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

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

#526 Post by ianthemovie » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:44 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:34 pm
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.
SpoilerShow
Maybe, though Tarantino seems to be operating under the assumption that his audience knows at least the basic details of the real incident. The movie really does not work "correctly" otherwise. It's not like the Manson murders are some obscure historical footnote, either--I would have assumed, as Tarantino no doubt also does/did, that most people would know about them, just as he assumes any reasonably intelligent person would know enough about WWII history to understand that Inglorious Basterds is fiction, and that in both cases the historical revisionism is the whole point.

Re: the murder of the hippies-- I agree this comes off as over-the-top, but I think there were reasons for it, whether or not you feel they are good ones. (A. Tarantino wants to "deliver" the violence that the rest of the movie has been withholding; B. He wants us to experience the catharsis/thrill of seeing the Manson family punished; C. He wants us to reflect, a la Inglorious Basterds, on the use of violence in cinema as a form of wish fulfillment/fantasy; D. all of the above; etc.) I'm still wrestling with how disturbing the violence in that scene was but I think it can be justified narratively. Also I wouldn't describe them as simply "misguided hippies"--they are presented as unhinged lunatics who are happily about to embark a killing spree the in the name of "the Devil," and even if they don't reach Sharon they still come at Pitt's character with knives and guns intending to kill him. This coupled with the fact that we've already seen Pitt's character use extreme force, maybe excessive force, in the previous fight scenes--so his use of excessive force here is not without precedent. I think it was set up to be dramatically effective even without the knowledge of the Tate/LaBianca murders... BUT was also never meant to function without that knowledge, I'd argue.

Also, If you're opposed on principle to representations of extreme violence/revenge on ethical grounds, Tarantino might not be the filmmaker for you...

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)

#527 Post by Big Ben » Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:09 pm

Nasir:
SpoilerShow
People were absolutely cheering and clapping in the theater I was in. People absolutely wanted to see them die.

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

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

#528 Post by Nasir007 » Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:23 pm

ianthemovie wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:44 pm
Nasir007 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:34 pm
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.
SpoilerShow
Maybe, though Tarantino seems to be operating under the assumption that his audience knows at least the basic details of the real incident. The movie really does not work "correctly" otherwise. It's not like the Manson murders are some obscure historical footnote, either--I would have assumed, as Tarantino no doubt also does/did, that most people would know about them, just as he assumes any reasonably intelligent person would know enough about WWII history to understand that Inglorious Basterds is fiction, and that in both cases the historical revisionism is the whole point.

Re: the murder of the hippies-- I agree this comes off as over-the-top, but I think there were reasons for it, whether or not you feel they are good ones. (A. Tarantino wants to "deliver" the violence that the rest of the movie has been withholding; B. He wants us to experience the catharsis/thrill of seeing the Manson family punished; C. He wants us to reflect, a la Inglorious Basterds, on the use of violence in cinema as a form of wish fulfillment/fantasy; D. all of the above; etc.) I'm still wrestling with how disturbing the violence in that scene was but I think it can be justified narratively. Also I wouldn't describe them as simply "misguided hippies"--they are presented as unhinged lunatics who are happily about to embark a killing spree the in the name of "the Devil," and even if they don't reach Sharon they still come at Pitt's character with knives and guns intending to kill him. This coupled with the fact that we've already seen Pitt's character use extreme force, maybe excessive force, in the previous fight scenes--so his use of excessive force here is not without precedent. I think it was set up to be dramatically effective even without the knowledge of the Tate/LaBianca murders... BUT was also never meant to function without that knowledge, I'd argue.

Also, If you're opposed on principle to representations of extreme violence/revenge on ethical grounds, Tarantino might not be the filmmaker for you...
I will specifically address your point B -
SpoilerShow
Sure there can be catharsis seeing the Manson family punished. But we are a civilized society. The only catharsis we get is to see criminals incarcerated. That is the extent of catharsis society permits for comeuppance. I don't need to see a woman have her brains bashed in or see another burnt alive to a crisp for it to provide catharsis. I said this before but seriously, is this the only way the audience would get catharsis.

I would be onboard with their death. But why not just kill them with a bullet. (Or as I even proposed earlier, why not have a climax without any killing of any sort).

I am not opposed to violence on principle. I just think extreme violence requires extreme justification. I admire von Trier. His films are graphically violent too. But it is used effectively to draw out a visceral response in an otherwise reasonable construct. I never before really felt Tarantino was celebrating and glorifying violence and I defended him on previous occasions when others complained but I think this time he did not adequately predicate it. I still hold that in the narrative of the movie, the Manson kids at the point they were murdered had still not performed any lunacy. They did the home invasion yes, but they hadn't yet harmed anyone before Cliff attacked them viciously.
The movie is an otherwise elegant movie - thoughtful, relaxed, melancholic in spots, grown-up, mature and a film about people.
SpoilerShow
Why did it suddenly need the ending where people are burnt alive or have their skulls smashed is perplexing.

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

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

#529 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:37 pm

I just got back from a second viewing, this one in a mostly empty theatre. While I personally loved it just as much as the first time, sadly the inconsistent responses from the crowd to certain scenes really demonstrated the power of a packed audience to feed off of the energy of the film to maximize its effectiveness. I’m grateful to have gotten a chance to see it under the conditions I did the first time, and this viewing only solidified my earlier point about Tarantino’s methodology working in harmony with his audience. In a sense, while I’m sorry some people aren’t getting the ‘full experience’ due to this variable, seeing the film under this condition made me realize how meticulously crafted this film really is to its audience’s energy. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more layered..

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)

#530 Post by Brian C » Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:45 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:37 pm
I’m grateful to have gotten a chance to see it under the conditions I did the first time, and this viewing only solidified my earlier point about Tarantino’s methodology working in harmony with his audience.
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.

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

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

#531 Post by Nasir007 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:57 am

Brian C wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:45 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:37 pm
I’m grateful to have gotten a chance to see it under the conditions I did the first time, and this viewing only solidified my earlier point about Tarantino’s methodology working in harmony with his audience.
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.)

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

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

#532 Post by Boosmahn » Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:06 am

Brian C wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:45 am
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.
I interpreted the theater scene much differently; I took it as that she doesn't like to see herself on screen, but rather the enjoyment that everyone else gets out of her performances.

As for her identity, I think it gave her an presence more than just "star who got murdered," which would be an obvious route to go down. Others can go into more, and better, detail about this.

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

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

#533 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:08 am

Brian C wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:45 am
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.
SpoilerShow
Regarding the “harmony” piece, my point is that I don’t believe Tarantino is simply giving us that revenge scenario and appealing to the id. As I’ve said I rather think that he’s appealing to more emotionally ingrained desires we want from the movies that essentially allow us to achieve a brief sense of self-actualization or validation vicariously through the characters achieving this themselves (being noticed, worthy, succeeding, things many of us have some kind of internal battle with negative core beliefs) and simultaneously acknowledging that some of this comes via escapism or through violence or fun (Tarantino has explicitly said he views violence onscreen as the ultimate ‘fun’ so this is his way of providing that). My statements about working in harmony with the audience are actually not directed at the Pitt and DiCaprio killing Manson scene, and agree that if this is what I was referring to the point wouldn’t make sense as it’s what Tarantino has been doing all along and doesn’t achieve a higher sense of ‘harmony’ here with that demonstration. What I’m thinking of is the aftermath of this scene, and I think the key to the film, where Rick is noticed by Jay, existence validated and the way DiCaprio plays that scene: vulnerable, surprised, humbled, and pleased to be noticed. There is so much humor in his delivery of the lines, yes about how he torched them with the flamethrower but also just responding to Jay’s intense energy by shrugging it off, trying to be humble but clearly also both proud and self-conscious. The way the first audience I saw it with reacted in laughter and joy and surprise in this scene as well as the breath-holding and subsequent release as the camera pans up and reveals the title, indicated a sense of cathartic release of celebration for Rick realising his fantasy of self-worth in the eyes of others, followed by the ‘aha’ moment of pensive meditation as we collectively allowed the reality of this fantasy to seep in, holding the release and the truth together, serving a gut-punch of both brutal honesty and a possibility of being saved from this reality through visualized fiction, ‘the magic of movies.’

What I’m trying to say is that the catharsis in the killing scene is very real catharsis after pent up from subversion and a more meandering movie, but that the scene of Jay and Rick’s banter, which indicates the entire fantasy ending as preference to the real, is the most significant cathartic moment in the film. That it comes after the violent catharsis is key because we’ve gotten what we expect, and now our defenses are down. This scene is what will play differently without a collective audience investment to fully take in the philosophical, psychological, and emotional implications it brings, or at least I thought it did tonight and I can’t help but wonder how powerful it’ll be for those who watch it for the first time alone on their TVs at home. It’s both a hilarious and a deadly serious scene and I think the key to feeling what Tarantino has been building up to the entire film. A crowd often helps me connect to those moments of humor and gravity in a film and the narrative felt like a dance with the audience that led to this moment, so for it to fall even slightly flatter depending on the energy of the crowd to me is significant.

As for Tate, I can see how she wouldn’t work for everyone and I don’t think her presence worked as well for me as it has for others I’ve talked to, but she embodies an idea of the beauty and magic of people who really do exist outside of fantasy. Sure she’s a creation in this film but she serves as a picture of optimism and love in a world with darkness and pain. Watching her dance doesn’t feel like an inauthentic stylized moment, the way characters dancing maybe do in other movies or even other Tarantino movies, but rather a picture of someone dancing at a party less sensationalized than expected. I think it’s also significant that she resembled the positive side to hippie culture/the new generation while the Manson family represented the dangerous side. Tate in this movie felt like a truly ‘free spirit,’ while the Manson clan believed they were free but were drinking the cool aid and assigning their agency onto an idea just like the “fascists” they hated. Rick felt stuck, not free, while Cliff was accepting of his circumstances and was also something of a free spirit due to this acceptance of his place in the world. There is something to these dualities I think, though Tarantino still chooses to give Rick his happy ending. Perhaps he’s advocating for acceptance but also validating that this is hard, and throwing his hero a bone because he can and because we, and he, would want the same.

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

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

#534 Post by Black Hat » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 am

Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:57 am
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.

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

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

#535 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:26 am

SpoilerShow
This hits on an interesting point that supports not only the dualism thought, but the one that Tarantino can and does use other methods besides violence as catharsis for his characters. Tate arguably achieves just as much agency and validation of self-worth through her immortalization via these scenes of her just “being” sans violence, while Tarantino chooses to give Rick and Cliff an arc of catharsis through violence to achieve theirs. However, (and I think this also answers Nasir’s point about questioning the necessity of the violence and the philosophical moral argument that these Manson children didn’t do anything yet and were undeserving of their fate) I don’t believe Tarantino was trying to use them as his “Hitlers” in this movie so much as use them as villains to fight to achieve catharsis in a movie (an exploitation like movie, similar to The 14 Fists of McCluskey). Rick Dalton hates hippies, but in particular singleminded hippies that provide no value to the world, and that remind him of his fatalism, while he does respect the hippies next door, the director he works with on Lancer, etc. So it’s fitting to give Rick (and Cliff) that catharsis in their own movie by battling these ‘enemies’ to their personal philosophies and the emanations of them being ‘out of time’ to achieve any real catharsis. They achieve their agency in the face of fate through an artificial movie ending that makes them action-heroes (who they idolize as they talk about their favorite actions movies at the Mexican bar before going home). Tate achieves hers completely differently and while the more in-your-face meta/breaking the fourth wall/self-aware moment is the Rick/Jay conversation to hit it all home, Tate got her moment(s) already woven throughout the film subtly under our noses. Tarantino provided this emotional catharsis in her arc, hitting on the same themes about the joy of being seen and validated, completely absent of violence already way before the finale, and many people missed it. But for those who didn’t are able to see that, I think the film crushes those accusations by using it as exhibit A.

User avatar
Lars Von Truffaut
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:50 pm

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

#536 Post by Lars Von Truffaut » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:52 am

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...
Nasir007 wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:57 am
Brian C wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:45 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:37 pm
I’m grateful to have gotten a chance to see it under the conditions I did the first time, and this viewing only solidified my earlier point about Tarantino’s methodology working in harmony with his audience.
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.

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)

#537 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:17 am

I've seen this twice more this weekend and am likely seeing it a 4th time soon. I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts, even if some are baffling to me. After sitting with it (and sitting with it, and sitting with it) I think it's Tarantino's best film, and the first that made me weep at the end... it's amusing that this is essentially operating under the opposite thesis as the final stretch of Twin Peaks: The Return but it's just as impactful.

As for the idea that the portrayal of Tate wasn't anything but pitch perfect... I'm not sure how I can even really engage with that argument. This is someone who has been known best as being brutally slaughtered for the last half century, who is very carefully portrayed in her most vital, happy, and professionally fulfilled moments for a reason. She's a ghost to all of us, including Tarantino, but she isn't to Tate's sister Debra, who loved the film and Tarantino & Robbie's portrayal of her:
“She made me cry because she sounded just like Sharon,” she said. “The tone in her voice was completely Sharon, and it just touched me so much that big tears [started falling]. The front of my shirt was wet. I actually got to see my sister again… nearly 50 years later.”
And Tarantino's logic behind the way Tate factors into the story had the sort of reaction that I had in mind:
“I did a lot of research on Sharon and became very enamored of her,” the director said. “She seemed like an incredibly sweet person. When you talk about all the different friends that she had, even acquaintances that she had, they all tell the same story about her, about this unaffected beauty, just this reservoir of goodness and kindness. Now, that almost sounds to good to be true, but for whatever reason, as I’m reading all this stuff, I’m really buying it. Every account about her that I found backs up that version of her. Unfortunately, she’s kind of been defined by her murder. I thought the best way to get her across was not sticking her in a bunch of scenes with Roman [Polanski, Tate’s husband] or with other people where she’s [furthering] a plot, but just hanging out with her, letting her drive around Los Angeles, do her errands, and just see where the day takes her. I wanted to show people a glimpse of Sharon before the murder, so they think of her as more than just a victim.”
I suppose the question of whether it demeans someone to see them in glimpses is something that falls into a YMMV category is not for me to comment on, but boy, does it read as cynical to me.

Hopefully if it sticks around and really makes a stamp on the right people this'll be an instance of a film being about Hollywood and filmmaking getting a ton of Oscar attention being a net good. All three leads deserve to win for it, not to mention Robert Richardson, who is at the absolute peak of his powers.

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)

#538 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:24 am

A crucial bit of business that informs the climax...
SpoilerShow
...is that Cliff smokes the LSD-dipped cigarette provided to him by the Manson family. I believe Tarantino is showing how the madness we associate with the Family infects Cliff to the same level of brutality; their motivations are transferred to him. Rick, who lacks the authenticity of Cliff, can only respond to the threat by imitating what one of his film characters would do.
That's the best way I can view this film's climax as I, too, found it a bit disappointing in taking the route you'd expect in a Tarantino film. Starting with Kill Bill, I've been continually disappointed with Tarantino's reliance on often goofy extreme violence and revenge tropes as I feel he is capable of offering a much more varied palette. I know, that's more my problem than his. Overall, I think Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is startling good is so many ways that I'm less troubled by the things that usually cause me to bristle in Tarantino's films.

As to the revisionist aspect...
SpoilerShow
...Unlike the "Jewish soldiers kill Hitler" twist in Inglourious Basterds, which I felt was overreaching, the sparing of Sharon Tate and her friends in this film feels integral to what the film is about. As others have noted, the final scene effectively gives Rick his reward while giving the audience a feeling that the world has been set right. That the title is shown for the first time superimposed over this moment (and that ellipsis is crucial), elegantly emphasizes the fantasy of this scenario and how the fantasy factory of Hollywood affects how we can perceive the world. At the same time, and this is what sells it for me and allows me to accept the climax, the closing is truly emotional in how it sets the actual events of Aug. 8th, 1969 in stark relief to how this story resolves. I was immediately reminded of Murnau's The Last Laugh with how the joy of seeing the disgraced hotel doorman gain riches and admiration is undercut by the melancholy of knowing this happy ending could not possibly be true (as acknowledged in the title card that precedes the finale). More recently, I suppose the ending to Lynch's Blue Velvet works in a similar way. These examples are purely fiction, of course, so Tarantino's suggestion of an alternate reality to an actual historical event has that much more impact.
Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is filled with acknowledgements of its era and milieu that I'm sure can be furthered discovered with repeated viewings. One very subtle touch that gave me a chill...
SpoilerShow
...was the final shot of James Stacy leaving the set on his motorcycle. As some viewers may know, a 1973 accident involving a drunk driver striking Stacy on his motorcycle killed his girlfriend and resulted in Stacy losing an arm and leg.

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)

#539 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:26 am

Roger Ryan wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:24 am
A crucial bit of business that informs the climax...
SpoilerShow
...is that Cliff smokes the LSD-dipped cigarette provided to him by the Manson family.
The girl who sells him the cigarette is not a Manson girl, is she? She's just someone who comes up to his car at an intersection.

User avatar
HitchcockLang
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm

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

#540 Post by HitchcockLang » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:28 am

Bouncing off the conversations above about audience response and energy, my experience with the audience was a positive one with cheering and laughter and I certainly felt
SpoilerShow
like we’re all culpable in a sort of mob justice/violence in the final scene.
My friend however told me the audience he saw it with in Phoenix booed after the film ended which just blows my mind. I’ve never heard of an audience booing a film outside of a festival setting.

I also can’t help but think the audience must’ve been made up of people who developed an appreciation of Tarantino for the “wrong” (for lack of a better word) reasons, enjoying the excesses of violence and quippy dialogue more than the underlying meditative themes in previous films. And since this film was more theme and less excess, I guess it could disappoint certain of the director’s fans, though I thought it was his most mature and almost the antithesis of Hateful 8 which I found to be his most infantile film full of violence that felt empty and unearned with almost nothing to contemplate.

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)

#541 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:31 am

Lars Von Truffaut wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:52 am
SpoilerShow
...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?
Regarding the Bruce Lee sequence...
SpoilerShow
...This is clearly Cliff's fantasy encounter with Lee and reflects his own prejudices. Cliff is shown imagining what a day on-set could turn into and, ultimately, agrees with Rick that it would be better for him to spend the day fixing that TV antenna. Note the subtle difference in how Lee is portrayed when he is shown training Tate for her action scene in the Dean Martin movie.

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)

#542 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:32 am

SpoilerShow
There's been a lot of talk on social media about how somehow the Manson killers were done dirty in this film, and didn't deserve to be portrayed being brutalized the way they were. Beyond the fact that even within the world of the film they'd broken into Dalton's home to murder everyone inside, what they did to Tate etc was worse than even whatever Tarantino's imagination was able to come up with toward the end of this film. Surely that played into his thought process here. Although I suppose if you just don't like his brand of violence, it won't matter what the context is and you'll just chafe against it regardless of the contextual justifications.

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)

#543 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:34 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:26 am
Roger Ryan wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:24 am
A crucial bit of business that informs the climax...
SpoilerShow
...is that Cliff smokes the LSD-dipped cigarette provided to him by the Manson family.
The girl who sells him the cigarette is not a Manson girl, is she? She's just someone who comes up to his car at an intersection.
I only saw the film once (unlike yourself!), but I was certain it was "Pussycat" (the marvelous Margaret Qualley) who sold him the cigarette. Was it not her?

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)

#544 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:35 am

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)

User avatar
HitchcockLang
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm

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

#545 Post by HitchcockLang » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:35 am

Roger Ryan wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:31 am
Lars Von Truffaut wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:52 am
SpoilerShow
...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?
Regarding the Bruce Lee sequence...
SpoilerShow
...This is clearly Cliff's fantasy encounter with Lee and reflects his own prejudices. Cliff is shown imagining what a day on-set could turn into and, ultimately, agrees with Rick that it would be better for him to spend the day fixing that TV antenna. Note the subtle difference in how Lee is portrayed when he is shown training Tate for her action scene in the Dean Martin movie.
Interesting.
SpoilerShow
Was that a fantasy? I had read it as more of a flashback (granted still filtered through Cliff’s biases) as it seemed to be a totally different project (a TV show starring Bruce Lee as opposed to a western).

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)

#546 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:37 am

HitchcockLang wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:35 am
Roger Ryan wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:31 am
Regarding the Bruce Lee sequence...
SpoilerShow
...This is clearly Cliff's fantasy encounter with Lee and reflects his own prejudices. Cliff is shown imagining what a day on-set could turn into and, ultimately, agrees with Rick that it would be better for him to spend the day fixing that TV antenna. Note the subtle difference in how Lee is portrayed when he is shown training Tate for her action scene in the Dean Martin movie.
Interesting.
SpoilerShow
Was that a fantasy? I had read it as more of a flashback (granted still filtered through Cliff’s biases) as it seemed to be a totally different project (a TV show starring Bruce Lee as opposed to a western).
No, it's a flashback. Bruce Lee isn't on the set of the show that Dalton is shooting, nor is Kurt Russell's character - Dalton mentions that the gaffer on the show is close with Russell's character (who works on Green Hornet) and what we see Cliff thinking about is a flashback to what happened when he was briefly hired to work on Green Hornet. He nods after the flashback as though to acknowledge that it likely wouldn't have been worth it to try to push the issue this time since that bridge was so badly burnt.

And yes, Lee really did train Sharon Tate for The Wrecking Crew! - it's certainly plausible that he could've been a bit more of an alpha/braggart on the set of his TV show than he was in brief glimpses of advising Tate and Sebring, though. Though even if he wasn't, it was just a comedic setpiece

User avatar
HitchcockLang
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm

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

#547 Post by HitchcockLang » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:42 am

Which I think merits a restatement of Lars Von Truffaut’s question: is there anything historical or biographical about Lee that would warrant his portrayal as kind of a buffoonish egomaniac?

Edit: d’oh! There you go again anticipating my questions before I post them, mfunk. Feel free to delete this post if it no longer makes sense and thanks as always for your insights.

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

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

#548 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:45 am

Lars Von Truffaut wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:52 am
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.
SpoilerShow
It sounds from your first point like you view violence in terms of value in film, something that Tarantino admittedly has a pretty one-dimensional view of, but I don't think that's cause for dismissal of his perspective and intent. Rather, I just don't think that works for some while it does for others. He loves those ultraviolent movies from the 70s and that's how he personally achieves much of his own catharsis from film, often through that ridiculous excessiveness, as do many other moviegoers. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, but your point "For me QT's ending are rarely cathartic. They're excessive." starts and ends with "for me." I don't blame anyone for that perspective and searching for deeper value and meaning in violence on screen is an important area of exploration, but questioning the 'necessity' of the amount of times Tarantino chooses to smash someone's face isn't exactly the point. He's been pretty clear about his views on violence and asking for restraint here, especially given the purpose of this scene as the opening of the flood gates after demonstrating calculated restraint for most of the movie to give our non-heroes a moment to be heroic in 'a Tarantino movie' within a Tarantino movie, feels like it's missing the point or at least not on-par with the intent of the scene. Which again, is fine, but 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.

To your second point, I think Black Hat laid out a pretty clear analysis beyond that one line of why they think Tate's presence was effective. Dialogue matters because it's what's remembered most? By who, you? This feels again like a close-minded point stretching what you subjectively get from movies to what is objectively important. There are countless moments in film, in fact for me some of the most emotionally impactful, that are wordless and show characters' acting beyond words (outside of silent films... which, are, you know, silent and yet most people here would probably say there were some pretty good actors back then). These scenes of Tate also highlight a counterpoint to Margaret Qualley's line about 'actors as fake who just read other people's lines.' Tate doesn't read many lines but Margot Robbie exhibits a surge of power with her facial expressions. These scenes worked for a lot of people because watching her represented a truly free spirit, something otherworldly existing within our world, the magic of movies concentrated into real life. The fact that Rick Dalton envies and respects her makes her asking him if he's okay and subsequent invite up all the more powerful. Part of this power is that she is an angelic like figure speaking to him without being present, inviting him up via intercom, reaching out a hand from the skies as he walks through the pearly gates (her gates) upwards toward realising his real fantasy, being seen, emphasized over the movie-violence fantasy that has just transpired. I can see the point about wanting her to have more obvious 'use' and share more screen time with the men of the film. But as for her use here, the significance of the people, some men some women, observing her and talking about her, validates her existence beyond her murder, as Black Hat explained. Again, wanting something different from her character's place in the film is a valid desire, but the choice was not without its clear intentions or without its conscientious merits.

Your third point is an interesting one, because this didn't bother me at all, but my partner deplored the scene, and called it pointless and racist. The only defense I can muster is that it felt like one of those examples where Tarantino relinquished restraint and wanted to show a fun scene of an invisible stunt man besting the face of violence in films. It's a fun scene but I can't speak to any value beyond that, and can see why some would consider it unnecessary or tasteless. I should also note that my partner, who enjoyed the movie, also didn't see Tate as the 'heart' of the film, or in much of the way some of us have been defending her place. Once again, it's a valid perspective, but my problems with this line of criticism is not that one can take that perspective subjectively but rather dismissing the possibilities of thematic complexity, the intent of Tarantino as devoid of objective value, or failing in his aims when he clearly subjectively floored a significant portion of us here.
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

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)

#549 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:46 am

HitchcockLang wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:42 am
is there anything historical or biographical about Lee that would warrant his portrayal as kind of a buffoonish egomaniac
Per Lee's biographer, who liked the portrayal in the film:

“There’s no record of Lee ever saying that his hands were registered as lethal weapons, and I doubt he ever did. But Lee was a big talker and liked to brag, so Tarantino is not too far off base riffing on Lee’s tough guy legend. Plus, it’s a great setup for Pitt’s punchline.”

Plus, Lee is charming in the way he's holding court, and Pitt's old school schoolyard disagreement aside, it's not as though he's taken down a peg by anything we see in the film. The two would likely have shaken hands and gone on their way afterward.

Still loving the soundtrack - there's an hour long podcast on Spotify where Tarantino goes through every track explaining their inclusion, as well as the impetus for the creation of the soundtrack (where he got all that amazing time accurate radio footage, etc). Though I should mention - Spotify's version of the soundtrack screws up some tracks, and some (like the Vanilla Fudge one) don't play at all. I bought it on iTunes and it's a much more complete and accurate version of what's on the vinyl, which is sadly extremely limited.

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)

#550 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:53 am

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:
“Walter Chaw” wrote: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.

Post Reply