Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

I wish Pitt and Scrunchy Face had more sides that the dialogue would reveal.

One thing I wondered about--that I really could not formulate an answer for; I could see one extreme or the other--is how Sharon Tate's surviving family members would feel about this. I know they've been dutifully going to parole hearings for 50 years, and that they put out a book on Tate a few years ago.

I just read a small item in the paper that Tate's sister 1) really likes Margot Robbie's performance, and 2) was appreciative that Tarantino sought her out to talk about her sister (a first, she said).

I'm a little surprised (glad, but surprised) because, to me, the violence at the end, no matter in what context, would be another reminder.

yeah she was originally very against the movie and then after she met with him she changed her mind (presumably when she learned how he treats Tate's fate); she also gave him feedback on the script and loaned out her jewelry to Robbie.

One thing that puzzles me--and I can see where this would really upset people--is the way Tarantino basically stays clear of Manson himself. The normal explanation would be that he wants him to be an unseen, sinister presence, but in the one scene where he does get him in there, Manson is anything but. If the whole driving force of the film (this seems obvious) is that Tarantino hates how the murders put an end to a world, imagined or otherwise, that he loved, and that his rewrite is a form of revenge, it seems really strange that he essentially lets the guy most responsible for it all off the hook.

having not seen it yet, maybe reducing him to an afterthought is the ultimate revenge?

Given how, well, to repeat the word, amiable the film is, the garishness of the third act violence struck me as incongruous.

I don't think understatement is one of Tarantino's strengths.

It is, as his best films demonstrate.

I think reducing Manson to an afterthought is a solid move, and tbh I think if anything this alternate universe version of what happened doesn’t so much avoid the truth but makes it more tragic in an oblique way. idk maybe similar to the unexpected emotions my wife had while watching Inglourious Basterds at the end.

I might agree that his best film, Jackie Brown, demonstrates a capacity for understatement, but I have failed to see it in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, or Inglourious Basterds - at which point I gave up on him.

Leaving out Manson is exactly the same as leaving out what’s in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.

Except for the part where the entire audience has a pretty good idea of what's in Manson.

The only thing is, if you leave Manson out of the equation, the villains then become Watson and the teenage girls he recruited. And that's where I think he's going to run into some sharp condemnation. I haven't seen Mary Harron's Manson film yet, but my sense is that her approach is the exact opposite, an attempt to restore some humanity (if that's the right word--they did murder) to Van Houten and Atkins and Krenwinkel, or at least some kind of context.

There's even that weird thing where Watson turns to the other two and says "Either Charlie told me to do this, or else I'm making it all up--who do believe?" It's almost an invitation to believe that Manson wasn't in fact behind everything.

QT knocked it out of the fucking park

The ending was an almost out of body experience for me and my family, it's by some distance the best scene in the movie. If movies are dreams reconstructed, this is the sweetest justice ever served.

Haven't read any reviews yet but really looking forward to seeing ppl twist themselves into knots moaning about QT "brutalizing women" who happen to be MASS FUCKING MURDERERS. They deserved it and I had a blast watching those three scum fucks die!

Don't care that he repeated the IB rewriting history bit. And the Manson murders are 50 years old, I don't think it's insensitive at all, especially knowing he got the approval of some of the family

People complaining about foot shots? Come on... he likes feet, so what...

He refrained from using his favorite word for the first time ever I think

Best movie of the year besides The Image Book

Thank you QT

They deserved it and I had a blast watching those three scum fucks die!

I agree up to a point--but you don't see a problem with that on the one hand and portraying Manson as not much more than a genial, slightly dazed hippie out looking for his friend?

No, I think as someone said upthread, QT properly reduces Manson to an afterthought, a footnote. Besides, he's hardly genial in the *one* scene that he's in. He's a menacing wannabe.

Okay...I didn't find him very menacing in that one scene; he just seemed lost. And I don't see how he can be reduced to a footnote. I mean, dramatically you can make whatever choices you want. But historically, to say he's just some insignificant nothing that you can write out of these awful murders, that doesn't make sense to me.

Loved this. Could have happily watched a 6 hour cut.

I got emotional and teared up at the ending, the aerial shot seeing them all come out of the house to meet Rick, mentally reminded of the actual scene at the house by that time. I thought it was a unique & good way to honor their memory.

Charlie doesn’t need to be in the movie calling the shots. His presence is felt from the moment Cliff encounters the first girl. The movie doesn’t give him a pass at all - he’s THERE by proxy, you know that everything that comes out of their mouths is his spoonfeeding. That’s plenty. The mythology of him is already stupidly powerful - giving him any more screentime would weigh the dreamlike fairytale tone of the movie down too much imo.

i thought this was boring & i don't really understand why it was made

(xpost) That defense makes more sense to me than the idea of him as a footnote, that the best way to get revenge on a vainglorious blowhard is to ignore him--cf. current president.

i thought this was boring & i don't really understand why it was made

to make money

That's exactly what I meant - Manson himself is reduced to a footnote (he's not ignored, he does appear). VG otm, we all know the history and it hangs over every scene. that's what makes the ending so thrilling. Obviously QT isn't saying that Manson was insignificant - this is a fairytale, a dream like I said. And a triumphant one.

xxxp @clemenza

I think we're gonna have to disagree (or at least I'm going continue seeing it as a puzzling choice). If I understand Tarantino's reasons for rewriting history, then take a blow-torch to Manson too. I agree it would be a mistake to have him in the film much more than he is--it's not a film about him, plus what VG said about knowing all that stuff already--but in the film's universe, Manson lives and he's still out there walking around. I don't mean to get all stodgy and literal, least of all with this film, but that just doesn't seem right to me.

In clicking around today, found out that the part of George Spahn was originally given to Burt Reynolds...not sure if I knew that at any point in the last two years.

I loved the way QT spun Tex’s actual line from the murders — making them look as pathetic as they were

Cliff - (something like) “What was your name again?”

Tex - “I'm the devil, and I came to do the devil's business"

Cliff - “Naw it was dumber than that. Rex or something?”

Funniest line in the film.

There was almost an hour in the middle of the movie where nothing happened. It just dawdled with none of Tarantino's esprit.

Not seeing this until tomorrow night, and a little disappointed in letting myself be spoiled, but also fascinated by how polarized opinions have been so far.

I'll catch this at some point but it might be years from now.

Guessing the soundtrack does not include Guns N' Roses cover of "Look At Your Game Girl."

George Spahn (Burt Reynolds): "Do you girls have names?"
Susan Atkins: "I'm 'Sexy Sadie'--my friend's name is Squeaky."
Spahn: "Those are great names!"

(Sorry, Moodles...just assume anyone reading the thread at this point has seen it or doesn't care about learning details beforehand.)

I'm not blaming anyone but myself

but in the film's universe, Manson lives and he's still out there walking around. I don't mean to get all stodgy and literal, least of all with this film, but that just doesn't seem right to me.

Good point. Then again, a lot of burnouts and acid casualties could've been Manson. There were plenty of candidates. But it's a good point, even in the fairytale world of the film. Even though the three get annihilated, neither Cliff nor Rick can give the police any details or clues about where they came from or their motives. Even their car was gone. So for now you're right, the Manson family basically escapes, probably keeps a low profile for a bit, maybe tries again. But I think to not include him at all would've been much more ominous and menacing. Who knows how they would react to this version of events. Ultimately I think it's beside the point because this is not a film to be taken literally and it's not really about Manson or Tate - if Jackie Brown was about aging, OUATIH is about being old. And I take that last scene as a kind of raging against the dying of the light.

I sort of agree with Alfred about the middle but I'm still swooning over the ending enough to excuse it, and will reconsider it on second viewing sometime this week.

if Tex & crew get killed and noone knows who they are and the whole city doesnt fly into a horrified panic, the Manson balloon deflates. The girls start to wonder if he is maybe full of it. He’s stuck stalking Terry Melcher about his record deal until the girls get sick of him. He loses a lot of his power with that imaginary incident & it’s fucking great.

Sorry to bang on.

My favorite second act scene: Robbie reveling in the small courtesies shown her in the theater. Everyone wants to be a star.

"Even though the three get annihilated, neither Cliff nor Rick can give the police any details or clues about where they came from or their motives. "

well cliff was at the ranch and will remember after he recovers that he encountered them there. Remember they didn't even tie Manson to the murders for some time and they only got arrested due to theft charges.

I like it when Cliff can't remember the line exactly : "he said "i'm the devil and I'm here to do some....devil shit"

Only two things made me raise my guard a bit: not sure what the point of Cliff having killed his wife was; and I started to squirm a little with the girl actress but it didn't get creepy.

sorry, girl "actor" as she stated.

yea was the wife murder a reference to something? Was very specific - did anyone Hollywood adjacent get harpooned by their spouse on a boat?

True true about Cliff at the ranch

There seemed to be a darker Cliff story that was kept just in the shadows. Like his two weeks on a chain gang, or that close up of a gun he had in his trailer, etc. I did like that he was essentially an impervious superhero, someone who could kick Bruce Lee's ass and bounce up to a roof in three cartoonish leaps (replete with sound effects!). Though I don't know what any of that means, if anything.

More fantasy

well, he sure knows how to kill

and is happy to oblige if the opportunity presents itself

i thought this was boring & i don't really understand why it was made

nerds gotta nerd, esp over bad Hollywood stuff from '69

yr inner life must be so very rich

As much as I loved the movie overall, Cliff’s fight with Bruce Lee bummed me out. I get the macho stuntguy fantasy of beating Lee, but that always felt racist af. it just felt like bad faith to me. I mean, Cliff IS “that guy” but even so.

aero posted this thread this morning:

If it's a "white boy fantasy" that a white guy could best Bruce Lee, it's the same kind of fantasy that would posit Lee as the ultimate test of fighting ability for a fictional white guy. Your racism is either bigoted or paternalistic. Who would win? Bruce or imaginary guy?

— Walter Chaw 周瑜 (@mangiotto) July 26, 2019

POLANSKI'S AUSTIN POWERS SUIT

that was awesome

RIGHT??