But I wonder when Sharon gets killed. Early in the movie? Mid-way? Near the end?
What makes you think Sharon Tate will be killed off?
I have a strong suspicion that Tarantino will go down the "revenge fantasy" route with this film.
Sharon Tate was gruesomely killed in real life, but at least she would probably get a chance to "get revenge" on the big screen 50 years later. Perhaps she will even be a survivor in this movie. Think about it: that would be a fascinating cinematic gesture and a passionate way to honor the memory of Sharon Tate.
<<< ... and revelations of QT personally spitting in Uma's face for a Kill Bill scene and somewhat strangling Diane Kruger for her Inglorious Basterds death... >>>
Those aren't revelations. It's been widely known since 2004 that QT spat on Uma while shooting the spitting scene. As well as the fact that QT strangled Thurman with a chain. The fact that QT used his own hands to strangle Diane Krueger was another widely known piece of trivia that was made public at the time Inglorious Basterds was released.
It's funny how people were okay with all these things for so many years and loved his movies -- but the minute it became trendy to call QT the biggest mysoginist on Earth, the public suddenly woke up to realize he needs to be crucified, boycotted and forever get raped in hell by the female devils.
Of course QT was unbelievably dumb to pressure Uma into driving that car. Uma was dumb too when she said yes. Two idiots got together: the Greatest Filmmaker to Ever Grace This Planet -- and his Muse Who's Willing to Risk Her Life for Fame.
And now we're supposed to hate on one of those idiots and cry for the other.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
This is an interesting post.
Its funny about QT. Though the film had plenty of ultraviolence(like the guy who gets his head blown off in the back of the car) and sexual violence(the male rape of Ving Rhames), "Pulp Fiction" was seen as the New Coming of Cinema by the critics of 1994, and it is often said that QT got robbed when the super-nice "Forrest Gump" got the Best Picture Oscar instead. (Previous anger about "nice" movies winning over violent films include the Best Picture losses of Raging Bull and GoodFellas to Ordinary People and Dances With Wolves.)
Yet, "Reservoir Dogs" before "Pulp Fiction" had been ultra-ultra-violent too, and so has everything save "Jackie Brown" that QT has made ever since.
Most critics quit QT somewhere around Kill Bill 2 and Death Proof -- but he kept his cult and he got the Academy to give him a Best Original Screenplay Award for "Django Unchained" so QT seems determined to keep on being the Midnight Movie guy he wants to be(perhaps he is closer to John Waters than to Howard Hawks.)
QT seems to have weathered Harvey and the MeToo accusations, his latest comment on all of this (having confessed, apologized and given up the Uma Crashes footage) is "I want to know why it should f'ing matter?"
QT abides.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Even as Asia Argento stirred Cannes with a speech against Harvey Weinstein "and the people who enabled him," QT continues to build his cast for the "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" -- and they keep praising QT's "great script," and folks like me are torn.
But not THAT torn.
I still get excited about the prospect of a QT film.
Interesting: all of the cast announced so far for this "Tate film" are MEN. Margot Robbie continues to be "in talks" to play Sharon Tate, but one wonders: does an actress with Robbie's high prestige profile(I Tonya) want to play such a horribly murdered victim...one who was, frankly, not as good an actress as Margot Robbie. Also, is Robbie waiting to see how much QT can rehabilitate in the public eye?
Meanwhile, back at the men:
Leo, to play a fading Hollywood TV Western star looking to break in to spaghetti Westerns
Brad Pitt, to play Leo's pal and stunt double.
Burt Reynolds -- such an odd and old-looking man now -- to play that 80-year old Spahnn guy, who managed the old Western ranch where the Manson Family lived.
And three of The Hateful Eight: Kurt Russell, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, in "small roles." (For me, the prospect of Leo, Brad and Kurt is a fine one, albeit one with some age on Kurt.)
Everybody except Reynolds has worked with QT before, they seem to be coming back out of some loyalty(much as all those directors took cameos in John Landis' "Into the Night" after his Twilight Zone debacle.)
No more word on Tom Cruise participating(he's very careful about his career.) And is the Spahnn role taken by Burt the one first offered to Al?
We shall see. Filming begins in summer....
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
No more word on Tom Cruise participating(he's very careful about his career.)
QT did a big distributors event preview of OUATIH recently at which he explicitly compared Dicaprio and Pitt together to Newman and Redford. There's *No Way* Cruise would accept being 3rd Banana to those guys. I imagine Cruise channeling his inner Sam Jackson as follows, 'Let me complete the picture for you: *I'm* Newman, *he's* motherf...ing Robert Shaw, motherf....er.'
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Ha...ha...ha!
I expect that Cruise was "under consideration" (as they say) for one of the parts played by Leo and Pitt.
You know, its funny, back when George Clooney was a fairly big star, when he and Pitt did "Ocean's Eleven," there was a legitimate feeling that THEY could be the new Newman(Clooney, older with graying hair) and Redford(Pitt, blond and often suggested to be a Redford lookalike of sorts -- no he's not, but he's kind of an act-a-like.)
But LEO and Pitt? Nope, sorry QT. I expect that with this Newman/Redford business, QT is fending off his detractors by saying, "Hey, look, I've got the two biggest younger male stars of the day in my movie, together for the first time." And thus...QT isn't over at all (in fact, right now he's among a bunch of folks suing Weinstein for "profits owed" on certain movies -- the friendship is kaput.)
The announcement of Burt Reynolds as Spahnn(I can't remember the old guy's first name) tells us that the film will cover the Manson Family AS the Manson Family.
I've been pondering this thing.
In "Inglorious Basterds," QT postulated an alternative universe in which our heroes killed Adolf Hitler.
Given that Leo and Pitt play "next door neighbors to Sharon Tate" -- could he possibly be thinking of recreating them as heroes who kill the Manson killers before they kill Sharon?
Its a weird concept -- mine only -- but I don't think that QT would mess with a Hollywood story that a lot of folks still take quite personally in that town. It might be sacrilege. I expect I'm quite wrong.
But I have to admit, this one is creating quite the anticipation. QT does a true story. QT does an "almost" serial killer story. QT returns to the Los Angeles of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown...albeit 50 years ago.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
It will be interesting to see how the cast finalizes -- Leo and Pitt likely cost such a pretty penny that the rest of the cast will be "QT loyalists." And will the tragic horror role of Sharon Tate be filled by Margot Robbie -- or another name actress(J-Law, who considered the Daisy Domergue role in The Hateful Eight, is also rumored). Or an unknown who comes closer to looking like Sharon Tate?
About Sharon Tate: aside from her marriage to Roman Polanski, she was a "name" when she died primarily due only to one movie: "Valley of the Dolls" from the trash bestseller and somewhat of a hit, I believe. Very sadly, Tate's character commits suicide in that story, and she gets a death scene(which will really put you off suicide. It seems so sad to see a young person make an early exit like that.) I don't own that film.
But I DO own the "Matt Helm" collection of Dean Martin spy spoofs from the sixties, and Tate is in the last of those("The Wrecking Crew," pretty bad -- I got all four Helm movies for one low, low price). Tate is very pretty, she can't act very well, and sometimes when I put that film in for a lark, I forget about Tate's fate for quite some time while watching her.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
Tate acted with a little sparkle in Fearless Vampire Killers for and with Polanski, but was one-dimensional (as directed?) in Don't Make Waves. She sure was pretty tho'. The word (from Goldman? Thomson?)is that in person she was one of the biggest knockouts ever, and that unfortunately she never got the role/director to really capture all she had for posterity.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Tate acted with a little sparkle in Fearless Vampire Killers for and with Polanski,
---
Well, Polanski did have a reputation as a very good director, both in his native Poland and with his two and only two American classics(Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown --its kind of like Friedkin's two being The French Connection and The Exorcist, but with more art). So it would seem that Polanski got a good performance out of Tate and Tate was gorgeous enough to end Polanski's sexually voracious singlehood(but how long would the marriage, even with children, have lasted? We'll never know, but Polanski obviously had sexual urges that likely would have gone beyond marriage.)
---
but was one-dimensional (as directed?) in Don't Make Waves.
---
Now here is a movie with which I am familiar, but that I haven't seen. With Tony Curtis, Claudia Cardinale, and Tate. I know that it is set in modern Malibu, has lots of bikinis and musclemen -- and was directed by Alexander MacKendrick, who directed Curtis in the great Sweet Smell of Success(co-scripted by Ernest Lehman and about a darker NYC than the one in NXNW.) From Sweet Smell of Success to a beach movie. Hmm -- but not a beach PARTY movie....
---
She sure was pretty tho'. The word (from Goldman? Thomson?)is that in person she was one of the biggest knockouts ever, and that unfortunately she never got the role/director to really capture all she had for posterity.
---
Sounds like Polanski came closest. But he didn't use her in Rosemary's Baby -- I guess the only role for her would have been the pretty woman(played by a Playboy playmate in the film; Roman you dog!)..who commits suicide as one of the Satanists victims...
Its funny. While alive, Sharon Tate was a pretty but not very major actress (one of those sixties va-va-voomers I keep writing about.) In death, she became a sad icon. Because she had the biggest name of the victims that night(celebrity hairstylist Jay Sebring was next in line.)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
As with all horrific events, some dark humor ultimately emerged from the Manson murders -- at least the "Hollywood ones"(remember, the Manson Family also entered a suburban house at random and butchered the LaBianca husband and wife; regular people in a horrific "death lottery.")
Anyway, in Hollywood:
Loud-mouthed superagent Sue Mengers told a nervous, gun-packing Steve McQueen: "Don't worry, Steve, they aren't killing stars -- just featured players."
And it became a gag how many famous people all claimed that they "were supposed to be at the Tate house that night," but didn't take up the invitation. McQueen. Paramount Mogul Bob Evans. Lots of others.
There is also the chilling business that before the murders, Manson and his "family" -- particularly his sexually available female groupies -- were evidently ingratiated in with musicians like the Beach Boys and Doris Day's music producer son , Terry Melcher. (It was Melcher's house, rented to Polanski, that made renter Tate the unintended target for death.) In one of his autobios, Michael Caine said he met Manson and his group at a Hollywood party -- and immediately left, they were so creepy. "Hidden as hippies."
Supposedly, QT will capture some of this "pre-murder" material on the Manson gang...
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
...and Margot Robbie is officially "in" as Sharon Tate. You can tell its real, because she gave some quotes including "Tarantino is on my bucket list of directors I want to work with," and that she will look to honor Tate in the role.
Interesting to me personally:
So I have this little list going of my favorite movies of the 2010s:
2010: True Grit
2011: Moneyball
2012: Django Unchained
2013: Wolf of Wall Street
2014: John Wick
2015: The Hateful Eight
2016: The Magnificent Seven
2017: Molly's Game
2018: ?
2019: ?
..and Wolf of Wall Street is in the lead for my favorite of the decade.
Given that QT movies landed my 2015 and 2012 slots(and my 2009 slot with Inglorious Basterds)
"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" looks to land my 2019 slot "just because."(Just because QT movies get me excited in announcement, making and release -- just like Hitchcock did.)
So what's 2018 gonna be? I keep hearing that Scorsese has a gang movie called The Irishman, with DeNiro(returning to Marty after a long absence), Pacino(first time), Pesci and Liotta....THAT could be it, but I don't even know if that is playing theaters. I think it is Netflix production.
Odds and ends:
I bought Molly's Game to have my 2017 entry in my collection and...its not quite as good as I remembered it. The Sorkin dialogue still crackles, the presentation is very high-tech, and the cast is good but...good enough?
Molly's Game in 2017 is roughly like my 2001 problem, where I kept veering from Ocean's Eleven to Moulin Rouge to Memento(some places a 2000 release) before deciding on Moulin Rouge. Molly's Game is in competish with Baby Driver(now marred by Spacey) and Logan Lucky(Soderbergh's southern-fried Ocean's Eleven.) We shall see.
And this: in 2011, The Descendants(Clooney in Alexander Payne's Hawaiian tearjerker) was my favorite til I rented the Sorkin-written Moneyball, and it took the slot. I traded in Clooney for Pitt.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Truth of the matter: there shouldn't have to be ONE movie per year that is my favorite, and some years, its tough(like 2017 and Molly's Game.) But some years, its easy(Wolf of Wall Street, MOST but not all QT movies, Psycho, North by Northwest, The Wild Bunch.)
And finally: With Leo and Margot Robbie in the new QT, its a "Wolf of Wall Street" reunion.
But wait...Timothy Olyphant is rumored to be cast. A distinctive actor in Deadwood and Justified. Who's he playing...not Manson, I hope.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
Margot Robbie is officially "in" as Sharon Tate.
That's a big 'get'. It means 3 true stars/power-players in the leads (+ QT's director-star), marking OUATIH as an *event*.
It's funny, from this perspective Robbie made I, Tonya just in time. Before that she was just a super-hottie, but since she aced IT's acting challenges and she developed and produced the whole show, Robbie's now accepted by industry and audiences alike as the real deal, talented, smart, and tough, with a long career ahead of her. Robbie's legitimately above the title with Dicaprio and Pitt. She was the only twenty-something ringer for Tate out there with that status, and now QT's got her, confirming that he's paid no real price for either his Weinstein association and enabling or Uma's complaints about directorial callousessness/abuse. QT's apologies have been enough.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
That's a big 'get'. It means 3 true stars/power-players in the leads (+ QT's director-star), marking OUATIH as an *event*.
---
Indeed. Its as if two superstars immediately came to his rescue (past QT stars Leo and Pitt) and now, after the requisite hesitation(she IS playing Sharon Tate, after all, with all that tragedy; plus the Weinstein stuff), Margot Robbie has signed on board to give the film true validation and QT some cover.
----
It's funny, from this perspective Robbie made I, Tonya just in time. Before that she was just a super-hottie, but since she aced IT's acting challenges and she developed and produced the whole show, Robbie's now accepted by industry and audiences alike as the real deal, talented, smart, and tough, with a long career ahead of her. Robbie's legitimately above the title with Dicaprio and Pitt.
---
Yep. That good ol' star making machinery, with "Oscar cred" (Brie Larson got the latter, but not the former. Yet). J-Law has some competition(and no, i won't jump on the "J-Law is declining" bandwagon. She's made a star name for her self, she's rich and she has room to maneuver. We can use a few more major female stars , anyway.)
---
She was the only twenty-something ringer for Tate out there with that status, and now QT's got her, confirming that he's paid no real price for either his Weinstein association and enabling or Uma's complaints about directorial callousessness/abuse. QT's apologies have been enough
---
I think so. Though he evidently had to be forced to do it, QT showed the "Uma gets injured" footage and you can certainly see him being solicitous to her. Diane Kruger says she loved working with QT even if he partially strangled her for Inglorious Basterds(hey, Hitchcock had someone else do it for the strangling in Frenzy.)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
The Weinstein collateral damage is abating. I was re-reading Billy Bob Thornton's gonzo autobiography, and he praised Weinstein to high heaven for buying Sling Blade for $10 million when it was made for something like $900,000. Billy Bob was rich before the movie came out, thanks to Weinstein, and in Hollywood there are/were a lot of grateful people to Weinstein LIKE Billy Bob.
QT was chief among them, but as I've noted before, Gus Van Sant indirectly got to make his "Psycho" because of Weinstein. Because: Weinstein pushed Van Sant for a Director Oscar for Good Will Hunting; Van Sant got the nom; Imagine owners Ron Howard and Brian Grazer wooed Van Sant to make movies for them and his first request was Psycho(which Universal had refused to grant remake rights before Imagine asked for them.)
So: QT, Billy Bob, Gus Van Sant...Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Kevin Smith... a lot of grateful guys(yep, GUYS) and Weinstein seems headed to go his own way -- hopefully to prison -- for personal reasons only.
Finally: QT -- unlike most other filmmakers -- had made his name for shock and outrage(with great dialogue, creative filmmaking and big stars), including violence against women(Death Proof) AND against men(Reservoir Dogs) and was hardly going to be cowed by the clutching-pearls set.
So by the time OUATIH comes out next August, a lot of this should be behind us.
Except: I wonder if QT will grant interviews...
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
QT GETS Pacino!
So now Big Al has joined the cast. That puts Pacino in his first Scorsese picture(The Irishman) and his first QT picture with likely releases within a year of each other.
Actually, the 70-something Pacino could use some high visibility projects. I see that he's in some straight-to-video thing called Hangman, and his HBO film about Joe Paterno seemed too perfunctory on a horrific topic(child abuse under Joe's nose.) He's also been doing some indies nobody saw.
But he's Pacino so in THESE projects...he's important again.
The Pacino announcement follows a fusillade of other castings , many of whom have been announced with the characters they play:
Elle Fanning as Squeaky Fromme. Remember her?
Somebody as Jay Sebring -- the celebrity hairstylist who was the second biggest name killed at the Tate/Polanski house.
Damien Lewis as...wait for it...STEVE MCQUEEN. There is that anecdote out there that superagent Sue Mengers told McQueen after the Manson murders(but before the Manson Family was fingered)..."Don't worry , Steve. They're not killing stars...only featured players." But maybe McQueen will figure in the story before the murders occur...after all, Leo is playing a TV star of the McQueen ilk, and Pitt a stunt man. Still, AFTER the murders, McQueen was famous for getting guns and guard dogs and learning karate from Bruce Lee....
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
QT keeps pushing Pulp Fiction as the template here -- which could mean interconnected stories with different casts (I'm betting a lot of these roles are cameos) and perhaps some time bending.
But can QT really go home again and re-create the "first time ever" magic of Pulp Fiction, and do it as well, and as sharply in the dialogue department? Its been a lot of years....on the other hand, I think his most recent film("The Hateful Eight") is actually his best work since Jackie Brown. In its own blood-soaked all-race-baiting way. Gorgeous looking, great dialogue, good gags..and food for thought to react AGAINST, in QT's portrait of all races against each other, and men against women.
By the way, Pacino in the new movie is playing the TV star's agent, "Marvin Schwartz," so I expect only a few scenes from him.
How about that cast again? So far...
Leo DiCaprio
Brad Pitt
Margot Robbie
Al Pacino
Kurt Russell
Burt Reynolds
Michael Madsen
Tim Roth
....and all those other people.
Could be quite a show. Though slithering around all of it are the gory realities of the Manson murders and a worry that the ultra-violent QT might finally cross some sort of line, what with the true crime tragedy of the tale. Remember, Tate was well along in a pregnancy when she was stabbed.
reply
share
SavageBeauty (61)
6 years ago
Emile Hirsch is playing Jay Sebring.
I really don't know who this actor is... but surprise surprise, he was charged with aggravated assault after initiating an altercation with, and then strangling, Paramount Pictures executive Daniele Bernfeld on January 25, 2015 in Utah - strange how all of these people can't behave themselves! Are they all crazy? Who does this?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/emile-hirsch-sentenced-to-15-days-in-prison-after-violently-choking-film-exec-at-sundance-after-10460239.html
Also, I was reading the very entertaining book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream by Dave McGowan.
It's highly entertaining and relevant to your discussion of the new QT movie, and many other movies/music/cults of the era. It's worth a read!
https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529159695&sr=8-1&keywords=weird+scenes+inside+the+canyon&dpID=51-AmVAodOL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Emile Hirsch is playing Jay Sebring.
I really don't know who this actor is...
---
I recognize the name...I'm sure there is something I've seen him in.
---
but surprise surprise, he was charged with aggravated assault after initiating an altercation with, and then strangling, Paramount Pictures executive Daniele Bernfeld on January 25, 2015 in Utah - strange how all of these people can't behave themselves! Are they all crazy? Who does this?
---
I think a lot of them ARE crazy, for a lot of crazy reasons. It ranges from off-putting behavior to this sort of violent thing. A lot of them make a ton of money(even an Emile Hirsch, compared to most of us) and are professionally fawned upon by their handlers if not always worshipped from afar. Then some of them start to lose that fame and...they go nuts.
Ordinarily, I would figure that Emiile Hirsch goes off the movie. But QT is in this rebellious mode and feeling accused himself. Maybe he feels Hirsch got a bum rap? And is hiring him when others would not?
And hey, it doesn't sound like a girlfriend. It was a movie exec. Creative people HATE movie execs.
---
Also, I was reading the very entertaining book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream by Dave McGowan.
It's highly entertaining and relevant to your discussion of the new QT movie, and many other movies/music/cults of the era (although I don't exactly agree with everything in there, LOL). It's worth a read!
---
Sounds like it. We cannot know exactly what "take" QT has in store for his story(that's part of the magnetic draw of the piece), but I'm expecting that we will get a lot of "LA Hippie/music/movie culture" even as the Manson Family looms into view. Its not an era that gets much of a look.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Irony: I lived through that era as a kid, and when you matched up 1968(RFK and King murders, riots) to 1969(Manson, some knockoff psychos in Northern California) to 1970(Rolling Stones Altamont concert leads to murder)..it seemed that the world was a mad, violent place.
As it does today, in a DIFFERENT way, a new way -- school shootings every few weeks, a massacre in Vegas.
I expect every era has been "mad" in its own, dangerous way, as a backdrop to our lives. We just keep our fingers crossed that we aren't going to be a part of it.
reply
share
SavageBeauty (61)
6 years ago
The first thing I thought of when I heard about the new QT movie: Those Los Angeles Mad Men episodes. LOL! They really captured the feeling.
It's a fine line between genius and obnoxious, hope QT can keep riding that line for this movie. It might upset a lot of people who are still traumatized about Sharon's death.
You might love that Laurel Canyon book. I initially didn't enjoy it because of the perspective that these bands of the era were engineered creations made in the studio. But, then I watched the documentary about the studio session musicians on Netflix called The Wrecking Crew (it is on netflix now, you should check it out before they take it down). The bands on the album covers really didn't play on their own albums. It's a great documentary if you love the music of that era, because finally the REAL unknown session musicians get credit, and they are all true "characters".
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
The first thing I thought of when I heard about the new QT movie: Those Los Angeles Mad Men episodes. LOL! They really captured the feeling.
---
You're right! They got it down. Everybody remembers the JFK era late fifties/early sixties vibe of the first seasons of Mad Men...but it followed the counterculture...and shifted part of the story from NYC to LA...much as the era did(Johnny Carson moved his show there for one thing.) The 1969 clothing, hairstyles, way of talking, music....QT could study some of these episodes.
----
It's a fine line between genius and obnoxious, hope QT can keep riding that line for this movie.
---
I know a lot of people write him off now as obnoxious...but I'm following him anywhere. The Hateful Eight had some offensive material, but the dialogue and monologues were great, and one particular scene -- in which two men drink poisoned coffee and a third ALMOST does -- is a black-comedy masterpiece of precision suspense and shock payoff.
---
It might upset a lot of people who are still traumatized about Sharon's death.
---
Well, she has family and friends still. The worry is that whereas QT's other movies are about fictional bloodbaths...this is the real thing.
You'd figure that any other filmmaker would lowball the actual murders -- but can QT control himself?
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
BTW, the TV mini-series of Manson(Helter Skelter) back in the 70s gave us a pretty brutal recreation of the Tate murders -- kind of hidden in a gauzy "recollection" by one of the killers, but graphic and horrible enough. As I recall, a fair amount of it looked like the shot of Mother jumping on Arbogast and stabbing him out of frame, in Psycho.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
You might love that Laurel Canyon book.
---
I might indeed.
---
I initially didn't enjoy it because of the perspective that these bands of the era were engineered creations made in the studio.
---
As I recall, the big one of that nature was The Monkees. I was a huge fan of the show -- and the songs -- as a kid, but soon I learned that most of them didn't play their own instruments. Two of them COULD -- Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork -- but evidently not to the studios' liking. Recall that the Monkee hits were written by folks like Carole King and Neil Diamond.
---
But, then I watched the documentary about the studio session musicians on Netflix called The Wrecking Crew (it is on netflix now, you should check it out before they take it down). The bands on the album covers really didn't play on their own albums.
--
More of them than the Monkees???!! Really.
---
It's a great documentary if you love the music of that era, because finally the REAL unknown session musicians get credit, and they are all true "characters".
--
I will check it out. The book, too. I read a book about Carole King, Joni Mitchell and Carly Simon that captured much of that era.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
More of them than the Monkees???!! Really.
Basically, at least prior to about 1969, any band with a 'west coast' sound was doubled by ace session players. As soon as you know the truth you can hear it. E.g., the drumming on Wichita Lineman, Monday Monday, Mrs Robison, Tambourine Man, Good Vibrations, I got you Babe, I am A Rock, California Dreamin', etc. *is* all perfect, all crisp, loud but also understated, all the same guy... Hal Blaine.
There were some exceptions. Brian Wilson got to play a bit and so did Roger McGuinn for the Byrds, but none of the big sixties West Coast acts had The Beatles set-up where all band members played in the studio. Part of the Byrds splitting up was over this very issue: Crosby et al. wanted to have the sorts of freedoms they saw the Beatles as having.
Anyhow, from the perspective of the session guys this talk of freedom made no sense: freedom to sound bad? to not be in perfect time? And in some respects the war between the session Musos and the Beatles wannabes still goes on! Quincy Jones gave a couple of barnstorming interviews last year in which among other things he took some potshots at Ringo for not being up to West Coast studio standards. QJ just can't stand that the Beatles records sound great notwithstanding that there isn't a drum part on there that Hal Blaine couldn't have given more sizzle, or a guitar part that Glen Campbell or some jazz guy couldn't have improved.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Basically, at least prior to about 1969, any band with a 'west coast' sound was doubled by ace session players. As soon as you know the truth you can hear it. E.g., the drumming on Wichita Lineman, Monday Monday, Mrs Robison, Tambourine Man, Good Vibrations, I got you Babe, I am A Rock, California Dreamin', etc. *is* all perfect, all crisp, loud but also understated, all the same guy... Hal Blaine.
---
Well shout out to Hal! And Wichita Lineman(by ex studio musician Glen Campbel the first time, as written by Jimmy Webb) is way up there on my list of favorite songs. It hit me hard(with emotion) when I first heard it as a pre-teen, it lasted through the years.
---
There were some exceptions. Brian Wilson got to play a bit and so did Roger McGuinn for the Byrds, but none of the big sixties West Coast acts had The Beatles set-up where all band members played in the studio.
---
This is amazing to me. The Monkees seem vindicated to me now.
---
Part of the Byrds splitting up was over this very issue: Crosby et al. wanted to have the sorts of freedoms they saw the Beatles as having.
---
I've read up on the Beatles, and -- not knowing much about musical talent technically -- it did seem that they rather started from scratch. They weren't prodigies, they just worked on being good -- fate took care of the rest. As well as some great songwriting that came from who knows where.
I recall you noting, swanstep, that you felt the later Beatle albums weren't as good as some albums by other bands in that late period(The Who? The Rolling Stones?) Certainly the Beatles kept getting artier and artier, weirder and weirder. I love The White Album, but a lot of stuff on there is almost avant garde(Bungalo Bill, I'm So Tired...) Seems like studio musicians couldn't "smooth these songs over."
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Anyhow, from the perspective of the session guys this talk of freedom made no sense: freedom to sound bad? to not be in perfect time?
---
Heh. Yeah. Well...I mean there's a difference between "Wichita Lineman" and "Won't Get Fooled Again?" no? Or much of Exile on Main Street? -- some rock and roll NEEDS to be raw and unvarnished.
---
Quincy Jones gave a couple of barnstorming interviews last year in which among other things he took some potshots at Ringo for not being up to West Coast studio standards.
---
Ringo? Dear Ringo? One of the two only surviving Beatles?
I think when they replaced Pete Best with him, John said, "He's a good drummer. He's a great Beatle."
--
QJ just can't stand that the Beatles records sound great notwithstanding that there isn't a drum part on there that Hal Blaine couldn't have given more sizzle, or a guitar part that Glen Campbell or some jazz guy couldn't have improved.
--
Ha. Well, what are you going to do?
Hey this will take my "Mainstream Man Credentials" down a notch. When I was younger, yes, I listed to some Barry Manilow. (I was raised on Sinatra, I was looking for a crooner. James Taylor was more cool, but well, somebody had the Manilow records around, so I listened)
And Manilow had a non-hit song called "Studio Musician" -- but it was done as a sad sad song -- about the unsung player who would never be known as others got rich and famous on his work. I think Manilow had been a studio musician en route to Bette Midler en route to fame.
reply
share
funkychicken (606)
6 years ago
"Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon" is a very interesting and eye opening book. There's really not much you can disagree with as McGowan was a very facts based writer who did very little speculation.
Just the facts mam.
Verifiable facts.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
5 years ago
First Cannes screening is 6 pm (local time) Tuesday, May 21. Basic reactions will be known by Tuesday Evening in the US.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
5 years ago
Thanks for the heads up, swanstep.
You know, I don't recall other QT movies (other than Pulp Fiction?) opening at Cannes or using their Cannes debut to feed speculation about content and quality. Is it that sometimes the OT movies were released simultaneously to us around the time they go to Cannes? Or go to Cannes AFTER they are released to theaters?
I don't recall Hateful Eight getting a Cannes debut. But then it opened at Christmas, it likely wasn't ready(or perhaps even finished filming) in summer in time for Cannes. Django also opened at Xmas, same deal.
Inglorious Basterds was an August release. I seem to recall QT and the cast there for that one in Cannes.
I dunno. Its interesting to me.
I guess I better go look it up:
How many QT films debuted at Cannes?
PS. Hitchcock took Frenzy to Cannes out of competition in 1972, in May about a month before its June release in the US. There are photos of him hamming it away there, but most interesting to me: Princess Grace is at his side for many of the photos, I expect she came and saw Frenzy and -- I wonder what she thought of THAT.
On the other hand, her scene in Dial M for Murder where a strangler attacks HER was pretty brutal and sexual, even if she survives and kills him. In some ways, "Dial M" was the "Frenzy" of 1954 in terms of sexual violence. And Grace was in that one.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
5 years ago
Of new relevance(same day post):
QT has sent out a TYPEWRITTEN note to Cannes viewers of Once Upon a Time..in Hollywood.
He begs everyone who sees it NOT to give away any spoilers.
I'm reminded of Hitchcock's many admonitions in the PR about Psycho, and my favorite one:
"Please don't give away the ending. Its the only one we have."
Ha. And in 1960, evidently people DIDN'T give away the ending. Psycho made it from NYC in June to LA in August without the beans being spilled.
I expect that somebody will give away the "big deals" in the new QT (everybody's wondering if Sharon Tate survives, I expect that yes/no will be hard to keep secret.)
You know, The Hateful Eight had a major "mystery explanation" (that arrives around the 2/3 point, like "Vertigo"s )-- that wasn't given away in the press. Respect was given to the fact that Hateful Eight was, at least partially, a whodunit (who dun WHAT was important to find out). The spoilers never got out.
So maybe QT's pleadings will prevail.
At a minimum, maybe blabbers will put "MAJOR SPOILERS on their post headings.
Note in passing: I managed to read the script of Django Unchained on the net, a year before its release. I couldn't help myself -- and I learned the fate of two key characters. Oh, well, THAT's when I got the surprise, when I read the script. I just moved it up by a year. But there was a bigger surprise. A year later when the movie came out, I found that the whole ending was changed from the script and a character met a different fate than in the script. So QT fooled me with that one.
The Django script also had a much more fleshed-out version of the rabid racist plantation henchman played by Walton Goggins in the movie. The part was much longer and much bigger and Kevin Costner quit it, then Kurt Russell quit it. It was just TOO racist. Goggins played a scaled down version, but he was still pretty bad.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
5 years ago
Because, after all, anymore -- what movie IS?
There are at least two different kinds of masterpiece: non-revolutionary masterpieces are immediately intelligible as important, brilliantly crafted, etc.. Ava DuVernay's When They See Us (on Netflix) is a recent non-revolutionary masterpiece. It builds directly on Lumet & Scorsese & Spike Lee to astonishing effect, but has all sort of good new ideas of its own. Everything about it from all of its bravura performances up screams 'greatness achieved' & 'this is important'. It's Awards-bait done right. *Revolutionary* masterpieces are different kettles of fish: they're doing something fundamentally new &, as a consequence, typically won't be completely intelligible on release & on first viewings. They may become consensus picks over time as tastes catch up and their influence on other film-makers continue to be felt, but often their original weirdness, taboo-ness, etc. continues to hang over them and they still divide audiences. A relatively recent revolutionary masterpiece IMHO is Jonathan Glazer's Under The Skin (2013). It kind of puts you in an Alien's perspective on everyday life & invents new visual and sound and editing languages to do that. It's gradually influencing all sorts of things - Stranger Things stole from it wholesale! - so it's slightly less alien now than when it came out, but it's still very weird, and like Night of the Hunter & Vertigo and Eraserhead before it, it's got decades of influence and rising up charts ahead of it.
A few of the critics as well as QT himself have compared OUTIH to Cuaron's Roma - both memory pieces or their directors. Roma *looked* amazing but it made us wait 90 minutes for its first big scene.... I hope QT doesn't make us wait that long! See my original response to Roma here:
https://moviechat.org/tt0054215/Psycho/5c09c331b42ed207cd927683/OT-Awards-Season?reply=5c19092b68ba582aced0fdff
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
5 years ago
QT's more Leone, Cuaron's more Bunuel/Fellini. It's reasonable to expect, therefore, that QT's memory-trawl will be more entertaining than Cuaron's. But even after Roma's big, emotionally turbulent set-pieces's arrive, Roma didn't strike me as quite a masterwork. I haven't thought about it much since whereas, of the Oscar-contenders, The Favorite has often been in my thoughts & was a very happy rewatch a few weeks ago. Could be the 'auteur' factor at work: Lanthimos's The Lobster was my fave of 2015 and his earlier Dogtooth was one of the best of its year (2009?) Maybe The Favorite, starting from a high place is doomed to rise still higher for me.
reply
share
GrowingFamily (271)
6 years ago
I know you're writing that these stories about Uma Thurman and Diana Krueger are "well known" but I must say, this is the first I've ever read that. I do love his movies, but I never heard any of those rumors. I'm not sure many average filmgoers will know much about this. Maybe I missed all the publicity around these things when the movies came out. Plus, context is usually missing from gossip so I wonder if the actresses felt insulted at the time or if it's in retrospect. Sometimes, one has to take a step back to realize a certain behavior is unacceptable. Please don't take this as a judgment in any manner. I really don't know the circumstances, only what you wrote.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
I know you're writing that these stories about Uma Thurman and Diana Krueger are "well known" but I must say, this is the first I've ever read that.
--
I should apologize on that. These stories are "well known" if you read too many stories about such things - as I do. They are "well known" to me, and I share them here(where I write OT on Tarantino on a Psycho board, but we have latitude here and his actual board is filled with flaming and haters. Plus the connections from Hitchcock in general and Psycho in particular TO QT are relevant and profound, IMHO.)
---
I do love his movies, but I never heard any of those rumors. I'm not sure many average filmgoers will know much about this.
---
I expect that QT and his co-producers are banking on this.
---
Maybe I missed all the publicity around these things when the movies came out.
---
I did. I guess the stories had been circulating for a few years but got emphasis when Harvey Weinstein(QT's producer and benefactor) was targeted for sexual harassment and worse(rape, exposing himself) and when the "Me Too" movement took flight.
---
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Plus, context is usually missing from gossip so I wonder if the actresses felt insulted at the time or if it's in retrospect.
---
Well, its interesting. Diane Kruger took the trouble to write a statement that she loved working with QT and would work with him again in a heartbeat -- even though he personally, partially strangled her to get the proper eyes-bulging-out effect for her strangling death in Inglorious Basterds. (Its rather an homage to the lingering strangling sequence in Hitchcock's Frenzy, in which the actress also looks to be realistically in the throes of being strangled. with her neck reddening -- I guess if you choke someone just a little, it looks like a lot. On the male side of the street, big Bo Swenson chokes Nick Nolte with one hand in North Dallas Forty -- and Nolte's face definitely turns deep red -- I suppose Nolte held his breath)
Its a bit more complex with Uma Thurman. She was box office poison from some bombs(The (British) Avengers, Batman and Robin) but QT gave her a two-movie showcase in "Kill Bill" and made her relevant again for awhile. But evidently Uma was upset that he made her drive a jeep fast and it crashed. QT finally made footage of this accident available to the press and its a mixed bag: he's on film helping Uma out immediately -- but it WAS his decision that led to the crash(improperly pre-tested driving by stunt people.)
In short...Kruger has forgiven and praised QT. Uma has not -- even though he saved her career for a time.
--
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Sometimes, one has to take a step back to realize a certain behavior is unacceptable. Please don't take this as a judgment in any manner. I really don't know the circumstances, only what you wrote.
---
Well, I appreciate your reading it. I think the parade of names joining QT's Manson Movie are demonstrating their respect for his rebellious ways. In an era where most of our movies are lightweight superhero tales, Star Wars reboots, and comedies, QT makes movies that are harsh, bloody, and controversial, as if it is 1971 again.
It is exciting to hear that Leo and Brad and Al will be together, playing a TV actor, his stuntman pal, and his agent, but I am most excited to hear what they will SAY TO EACH OTHER. I can't wait for the newest QT dialogue. An early scene in Pulp Fiction was "about" two hit men talking while driving to a hit, but it was REALLY about how you can get a glass of beer in an Amsterdam movie theater(a REAL glass of beer) and how they don't have quarter pounders over there because of the metric system(and a Big Mac isn't Le Big Mac...its a Royale with Cheese.) One goes to QT movies to hear what amazing things his characters are going to say.
And I think he's still pretty good. Critics love to build folks up and then bust them down as over, past it, out of it. Victims include Jack Nicholson and Johnny Depp...both of whom were fine well past when the critics declared them over. I think QT is going through that phase, too. Something happened to him in the six no-film years between Jackie Brown (1997) and Kill Bill 1(2002)...his movies got weirder and less connected to reality(though no more violent than Reservoir Dogs.) But its almost as was said of Hitchocck: QT at his worst is better than most other writer-directors at their best. And with QT, the words come first.
reply
share
GrowingFamily (271)
6 years ago
Ecarle, I appreciate your writing these posts! It's genuinely a pleasure to read your writing. I don't think I've ever read such well researched and articulate posts on any message board. You're an encyclopedia of film minutiae. For a fan like me, it's invaluable. So enough of that. I think QT is an auteur. There's no one else like him working today, so I did feel disappointed when I saw your post about Uma and Diana. This year has been a disaster as far as losing heroes. So many people I liked were caught up in the MeToo movement. I didn't want QT to be in that group. He's written some great roles for women, although not enough, but I'm a huge fan of his movies and I'm always excited for the next one. In fact, I try not to anticipate the next one because it's a long time between movies and i hate waiting. So far, the cast sounds phenomenal, but that was the case for The Hateful Eight also, and I was a bit let down by that movie. It was good, but it could have been better. Setting-excellent, genre-excellent, cast-unbelievable, writing- meh. I don't mean his dialogue, he's without equal in this category, but the terrific buildup didn't have the clever ending I'm used to with him. So I'm hoping for something not just good this time around. I hope it's really special, God knows he's capable of making masterpieces.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
...and filming has begun.
...as of June 18, 2018.
I also read a ridiculously overlong "end shooting date" of November. Hell, Psycho was shot in 8 weeks! The complex NXNW in a few more than that.
For whatever default reason, QT is roughly where Hitchcock and Spielberg and a few others have been over the years: the entire creative process of a film is an event in itself, as learning over time that:
QT was making a movie with the Manson murders as the centerpiece and 1969 Hollywood/LA as the setting.
That the release date would be August 9, 2019...50 years to the day that Sharon Tate was killed.
That Leo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise were under consideration for roles.
That Leo and Pitt were on board.
WHO Leo and Pitt would be playing(a fading TV Western star looking to cash in on spaghetti Westerns, and his stunt double pal.) And more of the plot: one of them lives next door to Tate.
More and more casting tidbits. Burt Reynolds as dude ranch owner George Spahnn. Al Pacino as an agent. Somebody as Squeaky Fromme. Somebody as Jay Sebring....
---
And now, production begins.
The next big media breakout will eventually be: first photos of Leo and Pitt in their 1969 guises. A first photo of Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate. First photos of everybody else (Reynolds, Pacino...Kurt Russell.)
And then eventually.. there will be the first teaser trailer to see how things look "in general." (The best one of those I ever saw in my life was the first teaser trailer for Batman, about six months before the movie came out...and how Jack looked as the Joker. No music on the entire trailer made it very weird, very "special.")
And then eventually a full trailer. And then perhaps a final trailer.
I'm excited. I'll take the fanboy diss, but the greatest of entertainment filmmakers(Hitchcock, QT), working with the biggest of stars (Cary Grant, Leo DiCaprio...so it is)...on a project of interest...can still make everyday life just a bit more exciting.
reply
share
GrowingFamily (271)
6 years ago
You can fanboy with me anytime. I completely understand. It really is a pleasure to watch a film when everyone involved is a the best to be had. Recently, we went to see the new Avengers movie. I'm not a big fan of super heroes movies but we took two kids and they enjoyed it quite a bit. The thing that shocked me was the cast! Holy smokes, if only a "regular" movie could get one quarter of these incredible people. There were so many great actors in that movie and while it was a fine example of a certain genre, I can't believe how many "serious" actors were in it. I guess it's all about the money and the exposure but I wish we could see some better movies at the theaters with these same people. So new QT, I am all in too! Plus, won't it be wonderful to see what Leo and QT can do together? It's very exciting.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
You can fanboy with me anytime.
---
Its a derogatory term, I suppose. The idea that I still am one given my age --- is no problem to me.
Its the one sector of my life where I think a certain "young at heart" quality -- I can STILL get excited about certain filmmakers and projects like I did when I was 14 -- will keep me alive that much longer. I had a number of older family members who stuck with movies to the literal end -- seeing films in theaters with months left to live, etc. It VISIBLY kept them young and connected to the pop culture world even as it was clear that their lives were almost over. They seemed happy to stick with movies to the end. I intend to.
---
I completely understand. It really is a pleasure to watch a film when everyone involved is a the best to be had.
---
QT, along with Spielberg and Scorsese, is among those directors who can attract top stars -- in top quantities -- but QT seems able to do it even with a "disreputable reputation." All the more interesting, you ask me.
---
Recently, we went to see the new Avengers movie. I'm not a big fan of super heroes movies but we took two kids and they enjoyed it quite a bit. The thing that shocked me was the cast! Holy smokes, if only a "regular" movie could get one quarter of these incredible people. There were so many great actors in that movie and while it was a fine example of a certain genre, I can't believe how many "serious" actors were in it. I guess it's all about the money and the exposure but I wish we could see some better movies at the theaters with these same people.
---
It was enjoyable, but problematic, to see so many good actors doing so little on screen as a matter of time and emotional commitment. Technically, they are supposed to "take the money" here so they can do better work elsewhere. But Robert Downey Jr. seems content just to take the money. He's made only one other "outside" movie(The Judge) since playing Iron Man, I think. I enjoyed seeing RDJ and all these stars too -- but I'd like to see them at length in some other films.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Chris Pratt has a lock on multi-millions with just two franchises -- Guardians and Jurrassic. At least he took a meaty, charismatic and ultimately dramatic role in The Magnificent Seven in between.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
@ecarle, there are stories and photos floating around online of OUATIH second unit (I assume) shooting at and around the Cinerama Dome. The outside of the theater is dressed to be playing 'Krakatoa - East of Java'.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
@ecarle, there are stories and photos floating around online of OUATIH second unit (I assume) shooting at and around the Cinerama Dome. The outside of the theater is dressed to be playing 'Krakatoa - East of Java'.
---
Thanks for the heads up and I found the photos.
Its kind of a charge. And very weird as to what is "in the air" right now.
Elsewhere on this board, I have posted in the last few days about seeing "Frenzy" at the Cinerama Dome in 1972 and Apocalypse Now at the Cinerama Dome in 1979. The theater has since been re-designed on the outside and renamed "The Arclight" I think.
But here's QT re-dressing the theater with its old CINERAMA frontpiece and -- nostalgia reigns.
QT is thus continuing his fascination with Cinerama as expressed in his promotional materials for The Hateful Eight.
Krakatoa -- East of Java was rather the swan song for Cinerama as I recall. Not many more -- if any more -- Cinerama movies were made. And even as a pre-teen seeing it, I found the movie rather dull and rather cheesy -- Hollywood staggering to an end before the next generation of filmmakers would go to town with special effects. I was thinking of Krakatoa East of Java just this weekend -- BEFORE your post, swanstep -- while watching the volcanoes erupt in the new Jurrassic film --- more about which, some other time.
Personally, I find this all very weird, slightly supernatural. I'm posting about the Cinerama Dome for two days and thinking about Krakatoa East of Java while watching Jurrassic World Two and -- QT has already assimilated all of this?
BTW, Krakatoa East of Java is famous for a major title gaffe-- Krakatoa was WEST of Java. Oh how the critics used that to tear the movie apart!
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Meanwhile, back at the Cinerama Dome:
It was built to premiere with A Mad Mad World in 1963, which played there for quite some time.
I saw Khartoum there in 1966 -- that was my first Dome movie.
Then Frenzy in 1972 -- I steered a family vacation in LA to seeing that movie because it wasn't going to play in our small town for months. (Not ALL the family went to Frenzy, I knew enough about it not to make that mistake.)
Then The Sting in 1973. I had moved back to LA by then and it turned out that the Cinerama Dome was the "Universal Showcase Theater" for many years in the 70s, playing such Universal hits as: Play Misty for Me, Frenzy, American Graffiti, Charley Varrick, The Sting...The Great Waldo Pepper.
Other movies from other studios slipped in. I saw Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (from Warners) at the Dome in 1975..on a weekday morning at 10:00 am with special free tickets from a studio friend. I still remember a middle-aged, old time agent in a phone booth during intermission saying into the line: "Yeah. I'm at the Cinerama Dome. The new Kubrick. Barry Lyndon. Well...its kinda slow, I gotta tell you. But don't get me wrong, its a masterpiece."
I think Apocalypse Now in '79 was my last movie at the Dome(I moved back away from LA), and I've never seen a film there as the Arclight.
Anyway, the Cinerama Dome AS the Cinerama Dome was a Hollywood landmark for some years, a great memory for me -- and a nice touchstone for QT. Here was the hippie culture and New Hollywood and New Music aborning -- and the Dome was running an old-fashioned movie called Krakatoa East of Java.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
PS. If you look at the photo of the Dome redressed for Once Upon a Time...you can picture how I saw Frenzy, with HUGE rave reviews plastered on big posters all around that outside area. "One of Hitchcock's Very Best!" "FRENZY is the best movie about a sex murderer since PSYCHO."
They made it seem like Frenzy was the Greatest Hitchcock Movie Ever Made.
It wasn't but...playing at the Cinerama Dome for that afternoon with all those posters -- it seemed like it.
reply
share
movieghoul (213)
6 years ago
ecarle, This is Cinerama, the granddaddy of CInerama films was revived at the Ziegfeld in New York in the summer of 1973. Did it also play at the Dome?
The NY audience was greatly underwhelmed, after the first few minutes on the roller coaster, the rest was cheesy and not very thrilling. Plus it wasn't shown in real 3 projector Cinerama, as were all Cinerama films prior to Mad Mad World, just a single image with the three strips of film stitched together.
THe last Cinerama film I saw in first run was also KEOJ. Unlike all earlier CInerama films it wasn't a road show. There was one subsequent CInerama, Custer of the West starring Robert Shaw, which I'm not sure got a Cinerama run at all.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
ecarle, This is Cinerama, the granddaddy of CInerama films was revived at the Ziegfeld in New York in the summer of 1973. Did it also play at the Dome?
---
I'm afraid I can't tell you. I returned to live in LA in December of 1973...hence seeing The Sting there (big lines, huge crowd.)
I would guess so.
---
The NY audience was greatly underwhelmed, after the first few minutes on the roller coaster, the rest was cheesy and not very thrilling.
---
I"m aware of this film, but I've never seen it...and I have no idea what is in it OTHER than the roller coaster, which was the focal point of the poster, yes?
---
My Cinerama experiences were two, back to back(about a year apart) at the Warner Theater on Hollywood Boulevard -- The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm and then How the West Was Won, which sat as my favorite movie until I saw Mad Mad World(which I did NOT see at the Dome, a coupla years after release, actually) which was my favorite movie before North by Northwest(which is now edged -- just barely -- by Psycho. As John Wayne said about the shooting skills of Dino vs Ricky Martin in Rio Bravo: "I wouldn't want to live on the difference.")
---
Plus it wasn't shown in real 3 projector Cinerama, as were all Cinerama films prior to Mad Mad World, just a single image with the three strips of film stitched together.
----
Those three strips stitched together is how I saw HTWWW on a re-release in, I think, 1970. Very noticeable.
---
THe last Cinerama film I saw in first run was also KEOJ. Unlike all earlier CInerama films it wasn't a road show. There was one subsequent CInerama, Custer of the West starring Robert Shaw, which I'm not sure got a Cinerama run at all.
---
I saw 'em both...and lord, I can't remember one thing about them today. With the QT "nudge" of KEOJ, I went and looked at some clips and ...nada. All I know is that I SAW it...and it must not have rated a favorite.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Meanwhile:
Fast on the heels of the Cinerama Dome re-do for the Arclight come, indeed, first shots of Leo and Pitt in 1969 attire for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Pitt(as a stuntman) is in a tight blue denim outfit that would probably work today. Leo(as a TV actor) is "trapped in the times" -- with that very specific yellow-orange that took 1968-1971 by storm, and disappeared. And a turtleneck. And beads -- or a pendant.
I wonder -- looking at the two of them -- if Leo isn't supposed to be kind of a butt of a joke -- an "overly dressed" TV thespian who is out-machoed by his stunt man. Leo and Pitt might be a kind of comedy duo...the stuntman humoring his vain meal ticket. "It's just a guess."
And this: QT may be promoting Pitt and Leo as the new Butch and Sundance, but Leo has ALWAYS had less-than-perfect movie star looks. The perfect boyish beauty of Leo in "Titanic" has given way to a rather "pumpkin head" shaped head, and somewhat stretched face upon it. Odd: he's still pretty thin, its just his head that ballooned out.
No matter. Leo's a top earning superstar who became famous for all time by Titanic(his performance makes it work for me); got made by Scorsese, got given street cred by QT(as a VILLAIN in Django)...and won a deserved Oscar for roughing it real bad in The Revenant. He's hilarious in The Wolf of Wall Street -- even though I think he looks, acts and even SOUNDS like Young Ray Liotta circa GoodFellas a lot in that movie.
Meanwhile, Pitt's got the looks -- and as with Newman and Redford and Grant -- he just gets better looking. Leo's got courage just standing next to him -- though, in real life, I think Leo gets a lot more ladies because he's on the market so much.
Anyway, they sure are getting the photos out for a movie that will open over a year from now. How will they parcel them out for a year?
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Which reminds me.
Yeah, this is a Frenzy story but...it was all I had in the 70's from Hitchcock other than Family Plot...and I clung to both of them in production.
Anyway, when Frenzy went into production in the summer of 1971, Time and a few other publications publicized it EXCLUSIVELY with shots of Hitchcock -- in Covent Garden, with his dummy head on his lap, etc. No shots whatsoever went out of Hitchcock with his cast, or of scenes from the movie.
Frenzy completed production in the fall of 1971, and news went dark until about June of 1972 in the US. The first thing I saw was a review of Frenzy in Life("The Return of Alfred the Great") that had as a photo from Frenzy -- Hitchcock. In a bowler hat.
About a week later, Newsweek put out its rave review(Return of the Master) and though there was an interview shot of Hitchcock, next to it was the very first photo I ever saw from Frenzy: Barbara Leigh Hunt's dead face -- tongue dripping down, eyes bugged, tie round the neck. I found it bizarre -- was this meant to be funny? Or horrific? Or a little of both? Anyway, finally -- after a year's wait, a photo from Frenzy.
About a week LATER, Time put out its rave review(Still the Master) and again, a photo of Hitchcock being interviewed and now -- finally -- a shot of Bob Rusk. In Covent Garden disguise with the wheelbarrow full of potatoes.
I was now satisfied. One photo of a victim. One photo of the killer. I had SOMETHING to work with.
But photos from Frenzy were sparing that summer of 1972. Its as if Hitchcock and Co. knew the film had no stars in it, and wanted to keep the cast low profile.
---
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Three years later in the spring of 1975, Family Plot was announced(as Deceit for a few weeks) and...soon photos were plenty available. Universal put a fold-out in color in Variety. A film magazine had quite a few shots in the fall. I was able to "make" Bruce Dern in his cabbie's cap; William Devane with his moustache, and the lovely ladies.
Still, for all those shots FROM Family Plot...the main trade in photos was of...you guessed it -- the star of the movie. Alfred Hitchcock.
It remains a fond memory of the seventies that even as bigger movies from younger filmmakers were all over the decade, from The Godfather to The Exorcist to Jaws to Star Wars -- when Hitchcock came out of hiding to make a movie, he got COVERED. Not nearly honored enough in his fifties/sixties heyday as a great film artist...he was honored like hell as such in the 70's.
Better late than never.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
he was honored like hell as such in the 70's.
I think that this honoring was driven by his earlier full embrace by the French critics, which leads to Hitchcock/Truffaut, which leads to Cavett interviews of extreme length, and so on. And pre-VHS, so right up to about 1980, the Anobile photo-book made Psycho the *one* movie that a relatively wide audience could know absolutely by heart and in forensic detail. These materials - in literally almost every library - became Film School 101 (or pre-101) for buffs everywhere for a couple of generations.
And as we've discussed before, this period of Hitch veneration came with the twist that massive films like Rear Window and Vertigo were out of circulation and almost impossible for most people to see. When VHS arrives big time (potentially, as it were, leveling the playing field between Hitch and the rest) the twist further meant that there was such pent up demand for the out-of-circ Hitchcocks that Hitchcock Collection VHS tapes anchored 'classic films' sections of almost all video stores in the world for the next 15 years! So Hitch's preeminence continued.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
he was honored like hell as such in the 70s.
---
I think that this honoring was driven by his earlier full embrace by the French critics, which leads to Hitchcock/Truffaut, which leads to Cavett interviews of extreme length, and so on.
---
Yes. It remains an irony of Hitchcock/Truffaut that it turned up (in first edition) around the time that Torn Curtain did -- just as Hitchcock was faltering(and he had enemies to go with his champions -- enemies ready to pounce on Marnie, Torn Curtain, and Topaz as films of decline and proof that he wasn't THAT great.)
But in America, in the late sixties, the GOOD ones started turning up on TV(Rear Window, Vertigo, NXNW) and Hitchcock/Truffaut looked on point.
Recall that the full episode Dick Cavett Hitchcock show accompanied his promotion of Frenzy -- the comeback raves for THAT film allowed Cavett and others to bring a Happy Hitchocck on the stage -- beaming with pride on his new return to relevance.
---
And pre-VHS, so right up to about 1980, the Anobile photo-book made Psycho the *one* movie that a relatively wide audience could know absolutely by heart and in forensic detail.
---
Oh, yeah. I"ve written elsewhere of how jazzed I was when the North by Northwest screenplay was published in 1972(with a few pages of promotional stills as "visuals.")
I went NUTS when that Anobile Psycho book came out. Recall -- this movie had been kept from me, withheld from me, for YEARS. Now I could look at its every nook and cranny to my heart's desire. And I could study Hitchcock's techniques.
---
These materials - in literally almost every library - became Film School 101 (or pre-101) for buffs everywhere for a couple of generations.
--
Yep. And again -- The Top of the Class made it to Hollywood and became successful filmmakers(DePalma, Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola). And the rest of us? Well, I think we were at least gifted with a lifelong Love of Movies.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
And as we've discussed before,
---
And can again!
---
this period of Hitch veneration came with the twist that massive films like Rear Window and Vertigo were out of circulation and almost impossible for most people to see.
---
And mainly by Hitchcock's own doing. He owned The Trouble With Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo outright. I think Rear Window got sidelined in ownership lawsuits during those years -- Universal bought it to get it back in the group. Rope? Well, it was kept away too -- Hitchcock owned it?
Hitchcock cleverly planned to be a big star EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. He told the press the films would be re-released as "an Alfred Hitchcock film festival," ostensibly to help his family, but who was he kidding -- they were RICH. I think he wanted to be a hot new director AFTER his death.
And it worked. With Rear Window and Vertigo, at least.
---
When VHS arrives big time (potentially, as it were, leveling the playing field between Hitch and the rest)
---
A good point
---
the twist further meant that there was such pent up demand for the out-of-circ Hitchcocks that Hitchcock Collection VHS tapes anchored 'classic films' sections of almost all video stores in the world for the next 15 years! So Hitch's preeminence continued.
---
I remember being in Vegas about 1985 or so and finding an entire display of Hitchcock VHS's in a casino store -- with a full-size cut-out of Hitchcock. He'd been dead five years. Hotter than ever.
And recall how the five missing Hitchcock movies FIRST came out in art houses , one by one over about 9 months: Rear Window in the fall of '83, Vertigo at Christmas Time '83(I saw it on Xmas Day as a treat to myself); and then the other three from February through May 1984. And THEN to VHS. And I think Rear Window made big bucks in theaters first.
---
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
And it kept going. Hitchocck movies on American Movie Classics. Hitchcock movies on Turner Classic Movies. Hitchcock movies on DVD. Hitchcock movies on Blu-Ray.
Hitchcock movies streaming....
I think his post-death career is already longer than his career when he was alive.
reply
share
SavageBeauty (61)
6 years ago
Did you see the first photo of Pitt and DiCaprio in character? Pumpkin head is trying to look very cool.
https://deadline.com/2018/06/leonardo-dicaprio-brad-pitt-quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-first-picture-1202418039/
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Did you see the first photo of Pitt and DiCaprio in character?
--
Indeed, I did. I posted some comments higher up in this thread -- but I find that my comments oftimes end up all over the place if I don't "reply" to the right post. My apologies.
---
Pumpkin head is trying to look very cool.
---
I think I use that very phrase ("pumpkin head") in my post -- which I've read in other places and which is certainly borne out by Leo's look(that and how his facial features seem to "stretch out around the pumpkin.")
Making some fun of facial features of regular people is mean and shouldn't be done, but Leo's rich and famous, with Leo I think what's amazing is that he got this less-than-perfect adult face after looking so adorable in Titanic -- and he OVERCAME the issue with his features. Mainly by acting -- the things he does with his VOICE in Django Unchained(a Southern accent) and Wolf of Wall Street(a New York accent)...allow him to distract attention away from his face....which is handsome ENOUGH.
Still, by standing side by side with Brad Pitt, Leo takes a bit of a chance of comparsion. This also happened in the scene in Wolf of Wall Street where Leo is questioned on his yacht by the FBI man played by the Very Handsome Kyle Chandler. Leo wins the scene against Chandler(who is very good, very funny) by means of his established superstardom(thank you, Titanic and Scorsese) and his acting.
reply
share
swanstep (2616)
6 years ago
though, in real life, I think Leo gets a lot more ladies because he's on the market so much
My sense is that quite a few women are a bit grossed out by the exact, arrested development *way* in which Leo is always on the prowl: only the blandest 20-22 year old underwear models need apply! And, look, every micro-generation of models has its interesting characters and surprising smarties (who often find it relatively easy to jump to acting) but Leo *never* dates any of those. No, it seems that Leo likes the dumb and disposable ones.
Pitt just looks like a much more well-adjusted guy, i.e., even setting aside looks.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
My sense is that quite a few women are a bit grossed out by the exact, arrested development *way* in which Leo is always on the prowl:
---
It is starting to look rather sleazy and immature...even for a multi-millionaire movie star. (Leo keeps getting roles in the hottest of movies, so he keeps getting to BE a superstar.)
---
only the blandest 20-22 year old underwear models need apply! And, look, every micro-generation of models has its interesting characters and surprising smarties (who often find it relatively easy to jump to acting) but Leo *never* dates any of those. No, it seems that Leo likes the dumb and disposable ones.
---
This remains the "flip side" of the Me Too harassment controversies out there, and very much "inside Hollywood." Simply put: for all the young women who have been subjected to harassment in Hollywood, there will always remain a group of young hotties who come to Hollywood in order to BE harassed..that is to be the playmates and playthings of the rich stars. In rock, the term is: groupies.
---
Pitt just looks like a much more well-adjusted guy, i.e., even setting aside looks.
---
I think Pitt had a more "normal" Mid-Western upbringing in a suburban home, Leo more of a child actor's transience(though Pitt started in teen roles, I think.) Pitt demonstrably took on fatherhood with Angelina Jolie, I don't think Leo has gone there.
That said, we don't REALLY know how these guys think or comport themselves.
But this: In the movie "Molly's Game" about a woman who ran a high-stakes poker game in Hollywood, there is a monstrous young actor(he likes to "destroy people's lives for fun"), based, we are told on Tobey McGuire.
I've read since then that Tobey was a best "posse pal" of Leo's and that Leo in certain ways is just as monstrous.
But all we get is the public image.
reply
share
movieghoul (213)
6 years ago
ecarle, so you did get to see the last 2 films in 3 projector Cinerama. WHich were also the first 2 Cinerama films to play in general release on a flat screen after their Cinerama runs.
Starting with Mad, Mad world, they dispensed with the 3 projector system largely because audiences at non-Cinerama showings found the breaks in the film annoying. I recall people who saw Mad, Mad World early commenting that they had finally fixed this annoyance, but actually all they did was employ a Super Panavision camera to fill that big screen with a single image.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
ecarle, so you did get to see the last 2 films in 3 projector Cinerama. WHich were also the first 2 Cinerama films to play in general release on a flat screen after their Cinerama runs.
---
I guess so...if you are talking about The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm(which I saw at the Warner Theater on Hollywood Blvd in 1962) and How the West Was Won(which I saw at the Warner Theater on Hollywood Blvd in 1963.) I have in my collection the book we bought at HTWWW -- it had a drawing of the three screens and three cameras -- capturing a buffalo stampede.
HTWW had a big cycle of release and re-release -- I saw it again in 1970 with the three screens "all stitched together" so that things like the buffalo stampede and the final runaway train "rode crookedly across the stiches" -- the images were terrible when moving objects crossed each screen border.
I would add that, while in 1970 I was old enough to "spot the stiches" and the three screens mushed together -- I have no memory of how the three screens projected back in 1962 and 1963 -- I just remember a big, big, screen!
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
6 years ago
Starting with Mad, Mad world, they dispensed with the 3 projector system largely because audiences at non-Cinerama showings found the breaks in the film annoying. I recall people who saw Mad, Mad World early commenting that they had finally fixed this annoyance, but actually all they did was employ a Super Panavision camera to fill that big screen with a single image.
---
Yes. I think the "Cinerama" name went on a few movies like that.
Of course, Mad Mad World was the inaugural attraction of the newly-built Cinerama Dome, so it HAD to be promoted as a Cinerama film.
In fact: I lived in LA in most of the sixties, and I recall LA neighborhood theaters in 1962 or 63 had a commercial that would be shown in your regular theater: "COMING SOON in downtown Hollywood: the Cinerama Dome! With its opening attraction Its a Mad, Mad, Mad Mad World!" A poster by Mad Magazine artist Jack Davis, of all the IMMMW characters filled the screen and the camera would jump from Berle to Silvers to Winters, etc.
I never saw Mad Mad World at the Cinerama Dome. I saw it on second run at a neighborhood theater(and loved it -- the final cliffhanger fly-through-the-air stuff, along with the great score, had me somewhere between exhilaration and tears -- one of my Top Ten movie going experiences.)
My first Cinerama Dome movie was Khartoum of 1966 , with Chuck Heston and Laurence Olivier. Pretty violent movie as I recall. They called that one Cinerama, too -- but it wasn't, was it?
reply
share