Will you go see the new Quentin Tarantino film?

[Mojochi]

Have to confess I didn't notice Luke Perry specifically.....or Brenda Vaccaro for that matter. Or Clu Gulagher as the book man

Luke Perry was the guy who had the saloon scene with DiCaprio & the little girl in the Lancer episode, "The one from Boston". I do recall the Clu Gulagher scene. Sharon Tate buys a book from him, round about the time she goes in to watch her own movie

Where was Vaccaro.

Brenda Vacarro is credited as playing Pacino's wife. I actually don't remember seeing her either. If she is actually shown, it would have to be in the scene at the Schwarz screening room, where he's watching Rick Dalton movies

 

[Professor Zoom]

Tarantino would be the only good thing that's likely to happen to Trek.

In fact, it's so good it won't happen.

Tarantino doesn't need Trek - his reputation and career can not benefit in any way from it; it's purely a fun-to-do.

Paramount will not let it be fun - people managing franchises are simply incapable of the kind of faith in artists that would let Tarantino be himself.*


*No, Marvel wouldn't either...and Tarantino has no interest in them.

Tarantino making the sort of movie that he would want to make (and probably only able to make) would be far to outside of the box for a franchise the size of Star Trek.

We are more likely to get his version of the Great Space Coaster than his version of the Klingons.

 

[Discofan]

I've seen all the Tarantino films until now, I don't see why I would make an exception for this one.

 

[ichab]

He's coming under heavy, heavy fire from the media lately because he made males the main characters in his new film and not Margot Robbie and supposedly it objectives women because Margot is portrayed as being attractive.

Margo Robbie doesn't say much because the movie isn't about her. She's a supporting character. And what difference does is make if she's attractive?

Many are saying there is no room for QT in a post me too movement as his movies have nothing to do with empowering women.

Doesn't empower women? Jackie Brown and Kill Bill were movies with female leads carrying the picture. Tarantino was "empowering women" in his films back when a lot of this "me too" crowd was still in diapers.

Do you agree or will you pay to see this film.

Will most certainly see it at some point and whomever is stirring this garbage up needs to lay off the partisan blogs. They are bad for the brain.

 

[Mojochi]

Margo Robbie doesn't say much because the movie isn't about her. She's a supporting character.

But that's the issue. She isn't really doing that. She isn't actually supporting the two leads with her performance or character. They don't even interact with her until the last 20 minutes, when Leo meets her off screen, as the credits roll. Her only point in the film is as a plot device, to give our main characters a point, but she's billed as the 3rd lead, even though that's about as little support as a human can be, dramatically.

They use the build up to her real life murder as a gag, & that's her whole use to the film. Everything else is just glamorizing her as a vapid Hollywood socialite that sits & watches her own movie most of the film. If she isn't just serving the function of a macguffin, she's just a fetish.

However, in context to the whole movie, frankly, every character is being lampooned similarly. All the characters are a gag to some extent. So, relatively speaking, it's not a terrible infraction imho, but there's something there, especially for people deciding to be sensitive about it, where women in Hollywood are concerned today.

Doesn't empower women? Jackie Brown and Kill Bill were movies with female leads carrying the picture. Tarantino was "empowering women" in his films back when this "me too" crowd was still in diapers.

Look, I think all of the outrage is the usual overreaction too, but there is a little there to be irked about, & that he's done some good in the past doesn't mean he's completely beyond reproach or a little criticism.... a little. He's obviously not the all consuming evil of Hollywood that others might make him out to be. It's just a fun little parody movie after all. It's just that there is a little bit there that doesn't play well for female agency, & people get upset about seeing that now

 

[MakeshiftPython]

QT seemed more interested in portraying her in a life of joy rather than wallow in the tragedy of her death. She’s basically a goddess in a fairy tale that opens the gate for Leo at the end. But if you want a film solely focused on Tate, might as well look up that awful Hilary Duff film.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mojochi]

QT seemed more interested in portraying her in a life of joy rather than wallow in the tragedy of her death. She’s basically a goddess in a fairy tale that opens the gate for Leo at the end.

Glinda The Good Witch, who has about as much character in her limited role TBH. It's not really about being true to Tate so much as it is about it being a pretty insignificant role in the film. Even Tate's family don't really mind the upbeat portrayal of the real woman... for a change. I was mostly criticizing how irrelevant the actual character is, beyond being a plot mechanism, & it's a minor criticism at that imho. It's just not as progressive as people expect Tarantino to be, given Kill Bill & Jackie Brown

 

[Mudd]

Outrage at fiction is wasteful.

 

[Mojochi]

Outrage at fiction is wasteful.

I agree completely. However... criticism? That's kind of fair game lol

Hey I like Tarantino, & usually will pay to see his stuff in the theater. I didn't find this one as good as some of his others, but it wasn't bad either, I'm not sorry to have paid to see it, & if he makes something else I'll probably still be on board. That said... She could have been a wee bit more useful

 

[MakeshiftPython]

How so?

 

[Ovation]

Hollywood (fantasy 1969 version) is the main character. All three leads are just examples of an archetype of that fantasy version of Hollywood. The movie isn’t about any one of the leads. Each lead is simply an aspect of this version of Hollywood.

 

[Mojochi]

Hollywood (fantasy 1969 version) is the main character. All three leads are just examples of an archetype of that fantasy version of Hollywood. The movie isn’t about any one of the leads. Each lead is simply an aspect of this version of Hollywood.

I dunno. I might agree with that on Leo's Rick Dalton, but while Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth may be an archetype of "Stuntman guy", they do send him outside that, as he interacts with Manson hippies etc... And he's one of the more enjoyable parts of the movie because of it

His character is something more than just a commentary on a certain aspect of Hollywood. We don't even (Really) see him do stunts. In fact, he's more a one man entourage/gopher for Rick Dalton, & in a weird way Cliff Booth is the focal character, & Rick Dalton is almost the supporting role, with a B-plot about an aging has-been actor

There's not much story to dissect here, but I'd say the synopsis for it would be, "An aging part-time stuntman, who looks after his fragile, has-been, Hollywood actor friend, finds himself dipping his toe into the Hollywood 60s subculture, of Manson family hippies, as they collide with celebrity socialites"

Her part is really just the set dressing for that

How so?

Less time just sitting in a movie theater watching her own movie, & more time being involved in the goings on of the movie

 

[Professor Zoom]

Less time just sitting in a movie theater watching her own movie, & more time being involved in the goings on of the movie

Or having a story where she wants something and actively tries to get it, you know, things characters mostly do in movies.

She's basically a prop in this movie. And it's sort of fun when you realize that's all she is, but, it's a waste of Margot's talent, and props don't need that much screen time.

 

[Mojochi]

Or having a story where she wants something and actively tries to get it, you know, things characters mostly do in movies.

She's basically a prop in this movie. And it's sort of fun when you realize that's all she is, but, it's a waste of Margot's talent, and props don't need that much screen time.

Well, they certainly shouldn't be such a passive participant imho. She is really just a breeze passing through. I was probably inaccurate to call her a Macguffin, because she's a prop to the plot in an even more removed way than that, because it's not her that's actually having any impact on anything. It's the stigma of the infamous Manson family murder, which she's known for, that we're flirting with. The main characters aren't actually chasing a Macguffin per say, but the movie is chasing that ominous legacy like IT is.

Heck, the little girl who does the saloon scene with Rick Dalton has more bearing on the film than Margot's Sharon Tate. She interacts with a main character, is involved in their story, & offers meaningful insight in that relationship. That kid was one of my favorite parts of the movie, & she shared in what was probably Leo's best scene, crying over the meaning of his book

That's the sad part, because there are some genuine good moments, but Tate doesn't really get any... dancing around, ogling her projected self, bubbling or whizzing about pointlessly. That's not really a character. It's moving scenery, which borders on fetishistic.

 

[Mudd]

I thought Robie was terrific in the movie, and her portrayal of Tate was touching. The movie, as her sister noted, is not about Tate.

There are properly respectful terms for actors who play small or supporting parts in films. "Prop" is not among them.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I thought Robie was terrific in the movie, and her portrayal of Tate was touching. The movie, as her sister noted, is not about Tate.

There are properly respectful terms for actors who play small or supporting parts in films. "Prop" is not among them.

I was respectful of Margot, but the role, as written, has all the agency of a prop. It’s not disrespectful of her, as much as it’s a criticism of the writing.

 

[Starkers]

The movie treats Sharon Tate as a fetish & the impetus of her real life murder as a macguffin. The real hilarity of the outrage is that I've actually seen as much objection to how Bruce Lee is portrayed, but even those criticisms are screwy imho, because the scene in which he is lampooned is actually a dream sequence, & not to be taken as an actual event in the film. Of course the character imagining Bruce might think he's like that, even if he isn't & we all know it, especially Kung-Fu movie buff Tarantino.

That's interesting. I didn't take that as a dream sequence I took it to be a memory, especially given it referenced Green Hornet which we know Rick Dalton's already done by this point.

Anyway I really enjoyed the film but it's problematic. Surprised no one has really highlighted the issue of Cliff killing his wife? It's kinda done as a throwaway joke/reference to Natalie Wood/ Robert Wagner and as people have pointed out, middle aged white guy in the film industry has his career derailed thanks to an issue with women, only he's the sympathetic character? Throw in that the actor playing his wife is Rebecca Gayheart who has actually killed someone and that's disturbing on a meta level.

Spoiler

QT reinventing history again, which you can see coming a mile away, especially with the homage to Inglorious and Chekov's flamethrower, which I'm sure an actor would be allowed to keep after filming

As for Tate, I appreciate the once upon a time element implies this is a fairytale, but that whole final sequence left a bad taste in my mouth given the real events that happened that night, turning it into an ultraviolent wish fulfilment cartoon was disturbing, and note how it's the two female characters we see take the most damage? Sure Tex gets bit in the groin by the dog, but the way its shot we see very little, by contrast we see both women suffer gruesome and detailed facial injuries, and boy Cliff seems to be enjoying smashing her face in quite a bit. Then of course one of them is burnt alive.

I get these were terrible people, I just find it unsettling that far more obvious violence is meted out to the women.

Robbie does her best but Tate is a cypher, little more. Then again women in general aren't portrayed well here (outside of the little girl).

None of this ruined my enjoyment, and frankly it's the most enjoyable QT film since Kill Bill Vol.1 (though I've never seen Hateful 8)

 

[Mudd]

It's not a dream sequence. Tarantino has said that the main reason the flashback is there is to establish Cliff's physical strength at that point in the movie.

 

[Starkers]

It's not a dream sequence. Tarantino has said that the main reason the flashback is there is to establish Cliff's physical strength at that point in the movie.

Thank you I thought I was going crazy for a minute!

 

[Professor Zoom]

That's interesting. I didn't take that as a dream sequence I took it to be a memory, especially given it referenced Green Hornet which we know Rick Dalton's already done by this point.

Yeah, I took it as a memory as well. Maybe Rick "distorts" his memory a little, but, I didn't take it as a dream sequence, especially since it explains why he can't get a job. A weird thing to dream about.

None of this ruined my enjoyment, and frankly it's the most enjoyable QT film since Kill Bill Vol.1 (though I've never seen Hateful 8)

I really enjoyed Hateful 8, it was a fun locked room thriller. Saw it on a BIG screen. It was great.