Quentin goes to Hollywood

Review by Antonis Ch and Apostolisza8

Chapter I: The Scenario

by Antonis Ch

The plot of ‘Once upon a Time in Hollywood’ is built around Sharon Tate’s murder and the ensuing Manson saga. The addition of two fictional characters (Di Caprio as Rick Dalton and Pitt as Cliff Booth) by Tarantino is enough to alter the events of the imaginary timeline and lead to a different ending. Sharon Tate is not murdered, and Manson probably does not become the celebrity murderer/cult leader we know him to have been.  This is not a new recipe. Tarantino has played with historical events in some of his previous work, like ‘Django’ and ‘Inglourious Basterds’. The historical setting in this previous work was instrumental for the storyline, but this does not happen with ‘Once Upon a Time’ to the same extent. Yes, the real events are important to the plot, but after an hour into the film, it feels like the Director has forgotten what it was about. Also unlike ‘Django’ and ‘Inglourious Basterds’, ‘Once upon a Time’ remains undecided on its main message which strives to remain apolitical while set in a political era (also see below). The film takes a clear stance only on an awkward anti-hippieness, which is almost unsettling once we realise that the hippies portrayed in the film were part of Manson’s cult and not your average 60s flower children.

Tarantino has always been brilliant in composing a single, more or less coherent narrative from pieces that initially appear unrelated (just remember ‘Pulp Fiction’). This does not happen with the many storylines and themes of ‘Once Upon a Time’. If we look for an element that provides coherence, we’ll discover nothing else than the aesthetic touch of the director, providing a unique feel of the Hollywood in the 60s, as expected from a cinematographer known for his unique and stylish visuals. However, there are scenes offering little to nothing to the main plot and this goes especially for Tate’s (Robbie) part. For a movie that takes a poetic license to alter real-life characters drastically to the point it did with Bruce Lee, there is no compelling reason why Sharon Tate had to remain so out of creative reach, and sync with the rest of the plot. This absence of a central unifying narrative makes the film feel dragged out…a lot.

‘In a Tarantino movie there has to be some blood in the end’. In every Tarantino classic we’ve grown to love, the slow-paced first half complimented a fast-paced gory second. This cliché is repeated once more and the violence remains among the strongest points of the film, but this time it feels more clichéd than before. The choreography and cinematography of the last scenes is brilliant, and the violence raw and breathtaking, but it has no other implications for the psychography of the characters.  All in all, it is cool to see Brad Pitt high on acid teaming up with his dog in a battle to the death with some random hippie maniacs. It is also cool to see Di Caprio using a flamethrower to burn one of these intruders in his pool. Beyond the coolness of the thing however, is there anything more substantial in these scenes that makes them stand out? My opinion is probably not.

Chapter II: The Acting

by Apostolisza8

One of the first things that would draw everyone’s attention was the cast of this film. Quentin, has always had the ability to either revamp older actors’ careers (Travolta, Russell, etc) or have some of the better of each  generation (DiCaprio, Pitt) make an appearance. What can go wrong when you have some of the best actors in the history of Hollywood, star in a retrospective film about the generational shift in the industry? As a matter of fact, the hilarious ending of the film made one thing goddamn clear. Brad Pitt is a hell of an actor. His performance and his chemistry with Di Caprio’s role, were, possibly, the only things truly untouchable. Robbie’s role on the other hand, playing the role of late Sharon Tate, an intermission between two worlds and a symbol of a generation’s purity, was heavily focused onto her appearance and charisma. Along with the whole “Bruce Lee Chapter” of the film, it was her screen time mostly that confused the audience. How else could I describe the fact that the “Tate murders” failed to have an artistic impact, other than blaming the whole premise of Manson’s cult and Tate’s character. These people’s acting was solely based onto stereotypes that Quentin had in mind along with each actor’s real life ability to play effortlessly these kind of characters.

Chapter III: A Director’s Cut

by Apostolisza8

Tarantino’s a-decade-now vision of filming is based on his perception of main historical aspects of his society. If we combine his will to simplify to a strong unified point each theme of his last four films, along with his all-time-classic ability to dissect linear plots and transform them into a creation of pure aesthetic, then we could very easily explain what went wrong in this film by a director’s standpoint. The whole premise, as perceived by the writer, of “…Hollywood”, was the struggle between two different eras. The John Fords of this world were dying along with the American dream in the swamps of Vietnam. Public enemies were rising everywhere to dominate the mainstream narrative. Were them the Vietcong, the hippies, the whole culture industry was shifting towards a dawn of the new age.

Taking into consideration that this film is the first after the Weinstein scandal, along with Tarantino’s choise of representing his romantic and nostalgic take of his heroes’ contribution via an old school actor’s friendship with his stuntman, I end up thinking that he was directing in total defiance of the “real” world. Let me explain. The alternate ending of the film, is a way of saving “Old Hollywood’s” cultural impact and protecting it from the postmodern epidemic that hit it mercilessly by the cultural shift of 1969. The line “ If Hollywood taught us how to kill, then we kill Hollywood”, is of course stupid enough, but when taken into context, thus meaning, said by a drugged hippie, is Quentin’s way of being a-political. A purely aesthetic representation of another age, though one of the best we have witnessed, is not enough to really show the problems that this cultural transition shaded on the industry.

Tarantino’s way of going through endless motions and scenes with the same premise as the one of his bloody finale, was really dragging too much and in the end, didn’t manage to have a shocking reaction of the audience. If it was music, I would draw a parallel with Nick Cave’s new opus from his new album, the 14 minute epic “Hollywood”. You could go straight to the last 5-6 minutes of the song and don’t miss a thing, neither musically, nor artistically. The point of this film was well made since the first 45 minutes, a pure aesthetic, showcasing probably a lack of real inspiration, could not save the reactionary premise of this film. We get it Quentin, we should leave politics outside of Hollywood.

(Disclaimer: I love Nick Cave and Hollywood as much as I love Tarantino’s films)