|
DrVenkman posted:The letter, and its role in the end, was a wonderfully cruel joke. I don't think it's so cynical as that - they're allies from the moment they have a common enemy, not necessarily when they can oppress one.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:28 |
|
DrVenkman posted:The letter, and its role in the end, was a wonderfully cruel joke. The letter is the distinction between justice and frontier justice. Both of them are killing, but the false idea that we can absolve killing by appointing someone to do it officially creates a real distinction, and the fake letter has real power.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Tarantino being Tarantino. Not his best, but I liked it quite a bit. I'd place it either right above or right below Django, but nowhere near Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs or Inglourious Basterds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
I haven't read the thread yet, because I just saw this yesterday. I really liked it. Probably one of my favorite Tarantinos. I especially liked the role of lying in the film. Lies are a big thing in this movie. Not just people telling to further their own agendas, but people's desire to believe them for their own reasons. Marquis carries the lie of the Lincoln Letter because it helps him John Ruth believes the lie because he is a romantic. He has beliefs in justice and the idea of great men. Both Marquis Warren and Chris Mannix lie to themselves about the righteousness of their actions during and after the war. They want to believe their own lies. Marquis again uses General Smither's desire to hear about his son to make him believe what is almost certainly a lie just so that Marquis can kill him. But whether that story is true or not, it's a story about a lie: the uniforms given to black soldiers during the civil war. Which those black soldiers wanted to believe in. Bob obvously tells a bunch of lies, but I haven't figured out anything about them yet. When everything goes to poo poo, Daisy starts lying (presumably) about 15 extra killers who are going to come save her. In the end, Marquis and Chris essentially tell themselves a lie that what they have done is real justice and not frontier justice. Also, I literally started frantically counting characters on my fingers when Channing tatum's character was revealed below the floorboards. Is there a consensus on which characters in the film comprise the titular hateful 8? I am reasonable confident that it is just both sets of passengers. Or more simply, that of the main characters, O.B. and Sandy Smithers are not "hateful". This makes The Hateful 8 to be: John Ruth (Kurt Russell) Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) Chris Mannix (Walten Goggins) Bob (Damien Bichir) Owaldo Mobrey (Tim Roth) Joe Gage (Michael Madsen) Jody (Channing Tatum)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
The Walrus posted:just want to say that on the last page people discussing the thematic and character implications of Ruth smashing daisy's guitar while not being aware he did so because she directly threatened him was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Also (actually yesterday) TIL Ennio Morricone is still alive. Holy poo poo I am dumb. edit: ^ yeah, that's what I thought too. Is the song that she sand (the first verse, at least) a real song? Or was it written for the movie?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Snak posted:Is there a consensus on which characters in the film comprise the titular hateful 8? I am reasonable confident that it is just both sets of passengers. Or more simply, that of the main characters, O.B. and Sandy Smithers are not "hateful". The program that came with the 70mm version lists the Hateful Eight as Ruth, Warren, Daisy, Mannix, Oswaldo, Bob, Joe Gage, and Smithers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The program that came with the 70mm version lists the Hateful Eight as Ruth, Warren, Daisy, Mannix, Oswaldo, Bob, Joe Gage, and Smithers. Huh. I figured, especially after the flashback reveal, Smithers was a red haring, and since he was not part of the conspiracy to free Daisy or the murder of Minnie, Sweet Dave, Gemma, and Judy, that him being a racist was not enough to classify him as one of the hateful. I guess the logic here is the Jody is doing all of this for the love of his sister?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Snak posted:Huh. I figured, especially after the flashback reveal, Smithers was a red haring, and since he was not part of the conspiracy to free Daisy or the murder of Minnie, Sweet Dave, Gemma, and Judy, that him being a racist was not enough to classify him as one of the hateful. Snak posted:Huh. I figured, especially after the flashback reveal, Smithers was a red haring, and since he was not part of the conspiracy to free Daisy or the murder of Minnie, Sweet Dave, Gemma, and Judy, that him being a racist was not enough to classify him as one of the hateful. I think it's more about Jody being there to surprise the audience (who hopefully forgets they saw Tatum's name in the credits).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:I think it's more about Jody being there to surprise the audience (who hopefully forgets they saw Tatum's name in the credits). Right, but in this case I would say that the Hateful 8 listed in the program is also part of the misdirection. I think that after watching the film, it's pretty clear that the four passengers that arrive in each coach are the hateful eight. It's pretty funny for Tarantino to make a movie called "The Hateful 8" with 10 main characters. But of those 10, only eight are murderers/killers. Jody murders Minnie in cold blood. I mean, I'm not trying to make a big thing out of this, it just seemed to me that the title was a case of "at first it seems like it refers to this thing, but later it seems to refer to something slightly different" which is not at all uncommon in storytelling. edit: also, I noticed that you double quoted me, leading me to notice that "haring" is not "herring". Whoops. Smithers is a red herring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Snak posted:Also (actually yesterday) TIL Ennio Morricone is still alive. Holy poo poo I am dumb. I think it was largely a traditional song and then when Ruth insisted she keep going, she made up some lines which were much more obviously directed toward him specifically. I dunno the song offhand but it very much reminded me of "The Irish Rover", very strongly. I assumed it was either a real historical song modified, or based on one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I think it was largely a traditional song and then when Ruth insisted she keep going, she made up some lines which were much more obviously directed toward him specifically. yeah I really liked it, so I wanted to look it up. Unfortunately the movie is new enough that googling "what song does daisy sing in the hateful 8" does not net me the answer. I totally agree that she made up the "second verse" to apply to her current situation. edit: v I now feel totally vindicated  Snak fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
I guess Smithers not being part of the gang of 8 would explain why he's the only one not to get a program poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
The song is "Jim Jones at Botany Bay". It's a traditional Aussie folk song about a captured prisoner on a transport ship. Dylan has recorded it as "Botany Bay". When Ruth asks for another verse, Domergue literally ends by saying "and you'll be dead behind me John when I go on to Mexico"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:The song is "Jim Jones at Botany Bay". It's a traditional Aussie folk song about a captured prisoner on a transport ship. Dylan has recorded it as "Botany Bay". quote:When Ruth asks for another verse, Domergue literally ends by saying "and you'll be dead behind me John when I go on to Mexico" yeah, I think that's what tipped us all off that she made it up! edit: Did I miss it, or did Chekhov's revolver carbine never get fired? Snak fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Snak posted:Thanks! I think it's the gun that Mannix is holding at the end, but I can't remember if it's fired. He stands to fire when Gage pulls the gun out from the table but Warren shoots first. Then when he shoots Daisy I believe he crawls back holding a pistol, but I might be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it's used to shoot Gage and Daisy. Mannix is wielding it the whole final act and I believe both Warren and Mannix shoot Gage. Then Mannix passes out with it in his hand, wakes up, and shoots Daisy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
drat, how did I miss that? But yeah that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
So there's a connection to another Tarantino movie... Of course there's Red Apple cigarettes again, but Mowbray's name is really Hickox, which is the name of Fassbender's character in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. Roth mentioned in an interview that he's meant to be his Great-Great-Grandfather
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Three things 1) I wish Tarantino did more with the whodunnit angle. We aren't given a chance to see how each character might be suspicious so there's no intrigue at all. Also, Daisy's secret isn't a meaningful secret if she's just a passive bystander through the whole affair. 2) Channing Tatum is horribly miscast. I was excited to see him when I did, but the longer he stayed on screen the worse the decision to cast him seemed. 3) Viggo Mortensen apparently lobbied for a role in this film. That would have been awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
This movie's main theme used extensive contrabassoon, and for that I applaud Morricone. A very chilling and underutilized sound.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
The more I reflect on Tarantino as a filmmaker, the more I think that treating H8 as a Whodunit is missing the point. He's not making a Whodunit, he's making a Who'sgunnadoit. I really think that when you strip back all the genre fuckery and filmic conventions, Tarantino is a guy obsessed with that Hitchcockian "conversation with a bomb under the table." I really think his driving "muse" as it were is a deep need to explore every permutation of a tense conversation, and every way in which people talking can be Action and/or Violence. I think that's mainly why he loves to say friend of the family; it's not because he's a racist, it's because it's currently the most interesting way to do violence with words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
That's kind of related to Samuel L Jackson's long and graphic story. While I was watching the movie, I felt like it was a bit much. But as soon as the movie ended, I started thinking about it again and it's genius. Marquis tells the story to manipulate Smithers emotionally and goad him into a specific response. The inclusion of this in the film is Tarantino doing the same thing to us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
That bit about putting pictures in your head really sealed it for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
I Before E posted:That bit about putting pictures in your head really sealed it for me. I like the "punchline" where he compared it to the uniforms they gave to black soldiers. It's like the Lincoln letter. The white character's aren't sympathetic to the plight or situation of black people, Marquis knows that they are emotional about. He knows that the white characters won't respect him as a human being, but they respect Lincoln as a human being and their desire to connect with great (white) person gives them reason to connect with Marquis. Similarly, if Marquis were simply to ask these white characters to relate to the situation of black Americans doing everything the whites tell them and still getting loving over because the whites are also racist, they wouldn't sympathize. But he can weave a story that will make them feel the pain and rage that he feels about the injustice. He even sets himself up as a racist, personally claiming to have joined the war purely for the chance to kill southern whites. And Chris takes the bate just a few minutes later and criticizes him for just wanting to kill whites. Like the whole character exists, both in the setting and in the film because of a hatred of hypocrisy and a desire to illustrate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:The more I reflect on Tarantino as a filmmaker, the more I think that treating H8 as a Whodunit is missing the point. He's not making a Whodunit, he's making a Who'sgunnadoit. I really think that when you strip back all the genre fuckery and filmic conventions, Tarantino is a guy obsessed with that Hitchcockian "conversation with a bomb under the table." I really think his driving "muse" as it were is a deep need to explore every permutation of a tense conversation, and every way in which people talking can be Action and/or Violence. I think that's mainly why he loves to say friend of the family; it's not because he's a racist, it's because it's currently the most interesting way to do violence with words. His use of "friend of the family" here is his most poisonous because it isn't in the heightened reality of any of his other movies. It's actually used a lot less in this than it is in DJANGO, in fact I think the back half of it is largely devoid of its use, but in this it hits a lot harder. He's said in the past that he's used it so much because he felt it would numb its meaning, which is probably why it's tossed out with such casual disregard, but with this he turns it back into the vicious word that it is. The only changes I wish he'd made was to cut the narration from the standard version and went with the original script and not shown the floorboard reveal until the flashback, but those are just minor quibbles
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Has anyone seen both the roadshow and theatrical versions that cares to comment on the differences?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I think it's Gage who poisons the coffee, mainly because unlike everyone else who comes in from outside, he doesn't make a beeline for the coffee. Also, was there a theme I was missing with the repeated use of documents throughout the film? It happened so many times I thought there must be more to it, but nothing I could verify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Samovar posted:I think it's Gage who poisons the coffee, mainly because unlike everyone else who comes in from outside, he doesn't make a beeline for the coffee. Also, was there a theme I was missing with the repeated use of documents throughout the film? It happened so many times I thought there must be more to it, but nothing I could verify. I think it's the idea that paper legitimizes actions that would otherwise be immoral. Similar to the frontier justice versus real justice thing. Like John chaining this woman up and constantly beating her and threatening to kill her would normally be unacceptable, but he can produce a piece of paper that clarifies that it is perfectly legal and above board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Samovar posted:I think it's Gage who poisons the coffee, mainly because unlike everyone else who comes in from outside, he doesn't make a beeline for the coffee. Also, was there a theme I was missing with the repeated use of documents throughout the film? It happened so many times I thought there must be more to it, but nothing I could verify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
QT did an amazing job at recreating the feeling of going to the cinema as a child. The warm, flickering light, the slightly echoey sound, the packed out screen of people who aren't just looking to kill time, they're there to enjoy a loving film. Hell, the slightly too small and far away screen reminded me of my local cinema in the 90s before huge chains took over. I'm glad I spent hours on trains to see this at the one cinema in the country doing the roadshow. It's the first time I've been to see a movie on my own since Spy Kids (which was accidental) but I don't regret a drat thing. People clapped at the overture, the intermission and the end credits. That's unheard of in the UK outside of the very biggest opening night films. Great, great experience. The film itself was great too, but almost secondary to the novelty of the presentation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
The box office report is not good:BoxOfficeMojo posted:[...] Moving down the list, while The Revenant exploded, Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight imploded as the filmmaker's latest film fell short of expectations last weekend and now, in its second weekend in wide release, it has dropped 59.6%. Even worse, that drop comes as the film expanded into 464 additional theaters. With an estimated $6.3 million this weekend the film is up to $41.4 million domestically and looking to top out around $50 million or so. [...]
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Khizan posted:The program that came with the 70mm version lists the Hateful Eight as Ruth, Warren, Daisy, Mannix, Oswaldo, Bob, Joe Gage, and Smithers. My theater has animated graphics for each showing, and Hateful Eight goes through each of the 8 - though it (rightly) lumps Ruth and Daisy together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Were those posters everyone's posting of the characters the centrefold of the programme? Mine didn't have that. Mine was a spread of production shots, an introduction of the characters, two pages of talking about why this roadshow is so awesome and then four more pages of stills/production shots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
I saw it in Leicester Square and didn't have a poster in my programme, so guess its just the US ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
The Heckler posted:I saw it in Leicester Square and didn't have a poster in my programme, so guess its just the US ones. Same here, the Leicester Square showing was great though too bad if you aren't near London you can't see the 70mm version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Is there a particular reason to have the lights up during the overture? In my screening the lights were dimmed, then they were raised while someone came out and explained that they'll stay up for the overture and that it's intentional. She also pointed out the seat that Tarantino sat in, which was cool. And got everyone to scream for no reason which wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Were those posters everyone's posting of the characters the centrefold of the programme? Mine didn't have that. The Heckler posted:I saw it in Leicester Square and didn't have a poster in my programme, so guess its just the US ones. Enos Cabell posted:Has anyone seen both the roadshow and theatrical versions that cares to comment on the differences? pwn posted:I just got back from seeing the film IN GLORIOUS DCP. Differences that I noticed (film vs digital notwithstanding):
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
This film is a play about a bunch of dudes putting on a play for their own diabolical ends, complete with worrying about set dressing and getting hyped for the big opening and whatnot, only to come unglued when a buncha cinema poo poo happens [slow mo, extreme close up et cetera] and finally Daisy Domergue gets hers in a totally Hollywood ending that ignores anything that happens after the ever after. To really ram this home, Tarantino should've had Maddix turn out to be full of poo poo - actually he's scouting Redrock with some of his Marauders and doesn't give two fucks for anyone there. Then show the Marauders loving demolishing everything, in the only scene that isn't like it's from Domergue's stupid bullshit play. BOOM, you just had cinematic artifice destroy the theatre, added another layer of fancy pants horseshit to your base "BLACKY V WHITEY // MAN V WOMAN" and Ian McKellan would get a headache and not know why. I am possibly retarded. I have problems.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
I wish Tarantino could pull back the silly grindhouse poo poo just a little bit. I mean it's fine in a movie like Kill Bill, but it really pulls this movie down in the last half in my opinion. Also I wish he could stop saying friend of the family so much. He's like a petulant teenager who also happens to be a master filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 02:38
|
|