Dirty Feet
Sharon Tate props up bare dirty feet in the theater, hippy girl in the caddy on the way to the ranch, and Squeaky in front on the TV at ranch house. Symbolism?
shareIt's a layered metaphor for the fact that QT has a foot fetish.
shareI remember QT zooming in on Salma Hayek's feet during From Dusk 'Til Dawn. QT has a foot fetish so he often zooms in on women's feet during his movies. Uma Thurman has size 11 women's feet and she was in a lot his movies. I'm not a fan of feet so I think these foot scenes are unnecessary.
shareCouldn’t agree more.
shareQT didn't direct From Dusk Til Dawn, Robert Rodriguez did.
shareTrue but QT did help work on it. There’s no doubt that QT wanted that scene in there even more so that it was him getting the foot treatment.
shareGood catch! He only acted in that film BUT I would bet money that he was involved in adding the foot scene to the film.
I attached an interesting article with foot close-ups from his films. Uma's feet are ugly
https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/quentin-tarantino-foot-fetish/
Well, he did write the film so he definitely wrote the scene, but I doubt Rodriguez had him film it (unless QT asked him of course).
sharei'm not a fan of phones so whenever a movie shows a closeup of a phone ringing i don't care for it
shareI believe most people wouldn't mind if a phone was held six inches from their face but most people would recoil if a stinky sweaty dirty foot was placed within six of their face. You are in the minority because I rarely see somebody without their cell phone.
Here are some foot close-ups from QT's films. Uma's feet should be covered.
https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/quentin-tarantino-foot-fetish/
Yikes! You're right. Uma's feet are hideous.
shareNo symbolism here - it’s just that particular fetish Tarantino has on full display, if you will. Sure, while hippies walking around barefoot and having dirty feet is/was based on reality, you can always expect Tarantino to find any excuse to get actresses in his movies to show their feet (good ol’ creepy uncle Quentin!). This wouldn’t be a Tarantino film otherwise.
Pretty good film btw. And no, it’s not ‘cause of the silly ass regressive reasons the social injustice reactionary manbabies that whine every day and hour about modern Hollywood (the way the industry is not regressively-correct for their con assess) approved of it. Heh, projecting snowflake reactionaries just can’t with the fact that this industry is no longer appeasing their true PC asses like it did for decades, and is instead moving forward. But that’s what this film is, huh? It’s set in a time when the status quo was beginning to be threatened by non-straight white dudes in old school Hollywood, so of course reactionaries that bitch about the good ol’ exclusionary days are drawn to a film that keeps it straight & white and sees its characters cursing change. As such, said reactionaries will never stop crying over glorious Hollywood, like at least half of the country, obvs and thankfully being the very opposite of the reich wing circus show that is the current fascist administration. Sorry not sorry!