Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

Also works as part of the extended other MCU (Motley Cinematic Universe), indeed.

this movie sounds eerily plausible jon!

I feel like he'd pick a more obscure hair metal band than the Crue for the concert scene, but yeah it felt very plausible!

I saw the hardcover , looks nice. Bunch of fake movie posters in the back with leo’s face painted in

Since he started going on podcasts, he's said that if he'd had them when he was 20 he'd never have made his own films.

― bobo honkin' slobo babe (sic), Sunday, June 6, 2021 3:33 PM (six months ago)

now starting a podcast with the dude he hung out and talked about movies with when he was 20. four-hour warm-up

Quentin Tarantino returns again to join Brian and Elric in this episode and this time, he is joined by his old pal Roger Avary as all of them discuss their favorite film discoveries of 2021 ... Also please note that Quentin and Roger will be launching their own show soon called The Video Archives Podcast

https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QO7MCBDGRVBGXAY4FG55GR64KA.jpg

lol

I don't suggest listening to every episode of Pure Cinema, but the July episode with Tarantino talking about public domain movies and what's available to watch for free on YouTube is very, very good:
https://thenewbev.com/blog/2021/07/pure-cinema-podcast-public-domain-movies-with-quentin-tarantino/

listened to the first five minutes of the one I posted: the QT/Avary show will be a stitch preems sclusie, not a podcast.

tarantino/avary pod is launching july 18

final para in link below says it will be on major platforms as well as stitcher - ie not just stitcher premium ie hooray

https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/quentin-tarantino-roger-avary-video-archives-podcast-1235283963/

rewatched today, still great, no notes, ending still makes me cry

also w/r/t Tarantino & Avary’s podcast, highly recommend their episode on “Star 80” - QT talks v sincerely & passionately (and v emotionally at the very end) abt Stratten & how much he disliked what Fosse did w her portrayal in Star 80, how a movie about her death barely even centerered her, let alone showed a realistic version of her

he never says it outright but it’s clear that that was def working behind the scenes in his motivation for this portrayal of Tate, and how important it was to him
to show her inner life & the brighter aspects of personality

You should read his book, VG.

I thought Mariel Hemingway did okay in Star 80--it's been a while since I saw it. One thing the two films have in common is their outdated portrayal of Playboy and that world. In Hollywood, the Mansion is this exciting place where Mama Cass grabs Tate and Michelle Phillips and ushers them onto the dance floor; in Star 80 (if I'm remembering it right), Hefner is a father figure to Stratten who cares for her welfare and hates Paul Snider.

I'm really enjoying his book right now. It's like a cross between Roger Ebert and his own Madonna rant from "Reservoir Dogs."

Try to watch the two John Flynn movies, if you haven't already.

I was intrigued by Rolling Thunder, maybe less by The Outfit, but both have been added to the proverbial list.

The Outfit is great. Hard to fuck up Westlake/Stark tbf. Robert Ryan looks positively ancient in it.

Josh, are you using Ebert as a stand-in for "writes like a movie critic" or is there something that strikes you as particularly Ebertesque about Tarantino's writing?

Something between the two. Partly the legit consideration of b-movies, partly this occasional kind of ... casual contrarianism? I'm thinking the way Ebert would often love a film for the very same reason he absolutely hated another, or dismiss a masterpiece for some very particular or personal reason. Or elevate another the same way; I'm thinking of Tarantino, by way of Kevin Thomas, praising "Malibu High" to the hills, but mostly for Jill Lansing, say, or saying of the dialogue in Daisy Miller, "But Peter had a facility with overlapping (non-improvised) comedic dialogue like none of his peers (it wouldn’t be till Bob Clark, in his Porky’s movies, showed such a similar talent)."

Also very conversational and unpretentious, especially the way Ebert ropes in the actual personal experience of watching a movie, the same way Tarantino often does in the book. Talking about the theatre or the people in it and their importance to the viewing experience. And an ability to drill down on particular aspects of a film that others maybe haven't had the platform or courage to discuss, like Tarantino's "Taxi Driver" dialectic, is it a racist film or a film about a racist (and does that matter?). Ebert would sometimes do that, too, just get to the heart or essence of the film, skipping all the dancing around and small talk, like his infamous review of "Blue Velvet" (probably the most prominent masterpiece he panned, on dubious grounds).

I dunno, just a similar vibe, to my eyes.

Makes sense.

His podcast is often a trying listen but I think he was at his best when discussing cheapo monster movie Slithis. He and Avery really zeroed in on how this is a cheapo creature feature that nonetheless insists on giving every minor character a detail of backstory that makes them memorable. Like at one point they discuss a vet character saying "prostitutes are always the same, whether it's in Vietnam or Australia" and Tarantino points out that if the line had just been about Vietnam it'd be whatever, ok he's a vet, but the fact that they throw in Australia immediately makes it about a character who's had a life, even if they never develop this and you don't get any info on how this dude ever went to Australia.

A really good analysis but also telling because lol OF COURSE that's what Tarantino would value in a film.

Also very conversational and unpretentious, especially the way Ebert ropes in the actual personal experience of watching a movie, the same way Tarantino often does in the book. Talking about the theatre or the people in it and their importance to the viewing experience.

I've got just the critic for you.

LightsCameraJackson?

Ha, I have no idea who you might mean!

But yeah, I like how in the "Taxi Driver" essay he calls out Schrader and Scorsese for being kind of full of shit (he's not afraid to say bad things about films he loves), for (for example) implying that Travis is a vet (which in the abstract gives his behavior an out), when, as Tarantino concludes, the dude clearly most likely just bought his jacket at the Army/Navy surplus store, or how Scorsese claimed to have been *shocked* at the reaction to the film's violent conclusion, when, as Tarantino points out, that sort of expected reaction was not only *exactly" why the movie ends like that, but what connects it to a string of revenge movies that recently preceded it. Just cutting through some of the lazy discourse. I also like how Tarantino drills down on casting decisions, like in the essay about "The Getaway," how there can be several perfect choices for a role but how the best actor for the role isn't necessarily the *best actor* for the role. Just lots of stuff clicking with me. At one point I almost started taking notes, but then I remembered, it's a book, Tarantino already did that for me. Or, as he says, "So, if you’re reading this cinema book, hopefully to learn a little something about cinema, and your head is swimming from all the names you don’t recognize, congratulations, you’re learning something."

I'm not the biggest QT stan, but this book sounds like something I might like.

One thing I appreciate about QT - and fear it will get lost or already has in the hailstorm of negative criticisms about the man, past and present - is his appreciation and passion for the gut level experience of films as experienced in crowds, particularly b-movie level stuff. Hate him if you want but *someone* needs to stan for these things.

(Not saying that’s what people are doing here, but it’s not uncommon.)

If QT is really going to stop making films (I still highly doubt he'll actually retire), I'm fine with him focusing on writing and podcasting. His novelization of this flick was lots of fun and filled in some backstory, nice and pulpy. His podcast finds him, very true to form, alternately endearing and annoying. I think it was a wise move to team him up with Avary and especially Gala, who acts as a decent audience fill-in as someone (mostly) discovering these films for the first time.

There's another great example of him distilling the discourse in his chapter on "New Hollywood in the '70s":

But the Movie Brats were young enough to be the audiences that American-International Pictures were aiming for. They were young enough to see the films in actual drive-ins. They were the first generation of leading Hollywood filmmakers who watched Gordon Douglas’ science fiction classic Them! *because* it was about giant ants.

In a way that was the reason that the Movie Brats wrestled the zeitgeist away from the Post-Sixties Anti-Establishment Auteurs that had started the New Hollywood era that the youngsters were thriving in; the hippy directors couldn’t understand, or didn’t want to understand, that some people watch movies about giant ants and take Them! seriously.

Anyway, book is a lot of fun, not least because it doesn't take itself so seriously but also because it presents an authority built on lived, relatable experience rather.

Raymond Cummings otm. In my own case, I am neither a stan nor an anti-stan. I just have some caveats but in general appreciate the QT contribution and outlook, such as what JiC just posted.

I love his takedown of the end of "Hardcore," which ends with this:

Schrader’s "Melnick made me" excuse is not backed up by the film’s executive producer John Milius. Three years after Hardcore’s original release, I asked Milius about the production. He described it then as “A wonderful script turned into a lousy movie,” and he laid the blame on Schrader’s direction. When I asked Milius about Schrader’s studio interference excuse, Big John told me, “Nobody made him change anything, he did exactly what he wanted.”

Then, I believed Milius. But today I believe Schrader. I do believe that the head of the studio made him turn his “wonderful script” into “a lousy movie.”

But I still blame Schrader.

I blame him for giving the same spineless excuse a lot of directors of fiascos claim after the fact, the big bad studio made me.

As if they couldn’t say no.

Well, then they wouldn’t have made it.

Good.

Who wants to spend three months making a fucked-up version of their movie? Then spend the rest of their lives making excuses for it, or cringing whenever they watch it, like Schrader does on the DVD commentary?

When I reached out to Schrader, I warned him that, while I liked the film’s first half, I’m very rough on it and him in the second half.

He wrote back, “I don’t think you could be harsher than I am on the second half of the film.”

Both vmic there

Hehe true.

I’ve never seen all of Hardcore. Bailed somewhere around midpoint, which sounds like not a bad choice. Enjoyed the first half though! The opening credits are particularly great.

Tarantino coming from a pretty privileged filmmaking place and I honestly want to tell him Oh STFU about the “just tell them No” take though.

But I do see where he's coming from. If you are a writer/director that has a story to tell (Tarantino posits "Hardcore" as, along with "Taxi Driver," Schrader exploring/exorcising his love of "The Searchers"), it's kind of a paradox to have a story you want to tell so badly that you are willing to tell a *different* story. I guess the question would be, what price are you willing to pay to stick to your guns? Probably from Tarantino's perspective, after "Taxi Driver" and "Rolling Thunder" delivered the fearless goods, "Hardcore" is a cop-out, though for sure, he comes from a different era; I wonder how often or even if he has ever had to tell anyone no.

Well you might have a story to tell but also bills to pay? And you might fool yourself that you'll be able to wrangle things so that your story gets told nonetheless (as has happened many a time within he studio system) until it becomes too late and your washing your hands off the project might guarantee you won't be allowed to tell any more stories at all.

I'm not sure how y'all will greet this question, but I'll ask anyway: do you think Tarantino wrote the novelization or did he use a ghost writer?

I don't think a ghost writer would have left all those typos in.

lol fair!

I think he wrote the novelization himself.

I remain bemused by readers angry that the novelization wasn’t as novelistic (or as leashed to the structure of the movie as anticipated), but then, I’m someone who has heard the man on many podcasts. OF COURSE the book is what it is

(And I don’t say that pejoratively!)

yeah, for sure his recognizable voice comes through in the book I read.

I caught up with a few movies from his book.

Rolling Thunder: John Flynn directs this from a Paul Schrader script. It's not particularly good, but pretty intense, especially the leads (Devane and Tommy Lee Jones). In classic '70s fashion, ends with a soft rock song over a freeze frame, which is among the traits it shares with "First Blood" a few years later. Shades of "Taxi Driver" in here, too.

The Outfit: Another John Flynn joint. Slightly better made, but I dunno, mostly feels like Robert Duvall and Joe Don Baker goofing around in a dull crime tale that doesn't feel particularly thrilling. I could imagine the same story being told better with a zippier sense of direction.

Dirty Harry: Definitely good discussion fodder, but not that great of a film (iconic bits and pieces aside). Coasts on Clint and the weird charisma of the baddie, though perhaps better remembered/regarded for the trends it set in motion than for what it actually achieved. There's a scene in here with the AG lecturing Harry about Miranda and stuff, which is I think meant to infuriate audiences but in fact reminded me of the pedantic doctor speech at the end of "Psycho."

Malibu High: This movie is pretty bonkers, at least on paper, and might have made for a good satire had any of its satirical elements a) been intentional (which I doubt) and b) handled with any degree of skill. It's filmed and acted like an educational film that was made over a weekend. Half the scenes feature ample traffic noise. But there is something interesting about it: a bit of score used for the world's most boring foot chase was repurposed for "The People's Court"!

Gonna watch "Deliverance" tomorrow. It's another one I only know by way of reputation and individual bits.

I just confused Rolling Thunder with Blue Thunder and could not compute.

"Blue Thunder" is John Badham, right? I used to watch that movie a lot on cable as a kid (at a friend's house). And the TV show, too! Which, until watching this trailer, I had no idea co-starred Dana Carvey!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROZpwD7kQys

Hell I saw the movie way back when and forgot Daniel Stern was in it!

I saw it as some kind of bonus screening for a film class a week before it premiered, which is why I was so sure of the release date.

OK, now "Deliverance," that's a movie. I guess I kinda agree with Ebert's contemporaneous review, in that there's not really as much going on as the movie perhaps thinks it has going on, but like fellow violent fantasy "Dirty Harry," there's still enough to talk and think about. Also like "Dirty Harry," I see echoes of it in tons of stuff that came after, right up to the present, both good and bad, and cross-genre (though especially horror). The big difference is that unlike that aforementioned list, including "Dirty Harry," this one is extremely well made by a director that really knows what he's doing and a DP that really knows how to make it look great, though I suppose "Dirty Harry" gets nearly as much out of its urban setting as this one gets out of rural Appalachia. And more importantly, no annoyingly omnipresent folly work. Boorman is smart enough to frequently let the relative silence speak volumes.

assuming folly=foley

Ha, yeah. The other more inept movies had more folly work.

Rolling Thunder is particularly good imo. Weirdly sensitive and soulful piece of work for what should have been a basic piece of revenge exploitation. Fantastic performances in it too. Some talk about it in a Paul Schrader thread here recently.

https://deadline.com/2023/05/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-star-rick-dalton-dead-quentin-tarantino-declares-1235373860/

Rick Dalton, 1933-2023