criterionforum.org

is how they pay for antifa

Tarantino's film is actually a front for Antifa Super Soldiers.

What do you think the prospects are that he'd film at the Manson Ranch? It was a film set once upon a time. It's pure speculation of course but still.

Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. Number 9 ...

Sony has dated the movie to the 50th anniversary of the Tate murder, August 9, 2019.

Ribs wrote:Sony has dated the movie to the 50th anniversary of the Tate murder, August 9, 2019.

Oh....Well, that's unnecessarily tasteless.

BigMack3000 wrote:

Ribs wrote:Sony has dated the movie to the 50th anniversary of the Tate murder, August 9, 2019.

Oh....Well, that's unnecessarily tasteless.

My thoughts exactly.

Respect for the dead is a beautiful and important thing about the human condition, but that “50” number is a hell of a large one. At some point it becomes a cultural milestone moreso than one of mourning, and I think that’s about that point. Especially since we have no idea what we’re getting with this film yet. If it glorifies and sneers at the murder of Tate, then yes, it’s an ugly thing to do. If it doesn’t... it isn’t 1 year later, isn’t 5, isn’t 20. It’s 50 years later. Culturally gigantic but personally almost fossilized.

I take your point, but it’s not *so* long ago. After all, Charles Manson died just last week.

Of course that shouldn’t be a barrier to exploring the subject, and 50th anniversaries are when this sort of reappraisal occurs. But tying the film release date to the exact date of the murders is, well... tacky.

Calling it culturally gigantic is a bit overblown, and it frames those murders in a misleading way. It was never a '60s milestone that was dissected and looked over the way so many others are, much less one I recall many people discussing in-depth with each anniversary. Honestly, i don't know a single person who's ever really talked about that event the way they would about any number of '60s events, good and bad. At most they mention it as a grisly footnote when talking about "Helter Skelter," Dennis Wilson or Polanski. As a small but terrible event reflecting the end of the '60s, even the Stones's Altamont concert gets far more mention (partly because it can be played off of Woodstock I suppose).

http://t2conline.com/tom-cruise-to-star ... es-manson/

says that Tom Cruise IS starring but provides absolutely no proof

hearthesilence wrote:Calling it culturally gigantic is a bit overblown, and it frames those murders in a misleading way. It was never a '60s milestone that was dissected and looked over the way so many others are, much less one I recall many people discussing in-depth with each anniversary. Honestly, i don't know a single person who's ever really talked about that event the way they would about any number of '60s events, good and bad. At most they mention it as a grisly footnote when talking about "Helter Skelter," Dennis Wilson or Polanski. As a small but terrible event reflecting the end of the '60s, even the Stones's Altamont concert gets far more mention (partly because it can be played off of Woodstock I suppose).

Maybe if you don't include the sheer volume of literature, movies, news coverage, cultural references et al??? Why would you even try to argue this?

The only way you could believe this is if your view of the cultural landscape is so restricted that you only follow what's spoken of in "good taste" - which given the context of the prior comments is entirely likely!

Charles Manson is so culturally ubiquitous there is a pop star named after him.

Manson being a footnote to Dennis Wilson alone is a mind boggler.

Article also says that Cruise is still being sought out (as well as Pacino), which means that there's still a possibility that insane suggestion of him as Manson could be happening.

DeprongMori wrote:I take your point, but it’s not *so* long ago. After all, Charles Manson died just last week.

They were making movies about Pearl Harbor less than 25 years after the fact. There were TWO major 9/11 movies only FIVE years after the fact.

Monterey Jack wrote:They were making movies about Pearl Harbor less than 25 years after the fact. There were TWO major 9/11 movies only FIVE years after the fact.

The first two important Holocaust-themed features came out in 1948 (The Last Stop) and 1949 (Distant Journey).

MichaelB wrote:The first two important Holocaust-themed features came out in 1948 (The Last Stop) and 1949 (Distant Journey).

not to mention Orson Welles' The Stranger (1946) which featured real holocaust footage

I can't speak for everyone but the only time I'm really bothered by reenactments of any type of historical even is when it's done for bad reasons. An exploitation feature made for the sole purpose of titillation (See any number of them) differs from a recreation of the murders David Fincher recreated in Zodiac or even the Zodiac inspired slayings in Dirty Harry.

I've said this before (Although I'm not sure if I have on this forum) that even Tarantino understands how to make a death "meaningful" and not just a blood soaked mess. Take note of a virtually bloodless one in Jackie Brown. Or the ending to Kill Bill Volume 2. The idea that Tarantino cannot film death without turning the set into a bloody ruin just isn't true. Whether you like those films or not it's objectively true that not all of the deaths in his films are over the top. Whether he chooses to portray the Manson murders at all remains to be seen. And if he does how he chooses to do so in my mind is very key. Tarantino simply chooses to indulge more often than not. But to say that he cannot film death without some semblance of modesty (As much as you can anyway.) strikes me as a little dishonest (Not that I'm accusing anyone, just reminding people that he's capable of doing so.).

Leo will be...NOT Clint Eastwood? (Note the relevant information in this article is only on the very top with the rest being a huge cluster of other stories.)

Deadline wrote:What he plays, more specifically, is an actor who had his own Western show, Bounty Law, that ran on the air from 1958 to 1963. His attempt to transition to movies didn’t work out and in 1969 — the film is set at the height of hippy Hollywood movement– he’s guesting on other people’s shows while contemplating going to Italy which has become a hotbed for low-budget Westerns.

I know it's by 1960s TV western standards, but the idea of Brad Pitt being at all the right type to play a stunt double for Leonardo DiCaprio seems a bit off to me.

How they end up looking in the final product could quell that debate.

This is an appropriate title for so many reasons.

Inglorious Basterds was first known as Once Upon A Time In Nazi Occupied France, too.

Yeah but I have a feeling this might stick as that was a very clunky title.

Ribs wrote:I know it's by 1960s TV western standards, but the idea of Brad Pitt being at all the right type to play a stunt double for Leonardo DiCaprio seems a bit off to me.

Given his propensity to adhere to the outlandishness of his influences I don't think it will matter much but I see what you're saying.