criterionforum.org

Sony should totally put out a poster in the Four Lions style that says nothing but "baggy! (four/five stars)" for the blurbs.

It must be a new trend. I had never seen critics use that word to describe movies.

Tarantino as "baggy" -- yeah. "Cerebral" -- uhm.....

Tarantino's catching heat on Twitter now because Margot Robbie is third billed in this film and there are tons of people with the nerve to say or agree with the idea that he doesn't write good parts for women, which... wow. Absolutely bonkers.

Variety and other publications are releasing clickbait articles about QT "snapping" at a journalist. I watched the video and I thought while it was obvious he didn't like the question, he wasn't particularly aggressive. Mind, as questions go at Cannes press conferences, it's not the dumbest I've heard.

mfunk9786 wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 12:11 am Tarantino's catching heat on Twitter now because Margot Robbie is third billed in this film and there are tons of people who actually with the nerve to say or agree with the idea that he doesn't write good parts for women, which... wow. Absolutely bonkers.

It's especially egregious when you consider a third of the films he's made have been focused on women. Wow indeed.

Finch wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 12:14 am Variety and other publications are releasing clickbait articles about QT "snapping" at a journalist. I watched the video and I thought while it was obvious he didn't like the question, he wasn't particularly aggressive. Mind, as questions go at Cannes press conferences, it's not the dumbest I've heard.

It’s so dumb. The moral panic continues.

As for the charge he doesn’t write meaty enough roles for women: Right off the success of Pulp Fiction, Tarantino says his next movie will star a middle aged black woman who hadn’t been any kind of box office draw in 20 years (and even then only in films with almost entirely black audiences). Despite the fact that the character in the book was white.

And then there’s the four hour two part epic Kill Bill...

But of course none of this matters to the Woke Stasi.

KJones77 wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 4:58 pm

Big Ben wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 5:31 pm mfunk talks about Film Twitter being awful and he's right. It's an absolute dumpster fire of opinion that simultaneously demands that you respect people and then dunks on you for not sharing a certain opinion. It ranges from downright bad takes sometimes to outwardly malicious on occasion. Hell, when Spielberg had his little thing with Netflix some time ago people were outright saying he was a hack fraud and not any good now. I mean what?

This tweet being a perfect example. Apparently film critics seeing and tweeting their opinions about Tarantino's new film is...not ok? They have to be shamed for having the gall to do so instead of criticizing him for the Uma Thurman stuff again.

What he did with her was obviously wrong, but she forgave him and they moved on. That's good enough for me, but I guess you're now just an enabling POS if you dare to respect that and share an opinion on his film.

Whenever I see posts like that on Twitter (and let's face it, this is the dominant tone on Twitter), I just feel like I'm trapped at a dinner party with a couple who hate each other and can now only communicate through sarcasm. It's awful and draining, it's not cathartic and it's not making anyone laugh, so why don't they just say the thing they want to say instead of adopting this weird passive-aggressive tone all the time? I'm sure Harrison (judging by her Twitter bio) is no dunce and could articulate perfectly well her critique of Tarantino's works and the ethics of engaging with them, so it's really the platform that's at fault here: small character limits seem to turn everyone into arseholes.

Finch wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 12:14 am Variety and other publications are releasing clickbait articles about QT "snapping" at a journalist. I watched the video and I thought while it was obvious he didn't like the question, he wasn't particularly aggressive. Mind, as questions go at Cannes press conferences, it's not the dumbest I've heard.

If you think that's bad, check this out:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/m ... story.html

There were plenty of hard questions Quentin Tarantino could have faced as he greeted reporters for the first time following the Cannes premiere of “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood.”

Did he change his approach to on-set safety after Uma Thurman alleged in February 2018 that the director pushed her to perform a “Kill Bill” stunt that left her permanently injured? Why did he cast Emile Hirsch, who pleaded guilty to assaulting a female executive in 2015, in his new film? Does he have any response to Rose McGowan’s claims, published in her 2018 memoir, that he repeatedly and publicly spoke about masturbating to her feet in the movie “Jawbreaker”?

In his latest film, why does Leonardo DiCaprio’s character idolize Roman Polanski, whose 1977 rape charge Tarantino once defended by deeming it “statutory rape,” saying the teenage victim willingly participated.

That last one is just jaw-dropping.

No agenda there at all

The framing of this is even worse on the link to that article on Twitter:


“He snapped at someone at a press conference... but the movie was still well-received?! Where DO we draw the line?”

If the character was truly woke, he’d have sensed that Polanski was gonna rape a girl a decade later.

So, so, so much of this is about the media feeling powerless after Trump’s election and desperately wanting to prove their power by collecting as many scalps within the one sphere they actually have power over: other people in media!

Frankly I’m surprised the mob hasn’t come for the major Hollywood actors who worked with Polanski post 1977. Eventually some freelance twitter journalist will confront Harrison Ford with this at a press conference.

The most frustrating thing here for me is that empowering victims should entail allowing them to make their own decisions regarding things like forgiveness. Why is the open and public forgiveness of Tarantino by Thurman and Geimar not being mentioned? When and where do women's voices stop being heard to these individuals?

That LA Times headline is instructive into the reasoning here: clearly, there is a "line" of acceptability that has been drawn between those sentenced to eternal damnation (e.g. Woody Allen), those who are "good" (e.g. the morally unimpeachable 'we' of the title, along with, I dunno, Judd Apatow?) and those who are on notice (e.g. Quentin Tarantino). It's all so frightfully tedious and moralistic.

domino harvey wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 1:15 amNo agenda there at all

One might disagree with what Tarantino have done or said in the past, and I can understand people taking its new movie as such and not for how it follows 8 previous movies, but still, this is an appallingly written article. But I guess that's what happens when the writer has already made up its mind anyway.

furbicide wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 4:07 am That LA Times headline is instructive into the reasoning here: clearly, there is a "line" of acceptability that has been drawn between those sentenced to eternal damnation (e.g. Woody Allen), those who are "good" (e.g. the morally unimpeachable 'we' of the title, along with, I dunno, Judd Apatow?) and those who are on notice (e.g. Quentin Tarantino). It's all so frightfully tedious and moralistic.

So we’re throwing two of cinema’s greatest filmmakers into the fire (one of whom is almost certainly guilty of nothing), in both cases literally putting a moral blockade around their work, but we get to keep the cinema of Judd Apatow?

What a trade.

I don't believe the quality of their respective works should be put anywhere in balance here. Doing good movies isn't a Stay out of jail card.
That shouldn't prevent journalists to write intellectually honest pieces, though, which is here IMO the issue with the LA Times article.

tenia wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 12:16 pm I don't believe the quality of their respective works should be put anywhere in balance here. Doing good movies isn't a Stay out of jail card.
That shouldn't prevent journalists to write intellectually honest pieces, though, which is here IMO the issue with the LA Times article.

What about Allen’s case? Why doesn’t he get a “stay out of jail” card? He was never charged with a crime or indicted even after two state investigations. It’s all just a tawdry media smear job.

I tend to stay away from judging myself the Allen's case, which is clearly a much more complicated one than, say, the Weinstein or Moonves ones. Some people see it and discuss it as something much more clear-cut that I would find it to be, which is why I again won't weigh in here.

Still, that doesn't change my original comment.

Geez, it seems like even saying Robbie has minimal screen time is a bit of a spoiler?

Just saw an article titled "longest standing ovation in Cannes history", only to find it is: QUENTIN TARANTINO’S NEW FILM GOT A 7-MINUTE APPLAUSE AT CANNES. THAT’S ACTUALLY NOT THAT GOOD. And then it lists different lengths of such occasions different films received.
Two questions: how did The Paperboy receive even a second of an ovation? And why would people give a film a 20 minute one?

dda1996a wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 2:57 pmTwo questions: how did The Paperboy receive even a second of an ovation?

The jellyfish scene of course! (Very NSFW! And not safe for people who wanted Nicole Kidman to have a dignified role. But a must see if you've ever wanted Zac Efron peed on!)

bearcuborg wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 2:41 pm Geez, it seems like even saying Robbie has minimal screen time is a bit of a spoiler?

It's not even that she has minimal screen time, she just doesn't have much dialogue. Apparently she has a very impactful scene midway through the film that's essentially wordless