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

[mfunk9786]

Re: the depiction of Lee, I found one of the most interesting takes on it to be Walter Chaw’s thoughts on Twitter over the weekend, the conclusion of which finds more problematic about the patronizing concern some have shown than Tarantino’s portrait of the man:

Last thing: portraying Bruce as arrogant (he was), didactic (yep) and hot-tempered (famously) is imminently respectful to the legacy of a man who has been elevated to golden calf status by western idolaters.

Chaw's review is some of his best ever writing, which is saying something

Sharon in the theatre, listening as the crowd loves her, having a wonderful time. Even as he demythologizes The Family, Tarantino effectively humanizes Tate. She is lovely and effervescent. She picks up a hitchhiker, and following their short ride together he gives her a parting hug. Though coveted as an object, she's a normal woman who does her own shopping and goes to the movies. Yet it's clear in this moment that she's special. Later, she has a conversation through her call box with Rick, and hearing her voice, ghostly and electric, coming through the space of all these years and that atrocity, is the first time I cried like my heart would never stop breaking.

[Nasir007]

I agree with you there and the question asked of Tarantino in the Cannes press conference which he saw haughtily dismissed has relevance.

SpoilerShow

It is mercenary marketing to call Tate the heart of the movie. She's not a fully formed character in the slightest. I swear Bruce Lee has more lines than her. And I explained the reason above, she's only included so Tarantino can have an ending to his adventures of Cliff and Rick. She is otherwise absolutely extraneous. Robbie has absolutely nothing to work with here. There is no character to play. She's essentially a 'concept' in the film - a figurehead. He's using her as a Macguffin basically. She just exists so that the heroes get to take revenge. She's a cutaway, something to cut to break the flow a little, have a little variety and have some semblance of a female character. So has no agency because she doesn't do anything. I think people are buying the marketing of the movie rather than what is in it. (Like how I feel people fell for the marketing of Roma more than what was actually in it.)

Along with article linked to earlier I think these are pretty silly, featherbrained takes. You can have them, but you have to make a better case than she

SpoilerShow

"had no lines". As we all know film is not about lines of dialogue, it always always has been and always will first and foremost be a visual medium. The scene with her taking pride in watching herself on screen showed more than a 1000 lines of dialogue ever could.

Brian - remember this is a film that is extremely self aware bordering on breaking the fourth wall with constant winks and nods to archetypes, the real lives of the actors playing them, the director himself etc, etc. so lets not forget how for 50 years the only way our culture has identified Sharon Tate is as a victim where as in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood she was portrayed as how she should have been remembered

SpoilerShow

which fits in line with the alternate reality. The questions you asked and conclusions you drew are the wrong ones. She likes to dance, yeah she does, but who doesn't? For most people it is one of the freest most uninhabited acts we can do, to dance is to release your spirit. Is it she likes to watch herself on screen or rather who it is she's watching for us? For most it was likely the first images of Sharon Tate they've seen that was unrelated to her death, how heartbreaking but also wonderful that must be for her family. She has a type she likes? Yeah most of us do. The point of all this was to bring her out of the realm as perhaps the single most tragic victim our modern culture has ever had, and the mythology that comes along with that, into a person we can relate to. A human instead of myth.

I don't believe the film would have worked in the ways that it does if Tate's character was handled any differently because it would then overshadow the remembrance of her that was based in a reality she created for herself instead of the one that was thrust upon her. To the critique that he gave her no agency I say what a bunch of horseshit because he gave it back to her. He absolutely did, in a subtle most moving, compassionate way at that.

This is a kool-aid drinking PR parroting take. There are several other reservations raised beyond just "no lines". Try addressing those if you want to convince others about the depth of Tate's character development in this film.

I really liked this movie. I found it the most enjoyable, entertaining, and emotionally resonant of QT's since Inglorious Basterds, if not Kill Bill. Sign me up for any Leo & Brad buddy movie. The movie theater sequence was sublime.

But the movie does have it's warts. 21st Century Tarantino has certain tendencies that many people admire and see fit to defend. I think you can enjoy and even champion a movie while still taking it to task for it's shortcomings, and I'm so glad that Brian C and Nasir007 brought these to the discussion...

SpoilerShow

I have to be honest and say that I don't really understand the difference between what you call "working in harmony with his audience" and rather straightforward pandering. Your analysis in this thread of the film's structural virtuosity is excellent, but I feel a little bit like you're selling me a car when you talk in such high-minded terms about the very basic act of setting up characters as reprehensible villains and then giving them grisly deaths - this may literally be the least sophisticated storytelling device that there is, and certainly it's the most basic and shameless appeal to the animal nature of human beings. Every huckster in the world knows that people want to see the bad guys die, it is not hard to "work in harmony with the audience" to pull that trick off.

While I'm at it, I also don't understand the various assertions in this thread along the lines that the film gives Tate an identity. What identity is that? She has exactly three character traits in this movie aside from being super pretty: 1) she likes to dance, 2) she likes to watch herself onscreen, and 3) she has a specific taste in men that the movie explicitly makes fun of her for. Obviously none of these traits amount to any kind of meaningful identity either on their own or in sum, and Tarantino doesn't seem to show the least bit of interest in her aside from presenting her as a sort of innocent untarnished angelic figure. I mean, her pregnancy could be the result of immaculate conception for all we know. To me, it seems gravely demeaning.

I agree with you there and the question asked of Tarantino in the Cannes press conference which he saw haughtily dismissed has relevance.

SpoilerShow

It is mercenary marketing to call Tate the heart of the movie. She's not a fully formed character in the slightest. I swear Bruce Lee has more lines than her. And I explained the reason above, she's only included so Tarantino can have an ending to his adventures of Cliff and Rick. She is otherwise absolutely extraneous. Robbie has absolutely nothing to work with here. There is no character to play. She's essentially a 'concept' in the film - a figurehead. He's using her as a Macguffin basically. She just exists so that the heroes get to take revenge. She's a cutaway, something to cut to break the flow a little, have a little variety and have some semblance of a female character. So has no agency because she doesn't do anything. I think people are buying the marketing of the movie rather than what is in it. (Like how I feel people fell for the marketing of Roma more than what was actually in it.)

SpoilerShow

I'm not someone that squirms at violence, but the way Tarantino takes it to an extreme EVERY time... It isn't lyrical, like Peckinpah. Or pointed, like Haneke or von Trier. It isn't matter of fact, like Scorsese. For me QT's ending are rarely cathartic. They're excessive. Like telling a joke and continuing to underline the punchline for those you think didn't get it (but probably did initially). How many times is necessary for Sadie Atkins to get her face smashed into the rotary telephone? Would once or twice not have done the trick? There were so many laughs in my theater in these moments, and some (flamethrower payoff) seem understandable and earned. But others are just kind of ugly. And looking around the theater in my periphery, mixed between the laughing majority, are a few people -- like myself, and many of them women -- gobsmacked at the handling of violence on the screen and the cacophony of chuckles it engenders.

The second point about Sharon Tate... While that scene in the movie theater is beautiful, in part due to the brilliant choice to use the actual Tate footage, that doesn't mean that the rest of your film can't give the character of Tate some agency. At times she comes off as practically vacuous. Blackhat -- "A picture is worth a thousand words" is just as dumb and lazy of an argument as the pieces that you denounced, asking for more of Robbie. Dialogue matters. It's often what is remembered most! Why couldn't she have been the one to have a one-on-one conversation with Rick Dalton in the end, instead of keeping her outside the frame with two men talking. So often in this film we get characters like Steve McQueen or Jay Sebring talking about what she thinks and feels in relation to others. Wouldn't it have been nice to experience that through Robbie's Tate?

And I have a third issue. What is with that Bruce Lee sequence?! This was the first time I really stepped outside the film and wasn't fully invested... What did Bruce Lee do to engender such a problematic caricature? If Sharon Tate is treated with such distance and high regard in death, why too isn't he? Again, hearing my mostly white audience laughing at Bruce Lee getting beat up by Brad Pitt (talk about a fantasy) while making exaggerated karate calls made me so uncomfortable. What is with that poorly written speech about Cassius Clay? Like the scene later where we're told in VO that Frykowski prefers American TV to inferior Polish television, this lifting up of an American ideal over another nation's was unnecessary, and for me unnerving. And why was Cliff in a tuxedo when Rick was in the Western? And if he wasn't there solely as his double but just for the work, then what was the aha moment causing Cliff to force the issue and show up on set that day? Remembering that he murdered his wife? I must be missing something, but that section seemed a mess, and possibly altogether unnecessary.

Thanks Von Truffaut. We are in agreement about Tate's handling in this. As to the Bruce Lee sequence, I will not use spoiler tags because there is nothing to spoil there (or in the first 2 hrs for that matter).

I think the sequence is harmless in the sense it is a fun little aside. I know some people found it racist and denigrating but I think it is an innocuous scene. I saw it as a parody and not really a realistic scene. I have to say I laughed pretty hard at Pitt's punchline after Bruce Lee's monologue. I think the initial 2 hr movie is just that - random asides and anecdotes without any plot whatsoever. So it kinda feels like it fits in.

Also the Bruce Lee bit is a flashback. This is the sequence of events -

Pitt fixing the antenna has a reverie.
Flashback starts. Pitt is hanging out and Russell sees him and goes to see Dicaprio. Dicaprio is wearing a tux for his scene. Dicaprio exhorts him to give Pitt a job. That is when Russel says Pitt murdered his wife.
Flashback within the flashback - We see Pitt with his wife on the boat.
Back to Flashback - Russell agrees to give Pitt the job. Pitt dons a tux to double Dicaprio and bungles it up when he thrashes Lee.
End reverie back to Pitt on the rooftop.

I do like the movie a lot. The first 2 hours are very good indeed. But I am not going to blindly defend everything in it. It is perfectly reasonable to like something with reservations, as is the case here for both you and I.

[mfunk9786]

Tate's role in this film is not to exhibit character development. Were that Tarantino's goal, to show us how she's changed and evolved as a person over the course of three days (literally, the film takes place across three days during the same year), then perhaps you'd have a point in bringing it up

[Lars Von Truffaut]

Thank you mfunk, nasir, and Roger Ryan for clearing up the Lee bits. You are absolutely right and I'm surprised I missed that. I saw the film with three other people and somehow that went over all of our heads. It all makes much more sense now and plays better for me on the whole. I look forward to revisiting this film again soon, as I thought it was pretty spectacular on the whole. Having read some more context here and other places, I can only imagine the second go will be as or more rewarding than the first. I loved spending time in this world.

Therewillbeblus -- I'm pretty sure Tarantino has been influenced by the blood and gore of grindhouse cinema of the 70s since he started making films in the early 90s. But in that initial decade -- while there was certainly violence in his films -- it was a lot more nuanced and seemed to serve the story. (Before you go stating the obvious... Yes, this is my opinion...as it is of many, many others...not only on this board, but critics and filmmaking peers as well.) So the "maybe Tarantino isn't for you" argument is poppycock. Love Reservoir Dogs - Jackie Brown full stop. And I've enjoyed much of what came after, even if some aspects within those works-- like some of the post-Kill Bill violence -- felt overly indulgent.

[mfunk9786]

I think it's less "maybe Tarantino isn't for you" and more "maybe stylized violence isn't for you" - but it's clear that he likes shooting it enough that it's become a trademark of his work for nearly 20 years, so it's been part of the cost of entry for 2/3rds of his career. And Reservoir Dogs features an ear being cut off while a character dances around him - if that isn't indulgent, I'm not sure what is.

[Lars Von Truffaut]

How much blood spurting do we see in that sequence? Remember when we witness the actual ear being severed from the cop's head? That brilliant scene IS stylized violence. As much because of what QT shows as what he doesn't.

Also, I've mentioned other filmmakers upthread who I admire for their use of "stylized violence", but whatevs...

mfunk -- You make a valid point in how his use of violence has changed over the years. And I think one of the reasons I enjoyed this film so much was how it seemed closer to echoing his earlier period for so much of the runtime. Not only in regards to violence, but the dialogue and emphasis on character relationships. As others have echoed, this seemed more emotional and among Tarantino's most contemplative works.

[Roger Ryan]

No, it wasn't. I promise I'm not going out of my way to correct you over and over, but I think you might have some of the details wrong on this one and it's worth pointing out since some of them are pretty key to the story (i.e. Lee)

My apologies here for unwittingly spreading false info. Like any good film that has this much content, I believe viewers will tend to participate in co-creating by finding connections that resonate for them. Having read next-to-nothing (apart from this forum) before or after seeing the film just once, I didn't have much to ground some of my fanciful interpretations. Of course, upon further reflection, it's now clear that since we're shown Rick's day on the set, Cliff's reverie can only logically be seen as a flashback (also, Green Hornet was out-of-production by 1969 which I mentioned much earlier in this thread, so I should have put two-and-two together). Still, I think it's fair to assess that flashback as coming from Cliff's perspective, which could inform how the characters behave and the events transpire.

[mfunk9786]

It's this that I'm taking issue with:

it was a lot more nuanced and seemed to serve the story

I'd contend that his idolatry of onscreen violence has always been there, but it's definitely been there for the majority of his career at this point, so using his first three (of nine) films to make your argument isn't really good enough.

Still, I think it's fair to assess that flashback as coming from Cliff's perspective, which could inform how the characters behave and the events transpire.

Then why is a long chunk of the flashback taking place between two other characters without Cliff present? Sometimes a flashback is just a flashback.

[Roger Ryan]

It's this that I'm taking issue with:

it was a lot more nuanced and seemed to serve the story

I'd contend that his idolatry of onscreen violence has always been there, but it's definitely been there for the majority of his career at this point, so using his first three (of nine) films to make your argument isn't really good enough.

Still, I think it's fair to assess that flashback as coming from Cliff's perspective, which could inform how the characters behave and the events transpire.

Then why is a long chunk of the flashback taking place between two other characters without Cliff present?

Because this is how Cliff imagined those conversations went? Or perhaps what Rick told him later? I don't know that it really matters; it's just more interesting to assess the sequence as possibly being presented from a character's perspective instead of being completely objective. Tarantino goes out of his way to ensure we understand it is Cliff who is thinking back on this day (even using the old trope of repeating an earlier line of dialogue to set it up). The end result is more-or-less the same either way, but I find it more entertaining to see it coming from Cliff's perspective.

[mfunk9786]

Maybe Cliff is an autistic boy with a snow globe and the entire movie is taking place in his imagination

[Roger Ryan]

Maybe Cliff is an autistic boy with a snow globe and the entire movie is taking place in his imagination

Since Kurt Russell is the narrator, perhaps the whole story is meant to come from Randy's perspective? I can see I'm irritating you with my interpretation of the Cliff flashback, so I won't press it further. I know I need to see this film again before I can get a better handle on it.

[mfunk9786]

You can believe whatever you want, you aren't irritating me, but sometimes a flashback is just a flashback.

Especially in Tarantino's films, typically he's very interested in showing things as they happened, especially in The Hateful Eight, where the predominant plot device is cleverly leaving out details depending on where he puts the camera and what he lets us see/not see. I can't really think of a single instance in one of his films where the perspective is anything other than the director's.

[Luke M]

Anyone find it interesting that a few of the Spahn ranch hippie girls were played by daughters of famous people? Felt like if it was intentional it fits with the movie's anti-hippieness and overall anti-culture change.

[Never Cursed]

And Sydney Sweeney of Euphoria fame

[therewillbeblus]

Therewillbeblus -- I'm pretty sure Tarantino has been influenced by the blood and gore of grindhouse cinema of the 70s since he started making films in the early 90s. But in that initial decade -- while there was certainly violence in his films -- it was a lot more nuanced and seemed to serve the story. (Before you go stating the obvious... Yes, this is my opinion...as it is of many, many others...not only on this board, but critics and filmmaking peers as well.) So the "maybe Tarantino isn't for you" argument is poppycock. Love Reservoir Dogs - Jackie Brown full stop. And I've enjoyed much of what came after, even if some aspects within those works-- like some of the post-Kill Bill violence -- felt overly indulgent.

I apologize if I came across as damning your opinion or inferring that you shouldn't go see Tarantino films. I tried to make clear that your perspective is valid throughout my response, but I can see how some of my language could have been cutting (the "who, you?" was meant to indicate this as clearly subjective vs. my interpretation of the statement as objective, for example). My issue was in objective-sounding statements such as "dialogue matters" and "it's often what is remembered most" to critique the choice, though if you meant these as subjective again I am sorry, but they read as definitive truths/objective to me. When I said, "the point is that Tarantino is choosing his own style and power of the medium in telling the tales that he wants to tell, and frankly if one doesn't like that they probably shouldn't go see his movies" I wasn't intending to be dismissive of someone finding his brand too extreme or of generating a discussion on the effectiveness or potential problems inherent in that brand. Rather, I was trying to speak to the purpose of what I believe to be Tarantino's intent in the end, and should have indicated that final line more clearly as coming from his indirect statement with the film vs. a direct one from me.

SpoilerShow

I believe that an important purpose to the stylized violence in the scene in question was to state his right to choose this direction and this level of violence, or whatever he wants to put in a film. I suppose part of me does feel like it should be expected at this point when going into a Tarantino movie, as it's what he's been doing since the 90s. However, what I intended to relay with my statement was my reading of Tarantino's intent, in telling his audience to either embrace what he wants to offer (while slyly offering a more complex thesis to why he is doing this beyond cathartic violence) in all its madness, or to not, because he's going to make movies his way. We already knew that, but I think this film does a remarkable job at using visual storytelling, to make this point beyond the dismissive interviews we can watch as Tarantino becomes frustrated at responding to these criticisms for the nth time. He indulges this criticism here but still comes down uncompromised.

To your and others' points, the violence is far more intense, horrific and graphic than a lot of the more 'cartoonish' deaths his last few genre pictures have produced, and absolutely warrants discussion, and I honestly don't have a problem with you or anyone else taking issue with it. My statement wasn't intended to indicate "maybe Tarantino isn't for you" but that if he has demonstrated no compromise in his preference and is creating an entire movie with a prioritized intent to defend his right to execute stories with extreme violence, or in the way he wants to, and indicates that decision transparently here for all to see in a "take it or leave it" offering, criticisms of the violence must then be taken with the entire purpose of the film. Thus Tarantino is the one saying the end of that statement that I unintentionally delivered as a rather condescending one from myself: "if one doesn't like it, they probably shouldn't go see [my] movies."

[mfunk9786]

This just in from disc land: There's a placeholder UPC for a UHD release of this film - $45.99 MSRP - hopefully working on this and that Hateful Eight re-release sparks Tarantino's interest in the format and we see the rest of his catalog get the bump

[whaleallright]

SpoilerShow

Why couldn't she have been the one to have a one-on-one conversation with Rick Dalton in the end, instead of keeping her outside the frame with two men talking.

I actually think this choice lent the scene a particular poignancy, as Tate's simulatenous presence (on the soundtrack) and absence (from the image) invokes her actual fate even as we're witnessing an alternative one.

On a completely different note, of the seemingly hundreds of music cues, I particularly liked the use of José Feliciano's cover of "California Dreamin'," as it not only was something one would very likely have heard on the radio at that moment, but it's a further nod to folks who very much part of the milieux depicted in the film (actually, Mama Cass and Michelle Phillips themselves are depicted in the film, albeit briefly), as well as, surely, a callback to one of Tarantino's favorite films, Chungking Express.

Also, this film had some of the most exhilarating scenes of car driving I've seen in a film: the many passages of Pitt's character cruising through Los Angeles, but especially the crane shot where he jubilantly spins around nearly 360º before speeding away from DeCaprio's home.... Of course, nobody in this film wears seat belts.

[BigMack3000]

SpoilerShow

Why couldn't she have been the one to have a one-on-one conversation with Rick Dalton in the end, instead of keeping her outside the frame with two men talking.

I actually think this choice lent the scene a particular poignancy, as Tate's simulatenous presence (on the soundtrack) and absence (from the image) invokes her actual fate even as we're witnessing an alternative one.

SpoilerShow

And even from a practical standpoint, why would Sebring have sent a pregnant woman to go check what all those cops are doing outside?

[Roger Ryan]

...On a completely different note, of the seemingly hundreds of music cues, I particularly liked the use of José Feliciano's cover of "California Dreamin'," as it not only was something one would very likely have heard on the radio at that moment, but it's a further nod to folks who very much part of the milieux depicted in the film (actually, Mama Cass and Michelle Phillips themselves are depicted in the film, albeit briefly)...

Also, two additional Mamas and Papas-related tracks show up with the live performance of "Straight Shooter" and the original studio recording of "Twelve-Thirty (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon)". The latter was also used effectively in last year's Bad Times at the El Royale to accompany the appearance of the Manson family-like cult.

[Finch]

I'd like to see it again sometime on home video but I'm a bit disappointed. For the longest time, this feels like Tarantino's most likeable and relaxed film but also pretty sluggish at the same time. I definitely felt those 2.5 hours no matter how much I enjoyed the film for the most part. The best scenes include the Movie Ranch (I like how Tarantino builds the suspense to Cliff's discovery of George and then subverts expectations) and Dalton's difficult shoot with Timothy Oliphant's character and the Fraser girl. The confrontation with the Manson family, though, felt gratuitous, specifically

SpoilerShow

the graphic headbashing of the redhead and the mauling and subsequent torching of the Asian woman

.

Felt more successful as a mood piece than a narrative with a throughline, and like one or two other people in this thread, I found myself checking my watch after the hour mark every now and then.

According to THR, this needs to earn $400m to be considered a success financially because of the marketing costs, the deals for the stars and the studio only getting half of the receipts. As big as Tarantino is in Europe, this might struggle. I hope it is a success because I'd rather see more films like this getting made instead of stupid shit like photo-realistic singing lions.

[Big Ben]

SpoilerShow

the graphic headbashing of the redhead and the mauling and subsequent torching of the Asian woman

.

Regarding your concern:

SpoilerShow

While I agree that it's certainly violent I'm absolutely convinced it's supposed to be cathartic in some sense much in the same way the violence near the end of Django is incredibly over the top. Also I'm unsure where you got the idea that one was Asian? All of the perpetrators were white.

[black&huge]

SpoilerShow

the graphic headbashing of the redhead and the mauling and subsequent torching of the Asian woman

.

I'm not sure of the actress's actual ethnicity but she was playing someone who wasn't asian.

I'm seeing the movie again tomorrow but I just remembered a callback Tarantino did to Death Proof as I stated before he calls back to all his previous films

SpoilerShow

Cliff's death blow to Tex is a face stomp while he's on his back on the floor a la Stuntman Mike's end

[Finch]

I could be misremembering it but I thought she was Asian or of Asian ethnicity. I'll definitely watch the film again at some point because the violence definitely bothered me. It felt more like "movie violence" than "realistic violence" if you know what I mean, though I'll concede it wasn't as flippant as other films would have been (Peele's Us, for example, felt like it had a pretty cavalier attitude towards some of the deaths).

Cathartic is not what I got from it, for sure.

SpoilerShow

I'd completely forgotten about the face stomp on Tex which admittedly is at least as graphic as what the Redhead and the torched girl got but I guess it says something about me that Tex's death didn't register in the same way.

[Finch]

What I loved though:

The early scene with Cliff getting into his old car and driving home - what is the song for this scene, please? - and prepping dinner for his dog and watching TV - that encapsulated the hangout feel of this film the most.

Cliff's reverie on the rooftop - speaking of which, none of the women is as sexualised as Brad Pitt is in the film, including an admiring shot of his butt in the flashback scene in the boat, and of course, his half naked torso on the roof.

The Bruce Lee sequences were pretty funny though what Lee fans will make of those will be anybody's guess.

Finally, this has got to have the most lingering shots of female feet in any of Tarantino's films, no? There's the one of Tate's feet in the slow pan and Pussycat (callout to Russ Meyer, perhaps?) planting her feet on Cliff's dashboard and I'm sure there was another one elsewhere in the film.

[Nasir007]

SpoilerShow

the graphic headbashing of the redhead and the mauling and subsequent torching of the Asian woman

.

Regarding your concern:

SpoilerShow

While I agree that it's certainly violent I'm absolutely convinced it's supposed to be cathartic in some sense much in the same way the violence near the end of Django is incredibly over the top. Also I'm unsure where you got the idea that one was Asian? All of the perpetrators were white.

SpoilerShow

I get that it is supposed to be cathartic. But I guess the question a lot of us are asking is - Had they just been shot dead - would it not have been cathartic?

Was it only cathartic because you saw their bodies torn apart limb for limb and their viscera spilling out?