We saw them on screen together for a total of like two seconds on a jet lagged plane ride.

Are you familiar with the expression, "The exception that proves the rule?"

If it’s not his best film, Hollywood is equal to anything Tarantino has ever done. I love this movie.

The latest Video Archives podcast is part 1 of a retrospective on Rick’s career. It’s an in-universe discussion; there is no breaking character as to Rick being fictional. Several alternate history movies are described in detail. Tarantino even has archival interviews that he conducted with Rick (but he provides Rick’s voice so that part is a bit weird).

I'm pretty tolerant of a lot of Tarantino's indulgences. For example, I loved the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood novelization which featured numerous tangents about Rick's career, Cliff's opinions on cinema (which read more like Tarantino's opinions) and the backstory to the fictional characters on Lancer. But I listened to about 20 minutes of this podcast and had to shut it off because I kept thinking, what is the point of any of this? I guess it's kind of interesting as a creative exercise, but I didn't actually enjoy listening to it.

​​​

95% of all dialogue in a Tarantino movie is just Quentin spouting his opinion about something, just in the voice of one of his characters rather than saying it himself. Whether it's Clarence Worley's hero worship of Elvis Presley, the Reservoir Dogs' discussion of Madonna and appreciation of 70s music, or Nazi soldiers pointing out that the plot of King Kong is an allegory for the story of Blacks in America in general.

BUMP

I watched a YouTube reaction to OUATIH and the reactor (Mary Cherry, if you are familiar) did not know about the Charles Manson of it all.

So, she liked the movie, but missed so much of what was going on by not knowing who Sharon Tate was. Maybe she knows who Manson is, but did not put it together that that was who Charlie was. She figured out that the people at the Spahn Ranch were like a cult, but didn't get that it was the Manson family. I don't think she got that Asian Bruce was Bruce Lee, or maybe even knows who Bruce Lee is.

Anyways, my question here is, did any DVD Talkers see this movie, but were too young to know the historical context? Or maybe more likely, your kids have watched it without the fore-knowledge?

I'm curious what people in that boat made of the movie. To me, it's another QT masterpiece.

That's a good question. Making a mental note to ask my son when he's here for Christmas if not before then as I think he fits your description. Will bump when I do.

Agreed on it being a masterpiece.

Funny, I just watched this movie again last weekend, I've honestly lost count how many times I've seen it, I love the film. I watched it with my wife a couple years ago, and being from Japan, she didn't really know about Manson or any of the history with him, Sharon Tate, etc. She still really liked the film, but afterwards I had to give her a bit of a history lesson on all of that to put the film in better context for her. I'd think the film is much more rewarding if you know all of that history, I guess I should have given her that history lesson before we watched the film but it honestly didn't even occur to me. Some things that you know you just assume are common knowledge but really aren't whether it's because of generational, cultural, etc. differences.

When my 19 year old son comes home for Christmas vacation I'm planning on watching it with him (I've been introducing him to QT's films) but I'll give him a bit of backstory first.

I watched it again recently, too. Enjoy revisiting it. As for the historical context, I think there is a definite divide between my/our generation and today's younger generation. Growing up, we learned about 20th century history that happened before we were born (WWI, Great Depression, WWII, birth of rock and roll, civil rights struggle, etc.). Names, places, events ... we were familiar with all of this. I don't believe that (most) younger people today know, or care to know, much of anything that happened before they were born. They seem to be living in the now only and that's it. Much different than when we were growing up. That's my impression/observation anyway. Anyone here with Gen Z kids who can confirm or refute this?

The events were before my time, but I was familiar with all the major players. Despite being born in '80, I grew up watching movies and shows from the '40s, '50s, '60s, and '70s. So I was an odd kid.

Did she say what drove her to the movie. Was it just because of QT?

Pretty sure the Manson Murders have a page or two under “cults” in high school social studies books. That’s where I learned about it. But that was 25 years ago.

she is a YouTube reactor, so she reacts to suggested movies from her paying members

I have noticed that a lot of young people, millennials and younger, tend to be woefully ignorant of history or any kind of pop culture they didn't grow up with.

The Manson murders were a few years before my time, but it seems like I've always known at least the basics. I knew about the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King, the assassination of JFK and RFK.

I have a cousin, born in 1990, who, by the time he was in his late teens, didn't know about the space shuttle Challenger blowing up, or who Princess Diana was, and it's just kind of weird that the kids who grew up in the information age sort of live in a bubble.

I am not going to judge anyone who is not familiar with Charles Manson because of their young age. Events like the assassinations of JFK and MLK are important events in American history that every American should know about. The Manson murders are more like a scandal.

A lot of people thought the best joke in the New Naked Gun movie trailer was the OJ Simpson joke, but there must be young people who would not even get that, right?

But not knowing about the Manson murders and Sharon Tate really is key to fully understanding what is happening, and NOT happening, in this movie.

My dad was an ROTC instructor at two major universities towards the end of his Army career and he had a student with the last name of Rambo. None of the students in the class had any idea that there was movie with a character by that name, except the student, and he hadn't seen any of the movies. The majority of them had never seen any of the Star Wars, Godfather or Jaws films, either.

I still haven't seen all of this film. I watch a little bit here and there and get bored. I think OUATIH is going to be like the Dune novel. I will finish it over a twenty year period.

If you can't commit to watching this movie from beginning to end in pretty much one sitting, you should not bother with it.

Dooku, you should also point out that the lovely Mary Cherry is not only a Millienial, but an Aussie so it's more than understandable that she's not familiar with the Manson murders.

I enjoy her reactions, BTW. Be sure to watch her reaction to Cry-Baby. I swear, I thought she was gonna turn off the camera and just....well....enjoy herself to the sights of Johnny Depp. Hell, maybe she did.

^ I did not know where she was from

Is it really that important to know anything about the Manson Family? The quality of the movie is not that Tarantino changed the historical facts.

Well yeah, I think you need to know at least a little about what really happened to fully appreciate the movie. Maybe not read Bugliosi's book (although it's a hell of a read), but enough to know who "Charlie" is when he ominously shows up at the Polanski home, the kind of danger Cliff really is in at Spahn Ranch, and of course, the tragedy of a very pregnant Sharon Tate knowing she'd never deliver that baby.

To me it's very important to know at least the basics about the Manson family, and the murders that almost happened but didn't in this film's universe. That knowledge adds an incredible amount to the film IMO.

If you don't know who Sharon Tate is IRL, and what happened to her, then when the movie takes a break from the Rick/Cliff story to follow Sharon around for a day, it does not make much sense from a storytelling point of view. Not until the very end of the movie does Sharon's existence have anything to do with Rick, except to serve as a counterpoint to her success and developing stardom, compared to his fortunes.
To me, a HUGE point of the Sharon Tate story in the movie was the poignancy of seeing this beautiful young woman enjoying her life that the viewer knows will end so tragically. And then, Tarantino very dramatically changes her fate! And Tate has no idea how her life changed, thanks to Rick and Cliff, on that night.

Also, if you don't know who Manson is, then you don't get the scene when he shows up at the Polanski home, and Cliff is on Rick's roof.
And if you don't know who the Manson family cult is, who Tex is, and who Squeaky is, you do not get the full impact of the scene when Cliff goes to the Spahn Ranch. Yes, it plays well enough for what is literally happening on the screen, but there is a whole level of subtext that raises the dramatic stakes.

And while you might be anticipating some kind of Inglorious Basterds twist, you know how this story played out IRL, and you spend the whole movie waiting for it to get to that climax, so Tarantino's ending is an OMG twist ending.


ETA: I was typing while Paff posted. Did not intend to be repetitive.

Exactly!