Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

Not inconceivable I will see this in theaters a 3rd time.

they grapple with it... successfully! Pacino's character giving forward-looking advice that Dalton actually takes, playing a role where he's not immediately recognizable and then spinning his career off into Italy for his own fistful of dollars, as it was

you could even claim this is an alternate history where an aging white man adapts for the times in order to make it

otm

and Cliff drives a Karmann Ghia.

watching two middle-aged white guys grapple with a world that does not value them as much as they believe it should

Dalton doesn't believe the world should value him - basically the whole movie he's struggling with believing he's a fraud!

loved Cliff's Karmann Ghia, it made me miss mine so bad

looked like the same one Uma drove in Kill Bill 2

it was!

God, I just realized that Pacino does the ending of Scarface in the first scene

How so?

I liked Pacino, but I don't get that either (conceding that I have thankfully forgotten most everything from Scarface).

I haven't seen Scarface in a long, long time myself, but it's the moment where Pacino pretends to be firing a machine gun at a room full of people while he's enthusing about Leo's action movies - you know, "I like the ones with a lot of killing," and Leo bashfully saying "Yeah, there's a lotta killing." Anyway, in that moment Pacino is basically re-doing the "say hello to my little friend!" moment from Scarface in miniature in an L.A. restaurant instead of in a cokelord's mansion with an actual gun as The Law closes in.

Good catch, Flappy. I *knew* there was something else in that scene but I didn't quite grasp it during either of my two viewings of Once Upon...

We'll see if this link works when I post it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GyInWVCxGw

iirc the flamethrower comes from that scene too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAF5c8bGN0M

Yea, what Ray said. "I love those movies, with all the killing" and then he does the machine gun thing

Scarface is one of Tarantino's favourite films (I think), so I guess that makes sense. That he'd refer to it, I mean--not that Scarface would be one of anybody's favourite films. Pacino's character seemes to walk out of Grace of My Heart or Love and Mercy.

saw this yesterday, still turning it over in my head. thread has done a great job of articulating a lot of what was so great and generous and thought-provoking about it, and also what was frustrating. i didn't feel the length at all, i could have spent ages in this world... but the sadistic glee of the violence, particularly the head-bashing and the torching of an already-incapacitated woman, really didn't grow out of anything for me or justify themselves in any way. yes, manson's minions were fucked up people on their way to do evil, but it rubbed me the wrong way, in tandem with the awful natalie wood allusion and especially with the little girl actor showing off the padded costume: QT trolling his critics, "what these dummies complaining about violence against women don't get is that it's a MOVIE, they're ACTORS" --- when one of the more serious charges against him is that he actually, really endangered a female actor on set. these gestures are obnoxious and immature, imo. i also agree that nothing required bruce lee to be depicted as a bragging jackass awaiting his comeuppance.

but to be clear, leo with the little girl was riveting. i really loved the entire on-set sequence. a cute but still effective move: taking us through something with all the brewing tension of the IB basement bar scene, then stopping it three times to highlight the performances and camera moves and wardrobe and rehearsal tapes and studio backlots and supporting cast that make it work. the director on-set seem to barely be contributing beyond the fairly silly "evil hamlet" concept. the film opens with the actor giving credit to the stuntman, and makes sure to include cutaways to lee as trainer/choreographer to point out that he deserves some of the applause tate's absorbing in that theater.

maybe as much as IB's climax this has something to say about cinema and auteurism and genre: QT's true loves are hollywood schlock and the various equivalents of the spaghetti knockoff pictures depicted in the middle, and in all of these he seems to think the machine as a whole matters more than the auteur, and wants to give credit to those people, as much as to "hollywood 1969." which is maybe why him using the film in a personal, auteury way --- to wind up QT critics or indulge specific QT fetishes --- when it has no larger moral compass or reason to be made, feels so childish.

but the sadistic glee of the violence, particularly the head-bashing and the torching of an already-incapacitated woman, really didn't grow out of anything for me or justify themselves in any way. yes, manson's minions were fucked up people on their way to do evil, but it rubbed me the wrong way, in tandem with the awful natalie wood allusion and especially with the little girl actor showing off the padded costume: QT trolling his critics, "what these dummies complaining about violence against women don't get is that it's a MOVIE, they're ACTORS" --- when one of the more serious charges against him is that he actually, really endangered a female actor on set. these gestures are obnoxious and immature, imo.

Why is the ending "QT trolling" and the ending of IB isn't? Privileging Susan & Patricia's gender first and foremost is truly bizarre and frankly offensive. What about Tex? And "they were just mixed up kids..." I truly do not know where to begin. That's so wildly offensive to me. They fucking cut Sharon Tate open! How is this any different than the ending of IB? If this is his love letter to Hollywood and cinema itself, is the ending not an exact reflection of the ending of IB and the ability of the cinema to fulfill naive wishes and reverse history and awful tragedy?

to wind up QT critics or indulge specific QT fetishes --- when it has no larger moral compass or reason to be made, feels so childish.

Why is everyone so sure he is "winding" anyone up? And as for indulgences and "why was this made" - oh my god! it's a work of art. Not everything is a public service announcement. What do you expect him to do? Work at the Red Cross? Good lord...

I don't want to be nasty and I agree fully about the Bruce Lee scene but I can't believe people are defending the MANSON MURDERERS I feel like I am going insane!

flappy'd strangle baby hitler with his bare hands

It's not fucking funny

wait when did I call them "mixed up kids" ?

and who's defending the manson murderers? all i said was that lingering on the violence didn't sit well with me. i didn't like the scene, didn't think it added to the movie, and in the context of a filmmaker who is practically persona non grata among a lot of my friends because of his reveling in violence against women in movie after movie, it seemed like the gratuity of it was there on purpose, to double down, to wind up. none of that is a defense of the murderers, any more than if i'd said I didn't like that scene because it broke the pace of the movie or derailed the central pitt/dicaprio relationship.

there is something queasy to me about visceral violence played for laughs. "they're the manson family murderers!" doesn't deflect from that. like sure, alternative reality where someone takes them out before they commit their horrific crimes, why not? doesn't mean you need to luxuriate in the violence so much, but that's kind of QT's deal obv.

Not sure how to take it myself but on second viewing it almost feels as if a kind of explosive rage escapes from Cliff (which was amply foreshadowed of course). Something about the cartoonish mayhem seems parallel to the (far worse!) actual events--maybe it has to be somewhat extreme to work as catharsis or whatever QT is going for.

it's carnage cum slapstick

i was simultaneously skeeved out by it and amused, and when rick headed for his shed i knew what was coming, and laughed in recognition when it came out

i think it just a difference in personal morality whether or not you enjoy the violence in this. personally i have never been more pleased to watch motherfuckers die, shit was cash

i don't think it's morality. i am a person capable of violence and have attempted to severally harm people before (I've thrown a bottle at someone, i've tried to kick someone in the face during a fight only for the blow to be blocked), at the same time i do not like violence or feel untroubled by its depiction in fiction

Sorry, Dr. C- conflating some posts here. But "yes, manson's minions were fucked up people on their way to do evil, but it rubbed me the wrong way," and QT being "persona non grata" among you and your friends... I mean, why did you go? Why bother?

there is something queasy to me about visceral violence played for laughs.

are you familiar with the work of Quentin Tarantino?

The ending was cathartic and euphoric because it lingered, because it was cartoonish, because it completely belittled and literally annihilated three historical embodiments of inexplicable evil.

Obv. this movie is not everyone's bag. But criticizing QT for wild, cartoonish violence and "indulgence" is like criticizing Chantal Akerman for the length of her shots.

bv. this movie is not everyone's bag. But criticizing QT for wild, cartoonish violence and "indulgence" is like criticizing Chantal Akerman for the length of her shots.

― flappy bird, Friday, August 9, 2019 3:17 PM (thirty-four seconds ago)

i don't agree that those are equivalent

Go on

you could literally say "criticizing x for y is like criticizing a for b" about any directors you might like, it doesn't make it an analogy

Wild, cartoonish violence is something QT excels at, specializes it. It is in all of his films. So if it makes you queasy, why go? I don't like rollercoasters or bars but I don't go to either and complain about how much I don't like them. Not a fan of horror movies either, can't handle it. As much as a veil of secrecy surrounded this film pre-release, probably the one thing you could count on was wild, cartoonish violence.

So yes, it is like walking out of Jeanne Dielman and complaining about the runtime. What did you expect?

that's not really a valid or worthwhile response

I don’t know if we’re in a place as a culture to have a conversation about why but I feel it’s important to say it. It’s what I feel and I think it warrants expression.

— Rostam (@matsoR) August 2, 2019

most of his films do not have a scene at the level of gruesomeness of the finale in this, it's much more visceral than the probably half of his movies at least - i rewatched jackie brown last weekend, the shootings are pretty tame.

i don't go to movies because i think they will be perfect, none of them are.

you won't brook any mild criticism regarding a QT film because you're extremely precious about him because you're a stan. that's not my issue

I really enjoyed this film, but found that particular scene offputting and gross. Not sure what a better approach would have been, but it was pretty rough.

you won't brook any mild criticism regarding a QT film because you're extremely precious about him because you're a stan. that's not my issue

― bookmarkflaglink (jim in vancouver), Friday, August 9, 2019 6:33 PM (thirty-three seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

No I'm not, I care a lot about this film. I don't love any of his other movies besides Kill Bill. what other QT films besides JB lack wild, cartoonish violence? and as I've said multiple times in this thread, I agree with criticisms of the Bruce Lee scene, and even if I don't agree, I think the criticism of the lack of screen time for Margot Robbie is at least fair. your characterization of me is way off and again, how is the Akerman analogy "not an analogy"?

I admit I won't cede an inch on the ending. as boobie said, shit was cash. finding it rough & queasy is one thing, but criticizing QT for "indulging" in something he specializes in makes no sense to me.

xpost the analogy is constructed in a way that it becomes impossible to criticize the *way* the film uses this element, because... it's something in all of the director's films? that (a) seals each director from the rest of film so they can only be compared to themselves, despite the analogy's suggestion of a comparison to someone else (b) is patently silly. surely it would have been possible for someone to say "hitchcock's use of the hitchcock cameo in this film was distracting and inept" or "this time around spielberg's use of the ooh-ahh light on characters' faces came at a moment that for me felt tonally inappropriate" etc etc

'shit was cash' ... huh, well I'm sold.

You're right, that makes sense.

IYO, has QT ever used wild, cartoonish violence to appropriate effect?
xp

Worked better in Kill Bill because the entire film was cartoonish, and not going for a deeper meaning.

as i thought i made clear, i liked the ending of IB to name one example

Fair enough, that wasn't entirely clear to me from your posts- sorry to be pedantic

i mean the "it's a thing he's specializes in" argument is a nonstarter for me. like... so what? so there's no space to say "i thought it was the wrong move for this film" or "i thought it took the focus off the stuff that i really loved in the film" or "i enjoyed seeing this filmmaker grow and change and develop some new themes, so then it felt startlingly regressive, defensive and yes trollish for him to suddenly revert to lavish violence shots in a way that felt totally inorganic to the film" ?

the IB ending is very different imho. yes both involve historical bad people dying violently and there may be some satisfaction in that depending how much you are personally convinced by "what's even the question, these are bad people, they deserve whatever violence is done to them" arguments. (i find these less convincing at age 37 in 2019 than i perhaps did at other points, but this is just me personally.) but:

1. violence against women has different connotations, in a patriarchal misogynistic society, than violence against men. a character established as having murdered his wife beating a woman to death with his bare hands is very close to real violence that people in the audience might experience or have reasonable fear of, and thus changes the emotions that the scene calls forth for some audiences. again this is in a world where the filmmaker has been called out for relishing the suffering of women - this too changes the context. the film doesn't exist in a vacuum.

2. the crimes of hitler are more historic and far more severe than the crimes of the drugged out monsters manson manipulated. they are monsters and i'm okay with them being stopped by force but it's not reasonable to suggest that if you don't feel the same about them as you do about *adolf hitler* then there's something unfair or inconsistent in your reaction.

3. most importantly,

ah shit lost the best part of my post

The part right before the murders?

I just can't privilege Susan & Patricia's gender over their real life crimes. I am not a violent person, I have never been in a real fight or seriously physically hurt anyone, and I think the death penalty is barbaric and should be allowed and vigilante justice is not justice at all - but yeah, like boobie said, I have never enjoyed watching people die more than in this film. of course they're not Hitler, and I think QT relishes suffering in men & women pretty equally in his work. But Dr. C, I respect your position. The movie doesn't foreground Cliff's past at all, really brushes right past it (probably knowingly?), and I'd certainly be more amenable to complaints about the ending if we saw Cliff beat up an innocent woman or actually kill his wife. But it is there, it is mentioned, so fair game.

Anyway I really don't want to be nasty. I am no one's "stan." Not even Billy...