What's the statement being made in this movie about the blowjob offer turned down by Cliff?
1-He's too cool for a skank like that one
2-He's really conscious about legal problems with the possibility she's underage
3-He's gay
4-He's a real man, thus doesn't need this sort of "favors" from easy trashy little girls
5-He's taking a stand against Polanski's depravity/weakness and his statutory rape
EDIT:
I forgot to add, 6-He thinks she's not gonna be good at it
6) He is showing moral character.
This used to be the default reason for the hero, but people have trouble seeing it nowadays.
Wouldn't that be my 4? He's a real man?
He doesn't strike me as Plato, applying his moral logic.
No but he was kind of a throwback type of hero, devoted to his dog, quite, good moral center.
Sightly overkill near the end but a verylikable character none the less.
His #4 actually nails it. The movie tried extra hard to show Cliff as a "real man." He refused an underage BJ. He beat Bruce Lee in a fist fight. He made extra sure an old acquaintance of his was doing okay at Spahn Ranch. And of course he totally destroyed crazed members of the Manson gang. The movie might as well have been called "This Is What Would've Happened If A Real Man Was Present."
shareAre you guys looking for a new daddy or something?
shareI'm not praising the movie for building Cliff as a real man type savior. I'm criticizing the movie for it.
shareI think the "real man" interpretation is clutching at very thin straws.
A real man:
- Is afraid of the law if he gets caught with a minor giving him a blowjob.
- Checks it out if he hears a bullshit sounding story about a bunch of weirdos living on an old movie friend's property
- Daydreams about having put Bruce Lee on his ass one time (to assuage the painful memory of being a pariah because of the perceived role he had in his wife's death)
- Is a stuntman who can handle himself.
Arguably, a real man could get a better job than as a gofer for a falling movie star.
The dog did most of the savior work anyway.
Its more about what Tarantino's perception of a real man is.
shareI know that's what you meant. I don't see how you can positively assume that this is his idea of a real man. Nothing in his movies is his perception of real anything. It's called "Once upon a time....." for a reason.
shareIf you ask me, Cliff is a real man, including being a gofer for his friend.
He doesn't say he's an accomplished man for that reason, but he accepts it as a failure of his official carreer. That's why, even in failure, he's a real man.
And I know what I'm talkin about, cuz I'm a real man.
I agree with you on you assessment of Cliff also. I feel like Cliff is the kind of man who was very common in that era of film. Film has changed today and we are led to believe otherwise but I would say “real men” are in the majority where I live.
shareIts obvious the movie was trying to portray Cliff as a man's man.
share"Man's man," "real man," it doesn't matter which term you prefer. Both are essentially the same thing and can exist in both reality and fiction. You're jumping over hurdles trying to say the movie didn't build Cliff up as a man's man, but really you're just embarrassing yourself.
shareNah. The people talking up the morality of the character and comparing his "real man" qualities with themselves are the ones embarrassing themselves.
shareMorality changes from person to person so you're likely to exhaust yourself trying to define it. Lets just say Cliff was content on abiding by society's rules. To some that could be morality, to others it might just be a legal issue. But the reality is Cliff was most likely in no danger of the law had he accepted her offer. So its very possible he refused because he wanted to uphold society's values, which again, anyone has the right to call moral since morality is hard to define.
share
Defining morality is precisely what people are trying to do in this thread.
to be fair, the fight with Bruce Lee didn't conclude. It was tied at 1-1 when the boss made them stop. And Lee had agreed on no head shots, to keep from inadvertently killing Cliff.
shareNah, it wasn't really tied.... Cliff managed to gut check Lee, while Lee didn't get ONE uncontested shot in on Cliff other than the freebie.
Tarantino was basically BS'ing by saying that if Cliff tried, one of the guys considered to be the fastest strikers of the time by WORLD CLASS CHAMPION martial artists, including Chuck Norris, "Judo" Gene Lebell, and Joe Lewis (to name a few), Cliff couldn't be touched.
It was pretty obvious the conclusion of the fight saw Cliff win since Bruce, at no point in the exchange, pressed Cliff. Cliff was the aggressor, and "controlled the zone", so to speak. If it were a UFC or boxing match, Cliff would have won on points due to controlling the fight and "pressing the action".
But the character expressly deals with the legality of the issue. Not the morality. Unless we are to assume that legality and morality are always one and the same thing. Which is problematic when you consider that legal age of consent is different from state to state.
The discussion actually highlights that he was willing, provided she could provide something to convince him that she was older than he thinks she looks. Thereby indemnifying him from legal consequence.
Just because he asked doesn't necesarily mean that he was willing. A blunt "You are too young" would have killed the rappor.
Cliff was smart enough to know that a free spirit like her probably does not have ID on her. The way he responded to her advance showed considerable social skills, acknowledging her sexuality, not making her feel bad for asking and further more giving a good reason to turn her down. Not many people could have threaded the needle as well.
The rapport building was clearly based on sexual attraction to her. Having social skills isn't an indicator of his morality either.
I don't think he was concerned about her free spiritedness. If his morality is his defining characteristic, and the reason he'd be so conscientious of not leading her into immoral purposes, then her free spiritedness would more likely be something he'd disapprove of
Rather than entertain in a pragmatic fashion that keeps HIM out of trouble.
Plus he also reveals that his prior dealings with justice are the deciding factor in him not taking the risk. If morality was his motivated here, he would have said so instead of explaining that he can't afford to get busted again.
So Martoto what do you think the scene is doing in the movie?
I agree with your take, and I think it's here because of Polanski (like, this is how he should have operated, even if he wanted to have sex with an eager drunk girl).
Pitt contemplates picking up and attractive and coquettish young girl. Thinks better of it because he has criminal record that would get him into a lot of hot water if caught. The girl claiming to live at Spahn's ranch intrigues him as the hippy shit doesn't fit with old hollywood.
I guess it deals with hypocrisy, in a way.
I believe you are taking it all too literally, and not looking beneath the surface. In a work of art, it's common to include something alludes to or references something else, and things can have more than one meaning or message.
shareI just don't believe it's a subliminal reference to an ideal of a "real" man. Tarantino's movies are mostly about other movie and broader ideas than a specific type of "real" If it's about any man it's about an imaginary man.
shareHis films are about a lot more than other movies, but let's just go with that.
What does Booth represent? I think it's the mythical cowboy archetype. He's portrayed as existing in the real world, but he's written as someone who only exists on film. He's the character someone like John Wayne would play. His response to her offer is what we expect from a hero.
What else does Booth represent? The last of his kind. Hollywood was changing, and the hippies were taking over. Parts that used to go to Dalton and Booth now go to long-haired, hippie types. In this scene, we're seeing stoic Old Hollywood repudiate amoral New Hollywood.
What else film-related is in the subtext? The film hovers around Tate and her fate, and we see Polanski, too. Moreover, we're shown Polanski and his entourage as representing the New Hollywood. What is Polanski most famous for today? Sex with a minor. Sex that was consensual, but illegal. So again, we see our stand-in for old Hollywood showing the resolve and morality that our stand-in for New Hollywood later would not show.
And that's *just* the film-related overtones in that scene...
Yeah. I don't think it extends to the "real man" that people are imposing on it.
The notion that old Hollywood represents morality is ludicrous. To suggest that it does, in comparison to the new hollywood represtenting immorality, is the hyporcisy I was referring to.
Old Hollywood is Jack Woltz in The Godfather.
I definitely think Tarantino is making a statement about masculinity with this film, and he's giving us two sides of what makes up a man with Booth and Dalton. I refuse to believe that he accidentally included an overt reference to the behavior of a chivalrous man in a scene where the character he has set up to define classic chivalry behaves chivalrously. Maybe I'm smarter than Tarantino, and he accidentally did it without noticing and I'm so brilliant as to pick up on it, but in truth, I'm not. He put that scene in there for a reason, and it fits with the overarching message of the film.
shareBut he's not chivalrous. He's pragmatic. He doesn't want to go to jail.
shareAre you a fan of Steve McQueen? I am and he is and important key to understanding the character of Cliff.
I have seen most of McQueen's movies, the Cliff character comes across as most Mcqueen-like.
One of McQueen's more underrated movies was Papillon. A key scene in the movie, McQueen's character does not give the name of the person that was sending him coconuts while in solitary confinement. The guards find out and put him on half rations for the remainder of his stay, almost killing him. After he gets out the the person giving him the coconuts(played by Dustin Hoffman) gave Papillon a great compliment which goes as follows; "Someone once said 'Temptation resisted is the true measure of man'".
THAT is why this is put in, to show the measure of the man.
I am around Brad Pitts age, a few years younger perhaps but I can comprehend his point of view better than a 20 or 30 something.
Time is passing, the look he gives her is not just sexual, but a look that admires youthfulness in it's whole( free spirtiness, creativity, learning new things etc). A look that sort of envys in a good way all the experiences ahead of her.
If you are a poster under 40, it would be hard for you to understand this look.
Being the same age as the actor does not necessarily meam that the character they are playing shares the same attitudes or morals as you. The age of the character does not dictate their attitudes or morals anyway.
It#s estabished that he doesn't like hippies. So he's not building a rapport with an underage girl because of her lifestyle. He was sexually attracted to her but admitted that his criminal record prevents him from taking chance with her. He only hangs around with her because she claims to be living on the property of an old friend of his. This situation intrigued him.
It bears no comparison with Steve McQueen in Papillion.
You are clutching at straws here. And choosing a weird way to virtue signal.
Excellent post - agreed 100%!
shareSo Redsfan001 what do you think the scene is doing in the movie?
shareSimply put, to show that Cliff can resist temptation.
As I said in a earlier post, the key to understanding the character of Cliff is Steve McQueen.
Cliff carries himself with the cool self confidence of a Steve McQueen character, not in a boastful way that is common in today's heros.
If you have seen most of McQueens movies, you would know that his character would never accept an underage blowjob let alone while driving.
It also as you suggest, might be a slight dig on Polanski.
This
shareI also believe he had no moral issue with her age, he simply didn't want to deal with the legal ramifications.
shareGreat answer.
shareHe's a 'moral character', who kills his wife in cold blood...
Yeah, what a 'hero'... 🙄🤦♂️
Eschews one form of misogyny, but displays another...Great...
You have to watch the boat/wife bitching/harpoon holding scene again. QT deliberately crafted it so the viewer wouldn't know if he killed her or if it was an accidental discharge.
Yeah, so it's *highly* possible that it was intentional.
Tarantino implies that she's such a 'bitch', she 'deserved' it.
Tarantino as gifted as he may be, is a misogynist who views women as part of some sort of Madonna/Whore paradigm with blonde, blue-eyed, conventionally pretty, WASP woman (how ironic for a man who supposedly stands up for *minorities* like Jews and Black people), Sharon Tate, positioned as the ultimate 'pure' woman. 🙄🤦♂️ What a silly simp.
And judging by the way Cliff gleefully beats the shit out of the 'evil' hippy women (you know, those 'dirty' ethnic and mentally ill women from broken homes; not the pure, unsullied, lovely woman of 'virtue' like blonde angel, Sharon), it's quite clear to me that Cliff has VERY misogynist tendencies, which Tarantino approves of.
The fact that Cliff supposedly bests Bruce Lee in a fight (so much for Tarantino's 'woke' credentials when it comes to minorities...), already makes me hate the whole concept of this character, which ludicrously won Brad Pitt an Oscar (just as well for him he won when he did, despite this being one of his weakest performances, since this was the last Academy Awards Ceremony prior to the Angelina Jolie DV allegation...Johnny Depp has not been so lucky...)
The film is in Hollywood history now, no sense bitching about it.
There's nothing practical I can do, but by challenging the narrative, I can hopefully make viewers consider the toxic messages Tarantino is sending with this film.
It's ironic that he's now apparently making a film about/featuring a Pauline Kael type character, because as a big fan of her writings as a critic, I doubt she'd have had much time for the naive and simplistic narrative that Tarantino presents in OUATIH. Kael never simped. She was interested in complex narratives that challenged conventional dullard wisdom, and I suspect she'd have called out the underlying simping and misogyny displayed in this movie.
First of all he is a lonely man. He starts to flirt with the girl hoping that she cheers him up. But he has been long enough in the Hollywood business with its sexual exploitation and exchange of sexual favours for something else to be disappointed that things ended that way. That's also why he gets suspicious about the Manson gang and the things going on at Spahn Ranch. By meeting Spahn he is reassured that everyone there is doing business in good old Holywood style and it even comforts him that the world hasn't change so much.
shareI wouldn’t go quite that far. Certainly, he was happy Spahn was alive as he seemed to believe there was foul play but he was still disappointed they were taking advantage of him.
shareHe said he didn’t want to do it because it was illegal.
shareOk that's what Cliff SAID, doesn't mean it's what he thought, nor what the scene stands for in the movie. Why is the scene in the movie, you think?
shareCliff doesn’t strike me as the sort of guy who hides anything. He would probably be okay with it if she wasn’t underage.
As to why the scene is in here, it’s Tarantino. He likes these sort of scenes.
Cliff didn't like the situation, so he backed out without falling for what could become a problem in his future.
I think this happens in this movie not because Tarantino likes it: I think Tarantino meant it as a clear reference to Polanski and his choices in a very similar situation, showing what a real man would have done in his shoes.
I think, considering the metoo bs, Polanski criminal status and the topic of this movie, Tarantino felt he had to take a stance on this matter, and he does so with this scene specifically.
"I think, considering the metoo bs, Polanski criminal status and the topic of this movie, Tarantino felt he had to take a stance on this matter, and he does so with this scene specifically."
Absolutely. If this movie had been made 10 or 20 years ago, Tarantino would have had no qualms about having Cliff get down with the hippie chicks. If he had showed that now, he would have been crucified.
it shows a lot
-adds to the setting.the hippy love culture at the time
-cliff morals. or at least hes a smart guy who will investigate (which we see at the ranch) and as he said is keen to avoid jail
Probably 2 and 5.
shareI thought he quite obviously said something about not going to jail "for poon"
so most likely #2 with a side of #4
My take on the scene is that it served a couple purposes. It is an overt, obvious reference to Polanski and the "New Hollywood." Realistically, while the '70s are seen as the era of depravity and debauchery, the same sort of thing no doubt happened in Hollywood from the dawn of the film industry. However, the behavior became more open and shameless in the '70s, and Polanski is the poster child for that behavior. I think the scene is a nod to that notion. That the guys from old Hollywood would say no, but the new guys would say yes.
It also gives insight into Booth. He is the John Wayne cowboy archetype, and he lives his life by a code. He doesn't have sex with underage women. It's part morality, and part self-preservation. He says something to the effect of "prison has been trying to get me since I was a kid," and he has been smart enough to stay free.
That said, I feel Booth isn't meant to be a real person so much as he's meant to be a character type. He represents the kind of hero we saw on screen in the '50s, in opposition to the kinds of heroes we began to see in the late '60s, and would see much more of in the '70s. He's Will Kane, he's Shane, he's any of the characters played by Wayne. We see him do the things in his day-to-day life that Cooper, Wayne, Ladd, and so on only did onscreen. I think the Bruce Lee scene is similar-- we're being told that Booth isn't so much a real person as he is a film character come to life in this once upon a time tale.
Nice
shareKind of an adolescent question.
shareWhy?
shareAdolescents generally find it impossible to fathom how a straight male could possibly resist the offer of sex from a hot underage chippy. They think there has to be some complex process and diagram to explain it. When sometimes it's as simple as "not worth the risk" or "has morals."
shareSo, how exactly is my question adolescent, considering it contained boh your simple answers?
shareThe fact that you even ponder it as a question and then actually take the time and effort to lay out the diagram and ask it. As opposed to not spending the least amount of time thinking about it because it's nothing. It contained both sensible answers and a bunch of silly bullshit.
shareMy question is clearly too mature, if anything, for people that have to take dead seriously everything in life. Who usually are the ones who are bothered to think about stuff like this and are irked just by asking.
shareThe reason people would be irked is that the answer is laid out for all to see. This isn’t some grand mustery in the film. It’s a bit alarming you can’t fathom why a guy would pass up a blowjob from an underage girl.
share