MovieChat Forums > Quentin Tarantino Discussion > Why is everyone so fine with his foot fe...

Why is everyone so fine with his foot fetish being in his films?

posted 3 years ago by Mister Babadook (2621)
52 replies | jump to latest

I mean you have a fetish fine, i'm not saying someone can't be into certain things. But imo its wrong and disgusting that he constantly puts that fetish in his movies. He has these actresses being barefoot, he lingers on their feet for an awkward amount of time, has them sometimes doing sexual things with their feet. And he's not putting that in his movies cause it fits the story or anything, he's putting that in there cause he gets off on it.

Look at From Dusk Till Dawn, he purposefully wrote that scene with Salma Hayek sticking her foot in his mouth and sucking beer off it cause he wanted to get off on it and suck on her feet. How is that not taking advantage of one of your actors for your sexual fetish?

I get that its just feet and not tits or ass or vagina, but its still fucking disgusting imo, he's taking advantage of these female actresses he hires and films parts of their body to get off on it. Its been acknowledged over the years by him, movie critics etc but most just laugh about it, its like a joke and i don't get why.

I mean how would you personally feel if you was an actor and you was doing a scene that the writer/director was filming solely because he's getting off on it? Say he has a fetish for ass, and he's got you in a scene where you're bending over and showing your ass to the camera for like 45 seconds, or you're walking around bare ass for an awkwardly long amount of time, would you not feel at all violated or taken advantaged of?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I think it's because people see foot fetishes as funny and therefore not as threatening. It's disgusting either way, but I think most actresses would happily endure a guy with a foot fetish than a pussy fetish like Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.

[–] hitfan (213) 3 years ago

I never noticed that he sexualizes women's feet before. Nor do I care.

[–] cyguration (3831) 3 years ago

I noticed it before but was willing to overlook it until Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, where he just went overboard with it in a disgusting way.

[–] legnadibrom (5683) 3 years ago

what happened in OUaTiH?

[–] cyguration (3831) 3 years ago

Lots and lots of gratuitous feet shots, with the camera lingering on them WAAAAAY too long. Apparently Quentin also likes dirty female feet, wherein there was an entire scene focusing on a woman's dirty feet.

It was beyond bizarre.

[–] hitfan (213) 3 years ago

I think there are worse things than having a fixation on women's feet if that is the case with him. Many artsts like to showcase what they find beautiful in the female form.

I think even if that is the case with him, its fairly benign and not all that interesting ,probably because I don't tend to notice women's feet.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He shoves shots of feet into his movies in a gratuitous way that almost comes across as if he's trolling the audience. That IS a problem, because it often ruins the ambience of a scene or is distracting to a point where you can't focus on anything else.

For example, in a scene of OUATIA, we're supposed to be sharing in Sharon Tate's joy in seeing herself in a movie. But her feet are visually larger than her face in every shot, so that you can't help but be distracted the entire time: https://americanmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/tate.jpg.

This has nothing to do with any subjective feeling on my part, but visual storytelling 101. In a scene where the subject is the focus, it's supposed to be the largest item in the frame, as well as in the foreground. But he literally framed Sharon Tate's feet in this scene to be both large and in the foreground. He also had them be dirty, too, which further made them distracting.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

He shoves shots of feet into his movies in a gratuitous way that almost comes across as if he's trolling the audience. That IS a problem, [...] is distracting to a point where you can't focus on anything else.

Most people don't have any problem focusing on the rest of the scene, feet are not that distracting. It seems to be you the one that can only focus on the feet. Maybe feet turn you on. Maybe the problem is that you have a foot fetish and you haven't been able to accept it.

You probably hate feet for the same reason some people hate gays until one day they start sucking c*cks.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I'm putting you on ignore. Have a nice day.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Oh! sorry! Did I hurt your feetings? 😂

[–] chilone (17234) 3 years ago

Ignore is for pussies.

[–] legnadibrom (5683) 3 years ago

damn, i need to rewatch it, i forgot about any feet scenes

[–] Heisenberg (6264) 3 years ago

I agree with you on all accounts.
Not only that, I find that it ruins most of his movies, as it is often unnecessary and it's ALWAYS getting me thinking "oh, there's Tarantino's fetish shot". It takes me out of the movie.

BTW, I wish he had an ass fetish or a tits fetish or anything that is normal and not disgusting.

[–] davodikum (5966) 3 years ago

Pornhub. Check it out. A fetish for every freak. QT zooms in on a couple feet and people freak out. If he does indeed have this fetish, which I agree he has, he could be way more hyper focused on it.

[–] Heisenberg (6264) 3 years ago

What the hell are you talking about?
He shoots mainstream movies, not porns, so he is hyper focused on this crap according to anybody else's tastes but yours.
He is a freak.
And his awful, out of topic interest in feet is taking his movies and his whole curriculum one notch below.

[–] davodikum (5966) 3 years ago

Mate. I ain't the one who brought up fetish. You da weird one.

[–] Heisenberg (6264) 3 years ago

What the fuck are you on?
Did you even read the thread title and OP?

[–] davodikum (5966) 3 years ago

I am on a lot of drugs right now.

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

He has a point. QT’s foot fetish is not a big deal so why does anyone care?

[–] cyguration (3831) 3 years ago

Because it appears in a gratuitous manner in his films, and we're subjected to it while watching the films... unbeknownst to what degree before GOING into the film.

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

I didn’t even notice it until it was pointed out to me.

[–] davodikum (5966) 3 years ago

Same.

[–] TandyMan (10317) 3 years ago

Absolutely. It's this kind of crap that's going to keep QT out of the conversation when it comes to all time great directors. He's never been able to divorce his films from himself. His own interests and narcissism overshadow the characters and stories presented on screen.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I can't help wonder if QT had some kind of crisis or something. Sometimes some of the things he does undercuts his brilliance to a ridiculous degree that it almost feels as if he does that out of fear of being seen as a "sellout".

I mean, how is it that a guy that could direct one of the most riveting scenes of all time--the cellar scene in Inglorious Basterds--also have ridiculous "Bear Jew" segments and cheesy 1970s references?

How is that he can direct a scene in OUATIH that is so suspenseful that it's in the same league as anything Hitchcock shot (the scene when Pitt's character enters the house at the Spahn Ranch) but then have this scene with Tate's dirty feet front and center?

I'll never know what he's thinking but something about this gratuitousness comes across as a crisis, like years ago he realized he could be a legit "serious" director like Antonioni or something and then got scared, like he was afraid he might lose cred as a maverick director.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

What's the problem with it? I'm not into it, but man, female feet are still nice even if you don't see them in a sexual way. And it's not like you have to watch them in every movie. You have some director that likes to take some nice of feet? Be welcome. Another one that has some hair fetish? hand fetish? eyes fetish? Great. It's nice to see something different.

Say he has a fetish for ass, and he's got you in a scene where you're bending over and showing your ass to the camera for like 45 seconds, or you're walking around bare ass for an awkwardly long amount of time, would you not feel at all violated or taken advantaged of?

And here it comes: the new Woke Puritanism and their 'everything is rape' mantra.

Actresses have contracts that define clearly how much skin they show and for how long, and similar stuff. If the actress is OK with it, what's your problem? It's not your business, it's hers.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

And here it comes: the new Woke Puritanism and their 'everything is rape' mantra.

You can always tell someone is subliterate as soon as they default to cheesy buzzwords like "woke."

You can always tell a civil libertarian, too. Civil libertarians are always the freaks, perverts and deviants screaming that it's Puritanism when people say it's wrong to use others for their own cheap gratification.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

You can always tell someone is subliterate as soon as they default to cheesy buzzwords like "woke."

You need terms to talk about concepts. That's what language is about.

'Woke' is a term that names a very specific concept. Of course, you have the right to consider that term as "cheesy buzzword", as offensive or as whatever you decide. However, in that case, you should provide an alternative non-offensive term. I'm waiting for it.

If you fail to provide it, what you're trying to do there is to make that very concept taboo. Btw, that's a common behavior in religious people. There's a brilliant scene about it in Life of Brian (greatest comedy ever made):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI

You can always tell a civil libertarian, too. Civil libertarians are always the freaks, perverts and deviants [...]

A "civil libertarian" is what used to be a liberal about 70-80 years ago. For a modern "progressive" AKA Woke, that's a freak, a pervert, a deviant.

Actually, I don't need to make any comment on this. You said it all.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You need terms to talk about concepts. That's what language is about.

There's no "concept" behind the word, "woke." Woke is a stupid, lazy term that racists and sexists throw around to express displeasure at seeing nonwhites, gays or minorities in mass media, or nothing more than a cheap, pathetic attempt at victimization by an idiot racist or sexist who gets called out on their comments.

For example, if a comic makes a racist comment like "all Mexicans are rapists", he whines and complains that he's a victim of wokeness.

A "civil libertarian" is what used to be a liberal about 70-80 years ago. For a modern "progressive" AKA Woke, that's a freak, a pervert, a deviant.

Civil libertarianism never existed 70-80 years ago. What country are you from?

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Exactly.

Kukuxu said once before that 'woke' has a specific structured meaning and when asked - repeatedly - to provide a source to this mythical definition, he deflected. Every. Single. Time.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

There's no "concept" behind the word, "woke."

Woke refers to the dominant ideogy/religion in modern western left. It's mostly a combination of 4th wave feminism, critical race theory and white guilt.

Woke is a stupid, lazy term that racists and sexists throw around to express displeasure at seeing nonwhites, gays or minorities in mass media, or nothing more than a cheap, pathetic attempt at victimization by an idiot racist or sexist who gets called out on their comments.

So much for calling other people "subliterate", while you can barely do anything more than driveling insults. 😂

Civil libertarianism never existed 70-80 years ago.

It existed. It was the name that didn't exist. People who held that position were simply labeled as liberals.

[–] Mister Babadook (2621) 3 years ago

"Actresses have contracts that define clearly how much skin they show and for how long, and similar stuff. If the actress is OK with it, what's your problem? It's not your business, it's hers."

Lol they're gonna do it cause they want that big fucking check for being in a Tarantino movie, doesn't make it anymore right what he's doing putting that shit in all his movies cause he sexually gets off on it. Keep your fetish in your bedroom, don't be putting that in all your movies getting hot actresses to show a part of their body so you can get a hard on.

And like someone else said it does take you out of his movies, like in Pulp Fiction where theres an awkwardly long scene of Jules and Vincent talking about fucking foot massages, and in Death proof when we just get a long continuous shot of a girl with her feet propped up in a car. Cause yeah it does make you immediately go "Yep theres his weird disgusting fetish shot".

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I'm starting to believe that the foot fetish shots are being put in there on purpose by QT to draw "fan attention." You get to "call out the auteur." In other words, I don't think it is REALLY a fetish anymore. Its a joke, a calling card -- like Hitchcock doing walk-on cameos in his movies.

I also think he pulled a twist on his foot fetish thing in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. At the Spahnn ranch, we see a bunch of the bare feet of women on a couch -- and one MAN'S feet. Can QT's foot fetish extend to males? Or was he pulling a "gotcha?"

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Lol they're gonna do it cause they want that big fucking check for being in a Tarantino movie, doesn't make it anymore right what he's doing putting that shit in all his movies cause he sexually gets off on it.

Yeah, you're right there. So we should protect actresses and people in general from making the wrong choices. We need some force that protects them. We could call them the Woke Guardians of Public Morals.

They would check that actresses don't show too much skin in movies, feet included. Of course, it's for their own good. They would check that young lovers don't kiss too much in the park (that's male abuse), and that women are decently dressed. Bikinis in the beach and mini-skirts would be banned, they're male abuse too and symbols of heteropatriarchal oppression. It sounds so wonderful, so progressive!! 😊

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

I’m pretty sure he hasn’t put a gun to anyone’s head. The actresses are willing participants.

[–] Mister Babadook (2621) 3 years ago

Lol no theres no need for a gun when they're getting paid to be in a big hollywood QT movie, the paycheck is the gun so to speak.

And i'm not saying these women are the same as being raped or done really wrong, but i do think its disgusting he brings his fetish into all his movies getting off on the actresses' feet, its just a little weird. FDTD is the worst he's done putting it in the script that he gets to drink beer off of Salma Hayek's foot.

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

That was Robert Rodriguez’s idea, actually. And why is it disgusting that he puts his fetish in movies? He likes feet so he puts in a few closeups.

[–] davodikum (5966) 3 years ago

Is that speculation? Do you know for a fact that it was Roberts idea. Just curious how you discovered that tidbit.

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

I’ve heard it mentioned more than once. I think it’s still in the trivia section of IMDb.

[–] Mulletor (520) 3 years ago

We all remember the over the top foot fetish scene from Reservoir Dogs.

[–] sut6432 (2830) 3 years ago

And “The Hateful Eight”. That was a foot bonanza! 🤣

[–] Mulletor (520) 3 years ago

"Why do I have to be Mr. Pink"
"Because you have sexy toes, alright?"

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20392) 3 years ago

If you feel that way why do you watch his films? Do you think any of those actresses think they were taken advantage of? Give me a break.

[–] Mister Babadook (2621) 3 years ago

I mean i'm not gonna not watch a movie because of a scene with feet, QT's made some amazing movies, but i've never liked or understood his need for always having a weird scene with feet or about feet in almost all his movies.

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

What movies have “scenes about feet”? The first Kill Bill had a scene where the Bride tries to wiggle her big toe to overcome entropy, but otherwise, it’s not that prevalent. Sometimes, he’ll have a a few seconds if someone’s feet as they walk around (a common movie shot) and that’s as far as he takes it. Like I said before, it took me years to find out he had a foot fetish and it was never distracting to me.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Why not admit that you haven't watched enough of his movies to see what the OP is talking about, instead of acting incredulous? I mean, c'mon--

Jackie Brown:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/31/58/d2/3158d209607b9993fbb4f636b01fcda6.jpg

Deathproof:
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/709071/28304161/1590519071750/leg.png?token=hbBsBy0vKx%2Bzq%2Bm0twAz0evw%2Btw%3D

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7083180b67cdeaeef4cfdafde7bf24be

https://miro.medium.com/max/1192/0*_EHXykn3EgpCkJoi.jpg

OUATIH:

https://i.insider.com/5d404c00100a243870688975?width=700

https://americanmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/tate.jpg

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

I have seen all of these movies. I stand by what I said.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You're standing by your incorrect statement that QT only has a few seconds of standard shots of women's feet in his films, in spite of evidence to the contrary? In spite of the fact that in Death Proof, the entire first act revolves around a woman dangling her feet out of a car window, which then get accidentally chopped off in an accident?

Okay.

[–] AP (5255) 3 years ago

Actually, I said he would sometimes do that, not that it was the only example. I did say say that showing feet in scenes was as far as he would take it, which I stand by. Even the examples you showed had scenes that were focused on other things. They just happened to have bare feet in those scenes. Once again, I’m not sure why the OP or you are losing their shit because some guy likes feet so he shows them in his movies. Hitchcock had a thing for blondes so he put them in his movie as well. Does that piss you off too?

[–] Redsfan001 (5999) 3 years ago

Enjoy....because QT is one of the last.

The last generation of directors to have the ability to actually shape their own films.

These scenes and so,so, so many others are going to be homogenized out of films altogether in a process called......."Pre-screening".

Pre-screening tells studios what a audience wants and doesn't want. It fits in with current cultural expectations and norms. Studios have reems and reems of data of just what audiences expect from a film.Powerless directors with no spine know about this and don't even bother now to shoot scenes or ad libs that won't make it through pre-screening.

This makes for some really, really safe, artistically meritless, very boring, vacuous films.

So next time you see this foot fetish thing, just watch F9 or F8 or whatever... for some really homogenized film product.