Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-28-2019, 02:44 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I’m pretty sure it’s not a flashback. There is a flashback to his wife but I think it’s in the daydream too.
The sequence is a “memory” in Cliff’s head. I love how it’s framed.

Cliff is on the roof, fixing Rick’s antenna. He’s recalling that Rick had said that he can’t even ask if Cliff can do stunt work. You imagine that Cliff should be pissed off...

Then we cut to this meandering sequence of events which entail Cliff getting into a fight with Bruce Lee, wrecking that female producer (? Kurt Russel’s wife)’s car. This was after she had already told her husband that she didn’t want to work with him because “everybody knows” he killed his wife - at this point, we get yet another cutaway to Cliff on the boat, with the harpoon, although we simply aren’t shown what that means. The scene ends with Cliff being kicked off the set of the show (Green Hornet - note that he kept referring to Lee as “Kato”).

Cut back to Cliff on the roof, and he sort of shrugs and goes yeah, I understand why he wasn’t going to even ask Kurt Russel if I could do stunt work. The sequence is a flashback in his mind of the last time Cliff had worked with Russel. Hence, why Rick wasn’t even going to ask this time.
  #52  
Old 07-28-2019, 02:45 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Cliff can daydream about a conversation that he’s not present for. I do that all the time.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #53  
Old 07-28-2019, 02:59 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
The sequence is a “memory” in Cliff’s head. I love how it’s framed.

Cliff is on the roof, fixing Rick’s antenna. He’s recalling that Rick had said that he can’t even ask if Cliff can do stunt work. You imagine that Cliff should be pissed off...

Then we cut to this meandering sequence of events which entail Cliff getting into a fight with Bruce Lee, wrecking that female producer (? Kurt Russel’s wife)’s car. This was after she had already told her husband that she didn’t want to work with him because “everybody knows” he killed his wife - at this point, we get yet another cutaway to Cliff on the boat, with the harpoon, although we simply aren’t shown what that means. The scene ends with Cliff being kicked off the set of the show (Green Hornet - note that he kept referring to Lee as “Kato”).

Cut back to Cliff on the roof, and he sort of shrugs and goes yeah, I understand why he wasn’t going to even ask Kurt Russel if I could do stunt work. The sequence is a flashback in his mind of the last time Cliff had worked with Russel. Hence, why Rick wasn’t even going to ask this time.
It can’t be a memory because we know he didn’t get costumed, and he didn’t fight Bruce Lee. That means there was never a conversation between Rick and Randy (Kurt Russell) in which Randy agreed to let Cliff her costumes.

And Cliff can’t have a memory of a conversation he wasn’t witness to, but he can have a daydream about it.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #54  
Old 07-28-2019, 03:21 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Sorry for multiple posts - I’m on my phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Yes it was her. Cliff recognized her and mentioned her as the redhead that was with George.
I thought this, too, but casting seems to confirm that it’s played by somebody else. Dakota Fanning was Squeaky. Madison Beaty and Mikey Madison played the girls who were at the house.

Which would be accurate - Squeaky did not participate in the murders and did not go to prison, which is why she was able to attempt to kill President Ford in the 1970s.
...
Other thoughts a day later:
While the ending is radically different from reality, the movie does include some things that were true, like Tate going to dinner that night at that restaurant.

Also, there’s a scene where Manson stops by the house and and asks to speak with Terry; he mentions knowing Dennis Wilson. I believe Jay Sebring, in the movie, tells him that this is the Polanski residence. You can hear him tell him to take alley in the back.

This happened, although the person who confronted him was not Sebring. But Tate did see Manson and asked who he was. The reference to Terry was to Terry Melcher, a record producer who had given Manson some faint praise and then blew him off. The guy who went Manson away did tell him to take the back alley - but he was directing him to the caretaker house. It was later theorized that Manson had been insulted by the encounter, which is why he targeted the house.

And George Spahn really did own Spahn ranch, an old movie lot that made money by offering trail rides. The family resided there for a while, which George allowed for free because he got to have sex with the girls (apparently not just Squeaky - they weren’t a monogamous sort of group). He was also pretty much blind. Incidentally, Squeaky got her nickname because of the squeal she made when George would pinch her. He also nicknamed Tex for his drawl (I thought that part was bad casting).
...
The movie definitely presumes that a viewer already knows the story and era. It’s certainly an homage. I felt like he went to great pains to recreate streets, logos, and sounds of southern California in the late 1960’s. (My mom was 18 and lived 20 miles from where the killings happened. She recalls going to the drive-in that Cliff lives behind). Many shots seemed to linger over streets as if reminiscing.
...
I like that we would occasionally see that Cliff had stuntman skills. He bounced from a fence to the roof when he was fixing the antenna. And he did a cool spin when he started driving his car away from Rick’s house.
...
I’m glad that I’ve read that Brad Pitt and Leo Decaprio got along and liked working together. They are both great actors. But I feel like this movie showed a stark difference: Decaprio decides how to perform the role (a country drawl, a halting, almost stuttering speech that reflects the character’s increasing angst), whereas Pitt just inhabits his character. Brad Pitt wasn’t playing Cliff the stuntman, he was Cliff the stuntman. Needless to say, I’m a fan of his acting, and I thought he just exuded charm.
...
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!
  #55  
Old 07-28-2019, 03:36 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It can’t be a memory because we know he didn’t get costumed, and he didn’t fight Bruce Lee. That means there was never a conversation between Rick and Randy (Kurt Russell) in which Randy agreed to let Cliff her costumes.
And Cliff can’t have a memory of a conversation he wasn’t witness to, but he can have a daydream about it.
In the movie, this happened, but long before the day we are watching. It’s the reason that Cliff can’t work with Kurt Russel.

You are right in correcting me that it’s not a memory in the strict sense. It’s Tarantino’s way if telling us the reason why Cliff is persona non grata. It’s framed, however, by Cliff being on the roof fixing the antenna.

It starts starts with Cliff on the roof and remembering Rick’s rejection (paraphrasing, “I won’t even ask if you can do this job”) and - after this long cutaway - comes back to Cliff on the roof and going, paraphrasing, “yeah, I see Rick’s point.”

It’s an “aside”, if you will. But - in the movie universe - it did happen. Cliff got kicked off the set of Green Hornet for fucking up Kurt Russel’s wife’s car by messing around with Bruce Lee.

I think the key that this is not a linear scene is that Rick is not doing Green Hornet when Cliff asked him about asking for work. It was some western. So Cliff - a stunt double - wouldn’t have been in a tuxedo when he confronted Bruce Lee. That’s how you know it was previous work (which had been mentioned earlier in the movie - Rick had done a bunch of guest appearances as a bad guy on TV shows).
  #56  
Old 07-28-2019, 04:38 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
In the movie, this happened, but long before the day we are watching. It’s the reason that Cliff can’t work with Kurt Russel.

You are right in correcting me that it’s not a memory in the strict sense. It’s Tarantino’s way if telling us the reason why Cliff is persona non grata. It’s framed, however, by Cliff being on the roof fixing the antenna.

It starts starts with Cliff on the roof and remembering Rick’s rejection (paraphrasing, “I won’t even ask if you can do this job”) and - after this long cutaway - comes back to Cliff on the roof and going, paraphrasing, “yeah, I see Rick’s point.”

It’s an “aside”, if you will. But - in the movie universe - it did happen. Cliff got kicked off the set of Green Hornet for fucking up Kurt Russel’s wife’s car by messing around with Bruce Lee.

I think the key that this is not a linear scene is that Rick is not doing Green Hornet when Cliff asked him about asking for work. It was some western. So Cliff - a stunt double - wouldn’t have been in a tuxedo when he confronted Bruce Lee. That’s how you know it was previous work (which had been mentioned earlier in the movie - Rick had done a bunch of guest appearances as a bad guy on TV shows).
Correct. It's a memory, as Moriarity puts it. Nitpick: Cliff says, "Fair enough." on the cutback to the roof scene. That solidifies it.
  #57  
Old 07-28-2019, 06:10 PM
Stephe96 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gardner MA USA
Posts: 2,572
It’s definitely Cliff remembering why Randy would never hire him again. “Fair enough.”

It’s definitely not Squeaky Fromme at the end. Cliff recognizes the other redhead from the ranch.

Also, did Roman Polanski really have a dog named “Saperstein?”
__________________
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?
  #58  
Old 07-28-2019, 11:21 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,182
Quote:
I thought that part was bad casting
He's been cast as Elvis in the upcoming movie with Tom Hanks as Colonel Parker.
  #59  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:59 AM
Wendell Wagner is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 14,358
You might be interested in these three recent videos about this movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdMhqq0RenI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_MuMNPbIF4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj654e7wrC0

Everything is connected to everything else.
  #60  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:19 PM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
I saw it tonight with my 22-year-old son who was familiar with the Tate-Lobianco killings and we both liked it a lot, both because of and somewhat in spite of the ending. I was expecting something even more over the top because of the Chekov's Bruce Lee, something involving the whole Manson family being there and Bruce Lee showing up and having a huge kung fu fight.
  #61  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:49 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,972
2 thumbs up. Made me homesick. I spend a lot of nights at The Frolic Room (where DiCapro wrecked his car and lost his license). But admittedly probably not for everybody. And probably not as rewatchable as some of his others.
__________________
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.
  #62  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:32 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
I thought of another riff on real events in the movie.

In reality, when the killers went to Tate's home, Tex responded to 'who are you and what do you want?' with "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business." Given the depravity with which he then shot and stabbed the victims, it's a pretty sadistic thing to say.

In the movie, he says the line to Cliff (Brad Pitt's character) shortly before being mauled by the dog and becoming a blubbering mess right before he's killed. Cliff repeats the line to the cops, but in sort of a dismissive way, even forgetting the end part. It struck me as Tarantino's way of saying 'fuck you' to the killers.
  #63  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:37 AM
Stephe96 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gardner MA USA
Posts: 2,572
Also (and this is probably nothing) but the real killers cut the phone lines before slaughtering everyone in the Tate house.

Is it significant then that Cliff uses a phone to bash one of the killers’ faces into a pulp? Probably not.
__________________
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?
  #64  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:31 PM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,086
I read one reviewer describe it as "both a chore and a delight to watch". I'd probably have to agree with that. Glad I saw it. Enjoyed most of it. But would be hard pressed to have to sit through the whole thing again.
I heard great things about Luke Perry's performance but found it entirely forgettable. He was supposed to be an actor playing a cowboy from Boston but there really was nothing to it. Neither the cowboy character nor the actor character did much of anything or even had as much as a Boston accent.
Dakota Fanning's part was good albeit very brief.
The violent fantasy ending was entertaining but at the same time sad since you knew how reality played out. It seemed like it was done out of anger like Tarantino was hoping Krenwinkel and Watson would someday be forced to watch it and were told "this is what everyone wishes had really happened".
  #65  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:47 AM
MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,882
There's absolutely no doubt that Sharon Tate is portrayed in a deeply compassionate and endearing way. But the fact remains that Sharon Tate the actress does not play even a miniscule role in the story. None. Sharon Tate the corpse is the only version of her this movie cares about.

For Tarantino uses our knowledge (or for some, memory) of her horrific murder as a critical driving force in the narrative. The dates. The timeline. The telegraphing of details are all geared toward building tension about what we know is going to happen. 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.

There is undeniable poignancy in seeing Tate get the Hollywood ending she deserved, that the killers cruelly deprived her of in real life. But you could remove all of Tate's scenes and they wouldn't change the tale of Rick and Cliff one single iota. She's only there as a historical harbinger, as a cheap device to give us a sense of dread before QT's cute little bait-&-switch.

The film isn't the worst of his body of work (my vote goes to The Hateful 8 or Death Proof), and DiCaprio and Pitt are really excellent (especially the latter, since his character is mostly an empty shell). But I found the film devoid of anything interesting, other than the remarkable recreation of the period. All hat and no cattle, and an overly-familiar one at that.

Last edited by MovieMogul; 08-04-2019 at 10:49 AM.
  #66  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:26 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
There's absolutely no doubt that Sharon Tate is portrayed in a deeply compassionate and endearing way. But the fact remains that Sharon Tate the actress does not play even a miniscule role in the story. None. Sharon Tate the corpse is the only version of her this movie cares about.

For Tarantino uses our knowledge (or for some, memory) of her horrific murder as a critical driving force in the narrative. The dates. The timeline. The telegraphing of details are all geared toward building tension about what we know is going to happen. 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.

There is undeniable poignancy in seeing Tate get the Hollywood ending she deserved, that the killers cruelly deprived her of in real life. But you could remove all of Tate's scenes and they wouldn't change the tale of Rick and Cliff one single iota. She's only there as a historical harbinger, as a cheap device to give us a sense of dread before QT's cute little bait-&-switch.

The film isn't the worst of his body of work (my vote goes to The Hateful 8 or Death Proof), and DiCaprio and Pitt are really excellent (especially the latter, since his character is mostly an empty shell). But I found the film devoid of anything interesting, other than the remarkable recreation of the period. All hat and no cattle, and an overly-familiar one at that.
I agree with a lot of what you state. To me Sharon Tate had a strong whiff of Mary Sue, the perfect blank slate female.

As I left the theater I found my mind repeating the words "Artifice on artifice on artifice". I even found the acting by Leo to be overly stylized and artificial. Although his vocal stammer was a nice character touch.

The other thing that came to mind was, "They art directed the shit out of that". Yes, it was intended to be a fairy tale, hence the title. But Tarantino's fetish for the time period and a certain San Fernando valley patina to Hollywood is really his alone and I don't feel he brought me into it sufficiently as a film goer. I say this as someone who worked in the industry and live a block off of Ventura Blvd.

I expect that the film will get a heap of accolades from industry types, but I would be curious about the reaction of non-coastal viewers.
  #67  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:34 AM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
I don't agree with any of that. Sharon Tate in this movie is the embodiment of 1969 Hollywood. She's not a corpse or a statistic, she's used as an avatar for the way Hollywood used to be seen.
And the movie is great. One of the best he's done.
  #68  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:37 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMogul View Post
All hat and no cattle, and an overly-familiar one at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
As I left the theater I found my mind repeating the words "Artifice on artifice on artifice".
But that's exactly what a Tarantino movie is. There's never any real story. There's never any actual substance. It's just amalgamation of his favorite stylistic elements. Given that, this is one of his better ones.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #69  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:44 PM
MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
But that's exactly what a Tarantino movie is. There's never any real story. There's never any actual substance. It's just amalgamation of his favorite stylistic elements. Given that, this is one of his better ones.
But that's not true. Reservoir Dogs is an examination of male codes and masculine bonding in all its perverse contradictions. Jackie Brown (by far his most mature work) is a rather touching meditation on aging. Django Unchained, for all its flaws, is an unflinching look at the horrors and cruelty of slavery that Hollywood has never explored often enough.

Good crime dramas and film noirs have always had more to say about society or individual characters' flaws and failings than they've often been given credit for, because they've always been wrapped up in genre trappings. Beatrix Kiddo may be little more than a trope in KB1 but becomes a real person, fully fleshed out, by part 2. Hans Landa is a villain for the ages because he embodies the horrible mechanical mind--ruthlessly clever and logical--of a fascist state. These are real characters, not just homages.

To write QT off as mere pastiche is to diminish the artfulness that he's capable of. That he chooses to go to the nostalgia well once too many times showcases his failings, but doesn't mean he's a hack. His pros are significant, but it's frustrating to see that he's not really interested in growing as an artist or challenging himself as a storyteller. Once Upon is empty because it feels lazy more than anything. The sequence at Spahn Ranch is scarier than anything in Midsommar but he doesn't appear to have an ounce of self-awareness.

It's ironic that he loves the films of Hawks and Fuller and Boetticher, etc., but those directors were never about style. They usually drilled for substance, but were taken for granted because they rarely indulged in "message" movies. QT has made films that are light, playful but highly entertaining. Pulp is probably the best example of this and good writing and good acting (which he's stellar at delivering) should never be underestimated. But Once didn't really show him stretching or exploring anything new, imho. YMMV.

Last edited by MovieMogul; 08-04-2019 at 12:44 PM.
  #70  
Old 08-04-2019, 01:57 PM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,423
I really enjoyed this. The love for Cinema is evident in every frame. After Inglorious Bastards I should have suspected history would zag instead of zig.

I also find it hilarious how the fan theory that QT's movies actually take place in an alternate universe still holds.
  #71  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:10 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
So good. Tarantino‘s mastery of the medium is cracklingly present in every frame. A return to form, as the last film of his that I really loved was 2007’s underrated “Death Proof”.

It’s my favorite film of 2019 so far, although I haven’t seen many of those yet (I see a lot of movies but mostly on Blu-ray or streaming), and my fifth favorite of the 2010s (of which I have seen a great number; see my Top 50 here:
https://twitter.com/slackerinc/statu...220418048?s=21).

And it’s now my second favorite Tarantino joint after “Pulp Fiction”, displacing “Jackie Brown”. In case anyone is curious about my grades/rankings of all ten Tarantino films:

SPOILER:

1. Pulp Fiction A
2. OUATIH A
3. Jackie Brown A
4. Kill Bill 1 A
5. Kill Bill 2 A
6. Death Proof A-
7. Reservoir Dogs A-
8. Inglourious Basterds C*
9. The Hateful Eight C
10. Django Unchained D+

*Although the opening scene, and the famous one in the bar, are superb.


A piece of bravura filmmaking, and very highly recommended.

I liked that Rick was a little bit of a fuckup but that it didn't go all the way with that the way you would typically expect. He pulled it together.

An unusual move to start having narration halfway through the film, and noticeably being narrated by an actor who had played a small part earlier in the movie . It was needed there though IMO. I wonder if he tried to have a character do the explication, like earlier when Steve McQueen did it at the party--but it just didn't work. OTOH once he had that narration later in the movie I wonder why he just didn't do that about Sharon Tate instead of the Steve McQueen thing.

I also thought they might show some cliched scenario where Rick says he's trying to get Cliff work but then Cliff finds out he's really not trying. When in fact we saw that he really fought for him.

The fake dog food brand was hilarious.

I like the happy ending a lot even if that might annoy some people.

The dark-haired girl was scary as hell.

A couple things I absolutely loved about the movie that may be a MMV situation:

—The extended scenes from fake TV shows, movies, and even commercials from the period. They were longer than they needed to be for the sake of the story, but I would have been happy had they been three times as long.

—The genuinely close “bromance” between the lead characters. There were times when it zigged when I expected it to zag, and that was really cool.

Did anyone notice Tim Roth was in the credits as having a cut part? I wonder what that was. Charlie Manson maybe?
  #72  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:20 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Did anyone notice Tim Roth was in the credits as having a cut part? I wonder what that was. Charlie Manson maybe?
Wiki says he would’ve been Jay Sebring’s butler.
  #73  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Ok, I can see why that might not make the cut, lol. I assume he was credited only as a courtesy? I don’t think I have ever seen that before and I know actors’ parts get cut all the time.
  #74  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:27 AM
Equipoise's Avatar
Equipoise is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
And probably not as rewatchable as some of his others.
I don't find that true for myself. I've seen it 3 times so far, and since I have both A*List and Regal Unlimited, I can see myself going to see it several more times before it leaves the theaters. I love everything about it.

Right now I'd rank it my 3rd favorite Tarantino, after Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction, unfortunately though, pushing Kill Bill (counting 1&2 as one because it's my ranking and I say so) out of 3rd place.
  #75  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:01 AM
Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 12,086
Regarding accusations of “violence against women:” that’s just a ridiculous thing to mention here. These people set out intent on murder, and when their original plans went awry, they worked to come up with a new justification to murder. That’s like grand-double-premeditated-first-degree-murder! (Clearly, IANAL) the scene was gratuitously violent, IMHO, but the fact that they were women was irrelevant.

Was I the only person who thought the dark-haired one’s lunatic screaming and arm-waving were just ridiculous and a directorial misstep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
It was funny... we discussed this as well, how 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. It isn't until much, much later in the movie that you realize the scene exists also to show you how disciplined the dog is, and the closeness of their bond.

And the choice of breed is also a tip-off.
I saw the scene as an indication of their close relationship and the dog’s exceptional discipline, but also as a comment on Cliff’s own level of discipline and bad-assiness. (At least in some areas - clearly he wasn’t too disciplined about housekeeping) It takes a very strong person to train a dog to that level, and the fact that she was such a big and scary-looking pup drove that point home. Of course, it paid off at the end too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
I agree with a lot of what you state. To me Sharon Tate had a strong whiff of Mary Sue, the perfect blank slate female.
I disagree. She was a well-developed character. She just was’t an especially interesting person. She was very sweet, but also vapid, vain, insecure, and somehwat manipulative. She did come off as a bit too “pure,” but that’s partially because it’s rare to see a Hollywood type portrayed as being a really nice person at heart.


BTW, I hated this movie and thought it was at least an hour too long, but I guess it says something about QT’s mad skillz that I still want to talk about it.
  #76  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:08 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
Regarding accusations of “violence against women:” that’s just a ridiculous thing to mention here. These people set out intent on murder, and when their original plans went awry, they worked to come up with a new justification to murder. That’s like grand-double-premeditated-first-degree-murder! (Clearly, IANAL) the scene was gratuitously violent, IMHO, but the fact that they were women was irrelevant.
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.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #77  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:59 AM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,086
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?
The first thing I thought of when I saw that, besides thinking it was a bit over-the-top, was that we had seen it before in Kill Bill 2 when Darryl Hannah's character got her second eyeball plucked out. Not sure why QT went this way in the current film but I thought he did it in KB2 as a shout out to the way Hannah's "Pris" character died in Blade Runner.
  #78  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:08 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
I actually wanted the violence to be more explicit like in some of his other movies. I had a hard time seeing what happened, because he cut away so quickly. (Inside the house, I mean.)

And anyone who wants a story like this to end with them getting quietly arrested and nothing violent happening should know better than to even buy a ticket to a Quentin Tarantino movie. C’mon.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-07-2019 at 11:09 AM.
  #79  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:21 AM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post

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.
.
Now there's a movie I'd pay to see. Along with Luke Skywalker starting a stormtrooper union to go on strike to cease operation of the death star so he doesn't have to violently blow it up.
  #80  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:23 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Now there's a movie I'd pay to see. Along with Luke Skywalker starting a stormtrooper union to go on strike to cease operation of the death star so he doesn't have to violently blow it up.

LOL!! Exactly.
  #81  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:43 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Now there's a movie I'd pay to see. Along with Luke Skywalker starting a stormtrooper union to go on strike to cease operation of the death star so he doesn't have to violently blow it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
LOL!! Exactly.
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?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #82  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:52 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
That could be worthy of its own thread, but seriously: do you go to a war movie and then complain there was too much shooting? Do you go to a horror movie and complain about the gore and that you just wanted to have a calm, serene moviegoing experience? I guess it’s possible that you have not seen any other Tarantino movies, but now you know for future reference.
  #83  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:00 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
I have seen several of his movies, so none of it was a surprise to me. Whether or not I choose to see a movie is irrelevant to examining Tarantino's choice to depict a particular thing. "Oh, well he always does that" doesn't address the criticism.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #84  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:00 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Missed the edit window.

I also want to point out that your claim here is a strawman. As I look at my list of favorite movies and particularly 40 or so that I have ranked higher than any Tarantino film, there are definitely some other violent movies—like the first two Godfather films and a couple Coen brothers movies. But there are also films with no violence at all, like “Un Coeur en Hiver”, “Wendy and Lucy”, “Stardust Memories”, and “My Dinner with Andre”. I certainly don’t rule out loving a movie because it features graphic violence; but neither is that a prerequisite.
  #85  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:04 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Missed the edit window.

I also want to point out that your claim here is a strawman. As I look at my list of favorite movies and particularly 40 or so that I have ranked higher than any Tarantino film, there are definitely some other violent movies—like the first two Godfather films and a couple Coen brothers movies. But there are also films with no violence at all, like “Un Coeur en Hiver”, “Wendy and Lucy”, “Stardust Memories”, and “My Dinner with Andre”. I certainly don’t rule out loving a movie because it features graphic violence; but neither is that a prerequisite.
You were the one who mocked the notion of these movies having a non-violent resolution. Your list of favorite movies doesn't negate that.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #86  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:06 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,337
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?
  #87  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:21 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
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 enjoyed it all the way through. I hardly noticed it was nearly three hours long.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #88  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:20 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You were the one who mocked the notion of these movies having a non-violent resolution. Your list of favorite movies doesn't negate that.

It negates your strawman question “Why is violent retribution the type of resolution that is so obviously the most entertaining to you?” My favorites show that this is not necessarily true. (My single number one favorite movie of all time, “Her”, does not have any violence that I can remember.) It just depends on what type of movie it is. If a quiet drama erupted in over the top violence at the end, I would probably find that not the best resolution for that type of film.

ETA: Ashtura, I can easily imagine that other people would find the extended sequences from fictional and real classic movies and TV shows to be too long and unnecessary. But I loved them and would have been fine if they were even longer, as long as there were an intermission to go to the bathroom and stretch my legs.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-07-2019 at 01:23 PM.
  #89  
Old 08-07-2019, 02:33 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It negates your strawman question “Why is violent retribution the type of resolution that is so obviously the most entertaining to you?” My favorites show that this is not necessarily true. (My single number one favorite movie of all time, “Her”, does not have any violence that I can remember.) It just depends on what type of movie it is. If a quiet drama erupted in over the top violence at the end, I would probably find that not the best resolution for that type of film.
Your own post stated implicitly that you consider the violent endings of the movies under discussion to be inherently more entertaining than a non-violent ending. You're the one building a strawman by stretching my comment to mean that I'm accusing you of preferring violent endings to every single imaginable story.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #90  
Old 08-07-2019, 04:51 PM
MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,882
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 don't think so, but I know other people who do. There are some people who found Jackie Brown boring for the same reasons--because after the visceral punch of his first two films, that one took its time in drawing out the characters in a way that were more characterization and less plot (aka "action").

There's plenty here that is definitely here to flesh out Leo's character that some might think have no relationship to the last setpiece (the "action" they're waiting for). For many, they might not feel the payoff is worth the wait, and certainly not as much "happens" compared to his other prominent period films. YMMV.
  #91  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:09 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
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?
That’s only true if you go into the movie expecting it to be about the Manson murders. It’s not. It’s a movie about a fading tv actor and his stunt double/best friend, who are struggling to stay relevant in Hollywood. It just so happens to take place around the same time as the Manson murders.

Also, it’s a movie that really pays homage to the late 1960’s. Much of the appeal of the movie is the nostalgia. For me, I wasn’t alive until a decade later, but I enjoyed the thorough immersion in an earlier time.
  #92  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:23 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
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!

Oh wow, I didn’t know that. I have thought she was one of the most beautiful actors of recent years since being introduced to her on “The Leftovers”. And I crushed on Andie MacDowell bigtime when I was a kid. Good genes!
  #93  
Old 08-08-2019, 12:47 AM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,312
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.
  #94  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:12 AM
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 no actual argument to make 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.
  #95  
Old 08-08-2019, 07:31 AM
Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 12,086
He was probably just reacting to the virtue signaling.
  #96  
Old 08-08-2019, 08:37 AM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
He was probably just reacting to the virtue signaling.
Got it in one.
  #97  
Old 08-08-2019, 09:16 AM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
An act of violence against a woman is still an act of violence against a woman
So, by that twisted and tortured slaughter of logic, a female murderer with a gun in the act of trying to kill people who was shot by the cops would be an example of "an act of violence against women?" Are you even trying?
  #98  
Old 08-08-2019, 10:26 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by RikWriter View Post
So, by that twisted and tortured slaughter of logic, a female murderer with a gun in the act of trying to kill people who was shot by the cops would be an example of "an act of violence against women?" Are you even trying?
Are you talking about something that just happened in real life or are you talking about something that someone is choosing to depict in a film? It makes a difference.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #99  
Old 08-08-2019, 01:44 PM
RikWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: central Florida
Posts: 6,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Are you talking about something that just happened in real life or are you talking about something that someone is choosing to depict in a film? It makes a difference.
So we can't have films depict what happens in real life? That's your policy? That's a pretty slippery slope.
  #100  
Old 08-08-2019, 03:08 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
I enjoyed it but it seemed a bit overlong. I enjoyed the bromance between Dalton and his stuntman pal. Loved the talk between Dalton and the child actress, and the fight with Bruce Lee. The movie was an interesting, funny look at late Sixties Tinseltown (and Italian B-movies, too). Great production design. A very satisfying, if brutal, final action sequence when the Manson cultists get taken down (but c'mon, who keeps a fully-functional flamethrower in the pool shed?!?).

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. It isn't until much, much later in the movie that you realize the scene exists also to show you how disciplined the dog is, and the closeness of their bond....
Yes. Later, when Brad is being questioned by police before being packed into the ambulance, and one of the cops is holding the dog, I leaned over and said to my son, "Good dog!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
...Loved the way they spliced Leo into The Great Escape....
Yes! Nice touch. I almost expected to see Zelig, or Forrest Gump, among the other POWs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
...Kind of irritating that they didn't bother to include Steven Parent. That's disrespectful.
I disagree. In this universe, maybe he simply doesn't drop by that night, or is nearby but offscreen. He lives just as the others in the house live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I think that the police descended on Spahn ranch pretty quickly, maybe even before the Family had an idea something was wrong. Pitt was still lucid, after all.
That's what I guessed. Their horrible run of crimes might've been nipped in the bud. But I would like to have seen more of Manson himself other than that one driveway scene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
...We got 2 scenes of Brad driving around with "cool" music of the era playing....
Yeah, that seemed a bit much to me. And the licensing fees must've been a bitch!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephe96 View Post
So...does Rick [D]alton get a role in Chinatown?
I have a feeling his career is about to take a turn for the better. But maybe not - when Polanski returns, he'll have no particular reason to feel grateful to Dalton for saving his wife's life; no one knows about what did happen in our 'verse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Coming out of the theater, my wife said, "So if you didn't know about Charlie Manson, you wouldn't have any idea what that was about" ....
Fair point. My late-teen son knew very little of that period and I had to fill him in on it.
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 07:51 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