RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 17002
really

Did we talk about this?

OK

SPOILER ALERT




















TWO HOURS of boring and slow with a few spots here and there of interest then 20 minutes of QT madness that makes him the great director he is.

But so slow, my son is a huge QT fan and he said it was slow.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:20 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 15586
Location: Sunny South Florida
So here's the deal. I haven't seen the movie, but I have heard about what's in it. Now, it's based on real Hollywood history, but is fiction set in a time period. That some are calling the "Golden Age" of Hollywood although I'm not exactly sure why.

Don't know why I should spoiler box things that I haven't actually seen and am not sure happened in the film, but I guess that as they are potential plot details ... I'll do it.

Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski are in it. That is to say, people portraying them, are. This was before Polanski fled the country. Also, of course, it features the Manson Family. But apparently the central conceit of the film is ... mostly by accident, the "dudebro" fictional actors in the film played by diCaprio and Pitt actually end up foiling the Manson Family from murdering Sharon Tate, and she survives, changing history.

I also understand Bruce Lee is in it, and they do go into how Lee wasn't cast for Kung Fu, but instead wound up the sidekick on Green Hornet. I've also heard members of the Lee family don't like the way he is portrayed.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:16 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 15586
Location: Sunny South Florida
Bruce Lee’s Daughter Says Quentin Tarantino ‘Could Shut Up’ About Her Father’s Portrayal (EXCLUSIVE)
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/bruc ... 203302850/

Bruce Lee’s daughter, Shannon Lee, is responding to director Quentin Tarantino’s latest comments regarding her father’s portrayal in the film “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”

“He could shut up about it,” she told Variety when asked how Tarantino could rectify the controversy. “That would be really nice. Or he could apologize or he could say, ‘I don’t really know what Bruce Lee was like. I just wrote it for my movie. But that shouldn’t be taken as how he really was.'”

[snip][end]

Apparently, Tarantino has Lee in the film claim he could beat up Muhammad Ali. Dunno, that might be true, in the days before "MMA" I suspect boxers would not have known how to defend against somebody who knows Asian martial arts and can also use their legs, but honestly the whole thing seems to be a tempest in a teapot.

Anyway, his daughter does not like the way he is being portrayed, overall. Thing is, when confronted about how certain real life people are portrayed, QT retreats behind saying it's fiction, not a documentary.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 17002
Bruce Lee’s Daughter Says Quentin Tarantino ‘Could Shut Up’ About Her Father’s Portrayal (EXCLUSIVE)
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/bruc ... 203302850/

Bruce Lee’s daughter, Shannon Lee, is responding to director Quentin Tarantino’s latest comments regarding her father’s portrayal in the film “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”

“He could shut up about it,” she told Variety when asked how Tarantino could rectify the controversy. “That would be really nice. Or he could apologize or he could say, ‘I don’t really know what Bruce Lee was like. I just wrote it for my movie. But that shouldn’t be taken as how he really was.'”

[snip][end]

Apparently, Tarantino has Lee in the film claim he could beat up Muhammad Ali. Dunno, that might be true, in the days before "MMA" I suspect boxers would not have known how to defend against somebody who knows Asian martial arts and can also use their legs, but honestly the whole thing seems to be a tempest in a teapot.

Anyway, his daughter does not like the way he is being portrayed, overall. Thing is, when confronted about how certain real life people are portrayed, QT retreats behind saying it's fiction, not a documentary.

When you see it this will make more sense.

Weird QT would go out of his way to portray Bruce in this way, why? QT is a sexist, this is clear in the movie.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 19648
Location: The blue parts of the map
It's Tarantino doing a post-truth version of Hollywood, the way he does post-truth versions of everything. Even the same sicky colors. It's very personal, and it has about as much to do with the way I remember L.A. as King Kong had to do with an accurate depiction of Manhattan. If I made it, it would be psychedelic-era colors, probably shot in hand held grainy 16mm, as homage to that era of film making. There would be at least one teenage riot on Sunset Strip and more than one allusion to Day of the Locust. There'd have to be a scene with the Oscar red carpet at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.

Everyone's different, though, and the thing is at least a well made personal statement by someone who got a very different pop philosophy than I did, when he was getting his formidable creative chops together.

The Golden Age of Hollywood was in the late 1930s, when all the classics got made. Critics will nearly all agree. The makers did more with huge noisy shitty equipment, in forbidding megalithic sound stages, on factory-like studio lots run by robber barons, sometimes with a fiendishly intractable color process, all on a tiny 1.33 aspect ratio screen with one sound channel, than we'll ever do with all the tech in the world.

It's still the best stuff going. They had the feature film form wired.

_________________
Human extinction is bad for business.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 15586
Location: Sunny South Florida
Again, without spoiling what actually happens, I will say - from what I've heard - it follows in the Tarantino trend of taking actual history, and giving it more a kind of ending he thinks it might have deserved.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:23 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 19648
Location: The blue parts of the map
That is absolutely true. He does this. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's not passed off as reality, which he doesn't do. "It's only a movie."

Yes I interpret his latest as a nostalgic dream of a alternative Hollywood where things worked out a lot better than they ever did in this one. That's fine. We all do the what if game. In mine, the corporations lost an anti-trust suit and couldn't buy up the studios, and we continued on in the proud tradition as film makers vs content providers. There would still be an MGM lot, and the commissary would still make dark, wonderful coffee with unlimited free refills. We would still be reading in The American Cinematographer about people making great special FX by dumping water in the Paramount parking lot. The FX themselves would put anything electronic to shame. Just like they used to. Etc.

His is probably better cinema.

_________________
Human extinction is bad for business.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:35 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 15586
Location: Sunny South Florida
Hey, I mean, I loved the alternative history of Inglorious Basterds, Adolf Hitler and the entire Nazi command got burned in a theatre fire. It's wish-fulfillment. It's what a lot of people besides QT sure wish would have happened. Heck, even the fictional Nazi manhunter played by Christoph Waltz gets his just desserts. Everybody kinda loves that a bunch of Brooklyn Jews got the chance to beat Nazis to death with baseball bats.

So ... again ... look ... is this really a spoiler at this point? I think it's kinda in the trailers ... I'll just say he rewrites the ending of the Manson Murders. I won't say what happens. :D

And I agree with your point. He's not saying it's a documentary, or even a dramatization, so nobody should take it as such. I guess the question Bruce Lee's daughter is asking is can you get away with both things? Saying your fictional portrayal of real people like BL isn't real, but then turning around and defending the way you portrayed them as accurate?

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 19648
Location: The blue parts of the map
Right, as I said, Tarantino is something of a post-truther. Sometimes he wants it both ways. Critics give him a pass because they think it's all just too post-modern.

_________________
Human extinction is bad for business.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:55 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 17002
It's Tarantino doing a post-truth version of Hollywood, the way he does post-truth versions of everything. Even the same sicky colors. It's very personal, and it has about as much to do with the way I remember L.A. as King Kong had to do with an accurate depiction of Manhattan. If I made it, it would be psychedelic-era colors, probably shot in hand held grainy 16mm, as homage to that era of film making. There would be at least one teenage riot on Sunset Strip and more than one allusion to Day of the Locust. There'd have to be a scene with the Oscar red carpet at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.

Everyone's different, though, and the thing is at least a well made personal statement by someone who got a very different pop philosophy than I did, when he was getting his formidable creative chops together.

The Golden Age of Hollywood was in the late 1930s, when all the classics got made. Critics will nearly all agree. The makers did more with huge noisy shitty equipment, in forbidding megalithic sound stages, on factory-like studio lots run by robber barons, sometimes with a fiendishly intractable color process, all on a tiny 1.33 aspect ratio screen with one sound channel, than we'll ever do with all the tech in the world.

It's still the best stuff going. They had the feature film form wired.

You didnt find the first 2 hours SLOW?

I kept waiting for a plot development or something. I totally get everything he was doing, I recognize everything, but it was just too slow, not informative of the plot, etc.

Now, I have a crush on Brad Pitt and will watch him in anything twice. I am not Gay but damn.

Of course Leo is amazing, so I will watch it again.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 22720
So I saw it yesterday with a Salvi friend who went to U$C so knows Los Angeles. I'd thought it was set in the mid-70s, not 1969.

Tarantino is one of those people for me that's a really horrid person but I like his movies. About like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. So it was fitting for me that it was centered somewhat on Polanski.

I will give Tarantino this: guy can research the muthafkin eff out of a movie. The music was amazing. And for anybody who grew up in the LA area in the wake of the Manson Family, there are some really incredible historical references. The racism and misogyny Tarantino is infamous for wasn't exactly muted but it also wasn't as bad as it usually is. (This time instead of being directed towards African Americans it's directed at Asian Americans in the person of Bruce Lee. Tarantino is frustrating because he sets these movies in these eras in which he can justify crass, racist so-called "humor" or "realism" or "well that's just the way it was back then". In the showing I was in, not a lot of people laughed.)

It's not Inglorious Basterds, but if that's the 10 for me, I would say Once...is an 8.5.

_________________
WHAT DON'T YOU GIT?? THEY WOKE!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:15 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 15586
Location: Sunny South Florida
So, BTW, the two awards at the Venice Film Festival went to Joaquin Phoenix's Joker ... a controversial film which I've discussed elsewhere .... and to Roman Polanski.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/s ... ki-triumph

Polanski's film, An Officer and a Spy, is about Alfred Dreyfus and the Dreyfus Affair in France. Whatever I think of the man, it's a film I might consider seeing at some point.

Separating art from personal conduct and political views is a question with no easy and obvious answers ... despite what some claim ... however, I do think artists are responsible for the themes they advocate in their work (like "white man's burden") and, if like Polanski, you violate the law ... well, he's managed to avoid facing the consequences for that so far by fleeing the U.S. ...

Does that mean I would never see his film? I know my stepmother refuses to see anything now that has Woody Allen in it, but I wouldn't make that same decision. And I'm increasingly convinced by Ronan Farrow's writing that Woody is, at least in his personal life, slimy. As I said, I think those are answers everybody should arrive at for themselves. I just have never agreed that bringing up the personal conduct or political views of artists is totally irrelevant to evaluating their work.

So ... yes ... that applies to Quentin Tarantino, too.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:32 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 22720
So, BTW, the two awards at the Venice Film Festival went to Joaquin Phoenix's Joker ... a controversial film which I've discussed elsewhere .... and to Roman Polanski.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/s ... ki-triumph

Polanski's film, An Officer and a Spy, is about Alfred Dreyfus and the Dreyfus Affair in France. Whatever I think of the man, it's a film I might consider seeing at some point.

Separating art from personal conduct and political views is a question with no easy and obvious answers ... despite what some claim ... however, I do think artists are responsible for the themes they advocate in their work (like "white man's burden") and, if like Polanski, you violate the law ... well, he's managed to avoid facing the consequences for that so far by fleeing the U.S. ...

Does that mean I would never see his film? I know my stepmother refuses to see anything now that has Woody Allen in it, but I wouldn't make that same decision. And I'm increasingly convinced by Ronan Farrow's writing that Woody is, at least in his personal life, slimy. As I said, I think those are answers everybody should arrive at for themselves. I just have never agreed that bringing up the personal conduct or political views of artists is totally irrelevant to evaluating their work.

So ... yes ... that applies to Quentin Tarantino, too.


For myself, it’s often worth it — and a lot of my colleagues with different priorities disagree with me on this — to see some of these flicks by these f’ed up people because they influence the culture we live in. Same for listening to f’ed up music lyrics or viewing art with really f’ed up themes. I think it’s important to do because if anything else, how are you going to develop a critique of men like Tarantino if you haven’t watched his stuff?

_________________
WHAT DON'T YOU GIT?? THEY WOKE!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 14032
The movie was long and slow but it was good. Anyone who remembers that time period and what was happening then can appreciate the anticipation that was building during the movie. When I saw the movie and saw the lead character lived next door to Polanski and Sharon Tate I had a flashback to the news of the murders the Manson family committed. Then, throughout the movie the interaction with members of the Manson family I said to myself "Oh, shit!"

Tarantino did a good job of making an alternative version of Hollywood substituting his lead actor into other movies and humorously having him make Italian movies, ala Clint Eastwood, to reestablish himself as a lead actor. Like I said, it was a good movie but it's one that I would only want to see once.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group