Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#501 Post by mfunk9786 » Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:02 am

Yup. In a strange way this film lets her be *alive* again for the first time in a half century.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#502 Post by The Narrator Returns » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:46 am

I've been trying hard to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound too "This AWESOME Fan Theory Will Change The Way You See Once Upon a Time in Hollywood!", but I've been wanting to share this since I discovered it after seeing the movie last night (and loving it), since I think it makes an already melancholy movie even sadder.
SpoilerShow
The person I got this idea from was going to see Sally Menke at an editing panel the day after she died, and he specifically recalls the day of her death being described as the hottest day on record. Those circumstances are echoed by the repeated lines about the day of the Manson killings being "the hottest day of the year." This could very well be unintentional, or at least unconscious on Tarantino's part... except I did some reading and found out that Menke died walking with her dog, which Tarantino has Pitt do right before the Mansonites break into the house. Since the rest of the movie is all about mourning and resurrecting the dead (whether Sharon Tate or the entertainment industry of his childhood), it feels right that it's also him grieving over the circumstances that cost him his most fruitful collaborator.

black&huge
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#503 Post by black&huge » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:18 am

Man oh man....

I truly have no idea where to begin talking about this film.


10/10

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#504 Post by Ribs » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:58 am

SpoilerShow
Truly flabbergasted by the amount of "the ending, explained" articles with not one suggesting for a second that the ending sequence is actually, literally, a fantasy? It very clearly struck me as supposed to be read as him slowly moving into a kind of heavenly version of reality where those who were killed were still killed but he's able to finally be with the rest of them due to also having been victim to the killings, finally achieving the fame he really wanted only in horrific death and not realizing the world is no longer the same one he started at. Basically the same ending as Silent Hill (2006), sorry. The truly great cue from Judge Roy Bean really seemed to egg this on for me (and picking this kind of random cue from a forgotten studio film from 60 years ago is exactly the kind of thing I love about QT's sensibility).

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#505 Post by Luke M » Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:13 am

I definitely didn't interpret the ending that way.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#506 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:15 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:07 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:24 pm
Nasir007 wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:39 pm
But I agree with the assessment above that calls it a theoretical film. That is spot on. This is a film of ideas, not in that it is a philosophical movie. But it is built around an idea (or a couple of them). There is no plot to speak of at all. It can't really be summarized as it is just a collection of loosely linked scenes arranged across 2 different 24 hr stretches.

I would call this Tarantino's Haneke film. Specifically Funny Games. But really any Haneke film. Haneke doesn't so much makes films as he does treatises on the human condition. He dresses them up as stories and thrillers and what not, but his Cinema for real is a cinema of ideas.

Such is the case here to a lesser degree because Tarantino does not burrow as far below the surface as Haneke does. But there is a central idea here that Tarantino has built his film around. It is interesting but I am not quite sure it works as well as the critics seem to think.
That is an interesting comparison, though I think that while the story is in part built around an idea, and very effectively so, it's also bursting with plenty of moments that break free of that idea, enough so to make it far more complex.
SpoilerShow
If it was simply built around the idea of exposing reality/banality and the facade of films and then breaking free to achieve catharsis, we wouldn't get scenes where Pitt fights Bruce Lee or where he kicks the Manson doofus's ass. Some of the driving scenes are long and appear absent of any "cool" vibe, while others seem specifically designed to ooze that artificial "movie cool" and then there are ones that feel like "real life cool" such as Tate and Polanski driving with the top down (I'd need to see it again to adequately deconstruct these, but while watching it something about the way each 'car ride' was shot felt like it was expressing a different vibe depending on its style). Tarantino doesn't seem to have any consistent signifiers or structured rhythm to when and where he chooses to indicate 'reality' vs. 'fantasy' but they're interspliced so seamlessly that while he's setting up his idea, he can't help but go for these 'badass' or 'spectacle' moments, making it a harder film to read but all the more interesting for the range on the spectrum of restraint and release Tarantino tows the line between.

To the point about the 'idea' though, and where I can see your comparison to Haneke, part of this idea is resisting cathartic moments at many turns to in part frustrate the audience's expectations of what a "Tarantino film" entails, before jumping in the pool of full-id in the finale. In reflection some examples of this: We never see Pitt kill his wife, Pitt doesn't accept the advances of the Manson girl, it turns out that George Spahn is actually taking a nap, while Pitt gets in a good ass-whooping we get a whole setup and watch Tex ride his horse back to confront Pitt only to watch Pitt driving away, and of course we never "get" to see the historical event of the Tate murder (Tarantino knows as much as we love his fantastical alternations of history, part of each of us wanted to see that happen). This suppression of id, of "Tarantino" moments, replaced with long scenes of 'day in the life' tasks, eventually stops with the surge of violence, and I don't know about your theatres, but the uproar of laughter and excitement throughout the final sequence in mine was so joyous it was like nothing I'd ever experienced in a threatre before (topping even Inglorious Basterds' packed opening night screening in '09, during the 'history-changing scene,' which was the most excited I'd seen an audience until last night). The audience wanted this catharsis more than anything, and proved Tarantino's entire 'idea' just by sitting in a packed theatre, our emotional reactions speak for themselves.
You have it exactly right. I will add some more examples.
SpoilerShow
DiCaprio when he has his nervous breakdown tells his reflection - I am going to shoot your brains out in the swimming pool. We prick up our ears because we know he lives next door to Tate. Then in the end we see DiCaprio in the pool, we feel tense. When the girl gets in there and starts shooting, we feel tense. In a way we wanted to see DiCapio to be shot in the pool. Not because we dislike him but because we were set up. Tarantino frustrates us the way.

When the Manson girls says we will cut off their cocks - in a way we want to see that. Because Tarantino can show that. And we all deep down like the lurid and the grotesque.

You are right, when Pitt goes to check on George, we almost want to see a rotting corpse. Again the touch of the lurid that we are promised but denied.

This is something Haneke does over and over and over in Funny Games. He constantly frustrates the audience. We are waiting for revenge, but he denies us that completely. The most devious of his ploys is the knife in the boat which he makes a point to highlight.

In the end, Haneke sticks to his thesis. He promises you something but completely thwarts it. Tarantino promises you something, looks like he will completely thwart it, then gives in for the schlocky finale giving you exactly what he said he wouldn't give you.

If I am expressing a reservation about something Tarantino did, it is only fair I offer an alternative. In my mind a more radical, more shocking and indeed more poignant ending might have been if something like the Hirsch character or some other stray side character, like DiCaprio's wife or somebody met Manson kids outside, spoke to them and changed their minds. And we had no violence at all. But that's just my current perspective.

But yeah, the central idea is subvert subvert subvert. And the greatest master of that of course is Haneke that is why I draw that comparison.
While the root of your comparison is worth offering to provoke discussion I definitely don’t succumb to their similarities, quite the opposite- and think it’s a great jumping off point to show how different and unique this film is, but Tarantino’s intentions have always been (and no more so than here) to act in harmony with his audience vs. Haneke who talks down to his, or at the very least disrupts any attempt at harmony the audience seeks from his films. Further explanation to their differences:
SpoilerShow
I don’t think Tarantino “promises” us anything but that we have come to expect certain catharses and want them from not only his movies but movies in general, a deviation from reality. I don’t think subversion is the central idea and I don’t think he’s being manipulative like Haneke, or intending to make the audience feel a certain way about these desires. Rather he’s presenting some minor restraint at certain times while still doing exactly what he wants to do at others, which peels back the onion layers just enough to give his audience a clearer picture of what he’s doing and has been doing all along, validating the ‘reality’ and where movies come in to save the day. I don’t think he’s saying “see?” or trying to prove anything at all; he’s standing with his audience as one in the same, no power differential or separation.

The Haneke comparison is an interesting thought I think because of the strong contrast rather than similarity between what they do with their ‘ideas,’ but Tarantino is crafting a thesis film that combines all of his ideas from previous movies together and also recognizes reality in a novel way that isn’t similar to any movie I’ve seen before. In the end there is a self-reflexivity present that provides more comfort than any I can think of, and Tarantino seems to be reaching out a friendly hand to his audiences in the most delicate and compassionate way he’s done thus far, asking us for more of a full body hug vs handshake and for me it was the most cathartic embrace I’ve had with any of his pictures yet.

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#507 Post by Nasir007 » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:37 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:15 pm
Nasir007 wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:07 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:24 pm


That is an interesting comparison, though I think that while the story is in part built around an idea, and very effectively so, it's also bursting with plenty of moments that break free of that idea, enough so to make it far more complex.
SpoilerShow
If it was simply built around the idea of exposing reality/banality and the facade of films and then breaking free to achieve catharsis, we wouldn't get scenes where Pitt fights Bruce Lee or where he kicks the Manson doofus's ass. Some of the driving scenes are long and appear absent of any "cool" vibe, while others seem specifically designed to ooze that artificial "movie cool" and then there are ones that feel like "real life cool" such as Tate and Polanski driving with the top down (I'd need to see it again to adequately deconstruct these, but while watching it something about the way each 'car ride' was shot felt like it was expressing a different vibe depending on its style). Tarantino doesn't seem to have any consistent signifiers or structured rhythm to when and where he chooses to indicate 'reality' vs. 'fantasy' but they're interspliced so seamlessly that while he's setting up his idea, he can't help but go for these 'badass' or 'spectacle' moments, making it a harder film to read but all the more interesting for the range on the spectrum of restraint and release Tarantino tows the line between.

To the point about the 'idea' though, and where I can see your comparison to Haneke, part of this idea is resisting cathartic moments at many turns to in part frustrate the audience's expectations of what a "Tarantino film" entails, before jumping in the pool of full-id in the finale. In reflection some examples of this: We never see Pitt kill his wife, Pitt doesn't accept the advances of the Manson girl, it turns out that George Spahn is actually taking a nap, while Pitt gets in a good ass-whooping we get a whole setup and watch Tex ride his horse back to confront Pitt only to watch Pitt driving away, and of course we never "get" to see the historical event of the Tate murder (Tarantino knows as much as we love his fantastical alternations of history, part of each of us wanted to see that happen). This suppression of id, of "Tarantino" moments, replaced with long scenes of 'day in the life' tasks, eventually stops with the surge of violence, and I don't know about your theatres, but the uproar of laughter and excitement throughout the final sequence in mine was so joyous it was like nothing I'd ever experienced in a threatre before (topping even Inglorious Basterds' packed opening night screening in '09, during the 'history-changing scene,' which was the most excited I'd seen an audience until last night). The audience wanted this catharsis more than anything, and proved Tarantino's entire 'idea' just by sitting in a packed theatre, our emotional reactions speak for themselves.
You have it exactly right. I will add some more examples.
SpoilerShow
DiCaprio when he has his nervous breakdown tells his reflection - I am going to shoot your brains out in the swimming pool. We prick up our ears because we know he lives next door to Tate. Then in the end we see DiCaprio in the pool, we feel tense. When the girl gets in there and starts shooting, we feel tense. In a way we wanted to see DiCapio to be shot in the pool. Not because we dislike him but because we were set up. Tarantino frustrates us the way.

When the Manson girls says we will cut off their cocks - in a way we want to see that. Because Tarantino can show that. And we all deep down like the lurid and the grotesque.

You are right, when Pitt goes to check on George, we almost want to see a rotting corpse. Again the touch of the lurid that we are promised but denied.

This is something Haneke does over and over and over in Funny Games. He constantly frustrates the audience. We are waiting for revenge, but he denies us that completely. The most devious of his ploys is the knife in the boat which he makes a point to highlight.

In the end, Haneke sticks to his thesis. He promises you something but completely thwarts it. Tarantino promises you something, looks like he will completely thwart it, then gives in for the schlocky finale giving you exactly what he said he wouldn't give you.

If I am expressing a reservation about something Tarantino did, it is only fair I offer an alternative. In my mind a more radical, more shocking and indeed more poignant ending might have been if something like the Hirsch character or some other stray side character, like DiCaprio's wife or somebody met Manson kids outside, spoke to them and changed their minds. And we had no violence at all. But that's just my current perspective.

But yeah, the central idea is subvert subvert subvert. And the greatest master of that of course is Haneke that is why I draw that comparison.
While the root of your comparison is worth offering to provoke discussion I definitely don’t succumb to their similarities, quite the opposite- and think it’s a great jumping off point to show how different and unique this film is, but Tarantino’s intentions have always been (and no more so than here) to act in harmony with his audience vs. Haneke who talks down to his, or at the very least disrupts any attempt at harmony the audience seeks from his films. Further explanation to their differences:
SpoilerShow
I don’t think Tarantino “promises” us anything but that we have come to expect certain catharses and want them from not only his movies but movies in general, a deviation from reality. I don’t think subversion is the central idea and I don’t think he’s being manipulative like Haneke, or intending to make the audience feel a certain way about these desires. Rather he’s presenting some minor restraint at certain times while still doing exactly what he wants to do at others, which peels back the onion layers just enough to give his audience a clearer picture of what he’s doing and has been doing all along, validating the ‘reality’ and where movies come in to save the day. I don’t think he’s saying “see?” or trying to prove anything at all; he’s standing with his audience as one in the same, no power differential or separation.

The Haneke comparison is an interesting thought I think because of the strong contrast rather than similarity between what they do with their ‘ideas,’ but Tarantino is crafting a thesis film that combines all of his ideas from previous movies together and also recognizes reality in a novel way that isn’t similar to any movie I’ve seen before. In the end there is a self-reflexivity present that provides more comfort than any I can think of, and Tarantino seems to be reaching out a friendly hand to his audiences in the most delicate and compassionate way he’s done thus far, asking us for more of a full body hug vs handshake and for me it was the most cathartic embrace I’ve had with any of his pictures yet.
SpoilerShow
I think subversion IS a central idea but in a more graceful way. Tarantino is subverting reality to achieve, what in his mind, is a righteous end. He's subverting what a 'Sharon tate muders' movie can be or should be. I see grace in here, for sure, but I would yet question how he arrives at it.
Before we ascribe compassion to Tarantino, I would like to investigate his brand of compassion. Because it is certainly singular to him.
SpoilerShow
Tarantino's brand of compassion still involves brutal murder and death - and the dismembering and desecration of the human body. Is that how we view compassion? Is violence always necessary? Tarantino's last 4 films - Kill Bill, Basterds, Djangi, Hateful Eight and now this all ended in a bloodbath and death. Is he really bucking the formula here? It is almost on brand for him to deliver violence and he does so here, just subverting the subject. The promise that I speak of arises from the film-making. The setup and payroff construct. Tarantino uses certain tropes and clues to lead the audiences to expect one thing but then does another, in some fashion.

I would also like to address the revenge fantasy approach which worked in Basterds and Django but I am unsure works here. Nazis and slave-owners are kind of agreed upon evil human beings. Nobody would argue. So when their victims destroy them, it is a revenge fantasy. So in Basterds you have jews killing nazis and hitler and and slaves murdering their owners. Here you have two invented characters murdering the perpetrators of the Sharon Tate murders. The revenge comes from not Sharon Tate, but from these two invented characters. You could say the revenge comes from Tarantino, it is his own revenge fantasy this time.

Also, at the point at which the revenge occurs in the movie, the perpetrators haven't done anything yet (in the movie). They invaded the home of the invented characters but they hadn't done any horrific act yet. So when the revenge murder happens, it is fascinating that the revenge is for something that did not occur within the timeline or narrative of the film. Another way to explain this is that, the crimes of the Manson kids within the film are not established for them to suffer their fate. I understand that their eventual fate is meta, in the sense their fate is punishment for something which happened in real life that Tarantino wants to punish them for, but you could argue within the universe or the narrative of the film, they did not earn their fate.
But then again the entire ending section can be construed in multiple ways as many people have already done.

I am still quite not sure how I feel about the film. But I do see skill in its writing, directing and acting.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#508 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:09 pm

SpoilerShow
I see what you’re saying but I believe Tarantino isn’t speaking to his specific brand of “revenge” fantasy so much as the more vague concept of fantasy and how movies can help us realize these fantasies. Sure, some are realized in catharsis via id impulses (i.e. revenge), but arguably the most powerful moment in this film comes from Jay Sebring noticing Rick Dalton, thereby validating his existence, feeding his self-image and fantasy as a worthy actor via identity assignment to allow him to become an important human being again. As I said before, this is what we are looking for in life and in the movies anything is possible. Thus Tarantino isn’t just feeding the obvious id impulses but he’s satisfying the reason many of us go to the movies which is also catharsis via cognitive and emotional validation. Characters in movies are important and are made important by events and other people in these stories, and don’t become washed up or forgotten. If they do within the film we get a viewpoint into their pain and isolation so that they are never alone. The magic of movies is that we can not only change historical events or realize violent fantasies but also are provided an opportunity to give (non-violent) compassion and validation to others that we want to receive ourselves. I see that as the crux of even his revenge films: broad emotional validation vs simply id satisfaction.

As for the point about the Manson characters ‘deserving’ their fate or not, I think it’s besides the point because I agree that we’re in an odd meta-territory not playing by any rules I’ve thought about. A more interesting question I’ve had posed by friends is whether or not Tarantino is making a statement against the rise of hippie culture or whether or not this is a resistance or statement regarding a new generation coming in. He clearly admires the generation of self-taught filmmakers that came after stars like Rick became washed up, and many of his favorite films, actors, and film movements came just after this period. He has championed films like Corman’s The Trip, which is literally just Peter Fonda being babysat by Bruce Dern while taking acid, as hippie as a movie could be, and many of his other films celebrate aspects and aesthetics of hippie culture. I think if he is making any kind of statement in his depiction of the Manson clan specifically it is about A) generational conflict, and the natural loss that comes with that (also very meta as he himself as a filmmaker is feeling older and ‘out of time’ in many respects, given his interviews and clearly constant thinking about nearing the end of his own era) and B) to simultaneously expose the facade of hippie culture as positive and about free love. The Manson Murders themselves really exposed that but he presents this beautiful Hollywood (and not just old Hollywood but new Hollywood with a washed up Rick and a rising Tate, McQueen, Polanski, etc who aren’t “ruining it” and still are basking in the magic of Hollywood- and they themselves and their crew could be considered “hippies”!) as something to celebrate, something joyful and also shows the evil and dread lurking around too. He holds both views and presents this to us. Here is reality: the world has beauty and magic and it also has evil and pain, sometimes on the same street corner and within the same movement and within the same era. He validates that truth and then chooses to say that he sides with the fakery of the heroes in movies and he wants to bring catharsis to Rick’s career and defy the generational change as a sharp cliff dive, but creates a harmonious connection where Rick can feel good and be revived while hanging out with new generations (Tate and co.) - after all that’s what he’s done his whole career, rejuvenate others’ careers we thought were dead by seeing the potential and magic in them!

There’s also the singlemindedness of the Manson clan and hippie culture that he seems interested in exposing particularly in that acid-driven speech in the car where the Manson girl explains how movies are to blame for violence so by killing those who made them, they can stand up to ‘the man,’ diffuse responsibility and give their actions meaning. This feels like a different kind of cry for help in achieving a sense of validation to be noticed and worthy, but a dangerous one, and Tarantino seems interested in contrasting this idea from his own intentions with his films and exposing it as ridiculous, as well as an immature argument or excuse to commit violence. Tarantino clearly doesn’t see himself as these kids, and is aware that some of the general population does, but here he shows them to be dangerous people who use the excuse of violence in movies to divert blame from their own violent actions onto art. It’s a perfect ‘fuck you’ to his detractors, and by crafting a complex movie to meditate on these complex themes he’s working with, this line of thinking appears even more contrived and derivative. That he does all of this in the most relaxed, laid back “hang out” movie that allows plenty of space to just exist and savor the wonder of movies is all the more impressive and rewarding.
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

black&huge
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#509 Post by black&huge » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:13 pm

Just a tidbit on how I think Tarantino's shared universe presented itself as I'm still collecting my thoughts:

HEAVY SPOILERS duh
SpoilerShow
I noticed many subtle examples of Tarantino calling back to all 8 of his previous films. Examples: most of the music played in the film is diagetic like how all the music in Reservoir Dogs was handled, the airport shots had a familiarity in framing and set design as the opening of Jackie Brown, using that pointy-ended font in the opening credits like in Res Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the free flow nature of the film again like Pulp Fiction.

As for Kill Bill and Death Proof the two universe-within-the-universe films I forget where I placed familiarity with those but it's there. I'll have to see the film again and get back to it.

However with his three previous period pieces it's very much clear without even having a single hard reference to link character ancestry or anything like that that the passage of history he molded specifically for this shared universe is how this entire film is a direct result. I think the real evidence here is Cliff's backstory that is basically the Natalie Wood tragedy but taking place 15 or so years earlier and his then wife even mentions her sister by name: Natalie. So I took it to believe in his universe Wood had a sister who took her place in this event happening much earlier no doubt because of how history has shaped itself through Django to Basterds. And the obvious bigger result is that Tate and Co. are alive and well in this world.

As an aside to that I kinda believe that Cliff's violent disposal of the Manson dweebs at the end is maybe as close to a giveaway sorta clue as to whether or not he killed his wife. With that though I will admit it may be a stretch.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#510 Post by DarkImbecile » Sat Jul 27, 2019 7:11 pm

Richard Brody isn’t impressed

I hope to post more about the film soon, but I think Brody is almost absurdly uncharitable in his reading of the film and Tarantino’s intentions. I’ve really appreciated therewillbeblus’ contributions to this thread, articulating some of the most cogent retorts I’ve seen to the common complaints of the film’s detractors.

theflicker
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:07 pm
Location: Hamden, CT

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#511 Post by theflicker » Sat Jul 27, 2019 7:46 pm

black&huge wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:13 pm
Just a tidbit on how I think Tarantino's shared universe presented itself as I'm still collecting my thoughts:

HEAVY SPOILERS duh
SpoilerShow
I noticed many subtle examples of Tarantino calling back to all 8 of his previous films. Examples: most of the music played in the film is diagetic like how all the music in Reservoir Dogs was handled, the airport shots had a familiarity in framing and set design as the opening of Jackie Brown, using that pointy-ended font in the opening credits like in Res Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the free flow nature of the film again like Pulp Fiction.

As for Kill Bill and Death Proof the two universe-within-the-universe films I forget where I placed familiarity with those but it's there. I'll have to see the film again and get back to it.

However with his three previous period pieces it's very much clear without even having a single hard reference to link character ancestry or anything like that that the passage of history he molded specifically for this shared universe is how this entire film is a direct result. I think the real evidence here is Cliff's backstory that is basically the Natalie Wood tragedy but taking place 15 or so years earlier and his then wife even mentions her sister by name: Natalie. So I took it to believe in his universe Wood had a sister who took her place in this event happening much earlier no doubt because of how history has shaped itself through Django to Basterds. And the obvious bigger result is that Tate and Co. are alive and well in this world.

As an aside to that I kinda believe that Cliff's violent disposal of the Manson dweebs at the end is maybe as close to a giveaway sorta clue as to whether or not he killed his wife. With that though I will admit it may be a stretch.
As far as Kill Bill and Death Proof . . .
SpoilerShow
I noticed a direct callback between the iced margarita drink that Rick makes in this film and Budd puts together in Vol. 2, right down to the same ice tray.

Cliff's sad trailer was also reminiscent of Budd's trailer, I thought.

With Death Proof we obviously have a bunch of stuntmen including Russell and Bell (now as a married couple!) As stunt gaffers.

Interesting thought above about Sebring's recognition of Rick being so validating. One wonders how it might have gone differently if Sadie had been able to place Rick earlier (presumably her staring daggers was in part trying to place him?); perhaps they all would've gone inside and hang out at the pool. How incredibly important it is to be seen . . .

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#512 Post by Nasir007 » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:09 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:09 pm
SpoilerShow
I see what you’re saying but I believe Tarantino isn’t speaking to his specific brand of “revenge” fantasy so much as the more vague concept of fantasy and how movies can help us realize these fantasies. Sure, some are realized in catharsis via id impulses (i.e. revenge), but arguably the most powerful moment in this film comes from Jay Sebring noticing Rick Dalton, thereby validating his existence, feeding his self-image and fantasy as a worthy actor via identity assignment to allow him to become an important human being again. As I said before, this is what we are looking for in life and in the movies anything is possible. Thus Tarantino isn’t just feeding the obvious id impulses but he’s satisfying the reason many of us go to the movies which is also catharsis via cognitive and emotional validation. Characters in movies are important and are made important by events and other people in these stories, and don’t become washed up or forgotten. If they do within the film we get a viewpoint into their pain and isolation so that they are never alone. The magic of movies is that we can not only change historical events or realize violent fantasies but also are provided an opportunity to give (non-violent) compassion and validation to others that we want to receive ourselves. I see that as the crux of even his revenge films: broad emotional validation vs simply id satisfaction.

As for the point about the Manson characters ‘deserving’ their fate or not, I think it’s besides the point because I agree that we’re in an odd meta-territory not playing by any rules I’ve thought about. A more interesting question I’ve had posed by friends is whether or not Tarantino is making a statement against the rise of hippie culture or whether or not this is a resistance or statement regarding a new generation coming in. He clearly admires the generation of self-taught filmmakers that came after stars like Rick became washed up, and many of his favorite films, actors, and film movements came just after this period. He has championed films like Corman’s The Trip, which is literally just Peter Fonda being babysat by Bruce Dern while taking acid, as hippie as a movie could be, and many of his other films celebrate aspects and aesthetics of hippie culture. I think if he is making any kind of statement in his depiction of the Manson clan specifically it is about A) generational conflict, and the natural loss that comes with that (also very meta as he himself as a filmmaker is feeling older and ‘out of time’ in many respects, given his interviews and clearly constant thinking about nearing the end of his own era) and B) to simultaneously expose the facade of hippie culture as positive and about free love. The Manson Murders themselves really exposed that but he presents this beautiful Hollywood (and not just old Hollywood but new Hollywood with a washed up Rick and a rising Tate, McQueen, Polanski, etc who aren’t “ruining it” and still are basking in the magic of Hollywood- and they themselves and their crew could be considered “hippies”!) as something to celebrate, something joyful and also shows the evil and dread lurking around too. He holds both views and presents this to us. Here is reality: the world has beauty and magic and it also has evil and pain, sometimes on the same street corner and within the same movement and within the same era. He validates that truth and then chooses to say that he sides with the fakery of the heroes in movies and he wants to bring catharsis to Rick’s career and defy the generational change as a sharp cliff dive, but creates a harmonious connection where Rick can feel good and be revived while hanging out with new generations (Tate and co.) - after all that’s what he’s done his whole career, rejuvenate others’ careers we thought were dead by seeing the potential and magic in them!

There’s also the singlemindedness of the Manson clan and hippie culture that he seems interested in exposing particularly in that acid-driven speech in the car where the Manson girl explains how movies are to blame for violence so by killing those who made them, they can stand up to ‘the man,’ diffuse responsibility and give their actions meaning. This feels like a different kind of cry for help in achieving a sense of validation to be noticed and worthy, but a dangerous one, and Tarantino seems interested in contrasting this idea from his own intentions with his films and exposing it as ridiculous, as well as an immature argument or excuse to commit violence. Tarantino clearly doesn’t see himself as these kids, and is aware that some of the general population does, but here he shows them to be dangerous people who use the excuse of violence in movies to divert blame from their own violent actions onto art. It’s a perfect ‘fuck you’ to his detractors, and by crafting a complex movie to meditate on these complex themes he’s working with, this line of thinking appears even more contrived and derivative. That he does all of this in the most relaxed, laid back “hang out” movie that allows plenty of space to just exist and savor the wonder of movies is all the more impressive and rewarding.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your insight but I now think I find the ending unsatisfactory but I like the first 2 hours a lot. I will explain -
SpoilerShow
Thinking more about the structure of the film and reading Tarantino's interview (though I can't recall which), it seems there are almost 2 movies here - the adventures of Rick and Cliff. And the Sharon Tate murder movie. And the two don't really interact at all save for the ending.

I would say almost all of the Rick and Cliff stuff is very good. The Rick filming stuff is magnificent even. You could have a movie just about them. And I think that is how Tarantino might have conceived it. Only he realized, with the Rick and Cliff movie, he would not have an ending. Or at least not the kind that he personally could make and live with or that his audience would buy. There are of course several great hangout movies. Just spending time with 2 characters. They typically end at a moment of an epiphany or a circumstance that causes or predicates a change. Basically a change in viewpoint or a change in circumstances. Tarantino could have made that movie. And that would have no plot, and really no 'narrative ending'. It would also be very loose and technically have no forward momentum without a plot engine to drive it. It would be an art film so to say. (And much of what I said still applies to the current movie.)

It would also be a movie that might seem a bit dated and have no zeitgeist resonance. And also a bit niche and navel-gazing in its fixation and fetishization of a bygone era of Hollywood and movie-making. It would be personal and meaningful to Tarantino but not many other non-industry people. And that would be a risk. Tarantino, the brilliant and cany writer that he is, decided to add the B plot of the Sharon Tate murder. That would give him a chance to cut to something else from the A story, that would give him SOME momentum, and by god, it would give him an ending. So that is why you get the sketchy Sharon scenes sprinkled in. The reason Margot Robbie has nothing to do and the reason Sharon Tate is not a real character is that she only serves to set up an ending for the adventures of Rick and Cliff.

The ending is what it is, Tarantino does his revisionist thing, and in a way ties it to the theme of the power of movie-making. But I find the ending overall unconvincing. Because it really does seem to arrive out of the left field and does not resemble anything that went on before it.

In totality, the Sharon Tate stuff is extraneous, added for the very specific purpose of giving the story some topicality, some sensationalist angle, some marketing ammo, and an ending with an avenue to stage some outrageous violence. But overall, I think the ending is still strange (atleast to me).

I think there were some camps coming out of Cannes that liked the first 2 hrs but not the last 40 mins and the opposite, some who liked the last 40 mins and not the first 2 hours (and to be fair most loved the whole thing) but count me in the former camp. I liked the first 2 hrs. I think the writing is good. The acting is good. But the B plot of the movie and the ending leave me with my head scratching. Specially since while I agree with this theme and ideas, I feel he still gave us a shlocky B-movie finale for I don't know what reason. Sharon Tate's murder could have been subverted without violence too. In this story, I dunno if violence really had a place. And specially the kind of preposterous violence shown for no reason but entertainment purposes as evidenced by cheering and howling audiences at my screening and others.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#513 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:17 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:09 pm
SpoilerShow
Thinking more about the structure of the film and reading Tarantino's interview (though I can't recall which), it seems there are almost 2 movies here - the adventures of Rick and Cliff. And the Sharon Tate murder movie. And the two don't really interact at all save for the ending.

I would say almost all of the Rick and Cliff stuff is very good. The Rick filming stuff is magnificent even. You could have a movie just about them. And I think that is how Tarantino might have conceived it. Only he realized, with the Rick and Cliff movie, he would not have an ending. Or at least not the kind that he personally could make and live with or that his audience would buy. There are of course several great hangout movies. Just spending time with 2 characters. They typically end at a moment of an epiphany or a circumstance that causes or predicates a change. Basically a change in viewpoint or a change in circumstances. Tarantino could have made that movie. And that would have no plot, and really no 'narrative ending'. It would also be very loose and technically have no forward momentum without a plot engine to drive it. It would be an art film so to say. (And much of what I said still applies to the current movie.)

It would also be a movie that might seem a bit dated and have no zeitgeist resonance. And also a bit niche and navel-gazing in its fixation and fetishization of a bygone era of Hollywood and movie-making. It would be personal and meaningful to Tarantino but not many other non-industry people. And that would be a risk. Tarantino, the brilliant and cany writer that he is, decided to add the B plot of the Sharon Tate murder. That would give him a chance to cut to something else from the A story, that would give him SOME momentum, and by god, it would give him an ending. So that is why you get the sketchy Sharon scenes sprinkled in. The reason Margot Robbie has nothing to do and the reason Sharon Tate is not a real character is that she only serves to set up an ending for the adventures of Rick and Cliff.

The ending is what it is, Tarantino does his revisionist thing, and in a way ties it to the theme of the power of movie-making. But I find the ending overall unconvincing. Because it really does seem to arrive out of the left field and does not resemble anything that went on before it.

In totality, the Sharon Tate stuff is extraneous, added for the very specific purpose of giving the story some topicality, some sensationalist angle, some marketing ammo, and an ending with an avenue to stage some outrageous violence. But overall, I think the ending is still strange (atleast to me).

I think there were some camps coming out of Cannes that liked the first 2 hrs but not the last 40 mins and the opposite, some who liked the last 40 mins and not the first 2 hours (and to be fair most loved the whole thing) but count me in the former camp. I liked the first 2 hrs. I think the writing is good. The acting is good. But the B plot of the movie and the ending leave me with my head scratching. Specially since while I agree with this theme and ideas, I feel he still gave us a shlocky B-movie finale for I don't know what reason. Sharon Tate's murder could have been subverted without violence too. In this story, I dunno if violence really had a place. And specially the kind of preposterous violence shown for no reason but entertainment purposes as evidenced by cheering and howling audiences at my screening and others.
I have to respectfully disagree again and think this point of yours specifically highlights the differences in the ways we see this film:
SpoilerShow
Tate’s presence is the core of the film (the “heart” as I believe Tarantino said in an interview) because she represents the beauty and innocence of Hollywood 1969 and also somebody so comfortable with where she’s at in life. Rick is not, we know this and see it. Cliff is, or rather in a state of acceptance of his place and role, but Tate is happy. She may not be the biggest star, she’s not immediately recognized or even second-billed like Rick is in his tv spots, but she enjoys being seen and part of this moviemaking world, making people laugh and happy, an active participant in the magic of movies- and by extension life. She even innocently remains friends with her ex-fiancé, seemingly without any hangups. She may be a creation, though Tarantino has admitted to basing her off of reports from Tate’s acquaintances in her pleasantness via purity of spirit.

Tarantino’s Tate needs to exist in this film to highlight the themes of the film. Otherwise it would be Rick vs. Hollywood, rather than the harmonious flow of energy that the film exhibits, full of pain and frustration but without a “vs,” all parts interacting without any at odds with any others. This film is about, among many other things, the magic of Hollywood, the flow of life (and career) cycles, and the darkness that exists within the world and in our perceptions of our worth as well as the light and beauty in the experience of participating in life and working towards our dreams. Without Tate’s moments to show this light, the film is too dark and loses a key piece in achieving a comprehensive view of Hollywood, the world, and the relationship between our psychologies (ids and egos) and this world, including its social constructions and the Hollywood studio machines. Without her there would be no comprehensive view and the film would essentially lose all of its power. This is of course not even considering Tate’s involvement in the last act of the film, which is just as important, but I see no movie without her, or at least not this movie. I think what you’re asking for is an entirely different film with different themes, though it would appear to be a film absent of themes I can point to, because you don’t like what Tarantino produced. I don’t blame anybody for not liking the ending we get here or a Tarantino film or any film for that matter, but it feels like we’re talking about two different movies, and considering our opposing views on the significance of Tate’s role, I think we are!

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#514 Post by Murdoch » Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:06 pm

This was an interesting change of pace for Tarantino. I didn't particularly like it but after reading this thread I have come to appreciate the Tate sequences more. It's more a compilation of moments than a plot, which is fine but I was checking my watch fairly often once it hit the halfway mark.

Despite my hohum reaction, I appreciated the suspense Tarantino built up in certain scenes:
SpoilerShow
I'm thinking of the meeting between Tate and Manson, along with Cliff's visit to the Ranch. Tarantino showed a lot of restraint in these scenes, playing with the audience's expectations of his films and letting each resolve rather peacefully (at least for the protagonists).
I'll be interested to read this thread more as I'm finding the various interpretations of the movie more involving than the movie itself.

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#515 Post by Never Cursed » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:16 am

What an incredible and absolutely vital and dynamic and optimistic movie - practically tied with Amanda as my favorite of the year, period.
SpoilerShow
I hope this permanently puts to rest the unfair aspersions of Tarantino being a cruel or juvenile or unnecessarily crass filmmaker excited only by gratuitous violence and feet. Not only has he taken a disquieting (for all its after-the-fact sensationalization) real-life tragedy and made it into a nuanced and emotional film, one that earns its history-rewriting power by its end, he has done so without leaning on any of the supposed crutches so often ascribed to his work. Indeed, between the digressive yet ultimately too-short subplots, self-consciously gorgeous camerawork, and top-notch production design (this deserves a lot of Oscars, but I cannot fathom it not winning that one specifically), Tarantino seems to be deliberately trying to deliver as many cinematic pleasures as he can beyond those cheaper ones. This isn't necessarily the movie I was expecting (and as mfunk says, it's definitely not the movie that the Manson-obsessed gorehounds want), but I am so glad that it's the one we got.

black&huge
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#516 Post by black&huge » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:19 am

Oh yes, Tarantino finally addressed this one thing right in this film:
SpoilerShow
His response to the questions and criticism he STILL gets regarding graphic violence in his films: it's when Susan Atkins rearranges their plan to instead kill Rick because she basically sums up that media is to blame for molding a violent society. That was the first slap in the face. He then doubles down with absolutely zero fucks to give by responding with.... a gloriously violent climax.
And about a technical aspect:

The editing is fantastic. My one real worry was that there still wouldn't be a handle on it. Django suffered because it was the first film without Menke but considering her very unfortunate loss at that time what could they do? H8 was a bit better but still rocky. But I think with how Hollywood is structured helped greatly with how it could have been and was put together.

To briefly deviate: aside from Death Proof I don't think Tarantino ever really did jump cuts especially not the blatant french new wave-y style like he did here. I especially enjoyed how certain jump cuts almost slightly matched up with the motions of certain actor's movements
SpoilerShow
Cliff playing with his celery and Olyphant's first conversation with DiCaprio on set.
And back to the main thing about the editing: it's during the second day, the longest portion of the film that is filled with long takes. Something that was pulled off with such precision in the editing together of the three separate character strands that you don't even realize it. What jarred me at first but then impressed me was
SpoilerShow
when we spend that long chunk with Rick on set and it cuts to the end of the day for all three of our mains by showing Tate leaving the theater at dusk. I had forgotten it was still the same day. It made something out of that passage of time that made you realize you really spent a lot more time than you thought with those characters because of what we learn about them through how they function in their everyday lives, isolated. I felt like I spent not a day but a few days just studying these people but we get a substantial insight into them on this one day.
And I had read a few responses after the Cannes screening that that portion of the film could be tightened up but after mulling it over... absolutely not.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#517 Post by Black Hat » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:09 am

The film was a remembrance of all things past or rather passed. What does it all mean or does it even matter what it means when the very nature of one's place is to be replaced? Value of all kinds is constantly doubted with a yearning to return to a time where buckets were less empty, people less threatened or threatening. As openly as the film longs for this and harshly criticizes any representative of change (the film's politics are fascinating) it smartly acknowledges with its title that such a place was an idealized fairy tale. The alternate reality revenge fantasy catharsis QT is known for is here subverted and is in fact remarkably deflating with a rather foreboding final shot acknowledging that not only is that impossible, but what lies ahead is at best uncertain at worst gone forever. In the ultimate hang out film, the hanging out comes to a savage end. The catharsis here was for Sharon Tate who after decades of being a tabloid tragedy is given an identity. What Tarantino accomplished for her is the most impressive feat of his career and what I'll always respect about him most.

The last few pages of writing on the film has been my favorite to read on the forum in a while and I hope to be able to elaborate more myself, but to me it was QT's most existentially ambitious film. He not only gave voice to his own doubts, but that of his stars with some very clever jokes and self references.

Never Cursed wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:16 am
What an incredible and absolutely vital and dynamic and optimistic movie
I'm perplexed you walked away feeling 'optimistic' as that decidedly ain't it, but I'd love to hear you make the case.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#518 Post by Big Ben » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:12 am

So quick question before I say much of anything. Regarding audience "participation".
SpoilerShow
The people I was in the theater with was a mix of old and young people but absolutely everyone was into this film throughout it's run-time. And by the time the last twenty minutes started people were hooting, hollering and clapping as the Manson "family" got their just desserts. When Leo brought out the flamethrower the theater lost it. One of my favorite audience experiences ever.
I think I'll let my opinion stew a bit more but I can say without a doubt this is one of my favorites of the year and one of Tarantino's very best.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#519 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:08 pm

Black Hat wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:09 am
The film was a remembrance of all things past or rather passed. What does it all mean or does it even matter what it means when the very nature of one's place is to be replaced? Value of all kinds is constantly doubted with a yearning to return to a time where buckets were less empty, people less threatened or threatening. As openly as the film longs for this and harshly criticizes any representative of change (the film's politics are fascinating) it smartly acknowledges with its title that such a place was an idealized fairy tale. The alternate reality revenge fantasy catharsis QT is known for is here subverted and is in fact remarkably deflating with a rather foreboding final shot acknowledging that not only is that impossible, but what lies ahead is at best uncertain at worst gone forever. In the ultimate hang out film, the hanging out comes to a savage end. The catharsis here was for Sharon Tate who after decades of being a tabloid tragedy is given an identity. What Tarantino accomplished for her is the most impressive feat of his career and what I'll always respect about him most.
This is a lovely appreciation Black Hat, especially the point about how Tarantino turned Tate into a three-dimensional human being for what seems like the first time, promoting her identity beyond her connection to the Manson Murders. This is essentially what he does for everyone in the film, by focusing on the tv B-actors that were actually great, the stunt men, behind the scenes agent in Al Pacino, who like Tarantino himself takes the time to look to the farthest corners of his peripheries to see the talent-that-was as the talent-that-could-still-be, and so on and so forth. The Rick Daltons and Cliff Booths of the world are given the attention they always wanted, or (at least in Cliff’s case, who wants little) frankly deserve, and Tarantino chooses to make these people immortal by letting us hang out with and get to know them on his own celluloid as a love letter to those forgotten who, like all of us, never wanted to be. I won’t speak for Never Cursed and would love to hear their argument for “optimism” as well, but that’s pretty optimistic to me.
SpoilerShow
Yes it’s a fantasy but as I said upthread I felt a combination of existentially piercing pensive solemnity and pure joy at the end, and even the more serious, and arguably sad, point to this all being make-believe helped catapult my joy. Tarantino uses the movies to show us that with art we can combat reality, and possibly even use movies to shift our perspective on the world toward optimism and realisation of our emotions. I personally believe that watching movies my whole life has shaped my perspective on life and provided me with stronger emotional intelligence than I otherwise would have through constantly being forced to empathize with characters on the screen, providing more opportunities for emotional connection and to see catharsis play out in one way or another, or being robbed of that catharsis and relating all of this back to real life consciously, subconsciously, and unconsciously. These may be artificial connections and fictitious but they are subjectively incredibly real. This makes me wonder if Tarantino is actually even further arguing (as a counter point to the Manson kid’s speech about blaming movies for their violent natures) that movies are actually, as Ebert once wisely said, ‘empathy-machines,’ and he solidifies this argument by crafting an ending that, yes uses violence, but ultimately as a path to immortalize his unseen ‘heroes,’ validate their, his, and our wishes and emotions, and meditate on the most empathetic moment in all of his films in that final shot, a metaphor for what we all want for ourselves and what the movies are capable of giving us.
The fact that I can, and will, see this again and am allowed to feel this again, and that people around the world will see it and that one day my children will see it and that we on this forum will talk about it, and that my partner and my kids and my friends will all have their own emotional responses and talk about them with their friends, and so on, is incredibly optimistic and just writing this makes me more grateful than I have been in ages for movies.

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#520 Post by Boosmahn » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:41 pm

I'll echo all of the sentiments here that Tarantino gave an identity to Tate. It's a shame some people believe otherwise.
Black Hat wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:09 am
The alternate reality revenge fantasy catharsis QT is known for is here subverted and is in fact remarkably deflating with a rather foreboding final shot acknowledging that not only is that impossible, but what lies ahead is at best uncertain at worst gone forever.
I took it more as melancholic than foreboding. Was there something in the last shot I missed?

User avatar
ianthemovie
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#521 Post by ianthemovie » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:27 pm

A couple of random observations about this (which I loved):

1. The use of Joni Mitchell's song "The Circle Game" seems very fitting, given what Tarantino is doing here. "We're captive on a carousel of time; / We can't go back, we can only look behind at where we came / And go round and round and round In the circle game."

2. Neither of the two people I've talked to about this movie so far--one age 29, one age 39--knew that Sharon Tate had really been murdered by the Manson family before going into the movie, or even after it was over. I thought this was pretty much common knowledge but apparently it's not. Both of them liked the movie regardless of this gap in their knowledge but their understanding of the ending was totally changed once they learned about the actual historical events. I can only imagine how many other audience members' perceptions of the movie will be affected by their lack of knowledge about what really happened that night.

ballmouse
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:32 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#522 Post by ballmouse » Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:03 pm

I saw the trailer and wasn't compelled to go to the theater to watch the film. But all the reviews here are pretty good. How well does the trailer match the vibe of the film? (Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA)

black&huge
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#523 Post by black&huge » Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:11 pm

ballmouse wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:03 pm
I saw the trailer and wasn't compelled to go to the theater to watch the film. But all the reviews here are pretty good. How well does the trailer match the vibe of the film? (Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA)
In my opinion the trailers don't even reveal 95% of the film. So matching the vibes I mean I would have to say that's really a small part of it. It's generously paced between the three mains. You're basically hanging out with these characters just seeing how they live for most of the film. But there's a lot of things you learn about them throughout. You really get to know em. I mean... just see it 😁

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#524 Post by Nasir007 » Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:34 pm

ianthemovie wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:27 pm
A couple of random observations about this (which I loved):

1. The use of Joni Mitchell's song "The Circle Game" seems very fitting, given what Tarantino is doing here. "We're captive on a carousel of time; / We can't go back, we can only look behind at where we came / And go round and round and round In the circle game."

2. Neither of the two people I've talked to about this movie so far--one age 29, one age 39--knew that Sharon Tate had really been murdered by the Manson family before going into the movie, or even after it was over. I thought this was pretty much common knowledge but apparently it's not. Both of them liked the movie regardless of this gap in their knowledge but their understanding of the ending was totally changed once they learned about the actual historical events. I can only imagine how many other audience members' perceptions of the movie will be affected by their lack of knowledge about what really happened that night.
This is a fantastic point and something that I was thinking about myself. This rather than broadening the movie's resonance lessens it. The ending and the tone it wants to evoke only works if you knew about these events and think of them as having had a monumental impact on culture than changed history. If not, then you will have a very very very very very different response to it - for one particular reason which I already highlighted above.
SpoilerShow
Without 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.
So again, I don't know how does the unaware audience member feel about all of this.

User avatar
tehthomas
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

#525 Post by tehthomas » Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:37 pm

Saw this today on 35mm at Logan Theater in Chicago... except the projection was all distorted, blurry and jittery and everyone walked out, so we watched a digital projection an hour later. Staff was apologetic and explained that they normally don't/ever project 35 mm (had minimal training for OUATIH). They said they couldn't restart the film/reel.. which I guess is how that works?

Therefore, I can't recommend the Logan 35mm and for those in Chicago I would try to do the Music Box 70mm or just a digital screening.

As for the film itself, still processing but I enjoyed it a lot and will likely rewatch soon.

Post Reply