Harvey Weinstein and Quentin Tarantino

Blogsylvania recently went hairy ape shit (read all about it at The Playlist) when Sharon Waxman randomly claimed in a piece in The Wrap that Harvey Weinstein and Universal were pushing Quentin Tarantino to trim 40 minutes out of Inglourious Basterds after it premiered to mixed reviews at Cannes.

During the festival, Anne Thompson had said that after 3 months of editing Tarantino delivered “a dripping-wet print to Cannes…at a running time of two hours, 27 minutes…19 minutes less than he needed to retain final cut.”  She said Tarantino would be returning to the editing room where he’d likely add a scene and then do some “fine-tuning and tweaking and timing” with editor Sally Menke.

That’s a far cry from having to take out 40 minutes. As pointed out by The Playlist and others who’d seen the movie, the 40 minute number was not really even possible.

Well, in an interview in GQ, Harvey Weinstein says it’s all B.S. and he should probably know. Read Harvey’s own words after the jump.

Those stories are all untrue. There’s no fucking way. Here, read my lips: That is nuts. Please don’t even write that, it’s insanity. There’s not even a question of that. Whatever you’re reading, it’s like some insane blogger… There’s no truth to any of this. He’s not gonna cut. What he’s doing is just reorganizing some scenes. I mean, the guy had six weeks to cut his movie [for Cannes]; most guys take six months. Most guys take a year. When I worked with Martin [Scorsese], we’d do eighteen months in post-production. Quentin Tarantino cuts a movie in six weeks? Come on, there’s shit on that cutting-room floor that’ll blow your brains out. I was telling Quentin the opposite—”You should put that shit back in the movie.” There’s scenes with Brad Pitt and the Basterds, and I’m praying he puts that shit back in, ‘cause it’s un-fucking-believably great. Listen—this movie will be between two hours and twenty minutes and two hours and twenty-seven minutes. I don’t think it’s going to be shorter—it’s just a question of rearranging. I know he’s putting footage back into the movie. I know he’s got some cool shit that he didn’t get time to address.

What’s funny is that I was pointed to this interview by none other than Sharron Waxman’s The Wrap.

6 Responses to “Weinstein on 40-minute ‘Basterds’ trim: “That is nuts””

  1. “When I worked with Martin [Scorsese], we’d do eighteen months in post-production.”

    Funny comment if he’s referring to “Gangs of New York”, which by all accounts took so long in post-production because Weinstein didn’t accept Scorsese’s initial cut. I believe Glenn Kenny said that film was basically “hijacked” by Weinstein, and what took so long was finding some sort of agreement.

  2. Yeah conventional wisdom says Harvey wrecked that movie, though Scorsese being the nice guy he is claims it’s the cut of the film he wanted.

    Anyone buying that?

  3. Nope.

  4. Hah. Gotta love Harvey. He does tell it like it is.

    Well, at least there’s no 40 minute cut. That’s a relief.

    I guess it’s clear sailing till August…

  5. Waxman has been incorrect before. David O. Russell told me how she pissed him off so much bugging him about George Clooney that he told he shot a real corpse with a bullet in THREE KINGS. A ludicrous story that Waxman went on to repeat in her book. She never even corrected the story after my interview with Russell came out. She doesn’t care.

  6. I dislike Waxman. It’s one of the handful of things I agree with David Poland about.

Leave a Reply


Tiny Subscribe to Comments





  • LiC on Twitter

  • Archives

All material copyright 2007-2012 by Craig Kennedy unless otherwise stated