by Flack » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 pm
Saw it last night.
It's hard to review because, as Pinback said, it's not a traditional movie. There's no growth or character arc, per se. Hell, it's kind of tough to say who the protagonist even is. It's... well, I don't even know what it is. It's a love letter to an era, and more than that, a documentation of it's demise. And also like Pinback said, it's Tarantino's most non-Tarantino film. If you think about Tarantino's signature things -- blood, violence, f-bombs, n-bombs, long dialogues -- this film is missing most of those things. It traded them for social commentary.
I could have saved myself a bunch of typing by just quoting Pinback's original review and replying with "yup."
I thought it was interesting how it painted Manson's girls/family. In this film, they're mostly minding their own business until provoked. Even on "that" fateful evening, the family members get treated like second hand citizens by a member of the Hollywood elite. For 50 years I've heard and read a lot of angles in regards to Manson's motivations, but never encountered one that made me almost (almost) sympathize with them.
Of course nothing's simple with Tarantino, and the real story isn't the story, but the story under the story -- one of older Hollywood icons being traded in for new ones, and maybe the idea that when something has run its course, it'll end even if you try to prevent it. As the closing credits rolled, my thoughts were of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in a broken dam, trying to stop it from leaking. When it's a dam's time to blow, it's time.
Saw it last night.
It's hard to review because, as Pinback said, it's not a traditional movie. There's no growth or character arc, per se. Hell, it's kind of tough to say who the protagonist even is. It's... well, I don't even know what it is. It's a love letter to an era, and more than that, a documentation of it's demise. And also like Pinback said, it's Tarantino's most non-Tarantino film. If you think about Tarantino's signature things -- blood, violence, f-bombs, n-bombs, long dialogues -- this film is missing most of those things. It traded them for social commentary.
I could have saved myself a bunch of typing by just quoting Pinback's original review and replying with "yup."
I thought it was interesting how it painted Manson's girls/family. In this film, they're mostly minding their own business until provoked. Even on "that" fateful evening, the family members get treated like second hand citizens by a member of the Hollywood elite. For 50 years I've heard and read a lot of angles in regards to Manson's motivations, but never encountered one that made me almost (almost) sympathize with them.
Of course nothing's simple with Tarantino, and the real story isn't the story, but the story under the story -- one of older Hollywood icons being traded in for new ones, and maybe the idea that when something has run its course, it'll end even if you try to prevent it. As the closing credits rolled, my thoughts were of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in a broken dam, trying to stop it from leaking. When it's a dam's time to blow, it's time.