Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

It basically means that women who nag deserve to die.

I mean it sucks but it is a cliff’s-eye-view and cliff is a psycho

it's also a memory within a memory in Cliff's mind, no wonder it skews his way

the deeper into flashbacks the movie gets, the more overloaded and confused the semiotics become: hence the bizarre and very obvious Thunderball outfit/spear gun

xp Is he a psycho? I didn't get that at all.

I didn't take the flashback as Cliff's memory as much as Tarantino showing us what happened, but that is more interesting/less troubling. I guess it could be a manifestation of Cliff's guilt over his wife's death, wondering if the accident was really an accident given how his wife was nagging him. That would be a more charitable (to Cliff) interpretation.

If he murdered his wife he may be a psycho yes!

To me, the point is to sow doubt about Cliff. There's this unknown, dark undercurrent to his character that lives in the realm of Hollywood rumors. That scene could be his memory, but it could also be the way the Zoe Bell character and others imagined it went down. It's never resolved, but just lives there as a signal that he has a dangerous side that is rarely seen.

Missing the key part that his wife was played by Rebecca Gayheart so cliff killed her before she could run over that kid.

xxp Lol, fair enough.

I just would find it hard to square psycho-Cliff with the presumably genuine concern for the possibility that Spahn was being taken advantage of (or worse) by the Manson family at the ranch.

I remember in the first cycle of this thread I was very mad at ppl for not clocking the reference to Natalie Wood even tho the wife is literally called Natalie

I think what happened on the boat is obv left vague and he’s iirc a little drunk and it’s open as to whether or not it was accidental. Cliff is obv a low key bummed out dude at this point in his life who’s living in a shitty trailer so the implication is that whatever he did cost him a lot, which isn’t to say he wasn’t at fault nor didn’t deserve that kind of minor karmic justice.

it is played for laughs that he killed his wife on the boat for nagging him. it doesn't really seem particularly ambiguous in the least. I've already posted that here

like him having the harpoon, his wife nagging at him, it cuts away from the scene with the implication that this is the moment he harpooned her

in the theatre I was in this got a reasonably big laugh

Moodles otm

Jeez, Cliff not the only psycho I guess,

xp

I def think it's there to both make him *less* likable and explain why he's basically an industry bottom feeder, w/a pathological devotion to his only patron

the only guy who takes care of him is the guy who's ok with him having harpooned his wife, the extreme manifestation of their implicit "bros before hoes" bromance.

so much so that he doesn't even believe it

The whole thing of him killing his wife is obv part of why stuntmaster Kurt Russell doesnt want to hire him (and stuntmaster’s wife hates him for that reason too) but between that & the war veteran part gives extra backstory/color as to why this affable handsome stunt guy is Rick’s manservant instead of working regularly

the reason we only see the lead up is no one other than cliff knows the truth. It’s not ambiguous as to whether or not he was responsible, we just don’t know if he decided to pull the trigger there.

or what shakey said

(xpost)

And yeah it makes him this more dangerous-seeming character than just an ordinary stuntman, he’s clearly working through some bleak shit whatever the truth about his past may be.

like in Cliff’s mind he kicked Bruce Lee’s ass and maybe his wife was a goddamn nag and it is all with good reason, taking ppl down a peg or two to his level

but -outside his own head- in the actual world of movie production he is arrogant unpredictable sonofabitch who has basically made himself unhireable

^^^

(although he may be genuinely humble at this point / believing he's living in penance for past transgressions)

I didn't take the flashback as Cliff's memory as much as Tarantino showing us what happened

Definitely his memory, he reacts to it when we cut back to present-day taps aff Cliff on the roof

just because it's his memory doesn't mean he's an unreliable narrator also

No, his reliability is unknown, not least of all because he is not a real person, but a character in a film, and the boat scene isn't an actual memory, but a filmed sequence edited together with other film sequences, in order to create possible linkages in the viewer's mind.

lol ok cool

lock thread i guess?

Lock borad

just because it's his memory doesn't mean he's an unreliable narrator also

yes

moodles otm

an actual apocalypse and ye still at it

I mean, I know it sounds ridiculous to lots of folks on here, but we're pondering the reliability of a scene that is purposefully left ambiguous in the middle of a film about the fictionalization of historical events.

such a mind you have, it’s really wasted on all of us

Lol, I'm not saying it's an original thought in any way

neither am I :D

Oh I know, thanks

Cue "Ramblin' Gamblin'Man".

peace out in my karmann ghia

Anyone seen the long cut yet?

There is no long cut yet.

Oh?! I thought it had been shown already. My bad. IMDB has this to say;

In October 2019, an extended cut of the film was released in selected theaters with an additional 10 minutes, made up of 4 new scenes which include an extended version of the opening scene, two fake commercials and a new after-credits scene.

He showed lots of bonus material like that, and Bounty Law stuff, before screenings at the New Beverly for months too, but the theoretical four-hour version or Netflix miniseries is still in the future

i really do want that in my life

finally saw this today. liked how they don't make rick dalton a joke. he's self aware enough and also seems p committed to actually doing a good job and he is good at his job imo. dog attack + flamethrower the perfect ending too.

https://deadline.com/2020/11/quentin-tarantino-two-book-deal-harpercollins-novel-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-cinema-speculation-70s-movie-deep-dive-1234616927

Would totally read a Tarantino deep dive into '70s film, absolutely. And, hell, I'll probably read the novelization too.

Yeah as much as I hate his post-Jackie Brown work I'd be pretty interested in a book of nonfiction film essays tbh, would be cool if he transitioned into doing that more