Tarantino IX: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Health insurance rip off lying FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around
We'll kick your ass in

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer » Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:54 pm

I appreciate some of the takes about the grander point of this film in the thread but as someone who was unaware of tate’s real life story before seeing this I don’t think Tarentino did a great job of getting his themes across in this
User avatar

Pops Freshenmeyer
 
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:12 am

Postby draw » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:13 pm

why's everyone mad at each other in here
User avatar

draw
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:49 pm

Postby delgriffith » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:17 pm

easy wrote:this ruled

Oh honey.
User avatar

delgriffith
 
Posts: 21699
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:26 pm

Postby easy » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:22 pm

gross!
User avatar

easy
does it
 
Posts: 1230
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:07 pm

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:43 pm

We walked out and my girlfriend immediately described this as a Tarantino and friends circle jerk and I defended it but I’m coming around to her take
User avatar

Pops Freshenmeyer
 
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:12 am

Postby Buzz Fledderjohn » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:04 am

del i haven't see any details in here on why you didn't like this, did i miss them or are you just stepping in every few pages to be a knobjob
User avatar

Buzz Fledderjohn
 
Posts: 23320
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:21 pm

Postby came to wreck » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:09 am

The latter
User avatar

came to wreck
 
Posts: 13052
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:50 pm

Postby draw » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:10 am

See this is what I'm talking about
User avatar

draw
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:49 pm

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:19 am

i guess as someone who has never really made an effort to learn any manson family history this really wasn't a movie for me. so my judgements probably aren't all that valid, per usual
User avatar

Pops Freshenmeyer
 
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:12 am

Postby Buzz Fledderjohn » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:30 am

davideotape wrote:
a is jump wrote:I can't really carve out a cogent point regarding this, but there's something going on in this movie about artifice vs reality that I find really intriguing, almost in a Lynchian way-- haven't felt this many Lynch vibes from a Tarantino movie in a while. You've got QT digitally inserting Leo into Steve McQueen's role in The Great Escape, after having shown a fictionalized Steve McQueen earlier. There's Margot playing Sharon Tate watching the real Sharon Tate playing a role. Sharon Tate performs stunts choreographed by Bruce Lee, who is played in the movie by Mike Moh, and we see Margot Robbie and Mike Moh rehearsing scenes that are then played out for real by Sharon Tate. Neil Diamond has a song of his own on the soundtrack, and another of his songs is covered by Deep Purple (who also have an original composition on the soundtrack). The Mamas and the Papas have a song of their own on the soundtrack, and another of their songs is covered by Jose Feliciano. One of the actors also performs a Mamas and the Papas song (oh, the Mamas and the Papas are also portrayed earlier in the film by actors).

I dunno.



Yeah i felt this too. Hollywood “Movie magic” being used to revise/“remake” a real life hollywood tragedy is surreal, remembering things how hollywood wants to, with actors portraying real people talking about (and sometimes replacing) other real people and watching/starring in shows that existed but with different fake people in them. Its dizzying. its why i liked that bruce lee scene opening with him talking about boxing as reality vs hollywood. Seemed to be a useful part of the movie.

That along with QT seemingly being less “present” in the film as a director (except for all the feet), and more restrained for lack of a better term, had a real hazy hollywood surreality to it, like the oblivious hollywood industry gained sentience and built this movie as an artifact in an attempt to ignore a traumatic event that changed it. And in some ways thats probably because a mutant who was raised by hollywood made it and its how he sees his “parents” now that hes an adult.

(Im not stoned but i might be losing it, been in a weird mood all day today)


also to add to this, the scenes of them filming the tv shows that were filmed as if they were a QT movie, following earlier scenes that made them look like actual 60s shows

the structure of this works a lot better the second time when you know why a lot of iittle things are important and you know where it's going

first time was just a big tense guessing game that was bound to frustrate a lot of people

oh also i didn't realize how telegraphed the dog attack was initially. "it's feeding time" as he walks into the house, etc.
User avatar

Buzz Fledderjohn
 
Posts: 23320
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:21 pm

Postby The Producer » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:32 am

you knobjobs better go back and watch this until you love it :evil:
User avatar

The Producer
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:07 am

Postby Buzz Fledderjohn » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:34 am

The Producer wrote:you knobjobs better go back and watch this until you love it :evil:


not going for this at all, i just usually respect del's opinion so have been curious what it is that irks him so much about this since he's been cryptically posting about it
User avatar

Buzz Fledderjohn
 
Posts: 23320
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:21 pm

Postby naturemorte » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:51 am

a is jump wrote:I can't really carve out a cogent point regarding this, but there's something going on in this movie about artifice vs reality that I find really intriguing


this is astute–-love the point you make about the various cover versions!

for me, the tension between artifice and authenticity is absolutely at the center of the last four QT films. they are all structured around deception and performance–particularly, how challenging it can be to maintain the ruse in the face of the pressure of the real. in django, the central dramatic question is whether a former slave can pretend to be a slave-trader; in inglorious basterds, a central question is whether jews can "stay in character" as nazis. (i don't remember h8 all that well, but if i remember correctly, the whole first half of the movie turns out to be a "performance" covering up an earlier act of violence?). OUATIH negotiates this theme rather schematically, i think, between the three leads.

tarantino is fascinated by the different layers of artifice that his characters negotiate: for instance, leonardo dicaprio the marquee idol, pretending to be rick dalton, the drunk has-been, pretending to be a sober professional actor, pretending to be "evil hamlet." the film rehearses the many roles and genres rick inhabits, but delights particularly in those behind-the-scenes TV segments or advertisements that show rick occupying multiple roles at once, often failing to keep up appearances. rick is defined by his struggle to stay in character in any of his roles (character, "star"), as many QT characters are, but it's a particularly appropriate role for dicaprio, whose signature roles are always as try-hards, phonies, aspirants and charlatans (catch me if you can, the departed, the aviator, the great gatsby, even the revenant, which is really the ultimate try-hard role).

sharon tate is also represented as a multi-layered negotiation between artifice and "reality," as in her visit to the fox bruin theater. she moves between identifying with her character on screen, and taking pleasure in the work that she put into delivering the performance. like rick, she lives surrounded by the trophies of her success as an actor (the "don't make waves" poster), but her career hasn't developed to the point where she has really created any distance between herself and her roles. if i were being charitable with the film, i would say that her underdeveloped nature as a character is an extension of her underdeveloped portfolio as an actor. she was never given the chance to develop as a performer, and in quentin tarantino movies, interiority is very often measured by the number of roles and personae a character has to act through.

but that's certainly not true of cliff, who manifests an authenticity that comes from his real experience with violence, an authenticity that is rooted in his body, rather than in his constructed persona. (as richard brody points out, "Though he is Rick’s stunt double—someone who appears onscreen in the guise of Rick—it’s actually Rick, a faux hero, who appears onscreen as Cliff’s double, someone who pretends to do the physically courageous things that Cliff really does"). his general demeanor is almost completely guileless, and the film positions him as something of a trained dog at several points. again, the casting here is critical, and one of the smartest things about the film is how it opposes dicaprio, the actor who tries his hardest to disappear into roles that he can never quite fully get lost in, with pitt, who epitomizes effortlessness and who always feels very "close to the surface" in all his film roles. cliff is also, tellingly, the most adept at violence, and the most experienced with it.

in the centerpiece section with cliff at spahn, rick on set, and sharon at the bruin, tarantino shows all three performing violence in different contexts. cliff's is direct; rick's are a spontaneous bursts of seeming violence (his trailer tantrum, followed by throwing the girl) that are nonetheless reabsorbed seamlessly within the performance he delivers; and sharon's, rehearsing her kung-fu routine, is pure pantomime. tarantino characters often demonstrate a propensity to violence that is inversely proportional to their ability to perform a role; generally, the moment when the ruse is dropped is the moment when violence erupts.

it's a bit on the nose, but susan atkins's monologue in the car before going up the hill for the big kill ("let's kill the people who taught us how to kill on tv") gets directly at the reversibility of artifice and violence that animates his films. but tarantino also makes critical distinctions between "real" violence and "artificial" violence, particularly in "django," which plays interesting games with the extremity of violence that is meant to index the "real" historical trauma of slavery vs. the "movie" violence that the audience is suppose to enjoy as a form of retribution for the historical atrocity. personally, i think his films are designed to contest the idea that real violence and simulated violence exist in the same moral space, but they also perversely delight in the ambiguities between these spheres, and are kind of strident and edgelord-y in pushing the grey areas in the audience's faces.

don't have time to go into it much, and i think i've said as much in previous discussions about django, but these games with actorly pretense and real-life persona, artificial and "real" violence, are of a piece with tarantino's interrogation of history through fantasy. OUATIH is painfully faithful to "historical reality" in many ways, certainly in the use of locations, and particularly in using film posters, marquees, advertisements, and other forms of entertainment production; he is obviously outlandishly unfaithful in other areas. both his characters and his use of film style and reference for me negotiate the question of how and whether artifices, particularly popular fictions, are equipped to deal with real historical trauma. for me OUATIH fails to really make the case for itself along these lines in the way that django and basterds did, but it's absolutely of a piece with that larger project.
chad wrote:"How can I make this about me and also congratulate myself in some way" - basically every hipinion bro
User avatar

naturemorte
 
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: maxine's parlour

Postby kyle » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:12 am

This is your thesis:

Code: Select all
I think his films are designed to contest the idea that real violence and simulated violence exist in the same moral space...
User avatar

kyle
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:35 am
Location: far away

Postby naturemorte » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:13 am

haha glad to know i had one! i just like to prattle
chad wrote:"How can I make this about me and also congratulate myself in some way" - basically every hipinion bro
User avatar

naturemorte
 
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: maxine's parlour

Postby OKterrific » Sun Aug 04, 2019 4:42 am

kyle wrote:Cool film, especially the not-so-subtle pedophilia.

I mean, I wish ephebophilia was a more widely understood concept in our culture. But, I’m like Cliff: I won’t be going to prison for some road head!


what
mcwop23 wrote:no need for lame earnest dad posts
User avatar

OKterrific
our rachel maddow
 
Posts: 19059
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:34 pm
Location: Yes, please.

Postby Grey Poupon » Sun Aug 04, 2019 4:48 am

and one of the smartest things about the film is how it opposes dicaprio, the actor who tries his hardest to disappear into roles that he can never quite fully get lost in, with pitt, who epitomizes effortlessness and who always feels very "close to the surface" in all his film roles.



This is great, what a dondon
My listening experience in balanced mode reveals the great depth of EARTH
User avatar

Grey Poupon
 
Posts: 19739
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:53 am
Location: phonied up

Postby palmer eldritch » Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:12 am

I thought there were good things and bad things about this movie.
User avatar

palmer eldritch
 
Posts: 40293
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:41 pm

Postby Sweet Gregory Pectin » Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:28 pm

rick (sheepishly): so its sunday night.. would you want to stay and watch my fbi with me
cliff: i already figured we would be i brought a six pack in the back
User avatar

Sweet Gregory Pectin
 
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: What are: Really Funny?

Postby odilon redon » Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:48 pm

Pops Freshenmeyer wrote:We walked out and my girlfriend immediately described this as a Tarantino and friends circle jerk and I defended it but I’m coming around to her take


your gf’s take is kinda just auteur theory
User avatar

odilon redon
 
Posts: 10002
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:57 pm

Postby Buzz Fledderjohn » Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:55 pm

Pops Freshenmeyer wrote:We walked out and my girlfriend immediately described this as a Tarantino and friends circle jerk and I defended it but I’m coming around to her take


who are the "friends" here, pitt and dicaprio?
User avatar

Buzz Fledderjohn
 
Posts: 23320
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:21 pm

Postby Debbie » Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:56 pm

draw wrote:why's everyone mad at each other in here


FUCK OFFFFFF
User avatar

Debbie
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:48 pm

Postby odilon redon » Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:04 pm

once upon a time in...exhausting aggro movie discourse
User avatar

odilon redon
 
Posts: 10002
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:57 pm

Postby odilon redon » Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:04 pm

more movie titles should use ellipses imo fight me
User avatar

odilon redon
 
Posts: 10002
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:57 pm

Postby came to wreck » Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:54 pm

no.... i agree!
User avatar

came to wreck
 
Posts: 13052
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:50 pm

Postby draw » Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:57 pm

Denise wrote:
draw wrote:why's everyone mad at each other in here


FUCK OFFFFFF

Ahhhhh Kelly Clarkson!!!
User avatar

draw
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:49 pm

Postby Ferrous Bueller » Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:58 pm

this isn't playing here yet

:evil:
Ferrous Bueller
 
Posts: 15670
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:57 pm
Location: temperate broadleaf forest

Postby CudNylon » Sun Aug 04, 2019 4:30 pm

The actor Olyphant was playing:
Motorcycle accident
On September 27, 1973, Stacy was taking Claire Cox[3][4] for a ride on his motorcycle in the Hollywood Hills when a drunken driver struck them. She died and Stacy lost his left arm and leg. Stacy's ex-wife, actress and singer Connie Stevens, organized a 1974 celebrity gala to raise money for his expenses. The gala, whose attendees included Frank Sinatra and Barbra Streisand, raised $118,000 ($0.6 million today) for his expenses.[2] In 1976, he won a $1.9 million lawsuit ($8.4 million today) against the bar that had served the drunk driver.[2][3]

Arrest and conviction
In November 1995, Stacy pleaded no contest to a charge of molesting an 11-year-old girl.[9] On December 7, 1995, he failed to appear for sentencing in Ventura County Superior Court and was arrested the next day in a Honolulu, Hawaii, hospital after having fled California. He attempted suicide by jumping off a cliff. After recovering, Stacy waived extradition and returned to California. On March 5, 1996, he received a six-year prison sentence. The prosecutor in the case initially said she believed Stacy might have been eligible for probation for the molestation, but his post-arrest behavior, coupled with two arrests in June 1995 for prowling at the homes of other girls,[2] led her to seek a prison sentence.[10][11] He served his sentence at the California Institution for Men at Chino.[2]

Any more chomos portrayed in this other than him and Polanski?
User avatar

CudNylon
 
Posts: 12449
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:08 pm
Location: failing this city

Postby Milk » Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:06 pm

manvstrees wrote:what's dumb and trite would not be using it when you're set up to call back to it
fuck kinda movie does that



I believe in writer's jargon they call that sort of call back Tarantino's Flamethrower.
"I'm a quivering collection of the worst and least helpful emotions: fear, anxiety, terror, paranoia, indigestion, dishpan hands.."
User avatar

Milk
 
Posts: 13680
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:56 am
Location: Shut the fuck up Milk

Postby kirito » Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:22 pm

Sweet Gregory Pectin wrote:rick (sheepishly): so its sunday night.. would you want to stay and watch my fbi with me
cliff: i already figured we would be i brought a six pack in the back

fist pumped at this
User avatar

kirito
 
Posts: 5394
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:55 pm
Location: I got rich and it cursed me

PreviousNext

Return to Mamma Mia... Here We Go Again....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a new dad for all, aladdin pain, alaska, Autarch, Avalanche Lily, beefbroth inthe shitpipes, blackbetty, blckchrry, Boog Powell, brent, brian dennehy fan, cam'ron hubbard, Celiac, chewy, chopperpilot, Chyet, Cone, cooly, creedence tapes, dan, Dead_Wizard, deebster, denvermax, Destroid, draw, dreamshake, endless dave, Feech La Manna, Frank, fury, Future, galactagogue, gauchebag, Geoff, Getbetter, goldsoundz, goofy's dead wife, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], grammatron, Grey Poupon, guidance, guy forget, hiddenicon, hologram, honkduh, iambic, jewels, jon, Jouster, jtwf2, kentucky, kid8, Kiki, kirito, Legion, lockheed, lordofdiapers, Lucky, lunatic96, mcwop23, mealy potatoes, Meeps, Merciel, MonkeyTennis, mutism, NegativeCapability, new blood,, normal finkenstein, nvrmind, odilon redon, oh! it's max!, Paul, paused anime for this, Phil, powderfinger, quaker city, realcoolattitude, rex, rich uncle skeleton, ripersnifle, Sad Panda, scrumptown, scurrydog, Seamus, sevenarts, sex cauldron, shame dawg, sleep maps, sniplets, son of chucky, spix et chicho, Spooky Jim, surly, techno beats, terminus, terrific bedwetter, tgk, This Guy, tick, viachicago, videodrome, villalobos, virile, virtuous, wakeman, WeirdJungle, zach york, Zurich