Not that I disagree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think it's applicable to the responses I linked to: a brooooad majority of commenters on the post do not come off as trolls or Film Bro mouthpieces, and I was surprised at the unity among a diverse field of users (including a lot of other artistic or creative people) in expressing contempt for the comic.senseabove wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:59 pmSurprised? Tarantino stans are not exactly hard to come by on the internet... Nor are people who will "point out" how pretty much anything sucks to its creator's face.
Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
No, if you dislike someone's work you must affirmatively engage with all dishonest and bad faith criticisms of them, those are the rules
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Some of us are against capital punishment. Under any circumstance. For whatever crime. Not even for Hitler. Not even Osama. Not even for the nazi at Chorlottesville.Big Ben wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:05 pmIn regards to the spoiler in that image mfunk posted (NSFW description). Apologies for my frustration (Not at mfunk).
Baffling. Baffling.SpoilerShowGoogle the images of the Tate murders. Look at what Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Charles Watson did to Sharon Tate and and everyone there. Wojciech Frykowski was stabbed over fifty times and was shot twice. Jay Sebring was hung by his neck and then shot and stabbed to death. Abigail Folger was chased from the house and stabbed twenty eight times. Steven Parent was shot multiple times in his car. Oh and let's not forget that Sharon was eight and a half months pregnant.
To see someone attempt to try and convince me there's a "both sides" argument to this specific aspect of the film strikes me as peak nonsense. No doubt the individual who made this comic would not apply the same reasoning to say the Sociopathic Nazis who allowed a woman to be murdered at Charlottesville. Yes it's absolutely revisionism but I'll be damned before I'll take someone seriously if they tell me that preventing those murders in any would be unjustifiable.
Am I overreacting? Am I being an ass here?
It's not that people against capital punishment have a disingenuous point of view, it's just that we do not think death is a remedy for crimes.
SpoilerShow
Even going with your premise and the movie's premise - that they deserved to die, I could have accepted that. But seeing the supposed hero of the film tearing a woman's body apart limb for limb is a bridge too far. I don't see the need to cheer and applaud at that scene as so many cinema-goers have done.
This is only an anecdote so doesn't mean much - but be that as it may - some friends over the weekend told me they saw the movie and had never even heard of Sharon Tate or Charles Manson or the entire thing. They HATED the first 2 hr 30 mins of the film. But loved the last 10 mins. I can't imagine why as they did not have even the slightest context for what the movie was doing.
This breeds into what Taratino has been criticized for in the past and which I never agreed with but is relevant in this case - my friends loved the violence. Loved seeing a woman smashed to a pulp and then set on fire. This is the glamorization of violence. The enjoyment and celebration of it. Reveling in it. And never has it felt more unnecessary or less predicated in a Tarantino film.
It felt like a teenage level ending to what could be considered a "late phase mature period" film.
This is only an anecdote so doesn't mean much - but be that as it may - some friends over the weekend told me they saw the movie and had never even heard of Sharon Tate or Charles Manson or the entire thing. They HATED the first 2 hr 30 mins of the film. But loved the last 10 mins. I can't imagine why as they did not have even the slightest context for what the movie was doing.
This breeds into what Taratino has been criticized for in the past and which I never agreed with but is relevant in this case - my friends loved the violence. Loved seeing a woman smashed to a pulp and then set on fire. This is the glamorization of violence. The enjoyment and celebration of it. Reveling in it. And never has it felt more unnecessary or less predicated in a Tarantino film.
It felt like a teenage level ending to what could be considered a "late phase mature period" film.
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I am too though. In every instance. Every instance. But I'm unsure how you're factoring in what you are because:
SpoilerShow
Self defense is not the same as capital punishment. That's a false equivalence. My argument is that intentionally or unintentionally the poster is arguing that preventing the murders is unjustified. It's not something I like to think about either but surely you don't think Dalton and Booth's actions are morally condemnable if they're motivated by self defense? What would your recommended actions be if someone was going to kill you with a gun? I'm not arguing that the violence isn't unsettling because it is. But I think it's wholly disingenuous to argue that the ending, as over the top as it is the same as capital punishment given the variables and parameters involved.
- DeprongMori
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
Nasir007 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pmSpoilerShow
This is only an anecdote so doesn't mean much - but be that as it may - some friends over the weekend told me they saw the movie and had never even heard of Sharon Tate or Charles Manson or the entire thing. They HATED the first 2 hr 30 mins of the film. But loved the last 10 mins. I can't imagine why as they did not have even the slightest context for what the movie was doing.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
They might want to consider reading rudimentary history before buying another movie ticket - also, I must have missed the trial scene where someone was sentenced to the death penalty in this film
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Hard to know what exactly you mean by this, but I dunno. Tarantino conditions viewers to hate those kids pretty hard before they ever show up at Dalton’s house.DeprongMori wrote:I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
If someone doesn’t know the Manson/Tate history going in, I think it’s fair to say that they’re expected to cheer on Rick and Cliff just as hard. They’re the protagonists of the film, after all, and we’ve just spent 2.5 hours hanging out with them and generally sharing in some laughs and various hijinks. It would be awfully hard to get an audience’s sympathies for minor characters in any kind of confrontation with them.
Cliff’s earlier visit to the Ranch would be a real WTF scene if you knew nothing about the Manson family, though.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Also, I think most reasonable people agree that if people burst into your home with the intention of pointing weapons at you and slaughtering you, you're within your rights to prevent it.
- DeprongMori
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
It’s not so much that they loved the last ten minutes, but that they hated the first 2.5 hours of the film *and* only loved the violence at the end. Given the quality of this film overall, that is a problem with the viewer, not the director.
Re: The need to be aware of the history, and reactions
SpoilerShow
I saw the film knowing a fair amount of the Manson Family backstory, which sent shivers at Manson’s first visit to Cielo Dr and at the announcement of Pussycat’s destination of “Spahn Ranch”. I hadn’t recalled George Spahn’s exact story, so had a deep sense of dread at Cliff’s investigation into his whereabouts. And, of course, the historical murders that were averted by the events in the film were prominent in my mind at the conclusion. (I thought it interesting that Tarantino spared Linda Kasabian, who had acted as a lookout in the actual murders but did not participate.)
After the film, I tried to put myself in the mindset of someone who had zero knowledge of the historical events. I believe I would have enjoyed the first 2.5 hours immensely for the quality of the script and acting. That portion was a fun ride that required no historical knowledge of cinema and TV of the period or (for the most part) the murders, but would be enhanced by it. Manson’s visit would have gone past me unnoticed or with no sense of import. The announcement of “Spahn Ranch” would have meant nothing, but the whole visit would have had a similar sense of dread throughout due to the effective staging of the scene. It of course would have no larger context for me though.
The sudden references later in the film to “Charlie” telling the Family to kill everyone in Terry Melcher’s house would have seemed utterly random, and the OTT slaughter of the Family members would have seemed wildly inappropriate and with poor motivation established.
IOW, without historical knowledge, I could see loving the whole film except for the inexplicable and poorly-supported action in the conclusion. I would likely have found the ending baffling, given what was narratively not explicitly set up in the film itself. So, the exact opposite of what Nasir’s friends reported. That they only loved the violence is an indictment of them as viewers.
After the film, I tried to put myself in the mindset of someone who had zero knowledge of the historical events. I believe I would have enjoyed the first 2.5 hours immensely for the quality of the script and acting. That portion was a fun ride that required no historical knowledge of cinema and TV of the period or (for the most part) the murders, but would be enhanced by it. Manson’s visit would have gone past me unnoticed or with no sense of import. The announcement of “Spahn Ranch” would have meant nothing, but the whole visit would have had a similar sense of dread throughout due to the effective staging of the scene. It of course would have no larger context for me though.
The sudden references later in the film to “Charlie” telling the Family to kill everyone in Terry Melcher’s house would have seemed utterly random, and the OTT slaughter of the Family members would have seemed wildly inappropriate and with poor motivation established.
IOW, without historical knowledge, I could see loving the whole film except for the inexplicable and poorly-supported action in the conclusion. I would likely have found the ending baffling, given what was narratively not explicitly set up in the film itself. So, the exact opposite of what Nasir’s friends reported. That they only loved the violence is an indictment of them as viewers.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Ideally in the most absurd over-the-top way possible.mfunk9786 wrote:Also, I think most reasonable people agree that if people burst into your home with the intention of pointing weapons at you and slaughtering you, you're within your rights to prevent it.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Hey, if you're gonna do it
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
SpoilerShow
Remember Cliff was out-of-his-mind high at the time
- furbicide
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Hutus and Tutsis saw similarly despicable things happen to friends and family members in Rwanda in 1994. And some reacted with equally brutal violence, which prompted further violence in response, and so on. I think it's a pretty elementary ethical principle that violence is bad, no matter who did what first. At best, lethal violence is a necessary evil in cases of self-defence – with emphasis on "evil" – and is accordingly required by law in most jurisdictions to be proportionate and justified. You can't just kill a burglar because you find them in your house (not in a country that values human life in any meaningful way, anyhow).Big Ben wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:05 pmIn regards to the spoiler in that image mfunk posted (NSFW description). Apologies for my frustration (Not at mfunk).
Baffling. Baffling.SpoilerShowGoogle the images of the Tate murders. Look at what Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Charles Watson did to Sharon Tate and and everyone there. Wojciech Frykowski was stabbed over fifty times and was shot twice. Jay Sebring was hung by his neck and then shot and stabbed to death. Abigail Folger was chased from the house and stabbed twenty eight times. Steven Parent was shot multiple times in his car. Oh and let's not forget that Sharon was eight and a half months pregnant.
To see someone attempt to try and convince me there's a "both sides" argument to this specific aspect of the film strikes me as peak nonsense. No doubt the individual who made this comic would not apply the same reasoning to say the Sociopathic Nazis who allowed a woman to be murdered at Charlottesville. Yes it's absolutely revisionism but I'll be damned before I'll take someone seriously if they tell me that preventing those murders in any would be unjustifiable.
Am I overreacting? Am I being an ass here?
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
This is a movie though
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
You can where I live actually as it's an iron clad state law. I won't go into it because it's the most yeehaw thing you can imagine. It's all manner of crazy.furbicide wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:57 pmHutus and Tutsis saw similarly despicable things happen to friends and family members in Rwanda in 1994. And some reacted with equally brutal violence, which prompted further violence in response, and so on. I think it's a pretty elementary ethical principle that violence is bad, no matter who did what first. At best, lethal violence is a necessary evil in cases of self-defence – with emphasis on "evil" – and is accordingly required by law in most jurisdictions to be proportionate and justified. You can't just kill a burglar because you find them in your house (not in a country that values human life in any meaningful way, anyhow).
In a spur of the moment life and death moment I'm unsure most people are thinking about societies ethical constraints in a rational context. You and I are also approaching these issues from a neutral point of view and I think it makes it far easier to make specific value judgments based within those parameters. I don't really disagree with you I just don't think it's as one sided an issue as Film Twitter user 24601 is making it out to be. And if he wasn't aware of historical context of it all it makes it even worse.
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
That's an absurd comparison - there's no way to equate the organized genocidal slaughter of a people (something well beyond the capabilities of the characters in this film or the real Manson Family) withfurbicide wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:57 pmHutus and Tutsis saw similarly despicable things happen to friends and family members in Rwanda in 1994. And some reacted with equally brutal violence, which prompted further violence in response, and so on. I think it's a pretty elementary ethical principle that violence is bad, no matter who did what first. At best, lethal violence is a necessary evil in cases of self-defence – with emphasis on "evil" – and is accordingly required by law in most jurisdictions to be proportionate and justified. You can't just kill a burglar because you find them in your house (not in a country that values human life in any meaningful way, anyhow).
SpoilerShow
the graphic and painful but totally justified self-defense killings at the climax of this film. Booth, Dalton, and other innocents (Dalton's wife, the inhabitants of the Melcher house) were unambiguously threatened by people who intended to kill them, and who were then killed as they were attacking their targets. Their deaths were not as painless as they could have been, to be certain, but Booth and Dalton never revel in the suffering that they inflict in the same way that the Manson killers did, and I certainly can see no way that you couldn't relate to/sympathize with/agree with our leads' actions at the end. I quite frankly find it ridiculous that Big Ben's initial post is getting any pushback here.
All the discussion about whether the villains of this film deserved the fate they got does remind me of a different question I have about the ending to this, though. Obviously this film's climax is in the vein of Inglorious Basterds or Django Unchained, with the perpetrators of some historical atrocity being brutally killed in an attempt to set history right. I think this is entirely fair in those films, but in large part because the villains of those films have already perpetrated the actions that have made them "deserve" such treatment within the world of the film. The whole point of the ending of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, however, is that the Tate killers never achieve that infamy because Booth and Dalton kill them before they can commit their historical atrocities. Is it fair of the movie, or of us when thinking about the movie, to compare the killers with Tarantino's earlier historical villains when they are not culpable for their historical crimes within the movie? Is it fair of Tarantino to summarily punish Watson, Atkins, and Krewinkel for a thing that they didn't actually do in-universe?
All the discussion about whether the villains of this film deserved the fate they got does remind me of a different question I have about the ending to this, though. Obviously this film's climax is in the vein of Inglorious Basterds or Django Unchained, with the perpetrators of some historical atrocity being brutally killed in an attempt to set history right. I think this is entirely fair in those films, but in large part because the villains of those films have already perpetrated the actions that have made them "deserve" such treatment within the world of the film. The whole point of the ending of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, however, is that the Tate killers never achieve that infamy because Booth and Dalton kill them before they can commit their historical atrocities. Is it fair of the movie, or of us when thinking about the movie, to compare the killers with Tarantino's earlier historical villains when they are not culpable for their historical crimes within the movie? Is it fair of Tarantino to summarily punish Watson, Atkins, and Krewinkel for a thing that they didn't actually do in-universe?
- HinkyDinkyTruesmith
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
SpoilerShow
I think one larger question (and I hope it hasn't already been asked––I have been keeping up with this thread but it's been so active I may have missed it)––is less about whether or not the murderers merited their gruesome murder or not (I'm sort of thinking in a metanarrative sense in which they are both technically not responsible but metaphysically responsible for it––the necessity of containing both states in our mind in equal balance)––but whether or not we deserve or are in the right to enjoy them so shamelessly. This question is obviously however not specific to this film itself, and is one that all violence in cinema must be subject to when its purpose is to provide the audience pleasure of some sort, especially out of sadism. Practically, I am absolutely on the side of the Basterds, Django, and Rick/Cliff––but watching a Tarantino movie is not a practical matter, and I feel it's giving over to my worse devils to not consider whether I have any right to enjoy the elaborately drawn out deaths.
- R0lf
- Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I'm absolutely with you here but I come to the exact opposite conclusion: that because these things have no place in our world that they should then be contained within our art. That we can work through the violence and experience the catharsis of violence through art. Contain our ghosts in our art so they don't control our life (or whatnot).Nasir007 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pmSome of us are against capital punishment. Under any circumstance. For whatever crime. Not even for Hitler. Not even Osama. Not even for the nazi at Chorlottesville.
It's not that people against capital punishment have a disingenuous point of view, it's just that we do not think death is a remedy for crimes.
It's a movie. It's permissible because it's in a movie.
Last edited by R0lf on Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
SpoilerShow
This isn't like killing Baby Hitler. They still attempted their heinous act. Tarantino just made them too bumbling to succeed at it.
- senseabove
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Ah, they must've been further down, as your link just took me to the original comic, and Twitter sorted the replies. The first disagreeable replies I saw were along the lines of calling the comic writer a pussy, an idiot for not "realizing" it was a fantasy, and miscellaneous other comment-section fodder.Never Cursed wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:30 pmNot that I disagree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think it's applicable to the responses I linked to: a brooooad majority of commenters on the post do not come off as trolls or Film Bro mouthpieces, and I was surprised at the unity among a diverse field of users (including a lot of other artistic or creative people) in expressing contempt for the comic.
Admitting that the "real villain" take from the comic is asinine and the other points are poor presentations of criticisms I've seen better-presented elsewhere, IBig Ben wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:21 pmSpoilerShowSelf defense is not the same as capital punishment. That's a false equivalence. My argument is that intentionally or unintentionally the poster is arguing that preventing the murders is unjustified. It's not something I like to think about either but surely you don't think Dalton and Booth's actions are morally condemnable if they're motivated by self defense? What would your recommended actions be if someone was going to kill you with a gun? I'm not arguing that the violence isn't unsettling because it is. But I think it's wholly disingenuous to argue that the ending, as over the top as it is the same as capital punishment given the variables and parameters involved.
SpoilerShow
don't quite follow how cringing at and questioning the significantly more violent, extended deaths of the female characters compared to the male character in a violent fantasy retribution is tantamount to "both sides"-ism or how it implicitly argues that preventing the murders at all is unjustified. Nor, accepting that we're dealing with fiction and that, within the fiction, one character was not sober, do I follow that egregiously disproportionate violence in self-defense is an unquestionable act as an alternate-universe punishment for un-acheived horrifying acts.
(This brings to mind of a podcast I listened to recently about sex offender registries and their effectiveness and implementation, wherein the hosts talk about how difficult it is to acknowledge the indisputable fact that what the offenders did is in most cases utterly horrific, and also that the ways they are treated by the justice system is frequently terrible, unjustifiable, and almost always exacerbates any underlying issues the offender may have, but to say that immediately provokes accusations of minimizing the damage their actions caused.)
It was a real WTF scene for me because the entire time, I was sitting there thinking
SpoilerShow
"I am 99% sure they didn't kill or even harm Spahn in any way, so WTF are we spending twenty damn minutes getting to the back room to find out he's fine?"
SpoilerShow
Which of course works in retrospect, using adherence to the facts when the movie is telling you to read it differently as a mcguffin, but in the moment it was just irritating and pushed me out of the otherwise enjoyable flow up to that point.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
The Belgian main TV station's website review is pretty much this, but as a text. It's absolutely filled wih shortcuts and outside remarks like how Brad Pitt is supposed to be cool because he might have killed his nagging wife, and since the audience laughed, killing wives is supposed to be funny but we don't even know if the journalist found it funny. But casting Hirsch as Sebring is bonkers because Hirsch strangled a woman at Tribeca.
My GF had friends laughing through all Inglourious Basterds, including the early barn interrogation sequence and its shooting. Her friends clearly made her more uneased than the movie itself, but she still won't touch the movie with a 10-feet pole.DeprongMori wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:29 pmI hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
Certainly, we can't throw away movies' intertwined relationship with the social eras creating them and how they often are saying things about them, only making it legitimate to go an extra step in reading and questioning them, as much as some of these movies are questioning us. I'd even say we're fortunate enough for movies not to be all superficial enough for "just being movies".
It does seem her like Tarantino is trying to reflect on society, both now and then, so it does seem legitimate to wonder and question what exactly he's trying to say through it.
And if we can analyse the movie on the movie-world elements, I don't see why we couldn't / wouldn't on other things.
SpoilerShow
As for the cathartic ending, I'd say it's going way beyond self defense, and I totally understand what one may construe based on that.
It felt extremely poorly paced and over-extended for what seems to play like a suspenseful scene, and it's only made worse by the fact that the longer it goes, the more obvious it's becoming. With the Lancer shooting, this is the one scene I felt to be symptomatic of how self-indulgent the movie is with its content and pacing. These 2 combine around 30-35 minutes of screen time, and they certainly shouldn't.senseabove wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:51 amIt was a real WTF scene for me because the entire time, I was sitting there thinkingAs a self-contained set-piece, it's fine. As a thematic engagement with actual events, I was frustrated and impatient as soon as it became clear that was the drive for the scene and disappointed when there wasn't any twist.SpoilerShow"I am 99% sure they didn't kill or even harm Spahn in any way, so WTF are we spending twenty damn minutes getting to the back room to find out he's fine?"SpoilerShowWhich of course works in retrospect, using adherence to the facts when the movie is telling you to read it differently as a mcguffin, but in the moment it was just irritating and pushed me out of the otherwise enjoyable flow up to that point.
Last edited by tenia on Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
- senseabove
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Hoberman’s review does a good job balancing the cringe and the praise: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/08/1 ... hollywood/
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Too many replies since my post so I will just respond here. My friends are perfectly nice people. They are not Americans though and are immigrants and young. So you can't expect them to necessarily have heard of the Sharon Tate murder.
They hated the first 2 hr 30 mins because "nothing happened" and "there was no plot". They said they liked the last 10 minutes also because
I agree with what someone said above - that for a guy who uses so much violence, Tarantino has no theory behind it. He just thinks it's entertainment. There is no attempt to deal with it or question it or question its impact on the viewer. He is supremely uncurious about it. He just thinks it is cool and fun. Even someone like Noe questions it more and challenges us. Haneke too. These images are not just meant to be consumed in an orgiastic burst of pleasure, there should be engagement with the premise and predication and consequences of violence. Other it is just dumb mutilation of human flesh.
They hated the first 2 hr 30 mins because "nothing happened" and "there was no plot". They said they liked the last 10 minutes also because
SpoilerShow
Finally something happened on screen.
It's disingenuous to claim that the violence at the end isn't meant for the entertainment and enjoyment of the Audience. We all saw it in the cinema and saw the Audience cheering and hollering. It was meant as violence as crowd service. Red meat or whatever you wanna call it flung at the hungry and appreciating masses.
My friends aren't bad people for enjoying it. Tarantino meant for them to enjoy it.
It's disingenuous to claim that the violence at the end isn't meant for the entertainment and enjoyment of the Audience. We all saw it in the cinema and saw the Audience cheering and hollering. It was meant as violence as crowd service. Red meat or whatever you wanna call it flung at the hungry and appreciating masses.
My friends aren't bad people for enjoying it. Tarantino meant for them to enjoy it.
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
My memory's plaing me tricks : they reported correctly Hirsch playing Sebring.