CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino

post #1 of 277
Thread Starter 
So, he's prepping a film based around the Manson Murders.

Still untitled but he's reportedly met with A-list talent like Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Lawrence and Margot Robbie (for the role of Sharon Tate). QT is still putting the final touches on the script.


Yeah... interesting.
post #2 of 277
Crazy. There was a small report about this almost a year ago! The only source was someone saying he's been seen carrying stacks of Manson books everywhere he goes. I thought this was a big Nothingburger!
post #3 of 277

I smell a juicy role for Steve Railsback.

post #4 of 277
Is no one else already adapting The Girls? That would be a surprise. That was a pretty popular book.
post #5 of 277
Scott Rudin had the rights to The Girls, I think.
post #6 of 277
Well, it's about time Quentin made a family film.
post #7 of 277

I'm already dreading the stomach-churning violence.


I'm assuming this will be nine hours long and shot in VistaVision.

post #8 of 277
I probably won't see this.
post #9 of 277
This seems more like something Rob Zombie would be doing and even more like something no one should be doing at all..
post #10 of 277

How soon will Walton Goggins get a phone call?

post #11 of 277

Goggins as Tex Watson?

Will QT play Polanski?

post #12 of 277
QT will probably play which ever person drops the most N bombs.
post #13 of 277
I'm getting some serious Twin Peaks Evil Coop vibes from this new hair.

post #14 of 277

I have no doubts.  This is a perfect topic for him to delve into.

post #15 of 277
I just get this vibe that QT is trying to make his 'Guyana: Cult of the Damned' with this thing. Like he's trying to play QT playing Eli Roth playing Rugerro Deodato. This is not subject matter to get "cheeky" with.

Maybe I'm totally wrong and I have no idea what angle he's approaching this from. Maybe it'll be a huge departure for him and be handled with a degree of true tragedy and sensitivity. But I'm trying to think of the movie that presents the lead up, recreation and aftermath of the horrific murder of a bunch of people including an expectant mother and I can't think of what that movie is at all that could possibly be something I'd wanna sit through..
Edited by Fraid uh noman - 7/12/17 at 3:33am
post #16 of 277
I'm with fraid. Manson and his story is too dark, dusturbed and deep for someone like Tarantino to futz around with as some crazy mix of genres.
post #17 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

This seems more like something Rob Zombie would be doing and even more like something no one should be doing at all..
Zombie was going to do a cable series with Bret Easton Ellis a few years back.

And Manson is the comeback role hand made for Shia.
post #18 of 277

Aaghh! This damn pretentious thread titling convention again! It's the tenth film! The tenth!

post #19 of 277
If we count splitsies, we're counting BEST FRIEND'S BIRTHDAY.

So he's retired now. No Manson film.
post #20 of 277

Hot take:

 

Tarantino is the absolute last person to be doing this, full-stop, don't at me. 

 

It's going to be a fucking disaster. 

 

That said, if he must - 

 

Leo as Manson.

post #21 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post

Scott Rudin had the rights to The Girls, I think.

 

The Girls is fucking great and everyone should read it. 

 

I would shit if Tarantino was actually adapting it, because whoo-boy, is he wrong for that material. 

post #22 of 277

He's done with adaptations.

post #23 of 277

Good.

post #24 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Hot take:

 

Tarantino is the absolute last person to be doing this, full-stop, don't at me. 

 

It's going to be a fucking disaster. 

 

That said, if he must - 

 

Leo as Manson.

I'm imagining it as Sharon Tate getting revenge (call it Kill Chuck), and that would just be odd. 

 

It appears he's talking to Brad Pitt, who I'm assuming would be Manson. I wonder how he's going to cram Samuel L. Jackson in there.

post #25 of 277

The thing is that Manson was five-two, and yes, you could hobbit it up, but someone like Pitt or Leo or even someone like Michael Shannon, who would be perfect, are all over five ten. 

 

I suppose if he fictionalizes it - which is really the way to go - you could get away with a bit more. 

 

Emory Cohen as Vincent Bugliosi tho.

post #26 of 277

Obviously this should be part of a shared universe with the upcoming Zeroville.

post #27 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

I just get this vibe that QT is trying to make his 'Guyana: Cult of the Damned' with this thing. Like he's trying to play QT playing Eli Roth playing Rugerro Deodato. This is not subject matter to get "cheeky" with.

Maybe I'm totally wrong and I have no idea what angle he's approaching this from. Maybe it'll be a huge departure for him and be handled with a degree of true tragedy and sensitivity. But I'm trying to think of the movie that presents the lead up, recreation and aftermath of the horrific murder of a bunch of people including an expectant mother and I can't think of what that movie is at all that could possibly be something I'd wanna sit through..

This was my original thought as well, but I'm sure he'll take the story and throw it in a blender with a bunch of other things. However, I feel like in order for it to work, he'll have to leave his comfort zone. I realllllly don't want to see the Manson family walking to the Labianca home in slow-mo set to a Morricone tune.

post #28 of 277

There are ways for the Manson story to be fun, or, at least, engaging and entertaining. Karina Longworth's massive audioseries about Mansion - which I still need to finish - is a great example. It's breezy, and her delivery is great, but when she gets into the details of what exactly happened, it becomes deadly serious, and you never forget that when the sixties died, actual people died, too. 

 

Another good reference point is that second extended murder sequence in Zodiac, easily one of the most upsetting things put to film. 

post #29 of 277

What about Joel Kinnaman as Manson?

https://68.media.tumblr.com/9242aebfad168a66faef1b4c44fb7860/tumblr_ol51wjczoj1r3p9oto3_500.gif 

post #30 of 277

No, Barry.

post #31 of 277
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

The thing is that Manson was five-two, and yes, you could hobbit it up, but someone like Pitt or Leo or even someone like Michael Shannon, who would be perfect, are all over five ten. 

I suppose if he fictionalizes it - which is really the way to go - you could get away with a bit more. 

Emory Cohen as Vincent Bugliosi tho.

My first thought was that Pitt would play Terry Melcher.
post #32 of 277

The other issue with casting these parts is that everyone in Manson's cult was so young - that is, of course, kind of the point and one of the central themes of any Manson story - and even Manson himself was 35 at the time of the murders. I was going to play along with Barry and suggest JK as Tex, but Tex was 24 at the time. So Kinnaman, 37, maybe fits, certainly based on his performance in THE KILLING, which I enjoy a great deal. 

 

But he's also a foot taller than Manson.

 

He'd work as Dennis Wilson, though. 

post #33 of 277

Since Tarantino is a fan of JUSTIFIED, what about Jeremy Davies?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8Lk7-UkV9BI/SzZEeCrriBI/AAAAAAAABXA/j3cIxvFUxXg/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/HelterSkelter.jpg 

post #34 of 277

I'm not sure why the first thought is that Tarantino is doing a Grindhouse Trailer parody of the Manson story. Come on guys, he's Tarantino, not Eli Roth. 

post #35 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post
 

I'm not sure why the first thought is that Tarantino is doing a Grindhouse Trailer parody of the Manson story. Come on guys, he's Tarantino, not Eli Roth. 

 

I would be much more comfortable getting behind this if was Jackie Brown-mode Tarantino, but he seems to have made it clear he has no intention of returning to that style of realism. 

 

And it's less that he's Eli Roth (though one could argue that Roth has not been the best influence on him), and more the fact that despite handling certain historical events - the Holocaust, slavery - with more deftness than you'd expect, I still think there are enough problems in the depictions of those events that give me pause when considering a Manson project. (For the record, Inglorious is my favorite film of his and Django is a close third). 

post #36 of 277

So...Samuel L. Jackson is Manson, right?

post #37 of 277

Samuel Jackson is whatever character drops the second most N-Bombs.

post #38 of 277
I don't think this going to be a Grindhouse parody of a real life horror. I think it will attempt to be something more than that and other than that and still be in very poor taste. There might be a way to make a movie of this that isn't in poor taste but I don't think Tarantino will find it. I think this sounds like an Oscar bait Devil's Rejects..
post #39 of 277

I feel like there's probably more to this story than we're aware of yet.  It's such a well-covered event (in film, television, books, etc.) that I have to believe Tarantino isn't interested in doing another retelling.  My guess is that the murders would be a backdrop for a larger story to be told.  I'm fully prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

 

Plus, Tarantino is not stupid.  There's no way he's blind to the possibility of insensitivity if he filtered such a horrific real event (one still prominent in the public consciousness) through a DEATH PROOF-style aesthetic.

post #40 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

 There's no way he's blind to the possibility of insensitivity if he filtered such a horrific real event (one still prominent in the public consciousness) through a DEATH PROOF-style aesthetic.

 

Yeah, he was really receptive to the completely reasonable responses around Django. 

post #41 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Yeah, he was really receptive to the completely reasonable responses around Django. 


We could argue about how "reasonable" those responses were, but I'll concede that you have a point.

post #42 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 


We could argue about how "reasonable" those responses were, but I'll concede that you have a point.

 

I think there were degrees of those responses, some of which were maybe more forceful, but others that were more nuanced, and worth engaging with. 

 

I want to be excited about this. I've been amped about the looks back/histories/novels based on Manson that have floated back into the consciousness in the past couple of years. I think it's high time for a new film about the project. Tarantino is exceptionally talented. I just don't know if he can - or should - do it. 

post #43 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

I want to be excited about this. I've been amped about the looks back/histories/novels based on Manson that have floated back into the consciousness in the past couple of years. I think it's high time for a new film about the project. Tarantino is exceptionally talented. I just don't know if he can - or should - do it. 

If I thought he was simply going to be staging the events of that night through his particular style and proclivities, I would agree with you.  I just don't believe that's going to be the case (though I'm prepared to be proven wrong).

post #44 of 277

I'll offer a counterpoint to my negative nancy-ing. I've always loved this piece that Sheldon Roth, Eli Roth's father, wrote about Inglorious Basterds: 

 

Quote:

 In that moment, I felt that my beloved boychik was carrying out wishes of mine from my Brownsville, Brooklyn childhood, wild longings from a lifetime of agonizing over the Holocaust. I felt a powerful mixture of rescue, revenge, redemption, relief and a strange grief. My son was sacrificing himself for all of us. He was doing what I could not. And I cried. 

 

Many friends have told me of similar personal, powerful emotions in response to this film, emotions that were also joyously pleasurable. Yet, I have listened to many post-screening Q-and-As and heard the confused questions of those who are puzzled, distanced by the film because it is “fantasy.” It strikes me that what these questions fail to take into account is that there are two kinds of facts: historical facts and emotional ones. Emotional facts, or feelings, are a condensed, animal form of personal history; expanding them tells the story of one’s life. Feelings are just as much a reality as facts. Art, similarly, functions as a condensed statement about life. When art resonates with an audience, those emotions are real — they cannot be dismissed because the story is “historically inaccurate.” Quentin Tarantino understood it was more important to be emotionally accurate than to follow a story previously written by history. Art must resonate with a truthful emotion inside the viewer in order for it to survive, and, if not, it falls by the wayside, disregarded and dies a forgotten work.


Now, obviously, obviously, obviously, you cannot compare the Holocaust to the Manson murders, simply on degrees of evil alone. But you could make the argument, certainly, that Manson occupies a place in the American imagination akin to our cultural depictions of Hitler. For boomers, he - and maybe Bundy - are the ne plus ultra of modern evil, with Manson the avatar for the "death of the sixties" in all that entails.

 

And I think an approach similar to what Roth articulates above could work, focusing on the emotional facts and feelings of what the Manson murders were and what they did to our psyche as Americans. And I think that's an approach Tarantino could achieve, and it would really be something. I can also see him, so interested in shifting timelines and the past colliding with the present, riffing on this idea from Joan Didion's essay The White Album, about how the Manson murders became this story we tell ourselves, this folklore that lacks clarity:
 

Quote:
 “We tell ourselves stories in order to live...We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.”

 

Now that I think about it, an approach similar to James Cox's WONDERLAND, where Val Kilmer plays John Holmes and tells the story of the Wonderland Murders, but through a variety of differing perspectives, with the actors taking on different approaches depending on who's telling the story. (REVERSAL OF FORTUNE and ALPHA DOG both do this as well.) 

And, of course, Didion brings up the other great quote from that essay that's in Tarantino's wheelhouse, too: 

 

Quote:
 “This mystical flirtation with the idea of ‘sin’—this sense that it was possible to go ‘too far,’ and that many people were doing it—was very much with us in Los Angeles in 1968 and 1969…The jitters were setting in. I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full. On August 9, 1969, I was sitting in the shallow end of my sister-in-law’s swimming pool in Beverly Hills when she received a telephone call from a friend who had just heard about the murders at Sharon Tate Polanski’s house on Cielo Drive. The phone rang many times during the next hour. These early reports were garbled and contradictory. One caller would say hoods, the next would say chains. There were twenty dead, no, twelve, ten, eighteen. Black masses were imagined, and bad trips blamed. I remembered all of the day’s misinformation very clearly, and I also remember this, and wish I did not: I remember that no one was surprised."
post #45 of 277
So is this gonna be some kind of Purge movie then where they manage to fight back and fight off the Manson family and Tate and her child and all or some of the other victims survive? That's what this is gonna be isn't it..
post #46 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

So is this gonna be some kind of Purge movie then where they manage to fight back and fight off the Manson family and Tate and her child and all or some of the other victims survive? That's what this is gonna be isn't it..

 

I hope he does a Basterds type "alternate history" just so the current state of outrage culture can implode.

 

maybe they don't "fight off" the Family in the beginning. Perhaps they die as they historically did but rise up as zombies to revenge themselves Kill Bill style.

post #47 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post
 

I hope he does a Basterds type "alternate history" just so the current state of outrage culture can implode.

The over/under on "thinkpieces" this thing will generate is currently at, oh, a billion.

post #48 of 277

I think there are ways to do, perhaps, an alternate history of the Manson murders without going quite that far. 

post #49 of 277
Quote:

Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

 

My guess is that the murders would be a backdrop for a larger story to be told.  I'm fully prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

 

Ahhh, so you think it's going to be a commentary on Trump vis-a-vis the cult of personality of the Manson Family?

post #50 of 277
Best case scenario....this'll be Tarantino's Summer of Sam..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The 9th Film by Quentin Tarantino