|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
drat, how did I miss that? But yeah that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:They're both good. Hateful Eight was better. I have to agree. The weakest part of Django is the revenge fantasy wish-fulfillment aspect of it. The Hateful 8 is strong in many of the same ways as Django, but it lacks this aspect.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:See I'd disagree that when Ruth hits her it's gleeful, or sadistic---he's lashing out essentially on instinct, hitting her without even thinking about it. As well Daisy turns out to be far from helpless and I think it's pretty well summed up when Ruth, dying, punches Daisy so hard he breaks her teeth and she laughs in his face---showing that he never had the power he thought he did, that she could take all the punishment he could dish out and still got the best of him. The only aspect of "grindhouse poo poo" that I saw in H8 was when Marquis shot Bob in the head with both pistols, literally exploding it. But this actually became a plot point later, so I thought that was funny.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Johnny Truant posted:Well you can say that... but you'd be quite wrong. The only unrealistic gore in H8 is Marquis literally blowing Bob's head off. The rest of it seemed pretty realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Is there a poison that makes you throw up blood in way that Ruth does? I found that pretty cartoony/Evil Deadish. Oh I forgot about that. Yeah I don't think the effects of poisoning were realistic either. They were pretty great though, really got the point across.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
maybe they were brand new pipes. Both John and Marquis are seemingly motivated entirely by money. Notice also that Marquis's cavalry uniform is spotless and in perfect condition. It's clearly not the one he wore during the war, so he must be maintaining it for reasons of vanity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
precision posted:I liked the part where the camera focused on a bunch of dude feet. Way to be self-aware, QT. Yeah I thought it was funny that there were no bare foot shots, but there were lots of booted feet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:A question for those of you who have seen it twice: I mean, there's that line about how they think that they need all four of them just to take down John Ruth by himself. I'm pretty sure they were freaking the gently caress out playing it cool because they didn't expect John to have 2 more killers with him. And then, the old guy that they left to help ad authenticity to the setting is the first to bite it, and he didn't even do anything. Snak fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Before I even knew that poisoning was going to happen in the movie, I thought that maybe Bob had poisoned the stew, because there's a scene where he goes to put another log on the fire and his body blocks everyone's view of the pot. I was kind of surprised when they used poison later.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
I Before E posted:Speaking of, did anyone else think that dingus was the funniest loving word to use in that context? He used a large number of euphemisms in that speech, which was pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
That's actually what's great about it. They make a big deal setting up the various locations, running lines out to the stables and the outhouse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
RCarr posted:From what I can remember you can see right through the cracks in the floorboards into the hollow space underneath Huh, I did not notice this. I will look for it on my next viewing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:This bugged me too. Warren seems like he's thinking at least two steps ahead of everyone else. Didn't make sense. Yeah but I feel like Marquis was kind of just ready to shoot everyone. The first person he kills in the movie he literally gives them a gun to get them to draw on him so he can justify killing them. When we first see him, he's literally sitting on a pile of bodies. While this might be overconfidence on his part, the only reason he doesn't come out on top in the end is because of the basement. Does he even get shot besides that time? I think he would have been happy to kill everyone there if he could find a legal justification.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
It's pretty fitting with the themes and what Warren tells us earlier in the movie: He just wants to kill white southerners, and fortunately for him there are all kinds of legal ways for him to do that. Pete asserts that justice requires an impartial executioner, but Marquis seems to think that as long as killing is done according to the letter of the law, it's just fine. After the intermission, QT points out that while the others debate the legality of Marquis shooting Sandy Smithers, Marquis has not doubt as to the legality of it. This is so important that it's not just implied, QT literally tells us. In a lot of ways, this movie is about how different ideas of right and wrong and justice and crime cause people to act in conflict with each other. Two characters seem to have strong senses of honor and romantic ideals: John and Jody, and they both die unceremonious deaths at the hands of their more pragmatic enemies. John Ruth believes that what he does is made better by answering for it. He brings criminals to stand trial and then watches them hang. He considers this his duty. He is meticulous in his practice of insuring his success, but he is also trusting. He is outraged and insulted when he learns that Marquis has lied to him and taken advantage of his romantic sensibilities. Similarly, while Jody opens with a cheap shot ambush and, prior to that, murdered a whole family, (not counting his life of crime prior to the events of the film), he pops out of the floor, hands up, grinning, that he's coming to save his sister. As though his loyalty means something. Neither he, nor his sister seem to expect that he will be immediately shot, although what other outcome they could expect is beyond me. In the end, the two people that survive are the ones who were dedicated to their personal causes, but not specific fantasies. Warren just wanted to kill white southerners and Mannix just wanted to fight for white southerners, and while they were on opposite sides, they seemed to develop a mutual respect centered on the fact that they mirrored each other. Everyone else was busy fighting over their differences. Claiming to be better than each other. edit: ^eh, you claim that he let his guard down during the story, but the way that the story ends basically proves that's not true. Snak fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Oh I mean, you're right, they don't survive either, because they will both bleed out, I just kind of meant they are the last men standing, even if not for long. If that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Yeah I get what you're saying. I'm probably just nitpicking. I just love cat-and-mouse scenarios where both sides are smart, it's just so much more interesting to me. Again, I refer to Inglorious Bastards- the opening scene, the scene in the restaurant with the strudel, the bar scene. I just love that kind of thing, and it's the sort of thing that film does so well as the subtlest gestures can be conveyed. Yeah, I don't think this is really one of those movies. A lot of people have expressed disappointment at the lack of emphasis on the "whodunnit" aspect of the story. I don't think the story is intended to be a whodunnit or a battle of wits. These aspects exist in the story to be sure, but I think the movie is much more about playing with our preconceptions and feelings than the characters. We, like the characters, are never really given a chance to piece things together before they come into play. For example we can't catch someone poisoning the coffee in the background. We don't see it and then we're told it happens. We haven't been given reason to think that there is a basement any more than the characters have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
When you see the gloves hand, its while QT is telling us that Daisy saw it, and not before. I think Marquis makes perfect sense. He's not a perfect superman, he's a flawed human like everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
It's more than that. Even if you suspect someone of murder, and you've been a bit forward about not not trusting them, turning your back on them for a brief period in a crowded room isn't necessarily opening you up to immediate assassination, and it may allay the fears of the suspect that you are on to them. I just don't think it's a fault. He seemed to be really happy to feel out the situation and let it progress, right up until poo poo started to hit the fan, and then he put everyone against the wall.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Not only do they not feel overly long because of excellent pacing, they aren't bloated. They are the perfect kind of movie to be long. It's not like say, Lord of the Rings, where the length is a result of trying to fit all the requisite events in the runtime.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
I thought the vomit effects loving ruled, but I too would like to know if this was a specific homage to something, because know QT, it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Seems careless 1) not to check Bob for guns 2) turn his back and get stew with Ruth eating at the table with gun down 3) give a long speech to the general with his back turned 4) not investigate the big hatch in the middle of the floor. So I just wanted to say that just because these things didn't come off as careless to me, I don't think there's anything wrong with your reading. I simply wasn't in that mindset when I saw it, and I have to watch the movie again to really consider it. As someone with a weakness for "tactical realism", I try not like or dislike movies based on their "tactical realism". So when I was trying to figure out if I could say all this without sounding like a pretentious rear end in a top hat, I started thinking: Well if it's not realism, what is the language of the tactical situation in the film. So thought about way the movie portrayed power relationships. I came up with four basic states that characters find themselves in: 1 - Not having a gun 2 - Having a gun pointed at them 3 - Having a gun 4 - Pointing a gun at someone And then of course there are conditions like "being injured" or... "being chained up". And then I realized how funny it is that since John and Daisy are essentially on oposite sides of a 4v4, them being chained together basically hurts both teams equally. Which of course also means that it's possible that she pissed him off with the song on purpose to get re-chained-up to him. Because she, and all her friends, were acting that whole time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I"m not following you here- why would it be to Daisy's advantage to want to get re-chained? Daisy does not have a gun, while John Ruth does. They are each hampered by being chained to the other one. When they are chained to each-other, Daisy's "team" has one of their unarmed people disadvantaged, while John's team has one of the of their armed people disadvantaged. Them being chained together hurts John's team more. I mean this isn't necisarrily what she was thinking, but it's still true.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Moxie posted:Daisy nearly panics at being rechained because she knows John is poisoned and does not want dead weight. I think her loud protests were honest. I forgot that he was already poisoned at that point. Whoops.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Boing posted:Was anyone else disappointed by the ending? I thought the first few acts had some really nice setup for inter-character conflict, the differing reasons they're all there, the secrets everyone is hiding and the interactions between them - then it turns out the strangers are all just part of some big bad gang and it doesn't get any more interesting than that. Kinda. I was expecting it to be more of an "every one is in it for themselves and has different motives" type of thing. But I think that's almost certainly deliberate on Tarantino's part. Mobray sets up this idea that society is made up of interconnected parts. That bounty-hunters, criminals, and hangmen all fit into a system that serves the purpose of civilization. And that to do things otherwise would be mob rule. Frontier Justice. But then the plot of the movie basically calls this a lie. It's always going to be one side verses the other with innocents caught in between. So in the end I was totally happy with it, but it was not what I was expecting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, it sucks, but if it was sentimentally or historically irreplaceable, it was the dumbfuck who loaned it out's fault. More directly, it's the propmaster's fault. If it was important and it was one of a few items that were not props and were borrowed antiques, everyone should have been informed about it. A similar thing happened in Battlestar Galactica, where Edward James Olmos improved smashing the model ship that his character had been building. It was an amazing scene, but he didn't know that it was an actual antique model ship that the prop department had borrowed from a museum. But it was insured. Because they were smart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:A Goon rented or sold his classic 1940's car for the last Indiana Jones movie. I think it was the one that smashes into the statue of Marcus Brody when Indy and Transformer boy are being chased by KGB agents. He wasn't aware they were going to wreck it. And that's sad for him. But if you are letting something that you personally value leave your posession, is it not prudent to find out or take steps to control what will happen to it? Like, I'm not saying that anyone deserves to have something they care about destroyed. I'm saying "I loaned an antique to a movie company and they destroyed it!" isn't some kind of betrayal, it's "did you loan something out without having in writing what was and wasn't okay for them to do with it?" Is that not how this works? edit: and furthermore, if something is literally irreplacible to you because of sentimental or historical value, don't loving loan it out. period. Just don't loving do it. If it's irreplacible, don't do it. If it has a dollar value, have the poo poo in writing that makes it clear. If it is irreplaceable and you still want to loan it out, somehow, make personally connections with the people who are going to be handling it and make sure that you trust them. Until the story is "I was best friends with Quentin Tarantino and he promised me that he wouldn't let anything happen to my priceless guitar, and he didn't bother to tell the people who would be handling it that it was important" there's not a bad guy here. There's an unfortunate tragedy cause by poor communication. Snak fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
It's probably more like it's not really amusing to have your friend talk about how, if you did get hanged, it would be justice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:My friends have had that discussion and they were right on the money I'm not sure I'm quite understanding you... are you saying your friends thought that if you were to be hanged it would be justice, and they were right? Cause that's kinda funny. Also sad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 20:06
|
|