Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Ol' Bill sure can talk some crap about our super heroes. LOLZOLZLOLZ
Send the lazy bald sake waiter from Okinawa
alexio
G.O.A.T.
i look forward to it
Dilexson
Hall of Fame
Superman , Now he's something!
i look forward to it
Brace yourself for the five point palm exploding heart technique!
Dilexson
Hall of Fame
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
I LOVE Kill Bill! Watched it many times.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Superman , Now he's something!
Brace yourself for the five point palm exploding heart technique!
LOL He's so sure about what he is saying as well. He's perfected it in his mind for the time when the bride finally calls. It sounds epic in his own mind. It sounds epic to me. But he will never let the truth get in the way of his good yarn.
alexio
G.O.A.T.
did you see his latest work..once upon a time in hollywood? many saying it's the most unfamiliar to the famous tarantino' style movie and maybe even his best work ever
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Haven’t seen it yet
Not so intrigued by the main actors there, not in a hurry. I like the mostly great females in his movies. Great characters!
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Fill my cup 10 times if you want that dollar, honey.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Hey, I just logged in to this forum to write that I haven't watched any movie for a long time and tonight I decided to rent a movie and Pulp Fiction was there at the front and as it had a good rating I decided to rent it. I had absolutely no idea what I was going to expect:
1. First few minutes, I was like:
2. After a while I was like
I stopped halfway and will watch the rest tomorrow.
This movie reminds me of dgold, vegas, hitman.
I hated the constant cigarettes though.... and the violence..... and the drugs... and the f words...
I guess that's America??????
Crazy stuff.
NonP
Legend
I'll own up to the (unmitigated, not "near") contempt part but condescension is a curious way of putting it unless you think a critic's job is to treat the object of criticism with as much politesse as possible. But you just touched on the real source of my irritation there, in that it's not Tarantino himself I have the biggest beef with but rather the critics who continue to stand by if not unreservedly champion him. I honestly can't think of another contemporary director who gets half as much benefit of the doubt as the perpetual movie brat who seemingly can do no wrong in the eyes of his defenders. IB's disgraceful reimagining of Jews in **** Germany as the real savages is somehow taken seriously as "alternate history," while DU's equally tall story of slaves butchering their masters (see the pattern?) is touted as an important satire of America's race relations. (Apparently it was more important to condemn the latter's copious use of the N-word than its utterly irresponsible disregard for history.) We also needn't concern ourselves with the naked misanthropy of The Hateful Eight which drips from every one of its frames, because the irreverent auteur's love for cinema overcomes such pesky ethics and we got to see it in glorious 70 mm.
And now we're being told that OUATIH's wanton violence is about the absurdity of it all even when it's deployed with such gleeful farce that the audience has been responding to it the exact way the director intended and he's done these comic strips before with the even sillier Kill Bill. Where does this suspension of disbelief end? At this point you might counter that they're just movies, but like it or not even academics in their field of expertise tend to be jolted by pop "events" and the sheer volume of scholarly works cited in the Wiki articles on Tarantino should tell you how dangerous it is to dismiss this criticism as baseless and/or humorless pontificating.
The ongoing lovefest would be disturbing enough even if we were deprived of worthy cinema from Hollywood and elsewhere, but I find that to be far from the case so far this year and am willing to bet even many of Tarantino's biggest supporters would agree. He simply doesn't deserve this much coverage and analysis in proportion with his peers who may or may not have had the benefit of comparable marketing.
P.S. The only time I recall watching CYE was way back while I was at a friend's (parents') house and he had a particular favorite episode on TV so all of us old college buds could enjoy. I don't remember liking it very much and am not even sure I watched the whole thing, but I don't recall its humor coming anywhere close to the bratty depravity of Tarantino variety.
The arthouse film is Inarritu's specialty, and while I'm not a fan and don't think he's even good at what he does you're right that he and Tarantino operate on different wavelengths.
I didn't care for Fincher for a long time following his cult hit Fight Club whose smartass schtick rubbed me the wrong way (but which somehow is cited as a fave by many, and even more inexplicably regardless of gender in my own experience), but he won me over with his ravishing Fitzgerald adaptation The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which not only remains his best feature to date (its relatively lackluster RT score be damned) but boasts some of the very best acting from its cast (and that's no small compliment, given the extensive resumes of Pitt and especially my fave Blanchett):
I think you already know what I think of Nolan but my opinion of Almodovar is even more mixed. The Spanish enfant terrible (or should that be "niño terrible"?) is at his best when he's gender-crossing with flagrant disregard for any notions of sexual propriety (I'm guessing you already know he's openly gay), but his championing of women which he's much lauded for has always struck me as ultimately emanating from a dressed-up version of the male gaze that too many a critic has overlooked or ignored because it meets the bean-counting requirements that are considered markers of equality and progress these days. Indeed his career is yet more proof that nature determines one's sexuality while nurture does more to shape his attitude towards the sexes.
Now I don't mean to say men can't be good champions of women. Far from it, and the careers of male directors as wide-ranging as Sirk, McCarey, Naruse, Cukor (whose own sexual orientation probably helped more than not) and Stanley Kwan (ditto) clearly suggest otherwise. In fact Naruse happens to be my all-time favorite director and I can't think of another one, man or woman, who has created a richer cast of female characters than the underappreciated Japanese master (which is one of the reasons why, my obvious bias notwithstanding, he'd most likely figure in my top 10 ranking of all-time great directors). What I'm saying, though, is that simply casting women or directing-writing female roles isn't enough to establish you as a "women's director," and Almodovar's recycled female heroines (among his peers I can think of he's "bested" only by Woody Allen in this respect) aren't simply interesting enough to maintain the audience's interest after a while, or at least this viewer's at any rate.
Must say I've seen only about half a dozen of your illustrious compatriot's works, but yes, based what I've seen I can say he's one of the best working today. Another one of your countrymen I like even more is Guy Maddin, whose exquisite The Saddest Music in the World would probably make my top 30-40 faves of this century:
You Canucks are right to be proud of both, even though they may not receive the same top billing as the likes of Tarantino, Nolan and Soderbergh.
BTW one thing I'll give Tarantino props for is his generally excellent work with his actors, but that alone doesn't make him a master.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Wait, someone likes Benjamin Button? That's a first.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
I like Like Button
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Outstanding performance in the dance contest, Ms. WallaceI’ve even coloured my hair black and cut a fringe, inspired by Uma and Mia Wallace
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Why should it have anything to do with gender, though? I agree it is a smartass shtick but it works in this case. Now you may dislike his essentially male gaze but that doesn't make him less of a director from an artistic point of view nor does it put some onus to critics to stop praising him as you seem to believe. I mean, if that's the entire basis for your criticism of Tarantino, then I don't agree with that either. I just happen to think his films seem to serve no purpose other than endlessly eulogizing classic Hollywood (and it would appear - though I have yet to watch - that he has completed the circle by making Once Upon A Time in Hollywood). As a nostalgia product, it is fine as far as it goes but it's not very far at the end of the day, at least not far enough to account for the hype imo.
NonP
Legend
You took what was supposed to be about a particular instance and applied it to the whole thing. What I meant was, Fight Club is a decidedly testosterone-infused flick but women seem to like it as well. That's what I find surprising and all I meant to say, nothing more.
And you need to reread my critique of Tarantino if you think his male gaze is my only or even main beef with his works. Also I'd be fine with his latest feature if it were just a "nostalgia product," but it's not.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Thanks. I particularly like some of Almodovar's works. Bad education, Volver, Julietta are stand outs. I like All about my Mother as well. In many ways the young Xavier Nolan is similar to this man. I am very interested to see how Nolan grows up as a director. Is he going to become another Almodovar or will he tread other subjects? He is what, 30-32 now? On the other hand I do not like some of Almodovar's works too. That said, at least he keeps me very interested as to what he is up to. Haven't watched his latest yet.
I'll own up to the (unmitigated, not "near") contempt part but condescension is a curious way of putting it unless you think a critic's job is to treat the object of criticism with as much politesse as possible. But you just touched on the real source of my irritation there, in that it's not Tarantino himself I have the biggest beef with but rather the critics who continue to stand by if not unreservedly champion him. I honestly can't think of another contemporary director who gets half as much benefit of the doubt as the perpetual movie brat who seemingly can do no wrong in the eyes of his defenders. IB's disgraceful reimagining of Jews in **** Germany as the real savages is somehow taken seriously as "alternate history," while DU's equally tall story of slaves butchering their masters (see the pattern?) is touted as an important satire of America's race relations. (Apparently it was more important to condemn the latter's copious use of the N-word than its utterly irresponsible disregard for history.) We also needn't concern ourselves with the naked misanthropy of The Hateful Eight which drips from every one of its frames, because the irreverent auteur's love for cinema overcomes such pesky ethics and we got to see it in glorious 70 mm.
And now we're being told that OUATIH's wanton violence is about the absurdity of it all even when it's deployed with such gleeful farce that the audience has been responding to it the exact way the director intended and he's done these comic strips before with the even sillier Kill Bill. Where does this suspension of disbelief end? At this point you might counter that they're just movies, but like it or not even academics in their field of expertise tend to be jolted by pop "events" and the sheer volume of scholarly works cited in the Wiki articles on Tarantino should tell you how dangerous it is to dismiss this criticism as baseless and/or humorless pontificating.
The ongoing lovefest would be disturbing enough even if we were deprived of worthy cinema from Hollywood and elsewhere, but I find that to be far from the case so far this year and am willing to bet even many of Tarantino's biggest supporters would agree. He simply doesn't deserve this much coverage and analysis in proportion with his peers who may or may not have had the benefit of comparable marketing.
P.S. The only time I recall watching CYE was way back while I was at a friend's (parents') house and he had a particular favorite episode on TV so all of us old college buds could enjoy. I don't remember liking it very much and am not even sure I watched the whole thing, but I don't recall its humor coming anywhere close to the bratty depravity of Tarantino variety.
The arthouse film is Inarritu's specialty, and while I'm not a fan and don't think he's even good at what he does you're right that he and Tarantino operate on different wavelengths.
I didn't care for Fincher for a long time following his cult hit Fight Club whose smartass schtick rubbed me the wrong way (but which somehow is cited as a fave by many, and even more inexplicably regardless of gender in my own experience), but he won me over with his ravishing Fitzgerald adaptation The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which not only remains his best feature to date (its relatively lackluster RT score be damned) but boasts some of the very best acting from its cast (and that's no small compliment, given the extensive resumes of Pitt and especially my fave Blanchett):
I think you already know what I think of Nolan but my opinion of Almodovar is even more mixed. The Spanish enfant terrible (or should that be "niño terrible"?) is at his best when he's gender-crossing with flagrant disregard for any notions of sexual propriety (I'm guessing you already know he's openly gay), but his championing of women which he's much lauded for has always struck me as ultimately emanating from a dressed-up version of the male gaze that too many a critic has overlooked or ignored because it meets the bean-counting requirements that are considered markers of equality and progress these days. Indeed his career is yet more proof that nature determines one's sexuality while nurture does more to shape his attitude towards the sexes.
Now I don't mean to say men can't be good champions of women. Far from it, and the careers of male directors as wide-ranging as Sirk, McCarey, Naruse, Cukor (whose own sexual orientation probably helped more than not) and Stanley Kwan (ditto) clearly suggest otherwise. In fact Naruse happens to be my all-time favorite director and I can't think of another one, man or woman, who has created a richer cast of female characters than the underappreciated Japanese master (which is one of the reasons why, my obvious bias notwithstanding, he'd most likely figure in my top 10 ranking of all-time great directors). What I'm saying, though, is that simply casting women or directing-writing female roles isn't enough to establish you as a "women's director," and Almodovar's recycled female heroines (among his peers I can think of he's "bested" only by Woody Allen in this respect) aren't simply interesting enough to maintain the audience's interest after a while, or at least this viewer's at any rate.
Must say I've seen only about half a dozen of your illustrious compatriot's works, but yes, based what I've seen I can say he's one of the best working today. Another one of your countrymen I like even more is Guy Maddin, whose exquisite The Saddest Music in the World would probably make my top 30-40 faves of this century:
You Canucks are right to be proud of both, even though they may not receive the same top billing as the likes of Tarantino, Nolan and Soderbergh.
BTW one thing I'll give Tarantino props for is his generally excellent work with his actors, but that alone doesn't make him a master.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am questioning what is wrong with being testosterone infused. It's a film. You may find it wrong in a film but I don't. And that's fair because we are all entitled to our interpretations. But you're demanding that critics ought to judge films by those standards too and that's the difference. I am not going to tell critics how to watch a film. I don't pick a bone with them when they complain about misogyny in films. By the same token, if they don't complain about the violence, that's ok too. Unless and until the filmmaker starts picking sides and consistently chooses the wrong side, I don't have problems with merely a portrayal of misogyny or violence or what have you. So I don't think QT shows something he ought not to show on the screen. What I find disappointing (as opposed to problematic) is his considerable composition skills don't also extend to lending some substance or purpose to the violence.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
This stood out for me in your post. Just curious. Why would that be so? This is interesting as it comes on the heels of a bitter argument I had last month with a friend who asked me to watch Kabir Singh. The movie was repulsive and I left watching it half way. The point my friend was making was that it's just a film.
To me, cinema has far more moral responsibility than just being art for art's sake, especially when the influence is on society at large and our film boards do such a poor job with the ratings. The movie angered me on several levels with its misogyny. Violence is again an acceptable form of genre but glorification of the same is not ok for me, but then again, this is my personal choice. I am ok with sex on screen and another may not. I understand that the lines here are blurred. What I am trying to say is that I am perfectly ok with any form of cinema as long as the auteur does not promote his agenda with it, be it misogyny, sexism or violence.
NonP
Legend
I'm afraid I'm entirely unfamiliar with Dolan's oeuvre. And don't think Almodovar's latest feature is available outside Spain and the major cities yet so we'll probably have to wait a while.
Again you're putting words in my mouth. Male-centric films aren't generally hits with women and that's why I find FC's popularity with a sizable female audience surprising. I never said I don't like FC purely for that reason.
And I never dismiss a film or any work of art purely for being full of testosterone. Kurosawa hardly ever featured female protagonists and Tarkovsky's misogyny often proved fatal especially in his lesser films, but I consider them two of the top 10 (if not top 5) greatest directors ever. I don't know why you keep accusing me of a certain dogmatism on this issue particularly with respect to QT but you really should try harder to reflect what was actually said.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am not accusing you of anything beyond what you have said, so maybe you should consider the import of your words if you think the way I construed them is unreasonable. For eg:
"And now we're being told that OUATIH's wanton violence is about the absurdity of it all even when it's deployed with such gleeful farce that the audience has been responding to it the exact way the director intended and he's done these comic strips before with the even sillier Kill Bill. Where does this suspension of disbelief end? At this point you might counter that they're just movies, but like it or not even academics in their field of expertise tend to be jolted by pop "events" and the sheer volume of scholarly works cited in the Wiki articles on Tarantino should tell you how dangerous it is to dismiss this criticism as baseless and/or humorless pontificating. "
Sorry, this comes across as taking cinema too literally pretty much.
NonP
Legend
My critique of the male gaze was with respect to Almodovar, not QT, and I don't see how anyone who read my words carefully would think it's QT's supposed misogyny I have the biggest beef with when I clearly had bigger fish to fry. And what's with this new line of attack about moi taking cinema too literally? I really don't know why you're seeking to escalate what started out as a friendly conversation but if this is how it's gonna be you can count me out.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Now I have not watched Kabir Singh but I found even its Telugu original Arjun Reddy deeply problematic and I have heard KS was even worse. HOWEVER, there is a big difference between that and QT films. AR has a very manipulative background score that consistently tries to tell you that what we are watching is a love track whereas on screen you see this entitled dick intimidating and overpowering the 'girl' he wants. I didn't get that AT ALL from Kill Bill. Or Pulp Fiction. There is a lot of violence yes but I don't see QT choosing one side there; rather, he is just depicting a set of events. If we extent this argument to its logical conclusion, it would not be possible to make Silence of the Lambs even though the film clearly sides against the killer. The distinction between glorifying misogyny or sexism and depicting it may be a subtle one but those subtle distinctions are important if we want to have good things in life. Now, violence, glorifying THAT can be ok in certain contexts. For example, in a revenge saga, where the one on the side of the right is partaking of violence, it is condonable on screen. This is what, as far as I remember, was shown in Kill Bill. Yes, the violence is wanton but it is the woman wronged who is indulged in it. Now, if the movie shows the villain indulging in similar violence with a background score urging us to celebrate it, then it becomes deeply problematic.
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
The para I quoted was of OUTIH. Whether it's misogyny or violence, you are suggesting the critics are wrong for not calling him out on it. And I am asking why should he be called out for it anyway. That's all. I am attacking your argument, not YOU. But if you want to take it personally, go full speed ahead.
NonP
Legend
You did not make an accurate accusation based on what was said, and now that I called you out on it you're trying to move onto a different point of contention altogether. Sorry, but it does come across less as a counterargument than an attempt to save face. I didn't make it personal, you did.
And yes, I do think critics are mainly wrong to whitewash QT's irresponsible distortions of history (NOT his misogyny or lust for violence, mind you, though they're part of my beef with him) and have become too much enamored with his stylistic bravura and cinematic allusions which flatter their (and other cineastes') sense of sophistication but accomplish little else. If you don't think there's anything wrong with that you and I have very different notions of what makes a great film.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am under no obligation to enlist all the problems I have with your positions in one go. Just because I stated one at the beginning doesn't preclude me from taking up other points later. Sorry, you didn't call me out on nothing, you're just trying to disengage now that I have questioned the basis of what you seem to have taken as truisms in so far as they apply to film critique.
When you use the word 'wrong', you have to justify it. For then, you are no longer in the territory of "I disagree with/I don't like". You will have to explain how Inglourious Basterds for instance can be a distortion of history when it is completely fictional and makes no pretense of being even biographical.
NonP
Legend
Yes, you are under the obligation to represent the other party's position accurately and you clearly failed at it, multiple times. I would've let this go and more readily addressed your other points instead if you simply admitted you got things mixed up in your initial reply but you've been trying to weasel out of it from the get-go. So yeah, I'm ready to "disengage," not because I mind your lines of attack but because you just can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong on this silly parsing matter.
Being a work of fiction doesn't mean it's completely free of a separate reality it references. Do I really have to point this out? JFC.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am not wrong about it at all. All you have done is post-facto re-ordered your various beefs with QT. Doesn't make me wrong to point them out in whatever order I choose. You are just trying to muddy the point I made, which is that why is it wrong to make a testosterone fueled film or a film that depicts, emphasis on depicts, misogyny or violence? You have still not explained that. If you cannot explain it beyond that you would prefer it that way, you cannot fault critics for having different preferences from yours.
No, it is. It can be anything it wants to be because it is art. Just as long as he didn't show an alternative reality where Hitler beats the **** out of the Allied Forces and escalates his torture of Jews. Tarantino did nothing of the sort. All he did was play out a fictional revenge saga where the Jews get their own back. Oh dear, the horror, right? And how do you characterise it? ". IB's disgraceful reimagining of Jews in **** Germany as the real savages " No, he did nothing of the sort. He didn't make them THE real savages, i.e, as worse than the Nazis. He showed them avenging the Nazis. Really, is that so hard to get?
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Oh I was not alluding to QT when I quoted your post. Your point I thought was standalone and I was wondering on your take on that. Of course, KS or its obnoxious original are not to be taken in the same breath as a Kill Bill. Regardless, there is a glorification of violence which is not particularly to my taste. At least he shows that good wins over the bad so that's ok.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And I am completely sympathetic to the fact that some may not like the violence or feel uncomfortable with it. That's perfectly ok. What is not ok is regarding critics as wrong for not sharing the same comfort or discomfort levels. I can watch an uncomfortable Kubrick orgy of violence and a Meg Ryan rom com and enjoy them just the same. Nobody has the right to tell me I am wrong to enjoy the former.
NonP
Legend
Two things:
1) You really need to learn when to let go of a silly internet dispute. (And yes you're still wrong on the parsing issue.)
2) Your understanding of art is frankly sophomoric and hard for any grown-up to take seriously. Again just because a work of fiction deals in an "alternate reality" doesn't mean it has no bearing or consequence on our own reality. The fact that you flippantly dismiss QT's revenge fantasy as Jews "avenging the Nazis" clearly shows that you haven't thought this through.
Forgive me for thinking you were better than this. Going forward I'll do my best not to waste our time again.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Of course and that's the beauty of various viewpoints
I have found a few Ebert recommendations not to my liking too. So that's ok!Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I could say the same about you. And no, your screaming hoarse that I am wrong won't make it so. All I did is ruffle your feathers by asking you to explain your position. And that would never be a big deal unless somebody was as defensive about their position as you are. Which is made clear by:
No, what instead is abundantly clear is it is hard for YOU to take view points different from yours seriously. So congrats on living up to the other poster's characterisation of your arguments as condescending for that is exactly what the above comes across as. Whatever other crimes I may be guilty of in your court of law, I have certainly not been condescending to you at any point. I was persistent, yes, and I am not wrong to be. That you find it so offensive that another poster could persistently insist you to explain yourself says much more about you than it does about me, as much as you'd love to pretend otherwise.
And I won't honour your whiny parting shot with a response.
NonP
Legend
It's not "condescending" to call a puerile notion of art what it is. When QT's defenders like A.O. Scott call DU "crazily entertaining, brazenly irresponsible and also ethically serious in a way that is entirely consistent with its playfulness" and "a troubling and important movie about slavery and racism" I say they're full of shi-ite, but I can also acknowledge that they don't pretend this "alternate" reality is free of our own with real-life consequences. To insist otherwise is the kind of schoolboy philosophizing one would expect from a college undergraduate, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're quite older than that.
That I even need to explain this to you proves I was wrong to take you seriously to begin with. I hate philistinism with every fiber of my being and am not reluctant to show it, and if that's a character flaw on my part, so be it.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
It is, because you are not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't puerile. I don't have to acknowledge that it is 'irresponsible' or 'troubling' because it is a film, it is a work of fiction. It is not my problem that the New Left abandoned the working class gleefully to focus all their energies purely on whether works of art were or weren't troubling. Whatever damage a work of art can do is not even one tenth of a percent compared to our much more troubling REAL WORLD failings but of course critics are vile and puerile for not indicting Tarantino, is it not? As for your reference to my age, Roger Ebert is older than either of us and had no problems with the film either. Deal with it. Or don't deal with it and keep crying as that is more entertaining for me.
And I hate snobbery as well as social justice warrior-ism with every fiber of my being as well. Right back at ya. LOL do you honestly think your insults are even remotely impressive? I am trying to picture the self-righteousness it takes to say one hates philistinism "with every fiber of my being". Get out in the real world sometimes, it will help.
NonP
Legend
Yeah, acknowledging the reality that art isn't pure escapism divorced from our world is "snobbery" and attacking that infantile notion is an "insult." And let's appeal to such infallible authority as Ebert's thumb even though most cineastes would be hard-pressed to name many of their peers who take him all that seriously.
You win. Just don't waste my time ever again.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Oh yes, Spiderman isn't pure escapism, nor is Harry Potter/LOTR/Mickey Mouse, right? Even those films have sins waiting to be deconstructed to the point where their entertainment value can be completely sucked out and the audience lambasted for daring to enjoying them, right? Listen to yourself, man. Your wanton generalisations are even more divorced from reality than any QT film. There ARE artistic contexts where total escapism is entirely possible. A context set in **** Germany where the Jews end up taking revenge is as comic book as it gets because even people in corners of the world farthest from Germany know that the Jews got no such revenge. Again, it only speaks volumes about YOU that you would get so offended by it and be so disappointed in critics for not 'calling it out'.
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
You don't even know what deconstruction means. And you continue to frame this issue in entirely political terms but still accuse me of self-righteousness? (If you cared to read I've been critical of the SJW school's myopia in this very thread.) Mm-kay.
Look, I find your notion of art depressingly juvenile and you think I'm a self-absorbed snob. Let's call it even. End of discussion.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I didn't start to frame it in political terms. You did. I initially took your criticisms of Tarantino to be aesthetic and found instead that they are purely moral or political. It is very typical of those who have such a viewpoint to also believe their view point is superior to those they disagree with. So don't cry wolf now, you started it.
NonP
Legend
Aesthetics isn't completely free of moral or political considerations, because, again, art is supposed to tell us something about ourselves or the world we live in. You've been trying to pass off your failure to understand this as a shortcoming of my own. It's not, and your insisting over and over to the contrary doesn't make it so.
Your framing of my criticism as that of an ivory-tower SJW is indeed political as well as a reflection of your limited understanding of the matter. Pointing this out while trying to correct your continued misrepresentations of my position is not "crying wolf."
You really don't know when to let it go, do you?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Again, aesthetics ARE free from moral considerations because a film only shows events and does not judge them. You can characterise this any way that pleases you but actually all you achieve by so conflating morality and art is to make any discussion of technique impossible. When we harp on the morality of it (which, contrary to your vain persuasion, is obvious to us but we happen to remember it is a film and not reality), we lose the ability to analyse how the director chooses to set the stage, how he uses or does not use light, close ups, etc. Vintage (pre-2000s) Scorsese films even have a very specific colour that is unmistakably his. But a mind like yours is too busy working up a righteous fury about the subject matter to be able to express wonderment at how he achieves this consistency across different films. It does not occur to you that some of us simply found the conceit of Jews turning tables on Hitler's men fascinating by itself because we don't press the fire alarm until there actually are smoke signals. There are history books available aplenty to learn of Hitler's atrocities. IG didn't lead to them going out of print.
An artist is entitled to his perspective, his way of framing the world and your disagreeing with it does not make his work deplorable. It IS fanciful on your part to believe that. It is not that I lack facility to judge art, it is that you inhabit a bubble cut off from the perspective that I or many others have and seek to impose yours on us because you cannot deal with the fact that our is a different perspective. No, you have to categorise it. Puerile, juvenile, condemnable etc.
As for letting go, I see only one person harping on and on about it and that is you. Since you, unlike me, presumably know all about letting go, you may please be so kind as to show us philistines how it is done.
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
Look, I'm done with this stupid crash course in Philosophy 101. For the umpteenth time, aesthetics isn't free from morality or politics when said work of art deals in the latter as QT's revenge flicks so nakedly do. It's truly embarrassing that I need to spell this out to any functionally literate grown-up, but what's more embarrassing is that you either are unable to understand or refuse to accept this.
This will be my post on this matter. Again stop wasting my time, and if you can't do that at least stop distorting my words to score cheap points.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Bruce Lee Was My Friend, and Tarantino’s Movie Disrespects Him
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a friend of the late Bruce Lee, believes Quentin Tarantino was sloppy, somewhat racist and shirked his responsibility to basic truth in 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.'
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Why should I accept? I write from time to time. I do not accept your pretenses of being able to tell us what to say or how to say it. Don't like a film or a music composition or a novel? Just say what you don't like about it and be gone. Don't tell everybody else what they too are supposed to object to in a work of art. There's nothing like that, no such moral absolutism exists even in the real world seeing as mores differ widely across the world and it has even less chance of coming into being in art. Interpretations of art are extremely, extremely subjective and it is embarrassing for me to have to point that to you. But again, it isn't about that. You have no way of showing what are these extremely malignant effects of art that you seek to forestall. You pretend you're above explaining it when really your reasons for pretending that art always has real world effects (I don't deny that in exceptional circumstances they may but also believe Hollywood has long moved beyond that) don't go far beyond your desire to do something about the revulsion certain works of art provoke in you.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
Why would Tarantino **NOT** consult with Lee's family or close friends before making the movie?????
variety.com
Bruce Lee’s Protégé Recalls His Humility Amid ‘Once Upon a Time’ Criticism
Bruce Lee's protege Dan Inosanto remembers his humility amid Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" controversy.
variety.com
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
Tarantino's response is like me making a movie with Nadal as a character in it and he never arranges his water bottles and instead challenges Djokovic to one on one ice hockey.
Nonsense.
variety.com
Nonsense.
Quentin Tarantino Defends ‘Arrogant’ Portrayal of Bruce Lee in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’
Quentin Tarantino responded to criticisms of his "arrogant" portrayal of Bruce Lee in his latest film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."
variety.com
hollywood9826
Hall of Fame
Yup, Vincent buys some heroin and shoots up at Lance's (I think that's his name) house. Mia goes to powder her nose while they are at Jack Rabbit Slim's they later win the twist contest. Mia finds the bag of heroin and snorts it like its coke. Hijinks ensue.
Still not what I would call constant drug use.
hollywood9826
Hall of Fame
Why would Tarantino **NOT** consult with Lee's family or close friends before making the movie?????
Bruce Lee’s Protégé Recalls His Humility Amid ‘Once Upon a Time’ Criticism
Bruce Lee's protege Dan Inosanto remembers his humility amid Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" controversy.
Its a fictional movie for one. For two what would his family and friends say that is not already repeated to create this god like image? People believe he could actually play ping pong at a high level with nunchucks, why he not also be a little cocky.
Would they mention the drug use and unfaithfulness? Should he have consulted them if he was putting that in the movie?