[ SECRET POST #4055 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4055 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________
















07. [SPOILERS for Daughter of the Lilies]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for possible discussion of sexual abuse/etc]

[Kate Winslet]


__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for possible discussion of bullying/harassment/etc]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Tarantino is making a Manson movie???? I can't remember the last time I was this dsgusted and offended.

Charles Manson was a psychopath and the last thing he needs is edgelords excusing and glorifying the things he did. Not to mention how exploitive and disrespectful it is to the memory of those killed or otherwise impacted.

[(Anonymous)]

Is it just a Manson movie that bothers you, or do all serial killer movies based on real killers bother you?

[(Anonymous)]

I think they're upset that Tarantino is doing it, the guy who gets off on hurting and raping women

Every time Tarantino has a cameo in his movie, he's always hurting or raping women or trying to sexually assault them in some way. And even when he doesn't have a role, he still takes over during the abusive scenes when the camera shifts away from the actor. Like in Inglorious Bastards, a woman is strangled, and when the shot cuts away from the strangler's face, they use Tarantino's hands for the strangling. He's a sick fuck.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, but it's hard to get that from their comment, tbh. If they had commented that he was getting to make that movie and then added your second paragraph in, it would have made sense.

[cakemage]

And then there's that whole thing with Uma Thurman that recently came out, where he almost got her killed while they were filming Kill Bill.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

what the flying fuck?!

[(Anonymous)]

He insisted she drive a car she wasn't comfortable driving and when she wrecked it apparently caused permanent knee and back injuries.

[cakemage]

Here's the link to her interview about it. The details of the car accident are near the end of the article.

[(Anonymous)]

I care more about him defending the rape of a child on the Howard Stern show.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

He apologized for that at least.

[rosehiptea]

That is... really gross. I actually never saw any of his movies and that makes me want to continue that trend.

[(Anonymous)]

That's too bad. Honestly. He makes intriguing movies that are very stylish.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen a lot of his movies and they aren't that great. They aren't missing much by avoiding his movies. Kill Bill vol 2 has some excellent fight scenes, but unless you're into gore and exploitation, his movies are pretty dull and brainless in general.

[ninety6tears]

This one falls into the category of "too soon" for me.

It's been 50 years.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Or it will have been when it comes out in 2019. I'm curious how much time has to pass for it to be not too soon. Were Monster, Munich, Foxcatcher, Elephant, and Zodiac way too soon for you?

I understand not wanting to see Tarantino's take on it, but I can't get behind that as a reason.

Re: It's been 50 years.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you should at least wait until the last surviving close relatives are dead.

Re: It's been 50 years.

[ninety6tears]

It's a combination of both reasons.

Zodiac for example is one of my favorite films. The people still living who were associated with those events were treated with respect in the process of making that film, were invited to screenings if they could stomach it, seemed to overall give it their blessing. Even with its being based on a biased and sometimes misleading narrative, that narrative was at least written by someone with some first-hand recollections of the investigation.

Tarantino is much more into historical revision, and has previously talked about wanting to make more power/revenge history stories (and he apparently knows he's only going to make X number of films?) which may or may not have anything to do with his intentions now but if it's not going to be a very serious treatment, which I doubt, it might hypothetically be in good taste to wait a little while for more of his followers to be dead and gone, and more importantly for the surviving families of the victims to not have to deal with a potential pretty big asshole handling the subject matter, and I say that as someone who loves Tarantino's movies, but he does not seem to have the, uh, qualities to conduct productive respectful and accurate research, reach out to the people who are still affected by knowing the people who killed or helped kill a loved one could go up for parole or hurt someone, who just recently went through the thoughts on Manson dying without any hint of atonement, etc. The nature of his crimes and his cult left a legacy of anger and grief that is still very much alive, for a not insubstantial amount of people.

Do I believe, overall, that relatively recent crimes should never be fictionalized? No. I think it always has a high risk of being distasteful and insensitive, to the point I would never do it if I was in those shoes, but lots of worthy media does.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't remember the last time I was this dsgusted and offended.

Damn.

[(Anonymous)]

Right? OP needs to get out of the house more.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I thought the tax bill was pretty bad, but clearly it can’t touch Tarantino doing Manson.

[(Anonymous)]

You're making a lot of assumptions about what this movie will be.

[greghousesgf]

why do you assume he's going to be glorifying or excusing Manson?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

because it's Quentin Tarantino

[(Anonymous)]

Nah. The bad guys always get theirs in his flicks. Dramatically. I wouldnt be surprised if Sharon Tate blows Manson away with a grenade launcher.

[(Anonymous)]

What happens in a script can be altered quite a lot by how the director and editor frames the movie. Just because the text says that a hot chick will blow the bad guy away doesn't mean the framing and subtext of the movie isn't wank fodder for men who like to jerk it to 'raped and abused woman stomps abuser's face in'.