Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

don't adjust for inflation, smelly Marvel doods will come for you

I guess this is a definition of "auteur" that doesn't include Nancy Meyers.

ooh, good call!

or Katherine Bigelow (who I hate tbh)

Bigelow sure, but again, far more conservative and predictable than QT

Nancy Meyers is such a stretch, at least this century

lol, auteur in the same sentence as Nolan, going by them standards I'm Caravaggio, my dog is Benny Hill Beryl Cook. The guy that directed Jossy's Giants is Rossellini.

Nolan's definitely got an identifiable style and consistent themes that pop up in his movies, that's enough to qualify imo (regardless of the quality of his output)

Yeah my point being that QT is the most 'radical' and original auteur in multiplexes in comparison to his very few peers - this is not good.

also? Interstellar was sick

Someone called Michael Mann "Nancy Meyers for men," it works.

Heh.

Anyway, I did finish the Red Letter Media review, and they actually had a lot of interesting things to say about the movie imo. Especially the ending. For example, we cheer the Manson folks getting their faces bashed in, but in the film ... they haven't really done anything yet, let alone to warrant that. Our viewing and feelings are informed by what the real life Manson family did, but of course in this movie, they haven't done that. Sharon Tate is never even really at risk. These are three dummies/kids who walk into a house (sure, wielding weapons) and end up getting brutally murdered by smashing/dog/flamethrower. And we celebrate and enjoy it, but only because we the audience know who they really are and that their murder means the Manson murders don't happen. Factor in a fictional violent comeuppance for a real violent act that said fictional comeuppance "prevents," and ... it's pretty complicated.

they haven't really done anything yet, let alone to warrant that.

We know their intentions from their conversation in the car -- they're going to carve up some piggies, kill the killers, etc.

My feelings about this movie are so complicated -- there are some fragments of interesting filmmaking embedded in a thing that I ultimately wish didn't exist.

We know their intention, but an intention is not a death sentence.

Anyway, yeah, it's complicated. More I think about it, more I'm inclined to see it again, for all the lil' problems I might have had with it.

sure, being labelled a “pig” shouldn’t be a death sentence either.

We know their intentions from their conversation in the car -- they're going to carve up some piggies, kill the killers, etc.

The Family had already killed a guy that summer, and Manson himself thought he'd killed a drug dealer he assumed was connected to the Black Panthers, which was part of why he was eager to get Helter Skelter going.

But we only know that from history, that's not depicted in the movie.

XP Not that that justifies what happens.

OTOH, I'm a little surprised that Booth is presumably still tripping during the killings isn't getting brought up more.

Anyway, I did finish the Red Letter Media review, and they actually had a lot of interesting things to say about the movie imo. Especially the ending. For example, we cheer the Manson folks getting their faces bashed in, but in the film ... they haven't really done anything yet, let alone to warrant that.

we know their intentions. they're home intruders wielding knives and a gun, cliff and rick kill them in self defense.

Our viewing and feelings are informed by what the real life Manson family did, but of course in this movie, they haven't done that.

this movie is constantly playing with reality and our knowledge of the era and the actors in the movie.

Sharon Tate is never even really at risk. These are three dummies/kids who walk into a house (sure, wielding weapons) and end up getting brutally murdered by smashing/dog/flamethrower. And we celebrate and enjoy it, but only because we the audience know who they really are and that their murder means the Manson murders don't happen. Factor in a fictional violent comeuppance for a real violent act that said fictional comeuppance "prevents," and ... it's pretty complicated.

Good lord

I can't believe people are hemming and hawing over the depiction of the Manson Family murderers in a Quentin Tarantino movie. It isn't complicated.

It is, though! Because it's changing history. They're *not* the Manson Family murderers in this movie. They were the people who threatened Brad Pitt and got brutally killed.

flappy bird, meet Josh in Chicago

I'd like to think history doesn't change until Dalton goes out and yells at them.

But we only know that from history, that's not depicted in the movie.

This is silly. A huge chunk of the import of the movie relies on at least some knowledge of the Manson family and Sharon Tate's fate. If you watched the movie in a total vacuum and knew absolutely nothing at all about any of the real people or events involved the movie wouldn't work.

I assume a lot of people seeing the movie don't know anything about Manson, don't you think?

It is, though! Because it's changing history. They're *not* the Manson Family murderers in this movie. They were the people who threatened Brad Pitt and got brutally killed.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:35 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

the power of the whole sequence rests on our knowledge of what really happened. tex, susan, and patricia murdered everyone at 100500 cielo dr just as brutally and insanely as cliff kills them in this movie. it is legal to kill an armed home intruder in self defense.

I assume a lot of people seeing the movie don't know anything about Manson, don't you think?

I do not think this.

xpost That's sort of what I said. How we react is informed by real life. But this movie alters what happened in real life, so that it didn't happen. So that these people are being killed in this movie for something they did in real life, but of course which didn't happen yet/was prevented in this fictional world. I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was complicated.

complicated in what way?

How we feel is complicated.

not me

I thought about Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring and everyone murdered on that night. the movie venerates Tate and I think it does it with a lot of grace and true melancholy.

Yeah I think as others have pointed out the real achievement of the last act is a weird kind of dramatic irony in which you, as the audience, feel a kind of mounting dread (I ~really~ did not want the murders to happen in an almost visceral way) about something that *doesn’t* end up happening.

If you think logic matters, I think Josh's point--which hadn't occurred to me--is quite valid. If you find the very ending moving--and I do--that won't change, but it's a valid point.

Having Sharon's voice be disembodied on through the gate speaker while Jay's there irl adds something sort of otherworldly quality to that moment. idk. I noticed it more on my second viewing

also i found this article in my rabbithole travels about the dude who wrangled all the cars for the movie

it is poorly written but i love that QT always seems to finds the right people to work with who have similar geek levels for detail

this was kinda O_o

Even the less flashy cars were rooted in a specific attention to detail. Did you see the Ford Galaxie driven by Manson family follower Tex Watson in the film? Yeah, they found that car too.

“That’s an actual replica of the real car they used to do the actual murders,” Butcher said. “I found the real car in a guy’s private collection. The guy wanted to rent it to us to use in the film. But I had a meeting with Quentin, and we talked about it and thought that would be creepy to have the real car on set.”

https://www.thewrap.com/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-cars-reservoir-dogs/

also this:

#OnceuponatimeinHollywood: Bruce Lee training Sharon Tate for her role in “The Wrecking Crew” in 1968. Via thevintagephotobooth on FB. pic.twitter.com/2usoqmMXPX

— Channing Thomson (@CHANNINGPOSTERS) July 30, 2019

https://film.avclub.com/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-annotated-1836793225

My second viewing was with a good friend who virtually never goes to the movies. (Up at the cottage he and his wife rent--she stayed back to watch TV.) Anyway, I don't think we're destined to see a lot of movies together. My friend, out loud, when Mason showed up unnamed: "That's Charles Manson."

Ugh, Manson...not the scene where Jackie Mason showed up.

I don't think it's unintentional that we were given a mini-treatise about how the violent culture of movies and tv makes us violent, maaan, immediately followed by a scene where a stuntman, dog, and actor dispatch several creepy home intruders with martial arts, visceral biting, and a flamethrower

Anyway, I don't think we're destined to see a lot of movies together. My friend, out loud, when Mason showed up unnamed: "That's Charles Manson."

Was he blurting it out bcz he was startled*, or was it a "that's Chappie" explanation**?

* (and you thought it was gauche to blurt in a cinema)
** (and you were disappointed at his implied assessment of you)

The movie never directly states that it is Manson, does it? Presumably the credits did, but I wasn't watching closely enough. It's definitely implied as a chekov's gun situation.

https://blog.discogs.com/en/quentin-tarantino-is-as-proud-of-his-soundtracks-as-he-is-of-his-films/

I started working on the script for this a long time ago. So I [went into my record room] then. I had a whole little soundtrack — I wasn’t even finished with the script — that I thought would be terrific for the movie. And I was working from the assumption that that would be how I would do it.

But then I didn’t know I wanted to use the KHJ Radio as this kind of period narrator, as this instrument to play all this stuff. I got about 17 to 14 hours of KHJ recordings … and I started listening to it and it was amazing! I remember this from when I was 6 or 7, but to hear it all over again kind of blew my mind. It was great. I had to listen to it all just so I could chronicle it. Like: This is a Pioneer Chicken commercial, and then an RC Cola commercial, and this DJ outro, or whatever. I started getting into the groove of what KHJ was doing between 1968 and 1969. Also, [KHJ Radio] was really fun. There was a reason why it was so popular! It was really fun to listen to, even now.

And then I realized: I don’t think I should play any song in this movie (if it’s coming from the radio, anyway) that’s not from these tapes. So I can’t just take a song I like, and then throw a KHJ DJ in front of it. No. If it’s coming from the radio, and supposedly coming from KHJ, then I want it actually from KHJ, taken from those recordings, from this source.

(xpost) I can't say exactly what was on his mind, why he felt the need to announce it was Manson--it seemed more like a reflex--but I'm pretty close to absolute when it comes to no talking in movies. (He did the same four or five other times: "Is that the Manson family?", "Bruce Dern," etc.)

got it - glad it was your second time viewing, at least! but it sounds like you could have affirmed his own enjoyment with some quick uh-huhs.

no, iirc the movie never identifies him beyond Charlie, or explains who he is, and the younger viewer is left to make their own connections (or not) between this Charlie and the absent one at the ranch. I really enjoyed that aspect, that there's no mythologising or weight placed on him by the text whatsoever, and that all the reasons to feel dread around the Family members come from their own depicted actions.

Tarantino OTM: re the KHJ broadcasts. The ReelRadio airchecks are great, it's that much more satisfying to hear a great hit when I've been sitting through Vicki Carr or another Gary Lewis and the Playboys retread, rather than a "just the hits" oldies station. It was a big thrill to see them in the movie — my irritating pedant side gets annoyed when a character in a period show listens to a track in a car that is clearly an LP version and not the alternate single mix...

xp

Makes me wonder how comprehensible this movie is if you are not familiar with the details of the Manson murders.

No answer, just a question. Does Tarantino view the Manson women as two distinct groups--the murderous ones like Atkins, and the dippy space cadets like Margaret Qualley's character--or is it more fluid than that? When Qualley hops on the car as Pitt leaves the ranch and screams "You're the ____________" (I can't remember the exact words), this murderous rage seems to momentarily take over.