Quentin Tarantino gets characteristically cocky in a new series about his career
Aux Features Podmass
Culturally Relevant With David Chen
Zen And The Art Of Videogame Character Maintenance (With Dan Trachtenberg)
Hardcore film nerd, critic, and /Filmcast host David Chen has started a new solo podcast focused on conversations with creative talents in media, anywhere across its vast spectrum. On this episode, Chen has an insightful conversation with director Dan Trachtenberg (Black Mirror, 10 Cloverfield Lane) about his early film career, how he approached his cinematic trailer for the popular free RPG shooter Warframe, and directing the first episode of the not-so-shiny Amazon Prime superhero show The Boys. Trachtenberg, who proudly notes that he ends every single night by playing video games to unwind, initially rose to fame by way of his fan short Portal: No Escape, so Chen asks him about his career beginnings and if that sort of viral film would work with today’s Hollywood talent scouting. Chen’s ability to genuinely listen instead of speak over his guest is a blessing in podcasting, and it’s because of this that the listener can truly learn a thing or two about Trachtenberg’s approach to direction. [Kevin Cortez]
Dude Talks To A Lady
Ismael Loutfi
In Dude Talks To A Lady, host Janet Hyde talks with male comedians about the place women and gender hold in their jokes. In this episode, Ismael Loutfi’s off-putting anecdote about gawking at women on the street slowly spins out into a fascinating exploration of curiosity, otherness, and the male gaze. Loutfi explains how Islam has affected how he observes others and how he wants to be seen himself—right down to his knees, which made their first public appearance at the time of recording. Loutfi has realizations about his own prejudiced behavior, but Dude Talks To A Lady feels less like a rude guy getting schooled and more like a dialogue about masculinity and catharsis that leads to genuine growth. [Adrian Jade Matias Bell]
For Keeps
Migrants’ Belongings, Saved And Photographed By Tom Kiefer
For Keeps is all about collectors and their collections. In each episode, host David Peterkofsky interviews different aficionados and gets to the root of their obsessions. But this episode is different: Photographer Tom Kiefer’s collection is not about things that make him happy, but other people’s sorrow. From 2003 to 2014, Kiefer worked as a janitor in the Ajo, Arizona border patrol processing station; one of his duties was to dispose of the possessions that had been confiscated from captured migrants, items that ranged from Bibles and rosaries to mix CDs and children’s toys. Unable to throw away people’s personal belongings, he began to save the items, and was soon taking photographs of his growing collection. The resulting exhibit, El Sueño Americano, aims to combat the lies being perpetuated about the people trying to cross America’s southern border; these are simply individuals and families looking for a better life, Kiefer explains. This episode of For Keeps is a departure from previous ones about Beatles memorabilia and velvet painting collections, but just like those, it gets at the heart of a larger story through the objects on display. [Anthony D. Herrera]
Land Of The Giants
Why You’ll Never Quit Amazon Prime
It’s hard to believe how recently in history you couldn’t just add press-on nails, dog treats, and penny loafers to your online cart and have them arrive at your doorstep in just two days, but a pre–Amazon Prime world did in fact exist. Vox Media’s Land Of The Giants explores the five dominant technology companies—Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google—and how these corporations have changed people’s lives, both for better and worse. This season begins with the rise of Amazon, initially just an online marketplace for books that now offers television programming, same-day shipping, and robots capable of reordering toilet paper or checking the weather. This oral history documents how Prime grew from one of many nebulous projects in development to become the cornerstone and engine of Amazon, providing a critical examination of the cost of convenience. Host Jason Del Rey explores the painstaking innovations in fast-track shipping, and why customer obsession is the foundation of Prime, in this measured look at what keeps us locked into the Amazon ecosystem. [Morgan McNaught]
Late To The Party With Travis Tate
Dispicable Prick
Comedian Travis Tate and his friend Jake Dahl talk about every topic under the sun in their podcast, but the theme of the show allows them to sleep on those topics as long as they please. The two kick off this episode discussing how weird it is that people age—a fact that might seem unremarkable until they realize with a jolt that Jerry Seinfeld, for example, is in his mid-60s. He’s one year older than Willem Dafoe, which leads to the pair discussing how Dafoe is the perfect casting choice for the Green Goblin in 2002’s Spider-Man. These hosts weren’t lying; they really are late to this party. But by the time they get there, it’s usually worth a listen. After discussing a 17-year-old superhero film, Tate and Dahl also share why they aren’t big fans of “dead kid” movies (spoiler alert: it’s for very obvious reasons). [Vannessa Jackson]
Medical Mysteries
The Elephant Man Pt. 1
This new show about medical oddities from the perspective of physicians and patients plays it straight. No skits, no hosts yukking it up, not even strong reactions to the stories being told, just a taut yet comprehensive narrative, delivered the way a doctor might as they try to make a diagnosis. There’s little time for anything else but exposition in this first episode, which chronicles the case of Joseph Merrick, a.k.a. the Elephant Man. Others might’ve squirreled away such a well-known subject for future episodes, but Merrick best showcases the podcast’s essence. Merrick went through his short life knowing little about the cause of his own disorder. The doctor who attended him fared no better despite being a leading surgeon of the day, though he did succeed in documenting Merrick’s medical condition, which the hosts promise to dive into in the next episode. [Zach Brooke]
Off Menu
Sian Clifford
Comedians Ed Gamble and James Acaster have invited you to dine at their restaurant. But theirs isn’t just any restaurant. First, it’s imaginary. Second, it’s the restaurant of your dreams, in which everything from the table bread to the dessert selection is designed to your exact specifications. So, the question is, what are you going to order? That’s what they ask of their celebrity guest each week on Off Menu, a delightful culinary adventure through different people’s ideal meals. In this episode, Sian Clifford (Fleabag) gets lightly razzed as she goes into exacting detail about her water order and takes the hosts on an autobiographical tour of her past favorite dishes. But that’s what’s so great about the Off Menu restaurant: One’s main course isn’t limited to an existing entree at a five-star restaurant they’ve been to. It could be a fantastic curry they remember from their childhood or a pasta they had on a particularly romantic date. Gamble and Acaster are just here to pretend to facilitate it. And make a few puns along the way. [Dan Neilan]
Quentin Tarantino’s Feature Presentation
Quentin Goes To The Movies/Quentin Tunes In, Drops Out/Quentin, You’ll Be A Director Soon
Besides Christopher Nolan, is there a filmmaker who causes more cultural mass hysteria with their releases than Quentin Tarantino? Social media has become a hot-take-dispensing shitshow ever since Once Upon a Time in Hollywood came out. In this three-part mini-podcast, film critic Amy Nicholson acknowledges how Tarantino is “one of the last artists who creates mass culture alongside, well, The Avengers.” But when Nicholson sits down with the director for the conversation that makes up the bulk of this NPR-ish audio collage (complete with movie clips, interview snippets and very QT- style music cues), he talks more about other people’s movies than his own. Nicholson brings up five films—Point Blank, Enter The Dragon, Valley Girl, Hollywood Shuffle, and Boogie Nights—that Tarantino has personally programmed at his L.A. revival house to ask how or if they shaped his filmmaking. But Tarantino prefers to highlight the flaws he sees in many of these films. Nicholson does manage to assemble a history of his early years as a budding cinephile-turned-visionary wunderkind, but whenever Tarantino gets on the mic, he shows he will always be the same shit-talking film nerd who used to work at Video Archives. [Craig D. Lindsey]
80 Comments
Podmass, 2014: You’ll be highly entertained by the latest episodes of Comedy Bang Bang, Hollywood Handbook, and You Made It Weird.Podmass, 2019: Dismantle the patriarchy by listening to four queer Latinx women discuss their periods.
It’s weird that you choose the particular week that has a podcast profiling Quentin Tarantino (and has highlighted it at the top no less). Also, 99% of this list has a great array of diverse topics, so what are you smoking, and when are you gonna share?
This very feature you’re commenting on highlighted a comedy podcast hosted by two white guys, another comedy podcast hosted by two white guys, and an interview with Quentin Tarantino. Shut the fuck up.
Gotta be tough getting through life when you’re this fragile. Thoughts and prayers.
Yeah, making a joke or commenting about something = fragile. Genius.
It might have been a funny joke or a poignant comment if the basis for either was evident in the article. It’s not. There’s one arguably feminist podcast listed here out of eight. Sorry, but that’s a special kind of fragile if that’s an overwhelming amount of feminism.
Factual accuracy is a burden of the politically incorrect. And you dropped it.
RalphMalphWiggum, 2014: Bad posterRalphMalphWiggum, 2019: Bad posterThis is the type of consistency I crave in a chaotic world.
All of these commentators have shown that they’re very funny and cool!
Well I thought this was funny.
Which of these do you feel comes closest to that description? Specifically, which is the one you’re complaining about?
Now: LET’S BE VERY ANGRY ABOUT THIS FUNNY JOKE!
As a real fan of those shows, I think the more interesting time-jump is going back the full decade to old eps of CBB, DLM, etc., and seeing just how full of transphobic & misogynistic humor those shows were.I’m sure those same jokes bus’d my shit up at the time, but holy hell has that humor aged poorly. Comedy was a lot lazier back when you could just shit all over entire groups of people without reprocussion.
Quentin Tarantino is a parrot. nothing to say of his own, but good god he won’t shut it.
He also has a mouth full of teeth yet he looks like he forgot to put his dentures in.
Have heard good things about Off Menu, and I like James Acaster so will have to give that one a go.
Why does this feature make a practice of putting as much space as possible between the headline and the listing it’s referring to?
Same reason a top ten list will routinely put a stupid or inane take as the top choice on the list. Got to keep eyes on the page and clicks coming to advertisements. All this stuff has been clinically set in stone and mass produced.
Scrollbait.
agreed, I was about halfway through that extremely long scroll wondering if I had missed the Tarantino interview link. Thankfully it was there eventually but I felt like I was hacking through overgrown brush in the wilds to get there. At least I didn’t retain a damn thing from all of the other podcasts they were babbling about, phew, that was a close one!
Alphabetical order.
An alphabetical list shouldn’t have a headline other than “here comes an alphabetical list.” When the headline is “Tarantino says some stuff,” common sense suggests moving the Tarantino item to the top.
This is typically how Podmass is presented, IIRC: listed in alphabetical order, and the headline or spotlighted podcast is the one the editor(s) thinks is the most interesting and/or attention-grabbing. Said podcast then still appears in its alphabetical place in the listing, regardless of whether that’s first, last or in-between.
I think you’re right about that — but it’s dumb, and they should rethink it. In this case, the headline didn’t even tell the reader the title to look for in the list. A very simple solution would be to pull to the top the listing they’ve chosen to highlight in the title, then put the others below it in alphabetical order.
I’d put Tarantino about with Christopher Nolan. Entertaining surface level stuff that people will watch thirty years from now but then forget about immediately, two or three really good films and a lot of self-important filler. Set him free critiquing his own films, that would take a while.
True Anon is hilarious and gets deep into the Jeffrey Epstein insanity
Unspooled is a favorite of mine thanks in large part to Amy Nicholson’s insights, so I’m excited about this.
Unspooled is terrific, and Amy Nicholson’s insights as a film critic play well off of Paul Scheer’s views as someone in the industry and just a general film fan. The podcast, and particularly Amy’s comments on some of the films, have really made me take a fresh look at the films on the AFI’s top 100 list.
Also some very good interviews on Unspooled. Nicholson’s interview of Cary Grant’s daughter in the Bringing Up Baby episode was great.
Ugh.
Not necessarily a great conversation starter but you ugh you good buddy.
i like nicholson to an extent (i find her a little long winded on her own podcasts, but usually sharp with her commentary), but unspooled is horrible and its due to her. she can’t decided if her issues with the films are because of the films, or because she knows about the people and circumstances of the making of the films.
I don’t mind which way you choose- if you want to bring up the background issues for each film and hash them out as part of your decision of their worth, that’s a great position to take. if you just want to discuss a film on the merits of its technical and acting achievements, thats also a great position to take. but to bring up the background stuff on a handful of films with well known issues and ignore the problems with films with lesser known issues without any set criteria is lazy and boring. yeah amy, we all know that apocalypse now was a shit show behind the scenes- is it a good movie on the screen, or is it a bad movie? wizard of oz nearly killed several people and you sort of laughed that off. pick which podcast you want to do and stick with it
This. I find her insufferable on that show.
i mean- pick if this is a critical examination of the merits of the movies on their artistic worth with paul as the comic/still serious co-host or pick that this is an examination of the entire creation of the work including off screen stuff. but choose the lane and stick with it, otherwise its annoying
I think I like what you don’t like about it. I enjoy the wishy washy give and take, the mix of legit critical insights with impulsive takeaways because that’s in general how people, including critics, process art. I think it’s totally fine to mentally cycle through several contradictory views before arriving at a position, and then changing that position based on whatever. The discussion format of the podcast is conducive to being a bit all over the place. It’s a conversation with a critical bent, not the fully formed analysis that would a) probably benefit from several all-over-the-place conversations before being written; b) not be that fun to listen to when I’m washing dishes.
and that’s fine- but then assess every movie that way. it just comes across as weirdly petty and like there is some sort of secret personal reason why she picks some movies to just refuse to even consider on their merits and instead just grumble about external factors (i assume francis ford coppola spilled a drink on her at a party and refused to pay for the dry cleaning after listening to the apocalypse now episode.)
We all know these movies were made by human beings and we know that many (perhaps even most!) of the principal movers and shakers were complete scumbags. but it seems really weird to have a comedian and a capital C movie Critic make a podcast together and the comedian is the one trying to talk about cinematography and the Critic is refusing to even talk about the movie because she heard the director was tough to work with
Yeah, I was going to say something similar. The fact that Unspooled is unapologetically filtered through Paul and Amy’s personal attachments to the movies and people involved in them is what makes it interesting to me. I can understand why someone wouldn’t like it, but I don’t find it inconsistent.
Exactly. One of the problems with film talk is that it tends to be didactic. Either a review which needs to build a simple clear message on quality with a star rating, or one of those “why this is a masterpiece” takes. AFI 100 films are particularly prone to this, so it’s great hearing Amy and Paul talk about why they had issues or personal reactions. The fuzzy, hard to define, mixed feelings and personal takes are why I’m there for the pod. I don’t agree with all Amy’s takes but it’s more interesting to listen to her wrestle with Apocalypse Now or the Searchers than another breathlessly glowing ream of praise. Especially when the top 100 is created very much from a very straight white male baby boomer perspective.
I was excited for Unspooled when it debuted and stuck with it for quite a while, despite increasing misgivings. When Nicholson insisted that one of the main reasons so many critics like Apocalypse Now so much is because Francis Ford Coppola is a “white male” (and doubled down on it on a subsequent episode after listeners took issue) is when I gave up. Life’s too short for that facile BS.
Same. And Apocolypse Now was kind of my breaking point too, every time Paul brought up some point in the film’s narrative favor, she’d just come back with some behind the scenes tidbit about how chaotic making the film was. It was like the opposite of the Emperor’s New Clothes, because she knew how messy the film making process was she didn’t want to feel like a fool saying that the final film was in any way worthwhile, and I feel like that has definitely bled over into other films, where she seems to be aiming at voicing an opinion of the film is shaped more by how she thinks the opinion would be viewed in some context rather than by an earnest assessment of the film.
So Tarintino got tired of film students jerking him off, so he cut the middle man and made a series to jerk himself off?
It’s a podcast from the Ringer, which isn’t mentioned in the above write-up. After Tarantino, it’ll shift back to being about other filmmakers.
Besides Christopher Nolan, is there a filmmaker who causes more cultural mass hysteria with their releases than Quentin Tarantino? Does Nolan cause mass hysteria? Whereas Tarantino is thrilled to sit down and talk to anyone and everyone, and throws enough bombs during interviews to ensure he’s talked about a lot, I don’t think the general public has any sense of who Christopher Nolan is. He’s not really a Capital C Celebrity in the same way.
his movies also don’t strike me as being of general public interest “just because he made them” like with Tarantino. They tend to hit big because of bonkers visuals, imo
You underrate Nolan’s popularity. Dunkirk made $189M in the US, $526 worldwide almost entirely on “from the director of Inception and The Dark Knight”. There are no big stars. Nolan is the star.(it’s the third highest grossing WW2 movie of all time if you can believe that. Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor are ahead of it. WW2 movies, and British WW2 movies especially, aren’t really box office fodder).
Yep, Dunkirk was profitable because people like war movies. Do you think the majority of filmgoers have any idea who directed Endgame?
Look at the list of WW2 movies on Boxofficemojo. This is not in any way a guaranteed profit genre.
you mean every movie isn’t good? surely, that can’t right.
…you are trying so hard…bless your heart…
you seem fun
…says the guy trying desperately to win an imaginary internet argument and unwilling to cede the last word…
WWII movies are not generally box office hits. You may want to “win” this argument, but it’s not an argument or debate. It’s facts. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=worldwar2.htmGet over it.
lol what a nonse
I think you’re underestimating the appeal of a good ww2 movie.
No…i literally went to Boxofficemojo and looked at the top grossing WW2 movies. The appeal isn’t huge. And it’s certainly not $500M worldwide huge on a movie with no box office stars.
I know Nolan doesn’t reeeeally need any support from internet commenters, but when I went to see Hobbs & Shaw, the only thing that got as big of a reaction as Chris Nolan’s name on the Tenet trailer was The Rock taking his shirt off. If the popularity of Nolan=shirtless Rock, I think he’s doing better than most directors. Only other one I can think of with a similar following right now is Peele
Yeah, my kneejerk reaction would have been to agree with the original poster, but my theater had a similar reaction to seeing Nolan’s name pop up, I was genuinely surprised to hear what seemed to be earnest excitement for a new Nolan film among the theater, but I’d say the guy definitely seems to have managed to become a name unto himself that ignites excitement with more than just film aficionados.
Exactly right.
I thought Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a mess, and QT can be exhausting in interviews, but the times I’ve seen him interact with fans/film students (happens in L.A.) he was surprisingly approachable and generous with his time and advice. So I find it hard to not to like the guy.Also, unreleased to that but interested for podcast fans, on the recent WTF episode with Greg Kinnear, Maron talks about his addictions and his sobriety in a lot more detail than usual (before the interview part and at the end.) I thought it was moving, and could hopefully help others.
Every since hearing him tell the story about how he insisted on personally choking Uma Thurman and Diane Kruger during filming I haven’t been able to stomach him. And nothing I’ve seen or heard since has helped. At all.
Ah. I didn’t hear that. But does sound gross.
The insinuation here doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality though. Uma Thurman never seemed to address her choking/spit shots in a negative light, and Diane Krueger defended Tarantino, saying it was a pleasurable shooting. Tarantino had a rational explanation as well, that he made sure the actors were fine with those shots, Thurman even suggested the authenticity of the choking, and that he wanted to do it himself so both actor & director can get the shot they want.There is little defense in the handling of Thurman’s crash, though. It’s sad & horrifying that it’s had such an impact on her life, that Tarantino considered himself a friend, had a hand in what led to it, and couldn’t comprehend his fault until the Times article. At least he owned up to it, but I can’t fathom being in his shoes and ever doing that to an employee, coworker, or friend. His complacency over the knowledge of Weinstein’s acts is deplorable as well.
It can be true that they were fine with it and also that it’s messed up. His “rational explanation” still sounded creepy as hell to me. I’ve done some acting (not quite at this level, lol, but still…) and I would be extremely disturbed by a director who insisted on personally doing the choking. If it’s not going to be the actor in character it should be a stunt person / fight captain / some kind of professional who is trained to safely perform dangerous tasks. At best it’s arrogance and carelessness to think that only he can do it.Given Tarantino’s obsession with treating the women in his films as objects of sexual fetish and/or victims of extreme violence, it can easily read as something much darker.
It can be read as that, and I can respect that you and I have different opinions on the whole thing. What I will add though, is that I’ve read publications & blogs talking about this choke stuff as if it’s clear proof that Tarantino is a predator, which I think does a disservice to the alleged victims, considering that both women haven’t supported the claims. I’m definitely not saying you’re doing that, I just think that considering that all developments after the publication of Thurman’s story is in direct conflict with how Time wrote it, that’s pretty important to consider.
I’m thinking in particular of a video interview where I saw Tarantino describe choking Kruger. It certainly seemed (in my interpretation) that he got some kind of thrill out of it. Not saying it’s proof of anything, but in combination with other stories about his on set behavior, and the content of his films, it left me feeling very uncomfortable. I do think he’s a talented filmmaker, unfortunately I’ve never really been able to enjoy his films.
I get it. I’ve drawn the line for Polansky, I love many of his movies, but can’t bring myself to watch them after learning of his history. I hate to do that for films, considering so many people worked on each, but I can’t stomach them anymore.
Didn’t Argento do the same thing in his giallo films? Maybe like most other things Quentin does, it was just an “homage” to something someone else did before him.
ah yes the film was a “mess” the favourite non-criticism of pseuds everywhere. Don’t press him on this one folks, he might cry
Ha!
I’ll take your bait! So I guess we’ll put aside all the gross shit and pretend what the film says about women, hollywood, innocence, and power isn’t there. So I will give you that outside of bigger picture editing/story/writing stuff, OUATIH is very good on a technical level. Beautiful to look at, killer Tarantino soundtrack, some career-best performances, and the usual snappy dialogue and sustained tension that makes Tarantino Tarantino. While I would still have problems with the film’s messaging, I would certainly be impressed if this was coming from a new filmmaker or someone who’d never done anything like this. S. Craig Zahler comes to mind as someone making toxic garbage exceptionally well (to be clear I don’t think OUATIH comes close to as bad as what’s going on in Dragged Across Concrete). But here’s the thing, this is Tarantino. He’s only made 10 movies (THEY ARE TWO MOVIES, NOT ONE, FIGHT ME), but they’re pretty damn good at what they’re doing. While I haven’t seen Death Proof, I can pretty confidently say that every other one up until OUATIH has been more focused, sharper, and less saggy than this. Even the dreaded Hateful Eight is a movie I can at least admire for being one where Tarantino actually decides to say something. People like to give OUATIH credit for being more tender than any of his other films. It’s a wistful movie about aging, they say! First of all, Jackie Brown did the whole wistful movie about aging twenty years ago and for soooooooooome reason, Tarantino fans can’t seem to get into that one. OUATIH is only tender if you find the two leads relatable and engaging in any way beyond being fun to watch for a couple hours. Any depth given to Pitt through his violent backstory is unexplored. While the larger point of the film might be about preserving a place in time as it was, Tarantino still decides to have his main character have a drastic turn-around in the middle of the film in which he is so goddamn inspired, he actually becomes a good actor after we’ve seen him be terrible for over an hour. How is this transformation achieved? By talking to a precocious child. The response to this scene by critics is BAFFLING to me. Sure, the scene is funny and well-written, Julia Butters is excellent. That’s cool! And it would be fine if it wasn’t the linchpin for Dicaprio’s entire character arc. But you’re telling me Tarantino decided to trot out the well-worn rom com trope of the precocious child inspiring our hero to turn things around and I’m supposed to be impressed? This is good film making? A prestige version of Chloe Moretz in 500 Days of Summer? That’s messy.Tarantino’s movies often feel vignettish, but it is downright odd how disjointed OUATIH feels. We are often just a few cutaways away from a Family Guy episode. Scenes of Leo acting in his western dragging on for twenty minutes might be cute for people with nostalgia for that time, but they do not make a good movie when they tell us so little about the people in them and are so thuddingly dry. But perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that it assumes too much. Tarantino is in his fifties and most people I’ve spoken to who are around that age seem to enjoy the movie more than my own peers. In fact, when I turned to my friends during the movie to ask if they knew the exact day of Tate’s murder, I was horrified to realize that none of them even knew who Sharon Tate was. Not because it’s some great sin to know about a relatively minor historical event from fifty years ago, but because I couldn’t imagine how the film had any power, any tension, any meaning if you don’t know the history it’s “commenting” on. Tarantino wants to play with our understanding of history, with our memories, he wants to subvert our expectations, but this is not World War II and most people under 35 don’t know who the fuck Sharon Tate is. Hell, my parents don’t and, despite being immigrants, they’ve been here since the 80s and absorbed plenty of other cultural touchstones. Even the Mansons are barely given a name drop (it might be not at all if I remember correctly), so those who’ve heard the name but don’t know the stories might not even understand why we’re supposed to be scared for Cliff at Spahn Ranch. Maybe this is much ado about nothing. There is plenty of entertainment aimed at 18-35 year olds and plenty of people seem to be watching it and enjoying it for what it is. But, outside of direct sequels, I will always mark down a movie that absolutely requires me to bring in some outside knowledge, either of history or other media to understand the story contained in the two hours. It’s why plenty of Marvel movies feel incomplete and disjointed to me (although I’ve started to just accept that they’re closer to a TV series than a film franchise). Putting that aside, does Tarantino have anything interesting to say about the period and about the history of that moment? Sharon Tate was a bright person with her whole life ahead of her? Her death represented the loss of old Hollywood and it would be cool if she lived? We disrespect the men of that time period too much? If he had the chance, Tarantino’s favorite old Hollywood stuntman could kick Bruce Lee’s ass any day? The Mansons are dumb and bad? Yea, I’ll just read Joan Didion, thanks.
What if this was called Podass and it was just for the fellas?
Hell yeah dude
“He ends every single night by playing video games to unwind.”I need to smoke what he’s smoking. I swore for ten minutes non-stop after losing a game of Civ V this weekend. If I want to unwind, I listen to jazz and stare out the window. I’m not calming down by repelling a horde of Hussars with some inexperienced crossbowmen, let me tell you.
I heard something on an NPR show about a game based around completing positive real life goals. One of the things someone said was something like “and when people are playing a game, they don’t get frustrated or discouraged.” Obviously they have never heard of Dark Souls, or seen me almost pitch my $300 Switch into the wall while playing Celeste.
Well, it does take about 10 hours for you realise you’ve lost a game of Civ and there’s no coming back.
does anyone know who Steve McQueen was talking to about Sharon Tate at the party?
Looks like he’s sneezing.
Just came here to say:
Quentin Tarantino’s face, man…
Quentin Tarantino’s face.
Oh, wow, Tarantino has opinions about movies JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PERSON IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
I hope it didn’t miss the cutoff for next week’s column but Last Podcast on the Left’s episode on Howard Unruh, America’s first mass shooter, is a must-listen.
Bizarre take on that Tarantino podcast. He heaps praise on all of these films. The harshest criticism is of Paul Thomas Anderson for shitting on Gerard Damiano & even that is couched in admiration.