Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

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...

lol *OUTLAWED fuck the death penalty

3. short version: the killers in IB are jewish men and women killing hitler and countless other high-ranking nazis, something of great moral purpose for them, to the point that they are more than willing to die for it, it is a major existential choice. the killers in OUaTiH are two inebriated guys confused by what's happening, fending off a home invasion with no larger significance known to them, and which ends with their relationship with each other and their outlook on life basically no different than before. i submit that this is very different! and maybe explains why i had a cathartic fuck-yeah emotional response to the earlier film, while this one felt indulgent, cruel, and gratuitous even tho yes, the historical people being portrayed are very bad. ymmv.

Best criticism of the ending I've read here or elsewhere. Thank you.

idk maybe it depends on yr investment in the murders pre-movie as to how you take that final showdown?

because i have to say my reaction was FUCK YES. THANK YOU to the whole scene, like, at the level of a relieved catharsis. i mean it was horrific & the overkill was insane BUT SO WERE THE MURDERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. So, i dunno, fuck them. i know what they represented and i am not about to confuse them w regular ppl, fiction or otherwise.

maybe that makes me a monster but for me there’s no better handling of the manson family & it’s as much as they fictiotiously deserve.

*fictitiously

oh that's interesting. yeah, i had no prior interest in the case so i'm sure that affected my emotional connection... i would have been totally happy with pitt just knocking them out with dog food cans and then explaining to the cops "they're all living out at this ranch... something weird going on out there... damn crazy hippies" and then leo meeting his neighbors. cause - for me - the kind and generous thing in the film was bringing tate to life not as a victim but as a young, charming actress with nothing but potential --- and then finding an imaginary way for her to retain that at the end. getting symbolic revenge torture on the real-world killers just wasn't adding to that, for me. especially given the real-world equivalents for these anti-hippie, violent hollywood cowboys. so even tho the manson family should be stopped by whoever happens to be there, having it be robert wagner and a low-rent john wayne (basically) takes a lot away.... imo!!

plus ending in a quiet, unsatisfying, downbeat kinda way would be the perfect nod to where hollywood was actually going for a while after 1969...

Doc, you really need to check out the You Must Remember This Manson season. It's up on Spotify as a separate playlist under the title You Must Remember Manson. Covers all the players from different angles over 12 episodes.

I couldn't stand the violence either, Tarantino film or not.

xp

I've been re-listening to this. Still great the second time through.

just started listening to that series in the shower. plug: I did so at the insistence of my friends who host the Losers podcast, reviewing/comparing old movies, using the device of didn't-win-the-Oscar-for-whatever-random-category to select movies that otherwise weren't on their radars. It's fun! A very different sort of enterprise than Longworth's, of course, but always nice to scratch the "people being movie nerds" itch with something that's not three white comedy nerds on the mic.

having absorbed the insane violence done to their victims, it feels like less of an imbalance

getting bludgeoned or blowtorched to death isnt one for one the *same* as stabbing someone 16, 28, or 51 times ( those are some of the actual numbers) but Tarantino set the table for out-of-control violence for *that* reason, not because of gender or “for kicks, man”. There are emotional, historical reasons for the violence he shows . And it’s is the whole reason for Cliff being on acid & Dalton being completely hammered)

disclaimer: i haven't seen this yet and i have no idea how i'll feel about the end. maybe I'll hate it!

but absent some specifics around the differences between men's and women's suffering in Tarantino's stuff this particular calling-out seems ehhh.

like, is there a qualitative difference between female suffering in uh Kill Bill I guess and male suffering in idk reservoir dogs? django? pulp fiction?

also not sure i'd call the violence in his pictures "cartoonish" - in general he seems to borrow visual approaches from e.g. 70s exploitation while rendering the violence depicted intimate and excruciating. violence and cruelty in his stuff is genuinely hard to watch because it's precisely not cartoonish as in idk Hobbs & Shaw? like if anything his movies take violence more seriously than most multiplex fare?

US box office down 51% the first weekend, 42% the second. Not enough supernerd repeat business.

you fully or just semi hard?

Clearly the fact that the movie is following just about every other box office trend of the past several years is a sign of ... what?

Some interesting discussion in here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/01/modern-box-office-mystery-what-read-into-numbers-once-upon-time-hollywood/

I killed Tarantella with my big fucking hernia

https://www.vulture.com/2019/08/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-box-office-bet-pays-off.html

My movie stats nerd friend says this was the first summer movie of this summer to break $100 Mil that wasn't based on previously existing properties (comics, sequels etc.).

it's based on Inglourious Basterds

The Tarantino brand itself is a property, with a certain following.