It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:28 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Foam wrote:
mfunk wrote:
It's not like they're riddled with continuity errors and baffling cuts mid-sentence or something. They're competently if not well edited films

Right. And maybe for me, the difference between competently edited and virtuosically edited films is greater than it is for you? The editing of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and Death Proof is at least 50% of why I, personally, watch and rewatch them.

The editing is impeccable. But look at something like the Kill Bill screenplay (which I'd link to here since it's all over the internet if it weren't copyrighted material): there is a great deal of detail about cutting, when it occurs, in some cases on which syllable. Making a movie is a collaborative process, but without a clear directorial vision, there's going to be nothing to edit at all. Menke does a terrific job with material that is very well written and directed. That director hasn't changed despite the loss of Menke, so my only contention is that there's only so much of a diminishing quality level that can be attributed to her removal from the equation, and while I'm glad you get so much out of the editing of those films, I'm not sure it's at least 50%.

I'll be the first to admit that I tend to be a little oversensitive about my perception that some people see it as important to their own maturation as film enthusiasts to reject Tarantino either entirely or to some degree (I only like Jackie Brown, I only like the old stuff, etc) despite my other stance that he's making better films now than he ever was, which was a pretty damn high bar to begin with. For that reason, I appreciate you elaborating on your statement about Menke, and while I can't say I entirely understand it, it makes more sense to me than it initially did.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:27 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Image

Hmm...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:47 am
mfunk9786 wrote:
Foam wrote:
mfunk wrote:
It's not like they're riddled with continuity errors and baffling cuts mid-sentence or something. They're competently if not well edited films

Right. And maybe for me, the difference between competently edited and virtuosically edited films is greater than it is for you? The editing of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and Death Proof is at least 50% of why I, personally, watch and rewatch them.

The editing is impeccable. But look at something like the Kill Bill screenplay (which I'd link to here since it's all over the internet if it weren't copyrighted material): there is a great deal of detail about cutting, when it occurs, in some cases on which syllable. Making a movie is a collaborative process, but without a clear directorial vision, there's going to be nothing to edit at all. Menke does a terrific job with material that is very well written and directed. That director hasn't changed despite the loss of Menke, so my only contention is that there's only so much of a diminishing quality level that can be attributed to her removal from the equation, and while I'm glad you get so much out of the editing of those films, I'm not sure it's at least 50%.

I'll be the first to admit that I tend to be a little oversensitive about my perception that some people see it as important to their own maturation as film enthusiasts to reject Tarantino either entirely or to some degree (I only like Jackie Brown, I only like the old stuff, etc) despite my other stance that he's making better films now than he ever was, which was a pretty damn high bar to begin with. For that reason, I appreciate you elaborating on your statement about Menke, and while I can't say I entirely understand it, it makes more sense to me than it initially did.

If what you say about the Kill Bill screenplay is true I'm glad you brought it up, because I may need to take a look at it. There are other possibilities and factors here, and really I had honestly assumed that Menke hadn't edited Inglourious Basterds until right before I made that post--so that is problem for my first argument to some (but not necessarily a fatal) degree.

Whatever we say about the relative authority Menke or Tarantino had over the editing of particular films, my assessment of the relative quality of the editing in the films remains the same: Reservoir Dogs shows moments of promise; everything from Pulp Fiction to Death Proof is a masterclass in the art; there are multiple scenes in Inglourious Basterds that strike me as overly strained; Django and The Hateful Eight, though not without their merits, are basically absent of the energy I love in most Tarantino films.

Those are my responses to the films, all of which I know well. An alternate theory, which I'm happy to entertain, is that starting with Basterds, Tarantino started insisting on an editing style (and an overall sense of pacing beyond the realm of editing) that just doesn't work for me compared to his films before that point.

This is about all I have to say on the topic for now. Though it may have inspired me to try and write an article isolating Menke's signature.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
domino harvey wrote:

If that is indeed the case with his script I'm even more skeptical that this will turn out to anything other than a farce. Conspiracy theories are bad already but someone with as wide a reach as Tarantino promoting this? I just can't get on board with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm
and so it begins


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
The entire film will be Margot Robbie in a bubble bath explaining to the camera what really happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Um... are we taking one tweet about a possibly imagined inference as gospel here?

To rephrase: no one seriously thinks this is going to be a movie that tries to disprove that the Manson Family were responsible for these murders, do they? This isn’t Oliver Stone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. Even if it was played straight I just don't see this working without serious effort. Now a film inspired by the Manson family? Absolutely. A darkly humorous take on our culture of celebrity and violence would work well for Tarantino. At least in my opinion. That's fairly messed up I know but the rather nauseating vulture culture around celebrities, especially dead ones is certainly something I'd like to see tackled. Imagine something akin to Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler but with a Tarantino twist. If it bleeds, it leads!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:40 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
mfunk9786 wrote:
Um... are we taking one tweet about a possibly imagined inference as gospel here?

To rephrase: no one seriously thinks this is going to be a movie that tries to disprove that the Manson Family were responsible for these murders, do they? This isn’t Oliver Stone.

I keep forgetting Oliver Stone directed Inglorious Basterds


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
domino harvey wrote:
Variety just made wild speculation in a tweet suggesting Walton Goggins for Manson and now I'm going to be disappointed if it's actually anyone but him

John Hawkes already played a pretty effective pseudo-Manson in Martha Marcy May Marlene, so he deserves to be on the shortlist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
And the correction to the original tweet has come.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:12 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
The Narrator Returns wrote:

I'm waiting to see how QT reinvisions this exchange though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
domino harvey wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:
Um... are we taking one tweet about a possibly imagined inference as gospel here?

To rephrase: no one seriously thinks this is going to be a movie that tries to disprove that the Manson Family were responsible for these murders, do they? This isn’t Oliver Stone.

I keep forgetting Oliver Stone directed Inglorious Basterds

I will not take this bait


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR
There's audio down below and there's absolutely no way to interpret that as Tarantino believing in some Tate Truther conspiracy. At most he suggests that the gang invaded the Tate home of their own accord, although Manson was guilty of conspiracy elsewhere. Even then, his question seems genuinely inquisitive; nothing suggests he geniunely believes this theory, just that he's pondered it.

In between this and the "ghetto" controversy, people sure love to willfully misconstrue his comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
This was shared on reddit. Take it with enough salt to get your doctor worried, but interesting if at all true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:13 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Quote:
The film will take place briefly before the murders begin and the twist will be that Sharon Tate survives and hunts down/murders the whole family.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
But will she be pregnant when she hunts them down? Just how far will this go if true?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Does she survive as a vampire?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village
domino harvey wrote:
Quote:
The film will take place briefly before the murders begin and the twist will be that Sharon Tate survives and hunts down/murders the whole family.
Image
Which sets up the sequel nicely, when she hunts down and cuts off the _ _ _ _ _ of her husband who is accused of _ _ _ _ _ _ a minor.

This will even make the gimp blush.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm
that's a cool idea I hope it's true


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:20 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm
I'm doubting this for now just because it sounds too obvious, like something any fan could've made up from looking at the general narrative arc of Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, and Django - and especially of course the fictionalized revenge-fantasy version of history seen in the latter two.

Then again, if Tarantino's shown himself to be into that kind of idea enough to do it a few times before in the past decade or so alone, then I guess the question might be more, why wouldn't he do it again for the Tate murders?

If this is really what it is, though, I'll be virtually awestruck at such an incredible lack of a) imagination and b) good taste. The whole reversing-history schtick was offensive enough in IB (c.f. Rosenbaum's take, which I mostly concur with). And yet, odd as it sounds, somehow pulling that trick for not the systematic extermination of millions but a few senseless murders in one night - a much more intimate crime, despite the media circus - seems to me even more risible. Yes, the Manson family murders were/are Big News, hardly obscure, but this is still something that happened less than fifty years ago with the wound surely still fresh for all who knew the victims. Imagine if Tarantino decided to grab some more obscured case out of the news, say a man abducting and murdering a woman, and make a revenge-fantasy out of that? Without the "iconic" nature of the Manson/Tate affair, it'd be seen as a gross, tone-deaf exercise at best.

And yet we (mostly) deem it okay for directors like QT to play toy soldiers with tragic periods or events in history like American slavery or the Holocaust, just because these things have an Iconic aspect to them. I submit that there is no real moral difference between QT making a film like IB about the Holocaust and QT making a film like IB about your cousin who happened to be brutally murdered by an ex-boyfriend three years ago, or what have you. Why's it more alright the bigger the body count is (or the farther away in time)? Even if the IB/Django-esque angle claimed above turns out to be false - why make this film? I have a hard time seeing how a guy like Tarantino could do this in good taste.

I mean, we're talking about the man who said the following:

Q: Has 9/11 or the war on terror had any impact on you personally or creatively?

A: “9/11 didn’t affect me, because there’s, like, a Hong Kong movie that came out called Purple Storm and it’s fantastic, a great action movie. And they work in a whole big thing in the plot that they blow up a giant skyscraper. It was done before 9/11, but the shot almost is a semiduplicate shot of 9/11. I actually enjoyed inviting people over to watch the movie and not telling them about it. I shocked the shit out of them…I was almost thrilled by that naughty aspect of it. It made it all the more exciting.”

Q: But on some level you must have been caught up in the reality of 9/11.

A: “I was scared, like everybody else. ‘OK, what is this new world we’re going to be living in? Is it going to be fucking Belfast here?’ And I didn’t want to fucking fly nowhere. I remember thinking at the time – this was when they were shooting the Matrix sequels in Australia – ‘What if everything, all this shit, breaks out, man?’ And all that’s left in Hollywood are the Matrix people? That would be a fuckin’ drag’ (Laughs).”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Inglourious Basterds was not about the Holocaust. Not specifically enough to chalk that film up to that one thing, anyway. It’s adjacent, but not the prevailing subject.

Assuming the authenticity of that Reddit post can be verified down the line - yes, if you are not pleased with any of these films rewriting history this will not be for you. But I hope the absolutely excellent Hateful Eight doesn’t get lost in the shuffle for these folks, because it’s proof that Tarantino can acknowledge the complexity of American history as well as riff on setting fire to the nobility lent to it. As strange a person (and filmmaker) as Tarantino can be, I’ve never seen a better argument in favor of his actual, measurable intelligence as that film. And perhaps it would at least get people to slow their roll as they unspool their screed on his careerlong dedication to juvenilia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
mfunk9786 wrote:
And perhaps it would at least get people to slow their roll as they unspool their screed on his careerlong dedication to juvenilia.

I save that for von Trier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River
Apparently QT has bowed to public pressure and cancelled this project in favour of the story of how Mother Teresa hijacked a plane and crashed it into the Vatican in revenge for the Pope revealing her swiss bank accounts and referring to her as an Armenian dwarf.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm
starring Samuel L. Jackson as bounty hunter Martin Luther King Jr. and Maggie Cheung as Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Drucker


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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection