when he headed for the shed, i blurted out aloud, in the theater, "oh my god, he's still got the flame thrower!" and then i started laughing like a maniac. my apologies to anyone who was sitting near me in the theater.
I'll give that one a shot. First, good commercial hook (although my initial impression when i first heard about the movie while still in production was that I really didn't want to watch anything that reenacted the whole murder scene). Second, a movie about a tired, obsolete whatever- actor, cow puncher, salesman? We've seen it a million times, haven't we? See first point, above re commercial hook. I guess my third point enters the realm of film explication but the Manson 'events' were the end of an era in many ways- not just flower power but a death of innocence™--we had already been through the Kennedy assassinations, MLK, riots and a lot of turmoil, but at least insofar as Hollywood was concerned, I think the folks that were part of that charmed inner circle of actors, musicians and other celebrities were probably pretty insulated from life on the street. And the Manson thing hit home, where they lived. Traditional Hollywood-- the big studio lots, the stable of contract stars, the old haunts, was dying and being replaced by this new breed-- the independent producers, the low budget films that appealed to the youth explosion, and the entire cultural revolution that was going on everywhere in the States, not just Hollywood. A washed up cowboy actor and his stuntman sidekick were caught in the middle of this transition-- and what event represented the change in the Hollywood community more than the Manson killings? I didn't find it exploitative. It was almost reverential of Sharon Tate. And the violence was like having Sylvester Stallone win the Vietnam War for us in one of those Rambo movies-- it didn't exactly follow the facts (anymore than Inglorious Bastards did), but payback, even in fiction, is cathartic. That's why the cheering in my estimation. But, I'm hardly an authority on film. Just my take and response to your rhetorical question.
Your larger point about why the Manson murders were woven into the story of Rick and Cliff is well-taken, but we didn’t win the Vietnam War and Sharon Tate is still dead. I don’t see how on-screen fantasy violence, with the ostensible good guys dishing out the punishment this time, solves any real world problem. I also highly doubt that most of the people in the theatre with me cheering on the death of the hippies were as knowledgeable about the day to day timeline of 1969 as the average 60s-obsessed member of this forum is. Is the average millennial watching this film really getting catharsis from a twist on an original historical event they’re either barely familiar with or don’t know about at all? Most viewers under 40, I’d wager, couldn’t accurately explain what was supposed to happen on Cielo Drive before the fictional detour from the Tate/Polanski mansion into Rick’s house. As someone noted in the other thread, they were cheering because, for whatever reason, people cheer when someone gets set on fire or brutally killed on the big screen. If we’re ever going to break the cycle of violence and crime, I’d say 60s ideals such as “give peace a chance,” or “we can change the world,” or, “like a bridge over troubled water, I will lay me down” are a better way to get to that goal, lost innocence or not, than is rehashing Western and spaghetti Western tropes of beautiful and cathartic violence. Just my two cents.
I tend to believe the theory that madmen like Manson want attention and notoriety. Manson dreamed of being a rock star; when that didn’t work out, he achieved stardom by other means. It may well be that some of the family members he brainwashed later had a change of heart and regretted their notoriety, but I think Manson got what he wanted.
Manson was first and foremost a con man. He had great charisma and could talk a good rap. He definitely was looking for fame and adulation/attention. He did get both but in the most negative way possible.
I agree with everything you're saying. I loathe violence and resort to pacifism when appropriate. Except this time, it's a film. With a different perspective. You can re-write it and make it your own. So, in the end, the dirty, naive, pedigreed, bookend dweebs received their dose of comeuppance. It was so simple, yet brilliant. Funny. Let's not forget, funny. Please ?!?
As I’ve said already, I don’t find people being set on fire funny, whether they’re Nazis or counterculture murderers. I agree that it’s a film, and Quentin Tarantino is free to do whatever he wants in his films, and I enjoyed many things about this film, but I’ve never enjoyed the violence in his films, I didn’t enjoy the violence in this film, and I don’t think having the good guys act out revenge fantasies or dish out purportedly cathartic violence to cartoon evildoers justifies or redeems the over the top violence porn of the conclusion of this film.
It's a fantasy, a fiction. Does it solve any real world problem? If that's the measure of the creative arts, including TV, movies and music, almost none of it would meet that standard. I don't know. I'm almost 65 years old, and remember the events as they were reported, and reading about them afterwards, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask. You sound like a serious person with high expectations and I'm not trying to diss you. I just think perhaps you expect too much out of what I regard as entertainment. Sure, there are documentaries and the occasional movie or book that exposes some important issue that deserves attention, or provokes thought but, just like the Hollywood portrayed in that movie, I don't think that's why most people go to the movies. That's entirely speculation on my part, but since a lot of what Hollywood does seem to release these days is based on comic books (ahem, 'graphic novels'), I don't think I'm too far off. I'll tell you this much. I can't remember the last movie I saw in a theater. Maybe it was that outer space film, Gravity, that was shown in IMAX back in 2013. This one interested me enough to say 'hey, I'd like to see this.' And there's this small 'art house' here in Austin where you can reserve your seat, it's easy to get to (we live in town) and quite pleasant. I enjoyed it, and a lot of it was all those little bits of Hollywood history. (I'm not an astute film buff,* so some of it may be lost on me, but I get the film geek aspects of all the little details). __________________________ *What I also learned (afterwards, through my wife's research on the Spahn Ranch) was that my namesake, William S. Hart, owned that ranch back in the day. (I'm not related to him as far as I know, but we share the same name, apart from a middle initial and today, I doubt many people know who he was).
You go into a Quentin Tarantino film expecting it not to be Quentin Tarantino-y? Did you know what you were getting into in the first place? You're complaining about a fictional story that includes some real life characters portrayed in fictional ways? It's not a fact-based telling of the Manson/Tate Helter Skelter story.
Probably a dumb question but here goes anyway. When watching the scene when Sharon is in the theater watching herself with Dean Martin in The Wrecking Crew up on the screen in the movie who was I looking at? Sharon Tate or Margot Robbie digitally inserted into the Dean Martin film?
They’re all dead or half dead and been begging for parole after being converted into Good believers but never get it. the last thing they want is attention now they just want to die out of jail. I think there’s two women left but they never will get out. Let’s not forget this is 50 years ago and they were a bunch of stupid teenagers on drugs. Manson? I know Manson inside and out he’s nothing but a cheap con who like all cons talks a good game because They have nothing to do but sit around and bull*** in the big house. That’s the worst thing about these cheap con man when you run into them: they never shut up. He was no evil genius just ordinary crook and thief and somehow managed to trick and surround himself with a harem of LSD addled teenagers. No doubt he was shooting off about becoming a rock star — which is why he had those people killed, failed career revenge, like a good ole convict justice. If it hadn’t been Tate and rich people because of Mansons ambitions, it would have occupied a week in the news.
I don't understand why this film is required to solve a real world problem. I ask this with respect, why do you have that expectation? If you are familiar with Tarantino's films, over the top violence is almost a given. When my wife and I discussed the film, I referred to it as "revenge porn", so I agree with your characterization. But I'm wondering why you bought a ticket if it was reasonable to expect that you would find it distasteful?
