Nasir007 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:34 pmSpoilerShowWithout knowing what the Manson family did (and the movie does not establish that but assumes that you know it) - their murder and destruction by Cliff and Rick is extremely alienating and off-putting. The unaware audience member will see this and think - okay these young misguided hippies are invading a home and then they will see them murdered in the most brutal way which far exceeds anything that can be justified by self-defense. Even the self-defense defense in court would justifiy the manner in which Cliff and Rick murder those kids. So I wonder if the unaware audience member will be repelled by that.
And just talking about the ethics of murder here for a moment - I myself do not believe in capital punishment. Not for anybody. I think it is barbaric and should be deemed unconstitutional (and I hope it will be some day). Much less do I believe in extra-judicial killing. I feel people should pay for the crimes with the loss of their liberty, not loss of their life.
Even saying, let's say I get onboard with Tarantino's theory, that the Manson kids deserved to die. Okay, I will make this exception to my opposition to capital punishment and say they deserve to die. But die in the manner shown in the movie? No. I don't think anyone should die in that manner. I don't know why the audience is supposed to cheer and celebrate that in the theater.
Re: the murder of the hippies-- I agree this comes off as over-the-top, but I think there were reasons for it, whether or not you feel they are good ones. (A. Tarantino wants to "deliver" the violence that the rest of the movie has been withholding; B. He wants us to experience the catharsis/thrill of seeing the Manson family punished; C. He wants us to reflect, a la Inglorious Basterds, on the use of violence in cinema as a form of wish fulfillment/fantasy; D. all of the above; etc.) I'm still wrestling with how disturbing the violence in that scene was but I think it can be justified narratively. Also I wouldn't describe them as simply "misguided hippies"--they are presented as unhinged lunatics who are happily about to embark a killing spree the in the name of "the Devil," and even if they don't reach Sharon they still come at Pitt's character with knives and guns intending to kill him. This coupled with the fact that we've already seen Pitt's character use extreme force, maybe excessive force, in the previous fight scenes--so his use of excessive force here is not without precedent. I think it was set up to be dramatically effective even without the knowledge of the Tate/LaBianca murders... BUT was also never meant to function without that knowledge, I'd argue.
Also, If you're opposed on principle to representations of extreme violence/revenge on ethical grounds, Tarantino might not be the filmmaker for you...