Category Archives: Little Bits of Movies Main Menu

Was There A Real Killer In The Exorcist?

I love The Exorcist, it’s my favourite horror flick. I’m such a fan that this is the second article on the film in my bumper, multi-article Halloween celebration for this year. The first one covered the very fictional ‘curse’ the film is said to have, but for this article, I want to cover a real life horror within the greatest horror film ever made.

Released in 1973, The Exorcist is a masterclass on how to make the perfect horror film. Directed by William Friedkin and adapted for the screen by William Peter Blatty from his novel of the same name. The film tells the story of 12 year old Regan (Linda Blair) and her actress mother, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) who are living on location in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. while Chris works on her new film. After using a Ouija board, Regan begins to act strangely. Long story short, it turns out that 12 year old Regan has been possessed by a demon claiming to be the Devil himself. Better call in The Exorcist.

The Exotcist Gif.gif

Anyway there is a scene in the film where Regan is taken to hospital to have various tests as doctors try to work out why she’s been acting so strange (before the revelation that she’s possessed by a demon is made). One of the hospital workers was played by real life radiographer, Paul Bateson who also worked as a medical adviser for the film too. In fact, the particular scene where Regan has an arteriogram (an arterial catheter inserted into her neck) in which Paul appears is often praised by medical professionals for it’s attention to detail and realism. So he did a damn fine job…

The Exotcist Paul Bateson.jpg

Yup, that’s Paul in The Exorcist right there. However, in 1979, six years after the release of the film. Paul Bateson was arrested and convicted of murder.

It was the 14th of September, 1977 when film critic Addison Verrill was found dead in his New York apartment. Addison had been severely beaten and stabbed. There was no evidence of forced entry, which lead the police to believe that Addison knew his killer. An appeal was launched to find the person resposible and that all eventually lead to the arrest of Paul Bateson. After being questioned, Paul confessed to the murder and gave details of the crime that no one else would’ve known about except the investigating police. Paul told how he and Addison met at a gay nightclub, went back to Addison’s apartment, had drinks and cocaine followed by consensual sex. Paul then said that he hit Addison with a skillet incapacitating him before stabbing his victim in the chest. Paul said he then stole money, a credit card and clothing before fleeing the scene. All details that police had not yet made public.

At the time of Paul Bateson’s arrest, trial and conviction, police were investigating a series of other murders in the gay community over the previous two years before the Addison Verrill murder. A total of six bodies were found… or at least what was left of them. The dismembered and decomposed body parts were discovered in plastic bags and dumped in the Hudson River, New York. None of the bodies were officially identified due to the decomposition and dismemberment. No one was ever convicted of the murders either.

The Exotcist Paul Bateson 2.jpg

After his conviction in the late 70s, director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin visited Paul Bateson an interviewed him for a new film he was making. Based on Gerald Walker’s 1970 novel Cruising, a novel about a police officer going undercover in the gay community to find a serial killer. The film was released in 1980 starring Al Pacino and William Friedkin even worked in elements of Paul Bateson’s life and the murder of Addison Verrill into the movie. Anyway, during William’s chat with the incarcerated Paul, he said the police offered him a deal of a reduced sentence if he confessed to the other murders.

It’s not known if Paul actually did commit the other murders or not, but it is strongly believed by many that he did, mainly as the plastic bags used to hold the body parts found in the Hudson River all had tags on them indicating they came from NYU Medical Center… which was where Paul Bateson worked at the time of the killings. But there was never any concrete evidence to officially link him to the murders and no one had ever been convicted of them either.

Paul Bateson was sentenced to twenty five years for the murder of Addison Verrill, of which he served twenty four years and three months before being released in 2003 aged 63. As of writing, it’s not known what happened to Paul. It’s not known where he is or if he’s even still alive, but it had been rumoured he is still alive and living somewhere in upstate New York.

The Netflix true crime show, Mindhunter featured the Paul Bateson story in it’s second season (episode six) earlier this year, where Paul was played by Morgan Kelly.

Paul Bateson Mindhunter.jpg

So yeah, there was a real life killer in the scariest horror film ever made.

Murder of Addison Verrill.jpg

Next up is the finale of my Halloween celebration this year, a two part look at a recently resurrected horror movie franchise that spans almost forty years…

The Exorcist Curse?

As we get closer to the big day, another Halloween article from me. This time, I’m going to be looking at the (in)famous supposed ‘curse’ of The Exorcist. Now just for the record, I’ve done a few film curses articles over the years and I always start them the same way. So I’ll do the same here too…

I personally do not believe in curses. I believe in coincidence, misadventure and accidents. I don’t believe that anything I’m about to write is ‘factual’, that’s to say I don’t think any of the incidents covered here were down to a curse or the Devil, just a series of unfortunate accidents. And with that out of the way, let’s crack on with The Exorcist curse.

Do I need to recap what The Exorcist is about? Okay, just a quick one for context. The film is about Regan (Linda Blair), a 12 year old girl who get’s possessed by a demon claiming the be the Devil. So her mother calls in (the titular) The Exorcist to save her daughter from the ultimate evil. Basically the film is about good vs evil. It doesn’t set out to try and prove that either God or the Devil is real, just to show how good can beat evil. But all that being said, some believe that making a film about the Devil and trying to expose him is a very bad idea and that Beelzebub himself will try to intervene… hence this curse. Famed U.S. televangelist Billy Graham even went so far as to suggest the film was drenched in evil when he said: “There is a power of evil in the film, in the fabric of the film itself.”

The first known incident of The Exorcist came about early in the film’s shoot in 1972. The set used to film most of the scenes set in the home featured in the film caught fire and burned down. A bird had flown into a circuit box used to house the electrics of the set. This caused a small fire that quickly spread through the entire set and destroyed it… all of it except Regan’s room where the exorcism scenes take place. The incident set production back when it only just begun and ended up extending the shoot of the film to just under a year, but with post-production, the film took over 12 months to complete.

The Exotcist Bedroom.jpg

Regan’s mother, Chris is played by Ellen Burstyn in the film. There is a scene where Chris is hit by the possessed Regan and is slung across the room, slamming onto a hard wooden floor. In this scene, Ellen is actually badly hurt and that take is used in the final film too. She landed on her coccyx, the  screams of pain and look on her face during the scene are genuine. It caused a permanent spinal injury that still bothers Ellen to this day.

Two actors in the film, Jack MacGowran and Vasiliki Maliaros played characters who both die in the film. While the film was in post-production, both Jack and Vasiliki died in real life never to see their work on the big screen. Linda Blair’s grandfather also died while filming and The Exorcist himself Max Von Sydow’s bother also died during Max’s first day of the shoot. There was also a narrow escape with Jason Miller who played Father Damien Karras in the film. Jason’s young son was critically injured and almost died when he was hit by a speeding motorcycle. One of the cameramen working on the film became a father for the first time while the film was being shot, according to actress Ellen Burstyn, the baby died when it was only a few months old. Various statements say that a total of nine people died during the entire production of the film, both directly and indirectly linked to the production.

The Exotcist Cinema.jpg

In the documentary on the film called Fear of God, Jason Miller tells the story of how an elderly priest gave him a silver medal of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The priest told Jason that if anyone tries to do anything to uncover the Devil, that he will take retribution on those involved. The priest gave Jason the medal as a token of protection. A few days later and that same priest died after giving up his protective medal.

Like her on-screen mother, Linda Blair also suffered a back injury when the rigging broke on a piece of equipment that was holding her in place for one of the exorcism scenes. Also, after the film was released, Linda received numerous death threats from various religious nuts for being in the film as they believed she really was the Devil and she was only 13 years old at the time too. The threats got so severe that the production studio hired bodyguards to escort the teenager for six months until the furore died down.

Mercedes McCambridge, who provided the demonic voice for the film also suffered a terrible tragedy. In November, 1987, her son, John Markle murdered his two daughters, Amy, 13 and Suzanne, 9. He also murdered his wife, Christine, 45 before committing suicide all with the same gun.

The Exotcist Priests

During the film’s 1974 premiere in Rome (a deeply religious place what with it housing Vatican City and all that), a thunderstorm broke out. A torrential downpour of rain and spikes of lighting almost prevented people from attending the screening, including cast and crew. There was also a story that lighting from the storm struck an old church which caused a four hundred year old cross to fall from it’s steeple, close to the cinema where The Exorcist was being shown.

At the same screening, one viewer was so disturbed by what they saw on screen that they fainted. They fell forward and hit their face on the seat in front of him and braking their jaw. The injured person then went on the sue distributors of the film, Warner Brothers for causing the accident.

Finally, Journalist Judy Klemsrud reported in a 1974 article that: “Several people had heart attacks, a guard told me. One woman even had a miscarriage” as this archived article states. Though to be honest, I’ve not managed to find any solid proof of this other than the article.


The Exotcist Demon

So is The Exorcist cursed?
As I said at the beginning of this article (and other cursed film articles I’ve written), I don’t believe in any of it. The film suffered a long production, over a year in fact. So of course given a longer time frame, more incidents will occur. More will happen in the space of a year then say a day or a week for instance. People die, storms cause damage, crazy people send death threats, this kind of thing goes on each and every day. I’m sure that if these exact same incidents had happened in connection to a film that had nothing to do with the Devil, no one would’ve paid them as much attention, they would’ve just been put down to normal incidents, not a curse.

Besides, if the Devil himself really was trying to stop the production of the film… he didn’t do a very good job did he? All that power and evil and that’s the best he could muster? Why not just kill everyone directly involved in the film instead of a very small amount of people who were and an even smaller who were not? Why not destroy the main print of the film before it was duplicated and distributed so it could never be seen? Why are there not more and more incidents from the millions up on millions of people around the globe who have watched the film since it’s original release up to today? I’ve watched the film in it’s various cuts many times over the years (twice this week alone) and I’m okay… so far…

Shit happens and everything that has been connected to The Exorcist is just coincidental.

Now to finish, the original and banned (because it was too scary) trailer for The Exorcist

 

Coming up next, another The Exorcist article, but looking at something very, very real and horrific

Terminator 2: Plot Hole Day

So there’s a new Terminator film released today, here in the UK anyway, my U.S. cousins will have to wait until the 1st of November to see it… and I personally couldn’t be less interested. For me, the franchise was terminated a long time ago. I’ll watch it eventually I’m sure, but I’m in no hurry to get to the cinema to see the return of Arnie, Linda and Edward (who I guess will be killed off in the opening). The prospect of James Cameron back as producer hardly gets me excited, nor does the fact the new flick is a direct sequel to Terminator 2 that ignores the other films. Even the high praise the film is currently getting does not excite me. But a new Terminator film does give me an excuse to write an article.

T2 Thumb

Regular readers may know I enjoy looking at and attempting to cover film plot holes. I’ve done Die Hard as well as the whole Back to the Future trilogy of films. So I thought I’d do the same with T2. Now before I get into this, I need to quickly cover the rules, yes I have rules…

  1. So when looking at plot holes, I can only use the rules established in the universe in which the film(s) exist. I can’t make up my own rules/excuses to explain anything away.
  2. Novels, comic book adaptions and original shooting scripts are also out. Only what is seen on screen can be used for explanations.
  3. Deleted scenes can be a wildcard depending on why they were deleted. If a scene was removed against the director’s wishes due to producer interference (as an example), then I can consider using them. If a scene was removed for something as mundane as ‘time constraints’ then I can’t use them because if a director thinks a scene which explains plot points/character motivation is less important than time, why should I care about it? If a scene was in the original script, but not filmed… see rule 2 above.
  4. Fan theories are definitely a huge no. I’m a fan, I like to come up with my own interpretations of films as much as the next person… but I’m not involved in the making of the film.

Basically, if it’s not in the film(s), it can’t be used.

So those are the rules… and to be honest, they’ve put me in a rather tricky spot. See, when I do these plot hole articles and using my rules. The whole point is to cover the plot holes and explain why they are not plot holes… which I have done in the past. But what happens when the writing of a film is so bad, so full of errors that go against established rules that I just can’t cover them? Well, you get Terminator 2: Plot Hole Day

The TDE Problem

Nothing dead can use the Time Displacement Equipment (TDE). This is a rule explained and shown to be true in the first film, this is why both the T-800 and Kyle are sent back naked and why no future weapons can be sent either. The T-1000 in Terminator 2 is nothing but dead material, it can not use the TDE, it can not be sent to the past. None of the events of Terminator 2 can happen given established in-universe rules.

T2 T-1000 Arrival

Now some people claim that the T-1000 can mimic human flesh and that is why it can use the TDE, except it can’t. We know it can’t mimic human flesh as we are told it can’t mimic anything complex and human flesh is pretty damn complex. Plus when you see the T-1000 get shot in the film, there is no human tissue there (like the T-800) it’s pure liquid metal. So within the opening minutes of this film already contradicts the rules established in the first film. And before people jump in with the comments of a flesh sack, etc… re-read the rules.

Another Arnie?

Why is there another Arnie cyborg in the film? Yes they are mass produced in a factory (as the teaser trailer shows)… but why would Skynet even build more T-800 (the robot) Model 101 (the skin) terminators when the reason provided in the first film for the creation of the new T-800 is due to the fact the previous machine, the T-600 had rubber skin and was, as Kyle explained “easy to spot”? Surely if Skynet is aware its T-600 units are “easy to spot” leading to Skynet creating the more advanced T-800 with living tissue, bad breath, everything. It would not make multiples of that same unit that look identical as it would be “easy to spot”, in fact easier to spot than the T-600 the T-800 was built to replace, making the existence of the T-800 redundant.

Especially when you take into account the machines are used as infiltration units. Kyle’s nightmare/flashback/forward (it’s complex) in the first film shows what these things do, they get into the human bases by passing themselves off as humans and murder everyone in sight. They infiltrate. So their effectiveness is pretty pointless if they all look like Arnie. Even if Skynet sent multiple Arnie T-800s to various parts of the battlefield, even if there was only a 0.01% chance that these Arine looking machines would be spotted, why would Skynet take the chance when it could create different looking T-800s instead?

Put Some Clothes On

Why is the T-1000 naked when being sent through the TDE (which it can’t do anyway)? We know why the T-800 and Kyle had to be sent through naked as nothing dead will go, so they can’t wear clothing. But the T-1000 can mimic clothing as the film shows us. Skynet is aware clothing is important as the first thing the T-800 does in the first film when it gets sent back is acquire clothing, that is also what it does in Terminator 2. So clearly clothing is something programmed into the machines and obviously important. So why is the T-1000 naked?

‘Default appearance’ is often the excuse, but let’s look at my next point…

He’s In The Nip!

The T-1000 is supposed to be an infiltration unit. Designed and programmed to blend in with humans. It can only mimic what it touches. So if being naked is it’s default appearance… would that not stand out when it was trying to infiltrate? Picture the scene, war ravaged world where humans fight for survival against its AI oppressors. People are dying all around and through the smoke walks a completely naked male figure that is designed to blend in. Does not work does it? Why would a naked form even be part of the T-1000s programming anyway when it’s designed and programmed to kill, in case it ever had to infiltrate a porn film?

Skynet has detailed files about humans, so much so that it can recreate nipples… but not clothing? But as already covered, Skynet is obviously aware of clothing and it’s importance because the T-800 is programmed to find some as a priority.

Skynet Lost

Lets just go back to the first film and a spot of exposition for a second. As Kyle said: “Its defence grid was smashed, Skynet had already lost” and “Its just him (T-800) and me, nothing else comes through.”. Nuff said. So why is there a sequel and why are more terminators being sent if we have already been told this can not happen?

The Terminator Kyle

Perhaps the terminators from T2 were sent back before the one in the first film… maybe? But this makes no sense when you think about it… something I’m covering in a couple more points.

Killer Cyborg That Doesn’t Kill?

Why doesn’t the T-800 kill any of the bikers in the opening bar scene? We know it’s still programmed to kill as the scene with the two guys that come to help John shows later in the film…
John: “You we’re gonna kill that guy.”
T-800: “Of course, I’m a terminator.”
See, it’s programmed to kill, but only roughs up the people in the bar? Now remember that bar scene? The T-800 is attacked, it’s very mission is being hindered, it gets stabbed! That very same make and model terminator killed for much less in the first film, remember the clerk in the gun store? He was killed just for telling the terminator it couldn’t load the gun in the shop. But in Terminator 2, the same make and model kills no one despite being stabbed with a knife, attacked with a pool cue and more?

T2 T-800 Arival

So within Terminator 2 itself, if that same machine was willing to kill the guy coming the help John later in the film, why not kill anyone in the bar that were getting into the way of it’s mission? The terminator would have left a trail that could’ve been traced if it killed people in the bar… maybe. But wouldn’t roughing people up in front of dozens of witnesses, stealing clothing, a motorbike and even guns also leave a traceable trail?

Skynet Is Stupid In T2

Skynet is supposed to be this amazing, militaristic thinking piece of highly advanced AI. So why would Skynet send the more advanced T-1000 through over the lesser (by then) T-800? Why not just send multiple T-1000s. And seeing as Skynet can send multiple units through as proven in the sequel(s), which contradicts info given in the first film, why send them to different times in the past instead of just sending ALL of it’s machines to 1984 to kill the then unaware Sarah? Skynet’s very existence is at stake here, so why not throw everything it had at the problem? Just imagine Kyle having to fight off numerous T-800s, T-1000s… hell even the lesser T-600s (can’t cos they have rubber skin so cant use the TDE… like the T-1000?), throw in some HKs too, it could send an army. Kyle and Sarah wouldn’t stand a chance and Skynet would win. Terminator 2 makes no sense!

T-1000 The Cop

Why doesn’t the T-1000 fully mimic the cop in the opening? We know it can fully mimic people as the film itself shows us. But instead of fully mimicking the cop, it just mimics the uniform (more on this issue next). Wouldn’t a person walking around in a police uniform that is numbered while also driving a police car that is also numbered not be a little bit suspicious? What if a fellow cop that knew the original cop recognised the uniform/cop car number and realised the person using them was not the cop they knew?
So instead of the T-1000 just mimicking the cop and passing itself off as him, we now have a missing cop and a strange man wearing his uniform and using his car. The T-1000 is supposed to be an infiltration unit remember.

T2 T-1000 Cop

It does the same thing with the motorcycle cop later in the film too.

Equal Size My Arse!

The T-1000 can only mimic things of equal size is the rule established in the film. The cop uniform is not equal size, so it should’ve mimicked the cop fully and not just the uniform. John’s foster mother is also not equal size, nor is the guard at the hospital as you see the size difference as the T-1000 morphs between them. Speaking of the hospital, it mimics the hospital floor and you can bet your arse that is most definitely not equal size. So it can mimic things not of equal size then despite the film telling us it can’t?

Swear Why?

John asks the T-800 to swear not to kill, but why? The machine has no concept of human rules and I can prove it.

John: “You can’t just go around killing anyone.”
T-800: “Why?”
John: “You just can’t.”
T-800: “Why?”
John: “You just can’t OK?”

See, the T-800 does not understand human rules to the point it doesn’t understand why it can’t kill… so why would asking it swear not to kill mean anything to the machine? John never explains what swearing means or its importance/meaning to humans, it’s learning nothing. All the T-800 does is parrot John by holding up his hand and swearing not to kill, it’s programming remains the same and it is still programmed to kill remember. So given what we have learned through the exposition of the film, there is no reason for the T-800 not to kill from that point onward or even before it (bar scene).

T2 Swear

But just to add to the pointlessness of the ‘swearing’ scene. Just minutes earlier we, the audience and John learn that the T-800 has to follow his orders, so why didn’t John just order the machine not to kill?

John: “I order you not to kill anyone.”
T-800: “Affirmative.”

See, I just wrote T2 better than James Cameron did.

More Orders

On the subject of John’s orders having to be followed by the T-800. Let’s skip to the end of the film and when the T-800 is lowered into the molten steel. What is it that John says again? Ahhhhh yes…

John: “I order you not to go, I order you not to go.”

Well there you have it, the T-800 can’t ‘die’ as John just ordered it not to go. Not once, but twice But wait, what does the T-800 reply with?

T-800: “I’m sorry John, I can’t do that.”

Wait, what? So now it doesn’t have to follow John’s orders, since when can it do that? If it can choose to not follow his orders then why did it break mission parameters by taking John into direct danger earlier in the film risking the mission just because John orders it to? What danger am I taking about? Next point…

The Stupid Plan

Why would the more mature and future resistance leader, John who knows the entire existence of the human race is on his shoulders allow the T-800 to follow his younger, immature self’s orders? What if that immature version of himself orders the T-800 to rescue his mother, who we are told is not a mission priority and therefore breaking mission parameters and take John into direct danger putting huge risk onto the mission? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the T-800 to be programmed to follow the more knowledgeable and prepared Sarah’s orders?

Forgetful T-1000

Another thing about the ending that makes no sense. The T-1000 stabs Sarah in her shoulder and asks her (quite eloquently too) to “call to John”. Why would it do this when we and it knows it can mimic people? Even more so we are told in the film that the T-1000 typically kills whoever it mimics. So why didn’t the T-1000 just kill and mimic Sarah, get close to John and then kill him? Mission complete.

T2 Two Sarahs

“It glitches, that’s why it can’t mimic Sarah” is the usual response. Yes the T-1000 does glitch… in the extended cut, but not so much the theatrical cut and the one most familiar to everyone. But even if we go the glitch route excuse. The T-1000 still manages to mimic Sarah as the film proves later anyway. So the whole “call to John” bit is inane. Just kill and mimic Sarah, you know that thing the T-1000 had been doing since it’s first scene in the film.

Good Scene, Bad Writing

About that extended cut. There is a scene included where the T-800 has it’s chip removed so it can learn. From a filming perspective, its a great scene that features a mirror image with two T-800s, two Sarahs and two Johns. The amazing thing about this scene is the fact no mirror was used nor were any special effects either. Its a great shot done so using a very simple magic trick. Brilliantly filmed… but from a plot and character perspective is makes no sense.

T2 Chip Removal

So the T-800 allows its chip to be removed and therefore is taken offline, meaning it’s no longer capable of doing it’s mission. Why would the T-800 let the happen? What if the T-1000 turned up while it’s chip was removed? Plus it’s chip is removed so a physical switch can be flicked to allow it to learn. So Skynet built a machine with a switch that has to be manipulated physically for it to learn, meaning if Skynet ever sent one of these units out not to learn but then changed it mind later and wanted it to learn. It would have to recall that unit to manually remove the chip and change the switch? But maybe there are two ways to change the switch, one manual and one remotely. Maybe there is, but if the switch can be changed remotely then why would Skynet even bother with a manual switch to begin with? Then if this particular T-800 switch is not set to learn (hence the need to remove the chip)… then how had it been learning anything up to this point in the film. Like swearing not to kill for example? It should still be killing!

Mission Failed

The Terminator actually fails it’s mission in the end. Remember it is programmed to protect John. By the end if the film, the T-1000 is destroyed but John is still in danger and in need of protection. He and Sarah are still being hunted by the police for example.

Edit: Or the opening of Dark Fate
So effectively, the T-800 abandons it’s mission at the end as John was still in danger. Mission failed.


 

Well there you have it. As much as I tried, I just can’t explain these plot holes in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. This is not meant as a dig at the film either, I enjoy the flick as much as anyone… but it’s badly written and just seems to ignore established rules not only with the first film but also within itself.

Well, however Terminator: Dark Fate turns out. I hope it’s better written and respects the original film more than T2 did.

Joker, A film That’s Not About Joker

Joker, written and directed by Todd Phillips, it’s the biggest surprise hit of the year. A relatively small budget… I guess, comic book movie in a sea of big budget comic book movies. The grandiose scale of something like Avengers: Endgame is gargantuan compared to Joker. But sometimes (most of the time), throwing a lot of money at something does not necessarily make the end result better.

So let me go back to the very beginning before I take a look at this flick. When Joker was first announced, I was nonplussed. The DC comic book films up to this point had been very, very hit and miss… mostly miss. The whole shared universe they forcibly tried to create just didn’t work at all. Even when DC flicks were ‘good’, they were still very bog standard and lacking in any real character or story. So when a film telling the origin story of perhaps the most famous DC comic book villain was announced, I lost all interest. The first teaser trailer was released and I was even less interested. The first few on-set pictures emerged that showed Joaquin Phoenix in full Joker regalia and the funny memes about McDonald’s began, I joined in. This film was going to be terrible, as much as I thought Joaquin was a phenomenal actor, and he is, this was going to be another DC movie failure, I was sure of it. So I pretty much ignored the film… then the early reviews started to come in a few weeks back. The critical response was insane, everyone was giving the film high marks and extremely favourable reviews. Joker even got an eight minute standing ovation at it’s Venice premiere. Let’s just say that my interest was most definitely piqued.

Pheonix Arthur 2

Still, there was this niggle at the back of my head that all the Joker praise was hype and over hype. Did Warner Bros (distributor of the film) just pay a load of reviewers to praise the flick to gain a lot of interest in an attempt to combat the previous badly received other films? Hey, I’m a cynical thinking kind of guy. It couldn’t be as good as people were saying, it just couldn’t. So sure I was that this film would be terrible that I just could not even open my mind to the slight possibility that just maybe it wasn’t. But there was one saving grace for me, Joaquin Phoenix playing Joker. Even if the film was utterly shit, I knew Joaquin would be amazing.

So when I sat down to watch Joker, I had already decided I was not going enjoy it…

Just a quickie. I’m going to avoid major spoilers, so this is a safe one to read. But I would still suggest that you go into the film completely blind regardless.

So I guess the first thing to cover with this film is the fact that it’s not really about Joker at all. Joaquin Phoenix plays struggling and unfunny stand up comic Arthur Fleck. A middle aged man who still lives with his ill mother in a shitty apartment in crime ridden Gotham City. Arthur is a simple kind of guy, he just wants to look after his mother. He holds down a few menial jobs, sign spinning for a local business, entertaining ill children at a hospital, all while dressed as a clown. Arthur has a heart and is the central figure in the film, not Joker. In fact, Joker doesn’t really make an appearance proper until the last twenty minutes or so.

The film really concentrates on Arthur and his social awkwardness, his mental troubles, his decline as man, his failures, his loose grip on reality and sanity. Arthur suffers from a neurological disorder that causes him to laugh, usually at the most inappropriate times, which often lands him in trouble. His condition is treated via medication from a social services worker but when funding is cut, Arthur is left without his meds, coupled with him losing his jobs, this when things begin to unravel. His mind begins to wander, he starts to engage in flights of fancy.

Pheonix Arthur 3

Arthur tries his hand at stand up comedy… which he is really bad at. But his performance catches the eye of popular talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro) who invites him onto his TV show… and that’s about all I’m willing to give away about the plot here in this article.

As I’ve already said, this is not really about the Joker character despite the title. This film is about the human psyche, the rather taboo subject of mental health and how it is perceived, the breakdown of a man struggling to get a grip on his life. This is a film about Arthur Fleck losing his faith in society and perception of the world. Joker is jet black dark, depressing and yet also extremely thought provoking with an ending that really opens things up for questioning. There are plot lines that are not entirely covered and left up to you the viewer to make up your own mind. It’s a very open film all told, especially the ending. The film allows you to make up your own mind on just what kind of person Arthur is.

Seeing as Joker is Batman’s greatest and most famous enemy, of course there are a few Batman references in the film. They are well done and don’t at all feel intrusive. Well, there is one thing at the climax of the film that did kind of irk me because we’ve seen it so many times before that caused me to roll my eyes a little. No need at all for that particular scene.

Pheonix Arthur 4

Joker is a very slow paced film and one that really focuses on character over plot… and that’s not a bad thing when you have such an interesting character as Arthur Fleck to invest in. Joaquin’s performance is nothing short of genius as the troubled Arthur and you do feel a little sympathy toward him… a little, depending on how you chose view the character. You can really see the gears begin to breakdown in his head as he helplessly descends into madness. This is not a happy film, you won’t come out of it glowing with a smile on your face. Joker is dirty and grimy. It’s downbeat, depressing and exhausting. You’ll feel like you just been dragged through the sewers of Gotham City after watching this and will probably want to take a shower to try and get rid of some of the dirt, though the smell will never leave you.

You ever see the classic film Taxi Driver? Well this has a very similar style and tone.

Joker is brilliant if you are in the right frame of mind for such a film. I was wrong with my initial dismissive attitude toward this movie and that’s something I’m very glad about. Joker is the best film I’ve seen in decades… but it most definitely will not sit well with others.

“The worst part of having a mental illness is people expect you to behave as if you don’t.”

– Arthur Fleck

Halloween Is Coming…

I’ve not done much writing for my blog this year as I’ve been busy working on my books and short stories. I’ve done a handful of smaller articles and write ups, but nothing big. No retrospectives, no big celebrations. I love doing more in depth articles but just haven’t had the time this year.

But Halloween is a time of year I really enjoy. I have to do something to help celebrate. So I ceased work on my book(s) for a while to do a big Halloween blow-out spectacular! Coming Halloween week will be four articles, two gaming and two movie ones. There are retrospectives as well as spine tinging topics related to Halloween, scary games and films. My two movie articles actually cover the same film, but different topics relating to it. I even have a fifth Halloween article planned and if the timing works out, it’ll be published too.

Either way, there are most definitely at least four Halloween specials coming this year. So it all you regular readers, those if you following my blog (thanks). I know I’ve been a tad lax with this blog this year as my attention is focused on my books… but there’s a hefty Halloween special coming soon. Stay tuned…

Once Upon a Time… in Hollybored?

For me, a new Quentin Tarantino flick is a major cinematic event. I have managed to see each and every one of his film releases at the cinema either on original release or retroactively via special screenings… and I’m not about to stop now. So of course I went to go and see QT’s latest picture, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood, Tarantino’s ninth and (if he keeps his word) penultimate film as he has said how he plans of retiring from directing films after number ten.

Now I’m going to do this in two parts. The first part will cover the basic plot and characters of the flick, where I aim to avoid major spoilers but also give my general impressions of the film. There may be a few light things mentioned but nothing that will give anything important away.

But for the second part, I definitely need to talk about specific things like the controversy the film is getting and the ending, so will obviously contain big SPOILERS. So this is just a pre-warning. Feel free to read on for the first part, but the second one you’ll need to avoid if you want to go into the film blind. I’ll use headings the split the two parts and give another warning just before I do the spoilery part II.

Part I

So I think I’d better start with a synopsis of the film just to get people up to speed.

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood Trio

Set in the summer of 1969, Hollywood. The film tells the tale of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Rick was a once popular actor in a 50s and early 60s western TV show and went on to have a semi-successful film career, but in the late 60s, he finds himself struggling to find roles. Cliff is Rick’s stuntman and friend. Since the work has dried up, Cliff remains by his friend’s side despite the lack of work. No longer his stuntman, Cliff now works as Rick’s driver and general dogsbody. Rick Dalton still lives in the affluent Hollywood Hills, where he lives next door film director Roman Polanski and his model/actress wife Sharon Tate.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood’s main plot is set against the backdrop of the real life, brutal and bloody Charles Manson instructed Sharon Tate murder.

Well just to get this out of the way. I’m really not sure what to make of this film or how I really feel about it. I adore Quentin Tarantino, I’m such a self-proclaimed and unashamed fanboy of his work. In my eyes, he’s never made a bad film. However, this is the first time coming out of watching a QT film where I’m struggling to form a solid opinion either good or bad.

It’s not a bad film, not even close. But I’m struggling to find myself praising it as a whole picture. I can’t say this was a total disappointment at all, but I can’t say I felt fully entertained either. The plot just didn’t grab me. The buddy relationship between Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth didn’t have the depth I hoped it would. The performances were good with the best definitely being Brad Pitt. He’s brilliant, charming, funny and pretty bad-ass too. Absolutely loved him in the film. Leonardo DiCaprio was good for the most part too, but as for his character I just didn’t find him as interesting as Brad Pitt’s. Plus the fact he sobs, weeps and cries in every other scene got really annoying. Someone likes his acting, he cries, someone doesn’t like his acting, he cries. Someone points out he’s crying, he cries.

Then you have Margot Robbie playing Sharon Tate. She’s more of a background character. Doesn’t have many lines but she does pop up throughout the film quite a few times. Yet when she’s on screen, she’s very enjoyable. The rest of the cast and characters are basically bit parts with some only getting seconds of screen time. Seriously, Damon Herriman’s portrayal of Charles Manson gets let than a minute of screen time. He shows up at a house, discoverers the previous occupants he was looking for no longer live there and he leaves… that’s it. That’s all the Charles Manson you get in this one. Not that I’m trying to suggest a film needs more Manson, but when a film’s backdrop is the Sharon Tate murder, you just kind of expect Charles Manson to be a main player.

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood Bruce Lee

Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) has one great scene and a couple of very short appearances later and that’s it for him. Oh and there’s a ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ Steve McQueen (Damian Lewis) bit. I guess the point I’m getting to is that it’s a very disposable cast. Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt (best part of the film), everyone else are just bit players and we don’t really get to know their characters… even Sharon Tate.

The film is very slow paced with pretty much no action until the last 15 minutes or so.  Yet even with it’s slow pacing, the 2 hour 41 minute run time passed by pretty fast. I was never ‘bored’ with the film outright, I wasn’t sitting there looking at my watch… but I wasn’t entertained much either. It’s very dialogue heavy which is a staple of Tarantino and a staple I adore too. But here, his writing lacks the spark his other flicks had. There is a part of the film, that for me dragged on unnecessarily. It’s when Rick Dalton gets a job working on a western and the film spends way too much time showing him make the film within the film. In the make-up trailer, sitting around waiting to shoot a scene reading a book and then finally filming the damn film and forgetting his lines, etc. I just found it bit tedious. Thankfully all of it is inter-cut with backstory for Cliff Booth and other moments featuring Cliff which made it much more bearable.

Speaking of which, QT is amazing at creating tension in his flicks. See the opening of Inglourious Basterds for proof. There’s a scene in this where Cliff Booth goes to Spahn Ranch, which for those not in the know was where the Manson Family lived. Anyway, Cliff goes out to the ranch and I think this was supposed to be where QT’s amazing tension was meant to come in… but it didn’t, not for me anyway. I think the idea of the scene was to put Cliff Booth in danger of being killed by the Mason Family but it just didn’t work for me, I never felt that.

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood Cliff Booth.png

I think knowing about the whole Manson family history and especially the Tate murder really helps before watching this flick. It adds a level of tension as the film follows the tragic Sharon Tate. When she goes to the cinema to watch her own movie The Wrecking Crew. Seeing her enjoying the film and smiling as the audience happily react to her performance was beautiful. Her sheer joy and happiness was lovely to see… but knowing in your mind what happens to her and the fate see will soon face makes her enjoyment so much more tragic. So my advice would be to read up on the Sharon Tate murder first.

Now, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is an absolutely gorgeous film to look at. The way Quentin has captured the look and feel of 60s L.A. is a feast for the eyes. I wasn’t around in 1969 and I most definitely wasn’t living in Hollywood either. Yet I really felt like I was there watching the film. The clothing, the scenery and of course, the music were all spot on. The directing and editing choices were also a joy to witness. From inserts of Rick Dalton movies and T.V. shows when he’s talking to Marvin Schwarz (Al Pacino) to the use of filters and film grain to make things look very 60s. There’s a part where Rick Dalton is talking about how he almost got the Steve McQueen role in the film The Great Escape and the film then cuts to actual footage from The Great Escape but with Leonardo DiCaprio digitally inserted as Rick in place of Steve McQueen. It was really well done too. Honestly, it is a stunning film just to look at full of great little nuances and details.

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood LA.jpg

Then there is Tarantino’s humour, something often overlooked in his pictures. This film is funny and I don’t mean one or two humorous lines in the entire thing, I mean genuinely funny scenes that have been well written and then followed up with top-notch acting with perfect comic timing. Such scenes include Rick mentioning when using a flamethrower how hot it is and if something could be done about the heat. The Bruce Lee fight was hilarious with several great and funny lines. Even the bloody violent finale has some brilliant, well placed humour in it.

Quite honestly, there are a lot of individual elements I really loved about this film. There some amazing scenes and the acting is superb, especially Brad Pitt. But that’s all it felt like to me, a series of great moments and not one great film. It’s a good film I can’t call it a bad one. But I don’t know, I just expect more form Quentin Tarantino as I know he’s capable of greatness. This just felt a bit flat to me. It almost felt like someone trying to mimic Tarantino’s style and not actually Tarantino himself. Of all of his films, this has been his most ‘boring’ for me.

Overall, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was watchable and even very enjoyable in many parts. But as an overall film? It sadly didn’t really work for me. Still saying that, I didn’t think much of Jackie Brown when I first saw it either. But now, years later and after several views, I think it’s the best thing QT has done. Maybe I need to see Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood a few more times, maybe it needs to grow on me a little?

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood Rick Dalton

Thinking about it, I’d rather have seen a Cliff Booth only film. A flick about a struggling stuntman trying to make his way back to the top. Tarantino’s take on the classic Burt Reynolds film, Hooper. Honestly, I loved Brad Pitt in this… and his dog.

Do I recommend the film? Hmmmmmm, that’s a tough one. For me, as a QT fan, I was disappointed. I don’t think none QT fans will get much from the film either. It is a very pretty film to look at. The on screen chemistry between Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt really works too. The acting is great as is the music, you will feel like your in 1969… but the story was very hit and miss.

Part II

So okay, this is where I get into the major SPOILERS. I will be looking at specific scenes including the ending as well as addressing some of the film’s controversy to offer my view on it all. So again and last warning SPOILERS ahead…

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood Duo 2.jpg

So I think I want to take a look at the whole Shannon Lee thing that has been going on. What has been happening is the daughter of Bruce Lee, Shannon has been mouthing off about how Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood depicts her father. Seeing as her entire career of late is basically living off her father’s name, I guess she feels the need to protect her source of income. But I really do not see why she is getting upset. No, the version of Bruce Lee in the film is not exactly 100% accurate… but it’s not meant to be. The film is not a documentary. The Bruce Lee here is a caricature, he’s an exaggeration of the real man. Any Bruce Lee fan can tell you that. There have been far, far worse versions of Bruce caught on screen than what Quentin Tarantino has done here. This film will do nothing to harm Bruce’s legacy and reputation and Shannon needs to just pipe down about the whole thing.

Now I want to look at the violence in the film as that has been getting some negative feedback… mainly from bored feminists. There really is very little violence in the film but what is here is graphic and bloody. There’s a scene were Brad Pitt punches the crap out of a Manson Family member over a punctured car tyre. Then there is the film’s finale… and that’s about it really. Save a few smaller moments of violence within the films within the film. Yes the big finale does feature two women getting extremely badly beaten, a scene that is definitely upsetting some folk (so much that I wrote an article on the subject). The scene has over the top violence and features such things as a dog biting the face off of a female, Brad Pitt’s Cliff Booth smashing the face of another female into a stone fireplace crushing her skull and even Leonardo DiCaprio breaking out the previously mentioned flamethrower to burn a woman alive. It’s bloody and brutal stuff… but it’s not only two women at the centre of the violence as there’s a male too and he gets it just as bad including having the dog chew on his nuts. Oh yeah and the trio that do get fucked up are members of the Manson Family, they are the bad guys. Trust me, they deserved every bit of the gruesome deaths they get. Yes the violence is ridiculously OTT and gory, but it’s also perfectly justified too.

Right here I want to just go over the film’s ending so this is your last chance to walk away from the major SPOILERS.

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood Charles Manson.jpg

The real life events had three members of the Mason Family enter the house where Sharon Tate lived and kill everyone inside… oh and Sharon was eight months pregnant at the time too. She begged her killers to take her hostage and allow her to give birth to the baby so it could live, they killed her (and the baby) by stabbing Sharon sixteen times and wrote the word ‘pig’ on the door of the house in Sharon’s blood. It was one of the most shocking and disturbing murders in Hollywood history… and the finale of the film is Quentin Tarantino take on the whole thing.

If you have seen Inglourious Basterds then you know how Tarantino likes to alter history. He does exactly that with Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood too. The killers never enter Sharon Tate’s home in the film, they go next door to where Rick Dalton lives and that kick starts the bloody violence mentioned above. In QT’s altered history, Sharon Tate and the baby live. Not only that but struggling actor Rick Dalton gets invited into Sharon’s house and (presumably) becomes friends with her director husband Roman Polanski (before he was disgraced) and get’s back on top as an actor again.

All in all, it’s a happy ending, a very fictional one yes but a happy one none the less. It’s also an ending I was very thankful for as I watched the film with my five and a half month pregnant girlfriend. So as you can imagine, I sat there knowing the fate that was supposed to come to the pregnant Sharon Tate with my pregnant girlfriend sitting next to me, I was seriously worried that the film was just about to cause some major upset. But QT went in a different direction. It’s a pleasant twist.

 

Tarantino, The Woman Hating Misogynist?

I didn’t mean to do a Quentin Tarantino week of articles, it’s just kind of turned out that way. I only planned on doing my look at the best scenes in QT’s movies, but then the idea of looking at Tarantino video games came about and then this article just popped into my head after reading a Tweet from a self-proclaimed feminist on how Quentin Tarantino is a woman hater.

I sat there reading the Tweet scratching my head trying to work out what this person was on about. I have watched Quentin Tarantino pictures since Reservoir Dogs back in 1992 and him being a misogynist has never entered my mind. So after a little research, it seems that several people are accusing QT of being a misogynist (do a quick interwebs search and you’ll find plenty of articles and videos making such a claim). I managed to backtrack the whole thing to a scene from his new flick, Once Upon A Time In… Hollywood.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood Dance

Now, I’ve not yet seen the film, I’m going to watch it over the weekend. So I can’t directly comment on the scene in question. But from what I gather, it involves two women getting severely beaten up and in graphic detail. I’ll offer my view on the scene and the film as a whole after I’ve seen it. But I do want to address this whole Quentin Tarantino supposedly being a woman hater…

Okay, so I’m not going to sit here and attempt to bullshit you readers like others are doing covering this very subject. I’m not going to be selective in my pickings of evidence, I’m not singling out just one scene and only one scene to make a point, I’m going to go though all of his directed films and aim to be honest.

Yes Tarantino depicts violence toward women in his films, often bloody, brutal and graphic too. Just look at the scene in Kill Bill where Uma Thurman’s very pregnant ‘The Bride’ get’s the shit beat out of her during the wedding rehearsal, both in live action and animation. There are other instances in his pictures where women are beaten, even one’s he hasn’t directed. See True Romance for another example, a film QT wrote. Here, there’s a scene where Alabama Worley (Patricia Arquette) gets smacked around and bloodied by Virgil (James Gandolfini). And yes, I’ll also bring up The Hateful Eight here with it’s numerous scenes of violence toward Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Daisy Domergue at the hands of John Ruth (Kurt Russell).

Women get beat up in his films and I’m sure that his latest, Once Upon A Time In… Hollywood will be no different. I’m more than willing to believe that what I’ve heard about there being a scene where two women get beaten up is true. I believe this because Quentin Tarantino is famed for his use of excessive violence, he’s been at it for almost thirty years… so why are people only now bringing this up as a negative?

Yeah I know the whole #metoo movement along with QT’s working relationship and friendship with Harvey Weinstein does not really help matters here. And yes I’ll even bring up his idiotic comments about Samantha Geimer, the 13 year old rape victim of Roman Polanski (comments he did apologise about). Yet sill, I’m scratching my head over this whole thing. Is Quentin Tarantino a woman hating misogynist? The short answer is no. The longer one needs a little more detail applied.

Well for my first bit of evidence, I need to quickly cover what Once Upon A Time In… Hollywood is about. Aside from the main plot, the film is set against the backdrop of the Charlie Mason/Sharon Tate murder and if you know your Hollywood history, then you know that things got a little violent and bloody. So if QT is revisiting a piece of history and a particularly violent piece of history… why should he shy away from it, why should he censor himself when depicting actual events? Plus I also hear that the scene in question where two women are beaten up also involves a male character getting the shit beat out of him too. Which leads me nicely to my next point.

Tarantino does show violence toward women in his flicks, there’s no denying that. But you know what else he shows? Violence toward men. He doesn’t discriminate against one sex over the other, he just uses violence as a way to advance the plot, it’s a storytelling device. Who is at the end of that violence is depicted by the story that is being told and not by the person getting beat up. You’ve seen Reservoir Dogs right? Pretty much a 100% male orientated film, aside from a scene with a female civilian being shot, it’s all males. Remember the most infamous and controversial scene of the film too?

Reservoir Dogs Ear Scene

Yup, it’s the ear cutting scene were a young kidnapped cop is tied to a chair, beaten, tormented, tortured, cut with a razor before having their ear hacked off and then doused in gasoline and almost set alight. Now just refresh my memory here but what sex was the cop? Not female right? Aside from the previously mentioned female civilian being shot, all the violence in this one is toward men.

How about we take a look at Pulp Fiction next? Can you think of any graphic violence toward women in this one? Nope. A young guy called Marvin (male) gets shot in the face, in fact several males get shot in the film. I suppose I could bring up the rape scene… oh yeah, it’s a male being raped isn’t it? The violence toward men in this one greatly outweighs the violent acts toward women eh? Not seeing a lot of this misogyny so far.

He’s next film, Jackie Brown is a wonderful tale about a plan to bring some illegal money over the Mexican boarder. It’s a simple story done really well. But I’m not here to explore the film’s plot, this article is looking at just how much of a woman hater Tarantino (supposedly) is. So let’s look at all the violence toward women. Well there’s the scene where Melanie Ralston (Bridget Fonda) is shot by Louis Gara (Robert De Niro)… and that’s it really. Just to equal that out a bit, later in the flick Louis is shot and killed by Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) who also shoots and kills Beaumont Livingston (Chris Tucker) and is then shot and killed at the end of the picture by Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton). Now have you been keeping count of the violent acts in this one? Because there are far more toward males than female characters.

Jackie Brown.jpg

While I’m here, let’s just take a look at the titular character, Jackie (Pam Grier) herself. She is depicted as a strong-willed and a very astute character. It is Jackie who comes up with the plan that leads to the demise of the film’s main antagonist. Then there is my favourite scene in the film, where Ordell comes to kill Jackie, but she cleverly turns things around and gets the upper hand, she is written as being in control over the men in the film. What kind of misogynist writes such a strong female character with power over males?

So let’s get into one I’ve already mentioned, Kill Bill. As previously covered, yes Uma Thurman’s character (important to remember it’s a character, not real) is beaten. And yet that very same character is the driving force of the entire flick, she is the strongest character in the whole damn thing. She goes out and get’s bloody revenge on those who wronged her, both female and male. And if you really want to keep a body count, she is far more violent toward males in the film than females. just look at the Crazy 88 fight for proof, the most violent scene in the whole film. In that one single scene, the female kills more male characters in a few minutes than all the other violent acts combined. Again, looking worse for the males than the females. Just as with Jackie Brown, if QT was such a woman hating misogynist, why create such a strong female character that kills so many males?

Up next, Death Proof. Quentin Tarantino’s love letter to 70s exploitation cinema. Now given this film’s influence of 70s exploitation cinema, there’s bound to be some pretty obvious mistreating of females, that’s what those flicks were like they were exploitative, especially toward women. They used violence and sex to sell so this is the prefect opportunity for QT to really push his misogynistic agenda. I suppose we could look at the film’s first main violent scene, the big crash. Yes we see four women get brutally killed in graphic detail, blood, guts and limbs fly in an orgy of violence and it’s the women who are displayed in said violence. Misogynistic right? Well let’s look at the latter half of the film…

Death Proof End.png

It’s the second half where a new set of female victims for this deranged killer are set up. Without getting into the plot details too much. After the best car chase ever filmed where the female characters take control and fight back against the male, they ram his car off the road. The male is then punched in the head a total of thirty seven times within thirty seconds, he get’s the shit beat out of him by the females. Oh and I almost forgot to mention the roundhouse kick and a boot to the skull that kills him… but for some reason, when calling out QT’s supposed misogyny, feminists seem to conveniently forget about scenes like this and his strong female characters. Oh and let’s not forget just how kick-ass and ballsy Zoë Bell (female) is in the film.

Do I really need to carry on with the rest of his films? Well there are only three more left and next is the WW II epic, Inglourious Basterds. Largely a male cast but I guess the two main female characters would be Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark and Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus. Now there’s very little violence toward women in this one, a lot toward men mind you. I guess in the interests of fairness I should bring up that Bridget is chocked to death by a male. But what about Shosanna? You know the female who comes up with the plan to kill the highest ranking Nazi officers and even Hitler himself… or are we just supposed to forget that like Jackie Brown, it’s the female who is the brains in the film?

Django Unchained is set during a dark piece of American history, the slavery era. So with such a terrible subject to cover, this would be the perfect opportunity for Quentin Tarantino to display his despicable misogyny. I mean he could have had woman after woman after woman beat and tortured and just use the excuse of ‘that’s the kind of thing that happened back then’… but he doesn’t. Just as with his other flicks, the violence in this is much more male centric. Now, I’m not claiming there is no violence shown toward female characters, because there is. However, with such a subject matter of slavery, I would request any feminist to point out to me five acts of violence toward women in this film. Can’t think of any can you? Maybe one, maybe two at a push but five? No chance. Now look at all the violent acts toward male characters… dozens of them from ‘mandingo fights’ to a male slave being torn apart by dogs. Even a horse gets shot in the face in the opening, don’t know if the hose was male or female to be honest. But the point is that the violence toward males in Django Unchained vastly outnumbers any towards females.

Okay so last film now The Hateful Eight and as I covered at the start, yes Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Daisy Domergue is punished through the film more than once. She gets punched and slapped around by male characters. But EVERYONE get’s punished in the film, both male and female. There are some pretty brutal deaths regardless of sex in the flick. Samuel L. Jackson even gets his ‘black dingus’ shot off. So let me just break this one down. The woman hating misogynist, Quentin Tarantino, wrote and directed a scene where a male character literally gets his manhood taken away, the very symbol of being male. Or what about the scene where Tarantino has a man walk butt-naked through the snow, do the feminists calling QT out for his misogyny have an explanation for that?

The Hateful Eight Major 2


 

So is Quentin Tarantino a woman hating misogynist? No. It’s more a case of feminists being manipulative idiots who pick and choose selective ‘evidence’ to create an argument that doesn’t exist and refuse to look at the bigger picture. I don’t get it, I really and honestly do not get calling out Tarantino as being a woman hating misogynist when his films have consistently and continually showed far more violence towards his male characters over females. If anything, it’s males who should be kicking up a fuss and arguing that he is extremely guilty of misandry. His flicks depict far more violence toward males than females, he has had a male character being raped, one being tortured another being beaten and killed by women, one having his pecker shot off, one being killed by dogs and countless other violent acts aimed at male characters… many, many, many more violent acts where men are the victims as apposed to females. As a writer/director who has written several very strong and intelligent female characters, for a misogynist, Tarantino is really, really fucking bad at it.

My views and opinions on his new flick, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood will be done over the weekend after I’ve seen it. But I expect violence toward women AND men in the film.