Yeah, Daisy said that since Ruth and Marquis were such good pals that they should go out in the snow and make snow angels together. That might have earned her another sock in the mouth.
The excess bloodiness is another homage to Hong Kong film. Most of the great HK action films end in a similar manner.
I appear to be in the minority, but I likef the second half much more. The first half was rambling and not to well acted imo. And I agree with my friend who complained about the
“Nword this and cracker that”. Im really glad I didnt watch it with her.
Saw it last night. What a fun movie; it did not feel as long as its running time, though there were five or ten minutes that probably could’ve been cut out.
My beautiful fiancee is the biggest QT fangirl and adored the movie.
It wasn’t his best movie - the “everyone shoots everyone” ending was, I agree, better done in Reservoir Dogs - but it was a fun movie and wonderfully acted.
Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree the constant, endless use of the word “nigger” in Quentin Tarantino’s films is getting a little silly, and I cannot help but think he’s doing it just to piss people off. It is of course a perfectly good word to use in a movie in the context of writing dialogue when a person is likely to say it, but one gets the sense Tarantino is deliberately writing dialogue so he can maximize his use of it. “Nigger” is not an anachronistic word in context - it’s how Southerners called black people at the time. It would have been weird, for instance, if the Southerners in “12 Years A Slave” had NOT called black people “niggers,” because that was the only word they would have used in that time and place. However, it was already becoming a socially unacceptable pejorative by the time of the events of the movie; judging by the age of the characters who fought in the war, as well as the settlement history of that part of Wyoming, it is at least 1880 and probably closer to 1890. And Wyoming isn’t in the South.
More to the point, Tarantino’s movies are openly set in a parallel universe (Red Apple tobacco!) and so he’s happy having people say things that are anachronistic or do things you can’t really do, like carry your goddamn sword on a commercial flight. So the repetitive use of the word “nigger” is entirely his choice; he’s chosen to write movies where people say it over and over and over and hardly ever think to use an alternative word. You’d think Daisy would call Marquis a “bastard” or a “son of a bitch” maybe every now and then but nope, she keeps going back to the same word, because Tarantino’s universe is one in which it’s the fourth most common word in English after “I”, “the,” and “and.” And really, I cannot think of any good reason why he does it except to get a rise out of people, like a little kid using a swear word.
Incidentally, I don’t think Chris Mannix is going to die at the end. His wound is recoverable. Marquis is a dead man for sure, but Mannix will probably survive.
I must take exception to “Red Apple” tobacco being used as proof that all the movies take place in the same universe. I think it’s more of just a signature trait, not a clue.
By that logic, Lost, Executive Decision, Castle, Transformers, JAG, White Collar, The X-Files and The Goldbergs all inhabit the same universe because they all fly Oceanic Airways.
And don’t forget Morleys, the tobacco of choice for sinister elements of government conspiracies.
Why do people think that QT films even have to inhabit some parallel universe? Why do the “fanboys” try to come up with ways to excuse QT’s excess use of that word as some kind of genius trait, rather than the more likely reason that he just likes the sound of it, or pissing people off, or whatever?
By definition, all works of fiction take place in “parallel universes.” The author has control over everything in the story. He (or she) may adhere to reality as much as he (or she) wishes to.
By function though, they take place in our world, and the characters inhabit it. As audiences we can relate to their adventures. The things they have to deal with are the same things we have to deal with. Real world events affect then the same as us.
I can see Lenny Brisco and Rooster Cogburn and even Fox Mulder as people I could expect to meet, talk to, discuss life, justice, women, crime, and aliens, and not notice anything off. Just because I can’t go to the NYC police department and ask for Theo Kojak’s service file doesn’t mean he exists in a “parallel universe”.
Likewise, I could expect that Jules Winnfield or Jackie Brown still “live” in our world. Not so much Aldo Raine or “The bride”, though.
Because Tarantino has explicitly said they do. Not in a “rules of physics” sense, but more of a philosophical one; he takes liberties with how the world really is to suit the narrative convention he wishes to use, which is what all filmmakers do, really. He’s just honest about it.
You must not have read my post very closely if this is part of a reply to it.
Depends on the genre. Each has its own rules. Westerns and detective stories are not at the same level of reality as fantasy and science fiction.
I didn’t mean you, but I can see it can be interpreted that way.
Well, if Qt says it’s so, it must be. Even if he’s wrong. 
To make it even weirder, Tarantino is now saying that all his movies are in the same universe, but some of them are movies in his movie universe. So “Kill Bill” is a movie that Vincent Vega would take Mia out to see.
Unless he bleeds to death first… 
What about Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs and True Romance? Do they live in the universe where Hitler was burned to death in a theater in France? Apparently so. Funny, America turned out exactly the same.
The USA wins the war either way, so Hitler dying in Paris in 1944 versus dying in Berlin in 1945 might not have made much of a difference to a bunch of lowlifes in LA or Detroit in the 1990s.
I think this debate about whether it’s historically accurate to use “nigger” is silly. Tarantino is one of the most talented filmmakers alive, and would not use the word unless there was a good narrative reason to do so. I think Tarantino himself contributed to the silliness of this debate by defending his use of the word by saying the word was used historically. When he defended using the word in Jackie Brown he said that it was ok because black people actually talk that way.
We can endlessly debate whether this is accurate or not and whether historical accuracy gives him a license to use the word in a work of fiction, but all this ignores that the fact that the only reason he really uses the word is because it somehow enhances an element of his films.
Constant use of “nigger” in Django and The Hateful Eight enhances the struggles the black characters were up against. In much the same way saying Nigger Jim in Huckleberry Finn shows the pervasiveness of racism in the South by the simple casualness of the term.
When the term is used for laughs, it’s not funny because a black person gets called a “nigger,” but because its funny to see the insanely unfair odds a character is facing.
I can give similar examples for any other Tarantino film.
The other side to all this silliness is that no one seems to bring up the fact that a woman gets beaten throughout The Hateful Eight, and 90% of the time the beating is a punchline to a joke. In Django the female slaves were dressed up like whores, and used as sexual chattel. Apparently this doesn’t bother people as much.
Daisy uses that word all the time to piss Marquis off. Seems totally justified use of it, in this particular movie - it’s just another way to be, as it says right on the can, “Hateful”.
Marquis is a Black man very sensitive to his precarious position in post-Civil War America (hence the “Lincoln Letter”). Use of that word is a deliberate way to undermine him, and used as such.
Kill Bill can easily take place pre-2001 and as others have pointed out is a movie in a movie.
(bolding mine)
See,** RickJay**, this is what I was talking about. It’s “genius”. It’s not fetishism.
Of course you can.
I indirectly commented on it:
While I didn’t directly say it, I was thinking of JJL when I wrote that. She spends 3/4 of the film covered in blood, gore and vomit. You don’t even really see her face without something on it pretty much past the 5 minute mark. The fact that she’s a punching bag through the entire movie goes past, I think, meer character misogyny, and into director misogyny.
It has a narrative purpose, which you don’t acknowledge.
That’s the point. I can give examples, and all you can muster is cheap sarcastic comments like this one.
Thinking about something isn’t the same thing as saying it.
I don’t acknowledge it has a narrative purpose. I think it’s QT tweaking his audience, like “kid using a swear word”.
I suspect even a person of that time would find the use excessive. It may have been used more in common usage at the time, but as a descriptor, not always an insult. Every use in the H8 is used as an insult and for shock value. The characters are deliberately trying to harass the one lone black guy, a guy who isn’t some cowed slave, but a badass with guns and a willingness to use them. Doesn’t seem the best course of action for them. (And considering the result, it wasn’t.) Just another example of how stupid they and their plan were.
Plus, he didn’t make a 100% accurate, period-correct movie. (It wasn’t even filmed in the state it was set it!) He made a QT movie, and they are what they are.
And my sarcasm isn’t cheap, it’s well considered.
Yes, I understand it does; I watched the movie.
If you watch the totality of Tarantino’s work, it is beyond any reasonable dispute that he’s in love with the word “nigger” to an extent that is, frankly, distracting. There’s nothing wrong with using the word to serve a narrative or thematic purpose, or in the context of it simply making a sense for a character to say it. But repeating a word 50 times when 25 could have done is a sign of a degree of laziness - and there’s a surprising amount of laziness in “Hateful Eight.”