Hmm .... never really thought about that before but you may have a point , although given the subject matter of many of his movies , women were simply not a major part of the plot , or the action . A lot of " Gangstas " doing a bunch of " Gangsta " stuff ..... Westerns , War stories etc. .... women were pretty much part of the background in all such movies . There are many strong , dominant female characters in some of Tarrantino's movies ... Jackie Brown is calling the play from start to finish and working the men like puppets . Mia , and Amanda Plummer's characters in Pulp Fiction are also good examples . And as for Uma Thurman's character in Kill Bill ....... ? -
I think the point they were making was more the central characters plots. When its women, it centres around men. When its men, its around themselves. Or some nonsense, middle-class critic snowflake stuff like that
Try watching "Supergirl" on TV. Men aren't even extras in that show, they are "props". Is now a good time to remind everyone how delighted I am to have jacked in my Sky Contract and my TV licence?
Completely disagree with those saying that women’s roles aren’t strong in his films. All of the girls in Deathproof win the day, Pam Grier is the very definition of badass in JB, Uma Thurman dominates the KB films & Kerry Washington sticks all kinds of attitude in Django. For sure, Tarantino has his fetishes as all of his films feature close-ups of women’s feet for instance, but it’s a small price to pay for his genius imo.
which was an almost exact copy of General Georgi Koskov He was great in Django too, another similar role
The whole first 20 minutes of Inglorious are almost a film in itself. Tarantino is one of the rare true auteurs in film nowadays, apart from Scorsese, I can’t think of anyone else able to tell a story with such clever dialogue & character development as he does.
I enjoyed it. Don’t know what to think about the misogyny thing. I don’t see it but then I’m not on the receiving end of it... Didn’t appreciate the way they portrayed Bruce Lee though. Joe Rogan was talking about it. Said that maybe they based the bit about Bruce being thrown on Gene LeBell but felt it unlikely that anything like that happened as a) there’s no record of Bruce acting like a dick and b) Gene was friends with Bruce.
Yeah the Bruce Lee bit was a bit odd. I’m not sure why Tarantino chose to do it that way with as you say him acting like a dick, when it would have been perfectly easy to stage the fight for other reasons (a bet, a laugh, mistaken identity etc), but then again he does often ‘play’ with history in his films so perhaps that’s all it was. Still a great film though & just how immense an actor is Di Caprio?