MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff > Replies
FilmBuff's Replies
Kurosawa's Throne of Blood is one of my favorite adaptations of Shakespeare. I don't care that the actors are Japanese and not Scottish anymore than I care if they adapt Romeo and Juliet to an interracial couple.
The aspects of the story you are focusing on are immaterial. The story is about star-crossed lovers, kept apart, trying to be together, and meeting an unfortunate end. Their race is irrelevant. If you want to stage a historically accurate version of the tale set in Renaissance Italy, go for it. Cast all Italian actors. Maybe even translate it into Italian. Shakespeare most certainly presented it with all English actors, despite the likelihood of two prominent families in Renaissance Verona being all Englishmen was less than the chances of winning the lottery ten times in a row.
You are fixated on race, but the story is not about race. It can be told in any setting, featuring people of any skin color.
I'd cast Seth MacFarlane in Rex Harrison's role.
Do you think Butch did it in the bar lot? That wouldn't be very smart, as it would, as you said, be obvious who did it. More likely he either waited and followed Vince and did it, or happened upon his car on other occasion.
The clear implication in the film is that Butch did it. When and how is up to the viewer, but even upon my first viewing I wondered if it wasn't the boxer who keyed the car.
That's what I wrote. By new car I meant new in the parking lot since Butch got there, not that it was a new car. It was a classic car. But it's also unclear whether or not the two have met. Vince clearly recognizes Butch as a boxer, and it's very possible that this isn't his first time meeting with Marsellus about the fight.
Also, a classic car like Vince's stands out, and it's probably common knowledge to everyone that it belongs to him. And, when Butch got there, there were probably just two cars there-- the bartender's and Marsellus', so the new car would have to be Vince's.
There is no racism here. There is a long-- and I mean centuries long-- tradition of works being adapted from one culture to another. That's how art works. In fact, Romeo and Juliet itself is based on much older Roman works, which themselves almost certainly pulled from even older works. Besides that, the characters' races are of no consequence to the story. While you may prefer seeing a white person in a given role, unless race is pivotal to that character or the story, it's fair game for change. After all, this is at the heart of what acting is: pretending to be someone else.
Some final food for thought: when Shakespeare's plays were originally performed it was common, almost the norm, for men to portray women, so a truly authentic Juliet would be played be a man. Would you be happier about that?
I was going to say... Ariana is great. In some ways prefer her to Taylor Swift, but she'll never come close to achieving the popularity of Swift. Like it or not, Taylor Swift has achieved that once-in-a-generation level of fame formerly enjoyed by the likes of Michael Jackon, The Beatles, Bing Crosby, and a select few others.
I took it for granted that all college towns had something like that, but I know now how spoiled I was. Factor in all the theaters in nearby San Francisco, and you have a film-lover's paradise probably only surpassed by Los Angeles.
Guilty of what? I get the sense that you simply want him to be found guilty of something because you dislike him.
My view as to someone's criminality is based on the evidence, not the outcome of a trial. I think we all know O.J. was guilty, despite the not guilty verdict.
We're still a part of the U.S. I think in some perfect world things would be, well, perfect, but I accept that the world we live in is reality. Of course there are going to be corrupt politicians in charge, of course the media will report what they are told to report, of course the billionaires who run things will find more ways to keep everyone down so they can stay on top. That's the sad tradeoff of humanity. Rather than complain about it, or punish myself in a useless attempt to punish those in power, I accept it and find ways to enjoy life despite those things. And sure, one of those ways is to live in a state like Texas, where we have greater freedoms, but even when I lived in California I wasn't worrying about things outside of my control. You get one life. My belief is that you should enjoy it to the fullest, and I don't find joy in boycotting things I like.
What sort of pickle are we in today?
I don't see it that way at all. Anheuser-Busch is still making a fortune, even if one of their many brands took a tiny, temporary hit. Not to mention how different it is to switch from Bud Light to Coors Light, beers which are more or less indistinguishable from one another, and to stop going to the movies.
You gotta do you, and if you feel better about yourself for foregoing the pleasure of cinema-going, so be it. I enjoy going to the movies more than pretty much any other pastime, and I'm not going to abandon that simply to make a political statement.
Were you there back then as well?
I reckon that kind of thing can happen anywhere, but it certainly isn't the norm.
I'm seeing Dawn of the Dead tomorrow night. I've seen it on DVD so I know what to expect, but I imagine it will far surpass my previous viewing for being seen on a big screen in a packed theater.
Cabrini is the one film you've seen that I've not that is on my must-see list. It's encouraging to know that you think it's as good as anything else you've seen so far this year.
I would not describe Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as a film dedicated to worshipping '70s Hollywood by any stretch, and I'd say it's among the best films he's ever made. Many consider it his absolute best. It's certainly his most mature, and the film with the densest story and character development.
I also wouldn't say Death Proof taints his legacy at all. It's exactly what it wants to be-- one of the greatest car chase movies of all time. I think a film like Death Proof can be challenging to some because it's not a Great Film, even though it's a great film. It isn't setting out to be Citizen Kane. It's made in the mold of the exploitation films Tarantino grew up watching, and even the best exploitation films are at their core, mediocre films. A movie can't be an exploitation film if it isn't like that, because then it ceases to be one.
As an final thought, I don't know that Tarantino, or anyone, believes his films all to be perfect. The idea is that he's making his best work right now, and as he gets older his output will almost certainly become uneven. If you dislike some, or all, of his existing films, that's your personal taste at work, but that's not the point. He wants to quit will he's still at the top of his game, even though some (perhaps you) think that the top of his game is not always all that great.
Of the 28 films I've seen so far in 2024, only 10 are new films. I watch a lot of older films. I'm always down to see something good from back in the day on a big screen.
Not too much overlap in ours; only 4 films that we've both seen.
Migration 1.5
American Fiction 4
Argylle 2
Madame Web 2.5
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire 3.5
Late Night With the Devil 4
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire 2.5
Lousy Carter 3.5
Immaculate 3.5
Kim’s Video 3.5
I don't think any of Scorsese's recent films have been among his finest, and both he, Eastwood, Spielberg, and others made some turkeys later in their career. I think that's Tarantino's point. He could make 20 films, and maybe 3 or 4 of the last 7 would be awesome, but there's be 6 of 7 lousy ones. He wants to shoot for 10 great films and call it quits.