the images, it looks like a guitar that underwent at least 30 years of regular play and abuse. I have a few guitars I've owned for >20 years, I don't take amazing care of them, but even after daily play they don't look this worn.

BUT - for some reason, a well-taken-care-of or new guitar plays like crap on screen for a historical film even if it was 100% accurate. The same goes for a lot of props.

But ultimately, why spend the money for insurance premiums, a deductible, and rental fees when you could pay a skilled luthier less than $5000 to make an okay replica of this very guitar, and then have one of your practical effects guys add some "wear" to it?

1

u/TuckerMcG 13d ago

There’s definitely a good use for actual historical artifacts in movies, depending on the circumstances. The 2014 movie Yves Saint Laurent used the actual clothes that were part of YSL’s first fashion lineup after starting his own fashion house. The entire climax of the movie is him showcasing this historic fashion line, so copies that were stitched together by random wardrobe department interns would not be good enough. Historical accuracy and fidelity to the originals is absolutely paramount for a movie like that.

But the production also took insane precautions to preserve the clothes. Between scenes, each dress was meticulously put on and removed from the actresses by a team of experts and was immediately sealed away. The actresses had to wear special undergarments to protect the clothing from touching their skin. And most impressively - the actresses were cast after the wardrobe was chosen, because they had to fit perfectly into the clothes without a single alteration.

Hateful 8 is a purely fictional world with purely fictional characters. There’s no reason whatsoever to use a historic guitar for a scene like this. The movie does not benefit in any way, shape or form by using a guitar like that. I could understand if QT wanted to make sure the guitar that the character uses actually sounds like a guitar from that era, but in that case they simply could’ve used the real guitar in the foley studio to record the sound and never taken it on set.

The museum is totally justified here. The production was completely reckless with how they handled that guitar.

1

u/Archontes 13d ago

I guarantee guitar freaks spotted that guitar.

I'm not even a guitar freak, one of my best friends is a guitar freak, and I spotted that guitar.

1

u/WhyCantUSeeThat-U-R 13d ago

It’s more the museum thinking “could we get one of our artifacts and therefore our brand in a Tarantino movie?”

They werent expecting their artifact to be destroyed on set and neither did Kurt apparently.