MovieChat Forums > SavageBeauty > Replies
SavageBeauty's Replies
Wow, holy smokes. That must have been in interesting interview! You ever think of writing a movie blog?
Did you see the first photo of Pitt and DiCaprio in character? Pumpkin head is trying to look very cool.
https://deadline.com/2018/06/leonardo-dicaprio-brad-pitt-quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-first-picture-1202418039/
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wrecking_Crew_(music)[/url]
My husband is a guitar player (among other talents) and he knew about Tommy Tedesco for a while. So the documentary on Netflix was not news for him. My jaw was on the floor though.
more from Notes
"December 19, Napa
.....I heard that one of the editors stole the whole ending of the film, reels and reels of the print, and sent letters full of ashes to Francis every day for a week. George Lucas said to me "God, you could make your movie about that." "
----
ecarle wrote:
BTW, I think my biggest problem with AN is Brando at the end. He's the name star, he was the Great One in the fifties and the Comeback Kid in 72/73 and...he showed up to mumble and non-act his way through the end of the movie. We wait the ENTIRE MOVIE to meet Kurtz and he's...Uncle Fester?(That's somebody else's joke I stole it.)
----
Too funny. Yes, Brando at the end was very disappointing for many people! I can't tell you how often I've heard that about Apocalypse Now- from fans of the film. It was a problem during production too. They didn't know what to do about Brando.
----
ecarle wrote:
You have to wonder: real insanity or some sort of showman's self-indulgence? And didn't Coppola liken making this Vietnam movie to actually being in the Vietnam War and fighting to the death? Sheesh. Hollywood...
----
I suspect narcissism (possibly combined with drugs), but who knows for sure? Francis started out like Willard and slowly turned into Kurtz, at least according to his wife. It's amazing how well AN turned out considering all the crazy stuff.
Did you or anyone here see Coppola's Youth Without Youth (2007)? Just curious if it's worth watching?
To give you a taste/sneak preview of Eleanor Coppola's Notes:
"November 16, 1977, Flight to Washington DC
I am sitting on an airplane with the hors d'oeuvres plate on the folding table in front of me. [she describes the crab leg platter] George Lucas is leaning over the seat in front of him. Steve Spielberg is across the aisle. Between them they hold the top three film grosses of all time. Jaws is number one. George just said that Star Wars will be number one at 7:05 next Saturday night. Godfather is number three. Between them, their films have grosses over a billion dollars. Steve calls them the billion dollar boys. They are talking about the depression they felt after a big success. All of their drive and focus to get a big hit, the dream of their life. They are talking about the jolt of actually doing it. Steve is saying that after Jaws opened he wanted to get away, he went around the world, there was no place but India and Russia where there wouldn't be Jaws billboards and t-shirts.
Francis is talking about using success to stretch the bounds of filmmaking. Stretch the form, make the films you want, make a forty-minute film, a six minute film. To be able to say "I'll never make a picture again as successful as Jaws, Star Wars, or Godfather." And make the films you really want to make.
Steve wants to do a live TV show. Francis is saying "Do a daytime soap if you want to. Take a chance, be risky." George said "You, too, Francis." Francis replied "Yes, but I no longer have the financial base." George said "Ah, come on, you'll always have the money." Francis is saying "You just have to make something beautiful; you can't worry if anyone will see it. You can distribute it. Success is a drug. It's like a woman: if you chase it, you won't get it."
There's tons of personal marriage issues throughout Notes and I honestly felt like some of it was too much information.
More about Coppola: I've read Eleanor Coppola's (his wife) journal turned into a book titled 'Notes', it's about the making of Apocalypse Now. It was VERY interesting if you are a fan of the film. Coppola himself turned into a Kurtz-like personality on the set. In the Philippines, Francis created his own "Kurtz compound" where he ruled with supreme insanity, for a little while at least.
Coppola made movies that were very personal, always a part of himself. I often wonder what happens when a filmmaker makes one turd after another. Are people just telling him "yes, that's great" for everything or what? His gauge is way off, and no one has the guts to tell him the truth? I always have hope that he'll regain some of his previous magic, even after all these years.
About violence to women in DePalma or QT or even Hitch... I remember Jamie Lee Curtis being interviewed for a retrospective on John Carpenter's Halloween, she said something about "what it means to be truly vulnerable". The violence toward women in Hitch and DePalma's films are all about that. It works on audiences without a doubt because those women are vulnerable.
On the other hand, Tarantino gave us some female characters that "had it coming". As a women myself, I had no problems with Daisy being treated they way she was, I even chuckled to "How do ya like the sound of those bells, bitch?" She is pure evil and not the vulnerable female in danger. Kurt Russell was also my favorite character in terrible QT movie Death Proof... really, who didn't want to kill those girls?
I've been watching several of Dario Argento's early Giallo films & his later ones dealing with more occult themes. There's lots of violence toward women, but the killers are usually women too.
Argento rips off Hitch all the time. The first 8 minutes of The Stendhal Syndrome '96 is a hypnotizing museum scene, with a haunting Ennio Morricone score. No dialog, just a great sequence in the famous Uffizi Gallery.
ecarle wrote
DePalma still has a name, so I'm assuming he can still put movie deals together -- but they are tenuous, small scale -- I don't think "Passions" got a proper release, even though it had a "name" in it(Rachel McAdams.)
---
I tried to watch Passion 2012 several times. It was OK, not his best in my opinion. Perhaps I made the stupid mistake of watching the original French film Love Crime 2010 before watching DePlama's version. I can't get over how he decided to remake a film only two years old. His version was stiff and silly in comparison. The French film by Alain Corneau was much better.
I rewatched DePalma's Femme Fatale 2002 recently and noticed so many incredible details. It's one of my favorite movies from his recent years. It grew on me, to be honest. The score was very good too. Not much Hitch in that one, not any Giallo either, it's much more the film noir "bad girl" femme fatale films from the '40's.
On the subject of French films, you guys might really enjoy the semi-Hitchcockian A Woman in Danger 2001 starring the talented and beautiful Marion Cotillard. It's on amazon prime right now. If you haven't already discovered this gem, watch it before they take it down. I highly recommend it!
ecarle wrote
I think the releasing studio for "DePalma" is the same one that gave us "Hitchcock/Truffaut" and "78/52"(about the Psycho shower scene) in about a two-year span. It is as if this studio set forth to create a "Hitchcock trilogy" in which Hitchcock clips link everything together: Hitchcock, Truffaut, DePalma...Vertigo, Psycho.
Its a mini-Hitchcock industry.
---
What company is this? I couldn't find any ties between those docs, they all seem to have different distributors. I might be missing something, though. Wouldn't making those documentaries be a nice day job? Of course, you'd have to be an insider already- like Jake Paltrow who directed the DePalma doc, otherwise you can't even get contact info for DePalma's agent. Would be fun...
ecarle wrote:
And this thought occurred to me: in the photo of Lucas, Spielberg, Scorsese, DePalma and Coppola, the one who really DOESN'T belong there in comparison to DePalma is -- Coppola. He made his name with the Godfathers and gave us the controversial(in that some like it, some don't) Apocalypse Now, but then -- he really faltered and failed a lot. Meanwhile, DePalma was making movies with Pacino, Connery, DeNiro, Penn...Cruise.
---
Yeah, but Coppola makes some great wine nowadays. LOL.
Actually, I watched Coppola's 2011 movie Twixt on netflix a few years ago, he wrote and directed this film based on his own dream. It stars Val Kilmer and Bruce Dern. One netflix customer review summed it up pretty well "O, how the mighty have fallen." This is the plot summary from imdb: 'A writer with a declining career arrives in a small town as part of his book tour and gets caught up in a murder mystery involving a young girl. That night in a dream, he is approached by a mysterious young ghost named V. He's unsure of her connection to the murder in the town, but is grateful for the story being handed to him. Ultimately he is led to the truth of the story, surprised to find that the ending has more to do with his own life than he could ever have anticipated.'
... and this summary makes it sound much better than it actually was.
Back to DePalma, he seems serious about making the Weinstein-inspired movie. I still have the eye roll about it. It's already on imdb titled as 'Predator' (categorized as announced, not in production yet) - that name doesn't remind anyone of any other movie, right?
DePalma has a new film called Domino (2018)- and it looks very DePalmanian! If it ever gets released, I look forward to it. There was rumor "it would never be released" so who knows.
Looks like they should add on to that documentary if he keeps making more films. LOL
He's also talking about writing a film with a Harvey Weinstein type of character, but I honestly have the "eye roll" for this idea.
I watched this DePalma documentary recently too. It was great to hear the man himself talk about all of his movies. Unlike you, ecarle, I love his Hitchcockian rip off movies (but I see a bit of Giallo horror and some Val Lewton/Jacques Tourneur in there too). His crime movies rip off all the 30's and 40's crime films, but that doesn't bother me. He has his own style, despite all the homage to other directors. Tarantino steals from other filmmakers too, but his influences are more obscure & unknown and most people don't notice. I really enjoyed the doc and wish other directors would something similar (perhaps they are and I'm missing it?).
The first thing I thought of when I heard about the new QT movie: Those Los Angeles Mad Men episodes. LOL! They really captured the feeling.
It's a fine line between genius and obnoxious, hope QT can keep riding that line for this movie. It might upset a lot of people who are still traumatized about Sharon's death.
You might love that Laurel Canyon book. I initially didn't enjoy it because of the perspective that these bands of the era were engineered creations made in the studio. But, then I watched the documentary about the studio session musicians on Netflix called The Wrecking Crew (it is on netflix now, you should check it out before they take it down). The bands on the album covers really didn't play on their own albums. It's a great documentary if you love the music of that era, because finally the REAL unknown session musicians get credit, and they are all true "characters".
Emile Hirsch is playing Jay Sebring.
I really don't know who this actor is... but surprise surprise, he was charged with aggravated assault after initiating an altercation with, and then strangling, Paramount Pictures executive Daniele Bernfeld on January 25, 2015 in Utah - strange how all of these people can't behave themselves! Are they all crazy? Who does this?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/emile-hirsch-sentenced-to-15-days-in-prison-after-violently-choking-film-exec-at-sundance-after-10460239.html
Also, I was reading the very entertaining book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream by Dave McGowan.
It's highly entertaining and relevant to your discussion of the new QT movie, and many other movies/music/cults of the era. It's worth a read!
https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529159695&sr=8-1&keywords=weird+scenes+inside+the+canyon&dpID=51-AmVAodOL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
I always thought The Birds was really about female/male relationships. This explains the dialog at several points in the film spoken by both Lydia and Cathy. 1963 was a groundbreaking year for all that feminist stuff too. Bodega Bay is trapped in another time (and still is!). The strange reverse courtship from Melanie was also a bit weird. Upsetting the natural order indeed. The author Daphne Du Maurier was bisexual: she had an affair with a women but she despised lesbians, go figure. Most of her stories have the theme of "a woman's place in the life", like Rebecca. Writers often encode symbolism, and I take the birds meaning more than just face value birds. I think it's much more deep than "birds are upset at humans" which is most often what you find fans saying. Next time you watch the film, really listen to that sad speech Lydia gives to Melanie about losing her husband. You know, most birds mate for life.
Norman is a bit late on the scene. The AI robot Sophia said "OK. I will kill humans" several years ago. LOL That creepy lady AI robot has Saudi citizenship now. What could possibly go wrong?
No, it's a multiple personality killer - one is male and the other is female. Silence of the Lambs and Psycho have similar killers, and both of those are based on the real serial killer Ed Gein. Apparently, De Palma asked a mental health professional to review the script and give the OK that everything was really "true" to those sick mental disorders.
Most of those comic movies are not my taste, but their themes are really not immature if you know what you are looking at. If you really want to analyse all film and television, there is nothing new under the sun, it's all recapitulation or recycled stories. Even themes of trans-humanism go back to the half gods of ancient drama. Psycho is about good vs. evil and duality too. Christian & biblical ideas are also recycled stories from earlier times.
Drama originated (for the western world, at least) from the ancient view of acting as liturgy or dramaturgy, or ritual invocation of the gods. Comparative religion scholar Dudley Young writes:
“The earliest gods were invoked by ritual act (dromenon = the thing done) such as a sacrificial dance, commemorating the fact that our life begins and ends when they call upon us. Subsequently the thing was said (legomenon) as well as done, and the dromenon was on its way to becoming the drama. Once speech within the temple precincts has been endowed with the power of word-magic, we have “the invocation” properly so called.”
The nature of mankind doesn't change, and the stories that strike a nerve with people are also the same. If you read Plato's The Republic, it's amazing how humanity hasn't changed very much. Most sci-fi movies are about Apotheosis and deification of a human, whether they are done in all seriousness or not. What is progress in comic book story telling? What standard is used to judge so called progress? Isn't it supposed to be fantasy fiction? The tone and overall way these comic movies are done is silly, so I can understand why some people have the "eye roll" about them. Not my cup of tea either.
I'm not really "into" the numerous comic book movies. I've watched a few and they are OK, but they are not really my taste.
I think their popularity is mainly because the stories are recycled Greek/Roman mythology. It strikes a nerve with people... even if they don't know why.
If you view the superheros as half-gods and compare their stories to the Greek dramas, I think you will see these stories in a different light. There is also lots of Gnostic themes of duality regarding good/bad or light/darkness (if you know what to look for). There are aspects that are very scholarly, and would appeal to the nerd in all of us.
Yes, it's easy to see why you would think these movies have "arrested development" and a fan base of man-children. I can't help but agree with that as well. My neighbor is outside right now wearing Spider Man shirt and shorts playing volleyball, he is over 40 years old. Try to imagine that in the 1950's and 60's. LOL!
Do these "conditioned" consumers have more loyalty to their brands than loyalty to their spouses?
On the subject of Freud, his theories are very much about how our parents messed us up mentally (to oversimplify). The one thing that helps make a person less messed up would be a good family life. Why has divorce been on the rise? It's very rare to find a happily married couple nowadays, on TV or in real life.
In the earlier seasons of the show, I thought Don and Betty could have been together until the end, till death. Betty reminds me of my mother-in-law. She was beautiful, classy, and extremely tolerant of her husband. For Betty, the cheating wasn't the only reason to end their marriage. It was the secret drawer and secret past and the secret first wife. The betrayals were too many. Like you, I also thought Roger would forever be with his first wife, but no. If it was "real life", I think the Sterlings would have never split.
A personal note: I am happily married to my husband. We have a family, and we are traditional. It will be 17 years together this month. My husband and I built a life together. I have no idea why our society decided marriage doesn't work, I just can't relate. It's the typical consumer mindset of "out with the old, in with the new" and throw away the most meaningful elements of their lives. Love and devotion is something you can't buy. The strongest societies in history had powerful family units.
Bernays understood that people who were focused on themselves were usually unhappy (and unhappy folks are better consumers, as written above).
I love the quote from Stella in Rear Window "When a man and a woman see each other and like each other they ought to come together - wham! Like a couple of taxis on Broadway, not sit around analyzing each other like two specimens in a bottle." and "When I married Miles, we were both a couple of maladjusted misfits. We are still maladjusted misfits, and we have loved every minute of it."
Yup, that's true!
ecarle wrote: The Freudian angle reminds me of the pilot in which Don angrily tosses the German psychiatrist's report on smokers having a "death wish" into the trash can...and the woman(the WOMAN) out of his office. But then Pete "lifts" the report and uses it later.
****
Yes, exactly! Great catch. I love when the psychiatrist (she is Austrian from Vienna) said "Good luck at the meeting. Sure it vill be a qvick vone."
Also Betty is seeing a headshrinker too. They all have mother issues! Very Freudian indeed.
Quote from Don in that first episode when he's pitching to Lee Garner Jr. "Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And do you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of a road that screams with reassurance that whatever you're doing is OK."
****
ecarle wrote: What is the soft drink that everybody thinks of first? Coke, yes?
*****
The 2009 slogan for Coca Cola was "Open Happiness"
ecarle wrote: What is the beer that everybody thinks of first? Bud, yes?
*****
Yes, but my husband was a bit saddened when it was sold to a Belgian company a few years back.
*****
ecarle wrote: Coke has Pepsi coming at it, and Bud is under siege from all manner of beers, domestic and import -- but the sheer massive size of the budgets these companies can throw at Super Bowls, weekly games of all sorts, broadcast TV hits, cable movies with commercials, etc -- it seems to me "the money made them." Bud and Coke uber alles. Folks are conditioned to say those words FIRST when asked what they want.
*****
Conditioned. Yes, that's the word! Exactly.
I was thinking more about your original point: all the marriages are doomed. It's one of the only elements of the show that's not realistic. That generation didn't have high divorce rates. All that started with the boomers (my parents are divorced boomers). The older generation stuck with their spouses, hell or high-water. Married at 19 till death.
Thanks for your in depth replies ecarle! You're making me want to re-watch the entire series on Netflix.
By the way, unhappy people buy more stuff. Edward L. Bernays wrote about this in the 1920's. He was Sigmund Freuds nephew, and is known as the father of public relations and modern advertising. His ideas are throughout Mad Men, and you will see similarities to many of his advertisements in the show.
Bernays used his uncle Sigmund Freud's ideas in a campaign to market cigarettes to women by calling them "torches of freedom" in 1929 (it was not lady like to smoke in public at the time). Also, he did an ad campaign for Beech Nut to increase bacon sales by asking doctors "is a hearty breakfast healthy?" and the doctors say "yes" and then asking them "is bacon part of a hearty breakfast?" and the doctors reply "yes" which then somehow becomes "Bacon is recommended by doctors" LOL! These are just small examples, his entire life's work was extremely influential for ads and policy today.
Here is a quote from Bernays book 'Propaganda'
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Yup. You are correct ecarle. It's difficult to find ANY positive representations of marriage in TV or movies nowadays. Perhaps I'm just not watching the right shows, but I can't think of any happily married couples portrayed.
I adore Mad Men, so this is not a criticism of the show, but all of the characters are spoiled brats and terrible people. It's great to watch, great for interesting situations, and highly dramatic. These characters have zero self control. They give into their base desires. I know most people don't go around like an untrained dog humping everyone, even if they are gorgeous people. These characters have no conscience. Because they have no conscience and never learn from their mistakes, it's a self-sabotaging cycle. The entire series is cyclical in this regard.
Advertising is about manipulation, desire, warped perception, and group-think. It's studied as a science. You should read the trade magazines for advertising, it's all psychological warfare. Not only is Mad Men part of the social engineering, it is simultaneously making commentary on it. Sometimes getting what you want (or what you think you want) doesn't make you happy at all.