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

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
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)

#776 Post by Never Cursed » Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:30 pm

senseabove wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:59 pm
Surprised? Tarantino stans are not exactly hard to come by on the internet... Nor are people who will "point out" how pretty much anything sucks to its creator's face.
Not that I disagree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think it's applicable to the responses I linked to: a brooooad majority of commenters on the post do not come off as trolls or Film Bro mouthpieces, and I was surprised at the unity among a diverse field of users (including a lot of other artistic or creative people) in expressing contempt for the comic.

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)

#777 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:58 pm

No, if you dislike someone's work you must affirmatively engage with all dishonest and bad faith criticisms of them, those are the rules

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

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

#778 Post by Nasir007 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:05 pm
In regards to the spoiler in that image mfunk posted (NSFW description). Apologies for my frustration (Not at mfunk).
SpoilerShow
Google the images of the Tate murders. Look at what Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Charles Watson did to Sharon Tate and and everyone there. Wojciech Frykowski was stabbed over fifty times and was shot twice. Jay Sebring was hung by his neck and then shot and stabbed to death. Abigail Folger was chased from the house and stabbed twenty eight times. Steven Parent was shot multiple times in his car. Oh and let's not forget that Sharon was eight and a half months pregnant.

To see someone attempt to try and convince me there's a "both sides" argument to this specific aspect of the film strikes me as peak nonsense. No doubt the individual who made this comic would not apply the same reasoning to say the Sociopathic Nazis who allowed a woman to be murdered at Charlottesville. Yes it's absolutely revisionism but I'll be damned before I'll take someone seriously if they tell me that preventing those murders in any would be unjustifiable.

Am I overreacting? Am I being an ass here?
Baffling. Baffling.
Some of us are against capital punishment. Under any circumstance. For whatever crime. Not even for Hitler. Not even Osama. Not even for the nazi at Chorlottesville.

It's not that people against capital punishment have a disingenuous point of view, it's just that we do not think death is a remedy for crimes.
SpoilerShow
Even going with your premise and the movie's premise - that they deserved to die, I could have accepted that. But seeing the supposed hero of the film tearing a woman's body apart limb for limb is a bridge too far. I don't see the need to cheer and applaud at that scene as so many cinema-goers have done.

This is only an anecdote so doesn't mean much - but be that as it may - some friends over the weekend told me they saw the movie and had never even heard of Sharon Tate or Charles Manson or the entire thing. They HATED the first 2 hr 30 mins of the film. But loved the last 10 mins. I can't imagine why as they did not have even the slightest context for what the movie was doing.

This breeds into what Taratino has been criticized for in the past and which I never agreed with but is relevant in this case - my friends loved the violence. Loved seeing a woman smashed to a pulp and then set on fire. This is the glamorization of violence. The enjoyment and celebration of it. Reveling in it. And never has it felt more unnecessary or less predicated in a Tarantino film.

It felt like a teenage level ending to what could be considered a "late phase mature period" film.

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)

#779 Post by Big Ben » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:21 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm
Some of us are against capital punishment. Under any circumstance. For whatever crime. Not even for Hitler. Not even Osama. Not even for the nazi at Chorlottesville.

I am too though. In every instance. Every instance. But I'm unsure how you're factoring in what you are because:
SpoilerShow
Self defense is not the same as capital punishment. That's a false equivalence. My argument is that intentionally or unintentionally the poster is arguing that preventing the murders is unjustified. It's not something I like to think about either but surely you don't think Dalton and Booth's actions are morally condemnable if they're motivated by self defense? What would your recommended actions be if someone was going to kill you with a gun? I'm not arguing that the violence isn't unsettling because it is. But I think it's wholly disingenuous to argue that the ending, as over the top as it is the same as capital punishment given the variables and parameters involved.

User avatar
DeprongMori
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
Location: San Francisco

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

#780 Post by DeprongMori » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:29 pm

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm
SpoilerShow

This is only an anecdote so doesn't mean much - but be that as it may - some friends over the weekend told me they saw the movie and had never even heard of Sharon Tate or Charles Manson or the entire thing. They HATED the first 2 hr 30 mins of the film. But loved the last 10 mins. I can't imagine why as they did not have even the slightest context for what the movie was doing.

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)

#781 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:46 pm

They might want to consider reading rudimentary history before buying another movie ticket - also, I must have missed the trial scene where someone was sentenced to the death penalty in this film

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

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

#782 Post by Brian C » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:51 pm

DeprongMori wrote:I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
Hard to know what exactly you mean by this, but I dunno. Tarantino conditions viewers to hate those kids pretty hard before they ever show up at Dalton’s house.

If someone doesn’t know the Manson/Tate history going in, I think it’s fair to say that they’re expected to cheer on Rick and Cliff just as hard. They’re the protagonists of the film, after all, and we’ve just spent 2.5 hours hanging out with them and generally sharing in some laughs and various hijinks. It would be awfully hard to get an audience’s sympathies for minor characters in any kind of confrontation with them.

Cliff’s earlier visit to the Ranch would be a real WTF scene if you knew nothing about the Manson family, though.

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)

#783 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:10 pm

Also, I think most reasonable people agree that if people burst into your home with the intention of pointing weapons at you and slaughtering you, you're within your rights to prevent it.

User avatar
DeprongMori
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
Location: San Francisco

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

#784 Post by DeprongMori » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:53 pm

Brian C wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:51 pm
DeprongMori wrote:I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
Hard to know what exactly you mean by this, but I dunno.

It’s not so much that they loved the last ten minutes, but that they hated the first 2.5 hours of the film *and* only loved the violence at the end. Given the quality of this film overall, that is a problem with the viewer, not the director.

Re: The need to be aware of the history, and reactions
SpoilerShow
I saw the film knowing a fair amount of the Manson Family backstory, which sent shivers at Manson’s first visit to Cielo Dr and at the announcement of Pussycat’s destination of “Spahn Ranch”. I hadn’t recalled George Spahn’s exact story, so had a deep sense of dread at Cliff’s investigation into his whereabouts. And, of course, the historical murders that were averted by the events in the film were prominent in my mind at the conclusion. (I thought it interesting that Tarantino spared Linda Kasabian, who had acted as a lookout in the actual murders but did not participate.)

After the film, I tried to put myself in the mindset of someone who had zero knowledge of the historical events. I believe I would have enjoyed the first 2.5 hours immensely for the quality of the script and acting. That portion was a fun ride that required no historical knowledge of cinema and TV of the period or (for the most part) the murders, but would be enhanced by it. Manson’s visit would have gone past me unnoticed or with no sense of import. The announcement of “Spahn Ranch” would have meant nothing, but the whole visit would have had a similar sense of dread throughout due to the effective staging of the scene. It of course would have no larger context for me though.

The sudden references later in the film to “Charlie” telling the Family to kill everyone in Terry Melcher’s house would have seemed utterly random, and the OTT slaughter of the Family members would have seemed wildly inappropriate and with poor motivation established.

IOW, without historical knowledge, I could see loving the whole film except for the inexplicable and poorly-supported action in the conclusion. I would likely have found the ending baffling, given what was narratively not explicitly set up in the film itself. So, the exact opposite of what Nasir’s friends reported. That they only loved the violence is an indictment of them as viewers.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

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

#785 Post by Brian C » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:57 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Also, I think most reasonable people agree that if people burst into your home with the intention of pointing weapons at you and slaughtering you, you're within your rights to prevent it.
Ideally in the most absurd over-the-top way possible.

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)

#786 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:02 pm

Hey, if you're gonna do it

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

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

#787 Post by swo17 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:31 pm

SpoilerShow
Remember Cliff was out-of-his-mind high at the time

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

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

#788 Post by furbicide » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:57 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:05 pm
In regards to the spoiler in that image mfunk posted (NSFW description). Apologies for my frustration (Not at mfunk).
SpoilerShow
Google the images of the Tate murders. Look at what Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Charles Watson did to Sharon Tate and and everyone there. Wojciech Frykowski was stabbed over fifty times and was shot twice. Jay Sebring was hung by his neck and then shot and stabbed to death. Abigail Folger was chased from the house and stabbed twenty eight times. Steven Parent was shot multiple times in his car. Oh and let's not forget that Sharon was eight and a half months pregnant.

To see someone attempt to try and convince me there's a "both sides" argument to this specific aspect of the film strikes me as peak nonsense. No doubt the individual who made this comic would not apply the same reasoning to say the Sociopathic Nazis who allowed a woman to be murdered at Charlottesville. Yes it's absolutely revisionism but I'll be damned before I'll take someone seriously if they tell me that preventing those murders in any would be unjustifiable.

Am I overreacting? Am I being an ass here?
Baffling. Baffling.
Hutus and Tutsis saw similarly despicable things happen to friends and family members in Rwanda in 1994. And some reacted with equally brutal violence, which prompted further violence in response, and so on. I think it's a pretty elementary ethical principle that violence is bad, no matter who did what first. At best, lethal violence is a necessary evil in cases of self-defence – with emphasis on "evil" – and is accordingly required by law in most jurisdictions to be proportionate and justified. You can't just kill a burglar because you find them in your house (not in a country that values human life in any meaningful way, anyhow).

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)

#789 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:26 pm

This is a movie though

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)

#790 Post by Big Ben » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:38 pm

furbicide wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:57 pm
Hutus and Tutsis saw similarly despicable things happen to friends and family members in Rwanda in 1994. And some reacted with equally brutal violence, which prompted further violence in response, and so on. I think it's a pretty elementary ethical principle that violence is bad, no matter who did what first. At best, lethal violence is a necessary evil in cases of self-defence – with emphasis on "evil" – and is accordingly required by law in most jurisdictions to be proportionate and justified. You can't just kill a burglar because you find them in your house (not in a country that values human life in any meaningful way, anyhow).
You can where I live actually as it's an iron clad state law. I won't go into it because it's the most yeehaw thing you can imagine. It's all manner of crazy.

In a spur of the moment life and death moment I'm unsure most people are thinking about societies ethical constraints in a rational context. You and I are also approaching these issues from a neutral point of view and I think it makes it far easier to make specific value judgments based within those parameters. I don't really disagree with you I just don't think it's as one sided an issue as Film Twitter user 24601 is making it out to be. And if he wasn't aware of historical context of it all it makes it even worse.

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)

#791 Post by Never Cursed » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:10 am

furbicide wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:57 pm
Hutus and Tutsis saw similarly despicable things happen to friends and family members in Rwanda in 1994. And some reacted with equally brutal violence, which prompted further violence in response, and so on. I think it's a pretty elementary ethical principle that violence is bad, no matter who did what first. At best, lethal violence is a necessary evil in cases of self-defence – with emphasis on "evil" – and is accordingly required by law in most jurisdictions to be proportionate and justified. You can't just kill a burglar because you find them in your house (not in a country that values human life in any meaningful way, anyhow).
That's an absurd comparison - there's no way to equate the organized genocidal slaughter of a people (something well beyond the capabilities of the characters in this film or the real Manson Family) with
SpoilerShow
the graphic and painful but totally justified self-defense killings at the climax of this film. Booth, Dalton, and other innocents (Dalton's wife, the inhabitants of the Melcher house) were unambiguously threatened by people who intended to kill them, and who were then killed as they were attacking their targets. Their deaths were not as painless as they could have been, to be certain, but Booth and Dalton never revel in the suffering that they inflict in the same way that the Manson killers did, and I certainly can see no way that you couldn't relate to/sympathize with/agree with our leads' actions at the end. I quite frankly find it ridiculous that Big Ben's initial post is getting any pushback here.

All the discussion about whether the villains of this film deserved the fate they got does remind me of a different question I have about the ending to this, though. Obviously this film's climax is in the vein of Inglorious Basterds or Django Unchained, with the perpetrators of some historical atrocity being brutally killed in an attempt to set history right. I think this is entirely fair in those films, but in large part because the villains of those films have already perpetrated the actions that have made them "deserve" such treatment within the world of the film. The whole point of the ending of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, however, is that the Tate killers never achieve that infamy because Booth and Dalton kill them before they can commit their historical atrocities. Is it fair of the movie, or of us when thinking about the movie, to compare the killers with Tarantino's earlier historical villains when they are not culpable for their historical crimes within the movie? Is it fair of Tarantino to summarily punish Watson, Atkins, and Krewinkel for a thing that they didn't actually do in-universe?

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

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

#792 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:41 am

SpoilerShow
I think one larger question (and I hope it hasn't already been asked––I have been keeping up with this thread but it's been so active I may have missed it)––is less about whether or not the murderers merited their gruesome murder or not (I'm sort of thinking in a metanarrative sense in which they are both technically not responsible but metaphysically responsible for it––the necessity of containing both states in our mind in equal balance)––but whether or not we deserve or are in the right to enjoy them so shamelessly. This question is obviously however not specific to this film itself, and is one that all violence in cinema must be subject to when its purpose is to provide the audience pleasure of some sort, especially out of sadism. Practically, I am absolutely on the side of the Basterds, Django, and Rick/Cliff––but watching a Tarantino movie is not a practical matter, and I feel it's giving over to my worse devils to not consider whether I have any right to enjoy the elaborately drawn out deaths.

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

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

#793 Post by R0lf » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:46 am

Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:11 pm
Some of us are against capital punishment. Under any circumstance. For whatever crime. Not even for Hitler. Not even Osama. Not even for the nazi at Chorlottesville.

It's not that people against capital punishment have a disingenuous point of view, it's just that we do not think death is a remedy for crimes.
I'm absolutely with you here but I come to the exact opposite conclusion: that because these things have no place in our world that they should then be contained within our art. That we can work through the violence and experience the catharsis of violence through art. Contain our ghosts in our art so they don't control our life (or whatnot).

It's a movie. It's permissible because it's in a movie.
Last edited by R0lf on Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

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

#794 Post by swo17 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:53 am

SpoilerShow
This isn't like killing Baby Hitler. They still attempted their heinous act. Tarantino just made them too bumbling to succeed at it.

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

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

#795 Post by senseabove » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:51 am

Never Cursed wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:30 pm
Not that I disagree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think it's applicable to the responses I linked to: a brooooad majority of commenters on the post do not come off as trolls or Film Bro mouthpieces, and I was surprised at the unity among a diverse field of users (including a lot of other artistic or creative people) in expressing contempt for the comic.
Ah, they must've been further down, as your link just took me to the original comic, and Twitter sorted the replies. The first disagreeable replies I saw were along the lines of calling the comic writer a pussy, an idiot for not "realizing" it was a fantasy, and miscellaneous other comment-section fodder.
Big Ben wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:21 pm
SpoilerShow
Self defense is not the same as capital punishment. That's a false equivalence. My argument is that intentionally or unintentionally the poster is arguing that preventing the murders is unjustified. It's not something I like to think about either but surely you don't think Dalton and Booth's actions are morally condemnable if they're motivated by self defense? What would your recommended actions be if someone was going to kill you with a gun? I'm not arguing that the violence isn't unsettling because it is. But I think it's wholly disingenuous to argue that the ending, as over the top as it is the same as capital punishment given the variables and parameters involved.
Admitting that the "real villain" take from the comic is asinine and the other points are poor presentations of criticisms I've seen better-presented elsewhere, I
SpoilerShow
don't quite follow how cringing at and questioning the significantly more violent, extended deaths of the female characters compared to the male character in a violent fantasy retribution is tantamount to "both sides"-ism or how it implicitly argues that preventing the murders at all is unjustified. Nor, accepting that we're dealing with fiction and that, within the fiction, one character was not sober, do I follow that egregiously disproportionate violence in self-defense is an unquestionable act as an alternate-universe punishment for un-acheived horrifying acts.
Yes, it's a movie, and yes it's "permissible" because it's in a movie, but I don't have to write the movie a blank check. It's a perfectly legitimate response to question the extremity of the violence and the choices that Tarantino made in presenting his fictionalized violence, and that can be done without minimizing the horrific, gruesome violence of the real-life Manson murders. I think Tarantino is doing some fascinating, complicated things in this movie, with regard to social history, generational meta-narratives, wish-fulfillment, collective desire... I don't think thoughtful engagement with violence, its justifications, means, or ends, its gender dynamics, etc. is a part of that. I don't think every movie needs to engage with those topics. But they're perfectly legitimate topics to bring up in relation to it, whether or not it engages with them directly.

(This brings to mind of a podcast I listened to recently about sex offender registries and their effectiveness and implementation, wherein the hosts talk about how difficult it is to acknowledge the indisputable fact that what the offenders did is in most cases utterly horrific, and also that the ways they are treated by the justice system is frequently terrible, unjustifiable, and almost always exacerbates any underlying issues the offender may have, but to say that immediately provokes accusations of minimizing the damage their actions caused.)
Brian C wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:51 pm
Cliff’s earlier visit to the Ranch would be a real WTF scene if you knew nothing about the Manson family, though.
It was a real WTF scene for me because the entire time, I was sitting there thinking
SpoilerShow
"I am 99% sure they didn't kill or even harm Spahn in any way, so WTF are we spending twenty damn minutes getting to the back room to find out he's fine?"
As a self-contained set-piece, it's fine. As a thematic engagement with actual events, I was frustrated and impatient as soon as it became clear that was the drive for the scene and disappointed when there wasn't any twist.
SpoilerShow
Which of course works in retrospect, using adherence to the facts when the movie is telling you to read it differently as a mcguffin, but in the moment it was just irritating and pushed me out of the otherwise enjoyable flow up to that point.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

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

#796 Post by tenia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:42 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:25 pm
I had to see this disingenuous horseshit so now you have to too:
The Belgian main TV station's website review is pretty much this, but as a text. It's absolutely filled wih shortcuts and outside remarks like how Brad Pitt is supposed to be cool because he might have killed his nagging wife, and since the audience laughed, killing wives is supposed to be funny but we don't even know if the journalist found it funny. But casting Hirsch as Sebring is bonkers because Hirsch strangled a woman at Tribeca.
DeprongMori wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:29 pm
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the problem isn’t Tarantino. The problem is your friends.
My GF had friends laughing through all Inglourious Basterds, including the early barn interrogation sequence and its shooting. Her friends clearly made her more uneased than the movie itself, but she still won't touch the movie with a 10-feet pole.
mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:26 pm
This is a movie though
Certainly, we can't throw away movies' intertwined relationship with the social eras creating them and how they often are saying things about them, only making it legitimate to go an extra step in reading and questioning them, as much as some of these movies are questioning us. I'd even say we're fortunate enough for movies not to be all superficial enough for "just being movies".
It does seem her like Tarantino is trying to reflect on society, both now and then, so it does seem legitimate to wonder and question what exactly he's trying to say through it.
And if we can analyse the movie on the movie-world elements, I don't see why we couldn't / wouldn't on other things.
SpoilerShow
As for the cathartic ending, I'd say it's going way beyond self defense, and I totally understand what one may construe based on that.
senseabove wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:51 am
Brian C wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:51 pm
Cliff’s earlier visit to the Ranch would be a real WTF scene if you knew nothing about the Manson family, though.
It was a real WTF scene for me because the entire time, I was sitting there thinking
SpoilerShow
"I am 99% sure they didn't kill or even harm Spahn in any way, so WTF are we spending twenty damn minutes getting to the back room to find out he's fine?"
As a self-contained set-piece, it's fine. As a thematic engagement with actual events, I was frustrated and impatient as soon as it became clear that was the drive for the scene and disappointed when there wasn't any twist.
SpoilerShow
Which of course works in retrospect, using adherence to the facts when the movie is telling you to read it differently as a mcguffin, but in the moment it was just irritating and pushed me out of the otherwise enjoyable flow up to that point.
It felt extremely poorly paced and over-extended for what seems to play like a suspenseful scene, and it's only made worse by the fact that the longer it goes, the more obvious it's becoming. With the Lancer shooting, this is the one scene I felt to be symptomatic of how self-indulgent the movie is with its content and pacing. These 2 combine around 30-35 minutes of screen time, and they certainly shouldn't.
Last edited by tenia on Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

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

#797 Post by senseabove » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:51 am

Hoberman’s review does a good job balancing the cringe and the praise: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/08/1 ... hollywood/

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

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

#798 Post by Nasir007 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:08 am

Too many replies since my post so I will just respond here. My friends are perfectly nice people. They are not Americans though and are immigrants and young. So you can't expect them to necessarily have heard of the Sharon Tate murder.

They hated the first 2 hr 30 mins because "nothing happened" and "there was no plot". They said they liked the last 10 minutes also because
SpoilerShow
Finally something happened on screen.

It's disingenuous to claim that the violence at the end isn't meant for the entertainment and enjoyment of the Audience. We all saw it in the cinema and saw the Audience cheering and hollering. It was meant as violence as crowd service. Red meat or whatever you wanna call it flung at the hungry and appreciating masses.

My friends aren't bad people for enjoying it. Tarantino meant for them to enjoy it.
I agree with what someone said above - that for a guy who uses so much violence, Tarantino has no theory behind it. He just thinks it's entertainment. There is no attempt to deal with it or question it or question its impact on the viewer. He is supremely uncurious about it. He just thinks it is cool and fun. Even someone like Noe questions it more and challenges us. Haneke too. These images are not just meant to be consumed in an orgiastic burst of pleasure, there should be engagement with the premise and predication and consequences of violence. Other it is just dumb mutilation of human flesh.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

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

#799 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:23 am

tenia wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:42 am
...But casting Hirsch as Manson is bonkers because Hirsch strangled a woman at Tribeca.
I'm not certain if you're pointing out an error by the Belgian TV station's website, but Hirsch portrays Jay Sebring in the film, not Manson.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

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

#800 Post by tenia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:40 am

My memory's plaing me tricks : they reported correctly Hirsch playing Sebring.

Post Reply