Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Tarantino's ninth film is a very dear love letter to the Hollywood/Los Angeles in which he grew up and especially to Sharon Tate--from the moment we are first introduced to her we immediately feel sorry for her because we all know what is going to happen. The ensemble cast is pretty darned good and the soundtrack is, as with most Tarantino movies, a star in its own right. This movie isn't as much of the "Tarantino School of Movie History" as in other movies but he does throw in tons of deep movie and TV references, including cameos by many people from that time and place (he has to tell the audience who Michelle Phillips is but Cass Elliot is not noted because everyone knows who she is when they see her). A lot of the people he references are unknown to me, but then I am not well-versed in TV shows from the mid-to-late 1960s, certain exceptions notwithstanding. All things considered, I think he succeeded because the movie makes you want to jump into your time machine and go live there for a while.

There isn't as much violence in this movie as in his others, given the setting, but that's okay--violence is not needed to tell a story, even for Tarantino, especially if the story is good.

The businesses along one street were intially upset at having their storefronts redone to 1969 standards but by the time filming wrapped they wanted the retro look to stay.

The actor who plays Manson also plays Manson in Season 2 of Mindhunter, although a little older (that season is set in 1981).

Anyway....go see it--you'll enjoy it.

I like Tarantino, despite the fact that he and I see a little differently about many issues. However, on the subject of racial slurs and things which would these days be called "racist" or "hate speech" he had this to say:

As a writer, I demand the right to write any character in the world that I want to write. I demand the right to be them, I demand the right to think them and I demand the right to tell the truth as I see they are, all right? And to say that I can't do that because I'm white, but the Hughes brothers can do that because they're black, that is racist. That is the heart of racism, all right. And I do not accept that. That is how a segment of the black community that lives in Compton, lives in Inglewood, where Jackie Brown takes place, that lives in Carson, that is how they talk. I'm telling the truth. It would not be questioned if I was black, and I resent the question because I'm white. I have the right to tell the truth. I do not have the right to lie.

[Zarathustra]

I agree with everything he said except the last sentence. Of course writers have the right to lie. What a silly notion. It's called, "fiction." Sure, there are some truths in fiction, but also a lot of made up shit--which is exactly what he's doing with that sentence. He can't protect himself from charges of racism by making up fictional obligations to "tell the truth." People don't watch your movies, Quintin, to learn the truth.

Can't wait to check it out!

[Cagliostro]

I used to really like his stuff, and started watching a lot of interviews and such with him, and I found that Tarantino himself rubs me the wrong way. I think because I've known enough people with his personality - nerdy little shits that "talk cool" to hide that they are nerdy little shits. I don't know how better to describe it, or to explain why I want to punch him in his smug-looking face. The fact is, many actors who are legitimately cool can deliver his lines well, and he does honestly make good movies. But whenever I can hear Tarantino speaking the lines on the lips of other actors, like bits of Kill Bill Part 2, it just kills it for me and I lose my aesthetic erection for the film. I fear this movie is going to do the same for me, and I just have to put him out of my head while watching it, and enjoy it for what it is.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Tarantino is definitely the Insequent of movies and TV shows. He knows more about them than you do, he knows that he knows more about them than you do, and you know that he knows more about them than you do, but he still manages to rub your nose in the fact that he knows more about them than you do by telling you things you would have never known had you not listened to him.

[peter]

Can't you be a cool nerdy little shit Cag?

I'm a QT fan, but I have worries about this one. I'm not a Hollywood trivia buff, I have no knowledge to access the deep references and cultural nods to the period that the movie is purported to contain - and frankly I'm not interested in them. Is it a film made to satisfy students of the era and critics or are the rest of us allowed in as well? I didn't like Get Shorty and I don't know why, but without seeing so much as a trailer (well , one short one) this has that kind of feel about it to me. Films about film making are a dull thing to me - any reason why this one will be different?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Primarily, it is film designed to try and capture the feel of the world of Hollywood in 1969, clearly placing it in the "period piece" genre. Even if you are not well-versed in late 1960s trivia you will "get" this movie.

[peter]

I'll definitely see it Hashi - just not as motivated as I would normally be with a Tarantino movie.

[Cagliostro]

Living In Oblivion was a good movie about making movies. And Singing In The Rain.
And yes, I will freely admit that I am a nerdy little shit. Again, I can't describe sufficiently why he looks like someone is holding a small turd under his nose, and why he makes me want to push it into his face.

[peter]

Big Frikkin Spoiler Warning; If you haven't seen the film DON'T READ ON!

Ok, I saw it and a little bit at least, the stuff I said above came to pass. Because it was Tarantino , of course it was well made, Di Caprio's part was a sympathetically portrayed and the relationship between him and Pitt was simply nice (in a good way, not damning with faint praise). Pitt's character was engaging and as Hashi notes above, you could feel for Tate (was that Margo Robbie?) knowing where all this was going.

But then it didn't? This wasn't the Manson/Tate story. Instead It did something else. I could be wrong - and I am coming at this fresh, not going on one of those 'explanation' vids on YouTube first - but isn't the only time we ever see Manson when he walks past the house while Bradd Pitt is up on the roof fixing the TV ariel? When the final killing does eventually arrive, instead of being in the Polanski house, it's in the one next door occupied by the Di Caprio - Pitt side of the story, and it's done by one of his followers. And of course the hippies get the bullet, not the occupants of the House?

This all had echoes of the ending of Inglorious Basterds to me, where Tarantino takes a rock solid piece of history and simply pretends it doesn't happen that way. I'm thinking that this is the significance of the title: Once upon a time....... the classic fairy story beginning......In Hollywood........ well, Hollywood is the dream factory isn't it - it can do whatever the frick it likes with a story, history be screwed! Is Tarantino being critical of his motherland here? I don't know. Problem is, I don't know to what extent this story mirrors the backstory of the true events, so I don't know if the whole thing is a fabrication .....or did the Di Caprio/Pitt characters exist for real. Was the Bounty Law (or whatever it was called) series actually made? Without knowing these things it's impossible to know how much of the story is for real and where or indeed if a divergence occurs (excepting at the last denouement where we all know who was murdered, and by whom). And if there is simply no relationship between this story and the truth........then what is the point of it? I can sort of get it if there is a following of the true events, but then a divergence to give us the ending that we all would have wished for ala Hollywood dream..... but if there is simply nothing of the truth in there - no Di Caprio, no Pitt, spaghetti westerns or whatever - then why? It becomes a bog standard story with the Polanski's as incidental next door neighbours (that might just as well have been the Smith's or the Brown's).

But all of this aside, I did sort of like this film. The knowledge of the Tate connection kept me there (I'm old enough to just remember the story breaking) as I gradually recognised what was going on (I didn't remember that the Tate story was part of the film until I was viewing it) and the Pitt character was particularly engaging (I thought there was a love story brewing with the beautiful girl he was flirting with) even though he was purported to have killed his wife (what was that all about - for real or not?) I liked the Bruce Lee appearance: I loved Lee as a youth in the cinema, and to see him reduced from God to man was, well, actually quite good and amusing. So yes - I don't regret this 3 hours. It's given me something to chew over, something to think about and something to follow up a bit. No problems.

(But I didn't get any of the Easter Eggs pertaining to the era's TV shows.......any of them at all! )

[Hashi Lebwohl]

You are correct--Manson shows up only that one brief time; he is more wisely used as a backdrop and a plot element with which we, the audience, are familiar. His absence makes him more mysterious to us, which mirrors what happened in real life--Manson, himself, never actually committed any murders.

Tarantino is not being critical of his adopted homeland--never forget that Tarantino loves Hollywood...but a somewhat stylized Hollywood, where even its grimy parts are glitzy.

No, neither Pitt's nor DiCaprio's characters are real. The TV show "Bounty Law" is not real, Red Apple cigarettes are not real even though they show up in advertisements in many Tarantino movies and many characters smoke them--it is a fake product he created, just like Big Kahuna Burgers, Kaboom cereal, and the Acuna Boys Tex-Mex chain which he co-created with Rodriguez.

Yes, Brad Pitt's character killed his wife and got away with it...just like O. J. did.

This movie was how Tarantino wanted history to have gone, just like he did with Inglorious Basterds. Just like 9/11 change the nature of New York City forever and Katrina changed New Orleans, the Tate/LaBianca murders changed the nature of Hollywood forever--that was when it truly lost its innocence and glitzy glamor that Tarantino fell in love with.

This movie was almost as much for his own emotional satisfaction as it was ours.

[peter]

Yes Hashi, that makes sense. I read a bit of background on the film and scource material on Wikipedia yesterday. Amazing how myths arise and mutate the truth like that - ask 99.9 percent of people who killed Sharon Tate and the answer will come back "Charles Manson".

This is a film that is working on me 'after the event' as it were - a sure sign of something a bit special in the film world these days. I'm going to do a bit more background reading and watch the movie again....... and I am rather looking forward to it!

Tarantino is a 'marmite' director for many - people love him or hate him. I'm of the former kind. I've seen every film he has made and with the exception of the two schlock back to back films I've loved them all. Even those two I should revisit really, in the light of this film we are talking about. I've got a feeling that I could see them through different eyes now - through the prism of an homage to the era (or at least understanding this better).

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I've seen every film he has made and with the exception of the two schlock back to back films I've loved them all.

Grindhouse? Planet Terror and Death Proof? Planet Terror was pure Rodriguez...but Tarantino was in it--obviously the one holding the gun to Rose McGowan's head talking about Eva Gardner.

When I saw them both Planet Terror came across as a much better movie; however, when I rewatched Death Proof on its own it was better than I remember it being.

Margot Robbie spent time with Sharon's sister to study for the role--she wanted to make sure to portray her correctly and accurately. Some of the jewelry she wears in the film actually belonged to Sharon Tate.

It is also likely that if Sharon had not been killed that Roman Polanski would not have assaulted that 14-year-old, which would have allowed him to stay in the United States and continue making movies here.

[darthbuzz]

I really enjoyed this film. Even though history was completely forgotten about at the end.


____________
"Whatever you want to do, do it. There's only so many tomorrows"