More Tarantino Bloodshed Coming
Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:00PM Chris here. Quentin Tarantino has begun to lineup his next film to shoot next year, and it could be even bloodier than his divisive Hateful Eight if the subject matter is any indication. Hold on to your stomachs, the provacateur will next be tackling the Manson murders.
While this seemingly won't appease anyone put off by Hateful's gruesome antics, the potential for something great is there and Tarantino reportedly does have a unique take on the material yet to be revealed. Per his previous comments, this looks to be his penultimate film, but I'm guessing that that's actually as likely as that "unique take" being a tamer vision regarding onscreen bloodshed. My first guess is that like Inglourious Basterds before it, Tarantino will be doing a bit of revisionist history with the details of Charles Manson's enacted violence.
Casting is already promising some major talent, with reportedly approached stars including Brad Pitt, Jennifer Lawrence, Samuel L. Jackson, and Margot Robbie. Details are sparse on what roles could be attached to each star, aside from Robbie possibly playing Sharon Tate. We'll see what Tarantino's take is on the story and what the ensemble might actually shape up like - but (should it come to be) doesn't Pitt as Manson already sound like a fascinating choice?
Reader Comments (32)
Any directors who has made as many masterpieces and near masterpieces as Tarantino deserves our full attention.
Though the thing about Tarantino, he does not need stars to sell his movies. If he's gonna go for a star, I'd rather him grab someone he hasn't worked with before - like Viggo.
@Huh
Tarantino is done with vets headlining his material. He gets bigger budgets when he works with stars. Wish he wasn't so infatuated with tart of the era Lawrence. Couldn't he use Chastain, Larson, or that pretty girl who won for the Danish Girl? Sorry I can't think of her name nor bother to look it up as I write this. Or Rooney Mara.
Aesthetically I'm very excited about what this will look like.
Brad Pitt as Charles Manson would be a fine casting choice.
I could stomach Pitt as Manson, although he *is* a good 20 years too old for the part. (Riz Ahmed would be a more apt choice.) If you're going to do a film about the Manson family and the Tate murders, may I suggest:
- Finn Wittrock as Tex Watson
- Katherine Waterston as Susan Atkins
- Elisabeth Moss as Patricia Kernwinkle
- Mamie Gummer as Lynette Fromme
If Lawrence wants to play Leslie Van Houten, and Robbie is the pick for Tate, I guess I'm OK with them. James Wolk would be a good Jay Sebring. Roman Polanski can play himself (ha).
Shia lebeauf as Manson!!
Ben Feldman (aka Ginsberg in Mad Men) would be perfect as Manson
I want to be excited for this, but after reading "Helter Skelter" for the first time last year and "The Girls" this year, I'm kind of ... Manson'd out. Also, commenters on the AV Club are pointing out how these are real, specific people and for him to go Full Tarantino could be seen as distasteful.
But of course I'll still watch it.
My only quibble is that this is real life violence, as opposed to Tarentino's usual glorification of it.
I will say I haven't seen "Inglorious Bastards", and this does sound fascinating (and hopefully not really his 2nd to last.) It just might need a bit more respect than blowing away John Travolta in the bathroom.
My 2 cents.
For better or worse, Jennifer Lawrence is the Meryl Streep of our time! Is she really right for every project, or is it just easier for attention plus money? I find this project macabre but we shall see what comes of it.
I'm definitely onboard for anything Tarantino does though I will agree with 3rtful about J-Law who is becoming very overrated.
I'm starting to have a backlash to the J-Law backlash! Don't know why we always have to tear down our stars (esp. the young/hot women ones). Robbie also gets a lot of undeserved hate.
Also, with Tarantino, as long as you think the actress has ANY talent, you should sit up and get ready. Did I ever think Kruger could do what she did in Basterds prior? No!
I'm so scared of the potential for how gross this could be but I'm also abstractly excited for Lawrence and Robbie, since this feels like crazy new territory for them. Who knows where Jackson will fit and I already kinda loathe Pitt's involvement (not being a fan of him in Basterds) but I dunno. Especially if he keeps escalating the kind of violence he's been using in his films lately, I feel like I'm worried if it'll be tasteful or bearable to sit through more than if it's good.
ugh...
NO Hilary Swank. Jennifer Lawrence is NOT the Meryl Streep of any era. Meryl has 1000 times more talent in her pinky than the tactless Lawrence + Meryl was never thought of as a star in the superficial way that Lawrence is.
This sounds like a terrible idea. Tarantino's theatrical flair for the comically gruesome does not fit this true-life tragedy. There is nothing in his filmography to suggest he can approach the sensitive subject with the required restraint and tact. And I do not want to see Travolta as Vince Bugliosi.
After his last two efforts (and an increasingly annoying public persona) I approach anything Tarantino-related with extreme caution. This could be brilliant or it could be garbage...or it could be both.
There's also something weird to me about JLaw and Margot Robbie being in the same film, it just feels like it isn't supposed to happen (lol).
"For better or worse, Jennifer Lawrence is the Meryl Streep of our time!"
Conveniently, the same internet trolls despise them both!
Suzanne: And I don't even get it. I mean, I don't HATE either, but aside from both being over-nominated (which, even if you like them, you kind of have to admit they're over-nominated), to say that JLaw is "The Meryl Streep of our time" is trying to say that Lawrence and Streep are stylistically comparable. Which: No. All of the no. Aside from over-nomination, they're basically opposites.
brookesboy
I agree with you more than you'll ever know
Suzanne
I totally get what you're saying
What really disgusts me is how much Manson is going to love this. I hate the idea of giving him the attention he has always so desperately wanted.
@Tyler
He's well aware of his popularity in the culture throughout the decades. They sell his art, and likeness on clothes. He's a newlywed to a very young girl. The Tarantino stamp is irrelevant because he's story will be revisited and retold like a classic fairy tale. Really sickening and frightening to think his atrocities are worthy of permanent placement in the public conscious.
I'm worried about the same things most of you are (will he play around with real history a la Inglourious? Maybe give the story a different ending?) but Margot Robbie is REALLY GOOD casting for Sharon Tate though
"3rtful
per usual. you are wrong
If Tarantino is only going to make a few more movies, this is just a waste of his time. It's also a souring of his talent.
Actors who have played a string of psychos have said how it is damaging to their psyche as well as to their careers. Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Eric Roberts, there's a black hole you fall into.
Tarantino can seem to fixate and obsess, and this is a bad subject for him to fixate on for his own mental health.
My wish for Tarantino is that he would make another movie like "Jackie Brown". Quentin and Viola Davis, now that would be a good pair.
The tv series "Aquarius" did an interesting take on the events leading to the Manson murders.
I would also never put Jennifer Lawrence in the same sentence as Meryl Streep, apart from the similarity that they get nominated a lot. One is a trained actress, the other is ...
This seems kind of gruesome but maybe it will be interesting. Brad Pitt is about 20 years too old to play Charles Manson at that time.
What the fuck with "Jennifer Lawrence is the Meryl Streep of our time!"... i hope this is sarcasm and a very good joke...
My only concern about Lawrence is that she doesn't strike me as an actress who can work outside of contemporary world. She has a very modern look and sound. It sort of worked for her in American Hustle, but I'm keen to be proven wrong.
I just think Pitt is a terrible choice. Or maybe a perfect choice because all we'll ever be able to see Pitt, not Manson. I shudder to think that we'll get a cameo by Christoph Waltz as Roman Polanski.
Word on the street Glenn, Pitt isn't playing Manson but the detective investigating the him.
QT can't wait to graphically show (pregnant) Sharon Tate getting her stomach sliced open.
And since each QT film elegantly uses the n-word up to 300 times (and gets Original Oscars for it), he's probably foaming at the mouth writing Manson scenes where he wants to start a race riot.
I really don't want to see JLaw or TatumChanning in this movie (although I am intrigued)...
Perhaps JLaw will be given the role of heiress Abigail Foster.