Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino)

[number8]

Honestly, I'm ready to see another modern-day movie from him. It would be cool if this turns out to be some kind of movie-within-a-movie thing.

[Skitch]

Honestly, I'm ready to see another modern-day movie from him. It would be cool if this turns out to be some kind of movie-within-a-movie thing.

That's the 1st suggestion I've heard so far that I really like. Do something like that Anthony Hopkins Alfred Hitchcock flick.

[Grouchy]

That's the 1st suggestion I've heard so far that I really like. Do something like that Anthony Hopkins Alfred Hitchcock flick.

... a boring biopic?

Anticipation for a QT film is so great because I just know that he's going to deliver similar yet completely different to what everyone is expecting.

[Skitch]

... a boring biopic?

Anticipation for a QT film is so great because I just know that he's going to deliver similar yet completely different to what everyone is expecting.

I haven't actually seen that movie, but the trailer looked good.

[Grouchy]

Well, technically speaking it's not a full-on biopic. It's more of a portrait of Hitch's struggle to make Psycho the way he wanted to despite the studio's hesitations.

And it's kind of boring.

[number8]

I was more thinking along the lines of, like, a Tarantino-esque Hail Ceasar! or Dangerous Game where original QT characters trying to put together a Manson biopic gets embroiled in a violent escapade of their own in the making of the film.

[Grouchy]

That would be awesome. Extra points for mentioning the underrated Dangerous Game.

Enviado desde mi GT-I9190 mediante Tapatalk

[Skitch]

I was more thinking along the lines of, like, a Tarantino-esque Hail Ceasar! or Dangerous Game where original QT characters trying to put together a Manson biopic gets embroiled in a violent escapade of their own in the making of the film.

Yeah thats what I assumed you meant. It helps sidestep the ickiness of the real events instead of directly using them for entertainment. Hell, I can see a ten minute scene where people sit around debating whether its okay to make a movie on Manson. That screams Tarantino. Especially considering some of the interviews hes had with people blaming his violent movies for real life violence.

[Sycophant]

Are we really at a point in our lives when Tarantino can mention a movie and we actually think it's likely to happen? That he isn't suggesting four projects simultaneously, all of which sound cool and none of which we expect to come to pass? Is it possible for us--viewers and Tarantino alike--to have become so old?

[Pop Trash]

Are we really at a point in our lives when Tarantino can mention a movie and we actually think it's likely to happen? That he isn't suggesting four projects simultaneously, all of which sound cool and none of which we expect to come to pass? Is it possible for us--viewers and Tarantino alike--to have become so old?

There's been paparazzi photos of him talking with Jennifer Lawrence and I'm quite sure they're not dating.

[Pop Trash]

Who should he cast as Manson? I'm not feeling Brad Pitt. Walter Goggins seems like as good of a choice as any.

[number8]

Are we really at a point in our lives when Tarantino can mention a movie and we actually think it's likely to happen? That he isn't suggesting four projects simultaneously, all of which sound cool and none of which we expect to come to pass? Is it possible for us--viewers and Tarantino alike--to have become so old?

He usually just mouths off in interviews about projects he wants to do. In this case, there is actually already a completed script that the Weinsteins have bought and greenlit. The movie is already in casting stages.

[Sycophant]

This is what happens when I read only reactions and not articles. Lesson learned.

[Skitch]

I may be wrong, but my gut reaction is that Tarantino is fairly focused. When hes into a project, he stays with it. As opposed to Spielberg or del Toro who I don't believe are making anything until filming begins, because they have so many irons in the fire.

[transmogrifier]

I know this is controversial, but I'm going to wait and see what the film is like before having an opinion on it. It's a risk, I know, but one I'm willing to take....

[Morris Schæffer]

Who should he cast as Manson? I'm not feeling Brad Pitt. Walter Goggins seems like as good of a choice as any.

John Hawkes

[Spinal]

Oscar Isaac?

[Russ]

I love the idea of John Hawkes as Manson.

[Morris Schæffer]

I love the idea of John Hawkes as Manson.

Big age gap though. Manson was 34 in 1969, Hawkes is 57 today.

Oscar Isaac seems solid too.

[Izzy Black]

I sorta rankle at the idea that the opening scene of "Basterds" contains Holocaust imagery (whatever that might actually be, specifically) or that it's in any way reminiscent of Anne Frank's situation. Partly because Tarantino draws the scene out to an absurd length, and it's only in the last few moments that he reveals there are people hiding under the floorboards (he wants that shoe to hang as long as possible, because that's where the fun is; he's much less interested in the drop. This is evident because he repeats the opening scene's dynamic -- creepy Nazi dude intrudes on otherwise benign social activity -- at least 4 times during the course of the film). Connecting Frank is too broad to be useful, especially in the context of a "fantasy."

You acknowledge the tracking down of sheltered Jews by Vichy France, which is why it's odd to balk at this point. I simply mentioned Anne Frank because she gives us the most famous account of Jews hiding from Nazis, but there are many narratives that give an account of Jews in hiding and those who sheltered them, not just Anne Frank's, and we know that there were many rescue efforts throughout Europe where locals hid Jews in their homes and faced searches and eventual arrest and death. This includes local farmers in French villages during Nazi occupation. QT obviously fictionalizes the manner of interrogation and killing for his own creative ends, but the scene has precedent in very real Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust.

I take it that your real complaint is that this isn't actual history. It's not a historical document. It's ultimately fiction, or a fantasy. Well, sure, but that doesn't mean that it just flat out isn't concerned with history at all, or that it isn't in any way inspired by history, or that it altogether fails to capture or evoke certain aspects of history, particularly history in connection with film. We all know the "Jew Hunter" is a made up guy by QT, but there were monsters out there with this MO. It's true though that it would've been more realistic to show the Vichy's role in rounding up the Jews hiding in France. I agree the film could've highlighted this fact. But QT's choice to make him German isn't entirely unmotivated. High-level German officers were also involved in rounding up Jews in France, and for the purposes of the plot, making the Jew Hunter German (Austrian, actually) as an intelligence officer and apparently chief of German security in occupied France allows QT to put Hans in all the relevant scenes in the film involving the Basterds and other high-level Germans. And a big part of what QT wanted to do with the opening scene is provide his personal views on the psychology and ideology of Nazi propaganda (viz. the rat monologue, emphasizing the fallacious reasoning underlying certain effective forms of rhetoric). The Jew Hunter is a character carefully designed for these purposes (nicknames in the film are themselves propagandist). And the film, more than anything else, is about the influence of narrative cinema.

I don't think this choice reflects that the dairy farmer is meant to be a symbol for the French under German occupation, however. While I think the film wanted to limit its scope in terms of its thematic and narrative emphasis by focusing on the Germans, I'm not convinced the film was simply at pains to ignore any French complicity in the war, assuming, as you say, "That Vichy France didn't exist." Shosanna says to Zoller, "If you are so desperate for a French girlfriend, I suggest you try Vichy", and presumably Goebbels' interpreter is a stand-in for that, or in any case French collaboration in Paris during the war. The film is also quick to kill off French collaborators elsewhere.

As for the reveal, I don't see why this matters at all, but I'll say this. The entire conversation is about hiding Jews. We know why he's there. He suspects the farmer is hiding Jews. And the reveal happens about half way into the conversation, not the end, and before he launches into his long monologue about rats. The tension, apprehension, and suspense in the scene only really picks up once we know that there are people hiding under the floorboard and as we watch the farmer and Hans go back-and-forth until the horrific outcome.

There's an element here where Tarantino wants to have it both ways -- to present pure fantasy that absolutely requires the real world.

Definitely.

If "Basterds" is a "Holocaust revenge fantasy," then who is it for? Who is being avenged and who is the avenger? The movie shifts point of view so many times I almost lost track of it--but long post made shorter, it can't be Shosanna. Tarantino isn't really interested in her (most of the scenes around her are pure exposition) and she dies before her plan comes to fruition (and it's was a plan made redundant by the Basterds).

In narrative terms, it's primarily Shosanna's revenge story. It's her family that's being directly avenged, but the fantasy is for people in the audience, and Shosanna is the main emotional entry point into the film. It's true she dies as she sets her plan into motion, and it's ultimately the Americans that punish Hans, but her vengeance goes beyond her personal trauma. It's a common trope in revenge narratives that the avenger and those who assist them die, but it's still her plan, not the Kino Operation that kicks everything off. After she gives the projectionist the cue, we see her face appear on the big screen, and as we watch the theater burn to the ground, she declares "My name is Shosanna Dreyfus and this is the face of Jewish vengeance!". The film's intentions on this point strike me as pretty clear. Now, intentions aside, maybe you just felt the film failed to sell you on her story. For me, she is the emotional core of this film. The opening scene is the basis for her character and what follows. It's true the film largely shifts between the Basterds and Shosanna, as their plans dovetail in enacting her vengeance and the vengeance of the Jewish members of the operation, but I didn't find it was at the expense of her character and the powerful performance by Mélanie Laurent.

I do agree, however, that including Heinrich Himmler might've allowed this vengeance to take on a different kind of significance. I think this is a very valid concern. I can see how it might've changed the tone of the film, and how the film's focus on Goebbels underlies the limited power of this revenge fantasy, but it isn't obviously an overwhelming weakness of the film in my view, since targeting Goebbels allows the film to focus its themes more squarely on the intimate connection between fantasy, ideology, and cinema. It's a film about film first and foremost, but has elements of revenge fantasy, war movie, espionage thriller, etc. I get it if it's not your cup o' tea, but I suppose it should go without saying at this point that I think this kind of cinema has value, however imperfect it may be, particularly in its exploration (and deployment) of the narrative practices of propaganda.

I don't think we can ascribe any "morally cathartic release" specifically to Tarantino films, because that's a staple of modern action films, especially ones that include anti-heroes. (Hell, it was a requirement of the Hayes code.) The easiest way to make your particular bastard likable is to make everybody else in the film much worse.

Shosanna is our entry point into the story and who generates the most cathartic identification on my end. It wasn't my claim that revenge narratives are not found in modern action films, but there is a significant difference between how revenge narratives work and how standard action films that are not revenge narratives work. QT's brand is also more in the tradition of revenge tragedy than some modern examples of revenge actioners (e.g. John Wick). For instance, in a standard non-revenge based actioner, you might have heroes and villains, and having really awful baddies in your movie is typically enough for an audience to enjoy the violence. In revenge narratives, however, one goes a step further. In typical cases, the heroes aren't just good, or merely better than the baddies, but victims, and in most cases, victims of the worst kinds of atrocities. This has the effect of our being more emotionally invested in the violence that occurs. We aren't just there to watch some cool actions scenes, unbothered with watching various baddies get kicked around, but we actually want to see the perpetrators of the crime pay in a serious way, and we gain a unique satisfaction when the protagonists get their vengeance. There are legitimate problems with this form of cathartic satisfaction (Haneke is a great critic of it), but this is primarily how the genre functions.

[number8]

So this is never coming out, right? I mean, maybe we should realistically be expecting Tarantino's long-promised retirement to come sooner than expected.

[Irish]

I've been curious what Tarantino would do without Harvey for a loooooong time now. I guess we'll find out?

He could probably go anywhere. Even small scale. I'm sure A24 or Megan Ellison will front him $30 or $40 million to do whatever.

ETA: I also think his "retirement" plans are horseshit. Nobody like QT walks away from that level of cultural relevancy (not to mention sycophantic ass-kissing) voluntarily to dick around with novels or publishing.

[Grouchy]

Nah, come on. If Tarantino can't find the money to make a movie let's just close up shop on cinema altogether.

[number8]

I don't think he won't be able to find the money. He's obviously a celebrity director who can get people to pick up the phone when he calls. I think the question is more about whether or not he's willing to do the typical production hustle. Tarantino's entire career has been through his relationship with Harvey. He has never had to navigate a studio system, or call people up to get interested in his new ideas. He had Harvey.

We also still don't know if QT will receive any blowback from all this at all. Of all of Hollywood, he's the person most closely associated to Harvey. Harvey threw his engagement party just two weeks ago. I don't think Tarantino will be made a pariah or anything, but I can't imagine his reputation not being affected in any way.

I dunno, man. He was never that prolific to begin with, he's getting old and he's about to get married, and his main connect is now the most hated man in the industry. I can see him just going around being a film festival judge or appearing in documentaries for the next decade.

[Dead & Messed Up]

ETA: I also think his "retirement" plans are horseshit. Nobody like QT walks away from that level of cultural relevancy (not to mention sycophantic ass-kissing) voluntarily to dick around with novels or publishing.

I always thought this was spectacular self-aggrandizing bullshit on his part. He's so precious about not giving us a Billy Wilder Buddy Buddy, like we're terrified we might see a mediocre film from him (as though his movies are uniformly great).

Meanwhile, Ridley Scott made The Martian in his 70s, George Miller made Fury Road in his 70s, Spielberg made TinTin and Bridge of Spies (not masterpieces, but damn good I'd say) in his late 60s, Bergman made Fanny and Alexander in his 60s and Saraband in his 80s, Kurosawa made Kagemusha, Ran, and Dreams in his 80s. Malick, Tree of Life, late 60s. Hitchcock, Frenzy, 70s. I mean, that's off the top of my head.

All that retirement plan tells me is that Tarantino loves his image more than he loves making movies.