The Movie Thread

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Tarantino's dialogue is certainly something I always loved about his films.
But was that just pubescent teenage me loving the risque dialogue? Take away his profanity and what do you really have?

"Does my front lawn say Dead Black Body Storage?" is not particularly funny.
Yeah the "Royale with Cheese" bit is catchy, but compare it to any of the great soliloquies or dialogues in great films and it''s really just slightly humorous banter about the differences between European and US culture with some Samuel L Jackson histrionics and profanity.

I've strongly disliked every one of his recent films (Jackie Brown I consider a masterpiece, and Pulp Fiction is also great) and I wonder if it's me judging his films truly on their merits as a wiser man, or if he is really just creating crap these days.
 

fireshark

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
I've seen all of his movies, except the most recent one. His last decent film was Kill Bill. His last good film was Jackie Brown all the way back in 1997. Sometime around the late 00s, the hype went to his head.

I've never been a big fan of the guy or his work, but he had a good run of clever and creative films in the 90s, certainly.

His dialogue is only special in comparison to the likes of whatever the current mainstream blockbuster fad is. In comparison to many other autuers and more serious writers, it's a lot of fluff and shock value, and very little substance.
 

Hypno

Crow
Tarantino did Once Upon a Time in Hollywood which is very different in pacing and in terms of action from his prior films. Its worth a look.

The narrative is a bit confusing but the cinematogrophy and period aspects are top notch. Ostensibly its the story of a Hollywood actor (DiCaprio) and his stuntman (Pitt) in the early 60s, but really its an imagined story of Sharon Tate, the actress killed by the Manson family. A secondary story is how two men hitting middle age, particularly as it affects their careers, deal with those challenges differently.

For men, the film is worth watching and rewatching for the juxtaposition of the DiCaprio and Pitt roles and how they approach life.
 

Cleotis

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
No one said any of the Jesuit priests were martyrs. And the Jesuit characters in the movie are based on real people.

No one said any of the Jesuit priest were martyrs…what?! “Without counting the members of Third Orders and Congregations, the Jesuits had, according to the martyrology, 55 martyrs, the Franciscans 36, the Dominicans 38, the Augustinians 20. Pius IX and Leo XIII declared worthy of public cult 36 Jesuit martyrs, 25 Franciscans, 21 Dominicans, 5 Augustinians and 107 lay victims. After 1632 it ceased to be possible to obtain reliable data or information which would lead to canonical beatification.”— (from Japanese Martyrs: The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910.)

And yes, Fr. Cristóvão Ferreira was a real person, unfortunately. So what? Judas Iscariot, Ferreira’s predecessor in perdition, was a real person too. Would that Shūsaku Endō had written a novel about any of the hundreds (actually thousands) of heroic and glorious martyrs of Japan, rather than writing a scandalous novel that glorifies and sympathizes with an infamous apostate!
The guy that wrote the book Silence was a Japanese Catholic and and was inducted into the Roman Catholic Order of St. Sylvester by Pope Paul VI.
Well, that says it all. It tells you everything you need to know, given the key role that Giovanni Montini, the man who claimed to be the Pope of the Catholic Church from 1963 to 1978 under the name of “Paul VI”, has played in the subversion of the Catholic Church! It was Paul VI, more than any other of the Conciliar papal pretenders, who visibly transformed the Holy Roman Catholic Church into the Modernist Novus Ordo Sect of the Second Vatican Council, whose heretical documents he alone approved and promulgated. More than anyone else, Vatican II is the work of Paul VI. The church he left behind on August 6, 1978, was and looked nothing like the Catholic Church Pope Pius XII had bequeathed to the college of cardinals less than 20 years before. Paul VI was an anti-Catholic deceiver of the worst sort, whose “reign” brought nothing but apostasy, heresy, sacrilege, impiety, confusion, chaos, and destruction.

As for Shūsaku Endō: “Silence was not immediately successful among Japanese Catholics, who were among some of the novel's harshest critics. Instead, the novel's popularity was boosted by ‘left-wing college students’ who saw a connection to the plight of Japanese Marxists in the circumstances of Rodrigues.” —(Wikipedia) That also says it all.
 

Cleotis

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
Why Catholics Cannot be Silent about Scorsese’s ‘Silence’
January 11, 2017 | John Horvat II

Why_Catholics_Cannot_Be_Silent_About_Scorseses_Silence.jpg

In the history of the Church, many martyrs died for the Faith. Starting with Saint Stephen the Protomartyr shortly after the Resurrection, they were the first to be remembered, venerated for their public witness and raised to the altars with the title of saint. There are also those who denied the Faith under pressure. They are forgotten and buried in the dark recesses of history.

The modern world has a problem with martyrs. People cannot understand the glory of their witness for Christ. Modern man would rather try to find some justification behind the anguished decision of those who deny the Faith.

Such is the case of Martin Scorsese’s latest film “Silence.” It is a tale about this second category of non-martyrs—of whom Our Lord said: “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33).

Curiously, early reviews of “Silence,” have been negative—even by liberal media hostile to the Church. The consensus is that Scorsese’s attempt to propose for general admiration one who outwardly denied the Faith has fallen flat.

Perhaps it is because human nature finds such denials distasteful. Even the director’s talents, Hollywood special effects and media publicity cannot overcome it. Scorsese’s tortuous attempt to justify his tormented protagonist proves tedious and unconvincing.

Hollywood’s Teaching Authority

“Silence” is based on a 1966 novel of the same name by the Japanese author Shusaku Endo. The plot revolves around the fictional character of a Portuguese Jesuit priest in seventeenth century Japan at the time of a violent anti-Catholic persecution. The film represents a “struggle of faith” in which the priest must choose between the lives of his flock and his Faith. In the face of his trials, he finds God is silent to his entreaties, hence the film’s title. Finally, Christ Himself supposedly breaks the silence by interiorly telling the priest that he might outwardly deny the Faith by trampling upon His image to save his flock.

Such a shallow story so contrary to all Church teaching would usually pose no threat to Catholics who are firm in their Faith. However, Hollywood has tragically assumed the role of a teaching authority to countless American Catholics. Thus, the principal lesson taught by the film—that outwardly denying the Faith can sometimes be justified and even desired by God—does pose a danger to the many uncatechized that might mistake Hollywood script for Scriptures. Any silence about “Silence” might be misconstrued as consent.

It is not the case to review the film or explore its convoluted plot and subplots. Such films are nothing new; they are simply means to reinforce certain false premises that undermine the Faith. It is far better to address the false premises themselves and, especially as it applies to modernity’s woeful misunderstanding of martyrdom.

Martyrdom Is Not Defeat

The first false premise is the modern assumption that life is the supreme value. This is a terrible premise since if there are no values worth dying for then there is no real reason worth living for. In a materialistic world that adores life and its enjoyment, martyrdom represents failure. Those who renounce the Faith and martyrdom are winners. Those who don’t are losers.

The message of fictional accounts like “Silence,” is that life is to be worshipped to such extent that even God must be made complicit in inspiring the apostasy that saves the lives of the faithful. However, such accounts are indeed fiction; they ignore the historical reality of what happened.

A Denial of the Historical Record
The historic record of the Japanese martyrs is one of the most glorious in Church history. It is a burning rebuke of modernity’s idolization of life. Tens of thousands suffered or died at the hands of cruel executioners. If tales are needed to inspire authors, let writers tell of the courage, heroism and constancy of these Japanese martyrs, young and old, male and female, religious and secular, who joyfully gave their lives for Christ and earned for themselves the crown of eternal glory. If villains need be found for their stories, let them find them in the cruel governors and judges who condemned the Christians to death.

Saint_Alphonsus_de_Liguori_Cross.jpg


Saint Alphonsus de Liguori

In 1776, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori wrote the book, The Victories of the Martyrs, which has one large section that tells incredible stories of the Japanese martyrs. He speaks of a Japanese Christian named Ursula, for example, who upon seeing her husband and two young children martyred, cried out: “Be Thou praised, O My God! For having rendered me worthy to be present at this sacrifice, now grant me the grace to have a share in their crown!” She and her youngest daughter were then beheaded.

Indeed, any priest who would renounce his Faith to save the lives of his flock would be reviled by the Japanese faithful for both his denial and depriving the flock of the crown of martyrdom.

If there is any silence in Scorcese’s “Silence,” it is that silence which ignores the dauntless courage and supernatural joy found in the Japanese martyrs and missionaries whose witness was so superior that their enemies were defeated by their arguments and resorted to killing them. Their martyrdom was their victory, not their defeat.

Acts Have Meaning

A second premise is that outward acts have no meaning, or can mean whatever the person determines them to be. Such a premise is typical of postmodern thought that would “deconstruct” acts from their natural meaning and context.

Thus, any benefit or inspiration can justify an act that signifies the denial of the Faith, since acts have no fixed meaning. Indeed, the theme of the film shrouds the outward denial with the good intentions of the protagonist’s concern for the safety of his flock.

Again, this shows a profound misunderstanding of the idea of martyrdom. The word martyr itself means witness—an external manifestation of Faith to others. The postmodern interpretation of the martyr’s dilemma questions the notion that there can be witnesses that are so firmly convinced of the truths of the Catholic religion that they gladly suffer death rather than deny it. The “meta-narrative” of the great deeds of the martyrs is no longer valued. Even the idea of truth is relative. All must be reduced to the level of personal experience.

Again, such an interpretation runs contrary to the historical reality that was centered on the notion of objective truth. Those who persecute the Church hate this truth and the moral law taught by Christ and His Church. They especially hate the public witness given by Christians because this witness denounces them for their sins and wickedness. All they asked of their victims was an outward sign of denial. For this reason, persecutors often preferred to force Christians to deny the Faith than to take their lives.

Historically, that is why those who persecute the Church are always willing to offer honors, offices and benefits to those who renounce the Faith. They will always give Christians an excuse to stop being witnesses. This includes those “good intentions” to diminish the sufferings of family, relatives and fellow Christians. However, this is only a pretext. Indeed, what they want to destroy is the witness that haunts them and calls them to virtue. They want renegade Christians to make their denial public to discourage the witness of others.

Thankfully, their efforts are often frustrated by the constancy of faithful Christians that moves others to conversion. They do not understand Tertullian’s encomium that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church,” (Apologeticus, Ch. 50).

The God of Silence

The final false premise comes from a naturalistic understanding of the world in which people do not grasp how God works in souls. The secular world assumes God’s natural position is one of silence. When secular writers are forced to imagine the action of God upon their characters, they portray it as a purely personal matter based on feelings and emotions inconsistent and outside the logic of divine law.

This is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of the Faith. Modern authors create their own god of silence and believers outside of the life of grace.

Such a combination leads to absurd characterizations like that of “Silence.” Martyrdom cannot be based on emotion or feeling since it involves surrendering man’s greatest natural gift—life. This is something so difficult that it is beyond human strength to achieve. Martyrdom must entail grace, which enlightens the intellect and strengthens the will to allow Christians to do that which is beyond human nature. God’s grace would never allow a person to deny Christ before men.

The Christian Martyrs of Nagasaki, Japan

God’s grace would never allow a person to deny Christ before men. Indeed the merits of the martyrs lie in being the effects of God’s grace and their cooperation with grace.
Christian_Martyrs_Of_Nagasaki.jpg

Christian Martyrs of Nagasaki. 16th-17th century Japanese painting. Artist unknown.
Martyrdom—The Fruit of Grace

That is why Saint Alphonsus states that it is a matter of Faith that, “Martyrs are indebted for their crown to the power of the grace which they received from Jesus Christ; for he it is that gave them the strength to despise all the promises and all the threats of tyrants and to endure all the torments till they had made an entire sacrifice of their lives.”

Saint Augustine further states that the merits of the martyrs lie in being the effects of God’s grace and their cooperation with grace.

In other words, God cannot be silent in the face of martyrdom as Scorcese’s “Silence” film affirms. His justice will not allow a person to be tempted beyond their capacity to resist. He is intimately involved in those facing martyrdom. He gives them grace—a created participation in divine life itself. Facing martyrdom without grace is impossible. While God may allow for trials, He is never silent.

Catholics Cannot Remain Silent


And that is why faithful Catholics cannot remain silent in the face of Scorcese’s “Silence.” Scorcese’s film is a tragic denial of God’s grace in a world in dire need of it. In these days when Catholics are being martyred, Catholics need to know that God is never silent. They will never be put in a situation where God betrays Himself. He will always be there when needed.

The secular worldview is so narrow-minded and asphyxiating, but alas so prevalent. Today’s obsession with self permeates the culture to the exclusion of God. It is little wonder that so many would think there is “silence” on the other side of martyrdom. It is largely because they find emptiness in their own lives. They cannot imagine the action of God and His grace.

Amid the frenetic intemperance of the times, the agitated crowds ironically do not seek out God where He is always found—in the silence of their own souls

TFP Link
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
I’m shocked that Hollywood would produce the new Dune movie, which appeared to be about a white teenager with no previous leadership experience who - upon encountering a planet full of brown people - was already so much more competent than them that he immediately became their leader. Who knew that kind of white supremacy was still allowed in film??

In all seriousness though, the new Dune had zero pugs and the last one had at least one (possibly two). To me that makes the old Dune the winner.
 
I’m shocked that Hollywood would produce the new Dune movie, which appeared to be about a white teenager with no previous leadership experience who - upon encountering a planet full of brown people - was already so much more competent than them that he immediately became their leader. Who knew that kind of white supremacy was still allowed in film??
Well, he is (((white))) not white.

He is also a terrible actor. But being a Tribe member leading the dumb lower species of a planet to their manifest future destiny is kosher I imagine as its .. kind of how the Messiah prophesy works in that religion isn't it?

200 Fremen Slaves for Every House of Atreides Member etc.
 

Tom Slick

Woodpecker
Orthodox
You make my point for me.

His films arent filmed "as if on stage", they are written as a play that can be performed on a stage, but filmed as a actual movie.

Take Reservoir Dogs for example, each part of it is in a self contained area, and is dialogue, not action heavy. Although there is one getaway footchase scene, the shoot outs with the cops are static.

Tarantino's dialogue is brilliant, especially compared to the crap that is written nowadays. Again, take Reservoir Dogs. If written today, it would have loads of large exposition uploads explaining all the characters as they are introduced. As it is, the diner scene sets up every character, their characterisations and personalities, just through them talking crap together for a few minutes.
Tarantino ripped off the HK action film City on Fire (1987) to make Reservoir Dogs, down to many of the individual scenes, which was the thing that most captured my attention. Dogs felt to me more like a low budget movie than a play.
 

fireshark

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
Tarantino ripped off the HK action film City on Fire (1987) to make Reservoir Dogs, down to many of the individual scenes, which was the thing that most captured my attention. Dogs felt to me more like a low budget movie than a play.
Yeah, he has many early interviews talking about great HK films, some of which I learned about from him. He was a lot better when he was ripping off HK films and not churning out empty, woke, borderline sadistic hype-fests.
 
Tarantino's dialogue is certainly something I always loved about his films.
But was that just pubescent teenage me loving the risque dialogue? Take away his profanity and what do you really have?

"Does my front lawn say Dead Black Body Storage?" is not particularly funny.
Yeah the "Royale with Cheese" bit is catchy, but compare it to any of the great soliloquies or dialogues in great films and it''s really just slightly humorous banter about the differences between European and US culture with some Samuel L Jackson histrionics and profanity.

I've strongly disliked every one of his recent films (Jackie Brown I consider a masterpiece, and Pulp Fiction is also great) and I wonder if it's me judging his films truly on their merits as a wiser man, or if he is really just creating crap these days.
To this day I only like Pam Grier in Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs, everything else about that guy is garbage. He's obsessed with race-mixing (and even throws it in the dialogue of movies like True Romance (a better movie) which he only wrote for) and destroying anything good and wholesome with his degeneracy. If he could have kept making dramas and crime capers like Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown, he would be one of those closet deranged leftists that channels his energy into creative outlets, but he was obviously given the green light and the budget to make his dirty fantasies visually available for mass audiences. He could only let a little bit of it out in pulp fiction, and the only positive aspect about that whole sequence was that the gay sadists were obviously villains and evil. The Kill Bill movies were all about strong independent wahmen, even having little lucy liu behead big boss asian man for mocking her mixed background. His Death Proof movie was similar, just more trash with scantily clad women outsmarting the evil man killer and humiliating him at the end. The subversiveness of his Django and Basterds movies have been discussed here so I don't even need to get into those. The most accurate portrayal of him was the pervert brother in Dusk Til Dawn, something I think he didn't have to even prepare for.
 

GodfatherPartTwo

Kingfisher
I liked it, too. Then I googled it to see what the real Hacksaw Ridge looked like...

1024px-Doss_Maeda.jpg
What's the implication? That you liked the movie and that you didn't like it anymore after you saw a picture of the real thing? Or that you like the movie anyway knowing full well that the nature of art is to take creative license?
 

GodfatherPartTwo

Kingfisher
To this day I only like Pam Grier in Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs, everything else about that guy is garbage. He's obsessed with race-mixing (and even throws it in the dialogue of movies like True Romance (a better movie) which he only wrote for) and destroying anything good and wholesome with his degeneracy. If he could have kept making dramas and crime capers like Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown, he would be one of those closet deranged leftists that channels his energy into creative outlets, but he was obviously given the green light and the budget to make his dirty fantasies visually available for mass audiences. He could only let a little bit of it out in pulp fiction, and the only positive aspect about that whole sequence was that the gay sadists were obviously villains and evil. The Kill Bill movies were all about strong independent wahmen, even having little lucy liu behead big boss asian man for mocking her mixed background. His Death Proof movie was similar, just more trash with scantily clad women outsmarting the evil man killer and humiliating him at the end. The subversiveness of his Django and Basterds movies have been discussed here so I don't even need to get into those. The most accurate portrayal of him was the pervert brother in Dusk Til Dawn, something I think he didn't have to even prepare for.
Not too hot on Tarantino myself. What bugs me about him is he had it in him to be a great director but he traded it in to be, at best, a provocateur and, at worst, a subversive. The film equivalent of a New York "artist" who makes hundreds of thousands to splash paint cans onto a blank canvas. In this case, a director who makes millions because he recorded DiCrapio and Pitt in leather jackets.

Jackie Brown is his best movie in my opinion. Gets better with every rewatch. My father once bumped into Pam Grier at the store. Told her he was a big fan. I also sorted her mail the one week I worked for the Post Office.
 

RedLagoon

Robin
Orthodox Inquirer
I watched the Gentlemen last night, thought it was pretty good. Hugh Grant can actually act well.

And yes, Jackie Brown is Tarantino's best movie by far I dare to say. Pam Grier was great in it and the story was good so was the setting and direction. It was also the most "well behaved" Tarantino.

I find everything he did after that appalling and can't even sit through those movies.
 

Maddox

Woodpecker
Just rewatched Hacksaw Ridge and I still believe it’s one of the best movies Hollywood has ever put out. Absolutely wholesome from beginning to end.

Really? I wouldn't even put it as one of the best war movies ever made.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good flick, but I'm having trouble recalling a single memorable scene, other than the one where he goes back for the soldiers at the end.

When you really break it down, there's nothing special about the writing, directing, or acting.

Compare that to Saving Private Ryan that had many memorable war scenes that people often refer to; like the landing at Normandy along with the final battle scene. Both of those scenes are much better shot than HR. The characters in SPV are also more 3-dimensional and memorable. And it pains me to say that because I love Mel. But he's made better movies than this one.
 
Really? I wouldn't even put it as one of the best war movies ever made.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good flick, but I'm having trouble recalling a single memorable scene, other than the one where he goes back for the soldiers at the end.

When you really break it down, there's nothing special about the writing, directing, or acting.

Compare that to Saving Private Ryan that had many memorable war scenes that people often refer to; like the landing at Normandy along with the final battle scene. Both of those scenes are much better shot than HR. The characters in SPV are also more 3-dimensional and memorable. And it pains me to say that because I love Mel. But he's made better movies than this one.
My issue with Saving Private Ryan is that they go out of their way to demonize the German troops. Collative Learning did a really good breakdown of the film, but his general points are that:

- The Germans are shown to be cowardly
- When killed they don't suffer like Americans
- They take kindness shown to them and repay it with evil

It was a really detailed and informative video.

Collative Learning's Analysis
 
Top