Thread by @JuliusGoat

You know what I never see from these "you couldn't make x movie today" people?

Them watching movies by a still too small but ever-growing group of hugely talented Black auteurs finally given a chance to direct and realizing "we refused to let these movie be made back then."

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1490512961621966854

It it true you "couldn't make" PULP FICTION today? I suppose. I think what's meant is maybe we *wouldn't,* for a variety of reasons.

But we *wouldn't* have made MOONLIGHT back then.

And we still have PULP FICTION, safe and sound. Easy to watch.

So ... have we lost? Or gained?

Now you might think that Nichols isn't talking about QT's racial slurs, but rather some other aspect of the film.

Nope, he's talking about the slurs, which to him are integral to the work.

Without their exact use as scripted, this movie about needles in the heart and ODs and junkie hitmen would be "totally sanitized," I guess. A totally changed film.

My question isn't "can we make another PULP FICTION?" but "Why do we need one?"

I should say to be clear PULP FICTION is one of my favorite movies. Probably top 20 of all time. It's brilliant.

But we already *have* it.

And I agree Quentin Tarantino should have been more discriminating, specifically in his characters' use of racial slurs. It's a sour note.

Now, the idea that Tarantino no longer uses slurs in scripts is ... an opinion.

But let's say Tarantino HAS become more thoughtful about how he uses slurs.

So, maybe, today, QT *wouldn't* make a movie where he self-inserts as a white guy dropping n-bombs.

What have we lost?

It's particularly rich to me to suggest that PULP FICTION, which is perhaps the most consistently aped movie of the last 40 years, is a movie "we can't make anymore."

There have been ten PULP wannabes a year.

People have finally stopped trying to make PULP FICTION? If only.

I'd say one person who never tried to "make PULP FICTION today" is Tarantino, whose movies I sometimes love and sometimes hate, but which are always trying to do something PULP did; i.e. something nobody else was doing.

By those lights, the next Tarantinos have already arrived.

The idea that we've become more discriminating, either as consumers of art or creators of art, or both, isn't a indictment.

Meanwhile the idea that we *can't* make transgressive art about racist characters seems foolish.

We elect transgressive white supremacist presidents.

What gets made and what doesn't is a choice based on money and taste and opportunity.

You "couldn't have made" PARASITE in 1994.
You "couldn't have made" GET OUT.
You "couldn't have made" MOONLIGHT.
You "couldn't have made" SELMA.

Nothing has been lost. Look what we've gained.

Focus only on expressions of art we've moved past, if you want to.

Or set your sights on the vital and electrifying voices who are only now finally being heard—which you can do without diminishing your appreciation of what's come before in the least.

These are both choices.

I have no interest in whether or not a movie that's already been made could be made today.

My question: When a great movie that "you couldn't have made" back THEN arrives ... will you recognize it for what it is?

This is true, if you accept the premise that Tom, Free of Radio doesn't understand the point he's actually made today.

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1490664868990668801?s=20&t=4ORo9sySEQj2Uxyn6SsPbA

What thinks he's saying is that I'm the exact sort of person he's talking about, so caught up in progressive politics that I refuse to appreciate PULP FICTION ... which happens to be one of my favorite movies, but one I'm still capable of critiquing.

https://twitter.com/BradCNct/status/1490666691474378756?s=20&t=4ORo9sySEQj2Uxyn6SsPbA

All my other commentary aside, the idea that Quentin Tarantino would never be able to get the PULP FICTION script, just as it is, financed today, is a real hoot.

https://twitter.com/PemHutchinson/status/1490669414609477634?s=20&t=Xr_npJdrL_2AOuT1ij-mIw