Is there a more overrated filmmaker than QT? Critics fawn over this guy and his mediocre work for nearly two decades, it's pathetic.

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

---

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.

---

I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.

---

IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.

---

Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

---

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.

---

Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.

If you want to call that my own theory, go ahead. I won't. But I will say it again, people defend what they connect and have an affinity towards. In fact you're doing it right now with QT. Sorry to be blunt, but that was the point.

---

That's true, everyone is just analyzing why they like what they like or why they don't. Artistic criticism isn't about finding an objective truth.

But some people can deliver their arguments well and some can't.

GBear4Life said:

---

Is there a more overrated filmmaker than QT? Critics fawn over this guy and his mediocre work for nearly two decades, it's pathetic.

---

Who do you think is the best?

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Is there a more overrated filmmaker than QT? Critics fawn over this guy and his mediocre work for nearly two decades, it's pathetic.

---

Who do you think is the best?

---

There are filmmakers that I both like and I think, critically, make worthy films. But I would never attempt to try to assert who is "best".

David Fincher I would say is my 'favorite' filmmaker.

Liking QT's films is all fine and dandy, as they are big budget films and have mass commercial appeal. I just don't like how critics seem to give QT a pass. Flaws in story, or character, or plot, or theme, are simply ignored or manipulated to be the quirky innovations of an artistic genius.

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

---

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.

---

I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.

---

IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.

---

Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

---

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.

---

Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.

If you want to call that my own theory, go ahead. I won't. But I will say it again, people defend what they connect and have an affinity towards. In fact you're doing it right now with QT. Sorry to be blunt, but that was the point.

---

That's true, everyone is just analyzing why they like what they like or why they don't. Artistic criticism isn't about finding an objective truth.

But some people can deliver their arguments well and some can't.

---

Sorry to be harsh but it's true, even with politics. People defend what they ID with. I defend Cal FB and UC, even when sometimes I shouldn't. I do think the headline and MAGA was pushing it. That's why I laughed or said HAHA at first. I'll also say this...QT can tell everyone if they don't like it...tough shtt, make your own, I've been paid.

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

---

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.

---

I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.

---

IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.

---

Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

---

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.

---

Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.

If you want to call that my own theory, go ahead. I won't. But I will say it again, people defend what they connect and have an affinity towards. In fact you're doing it right now with QT. Sorry to be blunt, but that was the point.

---

That's true, everyone is just analyzing why they like what they like or why they don't. Artistic criticism isn't about finding an objective truth.

But some people can deliver their arguments well and some can't.

---

Sorry to be harsh but it's true, even with politics. People defend what they ID with. I defend Cal FB and UC, even when sometimes I shouldn't. I do think the headline and MAGA was pushing it. That's why I laughed or said HAHA at first. I'll also say this...QT can tell everyone if they don't like it...tough shtt, make your own, I've been paid.

---

So you're talking about the Mary McNamara piece, right?

That's one of the articles that claims Bruce Lee "loses" the fight in the movie, which as I've noted he definitely does not. That's not an interpretation, it's just a factual statement. No one wins the fight. This is what I mean by bad analysis; it's based on something that didn't actually happen on screen. A critic who writes that calls the rest of their interpretation into question, to my mind.

So yeah, I thought that article was shyte. Not because I liked the movie and she didn't, but because the argument was not well supported.

GBear4Life said:

---

Liking QT's films is all fine and dandy, as they are big budget films and have mass commercial appeal. I just don't like how critics seem to give QT a pass. Flaws in story, or character, or plot, or theme, are simply ignored or manipulated to be the quirky innovations of an artistic genius.

---

I think QT has a lot to say in every one of his films and could expound upon the themes of them at length. I also think that on a technical level he's every bit as good as Fincher (who I also love). I don't want to hijack this thread much further though.

I have no trouble seeing why critics praise him.

The obvious difference between QT and most other directors like Fincher is QT writes all his movies. I have no issue with QTs technical direction, I just think his stories, writing, characters etc are overrated.

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

---

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.

---

I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.

---

IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.

---

Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

---

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.

---

Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.

If you want to call that my own theory, go ahead. I won't. But I will say it again, people defend what they connect and have an affinity towards. In fact you're doing it right now with QT. Sorry to be blunt, but that was the point.

---

That's true, everyone is just analyzing why they like what they like or why they don't. Artistic criticism isn't about finding an objective truth.

But some people can deliver their arguments well and some can't.

---

Sorry to be harsh but it's true, even with politics. People defend what they ID with. I defend Cal FB and UC, even when sometimes I shouldn't. I do think the headline and MAGA was pushing it. That's why I laughed or said HAHA at first. I'll also say this...QT can tell everyone if they don't like it...tough shtt, make your own, I've been paid.

---

So you're talking about the Mary McNamara piece, right?

That's one of the articles that claims Bruce Lee "loses" the fight in the movie, which as I've noted he definitely does not. That's not an interpretation, it's just a factual statement. No one wins the fight. This is what I mean by bad analysis; it's based on something that didn't actually happen on screen. A critic who writes that calls the rest of their interpretation into question, to my mind.

So yeah, I thought that article was shyte. Not because I liked the movie and she didn't, but because the argument was not well supported.

---

I don't know who wrote it but yes, the LA Times review. I didn't pay attention to the Bruce Lee stuff. I noted it but what rang true to me was how these guys are modeled after Newman and Redford and the trajectory was changed from antiheros (Butch Cassidy and the SD Kid, 1969) to standard heroes who win in the end. I can agree it wasn't argued great but some points do resonate, like revisionist. It's interesting that era (60s) was antihero central...many critically acclaimed films had them. Some say it was a reflection on the post war era, consumerism and social norms...which those damn kids hated.

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

---

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.

---

I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.

---

IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.

---

Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

---

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.

---

Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.

If you want to call that my own theory, go ahead. I won't. But I will say it again, people defend what they connect and have an affinity towards. In fact you're doing it right now with QT. Sorry to be blunt, but that was the point.

---

That's true, everyone is just analyzing why they like what they like or why they don't. Artistic criticism isn't about finding an objective truth.

But some people can deliver their arguments well and some can't.

---

Sorry to be harsh but it's true, even with politics. People defend what they ID with. I defend Cal FB and UC, even when sometimes I shouldn't. I do think the headline and MAGA was pushing it. That's why I laughed or said HAHA at first. I'll also say this...QT can tell everyone if they don't like it...tough shtt, make your own, I've been paid.

---

So you're talking about the Mary McNamara piece, right?

That's one of the articles that claims Bruce Lee "loses" the fight in the movie, which as I've noted he definitely does not. That's not an interpretation, it's just a factual statement. No one wins the fight. This is what I mean by bad analysis; it's based on something that didn't actually happen on screen. A critic who writes that calls the rest of their interpretation into question, to my mind.

So yeah, I thought that article was shyte. Not because I liked the movie and she didn't, but because the argument was not well supported.

---

I don't know who wrote it but yes, the LA Times review. I didn't pay attention to the Bruce Lee stuff. I noted it but what rang true to me was how these guys are modeled after Newman and Redford and the trajectory was changed from antiheros (Butch Cassidy and the SD Kid, 1969) to standard heroes who win in the end. I can agree it wasn't argued great but some points do resonate, like revisionist. It's interesting that era (60s) was antihero central...many critically acclaimed films had them. Some say it was a reflection on the post war era, consumerism and social norms...which those damn kids hated.

---

So what complicated this reading for me is that the film also seems very affectionate towards Sharon Tate . . . and she was also considered part of that "new era" of Hollywood. She is sympathetic to hippies and remembers Bruce Lee fondly. QT's disdain is reserved for the Manson Family, who I think we can all agree deserve it.

Even the "men's men" at the core of the film are hardly shown as perfect. Leo's character is a neurotic has-been, a guy who cries and needs comfort from the little girl he co-stars with in the TV show. Pitt's character is a talented stuntman who can't get work because of his own screw-ups. Their nighttime activity is to watch TV and talk s*** about people like Beavis & Butthead. They come through in the end, but that only works if they have their own problems to come back from.

To me this setup suggests more of a reconciliation between eras, not a rejection of one for the other. That's the fairy tale, that maybe there wouldn't have to be such a stark divide between generations.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm a big fan of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you people ruin this movie for me through overanalysis

A B western homage to B westerns

Culture of town is threatened by free thinking hippies

Hippies say that they are led to violence by culture of town

Solid American males show hippies what real violence is by bashing a girl's head against a wall and torching another with a flame thrower. Hippies are crisped and town is saved

Lots of fun along the way

dajo9 said:

---

I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm a big fan of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you people ruin this movie for me through overanalysis

---

Brad Pitt is A+ in the film.

Anarchistbear said:

---

A B western homage to B westerns

Culture of town is threatened by free thinking hippies

Hippies say that they are led to violence by culture of town

Solid American males show hippies what real violence is by bashing a girl's head against a wall and torching another with a flame thrower. Hippies are crisped and town is saved

Lots of fun along the way

---

Well if you put it that way, it does sound like a MAGA movie.

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

A B western homage to B westerns

Culture of town is threatened by free thinking hippies

Hippies say that they are led to violence by culture of town

Solid American males show hippies what real violence is by bashing a girl's head against a wall and torching another with a flame thrower. Hippies are crisped and town is saved

Lots of fun along the way

---

Well if you put it that way, it does sound like a MAGA movie.

---

If you say MAGA you immediately make it about Trump which it is not. (In fact MAGA is a great slogan-.one that most of the country no matter their politics would agree with if it was independent of Trump)

No, I think it's a spaghetti western with familiar archetypes of good and evil mixed with his nostalgia and love of that era and,yes, a pining for the old. I liked the movie a lot but let's face it his stuff is mostly three miles wide and six inches deep. At least this time he's on ground he knows and commands and he's not giving us alternate endings to slavery and the holocaust.

I can't recall what the last cool character or impressive acting performance by Brad Pitt was. Fight Club?

Anarchistbear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

A B western homage to B westerns

Culture of town is threatened by free thinking hippies

Hippies say that they are led to violence by culture of town

Solid American males show hippies what real violence is by bashing a girl's head against a wall and torching another with a flame thrower. Hippies are crisped and town is saved

Lots of fun along the way

---

Well if you put it that way, it does sound like a MAGA movie.

---

If you say MAGA you immediately make it about Trump which it is not. (In fact MAGA is a great slogan-.one that most of the country no matter their politics would agree with if it was independent of Trump)

No, I think it's a spaghetti western with familiar archetypes of good and evil mixed with his nostalgia and love of that era and,yes, a pining for the old. I liked the movie a lot but let's face it his stuff is mostly three miles wide and six inches deep. At least this time he's on ground he knows and commands and he's not giving us alternate endings to slavery and the holocaust.

---

Man that LA Times headline sure got a lot of people twisted...and that's why they used it and to push Hollywood on its hiring practice; executive suite, casting, directing, all still very white and male. No it's not about Trump but it is about wanting the old days back, which does relate to Trump voters...but they don't want nostalgia they want "birthright" and privilege back. While the QT crowd want nostalgia.

So call it a spaghetti western. I'd argue the dominate themes and structures of spaghetti westerns, like many of the films of that era, were antihero pics...because they were based on Kurosawa films (Yojimbo and Sanjuro, both antihero films.) QT flipped the antihero to straight HE-ROs who kill the bad hippies restoring virtue to caucasian male Americans and old Hollywood civilization values saved. He literally flipped historic events. That's fine but then it's open to interpretation as to why. I'd guess QT hates hippies, loves old Hollywood and straight heroes.

Another Bear said:

---

No it's not about Trump but it is about wanting the old days back, which does relate to Trump voters...but they don't want nostalgia they want "birthright" and privilege back.

---

Curious what you mean by this. What 'privilege' has "Trump voters" lost that they want back?

dajo9 said:

---

I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm a big fan of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you people ruin this movie for me through overanalysis

---

Tarantino movies reward overanalysis!

Quote:

---

'A deep and boiling anger': NBC/WSJ poll finds a pessimistic America despite current economic satisfaction

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they're angry at the political establishment

WASHINGTON The political and cultural upheaval of the last four years has divided the country on ever-hardening partisan and generational lines, but one feeling unites Americans as much as it did before the 2016 election.

They're still angry. And still unsettled about the future.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that despite Americans' overall satisfaction with the state of the U.S. economy and their own personal finances a majority say they are angry at the nation's political and financial establishment, anxious about its economic future, and pessimistic about the country they're leaving for the next generation.

"Four years ago, we uncovered a deep and boiling anger across the country engulfing our political system," said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey in partnership with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. "Four years later, with a very different political leader in place, that anger remains at the same level."

The poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry "because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington." Forty-three percent say that statement describes them "very well."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/deep-boiling-anger-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-pessimistic-america-despite-n1045916

---

Another Bear said:

---

---

"Jared Kushner told Republican donors that felons are coming out of jail and registering as Republicans, according to sources who attended a donor retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, last week.

"I guess climate change is not their No. 1 issue," Kushner joked of the former prisoners, according to sources who attended the dinner where Kushner spoke." Axios

bearister said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm a big fan of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you people ruin this movie for me through overanalysis

---

Brad Pitt is A+ in the film.

---

+1
Found myself forgetting that it was Brad Pitt acting and focused on the character he was playing. Pitt has become one of the great character actors of his time. Pitt could get a nomination for his role.

QT took some artistic license with the interaction between Lee and Pitt's character to establish that Pitt's character was a dangerous man and had skills. QT as the writer and the director of the film used artistic license to tell his story and that is his prerogative. I know some people who were close to Bruce Lee and the family who were not happy with QT's portrayal of Lee and they have a right to point out the error in QTs portrayal of Lee as not being factually correct. I think people need to remember this is a story that is not factually correct to begin and end with, and that QT told the story as he wanted and directed. Fun fact: QT's nickname in school was, Sir Chin. The guy was unrelenting in his quest to become a director, everything he did was to attain that singular goal.

Somebody should ask Tex Watson what he thinks of the film since he's not dead as portrayed.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Somebody should ask Tex Watson what he thinks of the film since he's not dead as portrayed.

---

....in other news, Clem was offended at his depiction stating, "I could always take a decent punch before going down."

Exactly, if anyone has a beef with this "artistic license" stuff it's Tex, Squeaky et al who have been defamed by Tarantino as being bested by a couple of drunk cowboys.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Exactly, if anyone has a beef with this "artistic license" stuff it's Tex, Squeaky et al who have been defamed by Tarantino as being bested by a couple of drunk cowboys.

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm the only one of record on BI supporting Shannon Lee. Fighting ability is sacred. Never misrepresent it even in a work of fiction. If Michael Mann had taken liberties with Ali's fighting ability in his film....OUCH!

Who is Bruce Lee?

Another Bear said:

---

---

My name is Donald J. Trump, Super Genius.