New REVIEWS AND OTHERWISE: Quentin Tarantino’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD—movie, book, virtual theme park?

 This stream-of-consciousness bonus episode looks at Quentin Tarantino’s (perhaps) next-to-last film, which (at least in Los Angeles) has repeat viewers (one person has seen it eight times so far) and other QT fans awaiting the expanded mass market paperback novel coming soon to a bookstore, newsstand and/or supermarket.  

So here’s 20 minutes of words about Tarantino’s equivalent to James Cameron’s TITANIC—plus a brief argument for DEATH PROOF as QT’s woke, anti-misogyny film.

Anchor: https://anchor.fm/terry-mccarty/episodes/BONUS-EPISODE-SOME-MILD-HERESY-REGARDING-QUENTIN-TARANTINO-AND-ONCE-UPON-A-TIME-IN-HOLLYWOOD-e13ijbr

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2UMdzUiJJvZoIuOs3V6SpF?si=a1tMJeoEQZSh1FaKzdCoEg&dl_branch=

New REVIEWS AND OTHERWISE: 1970s WESTERNS: THE TWILIGHT OF JOHN WAYNE

 I’ll be doing some non consecutive episodes on the decline of the Hollywood Western in the 1970s.  And, as with genre films in decline, there are some interesting to good ones (largely ignored by audiences) released during this period.

This episode discusses John Wayne’s trajectory from the Oscar-winning peak of TRUE GRIT into the valley of clinging to an outdated image/stubbornly staying at one with his core, tradition-bound audience (one exception being Mark Rydell’s THE COWBOYS, which shocked some 1971-72 viewers with Wayne dying from multiple gunshot wounds by primary villain Bruce Dern).

Also, the 1971 PLAYBOY interview (where Wayne let loose with racist views of Native Americans and racist/patronizing commentary on Black people) is discussed—along with my guess as to why the pushback (and yes, there was criticism at the time) did little damage to Wayne’s career.

Finally, after 1976’s THE SHOOTIST, Wayne said goodbye to the Western genre—as a commercial pitchperson for headache medicine Datril and Great Western Bank.

https://anchor.fm/terry-mccarty/episodes/1970s-WESTERNS-THE-TWILIGHT-OF-JOHN-WAYNE-e12enrl

Allegedly pragmatic racism as practiced by Hollywood.

Re Scarlett Johanssen being cast in the GHOST IN THE SHELL live-action film:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/asian-american-actresses-speak-out-against-scarlett-johanssons-ghost-in-the-shell-casting_us_5717a698e4b0018f9cbbd121

Ridley Scott defending casting Caucasian actors to play Egyptians in EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS:  http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/ridley-scott-im-still-not-sorry-i-cast-white-movie-stars-in-exodus#XIH88Byq3Fp0L4xw.03

The Motion Picture Academy tries to rise above its limitations.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has entered Consecutive Year Two of all-white acting nominations--mentioned quite a bit in the last few days.  And, of course, there's the noticeable failure to recognize independent films not distributed by major studios/studio-run specialty units; this includes Netflix's BEASTS OF NO NATION, Spike Lee's Amazon-backed CHI-RAQ and Roadside Attractions' Brian Wilson biopic LOVE AND MERCY.

Let's take a brief look at the nomination process:

Excerpted from Wikipedia's "Academy Awards" article:

In late December ballots and copies of the Reminder List of Eligible Releases are mailed to around 6,000 active members. For most categories, members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees only in their respective categories (i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). In all major categories, voters use an instant run-off voting ballot, with potential nominees rewarded in the single transferable vote tally for having strong supporters who rank them first.^[34] There are some exceptions in the case of certain categories, like Foreign Film, Documentary and Animated Feature Film, in which movies are selected by special screening committees made up of members from all branches. In the special case of Best Picture, all voting members are eligible to select the nominees for that category. Foreign films must include English subtitles, and each country can submit only one film per year.^[35]

The winners are then determined by a second round of voting in which all members are then allowed to vote in most categories, including Best Picture.^[36]

Thanks in part to the #OscarsSoWhite protests, the Academy recently announced some "we hear you, but we're moving at our own pace" attempts at correction.

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-votes-for-oscars-2016-1

But, as noted by Michael Cieply in THE NEW YORK TIMES--

"....action on possible changes to Oscar balloting was deferred for later consideration."

Likely results of the Academy's wake-up call:

1. Fearful grumbling (with various degrees of racial prejudice exhibited) from rank-and-file Academy members uncomfortable with being pushed into Emeritus no-voting status by not working/not being an Oscar nominee/winner.

2. The number of Best Picture nominees may be set at ten every year, instead of the current "anywhere between five and ten pictures."  This may be the most notable nod to expanding racial diversity and acknowledging popular commercial films (the Academy has done some backsliding on the latter).

3. Unlike what Tom O'Neil of GOLD DERBY proposed recently (a dramatic increase in the number of Academy members), the current Status Quo will only see slight alterations--with future protests being countered with the "we'll get it done by 2020" Academy talking point.