The new Quentin Tarantino movie

Richard Brody’s New Yorker review is titled: “Quentin Tarantino’s Obscenely Regressive Vision of the Sixties in “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood”“.

I didn’t love the film, and with each work of his I see, the more I like the others (and him?) less.  My main takeaway was to be reminded of an enormous and unprecedented historical shift.  In the 1960s, in part because of the birth control pill, the sexual opportunities of high status heterosexual men, or even medium status men, increased enormously, in terms of both quantity and quality.  And indeed the men in this movie take advantage of that, to various extremes (wife murder, the Manson cult) and it is not entirely clear how much Tarantino disapproves.

Whatever your normative view of this change, keep it in mind the next time you encounter the “Puritan excesses” of today’s PC movement.  Very rapid historical shifts in norms do in fact bring various forms of reaction and sometimes overreaction, and pushing back against the overreaction is not always the wisest thing to do.

If you want to see southern California on the big screen, you might enjoy Echo in the Canyon more, while its bookend cinematic partner David Crosby: Remember My Name will fill in the Joni Mitchell blank and also show you how deeply unpopular and unlikeable people talk and think about themselves.


In the 1960s, in part because of the birth control pill, the sexual opportunities of high status heterosexual men, or even medium status men, increased enormously, in terms of both quantity and quality.

Is there something you want to tell the class?

That sexual stuff sounds is hard work.

Tarantino is weird in a really bad way. If he was not a rich producer he would probably be a mass murderer. There is something seriously wrong with him. God only knows what his thoughts are but what he writes and says is disgusting. He makes Woody Alan look like a saint.

This is exactly true.

But for some reason, lefties like Tyler have felt really, really compelled to extol him for a couple decades now, and it seems like more than just peer pressure. It's more of a virtue-signalling thing. They all feel like they absolutely have to get online ASAP and state how great QT is after each and every film. It's like if they don't, they are terrified that they are no longer in The Club.

I thought this phenomenon would end at least four films ago, but it has persisted, through every sophomoric and inane film he cranked out. Maybe 2019 is when it ends? Let's hope.

This lefty icon died a long, long time ago. Kudos to Tyler for only being about ten years late. I guess.

Tarantino's next movie should be about an angry young white boy decimating the local Walmart because Hispanics and Democrats. Quentin loves bloody violence on the big screen.

I don't even have to look to see what race the shooter was in El Paso. Or Mississippi a few days back. Or Gilroy. Or Las Vegas. Or Pittsburgh. Or...

Or Virginia Beach? Or Mercy Hospital? Or Aberdeen? Or Cincinnati? Or Capital Gazette? Or Scottsdale? Or Yountville? Or Stoneman Douglas High School? Or Lincoln County? Or North Park Elementary? Or Ft Lauderdale Airport? Or Pulse in Orlando?

All mass shootings by 'people of color'...

This is a bit different. It is a sick game being played on the internet.

' Ever since the Christchurch shooting spree, 8chan users have commented regularly on Brenton Tarrant’s high bodycount, and made references to their desire to “beat his high score”.'

Pittsburgh too. Trump has fired up the hate, and you people here love it. Muslims and Hispanics are the other, they are an invasion, they have come to replace the native stock of whites.

That's the zeitgeist. You guys never get tired of winning, so these racist nutjobs grab some guns and go for more winning.

Don't @me about how you're not violent, that you don't approve. You might not, but you sure do approve of a world where the other is less than human, is something to be feared, not just fucking people just like you.

The shortest time-lapse on the plant is the 0.12 seconds it takes a NYC cab driver to hit the horn when the traffic light turns green. The second is the time it takes Democrats to politicize a gun tragedy.

It wasn't Trump or me.

Cue The Crazy Talk

These Are Tragedies Not Campaign Events For Democrats

Ironically but predictably the bile and vile language comes from the left especially when they are trying to claim it is Trump that is dividing us. The left can ONLY get elected by dividing the electorate and then blaming the division on Trump. The latest with the corrupt Elijah Cummings is classic left wing politics. A POC makes hateful, vile and dishonest claims about the right and when someone on the right points out his deceit and dishonesty the left yells 'racist' and piles on and the MSM gleefully conspires with them.
It looks like karma is going to be a bitch because there seems to be 100's of millions of federal dollars that was sent to Baltimore that are unaccounted for and you can bet the farm Mr Cummings got his share. So investigate the corruption in Baltimore and let the chips fall where they may.

Not worth the pixels wasted. This one is pretty cut and dried. It's on you.

You do know that the shooter was a Democrat anti-trumper?

You know it. I know it. Your world view is murderous.

You know how you idiots like to say voting for Obama is the same as supporting Stalinist gulags? Well, this is your version. Voting for Trump is the same as shooting up a Walmart.

Either be consistent or stop the hate and grow up.

There is/was something very wrong with Obama's history. He supposedly he went to Columbia but no one there ever knew him or saw him. He attended a very expensive university living off campus in expensive housing but was penniless, who payed for all this. He disappeared for months at a time believed to be traveling overseas but all of his travel records have been destroyed or sealed, why? In fact by an act of a Democrat congress ALL of his records were sealed, why? His birth certificate was clearly a fake listing a hospital that did not exist, using a format that didn't exist at the time he was born and listing a home address for his mother where the residents of that house had never heard of him. To this day you cannot find out anything about Obama. The only thing we know for sure is that until 2007 he always claimed to have been born in Kenya.

you give him too much credit...his big hit pulp fiction is nothing more than cinematic plagiarism...almost every scene ripped off or parodied scenes from movies in the past...he is a blood and gore one trick pony not fit to lick the boots of great directors like scorcese or 50 years it will be quentin who?

I agree : it would be a misuse of resource to have Tarentino licking the boots of other great directors. Instead, let him keep making great movies, that we can enjoy, and that provoke outraged reactions from Puritans of both sex and all sides of the political spectrum, that we can enjoy too, even without leaving this comment sections.

"(I)n part because of the birth control pill, the sexual opportunities of high status heterosexual men, or even medium status men, increased enormously, in terms of both quantity and quality. " In Echo In The Canyon, Michelle Phillips of the Mammas and The Pappas makes it clear that it was not only men who enjoyed the new opportunities for sexual congress.

...and it still isn't. Free love and its cousin, free sex, are a lot of fun, and responsible people can enjoy its benefits. But, as with any social change, there are winners and losers. Some women, like Michelle Phillips, thrive in a culture of sexual free-for-all, but most don't, and most (low-status) men thrive even less. If you don't see the connection between that and our current social pathologies, including mass shootings, I'd refer you to the works of George Gilder, who prefigures the work of Curtis Yarvin and the other literary neoreactionaries by a generation and who is a more readable writer.

Plus, Gilder is an enjoyable nutball. Got to love 'As a very physiological consciousness, she knows she can bear and nurture children.' An older writer would not have bothered with the fancy words to say women are basically nothing but wombs.

Which considering his intelligent design perspective is not really that surprising, Women were designed as wombs, one assumes that simply follows after grasping the intelligent design behind our universe.

"it is not entirely clear how much Tarantino disapproves."

How sad is it that you need the artist to spell out his personal convictions in the art and that those convictions must match yours.

This is how totalitarians start with censoring art - they demand that all art explicitly embody the 'officially approved' social tropes.

Tarantino appears to be an intelligent man stuck in his adolescence. His movies have nothing serious to offer, other than as references to film history. On the other hand, you are absolutly right: The work of artists, and I am not saying Tarantino is one, should be judged by that work and not by what one presumes the artist himself or herself believes. Works of literature and movies are works of fiction and as works of fiction they don't necessarily reflect the creator's personal beliefs. Why should one presume to know from a film whether the director approves or disapproves of what his fictional characters do or don't do? Why should it matter?

@Vivian Darkbloom - well said. I personally have never seen a Tarantino film in its entirety. My conclusion of him was he trades on the censorship bias in favor of shock violence in films (they won't get a NC-17 rating, unlike a sex-themed film), and the fact that horror films are the 'safest' and most popular way to appeal to a mass audience (hence the big genre in such films), analogous to Mexican food being the cheapest and most popular fast food for a restaurateur.

Did I miss anything not seeing "Pulp Fiction"? I saw a few of the famous scenes or heard about them, so I doubt it.

I enjoyed the Kill Bill movies and found them memorable.

Pulp Fiction is a very nice movie. Yes, it is artistically limited but I found it very entertaining. I also liked Kill Bill, where Tarantino just goes all out in his "teenager style" of film making: he is at his best when he does his silly stuff without holding back.

I have not watched his more recent movies because I think I already had enough of his work. Although that also reflects my loss in interest for Holywood movies in general.

A version of dystopia presents an opportunity. I have watched his early films and find Tarantino unable to change. His movies are so stylish that the characters characterize the movie.

Tarantino has yet to make a horror film. He was worried in the 90s about being stuck with the label of the "gun guy", but seemingly gave in after the lackluster response to Jackie Brown and made schlock. This particular film seems like his closest attempt to make something different, as it's mostly a comedy, but still features a gun & some extreme violence at the end.

"His movies have nothing serious to offer"
I won't tell you how to watch movies but for many of us, we don't look for something serious 97% of the time. It's not an art for me either.

Indeed. They're fun as hell. What's the problem?

This is dumb. Criticism is not akin to censorship.

Movies and other art often reflect the viewpoint of their creator, and this is a perfectly legitimate thing to like or dislike.

darl is the ghost of boston latin.

Censoring?? Thought Tyler was trying to say the movie sucked

I heard him say he didn't like it, but he didn't really say anything about it other than it potentially being too subtle in condemning th sexual revolution.

Don't the current "puritan"-whatever-Cowen-saids see themselves as the heirs to the 60s revolutionaries? Is Cowen saying they are a reaction against the 60s?

I saw Echo in the Canyon (they all resided in Laurel Canyon) and was somewhat surprised at how unlikable these folks were. They were so unlikable they didn't like each other or themselves. The harmony of CS&N didn't sound so great after seeing this film. I cannot emphasize enough just how popular their debut album was (Crosby Stills & Nash, which came out in 1969). They seemed so mellow, but were anything but. [Not sure who Cowen is referring to with the "Puritan excesses" comment: the excesses of the PC or the excesses of those reacting against the PC. I don't spend time on a college campus, so I may not appreciate just how annoying and threatening the PC are; the over the top reaction against the PC strikes me as idiotic. Hey, I was in college during the streaking craze.]

Read the linked review. It doesn't criticize the actors performances, th pacing, th cinematography, etc. Its sole critique is that two white men come off looking cool and era where white men could be self-confident is not exposed as the hell it must have been. I'm not exaggerating, that's the extent of the criticism. I don't know what you have in mind with over the top reactions against PC, but I don't think theres anything wrong with pointing out how much dumber cultural commentary seems these days.

The New Yorker review condemning Tarantino for unWokeness has a point: Tarantino deliberately made a movie intended to displease SJWs:

Here's my review in Taki's Magazine:

Tarantino Punches the Damn Dirty Hippies

Clearly you have not been contacted confronted by a crazed sjw in the thrall of postmodern bullsh*t. For me, the hardest part is resisting the urge to slap them hard in the face. I resist the urge because I don't want to do jail time , though sapping those morons would feel really good.

I hate autocorrect.

Speaking of wanting to slap somebody in the face...

Is this 'redpill OK Cowen'? The 'redpill' or 'incel' movements seem like a case study in vastly exaggerated overreaction to an increase in "sexual opportunities of high status heterosexual men, or even medium status men".

So are you cautioning against a pushing back against that overreaction, and in favour of letting it play out as it would?

Though that said, I would have thought it would be easier to argue more positively for the '60s - small increased inequality via higher end increase - relative to today - small increased inequality via lower end decrease. If we take a Robin Hanson-esque view where sexual and economic inequality can be treated as interchangable...

If by "interchangeable" you mean interesting things that effect people and are worth thinking about

In his follow-up to his notorious post comparing the two different kinds of inequalities, he did list financial compensation as one possible form of redistribution in response to sexual inequality.

"So are you cautioning against a pushing back against that overreaction, and in favour of letting it play out as it would?"

But there is inevitably some amount of push back even in "letting it play out."

It seems hard to say movements like #MeToo today as reflecting a reaction to the '60s per se. They seem more like a lifecycle event - actresses and others who became prominent through that system reflect with some bitterness about what happened after the looks went.

Tarantino probably doesn't care too much about that; he tends to work with talented actresses with dramatic chops or at least interesting personae.

Considering him for the point of view of the Great Awokening, he has an unusual cultural position - he's largely made movies centered on 'strong' female or Black characters (I say characters, but I largely mean Samuel L Jackson and Pam Grier), but does so from kind of a white dude perspective, is popular among white dudes and with an adoring backward glance at 'exploitation cinema' that's probably double unplusgood among the SJW modern, clean-cut, left. He doesn't say too much about '60s activism that the woke Millennial left reverentially aspires to either, but you get the sense that if he did, it would be ironic and probably not too glowing.

>he tends to work with talented actresses

No, he works with the ones he is attracted to. Big difference.

True; let me modify that to "more talented enough than the median".

Tarantino is the director perhaps most closely associated with Harvey Weinstein. Harvey started out as a music promoter, and did seem to be of the view that the cultural/sexual revolution made entertainment into one big party for high-status men like himself to enjoy.

ya wanna likeable!
this one is pretty good and the people are likeable

Tarantino is a douchebag who is all style and no substance. His films are pretty much all the same, which is why every new film makes the old ones look worst: same thing; nothing new.

Having said that, the recent criticism of this movie is just more p.c., #metoo, #timesup bullshit.

He and his critics deserve each other. I wish them a long and happy life together.


What is up with all of the hate for Tarantino?

He's one of the most respected directors of all time. His movies are universally considered iconic. He doesn't do franchise movies, but rather develops whole new stories for each movie. Further, he writes almost all of his movies. He works with the best actors on the planet due to the brilliance of the end product.

Seriously. Get a grip.

Even if you don't like his stuff, the pants wetting by all the usual suspects above cracks me up. It's just movies. Like 'em or don't.

seriously you gave django unchained 4 stars?
that was a pretty weak movie

Not nearly as weak as Bolsonaro.

otoh- mebbe you changed the subject because you donna wanna
talk about the django movie?

Amen. Half the comments say they haven't even seen the movies but know they are bad lol. QT easily has one of the most distinguished and high quality body of works in the late 20th - early 21st century. And they are just fun, lot of old fogeys basically saying "back in my day" in this comment section.

"Further, he writes almost all of his movies."

Maybe that's the problem - he's cut out the actual writer of pulp fiction.

"His films are pretty much all the same"

Except this one is different. It is clearly anti-PC. You do yourself a disservice by dismissing it so offhandedly with your misinformed take.

Good point. I’ll see it.

But I’ll probably still maintain that QT is a perennial adolescent who is fixated on visually stylish representations of the same basic themes, especially revenge.

That's fine, his movies are fun, stylish representations of some basic themes. Same as Scorcese and Spielberg when you put it that way.

If you want to see Southern California on screen, in a modern version depicting about the same time period, The Nice Guys is another choice:

It also has a plot, if that's the sort of thing you like.

Even better than the The Nice Guys is the earlier, underrated Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang.

Very under-known movie, and yes very good.

I like Shane Black a lot, and he has a lot to say about Los Angeles in 1977 in "The Nice Guys," but for budgetary reasons they had to film most of it in Atlanta. They did a good job of making Atlanta look like 1977 L.A., but still ...

In contrast, Tarantino was given a gigantic budget for what's basically a movie about two guys driving around L.A. So he shot often exactly on location, with lavish amounts of money to get details right.

His movies have always been fun pop culture plotless rambles. It's all about dialogue and details and hipster nuttiness. What's wrong with that?

There's a lot of similarities to Robert Altman there.

I wasn't attuned to pop culture enough at the time to have watched his famous early movies - edgy for us at that period was the George Carlin-narrated Thomas the Tank Engine videos, versus the Ringo Starr ones we liked best - but saw "Inglorious Basterds" and "Hateful Eight," both times with a certain anticipation.

He seems to understand how much we all liked - almost as our chief family-togetherness activity, liked more as part of a group than solo, really - a certain kind of movie: "Bad News Bears" and "Guns of Navarone," "The Great Escape," "Bridge on the River Kwai," that one where Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton are in the quadruple cross in the Nazi fortress in the Alps, etc., the one where the shootout ignites the TNT being stored in the dusty town; those ragtag-band westerns and war movies.

So he makes, with his great skill, movies that superficially approximate their appeal, but takes care to leave you without the happy, "That's Entertainment!" feeling when you watch them, once, or slightly less-than-once.

I guess (?) that's kind of cool. He seems like he'd be fun to watch movies with - other people's movies.

It's a Tarantino movie. Let's not take it all seriously.

Yeah, sorry. We are obligated to take seriously all movies made by Lefty Gods.

Ah, that's what your guys' issue is? Well damn, I want a list of right wing movie directors on my desk by 5pm. That's all I'm watching from now on.

Strong burn there. I award you 10 internet points.

Looks like you are obligated to be an idiot on the internet. Is there nothing you don't whine about? Is anyone forcing you to see a Tarantino movie? Good god you're a clown.

Tarantino is not, nor does he attempt to be, Ken Burns. Entertainment, not a history lesson, bring popcorn, not a notebook.

“...pushing back against the overreaction is not always the wisest thing to do.”
Balderdash, pushing back against anything anyone is trying to force/enforce on you is wise.

It also helps not to expect a realistic story or characters. His work is carefully detailed and entertaining, but anyone who takes it seriously is, well, missing the point.

I have to cut Tarantino a lot of slack -- it's a new Hollywood release that A) is targeted toward an adult audience, B) I actually want to see and C) doesn't have any god. damn. superheros in it. And if the mores of the 60s are portrayed as they were rather than through 'woke googles', so much the better.


> "I didn’t love the film, and with each work of his I see, the more I like the others (and him?) less."

But you recommended his previous movie, and were "very glad" that you saw it.

Nice find. Hateful Eight was a very, very bad movie.

There is a nice comment in that thread, too:

>"Really Tarantino is really just making the same movie over and over again at this point, and no one seems to want to call him on it."


That criticism may have had some accuracy before, but this film is actually quite different from most of his other films. It's mostly a comedy, with serious violence only occurring at the very end.

Tyler's bizarre criticism of Tarantino movies bespeaks an incel with a wild jealous streak of cool dudes - back in the playground Tyler must've suffered a lot.

Thinking about it now this definitely wasn't a movie that appeals to the nerd crowd. Could explain some of the negative reaction considering our current cultural moment where geek culture rules.

are you sure you can accurately diagnose all that fancy stuff
you just sed just from a persons
reaction to a movie?
nice aka though

Jesus notorious please us with your lyrical thesis.

This is a sublime example of the limitations of brilliance, genius, humans, by which I mean Tyler and the majority of comments thus far. Most people here are on the above average and are special...and wrong on this. Tarantino is one of the clearest examples of brilliance and genius in art, media, or form. He encapsulates the medium, has an encyclopedic knowledge grasp, connection and manifestation of the form, film, of which itself contains multitudes, writing, visual composition, business acumen. Maybe he lucked out with Pulp Fiction at Cannes as the modern Indy film movement, but Reservoir Dogs is a small scale cinematic triumph and his early writing is imaginative thoughtful and always cinematic. Simply put Reservoir dogs and pulp fiction are basically whatever setting stage plays, and it is his imagination and filmic ability that transcends the limitations, and when he did grow to have more opportunity he came to the plate and hit grand fucking slams. The machine gun massacre of Hitler may be the single greatest use of the film form, what other use than to negate the single worst example of our species, perhaps doing something similar to Charles Manson, another demon that we should be actively exorcizing as opposed to bickering about this dudes foot fetish. Confederacy of Dunces abound.

Great comment here. People, Tyler included, go study some cinema.

"The machine gun massacre of Hitler may be the single greatest use of the film form,"

its a cartoon

It's an excellent film, easily one of Tarantino's best. Here is a very thoughtful and insightful review:

+1 for that review.

I find the range of critical reaction to this film almost as entertaining as the film itself! Evidently, Prof. Cohen just HAD to weigh in. Too bad his comments were so cryptic & contradictory that even his long time readers can’t decode them.
I saw the film last week and was entertained, which I assume was QT’s overt, overriding artistic intention. Many QT films deal with great moral events (slavery, mass murder) , confronting good and evil but in a cartoonish manner. This leaves room for everyone to speculate on what he REALLY thinks, with hilarious results. Maybe, like Andy Warhol, there is nothing underneath the surface, no hidden message.
Brad Pitt is awesome in the field too.

Whatever you think of it's morals the movie was gorgeous. Even magical. An aesthetic masterpiece, particularly the soundtrack. I was worries about it's length going in but I loved every moment.

Me too. Tarantino is the only filmmaker that I will pay to see his movies. Why? He cares about the details that others treat as trivial. Music, set and costume design, plot structure , dialogue. With all these the “minute particulars” he creates an entire world that is distinct from, but related to, “real life”, much like the movies themselves. My favorite shot in the whole movie was the one of luggage coming off the carousel, just so perfectly late 60’s. Who else bothers with these things? Who else would use Buffy St. Marie’s version of Circle Game?

Let's keep in mind that Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs was the impetus for escape apparatus in car trunks.

There were things in this movie that I enjoyed, but not much and the extreme joyfully portrayed violence in the final scenes turned me completely. When I read pieces about this movie ( and maybe Tarantino in general) they increasingly read like attempts to justify the films and Tarantino. Justify the brutal violence against women, the pervasive casual racism played over and over for laughs. I think transgression can be a powerful way to express heterodox ideas, but this film in particular has nothing beneath the surface and gives nothing to justify its excesses.

>the brutal violence against women

Exactly. It's disgusting. Yet, the lefties rush to extol him.

Roman Polanski, Laars von Trier, Tarantino..... these are some of the most woman-hating filmmakers of all time. Lefties love all three.

Tyler, go back to New Jersey. Leave L.A. movies alone.

"It is not entirely clear how much Tarantino disapproves." Oh, you're killing me, Tyler. Hahaha.

As for Joni Mitchell, did she ever recover from her "Morgellons"? It was touch and go there for a while. What is the CDC covering up? Are UFOs involved? The Russians?

She does not look well. I don't know the answer to your specific question. At 75, six years older than my wife, she looks old enough to be her mother. The greatest lyricist of the last half century except for Bob Dylan. Life isn't fair.

Greatest lyricists? Both too deadly earnest. Quick -- name a Bob Dylan or Joni Mitchell song that made you laugh? Search for funniest Bob Dylan lyrics and the pickings are really slim:

Do the same for Joni Mitchell and even the whole Internet's got nothing. Greatest pop lyricist of the last half of the 20th century? Personally, I'll take Lyle Lovett but could make a case for Paul Simon as well.

Also Elvis Costello and of course Leonard Cohen

I also did not love this movie, or The Hateful 8, but conversely like his earlier movies more and more.
Sex comment is puzzling. Tarantino mostly avoids actual sex in his movies. Rick Dalton (Leo) does not take sexual advantage of his stardom and his only opposite-sex relations, which are not dramatized, in the movie are implicitly with his Italian wife. Cliff Booth (Pitt) has zero sexual relations in the movie, except that he turns down an offer from an underage girl. Tate and Polanski are portrayed as a loving, loyal couple. Only the Manson Family - obviously evil and/or manipulated/naive youth - are suggested to be sexually adventurous.
Other than the Mansons, there is no 60s style "free love" in the movie. No womanizing. Even the Playboy party is pretty tame (oh, I'm not ignoring the obvious sexist elements which are portrayed).

You make some good points. Unlike many viewers, I took the film as strongly implying that Cliff did murder his nagging wife on that boat. But, contra to Cowen's characterization, this isn't shown as freeing him up for all those sexual opportunities and indeed he turns down the one on offer, showing a surprising restraint for a wife-murderer who got kicked off a tv set for his violent antics. Rick doesn't get a woman until the flash-forward through his Italian movies, but I think that's supposed to emphasize what a loser he is that the only person he has around him is the stunt-double he pays to drive him around after losing his license. He's not supposed to come across as a high-status man, although we don't see him striking out with women either.

Sailer: Once is a love letter to Tarantino's favorite people on earth: middle-aged Hollywood tough guys. It's beautiful!

Tyler: Once is a lover letter to undeservedly high status middle-aged Hollywood tough guys. Exterminate all the brutes.

Nah, this movie is a masterpiece.

I love how it didn't just punch hippies but apparently conservates and nerds as well.

So...what you're saying, along with the 'reviewer,' is that high status heterosexual men having more sexual success isn't sufficiently criticized. Considering this is a feature of just about every human group, nay..every primate/mammal group...I have to shrug. Isn't it really about white straight guys? Criticizing gay promiscuity, or black men who have children with multiple partners is not okay, is it? America has become a silly place.

the sexual opportunities of high status heterosexual men, or even medium status men, increased enormously, in terms of both quantity and quality

A claim without evidence.

High status heterosexual men have always had easy access to women, quantity and quality. The pill was a boon for the sexual “middle class”. What changed in the 1960s is that the risks to women (pregnancy) from sleeping with lower status males diminished so women became more democratic. This made sexual activity more visible in society at large and those males at the bottom of the pecking order became confronted with their inadequacy in a way that had not been so visible before.

Exactly. What I wanted to say in my earlier post but couldn't quite enunciate.

I wonder if anyone here can answer this for me - how much do we know that sexual access due to the pill increased in the 1960's, as opposed to the 1970's? I wasn't alive then, but I do know that it wasn't officially legal in many states to non-married couples until '72. Was there really that much increase in pill access to young people between the the Griswold decision of '65 and the Baird one?

Another explanation is that starting in 1964, suddenly there were a whole bunch of extra 18 year old young women entering the workforce, due to the bumper crop of Baby Boomers born from 1946 into the 1960s. These young women began competing with each other for the smaller cohorts of older men with good jobs, so skirts and divorce rates got higher.

Antibiotics probably played a bigger role in the sexual revolution than the pill. Gonorrhea is really unpleasant and syphillis is horrifying.

But none of that history seems to have much to do with Tarantino's movie, which is fundamentally boyish.

"In the 1960s, in part because of the birth control pill, the sexual opportunities of high status heterosexual men, or even medium status men, increased enormously, in terms of both quantity and quality."

Eh? The pill allowed low status men to have more sex. High status men were doing fine before. e.g. Kings

I haven't seen the film (I plan to, though), but Brody is a disgrace. His reviews always read like something out of 1930s Pravda, where the only thing he cares about is how the film jives with his lame political views.

IIRC, his review of the 2016 Ghostbusters could be boiled down to "it expresses the correct political views so you should see it regardless of quality".

Tarantino is a real genius. He got me to almost root for the Nazis in Inglourious Basterds. (Gawd that was an awful film).

Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood seems interesting, though.

We'll know we've come to the end of our age, whatever you might call it, when people have lost interest in watching Pulp Fiction. Maybe we're getting there sooner than I thought.

Comments for this post are closed