Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 90765 times)

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3770 on: September 16, 2019, 11:24:23 PM »
it's not as important a part of the Tate murders specifically as the idea of "counter-culture gone wrong",

I mean, it's not as important if you prefer to tell conservative-soothing lies as a way to scapegoat hippies. Google Charles Manson White Supremacy. His agenda was to false flag attack white people to stir up violence against the blacks and ultimately a race war he thought blacks would lose because he thought they were inherently inferior. By condoning Tarantino rinsing the racism out of Manson, you perpetuate the notion that Manson's ideology wasn't inherently and inseparably about race, which allows white dudes like Tarantino to rinse the racism out of Manson.


But this film is not meant to be taken as a literal historical take or to perpetuate any ideas, it is a fantasy of what Hollywood was and is.  I agree that there are lots of symbols, but the semiotics work here to adore an actress and her child destroyed by something really ugly.  The destruction of the Manson acolytes symbolize a hatred of what they stood for.  Just because Manson had some ulterior false flag agenda, does not mean it is rinsed out because it is ignored, that is putting a weight on the film and on an issue that is not raised.  I don't see a Tarantino-conservative agenda, rather it felt like a love story of old Hollywood, a reminiscence of a lost actress, and a comedy that ignores history and certainly politics. 
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31455
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3771 on: September 17, 2019, 12:10:09 AM »
Martin, I'm glad you were able to make time for Seder-Masochism since you gave me the gift of a Nina Paley dictation. Got me thinking about the film again. It's too bad the great failing is that it's a small treat for fans of Sita when you would want a 2nd film to connect with a wider audience and make it easier to get a 3rd film made.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2886
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3772 on: September 17, 2019, 06:52:41 AM »
it's not as important a part of the Tate murders specifically as the idea of "counter-culture gone wrong",

I mean, it's not as important if you prefer to tell conservative-soothing lies as a way to scapegoat hippies. Google Charles Manson White Supremacy. His agenda was to false flag attack white people to stir up violence against the blacks and ultimately a race war he thought blacks would lose because he thought they were inherently inferior. By condoning Tarantino rinsing the racism out of Manson, you perpetuate the notion that Manson's ideology wasn't inherently and inseparably about race, which allows white dudes like Tarantino to rinse the racism out of Manson.

I'm well-aware of Manson's racism. I don't really agree that Manson had a coherent ideology, and I think his whole deal was much more about controlling his "family" and attaining fame himself. The murders are much more about that than they are about race: yes their intention was to put the blame for them on the Black Panthers and jumpstart the long-awaited race war... but it's quite unclear how much Manson himself believed in that. It seems pretty clear that he was fascinated by fame though. Basically you're interpreting this in one way, which is fine but certainly not undisputable, and saying Tarantino is a racist for not interpreting it the same way you do (and that I'm enabling him while we're at it), when his focus is, I'd argue, more in line with what the Manson murders were about. Your comparison to Nazism is beyond inappropriate. In any case, if you're making a fairytale about Hollywood, it stands to reason to focus on the aspect of the Manson murders that is more relevant to that.

I also don't necessariy agree with all the "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is culturally conservative and that's bad" hot takes, but that's another issue.

ETA: To clarify, I think racism is an important part of the whole Manson thing. If one omitted it from a film about Manson, I would agree that it would be a problematic decision. This, however, is not a film about the Manson family. Manson himself barely appears. As such, there are many elements that go unmentioned: the whole thing about The Beatles for example, the digging in the desert to find an ancient city, and really the brainwashing in general.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 07:23:48 AM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31455
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3773 on: September 17, 2019, 10:01:25 PM »

Sinners' Holiday (1930)

Early curiosity from Warner Bros., best known as the film debut of James Cagney (and to a slightly lesser extent, Joan Blondell.) Since they have supporting roles, the question is, is this worth the time? For me, the answer turned out to be absolutely. In its favor, the film is only an hour long and while Cagney may not be the lead, he becomes the character everyone else revolves around, like Robert De Niro in Mean Streets. (The two films have quite a lot in common.)

The film firmly establishes the more gritty, realistic street films Warner Bros. became known for, with scenes played out as snippets among multiple characters all scratching for a few dimes. The central love story is kind of sweet, if rushed and played by two actors who can hold their own, but are outshined by Cagney, Blondell and Lucille La Verne, who you'll know as the Evil Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Blondell doesn't get as much to do, but her street-wise sass is more firmly established than even Cagney. Aside from a silly hat, he's a little rough in moments, but for most of it, his way with a wisecrack, gesture or handshake is ready for top billing.
Rating: ★ ★ ★ - Okay
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20692
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3774 on: September 17, 2019, 10:04:06 PM »
To cite my sources, oneaprilday's essay was influential in my thinking on OUATIH. I find fairy tale nostalgia that flattens history in a way to comfort a white male ego to be naive at best and malicious at worst.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco


The film was at its peak in early scenes juxtaposing ordinary black life and biosuited environmental remediation people, speaking to literal pollution of black areas and metaphorical perception by white society of black society as itself a form of pollution. And notably they are doing this clean-up at a time when the neighborhood is slowly being gentrified.

On the broader housing policy aspect, seemingly critiquing gentrification but promoting historic preservation (his primary driver is nostalgia for his family’s old house), it is inconsistent in a way that a significant part of the population are. But the thing is, if you care about housing prices, historic preservation is a hinderance (the historic buildings are often less dense than newer, taller constructions that might inhabit a gentrifying area). I’m not sure if the film is ultimately making a case that we should truly feel Jimmy deserves this house back, but I guess I’m not susceptible to that kind of appeal. The market is actually pretty good with housing, with most shortfalls resulting from zoning regulations than true market failure.

Anyway, I really liked the first half but it kind of tapered off for me.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20692
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3775 on: September 20, 2019, 10:02:37 PM »
Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken

Since Spurlock is cancelled, I was dubious of this project, but I saw it was on Kanopy (even though it was also playing in the theatre I was at last night) so it seemed worth checking out. And it reminded me why, aside from the personal qualms that arose, I do feel he has an incredibly good documentary style. His manner of experiential hooks, from his MacDonalds binge to using getting sponsorships to fund a documentary about sponsorship to now opening a vertically integrated fast food restaurant to take us inside the chicken business, it is an approach that is so much better structured than your standard documentary.

There is a curious aspect about the fast food restaurant (impending chain?) is how the nature of its radical honesty is. Because he shoots the film, we largely see the pros and cons, as it relates to environmental and animal rights aspects, in addition to nutritional ones. Hearing how the food is actually very caloric and that the nice-sounding buzzwords are basically meaningless did nothing to stop me thinking I'd definitely try out one of the spicy chicken sandwiches. I'm honest enough with myself to know I'm not healthily eating fried crispy chicken. I'm not even sure how serious this concept is but it feels like other restaurants could stand to embrace more transparency. I don't really need to see the whole slaughter process, but if you push legislatures to pass laws so we can't even see how the animals we eat live their life, it does make me a bit wary.

I should note, Spurlock's main focus is regarding nutrition, being critical of the turn by the fast food industry into "healthy" options and optimistic claims. This fits with aspects of Super Size Me and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. It is somewhat less concerned about the animal rights aspect. It is honest about certain bad aspects of the process but it is a relatively civil version of it, and never is it really contemplated that eating meat is bad.

One addendum I'd like to see, though the trend is too new to even have been featured here, is the rise of meatless meat. The prior iteration of veggieburgers flopped but Impossible and Beyond seem likely to only grow. Even though the main argument for them is to not be killing animals, it comes with the natural assumption of health. I don't know enough about their process to know how much healthier it is then a burger patty. Certainly the bun and healthy portion of mayo on the typical Impossible Whopper are not the healthiest.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31455
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3776 on: September 20, 2019, 10:09:06 PM »
Thanks for this. I like Spurlock's approach and when he gets a good subject (which is rarely) his folksy manner gets into things with a genuine curiosity.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20692
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3777 on: September 21, 2019, 06:26:39 PM »
Brittany Runs A Marathon

I think this film is attempting to be a body positivity comedy, but in that capacity it feels pretty awkward in a few respects:
-The way they shoot things pre/post the doctor's visit where he tells her she is obese and should lose weight makes it out as if she hadn't contemplated her weight prior to that. This seems...unlikely?
-At her heaviest point early on, she is also just generally a mess of a person with unhealthy habits, professional failure, and questionable social skills largely in the form of always trying to be funny even when she shouldn't be. But as she starts losing weight, it seems her life is coming together. The final act of the film does complicate this in a way that somewhat saves it, but it still was a bit uncomfortable.

To a certain extent, I really appreciated her relationship with her roommate (she being a source of microagressions) as I've had a roommate similar to her, including their concern about having to work to avoid getting thin. But as bad as her roommate is, Brittany goes pretty far to show that maybe her problem wasn't her weight but that she's a bad, selfish person. The film violates my "no public scenes" policy. All this said, the ending was pretty emotionally effective for me because it had done some work to build these various relationships believably. So ultimately a mixed bag.

Ad Astra
It is definitely beautiful and there are some fun scenes. It also feels very slow and long and even reading up after the fact it had no intellectual or emotional impact on me. Kind of a disappointment ultimately.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27203
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3778 on: September 21, 2019, 08:42:52 PM »
Saw Addy Ast and really liked it, thought it echoed a lot of what I responded to, especially over time, in Z.

I also don't think Impossible or Beyond are that much 'healthier' than a standard burger.

jdc

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 6427
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3779 on: September 22, 2019, 02:18:21 AM »
>>” The film violates my "no public scenes" policy. ”

What is that policy?
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman