Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-08-2019, 03:45 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
An act of violence against a woman is still an act of violence against a woman, even if you think you've come up with a story that justifies the violence.

First of all, you don't have to show on screen the retribution.

Second, you don't have to show it in explicit detail, particularly the extended, gory depictions that really relishes the violence.

Third, you don't have to show justice in the form of physical retribution at all. You might just thwart the plans and have them arrested without any kind of violence.

All three of those things are choices.
Call me a misogynist if you must, but as soon as someone home invades with murderous intent, gender immediately becomes irrelevant. And QT showed just that.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #102  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:10 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Call me a misogynist if you must, but as soon as someone home invades with murderous intent, gender immediately becomes irrelevant. And QT showed just that.
This isn't about whether I think you're a misogynist. This is about thinking more seriously about arguments that are made.

Depicting a character who happens to be from some historically disadvantaged group (a minority, a woman, whatever), happens in the context of society as a whole, not just in the context of the four corners of a film script.

Say one decided to depict a story about a black man in the United States who raped a white woman. The depiction of the black man shows how this character is bad in every single way, in attitude, morals, language, depravity, whatever. And the depiction of the white woman is pure, innocent, kind, generous, all the positive qualities one can think of.

You write a story in which the black man is arrested and is facing the possibility of criminal prosecution. But then, the woman's friends or relatives are given a reason to fear that the the prosecution will not go through, perhaps because of some legal "loophole"? And so the friends and relatives raise a vigilante mob (all white) who then break into the jail, take the rapist hostage.

And then the movie goes on to depict in graphic detail the torture and murder of this rapist--anything you can think of--flaying, castration, whatever.

You can set this story up to justify retribution against this rapist. But what you've depicted is a story that fits right in with the cultural stereotypes that have helped oppress black Americans for centuries. You're confirming and reaffirming all the racist attitudes of society, and perhaps waking them (consciously or not) in your audience.

Then it's not enough to say "well, in the story, the guy was bad and deserved punishment." Movies don't just happen within their frames.

Now, this is a much more blatant and obvious issue than the question of Tarantino's depiction of violence against women, but what it shows is that the criticism isn't ameliorated simply by saying "well, this character was a terrible person who did terrible things, so she deserved it."

Everything one puts on the screen is a choice. The events, the words, the degree of graphic explicitness -- everything is a choice, and those choices happen in the context of the society we live in. And the depiction can serve to reinforce or affirm stereotypes that harm people in society.

For example, I've seen reports that suggest that the show "24" actually reinforced the idea that police and security forces should be allowed to use torture to investigate terroristic threats. Depictions can have consequences outside the stories they're part of, and that's a serious conversation to have.

So, in general, stories that depict violent retribution as being justified, and killing to be the best solution to threats can be validly questioned. They are very likely propagating an ideology about how justice should work and what the place of violence and killing is or should be in society.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-08-2019 at 05:13 PM.
  #103  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
The criticism of “24” is valid. This one is just
  #104  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:13 PM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Depicting a character who happens to be from some historically disadvantaged group (a minority, a woman, whatever), happens in the context of society as a whole, not just in the context of the four corners of a film script.

In your opinion anyway. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
  #105  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:03 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
He was probably just reacting to the virtue signaling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
Got it in one.
These are not terms used in sincere discussion.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #106  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:03 PM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The criticism of “24” is valid. This one is just
Yeah. His "argument" really does deserve nothing more than a

So, Acsenray, do you hold the same views when violence in fictional films is directed against Nazis & slaveholders?
  #107  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:27 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
Yeah. His "argument" really does deserve nothing more than a

So, Acsenray, do you hold the same views when violence in fictional films is directed against Nazis & slaveholders?
Or fictional women actress, makeup artist, and stunt women beating an injured and incapacitated white male serial killer to death?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.

Last edited by snfaulkner; 08-08-2019 at 06:28 PM.
  #108  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:33 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
So, Acsenray, do you hold the same views when violence in fictional films is directed against Nazis & slaveholders?
Yes, I think it's a huge flaw in our cultural landscape. I am a huge fan of fantasy, science fiction, superhero stuff, etc., but I am always disappointed by the fact that they so often resolve their stories with the premise that the best solution to problems is by causing someone's death or portraying violent retribution as justified or satisfactory.

And, of course, I am particularly troubled by Tarantino's penchant for relishing in hyper-explicit brutality. There's a disturbing level of joy in his movies' depiction of cruelty and violence. There are things I've enjoyed in several of his films, but that isn't one of them.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #109  
Old 08-08-2019, 06:44 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes, I think it's a huge flaw in our cultural landscape. I am a huge fan of fantasy, science fiction, superhero stuff, etc., but I am always disappointed by the fact that they so often resolve their stories with the premise that the best solution to problems is by causing someone's death or portraying violent retribution as justified or satisfactory.

And, of course, I am particularly troubled by Tarantino's penchant for relishing in hyper-explicit brutality. There's a disturbing level of joy in his movies' depiction of cruelty and violence. There are things I've enjoyed in several of his films, but that isn't one of them.
So for society's sake, you'd press 2?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #110  
Old 08-08-2019, 07:10 PM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
These are not terms used in sincere discussion.
They are if he believes the other person isn't engaged in sincere discussion. I am not saying that's the case, but I can see where he might believe that, given the nature of your argument.
  #111  
Old 08-08-2019, 07:15 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
So for society's sake, you'd press 2?
Let's try this link...

https://morbotron.com/meme/S02E12/268100.jpg?b64lines=
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #112  
Old 08-09-2019, 12:55 AM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes, I think it's a huge flaw in our cultural landscape. I am a huge fan of fantasy, science fiction, superhero stuff, etc., but I am always disappointed by the fact that they so often resolve their stories with the premise that the best solution to problems is by causing someone's death or portraying violent retribution as justified or satisfactory.

And, of course, I am particularly troubled by Tarantino's penchant for relishing in hyper-explicit brutality. There's a disturbing level of joy in his movies' depiction of cruelty and violence. There are things I've enjoyed in several of his films, but that isn't one of them.
OK so you’re against violence in film period. Then don’t try to make up bullshit arguments that gender has anything to do with it.

And it’s not our cultural landscape. It’s every cultural landscape, since humans began telling stories.
  #113  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:59 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephe96 View Post
I was reminded of the Robert Wagner/Natalie Wood situation - Cliff’s wife apparently died while they were out on a boat, and there are rumors in the industry that it may not have been accidental. I guess only Cliff knows what happened, but the rumors are enough to keep some people from working with him.
Hmm, interesting. I hadn't thought of the Wagner/Wood parallel before. I see your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephe96 View Post
A thought just occurred to me: with Yesterday and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood , we’ve had two movies this summer where the Manson murders never occurred.
I saw Yesterday, too, and don't remember any reference to the Manson murders in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
...I’m happy to note that the actress playing Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) is 24, because she was quite sexy with her flirtatious hitchhiking. It’s also Andie MacDowell’s daughter!
Ah, I didn't know that! Quite a beauty. She was good in The Nice Guys, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
...The other thing that came to mind was, "They art directed the shit out of that"....
It sure looked good, whether or not it was accurate. Filling the streets with all those old cars and putting up period signage for block after block couldn't have been cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
...Was I the only person who thought the dark-haired one’s lunatic screaming and arm-waving were just ridiculous and a directorial misstep?....
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Not going to read through the previous replies, as I may see it, but I have heard that this movie is too long and quite boring until the last 20 minutes or so. Do you agree?
I thought it was overlong, but I was never bored.
  #114  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:27 AM
Equipoise's Avatar
Equipoise is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post

I saw Yesterday, too, and don't remember any reference to the Manson murders in it.
I assume it's because if the Beatles never existed The White Album wouldn't have existed for Manson and his morons to obsess over and there'd be no Helter Skelter on the album for asswipe to take up as an anthem. The song wasn't in Yesterday so they never would have heard Jack Malik's version (I doubt he recorded it).

They were still crazy murderous fuckheads though, and the asswipe was still butthurt over Melcher blowing him off (which had nothing to do with the Beatles) so it still might have happened. I'm glad it wasn't touched upon at all in the movie though. They could have had a quick scene where Jack does a Google search for Manson/Tate but they didn't, and I'm glad.

I adore that movie.
  #115  
Old 08-09-2019, 12:03 PM
Stephe96 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gardner MA USA
Posts: 2,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equipoise View Post
I assume it's because if the Beatles never existed The White Album wouldn't have existed for Manson and his morons to obsess over and there'd be no Helter Skelter on the album for asswipe to take up as an anthem. The song wasn't in Yesterday so they never would have heard Jack Malik's version (I doubt he recorded it).

They were still crazy murderous fuckheads though, and the asswipe was still butthurt over Melcher blowing him off (which had nothing to do with the Beatles) so it still might have happened. I'm glad it wasn't touched upon at all in the movie though. They could have had a quick scene where Jack does a Google search for Manson/Tate but they didn't, and I'm glad.

I adore that movie.
Yeah, I guess my point was that if the Manson murders had occurred, they certainly wouldn’t have been known as “Helter Skelter” and they wouldn’t have written “piggies” and “rise” in blood on the wall.
__________________
Which is crazier? To the hear the
Voice of God when it's really only
thunder? Or to hear only thunder
when it's really the Voice of God?
  #116  
Old 08-09-2019, 01:00 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
Charlie was unfortunately just nuts enough that he didn't necessarily need The White Album for inspiration. He would have seized on something else, equally innocuous, and said it inspired him instead.
  #117  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:24 AM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,678
Astounding collaborative artwork! Loving how Tarantino got the planet talking about violence for less than the cost of a couple of fighter jets while giving Lars von Trier a well-earned break from calling out hypocrites. Also loving how it'll be watched again and again by students in future generations, represented in this movie by the awesome and inexplicably yet unmentioned Julia Butters' young Trudi.

1969 was indeed the perfect place to save and start over from.
  #118  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:16 PM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
1969 was indeed the perfect place to save and start over from.
1963 would have been better if that's your goal.
  #119  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:36 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,765
I saw it today and liked it (although I had to pee for the last thirty minutes or so, so I was uncomfortable sitting there). In particular, I think it seemed to be a love letter to Los Angeles of the period, with lots of shots of long-gone theaters, restaurants and so forth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
One thing the movie did not get right... and I'm not too sure how it could have been fixed... is the complete lack of smog. Check out the link below for a picture comparing LA air quality in 1968 and 2005.

http://geoprojectgrp7.blogspot.com/2...ation.html?m=1
The goof I noticed was the use of the Boeing 747 in 1969. The first commercial flights were in 1970.
  #120  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:51 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I saw it today and liked it (although I had to pee for the last thirty minutes or so, so I was uncomfortable sitting there).
You and me both!

(As a result, I didn’t sit through the credits and failed to see the end scene - a commercial that Rick did for Red Apple cigarettes, which are the brand that is always used in the smoker friendly Tarantino universe.)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenr...explained/amp/
  #121  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:07 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,836
Just saw it and enjoyed it a lot. There were many times when it felt more like a Wes Anderson movie than a Quentin Tarantino movie - and I mean that as a compliment.

Brad Pitt really did inhabit that role. I totally forgot "it's Brad Pitt", which, again, I mean as a compliment.
  #122  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:14 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by RikWriter View Post
1963 would have been better if that's your goal.
I had the same thought. Having killed Hitler early, and saved Sharon Tate and her guests, will QT next visit Dallas in 1963? Then maybe Ford's Theatre in 1865, and Sarajevo in 1914...?

Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 08-10-2019 at 11:16 PM.
  #123  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:14 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,736
I loved it. All of it. Can’t remember a movie I enjoyed like that in years.
  #124  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:16 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Ohhh...I took 1963 to mean before the Beatles but I kind of forgot about JFK.
  #125  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:38 AM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
I had the same thought. Having killed Hitler early, and saved Sharon Tate and her guests, will QT next visit Dallas in 1963? Then maybe Ford's Theatre in 1865, and Sarajevo in 1914...?
Tarantino apparently really liked The City on the Edge of Forever, so maybe moments before the one Big Bang we know of?
  #126  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:03 PM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 41,015
The wife and I watched this yesterday. Loved it.

Not that I go around staring at dog penises, but in one scene Brandy, referred to in the move as "she," clearly has one.

Liked the background newscasts on the radio.
__________________
The two most interesting things in the world: Other people's sex lives and your own money.

Last edited by Siam Sam; 08-11-2019 at 05:07 PM.
  #127  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:26 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,082
Tarantino has come out to respond to critics of his characterization of Bruce Lee. Lee's family has claimed that Bruce wasn't that arrogant to claim he could beat Cassius Clay and that there's no way that Pitt's character could have beat Lee.

Tarantino, said he knows for a fact that Bruce was that arrogant and that Lee had actually made the claims about Cassius Clay in real life. He also said that Pitt's character, Cliff Booth, is a fictional character that he created, and in that fiction Cliff Booth could've kicked Bruce Lee's ass.
  #128  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:08 PM
MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Call me a misogynist if you must, but as soon as someone home invades with murderous intent, gender immediately becomes irrelevant. And QT showed just that.
I think we're given plenty of reasons to understand that Cliff acted with serious and justified intent. We know he's a veteran but he also has a dark side and he's been given due cause to be suspicious of the entire Manson clan after his experience on the ranch. He's also high as a kite, be it on acid or something more dangerous (who knows what that cig was really laced with?). So putting those family members out of commission in an unambiguous way is completely consistent with his character and his skills of threat assessment in the moment, particularly given his already-altered state.

But Rick's response is completely different. All he sees is a woman, already seriously injured, crashing through his back window and blindly falling into his pool, screaming in agony and shooting off a gun in a dangerously haphazard manner. He doesn't know anything about her intentions or that she's a member of some scary-ass cult.
All he knows is that she's one of the "dirty, fucking hippies" who were making a noise in his driveway early. Also, hippies are a group we've seen him disparage plenty of times before in the film for no other reason than that they disgust him.

So after he escapes the back patio, do we see him call the police or check on his wife or ask Cliff, "Hey dude, who the fuck is the girl who's practically drowning in my pool out back? And oh shit, can I call you an ambulance?" No, we next see him flame-roast her with a god-damn flamethrower with exactly the same kind of relish we saw him toast Nazis in his WWII movie. This is not a proportionate response to the situation, but it's one that's supposed to be satisfying to the audience (who knows what a threat she was) and it's deeply satisfying for him because he gets to be the villain-killing hero of his own story instead of the special guest bad guy that his career has now relegated to him.

This is somehow framed at Rick's moment of redemption (albeit probably brief). He gets to rub noses with Hollywood's It Girl, the starlet next-door neighbor he's only seen from afar. But like in his real life, Cliff does most of the actual dangerous stuff while Rick gets the glory and the "money shot". But the sadism of that moment struck me as gratuitously over-the-top given the actual situation. It's like Frank Drebin accidentally mowing down two pedestrians with his car who just happened to be drug dealers. YMMV, of course, but that left a sour taste in my mouth. Leo plays it just like he should, but QT's conception of that scene seems a way to get his rocks off while also using a tragic historical fig leaf as cover.

For me, there's plenty to like about the film, but its demerits (which I consider significant) equate to the whole being far less than the sum of its parts, no matter how artfully rendered some of them might be.
  #129  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:53 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
I think we're given plenty of reasons to understand that Cliff acted with serious and justified intent. We know he's a veteran but he also has a dark side and he's been given due cause to be suspicious of the entire Manson clan after his experience on the ranch. He's also high as a kite, be it on acid or something more dangerous (who knows what that cig was really laced with?). So putting those family members out of commission in an unambiguous way is completely consistent with his character and his skills of threat assessment in the moment, particularly given his already-altered state.

But Rick's response is completely different. All he sees is a woman, already seriously injured, crashing through his back window and blindly falling into his pool, screaming in agony and shooting off a gun in a dangerously haphazard manner. He doesn't know anything about her intentions or that she's a member of some scary-ass cult.
All he knows is that she's one of the "dirty, fucking hippies" who were making a noise in his driveway early. Also, hippies are a group we've seen him disparage plenty of times before in the film for no other reason than that they disgust him.

So after he escapes the back patio, do we see him call the police or check on his wife or ask Cliff, "Hey dude, who the fuck is the girl who's practically drowning in my pool out back? And oh shit, can I call you an ambulance?" No, we next see him flame-roast her with a god-damn flamethrower with exactly the same kind of relish we saw him toast Nazis in his WWII movie. This is not a proportionate response to the situation, but it's one that's supposed to be satisfying to the audience (who knows what a threat she was) and it's deeply satisfying for him because he gets to be the villain-killing hero of his own story instead of the special guest bad guy that his career has now relegated to him.

This is somehow framed at Rick's moment of redemption (albeit probably brief). He gets to rub noses with Hollywood's It Girl, the starlet next-door neighbor he's only seen from afar. But like in his real life, Cliff does most of the actual dangerous stuff while Rick gets the glory and the "money shot". But the sadism of that moment struck me as gratuitously over-the-top given the actual situation. It's like Frank Drebin accidentally mowing down two pedestrians with his car who just happened to be drug dealers. YMMV, of course, but that left a sour taste in my mouth. Leo plays it just like he should, but QT's conception of that scene seems a way to get his rocks off while also using a tragic historical fig leaf as cover.

For me, there's plenty to like about the film, but its demerits (which I consider significant) equate to the whole being far less than the sum of its parts, no matter how artfully rendered some of them might be.
Hey, I agree. The flamerthrowering did seem ridiculously unnecessary. But knowing it is fictional, that ridiculousnessocity made it hilarious. My whole point was that it was irrelevant what gender the target was.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #130  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:24 AM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 41,015
I knew that flame-thrower was going to make an appearance later on when I saw it casually leaning against the wall of his shed early on. Call it Chekov's flame-thrower.
__________________
The two most interesting things in the world: Other people's sex lives and your own money.

Last edited by Siam Sam; 08-16-2019 at 12:24 AM.
  #131  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:20 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
... the long extended scene where Pitt is feeding his dog originally seems to exist to drive the point that Brad doesn't have much of a life.
But it has to be seen in the context of the following scene (and the ones in the caravan the next day) showing that LDC's emotional life makes Pitt's look full in comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
One thing the movie did not get right... and I'm not too sure how it could have been fixed... is the complete lack of smog.
The radio says something like 'no smog today' - maybe the Tarantinoverse requires this for all its beautiful colours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
He exploits her tragic fate as a way to push our buttons. I personally found this ghoulish in a way that the Hitler revisionism wasn't in Basterds.
In my opinion, the reason we only hear Tait's voice after the thwarted attack, rather than see the actor(s), is to avoid being too ghoulish. YMMV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
Was I the only person who thought the dark-haired one’s lunatic screaming and arm-waving were just ridiculous and a directorial misstep?
I'm not sure, it felt like a reference to something to me. I'm not enough of a film buff to know though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
No, we next see him flame-roast her with a god-damn flamethrower with exactly the same kind of relish we saw him toast Nazis in his WWII movie. This is not a proportionate response to the situation, but it's one that's supposed to be satisfying to the audience (who knows what a threat she was) and it's deeply satisfying for him because he gets to be the villain-killing hero of his own story instead of the special guest bad guy that his career has now relegated to him.

This is somehow framed at Rick's moment of redemption (albeit probably brief).
Good point about the murderous use of the flamethrower. But that doesn't make the story flawed - it makes the story much deeper and more nuanced than first appears. It's a story about stories (Hollywood stories and fairy tales, good guys and bad guys, as is explicitly stated during the makeup scene). A character who appears, or who believes himself to be, a hero, or even just one of the good guys, may in fact be one of the worst characters in the story. In fact Rick may only be second in evilness to the almost mythological Charlie without it compromising the quality of this film.
  #132  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:21 PM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,333
The bit with the harpoon on the boat is clearly a joky reference to the going over a bump bit in Pulp Fiction.
  #133  
Old 08-24-2019, 08:56 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
This says something about you and the society you live in. Why is violent retribution the type of resolution that is so obviously the most entertaining to you?
Since, some people really have it coming,
The characters in the film, especially.
Don’t have to jump on every bandwagon.
  #134  
Old 08-24-2019, 09:13 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Since, some people really have it coming,
The characters in the film, especially.
That's just a restatement of an affection for violence as a solution to problems.

Quote:
Don’t have to jump on every bandwagon.
Speaking as someone with a common background in the law, I'm not impressed by your use of ad hominem argument.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #135  
Old 08-24-2019, 09:14 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,333
I saw it today. Took my parents, who have never seen a Tarantino film before, to see it. Both of them, especially my mother, were familiar with the Tate murders, so while they enjoyed QT’s style, they were confused by the ending, Mum, actually said to me on the drive home that she never knew that the Manson family attacked a home next door before the murders!
I enjoyed it. Better than Hateful Eight, by far. The film was vintage Tarentino. The ending was telegraphed a mile away, after Inglorious Basterds no one was being surprised by the twist, but the ending sequence of events was well written and excellently executed.

A couple of questions,

1. Who was the women in the yellow bikini? Cliff’s wife? Can’t recall seeing her anywhere in the film, but I did go to the bathroom for a minute mid film so, yeah maybe.

2. The “Steve McQueen” bit, was Damien Lewis, McQueen or Hef?

3. Speaking of McQueen, did the movie suggest that DiCaperios character was originally supposed to have been “Cooler” Hilts?
And then was sacked?
I will say, they did a seamless job of placing Leo’s head on McQueens body in the clip.
  #136  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:12 AM
Equipoise's Avatar
Equipoise is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,093
1. It was Cliff's wife. That flashback (within a flashback) is the only time we see her.

2. Hef wasn't shown at all in the mansion scene.

3. Dalton tells Jim Stacy that for a brief moment McQueen considered passing on the role, and in that brief moment Rick and 3 others (George Maharis, George Chakiris and George Peppard, the "three Georges" he mentions) were considered. The Great Escape scene was either Dalton imagining himself in the role, and/or Tarantino showing us what Rick would have looked like in the role. Obviously McQueen was the right choice.
  #137  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:30 AM
Equipoise's Avatar
Equipoise is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,093
If anyone in Chicago is interested, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is playing at Navy Pier IMAX starting today. Hobbs and Shaw had been playing there. They must have had a contract which is why OUATIH didn't play there when it opened everywhere else. I've seen it 5 times but I'm seeing it again there on Sunday. Maybe twice! Bless you AMC A*List!
  #138  
Old 08-24-2019, 01:46 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephe96 View Post
The movie should have had Steve McQueen at the Tate house that night, since he nearly went in real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Also Quincy Jones.
If both men had been there, then maybe the real life would have played out like the film.
McQueen was actually mugged that night, and very calmly went to his car, got his gun, and pistol whipped his mugger senseless. Decided against going as a result of the mugging,

McQueen had been in the Marines and had plenty of experience as a street fighter in his youth. He would not have been an easy victim if he was inclined to resist.
I actually wonder if QT got the idea from this hypothetical.
  #139  
Old 08-27-2019, 03:34 PM
Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 29,769
Finally saw it today.

I liked it. Kind of a fun minimal-plot story. Very funny, funniest Tarantino movie except Inglorious Basterds, which is still his best movie by a lot.

The final sequence with stoned Brad Pitt fighting was awesome.

Lots of fun and laughs throughout.
  #140  
Old 09-02-2019, 01:54 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,626
I just saw it, and loved it. Soooo many pop culture references: music, TV, radio stations, movies. (I was a big Paul Revere and the Raiders fan at the time.)

What was up with all the shots of footwear & feet??

Pussycat looked terribly familiar -- thanks to you guys, I think it's because she looks like Andie McDowell.
The dark-haired killer also was familiar and I had a hard time using IMDB to place her: because her character is listed by her Manson family nickname (Sadie), instead of the real name we now know through the trial (Susan Atkins). (She's the eldest daughter on Better Things.)

Favorite line:
"What's your name...?"
"I'm the devil, here to do the devil's business."
"Naw...it was stupider then that."

Brad Pitt is so freakin' cool.
  #141  
Old 09-02-2019, 02:05 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
What was up with all the shots of footwear & feet??
Tarantino has a foot fetish. His movies are full of women's feet.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #142  
Old 09-02-2019, 02:16 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,626
The trailers call this "The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino" and I tried to count them up. Assuming we start with Reservoir Dogs, I can get to 9 by counting Kill Bill as 2 movies, and skipping Grindhouse and Four Rooms.
  #143  
Old 09-02-2019, 07:03 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,194
You're correct, and I believe that when he wants to do #11, Jackie Brown will be taken off the "10 movie" list because it wasn't his story.

Last edited by JohnT; 09-02-2019 at 07:05 PM.
  #144  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:37 PM
Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,339
I really enjoyed this movie, except I did have to turn away when Cliff was bashing the one woman's face against the mantel. See violence like that onscreen is less entertaining when you have seen it in real life. I loved Brad Pitt in it he was Cliff. Leo was great as well, but just not as authentic - I liked the comment above that Pitt just becomes his characters. I loved this more than most of QT's films.
  #145  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:12 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,863
I gave it a 7/10. I liked the characters, acting and the overall visual look/production design, but I thought it could have done with a better story, script, and - probably - directing, as there were times I felt it a bit amateurish. I also found the violence at the end to be rather gratuitous and juvenile.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017