|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 21:45:16 GMT
ends on a somewhat elegiac note (that completely depends on one's knowledge of history, so it might not even have that impact with ppl not "in the know") Also, this is an incredibly dumb point. Schindler's List wouldn't have the same impact on someone if they didn't know the Holocaust happened/was real. Why does the quality of a film/scene of a film depend on the historical knowledge of some hypothetical ignorant viewer? Oh come on, this isn't even remotely comparable. There's way more cultural awareness about the Holocaust than the specific murders that occurred on Cielo Drive, which didn't even involve Manson directly. One's emotional reponse to the ending (its "poignancy") hinges on one's awareness of that event. Without that, it's just another fun bloodbath Tarantino ending. Not sure why this needs to be explained...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:48:30 GMT
Also, this is an incredibly dumb point. Schindler's List wouldn't have the same impact on someone if they didn't know the Holocaust happened/was real. Why does the quality of a film/scene of a film depend on the historical knowledge of some hypothetical ignorant viewer? Oh come on, this isn't even remotely comparable. There's way more cultural awareness about the Holocaust than the specific murders that occurred on Cielo Drive, which didn't even involve Manson directly. One's emotional reponse to the ending (its "poignancy") hinges on one's awareness of that event. Without that, it's just another fun bloodbath Tarantino ending. Not sure why this needs to be explained... Your point makes no sense. You're seriously saying the ending of the film can't be a full homerun because some people don't have the requisite knowledge of what transpired on that night? Which is being altered by Tarantino as the ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE? Why is that the film's fault that some people might not know that? Are we supposed to only make films about things everyone knows about? The fuck??
I pray to God you never bother trying to read any serious literature as a lot of that depends on knowledge of other things (real life events, other novels, other authors, etc.) to fully appreciate what the writer is doing. If you think that's a bad thing I really have no idea what to tell you man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:51:10 GMT
This just in everyone, unfortunately The Irishman will not quite be able to land as a masterpiece because a lot of people don't know what the hell happened with Jimmy Hoffa. Pack it up, Scorsese.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 21:54:53 GMT
The thing I'm not getting is not people thinking differently than me, it's the reasoning behind it. I haven't read a single convincing argument as to why this film should be considered "mature." Needing in depth reasoning for a simple, broad descriptor given in other people's takes on a film is...something...and gives off a weird stand-offish vibe towards fans of it, but it's pretty self-explanatory regardless - if you're really confused why people are using that word, it's because the film feels impressively refined from a thematic and conceptual perspective, deals with adult and layered ideas in an intelligent, artistic way, and is not aimed at children in a way that has nothing to do with how violent or sexual it is (e.g. an average 11 year old would probably dig Reservoir Dogs if his parents let him watch it). Obviously not everyone is going to feel that way, especially for a film that's proving as divisive on here as this one, but there you go, not rocket science. None of what you're actually saying here is getting into the meat of why you think it's "impressively refined from a thematic and a conceptual perspective." How exactly? How is it dealing with adult and layered ideas in a way that is coherent and satisying? For me, Tarantino merely sets up a thematic premise and doesn't follow through on it... it's like he doesn't understand his own ideas that he sets up in the first place. Just because something is not for kids, doesn't make it "mature" lol.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 21:56:50 GMT
If I were a waning, narcissistic actor struggling for relevance and if my stunt double told me that a professional acquaintance of ours that we hadn't seen in 8 years was living with a bunch of hippies and was happy letting them stay on his ranch in exchange for underage poontang, I'm not sure I would really care either. I would suggest that that was weird as hell before getting back to worrying about finding a suitable home with a pool in Italy.
If you found Rick Dalton interesting as a character, you'd care about him regardless of whether he cared about somebody he barely knew. If you didn't find Rick Dalton interesting, you wouldn't care about him even if he were a saint. So the real question is, was Rick Dalton interesting enough for you to watch him or was he not? I don't know, what's the "point" of the segment where Vincent Vega hangs out with Mia Wallace? Not everything needs to have a point. Maybe it's just an opportunity for us to watch an interesting character in an interesting situation (if you did find Booth and the situation interesting, which you didn't necessarily have to). How much you learn about Booth and about the Manson family culture (as the movie shows it) from that scene is down to the audience member, but even that isn't requisite. A lot of the greatest movies have a lot of "pointless" scenes and shots.
Excuse the bold but - that point seemed way off to me so wanted to stress it: * I actually didn't find Rick interesting enough - I rated the film a 6.5 (it was a 9 before the third act - not the last 10-15 minutes). He doesn't have to be a saint but if you're telling a story I need to care. So yeah, I don't need him to be a saint, but I need him exist for a reason and I don't think he or Cliff has one for me ...........by the end. Cliff had a reason........lost it for me. *Vincent Vega hanging out with Mia Wallace is very important segment - don't know what you mean at all? They are one of the great unrequited love stories ever on film - they can never be together and even if they could he's gonna die, unlike say Jules whose philosophical decision is 100% related to his character as written. It is a great segment that ties in everything the film is about particularly fate/destiny - how can you ask what the "point" is there - are you kidding me?
A lot of great movies have a "pointless" scene and shots but Spahn ranch is presented as something much more (and goes on forever) - some of the "pointless" scenes here I like (the hanging out watch Rick's show scene etc) but I don't expect a movie to be grounded to a halt by a set piece pointless scene that you won't even find out is pointless until it's actually over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 21:57:06 GMT
Needing in depth reasoning for a simple, broad descriptor given in other people's takes on a film is...something...and gives off a weird stand-offish vibe towards fans of it, but it's pretty self-explanatory regardless - if you're really confused why people are using that word, it's because the film feels impressively refined from a thematic and conceptual perspective, deals with adult and layered ideas in an intelligent, artistic way, and is not aimed at children in a way that has nothing to do with how violent or sexual it is (e.g. an average 11 year old would probably dig Reservoir Dogs if his parents let him watch it). Obviously not everyone is going to feel that way, especially for a film that's proving as divisive on here as this one, but there you go, not rocket science. None of what you're actually saying here is getting into the meat of why you think it's "impressively refined from a thematic and a conceptual." How exactly? How is it dealing with adult and layered ideas in a way that is coherent and satisying? For me, Tarantino merely sets up a thematic premise and doesn't follow through on it... it's like he doesn't understand his own ideas that he sets up in the first place. Just because something is not for kids, doesn't make it "mature" lol. Do I really need to write a five page essay explaining in great detail why I feel Hollywood is Tarantino's most mature film for a guy who thinks the ending doesn't quite work because not everyone knows about what happened with Manson and Sharon Tate
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 16, 2019 21:58:29 GMT
Yeah, unfortunately it's basically pointless in the scheme of his picture - it's something QT does to set up his ending just for us (the audience) so we know who's who at the end but ..........
Cliff nearly got killed merely because he had to physically check on George - and he was willing to die right there, alone and no one would know - but now he's just going to let George be gouged and feasted upon by those vultures because Rick might get mad at him?
No way .........the Cliff Booth we've seen prior is a moralist in behavior - a non-judgmental moralist - he doesn't judge Qualley until he sees a reason to do so
You're making a lot of wild assumptions here. 1. "Cliff Booth was willing to die right there." No, he wasn't. Booth isn't from the future, so he didn't know he was dealing with an insane killing cult. He just thought it was weird that Spahn would let a bunch of hippies live there at all and wanted to make sure everything was all right. Either way, we know Booth is sure of his own abilities (he's a Green Beret, according to Tarantino) and I don't think it occurred to him for a second that they could get the better of him in a fight (particularly because they were mostly all hippie women). If he was ever scared for his life, he wouldn't go around knocking teeth out of mouths just because someone slashed a tire.
2. "Cliff Booth was just going to let George be gouged and feasted upon by those vultures" I thought Spahn had made it clear to Booth that he didn't need any help and that Squeaky was taking good care of him? The worst that was happening, according to Booth, was that the hippies were "taking advantage of [Spahn]", in his own words. I don't think Booth felt that Spahn was being gouged and feasted upon by vultures. Just being taken advantage of.
3. "because Rick might get mad at him" No idea why you think telling Rick Dalton about the ranch would have made any difference at all. What could Dalton have done that Booth couldn't? It's clear he doesn't have the physical prowess of Booth, and he probably cares less about Spahn than Booth does. They were professional acquaintances from years ago. That's it. Spahn wasn't Dalton's Uncle or anything. The most Dalton could have done was report it to the police, which even Booth could have. And what good would have come of that if George Spahn was maintaining that nothing was wrong and that Squeaky loved him and took good care of him? If anything, Spahn would be the one to get in trouble for fucking an underage hippie (which, as far as Booth was concerned, she could have been).
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 22:03:06 GMT
Oh come on, this isn't even remotely comparable. There's way more cultural awareness about the Holocaust than the specific murders that occurred on Cielo Drive, which didn't even involve Manson directly. One's emotional reponse to the ending (its "poignancy") hinges on one's awareness of that event. Without that, it's just another fun bloodbath Tarantino ending. Not sure why this needs to be explained... Your point makes no sense. You're seriously saying the ending of the film can't be a full homerun because some people don't have the requisite knowledge of what transpired on that night? Which is being altered by Tarantino as the ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE? Why is that the film's fault that some people might not know that? Are we supposed to only make films about things everyone knows about? The fuck??
I pray to God you never bother trying to read any serious literature as a lot of that depends on knowledge of other things (real life events, other novels, other authors, etc.) to fully appreciate what the writer is doing. If you think that's a bad thing I really have no idea what to tell you man. No, you're really just missing the point. There is an internal coherence to most films that deal with true historical events that enable viewers with no prior knowledge to come into the film and respond to the thematic points that it's making, because the presentation of history (or an attempted faithful interpretation of it at least) is part of the point. Some people actually watch films to learn about an historical event that they may know nothing about, and it still remains accessible.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 22:06:27 GMT
None of what you're actually saying here is getting into the meat of why you think it's "impressively refined from a thematic and a conceptual." How exactly? How is it dealing with adult and layered ideas in a way that is coherent and satisying? For me, Tarantino merely sets up a thematic premise and doesn't follow through on it... it's like he doesn't understand his own ideas that he sets up in the first place. Just because something is not for kids, doesn't make it "mature" lol. Do I really need to write a five page essay explaining in great detail why I feel Hollywood is Tarantino's most mature film for a guy who thinks the ending doesn't quite work because not everyone knows about what happened with Manson and Sharon Tate I mean I don't care if you do or not, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to do better than empty adjectives like "layered" and "impressive" to explain how the movie is "mature."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 22:07:12 GMT
Your point makes no sense. You're seriously saying the ending of the film can't be a full homerun because some people don't have the requisite knowledge of what transpired on that night? Which is being altered by Tarantino as the ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE? Why is that the film's fault that some people might not know that? Are we supposed to only make films about things everyone knows about? The fuck??
I pray to God you never bother trying to read any serious literature as a lot of that depends on knowledge of other things (real life events, other novels, other authors, etc.) to fully appreciate what the writer is doing. If you think that's a bad thing I really have no idea what to tell you man. No, you're really just missing the point. There is an internal coherence to most films that deal with true historical events that enable viewers with no prior knowledge to come into the film and respond to the thematic points that it's making, because the presentation of history (or an attempted faithful interpretation of it at least) is part of the point. Some people actually watch films to learn about an historical event that they may know nothing about, and it still remains accessible. I'm really not missing your point dude, it's just dumb. Why does a film have an obligation to do that? Because you're essentially arguing that it does. Why would a viewer going into a FICTIONAL FILM to learn about something that really happened not getting why the ending of Hollywood is as effective as it is have ANY negative reflection on the film itself? What on earth gave you the impression Hollywood is meant to be an "attempted faithful interpretation" of history anyway? Don't get me wrong, I get people not liking the film for all sorts of reasons. But this is such a baffling point.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 22:10:45 GMT
Yeah, unfortunately it's basically pointless in the scheme of his picture - it's something QT does to set up his ending just for us (the audience) so we know who's who at the end but ..........
Cliff nearly got killed merely because he had to physically check on George - and he was willing to die right there, alone and no one would know - but now he's just going to let George be gouged and feasted upon by those vultures because Rick might get mad at him?
No way .........the Cliff Booth we've seen prior is a moralist in behavior - a non-judgmental moralist - he doesn't judge Qualley until he sees a reason to do so
You're making a lot of wild assumptions here.
Well of course I am, so are you, you're just making different ones - that's what an audience does, right? But agree to disagree - of course we have assumptions but I don't think Rick caring, or Cliff assuming George is being gouged dangerously are that wild tbh. I just think without those assumptions you still get a 6.5/10 film for me at least........with those assumptions, it's a script issue, without them it rang false imo. Same difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 22:11:43 GMT
Do I really need to write a five page essay explaining in great detail why I feel Hollywood is Tarantino's most mature film for a guy who thinks the ending doesn't quite work because not everyone knows about what happened with Manson and Sharon Tate I mean I don't care if you do or not, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to do better than empty adjectives like "layered" and "impressive" to explain how the movie is "mature." I really don't have much interest in "convincing" someone whose arguments so far have been frighteningly close to braindead why I consider a movie more mature than they do. I already gave you more in depth reasoning why I used a single word in my praise of the film.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 16, 2019 22:14:19 GMT
This gonna be our next American Hustle.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 16, 2019 22:14:57 GMT
Excuse the bold but - that point seemed way off to me so wanted to stress it: * I actually didn't find Rick interesting enough - I rated the film a 6.5 (it was a 9 before the third act - not the last 10-15 minutes). He doesn't have to be a saint but if you're telling a story I need to care. So yeah, I don't need him to be a saint, but I need him exist for a reason and I don't think he or Cliff has one for me ...........by the end. Cliff had a reason........lost it for me. Which is absolutely A-OK. Saying you didn't care about him because "he had no reason to exist" is a lot more reasonable than saying, "I don't care about him because he didn't drop everything and go running to help a professional acquaintance that he hadn't seen in 8 years just because some hippies were taking advantage of him." That's the "point" of that segment for you, but I don't think what they had was "love" at all, so the entire segment is "pointless" to me. [sarcasm]Why can't you admit that the Vincent-Mia segment was pointless just because you loved the movie?[/sarcasm] Sound familiar? Either way, I can come with countless similar "points" for the Spahn Ranch segment to exist. One would be that it demonstrates Booth to be an honorable stand-up guy, despite some jarring flaws, and that the Manson family was just a bunch of wusses that couldn't stand up to someone like him, even when they numbered in the multiple digits. You could disagree with that, and that's fine, but I would also disagree that there was any love between Vincent-Mia and insist that all Vincent wanted was to shag her once and forget her. You see how subjective this shit is? I don't think it's presented as something much more. That was perhaps your reading of it. It wasn't mine. And how did you know Dalton's show scene was pointless before the movie was over? For all we knew, the little girl from the show could have shown up at Tate's house at the end, prompting Dalton to find hitherto undreamt of steel balls in order to save her by single-handedly killing all of the Manson followers. How did you know that wasn't going to happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 22:15:05 GMT
This gonna be our next American Hustle. You're going to hell for this comparison
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Aug 16, 2019 22:16:32 GMT
Well of course I am, so are you, you're just making different ones - that's what an audience does, right? Nah, that's just what you're doing. What assumptions have I made? Please list them.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 16, 2019 22:17:29 GMT
This gonna be our next American Hustle. You're going to hell for this comparison Just in division. Not in quality. I had issues with Hollywood, but I’d still take it over Hustle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 22:19:33 GMT
You're going to hell for this comparison Just in division. Not in quality. I’d easily take this over Hustle. I didn't really post on MA when that came out, I was mostly just on Film General and the Horror Board, so I'm not aware of any warfare that went on over that one. I do remember thinking the hate for it was kinda strong. Surprised it even had that many defenders.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 22:25:14 GMT
No, you're really just missing the point. There is an internal coherence to most films that deal with true historical events that enable viewers with no prior knowledge to come into the film and respond to the thematic points that it's making, because the presentation of history (or an attempted faithful interpretation of it at least) is part of the point. Some people actually watch films to learn about an historical event that they may know nothing about, and it still remains accessible. I'm really not missing your point dude, it's just dumb. Why does a film have an obligation to do that? Because you're essentially arguing that it does. Why would a viewer going into a FICTIONAL FILM to learn about something that really happened not getting why the ending of Hollywood is as effective as it is have ANY negative reflection on the film itself? What on earth gave you the impression Hollywood is meant to be an "attempted faithful interpretation" of history anyway? Don't get me wrong, I get people not liking the film for all sorts of reasons. But this is such a baffling point. Yes you are. I've said this in previous posts, but the ending's poignancy is in a way too "easy" because it depends on one's knowledge of what really happened. I'm not saying the movie fails completely because of that, but rather Tarantino opted for an externally generated source of melancholy (the audience) instead of doing the actual work to write an ending that earns poigancy through the internal drama of the film's trajectory... and that's simply less satisfying to me. It's fine if you like the ending the way Tarantino wrote it, I even felt a touch of melancholy at the end too in a way I responded positively to... but I would have preferred if the emotional payoff of the ending were more organically built up to. Tarantino can write a fantasy ending if he wants, and it'll be fun and entertaining on the surface, but I'm just saying that the emotional note that the film ends on is not internally motivated. The movie has no obligation to be absolutely faithful to history, obviously people go see this film for any sorts of reasons... but for that final melancholic note to have any real weight for any kind of viewer (not just people in the know), then the ending would have benefited from a rewrite.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 22:25:38 GMT
You see how subjective this shit is?Oh trust me, that's why this board is obsessed with Best Set Design 1919 and list stuff like that because with any Art you can go crazy with it like we're doing in this thread. How did you know Dalton's show scene was pointless before the movie was over? For all we knew, the little girl from the show could have shown up at Tate's house at the end, prompting Dalton to find hitherto undreamt of steel balls in order to save her by single-handedly killing all of the Manson followers. How did you know that wasn't going to happen?I'd have preferred this actually - not as much as my Wild Bunch ending natch, lol - and think that (or something like it) would be more in keeping with the preceding themes (TV Death vs. Real Death vs. Career Death).
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 16, 2019 22:25:58 GMT
Just in division. Not in quality. I’d easily take this over Hustle. I didn't really post on MA when that came out, I was mostly just on Film General and the Horror Board, so I'm not aware of any warfare that went on over that one. I do remember thinking the hate for it was kinda strong. Surprised it even had that many defenders. It had its fans. Red_Identity and RyanCShowers (no relation) were really passionate about that film. And I swear, it felt like every other day was a debate.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 16, 2019 22:28:13 GMT
I mean I don't care if you do or not, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to do better than empty adjectives like "layered" and "impressive" to explain how the movie is "mature." I really don't have much interest in "convincing" someone whose arguments so far have been frighteningly close to braindead why I consider a movie more mature than they do. I already gave you more in depth reasoning why I used a single word in my praise of the film. "in depth"? not really lol. "Braindead"? The irony....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 16, 2019 22:32:21 GMT
Well of course I am, so are you, you're just making different ones - that's what an audience does, right? Nah, that's just what you're doing. What assumptions have I made? Please list them. You've just made the opposite ones - you assume Pitt isn't willing to die at Spahn ........because he didn't die at Spahn........... but that's nothing you know for sure. You assume. You think Rick wouldn't care because the film never gave Rick a chance to tell you if he'd care. You assume. You think Cliff thinks George is fine. You don't know what Cliff thinks. You assume. It's fine............. all audiences do it, that's what having a critical opinion is ..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 22:38:29 GMT
I'm really not missing your point dude, it's just dumb. Why does a film have an obligation to do that? Because you're essentially arguing that it does. Why would a viewer going into a FICTIONAL FILM to learn about something that really happened not getting why the ending of Hollywood is as effective as it is have ANY negative reflection on the film itself? What on earth gave you the impression Hollywood is meant to be an "attempted faithful interpretation" of history anyway? Don't get me wrong, I get people not liking the film for all sorts of reasons. But this is such a baffling point. Yes you are. I've said this in previous posts, but the ending's poignancy is in a way too "easy" because it depends on one's knowledge of what really happened. I'm not saying the movie fails completely because of that, but rather Tarantino opted for an externally generated source of melancholy (the audience) instead of doing the actual work to write an ending that earns poigancy through the internal drama of the film's trajectory... and that's simply less satisfying to me. It's fine if you like the ending the way Tarantino wrote it, I even felt a touch of melancholy at the end too in a way I responded positively to... but I would have preferred if the emotional payoff of the ending were more organically built up to. Tarantino can write a fantasy ending if he wants, and it'll be fun and entertaining on the surface, but I'm just saying that the emotional note that the film ends on is not internally motivated. The movie has no obligation to be absolutely faithful to history, obviously people go see this film for any sorts of reasons... but for that final melancholic note to have any real weight for any kind of viewer (not just people in the know), then the ending would have benefited from a rewrite. I'm afraid we're not going to see eye to eye on this one as no movie can have a melancholic weight for every type of viewer. That's simply impossible as we all have such hugely different lives, perspectives, and tastes. Some scenes will be powerful for a LOT of viewers - like a well-done romantic scene, as just about everyone has fond romantic memories - but still not everyone. So I see no reason to narrow it down even further. I also have no bias towards endings that function on - if only emotionally - more of a meta-level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 22:39:26 GMT
I really don't have much interest in "convincing" someone whose arguments so far have been frighteningly close to braindead why I consider a movie more mature than they do. I already gave you more in depth reasoning why I used a single word in my praise of the film. "in depth"? not really lol. "Braindead"? The irony.... "no you" is a weak comeback dude. Sorry, you're generally a fine poster, but some of the stuff you're saying here is just ridiculous.
|
|