Quentin took revenge on the Nazi's in Inglorious Basterds.
One of the most common comparison's to the Nazi cult is the Charles Manson cult!
Will Quentin take revenge on Manson and his followers?
I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now. I'm really hoping that Tarantino doesn't pull the same shit with this film like he did in IB with regards to changing history. In that case it was Hitler getting his comeuppance, for Once Upon A Time I'm having a sneaking feeling that he will have either Pitt or DiCaprio somehow prevent the murders at Cielo Drive from happening.
A strong reason I think this could be the case is because I'm thinking back to when Once Upon was announced as Tarantino's next film, and Sharon Tate's sister spoke up and criticized it for exploiting Sharon's death and the other's murders for the sake of a movie. Taratino contacted her and let her read the complete screenplay...and afterwards she took back her criticisms and gave the film her approval.
At the time I didn't think too much of this, but later I was thinking about the ending of Basterds and it hit me that it's conceivable he might do the same thing for this film. It's his film and he can do what he pleases, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and I think that if he does do something similar with this film (having the murders not occur somehow), I think he's being dishonest to history because, for all the horror and the tragedy of the Manson murders, it's undenialable that that event changed the face of the sixties and along with other decade-ending events of violence (the 68 DNC riots; the '68 assassinations; the killing at Altamont later in '69), this event contributed to ending the era of "peace and love" with another soul-shattering nail in the coffin to those hopes and dreams. If these murders don't occur, I think it's the height of hypocrisy to claim you're not expoiting the event just because you play God and present a version where the bad guys are stopped by Quentin's good guys and everyone in the audience gets to leave the theater after the film is over with a smile on their face.
I will say this, from an artistic viewpoint I hope Quentin doesn't rewrite this tragic history..it would mean that Quentin is just repeating himself, which would really suck.
Do I think this is what Quentin is really going to do with this movie? Yeah.
Yawn. That is exactly what is happening and people are lapping it up. Money's money, right? I'll probably go see it too (but for free) because the man DOES know how to make entertainment.
shareUh oh
shareShit, my speculation above turned out to be correct after all (I was really hoping I'd be wrong). I saw the film today and while watching it I was thinking it could be Tarantino's best yet...and then it got to the night of the murders and as soon as Linda Kasabian went back to the car and drove away I knew history was about to be changed. Tarantino pulled exactly the same shit here that he did in Basterds; it felt like getting punched in the gut. After I left the theater I wasn't thinking about "oh how great, Brad and Leo saved the day! No massacre!" No, it just made me dwell on the what-if Deus Ex Machina gimmick that changed a tragic event into a crowd-pleasing big finale for the audience because pretty, innocent Sharon wasn't murdered after all and the nasty hippy killers got what's really coming to them. I know others will argue that an artist can bring whatever take he wants to the story he's telling, but to me it feels just another form of exploitation to reverse the horrilble fate of the victims into a fantastical positive moment that changes this true event from a tragedy and transforms it into a happy ending for a (mostly) comedic film. What I'm saying is, by trying not to be exploitative of a terrible occurrence that happened on that night in 1969, changing it into a wish fulfillment event so it never happens exploits it just as much, maybe even more so, one that seems manipulatively deceitful.
As a postscript, something else I wondered about, too... Most people probably are aware of the Manson murders (they might possibly be the most infamous murders in criminal justice history), but there are probably some people (youngish) who went to see this film and aren't aware of what really happened, and I wonder what their reaction was to the film when someone tells them or they find out somehow what the truth is? I have to think it's probably one of disappointment, or even betrayal.
I agree about it being a very disappointing repeat of the Basterds ending. We all knew it was coming because how else could Quentin have played it out?
You know, I was thinking the other day about great directors and I looked how powerful and talented Oliver Stone was with 5 great movies in a row with Salvador, Platoon, Talk Radio, Born on the 4th of July, and JFK. Stone won oscars for best screenplay and best director twice.
I compare QT to Stone and all I'm really seeing is 3 out of 9 great movies by QT: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Inglorious Basterds. I know a lot of people do like his other 6 movies but let's be honest they mostly pale in comparison.
I'm now having a hard time thinking QT is a great director. Maybe it's best to say he's a "greatly over-hyped director".
I agree with your assessment of Tarantino’s C.V., although you seem to hold Basterds in a much higher regard than I do, but I do concur that Res. Dogs and Pulp Fiction are his shining moments, and everything he’s made since them do not reach their level of excellence. If I had to narrow it down to the main reason why this is, I would say it’s because that when I first saw those two films, watching them felt like I was seeing something new, a fresh take on the old staples of a crime/heist film and film noir character study—they transcended the genres they were part of rather than being merely derivative of them. But with each succeeding film, QT’s embrace of multiple other genres has felt to me like those genres constricted originality rather than inspired creativity, like something patched together from notes he made while watching films of those types and trying to check off required ingredients for his screenplay in the manner of “this is a cool scene--I can use this in MY story but I’ll change it around a bit to make it seem NEW!”, rather than being a holistic idea that came from an intrinsic understanding of a cinematic genre (the Western; the WWII War film; Asian Revenge film; etc.).
But with Once Upon A Time…, it actually seemed to me that Tarantino wasn’t being derivative and was returning to his earlier form of storytelling that wasn’t restricted by genre requirements; for most of the film I felt he was once again reaching the heights of creativity he’d achieved with Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And then he had to go and completely spoil it by throwing in his feel-good ending. Not only was it a repetitious device he appropriated from one of his previous films (sad to see that QT now has stooped to a level where he’s fine with ripping-off his own films), but it negated and destroyed the entire tone the film had established up to that point. I wonder if anyone else he let read the script before production began had the nerve to bring this to his attention?
No doubt about it, QT made fantasy revenge movies based on the two most infamous cults of the 20th century. I have a feeling he had some deep personal reasons for taking revenge on Hitler and his henchmen. I also think he may feel offended that Manson and his followers somehow ruined his idolized version of late 60's/early 70's Hollywood so he rewrote that history too. I doubt hardly anyone gets this connection, especially since it's so personal and bizarre.
shareIf you talk about Oliver Stone by saying how great he was without even mentioning Natural Born Killers, I stop te conversation before even starting it.
sharePRo-tip: this isn't a documentary and shouldn't be seen/treated as such.
shareIt's NOT a documentary? Good lord, thanks so much for enlightening all of us!! We're so grateful for your astounding and informative insight!
shareWell in this case as you want to act like a smartass: why are you people bitching about the fact that Tarantino changes the history?? The movie is not meant to inform with accurate facts to begin with so... why giving a fuck anyways?
shareI already said that it's Tarantino's film and he has the right to do whatever he wants in it. That doesn't prevent me from having an opinion that I find it objectionable. I think changing a tragic, horrific event into one meant purely to entertain an audience and make them feel good is an infantile gimmick, not much different than a two-year old child throwing his dinner against the wall and expecting everyone to laugh and applaud him for how "creative" he is.
share