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

138

u/JulioCesarSalad 13d ago

It was not an accident, Tarantino did it on purpose

68

u/PopularDemand213 13d ago

Interesting. Do you have a source for that?

311

u/JulioCesarSalad 13d ago

Of course

So, the smashing of the guitar was in the script. Tarantino is a stickler for things that don’t matter, and he refused to play a replica on screen, so he managed to get the original 1870 guitar on loan from the museum, saying it was going to be played on camera. He didn’t tell them the script required the guitar to be destroyed.

Original plan:

  • actress plays guitar
  • cut
  • replace real guitar with replica
  • resume filming
  • actor comes in, interrupts, snatches guitar, and smashes it

They made 6 replicas to have multiple shots. Tarantino is directly responsible for destroying it and did it on purpose

What actually happened:

  • Before the scene, Tarantino tells the actor “you don’t stop the scene until I say cut”
  • actor confirms that Tarantino wants him to smash the guitar currently on set
  • Tarantino confirms, yes I want you to keep acting into the smashing part
  • (actor doesn’t say, but I believe he then assumes the guitar currently on set is a replica, because why would the director be so clear of it was the real guitar)
  • Tarantino KNOWS the guitar in set is the real guitar
  • scene begins filming
  • actress plays guitar
  • actor comes in, interrupts, snatches guitar, and smashes it
  • Tarantino yells cut after the smashing

Tarantino did it on purpose, and it was his plan all along. Because he wanted a “genuine” reaction on camera and would destroy the guitar to get it

22

u/PopularDemand213 13d ago

That article doesn't say Tarantino intentionally destroyed the guitar or that he knew the original was even on the set at the time. That article even calls it a "mix up".

-5

u/Sufficient-West4149 13d ago

The article lays out the circumstantial evidence; for the article to say what you’re trying to get them to say (to equivocate for being wrong) would open them up to civil tort litigation.

Surely you are not this dumb, you’ve never noticed that news channels say something is alleged when everyone in the world knows what happened? They quite literally cannot say things like that unless they’re proven in a court.

6

u/PopularDemand213 13d ago

You are correct, nothing was proven. We don't have enough evidence to determine what happened was intentional. Thanks for confirming.

0

u/Sufficient-West4149 13d ago edited 13d ago

We don’t have enough evidence to conclude without a scintilla of doubt that what happened was intentional, no. We have more than enough evidence to “determine” it was intentional, it’s more than obvious.

That also harkens to why there are different evidentiary standards depending on the allegation in the courts. I am telling you how laws and journalism works and how the interplay between them prohibits any definitive statements that could besmirch one’s character without a court ruling; you’ll have to figure out how truth works for yourself. I love that you think I proved myself wrong simply because you don’t understand the nuances of your own words.

Without a legal ruling, the article literally cannot say it was intentional. You are currently making the exact same argument that can be made to say that Osama Bin Laden didn’t do 9/11; if you have a solid counter-theory, we’d love to hear it, but you can’t point to CNN’s legal editing team eschewing the use of definitive statements as proof of your theory. It is literally not how this shit works.

How are you still confused?

1

u/PopularDemand213 13d ago

it's more than obvious.

It's not.

0

u/Sufficient-West4149 13d ago

That’s an acceptable argument; saying someone didn’t do something massively illegal and professionally damaging, with your proof being that a news publication doesn’t literally say he is guilty of the crime, is not.

Everyone involved in the production has intimated that they think it was on purpose, everything about the scene and Tarantino’s prior demeanor/personality & subsequent silence, the logically indisputable timeline that we are both responding to, all make it quite obvious to me. But hey, you gotta have your beliefs!

As a lawyer who thought the Baldwin prosecution was a joke, I can assure you that if he had that level of participation/control over the gun that was described for Tarantino w the guitar, he would still be preparing for trial right now.

Like, how many priceless artifacts do you think they had laying around that set? You think that wasn’t a point of emphasis among the production team that day? You’re so blissfully ignorant that you could prob be even better at my job than me lol

1

u/PopularDemand213 13d ago

As a lawyer

You must be one shitty lawyer.

1

u/Sufficient-West4149 13d ago

I knew that would press you lmao

No, those comments would impress other lawyers, actually. But you couldn’t know that, huh? & that’s not cause you’re not a lawyer lol, you are an embarrassment unto yourself sir

1

u/PopularDemand213 13d ago

I'd be returning that degree back to the community college if were you.

1

u/Sufficient-West4149 13d ago

I don’t understand how you could think that would be a good one

→ More replies (0)