Once Upon a Time in Hollywood |OT| Fictional Glorious Basterds Unchained (Open Spoilers)

Nola

Member
Oct 29, 2017
587
Saw it again, a great film that I appreciated even more on rewatch. It's cathartic, melancholy, and signature Tarrantino. Not his best but even his worst is better than the majority of stuff that comes out.

Tarrantino's films definitely miss having Menke to cull back a little bit of the indulgence, which I do think a tighter narrative could have helped in places, but I was expecting to see what some of the detractors saw but I really just came away appreciating it even more.

I also have to say that the claims of disinterest from viewers completely juxtaposes my two experiences. In both viewings, there was a damn near opening night Marvel Avengers vibe to some of the story beats. Especially the cathartic twist.
 

JJAwiiu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
326
We got to see that panty shot of her from the The Wrecking Crew. It's important people remember that she had a panty shot in the last movie of her released in her lifetime. But it's okay, because it was written in the movie that she was happy and the crowd was happy so really, why are people upset about panty shots?

I donon, maybe I don't get it, if someone has a better explanation to the function of that scene I'm gonna listen, but I thought it was kinda gross.

p.s.
I couldn't tell if they refilmed that scene or just special effects it, like, did Tarantino made Margot Robbie go through that shit too?
Not only did the scene really happen, it was actual Sharon Tate footage that Margot Robbie's character was watching. If you thought it was disrespectful to pick out that particular clip, I can understand your opinion but I think it's a bit prudish. Sharon Tate wasn't a nun. She starred in Valley of the Dolls two years before and the trailer describes her character as "an international sex symbol" and her dialogue in it has her saying "let's face it, all I know is how to take off my clothes." Her reacting to a memorable scene in a comedy movie with a little surprised embarrassment wasn't out of line IMO.

Valley of the Dolls Trailer (linked at 1:21 for Sharon's Introduction): https://youtu.be/u-TXJMKVa_g?t=81
 

Strax

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,122
You think it should have opened or something with "Sharon Tate was killed by Charles Mansons' followers" because you didn't know some frankly well known history?
Before this movie was announced I even doubt most film school students knew who Sharon Tate was. Calling her life/death a frankly well known history is a huge stretch. Doubly so if you live outside the US.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,675
Sydney
Great movie, can't wait to see it again knowing how it ends and not feeling complete dread.

Before this movie was announced I even doubt most film school students knew who Sharon Tate was. Calling her life/death a frankly well known history is a huge stretch. Doubly so if you live outside the US.
It's one of the best known murders of the 20th century, even outside the US.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
Not only did the scene really happen, it was actual Sharon Tate footage that Margot Robbie's character was watching. If you thought it was disrespectful to pick out that particular clip, I can understand your opinion but I think it's a bit prudish. Sharon Tate wasn't a nun. She starred in Valley of the Dolls two years before and the trailer describes her character as "an international sex symbol" and her dialogue in it has her saying "let's face it, all I know is how to take off my clothes." Her reacting to a memorable scene in a comedy movie with a little surprised embarrassment wasn't out of line IMO.

Valley of the Dolls Trailer (linked at 1:21 for Sharon's Introduction): https://youtu.be/u-TXJMKVa_g?t=81
Can we at least agree that the scene The Wrecking Crew was gross?
I don't think it's prudish saying that.
I am happy Tarantino didn't make Margot Robbie redo that shit. But I don't know, I assume most people didn't see Sharon Tate panty shot before (I don't think I did), but thanks for the movie they did, I'm unsure why he went with that scene, I'm really really am, and I am unsure why he went out of his way to frame it like it's a good thing.

And I have seen the Valley of the Dolls.
The movie also make a point to remind audiences that she did porn, so yeah, I am aware of those facts, my question is why Tarantino chose to focus on those facts.
Maybe it all went over my head.
 

duckroll

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,093
Singapore
I did not like the film at all. I'm really happy for Tarantino that he finally made another original film that doesn't feel like a repeat of the revenge theme he kept going back to for a while. The performances and casting is great. I loved the cinematography and the music. But boy oh boy the entire narrative and theme is vapid, empty, and meaningless. Broken people with superficial shallow lives, depressing long scenes of how bored and empty their moment to moment living is. How fake their joys and excitements are. The alternate reality "happy" ending almost feels like a slap in the face at the end because it sticks a fairy tale ending on lives which won't really get better or have more purpose. It feels like it's saying "Hollywood sucks and the people who live in it are dead inside, so even if this tragic event didn't happen and the 'bad guys' were stopped by 'heroes' it would just mean everyone continues to live these meaningless lives in their fancy houses."
 

JJAwiiu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
326
Can we at least agree that the scene The Wrecking Crew was gross?
I don't think it's prudish saying that.
I am happy Tarantino didn't make Margot Robbie redo that shit. But I don't know, I assume most people didn't see Sharon Tate panty shot before (I don't think I did), but thanks for the movie they did, I'm unsure why he went with that scene, I'm really really am, and I am unsure why he went out of his way to frame it like it's a good thing.

And I have seen the Valley of the Dolls.
The movie also make a point to remind audiences that she did porn, so yeah, I am aware of those facts, my question is why Tarantino chose to focus on those facts.
Maybe it all went over my head.
Like I said, I can respect your point of view, though I personally find it a bit prudish. Valley of the Dolls was PG-13 equivalent today, not porn, but her role was sexy. To that point, those kind of roles was what she was known for, at least as far as I can tell. Not using that scene would almost misrepresent her.
 
Last edited:

Alastor3

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,174
I did not like the film at all. I'm really happy for Tarantino that he finally made another original film that doesn't feel like a repeat of the revenge theme he kept going back to for a while. The performances and casting is great. I loved the cinematography and the music. But boy oh boy the entire narrative and theme is vapid, empty, and meaningless. Broken people with superficial shallow lives, depressing long scenes of how bored and empty their moment to moment living is. How fake their joys and excitements are. The alternate reality "happy" ending almost feels like a slap in the face at the end because it sticks a fairy tale ending on lives which won't really get better or have more purpose. It feels like it's saying "Hollywood sucks and the people who live in it are dead inside, so even if this tragic event didn't happen and the 'bad guys' were stopped by 'heroes' it would just mean everyone continues to live these meaningless lives in their fancy houses."
But that's what the movie was all about, a fairy tale, they had to "show" an happy ending because if not, it would ressemble too much of what truely happened.
I mean, the name of the movie is pretty suggestive.

The movie is a big "What if" and you know what, im glad to see an happy ending for once in a Tarantino movie.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
13,096
London
And did Cliff really murder his wife? He's such a cool character that I wanna believe he didn't, but there's this creepy undertone as a result. With the information we're given, I'm guessing he did. But I enjoy the sense of wonder about it. I know it's based on a real life event too, which shares a similar controversy.
Yeah, wish they went more into his backstory. The tensest I felt was when he got out at Spahn ranch the first time and you didn’t see Pussy for a full minute. Thought he killed her until she got out.

7/10 movie, but as everyone’s already mentioned, fucking feet everywhere to the point me and my partner were having just as much fun playing spot the bare foot as watching the actual movie
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
Like I said, I can respect your point of view, though I personally find it a bit prudish. Valley of the Dolls was PG-13 equivalent today, not porn, but her role was sexy. To that point, those kind of roles was what she was known for, at least as far as I can tell. Not using that scene would almost misrepresent her.
No but like come on, that panty shot scene is gross, right? why is it framed in the movie like a good thing?
Why is the playboy mansion filmed as this inclusive, body positive place where plus size women are loved and accepted?
I feel like I might be missing something here, but that whole angle in the movie felt kinda gross to me.
Am I overthinking this? that stuff felt pretty deliberate, like, that scene didn't advance the plot in any specific ways, they could've shown any other scene from the movie and it would've worked just as well.

I obviously respect your point view, but there are a bunch of decisions in the film that really confused me, and I would be very much be interested in hearing the other people opinion on them. It wouldn't be the first movie where I miss something very fucking obvious on first viewing.

And did Cliff really murder his wife? He's such a cool character that I wanna believe he didn't, but there's this creepy undertone as a result. With the information we're given, I'm guessing he did. But I enjoy the sense of wonder about it. I know it's based on a real life event too, which shares a similar controversy.
Oh yeah, that's too, it plays like a joke, nag nag nag, am I right fellas? domestic violence!
And I really don't think the film want me to hate that character.
 

duckroll

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,093
Singapore
But that's what the movie was all about, a fairy tale, they had to "show" an happy ending because if not, it would ressemble too much of what truely happened.
I mean, the name of the movie is pretty suggestive.

The movie is a big "What if" and you know what, im glad to see an happy ending for once in a Tarantino movie.
My point is that it's not a fairy tale and it's not a happy ending. There's nothing happy at all about anything in this movie. Not getting brutally murdered is a really low bar. It's kinda weird how the entire movie is framed as a Hollywood "fairy tale" when what it actually depicts is just so depressing to me.
 

JJAwiiu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
326
No but like come on, that panty shot scene is gross, right? why is it framed in the movie like a good thing?
Why is the playboy mansion filmed as this inclusive, body positive place where plus size women are loved and accepted?
I feel like I might be missing something here, but that whole angle in the movie felt kinda gross to me.
Am I overthinking this? that stuff felt pretty deliberate, like, that scene didn't advance the plot in any specific ways, they could've shown any other scene from the movie and it would've worked just as well.

I obviously respect your point view, but there are a bunch of decisions in the film that really confused me, and I would be very much be interested in hearing the other people opinion on them. It wouldn't be the first movie where I miss something very fucking obvious on first viewing.


Oh yeah, that's too, it plays like a joke, nag nag nag, am I right fellas? domestic violence!
And I really don't think the film want me to hate that character.
I might have to view the scene again. I'm not familiar with the movie being played, but I imagine she was just reacting to a memorable scene of the real film. A quick upskirt shot isn't "sexy" IMO, but slightly embarrassing, and that's how I remember her reacting to it. QT could have used a different scene, sure, but why not use the one that caused audience reaction? I don't remember it being framed as a "good thing" or a "bad thing," but just a "memorable thing."

"Why is the playboy mansion filmed as this inclusive, body positive place where plus size women are loved and accepted?"
I never really noticed this, I just thought "Huh Playboy Mansion and there's no nudity." Are you saying this representation is a bad thing or inaccurate?

And as for Cliff's wife, there's nothing displayed in his character that would make you think he actually killed her. But realistically, he probably did. But you just don't know. It's almost like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, what's in it? And it's based on reality, an actor named Robert Wagner's wife died on a boat under mysterious circumstances. Her name was Natalie Wood. Anyway, I don't think it's the case of domestic violence being played as a joke. I think it's a case of making the audience slightly uncomfortable with the otherwise honorable character and wondering WTF happened. At least, that's how it worked for me.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
I might have to view the scene again. I'm not familiar with the movie being played, but I imagine she was just reacting to a memorable scene of the real film. A quick upskirt shot isn't "sexy" IMO, but slightly embarrassing, and that's how I remember her reacting to it. QT could have used a different scene, sure, but why not use the one that caused audience reaction? I don't remember it being framed as a "good thing" or a "bad thing," but just a "memorable thing."

"Why is the playboy mansion filmed as this inclusive, body positive place where plus size women are loved and accepted?"
I never really noticed this, I just thought "Huh Playboy Mansion and there's no nudity." Are you saying this representation is a bad thing or inaccurate?

And as for Cliff's wife, there's nothing displayed in his character that would make you think he actually killed her. But realistically, he probably did. But you just don't know. It's almost like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, what's in it? And it's based on reality, an actor named Robert Wagner's wife died on a boat under mysterious circumstances. Her name was Natalie Wood. Anyway, I don't think it's the case of domestic violence being played as a joke. I think it's a case of making the audience slightly uncomfortable with the otherwise honorable character and wondering WTF happened. At least, that's how it worked for me.
The crowd was shown laughing at the pantry shot and she seemed to be happy at that, it felt to me like the film went pretty far to justify that scene, and I'm unsure why. I am really am, again, it's not like that scene is something anyone but Tarantino remembered.

And my issue with the scene of Brad Pitt maybe or maybe not killing his wife is that it plays for laughs, and more than that, it was the "nagging wife" joke. The briefcase is Pulp Fiction is MacgGuffin that set things in motion, what was the function of that scene?
Is it unfair to say it makes light of domestic abuse?
And if it meant to be Natalie Woods then I'm even more confused because there's a pretty damn good chance she got murdered by her husband who got away with it. Brad Pitt is shown to have suffered serious career consequences from the death of his wife, Robert Wagner didn't.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
43,502
My point is that it's not a fairy tale and it's not a happy ending. There's nothing happy at all about anything in this movie. Not getting brutally murdered is a really low bar. It's kinda weird how the entire movie is framed as a Hollywood "fairy tale" when what it actually depicts is just so depressing to me.
The end of the movie is literally the pool party that is going to get Dalton his next big break. We close on Sharon getting to live and Dalton getting his foot in the door to be rediscovered via getting into the next Polanski film

The ending is literally all about hope
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
My point is that it's not a fairy tale and it's not a happy ending. There's nothing happy at all about anything in this movie. Not getting brutally murdered is a really low bar. It's kinda weird how the entire movie is framed as a Hollywood "fairy tale" when what it actually depicts is just so depressing to me.
I don't think the film tried to make it look depressing, and I think that's issue I have with it. If anything, I almost got a Wayne's World mega happy ending vibes from it, "the bad guys all dead, the beautiful pregnant woman is alive, the good guys are heroes, and THE good guy gets his chance to make it big(er)!". so much so that it makes me wonder if this is all some sort of joke that went over my head, but if it is, I really just don't get it.
 

Strax

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,122
It's one of the best known murders of the 20th century, even outside the US.
People overrated other people history knowledge all the time. As a former history major I see (and experience) it many times a week. I'm not saying people shouldn't know X, Y or Z. I have no doubt many, but not THAT many, people know the Manson family murders but few people knew who Sharon Tate was before this movie came.
 

PogChamp

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
7,064
I wish I could have watched this movie knowing about Sharon Tate. I didn't and a huge chunk of the movie felt pointless and nonsense as a result.
 

Minishdriveby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,871
People overrated other people history knowledge all the time. As a former history major I see (and experience) it many times a week. I'm not saying people shouldn't know X, Y or Z. I have no doubt many, but not THAT many, people know the Manson family murders but few people knew who Sharon Tate was before this movie came.
I wish I could have watched this movie knowing about Sharon Tate. I didn't and a huge chunk of the movie felt pointless and nonsense as a result.
Kinda wonder how many people going into the film know about Polanski as well.
 

tarman76

Member
Oct 27, 2017
971
No but like come on, that panty shot scene is gross, right? why is it framed in the movie like a good thing?
Why is the playboy mansion filmed as this inclusive, body positive place where plus size women are loved and accepted?
I feel like I might be missing something here, but that whole angle in the movie felt kinda gross to me.
Am I overthinking this? that stuff felt pretty deliberate, like, that scene didn't advance the plot in any specific ways, they could've shown any other scene from the movie and it would've worked just as well.
.
The " plus size woman" that runs up and greets Tate? Tate calls her Mama Cass, presumably making her Cass Elliot of The Mamas and the Papas, a huge band back then. She would be there because she was famous.

I think, like you said, you are way over thinking things.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,675
Sydney
People overrated other people history knowledge all the time. As a former history major I see (and experience) it many times a week. I'm not saying people shouldn't know X, Y or Z. I have no doubt many, but not THAT many, people know the Manson family murders but few people knew who Sharon Tate was before this movie came.
I dunno what to tell you. Grew up in the 90s in Australia, knew all about it. Know plenty of people younger than me who knew about it too from the true crime trend of documentaries and podcasts of recent years, and the fact that Charles Manson kicked the bucket in 2017 and that got media coverage.
 

GusFacsimile

Member
Oct 25, 2017
92
I loved the Rick Dalton parts of the movie, the attention to detail, I think my favourite scene was with Cliff and Rick watching his episode. Would of loved some more developmet of Cliff, see him do a stunt, make him a bit more fleshed out, (didnt like the Bruce Lee scene) maybe the longer cut will help.

In keeping with the ending, why wasn't Manson a part of the ending? I was waiting for him to show up. Thought could of gone something like this:

Ricky on seeing the girl smash through the door and go into the pool, panics and runs off.
The girl in the pool gets killed by Cliff in some crazy way, like a crossbow?
Cut to that girl that drove off back with Charles Manson forcing her up the path at gunpoint and meets the guy at Sharon Tate's gate. Tense stand off he gets him to open the gate. Charles goes to light a cigarette.
'Hey, buddy!, Need a light?!'
Cut to Rick behind him with the flame thrower, WOOOOSH!

Not one of his best but still better than most movies out there. I look forward to watching the longer cut.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
I don't even recall that there was a panty shot, tbh.

As far as the happy Playboy Mansion, there was a post pages back with an excellent thesis about the movie. All the things that you would expect to be terrible are good in this fairytale version:

Playboy Mansion just seems like a lot of people having fun
Middle-aged stuntman turns down sex offer from teenager
child actress treated well on set
Stuntman who maybe murdered his wife is shunned by the industry
and of course, Sharon Tate lives

All opposites of the real Hollywood.

There are probably more examples.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
I don't even recall that there was a panty shot, tbh.

As far as the happy Playboy Mansion, there was a post pages back with an excellent thesis about the movie. All the things that you would expect to be terrible are good in this fairytale version:

Playboy Mansion just seems like a lot of people having fun
Middle-aged stuntman turns down sex offer from teenager
child actress treated well on set
Stuntman who maybe murdered his wife is shunned by the industry
and of course, Sharon Tate lives

All opposites of the real Hollywood.

There are probably more examples.
And an old movie director having sex with a young woman, but he's the real victim.

What I don't get is what the point of all that, really, if that what the movie going for, what is it trying to say with it?
Because if you take a lot of those things on face value, they seem a bit problematic, at least to me.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
That's actually a real thing, about the old man. His status as victim (in movie and real life) is ambiguous.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,006
And an old movie director having sex with a young woman, but he's the real victim.

What I don't get is what the point of all that, really, if that what the movie going for, what is it trying to say with it?
Because if you take a lot of those things on face value, they seem a bit problematic, at least to me.
Are you talking about George Spahn? Because a) he wasn’t a director and b) that actually happened. Manson had the girls in his cult have sex with him in exchange for letting them stay at his ranch.
 

uncelestial

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,878
San Francisco, CA, USA
My point is that it's not a fairy tale and it's not a happy ending. There's nothing happy at all about anything in this movie. Not getting brutally murdered is a really low bar. It's kinda weird how the entire movie is framed as a Hollywood "fairy tale" when what it actually depicts is just so depressing to me.
Man, if you think that's depressing, wait till you get a load of real life!
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
Fun fact, George Spahn is the one that game Squeaky Fromme (future failed Presidential assassin) her nickname.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
That's actually a real thing, about the old man. His status as victim (in movie and real life) is ambiguous.
You just made the case that this is an "All the things that you would expect to be terrible are good in this fairytale version", you really don't think an old film director fucking a young girl but it's okay, she's not the victim, fits into that mold?

And more broadly (same goes to the playboy mansion scenes, Brad Pitt kinda murdering his wife) this is not a documentary, those are decisions Tarantino made, you can make the case that he just told a story and nothing is supposed to mean anything, I personally don't really buy it, the movie feels quite deliberate to me, even if I'm not 100% sure where I'm going. But what I'm struggle with saying it's all a fairy-tale, outside those two things - those are just things that happened and QT had to put them in the film because it's the truth.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
I have no idea anymore what point you are making. Tarantino is making alt-history where a lot of stuff is fairy tale happy. Obviously he didn't change every single thing.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
I have no idea anymore what point you are making. Tarantino is making alt-history where a lot of stuff is fairy tale happy. Obviously he didn't change every single thing.
You really don't think that an old Hollywood director fucking a young girl but she's not the victim is a Hollywood fairy tale version of reality?
Or do you think it just got there by mistake and Tarantino didn't notice that it's following the same theme?

This is the point I was trying to make with the playboy mansion stuff, this also seemed like a "fairy tale version of reality", right? like, in reality the playboy mansion is an immensely gross place, and I think I see what that film is doing, but I'm honestly really unsure about the why.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
He's not a director. He owns a dilapidated old ranch that used to be a TV set and is scraping by selling horse tours of the countryside.

The Manson Family is one of the constants that the changes are contrasted against.

Sure, you can question the why of it all. Why make a glamorous, sanitized version of the past? I dunno, but it's compelling. I'm not taking queues from QT of all people about my social politics.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,006
Again, he’s not a director, so that dynamic you are trying to create makes no sense.

The entire point of that scene was to create an bunch of tension and dread, the audience expects Booth to open the door and find Spahn dead, or tied up, only to find he’s just taking a nap and everything Squeeky said was true. It’s a bait and switch.
 

KarneeKarnay

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,190
When I first watching the movie, I enjoyed it from a technical level. From the acting to the cinematography, it's all perfect, everyone gives it their all.

When I left though, I felt kind of empty, because the story just didn't feel there. As I've thought about it more, there is a story there. It's a bit on the nose in places and a bit more subtle in others. It's a western in hollywood. Washed up celebrities and members of the industry, are the cowboys just looking for one last shot to prove their worth.

The only thing that felt a bit strange was the inclusion of Sharon Tate. I felt that the idea was we get to know her and subvert are expectations, but it still feels a bit strange to focus so much time on her. That said, maybe that's because the movie wasn't made for me. The movie is pretty self indulgent. From the jaw dropping finally, to Brad Pitt vs Bruce Lee, the film feels like a fantasy, but it's not for us. You kind of feel dirty in a way, that you are seeing something not made for you and not intended for you.

Just look at all the foot shots we get in this film. It's like he's practically baiting us.
 

Browser

Member
Apr 13, 2019
712
Great movie, can't wait to see it again knowing how it ends and not feeling complete dread.



It's one of the best known murders of the 20th century, even outside the US.
I live in Brasil. During the first week of OUATIH here most people that were excited for it didn't know. The catharsis in the end was lost on them.

I know its anecdotal, but today I dont think it holds the awareness you think it does outside the US.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
He's not a director. He owns a dilapidated old ranch that used to be a TV set and is scraping by selling horse tours of the countryside.

The Manson Family is one of the constants that the changes are contrasted against.

Sure, you can question the why of it all. Why make a glamorous, sanitized version of the past? I dunno, but it's compelling. I'm not taking queues from QT of all people about my social politics.
It's still kinda problematic, right? having sex with an old guy to be able to use his house, I don't know.
Also, if that's supposed to be a glamorous version of the past, why is the movie seem to be so hostile to hippies?
Why is the casual racism of some of the characters is till there?

I'm not trying to trick you into admitting something here, I legit think Tarantino went somewhere with that, if nothing else, the film feels deliberate, I'm honestly just unsure where he was going with that stuff.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
Dude, yes, the fucking Manson family was "problematic."
No, I meant it the other way, an old dude fucking a young girl in exchange of housing is problematic.
And again, you can say it's just there and it didn't mean anything, I personally think the film is more deliberate than that, especially as the movie does this a couple of other times. By "this", I mean taking something that would be bad in the real world and contextualize it as something justified or even good.

Consider how Leo shouting at people who drive a shitty car in his street, which in reality is a turbo-dickhead behavior, but in that film it literally saves the day. Now to be clear, I don't think Tarantino is saying "this is good behavior", but I do think he's going somewhere with that stuff, but I'm not terribly sure where.

I think roughing up the child actor "but it's okay because she was wearing padding!" also falls into that mold.
 

Borgnine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,042
No, I meant it the other way, an old dude fucking a young girl in exchange of housing is problematic.
I don't understand. This is what happened. Should we no longer depict historically accurate events on film if they're problematic? Do you somehow feel this film is endorsing sex in exchange for housing? What are you talking about my man.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
Again, the Mansons and related are a constant to contrast the changes.

The girl wearing padding seems to be another point about how badly she would have been treated in reality.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,426
I don't understand. This is what happened. Should we no longer depict historically accurate events on film if they're problematic? Do you somehow feel this film is endorsing sex in exchange for housing? What are you talking about my man.
Come on, this is not a documentary, Tarantino wrote that film and he made a decision to put it there.
You honestly think this means nothing?
Because those things are all over the movie.

The rest of the stuff I talked about in my post are also obviously not historical. You really think all of that just means nothing?
I fully accept that I might not get it, if fact, I'm pretty sure I don't, but I really don't get the sense that this is just random stuff. I think Tarantino is in general pretty damn delibrate about what goes in his movies.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,353
Pretty astute observation I hadn't noticed until Boots Reiley tweeted - the Mansons were white supremacists and that's kinda glossed over. Reiley also described them as Right Wing and that's not really true at all, but QT did omit the fact that the murders were intended to start a race war.
 

Jam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,825
I really enjoyed it but it wasn’t without its faults.

On a technical level the acting, cinematography and sound was all top tier filmmaking. But it was also somewhat self indulgent and meandering.

Hail, Caesar! Probably worked better as a love letter to the golden era of Hollywood as a whole, but you were never going to get that straight forward with Tarantino.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,675
Sydney
Right, and what has your experience been? Do people you know where you live heard details of the murders? Did they make the connection watching the movie?
Yeah they did, the Manson family is pretty famous, the only thing that threw people who I've talked to is that they sort of expected Charles Manson to feature a bit more prominently in the ending.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,218
No, I meant it the other way, an old dude fucking a young girl in exchange of housing is problematic.
And again, you can say it's just there and it didn't mean anything, I personally think the film is more deliberate than that, especially as the movie does this a couple of other times. By "this", I mean taking something that would be bad in the real world and contextualize it as something justified or even good.
How is the portrayal of the Manson family taking advantage of Spahn portrayed as 'justified' or 'good'?
 

BluePigGanon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
892
No, I meant it the other way, an old dude fucking a young girl in exchange of housing is problematic.
And again, you can say it's just there and it didn't mean anything, I personally think the film is more deliberate than that, especially as the movie does this a couple of other times. By "this", I mean taking something that would be bad in the real world and contextualize it as something justified or even good.

Consider how Leo shouting at people who drive a shitty car in his street, which in reality is a turbo-dickhead behavior, but in that film it literally saves the day. Now to be clear, I don't think Tarantino is saying "this is good behavior", but I do think he's going somewhere with that stuff, but I'm not terribly sure where.

I think roughing up the child actor "but it's okay because she was wearing padding!" also falls into that mold.
No offense but I think these are really peculiar readings of the movie.

The Spahn Ranch situation is depicted fairly accurately - and sanitizing it serves no purpose... in fact it undermines the point of including the Tate-Manson subplot entirely.

Leo shouting at Tex et al is due to them having a noisy car dumping smoke outside his house in the wee hours, on a PRIVATE DRIVE. He was absolutely in the clear to go after them. In fact, more in the clear than he even knew at the time. He pegged them as pieces of crap up to no good and... they were, x10.

The girl wearing pads indicated to me this was something planned as a possibility for the scene.